Letter: Reality of wolves in the wild
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: As an Alaskan, I read with interest your article on the reintroduction of the wolves into Idaho and Yellowstone National Park ('Howl of the grey wolf returns to haunt the Rockies', 28 May).
Contrary to what your article suggests, there are some people who, without selfish motives, question the wisdom of wolf-reintroduction policies. Reporting the issue as resolved by noting the existence of a reasonable and effective mechanism for dealing with cattle and sheep losses ignores arguments about the biological and economic efficacy of such a policy. It is a false assumption that wolves will maintain, without management, a population of 100 in an area such as Yellowstone National Park. Wolf reproduction, which can be as high as 50 per cent of pack population per year, will increase with the abundance of available prey. Will wildlife management personnel be allowed to 'manage' (ie, kill) these animals to reassert the 'balance of nature' that we imagine existed? In Alaska, where wolves are not endangered, this proposition has been effectively challenged by militant environmentalists who view all lethal management measures as a return to exterminationalist policies.
Your report that eco-tourist economic potential of wolf reintroduction translates into dollars 8m per year fails to consider the fact that the accessibility of Yellowstone necessitates turning people away on a continuous basis. If the density of tourists is already maximised, how will we realise this economic boom?
Furthermore, when the large populations of bovine, and therefore visible, elk, deer and moose that the public has come to associate with Yellowstone have been reduced substantially by wolves, which are notorious for their elusiveness (most people in Alaska have never seen a wolf), what will keep the crowds coming to the park?
Will the Hollywood image of 'wilderness' that justified reintroduction transform itself to become the new rationalisation for removing wolves? Will the groundswell of public sentiment that environmental groups are using to their advantage today become the petard that they hoist themselves on tomorrow? And what of the wolves? What is best for them, or did anyone remember to consider them?
Yours faithfully,
KIRK SWEETSIR
Cambridge
29 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments