Olympic National Park Wolf Reintroduction/Migration
Ecosystem Study
L.J. Fritch
08/08/11
Abstract
The reintroduction proposal of the gray wolves (Canis lupus) and support of wolf migration from Canada into Olympic National Park and surrounding lands is considered an ecosystem restoration project. The proposal for a reintroduction shows that the Olympia National Park ecosystem’s degradation can be restored to a fully healthy ecosystem by reintroducing wolves to the Park. This projection is based on the success of the wolf reintroduction project in Yellowstone National Park. Prior to the release of wolves into the Yellowstone National Park, the ecosystem had degraded on every level from the vegetation, degradation of stream and rivers, up the through the entire ecosystem to the birds, small animals, middle level predators, ungulates, large predators and bears, showing the same degradation as the Olympia National Park. A year after the successful reintroduction of the wolves to the park, significant ecosystem restoration had occurred. Within a few years of the reintroduction, a healthy ecosystem was restored to Yellowstone National Park. Using Yellowstone as a model, the restoration of Olympia National Park’s ecosystem is an achievable goal through the reintroduction of wolves to the Park. As an additional benefit, after the wolf reintroduction, the areas both in and surrounding the Olympic National Park will benefit from the socioeconomic factors involved with Olympic National Park significant boost in ecotourism, as did Yellowstone National Park.
Olympic National Park Wolf Reintroduction Project and Ecosystem Study
Ecosystem Overview of Olympic National Park
Located in the north-west of Washington State, Olympic National Park is renowned for the diversity of its ecosystems. It ranges in altitude from sea level to 2,428m. The ecosystem includes Mount Olympus’s Glacier-clad peaks, alpine meadows, extensive old growth forest, coastal plains that are a dense jungle of temperate rainforest, 100 km of wilderness coastline which contains some of the world's largest conifers.[10] Eleven major river systems, with over 4,800 km of rivers and streams, which provide a habitat for anadromous fish species. The park also includes 100 km of wilderness coastline, and is rich in native and endemic animal and plant species, including critical populations of the endangered northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus), bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus), and the largest truly wild herd of Roosevelt elk(Cervus elaphus roosevelti). This ecosystem lies within a WWF Global 200 Eco-region, and overlaps a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.[1] The Park contains over 1,200 native plants, of which 8 are endemic, and hundreds of non-vascular plants. 56 species of terrestrial mammals, at least 16 being endemic, and 300 species of birds, 20 native fish species, including seven species of salmon, and trout that are anadromous[6]. The native fauna is intact except for the wolf which was extirpated by man before the Park was established in 1981. The Park is home to an estimated 3,000-5,000 animal. [1]
Yellowstone before the Wolf Reintroduction
Prior to the reintroduction of wolves to the Yellowstone National Park, the ecosystem was suffering. The ungulates had degraded the vegetation due to over grazed, the meadows and vegetation along river banks had been destroyed, causing the degradation of the river banks. The birds and small mammals that were dependent upon the vegetation for shelter, nesting and a food source were declining. The ungulates were becoming lethargic and over populated. The coyote (Canis Latrans ) population had grown significantly and was putting a strain middle level predators like foxes, hawks, owls and pine martens (Martes caurina), limiting species diversity and balance[2]. Studies provided a scientific justification for promoting wolf reintroduction. The researchers also concluded that wolf reintroduction would help the local economy by attracting eco-tourists to the region. The "Wolves for Yellowstone?" report gave scientific support for wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park [1].
Yellowstone the Reintroduction
A reintroduction plan was developed in the summer and fall of 1994. The plan accounted for the acquiring, holding, transporting, and release of suitable wolves (Canis lupus) for reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park. In January 1995, twenty-nine wolves were captured in Alberta and transported to Yellowstone National Park. Fourteen of the wolves went to Yellowstone National Park and fifteen went to central Idaho. Radio collars were put on the wolves upon arrival at their destinations. The wolves that went to Idaho were freed immediately upon arrival; Yellowstone wolves which consisted of three family groups, were held in acclimation pens in the park until late March when released. The progress of the reintroduction program in its first year far exceeded expectations [3]; and was considered one of the most successful reintroduction projects ever implemented.
Yellowstone Obstacles
One of the most significant obstacles to wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park was and continues to be the fear of wolves killing livestock. The data indicates wolves have remained largely within the reintroduction regions and have chosen to prey primarily on native deer and elk populations. However, to reassure rancher and reduce some of the controversy over livestock and possible losses, “Defenders of Wildlife established the Wolf Compensation Trust in 1987. This $100,000 fund was established with private contributions to compensate ranchers at fair market value for all verified losses of livestock to wolves. Between 1987 and 1997 the Trust paid a total of $29,456 to 34 ranchers in the northern Rocky Mountain region. These payments covered 57 cattle and 51 sheep killed by wolves. All reports of wolves attacking livestock and other domestic animals have been dealt with by FWS, ADC, and local authorities by relocating or destroying the problem wolves.”[11] Another obstacle was and continues to be two issues for hunters of big game in the region. One issue is that hunters feared that the wolves would reduce the number of elk and negatively impact their ability to hunt; hunter killings of deer and elk have remained within the range of pre-reintroduction levels. The second issue was that hunters feared of the possibility wolf attacks on humans, which have proven unjustified; there are no documented records of wild, healthy wolves killing humans. Defenders of Wildlife also established the Wolf Habitat Fund in 1992 to award $5,000 to landowners who allow wolves to raise pups to adulthood on their land. [11] As of 1995 two payments had been made.
Listing Status and Management Plan for the Yellowstone Wolves
“Experimental Populations.Section 10(j) of the ESA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to identify and release an "experimental population" that is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species, to further the conservation of such species. Each member of an experimental population is to be treated as a threatened species or as a species proposed to be listed for the purposes of §§ 4(d), 7, and 9 of the ESA. This designation enables FWS to manage the wolves more flexibly than would be allowed under the stricter, mandatory provisions for species listed as endangered under the ESA.” [11] This status was set in place for the Yellowstone National Park wolf reintroduction program to address the local issue and concerns about the possibility of wolves killing of livestock, restricted land use, and depletion of big game populations. This for example would allows, ranchers to "harass" adult wolves attacking their livestock and may be granted a permit to kill wolves that repeatedly kill domestic animals.[11] Wolf conservation groups oppose this designation, stating “that the natural recovery occurring across the Canadian border would make the Yellowstone and central Idaho populations not "wholly separate geographically" from nonexperimental populations. The wolves migrating naturally also would have the full protection of the ESA. These groups further argue that this designation would give too much liberty to ranchers to kill wolves at will’.[11] It was a compromise that was necessary at the time to easy the concerns of the ranchers. A monitoring plan after the released wolves’ was being done through the use of a radio collars and systems. The wolf population was counted once a year and a small number of wolves were sedated for physical field monitoring and testing. The testing provided vital information on the size and weight of the wolf, the health of the wolf. Blood tests allowed biologist a complete view of the wolf’s health and development. DNA gathering was used as a means to further identify each wolf and their family line. Fecal sample offered a determination of the food sources utilized by the wolves. The testing was done in the field, through the use helicopter location of radio collar signals, visual confirmation, tranquilizer darts and landing to gather the above mentioned information in the field. After which the wolf were observed recovering from the tranquiller and would return to his activities.
Yellowstone after the Reintroduction
With gray wolves restored to Yellowstone National Park, this ecosystem once again supports the full native array of large ungulates and their attendant large carnivores. Wolf expansion and carrion benefited many other species as well as the grizzly and black bears of Yellowstone; offering the bears a more diverse and healthy balance of foods for their diet. The number of ravens doubled, and the number of eagles increased fivefold after the wolves’ reintroduction, benefiting from the carrion. The wolves controlled the elk (Cervus elaphus) and moose (Alces alces) population dynamics, which had implications for forest growth and composition. Among these implication were the re-growth of vegetation along rivers and streams plants such as willows(Salix fluviatilis,) and aspens (Populus tremuloides Michx) provide food for beavers(Castor Canadensis). More beaver ponds benefit aquatic plants and animals. Shade from the trees cools the water making the habitat better for trout, also increasing the population of birds and small mammals that rely on said growth. The reduction of the coyote population increased the population of deer, ground squirrels (Spermophilus parryii), rodents and other small prey as well as restoring balance for middle level predators like foxes, hawks, eagles, owls and pine martens, increasing diversity and balance.[2] Within two years the number of wolves grew to 97, and their effects were felt in most spheres of the park and the biodiversity rates continue to increase in response to the wolves. The experience at Yellowstone has demonstrated the tremendous power of ecosystem revitalization brought about by wolf reintroduction; from a biological standpoint, reintroduction of wolves has strong potential as a restoration technique.
Yellowstone’s Ecotourism
The number of visitors using the northeast park entrance rose by more than 26% the first year after wolf reintroduction. Wolf watchers, using the northeast Park entrance generally stay at motels and eat meals in Cooke City, heading out to the Lamar Valley at dawn and dusk to watch wolves. Presently, wolves draw 150,000 new visitors to Yellowstone each year totaling $35 million added to the local economy [5]. The experience at Yellowstone has demonstrated the tremendous power of ecotourism, the impact brought about by wolf reintroduction; from an economic standpoint, has strong potential as a huge economic boost to any area offering a similar wolf reintroduction program.
Olympic National Park without Wolves
According to a study from Oregon State University, the loss of wolves from the park's ecosystem in the early 1900’s is causing the degradation of forests. Without wolves to keep Olympics’ elk herds in check they are over-grazing the forests.[4] After the extermination of the wolves in the early 1900s, changes affected forest vegetation and stream dynamics began to occur. These changes had demonstrative impacts on the entire ecosystem. Streams and river banks, vegetation, fisheries, birds, insects, small animals, middle predators, ungulates, large predators and bears, have all been negatively impacted since the removal of the wolves. A report from the journal Ecohydrology, showed information gathered by the Press Expedition during its exploration of the Olympic peninsula in 1890. That expedition found the banks of the upper Quinault River “so dense with underbrush as to be almost impenetrable,” according to the OSU report. "Logs jammed the rivers, dense tree canopies shaded and cooled the streams, and trout and salmon thrived along with hundreds of species of plants and animals."[7] After the extermination of the wolf, the degradation of the vegetation began, today instead of dense vegetation that you cannot see or walk through, there is “a park-like stand of predominantly big trees,” says Bill Ripple [7], “It’s just a different world.” Studies from the area now show that there has been almost no new growth of cottonwood (Populus deltoides ) and bigleaf maple trees (Acer macrophyllum) since the wolves disappeared, this has impacted the streamside shrubs as well. The streamside shrubs are very important for river system stability. This loss of the woody plant communities along the river banks has lead to rapid degradation and has caused the river channels to widen. Since this began happening the river bank ecosystem and floodplains started to dramatically decline and change. Today the dense vegetation, shrubs and trees, have been destroyed by overgrazing of ungulates and replaced with grasses and ferns. The result is that the streams are no longer in tight channels held in place by the thick vegetation and shaded by the growth of trees; the streams have eroded, broadened and braided. The water is now open and the temperatures of the streams are warmer due to the increase in open sunlight, which has decreased plants and insects in the area, as well as reducing the salmon and trout population. Salmon specifically, need cooler waters to survive. Twenty-five bird species show downward population trends associated with grassland and shrub-steppe habitats degradation. Evidence of the widespread declines in frogs is also found in the Northwest. The spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) was once widespread in a variety of habitats and is now nearly extirpated on the westside.[8] Coyotes have multiplied since the removal of the wolves, and have a negative effect on the ecosystem. Fish and Wildlife has put a paid bounty management plan in place in an attempt to reduce the over population of coyotes and their negative impact. Coyotes have impacted the population of deer, ground squirrels, rodents and other small prey as well as damaging the balance for middle level predators like foxes, hawks, eagles, peregrine falcons (Falco peregrines), and owls, decreasing the diversity and balance of the park.
Olympic National Park Proposal to Reintroduce the Wolves
A study was completed on the feasibility of reintroducing wolves to the Olympic National Park in 1999. The issues considered were: “1) current and historical status of wolves on the Peninsula, 2) the capacity of the potential prey base to support a population of wolves, 3) distribution, density, trends, and mortality factors of primary prey species, 4) the expected effects of wolves on other predators in the introduction area, and 5) the general health and condition of natural habitat."[8] Congress had appropriated $300,000 to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct both the feasibility and prey base studies which were concluded in 1999.The study was completed on schedule in 1999 and relieved that it would be feasible for the Olympic National Park and surrounding lands to support a population of the gray wolf.[8]
The benefits of a wolf reintroduction program to the Olympic National Park are clear; the Park’s ecosystem would benefit and restoration of the ecosystem would begin. All areas of degradation will improve and have an excellent possibility of being fully restored to their original status. As the ecosystems plants are restored, the balance and natural harmony of the wildlife will also be restored; affecting every member of the ecosystem from the vegetation, rivers and streams, trout, salmon, insects’, birds, small animals, middle level predators, large game animals, large predators and bears. “The reintroduction of the gray wolves has centered on establishing a minimum of four packs in Olympic National Park, said Jack Smith, regional wildlife manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Packs range from six to 10 wolves.”[12] The reintroduction of the wolves will also benefit humans that live near the Park lands from an economic standpoint, the return of wolves will offer a strong potential for a huge economic boost to the area through ecotourism.
The cooperative group attending the January 2009 meeting included: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Olympic Natural Resources Center (ONRC), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Olympic Natural Park (ONP), Olympic Natural Forest (ONF), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), All Olympic Peninsula Tribes, Defenders of Wildlife, and Wolf Haven International.[8]
There are no presently plans for a reintroduction of the wolves to the Olympic National Park, although the issue was revisited in January 2009, no plans for the reintroduction we set in motion at that time.
Olympic National Park Release Plan for the Wolves
The capture and release of wild wolves into the Olympic National Park would be handled in the same physical manor as the Yellowstone National Park capture and release of wild wolves. The wolf pack would be located; a plan for helicopter aerial tranquilizing, physical examination, weight, blood tests and DNA samples are taken on site, the wolves are then caging and transport would be take place. Upon arrival in the designated area of the Olympic National Park, the wolves from each pack would be immediately release in the same area, in order to re-establish the pack in their new territory. However, the wolves designated for capture and release in Yellowstone project were from Canada. The proposed wolves for the to be designated for capture and release in the Olympic National Park, would be wolf packs removed from the Northern Rocky Mountains, specifically Idaho. Idaho’s close proximity offers and ideal opportunity for safe wolf pack removal and transportation. Idaho has been putting together a plan to allow the Federal Wildlife Services to kill up to 100 wolves, [15] and this plan would allow for some of the wolf packs designated for killing to be relocated instead. Recently having been de-listed, these Northern Rocky Wolves have been designated for killing under each states management plans, therefore these wolves become the ideal candidates for this program.
Olympic National Park Obstacles
During the second hearing being held on the Olympic Peninsula regarding wolves being reintroduced to the Olympic National Park, crowds of more than 100 people packed the small hearing room. Opposition to the reintroduction ranged from possible land-use restrictions and safety concerns to hunting impact. One man shared his fear that with the increase in predators and hunting pressure there would be no animals left to hunting. [12] The hunters were assured that hunted number of deer and elk have remained within the same within Yellowstone National Park range as it were the pre-wolf-reintroduction levels. The second issue was that local residents and hunters feared of the possibility wolf attacks on humans, which have been proven unjustified; there are no documented records of wild, healthy wolves killing humans in North America.
Livestock ranchers feared the wolves might kill their livestock (there is a significantly smaller livestock ranching community near the Olympic National Park than near Yellowstone). The data from the Yellowstone reintroduction indicates wolves have remained largely within the reintroduction regions and have chosen to prey primarily on native deer and elk populations. However, to reassure rancher and reduce some of the controversy over livestock and possible losses, the Defenders of Wildlife representative assured them that the established the Wolf Compensation Trust Fund would reimburse them for any livestock killed by the wolves.
The greatest tool for answering the obstacles to the reintroduction of the wolves in the minds of local residents occurred at the third hearing being held on the Olympic Peninsula; this meeting included and a wolf educational meeting. During this meeting the residents were introduced to a “young male wolf, Merlin, was a two-year-old ambassador wolf from the Colorado haven Mission Wolf; along with his elder wolf Sila, he was on an educational tour to teach the real story of wolves”, to the local community, Peterson said.[13] Having wolf ambassadors present help dispel some of the fears, mysteries and myths surrounding the wolves and allowed residence to see and experience actual wolves up close. Being told a creature that you have a scary image of in your mind, won’t attack you; is less effective and very different from seeing the actual animal and interacting with as you are being educated about its true nature. This method also allowed the residents to see first-hand why ecotourism with wolves is such a large economic possibility. A hands-on approach allowed the residents to understand why people would come from all over to get a glimpse of a wild wolf, making the economic benefit become more real to them. This proved a very successful method of dispelling unrealistic fears and making financial and economic advantages become more of a realistic opportunity.
Listing Status and Management Plan for the Olympic Wolves
Having learned from the release of the Yellowstone wolves and their experimental status listing status, it would be important to list the wolves of the Olympic National Park as an endangered species until re-establishment of a sustainable and stable wolf population has been achieved. This would allow the wolves the protection under the endangered species act and delay wolf management/control planning until a stable sustainable population was achieved. The need for an “experimental population” status to offer ranchers as a compromise was necessary for the Yellowstone wolves due in large part to the fact that no-one knew what to expect from the reintroduction. We now have a working basis for comparison and can use the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction as an example of a successful program that did not present large risks to livestock or domestic animals; and can show that any possible livestock losses due to the wolves were fully compensated by the fund set up by the Defenders of Wildlife; we can alleviate the need for the experimental listing. There by also alleviating the need for future lawsuits as is the case with the status on the Yellowstone wolf experimental listing.[11]
A monitoring plan after the released wolves’ would be done through the use of a radio collars and systems, as it was in Yellowstone. The wolf population would be counted once a year and a small number of wolves would be sedated for physical field monitoring and testing. The testing would provide vital information on the size and weight of the wolf, the health of the wolf. Blood tests would allow biologist a complete view of the wolf’s health and development. DNA gathering would be a means to further identify each wolf and their family line. Fecal samples would offer a determination of the food sources utilized by the wolves. The testing would be done in the field, through the use helicopter location of radio collar signals, visual confirmation, tranquilizer darts and landing to gather the above mentioned information in the field. After which the wolf would be observed recovering from the tranquiller and would return to his activities.
Olympic National Parkafter the Reintroduction
With gray wolves restored to Olympic National Park, this ecosystem could once again support the full native array of large ungulates and their attendant large carnivores. Wolf expansion and carrion benefited many species. The reduction of the wolves will reduce coyote population thereby increasing the population of deer, ground squirrels, rodents and other small prey as well as restoring balance for middle level predators like foxes, hawks, eagles, owls and peregrine falcons, increasing diversity and balance. The woody plant communities along the river banks will recover. The dense vegetation, shrubs and cottonwood and bigleaf maple trees, which were destroyed by overgrazing of ungulates, will be able to re-grow as the wolves keep the ungulates herds moving and prevent overgrazing. The result is that the streams will return to tight channels held in place by the thick vegetation and shaded by the growth of trees; the water temperatures of the streams will cool due to the increase of shade, which has increased plants and insects in the area, as well as helping to repopulate the salmon and trout population. Salmon specifically, need cooler waters to survive. The twenty-five bird species that showed a downward population trend associated with grassland and shrub-steppe habitats degradation, will recover.
With reintroduction of the wolf, the park could be restored to the naturally beautiful ecosystem that was described in the report from the journal Ecohydrology, in 1890. The banks of the upper Quinault River could once again be “so dense with underbrush as to be almost impenetrable, Logs jammed the rivers, dense tree canopies shaded and cooled the streams, and trout and salmon thrived along with hundreds of species of plants and animals."[7]
The experience at Yellowstone has demonstrated the tremendous power of ecosystem revitalization brought about by wolf reintroduction; from a biological standpoint, reintroduction of wolves has strong potential as a restoration technique.
Olympic National Park Ecotourism
An evaluation of public attitudes and opinions regarding wolf reintroduction took place in 2009. This survey found 75 percent of Washington residents support wolf recovery; with 54 percent of all those polled saying that they would travel for a chance to see or hear wolves in the state. [9] The ecotourism will reach far beyond the residents of Washington State. Yellowstone National Park saw a 26% rise in tourism as a direct result of wolf ecotourism within the first year after the wolf reintroduction to the Park. With present wolf ecotourism bring $35 million per year to the Park and surrounding areas. This huge boost in the economy will not only help the residence surrounding the area, the government through the collection of taxes, it will also work as an economic stimulus plan for our country as the needs for goods and services entering the area will increase along with ecotourism.
An Added Benefit of Wolf Reintroduction Programs
While government agencies like USFWS are working to reintroduce animals to their native homelands, the Department of Interior's Animal Damage Control program, now known as Wildlife Services (WS), spends over $36 million per year killing them. WS amassed a horrific death toll of 7.8 million animals annually, including 500,000 coyotes and some 1,200 mountain lions. [14] This method does not work, intensive culling have increased coyote populations and caused them to rebound; breeding now occurs at an earlier age, and litters are often triple in size. Bring the annual killing rate up each year. How do you control coyotes then, with wolves. Biologists say wolf reintroductions in areas where coyotes have become problematic bring the species back to a natural balance. [14] “The reintroduction programs now occurring around the country are restoring predators to their rightful place in nature's hierarchy, proving once again, if more evidence was needed, that Mother Nature needs no human help in keeping things in balance,” says Motavalli and Rembert.[14]
Conclusion
The reintroduction of wolves to the Olympic National Park will restore the ecosystem and biodiversity of the Park. This is not an experimental program, the proposed methods used and projected results can be proven using the Yellowstone National Park wolf reintroduction programs’ results. The issues of possible concern to the local residents and livestock rancher can be addressed through education and using the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction as a basis to reassure the public. The Defenders of Wildlife have set up a fund to reimburse any loss of livestock to ranchers, and this same fund has been tried and proven to work as a method to answer any concerns of livestock rancher in regard to the Yellowstone reintroduction project. Washington State’s residents support wolf recovery, shown by a recent public survey in January 2009, within which the proposed projected showed a 75% approval rating; with 54 percent of all those polled saying that they would travel for a chance to see or hear wolves in the state. [9] Ecotourism will reach far beyond the residents of Washington State. Yellowstone National Park saw a 26% rise in tourism as a direct result of wolf ecotourism within the first year after the wolf reintroduction to the Park. Presently wolf ecotourism brings $35 million per year to the Park and surrounding areas. This huge boost in the economy will not only help the residence surrounding the area, and the state budget through the collection of taxes, it will also work as an economic stimulus plan for our country as the needs for goods and services entering the area will increase along with ecotourism. This shows that the wolf reintroduction will not only benefit the ecosystem and biodiversity of the Park, it will also have a huge positive economic impact for the State of Washington and its residents.
References
[1] UNEP[intrnet].Olympic National Park WA, United States of Amererica [updated 2007November; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/pdf/Olympic%20Mtns.pdf
[2] Abelson M., Melber A.[internet] Never Cry Wolf the1995 Reintroduction of the Wolves of Yellowstone Park [updated 1998 December; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/webprojects/f98_mabelson/WolfReintro95.htm
[3] Author(s)FRITTS S. H.; BANGS E. E.; FONTAINE J. A. ; JOHNSON M. R.; PHILLIPS M. K.; KOCH E. D.; GUNSON J. R.; [internet] Planning and implementing a reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central [cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2630567
[4] Osseward D. [internet]Olympic National Park General Management Plan [updated 2006 September 14; cited 2009 April 20] Available from: http://www.drizzle.com/~rdpayne/opa-gmp-letter.html
[5]Taylor M. [internet]Wyoming Wolves: Worth the Watching [2002; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from:http://www.wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/news/newsletter/docs/2002b/wolfwatch.php
[6]Clough L.D.; Cleveland C.J.[internet] Olympic National Park, United States[updated 2008 July 14; cited 2009 April 24]. Available from:http://www.eoearth.org/article/Olympic_National_Park,_United_States
[7]Repanshek K.[internet] Study Says Loss of Wolves Damaging Olympic National Park's Forest Ecosystem [updated 2008 July 12; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/07/study-says-loss-wolves-damaging-olympic-national-parks-forest-ecosystem [8]Ratti, J. T., Weinstein, M., Scott, J. M., Wiseman, P. A., Gillesberg, A. M., Miller, C. A., Szepanski, M. M., Svancara, L. K. [internet] Feasibility of wolf reintroduction to Olympic Peninsula, Washington [cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://biology.usgs.gov/pubs/execsumm/page2.htm
[9]Research information [internet] Elk in the Olympic National Park [updated 2009 January 25; cited 2009 April 20] Available from: www.cof.orst.edu/cascades
[10] UNESCO World Heritage Centre [internet] Olympic National Park {updated 2009 April 25; cited 2009 April 25]. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/151
[11] Noecker R.J.[internet]National Council for Science and the Environment Report for Congress. Reintroduction of Wolves [updated 1997 August 1; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from:http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Biodiversity/biodv13.cfm?&CFID=6622718&CFTOKEN
[12] Seattle Times[internet] Majority Opposes Plan For Wolves [updated 1999 January 21; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990121&slug=2939912
[13] Peterson B.[internet] Wolves In Our Back Yard [updated 1997 May 25; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970525&slug=2541035
[14] Motavalli J., Rembert T.C.[internet] Troubled Homecoming [cited 2009 April 20] Available from: http://www.emagazine.com/view/?432&printview
[15] Barker R.[internet] How bloody will wolf desisting be?[updated 2009 March 10; cited 2009 April 25] Available from:http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2009/03/10/rockybarker/how_bloody_will_wolf_delisting_be
Ecosystem Study
L.J. Fritch
08/08/11
Abstract
The reintroduction proposal of the gray wolves (Canis lupus) and support of wolf migration from Canada into Olympic National Park and surrounding lands is considered an ecosystem restoration project. The proposal for a reintroduction shows that the Olympia National Park ecosystem’s degradation can be restored to a fully healthy ecosystem by reintroducing wolves to the Park. This projection is based on the success of the wolf reintroduction project in Yellowstone National Park. Prior to the release of wolves into the Yellowstone National Park, the ecosystem had degraded on every level from the vegetation, degradation of stream and rivers, up the through the entire ecosystem to the birds, small animals, middle level predators, ungulates, large predators and bears, showing the same degradation as the Olympia National Park. A year after the successful reintroduction of the wolves to the park, significant ecosystem restoration had occurred. Within a few years of the reintroduction, a healthy ecosystem was restored to Yellowstone National Park. Using Yellowstone as a model, the restoration of Olympia National Park’s ecosystem is an achievable goal through the reintroduction of wolves to the Park. As an additional benefit, after the wolf reintroduction, the areas both in and surrounding the Olympic National Park will benefit from the socioeconomic factors involved with Olympic National Park significant boost in ecotourism, as did Yellowstone National Park.
Olympic National Park Wolf Reintroduction Project and Ecosystem Study
Ecosystem Overview of Olympic National Park
Located in the north-west of Washington State, Olympic National Park is renowned for the diversity of its ecosystems. It ranges in altitude from sea level to 2,428m. The ecosystem includes Mount Olympus’s Glacier-clad peaks, alpine meadows, extensive old growth forest, coastal plains that are a dense jungle of temperate rainforest, 100 km of wilderness coastline which contains some of the world's largest conifers.[10] Eleven major river systems, with over 4,800 km of rivers and streams, which provide a habitat for anadromous fish species. The park also includes 100 km of wilderness coastline, and is rich in native and endemic animal and plant species, including critical populations of the endangered northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus), bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus), and the largest truly wild herd of Roosevelt elk(Cervus elaphus roosevelti). This ecosystem lies within a WWF Global 200 Eco-region, and overlaps a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.[1] The Park contains over 1,200 native plants, of which 8 are endemic, and hundreds of non-vascular plants. 56 species of terrestrial mammals, at least 16 being endemic, and 300 species of birds, 20 native fish species, including seven species of salmon, and trout that are anadromous[6]. The native fauna is intact except for the wolf which was extirpated by man before the Park was established in 1981. The Park is home to an estimated 3,000-5,000 animal. [1]
Yellowstone before the Wolf Reintroduction
Prior to the reintroduction of wolves to the Yellowstone National Park, the ecosystem was suffering. The ungulates had degraded the vegetation due to over grazed, the meadows and vegetation along river banks had been destroyed, causing the degradation of the river banks. The birds and small mammals that were dependent upon the vegetation for shelter, nesting and a food source were declining. The ungulates were becoming lethargic and over populated. The coyote (Canis Latrans ) population had grown significantly and was putting a strain middle level predators like foxes, hawks, owls and pine martens (Martes caurina), limiting species diversity and balance[2]. Studies provided a scientific justification for promoting wolf reintroduction. The researchers also concluded that wolf reintroduction would help the local economy by attracting eco-tourists to the region. The "Wolves for Yellowstone?" report gave scientific support for wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park [1].
Yellowstone the Reintroduction
A reintroduction plan was developed in the summer and fall of 1994. The plan accounted for the acquiring, holding, transporting, and release of suitable wolves (Canis lupus) for reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park. In January 1995, twenty-nine wolves were captured in Alberta and transported to Yellowstone National Park. Fourteen of the wolves went to Yellowstone National Park and fifteen went to central Idaho. Radio collars were put on the wolves upon arrival at their destinations. The wolves that went to Idaho were freed immediately upon arrival; Yellowstone wolves which consisted of three family groups, were held in acclimation pens in the park until late March when released. The progress of the reintroduction program in its first year far exceeded expectations [3]; and was considered one of the most successful reintroduction projects ever implemented.
Yellowstone Obstacles
One of the most significant obstacles to wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park was and continues to be the fear of wolves killing livestock. The data indicates wolves have remained largely within the reintroduction regions and have chosen to prey primarily on native deer and elk populations. However, to reassure rancher and reduce some of the controversy over livestock and possible losses, “Defenders of Wildlife established the Wolf Compensation Trust in 1987. This $100,000 fund was established with private contributions to compensate ranchers at fair market value for all verified losses of livestock to wolves. Between 1987 and 1997 the Trust paid a total of $29,456 to 34 ranchers in the northern Rocky Mountain region. These payments covered 57 cattle and 51 sheep killed by wolves. All reports of wolves attacking livestock and other domestic animals have been dealt with by FWS, ADC, and local authorities by relocating or destroying the problem wolves.”[11] Another obstacle was and continues to be two issues for hunters of big game in the region. One issue is that hunters feared that the wolves would reduce the number of elk and negatively impact their ability to hunt; hunter killings of deer and elk have remained within the range of pre-reintroduction levels. The second issue was that hunters feared of the possibility wolf attacks on humans, which have proven unjustified; there are no documented records of wild, healthy wolves killing humans. Defenders of Wildlife also established the Wolf Habitat Fund in 1992 to award $5,000 to landowners who allow wolves to raise pups to adulthood on their land. [11] As of 1995 two payments had been made.
Listing Status and Management Plan for the Yellowstone Wolves
“Experimental Populations.Section 10(j) of the ESA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to identify and release an "experimental population" that is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species, to further the conservation of such species. Each member of an experimental population is to be treated as a threatened species or as a species proposed to be listed for the purposes of §§ 4(d), 7, and 9 of the ESA. This designation enables FWS to manage the wolves more flexibly than would be allowed under the stricter, mandatory provisions for species listed as endangered under the ESA.” [11] This status was set in place for the Yellowstone National Park wolf reintroduction program to address the local issue and concerns about the possibility of wolves killing of livestock, restricted land use, and depletion of big game populations. This for example would allows, ranchers to "harass" adult wolves attacking their livestock and may be granted a permit to kill wolves that repeatedly kill domestic animals.[11] Wolf conservation groups oppose this designation, stating “that the natural recovery occurring across the Canadian border would make the Yellowstone and central Idaho populations not "wholly separate geographically" from nonexperimental populations. The wolves migrating naturally also would have the full protection of the ESA. These groups further argue that this designation would give too much liberty to ranchers to kill wolves at will’.[11] It was a compromise that was necessary at the time to easy the concerns of the ranchers. A monitoring plan after the released wolves’ was being done through the use of a radio collars and systems. The wolf population was counted once a year and a small number of wolves were sedated for physical field monitoring and testing. The testing provided vital information on the size and weight of the wolf, the health of the wolf. Blood tests allowed biologist a complete view of the wolf’s health and development. DNA gathering was used as a means to further identify each wolf and their family line. Fecal sample offered a determination of the food sources utilized by the wolves. The testing was done in the field, through the use helicopter location of radio collar signals, visual confirmation, tranquilizer darts and landing to gather the above mentioned information in the field. After which the wolf were observed recovering from the tranquiller and would return to his activities.
Yellowstone after the Reintroduction
With gray wolves restored to Yellowstone National Park, this ecosystem once again supports the full native array of large ungulates and their attendant large carnivores. Wolf expansion and carrion benefited many other species as well as the grizzly and black bears of Yellowstone; offering the bears a more diverse and healthy balance of foods for their diet. The number of ravens doubled, and the number of eagles increased fivefold after the wolves’ reintroduction, benefiting from the carrion. The wolves controlled the elk (Cervus elaphus) and moose (Alces alces) population dynamics, which had implications for forest growth and composition. Among these implication were the re-growth of vegetation along rivers and streams plants such as willows(Salix fluviatilis,) and aspens (Populus tremuloides Michx) provide food for beavers(Castor Canadensis). More beaver ponds benefit aquatic plants and animals. Shade from the trees cools the water making the habitat better for trout, also increasing the population of birds and small mammals that rely on said growth. The reduction of the coyote population increased the population of deer, ground squirrels (Spermophilus parryii), rodents and other small prey as well as restoring balance for middle level predators like foxes, hawks, eagles, owls and pine martens, increasing diversity and balance.[2] Within two years the number of wolves grew to 97, and their effects were felt in most spheres of the park and the biodiversity rates continue to increase in response to the wolves. The experience at Yellowstone has demonstrated the tremendous power of ecosystem revitalization brought about by wolf reintroduction; from a biological standpoint, reintroduction of wolves has strong potential as a restoration technique.
Yellowstone’s Ecotourism
The number of visitors using the northeast park entrance rose by more than 26% the first year after wolf reintroduction. Wolf watchers, using the northeast Park entrance generally stay at motels and eat meals in Cooke City, heading out to the Lamar Valley at dawn and dusk to watch wolves. Presently, wolves draw 150,000 new visitors to Yellowstone each year totaling $35 million added to the local economy [5]. The experience at Yellowstone has demonstrated the tremendous power of ecotourism, the impact brought about by wolf reintroduction; from an economic standpoint, has strong potential as a huge economic boost to any area offering a similar wolf reintroduction program.
Olympic National Park without Wolves
According to a study from Oregon State University, the loss of wolves from the park's ecosystem in the early 1900’s is causing the degradation of forests. Without wolves to keep Olympics’ elk herds in check they are over-grazing the forests.[4] After the extermination of the wolves in the early 1900s, changes affected forest vegetation and stream dynamics began to occur. These changes had demonstrative impacts on the entire ecosystem. Streams and river banks, vegetation, fisheries, birds, insects, small animals, middle predators, ungulates, large predators and bears, have all been negatively impacted since the removal of the wolves. A report from the journal Ecohydrology, showed information gathered by the Press Expedition during its exploration of the Olympic peninsula in 1890. That expedition found the banks of the upper Quinault River “so dense with underbrush as to be almost impenetrable,” according to the OSU report. "Logs jammed the rivers, dense tree canopies shaded and cooled the streams, and trout and salmon thrived along with hundreds of species of plants and animals."[7] After the extermination of the wolf, the degradation of the vegetation began, today instead of dense vegetation that you cannot see or walk through, there is “a park-like stand of predominantly big trees,” says Bill Ripple [7], “It’s just a different world.” Studies from the area now show that there has been almost no new growth of cottonwood (Populus deltoides ) and bigleaf maple trees (Acer macrophyllum) since the wolves disappeared, this has impacted the streamside shrubs as well. The streamside shrubs are very important for river system stability. This loss of the woody plant communities along the river banks has lead to rapid degradation and has caused the river channels to widen. Since this began happening the river bank ecosystem and floodplains started to dramatically decline and change. Today the dense vegetation, shrubs and trees, have been destroyed by overgrazing of ungulates and replaced with grasses and ferns. The result is that the streams are no longer in tight channels held in place by the thick vegetation and shaded by the growth of trees; the streams have eroded, broadened and braided. The water is now open and the temperatures of the streams are warmer due to the increase in open sunlight, which has decreased plants and insects in the area, as well as reducing the salmon and trout population. Salmon specifically, need cooler waters to survive. Twenty-five bird species show downward population trends associated with grassland and shrub-steppe habitats degradation. Evidence of the widespread declines in frogs is also found in the Northwest. The spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) was once widespread in a variety of habitats and is now nearly extirpated on the westside.[8] Coyotes have multiplied since the removal of the wolves, and have a negative effect on the ecosystem. Fish and Wildlife has put a paid bounty management plan in place in an attempt to reduce the over population of coyotes and their negative impact. Coyotes have impacted the population of deer, ground squirrels, rodents and other small prey as well as damaging the balance for middle level predators like foxes, hawks, eagles, peregrine falcons (Falco peregrines), and owls, decreasing the diversity and balance of the park.
Olympic National Park Proposal to Reintroduce the Wolves
A study was completed on the feasibility of reintroducing wolves to the Olympic National Park in 1999. The issues considered were: “1) current and historical status of wolves on the Peninsula, 2) the capacity of the potential prey base to support a population of wolves, 3) distribution, density, trends, and mortality factors of primary prey species, 4) the expected effects of wolves on other predators in the introduction area, and 5) the general health and condition of natural habitat."[8] Congress had appropriated $300,000 to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct both the feasibility and prey base studies which were concluded in 1999.The study was completed on schedule in 1999 and relieved that it would be feasible for the Olympic National Park and surrounding lands to support a population of the gray wolf.[8]
The benefits of a wolf reintroduction program to the Olympic National Park are clear; the Park’s ecosystem would benefit and restoration of the ecosystem would begin. All areas of degradation will improve and have an excellent possibility of being fully restored to their original status. As the ecosystems plants are restored, the balance and natural harmony of the wildlife will also be restored; affecting every member of the ecosystem from the vegetation, rivers and streams, trout, salmon, insects’, birds, small animals, middle level predators, large game animals, large predators and bears. “The reintroduction of the gray wolves has centered on establishing a minimum of four packs in Olympic National Park, said Jack Smith, regional wildlife manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Packs range from six to 10 wolves.”[12] The reintroduction of the wolves will also benefit humans that live near the Park lands from an economic standpoint, the return of wolves will offer a strong potential for a huge economic boost to the area through ecotourism.
The cooperative group attending the January 2009 meeting included: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Olympic Natural Resources Center (ONRC), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Olympic Natural Park (ONP), Olympic Natural Forest (ONF), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), All Olympic Peninsula Tribes, Defenders of Wildlife, and Wolf Haven International.[8]
There are no presently plans for a reintroduction of the wolves to the Olympic National Park, although the issue was revisited in January 2009, no plans for the reintroduction we set in motion at that time.
Olympic National Park Release Plan for the Wolves
The capture and release of wild wolves into the Olympic National Park would be handled in the same physical manor as the Yellowstone National Park capture and release of wild wolves. The wolf pack would be located; a plan for helicopter aerial tranquilizing, physical examination, weight, blood tests and DNA samples are taken on site, the wolves are then caging and transport would be take place. Upon arrival in the designated area of the Olympic National Park, the wolves from each pack would be immediately release in the same area, in order to re-establish the pack in their new territory. However, the wolves designated for capture and release in Yellowstone project were from Canada. The proposed wolves for the to be designated for capture and release in the Olympic National Park, would be wolf packs removed from the Northern Rocky Mountains, specifically Idaho. Idaho’s close proximity offers and ideal opportunity for safe wolf pack removal and transportation. Idaho has been putting together a plan to allow the Federal Wildlife Services to kill up to 100 wolves, [15] and this plan would allow for some of the wolf packs designated for killing to be relocated instead. Recently having been de-listed, these Northern Rocky Wolves have been designated for killing under each states management plans, therefore these wolves become the ideal candidates for this program.
Olympic National Park Obstacles
During the second hearing being held on the Olympic Peninsula regarding wolves being reintroduced to the Olympic National Park, crowds of more than 100 people packed the small hearing room. Opposition to the reintroduction ranged from possible land-use restrictions and safety concerns to hunting impact. One man shared his fear that with the increase in predators and hunting pressure there would be no animals left to hunting. [12] The hunters were assured that hunted number of deer and elk have remained within the same within Yellowstone National Park range as it were the pre-wolf-reintroduction levels. The second issue was that local residents and hunters feared of the possibility wolf attacks on humans, which have been proven unjustified; there are no documented records of wild, healthy wolves killing humans in North America.
Livestock ranchers feared the wolves might kill their livestock (there is a significantly smaller livestock ranching community near the Olympic National Park than near Yellowstone). The data from the Yellowstone reintroduction indicates wolves have remained largely within the reintroduction regions and have chosen to prey primarily on native deer and elk populations. However, to reassure rancher and reduce some of the controversy over livestock and possible losses, the Defenders of Wildlife representative assured them that the established the Wolf Compensation Trust Fund would reimburse them for any livestock killed by the wolves.
The greatest tool for answering the obstacles to the reintroduction of the wolves in the minds of local residents occurred at the third hearing being held on the Olympic Peninsula; this meeting included and a wolf educational meeting. During this meeting the residents were introduced to a “young male wolf, Merlin, was a two-year-old ambassador wolf from the Colorado haven Mission Wolf; along with his elder wolf Sila, he was on an educational tour to teach the real story of wolves”, to the local community, Peterson said.[13] Having wolf ambassadors present help dispel some of the fears, mysteries and myths surrounding the wolves and allowed residence to see and experience actual wolves up close. Being told a creature that you have a scary image of in your mind, won’t attack you; is less effective and very different from seeing the actual animal and interacting with as you are being educated about its true nature. This method also allowed the residents to see first-hand why ecotourism with wolves is such a large economic possibility. A hands-on approach allowed the residents to understand why people would come from all over to get a glimpse of a wild wolf, making the economic benefit become more real to them. This proved a very successful method of dispelling unrealistic fears and making financial and economic advantages become more of a realistic opportunity.
Listing Status and Management Plan for the Olympic Wolves
Having learned from the release of the Yellowstone wolves and their experimental status listing status, it would be important to list the wolves of the Olympic National Park as an endangered species until re-establishment of a sustainable and stable wolf population has been achieved. This would allow the wolves the protection under the endangered species act and delay wolf management/control planning until a stable sustainable population was achieved. The need for an “experimental population” status to offer ranchers as a compromise was necessary for the Yellowstone wolves due in large part to the fact that no-one knew what to expect from the reintroduction. We now have a working basis for comparison and can use the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction as an example of a successful program that did not present large risks to livestock or domestic animals; and can show that any possible livestock losses due to the wolves were fully compensated by the fund set up by the Defenders of Wildlife; we can alleviate the need for the experimental listing. There by also alleviating the need for future lawsuits as is the case with the status on the Yellowstone wolf experimental listing.[11]
A monitoring plan after the released wolves’ would be done through the use of a radio collars and systems, as it was in Yellowstone. The wolf population would be counted once a year and a small number of wolves would be sedated for physical field monitoring and testing. The testing would provide vital information on the size and weight of the wolf, the health of the wolf. Blood tests would allow biologist a complete view of the wolf’s health and development. DNA gathering would be a means to further identify each wolf and their family line. Fecal samples would offer a determination of the food sources utilized by the wolves. The testing would be done in the field, through the use helicopter location of radio collar signals, visual confirmation, tranquilizer darts and landing to gather the above mentioned information in the field. After which the wolf would be observed recovering from the tranquiller and would return to his activities.
Olympic National Parkafter the Reintroduction
With gray wolves restored to Olympic National Park, this ecosystem could once again support the full native array of large ungulates and their attendant large carnivores. Wolf expansion and carrion benefited many species. The reduction of the wolves will reduce coyote population thereby increasing the population of deer, ground squirrels, rodents and other small prey as well as restoring balance for middle level predators like foxes, hawks, eagles, owls and peregrine falcons, increasing diversity and balance. The woody plant communities along the river banks will recover. The dense vegetation, shrubs and cottonwood and bigleaf maple trees, which were destroyed by overgrazing of ungulates, will be able to re-grow as the wolves keep the ungulates herds moving and prevent overgrazing. The result is that the streams will return to tight channels held in place by the thick vegetation and shaded by the growth of trees; the water temperatures of the streams will cool due to the increase of shade, which has increased plants and insects in the area, as well as helping to repopulate the salmon and trout population. Salmon specifically, need cooler waters to survive. The twenty-five bird species that showed a downward population trend associated with grassland and shrub-steppe habitats degradation, will recover.
With reintroduction of the wolf, the park could be restored to the naturally beautiful ecosystem that was described in the report from the journal Ecohydrology, in 1890. The banks of the upper Quinault River could once again be “so dense with underbrush as to be almost impenetrable, Logs jammed the rivers, dense tree canopies shaded and cooled the streams, and trout and salmon thrived along with hundreds of species of plants and animals."[7]
The experience at Yellowstone has demonstrated the tremendous power of ecosystem revitalization brought about by wolf reintroduction; from a biological standpoint, reintroduction of wolves has strong potential as a restoration technique.
Olympic National Park Ecotourism
An evaluation of public attitudes and opinions regarding wolf reintroduction took place in 2009. This survey found 75 percent of Washington residents support wolf recovery; with 54 percent of all those polled saying that they would travel for a chance to see or hear wolves in the state. [9] The ecotourism will reach far beyond the residents of Washington State. Yellowstone National Park saw a 26% rise in tourism as a direct result of wolf ecotourism within the first year after the wolf reintroduction to the Park. With present wolf ecotourism bring $35 million per year to the Park and surrounding areas. This huge boost in the economy will not only help the residence surrounding the area, the government through the collection of taxes, it will also work as an economic stimulus plan for our country as the needs for goods and services entering the area will increase along with ecotourism.
An Added Benefit of Wolf Reintroduction Programs
While government agencies like USFWS are working to reintroduce animals to their native homelands, the Department of Interior's Animal Damage Control program, now known as Wildlife Services (WS), spends over $36 million per year killing them. WS amassed a horrific death toll of 7.8 million animals annually, including 500,000 coyotes and some 1,200 mountain lions. [14] This method does not work, intensive culling have increased coyote populations and caused them to rebound; breeding now occurs at an earlier age, and litters are often triple in size. Bring the annual killing rate up each year. How do you control coyotes then, with wolves. Biologists say wolf reintroductions in areas where coyotes have become problematic bring the species back to a natural balance. [14] “The reintroduction programs now occurring around the country are restoring predators to their rightful place in nature's hierarchy, proving once again, if more evidence was needed, that Mother Nature needs no human help in keeping things in balance,” says Motavalli and Rembert.[14]
Conclusion
The reintroduction of wolves to the Olympic National Park will restore the ecosystem and biodiversity of the Park. This is not an experimental program, the proposed methods used and projected results can be proven using the Yellowstone National Park wolf reintroduction programs’ results. The issues of possible concern to the local residents and livestock rancher can be addressed through education and using the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction as a basis to reassure the public. The Defenders of Wildlife have set up a fund to reimburse any loss of livestock to ranchers, and this same fund has been tried and proven to work as a method to answer any concerns of livestock rancher in regard to the Yellowstone reintroduction project. Washington State’s residents support wolf recovery, shown by a recent public survey in January 2009, within which the proposed projected showed a 75% approval rating; with 54 percent of all those polled saying that they would travel for a chance to see or hear wolves in the state. [9] Ecotourism will reach far beyond the residents of Washington State. Yellowstone National Park saw a 26% rise in tourism as a direct result of wolf ecotourism within the first year after the wolf reintroduction to the Park. Presently wolf ecotourism brings $35 million per year to the Park and surrounding areas. This huge boost in the economy will not only help the residence surrounding the area, and the state budget through the collection of taxes, it will also work as an economic stimulus plan for our country as the needs for goods and services entering the area will increase along with ecotourism. This shows that the wolf reintroduction will not only benefit the ecosystem and biodiversity of the Park, it will also have a huge positive economic impact for the State of Washington and its residents.
References
[1] UNEP[intrnet].Olympic National Park WA, United States of Amererica [updated 2007November; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/pdf/Olympic%20Mtns.pdf
[2] Abelson M., Melber A.[internet] Never Cry Wolf the1995 Reintroduction of the Wolves of Yellowstone Park [updated 1998 December; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/webprojects/f98_mabelson/WolfReintro95.htm
[3] Author(s)FRITTS S. H.; BANGS E. E.; FONTAINE J. A. ; JOHNSON M. R.; PHILLIPS M. K.; KOCH E. D.; GUNSON J. R.; [internet] Planning and implementing a reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central [cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2630567
[4] Osseward D. [internet]Olympic National Park General Management Plan [updated 2006 September 14; cited 2009 April 20] Available from: http://www.drizzle.com/~rdpayne/opa-gmp-letter.html
[5]Taylor M. [internet]Wyoming Wolves: Worth the Watching [2002; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from:http://www.wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/news/newsletter/docs/2002b/wolfwatch.php
[6]Clough L.D.; Cleveland C.J.[internet] Olympic National Park, United States[updated 2008 July 14; cited 2009 April 24]. Available from:http://www.eoearth.org/article/Olympic_National_Park,_United_States
[7]Repanshek K.[internet] Study Says Loss of Wolves Damaging Olympic National Park's Forest Ecosystem [updated 2008 July 12; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/07/study-says-loss-wolves-damaging-olympic-national-parks-forest-ecosystem [8]Ratti, J. T., Weinstein, M., Scott, J. M., Wiseman, P. A., Gillesberg, A. M., Miller, C. A., Szepanski, M. M., Svancara, L. K. [internet] Feasibility of wolf reintroduction to Olympic Peninsula, Washington [cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://biology.usgs.gov/pubs/execsumm/page2.htm
[9]Research information [internet] Elk in the Olympic National Park [updated 2009 January 25; cited 2009 April 20] Available from: www.cof.orst.edu/cascades
[10] UNESCO World Heritage Centre [internet] Olympic National Park {updated 2009 April 25; cited 2009 April 25]. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/151
[11] Noecker R.J.[internet]National Council for Science and the Environment Report for Congress. Reintroduction of Wolves [updated 1997 August 1; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from:http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Biodiversity/biodv13.cfm?&CFID=6622718&CFTOKEN
[12] Seattle Times[internet] Majority Opposes Plan For Wolves [updated 1999 January 21; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990121&slug=2939912
[13] Peterson B.[internet] Wolves In Our Back Yard [updated 1997 May 25; cited 2009 April 20]. Available from: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970525&slug=2541035
[14] Motavalli J., Rembert T.C.[internet] Troubled Homecoming [cited 2009 April 20] Available from: http://www.emagazine.com/view/?432&printview
[15] Barker R.[internet] How bloody will wolf desisting be?[updated 2009 March 10; cited 2009 April 25] Available from:http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2009/03/10/rockybarker/how_bloody_will_wolf_delisting_be