Yuan 1

Rochelle Yuan
Lynda Haas
WR 39C
August 12, 2016
Stop the Hunting of Wolves
In Empire of the Summer Moon, S. C. Gwynne writes of an 1860 army attack on a camp
in which the first canines defended their masters; this may have been the beginning of the
human-wolf domesticated relationship (Safina 224). Since that time, as Barry Lopezs classic
1978 book on the subject, Of Wolves and Men, suggests, the wolf exerts a powerful influence on
the human imagination (4). Much of that imagination fears and hates wolves, which has resulted
in violence towards them, even when the reasons for fear and hatred are countered by close
observation (Humans versus Wolves). The scientific research on wolves proves that they
possess social behaviors unequivocally similar to those of humans, and that no two species are
more alike than wolves and humans (236). Knowing this, how then do we proceed with what
we have been doing, such as in continuing to allow the mistreatment of such animals and
diminishing what little land they have left because of our own actions?
Adolescent humans and wolves behave in a more juvenile way because they are still
growing and learning, a common factor that applies to both species. Harry Frank and Martha
Gialdini Franks 1982 study On the effects of domestication on canine social development and
behavior published in Applied Animal Ethology, compares four Eastern timber wolves and four
Alaskan Malamutes, who were fostered by the same female wolf and reared under conditions

Yuan 2
deemed natural only to domestic dogs, to discuss the well-known aggression in wolves and the
effects of domestication on the same type of behavior in domestic dogs (508). The Franks noted
how the wolf pups show agonistic behavior that may be innate, but that also involves their
maturation and interaction probably mediated by an innate teaching mechanism, considering
how they were not raised in the wild. On the other hand, the effects of domestication on
dominance behavior in dogs cause selection pressures against aggression to have relaxed, as dogs
probably elicit submissive responses more for attention rather than in response to domination
(517-519). As wolves transitioned to dogs in human households and became less aggressive,
humans have [also] undergone a reduction in environmental awareness in parallel to domestic
species (Safina 235) according to archaeologist Colin Groves, such that they relied on each
other for protection (by wolves) or for food and shelter (by humans).
Conflict is a part of every relationship, whether man or wolf. Besides the fact that wolves
and humans alike have domesticated themselves (Safina 234) and evolved with each other, a
hierarchy still stands in each species. Greg Morans study of Long-term patterns of agonistic
interactions in a captive group of wolves (Canis lupus) published in Animal Behaviour, in 1982,
the same year as the study mentioned above was published. Moran recorded agonistic
interactions in a group of captive, grey wolves for 21 months from a trailer so he could view
them in a large open area (75-76). He described various aspects of their interactions and
categorized different types of approaches and described relationships between different wolves,
leading to a total of 2823 interactions of all kinds (77-81). He then concludes that some aspects
of the distribution of agonistic interactions are consistent with the predictions of an underlying
dominance hierarchy social organization. A dominance hierarchy may also relate to how in the
Franks study, aggression in wolf pups was innate. Such a hierarchy will thereby emerge as the

Yuan 3
wolves mature. Nevertheless, Moran could not accurately claim that there is this dominance
hierarchy because the agonistic interactions alone cannot determine social relationships, only
partially, especially since his study was limited to a small number of pairs (81-83). Moran was
able to see a hierarchical social organization within a pack, similar to how humans live with
families that usually contain a male and female head, alphas, and subordinates. Often, the
subordinates would listen to their alphas in both species or end up fighting, attempting to assert
dominance.
Tying into this struggle for dominance, Candice Baan, from the University of Neuchtel
in Switzerland, observed free-living wolves in Yellowstone National Park in 2008-2009, and in
2014, with fellow researchers, published Conflict management in free-ranging wolves, Canis
lupus in the journal Animal Behaviour. Baan and her team acquired their evidence by video,
filming two free-ranging packs of grey wolves in Yellowstone National Park, who were
accustomed to humans observing them, and recording all possible social interactions so they
could analyze and document them (328). Because of wolves high interdependence on each other
for survival, Baan discusses how reconciliation, although mostly asymmetric (initiated by
subordinates towards dominants), is highly favored in free-ranging wolves in order to reduce
social tension and restore social peace (331). However, the results suggest that this occurs
because of the benefits the subordinates would derive from cooperative hunting, cooperative
breeding, and cooperation in defense of the territory and related resources from their stronger
counterpart (Baan 332). Such interactions are a display of a dominance hierarchy mentioned by
Moran, a social organization that erupted from a base of innate aggression in wolves as studied
by the Franks. More often than not, subordinates would end up taking the first step in reconciling

Yuan 4
with their higher-ups, which could happen in said packs, studied by Baan and her team, or in
families in the human world. Of course, the more dominant individual would have the best
chance at helping the family or pack survive, so its inevitable that the more submissive
individual would benefit the most out of a healthy relationship between them.
The social behaviors of free and captive wolves detailed in countless studies by
prominent researchers shed light on human and wolf similarity, which forces us to acknowledge
the impact our actions have on their lives. There was once a time when they thrived in the
territory they lived; however, by 1930, humans had wiped wolves off 95 percent of their
holdings in the lower forty-eight states (Safina 169). Over several recent years, the federal
government weakened wolf protections, claiming that 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves in the
entire northern Rocky Mountain region constituted a recovered population (Safina 169-170).
This caused hunting to begin occurring again with no limit to it, something that had originally
wiped out so much of the population before (see Figure 1). Essentially, we cast out wolves
because they are not like us, rather, they become a metaphor for the feral and pre-civilized, the
gang, for the people living outside the bounds of convention and conformity (Safina 170).
Keeping this in mind, how can humans continue to hunt wolves the way they do?
In Europes Middle Ages, wolves werent just exterminated; they were persecuted.
Centuries later, in America, trapped wolves were sometimes set on fire, or had their lower jaws
cut off or wired shut before being released to slowly starve (Safina 171). Doesnt this speak for
itself that humans need to protect wolves and stop hurting them for what animal activist Gary
Yourofsky has called asinine and moronic excuses? Although scientists have come to
acknowledge the significance of wolf life, leading to the enactment of the Endangered Species

Yuan 5
Act in 1973 and the listing of gray wolves among the first species protected (Humans Versus
Wolves), there continues to be so many anti-wolf legislations that allow for mass killing of
wolves that are still at the brink of extinction. Several substantive studies studies have proven the
negative effects human encroachment has caused wolves, primarily hunting, and note that these
killings should teach human beings a lesson in how to treat the natural world.
Most studies of wolves do not focus on their hormone levels; they are not as common as
those involving raw numbers that measure wolf populations. In 2014, Heather Bryan from the
University of Calgary co-authored Heavily Hunted Wolves Have Higher Stress and
Reproductive Steroids than Wolves with Lower Hunting Pressure, in the journal Functional
Ecology. Her team compared steroid hormone levels in hair of wolves living in Canadas tundrataiga that experience heavy rates of hunting with those in the northern boreal forest where
hunting pressure is substantially lower (348-349). Because their data provides the first baseline
on chronic levels of stress and reproductive hormones in wolf hair, Bryan and her team
broadened the range of wolf studies (354). Their measurements revealed that wolves from
heavily hunted populations had higher steroid hormone levels (Bryan 350-351), which lead to the
conclusion that hunting can disrupt a wolf packs complex social structure, alter normal
reproductive behavior and introduce chronic stress that may have evolutionary consequences.
These high levels can also decrease pack size, resulting in altered predation patterns, increased
time spent defending kill sites from scavengers, and may lead to increased conflict with humans
and livestock (Bryan 351-352). More conflict with humans, namely hunting, could result in more
conflict with livestock, as seen in the next study.

Yuan 6
In most stable social groups, wolves have only one litter per year, but a disruption can
cause multiple litters per social group to become more common. Robert B. Wielgus, an associate
professor of wildlife ecology, and his co-author Peebles, assessed the Effects of Wolf Mortality
on Livestock Depredations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming from 1987 to 2012. Wielgus and
Peebles collected data on the confirmed number of cattle and sheep depredated, wolf population
estimates, number of breeding pairs, and the number of wolves killed in the wolf-occupied area
of each state for each year from the United States Fish and Wildlife Services Interagency Annual
Wolf Reports (2). The data was then analyzed using a negative binomial generalized linear model
to test for the expected negative relationship between the number of livestock depredated in the
current year and the number of wolves controlled the previous year (1). They found that the
number of livestock depredated was positively associated with the number of livestock and the
number of breeding pairs. It appears that lethal wolf control to reduce the number of livestock
depredated is associated with increased, not decreased, depredations the following year, on a
large scale at least until wolf mortality exceeds 25% (Wielgus 11). Wolf pack stability is crucial
to controlling the impact of wolves on livestock, but wolf packs disrupted by culling can
reorganize, which may lead to more breeding and thus more livestock killed in the year after a
wolf reduction than before (Wieglus 12). Essentially, the more state-led hunting we allow, the
more livestock will wind up dead as well. Earthjustice, the nations original and largest nonprofit environmental law organization, documents the battle between delisting and listing
Northern Rocky Gray Wolves under the Endangered Species List that had first emerged in order
protect species that are likely to become extinct (see Figure 1).

Yuan 7
Figure 1. A timeline of the fight for ESA protection for Northern Rocky gray wolves. Source:
http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/wolves-in-danger-timeline-milestones

Although the conservation groups had won, they were not able to avoid the aftermath of loss due
to the government allowing humans to juggled with wolf life.
Maureen Hackett, president and founder of Minnesota-based Howling for Wolves,
explains why gray wolves, who are native to the state of Minnesota, should not be hunted. She
says that not many animals make it off the Endangered Species List alive, and the same year
(2012) the Minnesota gray wolf was removed, it was hunted and trapped for recreational
purposes; Wolves were killed at random in the wild, not just those in conflict with farmers
(Hackett). Imagine being in the shoes of those wolves, hunted for sport and forced to scurry

Yuan 8
away with their tail between their legs as their homeland is taken from them. Acts like these
cause Yourofsky to come to the conclusion that if you take out humans, it benefits all other
species. Even if wolves were in conflict with farmers, Wieglus revealed that the number of
livestock killed, of wolf breeding pairs, and of wolves killed each year were correlated. Thus, as
more wolves die with the excuse that theyre killing farm animals, more livestock is being killed
as a result. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), eighty percent
of the public did not support the wolf hunt in Minnesota, but it still occurred (Hackett). Hackett
sheds light on how legislators are the only ones who can suspend such killing and stop the
indiscriminate methods and how it is important that the DNR and the legislature focus on the
idea that stopping wolf hunts are important to the state of Minnesota and its residents.

Yuan 9
Works Cited
Bryan, Heather M., Judit E. G. Smits, Lee Koren, Paul C. Paquet, Katherine E. Wynne-Edwards,
and Marco Musiani. "Heavily Hunted Wolves Have Higher Stress and Reproductive
Steroids than Wolves with Lower Hunting Pressure." Functional Ecology 29.9 (2014):
347-56. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12354
Lopez, Barry Holstun. Of Wolves and Men. New York: Scribner, 1978.
Safina, Carl. Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel. New York, NY: Henry Holt,
2015.
Wielgus RB, Peebles KA (2014) Effects of Wolf Mortality on Livestock Depredations. PLoS
ONE 9(12): e113505. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113505
Yourofsky, Gary. "Through the Eyes of an Animal: A Lecture by Gary Yourofsky." Youtube. 20
April 2015.
"Humans versus Wolves." WildEarth Guardians. N.p., n.d.
Press, Pioneer. "Maureen Hackett: The Gray Wolf Should Not Be Hunted." Twin Cities. N.p.,
2014.