Biological, Conservation, and Ethical Implications of Exploiting and Controlling Wolves

Biological, Conservation, and Ethical Implications of Exploiting and Controlling Wolves The widespread claim that wolf populations can withstand 25–50% or greater annual reductions without major biological consequences is based primarily on the observation that populations often maintain their size from year to year as harvest or control continues or recover within a few years afterward. This emphasis on numerical status overlooks the likelihood of major, lingering impacts on the size, number, stability, and persistence of family‐group social units, on reproductive, hunting, and territorial behavior, on the role of learning and related traditions, on within‐ and between‐group patterns of genetic variation, and on overall mortality rates. The tendency of biologists and agencies in northern North America to promote wolf harvests that are four to eight times greater than ungulate harvests, in accord with the wolf versus ungulate difference in reproductive rates but contradictory to a broad array of differences in social organization and related behavior, is reason enough to question the logic of this prevailing management view. True sustained‐yield management requires more emphasis on qualitative biological features to determine the extent to which wolves and other species with evolutionary histories as predators rather than as prey should be harvested. Most recent government‐sponsored wolf control programs and proposals, including sterilization, relocation, and “redirected” killing, have been based on questionable claims about ungulate or livestock problems and have not adequately considered potential biological costs (especially to the target wolf populations), benefits, or management alternatives. The high sentience of wolves justifies overlapping biological‐ethical concerns about such programs and especially about the heavy, indiscriminate, deceptively reported public hunting and trapping of wolves that is currently permitted throughout most of Alaska (U.S.A.)—including in national parks—and elsewhere. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Biological, Conservation, and Ethical Implications of Exploiting and Controlling Wolves

Conservation Biology, Volume 10 (4) – Aug 1, 1996

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/biological-conservation-and-ethical-implications-of-exploiting-and-X7twcltrav
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
D.O.I.
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041068.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The widespread claim that wolf populations can withstand 25–50% or greater annual reductions without major biological consequences is based primarily on the observation that populations often maintain their size from year to year as harvest or control continues or recover within a few years afterward. This emphasis on numerical status overlooks the likelihood of major, lingering impacts on the size, number, stability, and persistence of family‐group social units, on reproductive, hunting, and territorial behavior, on the role of learning and related traditions, on within‐ and between‐group patterns of genetic variation, and on overall mortality rates. The tendency of biologists and agencies in northern North America to promote wolf harvests that are four to eight times greater than ungulate harvests, in accord with the wolf versus ungulate difference in reproductive rates but contradictory to a broad array of differences in social organization and related behavior, is reason enough to question the logic of this prevailing management view. True sustained‐yield management requires more emphasis on qualitative biological features to determine the extent to which wolves and other species with evolutionary histories as predators rather than as prey should be harvested. Most recent government‐sponsored wolf control programs and proposals, including sterilization, relocation, and “redirected” killing, have been based on questionable claims about ungulate or livestock problems and have not adequately considered potential biological costs (especially to the target wolf populations), benefits, or management alternatives. The high sentience of wolves justifies overlapping biological‐ethical concerns about such programs and especially about the heavy, indiscriminate, deceptively reported public hunting and trapping of wolves that is currently permitted throughout most of Alaska (U.S.A.)—including in national parks—and elsewhere.

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Aug 1, 1996

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off