Today, the debates about the benefits of wolves’ coming back to Colorado for citizens continue. On the one hand, we cannot neglect the well-known fact that a gray wolf was a symbol of the West during a long period in the 19th century. On the other hand, it is necessary to remember that something made people shoot all wolves in 1945, which resulted in their eradication from the state. There is a great controversy of wolves as evidence of nature fascination and strength and wolves as the source of human fear and unpredictability. However, several Colorado Parks and Wildlife officers admit that one pack of gray wolves has already returned to the state (Koen). Now, the point is either to support or to oppose the possibility of this returning. Focusing on the history of the state, the current legislative options, and public opinions, I want to prove that Colorado should follow natural migration rules instead of applying artificial methods to bring wolves back.
Current State of Affairs
One of the main arguments that support the idea of natural migration of wolves to Colorado is the change that people can observe today. During the last two years, many journalists and environmentalists discuss the conditions when potential Canis Lupus (the Latin name for gray wolf) sightings were officially reported at the end of 2021 (Phippen). It was also possible to take photos of actual animals, while other cases are evidenced by the photos or real-life observation of wolf prints on the ground. These facts may be enough to explain that gray wolves are ready for natural migration, and the participation of humans is not as significant as it could seem. Artificial interference has nothing to do with the presence of wolves in the state of Colorado.
At this moment, gray wolves are defined as endangered species, and natural migration is a chance for these animals to demonstrate their potential and position in the wildlife. If people consider their goal of no interference with the process, this way may allow wolves to stay in the areas that need their presence and expand freely (Kuijper et al. 104). Even being properly aware of the principles of biodiversity and ecology, people cannot understand the true essence of wolves as a part of the ecosystem function (Brasch). They believe that it is their direct responsibility to protect nature and develop new interventions. In European or African countries and Australia, researchers focus on the social, ecological, and economic impact of artificial contributions like fences and specialized reserves where wolves are bred and treated (Kuijper et al. 105). Fencing remains an ambiguous practice in the United States with its pros and cons. Despite the possibility to control human-animal conflict, this method has its cost that is usually high and time-consuming.
Wolves have already demonstrated their intention to return to the land of Colorado, and people have witnessed this fact, regardless of their level of readiness. The reintroduction of these species changes the ecosystem, but people want to participate in this process. The government and eco-activists are involved in the development of new management plans and do not pay attention that “wolves are kind of introducing themselves” independently (Phippen). A gray wolf, as a representative of the apex predator family, is able to recognize access to large food sources. If Colorado is the place where elk, deer, and moose can be found, the animal has enough reason to return to this land.
Wolves’ History in Colorado
The success of natural migration of gray wolves to Colorado is also predetermined by its history. Local citizens of the state usually know that wolves are Colorado native, and many packs lived on its territory between the beginning and the middle of the 20th century. The co-existence of different species was not a problem for the state, and each group of animals completed its functions and kept the balance. Many scientists admit that there has to be predator and prey to restore the balance and avoid unnecessary conflicts (Koen). However, as soon as humans decided to expand their rights and use natural resources, they deprived wolves of their food resources. As a result, declines in bison and deer populations were observed, and livestock losses were inevitable (Hamilton et al.; Niemiec et al.). The next step to protect the population and the cattle was obligatory. In the 1940s, the bounty campaigns were initiated, and almost all Canis Lupus species were eradicated, while some packs managed to run away (Brasch). In their desire to create safe short-term conditions, humans forget about a long-term effect on the natural ecosystem.
Since the 1940s, not many citizens report wolf attacks, and the population is no longer under the threat of sudden conflicts with animals. At the same time, the biological recovery of wolves is supported, and natural migration becomes a solid contribution to animal growth. It is not allowed to kill wolves for hunting purposes in Colorado, and people have to pay high fines to cover their hobbies. However, in many other states, Americans have obtained legal freedoms to kill wolves. Wolves continued disappearing due to car accidents (accidental collisions), irregular shooting, and poisoned food. In the late 1970s, gray wolves were declared as an endangered species in the United States, and some states have been participating in reintroduction initiatives since 1995 (Koen). It seems that people have already done enough to make wolves disappear or, at least, leave this land for some period. It is high time to stop human interference in the natural balance and give a chance for animals to restore the ecosystem.
Wolf Status Legislation
To prove that natural migration of wolves is more beneficial for society and nature compared to artificial interventions, it is also necessary to investigate the legal perspective of the case. Governments aim at establishing laws to stabilize interpersonal and international relationships as well as the conditions under which people have to live in respect to nature. Natural migration depends on laws that protect wolves or other representatives of the fauna. Besides, to support wolf reintroduction in Colorado, environmentalists and other stakeholders should develop local plans and guidelines, relying on their experiences and observations. In other words, additional funds, financial and human resources, and public attention are the elements of artificial reintroduction.
Regarding recent returning of gray wolves to Colorado and other parts of the United States, the President’s Administration and specialized organizations and services were involved in the discussion. The Endangered Species Act is one of the oldest American legislations. It was signed at the beginning of the 1970s to protect endangered species from extinction and promote wolf recovery in different regions (Hamilton et al.). During the next several decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reorganized to focus on wolf presence in Oregon, Wyoming, and Colorado. However, in most cases, reintroduction was from Canada to particular areas like Yellowstone National Park (Hamilton et al.). Fences were used to keep animals away from areas where conflicts with humans were possible (Kuijper et al. 106). People thought that they improved living conditions for animals by creating good services, medical care, and regular food. However, artificial restoration requires constant participation, money, and resources, and if wolves do not receive what they need all the time, their reactions may be unpredictable. No laws would be enough to protect a human from a wolf whose living was fenced.
Between 2019 and 2020, Initiative 107 was developed and offered to support wolf reintroduction in Colorado. Environmentalists and local ecologists needed funds to introduce a plan for managing wolf migration (Initiative 107 Full Text). Although locals and policymakers anticipate natural migration to happen, they expect to find additional help from the government (Koen). Using the right to freedom of speech and movement, people organize themselves in groups and share their thoughts through such campaigns as Call of the Wild. Their goal is to deliver a message and prepare society for wolf migration. Still, their position about the worth of artificial reintroduction or natural migration remains unclear because they continue to gather opinions from local citizens, biologists, and other stakeholders who may add value to these debates.
Public Opinions about Wolves in the State
As well as in any debate, the theme of wolves coming back to Colorado divides people into several groups. Many individuals are ready to support this returning and underline the necessity to choose different means of interventions. The Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center representatives promote the importance of reintroduction of wolves either through natural migration or artificially because their absence has a number of negative outcomes on local ecology (Koen). According to the 2019 poll, about 67% of the citizens of Colorado want to see wolves on their land (qtd. in Phippen). People usually use such facts as the importance of wolves to the landscape, the human-nature balance, and prey-predator control. Wolves neither ask for permission nor set some specific conditions for their returning, and talking about artificial reintroduction is worthless because actual natural changes that are necessary for the region have to be promoted by anyone but humans.
Many ranchers do not like the idea of returning because they believe that human interventions are not as beneficial as they might be. For example, Steve Wooten (qtd. in Koen) admits that natural migration is better than an artificial plan because the system is proved to be working today, and wolves reintroduce themselves to a manageable extent. Still, there are many individuals who define negative outcomes only. Frank Daley and some commissionaire from Garfield County oppose reintroduction, both natural and artificial, because wolves kill the cattle, chase them around, damage fences, and cause physical injuries for people and other domestic animals (Phippen). Natural migration of wolves can be dangerous for people because predators do not understand the purposes of cattle farms but come and get what they need. Artificial intervention is characterized by human control and management, with fences and reserves being properly implemented for wolves of different ages. No extra resources are usually damaged, and wolves are reintroduced within the necessary amount.
Finally, the government and researchers continue cooperating with local citizens and gather their opinions about the current situation with wolves in Colorado. In 2020, natural moving was successfully reported and documented in the state’s history (Niemiec et al.). People cannot understand why additional resources and funds should be organized to support something that has already been successfully promoted under natural conditions. Therefore, instead of creating some artificial conditions for wolves, Kuijper et al. recommend the establishment of soft boundaries and reduce human-wolf conflict by managing behaviors (106). As soon as wolves naturally inhabit some lands in the state, people should be educated and informed on how to avoid dangerous places and predict unwanted meetings with wolves.
Conclusion
The desire to control all events around is a part of human nature. Therefore, when the first wolf pack was recognized in Colorado, people recognized the importance of their inevitable intervention in this process. Instead of accepting wolves coming back as an element of natural migration, many individuals began to think about their contributions and develop attitudes toward wolves’ impact on modern life. Regarding the history of the state, the existing laws and initiatives, and the impossibility to come to the same conclusion on wolf reintroduction, natural migration seems to be the only rational solution. At this moment, wolves have already moved back to Colorado, relying on their own reasons and conditions. A man should not penetrate the natural world to improve it but allow everything to happen on its own. Not all communities, as well as animals, are ready for artificial reintroduction, and Colorado needs to open its doors for wolves naturally, with all related pros and cons.
Works Cited
Brasch, Sam. “Should Wolves Be Brought Back To Colorado? A Rancher And A Biologist Have Their Say.” CPR News, 2020, Web.
Hamilton, Lawrence C., et al. “Wolves Are Back: Sociopolitical Identity and Opinions on Management of Canis Lupus.” Conservation Science and Practice, vol. 2, no. 7, 2020.
“Initiative 107 Full Text.” Colorado Secretary of State, 2019, Web.
Koen, Andy. “Wolf Pack Evidence Suggests Migration to Colorado.” KOAA News5, 2020, Web.
Kuijper, Dries P. J., et al. “Keep the Wolf from the Door: How to Conserve Wolves in Europe’s Human-Dominated Landscapes?” Biological Conservation, vol. 235, 2019, pp. 102-111.
Niemiec, Rebecca, et al. “Public Perspectives and Media Reporting of Wolf Reintroduction in Colorado.” PeerJ, vol. 8, 2020. Web.
Phippen, Thomas. “Garfield Co Commissioners Oppose Wolf Reintroduction.” The Aspen Times, 2019, Web.