The Continuing Controversy Over the Presence of Wolves

Thank you for Jim Robbins’ article detailing the precarious balance that must be managed between the surge in the gray wolf population and the interests of the ranchers and others who live in and around the wolves’ natural habitat (“To Kill and Be Killed,” July 27). It must be made clear, however, that whenever wolves and other animals are spotted in the areas surrounding homes and ranches, they are not the invaders. As the article mentioned, thousands of wolves and other indigenous animals used to populate the areas where they are now being reintroduced.

Humans are the invading species. Ranchers and others who live among wildlife do so at their own risk. If they cannot handle the lives they chose to lead, they should move away. Some people can coexist in such areas. But if you need to bump off your neighbor or destroy his home so that you won’t be inconvenienced, then you are the problem, not the other way around.

Chris Franco

San Diego

*

There are compelling scientific reasons to restore wolf populations to an ecosystem. Large herbivores such as elk and deer that are prey for wolves can cause a reduction in foliage, which in turn affects other plants and animals. Smaller predators such as coyotes also become prey for wolves, taking the pressure off smaller mammals, rodents and birds. Moreover, a top predator significantly improves the gene pool and overall fitness of a prey species such as elk.

While most environmentalists do not want to see the wolf exterminated, there are plenty who recognize the need to cull those wolves that attack livestock. Hopefully the uneasy relationship between wolves and man can be negotiated through scientific knowledge, restraint and compromise.

Seth Shteir

Sherman Oaks

*

There are certainly more sides to this story than we city folk can appreciate. I did not read, for instance, how many acres of federal land the ranchers are using at bargain-basement prices for their cattle to roam and feed. And I cannot help but feel appalled that young children with guns are out there on an ATV “plinking” 20 ground squirrels at a time. Perhaps wolves are not the only species guilty of “surplus killing.”

Sylvia Goodale

Huntington Beach

*

The numbers cited of domestic animals killed by wolves in a 15-year period break down to about 13.3 cattle, 40 sheep, .6 llamas and 3.3 dogs killed per year. If you put an estimated value of $1,000 on each animal, the cost of reparations from the government to ranchers would be $57,200 a year. These figures could be low, but how much does the government spend on collar monitors, helicopters, staff and ammunition?

I learned to shoot when I was 10 and I had my own gun at 12, but I was never allowed to “plink” any wildlife. My dad raised sheep while I was growing up in western New York. Every year domestic dogs killed 30 or so sheep, sometimes in daylight attacks. This was frustrating, but part of the cost of doing business. We have an obligation to balance our desire to live in the wilderness with a healthy respect for native wildlife.

Janie Arnold

Costa Mesa