To Kill a Wolf

As brushes with wolves rise, wildlife experts weigh whether the best way to preserve wolves could include hunting them.

By Erik Ness

EVEN BEFORE WE SEE THE WOLF, we smell it-a powerful, feral odor like wet dog and wild places. The scent is stronger than usual, muskier. It’s also a little off.

A wolf’s sensitive nose would quickly identify that taint of blood and death, but wolves don’t generally arrive at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ Science Operations Center in working order. This one lies lifeless on its left side atop a stainless steel table, nose toward a blue surgical cart stacked with supplies for cutting and sampling. It is one of five wolves believed to have been shot around the 2008 gun deer season-a federal offense, given that at the time the gray wolf was listed as an endangered species.

Not only do they not require wilderness, they will live absolutely everywhere.

Veterinary specialist Julie Langenberg begins her forensic investigation with probing fingers, working the animal thoroughly from tooth to tail. The eyes and tongue are deformed from the animal’s stint in a DNR evidence freezer, but apart from this and the red gash on its belly, the wolf looks healthy. Long legs below powerful haunches. Thick, mottled coat. Supple, alert ears, one scarred from an old tussle.

It’s clear the wolf has been shot, but due diligence is Langenberg’s job. She turns the wolf over to reveal another, smaller wound near the muscular front left shoulder. This is probably where the bullet entered, and the incision begins here. A cut down the leg reveals an angry stain of internal bleeding.

Langenberg’s scalpel follows the line of fire through bone, tendon and muscle, finally revealing a deep pool of blood within the chest cavity. Her fingers strain the viscera until she finds what remains of the heart. The left chambers are intact, but the right side has been shredded by the bullet. Death came quickly-the wolf would have staggered only a few steps before lying down and bleeding out.

It was a perfect shot, leaving little doubt it was fired with deliberate and lethal intent. Whether the shooter knew he was taking down a wolf is the question. People often mistake wolves for other animals, especially in places where they’re not expecting them. And 20 years ago, nobody expected this many wolves in Wisconsin.

As Langenberg works, Adrian Treves watches with careful attention. An assistant professor of environmental studies at UW-Madison, Treves is co-investigator of the Living With Wolves project, a research effort to understand wolves and the controversies that surround them. Treves spends a lot of time trying to figure out why and where wolves kill calves and hunting dogs, but he also studies people and their attitudes toward wolves-why, for example, someone would take the legal risk of shooting one. Whoever shot this wolf faces a $2,000 fine and a three-year loss of hunting privileges. Yet of the hunters he and his colleagues have surveyed, 10 percent say they would take the shot if they saw a wolf while hunting.

That sentiment was ratified last spring when the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, an advisory board to the DNR, voted 4,848 to 772 in favor of hunting gray wolves in Wisconsin. Although many steps would have to be taken before the state would approve a wolf hunt-and animal-welfare and conservation groups are already considering their responses-the vote is one of several signs that wolves are losing the protected status they have enjoyed for the past quarter century. The wolf was removed from the federal endangered species list once already in March 2007, and it may be de-listed again soon. Depending on who you ask it is a sign of their remarkable recovery or the beginning of their doom.

For Treves and the handful of other scientists who research wolves, these shifting attitudes raise a host of new questions: Can Wisconsin’s wolf population withstand a hunt? Would a hunt actually help protect it? And how do we even discuss the option, given the heated opinions surrounding the topic? How Wisconsin deals with these issues-and the decisions that flow from that discussion-could profoundly rewrite one of the greatest environmental comeback stories of all time.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Tags: , ,
Posted in Environment, Featured, Main feature, On The Cover, Spring 2009 | 6 Comments »

6 Responses to “To Kill a Wolf”

  1. Posted by: Nancy Miller | March 20th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Well . . . maybe hunt ‘em. They should have enough unpleasant encounters with humans to take care to avoid us, but we should realize that we are pushing our way into their wilderness and should be educated about what to do to avoid attracting them. And deer and other populations need to be managed so that wolves have lots to eat in the wild: that’ll keep them away from our villages and pastures.

  2. Posted by: Lillith | April 2nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    Many times I have read statements similar to: “people who accept these large predators are often the people who don’t live near them.” Yet, in my case that is untrue. For several years, I lived in what passes for wilderness in the US. My wild neighbors included coyotes, wolves, bears, and a few large cats. I had moved into their territory, but the wolves were better neighbors than some of the humans. The only problem? Well, actually there were two: keeping my dogs chained up at night so they didn’t try to start fights (that most likely would have led to the dogs visiting the veterinarian), and keeping my mouth shut around other people when I saw a wild animal or spotted tracks. Granted, I did not raise sheep or cattle. However, the wolves never bothered my chickens or my horse, and they left the chained dogs alone. Perhaps I was lucky.

  3. Posted by: Ron | April 3rd, 2010 at 3:38 am

    In accordence with you Lillith! I mayself have been around animals a good pard of my life. Now living in Missouri! Other than many inhumaine humans .I have band of coyotes, and wild life around my home. There are many times at least 2-300 run thru my back woods. But what some dont understand? Is not to bother them or their youngin’s. I have the fullest respect for Gods Creaters. I also have 4 dogs . and not once have they been bothered by and wild life. Its as if they know , i am not going to hurt them in any way. Wish others would learn this. But i guess that asking to much.You have to wonder who is the animal? Two legged or four??

  4. Posted by: Matt Peare | April 3rd, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Maybe we should hunt people. The Wolf population was once millions….MILLIONS! Not hundreds…. People need to leave the wilderness to the wild….

    Just a thought from a Wolf

  5. Posted by: Jeff Pearson | April 5th, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    I lived right on the edge of a dry river bed in NM. There were mountain lion, coyotes, and wolf. I lost a male cat to the mountain lion when she went into heat, but never had a problem with my chickens. Hell, the cat cave was only about 30 yards away from the house. I saw her once when I looked in the cave she lived in. Then I knew what the dogs were barking at every night when she came out to hunt. When one of my dogs got some chickens, I just knew i needed to protect them more, cause the coyotes would have probably been the culprits if the dogs weren’t there. It seems to me that if you leave them alone they leave you alone. They know that we too are predators, they can see we have eyes in front of our face and not to the sides like prey animals

  6. Posted by: Jon Rinehart BS '83 | December 17th, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Our government (federal,state,and DNR) will need to reimburse folks for the wolf damage AND allow limited hunting in accord with Wisconsin’s carrying capicity or else we may have a situation like western Idaho has with wolf population in excess of the carrying capacity.

Have Something to Add? Comment here!