The Debate on Wetlands Conservation December 9, 2011

The tension between wetlands conservation and land development has and continues to be an object for debate for a variety of stakeholders.  In evaluating this dispute, the most important aspects consist of strengths and weaknesses in terms of social and economic return.  For this argument, there needs to be a common ground where a compromise can result between interests for urban development and interests for preservation of nature.  In this regard, stakeholders contribute the most significant chance for change.  As an outdoor enthusiast, the topic of wetlands conservation has held my interest.  In studying policies and rationales for why some alternatives are better than others, the benefits of wetlands are overwhelming.  According to the National Wildlife Federation, “Economists estimate that one acre of wetlands provides about $10,000 worth of ecosystem services (2011).”  These services apply to both wildlife and humans and help preserve the precious resources that could be reserved for future generations.

The decline of wetlands in the United States has and continues to cause negative effects for both biodiversity and humans.  In my opinion, wetlands conservation needs to gain more awareness because of the benefits it can grant to both humans and biodiversity.  A few of these values include, but are not limited to habitat, recreation, education, and research (Copeland & Zinn, 2002).  These values serve as important facets for continued interest in wetlands areas and constitute a catalyst for mobilization in terms of preservation.  Wetlands also provide a number of ecosystem services such as filtering water into oceans, helping to trap pollutants, and preventing erosion (Defenders of Wildlife, 2011).

Recently, natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods have left an indelible mark on the people who are affected.  The eroding of wetlands is also detrimental to wildlife in that animals are being increasingly threatened by habitat loss.  Wetlands can provide shelter for prey animals such as rabbits and frogs from predators (Defenders of Wildlife, 2011).  Wetlands are important in terms of habitat for animals such as beavers and otters that seek homes and travel ways (Defenders of Wildlife, 2011).  In this way, wetlands are essential to the sustainability of wildlife.  This problem is significant not just in regard to the effects on people and wildlife, but is also important in terms of preserving the variety of nature within the United States.  If wetlands continue to deteriorate, we will be left pondering about how we could have combated natural disasters with more ease and maintained the diversity of wildlife present in our own backyards.

Wetlands conservation needs to gather more attention among the numerous groups involved such as environmental groups, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and state and local governments to name a few.  Some of the most environmentally conscious groups relevant to the issue of wetlands conservation include organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, the Audubon of Florida, and the Association of State Wetland Managers.  Environmental concerns have caused these groups to form and network with other groups and agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service to try and share a foundation where change can result.  Many of these organizations utilize strategies of combining multiple arguments to reach a broader audience.

One way this is done is through coupling the views of social concern for environmental impacts with perspectives for wildlife preservation.  In particular, Ducks Unlimited shares in this view.  Ducks Unlimited advocates that waterfowl, either ducks, geese, or swans, at some point in their life cycle depend on the habitat of wetlands (Ducks Unlimited, 2011).  Also, Ducks Unlimited maintains the social aspect of wetlands as a means of recreation.  Ducks Unlimited states that, “More than 14 million people hunt in the United States.  Collectively, they generate more than $50 billion annually in economic activity and more than 60 million people watch migratory birds as a hobby (2011).”  This constitutes the support for the conservation of wetlands where societal and economic interests can be reconciled through means of recreation.  In the debate for conservation, ideas and values need to be generated to persuade a certain group of people that longstanding change is the best alternative to take.  What these environmentally conscious groups present is an alternative route to become more incorporated into the process for change.  What these groups seek to answer and improve upon is the question of “Is the government doing enough?”  This leaves the door open for a broader spectrum of individuals to make their perspectives known and share common ground.

Involvement is the key change that is needed for heightened awareness in bringing about the conservation of wetlands.  More refined, involvement means the ability to join and affect change through the various established organizations that are committed to bringing the concerns of the group to the forefront of policy decisions.  The public forum is vital to the ability to promote conversation because ideas can be advocated and reciprocated amongst different people and perspectives.  Wetlands conservation is strongly a debate between regulation and policy initiative conducted by the efforts of environmental groups.  One example of the effectiveness of utilizing the public forum can be seen in the case of Ossipee Lake in New Hampshire.  In a region full of biodiversity such as “blue heron rookeries, raptor nesting areas, fish spawning areas, deer wintering habitat, and moose feeding areas” among others, the tools for guiding the process of conservation are available (Ossipee Lake Alliance, 2006).  The public forum in this case, plays a crucial role in deciding how to go about the process of conserving wetlands.  This provides a more inclusive approach where local individuals can learn the strategies for implementing these changes and ask any questions regarding the proposed undertaking of resource management.

With involvement being the key for mediating change in the debate on wetlands conservation, other groups need to be addressed when discussing the efforts towards preservation.  One stakeholder at the federal level that plays a major role in the conservation of wetlands is the EPA, or Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA shares many of the views consistent with environmental groups and individuals.  The method by which EPA is most effective is by coordinating with state and local agencies on the ground to implement water protection programs and other resource management programs (EPA, 2011).  This federal operation may be considered idealistic because of its broad jurisdiction but serves as an important source for formulating decisions based on the effort to preserve wetlands.  More specifically, EPA protects wetlands through regulations, economic incentives, and disincentives (EPA, 2011).  Again, the argument centers on an economic platform where conservation efforts can be rewarded through systems of compliance.  Not only is this an important basis for motivating interest for wetlands preservation, but it also indicates a growing awareness of the problems before us.  One recent action that has spurred considerable interest includes partnerships among federal, state and local governments.  According to EPA, “The goal of these partnerships is to implement comprehensive, integrated watershed protection approaches (2011).”  The idea for these partnerships arises from a realization of the interconnectedness between the resources of wetlands and wetlands degradation.

This interconnectedness between wetlands and the resources they can provide constitutes a growing need for more deeply engaging in the effort for wetlands conservation.  In this way, EPA acts as one of the prime actors in emphasizing local mobilization.  There are a number of different ways that individuals can become more involved in the effort to conserve wetlands.  A few ways that there can be increased involvement at the local level includes attending educational meetings and supporting the programs put forth by local agencies in the fight against wetlands degradation (EPA, 2011).  In this way, individuals can become more aware of the benefits of wetlands by obtaining information and finding out how to get more involved in the process of affecting change.  One other way is by encouraging neighbors and developers to promote the protection of local watershed programs (EPA, 2011).  This shows a somewhat grassroots oriented approach where change can be brought about through the will to raise awareness on a smaller scale.  Activism is at the heart of the debate for wetlands conservation and because almost 75% of wetlands are privately owned by landowners, (EPA, 2011) the need to spark awareness of one of America’s valuable resources has never been so prominent.

Aside from the problem of motivating individuals to become more involved in the process of wetlands efforts, there is another barrier towards wetlands conservation.  This obstacle consists of opposition groups such as landowners and developers.  The view of these opposition groups is that protection efforts impede construction and development efforts (Weeks, 2008).  The question here deals with the uncertainty and concern for overbroad protection and unneeded restrictions on land use.  One example of this can be seen in Michigan where the development of a condominium was restricted by the Army Corp of Engineers due to the concern of polluting Lake St. Clair, which connects Lake Huron and Lake Erie (AP, 2005).  In particular, the laws concerning jurisdiction over wetlands has led to the shock of many people to learn that their land has become a wetland (Hager & Seligmann, 1991).  The main problem rests on an economic argument where there is a conflict of interest between environmental groups and development groups.  But one recent wetlands success story exploits this tension.  In a program that seeks to preserve wetlands while maintaining the interests of landowners, the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program that looks to address natural resource concerns by providing financial incentives for landowners (NRCS, 2011).  Here, the two opposing views can share common ground where natural resources such as wildlife habitat, soil, and water can be protected in a cost-effective manner.  There are also other ways by which people can create change.  The means by which individuals can create change and combat this conflict of interests is by becoming educated and getting involved in groups that share a similar view towards the environment.  From this, advocacy can gain state and local appreciation among officials and result in a better chance for wetlands conservation efforts to be more reachable.

In summary, the debate on wetlands conservation is not one-dimensional, but rather centers around the relationships between various stakeholders and the ability to become more active.  Federal regulation has proven to be successful in moderation, but nationwide change needs to be brought about through a broader spectrum of individuals who share a common purpose in the efforts to conserve wetlands.  In this regard, wetlands need to gain more awareness because of the valuable resources that they can provide to both wildlife and humans.  Many approaches have been taken to push forward the appreciation of wetlands but some are more effective than others.  Most prominent is the economic argument where conflicts of interest can be evaluated in terms of who is going to have the better outcome.  The ways that change can result in the debate on wetlands is focused squarely on increased involvement.  The debate on wetlands is a problem between individuals with different ideas of how to promulgate more effective strategies for retaining one of America’s valuable resources.  The key is to become more educated on the topic of wetlands efforts and build a common ground comparative to the missions of groups and organizations in order to pave the way for optimal alternatives.

Marine Protected Area Definition and Introduction December 7, 2011

The ocean covers 71% of the earth’s surface, contains 97% of the earth’s water, and somehow 95% of the underwater world remains a mystery to humankind (www.noaa.gov/ocean). Now, due mainly to this lack of knowledge, the overfishing of open and coastal waters around the globe has begun to take its toll on the planet. There are roughly 161,000 protected areas in the world, making up over 13% of the world’s land surface area. By contrast, only 1.17% of the world’s oceans are included in the world’s 6,800 marine protected areas (MPAs) (www.iucn.org).  Marine protected areas are “defined areas where natural and/or cultural resources are given greater protection than the surrounding waters. In the U.S., MPAs span a range of habitats including the open ocean, coastal areas, inter-tidal zones, estuaries, and the Great Lakes” (MPA Definition 2011).

In addition, MPAs can differ greatly in human activity allowed, effectuality, levels of protection, and levels of management.  MPAs have many names and come in many forms.  Marine reserves, a term more commonly known, are an example of an MPA.  In the case of marine reserves, the taking of, or destruction of, any “natural or cultural resources is prohibited” (MPA Definition 2011).  However, “while all marine reserves are MPAs, not all MPAs are marine reserves” (MPA Definition 2011).  The truth is, marine reserves are a rarity in the world of MPAs.  Last I counted, there are six different varieties of protection offered under three main MPA conservation focuses, all of which also vary in permanence.  For a complete list of these various MPA strategies, as well as definitions, click ( www.mpa.gov/aboutmpas/classification/ ) and then click on the “set of simple definitions” link.

Global implementation of MPAs is the cornerstone of creating a sustainable relationship with the oceans.  The simple fact that, “declining marine harvests, wildlife, and habitats have prompted calls at both the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and the 2003 World Parks Congress for the establishment of a global system of marine protected areas” tells us that we are nearing a tipping point (Balmford et al. 2003).  These refuges are essential to the upkeep of the oceans biodiversity, yet they exists in such small numbers that they cannot possibly counter act the negative affects that humankind’s overfishing, polluting, and highly destructive fishing and mining practices create. To achieve this a middle ground must be met between those for, and those against, MPAs.  Both sides of this conversation make valid points and have valid concerns.  However, as a wildlife biologist, I understand the ecological importance of proper management as well as the economic benefit to be gained from it.  I am neither here to condemn commercial fishing and the oil & gas industry, nor am I here to support “no-take” practices.  It is my intention to argue for sustainable management of our oceans via additional MPAs.

Why Sustainable Is Entertainable

            Those opposed to the idea of a global MPA system argue that the creation and up keep of such a system may cost between $5 billion and $19 billion annually to run, due to increased regulations and restrictions.  Though this is a valid and important concern, these numbers do not take in to account the money that will be gained due to increase in overall marine health (Balmford et al. 2003).  Marine protected areas serve as a means for fish and other species to find refuge from the constant fishing and pollution that the countries of the world subject the oceans to.  Fish and other marine species can come to these sanctuaries to breed and recuperate without the threat of huge trawling nets, miles of fishing line, or harmful toxins.  Already, people all over the world are beginning to see the benefits of creating marine protected areas.  Countries like Australia, the UK, and the United States have already seen what these MPAs can do for local marine life and the economy.  In Australia, a large percent of the money that comes in from tourism is tied to fishing and other marine related recreation such as scuba diving and snorkeling off of coral reefs.  In 2000-01 recreational fishers spent roughly $1.85 billion on gear alone (Eadie 2011). It has already been noted in Australian newspapers such as the West Australian (Perth) that tourists who have been coming to the northern shore waters (NSW), a location now containing some of Australia’s MPAs, were reporting smaller average fish sizes and were often catching fish that only met the legal “keep” limit by a few centimeters (Eadie 2011).  Now, four years or more after the creation of the NSW marine protected areas, large snapper and grouper have rebounded, and are being caught regularly (Eadie 2011).  Now averaging well over the legal length limit, these larger fish are also laying 10 to 100 times more eggs in their lifetime (Eadie 2011).  This trend is creating a rise in fish abundance and an increase in survival rate, creating the opportunity for more fish to grow into the trophies that anglers and tourists so often seek.

In the Philippines, local communities are using MPAs as a way to increase the standard of living among many poverty stricken coastal towns (Gjertsen 2005).  The idea being, if the communities of sea life that these Philippine towns depend on are protected and managed correctly, the locals will find their depleted fishing grounds restored, as well as their livelihoods.  Other stakeholders who stand to benefit from more MPAs are the various companies involved in recreation and tourism in coastal areas, especially those areas known for their coral reefs.  These companies stand to gain millions of dollars in increased tourism to areas that are protected due to the increase in marine species of interest to tourists, as well as an overall increase in beauty.

Approximately 180 million people visit the coast for recreational purposes each year in the USA (www.yoto98.noaa.gov).  With the implementation of more MPAs, and the subsequent revitalization of coastal waters and coral reefs, this industry only stands to gain more customers wishing to witness the beauty of the reefs, or to deep-sea fish for that big trophy.  In addition to the revenue that maritime tourism brings in, roughly $32 billion in the US in 1996 (EPA 1996), there is the shear number of jobs that will most certainly disappear if we don’t start better protecting our marine resources.  The biggest stakeholders of all are the people who stand to lose their jobs should our coastal waters fail.  One in every six jobs in the US is marine related, and over one-third of the US Gross National Product originates in coastal areas (www.noaa.gov).  99% of the worldwide annual commercial ocean catch comes from coastal waters, within 200 nautical miles of the coastline (www.theglobaleducationproject.org). These narrow coastal fringes are both the most productive and the most vulnerable, and as a result are the areas that need more protection and proper management.

Public Involvement In MPA Success

The creation of additional MPAs, now, is the only way to ensure that future generations will be able to rely on the oceans for their abundant resources, just as we do today.  The current number of MPAs isn’t nearly large enough to allow marine life to keep pace with our consumptive use of ocean resources.  Through community involvement in the production and management of more MPAs, people from coastal regions around the world will have a chance to make their voices heard on this pressing issue, and by buying only those fish which are caught sustainably, even people here in Colorado can affect change.  According to Sylvia Earle, author of the book The World Is Blue, a world famous oceanographer, and the woman hailed as Time magazines first Hero for the Planet, “We’re losing not just individual species but entire ecosystems packed with creatures we have not yet named and whose place in the greater scheme of things we don’t yet know”.

To better ensure that new, and old, MPAs are effective, we consumers must begin to make conscientious choices when purchasing marine life at the grocery store, or ordering in a restaurant.  Luckily, the “green” movement that is beginning to take hold in our country and countries around the globe has resulted in new and easy methods for the everyday person to make the sustainable choices in their life.  For example, grocers such as Whole Foods now carry the Fish Forever label.  According to the Whole Foods: Certified Sustainable Seafood webpage, “the notable seal of approval guarantees consumers that the labeled product was from a well-managed fishery and caught in an environmentally sustainable manner”.  There are also various organizations online, such as the World Wildlife Federation, that give people the opportunity to support an effort from afar.  The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is another such organization.  On the CBF website, there are numerous links to connect with members, give donations, and many other ways in which the public can get involved directly as well as indirectly.  The over all goal of the CBF is to decrease the amounts of pollution in the Bay and its tributaries (www.cbf.org).  Organizations such as these are a perfect way to get the public involved in the creation and successful management of MPAs.  It is due to the efforts of organizations such as the CBF and the public that supports them, that MPAs are successful and result in marine species rebounds; such is the case with the Chesapeake Bay striped bass (Virginia Gazette 2011).  As a global community, it is our duty to ensure that our children and our grandchildren have a chance to experience the oceans as a world of great biodiversity and purity.  If we don’t act now, and choose to simply let the health of the oceans to fall to the wayside, our future generations stand to lose possibly the greatest resource humankind has ever had at its fingertips.  The time to act is now and the ways in which to get involved are many.  We live on blue planet, and it is that blue that has sustained us through the centuries.   Now it is time we returned the favor, and do our part to help sustain our unique blue world.

Saving Wolves, Protecting Livestock

Ranchers in the Western United States are often portrayed as nature’s worst enemy.  The reality, however, is quite the opposite; ranchers in the West actually have the ability to be nature’s best ally (Lazaroff).  The reason for this misconception most likely stems from the ancient battle between ranchers and wolves.  The deep-rooted fear of losing livestock to wolf predation has resulted in many unjust persecutions of wolves and in turn, created a negative image of ranchers (Musiani and Pacquet).   The result is that ranchers who are adopting sustainable methods are perceived as peaceful stewards of our land and wildlife, where as ranchers who continue to resist wolves are rapidly losing public and political support (Malmberg).  A 2009 analysis of wolves and ranching communities concludes that the misunderstanding between ranchers and conservationists exists because “wolves are a public good, with a negative economic externality shouldered by livestock producers.” (Muhly and Musiani). The public loves wolves and they simply do not understand that ranchers operate on such a tight margin that the loss of three cattle can mean the loss of profit for that year (Lazaroff).

The ultimate goal of ranchers and conservationists is to maintain profitable livestock operations and a healthy, functioning ecosystem at the same time and in the same place.  Killing wolves is not an effective long-term solution (Laporte et.al.), nor is it socially acceptable, or economically sustainable (Malmberg).  Overcoming the urge to fight against wolves is the only way to achieve sustainability and ensure that future generations are not cheated because of our inability to change (Malmberg).  In many cases, killing wolves actually results in an increase of livestock depredation (Grant).  Wolves are very social animals and they depend on their pack members in order to successfully hunt large ungulates.  Random killings of wolves will break up the social structure, causing wolves to disperse and switch to an easier prey, such as livestock.  Socially stable wolves are predictable and wildlife managers are able to more effectively manage them (Grant).  Encouraging ranchers to keep records of wolf interactions can be valuable in identifying trends and problem areas so that the conflict may be solved (Stone et. al.).  This will decrease the amount of random killing, and instead allow mitigation efforts to focus on the few rogue wolves which are inclined to predate on livestock.  In reality, wolves are only responsible for less than one percent of all livestock deaths, according to USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) National Agricultural Statistics Service [Figure 1].  Overall, wolf predation is not a major threat to the livestock industry in this country, therefore, I feel that this issue should be seen as a problem with a solution rather than a zero-tolerance catastrophe.

Wildlife biologists have studied wolf behavior enough to understand how humans and wolves may peacefully coexist without the use of lethal methods.  Providing ranchers with these non-lethal tools is a fundamental step in achieving the goal of keeping both wolves and cattle alive.  Guard dogs and donkeys are the simplest solution to livestock protection.  Dogs specifically bred to protect livestock, such as Great Pyrenees, will attack wolves and have been shown to drastically decrease predation rates (Urbigkit).  A comprehensive study on the effectiveness of guard dogs in Wyoming sheep herds determined that guard dogs decreased sheep depredation by anywhere from 11%-100%, depending on the breed of dog and the number present in the herd (Urbigkit).  This study recommends using aggressive breeds in groups of 5 or more in order to achieve the greatest success rates.  Donkeys are also effective guard animals due to a characteristic protectiveness and aggressive dislike of dogs.  Minnesota rancher Chuck Becker lost cattle to wolves every year until he added guard donkeys to his herd.  Since the donkey addition he has lost no cattle to wolves for five consecutive years (Undseth).  Another simple solution is more consistent monitoring of the livestock herds.  The traditional Western ranching practice of turning unattended cattle out on a remote range is no longer an option.  With predators in the environment, this system is an open invitation for attack.  By hiring a range rider or two to keep a daily watch on the herd, the wolf conflicts will be greatly reduced simply because of human presence.  The cattle should be watched especially close in calving season, and perhaps even relocated to a predator-free grazing area during this vulnerable time. (Stone et al.) In addition to monitoring, implementing rotational grazing to ensure that the herd is not in one place for long periods of time.  Moving herds around will not allow wolves to have a readily and consistently available food source (Grant).  Also, corralling the animals at night, or making use of electric fencing, loud noises, or colorful flags waving from fences are all successful methods of deterring wolves (Stone et. al.).  By adopting one or more of these techniques, the wolf threat can be drastically decreased.

Changing traditional ranching methods is not easy, nor is it cheap.  Luckily, the passionate public affection for the wolf results in large monetary donations to help fund programs that aid in adopting new ranching regimes.  The ranchers who agree to collaborate with wildlife officials will receive financial support from groups like the Bailey Wildlife Foundation Proactive Carnivore Conservation Fund.  This fund was established to pay salaries for range riders, install electric fences, and support other wolf-friendly ranching techniques. (Lazaroff) Other incentive to adopt a more ecologically favorable ranching practice is the financial reward for allowing wolves to remain on the ranch.  Ranchers who permit wolves to use their land will receive “conservation performance payments” and also have the ability to sell their products for a higher price (Muhly and Musiani).  “Predator friendly” certified beef and lamb products are actually appealing to a new market of environmentally conscious consumers.  This market has the potential to provide much higher returns for the ranchers, as well as an improved reputation. (Bohrer)

Ranchers who agree to seek coexistence with wolves are doing their part in protecting the biodiversity of the West.  Maintaining our open spaces and native wildlife for future generations will require coordinated monitoring between stakeholders, as well as adjusted management practices.  What many ranchers have discovered, is that we need wolves in the ecosystem to protect the rangeland vegetation. Without predators to consume herbivores, the vegetation becomes over browsed and plant biomass decreases, causing loss of habitat and forage for many other species, including livestock (Weiss).  The return of wolves to the West has been one of the greatest achievements in conservation history.  As stewards of the land, ranchers should embrace the return to a more natural landscape and retreat from the human dominated environment created by our predecessors.

 

Figure 1:

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service

 

 

Common Ground in the Wolf Debate

In the Western United States, a century old war between wolves and ranchers continues to transpire.  The historic fear and loathing of the wolf runs deep in many ranching communities and a solution remains elusive.  The recent wolf recovery success in this part of the country seems to have only added fuel to the fire.  Livestock operations today stand at the heart of wolf opposition, and ranchers in the West have sabotaged wolf recovery efforts in several regions. (Musiani and Pacquet) Many ranchers consider the wolf reintroduction to be a symbol of disrespect after their forebears worked hard to eliminate wolves at the encouragement of the federal government (Steinhart).  Ranchers feel that the wolf conservationists are completely naïve to the danger and destruction associated with wolf reintroduction (Johnson).  They feel that wolves were exterminated for good reason and the only logical solution is to remove them from the landscape once again (Thomas).

In the heat of the wolf argument, it seems as if the collaborative goal of preserving the wide-open spaces of the West has been lost.  Ranchers and wolf biologists are simultaneously fighting for conservation of our natural resources; however, they can not seem to find common ground to stand on.  Unless these two groups can unite, the future of our Western landscape remains uncertain.  With so little open space left in the world, the conservation of this rangeland is especially important, and anyone interested in maintaining it must work together.  Much of the critical wildlife habitat in this country is privately owned farmland, and cooperation with these private landowners is a key component of wildlife conservation.   When ranchers are unwilling or unable to continue raising livestock because of predation risk, we risk losing agricultural lands to residential developments.  We also risk losing the ranching heritage of the West, and families could lose their livelihood if this antiquated resentment can not be put aside.  No matter how difficult it may be to establish trust with ranchers, the loss of farmland will prove to be a much greater challenge to wildlife conservation.  Both ranchers and environmentalists are working to preserve the natural landscapes of the West, but they must learn to work together in order to make this happen.  Adjusting the mindset of ranchers to accept wolves as a part of their ecosystem and to understand that they share common goals with wildlife officials is the change that I hope to mediate.  As a student in the field of Wildlife Biology, I am aware of the irreplaceable value of wolves in the ecosystem. On the other hand, I was also raised on a cattle farm and I understand the economic loss associated with predation on livestock.  I agree that wolves are an important part of the natural ecosystem, but that should not make the concerns of ranchers unimportant.  Conservation of a predator species on agricultural land is going to require heavy management combined with societal investment and modified traditions.

Changing opinions is often a complicated task, and this will likely take decades to accomplish.  I believe that this can be achieved by allowing ranchers to work with the conservationists on the wolf recovery program.  Inviting ranchers to team up with scientists and participate in the wolf monitoring and ultimately the decision making will result in an increased trust and understanding between these two conflicting groups.   I believe that through cooperation and communication, the wolves can be more tightly managed and that means less chance of conflict. Ranchers who agree to adopt a holistic management approach should be invited to become a part of the wildlife agency team.  These ranchers can potentially become vital resources for efficient wolf management, while at the same time, they are being equipped with tools to protect their livestock.  Supplying these ranchers with the ability to track and monitor radio collared wolves can result in the acceptance of wolves as a part of the landscape which they manage.  Wildlife agencies will not be able to balance wolf populations and cattle densities as long as they retain a stand off relationship with the ranchers.  According to David Mannix, a third generation Montana cattle rancher, an open relationship with wildlife agencies is what will ultimately keep his family on the land; “Communicating and cooperating are essential to these evolving relationships. Wolves wear collars.  Cowboys carry cell phones.  Communities agree to work together, to talk and share and plan.” (Grant)

This is the kind of trust and collaboration that I feel can bring about changes of opinion and lead to changes in the way wolves and livestock are managed in the West.  The wolf reintroduction has permanently altered the ecology of the Western rangeland, and in order to succeed in this new landscape, the relationships between ranchers and government agents will need to adapt.  By building a bridge of understanding between ranchers and conservationists, we can ensure future success of many wildlife species, including the wolf.