You are here

Wolf Looking For Human Handouts Euthanized By Yellowstone National Park Staff

Share

 

A 110-pound gray wolf that appeared to have become too familiar with human foods was put down by Yellowstone National Park staff recently.

Since July, the male lobo had approached staff and visitors at close range at least seven times and had been unsuccessfully hazed each time from the Fishing Bridge developed areas, park officials said Wednesday.  The wolf was a member of Mollie’s Pack from the Pelican Valley area, and was estimated to be between 2 and 4 years old.

The decision to remove the wolf last Saturday, October 8, came following a history of fearless behavior in the presence of humans, repeated visitation to developed areas within the park, and numerous unsuccessful hazing attempts, a park release said.  Each of these factors was indicative of the wolf’s potential habituation to human food, which posed an increased risk to park visitors and staff.

Efforts to relocate food-conditioned animals have generally proven unsuccessful because they simply return to the areas from which they were removed.

Park visitors are reminded that intentionally feeding or allowing animals to obtain human food is a violation of park regulations, which may ultimately lead to the death of the animal involved.  Park rangers vigorously enforce these regulations that are designed to protect both people and animals.  Visitors are also reminded to be vigilant at all times with proper food storage by keeping food, garbage, coolers and other attractants stored in hard-sided vehicles or food storage boxes.

Park rules require that you to stay at least 100 yards away from wolves at all times. Visitors are also advised to stay on designated trails, hike in groups of three or more people, and to be alert for wildlife and make noise in blind spots.  The best defense against attacks is to stay a safe distance from wildlife and use your binoculars, spotting scope or telephoto lens to get a closer look, and never feed, approach, disturb or entice wolves in any way.  Bear spray may be an effective last resort should a wolf approach too closely.

Sightings of wolves in close proximity of humans and developed areas may be a dangerous situation developing and should be reported to the nearest visitor center or ranger station as soon as possible.

Comments

Signs to keep peoplpe from feeding the animals so they won't become dependent on handouts....and yet our government is handing out Food stamps and government welfare checks by the millions everyday. Here we are people bashing for handing out food to the poor animals and yet our society and economy is falling apart based on these same principles. There seems to be more concern for the animals than people. We need to start posting signs at stores- Thank the tax payer behind you paying for your groceries and providing your welfare check. The opinion seems to be, No one wants to see these animals hurt or killed and yet you think oh look at the pretty wolf, cute bear, moose, mountain lion etc... until some one is killed or taken within an inch of their life by one of these animals. We are invading into their territories. These animals are naturally wild and if you were to follow them each day yes you would see some amazing and wonderful things but at some point you will also see the very nature of their survival as well. Many would not be able to stomach the truth of how they survive in the wild.


For Lee Dalton... Your question has to be the MOST ridiculous question that I have EVER encountered. However, I will answer your question on your behalf and to clarify AGAIN that there were OTHER options.

Those options start with openinig up GOOGLE. Search: Animal Sanctuary/Exotic Animal Rescues, etc.

"Keepers of the Wild", located in Kingman AZ, is ONLY one of many sanctuaries, that would have taken him, so that his life did NOT have to be extinquished.

For Kathy Dimont...Whether the Rangers cry or lose sleep is not of paramount importance here. What is of importance here is that a life was taken. YOU can not speak of the future prediction that the Wolf would have taken a child. That is unknown, and will permenantly remain so now.

Anonymous, above, said it best.... Why not wait until Spring and see how the animal faired.


For those who think that rangers euthanize for thrills: go watch them cry and lose sleep afterward. They loathe this part of the job. Would you have them wait until the wolf took a small child? Because eventually it probably would. And THAT would lose the good will of nearly all supporters of wolf reintroduction. Part of wildlife management isn't pretty and your love of all beautiful things aside, sometimes the good of the whole is more important.


 
 

 

Well, since YELL visitation is waning and heavy snows arriving,, why not just wait to learn how this animal will fare following the winter and spring ? 

The view & decision that NPS armed rangers need some excitement during

their days of bison/bear jams by killing a species their former rangers made extinct when proud

superintendents stood for photographs by the multiple bodies of shot, trapped wolves, coyotes, & cougars is a bit repulsive if you have an interest in saving threatened and endangered species.  The number of

wolves poached/killed by rancher-hunters filled with wolf hatred in the Yellowstone Ecosystem remains largely unknown.

Although this animal approached visitors near Fishing Bridge, no one was actually harmed

as they may have been were this a visitor's loose pit-bull.  The legacy of the NPS "GREEN & GREY" is not

promising for the next century (Centennial 2016) since the NPS Agency Culture refuses to change and adapt to more ecological-wildlife friendly solutions for remnant native species viciously persecuted by European pioneers.

As your History of the NPS 101 Course, Just study how former Glacier Supt. Briggle treated a wildlife biologist or former Supt. Anderson and his lower-ranked Biologist Cole

treated the Craighead Brothers studying the Grizz.  Your Text References:

Michael Frome's Regreening the National Parks, and

(here, Michael remains a timid critic of the NPS Culture).

and
"The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone - Their Ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992" by John J. Craighead, Jay S. Sumner, and John A. Mitchell. Island Press 1995


Dawn, please tell us exactly what other options were available? 


I hate to see any animal lose its life because people broke the rules, no matter the species. I've had to relocate skunks (who feeds skunks?!) from campgrounds because they were so used to people they would walk right up and sit next to them in the campsite. But sometimes it does become necessary to use lethal force. That is the last resort. The National Park Service will exhaust all other options before resorting to killing. But a habituated animal can become very, very dangerous and that just can't be allowed to happen. And as y_p_w stated, some people just don't care about rules and will do it anyway. I'm not going to repeat the story about my sister and the bears, but that is a great example. She knew the rules (heck she's my sister!) and decided that feeding bears was much too tempting. I really do think there should be tougher punishments for those that are caught feeding, but it will still happen.


~ALL life is sacred.
There were OTHER options available.


Anonymous:
I have a great idea.Everytime the park rangers see any animal being fed. The rules should be a fine and suspension from all National Parks for a year.

  That's all fine and dandy, but for the most part people know it's illegal but do it anyways. If a potential feeder sees anyone in a uniform with the authority to hand out a fine, that person isn't likely to do it.

There are fines for even negligent feeding (i.e. improperly securing food). I've seen signs stating that fines for feeding wildlife can be as high as $2000 - probably for something as egregious as deliberately feeding a bear.


Add comment

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide