by Matthew A. Wilson, Departments of Sociology
and Rural Sociology
University of Wisconsin Madison
A growing number of Americans are pursuing recreational experiences
with wolves in their search for authentic encounters with wild nature.
Once vilified as a beast of waste and desolation, the wolf has experienced
a remarkable turnaround in public opinion and in that transition,
has emerged as a new wildlife attraction . For many wildlife enthusiasts,
to look into the eyes of a wolf, or to hear it cry from a distance
is to experience the thrill of touching another world, a world where
wildness still exists.
Who wants to recreate with wolves and why? Growth in wolf-oriented
ecotourism is part of a much larger social trend. The best available
data show that among a growing number of wealthy,
well-educated, urban Americans there is a sub-population
of individuals who express a desire for first-hand contact with
wildlife wherein that contact does not involve killing or removing
the animal. Since large predators like wolves do not generally
live near residential areas, however, these individuals must often
travel long distances away from home for the opportunity to see
or hear wild wolves. As a result, "wolf ecotourists" are easily
identified as people who are willing to travel long distances
just to be near wolves.
Every year, increasing numbers of the American
public are expressing an interest in recreation with wildlife1.
Over the past two decades, the gowth of the nonconsumptive use
of wildlife has expanded dramatically in the United States. The
best available socioeconomic data show that the number of Americans
who took trips away from home for the primary purpose of observing,
hearing, or photographing wildlife increased
by 6% from 1980 to 1990, with a total of approximately
37 million Americans participating in 1990 (see Figure 1).
This trend contrasts with a decrease of
1% for the 18 million Americans who hunted animals during that
same time. In short, a large and growing segment of the American
public is actively pursuing wildlife viewing as a form of outdoor
recreation and that this group is steadily outpacing traditional
forms of interaction with wildlife like hunting and fishing.
Nonconsumptive ecotourists are generally well educated and are
likely to have higher household incomes than the average American.
For example, tourists who visit the International Wolf Center
tend to have higher household incomes and levels of education
than the general U.S. population2. In a 1990 survey,
34% of all individuals who visited and later joined the International
Wolf Center (IWC) reported that they held at least a college degree
while over 31% held a graduate degree. In contrast, according
to 1990 US census data only 13% of the US population held a college
degree and 7% a graduate degree.
It is also interesting to note that public attitudes toward
the wolf exhibit similar patterns: positive attitudes toward wolves
are more likely to be held by highly educated and wealthier Americans.
When asked to report their attitudes towards wolves in surveys,
less educated respondents tend to report more negative views of
wolves than individuals who are college educated. Furthermore,
public attitudes toward wolves are split along a rural-urban continuum
and notably differ by occupation. For example, in a 1986 survey
of Minnesota residents, Dr. Steve Kellert found that Minnesota's
Twin City residents exhibited the least knowledge about wild wolves
yet expressed a significant recreational interest in wolves while
rural northern farmers and livestock owners tended to show greater
levels of knowledge and direct experience with wolves while expressing
more negative, hostile, and unsympathetic views towards wolves3.
With trends of increasing urbanization, rising education levels,
and declines in agricultural employment in America, it is not
surprising that attitudes toward the wolf have also changed. The
wolf is a charismatic animal. The intensity of its gaze, its legendary
skill as a predator, and the eeriness of its howl, all combine
to make the wolf a symbol of wildness and untamed nature. The
wolf is also elusive, however, avoiding contact with humans if
at all possible. The avoidance of humans by wolves in the wild
is well documented and probably well founded. Whereas wolf populations
were once high and their numbers well distributed across North
America, the wolf's range and density declined precipitously as
a result of eradication by humans. Government programs such as
the now infamous wolf bounties were so effective in most areas
of the United States that wolf populations were annihilated by
the first quarter of this century. Today, the wolf is found in
significant numbers throughout the Canadian provinces, Alaska,
and from eastern Europe to Siberia, but the only significant population
south of Canada exists in northern Minnesota where approximately
2,000-2,200 wolves remain4. Northern Michigan and Wisconsin
support approximately 250 animals and Montana an additional 80.
Now, with reintroduction efforts underway, Idaho and Wyoming,
support an additional 140 or so animals.
In short, there are very few places in the United States where
the ecotourist can go to see, hear, or photograph wolves in the
wild. Because of the wolf's low population density and its inherently
elusive nature, the likelihood of seeing a free ranging, wild
wolf is extremely low5. Interestingly, however, in
contrast to its low visibility, the probability of hearing a wolf
howl in the wild is far more likely. Wolves howl for a variety
of reasons and the practical consequence of this tendency is that
the wolf ecotourist is more likely to hear a wolf in the wild
than he or she is likely to see one.
The successful development of wolf-oriented ecotourism, like any
nature tourism enterprise, requires the convergence of three key
factors: a reliable tourist base, a resident wolf population,
and a stable, underlying tourist infrastructure in the host community.
Wolves and tourists do not come together in close proximity merely
by chance. Rather, a series of critical social and biophysical
arrangements must be in place before the link between the ecotourist
and the wild wolf can be made.
First and foremost, viewing, hearing, or
photographing wildlife requires a resident animal population with
relatively predictable appearances within an easily identified
area. It is for this reason that most wildlife viewing areas can
be found in locations that coincide with the ecology of the target
animal. Unfortunately, as explained above, this requirement collides
head on with the wolf's life history. In short, wolves and people
do not mix easily. To overcome challenges posed by bringing people
and large predators together in close proximity, several innovations
are being employed by educational and recreational programs throughout
North America. As Figure 2 shows, all wolf ecotourism programs
in America today employ techniques ranging from bringing wolves
to the tourist (complete control over wolves) to bringing the
tourist within range of a wild wolf or its sign (low control over
wolves).
Figure 2
On the one hand, wolves are brought to people in the highly
controlled setting of interpretive captivity programs. In Greendale,
Wisconsin, a suburb of Milwaukee, for example, the nonprofit Timber
Wolf Preservation Society maintains 16 pure blooded timber wolves
in captivity. Visitors are charged an entrance fee of $2.00 to
photograph and observe wolves in half-acre pens where the wolves
live year round. Income for the project is generated through the
entrance fee, private donations, and a small gift shop that sells
wolf memorabilia like wolf t-shirts, wolf paintings, wolf photos,
and wolf art. Here, wolves and regional tourists are brought into
close proximity in a fully controlled setting with little room
for spontaneity or surprise in the recreational experience. Another
elaborate wolf captivity program is at located the IWC in Ely,
Minnesota. For a fee, the general public can visit the educational
facility where four captive timber wolves have been since birth.
Four times a day, wolves and tourists come together in close proximity
during a guided presentation by IWC staff. Separated by a large,
two-way glass pane, people come within inches of wolves while
remaining secure in a highly controlled environment. For many
tourists, this is the closest they will ever come to viewing a
wolf in a "natural" setting.
With free-ranging wolves, the predictability and visibility
of the wild animal are increased through the use of sophisticated
technology. Recent innovations in radio telemetry allow innovative
programs that bring humans to wolves in the wild with great accuracy
(Hutchinson, 1993). Today, for example, some of Minnesota's wolf
packs are followed on the ground or in the air by radio tracking
of collared wolves. This technological innovation provides wolf
enthusiasts who are participating in field with the opportunity
to encounter wolves in the wild.
Public wolf howls have also become an increasingly common and
popular activity. The largest wolf howling program in North America
today is offered by Canada's Algonquin National Park6.
Since 1963, park interpreters have escorted over 82,034 people
on howling trips throughout the park on summer nights when the
potential for contact is at its highest. With a little luck and
a considerable amount of skill observing wolf tracks and other
animal signs, it is also possible to trace the movements of a
wolf pack within its home range and locate the pack's most recent
kills. In the winter, for example, wolf tourists in northeastern
Minnesota can visit kill sites (deer and moose) by dogsledding
or by snowshoeing deep into the boreal forest under the supervision
of an expert naturalist.
The best available evidence shows that wolf ecotourists represent
a unique population of Americans who are part of a much larger
trend towards increasing nonconsumptive wildlife use. This group
is actively seeking out encounters with wild wolves. Yet, wolves
are elusive, difficult to see, and occur in low population densities
-- all characteristics that inevitably confound the ecotourist's
desire to get close to a wild wolf. Therefore, it is perhaps somewhat
ironic that only with the aid of science, technology, and unique
adaptations in recreational strategies have current opportunities
for viewing and hearing wolves in the wild been created. In sum,
despite the growing desire by Americans to see, hear and photograph
wolves, will likely that wolf-oriented ecotourism is likely to
be limited to relatively uncommon environmental, social and economic
contexts for the foreseeable future.
1. Kellert, S. R. 1985. Public Perceptions of Predators, Particularly
the Wolf and Coyote. Biological Conservation,
31, 167-189.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
& U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1991
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-associated Recreation.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
3. Cambronne, C., M. Goldberg, M. Schuster, & K. Smith. 1992.
The International Wolf Center: Team Field Project
Report. Unpublished Market Research Report conducted by
Cambronne & Associates for International Wolf Center, March 24,
1992.
4. Kellert, S. R. 1986. The Public and the Timber Wolf in Minnesota.
Transactions of the 51st National Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference, 193-200.
5. Thiel, R. P. 1993. The Timber Wolf in Wisconsin.
Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
6. Brandenburg, J. 1995. In the Company of Wolves. National
Wildlife, 33(1):4-11.
7. Strickland, D., 1983. Wolf Howling in Packs - the Algonquin
Experience in L. N. Carbyn, ed., Wolves in Canada
and Alaska: Their Status, Biology, and Management. Canadian
Wildlife Service Report Series, No. 45.