Dynamics of a Harvested Wolf Population in the Central East Slopes of Alberta
Nathan F. Webb, Mark Hebblewhite, Evelyn H. Merrill, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Management objectives for wolf populations in the central east slopes of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta are diverse, and include balancing ungulate and wolf populations, ensuring the long-term sustainability of recreational wolf harvests, and minimizing wolf predation on livestock. Further, modeling efforts recently suggested that wolves in this area may also serve as a source population for Banff and Jasper National Parks, although rates of immigration into the parks are unknown. For this study, we are collecting field data on wolf density, harvest rates, and pack-specific reproduction in response to harvest removals. These data will be combined with literature values to develop a spatially explicit wolf harvest model for assessing the effects of various wolf harvest on local wolf populations. Much of 2003 was devoted to capturing and collaring wolves within the study area, and to working with local sportsmen to initiate a wolf harvest reporting program. In winter 2004, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of using the Sampling Unit Probability Estimator (SUPE) method to determine wolf density in an area comprised of heavy coniferous cover. The SUPE method used the probability of observing track networks in the snow to develop populations estimates, and is unique from other methods in that it does not rely on collared animals, includes lone wolves in the estimate, and provides confidence intervals. This approach has been used successfully in Alaska and in forested areas in Ontario, but has not been tested in western Canada. We conducted a pilot study in the southern portion of our study area, where most wolf packs are currently monitored with radiotelemetry, allowing us to test the assumptions of the SUPE method. We report on the practicability of using the SUPE method in heavily forested areas and compare results with alternate methods of determining wolf density.

A Historic Wolf Plan for Oregon
Amaroq Weiss, Western Director, Species Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife and Oregon Wolf Advisory Committee, Ashland, OR

1843 was an historic year for gray wolves in Oregon. A series of "wolf meetings" in the Willamette Valley resulted in wolf bounties, and a decision to create a provisional government and declare allegiance to the United States. In fact, the discussion of wolf bounties was used to draw attendance for the meetings' real purpose - to establish a regional government.

In 1999, wolves and history came calling again. The dispersal of wolves from Idaho into Oregon spurred four workshops, 15 town hall meetings, extensive legal briefing by the state attorney general's office, and finally the March 2003 announcement the state would develop a wolf management plan.

In writing the plan, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) will be assisted by a Wolf Advisory Committee representing diverse stakeholder interests, with expertise available from wolf specialists from the federal government, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the Nez Perce Tribe. The committee will draft the plan's framework and provide input regarding the final product. A draft plan should be ready for initial review in the fall of 2004. After incorporating public comment, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission expects to adopt a state plan by January 2005.

Oregon state law lists the gray wolf as "endangered" and is more protective of wolves than the current federal classification, which regards wolves in the region as "threatened", subject to a 4(d) rule that allows for some management options prohibited under Oregon law. The Oregon plan will address this distinction in differing levels of protection.

The Oregon plan will likely borrow from but mirror none of the plans developed thus far by six other states, because Oregon does not yet have a reproducing population of packs with established territories.

The plan may face hurdles in the state legislature. Oregon's plan will be enacted by the Commission through a rule-making process, but could be short-circuited if the legislature reduces or removes state protections for wolves. Given the frenzy of anti-wolf legislation introduced in 2003, this is not a far-fetched scenario.

In short, the Oregon wolf management plan will only be as good as the intentions of the parties involved and the protections state law maintains to conserve the wolf. Will 160 years make a difference in this state's view of the wolf? Only time, and the plan, will tell.

Wolves, Elk and Harvest: How Much or How Little of Each for Yellowstone's Northern Range?
Nathan Varley and Mark Boyce, University of Alberta, Biological Sciences Department, Edmonton Alberta Canada

Recovery of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the Yellowstone National Park ecosystem has led to contention about the impact of predation on the northern Yellowstone elk (Cervus canadensis) herd. Efforts to forecast the demographic ramifications of restoring wolves to the Yellowstone ecosystem were made prior to reintroduction while intensive field studies have focused on predator/prey relationships since reintroduction. Boyce's WOLF5 predator-prey model simulated the consequences of wolf reintroduction for ungulate populations under varying conditions of climate, population density, and management. The WOLF6 model was a reconstruction of the WOLF5 model with empirically based parameters derived from Yellowstone studies. Elk population age structure, density dependence and response to climate were inferred from trends in herd dynamics observed for the previous ~30 years. Functional and numerical response terms were modified to reflect observed predation rates and wolf carrying capacity, respectively, since reintroduction. Model output included projections of elk herd density, herd composition and predation impact on alternate species. Implications for elk harvest and wolf management were discussed. Model performance and an evaluation of past efforts were evaluated.

Blue Range Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Update
Dan Stark and John Oakleaf, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services; Paul Overy, Arizona Game and Fish Department; Nick smith, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) were driven to the brink of extinction prior to the development of a captive breeding program in the early eighties from the capture of five of the last remaining wolves in Mexico. In 1998, the first Mexican wolves from the captive breeding program were released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA). Since that time, this population of wolves has continued to grow and expand, initially from releases, and later primarily from natural production and recruitment. The current population is composed of 50-60 wolves and over half of these wolves have been born in the wild. Despite these encouraging numbers, some concerns remain, including recent mortalities, the amount of available habitat for wolves within the existing recovery area, and the survival and juxtaposition of dispersing individuals. The success of the Mexican wolf reintroduction is consistent with what was expected, however, management strategies and administrative rules could be changed to enhance the current reintroduction goals. Comparisons between the BRWRA wolf population and other reintroduced and native populations of wolves in the U.S. indicate similar population trends relative to the natural population growth in northwestern Montana, and the reintroduced red wolf (Canis rufus) population. However, the BRWRA population growth rate is reduced relative to the Yellowstone and Central Idaho reintroduced wolf populations. Finally, we will describe how this population fits into recovery of gray wolves (Canis lupus spp.) in the Southwestern Distinct Population Segment defined in 2003 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The "Other" Wolf: Red Wolf Recovery Update
Nina Fascoine, Vice President, Species Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.; Bud Fazio, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Jennifer Gilbreath, Red Wolf Coalition

Smaller and less familiar than its gray wolf cousin, the red wolf (Canis rufus) is thought by some researchers to be the only wolf species native to this hemisphere. It was the dominant wild canid in southeastern North America prior to European settlement, but like gray wolves in the West, red wolves were seen as nuisances and nearly eliminated. The few red wolves that survived were forced to use marginal habitat, suffered heavy parasite loads, and interbred with coyotes. Pushed to the verge of extinction, the last wild red wolves in the United States were trapped and put in a captive breeding program in the 1970s. In 1987, these wolves' decedents were released at the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern North Carolina, marking the first time ever that a species declared extinct in the wild had been restored to part of its former range.

Over the past 15 years, the reintroduced red wolves have successfully established themselves, and there are currently approximately 100 wolves residing in five counties in northeastern North Carolina. However, on-going threats to the population exist. In recent years, an intensive adaptive management plan undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has helped stem the threat of hybridization with coyotes. The population also survived Hurricane Isabel in September, 2003, although two wolves were killed as a result of the storm. Currently, several groups are litigating against a Navy proposal to build a super jet landing field adjacent to Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, home to red wolves and the largest concentration of waterfowl on the eastern seaboard.

Public acceptance of red wolves continues to be tenuous as well. While the majority of area residents welcome red wolves back in their midst, others are less certain. Some area hunters have been vocal in opposition to red wolf recovery, believing that wolves will compete for white-tailed deer, which is considered a valuable resource. To address these concerns, the Red Wolf Coalition, a small non-profit based in northeastern North Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife and other groups are collaborating to conduct education and outreach to local residents demonstrating the benefits of a restored wolf population. To help create a market incentive for wolf restoration, Defenders of Wildlife is sponsoring a study of the ecotourism potential in the region based on red wolves and other wildlife. These steps are key to the on-going success of the red wolf recovery program.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration and the 'Moral Turn' in Wolf Recovery
William Lynn, Center for Humans and Nature, New York, NY

The wolf community is discussing the role of ethics in the recovery of wolves. This was quite evident at the World Wolf Congress of 2003 (Banff, CAN) where a remarkable 'moral turn' animated the discussions of wildlife scientists, land managers and environmental advocates. The reasons for this moral turn in our concerns and conversation are straightforward. First, human land-use and wildlife management has direct and indirect consequences for the well-being of wolves. Second, our motivations for learning to live with wolves (or not) are deeply informed by our moral sensibilities and cultural worldviews about predators. Finally, ethics is indispensable in any science or practice involving human beings. We cannot explain what we do, much less justify our actions, without some reference to the ethics-based norms that inform our individual and collective activity. For all these reasons, we cannot pretend that science and ethics are separate fields of endeavour. Rather, a sound science for wolf recovery must be complemented by an equally sound ethic regarding wolves.

Yet, even if we embrace this linkage between science, ethics and wolves, there are predictable conflicts over facts and values that will bedevil us. For example: Should wolf policy and management be rooted in a particular ethical frame or worldview? In a pluralistic and democratic society, how do we discriminate between better and worse values regarding wolves? And to turn the tables a bit, how should ethics-based arguments be informed by the science of wolf management? These are normative conflicts that, if left unaddressed, create political and policy 'gridlock' -- competing, mutually exclusive and dogmatic claims that stymie environmental policy. Gridlock works against the grain of interagency and community collaboration. In addition, gridlock obstructs the long-term conservation of any species. Gridlock is especially challenging with charismatic species like wolves, as recent controversies over the restoration and recolonization of wolves in the US indicates.

Nevertheless, there are ways to avoid gridlock. One is to foreground a robust concept of interdisciplinarity, a practice of special import to the practitioners of wolf recovery -- scientists, managers, advocates and ethicists. Interdisciplinarity is more than the borrowing of techniques, the sharing of findings between disciplines, or 'teams' of people from different specialties working on a common problem. Interdisciplinarity is an innovative way of thinking about and practicing science. Properly understood, interdisciplinarity foregrounds a view of science that seeks the integration of knowledge through dialogue, sees facts and values as reciprocally informing, and welcomes a plurality of legitimate insights from the natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities. Instead of trying to synthesize all evidence, theories, methods and findings into a single point-of-view, interdisciplinarity uses the insights of distinct 'fields' (e.g. ecology, ethics, economics) to triangulate on the best possible explanation. In an interdisciplinary worldview, ethics is not an external set of rules imposed on science. Rather, ethics is an internal concern of science that motivates and informs both basic and applied research, and the application of this research in the field. Moreover, the mutual respect interdisciplinarity promotes between differing disciplines, experiences and ways of knowing is strong medicine for harmonizing the science, politics and ethics of the wolf community. This presentation will explore these issues, positioning interdisciplinarity as a practical tool for resolving normative conflicts in wolf recovery.

Planning for State Management of Wolves in Northern Utah
Craig McLaughlin, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Robert Schmidt, Utah State University; and Trey Simmons, Utah Wolf Forum

This presentation describes the political and legal context of Utah's preparations to assume state management authority for wolves, including issues and challenges that have been encountered as the process unfolds. The state's planning efforts were spurred by recent evidence of wolves dispersing south into Utah from growing populations in the Northern Rocky Mountains, notice of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's intent to remove Federal protections from wolves within the Western Distinct Population Segment, and renewed public debate over the future of wolves in Utah. Utah is not part of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Area, and no federal wolf conservation mandates have been placed on Utah. Therefore, state law will govern the fate of wolves in northern Utah following federal delisting. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources' planning activities are driven by a resolution passed by the State Legislature in 2003, which defined the Legislature's expectations regarding wolf management within the state. To guide the planning process, the Wildlife Board established a 13-member Wolf Working Group representing diverse public interests, including wolf advocates, sportsmen, livestock, conservation organizations, county and tribal governments, academia, and the Wildlife Board. The Wolf Working Group is charged with drafting a wolf management plan by spring 2005. The draft plan will undergo public comment, and will then be reviewed, modified and approved by the Division, Wildlife Board, and Legislature. A professional facilitator was hired to guide the Wolf Working Group's meetings and activities. Personnel from the Division of Wildlife Resources, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA-Wildlife Services provide technical advice to the group. The Wolf Working Group held a series of 10 public scoping meetings in March 2004 to gather public comment. The group will use information gained at those meetings, results of a Utah State University survey of public attitudes toward wolves, testimony of invited speakers, and literature on the biological, legal, and socio-political aspects of wolves to develop a list of management issues and concerns regarding wolves in Utah. The resulting management plan will include recommended objectives and strategies to address management issues and to support a single management alternative for wolves in Utah.

Representation Through Polarization: Public Opinion and Interest Group Rhetoric Regarding Recolonizing Gray Wolves in Utah
Jeremy Bruskotter, Department of Environment and Society, and Robert Schmidt, Department of Environment Society, Berryman Institute for Wildlife Damage Management, Utah State University, Logan, UT

Recent research has suggested a change in the way Americans value wildlife. The traditional, utilitarian view that dominated the past is gradually shifting to one that is more interested in the protection of wildlife. Although these general "wildlife values" seem to be relatively stable within the individual, the attitudes these values help to form are far more volatile. In November of 2002, a lone dispersing gray wolf was caught in a coyote trap in north-central Utah, representing the first known wolf in the state in approximately 70 years. This incident captured the public's interest and sparked a continuing debate about what, if anything, should be done with wolves that make their way to and through Utah. In November 2003, we conducted a survey of Utahn's attitudes towards wolves, replicating the methods, along with several questions, from a 1994 Utah survey-before wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone and Central Idaho. We looked at whether public opinion differed now that we are faced with real wolves, as opposed to hypothetical ones. We also asked a series of questions dealing with potential wolf management scenarios and acceptable management practices. Finally, we used a significant portion of the survey to assess the extent to which the positions espoused by various stakeholder groups represented those held by their constituents and the general public. The question we are interested in is whether the polarized rhetoric we hear is truly representative of the way people feel, or simply used by interest groups as a call to arms. Are hunter, farmers, and environmentalists really as different as we've been led to believe? We will report on data collected from 700 respondents in a statewide mail survey.

Wolf/Elk Interactions on State Managed Feed Grounds and Adjacent National Forests in Wyoming
Mike Jimenez, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Lander, WY; and John Stephenson, U.S. Forest Service, Bridger Teton National Forest, WY

We monitored wolves (Canis lupus) during winters 1999-2003 to determine the distribution of wolf packs, describe prey selection of wolves, and document the behavioral response of elk (Cervus elaphus) to the presence of wolves on 3 elk feed grounds and adjacent national forest in Wyoming. We used radio telemetry to locate wolves and estimate home ranges. We back-tracked wolves to locate carcass remains of elk killed or scavenged by wolves. Radio collared elk were followed to describe how elk responded to wolves hunting on feed grounds. Two wolf packs recolonized the area and their home ranges overlapped in 2 feed grounds. We located 152 kills made by wolves on all 3 feed grounds and the adjacent national forest. Forty-nine percent of the elk killed were cows, 4% bulls, and 47% calves. The mean age of adult elk killed was 9.5 years and the oldest elk killed was 23 years old. Mean consumption of elk carcasses by wolves was 82%. In 2001, calf/cow ratios dropped from a 10-year average of 27.6 calves/100 cows to 17.5 calves/100 cows. Calf/cow ratios in 2002 were 21.8 calves/100 cows. During winter 2002, 3,583 elk were counted in the Gros Ventre, compared to a 10-year average of 3,485 elk. Elk responded to wolves hunting on feed grounds by: 1) remaining on the feed grounds even when wolves killed elk; 2) leaving the area but returning within days; and 3) leaving the feed ground where wolves killed elk and gathering in larger herds on adjacent feed grounds absent of wolves. This crowding of elk on specific feed grounds became very controversial as state game managers were forced to adjust winter feeding programs.

From Conflict Resolution and Alternative Dispute Resolution to Environmental Conflict Resolution - What are Consensus Based Processes?
Paige Tucker, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University

Conflict resolution (CR) is utilized with increasing frequency at all levels of government in the decision-making process. The Conflict Resolution field formed some thirty years ago and utilizes techniques, such as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), in an attempt to resolve disputes to avoid protracted and costly litigation. When litigation occurs in environmental conflicts, it often means that there has been a failure of the legislative and administrative arenas to effectively address the underlying controversies involved.

The ADR movement has grown from a small group of mediation practitioners to institutional programs in courts, public agencies, private corporations, and non-profit organizations seeking to identify and address conflicts and their underlying origins. The Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998 and the creation of the new federal agency, the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, reflect the growth of the discipline.

Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR), sometimes also referred to as Environmental Dispute Resolution (EDR), are various ADR techniques as applied to environmental conflicts. Environmental conflicts are actual or potential disputes involving the environment, natural resources, public lands, or all three. Often these disputes are characterized by multiple parties who are engaged in decision-making processes. These parties disagree about issues that may be traced to an action or a policy that has potential environmental effects or changes to societal actions such as the Wilderness Act of 1964 or the Endangered Species Act of 1973. ECR processes, with the exception of binding arbitration, are based on the idea of negotiation.

This presentation will focus on Consensus-Based/Building Processes of Environmental Conflict Resolution, a review of the ECR literature, and training benefits. Specifically, the most common consensus-based processes used in environmental conflicts are conflict assessment, convening, facilitation, mediation, conciliation, negotiated rule-making, and policy dialogues. Case examples of each process relating to a natural resource/environmental conflict will be presented to illustrate the benefits and weakness of the process.

Wolf Conservation: It is Not Just About Wolves
Joseph Potts; A Video Documentary

Starting with the question, "Why are wolves so important?", interviews with stakeholders provided surprising answers. The judgment of what actions should be taken for wolf conservation was quite controversial, but there was almost unanimous agreement about the importance of a healthy ecosystem and how to address these differences of opinion.

The documentary raises complex and difficult questions about values, process, and commitment to wildlife management on the eastern slopes and the central Rockies of Canada. To the extent that similar issues exist in other regions, the process for gaining broad support for wolf conservation may be applicable.

Wolf Recovery in the Grand Canyon Ecoregion
Paul Sneed, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council and Environmental Studies, Prescott College, Prescott, AZ

The purpose of this presentation is to report on the ongoing efforts, on the part of the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council and other conservation groups, to promote reestablishment of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Grand Canyon Ecoregion (GCE)---a roughly 1.5 million km² area located on the southern Colorado Plateau of northern Arizona, southeastern Utah, and northwestern New Mexico. Because of an interest in restoring extirpated native species and the desire to increase the size of the gray wolf metapopulation in the Southwest, there is need to determine the biophysical, socioeconomic, and political feasibility reintroducing gray wolves to this ecoregion. In 1999, the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council began such a feasibility study. The first step was to develop a spatially-explicit landscape-scale model of potential gray wolf habitat. Modeling potential wolf habitat using GIS, this preliminary analysis utilized six landscape characteristics---land cover, prey density, surface water availability, human population density, land ownership, and road density---to identify at least two localities that are potentially suitable for wolf recovery in the GCE. This presentation will review and update the modeling exercise and compare it with other similar projects modeling potential large carnivore habitat in the Southwest. In addition, questions about the appropriate stock for wolf in the GCE and its role in the newly designated Southwest DPS will be explored. Finally, recent actions and endeavors being undertaken by the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Working Group will be reported and feedback on this work will be requested. In summary, this paper will present the results of past and present potential wolf habitat modeling in the Grand Canyon Ecoregion, the possible means and methods of wolf recovery in the GCE, and the relevance of this project for wolf restoration and rewilding in the Southwest.

Introducing Nonlethal Deterrents to Livestock Depredations in SW Alberta
Jim Pissot, Defenders of Wildlife Canada; and Charles Mamo, Southern Alberta Conservation Cooperative, Defenders of Wildlife, Canada

Ranching is a cultural and economic mainstay along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains in southwestern Alberta. Wolves overlap grazing lands in this region, preying on wild ungulates, other native prey, and livestock. Excepting Waterton and Banff national parks, there are no areas where wolves are free from potential livestock conflicts or from aggressive trapping and hunting and occasional poisoning. Wolves have been extirpated from this part of the province on at least two occasions in the last century; the population has recovered with recolonization from outside the region. Methods used to deal with livestock depredation include hunting, trapping, and poisoning wolves; and, less frequently, wolf monitoring and modified livestock stewardship. The Province of Alberta actively encourages recreational and commercial trapping to control wolf numbers. Wolf hunting regulations are liberal and annual take is not reported reliably. The province compensates ranchers for livestock losses to wolves and removes "offending wolves where chronic depredations occur." Current provincial policy envisions "maintenance of about 50 wolves in southwestern Alberta to assist in ongoing wolf recovery in the northwestern [U.S.] states."

The Central Rockies Wolf Project, Southern Alberta Conservation Cooperative, Defenders of Wildlife Canada and other research, problem solving, and wildlife advocacy organizations have worked for several years to understand wolf behavior in the region, reduce livestock depredations, assist ranchers, and gain their support for more tolerant wolf management and conservation. Efforts have included surveying rancher attitudes and ranching methods, monitoring wolves, reporting wolf presence and movement to local ranchers, advising on techniques to reduce depredations, fladry, assisting ranchers, and cooperating with the Alberta Fish and Wildlife division.

We discuss depredation events in the spring of 2003 and the response of local ranchers, the conservation community, and provincial authorities. Following the initial depredations, Alberta Fish and Wildlife radio-collared members of the suspected wolf pack, Defenders Canada and others contracted to have the wolves monitored and to report wolf activities to local ranchers and provincial agents, and to assist ranchers. Ranchers were questioned regarding stewardship activities that potentially would reduce the likelihood of depredations. Depredations continued through the summer and fall; most of the wolf pack was destroyed by the end of the year.

We discuss the potential for wolf conservation where pack home ranges overlap with livestock grazing and where wolves are subject to liberal hunting and trapping policy. What non-lethal options are available to ranchers and other landowners to reduce the likelihood of depredations? How might ranchers be supported in these options? How might the province's compensation program be improved? What changes in provincial land and wildlife management policies might reduce wolf-livestock conflicts? What parallels exist between current wolf management in Alberta and potential management of de-listed wolves by states in the U.S.?

Modeling Livestock Depredations by Wolves in SW Alberta
Tyler Muhly, C. Cormack Gates, Shelley Alexander, Marco Musiani, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Carolyn Callaghan and Charles Mamo, Central Rockies Wolf Project, Canmore, Alberta

Conflicts between the ranching industry and wolves exist in areas where wolf distribution and the cattle industry overlap because of wolf depredation on livestock, as illustrated in southwestern Alberta. Conservation of wolves is a challenge in southwestern Alberta where traditional and current management of wolf depredation of livestock includes culling of wolves. Conservation of wolves will therefore be improved by studying risk of livestock to depredation by wolves. To better understand patterns in livestock depredation by wolves, we defined the influence of habitat variables, prey abundance, anthropogenic landscape disturbances and ranch operational attributes on wolf depredation of livestock in southwestern Alberta. Over 60 depredation sites were visited and over one hundred ranchers along the eastern slopes of southwestern Alberta were interviewed about their ranching operation. Binary logistic regression analyses, ranked using Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), was used to define models that best predict spatial variation in livestock depredation by wolves at the landscape scale. The best model(s) were used to produce a map of livestock depredation risk in southwestern Alberta. Results from preliminary data show that greenness and elevation were important variables in the best logistic regression model (y = -22.366 + 0.009(elev) + 0.024(green)). Further results (to be completed this winter) will provide insight into the influence of biophysical and human features of the environment on spatial depredation patterns, guiding future research to reduce risk of livestock to depredation by wolves.

How Do We Count Wolves?
Carolyn Sime, Wildlife Biologist, Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT; Tom J. Meier, National Park Service, Denali National Park; Ed Bangs, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Helena, MT

Wolf populations can be monitored by counting wolves or packs, or by measuring wolf movements, reproduction or mortality. In the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains, wolf recovery is evaluated by counting breeding pairs (BP), defined as a male and female wolf raising at least two pups through December 31. Enumerating wolves by age and sex in winter can be difficult. If total wolf numbers or numbers of packs can substitute for more detailed criteria, it might allow significant savings in money, effort and intrusiveness. We show that the number of BP is highly correlated with total wolf numbers and with numbers of wolf packs. In Montana, we predict 8.3 NBP per 100 wolves (r² = 0.94, 95% CI: 7.7-9.0), 6.6 BP per 10 packs of 4 or more wolves (r² = 0.93, 95% CI: 6.0-7.1), and 7.9 BP per 10 packs of 5 or more wolves (r² = 0.96, 95%, CI: 7.4-8.4). We review survey methods, and present results of a survey of wolf and conservation biologists, on population viability standards. For precise monitoring of populations in most habitats, radio telemetry is probably needed. If we manage wolves close to some threshold number, or need to document dispersal, or if we believe that wolves are so inherently dangerous or vulnerable that we must keep close track of the, then such precision is warranted. If we are willing to tolerate more wolves or more ambiguity, then less intrusive and expensive, but less precise and repeatable methods, like track surveys, may be acceptable.

Evaluating Wolf Translocation as a Non-lethal Method to Reduce Livestock Conflicts in the Northwestern United States
Elizabeth H. Bradley and Daniel H. Pletscher, University of Montana, Missoula, MT; Edward E. Bangs, Joseph A. Fontana, Carter C. Niemeyer, Thomas J. Meier, and Michael D. Jimenez, U.S Fish &: Wildlife Service; Kyran E. Kunkel, Turner Endangered Species Fund; Douglas W. Smith, Yellowstone National Park Wolf Project; Curt M. Mack, Nez Perce Tribe Gray Wolf Recovery Project

Translocation of carnivores that depredate livestock is commonly used as a non-lethal method to mitigate conflicts especially when conservation of rare or endangered individuals is of interest. In the northwestern United States, wolves (Canis lupus) have sometimes been translocated with the objective of non-lethally reducing livestock conflicts while promoting wolf recovery. We assessed survival, depredation behavior, establishment, and movements of wolves post-translocation to determine the effectiveness of translocation in our region and to consider how it may be improved. We found translocated wolves had lower annual survival (0.6) than other radio-collared wolves (0.73) with government control composing the largest source of mortality. Survival of translocated wolves was lowest in northwest Montana (0.41), where most of the wolf population has settled outside of protected areas. Over one-quarter of translocated individuals and cohesive groups depredated again after release and few established or joined a non-depredating pack that contributed to recovery goals for » 1 year. Translocated wolves showed a strong homing trend; those that failed to home still showed directional movement back to capture sites. Wolves that successfully homed were more likely to be adults, hard-released rather than soft-released, and moved shorter distances than other wolves. We conclude that translocation was ineffective at meeting management objectives in that few relocated wolves significantly contributed to recovery and failed to depredate again. We suggest managers choosing to translocate wolves or other applicable carnivores consider soft-releasing individuals (preferably in family groups, if social) when feasible as this may decrease wide post-release movements and homing behavior. When selecting release sites, we recommend that the adequacy of habitat between the capture and release sites be considered.

Behavioral Responses of Elk to the Risk of Predation by Wolves: Implications for Population Dynamics
Scott Creel, John Winnie, and David Christianson, Montana State University, Bozeman MT; Robert Garrott, Mike Ross, and Ken Hamlin, Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks, Bozeman, MT

This project focuses on measuring behavioral responses of elk to the risk of predation by wolves, and determining the consequences of behavioral responses for elk physiology, demography and population dynamics.

Using custom-built GPS collars, we have collected 18,317 unbiased locations for adult elk in 4 drainages of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. These data reveal significant changes in use of the landscape on days that wolves are present within a drainage, relative to days when wolves are absent. Changes in landscape use are driven primarily by changes in the behavior of bulls, while cows show less response. This sex-difference is as predicted, because analysis of 51 wolf kills on our site reveals that bulls and calves are taken significantly more often than predicted if prey were selected at random, while cows are taken less often than expected (x² = 39.21, df = 2, P < 0.001).

Herd sizes also shift on days that wolves are in a drainage, dropping significantly (F = 33.48, P < 0.0001) from a 95% CI of 18.8 - 23.2 elk/herd in the absence of wolves to 7.9 - 13.4 elk/herd in the presence of wolves. This suggests that grouping in response to predation risk does not benefit elk (for example via the 'many eyes' effect). Instead, the bulk of our data suggest that behavioral responses by elk are aimed at reducing the likelihood of being detected by wolves, rather than altering the outcome following detection. This interpretation is reinforced by data on herd size in relation to distance to obstructive cover. In general, herd size increases as distance to cover increases (ANOVA, F = 13.22, P < 0.0001). However, there is a significant interaction between the distance to cover and the presence of wolves in their effects on herd size. Aggregation far from cover occurs only when wolves are absent. When wolves are present, elk remain in small herds at all distances to cover (interaction from ANOVA F = 4.73 P = 0.0028). This pattern strongly suggests that aggregation on open (grass) plant communities is a foraging response during periods of low predation risk, rather than an antipredator response during periods of high risk.

The behavior of individual elk also responds to the presence of wolves within a drainage. Using scan sampling to record 10,642 observations, contingency tables reveal that the presence of wolves within a drainage on the day of observation is associated with an increase in vigilance (x² = 113.78, df = 1, P < 0.001), with a decrease in foraging (x² = 16.64, df = 1, P < 0.001) and a decrease in movement (x² = 29.46, df = 1, P < 0.001). The proportion of time bedded did not change significantly (x² = 0.10 , df = 1, NS), probably in part because this was not a common behavior.

These data show that elk behave differently on days that wolves are present within their drainage, but they do not demonstrate that behavioral responses carry costs. We are less advanced in analyses of the costs of antipredator responses, but we have recorded reduced rates of pregnancy (61-85% for a low predation site and 21% for a high predation site) for herds exposed to wolf predation, while pregnancy rates remained high (84-100%) on two nearby sites with little wolf activity. Data from more years are needed. Trends in population size (by aerial total count) and recruitment (from ground and aerial classification counts) suggest that predation (both direct and indirect effects) may be altering elk demography and dynamics. Recruitment in early winter has been at or below 20 calves:cow on 5 of 6 winters with data since colonization by wolves, compared to 1 of 13 winters prior to wolf colonization (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.12). Similarly, population size has been below 1500 elk in 6 of 7 winters since wolf colonization, compared to 16 of 41 winters prior to wolves (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.17). Recall that factors other than wolves contribute to these patterns.

Crying Wolf in Central Asia: An Investigation of Wolf Depredation in Kyrgyzstan
Carter Niemeyer, Idaho Wolf Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Boise, ID

The government in the remote Central Asia republic of Kyrgyzstan estimates there are 6,000 wolves roaming the mountains and preying on domestic livestock, but without basic equipment like trucks, fuel, and trained biologists, this impoverished country may never know what kind of impacts wolves are really having. The country's attitude about wolves is remarkably similar to the United States, but wolves stand a better chance there because guns are generally illegal. Teaching the locals how to effectively use non-lethal deterrents to keep wolves away seems to be the only answer for now.

Mexican Gray Wolves: Challenges for the Captive Breeding Program
Patrick Valentino, California Wolf Center, Julian, CA; and Daniel Moriarty, California Wolf Center and University of San Diego, San Diego, CA

Formidable challenges facing the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program include the release of captive raised wolves. This presentation will outline the current status of the Mexican Gray Wolf in captivity and challenges facing captive managers in raising a "wild wolf."

Listed in 1976 under the U. S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Mexican gray wolf is one of the rarest land mammals in the world. The ultimate goal of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, signed in 1982, is the re-establishment of wild populations from captive-raised wolves. The captive population in the United States has been managed by the AZA Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan. Today about 285 Mexican wolves survive, and most are held at 45 captive facilities in the United States and Mexico. The others are free ranging in the Apache and Gila Forests of the Arizona - New Mexico border.

Mexican wolf recovery is at a critical cross roads. While more pups are being born in the wild, political boundaries have restricted "free" recovery of Mexican wolves. The number of wolves that can be released and the number that need to be managed or returned to captivity will impact greatly the focus of captive wolf managers. Mexican wolves are held in a variety of facilities. The diversity of these facilities creates management challenges. Breeding pairs and release candidates are selected each year at the Mexican Wolf SSP Annual Meeting and approved by the USFWS Mexican Wolf Recovery Team leader.

Critical issues facing captive managers focus on the development and improvement of husbandry practices that will increase chances of wild survival. Size of enclosures, feeding protocols, conditioning procedures and evaluation metrics all contribute to what character of wolf gets released in the wild. Captive managers need accurate and reliable information to develop effective husbandry practices that improve the chances captive raised wolves will survive in the wild.

Economic Tools for Wolf Recovery and Conservation: A Discussion About Incentives
Frank Casey, Director, Conservation Economics Program, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C

In October of 2002, Defenders of Wildlife established a new Conservation Economics Program ("Program"). The purpose of the Program is to apply economic science to, and design incentives for, restoration and conservation of wildlife species and their habitats. The Program has three primary objectives: estimate and communicate the public and private economic benefits and costs associated with biodiversity conservation; design and promote incentives for private landowners to restore and conserve wildlife species and their habitats; and develop economic strategies that link incentive levels to estimates of public benefits. The Program works cooperatively with private landowners and a wide range of public and private institutions on a variety of species and habitat conservation issues.

With respect to the valuation of the benefits and costs of habitat conservation, the Program is currently engaged in several studies that will result in conservation policy recommendations in the coming year. The first project involves determining the economic impacts of designating critical habitat for the Canadian lynx, a listed species under in the Endangered Species Act. The Program is developing a state-of-the-art method for identifying and estimating benefits and costs of designating critical habitat that will be recommended to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In cooperation with the University of Florida, the Program assisted in the research and analysis of the benefits of conserving natural habitat features in northeast Florida. The Program is working with Defenders' California program and faculty at Colorado State University to develop estimates of tourism, employment and existence-bequest benefits resulting from expansion of a sea otter recovery zone off the central coast of California. At the individual landowner level, the Program is conducting research and policy analysis related to the economic benefits of improved natural resource management and ecosystem restoration on private agricultural lands in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Defenders has a long history of promoting incentive mechanisms for biodiversity conservation. Defenders private compensation and proactive funds, and our several years of involvement in structuring federal and state incentive programs, has provided the organization with on-the-ground experience to encourage private landowners to restore and conserve wildlife habitat. Recent support activities underway include a wolf eco-tourism study in North Carolina and restructuring of Defenders post wolf de-listing compensation and proactive funds.

This presentation will explore ways as to how economic valuation and incentives can assist private landowners in capturing some of the public benefits they provide in aiding wolf recovery and conservation. The session will be based primarily on audience participation and exchange, and will include discussions of the potential for public (state and federal) and private incentive mechanisms to aid in wolf conservation. Public incentive measures will include the potential for farm bill conservation programs to provide conservation incentives, as well as private market incentives such as eco-tourism, eco-labeling, etc.

Preliminary Data on Wolf Dispersal in Central Idaho
Curt Mack and Jim Holyan, Nez Perce Tribe Gray Wolf Recovery Project, McCall, ID

Preliminary data is presented on dispersing, radio-collared wolves from the Central Idaho Experimental Population Area. Comparisons between males and females are made for:

1. distances moved during dispersal
2. direction of dispersal
3. duration of dispersal
4. age at the initiation of dispersal
5. time of year when dispersal began

Cottonwood Recruitment Following Wolf Extirpation in Northeastern Yellowstone National Park
Dr. Robert L. Beschta: College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

In September 2001, the diameter at breast height (DBH) of all cottonwood (Populus spp.) *5 cm in diameter was measured within a 9.5 km² section of the Lamar Valley (elevation - 2,000 m), in . northeastern Yellowstone National Park. A total of 495 narrowleaf cottonwood (P. angustifolia) and 205 black cottonwood (P. trichocarpa) were measured. Slightly more than half of the narrowleaf trees were growing on point bar landforms at three major meander bends of the Lamar River, with the remainder occurring in small groves spread across various floodplain surfaces within the valley. Almost all of the black cottowwood occurred on point bars at only two of the meander bend locations. Tree diameters for both species ranged mostly between 30-110 cm with a nearly total absence of cottonwoods between 5-29 cm in diameter. Age vs. diameter relationships were developed and sued as a basis for estimate establishment dates for all narrowleaf cottonwoods. These relationships, in conjunction with the DBH data, indicated an absence of cottonwood recruitment (i.e., growth of seedlings/suckers into *5-cm diameters trees) over approximately the last 60 years. The paucity of cottonwood recruitment appears to have occurred independently of fire history, flow regimes, channel migrations, or factors affecting normal stand development, but occurred over the same period of time that wolves (Canis lupus) had been extirpated from Yellowstone National Park. With the removal of this wide-ranging and keystone predator, elk (Cervus elaphus) populations were apparently able to browse riparian plant communities unaffected by wolves.

Wolf Den-Site Selection and Characteristics in the Northern Rockies: A Multi-Scale Analysis
Jon Trapp, David Parsons, Paul, Beier, Curt Mack, Edward Garton, and Paul Paquet

The key to the expansion and survival of any species is successful reproduction. Wolves most commonly birth their young in hillside excavations, or dens. This masters research study was initiated to examine wolf den-site selection and characteristics in the Northern Rockies. Over 30 wolf dens in Idaho, Montana, and Canada were visited in the summer of 2003. Landscape analysis involved 40 dens Idaho, Montana, Yellowstone NP, and Canada.

Data collection was focused at two levels: micro and macrohabitat. Microhabitat variables included vegetative composition and structure, canopy cover, hiding cover, slope, aspect, soil analysis, habitat type, den measurements, and distance to roads, trails and water. Macrohabitat examined den-site placement at a landscape level utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis and modeling. GIS layers included vegetative cover type, slope, aspect, solar radiation, road/trail density, location within home range, and distance to water.

Elk Population Dynamics Across 25 Years of Wolf Recolonization in Banff National Park's Northern Range
Linda Thurston; M. Hebblewhite, and E.H. Merrill, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; L.E. Morgantini, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

The Ya Ha Tinda is the ecological equivalent to Yellowstone's Northern Range for Banff National Park (BNP). Meaning "Mountain Prarie" in Stoney Sioux, the Ya Ha Tinda is one of Alberta's northern most rough fescue (Festuca campestris) grasslands, and the most important winter range for migratory elk populations in BNP. Elk winter at the Ya Ha Tinda, located outside BNP boundaries, and summer on high elevation summer ranges up to 70km distant in Banff and Yoho National Parks. From 2001-2003, approximately 60-70% of all elk in BNP during summer winter at the Ya Ha Tinda, revealing the importance of BNP's "Northern Range". Recent changes in migratory behaviour of this elk herd have resulted in increasing proportion of migrant elk remaining on the sensitive fescue grasslands during summer. To investigate the causes of these changes, we compared elk dynamics during 2001-2003 to dynamics during 1977-1979, when wolves were just recolonizing the BNP area. We compare summer and winter distribution, calf:cow ratios, and migratory behaviour to explore potential hypotheses explaining changes in elk numbers and distributions. Regardless of the factors changing elk behaviour, The Ya Ha Tinda is also a Parks Canada horse ranch, wintering home to approximately 120-160 warden backcountry patrol horses. While owned by Parks Canada, the Ya Ha Tinda, and its wildlife, is under provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. With potential conflicting management goals, this complex political environment creates challenges for cooperative ecosystem management of this important elk herd. We conclude by discussing implications for Yellowstone National Park.

Western Ranching and Wildlife Project: Moving Forward with New Concepts for Livestock Depredation Compensation, Incentives and Sustainable Ranching
Dr. John Sullivan, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Suzanne Stone, Nina Fascione, and Frank Casey, Defenders of Wildlife; Lane Adamson, Madison Valley Ranchlands Group, Ennis, Montana; Jan Holder, Ervin's Grassfed Beef, Safford, AZ; Lowell Cerise, Healthy Rivers Jerky, Salmon, ID

The return of the wolf to the northern Rockies has been one of the most successful biological achievements of our time. From a social perspective, it has also been one of the most challenging. Though the wolf was eradicated from this region by the 1920's, the actual animal was quickly replaced with fearsome tales of a legendary creature. Most farmers and ranchers had no experience with real wolves and expected the worst possible impacts. Prior to the reintroduction of wolves to the region in the mid-1990s, biologists predicted that wolf attacks on livestock would be relatively few in comparisons with other causes of livestock losses, and actual losses have been relatively small overall. However, the issue remains highly controversial and demands innovative, collaborative approaches that directly address the concerns of local people in the northern Rockies.

In an effort to build local tolerance for the wolf, in 1987 Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) initiated the first privately funded livestock compensation program of its kind to provide reimbursement for wolf-caused losses. The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Wolf Compensation Fund, named in honor of its largest contributor, has reimbursed ranchers over $328,000 in the Northern Rockies since that time. The Fund pays livestock owners 100% of the typical peak market value for confirmed losses and 50% for "probable" ones.

The compensation program has been instrumental in ensuring wolf survival by promptly and directly helping livestock owners who are affected by wolf-related losses. Preliminary research indicates nearly all livestock owners with confirmed or probable wolf-caused losses seek and receive compensation for those losses. Among wolf compensation recipients surveyed, most responses indicated that their tolerance for wolves would be lower or significantly lower if compensation for livestock losses was ended.

From 2000 - 2002, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reported 450 livestock, (124 cattle, 317 sheep, and 9 horses and llamas) killed by wolves within wolf range in the northern Rockies. Though these losses are small in comparison to other types of livestock mortalities (for example, 25,000 sheep were killed by coyotes in Idaho alone during this same time period) individual ranchers and farmers can be significantly impacted by any losses above normal, and this fund is intended to help those people. However, some livestock losses are difficult if not impossible to verify leaving those livestock owners without adequate compensation. The existing compensation program doesn't reward livestock owners practicing ecologically sound, nonlethal methods used to reduce or prevent losses to predators. These are important as some depredations are caused by animal husbandry practices that render livestock vulnerable and attractive to predators, and may be completely avoided or significantly reduced by using these preventative strategies that include guard dogs, electric night pens, task-specific range riders, and proper carcass disposal.

New methods like 'fladry', a temporary-use deterrent technique adapted from a Polish method used to cull wolves, have been tested in Canada and the northern Rockies with promising results. Fladry, which consists of red flagging hung in strips from a fence line and creates a visual barrier for wolves attempting to enter livestock enclosures, is very inexpensive but requires regular maintenance to ensure it is hanging properly. Conventional practices, such as guard dogs and electric fencing, can significantly reduce losses to wolves and other predators and increase income to farmers. No method is 100% effective in every situation but these tools can be often successfully adapted to avoid or reduce depredation incidents. Despite some criticism, nonlethal methods accomplish two very important conservation objectives:

• Wolf population viability is not threatened by use of lethal control;
• Chronic livestock losses can often be avoided - simply exterminating a wolf pack causes a vacuum that becomes rapidly repopulated, thus repeating the cycle without addressing the possible causes.

The Western Ranching and Wildlife Project

A team of experts in wolf biology, wildlife conservation, ranching, natural resource economics, state fish and wildlife, environmental ethics, public policy and healthcare met in 2003 to evaluate existing wolf compensation programs and to consider a novel program to help further resolve wolf-rancher conflicts. This "think tank" resulted in an organizational framework to serve as a model for a risk-sharing collaborative partnership between ranchers and environmentalists. This model is designed to promote sustainable ranching, provide social and economic value to rural western ranching communities, to protect wolves and their habitat, and to enhance the economic viability of rural western community-based food systems. The proposed program is composed of structural and conceptual elements from health maintenance organizations, rural ranching economic development, wolf compensation and incentives programs, and habitat protection to mutually benefit the communities and native wildlife.

The purpose of this project is to support:

1. Preservation and sustainability of wolves, other wildlife and their habitat;
2. Preservation and sustainability of rural western ranching, their agricultural food sources, and prevent large tracts of ranchlands from being lost;
3. Economic, educational, and health benefits for rural western ranching communities adjacent to wolf country;
4. Positive philosophical, cultural, and educational shifts towards wildlife, habitat, ranching, and the ranching way of life.

Over the last year, members of the project have hosted meetings in communities throughout the northern Rockies to encourage local feedback about this model. As a result of these grassroots efforts, we have developed partnerships within the ranching communities of Madison Valley, Montana, Eagle Creek, Arizona, and Salmon, Idaho. Ranchers from these areas serve on our committees along with representatives of Defenders of Wildlife, state and federal government representatives and others. In addition to addressing the economic concerns of livestock owners, one of the most important benefits of this project is building bridges between polarized groups and creating opportunities for an interactive participation process that is collaborative in nature. It's not always easy to bring ranchers and wolf-conservationists together to work cooperatively, but the ultimate reward is increased trust, tolerance, and implementation of innovative, workable solutions.