December 19th: 1pm - 5pm

Introductions and Reclassification -

Welcome - Bangs thanked everyone for coming. The final reclassification rule is in D.C for final review by the DOI. Several last minute issues/concerns were resolved in mid-Dec. and the expected publication date is February 2003. The final rule will downlist wolves to threatened status and those wolves will be managed much as the experimental population wolves are currently being managed. The experimental population regulations and areas will remain. The needed 4d rules for threatened wolves will address many of the concerns of the states adjacent to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. How the rules would affect wolves dispersing into OR, UT or states adjacent to MT, ID, and WY was briefly discussed.

State Management Plans -

Montana - Carolyn Sime discussed the status of Montana's state planing effort. Montana has a state law, the Montana Environmental Policy Act, that requires that a full review of a proposed significant state action be analyzed and public input be gathered. The state is preparing an environmental impact statement. The draft MEPA document will be released for public comment soon and the state expects that their analysis will be completed by May 2003.

Idaho - Carter Niemeyer and Steve Nadeau commented that the Idaho state wolf plan framework had been completed but the operational plan had not been developed. Idaho F&G would be completing that effort within the next year. There was some discussion whether the Service would require the operational plan before delisting could proceed but Bangs thought that would not be necessary since the law simply requires that adequate regulatory mechanisms would prevent wolves form being threatened again and re-listed.

Wyoming - Moody, Kruckenburg, Jimenez, Bangs discussed Wyoming's efforts to develop a state wolf management plan. The WY F&G Commission gave the Department initial instructions to complete a plan with a preferred alternative that would not allow for the Service to proceed with a delisting proposal and received a letter from the FWS Director stating so. It is important to remember that the WY plan is still a draft and is still being discussed/worked on. Public input is still being analyzed and at some point the WY legislature, which meets this winter, might change the current status of wolves in at least parts of Wyoming, from predators. The states of ID and MT are helping WY to complete a wolf plan that allows for delisting to proceed since the three states are all equally involved in wolf recovery, delisting, and post-delisting management. The ID and MT plans were developed with the assumption that each state would assume 1/3 of the level required to maintain a recovered wolf population. Wyoming continues to debate this issue and a final plan and any changes in state law are expected by April 2003. The Service continues to work closely with the state to resolve these issues and concerns.

Monitoring

Utah wolf dispersal - Oregon - What does it mean? - Bangs briefly discussed that such dispersal events were anticipated and the experimental population rules allow for Service management. Dispersers outside the experimental population areas will generally be left alone if they aren't causing problems but will be monitored either by the state, Wildlife Services, or possibly student or other volunteers. Wolves that cause problems will likely be killed. Wolves that are "in hand" for whatever reason may be returned to the nearest core wolf population or let go on site, depending on case-by-case circumstances. In any regard the Service will closely coordinate with the affected states and tribes. The Service has no interest in actively pursuing wolf recovery anywhere in the NW U.S. outside of Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming.

Status - Meier passed out a draft tally of wolf monitoring information for 2002. The rough estimate for 2002 is as follows: NW MT - 116 wolves in 13 breeding pairs; GYA - 280 wolves in 18 breeding pairs; and central Idaho - 285 wolves in 10 breeding pair. That is an estimate of 681 wolves in 41 breeding pairs, meaning the 3 year count down of 30 or more breeding pairs will be achieved on December 31, 2002. This draft information is being reviewed, double checked, and will be finalized as part of the 2002 annual report. There are no known wolf packs outside of Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming but it is almost certain lone wolves have dispersed into and may still reside in Washington, Oregon, Utah, and possibly Nevada, and Colorado.

Idaho - Mack; Wyoming - Jimenez; YNP - Smith; SW Montana - Asher, Fontaine; and NW Montana - Meier; gave summaries of monitoring activities in each areas. Everyone pointed out that what was once a very good count of the actual wolf population is becoming more and more a rough estimate of wolf numbers and reproductive success. As the wolf population expanded in numbers and distribution the population estimate was more difficult to obtain. Also the old EIS definition of a breeding pair is no longer useful and extremely hard to obtain. That point is especially clear in central Idaho which has the most difficult access and wolf monitoring conditions. The estimate of wolves is up slightly and breeding pairs down, only because as the original reintroduced radioed collared wolves have either died or been replaced as alphas - meaning an increasing number of packs no longer have radioed adults - greatly complicating counting them. There were nearly as many packs/breeding pairs suspected but not confirmed as were confirmed as breeding pairs. Everyone generally agreed that monitoring efforts had to move away from the intensive radio-telemetry required for restoration and incorporate more routine standard practices. Telemetry would still be used for research, control, and other specific purposes but routine monitoring should be supplemented with snow tracking, agency observations, etc. The states indicated they expected to maintain some level of radio telemetry monitoring post-delisting, especially during the mandatory monitoring period. Maintaining intensive telemetry monitoring will require much more funding than is currently available.

Delisting Status - Bangs discussed that the Service and states are cooperating to prepare the delisting proposal. Recovery goals have been met and the delisting proposal will likely rest on the efforts of WY and MT to complete state wolf management plans that will pass professional peer review and the Service's responsibility to determine that regulations are adequate to prevent wolves from becoming threatened again should the ESA protections be removed. The Service is unlikely to propose a delisting if state plans are unlikely to pass peer review since the ultimate decision will be based on the best science and the court's ruling of whether the Service used that information to guide its ultimate decision.

Monitoring flights - Everyone seemed to agree that locating wolves every 10-14 days was generally good enough for monitoring issues.

Capture Operations - A discussion about the need to radio-collar wolves developed. Bangs generally felt that radio-telemetry monitoring was unnecessary, expensive and built false public expectations of what it took to manage wolves. Yellowstone plans to continue intensive research using telemetry and all three states indicated that telemetry was likely to be continued at least initially under state management. Wildlife Services also said they would likely use telemetry to enhance their control capabilities and for implementing some forms of non-lethal control. These interests commented that radio-telemetry was very useful and that is greatly enhanced public expectations of the agencies' responsibilities for wolf management. At some point the states will be the ones to decide what level of monitoring they can afford. It was interesting that in recent public surveys the number one thing that local ranchers expected was increased one-on-one communication with agency folks about wolf locations, etc - which is enhanced through radio telemetry - but increased agency funding [which is needed to collar and radio monitor wolves] was the least wanted management option. The group discussed whether the Service had some special extra responsibility to fund monitoring during any mandatory monitoring period after delisting. At this point in time capture and radio collaring operations will likely proceed as they have been until delisting is achieved.

Generally everyone thought the monitoring program was going reasonably well and no major changes were needed. Bangs expressed concern over helicopter darting and its potential safety issues and trapping and incidental catches [such as dogs]. There was a clear need to recognize that long term post-delisting monitoring had to be based on survey or population trend techniques other than intensive capture efforts and telemetry. The old definition of a breeding pairs used to measure wolf recovery was impractical for routine post-delisting monitoring. By necessity, wolf monitoring will evolve into a count of a certain number of wolves traveling together in winter. However, other than Bangs, many stressed the need for continued radio telemetry monitoring because of its importance to research, closely monitoring the wolf population, its use at helping reducing livestock conflicts and quickly resolving them when necessary, and to assist law enforcement investigations.

Management

It seems that the general guidance for placement of M-44 devices [neck snares and daily trap check] is working fairly well. The Service will provide WS a map of wolf pack territories [the map from each year's annual reports but the Service will attempt to get a more detailed version to WS]. M-44's may not be set in those areas unless the Service has notified WS that the pack no longer exists. The Service will notify WS of any new packs that form that are not listed in the maps. Outside of those areas WS will determine themselves if wolves are likely to be present and may be taken by M-44's. WS and the Service will continue to coordinate closely to avoid incidental take during other control activities.

Somewhat surprisingly, depredations in 2002 [40 cattle, 115 sheep, 7 dogs and 7 llamas] were about the same as in 2001 [40 cattle, 138 sheep, 6 dogs, 3 llamas]. We briefly discussed why this may have occurred because an increase was expected with the increasing wolf population. Some people thought it could be just more unconfirmed depredations, others suggested overall wolf range hasn't expanded outside of the core recovery areas and new packs are simply filling in gaps in areas that don't have much livestock, and others suggested the use of non-lethal and timely lethal control may have helped in some situations. Probably a combination of things but a rise in conflicts is certain as the wolf population increases.

Wyoming - Krischke; Idaho - Collinge; and Montana - Handegard, Glazier, and Hoover; discussed wolf depredations and wolf control in 2002. Rough data indicate in 2002 wolves in NW MT were confirmed to have killed 10 cattle, 13 sheep, 4 dogs, and 9 llamas - in response 9 wolves were killed. In the GYA: 21 cattle, 86 sheep, 1 dog were confirmed killed, and in response 24 wolves were killed. In central Idaho: 9 cattle, 16 sheep, 2 dogs were confirmed killed and in response 14 wolves were killed. No wolves were relocated in 2002. A state-by-state breakdown will also appear in this year's annual report. We discussed ways to keep better records of wolf depredations and will attempt to use a more-detailed Service form in 2003 in addition to WS records.

Permits - Shoot on sight permits removed 3 wolves. Non-lethal [rubber bullet] permits continue to be issued. Only one wolf has been hit so far but people seem to feel better about being able to shoot at wolves coming too close to buildings or livestock. A wolf was legally shot and killed without a permit because it was seen attacking a calf on private property.

Use of non-lethal techniques continues - Williamson, Niemeyer, Breck, and WS - RAG Boxes appear useful for temporarily reducing some conflicts but wolves eventually ignored them. Beck discussed WS research's fladry study. It was used in several instances and from a week to 45 days fladry seemed to temporarily keep wolves out of high conflict areas, and a month seemed typical. However, wolves eventually crossed the barriers and in several instances killed livestock. There are no magic bullets in terms of non-lethal techniques and most appear to offer only temporary relief. However non-lethal techniques will continue to be used when practical because prevention maybe a much more effective tool to long-term conflicts resolution than repeated lethal control. The special rules also require that the Service utilize non-lethal as a part of its overall wolf control program when feasible. All lethal control authorized in 2003 will attempt to be documented in a letter to WS from the Service in addition to normal record keeping.

Depredation sheets - Are they adequate? One of the areas of the wolf control program recommended for improvement during the 1999 revision of the wolf control plan for NW Montana and N. Idaho was improved record keeping. A constant source of conflict in improving record keeping is a Texas court order that prohibits WS from releasing any information regarding landowner identity. While the Service and WS have managed to work through this problem it has greatly complicated accurate record keeping and detailed analysis of the effectiveness of wolf control efforts by the Service. Establishing a record of wolf control activities from the weekly reports and the WS investigation forms [with landowners and area crossed out] and Defenders compensation program requires Service biologists to go to extra efforts to construct a record of wolf depredations and control. Service biologists will attempt to construct a better data base by filling out an internal wolf depredation form as the Service is notified by WS of a confirmed wolf depredation. Liz Bradley, a graduate student with UM will complete her thesis on wolf depredation on cattle and wolf control, affected rancher surveys, and relocation as a management tool in late 2003. Rose Jaffe, a Service seasonal biologist, is putting GPS location data with all livestock depredation data and is updating the dog depredation data base. That effort should be completed in January 2003.

Overall everyone thought the wolf control program was doing fairly well and no major changes were required. Both livestock losses and lethal wolf control are below predicted levels.

December 20th: 8am - 12pm

Research

Doug Smith discussed the Park's ongoing research into wolf ecology, including his most recent efforts to analyze records of over 400 radio-collared wolves to assess survival rates and causes of mortality. Of 248 wolves that have died, about 27% were unknown causes, 22% each from illegal and agency control, human/other causes were about 7% each, and vehicles and other wolves were 5% each, and capture related, and other predators were 2-3% each. Man-caused mortality is the cause of over 80% of all wolf death. This manuscript is in preparation of peer review publication in 2003. During a multi-predator study in relation to elk hunting outside of Yellowstone Park movement data indicated grizzly bears moved outside the Park toward hunters to feed on gut piles, wolf movement appeared relatively unaffected, they moved outside the Park to feed on gut piles but also into the Park following the elk which moved into the Park to areas with high wolf numbers to avoid human hunters. Cougars appeared to move into the Park to avoid human activity associated with hunting along the Park boundary.

WS is continuing its research of non-lethal measurers to reduce livestock/wolf conflict. Liz Bradley briefly discussed her project and her surveys of ranchers who had experienced wolf depredation and their neighbors who hadn't. The UM led study of livestock compensation and if it leads to large carnivore conservation was briefly discussed. Rose Jaffe discussed MSU efforts to assess the impact of wolf predation on elk both in the Madison Firehole area and west of Yellowstone Park where elk are heavily harvested. Jimenez will continue the cooperative research project, now in its 4th year, looking at the potential effect of wolves on wintering elk on WY state feed grounds.

Rubber jaws vs. steel jawed leg hold traps - Meier and Frame are taking the lead and will be writing a paper on trapping and trap injuries. Fontaine is taking the lead on writing a paper about disease exposure of wolves using blood serum. Everyone assisted by providing data with a Norwegian-led effort to determine the effect of alpha wolf loss on pack structure. That multi-author publication soon be published in 2003. Starting in 2003 the Park will lead efforts to do an elk calf mortality study on the Northern Range as well as continue the adult elk movement and mortality study.

Everyone seemed to think the research was focused appropriately on the two key issues-livestock depredation and the potential effect of wolf predation on ungulate populations.

Information, Education & Law Enforcement

Law Enforcement - any dead wolves are an LE issue. Any dead livestock are a Wildlife Services issue. Things on the LE front appear to be going well and no major changes in policy were recommended. We are trying to get a list of all LE investigations and cases for the annual report.

Information & Education - Montana had an identifying wolves section in its hunting regulations and that seemed to result in an increase in reports of wolf activity by hunters. That could be useful in other states.

Annual Report - Meier and Fontaine are taking the lead in preparing the annual report. Drafts of the tables and maps of wolf numbers, distribution and livestock conflicts were handed out and everyone will be getting improved copies to review. It is hoped that the 2002 annual report will be completed by February 2003.

Everyone was reminded how important the weekly report is for maintaining a consistent record and source of public information. It is widely read and provides an important record of everything we do. Please contribute!!

How and what do we do to prepare for the reclassification and delisting? The wolf population in the NRM is biologically recovered. MT, ID, and WY and the Service signed a cooperative agreement and the Service is providing funding to cooperate on efforts to prepare a wolf delisting package. The final reclassification rule will set the policy and legal framework for the delisting effort. Any delisting proposal in 2003 appears to currently depend on Wyoming's effort to prepare a state wolf management plan that will adequately conserve wolves in the Wyoming portion of the GYA. Funding of wolf management appears to be a major issue that has not yet been completely resolved.

The annual meeting will be held April 8-10, 2003 in Chico Hot Springs, Montana. It is co-hosted by the Service, Defenders of Wildlife and Wolf Recovery Foundation. It is likely the last annual meeting the Service will co-host because wolves should be delisted in early 2004. Hopefully, beginning in 2004 the states will be leading all wolf management issues and meetings. Likewise, the states were encouraged to considering organizing and leading the December 2003 annual interagency wolf meeting.

We thank everyone for coming and have a safe journey home. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Return to the Wolf Recovery - Progress Reports



Home | Organization | Wolves | Library | Trips & Events | Ralph | Donations | Site Map | Guestbook | Email



Site owned by ©1998-2003 Wolf Recovery Foundation.
Site Design and Graphics by ©1997-2003 Wolff Den Design™ All Rights Reserved.
No part of this site or any material within this site may be
used without the expressed written permission from the author.