HomeMy Public PortalAboutWolf Recovery Project
BH - Big Hole
BV - Bear Valley
CB - Chamberlain
JM - Jureano Mountain
KC - Kelly Creek
LM - Landmark
MB - Moyer Basin
SB - Stanley Basin
SP - Snow Peak
SW - Selway
TM - Thunder Mountain
TP - Twin Peaks
WC - White Cloud
Distribution of Idaho wolf packs
and pairs, Fall 1998
Wolf packs are currently
distributed from the Clearwater
River Drainage in northern Idaho
south to Stanley Basin, and
from the north fork of the
Payette River east to
head waters of the
Main Salmon River
Brochure produced by
The Wolf Education and Keoearch Center
(www.wolfcenter.org) & The Nez Perce Tribe, in
conjunction with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 5ervice,
Wildlife 5erviceo & the U.S. Forest Service.
Additional copies may be attained by calling
(208)924 -6960
Wolves in Idaho
An informational brochure from the
Idaho Gray Wolf Recovery Project
Know your animals: Both wolves and coyotes have no spotted coats and
ears never hang down. Generally, adult wolves are larger than adult
coyotes.
d' LONG 1S TALL
Tall
Pointed
Lioht Grev/
Round W LONG 2S TALL
IE
COYOTE
051ZE: 4 feet long, 1.5 feet tall. Delicate,
medium -sized body averaging 20 -30 lbs.
0EAR5: Tall and pointed with a conical -like
shape.
*FACE: Delicate, fox -like shape with a
narrow, pointed muzzle.
•PAWPRINT: 2 by 2.5 inches (thin, delicate
legs).
WOLF
051ZE: 5 -6 feet long, 2.5 feet tall. Massive
and long- legged, averaging from 70 -120 lbs.
•EAR5: Rounder and shorter, almost
triangle -like.
•FACE: Broad face with large, blocky
muzzle.
•PAWPRINT: 4 by 5 inches (thick and long
legs).
Role of the Nez Perce Tribe
The U.5. Fish and Wildlife 5ervice's recovery strategy intended that states and /or tribes
would have the primary responsibility for implementing wolf recovery in their respective areas,
and for monitoring and managing wolf populations through the recovery process. In 1995,
the U5FW5 and the Nez Perce Tribe entered into a cooperative agreement to recover and
manage wolves in Idaho. The Nez Perce tribe completed, and the U5FW5 approved, the Nez
Perce Tribal Gray Wolf Recovery and Management Plan for Idaho. The Idaho Recovery Program
adopts an innovative partnership which focuses on collaborative efforts to balance the
biological needs of wolves and the social concerns of Idahoans.
( NOTE: Wolf Pawprint is approx. size for an adult wolf. )
"If you live OUTSIDE the experimental areas (see map) you are not alloy
The wolf is a federally - listed species, and you would be at He
Wolves in Early Idaho
Wolves have existed in Idaho for over 2000 years.
Wolves occurred statewide, but were most
numerous in east- central Idaho. Wolves were
removed from Idaho by strychnine poisoning and
killing pups found in dens during 1915 -1925. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the gray wolf as
endangered in the early 1970'6 because of low wolf
numbers and lack of documented reproduction.
Between the late 1930'5 and mid 1980's, a handful
of lone wolves, mostly males traveling south from
Canada inhabited the Idaho backcountry. Despite
increasing reports, re5earcher5 working in winters
and summers between 1978 and the mid 1990'6
found little evidence of reproducing wolves or the
establishment of wolf packs in Idaho.
Wolf Recovery
35 gray wolves from Canada were released into the
Idaho backcountry in 1995 and 1996 5o that wolves
might establish themselves as a reproducing
population in Idaho. All tran5located wolves were
released with radio collars for monitoring. Recovery
goals for the Northern Rocky Mountains is to
establish 10 breeding pairs of wolves for 3
consecutive years in 3 recovery zones. Once
recovered, their federally protected status would be
eventually removed and wolves would be managed
along with other wildlife in Idaho.
Wolves released from Canada are managed under the
Endangered Species Act as an Experimental
Population. This means the wolves are managed
without imposing land use restrictions on public
lands. Special rules allow that wolves depredating on
livestock can be controlled and, if necessary, killed.
For More Information or Assistance:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
RoyHerberger ......................................................... ............................... ..................(208)378 -5347
PaulWeyland ........................................................... ............................... ..................(208)378 -5333
Nez Perce Tribe
CurtMack ............................................................... ............................... ..................(208)843 -7335
Cell Phone: (406)544 -8075
Wildlife Services (formerly ADC)
George Graves (Boise) ......................................... ............................... ..................(208)378 -5077
Layne Bangerter ( Boise) ...........................................................
.....................Hm(208)495 -2668
Rick Williamson ( Arco) ............................................................... .....................Hm(208)527 -8538
Chuck Carpenter ( Gooding)
....................................................... .....................Hm(208)934 -8129
Justin Mann (Lucile) .................................................................
.....................Hm(208)628 -3670
Craig Maycock (Pocatello) ................................... ............................... ..................(208)236 -6921
Doug Hunsaker (5weet) ...........................................................
.....................Hm(208)584 -3446
red to harass, wound or kill a wolf except to protect your life or others.
of fines as large as $100,000 and possible imprisonment."
This clause of the special Rule places trust and
responsibility for wolves' recovery and management
with rural and urban Idahoans.
Tracking a Success
Cooperative efforts of wildlife officials, resource
managers, stockmen and many interested
individuals across Idaho contribute to Nez Perce
Tribe biologists monitoring of wolves throughout
Idaho Wilderness and national forests during
winters and summers.
Only a small percentage of wolves released into
Idaho are known to have died in the time since their
earliest release over four years ago. All wolves
released were fitted with radio collars to allow
biologists to follow their movements. Although a
few radio collars are suspected to have
malfunctioned over the years, Tribal biologists are
still able to track the majority of released wolves.
Three wolf pairs produced a total of 11 pups in 1996,
and 6 wolf pairs produced 32 pups in 1997. In 1998,
ten wolf pairs produced a total of 51 pups. 1998 is
the first year that Idaho wolves achieved the
benchmark number of ten breeding pairs. There are
now 12 established packs in Idaho including over 115
wolves.
Nez Perce biologists are successfully keeping track
of the whereabouts of wolves across the State, but
we cannot be everywhere. We benefit from the help
we receive from interested professionals and
citizens across Idaho including hunters, outfitters,
stockgrowers and recreationists. By reporting
observations of wolves or wolf sign, you can assist
with gathering important information that will be
useful for managing wolves into Idaho's future. If
you see a wolf or sign, here's what we ask: pay careful
attention to whatever detail or physical
characteristics of a wolf or wolves you see, such as
size differences, the number present, color, and
whether or not they appear to be wearing a dark
black or colored band located around their neck. We
ask that you report your observations to the Nez
Perce Tribe (208- 843 - 7335), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (208- 378 -5347) or the nearest Idaho Fish
and Game office.
Wolves are protected
by State and federal law.
Please report any game
violations to the Idaho
Department of Fish and
Game.
(800- 632 -5999)
Central Idaho Wolf Recovery
A Management Report 1990
To our readers:
The Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee was organized in January 1989. It operates as a recommending body for the
five agencies participating in wolf recovery in central Idaho. The committee's purpose is to provide focus, direction and leadership
toward the recovery of the gray wolf in this area.
The strength of this organization is its interagency composition and its commitment to coordinated wolf management in central
Idaho. Each agency contributes expertise essential to success, which will be measured by how well we achieve recovery goals.
This report summarizes the accomplishments and direction provided by the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee in
1990.
Dave Rittersbacher
Steering Committee Chairman
Charter: Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee
Gray wolves in the northern Rockies are listed as an endangered species in Idaho. A recovery plan outlining
a strategy to recover the wolf in Idaho was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in August 1987.
The signatory parties below agree to proceed with wolf recovery actions using existing agency authorities.
To this end we established in Idaho a Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee composed of one
Forest Supervisor from the Northern Region, one Forest Supervisor from the Intermountain Region, a
representative from the State Office of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, a representative from
Animal Damage Control, and a representative from the Bureau of Land Management State Office. This
Steering Committee will meet, select officers as needed, and may appoint such subcommittees as necessary
to achieve recovery of the gray wolf in central Idaho.
Mission: Provide focus, direction and leadership toward the recovery of the gray wolf in central Idaho.
HN MU MA, Regional Forester AN TIXIER, Regional F r
etegion 1 - Forest Service �' `Region 4 - Forest S ice
WALLY`STEUCKE, Regional Director --jf . CONLEY, Di
Region 1, Idah Fish and Wildlife Service Id ho a rtment of
�)- 4 (-, ) , 1�2
DEL VAIL, Director, Bureau of Land Management
M_ ]
ry c,nomv
. T:,.,:ractor USDA /A::SIS
Animal Damage Control
b Game
Central Idaho Wolf Recovery
A Management Report 1990
Prepared by Suzanne Morris and Rick Hobson
Photography by Suzanne Morris and reproduction by the Wolf Recovery Foundation
Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee:
SUSDA Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
IVBureau of Land Management
Animal Damage Control
A4
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Contents
Biology of the Gray Wolf
A History of Wolves in Central Idaho 3
Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee 6
Recovery
Monitoring
10
Wolves in Central Idaho Today 11
Biology of the Gray Wolf
The Eskimo called him "amaguk ", the Nez Perce,
"he'me "... The Cheyenne Wolf Soldier band, best known
among wolf warriors, produced a great brotherhood of
warriors who incorporated the lore of the wolf deeply into
the rituals of their clan. The gray wolf (Canis lupus) once
roamed from Florida to the upper northern boundaries of
Canada and from the East coast to the Oregon shore lines
on the West. An efficient predator, the gray wolves survived
fluctuating their own numbers with the populations of
available prey, until the near extermination of wolves
throughout their former habitat in the continental United
States around the turn of the twentieth century.
Cousin to the domestic dog, the characteristics of the
gray wolf are often recognizable and distinct...
SIZE An adult male weighs around 100 pounds, the
females slightly less. Their length ranges from 4.5 to 6.5
feet from the nose to the tip of their tail. An adult wolf
usually stands about 26 to 32 inches high at the shoulder.
COLOR Though commonly referred to as the "gray" or
"timber" wolf, the color of the wolf can range from all white
to all black or shades in between. Often, the longer guard
hairs that cover the wolf's shoulders and back down
through the tail are darker and tipped in silver -gray. The
thick undercoat, more easily seen on the underside, is
generally lighter. The tawny brown gray color of the coyote
is also common among wolves.
HEAD The wolf has a wedge shaped head enhanced
by the ruff or longer guard hairs around the neck. The
snout is longer than most dogs and more massive than a
coyote's. The ears are rounded at the tips and smaller, in
comparison to head size, than a coyote's. The eyes are
typically yellow, green, or amber and reflect incandescent
green in the dark. The eyes are almond shaped and tilt
down toward the nose.
BODY The body of the wolf appears long and lean.
The legs seem disproportionately long and lanky and the
feet large are quite large. A wolf track is often over 5 inches
in length and 3.5 inches in width. The extending toenails
generally leave marks that help distinguish a wolf track
from a cougar's. Coyote tracks are similar to a wolf's but
smaller. Wolves generally move in a straight line whereas a
dog will often meander. The wolf's chest is narrow and
keel- shaped so the tracks are also narrow across. The
wolf's stride is long (26 inches or more from front to back).
The wolf's tail is long and bushy. The tail is carried either
straight out, as when running, or straight down, or even
tucked under, in submission, but never up over the back
like a husky. Wolves use verbal and non - verbal behavior,
(body posture, eye contact, tail position and scent) to
communicate.
HOWLING Wolves verbally communicate through a
series of whines, growls, barks and, most commonly
recognized, howling. The wolf's sense of hearing is
extremely keen and well beyond the range of humans.
Wolves can hear frequencies up to 26kH (the same as
bats and dolphins) and may distinguish each other's howls
from several miles away. The purposes of howling include
warding off other wolf packs (defending territory),
announcing the presence of prey, locating other members
of the pack, mourning the loss of a pack member, or simply
Page 1
for the celebration of group howling. The full explanation
of why and how wild wolves communicate is not fully
understood and much remains a mystery to wolf experts. It
is evident, however, that wolves have a very complex
system of both verbal and non - verbal communication.
Biologists, in their efforts to locate wolves, often howl as a
means to evoke responses from wild wolves.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE The wolf society is based on
the pack or family. The pack generally consists of an alpha
(leader) male and female, parents of the other pack
members. The alpha pair are typically the only pack
members to breed and produce offspring. The pups are
born in the spring in a den prepared by the alpha female.
The litter size may vary depending on prey abundance or
pack size but 5 -8 pups to each litter is common. The wolf
pups are deaf and blind until they are about two weeks old.
Once the pups are able, the pack will relocate to a
rendezvous site where the pups can play and begin to
learn the skills that are vital to their survival. A member of
the pack is left behind to "baby -sit" when it is necessary for
the pack to leave the area. Once the pups are several
months old they will establish a position in the hiearchy
(structure) of the pack. The alpha pair is at the top of this
order and each wolf has a position in rank order beneath
these two. Wolves communicate their dominance or
submission both verbally and non - verbally. Shows of
aggression are common in this establishment of rank;
however, wolves seldom fatally wound each other as the
pack depends on its members for survival. Displays of
affection are frequent, as well as games of tag and chase.
Even the older members of the pack will suffer
disrespectful play attacks from the pups with great
patience and care.
PREY Wolves are carnivorous mammals. The main
prey base is ungulates- elk, deer, or moose but they also
prey on smaller animals when available. The wolf
concentrates its hunt on the old, sick, injured or very
young, but will take healthy animals if conditions permit.. A
wolf needs between 5 -10 Ibs of meat per day but may go a
week or more without food. Though the wolf is an efficient
predator, wolves seem to test their prey for weakness and
may pass up several healthy animals before attempting to
kill a weaker one.
Concerns have been expressed regarding the loss of
available game for human hunting if the wolf returns to
Idaho. With a population goal of approximately 130
animals, biological studies reveal wolves will have less
effect on hunting than Idaho's mountain lion population
(estimated at 2,000 ), road kills, poaching, or starvation.
Wolves may also cull the unhealthy animals from
herds, thereby ensuring the reproduction of healtt
animals and increasing the overall health of the hi
wolves were to cause a dramatic impact onlocal c
populations, management through control could b
protect a balance between predator/ prey populati
Page 2
Predators and their prey have been surviving together long
before humans were in North America; though fluctuations
occur in nature, there seems to be a balance allowing all
species to survive.
HUMANS Though myths and fairy tales have
promoted the "big, bad wolf" that devours grandmothers
and children, the truth is wolves don't kill people. Never
has a healthy wild wolf attacked and killed a human in U.S.
history. Even the "wolfers" who made a living of killing
wolves never reported an incident of human mortality
caused by wolves. Perhaps some of the fear developed as
a result of losses of livestock or simply out of the
mysterious, shy behavior of the wolf itself.
LIVESTOCK Ever since livestock was introduced to
wild game habitat there has been some conflict with the
native predators. Such depredation may have been more
severe when the native herds were first diminished and the
predators were left to survive on whatever was available.
Losses due to depredation were hard -felt on ranchers
whose survival depended on their livestock. An open
extermination program was enacted to control or
completely rid such predators from these areas. The wolf
became the central target for these control programs and
by the early 1900's, wolves were eradicated from over 90
percent of their former habitat . Thousands of wolves were
destroyed by government and private programs using
poisoning, trapping and hunting.
Today the wolf is protected under the Endangered
Species Act and the federal government is charged with
the recovery of the wolf to some of its former habitat.
However, many of the same concerns are still expressed
by ranchers who fear loss of livestock to wolves. Some of
the specific concerns are over control methods of a
protected species and the fear of losing grazing privileges
on public lands.
Minnesota has approximately 1,700 wolves and
records indicate less than .1 percent of the livestock is lost
to wolves. In Montana, where wolves have full endangered
status,the U.S.F.W.S. is actively managing wolves to
protect both the species and ranching interests. Wolves
were relocated or even killed to protect livestock. There is
also a depredation fund created by Defenders of Wildlife to
compensate ranchers for their losses due to wolf
depredation.
Though conflicts may occur in Idaho, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has developed a control program to
ensure effective measures are taken.
A History of Wolves in Central Idaho
Wolves once roamed through much of Idaho,
concentrating in the south and southeast on the prairies
and foothills of the Snake River plain. Elk, deer and, to
some extent, buffalo, provided their main food source.
With the advent of mining in the mid -1800s and livestock
grazing in the late 1880s, both wolf populations and their
prey base were decimated. By the 1930s, wolves were
seldom seen in the northern Rocky Mountain states.
Elk numbers in the state did not begin to recover until
the 1920s, recovery was possible largely because of
hunting regulations and transplants from herds in
Yellowstone National Park. It was shortly after this, in the
1940s, that scattered reports of wolves began in northern
Idaho along the Canadian border.
Wolves are tenacious, and their breeding patterns and
dispersal activity allow populations to increase quickly, both
over time and distance. During a brief hiatus in Canadian
control efforts during the 1940s, packs were established
over hundreds of square miles from which they had been
eradicated. As the wolves extended their Canadian range,
several wolf sightings were reported in both the Selkirk
Mountains of northern Idaho and the northwest section of
Glacier National Park in Montana.
There was apparently little if any wolf activity along the
Idaho - British Columbia border through much of the 1950s.
There were, however, several wolf reports in central Idaho.
Nine sightings were reported in the Boise National Forest
between 1941 and 1957, for a total of 15 wolves; of these,
four were killed, all from pairs, indicating that there may
have been a breeding population in the area at the time.
Indeed, some wildlife biologists believe that central Idaho
had its own reproducing population of wolves in the 1950s
because the Canadian control efforts of the time made it
unlikely that dispersers from Alberta or British Columbia
packs were traveling into the state.
Reports of wolf occurrence in Idaho increased during
the 1960s; in fact, they doubled between 1960 and 1973.
This was probably less a matter of more wolves in the area
than it was of more humans in the woods. The 1960s and
early 1970s were a time of rediscovery of America's
wildlands, and people began flocking to the rivers,
mountains and valleys of central Idaho to enjoy the area's
whitewater, wilderness and wildlife. Some of them
reported seeing wolves.
Because there was no systematic evaluation of these
reports, it is difficult to assess their validity. There is some
indication that some of the observers mistook large coyotes
for wolves. Be that as it may, there were 56 wolf
occurrence reports in central Idaho between 1960 and
1973, 38 from the portion encompassed by the Challis,
Boise and Payette National Forests and 18 from the
Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests in the
north - central portion of the area.
The most significant aspect of these findings was that
they primarily involved lone wolves, and there was no
evidence during this time that the area was supporting a
breeding population. Both Alberta and British Columbia
reduced their wolf - control campaign during the 1960s, and
Page 3
there is speculation that the increase in Canadian wolf and endangered species, convinced the agencies
populations was producing dispersers, which then traveled responsible for wildlife management in central Idaho to
down through the mountains that separate Idaho and fund an in -depth study of the historical and possible
Montana. present locations of wolves in central Idaho. In 1983, with
The presence and distribution of wolves from the funds from the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and
mid -1970s through the 1980s received considerably more Wildlife Service and the Idaho Department of Fish and
attention than the scattered information from past years. Game, researchers from the University of Montana
Again, much of this was due to the larger number of Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit combed state and
people using the backcountry, but the more detailed federal agency records and the scientific literature for
information also reflected a new interest in wolves. In the historical evidence of wolf distribution and interviewed
early 1980s, the Boise National Forest initiated an effort to backcountry residents, hunters, trappers, outfitters,
track down and evaluate reports of wolf sightings on its ranchers and agency personnel to compile a list of
lands during the 1970s. This was followed by a similar "probable" and "possible" wolf occurrence reports during
survey on the Clearwater National Forest. These two the recent past.
forests lie on opposite ends of a 3.6- million -acre The criteria for the "probables" are based on a system
wilderness complex, the largest in the contiguous United that evaluates the observer's distance from the animal
States, that includes the Frank Church -River of No Return reported and his or her ability to recognize characteristics
and the Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness areas. More than 60 unique to wolves, including color, head and body size,
percent of the wolf reports through the early'80s were howling and tracks, particularly as compared to coyotes,
from these two forests. with which wolves are often confused. Probable reports
These reports, and the mandate to protect threatened can also include howling and scats if the observer is
experienced enough to distinguish such evidence from that
left by other canids. This system is now the standard
method used to evaluate wolf reports in the northern
Rocky Mountains.
Wolf Occurrence Reports The Wildlife Research Unit study found evidence for
1974 -83 238 probable reports of wolves in central Idaho between
.f 1974 and 1983. Broken down by general region within
that area, the reports were as follows:
Coeur d' A1^e
' Fork North (Bitterroot, Clearwater, Nez Perce) - -142
West (Boise, Payette, Sawtooth) 66
• d Miss--o- llaaa East (Challis, Salmon, Beaverhead) -- 30
1 r FA►k
M °g ° °- It should be emphasized that these reports were
�,�a.wa% • �r�',.' made by a variety of people over a 10 -year period and that
?. • • • m Butte they indicate the extent rather than the number of wolves.
• .gel t-
• The Wildlife Research Unit study included a two -year effort
A to gather actual physical evidence of wolves -- scats, kill
'_. • sites, tracks -- and the researchers found evidence of only
one to four wolves. The study estimated that the wolf
• "� population in the entire central Idaho area did not exceed
' about 15 wolves during the decade studied and that these
o
•,�^'D. were mostly lone wolves.
•' •;' •• ••' The 1984 Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit report
• �• = marked the beginning of a more organized and intensive
' , ,�• agency effort to track central Idaho's elusive wolves. The
Fish and Wildlife Service produced a wolf recovery plan for
�•:.: , . the northern Rockies, and other agencies such as the
Boise Bureau of Land Management and Animal Damage Control
of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service began
Snaky getting involved as agency personnel contemplated the
management and control issues that would surface with a
_. recovering wolf population.
Page 4
The move toward more formal organization and
management continued with the Idaho Department of Fish
and Game's decision to enter a cooperative agreement
with The Nature Conservancy to establish the Idaho
Natural Heritage Program in 1984. Now a part of the Fish
and Game Department, the Heritage Program developed a
central data management system for information on the
status and distribution of rare animals and plants
throughout the state; it thus became a clearinghouse for
the wolf occurrence reports scattered through the files of
the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service and other
agencies.
In addition to pulling together older information and
processing new occurrence reports from both state and
federal agencies, the Boise National Forest contracted
with The Nature Conservancy to survey Idaho elk hunters
about any wolf sign they may have seen during the hunting
season. Conducted from August 1988 through March
1989, the survey contacted 2,500 elk hunters and 110
outfitters through letters; 25 percent of the elk permit
holders who had indicated that they were going to hunt in
the central Idaho area were later interviewed by phone.
The survey recorded 248 accounts of wolf sightings,
howling or tracks; 137 of these were given a probable
rating. The occurrence patterns showed considerable
consistency with those of the past decade -- that is, a
loose clustering in the Boise and Clearwater National
Forests on the south and north ends of Idaho's vast
wilderness areas and more scattered reports from the
intervening and adjacent forests. The probable reports
from 1984 through the early months of 1989 were as
follows by general region:
North (Clearwater, Nez Perce) -- 82
West (Boise, Payette, Sawtooth) -- 59
East (Challis, Salmon, Beaverhead) -- 27
Seventy -eight percent of the probable reports from
the Heritage Program data base were of lone animals, a
proportion similar to that found in the Cooperative Wildlife
Research Unit study and other surveys.
Page 5
Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee
Recovery Efforts and the Key Players
The Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee
was formed to provide focus, direction and leadership
toward the recovery of the gray wolf in central Idaho. It is
composed of one forest supervisor from the Forest
Service's Northern Region, a forest supervisor from the
Intermountain Region, and one representative each from
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, Animal Damage Control and the Bureau of
Land Management.
The interagency steering committee appointed and
now oversees two working groups: 1) the Scientific and
Biological Working Group, which is providing technical
advice to those involved in wolf monitoring, and 2) the
Information and Education Working Group, which
disseminates information about wolves and recovery efforts
to both agencies and the general public.
The Scientific and Biological Working Group's role is
to provide technical direction and advice for the agencies
involved in wolf recovery, particularly when their efforts
involve: 1) documentation and verification of wolves, 2)
surveys of winter range and summer habitat, 3) monitoring,
4) establishment of wolf recovery boundaries and 5)
nuisance wolf control.
The Scientific and Biological Working Group divided
central Idaho into three data - collection sections -- north
(Bitterroot, Clearwater, Lolo, Nez Perce), west (Payette,
Boise, Sawtooth) and east (Beaverhead, Challis, Salmon)
-- and assigned a wolf verification team to each. Each
team is made up of representatives from different agencies
Page 6
in the area; the northern team, for example, consists of one
biologist from both the Clearwater and Nez Perce National
Forests, an Animal Damage Control officer and an officer
from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. During
1989, team members received training in wolf identification,
learning to distinguish, for example, wolf tracks from lion
tracks; training also included scat identification and how to
make plaster casts of tracks.
Whenever there is a promising report of wolves or wolf
sign, the designated section leader of the regional team will
contact the other members, after which they will travel to
the site of the report and look for physical evidence of
wolves.
Experience in other areas repopulated by wolves has
shown that recovery depends on more than careful
management. Without public support, wolf recovery will not
be possible.
The Information and Education Working Group has
begun an effort to educate the public on general wolf
ecology and provide information about the status of wolves
in central Idaho and the management actions that do or
could affect wolves in this area. The group has several
ongoing responsibilities including the quarterly newsletter,
educational programs, the establishment and monitoring of
the wolf hotline, media - related events, the distribution of
information concerning wolf recovery efforts, volunteer
coordination and the annual report. The I & E working
group has given thousands of children and adults the
opportunity to become better acquainted with the wolf and
Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Organizations
Participating Agencies
Bureau of USDA Idaho Depart- U.S. Fish and APHIS: Animal
Land Mgmt Forest Service ment Wildlife Service Damage Con-
STEERING COMMITTEE: Pro-
vides policy direction
to recovery efforts
Scientific and Biological Information and Education
Working Group Working Group
Role: Provide technical direction Role: Provide information as
to recovery effort needed internally and externally
Wolf Monitoring Team
Role: Conduct field surveys
and monitoring studies
recovery efforts through educational programs. While the
focus has been concentrated in Boise due to the larger
population base, the I & E working group has reached
communities in McCall, Donnelly, Sun Valley /Ketchum,
and Meridian. Other communities which express interest
will be considered in the future.
Also, in an attempt to evaluate local efforts, a
representative was sent to Yellowstone, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota to ascertain the effectiveness of other public
awareness programs and concerns. The information
received from this expedition helped coordinate better
recovery methods such as trapping procedures, public
service announcements, strengthen educational programs,
and gain a better understanding of the what the different
levels of recovery efforts has experienced in other
regions.
The importance of public awareness is critical for a
successful recovery program to occur. Recently, in a poll
produced by the University of Montana, Alistair Bath
reported over 53% of Idahoans have a favorable attitude
toward wolves. And 56% of Idahoans favor wolf
reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park. The reports
concluded that people who are more familiar with the wolf
and recovery efforts are also more supportive of both.
Central Idaho's Mangaging Agencies
Five agencies are involved in wolf management in
Idaho. Each federal agency has a legal mandate to
evaluate its management actions to ensure that they are
consistent with the 1973 Endangered Species Act, which
requires them to "use their authority to further the
purposes of the act by carrying out conservation programs
for listed species." Several federal agencies and one state
agency are now part of the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery
Steering Committee, formed to coordinate recovery efforts
in central Idaho.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of
Interior) is the lead federal agency in conservation of
threatened and endangered species, both plant and
animal-, it also prepares and approves recovery plans and
coordinates recovery actions and progress. Other federal
agencies are required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service on any action that might adversely affect these
species or their habitat. All wolf reports on the forests and
other public lands are recorded on standard FWS forms,
and the agency thus serves as the initial clearinghouse for
this information.
The USDA Forest Service (Department of
Agriculture) manages the national forest lands in central
Idaho. The agency cooperates with federal and state
officials to manage threatened and endangered species
habitat on national forest lands and to meet recovery
objectives.
The Bureau of Land Management (Department of
Interior) is another agency with lands that may serve as
wolf habitat. BLM lands are important to wolf survival
because they are generally found at lower elevations,
where prey animals such as elk and deer often winter.
Animal Damage Control of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (Department of Agriculture) is
responsible for predator control on public lands. ADC
works with the interagency wolf teams to help identify the
presence of wolves. As experts in predator control. ADC
personnel will be responsible for verifying suspected wolf
kills. Along with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
ADC will be responsible for control of problem wolves.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is
responsible for fish and wildlife management in the state.
Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible
for the conservation of wolves and other federally
classified threatened and endangered species in Idaho,
the Department participates at the level authorized by the
Idaho Legislature and the Idaho Fish and Game
Commission.
Page 7
Recovery
Almost half a century after the last wolf packs were
seen in the northern Rocky Mountains, Congress passed
the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Wolf recovery
programs, which have the ultimate goal of astable
breeding population, are now underway in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, the Southwest, and the northern
Rocky Mountains.
The northern Rocky Mountain recovery effort centers
on three recovery areas: Yellowstone National Park, north-
west Montana and central Idaho. Wolves returned on their
own to northwest Montana during the past decade, and
there are now three packs, representing 20 to 25 wolves,
with territories extending into Canada. These animals were
the first wolves known to den in the northern Rocky Moun-
tain area for 50 years.
In areas like northwest Montana where wolf packs
have returned after years of absence, population recovery
was preceded by many years of persistent but usually
unsubstantiated sightings. Reports of wolves in central
Idaho during the past 15 years have been consistent but
scattered, indicating that the population has been
composed primarily of single animals, whose presence
does not necessarily indicate a breeding population.
This does not mean that there are no wolves in the
area. In Alaska's Kenai Peninsula, after undocumented
sightings of wolves persisted through the 1960s,
researchers finally documented the presence of a pair in
the latter part of the decade: within two years, a pack had
formed. and the wolf population reached 180 by 1975.
Page 8
Recovery plans for threatened and endangered
animal species generally take one of two approaches: 1)
reintroduction of the species into appropriate habitat from
which it was eliminated or encouragement of natural
recovery. One example of the first approach, which is the
less frequently used, is the highly successful reintroduction
of peregrine falcons in both Western and Eastern states.
The recovery of bald eagle populations in much of the
nation after the ban on DDT is a good example of the
second approach.
Natural recovery of wolves is occurring in the area
drained by the North Fork of the Flathead River along
Glacier National Park's western boundary. Here, after
persistent rumors of sightings during the late 1970s and
early 1980s. 90 percent of which involved single wolves.
Wolf Ecology Project researchers discovered that
dispersers from Canada had established a pack in 1982; it
was the first pack seen in the United States west of the
Mississippi River for almost 50 years. This pack eventually
split into three new packs. There are now about 50 wolves
in the northwest Montana /southeast British Columbia area.
Like the northwest Montana population, the central
Idaho wolf population will depend initially on dispersers
from Canadian packs living in the north. Wolves have
proved themselves determined travelers, particularly loners
searching for a mate and /or territory, and will occasionally
reestablish themselves hundred of miles from their home
pack. The Wolf Ecology Project has documented five
dispersers from the northwest Montana packs, one of
which traveled almost 550 miles to the north. If that animal
had chosen to travel the same distance south or
southwest, she would have easily reached Utah's Great
Salt Lake.
In less than five years, the northwest Montana wolves
more than doubled their numbers, and are now increasing
at about 40% per year (although some of these may have
been immigrants from Canada). Hypothetically, at least, a
central Idaho population could do the same once breeding
pairs were established.
The human role in this natural recovery is spelled out
in the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan,
prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a set of
guidelines for those agencies who manage the lands
where wolf recovery is planned. Within these general
guidelines, the strategy to promote wolf recovery varies in
different areas. In central Idaho, with its natural and very
slow wolf recovery, the emphasis is on encouraging
cooperation among the affected agencies to monitor the
existing wolf population and determine whether recovery is
taking place. Recovery in central Idaho is defined as 10
breeding pairs. Once this goal is reached and maintained
for at least three years, wolves will be reclassified from
endangered to threatened, which would provide more
flexibility for control; if the population increases well
beyond the recovery goal, the wolf may be "delisted," and
management of the animal would be turned over to the
state.
As defined by the Northern Rockies Recovery Plan,
natural reestablishment of wolves depends on 1) large
blocks of land with a low density of people, 2) suitable and
somewhat secluded denning and rendezvous sites, 3)
ample year -round prey 4) legal protection and 5) public
support. The extensive wilderness and adjacent lands of
central Idaho obviously meet the first two criteria. The
third criterion was addressed by the Cooperative Wildlife
Research Unit work of the early 1980s, which included a
survey of elk summer and winter ranges; researchers
found a prey base that could support more than twice the
number of wolves envisioned for recovery.
Legal protection can take several forms, ranging from
management tactics for other species that enhance or
protect wolf habitat to specific law enforcement activities.
An example is the use of existing seasonal road closures
and elk hunting restrictions on several central Idaho
forests, which also protect potential wolf habitat. The
forests regularly close roads with berms or gates as part of
elk management during hunting and calving seasons;
because wolf habitat overlaps prey habitat, these closures
would also protect wolves from contact with poachers and
other human intrusion.
In another example of management tactics, the
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
include a biological evaluation of impacts on endangered
species in their plans for timber sales and other activities,
just as they evaluate the effects of such actions on other
resources such as water quality, recreational use, etc.
The biological evaluation, which includes formal or
informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service,
ensures that the action will not harm endangered
populations in the affected area.
Protection of wolf populations occasionally requires
removal of individual wolves, either through relocation or
elimination. Although the wolf is considered an
endangered species in the northern Rockies, court
decisions have ruled that the Endangered Species Act
allows control actions when such actions would enhance
the population's ability to survive and /or propagate. The
reasoning here is that depredating wolves are a potential
threat to the wolf population as a whole because they
could spark human retaliation, legal or illegal. The Fish
and Wildlife Service has a draft wolf control plan that
would allow for removal of wolves that attack livestock. To
date, 11 wolves have been removed in Montana.
Page 9
Control actions must follow specific guidelines
designed to make sure that only depredating wolves are
targeted. Basically, control is an interagency effort
involving the Fish and Wildlife Service, Animal Damage
Control, the land management agency (Forest Service or
BLM) and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The
authorized control officers from one or more of these
agencies must respond to a depredation report within 48
hours after it is made.
In the early stages of population recovery,
depredating wolves may be radio - collared and relocated
rather than killed; if the offending animal kills a second
time, it will be eliminated. As recovery progresses,
problem wolves may be killed after their first depredation.
Wolves reproduce quickly, so the loss of an individual
does not usually represent a threat to the population as a
whole, as it might in a grizzly bear population. Also unlike
grizzlies, wolves are not primarily carrion eaters, although
they may be attracted to a carcass during lean times.
Studies in both Canada and Minnesota indicate that they
prefer natural (as opposed to domesticated) prey and that
they will normally leave livestock alone if their natural food
source is sufficient.
This does not mean that wolves never cause
problems for livestock owners. In Minnesota, where about
1,550 to 1,750 wolves live in the northeastern part of the
state, Animal Damage Control officers and personnel
removed 85 problem wolves between October 1988 and
August 1989 because of depredation problems. In 1985,
on the other hand, control officers verified 35 livestock
deaths due to wolves; this is an area with about 250,000
cattle and 90,000 sheep. On the other hand, in Alberta,
which has a substantial wolf population, the provincial
agricultural agency considers bears much more of a
problem than wolves; in 1988, the agency verified 48 wolf
depredations in the province's southern half.
Monitoring
The Central Idaho Wolf Steering Committee has
decided that its first task is to concentrate on verifying
future sightings and providing some hard evidence of
wolves -- in the form of photographs, scat and plaster casts
of tracks.
This effort is basically taking three routes: 1) a public
survey of central Idaho wolf occurrences conducted by Jim
Johnston for the Boise National Forest from June 1989 -
February 1990, 2) interagency wolf verification teams to
evaluate probable reports, and 3) field surveys. In addition,
a wolf report "hotline" has been established to expedite
public sightings of wolves.
Not every wolf sighting will merit investigation. The
first criteria for investigation is timeliness. A team will not
go out, for example, to investigate a hunter's report that he
or she saw a wolf two weeks earlier. The general rule is
that a team will try to respond to a report within 48 hours
after the sighting. Perhaps the most important aspect of
the team approach is that it emphasizes the need to share
both information and resources in the wolf monitoring.
The national forests in central Idaho and western
Page 10
Montana are now stepping up their individual monitoring
efforts to detect wolves within their boundaries. Although
actual tactics vary, each area is using both past sighting
patterns and new probable reports to decide where to
concentrate monitoring efforts. Each area has different
topographical characteristics and different monitoring
approaches, so a brief description of each is in order. The
probable wolf sighting numbers given for 1987 -89 include
only the first half of 1989; reports from that year's hunting
season may add considerably to the final numbers.
When tracks are found, biologists will photograph
them and, if possible, make casts for future review by
experts; this will help distinguish the tracks from those of
other predators such as mountain lions. Scats will be
analyzed to determine the presence of hair; wolves often
groom themselves, so scats may contain considerable
amounts of wolf hair, which can be analyzed to determine
species. Much of this survey work will be done in the
winter because it is easier to find tracks and kill sites during
that season.
Wolves in Central Idaho Today
Wolf sightings continue to be monitored in and
around central Idaho. The reports come from hunters,
outfitters and guides, and thegeneral public. Agency
personnel keep track of these reports and submit them to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for processing. These
reports help biologists determine where wolf activity is
occurring.
West Section
The Boise National Forest conducted a statewide
public survey to determine the status and distribution of
wolf occurrence in central Idaho. Outfitters and guides,
trappers, hound hunters, elk hunters, and the general
public that reported wolf observations were interviewed by
survey researcher, Jim Johnston. This survey recorded 170
wolf occurrence reports; 78 of which were rated as
probable. Eighty percent of the sightings involved single
animals. The report concluded that wolves do occur in
central Idaho, but that current information does not allow
the determination of population size or density.
The Boise National Forest also participated in
follow -up review of sightings on the forest to verify the
reports. Several large canine tracks were seen in the area
but no sightings were confirmed. Boise National Forest
personnel plan to continue participation in the central Idaho
verifications teams as future sightings are reported.
During the period of October 1, 1989 to September
30, 1990 five reports on the Payette National Forest of
wolves were received by the Central Idaho Wolf Verification
team leader that required follow -up by a verification team.
Several additional reports were received several days
following possible sightings. Verification teams were not
sent out as the reports were sketchy or tracks and signs
were not likely to be evident.
Eastern Section
On February 2, 1990 an outdoor survival school class
reported wolf tracks to the Shoshone Office of the BLM.
The tracks were located on BLM administered land in the
Bennett Hills area between Fairfield and Gooding, Idaho.
Gary Wright, BLM Wildlife Biologist at Shoshone and
Rick Vandervoet, Recreation Planner Monument Resource
Area forwarded their report to Allen Thomas, Idaho State
Office BLM Biologist who in turn reported to Jay Gore
USFWS, and Floyd Gordon USFS.
Due to impending darkness and an approaching
snowstorm, Wright and Vandervoet went out to verify the
tracks. In the vicinity of the reported sighting, the located a
set of tracks that they determined to be a mountain lion
based upon track size, shape and stride. Tracks appeared
to be a day or two old. They were unable to locate any
other tracks.
Following their return, Wright called Dave Reeder and
informed him of their findings. Wright did not feel that there
Page 11
was any need to follow -up due to snow conditions, Reeder
then contacted Floyd Gordon who passed this on to State
and Federal agency personnel. Reeder then prepared a
verification report on this effort.
On May 23, 1990, the tracks of two large canids were
reported by a miner 9 miles west of Stanley in mud, by
mining equipment a week prior to his report. Dave Reeder
had Jenny Carson, SNRA, and Gary Gadwa, IDF &G check
out the report on May 24, 1990. Heavy rain in the area
since the reported sighting had destroyed any evidence.
Western Section
On March 15, 1990, the tracks of two large canids
were found on the South Fork Salmon River Road in the
Boise National Forest by Rob Cordtz and Cindy Boyce of
the Payette and Boise National Forest Winter Wolf Survey
Crew. The tracks were thought to be only a few hours old.
Plaster and silicone casts of the tracks were taken.
The road was closed to traffic from 10am to 10pm due
to road conditions. There were no vehicle tracks at the time
of discovery of the tracks, but later in the day two sets of
vehicle tracks were evidence of use of the road during the
closure.
Based on the size of the tracks and other information
obtained by the Wolf Survey Crew, they contacted Floyd
Gordon who in turn contacted Jay Gore and Ed Hartin.
Doug Hunsaker. Animal Damage Control Officer for APHIS
was sent from Emmett to meet with the Wolf Survey Crew
to Observe the tracks. Doug confirmed the fact that the
tracks belonged to neither a mountain lion or coyote and
did belong to a large canid.
On August 27. 1990 a sighting of two wolves was
reported in the Elk Meadows area, McCall Ranger District
by sheep herders to the APHIS -ADC trapper, who in turn
reported it to Mike Worthen, APHIS -ADC State Director.
Two large animals, one of which was a lactating female,
were observed within twenty feet of camp. They exhibited
aggressive behavior, Kurt Nelson of the Payette National
Forest was informed of the sighting on August 30, 1990.
Several individuals followed up this report from the Payette
National Forest and APHIS -ADC on August 31, 1990. ADC
trapper and supervisor found no sign of canid activity.
Several dead deer were located. There was reported to be
a camp in the area that had several dogs, including a
puppy.
On the 31 st, Carolyn Barbat and Fred Edwards, a
retired IDF &G C.O. checked out reported wolf signs
independently of the ADC in the Elk Meadow area. At
9:45pm they conducted a howling survey just north of the
Scribner Trail. Howling was conducted in 20 minute
intervals approximately on mile apart. At midnight a very
faint sound was heard that lasted for 2 to 3 minutes. Both
Page 12
individuals could not be sure that the sound was howling.
This survey was followed up by howling surveys
conducted by Suzanne Morris and Jim Johnston.
Although one howl may have been heard in response to
this, results remained inconclusive.
The evidence points to the possibility that the canids
sighted were large dogs. In addition, female wolves would
not be lactating at this time, as pups should be weaned by
August 31. It was concluded that the large animals
sighted by the sheep herders were not wolves.
On September 19, 1990. a McCall resident reported
to the Forest Service that he and his wife observed what
they believed to be wolves along the Gold Fork River
Crossing of Highway 55. They observed a large canid
crossing the river about 150 to 300 yards upstream from
National Forests - Central Idaho
and Montana
the Highway 55 bridge. It appeared gray and was crossing
from the south bank to the north bank of the river. It
appeared different from their observations of coyotes, so
they turned around and recrossed the bridge. During this
time, they observed what they believed to be a second
wolf crossing the river to the north.
Rob Cordtz was contacted by Floyd Gordon on
September 20th, and he proceeded to the Gold Fork site.
All evidence pointed to coyotes- conditions were excellent
for tracking due to the mud banks and the lack of
precipitation since the report. Rob followed this up by
contacting Charlie Taber and going out to the Gold Fork
site with him. The reported siting was considered to be
that of large coyotes.
SOUTH FORK, SALMON RIVER
On Thursday, March 15, 1990, the tracks of two large
canids were found on the South Fork Salmon River Road
on the Boise National Forest. This was near Warm Lake,
where numerous wolf sightings, howlings and possible
denning activity had been reported consistently over the
past ten years. The tracks were found by Rob Cordtz and
Cindy Boyce of the Payette and Boise national Forest's
Winter Wolf Survey Crew. Due to the very warm weather,
the tracks that were found in snow were melting rapidly, so
they were thought to be not more than a few hours old.
There were also tracks in mud. Plaster and Silicone casts
were taken of some of the tracks, which extended a few
miles down the road. On this day, the crew was traveling
by snowmobile and were unable to follow the tracks all the
way down the road because of the mud.
The road itself is closed to traffic from 10am to 10pm
due to the mud being very slick and road damage
occurring when it is not frozen. There were no vehicle
tracks on the road, snow or soft mud at the time the tracks
were discovered by the crew. Rob and Cindy went to get
the rest of the crew and before they returned, two vehicles
violated the closure and driven the road, eliminating many
of the tracks.
One of the two tracks measured 4 inches long by 3
inches wide. The other pair measured 4.5 inches long and
3.5 inches wide. The snow melted around the plaster
casting of the larger set of tracks before it could set, so the
cast is disfigured. Relative size of the print remained the
same, however. Silicone casts were taken of the smaller
print. Two sets of running stride tracks of the smaller
animal were able to be covered and insulated with snow in
case other people wanted to come back and look at them.
The crew remained on the road until 10pm hoping to elicit
responses to heir howling in the area.
As the crew was leaving the South Fork Road, they
met Dave McClintock, Deputy Sheriff for Yellow Pine,
Idaho. He offered to check with some Yellow Pine
residences that had large dogs to see if they had run their
dogs on the road that afternoon. When he reported back
the next week, he said that the folks that owned the dogs
he had in mind had driven out that Thursday and had yet
to return. The tracks that the crew found were headed
downstream, north, and these people had driven
upstream, south. We felt that if they had run their dogs
during the muddy part of the day, the vehicle tracks would
have showed and the dog tracks would have been headed
south, following the vehicle.
Friday morning, March 16, 1990, Jay Gore of the
USF &WS and Ed Hartin of APHIS /ADC were contacted
concerning this report.. Doug Hunsaker, Animal Damage
Control Officer for APHIS was sent from Emmett to meet
with Carolyn Barbat, Rob Cordtz and Jim Johnston of the
Payette /Boise National Forests Wolf Survey Crew to
observe what was left of the tracks. Doug confirmed that
they were not too large to be coyote tracks, and they were
not mountain lion. They were large canid tracks. The
verification team spent about two hours driving the South
Fork Salmon River Road looking for where the tracks may
have come on to the road. This would have helped further
to determine whether or not these were dog tracks running
the road behind a vehicle, which is a common practice of
people coming to and from Yellow Pine. At one point the
tracks did leave the road, and one animal rolled and slid
down the fill slope toward the river. One hair was collected
which was red /gold in color. The tracks came back onto
the road, and no other entry or exit was found before the
tracks disappeared. The tracks showed the animals
trotting and running for 4 to 5 miles. No scat was found,
nor any sign of "milling" activity commonly associated with
dogs loading or unloading from a vehicle. Photos were
taken that are expected to show no vehicle tracks on the
road at the time the tracks were fresh.
The verification team call was inter - agency, and there
was a very cooperative spirit among the members. This
cooperation contributed to the credibility of the information
gathered. The conclusion of the team was that although
we could not prove these were wolf tracks, we could also
not prove they were dog tracks.
Page 13
East Section
There were 16 wolf sightings reported in the Challis
National Forest from fall 1989 to fall 1990. Of these
reports, seven were of animals sighted, four were tracks
seen, and five were reports of animals howling. Five of
these reports were rated as probable, seven as possible,
and four as unlikely. In two additional cases, the tracks
were verified in the field as mountain lion.
Nearly all the reports were at least three to four days
old making a follow -up investigation difficult. Attempts
were made to follow -up on 7 of the reports but only one
yielded further evidence of possible wolf activity. Tracks
were photographed and a plaster cast made but positive
identification was prohibited by the weathering of the
tracks.
Wolf reports on the Challis National Forest continue
to center in the Cape Horn area and the West Fork of
Yankee Fork Salmon River area. The Copper Basin area
also produced sightings again this year, but were
considered questionable. Almost all of these reports came
from high use recreation areas with only one report from
the backcountry, where fewer people decrease the
likelihood of sightings.
The Challis National Forest plans to continue to
follow -up on future sightings as they are reported. An
attempt is being made to have reports submitted faster so
the evidence can be verified by the follow -up procedure.
North Section
The Clearwater National Forest surveyed
approximately 500 miles of winter habitat during the winter
of 1989-90. One set of wolf tracks in the North Fork of the
Clearwater drainage was discovered and confirmed by a
biologist from the University of Idaho Wildlife Institute.
Also, a number of potential sightings were reported near
the Powell Ranger Station. An infrared motion - sensitive
camera was placed on a bait station for an extended
period but did not produce evidence of wolves in the area.
The on -going Landsat classification and mapping
project of wildlife habitat on the Nez Perce and Clearwater
National Forests and the Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness is in
the final stages. These maps may be useful in
documenting and quantifying important wolf habitat
characteristics.
The Clearwater National Forest also has an active
public education program. During the past year,
approximately 15 presentations were conducted on the
status of wolf recovery in central Idaho reaching 500
people.
Several howling surveys were conducted on the Nez
Perce National Forest but the only responses were
recorded on August 10, 1990, during a volunteer howling
Page 14
survey by four of the participants including an endangered species
biologist (Central Idaho Volunteer Wolf Howling Survey, August
10, 11 and 12, 1990. Boise and Nez Perce National Forests).
Because of several reported sightings in the Three Prong
drainage of the Red River District in the Nez Perce National Forest,
plans are being made to focus an intensive survey into this remote
and rugged area. In addition, the Selway and Moose Creek Ranger
Districts pooled resources for a Challenge Cost Share survey effort
to inventory the wolf habitat of the two districts. The University of
Idaho produced a crew of 12 students to assist in the effort. That
report is being prepared at this time.
The Search for Confirmation
Because of the considerable interest in, and speculation about,
the presence of wolves in central Idaho, it's easy to forget that there
is very little information about their actual extent or numbers.
Despite literally hundreds of reports of howling, kill sites, scat and
actual wolves, the only hard evidence so far to prove that there are
wolves in central Idaho are three or four photographs taken on the
Clearwater National Forest and the carcass of a wolf killed on the
Boise National Forest in 1978
Many forests have purchased remote - sensing cameras, which
they combine with bait or scent stations in areas with recent
sightings. The cameras are battery - powered, 35- millimeter units;
they have an infrared sensor activated by an abrupt change in
infrared heat -- that is, by a warm - blooded animal in motion. The
cameras are situated near an area either baited with an ungulate
carcass or scented with wolf urine. The cameras can be left for up
to two weeks, and they provide an inexpensive documentation
technique.
Scent or bait stations are also used to try to obtain wolf tracks.
The bait or scent is located in an area with fine soil or sand, which
biologists check on occasion for tracks.
In areas where two or more wolves have been reported,
biologists may use howling to get animals to respond. Although
adult and single wolves rarely respond to human howling, pups
often will, thus providing evidence of a breeding pair. Summer is
the best time for this monitoring technique.
If and when it becomes evident that central Idaho has a
recovering wolf population, with breeding pairs and pack activity,
agency biologists may trap animals and fit them with radio collars
to monitor wolf movement..
The Central IdahoWolf Recovery Steering Committee needs
help from the public to determine the presence of wolves in Idaho.
To assist in this effort, the Wolf Recovery Foundation and the Idaho
Conservation League are offering a reward for any information
leading to the confirmation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of
current wolf pack activity in the state of Idaho. If you have such
information concerning the presence of wolves in Idaho, you may
call the Wolf Hotline # at 1- 800 - 635 -7820 or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service at (208) 334 -1931. If you would like more
information about the reward, you may contact the Wolf Recovery
Foundation at P.O. Box 793 Boise, Idaho 83704.
Bibliography
For further information concerning wolves you may wish to read the suggested materiial listed below.
Allen, D.L. 1972. Wolves of Minong. Houghton - Mifflin Co., Boston. 499 pp. (Account of Isle Royale research,
Moose /wolf population dynamics).
Ballard, W.B. and J.R. Dau. 1983. Characteristics of the Gray Wolf, Canis Lupus, den and rendezvous sites
in southcentral Alaska. Can, Field -Nat. 97 (3):299 -302.
Bath. A.J. 1990. Statewide Surveys of Montana and Idaho Resident Attitudes Toward Wolf Reintroduction in
Yellowstone National Park.U.S. National Park Serv. Rep. 37 pp.
Fritts, S.H. 1990. Management of wolves inside and outside Yellow- stone National Park and possibilities for
wolf management zones in the greater Yellowstone area. pp 1 -5 to 1 -88. In: Yellowstone National
Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Wyoming, University of Idaho, Interagency Griz-
zly Bear Study Team, University of Minnesota Cooperative Park Studies Unit. 1990. Wolves for Yel-
lowstone? A Report to the United States Congress Volume II Research and Analysis.
Lopez, B.H. 1978. Of Wolves and Men. New York: Charles Scribners Sons. 309 pp.
Mech, L.D. 1970. The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. Nat. His. Press, Double-
day, NY. 389 pp.
Weaver. J. 1978. The Wolves of Yellowstone. Nat. Park Serv.
For further information contact:
The Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee
4696 Overland Road, Room 576
Boise, Idaho 83705
Page 15
SCIENCE
Return of the
Are they big and bad—or the inspiring symbol of the
wild? Either way, packs are coming back. Now, can
they return to their ancestral home in Yellowstone?
nder the Wedgwood -blue skies
of northwestern Montana and
central Idaho, where glacier -
fed streams trickle through the
fragile tundra, residents are
undergoing an ecological Ror-
schach test. Hikers glimpse
tensed, silver -gray beasts in whose yellow
eyes they see the unbridled spirit of the
wilderness, the embodiment of all that is
wild and free. Ranchers find heart - shaped
paw prints, too big to belong to a coyote or
dog, crossing their muddy pastures —spoor
in which they see something violently dif-
ferent: a ruthless killer, THE SADDAM HUS-
SEIN OF THE ANIMAL WORLD, as signs pro-
claimed at public meetings this spring; a
beast that should be shot on sight, as letters
to local papers urged.
And you thought the spotted -owl contro-
versy was bitter. More than 70 years after
Congress passed a law to eradicate the
northern gray wolf, Canis lupus is coming
back. In Wisconsin, 30 or 40 wolves recent-
ly arrived from Minnesota, where the wolf
never died out, are struggling against dis-
ease and poaching. Packs from Montana's
Glacier National Park, recent immigrants
from Canada, are migrating south along
old logging trails. So far, they've reached
western Montana, where 40 to 50 wolves
Call of the wild: Born into a pack that
hunts and howls together, a pup looks
at a world that may prove less hostile
44 NEWSWEEK : AUGUST 12. 1991
now roam, and central Idaho, where there
are 10 to 20. But the atavistic drive to re-
claim their ancestral lands has swept
wolves into one of the West's nastiest face -
offs. Conservationists desperately want to
protect the animals wandering back and,
even more, to reintroduce the species to
Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming.
Ranchers see that proposal as a deadly
threat to their livestock, their way of life
and even their children. Says Doug Crow of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "In 20
years in this business this is the damned-
est issue I've seen. It brings out peo-
PAUL E. MEYERS(INSERT), BLACK STAR (ABOVE) NEWSWEEK : AUGUST 12, 1991 45
ple's passion in a way that is frightening."
But not unexpected. The wolf as devour-
er of Little Red's grandmother and harass-
er of Little Pigs was likely born in the
Middle Ages, when ravenous wolves un-
able to find traditional prey stalked the
countryside during the Black Plague and
attacked hapless travelers. (There is no rec-
ord of healthy wolves trying to kill humans
in North America — unlike wolf -dog hy-
brids, which have a decidedly more danger-
ous pedigree: page 50.) Men came to see in
the wolf "the Devil, red tongued, sulfur
breathed and yellow eyed," as nature writ-
er Barry Lopez put it; "the beast of waste
and desolation," as that great naturalist
Theodore Roosevelt described it. Wherev-
er white men stepped in America, they
felt a fanatical duty to kill the beast. Be-
tween 1870 and 1877, government-sanc -
tioned hunters killed 55,000 wolves every
year. In 1914 the Feds hired hundreds of
hunters to kill predators on U.S. land, in-
cluding all the remaining wolves, once and
for all. Wolves were trapped, shot and lured
to carcasses laced with strychnine. By 1926
rangers had killed at least 136 wolves in
Yellowstone, including 80 pups.
Severe test: The effort to return the wolf to
America's first national park is tightly
bound up with a symbolism every bit as
powerfulas thatwhich inspired this slaugh-
ter. Reintroduction isn't about anything so
straightforward as saving a species: there
are 1,550 to 1,750 northern gray wolves
roaming wild in Minnesota, between 6,000
and 7,000 in Alaska and as many as 50,000
in Canada. The northern gray, officially
listed as an "endangered" species in the
Vanishing
Packs
THOMAS MANGEISEN- IMAGES OF NATURE
Slaying prey, slaying myths: Finishing off a carcass stripped nearly bare by the pack,
biologist Mech in wolf country (far right), rancher Demin on his spread (right)
Lower 48 (except in Minnesota, where it is
"threatened "), is not about to disappear.
For conservationists, returning the wolves
to Yellowstone would show that the nation
had changed its mind about the wild as
something to be subdued —if not destroyed.
Says Hank Fischer of Defenders of Wildlife,
"[The wolf and its future] is one of the sever-
est tests of how willing humankind is to
share this planet with other forms of life."
Canis lupus and humans have lived to-
Gray wolves once
roamed across
nearly all of Northl
America. But a bloody
extermination Northern
program earlier this Cascades,
century left most of Washington _ Minnesota Isle Royale,
Michigan
the survivors living in
Glacier National
Canada and Alaska.
Park, Montana
46 NEWSWEEK : AUGUST 12, 1991
gether since about 2 million years ago,
when the wolf evolved into its present
form. Beginning 13,000 years ago, paleo-
lithic hunter - gatherers bred domestic
dogs, Canis familiaris, from wolves. Why
wolves? Perhaps our ancestors admired
the bewitching beast's power, intelligence
and complex social structure. The pack,
says biologist Pat Tucker of the National
Wildlife Federation, is just a furrier ver-
sion of "our basic social structure, the
hunter - gatherer."
Dinnertime battle: Studies of the hunt
have, more than anything, challenged the
Big Bad myth. And no researcher has
slain more wolf myths than America's
leading wolf biologist, L. David Mech of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F &WS). An
opera buff, author and rugged outdoors -
man, he has lived as closely with wolves
as any two - legged creature with a Ph.D.
Mech (pronounced meech) began his re-
search in Isle Royale National Park, an
island in Lake Superior to which wolves
crossed via an ice bridge in 1949. Their
arrival created a natural laboratory, in
which Mech discovered that, for all their
reputation as killing machines, wolves are
more likely to lose the dinnertime battle.
Moose and wolves will stare at one another
and, after a minute, either the moose stroll
away, the wolves retreat —or charge. Of the
160 moose that Mech observed encounter-
ing wolves, six — typically old, sick or
weak —were killed. Others were ignored,
ran away or fought off their attackers.
To catch dinner, wolves use tactics like a
paleolithic hunting team's (anthropolo-
gists suspect that wolves taught early hu-
mans how to hunt large animals). They
Wisconsin
Proposed
reintroduction ,
sites: N.W.
Montana, r
Range of the
Central Idaho
Gray Wolf:
and Yellowstone
y
National Park
0 Original
1990
Imp
46 NEWSWEEK : AUGUST 12, 1991
gether since about 2 million years ago,
when the wolf evolved into its present
form. Beginning 13,000 years ago, paleo-
lithic hunter - gatherers bred domestic
dogs, Canis familiaris, from wolves. Why
wolves? Perhaps our ancestors admired
the bewitching beast's power, intelligence
and complex social structure. The pack,
says biologist Pat Tucker of the National
Wildlife Federation, is just a furrier ver-
sion of "our basic social structure, the
hunter - gatherer."
Dinnertime battle: Studies of the hunt
have, more than anything, challenged the
Big Bad myth. And no researcher has
slain more wolf myths than America's
leading wolf biologist, L. David Mech of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F &WS). An
opera buff, author and rugged outdoors -
man, he has lived as closely with wolves
as any two - legged creature with a Ph.D.
Mech (pronounced meech) began his re-
search in Isle Royale National Park, an
island in Lake Superior to which wolves
crossed via an ice bridge in 1949. Their
arrival created a natural laboratory, in
which Mech discovered that, for all their
reputation as killing machines, wolves are
more likely to lose the dinnertime battle.
Moose and wolves will stare at one another
and, after a minute, either the moose stroll
away, the wolves retreat —or charge. Of the
160 moose that Mech observed encounter-
ing wolves, six — typically old, sick or
weak —were killed. Others were ignored,
ran away or fought off their attackers.
To catch dinner, wolves use tactics like a
paleolithic hunting team's (anthropolo-
gists suspect that wolves taught early hu-
mans how to hunt large animals). They
or
CAAMSdUPUs
XING
may appoint one pack member a decoy, to
lunge and run around while the rest take
the prey by stealth. Or a pack may stam-
pede a meal into the waiting jaws of a hid-
den killer. Packs will also form two flanks
to sweep an island and, in a pincer move-
ment worthy of Norman Schwarzkopf, trap
their prey on the tip.
Hooved animals can thank wolves for
their ability to scamper up a mountain,
close ranks or run fast. Evolutionary pres-
sure by a predator hones the prey's surviv-
al skills and also keeps the -dumb beasts
from multiplying into mass starvation. On
Isle Royale, the moose population had
climbed to 2,500 in the mid -1930s before
hundreds of the beasts died off due to over -
browsing. When wolves arrived, they kept
moose numbers down, allowed vegetation
to regenerate and herds to grow healthier.
Lupine Lore
They're fast: a sprinting wolf can hit
They're hearty: a wolf can go for
without food. They're bigger than
males grow to 115 pounds; female
pounds. And they're loud: in open t
howl travels at least 10 miles.
Packs, which typically number from
10, are hierarchies. An animal's plac e
mines when it can dig into a
Through physical force and social
sure, the alpha pair usually prevent
wolves from breeding. The top fern
engage in chemical warfare, emit
pheromone that stops ovulation in
A new pack forms when a wolf lea
family to establish its own territo
Minnesota wolf walked 550 miles
settling down.
Both species reached a higher population
density than recorded anywhere else. Such
lupine natural selection could provide a
much - needed brake in Yellowstone, where
hundreds of elk regularly starve to death
during severe winters. How many might
wolves eat? In northern Minnesota, each
wolf kills about 15 to 18 white - tailed deer
annually. Yellowstone has some 30,000
elk, 3,000 mule deer and 2,700 bison.
Thanks to an ingenious new "capture
collar" equipped with a radio transmitter
and with tranquilizer darts embedded in its
leather, wolf research is leaping beyond
the question of which eats what to such
puzzles as why wolves leave their natal
pack. Using the dart collars —which can be
triggered from 45 miles away —to down
young males in a Minnesota pack, Mech
collects blood samples and other data that
dc might provide clues to why a
wolf strikes out on its own, or
"disperses." One hypothesis
is that libido pushes the wolf;
finding hormone levels asso-
ciated with sexual maturity
in the wandering wolf would
support this idea. Or, the wolf
might leave when pickings
get slim; that would be con-
firmed if Mech finds the
wolves have low weights or fat
levels. Whatever triggers dis-
persal, Mech suspects the
choice of where to wander has
a genetic component.
The female was raising a
litter in Montana two years
ago when federalagentsdecid-
ed she threatened nearby cat -
.YNE KENNEDY tle. They shot her with a tran-
quilizer dart and ferried her
and thepups to Glacier. Mater-
nal instinct paled beside the
homing instinct. She aban-
doned the pups and headed
35 mph. back south. By January 1990
weeks she had made her way to the
dogs: Ninemile Valley — almost 100
s, 95 miles south of Glacier.
errain, a The Ninemile female was
lucky: a wandering wolf is an
m five to imperiled wolf, for if it enters
deter- another pack's territory "it
k�, runs the risk of being mauled
or killed," says Mech. (Biolo-
pres- gists suspect that some Min -
lesser nesota wolves kill dogs be-
ale may cause they seethe dog as alone
ting a wolf encroaching on their
others. turf.) Wolves mark territory
ves its borders by spraying urine on
ry: one telephone poles, rocks and
before tree stumps (abehavior whose
evolution in dogs can be seen
around fire hydrants). In Min-
nesota a few years ago, a pack
badly wounded a deer, yet the
prey managed to escape across a river into
a bordering territory. The river might as
well have been a wall: the territorial in-
stinct was so powerful that the pursuing
pack stopped dead. They left scent marks
and headed home — hungry.
Scent can carry more detailed messages.
Mech and his colleagues find that particu-
lar scents in urine can tell one pack mem-
ber where the marking wolf has been, what
it has eaten and when. Wolves also talk.
Using oscilloscopes to measure vocaliza-
tions, biologists have linked whimpers to
friendliness and odd chirps to flirtation.
Piercing whines mean the conversation is
over. Prolonged squeaks seem to serve as
overtures to group howls, which might
alert a rival pack that this territory
is spoken for, or unite a pack separated
during a hunt. Contrary to lore, wolves
NEWSWEEK : AUGUST 12, 1991 47
do not howl more during a full moon.
In April 1990, the Ninemile female gave
birth to a litter of at least six, fathered by a
lone wolf she met around Missoula. In July
her badly damaged radio collar was discov-
ered in a creek bed near the den, she had
apparently been killed. Her mate cared for
the pups but around Labor Day was killed
by a hit - and -run driver. F &WS biologists
Ed Bangs and Mike Jimenez began leaving
the orphans road - killed deer in the woods so
they would crave venison and not beef. And
a month later biologists caught and radio -
collared two of the pups.
`A controversial species': The Ninemile saga
shows that wolves will travel great dis-
tances to recolonize new territories. But
without help getting around subdivisions
and across highways, they probably cannot
make it to Yellowstone. The park is one of
three areas, with central Idaho and north-
west Montana (map, page 46), that the 1982
Fish and Wildlife wolf - recovery plan identi-
fies as sites where at least 10 breeding pairs
should be returned. The animals could be
introduced as an "experimental, nonessen-
tial population," like red wolves in North
Carolina (below). That would give states
more flexibility in managing wolves —kill-
ing them if they attacked livestock. "When
wolves are returned to Yellowstone, wolf
management outside the park will become a
factoflife," says Mech. "The wolfis acontro-
versial species and will require a different
management approach than a trout:"
Some antiwolf Westerners also want
wolves designated "experimental" before
wolves make it to Yellowstone on their own.
If the animals return by them-
selves, they will be accorded the
full protection of the Endan-
gered Species Act (ESA), and
states would have less leeway to
kill or move them. "We have to he
have ways to take them if they Tbit
leave the park," says Sen. Alan shy.
Simpson ofWyoming. "Ifastate goes
relies on game to attract tour- Wildl
ists, and the wolves eat ungu- famil
lates, how else do we maintain into
the tourist industry ?" Smok
The Ninemile orphans soon Park.
taught themselves to hunt deer, first
thanks to the F &WS- catered ever
venison. But they never touched park
cattle. A video made by one like t
ranchershows thepups chasing pects
grasshoppers and gophers but are n
ignoring cows a few feet away. helps
Once, they came within five feet racco o
of a sick cow unable to stand, sheep
and never touched her. Last deal m
April four pups (the other gist
two had disappeared) crossed roun d
mountains into unfamiliar ter-
ritory. They killed two 450 -
pound yearlingsteers but barely
ateeither. F &WSpolicyrequires
relocating any wolf preying on
livestock. Biologists snapped a
radio collar on a third pup and
took all three to Glacier.
Do wolves regard ranch herds
as fast food on the hoof? In Min-
nesota, wolves annually kill
about one cow in every 2,000
within their range and one
sheep per 1,000. A $100,000
compensation fund established
in 1987 by Defenders of W ildlife
has paid about $11,000 to nine
livestock owners in Montana,
who showed that wolves killed
about 30 of their animals. But
the program is no panacea:
ranchers complain that it is dif-
ficult to meet Defenders' stand-
ard of proof that a wolf, and not
something else, killed a steer or
sheep. Ranchers may have to
erect expensive fences and
bring their animals into the
barn more often. When the
Ninemile pack took up residence near Bob
Demin's 80 head of cows and their calves —
the father wolf strolled through his pasture
while one cow was giving birth —the ranch-
er moved calving mothers closer to the barn
and stopped leaving dead calves on hills for
vultures to finish off. "Butwe can't truck an-
imals into the barnyard every night," says
Kim Enkerud of the Montana Stockgrowers
Association. "We're afraid livestock will
have tobe moved from federal lands" where
ranchers graze herds at subsidized rates
and have those lands swept clean of preda-
The Rescue of the Reds
48 NEWSWEEK : AUGUST 12, 1991
y're cinnamon colored, a
scrawny and painfully
And this fall, if all
well, the U.S. Fish and
ife Service will release a
y of these red wolves
North Carolina's Great
y Mountains National
They will become the
endangered predators
returned to a national
—but howls of protest,
hose greeting the pros -
of wolves in Yellowstone,
owhere to be heard. It
that red wolves fancy
ns and rabbits, not
and cattle. But the real
aker, says F &WS biolo-
Warren Parker, was the
of meetings federal
agents held with local officials, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
members of Congress and resi- Homecoming: Releasing the colonists into Alligator River refuge
tors. (Last year the U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture killed 95 wolves, mostly in Minne-
sota, that pestered livestock.)
In late May a Ninemile rancher saw a
collared wolf. Within days ranchers were
reporting stock killed for miles around;
none, it turned out, was killed by wolves.
But then a collared female killed two
lambs; it was `darted" and placed in cap-
tivity. On June 15 a rancher reported a 250 -
pound calf lost to a wolf it turned out that
the animal had died of an ulcerated rumen.
Within three days the second male was
dents to reassure them that attack." What wolves do, it
"the wolves don't wait at turns out, is bring in business.
school -bus stops, don't dig up The eerie howls of wolves re-
graves, don't lurk waiting to leased in 1987 into North Caro-
found dead at the bottom of a lake; a ranch-
er had shot and killed the collared female
as she attacked his cattle, he claimed.
F& WS agents are investigating. Score: two
wolves killed illegally, • one in captivity;
three, fates unknown.
Many Western members of Congress
side with their antiwolf constituents.
Montana Rep. Ron Marlenee has com-
pared wolves to cockroaches. Idaho Sen.
Steve Symms told children that wolves
"pose a real danger to humans." When
Montana Rep. Pat Williams learned that
lina's Alligator River Nation-
al Wildlife Refuge—one step
removed from the limelight of
a national park — hasbecome a
major tourist attraction. Man -
teo, N.C., has even adopted the
animal as its symbol.
The rescue of the reds was a
close call. In the 1970s, they
numbered fewer than 100,
down from the hundreds of
thousands that once roamed
from the Potomac to the
Rio Grande. Federal biologists
captured every one they could
find in Texas and Louisia-
na and, through meticulous
breeding, produced 17 lupine
Adams and Eves with "95 per-
cent of the genetic material
that was originally red wolf,"
says Parker.
The 15 red wolves released
into Alligator River have pro-
duced four litters, proving
that animals born and raised
g �._,
LEONARD LEE RUE III
Young and frisky: Usually born in
April, wol fpups stay in theirdens until
midsummer (above). As they grow,
they fight for dominance (left).
the Park Service was mailing out informa-
tion packets on wolves, he challenged "the
appropriateness of providing the public
with information about wolf reintroduc-
tion." Although the ESA mandates that
federal agencies undertake "all methods
and procedures necessary" to restore en-
dangered species, the Park Service stopped.
Montana Sen. Conrad Burns has predicted
that once wolves are back in Yellowstone,
"there'll be a dead child within a year."
Is that possible? Wolves do attack hu-
mans, but rarely. In Canada and Minneso-
in captivity can make it in the
wild. Breeding pairs have also
been released onto four is-
lands off the Southeastern
Seaboard. Each autumn they
are recaptured, with their
pups, to breed again; since
1987, 57 have been returned to
the wild. Two more pairs have
been in pens at Great Smoky
since January. When one cou-
ple and its five scruffy pups
(born in April) go free, they
will wear radio transmitters
so officials can retrieve any
that trespass on private land.
Gene mix: The only cloud over
the program is new research
showing that the red wolf (Ca-
nis rufus), first described in
1851, may not be a true species
at all. According to Robert
Wayne of the Zoological Soci-
ety of London and Susan Jenks
of the University of California,
Berkeley, the red may be a hy-
ta, in 1915 and 1970, wolves attacked dogs
first and the people who protected them
second. In 1982 a hunter was kicked and
clawed, but not bitten, by a wolf near Du-
luth; he was wearing deer - scented clothes,
and Mech suspects the wolf confused him
with its prey. In 1987 a young girl was
bitten by a wolf in Ontario after she shined
a light in its eyes. Mech notes that none of
the people was seriously injured. "If a wolf
were really to attack a person like they
attack prey," he says, "the result would be
instant and deadly." He suspects the "at-
tacks" are threats, or defensive actions.
That is small comfort to mothers around
Yellowstone. Several say they will not pic-
nic in the park with their children if wolves
are returned.
Poll surprise: That is becoming a minority
view. In a 1989 Park Service poll, Yellow-
stone visitors favored bringing the wolf
back by a 6 -1 margin; so did two out of three
people in Montana. This spring the Wyo-
ming Game and Fish Department found, to
its surprise, that 44 percent of those resi-
dents questioned supported the wolf's re-
turn to the park; 34 percent opposed it.
F &WS Director John Turner has tried to
find a compromise to please both camps.
"But some of my neighbors are swinging me
from the yardarm," says the Wyoming resi-
dent. Congress may soon pass its most pro -
wolf bill ever. In June the House voted to di-
rect the Interior Department to implement
the 1982 F &WS wolf - recovery plan, reloc-
ating 10 breeding pairs to each of the three
designated areas. The Senate is expected to
take up the issue soon. If the bill becomes
law, wolves could howl in Yel-
lowstone by 1994.
brid of the gray wolf (C. lupus)
and coyote (C. latrans). In a
paper recently published in
the British journal Nature,
they reported that DNA from
red -wolf pelts collected be-
tween 1905 and 1930 all match
either coyote or gray -wolf
genes. Why, then, bother to
"save" the red, when its genes
are quite nicely preserved,
thank you, in gray wolves and
coyote? Partly because the ab-
sence of red wolves where
grays and coyotes now live sug-
gests that interbreeding has
stopped, so the unique mix of
genes in the red wolf is indeed
endangered. There's a practi-
cal reason, too. Great Smoky is
plagued by wild boars —a spe-
cies introduced to the park in
this century. They have no nat-
ural predators yet, but rangers
hope the wolves will develop a
tasteforbacon.
A parallel battle is raging in
the Southwest over the Mexi-
can wolf, or lobo. Virtually ex-
tint in the wild, conservation-
ists see its recovery as the most
pressing wolf - restoration prob-
lem in the world. For a time,
F &WS seemed to agree. Curtis
Carley, the agency's South-
west wolf specialist, had four
wild Mexican wolves captured
for a breeding program about
10 years ago. He planned to
use the Army's White Sands
Missile Range as the reintro-
duction site, since it was the
only nongrazing land large
enough to support wolves and
was already home to a herd
of gemsbok, about 100 of
which had been brought to
the base in 1969. Then in 1987
the commanding general at
White Sands wrote to F &WS
saying that the base could no
longer be considered as a re-
lease site. The stated reason:
fear for the wolves' safety in a
NEWSWEEK : AUGUST 12, 1991 49
S 0 C I E T Y
test -fire zone. Yet the gemsbok thrive.
The real reason, charge some biologists,
may be that F &WS didn't want to fight
nearby ranchers who despise lobo. "They're
killing machines," says J. Victor Culberson
of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Associa-
tion. "That's their mission in life." F &WS
regional director Mike Spear proclaimed
the Mexican wolf program all but dead and
transferred Carley to wetlands manage -
ment—in the and Southwest.
Last year environmental groups sued
F &WS and the Defense Department. Both
backed down, and the program revved up.
New Mexico Gov. Bruce King came out in
favor of releasing Mexican wolves in White
Sands, and Arizona agreed to let F &WS
consider areas in its southeast. Once the
captive population of lobos reaches 75 to
100, a group of eight could be released at
the chosen site, perhaps by 1994.
What man has destroyed, man may re-
deem. That carries costs: livestock will be
attacked, and ranchers will need compen-
sation. But more is at stake than money.
"In wilderness," Thoreau wrote, "is the
preservation of the world." If the gray wolf
returns to Yellowstone, the park would be-
come the only place in the Lower 48 states
to contain all the species present when Eu-
ropeans first reached America.
Last month ranchers in Ninemile sighted
a young wolf — possibly one of the lost or-
phans. The world may not have been pre-
served, but it is onesmallstep closer to being
made whole again.
SHARON BEGLEY in Minnesota with
LARRY WILSON in Ninemile, MARY HAGER
in Washington and PETER ANN IN in Albuquerque
Caution: Wolf -Dogs Can Be Hazardous
Take a good look down the
long snout and into the
deeply intelligent eyes of a
German shepherd, and you
can't miss its wild, wolfish
ancestry. Now some dog fanci-
ers want more. For them, do-
mesticated means dull —and
thousands of Americans are
snapping up the latest fad in
exotic pets: the wolf -dog hy-
brid. But many buyers have
no idea what they're really
buying. "'These animals are
not family pets," declares Lisa
Barrington, who has found
them impossible to train
in her dog- obedience classes
in North Bend, Ore. Not mere-
ly disobedient, hybrids are
"predators at heart," explains
Randall Lockwood, a wolf -
behavior expert at the Hu-
mane Society of the United
States. Owners train them not
to fear humans as wild wolves
do— sometimes with tragic re-
sults. In the past three years,
at least six children have been
killed by wolf - hybrid pets;
many more have been severe-
ly mauled. One particularly
grim attack took place last
April in New Jersey, when a
hybrid severed the right arm
ofTyler Olson, then 16 months
old. "The hybrids are wild and
will always be wild," says Bar-
rington. "You might as well
have a cougar in your yard."
Macho appeal: Wildness is
part of the attraction. "People
think that with a wolf hybrid,
they are getting close to na-
ture," says Lockwood. Others
are drawn to the wolf -dog's
macho image. "To some peo-
ple, this is a dangerous animal
that only they can control,"
says Monty Sloan, a specialist
in animal behavior at Wolf
Park, a wildlife research and
education facility in Lafay-
ette, Ind. But ask wolf - hybrid
breeder Nancy Kelham of Ft.
Wayne why she keeps seven
as pets, and you'll hear deep
affection in her voice. "We
like their intelligence and
their love," she says. "If you
wean them early and bottle -
feed them, they bond to you as
their parents. You have a
communication with them
that you don't with a dog."
The hybrid's popularity has
grown rapidly, particularly in
the West and Northwest.
Sloan estimates that 1 million
to 2 million animals are being
called wolf hybrids, but the
real number is closer to
300,000. Sellers charge from
$250 to $1,500 — sometimes
for animals with little or
no wolf content. Only eight
states so far have imposed
strict regulations governing
licensing and ownership.
The danger for children
is real. To a hybrid, a small
Perilous pets: A furry hybrid (left),
16 -month -old Tyler Olson with his
mother after he lost his arm
50 NEWSWEEK : AUGUST 12, 1991
child running or scream-
ing can look just like "dis-
tressed prey." The animal
may be playful, even wagging
its tail —and then suddenly
pounce. One shelter in Ft.
Walton Beach, Fla., adver-
tised a wolf -dog as "pet of the
week." Within hours of arriv-
ing at its new home, the ani-
mal attacked and killed a
neighbor's child.
Death sentence: When a hy-
brid proves unmanageable,
the owner may have little
choice but to have the animal
humanely destroyed. Shel-
ters are often reluctant to
take them. Releasing a hybrid
into the wild, as some well -
meaning owners do, can be a
death sentence: the pet would
not have learned how to for-
age for food or elude other
predators.
Even the hybrids' most vig-
orous champions acknowl-
edge that they must be kept
securely penned, with double
fences and locked gates. Some
concerned breeders won't sell
to families with young chil-
dren, and require buyers to
answer an exhaustive series
of questions about their home
and kennel plans. Other ani-
mal advocates insist the wolf -
dogs should never have been
bred as pets. "These animals
are trapped between two
worlds," says the Humane So-
ciety's Lockwood. "They can't
live in the wild, or as success-
ful companion animals." Lisa
Barrington puts the problem
more dramatically. Owning a
hybrid, she says, "is like liv-
ing with an alcoholic. You
never know when the time
bomb will go off."
JEAN SELIGMANN
CENTRAL IDAH
VOLUME 1, NO. 3
Amended t T T
Plan w
outlines
WOIf
Control
F
WOLF
hat happens if a wolf becomes a
problem?
While the prey base for wolves
mostly consists of deer and elk,
there's no doubt that they'll also
make a meal of domestic
livestock on occasion.
Steps Although incidences are few (in Minnesota, for
example, an annual average of only 13 farms out
of 12,230 experienced losses from the state's
population of 1,500 gray wolves), Idaho livestock
owners are less- than- thrilled at the prospect of any
losses.
How a problem wolf will be
handled is outlined in an
amended plan produced by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
earlier this year.
The amended "Interim Wolf
Control Plan" outlines a pro-
cedure that will be followed if
livestock losses are reported,
said Jay Gore, endangered
species recovery biologist for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice in Boise.
The first step is to investigate
reports of killed livestock
within 48 hours after they're
received. An agency in the
Department of Agriculture,
Animal Damage Control (ADC),
and Idaho Department of Fish
and Game biologists will be
responsible for verifying"
Winter 1991
suspected wolf kills.
If clear evidence exists that a wolf was responsi-
ble, a decision on control the wolf will be made.
Options range from capturing the wolf and
transplanting it to another area far away to
destroying the animal.
"We'll do what is best for both the animal and
livestock owner, based on the information that
we can gather," Gore said. "We'll consider all fac-
tors in our decision, including such things as the
population of wolves in the area, the sex of the
problem animal and whether it's a part of a
breeding pair."
Please turn to page 2
Bad Luck:
Second
Montana
Wolf
Killed
ad luck continued for a breeding pair
of wolves that biologists at one time
hoped would cross the border from
Montana and into Idaho.
In early summer, the female was
shot and the radio transmitter collar
was cut from her neck and
smashed.
About September 1, the male was killed by a
vehicle while crossing Interstate
90 outside of
Missoula. Left be-
hind were the
pair's six pups, five
of which were ac-
counted for in Oc-
tober, according to
Joe Fontaine, of the
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
(USFWS) in
Missoula.
Amended
Plan
Outlines
Wolf Control
Steps
Continued from page 1
A feeding sta-
tion was set up in
early September,
with deer taken
from the Lee Met-
calf National
Wildlife Refuge
used to feed the
five pups. The
feedings stopped
in late October,
after the deer gun
If livestock losses occur in Idaho, owners can
be compensated through a special fund set up by
the Defenders of Wildlife, a private environmen-
tal organization. "It's not a perfect system, and it
isn't easy to come up with a fair market value that
everyone agrees on," Gore said. "But the ex-
perience in other states is that the payments are
accepted"
Gore said that having a plan in place will enable
managers to make good decisions fast when the
need arises. "It's important that we have a plan
ready in case of an incident. It will benefit the
public — and the wolves," he said.
"Wolves consume part of the prey base that
we lose every year to starvation and winter
kill. The best living proof is that there were,
atone time, 20,000 wolves, and they didn't li-
quidate their prey base then." ■
Dan Davis,
Clearwater National Forest biologist
season, with the hope that the wolves were old
enough to begin foraging on their own. "They all
seem to be doing fine," said Fontaine, a USFWS
wildlife biologist. "If they begin to show signs of
stress, we'll start feeding them again"
The five pups haven't been straying far from
the feeding area, Fontaine said. Whereabouts of
the sixth pup in the litter is unknown. Fontaine
said it isn't clear whether the pup broke away
from the pack or if it is dead.
Monitoring of the wolves was made easier
when a black female pup weighing 43 pounds and
a 57 -pound male pup were trapped in late
September. Radio collars were attached to the
two before they were released.
Fontaine said that the pups have stimulated a
lot of interest in the Missoula area. "We had one
lady offer her ranch as a place for the wolves, and
many other offers of food. We've had to turn them
down, of course, but there has been an outpour-
ing of concern for the orphaned pups."
The investigation into the female's death is con-
tinuing, according to Fontaine.
In April, the male and female moved west from
the Ninemile Creek area near Missoula toward
Idaho. They moved eastward again, where the
pups were born, about 40 miles from the Idaho
border. Based on their earlier migration, wildlife
biologists thought the pair and their pups were
good candidates to move eventually into Idaho. ■
Who's in Charge?
There's a mix of agencies that all have a
hand in wolf recovery, but as long as the
animal is listed as threatened or endangered,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
is in charge of managing wolves.
USFWS shares some of the responsibility
with state wildlife agencies, and cooperates
with other natural resource agencies such as
the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management, in its management
efforts.
When the wolf is delisted in an area —the
goal of the recovery program —state wildlife
agencies will assume management respon-
sibility. ■
Team
Track
WOIf
Reports
n late July, a sheep herder in Elk
Meadows on the Payette National Forest
reported seeing two large, gray dogs near
his sheep. Later, three sheep were found
dead.
About the same time, the camp tender
reported being accosted by animals that
he described as "wolf dogs."
That was enough for a "verification team" to
investigate. The team's purpose was to gather
evidence and determine if indeed wolves were
responsible for the incidents.
Wolf response teams have been set up to cover
three zones in Idaho where wolf occurrences are
most likely, said John Erickson, Boise National
Forest wildlife biologist. The goal is for a team
to be on a site investigating the presence of wolves
within 48 hours after probable sightings are
reported. "It's important that we go out and deter-
mine if wolf reports are valid, and that we're
responsive in keeping in touch with the pulse of
what's happening," Erickson said. "The verifica-
tion teams also help keep rumors under control"
The teams mostly consist of wildlife biologists
from several agencies who have received train-
ing in recognizing wolf sign. Team members will
look for tracks, droppings and other signs of the
animals. They'll howl and listen for a response,
and talk with eyewitnesses.
"So far, the teams have been out many times,
but haven't yet verified the presence of any
wolves," Erickson said.
For the Payette National Forest incident, a two -
person team, Layne Bangerter and Glen
Mathews, both of
Animal Damage Con-
trol were on the site in
Spot a f you spot a gray wolf in the wild, you can
call a toll -free number after December 1
WOIf? to report the information.
The number is 1- 800 - 635 -7820. The
Call TOII Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDF&G) and several other agencies are
Free... sponsoring the toll free number. It will
less than 24 hours.
After searching for
wolf evidence and
speaking to the sheep
herder and tender,
"Our investigation
leads us to believe that
the animals were not
wolves, but merely
feral domestic dogs or
wolf /dog hybrids,"
Bangerter said.
Even negative
reports are helpful,
Erickson believes.
"The verification
teams will be effective
over time, even if they
don't verify wolves.
They keep information
flowing and that can
only help in wolf
recovery;' he said. ■
provide recorded information with a place to
leave a message, according to Jack Trueblood of
IDF8sG.
Information about wolf sightings will be pass-
ed on to the appropriate personnel and a follow -
up conducted. ■
TBE en breeding pairs of wolves is what
biologists believe are needed in
IN17()11MM I(1N Idaho to maintain a viable popula-
0011NEAR tion and ensure genetic diversity.
That is the recovery goal for Idaho.
That's not to say that Idaho's elk population
would dip by that number to support a wolf
population. Wolves would also appease their ap-
petites with deer, carrion, and in some instances,
beaver and other rodents.
Would 10 wolf packs make an impact on
hunting?
According to a study done by researchers at the
University of Idaho, the effects would be almost
nil. They draw a parallel between gray wolves and
mountain lions.
Idaho has about 2,500 mountain lions, many of
1i
I D NA I HAOI U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
WOLF Room 576
4696 Overland Road
R E C O V E R Y Boise, Idaho 83705
Published by the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee.
Members are Animal Damage Control, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
which are in the central Idaho's wilderness coun-
try. They prey on the same kinds of animals that
wolves would. That's a much larger population
than the recovery target for wolves, yet the elk
and deer populations in central Idaho have both
risen through the years.
The conclusion? A population of 100 gray
wolves in Idaho would not make a dent on big
game populations and have little or no effect on
hunting. The Idaho Department of Fish and
Game's big game management plan goals for cen-
tral Idaho are for stable to increasing numbers
of big game.
And it seems that goal is obtainable even with
a healthy wolf population in central Idaho. ■
Help for Teachers
Teachers interested in wolf recovery
materials or a classroom presentation by a
wolf expert have a place to turn for help.
A program that can be adapted from
kindergarten through high school is
available, according to Suzanne Morris.
Teachers who would like more information
on it can write Morris at P.O. Box 793, Boise,
ID 83701, or call her at 939 -4290. ■
total number of wolves in packs
®The
associated with the breeding pairs
How
likely would be about 100.
Much
So how much prey is needed to sustain 10 wolf
Prey?
•
packs?
Wolves feed primarily on "ungulates," or hoov-
ed animals. Deer and elk are two of their favorites.
Studies estimate that each wolf consumes the
equivalent of six to eight elk per year. Ten wolf
packs, with a population of 100 animals, would
consume the equivalent of 600 to 800 elk per year.
That's not to say that Idaho's elk population
would dip by that number to support a wolf
population. Wolves would also appease their ap-
petites with deer, carrion, and in some instances,
beaver and other rodents.
Would 10 wolf packs make an impact on
hunting?
According to a study done by researchers at the
University of Idaho, the effects would be almost
nil. They draw a parallel between gray wolves and
mountain lions.
Idaho has about 2,500 mountain lions, many of
1i
I D NA I HAOI U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
WOLF Room 576
4696 Overland Road
R E C O V E R Y Boise, Idaho 83705
Published by the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Steering Committee.
Members are Animal Damage Control, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
which are in the central Idaho's wilderness coun-
try. They prey on the same kinds of animals that
wolves would. That's a much larger population
than the recovery target for wolves, yet the elk
and deer populations in central Idaho have both
risen through the years.
The conclusion? A population of 100 gray
wolves in Idaho would not make a dent on big
game populations and have little or no effect on
hunting. The Idaho Department of Fish and
Game's big game management plan goals for cen-
tral Idaho are for stable to increasing numbers
of big game.
And it seems that goal is obtainable even with
a healthy wolf population in central Idaho. ■
Help for Teachers
Teachers interested in wolf recovery
materials or a classroom presentation by a
wolf expert have a place to turn for help.
A program that can be adapted from
kindergarten through high school is
available, according to Suzanne Morris.
Teachers who would like more information
on it can write Morris at P.O. Box 793, Boise,
ID 83701, or call her at 939 -4290. ■
"All
ck tra'...
A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE WOLF RECOVERY FOUNDATION INC. , Spring 1992
ALERT',
It's time to voice
your support for
wolves!
The most important process this decade
in determining how wolf recovery will
proceed in Idaho and Yellowstone Na-
tional Park has begun!
After years of intense lobbying from con-
servation organizations, Congress recently
authorized an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on wolf recovery plans
for the Greater Yellowstone and central
Idaho areas. The EIS is the next step in
determining where and how wolf recov-
ery will proceed.
Five different alternatives will be dis-
cussed including:
1. No wolves.
2. No government action - natural
recolonization.
3. Reintroduction under experimental
population - Section 10j of the Endan-
gered Species Act (ESA).
4. Last year's Federal Wolf Manage-
ment Committee plan- which WRF
fought and stopped in D.0 last spring.
This plan allowed ranchers to kill
wolves for "harassing" livestock and
two weeks to report it!
5. Reintroduction with full ESA protec-
tion.
These alternatives, or a combination of
them, will eventually lead to a final
plan to be implemented for wolf recov-
ery in Idaho and the Greater
Yellowstone regions. To accomplish
the necessary public involvement, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Park Service will conduct
public scoping hearings at the locations
listed on page 4.
It's extremely urgent that wolf support-
ers voice their opinions during this pro-
cess! Last years Federal Wolf manage-
ment hearings were jammed with anti -
wolf folks who turned them into rallys
against wolves, conservation, and the
Endangered Species Act.
The Wolf Recovery Foundation does
not support the reintroduction of wolves
in Idaho. If wolves are reintroduced here,
all wolves in Idaho would almost cer-
tainly be stripped of their endangered spe-
cies status protection and be reduced to a
"non- essential experimental population."
With Idaho already having a population of
wolves, many people are opposed to forced
reintroduction. which could easily lead to
uncontrolled killing of wolves and perma-
nently cripple wolf recovery in Idaho.
It is always easier to turn out people to
oppose something, especially something
as traditionally hated as wolves. But the
polls show that the vast majority of people
support wolves. It is time we are heard!
Please plan to attend one of these sessions,
(Cont. on page 4 )
Spring 1992
rr; •:
tr i.
4 WRF Board of Directors
Michael Blake
Author, Dances with Wolves
Chairman
Lois Fletcher
President
Dan Smith
Treasurer
Ann Findley
Secretary
Dean Ehlert
Biology
Suzanne M. Laverty
Program Director
Kent J. Laverty
Development Director
WRF Advisory Board
Jim Dutcher
Dutcher Film Productions
Dr. John Freemuth
Boise State University
Dr. Steven Fritts
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Dr. L. David Mech
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
James Gore
USDA - Forest Service
From the Director,
A Call to Action!
The last several months have been a roller coaster of activity for the Wolf Recovery
Foundation. We have implemented plans for the Wolf Center of the Northern
Rockies, conducted dozens of meetings and programs, organized the April "Night
of Wolves" and Idaho Earth Fest 92', lobbied against proposed state legislation, and
coordinated with other conservation groups concerning the upcoming environmen-
tal impact statement (EIS) for Central Idaho and Yellowstone wolf recovery efforts.
In addition, WRF has designed and implemented fundraising grants and projects
which will enable us to accomplish many of our goals. But as the list of
accomplishments grow, so does the demand to meet more challenges. We are
quickly outgrowing our resources of time, energy and representation.
The last meeting of the Board of Directors helped clarify where our most critical
needs are; organization and outreach. We are putting out the call to all people who
are concerned and want to become involved in the efforts to save the wolf. We need
representatives from all over Idaho and the Northern Rockies to help us meet the
challenges we face today.
The areas of greatest need are:
1) The WRF Board of Directors- We need people who have expertise in
biology, volunteer coordination, teaching, business, and non - profit organization.
The Board of Directors works together as a team to design and implement the goals
of the organization. Each Board member represents a different area of experience
which enables us to combine out talents and increase our effectiveness.
2) Committees- We need people specifically focused on each of the areas of
outreach including howling survey expeditions, public speakers to be trained for a
Speakers Network, educational program design and implementation, fundraising,
volunteer coordination, newsletter organizers, T -shirt distributors, lobbying and
special events coordinators.
3) Technical Assistance- The needs here include landscape and building
architects, graphic artists, engineers, carpenters, media specialists (print, audio and
visual), exhibit designers and builders, accounting and office coordinators.
This is an opportunity for YOU to turn your ideas and values into action! Write or
call the Wolf Recovery Foundation today at (208) 343 -2248! You CAN make a
difference!
For wolves,
Suzanne M. Laverty
Program Director
N iG���voL�s„
Friday., ApITT 1 Oth, 7:3 0 PM
B,SRf Snecin!'EVenrs ('enter
a
Featuring
Michael Blake
Author of Dances with Wolves
Idaho Dance Theatre
Interpretive ballet of
WOLF EYES by Paul Winter
Ambassador Wolves
"Sila" and "Peaches"
From Mission!Wolf of Colorado
Mountain Visions Wide
Screen Productions
Gallery 601 Wolf Exhibit
Audience "Howl -In"
and more!
Sponsored by AMAS
(Alternative Mobility Adventure Seekers)
Tickets -
$10 general admission, $5 students, seniors and WU members.
Available at the Blue Unicorn,
From The Earth, High Country Sports and at the door:
A benefit for the Wolf Recovery Foundation. Call 343 -2245 for more info!
Page Three Spring 1992
ALERT! (Cont. from page 1)
The Idaho scoping meetings are sched-
uled for:
April 14: Couer d'Alene, Challis, Salmon
April 15: Idaho Falls, Stanley, Lewiston
April 16: Boise, McCall, Grangeville
The Boise and McCall meetings will be
held in the Forest Service Supervisors of-
fices in each of those cities.
In Boise, 1750 Front St.
In McCall, 106 W. Park St.
All meetings will be conducted in an "open
house" format and last from 4:00- 8:00pm.
They are constructed differently than the
last hearings. These "open houses" will be
solely educational, alerting people of the
structure of the EIS process, and guiding
people on how to become involved. Only
written testimony will be accepted. No
oral comments will be recorded.
The other locations of the scoping meet-
ings are:
Wyoming
April 6: Riverton, Jackson, Cody
April 7: Rock Springs, DuBois, Pinedale
April 8: Thermopolis, Cheyenne, Casper
Montana
April 9: Missoula, Bozeman, Billings
April 10: Red Lodge, W. Yellostone,
Hamilton
April 13: Helena, Dillon, Gardiner
National Hearings
April 20: Seattle
April 21: Salt Lake City
April 22: Denver
April 23: Washington, D.C.
And Anchorage, Minneapolis /St. Paul and
Alburquerque- to be announced.
(Please contact the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for the exact locations.)
Tile first step in the Gray Wolf EIS will be
to identify the issues. This is the purpose
of the April meetings. A report will be
draft EIS will be presented to Congress on
May 13, 1993. The final EIS is expected to
be completed during 1994.
* * *To be placed on the EIS mailing list
and to submit your comments, write or
call:
Yellowstone N.P. and Central Idaho
Gray Wolf EIS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 8017
Helena, MT 59601
(406) 449 -5202
Points to make:
1) We support natural
recolonization for wolf recovery in Idaho
as outlined in the Northern Rocky Moun-
tain Wolf Recovery Plan which was
adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in 1987.
2) Idaho has a small population of
wolves which should remain protected as
an endangered species until they are fully
recovered (10 breeding pair) as stated in
the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Re-
covery Plan. If determined biologically
necessary, augmentation (supplementing)
of the existing wolf population is a legal
alternative to increasing the population of
wolves in Idaho and is already authorized
by the Endangered Species Act.
3) We support reintroduction of
wolves in the Greater Yellowstone eco-
sysyem based on sound biological meth-
ods. Wolves are a missing component and
would benefit Yellowstone by completing
the eco- system and adding value to the
Park.
4) Lethal control, protection and
management of wolves should remain under
the authority of the federal and state gov-
ernment agencies which are directly re-
sponsible forprotection of endangered and
threatened species. Ranchers, nor anyone
else, should be allowed to kill or harass
wolves without direct authority from the
US Fish and Wildlife Service, and only
after showing just cause for this action.
IDAHO PUBLIC
SUPPORTS
WOLVES!
Survey Research Center Releases
Poll Results
A statewide random sample of 809
Idaho residents was scientifically sur-
veyed by Boise State University' Survey
Reseach Center early this year. The ques-
tion was asked:
"Do you favor or oppose having wolves
in the wilderness and roadless areas of
Central Idaho ?" The results, which
have a sampling error of plus or minus
3.4 %, are as follows:
Favor 72.4%
Oppose 22.1%
Don't Know/No opinion 5.4%
BSU's Analysis
"The presence of wolves in the wilder-
ness and roadless areas of Idaho is looked
at favorably by a significant majority of
Idahoans. In addition, every demographic
group also favors the presence of wolves
in wilderness and roadless areas. The
percentage of those favoring wolves
ranges from a low of 58.8% for those
Idahoans over 60, to a high of 79.8% for
Idahoans under 35. All other demo-
graphic groups fall between these per-
centages."
"The survey question on wolves was
designed to measure public opinion on
having wolves in Idaho. The public... is
apparently very accepting of wolves in
Idaho. This acceptance might be viewed
a necessary condition for the success of
the current Fish and Wildlife Service
natural recolonization policy. That is, if
natural recolonization occurs, the public
is favorably disposed to the wolves ..."
For a copy of the survey, contact Dr.
prepared by the USFWS and made public John Freeman at Boise State University
in June. In July, a public review will ,Dept. of Political Science, 1910 Univer-
identify alternatives to address issues. A sity Drive, Boise, ID 83725.
Packtracks Page Four
WOLF CENTER
STILL VERY MUCH
ALIVE!
Intense opposition from several industry
groups, including the Idaho Cattlemens
Association and the Idaho Farm Bureau
has failed to stop WRF's planned devel-
opment for an education and research
center on wolves. The "Wolf Center of
the Northern Rockies" was proposed for
the Payette National Forest between
McCall and New Meadows, Idaho. WRF
and the Forest Service held several public
meetings on the proposal. In addition to
presenting the plan for the Center, we
attempted to dispel the myths that the
facility would not be a "reintroduction
center" and would not be a threat to the
safety of members of the community.
Most of the opposition came from live-
stock industry representatives and from
residents of the community of New Mead-
ows. The opposition we experienced is
not unexpected - in fact it is typical of the
paranoia surrounding the return of the
wolf. Comments in public meetings
included:
"Shoot, we spent millions tryin' to get rid
of 'em, and now YOU want to bring them
back ? ?"
"In Minnesota, my ancestors had to climb
trees to get away from them suckers !"
We are now even more convinced that the
need for public education is acute in rural
Idaho. WRF is committed to the success
of the Wolf Center, whether it is on the
Payette National Forest at Thorn Creek or
somewhere else.
The Forest Service has told us they do not
have the money to pay for the necessary
environmental evaluations due to budget
constraints this year. Because we are
under certain time deadlines (we need to
open Spring of 1993), we are now con-
centrating on fundraising to pay for the
necessary environmental study. We are
also exploring other sites including other
public and private land options.
Page Five
The Wolf Center of the Northern Rockies
is critically needed. At a time when
wolves are making their way back to Idaho,
when the political spectrum in our state
seems to be swinging, when the habitat
seems to be diminishing at exponential
rates, the public must be informed on the
facts. And people need to have an oppor-
tunity to meet the wolf. The public needs
to make up their own minds - not be
persuaded by myths, politics, and by what
their neighbor thinks.
The Wolf Recovery Foundation staff and
Board of Directors wish to thank all the
people in the McCall area who were not
afraid to support the center. You gave us
tremendous encouragement when we faced
stiff opposition, and we could not have
moved forward without you. The folks at
the Payette National Forest were also very
professional and well- organized. We are
grateful for your expertise and guidance
and look forward to working with you in
the future.
And to all our supporters who took the
time to write and call in support of the
Wolf Center, thank you! And be assured,
WE HAVE NOT GIVEN UP! As things
progress, we will keep you informed! We
are always looking forcomments and sug-
gestions, please contact the WRF office if
you want to become involved in establish-
ing the Wolf Center of the Northern
Rockies.
r*
r
Y f
41,
(7--_0
WOLF MOON
white wolf
watching
a white wolf
watching a
white
wolf
padding through
soft snow,
skirting the edge of tamarack
and big pine
following the gilded path
light on light star crystals blinking
chasing the shadow play,
bough to winter trimmed bough
he prances from blue green depths
and
out again
now a boy wolf
white shadow on a
night dark berm.
something sifts through his limb
vision,
wolf feels it in his damp
smelling feeling
knowing space;
the soft dancing padding stops
he catches the night breeze question
and knows:
the three, man child crying
olf master chanting
brother sky wolf singing.
mask in place, fur tufts warm sinew
and
a breath pulse
just so
the answer rises, mist spirals glide
past
february heavy drifts
up past the white wolf,
past the white
wolf up to the white
wolf moon.
by Nancy E. Rivers, McCall
Sprina1992
OF WOLVES AND WOLF RECD
VERY��
The issue of wolf recovery is often confusing with the many facets involved concerning wolves, their
behavior, and the different approaches to their recovery. To help members better understand this issue, WRF will
select areas to highlight in upcoming issues. We also encourage members to write to us with specific questions to
help us focus on which issues are important to you.
Wolves are an endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the continental United
States except Minnesota where wolves are currently listed as a threatened species. Wolves are native to almost all of the
United States, but were targeted by the livestock industry and government "wolfers" (bounty hunters) who killed thousands
of wolves over the last century. By the early 1930's, wolves had been trapped, shot and poisoned to near extinction in the
continental U.S.
In 1987, the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan was adopted by government agencies to assist the
recovery of the wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains. This plan identified three areas - Northwestern Montana, Central
Idaho and the Yellowstone National Park eco- sysyem for the restoration of wolves. Two different methods for recovery
were identified based on biological and scientific recommendations. Natural recolonization (allowing wolves from Canada
to migrate back) was the preferred alternative for Northwestern Montana and Central Idaho, and reintroduction (capturing
and translocating) of wolves was recommended for the Yellowstone eco- system, where wolves had been considered extinct
for decades. So far, the natural recolonization method is working. Wolf packs have recolonized in Montana and now,
evidence shows, into Central Idaho. Wolves may also be recolonizing naturally back into Northern Washington as well.
Current Status of Gray Wolf Populations in the U.S. Northern Rockies (USFWS)
Montana- 40 -50, including packs in Canada along U.S. border
Idaho- Less than 20 wolves
Yellowstone (Wyoming)- 0
Washington - (number unknown but small)
North Dakota (occasional)
Oregon -0
Other- 0
10F WOLVES AND MYTHS
Wolves don't eat grandmothers... According to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), there has never
been a recorded case of a healthy, wild wolf attacking and
killing a human in U.S. history. Wolf depredation on
livestock occurs less than you may expect - in Minnesota
and Canada, wolves co -exist among thousands of ranches
with less than 0.5% of livestock loss annually. Ranchers in
the Northern Rockies also receive compensation for their
losses due to wolf depredation.
Wolf packs are basically a family of wolves led by
the "alpha" male and female wolves (usually the parents of
the other pack members). Wolves breed once a year and
produce their pups in the early spring. Six or seven pups
per pack is an average litter size, however, half or more of
the pups may not survive due to insufficient diet, poor
weather, and illness. The main prey base for wolves is
deer, elk and moose- mice are not on the menu!
Packtracks age Six
Upcoming Events
April 10th - "The Night of Wolves" 7:30pm, BSU
Special Events Center. Last years event sold out! See
page 3 for information!
April 16th- Public scoping hearings for wolf EIS. See
page 4 for exact locations!
April 26th - "Idaho Earth Fest 92' " Noon to 6:00pm
at the Old Idaho Penitentiary. Lots of music, Eco -fair
and childrens activities! See back page for more
details!
The Wolf Recovery Foundation will again offer volun-
teer howling survey expeditions in the Idaho wilderness
areas this summer to assist biologists in monitoring wolf
activity in Idaho. Special WRF training classes will be
offered through Boise Community Education on Sat.
May 9, 1992 at Hillside Junior High from 11:00am-
12:30pm and 12:30- 2:00pm. Cost is $1.40 per person.
Call Boise Community Education at 338 -3525 for more
information. Additional training programs will be of-
fered later this summer. Warm upon your howling and
call WRF at 343 -2248!
Volunteer Opportunities
Artwork
Board of Directors
Educational Programs
Events
Fundraising
Join the pack!
$500 Patron
$100 Sponsor
$ 50 Associate
_ $ 35 Family
$ 25 Individual
ff
•
"Let There Be Wolves"
WRF T- Shirts, tanks and sweatshirts are avail-
able at The Blue Unicorn, and From The Earth in
Boise. Or come by the WRF office at 409 S.8th,
suite 209.
Lobbying
Newsletter
Office Help
Wolf Center
Other (please spec
The Wolf Recovery Foundation is a non - profit organization which
depends upon your support. If you are not already a member, please
take a moment to join us.
Name:
Address:
City
Phone ( )
State
'Lip
Please make checks payable to the Wolf Recovery Foundation,
(an IRS recognized 501.C3 tax deductible organization.)
Idaho Earth Fest' 92
A Musical Celebration and Eco -Fair
Who says you can't change the world?
Come learn how at the Earth Day Eco-
Fair featuring dozens of conservation
organizations, businessess which sell
environmentally sound products, and
government agencies working to protect
the environment. Listen to musical
performances by Chicken Cordon Blues,
Black Diamond, the Corvairs, J.J. Deon,
Kevin Kirk and many others. Special
Native American dances too. Kids are
encouraged to dress up as an Idaho plant
or animal "species" for the Species
Parade and to attend Mother Earth's
Birthday party.
�III�
EARTH DAY"A
Come celebrate the Earth with us!
Sunday, April 26th Noon to 6:00pm
Old Idaho Penitentiary in Boise
Sponsored by the Idaho Conservation League and the Wolf Recovery Foundation
Tickets are $5 general, $3 walkers, bikers and carpoolers, $1 for kids 12 & under
The Wolf Recovery Foundation
P.O. Box 793
Boise, Idaho 83701
m
Printed on recycled paper
iii
Non- Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Boise, Idaho
Permit No. 702
i�
tk:
��'