June—October 1993 Vol. XVIII No. 3
Technical Bulletin U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park
and Central Idaho
by Edward E. Bangs and Steven H. Fritts
Wolves were once one of the most
widely distributed land mammals on
earth. In North America, gray wolves
(Canis lupus) historically occurred in almost
every habitat north of what is now
Mexico City. However, as European settlers
decimated wild ungulate populations
and replaced them with livestock,
wolves and other large predators that occasionally
attacked livestock were persecuted.
In addition to the real and perceived
conflicts with livestock, old myths
had portrayed wolves as evil and satanic.
For these reasons, it is not surprising that
most people during the setdement era
viewed wolves in an extremely negative
context.
Wolf persecution and eradication were
relentless and conducted with almost hysterical
zeal. Wolves were not just shot,
trapped, and poisoned but burned alive,
dragged behind horses, and mutilated.
By 1930, government predator eradication
programs had eliminated wolf populations
from the western United States.
Similar attitudes resulted in the eliminanon
of wolt populations from the southern
portions of the western Canadian
provinces by the 1950's. The fact that
these events happened within the lives
and memories of many western residents
strongly affects the social and political climate
surrounding wolf recovery efforts
today.
Natural Wolf Recovery
In the 1960s, after sciennfic wildlife
research began to dispel many of the
negative myths surrounding predators,
the first calls lor reintroduction of wolves
to Yellowstone National Park were made.
About the same time, Canadian wildlife
management agencies took steps to encourage
reestablishment of wolf populations
in parts of southern British Columbia
and Alberta by eliminadng boundes
and restricting wolf hunting and trapping.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s,
lone wolves were occasionally sighted or
killed in the northern Rocky Mountains
of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming
(Weaver 1978, Ream and Mattson
1982). While Canadian wolf populations
continued to expand southward, it
was not until 1986 (55 years after eradication)
that wolves again produced pups
in the western United States (Ream et al.
1989). By 1993, the wolf population in
northwestern Montana had increased to
about 50 wolves in 5 packs. No wolf
packs have been documented in other areas
of the western United States, although
lone wolves continued to be reported in
Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, and other
areas.
In 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) established an interagency
wolf recovery program to assist natural
recolonization in Montana (Bangs 1991).
The program strongly emphasized public
education and information. Controversy
over wolves and their management was
still largely an issue of symbolism, with
strong emotion, rumor, and myth on
both "sides" of the wolf recovery issue.
As a result, illegal killing by the public
was the single greatest threat to wolf recovery
in Montana. , • ,
(continued on page 18)
1 ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN Vol. XVIII No. 3 (1993)
Reintroduction of Gray Wolves
fcontinued from page 1)
Since 1989, FWS biologists have given
more than 300 presentations to livestock,
hunter, environmental, and civic groups
that attracted over 13,000 local residents.
In addition, the FWS helped generate
hundreds of newspaper, television, and
magazine articles that provided information
about wolves and their recovery.
Other FWS-led interagency wolf recovery
programs were established in Id;iho,
Wyoming, and Washington. They are
focused primarily on woh monitoring
and on public information and education
(Frittsetal. 1993).
Since 1980, conflicts with livestock
production have been minor, although
still controversial (Bangs et al. 1993). As
of September 1, 1993, 17 cattle and 12
sheep have been killed by wolves, all in
Montana. Seventeen wolves were moved
or killed by FWS and U.S. Department
of Agriculture Animal Damage Control
personnel to prevent further livestock
losses and build local tolerance ot nondepredating
wolves (the majority of the
wolf population). In 1987, a private organization,
Defenders of Wildlife, established
a successfiil program that compensates
ranchers for livestock killed by
wolves. About $ 11,000 has been paid to
date. In 1993, Defenders also began a
program that pays $5,000 to any landowners
on whose property wolves successfully
raise pups. Effective agency control
of problem wolves and the private
compensation program have helped reduce
controversy about the presence of
wolves.
'Fhe FWS, other cooperators, and the
University of Montana have initiated research
on wolves and ungulates in and
adjacent to Glacier National Park.
Wolves in the Glacier Park area generally
live in packs of 8-12 wolves, use territories
of about 300 square miles (780
square kilometers) in valley bottoms,
have a single litter of 5 pups in late April,
feed primarily on white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), and die most often
at the hands of people.
Data indicate that wolves are simply
another predator in the northern Rocky
Mountains ecosystem. Of 120 adult female
white-tailed deer, elk (Cervus
elaphus), and moose (Alces) monitored
with radio telemetry over the past 4 years
in the Glacier Park area, 49 have died.
Mountain lions (Felis concolor) killed 15,
wolves 11, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) 8,
humans 8, coyotes (Canis latrans) 3, old
age 1, and 3 others died from unknown
causes (D. Pletscher, Univ. of Montana,
pers. commun.). Research on mountain
lions in 1992 suggested that wolves may
be a more direct competitor with them
than previously believed. Wolves killed 3
mountain lions, and it was not uncommon
for wolves to track lions and usurp
their ungulate kills (M. Hornocker,
Hornocker Wild!. Res. Inst. Inc., pers.
commun.). These data suggest that the
potential impact of wolves on ungulate
populations may be lower than previously
predicted.
Recovery Planning
In 1974, wolves gained Federal protection
imder the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (Act) and restoration programs
were initiated in the northern Rocky
Mountains (Fritts 1991, Fritts et al.
1993). The State of Montana led an
interagency team, established by the
FWS, that developed a formal Northern
Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan.
That 1980 plan recommended that a
combination of natural recovery and
reintroduction be used to restore wolf
populations in the area around
Yellowstone National Park and north to
the Canadian border.
The FWS approved a revised recovery
plan in 1987. It defined wolf recovery in
the northern Rockies as the survival of at
least 10 breeding pairs of wolves, for 3
consecutive years, in each of 3 recovery
areas (northwestern Montana, central
Idaho, and the Yellowstone area). Including
all pack members, this would mean a
total of approximately 300 wolves. The
plan also recommended using the "experimental
population" provision of the
Act to promote public acceptance of the
timely reintroduction of wolves into
Yellowstone National Park. This designation,
authorized in section (lOj) of the
Act, allows considerable management
flexibility, particularly in the control of
problem animals, as a means of allaying
local concerns about potential negative
impacts. Under the revised recovery
plan, if 2 wolf packs had not been discovered
in central Idaho within 5 years, a
similar reintroduction would occur there
also.
Carefully controlled reintroductions
into designated recovery zones is preferred
as an alternative to waiting indefinitely
for wolves to reestablish themselves.
Recolonizing wolves could
disperse into areas where they may pose a
problem, real or perceived, for people and
livestock, thereby undermining public
support for wolf recovery. Reintroduced
wolves can be designated as an experimental
population — a management option
not legally available for naturally
recolonizing wolves, which have full protection
under the Endangered Species
Act. In addition, reintroduction would
lead to a more rapid recovery, and
thereby hasten the day when the northern
Rocky Mountain wolf can safely be
removed from the endangered species list.
Gray Wolf EIS
In November 1991, Congress directed
the FWS, in consultation with the National
Park Service and Forest Service, to
prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) that considered a broad range
of alternatives on wolf reintroduction in
Yellowstone National Park and central
Idaho. In 1992, Congress further directed
the FWS to complete the EIS by
January 1994 and to select a preferred
alternative consistent with existing law.
The FWS formed and funded an
interagency team to prepare the EIS. In
addition to the National Park Service and
Forest Service, the States of Wyoming,
Idaho, and Montana, the USDA Animal
Damage Control, and the Wind River
Tribes participated. The Gray Wolf EIS
(continued on next page)
18 ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN Vol. XVIII No. 3 (1993)
Reintroduction of Gray Wolves
(continued from previous page)
program emphasized public participation.
In the spring of 1992, nearly 2,500
groups or individuals that had previously
expressed an interest in wolves were contacted
directly, and the EIS program was
widely publicized.
In April 1992, 27 "issue scoping" open
houses were held in Montana, Wyoming,
and Idaho, along with 7 more in other
locations throughout the U.S. The meetings
were attended by nearly 1,800
people, and thousands of brochures were
distributed. Nearly 4,000 people provided
thoughts on issues they felt should
be addressed in the F.IS. The most commonly
mentioned issues involved ecosystem
completeness, land use restrictions,
livestock losses, humane treatment and
respect of wolves, potential impacts on
ungulate populations and hunting opportunities,
and management strategies and
costs. A report describing the public's
comments was mailed to 16,000 people
in July 1992.
In August 1992, another 27 "alternative
scoping" open houses and 3 hearings
were held in Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho. Three other hearings were held in
the States of Washington (Seattle) and
Utah (Salt Lake City), and in Washington
D.C. In addition, a copy of the alternative
scoping brochure was inserted into
a Sunday edition of the two major newspapers
in Montana, Wyoming, and
Idaho. Nearly 2,000 people attended the
August meetings, and nearly 5,000 comments
were received.
The public comment reflected the
strong polarization that has typified management
of wolves. A majority (many
urban or not living in the potentially affected
areas) indicated it wanted immediate
reintroduction and full protection of
wolves. Many others (primarily rural
residents in or near central Idaho or
Yellowstone) indicated they did not want
wolves to be recovered. A report on the
public's ideas and suggestions was mailed
to about 30,000 people in November
1992.
In April 1993, a Gray Wolf EIS planning
update report was published. It discussed
the status of the EIS, provided factual
information about wolves, and
requested the public to report observations
of wolves in the northern Rocky
Mountains. It was mailed to nearly
40,000 people in all 50 States and over
40 foreign countries that had requested
information.
Reintroduction of Wolves as
Nonessential Experimental
Populations
The draft EIS was released to the public
on July 1, 1993, for review and comment.
It contained an EWS proposal to
reintroduce gray wolves into both
Yellowstone National Park and central
Idaho if 2 naturally occurring wolf packs
are not found in either area before October
1994. The reintroduced wolves
would be designated "nonessential experimental
populations" to allow additional
flexibility in the management of wolves
by government agencies and the public.
Such a designation would minimize conflicts
over public lands, effects on domestic
animals and livestock, and impacts on
ungulate populations. There would be
no land use restrictions for wolf management.
State and tribal wildlife agencies
would be encouraged to take the lead in
wolf management outside national parks
and national wildlife refuges. The EIS
estimated that reintroduction would result
in wolf recovery in and around
Yellowstone National Park and central
Idaho by 2002. Total management costs
of the program until recovery (10 breeding
pairs in each area for 3 years) and
delisting were projected to be about $6
million.
In the draft EIS, the EWS considered
4 alternatives to the proposed action: 1)
"Natural Recovery" (which could lead to
wolf recovery by about 2025 and cost
about $10-$ 15 million); 2) "No Wolf"
(which would expressly prohibit recovery,
in violation of law, and cost about
$100,000 to eliminate recolonizing
wolves); 3) "Wolf Management Committee"
(which could lead to recovery by
aboLit 2015, and cost $100-$ 129 million
for land acquisition and intensive management
of wolves, ungulates, and their
habitat); and 4) "Reintroduction of
Nonexperimental Wolves" (which could
lead to recovery by about 2000, with a
total cost of $28 million, including habitat
purchases). The impact of each wolf
management strategy (except the "No
Wolf" alternative) on livestock, ungulate
populations, hunting, land use restrictions,
visitor use, and local economies
varied primarily in the time and location
of the impacts rather than major differences
in the /wc/of impacts.
The Yellowstone area comprises about
25,000 square miles (64,750 sq km), 76
percent of which is federally managed
land. This area has over 95,000 ungulates
(with a htmter take of 14,314 annually),
is grazed by about 412,000 livestock,
receives about 14,500,000
recreational visits annually, and supports
a $4.2 billion local economy (3.5 percent
due to livestock). The central Idaho area
is about 20,700 square miles (53,613 sq
km) in size and is nearly all National Forest
land. The central Idaho area has
about 241,000 ungulates (with an annual
hunter take of 33,358 ungulates), is
grazed by about 306,525 livestock, receives
about 8,000,000 recreational visits
annually, and supports a $1.43 billion local
economy (5.2 percent due to live-
stock).
A recovered wolf population in the
Yellowstone area would be anticipated to
kill about 19 cattle (1-32), 68 sheep (17-
110), and up to 1,200 ungulates (primarily
elk) each year. It would not affect
hunter take of male ungulates, but could
reduce harvests of female elk, deer, and
moose from some herds. A recovered
wolf population would not affect hunter
harvests or populations of bighorn sheep
(Ovis canadensis), mountain goats
(Oreamnos americanus), or pronghorn
(Antilocapra americana). A recovered
wolf population may reduce populations
of elk 5-30 percent (30 percent in some
small herds), deer 3-19 percent, moose 7-
13 percent, and bison (Bison bison) up to
15 percent.
(continued on page 14)
ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN Vol. XVIII No. 3 (1993) 19
Reintroduction of Gray Wolves
(continued from page 19)
The presence of wolves would not
change uses of public or private land except
for restricting potential use of M-44
cyanide devices ("coyote getters") for
predator control in occupied wolf range.
Visitor use would increase (at least 5 percent
for out-of-State residents and at least
10 percent for local residents), and would
generate $7-10 million in additional net
economic benefits each year.
A recovered wolf population in the
central Idaho area would kill about 10
cattle (1-17), 57 sheep (32-92), and up to
1,650 ungulates (primarily mule deer)
each year. It would not measurably alfect
ungulate populadons. Although hunter
take of female elk could fall 10-15 percent,
harvest of male elk would be unaffected.
Further, a recovered wolf population
in this region would not measurably
affect hunter take of deer, moose, bighorn
sheep, or mountain goats. Wolf
presence would not change uses of public
or private land (except for restricting use
of M-44 devices in occupied wolf range).
Visitor use would likely increase (at least
8 percent for out-of-State residents and at
least 2-12 percent for local residents), and
would generate $5.6-$8.4 million in additional
net economic benefits each year.
Public Comment on the Draft
EIS
Nearly 1,700 copies of the draft EIS
and 75,000 copies of the summary draft
EIS were distributed in July, August, September,
and October of 1993. A copy of
the summary draft EIS, a schedule for 16
public hearings (4 each in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming, and 4 in other
parts of the country), and a request for
the public to report wolf observations
were published in the 2 major newspapers
serving Montana, Wyoming, and
Idaho. Public comments on the draft
EIS will be accepted until November 26,
1993.
Preparing the Final EIS
Public comments are being analyzed
this fall and winter, and a final EIS will
be completed in early 1994. Once the
EIS is completed, it will be forwarded to
decisionmakers in the Department of the
Interior, who will determine how wolf recovery
will proceed. All requests for informarion
or the final EIS should be directed
to Ed Bangs, Gray Wolf EIS, PO.
Box 8017, Helena, Montana 59601 (telephone
406/449-5202).
The only prediction considered absolutely
safe is that controversy will continue
to characterize wolves and wolf
management for many years to come.
Suggested Reading about Wolves
in the West:
Bangs, E. 1991. Return of a predator:
wolf recovery in Montana. Western
Wildlands 17:7-13.
Bangs, E.E., S.H. Fritts, D.R. Harms,
J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, W.G.
Brewster, and C.C. Niemeyer. 1993.
Control of Endangered Gray Wolves in
Montana. Proc. 2nd N. Am. Wolf Symposium,
Edmonton, Alberta. In Press.
Fritts, S.H. 1991. Wolf and wolf recovery
efforts in the northwestern United
States. Western Wildlands 17:2-6.
Fritts, S.H., E.E. Bangs, J.A. Fontaine,
W.G. Brewster, and J.E Gore. 1993. Restoring
wolves to the northern Rocky
mountains of the United States. Proc.
2nd N. Am. Wolf Symposium,
Edmonton, Alberta. In Press.
Ream, R.R. and U.I. Mattson. 1982.
Wolf Status in the northern Rockies.
Pages 362-381 in EH. Harrington, and
PC. Paquet, eds. Wolves of the World:
perspectives of behavior, ecology, and
conservation. Noyes Publ. Park Ridge,
NJ.
Ream, R.R., M . W Fairchild, D.K.
Boyd, and A.J. Blakesley 1989. First wolf
den in western U.S. in recent history.
NW. Naturalist 70:39-40.
Weaver, J. 1978. The Wolves of
Yellowstone. Research report 14. National
Park Service, Yellowstone National
Park, WY.
Edward Bangs is Project Leader for the Gray
Wolf EIS, and Steven Fritts is the Northwest
U.S. Wolf Coordinator. Both can be contacted
at the Helena Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 100 North Park, Suite 320, Helena,
Montana 59601 (telephone 406/449-5225).
Regional News
(continued from page 3)
search Center inventoried the only remaining
population of an Endangered
nevada fish, the White River spinedace
(Lepidomeda albivallis), but observed only
14 fish. In June 1991, biologist observed
more than 40 individuals and estimated
the population at 100. White River
spinedace exist in a 3-spring system
within the Kirch Wildlife Management
Area, but are restricted to a relatively unsuitable
portion of the spring system due
to largemouth bass predation. Despite intensive
efforts since 1991 to eliminate
threats, this species may be on the verge
of exrinction. The Reno Field Office will
brief the Regional Office and meet with
the Nevada Department of Wildlife to
determine a course of action.
* * *
In cooperation with the Bureau of
Land Management (BEM), the FWS
Boise (Idaho) Field Office participated in
a 2-week field survey to locate habitats of
the Bruneau Hot Springsnail (Pyrgiilopsis
bruneauensis) and update the status of the
recently listed Endangered species. The
FWS has contracted with Greg
Mladenka, the researcher most familiar
with the species and its habitats, to locate
all thermal spring sites identified in his
1992 thesis; assist with field efforts to determine
Global Positioning System
(GPS) coordinates; mark each site for
subsequent monitoring; determine
springsnail presence or absence at each
site; and measure the waters temperature,
depth, and flow.
(continued on next
20 ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN Vol. XVIII No. 3 (1993)