Volume 15, Number 3
Fall 2003

Crossing Invisible Boundaries: Wolves Now Face New Dangers
By Renee Van Camp
Wolf Program Director

The summer heat is oppressive, pulling moisture from the lush grasses, setting treetops a blaze, drying water from the rivers and stealing vigor from wildlife. Wolves spend hot summer days bedded down in tall grasses or in small slivers of shade underneath a fallen tree. Activity levels are low and movement is minimal to conserve energy for the upcoming fall. As weather cools and days grow shorter, wolves will once again be on the move. With breeding season on the horizon and new territories in mind, wolves can roam for hundreds of miles paying no attention to state lines or recovery zone boundaries.

Territory location depends on many factors including prey availability and protective terrain. Wolves will travel hundreds of miles searching out the perfect territory for their pack or a new space for themselves. Last winter a member of the Druid Pack in Yellowstoneâs Lamar Valley traveled over 200 miles to Northern Utah. Nebraska and Missouri have also had recent dispersers visiting from the Great Lakes Regions. Unfortunately both ended in dead wolves due to claims of mistaken identity.

Crossing these invisible lines has never before been so critical in determining the fate of wolves. With the recent downlisting to threatened in all of the Western and Eastern DPS states, wolves are on their way to delisting. This can only occur when all three states (Idaho, Wyoming and Montana) present acceptable state management plans to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Although each state wants the same end result, control of wolves, their plans are significantly different.

The state of Idaho was the first one out of the gate releasing their final plan during the spring of 2002. The Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee crafted a plan within a few short months without much solicitation for public comment. Public meetings were held but many in hostile, well-known anti-wolf environments and without enough notice for adequate participation.

Wolves in Idaho will be classified as big game/fur-bearer. Idaho has agreed to maintain at least 15 packs within the state. However, lethal control will be favored if there are at least 10 packs. Currently there are nearly 20 packs. Idaho defines a pack as a male and female producing pups. According to the plan, half of these packs could be destroyed before non-lethal means of control were even considered. With an average of 5-7 wolves per pack in Idaho, private citizens and Wildlife Services agents could hunt wolves down to numbers close to 50-70, compare that to the 263+ that were surviving within state boundaries at the end of 2002. Realizing that not all packs will breed and counting pup mortality that can reach 88% (USFWS 1994), this could equal to much less than 50-70 surviving wolves throughout the entire state of Idaho. How can the possibility of losing nearly 200 wolves within the state be on the same lines as ensuring a surviving population, as their plan promises?

Montanaâs plan is still in draft form with the final draft being released in March of this year. The final plan is scheduled for release late this summer. Crafted by the Montana Wolf Management Advisory Council and introduced by Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks, the plan is similar to the way wolves are to be managed in Idaho. Montana did allow for extensive public commenting and input during 2002-2003.

In Montana wolves will be classified as "a species in need of management" if numbers fall below 15 breeding pairs statewide. Wolves will be listed as big game/furbearers if numbers exceed 15 breeding pairs. Currently, there are more than 25 packs in the NW Montana recovery area. With the current population level, once delisted, licenses could be issued for wolf hunting. In addition, federal agents will continue their slaughter against wolves involved with domestic livestock. In the first half of 2003, 25 wolves, including 2 entire packs, were lethally controlled in Montana alone. Imagine these numbers when the only thing between a hunter and a legal trophy on the wall is a wolf tag.

Minimum population numbers in Montana have not been determined yet, as the plan is still in draft form. However, the planâs alternatives range from 10 to 20 breeding pairs statewide. Scientific studies have indicated that a breeding population of 500 is very conservative in ensuring species survival throughout an ecosystem. With Montana containing parts of the Yellowstone and Idaho recovery zones, the state should be responsible for maintaining 1/3 to 1/2 of the total wolf population in the region, amounting to 83-125 breeding pairs of wolves, a far cry from the 10-20 being offered in the management plan.

And now there is Wyoming with its recently released plan. Limiting commenting to a couple of one-hour meetings, the Commission and Wyoming Game and Fish Department finalized their plan quite easily and quickly. Wyoming has agreed to maintain 15 packs within state boundaries. Wyoming also defines a pack as a male and female producing pups. The catch is this; Wyoming meets its promise if eight packs are surviving within Yellowstone and a few surrounding wilderness areas and as little as seven packs are present in the entire rest of the state. The packs outside of the park will be given predator status, allowing anyone at anytime to shoot and kill them for any reason, no license necessary. The packs in the wilderness areas directly outside the park will be listed as trophy game animals, so they donât escape hunting either, all one will need is a wolf license. If wolves in the park cross into predator areas, they too can be shot and killed at anytime. Wyoming state officials estimate that 90 percent of the home range for wolves outside the parks is in areas where wolves would be classified as predators. Most, if not all, wolves in Wyoming could be designated predators depending on where they roam.

Despite the widespread hunting possibilities and inadequate population limits, wolves are by nature resilient and necessarily terrified of humans. We can only hope that the increased pressure on this barely recovering species will force them to draw away from human threats and drive them deep into safer territories where hunters toting noisy guns and heavy traps are unwilling to venture.