Caveat: These notes are subjective and not complete. They are focused on the news most relevant to wolf activists in the U.S. northern Rockies. Please contact the conference organizers and the authors for better information. The official agenda includes abstracts of all the presentations; contact Defenders of Wildlife for a copy.

Highlights

• There were 43 successfully breeding pairs of wolves in the N. Rockies in 2002, thus wolf numbers have exceeded the revised recovery goal of 30 breeding pairs in the Northern Rockies for the third year in a row, indicating the wolf is now biologically recovered in the northern Rockies
• Wolf dispersal has been documented in every direction between the three populations, indicating that the difference between the original and revised recovery goals (lumping the 10-10-10 breeding pairs goal to 30 overall) may not be significant, though these data on wolf dispersal should be verified, since they have not been published to my knowledge
• Wyoming's state plan should be an obstacle to delisting in the N. Rockies, having been gutted first by the Game and Fish Commission, and even further by the Wyoming legislature (plus now the lead Game and Fish biologist may be gutted as well, after the Billings Gazette ran a story on his presentation, and this from a governor that many Wyoming greens worked so hard to elect!)
• The recent national wolf reclassification rule should be an additional obstacle to delisting wolves in the northern Rockies, since Defenders of Wildlife and The Humane Society of the United States have stated their intent to challenge the rule in court, including the provision that 30 breeding pairs in the northern Rockies is sufficient for wolf recovery across nine western states

Specific notes, in the order presented

Northwest Montana update
Tom Meier (USFWS)

• NW Montana and Idaho populations have become "closely linked"
• Still a "little bit of a barrier" to Yellowstone population, due to cattle and sheep in southwestern Montana and eastern Idaho
• Dispersal has occurred in every direction between the three populations
• Expects wolf numbers region-wide to level off at about 1000 wolves
• Now at 664 wolves minimum, 46 breeding pairs last year, 60 total breeders
• NW Montana wolves coming back, probably due to deer population coming back
• Low depredations overall, less than 200 domestic animals total (5 llamas), not increasing at pace of wolf population growth
• Wolf translocations have not been successful, phasing out this method
• Human-caused wolf mortality is still a "major source of mortality", 46 killed in 3 states, 9 in NW Montana
• Up to twenty packs may breed this year in NW Montana, 11 successfully bred in 2002
• Packs of 4-6 wolves may be an adequate surrogate for breeding pairs, easier to document

Southwest Montana update
Val Asher (Turner ESF)

• Several new packs have formed in SW Montana: Sentinel, Madison, Lone Bear, Mill Creek
• Four packs in the Paradise Valley, "tight" in Val's opinion
• Uncollared packs in Mission Creek (west fork of Boulder) and Beartrap (west of Gallatin Gateway)
• Permitted 25 people with "less-than-lethal" munitions (rubber bullets, cracker shells)
• Harassment of wolves on private lands has helped reduce conflicts (one landowner successfully displaced wolves from a rendezvous site next to livestock)
• Fewer conflicts overall this year, maybe due to more patrolling, fewer elk among livestock
• RAG boxes are tempermental, give false sense of security, now outfitted with pagers to ranchers when activated
• Third year of den demolition in Cinnabar Basin, got Chief Joseph to den back inside Yellowstone
• Used lots of fladry, effective for about 45 days
• Defenders working on a predator-proof fence at the base of Mill Creek, modeled after fencing in the Ninemile Valley, beehive fencing

Idaho Update
Jim __, Nez Perce Tribe (filled in for Curt Mack)

• 284 wolves in Idaho in 2002, 9% increase, "flattening out a bit"
• Pack sizes are smaller, limited by human tolerance
• Sharp decline in breeding pairs, from 19 to 9, same monitoring effort, "cannot explain decline"
• Four new breeding pairs: Como Lake (MT), __ Butte, Moyner Basin, Buffalo Ridge
• 25 documented mortalities, 9% of population
• Since 1995, 77 known wolf mortalities, 69 (90%) were human-caused
• Depredations 2002: 17 cows killed, 15 sheep
• Depredations 1996-2002: 93 cows killed, 240 sheep
• Wolf control 1996-2002: 32 wolves moved, 38 wolves killed ("controlled")
• Idaho's annual report to be available in early May (Nez Perce wolf office #: 208-634-1061)

Wyoming update
Mike Jimenez (USFWS)

• Wolf dispersal from Yellowstone has matched projected dispersal, lots of it!
• Dispersals tend to follow big game, wolves use a variety of habitats, tolerate people, use roads, clearcuts, snowmo trails
• Problems occur on big game winter range, when cattle arrive in the spring
• WY depredations: 23 confirmed and 4 probable cows, no sheep/dogs/horses
• Horses not typically killed directly, but injured while tethered, creates huge antipathy to wolves among locals
• 75 wolves outside of Yellowstone, 6 packs, 7 known mortalities (not including pups), 6 from control actions
• Wyoming has completed its plan; USFWS will evaluate three state plans together [see notes from Bangs talk below]

Yellowstone update
Doug Smith (Yellowstone Wolf Project)

• About 273 wolves, 31 packs in GYE, 14 packs in Yellowstone Park, 5 of these cross the border
• Growth rate has slowed in the northern Range; sharp increase in GYE breeding pairs (from 13 to 23!) is due to wolf packs outside of Yellowstone
• Humans are the major source of mortality, 53%, but inter-wolf conflicts are increasing; big wolf mortality paper is soon to be published
• Predator/prey study continues, "elk economy" with elk 88% of prey base, wolves select for calves and old cows, bulls tend to be killed in late winter when most vulnerable
• Wolves consume an average of 1.4 elk per wolf per 30 days in early winter, 2.2 in late winter (to be published in J. Wildlife Management)
• Elk count is down on the northern Range this year, but sighting conditions were poor, evidence of a slow decline since 1999; Peterson study showed that 50% of variation in moose population was not due to wolves
• One hundred thousandth person saw a wolf in Yellowstone this summer; economic study underway by John Duffield at U Montana

Wolf Viability Analysis and Delisting Process
Ed Bangs (USFWS)

Viability - Ed reported on the results of his wolf viability analysis done by polling wolf experts. He sent out a questionnaire in November 2001 asking experts to pick between the 1987 wolf recovery goals, the revised goal from the 1994 reintroduction EIS (successfully breeding pairs), and a 2001 proposal using a pack of "4 wolves in winter" as a surrogate for successfully breeding pair. Some respondents objected to this polling process as not credible, saying opinion is not a substitute for science [had I been polled, this would be my response!]. Three-quarters (75%) of respondents supported the 1994 and 2001 definitions of viability, provided their is connection between wolf populations, and the monitoring criteria must demonstrate reproduction. The upshot is that Fish and Wildlife Service will stick with the "breeding pairs" definition of a wolf pack, as articulated by Fritts in the 1994 EIS, but a surrogate that is easier to monitor may be necessary in future.

Delisting - State plans from Idaho, Montana and Wyoming will be sent through "independent peer review." That is, the Fish and Wildlife Service will collect all three state plans once they are complete and present them to a team of peer reviewers, with the question, "In combination, do these plans ensure a viable wolf population in the northern Rockies?" If the plans pass muster, the Service will publish a delisting proposal in late 2003, and make its final delisting decision in late 2004.

Updating Mark Boyce's Wolf/Elk model
Nathan Varley (University of Alberta, Edmonton)

Average winter kill rate is 22 elk per wolf per year on the Yellowstone Northern Range (16.5 in early winter, 29.6 in late winter), according to Smith et al. In Press. Elk numbers fluctuate a lot, average about 14,000. Effects of wolves are to decrease this number by about 1300 elk average, decrease variation in elk numbers year to year. Can change variables to test different outcomes.

Elk Winter Habitat Selection Post Wolves
Julie Mao (University of Alberta, Edmonton)

In summer, elk show avoidance of wolves: select steeper slopes, high elevations, areas with vegetative cover. In winter, elk cannot avoid wolves: select more open habitat (grouping, dilution of risk), lower snow levels, flatter slopes.

Effects of Disturbing Wolf Dens
Paul Frame (University of Alberta, Edmonton)

Studied wolves at den sites in barren ground tundra outside of Yellowknife, area now developed for mining diamonds, gold, etc. Disturbed 6 dens, three packs moved due to disturbance (2 of these were late in denning season, pups at 10-12 weeks).

Wolf/Elk studies
Bob Garrott (Montana State University)

MSU graduate students studying wolf/prey dynamics in three areas of Greater Yellowstone: the Madison/Firehole are inside the park, Gallatin Canyon north of Yellowstone with lots of recreational use, and the Lee Metcalf area with private lands in the Madison Valley, lots of livestock and elk. Graduate students presenting their initial results were Rosemary Jaffe, Eric Bergman, and Justin Gude.

Wolves and Elk at Wyoming's Feed Grounds, Mike Jimenez (USFWS) This talk was re-scheduled and I missed it. There were fewer conflicts at the feedgrounds in 2002, but managers still complain about feeding elk that move around a lot more to avoid wolves. See the Billings Gazette article pasted below; this and more info is posted on Ralph Maughan's website: http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/index.html

Wolf Fladry in Idaho
Rick Williamson (USDA Wildlife Services)

• Rick and Laura Jones of Defenders collaborated on this project, located on the Coiner Ranch
• Made and put up 7-8 miles of fladry around 900 acres, was not easy
• Used ripstop nylon, lighter and stronger than plastic
• Some variables were hard to separate from effects of fladry specifically: lots of people walking around the fladry was an added deterrent, ATV use, helicopters were used to haze wolves (wolves preferred to run back under the copter in one case rather than cross the fladry!), project was too big to easily manage, hard to assess the effects of this control work on depredation rates of neighboring ranches.
• Benefits of fladry are that it is re-usable, associated human activity is an added deterrent
• Conclusions: fladry is effective in the short-term, better suited for small areas, further research is underway in Idaho (Michigan State study?), southwestern Montana (Val Asher)

Wyoming Wolf Plan Update
Dave Moody (Wyoming Game and Fish)

(This is the report that got in the papers and may cost Dave his job. Please urge Wyoming Governor Dave Fruedenthal or the new Game and Fish Director Brent Manning to reverse this outrageous reaction to a biologist merely doing his job.)

Moody gave an impromptu update on the Wyoming wolf plan. The Game and Fish Commission met in January 2003 and approved the plan, contingent on the Wyoming legislature undoing the "predator" designation for wolves. The legislature passed a bill that went beyond this, by declaring wolves would continue to be classed as "predators" outside of Yellowstone and Wilderness areas directly adjacent to Yellowstone. Thus the Wyoming plan has degenerated [my word, not Moody's] from the Game and Fish Department's initial proposal to classify wolves as a "trophy" animal throughout the state, to the Game and Fish Commission's mandate that wolves be classified as "predator" outside of Yellowstone Park and all Wilderness areas, to the legislature's bill that wolves be classified as predator outside of Yellowstone Park and adjacent Wilderness areas (which excludes the Gros Ventre and Wind River Wilderness areas). Moody also described a "threshold" objective of 15 packs in Wyoming, including no more than 7 outside of Yellowstone Park? (I could be wrong on this). Game and Fish is now awaiting feedback from the state attorney general, and plans to put a final plan before the Game and Fish Commission in June or July. Public comment on the draft plan was split about 50-50 between wolf supporters and opponents.

Wolves, Lions, Ungulates and Fire
Jim and Holly Akenson (University of Idaho)

• Monitoring wolves, lions, ungulates from a remote field station in Idaho (Taylor Ranch), and a big fire swept through their study area midway through the study
• Documented 190 ungulate carcasses
• Cougar-killed carcasses are taken by wolves, reverse is rare
• Lion reproduction was low prior to the fire, zero ever since; wolf production is steady
• In response to fire, elk moved and did okay, deer stayed and did okay, moose stayed and suffered
• In response to fire, wolves moved to follow elk, lions stayed with the deer and suffered
• Since the fire, elk and deer are rebounding, despite wolves
• Lion hunting has increased as well, with more liberal regulations

Montana Wolf Plan
Carolyn Sime (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks)

Draft EIS is out for public review, public meetings being held across the state, comments due by May 12. Montana legislature introduced some problem bills, but they were amended enough to be "neutered." Funding for state management is a big issue.

Idaho Wolf Management
Steve Nadeau (Idaho Fish and Game)

Idaho's plan is complete and FWS has accepted it contingent to peer review along with the other state plans. Idaho is now drafting an "Operations Plan" that describes how the specific management goals will be achieved. Fish and Game will assume management responsibility, and will allow the Nez Perce Tribe to play a "significant" role. The result will be a five-year management plan similar to those in place for lions and bears. The state plan calls for 15 packs minimum, but "pack" is not yet defined. There are no specific provisions in the state plan to ensure wolf connectivity between Idaho and the other northern Rockies populations; that is "up to the wolves."

Wisconsin Wolf Depredation Management
Bob Willging (USDA Wildlife Services)

Wisconsin has an 800# for wolf conflicts, 24-hour response time, consistent and fast. Detailed reports are made for each conflict. Program components include: technical assistance in non-lethal methods to prevent conflicts, compensation (managed by Wisconsin DNR), and wolf control actions. Program seems to be working for livestock, but hound-hunters are losing lots of dogs and are very upset. Deer farm depredations are a problem due to large compensation costs. Phasing out relocations, toward more lethal control actions.

Effects of Wolf Removal on Depredations
Liz Bradley (University of Montana)

• Examined data from the northern Rockies since 1987.
• Several previous studies (Fritts 1982, Fritts et al. 1992, Bjorge and Gunnison 1985, Tompa 1983).
• 136 wolves killed since 1987, 5% per year
• 107 wolves translocated in 40 events
• 68% of packs depredated again within one year of control action (90% of Idaho packs)
• Control actions increased the time between depredation events (260 days average)
• Lots of other variables at work
• Removing alpha animals did not affect future depredations (consistent with Fritts' results)
• Pack sizes may matter: smallest and largest packs tend to depredate again (weak trend, need more data)
• Not clear if "first taste" of livestock conditions wolves to depredate again
• Certain areas are chronic problem areas, depredations continue even when entire packs are removed Late summer is a problem season, pups are big enough to eat a lot, not big enough to hunt

Wolves, Lions and Ungulates
Gary Power (Lemhi County, Idaho)

Six collared lions, two wolf packs in eastern Idaho. Contrasted wolf kills that are readily visible and drive locals crazy versus road-killed deer and elk (lots more of it, but not a problem!), versus lion kills, which are buried and thus nobody complains about them. Study has confirmed 208 elk/deer kills by lions and wolves. Four bighorn sheep killed, 3 by bobcats and 1 by a lion. Locals tend to trust his data more than similar data coming out of Yellowstone and elsewhere.

Wolf Habitat Selection in the Northern Rockies
John Oakleaf (USFWS)

Modeled wolf habitat selection for his Masters at University of Idaho, found wolves select forested areas with elk, avoid areas with people and sheep.

Wolf Management in Utah
Craig McLaughlin (Utah Division of Wildlife)

Utah is starting to prepare its wolf management policy, cited some initial analysis by Robert Schmidt of Utah State University. Wolf #253 was trapped by a private citizen in late November and shipped back to Wyoming. The next wolf will not get moved or killed if it avoids livestock, expects that it would be collared and monitored.

(FYI - Thursday's conference notes: I've put the Defender's presentation on changing the compensation program up top and the science stuff on bottom.)

Wolf Compensation and Proactive Programs:
Tools for Conflict Resolution and Cooperative Partnerships
By Suzanne Stone, NW field rep, Defenders of Wildlife, Boise, ID

Suzanne ran down the basics on Defender's program. Since 1987 they've spent $280,000 to pay ranchers for confirmed livestock losses. The Bailey fund also supports non-lethal deterrant methods such as fladry, and the Wolf Guardian program - which pays people to camp with livestock in wolf country. She had three ranchers come up to speak. It sounds like they've made great progress in the Salmon, Idaho area - evidenced by the fact that two very traditional ranchers were there to speak on Defender's behalf.

Then she introduced Dr. John B. Sullivan (I think he's from Louisiana) who gave a very confusing presentation on his model for changing Defender's compensation program. Essentially, he wants to set it up as an HMO - with conservationists and possibly ranchers paying insurance premiums based on the numer of carnivores in the area ($1,000/wolf). Somehow, and this was definetly not clear, incentives for non-lethal projects would be worked into the program. But instead of determining whether a wolf or a bear killed the cow/sheep the rancher would be paid for however many cows or sheep he was missing at the end of the year. Each community would have a board that oversees the compensation fund in their community and sets the value for livestock lost. Any extra money would go into a fund to build community projects.

I'm not sure what the conservationists would get or how they would be repaid if a wolf is killed. The devil is in the details and most of the plan has yet to be resolved. They want a plan in place by the time wolves are delisted.

The afternoon session was a discussion of the plan, and most people there were favorable to the idea of an insurance model. The goal of the program is to build social tolerance, and turn wildlife into an asset for the community.

However, the question of where the money was going to come from, how the plan would change behavior in the agricultural community, and the complexity of setting all of it up in each community were concerns raised. It seemed to many that Defender's was trying to provide a bandaid for the woes of the entire western economy.

Predicting and Understanding the Impact of Wolves in Utah: A Progress Report
Jeremy Bruskotter, a former graduate student at University of Utah, presented an update to the report on Utah wolves his graduate class published in 2002.

The report basically confirmed that wolves had returned to Utah, there was a potential for up to 200 wolves in core areas, and that Utah has the habitat to support them.

Because Utah has a younger, educated, and more urbanized population, support for the presence of wolves is likely to be greater than in other western states.

A map of potential conflicts is still being developed, and the class is now working on a study of rhetoric and propaganda surrounding the political controversy of wolves.

The Effectiveness of Wolf Control:
An Assessment of Wolf Control Programs in Alaska.
Helene Jorgensen, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Much of this you probably know, but just as background:

Alaskan wolves are not protected under the Endangered Species Act. Approximately 7,000 to 8,000 wolves are in Alaska. A seven-year aerial-based wolf control program ended in 1982, and in 1994 all predator control programs were ended by the governor (basically because a tourism boycott started after videos were aired showing a wolf eating off a paw to get out of a trap).

The governor commissioned an Academy of Sciences study on predator control - which then suggested that AK make a long-term predator management plan and conduct a cost/benefit analysis of predator control.

Here are some interesting facts:

93,000 people participated in hunting over the study period (didn't write that down, sorry) of those 21,000 came from out of state - and spent $110 million. In contrast, 420,000 people participated in wildlife viewing that year. 292,000 of those were visitors who spent $358 million (3x as much). And the tourism boycott cost the state an estimated $187 million.

A study was done on whether the benefits of increased hunting on Vancouver Island outweighed the costs of wolf control. The study found that hunting days actually declined during wolf control, there was little evidence that wolf control enhances the populations of ungulates, and the costs outweighed the benefits by a factor of 2.

In general, she found that there is very little evidence that wolf control in Ak has enhanced ungulates, it is very expensive, and the costs may outweigh the benefits.

An Analysis of Wolf Hunting Behavior in Yellowstone National Park
By Dan MacNulty, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Univ. of Minnesota

Essentially, this was a study of why wolves have common sense. The researchers watched wolves hunt in winter in Yellowstone to answer the quesion: Why do wolves kill prey that are more vulnerable? Answer: Because they are easier to kill (smaller and weaker) and less likely to kill them. Thus, wolves in Yellowstone kill more elk than bison. Their prey habits are: travel, approach, watch, attack, target, and capture. These can occur in a hunting bout, prey encounter, or predation attempt.

Yellowstone Wolves and GPS Collars: New Insights from New Technologies
By Dan Stahler, Wildlife Biologists, Yellowstone Wolf Restoration and Behavior

Stahler's presentation was essentially a "consumer report" on wolf collars. Researchers are now using GPS collars, which are lighter in weight, and thus have a less of an impact on wolves, but are sometimes unreliable, and because of battery life - can only be used for 9 months or so. There has been some concern over scars/wounds under the chins of wolves, but Stahler said that it is other wolves causing these markings and not the collars.