Wolves in the West Michaela DaMato
Transcript of Wolves in the West Michaela DaMato
WolvesInTheWest:AnAnalysisoftheNorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlanandtheFindingsandRecommendationsforManagingWolvesThatMigrateIntoColorado
By
MichaelaDaMatoUniversityofColoradoatBoulder
AthesissubmittedtotheUniversityofColoradoatBoulder
Inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementstoreceive
HonorsdesignationinEnvironmentalStudies
April2017
ThesisAdvisors:
RobertBuchwald,HonorsResidentialAcademicProgram,CommitteeChairPaulLander,Geography
DaleMiller,EnvironmentalStudies
©2017byMichaelaDaMatoAllrightsreserved
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
i
Abstract
WolfpopulationsareundoubtedlyincreasinginthewesternUnitedStatesasaresultofwolfreintroductioneffortsinWyoming,Montana,andIdahoin1987onbehalfoftheU.S.FishandWildlifeService.However,aswolfpopulationscontinuetoincreasethroughoutthewest,sodoesthenumberofpeoplenegativelyimpactedbywolvessuchaslivestockproducers,hunters,andhomeownersthatareincloseproximitytowolfpopulations.Coloradoiscurrentlyinvolvedintheongoingcontroversyoverwolfreintroductionbecauseofthefearwolfpopulationsmayhaveoncommunities,aswellasthelivestockandhuntingindustries,buttheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceisrequiredtodevelopaplanbytheendof2017toincreaseMexicangraywolfpopulationsinArizona,NewMexico,andpossiblyColorado.TheColoradoDepartmentofWildlife(CDOW)publishedawolfmanagementprogramin2004thatofferedsolutionstomanagingwolvesthatweremigratingfromsurroundingstates,butthisprogramwaspublishednearly15yearsagoanddoesnotpromotetherepopulationofwolves,norwasitfullyimplementedbecausewolvesarestillfederallylistedasendangeredinColorado.ThispaperrevisitstheNorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlanfrom1987toimproveupontheFindingsandRecommendationsforWolvesMigratingintoColoradofrom2004toencouragewolfrepopulationinColoradowhilealsolimitingconflictbetweenhumansandwolves.Throughthisanalysis,Ifoundthatthe2004ColoradowolfmanagementplancouldimproveuponthelackofmeasurablegoalsforrestoringwolvesinColorado,theabsenceofbufferzonesbetweenwolfhabitatandhumandevelopment,insufficientsourcesoffundingformanagementanddepredationfunds,andanincompleteeducationandoutreachprogram.IrecommendthatthefutureColoradowolfmanagementplanimplementspecificgoalstomeasurewolfrepopulation,purchasemulti-uselandbetweenwolfhabitatandhumandevelopment,acquirefundingforwolfmanagementanddepredationfromColorado’slotterytax,marijuanatax,andtourism,andlastlydevelopindividualoutreachprogramsfortheinterestgroupsmostimpactedbywolvesandprovidethemwithnon-lethalwolfprotectionalternatives.Theseeffectivesolutionswilllimitthenegativeimpactsofwolvesasmuchaspossible,whilealsogivingwolvesasecondchancetothriveinalandthatwasoncetheirown.
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
ii
Acknowledgments
ThankyoutoRobertBuchwald,PaulLander,DaleMiller,andmyfamilyandfriends
fortheirunconditionalsupportandvaluableguidancethroughoutthisthesisprocess.
Withoutyourunfailingencouragement,thisworkwouldnotbepossible.
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
iii
TableofContents
Abstract..................................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................ii
ListofAbbreviations...............................................................................................................iv
Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
Background............................................................................................................................2
Methods.................................................................................................................................8
CaseStudy.............................................................................................................................10NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlanbytheU.S.Fish&WildlifeService..................................11
Discussion:Assessment.........................................................................................................21MapCurrentSystem...............................................................................................................................................................22FindingsandRecommendationsforManagingWolvesThatMigrateIntoColoradobytheColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroup..............................................................................................................22
IdentifyOpportunitiesforChange...................................................................................................................................30MeasurableGoals.....................................................................................................................................................................32BufferZones................................................................................................................................................................................33FundingforDepredationPaymentsandWolfManagement................................................................................35PublicEducationandOutreach.........................................................................................................................................37
ProposeChangeforWolfManagementinColorado................................................................................................38MeasurableGoals.....................................................................................................................................................................41BufferZones................................................................................................................................................................................42FundingforDepredationPaymentsandWolfManagement................................................................................43PublicEducationandOutreach.........................................................................................................................................45
Conclusion&Recommendations...........................................................................................46
Bibliography..........................................................................................................................49
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
iv
ListofAbbreviations
CDOW ColoradoDepartmentofWildlife
COWolfPlan FindingsandRecommendationsforWolvesthatMigrateIntoColorado(2004)
CWWC TheColoradoWolfandWildlifeCenter
ESA EndangeredSpeciesAct
GOCO GreatOutdoorsColorado
NGO Non-governmentorganization
NRMtPlan NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
1
Introduction
AlthoughtheEarthhasalreadyexperiencedatleastfivemassextinctionsinthepast
half-billionyears,wearecurrentlyexperiencingthefastestrateofspecieslosssincethe
extinctionofthedinosaurs65millionyearsago.Themaincauseofthecurrentlossof
biodiversityaroundtheglobeisduetohumanactivitythathasresultedinhuman
overpopulation,habitatlossorfragmentation,introductionofinvasivespecies,pollution,
climatechange,andover-harvestingofspecies(Rinkesh,2013).Inresponsetothisrapid
decreaseinfloraandfauna,theU.S.FishandWildlifeServicehasattemptedtoreversethe
extinctionofmanyspeciesbyimplementingreintroductionprogramsforspeciesthatare
endangeredorhavegoneextinctincertainareasoftheUnitedStates.Areintroduction
programisamethodicalreleaseofspeciesintoacertainareaofthewild,fromeither
captivityorotherhabitatsandisusedasatooltostabilize,regenerate,orincrease
populationsofanimalsthathaveexperiencedrapidpopulationdeclines.
TheColoradoParksandWildlifeCommissionhasconductedmanyoftheirown
reintroductionprogramsinColoradoincludingthemoose,lynx,andblack-footedferret.
However,theColoradoParksandWildlifeCommissionhasrecentlyopposedthe
reintroductionofwolvesdespitepopularopinionofColoradocitizensandthebenefits
theseprogramshaveshowntoecologicalcommunitiesindifferentstates(Pateetal,
1996)(Weissetal.,2006).TheCommissionclaimsthereasonforthisisduetothelackof
anymeasurable,beneficialimpactthathasn’talreadybeenprovidedbyanimalslikethe
mountainlion,bobcat,coyote,lynx,andhumans;theColoradogovernmentisalso
apprehensivebecauseofthenegativeimpactwolvesmayhaveontheelk-huntingand
livestockindustries(ExplanationofWolfResolution,2016)(Gilbert,2016).
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
2
ThereintroductionofwolvesinWyominghasbecomeoneofthemostrecognized
reintroductionprogramsduetotheongoingcontroversywithlivestockowners,butalso
therecentrecognitionofthekeystonerolethatwolvesplayinecosystems.Thispaperwill
analyzetheimplementationstrategiesandresultsofthesuccessfulNorthernRocky
MountainWolfRecoveryPlan(NRMtPlan)thatreestablishedwolfpopulationsin
YellowstoneNationalPark,CentralIdaho,andNorthwesternMontanaandapplythose
findingstoarevisionofFindingsandRecommendationsforManagingWolvesThatMigrate
IntoColorado(COWolfPlan)publishedbytheColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroup
in2004.IwilldiscusswhytheWesternUnitedStatesisidealwolfhabitatandthe
guidelineseachprogramhasputintoplacetoprotecttheanimalsandotherinterestgroups
suchasranchers,hunters,wolfconservationists,nearbyhomeowners,andrelatedpolicy
makers.Iwillalsodiscussthegoalseachprogramsetandtheirsuccessesandfailuresin
obtainingthesegoals.Iwillthenusethisinformationtoactasachangeagentandidentify
primaryflawsoftheCOWolfPlantogeneratearevisionofthe2004documentthatwill
takeintoaccounttheneedsofwolves,ranchers,hunters,thegeneralpublic,andthe
governmentinColoradotopromoteamorebeneficialoutcomeforallpartiesinvolved.
Background
Priortothe1900s,graywolves(Canislupus)wereonceabundantlyscattered
throughoutNorthAmericawithapopulationof250,000to500,000individuals(White,
2014).Theselargepopulationsofwolvesremainedrichuntiltheearly1900swhennon-
indigenoushumanpopulationsbegantoexpandandsettleinthewesternUnitedStates.
Ranchingwastheprimaryoccupationinthewesternregionduringthistimeandahighly
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
3
influentialsectorofthegrowingU.S.economy.Asaresult,rancherslobbiedformoreland
toexpandtheirgrazingrangesbutfoundthelandwaslavishwithwolves.Elkanddeer
populationswerealsodecliningasaresultofwesternexpansion,thereforetheselarge
populationsofwolvesbegantoposearisktoranchers’livestockastheysearchedforother
prey.PublicattitudesintheU.S.oftencomparedwolvestovermininordertoshowcase
theirdistainforthisfiercetoppredatorthatthreatenedtheirfamiliesandlivelihoods
(Jacobs,1994).ThisresultedinextensiveeffortstoeradicatewolvesfromtheUnitedStates
includinganationwidewolfcontrolpolicyenactedbytheU.S.governmentthathad
governmentsanctionedhunterskillofflargepopulationsofwolvesinordertoprotect
livestock(White,2014).Theimplementationofthesepredatorcontrolprogramsresulted
intheeliminationofwolvesfromthewildbytheearly1970s.
AlthoughwolfpopulationswerenolongerthrivingintheU.S.bythe1970s,the
environmentalmovementinthe1960s-70sprovidedachanceforthisspeciestore-inhabit
itsnativeterritories.Americansbegantoshifttheiropinionsofwolvesfromvermin-like
creaturestoakeyecologicalcomponentthatdeservesconsideration,protection,and
preservation.ThepassageoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)in1973promptedthegray
wolftobelistedasanendangeredspeciesandprotectedunderitssanctionsin1974.The
ESArequiresthattheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceconstructandcarryoutrecoveryplans
foralllistedspecies,whichinitiatedeffortsin1977toconservewolvesinthewestand
strivetowardsreintroducingthembackintotheirnaturalhabitats.
Inthelate1980s,twoprogramswerelaunchedtoreintroducewolvestotheir
historicalhabitatinthewesternUnitedStates,namelytheRockyMountainWolfRecovery
PlanandtheMexicanWolfRecoveryProgram.Theseprogramshavehadvaryingdegrees
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
4
ofsuccess,astherearenowover1,700wolvesacrossIdaho,Montana,Wyoming,and
OregonduetoreintroductionandnaturalmigrationfromCanada;however,Arizonaand
NewMexicocurrentlyonlysupportabout110wolves(RestoringtheGrayWolf,n.d.).In
orderforwolfpopulationstostabilize,wolfpacksneedmetapopulationsorconnected
communitiestomaintaingeneticdiversityandlargerpopulationsizes,butwolves
currentlyoccupylessthan10%oftheirhistoricalrangeandthespeciesasawholeis
threatenedbyhumanactivity(RestoringtheGrayWolf,n.d.).
Despitethefactthatcurrentwolfpopulationsarestillconsiderablylowerthanthey
wereinthe1800s,effortsbeganin2003onbehalfoftheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceto
reduceorremoveprotectionofwolvesundertheESA.Althoughtheseeffortswere
repeatedlyturneddownbystateandfederalcourtsbecausepopulationswerenotfully
sustained,theU.S.FishandWildlifeServicerespondedbypublishingseparaterulesthat
removedprotectionsonwolvesandallowedforhuntinginthenorthernRockiesand
westernGreatLakes.Althoughseveralcourtbattlesensuedoverthisissueandprotection
wasreinstatedforashortwhile,Congressattachedaridertoamust-passbudgetbillin
2011thateliminatedprotectionofwolvesundertheESAinallofMontanaandIdaho,the
easternthirdofWashingtonandOregon,andpartsofnorthernUtah(RestoringtheGray
Wolf,n.d.).WolvesinWyomingstillremainedprotectedatthistime,buteffortsweremade
bytheFishandWildlifeServiceinSeptemberof2012toremovethemfromfederal
protectioninWyoming(RestoringtheGrayWolf,n.d.).Theremovalofthewolvesfromthe
ESAwasthefirsttimeinthehistoryoftheActthataspecieswasremovedfromthe
endangeredspecieslistbymeansofpoliticsratherthanscience.
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
5
Controversyoverwolfreintroductionprogramscontinuedin2013,astheObama
administrationissuedaproposaltoremovewolvesfromtheendangeredspecieslistandall
associatedprotectioninthelower48states,exceptfortheSouthwestwheretheMexican
graywolfstillhadextremelylowpopulations.However,twofederalcourtrulingsin
SeptemberandDecemberof2014reinstatedfederalprotectionofwolvesinWyomingand
thewesternGreatLakesstatesbecausethejudgesfoundtheU.S.FishandWildlifeService
violatedtheESA.Butitisimportanttonotethattheserulingsdonotprovideprotectionof
wolvesinMontanaandIdaho,easternthirdofWashingtonandOregon,orpartsof
northernUtahthatwereincludedintheCongress’bill.TheObamaadministration’s
proposalhassincebeenputonhold,butthisproposalandseveralothersarestillpending
andattemptingtoremovewolvesonceagainfromtheendangeredspecieslistinmore
areasoftheUnitedStates.
AlthoughthemajorityofUScitizensareinfavorofwolfreintroductionandbelieve
wolvesshouldbereestablishedintheirnativehabitats,themaindriversofwolfopposition
arethelivestockandhuntingindustries(TheCulturalSignificanceofWolves,n.d.).The
reasonwolvesbecameendangeredinthemid-1900swasduetohunting,poisoning,and
trappingofwolvestoprotectlivestock,andtoday’sranchersstillhavethesameideology
thatthesenewlyestablishedpopulationsofwolvesareapredatorythreattotheirlivestock
andoveralllivelihood.Confirmedwolfdepredationsaregenerallyasmallportionofall
livestocklosses,butsomeranchersaresignificantlyimpactedmorethanothersbecauseof
theirproximitytowolfpacksorprotectionmeasures.In2015,confirmedwolf
depredationsinIdaho,Montana,Wyoming,Oregon,andWashingtonresultedin158cattle,
218sheep,5dogs,and3horseskilled,whichisrelativelyinsignificantcomparedtothe
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
6
tensofthousandsoflivestockdeathsthatresultfromillnessorweathereachyear
(NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryProgram2015InteragencyAnnualReport,
2016)(LivestockLosses,2011).Elkpopulationshavealsodeclinedbyabout15%insome
areassincewolveswerefirstreintroduced,causingrevenuefromhuntinglicensestowane
(Gershman,2014).Byremovingthewolffromtheendangeredspecieslistandlifting
protections,ranchersandhuntersmaybegrantedtherighttokillanywolfthatposesa
threatandstatesarealsoabletoimplementtheirownpopulationcontrolstrategiessuchas
wolfhuntingseasonsorvolunteercontrolgroups.
Coloradoisthemostrecentstateinvolvedinthewolfreintroductioncontroversy
duetothelackofsuccessoftheMexicangraywolfreintroductionsinArizonaandNew
Mexico.SeveralenvironmentalgroupssuedtheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicefornot
managingtheMexicangraywolfproperlytoallowforpopulationgrowth,andwerethus
orderedbyafederaljudgetodevelopanewrecoveryplanbytheendof2017(Fixler,
2016).NewproposalscouldreintroducetheMexicangraywolftoArizona’sGrandCanyon
regionandsouthwesternColorado,inadditiontothe110wolvesinNewMexicoand
Arizona’sjuniperwoodlands.Theproposedregionsareconsideredprimehabitatsfor
wolveswiththepotentialtosupportapopulationofabout1,000wolvesthatisnotbeing
utilized(Kohler,n.d.).MajorityofColoradansareinfavorofwolfreintroductionandnearly
71%ofColoradanswouldvoteinfavorofwolfreintroductionwhile29%wouldvote
againstit(Pate,1996),buttheColoradoCommissionofWildlifehasrecentlyopposedthe
reintroductionbecauseColoradoisnotintheMexicangraywolf’shistoricrange
(ExplanationofWolfResolution,2016).TheColoradoCommissionalsounderstandsthat
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
7
ranchersandhuntersarehighlyresistanttothereintroductionbecausetheydonotwantto
suffertheeconomicconsequencesofanewtoppredatoronlivestockandgame.
TheColoradoParksandWildlifeCommissionersapprovedaresolutioninJanuaryof
2016thatwasagainstanyfederalactiontoreintroduceeithergraywolvesorMexican
wolvesinColorado.Becausethefederalgovernmenthasfinaloversightoftheseprojects,
thisdecisionwasasymbolicgesturetotelltheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicethatColorado’s
stategovernmentwasagainstanysortofwolfreintroductionprogram.Toemphasizethis
notion,GovernorHickenloopersentaletterofoppositiontotheDepartmentofInterior
statingtheywereagainsttheMexicangraywolfreintroduction,signedbyhimselfandthe
governorsofNewMexico,Arizona,andUtah.Theletterwasalsousedtorecommendthe
delistingofwolvesundertheESAsoindividualstateswouldhavetheauthoritytodecide
howtomanagewolveswithintheirstatelines.Essentially,Colorado’sstategovernment
wouldratherhavetherighttodevelopandimplementtheirownmanagementofwolves
thatmigrateintoColorado,ratherthanhavingnocontroloverthemanagementand
impactsofreintroducedpopulationsofwolves.
In2004,theColoradoDepartmentofWildlife(CDOW)formedagroupofwolf
expertstodevelopamanagementplanforwolvesthatwerebeginningtomigrateinto
ColoradoiffederaldelistingofwolvesinColoradoweretooccur.Implementationofthe
programhasyettooccurbecausewolvesarestillfederallyprotectedinColorado,however,
whenwolvesarenolongerprotectedbytheU.S.FishandWildlifeService,theideal
outcomewouldbetheapplicationofanewwolfprotectionpolicythatrevisitstheprevious
guidelinesinthe2004documentpublishedbytheColoradoWolfManagementWorking
Group.Thenewpolicywouldimproveuponthecurrentguidelinesandgoalsandworkto
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
8
satisfyinterestgroupsinvolvedinwolfrepopulationincludingColoradoranchers,hunters,
wildlifeconservationists,citizens,theColoradoandU.S.governments,andwolves.
Methods
Iwillbeidentifyingopportunitiesforimprovementsandrecommendingchangesto
theFindingandRecommendationsforManagingWolvesthatMigrateintoColorado(COWolf
Plan)bytheColoradoWolfManagementGroup.IwillbeusingtheverysuccessfulNorthern
RockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan(NRMtPlan)bytheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceasa
comparativecasestudy,inadditiontocurrentresearchandinformationaboutwolf
managementtoinformfuturedecisionsaboutwolvesinColorado.Iwillactasachange
agentbyrevisingthe2004COWolfPlanpublishedbytheColoradoWolfManagement
WorkingGrouptoimproveuponthecurrentguidelines.Theprimarypurposeofachange
agentistoidentifydifficultchallengeswithinasystemandresolvethemwitheffective
solutions,andtheireffortsarecriticalto“sustainingresultsintoday’sdynamic,non-linear
world”(Carter,2013).Thisprocessisoftenperformedasacontinuousloopandallows
organizationstoconstantlyimproveupontheircurrentsystem.
IwillbefollowingLouisCarter’smethodofchangeoutlinedinhisbooktitledThe
ChangeChampion’sFieldGuide:StrategiesandToolsforLeadingChangeinYour
Organizationasamodelformythesis(Carter,2013).Hismethodincludestheassessment
ofthecurrentsystem,identificationofopportunitiesforredesign,implementationofthese
changes,andevaluationoftheeffectsofthesechanges.Hismethodsalsoincludevery
specificdetailsaboutthecharacteristicsthatachangeagentmustpossessfortheeffortsto
besuccessful,butmythesisismorefocusedonthechangesthatshouldbemadetothe
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
9
currentsystemratherthanactuallyimplementingtheserecommendationsasachange
agent.Carter’sbookincludedexamplesofthismethodbeingutilizedwithintherealmof
healthcare,business,technology,urbandevelopment,andenvironmentalscience,butcan
beappliedtoanysortofsystemormodel.
Theprocesscanoftentakemultipleyearstofullycompletethecycleand
successfullyidentifythebestimprovements;thereforeIwillonlybeconductingaportion
ofCarter’smethod.Thisincludestheassessmentofthe2004COWolfPlan,identifying
opportunitiesforchangewithinthecurrentsystem,andrecommendingchangestobe
madetotheprogrambasedoncurrentinformationandresearchrelatedtowolf
management,whileomittingimplementationandevaluationduetoconstraintsontime
andresources.Assessingasystemandidentifyingsignificantopportunitiesforchangeare
extremelyimportanttothesuccessoftheentireprocessbecauseaninadequateeffortgiven
totheplanningstagewillresultinundesiredresults(Carter,2013).Thus,mygoalisto
thoroughlyevaluatethecurrentplantomanagewolvesinColoradoandfindwaysinwhich
tomakeitmoreefficient,moreeffective,andmoresuccessfulbyincreasingwolf
populationsandgainingsupportfromkeyinterestgroupsthatarenegativelyimpacted.
DatawillconsistofacasestudyoftheNorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan
asacomparativemodel,surveyresearch,fieldresearch,currentevents,newsarticles,and
governmentpublishedreports.Thiswillthenbeusedtomakerecommendationsforwolf
repopulationinColoradobasedontheguidelinespresentedintheFindingsand
RecommendationsforManagingWolvesThatMigrateIntoColorado(COWolfPlan).
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
10
CaseStudy
InthissectionIwillbeoutliningtheNRMtPlanthatwasimplementedbytheU.S.
FishandWildlifeServiceasafundamentalcomparisonforimprovementsthatcouldbe
madetotheCOWolfPlanbytheColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroup.TheNRMt
Planwasexceedinglysuccessfulinrestoringwolfpopulationsinthelocationsit
encompassedandIbelieveitisaparticularlyvaluableresourceforinformingfuturewolf
Title: NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan
Author(s): U.S.Fish&WildlifeService
Date: 1987~2011/2012• Primarygoalreachedin2002• FederallydelistedunderESAin2011inMontanaandIdaho• WillbefederallydelistedinWyomingin2017
Location: NorthwestMontana,centralIdaho,andtheGreaterYellowstoneAreainWyoming
PrimaryGoal: Establish10breedingpairsofwolvesineachofthe3recoveryareasfor3consecutiveyears
RecoveryZoneRequirements:
• Yearroundabundantsourceofnaturalprey• Aminimumof3,000squaremilesofhabitat• Connectedland• Lessthan10percentofprivatelandownership• Absenceoflivestock• Seclusionfromurbandevelopment
KeyFindings: • Theestablishmentofspecificgoalsforwolfrecoverybefore
federallydelisting• Multi-agencycooperationisinvolvedinwolfmanagementand
funding• Theuseofdifferentmanagementzoneswithvariouslevelsof
wolfprotectiontolimitconflict• Thecurrentpopulationofwolvesisapproximately2,000
individualsinthethreerecoveryareasandsurroundingstatesasaresultoftheprogram
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
11
managementpracticesinColorado.ThissectionsimplydescribesthegoalstheU.S.Fish
andWildlifesettorestorewolfpopulationsinWyoming,Idaho,andMontana,themethods
theyusedtoobtainthesegoals,andhowtheywentaboutincreasingsupportfrominterest
groupsthatareoftenopposedtotheestablishmentofnewwolfpopulations.Itwillalso
includethecurrentstateofwolfmanagementineachoftheseareas.
NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlanbytheU.S.Fish&WildlifeService
TheNorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlanwasofficiallyproposedin1987
andprovidedguidelinesforrecoveringgraywolfpopulationsinareasoftheirhistorical
rangeintheNorthernRockyMountainsoftheUnitedStates.Thespecificareasincludedin
theplanwerenorthwestMontana,centralIdaho,andtheGreaterYellowstoneAreain
Wyoming.TheintendedpurposeofthisprojectwastoremovetheNorthernRocky
Mountainwolffromtheendangeredspecieslistandrepopulateanareathathasnotseen
wolvesinover50years.Accordingtothisplan,thewolfwouldberemovedfromthe
EndangeredSpecieslistonceaminimumoftenbreedingpairsofwolvesweresecurely
establishedineachoftherecoveryareasforthreeconsecutiveyears(NorthernRocky
MountainWolfRecoveryPlan,1987).Thisprojectincludedthetranslocationofwolvesby
naturalre-colonizationinnorthwestMontanaandcentralIdaho,butalsoreintroductionin
YellowstoneNationParkduetogeographicisolationofYellowstonefromestablished
populationsofwolvesinthewild.
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
12
Figure1.MapofwolfrecoveryareasinWyoming,Idaho,andMontanadesignatedbytheU.S.FishandWildlife
Service.ReprintedfromNorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan(p.18)byTheU.S.FishandWildlife
Service,1987,Denver,CO.
TheU.SFishandWildlifeServicedesignatedspecificrecoveryzoneswithinthe
historicrangeoftheNorthernRockyMountainwolfandincludedareasofnorthwestern
Montana,centralIdaho,andtheGreaterYellowstoneAreainthenorthwestcornerof
Wyoming.Eachrecoveryareaestablishedadistinctconservationstrategyand
managementplanthatwouldfocusonrebuildingandsustainingpopulationsintheirgiven
area.Theselocationswerechosenbasedonayear-roundsourceofabundantnaturalprey,
aminimumof3,000squaremilesofadjoiningarea,lessthan10percentofprivateland
ownershipwiththeexceptionofrailroadgrantlands,ideallytheabsenceoflivestockto
avoidconflict,andadequateseclusionfromhumanactivitytoprotect10breedingpairsof
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
13
wolves(NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan,1987).
AfteracomprehensiveliteraturereviewandnumerousdiscussionswithU.S.and
Canadianbiologistsandwolfresearchers,theServicedeterminedthattheprimary
objectiveforremovingtheNorthernRockyMountainwolffromtheendangeredand
threatenedspecieslistwastoestablish10breedingpairsineachofthethreerecovery
areasforaminimumofthreeconsecutiveyears.Thekeyreasonforthisisbecausethree
establishedpopulationsindifferentgeographicregionsensuresoneortwopopulations
wouldsurviveifacatastrophiceventweretosuddenlyoccur.TheServicealsoidentified
thesethreelocationsasthemaingeographicareasthatwolveshistoricallyoccupiedthat
werealsosuitableforwolfexistenceandrecoverygiventhecriteriapreviouslystated
(NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan,1987).
TheNRMtPlanalsoincludedsecondaryandtertiaryobjectivesthatwere
supplementaltotheprimaryobjectiveofsustaining10breedingpairsinthethreerecovery
areasforthreeconsecutiveyears.ThetertiaryobjectivewastoreclassifytheNorthern
RockyMountainwolfasthreatenedinanindividualrecoveryarea.Thiswouldbe
accomplishedbyestablishingaminimumof10breedingpairsinsingledesignatedareafor
aminimumofthreeconsecutiveyears.Oncethishasbeenverified,individualstateswould
begivenmoreflexibilityofwolfmanagementsuchascontroloptions,whilealsoadhering
toparticularregulationsdevelopedforeachindividualpopulation.Whenthethird
objectivehasbeenmet,thespecificpopulationwouldthenbeeligibletobe“listedunder
similarityofappearance.”Thismeansthattheparticularlocalpopulationisnolonger
facingathreatofextinction,butthespeciesasawholeisstillendangered(NorthernRocky
MountainWolfRecoveryPlan,1987).However,relistingundersimilarityofappearanceis
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
14
onlypossibleafterdistinctregulationsofwolfmanagementhavebeendevelopedandan
adequatestatewolf-managementplanhasbeenimplemented.
Oncethethirdobjectivehasbeencompleted,thesecondarygoalfordelistingthe
NorthernRockyMountainwolfwastoreclassifytheRockyMountainwolftothreatened
(ratherthanendangered)byestablishing10breedingpairsforthreeconsecutiveyearsnot
onlyintherecoveryareasbutthethreehistoricregionsinnorthwesternMontana,central
Idaho,andtheYellowstoneArea.Thiswouldfurtherincreasethechancesofspecies
survivalbyallowingmoreareaforpopulationstoexpandanddiversify.Though,the
Servicenotesthatgovernmentimplementedprotectionwillnotbesufficientenoughto
maximizesurvivalratesasthesewolvesmigratetootherareaswhereprotectionisnot.
Therefore,theyrecommendthatindividuallandandwildlifemanagementagenciesare
givenstraightforwardandspecificguidelinesforprotectionandmanagementofwolvesto
ensurewolfrecoveryisimplementedinotheragencies’planningandmanagement
strategies.
BoththeMontanaandIdaholocationshadthepossibilityofnaturalrecolonization
fromaCanadiancorridorthathadnotprovedsuccessfulwhentheprogramwaspublished,
butwiththerightmanagementstrategiesthisoptionhasbecomemuchmoreviable.The
U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceestablishedintegrativeprogramswithCanadathatwould
promotewolfmigrationtothenorthwestMontanaandcentralIdahorecoveryareas.These
programsresultedinmanagementpracticesthatfavoredwolfrelocationandsurvivalsuch
assafetravelcorridors,abundantwolfhabitat,andprotectionofthewolfpopulationsin
BritishColumbiaand/orsouthwesternAlberta(NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecovery
Plan,1987).ThistypeofmethodrequiredthatU.S.andCanadianbiologistscloselymonitor
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
15
dispersalpatternsofCanadianwolvestobetteradjustthemanagementandprotection
policies.ItalsocalledforhabitatconservationeffortsonbehalfoftheU.S.FishandWildlife
Servicethatwouldpromotesurvivalofthemigratingpopulationsbyfundingpublic
outreachandinformationprogramsinordertoincreasewolfeducationandacceptance.
AsfortheGreaterYellowstonearea,thepossibilityofnaturalrecolonizationof
wolveswasextremelylimitedbecauseofitsremotelocationtootherwolfpopulationsand
lackofsuitabletravelcorridors.Becauseofthis,thetranslocationofwolvestothisarea
wasessentialforre-establishingapopulationinYellowstone.Therelocatedwolvesinthe
Yellowstoneareaweretermedan“experimentalpopulation”underthe1982Amendments
totheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA),whichprovidedgreatermanagementflexibilityinthis
zoneandultimatelyincreasedpublicandagencyapprovalofthetransplantproposal
(NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan,1987).Thelocalpublichadreasonable
concernsaboutthereintroductionofatoppredatortoanareathatithasbeenabsentfrom
fordecades,andbydesignatingthepopulationasexperimental,theFishandWildlife
Servicewasabletoimposecontroloptionsthatwouldotherwisenotbepossibleifthe
populationwasjustlistedasthreatened.Someoftheflexibleoptionsforcontrollingthis
experimentalpopulationinYellowstoneincludedtheabilityforlivestockownerstokilla
depredatingwolfifthekillingswereverifiedtobedomesticlivestockondesignatedprivate
land,todelistorreclassifywolvesoutsideofthedesignatedrecoveryzonesas“listedunder
similarityofappearance”,toconductcontrolmanagementpracticesearlyintherecovery
processtolimitsignificantimpactsonpreypopulations,andtoinitiatewolfcontrolon
packsthathuntherdsofpreyoutsideoftheYellowstoneNationalParkarea(Northern
RockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan,1987).
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
16
TheServiceitselfnotesthatpublicoutreachandeducationisextremelycriticalto
thesuccessoftheGreaterYellowstonewolfpopulation,evenmoresothantheIdahoand
Montanalocations,becausethispopulationwasimplantedintothisarearatherthan
naturallyrecolonized.Thisareaalsoexperiencesmuchmorefrequentinteractions
betweenwolvesandhumansduetotourism,hunting,andotherhumantrafficandthelack
ofknowledgeandunderstandingofwolveshasultimatelylimitedtheeffectivenessofwolf
recoveryefforts.However,theFishandWildlifeServiceadvisedthatpublicoutreachinall
threestateswouldbeessentialforpublicacceptanceoftheplan.Theyknewthatnot
everyonewouldsupportwolfrepopulation,butoutreachandeducationwouldultimately
reducethenumberofoppositionstowolfreintroduction.
Throughtheireducationandoutreachefforts,theU.S.FishandWildlifeService
wantedtoinformthepublicaboutthenaturalhistorywolveshavewiththisregionofthe
UnitedStates,thestatusoftheirendangerment,andfactualinformationaboutwolvesand
themanagementprogramitself.Theybelievedthatpublicoutreachmethodssuchas
issuingnewsreleases,publishingarticles,holdingcommunitymeetings,andhostingpublic
hearingswouldbesufficientinbuildingsupportfromthegeneralpublic.Educatingthose
whocomeindirectcontactwithwolves,likeranchersorotheragencies,aboutthewolf
protectionguidelinesundertheESAwouldbevitalinpreventingunlawfulkillingof
endangeredwolvesthatcouldresultinafineof$20,000,1yearinprison,andlossof
licensesorpermitsforuseofpublicland(NorthernRockyMountainRecoveryPlan,1987).
Tofurtherpreventconflictsbetweenwolvesandhumansandincreasethe
acceptanceofthisnewlyintroducedspecies,theU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceestablished
threeseparatemanagementzonesineachofthethreerecoveryareas.Thesemanagement
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
17
zonesweredevelopedtoultimatelygainsupportfortheprogramfromthelivestock
industryandwereusedtominimizelivestockdepredationandhumaninteractionsasmuch
aspossiblebydistinguishingwolfhabitatfromhumanandlivestockpopulations.
ManagementZoneIwasdesignatedastheprimaryhabitatforwolvesandshould
haveanarealargerthan3,000continuoussquaremileswithanadequateabundanceof
preytosupportthetenbreedingpairsofwolves.TheareainzoneIshouldhavelessthan
10%privatelandownershipandlessthan20%grazinglandtominimizethechanceof
encounterswithhumansandlivestock(NorthernRockyMountainRecoveryPlan,1987).
Managementinthiszonefocusedprimarilyontheprotectionofwolfpopulations,
conservationandimprovementofwolfhabitat,andlimitingconflictswithlivestock.The
needsofthewolvesweretheprimaryfactorinmanagementdecisionsandcontroloptions
shouldonlybeusedasalastresortthatmustbedirectedbytheRegionalDirectorofthe
FishandWildlifeService.
ManagementZoneIIisthebufferzonebetweenZoneIandZoneIIIandshouldstill
havekeyhabitatandpreyforwolves,butnotnecessarilyenoughtosupportlargewolf
populations.Wolfconservationandprotectionwasnotthemainpriorityinthisareaof
landandotherlandusesmayhaveprecedenceoverwolfhabitatuse.Controloptionscould
beusedonwolvesthatdepredateonlawfullypresentlivestockasdirectedbytheRegional
DirectoroftheFishandWildlifeService.
ManagementZoneIIIisthezoneofhumanactivity,development,andlivestock,and
isnotsuitableforwolvesduetotheconflictsthatwouldarise.Thehighestpriorityinthis
zoneistominimizeconflictsbetweenhumans,livestock,andwolves,andmanagementof
wolfhabitatisnotconsidered.Anywolfthatdepredatesonlivestockwillbecontrolledand
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
18
anywolfthathasbeendeterminedtofrequentlyposeathreattolivestockmayalsobe
controlled.
InManagementZonesIandII,clearevidenceofwolfdepredationmustbepresented
toqualifiedStateorFederalpersonnelbeforethewolfwouldbecontrolled,andtheremust
beanindicationthatthewolfwouldcontinuetodepredateonlivestockifitwasnot
controlled.TheServicestatesthatnotallwolvesthatlivenearlivestockposeathreat,
thereforeproblemwolvesshouldbetranslocatedratherthankilledandonlysinglewolves
shouldbemovedratherthanentirelocalpopulations(NorthernRockyMountainWolf
RecoveryPlan,1987).Theproblemwolveswouldbecaptured,tattooed,ear-tagged,radio-
collared,andrelocatedtoanareawithinZoneIthathaveverylittleconflictwithother
intereststoensurefurtherproblemswouldnotoccur.Ifawolfmadeseveraloffensesit
wouldberemovedfromthewildandplacedincaptivity,andlethalcontrolwouldonlybe
considerediftherelocatedwolfreturnedtotheoriginalsiteofconflictmultipletimesand
nootherfacilitieswerewillingtotakeinthewolf.TheServicealsonotesthatdevelopinga
TaskForcethatdesignatescompensationtoranchersthatexperiencelivestocklosswas
importantforlimitingtheneedfordrasticcontrolmethodsinZoneIandII.
TheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicehadspecificmethodsformonitoringgraywolf
populations,habitat,andprayineachofthethreemanagementzonesinordertoensure
populationswouldmeettheirrespectivegoals.Theyoftenusedmonitoringsystemsto
determineareasthatwerenewlyoccupiedbywolves,andconductedwolfsurveysinareas
withhighreportsofwolfsightingsduringthefallseasonandinsummerduringmating
seasoninordertotrackpopulationgrowth.Theyalsomonitoredknownpopulationsof
wolvesusingradiotrackingtodeterminetheirhomeranges,estimatednumbersofpacks,
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
19
pairsandindividualwolves,approximatepuptoadultratios,averagelittersizes,and
overallpopulationtrends(NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan,1987).This
monitoringandmanagementeffortdemandedthesupportandfundingfromorganizations
outsideoftheFishandWildlifeServicebecauseoftheeffortrequiredtotrackandprotect
thesegrowingpopulations.
Manyoftheorganizationsinvolvedinthewolfreintroductionprogramknewthat
themanagementofwolfhabitatandlivestockconflictswasnottheonlycriticalfactorsthat
wouldpromotethesuccessofwolfrepopulationintheNorthernRockyMountains.TheU.S.
FishandWildlifeServicealsoconsideredtherepercussionswolveswouldhaveongame
populations,timberharvestingandfiremanagement,recreation,andenergyandminerals
development.Workingcloselywithagenciesinvolvedinthesedifferentsectorswas
extremelyimportanttothedevelopmentofthisprogrambecausewithouttheirsupportfor
thepresenceofthewolvestherewaslittlechanceofreachingthepopulationrecovery
goals.Furthermore,theU.S.FishandWildlifeServicewouldnotbeabletosolelyfundthe
variousmanagementactionsthatareneeded.Someoftheseagenciesinvolvedinthe
programincludeIdahoDepartmentofFishandGame,MontanaFish,WildlifeandParks,
WyomingGameandFishDepartment,NationalParkService,USDAWildlifeServices,
severaldifferentNativeAmericantribes,andstateleveldepartmentsofnaturalresources
(NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryProgram2015InteragencyAnnualReport,
2016).
TheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicewasabletoreachtherecoverygoalof10breeding
pairsineachofthethreerecoveryareasfor3consecutiveyearsin2002,andby2011
wolvesweredelistedinMontanaandIdahoandshortlyafterinWyomingin2012.Efforts
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
20
todelistwolvesintheNorthernRockyMountainareawereinitiatedin2007,butMontana
andIdahodidnothaveenoughresourcestoproperlyimplementtheirmanagementplans
until2011andWyoming’sstatelawswerenotsufficientforconservingthenewly
establishedwolfpopulationsuntil2012(EndangeredandThreatenedWildlifeandPlants,
2007).TheWyomingpopulationwasrelistedin2014inordertocontinuetoreceive
federalprotectionbecausetheirmanagementeffortswerenotprovidingproperprotection,
butinearly2017aU.S.appealscourtapprovedtheremovalofwolvesinWyomingunder
theESAbecauseitappearsWyomingnowhasanadequatewolfmanagementprogramto
putinplace(Volzetal.,2017).Thismeansthatgraywolvesinthewestmustnowbe
protectedbyindividualstateeffortsandstatesaregiventherighttomanagewolves
withoutanyinputorinterventionfromthefederalgovernment(NorthernRockyMountain
WolfRecoveryProgram2015InteragencyAnnualReport,2016).
Toholdstatesaccountable,theagenciespreviouslymentionedandseveralothers
publishanInteragencyAnnualReportthatoverviewstheirwolfmanagementeffortsfor
eachyear.StatesthatcontributetothereportincludeIdaho,Montana,Wyoming,Oregon,
andWashington,anditisprimarilycomprisedoftheirindividualpopulationmonitoring,
research,outreach,conservation,andfundingfortheprotectionofwolves.Therearenow
approximately2,000wolvesscatteredaroundthewesternUnitedStatesbecauseofthe
RockyMountainNationalWolfRecoveryPlan,andthisnumberwillcontinuetoincreaseas
morestatesandagenciesworktogethertobringbackwolvestotheirhistoricrange
(NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryProgram2015InteragencyAnnualReport,
2016).
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
21
Figure2.MapofknownwolfpacksintheNorthernRockyMountainsin1994and2015.Reprintedfrom
NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryProgram2015InteragencyAnnualReport(p.1)byTheU.S.Fishand
WildlifeServiceetal.,2015,Helena,MO.
Discussion:Assessment
Inthissection,IwillfirstbedescribingthebasicframeworkoftheFindingAnd
RecommendationsforManagingWolvesthatMigrateIntoColorado(COWolfPlan)
developedbytheColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroup.Iwillthenidentify
opportunitiesIbelievearemissingorcouldbeimprovedtomaketheirwolfmanagement
practicesmoresuccessful.OnceIhaveacknowledgedtheflawswithintheirsystem,Iwill
suggestchangesthatcouldbemadetotheprogramthatwouldbothexpandwolf
populationswithinColoradoandincreasethesupportfrominterestgroupsthatare
currentlyagainstwolfrepopulationinColorado.Groupsthathavemostrecentlyexpressed
theiroppositiontowolfrepopulationincluderanchers,hunters,andtheColoradoState
government.
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
22
MapCurrentSystem
FindingsandRecommendationsforManagingWolvesThatMigrateIntoColoradobythe
ColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroup
TheColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroupwasformedinAprilof2004bythe
ColoradoDivisionofWildlife,andappointed14memberstodevelopaplanthatwould
protectwolvesthatweremigratingintoColoradoasaresultofreintroductionprogramsin
nearbystatesiffederalprotectionweretobelifted.Thegroupconsistedoffourlivestock
producers,fourwildlifeadvocates,twowildlifebiologists,twosportsmen,andtwolocal
governmentofficialstoensureallinterestgroupswouldbeconsideredinthemanagement
ofnewlyestablishedpopulationsofwolves(ColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroup,
Title: FindingsandRecommendationsforManagingWolvesthatMigrateIntoColorado
Author(s): ColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroup,14membersincluding:• 4livestockproducers• 4wildlifeadvocates• 2wildlifebiologists• 2sportsmen• 2localgovernmentofficials
Date: 2004
Location: TheStateofColorado,mostlywesternColorado
PrimaryGoal: EstablishaneffectivewolfmanagementplanoncewolveswereremovedfromtheESAinColorado
PrimaryPrinciples • Impact-basedmanagement• Adaptivemanagement• Monitoring• Damagepayments/publicoutreach
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
23
2004).TheprimarygoalofthegroupwastoformaneffectiveStatemanagementplanonce
wolveswereremovedfromtheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)andnolongerfederally
protected.
All14appointedmembersrecognizedthattherewouldbeseveralpositiveand
negativeoutcomesthatwouldresultfromgrowingwolfpopulationsinColorado;butthe
recommendationsforthefinalreportwerebasedonconsensusoftheissues,regardlessof
eachmember’sinterestgroup.Somebenefitsemphasizedinthedocumentinclude
improvedecologicalconditionsincertainecosystems,decreasednumberofungulatesin
overpopulatedareas,andanewaestheticappealtoColoradansandtourists.Somenoted
disadvantagesincludeadeclineinwildungulatepopulations,lossofpets,increased
depredationonlivestock,andpotentialpropertydamage(ColoradoWolfManagement
WorkingGroup,2004).Inordertoaddresseachoftheseimpacts,theCOWolfPlanaimed
toprovidethetools,flexibility,andfundingthatwouldlimitthenegativeeffectsofwolves
andpromotethepositive.
SummaryoftheFourPrimaryPrinciplesOutlinedinCOWolfPlan
Impact-basedManagement
• Focusedonmonitoringareasthatareimpactedbywolfpresence
• Aimstoavoidlethalcontrolthroughtheuseofalternativecontrolmethods
• Requiresmulti-agencyandlivestockproducers’cooperationAdaptiveManagement
• Takesintoaccountthenaturalchangesthatoccurovertimetotheprogramandpeople’sattitudes
• Improveupontheplanevery5yearsusingthemostcurrentresearchandinformation
Monitoring • Continualuseofseveraldifferentwolfmonitoringtechniquestogaugethedegreeanddistributionofwolfpresence
• Trackinteractionsandimpactsbetweenwolvesandhumans/livestock
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
24
TheColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroupcollectivelydevelopedfour
primaryprinciplesthatwerepresumednecessarytomanagingwolvesinColoradoand
involvedimpact-basedmanagement,adaptivemanagement,monitoring,anddamage
paymentsorotherproactivemeasuresforlosses.Impact-basedmanagementrecognizes
thattheimpactsofwolveswillvarybasedonlocation,densityofwolves,distributionof
ungulatespecies,patternsoflandownership,andproximitytolivestock,butalso
understandsthatmonitoringthesedifferentimpactsaswellashumanattitudesiscritical
forproperwolfmanagement(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).Incaseswhere
conflictdoesoccur,lethalcontrolmethodsshouldbeavoided,andinsteadthegroup
suggestsusingalternativeresolutionsthatwouldstillmitigatetheissuewithoutharming
wolves.Somemethodstheysuggestincluderelocatingproblemwolvesorpacks,providing
damagepaymentstolivestockowners,orutilizingacombinationofseveralmanagement
toolstofindthebestpossiblesolutionforagivenarea.
Forwolfmanagementactionstobeeffectiveandefficient,theWorkingGroup
highlightsthattheremustbe“ahighdegreeofcooperationandcoordinationamong
managementagenciesandtheprivatesector”(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).
TheColoradoDepartmentofWildlife(CDOW)andUSDAAPHISWildlifeServicesarethe
agenciesmostinvolvedinthiswolfprotectionprogramandworkcloselywithlivestock
DamagePayments&PublicOutreach
• CompileanddistributeinformationbasedoncurrentwolfmanagementactivitiesinColoradotoeducatepublic
• Engagewithkeyinterestgroupsthroughnon-specificoutreachefforts
• Paylivestockownersandhunters100%marketvalueforconfirmedwolfdepredationand50%forprobablekills
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
25
ownersthatarenegativelyimpactedbywolves.Thesegroupsalsoprovidewolfeducation
andoutreachaboutwolves,theirimplications,andtheirmanagementtokeyinterest
groupslikeranchers,hunters,conservationists,nearbyhomeowners,andpolicymakers.
TheCOWolfPlanpointsoutthatakeycomponentofimpact-basedmanagementisthe
supplyofavailablefundingtoguaranteeeachaspectoftheprotectionplanwillbeproperly
andefficientlyimplemented,andthisfundingwouldprimarilybefromagencieslikethe
CDOW,WildlifeServices,andseveralothernon-governmentorganizations(NGOs)
(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).
Adaptivemanagementtakesintoaccountthechangesthatwilloccurovertimeto
thewolfmanagementprogramandsuggeststheCDOWbefullyengagedinmeasuringand
adaptingtothesechanges.Thiswouldinvolveannuallyassessingthepositiveandnegative
impactsofwolvesandusingthisinformationalongwithnewpeer-reviewedliterature,
inputfromthepublic,wildlifeexperts,andotheragenciestoimproveupontheplanatleast
everyfiveyears(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).TheGroupsuggestssurveying
publicattitudesandacceptanceofwolvesshouldbeanongoingprojectandaprimary
effortofadaptivemanagementbecauseitwillkeepthepublicinformedandinvolved.
Adaptivemanagementisextremelyimportanttothelongevityoftheprogrambecausethe
publicmustbesupportiveoftheplanandtolerantofthenegativeimpactsofwolvesin
orderforwolfpopulationstoestablishandthrive(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,
2004).
ThethirdmanagementstrategyoutlinedbytheColoradoWolfManagementGroup
ismonitoringthedistributionofwolvestogaugethedegreeofwolfpresenceandtoalso
improveuponcurrentmanagementmethods.MonitoringmethodssuggestedbytheGroup
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
26
includeaerialtracking,snowtracking,scentmarking,howlingsurveys,radiocollaring,
remotephotography,andgeneticprofiling(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).
TheseeffortswouldbeimplementedandfundedbytheCDOWandmaybeusedinvarying
degreesdependingontheinformationneededfromthemonitoring.Informationcollected
couldpotentiallybeusedtohelppreventandverifydepredationoflivestock,determinethe
ecologicaleffectsofwolves,markchangesinungulatepopulationsasaresultofwolves,
answerwolfrelatedresearchquestions,trackunlawfulkillingsofwolves,andcontinually
updatetheprogram(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).
However,inorderforwolfmonitoringtobeinitiated,localcommunitiesmustbethe
firsttoactbyreportingallaccuratewolfsightings.Iftherearenumerousreportsof
sightingsorlivestockdepredationinthesameareaoverthecourseofafewweeks,a
wildlifeexpertwillvisitthelocationtoverifythesereportsandpotentiallyimplement
furthermonitoringefforts.TheGrouprealizesthateachcommunitywillhaveitsownsetof
uniquethreatsandconditionsasaresultofwolves,thereforetheysuggestthatmonitoring
effortsbespecializedforeachindividualareathatisdirectlyimpacted.Theyalsoinsistthat
theCDOWdevelopspecificcommunitynetworkswithlocalresidentsthatallowranchersto
quicklybenotifiedofnearbywolfpackpresencesotheycanactaccordingly.
Lethalcontrolofproblemwolvesshouldonlybeusedasalastresortinthe
monitoringandmanagementofwolvesinColorado.Insteadthestateandnon-government
organizations(NGOs)wererecommendedtodevelopproactivesolutionsalongside
livestockproducersthatwouldbestfittheirindividualneed.Thiswouldincludeactions
suchasprovidingguidanceonpropercarcassdisposal,investinginextraprotective
fencing,installingscaredevices,andtestingofotherdevelopmentalnon-lethalmethods
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
27
(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).Farmersandranchersthatparticipateinthe
useofalternativeandexperimentalcontrolmethodswouldalsobeprovidedwithan
incentivefortheircooperationandwillingnesstomaketheprogramsuccessful.Monitoring
theactionsoflivestockproducersandofferingthemalternativemethodsformanagement
isthebestpossiblesolutiontopreventingtheunlawfulkillingofwolvesbyranchersand
furtherpromotetheestablishmentofwolfpopulationsbyencouragingthecoexistenceof
humansandwolves.
Inadditiontomonitoringwolfpresenceandtheirinteractionswithcommunities
andlivestockproducers,theWorkingGroupalsofindsitcriticaltomonitortheunlawful
huntingofwolves,wolfhealthanddisease,urbaninteractionswithwolves,andfurther
researchthatisneededformanagementdecision-making.TheGroupbelievesthattracking
thesefactorsisessentialfordevelopingaholisticwolfprotectionprogrambecauseit
addressesthemajorthreatsthatwouldinhibittheestablishmentofwolfpopulations.The
researchwouldbeconductedbytheCDOWandbeusedtodeterminenaturalpopulation
trendsaswellasinformfuturemanagementplanspertainingtowolfdistribution,wolf-
livestockandwolf-humaninteractions,habitathealth,andungulatepopulationtrends
(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).
ThefinalprincipleoutlinedintheCOPlanistheimplementationofaprogramfor
educationandinformation,aswellasaprogramfordamagepaymentsforwolf
depredation.Intermsoftheinformativeprogram,theGrouprecommendsthattheCDOW
compileanddistributeinformationbasedoncurrentwolfmanagementactivitiesin
Coloradowiththeintenttoprovidescientificandfactualinformationaboutwolves
(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).TheGroupbelievesthiswillmakethepublic
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
28
moreknowledgeableaboutwolvesandthusmoreobjectiveabouttheirmanagement,and
increasethelikelihoodoftheprogrambeingsuccessful.Outreacheffortswouldprimarily
befocusedoninformingthegeneralpublic,students,tourists,hunters,wildlifeadvocates,
agencypersonnel,andtheagriculturalcommunityonthingslikebasicwolfinformation,
wolfpopulationsanddistributioninColorado,speciesidentification,generalwolfecology,
andthevaluesandchallengesrelatedtowolvesandtheirmanagement(ColoradoWolf
ManagementGroup,2004).Theeducationalprogramwouldrequirethefrequent
circulationofcurrentandrelevantinformationaboutwolvesinColorado,andwouldonly
bepossiblewiththecooperationfromvolunteers,NGOs,andothergovernment
organizationstoensuretheinformationiseffectivelydistributedtokeyinterestgroups.
TheWorkingGrouprecognizedthatthemostimportantaspecttoconsiderinthe
developmentoftheirwolfprotectionplanistherelationshipbetweenwolves,hunters,and
livestockproducersbecauseoftheirnotableinfluenceintheU.Seconomy.Growingwolf
populationsposeathreattoranchers’incomeandhunters’gamebecauseofwolf
depredationonungulates,andunlessranchersandhuntersareprovidedinsuranceforthe
lossesthatoccurtheyareextremelyunlikelytoendorsetheprogramandrefrainfrom
killingprotectedwolves.Toincreasewolfacceptancebytheseinterestgroups,theCOWolf
PlansuggeststheCDOWmanageafundwithintheColoradoGameDamageProgramthat
wouldpayhuntersandranchersforbothconfirmedandprobablewolfkills.Itissometimes
difficulttoconfirmacaseofwolfdepredationbecausetheyoftendonotleaveacarcassor
othersignsofevidence,thereforetheCOWolfPlanunderstoodthatitwouldalsoneedto
compensatethosewhoexperiencewolfdepredationwithoutsufficientevidencetoproveit.
Confirmedkillswouldbepaidat100%ofthecurrentmarketvalueandprobablekills
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
29
wouldbepaidat50%ofmarketvalue,andthesecaseswouldbereviewedbythe
DepartmentofWildlifeManagementtoapproveordenythepayment(ColoradoWolf
ManagementGroup,2004).
Expensesrelatedtowolfmanagementanddamagepaymentswouldnotbetaken
fromsportsmanorlivestockproducersdollars,norwouldtheyimpacttheexistinggame
damageprogramsforbearsandlionsortheongoingpredatormanagementprogramsfor
coyotes,bears,andlions(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).Theprimarygoalisto
implementwolfprotectioninColoradoinawaythatlimitsthenegativeimpactsonthe
interestgroupsthataremostinvolvedasmuchaspossible.TheWorkingGroupalsonotes
thattheCDOWmustbearthecostsofwolfpresenceinColoradoinsteadofranchersand
sportsmaninorderfortheprogramtobesuccessful.TheCOWolfPlandoesnotspecifically
saywheremajorityofthefundingforwolfmanagementanddamagepaymentswillcome
frombecausetheColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroupisnotanofficialgovernment
affiliatedgroup,buttheydohoweverrecommendthattheCDOWidentifythespecific
sourcesneededforfundingwolfmanagementinColorado(ColoradoWolfManagement
Group,2004).Somerecommendationsforfundingavenuesincludespecialinterestlicense
plates,fundraisingthroughNGOs,supportfromCongress,grants,anddonations.
InadditiontothefundprovidedbytheCDOW,anon-profitwildlifeadvocacy
organizationknownastheDefendersofWildlifealsocreatedtheBaileyCompensation
Trustbecausetheywantedtoincreasethelikelihoodofwolfrepopulation.Theydidsoby
fundingover$400,000forcompensationoflivestocklossesthroughouttheNorthern
RockyMountainsinordertoshifttheeconomiccostofwolvesawayfromranchersand
sportsmanandontowolfadvocates(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).Theyalso
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
30
pay100%ofthemarketvalueforconfirmedlossesand50%forkillswithoutsolid
evidenceofwolfdepredation.TheDefendersofWildlifeadditionallyinvestedmorethan
$200,000inalternativewolfpreventionmethods,aswellasprovidingassistanceto
ranchersforthingslikeextramaterialsforfencingorleasingsupplementalpastureareafor
moreprotectionagainstwolfdepredation(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).
Furthermore,theDefendersofWildlifewillpayranchers$5,000perwolfdentoallowthe
wolfpacktoraisetheirpupsontherancher’sprivateland(Mech,1995).Aslongaswolves
arelistedasendangeredundertheESA,theDefendersofWildlifehavestatedtheywill
continuetoinvestintheirprotectionandstrivetorecoverwolfpopulationsinthewestern
UnitedStates(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).
IdentifyOpportunitiesforChange
Inspringof2004,theCDOWrequestedinputfromColoradocitizensaboutissues
theColoradoWolfManagementGroupshouldaddressintheirprogramandgeneral
opinionsrelatedtowolvesandtheirpresenceinColorado.TheGroupheldsixmeetings
aroundColoradoandalsoacceptedinputviamailandemail,andoverthecourseofthe
scopingperiodreceivedover250commentsfromColoradocitizens(ColoradoWolf
ManagementGroup,2004).Outofthe261responsestheyreceived,73%wereinsupportof
WolvesinColorado,while20%wereagainstitandtheremaining7%wereeitherneutral
orunknown.Most(44%)oftheresponsescamefromtheFrontRangeofColorado,whichis
generallyknownforbeingpro-wolf,butthescopingprocesswasonlyusedtoclarifyand
definetheissuesthatneededtobeaddressedratherthanusedasanofficialvote(Colorado
WolfManagementGroup,2004).TheWorkingGroupfoundthatthelargestchallengesfor
Coloradocitizensrelatedtowolfrepopulationaresocialandpoliticalfactorsratherthan
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
31
biologicalorecologicalissues.Theissuescitizensfoundtobethemostpressingincludethe
overallpresenceofwolvesinColorado,possibleimpactsonthelivestockindustry,human
risk,developmentofaplantomanagewolves,theireffectonecosystems,andtheimpacts
wolvesmayhaveontheeconomyinColorado.
Withtheuseofthisfeedbackfromthegeneralpublic,theWorkingGroupwasable
toidentifyspecificchallengestheColoradowolfprotectionprogramwouldinevitablyface
duringitsimplementation.Theseinclude“wolfdepredationsonlivestockandthe
associatedeconomiclosses,lossofmanagementflexibilitybyfederalandstateland
managementagencies,land-userestrictions,impactstobiggamepopulations,andreduced
huntingopportunity,”aswellastheoverarchingfactthatwolfmanagementisexpensive,
political,andcontroversial(ColoradoWolfManagementGroup,2004).
Nearlyalloftheissueslistedaboveareuniversalconcernsrelatedtowolfprotection
andreintroductionaroundtheglobe,includingthesuccessfulNorthernRockyMountain
WolfRecoveryPlan,andwillcontinuetobeissuesforyearstocome.TheColorado
WorkingGrouptriedtheirbesttoaddresseachoftheseissuesintheirownprogram
utilizingmethodslikethelivestockandgamedepredationfund,educationalandoutreach
programs,statewidemonitoringeffortsofbothwolvesandtheirprey,alternativecontrol
methods,andadaptivemanagementtechniques.However,severalfactorsmayinhibitthe
programfrombeingsuccessfulifenactedinthenearfutureincludingthelackofany
measurablegoalsforwolfrepopulationinColorado,theabsenceofbufferzonestoprevent
conflictsbetweenwolvesandurbanareasasmuchaspossible,thelackofattentiongiven
tothesourcesoffundingforwolfdepredationpaymentsandmanagementstrategies,and
thenon-holisticplantoeducateandinformthepublicandotherinterestgroups.
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
32
SummaryofIdentifiedOpportunitiesforChange
MeasurableGoals • COPlanwasmorefocusedonthemitigationofwolfpresenceandtheirnegativeimpactsratherthanincreasingwolfpopulationsinColorado
• NRMtPlanhadveryspecificgoalsthatallowedwolfpopulationstodrasticallyincrease
BufferZones • COPlanhasnodesignatedlandbetweenlivestockandwolf
habitattolimitconflictbetweenhumansandwolves• NRMtPlanhad3separatemanagementzoneswithdifferent
degreesofwolfacceptanceandprotectionthatlimitedconflictandincreasedacceptancefromopposedgroups
FundingforDepredationPaymentsandWolfManagement
• Managingandcontrollingofwolvesisveryexpensive,time-consuming,laborintensive,andrequiresspeciallytrainedpersonneltotraporkillthedepredatingwolves
• COPlanoutlinedvaguesourcesoffundingsuchasspecialinterestlicenseplates,fundraisingthroughNGOs,thegovernment,grants,anddonations–notenough$$toensureconsistentmanagement
PublicEducation&Outreach
• NeitherCOWolfPlan&NRMtPlanhadasufficientplantoeducateandengagewiththepublic–theyweremorefocusedondispersinginformationratherthanpersonaloutreach
• Personalengagementisessentialtoeliminatingfearandstigmaaboutwolvesandincreasingacceptanceoftheirpresence,butneitherplanaimedtodoso
• EducationandoutreachoutlinedinCOWolfPlanwasneveractuallyimplemented
MeasurableGoals
TheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceisrequiredtodevelopawolfrecoveryplanforthe
MexicangraywolfinthewesternUnitedStatesbytheendof2017(Fixler,2016);therefore,
Coloradoshouldatleaststrivetorecoverwolfpopulationswithinthestatetoenhancethe
likelihoodofachievingtheobjectivesproposedinthenew2017plan.TheNRMtPlanisa
greatexampleofgoalsettingbecauseithadveryspecificobjectivesoutlinedinthe
programthatweremeanttoincreasewolfpopulationsatasustainablerateinIdaho,
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
33
Montana,andWyoming,andensuretheirpopulationsthrived.Severalsmallergoalsledup
totheprimaryobjectiveoftheNRMtPlan,whichwastoestablish10breedingpairsineach
ofthethreerecoveryzonesforthreeconsecutiveyears,butthesesmallergoalsensured
recoveryeffortsweresuccessfullyestablishingwolfpopulationsbeforelesseningor
alteringmanagementpractices.
TheCOWolfPlanhadfourprimaryprinciplestheybelievedwereimportantto
followinordertoproperlymanagemigratingpopulationsofwolves,buttheplanhadno
specificintentionsofincreasingwolfpopulationswithinColorado.Instead,itappearedlike
theprogramwasprimarilytryingtopleaseeachoftheinvolvedinterestgroupsratherthan
creatingaspaceforwolfpopulationstoform.TheprinciplesoutlinedbytheCOWolfPlan
includeimpact-basedmanagement,adaptivemanagement,monitoring,anddamage
paymentsorotherproactivemeasuresforlosses,buttheseprinciplesonlyfocuson
mitigatingtheproblemsassociatedwiththepresenceofwolvesratherthanaimingto
increasepopulations.Coloradopossessesmanyofthespecieswolvestypicallypreyonsuch
asdeerandthelargestpopulationofelkinNorthAmerica,andscientistshaveestimated
thatColoradohasenoughlandtosupportabout1,000wolves(Kohler,n.d.).However,this
largeofapopulationwouldonlybeabletoflourishwiththeimplementationofstrict
guidelines,specificgoals,andtheintenttounconditionallyprotectwolvesincertainareas
ofColorado.
BufferZones
AnotherreasontheNRMtPlanwassoeffectiveatrestoringwolfpopulationsineach
recoveryzoneandsurroundingstateswasbecauseoftheattentiongiventopreventthe
interactionsbetweenwolvesandhumansthroughtheuseofbufferzones.Wyoming,Idaho,
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
34
andMontanaeachdesignatedthreeseparateareasoflandwithintheirprotectionzones
thathaddifferentprimarylandusesandvaryingdegreesofwolfprotection.Thepurposeof
thiswastolimitthenumberofconflictsbetweenhumansandwolves,andincreasesupport
frominterestgroupsthatwereconcernedwithland-userestrictionsandlivestock
depredation(NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan,1987).Thisalsoreducesthe
numberofwolvesthatmustbecontrolledforandthemoneythatmustbepaidtoranchers
forlivestockdepredation,whichoveralldecreasestheneedforresourcesthatwould
otherwisebenecessarytooperatetheprogramwithoutbufferzones.
Colorado’swolfmanagementprogramhadabsolutelynomentionofimplementing
bufferzonesordesignatingseparatelandforwolfhabitatandranchingcommunities,
whichIbelieveisahugemistake.TheColoradogovernmentclaimsthatwolvesmigrating
intoColoradoareabletolivewithnoboundarieswheretheyfindhabitat,butwill
inevitablybecontrolledforifnegativeimpactsarise(NorthernRockyMountainWolf
RecoveryPlan,1987).Conflictsbetweenranchersandwolvesareextremelydifficultto
avoidinareaswheresuitablewolfhabitatisincloseproximitytolivestockoperations,
especiallyaswolfpopulationsandthelivestockindustrycontinuetoincrease,and
essentiallyhindersthepossibilityofwolvessafelyestablishingpopulationswithoutthe
threatofbeingkilledorrelocated.TheCOWolfPlanstatesthatwolfdistributionwould
ultimatelybedeterminedbytheecologicalneedsofwolvesandthesocialtoleranceof
people,thusColoradoshouldimplementbufferzonestoprovidewolveswithanareaof
landthatmeetstheirecologicalneedsandalsoincreasethesocialtoleranceofranchers
andotherinterestgroupstoeventuallyseeagrowthofwolfpopulations(NorthernRocky
MountainWolfRecoveryPlan,1987).
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
35
TheEastForkwolfpackinAlaska’sDenaliNationalParkisprimeexampleofthelack
ofconsiderationgiventotheimportanceofbufferzones.Thisparticularfamilygroupof
wolveshasbeencontinuouslystudiedforover70yearsandresearcherswerethoroughly
tracking15membersofthefamilybythe1990s,however,thatpackhasnowbeenreduced
tojustonewolfasaresultofhuntingseasonsandthelackofmanagementzonesthat
designatedifferentlevelsofwolfprotection(Holleman,2016).Hundredsofthousandsof
peoplevisitDenaliNationalParkeachyearwiththeanticipationofspottingawolf.Halfof
thevisitorspriortothekillingsoftheEastForkwolfpackwereseeingwolvesinthepark,
butnowthatmostofthepackisgone,onlyabout5%ofvisitorsareabletospotawolfin
Denali’sparkannually(Holleman,2016).Manyconservationistsarepleadingforthe
Alaska’sStategovernmenttoimplementbufferzonesaroundDenaliNationalParkthat
wouldrestricthuntingandtrappingofwolvesandincreaseprotectioninthoseareas,but
thegovernmenthasratherdecidedtoshortenthewolf-huntingperiodintheupcoming
2017season.IfColoradochoosestonotinvestinbufferzonesbetweenwolfhabitatand
urbandevelopment,wolveswillfacethesamefateasthoseinAlaskaandhavelittlechance
forsurvival.
FundingforDepredationPaymentsandWolfManagement
AlthoughtheCOWolfPlanwaswellawareoftheimportanceofincludingmitigation
strategiesrelatedtowolfdepredationonlivestockinthedevelopmentoftheirplan,Ido
notbelievetheyquiteunderstoodtheextentoffundingandresourcesneededto
implementtheseapproaches.SincetheimplementationoftheNRMtPlanin1987anduntil
itendedin2012,117wolvesweremovedand1,905wolveswerekilledinresponseto
depredationonlivestock(Paul,2014).Effortstoremovewolvesnotonlydisruptthe
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
36
dynamicsofthewolfpack,butitisalsoverytime-consuming,laborintensive,andrequires
speciallytrainedpersonneltotraporkillthedepredatingwolves.Idahoalonebudgeted
$1.63millionin2015forwolfrelatedmanagementsuchasdepredation,monitoring,legal
huntingandtrappingoversight,enforcement,research,andadministration,butthiswas
beforethegovernmentcutsomeofthefundingtotheprogram(Landers,2017).
TheCOWolfPlansuggestssomeofthefundingfortheprograminColoradocome
fromavenueslikespecialinterestlicenseplates,fundraisingthroughNGOs,the
government,grants,anddonations.Theseresourceswilldefinitelyprovidesomeofthe
fundingneeded,butthesuggestionsareextremelyvagueandthereisnowaytoensurea
stablebudgetforpropermanagementyeartoyear.TheCOWolfPlanalsopointedoutthat
theDefendersofWildlifewouldbearsomeoftheburdenbypaying100%ofthemarket
valueforconfirmedwolfdepredationsonlivestockand50%ofthemarketvaluefor
probablecases,exactlyliketheCDOWwould,butonlyuntilwolvesaredelistedunderthe
ESAandnolongerreceivingfederalprotection.ThismeansthatoncetheColoradostate
wolfmanagementplanisimplemented,theCDOWwouldnolongerreceiveassistancefrom
theDefendersofWildlifetopaylivestockownersfordepredationlossesbecausewolves
wouldnolongerbefederallyprotected.Between1987-2009theDefendersofWildlifepaid
out$1,368,043tolivestockproducersinMontana,Idaho,andWyoming,whichisaboutthe
sameamountneededtorunIdaho’sentirewolfmanagementprogramforayear.Without
assistancefromtheDefendersofWildlife,Colorado’swolfmanagementfundwouldhaveto
bereallocatedtowolfdepredationpaymentsratherthanpropermanagementefforts,and
couldnegativelyimpactallaspectsoftheprogram.
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
37
Additionally,wolfdepredationpaymentsonlyconsiderconfirmedorprobablewolf
kills,butranchersarenotcompensatedforinjuredcalvesthatmustbesoldforaloss,the
costsoftreatinganinjuredanimal,orthelowerweightsasaresultofstressfrom
depredatingwolves(Thomas,2013).Thiscouldbeaddressedbymonitoringranchers’
incomesandlivestocknumbersduringwolfrepopulationtodetermineifwolvesare
negativelyimpactingthelivelihoodoftheranchingcommunity.Wolfdepredationoften
significantlyimpactsindividualranchersorcommunities,thereforemonitoringranchersin
additiontomonitoringwolvescouldprovideabitofinsightonhowtobetterallocate
resourcesandmitigateproblemwolves.
PublicEducationandOutreach
Theprimarygoalofwolfeducationandoutreachprogramsistoincreasethe
likelihoodofwolfpopulationsestablishinginColoradoandlimitingtheuseoflethalcontrol
methods;however,thiswouldonlybepossiblewiththesupportfrommajorityofthe
citizensofColoradoandcompliancefromthosemostimpactedbywolveslikeranchers,
hunters,andhomeowners.Thisgoesbeyondjustinformingthepublicaboutwolfbiology,
naturalhistory,andecology,butmustalsoincludescientificresearchonwolvesandother
species,howthissciencecaninformbetterdecision-making,andprovidepeoplewith
realisticstrategiesforcoexistingwithwolvestoreduceconflict(Troxelletal.,2009).Most
peoplethatarefamiliarwithwolvesarealsoawareoftheimportantroletheyplayin
maintainingmanyecosystems,butthisfactaloneisnotenoughtogainpopularsupport
fromthepublicandkeyinterestgroups.
NeithertheNRMtPlannortheCOWolfPlanhadawellpolishededucationand
outreachprogramthatplannedtoactivelyengagewiththepeopleincloseproximityto
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
38
wolfpresenceorthosedirectlyimpactedbywolves.Thissortofengagementisessentialto
eliminatingfearandstigmaaboutwolvesandincreasingacceptanceoftheirpresence.Both
wolfmanagementplansintendedtodisperseinformationonaregularbasisaboutcurrent
practicesandrelatedwolfnewstoprimaryinterestgroups,butthechancesofthis
informationbeingreceivedandunderstoodbyeverygroupinaproductivewayishighly
unlikelybecauseitdoesnotaddressspecificconcerns.Instead,Coloradoshouldfocustheir
effortsondevelopingindividualeducationandoutreachprogramsthataredirectlycatered
tothefearsandmisconceptionsofeachspecificinterestgroup.Generally,ruralresidents
andoldercitizensarethosemostopposedtowolfrestoration,thereforemajorityofthe
outreacheffortsshouldbespentonworkingwiththeseinterestgroupstoaddresstheir
specificneedsandworktogethertocreatethemosteffectiveprogrampossible(Blacketal.,
2007).TheoutreachprogramdescribedintheCOWolfPlanwasneveractually
implemented,thereforethefutureprograminColoradoshouldinvestmuchmoretimeand
energyintopropereducationandoutreachefforts.
ProposeChangeforWolfManagementinColorado
RegardlessofthepoliticaldebateconcerningwolfreintroductioninColorado,wolf
populationsaremigratingtowesternColoradofromthegrowingpopulationsin
surroundingstates(Gulliford,2016).Ithasbeennearly13yearssincetheCOWolfPlan
wasdevelopedinAprilof2004,andalthoughtheissuesrelatedtowolfpolicyaregenerally
thesame,itistimetoupdateorimproveupontheCOWolfPlantopromotefurther
recoveryofwolfpopulationsthroughouttheUnitedStatesandNorthAmerica.Theplan
thatmustdevelopedbytheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicetorestoretheMexicangraywolf
bytheendof2017willhavesignificantimplicationsforColoradobecausewolveswill
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
39
undoubtedlymigrateherefromreintroducedpopulationsinArizonaandNewMexico,and
maypossiblybereintroducedinColoradoaswell.
ThecurrentprograminplaceinColoradoismorefocusedontryingtoaddressthe
concernsofeachinterestgroupintheirprotectionofwolvesratherthanfocusingon
restoringwolfpopulations.Manyoftheguidelinestheyexplainedintheirplanwerealso
neveractuallyimplementedliketheeducationandoutreachprogram,revisitationofthe
planeveryfewyears,andstrictmonitoringofwolfpopulationsandrelatedconflicts.The
NRMtPlanhasbeenaprimeexampleofhowhumansandwolvescancoexistinawaythat
notonlybenefitseachother,butalsotheecosystem,theeconomy,andtheconnection
humanshavetoournation’snaturalheritage.Colorado’sprogramseemsmoreconcerned
aboutthenegativeimpactswolvesmayhaveontheranchingandhuntingcommunities
ratherthanthepositiveimpactsColoradomayexperience.Toshiftawayfromapolicythat
issimplycateredtospecificinterestgroupslikeranchersandhunters,Ibelievethereare
severalchangesthatcouldbemadetotheColoradowolfmanagementprogramthatwould
benefitwolfconservationists,theU.SandColoradogovernment,huntersandranchers,and
ruralandurbancommunities.Thesechangesincludeimplementingspecificandobtainable
goalstorestorewolves,designatingbufferzonesfordifferentlanduses,findingalternative
methodsforfundingtheprogramliketaxdollarsfrommarijuanaorlotterysales,and
improvingupontheeducationandoutreachprogramtobemoreeffectiveatchanging
behaviorofpeople.Ifthesemodificationsalongwiththerestoftheprogramdevelopedby
theColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGroupweretobesuccessfullyappliedand
continuallymonitored,Ibelievewolfpopulationswouldundoubtedlyincreasethroughout
Colorado.
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
40
SummaryofProposedChangestoCOWolfPlan
MeasurableGoals • Wouldbeidealtoestablish3separatewolfrecoveryzonesinArizona,NewMexico,andColorado,similartotheNRMtplan
• Goalsettingensuresasteadymanagementprogramisinplacebeforegivingtheindividualstatecontroloverwolfmanagement
• Examples:Establish5-10breedingpairsinnext10yearsorreducelivestockdepredationby50%innext5years
BufferZones • DesignatelandinColoradobetweenlivestockandwolfhabitatthathasproductivelanduseslikeminingorlogging,thatwaylandisbeingusedbutalsolimitingconflict
• Bufferzonesdecreasetheamountoflivestockdepredation,theunlawfulkillingofwolves,andoppositionfromcitizensandinterestgroups
FundingforDepredationPaymentsandWolfManagement
• Marijuanatax:Over$80millionwascollectedinfirstyearoflegalization,couldprovide$.5-1milliontowolfmanagement
• Lotterytax:AlreadyfocusedonfundingwildlandsrestorationinColorado,couldprovide$.5-1millionoutofbudgetof$88millionannually
• Tourism:Generated$1.13billionintourismtaxeslastyear,wolftourismcouldfurtherincreasethealreadygrowingtourismindustryinColorado§ Shiftsfinancialburdenfromthoseopposedtowolvesin
ColoradoontothosewhoarevisitingColoradoandtakingadvantageoftheuniqueattractions
PublicEducationandOutreach
• Simplydistributingscientificinformationtokeyinterestgroupsonaregularbasisisnotenoughtosufficientlyeducatethepublicandincreasesupportforwolfmanagement
• Humansbasedecisionmakingonemotionratherthanfactualinformation
• Mustdevelopanengagingprogramthatisspecifictotheconcernsandfearsofeachinterestgroup
• Intertwineeducationandmitigationstrategiestocoexistwithwolvessuchasextrafencingaroundpastures,scaremachines,orpelletgunstoavoidlethalcontrolmethodsandincreasetoleranceofwolfpresence
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
41
MeasurableGoals
TheidealsituationfortheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicewouldbetomimictheNRMt
PlanbyhavingthreeseparaterecoveryzonesinArizona,NewMexico,andColoradoto
increasethelikelihoodofatleastonestateestablishingastablewolfpopulation.
Regardlessifthewolvesarereintroducedornaturallyrecolonized,specificgoalsshouldbe
setwithinColoradosoallcitizensandrelatedinterestgroupsareawareoftheimportance
ofnotkillingwolvesandutilizingalternativemethodsforcoexistence.Thiscouldincludea
seriesofsmallergoalsthatallowformorefreedomofwolfcontrolmethods,butonlyafter
certainwolfpopulationgoalsarestabilized.Goalsettingalsoensuresthatasteadyprogram
iseffectivelyprotectingwolvesbeforegivingthestatefullcontroloverwolfmanagement.
TheonlywildpopulationofMexicangraywolvesintheworldconsistsof113
wolvesinsouthernArizonaandNewMexico,butwiththerightmanagementgoalsand
strategiesColoradohasthepotentialtosupportover1,000wolves(WhatYouNeedTo
KnowAboutTheMexicanGrayWolf,2017)(Kohler,n.d.).ThereasonColoradodoesnot
havelargerpopulationsofwolvesalreadyisbecausethereisnoongoingefforttoclarify
thenormativeandtechnicalcomponentsofrecoverygoals,thereforeranchersandhunters
havenoreservationsinusinglethalcontrolmethodseitherbecausetheydonotknow
better,theyjustdonotcare,ortheydonothavethemeanstodootherwise(Caroll,2001).
Outliningspecificrecoverygoalssuchasestablishing5to10breedingpairsthroughout
Coloradointhenext10yearswillgivethestatemotivationtoholdthegovernmentand
citizensaccountableandshiftawayfromtraditionallethalcontrolmethods.Also
establishinggoalswithincertaincommunitiescouldmakecitizensfeeldirectlyengagedin
therecoveryofthisthreatenedspecies.Anexamplewouldbereducingthenumberof
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
42
livestockdepredationsinaranchingcommunityby50%inthenext5years.However,for
thisgoaltobeobtainable,theprogrammustprovidethecommunitywiththesuppliesand
methodstoeffectivelyimplementthechangesandreducetheburdenonthose
experiencingthemostchange.
BufferZones
TheColoradoWolfandWildlifeCenter(CWWC)isaNGOthatisactivelystrivingto
restorewolvesbyhousingMexicangraywolvesontheirsanctuarylandandproviding
educationtothepublic.Theyrecentlyexpandedtheirlandstohousemorewolves,buthave
purchasedanadditionaltwentyacresofsanctuarystrictlyforwildlifebufferzones
(Kobobel,2017).TheCWWCisafairlysmallplotoflandlocatedinDivide,Coloradonear
severalranchingcommunities,buttheorganizationunderstandsthattherewillinevitably
beconflictbetweenwolvesandlivestockiftheyareincloseproximitytooneanother.To
reducetheriskoflivestockdepredationasmuchaspossibletheypurchasedextralandto
minimizethechanceofwolvestravelingfartherdistancestoprayonlivestock.Thisisonly
asmallexampleoftheuseofbufferzonesinColorado,butdemonstratesthatdesignating
areasoflandbetweenwolfhabitatandotherlandusescanbeusedasaneffectivestrategy
toultimatelyincreasesupportfrominterestgroupsandminimizeunnecessaryconflictin
Colorado.
Thereintroductionofwolvesmakestheformationandenforcementofbufferzones
mucheasierbecausethelocationofthewolfpopulationsisexactlyknown,butthe
Coloradowolfmanagementplanwouldundoubtedlybenefitfromimplementingdifferent
zonesforwolfhabitat,otherlanduseslikeminingorlogging,andranchingandother
humanactivity.Separatingwolvesfromurbancitiesandranchingcommunitiesasmuchas
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
43
possiblelimitsmanyoftheissuesassociatedwithincreasedwolfpopulations.IfColorado
weretoimplementbufferzonesbetweenwolfhabitatandurbandevelopment,theamount
oflivestockdepredation,theunlawfulkillingofwolves,andoppositionfromcitizensand
interestgroupswouldallnoticeablydecrease(NorthernLightsWolfCentre,2014).Italso
giveswolvestheopportunitytothriveintheirnaturalecosystemwithouthavingtobe
translocatedorcontrolledforbecauseoftheirproximitytourbanareas.Allofthesefactors
wouldultimatelyresultinlesswolfkillings,lessconflictbetweeninterestgroups,less
moneyneededforlivestockdepredations,andfewerresourcesneededtoimplementthe
program.
FundingforDepredationPaymentsandWolfManagement
Althoughadequatefundingforwolfmanagementisvitaltoensuringtheprogramis
properlyimplementedandfullycarriedout,itisextremelyexpensivetodoso.Certainly,
thesourcesoutlinedbytheColoradoWolfManagementWorkingGrouplikeinterestlicense
plates,NGOfundraising,grants,anddonationswouldprovidesomeofthefundingforthe
program,butwouldbenowherenearthe$1.63millionIdahobudgetedin2015.Toreach
thissortoffundinggoal,Coloradomustfindalternativesourcesofcapitalthatare
consistentenoughtosatisfytheneedsoftheprogramforyearstocome.SomesuggestionsI
believecouldfundColorado’swolfmanagementprogramwouldincludeproceedsfrom
marijuanataxes,lotterytaxes,andwildlifetourismwithinColorado.
InthefirstyearofthelegalizationofrecreationalmarijuanainColorado,over$80
millionwascollectedfromretailandapplicationfeesandtaxes;$40millionofwhichwas
giventotheColoradoDepartmentofEducationand$40millionwasgiventothePublic
SchoolFund.IfColoradowasabletoallocatehalfamilliontoamilliondollarseachyearto
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
44
wolfmanagementfromthe$80millionmarijuanasalestax,thepossibilityforbetterwolf
managementwoulddrasticallyincrease,whiletheeducationprogramswouldnotsuffer
significantlyfroma1/150thcuttotheirbudget(ColoradoMarijuanaTaxCashFund
Appropriations,2017).
Colorado’slotterytaxallocationisalreadyfocusedonprotectingthestate’s
wildernessareasandhasinvestedalmost$3billiononthepreservationofopenspaceand
creationoftrails,parks,pools,andrecreationareassince1983,whichisabout$88million
ayear(InvestinginColorado,2017).In1994,Coloradovotersdecidedhalfofthemoney
wouldbegiventotheGreatOutdoorsColorado(GOCO)TrustFund,40percentwouldgoto
theConservationTrustFund,and10percentwouldbegiventoColoradoParksand
Wildlife(InvestinginColorado,2017).IftheColoradowolfmanagementprogramwasable
toreceivejustatinyfractionofthe$88millionreceivedfromlotterywinningseachyear,
thewolfprotectioneffortswouldfullycoincidewiththeColoradoLottery’smissionto
preservethenaturalheritageofColoradoandprotecttheincrediblebiodiversityithasto
offer.
TourismisakeycomponentofColorado’seconomyandhasbeengrowingata
record-breakingrateoverthelastfewyears.Coloradosaw77.7millionvisitorsin2015
andtouristsspentabout$19.1billiondollarsoverthecourseoftheyear,generatingabout
$1.13billionintaxes(Blevins,2016).Usingtourismdollarsforwolfmanagementwould
shiftthefinancialburdenawayfromColoradansthatareopposedtowolvesandtheir
negativeimpactsandontothosewhoarevisitingColoradoandtakingadvantageofthe
uniqueattractionsthatareoffered.Byfundingwolfmanagement,thetourismsectorcould
potentiallyreceiveareturnontheirinvestmentoncepopulationsofwolvesincreaseand
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
45
wolftourismcanbecomeanintegralpartoftheColoradotourismindustry.TheColorado
TourismOfficeiscurrentlydevelopingaplancalledtheColoradoTourismRoadmapthatis
designedtoboosttourisminColoradobydevelopingatravelguidethatfocuseson
sustainabletourismanduniqueexperiencesthroughoutthestate.Ifwolfpopulations
increaseinColorado,wolftourismcouldbeinvolvedintheirguidetoraiseawarenessand
acceptanceofwolvesandgeneratemoreincomefromtourismdollars(TheColorado
TourismRoadmap,2017).
PublicEducationandOutreach
Despitethefactthatwolfmanagementprogramsmustapproachmanagement
strategiesusingthebestavailablescienceandobjectivefacts,ithasbeenproventimeand
timeagainthathumansarenotalwaysrationalthinkersandwedonotbasemostofour
decisionmakingondata,butratheremotion(Slagleetal.,2012).Astudyconductedby
Slagleetal.surveyedalmost700Americancitizensabouttheirviewsofwildlife
managementandfoundthatbeliefsandemotionsaboutthepositiveornegativeoutcomes
thatmayresultfromwildlifemanagementwerethedrivingforceinmostpeople’sdecision
making(Slagleetal.,2012).Thismeansthatsimplydistributingscientificinformationto
keyinterestgroupsonaregularbasisisnotenoughtosufficientlyeducatethepublicand
increasesupportforwolfmanagement.Instead,theprogrammustdevelopawayto
connecttointerestgroupsthroughemotionalmeansratherthanfactsinordertochange
behaviorandopinionsrelatedtowolfmanagement.
Thosegenerallymostopposedtowolfmanagementincluderuralandolder
populationsbecauseoftheiremotionalfearofwolvesandtheassociatedconsequencesof
theirpresence;therefore,majorityoftheoutreacheffortsshouldbeallocatedtothese
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
46
specificinterestgroups.Outreacheffortsshouldprimarilyincludethedevelopmentof
individualprogramsthatengagewithcommunitiesthataregenerallyagainstwolf
managementoraresignificantlyimpactedbywolfpresenceinorderavoidwasting
outreacheffortsongroupsthatarealreadyinsupportofwolves.Effortswouldbefocused
ondiscussingspecificconcernsrelatedtothatcommunityanddevelopsolutionstolessen
theiroppositionandinvesttheminwolfrecoveryefforts.Ithasbeenshownthattheuseof
liveanimalscanbeeffectiveinwolfeducationtochangepeople’snegativeperceptions,
however,Iamnotcertainthiswouldworkonlivestockownersandoldergenerations
becauseofthepreconceivednotionthatwolvesareanuisanceandoftencomparedto
vermin(Blacketal.2007).However,amoreeffectivesolutionwouldbetoprovide
communitieswithalternativestrategiestocoexistwithwolvessuchasextrafencing
aroundpastures,scaremachines,orpelletgunstoavoidlethalcontrolmethodsand
increasetoleranceofwolfpresence.Theseresourceswouldofcourseneedtobeprovided
bythestatetofurtherlessentheburdenonthosemostnegativelyimpactedbywolves.
Conclusion&Recommendations
TheCOWolfPlanwasagreatstarttoeffectivelymanagingwolvesthatwerefirstto
migratingintoColoradoaswolfpopulationsincreasedinnearbystates,butthatwasnearly
15yearsago.FuturewolfpopulationsareinevitablygoingtoincreaseinColoradoasa
resultofmigratingwolvesfromtheNorthernRockiesandthenewreintroductionprogram
fortheMexicangraywolfintheSouthwestUnitedStates,thereforeitistimetorevisitthe
2004documentandimproveupontheflawswithinthecurrentsystem.TheflawsIfound
mostpressingtothefutureofwolfprotectioninColoradoincludethelackofmeasureable
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
47
wolfrecoverygoals,theabsenceofbufferzonesbetweenwolfhabitatandranching
communities,inadequatesourcesoffundingtoproperlyimplementtheprogram,andan
insufficienteducationandoutreachprogramtoincreasesupportfromopposinggroups.
ThroughtheanalysisoftheNRMtPlanandthe2004COWolfPlanIwasableto
identifyfourmajorsolutionstotheseissues.Toaddressthelackofmeasurablegoals,I
believetheadaptationofconcreterecoverygoalsforwolveswithinColoradowould
ultimatelyincreasethesuccessofrecoveryefforts.Ialsobelievetheimplementationof
bufferzonesbetweenranchersandwolveswithversatileland-useswoulddecrease
livestockdepredationratesandincreasesupportfromkeyinterestgroups.Inorderto
properlyfundtheprogram,IfoundthatColorado’smarijuanatax,lotterytax,andtourism
areallviableoptionsforprovidingenoughcapitalforconsistentandcorrectwolf
management.Andfinally,Ibelievethedevelopmentofaneducationandoutreachprogram
thatisspecificallycateredtoaddressingthefearsandtappingintotheemotionsof
importantinterestgroupswillultimatelyincreasestatewidesupportforwolfrepopulation.
Althoughthesesolutionswilllikelyincreasethepossibilityofwolfpopulations
increasingthroughoutthestate,itisimportanttoconsiderthatthesesolutionsarenot
enoughtofullypreventwolfconflictinColorado.Wolfmanagementrequiressupportand
cooperationforallinterestgroupsthatareinvolvedbecauseanysortofprogramcouldbe
perfectonpaper,butifpeoplearenotwillingtoparticipateandengageintheprogram
thanitiscompletelypurposeless.Itisalsoessentialtorevisitthegoals,management
practices,andpublicopinionsrelatedtowolvesasoftenaspossiblebecausescience,
technology,andviewsarealwayschanginganditisimportanttostayascurrentaspossible
toensuretheprogramisworkingefficientlyaspossible.Ialsothinkitisimportantthatwe
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
48
intertwinethemanagementofwolvesandlivestocktodeterminetheactualeconomic
impactofnewlyestablishedwolfpopulationsonranchingcommunitiesandfocusefforts
oncommunitiesmostimpacted.
WhetherornotColoradoisfullypreparedforwolveswithacomprehensiveplanto
managethemwithinstatelines,wolvesarealreadybeginningtomigrateandestablish
populationswithinthestate.AlthoughitisillegaltokillwolvesinColoradobecausethey
arefederallyandstateprotected,mostwolvesthathavebeenseeninthestatehaveeither
beenhitbyacarorshotbyhuntersorranchers.Itistimewemakeitofficialthatwolves
areinfactestablishingpopulationsinColoradoandmakesureallColoradansareawareof
theirpresenceandthepropermanagementandbehaviorthatisexpectedbythestateand
citizens.Coloradohasenoughresourcestosupportover1,000wolves,andnegative
opinions,poormanagementpractices,andoppositionfromthegovernmentshouldnotbe
thereasonthatinhibitstherepopulationofwolvestoalandthatwasoncetheirown.
Rather,weshouldfindeffectivesolutionstolimitthenegativeimpactsasmuchaspossible,
whilealsogivingwolvesasecondchancetothrive.
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
49
Bibliography
Action Planning. (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2016, from
http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/ActionPlanning/Pages/conservation-action-
plann.aspx
Black, P., & Rutberg, A. (2007). The Effectiveness of Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) Education Programs in the
Midwest: A Case Study of Wolf Park. Endangered Species Update; Ann Arbor, 24(1), 3–13.
Blevins, J. (2016, July 20). Colorado breaks tourism record with 77.7 million visitors spending $19.1 billion.
Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/2016/07/20/record-colorado-tourism-2015/
Bradley, E. H., Robinson, H. S., Bangs, E. E., Kunkel, K., Jimenez, M. D., Gude, J. A., & Grimm, T. (2015). Effects
of wolf removal on livestock depredation recurrence and wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The
Journal of Wildlife Management, 79(8), 1337–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.948
Buderman, F. E., Hooten, M. B., Ivan, J. S., & Shenk, T. M. (2016). A functional model for characterizing long-
distance movement behaviour. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(3), 264–273. https://doi.org/http://0-
dx.doi.org.libraries.colorado.edu/10.1111/2041-210X.12465
Buffer Zones for Wolves around Canadian National Parks. (2014, November 7). Retrieved from
https://northernlightswolfcentre.wordpress.com/news/buffer-zones-for-wolves-around-canadian-national-
parks/
Carroll, C., Phillips, M. K., Lopez-Gonzalez, C. A., & Schumaker, N. H. (2006). Defining Recovery Goals and
Strategies for Endangered Species: The Wolf as a Case Study. BioScience, 56(1), 25–37.
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0025:DRGASF]2.0.CO;2
Carter, L. (2013). The Change Champion’s Field Guide: Strategies and Tools for Leading Change in Your
Organization. Pfeiffer. Retrieved from http://www.myilibrary.com.colorado.idm.oclc.org?ID=499129
Colorado Marijuana Tax Cash Fund Appropriations and Expenditure Report NOV 1.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved March 22,
2017, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-
GHuI9KBfjVQ0h4U2dOMGxZYWc/view?usp=embed_facebook
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Resolution - 16-01 Regarding Introduction/Reintroduction of Wolves.
(2016, January 13). Colorado Divison of Parks and Wildlife. Retrieved from
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
50
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/policy_procedures/PWC_Resolution_Wolves_in_Colorado.pdf
#search=wolves
Colorado to Wolves: Keep Out. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2016, from
http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/01/14/wolves-not-wanted-colorado-2
Donnelly, J. (n.d.). What One Wolf’s Extraordinary Journey Means for the Future of Wildlife in America. Retrieved
April 29, 2016, from http://www.takepart.com/feature/2014/12/17/or7-wolf-journey-california-oregon-
endangered-species
Elk & Vegetation Management Plan Fact Sheet. (2012, August). National Park Service. Retrieved from
https://www.nps.gov/romo/learn/management/elkveg_fact_sheet.htm
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray
Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule. (2007). Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Annual
Reports. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/wolfrecovery/14
Explanation of Wolf Resolution Considered by Parks and Wildlife Commission. (2016, January 8). Colorado
Divison of Parks and Wildlife. Retrieved from
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Wolf/Wolf-Resolution-Considered-
PWC.pdf
Findings and Recommendations for Managing Wolves That Migrate Into Colorado. (2004, December 28). Colorado
Wolf Management Group. Retrieved from
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Wolf/recomendations.pdf
Fixler, K. (2016, January 15). Wolf reintroduction in Colorado faces new obstacle. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from
http://www.dailycamera.com/recreation/ci_29405513/wolf-reintroduction-colorado-faces-new-obstacle
Gershman, J. (2014, March 22). U.S. News: Wolf’s Return is Big and, for Some, Bad. Wall Street Journal, Eastern
Edition, p. A.3. New York, N.Y.
Gilbert, N. (2016, January 22). Guest Commentary: Colorado cannot afford release of wolves. Retrieved from
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/01/22/guest-commentary-colorado-cannot-afford-release-of-wolves/
Greenberg, R. (2014, October 20). Reintroduction Programs. Retrieved April 28, 2016, from
https://www.aza.org/reintroduction-programs/
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
51
Gulliford, A. (2016, February 23). Wolves are already headed for Colorado. Let’s make it official. Retrieved June
26, 2016, from https://www.hcn.org/articles/wolves-are-already-headed-for-colorado-lets-make-it-official
Heather S. (2010, September 10). Western Ranchers Fight The Curse Of Introduced Wolves. Retrieved March 11,
2017, from http://www.beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/0910-western-ranchers-fight-wolves
Holleman, M. (2016, May 18). It’s far past time for Alaska to protect Denali wolves with a buffer zone. Retrieved
March 18, 2017, from https://www.adn.com/commentary/article/its-far-past-time-alaska-protect-denali-
wolves-buffer-zone/2016/05/18/
Investing in Colorado. (2017). Retrieved March 22, 2017, from https://www.coloradolottery.com/en/about/investing-
in-colorado/
Jacobs, A. (1994, February). Wolf Policy in the West. Retrieved May 2, 2016, from
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/94-65.htm
Jule, K. R., Leaver, L. A., & Lea, S. E. G. (2008). The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in
carnivores: A review and analysis. Biological Conservation, 141(2), 355–363.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.11.007
Kobobel, D. (2017). CWWC Mission. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from http://www.wolfeducation.org/our-mission
Kohler, J. (n.d.). Does Colorado Have Room For Wolves? Retrieved from
http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/does-colorado-have-room-for-wolves?/
Li, J. (2000). Wolves May Have Won the Battle, but Not the War: How the West Was Won under the Northern
Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. The 1999 Ninth Circuit Environmental Review. Retrieved from
http://0-web.b.ebscohost.com.libraries.colorado.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=16&sid=a8599d06-699e-451b-
a9cc-
656ac9182950%40sessionmgr103&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=8
204256&db=8gh
Livestock Losses. (2011). Retrieved January 29, 2017, from
http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/PageServer?pagename=priorities_wildlife_war_wildlife_livestock_los
ses
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
52
Mazur, K. E., & Asah, S. T. (2013). Clarifying standpoints in the gray wolf recovery conflict: Procuring
management and policy forethought. Biological Conservation, 167, 79–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.017
MCDA. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2016, from https://www.ncsu.edu/nrli/decision-making/MCDA.php
Meadow, R., Reading, R. P., Phillips, M., Mehringer, M., & Miller, B. J. (2005). The Influence of Persuasive
Arguments on Public Attitudes toward a Proposed Wolf Restoration in the Southern Rockies. Wildlife Society
Bulletin (1973-2006), 33(1), 154–163.
Mech, D. L. (1995). The Challenge and Opportunity of Recovering Wolf Populations. Retrieved March 5, 2017,
from http://www.wolf.org/wow/united-states/e-recovery-and-management-1/
Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #18. (2015). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/2015_MW_Progress_Report.pdf
Mexican Wolves in Colorado, More Than Political. (2016, May 23). Colorado Divison of Parks and Wildlife.
Retrieved from http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Wolf/Mexican-Wolves-
More-Than-Political.pdf
Nigel, T. (1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from
http://sk.sagepub.com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/books/urban-planning-theory-since-1945/n4.xml
Pate, J., Manfredo, M. J., Bright, A. D., & Tischbein, G. (1996). Coloradans’ Attitudes toward Reintroducing the
Gray Wolf into Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 24(3), 421–428.
Paul, B. (n.d.). Wolf Depredation. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from http://www.wolf.org/wolf-info/basic-wolf-
info/wolves-and-humans/wolf-depredation/
Pritchett, L. (2006). Sight the Gun High. Natural Resources Journal, 46(1), 1–8.
Red Wolf Recovery/Species Survival Plan. (1990, October 26). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Retrieved from
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/901026.pdf
Restoration or Destruction: The Controversy over Wolf Reintroduction | JYI – The Undergraduate Research Journal.
(n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2016, from http://www.jyi.org/issue/restoration-or-destruction-the-controversy-over-
wolf-reintroduction/
Restoring the Gray Wolf. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2016, from
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/gray_wolves/
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
53
Rinkesh. (2013, December 22). What is Biodiversity? Its Importance and Reasons for Loss of Biodiversity?
Retrieved from http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/what-is-biodiversity.php
Robbins, J. (1997). Ranchers back ruling on wolves out west. New York Times, 147(51006), 37.
Slagle, K. M., Bruskotter, J. T., & Wilson, R. S. (2012). The Role of Affect in Public Support and Opposition to
Wolf Management. Human Dimensions Of Wildlife. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=58c564a7-f454-48c0-88ae-
2a76cdb8c8f4%40sessionmgr102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=71347665&
db=aph
Sustainable Human. (2014). How Wolves Change Rivers. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
The Colorado Tourism Roadmap | Colorado Tourism Industry Partners. (2017). Retrieved March 22, 2017, from
http://industry.colorado.com/colorado-tourism-roadmap
The cost of recovery. (2017, March 9). Retrieved March 18, 2017, from
http://www.postregister.com/articles/outdoors/2017/03/09/cost-recovery
The Cultural Significance of Wolves. (2014, April 24). Retrieved January 29, 2017, from
http://www.defenders.org/places-for-wolves/cultural-significance-wolves
The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program. (n.d.). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Retrieved from
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/
The Wolf That Changed America | Wolf Wars: America’s Campaign to Eradicate the Wolf | Nature | PBS. (2008,
September 14). Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-wolf-that-changed-america-wolf-wars-
americas-campaign-to-eradicate-the-wolf/4312/
Thomas, H. S. (2013, September 30). Wolves’ Economic Bite On Cattle Goes Way Beyond Predation. Beef
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.beefmagazine.com/pasture-range/wolves-economic-bite-cattle-goes-
way-beyond-predation
Trainor, A. M., Schmitz, O. J., Ivan, J. S., & Shenk, T. M. (2014). Enhancing species distribution modeling by
characterizing predator–prey interactions. Ecological Applications, 24(1), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-
0336.1
WolvesintheWest MichaelaDaMato
54
Troxell, P. S., Berg, K. A., Jaycox, H., Strauss, A. L., Struhsacker, P., & Callahan, P. (2009). Education and outreach
efforts in support of wolf conservation in the great lakes region. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85952-1_19
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2016). Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2015 Interagency
Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/mountain-
prairie/es/species/mammals/wolf/2016/FINAL_NRM%20summary%20-%202015.pdf
Volz, M., & Elliott, D. (2017, March 3). Court rules to lift federal protections for Wyoming wolves. Retrieved
March 11, 2017, from http://www.startribune.com/court-rules-to-lift-federal-protections-for-wyoming-
wolves/415338404/
Weiss, A., Kroeger, T., Haney, J. C., & Fascione, N. (2006). Social and Ecological Benefits of Restored Wolf
Populations. Defenders of Wildlife. Retrieved from
http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/social_and_ecological_benefits_of_restored_wolf_po
pulations.pdf
Western gray wolf. (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2016, from https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grayWolf.php
What is a Mexican Wolf? (2014, April 28). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
What You Need To Know About The Mexican Gray Wolf. (2017, March 13). Retrieved March 19, 2017, from
http://earthjustice.org/features/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-mexican-gray-wolf#2
White, A. B. (n.d.). A Hisotry Of Wild Wolves in the United States. Retrieved January 29, 2017, from
http://www.graywolfconservation.com/Wild_Wolves/history.htm
Wielgus, R. B., & Peebles, K. A. (2014). Effects of Wolf Mortality on Livestock Depredations. PLOS ONE, 9(12),
e113505. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113505
Wildlife Research Reports. (2011, June). Colorado Divison of Parks and Wildlife. Retrieved from
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Research/Mammals/Publications/2010-
2011WILDLIFERESEARCHREPORT.pdf