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.


ii

Acknowledgments

ThankyoutoRobertBuchwald,PaulLander,DaleMiller,andmyfamilyandfriends

fortheirunconditionalsupportandvaluableguidancethroughoutthisthesisprocess.

Withoutyourunfailingencouragement,thisworkwouldnotbepossible.


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


iv

ListofAbbreviations

CDOW ColoradoDepartmentofWildlife

COWolfPlan FindingsandRecommendationsforWolvesthatMigrateIntoColorado(2004)

CWWC TheColoradoWolfandWildlifeCenter

ESA EndangeredSpeciesAct

GOCO GreatOutdoorsColorado

NGO Non-governmentorganization

NRMtPlan NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan


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).


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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.


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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,


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


2016).

TheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicewasabletoreachtherecoverygoalof10breeding

pairsineachofthethreerecoveryareasfor3consecutiveyearsin2002,andby2011

wolvesweredelistedinMontanaandIdahoandshortlyafterinWyomingin2012.Efforts


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


2016).


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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,


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,


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).


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.


AlthoughtheCOWolfPlanwaswellawareoftheimportanceofincludingmitigation

strategiesrelatedtowolfdepredationonlivestockinthedevelopmentoftheirplan,Ido

notbelievetheyquiteunderstoodtheextentoffundingandresourcesneededto

implementtheseapproaches.SincetheimplementationoftheNRMtPlanin1987anduntil

itendedin2012,117wolvesweremovedand1,905wolveswerekilledinresponseto

depredationonlivestock(Paul,2014).Effortstoremovewolvesnotonlydisruptthe


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.


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


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


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.


40

SummaryofProposedChangestoCOWolfPlan

MeasurableGoals • Wouldbeidealtoestablish3separatewolfrecoveryzonesinArizona,NewMexico,andColorado,similartotheNRMtplan

• Goalsettingensuresasteadymanagementprogramisinplacebeforegivingtheindividualstatecontroloverwolfmanagement

• Examples:Establish5-10breedingpairsinnext10yearsorreducelivestockdepredationby50%innext5years

BufferZones • DesignatelandinColoradobetweenlivestockandwolfhabitatthathasproductivelanduseslikeminingorlogging,thatwaylandisbeingusedbutalsolimitingconflict

• Bufferzonesdecreasetheamountoflivestockdepredation,theunlawfulkillingofwolves,andoppositionfromcitizensandinterestgroups


• Marijuanatax:Over$80millionwascollectedinfirstyearoflegalization,couldprovide$.5-1milliontowolfmanagement

• Lotterytax:AlreadyfocusedonfundingwildlandsrestorationinColorado,couldprovide$.5-1millionoutofbudgetof$88millionannually

• Tourism:Generated$1.13billionintourismtaxeslastyear,wolftourismcouldfurtherincreasethealreadygrowingtourismindustryinColorado§ Shiftsfinancialburdenfromthoseopposedtowolvesin

ColoradoontothosewhoarevisitingColoradoandtakingadvantageoftheuniqueattractions


• Simplydistributingscientificinformationtokeyinterestgroupsonaregularbasisisnotenoughtosufficientlyeducatethepublicandincreasesupportforwolfmanagement

• Humansbasedecisionmakingonemotionratherthanfactualinformation

• Mustdevelopanengagingprogramthatisspecifictotheconcernsandfearsofeachinterestgroup

• Intertwineeducationandmitigationstrategiestocoexistwithwolvessuchasextrafencingaroundpastures,scaremachines,orpelletgunstoavoidlethalcontrolmethodsandincreasetoleranceofwolfpresence


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


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


43

possiblelimitsmanyoftheissuesassociatedwithincreasedwolfpopulations.IfColorado

weretoimplementbufferzonesbetweenwolfhabitatandurbandevelopment,theamount

oflivestockdepredation,theunlawfulkillingofwolves,andoppositionfromcitizensand

interestgroupswouldallnoticeablydecrease(NorthernLightsWolfCentre,2014).Italso

giveswolvestheopportunitytothriveintheirnaturalecosystemwithouthavingtobe

translocatedorcontrolledforbecauseoftheirproximitytourbanareas.Allofthesefactors

wouldultimatelyresultinlesswolfkillings,lessconflictbetweeninterestgroups,less

moneyneededforlivestockdepredations,andfewerresourcesneededtoimplementthe

program.


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


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


45

wolftourismcanbecomeanintegralpartoftheColoradotourismindustry.TheColorado

TourismOfficeiscurrentlydevelopingaplancalledtheColoradoTourismRoadmapthatis

designedtoboosttourisminColoradobydevelopingatravelguidethatfocuseson

sustainabletourismanduniqueexperiencesthroughoutthestate.Ifwolfpopulations

increaseinColorado,wolftourismcouldbeinvolvedintheirguidetoraiseawarenessand

acceptanceofwolvesandgeneratemoreincomefromtourismdollars(TheColorado

TourismRoadmap,2017).


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


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


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


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.


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


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/


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


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/


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


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