Content uploaded by Suzanne Asha Stone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Suzanne Asha Stone on May 19, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
A New Era
for Wolves and People
Wolf RecoveRy, Human attitudes, and Policy
Edited by
M M,
L B,
P C. P
ww w.uofcp ress.com
978-1-55238-270-7
$24.95 C AN $24.9 5 US
A New Era for Wolves and People
M,
B,
P
Wolves hold an almost mythical status in the cultural history of Europe and
North America. For centuries, they have been the subject of fairy tales and other
lore, embodying mystery, cunning, and sometimes threat. People are drawn to
their beauty, intrigued by their behaviours. Yet for those who live in close prox-
imity to wolves, coexistence is fraught with many serious issues.
Wolf management is an excellent model of human-nature interaction and the
challenges that come along with it. A New Era for Wolves and People analyzes the
crucial relationship between human ethics, attitudes, and policy and the man-
agement of wolf populations in Europe and North America. e contributors to
this volume assert that these human dimensions affect wolf survival just as much,
if not more, than the physical environment.
Contributors include recognized scientists and other wolf experts who introduce
new and sometimes controversial findings. A New Era for Wolves and People in-
cludes colour photographs of wild wolves by Peter A. Dettling, David C. Olson,
and Robert J. Weselmann, and drawings by wildlife artist Susan Shimeld.
Marco Musiani, PhD, is an assistant professor of landscape ecology at the
University of Calgary and is also affiliated with the University of Montana. He
was born in Rome, the city of the famous she-wolf, and has conducted research
and published internationally on wolf management.
Luigi Boitani is the head of the Department of Animal and Human Biol-
ogy at the University of Rome, and a leading authority on wolves. He has con-
ducted an extended series of research and conservation projects on the Italian
wolf population, which has recovered dramatically in the last thirty years. He
has authored more than two hundred peer-reviewed scientific publications and
eight books.
PauL c. Paquet, PhD, is an adjunct professor with the Faculties of Biol-
ogy and of Environmental Design at the University of Calgary. Dr. Paquet has
studied wolves for more than thirty-five years, and is considered an authority
on carnivore ecology, with international research experience. He has published
more than a hundred peer-reviewed articles and was the founder and director of
the Central Rockies Wolf Project in Canmore, Alberta.
A New Era
for Wolves and People
ENERG Y, EC O L O G Y, A ND T H E ENV IRONMENT SERIES
ISSN 1919-7144
is new series will explore how we live and work with each other on the planet, how we use its
resources, and the issues and events that shape our thinking on energy, ecology and the environ-
ment. e Alberta experience in a global arena will be showcased.
No. 1 · Places: Linking Nature, Culture and Planning J. Gordon Nelson and Patrick L.
Lawrence
No. 2 · A New Era for Wolves and People: Wolf Recover y, Human Attitudes, and Policy
Edited by Marco Musiani, Luigi Boitani, and Paul Paquet
E, E, E S
ISSN 1919-7144
Edited by
M M,
L B,
P C. P
A New Era
for Wolves and People
W R, H A, P
© 2009 Marco Musiani, Luigi Boitani, and Paul C. Paquet
University of Calgary Press
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2N 1N4
www.uofcpress.com
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, without the prior written consent of the publisher or a
license from e Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright). For an
Access Copyright license, visit www.accesscopyright.ca or call toll free 1-800-893-5777.
L A C C P
A new era for wolves and people : wolf recovery, human attitudes and
policy / edited by Marco Musiani, Luigi Boitani, and Paul C. Paquet.
(Energy, ecology, and the environment series, 1919-7144 ; 2)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-55238-270-7
1. Wolves—Reintroduction–Case studies. 2. Wolves–Conservation–Case
studies. 3. Wolves–Public opinion. 4. Human-wolf encounters. 5. Wildlife
management–Case studies.
I. Boitani, Luigi II. Paquet, Paul C. (Paul Charles), 1948- III. Musiani,
Marco, 1970- IV. Series: Energy, ecology, and the environment series 2
QL737.C22N49 2009 333.95’9773 C2009-904654-7
e University of Calgary Press acknowledges the support of the Alberta Foundation for
the Arts for our publications. We acknowledge the nancial support of the Government
of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP) for our
publishing activities. We acknowledge the nancial support of the Canada Council for the
Arts for our publishing program.
Printed and bound in Canada by Marquis Printing
is book is printed on FSC Silva Edition & Starbrite Dull paper
Cover design by Melina Cusano
Page design and typesetting by Melina Cusano
v
CONTEN TS
List of Tables
List of Figures
Biographies for Editors, Contributing Authors, and
Artists (drawings and photos of wild wolves only)
Acknowledgments
Introduction – Newly Recovering Wolf Populations
Produce New Trends in Human Attitudes and Policy
Marco Musiani, Luigi Boitani, and Paul C. Paquet
Section I – Art and Science in Management Plans for
Recovering, Recolonizing, and Reintroduced
Wolves
1.1 Wolf Management across Europe: Species
Conservation without Boundaries
Luigi Boitani and Paolo Ciucci
1.2 Ecological and Social Constraints of Wolf Recovery in Spain
Juan Carlos Blanco and Yolanda Cortés
1.3 Gray Wolf Conservation in the Great Lakes Region of
the United States
Adrian P. Wydeven, Randle L. Jurewicz, Timothy R. Van
Deelen, John Erb, James H. Hammill, Dean E. Beyer, Jr.,
Brian Roell, Jane E. Wiedenhoeft and David A. Weitz
1.4 e Art of Wolf Restoration in the Northwestern
United States: Where to Now?
Ed Bangs, Mike Jimenez, Carolyn Sime, Steve Nadeau
and Curt Mack
vii
ix
xiii
xix
1
15
41
69
95
vi A N E W P
Section II – Human Cultures and Ethics Inuencing
Recovering Wolves
2.1 Ethical Reections on Wolf Recovery and
Conservation: A Practical Approach for Making
Room for Wolves
Camilla H. Fox and Marc Beko
2.2 Compensation and Non-lethal Deterrent Programs:
Building Tolerance for Wolf Restoration in the Rockies
Suzanne A. Stone
2.3 Education as a Conservation Strategy: Exploring
Perspective Transformation
Denise Taylor
2.4 Working with People to Achieve Wolf Conservation in
Europe and North America
Alistair J. Bath
Literature Cited
Colour Photos
Index
117
141
161
173
201
235
269
LUIGI
BOITANI
MARCO
MUSIANI
PAUL C.
PAQUET
xiii
BOOK EDITOR S
LUIGI BOITANI, Dept. Animal and Human Biology, University of
Rome “La Sapienza,” Viale Università 32, 00185–Roma, Italy
Professor Boitani is the Head of the Department of Animal and Human
Biology at the University of Rome. He is President Elect of the Society
for Conservation Biology. He is also prominent in the Species Survival
Commission and in the Wolf Specialist Group of IUCN-World Conser-
vation Union. Professor Boitani conducted an extended series of research
and conservation projects on the Italian wolf population, which in the last
thirty years recovered from a dramatic bottleneck. Professor Boitani has
written more than two hundred peer-reviewed scientic publications and
eight books. He is a leading authority on wolves.
MARCO MUSIANI, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
Marco Musiani, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Landscape Ecology at
the University of Calgary and is also aliated with the University of Mon-
tana. He was born in Rome, the city of the famous she-wolf. Marco con-
ducted research and published several papers on wolf management in Italy
with “La Sapienza” University, the University of Siena, and the National
Research Council, in Poland with the Polish Academy of Sciences, and
internationally with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations. (Wolves kill livestock and this impacts food available to people.)
Currently, his research focuses on genetics and movements of wolves and
other large mammals in Canada and the United States.
Biographies for Editors,
Contributing Authors, and Artists
(drawings and photos of wild wolves only)
xiv A N E W P
PAUL C. PAQUET, Box 150, Meacham, Saskatchewan, S0K 2V0,
Canada
Paul Paquet, PhD, is an Adjunct Professor with the faculties of Biology and
Environmental Design at the University of Calgary. He is also aliated
with other universities in North America. Dr. Paquet has studied wolves
for more than thirty-ve years and is considered an authority on carnivore
ecology in general, with research experience in a number of regions of
the world. He has published more than a hundred peer-reviewed articles.
Dr. Paquet serves on various international government and NGO advisory
committees and was the founder and director of the Central Rockies Wolf
Project, Canmore, Canada.
CONTR IBU TI NG AUT HORS
EDWARD E. BANGS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 585 Shepard
Way, Helena, Montana, 59601, U.S.A.
Edward E. Bangs is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wolf Recovery
Coordinator for the northwestern United States. He has worked on wildlife
programs on wolf, lynx, brown and black bear, and wolverine. He has been
involved with the recovery and management of wolves in Montana, Idaho,
and Wyoming since 1988 and led the program to reintroduce wolves to
Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. He has published articles
on various wildlife management issues. His professional interests focus on
human values in wildlife management, conict resolution, and restoration
of ecological processes.
ALISTAIR J. BATH, Department of Geography, Memorial University
of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, A1B 3X9, Canada
Alistair Bath, PhD, is an Associate Professor within the University in
Newfoundland, where he teaches natural resources management is-
sues, conict resolution, and public involvement. Dr. Bath is a member
of the IUCN Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe and has conducted
xv
numerous projects throughout Europe focused on human dimensions in
wolf, brown bear, and lynx management. He also worked in North Amer-
ica on the reintroduction of wolves into the northwestern United States
and on carnivore conservation areas in Canada. Dr. Bath is considered a
leading authority in the human dimensions of wolf management.
MARC BEKOFF, University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado 80309,
U.S.A.
Marc Beko is a Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
at the University of Colorado. In 2000, he was awarded the Exemplar
Award from the Animal Behavior Society for major long-term contribu-
tions to the eld of animal behaviour. He is also the regional coordinator
for Jane Goodall’s Roots & Shoots program. Professor Beko’s main areas
of research include animal behaviour, cognitive ethology (the study of ani-
mal minds), and behavioural ecology. During his career, he has published
more than two hundred papers and eighteen books.
JUAN CARLOS BLANCO, Wolf Project–Conservation Biology Con-
sultants, C/ Manuela Malasaña 24, 28004, Madrid, Spain
Juan Carlos Blanco is a biologist with a PhD in Animal Ecology and has
been studying wolves in Spain since 1987. He is an advisor to the Minis-
try of the Environment on wolf conservation in Spain. Dr. Blanco is the
Director of the Wolf Project (Projecto Lobo) in Madrid. An important
part of his research has focused on wolf adaptation to densely-populated
habitats. He authored various books and articles on wolf biology, human
attitudes, and conservation of ecosystems inhabited by wolves.
CAMILLA H. FOX, Wildlife Consultant, P.O. Box 5007, Larkspur,
California, 94977, U.S.A.
Camilla H. Fox is a wildlife consultant and writer with over fteen years of
experience working on behalf of wildlife and wildlands in the United States
and internationally. Camilla holds a master’s degree in Environmental
Studies and has worked for several nonprot organizations including the
N C
xvi A N E W P
Fur-Bearer Defenders, the Rainforest Action Network, and the Animal
Protection Institute. In 2006, Camilla received the Humanitarian of the
Year Award from the Marin Humane Society and the Christine Stevens
Wildlife Award from the Animal Welfare Institute.
SUZANNE ASHA STONE, Northern Rockies Representative, De-
fenders of Wildlife, P.O. Box 773, Boise, Idaho, 83701, U.S.A.
Suzanne Asha Stone has worked since 1988 on wolf conservation in the
western United States. She administers Defenders’ wolf compensation
program in the northern Rockies. Suzanne is one of the founders of the
annual North American Wolf Conference (now in its twentieth year).
Suzanne holds a master’s degree in Wildlife Conservation and Conict
Management from Prescott College in Arizona. She received numerous
awards for her work, including the “Alpha Award,” presented by her peers
at the 2005 North American Wolf Conference.
DENISE TAYLOR, Education 4 Conservation Ltd., Hillcrest, Pailton
Fields, Pailton, Rugby, CV23 0Q J, U.K.
Denise Taylor is an environmental educator, entrepreneur, and wildlife
conservationist. She is an executive director of the UK Wolf Conservation
Trust (UKWCT, www.ukwolf.org) and founder and director of Educa-
tion 4 Conservation (www.education4conservation.org). Denise was the
founding editor of the UKWCT’s magazine, Wolf Print. She has been
instrumental in the completion of a Large Carnivore Education Centre
in Bulgaria. Denise is in the nal stages of her doctoral thesis on the role
of education in wild wolf conservation. She is also a panel member of the
Canid Specialist Group, IUCN-World Conservation Union.
ADRIAN P. WYDEVEN, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
875 South 4th Avenue, Park Falls, Wisconsin, 54552, U.S.A.
Adrian P. Wydeven is a Mammalian Ecologist with the state of Wiscon-
sin. He served as leader of the Wolf Program since 1990. Adrian also
serves on the Federal Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery Team. He authored
xvii
papers on wolf ecology and ecosystem management with a focus on preda-
tors, prey, and habitat and also on people, who often inuence ecological
relationships. In 2006, Adrian received the Outstanding Alumnus Award
from the College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens
Point, and in 2007 he was a member of a team that received a Cooperative
Conservation Award from the U.S. Department of the Interior.
ART ISTS d raw ing s and photos of w ild wolv es on ly).
PETER A. DETTLING, Terra Magica – Images of Peter A. Dettling,
Award-winning nature photography & paintings, Canmore, Alberta,
Canada, www.TerraMagica.ca
Peter A. Dettling was born in Sedrun, Switzerland in 1972. He is a mul-
tiple award-winning photographer and painter whose passion for the natu-
ral world has then taken him all over the globe. His images are regularly
published in various magazines, calendars, books, and gallery shows, such
as the world-renowned American Museum of Natural History in New
York, NY. e artist resides now near Ban National Park in Alberta,
Canada. To learn more about his work, check out his website at www.
TerraMagica.ca.
DAVID C. OLSON, David C. Olson Photography, Rockford, Illinois,
U.S.A. www.davidolsonphoto.com.
David nds that wildlife photography is a perfect marriage of his fascina-
tion with the natural world and his love of the arts. He sees his imagery as
playing a vital role in sharing both the beauty and the plight of the wolf.
His photographic journeys take him to remote and wild areas to witness
wolf behaviour and capture stunning photographs. David continues his
exploration of our vanishing wilderness with his camera, and his images
can be seen in publications worldwide. For this project, he produced sev-
eral photos, some of which inspired the wolf drawings also included in the
book.
N C
SUSAN SHIMELD, Nature in Fine Art, Larmer Tree Studio, Larmer
Tree Gardens, Tollard Royal, Nr. Salisbury, Wiltshire SP5 5PY U.K.
We contacted a number of wildlife artists to work on drawings for this
book. Su Shimeld was chosen and she completed one pencil drawing per
chapter, included under the chapter’s title. Su is an accomplished wildlife
artist – also see http://www.natureinart.com. Her work lends itself beauti-
fully to the ethos of the book. Su has studied wolf behaviour and produced
this book’s illustrations in a captive wolves’ facility, UK Wolf Conserva-
tion Trust. Each drawing took approximately ten days of work.
ROBERT J. WESELMANN, Raptor’s Roost Photography, Northwood,
Iowa, U.S.A.
Robert J. Weselmann has been photographing wolves since their re-in-
troduction into the Northern Rocky Mountains of the U.S.A.. He is the
co-author of Wild About Yellowstone, a book featuring wolves of Yel-
lowstone National Park. He is also the photographer of Wolfs of Northern
Yellowstone, a wolf identication chart for the packs living in the northern
range of the park. You can nd more of Bob’s work at www.robertwesel-
mann.com.
xix
ACK NOWLED GMENT S
is book would not be possible without Education 4 Conservation (www.
education4conservation.org), the UK Wolf Conservation Trust (www.uk-
wolf.org) and its director, Denise Taylor.
Special thanks go to Mimosa Arienzo, loved wife, who greatly sup-
ported the editors of this book, even while ghting terminal cancer.
e book took shape also during endless brainstorming with Tyler
Muhly and Byron Weckworth as well as with the other treasured graduate
students: Allan Mcdevitt, Astrid Vik Stronen, Carly Sponarski, Elisabetta
Tosoni, Hugh Robinson, Isabelle Laporte, James Rogala, Jenny Coleshill,
Joann Skilnick, Nick DeCesare, and Sk. Morshed Anwar.
We wish to acknowledge some key individuals and friends, who con-
tributed crucial information or assistance to the book project: Carolyn Cal-
laghan in particular, as well as Carita Bergman, Charles Mamo, Elisabetta
Visalberghi, Gary Sargent, Jesse Whittington, Joel Berger, Layla Neufeld,
Luigi Morgantini, Mark Bradley, Mark Hebblewhite, Mark Sherrington,
Nina Fascione, Piero Musiani, Roberta Mulders, Roger Creasey, Stefano
Mariani, Toni Shelbourne, the hunters of Alberta, the Northwest Territo-
ries and Nunavut, the ranchers of Alberta, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming,
and the wildlife ocers working with various Canadian provinces and
territories, in particular Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.
Various organizations supported some key aspects of this book project:
the Alberta Beef Producers, Alberta Conservation Association, Alberta
Ecotrust, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development and Community Development, Bailey Wildlife Foundation
Compensation Trust, BC Ministry of Forests, Biodiversity Challenge
Grants, Calgary Foundation, Calgary Zoological Society, Canadian As-
sociation of Petroleum Producers, Circumpolar/Boreal Alberta Research,
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy, Defenders of Wildlife, Depart-
ment of Indian and Northern Aairs Canada, Government of Canada
Award, Government of the Northwest Territories (Department of Envi-
ronment and Natural Resources), Humane Society United States, Izaak
Walton Killam Memorial, Kendall Foundation, Mountain Equipment
xx A N E W P
Coop, e National Science Foundation (USA), National Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Northern Scientic
Training Program Grant, Parks Canada, Shell, TD Canada Trust, TD
Friends of the Environment, United States Department of Agriculture-
Wildlife Services, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, University of
Rome, West Kitikmeot/Slave Study Society, Weyerhaueser Company,
Wilburforce Foundation, and World Wildlife Fund Canada.
Two anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments and ideas that
were incorporated in all chapters of this volume.
1
Introduction –
Newly Recovering Wolf Populations
Produce New Trends in Human
Attitudes and Policy
Marco Musiani, Luigi Boitani, and Paul C. Paquet
In Europe and in the conterminous United States, wolf populations have
been recovering since their protection in the 1970s. As part of the recovery,
wolves have recolonized regions from which they were absent for decades
and, in a few instances, centuries. Concomitant with this resurgence,
considerable eorts are ongoing to understand how humans and wolves
might coexist without excessive competition or conict. Addressing these
diculties has always been an essential but problematic part of wolf con-
servation eorts. Undoubtedly, the lessons now being learned are directly
applicable to conservation and management of wolves throughout the
world, particularly because the practical resolution of conicts can foster
tolerance toward wolves. More broadly, however, these lessons are helpful
for resolving the widespread tension and antagonism that exists between
wildlife in general and the expanding social and economic aspirations of
humans.
Because of the wolf’s remarkable ability to adapt to an extensive ar-
ray of environments, enhancing our comprehension of wolf/human rela-
tionships can serve to advance the conservation status of wolves, even in
densely populated regions of Europe and North America. Although wolves
in these areas continue to be aected by biological and physical factors,
the primary inuences are now the diverse socio-economic, political, and
ethical perspectives and ambitions of humans (i.e., “human dimensions”).
2A N E W P
e importance of these factors can be dramatic, has played a role histori-
cally, and will continue to aect a range of outcomes for wolf populations,
including persistence, recovery, and re-establishment.
is book comprises a set of case studies on how human attitudes
inuence management for recovering wolf populations. It is not an ex-
haustive review of attitudes or of wolf-management practices. However,
its in-depth examinations of single cases provide much to contemplate
concerning the scientic and socio-political realm of living with wolves
by illuminating the contemporary relationships between human attitudes,
public policy, and wolf ecology. e novel insights and fresh perspective
presented herein have the potential for reforming the way society in the
twenty-rst century evaluates and responds to the inevitable conicts be-
tween wolves and humans, particularly as the number of humans increases
and wolf populations recover.
Wolves are one of the most admired, reviled, and controversial carni-
vores the world over. Public perceptions and attitudes toward wolves vary
depending on the temporal and spatial context. Dierences in opinions
are extreme, from outright hatred and opposition, to deep respect and
reverence. Moreover, these attitudes vary when compared across regional,
national, and international groups, as well as temporally. Consequently,
elucidating general trends in social attitudes toward wolves is a compli-
cated endeavour and a worthwhile research area (Bruskotter et al. 2007;
Karlsson and Sjöström 2007; Stronen et al. 2007).
Human attitudes toward wolves continue to be studied across the
wolf’s vast geographic range, which covers a diverse socio-political and
public assemblage. Understanding attitudes is important for evaluating
and measuring early changes and trends in wildlife management and
conservation in general. For example, the controversial reintroduction of
wolves to the northwestern United States in 1995–96, and the subsequent
recovery of wolf populations described by Bangs et al. and Stone in this
volume, catalyzed a global discussion about management of wolves and a
new awareness concerning coexisting with wolves. A dozen years later,
the debate and public awareness has not subsided. Accordingly, many
people are now well versed in wolf-management issues and the distinctive
3
I
problems that wolves can create for humans engaged in activities such as
production of livestock.
POLIT ICAL CON TE XTS CONTR IBU TI NG TO
WOLF RECOVERY A ND PUBL IC OPINION
SW INGS
Since the latter part of the twentieth century, ecologists and most of the
public have recognized that wolves are important components of vigorous
biological systems. However, it has taken until now for governments and
interest groups to promote the recovery and reintroduction of wolves back
to areas where they were previously endangered or extirpated. Section I
of this book is centred entirely on coexistence of humans with wolves in
this modern context of wolf protection, recolonization, and reintroduc-
tion. Across most of Europe and the conterminous United States, wolf
populations are rebounding from human persecution with their numbers
and ranges increasing. Several factors have been identied as causes of
these positive trends, including increased tolerance of wolves by humans,
restored wolf habitat, and increasing wild prey populations. Notwith-
standing these successes, wolves in some regions are still vulnerable to
extirpation owing to isolation and small population sizes. Accordingly,
recovering wolves often live in highly fragmented landscapes that are typi-
cally occupied and used by humans, where a stable pattern of coexistence
has yet to be realized.
Chapters by Boitani and Ciucci, Blanco and Cortés, and Bangs et al.
highlight the diculties of managing one of the most contentious conicts
between wolves and humans, the depredation of livestock. Although many
government programs allow for compensation of the market value of losses
due to wolf attacks on livestock, illegal killing of wolves remains a prob-
lem. Wherever wolves and livestock exist together, there is an increased
likelihood of wolves being killed, either legally or illegally. Wolf control
is applied with mixed results in Europe and North America (this volume;
Harper et al. 2008).
4A N E W P
In Europe and North America, wolves occupy some areas with good
quality habitat. ey are, however, naturally compelled to move great dis-
tances through inhospitable areas, where conict is increased and survival
decreased due to human-caused mortality (Blanco and Cortés, this vol-
ume). Consequently, limited landscape connectivity and lack of genetic ex-
change among scattered populations adversely aect population viability.
European countries in particular are geographically small and cannot sup-
port wolf populations of sucient size to ensure persistence. Rather, wolf
populations require unrestricted movement throughout multiple countries
to endure the imposing threats of ever-expanding human enterprise. Ac-
cording to Boitani and Ciucci, coordinating wolf management across na-
tional boundaries might be the solution to sustain wolf populations across
all of Europe. Such an approach could address concerns about connectivity
and the maintenance of genetic diversity by establishing a broader spatial
context for conservation management.
is book describes in detail the recovery plans for wolf population in
two dierent regions of North America (Wydeven et al. and Bangs et al.,
respectively). Wydeven et al. demonstrate the success of a multi-jurisdic-
tional management plan coordinated across a number of states in the Great
Lakes region of the United States. Wolf recovery in the region was assisted
and made possible by the participation and highly coordinated eorts of
governments, NGOs, private interest groups, and businesses potentially
aected by the presence of wolves. ese eorts resulted in the formula-
tion of management rules harmonized across a large region, eectively
dissolving the geo-political borders that are meaningless to wolves. is
process of coordination lasted three decades and was characterized by
varying levels of agreement among interest groups and decision makers.
Consequently, wolf populations in the region are now quite robust and
unlikely to become endangered in the near future. However, the authors
also identify unsettled public opinion as a major challenge for the future.
Nowhere are the problems posed by divided public opinion better
demonstrated than in the contentious wolf issues described by Bangs et al.
in the northwestern United States. is is a region where wolves were once
extirpated and following reintroductions are now considered “endangered”
5
I
under federal legislation. Although their legal status remains litigious, re-
gional wolf populations are now widely considered out of imminent peril.
Whether these wolves are recovered and should now be legally designated
as “threatened” rather than “endangered,” from a biological or legal per-
spective, is a point of ongoing and unresolved debate (Bangs et al.; Morell
2008). is potential legal transition is primarily motivated by the federal
government’s determination that stated recovery goals for healthy wolf
populations have been achieved. A ‘threatened’ status clears the way for
greater exibility in killing wolves for management and recreation, activi-
ties strongly advocated by aected states and interest groups. Accordingly,
wolves could be killed to protect livestock and wolf hunting and trapping
is being proposed in state government management plans. However, ad-
vocacy for protecting wolves is equally strong, with various environmental
groups contesting the government’s recovery goals as insucient to ensure
the continued persistence of wolf populations. ese dierent views could
result in policy decisions driven by incongruent socio-political inuences
and thus disparate and inconsistent multi-jurisdictional management
strategies. Such an outcome would be a stark contrast to the coherent
wolf-management policies in the Great Lakes region of the United States,
but perhaps a hint of diculties to be faced by those eager to coordinate
recovery eorts across Europe.
Boitani and Ciucci identify and outline common patterns of wolf con-
servation, which, if recognized and incorporated into management, could
lead to developing and informing long-term plans, thus heading o and
preventing the debacle of inconsistencies between the short-term and local
strategies mentioned above. ey maintain that wolf conservation goals
are scale-dependent and at least ve types should be recognized; spatial,
temporal, demographic, taxonomic, and ethical. Indeed, wolf conserva-
tion actions can be very dierent depending on the scale we choose to
work (e.g., local, short-term plans vs. regional, long-term approaches). e
authors further emphasize that successful wolf conservation will require
broad-scale spatial consideration, as well as a wide temporal and demo-
graphic approach to address the diversity of public views that change over
time.
6A N E W P
Boitani and Ciucci’s emphasis on biological populations rather than di-
visions based on ecologically irrelevant national boundaries is particularly
applicable to the European wolf meta-population. e framework applies
similarly to emerging meta-populations of wolves in the contiguous United
States, as well as other regions of the globe where there is a need to plan
for management of recovering populations – a new scenario deserving new
approaches. e strength of a meta-population approach to wolf conserva-
tion and management is that it engages land use planning and policy at
the highest levels. In Europe, for example, decisions must be agreed upon
and made through continent-wide directives approved by and enacted
by the European Commission. Wolves are also aected by administra-
tive policies seemingly unrelated to wolves, adding an additional level of
pragmatic complexity to wolf management. Among the policies important
for wolf conservation are those relating to human health and veterinary
care, agriculture, and protected areas. Many of these policies are radically
changing the way millions of farmers aect the land, resulting in extensive
and biologically relevant changes to an already highly modied landscape.
Although the consequence of these policies to wolf management may be
obvious, conservation programs often operate blindly, focusing on small
geographic areas, short time spans, and narrow policy perspectives (e.g., a
protected area or an anti-hunting campaign). To surmount this problem,
managers and conservationists must be willing to acknowledge and strive
to understand the complexities of biosocial systems. Clearly, this is a di-
cult task, particularly in the unprecedented circumstances of wolf recovery
where populations have been reduced or eradicated.
CULTUR ES A ND ETH ICS FAVOUR ING WOL F
RECOVERY, AND CONFL ICTS W ITH HU M AN
INT ERES TS
Predators, particularly wolves, are often considered to be ‘keystone spe-
cies’; that is, a species that inuences an ecosystem at a greater magni-
tude than its proportion of biomass or numerical representation within
7
I
that environment. In most parts of the world, however, humans trump
wolves as the most important keystone species. Moreover, people have
the capacity, deliberately and selectively, to cause specic changes. us,
humans must be considered as a dominant factor in the functioning and
coevolution of interspecic relationships within dierent environments. In
Section II of the book, we describe how humans choose to inuence eco-
systems through wolf-management initiatives and conservation plans. In
addition, we explore the common and emerging trends that now charac-
terize the complex interactions of diverse human cultures, environmental
ethics, and management decisions. us, we consider how dierent human
communities aect wolves and the ecosystems that support them, as well
as the inuence wolves exert on human culture.
e scale of cultures and economies associated with recovering wolf
populations has a striking geographic and political range, varying from
densely populated rural and urban areas of Europe (Boitani and Ciucci;
Blanco and Cortés) to low density ranching and farming communities in
North America (Bangs et al.; Wydeven et al.). e current array of wolf-
management and conservation strategies is equally expansive, ranging
from full protection (in theory) to indiscriminate killing of wolves deemed
as threats to livestock. Somewhere in between is the management of wolf
populations for commercial and recreational hunting and trapping. e
ways in which various societies have responded to wolves reect millennia
of cultural and emotional responses that in some cases have manifested
from deeply rooted beliefs that wolves are harbingers of ill will and evil.
In others, well-established and evolving cultural traditions promote the
importance of wolves in the innate balance of wild nature. At the modern
cultural extremes, wolves are now considered as indispensable predators
that are integral to robust ecosystems or dangerous ‘pests’ that should be
permanently cleansed from the earth. Consequently, the range of man-
agement and conservation initiatives can be extreme over time and space.
For example, wolves are protected throughout most of the EU. Yet, when
these animals leave the political boundaries of the EU, their protection
vanishes and they are often killed by hunters or agents of non-EU govern-
ments. Likewise, wolves that are fully protected by federal legislation in
8A N E W P
the northwestern United States are aorded little or no protection once
they cross into Canada. Even within the same geographic location, dif-
ference in management from one political regime to the next can aect
wolves dierently. For example, before the establishment of the EU in
Eastern Europe, hunting of wolves was liberal, but afterwards wolves were
fully protected.
In this volume, Fox and Beko examine the philosophical founda-
tions of various wolf-management decisions and the ethical implications
of dierent approaches to conservation and management. is chapter and
those by Taylor and Bath reconsider the seminal work of Aldo Leopold
and all agree that the connection between people and wolves is illustrative
of a much broader relationship between people and nature. Accordingly,
many people worldwide now view wolves as an essential part of the natural
environment, the iconic embodiment of wild and untamed lands. Most
people are supportive of wolf presence in remote wilderness areas and are
convinced of the importance of having wolves as part of the natural food
web.
Assuming that the contemporary goal of conservation is to maintain
free-ranging and self-sustaining populations of wildlife amidst human-
dominated landscapes, then conservation eorts must focus on sustaining
the natural environment while meeting human needs. Because of the ever-
increasing burden of human demands, coexistence is a dicult objective to
achieve, yet essential for self-sustaining wolf populations. When wolves live
close to human settlements, human–wolf cultural relationships profoundly
inuence wolf management. As noted previously, and explained in detail
in this volume by Stone, some people disdain or fear wolves because wolves
aect, or are perceived to aect, their special interests. Ironically, the spe-
cies regarded by many as a threat and menace to our survival, has turned
out to be a test of how likely we are to achieve a sustainable relationship
with the natural world that supports our own continued existence.
Compensation programs are widely used to address conicts by re-
imbursing livestock owners for their depredation losses. However, these
programs are met with concern and scepticism on both sides of the issue.
Wolf supporters maintain that these programs do little to reduce eectively
9
I
the primary causes of conict and do not enhance wolf conservation goals.
Livestock producers are cautious of these initiatives, as the programs typi-
cally necessitate clear evidence that wolves are responsible for the depreda-
tion, a requirement that is often dicult to realize. Stone analyzes a com-
pensation program administered by Defenders of Wildlife, an American
wildlife conservation organization that reimburses livestock owners for
their losses to wolves in the western United States. e author designed a
survey that was sent to all livestock owners who received wolf compensa-
tion payments for documented losses. Although respondents still objected
to wolf presence in their area, most reported that their tolerance to wolves
would be even less if they did not receive compensation. Furthermore, how
compensation programs aect the attitudes of ranchers and farmers who
have not received compensation remains to be seen. Regardless, attitudes
toward wolves within this interest group are generally against wolf recov-
ery programs and the challenge remains to nd a compromise that ensures
viable, self-sustaining wolf populations.
Worldwide, wildlife management is typically the responsibility and
jurisdiction of various government bodies. However, as new and eective
conservation strategies emerge concurrently with research conducted by
non-governmental individuals and organizations, these groups are provid-
ing increased knowledge and understanding, and adding valued contribu-
tions to government agencies. In this regard, the adaptation and applica-
tion of participatory wildlife management, which began about forty years
ago, is rapidly becoming the norm for the twenty-rst century. is book
describes how scientists, government agencies, conservation groups, ranch-
ers, shepherds, hunters, trappers, and others in the public now collectively
contribute to wolf management and conservation. e collaboration of
these disparate groups necessitates a diversied approach to conservation
and management. is book describes the consequent complexities and
variations in wolf-management practices as a direct result of reconciling
the diverse involvement of such heterogeneous collaboration. Accordingly,
various chapters present somewhat dierent languages and styles; the
product of the many disciplinary approaches that now contribute directly
and indirectly to the management of wolves. Topically, chapters by Boitani
10 A N E W P
and Ciucci, by Stone, and by Fox and Beko, analyze the shift toward
collective wolf management from policy, public opinion, and ethical per-
spectives, respectively.
As demonstrated by Naughton-Treves et al. (2003) and explained by
Fox and Beko (this volume), the strongest predictor of tolerance for wolves
is the social group to which one belongs. Hunters, livestock producers, and
other interest groups have a unique culture and set of values that inuences
their lack of tolerance for wolf presence. However, another very important
indicator closely linked with wolf tolerance is level of education. us, a
priority for wolf recovery eorts must include fostering educational pro-
grams to inform the public (see Taylor, this volume).
In 1944, Adolph Murie published e Wolves of Mount McKinley
(University of Washington Press, Seattle), which many consider the rst
modern synthesis of wolf ecology and behaviour. at same year, Stanley
Young and Edward Goldman published e Wolves of Mount McKinley
(Dover Publications, New York), which was a scientic landmark for wolf
biology, ecology, taxonomy, and management. Since these rst two con-
temporary literary and scientic works, a vast assortment of informative
books and hundreds of journal articles have been published. Although
primarily focused on North America, these publications have been dis-
tributed internationally. In addition, ‘wolf specialists’ typically attend
conferences each year to disseminate and share knowledge gained through
scientic inquiry to a broader audience. Various large-sized conferences
have also been organized that have focused specically on wolf-related is-
sues. More recently, wolf-related websites have proliferated on the internet
and numerous wolf magazines are now distributed throughout the world,
providing a layperson’s venue for wolf literature and information. In ad-
dition, numerous lm documentaries have been produced about wolves
and wolves have been featured in documentaries about other species or
broader natural history topics. Because of the proliferation of these various
media, the opportunities for educational resources for the public are raised
substantially. In this volume, Taylor shows how wolves are being used in
education programs as a ‘conservation strategy.’ A practical discussion of
wolf issues enlightens participants not only on wolf-specic issues but also
11
I
to broader problems relating to ecosystem functioning and the importance of
conserving ecosystems and maintaining biodiversity across trophic levels.
At the local level, wolf recovery can be inuenced by people motivated
by a complicated blend of economic, social, and cultural factors (Bath, this
volume). Because the viability of most wolf populations is now determined
by dynamic ecological factors mediated by human aspirations, the authors
of this volume conclude that successful management strategies must em-
brace a wide range of expertise and perspectives. is is most reliably ac-
complished by combining the diverse skills of conservation specialists with
the traditional knowledge of individuals and local communities.
In his chapter, Bath discusses a comprehensive approach to wolf man-
agement. e approach is explained with practical examples, mainly from
Europe, where recovery of wolf populations is considered a priority. Bath
discusses how “human dimensions” comprise a eld of research that can
help identify public attitudes and beliefs toward wolf-management issues,
thus providing valuable insights to decision makers and managers. In addi-
tion, he describes human dimensions as a facilitated workshop strategy that
can resolve issues, moving the public closer to coexistence with wolves.
Social research is revealing armative outlooks toward wolves from
people in many parts of the world, whether in examining hunter’s attitudes
in Croatia or Poland or the attitudes of teenagers in Spain. Bath also takes
the reader across Europe and parts of North America, where wolves are
also recovering, sharing results of human dimensions research focused on
public attitudes of various interest groups toward the species. He compares
interest groups across space, illustrating regional dierences, showing how
attitudes are changing in some countries and illustrating that attitudes can
often vary within an interest group, as well as across interest groups. is
chapter also oers a real-world example of how to turn research into con-
servation, by bringing groups together and developing a wolf-management
plan in Croatia. In the Croatian model, wolf management and human
dimensions are integrated with a facilitated workshop approach. is is the
rst time that scholarly research on the social aspects of human and wolf
relationships has coalesced and that the eld of human dimensions in wolf
conservation and recovery has been so explicitly described.
12 A N E W P
Our book conrms that diculties associated with wolf recovery and
conservation reect fundamental problems facing contemporary society’s
struggle to coexist with wild nature. is volume is illustrated with origi-
nal drawings that artistically convey the strong ecological and emotional
values inherent in this struggle. For wolves, the pending social question is
what probability of species persistence and environmental quality is accept-
able to society while maintaining compatibility with economic necessities.
e answer unsatisfactorily varies, depending on which sector of the public
is queried. Yet this pattern, with minor local variations, is fundamentally
similar throughout the world where wolves or other large predators are
present. Because of the ubiquity of this pattern, we believe that our book
will be of value and interest to those concerned primarily with wolf man-
agement and conservation, as well as readers who seek to understand and
appreciate the problems facing conservation in the twenty-rst century.
141
2.2 Compensation and
Non-lethal Deterrent Programs:
Building Tolerance for Wolf
Restoration in the Rockies
Suzanne A. Stone
INT RODUC TION: WOLVE S IN THE NORTHER N
ROCKIES
In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed ve al-
ternative plans ranging from “no wolves” to reintroduction of wolves with
full-endangered species status and protection, which received more than
160,000 comments from all fty U.S. states and forty countries, one of
the largest public comment responses received on any wildlife restoration
action ever proposed by the agency. Among the alternatives for reintro-
ducing wolves was a “non-essential” status allowed under section 10(j) of
the Endangered Species Act. is alternative, the most favoured of all
the plans, included a provision that would allow wolves that preyed on
livestock to be moved or killed, in order to protect regional livestock pro-
ducers. During 1995 and 1996, wolves were reintroduced to central Idaho
and Yellowstone National Park (USFWS et al. 2007; Bangs et al., this
volume). Naturally recolonizing wolves are also present in northwest Mon-
tana. Finally, dispersing wolves have been found in Oregon, Washington,
Utah, and, most recently, Colorado, although there is no conrmation that
wolves are forming packs or reproducing in these states.
142 A N E W P
As wolf populations increase, their eect on the ecosystems becomes
stronger, as shown by the wolf’s role in culling weak and old elk and other
ungulates (Smith et al. 2003) and reducing the long-term concentration of
elk herds on sensitive meadows and wetlands (Ripple and Beshta 2004).
With less grazing pressure from elk, streambed vegetation such as willow
and aspen appear to be regenerating after decades of over-browsing. As the
vegetation regrows, it improves habitat for native birds, sh, beaver, and
other species.
However, as wolves returned in the northern Rockies, the age-old
conicts that led to their original demise also re-emerged. First among
these conicts is the issue of livestock losses to wolves. Annually, wolves
kill less than 0.1 per cent of livestock within their range (Bangs et al.,
this volume). According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(2006) report, 95.3 per cent of livestock death losses were due to disease,
bad weather, theft, poisoning, etc. In regard to predation losses, “Coyotes
and dogs caused the majority of cattle and calf [predator] losses, account-
ing for 51.1% and 11.5% respectively.” Wolves attributed less than 3 per
cent of the estimated overall predator losses. However, wolf conicts are
commonly sensationalized by local media and these stories rarely report
on other causes of loss, heightening the perceived damages by wolves and
undermining public support for wolf conservation. Livestock owners also
experience anxiety over the added threat of livestock losses posed by the
presence of wolves (Fritts et al. 2003). To minimize conict, government
agencies often kill wolves that prey on livestock to prevent additional dep-
redations (Bangs et al., this volume). Often agency managers attempt to
target individual “problem” wolves that develop a penchant for killing.
COMPENSATION TO A DDRESS WOL F A N D
HU MA N CONF LICT S
Wolf compensation programs to reimburse livestock owners for their
losses are aimed at reducing conicts associated with livestock losses. Most
programs are administered and funded by government agencies and are,
143
.: C N- D P
1 Wolves in India are accorded schedule ‘1’ endangered species status under the Indian Wildlife
Protection Act of 1972 and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES).
in some countries, the only means of addressing conicts with wolves.
ese programs generally function to reimburse farmers and ranchers for
livestock losses that are attributed to wolves but vary in type of animals
covered, amount of compensation paid, compensation recipients, proof re-
quired for verication, sources of funding, and government versus private
administration.
e issue of compensation was addressed during the 2003 World Wolf
Congress held in Ban, Canada. Biologists reported that the Spanish
government expends more than US$1 million annually for a population
of less than three thousand wolves, the Italian government program reim-
bursement includes losses to bears, wolves, and feral dogs, and in Sweden,
most livestock are compensated at market value with a standard compensa-
tion for hunting dogs at US$1,000. Some Swedish villages receive a xed
amount (normally US$100,000–US$150,000 annually) for reindeer dep-
redation losses based on the presence of wolves. ough nearly all sheep
are kept in fenced enclosures, there is increased interest in using electric
fencing to reduce predation, which would in turn reduce funding needed
for compensation. e Swedish government subsidizes about US$300,000
of electric fencing costs for farmers. In Slovakia, approximately 85 per cent
of the country’s 300,000 plus domestic sheep are raised within range of the
country’s more than a thousand wolves. e traditional system for raising
sheep is in pastures, and sheep are gathered at night to be milked. Flocks
average four to ve hundred sheep with four to six shepherds per ock who
work on a rotational system. Until 2002, there was no compensation for
losses, but a new law was recently established allowing for compensation
to livestock owners but remained unfunded when the program was initi-
ated. An estimated four to six hundred sheep are killed by wolves annu-
ally, equal to US$25,000–50,000. Several countries, including for example
Bulgaria, Romania, and India, do not have compensation programs and
wolf conicts remain largely addressed through lethal control of wolves or
are not addressed at all (see India, where wolves are protected).1
144 A N E W P
In 1987, Defenders of Wildlife, an American-based environmental
organization, initiated the rst privately funded livestock compensation
program of its kind in North America to reimburse livestock owners for
wolf-caused losses while wolves are under federal protection. e idea
originated from William Mott, a former National Park Service director,
who in 1985 encouraged Defenders of Wildlife to consider private com-
pensation for livestock losses as a way to build tolerance for wolves. While
other types of compensation programs worldwide are typically adminis-
tered by government agencies, none of the federal agencies involved in
wolf restoration had legal authority to create a compensation program to
reimburse private livestock owners. To date, the Bailey Wildlife Founda-
tion Wolf Compensation Fund, named in honour of its largest contributor,
has reimbursed ranchers more than $700,000 in the northern Rockies for
their livestock losses to wolves.
By acknowledging that wolf conservation is largely dependent on
the tolerance of local residents, the compensation program has achieved
success in maintaining more local acceptance of wolves than would exist
without the program. Ranchers, biologists, conservationists, local govern-
ment leaders, and others actively endorse the intent and eectiveness of the
program, but there are still concerns about its limitations. For example, it
is not possible to document every wolf depredation, which is necessary for
receiving compensation, and some undetected losses may still have signi-
cant impacts for some ranchers (Oakleaf et al. 2003). In a study conducted
on a cattle allotment in a mountainous region of Idaho with high vegeta-
tion and low human presence, researchers determined that under these
remote conditions less than one in six wolf kills may be documented by
investigators (ibid.).
Another common allegation made against compensation programs is
that most ranchers either refuse or are denied compensation for conrmed
depredations. However, this is not borne out by the facts. Since the pro-
gram’s inception in 1987, USFWS reports that wolves were “conrmed”
to have killed 528 cattle, 1,318 sheep, 83 dogs, 12 goats, 9 llamas, and 6
horses. During that same period, Defenders of Wildlife has paid livestock
owners for 488 cattle, 1,418 sheep, 30 dogs (Defenders of Wildlife pays
145
.: C N- D P
only for livestock guard and herding dogs), 10 goats, 6 llamas, and 5 horses.
Defenders of Wildlife’s program also pays 50 per cent of the market value
for “probable” losses, which have included an additional 102 cattle, 228
sheep, and 4 dogs. ese statistics demonstrate that most livestock owners
who experience veried depredation losses to wolves do seek and receive
compensation for their conrmed losses. e additional sheep losses paid
by Defenders of Wildlife represent a hundred sheep that either died later
of injuries or mature unborn lambs, which were not reported to USFWS.
EVALUAT ING THE WOLF COMPENSATION
PRO GR A M
In an eort to determine the eectiveness of this compensation program as
a tool for promoting wolf conservation, data were gathered from a survey
sent to all wolf compensation recipients in the U.S. northern Rockies dur-
ing 2002 to 2004 (n = 138). By comparing livestock losses reported by the
USFWS with those submitted to Defenders of Wildlife for compensation
over this time period, it was determined that the losses suered by these
compensation recipients represent approximately 90 per cent of total docu-
mented losses during this three-year period. ese survey recipients also
represented a majority of the livestock owners with veried livestock losses
to wolves from 1987 to 2004. ese surveys were only sent to individu-
als who received compensation, which restricted the scope of the research
ndings to those with veried losses. Because wolf restoration is highly
controversial in the region, attempts to contact recipients were limited to
a single survey solicitation in order to reduce the likelihood that local me-
dia or word of mouth communication about the survey may inuence its
results. Despite limited solicitation, 44 per cent (n = 61) of those surveyed
returned their completed questionnaires, demonstrating high interest in
the issue.
146 A N E W P
COMPONEN TS OF T HE COM PENSAT ION
PRO GR A M
Defenders of Wildlife’s compensation program is structured to reimburse
livestock owners for the fair market value of veried livestock lost to wolves
and to oer these payments in a timely manner. e program relies on
the assistance of the United States Department of Agriculture–Wildlife
Services (USDA–WS) agency, to professionally investigate claims of losses
and accurately report their ndings. at agency’s mission is to provide
federal leadership for resolving conicts with wildlife (USDA–WS 2003).
In cooperation with USFWS, state and tribal agencies, USDA–WS eld
investigators determine the cause of death of livestock and can implement
non-lethal and lethal control measures to avoid or reduce depredation
losses.
Livestock owners who seek compensation and meet the criteria for con-
rmed losses are paid 100 per cent of the market value (typically the peak
price) up to $3,000 per animal, at an average expected weight (Defenders
of Wildlife 2004). For example, a young calf has a reduced value, compared
to when it matures months later, as most beef cattle are purchased by the
pound. For losses that are determined to be “probable” wolf depredations,
the program compensates livestock owners for 50 per cent of the market
value. Under the denitions established by USDA–WS, “conrmed” dep-
redations occur when there is “reasonable physical evidence that an animal
was actually attacked” by wolves and “probable” depredations are classied
as “some reasonable evidence exists but not enough to clearly conrm the
cause of the species that killed or injured the animal” (USDA–WS 2003).
Livestock currently covered by the program include cattle, sheep, goats,
llamas, mules, horses, donkeys, pigs, fowl, and livestock guarding and
herding dogs (Defenders of Wildlife 2004).
147
.: C N- D P
DISCUSSION OF F INDINGS
Cattle owners represented 71 per cent (n = 44) of the total survey respon-
dents, followed by 18 per cent sheep producers (n = 11), and 5 per cent
horse owners (n = 3). Single respondents reported losses for a goat, llama,
and a livestock dog (n = 3). Although sheep losses to wolves are greater
numerically than cattle losses, these gures reect a representative propor-
tion of livestock owners experiencing wolf depredations (i.e., more cattle
producers experience wolf depredations than sheep producers, but more
sheep are typically killed per depredation occurrence). Seventy per cent of
respondents stated that they have raised livestock for more than thirty years
(n = 43). e survey respondents reported receiving information about the
compensation program from USFWS (29%), USDA–WS (28%), a state
agency (19%), or news media (10%). Almost all (98%) stated that they
received adequate information in order to le their compensation claim.
e survey recipients also held quite strong opposition to wolves, with
80 per cent objecting to wolves in their area (n = 49). Despite their animos-
ity toward the species, more than two-thirds (69%) stated that they were
“somewhat satised” (n = 28) or “highly satised” (n = 14) with the amount
of compensation that they received for their losses, while only 23 per cent
stated they were “somewhat dissatised” (n = 9) or “highly dissatised” (n
= 5; Fig. 2.2.1).
ose who expressed dissatisfaction most commonly identied lack of
compensation for unconrmed or missing livestock as their primary con-
cern. e issue of missing livestock is often raised as the leading complaint
about the existing compensation program and is one of the most dicult to
address as these losses cannot be attributed exclusively to wolves. Livestock
commonly went missing before wolves returned to the region, and there
is no reliable method to distinguish wolf losses from other causes, such as
disease, poisoning, old age, birth defects, straying, or theft.
Most respondents (80%) asserted that they were using non-lethal
preventative methods. e most common methods they reported were
increased human surveillance, such as range riders, and shepherds (66%),
carcass removal (39%), alternate grazing (26%), and use of guard dogs
148 A N E W P
(21%). With the exception of carcass removal, respondents rated these and
non-lethal munitions (cracker shells, rubber bullets) as the most eective
deterrents in reducing wolf depredations. Most respondents (59%) stated
that they wanted more information about non-lethal deterrents. ese sur-
vey ndings revealed an important social factor for the wolf reintroduction
program, as they indicated that even the people strongly opposed to wolves
are still willing to try ways to co-exist with them.
Other studies have suggested that compensation does not necessarily
increase tolerance for wolves (Linnell and Brøseth 2003; Naughton-Treves
et al. 2003; Nemtzov 2003) and addressing this issue was a particularly
important aspect of the survey. In the rst question regarding tolerance,
survey respondents were asked if receiving compensation increased their
tolerance for wolves. More than 60 per cent said it did not increase their
Figure 2.2.1. Responses obtained on level of satisfaction with amount compensated from a sur-
vey sent to wolf compensation recipients in the U.S. northern Rockies during 2002 to 2004 (n
= 61).
149
.: C N- D P
tolerance for wolves. However, a second question asked how their tolerance
toward wolves would be aected if the compensation program were to
end. is time, nearly the exact same ratio (59%) stated that their toler-
ance for wolves would decrease from “lower” (7%) to “signicantly lower”
(52%), marking a sharp decline in tolerance toward wolves by nearly two-
thirds of the survey respondents. Lastly, survey respondents were asked if
they agreed that Defenders of Wildlife’s compensation program should be
ended. Not a single respondent agreed, with 66 per cent strongly disagree-
ing, and, in fact, nearly all respondents (80%) wanted to see the compensa-
tion program continue after wolf management passes from federal to state
management (Fig. 2.2.2).
Compensation for losses has a benecial impact on livestock owners’
tolerance toward wolves as well as providing important economic relief to
those bearing the direct losses of wolf restoration. At a minimum, these
survey results demonstrate that compensation can prevent erosion of toler-
ance among the stakeholder group most opposed to (and most aected by)
wolf restoration.
Figure 2.2.2. Responses obtained on continuation of a compensation program from a survey sent
to wolf compensation recipients in the U.S. northern Rockies during 2002 to 2004 (n = 61).
150 A N E W P
CONSIDERATIONS F OR COMPENSATION
PRO GR A MS
Administering Defenders of Wildlife’s wolf compensation program is
extremely challenging. Unlike many government programs, it relies exclu-
sively on donations and grants for funding. Wolves are currently popular,
which makes raising these funds easier than for less charismatic species but
still requires signicant organizational resources. However, the public’s at-
traction to charismatic species waxes and wanes, which may aect long-
term support for the compensation program. is is also a limiting factor
that could weigh in favour of government-administered programs that may
be capable of relying on more stable funding sources.
Laws and management decisions aecting wolf conservation change as
a result of new administrations, growth in wolf population numbers, and
new management personnel. ese changes have impacted Defenders of
Wildlife’s compensation program by reducing incentives to maintain con-
servation objectives. For example, under the original reintroduction section
10(j) rule established through the Endangered Species Act, federal wolf
managers were legally required to “exhaust all non-lethal control” before
being allowed to use lethal control. In 2005, this rule was modied and the
USFWS entirely dropped the requirement to exhaust non-lethal control
in Idaho and Montana. Wolves in the reintroduction areas of these states
have signicantly less legal protection than those generations before them,
but the criterion for our compensation program remained unchanged: re-
cipients are still required to utilize reasonable non-lethal methods in order
to qualify. If a livestock owner or agency representative were to kill wolves
without attempting reasonable non-lethal alternatives, the livestock owner
may be ineligible to receive compensation. Consequently, compensation
may provide an incentive for non-lethal alternatives and improved animal
husbandry.
One of the most important elements of any compensation program is
protecting against fraudulent or misidentied claims. Agency eld inves-
tigators use a wide range of reporting forms and submit varying degrees
of detail about the investigations, making it harder to evaluate claims in a
151
.: C N- D P
consistent manner. On occasion, reports are submitted without the neces-
sary details to determine whether the report meets the standard criteria for
conrmed or probable depredations. ese problems delay or can prevent
payments, which increases conict and undermines the value of the com-
pensation program. It is critically important that problems like these are
carefully monitored and addressed; otherwise a program’s success can be
jeopardized.
Compensation programs must be carefully structured to avoid ad-
versely impacting the species they are meant to benet. eoretically, the
availability of compensation could be detrimental to wildlife conservation
in certain situations by preserving economically unsustainable livestock
producers or by creating new economic opportunities that encourage loss
of wildlife habitat (Bulte and Rondeau 2005). Another potential pitfall
is encouraging irresponsible animal husbandry practices when livestock
owners know they will be paid for losses, even when they don’t adequately
protect their livestock from predation. Like the requirement for reasonable
use of non-lethal methods, these programs should be structured to pro-
mote the use of best management practices by landowners. Compensation
programs also need adequate insulation from political pressures that may
undermine conservation objectives in lieu of economic or social percep-
tions and objectives.
It is not possible to document every wolf depredation and this continues
to be a most contentious problem. While intensive agency investigations
and wolf monitoring likely result in a lower rate of undetected wolf losses
compared to other types of livestock losses, conrmed wolf losses should
still be considered minimum numbers (Oakleaf et al. 2003). However, fear
of wolves tends to promote exaggerated estimates of wolf–livestock dep-
redations. Kills by other carnivores (especially coyote, Canis latrans) are
misattributed to wolves, and missing animals (especially calves, lambs) are
falsely blamed on wolves (Fritts 1982). Without close investigative scru-
tiny, wolves may account for only 20–50 per cent of depredations for which
they are held liable (Zimen and Boitani 1979), which could diminish the
eectiveness of a compensation program with respect to both economic
aordability and public trust in the program.
152 A N E W P
In isolated areas with limited resources, a recently developed pilot
incentive program for snow leopards in south and central Asia operates
much like an insurance program by requiring local livestock owners to
contribute part of the program’s funding base. e program is also subsi-
dized by international contributions from snow leopard conservation sup-
porters, which provides for the majority of funding for compensation and
deterrents to help farmers avoid depredations (Charudutt et al. 2003). As
the livestock owners’ participation requires a personal investment, they
have greater incentives to report any fraudulent depredation claims, which
helps reduce a major challenge with compensation administration. If an
individual livestock owner chronically loses livestock, there is also more
community pressure to help implement preventative methods to avoid de-
pleting the insurance funding (M. Charudutt, personal communication).
While this program is still in its early stages, it oers interesting alterna-
tive strategies to several components of standard compensation programs,
which will be important to study as the program matures.
NONLE TH AL , PROAC TIV E CON FLICT
MA NAGE MENT
e optimal way to manage conicts between livestock owners and wolf
conservationists is to proactively prevent wolf depredations on livestock
by non-lethal means. is goal led to the creation of the Bailey Wildlife
Foundation Proactive Carnivore Conservation Fund in 1998, which sup-
ports the use of non-lethal deterrents and preventative animal husbandry
practices, including guard dogs, electric night pens, adry, task-specic
range riders, a volunteer program called “Wolf Guardians,” and other
methods. Many of these deterrents were developed in partnership with
tribal and federal agencies.
Working with landowners, resource managers, and others to pre-
vent or reduce predator problems has important conservation benets.
e single leading cause of wolf mortality in the northern Rockies and
the American Southwest is government lethal control actions to stop
153
.: C N- D P
livestock losses. Reducing conicts can help protect wolves from being
unnecessarily killed. Additionally, addressing these conicts and imple-
menting solutions creates opportunities for collaboration, which can help
relieve social tension and encourage behavioural changes toward achieving
co-existence.
A recent example of the eective nature of this program began in
the spring of 2003 when ranchers in Clayton, Idaho, contacted wildlife
agencies and Defenders of Wildlife for assistance in avoiding wolf preda-
tion on newborn calves. e ranchers were aware of the presence of the
Bualo Ridge pack’s den near their grazing pastures. Pack members were
frequenting the area to eat young sh released by Idaho Fish and Game in
the creeks adjacent to the pastures. Many of these young sh were dying
and the wolves learned they were a new source of protein. However, the
ranchers expected the wolves would begin killing their young calves once
the cattle were moved into these pastures for grazing. Several agencies,
including the Nez Perce tribal wolf program, the USFWS, USDA–WS,
the Salmon Challis and the Sawtooth National Forests, all contributed
to purchasing hay and providing alternative grazing for the cattle until
the wolf pups matured and the pack moved to a more remote rendezvous
site. In subsequent years, the rancher replaced cows and young calves with
older cattle that were less vulnerable to predation and used adry to help
deter wolves from the pastures. is project became the rst test site for
“turbo-adry,” which incorporated solar electric fencing in its design. Re-
searchers placed the turbo-adry around a pond that attracted wolves to
nightly shing raids in its shallow waters. e wolves did not cross the
turbo-adry while it was installed but instead circled around the outside
perimeter, apparently afraid to cross the barrier. is test also led to the
rst development of turbo-adry as a night corral for sheep.
e success of the project hinged on the willingness of the ranchers
to adopt using non-lethal methods, and from 2003 through 2006 not a
single calf was killed by wolves and the pack remained intact. Not every
situation will be resolved using non-lethal methods, but this one occurred
in a community where a sign posted in a window of its major store read:
“Kill all the Goddamn Wolves and all the people who brought them here.”
154 A N E W P
e sign was later removed and communication improved between ranch-
ers, wolf managers, and conservationists, demonstrating that the spirit of
these collaborative eorts can help reduce local animosity over wolves by
allowing individual stakeholders to help manage the process. Success at
maintaining and restoring healthy wolf populations across the American
West and elsewhere will be directly comparative to reducing conict in
situations like this.
CRI TER IA FOR NONL ETH A L, PROACTI VE
PROJ ECTS
Over the course of the program, we have conducted a wide range of proac-
tive and non-lethal wolf projects throughout the region, including several
range rider projects in Montana (riders on horseback that patrol cattle graz-
ing areas and implement non-lethal methods to help prevent wolves from
preying on livestock); turbo-adry development in central Idaho, grazing
allotment retirement near Yellowstone National Park; supplementing live-
stock guard dogs on Idaho’s Boise, Payette and Sawtooth National Forests;
and building predator-proof fencing for llama protection near Missoula,
Montana, and sheep enclosures in the Paradise Valley in Montana. From
these eorts, we developed a list of general guidelines to help prioritize
potential projects. In brief, project development should include consider-
ation of location, level of cooperation, feasibility, agreements, evaluation,
and limitations.
Location
It is important to determine that the proposed project area is adjacent to or
directly provides suitable wolf habitat or involves areas where other wolves
will continue to attempt re-establishment if removed. Additionally, the
project area should have an existing or strong potential of depredation con-
icts due to the regular legal presence of livestock. Local attitudes toward
wolves should be included in the overall evaluation process for potential
155
.: C N- D P
projects. If the local opposition has hampered important wolf conservation
eorts in the area, it indicates a possible opportunity for constructive com-
munication and conict management and should be considered a higher
priority. Even a small investment, like installing a temporary electric fenc-
ing system, can produce large benets in local goodwill toward the species
because the livestock owner and other members of the community are more
cooperative when they feel their concerns are validated, especially when
the measures implemented to address those concerns are clearly eective.
Cooperation
e attitude of the livestock owner and managers are highly important to a
successful project. However, even the most ardent anti-wolf ranchers have
made signicant changes to prevent conicts with wolves, so while they
may be cooperative, their attitudes toward wolves may not change. ey
must, however, be either practising or willing to implement proper animal
husbandry techniques that discourage predators, such as removing sick or
injured animals or properly disposing of carcasses. When appropriate, the
livestock owner should share the costs of expenses as this increases their
personal investment in the project’s success. is could include time and
private resources in addition to, or instead of, nancial contributions.
Feasibility
When assessing the project, appropriate non-lethal techniques should be
reasonably applicable to the situation (e.g., range riders, livestock guard
dogs, wolf deterrent fencing, adry, Radio-Activated Guard (RAG) boxes,
non-lethal munitions, etc). Project assessment should include the number,
age, and type of livestock, the season(s), the availability of human pres-
ence and the size of the area to be protected. For example, fencing prior-
ity should be given to night corrals and smaller-scale projects that oer
greater protection to livestock. Proposals to construct fences around large
multi-acre settings would seldom be adopted as most would be prohibi-
tively expensive. Livestock guard dogs should only be provided if they are
kept in groups of two or more in order to help protect the dogs from being
156 A N E W P
killed by wolves. e initial costs and maintenance are important factors
to determine in advance. Projects should be practical, ideally allowing for
neighbouring ranches to duplicate methods in order to widen protection
from depredations. Project sta in direct communication with livestock
owners should also be skilled in social conict management and reconcil-
iatory communication to avoid escalating the conicts.
Agreements
When possible, a signed agreement outlining the expectations, cost es-
timates, and responsibilities of each cooperator should be established at
the beginning of projects. ese agreements should include the livestock
owner’s commitment for evaluation of the project, the anticipated timeline,
division of labour, and an estimate of labour, equipment, and materials
before the project begins. Our agreements are typically based on continued
use of non-lethal methods, and funding can be withdrawn upon the use of
lethal control of wolves.
Evaluation
Some projects can provide research opportunities and, when possible,
should incorporate some level of evaluation during and after the project,
which includes the livestock producer’s comments regarding any concerns,
challenges, benets, and suggestions for improvement. It is also important
to record failures as they can help improve future projects by increasing
overall understanding of why some methods fare better than others in cer-
tain circumstances.
Limitations
Wolves can become habituated to almost any non-lethal method or tool.
It is very important that non-lethal projects be adaptive according to the
length of exposure to wolves. For example, projects relying on livestock
guarding dogs have alternately used electried adry with successful
short-term success. Other limitations include cost, project maintenance
157
.: C N- D P
and supervision, negative impacts to neighbouring ranches, illegal killing
of wolves, and more.
FU T UR E OF WOLVE S
In the last ten years, wolf numbers in the northern Rockies region have
grown from 132 to more than a thousand animals, surpassing original
recovery population goals (USFWS et al. 2005a). is growth clearly
demonstrates the biological success of the wolf reintroduction program. It
also shows the willingness of wolf opponents to adopt new methods and
strategies to co-exist with wolves under the current federal management
rules, a signicant social achievement for the program. An essential com-
ponent to this achievement is enhancing tolerance toward wolves, which
in the northern Rockies, has at least partially been accomplished by paying
compensation for livestock losses. Successful compensation programs must
be structured to be viable in the long-term, reliably funded, and protected
from fraud and must engage the cooperation of livestock owners and wild-
life managers. e states of Montana and Idaho are developing state-man-
aged wolf compensation programs that will reimburse livestock owners for
wolf-related losses, once wolves are delisted from federal management. As
the states move forward with their programs, Defenders of Wildlife will
focus on increasing the non-lethal, proactive deterrents that help reduce or
avoid conict between wolves and livestock owners. Additionally, livestock
owners and conservationists are nding more ways to collaboratively ad-
dress conicts, which decreases conicts and reduces polarization. Several
western ranchers are now serving on a newly created Livestock Producers
Advisory Council to help evaluate Defenders of Wildlife’s compensation
and proactive programs. As Lane Adamson, Montana Ranchlands Group
director and founding council member, stated: “e collaborative process
works and can help those with divergent opinions resolve misunderstand-
ings without damaging the value of one another as human beings.… e
direction we are pursuing now regarding living with wolves is a great place
to start this eort.”
158 A N E W P
As envisioned back in 1985, the northern Rockies wolf compensation
program has improved local tolerance toward wolves by shifting part of
the economic responsibility from livestock producers to the public that
supports wolf restoration. Before the USFWS removes wolves from fed-
eral protection, the agency must consider how social tolerance can be best
retained under state wildlife management programs. e fate of wolves in
the region will be largely dependent on the adequacy of state wolf-man-
agement plans to guarantee long-term protection for the species in balance
with the interests of local residents.
ACK NOWLED GMENT S
I wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following organizations
and individuals: e Bailey Wildlife Foundation; Marco Musiani; Hawk
Stone; Chris Haney; Nina Fascione; Gina Shrader; Laura Jones, Carter
Niemeyer; Doug Smith, Rick and Carol Williamson; Linda urston;
Levi Holt, Tom Gehring, Paul Sneed, Steve Fritts, Kim Holt, Amaroq
Weiss; Ralph Maughan, Jan Holder; Stewart Breck, John Shivik, Mark
D. Duda, and Responsive Management; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice; USDA–Wildlife Services; the Nez Perce tribe, and western livestock
producers who are tolerating the return of the wolf including Defenders
of Wildlife’s Livestock Advisory Council members Lane Adamson, Jael
Kampfe, John Hayne, Clint Krebs, Mike Stevens, and Tim Tew.
A New Era
for Wolves and People
Wolf RecoveRy, Human attitudes, and Policy
Edited by
M M,
L B,
P C. P
ww w.uofcpress.c om
978-1-55238-270-7
$29.95 CAN $29.95 US
A New Era for Wolves and People
M,
B,
P
Wolves hold an almost mythical status in the cultural history of Europe and
North America. For centuries, they have been the subject of fairy tales and other
lore, embodying mystery, cunning, and sometimes threat. People are drawn to
their beauty, intrigued by their behaviours. Yet for those who live in close prox-
imity to wolves, coexistence is fraught with many serious issues.
Wolf management is an excellent model of human-nature interaction and the
challenges that come along with it. A New Era for Wolves and People analyzes the
crucial relationship between human ethics, attitudes, and policy and the man-
agement of wolf populations in Europe and North America. e contributors to
this volume assert that these human dimensions aect wolf survival just as much,
if not more, than the physical environment.
Contributors include recognized scientists and other wolf experts who introduce
new and sometimes controversial ndings. A New Era for Wolves and People in-
cludes colour photographs of wild wolves by Peter A. Dettling, David C. Olson,
and Robert J. Weselmann, and drawings by wildlife artist Susan Shimeld.
Marco Musiani, PhD, is an assistant professor of landscape ecology at the
University of Calgary and is also aliated with the University of Montana. He
was born in Rome, the city of the famous she-wolf, and has conducted research
and published internationally on wolf management.
Luigi Boitani is the head of the Department of Animal and Human Biol-
ogy at the University of Rome, and a leading authority on wolves. He has con-
ducted an extended series of research and conservation projects on the Italian
wolf population, which has recovered dramatically in the last thirty years. He
has authored more than two hundred peer-reviewed scientic publications and
eight books.
PauL c. Paquet, PhD, is an adjunct professor with the Faculties of Biol-
ogy and of Environmental Design at the University of Calgary. Dr. Paquet has
studied wolves for more than thirty-ve years, and is considered an authority
on carnivore ecology, with international research experience. He has published
more than a hundred peer-reviewed articles and was the founder and director of
the Central Rockies Wolf Project in Canmore, Alberta.
