CHAKrKR 2: AFFKCTEO ll.NVtRONMENT 



Wolf Den and Rendezvous Sites 



Wolves respond differently to human disturbance (Claar et al. 1999). Differing responses are due to a 

 variety of factors, including the individuality of wolves, the specific setting, and whether the population is 

 exploited or protected (Ballard et al. 1987, Mech et al. 1998, Thiel et al. 1998). In some studies, wolves 

 moved pups after human disturbance, but pup survival was not affected (Ballard et al. 1987). It also 

 appears that pups were not moved over long distances (Thiel et al. 1998). 



Wolf activity on national forest lands in Montana generally hasn't prompted area closures or travel 

 restrictions specifically because recreational use of these lands is often dispersed and sporadic. In 

 national parks, area closures around den or rendezvous sites are sometimes implemented because of the 

 strong public desire to view wolves and high visitation in the areas with wolf activity during the denning 

 period. Areas around dens in YNP are closed until June 30. GNP established a seasonal closure area in 

 the North Fork for one wolf pack since 1995 and has a framework for addressing future wolf activity. 

 Ultimately, land management agencies may adopt seasonal or area restrictions independently from FWP. 



Economics / Livelihoods 



A number of economic resources or values could be affected if FWP assumes management 

 responsibilities for the gray wolf. The following description is based on the most current information 

 available on livestock depredation by wolves, big game hunting and outfitting, regional economic 

 activity, cultural and social values, recreation, and FWP license revenues. The most detailed information 

 available is specific to the GYA and southwestern Montana due to the in-depth analyses required prior to 

 the reintroduction of wolves to YNP and central Idaho. Information is also available from northwestern 

 Montana where wolves have been present since the mid-1980s, and statewide information is also 

 presented. 



Livestock Depredation 



A concern about wolf recovery is the potential for wolves to stress, injure, or kill livestock (primarily 

 cattle and sheep), guarding animals, or other domesticated animals such as llamas. Financial losses may 

 result directly from wolf depredation whether confirmed or not, and indirect financial losses may 

 accumulate because of increased management activities or changes to agricultural operations. These 

 financial hardships accrue to individual farmers and ranchers and may be significant to them. 



Tables 3 and 4 show total annual Montana cattle and sheep inventories and death losses from all causes 

 since 1990. Cattle and calf inventories in the state have remained relatively stable at about 2.5 million 

 animals. During this period, sheep inventories have declined significantly from over 650,000 to nearly 

 400,000 animals. While there has been significant variation in death losses for both cattle and sheep over 

 this period, both species have seen losses in excess of 50,000 animals per year for predator and non- 

 predator losses combined. 



Currently, the Montana staff of WS investigates and records all reported wolf kills of domestic livestock 

 or pets. Table 5 summarizes the Montana WS wolf depredation control program from 1997-2002, 

 reported according to federal fiscal years. To date, nearly all depredation incidents investigated by WS 

 within Montana occurred on private land, whereas over 80% of depredations in Idaho and about 50% of 

 depredations in Wyoming were on public grazing allotments (Meier 2001 ). As wolf numbers and 

 distribution increase in Montana, depredations may also increase on public lands. Between 300,000 and 

 400,000 sheep and cattle graze summer pasture on public lands in Montana (Bangs and Shivik 2001 ). 

 Wolves don't necessarily depredate on livestock whenever livestock are encountered, but it is evident that 



32 



