C^HAITKU 2: AFKlXTEl) ENVIRON.MKNT 



1999). Wolves have even been observed harassing grizzly bears in an attempt to take over ungulate 

 carcasses (D. Boyd pers. comm.). Wolves sometimes kill other carnivores, such as mountain lions, 

 coyotes, or grizzly bear cubs (White and Boyd 1989, Boyd and Neale 1992, Arjo 1998, Crabtree and 

 Sheldon 1999). Biologists in the GYE have noted social interactions and occasional conflicts between 

 gray wolves and grizzly bears over ungulate carcasses. 



Social and Cultural Values 



The social, cultural, and aesthetic values people assign to the gray wolf today grow out of a long and 

 colorful history of interactions between wolves and humans. Public opinions about wolves vary greatly. 

 Therefore, a range of alternatives was developed in this EIS to reflect that spectrum. 



Early Native American Indians shared the landscape with the gray wolf. The wolf attained a cultural 

 significance to many Indian tribes in Montana. In the days of European settlement and for decades 

 thereafter, wolves were viewed unfavorably because they killed livestock during a period of dramatic 

 declines in native prey populations and continue to do so sporadically today. Wolves were also perceived 

 as a negative, controlling influence on prey populations. However, public opinion about predators and 

 wolves, in particular, evolved through the 1960s and 1970s. For some in society, the gray wolf became a 

 symbol for conservation of wildlife, the environment, and public lands. 



Yet, there have been dramatic changes in the landscape since wolves roamed across Montana at the turn 

 of the 20'*^ century. Human settlement, the introduction of livestock and agriculture, and the current 

 abundance and distribution of native ungulates make for a dramatically different landscape for wolves in 

 the 21" century. In part because of these changes, some Montana citizens and organizations spoke out 

 against wolf recovery and restoration efforts in the GYA and central Idaho, as well as against the legal 

 protections afforded wolves by ESA in more general terms (USFWS 1994b). Concerns were expressed 

 about the consequences of wolf depredations on livestock and the associated economic losses, potential 

 loss of flexibility for federal land management agencies, land-use restrictions, impacts to big game 

 populations, and reduced hunting opportunity. Indeed, FWP shared some of those concerns. 



When discussing social and cultural implications associated with wolves, the primary affected 

 environment is the values of people living in the presence of a recovered wolf population. A 

 simplification about what drives the differences in attitudes towards wolves might be summed up in a few 

 words: the perceived chance of personal benefit or loss resulting from the presence of wolves. Those 

 who perceive they will benefit (either directly or vicariously) tend to favor wolf presence, and those who 

 perceive a threat of personal loss oppose presence. These differences in values, attitudes, and opinions 

 are clearly reflected in the comments FWP received from the public and account for the spectrum of input 

 on any single issue. 



Legal Status and Classification under Montana Statutes 



Two Titles within Montana statutes describe the legal status and management framework for wolves. 

 Title 87 pertains to fish and wildlife species and oversight by FWP. Title 81 pertains to MDOL and its 

 responsibilities related to predator control. More recently, the 2001 Montana Legislature passed Senate 

 Bill 163 (SB163), which amended several statutes in both titles. SB163 is included as an appendix in the 

 Montana Wolf Conservation and Management Planning Document (Appendix 1). 



The gray wolf remains listed as endangered under the Montana Nongamc and Endangered Species 

 Conservation Act of 1973 (87-5-101 MCA). Provisions in SB 163, however, automatically remove the 



22 



