CHArrEK 3: Al.TKRNArrVKS 



management program should match the management strategies to the environments or setting in which 

 each wolf pack occurs, recognizing that wolves interact with and respond to the environment in which 

 they live. loo. Potential management actions will be evaluated in light of prevailing conditions or 

 extenuating circumstances. Wolf populations will fluctuate as a result of management actions, natural 

 mortality, legal harvest, illegal killing, wolf productivity, and ungulate population fluctuations. If there 

 are fewer than 15 breeding pairs in Montana, management tools are primarily non-lethal, particularly in 

 backcountiy settings and for public lands near national parks. Examples of non-lethal techniques include 

 monitoring wolf locations using radio lelemeti-y, changes in livestock husbandry practices, harassment, 

 relocation, or attempts to modify wolf behavior. A minimum of 15 breeding pairs is required to use more 

 liberal management tools, including lethal methods to resolve wolf-livestock, wolf-human conflicts, or 

 concern over a localized prey population in light of the combined effects of predation and environmental 

 factors. 



When the wolf population no longer fits the definition of a species "in need of management" or when 

 wolf numbers have increased and population regulation is needed, the FWP Commission may reclassify 

 the wolf as a big game animal or a furbearer. The Montana Legislature would establish the license, fees, 

 and penalties for illegal activities. The FWP Commission could then establish season structure and 

 regulations to implement a public harvest program for wolves as it does for other hunting, trapping or 

 fishing seasons. Initiating a public harvest program is a separate administrative process from this EIS. 

 The FWP Commission follows a process that requires public notification of the proposal, public 

 meetings, and a comment period of at least 30 days. The FWP Commission would initiate this process at 

 a later date when a harvest program becomes biologically sustainable. The Montana Legislature would 

 establish license fees and penalties. 



Regulated public harvest of wolves by hunting and trapping during designated seasons will help FWP 

 manage wolf numbers, fine tune distribution, and would take place within a comprehensive management 

 program. Through public input and FWP Commission oversight, harvest regulations would describe legal 

 means of take, and reporting and tagging requirements. Total harvest would be strictly controlled through 

 a permit or quota system, with season closures as soon as harvest objectives are reached. As wolf 

 numbers increase and distribution expands, harvest opportunity would increase. Specific harvest 

 objectives will depend on other losses to the wolf population, such as control actions for livestock 

 depredation or loss of a pack because of intraspecific strife. On a finer scale, wolves could be managed 

 more conservatively on remote public lands or managed more liberally in areas with high livestock 

 densities, depending on harvest objectives, district boundaries, and pack distribution. Regulated harvest 

 and enforcement on Indian reservations would fall under the jurisdiction of the respective tribal 

 governments and be coordinated with FWP management objectives. Hunting or trapping is not permitted 

 in YNP or GNP. FWP's harvest management would proceed adaptively, but all hunting and trapping is 

 precluded if there are fewer than 15 breeding pairs in Montana. The FWP Enforcement Division would 

 enforce all laws, rules, and regulations just as it does for other legally cla.ssified wildlife species. 

 Regulated wolf harvest would take place within the larger context of multi-species management 

 programs, would be biologically sustainable, and would not compromise the investments made to recover 

 the gray wolf. Within the context of a comprehensive program, regulated harvest should advance overall 

 conservation goals by building social tolerance, interest in. and value lor the species among those who 

 would otherwise view wolf recovery as detrimental to their ungulate hunting experiences. 



During the first five years after delisting, FWP will document that the Montana wolf population is secure 

 and continues to meet the recovery criteria established by USFW,S. FWP will informally consult with 

 USFWS and cooperating partners on a regular basis, including a periodic formal review by USFWS. 

 USFWS will point out any deficiencies or areas of concern and recommend corrective actions to FWP. 

 FWP would take the necessary corrective measures to avoid a relisting o\' the gray woll under ESA. FWP 

 will undertake its own thorough, formal review after the first five yeais. Cooperating state and federal 



73 



