Ca\nKR J: AI.TERNAT1VKS 



Livestock producers would report any suspected wolf depredations (injuries or death) or the disruption of 

 livestock or guarding animals to WS directly. If the investigating WS agent determines that a wolf or 

 wolves were responsible, management respon.se will be guided by the specific recommendations of the 

 investigator, the provisions of this plan and by the multi-agency MOU. FWP would direct WS to take an 

 incremental approach to address wolf depredations, guided by wolf numbers, depredation history, and the 

 location of the incident. When wolf numbers are low and incidents lake place on remote public lands, 

 WS would use more conservative management tools. WS could apply progressively more liberal 

 methods as wolf numbers increase and for incidents on private lands. Conflict history of the pack, time of 

 year, attributes of the pack (e.g. size or reproductive status), or the physical setting will all be considered 

 before a management response is selected. Management actions will be directed at individual problem 

 wolves. Non-selective methods, such as poison, would not be used. 



FWP may also approve lethal removal of the offending animal by livestock owners or their agents by 

 issuing a special kill permit. A special kill permit is required for lethal action against any legally 

 classified wildlife in Montana, outside the defense of life/property provision or FWP Commission 

 approved regulations. FWP will not issue special kill permits to livestock producers to remove wolves on 

 public lands when wolf numbers are low. If Montana had at least 15 breeding pairs, FWP may issue a 

 special kill permit to livestock producers that would be valid for public and private lands. FWP will be 

 more liberal in the number of special kill permits granted as wolf numbers increase and for depredations 

 in mixed land ownership patterns. 



In a proactive manner, FWP, WS, or other organizations will also work cooperatively with livestock 

 producers with an increased emphasis on proactive efforts to reduce the risk of wolf-livestock conflicts. 

 Extra effort would be into conflict prevention rather than responding after the fact. Landowners could 

 contact a management specialist (FWP or WS) for help with assessing risk from wolves and identifying 

 ways to minimize those risks - while still acknowledging that the risk of livestock depredation by wolves 

 will never be zero. In addition, FWP could work to develop programs that provide livestock operations 

 with additional benefits if they implement preventive approaches and maintain opportunities for wildlife, 

 including gray wolves, on private lands and associated public grazing allotments. It may also involve 

 state and federal land management agencies. 



FWP would work with the livestock industry to identify sources of funding to accomplish preventative 

 initiatives. Some funding could come from monies FWP already provides to WS for animal damage 

 management in cooperation with MDOL. Some of those funds could be used to support the development 

 and implementation of preventative programs and technical field assistance to landowners in identifying 

 risks and preventative measures prior to any depredations. Private conservation groups are also working 

 towards those ends. Defenders of Wildlife, through its Proactive Carnivore Conservation Fund, has 

 already cost-shared preventative efforts like electric fencing or extra guarding dogs, as well as providing 

 volunteer labor in the field. Conflict management would emphasize long-term, non-lethal solutions, but 

 removing problem animals may still be necessary to resolve some conflicts. Considerations leading up to 

 removal of wolves include persistent wolf activity, evidence of wounded livestock, the likelihood of 

 additional losses if no action is taken, evidence of unusual attractants, and/or intentional feeding of 

 wolves. 



Beyond technical assistance from WS, FWP, and other collaborating partners, livestock producers (or 

 their agents) may non-lethally harass wolves when they are close to livestock on public or private lands. 

 Private citizens may also non-lethally hara.ss wolves that come close to homes, domestic pets, or people. 

 Upon delisting, private citizens could kill a wolf if it is threatening human life or domestic dogs. 

 Livestock producers or their agents could also kill a wolf if it is attacking, killing, or threatening to kill 

 livestock. This is consistent with Montana statutes that permit private citizens to defend life or property 

 from imminent danger cau.sed by wildlife. 



78 



