CHARIER 4: KNVIRONMKNTAI. CONSKQUKNCES 



Alternative 4. Minimum Wolf 



For comparison, the environmental consequences of this and the other alternatives are presented in a 

 summary at the end of this chapter (Table 43). 



Biological Environment 



Wolf Management . FWP would implement an aggressive program that manages the gray wolf at the 

 minimum legal requirements. Although many of the management tools would be the same as for 

 Alternatives 2 (Updated Council) and 3 (Additional Wolf), they would not be implemented adaptively. 

 Aggressive WS control actions, coupled with landowner removals would keep the population at the 

 minimum level to avoid relisting. Private landowners would have more responsibility for control work on 

 their property. Wolves would be harassed more routinely and killed more often than for the other 

 alternatives. Regulated harvest would not be implemented consistently over time because aggressive wolf 

 control by landowners and by WS is expected to keep wolf numbers low. Wolf packs near national parks 

 would be managed more conservatively than other packs in the state, as an added measure of security that 

 some natural dispersal could occur. FWP would apply the more strict federal definition of a breeding pair 

 (federal recovery definition) because the program goal is to maintain the minimum number to prevent 

 reli.sting. FWP would have less flexibility to adjust management in that every wolf or pack would be an 

 important contribution to the total population because the population would be close to the minimum 

 required. 



Gray wolves would be managed as a "species in need of management" which grants full legal protection 

 from indiscriminant killing. However, significant wolf mortality may be necessary through the provision 

 for special kill permits issued to landowners and through WS control actions to maintain wolf numbers 

 near the cap. FWP would issue special kill permits at the level necessai-y to achieve enough mortality to 

 maintain the population at the capped, minimum level. The species would not be integrated into the 

 wildlife program in the context of modem scientific wildlife management, but would instead be treated 

 separate and distinct. 



Wolf Numbers and Distribution. Approximately 154 wolves would be present in Montana in 2015, 

 which could be about 13 breeding pairs according to the federal recovery definition. It is the fewest of 

 any alternative. If the number of wolves were greater at the time of actual delisting, FWP would 

 accelerate control actions by WS or by private landowners and utilize a licensed hunting/trapping 

 program to decrease the population until it was at the minimum. Total wolf numbers could fluctuate 

 because of management actions, changes in prey densities, or intraspecific competition. The future 

 population should be secure, but so close to the margin that it could drop below relisting criteria in the 

 face of unexpected environmental events. If that should occur, FWP would ha\e limited management 

 flexibility and most management/control activities would be non-lethal. 



Wolf distribution would be limited to western Montana by control actions. Wolves would be strongly 

 discouraged in central and eastern Montana, on private lands, and on FWP WMAs. In western Montana, 

 wolf distribution may ultimately be limited to federal public lands and national parks. 



Wolf Habitat, Connectivity, and Land Management . Connectivity requirements would be met 

 marginally and would have to be maintained by periodically relocating wolves. This tool is expensive, 

 and it has had mixed success in the past. Connectivity of the tri-state population with Canada would 

 occur because of more conservative management in northwest Montana. Public land management 

 activities, whether logging, grazing, or travel management are not affected by this alternative, although 

 managers may adopt policies or make changes for other purposes. Some land managers may adopt 



136 



