DH.VrrbJS AFFl-.MMV i 



In Minnesota, wolf-related ecotourism has grown significantly. Similar growth may be possible in Montana. 

 Already in Montana, guiding and outfitting services for nature tours, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

 "outdoor adventures" have grown in popularity. In fact, the employment growth of Montana's amusement and 

 recreation industry is outpacing all the other travel-related industries (Dillion and Nickerson 2000). The presence of 

 wolves diversifies the opportunities associated with this type of economic activity. 



CHALLENGES OF WOLF PRESENCE IN MONTANA 



Biological 



One of the most fundamental challenges of wolf recovery and restoration is the uncertainty of the outcome, as a 

 large carnivore that has been missing for decades resumes its functional role in the ecosystem. Biologists could only 

 predict the effects of restored wolf populations on prey populations or other wildlife based on what was known from 

 other places. It appears that many of the original predictions about the reintroduction to the GYA and central Idaho 

 were accurate, at least in the short term (Bangs et al. 1998). However, it remains to be seen whether those 

 predictions will be accurate over the long term. 



The uncertainty about the nature, cause, magnitude, and mechanisms of wildlife population fluctuations is further 

 complicated by the presence of wolves. The last time wolves were present with high prey densities, bison still 

 roamed the Great Plains. Today, wolf-prey relationships are influenced by many factors, including habitat 

 modification by humans, land management activities, changes in prey species distribution and numbers, economics, 

 and social and political factors — all of which, in and of themselves, arc highly dynamic. Predator-prey 

 relationships have been studied extensively; yet the results of each study are unique to the study area, and the 

 conditions prevaiUng at the time the research was conducted (e.g. predator species present, predator density, prey 

 species present, prey density, winter severity etc.). 



How predator and prey populations respond to MFWP management activities is also uncertain. The history of 

 wildlife management includes many examples of new approaches that grew out of experience and information 

 gained along the way 



Social, Cultural, Aesthetic 



The challenge of the next decade will be how to manage the wolf, having been largely successful in saving the 

 species from extinction in the lower 48 states (Mech 1995). The greatest challenges associated with wolf 

 management often come from social and political issues rather than biological issues. Fritts et al. ( 1994) speculated 

 that perhaps no other wildlife species is as affected by human perceptions and attitudes as the gray wolf. 



Experience in Minnesota demonstrates that active management of wolf numbers and distribution is a necessity, 

 given their reproductive potential and dispersal capabilities. It is unrealistic to expect that wolves could exist in 21*' 

 century settings as they did in at the tiine of Lewis and Clark. Management, including lethal removal, is necessary 

 to address and reduce conflicts with livestock and humans, as well as to have a cost-efficient program (Mech 1995, 

 Mech 2001 ). However, the same pubhc sentiments that promoted wolf recovery and protection often oppose 

 management and lethal removal of wolves (Mech 1995). This irony has led many wolf experts to emphasize the 

 need for a balanced public outreach program that incorporates wolf control as a part of any wolf restoration program 

 (Fritts et al. 1995). 



In contrast, some livestock organizations and hunting advocates in the northern Rockies spoke out against wolf 

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

 wolves by the ESA (USFWS 1994b). Opposition stemmed from concerns about wolf depredations on livestock and 

 the associated economic losses, loss of management flexibility by federal land management agencies, land-use 

 restrictions, impacts to big game populations, and reduced hunting opportunity. Despite many legal challenges, 

 wolves were released. The USFWS worked to increase the tolerance and acceptance of wolves by those who 

 expressed the greatest opposition or who would be affected the most by wolf presence. Resolution of conflicts in a 

 safe, efficient manner was a priority. Upon delisting, Montana will face similar challenges. 



14 



