UKAFl lUS APl'KNDIX I 



context of a "cap." Instead, MFWP identifies population objectives that are based on landowner tolerance, habitat 

 conditions, social factors, and biological considerations. Wildlife populations are managed according to the 

 objectives and population status, using a range of management tools. A wolf MFWP will document, monitor, and 

 manage all wolf packs within available habitats according to the adaptive management principles and conflict 

 resolution tools described in this plan. 



These population objectives identify a minimum number of packs that will meet the legal requirements. We assume 

 that additional packs will become established and the actual number of packs in Montana when wolves are officially 

 delisted will be above the minimum recovery criteria. As the number of packs varies through time, adaptive 

 management principles come into play. Management strategies and conflict resolution tools will be more 

 conservative as the number of packs decreases, approaching the legal minimum. In contrast, management strategies 

 become more liberal as the number of packs increases. Ultimately, the wolf population itself identifies the 

 appropriate management strategies. A wolf population of 15 packs is not considered a minimum or a maximum 

 allowable number of packs. Rather, the value of 15 is used to signal a transition in management strategies from 

 liberal to conservative, as the number of packs changes. The threshold of 15 packs was determined by examining 

 the reproductive histories of the packs with the longest tenure. The Interagency Technical Committee also 

 deliberated this value. It was ultimately recommended to the Council and formally endorsed. 



Animals dispersing into Montana from YNP, central Idaho, and Canada will supplement the Montana wolf 

 population. Similarly, Montana wolves will disperse out and supplement other populations. In the end, some or all 

 packs are transitory. In order to maintain wolves at or above the recovery criteria, new packs must be able to replace 

 those that die out or are eUminated. In the long run, exchange of wolves between and among the three areas will 

 help ensure that minimum population objectives are met. Wolf population trends in the three recovery areas from 

 1987 to 2000 are shown in Figure 3. 



Wolf Distribution 



Nationally and within Montana, people have demonstrated a strong interest in restoring the gray wolf to its former 

 historic range. Yet there have been dramatic changes in the landscape since wolves roamed 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 2V' century. 



Due to the magnitude of these changes, the federal gray wolf recovery team identified areas with large tracts of 

 public lands and adequate native prey as suitable habitats for wolf restoration. These were remote federal lands, 

 designated wilderness areas (e.g. the Bob Marshall complex), and national parks. The recovery plan emphasized 

 these areas because of the lower potential for conflict with Uvestock and people (USFWS 1987). 



However, wolves in Montana readily use altered landscapes, even demonstrating preferences for low elevation 

 agricultural or commercial timberlands. Federal lands at low elevations are typically managed for multiple uses and 

 are intermingled with privately owned lands, resulting in a checkerboard pattern of mixed land ownership. When 

 combined with the geography in Montana, approximately the western half of Montana provides suitable wolf habitat 

 in the 21" century. Wolves exist within a full array of backcountry wilderness areas, muUiple use lands, 

 intermingled public and private lands, and wholly private lands. 



Wolves can exist in many different habitats. However, wolf distribution in Montana will ultimately be defined by 

 the interplay between ecological needs and social tolerance, as is the case for many other wildlife species such as 

 deer, elk, bears, and mountain lions (Decker and Purdy 1988, Fritts and Carbyn 1995, Bangs et al. 1998, Riley and 

 Decker 2000). People have different tolerance levels, values, and attitudes about wildlife and large carnivores in 

 particular. Furthermore, tolerance varies in space and time and at different scales. 



Social acceptance of wolves transcends the boundaries of geography, land ownership, or land use designations just 

 like a pack territory boundary transcends those same delineations. An adaptive approach will help MFWP 

 implement its wolf program over the range of social acceptance values now and in the future as values change. 



17 



