OKAKl ElS APPENDIX I 



Montana's wolf program will emphasize large contiguous blocks of public land, managed primarily as backcountry 

 areas or national parks where tliere is the least potential for conflict, particularly with livestock. Wolf presence will 

 be encouraged on these lands. The national public identifies very strongly with public lands in western states, and it 

 desires that these lands be managed according to the broadest interpretation of "public benefits." The national 

 public strongly supported wolf restoration in the GYA and central Idaho (Dufficld et al. 199.1, USFWS 1994b). 

 However, Montanans' opinions were less supportive (Tucker and Pletscher 1989). Nonetheless, the Montana public 

 may be more willing to accept wolves on these remote public lands, particularly if conflicts are minimal and 

 problem wolves are managed. Management strategies employed in these habitats will be more conservative, 

 favoring wolf presence. 



Outside backcountry areas, Montana is extremely diverse. With the complex mix of differing prey bases, land 

 ownership, land uses, social tolerance levels, and potential for conflict, all possible combinations exist. Each unique 

 combination could be termed a management setting, which is the suite of characteristics for a particular area with 

 regard to the biological and social characteristics, the physical attributes of the environment, land ownership, and 

 land uses. Wolf packs in areas of interspersed public and private lands will be managed in ways similar to other 

 free-ranging wildlife in Montana. The management strategies outUned in this plan will protect human safety, 

 integrate the wolf program with other MFWP program areas, and minimize conflict with livestock. Management 

 strategies employed outside of backcountry areas depend on wolf population status, type and severity of conflict, 

 land ownership, and social tolerance. While this plan will guide MFWP, some agency discretion and flexibility will 

 be exercised to accommodate the unique attributes of each pack, its history, the site-specific characteristics of its 

 home range, landowner preferences, or other factors that cannot be reasonably predicted at this time. Management 

 flexibility will be crucial in addressing all of the public interests that surround wolves. 



Population Management 



The high reproductive potential and capability of wolves to disperse long distances make population management a 

 necessity in many situations (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Indeed, managing large carnivore populations is the next 

 significant challenge beyond restoration (Mech 1995, Mech 1996, Mech 2001). 



In Montana, the goal of wolf management is to balance wolf numbers and distribution within the constraints of the 

 biological, social, and political landscapes. "Management" implies that cooperating agencies are actively engaged 

 in activities which assure long-term population welfare and minimize the potential for conflict or resolve conflict 

 where and when it develops. Agency actions are selected from a spectrum of possibilities and are aimed at matching 

 the appropriate management tools to the situation. "Management" is not synonymous with lethal control. On the 

 contrary, wolf population management will include the full range of tools from non-lethal to lethal and will 

 incorporate other agency functions such as public outreach, conservation education, law enforcement, and 

 landowner relations. Wolves do not exist in isolation from their environment, nor should an effective management 

 program isolate wolves from their environment. 



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 take, wolf 

 productivity, and ungulate population fluctuations. Taking all of this into consideration, specific management 

 actions are guided by wolf population status, with a minimum of 15 packs required to use more liberal management 

 tools. Liberal management tools include possibilities for lethal removal of wolves. If there are fewer than 15 wolf 

 packs in the state, management tools are primarily non-lethal. Ultimately, under the statutory classification of 

 "species in need of management" and in conjunction with the rules and regulations adopted by the MFWP 

 Commission, wolves will be treated and managed like other wildlife species in Montana (e.g. big game, furbearers, 

 or game birds). 



Non-Lethal Methods 



The intent of non-lethal methods is to avert or resolve a wolf conflict without killing the wolf or wolves in question. 

 In many instances, non-lethal management tools effectively address the public or agency concern and are the most 

 cost effective, least intrusive method. If successful, non-lethal methods may also alleviate the need for more 

 intensive management actions in the future. Examples of non-lethal techniques include monitoring wolf locations 

 using radio telemetry, changes in livestock husbandry practices, harassment of wolves, wolf relocation, or attempts 



