DRAi-Ti-lSAPPKNOlXI 



Designation of actual habitat linkage zones or migration corridors is impractical for a habitat generalist and highly 

 mobile species like the gray wolf. Between the mid 1980s and the late 1990s, about half of the packs rccolonizing 

 northwestern Montana did so outside of the anticipated recovery area and linkage corridors suggested in the 

 recovery plan (Forbes and Boyd 1997, USFWS 1999). It appears that overall management for wolf survival across 

 broad land.scapes already used by wolves is more important than discrete corridors because of the dispersal rates and 

 distance capabilities (Fritts and Carbyn 1995). Outside refuges such as national parks, legal protection and public 

 education across broad landscapes will facilitate those functional connections across the region (Forbes and Boyd 

 1997). Yellowstone and Glacier national parks function as refuges at opposite ends of the geographic extent of wolf 

 distribution in the northern Rockies. The network of public lands in western Montana, central Idaho, and northwest 

 Wyoming facilitates connectivity between the sub-populations. The legal protections and public outreach described 

 in this plan help ensure the integrity of wolf movement between refuges. No specific linkage corridors are proposed 

 in this plan. 



Sufficient dispersal and exchange of wolves between the three sub-populations will be necessary to maintain the 

 high degree of genetic variation of a regional wolf population. In isolation, none of the three recovered populations 

 could maintain its genetic viability over the long term (USFWS 1994a). Isolation is unlikely if populations remain 

 at or above recovery levels and regulatory mechanisms prevent chronically low wolf numbers or minimal dispersal 

 (Forbes and Boyd 1997). 



Human settlement patterns, disjunct concentrations of wild ungulates, and diverse geography make it unlikely that 

 wolves will ever be continuously distributed throughout the tri-state region. MFWP recognizes the imperative that 

 wolves move within and between islands of occupied habitats. By default, dispersing wolves will travel through 

 some habitats that are unsuitable for long-term occupancy because of the potential for conflict. Wolves will be 

 permitted to move through these areas as long as they do not threaten public safety. Particular deference will be 

 granted if the number of wolf packs is 1 5 or less. Relocation would be a potential management tool if continued 

 presence is undesirable. 



Wolf Den and Rendezvous Sites 



Wolves respond differently to human disturbance (Claar et al. 1999). Differing responses were due to a variety of 

 factors, including the individuality of wolves, the particular setting, and whether the population is exploited or 

 protected (Ballard et al. 1987, Mech et al. 1998, Thiel et al. 1998). In some instances, wolves moved pups after 

 human disturbance, but pup survival was not affected (Ballard et al. 1987). It also appears that pups are not moved 

 over long distances (Thiel et al. 1998). 



National Forest land managers in Montana have not instituted area closures or travel restrictions specifically because 

 of localized wolf activity. Human recreational use of these lands is often of a dispersed, sporadic nature. Area 

 closures around den or rendezvous sites in national parks are sometimes instituted because of high visitation 

 numbers and the strong public desire to view wolves. The areas around dens in YNP are closed until June 30. 

 Currently, there are no local area closures in GNP. 



MFWP is not recommending any localized closures near wolf den or rendezvous sites on public lands outside 

 national parks. In fact, an early survey in northwestern Montana indicated that public support to recover wolves 

 would dwindle if recreational or commercial uses of public lands were restricted to promote recovery (Tucker and 

 Pletscher 1989). The researchers did not quantify how rapidly public support would erode if changes in recreational 

 or commercial u.ses were implemented. To date, they have not appeared necessary and they probably will not be in 

 the future as wolves expand their distribution and increase in number. However, MFWP encourages land 

 management agencies to consider the locations of wolf den and rendezvous sites and habitat security in their future 

 planning activities in the same context as considering the locations of ungulate winter range or bald eagle nests. 

 Ultimately, land management agencies may adopt seasonal or area restrictions independently from MFWP. 



Captive Wolves and Wolf-dog Hybrids 



The number of captive-reared wolves and wolf-dog hybrids in the U.S. could be as high as 400,000 (Hope 1994). 

 Hybrids result from the breeding of Canis lupus with domestic dogs {C. Jcimiliaris), resulting in variable 

 combinations of physical traits and behaviors. Much of the normal predatory behaviors of wild wolves disappeared 



27 



