l»Kr\KI KIS APPlilMMX I 



Individually, the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming will be responsible for wolf conservation and management 

 within its own borders. But collectively, it is in the best interests of all three states for wolf populations to remain 

 secure within the region. If the regional wolf population falls below the relisting criteria, legal protections and 

 management could revert back to the federal government. The State of Montana also recognizes the ecological and 

 cultural significance of wolves to Native Americans and encourages their participation within the tri-state region. 



To meet the goals of the wolf program, interstate coordination will require that field personnel exchange biological 

 data. Important issues will include the population status and trend within each state, the disposition of cross- 

 boundary packs, and whether there are foreseeable problems with achieving the goals and objectives. Information 

 will also help states improve techniques and monitoring protocols. Collaborative research projects at regional scales 

 may also be developed, coordinated, and implemented. Periodic administrative coordination will also be required. 

 Collectively, this will facilitate a problem-solving atmosphere for issues that are common to all parties. 



Within Montana, interagency coordination between MFWP, WS, and MDOL at the programmatic and field levels 

 will be necessary to successfully implement the plan. At the field level, biologists and game wardens will need to 

 work closely with the WS agent in their area to achieve a timely and appropriate management response, as well as 

 ensure accurate record keeping. Moreover, collaboration at the field level can be beneficial to achieve management 

 or research objectives with greater efficiency on a variety of topics, such as remotely triggered deterrent devices or 

 trapping methods. At the programmatic level, coordination is required to develop a Memorandum of Understanding 

 between MFWP, MDOL, and WS which will outline the responsibilities and activities of each agency, as well as 

 how the agencies will coordinate decision-making. 



PREY POPULATIONS: CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 



Introduction 



Wolves return to a highly modified environment and a managed system. The success of major predators like 

 mountain lions or wolves and human hunters rests on the same foundation: the productivity and perpetuation of 

 deer, elk, and moose populations. As a result, the effects of predators on prey populations were some of the greatest 

 concerns expressed by the public about wolf recovery in the northern Rockies (USFWS 1987, I994a,b). The 

 financial investments and sacrifices made by the hunting public to restore ungulate populations are significant. 

 Safeguarding those investments for present and future generations is an important priority for many of Montana's 

 citizens and MFWP. MFWP seeks to maintain the public's opportunity to hunt a wide variety of species under a 

 variety of circumstances, and to do so in a sustainable, responsible manner. 



Predator - Prey Interactions 



All wildlife populations are inherently variable through time and across a diversity of habitats. The idea of 

 population stability is a misnomer. Rather, populations fluctuate through time and are influenced by a variety of 

 environmental factors that also change through time. Management may affect some factors but not others, and at 

 best only moderates the fluctuations. Regardless, management programs should recognize that predator-prey 

 interactions are another natural factor affecting ungulates and one that will also change through time. 



Published literature on predator-prey interactions is highly varied in its conclusions about the ability of predators to 

 influence prey populations or vice versa. There have been almost as many different interpretations of predator-prey 

 interactions as there have been studies reported. This is to be expected because of the variety of different 

 ecosystems studied, the assortment of predator and prey species under study, and the different management actions 

 carried out. Additional difficulties arise out of the short-term duration of many studies compared to longer-term 

 habitat changes, measurement of insensitive variables, poorly designed monitoring protocols, or too many 

 simultaneous activities confounding data measurements and interpretation. Correlation between two variables does 

 not necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship {National Research Council 1997). Results may not be 

 appropriately applied in a different setting. Predators and prey interact with one another within the context of a 

 particular environment, given unique habitats, weather patterns, species diversity, animal densities, and management 

 framework. Each published report must be interpreted within the context of the conditions prevailing at that time. 



33 



