l)R.\rr KIS AHI'KNDIX 1 



summarizing the (ypc and extent of damage, physical evidence, and a description of the site. This report is 

 ultimately Hied with MFWP. MFWP will establish a database to tabulate, summarize, and assess trends in wolf- 

 livestock conflicts. 



Based on the results of a field investigation, WS will determine if a wolf (or wolves) was involved in the incident 

 and whether any livestock deaths or injuries could be confirmed as wolf-caused. If the investigating WS agent 

 confirms that a wolf or wolves were responsible, subsequent management actions will be guided by the specific 

 recommendations of the investigator, the provisions of this plan and by the multi-agency MOU. WS will be directed 

 to take an incremental approach to address wolf depredations, guided by wolf numbers, depredation history, and the 

 location of the incident. When wolf numbers are low and incidents take place on remote public lands, WS would 

 use more conservative management tools. WS could select progressively more liberal methods as wolf numbers 

 increa.se and for incidents on private lands. Confiict history of the pack, attributes of the pack (e.g. size or 

 reproductive status), or the physical setting will all be considered before a management response is selected. 

 Specific actions range from catch and release on site, to harassment on site, to relocation or lethal removal. 

 Management actions will be directed at individual problem wolves to the extent that they can be identified and 

 clearly implicated. Non-selective methods such as poison would not be used. If relocation is the preferred 

 management action, backcountry areas or remote public lands are intended release sites, with concurrence from the 

 land management agency. Mixed land ownerships may be selected, as socially acceptable. When wolves are killed 

 by WS, their carcasses will be processed as described in the Wolf Conservation and Management Chapter. 



In a proactive manner, WS and MFWP will also work cooperatively with livestock producers and non-governmental 



organizations to help minimize the potential of wolf-livestock conflicts developing in the first place. Technical 

 assistance may take the form of guidance on carcass disposal, extra fencing, deploying scare devices, testing of 

 developmental non-lethal control methods, or loaning of radio telemetry receivers so that landowners can monitor 

 wolves in the vicinity of their livestock. In fact, two thirds of respondents in a recent national survey indicated that a 

 combination of government agencies along with either the private sector and/or the injured party should share the 

 responsibility in managing wildlife damage (Reiter et al. 1999). TTiis tyj>e of collaboration is called for in this plan, 

 with the parallel elements of management and compensation. 



Livestock Producers 



MFWP commends the patience of livestock producers and their willingness to provide access to their properties for 

 representatives of WS, USFWS, and non-governmental organizations to address wolf-livestock conflicts while the 

 wolves are federally protected. Indeed, this type of public-private cooperation provides a solid foundation from 

 which the State of Montana will assume management responsibilities. 



Livestock producers acknowledge a sense of responsibility for the welfare of the animals under their care. As a 

 result, producers take many initiatives to help safeguard their livestock from depredation by carnivores, as an 

 everyday practice. Examples include the use of guarding animals, fencing or otherwise securing animals at night, or 

 hiring extra people to check on remote livestock. Government and private organizations should be encouraged to 

 assist livestock producers and landowners in designing, implementing, or cost-sharing these proactive husbandry 

 practices. 



With technical assistance from WS, a producer may alter husbandry or management practices such as carcass 

 disposal or otherwise secure livestock or sources of conflict. A recent evaluation of wolf depredations in Minnesota 

 did not isolate any clear-cut attributes or management practices predisposing certain cattle operations to wolf 

 depredation (Mech et al. 2000). But research in Kansas (coyotes and sheep) and Italy (wolves and sheep) did 

 identify husbandry practices as a contributing factor in canid-shecp depredations (Robcl et al. 1981, Ciucci and 

 Boitani 1998). In the northern Rockies, field experiences of WS and USFWS personnel have shown that exposed 

 carrion can attract wolves to areas where livestock are present, thereby increasing the encounter rate between wolves 

 and livestock, which may ultimately lead to a depredation incident (Bangs and Shivik 2(K)1 ). Additionally, sick, 

 wounded, or small livestock (calves or sheep), .seemed particularly vulnerable, especially in reniote areas away from 

 buildings and people. The abundance of natural prey, relative vulnerability of livestock, and nutritional demands of 

 the wolf pack also appeared to affect how often wolves attempted to attack livesttKk (Bangs and Shivik 2001 ). 



40 



