iniXhl KIS APPEMMX I 



budget also estimates annual compensation payments. The estimate was derived from the 1997 payments by 

 Defenders of Wildhfe for losses within the State of Montana, extrapolated over a projected 20 packs. Actual 

 payments in any given year may be higher or lower than the budgeted amount shown. It is important to capture 

 what may represent the upper limit of claims paid for confirmed and probable losses in any single year. There may 

 also be administrative costs associated with implementing a compensation program. 



In summary, implementation of the management strategies and compensation program outlined in this Chapter will 

 require enhanced or new sources of funding. Without adequate financial resources for both elements (management 

 and compensation), implementation is not possible. All possible sources of funding including pubUc/private 

 foundations, federal or state appropriations, and other private sources will be sought. 



WOLF - HUMAN CONFLICTS 



Introduction 



In recent years, MFWP has taken a proactive approach in helping people learn how to live and recreate in wildlife 

 habitats. Other state and federal agencies have done the same. Increasing numbers of people are Uving within the 

 urban-wildland interface where a potential for conflict with a wide variety of wildlife species exists. Outdoor 

 recreation trends also place increasing numbers of people in wildlife habitats ( Youmans 1999). Living and 

 recreating in wildhfe habitats has inherent risks. Through policy development, public outreach, and technical 

 assistance to landowners and recreationists, MFWP is working towards mitigating those risks to the extent possible. 



In accordance with Montana statutes, MFWP and the MFWP Commission are authorized and charged with the 

 duties of protecting people and personal property from damage and depredation caused by wildlife. MFWP defines 

 a public safety problem related to carnivores as: any situation where an MFWP employee reasonably determines that 

 the continued presence poses a threat to human safety, an attack has resulted in the loss of livestock or personal pets, 

 or that a human has been physically injured or killed. 



Wolf-Human Encounters 



Public safety is an important consideration because species such as the gray wolf, mountain Uon, black or grizzly 

 bear are capable of injuring or potentially killing a person. Even though wolves generally fear humans, there are 

 instances where individual wolves lost their wariness of people (Mech 1998a, Route 1999). In Canada's Algonquin 

 Provincial Park, four different wolves progressively lost their fear of humans, resulting in five separate incidents 

 over the last 1 1 years. These four wolves, though previously non-aggressive, eventually bit humans. Two incidents 

 of wolf aggression towards people were serious and required stitches. Each of the wolves was accustomed to 

 humans and had been frequenting campgrounds, running off with backpacks, human food, and other camping items 

 over a period of months. People interacted with these wolves at very close range until the wolf became too bold 

 (Route 1999). Park managers removed the four wolves. Some wolves in Denali National Park in Alaska have 

 grown increasingly tolerant of close proximity to humans in and around campsites, although no injuries have been 

 reported (Boyd in press). One incident on Vargas Island, British Columbia in which a wolf bit a camper paralleled 

 the incidents in Algonquin Provincial Park. Park managers removed two wolves that had been loitering near 

 camping areas. One recent incident in Icy Bay near Anchorage, Alaska left a young boy with several stitches after a 

 wolf bite. This wolf was also removed. 



It appears that most wolf-human encounters were not precipitated by the wolf perceiving the human as prey because 

 of how the wolves behaved, the presence of domestic dogs, or the sequence of events (Mech 1998a). This is in stark 

 contrast to the case histories of mountain lion-human incidents in which it appears that mountain lions sometimes do 

 perceive humans as prey (Deurbrouck and Miller 2001). Case studies of injurious bear-human incidents highlight 

 surprise encounters, defen.se of cubs or food, and/or the bear perceiving the human as a threat to be neutralized. For 

 wolves, a loss of fear seems to be a common thread running through all North American wolf incidents resulting in 

 human injury (Mech 1998a). It appears that wolves can habituate to humans or human activities as readily as bears 

 or mountain lions (Aune 1991, Boyd in press). Whether or not this degree of familiarity translates to a threat to 

 human safety may hinge on prompt management response by the appropriate authorities. It appears that habituation 

 in wolves may not require a consistent pattern of food conditioning as seems the case for bears. Wolves may 



49 



