Biology is Easy, Understanding People is Hard. Musings of a Wolf Biologist with a Lot of Windshield Time

Our ability as natural resource professionals to measure, analyze, and thereby describe natural world complexities has reached unprecedented levels. But simultaneously our poor understanding of how society assimilates information limits the efficacy of articulating those concepts to the public.  Yet effective public dialogue is critical for informed natural resource management, conservation, and policy. Our traditional public relations methods of continuously distributing information at lower comprehension levels may be inadequate.  Here, I will discuss how the synergy of misinformation, groupthink, bias, politics, media, and the blogosphere impedes our ability to convey factual information to the masses.  I hope to show why we need a new public communication approach and offer some examples as catalysts to initiate the conversation

Measures of Success: A Snapshot of the Montana Wolf Program in 2009

Montana’s gray wolf (Canis lupus) population continues to be secure, while the political and legal environments remain dynamic. Wolf delisting is a two-step process. Biological recovery criteria must be met and clearly demonstrated, along with an adequate regulatory framework. Secondly, the delisting decision must be upheld during inevitable legal challenges. The northern Rockies wolf population has met or exceeded numeric and connectivity requirements for many years. The northern Rockies gray wolf population was initially delisted in 2008, but a legal challenge reinstated federal legal protections under the Endangered Species Act mid-summer. By the end of 2008, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks estimated a minimum of 497 wolves in 84 verified packs, 34 of which met the definition of breeding pair. Federal delisting efforts resumed early in 2009 and took effect throughout Montana on 4 May. The second delisting decision was challenged again in Federal Court, although a preliminary injunction request to reinstate federal protections was denied in September. With delisting in Montana, the wolf was automatically reclassified as a species in need of management. Montana’s laws, administrative rules, and management plan also took effect. Montana Tribes lead wolf management activities on their respective reservations. The first fair chase wolf hunting season in Montana occurred in 2009. Seventy-two wolves were harvested through a quota-based framework. Wolves and their management continue to be controversial to a diversity of publics for a wide variety of reasons. Nonetheless, Montana’s wolf program has a solid regulatory foundation and the population is biologically sound. This presentation will provide an update on a variety of topics

Wolf-Livestock Conflict in Montana: Spatial and Temporal Factors Influencing Livestock Loss

Successful wolf (Canis lupus) recovery in Montana has brought with it some negative impacts on livestock producers in certain areas and time periods.  We assessed the spatial and temporal patterns of wolf depredations on livestock in Montana at a broad, statewide scale during the past decade (2005–2014).  These analyses highlighted areas of concentrated and consistent wolf-livestock conflicts, such that, for example, 50% of the statewide conflicts occur in 5% of the state.  We then used generalized linear mixed-models to test covariates potentially predictive of both conflict presence (zero vs. non-zero depredation events) and conflict severity (number of events given at least 1), including the assessment of lethal controls and hunter harvest as tools to reduce conflicts.  Using administrative hunting districts (HDs) as the unit of analysis, we found that conflict presence increased for HD-years with wolves present (P<0.001), higher wolf pack densities (P=0.006), higher livestock densities (P<0.001), and intermediate proportionate areas of agricultural land (P<0.001).  HDs with depredations the previous year were more likely to continue having them (P<0.001), though lethal removal of wolves significantly reduced this effect (P=0.038).  Direct effects of wolf hunter harvest were shown to marginally (P=0.152) reduce year-to-year conflicts, but indirect effects of harvest would also be expected given its role in determining wolf numbers, a primary driver of conflicts.  Minimizing livestock losses is a top priority for successful wolf management, and these results shed light on the broad-scale patterns behind chronic problems and the tools used to address them

Gray Wolves and Livestock in Montana: A Recent History of Damage Management

The Montana gray wolf (Canis lupus) population grew from 2 wolves in 1979 to a minimum of 316 by late 2006. Resolving conflicts, both perceived and real, between wolves and livestock became a dominant social issue for the federal recovery program, and it remains so today. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and now Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks work with United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services to reduce depredation risks and address wolf-related conflicts through a combination of non-lethal and lethal management tools. The number of wolf complaints investigated from 1987-2006 increased as the population increased and expanded its distribution into Montana after reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho during 1995 and 1996. Montana wolf packs routinely encountered livestock, though wolf depredation was a relatively rare cause of livestock death and difficult to predict or prevent. Cattle and sheep were killed most often from March to October, although losses were confirmed each month. From 1987 to 2006, wolves killed 230 cattle and 436 sheep. However, confirmed losses probably represent a fraction of actual wolf losses. Few other types of livestock classes were killed. Conflicts are addressed on a case-by-case basis, striving to connect the agency response to the damage in space and time and to decrease the potential for future losses. Lethal control is implemented incrementally after predation was verified, and 254 wolves were killed from 1987 to 2006. Only complete removal of either wolves or livestock eliminates the potential for wolf depredation. The continued presence of a viable wolf population requires that a wide variety of non-lethal and lethal tools be investigated and implemented. That combination will also be required to maintain local public tolerance of wolves where the two overlap and to foster broad public acceptance of techniques used to minimize conflicts. Resolving wolf and livestock conflicts at a local scale is but one component of a larger state wolf conservation and management program. When wolves are delisted, regulated public harvest will allow us to more proactively manage the population

Predicting Abundance of Gray Wolves in Montana Using Hunter Observations and Field Monitoring

From the early 1980s to present, wolf (Canis lupus) numbers in Montana have been documented by attempting to locate and count all individuals. These counts represented minimums with unknown error.  We describe a method using observations by hunters, in conjunction with field monitoring to estimate wolf population size and distribution in a more systematic way. Our method consists of three general steps: 1) use a multi-season occupancy model to estimate the area occupied by wolves in packs using locations reported by a random sample of hunters, 2) estimate the numbers of wolf packs by dividing area occupied by average territory size from field monitoring, then 3) estimate the numbers of wolves by multiplying the number of estimated packs by average pack size from field monitoring.  Estimated area occupied by packs increased between 2007 and 2012. From 2007 to 2009, mean estimated territory size from 38 closely monitored packs was 599.83 km2. Dividing estimated area occupied by mean territory size resulted in an increase in estimated packs between 2007 and 2012, exceeding minimum counts. From 1994 to 2011, complete counts were obtained from 413 packs within or bordering Montana, and mean pack size was estimated at 6.32 animals. Multiplying estimated packs by mean pack size resulted in an increase in estimated population size between 2007 and 2012, exceeding minimum counts.  MFWP’s method to estimate the wolf population is cost effective and incorporates public participation with field monitoring. Future application will test the effects of harvest and removals on occupancy, colonization, and local extinction

Adaptive Wolf Management: The Regulated Public Harvest Component

Montana’s wolf (Canis lupus) conservation and management plan is based on adaptive management principles and includes regulated public harvest as a population management tool. The need and opportunity to implement public harvest in 2008, 2009, and 2010 required Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to develop a stepped down adaptive management framework specific to harvest. For 2008 and 2009, FWP set modest objectives: implement a harvest, maintain a recovered population, and begin the learning process to inform development of future hunting regulations and quotas. In 2010, FWP used a formal Structured Decision Making Process to more clearly define priorities and challenges of setting a wolf season, outline objectives of a successful season, and evaluate consequences and trade-offs between alternative management actions. For all years, FWP used a modeling process to simulate a wide range of harvest rates across three harvest units and to predict harvest effects on the minimum number of wolves, packs and breeding pairs. Model inputs were derived from minimum wolf numbers observed in the field. Modeling allowed consideration of a range of harvest quotas, predicted outcomes, and risk that harvest could drive the population below federally-required minimums. It also facilitated explicit consideration of how well a particular quota achieved objectives and how to adapt future regulations and quotas. Legal challenges to federal delisting restricted implementation of the first fair chase hunting season to 2009. Montana’s wolf population is securely recovered, despite the dynamic political and legal environments. Regardless, FWP remains committed to a scientific, data-driven approach to adaptive management

LIVING WITH WOLVES: a guide to living and recreating in wolf country

Gray wolves primarily live in habitat that supports deer and elk. As a result, wolves sometimes use areas that are in close proximity to humans, particularly in and around deer and elk habitat in rural areas. Wolves can be legally killed if seen attacking dogs, chasing or attacking livestock, or to protect human life. For those living and recreating in wolf country, here are some tips on how to decrease the potential for conflicts. HUMAN SAFETY Wolf attacks on people are very rare. Most wolves fear people and will run when encountered. However, wolves are visual learners and some may stop and stare. All wildlife can be dangerous and should be given distance and treated with caution. There have been a small number of documented wolf attacks on people in North America and contributing factors were most often related to habituation to people and/or conditioning to human foods. In areas where people live near wolf habitat it is especially important to follow these steps to discourage habituation: AT HOME Do not feed wolves or leave food outdoors, including pet food. Do not feed deer, turkeys, or other wildlife that may attract wolves or other predators like lions and bears. If wolves are seen close to people or human-inhabited areas, scare them away by making loud noises. Report wolves that seem comfortable around people, seek human food, or frequent human-inhabited areas to FWP (see contact info on back of handout). Hikers, campers, and hunters are more likely to come upon areas of wolf activity such as a kill site, denning area, or resting site. After detecting a person’s presence, some wolves may lope off quietly, others may bark or howl, or some may cautiously approach to get a better look. Hearing wolves barking and howling all around can be loud and startling. However, encountering wolves at close range is seldom a reason for alarm (unless you have a dog; see dog section on back) especially if you know what to expect. Once wolves have identified the disturbance, they generally leave the area. Vocalizing could go on for awhile as wolves regroup out of sight and pull back from the situation. If a wolf is killed, other wolves generally move off but may return to the site later. Here are some tips on what to do and how to avoid close encounters. IN THE FIELD Avoid areas of wolf activity including fresh wolf kills and denning areas. Do not approach wolves. In the event of a close encounter, be calm and slowly leave the area. If approached, stand tall and make noise. Hunters: hang game meat out of reach. Wolves may feed on gut piles and carcasses left out overnight but will usually move off upon your return. Always carry pepper spray for any potential close encounter with wildlife