wolves and the environment final submission pdf

8/20/2019 Wolves and the Environment Final Submission PDF

1/89

Wolves and the Environment

Final Submission

Nicholas Martinoli

4/24/2015

Thomas Edison State College

2015FEB Lib495-OL010

Liberal Arts Capstone

Dr. Rick Woten


2/89

Abstract

This capstone project investigated the influences that wolves have on an environment.

This was completed by examining evidence how much depredation of wild and

domestic ungulates is typical, what the relationship between wolves and humans has

been, the various methods for mitigating damage, and finally, by comparing wolf

depredation to other causes of loss for ranchers. This paper concluded that (1)

compared to non-predator death, wolves are an insignificant source of loss and (2)

humans are the species that has been creating the problem by constant expansion into

territory that originally belonged to the wolves. To ensure that the population of wolves

continues to grow and have positive effects on the environment while limiting the

depredation on herds, it is the recommendation of this paper that ranchers improve

barriers to depredation, and that governmental agencies update their current

reimbursement programs for losses attributable to wolves.

Keywords: Wolves, Environment, Depredation, Endangered Species Act,

Overpopulation, Management Techniques


3/89

Table of Contents

Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................... 4

Chapter Two: Literature Review.................................................................................. 9

Chapter Three: Methodology .................................................................................... 33

Chapter Four: Results of the Study .......................................................................... 38

Chapter Five: Summary and Discussion .................................................................. 62

Works Cited ................................................................................................................ 77

Table of Figures

Table One: Numbers of Wolves and Cattle Depredation……………………………..42

Figure One: Numbers and Management Practices….…………………………………52


4/89

Chapter One: Introduction

The earth is a very complex system that is constantly evolving. A change to

any part of the ecosystem affects all of the other parts. By fully understanding the

relationship between the reintroduction of a predatory species and the rest of the

environment, it will become possible to ensure the future health of the entire

ecosystem.

This project looked at the different relationships that wolves have with other

parts of the environment and the optimal way to ensure longevity for all species.

While there are a variety of ways in that this will be done, a careful analysis of studies

to date, combined with information gathered from both Department of Fish and

Wildlife law enforcement officers and the people directly affected by an increase in

the population of wolves, should be sufficient to define trends in the current system.

After looking at the data from this study, answers to these questions became

clear and it became possible to determine the best way to manage the new predators.

This ensured that our delicate ecosystem continues to thrive.

Background

Wolves have almost always been a part of our environment. Although bears,

cougars and coyotes certainly have influenced the environs, wolves have a much

larger impact on their territory. Because of the danger that they posed to other wildlife

and livestock and the extremely negative public attitude towards them, hunting them

was common. The federal government promoted this by placing bounties on wolves.

Because of the extreme hunting with no limitations, wolves were almost completely

extinct in their former range by 1960 (White, no date).


5/89

Since the population of wolves dropped so low, they were listed as

“endangered” on the Federal Endangered Species Act. This act mandates penalties

for harm to wolves and sanctions appropriate environmental agencies to increase the

population as much as possible.

In the past decade, for example, wolves have reappeared in the Northeast part

of Washington State, into the state from Idaho and Canada. This is encouraging

because it indicates that the population is starting to come back from the brink of

extinction.

Problem Statement:

The problem stems from the fact that the reintroduction of wolves has resulted

in heavy casualties in both wildlife and livestock. Those losses have pitted animal

rights activists against farmers and outdoorsmen. Unfortunately, because both sides

are reading information that supports their positions or are basing their arguments on

personal experience, it is nearly impossible to find a unifying approach or to

determine the best reaction to the increasing population.

This paper investigated one main question and several sub questions. After

answering those questions, a complete picture of the situation was painted. This

helped us to gain a better understanding of the situation and enabled the

recommendation of how humans should respond in the future.

To that end: How does wolf overpopulation affect wildlife, livestock, and

humans?

Sub-questions that support the main question include:


6/89

1) What is the history of the relationship between wolves and humans since

the colonization of the United States?

2) What are the advantages and disadvantages of different methods for

responding to wolf population changes?

3) Finally, how does depredation from wolves compare to losses to the

population of domestic animals and wild ungulates from other causes?

Professional Significance of Your Work:

Understanding the environment is critically important. Without a clear

understanding of what is actually happening, it is impossible to effectively manage our

environment. The goal of this work was to investigate what exactly is happening with

the wolf population, what effect they have on the environment and how authorities

should respond.

Overview of Methodology:

Resources used to investigate and answer the questions presented under

Problem Statement were diverse. They included published academic studies, the

personal experiences of those directly affected by the increased population of wolves

as related in online records, and other sources for information about wolves.

Online resources were extremely helpful in determining what effect wolves have

on the environment. These resources range from academic studies to information

gathered in support of governmental legislation. These resources were used to

answer the questions about wolf impact on the environment and best approaches to

controlling growth.


7/89

By receiving answers during these interviews and through the online sources, it

became possible to realize answers to all the sub questions and ultimately the main

question.

Delimitations:

This study was limited to the impact of Grey Wolves on the environment in North

East Washington State. In order to stay within those parameters, all political or

emotionally driven opinions were excluded and raw data will be preferred whenever

possible.

Definition of Terms:

There are many terms used throughout this dissertation that the reader may not

be familiar with. To increase understanding, ensure clarity, and ensure continuity,

those terms that may be unfamiliar will be defined here.

Wolf: The population of Grey Wolves living in Northeast Washington. They

generally run in packs of five to ten and prey on large animals including deer, elk,

coyotes, sheep, cattle and moose.

Endangered: Status of animals where the population is extremely low and where

the species is protected under law by the Federal government.

Conservation: In the context of this study, conservation referred to the use of a

resource in a manner that will ensure its continued existence. Hunting is a form of

conservation.

Preservation: Preservation referred to absolutely no use of a resource in an

attempt to ensure its continued existence. While related to conservation, this

approach is much stricter.


8/89

Ungulate: Any of the four legged, cleft hooved mammalian species such as cows,

deer, sheep, elk or moose.

Depredation: When a predator hunts and kills a domestic animal

Summary:

The environment is a delicate balance. Recently, a new predator was introduced

and the influence that they caused has upset the system. Herds of animals, both wild

and domestic, have been heavily preyed on and tensions have arisen between people

who depend on those animals for a living and animal rights activists.

To solve the problem of the harmed animals and rising tensions, this study

attempted to determine exactly what harm was being caused, what is being done and

what recommendations can be made.


9/89

Chapter Two: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography

In this chapter, relevant literature one the subject of wolf overpopulation was

reviewed. This is done in an attempt to determine what work has been executed by

others. There are four subjects that were questioned under the main and sub questions.

These topics include the effect of wolves on the environment, the history of interactions

between humans and wolves, the methods of ensuring limited depredation and finally a

comparison between wolf depredation and losses from other sources. A search of the

relevant information will be made by dividing this chapter into two parts, Theoretical

Research and Empirical Research, and discussing the studies that fall under each of

those categories.

Theoretical Research

Theoretical research is based on the attitudes that society holds about a subject.

Wolves have been the focus of many different studies. Not only are they a species that

are fairly ubiquitous across continents, society has been fascinated with them. This

abundance of research is important because it shows us exactly what humans think of

the species. It also provides evidence as to exactly why we hunted them to near

extinction.

The first theoretical question that must be asked is “why do we fear wolves?”

One might be tempted to answer that self-preservation is the root of this fear, and that is

partially correct, however the true answer is much deeper than that. According to

Musiani and Paquet’s 2004 article there are four main reasons why humans have

hunted wolves. Protection of herds, fear, maintenance of our spot as the top predator,


10/89

and harvest of fur were among the reasons that humans waged a war against the

species.

Our species has a long history of constantly expanding to places where it should

be impossible to survive. Simply examine space travel for a spectacular example of the

lengths that we will go to, in order to dominate a new region.

Space is not the only frontier that we have conquered. Westward expansion of

humans across the United States in the later part of the 18 th century and into the 19th is

certainly a large portion of the equation. According to the University of Southern

California’s 2008 study; the huge increase in population on the Eastern Seaboard,

combined with a tripling of the territorial range of the United States and a decrease in

transportation costs accounted for a population shift from approximately seven percent

to nearly sixty. This migration put huge amounts of pressure on the wolves as the

introduction of huge human populations meant that there was less land to roam over,

game was more scares, and wolf hunting increased.

With the increase in humans came an increase in domestic herds. Cattle, sheep

and other animals brought by the settlers became prime targets for the wolves because

they had limited areas to run to whereas wild animals could go anywhere. Furthermore,

because the newcomers hunted the wild ungulates for food, their populations

experienced a sharp decline. The increase in predation of domestic animals prompted a

response from the humans and subsequently is the first reason that prompted their

extirpation.


11/89

Fear is the second reason why humans hunted the animals. Again, Musiani and

Paquet (2004) went into depth on this motivating factor however simply looking at the

literature produced on the subject shows what society thinks about the wolf. Little Red

Riding Hood is an extremely popular children’s tale that showcases not only the

dangers of talking to strangers (according to some interpretations), but also reveals

insight as to what society’s preconceptions about wolves are. Other literature going

back to Greek and Roman times has similarly demonized the species. Common themes

that have been applied to wolves include greed, distrust, an intent to do harm, a

diabolical disposition, death, destruction and other negative concepts. Jesse (2000)

conducted an in depth analyses of the literature that has been written on the subject of

wolves.

A huge part of folklore that has influenced society’s perception of wolves has

been Werewolves. These fictional wolf-human shapeshifting hybrids are supposed to be

insatiable murderers with inhuman strength, speed and a complete aversion to

conforming to society. These rumors have greatly contributed to the fear that humans

feel toward the predator. This is the second reason behind human persecution of

wolves.

As Prugh, Stoner, Epps, Bean, Ripple, Laliberte, and Brashares established in

The Rise of the Mesopredator (2009), humans have made a point of not only thriving in

areas where other large predators roam, it has been the modus operandi to hunt and kill

all those that pose any threat. Bears, cougars, wolves, panthers, lions and wild dogs

have all been hunted by humans. This has been done in an attempt to guarantee our


12/89

place as the ultimate apex predator. This nearly subconscious drive to eliminate other

predators has been the third reason behind our drive to eliminate them.

The fourth reason that humans have hunted wolves is the fact that their fur is

valuable. While not valued as highly as beaver, it is still high enough to justify the

hunting of the furbearers. According to Rouse (2012), during the “Era of the Wolfers”

from 1850 through 1880, hunters and trappers diligently worked to take as many

animals as possible. As a result of their actions, nearly one hundred thousand wolves

were taken each year.

Society’s persecution of wolves; built on the foundations of fear, protection,

subconscious need, and on profit; therefore makes sense. The question that must be

asked next is whether those preconceptions surrounding wolves influence our policies

and actions towards them. This can be done in two parts. First, we will look at studies

on society’s attitudes towards wolves while hunting was widespread. Then, we will look

at the attitudes towards them since their status was changed to Endangered and

hunting was halted.

Rouse (2012) found that these preconceptions certainly did influence how people

acted towards wolves. According to the literature that was compiled by Rouse, the

negative views toward wolves began in Europe, were carried across to the New World

by settlers and then influenced the hunting of the species. In fact, the hatred of wolves

was so strong that, beginning in 1630, bounties were placed on the heads of wolves.

This certainly encouraged the extirpation of the species.


13/89

Finally in 1973, the Endangered Species Act was established to help improve the

chances of long-term survival for species that were near the brink of extinction. Because

of the effort humans had made to eradicate them, wolves certainly deserved a spot on

this list and the war against them ceased.

Williams, Ericsson, and Heberlein (2002) found that, beginning in approximately

the 1970’s, public perception of wolves and their reintroduction has been increasing.

This increase in public opinion has prompted officials to make an effort to ensure the

long-term viability of the species. Of course, many rural citizens, ranchers who have lost

livestock, and outdoorsmen who suffer from increased competition are more likely to

approve of reduced population sizes (Naughton-Treves, Grossberg and Treves (2003))

however the vast majority of the population is for increased populations.

Empirical Research

Empirical research includes the facts that can be substantiated numerically. In

this section, previous statistical studies about wolves were investigated to see what

knowledge about the subject has already been gathered. Studies of significant interest

scrutinize the effect of wolves on the environment, management options available to

reduce depredation and the difference between wolf losses and other losses

experienced by ranchers.

The first question that must be asked is: “what influence do wolves have on the

environment?” The answer to this may be found by looking at studies completed on the

influences felt by wild ungulates, domestic animals, and humans. Fortunately, the

studies in this realm


14/89

In regards to the impact on wild ungulates, the United States Department of

Agriculture (2010) provided insight as to what exactly a wolf may consume. The

conclusion was that ungulates constituted a majority of their diet. Out of the animals

consumed, deer followed by elk, followed by moose were the subject of the heaviest

predation.

When considering the depredation experienced by domestic herds, cattle and

sheep are the animals that are preyed on heaviest. Bangs and Shivik (2001);

Lehmkuhler, Palmquist, Ruid, Willging, and Wydeven (2007); Laporte, Muhly, Pitt,

Alexander, and Musiani (2010); Smallidge, Halbritter, Ashcroft, and Boren (2008); and

finally Bradley (2001) provided comprehensive studies on the subject of livestock

depredation.

Although these reports all vary slightly, it is the general consensus that wolves do

have an impact on the population. One interesting fact discovered by the studies is that

in addition to direct losses experienced by ranchers, increased stress from being hunted

increased the stress experienced by domestic animals. This stress leads to lowered

amounts of quality meat, increased natural abortions, disease, and premature death.

The final sub-section under wolf impact on the environment considers how

wolves effect humans. While the problem of lost animals obviously imparts a loss on

ranchers, there are other effects that must be considered. Among these effects,

aggression and monetary changes must be considered.

The USDA (2010) provided information of wolf aggression towards humans.

While one might assume that aggression was a legitimate concern based on our fear of


15/89

the species, the report concluded that there have been very few instances where

humans were attacked. Furthermore, Weiss, Kroeger, Haney, and Fascione (2007)

found that increased wolf populations resulted in a better environment with less disease

and more forage. In the same study, it was found that the presence of wolves resulted

huge financial benefits for certain regions such as Yellowstone National Park.

As a result of the losses experienced by ranchers and the general fear of the

public, the management option used most extensively was lethal action. Since the

passage of the Endangered Species Act, wide spread hunting is no longer an option,

however maintaining control of the population is important if depredation is to be

reduced. Available options include both methods that have been tested and those that

have been untested. It is important to investigate all of these methods to ensure that the

most optimal conclusion is reached.

Management options are fairly varied. They range from lethal action to

essentially doing nothing. It is important to mention that no one response is going to be

optimal.

While lethal action is an obvious way to eliminate problem animals from packs,

there are several problems with the method. First, it creates rifts with animal-rights

activists. Second, it can actually increase depredation in the long run (Weilgus, Peebles;

2014) According to the study, there is a short term downward trend that is then followed

by a general increase in the depredations. While this is an acceptable method short

term, it is certainly not a lasting solution and it would be prudent to pursue other

methods.


16/89

Translocation is the act of taking either single wolves, or packs of wolves, from

their original location and moving them to an area where they will hopefully stop

depredating livestock. This option is similar to lethal action in the fact that it will work,

but has problems. Lower survival rates, an inability to find a new pack, increased

homing tendency and an increased cost are all problems that may be seen (Bradley et

al. 2005). The report recommends releasing groups of wolves together as this may

reduce homing and increase survival rates.

Employing the use of guard animals is the third option available. Andelt (2004)

investigated the use of dogs and concluded that they were effective, however could be

overpowered by a pack of wolves. Meadows, Knowlton, (2000) investigated llamas and

found that they were effective, however had several significant downsides. Green

(1989) found that there were significant problems with donkeys that outweighed their

benefits.

Improved fencing is another option that is available. Lehmkuhler,

Palmquist, Ruid, Willging, and Wydeven (2007) discovered that it is extremely effective,

however can be expensive to maintain. A derivative of improved fencing is the use of

Fladry. Musiani, Mamo, Boitani, Callaghan, gates, Cormack, Mattei, Visalberghi, Breck,

and Volpi (2003) found that this method significantly decreased depredation at a lower

cost than other physical barriers.

Bangs and Shivik (2001) investigated the use of audio and visual deterrence

methods. Their study found that it initially decreased depredation, however, habituation

eventually prevailed and levels rose to what they were before.


17/89

Andelt, Phillips, Gruver, and Guthrie, (1999) found that the application of shock

collars significantly reduced depredation of sheep in coyotes. Furthermore, this was

done while maintaining depredation of wild game animals. This is an important method

that should be investigated for use on wolves as it is effective and does not cause

undue harm.

Lehmkuhler, Palmquist, Ruid, Willging, and Wydeven (2007) found that

translocation of livestock was another option that was effective. The benefit of this

method is that the depredating wolves are completely removed from the equation

without harming them. The drawback is that depredation may happen in the new

location, it is expensive and it significantly increases the stress to the livestock.

The final option that is available is to monetarily reimburse those who have lost

domestic animals. This option, explored by Naughton-Treves, Grossberg and Treves

(2003) ensures that, if nothing else, farmers are able to continue their operations

without being hindered by forces outside of their control. Interestingly enough, the report

found that although ranchers were reimbursed, this did not improve their attitudes

toward wolves. This does not negate this approach, however it is something to consider.

The final group of studies inspects the depredation of wolves when compared to

other sources of loss. The United States Department of Agriculture releases occasional

reports on losses suffered. Cattle and Calves Nonpredator Death Loss in the United

States; Cattle and Calves Predator Death Loss in the United States, 2010; and 2010;

Sheep and Lamb Nonpredator Death Loss in the United States, 2009 provide very

specific answers as to the losses experienced by ranchers. From these reports, it is


18/89

apparent that non-predator losses account for a much greater portion of the losses than

depredation from wolves.


19/89

Annotated Bibliography

Topic: Depredation Reduction

Database Searched: Google

Descriptors Used: depredation reduction techniques, wolf management

Years Searched: All

Andelt, W. F. (October 13th, 2004) Use of Livestock Guarding Animals to Reduce

Predation on Livestock. DigitalCommons. Accessed 3/28/15.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=icwdmsheepgo

at

This study focused on the use of guard animals to reduce livestock. It explored

dogs, llamas and donkeys as possible options and found that dogs generally worked the

best. This is because they are inexpensive, are not aggressive towards the herd and

are effective. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1



Descriptors Used: depredation reduction, wolf management

Years Searched: All

Andelt, William F. Phillips, Robert L. Gruver, Kenneth S. Guthrie, Jerry W. (spring,

1999) Coyote Predation of Domestic Sheep Deterred with Electronic Dog-Training

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=icwdmsheepgoathttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=icwdmsheepgoathttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=icwdmsheepgoathttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=icwdmsheepgoathttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=icwdmsheepgoat


20/89

Collar. Wildlife Research Center Library.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/99pubs/99-1.pdf

This paper looks at the effectiveness of electronic shock collars used on coyotes.

While this is slightly different than what is used on wolves, the information would be

roughly comparable and could still be useful. Overall, the study found that attacks were

significantly less likely to occur after shocks were administered and eventually, the

coyotes began to avoid the lambs. Clear summary, interesting results and an extensive

bibliography. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1




Years Searched: All

Bangs, Ed. Shivik, John. (July 2001) Managing wolf conflict with livestock in the

Northwestern United States. Carnivore Damage Prevention News.

https://www.californiawolfcenter.org/downloads/wolf-livestock-conflict-NW-US-Bangs-

and-Shivik.pdf

This article looks at different measures that can be taken to prevent depredation.

Lethal measures, as well as nonlethal measures such as translocation, Lithium

Chloride, strobes, sirens, and pyrotechnics are evaluated and compared. The article

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/99pubs/99-1.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/99pubs/99-1.pdfhttps://www.californiawolfcenter.org/downloads/wolf-livestock-conflict-NW-US-Bangs-and-Shivik.pdfhttps://www.californiawolfcenter.org/downloads/wolf-livestock-conflict-NW-US-Bangs-and-Shivik.pdfhttps://www.californiawolfcenter.org/downloads/wolf-livestock-conflict-NW-US-Bangs-and-Shivik.pdfhttps://www.californiawolfcenter.org/downloads/wolf-livestock-conflict-NW-US-Bangs-and-Shivik.pdfhttps://www.californiawolfcenter.org/downloads/wolf-livestock-conflict-NW-US-Bangs-and-Shivik.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/99pubs/99-1.pdf


21/89

shows both positive and negative attributes to each approach. Includes a

comprehensive summary and a fairly extensive bibliography. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1



Descriptors Used: depredation reduction, wolf management, depredation statistics

Years Searched: All

Bradley, Elizabeth H. (2004) An Evaluation Of Wolf-Livestock Conflicts And

Management In The Northwestern United States. University of Montana.

http://tesf.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bradley_2004.pdf

This dissertation investigates many of the factors surrounding the conflicts

between wolves and livestock. Topics covered include lethal action and translocation as

solutions to depredation as well as factors that increased or decreased the probability of

depredations. Includes a solid summary and extensive bibliography. USEFULNESS

SCORE: 1



http://tesf.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bradley_2004.pdfhttp://tesf.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bradley_2004.pdfhttp://tesf.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bradley_2004.pdf


22/89


Years Searched: All

Bradley E.H., Pletscher D.H., Bangs E.E., Kunkel K.E., Smith D.W., Mack C.M., Meier

T.J., Fontaine J.A., Niemeyer C.C. & Jimenez M.D. (2005) Evaluating wolf translocation

as a nonlethal method to reduce livestock conflicts in the northwestern United

States. Conservation Biology, 19, 1498-1508

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/handouts_092514_WAG.pdf

This study examined the efficiency of relocation as a tactic used to eliminate wolf

depredation. While the system is not perfect, releasing groups of wolves together has

been shown to help reduce homing and mortality rates of relocated animals. This study

includes several solid recommendations and has an extensive list of cited literature for

use.

USEFULLNESS SCORE: 1



Descriptors Used: depredation reduction, wolf management, guard animals

Years Searched: All

Green, Jeffrey S. (1989) Donkeys for Predation Control. Eastern Wildlife Damage

Control Conferences.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ewdcc4

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/handouts_092514_WAG.pdfhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/handouts_092514_WAG.pdfhttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ewdcc4http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ewdcc4http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ewdcc4http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/handouts_092514_WAG.pdf


23/89

Similar to llamas, donkeys are another viable form of predation control. Although

they work well for protecting herds, there are some problems with over aggression,

training and with the feed available. Overall solid article with interesting points, firm

conclusion and extensive bibliography. USEFULLNESS SCORE: 2

Topic: Attitudes Toward Wolves


Descriptors Used: Literature on Wolves

Years Searched: All

Jesse, Lisa (2000) Wolves in Western Literature. University of Tennessee Honors

Thesis Projects. Accessed 4/22/15 http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/391

This project investigated the literature surrounding wolves. Jesse found that

throughout history, negative views have been established as a result of the popular

scripts. This is important because it shows exactly what has driven humans to eradicate

wolves. USEFULNESS SCORE: 2

Topic: Wolf Predation and other Effects


Descriptors Used: Effects of Wolves on Environment

Years Searched: All

http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/391http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/391http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/391http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/391


24/89

Laporte Isabelle., Muhly, Tyler B. Pitt, Justin A. Alexander, Mike. Musiani, Marco.

(August 2010) Effects of Wolves on Elk and Cattle Behaviors: Implications for Livestock

Production and Wolf Conservation. PLoSONE. Accessed 3/29/15.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011954

This study investigated the effect of wolves on the environment. When wolves

are introduced to an area, the not only directly harm the wild ungulates by preying on

them, they also change how they behave. This is important to consider when weighing

the effects of wolves on the environment. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1

Topic: Wolf Predation and other Effects


Descriptors Used: Effects of Wolves on Environment

Years Searched: All

Lehmkuhler, Jeff. Palmquist, Gregory. Ruid, David. Willging, Bob. Wydeven, Adrian.

(2007) Effects of Wolves and Other Predators on Farms in Wisconsin: Beyond Verified

Losses. Pub-ER-658 2007. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0658.pdf

Since the prohibition of hunting, the population of wolves has increased in

Wisconsin from merely 25 to over 450 in Wisconsin. Coinciding with this increase was

an increase in both verified and unverified encounters and problems not directly related

to predation. This report studied the direct and indirect effects of wolves on both

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011954http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011954http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0658.pdfhttp://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0658.pdfhttp://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0658.pdfhttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011954


25/89

domestic and non-domestic animals and showed exactly what effects were seen by

farming communities. Includes comprehensive bibliography but lacks recommendations

for actions to be taken to better manage wolves. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1



Descriptors Used: Wolf Management, depredation, guard animals.

Years Searched: All

Meadows, Laurie E. Knowlton, Fredrick F. (fall, 2000) Efficacy of Guard Llamas to

Reduce Canine Predation on Domestic Sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/00pubs/00-45.pdf

Another option to dogs or range riders is the use of llamas to ensure the safety of

the livestock. This paper looks into the positive and negative attributes to llamas and

attempts to determine if it is a viable option. Study includes solid results, valid

conclusions and an extensive bibliography. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1



Descriptors Used: Wolf management, depredation reduction

Years Searched: All

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/00pubs/00-45.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/00pubs/00-45.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/00pubs/00-45.pdf


26/89

Musiani, Marco. Mamo, Charles. Boitani, Luigi. Callaghan, Carolyn. Gates, C. Cormack.

Mattei, Livia. Visalberghi, Elisabetta. Breck, Stewart. And Volpi, Giulia. (2003) Wolf

Depredation Trends And The Use Of Barriers To Protect Livestock In Western North

America. University of Calgary.

http://www.defenders.org/publications/wolf_depredation_trends_and_the_use_of_barrie

rs.pdf

This report investigates the effectiveness of barriers to protect livestock. Flandry

does not affect regular wildlife or livestock but has been shown to be effective in

reducing access that wolves would otherwise depredate livestock. Includes

comprehensive summary and extensive literature cited list. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1

Topic: Wolf-human relationship


Descriptors Used: History between humans and wolves.

Years Searched: All

Musiani, Marco. Paquet, Paul C. (2004) The Practices of Wolf Persecution, Protection,

and Restoration in Canada and the United States. BioScience. Accessed 3/13/15.

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/1/50.full.pdf

This report by Musiani and Paquet investigates the history of wolf hunting. In the

United States and Canada, there has been a huge effort made by humans to eradicate

http://www.defenders.org/publications/wolf_depredation_trends_and_the_use_of_barriers.pdfhttp://www.defenders.org/publications/wolf_depredation_trends_and_the_use_of_barriers.pdfhttp://www.defenders.org/publications/wolf_depredation_trends_and_the_use_of_barriers.pdfhttp://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/1/50.full.pdfhttp://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/1/50.full.pdfhttp://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/1/50.full.pdfhttp://www.defenders.org/publications/wolf_depredation_trends_and_the_use_of_barriers.pdfhttp://www.defenders.org/publications/wolf_depredation_trends_and_the_use_of_barriers.pdf


27/89

the species. Understanding this is history ensures that informed decisions about the

problem may be made. USEFULNESS SCORE: 2

Topic: Attitudes towards wolves


Descriptors Used: wolf-human relationship, attitudes towards wolves

Years Searched: All

Naughton-Treves, Lisa. Grossburg, Rebecca. Treves, Adrian. (December, 2003) Paying

for Tolerance: Rural Citizens’ Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation.

Accessed 3/28/15.

http://geography.wisc.edu/livingwithwolves/publications/Naughton_etal_paying_for_toler

ance.pdf

This study investigated the attitudes of society towards wolves. They found that

there are certain factors that influence what a person thinks of the species and

acknowledging those factors makes a difference in the effectiveness of the

management technique used. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1

Topic: Wolf-Human Relationship


http://geography.wisc.edu/livingwithwolves/publications/Naughton_etal_paying_for_tolerance.pdfhttp://geography.wisc.edu/livingwithwolves/publications/Naughton_etal_paying_for_tolerance.pdfhttp://geography.wisc.edu/livingwithwolves/publications/Naughton_etal_paying_for_tolerance.pdfhttp://geography.wisc.edu/livingwithwolves/publications/Naughton_etal_paying_for_tolerance.pdfhttp://geography.wisc.edu/livingwithwolves/publications/Naughton_etal_paying_for_tolerance.pdf


28/89

Descriptors Used: Human need to dominate their territory

Years Searched: All

Prugh, Laura R. Stoner, Chantel J. Epps, Clinton W. Bean, William T. Ripple, William

J. Laliberte, Andrea S. and Brashares, Justin S. (October 2009) The Rise of the

Mesopredator. Bioscience Magazine. Accessed 3/26/15.

http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/mesopredators.pdf

This report investigates the rise of the Mesopredator. Humans, one of the most

widespread Mesopredator in the world, are investigated in the report. One interesting

observation made is that the human has an inherent desire to completely eradicate all

opposition that they may face and that is one of the major reasons why we have hunted

wolves. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1

Topic: Wolf-human Relationship


Descriptors Used: Relationship between humans and wolves

Years Searched: All

Rouse, Sarah. (May, 2012) Wolf Perception and Policy in the United States: An

Analysis of Two Red Wolf Reintroduction Programs. Wilkes Honors College. Accessed

3/27/15. http://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A1459/datastream/OBJ/view

This study focuses on human perceptions and how those have driven policy of

wolves in the United States. The conclusion that Rouse came to was that humans

http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/mesopredators.pdfhttp://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/mesopredators.pdfhttp://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A1459/datastream/OBJ/viewhttp://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A1459/datastream/OBJ/viewhttp://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A1459/datastream/OBJ/viewhttp://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/mesopredators.pdf


29/89

dislike the predator and the policy has been to eradicate the threat. This is important

because it shows that our beliefs do influence our actions. USEFULNESS SCORE: 2

Topic: Wolf Management Practices


Descriptors Used: Depredation Reduction techniques,

Years Searched: All

Smallidge, S. T., H. J. Halbritter, N. K. Ashcroft, J. C. Boren. 2008. Reviewing livestock

management practices to minimize livestock depredation by wolves: Applicability to the

Southwest. New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service and Range

Improvement Task Force, Report 78, Las Cruces, USA. Accessed 4/23/15

http://nmyrm.nmsu.edu/documents/ritf78-review-of-lmp-to-minimize-livestock-

depredation-by-wolves.pdf

This report studies the management practices used to minimize depredation by

wolves in the Southwest part of the United States. While there are some differences in

the effects seen by the wolves because of the terrain, natural prey, management

practices and size of the ranches among others, the management recommendations

can be considered for use on Grey Wolves in Washington State. This report includes an

extensive summary and references that can be used effectively. USEFULLNESS

SCORE: 1

http://nmyrm.nmsu.edu/documents/ritf78-review-of-lmp-to-minimize-livestock-depredation-by-wolves.pdfhttp://nmyrm.nmsu.edu/documents/ritf78-review-of-lmp-to-minimize-livestock-depredation-by-wolves.pdfhttp://nmyrm.nmsu.edu/documents/ritf78-review-of-lmp-to-minimize-livestock-depredation-by-wolves.pdfhttp://nmyrm.nmsu.edu/documents/ritf78-review-of-lmp-to-minimize-livestock-depredation-by-wolves.pdfhttp://nmyrm.nmsu.edu/documents/ritf78-review-of-lmp-to-minimize-livestock-depredation-by-wolves.pdf


30/89

Topic: Wolf-human conflict


Descriptors Used: Westward expansion of humans

Years Searched: All

University of Southern California. (2008, February 29). What Caused Westward

Expansion In The United States? ScienceDaily . Retrieved April 22, 2015 from

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228150402.htm

This paper informs us as to the reasoning behind westward expansion.

Westward expansion in the United States was a large part of what increased the

tensions between humans and wolves. The increased tensions lead to us trying to

extirpate the species. USEFULNESS SCORE: 3

Topic: Non-wolf Cattle Loss in the United States


Descriptors Used: Cattle loss contributors

Years Searched: All

USDA (December, 2011) Cattle and Calves Nonpredator Death Loss in the United

States; 2010. APHIS. Accessed 3/28/15.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228150402.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228150402.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228150402.htm


31/89

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_nonp

red_ .pdf

This report investigates the cattle deaths that are attributed to weather, disease,

accident and other non-predator causes. Surprisingly enough, the deaths from

nonpredator causes far outweigh the deaths from predator causes. USEFULNESS

SCORE: 1

Topic: Wolf Management techniques


Descriptors Used: wolf management, depredation reduction plan

Years Searched: All

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (August 2010) Gray Wolf Damage

Management in Idaho for Protection of Livestock and other Domestic Animals, Wild

Ungulates, and Human Safety. APHIS. Accessed 3/25/15.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/idaho_wolf_ea.pdf pg.18, 19, 20.

This report investigates the different aspects of the reintroduction of wolves in

Idaho. This found that there are some fairly significant measures that must be taken,

however, it is not impossible for the actions to ensure a healthy and safe ecosystem.

USEFULNESS SCORE: 3

Topic: Non-wolf Sheep Loss in the United States

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_nonpred_%20%20%20%20%20.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_nonpred_%20%20%20%20%20.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_nonpred_%20%20%20%20%20.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/idaho_wolf_ea.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/idaho_wolf_ea.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/idaho_wolf_ea.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_nonpred_%20%20%20%20%20.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_nonpred_%20%20%20%20%20.pdf


32/89


Descriptors Used: Sheep loss in the United States

Years Searched: All

USDA (May, 2011) Sheep and Lamb Nonpredator Death Loss in the United States,

2009. APHIS. Accessed 3/28/15

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/sheep_nonpred_2

009.pdf

Similar to the above report, this USDA study investigated the nonpredator deaths

of sheep. The conclusion is that, once again, predator deaths are insignificant when

compared to non-predator deaths. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1

Topic: Predator Cattle Loss in the United States


Descriptors Used: wolf predation, causes of livestock loss

Years Searched: All

USDA (May, 2012) Cattle and Calves Predator Death Loss in the United States, 2010.

APHIS. Accessed 3/28/15.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_pred

_deathloss_2010.pdf

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/sheep_nonpred_2009.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/sheep_nonpred_2009.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/sheep_nonpred_2009.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_pred_deathloss_2010.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_pred_deathloss_2010.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_pred_deathloss_2010.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_pred_deathloss_2010.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_pred_deathloss_2010.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/sheep_nonpred_2009.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/sheep_nonpred_2009.pdf


33/89

This report investigated the predator losses incurred by ranchers. The findings

concluded that wolves make up a small percent of the predator deaths. Considering that

those are only a small percent of the overall losses experienced, it is easy to see that

wolves are an insignificant source of loss. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1

Topic: Wolf Management Techniques


Descriptors Used: wolf management, lethal action, predation response

Years Searched: All

Weilgus, Robert B., Peebles, Kaylie A. (December 2014) Effects of Wolf Mortality on

Livestock Depredations. PLOS Journals.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113505

This article looked at the lethal action taken against wolves and attempted to

determine if the action was effective. Interestingly enough, the study found that after

action was taken, in many instances the number of depredations rose. This would seem

to indicate that alternate actions might be more effective. Includes comprehensive

bibliography and recommendations. USEFULNESS SCORE: 1

Topic: Benefits of wolf populations


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113505http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113505http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113505


34/89

Descriptors Used: Effects of Wolves on Environment, benefit of wolves

Years Searched: All

Weiss, Amaroq E. Kroeger, Tim. Haney, J. Christopher. Fascione, Nina. (March 20-24,

2007) Social and Ecological Benefits of Restored Wolf Populations. Transactions of the

72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Portland, Oregon.

Accessed 3/26/15. https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/11-

Social%20and%20Ecological....pdf

This study investigated the benefits that are derived from an increased wolf

population. It is important to include this as the benefits of their increased populations

do factor into any decision that might be taken. USEFULNESS SCORE: 2

Topic: Attitudes toward wolves


Descriptors Used: Wolf-human relationship, attitudes

Years Searched: All

Williams, Christopher K. Ericsson, Göran. Heberlein, Thomas A. (2002) A quantitative

summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972 –2000). Wildlife

Society Bulletin. Accessed 4/23/15.

file:///C:/Users/nick/Downloads/09e41506d7f4c1306a000000%20(1).pdf

https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/11-Social%20and%20Ecological....pdfhttps://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/11-Social%20and%20Ecological....pdfhttps://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/11-Social%20and%20Ecological....pdfhttp://c/Users/nick/Downloads/09e41506d7f4c1306a000000%20(1).pdfhttp://c/Users/nick/Downloads/09e41506d7f4c1306a000000%20(1).pdfhttp://c/Users/nick/Downloads/09e41506d7f4c1306a000000%20(1).pdfhttps://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/11-Social%20and%20Ecological....pdfhttps://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/11-Social%20and%20Ecological....pdf


35/89

This report investigated the attitudes that society held towards wolves in the

years following the establishment of the Endangered Species Act. According to this

study, public acceptance of the wolf has been steadily rising. This is important because,

as we have seen in other studies, perception drives policy and our actions toward the

species. USEFULNESS SCORE: 2


36/89

Chapter Three: Methodology

In this chapter, the methodology of the entire dissertation was discussed. This

means that the individual questions asked in Chapter 1 were addressed in a way that

shows what data was required, the methods for finding answers was laid out, and

interpretation of the data was examined.

In order to best answer these questions, quantitative casual-comparative

research conducted with documentary methods was used to determine the effect that

wolves have. This is the best approach because we are trying to determine exactly what

impact wolves are having on the environment. This requires evaluating the various

aspects of the environment before and after wolves were reintroduced to a region.

To research the information that answers the thesis question and sub questions,

a thorough search of the relevant scholarly documents regarding the subject was

completed. By interpreting the data presented, a better understanding of our topic was

gained. Each of the questions above is unique in that it tells a different part of the story

surrounding the manner in that wolves influence their domain.

Sub-Question One regards the impact of wolves both within and outside their

established territories. By looking at the impact of wolves on wildlife, animals, and

humans, it is possible to determine if there is a problem that needs to be fixed with the

current system of wolf population management. For this question, the following is

required: data on the range a pack might cover, the relationship between the pack and

the region in that they roam, and numbers of animals lost to both wolves and other

causes. This information was found by reviewing the appropriate studies on the subject.


37/89

By searching online scholarly databases for articles, studies, and other sources,

answers to questions posed became clear. The appropriate articles were found by

searching ProQuest, ERIC and Google Scholar. A search would be conducted by

entering keywords relevant to the subject and then investigating the different articles

that were found. Relevant keywords are found by entering the subject of the question.

For instance, “How much do wolves prey on wildlife” might be condensed to the

keywords “wolf wildlife relationship”, “wolf effect on wildlife”, or “wolf depredation wild

ungulates”.

When an article was found, three things must be done. First, it must be

established that the information is still relevant. This is done by checking the institution,

author and date. Second, the abstract and conclusion should be examined to see what

conclusions may be made. Third, the article must be read in detail to ensure that the

abstract and conclusion are backed by the research contained in the body of the article.

After this work is complete, it becomes possible to integrate the information into the

paper that is being constructed.

Sub-Question Two inquires about the historical interactions between humans and

wolves since the colonization of the United States. Understanding history is important if

an educated decision about the future is to be made. In addition to revealing that

practices have worked and that have failed, the answer to this question may reveal

whether we should even try to manage wolves or if every attempt at doing so has failed

in the past.


38/89

Methods for becoming informed on this subject are similar to what was done

when researching for the first sub-question. A keyword search of scholarly databases

would reveal the information required.

Sub-Question Three focuses on the different methods that may be used to

reduce the negative impacts of increased wolf populations. While there are various

methods available for controlling the population, there are positives and negatives that

must be weighed to ensure that the best option is used. To answer this question, we

need to study the individual population control methods, comparing depredations both

before and after wolf reintroduction. By looking at the effectiveness and the potential

drawbacks of each, the best practices should become clear.

There are many studies available on how to reduce depredation by predators.

Similar to the response for sub-question One and Two, ProQuest, ERIC and Google

Scholar were searched to reveal the necessary information. Keywords would be taken

from the specific question that were asked.

Sub-Question Four focuses on comparing the impact of wolves against other

causes of loss faced by ranchers. The answer to this question was determined by

investigating United States Department of Agriculture death reports that are

occasionally produced and show a breakdown of what causes contributed to the losses

experienced by ranchers. These reports were found by searching the keywords “USDA

cattle and sheep predator deaths” and “USDA cattle and sheep nonpredator deaths” on

Google.


39/89

The statistics taken from the livestock death reports would be compared against

the evidence found in response to the first sub-question. This comparison reveals

exactly how much of a threat wolves are in the grand scheme of things.

Bias will be eliminated from this evaluation by relying on the raw data and

statistics to show the characteristics of each method. Quantitative accuracy of the

statistics contained within articles will be determined by ensuring that studies utilize a

large sample size over a long period of time. Qualitative accuracy will be assured by

choosing only sources that have utilized standardized research methodologies. Such

methodologies would include recognized research approaches and would conform to

academic guidelines in terms of being published. Standard academic guidelines

stipulate that reports considered would include an abstract, statistical results of the

study, publication in recognized scholarly journals or sources, a finalizing discussion

about the content and conclusions, and inclusion of significant references to outside

works.

Standard academic style must be followed within these reports. Examples of

reports considered include doctoral dissertations, reports to governmental agencies,

and general research relating to the topic. Furthermore, studies considered must be

conducted by post-master’s degree students, professionals in the field, or other

recognized entities.

In summary, this project is focused on finding the answer to the main question,

“What impact does the reintroduction of grey wolves have on an environment,” and

several sub-questions through a thorough examination of the relevant information. The


40/89

information will be sorted using a Quantitative Casual-Comparative approach to

research conducted with documentary methods that should ensure the best results.


41/89

Chapter Four: Results of the Study

In this chapter, the methodology from Chapter Three was applied to find reports.

Then, data contained there was reviewed that investigated the questions posed. This

information informs the answers to the sub-questions.

Sub-Question One:

How does wolf overpopulation effect wildlife, livestock, and humans?

To answer this question, data is needed on different aspects of the life of a wolf.

To best answer this question, three sub-sections were examined. First, information of

the area typically inhabited by a pack and the impact on wild ungulates was gathered.

Second, the specific impacts that can be seen by a wolf pack on domestic herds was

quantified. Third, the consequence to humans will be examined. By looking at these

three areas, the impact of a typical wolf pack was quantified to establish a point of

reference.

Subsection One:

Territory and Effect on Wild Ungulates

In this section, five specific questions were asked to help inform the study. What is

the size of a typical pack? What is the typical range of a pack in terms of area and

terrain? What would cause a population change in wolves? What factors would cause

a pack to migrate? What is the impact of wolves on wildlife? Complete answers to these

answers

A pack of wolves, by definition, is more than two wolves. The typical pack size is

between five to ten individuals including an alpha male, female, and pups. Although the


42/89


43/89

mortality of 6% of female white-tailed deer and 3% of female elk (Kunkel 1997,

Kunkel and Pletscher 1999). (USDA, 2010, p.18)

In addition to showing the statistics on what animals were depredated, the

environmental assessment concluded that:

During the first 3 years of an intensive predation study in YNP [Yellowstone

National Park], wolves killed at a rate equivalent to ~ 10.7 kills/wolf/year during

early winter (Phillips and Smith 1997, Smith 1998). The rate increased to ~ 23.3

kills/wolf/year by late winter (Phillips and Smith 1997, Smith 1998). Elk made up

90% of the wolf kills examined. In the first year of a winter predation study near

Salmon, Idaho, deer made up only 10% of the prey killed by the Moyer Basin

and Jureano Mountain wolf packs during winter, significantly less than their

proportion of abundance (Husseman and Power 1999, Husseman 2002).

Wolves selected calf elk in excess of their proportion of abundance in the

population (Husseman and Power 1999, IDFG 1999). (USDA, 2010, p.19)

In summary, wolves have very large territories. They are Apex predators at the

top of the food chain. Finally, they have a fairly large impact on wild ungulates. After

inspecting the effects wolves have on their domain, it is necessary to see what their

impact is on domesticated herds.

Subsection Two:

Impact on Domestic Herds

This section is answered by asking three important questions. How much

depredation is a single pack typically responsible for? What causes wolves to


44/89

depredate livestock rather than wildlife? Other than causing their death, what impact

do wolves have on domesticated animals?

While depredations vary based on pack size and are sometimes difficult to

confirm, there are multiple studies that have ascertained the average depredations

seen in an area. Managing wolf conflict with livestock in the Northwestern United

States by Bangs and Shivik stated that:

Minimum confirmed livestock losses have annually averaged about 4 cattle, 28

sheep, and 4 dogs in the Yellowstone area and 10 cattle, 30 sheep, and 2 dogs

in central Idaho. In addition, 1 newborn horse and probably 3 adult horses were

killed in the Yellowstone area. In total there have been 148 cattle, 356 sheep

and 37 dogs confirmed killed by wolves from 1987 until January 2001. (Bangs,

Shivik. 2001)

Lehmkuhler, Palmquist, Ruid, Willging, and Wydeven conducted an intensive

study of wolves in Wisconsin between the years 1980 and 2006. According to their

study, the population of wolves has risen from 25 in 1980 to 465 in 2006. At the same

time, depredations have significantly increased. Their study states that:

The 1999 Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan has a management of goal of 350

wolves for Wisconsin. In 2002 when the minimum wolf population estimate was

323 wolves, there were 9 farms that had a livestock depredation. In 2005, there

were a minimum of 425 wolves in Wisconsin and 25 farms had livestock

depredations. From 2002 to 2005 the wolf population increased by 32% while

farms with livestock depredation increased 178%. Continued wolf recolonization

in fragmented habitats containing livestock production will continue to increase


45/89

the number of farms that have verified wolf depredations and detrimental non-

predation impacts. (Lehmkuhler et al., 2007)

Figure 1 (see below), Annual wolf complaints and annual minimum wolf

population estimates in WI, can be found on page four of the text by Lehmkuhler,

Palmquist, Ruid, Willging, and Wydeven (Lehmkuhler et al. 2007). It visualizes the

data contained in the paragraph above.

Wolves hunt whatever prey is easiest to subdue. If elk, deer, or other wild

ungulates are easiest to hunt, then wolves will target those animals. If, however,

domestic sheep or cattle are unprotected, and they lie within the wolf pack’s natural

territory, the depredation rates of those animals is likely to rise.

In addition to killing domestic and wild animals, the mere presence of wolves

significantly increases stress in livestock. As stated in Effects of Wolves and Other

Predators on Farms in Wisconsin: Beyond Verified Losses by Lehmkuhler,

Palmquist, Ruid, Willging, and Wydeven (2007):


46/89

The regular presence of wolves in close proximity to livestock may result

in a chronic stress situation for the domestic animals. Many infectious

diseases result from a combination of viral and bacterial infections and are

brought on by stress (Faries and Adams 1997). Stress can result in

increased susceptibility to disease and weight loss, reduction in the value

of the meat, and interfere with reproduction (Fanatico 1999). Stress prior

to slaughter is thought to be a contributor to “dark-cutters,” meat that is of

unacceptable color not being the normal bright cherry red but rather almost

purple. Darkcutters are discounted severely because these meat products

are difficult to sell (Fanatico 1999). In addition, the stress of being

repeatedly chased/harassed by predators can cause cattle to abort, calve

early or give birth to a weak calf (Dr. Gregory Palmquist, personal 7

communication). Repeated harassment by predators may alter livestock

behavior and increase operational costs. Cattle may become difficult to

handle, cow dogs may become ineffective for herding, cows that lose

calves to wolves may have spoiled teats and have to be culled, livestock

may be chased through fences, constant harassment may result in

decisions to move livestock to different pastures, and cows may not

rebreed the following season (Howery and DeLiberto, 2004). (Lehmkuhler

et al. 2007)

The stress caused by the presence of predators is significant. Later on in the

same text by Lehmkuhler it was stated that:


47/89

The stress of being repeatedly chased can cause cattle to abort, calf early or

give birth to a weak calf (Dr. Gregory Palmquist, personal communication).

Another cause of abortions in cattle is Neospora caninum that is a protozoan

parasite. N. caninum has been shown to be a large economic loss to the dairy

and beef industry with infected animals being three to thirteen times more likely

to abort than non-infected cattle (Hall et al., 2005 and Trees et al., 1999). Larson

et al. (2004) modeled the potential economic losses of N. caninum for beef herds

and three control strategies. These authors concluded that endemic infection

lowered the economic return by 22% and 29% when rates of infection were 10%

or 70% when testing the entire herd and culling offspring from seropositive dams

as being the most economically feasible management. (Lehmkuhler et al. 2007)

In addition to disease, natural abortions, and a lowered quality of life from

predator induced stress, animals were also forced away from their home ranges into

new territory. As stated by Laporte, Muhly, Pitt, Alexander, and Musiani in the report

titled, Effects of Wolves on Elk and Cattle Behaviors: Implications for Livestock

Production and Wolf Conservation:

Our results show that, similar to cattle, elk also reacted to wolf presence;

however, elk increased their use of steep slope and rugged terrain as well as

their pathway sinuosity. The use of rugged terrain and steep slope by elk as

refuge from predation is concordant with what found for elk in other studies [13],

but not in domestic cattle monitored by us. Such response is typical in wild prey

and is considered an efficient anti-predator response [70,71] [sic.]. Contrary to

cattle, our methodological approach did not allow us to infer on elk grouping


48/89


49/89

here will reveal if there is a significant detriment to humans from wolves other than the

effects realized by domestic and wild ungulates.

Wolves effect humans financially when livestock or game animals are preyed upon.

This economic cost can be measured through lowered birthrates, lower quality of meat,

increased disease and the direct deaths that are all attributable to wolves. Disregarding

those effects for a minute, consider the other implications that the reintroduction of

wolves poses for humans. This includes direct physical violence, increased stress to

ranchers and other financial losses.

In regards to wolf aggression towards humans:

There are no verified instances of wolves having attacked and

seriously injured people in the lower 48 United States, but a review

by McNay (2002) of known case histories of wolf attacks or

aggression toward humans in Alaska and Canada, did include 3

incidents from Minnesota. The author noted that incidents of wolves

behaving aggressively towards humans are rare, and that for much

of the 20th century there were no documented cases of wolves killing

or seriously injuring a person in North America. McNay (2002)

provided case histories for 11 instances of what he considered

unprovoked incidents of aggressive behavior of wolves which

resulted in no injury (4) or minor injuries (7) over the period of 1969-

1993, and evidence of 7 cases of unprovoked wolf aggression over

the period of 1994-2000, 5 of which involved wolves inflicting severe

bites on humans.” (USDA, 2010, pg21)


50/89


51/89

A survey of a national, random sample of households, as well as a

subsample of all listed phone numbers in the three-state recovery

region (Wyoming, Montana and Idaho) [sic], questioned individuals

regarding their understanding of and attitudes towards the area’s

wolf reintroduction. By a two to one ratio, nationally, wolf supporters

outnumbered opponents. Whereas within the three-state region

opinion, it was very closely divided with 49 percent in favor, 43

percent opposed and 8 percent not knowing. The survey also

estimated willingness-to-pay to support or oppose the reintroduction.

It was estimated that wolf recovery in the Yellowstone National Park

area would lead to benefits between $6.7 and $9.9 million per year,

with total costs (value of foregone benefits to hunters, lost value due

to livestock depredation and wolf-management costs) of $0.7 to $0.9

million per year. The study also estimated that increased visitation

due to wolf recovery would result in additional, annual, regional

expenditures of $23 million (Duffield 1992, Duffield and Neher 1996).

(Weiss et al. 2007)

In summary, the territorial range, impacts on domestic livestock and

wild ungulates and the impacts on humans have been examined. Next, the

historical relationship between wolves and humans was examined. Finally,

after establishing the baseline of what the impact of wolves was, this report

investigated the relationship between wolves and humans in North America.


52/89

Sub-Question Two:

What is the history of the relationship between wolves and humans since the

colonization of the United States?

Revealing the history of the relationship between wolves and humans is key to

gaining a complete understanding of the current situation. To best answer this question,

information is needed on the following subjects:

1. The mentality that prompted the extermination of wolves;

2. The definition of the time period in question;

3. The specific timeline of interactions between wolves and humans; and

4. The results of actions taken against wolves.

Humans are the ultimate Apex predator. Not only does the species have no natural

predators, but it also actively hunts out and eliminates threats to its existence. As Prugh,

Stoner, Epps, Bean, Ripple, Laliberte, and Brashares pointed out in The Rise of the

Mesopredator :

Humans have persecuted apex predators for millennia. From wolves (Canis

lupus) in Asia, North America, and Europe to jaguars (Panthera onca) in the

Americas and lions (Panthera leo) and wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in Africa, these

efforts have resulted in the complete eradication or severe range reduction of

large carnivores throughout the world (Gittleman et al. 2001). People try to

eradicate apex predators for many reasons, but perhaps the most important


53/89

motivator is simply that they compete with us for food. In North America, for

example, predator control was widely practiced without restraint until the 1970s

to increase the availability of wild game for human hunters and to reduce losses

of domestic livestock (Sterner and Shumake 2001). (Prugh et al. 2009)

This drive to become the absolute top of the food chain has been one of the

major reasons that propelled the human race to hunt wolves. This conflict has been

raging since the dawn of time. However, to be as relevant as possible, this report

focuses on the years between the mid-1600’s and present day in the United States.

Musiani and Paquet delineated four main reasons why wolves have been

hunted. The fact that humans are the ultimate predator is the first. However, protecting

flocks or wild animals, harvesting fur, controlling disease and eliminating them out of

fear are four other reasons that are just as applicable (Musiani, Paquet. 2004).

Although humans have always hunted wolves and other predators, trapping

combined with governmental efforts to eradicate the predator rapidly escalated the

mortality rates. These practices were instituted with the first bounty placed in 1630 by

the Massachusetts Bay Company. After that first bounty, the floodgates opened.

Poisoning, trapping, shooting and wiring of the mouth or genitals were all methods that

were used to try to eliminate the species from the land (International Wolf Center, No

Date).

The years between 1850 and 1880 were known as the “Era of the Wolfers”. In

this thirty-year period, both civilians and professionals took as many wolves as

possible. It is estimated that nearly 100,000 wolves were killed each year in this time

period. (Rouse, 2012)


54/89

As an example of the eradication efforts taken by humans towards other species,

the township of Hinckley in Ohio undertook a “War of Extermination” in 1918 (Osbun,

No Date). Conducted with military precision, nearly 600 participants armed themselves

with weapons and proceeded to eradicate every single animal possible in the

immediate area. This war saw the death of 17 wolves, 21 bears, and 300 hundred deer

within a short period. While inconsequential when considering that thousands of wolves

were killed every year by hunters, it is significant in that it shows just how much effort

was put toward ridding the land of these animals.

Beginning in the early 1950’s, programs to eliminate wolves were gradually

eliminated. Although there was still no regulation on hunting the creatures, not having

bounties fell out of favor and the campaign against them diminished. In 1973, the

Endangered Species Act, that prohibited killing wolves and other endangered animals,

was established to help ensure the long-term viability of species in danger of extinction.

In the years following the institution of this act, plans for the recovery and growth of the

populations along with increased penalties for violation of the act worked to alleviate

the extinction of species (International Wolf Center, No Date).

As a result of the actions taken against them, the wolf population took a drastic

downward plunge that ended only when governmental action was taken to protect the

species. Since then, the population has increased at a fairly rapid pace. The chart below

from Musiani and Paquets article, The Practices of Wolf Persecution, Protection, and

Restoration in Canada and the United States (2007), shows the extent to that wolves

have recovered in different regions, the legal status, and whether hunting, trapping, or

culling is allowed.


55/89

Table 1. Numbers and Management Practices for Grey Wolves in Different Regions.

According to the chart above, wolves are classified as threatened and hunting

is not allowed in the United States, with the only exception being Alaska. In Canada,

trapping is allowed in all provinces and hunting is allowed in most. The reason why

trapping and hunting is allowed in Canada and not in the United States is because the

wolf populations are significantly higher.

In summary, there are a variety of reasons why humans have diligently worked

at exterminating wolves. A subconscious need to control our environment, fear,

protection of herds, and the market for fur are what have promoted hunting. Many of

these practices were reversed in the second half of the past century, that facilitated the

increase of wolf populations.


56/89

Sub-Question Three:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of different methods for

responding to wolf population changes?

Since looking at the information on the effect of wolves on the environment, and

at the history between wolves and humans, the next logical step is to investigate the

different methods for controlling the populations of wolves. To keep order between the

different methods, they were divided into those that have been tested on wolf

populations and those that have not been tested.

Subsection 1:

Five Tested Population Control Methods

First Tested Method: Lethal Action

Lethal action has been the predominant strategy for controlling the population of

wolves for the past several hundred years. Lethal action can be achieved through

general hunting or trapping, targeted elimination of specific problem animals, or by

poisoning. While it does reduce depredation in the short term, it has been shown that

the method also has the unintended consequence of increasing depredation in the long

term because the litter sizes are increased to ensure the survival of the pack (Weilgus,

Peebles; 2014). With that said, there are some scenarios, such as with specific wolves

that are aggressive towards humans, where lethal action is necessary.

Second Tested Method: Translocation of Wolves

Translocation can be effective at ensuring that wolves do not depredate livestock

in specific areas. Positive attributes include the fact that no wolves are harmed and


57/89

depredation is reduced in an area. Negatives include lowered survival rates, an inability

to find a new pack, and an increased homing tendency for wolves relocated by

themselves and an increased cost (Bradley et al. 2005).

Third Tested Method: Guard Animals

Using animals to protect flocks is the third way to protect flocks. First, it is

effective because guard animals allow mobility to herds that is normally diminished by

fences. Second, guard animals allow wolves to live peacefully without causing

unnecessary harm. Third, they ensure that depredations are reduced. Dogs, llamas

and donkeys are the three ways of reducing depredations using guard animals.

Dogs are the first animals used for ensuring the safety of a herd. Not only do

they adequately protect the domestic animals, they are easy to train and are extremely

loyal. According to Use of Livestock Guarding Animals to Reduce Predation on

Livestock by W. F. Andelt:

Sheep producers in Colorado who did not use livestock guarding dogs lost 5.9

and 2.1 times greater proportions of lambs to predators than producers who had

dogs in 1986 and 1993 (Andelt and Hopper, 2000). Predation on ewes and

lambs decreased more from 1986 to 1993 for producers who obtained dogs

between these years compared to producers who did not have dogs. A total of

125 producers in Colorado estimated that their 392 dogs reduced predation

losses by $891,440 in 1993. Thirty-six producers in North Dakota reported

guarding dogs reduced predation on sheep by 93% (Pfeifer and Goos, 1982).

Producers in Colorado indicated that guarding dogs greater than 9 months of

age saved more time in sheep management than the amount of time spent


58/89

feeding and working with each dog (Andelt, 1992). Overall, guarding dogs are a

cost effective means of reducing predation (Green et al., 1984; Andelt and

Hopper, 2000). (Andelt, 2004)

The second animal choice for reducing livestock depredations is to use llamas.

In addition to being loyal to flocks and aggressive toward predators, they have the

advantage of size that ensures that wolves cannot kill them easily. Again, according to

Use of Livestock Guarding Animals to Reduce Predation on Livestock by W. F. Andelt:

Franklin and Powell (1993) reported that 21% of ewes and lambs were killed

annually before acquiring a llama and 7% afterwards. Meadows and Knowlton

(2000) reported that producers with llamas lost significantly fewer sheep to

predators than producers without llamas during the first year of use, but

mortalities did not differ during the second year in Utah. (Andelt, 2004)

In addition to the problems delineated in the above report, there are a myriad of

problems that have been reported. Difficulties that ranchers have attested to include

intact males attempting to breed with the animals they are supposed to guard,

increased cost of the individual guard animals, and difficulties bonding llamas to

livestock. This raises questions as to the benefits that may be derived from their use.

Donkeys are the third animals that may be used to protect flocks. While they are

extremely aggressive towards canines and their braying can alert ranchers to threats,

there are problems with their becoming aggressive towards the flocks. In addition, they

can fail to reduce depredation and ignore their duties (Andelt, 2004; Green, 1989).

Fourth Tested Method: Improved Fencing


59/89

Wolf-proof physical barriers are another, and probably the most effective,

method for reducing depredations. This is because it is physically impossible for the

wolves to access the livestock. The downside of improved fencing is the fact that it must

be maintained and livestock must be fed if the area is not large enough for them to find

adequate forage (Lehmkuhler, 2007).

One method that has been effective is th

wolves and the environment final submission pdf

Documents