Not all states are created equal with respect to the commitment each displays toward wolf management and conservation. The following are measures that good state management plans should address:

• Wolves should be protected at the state level until populations are secure.
  
• Wolf management should focus on preventative measures and non-lethal methods of control for conflicts with agriculture. This should include deterrents like alarm systems, prompt removal of livestock carcasses to reduce attracting predators, increased use of guard dogs, herders, and range riders when appropriate, and relocation of livestock from chronic problem areas on public land when other methods are not successful. Lethal control for selective wolves should only be allowed when all other methods have been exhausted. States may share the cost of implementing such tactics. There are also private programs that provide similar funding. 
  
• Population size should be monitored on a yearly basis to make available the best, most recent information on the status of wolves.
• Even though studies in Minnesota suggest that only a fraction of one percent of all livestock mortality is due to wolf depredation, Minnesota has developed provisions in its management plan to compensate farmers and ranchers who verifiably lose livestock at fair market value and with public funds. Other states have relied on private programs that provide compensation to farmers and ranchers. 
  
• Several states have included measures to educate the public and include citizens in the creation of a plan (see below for examples). Plans may also include provisions for public education. 
  
• State plans should be well funded and include provisions for evaluating the success of the plan, and revising it if needed.

The following are measures that good state management plans should avoid:

• Artificial limits on wolf populations that are based on social perceptions rather than the biological and social carrying capacity and naturally occurring population distributions. Wolf population “ceilings” and other management limits should be based on biological guidelines in order to reach the most mutually-beneficial compromise between human and animal interests.
  
• Logging, road building, etc., around wolf den sites are prohibited in a 100 m radius year-round, with seasonal protection given to the area within 800 m radius of wolf den sites, prohibiting permanent road building and mandating limited use.
  
• Immediate hunting of wolves . The state must demonstrate it can manage wolves at sustainable numbers and protect them from illegal taking that could threaten the population. Minnesota has declared a five year moratorium on any wolf taking as part of its management plan.
  
Programs encouraging the development of habitat corridors for the exchange and migration of pack members will be promulgated.

• In Michigan, wolves will enjoy continued protection under the Michigan state Endangered Species Act.
• The wolf population will be monitored every year to make available the best, most recent information on the status of wolves in Michigan.
• All dead wolves will be subjected to necropsies to measure mortality and warn wildlife managers of potential health risks.
• Logging, road building, etc., around wolf den sites are prohibited in a 100 m radius year-round, with seasonal protection given to the area within 800 m radius of wolf den sites, prohibiting permanent road building and mandating limited use.
• Programs encouraging the development of habitat corridors for the exchange and migration of pack members will be promulgated.
• Depredating wolves will be live-trapped, with limited lethal control possible for repeated depredation.

• In Minnesota, the wolf is not given any state protection once federal delisting occurs, other than 5-year guaranteed moratorium on public taking (i.e., sport hunting and trapping).
• The wolf population will be subject to monitoring only every 5 years, making the wildlife managers slow to react to changes in population.
• Wolves will be subject to necropsies and other health monitoring only after disease trends are established in some other way. How will anybody know the animals are sick, but through regular monitoring of health and mortality factors?
• No protection is offered for wolf den sites, leaving no safe place for wolves to give birth to and raise their pups.
• No habitat links or corridors planned. How will wolves exchange pack members? How will they migrate if humans move in on part of their range?
• “One strike-you’re all out” policy: after a confirmed wolf depredation, any and all wolves within a 1-mile radius of a kill site can be hunted and killed within 60 days by state certified hunters (for a $150 dollar per head bounty). In “zone B,” a region including the majority of Minnesota’s area, anyone can kill a wolf seen on their land even before depredation or stalking occurs.

back to top

Here are sample plans from other states:

Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan
Wisconsin’s Wolf Management Plan gives comprehensive, long-term protection for wolves living in that state. Wisconsin takes its wolf conservation effort seriously, offering programs for frequent health monitoring and wolf census data, informing the public on the importance of wolf conservation, and providing citizens with the chance to participate in wolf protection efforts. This plan contains concise implementation actions, including habitat management plans (den and rendezvous site protection), law enforcement, education, inter-agency cooperation/coordination, program guidance and oversight, volunteer research needs, and specific criteria for listing/delisting. It also provides for the creation of a stakeholders group and coordination with tribal governments.
 
The problem with the plan is its focus on lethal control measures, including removal of an entire pack if depredation occurs, and the granting of permits to landowners to kill "problem" wolves. Further recovery of the species is not focused on strongly enough.

No funding sources are identified.

Idaho Wolf Management Plan
Idaho’s Wolf Management Plan does the bare minimum to satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The general tone of this plan is hostile to wolves and the federal government, focusing on controlling the wolf population to protect big game populations for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. Even the education efforts emphasize the predatory nature and damage caused by the wolf. As the executive summary makes clear, the state of Idaho’s official position is to have the federal government remove wolves from the state. Idaho’s plan does not institute any limit on lethal control of depredating wolves. That means that no matter how few wolves still live in Idaho, the Fish & Game Department will continue to kill wolves that they don’t like. In order to merit this unkind treatment, a wolf only has to be seen by a rancher. Whether it is on federal, state or private lands, ranchers are entitled to kill wolves on sight to “protect their person and property.” Idaho’s priorities are clear, and their priority is not to help wolves. After delisting, the wolf will be managed as a predator eligible for controlled taking. The state maintains that it is under no obligation to manage wolves if the Idaho Congressional delegation does not find funding to cover the costs of the plan.

Montana Wolf Management Plan
The Montana state management plan is comprehensive, process-driven, and well thought-out. It begins with an executive summary that is concise and clear, and its opening statement sets the tone for the plan by recognizing the wolf as a native species and by integrating wolves as a valuable part of the state’s wildlife heritage. It is designed as an adaptive management program, so that changes to the plan can be made as monitoring information and experience accumulate. A recent bill passed by the legislature recognizes the wolf as a protected species after delisting.


• Diverse backgrounds and interests were represented during the drafting of the plan, including ranchers, veterinarians, conservationists, biologists, and Blackfeet tribal representatives. A pro-active approach to depredation damage begins with a Memorandum of Understanding between MFWP, Wildlife Services, and Montana Department of Livestock, and continues with a suggestion for rewarding voluntary efforts by ranchers to reduce potential wolf-livestock conflict.



• Montana’s plan strives for a balance between ranchers and wolf preservation while recognizing the need for managing the wolf in a complex environment.
Management tools are primarily non-lethal if there are fewer than 15 wolf packs in the state. However, ranchers are given authority to kill a wolf that is “threatening to kill” livestock. Non-selective methods such as poison cannot be used.


• Existing financial resources will not cover the costs of the plan, and the state is seeking additional funding.

Measures to Build Popular Support
Crucial to the success of any wolf management plan will be the ability of law makers and state regulatory agencies to build consensus, cooperation and a sense of inclusion in order to ensure the acceptance of their management plans. The following are measures used to educate the public and include citizens in the creation of a plan.

Montana’s Inclusive Process
When it drafted its management strategy, the state of Montana had a 60 day wolf scoping process that elicited over 4,000 written comments from people representing all walks of Montana life. These suggestions and comments were given to a recommendation board that represented not only cattle ranching interests and hunting groups, but also wildlife biologists and representatives from conservation groups. Open forums were held in eleven of Montana’s towns and rural areas, giving a voice to the Montanans that are directly affected.

Wisconsin’s Carnivore Tracking Program
Volunteers are given brief tracking orientation and then are asked to conduct 3 or more surveys over a 20-30 mile area during the winter, both as a means of obtaining valuable population monitoring data and also as a means of creating a sense of citizen stewardship among Wisconsinites.

Michigan’s Wolf Observation Reports
Wolf Observation Reports can be filled out by any citizen who has had a wolf sighting. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources lauds this program as an “inexpensive method to obtain valuable information on wolf observations and to increase public interest and participation…” Wolf Observation Reports are available on paper and in an internet-based format as well.

• In some states, naked opposition to the recovery of wolf populations is common.
• Considerable bias against wolves is still prevalent, as evidenced by the more than 15 petitions and resolutions passed or introduced by state and county agencies and political groups in the past five years protesting the re-introduction of wolves and the continued protection of wolves and wolf habitats.
• In 2001, for example, the Idaho House of Representatives Resources and Conservation Committee drafted Joint Memorial No. 5, which “not only calls for, but demands, that wolf recovery efforts in Idaho be discontinued immediately, and wolves be removed by whatever means necessary” including, presumably, the extermination of wolves in Idaho by hunting and/or trapping. 
  
  

 
• Sierra County, New Mexico (2002): A “White Paper” gives ranchers the right to kill wolves attacking livestock or pets. Also allows landowners to kill any wolf that has frequented his/her property if the wolf is not removed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 5 days. Gives ranchers and sporting interests veto power over wolves released within a 20 mile radius of them and insists the federal government compensate ranchers, hunters, and recreationists for loss of opportunities due to the wolf program.



• The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Oregon Farm Bureau, the Oregon Grange, and the Oregon Hunter’s Association (2002): Petition requests the removal of the Gray Wolf from Oregon’s Endangered Species list.



• Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (2002): Petition would officially remove the Gray Wolf from the Endangered Species Act.



• Fremont County, Wyoming (2002): Resolution 2002-05 would prohibit the presence, introduction or reintroduction of wolves within Fremont County. 



• Lincoln County, Wyoming (2002): "Unacceptable Species" resolution would prohibit the presence, introduction, or reintroduction of wolves within Lincoln County.



• Klamath County, Oregon (2002): Ordinance No. 81 demands that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service destroy or return all wolves from experimental populations found in Klamath County. It also holds the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service liable for any wolf predatory acts that may cause damage to the Klamath County citizens.



• Siskiyou County, California (2001): Resolution 01-231 opposes the introduction or reintroduction of unacceptable species that are predatory and harmful to man and to livestock into Siskiyou County.



• Wallowa County, Oregon (1999): Resolution 99-18 requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service immediately destroy or return all wolves from experimental populations that are found in Wallowa County. It holds the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service liable for any damages caused by wolf predation in Wallowa County.



• Essex County, New York (1998): Law No. 3 would prohibit the importation and the release within the county of dangerous animals including wolves. 



• Washington County, New York (1998): Local Law “A” would prohibit the importation and the release within the county of dangerous animals including wolves. 



• Custer County, Idaho (1998): Ordinance 29 deems the wolf an unacceptable species and it opposes the introduction or reintroduction of the wolf into Custer County.



• Warren County, New York (1997): Resolution No. 37 opposes the reintroduction of wolves into the Adirondacks and a study in connection with the reintroduction.



• Lewis County, New York (1997): Resolution No. 54 strongly opposes reintroduction of the gray wolf by any organization or by the State under any circumstances in Northern New York.



• Hamilton County, New York (1997): Resolution No. 45 opposes the reintroduction of the wolf into the Adirondacks by any organization or by the state.



• Oneida County, New York (1997): Resolution No. 104 opposes the importation of the Gray Wolf into the Adirondacks and urges the NYS Conservation Council to seek and support legislation prohibiting the importation of the wolf into New York State.



• St. Lawrence County, New York (1997): Resolution No. 54-97 opposes the reintroduction of the wolf into the Adirondacks by any organization or by the state.



• Washington County, New York (1997): Resolution No. 92 opposes the introduction of wolves into the Adirondacks and a study in connection with the same.

With the opposition to wolf preservation as motivated and active as the above measures indicate, the importance of state action to ratify and institute pro-wolf policies and statutes is greater than ever.

*Special thanks to Defenders of Wildlife for compiling the resolution information.
 

back to top