Wolves and The Environment Final Submission PDF

Wolves and the Environment
Final Submission
Nicholas Martinoli
4/24/2015
Thomas Edison State College
2015FEB Lib495-OL010
Liberal Arts Capstone
Dr. Rick Woten
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
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
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).
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 Paquets 2004 article there are four main reasons why humans have
hunted wolves. Protection of herds, fear, maintenance of our spot as the top predator,
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 18th century and into the 19th is
certainly a large portion of the equation. According to the University of Southern
Californias 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.
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 childrens tale that showcases not only the
dangers of talking to strangers (according to some interpretations), but also reveals
insight as to what societys 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 societys 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
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.
Societys 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 societys 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.
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 1970s, 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
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
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.
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.
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
apparent that non-predator losses account for a much greater portion of the losses than
depredation from wolves.
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
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-Bangsand-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
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


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
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
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
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.
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
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
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

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
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-livestockdepredation-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
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.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

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
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.
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

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/11Social%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, Gran. Heberlein, Thomas A. (2002) A quantitative
summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (19722000). Wildlife
Society Bulletin. Accessed 4/23/15.
file:///C:/Users/nick/Downloads/09e41506d7f4c1306a000000%20(1).pdf
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
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.
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.
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.
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-masters 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
information will be sorted using a Quantitative Casual-Comparative approach to

research conducted with documentary methods that should ensure the best results.
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
range of their territory is fluid and depends on prey density, the average size is between
two hundred and five hundred square miles (WDFW, no date).
Wolves are an Apex predator. Similar to the lion, great white shark, crocodile, or
human, the wolf has no natural predators. This means that the driving force behind
negative population changes and migrations rises from a lack of prey, a natural disaster
such as draught or fire, a disease, or another major event. Positive population changes
occur as a result of an increase in prey, a lack of natural disasters, or a breeding pair
breaking off from the original pack and creating their own pack. Contrary to
expectations, increased hunting pressure can increase the number of pups born in an
attempt to ensure the long term viability of the pack (Weilgus, Peebles; 2014; Brainerd
et al., 2008). Factors that cause population fluctuations would similarly be responsible
for migrations if significant enough to cause a threat to the long-term viability of the
pack.
Regarding depredation of game animals, a USDA environmental assessment of the
damage caused by grey wolves found that:
Ungulates comprise nearly all of the winter diet of most wolves. Of ungulates
killed during winter by wolves that colonized northwestern Montana since the
mid-1980s, 63% were deer (60% white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), and 3% mule
deer (O. hemionus)), 30% were elk, and 7% were moose (Boyd et al. 1994,
Kunkel et al. 1999). Wolves selected white-tailed deer wintering areas and
selected deer over elk and moose (Kunkel et al. 1999). An established
population of wolves in northwestern Idaho Wolf Damage Management EA - 19
Montana and southeastern British Columbia was responsible for the annual
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
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
the number of farms that have verified wolf depredations and detrimental nonpredation 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 packs 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):
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:
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
behavior and its relationship to increased sinuosity (see above). However,

sinuosity is expected to increase if elk move to steeper, more rugged terrain as
in this study, and this too might be a common pattern of prey reactions. Overall,
we observed that cattle, like elk, increased their pathway sinuosity; whereas elk,
unlike cattle, also significantly increased their use of rugged terrain and steeper
slopes. Thus, anti-predator strategies of elk appear to be more habitat-based
than those of cattle. This difference may be also due to elk having more options
available from that to select their habitat relative to cattle. The range of habitats
available to cattle to select from (i.e., forests, slopes and rugged terrain) and the
ability to flee from predators (i.e., move in straight line) might have been limited
by fencing. However, the range of habitats in pastures was typical of the study
area, and cattle pastures were of comparable size to elk home ranges and
encompassed a similar array of habitats [7]. Regardless, all behavioral changes
detected for elk and cattle in the presence of wolves imply increased energetic
costs. (Laporte et al. 2010)
Direct losses from depredation along with other altered quality of life are the
impact of an increased wolf population in an area. In addition to having an impact on
animals, wolves also have an impact on humans. Subsection three, Impact on Humans,
investigates those effects.
Subsection Three:
Impact on Humans
This subsection asked two questions. What aggressiveness can be expected from
a wolf towards humans? Do wolves provide any benefits to ranchers? Answers found
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 19691993, 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)
As for the positive impacts of wolves, wolves exert positive benefits

both environmentally and economically by providing several crucial services
in a region. A summary of the views according to Social and Ecological
Benefits of Restored Wolf Populations by Weiss, Kroeger, Haney,
and Fascione (2007), increased wolf populations directly influence the
environment through:
Reduced Chronic Wasting Disease and other illness in deer, elk and
other ungulates;
Culling animals who are unhealthy, aging and past the age to
reproduce;
Reduced forage competition between animals;
Increased provide food for scavengers;
Reduced coyote population that increases populations of small

predators such as martins, badgers and wolverines;
Restoration of wild behaviors in game animals; and
Increased vegetation as a result of less browsing.
Economically, increased wolf populations can have the positive impact

of raising revenue in specific areas through promoting ecological tourism,
making people more aware about the environment, and generally
increasing tolerance for canine predators. Theses impacts are especially
seen in areas such as Yellowstone National Park or other wildlife reserves.
According to Social and Ecological Benefits of Restored Wolf Populations
by Weiss, Kroeger, Haney, and Fascione:
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 areas
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.
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
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-1600s 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)
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 1950s, 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.
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.
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
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
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
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 the use of Fladry. Fladry is a banner of
rope laced with strips of fabric or flags that is suspended above the ground. This visual
barrier can effectively reduce depredation. Electrifying this barrier can further increase
the effectiveness of this approach (Lance, 2009; Musiani et al, 2003).
Fifth Tested Method: Translocation of Livestock
The final method that has been tested is simply moving the livestock away from
threats. While this can reduce depredations, it is not guaranteed to reduce future
depredations. In addition, it is expensive and stressful to the flocks.
Subsection 2:
Untested Population Control Methods
In this section, methods not previously tested, or those that have been tested
on predators other than wild wolves, are examined. It is important to note that any
single practice may not be perfect and these methods are simply theoretical. The
application of multiple concepts may be more effective at reducing or eliminating
depredation than a single method.
First Untested Method: Audio and Visual Dissuasion
Using sirens and strobes as aversive stimuli are methods that have been
studied. They are not extremely popular because of their limited effectiveness.
According to the study by Bangs and Shivik (2001):
Frightening stimuli have been studied in the past (Bomford and OBrien 1990,
Koehler et al. 1990), with the conclusion that they are very limited in
usefulness because of the effects of habituation. Limiting habituation through
randomization of timing and stimuli can make electronic repellents effective
(Linhart et al. 1984, Linhart et al. 1992), but behavior contingent activation (i.e.,
stimuli activated only by presence of the animal) appears to be very important
for developing long-lasting disruptive stimuli applications (Shivik and Martin
2001). (Bangs, Shivik. 2001)
Second Untested Method: Shock Collars
Attaching shock collars to coyotes has worked well to reduce depredation on
both rabbits and lambs. The report, Coyote Predation of Domestic Sheep Deterred
with Electronic Dog-Training Collar, by Andelt and others came to the conclusion that
the method was highly effective at reducing depredation. After administering shocks,
coyotes actually started avoiding the domestic animals while continuing to hunt other
prey (Andelt, 1999).
Third Untested Method: Paying Farmers for Tolerance.
The final method for dealing with the problem of depredation is to simply pay the
farmers fair market value for their losses and to otherwise let wolves depredate until
they posed a more significant threat. Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens Attitudes
toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation by Naughton-Treves, Grossberg and
Treves (2003) found that compensating for losses significantly improved the views that
many had toward predators. While it is in the best interest of both humans and wolves
to utilize other methods to reduce depredation, integration of compensation for losses
can significantly reduce the burden felt by both farmers and sportsmen.
In summary, eight methods to reduce depredation were examined under both
tested and untested subsections. These methods can be implemented by
governmental entities or private citizens in an attempt to limit depredation that plagues
ranchers, outdoorsmen and other people.
Sub-Question Four:
How does depredation from wolves compare to other losses that are seen in
domestic animals and wild ungulates?
Depredation from wolves is a major concern for many. To successfully answer
this question, information is needed on the number and dollar value of animals lost to
other predators, natural disasters, accidents and other causes. Much of the information
used in fulfillment of this section was found through review of the USDA reports on
cattle and sheep losses sustained by ranchers.
According to the USDA report titled Cattle and Calves Nonpredator Death Loss
in the United States; 2010:
During 2010, nonpredator causes accounted for 97.7 percent of the 1.7 million
cattle death losses. Overall, 2.3 percent of the U.S. cattle inventory was lost to
nonpredator causes, ranging from 1.5 percent in the Northwest region to 2.8
percent in the South Central region.
Respiratory problems accounted for the highest percentage of nonpredator

cattle losses in 2010 (26.5 percent of total nonpredator cattle losses). Other
common causes of loss were other causes (13.8 percent) and unknown causes
(12.1 percent). Weather-related causes and calving problems each accounted
for about 10 percent of losses. (USDA, 2011)
Further on in the report when talking about calf losses, the statement was made that:
Nonpredator causes accounted for 92.0 percent of the 2.3 million calf death
losses in 2010. Overall, 5.8 percent of the U.S. calf crop was lost to nonpredator
causes, with losses highest in the Northeast region (7.6 percent of the calf crop).
The highest percentages of nonpredator calf losses were due to respiratory
problems (29.1 percent) and digestive problems (17.2 percent). Respiratory
problems accounted for nearly half of nonpredator calf losses (49.4 percent) on
other operations. (USDA, 2011)
In a similar USDA report titled Sheep and Lamb Nonpredator Death Loss in the United
States, 2009:
Nonpredator sheep death loss accounted for 4.4 percent of adult sheep
inventory in 2009. Overall, the percentage of loss was higher on operations with
fewer than 1,000 sheep and lambs compared with operations with 1,000 or more
sheep and lambs.
Weather-related causes in 2009 accounted for 15.7 percent of total adult sheep
death losses, that was higher than in previous studies (1994, 1999, and 2004).
The Central and West Central regions had a higher percentage of weather-
related losses (18.9 and 20.3 percent, respectively) than the Pacific and
Northeast regions (4.0 and 2.2 percent, respectively).
Producers lost 6.2 percent of their lamb crop to nonpredator causes in 2009.
Operations with 1 to 24 sheep and lambs lost a higher percentage of their lamb
crop (10.2 percent) to nonpredator causes than did operations with 100 or more
head.
In 2009, respiratory problems accounted for a lower percentage of lamb deaths
than in 1994 through 2004, while weather-related causes accounted for a higher
percentage of losses. In the Central region in 2009, weather-related lamb losses
accounted for 34.4 percent of all nonpredator lamb losses, a higher percentage
than in any other region. (USDA, 2011)
For comparison, the cattle predator losses were 7.4 cattle per 10,000 head to
predators in 2010 with coyotes responsible for almost a third of the kills. For calves,
61.7 calves per 10,000 born were killed by mostly either coyotes or mountain lions
(USDA 2012). Although far more animals are killed as a result of non-predator causes,
predators also have a psychological impact not seen with other types of livestock death.
It is important to weight this when making a determination as to the impact that
predators have on the environment.
Summary
In the course of this assignment, information has been examined regarding the
impact of wolves on the environment.
In addition, the history of human-wolf
interactions, the advantages of different methods for controlling depredation, and

finally, the difference between predator and non-predator losses were discussed. Using
this information was key to making recommendations found in the discussion portion
of this dissertation.
Chapter Five: Summary and Discussion

In the previous chapters, the problems surrounding wolf overpopulation were
discussed. This included a section detailing the problems and methods by that
information would be discovered, a chapter to review the relevant information, and
finally, a chapter to review the information contained within the reports found on the
subject.
Introduction
This work has been done in a quest to answer the question: What result does the
reintroduction of grey wolves have on an environment? The sub-questions posed to
support the main question are: How does wolf overpopulation affect wildlife, livestock,
and humans? What is the history of the relationship between wolves and humans since
the colonization of the United States? What are the advantages and disadvantages of
different methods for responding to wolf population changes? Finally, how does
depredation from wolves compare to losses to the population of domestic animals and
wild ungulates from other causes?
In Chapter One, wolf overpopulation was discussed as being a problem for
farmers and ranchers. In response to this threat, wolves were hunted extensively.
Because of the social attitudes towards wolves and the bounties placed on the
creatures, the species was almost eliminated by the middle of the 20th Century (White,
No Date).
Methodology for the research was established in Chapter Three. For each sub
question, methods for finding the appropriate sources was discussed as well as
examples for studies for evaluation. This chapter explored significantly more resources
that previous chapters and was instrumental in developing the sub-questions to answer
the main question.
Chapter Four researched information on the specific sub-questions was
reviewed. This section found that wolves do affect the environment; however, their
affect is much less than what many believe. According to the information presented,
non-predator deaths constitute the vast majority of losses experienced by ranchers.
With this in mind, information on the different management practices was scrutinized to
see what action would help to relieve pressure on farming communities.
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.
Review of Methodology
In Chapter Three, methodology for completing the project was reviewed. For the
assignment, Quantitative Casual-Comparative research conducted with documentary
methods was used to ensure uniform results. This was optimal because of the limited
amounts of time, funds and experience necessary to make an exhaustive study
feasible. Studies used to inform sub-question were scholarly articles written for the
purpose of answering a specific question.
Summary of Results
In Chapter Four: Results of the Study, literature pertaining to the individual subquestions was reviewed in an attempt to shed light on the facts. The literature was
found as a result of the methodology presented in Chapter Three. This information was
useful because it provided exact answers to the questions posed in Chapter One.
Sub-question One:
This subsection asked the question How does wolf overpopulation affect wildlife,
livestock, and humans? To fully answer this question, three subsections were
established. Subsection One: Territory and Effect on Wild Ungulates asked five
questions on the size of the pack, typical range, drivers of population changes,
migration, and the consequence on wildlife.
Research found that wolves run in packs of two to ten. Each group usually
includes an alpha male, female, and pups. The typical range of a pack is between two
and five hundred square miles but depends on prey density, terrain, human pressure
and natural obstacles such as rivers or mountains.
Population changes in a wolf pack are not influenced by other predators. Natural
causes such as disease, lack of prey and inclement weather take their toll instead. If
these factors persist, the pack will either increase the size of litters, slowly die off, or
relocate.
From this research, it is clear that wolves do produce some effects upon their
domain. According to a USDA assessment, wolves killed mostly ungulates during the
winter months at a rate of approximately 10 kills per wolf per year. In descending order,
the animals mostly preyed upon are white tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and moose. While
smaller game animals may be used to supplement the diet in hard times, ungulates are
the majority of a wolfs diet.
Subsection Two: Bearing on Domestic Herds investigated what consequences
are seen by domestic herds when wolves are present in a region. This section was
answered by asking three questions; first, how much depredation is a pack responsible
for? Second, what causes wolves to depredate livestock rather than wild ungulates?
Third, what effects other than deaths can be seen when wolves cohabitate a region with
domestic herds?
In regards to the depredation of livestock typically executed by a pack, Chapter
Four found several studies on the subject. Managing wolf conflict with livestock in the
Northwestern United States by Bangs and Shivik along with Effects of Wolves and
Other Predators on Farms in Wisconsin: Beyond Verified Losses by Lehmkuhler,
Palmquist, Ruid, Willging, and Wydeven were two of the main studies that informed this
section. Both concluded that depredation shows a positive correlation with increased
wolf populations. For example, Lehmkuhler found that a 32 percent increase in the
Wisconsin wolf population saw a 178 percent increase in the amount of depredations
experienced by ranchers.
Wolves are opportunistic predators. This means that prey will be targeted only if
it is easy to subdue it. If cattle or other domestic animals are unguarded, it is reasonable
to expect depredation. If elk, deer, or moose occupy flatland with open terrain and large
numbers of young, old, or sick animals then wolves will target those that are less able to
defend themselves.
In addition to the deaths that are a product of wolf presence, other factors
degrade the quality of life for domestic animals. Stress, lowered quality of meat, lowered
weight, and increased natural abortions are problems that manifest with the presence of
wolves. In addition, elk and other wild ungulates have altered their habits, becoming
more attentive, spending more time looking at potential threats, and moving to a new
territory.
Subsection Three: Influence on Humans examined the effects that are felt by
humans. This was completed by asking about wolf aggressiveness to humans.
Furthermore, additional benefits that may be seen by their reintroduction to a region
were explored.
The research within that subsection found that aggressiveness towards humans
is nearly non-existent, with the only true attacks being in defense or by injured animals.
Regarding the advantages gained by increased populations; the report found that wolf
presence reduced disease, culled unhealthy and old animals that were taking resources
without contributing to the herd, reduced forage competition, increased food for
scavengers, reduced coyotes promoted healthy populations of smaller predators,

restored traditional behavior in game animals, and increased vegetation as deer and elk
forage less and move more often. Furthermore, tourism from increased populations
results in millions of dollars in tourism
Sub-question Two:
This sub-question asked the question What is the history of the relationship
between wolves and humans since the colonization of the United States? This was
further explored: What was the mentality behind wolf extermination? How is the time
period in that humans hunted wolves in the United States defined? What is the historic
timeline of human-wolf interactions? What have been the results of the persecution of
wolves?
The report found that the mentality that prompted the campaign against wolves
was based on a fear of the unknown and a psychological need to dominate a region
rather than a verifiable threat. Musiani and Paquet (2004) delineated five reasons that
prompted the hunting of predators. Those reasons include maintenance of our
superiority, fear, protection of flocks, the economic benefits of fur, and controlling
disease.
Although humans have been hunting wolves for years, our efforts rapidly
escalated around 1630 when the first bounties were placed on wolves. This significant
development prompted humans to wage a full-scale war on the packs.
The first bounty was placed by the Massachusetts Bay Company, introducing a
concentrated effort to kill wolves. Between 1850 and 1880, the Era of the Wolfers,
nearly 100,000 wolves per year were removed from the populations. Since 1880, the
numbers gradually declined until 1973 when the Endangered Species Act prohibited the
hunting of wolves (along with a variety of other species).
Because of our human predation, wolves were almost made extinct. The few
remaining were pushed away from civilization to remote places, such as Canada and
Alaska where they could escape from humans. Today, the populations have started to
recover however, they are far from the levels they once were.
Sub-question Three:
This sub-question asked about the different methods for controlling wolf
populations. To differentiate, these approaches were divided into Tested Methods,
including lethal action, wolf translocation, the use of guard animals, and livestock
translocation; and Untested Methods, including audio and visual dissuasion, shock
collars, and payment for tolerance. The merits of each system are varied; however, they
generally include effectiveness, cost efficiency, and reduced harm to both the wolves
and livestock.
Lethal action is the intentional of wolves by either opening a hunting season,
poisoning, or targeting their elimination through other means. While it decreases shortterm depredations, lethal action causes increased pressure upon the population,
prompting larger litters and consequently more depredation in the long term.
Wolf translocation is the movement of wolves from areas where they are
depredating to areas where that is less likely. While this is not as harmful to the wolves
and is effective at reducing depredation, entire packs must be translocated otherwise
solitary wolves will tend to return to their original range or may have difficulty finding a
new pack.
Guard animals currently used are dogs, llamas, and donkeys. Use of animals is
effective because they discourage predation. With that said, the individual qualities of
each type of guard animal do influence how much predation is seen by ranchers who
employ them. For instance, dogs are generally effective; because wolves can
overpower them, however, there is the chance that wolves will prey on the herd
regardless. Llamas are less likely than dogs to be overpowered and are satisfactorily
aggressive toward predators. The downside to llamas is that the possibility of their
bonding with livestock is problematic. Also, some male llamas may attempt to breed
with the livestock, and are more expensive. Donkeys are similar to llamas in that they
are extremely aggressive towards canine predators; however, they can become
inattentive, or and become aggressive towards the herds and thereby failing to reduce
depredation.
Improved fencing is the fourth tested method for reducing depredation. The
benefit it is highly effective because it is physically impossible for the predators to
access the livestock. Unfortunately, this method can be significantly more expensive,
difficult to maintain, and pose potential restrictions for grazing livestock.
The fifth method is translocation of livestock. While this method can be effective,
it is highly stressful to the animals. Furthermore, it is cost-prohibitive and does not
guarantee the future safety of the herd against depredations. In addition, it is difficult to
carry out.
When considering the Untested Methods for controlling the wolf population, it is
important to note that each of these have been tested by using similar canine predators
or have been the subject of a survey. This may not be exactly the same as testing
against wolves, however, it is similar enough to give a general idea as to the potential
effectiveness. Further testing would be required before these methods are
implemented.
The first untested method for reducing depredation is audio or visual dissuasion.
Using motion activated strobes or sirens have been shown to reduce depredation by
scaring the wolves away and warning ranchers of imminent danger. The downside is
that the systems are expensive, require upkeep, and can lose effectiveness as wolves
become habituated to those systems.
The second untried method is using shock collars. Administering shocks to
coyotes has been shown to reduce depredation and actually make them afraid of sheep
and lambs. The good news is that a reduction in sheep depredation has been witnessed
however coyotes have continue to hunt other game animals. This is good because it
shows that this method would not be as harmful to the predators.
The third untried method is paying farmers and ranchers for tolerance. A 2003
survey found that recompense paid to those who have lost livestock to depredation has
a positive influence. While it does not solve the problem of depredation, it can
significantly improve the attitudes that many hold toward the losses experienced.
Sub-question Four:
The fourth sub-question inquired as to the depredations from wolves when
compared to losses sustained from other sources. The evidence showed that although
wolf depredation is a problem, it is much less drastic than what many would assume it
to be. It is obvious from the presented evidence that a response to nonpredator losses
would have much greater effects than a response to wolf depredation.
In 2010, a total of 1.7 million cattle were lost to variety of causes. Out of those,
97.7 percent can be attributed to non-predator causes such as weather or disease. Of
the remaining 2.3 percent, coyotes, mountain lions and bears killed the majority of the
animals with wolves only taking a small percent. For calves, sheep, and lambs, the story
is much the same. Considering that the 1.7 million cattle lost is less than three percent
of the overall cattle herd, wolves depredate approximately a percent of a percent of the
total population of cows.
According to the reports, respiratory problems were liable for a majority of the
nonpredator cattle losses. Weather accounted for an increased percentage of sheep
losses in 2009 than shown in 1994, 1999 and 2004 studies. This evidence suggests
that, although there is a problem with wolf depredation, it is significantly lower than nonpredator losses.
Relationship of Research to Field

Although no new information was uncovered in the process of constructing this
report, collection and organization of the relevant information on the subject ensures
that policymakers, ranchers, activists, and other interested parties have the ability to
see information on the subject. When learning about a new subject, gathering
information can be the most difficult part. The collection included within this report is
valuable to an individual who is otherwise uneducated on the subject because it both
provides the complete story as to the effects of wolves on the environment and allows
the reader to find more information on the subject. Furthermore, the summary and
discussion portions of this chapter make further investigation of the subject when
considering the problems associated with wolves.
Discussion of Results
The main question this report is intended to investigate is: What effect does the
reintroduction of grey wolves have on an environment? The sub-questions are: How
does wolf overpopulation affect wildlife, livestock, and humans? What is the history of
the relationship between wolves and humans since the colonization of the United
States? What are the advantages and disadvantages of different methods for
responding to wolf population changes? Finally, how does depredation from wolves
compare to losses to the population of domestic animals and wild ungulates from other
causes?
When initially writing this paper, family losses of livestock had convinced me that
wolves were a scourge that needed to be exterminated. Through the course of studies
and research, my previous beliefs about the subject have actually been reversed. Now,
I realize that misinformation about the subject, a fear of the unknown, and a primal need
for control are the main contributors to societys war against wolves.
Sub-question One inquired as to the influence that wolves have on the
environment. From the evidence presented, it is obvious that they do kill animals and a
larger wolf populations will have a larger effect on their surroundings.
Subsection one investigated the effects on wildlife. It was discovered that wolves
do hunt ungulates. This is mitigated by the fact that they remove old, weak, and
diseased animals from the herd. This makes their presence neutral at worst and
generally positive.
Subsection Two investigated the effects on livestock. According to the evidence,
wolves do attack and diminish livestock herds. However, the amount of loss that can be
attributed to wolves is less than a single percent of the overall losses. This makes the
problem much less than originally expected at the outset of the topic research. Growing
up hearing horror stories of losing up to fifteen percent of cattle or sheep herds due to
wolf depredation certainly shaped the perception of the problem. While it is important to
manage what we can in terms of reducing depredation, actions taken must be efficient.
This is because other, much worse, problems exist and addressing those is much more
important. Time and resources used to address wolf depredation is taken away from
other research.
Subsection Three inquired as to the effects of wolves on humans. Wolves will
attack humans, but only in dire situations and there have only been a handful of events
in the past century. The effect that they do have is actually beneficial as they make wild
ungulate populations healthier and promote ecological tourism to the tune of millions of
dollars.
Sub-question Two investigated history between wolves and humans in the United
States. It found that since the first bounty was placed in 1630, humans have been
working hard to eliminate the species. This is an important factor as it shows that we
have historically been at odds with wolves and this is not a new trend and that the
problem hasnt recently become escalated.
Sub-question Three looked into the different methods for controlling depredation
and increased wolf populations. lethal action, guard llamas, or donkeys, translocation of
wolves or livestock, use of audio or visual deterrents and shock collars are all methods
that are less than optimal. These methods should not be considered because they are
ineffective, expensive, harmful to wolves or other animals, or require considerable
maintenance. With those sections eliminated, it then becomes clear that only a few
methods are acceptable.
Improved fencing, shock collars and paying for tolerance are the methods
remaining. Out of these, improved fencing and shock collars are the most labor
intensive and potentially the most expensive because of the large amounts of time and
materials that go into the application of those methods. Simply paying for tolerance has
the best chance at succeeding however does face drawbacks when you consider that
depredation of livestock is not decreased, and the only difference is that the farmers are
placated.
Not surprisingly, installing better barriers to depredation would be the best action
a farmer can take as it is a near guarantee of safety. For governmental organizations,
paying fair market value for livestock lost to wolves and for renovations to reduce
depredations would placate the farmers. Furthermore it would require spending the
least amount of time, effort, and money.
Sub-question Four compared wolf depredation to losses sustained from other
sources. It was found that wolves pose very little threat when compared to other
sources of loss. This is important because it shows that instead of worrying about
wolves, we should be worried about other problems.
In summary, wolves either do not influence or are a positive influence on
domestic and wild ungulates. They have been hunted by humans based on our fear and
need to control. Most effective management options change the way that humans react
to their presence and they pose no virtually threat when compared with other sources of
loss.
One interesting concept uncovered in the course of the research is that wolf
populations are not the problem needing to be solved in this equation. If a paradigm
shift is experienced and the exponential increase in human populations as the problem
instead of the number of wolves is considered as the problem in this equation, the
situation becomes much more clear. A shift in human interaction with the environment is
a priority if continued animal diversity is to be witnessed. This concept of human
overpopulation instead of wolf overpopulation being the primary instigator in the

problem of is evidenced by conclusions presented in both Subsections One, Two, and
Four where it was found that that they do not pose a threat and have been pursued
mercilessly by humans as we expanded into their territory.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the effects of wolves on the environment have been investigated.
While the species has been hunted to near extinction by humans, they do not have as
large of an effect as many might imagine. In fact, they provide many benefits including
healthier herds and increased tourism. This all points to the fact that wolves are not the
problem, we are the problem. We need to modify our society so that we are less prone
to depredation, but also able to ensure that ranchers are not forced to simply stand the
losses.
It is the recommendation of this paper that ranchers improve range fencing to
ensure depredation is limited. At the same time, governmental agencies should
monetarily support both the direct losses and renovations used to prevent depredation.
This will ensure that wolves are allowed to prosper and keep balance in the ecosystem
while not placing unnecessary burden on ranchers.
Works Cited:
Literature
Andelt, William F. Phillips, Robert L. Gruver, Kenneth S. Guthrie, Jerry W. (spring,
1999) Coyote Predation of Domestic Sheep Deterred with Electronic Dog-Training
Collar. Wildlife Research Center Library.
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
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-Bangsand-Shivik.pdf
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
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
Brainerd SM, Andren H, Bangs EE, Bradley EH, Fontaine JA, et al. (2008) The effects
of breeder loss on wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: accessed 3/24/15
http://www.dn.se/Documents/wolves.pdf
Demma, Dominic J., Mech, L. David. (2011) Accuracy of Estimating Wolf Summer
Territories by Daytime Locations. BioOne. Accessed 3/13/15 http://www.wolf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/322accuracyestimating-wolfsummerterritories.pdf
Green, Jeffrey S. (1989) Donkeys for Predation Control. Eastern Wildlife Damage
Control Conferences.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ewdcc4
International Wolf Center (No Date) Grey Wolf Timeline for the Contiguous United
States. Accessed 3/27/15. http://www.wolf.org/wow/united-states/gray-wolf-timeline/
Jesse, Lisa (2000) Wolves in Western Literature. University of Tennessee Honors

Thesis Projects. Accessed 4/22/15 http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/391
Lance, Nathan J. (May 1, 2009) Application of Electrified Fladry to Decrease Risk of

Livestock Depredations by Wolves (Canis lupus). DigitalCommons. Accessed 3//28/15.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1301&context=etd
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://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.001
1954&representation=PDF
McNay, Mark E. (2002) Wolf-Human Interactions in Alaska and Canada: A Review of

the Case History. The Wildlife Society Bulletin. Accessed 3/13/15.
http://wolfology1.tripod.com/id236.htm
Meadows, Laurie E. Knowlton, Fredrick F. (fall, 2000) Efficacy of Guard Llamas to

Reduce Canine Predation on Domestic Sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Mech, L. David. Cluff, H. Dean. (October 4, 2011) Movements of Wolves at the Northern
Extreme of the Species Range, Including during Four Months of Darkness. PLoSONE.
Accessed 3/13/15. http://www.wolf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/327movements_wolvesnorthernextreme.pdf
Mech, L. David, Fieberg, John. (2014) Re-Evaluating the Northeastern Minnesota

Moose Decline and the Role of Wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management.
http://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Re-evaluating-the-northeastern-MNmoose.pdf
Mech, L. David. (2011) Proportion of Calves and Adult Muskoxen, Ovibos moschatus
Killed by Gray Wolves, Canis lupus, in July on Ellesmere Island. The Canadian FieldNaturalist, accessed 3/13/15. http://www.wolf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/320proportioncalves_adultmuxkoxen.pdf
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
and Restoration in Canada and the United States. BioScience. Accessed 3/13/15.
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/1/50.full.pdf
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
Osbund, William N. (No Date) The Great Hinckley Hunt of 1818. Hinckley township
website. Accessed 3/27/15. http://www.hinckleytwp.org/content/great-hinckley-hunt1818
Palacios, Vicente. Mech, L. David. (November 30, 2009) Problems with studying wolf
predation on small prey in summer via global positioning system collars. European J. of
Wildlife Research. Accessed 3/13/15. http://www.wolf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/309Problemsstudying-wolfpredation.pdf
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
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
Shivik, John A.; Treves, Adrian; and Callahan, Peggy, (2003) Nonlethal Techniques for
Managing Predation: Primary and Secondary Repellents. USDA National Wildlife
Research Center - Staff Publications. Paper 272.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1266&context=icwdm_usdan
wrc
Smallidge, S. T. Halbritter, H. J. Ashcroft, N. K. Boren, J. C. (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.
http://nmyrm.nmsu.edu/documents/ritf78-review-of-lmp-to-minimize-livestockdepredation-by-wolves.pdf
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
USDA (December, 2011) Cattle and Calves Nonpredator Death Loss in the United
States; 2010. APHIS. Accessed 3/28/15.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/general/downloads/cattle_calves_nonp
red_2010.pdf
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
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.
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
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (no date) Grey Wolf Conservation and
Management, Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed 3/24/15.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#3
Weilgus, Robert B., Peebles, Kaylie A. (December 2014) Effects of Wolf Mortality on
Livestock Depredations. PLOS Journals.
White, Annie B. (No Date) A History of Wild Wolves in the United States. Accessed
2/14/15. http://www.graywolfconservation.com/Wild_Wolves/history.htm
Williams, Christopher K., Ericsson, Gran. &Heberlein, Thomas A. (2002) A quantitative

summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (19722000).
ResearchGate. Accessed 3/13/15.
file:///C:/Users/nick/Downloads/09e41506d7f4c1306a000000%20(2).pdf
Charts and Tables

and Restoration in Canada and the United States. BioScience. Accessed 3/13/15. Page
51 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/1/50.full.pdf

Wolves and The Environment Final Submission PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wolves and The Environment Final Submission PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wolves and the Environment

Chapter One: Introduction

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

Chapter Two: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography

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

Topic: Depredation Reduction

Collar. Wildlife Research Center Library.

Topic: Depredation Reduction

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

Topic: Depredation Reduction

Topic: Depredation Reduction

Descriptors Used: depredation reduction, wolf management

Topic: Depredation Reduction

Topic: Attitudes Toward Wolves

Topic: Wolf Predation and other Effects

Topic: Wolf Predation and other Effects

Topic: Depredation Reduction

Topic: Depredation Reduction

Topic: Wolf-human relationship

Topic: Attitudes towards wolves

Topic: Wolf-Human Relationship

Descriptors Used: Human need to dominate their territory

Topic: Wolf-human Relationship

Topic: Wolf Management Practices

Topic: Wolf-human conflict

Topic: Non-wolf Cattle Loss in the United States

Topic: Wolf Management techniques

Topic: Non-wolf Sheep Loss in the United States

Database Searched: Google

Topic: Predator Cattle Loss in the United States

Topic: Wolf Management Techniques

Topic: Benefits of wolf populations

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

Topic: Attitudes toward wolves

Chapter Three: Methodology

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

Chapter Four: Results of the Study

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

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

behavior and its relationship to increased sinuosity (see above). However,

As for the positive impacts of wolves, wolves exert positive benefits

Reduced forage competition between animals;

Increased provide food for scavengers;

Reduced coyote population that increases populations of small

Restoration of wild behaviors in game animals; and

Increased vegetation as a result of less browsing.

Economically, increased wolf populations can have the positive impact

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

1. The mentality that prompted the extermination of wolves;

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

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

Respiratory problems accounted for the highest percentage of nonpredator

In addition, the history of human-wolf

interactions, the advantages of different methods for controlling depredation, and

Chapter Five: Summary and Discussion

scavengers, reduced coyotes promoted healthy populations of smaller predators,

Relationship of Research to Field

overpopulation instead of wolf overpopulation being the primary instigator in the

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

States. Conservation Biology, 19, 1498-1508

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

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

Lance, Nathan J. (May 1, 2009) Application of Electrified Fladry to Decrease Risk of