-
Title
-
Eng
Improving the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan through Successful Reintroduction of Gray Wolves in the Northern United States
-
Date
-
2012
-
Creator
-
Eng
Schoenberg, Kari M
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
IMPROVING THE MEXICAN GRAY WOLF RECOVERY PLAN
THROUGH ANALYSIS OF SUCCESSFUL REINTRODUCTION OF
GRAY WOLVES IN THE NORTHERN UNITED STATES
by
Kari M. Schoenberg
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2012
v
© 2012 by Kari M. Schoenberg. All rights reserved.
vi
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Kari M. Schoenberg
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Timothy Quinn
Habitat Program Chief Scientist, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
Adjunct Member of the Faculty
June 30, 2012
________________________
Date
vii
ABSTRACT
Improving the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Plan
Through Analysis of Successful Reintroduction of
Gray Wolves in the Northern United States
Kari M. Schoenberg
The wolf continues to be one of the most controversial wildlife species in the U.S.
Once persecuted to the point of near extinction in the U.S. the gray wolf was one of the
first species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Reintroduction
programs as part of recovery efforts for this endangered species have generally been
successful as measured by increasing wolf populations and the number of breeding pairs
in the wild in the northern U.S. Indeed, the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone
National Park is regarded as one of the best-known recovery successes in the U.S.
However, reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf in the southwestern U.S. has not been
as successful by most measures. The Mexican gray wolf recovery plan called for 100
Mexican wolves in the wild by 2006, yet there have never been more than 60 wild
Mexican wolves in the recovery region. Failure of the program is likely due to a mixture
of biological and social reasons.
The purpose of this study was to identify factors that facilitate successful wolf
recovery. In particular, I conducted a literature review of gray wolf recovery in the
northern U.S. in an attempt to understand why some wolf reintroduction efforts are
relatively successful compared to Mexican wolf reintroduction efforts. Further, I
developed a questionnaire survey and sent it to biologists working with wolves in
Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Arizona. The intent
of the survey was to better understand what biological and social factors biologists think
may be related to successful reintroduction programs.
Two main stakeholder groups, the scientific and rancher community, have widely
varying opinions and perceptions about wolves and wolf recovery. To better understand
these differences I sent questionnaires to ranchers affected by gray and Mexican wolf
reintroductions in each of the seven states mentioned above. My intent here was to
explore: a) how attitudes about wolves may have shaped wolf management, and b) how
perceptions of wolves may affect the success of reintroduction.
Biologists believed that avoiding wolf/human conflicts was the most important
social component of successful wolf recovery plans. Biologists also believe that the
Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan has not been successful because the recovery region was
too small and because ranchers were generally intolerant of wolves. Ranchers associated
with Mexican wolf recovery were more negative about recovery success than ranchers
dealing with gray wolves. Compensation programs associated with wolf recovery were
found to be inadequate by both biologists and ranchers but for different reasons.
Importantly, ranchers believed that they are undercompensated for true loss of their
livestock. However while biologists agreed with ranchers that compensation programs
v
are inadequate they still believed that compensation was fair in contrast to ranchers who
believed them to be unfair.
Ranchers dealing with Mexican wolves thought there would be less cooperation
between biologists and ranchers through time while ranchers dealing with gray wolves
were slightly more positive and believed the relationship would stay relatively
unchanged. Interestingly a majority of ranchers would be willing to learn more about
wolves and wolf recovery as well as be willing to ranch with wolves if provided certain
compensation or tools such as guard dogs, barriers, range riders, and scare tools.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
................................................................................................................
vii
ABBREVIATIONS
..................................................................................................................
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
..................................................................................................
xii
CHAPTER ONE
........................................................................................................................
1
INTRODUCTION
..............................................................................................................................
1
CHAPTER TWO
......................................................................................................................
5
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
................................................................................................
5
GENERAL GRAY WOLF BIOLOGY
.....................................................................................................
5
MEXICAN WOLF BIOLOGY
....................................................................................................................
7
THE ERADICATION OF THE GRAY WOLF
..................................................................................
10
THE ERADICATION OF THE MEXICAN WOLF
.........................................................................
12
GRAY WOLVES MAKE A COMEBACK
.........................................................................................
13
THE IMPORTANCE OF WOLVES FOR RESTORING ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE
AND FUNCTION
..........................................................................................................................................
18
MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY EFFORTS
.......................................................................................
21
HOW CONFLICTS BETWEEN WOLVES AND RANCHERS AFFECTS RECOVERY
24
ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOLVES
....................................................................................................
26
COMPENSATION FOR WOLF DEPREDATION
...........................................................................
28
CHAPTER THREE
................................................................................................................
30
METHODS
.........................................................................................................................................
30
OVERVIEW
....................................................................................................................................................
30
LITERATURE REVIEW
............................................................................................................................
31
QUESTIONNAIRES
....................................................................................................................................
31
CHAPTER FOUR
...................................................................................................................
34
RESULTS
...........................................................................................................................................
34
OVERVIEW
....................................................................................................................................................
34
BIOLOGIST SURVEYS
.............................................................................................................................
34
RANCHER SURVEYS
...............................................................................................................................
55
CHAPTER FIVE
.....................................................................................................................
76
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
............................................................................................
76
DISCUSSION
.................................................................................................................................................
76
BIOLOGICAL ISSUES
...............................................................................................................................
76
SOCIAL ISSUES
...........................................................................................................................................
77
METHODOLOGICAL CAVEATS
........................................................................................................
82
FUTURE STUDY AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
........................................................
84
CONCLUSION
...............................................................................................................................................
85
v
REFERENCES
........................................................................................................................
87
APPENDIX A: HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW
..............................................................
92
APPENDIX B: LETTER FOR BIOLOGIST PARTICIPANTS
..................................
95
APPENDIX C: LETTER FOR RANCHER PARTICIPANTS
....................................
96
APPENDIX D: SURVEY FOR BIOLOGISTS
................................................................
97
APPENDIX E: SURVEY FOR RANCHERS
................................................................
121
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. HISTORIC RANGE OF THE MEXICAN WOLF (PARSONS, 1996). .............................. 8
FIGURE 2. HISTORIC RANGE FOR THE GRAY WOLF IN THE U.S. (TUKUA, 2005). ................. 10
FIGURE 3. GRAY WOLF RANGE AT TIME OF LISTING UNDER THE ESA IN 1974 (TUKUA,
2005). ........................................................................................................................ 14
FIGURE 4. CURRENT RANGE OF THE GRAY WOLF (TUKUA, 2005). NOTE THAT THIS DOES
NOT INCLUDE RELATIVELY NEW EXPANSION INTO WASHINGTON STATE.................... 17
FIGURE 5. BEFORE AND AFTER REINTRODUCTION OF THE GRAY WOLF INTO YELLOWSTONE
NATIONAL PARK (RIPPLE & BESCHTA, 2003). ........................................................... 19
FIGURE 6. THE MEXICAN WOLF BLUE RANGE WOLF RECOVERY AREA (U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, 2002)............................................................................................ 22
FIGURE 7. AGE OF BIOLOGISTS RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY (N=13). NONE OF THE
RESPONDENTS WERE IN THE 18-29 AGE CLASS. .......................................................... 35
FIGURE 8. HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION COMPLETED BY BIOLOGISTS RESPONDING TO THE
SURVEY (N=13). NONE OF THE RESPONDENTS CHARACTERIZED THEIR EDUCATION AS
SOME HIGH SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE, SOME COLLEGE, OR
TRADE/TECHNICAL/VOCATIONAL SCHOOL. .................................................................... 36
FIGURE 9. POLITICAL VIEWS HELD BY BIOLOGISTS RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY (N=13).
NONE OF THE RESPONDENTS CHARACTERIZED THEMSELVES AS VERY CONSERVATIVE OR
VERY LIBERAL. ............................................................................................................. 37
FIGURE 10. CHILDHOOD HOMES (UP TO AGE 18) OF BIOLOGISTS RESPONDING TO THE
SURVEY (N=13). NONE OF THE RESPONDENTS LIVED IN FARMING AREAS AS A CHILD. 38
FIGURE 11. BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS NEEDED TO ENSURE SHORT-TERM (10 YEARS)
SUCCESS OF A WOLF RECOVERY PLAN IN AN AREA ACCORDING TO BIOLOGIST
RESPONDENTS (N=13). THIS QUESTION CALLED FOR RATING ANSWERS WITH VALUES
RANGING FROM 1 (LOW) TO 5 (HIGH) AND RATING WAS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF ALL
RATINGS/NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS. ......................................................................... 39
FIGURE 12. BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS NEEDED TO ENSURE LONG-TERM (>10 YEARS)
SUCCESS OF A WOLF RECOVERY PLAN IN AN AREA ACCORDING TO BIOLOGIST
RESPONDENTS (N=13). THIS QUESTION CALLED FOR RATING ANSWERS WITH VALUES
RANGING FROM 1(LOW) TO 5 (HIGH), AND RATING AVERAGE WAS EQUAL TO THE SUM
OF ALL RATINGS/NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS. ............................................................. 40
vii
FIGURE 13. IMPORTANCE OF HABITAT QUALITY VS. QUANTITY TO THE SUCCESS OF WOLF
RECOVERY PLANS ACCORDING TO BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS (N=13). ........................ 41
FIGURE 14. THE SUCCESS OF GRAY WOLF REINTRODUCTION RATED BY BIOLOGIST
RESPONDENTS (N=13). ............................................................................................... 42
FIGURE 15. REASONS WHY SURVEYED BIOLOGISTS THINK GRAY WOLF REINTRODUCTION
HAS BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL (N=13). RESPONDENTS COULD MARK AS MANY ANSWERS
AS THEY THOUGHT APPLIED. ...................................................................................... 43
FIGURE 16. THE SINGLE BEST KIND OF INFORMATION NECESSARY TO CRAFT A SUCCESSFUL
WOLF RECOVERY PLAN ACCORDING TO BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS (N=13). ................ 44
FIGURE 17. OBSTACLES AND INFORMATION GAPS ENCOUNTERED WHEN PLANNING WOLF
REINTRODUCTION ACCORDING TO BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS (N=13). THIS QUESTION
CALLED FOR RATING ANSWERS WITH VALUES RANGING FROM 1 (LEAST) TO 5 (MOST)
AND RATING AVERAGE WAS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF ALL RATINGS/NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS. ........................................................................................................... 45
FIGURE 18. THE DEGREE TO WHICH BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THE MEXICAN WOLF
RECOVERY PLAN HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST (N=13). NONE OF THE
RESPONDENTS STRONGLY DISAGREED. ......................................................................... 46
FIGURE 19. REASONS BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THE MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY
PLAN HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST (N=13). ................................................ 47
FIGURE 20. THE DEGREE TO WHICH BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THAT STRONGER
RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON LAND AND GRAZING ACTIVITIES WOULD INCREASE
MEXICAN WOLF POPULATIONS (N=13). ...................................................................... 48
FIGURE 21. THE DEGREE TO WHICH BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THAT NEW
REVISIONS ON THE MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY PLAN WILL HELP IMPROVE THE
LIKELIHOOD OF THE SPECIES TO MAINTAIN SELF-SUSTAINING POPULATIONS (N=13). 49
FIGURE 22. WHAT BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS BELIEVE ABOUT MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY IN
THE FUTURE (N=13). .................................................................................................. 50
FIGURE 23. BIOLOGISTS’ RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT: THE GREATEST OBSTACLE TO
WOLF RECOVERY IN THE U.S. IS THE DEGREE TO WHICH LAND/LIVESTOCK OWNERS
AFFECTED BY WOLVES COOPERATE WITH RECOVERY EFFORTS (N=13). NONE OF THE
RESPONDENTS STRONGLY DISAGREED. ....................................................................... 51
FIGURE 24. BIOLOGISTS’ RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT: COOPERATION WITH
LAND/LIVESTOCK OWNERS IS DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE (N=13). NONE OF THE
RESPONDENTS STRONGLY DISAGREED. ......................................................................... 52
viii
FIGURE 25. THE DEGREE TO WHICH BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THAT CURRENT
COMPENSATION FOR WOLF DEPREDATION ON LIVESTOCK IS WORKING VS. FAIR (N=13).
................................................................................................................................... 53
FIGURE 26. THE DEGREE TO WHICH BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THAT WOLF
RECOVERY EFFORTS TEND TO DIVIDE THE AFFECTED COMMUNITIES INTO BIOLOGISTS
(GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE) AND RANCHERS (GENERALLY NOT SUPPORTIVE) (N=13). . 54
FIGURE 27. THE FATE OF THE DIVIDED COMMUNITY (BIOLOGISTS AND RANCHERS) THROUGH
TIME ACCORDING TO BIOLOGIST RESPONDENTS (N=13). ............................................ 55
FIGURE 28. AGE OF RANCHERS RESPONDING TO THE SURVEYS (N=54). ............................. 56
FIGURE 29. HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION COMPLETED BY RANCHERS RESPONDING TO THE
SURVEY (N=54). NONE OF THE RESPONDENTS CHARACTERIZED THEIR EDUCATION AS
SOME HIGH SCHOOL. ................................................................................................... 57
FIGURE 30. POLITICAL VIEWS HELD BY RANCHERS RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY (N=54). . 58
FIGURE 31. CHILDHOOD HOMES (UP TO AGE 18) OF RANCHER RESPONDENT (N=54). ......... 59
FIGURE 32. THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK LOST IN THE PAST YEAR DUE TO WOLF
DEPREDATION (N=54). THIS BAR GRAPH SHOWS THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
LIVESTOCK LOST WITHIN THE PAST YEAR OF RANCHERS DEALING WITH THE NORTHERN
GRAY WOLF AND RANCHERS DEALING WITH THE MEXICAN GRAY WOLF COMBINED. . 60
FIGURE 33. ESTIMATED LIVESTOCK LOST DUE TO WOLF DEPREDATION WITHIN THE PAST
YEAR FROM RANCHERS AFFECTED BY MEXICAN WOLVES (N=23) VS. RANCHERS
AFFECTED BY GRAY WOLVES (N=31).......................................................................... 61
FIGURE 34. LEVEL OF SUPPORT FROM RANCHER RESPONDENTS TOWARDS WOLF RECOVERY.
THIS FIGURE SHOWS DIFFERENCES IN SUPPORT FOR WOLF RECOVERY BETWEEN
RANCHERS AFFECTED BY MEXICAN WOLVES (N=23) VS. RANCHERS AFFECTED BY
GRAY WOLVES (N=31)................................................................................................ 62
FIGURE 35. LEVEL OF SUPPORT FROM RANCHER RESPONDENTS TOWARDS WOLF
REINTRODUCTION. THIS FIGURE SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE OF SUPPORT FOR WOLF
REINTRODUCTION BETWEEN RANCHERS AFFECTED BY MEXICAN WOLVES (N=23) VS.
RANCHERS AFFECTED BY GRAY WOLVES (N=31). ....................................................... 63
FIGURE 36. LEVEL OF SUPPORT FROM RANCHER RESPONDENTS TOWARDS COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS (N=54). THIS FIGURE SHOWS WHETHER RANCHERS BELIEVE
COMPENSATION IS WORKING VS. WHETHER THEY BELIEVE IT IS FAIR. ........................ 64
FIGURE 37. RANCHERS’ RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: DO YOU FEEL YOU ARE INCLUDED IN
DECISIONS ABOUT WOLF REINTRODUCTION? (N=54). ................................................. 65
ix
FIGURE 38. RANCHERS’ RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT WOLVES ON
YOUR LAND? THIS FIGURE SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RANCHERS’ FEELINGS
TOWARDS WOLVES ON THEIR LAND. IT SPLITS THE RANCHERS INTO THOSE AFFECTED
BY MEXICAN WOLVES (N=23) VS. THOSE AFFECTED BY GRAY WOLVES (N=31). ........ 66
FIGURE 39. HOW RANCHER RESPONDENTS CHARACTERIZE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
BIOLOGISTS AND RANCHERS THROUGH TIME. THIS FIGURE SHOWS HOW THE TWO
DIFFERENT GROUPS OF RANCHERS (THOSE AFFECTED BY MEXICAN WOLVES (N=23) VS.
THOSE AFFECTED BY GRAY WOLVES (N=31)) CHARACTERIZE THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN BIOLOGISTS AND RANCHERS THROUGH TIME. ............................................. 67
FIGURE 40. RANCHERS’ RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT: WOLVES OCCUPYING THE SAME
LAND THAT YOU RANCH WILL RESULT IN YOU HAVING TO GIVE UP YOUR LAND FOR
RANCHING (N=54). ..................................................................................................... 68
FIGURE 41. LEVEL OF SUPPORT BY RANCHER RESPONDENTS FOR RANCHING WITH WOLVES
(WOLVES OCCUPYING THE SAME LAND AS THE RANCHER’S LIVESTOCK) IF PROVIDED
WITH CERTAIN COMPENSATION OR TOOLS (N=54). ..................................................... 69
FIGURE 42. HOW RANCHER RESPONDENTS CHARACTERIZE THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF WOLVES
(N=54). THE 0% REPRESENTS ‘COMPLETELY UNKNOWLEDGEABLE’. ........................ 70
FIGURE 43. HOW RANCHER RESPONDENTS CHARACTERIZE THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF WOLF
RECOVERY (N=54). THE 0% REPRESENTS ‘COMPLETELY UNKNOWLEDGEABLE’. ...... 71
FIGURE 44. LEVEL OF SUPPORT FROM RANCHER RESPONDENTS IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT
WOLVES (N=54). ........................................................................................................ 72
FIGURE 45. LEVEL OF SUPPORT FROM RANCHER RESPONDENTS IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT
WOLF RECOVERY (N=54). ........................................................................................... 73
FIGURE 46. LEVEL OF SUPPORT FROM RANCHER RESPONDENTS TO LEARN HOW TO
HUMANLY MANAGE WOLVES FROM STAYING OFF RANCHERS’ LAND (N=54). NO
RESPONDENTS SAID THEY WOULD BE UNWILLING. ...................................................... 74
FIGURE 47. TYPES OF NONLETHAL TOOLS AND METHODS RANCHERS HAVE USED IN ORDER
TO REDUCE CONFLICTS WITH WOLVES (N=54). ........................................................... 75
x
ABBREVIATIONS
BRWRA- Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area
DPS- Distinct Population Segments
ESA- Endangered Species Act
ESPA- Endangered Species Preservation Act
FEIS- Final Environmental Impact Statement
SSP- Species Survival Plan
USFWS- United States Fish and Wildlife Service
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis advisor and reader, Dr. Tim Quinn for all the help and
support he gave me. This paper would not have been possible without his input and
guidance. To all those who took the time to take my survey and provide me with the
feedback I needed to complete this project, I thank you for your input. I would also like
to thank the TESC faculty for helping me to bring my vision and ideas into a workable
project. Their guidance was greatly appreciated. Lastly I would like to thank my friends
and family for their encouragement and inexhaustible patience. This project would not
have been possible without everyone’s support.
xii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The wolf (Canis lupus) is one of the most charismatic and controversial wildlife
species in North America. Some people see it as a symbol of the wild or an example of
successful recovery under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while others regard the
species as a predator of domestic livestock or a competitor with humans for deer and elk
(Houston, Bruskotter, & Fan, 2010). Indeed our modern history with the wolf in the U.S.
starting in the 1600s underscores this dichotomy (Houston et al., 2010).
The first
European settlers in America brought with them a long standing history of living with the
wolf along with negative perceptions of the wolf based on fairy tales and religious beliefs
(Browne-Nuñez & Taylor, 2002) which reflected a cultural bias against wolves. For
example the Bible contains analogies equating the wolf with wickedness and sin: ‘For I
know this, that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing
the flock’ (Acts, 20:29 New King James Version) and ‘Beware of false prophets, which
come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves’ (Matthew, 7:15
New King James Version) (McCann, 2004). In addition, stories such as Little Red
Riding Hood, Peter and the Wolf, and The Three Little Pigs, are well known fables
depicting the wolf as a menacing and predatory antagonist and a symbol of evil.
These literary depictions of the wolf in part helped fuel antagonism and hostility
towards the species that eventually led to wolf persecution (Browne-Nuñez & Taylor,
2002). Along with habitat loss associated with a growing human population, wolves
were effectively eliminated from most of their historic range in the U.S. during the 20th
century with just a small population remaining in northern Minnesota (Tukua, 2005; U.S.
1
Department of Agriculture, 2002). It was not until the late 1930s that public perception
of the wolf began to shift (Willard, 2008). Biologists began to better understand the
interconnectedness of species and processes in nature by studying ecosystems as a whole
rather than in parts 1 (Willard, 2008).
This better understanding helped lead to the
development of the ESA in 1973 which directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to “protect and recover endangered and threatened species” (Willard, 2008, p.
7). The gray wolf along with the grizzly bear and bald eagle were some of the first
species to be listed under the ESA, which made it a crime to kill endangered species.
Once protected under the ESA wolves successfully emigrated from Canada into the U.S.
and began to naturally recolonize Montana in the 1970s and 1980s. Because wolves were
naturally recolonizing their range in Montana the USFWS considered the possibility of
successful wolf recovery in the western U.S. and supported wolf reintroduction into
Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and 1996. Since being listed under the ESA, gray
wolf numbers in the U.S. have increased from less than the 300 living mostly in
Minnesota to over 4,000 today spread out across a number of western states (Jimenez, et
al., 2012).
As stated in Houston et al. (2010, p. 389), “Once hunted and killed with more
passion than any other animal in U.S. history, wolves now stand on the precipice of
recovery largely because of human efforts to protect and restore the species.” However,
public attitudes towards wolves, wolf recovery, and wolf reintroduction are still
extremely varied, and not surprisingly many legal and political battles over how to best
1
One of the best examples of this shift in attitude is shown in a quote by Aldo Leopold “In those days we had never
heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf…I thought …that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise…Since then I
have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves…I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to
anemic desuetude, and then to death…I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a
mountain live in mortal fear of its deer…Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among
mountains, but seldom perceived among men” (Kellert et al., 1996).
2
protect and manage the gray wolf continue today. Since the time of its ESA listing gray
wolf numbers in the U.S. have grown steadily, causing many to argue that protection is
no longer necessary. As gray wolf numbers in the U.S. have changed so too has the
wolf’s ESA protection status.
It has been classified as endangered, threatened,
experimental (discussed in Chapter 2), and even delisted or removed from protected
status under the ESA (U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2011) at different times in
the last 39 years.
Abundant research has documented public attitudes towards wolves (BrowneNuñes and Taylor, 2002; Huston et al., 2010; Naughton-Treves, Grossberg, & Treves,
2003). These studies show that farmers and ranchers living near wolf populations or
proposed reintroduction sites have the most negative attitudes towards wolves.
Monitoring social attitudes towards wolves proves to be one of the most important
aspects of guaranteeing a successful wolf reintroduction program plan. Huston et al.
(2010) showed individual attitudes towards wolves were strong predictors of behavior.
Other research done by Browne-Nuñes and Taylor (2002) demonstrated importance of
understanding “human dimensions” of natural resource issues such as beliefs and
attitudes of the public. Many of those familiar with the gray wolf history in the U.S.
believe that wolf recovery and management goes well beyond issues of wolf biology and
that the socio-political aspect of wolf reintroduction is still largely misunderstood (Nie,
2003).
In 1976 the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) was listed on the ESA as a
separate subspecies of gray wolf (Stoopen, 2004). Between 1977 and 1983 recovery
efforts included capture of wild wolves and the creation of a joint U.S. Mexico captive
breeding program (Stoopen, 2004). Reintroduction efforts started in 1998 with the first
3
release of Mexican wolves in the wild (Carnes, 2011; Stoopen, 2004). However, while
the reintroduction of the gray wolf in the northern U.S. was showing signs of success, the
reintroduction efforts of the Mexican wolf into the southwestern U.S. resulted in little
increase in wild Mexican wolf populations.
The primary objective of my thesis was to identify important factors that have
contributed to success of wolf recovery plans and to provide insight into why Mexican
wolf recovery in the southwestern U.S. has not been as successful as gray wolf recovery
in the northern U.S. I suspected that attitudes and perception of wolves would prove to
be important factors as had been shown elsewhere (Browne-Nuñes and Taylor, 2002;
Huston et al., 2010; Naughton-Treves et al., 2003). While I looked at other potential
factors including difference in the ecology between wolf subspecies, my main focus was
on better understanding how public attitudes might shape management of the wolf. In
particular, I explored how perceptions of wolves, by major recovery participants i.e., the
biologists and rancher community, might affect reintroduction success. This study was
informed through a literature review and questionnaire surveys mailed to biologists
working on gray wolves and Mexican wolf recovery plans and to ranchers affected by
wolf recovery in their area.
4
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
GENERAL GRAY WOLF BIOLOGY
The gray wolf (Canis lupus), also known as the timber wolf or tundra wolf, is the
largest canid in North America (Tukua, 2005). Mature males can weigh 38-52 kg and
can vary in total length from 1.27 to 1.64 m from nose to tail (Paquet and Carbyn, 2003;
Tukua, 2005). Adult females are typically smaller, weighing 22-45 kg and are 1.37 to
1.52 m in total length (Paquet and Carbyn, 2003; Tukua, 2005). Gray wolves range in
coloration from grizzled gray or black to all-white depending on their habitat and age,
and typically live four to five years in the wild (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010).
In spite of many phenotypical differences, all wolf species share a similar social
structure based on family groups (Tukua, 2005). Wolves, live, travel, and hunt in family
structures called packs (Tukua, 2005; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987). Pack size is
ultimately dependent on prey species availability, but generally ranges from four to eight
individuals and is comprised of a single dominant male and female referred to as the
alpha pair (Carnes, 2011). The alpha pair controls the pack, is typically monogamous,
and is usually the only pair that breeds within the pack (Carnes, 2011; Tukua, 2005).
Other members of the pack include young of the year, siblings from previous litters, and
a few others that may or may not be related to the alpha pair (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1987).
Breeding takes place between January and April, depending on latitude (Paquet
and Carbyn, 2003) with northern populations breeding later in the year than southern
populations. Gestation lasts approximately 63 days and litters generally produce between
5
four to six pups (Stoopen, 2004; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982).
Pups are
completely dependent on their mother from birth to about six to eight weeks of age until
they are weaned (Tukua, 2005). After weaning the entire pack is involved in rearing the
pups. Some pack members will hunt for the young, while other pack members watch
over them (Tukua, 2005). Pups reach sexual maturity between 9 and 46 months but
generally do not mate until they are at least three years old because of the social structure
of the pack (Paquet and Carbyn, 2003).
Wolves predominately prey on hoofed animals including deer, moose, bison, elk,
and caribou, and hunting is a pack effort. Where a single wolf may not be able to catch a
large prey animal the whole pack working together can often outrun larger prey and take
it down as a group (Tukua, 2005). The pack will often single out the weaker member of a
herd, such as the sick, old, or young because these individuals are easier to catch than
animals in their prime (Tukua, 2005). When larger prey is hard to find wolves have also
been known to eat smaller animals, such as rabbits, beavers, small rodents, and even fish
(Tukua, 2005).
Two species of wolves are found in North America, the gray wolf (Canis lupus),
with its various subspecies, and the red wolf (Canis rufus), which is genetically distinct
from the gray wolf and coyote (White, 2013). In North America the gray wolf is divided
into five subspecies: the Mexican, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain (or Mackenzie
Valley), the Eastern timber, and the Arctic 2(Sullivan, 2012). According to the U.S.
Congressional Research Service (2011) definition of a subspecies is a:
2
At
one point (until about 1995) there were 24 recognized subspecies of the gray wolf in North America
based on the use of cranial features, external measurements, and pelage characteristics. Closer examination
of specimen’s biogeography suggested fewer subspecies (Paquet and Carbyn, 2003).
6
“Taxonomic category that subdivides species into morphologically distinct groups of
individuals representing a step toward the production of a new species, although they are
still fully capable of interbreeding. Subspecies are usually geographically isolated.”
For the purpose of this paper, I considered only the population of gray wolf reintroduced
into Yellowstone National Park (the Rocky Mountain subspecies), and the Mexican gray
wolf.
MEXICAN WOLF BIOLOGY
The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is the smallest subspecies of gray
wolf and the most genetically distinct form of existing gray wolves in North America
(Stoopen, 2004). It is about the size of a German Shepard weighing between 22-36 kg
and stretches from about 1.5-2.0 m in total length (Carnes, 2011). While many wolf
species range in coloration from white to black, Mexican wolves are never solid black or
white but rather a combination of gray, tan, buff, and black (Carnes, 2011).
“Commonly referred to as lobos, Mexican wolves came by their namesake due to
their unique ability to flourish in rugged terrain” (Carnes, 2011, p. 6). In the U.S.,
Mexican wolves were historically distributed in southeastern Arizona, southern New
Mexico, and western Texas (Carnes, 2011). In Mexico their historical range included the
states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Durango, and Zacatecas and the adjoining
highlands south to Mexico City (Figure 1) (Stoopen, 2004).
7
Figure 1. Historic range of the Mexican wolf (Parsons, 1996).
Mexican wolves, like all wolf species, are extremely wide-ranging, with pack
home ranges varying between 390 to 650 km2 in size (Carnes, 2011). Mexican wolves
are highly adaptable to their surroundings. Though they prefer high elevations and forest
cover, they can exist in other more open cover types such as shrubland (Carnes, 2011).
Mexican wolves kill and eat a variety of prey: including elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer,
and javelina3 (Carnes, 2011). Like other canines, wolves have an extremely good sense
of smell and can detect prey 3.2 kg or more away (Carnes, 2011). Many types of dead,
diseased, or dying animals can attract scavengers including animals that are both
scavengers and hunters such as wolves, bears, and eagles. Wolves will prey on livestock
3
A javelina is a type of wild pig found in the southwestern U.S.
8
and this behavior can be reinforced if they are allowed to scavenge on livestock carcasses
that die from natural causes (Defenders of Wildlife, 2008). The afterbirth from calving
can attract wolves as well (Defenders of Wildlife, 2008).
There are currently about 300 captive Mexican wolves in 49 facilities in the U.S.
and Mexico. Mexican wolves from these facilities that are identified for potential release
are first sent to one of three pre-release facilities to undergo an acclimation process (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). These facilities include the Sevilleta and Ladder Ranch
Wolf Management Facilities located in New Mexico and Wolf Haven International
located in Tenino, Washington (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). Wolves selected
for release are chosen for their genetic makeup (most genetically diverse based on
pedigree) among other things (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011) and will be
genetically redundant to the captive wolf population. All Mexican wolves alive today, in
captivity and in the wild, are descended from seven founders.
Risk of inbreeding
depression is not considered a present threat to the captive population due to active
management. However, while biologists work to optimize genetic diversity this small
original gene pool could be a hindrance to recovery. Pup counts of the Mexican wolf
population in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA; discussed below) are
smaller than other gray wolf species or Mexican wolves in captivity suggesting that
inbreeding depression may be an issue (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Inbreeding
depression in the wild Blue Range Population has been considered a contributing factor
to the lack of success of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program and one reason why
Mexican wolf recovery has not been as successful as gray wolf recovery programs in the
northern U.S. according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010).
9
THE ERADICATION OF THE GRAY WOLF
Wolves were once one of the most widely distributed of all wild mammals in the
world. Before European settlement the gray wolf was common throughout most of North
America (Figure 2) (Tukua, 2005).
Figure 2. Historic range for the gray wolf in the U.S. (Tukua, 2005).
After European settlement, however, wolves were eliminated from many parts of
the country by the mid 1930s and their range was greatly diminished4 (Tukua, 2005).
Early settlers (mid 1600s)5 went about eliminating the wolf with fervor in part because
4
The
sentiments
of
most
Americans
was
“The
good
Lord
put
us
here
and
the
Good
Book
says,
‘man
shall
have
dominion
over
all
creatures.’
They’re
ours
to
use.”
If
the
animal
was
seen
as
a
competition
to
either
game
or
damaging
to
property
they
were
to
be
eliminated
(Tukua,
2005,
p.
9).
5
From
the
records
of
the
Governor
and
company
of
the
Massachusetts
Bay
in
New
England
–
November
9,
1630.
“It
is
ordered,
that
every
English
man
that
killeth
a
wolf
in
any
part
within
the
limits
of
this
patent
shall
have
allowed
him
1
d
(one
penny)
for
every
beast
&
horse,
&
ob.
(1/2
penny)
for
every
weaned
swine
&
goat
in
every
plantation,
to
be
levied
by
the
constables
of
the
said
plantations”
(Tukua,
2005,
p.
9).
10
settlers often believed wilderness and wolves were symbols of evil (Willard, 2008).
“They not only killed wolves for pragmatic reasons (e.g., protecting livestock), but also
out of fear and loathing for a species that had been demonized [in Europe] for centuries in
folklore and myth” (Houston et al., 2010, p. 389). People such as Aesop and the Brothers
Grimm intensified peoples’ fear of wolves by using wolves as symbols of evil in popular
fairy tales. Additionally predator eradication was a way of imposing order and control to
nature. Overcoming the wild was a moral obligation as well as a means of survival
(Willard, 2008).
Wolves were killed in a variety of ways (e.g., hunting, trapping, and poisoning)
and were nearly universally condemned during the 19th century (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1982). In the early 1900s the U.S. government implemented its first nationwide
policy on wolf control (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987; Willard, 2008). During
that time the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Biological Survey stated,
“Large predatory mammals, destructive of livestock and game, no longer have a place in
our advancing civilization” (Kellert, Black, Rush, & Bath, 1996, p. 979). The U.S.
Department of Agriculture often exaggerated the number of livestock lost to depredation
in order to gain support from ranchers and the public to continue the wolf’s elimination
(Willard, 2008). Even Theodore Roosevelt, father of the first National Park, declared the
wolf as “the beast of waste and desolation” and called for its eradication (Kellert et al.,
1996, p. 978; Willard, 2008). By the 1930s the wolf’s range had been reduced to about
1% of its original range with only a small population remaining in northern Minnesota
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2002).
11
THE ERADICATION OF THE MEXICAN WOLF
While the gray wolf was being eliminated in the northern U.S., the Mexican wolf
was also being persecuted. The Mexican wolf was eliminated from its historic range by
many of the same attitudes and forces that affected the gray wolf population such as
predator control programs, human encroachment, and habitat degradation (Stoopen,
2004). Other factors included, commercial and recreational hunting and trapping; killing
of wolves by wildlife managers to provide more game animals for hunters; habitat
alteration; and human safety concerns (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996). Wolves
were killed through use of steel leg-hold traps, poisons placed in baits (e.g. arsenic and
compound 1080), denning, shooting, and roping (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982).
However, while many factors contributed to the Mexican wolf’s decline, its reputation as
a livestock killer was predominate (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996).
Ranchers and federal, state, and local governments developed wolf eradication
campaigns beginning in the late 1800s.
By the mid-1900s the Mexican wolf was
extirpated from the wild in the U.S. making it possibly the most endangered wolf
subspecies in the world (Nie, 2003; Stoopen, 2004). During the 19th century cattle
ranching dominated the Southwest and the livestock industry soon pressured western
congressional representatives for additional predator control.
In 1915, Congress
instructed the U.S. Bureau of Biological Survey to begin exterminating wolves
(Fitzgerald, 2006). From 1915 -1925 the Predatory Animal and Rodent Control Service
reported over 900 Mexican wolves killed by government trappers or cooperators
(Parsons, 1998). The fight against wolves did not stop there however. In 1950 the
Bureau’s successor agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) launched a
program that eliminated almost all wolves in Mexico by the mid 1970s (Povilitis,
12
Parsons, Robinson, & Becjer, 2006).
“These extermination campaigns reflected an
industrialized anti-predator alliance between the U.S. government and the livestock
industry” (Povilitis et al., 2006, p. 942).
Unfortunately because of this eradication scientists were never able to thoroughly
study Mexican wolves in their historic range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982).
What is known today about this species comes from the writings of early settlers and
trappers and what can be observed from current Mexican wolf populations in captivity
and in reintroduction zones. The Mexican wolf still faces many threats but one of the
biggest threats today is illegal hunting despite the fact that this subspecies is protected
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and otherwise benefitting from recovery efforts
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010).
GRAY WOLVES MAKE A COMEBACK
In 1966 the federal Endangered Species Preservation Act (ESPA) was created and
became the first law that would protect wolves, but only on federal land (Tukua, 2005).
When the gray wolf was listed under the ESPA in 1967 it was listed as two subspecies,
the Eastern timber wolf, and the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf (U.S. Congressional
Research Service, 2010). In 1973 the ESA, which was the successor to the ESPA, was
enacted and officially protected the wolf that same year (Endangered Species Act). In
1974 three subspecies of gray wolves, the Eastern timber wolf, Northern Rocky Mountain
gray wolf, and Mexican wolf were listed as threatened by the ESA (U.S. Congressional
Research Service, 2011). The ESA helped to protect species that were in danger of
becoming extinct and made it illegal to harm a wolf in anyway under penalty of fines or
incarceration (Tukua, 2005). In 1978, the USFWS relisted the gray wolf species (Canis
13
lupus) as endangered at the species level throughout the lower 48 states, with the
exception of Minnesota, where it was listed as threatened (U.S. Congressional Research
Service, 2011; U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2010). To assist managers the 1978
ESA amendments use the term distinct population segments (DPS) to allow vertebrate
species to be divided into distinct groups, based on geographic and genetic distinctions
(U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2010). At the time of the wolf’s listing in 1974,
the range of the wolf included only a small area in northern Minnesota (Figure 3) that
contained approximately 20 breeding pairs (Tukua, 2005).
Figure 3. Gray wolf range at time of listing under the ESA in 1974 (Tukua, 2005).
While most wolf populations in the U.S. were extirpated, gray wolves persisted in
Canada. In the late 1970s and 1980s wolves from Canada crossed the border into the
14
U.S. and began to naturally recolonize Glacier National Park in northern Montana
(Ramler, 2009).
After this immigration the USFWS began considering the possibility that wolves
could recover in the western U.S. (Willard, 2008). The main question concerning wolf
recovery was whether wolves should be allowed to emigrate from Canada passively or
whether wolves should be actively reintroduced (Willard, 2008). Under the ESA, a
threatened species may not be killed or harmed unless it is subject to special rules that
allow taking6. In order to ease local concerns over species reintroduction, Congress
amended the ESA in 1982 by adding section 10(j) to allow experimental populations of
endangered or threatened species to be reintroduced into their former habitats (U.S.
Congressional Research Service, 2011; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987). Section
10(j) allows the USFWS to determine whether an experimental population is “essential”
or “nonessential” to the continued existence of the species (Cribb, 1998).
In 1994, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the recovery of
gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains deemed active reintroduction “the
preferred option because it could facilitate recovery within the foreseeable future rather
than the unknown future of natural recovery”7 (Willard, 2008, p. 8). Once that decision
was made, the preparation of the FEIS and the implementation of the preferred decision
for active reintroduction “involved more scientific inquiry, media coverage, public
attention, and controversy than almost any other North America natural resource issues”
(Fritts et al. 1997, p. 23).
6
“Take”
is
defined
by
the
act
as
harass,
harm,
pursue,
hunt,
shoot,
wound,
kill,
trap,
capture,
collect,
or
attempt
to
engage
in
any
such
conduct
(Endangered
Species
Act).
7
Willard got this quote from The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior, 1994.
15
One of the most controversial moments in gray wolf policy over the past century
was the decision to actively reintroduce wolves into Yellowstone National Park and
Idaho.
This decision resulted in an intense political battle pitting scientists and
conservationists against ranchers and the livestock industry. In 1995 and 1996, after an
absence of more than 50 years, 66 Canadian gray wolves were released into Yellowstone
and into the Frank Church Wilderness of Idaho (Grant, 2010; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2000).
This reintroduction has often been called the “greatest wildlife
experiment in North America” (Grant, 2010, p. 1) and became another important step in
the government’s effort to restore the Northern Rockies ecosystem to reflect conditions
before European settlement (Grant, 2010).
When gray wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone they were deemed nonessential, experimental populations, a designation that meant that wolves would be
treated as threatened species under most but not all circumstances (The Wildlife Society,
2011).
Under this designation, the federal government affords the USFWS greater
management flexibility to “reduce local concern about excessive government regulation
on private lands, uncontrolled livestock depredations, excessive big game predation, and
the lack of state government involvement” (The Wildlife Society, 2011, p. 1).
The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone has been extremely successful
from the perspective of wolf ecology. At the end of 2011 there was an estimated 98
wolves in 10 packs plus two loner wolves within Yellowstone National Park (Jimenez, et
al., 2012). Not only have wolves increased in Yellowstone but the gray wolf continues to
increase throughout the U.S. The wild wolf population in the U.S. has grown from less
than 300 in the 1930s to over 4,000 today. Figure 4 shows the current range of the gray
wolf population in the U.S.
16
One recent example of increased wolf numbers is in Washington State. In 2008
the first breeding pack was confirmed in the state since the 1930s (Wiles, Allen, &
Hayes, 2011). Wolves have begun naturally dispersing into Washington from adjacent
states and provinces (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia) (Wiles et al.,
2011). Since July 2011 there have been five confirmed packs in Washington and this
number will likely increase (Wiles et al., 2011).
Figure 4. Current range of the gray wolf (Tukua, 2005). Note that this does not include relatively
new expansion into Washington State.
17
THE IMPORTANCE OF WOLVES FOR RESTORING ECOSYSTEM
STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
The famous conservation visionary Aldo Leopold (Brown & Carmony, 1990, p.
205) wrote:
“Deer irruptions [population explosions] are unknown. Mountain lions and wolves are
still common… There are no coyotes in the mountains…I submit for conservationists to
ponder the question of whether the wolves have not kept the coyotes out? And whether
the presence of a normal complement of predators is not, at least in part, accountable for
the absence of irruption [of deer population]? If so, would not our rougher mountains [in
Arizona and New Mexico] be better off and might we not have more normalcy in our
deer herd, if we let the wolves and lions come back on reasonable number?”
Leopold’s observations may have been ahead of their time but were very accurate.
Today research shows that top predators can influence the entire ecosystem through a
cascade of effects. Elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and antelope change their behavior in the
presence of wolves and tend to avoid staying in one place and thus overgrazing certain
areas. This is important because it allows vegetation to grow, which in turn provides
habitat and food for other species as well as contributing to maintenance of other
ecosystem structures and functions such as soil stability and shade on stream banks.
After wolves were extirpated from Yellowstone, elk populations increased dramatically
and parts of the ecosystem were dramatically overgrazed particularly vegetation in open,
low-lying areas and along stream beds (Lister & McDaniel, 2006). The decrease in
woody vegetation particularly willows, aspens, and cottonwood trees resulted in the
disappearance of many songbird species, which rely on these tree species, and decreases
in beaver populations that use the willows as a food particularly in winter (Lister &
McDaniel, 2006). The reintroduction of wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem has set
off a chain of environmental effects.
Wolves prey upon and can influence the
distribution and behavior of herbivores (Ripple & Beschta, 2003). The decline in elk,
18
wolves preferred prey in the ecosystem, and the change in elk behavior has resulted in
changes in flora (Figure 5) (Lister & McDaniel, 2006; Ripple & Beschta, 2003).
Figure 5. Before and after reintroduction of the gray wolf into Yellowstone National Park (Ripple &
Beschta, 2003).
Willows, cottonwoods, and aspens have been allowed to regenerate particularly along
riverbeds and other exposed areas (Lister & McDaniel, 2006; Ripple & Beschta, 2003).
The diminished pressure on willow stands has in turn resulted in increased beaver
populations (Lister & McDaniel, 2006).
The increased presence of beavers in the
ecosystem has increased the occurrence of beaver dams throughout the park, which in
19
turn has had profound impacts on species diversity (Lister & McDaniel, 2006). Beaver
dams create pools of water, which increases growth rates of trees, shrubs, and vegetation
and which provides food and shelter for dozens of other species (Lister & McDaniel,
2006). As woody species continue to grow ecological benefits to aquatic and riparian
habitats will increase. These benefits include increased shading and thermal moderation,
increased availability and recruitment of large wood and litter inputs, increased rooting
and stream bank stability, and improved food web support (Ripple & Beschta, 2003).
These ponds provide new habitat for a variety of species such as otters, muskrat, moose,
and fish (Lister & McDaniel, 2006). Wolves have not only affected elk population but
the coyote population has been dramatically affected as well. Before the reintroduction
of wolves coyotes were extremely abundant in Yellowstone. Once wolves were released
the coyote population declined 90% within the first two years (Lister & McDaniel, 2006).
This decline caused a surge in the main prey of coyotes- voles, mice, and other rodents
and an increase in coyote’s competitors such as foxes and birds of prey (Lister &
McDaniel, 2006).
In addition, wolves provide carrion from partially eaten prey
supporting a variety of scavengers such as magpies, ravens, eagles, and grizzly bears
(Lister & McDaniel, 2006). In short, wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone has created a
more biologically diverse ecosystem.
Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf could potentially have similar impacts on the
Southwest environment.
Like the wolves in Yellowstone, the Mexican wolf may
contribute to changing the behavior of wild herbivores, which could have similar effects
to the ecosystem (Robinson, 2005).
These wolves will also provide carrion for
scavengers such as eagles, badgers and bears, and could potentially change the
relationship between species such as foxes and coyotes. So far, however, Mexican
20
wolves are still so few in number that they will likely need to be restored to greater
population densities before impacts can be seen.
MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY EFFORTS
In 1976 the Mexican gray wolf was listed as endangered under the ESA and a
Mexican Wolf Recovery Team was appointed by the USFWS in 1979 (Stoopen, 2004).
Between 1977 and 1980 five (four males and one pregnant female) of the few remaining
wild wolves were caught in Durango and Chihuahua Mexico and transferred to the
Arizona Desert Museum in Tucson, Arizona (Parsons, 1996; Stoopen, 2004). These
wolves were captured for the purpose of a bi-national captive breeding program between
the U.S. and Mexico (Carnes, 2011). In 1978 the pregnant female gave birth to a litter of
five pups (Parsons, 1996). The only female pup in the litter died four days later (Parsons,
1996). The wild caught female gave birth again in 1981 to her second litter consisting of
one male and three female pups (Parsons, 1996). All four pups survived and later
reproduced. Finally in 1982, the recovery team finished writing the Mexican Wolf
Recovery Plan (Carnes, 2011). The USFWS soon established the BRWRA (Figure 6),
which covers public lands in east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico (Povilitis
et al., 2006).
“The objective was to establish a population of at least 100 wild wolves in 9 years [by
2006] within the 17,752 km2 Gila and Apache national forests” (Povilitis et al. 2006,
p.942).
21
p
Figure 6. The Mexican wolf Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2002).
By 1983, the captive breeding program was firmly established with the birth of 3 litters
totaling 15 pups. Based on DNA results two additional lineages of captive Mexican
wolves were certified for inclusion in the official breeding program for Mexican wolves
in July 1995 (Hedrick & Fredrickson, 2008; Parsons, 1996). As stated above, today all
Mexican wolves, wild and in captivity, are based on seven founders (five caught in the
wild and two born in captivity) from these three lineages (McBride, Aragon, and Ghost
Ranch) (Barrett, 2012; Hedrick & Fredrickson, 2008; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2010).
Since December 1993, management of the captive population has followed a
Species Survival Plan (SSP) program developed and implemented by the American Zoo
and Aquarium Association (Parsons, 1996; Stoopen, 2004). The objective of the SSP is
22
to establish and maintain a captive population, minimizing inbreeding and maximizing
retention of the genetic diversity of the original founders (Parsons, 1996).
Although recovery planning for the Mexican wolf began in 1976, meeting
recovery goals would prove to be difficult. Anti-governmental sentiments and reliance
on livestock ranching throughout this region resulted in several major setbacks (Carnes,
2011). For example, in 1987 the USFWS decided to end the captive breeding program
due to internal disagreements among ranchers and biologists about the best areas for
reintroduction (Stoopen, 2004).
The decision was later reversed in 1990 after
environmental groups sued the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense
for failing to accomplish their prime directive to recover this endangered species
(Stoopen, 2004).
The following year in 1991 a new recovery team was established as
well as a full time recovery coordinator (Stoopen, 2004). Approval for the first releases
of Mexican wolves to the wild was granted by Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt in
1997 (Stoopen, 2004). In 1998 the USFWS released the first Mexican wolves into the
wild in the BRWRA (Carnes, 2011; Stoopen, 2004).
Like reintroduced wolves in
Yellowstone, reintroduced Mexican wolves were designated under section 10(j) (the final
rule) of the ESA as a “nonessential, experimental population” (Stoopen, 2004). This
designation provided greater management flexibility by allowing the capture,
translocation, or even the killing of specific individuals that caused damage to property
(Stoopen, 2004).
Over the years the wild Mexican wolf population has varied but has never risen
above 60 individuals, well below the goal of 100 wolves in the wild by 2006. In
February of 2011 the USFWS appointed a new Mexican Wolf Recovery Team to update
the 1982 recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). The Team is made up of
23
four groups: science and planning, agency liaisons, tribal liaisons, and stakeholder
liaisons (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). From 2008 to 2011 the Mexican wolf
population has grown nearly 40% (from 42 to at least 58 individuals) (Barrett, 2012).
HOW CONFLICTS BETWEEN WOLVES AND RANCHERS AFFECTS
RECOVERY
Wolf reintroduction has often been met with much opposition. As the USFWS
began releasing Mexican wolves in 1998 to the BRWRA they did so with “major policy
constraints that attempt to balance wolf restoration with perceived limits of social and
political tolerance” (Povilitis et al., 2006, p. 942). The BRWRA is composed of the Gila
National Forest in New Mexico and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona
collectively managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Beeland, 2008). In 2001 with the
cooperation of the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Fort Apache Indian Reservation
land was added to the recovery area. In total the BRWRA spans an area of about 15,039
km2 (approximately 9,345 miles2) (Beeland, 2008). However, most of these lands are
covered by grazing allotments that are used year-round (Gerfin, 2006). In the Southwest
a significant portion of livestock grazing takes place on public lands that are managed by
the Federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service (Smith, 2003). This
means the government has a responsibility to the ranchers who use the land. According
to David Parsons, who headed the Mexican wolf program from 1990-1999, “recovery
rules have become skewed to favor ranching, making it more likely biologists will have
to trap, handle and relocate wolves as they come into conflict with livestock” (Gerfin,
2006, p.1). Although gray wolves who come in contact with livestock may be handled
as well, it seems less likely since gray wolves have a greater area (about 4 million
24
hectare) of public land to roam that is not grazed year round (Gerfin, 2006). The
Mexican wolf recovery program does not call for any reductions in livestock numbers,
distribution, or changes in livestock husbandry practices to better accommodate wolves
(Povilitis et al., 2006). “Unlike Yellowstone National Park where northern gray wolves
were successfully reintroduced in the mid-1990s, the BRWRA lacks a large core area of
livestock-free habitat where Mexican wolves can be lightly managed or left alone.”
(Povilitis et al., 2006, p. 942). Further, Mexican wolves have a ‘three strikes, you’re out’
policy, that is, if a wolf is known or likely to have been involved in three livestock
depredation incidents in a single year, federal officers may capture or kill the wolf
(Povilitis et al., 2006). Unlike gray wolves in the northern U.S., initial releases of
captive-born Mexican wolves are limited to a primary recovery zone (Figure 6) that is
part of a smaller portion of the BRWRA (Povilitis et al., 2006). “This hampers the
program’s ability to release wolves where they are most needed, that is, in high-quality
habitat lacking wolves, or for replacement of lost mates and genetic enhancement.”
(Povilitis et al., 2006, p. 942). Moreover, Mexican gray wolf recovery is constrained by
the need to remove animals (lethally or non-lethally) that move outside the approved
reintroduction area. Where northern gray wolves are not constrained by recovery-area
boundaries, Mexican wolves are not allowed to colonize public lands beyond recoveryarea boundaries8 (Povilitis et al., 2006). Wolves require large areas to roam and without
the ability to expand their range, the Mexican wolf population may not be able to grow.
More wolves are trapped for leaving the recovery area than for any other reason
(Dougherty, 2007), a fact that suggests that the recovery area may not be large enough to
support 100 wolves. As stated in Gerfin (2006), if the program could utilize more of the
8
“It
is
the
only
terrestrial
mammal
managed
by
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
that
is
supposed
to
stay
within
political
boundaries”
(Dougherty,
2007,
p.
2).
25
Southwest’s habitat with fewer roads, plenty of prey, and less livestock, the Mexican
wolf population could better establish a sustainable breeding population.
To many ranchers the Mexican gray wolf is a physical threat as well as a symbol
of government tyranny (Dougherty, 2007).
Although there has only been one
documented case of a wolf killing a human in North America, many people are still afraid
of wolves (Dougherty, 2007). Between March 1998 and October 2007 Mexican wolves
killed 110 head of cattle in the BRWRA according to the USFWS records (Dougherty,
2007). “That’s only slightly more than 10 cows a year out of approximately 35,000 head
of cattle that roam across the 4.4 million acres of public land” (Dougherty, 2007, p. 2).
According to the Mexican Gray Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Five Year
Review, wolves have had no economic impact on the local cattle industry and far more
cattle die each year from a host of other causes (Dougherty, 2007). Ranchers disagree
however and say the numbers are biased low. According to New Mexican, Catron
County manager Bill Aymar “ you only find about one out of every eight that they kill”
(Doughtery, 2007, p.2). Though scientists claim wolf predation causes relatively few
livestock losses compared to other sources, any losses to individual livestock producers
can still have profound effects on that individual’s livelihood (Ramler, 2009).
ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOLVES
Attitudes towards the species have had tremendous impacts on wolf recovery
programs. For example, the USFWS removed the Northern Rocky Mountain population
of gray wolves from protection under the ESA in April 2009 (Houston et al., 2010).
Removing gray wolves from the ESA allowed the USFWS to return management of the
wolves back to the states. States such as Wyoming and Montana manage their wolves as
26
trophy game animals allowing people to hunt and trap the animals during certain times
each year. This policy decision could have been influenced by attitudes towards wolves
or wolf recovery. It could have also been a way to keep the wolf population near their
carrying capacity. As they assessed threats to the wolf population, the USFWS noted that
“human hostility toward wolves led to their initial extirpation in the region and, because
of the impact that social attitudes have on wolf recovery, USFWS would
require…adequate regulatory mechanisms…[to] balance negative attitudes…in places
necessary for recovery” (Houston et al., 2010, p. 390).
Wolves tend to stir peoples’ emotions as well as attract public attention
(Naughton-Treves et al., 2003). There is abundant research documenting public attitudes
towards wolves (Browne-Nuñes and Taylor, 2002; Huston et al., 2010; Naughton-Treves
et al., 2003), which shows that support for wolves is strongest among young to middleaged, college-educated, affluent urban residents, and women (Naughton-Treves et al.,
2003). In all studies to date, farmers and ranchers living near wolf populations or
proposed reintroduction sites had the most negative attitudes towards wolves (NaughtonTreves et al., 2003).
Today many people are working towards the reintroduction and recovery of
wolves despite the fact that peoples’ attitudes towards wolves still vary dramatically.
Monitoring social attitudes towards wolves is important. For example Huston et al.
(2010) demonstrated that individual attitudes about wolves were strong predictors of
behavior. For example attitudes towards wolves and wolf restoration were strongly
correlated with an individual’s willingness to pay and vote for wolf restoration and
influenced peoples’ support for certain predator management policies and practices
(Houston et al., 2010). As management strategies for wolf reintroduction have been
27
established the importance of understanding the “human dimensions” of natural resource
issues has been recognized by those involved (Browne-Nuñes and Taylor, 2002). It is
important to understand the beliefs and attitudes of the public because continued wolf
recovery will depend partly on public support. Moreover, this information is key to
making decisions that are more responsive to the public (Browne-Nuñes and Taylor,
2002; Huston et al., 2010).
COMPENSATION FOR WOLF DEPREDATION
Compensation programs are foundational to wolf recovery.
“Financial
compensation programs for livestock depredation developed as a management strategy
for building tolerance and offsetting economic losses experienced by communities living
alongside endangered carnivores” (Defenders of Wildlife, 2008, p. 456). In order to
mitigate the ranchers’ financial losses, Defenders of Wildlife, a non-profit conservation
organization, was one of the first organizations to create a wolf-livestock compensation
program.
This program voluntarily compensated ranchers for wolf-killed livestock
(Daugherty, 2007) throughout the Northern Rocky Mountains and the desert southwest
and is definitely one of the best known conservation programs in the U.S. Ranchers were
paid 100% of the market value for verified losses, and 50% for “probable” losses
(Dougherty, 2007). Defenders of Wildlife has paid out more than $1.4 million for losses
from wolves and grizzly bears since the program began in 1987 to its end date in 2010
(Defenders of Wildlife, 2009). Today other compensation programs in different states
continue to compensate ranchers and farmers for economic losses associated with
conservation efforts.
28
Most ranchers are dissatisfied with compensation programs. In a recent study of
attitudes towards predation compensation, Vynne (2009) found that compensation
programs were not meeting the needs of the ranchers and states “Although over 50% of
respondents reported satisfaction with the amount of compensation they received, 100%
reported dissatisfaction with the compensation process”. Due to their distrust of those
involved (e.g., the USFWS), wolf recovery, and the purpose of compensation, livestock
producers felt that they were excluded from the program (Vynne, 2009). About 72% of
ranchers viewed compensation as a publicity stunt by environmental organizations and
believed the programs were not created with the livestock producers in mind. Nearly
75% believed wolves were a threat to humans and thus did not support any programs
involved with wolf recovery.
“Compensation programs offer a means to redress the inequitable distribution of
costs and benefits associated with restoring large-carnivore populations” (NaughtonTreves et al., 2003, p. 1501). Although most U.S. citizens support carnivore conservation
and many might enjoy the aesthetic (seeing wolves in the wild) and economic (boon to
the tourist industry) benefits, the direct costs of conserving these predators fall on the
individuals in rural areas who are affected by these carnivores (Naughton-Treves et al.,
2003).
These compensation programs are often criticized for being inadequate,
fraudulent, or cumbersome (Naughton-Treves et al., 2003). As wildlife conservation
projects involving wolves and other types of carnivores expand across the globe it is
important to consider community impacts and perspectives when developing programs
that compensate for economic losses as a result of those conservation efforts (Vynne,
2009).
29
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
OVERVIEW
The success of wolf recovery efforts in the U.S. varies dramatically. Some efforts
such as those involving gray wolves in the northern U.S. are succeeding while others
such as those designed to reestablish Mexican wolves in the southwestern U.S. are not. I
addressed my research questions using two different types of inquiry. I first conducted
literature reviews, one focused on wolf ecology and another on policy related to wolf
recovery and public attitudes towards wolves.
Second, I developed two survey
questionnaires, one for biologists working on wolf recovery and the other for ranchers
affected by wolf recovery. The biologist questionnaire was designed to mostly determine
the important ecological components of crafting a successful recovery plan while the
rancher questionnaire was mostly designed to better understand rancher attitudes towards
wolves and wolf recovery. I was especially interested in how ranchers’ attitudes might
affect recovery plan success and in comparing responses of ranchers and biologists by
region. Specifically, I wanted to compare responses of biologists working with gray
wolves versus biologists working with Mexican wolves and similarly responses of
ranchers living near gray wolves versus ranchers living near Mexican wolves.
By reviewing the literature, I sought to gain a greater knowledge of wolves and
wolf recovery. I applied this knowledge to developing questionnaires that would allow
me to distinguish how attitudes differ between recovery regions and how the interaction
between wolf ecology and recovery planning might affect those attitudes. Although
conducting interviews was not a part of my original study design, I did several personal
30
interviews by phone and email when I was contacted by individuals who wanted to talk
more about wolf recovery.
LITERATURE REVIEW
I conducted literature searches using keywords such as wolf recovery plans, wolf
reintroduction,
wolf
reintroduction/recovery
success,
human/wildlife attitudes to find relevant literature.
wolf
management,
and
I searched The Evergreen State
College library database, Google Scholar, and EBSCOhost, and reviewed books, peerreviewed articles, newspaper articles, and websites. I also studied government reports,
relevant laws, and recovery and management plans created by the state and federal
government agencies.
QUESTIONNAIRES
Any type of research at The Evergreen State College (TESC) that involves the
participation of humans as subjects (e.g., questionnaires), requires college approval
intended to protect the rights of those participants. I submitted a Human Subjects Review
to the TESC Review Board and received approval to go ahead with my study in early
August 2012 (Appendix A).
Prior to sending out questionnaires I sent a letter explaining the purpose of the
study to participants. The goal of the study was explained in detail and the importance of
their participation was discussed (Appendix B & C).
All participants were kept
anonymous and were offered a copy of the final paper should they desire it. I distributed
questionnaires in mid August 2012.
31
Participants were told it would take them an
estimated 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire and were asked to return the
questionnaire to me in two weeks.
I sent biologist questionnaires (Appendix D) to people working with gray wolf
and Mexican wolf recovery and management plans in the states of New Mexico, Arizona,
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington. The states of New Mexico and
Arizona are part of the recovery region for Mexican gray wolves while the states of
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington are part of the recovery region for
the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS) gray wolf population.
I sent rancher questionnaires (Appendix E) to ranchers affected by wolf recovery in each
of the seven states mentioned above.
In order to obtain a population of biologists from which to sample via
questionnaire, I made phone calls and sent emails to organizations in these states working
with wolf recovery. To obtain a population of ranchers from which to sample, I sent
emails to a number of rancher and agriculture organizations in each of the seven states
mentioned above. Because rancher and agricultural organizations have confidentiality
agreements with their members and would not provide me with a mailing list, I provided
a website link to the survey that allowed participants to take the survey while remaining
anonymous.
The questionnaires were designed to be easily interpreted and provide information
on participants’ background, education, economic status, and opinions about wolves and
wolf recovery. The majority of each questionnaire contained close-ended questions with
a list of potential answers from which participants were asked to select the single best
answer. For example “what is the single best kind of information necessary to craft a
successful wolf recovery plan?” Some questions provided options for multiple answers,
32
that is, marking all answers that applied. For example “if you believe the Mexican wolf
recovery plan has been unsuccessful in anyway in the past, what are the main reason(s)
for those beliefs?” Participants were then instructed to “circle as many as apply.” A
few questions called for rating all answers with values indicating level of importance or
strength of belief ranging from 1-5 or 1-6 depending on the number of answer options.
To summarize answers to the questions that relied on rating multiple answers, I reported
the mean rating (sum of all ratings/number of participants). I also provided several openended questions to allow participants the opportunity to cover material they may have
missed in the close-ended questions or to elaborate on their answers (see Appendix C and
D). Close-ended questions asked participants questions such as how acceptance of wolf
reintroduction could be improved, what parts of the recovery plan concerned them the
most, how to make the recovery plan better, and what changes to the plan they would like
to see.
The questionnaires were sent to participants using SurveyMonkey.
SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) is the world’s largest survey company that
provides access to questionnaires on the internet.
summaries of results to the questionnaire developer.
33
SurveyMonkey also provides
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
OVERVIEW
I analyzed content from all questionnaires by specific themes or questions. Of the
66 biologist surveys that I sent out, 16 were returned, and out of those 16, 13 surveys had
all questions completed. I received 54 rancher surveys; however, because I sent surveys
through a secondary source (trade organizations) I do not know how many surveys were
sent out in total. While I did not have enough biologist surveys to do a comparison
between regions, I was able to compare rancher surveys between regions for selected
questions.
BIOLOGIST SURVEYS
All 13 biologists who completed the survey were in some way associated with
wolf recovery programs. My survey return rate and results were acquired from the
SurveyMonkey analysis, which showed how many questionnaires were sent out and how
many questionnaires were incomplete and complete. I also conducted one informal
interview over the phone. Because of small survey size, I treated biologist surveys from
gray and Mexican wolf recovery areas as a single group for analysis.
Of the biologists who responded 73.3% were between the ages of 30 and 49,
80.0% had a post graduate education, 60.0% identified themselves as moderate, and
54.5% grew up in rural areas as a child (Figures 7, 8, 9, 10, respectively).
34
0%
13.3%
18-‐29
13.3%
30-‐49
50-‐64
65
years
and
over
73.3%
Figure 7. Age of biologists responding to the survey (n=13). None of the respondents were in the 1829 age class.
35
0.0%
0.0%
some
high
school
high
school
graduate
13.3%
6.7%
some
college
trade/technical/vocational
school
college
graduate
some
postgraduate
work
80%
post
graduate
degree
Figure 8. Highest level of education completed by biologists responding to the survey (n=13). None of
the respondents characterized their education as some high school, high school graduate, some
college, or trade/technical/vocational school.
36
0%
0%
6.7%
very
conservative
33.3%
conservative
moderate
liberal
very
liberal
60%
Figure 9. Political views held by biologists responding to the survey (n=13). None of the respondents
characterized themselves as very conservative or very liberal.
37
27.3%
0%
54.5%
rural
urban
farming
other
45.5%
Figure 10. Childhood homes (up to age 18) of biologists responding to the survey (n=13). None of the
respondents lived in farming areas as a child.
Although I sent emails to biologists working in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho,
Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, and Arizona (the states working with gray and
Mexican wolves) I received no responses from biologists in Wyoming or Arizona.
As stated in the methods section several questions called for rating answers with
values ranging from 1-5 or 1-6 depending on the number of options. To summarize
answers to the questions that relied on rating multiple answers, I reported the mean rating
(sum of all ratings/number of respondents). Biologists ranked in order of importance
from very low (1) to very high (5), each of five biological components needed to ensure
short term (10 years) success of the wolf recovery plan in an area (Figure 11).
38
4.5
4
Rating
Average
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
suf]icient
habitat
suf]icient
habitat
having
a
adequate
gene
]iguring
out
how
quality
quantity
population
size
]low
assumption
to
avoid
human
that
ensures
from
other
con]licts
adequate
genetic
source
diversity
populations
Figure 11. Biological components needed to ensure short-term (10 years) success of a wolf recovery
plan in an area according to biologist respondents (n=13). This question called for rating answers
with values ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high) and rating was equal to the sum of all ratings/number of
respondents.
Biologists largely thought that the most important biological component for ensuring
short-term success was figuring out how to avoid human conflicts (3.85 rating average)
while the least important was gene flow (2.15 rating average). The same question was
asked about long-term (>10 years) success (Figure 12).
39
4.5
4
Rating
Average
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
suf]icient
habitat
suf]icient
habitat
having
a
adequate
gene
]iguring
out
how
quality
quantity
population
size
]low
assumption
to
avoid
human
that
ensures
from
other
con]licts
adequate
genetic
source
diversity
populations
Figure 12. Biological components needed to ensure long-term (>10 years) success of a wolf recovery
plan in an area according to biologist respondents (n=13). This question called for rating answers
with values ranging from 1(low) to 5 (high), and rating average was equal to the sum of all
ratings/number of respondents.
Similar to the previous question, the most important biological components for ensuring
long term success was figuring out how to avoid human conflicts (3.83 rating average)
while gene flow was again the least important (2.00 rating average). When limited to the
choice between the values of habitat quantity versus quality, the majority of biologists
(92.8%) agreed that while habitat quality was important or very important to the success
of wolf recovery plans, all biologists thought habitat quantity was of greater importance
(Figure 13).
40
80%
70%
Response
Rate
60%
quality
50%
quantity
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
very
important
important
neither
unimportant
very
unimportant
Figure 13. Importance of habitat quality vs. quantity to the success of wolf recovery plans according
to biologist respondents (n=13).
Genetic diversity seemed to be a less important consideration compared to other aspects
of wolf recovery. When asked to rate the success of gray wolf reintroduction (Figure 14)
the plurality of biologists (42.9%) agreed that it has been very successful.
41
50%
45%
40%
Response
Percent
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
very
successful
moderately
successful
neither
moderately
very
unsuccessful
unsuccessful
Figure 14. The success of gray wolf reintroduction rated by biologist respondents (n=13).
A plurality of biologists believed that gray wolf reintroduction was successful because it
was publically acceptable (50%) and because of adequate prey availability (50%)
(Figure 15).
42
60%
Response
Rate
50%
40%
30%
20%
other
all
the
above
prey
avaliability
public
acceptance
better
or
improved
policy
and
understanding
genetic
diversity-‐
having
a
large
enough
geen
pool
little
or
no
risk
of
having
contact
with
people
0%
habitat/range-‐
having
access
to
large
designated
wilderness
areas
10%
Figure 15. Reasons why surveyed biologists think gray wolf reintroduction has been so successful
(n=13). Respondents could mark as many answers as they thought applied.
I asked biologists what they thought was the single best kind of information
necessary to craft a successful wolf recovery plan. Because most wrote comments in the
‘other’ category, I created a new category entitled “addressing and solving human/wolf
issues” that I thought best described what respondents had submitted.
Out of all
respondents, 41.7% indicated this to be the best kind of information necessary for
successful recovery (Figure 16).
43
habitat
quality
and
quantity
information
(geographic
area)
25.0%
demographic
data
(birth,
death)
life
history-‐
ecology
and
habitat
characteristics
41.7%
8.3%
behavior
related
to
farm
animal
predation
genetic
diversity
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
addressing
and
solving
human/wolf
issues
Figure 16. The single best kind of information necessary to craft a successful wolf recovery plan
according to biologist respondents (n=13).
This same idea was reinforced in answers to the next question: “What obstacles or
information gaps with wolf/human interactions have you encountered in the planning
process for wolf reintroduction.” Biologists were asked to rate each obstacle to recovery
from 1-5 where 1 indicates least and 5 the most important. Not surprisingly conflicts with
ranchers and the livestock industry were considered the biggest obstacles closely
followed by public perception of wolves (Figure 17).
44
4.5
Response
Average
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
illegal
killing
of
wolves
public
views
of
wolves
and
wolf
reintroduction
competition
over
land
use
con]licts
with
hunters
0
con]licts
with
farmers/ranchers
and
the
livestock
industry
0.5
Figure 17. Obstacles and information gaps encountered when planning wolf reintroduction
according to biologist respondents (n=13). This question called for rating answers with values
ranging from 1 (least) to 5 (most) and rating average was equal to the sum of all ratings/number of
respondents.
Of all biologist respondents 38.5% agree that the Mexican wolf recovery plan has
been unsuccessful in the past (Figure 18).
45
0%
7.7%
23.1%
strongly
agree
agree
neither
38.5%
disagree
strongly
disagree
30.8%
Figure 18. The degree to which biologist respondents believe the Mexican wolf recovery plan has
been unsuccessful in the past (n=13). None of the respondents strongly disagreed.
Biologists were asked why they ranked the program as they did by identifying as many
reasons as they thought applied (see Figure 18). Most biologists believed that the lack of
success of Mexican gray wolf recovery was due to human conflict (60%) and an
inadequate habitat range (60%) (Figure 19). Only three biologists answered low genetic
diversity, illegal killings, and inbreeding due to low genetic diversity.
46
70%
60%
Response
Percent
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
inadequate
low
genetic
low
illegal
killings
inbreeding
habitat
range
diversity
population
of
due
to
small
prey
species
population
size
human
con]lict
Figure 19. Reasons biologist respondents believe the Mexican wolf recovery plan has been
unsuccessful in the past (n=13).
Opinions were mixed and more variable when biologists were asked if restrictions
placed on land and grazing activities (limiting the density of cattle and their range) would
increase Mexican wolf populations. Some biologists (30.8%) agreed that it would help
while others (30.8%) strongly disagreed (Figure 20).
47
35%
30%
Response
Percent
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
strongly
agree
agree
neither
disagree
strongly
disagree
Figure 20. The degree to which biologist respondents believe that stronger restrictions placed on land
and grazing activities would increase Mexican wolf populations (n=13).
Most respondents (38.5%) believed that new revisions to the Mexican wolf recovery plan
would neither help nor hurt the plan’s chances for success (Figure 21).
48
45%
40%
Response
Percent
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
stongly
agree
agree
neither
disagree
strongly
disagree
Figure 21. The degree to which biologist respondents believe that new revisions on the Mexican wolf
recovery plan will help improve the likelihood of the species to maintain self-sustaining populations
(n=13).
When asked about Mexican wolf populations in the future 33.3% believed there would be
no change in wolf abundance (Figure 22).
49
45%
40%
Response
Percent
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Mexican
wolf
there
will
be
no
Mexican
wolf
the
Mexican
populations
will
change
populations
will
wolf
will
increase
decrease
become
extinct
signi]icantly
in
the
wild
other
Figure 22. What biologist respondents believe about Mexican wolf recovery in the future (n=13).
Not surprisingly the plurality of biologists (38.5%) believed that the greatest
obstacle for wolf recovery in the U.S. is the degree to which land/livestock owners
affected by wolves cooperate with the recovery efforts and 46.2% strongly agreed that
this cooperation is difficult to achieve (Figures 23 and 24, respectively).
50
0%
23.1%
30.8%
strongly
agree
agree
neither
7.7%
disagree
strongly
disagree
38.5%
Figure 23. Biologists’ response to the statement: The greatest obstacle to wolf recovery in the U.S. is
the degree to which land/livestock owners affected by wolves cooperate with recovery efforts (n=13).
None of the respondents strongly disagreed.
51
0%
23%
strongly
agree
46.2%
agree
neither
disagree
strongly
disagree
15.4%
15.4%
Figure 24. Biologists’ response to the statement: Cooperation with land/livestock owners is difficult to
achieve (n=13). None of the respondents strongly disagreed.
Compensation programs are important in helping ranchers whose livestock has
been depredated by wolves (Naughton-Treves et al., 2003).
However, 53.8% of
biologists believe that current compensation programs are not working while at the same
time only 46.2% of biologists agree or strongly agree those compensation programs are
fair (Figure 25).
52
60%
compensation
programs
are
working
Response
Percent
50%
compensation
programs
are
fair
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly
agree
agree
neither
disagree
strongly
disagree
Figure 25. The degree to which biologist respondents believe that current compensation for wolf
depredation on livestock is working vs. fair (n=13).
The plurality (33.3%) of respondents believe that wolf recovery efforts tend to
divide the affected communities into biologists (generally supportive) and ranchers
(generally not supportive) (Figure 26).
53
35%
Response
Percent
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
strongly
agree
agree
neither
disagree
strongly
disagree
Figure 26. The degree to which biologist respondents believe that wolf recovery efforts tend to divide
the affected communities into biologists (generally supportive) and ranchers (generally not
supportive) (n=13).
As for improving cooperation through time, 41.7% of respondents believed that
cooperation levels would remain mostly the same (Figure 27).
54
45%
40%
Response
Percent
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
there
is
more
cooperation
cooperation
levels
remain
mostly
the
same
there
is
less
cooperation
other
Figure 27. The fate of the divided community (biologists and ranchers) through time according to
biologist respondents (n=13).
Interestingly, one biologist suggested that division is not between biologists and ranchers
but rather between urban residents who he believed were supportive and rural residents
who he believed were unsupportive of wolf recovery.
RANCHER SURVEYS
I received 54 completed surveys from ranchers; 31 were from ranchers in the gray
wolf area and 23 were from ranchers in the Mexican wolf area. Since I received a larger
number of rancher surveys, for certain questions I split them into two groups based on
recovery areas (Mexican vs. gray wolf)-for comparative purposes.
Although I sent
emails to ranching organizations in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Washington,
55
New Mexico, and Arizona, the same states I attempted to survey biologists in, I received
completed surveys only from Wyoming, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. I
assumed that one rancher who responded that he lived in Texas owned land or ranched in
New Mexico. No ranchers from Idaho, Montana, or Washington responded.
Of the ranchers who responded, 62.5% were between the ages of 50 and 64 years
of age, 33.9% were college graduates, 42.9% identified themselves as conservative, and
49.1% grew up in rural areas (Figures 28, 29, 30, 31 respectively).
5.4%
16.1%
16.1%
18-‐29
30-‐49
50-‐64
65
years
and
over
62.5%
Figure 28. Age of ranchers responding to the surveys (n=54).
56
0%
5.4%
some
high
school
16.1%
26.8%
high
school
graduate
some
college
5.4%
trade/technical/vocational
school
college
graduate
12.5%
some
postgraduate
work
33.9%
post
graduate
degree
Figure 29. Highest level of education completed by ranchers responding to the survey (n=54). None
of the respondents characterized their education as some high school.
57
3.6%
1.8%
16.1%
very
conservative
conservative
moderate
35.7%
liberal
very
liberal
42.9%
Figure 30. Political views held by ranchers responding to the survey (n=54).
58
10.5%
21.1%
rural
49.1%
urban
farming
other
19.3%
Figure 31. Childhood homes (up to age 18) of rancher respondent (n=54).
Most respondents were at least a third generation rancher and one was a tenth generation
rancher.
When asked how many livestock they believed they had lost within the past year
due to wolf depredation 68% said 1-3 (Figure 32).
59
80%
70%
Response
Percent
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1-‐3
3-‐5
5-‐7
7-‐9
10
or
more
Figure 32. The estimated number of livestock lost in the past year due to wolf depredation (n=54).
This bar graph shows the estimated number of livestock lost within the past year of ranchers dealing
with the northern gray wolf and ranchers dealing with the Mexican gray wolf combined.
However, when I split the ranchers into two groups, those dealing with Mexican versus
those dealing with the gray wolves, I found that 91% of ranchers in the gray wolf region
estimated they lost between 1-3 livestock while 44.4% of ranchers in the Mexican wolf
region estimated they lost 10 or more livestock (Figure 33).
60
100%
90%
80%
ranchers
(Mexican
wolf)
Response
Percent
70%
ranchers
(gray
wolf)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1-‐3
3-‐5
5-‐7
7-‐9
10
or
more
Figure 33. Estimated livestock lost due to wolf depredation within the past year from ranchers
affected by Mexican wolves (n=23) vs. ranchers affected by gray wolves (n=31).
While neither rancher group supports wolf recovery, ranchers affected by Mexican
wolves believe that they lose more livestock than ranchers affected by gray wolves.
Moreover, 75% of the ranchers affected by Mexican wolves strongly do not support wolf
recovery while only 45% of ranchers affected by gray wolves strongly do not support
wolf recovery (Figure 34).
61
80%
70%
ranchers
(Mexican
wolf)
Response
Percent
60%
ranchers
(gray
wolf)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly
support
moderatly
support
neither
moderatly
do
strongly
do
not
not
support
support
Figure 34. Level of support from rancher respondents towards wolf recovery. This figure shows
differences in support for wolf recovery between ranchers affected by Mexican wolves (n=23) vs.
ranchers affected by gray wolves (n=31).
A similar question was asked about wolf reintroduction with similar results.
Of
respondents, 87.5% of ranchers affected by Mexican wolves and 61.9% of ranchers
affected by gray wolves strongly do not support wolf reintroduction, respectively (Figure
35).
62
100%
90%
80%
ranchers
(Mexican
wolf)
Response
Percent
70%
ranchers
(gray
wolf)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly
support
moderatly
support
neither
moderatly
do
strongly
do
not
not
support
support
Figure 35. Level of support from rancher respondents towards wolf reintroduction.
This figure
shows the difference of support for wolf reintroduction between ranchers affected by Mexican wolves
(n=23) vs. ranchers affected by gray wolves (n=31).
Similar to the biologists many ranchers (46.8%) believe that current compensation
programs for wolf depredation on livestock are not working. However, where biologists
believed that current compensation programs were fair, the plurality of ranchers (45.8%)
did not believe they were fair (Figure 36).
63
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
working
Response
Percent
35.0%
fair
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
strongly
agree
agree
neither
disagree
strongly
disagree
Figure 36. Level of support from rancher respondents towards compensation programs (n=54). This
figure shows whether ranchers believe compensation is working vs. whether they believe it is fair.
Perhaps not surprisingly the majority of ranchers (75.6%) felt they were not
included in decisions about wolf reintroduction (Figure 37), a pattern that was consistent
across recovery regions.
64
60%
REsponse
Percent
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly
agree
agree
neither
disagree
strongly
disagree
Figure 37. Ranchers’ response to the question: Do you feel you are included in decisions about wolf
reintroduction? (n=54).
Although both groups of ranchers did not like the idea of wolves on their land, 45% of
ranchers affected by Mexican wolves categorized them as being a huge threat while only
31.6% of ranchers affected by gray wolves characterized them in this way. Another 36%
of ranchers affected by Mexican wolves thought wolves were invading their land
compared to 5.3% of ranchers affected by gray wolves (Figure 38). Nine respondents
wrote comments in the ‘other’ category so I created two new categories entitled “They
are gradually becoming more of a threat” and “They do not occur on my land” that I
thought best described what respondents had submitted.
65
50%
Response
Percent
45%
40%
ranchers
(Mexican
wolf)
35%
ranchers
(gray
wolf)
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
they
are
a
huge
threat
they
are
gradually
becoming
more
of
a
problem
they
are
they
don't
they
are
not
a
they
do
not
invading
my
bother
me
huge
problem
occur
on
my
land
land
Figure 38. Ranchers’ response to the question: How do you feel about wolves on your land? This
figure shows the difference between ranchers’ feelings towards wolves on their land. It splits the
ranchers into those affected by Mexican wolves (n=23) vs. those affected by gray wolves (n=31).
Similar to the biologists’ responses, ranchers believed that wolf recovery efforts
tend to divide the affected communities into biologists (generally supportive) and
ranchers (generally not supportive).
Ranchers were asked to characterize the
relationships between biologists and ranchers in the recent past. Though both groups of
ranchers thought the relationship was poor, they characterized the nature of the
relationship differently. The majority (50%) of ranchers affected by Mexican wolves
said there is less cooperation between the two groups through time while the majority
(57.9%) of ranchers affected by gray wolves indicated that the relationship was not
changing (Figure 39).
66
70%
ranchers
(Mexican
wolf)
60%
ranchers
(gray
wolf)
Response
Percent
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
more
cooperation
no
change
less
cooperation
N/A
Figure 39. How rancher respondents characterize the relationship between biologists and ranchers
through time. This figure shows how the two different groups of ranchers (those affected by Mexican
wolves (n=23) vs. those affected by gray wolves (n=31)) characterize the relationship between
biologists and ranchers through time.
Of rancher respondents, 56.8% stated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the
idea that wolves occupying the same land they ranched would result in them having to
give up their land (Figure 40).
67
11.1%
31.1%
13.3%
strongly
agree
agree
neither
disagree
strongly
disagree
17.8%
26.7%
Figure 40. Ranchers’ response to the statement: Wolves occupying the same land that you ranch will
result in you having to give up your land for ranching (n=54).
A plurality of ranchers (42.6%) was largely against wolves and livestock sharing the
same range area even if they were given compensation for wolf depredation and tools
(lethal and non-lethal) for dealing with problem wolves. However, 23.4% of ranchers
said they would be willing to share the range with wolves (Figure 41).
68
2.1%
23.4%
strongly
agree
42.6%
agree
neither
disagree
strongly
disagree
14.9%
17%
Figure 41. Level of support by rancher respondents for ranching with wolves (wolves occupying the
same land as the rancher’s livestock) if provided with certain compensation or tools (n=54).
Many ranchers, 93.6% and 93.5%, believe they were very or somewhat knowledgeable
about wolves and wolf recovery (Figures 42 and 43).
69
0%
6%
very
knowledgeable
somewhat
knowledgeable
47%
47%
not
very
knowledgeable
completely
unknowledgeable
Figure 42. How rancher respondents characterize their knowledge of wolves (n=54).
represents ‘completely unknowledgeable’.
The 0%
70
0%
6%
very
knowledgeable
44%
somewhat
knowledgeable
not
very
knowledgeable
50%
completely
unknowledgeable
Figure 43. How rancher respondents characterize their knowledge of wolf recovery (n=54). The 0%
represents ‘completely unknowledgeable’.
Despite the differences between ranchers and biologists many ranchers would be willing
to learn more about wolves if given the chance, that is, 44.4% and 19.4% stated they
would be willing or very willing to learn more about wolves, respectively (Figure 44).
Many ranchers also stated they would be willing to learn more about wolf recovery as
well, that is, 54.1% of ranchers affected by gray wolves and 16.2% of ranchers affected
by Mexican wolves, respectively, stated they would be willing or very willing to learn
more about wolf recovery (Figure 45).
71
2.8%
5.6%
19.4%
very
willing
27.8%
willing
neither
unwilling
very
unwilling
44.4%
Figure 44. Level of support from rancher respondents in learning more about wolves (n=54).
72
2.7%
5.4%
16.2%
very
willing
21.6%
willing
neither
unwilling
very
unwilling
54.1%
Figure 45. Level of support from rancher respondents in learning more about wolf recovery (n=54).
Many ranchers (42.1%) said they would be willing to learn how to humanely manage
wolves while 23.7% said they would be very willing (Figure 46).
73
15.8%
0%
23.7%
very
willing
willing
neither
18.4%
unwilling
very
unwilling
42.1%
Figure 46. Level of support from rancher respondents to learn how to humanly manage wolves from
staying off ranchers’ land (n=54). No respondents said they would be unwilling.
The majority of ranchers (52.8%) said they had never used nonlethal tools to reduce wolf
predation on their land (Figure 47).
74
60%
Response
Percent
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
none
livestock
reducing
erecting
increasing
using
scare
switching
guarding
attractants
barriers
human
tools
and
grazing
dogs
presence
tactics
sites
Figure 47. Types of nonlethal tools and methods ranchers have used in order to reduce conflicts with
wolves (n=54).
75
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION
Biologists tended to believe that issues related to wolf ecology were less
important to the success of reintroduction programs than social issues. This finding was
similar to Beeland’s (2008) study that found the largest impediment (according to
government employees) with reintroduction programs was peoples’ attitudes or beliefs
towards wolves and wolf recovery. My study suggested that avoiding human/wolf
conflicts may be the most important component needed to ensure the success of a wolf
recovery plan both in the short (10 years) and long term (>10 years). Most biologists
surveyed in this study believed that gray wolf reintroduction has been successful because
the public has come to accept the idea of wolves reoccupying some of their historic
range.
One of the most important goals of these surveys was to identify possible
variables that influenced attitudes about wolves and success of wolf recovery. Reasons
the Mexican wolf plan has been unsuccessful were divided into the two categories of
biological and social, with social seeming to be the more important of the two.
BIOLOGICAL ISSUES
Mexican wolves come from a very small founder population, and two big hurdles
the recovery effort has had to overcome are establishing a successful captive breeding
program and developing a wild population from a captive source. These particular
76
challenges were unique to the Mexican wolf recovery and may have contributed to the
fact that the Mexican wolf program has been less successful than the gray wolf program.
The biologists I surveyed believed that habitat quantity was very important to
success of wolf recovery. All wolves including the Mexican wolf are wide ranging
animals. However, Mexican wolves are limited to the recovery area boundaries whereas
this was not the case for the gray wolf whose population could expand outside of
Yellowstone. A number of sources (Beeland, 2008; Dougherty, 2007; Parsons, 1998;
Povilitis et al., 2006) suggested that recovery area’s size may reduce the chances for
successful reintroduction as defined by meeting the goal of 100 wild animals.
The 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan did not address the key question, i.e.,
what are the downlisting and delisting criteria? All the biologists could imagine was a
population of 100 wolves in an area a little over 10,000 km2, and acknowledged that this
number did not represent recovery because it was too small. The plan has not been
revised since it was implemented. However revising the plan (developing recovery
actions to achieve recovery criteria) may not increase the possibility of recovery unless
all other problems are looked at as well.
SOCIAL ISSUES
When asked about compensation programs both biologists and ranchers believed
that current compensation programs were not working. Beeland (2008, p. 89) found that
government employees believed existing compensation programs had flaws and were not
a “complete solution for removing the economic burden” wolves create for ranchers.
However, biologists surveyed in this study mostly believed compensation programs to be
77
fair in contrast to ranchers who thought them to be unfair. Naughton-Treves et al. (2003)
found that ranchers consider compensation payments inadequate especially given the
years invested in the livestock. These findings are consistent with this and other studies
(see Muhly & Musiani, 2009; Vynne, 2009). A number of ranchers responding to my
survey commented that while compensation pays for depredation of livestock indirect
losses are not often considered. For example, stressed livestock may graze less and put
on less weight or suffer from decreased reproductive success. Furthermore compensation
does not account for the financial loss of important breeding animals (Muhly & Musiani,
2009). Moreover, ranchers often have the burden of proof in that they must demonstrate
to some standard that their livestock were indeed killed by wolves (Ashcroft, Mathis,
Smallidge, Fowler, & Baker, 2009).
This is a problem since often times there is
disagreement on what constitutes a wolf kill and many times livestock will go missing
with no evidence as to what happened. Ranchers also commented on the lag time
between a livestock loss and the compensation. One rancher commented that it took him
one year to get paid and the price was below what he felt was fair market value. Indeed,
according to Ashcroft et al. (2009) compensation often takes 3 to 6 months to receive
after the documented depredation and compensation is paid at the current market value
which underestimates the real economic value of the animal. When a program takes a
long time to reimburse producers, that program can create the impression that the
agencies providing compensation do not take the problem seriously (Muhly & Musiani,
2009). Ranchers’ underlying mistrust towards the government’s program for restoring
wolves to the wild could increase due to these difficulties. I also found that many of the
ranchers had been on the land for at least three or four generations and sometimes more,
which I believe will make implementing wolf recovery particularly difficult. Ranchers
78
may not want to cooperate with wolf recovery if they feel like they are being kicked off
land that has been in the family for many generations.
I found that ranchers associated with the Mexican wolf had stronger negative
attitudes towards wolf recovery than ranchers associated with the gray wolf. Reasons for
these findings could be related to a variety of issues including habituation of wolves to
humans, year-round land use by livestock owners, and differences in perceptions of
depredation of livestock.
There is a possibility that Mexican wolves may be more habituated and thus less
afraid of humans, at least according to one rancher I talked to (email interview).
Williams, Ericsson, & Heberlein (2002) did a study to better understand how support for
wolves may be related to familiarity with wolves and found that people who had the most
experience with wolves had the most negative attitudes. A similar study done by Huston
et al., (2010) found that experience with wolves along with living near wolf territories
negatively impacted peoples’ attitudes towards the predator: “one negative event
(whether direct or indirect) could substantially impact these individuals’ attitudes”
(p.391). If Mexican wolves are more habituated to humans, then these interactions could
conceivably lead to greater fear of Mexican wolves (although they are much smaller then
gray wolves) and thus a more negative attitude.
Another issue associated with wolf recovery is related to how much wolves range
overlaps with livestock grazing areas, and how overlap translates into conflict rates
between wolves and livestock. The Mexican wolf program includes a relatively small
recovery area compared to the gray wolf program. For example the gray wolf program
includes larger core wilderness and park areas. In addition gray wolf areas have cattle
that are grazed on a seasonal basis versus year-round in the Mexican recovery area.
79
Potentially it would seem that the more wolves that can live away from livestock areas
the better chance they will have at survival.
When wolves and livestock co-inhabit the same area, there will likely be livestock
depredation. However, between the two different groups of ranchers there were strong
differences in perceptions of the rate of depredation of livestock.
I found that 91% of
ranchers in the gray wolf region estimated they lost between 1-3 livestock while 44.4% of
ranchers in the Mexican wolf region estimated they lost 10 or more livestock (see Figure
33). The fact that lands in the Southwest are grazed year-round along with the lack of
livestock free core area could explain why Mexican wolves seem to kill more livestock
per year than gray wolves. Wolf habituation to humans might also explain why ranchers
in the Mexican wolf area claim to have lost many more livestock (10 or more) to wolf
depredation within the past year compared to ranchers in the gray wolf area (1-3).
Many ranchers feel their concerns about wolf reintroduction have been ignored,
which in turn seemed to cause distrust and less cooperation. One rancher stated, “…The
program has been forced upon us. We have been lied to…” Another rancher said, “We
were listened to only enough to have promises made that were broken and [were]
manipulated into thinking our interests were considered.” While many ranchers are
completely opposed to wolves and wolf reintroduction there are a few who would seem
to be willing to cooperate and learn how to coexist. Some rancher suggestions for
improvement included: direct community involvement along with landowner input and
predator control. One rancher suggested that they should receive a minimum payment for
living near wolves and then compensation payments on top of that for depredations.
Arguing to do otherwise would require ranchers bear the entire burden of supporting
wolves. Another approach would be for compensation programs to provide ranchers with
80
nonlethal tools and methods to reduce conflicts with wolves. Those who stated they had
never used nonlethal tools to prevent livestock depredation may have never had this
opportunity or were unaware of what tools might be available to them.
My study suggests that attitudes towards recovery continue to be one of the
biggest factors affecting success of wolf recovery programs.
When compensation
programs may not be working as designed, ranchers do not believe they are included in
compensation planning to the point of considering compensation unfair. Ultimately, this
perception of being unfair results in a lack of rancher trust for biologists.
While it may be impossible to completely satisfy all those involved in wolf
recovery the process should be seen as fair by all. As stated by one rancher respondent:
“Most people will tolerate wolves if you gain their respect as someone working to fairly
balance these complex and competing objectives”.
Nie (2003) suggested that it is
difficult for states to manage wolves when politics and politicians continually cater to one
side or the other. Wolf management is often based on fear and misinformation rather
than science, especially in today’s Internet age where people are continually exposed to
more misinformation than facts (Nie, 2003).
Although my study did not look into the role of education in dealing with wolves
and wolf recovery, I found many studies suggesting education could positively affect
peoples’ attitudes towards wolves (Willard, 2008; Williams et al., 2002). Moreover,
Williams et al., (2002) found that those with higher levels of education had more positive
attitudes and hypothesized that, as the public gained more education attitudes towards
wolves would become more favorable. How this would translate into success of wolf
recovery programs likely depends on public outreach and stakeholder cooperation.
81
METHODOLOGICAL CAVEATS
Survey questions are created and answered as part of a questionnaire and/or
interview. The content of the questionnaire can have major impacts on how individuals
interpret and answer survey questions. In any survey, there is risk of two types of errors
being made: “poor measurement of cases that are surveyed (errors of observation) and
omission of cases that should be surveyed (errors of non-observation)” (Check & Schutt,
2012, p.161). Errors of observation stem from how questions are written, the types of
respondents who answer questions, how questions are presented, and types of people
asking the questions (Check & Schutt, 2012). There are three sources of errors of nonobservation. These are inadequate coverage of the population due to a poor sampling
frame, sampling error due to process of random sampling, and nonresponse of individuals
to the survey or specific questions (Check & Schutt, 2012).
While the questionnaire I prepared was relatively easy to design, given additional
resources I would have liked to have done interviews and meet with participants in
person. The return rate in my biologist questionnaire was quite low. This could have
been due to errors of observation, i.e., problems occurring with how I worded my
questions. One Montana biologist responded to me by saying that he felt the survey had
some discrepancies in this area. For example, in a question asking biologists if they were
working on or with their state’s wolf recovery plan there was a small percent that said no.
It is possible that respondents who answered that they were not working on the recovery
plan did so because their wolf related work is not related to recovery per se but rather
more related to general wolf management. I said wolf recovery plan when I should have
stated wolf recovery or wolf management plan. The same Montana biologist mentioned
above pointed out to me that his state has a wolf management plan (they manage the
82
wolves already in the state) but that plan is not referred to as a wolf recovery plan, which
would suggest that wolves are endangered in Montana. Wyoming and Idaho have similar
situations. Responses to another question about why biologists thought the Mexican wolf
plan has been unsuccessful in the past were quite variable (see Figure 19). For this
question biologists were allowed to choose more than one answer. The options of
inadequate habitat range and human conflict tied for most popular answer. A possible
reason for this tie may be that biologists might have seen inadequate habitat range and
high conflict as similar answers. A larger sample size may have resolved this ambiguity.
It would be useful to better understand how biologists interpreted my questions
and a pilot study with a small group of biologists would have been useful in this regard.
One question asked biologists how they would rate the success of gray wolf
reintroduction. However, it was clear from respondents that not everyone understood the
question. One scientist stated that she thought Mexican wolf reintroduction had been
mildly successful demonstrating that she answered the question in terms of Mexican
wolves instead of gray wolves. A larger participant pool would have improved results as
well. Recall that I received only 13 completed questionnaires from biologists and was
unable to work directly with biologists during the survey process. Biologists also seemed
to be more reserved than ranchers in their responses to questions. An interview might
have allowed them to be more nuanced in their answer and thus more willing to
answering my questions.
Importantly I had to contact ranchers through trade
organizations in order to acquire participants for the survey, which may have resulted in a
lack of randomization.
83
FUTURE STUDY AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
Further research should be considered in several areas of this study. A reasonable
next study might determine how attitudes towards wolves differ across boarders, for
example gray wolves in Canada vs. gray wolves in the U.S. and Mexican wolves in
Mexico vs. those in the U.S. as well as a study that looks into binational collaboration
and how recovery efforts differ. This may provide insight into how to best approach
certain groups of people about wolf recovery which could in turn increase positive
attitudes towards wolves. According to Stoopen (2004) representatives of Mexico and
the U.S. are focused on their own national agendas in achieving recovery goals. Looking
at their difference in wolf plans could bring insight into how best to work together and
combine recovery efforts to increase success of recovery plans.
Many studies have been done looking at peoples’ attitudes towards wolves
especially ranchers (Muhly & Musiani, 2009; Naughton-Treves et al., 2003). These
studies tend to support one of the overarching findings in this study, that is, most ranchers
are opposed to wolves sharing range with their livestock.
However, it would be
interesting to see if these attitudes stem from deep-seated negative feelings towards the
animal itself or if they arise more directly from the fact that wolves threaten their
livestock and way of life. Likewise it would be important to better understand how
compensation is related to negative attitudes about wolf recovery. If compensation was
fair and complete from the perspectives of ranchers, would ranchers still be opposed to
wolf recovery efforts? Many ranchers are wary of programs supporting wolves and
distrust those involved. Biologists are going to have to work more with ranchers in order
to help dispel some of this wariness.
I found no studies looking at how wolves may
affect other non-ranching rural residents. How do non-ranchers who have lost pets or
84
other animals such as horses, donkeys, and hunting dogs regard wolf recovery efforts? Is
this segment of the population affecting attitudes in other groups, which will make
recovery more difficult? One concerned citizen said her neighbor breeds hunting dogs
and has lost some on several occasions from wolf predation but has never been
compensated.
Similar to Wagner, Schmidt, & Conover (1997), I found compensation programs
could be improved. It might be helpful to create a program to help provide ranchers with
the education and tools to humanly manage wolves from staying off their land. More
education about wolves in general and on recovery plans in particular should be
extremely helpful.
From a biological perspective, the likelihood of success of the Mexican wolf plan
would increase with a revision of the original plan.
The new plan should include
delisting criteria as well as a new goal. The release site should be expanded and perhaps
some other states should be included in the recovery area. This is a key time to define
what recovery is across a broader landscape and with respect to best available science.
Empowering livestock producers to deal directly with problem Mexican wolves may also
help to improve cooperation between rancher and scientist groups.
CONCLUSION
Obstacles to the Mexican wolf recovery plan seem to include both biological and
social issues in a synergistic way. It is often difficult to separate the biological from the
social. The fact that Mexican wolves are restricted to a smaller habitat range and share
the land with livestock year-round adds to the possibility of wolves becoming
increasingly habituated. This in turn could add to ranchers’ negative attitudes towards
85
wolves.
Closer proximity of wolves to livestock can also cause greater livestock
depredation.
Greater rates of depredation mean more compensation and increased
animosity from ranchers towards the wolf program especially if ranchers believe the
compensation is unfair. Aside from further studies regarding the Mexican wolf plan, the
most crucial recommendation for improvement and success of wolf recovery programs is
to create more cooperation between biologists and affected stakeholders. “The key is not
for acceptance of wolf reintroduction but rather a willingness to work together”
(anonymous rancher). The greatest threat and challenge to the success of wolf recovery
plans are addressing human/wolf conflicts. Wolf reintroduction is a social issue above all
else and according to Dougherty (2007) “the overarching battle is for control of the
public land” (p. 16). More collaboration between biologists and more science-based
management is also important.
One biologist in Montana stated that most people
working with the Mexican wolf are fully aware of what is going on with the gray wolf
but those working on the gray wolf may not be as familiar with what is going on with the
Mexican wolf. These divisions between ranchers and environmentalists as well as lack of
collaboration between biologists in different states are important to overcome. If it was
just a matter of biology wolves could make it in the wild (Dougherty, 2007). The real
question comes down to our values. “What values do we as individuals in society place
on wolves and how much are we willing to tolerate them on the landscape?” (Dougherty,
2007, p. 3). The greatest determinant of wolf success in the future is how we choose to
live or not live with wolves (Nie, 2003) because as Aldo Leopold stated “only the
mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf” (Brown &
Carmony, 1990).
86
REFERENCES
Ashcroft,
N.
K.,
Mathis,
C.
P.,
Smallidge,
S.
T.,
Fowler,
J.
M.,
&
Baker,
T.
T.
(2009).
Reestablishment
of
the
Mexican
gray
wolf:
The
economics
of
depredation.
(Range
Improvement
Task
Force
Report
No.
8).
Las
Cruces,
NM:
New
Mexico
State
University.
Barrett,
S.
(2012).
Mexican
wolf
recovery:
Moving
forward
through
collaboration.
International
Wolf
,
22
(3),
9-‐12.
Beeland,
T.
D.
(2008).
Information
sources,
beliefs
and
values
of
key
stakeholder
groups
in
Mexican
gray
wolf
reintroduction.
(Master's
Thesis),
University
of
Florida.
Brown,
D.
E.,
&
Carmony,
N.
B.
(Eds.).
(1990).
Aldo
Leopold's
Southwest.
Stapole
Books.
Browne-‐Nunez,
C.,
&
Taylor,
J.
G.
(2002).
Americans'
attitudes
toward
wolves
and
wolf
reintroduction:
An
annotated
biblography.
USGS/BRD/ITR-‐2002-‐0002.
Denver,
CO:
U.S.
Government
Printing
Office.
Carnes,
R.
(2011).
Mexican
wolf
recovery:
Habitat
suitability
and
dispersal
potential.
(Master's
Thesis),
The
Nicholas
School
of
the
Environment
of
Duke
University,
Environmental
Management,
Durham,
North
Carolina.
Check,
J.,
&
Schutt,
R.
K.
(2012).
Survey
research.
In
Research
methods
in
education
(pp.
159-‐185).
Los
Angeles,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,
Inc.
Cribb,
S.
(1998).
Endangered
Species
Act,
Section
10(J):
Special
rules
to
reestablish
the
Mexican
wolf
to
its
historic
range
in
the
American
Southwest.
Environs
,
21
(2),
49-‐55.
Defenders
of
Wildlife.
(2008).
Livestock
and
wolves:
A
guide
to
nonlethal
tools
and
methods
to
reduce
conflicts.
Retrieved
September
16,
2012,
from
Defenders
of
Wildlife:
http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/livestock_and_wolves.p
df
Defenders
of
Wildlife.
(2009).
Wolf
Compensation
Trust.
Retrieved
September
16,
2012,
from
Defenders
of
Wildlife:
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_
conservation/solutions/full_list_of_payments_in_the_northern_rockies_and_southwe
st.pdf
87
Dougherty,
J.
(2007,
December
24).
Last
chance
for
the
lobo:
Mexican
wolves
caught
in
the
crossfire
of
the
battle
over
public
lands.
High
Country
News
,
pp.
10-‐17.
Endangered
Species
Act
of
1973
.
(1973,
December
28).
PL
93-‐205
.
United
States
Congress.
Fitzgerald,
E.
A.
(2006).
Lobo
returns
from
limbo:
New
Mexico
Cattle
Growers
Ass'n
v.
U.S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
Service.
Natural
Resources
Journal
,
46
(9),
9-‐64.
Fritts,
S.
H.,
Bangs,
E.
E.,
Fontaine,
J.
A.,
Johnson,
M.
R.,
Phillips,
M.
K.,
Koch,
E.
D.,
et
al.
(1997).
Planning
and
implementing
a
reintroduction
of
wolves
to
Yellowstone
National
Park
and
central
Idaho.
Restoration
Ecology
,
5
(1),
7-‐27.
Gerfin,
A.
(2006,
June
12).
Mexican
wolves
face
a
rocky
road
to
recovery.
High
Country
News
,
1.
Panioa,
CO.
Retrieved
August
8,
2012,
from
www.hcn.org/issues/324/16357/print_view
Grant,
J.
W.
(2002).
Ranches
with
wolves:
How
straight
talk
is
the
salvation
of
open
range
in
the
Northern
Rockies.
(Master's
Thesis),
The
University
of
Montana,
Missoula.
Hedrick,
P.
W.,
&
Fredrickson,
R.
J.
(2008).
Captive
breeding
and
the
reintroduction
of
Mexican
and
red
wolves.
Molecular
Ecology
,
17,
344-‐350.
Houston,
M.
J.,
Bruskotter,
J.
T.,
&
Fan,
D.
(2010).
Attitudes
toward
wolves
in
the
United
States
and
Canada:
A
content
analysis
of
the
Print
News
Media,
1999-‐2008.
Human
Dimensions
of
Wildlife
,
15,
389-‐403.
Jimenez,
M.,
Smith,
D.,
Becker,
S.,
Stahler,
D.,
Stahler,
E.,
Metz,
M.,
et
al.
(2012).
Wyoming
wolf
recovery
2011
annual
report.
Pages
WY-‐1
to
WY-‐25
in
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Rocky
Mountaian
Wolf
Program
2011
Annual
Report,
USFWS,
Ecological
Services,
Helena,
Montana.
Kellert,
S.
R.,
Black,
M.,
Rush,
C.
R.,
&
Bath,
A.
J.
(1996).
Human
culture
and
large
carnivore
conservation
in
North
America.
Conservation
Biology
,
10
(4),
977-‐990.
Lister,
&
McDaniel.
(2006,
April
17).
The
wolves
of
Yellowstone.
Retrieved
July
1,
2012,
from
www.bioinfo.rpi.edu/bystrc/pub/artWolves.pdf
McCann,
K.
(2004).
Demonizing
the
wolf.
(Polar
Publishing)
Retrieved
9
16,
2012,
from
Polar
Worlds:
website.lineone.net/~polar.publishing/demonizingthewolf.htm
Muhly,
T.
B.,
&
Musiani,
M.
(2009).
Livestock
depredation
by
wolves
and
the
rancheing
economy
in
the
Northwestern
U.S.
Ecological
Economics
,
68,
2439-‐2450.
Naughton-‐Treves,
L.,
Grossberg,
R.,
&
Treves,
A.
(2003).
Paying
for
tolerance:
Rural
citizens'
attitudes
toward
wolf
depredation
and
compensation.
Concervation
Biology
,
17
(6),
1500-‐1511.
88
Nie,
M.
A.
(2003).
Beyond
wolves:
The
politics
of
wolf
recovery
and
management.
Minneapolis,
MN:
University
of
Minnesota
Press.
Paquet,
P.
C.,
&
Carbyn,
L.
N.
(2003).
Gray
wolf.
In
G.
A.
Feldhamer,
B.
C.
Thomson,
&
J.
A.
Chapman,
Wild
mammals
of
North
America:
Biology,
management,
and
conservation
(Second
Edition
ed.,
pp.
482-‐510).
Baltimore,
Maryland:
The
John
Hopkins
University
Press.
Parsons,
D.
R.
(1998).
"Green
fire"
returns
to
the
Southwest:
Reintroduction
of
the
Mexican
wolf.
Wildlife
Society
Bulletin
,
26
(4),
pp.
799-‐807.
Parsons,
D.
R.
(1996).
Case
study:
The
Mexican
wolf.
(E.
A.
Herrera,
&
L.
F.
Huenneke,
Eds.)
New
Mexico
Journal
of
Science
,
36,
101-‐1223.
Povilitis,
A.,
Parsons,
D.
R.,
Robinson,
M.
J.,
&
Becjer,
C.
D.
(2006).
The
bureaucratically
imperiled
Mexican
wolf.
Conservation
Biology
,
20
(4),
942-‐945.
Ramler,
J.
P.
(2009).
The
economic
impacts
of
wolves
on
calf
production
on
western
Montana
cattle
ranches
beyond
direct
depredation.
Masters
Thesis,
The
University
of
Montana,
Missoula.
Ripple,
W.
J.,
&
Beschta,
R.
L.
(2003).
Wolf
reintroduction,
predation
risk,
and
cottonwood
recovery
in
Yellowstone
National
Park.
Forest
Ecology
and
Management
,
184,
299-‐313.
Robinson,
M.
J.
(2004,
March
29).
Petition
for
rule-‐making
to
enhance
prospects
for
recovery
of
the
Mexican
gray
wolf
experimental
population,
in
accordance
with
scientific
findings.
Smith,
D.
W.,
Peterson,
R.
O.,
&
Houston,
D.
B.
(2003).
Yellowstone
after
wolves.
BioScience
,
53
(4),
330-‐340.
Stoopen,
J.
F.
(2004).
Binational
collaboration
in
recovery
of
endangered
species:
The
Mexican
wolf
as
a
case
study.
(Dissertation),
Texas
A&M
University,
Office
of
Graduate
Studies.
Sullivan,
W.
(2012).
The
wolf
subspecies.
(Wolf
Anti-‐Defamation
League)
Retrieved
September
16,
2012,
from
The
wolf:
wolfsubspecies.blogspot.com/2011/10/wolf_subspecies.html
The
Wildlife
Society.
(2011,
October).
Northern
Rocky
Mountian
Gray
Wolf.
Retrieved
July
1,
2012,
from
The
Wildlife
Society:
joomla.wildlife.org/documents/policy/gray.wolf.pdf
Tukua,
A.
(2005).
A
curriculum
study
on
the
gray
wolf.
University
of
Minnesota,
Moorhead.
89
U.S.
Congressional
Research
Service.
(2010,
August
10).
Gray
wolves
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(ESA):
Distinct
population
segments
and
experimental
populations.
(K.
Alexander,
&
M.
L.
Corn,
Eds.)
Washington
DC:
Library
of
Congress.
U.S.
Congressional
Rresearch
Service.
(2011,
July
27).
The
gray
wolf
and
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(ESA):
A
brief
legal
history.
R41730
.
(K.
Alexander,
Ed.)
Washington
DC:
Library
of
Congress.
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
(2002,
April).
Final
Environmental
Assessment:
Management
of
wolf-‐livestock
conflicts
and
control
of
depredating
wolves
in
the
state
of
Minnesota.
Retrieved
September
5,
2012,
from
www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/MNwolfEA.pdf
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
(2011,
February
23).
Fish
and
Wildlife
convenes
Mexican
wolf
recovery
plan
team.
[Press
Release].
Albuquerque,
NM.
Retrieved
October
12,
2012,
from
us.vocuspr.com/Newsroom/Query.aspx/SiteName=fws&Entity=PRAsset&SF_PRAss
et_PRAssetID_EQ=113122&XSL=PressRelease&Cache=
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
(2010).
Mexican
wolf
conservation
assessment.
Region
2,
Albuquerque,
New
Mexico.
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
(1982).
Mexican
wolf
recovery
plan.
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Albuquerque,
NM.
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
(1987).
Northern
Rocky
Mountian
wolf
recovery
plan.
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Denver,
Colorado.
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
(1996).
Reintroduction
of
the
Mexican
wolf
within
its
historic
range
in
the
Southwestern
United
States.
Final
Environmental
Impact
Statement.
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Albuquerque,
New
Mexico.
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
(2000,
April).
Wolves
in
North
America.
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
Retrieved
June
3,
2012,
from
library.fws.gov/pubs3/wolves00.pdf
Vynne,
S.
J.
(2009).
Livestock
compensation
for
the
Mexican
gray
wolf:
Improving
tolerance
or
increasing
tension?
Human
Dimensions
of
Wildlife
,
14,
456-‐457.
Wagner,
K.
K.,
Schmidt,
R.
H.,
&
Conover,
M.
R.
(1997).
Compensation
programs
for
wildlife
damage
in
North
America.
Wildlife
Society
Bulletin
,
25
(2),
312-‐319.
White,
A.
B.
(2011).
Wolves
of
the
world.
Retrieved
August
13,
2012,
from
Gray
wolf
compensation:
http://www.graywolfconservation.com/Information/world_wolves.htm
Wiles,
G.
J.,
Allen,
H.
L.,
&
Hayes,
G.
E.
(2011).
Wolf
conservation
and
management
plan
for
Washington.
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Olympia,
WA.
90
Willard,
A.
L.
(2008).
Presenting
wolves
as
wolves:
Educational
outreach
in
the
debate
about
wolf
management
in
the
west.
(Master's
Thesis),
Washington
State
University,
School
of
Earth
and
Environmental
Sciences,
Pullman.
Williams,
C.
K.,
Ericsson,
G.,
&
Heberlein,
T.
A.
(2002).
A
quantitative
summary
of
attitudes
toward
wolves
and
their
reintroduction.
Wildlife
Society
Bulletin
,
30
(2),
575-‐584.
91
APPENDIX A: HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW
HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW
REVIEW FORM
The Evergreen State College
!"#$%&''''''''''''''''''''''' !"%#()&#('''''''''''''''''''''
*+,-('.#/)#0'
'
'
'
1,$#'+2'3%%4)5,6&7!"#$%!&'()*+,*$-!3889-,65#:7!...//0.!;,&#'<9=$)&&#(7!12/12/3./!4$*5%6%)+6!)7!12/02/3./8'
'
>-+?#5&'@)&4#7!9):7!;*%+<$)=>'<%)+!#+=!;*')5*$?@!ABC$)5%+-!<(*!D*E%'#+!F$#?!9):7!;*')5*$?!G:#+!<($)>-(!
H+#:?6%6!)7!<(*!&>''*667>:!;*%+<$)=>'<%)+!)7!F$#?!9):5*6!%+!<(*!I)$<(*$+!J+%<*=!&<#<*6!! !
'
A,594&B'<%+68+-7!!K%B!L>%++! !
'
'
'
'C<.',%%4)5,&)+6',%%-+/#('
'
'.#/)#0#-D8'E+$$#6&87'
K(#+M!?)>!7)$!?)>$!$*5%6%)+6N!!O*6<!P%6(*6!P%<(!<(*!C$)Q*'<N!
!
!
!
'C<.',%%4)5,&)+6'0)44'=#',%%-+/#(')2'&F#'2+44+0)6G'5F,6G#8',-#'$,(#7''
!
!
!
!
'1##('&+'.#H-#/)#0'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
'1+'1##('&+'.#H-#/)#0'
'
'
'
'C<.',%%4)5,&)+6')8'(#6)#('=#5,98#'+2'&F#'2+44+0)6G7''
'
'
'
;,&#'.#/)#0#(7!312/12/3./!
'
92
1. How would you summarize, in the form of an abstract, the nature and purpose of
your research project?
Wolves once roamed freely throughout the lower 48 states. Centuries of
misconception and hostility along with habitat loss effectively extirpated the
species from most of the country during the 20th century. Wolves have always
invoked strong emotions for many people making it difficult to craft legislation
regarding wolf management in the wild. One of the most significant gray wolf
policies over the past century was the decision to reintroduce gray wolves into
Yellowstone National Park and Idaho. The reintroduction was extremely
successful and has even been called the “greatest wildlife experiment in North
America” (Grant, 2010, p.1). Today the wild wolf population in the US has
grown from less than 300 in the 1930s to over 4,000. This is just for the gray
wolf (Canis lupus) however. While the gray wolf was being eliminated in the
northern United States, the Mexican wolf was also being eliminated across most
of its historic range. The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is the smallest
subspecies of gray wolf and the most genetically distinct form of existing gray
wolves in North America. In 1976 the Mexican gray wolf was listed under the
Endangered Species Act. Soon after being listed a Mexican Wolf Recovery Team
was created and in 1982 the Team completed the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan.
The plan was suppose to reestablish a population of at least 100 Mexican wolves
in the wild by 2006. It is now 2012 and the number of Mexican wolves in the
wild has never risen above 60. For this thesis I would like to determine whether
the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan could be improved through analysis of the
successful reintroduction of gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park.
2. What are the procedures to which humans will be subjected, i.e., questionnaires,
interviews, audio or video recordings, etc.? When, where, and how will these
procedures be carried out?
Participants will be sent questionnaires using the online site SurveyMonkey. The
questionnaire will be emailed to the participants in mid-July. Identity of
participants will be confidential. Subjects will be able to answer the questions at
their convenience and can return questionnaires through email.
3. How will the recruitment of human subjects for your proposed project be carried
out? Include your recruitment criteria and procedures.
The questionnaire is geared towards biologists. Since this thesis is looking at
improving the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan biologist working on the plan will be
sent the questionnaire. Those working on the wolves in Yellowstone will be sent
questionnaires as well.
4. What are the possible risks to the human subjects? Specify possible kinds and
degrees of risks, e.g., minimal, emotional risks in the form of distress or
embarrassment. Outline the precautions that will be taken to minimize these
risks, including methods of ensuring confidentiality or obtaining a release to use
collected material and information.
93
Risks to human subjects are minimal. Possible risks include time management or
lost time and possible identification. Precautions that will be taken to minimize
these risks are an easy to follow questionnaire. The questionnaire will be emailed
using the respected site Surveymonkey. The vast majority of questions are closeended questions and the questionnaire should not take more than about 15 minutes
of the subject’s time. The subjects will not be asked to provide their names and
all questionnaires will be anonyms. No particular piece of data is in itself
identifying.
Nevertheless, due to a potentially small participant pool
combinations of data could lead to inadvertent identification. To avoid this
problem only aggregated information, not individual responses, will be presented
to the public.
5. What are the specific, anticipated benefits to be gained by completing the project?
These may be at an individual, institutional, or societal level.
Anticipated benefits for completing the project include a better understanding of
why the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Plan has not succeeded at well as
biologists had hoped. The project should provide insight into reasons for the
success of the reintroduction of gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park and
whether reasons for that success could be transferred and used to improve the
Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. I will also benefit from completion of the project.
Through completion of this project I will finish the MES program at Evergreen
and will receive my Masters in Environmental Studies.
6. How will the information derived from this activity be used? To whom will the
information be distributed, and if made, how will the promise of confidentiality be
kept or carried out in the final project?
The information derived from this project will hopefully be used to help improve
the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan and provide insight into why it was not as
successful as wolf recovery in the northern United States. The information will
be distributed to The Evergreen State College as well as the interviewees if
requested. Confidentiality will be kept in the final project through keeping the
answered questionnaires anonyms throughout the process. Once the project is
completed I may try to publish the results in peer-reviewed literature.
94
APPENDIX B: LETTER FOR BIOLOGIST PARTICIPANTS
Dear Participant:
I am a student at The Evergreen State College. As part of my work for my Masters in
Environmental Studies (MES) I will be conducting a research project titled “Improving
the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Plan Through the Analysis of the Successful
Reintroduction of Gray Wolves in the Northern United States.” The purpose of the
project is to gather information about successful wolf recovery and whether the Mexican
Wolf Recovery Plan can be improved by looking at reasons why wolf reintroduction in
Yellowstone and the Northern United States have been (relatively) successful.
I request only a few minuets of your time. My estimates for completing the form are
about 15 minutes.
The only people to see individual responses to surveys will be my faculty sponsor, Dr.
Tim Quinn and myself; all information presented publicly will be reported in aggregate to
avoid inadvertent identification of participants. Your identity and your comments will be
kept strictly confidential
The final paper is to be distributed to The Evergreen State College. Once the project is
completed I may try to publish the results in peer-reviewed literature. At your request, I
will provide you with a copy of the final paper.
If you have any questions about this project or your participation in it, you can call me at
505.412.2848. My email address is karischoen@aol.com. If you would like to talk to the
MES program lead you may contact Dr. Martha Henderson at The Evergreen State
College, Lab 1 Rm 3018, Olympia, WA 98505; Phone 360.867.6794.
The person to contact if you experience problems as a result of your participation in this
project is John McLain, Academic Grants Manager at The Evergreen State College,
Library 3821, Olympia, WA 98505; Phone 360.867.6045.
By submitting this online survey, you indicate that you have read the above information
and agree to participate in this research project.
Thank you for your participation and assistance!
Sincerely,
Kari Schoenberg
95
APPENDIX C: LETTER FOR RANCHER PARTICIPANTS
Dear Participant:
I am a student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. As part of my work for
my Masters in Environmental Studies (MES) I will be conducting a research project titled
“Improving the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Plan Through the Analysis of the
Successful Reintroduction of Gray Wolves in the Northern United States.” The purpose
of the project is to gather information about successful wolf recovery and whether the
Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan can be improved by looking at reasons why wolf
reintroduction in Yellowstone and the Northern United States have been (relatively)
successful. I would like to acquire an insight into how ranchers and farmers feel about
wolf recovery and reintroduction in their area and whether they feel that their concerns
are being meet and their voices heard.
I request only a few minuets of your time. My estimates for completing the form are
about 15 minutes. I will include it at the bottom of the email as well. I would like to
have surveys back within two weeks of receiving the survey. If you know of anyone else
who would be willing to participate in my survey please forward him or her my
information and I can send him or her the survey as well if they contact me.
The only people to see individual responses to surveys will be my faculty sponsor, Dr.
Tim Quinn and myself; all information presented publicly will be reported in aggregate to
avoid inadvertent identification of participants. Your identity and your comments will be
kept strictly confidential.
The final paper is to be distributed to The Evergreen State College. Once the project is
completed I may try to publish the results in peer-reviewed literature. At your request, I
will provide you with a copy of the final paper.
If you have any questions about this project or your participation in it, you can call me at
505.412.2848. My email address is karischoen@aol.com. If you would like to talk to the
MES program lead you may contact Dr. Martha Henderson at The Evergreen State
College, Lab 1 Rm 3018, Olympia, WA 98505; Phone 360.867.6794.
The person to contact if you experience problems as a result of your participation in this
project is John McLain, Academic Grants Manager at The Evergreen State College,
Library 3821, Olympia, WA 98505; Phone 360.867.6045.
By submitting this online survey, you indicate that you have read the above information
and agree to participate in this research project.
Thank you for your participation and assistance!
Sincerely,
Kari Schoenberg
96
APPENDIX D: SURVEY FOR BIOLOGISTS
Date of participation:
/
/
Name of your company/employer:
What is your gender? Circle one
•
Male
•
Female
What is your age? Circle one
•
18-29
•
30-49
•
50-64
•
65 years and over
What is the highest level of education you have completed? Circle one
97
•
Some high school
•
High school graduate
•
Some college
•
Trade/technical/vocational training
•
College graduate
•
Some postgraduate work
•
Post graduate degree
What is your employment status? Circle one
•
Full time
•
Part time
•
Not employed
•
Retired
How would you describe your political views? Circle one
•
Very conservative
•
Conservative
•
Moderate
•
Liberal
•
Very liberal
Please circle up to two of the best descriptions of the education field in which you are
qualified:
•
Wildlife management
•
Wildlife biology
•
Forestry
•
Conservation biology
•
Natural resources conservation and management
•
Environmental studies/science
98
•
Natural resources policy
•
Fisheries science and management
•
Other:
Current salary: Circle one
•
NA
•
<$25,000
•
$25-50k
•
$50-100k
•
$100k-200k
•
>$200k
Characterize the place where you spent most of your childhood up to age 18: Circle one
•
Rural
•
Urban
•
Farming
•
Other:
Write the name of the state where you reside
99
Do you work with or on your state’s wolf recovery plan? Circle one
Yes
No
In what capacity or in what aspect do you work on the state’s wolf recovery plan? Circle
as many as apply.
a. NA
b. With wolf ecology
c. With land owners and ranchers
d. Captive management
e. Outreach and education with public excluding affected landowner and
ranchers
f. Other, explain:
1. Rank in order of importance (by placing a number 1-5 next to each item, 1 being
the least and 5 being the most) the biological component(s) needed to ensure
short term (10 years) success of the wolf recovery in an area.
a. Sufficient habitat quality for ensuring a range that matches a wolf’s
natural needs for migration/reproduction/feeding
b. Sufficient habitat quantity for ensuring a range that matches a wolf’s
natural needs for migration/reproduction/feeding
c. Having a population size that ensures adequate genetic diversity
d. Adequate gene flow assumption from other source populations.
e. Figuring out how to avoid human conflicts
100
2. Rank in order of importance (by placing a number 1-5 next to each item, 1 being
the least and 5 being the most) the biological component(s) needed to ensure long
term (> 10 years) success of the wolf recovery in an area.
a. Sufficient habitat quality for ensuring a range that matches a wolf’s
natural needs for migration/reproduction/feeding
b. Sufficient habitat quantity for ensuring a range that matches a wolf’s
natural needs for migration/reproduction/feeding
c. Having a population size that ensures adequate genetic diversity
d. Adequate gene flow assumption from other source populations.
e. Figuring out how to avoid human conflicts
3. How important do you think habitat quality is to the success of wolf recovery
plans? Circle one
a. Very important
b. Important
c. Neither
d. Unimportant
e. Very unimportant
4. How important do you think habitat quantity is to the success of wolf recovery
plans? Circle one
a. Very important
b. Important
c. Neither
101
d. Unimportant
e. Very unimportant
5. How important do you think wolf genetic diversity is to success of wolf recovery
plans? Circle one
a. Very important
b. Important
c. Neither
d. Unimportant
e. Very unimportant
6. How would you rate the success of Timber wolf reintroduction? Circle one
a. Very successful
b. Moderately successful
c. Neither
d. Moderately unsuccessful
e. Very unsuccessful
7. Explain why you answered question 6 the way you did by circling up to 3 of the
most appropriate topics you considered.
a. Habitat/range- Having access to large, designated wilderness areas
b. Little or no risk of having contact with people
c. Genetic diversity- having a large enough gene pool as to have diversity
d. Better or improved policy and understanding
102
e. Public acceptance
f. Prey availability
g. All the above
h. Other, explain:
8. Based on your answer(s) to question 7 above; describe your level of agreement to
the following statement: Wolf recovery plans will benefit from the approach
followed in the timber wolf recovery plan. Circle one
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
9. If you could have full ecological information about the wolf prior to writing a
recovery or reintroduction plan what would it be? (Write a number from 1-5 next
to topic areas below, where 1 is the least important and 5 is the most important)
a. Demographic data (birth, death)
b. Movement data (immigration, emigration)
c. Habitat use information
d. Diet information
e. Behavior related to farm animal predation
103
f. Behavior related to human disturbance (roads, houses, hunting, forestry,
etc.)
g. Other, please describe:
10. If you placed something in the “other” category for question 9, what if any
information did you use instead to craft a recovery or reintroduction plan? Circle
the single best answer. If not go to question 11
a. We used information from other wolf populations of the same species
b. We used information from similar wolf subspecies populations
c. We used information from closely related but non-wolf species
d. We did not consider demographic data directly
e. Other, please explain:
11. If you did not have demographic data from the source population of wolves that
will be used for introduction what if any information did you use instead to craft a
recovery or reintroduction plan? Circle the best answer
a. We used information from other wolf populations of the same species
b. We used information from similar wolf subspecies populations
c. We used information from closely related but non-wolf species
d. We did not consider demographic data directly
e. Other, please explain:
104
12. If you did not have wolf movement information crafting a recovery or
reintroduction plan, what if any information did you use instead to craft a
recovery or reintroduction plan? Circle the best answer
a. We used information from other wolf populations of the same species
b. We used information from similar wolf subspecies populations
c. We used information from closely related but non-wolf species
d. We did not consider movement data directly
e. Other, please explain:
13. If you did not have habitat use information what if any information did you use
instead to craft a recovery or reintroduction plan? Circle the best answer
a. We used information from other wolf populations of the same species
b. We used information from similar wolf subspecies populations
c. We used information from closely related but non-wolf species
d. We did not consider habitat use data directly
e. Other, please explain:
14. If you did not have diet information what if any information did you use instead
to craft a recovery or reintroduction plan? Circle the best answer
a. We used information from other wolf populations of the same species
b. We used information from similar wolf subspecies populations
c. We used information from closely related but non-wolf species
d. We did not consider diet data directly
e. Other, please explain:
105
15. If you did not have behavior information related to farm animal predation
what if any information did you use instead to craft a recovery or reintroduction
plan? Circle the best answer
a. We used information from other wolf populations of the same species
b. We used information from similar wolf subspecies populations
c. We used information from closely related but non-wolf species
d. We did not consider behavior information related to farm animal predation
data directly
e. Other, please explain:
16. If you did not have behavior information related to human disturbance (roads,
houses, hunting, forestry, etc.) what if any information did you use instead to craft
a recovery or reintroduction plan? Circle the best answer
a. We used information from other wolf populations of the same species
b. We used information from similar wolf subspecies populations
c. We used information from closely related but non-wolf species
d. We did not consider behavior information related to human disturbance
data directly
e. Other, please explain:
106
17. What is the single best kind of information necessary to create a successful wolf
recovery plan? Circle one answer
a. Habitat quality and quantity information- geographic area appropriate for
recovery efforts
b. Demographic data (birth, death)
c. Movement data (immigration, emigration)
d. Life history- ecology and habitat characteristics
e. Behavior related to farm animal predation
f. Behavior related to human disturbance (roads, houses, hunting, forestry,
etc.)
g. Abundance of prey species
h. Genetic diversity
i. Gene flow assumptions
j. Other, explain:
18. What obstacles or information gaps with wolf/human interactions have you
encountered in the planning process for wolf reintroductions? (Rank from 1 to 6
where 1 is least important and 6 is most important).
a. Conflicts with farmers/ranchers and the livestock industry
b. Conflicts with hunters
c. Competition over land use
d. Public views of wolves and wolf reintroduction
107
e. Illegal killing of wolves
f. Other, explain:
19. If you placed something in the “other” category for question 18, how did you or
your agency address this conflict? (If not go to question 20) Circle the single best
answer
a. Literature review
b. Used information from other wolf recovery plans
c. Used information from public meetings
d. Used information from private meetings
e. Used nothing
f. Other, explain:
20. If you or your agency experienced conflicts with the farmers/ranchers, how did
you address these conflicts? Circle the single best answer
a. Literature review
b. Used information from other wolf recovery plans
c. Used information from public meetings
d. Used information from private meetings
e. Used nothing
f. Other, explain:
108
21. If you or your agency experienced conflicts with the hunting community how
did you address these conflicts? Circle the single best answer
a. Literature review
b. Used information from other wolf recovery plans
c. Used information from public meetings
d. Used information from private meetings
e. Used nothing
f. Other, explain:
22. If you or your agency experienced conflicts with competition over land use how
did you address these conflicts? Circle the single best answer
a. Literature review
b. Used information from other wolf recovery plans
c. Used information from public meetings
d. Used information from private meetings
e. Used nothing
f. Other, explain:
23. If you or your agency experienced conflicts with the public at large of wolves
and wolf reintroduction how did you address these conflicts? Circle the single
best answer
a. Literature review
b. Used information from other wolf recovery plans
c. Used information from public meetings
109
d. Used information from private meetings
e. Used nothing
f. Other, explain:
24. If you or your agency experienced problems/conflicts with illegal shootings of
wolves how did you address these issues? Circle the single best answer
a. Literature review
b. Used information from other wolf recovery plans
c. Used information from public meetings
d. Used information from private meetings
e. Used nothing
f. Other, explain:
25. Rank your familiarity with the Mexican wolf recovery plan from 1 very
unfamiliar to 5 very familiar. Circle one
1
2
3
4
5
26. How important was the Mexican wolf recovery plan in developing your own wolf
recovery plan? (Was the Mexican wolf recovery plan used at all to aid and guide
in the development of your own wolf recovery plan?) Circle one answer
a. Very important
b. Important
c. Neither
d. Unimportant
110
e. Very unimportant
27. To what degree do you agree that listing the Mexican gray wolf as a “nonessential
experimental population” helped with the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf?
Circle one answer
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
28. Explain why you chose the answer you did to question 27 by circling the answer
that best describes your thinking.
a. The listing increases the flexibility in managing the reintroduction of the
wolf
b. The listing allows reintroduced wolves to be killed for livestock
depredation
c. The listing creates a better cooperation between biologists and livestock
owners.
d. There will be more illegal killings of wolves
e. Less protection will be given to the wolf populations
f. The Mexican wolf will go extinct
g. Other, explain:
111
29. To what degree do you believe the Mexican wolf recovery program has been
unsuccessful in the past? Circle one answer
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
30. If you believe the Mexican wolf recovery program has been unsuccessful in any
way in the past, what are the main reason(s) for those beliefs? (Circle as many as
apply)
a. Inadequate habitat range
b. Low genetic diversity
c. Low population of prey species
d. Illegal killings
e. Inbreeding due to low genetic population
f. Other. Please explain in a few words:
31. To what degree do you believe that stronger restrictions placed on land and
grazing activities would increase Mexican wolf populations? Circle one answer
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
112
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
32. To what degree do you believe that new revisions on the Mexican wolf recovery
plan will help improve the likelihood of the species maintaining self-sustaining
populations? Circle one answer
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
33. What single comment below best describes your belief about Mexican wolf
recovery in the future? (Circle one)
a. Mexican wolf populations will increase significantly
b. There will be no change
c. Mexican wolf populations will decrease
d. The Mexican wolf will become extinct in the wild
e. Other, explain:
113
34. What is the single most important benefit that Mexican wolves will likely have on
the Southwest ecosystem? Circle one
a. They could reduce forage competition between livestock and other
ungulates
b. They could provide more food for scavengers (e.g., coyotes, ravens, foxes,
weasels, etc.)
c. Providing another food source for scavengers could reduce predation on
livestock by other predators
d. They could help increase diversity in plants and animals in the
environment
e. By providing food for scavengers as well as helping to increase diversity
in plants and animals, they could provide buffer effects towards climate
change.
f. Other, explain:
35. To what degree do you believe that the greatest obstacle for wolf recovery in the
US is the degree to which land/livestock owners affected by wolves cooperate
with the recovery efforts? Circle one
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
114
e. Strongly disagree
36. To what degree do you believe that cooperation with land/livestock owners is
difficult to achieve. Circle one
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
37. To what degree do you believe that current compensation for wolf depredation on
livestock is working? Circle one
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
38. To what degree do you believe that current compensation for wolf depredation on
livestock is fair? Circle one
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
115
e. Strongly disagree
39. To what degree do you believe that successful wolf management relies on the use
of the following factors (rank items from 1 (least important) to 5 (most
important))?
a. Science
b. Politics
c. Opinion
d. Religion
e. Other, explain:
40. How do you think the delisting of wolves as threatened or endangered from the
Endangered Species Act will affect their recovery in terms of population size?
Circle one
a. Wolf populations will stay roughly the same
b. Wolf populations will increase in size
c. Wolf populations will decrease in size
d. Other, explain:
41. How do you think the delisting of wolves as threatened or endangered from the
Endangered Species Act will affect wolf recovery in terms of cooperation
between recovery agencies and ranchers/farmers?
116
a. There will be better cooperation among biologists and farmers/ranchers
b. These relationships will remain mostly the same
c. There will be less cooperation among biologists and farmers/ranchers
d. Other, explain:
42. How do you think the delisting of wolves as threatened or endangered from the
Endangered Species Act will affect wolf recovery in terms of recovery planning?
a. Wolf recovery planning will increase
b. Wolf recovery planning will remain at roughly the same level
c. Wolf recovery planning will decrease
d. Wolf recovery planning will stop
e. Other, explain:
43. What do you believe is the most likely scenario for wolf populations once state
management plans are implemented? Circle one
a. They will remain in a recovered state
b. They will increase
c. They will decrease slightly but not to the point of becoming threatened or
endangered once again
d. Wolf populations will remain roughly the same
e. They will decrease to the point of becoming relisted as threatened or
endangered
117
f. They will go extinct
g. Other, explain:
44. Rank you familiarity with gray wolf recovery plans in the Northern United States
(ex. Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf and wolves reintroduced into
Yellowstone) from 1-5, 1 being very unfamiliar and 5 being very familiar by
circling one number.
1
2
3
4
5
45. To what degree do you believe that existing gray wolf recovery plans were
important in developing your own wolf recovery plan? (Was the gray wolf
recovery plan used at all to aid and guide in the development of your own wolf
recovery plan?) Circle one
a. Very important
b. Important
c. Neither
d. Unimportant
e. Very unimportant
46. To what degree do you believe that wolf recovery efforts tend to divide the
affected communities into biologists (generally supportive) and ranchers/famers
(generally not supportive)?
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
118
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
47. What do you believe the fate of this divided community will be through time?
Circle one
a. There is more cooperation
b. Cooperation levels remain mostly the same
c. There is less cooperation
d. Other, explain:
48. We are interested in improving the acceptance of wolf reintroduction by
rancher/farmers and hunters. In your opinion, how would you or your agency
improve the acceptance of wolf reintroductions by these stakeholders?
49. What aspect of creating a wolf recovery plan could you offer biologists from
other states in order to ensure success?
50. What parts of the wolf recovery plan are most troubling to you?
51. What would you like to see changed in the recovery planning process, the
recovery plan itself, and in how the plan is implemented?
119
52. On the social side of human- wolf interactions, what needs to be done in your
opinion in order to ensure the success of a wolf recovery plan?
53. What advice could you offer to biologists from other states on creating a
successful wolf recovery plan?
120
APPENDIX E: SURVEY FOR RANCHERS
Date of participation:
/
/
Name of your company/employer:
What is your gender? Circle one
•
Male
•
Female
What is your age? Circle one
•
18-29
•
30-49
•
50-64
•
65 years and over
What is the highest level of education you have completed? Circle one
•
Some high school
•
High school graduate
•
Some college
•
Trade/technical/vocational training
•
College graduate
•
Some postgraduate work
121
•
Post graduate degree
What is your employment status? Circle one
•
Full time
•
Part time
•
Not employed
•
Retired
How would you describe your political views? Circle one
•
Very conservative
•
Conservative
•
Moderate
•
Liberal
•
Very liberal
Current salary: Circle one
•
<25,000
•
25-50k
•
50-100k
•
100k-200k
•
>200k
122
Characterize the place where you spent most of your childhood up to age 18: Circle one
•
Rural
•
Urban
•
Farming
•
Other:
Write the name of the state where you reside
What generation rancher/farmer are you?
How many years have you been a rancher/farmer?
1. Rank your familiarity with the Mexican wolf recovery plan from 1-5, 1 being very
unfamiliar and 5 being very familiar. Circle one
1
2
3
4
5
2. Rank your familiarity with the timber (gray) wolf recovery plan from 1-5, 1
being very unfamiliar and 5 being very familiar. Circle one
1
123
2
3
4
5
3. Rank your familiarity with current compensation programs for wolf depredation
on livestock in your state from 1-5, 1 being very unfamiliar and 5 being very
familiar. Circle one
1
2
3
4
5
4. Do you agree that current compensation for wolf depredation on livestock is
working? Circle one
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
5. For question 4 above why did you choose the answer you did? Circle one
a. I get compensated fairly for what the wolf kills
b. Wolf predation on livestock is minimal
c. Compensation does not take into account that prices for livestock are
always going up
d. It takes too long to receive the compensation
e. Other, explain:
6. Do you agree that current compensation for wolf depredation on livestock is fair?
Circle one
a. Strongly agree
124
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
7. For question 6 above why did you choose the answer you did? Circle one
a. I get compensated fairly for what the wolf kills
b. Wolf predation on livestock is minimal
c. Compensation does not take into account that prices for livestock are
always going up
d. It takes to long to receive the compensation
e. Other, explain:
8. How many livestock do you believe you have lost in the past year to wolf
depredation? Circle one
a. 1-3
b. 3-5
c. 5-7
d. 7-9
e. 10 or more
9. What are your feelings towards wolf recovery? Circle one
a. Strongly support
b. Moderately support
125
c. Do not care
d. Moderately do not support
e. Strongly do not support
10. What are your feelings towards wolf reintroduction? Circle one
a. Strongly support
b. Moderately support
c. Do not care
d. Moderately do not support
e. Strongly do not support
11. Wolves occupying the same land that I ranch will result in me having to give up
my land for ranching. Circle one
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
12. I would be willing to ranch with wolves (wolves occupying the same ranch as my
livestock) if provided with certain compensation or certain tools. Circle one
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
126
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
13. Characterize you knowledge of wolves. Circle one
a. Very knowledgeable
b. Somewhat knowledgeable
c. Not very knowledgeable
d. Completely unknowledgeable
14. Characterize your knowledge of wolf recovery. Circle one
a. Very knowledgeable
b. Somewhat knowledgeable
c. Not very knowledgeable
d. Completely unknowledgeable
15. If you are unfamiliar with wolves how willing would you be to learn? Circle one
a. Very willing
b. Willing
c. Neither
d. Unwilling
e. Very unwilling
127
16. If you are unfamiliar with wolf recovery how willing would you be to learn?
Circle one
a. Very willing
b. Willing
c. Neither
d. Unwilling
e. Very unwilling
17. Characterize your willingness to learn how ranchers and wolves can coexist.
Circle one
a. Very willing
b. Willing
c. Neither
d. Unwilling
e. Very unwilling
18. How would you feel about learning how to humanly manage wolves from staying
off your land? Circle one
a. Very willing
b. Willing
c. Neither
d. Unwilling
e. Very unwilling
128
19. What is your preference towards the management of “problem” wolves (defined
as wolves that threaten farmers livestock)? Circle one
a. Compensation payments
b. Lethal control
c. Translocation: when an animal is captured and released elsewhere
d. Returned to captivity
e. Nonlethal tools and methods to reduce conflicts
f. Other, explain:
20. If you have used any nonlethal tools and methods to reduce conflicts with
wolves what have you used? Circle one
a. Livestock guarding dogs
b. Reducing attractants (removing any type of dead, diseased, or dying
animal as well as those ready to give birth)
c. Erecting barriers: fencing, fladry (perimeter rope of vertical flagging), and
penning
d. Increasing human presence (range riders, herders)
e. Using scare tools and tactics (alarms, shock collars, nonlethal
ammunition)
f. Switching grazing sites
g. None
h. Other, explain:
129
21. Do you feel you are included in decisions about wolf reintroduction? Circle one
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
22. How do you feel about wolves on your land? Circle one
a. They are a huge threat
b. They are invading my land
c. They don’t bother me
d. They are not a huge problem
e. Other, explain
23. How willing would you be to forfeit your grazing permits on public land and
permanently remove your cattle if the federal government paid you? Circle one
a. Very willing
b. Willing
c. Neither
d. Unwilling
e. Very unwilling
130
24. How willing would you be to allow a certain amount of wolves on your property
if the Fish and Wildlife Service paid you to do that? Circle one
a. Very willing
b. Willing
c. Neither
d. Unwilling
e. Very unwilling
25. How would you characterize the relationships between biologists and
rancher/farmers over the years? Circle one
a. There is more cooperation between the two groups
b. Nothing has changed
c. There is less cooperation between the two groups
d. Other, explain:
26. We are interested in improving the process of wolf reintroduction in ways that
make it more acceptable to you as stakeholders. In the space below please
provide some details on how this could happen from your perspective.
27. Do you feel you were listened to and your concerns were taken into account with
the creation of the wolf recovery plan in your area?
28. What could have made the wolf recovery plan better?
131
29. What would you like to see changed?
30. Describe briefly how much confidence you have in scientists describing the
nature of the predators and the damage to farmers/ranchers?
132
xlix
