INTRODUCING GRAY WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE 

AND IDAHO 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COlVI:MI'rTEE ON RESOURCES 

I-IOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

FEDERAL EFFORTS TO INTRODUCE CANADIAN GRAY WOLVES INTO 

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK AND THE CENTRAL IDAHO WILDERNESS 

88-88lcc = 

JANUARY 26, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-4 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Ofticc 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 2(}402 

ISBN 0·16-047132-X 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. K.ILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californil! 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chi4 Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held January 26, 1995 .............................................................. ................ 1 

Statement of Members: Burns, Hon. Conrad, a U.S. Senator from Montana .................................... . Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho ........................ . Crapo, Hon. Michael D., a U.S. Representative from Idaho ........................ . Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Representative from Wyoming ...................... . Dooley, Hon. Calvin M., a U.S. Representative from California ................ .. Doolittle, Hon. John T., a U.S. Representative from California .. ................ . Jones, Hon. Walter B., Jr., & U.S. Representative from North Carolina .... . Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California ...................... .. Pombo, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Representative from California ..................... . Simpson, Hon. Alan, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming .................................... . Thomas, Hon. Craig, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming .................................... . Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a U.S. Representative from Minnesota .................... . 

Statement of Witnesses: 

11 

4 

15 

1 

8 

14 

8 

7 

13 

6 

9 

3 

Askins, Renee, The Wolf Fund, Moose, WY .................................................. . 34, 39 

Prepared statement ....................................... ............................................ 108 

Babbitt, Bruce, U. S. Secretary of the Interior .............................................. 19 

Prepared statement with attachments .............................. ...... ................ 88 

Bonner, Fred, Garner, NC ........................................ ........................ , .............. 54, 55 

Prepared statement ........................................................ ........................... 158 

Bourret, Larry, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Laramie, WY ............. 34, 41 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 115 

Buffington, Betsy, Sierra Club (preP.ared statement) .................................... 234 

Dougherty, Thomas J., National Wildlife Federation, Boulder, CO ............. 54, 64 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 181 

Friends of Animals (prepared statement) ....................................................... 191 

Hoffman, Ted, DVM (prepared statement) ..... .. .. .. .... ........................ .... .......... 282 

Hughes, Ronald, Idaho Falls, ID .......................................................... , .......... 54, 66 

Lummis, Cynthia, Counsel to Governor Geringer, Cheyenne, WY .............. 34, 46 

Mader, Troy, Gillette, WY ................................................................................ 54 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 150 

Marlenee, Ron, Safari Club International .................................... .................. 34 

Prepared statement with attachments .................................................... 97 

Pollot, Mark, Boise, ID ..................................................................................... 34, 44 

Prepared statement ........................................................................... ........ 124 

Schlickeisen, Rodger, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC ..................... 34, 37 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 105 

Sears, Robert, Idaho Cattle Association, Boise, ID ........................................ 54, 58 

Sweet, Gerry, Idaho State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. (prepared statement) .............................................................................................................. 171 

Wood, Hon. JoAn, member, Idaho State House of Representatives, Rigby, 

ID .................................................................. , ................................................ 54, 60 

Prepared statement .... .......... ....... ..... .. .... .... ... .... .... .... ......... .... ..... . ... ...... ... . 163 

Additional material supplied: 

Bjorge, Ronald R., and John R. Gunson: Article on the wolf ........................ 143 

ldah<! Legislature: House Joint Memo~als No.6 and.ll .......................... 168, 173 

Intenor Department: Answers to questions of Comnuttee ........................... 251 

:::urcra:U:~n~~~·k;~biy; li~~~ arn 2oos ·<~~·;~io· ::::::: :: ::: ::: :: : ~~~ Wildlife Society: "Restoration of Wolves in North America," dated February 1991 ..................................................................................................... 208 

(III) 
IV 

Page 

Communications submitted: Chenoweth, Hon. Helen: Letter of January 11, 1995, to Hon. Bruce Babbitt .................................................................................................................. 73 

Clifton, Merritt (Animal People): Letter of January 27, 1995, to Chris 

Kennedy ... .. . . . . . ... .. . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .... . ... . . ... .. .. . ... .... .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . . . . .. . . . . 205 

Crapo, Hon. Michael D.: Letter of January 11, 1995, to Hon. Bruce 

Babbitt with attachments ............................................................................ 86 

Dovel, George (Boise County Wildlife & Endangered Species Comm.): 

Letter of January 25, 1995, to Hon. Helen Chenoweth with attachments ...................................................................................... ....................... 194 

Duncan, Freeman B. (State of Idaho): Letter of January 12, 1995, to 

Steve Lechner ................................................................................................ 169 

Franklin, Thomas M. (The Wildlife Society): Letter of January 27, 1995, 

to Hon. Don. Young ....................................................................................... 206 

Geer, Dan: Letter of January 22, 1995, to Troy Mader with story of 

wolf attack ..... ........... .... .. ................ .... ............... ................. ...... ................ ..... 148 

Geringer, Gov. Jim: Letter of January 16, 1995, to Hon. Bruce Babbitt .. ... 141 

Idaho elected officials and legislators: Letter of January 11, 1995, to 

Idaho Congressional Delegation with attachments ........ ............... ............. 79 

Interior D;raartment: Letters submitted for the record ...................... 16, .. 166, 275 

Raeh~~tens~Z::e~ ... ~~~~~: ... ~~-:··· ~~:~~ ... ~ ... ~~~~.~7. ... : ... ~~~~: ... ~ ... ~~ 247 

strl~~ c~ri~~!~~~~'.~ ~ ... ~~~~~:.· ... ~~!.: ... ~:~.~ ... ~~ .. ~~~~~.?: .. ~: ... ~.~.~.~.' ... ~ 249 
INTRODUCING GRAY WOLVES INTO 

YELLOWSTONE AND IDAHO 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:39 a.m. in room 1334, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM WYOMING 

Mrs. CUBIN [presiding]. The Committee on Resources will come 

to order. 

The Committee is here today to hear testimony on introduction 

of wolves into Yellowstone National Park. I have a few words that 

I would like to make before the hearing actually begins. 

It is an honor to be here today and chairing this Committee. I 

would like to welcome my fellow Members of the Committee, our 

distinguished witnesses, and guests that are here at the hearing. I look forward to their testimony. 

The purpose of this hearing is to seek answers to the many questions surrounding the introduction of the gray wolf into Yellow- stone National Park and into central Idaho. As most of you know, the wolf was listed as endangered under the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Mter an extensive public hearing process where local, 

State, and Federal representatives from the States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana continually registered their opposition, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife determined to go forward with their reintroduction. 

On January 13 of this year, eight wolves were placed into oneacre pens in the Lamar Valley region of Yellowstone National Park. 

The next day four more were set free in Idaho's Frank Church 

River Of No Return Wilderness. Since that date a total of 29 

wolves have been released in the two States. 

I note the presence of Secretary Babbitt here today, and I thank 

him for being here, and I want to assure him and other wolf supporters that I share their admiration for this magnificent creature. 

Where we differ is that I seem to hold more respect for the United 

States Constitution, especially with regard to the lOth Amendment 

which regards the balance of power between State and Federal 

Governments, and I also respect the 5th Amendment and the 

rights of private property holders. And although I never thought I 

(1) 
2 

would say this, I also seem to agree much more with President 

Clinton than I do with Secretary Babbitt and his policies. 

President Clinton used his high profile State of the Union address to assure America that he wanted to take power away from 

the Federal bureaucracies and give it back to the lower levels of 

government, back to the States, back to the counties, and back to 

the cities. He said it was time to stop passing on to the States the 

costs of decisions that we make here in Washington and give more 

flexibility to the States. I find that I agree with the President on 

these points. However, I note that the actions of the Secretary of 

the Interior speak louder than the President's words. 

The wolves were released in a three-ring media circus where national TV was given enough notice to have cameras on hand for a 

poignant shot of Secretary Babbitt helping carry a wolf cage. It was 

very touching to me as I watched even. A press conference was 

held at the Mammoth Hotel in the middle of Yellowstone National 

Park. There was time to notify all of those people to come, and yet 

the governor of Wyoming, who represents all those who will bear 

the burden of this predator and whose agencies will manage the 

animal, did not even receive a simple courtesy call giving him notice of the event. In fact, he has not yet received a response to the 

letter he wrote to the Secretary, so we will ask the governor's questions today at the hearing. The Secretary's failure to notify our governor speaks much louder 

than the words chosen by our President on the rights of State in 

this process, so I will be asking the Secretary if he intends to follow 

the philosophy of his President or if he intends to continue on the 

path that he has chosen. 

I also want to know how the Secretary intends to compensate 

those ranchers whose livestock and livelihoods are threatened 

when wolves start killing their livestock. I want to know the total 

costs of the program from the beginning of the public hearing process to the introduction to date. It is an enormous amount of money 

spent on an animal that is in no danger of being wiped off the face 

of the Earth. As the charts illustrate that are placed around the 

room, there are almost 60,000 wolves on this continent. That is an 

especially offensive position for me. As you see, as an elected official, I will be the one, we all will be the ones having to make those 

tough decisions to try and balance the budget. We will look at the 

essential services for human beings that we are probably going to 

have to cut. We know we are going to have to cut services for 

human beings while there are 60,000 of these wolves, these magnificent creatures, roaming the North American continent. We will 

look at the essential services of immunization for childhood diseases, school lunches in our schools, the Head Start Program, medical care and nutrition for senior citizens and for pregnant women 

and for infants. We will be cutting funds for public broadcasting, 

and that is a program that is especially popular in my State of Wyoming. Being put in a position to have to put people against animals that are not endangered is very uncomfortable. Wolves in Wyoming simply cannot compare to these priorities no matter how 

good the howl of the wild makes some people feel. 

There are more questions that we will ask today, and I look forward to airing the many issues surrounding this decision. 
3 

The Chairman now recognizes the Minority Member for any 

statement that he might have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and we are going 

to try-I am going to try to cooperate with you to make certain 

that your initial effort at chairing a congressional hearing-! assume-is successful. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. VENTO. So I want to put you at ease. We want to cooperate 

and help in terms of the special responsibilities that you and other 

new Members are taking on and assuming. We understand, I understand well, having led a subcommittee on parks, forests, and 

public lands. I especially, of course, want to welcome my returning subcommittee Member and friend-! think-Congressman-Senator Thomas, 

and this issue is one, I think, that is obviously very emotional. It 

has been a 20-year issue. 

I especially appreciate the Secretary of the Interior himself being 

here today to answer questions and for the active role he has taken 

in terms of what is a controversial issue. I think this is one Secretary of the Interior who has faced up to a lot of issues in the west 

as a westerner that are controversial, not always with the results, 

I might add, that I think he merits. I think he has sincerely made 

a good faith effort in so many instances and that has not been 

matched by others that have been participants in that, and I think 

in the end that that is a problem because I think it has created 

a lot more polarization in this issue and in other issues that are 

important to all of us. We have all had a role in that. I will confess 

my trespasses, and I hope others will recognize their own. 

This issue, Madam Chairman and Members, is an issue of some 

20 years standing. You know, besides other things of course, I 

could claim to come from the home of the timber wolves, but I 

would probably be more relating to the basketball team in Minneapolis, my sister city, than I would to the timber wolves in northern Minnesota, which is the last place in the continental United 

States that has a viable population of the gray wolf, the timber 

wolf. I am actually 250 or 300 miles from that. I would h?.ve to suggest that Congressmen Oberstar and Peterson, my colleagues in 

Minnesota, and others might have more of a claim to that issue. But as most of you know, my background is for the science educator, and so I am well aware of the concerns and the voices that 

are being raised here, the fears and the questions that have to be 

answered. I know that they have tried diligently to answer that 

against the background of the accord, against the background of 

hard science answers. Obviously we need to deal with the people 

problems that are affected as well. We have had a program in our State that tried to deal with the 

compensation, to deal with the damage that might be done by a 

predator-and the wolf is that-and I think that has been pretty 

successful. There hasn't been a significant problem in our State. I 

think we need to look at where the viable populations are and what 

the problems are in Canada, and some of the issues in Alaska, and 
4 

the issue of what the absence of that predator in the ecosystem has 

meant to those very special places that we have in our western 

States, in Idaho, Montana, and the other States that my colleagues 

represent. I hope this hearing will reach beyond that, reach beyond 

the fears and deal with some of the facts and the benefits of that 

and try to work in a cooperative partnership with both the States 

and with the Department of the Interior which we have charged 

under law with certain responsibilities. 

If we want to change the policies and so forth, we ought not to 

do it by browbeating and trying to undercut individuals and question the good faith efforts that they are making to implement the 

law. They have doM this, I think, painstakingly. They have heard 

from literally thousands of individuals, and we, for all of our good 

intentions, write some pretty broad policies, and I expect we will 

in the future, notwithstanding the discussions about mandates and 

rules, expect departments and agencies to fill in the blanks in 

terms of implementing those laws. It is the nature of our job. 

If we get involved in what would be called micromanagement of 

every one of these issues, I don't think that politics is the basis on 

which we ought to run an Endangered Species Act. I think if we 

have to have a vote here every time, whether it is the snail darter 

or projects, the fact is that this law has been very, very successful. 

There have been nearly 30,000 resolutions, and of course I think 

you can count on your two hands the number of problems that have 

occurred. So to throw that out and lose the essence of that gene 

pool and that value to our constituents and to mankind would be 

a very, very serious problem. 

So I hope that the Members will be guided and influenced by the 

facts and the concerns and what the law is and let's work on that 

rather than trying to question. I think everyone should come to the 

table here trying to work in good faith. Certainly that is my intention as this Committee now assumes a new responsibility in terms 

of this issue. We have always had part of it, but now we have the 

whole piece. 

Again, I welcome my colleague, Senator Thomas, and the Secretary of the Interior, and others that are here today to assist us 

in our task. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman-Chairwoman? 

Mrs. CUBIN. Either way. 

Thank you, Mr. Vento. 

I yield to the congresswoman from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth, for an 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I first want to say that I appreciate the willingness of Secretary 

Babbitt to come before this Committee today to discuss the wolf release program, but I want to get right to the point. I wrote to the 

Secretary on January 11 of this year a letter, which I am willing 

to release in the record in its entirety, wherein I requested that 

you immediately cease the process of releasing wolves into central 

Idaho. I stated that the United States Fish and Wildlife personnel 

were proceeding in an autocratic manner without regard for the 
5 

wishes of the people of Idaho, their legislature's desires, the laws 

of Idaho, and the law of the Endangered Species Act. 

I indicated to the Secretary that the Idaho Legislature was presently deliberating on a wolf management plan which had been developed by a task force whose members had been authorized by our 

State legislature. Introduction of the wolves was to proceed only 

after the plan was approved. I pointed out to the Secretary that by 

introducing the wolves at the proposed site in central Idaho, that 

they were jeopardizing the wildlife being managed by the Idaho 

Fish and Game Department. The proposed site has a unique elk calving habitat and properties 

and is in the heart of some of the best elk and deer hunting areas 

in the Nation. Idaho law 34-103 states that all wildlife within the 

State of Idaho is declared to be the property of the State of Idaho, 

and by releasing the wolf into the managed wildlife area of Idaho 

before the Idaho legislature approved an acceptable plan, that that 

was an actual violation of the laws of the State of Idaho. The 

wolves released were intended to use the young elk calfs as their 

prey base which was ultimately resulting in an unauthorized taking of Idaho property. 

By these actions there was a violation also of the Federal law of 

the Endangered Species Act, section 6, which said: "The Secretary 

shall cooperate to the maximum extent with the States. Such cooperation shall include consultation with the States concerned before acquiring any land or water or interest therein for the purpose 

of conserving any endangered species or threatened species," and 

section 6(f) of the Act states that this chapter shall not otherwise 

be construed to void any State law or regulation which is intended 

to conserve wildlife. 

My letter to the Secretary on January 11, 1995, was intended to 

bring attention to the State and Federal laws and the will of the 

Idaho people. 

Your department, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, acknowledged my letter to the Secretary with a telephone call to my office 

on that same day it was received, January 11, 1995. The next day 

the Secretary's office arranged for a personal meeting with me for 

January 23, 1995. I review with the Secretary these dates of correspondence only 

to reiterate that his office and he was fully aware of our concerns 

about the premature release of the wolves into Idaho without a legislatively approved plan and potential statutory violations well in 

advance of the actual release date of the wolves. It appears the De- partment finds that they may operate above and outside the law, 

the will of the people, and the concerns of this Committee. 

I would echo the sentiment of the late United States Supreme 

Court Justice Brandeis who wrote that, "decency, security, and lib- erty alike demand that Government officials shall be subjected to 

the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a 

government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously." 

The United States Supreme Court went on to say: "If the government becomes the law breaker, it breeds contempt for law and it 

invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy." 
6 

There is a great deal at stake here today since it is quite obvious 

there is a conflict between States' rights and Federal agencies' desires. 

You have written into your testimony that the wolf is a predator, 

Mr. Secretary. Idaho law allows for the killing of predators without 

a permit. Do we simply have an oxymoron or do we have a challenge to the lOth Amendment to the United States Constitution? 

I strongly believe that not only have your wolves trespassed on to 

the lands of the State of Idaho, your agencies have trespassed onto 

the Constitution of the United States of America, the supreme law 

of the land. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The letter of January 11, 1995, may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. With the Committee's indulgence, the Senators have to leave in 

a few minutes to make a vote, so if it would be all right with the 

other side, I would like to recognize the Senators who are here to 

testify with us and then we will come back to our opening statements. 

I do want to say, as we all know, Senator Simpson has long been 

recognized as being opposed to introducing wolves into Wyoming 

and into the west. He was scheduled to testify this morning, but, 

due to the death of his dear mother Lorna, he is unable to be here. 

Mrs. Simpson was well known and 't:ighly regarded in Wyoming, 

and I join many thousands of others in expressing condolence and 

sympathy to Senator Simpson. In lieu of his appearance this morning, he will have a statement that will be submitted to the record. [The statement of Senator Simpson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN SIMPSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

I am pleased to provide testimony regarding the issue of wolf reintroduction in 

Yellowstone Park. I have expressed serious concerns about wolf reintroduction over the years and I continue to have concerns and reservations about this program. 

While the wolf reintroduction effort is now going forward, I believe it is going to 

be a very expensive program with estimated costs over $6 million. I see a disturbing 

trend in terms of Endangered Species recovery efforts where environmental groups 

and some bureaucrats place a high priority on funding recovery programs for "charismatic megafauna" such as Grizzly Bears and wolves. These are very exciting ani- mals and they stir the imagination of the public but they also drain money away 

from other important Endangered Species recovery efforts. 

If you run an environmental group, you are not going to make the Wyoming False 

Sagebru.sh your poster child. It is easier to raise money if you talk about restoring 

the majestic wolf to its rightful place in the Yellowstone ecosystem. There are a number of important endangered plants and animals which are not being adequately protected because of programs such as the wolf reintroduction effort that 

just suck up the bucks. 

The fact is that there are thousands of wolves in Alaska and Canada and hundreds of wolves in Minnesota. This isn't a situation where we are in danger of losing a who~e species. We_ are .spending millions of dol!ars. to restore a s~b-population to a spec1fic area. Dunng tunes when we are expenencmg shortages m Federal funding for a number of programs, it makes little sense to be spending so much on a recovery effort such as the wolf reintroduction program. One of the concerns that I have articulated in the past with regard to wolf reintroduction is the need to insure that we do not have unnecessary closure of public 

lands in the name of wolf protection. We have experience in Wyoming with the Grizzly Bear recovery effort and we have seen what can happen with public lands clo- sures. In the not too distant past, we saw Y el!owstone Park officials close over one- sixth of Yellowstone Park in the name of Grizzly Bear protection. This was an un- necessary action and it only served to alienate people and to erode support for that 

particular recovery effort. 
7 

We have received assurances in the past that any public land closures related to 

wolf recovery efforts would be very small-perhaps no larger than one square mile. 

However, I am deeply disturbed by the rhetoric I hear from some enVlronmental 

groups that are calling for more massive public land closures in order to protect wolves. I can assure you that if we get into a situation where the Federal land man- agers restrict public access to large tracts of land in parks or national forests in the name of wolf protection there will be a backlash. 

I also have some concerns with regard to private property ri~hts protection. If 

wolves do leave Yellowstone Park and cause livestock losses, th1s certainly raises 

private property rights issues. And it may be that the Federal government will have 

to develop a compensation fund in the future. That is because a private fund cannot 

be used for compensation for the taking of private property caused by a Federal ac- tion. This is something we will need to review very rarefully as we consider private 

property rights legislation in this session of Congress. I remain very much concerned about the effect wolves will have on wildlife populations. I have long advocated the establishment of baseline population numbers for 

deer, elk, moose, and Big Horn Sheep in the Yellowstone area m order that we may 

rapidly detect the effects of wolf predation on big game herds. I am concerned that 

hunting and recreational opportunities could be negatively affected by wolf predation. We know from experience in Alaska that wolf predation coupled with hard win- ter has decimated moose populations in some areas. So, I think we will need to be 

vigilant in monitoring the combined effects of climate and wolf predation on wildlife 

pofulations in the Yellowstone area in the future. am encoura~ed that wolves in Yellowstone will be classified as "experimental 

population." Th1s designation should allow greater management flexibility than 

would be the case if they had been designated as "threatened" or "endangered." 

There has been a great deal of criticism of the Endangered Species Act and Endangered Species recovery efforts for good reason. The use of the experimental population designation will be a test that will determine if the Endangered Species Act can work as the proponents say it can. Congress will be monitoring this situation closely and we will be holding Endangered Species oversight hearings over the course of the year. If it appears that the 

experimental population desi~ation does not allow the management flexibility we were promised, this will call mto question the administration of the whole Act and we could expect amendments to the Endangered Species Act to remedy any shortcomings that we identify. In closing, I would like to thank Congresswoman Cubin for initiating these hearings. I think these are important issues that need to be discussed in a responsible manner. Hearings such as this one help the public, the bureaucrats and other lawmakers to understand the complexity of Endangered Species and public lands issues 

that are so controversial in the western states. 

Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 

to place in the record Chairman Miller's opening statement and ask 

unanimous consent that other Members have the right to place 

opening statements in the record. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Without objection. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you Mr. Vento. 

[The statements submitted follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U .S . REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. Chairman, the reintroduction of the Gray Wolf into the Yellowstone National 

Park and central Idaho regions has generated considerable public interest and, in 

certain quarters, trepidation. Perhaps owing to its place in folklore, the wolf has always generated a measure of fear among the public. While the stories of the "Three 

Pigs" and "Little Red Riding Hood" may no longer be at the center of those fears, 

they are illustrative of the passions that have followed the wolfs contact with man. Public policy based on fear though serves neither the public nor our wildlife re- sources. We need facts and qualitative information, not conjecture, to implement 

sound public policy. I want to congratulate Secretary Babbitt and the Department 

of the Interior for their work to develop and implement a wolf recovery program 

that is both fair and flexible. The environmental impact statement involved over 100 

public meetings attended by nearly 10,000 persons, which generated nearly 170,000 

public comments. There are some who would tear down or attack the program but as the record shows, this wasn't developed in a vacuum. The states have been active 
8 

participants. The process even included a wolf management committee made up of 

Federal, State and interest group representatives. Secretary Babbitt has seen to 

conclusion a program conceived and carried forward in the Bush Administration by former Secretary Manuel Lujan and former Fish and Wildlife Director John 'l'urner, 

both who are no strangers to the west. 

I hope we can have a constructive review of the facts today and that conjecture 

and emotionalism won't rule the day. I look forward to the Secretary's testimony as well as that of the other witnesses today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATfVE FROM CAUFORNIA 

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for holding this hearing today on this con- troversial subject. The gray wolf was listed as an endangered species under the 

original 1973 Endangered Species Act and the controversy continues today. 

I have read man;Y articles about the reintroduction plan, and I have been struck 

at the many inconsistent arguments there. For instance, it is my understanding that more than 60,000 gray wolves are living in Canada and Alaska at this time. That means that the wolf is not really in jeopardy of becoming extinct. In addition, scientists estimate that the wolf would reestablish itself in the Northern Rockies by 

the year 2025 without a reintroduction program. However, this has not stopped the 

Department of the Interior from pursuing a reintroduction program that has reportedly cost the Federal government upwards of $12 million. 

As you know, the main opponents of the reintroduction program are the ranchers 

who live in the affected areas. Their concerns are based on the nearly universally 

accepted fact that the gray wolf is a predator that threatens cattle and sheep. In 

fact, the proponents of the reintroduction acknowledge this fact and have established a fund to pay for the killed livestock. However, this repayment program is 

not sufficient to allay the fears of ranchers who depend on their herds for their livelihood. I believe that the concerns of the ranchers should be given great weight in 

this debate. 

I have also read that proponents of the reintroduction see it as a "symbolic act." 

They go on to say that the killing of wolves in the past was also symbolic. However, as I have stated, ranchers have a real and personal stake in the presence of wolf 

populations. Their actions were not symbolic, but an economic reality. Why jeopardIze this industry's future for a "symbolic act." 

Mr. Chairman, I am not. convinced that the reintroduction program is in the best 

interest of the residents of the Northern Rockies, the country or the gray wolves 

themselves. I look forward to the testimony here today and hope that we will be 

able to bring some common sense to this situation. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. JONES, JR. , A U.S. REPRESENTATfVE FROM NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. Chairman, as you know the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) re-introduced the red wolf, a cousin of the ~ay wolf, into the State of North Carolina in 

1987 and then again in 1991. ApprOJamately 42 wolves were released between 1987 

and 1992 at the Alligator River National Refuge in Eastern North Carolina. 

Before FWS introduced the wolves, the agency held information meetings and 

hearings to educate the public on the ramifications of the experiment. Under Fed- eral law, FWS must receive consent from the land owner to impose any restrictions on the land owners. However, both residents and local governments half-heartedly 

gave consent for the re-introduction experiment. The residents questioned the policy 

pertaining to the interaction of the wolves on private property. 

The owners feared that the wolves would eventually "migrate" outside the Federal 

territory adjacent to private property causing a concern for safety. The FWS eased 

the apprehension by establishing a policy which allowed the wolf to be "taken'" if 

livestock or an individual was in danger. However, the Federal government re- scinded the policy and in turn created a new policy in connection with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, even though the species has not yet been placed on the 

endangered list. In resistance, the State of North Carolina adopted legislation allowing private property owners to trap and kill red wolves that are on their property 

and are considered a threat to the livestock,/rovided that the land owner has previously requested the FWS to remove there wolf. Unfortunately, the Federal government does not acknowledge the law. 

To further complicate the situation, the red wolf has similar physical features as the coyote due to years of interbreeding. As imagined it is difficult to distinguish 
9 

between the two, even FWS biologist have a difficult time. The landowner may legally shoot a coyote but not a red wolf. If the two animals are so similar how can the landowner be held accountable for a common mistake when they are protecting 

their livestock or better yet a young child? 

Currently, the citizens of Northeast North Carolina are not sure what to do if a red wolf becomes a threat on their property. It is unfortunate that these people fear 

for their lives, livestock, and especially the lives of small children. Since when did 

an animal's life become more valuable than a human being? 

I believe in protecting animals that are endangered, however I also feel that the 

safety of the human being must be considered first. Taxpaying citizens deserve the 

right of feeling safe in and around their surroundings. As a committee, we must protect the rights of the private property owner and give the citizens some sense of se- curity if it be fencing in Federal land or removing the animal in question from populated areas. Please take these examples into consideration during the appropriation process. Thank you. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I would first like to recognize for testimony today 

Senator Craig Thomas from Wyoming. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and 

thank you for the opportunity to be back. 

Bruce, nice to see you and all of you. It is a delight. 

I will be brief partly because we have to go vote and partly because this is your hearing. I am glad you are having it. I am sure 

we will also have a hearing in the Senate that has to do with this 

matter. So I do have a copy of Senator Simpson's statement here, 

and, if I may, I would like to submit that for the record. 

Let me just summarize and submit my comments for the record 

as well and make two or three points. 

First of all, to make it clear, I have never supported the artificial 

introduction of wolves in Yellowstone Park and I still do not, and 

for several reasons. One, of course, is, if the wolves were to remain 

in Yellowstone Park, then that would be quite a different matter. 

Clearly they will not, and, as a matter of fact, those in Idaho have 

already begun their trek out. So they will not stay there, and they 

will not be confined to the Park. 

Secondly I have never been persuaded that the visitors to the 

Park, that many of the visitors to the Park, will find their enjoyment increased particularly by having wolves in that Park, that 

they will not be adding a great deal to the enjoyment of the visitors, and, as we know and as you know, and as you know, Mr. 

Vento, the funding for the Parks has been one of our most difficult 

things, and here we are spending I don't know how much. In fact, 

that is one of the issues I hope you will address. We were told 

there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 million spent. 

I am sure there will be many times $6 million spent before this is 

over. 

Yellowstone Park, along with the other Parks, has a great many 

demands and needs in their facilities for additional funding, and it 

is difficult for me to accept the notion that we spend largely because of the efforts of the scientists within the Park. The people 

who have made the investigations, the people who have done the 

studies, have been the people who wanted the wolves in the Park 

in the first place, and there has been very little attention paid to 
10 

those of us outside of that. So it seems to me that that still continues to be the case. 

Then, of course, because of the leaving of the Park, there will be 

the inevitable destroying of personal property, and I think what effectively amounts to unfunded mandates for the State of Wyoming 

for the involvement they will have. That has been the case with the 

grizzly, with the endangered species. Wyoming has undertaken, 

and you will hear later testimony today, their responsibility to deal 

with the federally mandated activities relating to endangered species with no reimbursement, and there has been substantial cost 

there. So those are the reasons that I have opposed and continue 

to oppose this introduction. 

I, too, have had conversations with the Secretary, conversations 

with the Department. There is legal activity going on. I have requested that these wolves be withheld from introduction at least 

until that litigation is resolved. That apparently has not been the 

case. So I think there are serious problems not only with what will 

happen but the process under which the wolves came there. 

I am concerned too that there is apparently less flexibility under 

this experimental program than we had been led to believe. It will 

be very difficult, as I understand the details, it will be very difficult 

for a rancher, for instance, to protect his property. There will have 

to be sightings, they will have to actually catch the critter in the 

process of destroying the livestock to be able to do anything about 

it. Now I am not sure that will always be the case, but that is the 

rule, and that I believe was not what we were told in the beginning, that this experimental process would provide ample opportunity for people to protect their private property. I think that is 

probably not the case. Madam Chairman, I think these are many of the issues that 

need to be talked about. I am delighted that you are talking about 

them. Also, I am also from Wyoming. I am delighted that you are 

there, and I appreciate the opportunity to join with you. We, I am 

sure, will continue to talk about it more. So I will submit my statement for the record and thank you again for the opportunity. [The statement of Senator Thomas follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. It is good 

to be back before the House Resources Committee and to work with my good friend, 

Congresswoman Barbara Cubin, on this issue which is so important to our state. 

I have always been opposed to introducing wolves into Yellowstone Park. These 

animals will pose a clear threat to livestock and game populations living in and near the park, tie-up public lands, cost the State of Wyoming millions of dollars in 

management costs and will cause severe economic hardship for many folks in my 

state. In addition, at a time when our nation is faced with a massive Federal budget 

deficit, it is not wise to spend millions of dollars on an open-ended program to introduce wolves to Yellowstone. Finally, I am also concerned about the burden being 

placed on the State of Wyoming to manage these animals when they leave the park. Clearly, wolf introduction will be costly. Although the Fish and Wildlife Service 

claims this plan will cost roughly $6.7 million to implement, it will be much more expensive. The program is open-ended and will require annual expenditures that 

will cost the American people millions of dollars. 

This increased cost is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that Yellowstone 

Park faces a number of financial problems. Every year the Wyoming congressional 

delegation must fight to obtain funds for Yellowstone. Many roads and buildings need repair and maintenance. I believe it makes more sense to spend money on 
11 

property projects that help preserve this beautiful area for us and our children, 

rather than reducing resources for the Park by introducing the wolf. 

Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has gone ahead with its plans and 

released wolves into Yellowstone and Idaho. This was done against my strong objec- tions and the objections of the entire Wyoming congressional delegation, Governor 

Jim Geringer and many folks throughout the region. This premature action, done 

before all of the legal and other questions about wolf introduction are answered, has 

created an enormous problem. In its fervor to place these animals in Yellowstone, 

the Department of the Interior has created a legal and management problem for all 

of the states in the region. In addition, the Department of the Interior has not fully answered all of the questions about how wolves will be managed when they leave Yellowstone Park. Undoubtedly, wolves will expand their territory and leave the Park. This will cause livestock losses on surrounding ranches, losses to game populations and harm the 

economy of local communities in the region. 

Supporters of wolf introduction claim funds will be made available for ranchers 

who lose livestock to the wolf, but this process is unworkable. Proving that a wolf 

has killed livestock is burdensome and places ranchers in a very difficult position. 

Managing these animals is even more difficult, and although there is a provision 

in the law that allows ranchers to kill wolves who attack their livestock, this is 

nearly an impossible process. 

The people of Wyoming have the right to have all of their concerns addressed 

about wolf introduction. Unfortunately, the Federal government is trying to impose 

its will on the people of my state without answering all of the important questions 

that still remain about this proposal. I oppose this initiative and urge the Department of the Interior to halt 1ts introduction efforts and remove the wolves already 

placed in the region. Clearly, the points against the plan far outweigh any arguments on this issue. 

Thanks again for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today and dis- cuss this issue which is so important to my state. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much for being here, Senator. 

Next I would like to call on Senator Conrad Burns from the State 

of Wyoming-! mean Montana. Excuse me. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Did we forget the 

45th parallel? Is that what we are dealing with here. 

[Laughter.] 

It seems like the attitudes change on both sides of that line. 

I want to thank you very much for holding these hearings and 

allowing me to just add a few words, and I will recap also as we 

have to go vote. 

It is nice to see my friend over there. I would be not honest with 

this Committee. It is nice to see that he is serving over on the minority side. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. For a while. 

Senator BURNS. I just had to throw that in there. 

[Laughter.] 

I would say that seeing this whole process and I guess ever since 

that I have been representing my State on this issue, that we have 

been concerned about this whole scenario for the last six or seven 

years, and knowing what was going to come did come, and it was 

highly predictable, and it is also highly predictable animals will do. 

They will not stay where they are being reintroduced. In fact, they 

are already showing signs. I guess we have got one that was planted in Idaho. I would just say to you folks in Idaho to come and get 

your wolf; he is over in Montana. But they have a canine instinct. 

These folks are going to go home, they aren't going to stay where 
12 

you implant them, and in that process it lends itself, the livestock 

industry, to a lot of vulnerability. 

The cost on this, I wish you would actually get out and get the 

costs on the table. I serve on the Appropriations over there, and 

here we have passed an attitude problem that we have. We passed 

the California Desert bill, we have got all this private property to 

buy in California and no money to buy it, and with the Secretary's 

own admittance saying that the infrastructure to the Park, we 

have got to do something about living quarters, we have got to do 

something about hotels, we have got to do something about roads, 

yet we are spending between $6 and $12 million on reintroduction 

on an animal that probably will not be there a year from today, 

and it seems like we had better talk about priorities. 

Now I understand and I have seen the rhetoric that the Fish and 

Wildlife has said there will probably be a loss of around 50 head 

of cattle and 200 head of sheep. Now if you believe those numbers, 

I have got a bridge I want to sell you up in Yellowstone County. 

We are in the six-figure losses now in the sheep business in Montana to the coyote alone, let alone the wolf. Six figures every year 

lost just in the sheep industry, and the biggest share of that in one 

county. So those figures, we cannot hang our hat on those figures. And the sportsmen and the livestock people, I guess when they 

gave testimony it was completely disregarded, because it didn't 

make any difference what they testified to, the reintroduction was 

going to happen with everything else just set aside, and I don't 

think that is a very good way to get along with your neighbors if 

you have got a Park that is located in a three-State area, and we 

have got other situations that are connected to the bison and the 

way they are roaming around in the Park. If you took your wildlife populations back to where that Park can 

carry it and carry it comfortably-because the land, you do have 

limitations, it will only carry so much plant life, only so much animal life, you can't make it carry more than it can sustain itself, 

and that is the soil, and that is where it is. You are reintroducing 

a an animal in the middle of the winter when there is no prey base. 

In fact, all the deer and elk and everything it is going to prey on 

is on private property, and in two weeks, Members of this Committee, we start calving. We start calving. 

Now it may be an insignificant loss of livestock to the fish and 

game people, but if you are a rancher-and I don't care about the 

groups that are going to say we are going to pay for that livestock-inside each stock man is an inbred whatever that we don't 

bring livestock into the world just to see it wasted. There is something inherent about a stockman. Why do you 

think we pay these vet bills and why do you think we stay up at 

night bringing this livestock into being then just be taken and 

wasted away on an experiment that we see very little value in and 

the American taxpayer is going to pick up the bill probably on 

both? 

So I would ask the hard questions if we are going to divert 

money from infrastructure to this experiment that has a little bit 

of doubt whether it will be successful or not. 

So I would submit rny testimony. I thank you for holding these 

hearings, I thank you for allowing us to testify, and Madam Chair, 
13 

we in Montana are awfully privileged and glad that you are where 

you are too, and thank you. 

[The statement of Senator Burns follows:] 

STATEMENT OF H ON. CONRAD BURNS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM M ONTANA 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify this morning. This is a very 

important issue for Montana and I am pleased to be here. 

I have two concerns about the Administration's plan to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone National Park. First is the effects this plan has on the livestock industry, 

and the other is the cost to the American taxpayer. 

Agriculture is Montana's number one industry-it pulls the wagon in my state. And the livestock business is pretty important to Montana, including those in the 

southwest corner of the state. The wolf recovery plan threatens that industry. It is 

just that simple. This spring ranchers will be protecting their new commoditiescalves. With the increasing number of wolves and other predators, this commodityand yes, livestock is a commodity-is put even more at nsk. 

By their own estimates, the Fish and Wildlife Service says the reintroduction program would result in the loss of up to 50 cattle and 200 sheep per year. Although 

this is insignificant to the Fish and Wildlife Service, it is significant to livestock producers. Some have said the wolf should be reintroduced because the new population will 

be an "experimental population." This supposedly would give ranchers and other 

land owners the ability to take appropriate actions in protecting their property. But some groups are now petitioning the courts to have this "experimental status" 

stripped from the population. Where is this whole process going to end? 

The next concern I have is cost. Why are we spending millions of dollars on this 

project, when Yellowstone Park's infrastructure is falling down around our ears? 

There are millions of dollars of work which needs to be done within Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the Parks 

within your state, and all the other states in this country, are also in need of repair. 

As a member of the Interior Appropriatbns Subcommittee, I have seen the list of 

projects for infrastructure improvements. These improvements must be made to 

allow folks to have safe and enjoyable visits to the units of our National Park System. These improvements are also needed to protect the environment of the parks, 

monuments and memorials. 

The question is, where are our priorities? I think they should be maintaining the 

parks so future generations can exrerience them. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad dea for Montana ranchers and taxpayers. Thank you 

for allowing me to testify this morning. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Senator Burns. 

I appreciate both of you being here. We understand you have to 

leave, so we will just get on with our business. Have a good day. 

Now we will go into our regular order of opening statements. 

Is there anyone on the Republican side that has an opening 

statement? 

Mr. POMBO. We will submit statements for the record. 

Mrs. CUBIN. OK. 

[The statements follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the Fish and Wildlife Service's Gray Wolf Reintroduction Program. I am pleased to see that the Resources 

Committee is playing a balanced and critical role in this important and highly con- tentious issue. 

While my district is not directly affected by the introduction of the Gray Wolf, I 

believe that my experience as a rancher qualifies me to have immediate and important concerns about this program. I understand the frustrations felt in the livestock 

industry towards the Federal government and the preservationist community. It 

seems that when the Federal government initiates a new resource policy-or re- structures an old one-the concerns of ranchers and farmers are often overlooked. 

This program is another example of this. For years, citizens were encouraged by the 

Federal government to remove Gray Wolves from the Northern Rockies, and now we are literally carrying them right back. 
14 

I would like to say that I am pleased that the Secretary has given his assurances that the Service is allowing for flexibility in the management of these new wolf populations through the "experimental designation" provision under the Endangered 

Species Act. I am glad that it is understood that there are circumstances when 

ranchers must be afforded the ability to deal with the risks of stray or attacking 

wolves. 

I am concerned, however, with the migrating population of wolves from Canada 

and northern Montana which are not part of this experimental population. These 

wolves are still afforded the full protection of the ESA, thus leaving little or no flexibility for resource managers, ranchers, or other private citizens to protect their interests. Unless there is a sure-fire way of distinguishing between the two types of 

wolves, citizens and research managers will be faced with the problem of determining "which wolf is which." 

In other words, how is a rancher supposed to know that the wolf who is preying on his livestock is part of the experimental population or part of a protected migrating population? What are the consequences of injuring a migrating wolf if an individual is unable to distinguish between the two? I am particularly interested in 

hearing from the Secretary on this issue. This situation, I feel, has confusion and 

ambiguity built in. 

In addition to my concerns with the ESA, I hope that we also touch upon the private property rights issues in the course of this debate. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today's testimony. It is my 

hope that Secretary Babbitt, as well as the remaining witnesses, will alleviate some of the concerns I have about the Gray Wolf reintroduction plan. I might add, Mr. 

Chairman, that I'm glad to see that this hearing is taking place in a timely and 

balanced manner. You are off to a good start. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A U .S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing concerning the Fish and Wildlife Service's reintroduction of Canadian gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park 

and the Central Idaho Wilderness. 

As a member of this Committee, it is my duty to serve and protect the people of 

this nation who depend upon me to safeguard their rights as property owners and 

taxpayers. 

As such, I am opposed to introducing wolves into Yellowstone Park. The wolves 

will pose a threat to both game and livestock, endangering the rights of ranchers, 

hunters, public land users, private property owners, and state and local governments. It will cost the taxpayers over $6 million just to relocate these animals into 

Yellowstone and central Idaho. This does not include the cost in lost livestock, damage to private property, and use of public land. 

Although I am pleased with the limited rights afforded property owners to protect 

their property, I am concerned that the measures are not adequate for the task. The 

limitation that ranchers would be able to take a wolf only if it was observed actually 

in the act of wounding or killing the livestock on private property is a very rare occurrence, especially with the vast ranchers so common in the area. In addition, I am concerned that the Fish and Wildlife Service has acknowledged no responsibility for those losses faced by ranchers and other private property own- ers. I do not believe we should once again place the burden of feeding and sheltering 

listed species on the taxpayers fortunate enough to have such species thrust upon 

them, especially under an experimental program such as this. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing in such a timely and organized manner. I look forward to today's testimony. I hope Secretary Babbitt and 

other witnesses will alleviate my concerns regarding this program. I look forward 

to hearing from all of those eoncerned with this issue. 

Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, are we going to hear from Congressman Crapo? 

Mrs. CUBIN. We can do that. 

Mr. HANSEN. And then I would like to have an opening statement, but I would prefer to hear his statement first. 

Mrs. CUBIN. You bet. I will recognize Representative Crapo. 
15 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO 

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman and other Members of 

the Committee. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity totestify this morning and holding this hearing. I especially appreciated 

the comments of Representative Chenoweth from Idaho. She and I 

have talked a lot about this issue and share the concern of Idahoans with what is happening in our State. 

I would also like to thank Representative JoAn Wood from Idaho, 

who will testify on the second panel today, who has traveled here 

from the Idaho House of Representatives. She is the chairman of 

the Transportation and Defense Committee and sits on, I believe, 

the Resource and Conservation Committee and is very active in the 

resource issues in Idaho. 

In that regard, Madam Chairman, I have received a letter from 

all of the elected officials and members of the legislature in the 

State of Idaho with regard to how they feel the State was treated 

in this process, and I would like to submit this letter for the record 

if it would be permissible with the chairman. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Without objection. [The letter may be found at end of hearing.) 

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you. As a former State Senator from Idaho, I am greatly concerned 

with the heavy-handed approach that was employed by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service in the reintroduction of wolves in Idaho. I 

won't repeat some of the concerns that were raised by the Senators 

with regard to this specific introduction, but I want to point out 

that it is my understanding that, of the States involved, none of 

these States has been able to get a State wolf management plan 

approved by Fish and Wildlife Service because of major disagreements with the Service over the management costs, the management procedures for the wolves, the issues of allowing private take 

and protecting current programs for predator control that are necessary, and I think it is very critical to point out something here. The State agencies-! know this for Idaho, and I assume it for the 

other States involved-have been involved in managing natural resources since Statehood. The people close to the issues are managing it, and they are doing a pretty decent job. 

We have our own fights out in Idaho about how we should manage our resources, but I can tell you, we do a lot better in Idaho 

when left alone and when we don't have to have the input or the 

heavy hand of the Federal Government coming in and telling us 

how the resources should be managed. 

I want to restate something that has already been referred to 

here today. In his State of the Union Address two nights ago, 

President Clinton said: ''We need to get government closer to the 

people the it is meant to serve. We need to help move programs 

down to the point where States and communities and private citizens in the private sector can do a better job. If they can do it we 

ought to let them do it," and what I say is, in Idaho, and I'm sure 

the other States that are involved here, we can do it, yet we have 

not been able to get the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow the 

States to manage this issue as they properly should. 
16 

And what are some of the issues over which there has been concern? Well, one of the issues which has already been referred to is 

the fact that the only way that we can deal with predator control 

is if the wolves are found in the act of wounding or killing livestock 

on private land. Those who manage the resources know that that 

is not a very reasonable way to approach predator control. 

I don't know the answer to this, but Congressman Vento indicated that Minnesota does have a program for dealing with impacts 

on private property with the wolves in Minnesota. I suspect that 

whatever predator control program Minnesota has or other States 

that are allowed to deal with their programs does not have such 

an incredibly rigid standard for how the issue should be addressed. 

Another issue is compensation for livestock. If we are going to go 

ahead with this kind of an approach, how will we deal with the impact on the private property and the taking of livestock by the Federal action? The proposals that have been put out are that the Defenders of Wildlife has a compensation program and therefore the 

Federal Government doesn't need to compensate. Well, first of all, 

you know, this is kind of an interesting twist on the unfunded 

mandates issue. Since we aren't going to be able to push it off on 

to the States and local governments any more, we will say that the 

private sector will pay for it, and let's hope that they continue to 

be agreeable to do so because if they ever decide that they won't 

then we don't have any Federal system in place that says there 

must be compensation. 

Impact on private property. The proposal states that any restrictions on private property would occur only with the complete landowner cooperation and concurrence. But that is all it says. We need 

to address the question of what the impacts on private property are 

going to be and protect private property interests. 

There are also access restriction issues relating to public lands, 

and I guess I would just conclude by saying that again we could 

fight over how to properly manage on each of these issues for a 

long time, but the central question to be addressed here is: Who 

should be making the decisions? Are we going to continue the caretaking mentality of the Federal Government that says that we 

know best how to take care of you out there in America, or are we 

going to say that we trust the people in the States to be able to 

control themselves and to be able to manage their own lives and 

destinies? It is time for the Federal Government to stop being our 

caretaker and to start letting Americans care for themselves. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Representative Crapo. 

We won't be taking any questions now. We will go back to the 

opening statements. 

I recognize Mr. Williams for an opening remark. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. I want to be brief because we have 

got a long and good list-a long list of good witnesses, and I want 

to hear from them, beginning with the good Secretary. 

Political adrenaline is inflammable, and the wolf in the west ignites a fire storm, and with most political fire storms there is not 

much reason that prevails. Today one of the things I hope we can 

do is douse the politics and listen to the reason. 
17 

As a Montanan, I have paid a lot of attention to the wolf ever 

since I read "Little Red Riding Hood." I have disabused myself of 

that myth however, but in paying attention to the wolf since those 

days of recognizing that most that we hear about the wolf is a 

myth, I have come nonetheless to begin to understand two things. 

First, Americans, including Government officials, made a tragic 

mistake when they exterminated the wolf, every last living breathing wolf, from the United States. That was a mistake. 

Second, wolves are going to return to the United States and are 

now returning. In Montana we have six packs of five dozen wolves 

total. That natural return is supported by the overwhelming number of people both in the United States and in Montana. It is the 

unnatural, artificial, mechanical return and management, hands-on 

everyday management of the unnatural wolf, that is at question 

here. 

I have been resistant-trying to be reasonably resistant-! have 

been resistant to the unnatural return of the wolf to Idaho, Montana, Yellowstone, to anywhere in the United States, and I want 

to listen to our witnesses and, Madam Chairman, ask some questions so that I can come to better grips with this. 

Finally, let me just say that I am hopeful that we can put the 

politics aside and deal with this issue in as impassioned a manner 

as possible. I thank you for the time, Madam Chairman-less impassioned. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Are there any further opening remarks? 

Representative Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I always find it interesting when we come before these committees, of all the so-called credible witnesses that we have that appear before us, we find that many people just have the fire in their 

belly and for some reason have a great determination that they feel 

very strongly about something, whether it be wilderness, wild and 

scenic rivers, or introduction like we are doing today of the gray 

wolf into that particular ecosystem. 

I always worry though that sometimes we don't come up with the 

science that is necessary to back up what we are saying. Just because we feel strongly about it and we have the burning in our 

bosom is hardly the criterion of whether we should do it. 

In this particular instance, I think we have to turn to those people who have the science and the understanding. There is a Dr. 

Charles E. Kay who is reputed to be the foremost expert in this 

particular area. He couldn't care less if wolves are in Yellowstone 

or they are not in Yellowstone. All he knows is how it works, how 

this one species would become part and parcel of that mix that goes 

into that particular area, and we will talk about Yellowstone. 

In order to do this justice and do what the intent and purpose 

is, to make this one of the parts of it and not an unnatural thing 

just shoved in for a moment-if we are going to do that, we might 

as well put it in a cage at the Yellowstone Lodge and everyone go 

by and look at it. But if it is going to become part of that ecosystem 

and have so many moose and elk and deer and whatever else it 

eats, and be part of it, he gave a very long and well thought out 
18 

and scientific manuscript by Dr. Kay concerning it. I think you 

would find it interesting, what he says. 

It appears that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed its 

10 wolf packs, 100-wolf recovery goals, with little or no supporting 

scientific evidence. I won't bore you with the whole thing, but he 

goes on to say, instead of a total of 300 wolves, in order to make 

this mix we are talking about-in order to become part and parcel 

of this thing so it works, he says you are looking at 1,500 to 2,000 

wolves in order to have it work. 

So we are going to play this little experiment, we are going to 

pay a lot of Federal tax dollars, we are going to pick these things 

up, bring them down and put them in the area, and then we are 

going to have to somehow hold it down. 

Also I understand if they go out beyond Yellowstone-and I know 

they can't read, and I know they will go beyond that, and I know 

some of the things they do because my family comes from a ranching background also and I go back and read my great grandfather's 

journal and how they hunted them and some of the savage things 

that went on. Anyhow, that is besides the point. These aren't 

coyotes, you know. Anyway, beyond that point, how are we going 

to hold them at that? How are we going to keep them in the Parks? 

All of these things; it is fraught with these questions. 

Madam Chairman, I would advise the Members of the Committee and I would be happy to furnish them this very fine, well 

thought out scientific information from Dr. Kay. He couldn't care 

less. He is not here as an expert on either side of this issue. He 

is just saying this is how it really works. Now we can pass all kinds of laws. When I was speaking in the 

Utah House, do you know what the state legislature did in Utah? 

They passed a law that said the Great Salt Lake couldn't come up 

over 4,200 feet. No one told the Great Salt Lake that, and the rain 

came up took out I-15 and part of the railroads. I think to a certain extent we are passing a law that says: "Wolf, stay at 300, only 

do your thing, don't go beyond that." I think it is totally unrealistic, 

and thank you for your time. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Representative Hansen. 

Are there any other opening remark remarks? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Representative Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Representative Crapo asked me to submit into 

the record a letter that he sent to Secretary Babbitt on January 11, 

1995. With your permission, I would like to do that. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Without objection. 

[The letter may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Hearing no other opening remarks, I would like to 

invite Secretary Babbitt up to the table for his testimony. I would 

like to thank him for coming. 

Welcome to the Committee hearing, and we are certainly anxious 

to hear your remarks. 
19 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, UNITED STATES 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

Secretary BABBITT. Madam Chairman, Committee Members, it is 

a pleasure to be back as the sun rises on a new era in this town, 

a new committee, and I honestly believe a new chance to continue 

a dialog in a spirited, factual way and in the process to find some 

new insights and to, notwithstanding the many obvious differences, 

to make some progress and to define some common ground. 

I think at the outset I should just briefly state my position on 

this issue, and then I would like to discuss some of the facts as I 

see them. 

I support the wolf introduction. I think it has been a thoughtful, 

well designed, scientifically based program that has been carried 

out with exceptional skill and diligence and consultation by the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the highest tradition of 

that agency. 

I was personally in Yellowstone National Park several weeks ago 

because I believe that the reintroduction of the gray wolf to that 

Park is an historic moment and an important chapter in American 

history. I believe that the greatest of our National Parks in the 

Lower 48, in some large measure because of the extraordinary diversity of the wildlife and the functioning of that national system, 

I think of it as an American Serengeti. It is really an extraordinary 

display of primitive America, and the wolf is the only missing component in that system. 

The Park needs the wolf. Several of the speakers have already 

referred to the fact that there are an awful lot of ungulents in that 

Park, some 30,000 elk, 4,000 bison, and one reason that those animals are moving up the population curve is precisely the absence 

of this predator. 

I was in the Lamar Valley, and I can tell you, it was mid-winter 

but I think there was an elk on every square acre of that land, to 

say nothing of bison, and my advice, figuratively to the wolves is: 

You are at the best banquet table in North America in the confines 

of Yellowstone National Park. I must say just a few sentences about my personal interest in 

this issue. My family has been in the livestock business, both cattle 

ranching and sheep ranching, for moving up now to five generations in Arizona, and my grandfather and his brothers were part 

of the eradication movement that extirpated the wolves from the 

Lower 48 States. They were gone in Arizona very early on, and I 

have always had occasion to reflect about why it was that there 

was such a sort of vengeful kind of attempt to eliminate every last 

wolf. 

I am now the Secretary of a Department which was a part of 

that process, a Department whose declared policy for the better 

part of a century, in writing, with the approval of this Congress, 

was to extirpate every single wolf from the lands of the United 

States. So it is now with a sense of that history that I would say 

to you there is room in the west for wolves and there is room, plenty of room, in the west for a healthy, vibrant, dynamic, livestock 

economy. 

Now in that context, I would like to make two points. The first 

one is that there has now been for more than six years an unprece-
20 

dented level of congressional participation, of State participation, of 

public participation in this process. It began in 1988 in the fullest 

sense when Congress directed studies by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service on wolf reintroduction. Then as that process began, in 1990 

Congress, again on the basis of hearings, created a wolf management committee and asked that committee to devise a plan. That 

was a committee of Federal, State, and tribal representatives. Following on that, in 1991 the parties were again before the Congress, 

and this Congress directed the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The Fish and Wildlife Service began that process, and as a part 

of that process during the month of April in 1992 the Service conducted 27 public hearings in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. The 

Service returned again in August of that same year for another 27 

public hearings in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the scoping 

and issue definition process that Jed to the publication of an environmental impact statement. 

As a result of the distribution and the publicity, newspaper ads, 

radio mailings, the Service received 160,000 responses, which is 

near the high end for all time in terms of responses to the EIS 

process within this Department. 

Based on the environmental impact statement, the Department 

and the Service made modifications, drafted a rule, went back out 

in 1994, and held six public hearings in these same three States 

on the rule prior to its final revision and publication. 

Secondly, just a word about the contents of that rule based upon 

this interactive participatory process with States, Federal agencies, 

Forest Service, the public, all the interested parties. The rule which 

was published and which we discuss today I believe provides the 

best and most balanced way of dealing with this issue. Now the important thing referred to by Representative Williams 

is that there really are two ways to view this issue in the northern 

Rocky Mountain States. One is to allow the process of natural infiltration to take its course. The other is a planned and prepared reintroduction of the wolf. Now as the congressman indicated, there 

is no question that over time the infiltration of wolves southward 

of Canada would take place. They are already six packs in northwestern Montana, some 60 to 65 wolves, and there is no question 

that process would continue. Under the law as enunciated by the 

United States Congress, those wolves are clearly an endangered 

species entitled to the rather rigid protection for natural infiltration and reintroduction under the Endangered Species Act. The experimental provisions of the Act enacted by the Congress allow reintroduction to take place under a much more flexible, relaxed set 

of standards known as experimental nonessential introduction. 

Now given the fact that a protected endangered species would ultimately arrive in the Idaho mountains and in Yellowstone and 

looking at the provisions of this Act, it was the judgment of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, with the approval, supervision, and direction of the United States Congress, that we could do a better job 

of managing any potential conflicts of working out the interface between these populations and livestock under the reintroduction 

rules which explicitly provide for control of the populations, removal of wolves which become a problem for the take or killing of 
21 

wolves in defined circumstances, and ultimately then contemplate 

turning the management over to the States in accordance with a 

plan and moving the wolves off the Endangered Species List, at 

which time the States will have entire discretionary freedom to 

control and manage the wolf population outside of Parks and wildlife refuges. 

The plan that is now being implemented contemplates a course 

of action which will result in the wolf being off the Endangered 

Species List. The northern gray wolf will be off the Endangered 

Species List by the year 2002, at which point the States will retain 

complete discretion to manage these populations in accordance with 

their own game and fish management plans. That is the reason for 

this process. It reflects a considered judgment that this is a vastly 

superior way to handle this issue with more controls, more flexibility under existing law. 

Now what does the rule do? I invite your attention to the rule. 

It is lengthy and complex. It has clear, specific provisions worked 

out after intense discussions and consultation and revisions, and 

more revisions, and more consultation, and more discussion that 

govern the issues that livestock operators and others are asking: 

When can a wolf be taken? Or, to put it in plain language, when 

can a wolf be shot or removed or otherwise disposed of? The rule 

as a result of these discussions has very precise language which I 

believe is helpful for the Service and helpful for the ranchers. What 

we don't want is misunderstanding about what the rules are. 

The rule about management and take is graded as a function of 

stocking and recovery of the wolf. It is a little more restrictive right 

now at initial introduction. At the time that six breeding pairs are 

in a population area, the restrictions are considerably relaxed, and 

at the time that there are 10 breeding pairs for three consecutive 

years in any of these areas the rules then fall away, taking us back 

to complete discretionary State management. We can't do any of 

those things with natural infiltration under the existing Federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

Now the second thing that this rule does-and I am overlapping 

a bit here--is, it invites State management pursuant to cooperative 

management plans. Now over the last several years there has been 

intensive participation with the State game and fish agencies in 

the three affected States. There are as yet no approved conservation plans in the three States. We have come very close in Idaho 

where, as a result of this process, the Idaho Game and Fish Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service came together upon an 

agreed plan. 

In the last month or two the Idaho legislature has taken up the 

draft plan, tentatively approved it, and begun to debate several of 

the revisions which I think are problematical under the Endangered Species Act. We are going to continue working on that. I 

firmly believe that if we keep after it in Wyoming, Montana, and 

Idaho to the extent that the State agencies want to do it-and I 

know their game and fish departments do-that we can put together conservation plans which will put the State into the major 

role through this transition to the point at which the wolf is taken 

off the list and the State then assumes complete discretion. 
22 

I believe that if we stay on the track, if we continue the plan that 

has been implicitly approved again and again by this Congress, 

that we can move through this process with a minimum of conflict, 

if we talk to each other in a spirit of good will, that we can achieve 

a result which will be very satisfactory to everyone involved. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Secretary Babbitt may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Acknowledging that the Committee on Resources has established 

a limit of five minutes for questioning, I will begin the questioning 

and use my five minutes. 

The introduction of the Canadian gray wolf into both Yellowstone 

and central Idaho contemplates and they expect that released 

wolves will move from the Federal lands on to and across private 

and State lands. Areas designated as experimental areas under the 

plans include the entire State of Wyoming-could someone hold 

this up. 

[The chart, "Gray Wolf Experimental Area" may be found at end 

of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. The entire State of Wyoming, 90 percent of the 

State of Idaho, and approximately 60 percent of the State of Montana. 

The States are generally responsible for management and control 

of the wildlife that occur within their jurisdictions so the importation and release of the Canadian gray wolves within the States introduced a major predator whose presence affects the entire food 

chain, including the status of all other forms of wildlife for which 

the State government is responsible for management. 

I want to just point out, I have a headline here from the Bozeman Chronicle. It says: "Group suggests banning people where 

wolves live." Well, I wonder if what the groups want is to remove 

all the people from the State of Wyoming, 90 percent of the State 

of Idaho, and 60 percent of the State of Montana. 

You stated that none of the States have their management plan 

in place. The EIS, as far as I can tell, was not-comment period 

ended in October of 1994, and then the wolves were released January 13 or January 14. Now that didn't give the States very long to 

adopt a management plan. 

Final rules refer in many places to the development and implementation of State management plans to govern certain aspects of 

the introduction program after the wolves are released. Why did 

you not wait until the States had the opportunity to put a plan in 

place, and how do you expect States to provide a management plan 

when they didn't have any time to do it? 

Secretary BABBITT. Madam Chairman, this process has now been 

going on intensively with the States for six years. 

Now the conservation plans are not required by Federal law. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service wrote this into the rule because it seemed 

to be a good idea. But those conservation plans are not intended 

to provide a veto power to the States, because that would be contrary to the laws enacted by this Congress. More importantly, I would simply say to the affected States, I am 

ready and willing to continue these discussions, and if you are hav-
23 

ing problems I am perfectly willing to sit down with the parties 

personally and to wrestle this thing out. The largest trajectory on 

this issue lies ahead of us, and I would suggest that rather than 

sort of lamenting the past what we might do is talk about where 

we go from here to 2002. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, Mr. Secretary, I think the point I am trying 

to drive at is that since the final EIS wasn't done until just a few 

months ago, it would be extremely difficult for the States to have 

produced a management plan that could be accepted by the Federal 

Government within a couple of months. 

So the point I am driving at is, did you or did anybody on your 

staff or did anybody you know have any discussions about hurrying 

up and getting those wolves introduced into the Park as soon as 

possible, into the States as soon as possible, so that the Congress, 

the new Congress, wouldn't have a chance to work on reauthorizing 

the Endangered Species Act and possibly limiting some of the-limiting the introduction or at least giving more protection to the 

States and to private property owners? Did any of you have those 

discussions? 

Secretary BABBITT. No. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Who has primary responsibility for managers of the 

wolves on State and private lands, the Federal Government or the 

State Governments? And also, I think the rule is quiet on State 

lands. It talks about public lands whenever there is a problem with 

livestock, for example, talks about public lands, and it talks about 

private lands, but it doesn't talk about State lands. 

Secretary BABBITT. Madam Chairman, as I explained in my 

opening statement, the mixture and interaction between State 

game and fish agencies and the Fish and Wildlife Service varies 

across the pathway of introduction from relatively more Federal 

regulation mandated by the Endangered Species Act in the early 

stages to a complete phase-out of Federal involvement when the recovery plan is complete. 

Mrs. CUBIN. The governor of Wyoming has written you a letter 

that the interested State require that certain factors occur before 

the wolves should be reintroduced into Wyoming and requesting 

that the wolves remain in their pens until those circumstances 

have occurred. What is your response to that letter? I don't believe 

he has heard from you yet. 

Secretary BABBITT. Sure. I will be seeing the governor this weekend and of course will be pleased to discuss it with him. 

The plan I believe very properly says that the biologists will 

make the determination as to when is, in the maximum interests 

of the recovery plan and the prospects for wolf adaptation within 

Yellowstone, to release them from the pens. 

Mrs. CUBIN. The State or Federal biologists? 

Secretary BABBITT. Well, the pens in Yellowstone are-well, they 

are within Yellowstone National Park and the biologists will make 

the determination of when to release them from that pen. 

Now the reason they are in that pen is because although not athere is not a vast amount of knowledge about this; there is some 

biology to suggest that at least in the circumstances of the Lamar 

Valley, that they will acclimate and get a little more disposed to 

stay put if they acclimate within the pen. 
24 

They are being fed carcasses of elk, deer, I believe bison. That 

is a deliberate attempt to sort of persuade them that this is the ultimate banquet table, that all they need to do is step out those 

pens and look around and there is more of it everywhere you look. 

I mean I can avow to that because I have been up there and looked 

at it. 

Now when the optimum time comes I believe is a biological decision. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I would state, however, that 100 wolves certainly wouldn't make 

much of an impact on a 30,000 herd of elk. Secretary BABBI'IT. I don't think it will make much impact on elk 

or bison of cattle or any other animal. 

Mrs. CUBIN. My point is that saying that the Park needs the 

wolves in order to cull the herd of elk, 100 wolves isn't going to cull 

a 30,000 herd of elk. But my time is up. 

Mr. Vento, did you have any questions? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, Madam Chairman, I do. Thank you. Welcome, Secretary Babbitt. 

The issue, of course, deals with and there has been some discussion about the State game and fish relationship to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, but so often these are portrayed as 

confrontational, I find, especially with the backdrop of the unfunded mandate. But the purpose of this, I understand, is, I know 

in my own State, and not being familiar with all the details of each 

State that is impacted here, but this is really more of a cooperative 

effort in terms of trying to eliminate duplication, so that there are 

some unusual responsibilities that relate to the Parks and some 

other populations that exist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, but 

the relationship here is really one of cooperating with and working 

in unison with the State game and fish agencies and departments. 

Is that correct, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary BABBI'IT. Mr. Vento, I was the governor of a western 

State for nine years which, in terms of its conservative credentials 

as a culture and a State, ranks right up there with Idaho and Wyoming. Now what I learned during the course of those nine years 

was that we had an absolutely first rate State Game and Fish Department. They go by slightly different names in other States. The 

western States have really superb State game and fish agencies, 

and I have no reason to doubt that that is the case in Montana, 

Idaho, or Wyoming. In fact, I know that it is the case. At the working level, the relationships between the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and State wildlife professionals is really excellent. These relationships go on year after year across the country in the west with relatively little friction and an enormous amount of interaction and 

productivity. 

Some issues become controversial, and they get sort of bucked up 

to the level of the political decisionmakers. That is clearly what has 

happened in this case, and we must deal with that. I don't think 

it has had much effect upon the day-to-day relationships, and it 

shouldn't. 

Mr. VENTO. We have some unusual circumstances in terms of 

large landscapes, Parks, and other areas that are obviously under 

the responsibility and stewardship of the Department of the Inte-
25 

rior, but I just want to emphasize, I think so often the average citizen may not know, whether it is in Minnesota where the timber 

wolf has always been there and is present there today in numbers 

illustrated on a chart to your left, but I don't think most citizens 

know whether it is the Department of Natural Resources or the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. In fact, I think you probably have delegated most of the responsibility to the State and we basically work 

in concert. Obviously, there may be professional differences, and 

clearly we know that there are political differences, and I guess the 

basis for those is what is important. 

The issue here, of course, is restoring the entire fabric of the ecosystem in Yellowstone and what the impact will be. Obviously, the 

programs-and Representative Crapo, maybe I was misunderstood 

by him in his comments. I was talking about a compensation program that the State had for any type of livestock damage. We 

haven't had extensive amounts of damage, and most often it has 

worked. 

There is concern, I guess, about some of the details, the administrative details of it, but it hasn't been a big factor in our State. It 

may be that there is less livestock raised there than in some of the 

areas that are under threat here. 

I find it hard to understand; this has been a long process. Obviously there are some legal guidelines and goals that have to be 

met, but it is my understanding that you have had hearings. The 

hearings that have gone on here have had in excess of 6,000 statements submitted for the record. Is that correct? 

Secretary BABBITT. It is 160,000. 

Mr. VENTO. A hundred and sixty thousand statements. Pardon 

me. So it has been an exhaustive effort. 

My friend and colleague indicated that he had a wolf expert in 

Utah. We have one in Minnesota, Dr. David Meach, who has been 

a key adviser in contract with the Forest Service for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, I guess, and a world renowned expert on the timber wolf along with, I am sure, many colleagues of his. One of the 

issues that he pointed out-and it is in the testimony here of one 

of the witnesses-is that the wolf may well run into a situation 

where they actually attack the coyotes in the area. Have you had 

any testimony along those lines, Secretary Babbitt? 

Secretary BABBITT. Well, I am not entirely clear about that. I 

would say it does remind me of Senator Burns' raising the issue 

of coyote depredations in Montana. The coyote is not an endangered species, and the States retain complete discretion about the 

level of management of the coyote herds. There is some prohibition 

as to the types of poisoning and that type of thing, but they are 

managed in the discretion of the States. 

The Minnesota experience I think really bears looking at, because the timber wolf is a federally endangered species and is subject to the rules laid out by this Congress. There are now between-! think between 1,000 and 2,000 wolves in that population 

in northern Minnesota. We have had a very solid working relationship with the State of Minnesota. They essentially manage those 

wolves, and I must say it I think it has been a smooth and successful relationship. Now I understand that there are differences be-
26 

tween northern Minnesota and the Lamar Valley and the other 

areas in the 

west. Lastly, you will hear today some concerns voiced about the reintroduction of the red wolf in North Carolina on the margins of 

the Great Smoky Mountains. I think that is an experience we can 

learn from and that some of the concerns that are being voiced deserve our attention. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Secretary, I would just point out that there are 

200,000 cattle and 900,000 sheep found in the wolfs range in Minnesota and the claimed depredation on cattle is less than one-tenth 

of 1 percent. For sheep it is one-tenth of 1 percent. I would also 

point out that these are, as you know, managed under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species. The program you have 

here is an experimental program which actually permits much 

more aggressive action than is permitted in the Minnesota experience. Could you comment briefly on that? 

Secretary BABBITT. I think that is essentially correct. There are 

three categories under the Endangered Species Act. Of course, endangered is the most restrictive. A listing of threatened, as in the 

case of Minnesota, is very close to endangered. There is a little 

more flexibility under the so-called 4(d) rules. The experimental 

program and the statutory sections that are involved in the Yellowstone and Idaho ones could be compared more to the rules that are 

in effect when a petition has been filed without any determination 

as to threatened or endangered, and the discretion the Service has 

is a lot broader than in the Minnesota case. So that point I believe 

is well taken. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I think my colleagues ought to know that the experiment was 

something that was written by Congress in the early eighties when 

we reauthorized the Endangered Act for exactly this purpose. Obviously it hasn't dealt with all the emotionalism that continues to 

surround this issue, but it certainly has given the tools to do a lot 

more manipulation and protection and should provide assurances. 

Unfortunately, I don't think that it has yet done that, but I think 

it should provide the assurances and hopefully will be workable. We will give it a chance to be implemented. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Vento. 

Mrs. Chenoweth, do you have any questions for the Secretary? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do, Madam Chairman, and I do want to say 

before I start my questioning how much I appreciate the Secretary 

for being here, how much I appreciate his visit to my office and his 

statements today and willingness to cooperate with the States. 

But, Mr. Secretary, you did mention that with regard to Yellowstone Park, that the Park needs the wolf to control the excessive 

numbers of ungulents. Aren't the elk and deer and even private 

livestock property of those other than the Federal Government? 

The elk and deer, that even reside in Yellowstone, aren't they the 

property of the State? 

Secretary BABBI'IT. Mrs. Chenoweth, that is a very complex question. The law of title to fugitive game or, you know, migratory wildlife is a very complex strand under American law of regulatory re-
27 

sponsibilities which are vested in varying circumstances between 

the State, the Federal Government. I don't think there is a simple 

answer to that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. With all due respect, I don't think it is real 

complex that the basic law itself, Mr. Secretary, says that: "The 

Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with 

the State, and such cooperation shall include all their interest." 

Now what I am driving at is, not the emotionalism of the issue; I 

want us to come to a meeting of the minds of where we are on the 

law and which laws really are the superior law of the land. Now with regard to the rule that you were referring to, does that 

rule have a superior position to the actual Endangered Species Act, 

section 6, that I was just quoting from? 

Secretary BABBITT. Mrs. Chenoweth, having not been promoted 

to the Supreme Court, I have a very modest view of the interaction 

between section 6 of the Endangered Species Act which says cooperate with the States and sections 7, 9, and 10 which are mandates from this Congress to do very specific things by way of regulation and protection, and all I can say is--you know, as Secretary 

of the Interior, it is not my job to sort of have a Talmudic disputes 

about the interaction of all these sections. I have a solicitor, and 

he could give you an opinion. 

In the meantime, my objective is to say to you and to the States 

and everyone else, we have got to work this out and try to find 

common ground, and I am ready and willing to do that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Secretary, I do want you to know that I'm 

just a plain, simple farm girl, and I don't get into Talmudic disputes. Secretary BABBITT. Just like I'm a plain simple Arizonan. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But with regard to controlling the elk and 

deer population in Yellowstone as well as in Idaho, wouldn't it be 

a better solution for the fish and game to be able to extend their 

hunting season or extend hunting on into Yellowstone or allow for 

cow season or doe hunting season, and in fact isn't Yellowstone National Park right now needing more funding for maintenance and 

repairs of their very structures that we are so dependent upon? 

I mean this has been called the gem of the country, Yellowstone 

National Park, and yet the structures are falling into disrepair. 

Why not allow for hunting in Yellowstone and allow for the permitting proceeds to go into a maintenance fund to repair the very facilities that the Nation and the world so appreciate beside the natural beauty? 

Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, I am not dictating to you, I 

am suggesting that this is how we as a Congress would be looking 

at the allocation of funds and urge you to cooperate with our States 

and urge you to have ultimate respect as your people proceed 

through the rulemaking process in the implementing of these programs for the property of the States and individuals. 

Secretary BABBITT. Mrs. Chenoweth, I think I can meet you 

maybe halfway on those two questions, if I may, not entirely. 

Federal law prohibits hunting in Yellowstone National Park. 

That is a policy I agree with. I would oppose hunting in National 

Parks. I think it is inconsistent with the history of the idea and 

the expectations of the American people. 
28 

The States do have hunting programs off Park boundaries, and 

the National Park Service has strongly supported those programs, and in some cases we ha·,re actually taken the position with State 

game and fish commissions that hunting programs off the boundaries of the Park should be expanded a bit, recognizing the abundance of the animals. 

Now it is not a complete answer because the elk, for example, 

and the bison are pretty smart critters. They can't read, but they 

know where the guys with the guns are, and they tend to bunch 

up inside the Park boundaries during migration seasons, but we 

are working on that because the off-park hunting is an important 

part that we have no objection to. It may indeed help control the 

populations. That is entirely within the discretion of the State. With respect to money for infrastructure, there will be a bill, I 

believe, in the discretion of Chairman Young heard before too long 

in this Committee by which the Park Service would be given some 

discretion to adjust admission fees in Yellowstone for the express 

purpose of dedicating and keeping those increases in Yellowstone 

to start fixing up some of those roads and dealing with the infrastructure, and I will be back to talk to you about that because I 

think it is a good idea. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. With regard to hunting in Yellowstone National Park, isn't hunting allowed in Teton National Park? 

Secretary BABBITT. Hunting is allowed by Federal law in the 

Grand Tetons as a result of the specific legislation covering that 

Park. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And so, Mr. Secretary, by an act of this body 

we could allow for hunting within the discretion of your Depart- ments in Yellowstone National Park then? 

Secretary BABBITT. The United States Congress has, in my judgment, the unquestioned power to dictate the rules regarding Federal administration of National Parks, you bet. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That concludes my questions, Madam Chairman. Thank you. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mr. Williams, do you have any questions? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do. Thank you. 

I join in thanking you for being here, Mr. Secretary. 

Two questions. First, tell us about the numbers. I understand 

correctly, do I, that the goal here is 10 breeding pair? 

Secretary BABBITT. In each of the areas. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Pardon? 

Secretary BABBITT. In each of the three areas. That is correct. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And then if you are successful in 10 breeding pair 

in each area, how many wolves in total does the Department expect 

will be the result by the year, I think your target year is 2002. How 

many wolves? 

Secretary BABBITT. If I may, let's see if I can remember the 

arithmetic, and if somebody from Fish and Wildlife disagrees, if I 

am off by an order of magnitude, holler. 

Ten breeding pairs in each area for three consecutive years. That 

is 30, and I think it is 30 times 10, which reflects the size of an 

average pack. So it is about 300. 
29 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We started nine years ago with one breeding pair 

in Montana. That breeding pair, plus Canada in the natural relocation of the wolves coming down, has now created a population in 

nine years of 65 wolves. I assume your number of 300-plus does not 

take into account the number of wolves that will continue to be 

propagated because of the six breeding pair in Montana, however 

many breeding pair there are in Idaho, plus the new wolves coming 

down from Canada. Is that correct? 

Secretary BABBITI. Congressman, I think the way the recovery 

plan works is, we are saying we need 10 breeding pairs or 100 

wolves in each of the three areas, and at that point the animal is 

delis ted. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. But are you including within that the natural 

population growth that is currently occurring and was occurring 

prior to the artificial relocation of the wolves in Yellowstone and 

Idaho? 

Secretary BABBITT. In the case of Montana, yes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Now another question, and let me do a oneminute statement about this first, Mr. Secretary. 

As you know, there are biologists including wolf biologists, there 

are a number of environmentalists, who oppose what is happening 

here in Idaho and Yellowstone on the basis not of opposition to the 

wolf but of concern about the unnaturalness of the process and the 

intensive management by Government which will be required over 

those artificially relocated wolves. 

In Montana we are proud to have helped America recover the 

great remaining roaming land animals. Sometimes Montana did it 

with Federal help, sometimes we did it alone, but we have done it. 

We have restored natural balance in significant areas throughout 

Montana, particularly along the Great Rocky Mountain Front. Most 

of that was done with State and private help. The primary way we 

were able to accomplish that restoration and now maintain it is by 

letting Mother Nature be Mother Nature and leaving the animals 

alone. That is what the great wilderness fights are in Montana. 

Some people mistakenly think the designation of wilderness is to 

jigger the land. It is to leave it alone by law. Montanans want to 

do that, and many Montanans who are not in the slightest opposed 

to wolf and, in fact, believe that the wolf will bring back a needed 

natural balance in our State are opposed to the unnatural process 

which has been encouraged under your stewardship and I believe 

will vehemently oppose the hands-on Government management, 

the collaring, the tranquilizing, the corralling, and the killing of 

wolves which are envisioned in this plan. Talk to us about that, 

Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary BABBITI. Mr. Chairman, in August of this year I spent 

several days in your State in a place called the China Lake Basin 

in a wilderness area above Libby, Montana, as a member of a fire 

crew, and I got to tell you, we were artificially intervening in a wilderness area, and I think the residents of Libby, Montana, were 

feeling pretty good about it because I'm an advocate of natural fire 

but there is a point in which, in the real world, you have got to 

manage these issues and you have got to manage them across the 

interface between the wilderness area and surrounding communities. 

88-881 - 95 - 2 
30 

So I suppose my philot.ophy is that there ought to be a heavy 

presumption in favor of leaving natural processes in these areas to 

take their course but there are exceptions. Wild fire is one, and 

through history and culture and attitudes and perceptions I think 

the wolf is another one. This critter evokes intense emotions, it has 

for a thousand years, and as I look at the record and as I look at 

the issues and talk with the livestock operators in these States, I 

believe that most of them will tell you privately that if we can do 

it this way it is really, really better. I mean Senator McClure from 

Idaho was the first up front advocate of experimental reintroduction. It is not because Senator McClure was a wolf lover, it is because he said, of the two alternatives this was the better one for 

the State of Idaho. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, my time has expired, Mr. Secretary, but let 

me say in conclusion that I am resistant to this relocation of the 

wolf and I seriously hope I am wrong and you are right. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Williams. 

We have just received a message that there will be a vote in the 

House probably within the next 15 or 20 minutes. The Secretary 

has until only 11:30 to be with us today. I want to make sure that 

Mr. Jones, because he has wolves in his State, gets to question the 

Secretary. Before I recognize him though, I wanted to respond to 

Mr. Vento's and the Secretary's statement that wolves kill very little livestock in the State of Minnesota. I have a newspaper article 

from the Musabi daily newspaper that I, without objection, want to 

enter into the record, that says farmers want compensation for 

losses to wolves; 250 farms attended a meeting in Bemidji seeking 

additional funds for increased kills in wolves. 

[The newspaper article may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Additionally, I understand a private take can occur 

if the wolf is caught in mid-bite. OK. Then next some sort of committee established by the State has to verify that that kill was 

made mid-bite, and then the Federal Government has to approve 

the State's decision. I have information that states that the Federal 

Government denies the State action over 50 percent of the time. So 

I think there is a bigger problem in Minnesota than has been represented here today. With that, I would like to recognize Representative Jones for his 

five-minute questioning. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I had the pleasure of meeting with you a few minutes before we 

began these hearings, and in my district the introduction of the red 

wolf came about in 1987, and since that time the wolf has begun 

to travel off the Federal lands to a point, we are not quite like the 

westerners in our area. However, I am concerned about the rights 

of the people. Families are concerned about these wolves that are 

going off Federal property into their backyards, and in many cases 

there is documented evidence where the wolves have attacked dogs 

and deer and destroyed the dogs and the deer. 

I guess my point is, and as you also noted, the State of North 

Carolina, or more specifically, the general assembly introduced a 

bill that gave the property owner the right to defend his or her 

property and their livestock. I am not as familiar with the rules as 

I should be, quite frankly, as it relates to the endangered species, 
31 

but my question is, where is the Federal responsibility to protect 

the landowner and the property owner's rights? What do you see 

as the Federal responsibility to help the individual protect his or 

her rights? 

Secretary BABBITT. It is an important issue, and I think that it 

is very sort of region specific and fact specific. We are dealing with 

a difficult issue because I grew up in a culture where, when somebody said predator, you pulled your 30-30-I did-off the rack of 

a pickup and shot to kill, period. 

Now there is still a lot of that kind of fear which leads to, in 

some cases, to kind of preemptive striking, you know. There is a 

problem, we always shoot first and ask questions later. Now the 

Fish and Wildlife Service obviously takes a more measured view 

and says we would like to have some evidence that there is a 

threat, and, for example, an animal carcass may or-you know, a 

stale animal carcass may or may not be evidence because there are 

other predators and there are accidents and there are all kinds of 

other causes, so what we have to do is talk about the specific content of these rules, and I think you are entitled to say to me we 

have got to try to be reasonable about this and we have got to intervene and try to, you know, keep the critters away from the 

human interface as much as we can and try to be realistic about 

population numbers because, again, once there is an adequate population-and I'm willing to quarrel about that and I am willing to 

cross-examine the biologists and kind of be your advocate on thatonce there is an adequate population, we should delist the animal 

and say to the State: "It is your responsibility; try to keep it from 

going to the brink of extinction again; but it is, you know, your 

management issue;" and I am ready and willing to talk about those 

issues. I think they are real. 

Mr. JONES. We thank you for that. 

Madam Chairman, just one other point if I may. 

What I really would like to know is how you keep the data to 

know how the multiplication of the wolf has taken place. I mean 

the numbers. If we have introduced X number of wolves in North 

Carolina in this county, how do you keep count as reproduction 

takes place? 

Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, it is incredible. I have wondered that myself. I have got to tell you, these Fish and Wildlife 

guys know where every single one of them is. It is really awesome, 

the attention they pay to this. 

Now I can tell you that in some cases, particularly at introduction, the use of radio tracking collars is enormously effective. It 

really is an incredible technology. You can even track them from 

satellites if you choose to do so. Once a population is kind in an 

area, these biologists have kind of wolflike instincts, not in terms 

of their attitude to other animals but in terms of knowing where 

the critters are, and I think the counts are generally pretty good. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Studds, do you have any questions for the Secretary? 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I will be very brief since this involves another part of the country. Where I come from most of the wolves are disguised as sheep. 
32 

It is a very different kind of a situation. Some of them are even 

bipeds. 

Mr. Secretary, you are a master, and I think you have gone, as 

you often do, a long way toward cutting through emotion and at- tempting to deal with facts. Just out of curiosity, since there is a 

lot of mention of private property these days, will the management 

of these animals differ on public as opposed to private lands? 

Secretary BABBITT. Yes. 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you-no; go ahead. 

Secretary BABBITT. Yes, I think you can see implicitly in a lot of 

the detail, in the take provisions, in the allocation of responsibilities, a clear strand of saying, to the maximum extent that we reasonably can, we want to center these issues on public lands, and 

the farther away you can stay from this kind of population conflict, 

the better off we are. So, sure, there are those kinds of distinctions 

throughout this rule. 

Mr. STUDDS. Let me just say I am stunned by the extent of public involvement in this process. I gather it began under your predecessor and has continued under you. Is this intensity of public comment and open public meetings par for the course, or is this unusual? 

Secretary BABBITT. Well, I would say this one is unusual. It has 

been the subject of a fair amount of dispute as I read the record, 

since late 1987, and this issue has moved forward under the 

Reagan, the Bush, and now this administration. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has stayed on a pretty consistent track, and we 

have been up to Congress again and again and again, because it 

is controversial, it is unusual. 

Mr. STUDDS. The only other observation from a New Englander, 

Madam, is, I gather the critter that I always thought was a 

"coyotee" is a coyote. Is that true? Well, let the record reflect that 

whatever its name is, it is now appearing on Cape Cod. We don't 

know which bridge it has used, but it is coming back. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. STUDDS. Yes, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Secretary, there are a number of outfitters and guides in the 

room today, and we have got a lot of them in Idaho and Montana. 

I think they would appreciate an answer, if you have it, and, if not, 

I would appreciate it if you would call me or write to me and give 

me the answer to this question. As you know, these outfitters and 

guides depend on certain drainages for their customers and for 

their livelihood. If one of these wolves should den in those drainages, what will be the action of the Department? 

Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Congressman, I would be happy to give 

you written responses. As I recall the recovery plan, it says that 

up to six breeding pairs in an area. There are some use restrictions 

in denning areas which are then lifted after we have six packs. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. If you would send me the details of that, I would 

like to share it with my constituents. 

Secretary BABBITT. I would be happy to. 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary. I appreciate what you are doing. 
33 

Mrs. CUBIN. I would like to ask the Secretary one last question 

before we go before I recognize the chairman of the Committee. 

Secretary BABBITI. I thought I could get out clean, out of this 

session, Madam Chairman. 

[Laughter.) 

Mrs. CUBIN. Could you tell us how much the Federal Government has spent on the gray wolf introduction in research and management since the ESA was created in 1973? 

Secretary BABBITI. Yes. By my reckoning, it is $5.2 million. 

Mrs. CUBIN. The Denver Post today had a story saying that the 

cost had doubled to $12.8 million, or the projected cost. Are you the 

one that put that information out, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary BABBITI. I think what the Post is doing is taking the 

5.2 from, say, 1987 to today, and our estimate from today through 

2002 is 6. 7, and I think they have just added the two figures together. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG [presiding]. Madam Chairman, one thing I am extremely pleased with for those in the audience and of course Mr. 

Secretary, I have tried to put together a great team and I have got 

a good team. I just want to remind them who is behind the sled. 

That's all. I want to keep that in mind. 

Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt as to who the 

alpha wolf is in this Committee. 

Mr. YOUNG. I have been very concerned about this whole program and will be reviewing the cost factors through the appropriation process. We want a total accounting of how this has occurred 

and the projected cost. As you know, and I have told you before, 

I am adamantly opposed to this program. This is a dream of a certain group of people and individuals that have very little consideration for those that are directly affected. I question the biological 

research about the content of the denning areas. I am probably one 

of the few people that ever denned a wolf in their life. In fact, I 

am probably the only one in this room. Maybe some of the guides 

have. But I used to study them much closer for other reasons than 

the biologists have, and they cover quite an area. They do not den 

collectively. They have to have an area, of course, to feed their 

young. 

My concern is, if they do prevail, if you do prevail, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service will start enforcing restrictions and exclude activities that have occurred before. We face this in Alaska all the time 

by your agencies. It is not your fault, it is the agency's fault, where 

they exclude individual activities saying this affects a certain species thus you are precluded from doing what you did in the past. 

So we are going to look at this very closely and-very closely, to 

make sure that just not only those within your Department but 

those on the outside don't use this as a method to expand the Park, 

a method to preclude activities, a method to exclude people that 

live in the area for the wishes of those that live on the outside. 

I am not laying all this blame on you, but one of the last things 

I would like to suggest, Madam Chairman, is that I question the 

7,200 wolves in Alaska. I think it is closer to 10,000. I am deeply 

resentful that we are using foreign wolves with our American tax 
34 

dollars. I would prefer, very honestly, if you want wolves, please 

come to Alaska and let's make this an American program, buy 

American. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CUBIN [presiding]. If the Secretary would be so gracious as 

to answer written questions submitted by the Committee, we would 

appreciate it, and thank you for your appearance here today and 

for your testimony. 

Secretary BABBITT. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. The Committee will recess until immediately after the vote. [Recess.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. The Committee will please come to order. If the witnesses are here for the first panel, I would ask them 

to please take their places at the witness table. 

Let me remind the witnesses that they must limit their oral remarks to five minutes under the Committee rules, but if you submit your statement, your entire statement will be put in the record. 

So the first witness that I would like to recognize is the Honorable Ron Marlenee of the Safari Club International. 

Representative Williams, you are recognized. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairlady. I appreciate your 

moving Ron, of course because of his former position here to the 

front of the list, but I also appreciate it because after his testimony 

I have another hearing that I have to attend. Congressman Marlenee, as I think you know, was an eight-term 

veteran of the House and served on this Committee with distinction. He represented eastern Montana during all those years. The 

most important thing about the connection between Congressman 

Marlenee and myself is, we are pals; and, Ron, I am delighted to 

see you back in the Committee room. Welcome. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Please proceed when you are ready. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. RON MARLENEE, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, BOZEMAN, MONTANA; RODGER SCHLICKEISEN, 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WASHINGTON, D.C.; RENEE 

ASKINS, THE WOLF FUND, MOOSE, WYOMING; LARRY 

BOURRET, WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, LARAMIE, WYOMING; MARK POLLOT, BOISE, IDAHO; AND CYNTHIA 

LUMMIS, COUNSEL TO GOVERNOR GERINGER, CHEYENNE, 

WYOMING 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON MARLENEE 

Mr. MARLENEE. May I proceed? 

Thank you, Congressman Williams. I appreciate that welcome. I 

feel a little torn whether I am being set up or whether we really 

are going to proceed here with a friendly discourse, and I know the 

latter will be the case. 

Madam Chairman, I will present today the reasons why this program of abuse should be immediately put on hold. I will present 

seven blatant misrepresentations used by individuals and agency 

officials in prior administrations and continuing through this one 

and, most importantly, will conclude my statement with allegations 

that indicate a gross misuse of bureaucratic authority and attempt 
35 

to coerce that this Committee and surely the Secretary, sitting Secretary of Interior, cannot condone. 

Before I go on, I would like to say the Safari Club International 

members have spent millions and millions of dollars in expanding 

habitat and increasing wildlife populations. Our chapters have 

been instrumental in reestablishing species, and we take a back 

seat in conservation to no one as an organization. Our sportsmen 

resent and object to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Park Service embarking on a program that could cause the destruction of 

wildlife unparalleled-unparalleled-in our modern wildlife era. 

The States of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have a billion-dollar 

industry at stake, and the legislatures of these States have opposed, vehemently opposed, wolf introduction. 

The wolf is not endangered, as you can see, on the North American continent. Changing the Endangered Species Act would save 

millions of taxpayers' dollars from being squandered on an introduction that would not be called for after the EIS, ESA, is modified 

in the coming Congress. It could do for the States of Montana and 

Wyoming what the spotted owl has done for the Pacific Northwest 

if they proceed with the introduction. The only introduction is that 

the wolf, with regard to sportsmen, has the capability to destroy, 

physically destroy. 

For the past six years the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the animal 

activists have been engaged in one of the most blatant campaigns 

of misinformation ever generated, a campaign to mislead the media 

and the general public. 

Myth number one: The wolf is endangered. The truth is that 

within 300 or 400 miles of the release areas wolves are prevalent 

enough to have a very negative impact on ungulent populations. 

The truth is that in Alaska they have thousands of wolves, and the 

truth is that in Minnesota the wolf population is exploding and the 

State is not allowed to control them. 

Myth number two: Wolves are coexisting in Minnesota very nicely, and we heard some allusions to that today, and, me, believe 

they are illusions. The truth is that deer herds in northern Minnesota have been devastated and sportsmen are mad as hornets. 

The truth is that farmers have suffered uncompensated losses. 

Myth number three: That the losses will be compensated for. I 

wish they would give us a break on this one. The truth is that 

there is no Federal law nor appropriation, no Federal Government 

program for compensation. The truth is, there is no, and will be, 

no compensation for wildlife. Each and every game animal destroyed by the wolves will be a reduction in conservation income 

to wildlife agencies in the surrounding States. Remember, sportsmen pay for conservation and wolves don't. 

Myth number four: With experimental populations, the wolf can 

be controlled. The truth is that Minnesota was prevented from a 

control program even though populations had exceeded the first 

goal set, and when U.S. Fish and Wildlife moved that goalpost forward they exceeded the second goal, yet they are still not allowed, 

when they try to have a hunt, a control hunt, to have that hunt. 

The truth is that in Alaska, where there are thousands of wolves, 

as you can see by that chart, the animal activists tried to intimi-
36 

date the governor by threatening a tourism boycott and bringing 

actions against the State Fish and Game. 

Myth number five: The introduction is popular and supported. This is the greatest myth of all. The fact is, Wyoming passed a bill 

out of committee setting a bounty on the wolf, legislators from 

Idaho signed a petition opposing introduction, and the Montana 

legislature will pass legislation opposing introduction. These are 

the legislative bodies representing the people expressing the feeling 

that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Interior Department is 

jamming the wolf down their throat. 

The truth is that overwhelmingly sportsmen oppose introduction. 

In May of 1994, 2, 712 sportsmen were polled by Outdoor Life, 

which is of course one of the most reputable and foremost sporting 

magazines in the United States; 71 percent of those sportsmen 

polled opposed the wolf introduction. In Montana the score was 96 

percent opposed; Wyoming, 97 percent opposed; Idaho, 85 percent 

opposed. And I submit that Outdoor Life article for the record. 

Myth number six: That the wolf will contribute to tourism in Yellowstone Park and surrounding areas. The truth is that the Park 

is at or near tourist capacity. The truth is that one reason people 

go to the Park is to see wildlife, which wolves will drastically reduce. The truth is that in surrounding areas wildlife populations 

will be devastated if the wolf is not controlled, and there is no indication that they will. That will lead to a decline in hunting for both 

State sportsmen and out-of-State sportsmen. A billion-dollar industry is put at risk by this introduction. 

Myth number seven: The impacts have been carefully studied. 

The truth is, the impacts of uncontrolled growth and unrestrained 

expansion of wolf numbers was not evaluated as Safari Club had 

asked and as sportsmen had asked. Make no mistake about it, once 

introduced, the activists will work to avoid control and have threatened suit and boycotts are already established on the testimony 

record in the State of Montana. 

The truth is that the data on recovered wolf populations that we 

heard referred to are so bad that animal rights groups can and will 

challenge findings in the court that recovery has been achieved. 

This data has been questioned by very eminent researchers and experts. 

In summary, I commend the chairman and this Committee for 

having this hearing. It is past due and should only be the beginning of a number of hearings on this particular issue and the particular conduct of Federal employees. The agency is ignoring the 

desires of State legislatures; the agencies or individuals are engaged in misrepresentation. The agency is ignoring the economic 

damage to a billion-dollar industry surrounding sportsmen and 

wildlife. 

The agency is locked in a battle against the agricultural sector, 

a sector that provides a vast majority of habitat. The agency is involved in an action that would devastate wildlife and amount to a 

confiscation of millions of dollars and increasing wildlife that we 

have invested in. They do not increase wildlife numbers-our members do not increase wildlife numbers to feed them to the wolves. 

Dr. Kay, a respected research biologist, after he had challenged 

the Government wolf recovery team's facts-! quote from an article 
37 

what happened following this challenge that he made to the agency. Quote: Kay's charges infuriated Ed Bangs, Service lead project 

leader for the impact statement, who launched a counterattack at 

Kay. He wrote the president of Utah State University, where he 

mistakenly supposed Kay was employed, charging misrepresentation that was, quote, highly unprofessional, and he wrote the recovery team that he worked with urging them to contact the university presidents as well. This response outraged Dr. Kay's colleagues. Dr. Taylor, Kay's former professor, condemned Bangs's action as a, quote, thinly veiled attempt to assassinate Kay's scientific reputation, end quote. Randy Simons, head of the Political 

Science Department at Utah State, also sprang to Dr. Kay's defense, claiming Kay acted beyond his authority in an attempt to 

suppress-to suppress legitimate scientific opinion, end quote. I submit the article by Alston Chase, a respected journalist, syndicated columnist, for the record. 

Ask yourself the questions: Was Kay's motive to discredit Dr. 

Kay? Was it his motive in contacting the president, as alleged in 

the article, to somehow threaten the job of Dr. Kay? You as a committee should seek the answers to that question. If there was ever a time for a hearing to clear the air, it is now. 

If there was ever a time to put a misguided project on hold, it is 

now. If there was ever a time or a reason to change the Endangered Species Act, it is now and in this Congress. 

I thank the chairman for the time and the patience. 

[The statement of Mr. Marlenee may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Marlenee. 

We will go back to the regular order now of our witnesses, and 

we will wait until all the witnesses have testified before we have 

questions. 

Twelve Members of the Committee were called to a very important meeting, and hopefully they will be back after their meeting 

is over. Our next witness is Mr. Rodger Schlickeisen, of the Defenders of 

Wildlife, from Washington, D.C. 

Go ahead, when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF RODGER SCHLICKEISEN 

Mr. SCHLICKEISEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

As probably most of you know, Defenders has been involved with 

the wolf recovery issue in the Northern Rockies since even before 

the wolf was listed as an endangered species in 1973. Over the 

years we have always supported recovery in Yellowstone, but we 

have made a special effort over the years to try to ferret out the 

legitimate concerns of the area residents, the ranchers especially, 

to see what we could do to assist them. Throughout all this period 

we have had a full-time representative in Montana, a full-time employee, and he has met with hundreds of ranchers over this period 

of time, attended scores of meetings to meet with ranchers, and we 

have shaped our support for wolf reintroduction primarily on what 

he has learned from that experience. 

In particular, he has learned that, and we are persuaded that, 

ranchers in the area have legitimate concern about control of 

wolves as far as wolf predation over domestic livestock is con-
38 

cerned, and we think that they are very legitimately concerned, 

about the cost of wolf predation. Therefore today I would like to 

comment on two features of our support for wolf reintroduction 

that addresses those two issues. 

First, Defenders, along with a number of other environmental 

groups that are represented here today, strongly supports the use 

of the nonessential experimental population designation for the 

Yellowstone wolves. As this Committee knows, it is section lO(j) of 

the Endangered Species Act, and it was enacted in 1982 specifically 

with the wolf in mind, to provide a means to increase control measures to make reintroduction more palatable to the ranching community. 

The second, perhaps most important, aspect of our support for 

wolf reintroduction I want to talk about today, and it has been 

mentioned by many others already today, is Defenders of Wildlife's 

Wolf Compensation Fund. Before I discuss the fund specifically, I 

want to remind the Committee that in the 1980's President Reagan 

made a major point of making a plea to private citizens and to private groups to step forward financially to help achieve public goals. 

In 1987 Defenders responded to that call by establishing a Wolf 

Compensation Fund. We did, as many people have commented, 

"put our money where our mouth was." The fund is a dedicated 

fund. It is fully financed by private contributions, and it compensates ranchers at market value fr:r any livestock losses resulting from wolf predation. 

In the seven years since the fund was established, we have paid 

out over $17,000 to 21 ranchers in the northwest Montana and Alberta, Canada, area. In most cases these payments have been for 

predation damage to domestic livestock, but we have voluntarily 

gone beyond that in a number of cases to pay for fencing and to 

pay for extra hay allotments so that cattle could be kept out of 

areas wolves are known to frequent. The fund has been praised by individuals and groups and commentators from across the political spectrum. There have been several editorials, for example, in the Wall Street Journal, praising us, 

praising the fund, for the fact that it does not require the Government to reach into taxpayer money to pay these kinds of bills and 

have come out in support of wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone. Now we find it a little bit ironic-in view of all that and the desire for public citizens and private groups to step forward-that the 

wolf reintroduction program is being criticized now by some because it does not require the U.S. Government to use taxpayer 

money as a means of compensation. Yet we are under the impression, a very strong impression, that it is your worthwhile objective 

and the worthwhile objective of this whole 104th Congress to find 

any way you can to cut Federal Government spending. We support 

that effort, and if that really is the objective, we think that the Defenders of Wildlife Wolf Compensation Fund ought to be held up 

as an example for the sort of thing that we are looking for. 

Related to this, Madam Chairman, some wolf opponents argue 

that a Government compensation program would be more secure 

than relying on a private wildlife conservation group. Frankly, I 

just don't think this washes. We have operated the fund for over 

seven years. We have had no problems during that period. There 
39 

are now over 70 wolves up in the northwest Montana area. We 

firmly believe that the fund can handle any increase in predation 

that results from the reintroduction, and we are publicly committed 

to expand the resources of the fund if we need to. Our whole reputation, our mission, probably the future of our organization, depends upon us operating in good faith and living up to our word 

with this fund. In these circumstances, I believe Defenders of Wildlife is probably a more dependable source of continuing compensation than is the Federal Government which, after all, is in a perpetual search for spending programs to cut or eliminate. Madam Chairman, poll after poll has shown that there is an 

overwhelming majority of Americans who strongly support wolf reintroduction, and that includes the residents of the three states 

bordering Yellowstone Park. The law requires that the wolf be returned to Yellowstone. Scientists say it will do a good job for the 

Yellowstone ecosystem if it is, and economic analysis shows that it 

could produce in excess of $20 million annually in additional tourist-generated revenues to the region. Meanwhile, the cost of wolf 

predation on domestic livestock-and it is not at all clear that 

there will be any net increase after you consider the fact that the 

wolves displace a certain amount of coyotes; I think one pack displaces 50 coyotes by David Meach's estimation-that even if you 

have a certain amount of depredation on some individual ranches, 

Defenders of Wildlife and our Wolf Compensation Fund stand 

available to fully compensate for that at market value. After decades of debating the wolf issue, it is time now to accept the reasonable, fair, and responsible reintroduction program that debate has 

produced. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Schlickeisen may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much for your remarks. 

Our next witness will be Renee Askins, from the Wolf Fund of 

Moose, Wyoming. 

STATEMENT OF RENEE ASKINS 

Ms. AsKINS. Good morning. 

I have been working on the Yellowstone wolf recovery effort for 

the last 15 years, and I live in Moose, Wyoming. I am trained as 

a wildlife biologist, I have an undergraduate degree in biology from 

Kalamazoo College and a master's from Yale University. I am the 

director of an organization based in Moose, Wyoming, called the 

Wolf Fund whose sole purpose has been the restoration of wolves 

to Yellowstone National Park, and our means of doing that has 

largely been outreach in the region to opponents and to support 

groups and nationally to facilitate education and participation in 

this process. 

I have a neighbor in Moose who is a rancher. He is about 85 

years old, and he said to me one morning when we were talking 

about wolves, he said: "You know, t'ain't nothing you can slice so 

thin, there ain't two sides to it;" and I think there are definitely 

two sides to the wolf issue. In fact, there are probably 100 sides 

to the wolf issue. But those sides are not reduced to States' rights 

or Federal Government, ranchers or wolves, environmentalists or 
40 

the livestock industry, Democrats or Republicans. That is a gross 

simplification of what this issue is about. You hear it all the time: 

"We don't raise our cattle to feed your wolves," and then the other 

side yells back: "We don't pay our taxes to feed your cattle;" and 

thus the rhetoric rolls on and the debate is diminished to one of 

polities and social change and something quite removed from what 

wolves are and what they mean in the region. 

So I would like to take my time and go back to the wolves and 

maybe try and respond to some of the questions that were raised 

this morning. You know, one question, Mrs. Cubin, that I heard 

you bring up over and over was the idea of, this is something that 

the Federal Government is imposing on the State of Wyoming or 

the State of Idaho. Well, in my history of working with this issue, 

which goes back to 1980, the livestock industry in the State of Wyoming has participated every step of the way in the development 

of wolf recovery plans, they served on the team in the establishment of a wolf management committee that was a year and a half 

long, and that process was set up and structured by Republicans. 

Senator Simpson and Senator Wallop along with John Turner, 

who is a Republican State senator and the head of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, developed that committee, and that committee 

and what they did created the foundation for what the plan is 

today. This plan has Republican parentage; it has had the support 

and participation of the States and the Republicans throughout the 

whole process. 

Most everyone in this room, I am sure, is aware of the surveys, 

and I think that is very important as we look at this as a democratic process: What have the people of Wyoming and Idaho told 

you? Over and over and over in the last 10 years there have been 

surveys. Perhaps the one that might be most convincing to you, 

Representative Cubin, is one that was done by the Wyoming Game 

and Fish who at the time was opposed to wolf reintroduction. In 

fact, they did the survey to prove to the wolf management committee that Wyoming was opposed to wolf reintroduction. The survey 

came out 34.5 percent opposed, 44 percent in support. In a Presidential election that is a landslide. 

The surveys have also been done in Idaho over and over again. 

People in the States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have been 

major participants in this process. In fact, the Federal Government 

has been paying the State of Wyoming, the State Game and Fish 

Department, to be a part of this. The State was given $7,000 a year 

to participate in the EIS, and they were given-and this is very important, Mrs. Cubin, to your questions about how could we expect 

the States to have their management plans done. Well, the answer 

to that is, the States were given $30,000 each to develop their 

State management plans in early 1994. The fact that those management plans aren't done is not the responsibility of the Federal 

Government but rather the States. What I am trying to say here 

is that the opportunity for participation has been there and they 

have been very, very active. I find it somewhat troubling that none 

of the State game and fish directors are here to at least offer the 

history of their involvement. 

You pointed out, Mrs. Chenoweth, that the Game and Fish Departments did a great job of managing the game in our States, and 
41 

I believe that to be true, and I think they will do a terrific job in 

managing wolves. They want to manage wolves, they want to be ~a 

part of this, and because of the politics and the struggles they have 

been limited from being a participant. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Your time is up. 

Ms. AsKINS. OK. 

[The statement of Ms. Askins may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you for your remarks. 

I have to point out that even though the ranchers and the Wyoming delegation, dating all the way back to Dick Cheney, were in 

the room when all these hearings went on, their recommendations 

were always ignored, they never favored the introduction of wolves, 

and so I think that is a little bit of a misrepresentation. 

Mr. Larry Bourret from Wyoming is our next witness. He is with 

the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, and thank you for your testimony, Larry. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY BOURRET 

Mr. BOURRET. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My name is Larry Bourret, executive vice president, Wyoming 

Farm Bureau Federation headquartered in Laramie, Wyoming. The 

Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation is the largest farm organization 

in the State, representing the interests of more than 8,000 member 

families in Wyoming. The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation is 

one of the plaintiffs in a case now pending in Federal District 

Court in Casper, Wyoming, challenging the introduction of wolves 

into Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has played fast and loose with the 

dictates of the Endangered Species Act and its own regulations creating a wolf release program that flaunts the Endangered Species 

Act and established science and shortcuts the procedural requirements of its own regulations. As an initial proposition we can look 

at the chart over here and see that wolves are really not in danger 

of becoming extinct. Huge areas of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 

are affected by this, and it will affect the people in areas beyond 

Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, I am sure. 

We must remember that these are not wild wolves that are naturally occurring in the Rocky Mountain area. Rather, these animals 

have been physically captured and transported into areas picked by 

the Federal Government for subsequent release. Thus, any losses 

occasioned by these animals or damage to property cannot be predicated on the basis that these wolves are merely wild animals acting 

naturally. 

The wolf introduction program does not adequately allow ranchers to protect their livestock from wolf depredation. We heard the 

Secretary of the Interior this morning say that ranchers could kill 

wolves in the act of depredating. If you really analyze that and get 

down to the nitty-gritty, that is about like winning the lottery, the 

chance that a rancher is actually going to see a wolf in the act of 

depredating, and that does not give him protection, the Service's 

attempt to sell the program on the basis that it adequately protects 

landowners and livestock owners. 

Hank Fischer of the Defenders of Wildlife expressed it this way: 

"The on-the-ground differences in management between a fully en-
42 

dangered wolf population such as we have in northwestern Montana and an experimental population are minuscule." The differences are not there and the management flexibility that we have 

been hearing about for 10 years with an experimental population. 

We asked during those 10 years what those differences were, never 

found out, but we do know now what they are since November 22 

when the final rule came out. 

The program would allow a landowner to kill or injure a wolf on 

his private property but only if those certain restrictive conditions 

are met. He has to report those. There are all kinds of restrictions 

on this. He can harass wolves on his private land, but they have 

to have more than six pair to do it on Federal lands. The M-44, which is a coyote control method, is going to end up being restricted as a result of this, and I know of no research that anyone 

has done that would indicate that coyote-caused losses are going to 

decrease because you have wolves. There is no science that I know 

of that has ever been carried out on that. 

The experimental population designation is likely to be overturned in the court of law. The protective measures come only as 

a result of the introduced wolf populations being designated as 

nonessential experimental populations pursuant to section 10(j) of 

the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, circumstances in both 

of the introduction areas makes both of these designations vulnerable to legal challenges as violating the Endangered Species Act. 

In fact, the experimental population designations have been challenged in court by both the Farm Bureau and the Sierra Legal Defense Fund in separate suits. 

The Farm Bureau and the Sierra Club represent completely different sides of the spectrum on this issue, but they both make the 

same argument in their suits. The only difference is the remedy 

they seek. Section lO(j) of the Endangered Species Act defines an 

experimental population as any which, quote, is wholly separate 

geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species, unquote. The implementing regulations make it clear that, quote, where part of an experimental population overlaps with natural populations of the same species, specimens of the experimental 

population will not be recognized as such in the area of overlap, 

unquote. 

The Act makes it clear therefore that whenever any member of 

a designated population overlap with any naturally occurring members of the same species, they are all treated as if they were naturally occurring and given full protection under the Endangered 

Species Act. Section 10(j) also includes as members of the experimental population any offspring but only, quote, arising solely 

therefrom, unquote; in other words, only if both parents are members of the experimental population. 

The final rule for both Yellowstone and central Idaho introduction provide the opposite result of what the law and the regulations 

say. Given this situation, are the overlapping or released wolves 

and naturally occurring wolves to be treated as if they were mem- bers of an experimental population according to the authorizing 

rules, or will they be fully protected under the Endangered Species 

Act or provided by law in the implementing regulations? If the latter, farmers, ranchers, and others within the experimental area 
43 

will have lost any ability to protect themselves or their property 

against wolf depredation. We suggest the Attorney General of the 

United States look into that. 

The argument against Government responsibility for damages 

caused by wild wolves does not extend to cases where the animals 

have been controlled, quote, by skillful capture, unquote. Since any 

introduced wolves would necessarily have been live trapped in Canada and transported to the introduction-sites and actually released 

on those sites, there can be no doubt that such animals have been 

subject to, quote, skillful capture, unquote, and the Government is 

liable for damages caused by these animals. Likewise, because the 

Federal Government is the entity that is capturing the wolves and 

releasing them and it is the Federal Endangered Species Act that 

applies, the onus of responsibility cannot be pawned off to the 

States in this case. These circumstances raise serious Fifth Amendment just compensation issues that are not addressed in the proposal. 

I would like to say that when you start talking about paying people for losses, I relate some of this to, we are told how many losses 

there will be. I have information that was done by the University 

of Wyoming that indicates that the Government's loss statistics 

could be off by 40 times. A 40-fold error is quite an error. But I 

also relate this. We are told that the losses will all be compensated 

for. I relate this to wartime. In war we have those that we know 

were killed, but we also have those that are missing in action and 

we really don't know what happened to them, but something happened to them and they are gone, and that is the case in this. We 

don't know how many are going to be missing, but I can tell you, 

in Alberta, in a study done up there, 41 percent of the livestock 

they found that were dead were killed by wolves but they only 

found 15 percent of the missing livestock, so what happens to the 

other 85 percent that these ranchers are supposed to donate to this 

program, I suppose? 

The Minnesota information has been used to show what losses 

will be. But if you actually calculate the losses suffered by those 

who actually suffer the loss not divided by the big numbers in the 

whole area, it is much greater for those who suffer the loss, and 

those people are going to suffer badly. The future possibilities of delisting the wolf in Wyoming and in 

Montana and in Idaho. We have the grizzly bear. We have reached 

the population objective in 1990. It still hasn't been delisted. No attempts have been made, but the rules have been changed so that 

we will not be delisting very soon, in fact probably ever. In Minnesota they have reached the objective on the eastern timber wolf. 

No attempt has been made by the Federal Government yet to delist 

those wolves in Minnesota. So I don't see those promises that we 

are going to delist these as very promising at all. 

In conclusion, nobody can seriously contend that the wolf is in 

danger of becoming extinction. These figures on the chart show 

that. Nobody can seriously argue that we are returning an animal 

to its historic habitat because the wolf that is being introduced is 

not native to the area of reintroduction, nor can anyone seriously 

argue that the proposed rule would allow farmers and ranchers to 

protect their livestock, pets, and other private property from de-
44 

struction by the introduced wolves. Even the Defenders of Wildlife, 

primary supporters of the current proposal, admit that any difference between the current proposal and the introduction with full 

species protection together with the full range of land use restrictions that would accompany it are minuscule. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Bourret may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Bourret. 

Our next witness is Mr. Mark Pollot from Boise, Idaho. 

STATEMENT OF MARK POLLOT 

Mr. POLLOT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here. 

I am director of an organization recently begun in Boise called 

the Stewards Constitutional Law Center. Prior to entering the Constitutional Law Center, I was in private practice in the San Francisco Bay area, and prior to that I was Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of what was then called the 

Land and Natural Resources Division; it is now called the Environment and Natural Resources Division, the name having been 

changed, I guess, to protect the innocent. 

I am submitting written testimony of approximately 18 pages. 

Obviously, in the time allotted I cannot do much more than summarize in bare-bones fashion what I have said. I will apologize in 

advance for any typos. I had a catastrophic zipper failure on my 

carry-on bag, lost the disc that contained my testimony, and so had 

to rewrite it last night. So I apologize; I haven't had a chance to 

see it on paper and fix the typos. 

I agree largely with many of the things that have been said by 

Mr. Bourret and Ron Marlenee here today, and I will try not to repeat those in my testimony, particularly as regards the appropriateness of calling this an experimental population in the first 

place, the nature or the danger of extinction of this species, and the 

impact that it is going to have in these areas. I discuss those at 

some length in my testimony. I also discuss in my written testimony at some length the problem with factual errors, and I am 

going to try and be polite and assume that they are errors and not 

misrepresentations. The problem is, I have spent all of my legal career from the time 

I was in the Justice Department through private practice and now 

in the nonprofit public interest arena, trying to keep Federal 

agents honest, to keep them in line with the Constitution. I am less 

sanguine than, for example, Secretary Babbitt that everything that 

happened out there is the result of good faith. I do believe a great 

deal of it is the result of sincerity, but sincerity and good faith are 

not necessarily synonymous. The problem with the issue that is before us today is that it is 

not, in my view, merely about the reintroduction of the wolf. It is 

much deeper than that, and the result of these hearings and what 

happens after, I think, will determine the fate of the Endangered 

Species Program as a whole. 

Any legislative program depends ultimately on voluntary cooperation and public support. If that support is eroded through perceptions which are either accurate or inaccurate, the program ulti-
45 

mately is going to fail. The release of the wolf above the objections 

of the States and the people in those States-and I respectfully disagree with the other witnesses here who have said that there is 

widespread support for this release-is the last in a series of activities that threatens the future existence of the Endangered Species 

Act. 

My experience on the ground dealing with people in everyday life 

has been that everyone, increasingly, entering into even urban and 

suburban populations, is unhappy with what this program has ultimately accomplished. That is due in large part to the way in which 

this program, which was fundamentally reasonable in its inception, 

has been transformed in its implementation. 

Contrary to what has been said, the purpose of the Endangered 

Species Act is to prevent the extinction of species, not to return the 

North American continent or the planet to pre-Columbian conditions. A lot of what is going on out here has little to do with the 

conservation of species and much to do with trying to reverse the 

direction of time, as Stephen Hawking would say. 

My purpose here, however, is not to quarrel with the policy of the 

Endangered Species Act but to discuss the legal ramifications of 

this Act and how it is being carried out. Fundamentally there are 

two issues that have to be faced. One of those issues can be subdivided. That first issue is the authority of the United States Government to do what it is doing and whether it delegated that authority to the agency and whether, of course, as a corollary, the 

agency is acting within its delegated authority. 

The fact is, when the United States was created, the Constitution 

was deliberately constructed in order to give limited powers to the 

Federal Government, leaving the remainder of those powers in the 

hands of the States and the people, and while the Constitution has 

been broadened some by judicial interpretation-for example, the 

general theory of the Endangered Species Act being authorized by 

the commerce clause-not everything that is done under the Endangered Species Act is authorized. I do not believe, for the reasons 

stated in my written testimony, that the Constitution authorizes 

the affirmative action of forcing a species on a State within its borders without its consent. 

If you take a look at the Endangered Species Act itself, you will 

find that it is divided into two parts: that which mandates and prohibits certain conduct, and that which permits certain conduct in 

the restoration of the species. But the permissive aspects are 

bounded by the law's consistent reiteration that the Federal Government must cooperate with the States. I think that that cooperation is constitutionally mandated. This is far different from setting 

up rules saying that you cannot kill or take an animal. That is a 

prohibited act; it is an act of regulation. 

The act of forcibly introducing a wolf is a physical invasion of 

that State's territory onto land which is not "enclave clause" land 

under Article 1 but is merely territory or property under Article 4 

of the Constitution. Therefore the United States Government does 

not have sovereignty over that land, it has mere ownership. These 

facts have significant consequences. 

But assuming that Congress was given the authority to do what 

is now claimed, did it delegate that authority to the Fish and Wild-
46 

life Service? For the reasons stated in my testimony, I suggest no. 

First of all, as I said, the statute is replete with provisions that require cooperation with the Federal Government; and, secondly, the 

only provision on which they rely, the experimental population provision, doesn't even fit the circumstances. 

Far more importantly, if this action was authorized and authority was properly delegated, it runs a afoul of two requirements. 

One is that when you take property belonging to private parties, 

which in this case includes the State, the Federal Government 

must pay and it has not done so. That is a constitutional requirement. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Could you quickly summarize for us, please. 

Mr. POLLOT. I will quickly summarize. 

The other one is, of course, that as a landowner, as Mr. Bourret 

said, once you take a dangerous animal onto your land and you do 

not control that animal and he gets out and does damage, then you 

are also liable in tort, and since the Federal Government is just a 

mere landowner under those circumstances, it cannot hide behind 

sovereign immunity. I share your concern that the Federal Government contain itself within the bounds of the Constitution. I believe 

that it has not done so. 

[The statement of Mr. Pollot may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Cynthia Lummis. Cynthia was a 14-year 

member of the Wyoming State Legislature. She practiced law in 

southern Wyoming, and she is now the general counsel for the governor of the State of Wyoming, and she is representing the governor here today. Thank you for being here, Cynthia. 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA LUMMIS 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

My name is Cynthia Lummis, and I am here today representing 

Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer on whose staff I serve. Governor 

Geringer certainly extends to you his personal regards and greetings and wishes to thank you and all the Members of this Committee for allowing me to address you today on behalf of the State of 

Wyoming. 

On January 16, four days after the wolves arrived in Yellowstone, Governor Geringer sent a letter to Interior Secretary Bruce 

Babbitt. The governor expressed his concern over Wyoming's role 

in the management of wolves outside of the Park and the irreversible effects of this Federal mandate on our State. 

Governor Geringer requested that Secretary Babbitt take action 

in four areas and take interim steps in two others. The governor 

requested that the wolves remain in their holding pens in the Park 

until legal challenges to wolf reintroduction rules are resolved, 

until the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has prepared a 

plan for State management of wolves outside the Park and that 

plan is approved by the Wyoming legislature and accepted by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; that reasonable assurances of adequate Federal funding of the wolf mandate are given by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and protection is provided for the continued use of currently approved predator control methods in all areas 
47 

outside of the Park. While these issues are being addressed, the 

governor requested that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

be given access to the wolf records and the holding pens and, further, that any wolf released or escaping from the pens be captured 

and returned or destroyed. 

As of today, Governor Geringer has received no response from 

Secretary Babbitt. In fact, Governor Geringer was not contacted by 

Secretary Babbitt before he brought more than a dozen wolves into 

our State. No assurances have been provided that are our currently 

approved predator control methods outside of the Park will be honored. Our Wyoming Game and Fish Department will prepare a wolf 

management plan for areas outside of the Park once the lawsuit 

over reintroduction rules is resolved, but we have no assurance 

that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will consider our management plan. In short, we have been ignored. 

As our governor said earlier this week in Casper, Wyoming is not 

Secretary Babbitt's terrarium. The wolf is a Federal mandate of 

tremendous consequence to our wildlife and livestock-based way of 

life in Wyoming. It is also a living example of a Federal agency 

which acts first and addresses the negative impacts to the State 

later, if ever. It is this attitude, so pervasive and unyielding, that 

is of greater concern to us in Wyoming, even greater than the wolf 

itself. 

These issues could be resolved at the administrative level. However, in the absence of agency action, we ask you to take action on 

the issues raised in Governor Geringer's letter. I have attached a 

copy of the governor's letter to my testimony, and before I close, 

Madam Chairman, I would like to point out that previous speakers 

have said that this is a nonessential experimental population. 

Under current Federal funding where there are so many other 

needs and priorities, all nonessential programs of the Federal Government should cease to be funded and only essential programs 

that are required by the American people to continue in our way 

of life should continue to be funded. 

Further, it is very courteous of the Defenders of Wildlife to offer 

to compensate ranchers for depredation to livestock, but we would 

need to know whether that would be an ongoing fund and who 

would decide whether a dead sheep or cow or steer was killed by 

a wolf. Would that be determined by a Defenders of Wildlife committee? Will ranchers have to have live video footage of a wolf killing cattle or sheep before we can document that a wolf is indeed 

the predator involved? Changes in Federal law are necessary in 

order to alleviate the problems that Wyoming sees with this plan, 

and we encourage this Congress and we encourage you to use your 

leadership to make it happen. 

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to see you here as my congressman, and I thank you for allowing the governor of the State 

of Wyoming to participate in this hearing today. 

Thank you. 

[The letter submitted by Ms. Lummis may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you all. 

Thank you very much, Cynthia. 
48 

I was just notified we have a quorum call on the Floor, so the 

two remaining Members have to go. Will you be available to take 

brief questions? We have a quorum call. That is 15 minutes, and 

then five minutes later we will have another vote, so that will be 

about 20 minutes from now. Will you all be available to take questions at that time? 

Mr. POLLOT. Yes. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

We will recess until such time as the Committee can return. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Please forgive us for being gone so long. I really appreciate your waiting around, and we will just go ahead and ask 

some questions. Representative Chenoweth, are you ready to ask some questions? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Madam Chairman, I do have some questions, 

but Ms. Lummis had a question of the representative from the Defenders of Wildlife, and he was unable to answer that question, and 

I wanted to give him a chance to do that. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Certainly. 

Mr. SCHLICKEISEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. Lummis, just as you adjourned, had asked a question, and 

I think to paraphrase it, she wondered how Defenders decided how 

to award compensation and whether we insisted that we have a 

camera there taking a video of the wolf attacking the livestock before we would award compensation. 

As delicately as I can, I would like to try to dispel the notion that 

somehow we are operating this fund in an unfair manner. You may 

have a lot of reasons that you are opposed to wolf reintroduction, but I don't think one of them should be our intent and our fairness 

in operating the fund. 

Just let me tell you how it has operated, Ms. Lummis, in the 

past, for the seven years we operated it in Montana. All we did was 

write the check, and that is the same way it will work in Wyoming. 

It will be your own Fish and Game Department official that will 

make the determination about whether the predation was one due 

to a wolf, and we have told officials consistently to err on the side 

of the stockman, to err on the side of giving the benefit of the 

doubt. 

There have been cases, in fact, in Montana when the fish and 

game official has insisted that this never could have been done by 

a wolf and we have gone ahead and paid fair market value in any 

event. Also, another example of the voluntary way in which we have 

done this: Recently, in fact just this past few months, we made two 

payments to Alberta ranchers. They aren't even within the area in 

which we have agreed to make payments, but the Alberta ranchers 

came to us because they preferred not to kill the wolves if they 

could be compensated for the damage they had done, and we 

agreed to do that. 

The other part of the question that you asked is: What happens 

after delisting? Now it is true that we have not decided yet whether we will continue the compensation fund, Madam Chairman, 

after the wolf is delisted. What we are trying to do with the fund 

is to make certain it is fair and reasonable. What we intend to do 
49 

is to look-after the wolf is delisted-to see what the situation is, 

to see in particular whether total predation is up or down. Again, 

I know it has been disputed here, but there is some good scientific 

evidence from competent wildlife biologists that indicate that the 

total level of predation is likely to go down because of coyote displacement. 

The second question is: How effective are the new control means 

that the ranchers and the local ADC have because it isn't an endangered species? 

And then the third question beyond that which we look at is: 

Notwithstanding all of that, are there certain ranchers who are 

being hit by this and are being hurt unfairly or excessively? And 

if we can figure out that simple rules of equity or fairness apply, 

we will continue the fund. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

I fear that I cut Renee off before she had completed all of her 

remarks, and if I did, some of the other people went over a little 

bit, so if you had anything you would like to add, we could sure 

take a few minutes for that. 

Ms. AsKINS. That is very kind of you. 

Wyomingites are wonderful. 

The only point that !-well, there are many points, but the major 

point I wanted to make was that of the funding, and I realize that 

this is a considerable issue right now that Congress is facing, and 

I think it is important to look at, you know, the funding for programs like wildlife introductions. The phrase, "One man's cost is 

another man's income," as we have learned from the defense spending cuts, I think, is applicable in this case, and that is important 

that we look at the way in which money may come to the State as 

a part of this program. 

I don't know that most people are aware that, as a part of the 

Federal budget for this, there is between $100,000 and $200,000 of 

the $900,000 that is allocated for this project yearly, $100,000 to 

$200,000 is allocated for each State. That is, somewhere between 

$300,000 to $600,000 will be going to the States of Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming to support management of wolves. So that is a part 

of the whole budget, and of course the management of wolves especially in the early stages, is not going to be a full-time proposition 

and a lot of that funding will go to support other activities in the 

State. 

Also as a part of this budget is $50,000 for the presence of an 

ADC individual, and, again, that $50,000 in that position will be 

going into the States and be a part of all kinds of activities probably unrelated to wolves because the activities related to wolves 

will probably not be considerable until after we reach recovery, 

meaning wolves won't be killing a lot of livestock. 

Then the last point I wanted to make was a more general one 

about the democratic process. I do believe in democracy, and I believe in solutions that are derived from the public rather than imposed upon it, which is why my organization has spent so many 

years especially focused in the region really trying to listen to 

ranchers and outfitters there and their concerns. It doesn't make 

sense to bring wolves back to a place where people are hostile, and 
50 

I think it is really important for our State Government and Federal 

Government to recognize that the public has participated in this, 

that they have spoken, that they have attended the hearings, they 

have submitted comments. My friend, Larry Bourret, can tell you 

how many hours he has spent going to those hearings and writing 

testimony, as have we. I know that the solution isn't one that we 

all endorse; we have, you know, people on both sides attacking it; 

but it certainly is a solution that will result in; I think; the recovery of wolves and the protection of ranchers. The bottom line here is, this is an issue about making room; and 

I think there is a little room in the west still for ranching, for hunting, for conservationists; and for wolves. 

Thank you for your time. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Now; Representative Chenoweth; would you like to have your 

five minutes of questioning? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, Madam Chairman. I want to thank all 

the participants of the panel. They are outstanding spokesmen for 

your positions. 

I would like to ask Ms. Askins, you mentioned the $300,000 to 

$600,000 income into our States. Do you know, was there, along 

with the environmental impact statement-was there an economic 

impact statement performed with regards to not just the cost of introduction of the species but the impact of the species, the predation, whatever might happen, an overall economic impact? Was 

there a study and an economic impact statement done, do you 

know? 

Ms. AsKINS. Yes, ma'am, as a part of the environmental impact 

statement there was very, very thorough analysis of the potential 

impact wolves might have on livestock as well as on community activities including hunting, tourism. There was certainly some concern expressed by residents of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana about 

whether the presence of wolves might limit logging operations or 

oil and gas extractions, and the EIS explored all of those issues 

very thoroughly, and it resulted in the fact that there are very, 

very limited restrictions associated with wolves. Someone has asked this morning about den site closures. The 

proposal includes just closures of den sites from April till June, 

which is a time in which really no commercial operations are utilizing that area, and that is a discretionary closure only if it appears 

that for some reason human activity would disrupt or result in 

wolves not breeding or not whelping their pups. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

You know, in your statement you mentioned that ranchers were 

being subsidized for predator control, and there has been consider- able comment about the low grazing fees on public lands which you 

claim and others claim are a form of subsidies. Do you support 

those subsidies? 

Ms. AsKINS. Ma'am, we would have to take a whole evening to 

talk through that topic. It is a very, very complex one. And there 

are so many different ways to analyze grazing lease subsidies. I 

can tell you that I fully support ranching in the west, that I think 

it is a very, very important part of our State and our economy even 
51 

though it does comprise less than 2 percent of our State economy 

in Wyoming and in Idaho. I do think there are some examples of subsidies, but I also don't 

want this program or any other one to result in putting people out 

of business, which is why our organization has really fought fiercely for some of the concessions that are included in this plan, including killing wolves that kill livestock, including limiting any kind of 

land restrictions. I think there is a lot of fear associated with 

wolves. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do understand that. But my question was, 

do you support the subsidy for grazing fees specifically. 

Ms. AsKINS. Do I support grazing fee subsidies? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. In the western lands. 

Ms. AsKINS. There are many grazing fee subsidies. It would depend exactly which one you are talking about. There are subsidies 

that result in abuse of western public lands, and I think that any 

kind of economic incentive to diminish the quality of range habitat 

is not good. 

On the other hand, I think there are some subsidies that literally 

keep ranchers in business and are very critical. I don't think these 

subsidies are directly related to the presence of wolves though. So 

again, as I said earlier in my talk, I don't think this is an issue 

of wolves or ranching. I certainly don't think this is an agenda to 

remove any livestock from our public lands, although I know that 

that is a fear. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I appreciate your answer. I do think that the 

basic question goes to the force of the Federal Government and 

which programs one would prefer to be subsidized. You know, I would like to yield some of my time to Mr. Marlenee, Madam Chairman, but I do have a comment or a question 

of Mr. Pollot. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Go right ahead. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mark, I know that when you were in the Justice Department you wrote some very interesting Executive Orders. 

I want to know what is your response to Appendix 6 of the final 

environmental impact statement which states that private property 

will not be affected by wolf introduction and thus this environment 

environmental impact statement does not violate the Executive 

Order on takings. Tell me about that. 

Mr. POLLOT. Yes. For those who do not know in the room, I authored Executive Order 12630. I also authored the implementing 

Attorney General's guidelines, and I have taken the opportunity to 

review Appendix 6. This does not even come close to what I had 

in mind when the Order was written. What I had in mind, and 

what other people who were involved in this had in mind, is that 

the Government should undertake a meticulous review of the impacts of its actions on private property, compare that action with 

Supreme Court law on the subject, and come up with a determination as to whether the action, and to what extent the action pro- posed, is likely to result in a taking of private property for which 

compensation will be required. 

Step number two was that the agencies were to estimate the potential cost even if they disagreed that action would result in a taking. In other words, they were to assume that in fact an action did 
52 

result in a taking and to estimate the cost. This is an important 

step for two reasons,, one of which is, it avoids people coming automatically to the conclusion that "we don't think it is going to cause 

a t aking of property, therefore we don't have to go the next step." 

It was also there to make sure that at least somebody had a headsup, Congress or the agency or whoever, as to the potential cost of 

a program above and beyond the direct costs, because what often 

happens is, these costs are ignored in the economic analysis of 

things and yet they are always there. There is no such thing as a 

regulatory program that does not impose hidden costs. At least if 

you are planning on administering the program and enforcing the 

program, it does have costs. 

The third step was then to proceed to determine alternatives to 

the Government's action that would still accomplish its statutory 

mandate, but would minimize to the greatest extent possible within 

that mandate, interference with private property rights. Not one of 

these elements occurs in this analysis. In fact, this analysis simply 

makes conclusions based on no fact and ignores a whole category 

of potential takings. It focuses, for example, on depredation of cat- tle, yet that is not the only takings issue the action has. This would 

truly be different than other endangered species regulations. This 

would be a literal physical invasion at the hands of the Federal 

Government with an animal that did not exist in that area before. 

This is not a free-roaming animal that just sort of happened to end 

up on your property. Despite the last sentence in the second full 

paragraph in there, that is going to end up resulting in land use 

restrictions. 

I am very familiar with the way the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service enforces these things on the ground. Some districts 

even go so far as to claim that a potential habitat is sufficient 

ground for regulation. That last sentence is flat wrong. Overall 

there are no elements of Executive Order 12630 discernible from 

this page. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pollot, and I yield back to the 

chair's east direction. 

Mrs. CUBIN. We do have to move this along, we have another 

panel coming, but I wanted to ask one question of Mr. Schlickeisen. 

During an April 21, 1989, speech in Laramie, Hank Fischer stated 

that the purpose of a compensation program isn't to make ranchers 

happy or gain their support, the purpose of the program is to develop enough political and economical comfort level with the public 

so as to allow wolf recovery to proceed unimpeded. Do you stand 

by his statement? 

Mr. SCHLICKEISEN. I am not familiar with the statement. Would 

you say it again? 

Mrs. CUBIN. Hank Fischer in Laramie, Wyoming, April 21, 

1989-do you want me to reread the statement? 

Mr. SCHLICKEISEN. Please. 

Mrs. CUBIN. OK. The purpose of a compensation program isn't to 

make ranchers happy or gain their support, the purpose of the program is to develop enough political and economic comfort level with 

the public so as to allow wolf recovery to proceed unimpeded. Do 

you stand by that statement? 
53 

Mr. ScHLICKEISEN. Yes. I think what he meant by that was that 

there isn't any way you are going to make the ranching community 

happy about all this but he wanted to be responsive to the fair interests that they had and to basically neutralize that. That was a 

legitimate concern. His position and our position has always been 

that that is a legitimate concern on the ranchers' part, and that is 

why we designed the compensation fund. It wasn't to make them 

happy. He never thought that he would make them happy. 

Mrs. CUBIN. No. My concern basically rested with the part about 

just to make the public comfortable so that the recovery could proceed. 

Mr. SCHLICKEISEN. He is talking about the whole public, including the ranching community, especially the local public. Mrs. CUBIN. I understand that. 

One other thing. How much money is in your account with the 

foundation at the present time? 

Mr. SCHLICKEISEN. We have a dedicated fund, and it has over 

$100,000 in it. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Right now. And do you know roughly how much you 

have awarded to date? 

Mr. SCHLICKEISEN. Yes, I think it is about $17,000. Mrs. CUBIN. Seventeen thousand dollars. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Marlenee. 

Mr. MARLENEE. May I address the compensation issue? 

Mrs. CUBIN. Just very, very briefly. 

Mr. MARLENEE. I will be very brief. 

The question of compensation to the agricultural community 

clouds the real issue as far as I am concerned, and I think it is, 

as Hank Fischer has stated, to placate the general public. It is a 

well known fact that as wolves cycle, wildlife cycles down as wolves 

cycle up, and all you have to do to verify that is go to Alaska, go 

to Minnesota where deer herds have been devastated. Who compensates the sportsmen's community for the loss of wildlife? This 

is one of the biggest losses that will occur with the wolf. 

Finally, in closing, I would again reemphasize the fact that 

sportsmen are the ones that pay the bill for conservation, not the 

wolf, and it could be said in another way: Every bite that a wolf 

takes, takes a bite out of the conservation budgets that are available to State fish and game agencies. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you all very much for your comments. I know 

it is a personal sacrifice for each of you to be here, and we truly 

appreciate that. Thank you so much. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Now I would like to have the second panel please 

be seated if you will. I am going to ask Troy Mader from Gillette, 

Wyoming, to be the first speaker. He has to catch a plane at 3:00, so I think we are kind of squeezing his time anyway. The next panel: Mr. Troy Mader, as I said, from Gillette, Wyoming; Mr. Ronald Hughes from Idaho Falls, Idaho; Mr. Thomas 

Dougherty of the National Wildlife Federation of Boulder, Colorado; the Honorable JoAn Wood, a Member of the House of Representatives from the State of Idaho; Mr. Robert Sears, Idaho Cattle Association in Boise; Mr. Fred Garner, North Carolina. Thank 
54 

you all for being here, and we will start, five minutes please, not 

any longer than that-we will start with you, Troy Mader, from 

Wyoming. 

STATEMENTS OF TROY MADER, GILLETTE, WYOMING; FRED 

BONNER, GARNER, NORTH CAROLINA; ROBERT SEARS, 

IDAHO CATTLE ASSOCIATION, BOISE, IDAHO; HON. JOAN 

WOOD, MEMBER, IDAHO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

RIGBY, IDAHO; THOMAS J. DOUGHERTY, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, BOULDER, COLORADO; AND RONALD 

HUGHES, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO 

STATEMENT OF TROY MADER 

Mr. MADER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Before I get started with my comments, I would like to ask if a 

couple of documents we have be entered into the record. One is 

about the compensation. You have just asked some questions. It is 

an actual account written by a Montana rancher, and I think it 

would be very informative. The second account-Mr. Bourret alluded to a study in Canada where there was significant depredation on wolves but hard to find these animals in time, written by 

a couple of biologists, if that could be entered into the record. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Without objection, so ordered. [The documents may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. MADER. OK, briefly let me give you a little bit of my background. I have done seven years of research on the wolf; I have 

traveled 30,000 miles doing research on the wolf; I have spent literally thousands of hours; I have been to Alaskan and Native 

American bush villages in Canada and Alaska clear to the National 

Archives and the Library of Congress here; and I have done 180 

interviews with conservation officers and biologists. I think I have 

a good working knowledge of this issue, and I want to tell you, 

there is a phrase that really sums it up, and that is this: Things 

just aren't what they seem to be; and we are talking about trying 

to save wolves, and it is obvious through the hearing already we 

know that this is not going to save wolves. 

I briefly want to emphasize the fact that the people of the west 

do not want these wolves and there is no amount of data that the 

other side can say that supports that. For example, in 1992 Montana voters were polled by Market Research Institute, an independent organization; 46.5 percent were opposed; 39.4 percent were in 

favor; 13.5 percent were undecided. 

At the beginning of the comment period we solicited organizations throughout the three-State region to come on board with us 

and state their opposition to wolf recovery, and we had unanimous 

support. We had 67 major organizations, businesses, and environmental groups come to our side and say we are opposed to wolves. 

Additionally, we had 39,000 petition signatures turned into the 

Fish and Wildlife; 33,000 of those came from the three States in 

opposition to wolf recovery. So we have found that. 

In 19~13 Wyoming Heritage Foundation public opinion poll asked: 

"Are you in favor of a Federal program introducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park?" Fifty-eight percent said no; 30 percent 

said yes; 5 said possibly; and 7 percent did not know. They have 
55 

already talked about the Outdoor Life survey which was two-to-one 

opposed to wolf recovery. I want to emphasize that, the Times-Mirror publication based in New York City, not somewhere out there. The editor, Vin Sparano, wrote this. He said: "I'm bafiled. Why 

would the Fish and Wildlife insist on releasing wolves in Yellowstone when the plan was opposed by a two-to-one margin?" 

Also, we need to point out that the Wyoming and Idaho legislatures have consistently and vehemently opposed wolf recovery, and 

that is really the reason why we have had so many public comments. I believe the Government knew they didn't have the support 

in the three States, and EIS's are normally written for the areas 

impacted. We went international with this EIS, so they could get 

their support. It needs to be understood. 

Also, we have a bill in front of our legislature called H.B. 214 

which is a wolves bounty bill, the taking of wolves within the State 

of Wyoming, and the purpose of that bill is basically to say this: 

We are opposed to wolf recovery, and we want you to understand 

that, and we can't seem to get the Government's attention on that. 

I mean they pass resolutions, memoriums, the whole nine yards. 

Nobody listens. 

The second thing is, we support the Wyoming legislature in their 

strong stand against wolves, and the third thing is that the U.S. 

Government must be a good neighbor. Nearly every city and com- munity across this Nation has leash laws. You simply can't let your 

dogs run loose, and if they cause damage, you are liable. We are 

asking the Feds to abide by the same rules. Don't let your dogs run 

loose, and if they cause problems, be responsible for their actions. 

Now you have heard lots of problems with this issue. I would like 

to recommend three things in closing. First of all, defund this program immediately. Second: Order the Fish and Wildlife to return 

the wolves either to Canada, to zoos, or to private sanctuaries. 

They have threatened to kill them, and I don't think that is necessary. Let's move them out. And, third, we recommend that Congress consider delisting the wolf immediately because we know it 

is not biologically endangered. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Mader may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mader. 

Mr. MADER. Thank you. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Our next witness will be Fred Bonner from Garner, 

North Carolina. 

STATEMENT OF FRED BONNER 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you very much. 

To give you a little background on myself, I am a wildlife biologist by trade too, and I have turned to being a journalist. I am a 

syndicated columnist and editor of a magazine in North Carolina. 

The reason I was invited up here-and I didn't know this until 

the day before yesterday for sure that I was coming-we have eight 

years of experience with wolves in North Carolina, and some people 

thought that perhaps our experiences in North Carolina might help 

you a little bit with your problems out west. 

Several years ago they decided, the Fish and Wildlife Service decided, to bring red wolves into the State of North Carolina. I was 
56 

the first journalist to meet the first planeload of wolves that came 

into North Carolina, and, frankly, at the time I thought it was the 

greatest thing since sliced bread. It was a wonderful program, I 

thought. As time went by and I began to see the program for what 

it was, I did about a 180-degree turn on it, and I would like to explain to you why I changed my mind and why we have problems 

after eight years experience with red wolves in North Carolina. 

First of all, the Fish and Wildlife Service promised the North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission that these wolves could be 

shot on sight if they got off the Federal refuges. We have an open 

season year round on coyotes in North Carolina, and it is very difficult to tell a red wolf from a coyote. Mike Phillips-- and I will 

use his name several times here-he is with you guys out in Wyoming now-was our red wolf project leader in North Carolina with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mike knows red wolves very 

well, and he will tell you up front that even at very close range he 

finds it very difficult to tell the difference between a red wolf and 

a coyote. 

Second of all, I know the reason is that red wolves are no morered wolves as a species ceased to exist years ago. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service data will support this, as will quite a bit of other 

data. The red wolf is no more. What we have and what they have 

shipped to us are hybrid coyotes, and it shows up about every time 

we turn around. 

We were told when they brought the red wolves in that they 

would be eating nutria, possums, other less valuable animals, particularly the nutria, which is an exotic animal in North Carolina. 

They are wrecking our marshes. We didn't particularly want the 

nutria there. It turns out now after eight years of study, that the 

main diet of the red wolf is white-tailed deer. Over 60 percent of 

their diet consists of white-tailed deer. 

This is not making the sportsmen or the hunters in North Carolina very happy. The counties surrounding the refuges where the 

red wolves have been introduced are impoverished counties. They 

need the money badly from their hunting programs, and this is cutting into that program. Also, the counties there are finding it increasingly difficult to understand when thE~ Fish and Wildlife Service says that they can't 

pay their taxes in kind, entitlement moneys that they pay in lieu 

of taxes, and they say, ''Well, we just don't have the money." Congress passed a law that the Fish and Wildlife Service would pay 

these funds to counties in which refuges are located, and the funds 

are being used instead for other things. I understand how funding 

works, but when they say they don't have the money to pay their 

taxes in kind and turn around and spend $385,000 a year on a few 

red wolves in North Carolina, the people find that very difficult to 

understand, and I can certainly understand why. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service told us originally that if you killed 

a red wolf accidentally while you were carrying out a normal legal 

activity, nothing would happen to you. Well, when it came right 

down to it, it didn't quite work that way. A fellow by the name of 

James Johnson shot and killed a red wolf while he thought he was 

shooting a coyote at a range of about 300 yards. He followed the 

guidelines of the law exactly. He called the Fish and Wildlife Serv-
57 

ice, notably Mike Phillips, and a Federal game warden, and said, 

"I think I might have killed a red wolf." There was no radio collar 

on this animal. They came down and looked at it and said, "Yes, 

indeed you have killed a red wolf, but you have followed the letter 

of the law exactly; you have done nothing wrong." Mr. Johnson was 

allowed to go free. 

Three months later the Federal game wardens came around to 

visit him in his home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and attempted 

to, I'll use the word extort money from him in a pretrial determination: If you will, pay this money and do these public service things, 

then you will not be prosecuted for killing a red wolf. Luckily the 

U.S. attorneys decided that the case was not to be prosecuted because they have it in writing exactly what Mike Phillips had told 

us. 

Mike Phillips-again I quote him, and, again, he is with you out 

in Montana now. I am a biologist. I understand that predators are 

necessary in an ecosystem, and in some cases where you don't have 

hunting there-and that is one reason I was so glad to hear you 

bring up the possibility of hunting in Yellowstone. Other National 

Parks do allow hunting, so this is not without precedent. But if you 

are not going to allow hunting in Yellowstone, perhaps wolves are 

necessary if they are confined to the Park because you do need a 

predator there. 

When I asked Mike Phillips why, what biological reason there 

was for bringing red wolves into the State of North Carolina, Mike 

replied that there is no biological reason. The only reason we want 

red wolves in North Carolina is purely sociological: I want my children to be able to hear a wolf howl. Now being a biologist, I can't 

exactly understand that. That doesn't make sense to me. If there 

is no biological reason for bringing red wolves into eastern North 

Carolina, I don't see why we should have them there. 

I think most of you are aware by now that North Carolina State 

Legislature passed a bill in two counties that surround these refuges where the wolves are relocated that allows them to be shot 

if certain criteria are followed, notably, that you notify the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and give them a chance to get the wolves off 

your property, and if they don't do it, then you can shoot and kill 

the wolves. Now you are required to notify them if you have killed 

a wolf. 

This bill did not pass the North Carolina Legislature lightly. The 

House Agriculture Committee took a long look at this. They invited 

in officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, listened to what 

they had to say about it. They considered it very carefully. They 

were fully aware of the consequences. As a matter of fact, Mr. 

Pulliam, who was the regional director in Atlanta, made the threat 

to our legislature that: "If you should pass this bill, we will probably cut your funds off." Those were our Pitman-Robinson moneys 

and Dingell-Johnson moneys. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Could you quickly summarize, please? 

Mr. BONNER. Yes. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. BONNER. This bill passed the North Carolina State Legislature virtually unopposed. It passed the House and Senate in 30 

minutes and is now law in North Carolina. 
58 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Bonner may be found at end of hearing.) 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness will be Mr. Robert Sears of the Idaho Cattle 

Association in Boise. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SEARS 

Mr. SEARS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here. I represent not only the Idaho Cattle Association but the Idaho Wool Growers Association as I testify before 

this Committee today. 

It is apparent to anyone who lives in the more remote areas of 

our western States that cattle and sheepmen have a distinct fear 

of having wolves, bears, and other predators in direct proximity to 

their livestock. This has been the case since the dawn of recorded 

history. One needs but to recall the biblical records of the lives of 

Cain, David, and the Good Shepherd, and others as examples of the 

constant vigil these individuals keep over their livestock and of the 

need to slay the predators that threaten the herds and the flocks. 

By the way, our 3,000,000 animal herd of sheep of a few years back 

has now dwindled to 225,000 partly because of Government action, 

partly because of imported lamb, and partly because of coyotes, and 

we certainly don't need wolves to add to the reduction of those 

numbers. 

With this in mind, I assure you that the herdsmen and shepherds of today are no less concerned than their counterparts 

throughout recorded history with the thought of having these vicious predators nearby while the cattle and sheep they depend 

upon for their livelihood graze on the meadows and hillsides. 

Today's herdsmen and shepherds trying to survive in the modern 

world on lands that were passed down to them for several generations by ancestors who, through the years of effort, succeeded in 

eliminating what was recognized as a significant threat to their 

livelihood, that being the wolves and the bears, are now faced with 

the prospect of having those same predators reintroduced to the 

land by that referred-to menace, the wolf in sheep's clothing. This 

menace, of course, was represented by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, who 

assures us they are only here to help us, are justifiably suspect by 

those I represent. 

Nevertheless, some cattle and sheep owners in Idaho, against 

their better judgment, perplexed and bewildered by the burning desire of preservationists and conservationist groups from the east to 

return these animals to their backyards, agreed to serve on the 

congressionally-appointed Wolf Management Committee to develop 

a plan whereby a nonessential experimental population of wolves 

could be reintroduced into the Frank Church Wilderness Area of 

central Idaho. 

This committee produced such a plan and presented it, I believe, 

to this Committee, where it was pigeonholed because of opposition 

of some of the environmental groups and never acted upon. Subsequently the Fish and Wildlife Service prepared an environmental 

impact statement on which numerous comments were submitted by 

our members and others presenting the essentials of the original 
59 

management plan that included the right to protect their livestock 

and not only their livestock but their guard dogs and their herd 

dogs and those animals with which they are closely associated, 

many of them more importantly than the loss of a cow or a sheep 

and their pets from being attacked by these vicious predators, making the agency responsible for their actions, namely the reintroduction and for the subsequent financial losses incurred by the owners 

of those domestic animals. Most of these reasonable safeguards 

were ignored in the final wolf recovery environmental impact statement, making it impossible for reasonable and prudent livestock 

producers to support the process. One avenue for obtaining this 

protection did, however, still exist, the opportunity to participate in 

developing a State wolf management plan that could be adopted by 

the State by the Fish and Wildlife Service, allowing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to provide the management of the reintroduced, nonessential, experimental population of wolves. 

Once again, livestock producer representatives worked with others to develop a plan that provided for a growing population of 

wolves in central Idaho and reasonable assurance of the right to 

protect one's domestic animals and provide for just compensation 

for actual animal losses. These essential elements of the plan were 

rejected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with one other 

very critical element of the plan, which is the statutory right of the 

Idaho State Legislature to maintain control over the actions of the 

Idaho Fish and Game Department in managing these wolves. 

We have been assured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that 

the wolves will be retained under the nonessential experimental 

status. However, as I speak, the Sierra Club and others have lawsuits in Federal courts calling for elimination of this status. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service then assures us that should this 

happen they will remove the wolves from the area. However, since 

one wolf was killed by the dart process and the gathering process, 

it is entirely probable that a subsequent lawsuit by animal rights 

groups would keep U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from keeping this 

promise. 

The bottom line is that every elected official in the State of Idaho 

Capitol Building, 75 percent of the members of our Idaho legislature, and the entire Idaho congressional delegation requested that 

Interior Secretary Babbitt halt his plans to transport wolves into 

central Idaho until such time as the legislature and legitimate concerns of our citizens could be properly dealt with in a workable wolf 

management plan. I do not know if the letters requesting this action reached the Secretary before he left Washington for Yellowstone Park where he personally participated in the first release of 

wolves in that location. I would like to give him the benefit of the 

doubt in regard to those first four wolves that came into central 

Idaho. Perhaps he was unaware of the concerns of our citizens and 

our legislature. However, I cannot extend the same doubt to the apparent disregard for those express concerns in subsequent releases 

of 11 more wolves several days later. 

This is not the first time the Secretary has shown his apparent 

lack of concern for the wishes of our State's elected officials. He has 

been a party to a number of such actions in the past two years, including total disregard of the wishes of our recently retired gov-
60 

ernor and former Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus relative to a 

new Air Force training range also supported by ranchers who graze 

livestock in the area. 

We would ask Congress to intercede in this matter and prohibit 

the Secretary and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from any further 

reintroduction of wolves in the State of Idaho and to further instruct him to negotiate in good faith with the State of Idaho in the 

development of a realistic, workable management plan or, as an alternative, get the wolves out of our backyard. Not to do so is tantamount to inviting international terrorist groups to bring small detachments of trainees into the <trea, allowing them to practice their 

activities on the unsuspecting local communities and then prohibiting the locals from protecting themselves from these killers. Such 

actions are unconscionable. 

We would further request that Congress take timely action to 

proceed on reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, therein 

providing some much needed safeguards that recognize the right of 

human beings to exist in the presence of other species in this land 

and place reasonable priorities for the protection of their human 

rights somewhat above or at least on an equal footing with wolves, 

bears, salmon, and the now infamous Bruneau Hotspring Snail, 

also an Idaho resident. 

The taxpayer burden on this reintroduction has, we believe, been 

seriously underestimated. The net economic value to the central 

Idaho area reported in the EIS at $8.4 million is ludicrous. Mr. 

Bangs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service project chairman for the 

EIS, has with a straight face told me that this estimate is based 

largely upon anticipated tourist expenditures from those drawn to 

the area in anticipation of seeing a wolf. Can you honestly believe 

that tourists are going to buy $8.4 million worth ofT-shirts, sculptures, and photo prints of wolves in central Idaho? This is one of 

the most ridiculous examples of bureaucratic hoodwinking I have 

ever heard. 

Please consider the private property rights of Idahoans and the 

rights of Idaho State Government in managing the affairs within 

its border. Halt this activity until proper safeguards can be worked 

out and put into place, or halt it permanently. 

I thank you for your consideration. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness will be the Honorable .JoAn Wood, member of 

the Idaho House of Representatives. 

Please hold your testimony to five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOAN WOOD 

Ms. WOOD. I'll try, Madam Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

I am JoAn Wood of the Idaho House of Representatives. I am the 

ranking member of the House State Affairs Committee, Resources 

and Conservation Committee, and presently chairman of the House 

Transportation and Defense Committee. I was the first committee 

cochair of the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee by virtue of the fact 

that I was chairman of Resource and Conservation and they were 

automatic members of that committee. 
61 

My purpose here is to establish before this Committee the stand 

of the people of Idaho represented by its legislature, the stand they 

have taken concerning the Federal policies of the reintroduction of 

wolves into our State and our region. I am also here as the representative of the State Government to demand that the Department of the Interior immediately cease and desist the releasing of 

wolves into central Idaho which has been done without the consent 

of the Idaho legislature or any of its elected officials as required by 

Idaho State law, and, second, abandon this wolf reintroduction program entirely which is both scientifically and economically flawed. 

I have a number of items, Madam Chairman, that are pertinent 

to my testimony that I would at this time ask unanimous consent 

to be entered into the record. 

Mrs. CUB IN. Without objection. 

[The material may be found at end of hearing.) 

Ms. WooD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to first direct your attention to the letter that Congressman Crapo referred to this morning. That is a petition signed 

by the elected officials, all of them, madam, in our State, every 

elected official, from our Secretary of Education, all of those, as 

well as our new governor, as well as two-thirds of the Idaho Legislature, who have petitioned this Congress to stop, to keep the Idaho 

Department of the Interior from perpetrating this program upon 

the State of Idaho without our consent. 

Let me call your attention to Idaho law, Code 36-103, which 

states, and it has been stated here by Congresswoman Chenoweth, 

that we are-and I will quote-that the wildlife is the property of 

the State and that it shall be preserved, protected, and perpetuated, and managed. Madam Chairman, we are very concerned 

about that, that if in fact the Federal Government cuts off any 

funding for help and the Defenders of Wildlife decide after the wolf 

is established they will no longer pay, that does leave that responsibility on the State of Idaho, and, Madam Chairman, we do not 

have the money to meet that responsibility. 

Further, Idaho Code 36-715 pertaining to wolf-dog hybridizations which are not protected by the Endangered Species Act requires a biological evaluation be performed on wolves to determine 

species priority before the Department of Fish and Game may take 

any action in accordance with the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 

This is Exhibit C and C(2) in your packets, Madam Chairman. A 

request by the Legislative Committee and the Idaho State Veterinary to quarantine and biologically test as required by this law was 

ignored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. This is in direct violation of 

the Idaho State law. 

We think it is rather odd, Madam Chairman, that the Secretary 

of the Interior should tell this Committee that Idaho is near to 

adopting a plan. The letter signed by all of the officials of the State 

of Idaho and the legislature will attest that we are not prepared 

to pass this plan and that, in fact, the plan that is on the calendar 

does put back in all of the five items that the U.S. Fish and Game 

told us they would not entertain and would not admit in a plan, 

and that plan is sitting there with that information in it. 

We do resent, Madam Chairman, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's attempt to influence the children in our State by presenting packets 

88-881 - 95 - 3 
62 

to them and trying to romanticize and name the wolves that were 

released there, and, in fact, Madam Chairman, we say to you that 

the information that has been given you how many people spoke 

in favor of the wolf in our State included teacher-led students who 

wrote letters endorsing keeping the wolf there, bringing the wolf 

there, and we resent using our schoolchildren for that survey. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I am sorry to have to interrupt you. We have another vote, and we just have five minutes to get there. We will 

come straight back, and you can complete your testimony. 

Ms. WOOD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CUBIN. This is the life. 

Ms. WOOD. I am used to it, Madam Chairman. We do the same 

thing in Idaho. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. [Presiding.] I think, Mrs. Wood, we can go ahead 

and continue on. 

Ms. WOOD. Madam Chairman, I hope you have the exhibits that 

I gave you so that I can skip over and just refer to those, and then 

I will try to hurry my testimony along. 

Mrs. CUBIN. We do, and we will certainly go through those exhibits. We very much appreciate your bringing them along. Thank 

you. 

Ms. WooD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

If you go back to Exhibit B, we are talking about 36-715, and 

that gives direction to our Fish and Game Departments that they 

not transfer assets or enter into any cooperative agreements with 

any agency, department or entity of the United States Government 

concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by State statute 

with the exception of one representative on that wolf recovery 

team. 

The total recovery cost has been portrayed to us in our State by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife as $4.4 million. We are concerned that Idaho 

may be forced by Federal mandate in the ESA to pick up as much 

as 25 percent of this cost. This is not been agreed to by the Idaho 

legislature. 

The fear of this forced obligation is borne out by a letter received 

by Idaho Fish and Game Director, Mr. Conley, from Mr. Donald 

Friberg, and a copy of the--excuse me, we made a mistake thereof the Federal aid, and a copy of a letter from Minnesota State Director Richard Wetzel as to the problems encountered in Minnesota 

concerning wolf depredation. That is Exhibit D, E and F, Madam 

Chairman. That letter talks about having to cut back the work force of the 

ADC program, saying that they have a deficit budget and having 

to totally hold all wolf work for later this summer. He also goes on 

to say they will have to cut back their response to complaints. 

And so, Madam Chairman, I am led to believe they are running 

out of funds; and it hasn't been truly portrayed to your committee 

as to the availability of funds for depredation reimbursement. I will say to you that we also received a letter from the Wildlife 

Federation, and it is Exhibit F, that tells in there that, if I may 

quote, "Once wolf populations are recovered and State wildlife 

agencies assume sole responsibility for wolf management, Defend-
63 

ers will make a decision about continuing the compensation program in conjunction with the States and other affected interests." 

We have already said to you that our State has said we own the 

wildlife within our State borders. Madam Chairman, we feel that 

will give us a State liability we cannot afford if that is so. 

Further, we charge that the agencies involved did not comply 

with the Idaho Code 36-715(b) by not taking into consideration 

local economies, custom, culture and private property rights. Proper notifications were not given for hearings on this matter. 

In addition, suggestions that the government provide funding for 

compensation to livestock owners for all losses and to all people 

economically affected by land-use considerations, given to the Fish 

and Wildlife Services by the Wolf Oversight Committee, of which 

I was the Ranking Member, were completely struck out of the completed wolf plan that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife said that they 

would agree to. I would like to include a copy of that original plan in the record, 

and that is Exhibit H. 

As early as 1984, the Idaho legislature sent House Joint Memorial 11 to the President, the Secretary of Interior and other Federal 

authorities wherein we urged the Department of Interior and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to terminate any plans to plant wolf populations into Idaho. It is obvious that was ignored. 

Again, in 1991, the State legislature sent a memorial-this is 

twice, Madam Chairman-to Congress-and it is also included in 

your record here, Exhibit I-to the same Federal officials, House 

Joint Memorial 6, stating the serious negative impact on the resource base of our State. The Federal Government responded to this memorial by threatening to turn the wolves over to the Nez Perce Indians in our border, the State of Idaho, for the oversight. 

Madam Chairman, when we questioned Mr. Banks about this, 

saying maybe they have a better plan than we have, he then admitted they did not really have a plan. But it caused such a stir 

with the other Indian tribes in our State, Madam Chairman, that 

we are angry about that as well. 

The Lemhi Indians came down when the wolves were released 

and told the Nez Perce Indians to take off to their territory. So we 

have got a conflict, and we do not believe he can give a sovereign 

nation authority over our State of Idaho. 

We presented in the 1991 memorial five criteria for the cooperation of the Idaho oversight committee if the reintroduction cannot 

be stopped. And it is Exhibit J, Exhibit K and Exhibit L. 

I am submitting a copy of Dr. Ted Hoffman's testimony as an 

Idaho veterinarian and member of the Wolf Oversight Committee 

as a further witness to my testimony. 

[The information may be found at end of hearing.]. 

Ms. WOOD. Madam Chairman, in conclusion, we submit to this 

congressional committee that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, under the 

direction and authority of the Secretary of the Interior, complied 

with the 17.81 of the rules and regulations, A, that were refuted 

by Dr. Charles E. Kay and also Dr. Edward Goldman, renowned 

scientists in wildlife biology and ecology. 
64 

We also request from Congress that you support Senator Kay 

Bailey Hutchison's legislation to stop any further ESA action in 

Texas, but in Idaho as well. 

Madam Chairman, I am the last effort by Idaho to petition Con- gress for relief from these recent unwarranted actions of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife program and urge for a desisting of the wolf and 

a stop to this $6.4 million waste of taxpayer money. So far we have 

been ignored. Ladies and gentlemen and Committee Members, and 

especially our own Congressman Chenoweth, of whom we are very 

proud, Madam Chairman, I hope my State does not have to sue our 

own Federal Government. Thank you. Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

[The statement of Ms. Wood may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. I think it is clear that there are two issues that are 

going on here, as well as the reintroduction of the wolf. It is the 

violation of the Federal Government of States' rights. And I think 

that is pretty clear. 

Ms. WooD. Madam Chairman, I did forget one thing. Could I 

please enter into the record-the Secretary said we had completely 

eliminated the wolf in the United States, at least in the northern 

part of the United States. Madam Chairman, I have a picture of 

a wolf and also a letter where this wolf attacked an elderly man 

and his wife in 1978. The letter does spell out what happened. The wolf did attack 

these people. And it also was then studied and given to a laboratory that did verify that it was a wolf, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Without objection, it will be entered into the record. 

[The information may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. Our next witness is Thomas J. Dougherty of the Na- tional wildlife federation. We have a markup in another committee 

down the hall, so if we could wind this up, that would be great. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. DOUGHERTY 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I will try and be brief. 

I thank you very much, Madam Chairman and Representative 

Chenoweth. I am a native of Wyoming, born and raised in Wyoming, also the past President of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, 

which is the State's largest sportsmen's organization-sportsmen's 

conservation organization in the State. 

It is hard to synthesize in five minutes numerous pages of testimony, and I will try not only to synthesize but also to try and address some issues that I don't think have been addressed here 

today. 

I kind of wish Representative Williams was here because of some 

statements that he made that I shared. 

Prior to having been appointed to the Wolf Management Committee by Secretary Lujan in 1989, there was a certain feeling by 

many environmental organizations, people, proponents of wolveshey, look, let's just let these wolves come down from Canada. They 

are protected under the full provisions of the Endangered Species 

Act. We have all of the habitat protection provisions. You know, if 

they don't like it, that is tough, because it is an endangered species 

in the lower 48, and it is going to be afforded the full protection 

ofthe act. 
65 

There was that attitude by a lot of people. There still is that attitude by a number of people. 

Mter my experience on the Wolf Management Committee in 

which I sat down with Federal agency biologists and agency heads, 

State agency heads, ranchers and other sportsmen, went to Montana, went to Idaho, attended I don't know how many various hearings in which we took testimony and we listened to people's grievances, we listened to people who supported the issue but opposed 

the designation of experimental nonessential, my organization and 

I concluded that the experimental nonessential provision of the act 

that provided the increased flexibility that really, truly under law 

provided the opportunity for States as well as tribes to cooperate 

with Federal land management agencies and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on this species and the educational benefit associated with the hearings, with the discussions, with the hearings and 

the town meetings that were conducted, were of greater benefit 

than riding the high horse of saying, let it happen under the full 

protection. Because as sure as we are sitting here, Ms. Chairman, 

they are going to come. 

There is approximately between 80 and 100 wolves in Montana 

now. There has been at least numerous sightings of wolves in 

Idaho, in Yellowstone Park, not to say that we have established 

populations. 

We felt that it was the common sense approach to the Endangered Species Act to participate in a meaningful process that lowered the fear level of people who were being affected in the region 

by this wolf. 

We know, regardless of what has been said, regardless of what 

survey, this species and recovery of wolves in the lower 48, and 

specifically the northern Rockies, is an overwhelmingly popular 

issue by residents of Idaho, residents of Montana and residents of 

Wyoming. 

I submit to you that the two largest sportsmen's organizations, 

one in Wyoming, the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, and the Idaho 

Wildlife Federation, both overwhelmingly supported the final rule 

and the introduction under experimental nonessential classifications. 

I would also like to submit, and it is in my testimony, that the 

directors of the Idaho Game and Fish Department, the Montana 

Game and Fish Department and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department supported the reintroduction under the experimental 

nonessential provision of the act. 

Wyoming did it conditionally. They wanted the full State included as the experimental zone, not just a small region out of Yellowstone Park, because they want the management. And as you 

well know, Madam Chairman, we have another nonessential experimental recovery program in Wyoming that is being conducted almost exclusively by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

There is certainly Federal funding, and that is the black-footed 

ferret program. It was a program that was wrapped in some of the 

same conspiracy and some of the same contentions that the wolf is. 

Sure, it is not an upper-ended predator. But it is a program that 

we are achieving a remarkable success in the State of Wyoming 
66 

and hope to transmit that success this spring to South Dakota and 

Montana. 

I submit that if we are allowed to proceed and as long as we have 

the Endangered Species Act that was passed by this distinguished 

Congress and if it is still the public will of the American public, 

which I think it is, for the recovery of these species that are important to the biological diversity of our country and that is as meaningful to many people as just the presence, there is many hunters 

who believe that the ungulate populations will profit from that 

interaction between wolves and the ungulates, certainly in Yellowstone. I call it the candy store. Secretary Babbitt calls it the buffet 

line. 

We have large populations of ungulates in Yellowstone Park. 

Many sportsmen and many outfitters believe that the disbursal created by the presence of the wolf in Yellowstone Park will be of a 

great benefit to the economy and to the hunting and tourism industry in northern Wyoming. 

I feel that we have come a long way. There certainly has been 

numerous meetings, numerous participation by a broad segment of 

society in this debate over the last 10 years. 

I feel strongly that if we can get over this initial hurdle that this 

will be as broadly accepted as the black-footed ferret reintroduction 

program is in Wyoming. It was very controversial when it was suggested. Now it is like, jeez, what was the problem? 

And there will be problems. But I believe that we can live-the 

agriculturists, the hunters, the tourists, the school children-! 

think they will all profit from the continued support of the United 

States Congress for this program. Thank you. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you for your testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Dougherty may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. I think the difference between the wolf reintroduction program and the black-footed ferret-and I agree with your 

own statements about it, but I do take this one exception-was 

that the black-footed ferret was truly believed to have been extinct. 

And, as the poster shows, there are about 60 to 70,000 wolves in 

the North American continent, and I think that is a big difference. 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I certainly won't argue with you, Madam Chairman, that there is some distinguishable differences. The Endangered Species Act doesn't allow for those differences. And there are 

as many people that believe that while there are wolves in Canada 

and wolves in Alaska, that the presence of wolves in some of these 

ecological niches in the lower 48 is equally as important as the recovery of that species. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I certainly understand that difference. Thank you 

very much. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Our final witness today will be Mr. Ronald Hughes 

from Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

Thank you for being here with us. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD HUGHES 

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate being 

here. 
67 

I am Ron Hughes from Blackfoot, Idaho. Blackfoot is about 110 

miles from Yellowstone Park and 200 miles from Idaho's primitive 

area where the wolves have been released. 

I was born in the year 1921. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Could you speak up just a little bit, Mr. Hughes? 

Thank you. 

Mr. HUGHES. I was born in 1921. Sixteen years later, I began 

working as a cowboy. I spent a good many of the years since on 

various ranges in the Western States on horseback looking after 

cattle. At present, I manage a range operation in eastern Idaho. 

We range 150 head of mother cows on State-owned land and 100 

steers on private ground. 

I firmly believe we must protect the environment in its entirety. 

There are no isolated parts. We are all a part of the whole. An exploitative culture cannot survive into infinity. Native cultures 

where people respected the land and all living things were sustainable. Ours is not. Had God intended the planet for man alone then 

man would have been the only creation. 

I have worked on ranges that had grizzly bear, black bear, mountain lions, bobcats and coyotes. I have yet to see any cattle killed 

by any of those animals. We frequently have cattle killed by human 

recreationists. I occasionally hear horror stories told about animals 

by people who have an overactive imagination. I believe what I see. 

Although wolves were exterminated when I was a small boy and 

I have had no real experience with them, I have read much about 

wolves and some years back was privileged to know some of the 

older Indians who were familiar with the wolf. They seemed to 

have high esteem but not fear of the wolf. 

I am in contact with many ranchers, and I find that the majority 

are not opposed to wolf reintroduction-as long as they are permitted to protect their livestock. The areas where wolves have been 

released are some distance from livestock grazing areas. 

Yellowstone Park has a huge surplus of buffalo that leave the 

park in winter months in search of food. The ranchers surrounding 

the park don't want them out of the park as they are afraid of brucellosis. Some animal rights groups oppose the killing of buffalo, 

and the law says you can't hunt in the park. I would say the wolf 

is the perfect solution. 

The wolves were exterminated with 30-30 rifles and strychnine. 

If they become a menace I am sure we have enough technology and 

weapons to keep them in check. I am sure many will be killed, regardless of the law, by ranchers who view everything but domestic 

animals as the enemy and by recreationists who could boost their 

egos by killing a wolf. 

Some years back I was a member of the Farm Bureau. When the 

Farm Bureau stopped listening to the small operator I dropped my 

membership. I have very little patience with the Farm Bureau. 

I have two sons-in-law who are in the cattle business. One would 

applaud my being here. The other would be a little less enthusiastic. 

We frequently hear how cattle are ruining the public lands. I 

don't agree with that philosophy. It is true there are isolated cases 

of overgrazing by some who put their cattle on the range and don't 

go back until gathering time in the fall. Perhaps the presence of 
68 

wolves would bring about better management. Removing all the 

grazing animals from the range would cause the grass to yield to 

woody top-rooted plants. To be viable, grass must be grazed. 

On the range, we monitor the grass and water. We practice rotational grazing, and we are seeing steady improvement in the rangeland. This land supports not only cattle but moose, elk and deer, 

along with black bear and mountain lions. We are managing holistically, and it is working. 

By bringing back the wolf, we are also managing holistically. We 

are putting back a piece of the Northern Rockies that has been 

missing my whole life. I have seen a lot of wildlife in my lifetime. 

I have seen mountain lions and bobcats, and I would like just once 

to see or hear a wild wolf before my time is up. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I just have a couple of quick questions. 

This is for Mr. Dougherty. Your organization supports the Defenders of Wildlife wolf fund, right? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. That is correct. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Can you guarantee this fund will compensate all the 

fanners and ranchers from losses that result from the introduction 

of the wolves? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Since we don't control the fund, I cannot make 

that guarantee. There is every reason--

Mrs. CUBIN. Is it your belief that--

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Yes, it is. 

Mrs. CUBIN [continuing]. that compensation will be there? 

What recourse does a rancher have if he is not satisfied with the 

result of his request-with this settlement request? Is there any recourse that he has at all? 

Mr. DouGHERTY. I can only share with you the recourse thatand the program that I am familiar with, and that is the one in 

Minnesota. There has been decisions that have been made and 

been challenged, and there is an appeal process with which those 

livestock producers can appeal to. And the final decision, obviously, 

rests with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Since there is not money made available through 

the government to pay for losses-! am talking about the private 

fund-is there any recourse for people who are not satisfied with 

the settlement, with the private fund? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. That is very difficult for me to answer, but I 

think the answer is no, other than, you know, I think it does lend 

itself to the-! don't think in my experience or in the management 

committee and working with the Federal agencies that it is the intention of any of them to place this encumbering monumental loss 

associated with livestock. I cannot equate that it is. 

I believe the Fann Bureau has a similar program, but I know 

very little enough about it to be able to--

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much. 

Representative Chenoweth, do you have any questions? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, Madam Chairman, I do. 

I would like to ask Mr. Dougherty, you made reference to the elk 

banquet. 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I call it the candy store. 
69 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The candy store in the Park. Where does the 

candy store go in the wintertime? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. In Yellowstone Park it stays in the park. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. I also have a question-you spoke very 

eloquently about the introduction or the reintroduction of the 

black-footed ferret and the success of that program. 

Mr. DoUGHERTY. Yes, ma'am. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Who does the black-footed ferret eat? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. The black-footed ferret eats black- and whitetailed prairie dogs. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Black- and white-tailed what, sir? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Prairie dogs. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You also made reference to the fact that there 

was some discussion about whether there was a natural migration 

of the wolf southward into our States from Canada. There was 

some discussion about whether we should just let it happen or go 

into this experimental introduction. Mr. DOUGHERTY. Yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you relied on Section lO(j) in your testimony, as I understand it. As I understand the law, the law-and I will quote it. Section 

lO(j) says, "For purposes of this subsection, the term experimental 

population means any population including any offspring arising 

solely therefrom authorized by the Secretary for release under this 

paragraph, but only when and at such times as the population is 

wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations 

of the same species." 

Doesn't that seem to be a contradiction when they were naturally 

migrating into our States anyway? When we know we have had nu- merous wolf sightings in our States, why--

Mr. DOUGHERTY. That is why in the little picture you showed of 

the States that northern tier of Montana is not included in the experimental nonessential, because it is not-it is geographically dis- tinct. You have breeding activity of fully protected endangered species wolves in that area. As they migrated further south, whether 

they went through Yellowstone Park or ended up in Colorado, without the intervention of a program like what we are talking about 

today those wolves would have been fully protected endangered 

species wolves until they reached the recovery goal in the earlier 

wolf recovery plan. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now, as I understand it, you are telling me 

the wolves in the States were already protected under the Endangered Species Act, and they were located naturally in the States? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. That the wolf populations that exist now in 

northern Montana near-the advent of the magic pack, those 

wolves are fully protected endangered species wolves. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now, there is a wolf population in Idaho, too. 

And, as you know, the wolf has been listed as an endangered species. Given what I just read you from the law, given the fact that 

there is a wolf population in Idaho, given the fact that it has been 

listed as endangered in Idaho, can you speak for the Federal Government and from your opinion give me a better understanding as 

to why under those circumstances the Federal Government contin-
70 

ued to force an artificial introduction of something on us that was 

occurring naturally? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. My understanding, Representative Chenoweth, 

is that while there have been some sightings and there have been 

some audio detection of wolves and there have been some reports, 

it is the determination-the scientific determination of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service as well as the Forest Service that you do not 

have reproducible populations, breedable populations of wolves in 

central Idaho. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Have DNA studies been done on these populations and do we know that the population or the experimental 

breeding pairs that were brought into Idaho were the same as were 

there naturally? Were the proper tests done in order to make sure 

that Idaho knows that the proper species was introduced into 

Idaho? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Well, Madam, I am not a biologist, but my understanding is that, you know, three, four, in fact some veterinarians from your own State participated in that process. I cannotand there is very little way of being-determining-because I don't 

know how many DNA samples we have of wolves historically in 

Idaho to say that the wolves that are now out of Alberta or British 

Columbia are, you know, some new subspecies or something different. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, sir. I have some questions of Representative Wood. You quoted part 

of the Idaho Code with regards to the question that I just asked 

Mr. Dougherty. Do you believe that the Federal Government abided 

by the wishes of the legislature and the people as expressed in that 

law? 

Ms. WooD. Madam Chairman and Congressman Chenoweth, no. 

We asked-and specifically I take you to Exhibit G that says, the 

committee-this is the House committee-also adopted a motion requesting the Governor of Idaho to invoke a quarantine, asked the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife to invoke a quarantine of any Canadian 

wolves until such time as appropriate medical authorities could 

certify that introduction of the animals to Idaho would not pose a 

health problem or were of that species. 

We have specifically asked for and our law says that we have to 

have a DNA test because, Madam Congressman, we have a problem with hybridized wolf-dog crosses in our State, a severe problem 

with that. 

So we also in our law said that those hybrids had to be 

tattooed-and we have a tatoo law in our State-tattooed on the 

lip. So if an animal is in the act of depredating live stock, that it 

is a purebred wolf and not a hybrid. So we are specific in what our 

law says, and we made that request of U.S. Fish and Wildlife that 

they detain releasing wolves until we had that DNA testing done. 

We were ignored, Madam Chairman and Congressman Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Madam Chairman and Representative Wood, can you tell us what happened when those wolves were 

released in Idaho? The Secretary indicated they were equipped 

with collars and that they knew exactly where they were. I haven't 

been in the State for a while. Do you know what happened to the 
71 

wolves? Did they stay in the campground where they were released? 

Ms. WooD. Madam Chairman, Congressman Chenoweth, no, 

they did not. They beat it back as fast as they could go to their own 

territory. At least one we know went straight into Montana. The 

others are milling around. 

They brought pups in the last time thinking that maybe they 

could acclimatize those and get them situated where they would 

stay. That has happened in the last few days, and I am not right 

up to speed on that, Congresswoman. But we have doubts that they will stay there. In fact, Madam 

Chairman and Congressman Chenoweth, we hope they don't stay. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have one final question of Representative 

Wood. Has the legislature or has there ever been an action on the 

part of the State of Idaho officially to allow any kind of contractual 

agreement or obligation to be entered into with any of the Indian 

tribes with regards to the management of the wolves or the reaction and the resulting management of the wolves, and that is, the 

depredation of our game population? 

Ms. WOOD. Madam Chairman and Congressman Chenoweth, no. 

In fact, we have specifically instructed our Idaho Fish and Game 

they may not enter into any kind of contract with any such entity 

as a tribe or the Federal Government or any other entity without 

the specific permission of the Idaho legislature. And they do not 

have that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Then can you tell me why the Idaho legislature was threatened by the Fish and Wildlife Service that if you 

did not cooperate that they would enter into a contract with the 

Nez Perce Indian tribes? Why? How could that happen? 

Ms. WOOD. Madam Chairman and Congressman Chenoweth, we 

were being stampeded we felt. Our oversight committee, our two 

legislative committees who were holding hearings on the final draft 

of the plan-when the final draft of the plan came out, the vote to 

allow all of the five bold print items be taken out of the final plan 

made the legislature so angry that we called a hearing on that and 

had a full hearing on it. 

When they suggested to us that if we didn't get on the ball and 

get this plan under way and accept it-as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife said, and not with any of the things we wanted in it, they then 

said to us if you don't do it within a week's time-they gave us one 

week to get that done-that they would go to the Nez Perce tribe. 

And we-frankly, Madam Chairman and Congressman 

Chenoweth, we felt it was a threat to us to force our hand. And 

we said to them, well, because of that, we are going to go right 

back to the plan that we started out with six years ago. So we have 

not progressed one step. 

That is why I was rather amazed to hear Secretary Babbitt say 

that they were near to agreement in a plan in the State of Idaho. 

If they are going to accept all those things that they have told us, 

Congressman Chenoweth, all along for six years that they would 

not accept, maybe there is some validity to his statement. I do not 

believe that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I just have two questions of Mr. Bonner. 
72 

Mrs. CUBIN. Make them as quickly as you can. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

In your experience with the Fish and Wildlife Service and as a 

biologist, did I hear you say that in your opinion the red wolf was 

more of a coyote than a wolf? 

Mr. BONNER. It is a hybrid wolf-coyote. This is pretty well established. I don't think anybody will question that. I could show you 

Fish and Wildlife documents that state that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are there other States that you know of who 

are having the same problem as your State in the introduction of 

this species in their States? 

Mr. BONNER. In the State of Tennessee. The red wolves are being 

introduced in the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee, too. 

They do have problems there. 

I also might mention that the State of Maine-1 am surprised 

someone isn't here today from the State of Maine because it is 

quite a hot issue, introduction of the gray wolf in the State of 

Maine. I didn't know that myself until this summer. But that is a 

hot issue up there. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I certainly appreciate all the witnesses being here. 

It is a sacrifice of your time and money, and we do appreciate it. 

I just have one statement to make, that it occurred to me when 

I learned about the Idaho law requesting or requiring DNA testing 

and health certification for the wolves to be introduced I can't help 

but be suspicious that the release was made in such a rushed-up 

fashion because if the wolves were already out, then the 104th 

Congress wouldn't be able to do anything to even slow the process 

down. 

That is of great concern to me. I think that is happening 

throughout the Federal Government in terms of rules and regulations that are being promulgated right now, and just things as this. 

Again, we have two problems here. We have the problem-the 

disagreement-over the introduction of the wolf, and we have the 

problem of the Federal Government violating State rights. 

Thank you all for being here. The Members of the Committee 

may have some additional questions of the witnesses, and so we 

will ask that they be admitted to the record. In addition, the record 

will be held open for two weeks from today for submission of any 

remarks that you might have in relation to what you have heard. 

So thank you very much. If there is no further business, then I 

thank you, Helen, for being with us all day, and the Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and the 

following was submitted for the record:] 
HtU:N CHE:NOWETH 

73 

€ongrrss of tbr ltnittb ~tatts 

-ousr of l\rpr~mtatib~ 

IB.ullaqton. »C 20515-1201 

Honorable Bruce Babbitt 

Secretary of Interior 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Secretary Babbitt, 

January 11, 1995 

It is the purpose of ttis letter to respectfully petition that 

you order the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) to 

immediately stop their hcrried efforts, now in progress, to 

reintroduce a population of canadian wolves into the central Idaho 

wilderness areas yet this week. Officials of that agency are 

proceeding in an autocratic manner without regard for the obvious 

concerns of Idaho people o~ the proper deliberation of the Idaho 

State Legislature. In fact the agency officials are pressuring the 

Idaho Legislature with a threat to sign a wolf reintroduction 

contract with the NezPerce Indian tribe in the event that the 

Legislature does not au~o~ize similar action on the part of the 

Idaho Fish and Game Dep~nt. 

I submit that as a forner Governor of our neighboring State of 

Arizona you should be incensed that federal officials would attempt 

to dictate or circum7ent the due deliberation of a State 

Legislature. Also, as a f:rmer Governor you are keenly aware of 

the fact that game ani~ls are the acknowledged property of the 

State. The proposed wo:f :~troductions into central Idaho are in 

the heart of some of the bes~ elk, deer, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain 

Goat ranges in our natic~. I am aware of areas that are carefully 

managed because they :;:orc-..ide unique elk calving properties. 

Central Idaho supports ar. extensive back country recreational 

industry including river ::-afting, kayaking, hunting, fishing, 

backpacking and commerc~al outfitters. All of these activities 

involve state ownership an=lor state requlation. 

As you are aware -=--.':le Endangered Species Act, Section 6 is 

entitled "Cooperation w~ -:11 :.'le states" and that section provides in 

considerable detail bot= ~e authority and the responsibility for 

federal cooperation witc st3te governments. The responsibility to 

cooperate and consult ~s :urther spelled out in the rules and 

regulations. From the Fe:ieral Register Volume 49 - No. 167 -

August 27, 1984 I quote: 
74 

"The Fish and Wildlife Service shall consult with 

appropriate State fish and wildlife agencies, local 

governmental agencies, affected Federal agencies and 

affected private land owners". 

I must challenge that in the current Idaho situation neither 

the intent of the law nor the letter .of ·both Federal and states 

laws have been adequately or properly addressed. 

Let me provide a brief history for your basic information. 

1. Last year the Idaho legislature expressed a desire to 

cooperate with USFWS in formulating an acceptable wolf 

recovery program. They authorized a broad based 

committee (seven members) to draft a plan in which the 

state could cooperate. 

2. From the very beginning there were major differences 

between the State committee and the USFWS EIS 

representatives. The state committee strongly desired 

protection and/or remuneration for lost livestock guard 

dogs, pets and documented loss in use or value for 

private and state property. The state committee was also 

adamant tha·t funds not be for this federal experiment. 

3. On september 27, 1994 the USFWS obtained a special permit 

from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game which in part 

reads "To reintroduce gray wolves into central Idaho by 

releasing wild wolves captured in Canada". It is a major 

point of law that at the time this permit was issued 

there was still no state Legislative committee agreement on a recovery and management plan and as this letter is 

written, the Idaho Legislature is just today bitterly 

debating whether or not to introduce a ratification 

measure. 

4. In December of 1994 the State Legislative committee voted to submit a recovery and management plan that provided 

for property protection and federal remuneration for loss 

of livestock. By letter taxed to the state Legislative 

committee on January 9, 1995, USFWS rejected the state Legislative committee's plan. I have attached a copy of 

that letter. 

5. At a meeting held on January 9, 1995, on a split vote, 

the state Legislative committee capitulated to the USFWS 

demands and adopted a plan unacceptable to most Idaho 

citizens. Beyond the property and economic values 

involved, central Idaho is a prime big game management 

area including elk, deer, mountain sheep and mountain 

goats. It is noted for back country recreation including 

back packing, river floating, hunting, fishing and 

co11111ercial packing and boating. Wolves in any 

significant numbers have been absent for approximately 
75 

100 years. 

The State Legislat:. ve ::ollllllittee members who capitulated to the 

USFWS demands openly apoloqized to the Idaho Legislature. They 

didn't like the final p:an as they consider it grossly unfair and on its face the letter :f rejection, dictatorial, and unwielding. These meabers justified their vote on the excuse that they believed 

Idaho should retain a "place at the table". Mr. Secretary, I 

respectfully submit to you which both a gallows and a guillotine are adaptations of a table, neither is an honored or a desirable 

place to be. 

Your suspension order to the USFWS officials will permit our representative - democratic system to function. For that agency to 

shove forward in their autocratic single purpose program can only 

make a bad situation much worse. 

I respectfully peti ticn your order today for an immediate stay 

in the program to release canadian wolves into central Idaho. I 

will be asking other we~e~ congressmen to join in this petition. 

Your favorable action will be sincerely appreciated. 

Helen Chenoweth 

Member of Congress 
• .,_..101 

• 

76 

United Star.c~ Depanment aft:M Interior 

JJIH AND Wlt.PUD IIZXYICI 

K#= .......... 

Mail kor .;oua 
77 
78 

J 
I! I itJi! J.1

i-'f11tr i' Jir 

ll li i• l'f ~,!'~ ' Jl( 

i .. ·t~ltll,_ J I J!fJf' I ~fr; 

~~~ r!ljlf !J!h!~dl, il 

~~{ I Jf~ rr~~~~- ~~~~ . I l!i l J 11' ~~. f.Jf ~~~ IJf~11' I ll~if~i' ~~~ 

( t rfr It rrillali'i!J1 I WI 

t11 Ji'~i ~~~~~~~ t~li ~~ 

!d rl fir ~ rtffi>!:·"'l ! . 2.1 

[ . rll .. r,.J 

tJf tl~~~ ~~~~~·~-~ 
~~~ !I ~,r tr 11 ! lJ 

lt r ' a li tt ' 

• ft,. (tl1f,. 1f." .-t ,.JJr p 

tffl f r 8 .~ r 't r I I r t i 

~ 8 Jl: fJ' J r' t I' .!(f r 

'lWI i 1 1 11 ' 

11 fl !lr ~~ · le. •e. fr 1 

~ II' "1 1 f fl. 

f'l

1

i fb !•i ~~ t •r 

,r , ''· ~~1 ,, t· tt 

ll ~~~ J'' . ~ aJ ,J J• J

Jt I r ~a. 1'1 rl I 

~' ~ 8 r I fl ... ,J r I 

jf~ ~~ ~~ tl il i · 
ldaho Coqrallioual Dolepdoa. 

Wuhinpm, D.C. 

1ID!IalY 11, 1995 

Pap·3 

81 

2. Fail lD tab tbo agti011 delcribecllbow, IIIIi die F'llh IIIli W'lldlife 

Sc:n'il:e would lmmrdi•h!ly rDh!r into an 1IDm'lewed !Nft'P"'"' qreement wi1h die 

Nez Perce Indian Tribe, ar 

3. 1mmed1lh!ly mtify 11u1 Piab IIIIi WildWIJ ServicctTdlho r:m and 

Game plan reprdleu of die~ coaooma. 

It iJ lhc poaitioa. af!ba 1llldcniaaed dlllt tfac a1lrmldvu m: UMCCeplable, IIIIi 

tlw tile urpiiCy aldie llimllioD iJ eollll'iwd llld DOt bued 1lpOI1 bioJDaical ·- msndatina I1ICh acQaa. Gival dJa CX1111XZD1 of dJa eiiCCid amGiaJa llld oidzOIII o£ dJa 

lltllh! of Idaho, tbo 1lllderllped pld!loa. you lD laa:neae llld delay die 111111CCC111!1Y IIIII 

1hrealaod imcdlate illlrvduGiioll of Clmadim Grey wom.a Glllllrll Idaho. 

SiDGc:n:ly, 
Idaho~ Deleption 

Wuhizlatoa, D.C. 

1UIDIIY 11, 1519! 

Pap-4 

82 
Idabo C~Delepdon 

Wab.._,.,, D.C. 

11111111)' 11, 1951S 

Pip_, 

83 
· · Idaho Coqreaiaaal DtJepdon 

W"lrinpon, D.C. 

11111111l)' 11, 199j 

Plle-4 

84 
85 
MICtiAEL D. CIIAI'O 21011T11Ct.-..o 

--...- ........... ~.~~ 

~fJOUC't'COMIIITTU 

~fAI«~Ofrt 

M"'*JCM 

---TAM JOfiCI Ott 

86 

(;onlfdf of ti.Je llniteb 6tltd 

.,...., of 1\qrdtlltatitln 

........ JK 20!11~1202 

~ATti'IIOf'UTYMUHTI 

C:ONGMNIONAL - MIIIN.. CAUCUI 

January 11, 1995 

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt 

Secretary of the Interior 

1849 C Street, N.W. washington, D.C. 20240 

Dear Secretary Babbitt: 

0 -oe 

4JJc-......_ 

w~DC101tl 

Q02t UWIII 

.,_,..,.... D ... ..,.. ... ,~ 

...... . .._,IDUJOl 

QGitiM-tNJ 

D H:att...-WA'f 

........ ...._ fMU.IDIJ404 

QOitfJUJOI 

0 110 lolml4nl.-- --220 ,._N~.&.e.IDI:IJOI 

~,,......, ... 0 411 -.w LMU llwa. 1"101 .,..,......,.,,,.., 

a-.JM-Utl 

I respectfully request that you suspend the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service's decision to reintroduce Canadian Wolves into 

Idaho . Federal action concerning wolves should be suspended until 

Idaho's Legislative and Bxecutive branches have been able to complete their deliberations regarding the Idaho Wolf Recovery 

Plan. It is imperative that the citizens of Idaho have the ability to voice their concerns with the proposed reintroduction and for 

Idaho State government to play its proper role in this important decision . 

The state legislative cODIIlittee hearings held during the past few 

days in Boise have made it obvious that too many questions and 

outstanding issues remain among Idaho legislators, many other 

elected officials, affected citizens and the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service for . this reintroduction to proceed . It is 

imperative that state sovereignty not be comprcmised . The people 

of Idaho and their elected officials must be allowed to make the 

decisions affecting the management of Idaho's rich natural resources. 

Section 10 (j) of the Endangered Species Act provides in considerable detail that the federal government muet recognize the 

legislative interest of state government in these decisions and 

cooperate with the states. The Idaho State Legislature will not vote on the recovery plan until January 17, 1995 at the earliest . The decision to suspend state authority is inappropriate. I will 

aggressively support the sovereign right of the State of Idaho to participate fully in the resolution of this issue . 

MDC/vh 
Alternalive 1 

?

--\~'ci.;-- N uonal 

I' 

Coeur d'A lcnc 

rrTT1lll1ll Yellowstone Nonessential 

l.ll.l.1.llllD E~perimental Population Area 

87 

-------------

l I II ii 

jl 

II 

llllilll.I.JJLilll.I.JJWl.l.LLLill.l.LLUJ.!.Ll.Lil!!.!.!.:.:.!.!.'="""-'Che ycnne 

Salt Lake City 

Figur~ 2-1. Th~ proposed experimental population areas in central Idaho (south of Interstate 90 

ami west nf Interstate 15) and the Ydlowstone an:a (south of the Missouri River fwm the 

Montana-North Dakota horder to Great Falls and east of Interstate I 5) where experimental 

population rules will apply . 

-Another rule would designate mudt of Idaho and part of Montana (south of \nt.:rstate 90 

and west of Interstate I 5) an experimental area h>r a wolf rcintrmluction into central Idaho 

(Figure 2-1). 

Ea~h rule would: -Defi!lt! the minimum criteria for a "wolf population" for purposes of each experimenlal rule 

as 2 breeding pairs of wild wolves successfully raising at least 2 young each year (until 

December 31 of the year of their hirth), for 2 consecutive years in an experimental area. 

2-8 
88 

TESTIMONY OF BROCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF TBE IN'l'ElUOR, BEFORE THE 

BOOSE RESOURCES CONU'l"l'EE REGARDING TBE REINTRODUCTION OF THE 

GRAY WOLF INTO YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PAIUt AND CEN'l'RAL IDAHO 

January 26, 1995 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the House Resources 

Committee for the first time since its reorganization under the 

leadership of Chairman Young. I appreciate your taking the time 

today to focus on the Department's wolf reintroduction program. 

I know that the Speaker has placed passage of the 

legislation necessar y to carry out the Republican Contract With 

America as your highest priority these first 100 days of the 

104th Congress. The President, in his address to you Tuesday 

night, challenged this Congress to work with the Administration 

to prepare the American people to face the demands of t oday 's 

economy and to raise incomes today and in the future. 

The Administration hopes to do this through continuing its 

efforts to work with this Congress to cut the deficit and enact 

the Middle Class Bill of Rights. This program reaches out to the 

fami l ies of America by helping with the cost of raising children, 

providing tax deductions for the cost of college tuition, 

providing payments for retraining, and providing incentives for 

retirement savings through the use of new IRAs that can also be 

used for investments in homes, education, or medical care. 

1 
89 

In my capacity as a member of the President's Cabinet, I 

come here today to say that we will work with you to move forward 

and to improve the lives of the American people. We mu s t work 

together to continue the progress we have made in comba ting the 

deficit, reforming education, fighting crime, and improving the 

natural heritage of this country. 

Today the Committee considers the Department of the 

Interior's program for the return of the gray wol f to Yellowstone 

National Park and Central Idaho. We are now very close to 

ach i evi ng a ma jor conservation goal of putting one of t he most 

important predators in North Ameri ca back on the road to 

recovery. 

I am pleased to tell the Con®ittee that all 15 wolves 

planned for release in Centra l Idaho are now on the ground and 

ano ther 14 wolves are safely in their temporary homes for later 

release in Yellowstone National Park. Our aim is to speed the 

recolonization of wolves so that they can be removed from the 

endangered spec ies list and federal protec tion by the year 2002 . 

If we follow this plan we can restore a powerful symbo l of the 

west to its rightful place, while recogni zing the concerns of the 

region's residents. 

This reintroduction program is the result of one of the most 

exhaustive public comment processes ever undertaken for a 

2 
90 

wildlife conservation pl an. At tached to my testimony is a 

summary of the pub l ic comment opportuni t i es. Just to give you an 

idea, during just the 3-year process to develop the wolf 

reintroduction plan and compl ete the Envi ronmental Impa ct 

Statement, the Department held 120 publi c hearings, meetings and 

open houses and revi ewed some 17 0, 000 publ i c comments. 

While ther e have been problems with the implement ation of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) i n some cases, this is one that 

has been done right. Our goal is i n sight , and i t wou l d be 

tragic , in my view, should the Committee require us to abandon 

ou r plan at this late date, and kil l or abandon the ve ry anima ls 

whose survival might al low our grandchi ldren to experi ence wi l d 

wolves in Yel l owstone. Nor wou l d killing or abandoning the s e 

wolve s resolve the i ssue . 

Wolves t hat have begun recolonizing the northern port i ons of 

the region on their own a r e fully protected under the ESA. As a 

result of natural dispersal of wolves from Canada , about 6 packs 

(7 5 wolves) live in no rthwest Montana. Wi thout re introduct i on , 

wolves may slowly reco lonize southward , but it would have t aken 

decades be fore wo l ves would be expected t o a ch i eve recovery in 

Central Idaho and Yellowstone and thus removal from fed eral 

protec tion. In the interim naturally dispersing wolves would be 

fully protected under the ESA. With the experiment al, non -

essential population rule the Federa l government has a ltered the 

3 
91 

form of protection for these animals in a manner that will allow 

reestablishment while protecting the property and lifestyles of 

western ranchers. 

It is important to remember t ha t to do nothing is not free. 

As wolves that already live in nort hwestern Montana continue to 

expand their populations and dispers e, wolf management will 

become more difficult and e xpensive wi t hou t t he re i nt rodu ct i on 

program. Becaus e delist i ng of the wo l f will take mu ch lon ger , 

the long-term cost t o the r anch i ng c ommu nit y and to the Federa l 

governme nt would be muc h hi gh er . Furthe r , t he concerns addressed 

i n this reintroduction p r ogram wou l d not be adequat e ly addr essed 

with natural dispe rsal. This is i mportan t becaus e the c ur r ent 

p lan was adjust ed in a numbe r o f way s to respond t o St ate and 

o ther public comments. 

In fact, during the r eview proce ss Ida ho sta ted its overa ll 

s upport f o r many o f the provisions o f t he pl an an d spec i fically 

noted that "we apprec iate t he Service 's cons i derat ion o f local 

and state concerns about wo lves." The f 1na l reintr oduction pl ans 

expanded pri va te ci t izens abi l ity to control wolves and i nc luded 

a provision that r e introduce d wolves wil l be removed i f t he fi na l 

rules a re not imp lement e d a s wri tten . In addi tion, an open 

sc ientific re vi ew of t he p rogram ' s success wi l l be prepared 

within 3 years. 

4 
92 

Survey after survey shows the re is significant public 

support for returning wolves to Ye llowstone. A 1992 study found 

that 70% o f visitors to Ye llowst one supported wolf reintroduction 

-- with 82% of overnigh t visitors in favor . Nor is this an east 

versus west issue. Regional surveys i ndicated that more 

resident s in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana support wolf 

reintroduction than oppose it . 

What about those who remain concerned about the potential 

impa cts of returning wolve s to the Ye ll owstone and Central Idaho 

ec osystems? To address thei r conc erns , this innovative plan uses 

t he most flexible and creative tools available under the ESA. 

These wolves have been reintroduced as a nonessential , 

experimental popula tion (under s ection lO(j) of the Act) , thus 

all owing comprehen sive control of problem wolve s . 

Unde r this p l an, not only can federal agencies r e locate or 

kil l problem wolve s , but private ranchers will be able to kil l 

wolv es they see preying on their li vestoc k. The y can also har ass 

wolves to keep them away from live stoc k . Al l the released wo l vEs 

wi l l be radio- col l ared and carefull y monitored. On ce 10 breeding 

pairs, about 100 wo l ves/area , exi st f o r 3 successive years, the 

wolves can be delisted and manag ed so l e ly by th e States and 

~ri bes . 

We expect only ode st economic impact to result f rom the 

5 
93 

reintroduction. We do expect some loss of livestock to wolf 

predation and I certainly recognize that if you are the 

individual rancher whose livestock is killed, the loss is very 

real. However, for those who do lose livestock to wolves, a 

private program is already in place that is proven and effective 

whose policy is to pay for losses at fair market value. The 

overall effect of wolf predation on livestock will be minimal 

because of the flexibility allowed in wolf control under the 

experimental population rule. 

No critical habitat will be designated, and there will be no 

land use restrictions on public or private lands for wolf 

protection after 6 packs are established (and only if necessary 

in active den sites prior to that time). 

It is expected that hunting of male ungulates will not be 

affected, although harvests of female elk, deer, and moose may be 

reduced for some herds. Hunting of bighorn sheep, mountain goats 

or antelope are not expected to be impacted. Any losses in 

hunting-associated revenue may well be more than offset by the 

economic benefits from tourism that arise from wolf 

reintroduction. 

It is currently estimated that people visiting Yellowstone 

National Park alone spend about $425-million annually in Wyoming, 

Montana, and Idaho. Even a slight increase in visitation due to 

6 

88-881 - 95 - 4 
94 

the wolf's presence i n this ecosystem would generate millions of 

dollars of additional economic activity. 

What about the costs of this program? Current estimates are 

that the cost of wol f management until recovery would be about 

$6.7 million over about 10 years less than the price of a 

single postage stamp (even at 1994 prices!) per American for the 

opportunity for our grandchildren to hear the cry of the wolf 

again. 

On a voluntary basis, States can submit a plan to manage 

wolves outside federal parks and wildlife refuges, but are not 

required to assume this responsibility. Cost of State programs 

should not be considered in a vacuum. As I alluded to earlier, 

increased tourism will increase annual regional revenues by an 

estimated $23 million. 

In 1944 conservationist Aldo Leopold called for the reestablishment of wild wolves. Today, 51 years later, we stand at 

the brink of a new era in the west. One in which we live with 

wild wolves, not by destroying them but by carefully managing 

them. We know how to exterminate wolves, we've proven that. Now 

we have the chance to demonstrate that we can live alongside one 

of North America's greatest predators in some of America's most 

stunning wilderness and make whole again the first and perhaps 

most magnificent of our National Parks. 

7 
95 

Appendices 

Chronology of Gray Wolf EIS 

11/ 13/91 Co11grcss direcu FWS to prepare EISon wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone 

12(1/91 

3/92 

3/23/92 

3/25/92 

4!3192 

4/3192 

4/6/92 

5115192 

6/29192 

i /8/92 

7!10/92 

7/17192 

7/30/92 

7/31/92 

8/2/92 

8/3/92 

8/18/92 

9i4/92 

11118192 

l/4/93 

4/93 

6/93 

8193 and 9/93 

11!26/93 

12/10/93 

3/94 

S/94 

National Park and (;CDtral Idaho. 

EIS team selectiollS bea:in, continue through March 1992. 

Idaho Legislature passes bill that allows Idaho Fish and Game to participate in EIS . 

News release o11 isSIIC SC~>pinJ: open houses issued. 

Letter alld poster requestin& participation sent to over 2,500 groups or 

individuals that may be interested in EIS. 

Notice of lnteDI to prepare EIS published in Federal Re&iSter. News release provided. 

Issue scoping brochure sent to 10,000 people on mailing list. 

S~r.i.e~ qf 34 issue scopin& open houses (9 each in Wyoming, Montana. Idaho 

and 7 Natioml) began. 1,730 people attended. 

Issue Seeping Comment period closed. Nearly 4,000 comments received. 

Notice of Hearings published in Federal Register. 

Issue seeping report sent to 16,000 people on mailing list. includes alternative 

seeping open house schedule. 

News release on issue seeping report issued. 

News release annouru:ing altermtive scopin& open houses issued. 

Alternative seeping broc~ure mailed to about 20,000 people on mailing list 

News release on alternative scoping hearings issued. 

Brochure Inserted in 230,000 Sunday newspapers in Wyoming, Idaho. and 

Montana. 

Series of 27 altemativc seeping open houses bcian, 491 people anended . 

Series of 6 altermtive seeping hearings begins, about 1,400 people attended and 

430 testified. · 

Comment period for alternative seeping closed, nearly S, 000 comments 

received. News release issued. 

Alternative seeping report sent to about 31,000 people on mailing list. 

represeDiing all SO s~.ates aDd 40 foreign countries. 

DEIS is prepared. 

DEIS progress report was sent to about 32,000 people remaining on mailing list. 

DEIS completed and public review requested durin& 90 days public comment 

period. 

16 public hurinp conducted; 4 locations in each state of Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming and 4 in cities in otbcr pans of the couiiU)'. More than 1.500 people 

at~eadcd and about 700 prcacnted tellirnony at these hcarin&s. 

Comment perind on DEIS closed. 

Analysis of over 160.000publie co!DIDents on DEIS completed. 

Summary of public comment mailed to about 42,000 people .. nd organizations 

on Gray Wolf EIS mailing liS!. 

Final EIS released. 

6-26 
96 
97 

TESTIMONY 

SAFARI CWB INTERNATIONAL 

Hon. Ron Marlenee 

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

INTRODUCTION OF WOLF/YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK 

JANUARY 26, 1995 Safari Club 

International 

Safari Club International members have spent millions of dollars 

in expanding habitat and increasing wildlife populations. Our 

chapters have been instruMental in reestablishing species and 

helping maintain other species. our sportsmen resent and object 

to the u.s.F.,W. and Park Service embarking on a program that 

could cause the destruction of wildlife unparalleled in a modern 

wildlife era. 

The states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have a billion dollar 

hunting industry at stake. The legislatures of these states 

have opposed wolf introduction. The wolf is not endangered on 

the North American continent and the "Endangered Species Act" 

may very shortly, be modified to reflect that fact. That would 

mean saving millions of taxpayers dollars from being squandered 

on an introduction. An introduction that would not be called for 

after the ESA is modified. 

The introduction of the wolf is a prime example of why the 

Endangered Species Act must be changed. The ESA was well 

intended, poorly written and disastrously implemented. 

The wolf introduction is a glaring example of misdirection and 

the agency squandering of tax dollars. This is not a case of 

preserving a species. This is a case of introducing a species 

that can and will do irreparable harm to wildlife populations, 

Safari CILtb Internatioilal 
Page 2 

98 

~-Ranii8-

Dnc1orcll..ogillotllloAIIolto 

il0081..i>do-C<ut F-.VA22031 

(703) 280-21155 &Jo./Res. 

(703) 849-0041 FAX 

(406) 586-5864 (Mon1ana Bus.) 

(406) 585-71115 (Monlona FAX) 

Safari Club 

International 

to domestic animals and to co.-erce in general . It could do for 

the states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho what the spotted owl has 

done for the Pacific North West. The only difference is that the 

wolf has the capability, to physically destroy. 

For the past six years, the USFW and animal activists have been 

engaged in one of the most blatant campaigns of misinformation 

ever generated. 

Myth No. 1, THE WOLF IS ENDANGERED. 

The truth is that within 300 miles of the release areas, wolves 

are prevalent enough to have a very negative impact on ungulate 

populations. The tru.th is that Alaska has thousands of wolves. 

The truth is that the Minnesota wolf population has exploded 

and they can't control them. Only the unrealistic, misused 

ESA guidelines allows the wolf to be listed. 

Myth No. 2, WOLVES ARE COEXISTING IN MINNESOTA VERY NICELY. 

The truth is that deer herds in Northern Minnesota have been 

devastated and sportsaen are mad as hornets. The truth is that 

farmers have suffered losses. 

Myth No. 3, LOSSES WILL BE COMPENSATED FOR. 

The truth is that there is no law, no appropriation, no 

government program for compensation. The truth is there is no 

compensation for the loss of wildlife to sportsnen, to outfitters 

or to the service industries that are used by sports .. n. Each 

Safari Club International 
99 

Page 3 

and every g ... animal destroyed by the wolves will be a 

reduction in conservation inca.. to wildlife agencies in the 

surrounding states. Sports .. n pay for conservation but wolves 

don't. 

Myth No. 4, WITH EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS THE WOLF CAN BE 

CONTROLLED. 

The truth is that Minnesota was prevented from a control program 

even though populations had exceeded the first goal set and when 

USFW moved the goal posts they exceeded the second goal. The 

truth is that in Alaska, where there are thousands of wolves, 

there have been challenges to proposed control programs and 

national animal activists tried to intimidate the governor by 

threatening a tourism boycott. This has already been threatened 

in Montana documented by recorded testimony. 

Myth No, 5, THE INTRODUCTION IS POPULAR AND SUPPORTED. 

The fact is Wyoming recently passed a bill out of co .. ittee 

setting a bounty on the wolf, legislators from Idaho signed 

a petition opposing introduction and the Montana legislature 

will pass legislation opposing introduction. These are the 

legislative bodies representing the people expressing their 

feelings that the Interior Department is jamming the wolf down 

their throat. The truth is that, overwhelmingly sportsmen 

oppose the wolf introduction. In May of 1994, 2,712 sportsmen 

responded to a poll done by Outdoor Life, with the following 

Safari CILtb International 
100 

Page 4 

results; a total of 2,712 respondents 1,933 or 71\ opposed wolf 

introduction. In areas where sportsmen had to live with the 

impact the results showed that in Montana the score was 18 for, 

449 against or 96\ opposed to introduction; Wyoming 97\ opposed; 

Idaho 85\ opposed. 

Myth No. 6, THAT THE WOLF WILL CONTRIBUTE TO TOURISM IN 

YELLOWSTONE PARK AND SURROUNDING AREAS. 

'I'he truth is that the park is at or near tourist capacity. The 

truth is that one reason people go to the park is to see 

wildlife, which wolves will reduce drastically. The truth is 

t.hat in the surrounding areas wildlife populations will be 

devastated. Leading to a decline in hunting by both in state and 

out of state sportsmen. A billion dollar industry is at stake. 

Myth No. 7, THE IMPACTS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED. 

The truth is that the impact of uncontrolled growth and 

unrestrained expansion of wolf numbers was not evaluated as 

sportsmen had asked. And make no mistake about it, once 

introduced, the agency, the Congress and the activists will 

work to avoid control. The truth is that data on recovered 

wolf populations is so bad that animal rights groups can and will 

challenge findings in the courts, that recovery has been 

achieved. This data has been questioned by researchers and 

experts. The truth is that terms like, "management of excessive 

depredations" are misleading. There must be relativity involved, 

Safari CILtb International 
101 

Page 5 

50 elk out of 5000 may not be excessive. However, a herd of 100 

that has been reduced by starvation or disease to 15 or 20 would 

be dramatically impacted by a wolf kill of 5. The season can be 

closed to hunters but will never be closed to wolves. 

In summary, I commend the Chairman and this committee for 

having this hearing. Its past due and should only be the 

beginning for the following summary reasons. 

The agency is ignoring the desires of state legislators. The 

agency or individuals are engaged in misrepresentation. The 

agency is ignoring the economic damage to a billion dollar 

industry surrounding sportsmen and wildlife. The agency is 

locked in a battle against the agricultural sector. A sector 

that provides the vast majority of wildlife habitat. 

The agency is involved in an action that could devastate wildlife 

and amounts to a confiscation of the millions of dollars and 

countless hours that sportsmen have spent expanding habitat and 

increasing wildlife. They did not increase wildlife numbers to 

feed them to the wolves. 

I offer you for the record an article by Alston Chase, a 

nationally respected syndicated columnist. For those of you 

concerned about government intimidation, government coercion, 

and bureaucrats unbridled and zealous power the article should 

set off red lights and alarm bells. After the respected Dr. Kay, 

Safari Club Internatiotlal 
102 

Congresoman 

O;•ecto• ofLeg;stot;veAffa;,. 

Ron Martenee ~ 

~ 

Page 6 

9008 Linda Maria Court 

Fairfax, VA 22031 

(703) 280-2955 Sus./ Res 

(703) 849-0041 FAX 

(406)586-5864 (Montana Bus./ FAX) 

Safari Club 

International 

a research biologist, challenged the governments wolf recovery 

team's facts, the a.rticle outlines the following and I quote 

from the article. 

"Kay's charges infuriated Ed Bangs, Service Project Leader for 

the Impact Statement, who launched a counter-attack at Kay. 

He wrote the president of Utah State University, where he 

mistakenly supposed Kay was employed, charging "misrepresentation" that was "highly unprofessional." And he wrote 

members of the Recovery team, urging them to contact the 

Universi.ty's president as well. 

This response outraged Kay's colleagues. Robert J. Taylor, 

Kay's former professor, condemned Bang's action as "a thinly 

veiled attempt to assassinate (Kay's) scientific reputation." 

Randy Simmons, head of the Political Science Department at Utah 

State, also sprang to Kay's defense, claiming Bang acted beyond 

his authority in an attempt to suppress legitimate scientific 

opinion." Ask yourself the questions, "Was Bang's motive to 

discredit Dr. Kay?" "Was it his motive in contacting the 

president, as alleged in the article, to somehow threaten his 

job?" 

"If there was ever a time for a hearing to clear the air its 

now. If there was ever a time to put a misguided project on 

hold its now. If there is ever a time, or a reason to change the 

Endangered Species Act its now." 

Safari Club International 
103 

Fangs bared at scienti.st 

over wolf reintroduction 

Pity poor wildlife ecoloclau. 

Rather tlwl bclnl free to pursue 

truth where they find It, moat are merely minions of one parUaan 

oriP!IIzatiOII or 111101her. 

Uke attoneys, tbue 11est 

watcbera 111d 1011 catchers all 

tbe lllred IUDI In conse"aUon 

flcbta. Tbose aenlna uVironmen· 

tal II'OIIPI are under atmt mkrt to reYeal only tbe bad ~~ews, while 

those employed by llldunry art 

told to report Ollly tbe pod. Even 

worae, a plvrallty works for feder· 

al acenclcs dedicated to trans· formln1 onen spurious claims of 

decllnlnc biodiversity Into 

expanded bud1e11. 

Outspoken wildlife acientlsu, In 

abort, are endan1ered species, mort rare than manatees or Jtomodo dracona. So "hen a truly 

ladependent acbolar challenaes 

the connntlonal wisdom, out· raced authorities usuaUy treat the 

perpell"ator u a freak to be isolat· 

ed before Ita mutant 111111 have u opport&mity to repUcata. 

Such II tbe elptJ'Ielloe of bloloIISI Cbarlel Jtay. A aelf-employed 

researcher lftd an expert on Vel· 

Jowstone who earned a doctorate 

from Utah State University, lie 

would seem abon polltlct. But 

when he dllputtd the official nr· eloa of wolf recovery In the north- .,n Rocldet, otflclall went after 

111m With fane• bared. 

Tht U.S. Flah and WUclllfe Ser- .sce ~~elcl to restore arer wet••• to YeUowstone, northern Montana 

and oen~ralldabo. 1111!l81,1t com- pleted a Recovery Plu for these 

creatures, which are listed 11 endanpred; and last tummer, It 

publiahed ·e bt.ft lllvlronmt.nt.ll 

Impact Stattmant, rteoiiiiiMDdlnl 

"experimental" wolf population• 

be relntroclllced to tbe three -.. 

The atatement Ia provoklnc utlvilu 111d llockJnen to pub 

their teatll and 1lobber at tbe 

1110uth. The former don'tllltt the 

plta'l proYillolll to perutlt thoot· 

Inc troublesome woiYes, and thl 

letter don't Uke wol•e1, period. 

Jut unheard abo" tbil c:atJCpboay are ICieatlsU wbo barlx'l' 11rtous 

doubu eboat the propolll. Key liYIJ Yolct to 111<'11 COD• 

car11t. Ia thl· Auaut It sua of 

"Peterson'• Hununc Journtl," be 

ralaed the question: If wolves are broucbt back, how many are enouab~ The Recovery Plan 

uaounoed that when 10 breedlnc 

pllr of woiYes remain three lllcoeulva yeara In etcb uu, wolvu 

j l_C . 

to J i?hs 

alston chase 

alonal." And be wrote membert of 

the Recovery Tetm, urelna them to contact the university's pres!· 

dentuweU. 

Thla response outraaed Kay's 

colleesues. Robert J. Taylor, 

Iter'• former profusor, con· demned Bane'• action as •a thinly 

veiled attempted to assassinate 

(Jtay'e) aclenllflc reputation." 

Randy Simmons, bud of the Pollt· 

leal Science Department 11 Utah 

State, also aprane to J(ay'a 

defense, clalmlna Bana acted 

beyond Ills authority In an attempt to suppreu leeltlmate tclentlflc 

opinion. - Indeed, Kay 11 on tarcet. While 

Appendix 9 of the Draft Statement 

would be declared recovered llld offers a brief jllstlflcaUon for the 

be removed from the Endanr:ered 100 number, this addendum, S~cles Ust. eppearlnc etter Jtay'• article was This atartled Jtey. Since packs already In press and 11x yeara 

contain, on everaae, 10 wolves of after the covernment'a recovery 

which only two- tbe alpbl male flsuru were first proposed, 

and female - breed, thlt would teems a hastily conceived 

Imply tbat the animal would be aftertboucht. Altbouch dubbed a deemed recoured efter 100 "Uteratura survey," It was pubwolns are estebllsbed In each U.bed wltbouta blbJIOiflphy. eru. But to prevut harmful Moreover, •talk ebout 100 

lnbraedlnc and to proteet 11alnst wolvea Ia nonsense," Taylor told 

rudom ell'91ronmental ~hanees, me. •You cannot malntaln 1enellc most scleatiats believe that a min· diversity "llh those numbers." 

haum 'lable population 11 1,$00 And ID&ny bloloclsu, lnctudinc 

lndlvlduala. So why, Jtay won• Taylor, do not believe Yellowstone 

dered, did the Senlce cite auch a Ia larce enouah to contain 10 

low number? packl. AI University of Wyomin& 

To find out, he aouabt the cov· wolf researcher Mark Boyce Slid, 

erament't research on the IUb· wolves wUI cllsperse over a very 

Jaet. but was told tbere wu nona. ·wJde area. •lt Ia almost auaran· tilt recovery COals, be aurtnlsed, teed they Will aet Into trouble." 

were political numbert without Kay therefore Introduces a dis· 

lclentlfic ball• fabricated to min· turblnl nrlablt Into the equation lmlze op~sltion to wolf relntro- of wolf reco•ery. These enlmals 

ductlon. Yet whn populetlons bclont 111 parks Ulce Yellowstone, 

rtacll reOOYery coW and tbe 109• but they should not taltt over tbe era meat movu to dt·lllt, Kay Weat. Yet many scholar• bellne 

obserVed. actlvuu, rlcbtiY claim· that wolf populations will eventu· 1111100 II not taouch, wiD lilt to ally explode. Not bloloclcally keep them prote~ted, and win. endancered - 50,000 reside In 

Woll numbers will crow and crow North Atnerlca alone - they are 

lft~[;:'~harau lnfurlat;'d"id already re·estabiiSblna them· 

lanll Stnloe Projeet Leader for ttlna &croll the Northwest. 

till lmJICI ltltemant, who And onoe back, wolns ltUIY be 

launched a couateNttlclc at Kay. herd to control. Jtay, therefore, 

He wrota the Jrtsldent of Utah one of the rere bloloclsta who 

Stitt Ulllvtrllt)', where he mil· belli'! aol<llaiiJOUI to IOVcrnment, 

tlktal)l IUPJOied Kay Wll II IIJlnl what ftw Willi to heer. 

tmplfwld, cllarlinl "JJIiirrpl'tllll· See bow much poUtleal discomfort ta-1 that wu "'lllbiY unprofe• 1 frat llllnd een eeuse? 
104 

fOITORIAL TRAILS Br Yin T, Spar1110 Editor 

The Wolf Vote · WJU wolves llrfnl Nell a piece of preclolls·put? Ot wW they 

. erato I new thrut to our wildlife? Here' allow JOU woted. 

: 00 n our february Issue, wo pub- lisht<la tPOtiol in-depth npon 

on tho propooal 10 roinrroduct 

woiYnln YeUowa-l'arlc. We calltd it •wolf Won." and it 

presented • bard look It lhe conn ~ 

qurntca1 both pDtiDve tAd nepUvc:, of 

soch a wolf plan. 

We coWd only print a fnaioft o/ tho .oo: .. ~ IUtttch aueetHJ mtde av-,UJ. 

able to . .u.lx&c W4 tehcud the ut.oR 8w 

portan_c doc:omcnts char we thO\IJbC would prtttnc b<orllaidcs of rho ....-.lat- inccontNv.,..,.. 

rht woU &om the Enda~'ercd Species 

Act sAd aJio•» n.u\Ltll recovery with 

local stltf msnasetntnt. 11>c ,..,.;t 0U1t>OOR LIFE rcockr 

is an active sporuman with 1n aeute 

al"artncss of the world of ''ildlife 

arow~d him. Ho lo!ow1 the l'nJili1Jr of 

our e:nritonmtnt, and he Is wily cacited 

abwr any project 11\ar m1y improve his 

ootcloor world. Bur Le i• t1 equaUy au· 

tiout about In¥ pbn m~c auy upset UJ. btJance O( wadJi(e, (t WU wf"' thc.~~c 

thouJbu shac I asked for a rtoder vo". Where dots th.. sporttnwl nand? U 

the romutic howl of a wolf Nfficiecn 

rnde-off for a hlghtr elk and deer wolf. 

IOU! J. it fiir for an Eoncm<r ro CUll ]tl 

vott ro pat wolvtes in t Weuun sa.~. 

where they may become 1 probl.m. 

We rualu.: no recommendation• here. 

Our sol\! purpose wu co IUf"\!Cf our 

retdeuand rtport the results. W•h•~t 

u ied ro inform our readfrs at eom· 

plettly u pOSSible with the faus. bv.t 

chc woJfiUU.C ~bll hoils down to I qUtS• 

OoA of rhilosophy and romtnc:~ . Do we 

really wont ,. rmble rhn woi'I:S will 

become rnonorablc or onm1narable 

in our woods? Are tht odds too hi;h 

thu we will ultimately up,et the Lal· 

• ... or wildlife! 

.Mon o£ our reade:n .wh.o vote'-' think 

S(l. Tn be UICf, l,lJl rC:IIdtrt VQtCd "!!.. 

compucd with 1]9 111 YOICI tor w~l£ 

tti.nD'oduedon an 801 wot.et £or Uac no· 

~option old fO• havt VOt<d on rhc 

propos:•l tO reintroduce wolves in YciColntoa•1 

In our "Whtt') On Your M.ind11 deP"'""""" (uc P•lt 4), we havt printed 

only 1 few of the m1ny lentn we re· 

«ive:d in response co 01 Wolf Wars.• 

\Ve v.·ill try co publilh mort lcuns 

nee raonrh. U t 

In simpleR tcnns, do '" want woltM 

in Y.Uows1011e Puklla my editorial ill 

oho febnaary issue, I asked apon>mcn to 

read rllk spt<itl repon and CO!! a """· Do J'OU Ot do J'OU POt IUPJ'Oit the r.inttoductioo o( woln• iA Ytllownont Puk? l'h< rtadtr ._. '"' ua baclc 

on ow heels! 17111 z ;; 7ft /.,Ill ~hIll A....,. radullllilon acontrovet1bl 

issut II nrdy <OaR rllan 100 lomon or 

. to. My rcq..,. b • wolf,_ pn>duc.d 

I lfiOVftdin( lt~L When we mthed tbaYOCO · of Mardi IS, ................ u--.,;,.. ; Ia •ddition tv dw wom, lacn: JDore 

111111 rile us\101 ttlepllont alb Uld IDlil. 

. The anti-wolf roopr accuiOd OIIT-

· 0001. l.Ju of IMine pco-wolf Uld the · pro-wolf ,.....ps occustd us of bcU., 

: anri-wolf. "flteso opposinc rttcdont 

aet..Uy9¥Ca>ylllirlda,.aM. To boac· 

c.uoed of projdict by oppooinJ 

pllilooophieo pro-' co - rl111 Ovr- oooa LtFP. prena.ccd both side~ 

· cqutlly. Some rncltn, ltoweyu, IC· 

miDdcd - daoo I failed oo iacl* d.. · "no-waiF opoioo>• .., doo balloo. They 

did no< Ito me olf 10 cully, Uld there 

were 801 wrirc-ia -a r..r th. ...,.wolf 

: opcion. wiUc:lo nih ~~ lht dtHni•r of 

• OVfiiOOII....,...f .... 

-

Colofldo 

--

~ 

~ 

,_ 

Oolowtll 

~ 

. Gtottlo 

---.. --...... .._.,. 

--...... 

=- -,=. ---

s 

2 

H 

1:15 • 

39 

5 

I 

It 

• 3 

13 

33 

17 

• • 2 

• 3 

I 

10 

" II 

0 

14 

•• • 

4 D 

II • 10 • 

• 0 

7t 12 40 5 

' 0 2 D 

5 0 4 0 2 0 31 .0 ,. t 

tr D 

11 0 

• ' • D 

• t 

r4 I 

• I 

II 0 

" s S3 • s 0 H .. ·: az: 

.... _ I ,, I 

'*"'HM!pt.nifl 3 • 0 

Ne•JetUY IS 11 2 

~M•JdoO • 11 ., ~-vortc 37 H 2 

Nor1hCarot~na tr 10 t -D- 3 15 2 

ONo Sl 21 I 

()lj- s 12 0 

Ootgon !14 Sl 11 

- <0 71 2 -lo- • 3 0 

-~ • 7 1 

SouiiOekote 1 " 13 

TWII"'t ... e 13 • t r • .., 2t ., I 

...... 11 ,, 2 v ....... I • 2 

vorv- II 12 0 

::..~ " 12 t 

' ,, t 

- ~ 10 3 

~ 10 ., 221 

= ! ! ~ 

- m l.llt '" --· .., .. 
8o.HlD<lf DIIU<.I<'IIt' 

JJ(l\ fnurhTnlh..,tu"t'l. '\\\ 

\\:~o;,hinp.tnn. DC 20~)1,)') 

h·kph<'ntc.!tl.!-Nl.!-•Hilil 

!'ax 202-f11{2-ll31 

105 

Written Testimony of: 

Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife 

January 26, 1995 

House Natural ReJOUrces Committee 

Good morning, I am Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of 

Wildlife. Defenders is a conservation oraanization focused on rejuvenating 

our nation's ecosystems by restorins and protecting keystone and umbrella 

species such as wolves and bears. By restoring these critical species we are 

not only preservins them, but are helpins to return ecolop:al intesrity and 

stability to the natural ecosystems so essential for human health and welfare. 

Defenders has worked on the wolf issue for over 15 years. Our 

Northern Rockies representative, Hank Fischer, has spent the majority of his 

time durins the past ten years participatins in public meetinas, educatins the 

public on the ecoloaical implications of reintroduction, and workins with local 

ranchers to develop solutions to any wolf-related problems. During this time 

he met with every rancher and leaseholder operatins in the lands surrounding 

Yellowstone and ·led a deleaation of ranchers on a fact finding tour of the 

Minnesota timber wolf recovery area to observe firsthand the co-existence of 

wolf and livestock. 

In our efforts to return the wolf to Yellowstone and central Idaho, we 

have purposely strived to inject both ecoloaical and economic vigor to the 

Northern Rockies region. In doing this, we have tried to bring fact, reason, 

and fairness to this highly emotional debate. 

Some hunters and outfitters believe that game populations will drop 

significantly after wolf reintroduction, affecting opportunities and their income. 

There is little or no scientific evidence to support this view. From an 

ecological perspective, there has long been a hole in the natural food web of 

Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies region and that hole was once 

occupied by the gray wolf. Ever since pioneering game manager Aldo 

Leopold first examined the tragic rise and fall of the Kaibab deer herds, game 

managers have increasingly acknowledged there are problems with large 

predator control proarams. And while it sounds counter-intuitive to argue 

that restoring wolves to ecosystems actually increases the quality of game 

populations, the hunters in the red wolf recovery area in North Carolina are 

beginning to observe an increase in game populations. 

Wolf re-introduction in Yellowstone has been portrayed as another 

example of the federal government shoving an unpopular proaram down the 

throats of state and local governments. This is just not the case. This has 
106 

always been an open process and the Department of the Interior bas gone to 

extraordinary lengths to insure that recovery is done in cooperation and coordination 

with state, local, and tribal agencies at every step in the process. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), to its credit, bas bent over backwards, in all 

instances, to be accommodating. We and others in the environmental community agreed 

to the FWS experimental listing designation that allows ranchers to shoot wolves actively 

attacking livestock and relaxes Section 7 consultation requirements--easing the concerns 

of federal grazing leaseholders. All this was done specifically to give greater flexibility in 

the control of problem animals. 

The same is true of public input. There were more public comments generated 

during this environmental impact statement process than for any other in FWS history. 

These comments, as well as numerous public opinion polls--across the country and in the 

states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming--have been ov~o-wbelmingly supportive of wolf 

reintroduction. 

Much of the debate and the recent lawsuit focus on the economic threat to 

ranchers through wolf predation. The considerable research and experience of scientists 

and livestock owners on both sides of the U.S./Canada border have shown this to be a 

threat without substance. Wolf predation in agricultural areas bas been consistently 

minimal and averages less than one tenth of one percent. Wolf expert David Mecb with 

the National Biological Survey predicts that the introduced wolves will kill coyotes and 

therefore actually reduce ranchers' predator problems. 

Nonetheless, we at Defenders have always been sensitive to that "one tenth of one 

percent" and the potential financial hardship that could be imposed on a few ranchers. 

We have consistently advocated approaches that provide for both control of problem 

wolves and compensation for confirmed losses to wolf predation. Taking seriously the 

Reagan and Bush administrations' request for more volunteerism to help solve society's 

problems, we let our actions speak for us, by establishing a privately-funded $100,000 

Wolf Compensation Fund that has been functioning successfully in the Northern Rockies 

since 1987. During the seven years of our fund's operation in northwestern Montana, we 

have paid out approximately $17,000 to twenty ranchers with several of those payments 

made to ranchers in Alberta. We believe the operation of the fund effectively removes 

any negative economic impact of wolf reintroduction and saves the government and 

taxpayers a considerable amount in administrative expenses. Proof of this claim lies in 

the ten-year history of wolf and livestock co-existence in northwest Montana. Here in 

that local example, wolf predation bas been extremely low, problem animals have been 

dealt with by FWS personnel in an efficient manner, and ranchers with verified wolf kills 

have been promptly paid market value for their losses. There is absolutely no reason 

why the same positive results should not be realized in the Yellowstone and central 

Idaho areas. 

While much of the debate bas focused on the negative economic impacts of 

wolves, little bas been said about the positive. It bas been officially estimated, based 
107 

upon experiences at Glacier National Park and elsewhere, that the wolfs restored 

presence will aenerate about $ 20 million annually in new tourism dollan in the 

Northern Rockies reaioo. 

In addition, a recently released study published in Sc~nce maaazine by eminent 

wolf bioloaist Rolf Petenon, who has been studyina the wolves' impact on ecosystems 

since 1958, found that wolves by controllina populations of larae herbivores, such as 

deer, elk, and bison actually help forests grow faster. In a region as dependant upon 

forest resources as the Northern Rockies this could have a positive long-term economic 

impact. 

Similarly, the federal government and the states of WyorninJ, Idaho, and 

Montana will spend an estimated S 3.5 million on coyote control annually through their 

animal damage control prOJrams. Some bioloaists estimate that each wolf pack will 

displace an estimated 50 coyotes, there should be resultina savings on both the state and 

federal agency level. And, again, fewer coyotes will mean less coyote predation on 

domestic livestock. 

With this new 104th Congress, we enter an era of great expectations for improved 

fiscal responsibility and governmental accountability. We hope it is an era of improved 

ecological responsibility as well. 

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence indicates that wolves, by design or 

caprice, act as good stewards of their ecosystems, performing functions we are unwilling 

or unable to perform. Armed with this knowledge, our best option is to let them do 

their jobs. 
~·"- Co. , ... ... ·- . 

,.,..r ....... " '-· .-~· :... 

~-........ ......... -.. ... 

.·:·!#·" · ,;, •·•·• -~-;... .. -

~ ,.,; :. •. ••'<.·wr;,_ 5" 

......... ........... .... ;~. ... : . 

, •' ~ 1 _.,• •)'~ I t 1' 

w. , l ,.,._, <• ... "" •• • 

-,, .... ........ . 

1--.>•-5-.·. '\:, .. ..... .. ~ ... .... ...... .. 

108 

T eslimouy of Renee l. <l:i M 

fOl the: 

Corrunittee on Resource 

Ovmi&lll Hearing 011 Wolf Reintmductinn 

Jillluary 2G. 1995 

Renl't l.~kins. 1~ Ex('('Utive Director of The \Yolf Fund. Renee h•• an undcr:ouduate dt•rcc 

in hiolu~~ ftum Kalamazoo College in :O.Iichigan :md a m••t,.,.. degre<> in Fore<t SCltnee ~'ith a cumcular concentration in wildlife C"tolo~y frou1 Y.Jc t:ui•••,;itv. In addition !0 her 

involv•mPftl llltlh th• ,.·olf pro~!. <he hat done reseorch on se•·er.U other threatened :utd 

culhm~•red species includin: black-foot£d feJTe~. n•ltl ta!!ks. and whooping <nnes . 

Rent'• hM b!'t'll ll'orlo:Utg on the Y eUowstonc wolf issue for over fowtccn yean. In 1 ?86 

>he: fuw1ded the Wolf Fund. an organi7.aOon dtd1<>!tPtl onhrPiy to th< golll ot' r•srori"'! 

wolves to our oldest t~Ational park. The Wolf Fw11i i> lltc >ole prujcct of Tbe Ceruer for the 

Hnm•Oilt"" and lh• Environment a nonprofit or;:miution. a..ed in ~loose , Wymuin,;, 

The Wolf Fund is a re~onally biiSed. nationally nl!lllwk•tt orgoni10Mn ~lr..ss.ing tdt•ration 

u a mcons both of a!Ltying I<X:A! fears 111d ~ l>uilliiu~ u;otiuu;ol >uppurl for waif r~mlr0<1nction. II has put particular emplusis on building ct>nsensus among di •·idcd 

wn>Lilucocies in the YeDOlliSIO!If region. The Wnlf t-unrl1< • non-mtmb<nhlp 

organization. but we maint.un a nuili.u~ li.>I uf "''l'ruAimaLd) 12 .000 support£rs. 

A> pill'! of our effort 10 brtng the issue to the l"'hlic. The " nlf t-untl'< wnrk anti 

•ClCompli3hmcnt~ ho>H been profiled in fo ,"Jt, Li(c .. 4udubv~<. Pcvvle •ml tfurpa'S 

lla::ftnr. Ex~cutive Director. Rl'IIH .\&kiD&. bas bee • ;ur.:t 011 1'h• To.Uy Show· ;md 

· Kini Uve. · and inlt'n·iewed on !be news and magvine <hr"•··• of •II the tPi ev ~<•"n 

networks. .'\lso. 10 fur1her The Wolf fWld's u.atiuual edu.:atillu c:lfu11. Reu<• I.J;., 0 • .:11 

lert~re~ around the countrv for the .\mmcan \luseum of S•tur.ll Histor• in Sew\· ork. thC 

Denver !\iusewn of l\'~ History. Penn Stair l .nm•.,;ity the Hplorm Uub the:-;,,.. 

York An;len Club. and the Gud<u Oub uf .\IU<'Ii"" iiiiiOU~ vlh<l>. 

;;,.. • • •• !'I • • · ·:.,:•,, • ,_ 1': .• ':1~ .,, ~· : .. .,) 
109 

TC31imcoy of Re~ Askius, ~ t. JOIDIW)' 15. 199.5 

If I were a t....rucr I l'lviMlllr •uulolll&ll willll wolves n:tumed to the West If I b.Jd siplilicant 

number& of lbHp or c:aale killed nch yew by prccllaon I would cRoci QDci fi$ht 1bc Dcldilion of IIIDiher predaw. Tf T f:w!CI die r.t'fldillnns lllat nuacbers bee ill tlw W~t. lallin& <10d;; prier.~ , 

riliu~ tu~ .. .l'l"l<m¥eol <lruqb~ mel a Jillion dw is ealillc Jess m4 Jess beef m4 weannc more and more S)'DCIIilla. 1 would DCt want to Ddd wolves to my woes. If I wm: a taoehcr iD MooiWl, 

Idaho, I'll' Wynminc in IYI~ wllldBng my llfiPI>on Jive up aud my hmily die all! would~ 

afnicl. If evet~ l belie• col in mil wurktd for and pr•yed for wu clisappcarlnc. l would be 

afraid and I wOIIId M anpy. I would wom to blame 110mclllin3. to fi&bt aomcthin&, to '''"" kill 

somefllillg beca1w w~ ""'nnt, (Ill !be wbole, l helpless lot. 

Rm:hers c:ao, dwlgelbt we:adlcr, or mllkc people cat beef 0.. wclll' wool, the tax thio' is 

bopeless. but they can ficM In mr> ttwe wolves. ltlev r.ot•ld even kiD th<>se wolves. Rancb&>rs 

bow. llld the people w dWo ruuw Luuw, ll&lll the wuh"" ;u:m'l the l:aU);&: uf w""lcfll w~ ur the 

ehmgtt tbat are cauaing those woes, any more llwl the roos1or crowin' is the e~>W!C for the sun 

ri~in& . 

AJmo.t evtry r.lllcMr I lalow in b West ript now is afl'llid DDcilllll:l)'. I ba•·c lived ill the WCSI 

fl'll' fifteen yeal"'t. I 'J1P.IIl a gnod pllt ol'two of thou y~ on tile roiacllldking to people in mnl 

Wyowin~:. Mou!IW&. iWll Ll;aitu, tUU>illy r.mc~. mUOidy ~buut wulvt:li. When you talk lU 

ranchers (the ones on lh• ~ound, !he on• running stock, not lobbying org:miz:oticas) they '"'Y· "you !mow trs not the wolves we·re wnnied ahnut, ir~ what die &>nlve~~ repre~ent. ir~ nnt what 

they'll clo, it's what they mcau." WohwutciW •1""'~""· Wulves ll.kllll cJWJea;nlU th~ ul<l "":V 

of Cloin& thioga. Wolvte mean loss of control. 

Ranc:hcrs deseJYe our compaasi<1u •ull our •'UIIU:ni. 'A-'bether the thmtt oC wulvo:s i~ po:n:t<i•.,.] ur actual, their fnr and a; .. are real. I hoacr that It ill my job, howc•er, "' a scientist ancl on adYotate to dislinguish die fact from the fictinn. Mid the r•IIJ"W' fr(ll11 11\f! ["'fMV'c1 It i~ the jnl! 

of the membcn of tbis c:owmitlooe. as t'I:Piftetlllli•esli • dc:wuclllli~ vulllk lU ~"'''" l:tw • ;w<.l, i.u creatins tbtm. iafonn your cleciaioa·malciog with the moet accur.llc inform;~tion . ond it ill Scc:rc101ry 

Babbitt's job ID implemed and enfarce ttw.... law~. 

Democ:rac:y mU£1 be more llwllaws •~preaaing nempLuy ideals. For Jefferson it w..s. ~bo· • .n. aD active process wbereby an informed and ra"-<innall' ruhlir. ~ha[""1 their nwn hi•tn<y. It i< 

tl.ou# ow!*Ucipllion wei our rcprcscu~at~ou IbM we Ill: tcudercd i&O:WW4ablc lU IlK i<.IC"..ts vf ouc Jeplalion. lt&S easy to pasc visionary laws; it is oltc cliff'tcult to live by their m:md:lte&. 

When Coapna passed Tbe ~ S~in AA;t it c.\jll.....tliK llllliua's williD!(ll-lu 

sacrifice some ccODOIDic: adVIDfaSt for h proteclion :111cl res!Dnlion of species. The ~lion of 

Y cDowstonc National Pult Upre!O.'!Cd nur de<i,... tn II"""""" nnr nanJral llf!nhlgo. Tho Will1f!m~< 

A~ expressed our commitmCDIID wild places 11¥1 thcii· wild iuhabi1at.lll. All wen: rCCQaaUZCd. by the world. a& visioaary t.polation. ~ow we c- dw difficult tak of !ivins up to 0111" visions. 

To poucss a fiDe rc~~ thin&. to 1>1....-rc • fwc tucal rcqllit"c. WOIC-- 50Wc tboudlt aud effort Mid t'lle. 11w Species Act is like a fm. ~Wipe, but it-cl& toM tll.:l<*d to bo 

JDCalliJIII'd 1D Amelia. l1lt DOl1b8n R~ MoulltliD wDif was clasSified as an Endangered 

Spocicl iD 1?73. T1U c:lasaifialioo Rqllircd the t'elllm of wolves 10 YeUowstmlc. The wolves il1'C 

nat yet I03IIIiDa £ne ia Y en-.t-, and - so f:or • our l.p.ialion bas JHOVN IIDecjll:al to its 

lllissioa. After IWeDiy yean ot stlllilll aad sabntage hy ~al in-t 1"'111"'· .Teffer.oon'< :t:.::aa of clomocncy, laWI JDAde of tbc people, by tile people, aud folt· tbc pec>plc, is itsdf 
110 

Tht •olf iasw is a priJM victillll of illdiiSII)"s "barter" methods. For over twenty yr.II'S s)*i:U 

intereol!l have unclfmrinl!d m.timal Law by illteatiollally dragpag Clll 1be lf1!al p(l(ns a woll 

rca>• cay aud drh iiJt( u~ lhc Wlib. Inmi~illly. lho: ,.ulf ~ hu m:cully bem lio:pi<'ll:d "" ~ 

"bwriecl md :mtocmic effOit by 1be feclml go•CIDIDCII~ forced upon the stales of Wyoming, 

Idaho. lnCI Mmlllna, thai hat ignnrwt h t.IJIICI'Ill$ atld tnlneslol lhP 1~1 rnl\he. Thl! fnnndatinn 

of Ibis .UU WiOIJ(UJjCNwWthc Rnpn 1111<1 B~b llllmi!Huali<.m with ;m tmpbil:iis oo dm•~ ~ 

solulioa from the W~~t, rlllher than imposiog oa. oa tbt West. lD 1991 Wyoming GOP Sea:artn 

Malcolm Wlllop aad Alan SirnJ'-<011. wnrt..;ng with fnnntr l .. S. l'i~h 2nd Wildlife servioo Director 

Jolm Twucr (wb.:> wu abo a forwcr Rcpubli...n •Wic •all&lu' ;wol ~ lwnljCcJu:J;a~uu ,.c>lcou 

nDeb«), mabticbtd a wolf znaaas-r comminee briftsing tog.-her f edonl :and !:131e 3j;eoo:ies. 

coosmalionms and nDCben to find a !'lllulinn that carried nut 1M law afllf cnMidered re<11le. Their 'llliorlo; proYided the fOIII:Idoltiou for today's piau, a lwd wou. middle of th~ road posiliou. 

Assenions have also bern made lhatlhe -• hav• nnt heon invnlvod. and that the rnhhc. paaticuWly the r<UKhcu, hne uot had the ~PIAI•tuWt:Y 10 COIWucUI. Thi• is simply W!tl\". Si.ucc 

1973. •IMa the wolf was Jib*! 011 the Ezad:lagtred Speci• list. the li .. atoc:k induatry h3s plllicipa~ 011 tile Wolf Recovery lr.am in th• !""'ilctiim nf rwn wolf ""'"very pan~. l'nur 

•olumcs (1,314 paps) of rcseao·cb ou 1be cc01111Wic. biolo~cill iiUd :;!Xiill impact of wolf 

niDtroducliOD were procluced principally 10 respond to their cODCerD£ ~ore rHealCh bad btell 

dCIIc on wolves 1lwl 011 any aDimal tllatliv~ he~'J R311Cht~ and hun~"' were re~tn~d nn the 

Wolf Mau&emcnt Comminn, aud pa~ticipare.l ex~~oosi•dy 11 heariu~s associlkd .,·ido the COIIIIIIi~tee. 

Ranchers. blllllers, .md lq)ll:SCUwivcs f1·01U the SQIC ~VeUlllltlll ilso pr~~'ticipllled t:ttcusively iu 

the two-y- EIS PfO<'"I which included: 3-1 iuu• scopins opm houses, ll•ach ill . ~IT. and 

IO md 7 aalicmal. 1.730peDIH atllnldtd and 4.000commeats were received: a sems of 27 al~emati•e xopiaa OIJCn houas . 491 people allcnded; a saies of 6 alllem&•e sco:~ping heariu~. 

1.400 ~ alhlldecl ud 430 llltifltd. DGrlv 5,000 collllllftllll were received; 16 public be:11111ga 

CCilduCud Oil the dnl'l BS In 4loali011S ill eXb S1a1t cliO. !'-IT 1114 WY. 1114 ill4 nallooal ctlies. -than 1,500 people atlendcd a ~bola 700 1atilicd. lbcr~ wc.-c 160,000 comweuls 

sublaitred Oil tbt lmlt EJS. Oppoato• of 'IIIIOif recovery have participalltd in this pi211Di11& process 

c•ay Step of die way.lllldlbeir caJCems have illdeed been adclmscd. althou:IJ not necessarily 

accxckd to, in both the BS and the Rlllellllking. 

Additlolllllf. die Oat aad Fish DtpanmmiS of all tbree Slate have already been paid $7.000 a 

y-111 ~ill the plaaaju a impiCUICIItaDOD of the EIS aud cKII stale r"civcd S30.000 ill 

1993 to de9elop 1brir wOlf Dlllllipmetot plans. ObjectiOII& havt bem msed aboul the t.:. S. Fodt 

lllld WDdlll't Scnict J)IOCeCdiQI wid! rcinlr~OD before state plans are iD plaoo. 1bc time fnme 

oftbe ~las beat bown for se•cnl ycm, the ~lion cd complelioo ci these 

plat is ~ toUIU the NpODiillility of the slalf J:IIM and fodt depa11mta1S and not the fedenl 

IOVtrllllleiiL 
111 

Tcltimony of Re~~~c Askim. p~~ge 3, J:m.IIIIIY 2S, 199S 

Oppoocn1S cllbis project bavc also as3CI1ed lh..l mideals iD the .-.gioo arc oppoced to this. t-1d 

alllll«<U& regicmalaurve)l~ bav~ .mm.'ll majnriri~ rllhe resideu!s in Wyomin.J. MonWill •U<.l 

Idaho support die presem;e of wolves. A 1991 ~w vcy in Wyomin~. eommissloncd by tho 

Wvomill& G...., mel Fish ~t ("·bich at the lima was on record ~t reinlrodurhnn) 

in<licated t1w Wyoming residents t••ored rr.intrnduction b)· a uw:in or 44% to 34.5%. Awtba 

S1aiC wide survey of the Wyo~J~in¥ ~m•n•l public .lone in !9fr7 by A.J. Bath iwliCRtcd 48.5% 

favored rcinlroduction, 34.S% opposed it, :md 17% had no opinion. (Of till! 83% who upre<<ed 

an opinion, 58% favored, :md 42~ opp<l1""f rP.irrtmduclioo.) Bad! and Pllinips (1990) ami B<od1 

(1991) surveyed dle Montana and IdidJu ~""'"' pulllic, aud fouad tbat 43.7% of Moobn:ms. 48.s't of Wyominptea lAd 56% of ldahOQIIS f~vond wolf reiDtroduction into Y ellow~tnno 

National Park. 40.3% of Mont~J~am. 34 5'1. nf Wynmingires. md 27~ of Idahoans wer• 

opposed. No opillioa oa wolf ~inlnxlu~:liuu wu held by IG% cl Montanans, 17% of WyoaBnsitc::s. lAd 17% of Idolho:ms. (Of tb8 8'1% of Montan:ms who expressrd ~n np;ninn. 5l% 

favor~ nintroductiCIII whil .. 41<% ni'I"""'d it. Of the 83% r:l IdahOIIIIS wbo t'Apross•J .u opiuiou. 

67.5 favored reintrOduction md 32.5% ul'~""d it) Nllional survcY3 indicalc an o•·erwholmias 

majority of the lllllion;U public support Y ollowstone wolf reintroduction. • I 

Reintroduction oppwen!S <wm IIIOOiwuhc:~ will dCYastate the li•cstod< industry in the W061, :&nd 

yet all the science, the !llllclies, the eltperts, :and the faclllllhow that wolvK WI les.• !han I i HI nf me 

percent oftht livtstodt anilahiP In them. So why are thtre all diose stories about wol> o:.ll..illi.u~t 

hundred!i of li••slod.? Iu tho= larc 1800's 111d early 1900's we killed 60 million bison in less than a 

twmty year period and rcplacod them with hllll<hds of lhousands of catde and she"P The w •sr< 

bison population supPOrt""' •l"'!'ulatinn nf hundreds of thousands or wolves. lbOl!e wol•~ lu:ol 

dteir llllljur pn:y .pc~n 'ilt.wly ovcr.uiJ:).It, and in the place of their natural prey came domestic 

li•·cstock. Under those conditions thousand& of wolvK, a dr.umlic decrease in oatur:ol pr•y, • 

dr.uaatic i~ in ~tic live.:tnck - wolves did lo.illlivestodc. CO!Idilions have dJ;,w~C\1 

tud-4y. We have •iJ\uillly uo wolves, cxplodin~; populali.ons of natural prey, far fewer liveslock 

md much IIIDIY sophisticaltd meaos of controllina wolf predation . 

.o\~-cur<lin~: lo the Bu£c&Uall Ouwiclc, cveu if fodcnl wildlife specialist! have wildly 

underestimatod the olllllber of cows and sheep that wolves would kill in the Y dlo~tm• aN! 

Cm~lldabo Rl'l'!a<, tho. tnt.al wruld he much smaller !ban dle munber dlat die each year in lhc •"'"' 

ul' Munt;aw .dut1e becawe of sbnm, do;s, ond o•int inE·tudc. In fact, the number of ,.·olf 

ca.aed sheep clocltbs would bave to be almost 30 tilllell hi than pr«<ict~d betCII'P it wnnld match 

the numhf:r nf Monrana sheep tlw died in 1993 because e aoilllills rolled u•or vu lhao ba<ks aud wen: uualllc to ~ up wd sla.-vod. 

Acll'll'dingto the L'.S. Department of Alriculnue's Montam A&ric:ultur.d Stali•ti~'li Scrvi<X. 

nadtcr~ lu:si 90,000 head of cattle, aud 108,000 sheep md Lambs to various causes ia 1993. Tho 

numbers do not induda aaim:als i.DteDiioaally daugbtmd. The agency does nor break' dn"'" Clll~ 

of ctr.alh for coM<, hut keep!! an41111ual rally rt sbeep dealbs in Monam. OlyuiA:s lo.illcd 30.700 ~V ....lliWibs, W<J<e Ibm 111y other single cause of death. Lambio5 complications killed IS. 700 

~. bad wM1b« killed tl,OOO, eli .. _ claimed 11,400, old aae took 1.100, Mid "unlmown 

~-felled ~400. Other predarors. in fact. took J1W1Y more sbeep 1lld lliiD~ lbiw the 

Ji:Otcrumeul apeds wolvea to take. Domestic dor lrillcd 1.700. eag!C9 killtd 2.500. foxes 

3,300, mountain lioaa 1.000 and ban 700. PQsoDS - both plmt1 aod ehP.mical< - 1001.; dle live~ nf z.:iOO lbeep IDd lambs. tbieves stole 2.900 anJmals and 3.000 do:I&IIJ> wc1c listed in the 

"ou back" o:atccory. Tbisllllldy was p.id for iD put by the MontiUia Wool Growm; A"ociati011. 

It would-thai tbt 19 bncf of came llld 68 "'"P dulllOO WoiYts tnight !<ill a year would DOl 

he a dev~'llatim tollle Weltlm livestock IDIUay. cspedaDy since tbcrl: is a pri> •k cowpcnY!ion 

JliOIIC&W w ~to pay raocba~ for liYcstock loua to "'ol•cs. 
112 

Tmunouy of Renft AskiDs, l>il• 4, Jmuary 25. 1995 

Oppuucnla .:lilian thlt Icintroducinc wol,.es is a waste of millions of lllllpayer doUars. Lets take a cloe«look aalhe l'rojecled 6.7 million doD:us it would 1ak.f to reiDiroiln~~ ,."nlvr!:. 

I Jne man'~ "cost" IS anolher man's 1Jicome." as we have h:ma..U ,.ilh .Jcfeuse spcnctinr; C\lts. 

"Wblooc• a WOJJey' is _spent on wolf rcintroduc:ti011 lllJely flows iniO tho region21 economy. as will 

mooey for lhe onsmng management of a recov~d population. '!he rn<:l or not doing anjthlng. 

that i~ allnwillg tWural recolooizat1011 to OCCID'. would bt bi~..r d..., lu lbc prolanccd time it would 

take fo1 naiiiRl reea>ery 10 occur md due 10 the inacasc:d rc!lrictiODS !hat accompcany the pr•~ 

of a fully Olldangered species. 

It is p.-oje..1ed that wol~ ~troduction ~ cost approximately 5900.000 a year. Of those costs 1bi' 

federal ~ovemment an1lCtpaTH emnarking appro:wn:~tely S100,0fWIIn ~l'iiUXJOtyear for eacb of 

the three Slates Of i tolil Of $300.000 to S4.50,000iyear W Su.ppul\ >Qlle iuvolYCIIlCIIt in mana~:cment of wolves. Decau.sc wolf ~cmcnt is net a full time proposilion the equipmem 

(trucks, snowmobiles, tela!W!IIy receivft'S etc.), wan~. etc. would most likely be used for other 

projects as weD. There Is also SSO.OOO/year in lhe pruj..:u:d bwl!:etiO supp<m the local AOC 

pllllfillllll and cover lhe expelll!C3 of their local invoh·cment in the projec:l 

I Pf~ aiM take a look at the expendirure of 6. 7 million dollar.; in n:hsliullllhip 10 other expenditures. Fur the fu-.t17 yCill'$ of the I!.ndan;ercd Species .\et (1973-1990), the federal govemm•nt spent a 

total of appro:timately $700 million To implomen! IM Ar.t. '"dulling land acquisition and erants 10 

lilt states. The appropriation TO 1he Fish and Wildlife Sen ice for illlplctneuting the Act in 1m w~. 535.7 million. Dy coml'arison, a _single mile of inte1"5blll highway cos!s, on avenge. S39. 

million. For Jess than the pn~• of • mtle ot tonr-lan• highway the U.S. fish and Wlldllfe Scrvtce 

ran its entire endanj:ered species p!U~,:[illllllilliuu -.ide fu• a yen. To say lbat..-e connot .uTord to 

protect endilll&ercd species is absurd. • 2 

Here is anO!her way 10 look a! it The ..1\(llifiUU~Iuuutber of timber sales on the Mlional forests of 

this countJy have IC15t mo~y. By subsidizing timber s:dos we over harvested our na1iOD2liC!res!S 

and, i.n many places, ruined opportunities lor sustainable fore<!!<. F. very year we - the 

taxpayers-subsidize the Ioeeine of feder.J foro:sb <S~Iilc •ate of over 52.50 million. At thi! "'"'· the total costs of the cntirt 18 yellr.l of Endangered Species Act could be rocovored in a lin!e mo..- than 2 years if below-co<tlimbtor s~s were ebminall'rl. •.i Applied TO wolf mnll'oductioo: we could ~tcover lbe entire cost of wolf recu•ory ($12.7 milliou) by elimi.niltin& belo,..·oosttimbcr 

sales on public lands for nineteen dAys [S12. Thf .I SZSOM ~ 0.0508: 0.0508 x 365 days= lM ' 

days.] Can,. .• atlord lc> reintrodnrt wnlve<? Relative to other federal projectS. it's a bar~aiu. 

Lets take a look :II one dircc1 subsidies ~chm; receive. (!am a supporter of controlling we>l•·..;; 

that kiD livestock, and the funding thai i< ollocated in the FEIS budaet for ADC.l Taxpay~:~> pa• 

approximately 36 minim a year to suppon A.nimld D.wtilg~ Conb'OI wbich clearly benefits just • few special interests. In 199'.3 accorctiDg ID its own fisures. ADC killed 2.205,95812rg~t :md oon 

t:.lrgl'l animals Only about 27,000 ran<'~ have penni!! to gru:e livestock on public land; .•el40 

percent of ADCs buden iti <lin:•looltu .. anlp•ottctillJ li•estoc:k of these ranchers. This me:ms that 

each of th~ raDCbCIII effectively receive a subsidy. apart from grazing fee subiidios. !rom ~I X· 

of O\'« $550 per year. 

The livestock industzy II» succtssfutly transferred one of their most basic c>penhnnal cn<l!< to !he 

g•nenl public • )ftvenlicm <J ['ff'datnr lno;~es. If you raise Cbrisunas ll'ees. piiTl uf lh~ •u•l. illld 

rislt of duiJIII buiill<!»;, i,) Ius~ a few 10 J!YVSY moths and ice !torms: inherent in the cost of ~"~~~China. par1iculzly rmcbi.ng on public Ianda. should be the cost aDd risk ol los•ng liv~tock to 

predators. Instead, tvery y~r 3t. mtllinn or our taX dollars iO to kiD native ...;]dlife un uw public 

lands so that prhalo: inllw;ll) •41J J..l.IU.c a pmfil We sbouldn' bar "·o)vcs from Y cUowstone b~ausc of the possibility tb.3t a livoctock depredation migbl OCCID' anyma-e !han w• <hnuld ciC>Se 

hiJbways bec:ol•~ a mw could gef lui by a mo1Drist. 
113 

Te:!limony of Rente Askins, page 5, Jan1121Y 25. !9'1S 

Titc livesrock industly has been very effective in promnting the concept tlw. h;aviuc wolves in 

Y ellow510Dc is ~~ sort of envirCII!Denlllluxury. sowc rolll.UIIic nonscnso th:lt oaly urbanites 

and rich eucancn lldvU<>~~ . 111 the costs of the poor beluguend "'"""'"' livestock indus~!)' 

Haviug wolves in Y cllowstone is not aluxlll)' but ~ right. a rigbl of lbe pt:uplc iu theY ellowstonc 

re;;ion aud the people of thi< nation 111·ho own Yelluwstoue and the public lands surrounding 11. 

We should DOl have lu pr.oy fot clean air or wata or nor should we believe !bat they are sOIDehow ;,o. 

luxury. In a Smilar ~N~~U~er. we have a righl to~ tnll compliment of wildlife ou our public lands, 

par1icubrly in our national [larks. We sbould not h;,o.vc to accept a deg111dcd c:nviromnent •• StU'h a~ 

one devoid of pro:~s •. ud other DAti•• wildlife ·- DOl' should we h2veto pay the operadonal 

cxpemcs of any industiy whose profit interests conflict wilh our rieht 111 a hcldthy cnviraomctll. 

Oun air, de:on watt>r. and a healthy environment ill1: .. ,iebt and no one should be allowed to 

d~de lhem, ""P""iiillY if they are m.akin~ a profit :IS • result. 

Wolves....,. mis~in: from tbe Y ellOWSlOIIC rc!Pun bccawc we eliminated them. They diciD~ 

disappear in respoox to a loss of prey or the lack of b:lbitat, they didn~ dif, nnt in response TD a 

nii!Ur.ll dis<:asc or C1113strophic event; we didn't just .-..move wolves thai killcu livestock. We 

systematically. intP.ntionaJly. consciously killed ••cry wolf we could f111d . And we found them ..U. 

Y ellOWSIOIIC has bccn without wol••• for si~ty yean. Wo came to accept the ""''ftlce of wolves as normal. Thill is the trasecly. WolvK wm >n integral pan ot !he Ydluw•tuue oco.ystcm for 

thousands of yean~. We lllo1dc a eravc cnor i.u cAtcn~ting them 111d their cwronlabsenc-e is "" 

ecologically pc•·•erse and abnormll sihllltiOD. 

Opponenll' fall!ely asswnc 1hat becall:ie lhrn: iiiC oo wolves, there should be no wolves, llltd over 

tbl: l..,l two dc.:ades they biovc •cry effectively framed the wolf recovery llrgumeniS around thltl 

iiSSUIIlption. In fact, they h2ve promoted !he u1AA that !he mum of wol••s is sowehow radic31 or 

~xtmne. :I he co•~ to lbe J:C:Deral ~ublic of notl,.,>ius wolves hll"e virtually been eclipsed bJ.:.the 

hve.;lodo. wuiiSt!y • cry of econoauc loos or burden. In the West. we nnw hve III a "wolf· free 

environment. Or is it a "woU'-deprivtd" mvirnnmelll? Wbo has ¥ain.U .uu who has lo:st'? How 

do we •wgn a val~ TD !he importau<% of • pn:d..!Dt iu an ccosy:stem? How do we deletllliM the 

cost of 1"111~• iu:: one note from • Mozart symphony or one brush slrnk• irom a Rembrandt? How do we qu:mlify the l01$ID the millions Olf"'opiC who have Visited Y•llow~uc and never had the 

opporturuty to e~perience the Wild. hair·r.lisi~ ~hill of a wolf bowl or soe the roal drm!.& of life 

cnacw.l..,; elk or illlldopc streak aaoss sage plains pursued by the pre<fotnr responsible for their 

gwiftneca ond agility. Who should !>~! ''"'"l~nsatine wham? 

Btc~c uf the passion and thc emotion and the politi" it is very tasy to ny tn ctimlnish this do:b~lc 

to one of bl""k or white. Oppaoents ol rftntmductioo W3111 to usc wuh .. as the provetbial 'line 

in'"" <and" thJI divides !he old Wes1 fruut the ucw. They wmt us to see thie is~ue as a distill~llnn 

of all EuU.W~ered Species ~onflicts, os simply a question of "tither/or " I Jon~ touch a tree vs. 

clallcut all trees; no wolves vs. fully protected. untoucbable wlllv~s; wrestricted gi'Uin~ •·s. no 

gn7ing. But these iss~. lilo;e wulv.,., •owe in lllany different shades. 

Both sidca h2ve tried to use the wolf •• a ['rinciple weapon in w~t I o.:all the cniSh and conquer 

warfare. Both sides have U:O..U """"'et-.red dlctori~ to alarm GDCI frighten constitueuls Ttl<! 

u~edy u tbat wbilc the ~h ond conquer annies fight !heir"'""'· the rest of America sllt!IU. IJy. 

coafusecl, . and 1rnaware that sanelbin: !hey car• ~rout uli$t be at stake. I bcli••• this 

·~I!< apin!ll tbem" rtlttoric: is :iimpl_y ~ ~OIIStrlll:! to enable 1101 the war on the West. rut the war fmm 

tho: Well There ia"" us apinsa them, it is ua against us. w. ue all in itll>gelber. Cbief St'41tlc 

o:lid, 

If all tbe bcuts were: coue. .... would die from. Feat l<>neline§ o( spirt~ for wbillc>CI 

happens to !he bea". haJirell~ to us. All dlines ar~ I.UIIllCCied. Whatever befalls the eal1h, 

befalls lbe children uf u.., ea.th. 
114 

Tcslim011y of Ran~e Askins, p:~ge 6, J:mwuy 25, 1995 

We havetn g.ve np tlus nOIIon of who 1~ wuming and whn ·~ ln~ng • we need It\ return to the 

ULiug~ Ulill we""'" ~boul · the 1.1\:c~. lhc r4Dgc, the ,.jJ.llifc. uw lhclihood, our families, our homes. The roal issue is one of making room ... for then: is still a lit11e room in the West - for 

hunters. tor environmentali,h, tor ranchm. and tor wolv~ 

*I f-inal l'nvirnnmPIIIlll lm[l""l Sill!""'""'' The ~Pintrndndinn nf (ir.!y Wnheo: to Yellm••stone 

~alioual P..uh. iW<l Ccub<llldidlu. ApveuwA 3. Publi~ ~ttituck:~ about Wolvos a &•·i,..· of rc<:<DI 

investig:ttiOJlS. pp 6 3Z. 

*2 Fur suun:c:s sec Sl.wfTcr M.L. 1992 Bc•unJ i!Jc E1al~gcn:J Svecies Act: CoiiSen·ation in the 

21st Century. The W'udemess Society. W:IShington, D.C. 

•3 Why Y<lluc Biulu~...J Dhcrsitr• l>y Ray Rd..CJ A P"•I'C• prosenttd at Slw1ng the Land 

Pre.-vins tho J:wk&on Wholo A B•odivft!lity Confontnco, June 3-5, !994, Jackson Wyoming. 

*4 Audit of the USDA Anirual Dlllla;e Control Program. J:cooomic Analysis by Randal O'Toole 

of Casca<l. Holistic Economic Conouii:IIIIB. 
115 

STATEMENT OF LARRY J, BOURRET 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

Oversight Hearing On Federal Efforts To 

Introduce Canadian Wolves Into 

Yellowstone Park and Central Idaho 

Before the 

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

January 26, 1995 

My name is Larry Bourret, Executive Vice President of the Wyoming Farm Bureau 

Federation, headquartered in Laramie, Wyoming. The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation is 

the largest farm organization in the state, representing the interests of more than 8,000 

member families in Wyoming. The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation is one of the plaintiffs 

in a case now pending in federal district court in Casper, Wyoming challenging the 

introduction of wolves into Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. 

In its haste to turn loose a major predator into Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, the U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service has ignored the concerns of the fariners, ranchers, hunters and others 

who actually live in the experimental areas and will be affected by the release, and has also 

ignored the concerns of the state governments into whose jurisdictions these wolves are 

released and who are supposed to be partners with the Fish & Wildlife Service in this project. 

The Service has also played fast and loose with the dictates of the Endangered Species Act 

and its own regulations, creating a wolf release program that flouts the Endangered Species 

Act and established science, and shortcuts the procedural requirements of its own regulations. 

As an initial proposition, it is important to remember that the gray wolf is not in 

danger of becoming extinct, nor is it threatened with becoming endangered. There are more 

than 60,000 gray wolves in Canada, with another 6,000 in Alaska and 2,000 more in 

Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. Releasing wolves into the Rocky Mountain area is not 

necessary to save the gray wolf. 

Also, wolves will not stay in Yellowstone Park or in Central Idaho. According to the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, wolves can travel up to one thousand miles. Instead, 

the program encompasses vast areas and affect a significant number of people. For example, 

the entire State of Wyoming is within the experimental population area for the planned 

introduction into the Yellowstone area. Similarly, approximately 90% of the State of Idaho 
116 

and more than 60% of the State of Montana are in the experimental population areas. Such 

areas are entirely too large to allow such a significant predator as the wolf to roam at large 

with virtually no restrictions. 

The extremely large experimental population area gives the federal government virtual 

control over three entire states, and the potential for federal land use control in the name of 

wolf protection is awesome. The government has already reneged on its pledge that the 

introduction will not cause any land use restrictions by stating in the fmal EIS that some 

restrictions might be necessary, without saying what those restrictions might be. References 

in the final rules, the provisions allowing FWS to capture problem wolves and relocating 

them anywhere within the "experimental population area," or the provision allowing FWS to 

relocate wolves anywhere in the experimental area to "enhance recovery," creates the potential 

for land use restrictions anywhere within this vast area, and makes the entire State of 

Wyoming the private game reserve of the gray wolf. Such a result should be avoided at all 

cost. 

We must also remember that these are not wild wolves that are naturally occurring in 

the Rocky Mountain area. Rather, these animals have been physically captured and 

transported into areas picked by the federal government for subsequent release. Thus, any 

losses occasioned by these animals or damages to property cannot be predicated on the basis 

that these wolves are merely wild animals acting naturally. 

1. THE WOLF INTRODUCTION PROGRAM DOES NOT ADEQUATELY 

ALLOW RANCHERS TO PROTECT THEIR LIVESTOCK FROM WOLF 

DEPREDATION. 

One point on which all sides of this debate agree is that wolves kill cattle and sheep. 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement freely admits that in both introduction areas there 

will be livestock losses, and that for some producers these losses will be heavy. Livestock 

losses were extremely heavy when wolves were abundant in the Rocky Mountain area 

previously. Farmers and ranchers in the experimental areas are understandably concerned 

about their livestock and pets once wolves have been released. 

The Service has attempted to sell the program on the basis that it adequately protects 

landowners from any pet, livestock or other types of losses that wolves will inflict. But if 

there is one point upon which all sides agree, it is that the proposed protective measures arc a 

sham. Or as Hank Fischer of the Defenders of Wildlife expressed it, " The on-the-ground 

differences in management between a fully endangered wolf population -- such as we have in 

northwestern Montana -- and an experimental population are minuscule." 

In the frrst place, any nonessential experimental population designation does not apply 

in "areas within the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System." [Section 

lO(j)(C)(l)] Livestock are permitted to graze in several of the wildlife refuges within the 

experimental population areas. Full section 7 consultation will be required in all of these 

2 
117 

areas, which could result in the loss of grazing permits due to possible impacts on wolf 

introduction. Producers who rely on these lands for grazing operations could face severe 

consequences as a result of this introduction. 

Conditions are hardly any better for lands outside the boundaries of the wildlife 

refuges and the national parks. 

The program would allow a landowner to kill or injure a wolf on his private propeny 

but only if cenain very restrictive conditions are met. 

First, the landowner must actually catch the wolf "in the act of killing, wounding or 

biting livestock." This is, as Mr. Fischer ably points out, "a very unlikely occurrence." In 

fact, it is an extremely rare occurrence to actually catch a wolf in the act of killing, wounding 

or biting livestock. 

Second, livestock freshly wounded or killed (less than 24 hours in most cases) must be 

evident, and the Service must make a determination that the cause of death was the wolf. 

Combined, these conditions make it very difficult to protect livestock and pets. 

The situation is even worse for permittees on federal lands to protect their livestock. 

In addition to the requirements described above, they must flrst obtain a permit from the 

Service. In addition, there must be at least 6 breeding pairs of wolves in the experimental 

population area, there must be documented and verifled wolf kills, and the Service must have 

unsuccessfully attempted to have resolved the problem. In addition, subsequent livestock 

losses must be documented. Since the proposal contains no provision for compensation for 

losses due to wolves, federal lands permittees will have to incur seemingly significant losses 

to even be eligible to obtain a permit to be able to protect their propeny. 

The proposal would allow private landowners and livestock permittees on federal 

lands to "harass" wolves. However, it will not take the clever wolves long to realize that 

mere harassment poses no danger to them. 

The proposal also allows for removal of "problem wolves (wolves that anack livestock 

or that have attacked pets at least twice), but again the conditions are limited. 

First, there must be "clear evidence" that wounded or killed livestock were killed by 

wolves, and that future losses are also likely to occur. Such evidence is not always available, 

and carcasses are not always found. In one of the few studies that researched this, it was 

found in Alberta, Canada that only about 15% of the missing livestock is likely to be found 

at all. 

Secondly, there must be no artificial or intentional feeding of wolves. This means that 

3 
118 

livestock carcasses must be immediately and properly disposed of. Wolves seen feeding on 

carcasses might be considered to have been attracted to the area by the carcass, and thus 

anificially fed. 

These conditions make it very difficult to protect livestock or pets from attacks by 

wolves. In the case of livestock permitted to graze on federal or state lands, there must be 

some demonstrated loss before any of the " protective" measures may be implemented. 

Offset against any so-called protective measures available to farmers and ranchers are 

the additional land use control measures that will be put in place as a result of wolf 

introduction. For example, M-44 's have proven to be an effective control measure against 

coyotes on many farms and ranches. Current EPA labeling would prohibit these use of these 

tools on private lands where wolves are. Similarly, the experimental rules explicitly state that 

anyone accidentally shooting a wolf thinking that it was a coyote is subject to prosecution 

under the Endangered Species Act. This will inhibit farmers and ranchers from using such 

measures to protect their livestock. 

In addition, the rules state that restrictions will be placed around denning areas on 

public lands. In some cases, this will include restrictions on livestock grazing. But even 

more serious, the rules provide open authority for the Secretary to place any restrictions after 

two years he may deem appropriate to aid the wolf recovery. 

2. THE "EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION" DESIGNATION IS LIKELY TO 

BE OVERTURNED BY A COURT OF LAW. 

Inadequate as the "protective measures" described above may be, they are better than 

the alternative -- having the wolves be fully protected under the Endangered Species Act and 

leaving farmers and ranchers completely powerless to protect themselves or their livestock 

from wolf predation. 

The protective measures come only as a result of the introduced wolf populations 

being designated as "nonessential experimental populations" pursuant to sectiOn !Oj of the 

Endangered Species Act. Unfonunately, circumstances in both of the introduction areas make 

both of those designations vulnerable to legal challenges as violating the Endangered Species 

Act In fact, the "experimental population" designations have been challenged in coun by 

both the Farm Bureau and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in separate suits. Farm 

Bureau and the Sierra Club represent completely different sides of the spectrum on this issue, 

but they both make the same argument in their suits (the only difference is the remedy they 

seek). 

Section IOj of the Endangered Species Act defines an experimental population as any 

which "is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same 

species." Implementing regulations make it clear that "[w)here pan of an experimental 

population overlaps with natural populations of the same species ... specimens of the 

4 
119 

experimental population will not be recognized as such while in the area of overlap." (50 

CFR 17.80(a)]. The Act makes it clear, therefore, that whenever any members of a 

designated experimental population overlap with any naturally occurring members of the same 

species, they are all treated as if they were naturally occurring, and given full protection 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Section I Oj also includes as members of the experimental population any offspring, but 

only "arising solely therefrom" •• in other words, only if both parents are members of the 

experimental population. 

The final rules for both the Yellowstone and central Idaho introductions provide the 

opposite result. They both state that any gray wolf found in either of the experimental areas • 

· whether naturally occurring or introduced ·· will be treated as a member of the experimental 

population under the rules. Likewise, any offspring will be treated as members of the 

experimental population, whether both parents were introduced wolves, or whether one or 

even none of the parents were introduced. Both of these results are clearly and directly 

contrary to the law and implementing regulations, which control in such situations. 

This is important because wolves are known to inhabit both the Yellowstone and the 

central Idaho experimental areas. Internal FWS documents leave no doubt that wolves occur 

in Idaho, that activity has increased in the past few years, and that groups of two or more 

wolves are known to occur in Idaho. Sightings of wolves, including examples of two or more 

wolves together, have increased as well in the Yellowstone experimental area in the past few 

years. There is no doubt that wolves occur in both of these areas. 

Given this situation, are the overlapping released wolves and naturally occurring 

wolves to be treated as if they were members of an "experimental population" according to 

the authorizing rules, or will they be fully protected under the Endangered Species Act as 

provided by the law and implementing regulations? If the latter, farmers, ranchers and others 

within the experimental areas will have lost any ability to protect themselves or their 

property against wolf depredation. 

We suggest that the Attorney General be inunediately requested to provide a response 

to this clear conflict with the Endangered Species Act, and that FWS be inunediately directed 

to provide a response as to how it will deal with the situation. 

3. THE INTRODUCTION PROGRAM DOES NOT PROVIDE 

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES OCCASIONED BY 

RELEASED WOLVES. 

While the wolf introduction program was developed with the full knowledge and 

expectation that wolves would cause damages to private property and losses to privately 

owned livestock, the rules acknowledge no governmental responsibility for such losses or 

s 
120 

damages. The government has in the past acknowledged the existence of a private Wolf 

Fund, but the government cannot guarantee that compensation would be provided for wolf 

losses out of that fund. Once again, the government has directly placed the burden of feeding 

and sheltering listed species on the fanners and ranchers unfonunate enough to have such 

species thrust upon them, rather than having the costs paid by the general public as they 

properly should. 

But will the sacrifices that farmers, ranchers and other landowners are required to 

make resuil in their saving the wolf from extinction? The answer is no. 

While normally it might be argued that the federal government is not liable for the 

actions of wild animals, or that the state is liable for any losses because wild animals are the 

responsibility of the state, neither argument holds in this case. 

The argument against government responsibility for damages caused by wild animals 

does not extend to cases where the animals have been controlled "by skillful capture." Since 

any introduced wolves would necessarily have been live-trapped in Canada and transponed to 

the introduction sites and actually released in those sites, there can be no doubt that such 

animals have been subject to "skillful capture," and the government is liable for damages 

caused by these animals. 

Likewise, because the federal government is the entity that is capturing the wolves and 

releasing them, and it is the federal Endangered Species Act that applies, the onus of 

responsibility cannot be pawned off to the states in this case. 

These circumstances raise serious Fifth Amendment Just Compensation issues that are 

not addressed in the proposal. The Takings arialysis prepared in accordance with Executive 

Order No. 12630 (Appendix 6 in the FEIS) refers to the private compensation fund, but fails 

to acknowledge any federal responsibilities if the private fund fails to compensate. In this 

respect, the federal proposal runs afoul of the Just Compensation Clause. 

4. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO 

ACCOUNT THE INTERESTS OF AFFECTED STATE GOVERNMENTS. 

State governments arc: traditionally responsible for plants and wildlife within their 

borders. The imponation of a major predator from a foreign country thus has large impacts 

on the discharge of those state responsibilities. This is especially true where, as here, the 

introduced species is expected to use state and private lands. 

Not only does the state have a significant interest from the standpoint of wildlife 

management, but there are additional health and safety concerns that make state involvement 

vital in any reintroduction program. This is especially true when the animal is the gray wolf, 

a species that has been known to be a carrier of rabies and brucellosis among other diseases. 

6 
121 

Both introduction programs contemplate that once the wolves have been released, the brunt of 

the management responsibilities will fall upon the state governments. 

Unfortunately, the FWS has failed to fully involve the affected state governments to 

the extent that they should be involved. State governments have been told that they had no 

authority to independently test imported wolves for disease or other conditions, but rather had 

to take the verification provided by the federal authorities. In addition, states have been told 

that there is little or nothing that they could do to alter the programs developed by the federal 

authorities. 

One of the primary purposes behind enactment of section !Oj of the Endangered 

Species Act was to make reintroduction proposals more acceptable to both the host state and 

to any private landowners who might have necessary habitat. As a result, FWS promulgated 

regulations that require the FWS to "consult with appropriate State fish and wildlife agencies, 

local governmental entities, affected Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in 

developing and implementing experimental population rules." [50 CFR 17.8 l(d)]. The same 

regulation requires "[a]ny regulation promulgated pursuant to this section shall, to the 

maximum extent practicable, represent an agreement between the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the affected state and federal agencies, and persons holding any interest in land which may be 

affected by the establishment of an experimental population." 

That the required partnership between State and Federal agencies has not been formed 

becomes more evident with each passing day. The experimental population rules give 

considerable responsibilities to the states and "state management plans" for the management 

of released wolves. Yet, the federal agencies did not even wait for the states to adopt these 

management plans before they began releasing wolves, thus giving states responsibilities for 

wolf management without allowing them the opportunity to formulate plans for such 

management. An Idaho state permit authorizing the federal government to release wolves 

into the state was expressly conditioned upon compliance with a state management plan, and 

yet those wolves were released prior to that management plan being in place. According to 

recent news accounts, when that plan was finally adopted by the State it was rejected by the 

federal authorities because it contained items that they did not like. 

There is little doubt that this program is not a state-federal partnership as contemplated 

by section !Oj of the Act. Despite considerable state interests being affected, they have little 

or no input into how wolves dumped in their states and left to their management will actually 

be managed. That decision is made by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. This program is an 

unfunded mandate of the purest form. 

Likewise, the Governor of the State of Wyoming has written to Secretary Babbitt 

asking that wolves not be released into Wyoming until certain conditions are satisfied. One 

of those conditions is the development of a state management plan. The nature and the 

content of the Secretary's response will indicate whether the affected states have a role to 

play in this program, or, as has been the case thus far, will be completely stearnrolled by the 

7 
122 

federal government on the issue of wolf introduction. 

To date we are not aware whether the Secretary has responded to the Governor. We 

are very interested in what that response might be. 

5. PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE DE-LISTING OF THE GRAY WOLF. 

The object of any program taken under the Endangered Species Act is the eventual delisting of the species. To answer the question at what point the Nonhem Rocky Mountain 

gray wolf will be considered recovered, the issue must be examined from both a biological 

and a political standpoint. 

From a biological standpoint, the final rules say that 10 breeding packs in each of the 

three recovery areas is sufficient to downlist and de-Jist the species. The FWS gives the 

number at approximately 300 wolves. 

From a political standpoint, however, de-listing wili not be that simple. Experience 

shows that once a species is listed, it is almost impossible to obtain its de-listing, even if 

recovery "goals" have been a<:complished. for example, the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery 

Plan from Minnesota indicates wolves may be considered recovered when they reach 125-

1500 in numbers. Today estimates are close to 2,000 wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and 

Michigan, yet there is no move by FWS to begin de-listing. 

Closer to home, the grizzly bear recovery "goals" for the Nonhem Continental Divide 

area and for the Yellowstone Park area have both been exceeded since 1990. Instead, of 

beginning the process of de-listing, FWS instead has changed the numbers and criteria for 

recovery. When the same circumstances occurred in 1992 with those two populations, the 

FWS once again changed the criteria. The upshot is that such animals, once placed on the 

endangered species list, stay there. 

Based on these experiences, we have no illusions that the gray wolf will be de-listed 

when current recovery goals are met. The FWS has not delivered on its promises in the past 

with regard to de-listing, and there is no reason to believe that they will do so with the gray 

wolf. 

CONCLUSION 

The proposals to introduce wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho are good 

examples of questionable science being used to implement political decisions. But in this 

case it is easy to look behind the "science" to unmask the real motives behind introduction. 

No one can seriously argue that gray wolves are in danger of extinction, with more than 

70,000 wolves in Canada and another 7,000 -8,000 in Alaska and Minnesota. Nor can anyone 

seriously argue that they are "returning" an animal to his historic habitat, because the wolf 

8 
123 

being introduced is not native to the areas of introduction. Nor can anyone seriously argue 

that the proposed rules would allow farmers and ranchers to protect their livestock, pets and 

other private propcny from destruction by the introduced wolves. Even the Defenders of 

Wildlife -- primary supponers of the current proposal -- admit that any differences between 

the current proposal and introduction with full species protection together with the full range 

of land use restrictions that would accompany it are "minuscule." 

That leaves us with the conclusion that the real reason for the proposal is that the Fish 

& Wildlife Service thinks it would be "nice" if wolves were returned to Yellowstone Park and 

to Central Idaho. That is not a valid reason. Farmers, ranchers and area landowners 

(including the entire state of Wyoming) are being asked to suppon the introduction of these 

animals into their midst, while at the same time they will alone be compelled to bear the 

costs of feeding and sheltering these animals. 

I appreciate the opponunity to testify, and will be happy to answer any questions that 

you might have. 

9 
124 

TESTIMONY OF MARK L. POLLOT 

DIRECTOR, STEWARDS OF THE RANGE 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CENTER 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT TO 

INTRODUCE CANADIAN WOLVES INTO YELLOWSTONE 

NATIONAL PARK AND CENTRAL IDAHO WILDERNESS 

JANUARY 26, 1994 
125 

Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I grea tly appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this testimony on this most 

important and sensitive topic. I am the Director of the Stewards of the Range Constitutional 

Law Center, a nonprofit litigation and lega l studies foundation located in Boise, Idaho. The 

purpose of the Center is to protect and advance property rights and other constitutionally 

recognized rights. Prior to founding the Constitutional Law Center, I was in private practice in 

the San Francisco Bay area . 

Before entering private practice, I was Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General 

in the United States Department of Justice, in what was then called the Land and Natural 

Resources Division and is now called the Envi ronment and Natural Resources Division. In each 

of these capacities, I have dealt intimately with the Endangered Species Act (the "ESA") and its 

relationship to the Constitution as well as the more mundane issues of statutory int erpretation 

and regulatory authority involved in implement ation of the ESA. I have, as well, in the course of 

my experience, dealt with environmental regulations of all types, not only in their legal 

dimensions, hut also in their human and practical dimensions. 

The ultimate success of a regulatory program depends on the acceptance of that program 

by the public and the regulated community. The acceptance of that program in turn rests on 

whe ther the program is, both actu ally and in the perception of the public, consonant with the 

. public's view of what constitutes sound policy and reasonable in its design, and on whether the 

program is fairly and appropriately implemented, with due regard for the rights and interests of 

the people affected. When the sta tute establishing a program is properly designed and balanced, 

the program will nevertheless fail if the agency carrying out the program implements in a fashion 

that is at odd~ with or beyond the letter or spirit of the statute or if its implementation appears 

or is actually unbalanced or harsh. 

Congress certainly re alized in the ESA itself that voluntary cooperation is essenti al to the 

achievement nf its goals and that its implementation must he carried nut in a manne r that docs 

not cause undue hardship to people. The Act is replete. for example. with provisions mandating 

that agencies rcsponsihlc for implementing the Act consult with the public and that they 

88-881 - 95 - 5 
126 

cooperate with the states in order to prevent the federal agencies from improperly invading the 

prerogatives of the states. 1 In the federal scheme established in the Constitution, the states are 

entrusted with the greater share of responsibility and authority as well as with the primary I 

responsibility for providing for !heir citizens.' Yet the endangered species program is in deep 

trouble with the public, in large part because the agencies responsible for implementation of the 

program have acted without regard for the rights and prerogatives of the people and states it is 

affecting and because those agencies have strayed far beyond the original intent of the legislation. 

Advocates of the ESA state, with some justification, that the fundamental goal of the 

ESA, the presetvation of at least some species from accelerated extinction, is reasonable and 

appropriate. Although I believe that experience has shown that some of the statute's underlying 

concepts and assumptions are not wholly valid and that the statute itself needs significant 

adjustment, I would agree with the general view that the fundamental goal of the ESA is a valid 

and valuable one if kept within carefully and strictly controlled boundaries. The immediate issue 

before this Committee is not, however, whether the Act itself needs adjustment or should be 

scrapped, but (I) whether the actions of the Fish and Wildlife Setvice in releasing wolves in 

Idaho and surrounding areas, without the consent of the states involved, indeed in direct 

opposition to the express desires both of the involved states and the people in those states, is 

lawful and authorized; and (2) whether these actions, even if authorized, carry liability for the 

United States based on its effects on the state and the people in the state.' 

See e.g. 16 U.S.C. §§ 153l(c)(2) (mandating cooperation with states on water rights 

issues); 1533(b)(5) lnd (6) (mandating public participation in decisionmaking); 1533(h) (requiring the 

Secretary to justify regulations adopted, or a refusal to adopt regulations, in opposition to state comments 

or petitions); 1535 (mandating cooperation with states, encouraging and -- some circumstances --

mandating cooperative agreements with states, specifically limiting preemption of state laws, and the like); 

1536 (Establishing an Endangered Species Committee, commonly known as the "God Squad" to grant 

exemptions to the Act to avoid undue injury arising from application of the Act); and 1539(b) (providing 

for hardship exemptions). 

The federal government, on the other hand, was intended to be a government of limited 

powers, having only those powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (the "enumerated 

powers") and those necessary and proper for the carrying out of the enumerated powers. 

3 Of equal concern in this particular matter is the issue of whether an agency should be permitted 

to take actions based on information that it knows, or has reason to know, is incorrect. Unfortunately, this 

addition concern is not limited to this particular agency action. In both my own experience in and out of 

government, and that of others, agencies frequently use data that they know to be incorrect to support 

2 
127 

The manner in which these issues are resolved is likely to set the pattern for the future 

and will determine the long term success of the endangered species program. The release of the 

wolves despite the strong opposition of both the states involved and the people in those states is 

the latest of a series of actions by Interior Department officials which has resulted in the 

endangered species program being in serious difficulty with the public, in large part because of a 

perception, accurate in my experience and judgment, that the agencies have far exceeded their 

mandate. 

decisions they wish to carry out. Indeed, in my own experience, agency personnel have actively 

manipulated data in support of their decision. In matters involving forest management plan amendments 

in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, for example, agency documents and the record of decision 

pertaining to these amendments, contain statements pertaining to daily use of the river by different classes 

of boat which are wholly inconsistent with the raw data supplied by operators on the river and with selfissued permits collected by the Forest Service. In the case of the wolf release, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is relying on inflated prey/livestock population figures which are inconsistent with its own 

observations and inappropriately designed survey questions to argue both that there will be no significant 

adverse impacts on the states in which the wolf will roam and that people in these areas favor release. 

For example, the Wolf Recovery Draft Environmental Impact Statement claims average deer and 

elk populations in the entire recovery area that are six times higher than the average density of live animals 

counted by helicopter in the best deer and elk units. (This information is discussed in detail in the 

Statement of George Dovel, Chairman, Boise County Wildlife and Endangered Species Subcommittee, 

dated January 17, 1995.) The EIS also claims average deer and elk harvests exceeding the density of live 

animals counted in the highest deer and elk producing units.. The EIS figures are at odds with actual 

figures gathered by Department of Fish and Game biologists. EIS estimates claim an average density of 

7.71 deer/square mile. Fish and game actual counts demonstrate an actual density in the best units of 1.27 

deer/square mile in the relevant areas. 

A 1992 survey of 805 urban dwellers in Idaho by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission asked the 

single question "Do you favor or oppose having wolves in the wilderness and roadless areas of central 

Idaho." On the basis of the response to this question and only this question, the USF&WS concluded that 

the majority of Idahoans favored the release. However, a 1994 survey of several thousand household all 

over Boise County, which carefully identified all parameters of a wolf release and different ways in which 

the wolf might be managed found that 81.07 percent of all respondents and 80 percent of all Idaho 

residents responding stated that they opposed having the wolves released no matter who managed the wolf. 

An additional 4.12 percent and 4 percent respectively, either did not answer or would have preferred some 

other option. In short, only 14.8 percent of all respondents and 16 percent of residents responding wanted 

wolves released at all, with 2.88 percent and 3.11 percent respectively wanting them managed exclusively by 

the federal government. Their attitude is not reflective of Idahoans alone. When I was in Hawaii recently, 

I discussed the controversy with several individuals in separate conversations. Each responded that they 

did not see how the federal government could release the wolves without the consent of the states 

involved. 

3 
128 

RELEASES OF SPECIES INTO AREAS IN WHICH THE SPECIES DOES NOT EXIST 

WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE STATE OR PROPERlY OWNERS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY 

AND STATUTORILY UNAUTHORIZED 

Any discussion of this propriety of the Fish and Wildlife Service's actions requires 

consideration of two distinct and fundamental principles of American constitutional law. 

The first of these principles is that no branch of the federal government may exercise 

powers not authorized in the Constitution. Unlike state governments, the federal government is 

not a general government, but one of strictly enumerated powers. Those powers are found in 

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Similarly, no action can be taken, even if otherwise 

authorized, in a fashion which violates constitutionally protected rights. 

The second constitutional principle at issue is that even where constitutional authority 

exists for an action, that authority belongs to Congress. (See Article I, Section 8, which prefaces 

the list of enumerated powers by stating that "Congress shall have the power to ... ") In the 

absence of a delegation of Congress's authority to undertake an otherwise proper action, an 

administrative agency may not take that action. This, of course, is the opposite of the situation 

for the people of the United States, who may undertake any action not forbidden by positive law. 

Of course, even in those situations in which Congress has the authority to undertake a 

particular program, and has delegated that authority to the agencies, the agencies must exercise 

the powers delegated consistently with the remainder of the Constitution. That is, for example, 

the agencies may not violate due process, take property for public use without payment of just 

compensation, or violate first amendment rights, in the pursuit of its otherwise legitimate actions. 

Therefore, in examining the wolf releases at issue, we must ask two questions. Can Congress 

authorize the Department of the Interior to introduce animals and plants into a state against that 

state's will? If it Congress can authorize the Interior Department to release the wolves, did it do 

so? I believe the answer to both questions is "no." 

4 
129 

ConstitutioMI Authority 

A complete discussion of the constitutional authority question would be lengthy, requiring 

an extensive discussion of constitutional history. A mere recitation of cases would not answer 

this first question, largely because no court has directly confronted this question. Virtually every 

case considering the constitutionality of the ESA has focused on regulations formulated under 

the ESA which control conduct of third parties, including persons and entities, both private and 

governmental. 4 Where a question was raised in court as to whether these provisions of the Act 

were constitutionally authorized (as opposed to whether the actions of the government in pursuit 

of these provisions violated the due process or takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment, which 

raise different issues which will be discussed later), courts have upheld the questioned provisions 

primarily on the ground that they are authorized by the Commerce Clause.' That clause 

authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. 

However, what is at issue in this hearing is a different type of provision than that at issue 

in the first category of ESA provisions. The provisions of the ESA in the first set are, as noted, 

provisions which either prohibit or mandate certain conduct by third persons and are largely 

prohibitory in nature. Persons may not, for example, "take" an endangered species within the 

meaning of the Act unless he or she has a permit, or comes under one of several exemptions. 

The actions taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service at issue in this hearing are quite 

different in kind. The questioned actions consist of affirmative conduct by federal officials who 

are physically invading the territory of the states. The constitutional scheme quite deliberately 

left the bulk of the sovereignty in the federal system in the hands of the states (except for the 

limited invasions allowed by the enumerated powers doctrine). To make sure that this scheme 

was clear, the framers not only stated that the United States had only certain enumerated 

powers, but also, in the Tenth Amendment, by reiterating that any powers not specifically 

delegated to the federal government were reserved to the States or the people. This is akin to 

As is discussed below, there are three principal types of provisions in the ESA other than 

funding and housekeeping detail types of provisions. The courts have dealt almost exclusively with one 

category of provision, as we will see. 

Some early decisions regarding wildlife regulation were based in some vague fashion on 

international treaties, but such bootstrapping is questionable and did not last long. 

5 
130 

telling another person that your shoes are not only black, they are also not brown or white or 

red. Such redundancy was deemed necessary because of the observed tendency of government to 

expand beyond its proper scope. The drafters and ratifiers of the Constitution wanted there to 

be no question as to the division of power between the states and the federal government. 

It is one thing to issue regulations pertaining to conduct by persons and entities within 

states regarding commerce. It is quite another thing entirely to conduct essentially physical 

invasions of the states by introducing animals and plants against the will of the state. Such 

actions cannot by any reasonable interpretation be denominated regulations of interstate 

commerce. They therefore fall outside the commerce clause. It is my view that Congress may 

authorize the agencies to take such actions if the state in question gives its consent, as the states 

certainly have sufficient sovereignty to consent to such an invasion. Congress may not, on the 

other hand, authorize such an invasion absent permission from the state. 

That this is so is evident from an examination of the records of the constitutional and 

ratification debates. Such an examination reveals that the greatest fear of those drafting and 

considering the proposed Constitution was that the federal government would swallow the 

sovereignty of the states. There was even considerable debate as to whether the "necessary and 

proper" clause of Article I, Section 8 would be used to weaken and eventually undo the 

enumerated powers doctrine. Their greatest source of concern in this regard was not the 

Executive nor the Judiciary. It was the Legislative. For this reason, the framers and ratifiers not 

only devised a list of powers which were to be strictly limited, they limited the federal 

government's sovereignty over land to that land defined in Clause 17 of Article I, Section 8.

6 All 

other land owned by the United States was to be held as any other person owns land. 

Such land is referred to as "enclave clause" land. Over such land, described more 

particularly below, Congress had sovereignty, but only if affirmatively ceded to the United States by the 

state in which the land is located. As to all other land owned by the United States, the Constitution gave 

the rights accruing to ordinary landowners. Since arguments could be made that such land could not be 

disposed of by the United States or otherwise treated by the federal government as ordinary land (that is, 

that it could be argued that the United States held such land in trust such that it could not alienate it or 

manipulate its use while owned), the property clause of Article IV was included. This clause gives the 

United States the authority to alienate ("dispose") of land and other property and to treat it as ordinary 

land (the power to make "needful rules and regulations• as to that land, a power that every landowner 

has). 

6 
131 

In other words, while the federal government may in fact be a landowner in those states 

in which wolf releases were made, that ownership does not carry with it sovereignty. Article I, 

Section 8, Gause 17 and the records of the Constitutional Convention and ratification debates 

make it abundantly clear that the United States has sovereignty, defined as the power of exclusive 

legislation, only over enclave clause lands, lands purchased by the United States with the consent 

of the state legislature (and over which the state has affirmatively ceded sovereignty) for specified 

purposes. In all other cases, the federal government is only a "mere landowner," as the United 

States courts have recognized, with all that that term implies. I will discuss some of these 

implications later. 

Statutory Authority 

We must next tum to the question of whether, assuming constitutional authority exists for 

the United States to force the actions at issue on unwilling states, Congress delegated that 

authority to the Interior Department. A close examination of the ESA reveals that no such 

authority was delegated. As we shall see, only one provision of the Act speaks to the issue of 

introducing a species outside of its existing range, and that provision neither applies here (by its 

own terms) nor authorizes the action contemplated by that section in the face of opposition by 

the state in which the introduction is to be made. Before addressing that provision, however, an 

examination of the structure of the ESA is in order. 

With the exception of provisions having to do with such things as the provision of funds 

to states and certain housekeeping matters, the ESA consists primarily of three different 

categories of provisions. The first category consists of definitional provisions. The second 

category consists of provisions regulating conduct designed to prevent further reductions of 

endangered populations. These provisions are largely prohibitory in nature. They include the 

sections of the statute which prohibit persons from "taking" members of endangered species 

within the meaning of the Act without a permit from the Secretary of the Interior or which 

prohibit the import or export of listed species. Certain provisions in this category are ancillary to 

that goal, such as determinations of which species should go on the endangered species list. The 

third category of provisions consist of those portions of the ESA which are intended to promote 

recovery of endangered species. These provisions are largely affirmative in nature and include 

such sections as those authorizing the purchase land for recovery efforts and mandating the 

development of recovery plans. 

7 
132 

In a sense, the most important provisions of the Act are the definitional provisions. Of 

these, two are of special importance. The rirst and most obvious definition is that of 

"endangered species."' Everything else in the Act hinges on this definition. The second 

definition, which is critical as to the issue which is the subject of this hearing and will be 

discussed later, is the definition of "experimental population." As we will see, these two 

provisions interact in a dispositive way. 

The only way to determine whether the ESA was intended to authorize the actions at 

issue in this hearing is to examine the specific provisions of the statute and to consider these in 

context. The provisions of the Act which might be argued to authorize the wolf release or which 

argue against such authority, and the analysis of those provisions, are stated briefly below: 

(I) 16 U.S.C. § 1531: Subsection (a) of this section provides that the goal of the act 

is to conserve, to the extent practicable, various species of endangered plants and animals. 

The ESA defines endangered species as "any species which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 16 U.S. C.§ 1532(6). Subsection (16) of§ 1532 

includes within the definition of "species" any suhspecies or distinct population which interbreeds when 

mature. The agency has used this definition to treat such subspecies as though they were separate species. 

However, the language is susceptible of a more natural interpretation which argues against that practice. 

If the members of a subspecies arc to be considered a part of the species, their numbers should he 

considered in determining whether the species is in fact endangered. Stated differently, by this definition, 

a species consists of all of its subspecies. Thus, the subspecies cannot he treated as separate and arart 

from the species in determining whether to treat I hem as endangered. 

No language in the ESA authorizes or can be properly construed to authorize the listing of 

"subspecies," varieties, or "geographically distinct populations as separate species to be protected. Indeed, 

the closest the Act comes to this concept is that it allows the Secretary to list a species as endangered 

without going through the elaborate process otherwise required if it is so similar to a listed species as to he 

extremely difficult to distinguish. Even then, the Secretary may do so only if doing so would suhstantially 

advance the law's purpose . Actually, this provision should reduce the number of species being listed. If a 

plant or animal is so like others that it is practically indistinguishable, it should be considered the same 

species and its existence, counted with oth..:rs of its kind. increases the numher of members. often beyond 

the endangered or threatened threshold. 

It is this fact which throws considerable doubt nn the manner in which the ESA is being 

administered. Speciation is largely a taxonomic mncept. The biological limits of speciation kick in at the 

genetic level. That is, can the animals or plants in question interbreed without extraordinary assistance'! 

Otherwise, any variation between one animal or plant and another can be used to create a protected 

status. This was clearly not contemplated in the ESA. This approach is, however, the chid method of 

abusing the ESA. 

8 
1~ 

The term "to the extent practicable" is revealed through the provisions of the Act to 

include deference to state prerogatives and impacts on people from implementation of 

the ge!1eral policies of the Act. Subsection (a)(5) specifically states that the agencies are 

to encourage "the states and other interested parties" through a series of incentives to 

develop and implement programs to carry out the goals of the Act. This concept is 

repeated throughout the Act and argues against a coercive interpretation which would 

authorize affirmative acts of the type at issue here. In fact, subsection (c)(2) of this 

section requires all federal departments and agencies to cooperate with state and local 

agencies to resolve water resource issues. TI1is provision is both a statement of policy and 

necessary given state authority over water rights allocations and the property interests in 

water rights. 

(2) 16 U.S.C. § 1532: Subsection (3) includes within the definition of the terms 

"conserve", "conserving", and "conservation" the concept of transplantation. The same 

subsection, however, also refers to habitat acquisition, which is obviously necessary to 

have a place to transplant species. This definition must be read in conjunction with a 

late r section which specifically addresses when a species may be transplanted outside of 

its present range (which will be discussed below). Nothing in subsection (3) authorizes an 

involuntary transplantation, however. It merely states that transplantation is one 

acceptahle method of conservation of species. The term "import", defined in subsection 

( 10) is included as part of the prohibition on importation of endangered species (which is 

intended to prevent extinction of species outside of lands within the jurisdiction of the 

United States by prohibiting a market for such species in the United States. It has no 

bearing on the wolf release issue. 

(3) 16 U.S.C. § 1533: TI1is section establishes the procedures that must be followed 

before a species can be listed as endangered. It requires an extensive public comment 

process, substantial and significant scientific support for the listing, and five year reviews 

to make sure that a species not remain on the list unnecessarily. For our purposes, the 

most significant portion of this section is found at suhsection (h). This subsection again 

requires serious consideration of the rights of the states. A decision which is contrary to 

the comments or petition of a state or state agency must be justified in writing. Standing 

9 
134 

alone, of course, this subsection does not issue a blanket authorization to ignore the 

expressed wishes of the states, but simply requires that an otherwise authorized action 

which is contrary to the wishes of a state must be justified. However, adopting 

regulations is quite different from taking affirmative, real-world actions, such a releasing 

actual animals into the state. Cases considering validity of governmental actions under 

the ESA have focused primarily on prohibitory regulations, such as those preventing the 

take of animals where those animals already existed (for example, Christy v. Hodel 857 

F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

(4) 16 U.S.C. 1534: This section authorizes the agencies involved in Endangered 

Species Act activities to obtain property and water rights for conservation purposes. 

Standing alone, this provision does not authorize either transplant or introduction. At 

most it provides the authority for acquisition of lands where a species already exists, to 

prevent its being changed, or to acquire land or water for a voluntary or cooperative 

effort at conservation. It does not contain language which authorizes the introduction of 

a species onto that land without the consent of the state in which the land lies. Indeed, 

unless that land is purchased with the consent of the state legislature, it is a mere 

landholding of the United States, subject to the sowereignty of the slate in which it lies. 

The United States has sovereignty only over land which comes within the t!nclave clause. 

Under such circumstances, even if the United States can place wildlife on that parcel 

without the State's consent, it may be liable for damages resulting from an escape of that 

wildlife as a mere landowner. 

(5) 16 U.S.C. § 1535: This section mandates cooperation with the states to the 

maximum extent practicable and authorizes the United States agencies to enter into 

cooperative agreements with the states. It both confirms the general policy of the Act 

that states be treated with appropriate deference and (in subsection (d)) continues the 

policy stated earlier in the Act of encouraging states to conserve species existing within 

their borders by providing incentives. Subsection (f), which has been argued to prohibit 

the states from objecting to the introduction of species not presently found within their 

borders against their will clearly does not have any such intent or effect. As noted 

earlier, subsection (10) of§ 1532 and the Acts prohibitions on import and export of 

10 
135 

endangered species, read together with this subsection make it clear that this subsection is 

intended to clarify that states may not authorize importation of a species or export where 

the Act would prohibit it or to prohibit such import or export where the Act permits it. 

This subsection does not authorize specific federal agency action. In fact, a reading of 

subsection (f) makes it clear that it was intended to limit interference with state laws and 

regulations by making it clear that the ESA was not occupying the field. In addition, as 

the last two sentences of this subsection make clear, it deals with the prohibitory and 

permissive provisions of the Act with respect to the regulated public and not with the 

authority of the agencies to undertake affirmative actions. 

(6) 16 U.S.C. § 1536, subsection (e)(3): This subsection requires that the "God 

Squad" include members of affected states, furthering the ESA's policy of deference to 

state prerogatives. 

(7) 16 U.S.C. § 1537a: Subsection (c) continues the policy of deference to state 

prerogatives by ensuring that the federal agencies cannot compel any state to participate 

in Convention implementation. More importantly, however, this section requires the 

federal government to include the states if they so choose and specifically provides that 

"the provisions of [subsection (e), wildlife preservation in the Western Hemisphere] shall 

not be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several 

States to manage, control, or regulate resident fish or wildlife under State law or 

regulations." This subsection was clearly included to prevent arguments from being made 

that the treaties in question could be used to override state authorities. This is further 

evidence of the concern that states not be coerced nor have their prerogatives invaded. 

(8) 16 U.S.C. § 1538: This section is the heart of the ESA. It contains the central 

prohibitions of the Act and provides for permissive exceptions to these prohibitions. 

Subsection (d) is the import/export provision to which the earlier language discussed 

applies. 

(9) 16 U.S.C. § 1539: Specific subsections of this section are the critical provisions as 

far as this hearing is concerned. Specifically, subsection (a) permits the take of a species 

II 
136 

for the purposes of allowing the establishment and maintenance of "experimental 

populations pursuant to subsection (j)." Subsections (a) and (j) are the only provisions of 

the Act which directly address the question of releasing a species into an area which is 

outside the cu"ent range of the species. Pursuant to these provisions, the Secretary may 

authorize such a release only if the species is an endangered or threatened species and if 

the release is essential to or would further the conservation of the species. Of course, 

separating an experimental population geographically from the actual population is 

needed to prevent a mingling of the experimental population with the original population. 

which would contaminate the experiment. The experimental nature of the population 

has, inherent within the concept of an experimental population, a temporary status. One 

would expect the experimental population to be removed upon completion of the study. 

For the purposes of this hearing, several facts are important. 

(a) The species being introduced into the area in question is the Canadian 

grey wolf. The Canadian grey wolf is not an endangered species or even 

threatened and cannot be found on Canada's endangered species list. Indeed, 

Canada is anxious to get rid of its excess population. Since the species is not 

endangered, it does not qualify for the experimental population provisions of this 

section and cannot be released in place other than its current range. 

(b) Since the Canadian grey wolf is not endangered, the release docs not 

materially further the conservation of an endangered or threatened species nor 

can it be considered essential to the conservation of the species. Indeed, so far as 

can be told, it is not the intention of the Fish and Wildlife Service to treat these 

wolves as an experimental population, despite its labelling of the release as such. 

It is the evident purpose of the release to populate the region permanently with 

what is effectively an alien species since the wolf population that had existed in 

this area was not the Canadian grey wolf. 

(c) Even if the Canadian grey wolf qualified for release as an experimental 

population, the provisions allowing the Secretary to authorize such releases as a 

general concept does not inherently include specific authorization to do so 

12 
137 

notwithstanding the objections of the states. Its authority may only extend to 

authorizing releases that are not objected to. Given the deference extended to 

states in the ESA, forced releases do not appear to have been within the 

contemplat.ion of the Act. Re leases were clearly intended to be restricted to very 

specific circumstances. 

Furthermore, even if the authority claimed hy the Service exists, it could not take this 

action without properly given consent of the Secretary of Agriculture. 16 U.S.C § 1~40(h). The 

restoration or protection of endangered species was not the only concern of Congress. Congress 

also clearly wanted to be sure that the propagation of species did not interfere with other vital . 

interests of the nation, such as making sure that dangerous organisms were not introduced. 

Subsection (h), for example, allows the Secretary of Agriculture to override determinations of the 

Secretary of Interior. 

No other statutory provision in the ESA can even arguably support the Fish and Wildlife 

Service's actions. The existing provisions only authorize releases under carefully controlled 

circumstances and no provision of the Act purports to authorize affirmative actions against the 

will of the states. Indeed, the Act clearly contemplates that the federal government's authority 

vis it vis the states is to be limited and, even the n, carried out with sincere anempts to work with 

the states before taking actions that may be adverse to their interests. Existing case law is not to 

the contrary. All case law relative to the ESA deals almost exclusively with the agency's authority 

to engage in prohibitory regulation and to control disposition of properties that the federal 

government owns in light of its obligations under the ESA. This a lso applies to cases considering 

the federal government's liability for acts it undertakes in furtherance of the ESA. the topic to 

which I will turn next. 

LIABIUTI' ATIENDANT ON RELEASES OF SPECIES INTO AREAS IN WHICH THE 

SPECIES DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE STATE OR PROPERTI' 

OWNERS 

An affirmative answer to the quest ion of whether constitutional and statutory authority 

exists for the release of species into areas such as those at issue in this hearing without consent 

does not end the inquiry. It is only the first step. If the authorization question is answered 
138 

negatively, that is, if it is determined that government cannot act in that way, there may be 

constitutional tort liability under the Bivens doctrine or other liability. At the very least, 

government can be ordered to cease its activities. However, if it is determined that government 

has the authority to carry out such releases, liability may nonetheless attach. It may attach either 

under the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment (under which states are treated as 

private parties vis a vis the federal government -- that is, states must be compensated for takings 

of property by the federal government the same as private parties), or in tort. I will address 

takings liability first. 

Cases to date considering takings liability under the ESA have considered only the 

prohibitory side of the statute. In cases such as Christy v. Hodel (a Ninth Circuit case), courts 

have considered whether ESA regulations have caused a taking of property within the meaning of 

the Fifth Amendment when these prohibitions prevented a property owner from protecting his 

property from predatory conduct of a protected species. In Christy, the. protected species was a 

bear. These cases have not yet b(:en taken up by the Supreme Court. (In Christy, the Court 

denied certiorari, although one justice felt so strongly about the issue that he dissented to the 

denial-- a rare occurrence.) However, denial of certiorari cannot be taken as a sign as to the 

Court's views on the merits, as any experienced attorney can attest to. Indeed, in prior testimony 

before House committees, I pointed out that ir. each of three common environmental regulatory 

areas -- mining, wetlands, and superfund -- a long series of decisions against property owners 

were ultimately overturned when later decisions found takings in each of these contexts. In those 

contexts, prior to those decisions, proponents of these regulations claimed that no case had found 

takings liability. That state of affairs did not last long. The ESA is likely to suffer the same fate. 

There are two reasons for this. The first is that -- as noted -- existing cases have dealt 

with the situation in which an animal in the wild, which already was present in the area, was 

protected against a take. Christy is the perfect example of this situation. However, what has 

been done in the instance at issue in this hearing was the release of members of the species into 

an area in which the species did not Jive at the time of the release. This affirmative act is far 

different than the situation in which an owner is forbidden to defend his property against a threat 

which is merely allowed to continue in a place in which it already existed. The release of a 

species into state or privately owned property is in the nature of a physical invasion and 

14 
139 

occupancy by government. The only difference in this case compared to similar cases is that the 

government introduced an animal on the property rather than a human being. As the Supreme 

Court has recognized in cases such as Lon!llo v. Teleprompter CATY. Co., No/lan v. California 

Coastal Commission, and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, physical invasions and 

occupancies are per se takings, without regard to the extent of the occupation, the detriment to 

the property owner, or the benefit to the public. 

There is a second, more fundamental reason, however. Cases prior to 1987 applied such 

standards to these takings as the rational basis test, holding that takings did not occur and the 

ESA's scheme does not violate due process because it was rationally related to a legitimate 

governmental interests. However, in the years since 1986 and since Christy, the Supreme Court 

has continued to evolve regulatory takings standards such that decisions like Christy are no longer 

likely. The most recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court in this area in Dolan v. City of 

Tigard makes it clear that the Court has re-elevated property rights to the level they enjoyed for 

over 150 years under the Constitution, that of a fundamental right, equivalent in value to such 

rights as those protected in the First Amendment. If the Court applies these precepts as they 

state them, this will continue the trend exhibited by the Court since 1987 of applying higher 

levels of scrutiny to government actions. If this happens, as I have every expectation it will, 

Christy-like cases are no longer viable, if they ever truly were. 

The significance of this cannot be minimized in this instance. The release of the 

Canadian grey wolves by the Fish and Wildlife Service may affect both state-owned and 

individually owned property to such an extent as to amount to a taking within the meaning of the 

Fifth Amendment. This includes impacts on both real property and on chattels such as livestock 

herds, including herds of elk and deer to the extent that the herds are the property of the state. 

In addition to takings liability, the United States, as an owner of land, may be held liable 

in tort for damages caused by dangerous animals that it owns on that land which escape and 

cause damage to its neighbors in the same that any landowner is so liable. 

This will come about, if it does, because of the nature of federal land ownership when 

that land is not enclave clause land. If in fact, the courts hold to what they have said about non15 
140 

enclave clause land being owned by the Uniied States as a mere landowner, then the United 

States can be liable, even if immunity is not waived by the Tort Claims Act, when its livestock (in 

this case, Canadian grey wolves) escapes and causes damages. Waiver of sovereign immunity 

may not be necessary if, as courts have stated, non-enclave clause land is held in a proprietary 

capacity by the United States. Under such circumstances, there may be no sovereign immunity 

because the government is not acting in a sovereign capacity, but instead in a proprietary one. 

States such as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, as well as their individual citizens, who 

have had Canadian grey wolves foisted on them without their consent and who are harmed as a 

result may, in short, be entitled to recover for damages to their real property and chattels, as well 

as for a taking of their ownership rights in water used by the released species under both 

constitutional and ordinary tort theories. Judicial attitudes toward such unrestrained federal 

actions have shifted considerably in just a few short years, such that the possibility of liability can 

no longer be cavalierly dismissed. This is particularly true where the complainants are states. 

CONCLUSION 

Whether the United States is constitutionally authorized to undertake the actions at issue 

in derogation of the sovereignty of the states is a complex constitutional question, but is one 

which, on balance. must be answered in the negative. The United States cannot. under the 

Commerce Clause or any other existing constitutional authority. run roughshod over state 

sovereignty in such a manner. Regardless of whether this is so. the ESA. taken as a whole not 

only does not affirmatively authorize such actions but positively expresses a policy inconsistent 

with such coercive invasions of the prerogatives of the states. 

Respec:tfully submitted, 

MARK L. POLLOT, 

Director, Stewards Constitutional Law Center 

16 
141 

STATE OF WVOMINO 

OIFICI OF TM£ GOYEIINOII 

CMMNH£ 12002 

January 16, 1995 

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt 

Secretary of the Interior 

Departaent of the Interior 

Waahiftgton, D.C. 20240 

Dear Kr. secretary: 

Yesterday the wolves arrived in Yellowstone. Today public 

clebate over reintrocluction vill intensity in Wyorainq aa e11otiona on lx>th aides reach new hiqha. All14at t1w joy an4 t1w bitterness, I 

reaain aeriou.sly concernecl vith t1w uncertainty t:Jaat continues to 

surround Yellowstone volf reintroduction as it aona forward. 

Should the c::urrent l~al cballeDIJea fin4 the reintroduction 

r89Ulat1ona either illeqal or iMdequate, a 4ec:iaion to recapture or destroy tbe volvea in the vild VOial4 haft w.ccep~le pUblic 

relatiorus conaequencea to fOil and ther:efore pr:eaeot dire econoaic 

illlplications tor the state of Wyoaing. '1'118 iuue of Wyoainq'a role 

and responsibility in the aanaqaent of wolves outa14e of tbe park 

reaaina Wldafined and ~~n. Inadequate future federal tundinq 

for thia project VOI.lld create an irreversible unfunded federal 

lllanclate 1lpoll our state. 

To assure that this project ~ fol:Y&%'d vith the necessary 

clarity and certainty of cUr:ec:tion, I u today nqueati119 that you 

take the follovincJ actiOD: 

Direct t!ult the volvu that have already been aove4 into 

holdinq pe~~s in Yellovatone reaain 1n these pen8 until: · 

1) All current pendinq leial challenges are resolved 

favorable tovarc! the volt reintroduction regulation• currently in 

place1 

2) A plan for atat.e aanaqeaent of wolves outsi4e of 

Yellowstone National Park is prepared by the Wyoaill9 G&llle and Fish 

Department, approved by the aovernor in consultation vith the 

Leqislature and accepted by USFWS; 

l) Reasonable assurances of adequate federal funding- are qiven by USPWS. The l"ederal qovemaent auat M&r the financial 

consequences of this action!; 
secret~ry Babbitt 

January 13, 1994 

Page 2 

142 

4) Protection is providecl for the continued use of currently 

approved preclator control Mthods in all areas outside the park !or 

the control of coyotes and other predators. 

While ve cooperate vith you to address the above iasues, I ask 

that certain interim steps be taken: 

1) Tbe Wyoainq cue and Fish Departllent be viven full access to the locations of the volt holding pens and to all records !:>ei119 

aaintained on the volvea vithin these pens1 

. 2) Any voif releaseci or escaping from the pens be capturecl 

and returned, or destroyed, within 24 hours. 

I believe tbe above represent necesArY and mutually beneficial steps that vill have a positive iapact on the lonq term 

future of your progru. ~ \U'C)e your i.lDIIIediate action on my 

requests. 

Sincerely, 
143 

Evaluation of Wolf Control to Reduce Cattle Predation. in Alberta 

RONALD R. BJORGE AND JOHN R. GUNSON 

Absln<l 

Results of wolf (C1111is lupus) control to reduce predation of 

eaule in northwestern• Alberta are reported. Numben of wolves 

declined from about 40 prior to control to 3 foUowinc the drychttine poisoainc ofM wolves dwiacl winten,l97940 aod 1910-81. 

Additional IOSiel of woll pack memben occurred from natural 

monalily IUid disperoal followlnclhe remo .. l or doe mojorily or their packmatn.Jn 3 of 6 IDstaoces wltere packs took balll, entire 

packs of 2, .C, and ' wolves were kiiW. lapeu of wolves occurred 

within 1-2 years. Total mortaHty of cattle decliDed from a mean of 

~ (3.4%)dorinc 4 yean prior lo conlrollo 36(l.O%)dorio&l yean 

followinc control. SelectivitJ of 1trycbnine poisoninc wu reason .. 

ably cood altboucb more empbuis on preveadve manap:ment is 

recommended. 

Wolf (Canis lupw) depredations of livestock and subsequent 

wolf removal have occurred throughout the sculemeqt of North 

America (Young 1944, Lopez 1978) and currently occur in western 

Canada (Gunson 1983a). Ontario (K.olenosky 1983), and Minne~ 

sot4 (Fritts 1982). Despite controversy and costs associated with 

these control programs, evaluations have been limited. 

In Alberta, wolves occur in the nonhero and western two--thirds 

of the province, with current numbers estimated at about 4-S,OOO 

(Gunson 198lb). Wolf~livestock complaints arc most common 

near the forcu-agricuhural frinae in Alberta and other isolated 

areas of the province. The Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division 

(AFW) initiated annual livestock-related wolf conlrol in 1972, 

consisting of complainl invesligation and removal of wolves if 

predation or mauling was confirmed. During 9 years ( 1972--81), 729 

wolves were known to have been removed. 

Resuhs of wolf control conducted during studies of wolf predation of cattle in northwestern Albena during 1975-81 are evalu~ 

a ted. This paper reports details of wolf removal, nontarget kill, 

response of wolves to vacant lerritories, and the impact of wolf 

removal on caule. Results arc discussed in relation to management 

of wolf-livestock conflicts. 

SludJ Area 

The study area, located adjacent to or near the Simonette Rivcr 

(54' SS'N, 117" SO'W) in northwestern Albena, encompassed 7 

adjacent graz.inslc:ases rangina in size from S to S9 kmJ. All leases 

were located on crown lands in the vicinity of the forestagricultural fringe. Total numbers of cattle pastured on all leases 

during the May through October grazing season varied from J ,558 

(1979) to 2,288 (1976). 

--The area is within the boreal forest (Strong and Leapt 1981); 

trembling aspen (Populus tremuloidn) is the dominant tree species 

with balsam poplar (PopulusiMU.mifer~~), willow(Sa/ixssp.),and 

alder (~/nusspp.) also occurriq. The topocraphy is scncrally Oat, 

but interrupted by the banks(to lle! m) of numerous creeks and the 

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 38(6), Nowm.., 1985 

Simonette and Latornell Rivers. During the grazing period average water depth in the rivers varied up to I m, but increased 

occasionally by several meters following periods of heavy rainfall. 

Moose (Aice.Jalce.s)werecommon; and wapiti (Orvuselllphus). 

white-tailed deer (OdocoUeus virginianus). and mule deCr (0. 

Mmionu.s)occurred. in some areas. Black bear (Ursus arrwricanus) 

and coyotes (Canis latrans) were abundant throughout the area. 

MelhoCls '· 

We counted and examined cattle entering and leaving grazing 

leases for signs of attacks by predators. Carcasses discovered by 

cattlemen were investigated by study personnel rapidly, usually 

within 24 houn of receiving a rcpon, partly because of requirements of 1 compensation prosram. Cattlemen checked thelr slack 

approximately every 2 weeks, while study personnel, traveUing by 

horse and fixed-wing aircraft, occasionally inspe<:lcd herds. Dead 

animals. were examined to determine caose of death; only those 

cattle with definite signs of attack includillgsubcutaneous hemor~ 

rhages, blood trails, and/ or teeth and claw JD&rks.JNere classified 

as predator kills. Wolf kills were easily distinguished from those of 

bear; bites were evident on wolf kills and maulings, while wounds 

from claws or heavy blows were evident on cattle killed by bears. 

Tracks and sometimes scats were observed at kills, supporting 

other dala used to determine the predator responsible. 

Most of the wolves were captured in 148 and 1114 Newhouse 

traps. One wolf was caplured in a neck snare similar to .lhosc 

utilized by Nellis (1968) for coyotes. Captured wolves were restrained with a modified hay fork or forked stic:k,examined for sex, 

reproductive status and general condition, radio-collared (AVM · 

Instrument Company; Champaign, Illinois), and released. Radio~ 

collared wolves were aerially located, usually twice/week during 

May through October, and weekly during other months. 

We travelled by fi:led-wingaircraft, horse, and all terrain vehicle 

during summer and by fi:led~wing aircraft and snowmobile during 

winter. Histories of wolf packs and individuals (ancflthus popuJa .. 

tion estimates) were constructed from analyses of relocations or 

radioed wolves, aerial and around observation of radiOfd tftd 

other wolves, pelaae colour, carcasses, and tracks. Because this 

Variety of data sources was used to estimate populatio~ and otlr 

study area was relatively small (1,340 kml), we believe ol csti· 

mates arc reliable. Removal of 26 wolves through wolf contr 1 near 

the termination of the study revealed no surprises; all these olves 

had been included in earlier population estimates. \ 

AFW predator control personnel conducted wolf contrOidu.ring 

the win ten of·l979-80 and 19~ I. The placement of the 12 poison 

bait stations was determined entirely by predator tontrol personnel with no consultation with us. Control consisted of unpoisoncd 

draw baits surrounded 1w several bite-sized portions of poisoned 

meat, each with 2 cubes of280 me strychnine. These were buried in 

the snow 10~30 m fromchc lll'gcr bait. This is the usual technique 

u~o-=:~~n~::;~::~r:J:=~~:~~~ durinc the first 4 

years of the study despite .documented livestock damages from 

wolves, althou&h wolves were ill~plly poisoned in 1978. In lieu of 

wolf control, cattlemen received 100% of annually established 

\'&lues for confirmed kills and 80% value for c:aule missina in the 
144 

TMiti.· ...... .,_. ........ .,;..._._.. ................ ~ ...... I..,.._.I,.._.J. 

..... _ .... o. ..... Datcrc~~M~Wd 

·- IOI>cc. 24Mar. 

IO.Ian. 14 Mar. 

3 IOIXc. I Apr. 

... IOJan . 24 Mar. 

' IOJan. 24Mu. 

6 IO J an. 24 Mar. 

TOTAL 

1_,1 14 Jan. 26Mar. 

• I4 Jan . 26Mar. 

9 )OJan. 20 Feb. 10 4Mar. 27Mar. 

JJ lJJan. !i feb. 

12 '1:eb. ~Feb. 

TOTAL 

fall. This compcnsalion was available only in our sludy area 

throu&h a special pro&ram of the Alberta Predator Indemnity 

Program and rtsuhrd in rapid reponina of dead or missins canle. 

The 2 X 2 chi1-tcst was used to determine if the incidences of 

mortality and mauling (atlcmpted prtdation) among caulc dif· 

ferc·d sicnif~nlly before and after wolf c:ontrol. 

Rnulls and DiKussion 

R._qlalWohet 

SC'ven of the 12 bails ntablishcd durin& 1979-11 (TaMe I) 

resulted in killina 26 wolves. Numbers of wolves on the study area 

dropped from 39 or 40 durina fall J979to J durin& summer 1981 

(Table 2). The control proaram reqr.aii'C'd 56 man-days and cost 

sg,J2S.OO or $320 per wolf. 

Mean nr.ambC'r of days from bait establishment until wolves ~rc 

kilkd wets 48 (range= 11-94). Wolvc:~S radio-monitored durin& &he 

comrol prosr:Jm did not always consume boait at firs1 encounter. 

Wohn .. ba Due wolws •ilaed NoiHartc' species 

MatkKk Pack 6of6 II Feb. ec..-

, ........ J.a~hck4ofl I Feb. , ....... 1 Hairy W ooctpecker 4Jan. 

24 Mar. 

24Jan. I Coyote 

I Jtawcn 

Mustca Ulr.c Padt !i or 7 lJ Feb. 

I 

0 

0 

20 

26Mar. 6Coyocn 

6 Rawcns 

I Maapic 

I 1 Feb. I Rtd fox 

South Matlock Pac:k 4 of 4 10 Feb. 

0 

0 

0 I Coyou 

6 

Forexample,lhe Muske& Lake Pac:k visited bait slations within its 

territory every week between lint baitina on 10 December 1979 

and 2.S February 1910, when $ of the 7 wolves were poisoned. The 

Colony Pack spent at least 15 days within 'I km oC.a bait stalion 

durina January 1980. Tracks indicated these ~lves had frequented the site often. bul bait was not consumed during that 

winter. TM Matlock and Junction Pac:ks consumed baits on the 

first known CrKounter. These data indicate thai considerable time 

may be requircd to effect wolf removal, cspec:ialty if bailS arc 

placed out in c-arly winter. 

All26 woiYCs kiUed a1 bait stations dicd within I $0 m of the bait. 

HowevC'r tracks in lhe snow indicated that 3 additional w'olves 

staJ,IC'ft'd up to I km from bait sites. They were stilltnvellina and 

apparently affected by poisonina but their cvcnlual fate was , 

unknown. Elsewhere in wolf control in nonhwcstcrn Albcrla most 

wolves killed at bait nations died ncar the bu.iu but several wolves 

have travelkd up to I km before dyins (G. Craia, person. wm-

.. TabM1. N-Mtol•oiYn .. 11MYkWIJoldw~calllellun .. Mitii.....,_A~NWonaadeftnwolfU~Mrol ......... l,_.aiMI, .,..... .. Estimated 

Number Potaoncd Shot or Poisoned- Rcm.,inin& 

Year Wolves (fall) at Bait Trapped Related Olh<r (Sprin~ 

Muskca Lake Pack 7 0 2 '\ l.,.-::.,.0::--,~:-:-::-·-:-:-::-:-----'-:..:__ ___ -:-___ -:-:-------;;------;:-·---~;;-' 

M.11tlock l,ack 6 

Colony Pack 6 

Junctloft Pack 10 

South Matlock Pack • Lon& lake ~ir 2 

Swiln l...ilkc Pair 2 

Lone woJ ... cs 2-3 

TOTAL 39-<40 

1980 -HI South Matlock Pack • Colony Pack 9 

Lone wolves 3-4 

TOTAL 16-17 

•-Wolf It ciWd •fvr wpuatioll from aU"" OM -•bet oltlM: J~ P.ctr.. 

:.nut wo.JU covkl bll'C' bee" poi-.t Nd c1uW!ed M a Wlck woW. 

• 0 

2 

0 

3 

20 

,, 

2 

lJ 

·-~j ~'f'n WCft lJic,.Uy ~. 

•-Two radio-c>o*mllocv wolvn p11itC'd dwll\f fdnlary &Dd di.prrwcl duM11 Muc\ Itt I. 

484 

0 

2 ~ .. 3 I' 2 

~ 0 0 

0 0 0 

I 0 0 I' 

0 0 0 0 

6 ~ 0 12-13 

,o 0 0 

0 0 2 

0 2' I 

0 2 3 

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 311(8). N.,_.bor 1985 
145 

Tabk 3. ~onallty or attic aJIIII ...-;.. olwol,.. 011 _,... eru'-1._... ill tM YkWIJ otta. ~ Rhtr, _,.. ..... ,......__ 

Cautc Mau.tcd Q.ttk Mortalill t.o .. 

Predators• Cattle CauiCS Other C..ulc Wolwsl on Wolwa Bun chan predation Uotnown Min.inc Tot&) "' Present Year Stl.'dyArca Wolves Bears 

Before Wolf Conuol 

1'176 22H8 6 12' )() 6S 2.9 2l- 2S 1'1177 2021 ' I 6S 70 l .S 29-ll 

1'171!1 17114 ll "' .. 3.6 2K-ll 4 

l'i7Y U~K 19 0 " ).7 39-40 

Aftc:r Wulf Control 

191!10 1772 )8 .. 2.S 16-17 

19111 11104 2< 27 1.6 )' 

•~iMI~eoalytnownpcodatort.iii• Otheckitbt.ywolwsandbaruccvrredbiH-~ftOtdclKU'dd~toKmolcqns brae:pastwttt.i.tt, dci'IKir«cowr aftdcom,kuc:on Jwmp~ion . 

'-Wulvn ptC'M'M dlll'i"' e.rly winu:r. 

~~:or~~le-!~if~:u~~s!!~!:~:~::::;,~~~~·;a:!~t.._~~ •. 

mun.). Fuller and Novakowski (19SS) also indicated that most 

wolves died ncar strychnine baits, although lhey repontd one 

dying about 400 m away. _ 

. Survivors of packs depleted by wolf concrol demonstrated vanable behavior includina emi&ration, death from su.rvation. and 

increal>Cd dependence on livestock. One of 2 members that sur· 

vivcd wolf control in the Muskeg Lake Packdurina winter 1979- 80 

ldt the are.a the following May. During Decc:mber 1981\his !iolf 

1120, an adult male, was killed with another at a government po1son 

bait 248 km from the last radio-location. These wolves had been 

killing cattle in this area, indica ling wolf 20 became more depend· 

ent upon cattle following removal of the majority of his pack and 

his dispersal. Prior to wolf control on our study ar~a , ~is pack ~as 

primarilydcpcndcnl on wild prey,althouchthcydid ktlll ycarhne 

hdfcr and wounded 2 other heifers. 

Wolf 17, a black female pup, and a small arey wolf of unknown 

sex and age travelled togedw~r following the deaths of at least~ of 

'the 8 members of the Junction Pack on& February 1980. follow.nc 

a radio·location on 26 March, wolf 17 was found dead. Tracks in 

the snow indicated !the had been walking up a relativelystttp bank, 

collapsed, slid downhill and died. Numerous porcupine (Ert!hizon 

dorsa tum) quills were lot:~ ted on her mouth and face, one nb was 

brol.:en and she was emaciated with an empty stomach. Several 

days earlier a small grey female: wolf,likely 17's companion, wcu 

shut neoar :a farmyard about I km from where wolf 17 died~ ':nd within the gucrat area where dtesc 2 wolves had been hvmg 

following control. 

Age and experience or wolves surviving eontrolappcared to be 

important factors in their continued survival. For example, wolf 

13, a Large adult wolf, survived lhe illegal poisonina or most of the 

remainder of the Colony Pack in 1980--MI. However, wolf redw:· lion' may be greater than indicated by the number ofwoiYC'S&I ba1t 

stations as suggested above . 

Noncarac< Kill ·1n the conuol reported here, relatively few nontaraet anima ~s 

were taken (Table I). Although quantitatiwdaLa relative todensaties of fur--bcucrs are unavailable, coyote densities appeared 

&reatcr, than thoiie of wolf. While capturina wolves for radi~· 

collaring, we made 39 coyote c:apt!'m venus 21 !olf ~urn &n 

kg-hold uaps. Only 9 coyotes weR taken on ~~ ba1U eom· 

p;arcd to 26 wolves, sugacscina arut.er sc:Acctav1ty ror woiYn 

ahhouch somecoyot.cli may have left thcareadurina winter. Ot~r 

furbcarcn relAtively eommoa and reaularly harva&cd by reps· 

cered trappers in the n:Poo iACludc rtsher(MM~6,.,.,..,.tl). lynx 

(F~Iix lynx). and lihort-48iled weasel (Muswt. ~mtiltH). Nooc of 

these were taken oa. poisoa. baiu, ahhouah I red fox (Vtlipr6 

vuiJW•) was kil&ed. The few nontaract animatt taken durin& 694 

JOURNAL Of' RANGE MANAGEMENT 31(8),-1M$ 

bait-nights were larac:Jy due to upcritnccd control personnel and 

1he technique of buryin& small drop baits in ahe snow. Ani~ls 

other than wolves apparently did not readily retrieve these ba1ts 

from beneath the snow . 

WoiCR-toVa<a~~tTerrltorleo 

Ingress of wolves to vacant territory followirt~ control was 

noted. After illepl poisonins of 6 black wolves on the scudy area 

during early winter of 1971·78, the resulta~t ~acant territory was 

occupicd by another pack or 8-10 wolves dunn& s..-mer of 1979. 

Bc:causc only 1 wolf survived the: illesal control ant! the: new pack 

was composed of many srcy animals, we concluded this was a 

different group or wolves. 

A range shift was evW:ent for wolf I J following rc:mo"at. of 

adjacent packs (Junction, Muske& Lake, and Matlock) dunng 

winter of 1979...80. This wolf separated from lhe Colony Pack and 

travelled with a small black wolf throuahout portions of the fC?rmer 

territory of these 3 packs. lnaress of lone woiVC'S into territories 

vacat~ throuah wolf control was suspected durin&l980. Three of 

Swolvescapturcd that yearwcrelone,compared to0of9and I of6 

in 1979and 1978, respectively. Durin& September 1981 a pack of at 

kast 7 wolvn appeared in portions of the territories formerly 

occupied by the Colony and Junction Packs. lty 1982IOC<t.l cau~· 

men and hunters were reportinsthat wolves were apincommon 10 

the: a rea. ·. 

Wolves commonly disperse from established pac• (W.B. Bat~ 

lard, R.O. Stephenson and T.H. Spraken 1981. unpublist\cd final 

report, Nekhina Basin Wolf Studtes, Ataska Dept. of Fish yet Game; Fritt5 and Mcch 1981) to search for a mate and \acant 

territory (Mcc:h 1973, Rothman and Mcch 1979). Movtments of 

lone wolvn and newly (otmcd pain ate laraety influenced ·by the 

activilic:s of packs. Normally lhese wol~s lend to avoid terr\ories 

o( packs (Fritts and Mech 1981 , Van Ballenbcrghe c:t at.\97S) 

although lone wolves have occasionally been known lo j~in,stablishcd packs (Fritts and Mec:h 1981). An absence of howhn&}Harrington a,pd Mcch 1979, Joslin 1967) and a scarcicy of RQ:nt scene 

marks(fet.crsand Mcch 197S)mayencouracedispenina wolvcs•o 

remain in VKanl territories. Thus repopulation of ¥Kant territo--

ries created throuah ~f control may O«Ur relatively quietly 

duouah immi&tation of woi¥1CS from other ai'C'n. ,_..,wolf-"" CanJo M_,, Total monality of a.ulc fr1maU aourcesdcc:re.ascd from a mean 

of 64/ yar dorina 1hc 4 pcc<on1rol y<aB 10 44/ year (1'<0.10) and 

27/yar (1'<0.01) Collowina.yar I and 2 of wotr control, rcspcc· 

tiwly (Table 3). Numbcrt of cude maukd but GOt kiUect wctc: 

tower (P<D.O.S) aflc:r the 2nd year of control. Also. numben of 

cattle known to ha~ been killed by wolvn declined after wolf 
146 

control wa:.; initial~ (Table 3). We believe th.at wolf c;ontrol, and 

thus less wolf predation of cattle in 1980 and 1981, was primarily 

responsible for che observed lower mon.alit)l durina thoiC years. 

Eh;cwhcre, wolf control has reduced subsequent prevalence of 

pred:uions(Fritts 19H2, Tompa 198J).In Minnesota, wolf removal 

reduced losses in most cases, but some depredations stopped even 

though c:ontrol was unsuccessful, w~e in other cases depredations 

c:ontinued despite wolf removal. Fritts (1982) attributed such variation to differential behavior of specifiC' wolf packs, chanaes in 

farm management practices, pack versus lone wolves, and wolf 

densities. In British Columbia, Tompa (WH3) reponed 34%of 104 

cases of control were highly effective whereas in 28% of the cases 

control was not effective. 

In our area, total mortality was relatively high durins 1976 (65 

lossc:t-2.9% ) and 1977 (70 losscs-J.S%) despite only modest 

num~rs of wolves durins thoK years (compoued 10 1979) and 

few~ observed maulingsand tills. We dKI not observe higher k:vels 

of t>Cfr predation (Table 3) or disease during lhose y~:ars, ;md 

because of I he remoltncss of I he pastures, wt do nor bcl~vc rhdt 

OC\:urnd. These somewhat greaccr-than-cllpected losses during the 

he 2 ~ars of study were likely related to 2 factors. 

'First, losses to Ooodina were probably hiahcr during these years 

when very high water levels occurred on the Simonette River 

following 211 day rains. On several occasions the level of this river 

rose rapidiY.:<:ausins extensive bank erosion and loss of vegetation 

(including larse trees). During intervening periods of low water 

levels, we ohen observed cattle crossing the ri'llcr and 6 of 7 pastures included portion" of the river. Precipitation daLa from Envir· 

onmcnt Canada at Grande Prairie, 70 tm to the west, indicated 

May~- September rainfall exceeded the 40--ycar mtan of 256 mm 

during 3 of the 6 years: 197~394 mm, 1977-341 mm, and 1980-305 

mm. It should also be noted that losses were the lowest durin& 

1981·, the year of least wolves and lowest rainfaii-J S6 mm. 

Second, but oflesserimponanc:e,cattlemcn may hav~: removed a 

fcwstod: and rc:ported them as missingdurin&lhe initial period of 

study when we were less familiar with the area and their operations. 

We did not, however, delermine that this occurred. 

Another foetor tendina to obscure the dire" relationship 

btl ween numbers of wol\lcs and total cattk loss.cs is that some of 

tm increase sin wolf" numbers occurred in areas only peripherallo 

the pastures. Only thC:.Junc:tion Pack was located primarily within 

C4t11lc lcasc1. 

Predation by wolves was an important source of c.anlc morLality, 

because 17 (41%) of 41 animals found dead of known causes were 

l>illcd by wolves. However. of 327 dead or missins canlc only 49 

carcasses were: locuttd (Table 3). We have prc:viowly (Bjorge 1983, 

Bjoracand Gunson 1983)pointed out that c.aulc dyin& from predato rs arc more difficult to discover than cattle dying from other 

c:a uscs because: they are often complctr:ly consumed, c:spcci<~lly by 

wolves. Wolves, in all probability, killed arcater than 41% of the: 

rqissiflg caulc. Because of complete consumption by wolwes,larac 

pastures, and tree cover, more inlensive :.;earches would not have 

improved our sample sianificantly. These nsults arc in contrast to 

thoK of sheep pastured on open ranae (K.lebenow aDd McAdoo 

1976) ~Bel cattle manaaed more intensively (Gee 1979), 'Mhtrc: most 

dwd animals arc: fouBd. 

Manao1fmmt lmpll<lltiono 

In this study strychnine poisonins was effu:tive in reducina 

numben of wolves and subsequent monality of c:aulc. Where 

dtprcdalions ouur, wol~s can be removed qutekly and relatively 

cheaply durin1 mid- to &ate'-wintcr usina chU method. A vartcty of 

other techniques have been used in wolr control, inchw:lina aerial 

shootins(Gasawayct al. 1913), other toJr.Kanu (Tampa 1913), and 

m«hanic:ol devices (Youn1 1944, Lopez 1971, Frius 1982), but 

these methods arc either less effective in forested areas or are 

considerably more upcnsive and time consumina. Altbouah the 

~se of atry~:hnine to remove prcdaton remains conlro\lcnial, data 

m thiJ rc:pun ma)l assist apncies in selcclina control methods. 

A major disadvant.aJC of wolf conuol is the fairly rapid rcpopu~ 

lation from surroundina areas. To rcdt.KC CO$ts of repetitious control, annual harvests by hunten and tr01ppers should be cncouraacd. Durina lhe 6 years o( our study only 4 wolves were harvested 

by trappers. Special programs to train trappers in wolf capture are 

needed. 

Perhaps most importantly, preventive techniques should be 

emphasized in wolf-livestock manaaemcnt. Such measures include 

sending only healthy and non~prc:anant animals to pasture (Bjorge 

1983), chectina cattle reaularly, roundina up caule in early fall, 

and rcmovinscarcasses lodiscouraae sc:avenaina. Techniques currently under evaluation include usc of sur\IC'yors' flagging'on fenen, installation of bright li&hlS, and tastt aversion conditioning 

(Fritts 1982). Uowever, in remote pastures il i~ unrcali~tic to expect 

prevention of all depredations by wolves. Tc:chniq~s utilized·to. 

prevent she-ep depredation by coyo1es (Robel et al. 1981, Boggess ct 

al. 1978) such as corrallina at night or use of c~rd dogs arc not 

feasible to prevent wolf deprcdalions on large, rtmote caulc pas· 

tures. Gruin& leases shouLd be locattd u dose to agricultural 

devdopment as possible in order 10 afford more protection from 

predation. 

Literature Clled 

BJor&t, R.R. IH3. Mona lily o( cank on two types of araz.ina .areou in 

nortbwtl>ttrn Alberta. J. R.ange Man.aac. 36:20..21. 

Bjor&t, R.R., and J.R. Cunso.. 1913. Wolf pre\i.ation of caulc on I he 

Simonelte River pastures in nonhwc:nern Albcn.a. p. 1()6..111. In: L.N 

Carbyn (Ed.} Wolves in Canada and Alaska: their status, bioloay <~.nd 

m.anagcmcnt. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rtp. 4,. aouc-, E.K., R.D. Aadrtw .. and R.A.IIabop. 1971. Domestic animal 

luS~Cs to c~otcs and dop in Iowa. J. Wild I. Manage. 42:362-371. 

Fritts. S.H. ltll. Wolf dcp"dation o( livuaock in Minnesou.. U.S. Dcp. 

lnl. Fish .and Wild!. Sc:n-. Pub. 14$. 

Fritts. S.H., aDd L.D. Mtth. ltll. Dynamics, movements and fecdin8 

tcoiO¥)' of a newly protected wolf popu~tion in northwestern Minncsou. Wildl. Monoar. 10. 

Ftdler, W.A.,aiWI N.S.Nowakowski.IM5. Wolf control operations, Wood 

Buffalo Nation~ I Park, 19$1-S2. Wiidl. Man~Jt' . Bull. (II). Can. Wildt. 

Sm. 

CauW8J, W.C .. R.O. S&tpbt..o., J.L O.Yb, P.E. SINplwrd, and 0.£. 

a..ria. IMJ. lnlcrrtlalion~ipt ol wolves. prey, aiMI mao in interior 

Al&lka. Wild!. Monoar. 14. 

Cn, C.K. 1m. Caulc and calf" losses ta prcdaton-fccckr caltlc cnlerpri~ots 

ia the United Statn. J. RaRJC Manaac. J2: 1S2-IS4. 

c .... , J.R. lttlll. Wolf prcdatiot'l of Liwsaod. in western Caoada. p. 

102-IO.S. In: LN. Carbyn (Ed). Wolv" in CaRd• and AWU: their 

sl.iltus, bioloJY and manaaemcnl. Cu. WikJJ. Scrv. Rep. 4,. Ctu111011, J.K. IMllt. Sutus and man.aaemcnt of wolves in Albcnar p. 2S-29. In: LN. Carbyn(Ed). Wolw1 in Can.o.da and Alaska: their status, 

bioloJY, and manaaerncnt. Can. Wild I. Scrv. Rep. 4S. 

Hurinatoa., F.H., aad L.D. M.cll. 1m. Wolf howlina and its role in tcrritoMI mainten.ancc. Behavior LXVII: 207-249. 

Jodn, P. W .a.J967. Movements and homcsitcs of timber wolves in Alaon· 

quin Park. Amcr. Zoo. 7:279-2811. 

Kkbeaow, D.A., .... K. McAdoo. 1976. Predation on domestic :.;beep in· 

nonhca&tem Nevada. J. Ran~~: Manap. 29:96-100. 

KokDOskJ. c.a. 1913. Status and man.aacmcnt of woJYCS in Ontario. p. 

3S-40. In: L.N. Carbyn(Ed). Wolve• in ~Mda and Ala1k.J, thcir uatls, 

bloloJY, and maaaFmtnt. Can. Wikll. Serv. Rep. 4,. Lopu. II- 1971. Of wolws and men. Charles ~ribncr's Sons. Ntw York. 

Mula, LO.It7l. WoliD.ambcnin the SupcriorNatioftill ForQt ol Minne~ 

sola. USDA Fort~~ Scrv. Res. Pap. NC-97. 

NdU., C.H. IMI.Somc mclhods forcapturin& eoyotn. J. Wildl. Ma~p. 

.)0:402-405. 

Ptttn. a.P., _, LD. Meda. Jt1S. Sccnl mad:iA1 ia wolves. Amcr. Sci. 

63:6JIJ..6l7. 

a-. M.J, A.D. Do- F.a. - M.L --... C.W. s,.• ltll. Rclalioasbipt bclMca bu.ndry JDt•bods aad •IKcp 

kwH 10 ca.U• pml.ltars. J~ WikiL Mau •. 43;.94-909. 

a...._. a.J., _. LD. MedL. 1979. Scrn1 rnarkln1la iont wolws aftd 

DCWiy fonncd pain. Aaira. Bc ... v. 21:7S0.760. ' 

ser..s. W.L, _. K.L Lqpt. ltiJ. Ecorcpgns of Albcna. AJbcna EDCrl)' and Na1ural Rnourcn Tech. Rtp. Number T/4. • 

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 38(6), Nov .. bor 1985 
147 

Tocape. F'.S. I ttl. Problem wolf mauacmeot U.. Britith Columbia: con· nict and proaram evaluation. p. 112·119. In: LN. Carbyn(Ed). WoiY'tt 

in ~nada and Alad:a: 1heir ttalut, biolop' and rnanasenKnl. Can. 

Wild!. Serv. Rep. 45. 

• 

v •• .......,.v.,A.w ~ ... o.a,.. .. an5.&olo1Jofthe timbn wolf in nonhus1cn1 Minnetota. Wildl. Monoar. l1. .. 

Yo-.. S.P. I'"· The wolves of Nonh America. Pan 1: their histpry,lifc 

habitt, economic status, and control. Amcr. Wild I. lnst., Washinaton, D.C . 

Recovery of Vegetative Cover and Soil Organic Matt!1r during Revegetation of Abandoned Farmland in· a, 

Semiarid Climate · · · ' . , ~ D~RMAAR AND S. SMOLIAK 

. . Absln<l 

. Muc~o the farmlao4 In Cbe Canadian Prairie rqloo bu - aband · overth.eynnandallowedltorenrttoweedycoverand 

eventually o &ruslaod. While tome of tbe cban&n In vqelation 

du.rin& plant succession ban been documented, Umlted lnfoi'IDA· 

tion is available on chancn ln soil ch.,.cteristlcs. The purpose of 

this study wu to aaea tbe ncetatin cover and soil translorma· 

lion under similar semiarid climatic cond.idons with an annul 

pr«ipitalion of about 310 mm on Jsitesabandoneclln 1925, 1917, 

and 19~0 as compared to adjtlceat nadn ranee. Total C aad N, 

water-stable acpeples betwem 1.0 and 5.0 mm, aad polyuccba· 

ride eontentlncreued, wbJie chet.tlnc resin-extnclable C, humJc 

acid/fulvic acid nUos. caloric content of tbe rootmau, aacl deby· 

droctnasc activity decreased in the succeasioul sequente. Nenr· 

thtltss, more tban ~5 Jears will be required to allow wll to retutn to 

native ranee standards unda- moderate cnzlnc by Uvatock. 

Revetttated nnce may h~~Ye to be subjected to UcJiter IJUinc 

presswes thP'n usual to allow the vecetation to continue to increase 

its rootmu~and lh~q the soil chemical properties. A hypotbnb to 

esplain chances in f()QI- and top-mass ratios with time oa the basis 

of the quality of son nitrocen has bHa advanced. 

Man'i of the level grasslands in southeast Alberta and southwest 

Saskatchewan werecuhivated early in lhls century. However. from 

1916 to 1935, it be~ame evident that many of lhese areas were 

entirety unsuited for crop production because of advene climatic 

conditions and the nature of the marginal or submarginal lands 

lha t were cultivaled. A combination of a series of 'jean of avernge 

or below average rainfall, drifting soil, and low prices of asricultu-

;.a.J.Products forced many setllers 10 abandon their farms. Some 1.6 

million hectares of abandoned farmlands were allowed to revert to 

annual and perennial weeds and eventually to grassland. Across 

the border in Montana, U.S.A., the economic situation was much 

better after the severe drought between l917 and 1921 (Gieseker 

1931} and dryland farm ins was finnlyestablished. However,large 

parts of southern Alberta and Siiskatchewan. Canada, were considered unsuitable for cultivation and have remained in permanent 

rangeland (Fis. 1). 

A recent study assessed the possible impact of 40 to 49-year.old 

stands of crested wheatgnus on soil organic matter characteristics, 

b'J comparing four stands with adjacent native range (Dormaar et 

al ... 1978. 1980). At one seemingly native range site, 49 years of 

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 38(6), NOY8mber 1985 

naturally revertin&to native ranse after 10 years of ~ultivation was 

not sufficient time for the soil to have chemical and physical 

characteristics similar to those of adjacent native range. This was 

of interest in tenns of time as a soil-forming factor. Old·ficld 

successions have been described by Booth (1941), Whitman et aL 

(1943), Tomanek ct al. (19SS), and Haug and Van Dyne (1968), 

while Rice ( 1976) explained the causes of succession. The purpose 

of this study was to assess the vegetation and chanaes in a number 

of soil chemical propenies during the succession of abandoned 

cropland to native ranee under semiarid climatic conditions. 

Materials and Methods 

Sites 

Three fields of similar. topography at the Asriculture Canada 

Rese~trch Substation, Manyberries, Alta., were chosen for the 

stud'j. The fields. included sitescontainingcropland,abandoncd 30 

toSS years before the stud'j and allowed to revegetate by secondary 

succession. and adjoinin& unbroken native range of the Mixed 

Prairie Association. The native range and the: adjacent cultivated 

areas have been grazed by cattle at a moderate rate to provide a 

SO% carryover of forage. 

The treatment received by the abandoned fields was as follows: 

Sitt 1925-The revegetatina: field was ploushed in 1910, cultivated 

for I~ years, and abandoned in 1925. 

Site 1927-Tne revesctatingfield was ploushed in 1917,cultivatcd 

for 10 yean, and abandoned in 1927. 

Site 1950-The revegetaling field was ploughtd in 1920, cultivated 

intermittently for 30 years, and abandoned in 1950. 

Vecetalion 

Vegetative ground cover and species composition of the siudy 

sites were determined by tht vertical point method (Lodge and 

Campbelll965). A total of2, 100 points were located at each site in ' 

August, 1981. Nomenclature for vascular planu follows that siven 

by Moss (1959). Forage yields were ob,ained by harvesting the 

plants at ground kvcl in 10 randomly located 1-ml quadrats at each 

site in August, 1981 and 1982, and oven-dryin& the harvested 

samples. 

Soil 

The soils are members of the Orthic Brown Subgroup of the 

Chemozemic Order (Aridic Ustochrc:pt): a dark yellowlsh brown 

(IOYR4/4. wet) friable Ah surface horizon of7 em with pH H:rOof 

6.9 is underlain by about 13 em of a brown (IOYR S/3, wet) 

columnar Bm horizon with a pH HaD of 6.1; the Ck h~~on occurs 
t't·c : · M1.1d·:r 

!0,·ib2·z&2e Phone '/ •~ 9< 16 !i't.X 

148 

January 22, 1PP5 

!r.n·in·J tha u~l1 mornino hours of Thursday, Dtcelllbar 3, 1987, a "~ f: " "te!"ecl. my co~rals. one pen held 115 calves ~hat had been 

l·<e:;.r.e::l f r·om their mothers a hw days prtV10\II, Ift an atteiiPt to 

'"'r.ap e the wolf, the te::-rified calvu stampeded 1nto the 11de of r.he pc~ . The pen was built of steel panels wh10h broke from the -, dqht o f the calves h1t't1n; 1t. TWO c:alves won ~1llaC anC "ti~ l~ eaten in a hay yard &bout 200 yarcl.a away , These two •; .J. h 'Oii wert accepted as Wolf ltlllll. tt too'- ~ daya with hira<l 

l:<; ll> t~ gc;thar up the rut of· the oalvts. In so1ae caaes the c ->1-, e·· "' ~re up to 3 lUlu froa the corral . On• aaall ;roup of r. < ..• v,:s I found wer@ near a ntlg1ll)or. corral·, wh•n :r started to se ~h~m, after about 300 yardl one calf fell down from &troaa 3.Yid '> au tion rdus:1nq to ;et up. I til~ ella calf and hauled 1t- bcmi late!· that day, 11:1.~ other calvts were ao exhauste4 from the ~r1oa~ that When return•~ to the pen tbey refule4 to eat · or ~unk . I ~reateC these and a few othen w1th ant1•b1otica. 'l'hll 

6 ~l e:; I tl'bed water a.nd ehctrolytu with 11\l!lar for ••veral ::>'~ , Fivt celv .. recovered, one cal! cUed after abOUt a wtok. '" d pa :;sed . . Thl.s dead oaU ooUld Jat>t be accepted as a wolf kill. 'ri'.~ e ~ no compensation for llY labor 1n :rtbu1ld1n; the p.n, tha 

3 days with hired help spent qatherin; tha calves and rtturn1ng t.her> "' the corral , the several days of uan1ng and llan4•fn4:log snver ely stressed. calves, and th• llltd1c1ne and aupplha used. Anc;tl' •. e r siqni!icant financial factor to cons14er 11 a oa~f 1a on n:r "·ancm a s et n\Uiller of cays, AnY los& !If wei;ht plua the loaa ·j f -' h~ ~ vould have been uy weight ;a1D J)y stress and aotual r . u,r.::ng e £ the cattle llY the wolves !I a 4~rect Un&ncial loss to .:-c . ·; h<>.ve never bun compensated for any t>f the above l~;~aaaa. 

X .c.l so £i:-c ly believe there will never J)e any progru · to cc,:: ·. -. s~ a l1vutock CIW%\trl for any of ttle above losau. 

u~i n7 the suamer of 1111 ~olves chased my Y•arling cattle ·on ~e ,,. l oc:cas1on:J. l waa paid compensauon for the yearl:l.nga "':tclall;r killtC. 'l'here 11 no coapenntion fot the wei!lht lOit ;·;hbl.:. '"" '- :::. e 11\any days o~ we1;ht ;al.n, 4epend1nll on the 11ood of t! ~ '-"Ol. vu and · how hungry they are. There U no ooapenaat1on for ni ls chased and chewed on, but not kllltd. I ltll DY ~il. r 1 ~g ! in 50, ooo ancl. &o, ooo pound loa4a. 'llben sose y .. rliftga <.r• 1-:>~ t. I must replace thea to meet the COiltraot a;reeaent t• . .-::'ler wt1c~. 1 told the cattle. : nud to tro.vtl to ;attle aa111, -' tu ;;••~~ c a ttle that Ut With my cattle, then give them all the v l v.,!.n!\tions .my cattle have had so &I to aeet :reczuiroaenta of the ·c'.-t\<:;:..,ct I aold my cattle \11\Gtr, Thest replacelltDt cattle aust 

;,. n.: ~.e !l f::om the u.u site and brandeiS then hauled to Ptlt\lre. "' ~ ~sn' t and :t don't bel1eve ever will l:le any compenaat1on far ::~i.:; 1\l~ e.nd ex;p•nn ~<> ranehera. 
149 

Th~s is a couple of examplea of co•t• 1ncurre4 for WbiGh there 1• <•o o~ £>naation. You .sb.o\114 have 1oae pict:ure• that c:ollld go with ,,hue exupltl. If you need anr infomaUon or pictures feel frao to call: 

Dan car '06-~73-4469 cut Bank 40G-~36·5•o5 Browning laneh 

307 682 301 6 TOTA.. P.B3 01-25-9'5 0 3: 03PM P003 #18 
150 

Altaadaal Wildlife Society 

of North America 

•12665 Hwy. 59 N. •Gillette, WY 82716 •307 -682-2826 

Comments of Troy R. Mader, Research Director of Abundant Wildlife 

society or North America, submitted to the Natural Resources Committee 

of the United States House of Representatives, January 26, 1995 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you for the opportunity to address the 

issue of wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. 

Let me give you some background. 

I'm. a native of Wyoming. I'm a former professionally certified peace 

officer. Now I serve as president of Common Man Institute, a private 

research group, and as Research Director of Abundant Wildlife Society 

of North America, an international wildiife organization. 

I've been pro-wolf most of my life. I supported wolf recovery in 

Yellowstone National Park until I was challenged to do some research 

and take a good hard look at this issue. 

I've spent seven years and literally thousands of hours conducting 

research on wolves. I've traveled over 30,000 miles doing research, 

from bush villages of Indians and Eskimos of Alaska and Canada to the 

National Archives and Library of Congress here in Washington. 

Additionally, I've conducted over 180 interviews with Conservation 

officers, biologists, professors, hunters, trappers and others. 

I've written numerous reports on wolves and wolf recovery. Some are included in your packet. These reports include: Wolf Reintroduction in 

Yellowstone National Park: A Historical Perspective and others. Ladies 

and Gentlemen, I have a good working knowledge of the issue. 

Now let's start with the wolves themselves. 

The most important fact is this issue is not about saving wolves. 

llere•s why: 

1. Biologists tell us there more than 50,000 wolves in North America. 

Yes, that nuaber is correct: 50,0001 This aeans wolves are not endangered. Period. 

The mad race to dump wolves in Yellowstone and Idaho prove the wolf 

promoters could care less about wolves. 

You are well aware, there's a lawsuit pending against this recovery. 

Wyoming, Montana and Idaho Legislatures have consistently opposed wolf 

recovery. Yet, the feds rush to bring in the wolves. 

Now let's look at what's happened to these wolves. The feds have 

already killed one. The rest have been harassed by helicopter or leghold trapped and taken from their native habitat. They've been 

radio-collared, vaccinated, ear-tagged, no doubt installed with a t r ansmitter under the skin, had their blood drawn, and who knows what 

'---------Pre .. rviag Great North &aerkaa Tradldoaa 
151 

else. Then they are caged in those metal cages and transported to a foreign habitat and dumped out. Eye witnesses say the inside of the 

cages were bloody from the wolves' biting at the edges trying to get out. 

This new habitat is not only foreign, it's hostile. Don't take my word 

for it. Let me give you just one example from Montana: 

The nine-mile pack (I call them the "Tragic Pack") is a case in point. 

The mother was illegally shot, the father killed by a vehicle. Fish 

and Wildlife kept the pups alive by artificial feeding. Then, these 

pups killed some cattle. They were then harassed by helicopter until 

captured, undoubtedly scared out their w~ts during this ordeal. 

They're relocated to unfamiliar country. They disperse- one heads for 

livestock country, is re-captured and permanently locked up in a 

sanctuary in Washington State. Two are illegally killed and the third was simply missing - later found shot, too. 

I said it then, I'll say it now: "If the pro-wolf/pro recovery people 

bully this recovery on the western states. It won't work and the wolf 

will be the loser." Recent actions convince me America is seeing the 

"bully," also known as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, at work. 

This fast transplant was done with full knowledge the whole plan could 

be halted in federal court. And if the plan is stopped, what will 

happen to these wolves? The feds say they'll kill them. That's right, 

KTT.T. 'rHEM! 

Why? Why all the rush and abuse to these wolves if there's even a 

remote possibility the whole plan could be halted, especially when this 

recovery has absolutely nothing to do with saving of wolves since they 

number more than 50,000 in North America? 

Fish and Wildlife say it's because they wanted to get the wolves 

situated before breeding season. Then they said they probably won't 

breed due to stress of being caged, handled and transported. 

So much for that excuse. 

I'll tell why the rush. There're two reasons: 

1. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is up for reauthorization and 

there's a good chance such foolish plans like wolf recovery will be 

axed. However, if wolves are already here, the program will be 

grandfathered in. 

2. Wolves already in Yellowstone and central Idaho will, hopefully, put 

pressure on the federal judge to rule in favor of the government. 

Rest assured, it will be stated plainly and repeatedly that if that 

judge dares rule in favor of Farm Bureau, those wolves are dead! 

The Fish and Wildlife and wolf promoters say they're doing all this 

2 
1~ 

because they're for t he wolf. You be the judge! I say, actions speak 

louder than words! 

Now if this wolf plan is not about saving wolves, what's it all about? 

Fi r s t, it's about money and lots of it. But also, it's about states' 

r i ghts. And the battle focuses on Wyoming's legislature right now. 

There's a bill, HB 214, entitled "Wolves Bounty'' which has passed the 

Wyoming House and is now in the Senate for consideration. The bill has 

thre e mai n provisions : 

1 . The s t a te will pay anyone who shoots a wolf $ 5 00; 

2 . The Wyoming Attorne y General will provide the defense for anyone 

pros ecut e d under the ESA for killing a wolf; 

3. Any public or private entity may contribute to the bounty fund . 

The purpose of the bi l l emphasize s two issues : 

1. Wy oming opposes wo lf reintroduction . They have consistently gone on 

r eco r d opposing wo lf recovery. 

2. The federal gove rnment does not have the right to dump dangerous 

predators in our state without our cooperation and approval. 

That' s the purpose of the bill. It's not to see how many wolves will 

be killed and bountied . 

I c alled Roger Huckfe ldt, the sponsor of HB 214, and asked him if we 

s hou l d s et up a spe ci a l fund whereby folks could contribute showing 

their support for this bill. Mr. Huckfeldt liked the idea. 

So we put out a news r e lease about this special fund. The media in our 

area i s decidedly pro-wolf and, as usual, gave us very little coverage. 

I d i dn't see any ne ws articles at all . However, in spite of the media 

bl ack - out, $3 , 000 was ple dged ove r the weekend jus t by word of mouth . 

By Tuesd a y noon, we ha d $5,500. 

Over 65 pe ople have contributed to this fund, eve n an 87-year- old lady 

dona t e d $25. Pledges have come from Texas, California, North 

Carol i na and other pa rts of the country. 

Fo lks in Idaho and Mon tana have been very supportive as well . Their 

ho pes ar e that if t hey contribute to Wyoming's bo unty fund, their 

s t a t es will take a mo re aggress ive stance agains t the wolf . 

Please understand, I do n't want to see any wolf k illed. But that's 

exac t ly what will happe n to wolve s if the federal government continues 

to for ce wolves down we s tern folk's throats. And you don't have t o 

take my word for it, just look at Montana. The thre e s's -- shoot, 

3 
153 

shovel and shut-up -- have been documented time after time. 

Furthermore, we don't know how to get the federal government's attention on this issue. Wyoming has passed resolutions and gone on record against wolves with overwhelming support of both State houses. 

Did the government listen? No. Is it listening now? No. Ed Bangs of 

the Fish and Wildlife (FWS) stated it didn't matter what Wyoming did 

because "Federal Law supersedes state law and wolves will remain 

protected." (AP, 1/22/95) 

In other words, "Wyoming be damned, you're going to have wolves whether 

you like it or not." 

This proposed law brings the real issue.behind wolves to the fore. 

This is a state's right issue. 

Does the federal government have the right to force Wyoming to live 

with dangerous predators? 

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state the federal government has a right to take such action? 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all federal rights clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution with the Tenth Amendment stating all other 

rights reserved to the states and the people? 

The Wolves Bounty bill and our special fund communicates two things: 

1. Wyoming's citizens and others are behind the Wyoming Legislature and 

their strong stance against wolf recovery; 

2. We're sick and tired of the federal government, particularly Fish 

and Wildlife employees, running roughshod all over our constitutionally-guaranteed rights and not listening to us. 

It you get the message and immediately defund the recovery program, 

transport these wolves back to Canada or to zoos, there will be no wolves killed. 

But if you continue this program, wolves will be killed just as they 

have been for years in Minnesota, Montana and now in North Carolina. 

Whether there's a bounty on the wolves or not won't make a bit of 

difference. 

In conclusion, I want to remind you this issue is not about saving 

wolves. Wolves just happen to be the surrogate for other issues like 

land lock-up, control, money and states' rights. 

Unfortunately, the wolves, Fish and Wildlife's guinea pigs, are the ones that will suffer, not the ones who exploited them. 

4 
154 

ISSUES WHICH MUST BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY ; 

1 . Cl ear l y one of the most devastating impacts on the freedoms of the citi zens of this country is the us urpation of authority by the 

fede ral governme nt and its agencies. 

Any study of history will show that the founding fathers intended 

local government t o be the strongest, then state government since 

"The powers not de l egated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by i t t o the States, are reserved to the States r e spec tively, or t o the people . " (Ame ndment X, u .s. Constitution). 

Fi nally, the weak est o f all governments was to be the federal 

gove rnment. 

Today we have an i l legal government. It has its 

and that simply was not intended by our founding 

supreme law of the land - the U.S . Constitution . following questions: 

nose in everything 

fathers nor by the 

Please answer the 

A. What constitutional authority does the FWS operate under? 

Specifically, where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow for 

the FWS? 

Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution states, "No person shall be held to answer for capital, or otherwis e infamous crime, unless on a prese ntment or indictment of a Grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces , or in the militia, when in 

actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any 

person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy 

of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be 

taken for public use wi thout just compensation. 

B. Based on the last section of this amendment, what right does the 

FWS have to transplant wolves which the DEIS admits will take 

property, i.e. livestock, without due process of law? 

Amendme nt VIII of the U. S . Constituti on states, '~E ssive bail 

shall not be required, nor excessi ve f i nes imposed, nor cruel a nd 

unusual punishments inflicted." 

C. Isn't a $100,000 fine (fine for killing an endangered wolf 

killing one's livestock) excessive when imposed upon a person 

who has a consti tutional right to protect their property? 

D. Isn't wolf recovery a clear encroachment on states• and American 

citizens• rights? 

One reason given for wolf recovery in GYA and central Idaho is 

because of the expanse of public lands in those areas. 

5 
155 

E. Where is the tederal government's conslituti~nal authority to 

own any land except for the seat of governmeht (not to exceed 

ten miles square) and for the erection of forts, magazines, 

arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings (U.S . 

Constitution, Article 1, Section 8)? 

F. If the federal government does not have a constitutional right 

to own land, how can it mandate policy upon it? 

2. Why was the Wolf Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) international 

in scope? (EIS are generally limited to the areas affected by the 

recovery program.) 

3. How can the economic analysis in the EIS be accurate when it only 

covered a small portion of the area impacted? (The EIS specifies 

the Greater Yellowstone Area and central Idaho as the areas analyzed 

economically while the entire states of Wyoming , 90% of Idaho and 

over half of Montana are designated as wolf recovery area . 

4 . The EIS calls for delisting when 10 breeding pairs (approximately 

100 wolves) are successfully breeding in each recovery area. Yet 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife admits it had "not contracted or 

undertaken any studies which deal with minimum v iabl e populations of 

the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf," and added, "there are no records 

in the files of our Denver Regional Office or the Cheye nne Fish and 

Wildlife Enhanceme nt office referencing any specifi c material [which 

were ] used in determining recovery numbers of the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Wolf." (see Dr. Kay's article "Wolves in the West ") 

Dr. Kay concluded "Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

developed its 10 wolf packs, 100 wolf recovery goals with little, or 

no, supporting scientific evidence, all the government's recent wolf 

reco very reports, wolf population models, and studies regarding 

possible impact on big game hunting are arbitrary and capricious. 

'!"hey represent not science but a masterful job of d eception." 

Why is the Fish and Wildlife racing to put wolves in Yellowstone and 

Idaho when they don't even know how many wolves constitute a minimum 

viable population? (The Fina l EIS assumes 10 breeding pa irs 

constitute a minimu vi able population, but admits there's little 

data to support that assumption. Furthermore, the Final EIS article 

did not take into consideration court cases filed by environmental 

groups and court rulings on minimum viable populations.) 

5. An independent investigati on into the conduct of Mr. Ed Bangs and 

his attempt to censure Dr. Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. How c a n a 

government employee attempt to use his position and office as a club 

to silence opposition? 

6 . We're told the purpose of wolf recovery is to establish packs of 

pure wolves in Yellowstone and Idaho. We're also told there's a 

problem with people raising wolf-dog hybrids in the r egion with 

6 
156 

I 

several incidents of these hybrid wolves being dumped out in th e wild. Now how can we recover genetica lly pure wolves with hybrids 

running around? Why did the Fish and Wildlife avoid this issue? 

7. There have bee n outbreaks of bubonic plague and pneumonic plague 1n 

the West from Mont a na to the Southwest. In fact, two people ha ve 

died from these diseases, one in Wyoming and the other in Arizona. 

Furthermore there have been several severe outbreaks of rabies in 

Wyoming , even in Park County which joins Yellowstone on the East. 

Wolves can carry rabies and the parasites carrying the above 

mentioned plagues. Why did the EIS ignore this very serious iss ue? 

8. There needs to be a thorough study of wolves' impacts on endang er ed 

spec ies in the are~. There are two such species - the grizzly bear 

and Selkirk caribou herd which wolve s can and will kill. How can a 

s pecies, not biologically endangered, be reintroduced wh en it is 

known to adversely impact endangered species already in the area? 

9. Low Livestock Depreda tion Numbers -The Final EIS states that 

depredation on wolves would be minimal. The figures they use are 11 documen ted/confirmed" kills from Mi nnesota. Documented/confirmed 

kills are only a small portion of what a predator actually kills . 

10. The 11 Vestcd inter~st" problem must be addressed. Government 

biolog ists mu s t be restricted from profiting from or ass isting with 

any recovery program which they wr i te. For them to write a r e port 

which furth e r s their employment and/or advancement opportunities is 

wrong plain a nd simple. At the least, there must be an indepe ndent 

peer- review of all studies and EIS's before implementat ion. 

11. Will the federal government be liable for punitive damages? 

We have seen many court cases which have awarded punitive damages -

damag es for pain and suffering. Obviously, the courts and juries 

feel there is merit to the case of emotional stress caused by the 

actions of another. In the case of wolf recovery, consider this 

true e xampl e: 

In the early 1900s, a family home steaded in east central Wyoming. 

They had two s mall girls. There was a country school four mil es 

away. Each day the children rode bareback on the family horse to school. The horse was pastured near the school during the day and 

then the children rode the horse home. 

One morning, the horse failed to come in . The father and children 

went to investigate and found that two wolves had passed through 

the area in the night and attacked the horse. The wolves wer e able to rip open the abdominal cavity of the horse, causing the 

intestines to fall out on the ground . Thus, they found the horse , 

still alive, standing on its own intestines. The horse had to be 

killed. 

7 
157 

Will the federal government and its employees be held liable for 

the damages incurred by wolves in the region or will they be 

immune? 

12. The Subspecies Problem. We understand the EIS is based on the 

"Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan." This plan claims the 

subspecies, Canis lupus irremotus (one of 24 subspecies listed in 

"The Wolves of North America" by Young and Goldman), lived in the 

region. This subspecies was exterminated, which raises some questions: 

A. How do you recover an extinct subspecies? 

Also, the entire subspecies listings- by Young and Goldman, are now under scrutiny. Dr. Mech states that "subspecies are nothing more than a local form of the wolf . " The Final EIS states modern 

taxonomists recognized fewer subspecies of the gray wolf. In fact, 

Dr. David Mech has told us that "a gray wolf is a gray wolf is a gray wolf." 

B. So which is it? Are we trying to recover an extinct species or 

just a plain old wolf? 

13. If the federal government says the impacts of wolves will be 

minimal, then there should be payments made and held in escrow of 

the potential loss of hunting opportunities. The government should 

put their money where their mouth is. 

14. Environmental Impact Statements must be written according to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines. We're told 

NEPA requires all EIS must be written by an inter-disciplinary team. The wolf EIS, supporting this recovery effort, was written 

by an inter-agency team . Why? Doesn't the use of an inter-agency team bias the final EIS? After all, the agency, Fish and Wildlife, are the ones who stand to profit from wolf recovery . 

These are but a few important issues which must be thoroughly addressed 

and investigated before any wolf recovery. 

8 

88-881 - 95 - 6 
158 

TEXT OF STATBMENTS TO THB OONGRP.SSIONAL 

OOMMI'n'EB ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

BY FRED BONNBR 

wn.DI.JFB BIOLOGIST AND OUI'DOOR CXJLUMNIST 

GARNBR, N.C. 

JANUARY 26, 1995 

INTRODUcnON 

Severa! year• aso when the fint red wolvea were flown Into Ralaiah·Durham 

International Airport, I wu the only member of the pre~~ to meet the airplane. Don P8tzer, 

public: rdatiom ofllc:cr with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) W81 proud of the wolf 

proaram In !!altern North Carolina and 1 wu a 101ld 1upporter of the new prOJrBID. 

Do.a 1upplled me with reama of baeqrouncl material on the red wolvCiancl all indication• 

were that thi• prosram W81 deatined for auc:c:c~a. 

My opinion~ of the red wolf prosram in North Carolina were 10on to do a 180 dearce 

c:hanse for these rea~en~: 

MISINFORMATION OR DBCEYllON 

AS TO.Rt.JIB FOR TAICINO WOLVES 

When the red wolves were firtt brousht into North Carolina the people of the 1tatc 81 

wcU 81 the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commi11ion (NCWRC) were told by the USFWS 

that the red wolves could be leaaUy shot if they wandered off the Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuse. 

Coyotes are becoming lncreaslnily common across the state and there is a year-round 

open •cason on them. They are con~idered to be vermin and can be ahot oo alaht anytime, 

anywhere. Accordlns to the orJajna! aarecment between the USFWS and the NCWRC, the same rules woulcl be applled to red wolves. 

The USrJWS then adopted Strict resulatlom prohibiting the taldng of wolves except in 

defe111e of human life ancl imposed a penalty of $5,000 and fwe year~ in prison for any violation. 

Sec attached letter from Hal Atkinson or the NCWRC to Gary Henry or the USFWS, the la1t 

doeumcnt in the packet of document I have eiven you. 

~RMATIONORD~ON 

AS TO WHAT WOLVES BAT 

We were 11110 told by the USFWS that the red wolves' diet consisted primarily of amall 

rodent1, fielcl mice, outria and other loss dCiirable animala. Supposedly theae anlmab were "thy 

mel retirina and wouldn't hurt a human under any circulllltancea. 

The USFWS now freely admiu that the diet or the wolvea coosiat of over 60 percent 

whitetail deer. Thillsn't just sick and feeble deer, it's fully arown and healthy deer that these 

anlmala arc eatfn&. Theae wolves have shown they can pull down and ltill an ciaht point buck 
159 

which hal no apparent ailment or dlawe. Our wild turkey huntera •• well as our wildlife 

manaac:ca aro cauemely apprellcrulve about the red wolvca' mip'atina up throuJh the New 

ROIDDkc River Natiooal Wlldllfe Refuae. Mnat biolopatl feel atronaJy that red wulvel and 

c:oyotea do DOt mix well with breedlna wild turkeya. 

The fact that the wnlvea' diet conaiat of moatly dccl doean't mate our lluntera, their 

Jllldea, or their holta In the hotel and reataurant indllltry happy. Huntina Ia a major lnduatry ln 

the impcweriahed areaa of rural Eaatern Nonh Carolina, wbich lw little other Industry beaiclea 

huntlnJ and WmJna. 

Local citizens In the aeneral area of the Rcfu&ea the red wolve~ roBDI ore loslna peu lllld 

livatock to the red wolvea. If you doubt that the reel wolve~ have been taldnJ domealic anlmall, 

juat ask the Flab and WUdllfe Service why they've been payfnllocal people for the 1011 of their 

peta and liveatoc:k. 

Then: have been two near-attackl on hlllllliDJ In the area. 

A bear taucr w11in the AIUptor River National Wlldllle Refu1• at nljht when hla Lnu:k 

broke doWn. AI he h!ltecl out two wolvea came It him at 1 dead run before he turned thotn 

away 'With ahouta and arm motions. A penon 1- aporienCGd In bandlln1 wild anlmall may not 

have been 10 fortunate. 

Steve Barna, an aarouomilt that operatea a N.C. State Unlvcraity Experimental Farm, 

1lvee neat the refllae and wu nearly attacked by two wolva wearina radio c:ollara. Thae anlmaiJ 

came at'lcr BarDC&u be atood with hil pet dot In hla arma In bla front yard. It waa under Cull 

IIJhta and there II no quation that the anlmala were wolva. 

I own a farm in Beaufort County (one of the affected Countla) and frankly wouldn't let 

my arandchftdren play in tha yard if I felt tbaL Lhere were red wolvea around. If theae animal• 

would attack full &rown deer and 10111, they'd attack a yoUDI child. 

I have plc:turea of three red wolva attacldni and 1rilllna a youna black beat In the Cade'a 

Cove area of the Great Smoky MountaiD1 National Park, another red wolf experimental area. Shy prcdatora? 1 hardly thinlt sol 

MISINPOIUofATJON OR DBCtSP'J10N 

AS TO WHAT 1HB RBD WOUJ JS 

Contrary to USFWS' uaerdona, tho red wolf ia not llldltenoua lo Nonh Carolina. lt duel 

not naturally occur In Nortb Carolina. No foull remain• have been found In the atatc, althou&b 

thCJ ~~aft beco found In the aoutbwatem Ualtod Stacee and in tho CliUCIDC aoulhcrn portion 

of the 1011theucan United Statea. A atull fowld wldl India remain~ In Pennayivanla wu moat 

likely ID lll'tJt.ct lalfuired In trade wllh IDdlaDJ !rom Otllet ll'tll. "Jbe red wolf IJ DO loapr 

alateD\ If It ewr alated a a true apecieL My dluiDIInto the blolo&Y of the an ealled ted YoiOll 

-w that the 10 eallld red wdf ll8cl. In fact, ceued to alit yean ap, The red wolva bad 

been trapped 8lld ahot until only alllllll remnant pnp~datloa _.left In lh• Gulf aWea. The few 

IDimall tbat were left had IDtcrbrcd with c:oyoca. Ala pure apeela, there are no more reel wo!Ya. 

2 
160 

F'llh and WUdlife Service papen on tbe red wolf back up the fact that tho 10 ~:~~!led "red 

vmlvel" are indocd hybrid animala. DNA teau ahow aray YIOif an4 coyote orlpaa. 

The Fllll and wildlife Service haa even been puttia& red wolvea in the pena with coyotea 

at tile Alli1ator River National WUdllfe Refuac to uy w breed them. They juat wanted to aee 

what the offapr!na would look Uke and obvioualy were not afraid of hybridlzin& the "red woW..." 

1bia practice haa now been dilconllnucd. However, the beat evidence available lhows the red 

wolf to be a hybrid, not a pure apcciea, that IJ required to be protected ~~nder the law. 

MISREPRBSBNTATION OR 

DEC:m'110N AS TO USPWS" POUCY 

The now famoua caae of Jamca Johnson and the Pilb and WQdllfe Service Is a aood 

eamplc of how the USFWS baa mialcd to tbc people in Eaatcm North Carolina. 

In NOIICimbor 1993 Johnaon wu deer huntina from an elevated tree atand and lhot wbllt 

he tbou&ht wu a coyote at a ranac of aome 300 yArds. The aalmala woi&hccl 40 poundl, which 

ia the aUc: oC a coyote, not 11 wolf. 

lolmaon aent word to Mike Pbillipa of the USFWS to have him come over and check out 

the animal. 

Pbilllpalooltcd ~rcCuUy at the dead animal811d told JohnJon that it waa an immature red 

wolf. Pblllipt and othen have indicated that at ranaea or more than 25 yarda he couldn't tell the 

dlffcrcnc;c In a red wolf and a coyote. He further atatcd that J amca J ohMon had followed the 

letter of the law by caWna and rl!lpOrtiD& the kiU. Held tbu\llht that the animal that held lhot 

wu a coyote and a lepl animal to ahoot. Phillip& told JohnJon that held done nothina WfOIII 

and - tree to ao. 

A few mootba latec the federal game wardena came around to Jamca Johnson'• houae in 

Virsinia Beach, V a. and told him that he waa under inveatiptioo lot ltiUlni 1 red wolf. They 

further 1tatec1 that u· held pay 11 SlOOO.OO fine to the USFWS qeou and do houn of commllllity 

ae:vlce under what they caD a "pr ..... trial detennln.atlon• lhat they'd drop the ioveati1ation. 

It did not aeem to matter to the USFWS that Mr. Johnson did not Intend to shoot the 

wolf. The USPWS took the poaltioo that there was an intentional o"moe If the hunter lntcndW 

to pull the trigcr. 

lt IIlio did not aeem to matter to the USFWS that Mike PhiWpa had previoualy &fvcn to 

Walter Oedle, Mr. Joholon'• r~~m~ manaaer, • loner, a gopy of which Ia in the packet I have 

pen you, to the effect that accidental lcllliq of a wolf would not be the 1ubjeet of any 

J)rOieCUtlon. 

Jalmloa wiMiy olido't buy tbil federal extonioniCbeme and hired aa auomey to ftaht the 

clwrpa. 

3 
161 

To tho credit of the federal proaecuton In North Carolina, they cledlned to piOieCilte 

Johnaon after they'd had a chance to look at the cue. However, the USFWS never witbdrew 

Ita request for a pro~ecutlon, and the cue ended becauac of the U.S. Attorney'• dec:illon. See 

\he aupportlna correapondcnce between Steve Matheuy of the U.S. Attomey'a Office and 

Lawrence Davia, whlch is In the packet of documenu. 

Thla Incident certainly didn't do anythins to bolster the confidence that the citlzcna of 

North Carolina have in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I can a11ure you that the citizenl of 

our area would be very hc:aitant to report any ldllins of a red wolf to any federal aaency becauae 

of their aood reaaons to diltruat the USFWS. 

niB WOU' PROGRAM HAS BBBN EVALUATED AND FOUND TO BB 

UNDBSIRABIB BY BVBRY LBVBL OF GOVBRNMF.NT IN NOR1H CAROLINA 

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission docs not like the red wolf project and 

makes no bones about it. 

Contrary to what the USFWS would like to have other people believe, the local citlzena 

of Ealtem North Carolina do not want red wolves on their land and in fact want the 

pro,ram atoppcd. See resolutions from County Commilsioners of Hyde, Washington and 

Beaufort Counties aa contained in the packet. 

Several ycm ago the USFWS held hearings in Fairfield about the red wolf iSiue. Only 

a few people spoke out in favor of the red wolvca while a vaat majority told the USFWS to "aet 

the wolvca out of here." The Fairfield Fire Hall wu filled to overflowing with anxioua citlzcna 

that niaht and only a handful of them were In favor of the red wolf project. The Hyde County 

Commlasioners have Biked the USFWS to remove all wolves from the county. See resolution 

In packet. 

Local units of government and civic organizations have asked and, finally, told the 

USFWS to get the wolves out of Eastern North Carolina. The USFWS hasn't listened to them. 

Finally the North Carolina State Leplaturc, at the request of two counties close by the 

refuge, baa paued a bill making it legal to shoot and 1till red wolves if they wander off federal 

property and certain auJdclincs arc followed. only Wuhington and Hyde Counties arc affected 

by this controvcrslal-lcgillation but I wouldn't be surprised to ace other Counties falling in line. 

A copy of thil law il at the top of the packet. 

CONCLUSION 

The USFWS tell us that our new anti-wolf law is unconstitutional but attorneys in North 

Carolina fccl otherwile. Red wolves arc not migratory animala and we feel that the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service haa no authority here. We implore you to settle this issue lcsillatively 

becauae of the coat of taking It to the U.S. Supreme Court. It'a goina to be a state's vcrsua federal riJbu luuc. U It docs not have a coun challenge, It will be only becauae of your &ood 

work or because the people of these economically disadvantaged. counties caMot muster the 
162 

fuada to take on the federal aovemment Ia a 1ep1 battle. The rault Ia that the federal 

aovenuaent can loCt WICOIIItitutioaally and unlawfully If dla people it is oppreuiq cannot matcb 

tbe IIMflliiiCIIt'l rCIOurc:a in a court banlc. 

Wbat our new wolf law aaya 11 that if a landowner rcuonably bclievca tbat wolvcl 011 bla 

land arc a threat to penon• or liveatock, he hal to notify the USFWS and aalt that the animall 

be removed, U the USFWS don't act the landowner can ldU tbe wolva. He thea baa to notify 

the USFWS of the ldlllnl. 

The USFWS 11)'1 that they'll pr01ecute anyone who ldlla a wolf 10 I can't lmapne anyone 

rcponi111 that they've killed a wolf to the federal authoritla un!CII fundi can be found for a 

lepl defeme. The penalty for IOIIna could be areat - $.5,000 and five yean Ia jail. 

Recently, before tho new North Carolina Wolf Law took offect, 10mcone abot and ldlled 

two radio coUarcd red wolvel ncar the refuac. The animall were not on the refute. Who knOWI 

bow many non-<:ODarod wolvet without radi01 are beina abot? 

In 1773 10mc SO American Colonist, diaauised a1 Indiana, went aboard ablpa in Bolton 

Harbor and dumped 340 cuca of tea Into the harbor. This revolutionary act Ia called the 

"Bolton Tea Party" and wu one of the thlnp lcadi!IJ up to the Revolutionary War, It was a 

rebclllo111 act apiaat a aovenunent that wu out of hand and It ultimately led to our 

independence from the BritiJh aovernment, a aovemment wbich bad ceaaec1 to Usten to the 

wanu and needs of the cltizcna. 

I wonder bow the "rod wolf Incidents" will&o down in the hlatory boob? 

The members of the current Conpeu have expreaed an llltorelt Ill cutt1aa out 

IUII1IICCIIIry ClpCIIclitura. The Wolf Proaram in North Carolina conauma at !cut $3115,000 

11111ually accordlq to the Une item budpt doeumau Ill the packet. Plcue dcloce this ltclll at 

your earlielt opponunlty and reduce our national deficit by that amount. 

Tbanltyou. 

5 
163 

Teatiaony of JoAD Wood, Idabo Bouae of aepreaentativea 

Before tbe Bouae aeaouraea Ca.aittee 

January 21, 1995 

Madam Chairman, I am JoAn Wood of the Idaho House of 

Representatives. I am the ranking member of the House State 

Affairs committee, Resources and Conservation committee, and 

presently chairman of the House Transportation and Defense. I was the first committee co-chair of the Idaho Wolf oversight 

committee. 

My purpose here is to establish before the committee the 

stand the people of Idaho, represented by its leqislature, have 

taken concerning the federal policies of the re-introduction of 

wolves into our state and region. I aa also here as the 

representative of the state government to demand that, first, the 

Department of Interior immediately cease and desist the releasing 

of wolves into central Idaho, which has been done without the 

consent of the Idaho Legislature or any of its elected officials- as required by Idaho State law; and, second, it abandon this wolf 

re-introduction program entirely, which is both scientifically and-eeonolltieal-1-y· flawed. -- ---

I have a nuaber of items that are pertinent to my testimony that I would at this tiae ask unaniaous consent to be entered in~o ~he reeord. 

I would like to refer to a letter and petition signed by el~otficiala of pur state governaent, including our governor-.-.. .and.over. 21.3 _of __ our_ state leqislature _to __ QUr _ 

Congressional delegation stating a request that the delegation 

demand Secretary Babbitt immediately stop this illegal action. I 

would like to include this letter in the record. 

Let me call your attention to Idaho law, code 36-103, which 

states that wildlife is the property of the state, and that it 

"shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed." We are outraged because of the possible legal liability that has 

been forced upon our state by the unauthorized release of these 

wolves on January 14, 1995. 

Further, Idaho code 36-715, pertaining to wolf/dog hybridizations, which are not protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), requires a biological evaluation be performed on wolves to determine species priority before the Department of 

Fish and Game may take any action in accordance with the u.s. ESA. A request by the legislative committee and the Idaho state 

Veterinarian to quarantine and biologically test, as required by this law, was ignored by the u.s. Fish and Wildlife. This was in 

direct violation of Idaho State law. 
164 

Also, this law (36-715) gives direction to our own Fish and 

Game Department that they not expend funds, transfer assets, or enter into any cooperative agreements w1th any agency, 

department, or entity of the United states Government concerning 

wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute, with the 

exception that one representative participate in the wolf 

recovery team. The total recovery cost for this wolf re- introduction program is estimated to be 6.4 million dollars. We are concerned that Idaho may be forced by federal mandate to pick 

up as much as 25 percent of this cost. This has not been agreed 

to by the Idaho Legislature. The fear of this forced obligation 

is born out by a letter received by Idaho Fish and Game Director 

from Mr. Donald Friberg, Deputy Assistant Regional Director, and a copy of a letter from Minnesota State Director, Richard Wetzel, as to the problems encountered in Minnesota concerning wolf 

depredation and cost to that program. We received a letter also 

from the Wildlife federation under the signature of Thomas France 

Esquire, that once wolf populations are recovered, defenders of 

Wildlife will make a decision about continuing the compensation 

in conjunction with the states and other affected interests. 

Further we charge that the agencies involved did not comply 

with Idaho Code 36-715(b), by not taking into consideration local 

economies, custom, culture, and private property rights. Proper 

notifications were not given for hearings on this matter. In 

addition, sugqestions that the governaent provide funding for 

compensation to livestock owners for all losses and to all people economicel~eeted by~restrictions, among other local 

economic considerations, given to the Fish and Wildlife Services 

by the Wolf oversight committee, of which I was the ranking 

member, __ we.aLc.o.mpl.et~ __ .struck out. of the completed wolf plan. I 

would like to- -inc~ude__a __ capy af _the original plan in the record. 

As early as 1984, the Idaho Legislature sent House Joint 

Memorial 11 to the President, the secretary of Interior, and 

other federal authorities wherein we urged the department of 

Interior and US FG&W service terminate any plans to plant wolf 

populations into Idaho. It is obvious that was ignored. Again 

in 1991, the state legislature sent a memorial (to also be 

included in the record) to the same federal officials (HJM6) 

stating the serious negative impact on the resource base of our state. The federal government responded to this memorial by 

threatening to turn the wolves over to the Nez Pierce Indians, 

who have no plan or process in place whatsoever to handle the 

wolves and compliances required by law. 

We presented in the 1991 memorial five criteria for 

cooperation of Idaho oversight if the reintroduction cannot be 

stopped. I am submitting a copy of Or. Tod Hoffman's testimony an Idaho Veterinarian and ~ember of the Wolf oversight committee as a further witness of my testimony. 

Paqez 
1~ 

In conclusion, we submit to this congressional committee 

that the U.S. F&W under the direction and authority of the 

Secretary of Interior comply with 17.81 of the rules and 

regulations(A) refuted by Dr. Charles E. Kay and also Dr. Edward 

Goldman, renowned scientists in wildlife biology and ecology. 

We alsop request from Congress that you support Senator Kay 

Bailey Hutchinson's legislation to stop any further ESA action in 

Texas, but Idaho as well. 

I am the latest effort by Idaho to petition Congress for 

relief from these recent unwarranted actions of u.s. Fish and 

Wildlife Program, and urge-for a desisting of the wolf and a stop 

to this 6.4 million waste of tax payer money. so far, we have 

been ignored. Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope my state does not 

have to sue our own Federal Government. 

Pagel 
166 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH A11<D WILDLIFE. SERVICE 

Jerry M. Conley, Director 

9 11 :-;.E . IItllk•enue 

Portlatlll. Oregon 9723Z-1 181 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

P. 0 . Box 25 

Boise, Idaho 83707-0025 

Dear Mr. Conley: 

January 12. 1994 

We appreciate the December 27, 1993, letter signed by Tom Reinecker. This letter provided 

information for renewal of the Cooperative Agreement between the Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as required for the continuation of 

the Section 6 Grant Program of the Endangered Species Act. The necessary information has 

been supplied purnuant to Section S(a) of the Cooperative Agreement. Item 2 of Tom's letter 

mentions that your Department's statutory authority to manage the gray wolf is still limited to 

participation in preparing the recovery Environmental Impact Statement for the gray wolf. 

If the 1 994 Idaho l.egillature does not restore your full authority u originally documented in 

your 1979 Memorandulri of lilw, the Service win proceed with a revf- ofyoor Oeparttnent's 

ellglbflity to continue plllticipation in the Section 6 Grant Program. This problem was 

addreSMd In the Regional Director's October 13, 1903 latter to your Department. W1th this 

undemanding, the Service is renewing the Cooperative Agreement for another year. 

Enclosed is a copy of approved Grant Proposal (Form 424) that documents your study 

proposals for endangered and candidate species for FY t 994. As .discussed with Wayne 

Mel qui the 'Estimated Funding' (block 15) was changed ~9 75 percentfederal share and 

'percent ease understand the approval of theQrant-ll>roposal along with the 

the Cooperative Ag..-nent only completes the eligibility requirements to 

participate in the Section S Grant Program of the Endangered Species Act for FY 1 994. 

Funding and recovery actions funded are contingent on appropriations from Congress and 

recovery needs and priorities of the Service. 

If you have any questions, please contact Tom Williams at 503-23·1-6273. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

Donald 

~ /) 

V. Friberg 

z· . c;?--

~ 

Deputy Assistant Regional Director 

Division of Federal Aid 
167 

Jerry Conley. Director Page 2 

We are therefore requesting that action be taken to reatore !uU management authority to your 

agency by October 1, 1994, or it will be necessary for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv1ce to 

reV!- whether the State of Idaho IS eligible to rece1ve Sect1on 6 grant funds for the 

management of threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species. We would like to 

remedy this situation aa soon as poss1ble so our agencies can continue to cooperate in a 

successful and productive threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species program in 

Idaho. 

Sincerely, 

;!//~~~ Reg1onai Director 
168 

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE Of IDAHO 

FdR ......... s..ion-1991 

·· ~ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 6 

BY RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION COHI!ITTEE 

A JOINT MEMORIAL 

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS 

ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION REPRESENTING THE STATE OF 

IDANO IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES . 

We, your Memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 

7 State of Idaho assembled i n the First Regular Session of the Fifty-first Idaho 

8 Legislature, do hereby respectfully represent that: 

9 WHEREAS, the int!!'Oduction of wolves into the Yellowttone National Park 

10 and/or Central Idaho Wi.lderness will have a serious negative impact on the 

ll --- -economic and natural resource base of the state of Idaho; and 

f2 · ·--wHEREAS, the Legislature strongly opposes the introduction of wolves into 

-yj the Yellowstone Nati0ri4't ··pa-rk'4rid70-itFie Central ld&ho Wilderneei·:---··-·-·· 

14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session 

C).__~--F-i-f--ty~-5-t-·Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the1& Senate concurring therein, that we request Congress _to direct the federal Wolf 

_!_~- Management Convnittee to address state concerns ~~wolves are introduced 

18 into the Yellowstone National Park and / or the Central idaho Wilderness. The 

.~- ~= orrmitc ~LSh4tt : ag ~res s tne rot towing: - ------- ·----·-· 

20 (1) Tha t the federal government assume tiability for all livestock, wild21 Life depredation, and personal injury to humans before any wolf 

22 introduction. 

23 (2) That a wolf shall not be protected in any way outside the Yellowstone 

24 National Park boundaries and/or the Central Idaho Wilderness bound25 &ries and shaLl be controlled by state law; or the fede r al government 

26 agree to re i mburse the state of Idaho for actual damage costs and 

27 expenses. 

28 (3) That the federal government allocate sufficient funding prior to wolf 

29 introduction to cover ongoing costs of wolf monitoring, control of 

30 problem wolves and additional monitoring of game populations due to 

31 impacts of wolves. 

32 (4) That baselines be established to assess the number of wolves which 

3J would be deemed acceptable and the impact on game populations which 

34 would be within acceptable Limits in order t o avoid an 1ncrease in 

35 the number o f wolves or impacts on wildlife which would be unaccept36 able. 

37 (5) That an exact process for delisting oe established and funded by the 

38 federal government, prior to introduction. 
.ALAN C. lANCE .. r.::,.;.,;: - ~' '•f""' \ 

Mr. Steve Lechner 

S tafT A norney 

MoWJtain States Legal Foundation 

1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2300 

Denver, Colorado 80264 

Dear Mr. Lechner: 

169 

Q . 

. . 

' 

STATE OF IDAHO 

s""no~ ... olloomltO P. O. IIo•U12D 

BOISE 83720..0010 

January 12, 1995 

-.-. ·'>" J P ~<" oj ,i. ~ ::.·_,-

.) o •=-:.o• :n .. :;:...; 

c ...... .._cL- o.• .. "'" fa t.? :..t .J ;..: c 

~.l .. tltlfl••ourcnO•••soon ; d • :?~ ~- J.; :" i' "'~ 

It bas come to my anention that you are representing the plaintiffs in the case of 

Wyomffig Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt Case No. 94-CV-286-D, United States 

District Cowt for the District of Wyoming. As legislative liaison between the office of 

the Idaho Anorney General, Mr. Alan G. Lance, and the First Regular Session of the 93rd 

Idaho Legislature, I lhouglrthat you might be interested to know that many of the elected 

officials and legislators in Idaho have nmnerous concerns about the propriety of the wolf 

recovery program threatened to be implemented by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 

Idaho. I am anaching for your reference and use a copy of a recent lener forwarded to 

the Idaho Congressional Delegation and signed by both elected officials and state 

legislators. In order for you to appreciate the extent of the concern, Idaho bas only thirtyfive senators and seventy representatives. 

I can also tell you that the office of the Idaho Attorney General is researching the 

possibility of seeking "amicus curiae" status in your lawsuit, and the legal authority to 

insist u.e~!!J!l~~tine of any Canadian wolves. intrQduced intl!Jdallo by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. o;;January 12, !995, the House Resources and Conservation 

Cornrninee of the Idaho Legislature voted to delay any action on the adoption of a 

proposed "Wolf Recovery and Management Plan" until such time as Mr. Ed Bangs of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service can personally appear before the Committee to address the 

concerns described in the anacbed lener. It is my WJderstanding that this hearing is 

-- schediileafiir- fuesday;- January 17, ·1995. The Comminee also adopted a motion ' 

t

equesting that the Governor of Idaho invoke a quarantine of any Canadian wolves until ; 

such time as appropriale medical authorities could certify that introduction of the animals.) 

o Idaho would not pose a health problem. 
Mr. Steve Lechner 

Staff Attorney 

Mountain States Legal foundation 

January 12, 1995 

Page- 2 

170 

I hope that this information will be of assistance to you in your upcoming hearing 

for extension of the injunctive relief granted by the I Oth Circuit Court of Appeals. While 

only my opinion, I believe it is fair to say that extension of the injunction is certainly an 

action favored by a majority of Idaho's elected policy make~. 

Sincerely, 

Legislative Consultant 

fBD/yj 

Enclosure 

UlSlif4 
171 

IDAHO STATE RIFLE • PISTOL ASSOCIATION, Inc:. 

AlfW.t<d With 

Tile Nallonal .... "--aalon 

ofAmellca 

January 17, 1995 

TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO 

HOUSE RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE 

BY 

Mr. Gerry Sweet 

Legislative Chairman 

Idaho State Rifle & Pistol Association 

Scientifically docwnented raean:h conducted by professional wildlife biologist, Dr. lester J. McCann 

Ph.D.(vertebrate zoology). demonstrates the impact of wolves on deer in his book, "A New Day for Wildlife" : 

What we see in the Coronation Island study, and to some extent also in northeastern 

Minnesota, is a wildlife drama in which a wolf population builds up in response to a 

plentiful supply of deer. The deer population is gradually eliminated by a level of predation 

far to areal for the deer population to withstand. Finally the predators themselves begin to 

suffer. In the Coronation Island study, and in the case of certain areas in northeastern 

Minnesota, a balance was never attained; instead the wolves simply exterminated the deer. 

Another expert on the impact of wolf reintroduction is Dr. Charles E. Ka.LJ?!h!l~I:!r.,_JS.!!v.!!!d his doctorate work in 

Y~Uo--:stone National Park. He is the only independently funded ecologist who has extensively studied the 

:.Natural Reguiaiion" concept in Yellowstone National Park. In an article titled "Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone", 

Dr. Kay makes the following comments: 

I. Discussing the goven~mcnt'scomputtr modeb used for wolf recovery in Yellowstone; 

These models lack biological reality. Because of this artificiallimitation(wolves that 

leave the park boundaries just "disappear"), they should not be used as an example of 

,,-- what will happen if wolves are recovered to Yellowstone. 

2. Discussing tlte competition between ll'olvn and hunten; 

It's also been said the wolves and hunters don't compete for the same animals. This 

is not true. They compete directly for the same animals. Both hunters and especially 

guides and outfitters like to kill old aged trophy animals. In all areas of North 

America where data is available, wolves killed a disproportionate number of old aee 

\ males ... V >sl big game populations in Wyoming and throughout the west are already 

1

/ harvest<: · 11levels close to maximum sustain yield. If wolves arrive, anterless deer 

and elk 1 ·mits would have to be reduced or eliminated. If you read the "wolves for 

YellowSI ••" report very carefully, way in the back, a modeling was done by Vales 

and Pee~ fthe University of Idaho. They even say this. 
172 

,\. UoM.'U~~IIIJ! Uu.' n:otUSlU; JUI~MUIIIIU:~ Ul n ul1 l:UIUft)l. 

Whik th~..: \\nlf j.,. listed as I."Hhl.'r '-·ndangt:r\.·J or tlm:ah:n...-d spccil.!'s. huntmg ,,r 

trapping ''ill not hi.' all(mL'J. ·1 hroughout thL· Wolf R~t·overy JlJan. they sa~ if \\Oif 

j)Opulations do limit ungulatl.' num~rs. L:ausing an JLhersc: effect on hun11ng 

llppnrtuniliro:s. they will do wolf control to try to remon: the wolves and incn:as ~.: 

ungulates. You should be aware that v.·olf contml will never be allowed. !-'irs: or all. you'll never be able to poison wolves. and you'll never be able to shoot them 

from the air. 

During the wolf management committee meeting in Boise.ldaho. which took place in 1991. I had the opportunit~ 

to participate in a \\·orkshop group with a Mr. Hank Fischer from ''Defenders of Wildlife:" . ln order to accuratd: 

e\aluate this opportunity. I tape recorded the workgroup session. In reviewing the recording. it would seem that 

Mr. Fischer intentionally misrepresented the impact wolves would have on wildlife and consequently Idaho's 

hunters and other sportsmen. In fact. Mr. Fischer suggested that wolf reintroduction was a foregone conclusion. 

and we had better accept it, like it or not! Is this the way in which the wolf management committee was instructed 

to conduct meetings and solicit input? 

/ 

(Dr. McCann and Dr. Kay are leading authorities on wolves and other predators and their affects on wildlife 

pubti ons. I am not sure of Mr. Fischer's credentials. however. to have ignored or intentionally misrepresented 

", the serious impact that wolves will have on Idaho's deer and elk populations is totally inappropriate and 

'unacceptable. 

(__ 

The justification for reintroducing wolves into central Idaho was based almost entirely on false information 

regarding deer and elk populations and harvests provided to the federal wolf recovery team by Idaho Fish and 

Game biologists Jerome Hansen and Jon Rachael. This data claimed n:a:a&e deer and elk population densities 

throughout the entire 20.700 sq. mile wolf recovery area that are·six times higher than the average density of live 

animals counted by helicopter in the best deer and elk units. The data also claimed annual average deer and elk 

harvests by hunters that exceed the density of live animals counted. This highly exaggerated population and 

harvest data was the basis for claiming minimal wolf impact on big game harvest by hunters and therefore on 

domestic livestock. The alleged abundance of ungulate prey species was also the sole basis for the bold assertion 

that public and private land use, property values and other endangered species would not be adversely affected by 

tht:" woh·es. 

ARTICLE V OF THE BILL OF RJGHTS of The Constitution for the United States commands: " ... nor be deprived 

of life, liberty, or property, witlro111 d11e process of law; nor slra/1 priv11U property be taken for p11blic use without 

just compensation." The wildlife of Idaho (deer. elk. etc.) belong to the people ofldaho. The USFWS and an~ 

other Federal agency have no lawful authority to intoduce wolves into Idaho, and deprive us of our property, unless 

we enter into a contract or agreement with them. 

Finally. this adds up to be another unfunded federal mandate, and violates the lOth amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 'W'e all know that Idahoans will eventually have to pay for man)' costs associated with this program 

that the LiSFWS have neglected to make us aware of. 

\ 1r. ticrr~ S wcct 

67 N\1' ~ St. 

Meridian. Idaho 83642 

l"urk l'hone. RRK-~'111 

llume l'hone : RR J- 1085 
173 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. II 

BY RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE 

I A JOINT MEMORIAL 

2 TO PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM CLARK, SECRE3 TARY OF AGRICULTURE JOHN R. BLOCK, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND 

4 SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF TilE UNITED STATES IN CONS GRESS ASSEMBLED, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL 

6 RESOURCES CO!!ItiTTEE, THE CHAIRIIAN OF THE HOUSE INTERIOR AND INSULAR 

7 AFFAIRS CO!!ItiTTEE, THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION REPRESENTING THE STATE 

8 OF IDAHO IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE GOVERNORS OF THE 

WESTERN STATES. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

Yi~ 39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

We, your Memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of 

the State of Idaho asse•bled in the Second Regular Session of the 

Forty-seventh Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully represent that: 

WHEREA~, the latest U. S . Department of Interior Northern Rocky Mountain 

Wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) Recovery "Technical Review Draft" identifies 

as "The Idaho Recovery Area" the Selway Bitterroot, River of No Return, 

Sawtooth and the Gospel H~p wilderness areas totaling about 3 . 75 million 

acres as well as about 3 •illion acres of U.S. For~st Service lands no~ 

•anaged as MUltiple use; and 

WHEREAS, th~ North~rn Rocky Mountain Wolf Recov~ry Draft Hanage~nt 

guidelin~a call _for exr:-rea-curtat1.8ea~ of -.altiple u•e act.ivitie• ontho•e taad• tncozltorated. iii'to'"- anY volt . recovery· plan;·· ancf 

WHEREAS, the vast 11ajority of testimony given at public hearings held 

in Idaho in regard to a wolf recovery project as w~ll as co-.ents su~itted 

by the public on the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan 

·-..-laintlT , oppou aay wolf recovery plan on .lao4a DQV .. DaJed for 

.ultiple u•e and, indeed, to the entire Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan itself; and 

WHEREAS, the environmental conditions that existed a century ago that 

were conducivl'! to wolf habitat. no longer exist today. particularly on lands 

now managed for multiple use; and 

WHEREAS, thl'! Minnesota Wolf Recovery Plan has shown that the State has 

no effective control Measures once the wolf population is restored . 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the ..,,.bers of the Second Regular 

Session of the Forty-seventh Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that the United Statea Depart.llent 

of Interior._Fi.ab aod Wildlife Service i.a hereby ur-a:ed to teminate any pro- .t- ac.. to reeatabli•h wolf populati.oaa in the State of Idaho that would deny ~ 

Idahoan• their hiatoric riahta and privileae• on federal lands now .. naaed •• -tuple uae .- --·- · 

BE IT -ftiRfHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the House o f Representatives be, and ahe is hereby authorized and directed to forward copies of 

this He111orial to President Ronald Reagan, Secretary of the Interior William 

Clark, Secretary of Agri c ulture Joha R. Block, the President of the Senate 
174 

and the Speaker of the House of RepresentatiVE' S of the United States in 

2 Congress assembled, the Chit.irman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

3 Connittee, the Chairman of the House Intt!rior and Insular Affairs Commit4 tee, the congre!ssional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the 

5 Congress of the United States, and the Governors of the western states. 
175 

January 19, 1995 

~o: lO.bo Bt&ta L6g1alatora "atural Raaourca Conaittea 

I raa~ctfully requaet that BOla& County be allowed to coordinate on the wol'f ~~~~magemant plan an4 that public hearioqa ba 

ha14 1n Boiaa county prier to any tevtalatioa action . 
176 
177 

PugetSound 

Mus~um of Natural History 

(. March 8, -1979 ~) 

-......._ _______ ----------- EXAIUNATION OF CANID SKUt.L 

Identified as seized property #26401, seized 11-1-78 from David Howard, from 

Smith Ferry, Lobo Lodge, Idaho - identified as one wolf skull 

This specimen is examined in the. ~useum where there is a large collection of Canid 

skulls for direct comparison. The skull is a large skull which has been prepared 

by apparently boiling and r~moval of a majority of the flesh. It is in very good 

general condition and according to the wear o~ the teeth and the closure of the 

sutures appears to represent a fully adult an:~al. From the size (280 mm. in 

greatest length) it would correspond to an ad:llt male 1wlf. The only point of 

damage is the upper right incisor which is fractured. There is no evidence that 

this fracturing was doile by gunshot Hound, an:: co•Jld just as Hell huve happened 

from a fall or an agonistic activity. The characteristics of the skull fit nicelJ 

Hith those of the wolf (Canis luous). The sc.o-ot is r:10derately elo:oeated (170 mm. 

in the preorbital extension). ~orbital ~~~1~ c~ the rieht side is 42° and on 

the left is 45° (generally wolves have anr;lcs of les3 than 45° and dogs more than 

53°). The incisors meet and overlap. The up?~!" canine is lG.l mi!l. in anteriorposterior diameter (in wolves this is grca~er ~han 11 run.). The upper canine 

extends below the alveolar margin. The special confirnation of the anterior and 

upper portion of the skull is important. 'This i~cludes the follov,ing characters: 

The brow is less distinct.. The forehead is l2ss ste:;>ped up. The sinuses are less 

inflated. 

In all of these characters the skull meets or exceeds the rather particular criteria 

for wolf skull. 

DIAG~OSIS: Holf skull, ~ luous. 

1\[..J/dlr 

!}1!1~L~ Hu:-ray L. Johnson 

Curator of !·lammals 
178 
Don & Thelma Mauhews 

Box 407 

Cascade, ID 83611 

179 
180 

OEP.r.RTMEHT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. FISH .r.HO WILDLIFE SERVICE 

OIVIIIOH OF L4W ENFORCEMENT 

"" NO. INV e.:Jilli_!'L _ _ 

Interview with a witness Donald Mathews P.O. Box 407, Cascade, Idaho 

regarding the wolf incident. The interview was done at Donald Mathews 

home at 5: 30pm 11/16/78. Conservation Officer Brent Hyde and Joseph 

Bross were present during the interview. 

Donald Mathews stated that he and Donald NITZEL went hunting in the Deer 

creek area of Van ey county on the opening of Deer season 10/11/78. They' 

met an old llldn and his wife . The old n said he had killed a wolf. They 

examined the critter and also concluded it was a wolf. Donald NITZEL wanted 

the wolf so he gave the old man a check for $50.00 for the wolf. They than 

loaded the wolf into Donald 11athews pick up and hauled it to Alfred NITZEL 

ranch in Cascade, Idaho. Mathews had a photograph with he and his wife 

taken with the wolf. Donald 11athews reported that he heard later that Donald 

R. NITZEL had so 1 d the wolf for 150.00 to the lobo Lodge. 

Interview concluded at 6:00 ~ 11/10/78 . 

,,. . SA Wi 11 i am . w. Jla l.stea.d ___ _ 

NOTf:- r .. •S O O CUN£Nf 1.1 1A. n•~ .. rlhl f:: ll At. ( ( J .. ,..l ... D"'l l;) .. '> .. ~ CQN IU~If"IN S C; r Tot( OIVI~ I() "' Of LAW (NrORC( ... [ •l l , 

U 5. r1 1-1 "NO wHLOLJr£ r. "'lo'I C" l' , IT IS T .. £ 1-'ru ) "lllT 1 ()r y,.,., O•VI~ION A."'O I~~ Q A .. f. O TO T (l UII ,t. C, I,ti C". Y IT JlNO IT S C O .. 

TO" .. TC ..... .,nT ,.n AO" ni <.T Cjo .. OI T (') 0i'T'i-''lJ: f'\": ;>!r'!'L"utr,·[!l~ " 
181 

Working for the Nature of Tomorrow • 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 1400 Sixteenth Street, N.W.. Washinston, D.C. 2003&-22&& (202) 797-&800 

STATEMENT OF moMAS J, DOUGHERTY 

WESTERN DIVISION STAFF DIRECTOR 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FmERATION 

BOUlDER, COLORADO 

WOLVES BELONG IN THE WFST 

Before tbe U.S. House of Represeatatlves 

Resoun:es c ........... 
182 

I. ~ODUC110N 

Honorable Chairman and members of the Committee, JOOd momin&. I am Tom 

Dougherty, the Western Division Staff Director for the Nation's llqest conservation 

education orpnization, National Wildlife Federation (NWF). I ovcnee all of NWF's efforts 

in the West. 

I am a Wyomin& native with a long history of involvement in the c:onseiVation and 

recovery of our proud watem heritaae. I bepn worldJII on wolf restoration in the west in 

198,. I was then appointed to the Wolf Manqement Committee by former Secretory of 

Interior Manual Lujan in 1990. I abo have practical work experience with the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA or Act) and bow it affects landowners, ranchers and other members of the 

regulated community in the West. 

Let me say at the outset that this eleventh-hour attack on the wolf reintroduction 

program for Yellowstone and central Idaho is totally unjustified. As I will explain in detail 

in a moment, this program is a carefully-crafted compromise that was developed after an 

unprecedented period of scientific review and opportunity for input from all affected 

interests. We now can say with absolute confidence that the science is airtight and that 

reintroduction is broadly-supported and in the public interest. 

There has been much rbetoric about the federal government moving too rapidly and 

autocratically pushing wolf reintroduction down the bureaucratic throat of unwilling western 

states. Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress set this program in motion and 

assured that all affected interests both private and public would have countless opportunities 

for meaningful input to customize this program to fit their needs. The federal government 

has gone the extra mile to address the concerns of states - and the agricultural community --

with its proposal. As the senior Republican Senator from Wyoming has recognized, a true 

compromise has been achieved and the most significant issues have been addressed. 

NWF has been involved with the wolf reintroduction proposal since its inception. For 

example, NWF developed and distributed its award winning "wolf boxes• to primary and 

secondary schools containing a complete curriculum on wolves and their environment. 

Approximately 20,000 students in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming use the wolf boxes each 

year. 

During public comment periods, our grassroots members from all across the Nation 

responded time and time again with the clear J11e35a&e that they want wolves. It is on their 

behalf that we have committed scientific, legal and other professional resources for over 10 

years to help make wolf reintroduction a reality. NWF will continue its advocacy until 

wolves have successfully returned to the Rockies. 

My purpose in being here today is to help separate reason from rhetoric, fact from 

fiction. Let us recognize our opponents' unrelenting and unjustified opposition for what it is: 

simple obstructionism on behalf of narrow economic interests. Such tactics ignore the 

broader public interest and ultimately produce nothing but stalemate. 
183 

-2-

n. THE REINTRODUCI'ION PKOCESS TO DATE 

A. Public lnvolftlllellt 

The process of evaluatin& the public: concems regarding wolf reintroduction has been 

long and arduous and is without comparison in the history of the federal endangered species 

program. The project leaders bave wormt overtime to collect, review and incorporate the 

full spectrum of public views on wolf reintroduction in the West. I will attempt to highlight 

some of the more significant efforts. 

From 1989 to 1992, federal biologists made a tolal. of 268 preaeotalions to 11,725 

people and received feedback from local residcots. During March 1992 notices of •open 

houses" were sent to interested parties in the three affected states. During April of 1992 

open houses were held, 27 in the 3 states and 1 nationally. During June of 1992, a summary 

of public concerns was published and mailed to about 16,000 people who wished to 

participate in the process. Three hearings on the draft proposal were held in Montana, 

Idaho, Wyoming, Salt Lake City, Denver, Seattle and Washington D.C. By the close of the 

comment period, over 160,000 comments were received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) regarding this proposal. This was by far the largest number of comments 

ever received on a Service proposal - an indication of the great importance of wolves to the 

American people. 

B. State lnvol._. 

The atrectCd states have had a special relationship with the federal government 

regarding the wolf reintroduction proposal since its inception. The states of Wyoming, Idaho 

and Montana have had the opportunity to dilcuss ud affect the desip of the wolf 

reintroduction proposal from day one. The states bave been asla!d and encouraaed to 

develop cooperative lllllllllplllelt plans with the federal government to manaae the 

reintroduced wolves and their pruceoy. The FWS has worked clolely with the state wildlife 

aaencies to assure the project would enjoy the benefits of the largest number of professional 

penpectives possible. 

The FWS has abo worked with the state Jecillllures and IOYaDOI'I to assure that they 

were continually involved with the evalQIIion process. For eumple, the FWS met with the 

CcJnaressional cWeption from the affected states in March of 1992. Abo, the Idaho 

Ieaislalure paacd a bill to allow FISh and Game to puticipUe in the process in March of 

1992. In June of 1993, the project teut met with the ldlho 1t111e Jeajllalive oversight 

commiuee and in January of 1993 they met with the Idaho Sallie Nllural Raoun:es 

Commiuee and Montana Sallie Commiaee. A request was received from Senator (thenRep.) Crai& Thomas (lt-WY) for comnient Clttr:nsioft and in Oc:taber 1993 the deadline was 

extended. 
184 

- 3-

As a result of the interactions with the states, the following comments were received 

in support of the final proposal. . 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department stated on September 23, 1993 regarding 

the reintroduction proposal: "The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

conditionally supports the Preferred Alternative. This alternative incorporates many of the 

mitigative measures outlined by the Wolf Management Committee, but does not violate legal 

provisions of the Endangered Species Act. It also appears to accomplish recovery goals li1..Jl 

minimum cost (emphasis added). Under Alternative l, recovery would be attained more 

rapidly, thereby lessening the time to delisting and implementation of State management 

outside of National Parks and Refuges. We further support inclusion of the entire State of 

Wyoming in the experimental population area as it will allow maximum management 

flexibility in dealing with dispersing wolves prior to delisting. • The final plan allows each of 

the conditions identified by WGFD to be satisfied in the context of the state cooperative 

management agreement. 

The Director of the Idaho Fish and Game Department wrote on September 27, 1993: 

"For the record, I would like to take this time to acknowledge our support for the 

Experimental Rules on proposed establishment of nonessential, experimental populations of 

gray wolves in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. • 

The Director of the Montana Department Fish, Wildlife and Parks wrote on October 

13, 1994 regarding the proposed reintroduction of wolves into Montana: "We support the 

d~:signation of these reintroduced populations as experimental nonessential." 

Wyoming Governor Mike Sullivan responded on October 15, 1993: "if wolves are to 

b~: in the Yellowstone area, there are advantages to Wyoming to have their presence in the 

area structured. Those advantages would be lost if wolves were to naturally colonize the 

area ..... • Governor Sullivan went on to state: "I am willing to accept reintroduction 

provided that . . . • and continued by listing 5 conditions that needed to be met. Those 

conditions were: states have ability to manage wolves outside of Yellowstone; no additional 

land use restrictions would be placed on areas outside the Park; compensation would occur 

efficiently; sport hunting would not be curtailed; and delisting would occur as soon as 

recovery targets are achieved. The final plan allows each of these conditions to be satisfied 

in the context of the state cooperative management agreement. 

The previous citations from the affected states and examples of outreach by the 

federal government show the states have been and will continue to be a meaningful partner in 

the wolf recovery program. 
185 

- 4-

m. DESIGNATION AS A NONESSENTIAL EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION- A 

WORKABLE COMPROMISE 

The current reintroduction plan represents a compromise of affected interests, one that 

provides the flexibility needed to ensure the success of the program and assure no negative 

impact either to the lifestyle or the economy of those living in the area. Those who 

participate meaningfully in this process have had their substantive concerns addressed. 

Throughout this long debate, NWF has maintained that it is biologically possible to 

restore wolves to Yellowstone and maintain the lifestyle of the Yellowstone area. We have 

long advocated that addressing human concerns are a vital component of designing successful 

restoration programs for endangered species. We believe the most appropriate mechanism to 

accomplish these mutually beneficial goals is under the nonessential experimental designation. 

Congress understood the need to provide these flexible management options for restoring 

endangered species so that restoration could be undertaken with a minimum of impact to 

local lifestyles. 

NWF has a long history in supporting nonessential experimental reintroductions: red 

wolves in North Carolina and black-footed ferrets in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. 

We urge the committee to contact those Wyoming ranchers with several years of experience 

with the black-footed ferret reintroductions for input regarding the effectiveness of utilizing 

the flexible provisions of the ESA to maintain· their lifestyle and economic viability. The 

Wyoming ferret reintroductions have shown that professional wildlife managers can achieve 

biological success while working within the existing social and economic context. 

These examples illustrate that endangered species restoration efforts do not result in losses of 

economic opportunity and lifestyle. There is no reason to believe that the result would be 

different with reintroduced wolves. 

The use of the "nonessential experimental" designation has enabled the federal 

government to make concessions to ranchers and other economic interests that would not 

have been possible if wolves were not reintroduced into the Northern Rockies region. 

Without such a special rule, wolves might ultimately have migrated into the region and 

received the full protections of the ESA. 

For this reason', the use of a special rule was supported by U.S. Senator Alan 

Simpson. In a September 13, 1993, letter to one of his constituents, stated: "This 

designation (nonessential experimental) is much better than having them listed as 

"threatened" or "endangered" because it allows rinchers to harass wolves that come near 

their livestock and to shoot those that are caught in the act of killina livestock. The 

preferred alternative would make federal qcncies responsible for controlling "problem 

wolves, • but it would allow the 1ta1e to take the lead in manaainl wolves that stray outside 

the Park. 
186 

- 5 -

IV. AMERICANS SPEAK OUT: WE WANT WOLVES 

The majority of the American people support wildlife conservation, endangered 

species recovery and wolf reintroduction on public lands of the west. A recent Times Mirror 

survey indicates that n percent of Americans want either to maintain or strengthen 

endangered species protections. Other polls have surveyed public attitudes regarding wolf 

reintroduction, including attitudes of those who live in areas cunently occupied by wolves 

and areas proposed for reintroduction, and have consistently shown strong public support. 

The following are the most significant measures of this public support. 

McNaught (1985) found that visitors to Yellowstone National Park favored wolf 

reintroduction by 3 to 1. Further, visitors agreed by a margin of 6 to 1 that •a presence of 

wolves would improve the Yellowstone experience. • 

Lenihan (1987) surveyed Montana residents and found that a majority (52%) approved 

of wolf reintroduction into areas of Montana, Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. This 

study also noted that the majority of respondents supported a compensation program for 

ranchers who lose livestock to wolves and that ranchers should be able to protect their 

livestock from attacks by wolves. 

Bath and Phillips (1990) and Bath (1991) conducted surveys showing that 43.7% of 

Montanans, 48.5% of Wyoming residents, and 56% of Idaho residents favored wolf 

reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park. Significant percentages of respondents had no 

opinion regarding wolf reintroduction. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department surveyed Wyoming residents and found 

44% favored wolf reintroduction and 34.5% opposed reintroduction (Thompson 1991). 

Thompson also found 14\11, of those opposed would change their opinion if a livestock 

depredation compensation proaram was part of the reintroduction protocol. 

More recently, Freemuth (1992) asked: "Do you favor or oppose having wolves in the 

wilderness and roadless areas of central Idaho?" He found 72% of Idaho residents favored 

wolves, 22% opposed wolves and the remainder had no opinion. Duffield et al. (1992) 

found respondents of.a national survey favored wolf m:overy by a margin of 2 to 1. Only 

4-6% of respondents agreed with the statement that they disliked even the idea of wolves 

being present in Yellowstone National Park. 

In the most recent survey, Manfredo eta!. (1994) showed 70.8% of Colorado 

residents supported wolf reintroduction into Colorado. This support was consistent on the 

more rural and ranch based western slope of Colorado where 65.1% supported 

reintroduction, while 73.8% of east slope residents &wrcd reintroduction. 
187 

- 6-

V. MISCONCEPI'IONS ABOUT RISKS TO LIVESTOCK 

The rhetoric regarding wolf predation has greatly overslated actual livestock losses 

attributable to wolves. Annual livestock losses around Yellowstone National Park arc 

currently about 8,340 cattle and 12,993 sheep. Based on dala from areas with existing wolf 

populations, we can estimate that ten breeding pairs of wolves introduced into Yellowstone 

will be responsible for an additional 19 cattle and 68 sheep lost- an increase of only oneQuarter of one percent. 

In 1993, 87 wolves were reported to be living in the state of Montana. Yet there 

were no wolf depredations of livestock in 1993 - despite several packs of wolves denning in 

areas ~sed by high densities of livestock. 

About 2,000 wolves currently live in Minnesota, where they frequently encounter 

livestock in their habitat. From 1979 to 1991, cattle taken by wolves in Minnesota averaged 

23 calves and 4 adults per year. Sheep losses during the same period averaged about 50 per 

year. This is an average depredation rate of . 012 percent for cattle and . 211 for sheep. This 

is hardly a significant depredation rate for livestock living in the vicinity of 2,000 wolves. 

In Alberta Canada, the Department of Agriculture has shown the majority of 

compensation paid out to livestock damages were for coyote depredations not wolf 

depredations. In fact, studies show wolves harass and kill coyotes when the two species 

occur in the same area. 

Finally, Defenders of Wildlife has established a compensation fund which pays fair 

market value for livestock lost to wolves in these three states. This compensation fund has 

been operating for several years in Montana, and Defenders has a proven record in 

responding with payment for documented wolf kills. 

VI. TilE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973 to provide a blueprint for this 

Nation to not only protect declinin& species but to recover them. The Act recognized that 

the biological wealth of this country was an important resource-- economically, ecologically, 

recreationally, spiritually - and that we could only continue to imperil species at our 1m11 

peril. While opponents of endangered species conservation mistakenly claim that the ESA 

puts animals and plantS before people, this political rhetoric belies the entire philosophy of 

the Act. The Act makes clear that we must conserve species for our own well-being: to 

provide medicines; to supply genetic variety to maintain resilient food crops; to ensure a 

sustainable supply of fish, timber and other harvested food and fiber resources; to provide 

recreational opportunities; and to maintain the ecological systems that support us. Gray 

wolves arc an essential component of the Yellowstone and central Idaho ecosystems -- the 
188 

- 7-

health of which is key to the local economy and quality of life in the region. 

The track record of the Endangered Species Act reflects its abiiities to protect and 

recover species while accommodating short-term economic interests. According to the 

Service's recent report to Congress, the decline of 40 percent of the species listed under the 

Act has been stopped or reversed, despite the fact that habitat destruction - which is not 

easily reversed -- is a major cause of decline. Furthermore, this progress was accomplished 

with minimal economic impact. Of the more that 145,000 consultations conducted from 

1979 to 1992 on federal projects (or private projects requiring a federal permit), only 69 

projects -- less than one percent -- were canceled due to species conflicts. 

The recent release of gray wolves into Yellowstone and central Idaho represents a 

major milestone on the long road to recovering the gray wolf, and provides a graphic 

illustration of the inclusive public involvement process provided by the Endangered Species 

Act. The Act ensures that management decisions arc based on sound science and arc 

thoroughly reviewed by the public -- including scientists, businesSes, landowners and other 

affected interests. 

Some of the opponents of wolf reintroduction have asserted that this program 

infringes on their property rights. As with so many other attacks on the Endangered Species 

Act, this charge is inaccurate. 

How are property rights harmed by this proposal? If you define property rights 

broadly to mean the right to an economic livelihood, you will find that the livelihoods of the 

people of the Northern Rockies region will benefit, not suffer, by the wolf reintroduction. 

The enormous anticipated increase in tourism dollars alone would justify this effort. 

Ranchers will also likely benefit economically as coyotes, the most serious predator on 

livestock, arc preyed upon by wolves. 

Some ranchers have argued that their ability to earn a living will be drastically 

curtailed due to wolf predation on livestock. But as discussed earlier, the concerns about 

livestock mortality from wolves arc overstated. Moreover, the special rule governing the 

wolf reintroduction accommodates ranchers' interests in numerous ways. Among other 

things, it allows ranchers to shoot wolves when their livestock is attacked; it imposes 

virtually no land-usc restrictions on private landowners, even when wolves create dcnning 

sites on their land; and for ranchers with grazing allotments on public lands, it waives the 

normal restrictions of Section 7 of the ESA. This wolf reintroduction demonstrates the 

enormous flexibility of the ESA to accommodate economic interests, while still promoting 

the recovery of endangered species and their ecosystems. 

Some extremists have suggested the wolves themselves arc private property if they 

dare to enter private land, and that under such circumstances landowners should be allowed 

to do with the wolves as they please. 1be courts have repeatedly rejected this argument. It 
189 

- 8-

is a well-established tradition in this country -- an important departure from feudal law -- that 

wildlife belongs to all of the people and that the government manages wildlife as a trustee on 

behalf of all the people. 

NWF is a strong supporter of private property rights and believes that the FSA should 

be improved to provide additional conservation incentives for private property owners. We 

also strongly support use of the Fifth Amendment takings clause to ensure that landowners 

affected by regulations that severely restrict the use of private property are compensated. 

But the FSA has never restricted the use of private property to such an extreme degree that 

the Fifth Amendment takings clause was implicated. As this wolf reintroduction program 

demonstrates, the FSA is a flexible tool for restoring endangered species and their 

ecosystems while accommodating the needs and economic interests of numerous stakeholders. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, I am sure you will continue to hear from those who cry foul over this 

proposal and many will use their irrational fear of wolves to accomplish their own hidden 

agendas. I would like to close with a statement that succinctly describes the debate over wolf 

reintroduction. These words are not mine but are the words of the Federal Court when it 

made its decision regarding the appeal by the American Farm Bureau to stop this project. 

The court said that the reintroduction opponents "offered only fear and speculation of some 

livestock depredation in the indefinite future. (Their) reliance upon anecdotal evidence from 

the turn of the century is insufficient when confronted with the persuasive scientific 

testimony that the present circumstances surrounding the Yellowstone and central Idaho 

ecosystems are markedly different from those of earlier times. • 

It is time to separate fact from fiction and to choose our path based on knowledge and 

a realistic look to the future. Thank you. 

88-881 - 95 - 7 
190 

BmUOGRAPHY 

Bath, A.J. 1991. Public attitudes in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho toward wolf 

restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Trans. North Am. Wild!. & Nat. 

Resour. Conf. 56:91-95. · 

Bath, A.J. and C. Phillips. 1990. Statewide surveys of Montana and Idaho 

resident attitudes toward wolf reintroduction in Yell ow stone National Parle. 

Report submitted to FriendS for Animals, Natl. Wild!. Fed., USFWS, NPS. 

38pp. 

Duffield, 1. 1992. An economic analysis of wolf recovery in Yellowstone: Parle 

visitor attitudes and values. Pages 2-JS to 2-87 in J.D. Varley and W.G. 

Brewster, eds. Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the United States 

Congress, Volume 4, Research and Analysis. NPS, Yellowstone National 

Park, Wyo. 

Freemuth, 1. 1992. Public opinion on wolves in Idaho: Results from the 1992 

Idaho policy survey. Boise State Univ., Boise, Idaho. Jpp. 

Lenihan, M.L. 1987. Montanans ambivalent on wolves. The Montana Poll. Bur. 

of Bus. & Econ. Res., School of Bus. Admin. , Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 

6pp. 

Manfredo, M.J., A.D. Bright, 1. Pate, G. Tischbein. 1994. Colorado Residents' 

Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Reintroduction of the Grey Wolf «&nii 

illl!JW into Colorado. ColotState Univ. Report No. 21, 99pp. Colo. State 

Univ., Ft. Collins, Colo. 

McNaught, D.A. 1985 Parle visitor attitudes toward wolf recovery in Yellowstone 

National Park. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 103pp. 

Thompson, T. 199f. Attitudes of Wyoming residents of wolf reintroduction and 

related issues. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept., Cheyenne, Wyo. 43pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994. The Reintroduction of Grey Wolves To 

Yellowstone National Parle And Central Idaho. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. 550pp. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington D.C. 
1 

' . l •,,. ~~"·"' " 

I I 

~· ~' • . .:. ! "'Eoi,IJQU"FHE RS 

TT7 Po.! Ro.c:!. 5\1 .. 205 

o-n, Conn.e!ie~ 01820 

(203) fl$6.1$22 

FAX· t20J) ti51Hl2417 

, .. ,~y. Roon\212 

,...,_., ,...,~10023 

(212) 2.7-1120 

FAX t212J!IC~ 

,; • 'll '') ,; f. G~ I'I E 

2000" S"-1 tNf. SIN 4 15 

Wlllllil'lf'On. OC20031 

1202l ztl&.2172 

I'AX' (202) 211-21to 

191 

Friends of Animals 

COMMENTS 

On Wolf Reintroduction For 

Friends 

of 

Animals 

House Committee On Resources Oversight Hearing 

Friends of Animals reconfirms its support for the reintroduction of grey wolves 

into Idaho and other portions of this species' historical range, particularly 

Yellowstone National Park and environs. 

It is the considered opinion of Friends of Animals that the recent 

frenetic outburst of opposition to the reintroduction of wolves is a noisy 

gesture of desperation by small special-interest groups, and should be 

ignored. We believe that this opposition is an expression of self-serving 

avarice which attempts to disrupt well-planned projects which are being 

undertaken for the ecological and economic benefit of the nation. 

Certainly, the numerous public hearings and surveys, the detailed 

analyses conducted for environmental impact studies, the wide media 

coverage, and other avenues of dialogue over recent years have provided 

more than adequate opportunity for all opinions to be fully and fairly 

expressed. It is to the credit of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, and other 

agencies involved in this initiative, that they have made their intentions, plans 

and working program absolutely clear and have provided all sides with 

accessible mechanisms to express varied opinion. 

Nevertheless, a small but vocal minority now rejects the fruit of this 

long and carefully-conducted planning stage. And they are trying to torpedo 

the reward of all the planning, analyses and discussions --they are trying to 

halt the return of grey wolves to the American west. 

All the preparatory planning and discussions have made it clear to 

Friends of Animals that the wolf reintroduction initiatives are in the best 

interest of the nation, including the State of idaho. 

Ecologically, the restoration of this important predator will revitalize the 

ecological integrity of many habitats and wildlife population. Natural 

mechanisms which regulate wildlife population dynamics demographics and 

distribution will be able to restart. Indeed, the return of the wolf will even 

restore an important aspect of the essential processes of evolution itself-- for 

the wolfs influence on the evolutionary development of many wild American 

species is vital. Now there is opportunity to recommence. And this can only 

be for the good of nature. 
Page 2 

Wolf Comment 

192 

Friends 

of 

Animals 

Repeated detailed studies indicate that the reintroduction of wolves will 

also be of economic benefit to human communities within the wolf range. 

Increased tourism will benefit diverse economies, from hotels and restaurants 

to garages and tour guide agencies. 

Friends of Animals is inclined to believe that those who are opposing 

the wolf reintroduction really don't want the region's economy to strengthen 

through expanded diversity. We suspect that this opposition would prefer to 

maintain the relatively narrow base with critical dependency on livestock. 

For some persons, this continued dependency will likely produce 

considerable short-term profits. But it should be evident by now that the longterm prognosis for livestock points to a gradual loss of economic viability. 

livestock interests must clearly see mainstream America is becoming 

increasingly skeptical, and non-supportive, of their industry. The romantic 

days of the cowboy are past. Americans are now aware that red meat is not 

particularly healthy -- and that the massive volumes of red meat which 

America has consumed (and made the livestock business prosperous} is a 

significant contributor to many public health problems. Many Americans are 

turning away from red meat simply because it's unhealthy. 

Americans are also becoming more and more sensitive to the brutality 

of the livestock industry -- from the barbaric brandings of young calves. to the 

ghastly horrors of industrialized slaughter houses. Many more Americans are 

turning away from red meat because of the sheer cruelty associated with it. 

Although the meat industry is in decline, and apparently, will continue 

to decline, the cattle barons are loathe to permit the economies of their 

headquarters regions to diversify -- for this will result in a loss of economic 

and political control. 

And today, the wolf has become a goat -- a scapegoat. There can be 

little doubt that the impact of wolf reintroduction upon the livestock industry 

will be insignificant. Yet some ranching interests find the wolf reintroduction 

program to be a convenient target which can distract attention from their own 

shortcomings. 
P~~ge 3 

Wolf Comment 

193 

Friends 

of 

Animals 

Ranting against wolf reintroduction stimulates regionalism and 

xenophobia. It has become a premise for cultivating isolationism and 

contempt for the rest of the United States. 

When the wolf reintroduction initiative was in its earlier discussion 

stage, Friends of Animals expressed dissatisfaction with the proposition 

which reduced the legal protection status of this endangered species. Yet. in 

the spirit of compromise, we accepted this situation. 

But now we see that a few extremist ranchers are intolerant of even 

this compromise which provides for the control of individual "problem" wolves. 

Sometimes, extremists like these manage to get their way by bullying. 

And it's possible that they could even stop the wolf reintroduction program. 

It is evident, however, that even if the wolf reintroduction program is 

halted, it is only a matter of a few years until wolves naturally migrate 

southward from Canada and reoccupy their natural habitats in the American 

West. And if the species recolonizes its ancestral lands naturally - and not 

as a result of reintroduction -- legal status will revert to that of full protection 

as an endangered species. 

If this happens, Friends of Animals, and many other Americans, will no 

longer be in the mood for compromising with the extremists who don't want 

any wolves at all. We will campaign vigorously to assure that natural 

recolonization receive energetic physical protection to complement their full 

legal protection. 

The grey wolf is American patrimony. Idaho does not have a monopoly 

on this species, nor does Wyoming, or any other state. It is part of our 

natural heritage. 

Priscilla Feral, President 

Friends of Animals. Inc. 
194 

COPY 

Route I, Box 61 

Horseshoe Bend, 1D 83629 

Phono! or fax (208)793-2768 

January 2S, l99S 

Tho! Honorable Helen Chenoweth 

First District Congro!ssman from Idaho 

1719 Longworth, Hous.e Offico! Bldg 

Washington, D.C. 20S!S 

Ro!: Thursday wolfiendangero!d species ho!aring 

DELIVERED BY FACSIMILE 

Plo!ase us.e tho! following information during the committeo! hearing on wolf reintroduction on 

Thursday. 

Tho! introduction of Canadian wolves into central Idaho was justified primarily from false 

information and flawed conclusions in the Wolf DEIS provided by IDF&G biologists. Tho! 

erroneous information and conclusions were presented to the U.S. Congress by Wolf 

R«overy Team Leader Ed Bangs, despito! the fact that he had received sufficient information 

to prow tho! data was inaccurato!. 

I havo! accumulated substantial evidenco! indicating that Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Dir«tor Jerry Conley, IDF&G WolfR«overy Team biologists Jerome Hansen and 

Jon Rac{ael, and Wolf Oversight Committee member Don Clower, knowingly and in defiance 

ofi.C. Sec. 36-71S (1993) and Idaho House Joint Memorial No.6 (1991), did either provide, 

or permit other F&G employees to provide and fail to corr«t, erroneous or false infonnation 

to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for inclusion in the Wolf DEIS. 

This fals.e information minimized the estimated adverse impact of wolws on ungulate 

populations, hunter harvest, domestic livestock, pets, land use, and economics, thero!by 

supporting rather than discouraging the introduction of wolves classified as endangered 

species into central Idaho. 

The o!videnco! also indicates that IDF&G Director Conley knowingly and willfully violated 

I.C. S«. 36-715(2) by providing a written agreement or permit to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service allowing them to release wolves in central Idaho, without first receiving express 

authorization from the Idaho Legislature. 

Tho! evidence shows that the erroneous information concerning ungulate populations and 

harvests was obtained from highly exaggerated deer and elk population and harvest estimates 

contained in Pittman-Robertson reports written by IDF&G biologists Lonn Kuck and Louis J. 

Nelson, which were funded in part with dedicated federal tax money (Pittman-Robertson 

excise tax on the purchase of arms and ammunition). 
195 

Rep. Helen Chenoweth, 1125195, Page 2 

The~ exaggerated estimates were the basis for Mr. Conley's claim in an October 12, 1993 

letter to WolfTeam Leader Ed Bangs that, " .. a recovering wolf population will rarely cause 

unacceptable impacts to the overall ungulate population in Idaho," and for Mr. Hansen's and 

Mr. Rachael's claim in the DEIS that the impact of wolf recovery on ungulate populations, 

hunter harvest, domestic livestock, pets, land use, and economics would be minimal (see 

DEIS pages 4-33 through 4-55). 

IDF&G biologists Rachael and Hansen comprised only one-fourth of the eight member Gray 

Wolf Interagency EIS Team but they were responsible for all of the erroneous information 

and conclusions concerning the central Idaho portion of the EIS. This fact is verified in the 

DEIS (see Exhibit 1) and was also verified to me in person by Team Leader Ed Bangs on 

October 17, 1994 and by F&WS team member Dr. Steve Fritts a few days later. 

But despite the fact that I have pointed out the errors several times to Mr. Bangs, both 

verbally and in writing (see Exhibit 2), he has failed to correct the misinformation he 

provided to the U.S. Congress (see page 42120 of the August 16, 1994 Federal Register). 

Although Mr. Bangs admitted verbally on October 17, 1994 that the F&G ungulate 

population estimates could be flawed, in an Idaho House Resources and Conservation 

Committee hearing on January 17, 1995 he testified, "There are several hundred thousand 

ungulates in the central Idaho recovery area" (emphasis added). Realistic data indicates fewer 

than 40,000 total ungulates in the area. 

The grossly exaggerated deer and elk population estimates provided by IDF&G Staff 

Biologist Louis J. Nelson and Wildlife Game and Research Manager Lonn Kuck resulted 

from their use of a computer "big game sightability" model reportedly developed by IDF&G 

R.:search Biologist Jim Unsworth. 

Using this model, they multiplied the number of ungulates actually counted by helicopter in 

the units with the highest population densities by nearly 300 percent, and projected similar 

populations in the 90 percent of recovery area units that weren't counted. 

The result was a projection averaging six times as many deer and elk per square mile in all of 

the wolf recovery area units as were actually counted per square mile in the historical highest 

deer and elk producing units in the recovery area (see Exhibit I). 

Similar highly exaggerated deer and elk harvest estimates by these two biologists resulted 

from use of the hunter telephone survey wherdn more deer were reported harvested in Unit 

33 than were actually counted by helicopter in Units 33, 34 and 35 during a highly accurate 

count in deep snow when the animals were concentrated on winter range (see Exhibit I). 

On February 17, 1994 Garden Valley, Idaho resident Sandy Donley and I met with Wolf 

Oversight Committee member Don Clower and asked hi.m if he realized that the prey 

population and harvest figures in the WolfDEIS were highly exaggerat.;:d. Mr. Clower 

responded, "We (indicating he and one or more other Committee members) knew they were 

inflated when they were provided to the Team." 
196 

Rep. Helen Chenoweth, 112SI9S, Page 3 

Then I asked him if he knew that inflated ungulate prey population estimates in the DEJS 

would encourage wolf reintroduction instead of discouraging it. Mr. Clower responded that 

he knew this and saw nothing \\Tong with lying to the public so long as it meant 

accomplishing a specific goal. He elaborated on this view by stating that it was common 

practice in the Postal Service, where he was formerly employed, to lie to the public to 

achieve a desired result. 

The evidence pointing to an IDF&G conspiracy to introduce wolves in defiance of the 

legislature's mandates is substantial. 

Even the public wolf survey information provided by the Department to the DEIS was flawed 

in that it addressed only 809 primarily urban respondents' answers to a single question about 

wolves in roadless wilderness areas (see Exhibit 3). Note that Dr. Freemuth's survey analysis, 

based on the limited response to the single wolf/wilderness question, also promotes the 

introduction and management of wolves in Idaho. That is hardly an unbiased survey report. 

The three exhibits I have enclosed are intended only to provide you with some confirmation 

of the exaggerated ungulate prey base for your use in the hearing Thursday. Substantially 

more evidence has already been provided to Idaho Attorney General Alan Lance who has 

assigned AG criminal investigator Russell Reneau to investigate what appears to be a F&G 

conspiracy. 

I'm sure you are already aware that Mr. Bangs made no effort to consult with local 

governments or Idaho citizens who will be affected by the wolf introduction. And although 

thousands of individual Idahoans, most county commissions and the Idaho Legislature 

requested the "No Wolf Alternative", Mr. Bangs made no changes to his original recovery 

plan. 

A belated "Thank You!" for winning the election, and good luck in getting the Endangered 

Species Act changed to protect our Constitutional rights. 

Sincerely, 

George Dovel, Chairman 

Boise County Wildlife & Endangered Species Comm. 

Ends - Exhibits 1-3 

CLT - Kurt Christiansen 
197 

Exhibit 1, Page 1 

Exccrpll From Wolf Recovery Draft EIS 

11le YeiiOWIIIIIO .... il-.& 25,000 mP llld 76'1o feda>llonil. '11111- 1111..., 9!,000 uftlll]aes, bas a hunru hanoJt 

otJ.4,31&..,plala,ilpaodb,--412,moti ... IDCk.lllsaS4.2biJioolocal-y,andreceiYCSabo\lll4,500,000 

IIICI'IIIiallaiWits.-ullr. "':hhfalllil4111Q-ilal!&llllza.:m:l~udilnc.lyaiUSDAFomtServic:eland. 'tb.uu&ml ldlbD- bl• IIIGIII :a. I .!Oil llDallll:l ......... .._.Df33 351mlll!!!!l lltrazed by about306.S251ivcstoct. hu 

a$1,.3billionlocal....-y,adi0Ceinlabaal8,000,000I'II<WIIIional.a........Uy. 

Tobie S.l COiltmued. SUmmGI)' 

y- (Idaho) u...,.'"(!anu ._... -:J) 1!11< 56,100 

~·-..w) 29,100 @ 

- $ .... 

..,_,..., 1,900 ,..., '·""' 

- 1,100 0 

-- , .. 2,000 

. _,....,. . .....,. ... • TDIOI 9f;!ISJ' 

@-~ Elllmlitilii .,....,_,. (al a-)" ...... 

1 .. .314 ~ 1.53.SJ9 

Otkr.Aai~Mk 

-- J,IJOO 1b¥ftdanl 

~- .,. .... --- ..... lbiiDdut 

ea,o... Mu11dul 

- -~--•·-·~·li!~?IShccp~HZJIIII4Uj1lO I,O>U 

unplat.a ea:byeor. A-wolfpopolationwillnuatrect-lwveatofmoletlkbutOiayrcdu<c~ollcmale 

e11c IO'Io·ISll>. A neo----will JIOlm .... ..bly inlpoct ho,_ harvest of door, moose, biparn sllccp, or 

IIIOUIIlllin- A....,.....Swolfpopulllianwilli«II\OISIIOiblyiraplotllftl1jltt•popvlatiotllincenllllll-. Wall 

_..,.will_cJ.p..,olpoiblll:orpri ... land(ueq><lor .. ofM~devicainoccupieclwolfnmae). Visitol'll5e 

W<lllldliltolyiamuo(i&'lolor ... ol.,.mldcntsllld+lli>ID·I2'1olor•eamidents),andi•....,.S5.1HI.4milliooin 

llddilioniiMIIoc:ll...,_ic _,-tlleadlyw. 

The DEIS data claims average deer and dk population densities throughout th<: <:11tire 20.700 

squar<: mile wolf r<:covery ar<:a that ar<: six tim<:s higher than th<: av<:rag<: d<:nsity of liv<: 

animals counted by helicopt<:r in th<: b<:st deer and elk units. The data also claims annual 

average d<:er and elk harvests by hunt<:rs that exceed the average population densitY count<:d. 

Pl<:ase note that the claimed post hunting season (mid winter) population of de"r for the 

20.700 squar" mil" c"ntral Idaho wolfr<:covery ar"a is 159,600. That r<:pres<:nts an av"rag" 

d"er population throughout the entir" area of7. 71 deer for every square mile. including th" 

fanns. towns. rural subdivisions and high mountain peaks (159,600! 20.700 ~ 7.71). 

Inst<:ad of th<: 7. 71 deer P"r square mile averag<: claim"d by th" Wolf R"covery DEIS. F&G 

biologists counted an av<:rag<: of only 1.3 deer per square mile in the two best de<:r units 

(33 and 39) in the wolf recovery ar"a. Average deer and dk populations per squar" mile in 

th<: 6.000 square miles of wild<:m<:ss units are far below the combined awrag<: in Units 33 

and 39. 
198 

Exhibit 1, Page 2 

In tact the extensive 1994 helicopter census of the best deer hunting units in the state totaled 

only 12,542 deer for 9,471 square miles of hunting units, an average of only 1.3 deer per 

square mile (one-sixth of the claimed average throughout central Idaho). 

Southwest Idaho Deer Count 

Previous Yr· 1994 Cowtt No. ofYn- Square Mi. Avg. Deer 

Cowtt Total Total %Cllange in Unit PerSq. Mi. 

31 1992 3818 676 two -82% 597 1.13 

5 subunits 1992 905 501 two -45% 

32 1993 2566 1869 one -27% 1911 0.98 

7 subunits 1993 812 476 one -41 ~0 

33 1993 1036 490 one -53% 79411648 ** 0.62 0.30 ** 

5 subunits 1993 745 477 one -36°o 

39 1991 13577 3843 three -72•. 2615 1.47 

21 subunits 1993 7177 3379 on.: -53°o 

6 Unit ttl** 6878 6771 1.02 

**Deer from the 1648 square miles of Cnits 33, 34 and 35, winter primarily in Unit 33 due 

to deep snow in the other two units. If the claimed average deer and dk populations were 

accurak. there should b<! at l'~ast 12,000 deer plus 6.000 dk winkring along the South Fork 

of the Payetk River between Banks and Grand jean instead of the 490 deer and 1500 elk that 

were actually count<!d by helicopkr. 

The erroneous information in th<! WolfDEIS r<!sult<!d from a 1992 helicopter count of 13.312 

de,!r in Unit 39 for an average of 5 deer per square mile throughout the 2,615 sq. mi. unit. 

IDF&G Biologist Lou Nelson used a computer projection to inflate this count to 34.988 deer 

or a claimed average of mor<! then 13 deer per square mil<! throughout Unit 39. The claimed 

36·-unit average of 7. 71 deer was the result of similar projections in the other units. 

DEIS excerpts from List of Preparers on pages 5-12 and 5-13 

on RachaeL-·Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Biologist. 

~naible for preparin& tenlralldaho portion of EIS. 

erome Hansert.··ldaho Department of Fish and Game Representative, responsible for 

reparation of central Idaho portion of EIS. 
199 

Exhibit 1, Page 3 

Table x. Population para-tar•' and harveat nlaber• of •lk (by Idaho Depart11ent of 

and Ga- hunti!!l unit) in cent.ral Idaho gray volt recove~ area. 

1992 2QQ:Yli~1QIJ H:Ym:lall:l (RQit-biZ::W:•It ~ liiZ ;E!gg• Bltisz l2:!U HltXII1 

Unit , Bulla I Cov• 1 calvea Total Bull : cov: calf I Male I Female 6 712 1,148 361 2,221 62:ibo:3z 349 u!l 7 1f6 815 310 1,3U 24:100:31 232 111 9 102 415 97 6U 21:100:20 83 43 

101 667 5,U6 1,076 6,169 13:100: ll 141 111 

lOA 371 J 1145 1, 251 4,781 12:100:40 923 144 

12 520 2,366 355 3,241 22:100:15 416 0 

15 101 531 210 156 20:100:39 415 0 

16 65 649 104 Ill 10:100:16 140 51 

16A 145 621 111 961 23:100 : 30 12 16 17 570 2,591 622 3, 713 22:100:24 351 36 

19 171 1,005 321 1,497 17:100: 32 118 0 

19A 178 512 87 111 35:100:17 46 0 

20 232 750 255 1,237 31:100:34 112 6 

20A 257 1,607 353 2,217 16:100:22 181 65 

21' 7?4 3,363 1,J46 5,413 23: 10D:40 191 121 

21A 587 2,024 150 3,461 29:100:42 181 97 

25 295 659 241 1,195 45:100 : 37 173 0 

26 219 1,036 313 1,561 21 : 100:30 150 20 

27 ,,. 1,987 616 3,001 20 : 100:31 529 0 

21 246 1,7!55 591 2,5U 14 : 100 : 34 514 91 

29 265 363 214 842 73:100:59 116 244 

30 306 1,13:2 543 1,911 27:100:41 35 138 

lOA 313 2U 171 653 81:100: 68 44 73 

33 878 21377 1, 405 4,660 37:100:59 212 267 

34 11 v. fev• 46 249 

35 220 1, 048 535 1,103 21:100:51 34 161 

J6 46 230 124 400 20:100:54 H2 102 

36A 443 1,137 500 z,oao 39 : 100 : 44 79 201 

368 91 369 161 521 34:100:60 211 110 

th- 336 919 346 1,661 33:100:35 74 222 222 44J i06 1"74 ~uavu:• t 40 •• 3t 1,23! 3,912 1,832 7' 049 31:100:46 302 450 

u• 1&7 750 363 1, 200 150 131 

44' 109 431 153 700 49 123 

41' 63 250 17 400 101 157 .,. 453 1,113 634 2, 900 98 155 

To~al 11,177 47' 67) 16,750 76,300 2!1: 100: l5 8,137 3,t57 

Data il'oa 11'~ ra-aepor~. (iuCi. £. , and. L. 11e1•on, ..... 1992. fdefio Oepar1 

FiM and aa- Stat.evld• survey• and Inventory: ltlk. Project. V-1'70-R-16 PI'09 

Stuclv I. Job I. aobe, I d. 216p~ ' 
200 

Exhibit 2, Page 1 

Testimony Before USF&WS Committee In Boise, Idaho, Concerning 

Proposals For Wolf Recovery In Central Idaho - September 27, 1993 

My name is George Dovel and my residence address is Route I, Box 61 , Horseshoe Bend, Idaho 

83629, which is in Boise County. 

I am a lifelong outdoorsman and naturalist whose occupations have included back country fixed wing 

and helicopter pilot, outfitter and guide and outdoor editor and publisher. For eighteen years I resided 

in the Idaho Primitive Area and I have traveled extensively in the more remote portions of several 

Canadian provinces and Alaska during the past forty years. 

My wildlife management credentials include courses in forestry and zoology and literally hundreds of 

hours spent with state fish and game departments and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducting 

fish and game census, big game trapping and tagging operations and related studies. 

In presenting this testimony I am not representing any government agency, or other organization or 

group. 

As a dedicated naturalist I am concerned that the Wolf Recovery Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement apparently uses facts not in evidence to support conclusions which appear to be erroneous. 

ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION NO. I. Because there is purported to be an overage big game 

popu/at;on offour elk plus eight deer per square mile remai ning after the hunting seaso n throughout 

the ti e proposed reco,·ery area in centra/Idaho, the establishment of six ..-. o~f packs wrll hu,·e no 

measurable impact on either domestic Ji,·estock or brg game herds except for a slig ht reduction in the 

hunter harvest of cow elk. 

THE TRUTH. The highest post hunting season helicopter big game census counts obtained by the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game anywhere in the proposed recovery area this spring (1993) 

revealed only slightly more than one elk and one-half deer per square mile! Contrary to statistics 

published in the DEIS, Idaho's statewide deer population is the lowest it has been in more than 50 

years, and in the wilderness area both deer and elk populations have declined to well below the 

sta!i:wide average. 

During a twenty year study of the relationship between wolves and deer herds in northern !\linnesota 

and between wolves and the moose herd on Isle Royale in Michigan, internationally renowned wolf 

authority David l'v!ech concluded that once either a natural or man-caused decline in the ungulates 

began to occur, wolf predation dramatically accelerated that decline. 

l\lech observed that although both the wolves and their prey appeared to prosper for several years 

during mild winters in a wilderness environment where hunting by humans did not occur, during 

severe winters when the prey was more easily killed the wolf packs killed far more deer and moose 

than they could eat. This ultimately resulted in the near total destruction of the deer and moose 

populations and the subsequent starvation of most of the wolves. 

In 1985 Mech published his conclusions from the twenty year study stating in part, "I have learned 

that, far from always being 'balanced', ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly • and 

sometimes catastrophically. Wolves may actually starve after killing off almost all the deer and moose 

in a!!...!fg." See Jan-Feb National Wildlife (emphasis added). 
201 

Exhibit 2, Page 2 

Te:rtimo11y Before USF& WS Committee U. Boue, ltl•llo, Co11cer11U.g Proposed Rules For 

Tile No11esse11lilll Experilrte11111l Popullltio11 Recovery of Gr11.1' Wolves ill Ce111T11llJIIIw -

September 2 7, 1994 

My name is George Dowland I am chainnan of the Boise County, Idaho, Wildlife and 

Endangered Species Commin.:e appointed by the Boise County Board of Commissioners as 

part of the Boise County Interim Land Use Planning Comminee. 

On August 22, 1994, our comminee mailed a wildlife and endangered species questionnaire 

to ewry mailing address in Boise County. By a unanimous vote during their regularly 

scheduled meeting on September 26, 1994, the Commission has direct.:d me to pr.:sent tho: 

results of that survey, which pertain to wolf recovery, in my testimony befor.: your comminee 

today, as follows: 

I. Only thre.: percent (2.88°o) of the respondents to our sun•ey favored the introduction 

and management of wolves in central Idaho by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2. An additional II% favored wolf recovery only if the state or county managed and 

controlled the wolves. 

3. 82°o of respondents were opposed to any fonn of wolf reintroduction, with many 

suggesting that private trappers be offered a bounty to .:liminate all wolves from Boise 

County. 

The EIS claim that the 20,700 square mile wolf recovery area in central Idaho has 394,939 

ungulates. an a\·erage of 19 big game animals per square mile. is a gross exaggeration as is 

the claimed post hunting season population of 241.400 ungulates or 12 big game animals per 

square mile (see Anachment 1). Yet these highl y inflated claimed prey populations. along 

with suitable habitat. appear to be the sole basis for conclusions that wolves will not 

significantly impact hunter han•est or domestic livestock. 

Boise County contains two of the three big game management units which ha,·e historically 

produced the highest dk and deer han·est per square mile in Idaho. Therefore one might 

reasonably assume that these units would contain a higher average deer and elk population 

per square mile than is found throughout the remaining 34 units in the central Idaho wolf 

recovery area. 

The EIS claims a post hunting season elk population of 76,300 and a deer population of 

159,600 in the wolf recovery area. This represents an average of nearly 4 elk plus 8 deer lor 

each of the 20,700 square miles. Yet the most recent h.:licopter counts in the two top 

producing Boise County units contained an average of less than 2 elk and only 1.3 deer per 

square mile. 

With the radically decimated prey base that actually exists throughout the central Idaho 

recovery area, the proposed rules prohibiting the taking of wolves which advers.:ly affect 

ungulate populations and domestic animals and pets are unrealistic. The constitutionality of 

these rules would undoubtedly be challenged once the conflicts began to occur. 
Exhibit 2, Page 3 

Octob.:r 17, 1994 

Ed Bangs, Proj.:ct Lead.:r 

LT.S. Fish and Wildlif.: S.:rvic.: 

Grav Wolf R.:introduction 

P.O. Box 8017 

Hdena, Montana 59601 

202 

Rout.: I, Box 61 

Hors.:sho.: B.:nd. lD 83629 

Phon.: or fax (208) 793-2768 

R.:: T.:stimony concerning proposed rule: publish.:d on pag.:s 42118-42127 ofth.: August 16, 

1994 Federal Register 

DELIVERED BY FACSIMILE 

D.:ar Mr. Bangs: 

Pl.:as.: consid.:r this a formal suppkm.:nt to my wTitt.:n and oral t.:stimonv gi,·.:n bdoro: vour 

committe:.: in Bois.:. Idaho on So:pt.:mb.:r 27, 1994. 

One y.:ar .:arli.:r. on S.:pt.:mber 27, 1993. I provid.:d th.: LTSF&WS WolfRecov.:ry T.:am with 

both \~Titt.:n and oral t.:stimony pointing out tlu.:.: .:rroneous conclusions in the Wolf 

R.:covery Draft Environm.:ntal Impact Stat.:m.:nt. Th.:se wrong conclusions w.:r.: bas.:d on 

obvious misinfonnation which was also contain.:d in that DEIS. 

The: misinfonnation that was most obvious hid.:s pot.:ntially s.:v.:re cons.:qu.:nc.:s of 

introducing wolv.:s into c.:ntral Idaho. It was th.: grossly .:xagg.:rat.:d ungulat.: pr.:y 

populations claim.:d for th.: 20,700 squar.: mil.: wolf r.:con:ry ar.:a in the National Forests of 

c.:ntral Idaho. 

Prior to th.: S.:pt.:mb.:r 1993 h.:aring in Boise, I had talk.:d with ,·our t.:am m.:mb.:rs and with 

wolf m·.:rsight committ.:e m.:mbers concerning th.: source of this misinfonnation. Each 

m.:mb.:r int.:n•i.:w.:d agr.:.:d that it was provided by th.: Idaho D.:partment of Fish and Gam.: 

p.:rsonnd assigned to your t.:am. 

Although th.: c.:ntral Idaho .:lk and d.:.:r populations report.:d in th.: DEIS wer.: .:xagg.:rated 

by an .:stimated 600 percent, a fact that should have been obvious to anyone: with , ·our team's 

knowledge of pr.:y population density. there may have: been some excuse for th.: .:rron.:ous 

figur.:s originally becaus.: th.:y w.:r.: pro,·id.:d by anoth.:r ag.:ncy. 

How.:v.:r, once you and your t.:am memb.:rs w.:re advis.:d that th.:ro: is no basis in fact for 

such absurd claims for a pr.:y bas.:, it was your responsibility to study th.: data I provided on.: 

year ago, and conduct your 0\\11 inv.:stigation to d.:t.:nnin.: th.: prev base that is acntally 

a\·ailabl.: for th.: wolv.:s. 
203 

Exhibit 2, Page 4 

Ed Bangs- Testimony, 10/17/94, page 2 

Instead, you have perpetuated this de(;eption of the United States Congress and the American 

public by repeating the outrageous claims in your statements for adoption of the proposed 

rule in the August 16, 1994 edition of the Federal Register as follows: 

"(M)illions of acres of public lands contain hundreds of thousands of wild ungulates 

(Service 1994) and currently provide more than enough habitat to support a re(;overed 

wolf population in central Idaho." (p. 42120, emphasis added). 

In many of the 36 game management units contained in the wolf re(;overy area, re(;ent 

midwinter counts revealed only about one elk and one deer per square mile. Multiplying two 

animals per square mile times the 20,000 square miles equals only 40,000 animals - not the 

240,000-400,000 claimed in the DEIS or the "hundreds of thousands" you claim in the 

Federal Register. Even if the helicopter census counts were wrong by 200-400%, it still 

would not equal the "hundreds of thousands" of wild ungulates claimed by you. 

Idaho has suffered a severe long term decline of deer populations statewide which has 

resulted in the most severe restrictions on hunter harvest of deer in more than fifty years. 

The DEIS claim that hunter harvest of deer would not be affected by the introduction of wolf 

packs flies in the face of reason. 

Until the recent wildlife decline, Idahoans have harvested wild game and fish valued at more 

than one million dollars annually, with a minimum multiplier value to related Idaho business 

of more than a quarter billion dollars. Th.: claim that wolv.:s will hav.: no adverse economic 

impact on the State's already severely depleted wildlife harvest simply ignores reality. 

On page 42120 of the Register you describ.: the central Idaho wolf reintroduction site as "a 

vast area of about ... ( 20,000 square miles)," and refer to it again as "This vast area of Federal 

lands." Then you state, "There are onlv a few scanered parcels of private and State of Idaho 

lands in the area in which wolves will be reintroduced (Service 1994). and no conflicts with 

private or State land use is anticipated." (Emphasis add.:d) That statement is complet.:ly 

misleading. 

It is true that most of the ungulates that summer in the 6,000 square miles of central Idaho 

wilderness areas also spend the winter months on s.:veral low elevation winter ranges in the 

wilderness. However many elk and deer that summer in the remaining 14,700 square miles 

of proposed National Forest recovery area do not winter there. Instead, they spend from four 

to six months wintering on or next to several thousand square miles of privately O\~ned 

winter range that is either adjacent to or surrounded by th.: higher elevation National Forest 

lands. 

Obviously the wolves will not abandon th.:ir prey during the severe months of winter and 

starve to death in the deep snow on National Forest lands. Yet the potential for ongoing 

conflict between wolves and the 92,000 humans living on big game winter range has be.:n 

ignored in your proposed rules and in the infonnation you provided to justif)-· their adoption .. 
204 

Exhibit 3, Page 1 

PUBLIC OPINION ON WOLVES IN IDAHO: 

RESULTS FROM THE 1992 IDAHO POLICY SURVEY 

John Freemuth 

Dept of Political Science 

Boise state University 

1910 University Ave. 

Boise, ID. 83725 

385-3931 

The issue of wolves in Idaho is o~e of the most emotionally 

intense natural resource controversies facing the state. In order 

to gain a better sense of the opinion of Idahoans, the 1992 ~ 

Policy survey conducted by Boise State University's Survey Research 

Center included a question on wolves. The question was: 

DO YOU FAVOR OR OPPOSE HAVING WOLVES IN THE WILDERNESS AND ROADLESS 

AREAS OF CENTRAL IDAHO? 

A statewide random sample of 809 individuals was surveyed, using 

appropriate statistical techniques more fully outlined in the 

appendix to the complete 1992 Policy Survey. The survey data has a sampling error of plus or minus 3.4% (95% confidence level). 

In addition, various demographic groups within this sample were also identified (see table) . 

Results of the survey are as follows: 

FAVOR 

OPPOSE 

DON'T KNOW/ 

NO OPINION 

72.4% 

22.H 

5.4% 

The survey question on wolves was designed to measure public 

opinion on having wolves in Idaho. The public, (and all listed 

demographic CJroups), is apparently very acceptinCJ of wolves in 

Idaho. This acceptance might be viewed a necessary condition for 

the success of the current Fish and Wildlife Service natural 

recolonization policy. That is, if natural recolonization occurs, 

the public is favorably disposed to the wolves which would then be 

in the wilderness and roadless areas of Idaho. 

This favorable view towards wolves suq<Jests that attention 

should focus on public polices designed to "manaqe" the wolves once they are in Idaho, rather than ~ they should be in Idaho. 

Successful resolution of wolf management questions might then remove much of the intensity from the wolf issue. 

I 

i L--------------------------------------------------------------------~ 
205 

ANIMAL PEOPLE 

News for People 

Who Care A.bout A.nimau 

1'.0 . Rcn< Z05 

Sh.,.baa, New York UI7J 

518-154·9436 (lelepbone) lit ., •. ~. ( .... , 

1/27/95 

Oui.s Kennedy, Cl:mnittee Cleric 

House Cl:mnittee on Natural Aeaouroea 

1324 la1gworth House Oftice Buildinq 

washingt:cn, 0::: 20515 

Fax 202-225-S929 

Dear Mlmlers of tne HOusG Cclnlnittee on Natural Aesouroes: 

ANDW. PJX)PU;; ia not an~~ but"" indc:pcndont na.ocpapcr, 

ooverin; the broad spectr\111 of aniltal-related issues for a readership of rore u._."' ~u,uuu Q&u..n..J. QOI"'b."'J. oct-:i.oc..:o, b.-no wol:'l,c.ro, 'Y'C-.o .. LI\oo!Wri.ano. ~ 

others W1th a protessia>al interest in n...n and animal interactions. AS sUCh, 

we are tt:aqUently hu:ot to l110•tto<l <lo:l.loito:. QU.y 1 .... ~ tLi.o,jllt. ..., -.:e sinullAlleOU3ly 

berated on the :tn.tocrnc~ ""' an ....u-1 ri<jhu f"""'~ en the one han4, oond "" "" front for the w:i.- UQQ ...,._,t on the other, bac.ause wa givo con•ider,.tion 

to all points of view. 

wo r@apect t"i " [>l")' "rrl tlArmr:rar.y--and tho! present threat fran 

leadanlhip of the House Oolmlit~ on Natural Rl!~s tc ..,.'!t:'irw:l fuming fn-m 

th! 'lell.aWstane National Par!< ...,lf ~tu,•t.iu<• yLoj...::t. .i.Oi neilller fAir rgr 

danocratic. Few debates in the history of wildlife management have ewr involved as ~~~~~ny hearings, "" 11111ny at..sies, as l1llln)' polls of the -ric= pooplc, resJ.cients Of the 1JWol"l.'e(l SUUS, C)\II!U"Ql\t:eeS 1:0 pn>tc<."t the lhWL'-'UbJ u£ aqqr.i.oYOCI. mi.norJ.t1.oc. and .0 ~. ~ peapl.A have~. nr."'=" j._\"'-i"' ru .. _ 

bu.t many t;Un.s. ~· hae apeken. ~t:~ly. """"'"~lF ~,.,...nrntinn i:) 

<XXltrollersial, no doubt about it. Aspects of it are even very~~l 

II1Dnq our readership. Yet the bottan line is that fair play and respect for 

demx:racy J:eqUi:re that this effort, na.t well un:iel'ay, be properly soon throuqh 

to carpletion. If it IIClW ptQWS 1lll!I\IC!CQSful, it need not be repeated. If the 

interests of ranchers are unduly lw:med, their ~tian or protective ~s can be adjusted as neoeuary. 

By all means, the wolf restoration ahoulcl be cloael.y rronitora:i. 

Tripping it up, hcwever, at this point · only dall:lnlltrates 

a:>nteftt>t for the daiDc:ratic procesa. 

editor 
{1 ,;~;; 9 ) }1.• I II ! 

206 

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

27 January 1995 

5410 Groswnor Lane • Betheada, MD 20814-2197 

Tel: (3011897-9770 • Fax: 13011530-2471 

The Honorable Don Young, Chair 

The House Committee on Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Young, 

The Wildlife Society, the organization of professional wildlife biologists and 

managers, supports the restoration of wolves to the Yellowstone and central Idaho 

ecosystems. Furthermore, The Wildlife Society supports the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service's (USFWS) use of experimental populations as a scientifically sound and 

socially responsible method of wolf restoration. 

Historically, wolves were an integral part of Yellowstone and central Idaho 

ecosystems. Wolves were indigenous to the Yellowstone region; carbon dating indicates 

wolf habitation of Yellowstone at least 960 years ago. However, there have been no 

resident wolf packs in Yellowstone since the 1930's, due to wolf control efforts 

throughout the 1800's and early 1900's. Wolves should be returned to these areas to 

restore an important element of biological diversity to the region. 

Restoring gray wolves to key parts of their former range is a critical part of the 

recovery plan for this species. The successful re-introduction of wolves would establish a 

genetically viable breeding population and help fortify the wolf population against 

extinction in the contiguous United States. The ultimate goal of the restoration process, 

de-listing, will occur, it is estimated, by the year 2002. 

The proposed action, to restore gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and 

central Idaho as "experimental" populations under the Endangered Species Act, was 

designed to minimize impacts on private property. Provisions of the experimental rule 

will allow for flexibility in addressing legitimate concerns of local residents through 

professional management actions. Wolves will be released and managed so that 

exisiting land uses and recreation, principally ranching and hunting, are not severely 

affected. 

The preferred alternative in the USFWS Final Environmental Impact Statement is 

based on years of biological research and public participation, and is supported by other 

literature in the field. The Wildlife Society has done an exhaustive technical review of 

the issue and submits its report, " Restoration of Wolves in North America," (The 

Wildlife Society Technical Review 91-l) for inclusion in the official hearing record. This 

Exetllmet in Wild/ift Sttwanhhip Thro11gh Srimrt and EdNration 
207 

paper was prepared by TWS members and some of the foremost wolf experts in the 

country, including Dr. James Peek, Dr. L. David Mech, and Dr. Victor van Ballenberghe, 

and supports the USFWS restoration plan. 

It is time to restore gray wolves to Yellowstone and central Idaho. The USFWS 

plan is an ecologically sound and socially responsible way to re-establish this native 

predator to its historic place in these ecosystems. 

Please include this letter and the enclosed report in the official record for the 

January 26th House Resources Committee hearing. 

Sincerely, 

~/If · 

Thomas M. Franklin 

Wildlife Policy Director 

enclosure 
208 

RESTORATION 

OF WOLVES 

IN NORTH AMERICA 

I II THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

~.:."~I[ Technical Review 91-1 ~ ~~-cr: 

if~~, February 1991 
209 

Restoration of Wolves In North America 

The Wlldllh Society 

Teebalul Ad•lsory Com•lllee o• Wolf Rel•troducllo• (Ad Hoc) 

James M. Peek (Chair) 

College of Forestry, 

Wildlife, &: Range Sciences 

University of Idaho 

Moscow, ID 83843 

D .. ld E. Brown 

L. Da•ld Mecb 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

c/o US. Forest Service 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

3118 West McLellan Boulevard 

Phoenix, AZ 85017 

James H. Shaw 

Department of Zoology 

Oklahoma State University 

Stillwater, OK 74078 

Stephen R. Keller! 

School of Forestry and 

Environmental Studies 

Yale University 

New Haven, CT 06511 

VIctor Vaa Balle•berahe 

Institute of Northern Forestry 

U.S. Forest Service 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Edited by Joha D. Gill 

The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Technical Review 91·1 

February 1991 
210 

Foreword 

Presidents of The Wildlife Society occasionally appoint ad hoc committees to study and 

report on selected conservation issues. This has worked reasonably well, but experience indicated a need to standardize the procedures. On advice from the Publications Committee in 1989, the Society's governing Council agreed to refine its oversight role, to 

appoint an editor or editors to assist the committees, and to establish standard formats for the committee reports. 

The reports ordinarily appear in 2 related series called either Technical Review 

(formerly "White Paper") or Position Statement. The review papers present technical 

information and the views of the appointed committee members, but not necessarily the 

views of their employers or The Wildlife Society. Position statements are based on the 

review papers, and the preliminary versions ordinarily are published in The Wlldllfer for 

comment by Society members. Following the comment period, revision, and Council's 

approval, the statements are published as officia! positions of The Wildlife Society. 

Both kinds of reports are copyrighted by the Society, but individuals are granted 

permission to make single copies for noncommercia l purposes. Otherwise, copies may be requested from: 

The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane 

Bethesda, MD 20814 (30 I) 897-9770 

This report may be cited as: Peek, J. M. et al. 1991. Restoration of wolves in North 

America. Wildt. Soc. Tech. Rev. 91-1. 21pp. 

Ac!mow!edcments 

We thank the following people for reviewing this manuscript: R. G. Anthony, E. E. Bangs, J. C. Bednarz, N. S. Bishop, C. E. Braun, W. Brewster, L. N. Carbyn, R. L. 

Crabtree, B. L. Cypher, R. A. Demarchi, A. Dood, T. France, S. H. Fritts, H. E. Hodgdon, 

K. Horn, R. 1. Mackie, J. E. Miller, D. G. Miquelle, J. O'Laughlin, W. T. Parker, R. 0. 

Peterson, M K. Phillips, D. H. Pletscher, B. A. Rattner, R. R. Ream, G. H. Savage, F. J. Singer, P. A. Tucker, J. D. Varley, J. S. Whitman, and J. J. Yeo. We appreciate the excellent typing assistance provided by S. K. Roach on numerous drafts of this paper. 

Cover art, logo of the International Wolf Center, generously provided by the Center, Ely, 

Minnesota, from the painting "Wolf Pack" by F. L. Jaques and owned by Mr. Donald 

Duncan. 
211 

Table of Contents 

Foreword ..... . ...................................................................................... .................................................................. i 

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................... ; 

Synopsis ................................................................................................................................................................................ I 

In troduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 

Taxonomy ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 

Sta tus of Wolves in North Ame rica ...................................................................................................................... 3 

Gra y Wolf: Conti guous 48 ates .................................... ..................................................................... 3 

Gray Wolf:. Canada ......................................................................................................................................... 3 

Gray Wolf: Alaska ......................................................................................................................................... .4 

Red Wolf ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 

Mexica n Wolf .............................................. ..................................................................................................... 6 

Wolf Socia l Ecology .................................................................................. ................................................................... 6 

Conse rva tion Biology ............................... .................................................................................................................... ? 

Genetics ................................................................................................................................................................. ? 

Minimum Viable Populations .................................................................................................................... 8 

Huma n Dimensions of Wolf Restorat ion ........................... .................................................................... , ........... 8 

Values and Attitudes ........................................... .. .. ....................................................................... 8 

Regula tory Issues ......................................................................................................................................... ! 0 

Methods of Reintrod ucing Wolves ...................................................................................................................... ! I 

Red Wolf Progra m ...................................................................................................................................... 12 

Wolf Management .... ................................................................................................................................................. 13 

Depreda tion On Livestoc k and Pets ................................................. .................................................. 13 

Exploita tio n o f the Prey Ba se by Humans......................... . .... 13 

Enhancement of the Prey Base ............................................................................................................ 14 

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................................... IS 

Literat ure Cited ........................................................................................................................................................... IS 

ii 
212 

Restoration of Wolves in North America 

SYNOPSIS 

Re!itoration of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and 

red wolves (C. rufus) to parts of their former 

ran.ges in the contiguous 48 states is in progres:;. Concern over effects of these restora· 

tions on livestock and other wildlife >pecies is 

evtdent. Methods of restoration, management 

of restored populations. and perceptions and 

support for restoration are of concern. 

The taxonomy of the gray wolf needs to be 

revtsed .to determine the validity of the 24 

subspecies. However, consideration of sub· species in assessing restoration of wolves to 

the designated recovery areas in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains is unnecessary if the source of wolves is from adjace nt regions in Canada. 

The red wolf curr en tl y is considered to be a 

distinct species. Both species are highl y social 

and occ ur in packs of 2 to >25 animals. New 

packs are formed by dispei-sing individuals 

that locate mates. Packs defend territories 

and maintain them by howling and scent 

marking. Lone, unmated wolves scent-mark 

rarely, whereas newl y formed pairs scentmark frequently. The occurrence of indiv id -

~al wolves outside the current. breeding range 

IS ~:xpected because dispersing individuals 

have been known to move over 700 km from their former home ranges. Recolo nizing 

activities must involve mat ed pairs that 

reproduce and form packs, ra ther than 

isolated individuals. 

Gray wolves currently inhabit the Lake Super~or region, the northern Rocky Mountain regiOn, and may be recolonizing northern 

Washington. The Minnesota wolf population 

is a n extension of the Ontario population. 

Wolves have been colonizing Wisconsin since 

1975 and may be colonizing Michigan. Since 

recolonization~ the Isle Roya le National Park 

wolf population currently is at an all-time 

low. Wolves are recolonizing irP the Flathead 

River drainage in western Montana. All 

wolves in the contiguous 48 states are classified as endangered, except the Minnesota 

population, which is classified as threatened. 

In Canada, 40,000-50,000 gray wolves occur in 

about 80% of their former range. In Alaska, 

5,200-6,500 wolves occur on most or their 

original range on about 84% of the state's 

l~nd area. Wolv es generally are classified as 

big game and furbearers in Canada and 

Alaska. 

Mexic~n ~o ves (C. J. haileyi) may occur in 

the w1ld m only 3 areas in Mexico, but ha ve 

not been observed in the United States since 

19.i 5. Red wolves have been reintr oduced in 

eastern North Ca rolina, South Carolina and 

Mississippi, and plans to restore them t~ Great 

Smoky Mountains National Pa rk and othei 

areas are underwa y. 

Est !ma ~e ~ of wol f ,populations necessary for 

mamtammg genetiC va ria bilit v and for avoid -

in~ in~>r eedin g depression pro~ide general 

gUJdelmes. Deta iled monitoring of reintroduced populations and isolated populations 

such as th e one on Isle Royale will be needed 

to Improve the estimates of minimum breeding populations. 

The need to involve anJ inform the public about pl ans and progress in wolf restoration is 

c ritical. Enmity towa rds these species exists 

along with strong support. Public education 

must be fac t ual a nd objective about wolves 

exposing the myths and addressing the neg~­ tJve aspe cts of wolf relations with humans. 

Reintroductions of wolves should occu r in 

a.reas with an adequate prey base, sufficient 

Size •. and low levels of human activity. Retammg wolves less than 1-year-old in holding 

pens for u~ to 6 months and providing carcasses ot pre y that arc of the intended 

p re y spec ies may be the most successful 

techniqu e of restoring wolves. 

Managemen t of restored wolf populations 

requires substantial planning. Wolves in 

national parks or re-fuges where hun ti ng is 

prohibited will pose fewer problems than 

wolves in areas used by livestock or where 

their prey base is hunted. Close coordi nation 

with interest groups whose activities are 

a ffected by the presen ce of wolves must be 

mainta ined fo r restoration to be successfu l. 
213 

The Wildlife Society Technical Review 91-1 

INTRODUCTION 

Restodng gray wolves and red wolves to parts 

of the or for mer ranges is an important part of recovery plans for these species. Red wolves 

have been restored to parts of North and 

South Carolina and Mississippi (Parker 1988 

Phillips and Parker 1988). An attempt to ' 

restore eastern timber wolves (C. I. lycaon) in 

Michigan failed (Weise et at. 197S). Restora· 

lions of the northern Rocky Mountain wolf 

(C. I. irremotus) and the Mexican wolf have 

been proposed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1982, 1987b). 

Concern over the effects of restoring wolf 

populations has increased as recovery plans 

have become more widely known. Hunters 

and livestock owners are concerned about the 

effects of these predators on game and lives· 

tock (Min iclicr 1987). State wildlife agencies 

arc concerned over federal intervention in 

state wildlife issues and QUestion whether 

public pressures and lack of funds will precl~de_ effectiv~ m~nagement (Aderhold 1987). 

W1ldhfe agenc1es mvolvcd in restoration tack 

credibility among some groups which further 

hampers introduction efforts. 

Methods for restoration, monogement of 

restored populations, and perceptions ond 

degree of support by all people involved 

largely will determine the success of recovery 

efforts for these species. We review in 

several contexts the status of wolves in North 

America, sociological implications of restora· 

tion, methods of establishing populations, recovery goals, and management. This review 

is provided for development of a position 

stotemcnt on wolf restoration by The Wildlife 

Society. 

TAXONOMY 

Wolves have been divided into 2 species: gray 

and Mexicon wolves (C. lupus) and red wolves 

(C. rufus). Twenty-four subspecies of the 

gray wolf have been reported in North 

America (Hall and Kelson 19S9, Mech 1970). 

But distinctions among most subspecies arc 

rather fine, and several have been described 

on the basis of only one or a few specimens 

(Goldman 1944, Mech 1970). Furthermore, 

only 8 subspecies are recognized in Europe 

and Asia_ (Mech 1970). Records of gray 

wolves daspersmg 700 km or more from their 

home ranges (Fritts 1983, Ballard et at. 1987) 

suggest fewer valid subspecies of wolves than 

have been recognized in North America. 

Th~s. Nowak ( 1983) recommended a thorough revtSJOn of North American gray wolf taxon· 

omy and suggested the existence of as few as 

S valid subspecies. 

The probable lack of validity of most North 

American wolf subspecies is of special interest to the proposed restoration of wolves in Yellowstone Notional Park. The indigenous and 

questiOnable subspecies is the northern Rocky 

MountaJO wolf. However, immediately north 

of this subspecies' range are populations of 

wot:-es (C. I. columbimrus) that are sufficiently stmtlar to C. I. irremotus in food habits and 

habitat occupied to ,be used for restoration to 

the park. The more northerly subspecies currently is colonizing the former range of C. 1. 

1rremotus. Consideration of subspecies in 

assessing whether wolves should be restored to 

the Yellowstone area is unnecessa ry, but the 

~ransplant stock should come from populations 

1n nearby Canado or the colonizing population near Glacier National Pork. 

Nowak (1979) and Atkins and Dillon (1971) 

constder the red wolf to be a distinct species 

olthough others (Lawrence and Bossert 1967 ' 

Mech 1970) disagree. The red wolf historic~ ally occupied one of the smallest ranges of all 

eonids and certainly the smallest of any Cams. except posstbl y the Abyssinian wolf (C. 

simensis). Three subspecies of red wolf ore recognized: C. r. floridmws (now extinct), C. r. 

gregoryi, and C. r. rufus (Goldman 1937). 
214 

Restoration of Wolves in North America 

STATUS OF WOLVES IN NORTH 

AMERICA 

Gray Wolf: Coatlcuous 48 States 

All wolves in the contiguous 48 states are 

classified as endangered, except the Minnesota 

population, which is classified as threatened. 

Gray wolves currently inhabit 2 regions of 

the 48 contiguous states: the Lake Superior 

region and the northern Rocky Mountain 

region. Additionally, a wolf den with pups 

was located in summer 1990 in North Cascades National Park, Washinston, suggesting 

that natural recolonization is imminent. 

In the Lake Superior region, the main population of 1,200 wolves occupies an area of about 

59,900 km2 in Minnesota just south of Ontario 

(Mech et al. 1988). Thus, the Minnesota wolf 

population can be considered the southern 

extension of the Ontario wolf population; 

some packs range on both sides of the border 

and lone dispersers travel between the 2 

countries (Mcch 1987). In Minnesota, individual wolves may be killed by government 

controllers of livestock depredation in about 

66% of the wolf's range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987a). 

Since about 1975, wolves from Minnesota ha ve been colonizing Wisconsin (Mech and Nowak 

1981, Thiel and Welch 1981) where they num- ber about 30 (Thiel 1985). The population is 

increasing slowly, but growth has been hindered by human-caused mortality, dispersal 

back to Minnesota, and possibly canine parvovirus (CPV). 

Only 6· 10 wolves arc now in mainland Michi· gan where human-caused mortality frequently removes wolves (Weise et al. 1975, Robinson 

and Smith 1977). An intermittent influx of loners from Wisconsin and Ontario seems to 

be sufficient to maintain this small popu· 

lation. 

Since recolonization on Isle Royale in Lake 

Superior, the wolf population is at an all·time 

low of 11 -14 animals (Peterson 1989, and pers. 

commun.). Possible causes of the population 

decline include lack of vulnerable prey, CPV 

or Lyme's disease, and inbreeding. 

In the northern Rocky Mountain region, wolves were protected by the states of Montana in 1975 and Idaho in 1977 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1987b). In Wyoming they still 

are classified as predators. Wolves have been 

recolonizing in the North Fork of the Flathead River area in western Glacier National 

Park since 1979 (Ream and Mattson 1982), 

and in summer 1989, 3 packs totaling at least 

16 wolves were in that area and adjacent 

southern British Columbia (R. R. Ream, Univ. 

Montana, pers. commun.). The population is 

protected in the United States, but is subject 

to illegal killing, control of depredating 

animals, and legal harvest in British Columbia. Another pack of wolves formerly inhabited the Blackfeet Indian Reservation just east 

of Glacier National Park. This pack preyed 

on livestock and all but I wolf was removed 

in 1987. A pack inhabiting Flathead County 

west of Kalispell was trapped in 1989 and 

removed to prevent livestock depredations. 

Only J member is known to have survived. 

Wolves were indigenous to the Yellowstone 

region; radiocarbon dating of a bone from a 

cave in Yellowstone National Park showed 

wolf habitation of as long as 960 years ago 

(Hadly 1989). No resident wolf packs were present in the Yellowstone region after the 

1930s, although reports of single wolves or pairs persist (Weaver 1978). Nine possible occurrences of wolves were recorded during 

1980-86, all of wh ich are considered transients 

(M. Meagher, Summary of possible wolf observations 1977-1986, report on file, Yellowstone 

National Park, Mammoth, Wyo., 1987). Such 

activity has been recorded since 1930, but no established, breeding pairs or pack activity 

have been documented (Weaver 1978). 

Estimates of 6·15 wolves were made for the central Idaho wilderness areas (Kaminski and 

Hansen 1984). However, there has been no 

authenticated sign of pair formation or repro· 

duct ion. 

Gray Wolf: Canada 

An estimated 40,000-50,000 gray wolves, about 

90% of the North American wolf population, 

are in about 80% of their former range in 

Canada (Carbyn 1987). Wolves have been 

extinct in New Brunswick. Prince Edward 
215 

The Wildlife Socitly Technical Review 91·1 4 

Island, and Nova Scotia since 1870 and in 

insular Newfoundland since 1911 (Carbyn 

1987). The remaining 6 provinces and 2 

territories currently support wolf populations 

in most suitable habitats. An estimated 13,000 

wolves inhabit British Columbia and Alberta, 

which are adjacent to areas of potential wolf 

restoration in the western United States. 

Legal status and hunting/trapping regulations 

for wolves in Canada are highly variable. 

Some jurisdictions (e.g. Northwest Territories, 

British Columbia, and Manitoba) classify 

wolves as both big game and furbearers. 

Others (e.g. Saskatchewan, Labrador, and 

Ontario) classify them as furbearers only. In 

Alberta, wolves are classified as a furbearing 

carnivore. 

Open seasons range from year-round (Ontario) to 10 weeks in Manitoba (Carbyn 1987), but most jurisdictions have a long season with 

liberal or unrestricted bag limits. Management 

units in southern British Columbia are either 

closed, have short open seasons, or restricted 

harvest quotas in deference to wolf recovery 

efforts in the United States. Documented wolf 

harvests throughout Canada have ranged from 

3,000 to 4,000 annually in recent years. How- ever, wolf harvests in local areas may be 

high; e.g. about 900 wolves were taken by 

villagers using snowmobiles in winter 1978-79 near Coppermine, Northwest Territories. 

In recent years, about 300 wolves have been 

taken annually to protect livestock in 6 

Canadian jurisdictions. Three provinces 

permit the use of strychnine and one uses 1080 (monosodium fluoroacetate). The re- mainder encourage trapping and hunting to deal with livestock depredations. Yukon 

Territory, British Columbia, and Ontario 

currently conduct wolf control to increase 

ungulate populations in local areas. British 

Columbia removed 996 wolves during 1978-87 

in 8,000 km2 in the northeastern part of the 

province. 

Research on wolves in Canada began with the 

pioneering work of Cowan (1947), includes the 

earliest telemetry study of this species (Kolen· 

osky and Johnston 1967), and continues with at least 6 active studies in 6 jurisdictions. 

The work of Carbyn (1975, 1983) in Riding 

Mountain National Park, Manitoba, is the only 

ongoing long-term study of wolves and other 

canids and their interactions with ungulate 

prey species in Canada. 

Management of wolves in Canada includes 

inventory, predator-prey research, harvest 

monitoring, international cooperation with the 

United States, control to reduce livestock 

depredations and benefit ungulates, and 

efforts to reduce human exploitation in 

wilderness reserves (Peterson 1986). Treaty 

Indians have unrestricted hunting privileges; 

their direct effect on wolves and indirect 

effects from harvesting prey species such as caribou (Rangifer tarandus) may influence 

wolf numbers across a broad area of northern 

Canada. 

Gray Wolf: Alaska 

In Alaska, wolves currently occupy most of 

their original range; about 1.3 million km2 

and 84% of the state's land area. Kodiak 

Island, the Aleutian Islands, and several large 

islands in southeastern Alaska probably never supported wolves. In early winter 1987-88, 

between 5,200 and 6,500 wolves occupied 24 

of 26 game management units statewide 

(Alaska Dcp. Fish and Game 1988). This 

estimate was similar to estimates for the 

previous 2 winters. Currently, wolf numbers 

in most areas of the state are thought to be 

stable or slowly increasing (Alaska Dcp. Fish 

and Game 1988). 

Wolves arc classified as both big game and 

fu•bcarers in Alaska. The hunting season for 

residents and nonresidents is from 10 August to 30 April, and bag limits differ by area and 

range from 2 to unlimited. Trapping seasons usually extend from November through March 

without a bag limit. Before 1988-89, wolves 

in much of the state could be taken on a trap· 

ping license after hunters pursued wolves 

with airplanes and landed nearby. Shooting 

from the air has been prohibited since 1972, 

but continues illegally; 2 documented instan· ccs in Denali National Park and Preserve involved several wolves during 1985-88. In 

1988, regulations further restricted airplane 

assisted hunters to 7 game management units 

in interior Alaska and an annual bag limit of 

10 wolves. 

Melchior et al. (1987) reported that documented wolf harvests in Alaska ranged from 

673 to 1,042 between 1978-79 and 1985-86. 

Reported harvests were 805 in 1986-87 and 

1,067 in 1987·88. Hunters and trappers are required to register pelts of harvested wolves, 

but pelts used locally often are not recorded as part of the reported total take. 
216 

Restoration of Wolves in North America 

Alaska does not control wolves to reduce livestock depredations; predation on horses and 

domestic dogs is infrequent and there are few 

cattle, sheep, or poultry ranches. Wolf control 

programs to benefit moose (Aices alces) and 

caribou populations were initiated in 197S-76. 

Durin& 1976-83 about 1,300 wolves Were taken 

in several control programs in interior Alaska. 

Responses of unsulate populations to these 

control prosrams have been variable (Gasaway 

et al. 1983, Ballard et al. 1987), and wolf 

control was reduced to 1 area of interior 

Alaska by 1985. Attitudes of Alaskan residents toward wolf control currently range 

from strongly supportive to strongly opposed 

and seem to be related to their urban or rural 

residency. 

Research on wolves and wolf-ungulate relationships in Alaska includes the pioneering 

work of Murie (1944) and more recent studies 

by Haber (1977), Stephenson and James (1982), 

Gasaway et al. (1983), Peterson et al. (1984), 

Ballard et al. (1987), and Mcch (1989). 

Peterson (1986) stated that the most important 

long-term threat to wolves jn Alaska is increasing permanent human settlement. Although efforts to establish agricultural activities, transfer state·owned lands to private 

ownership, and initiate large hydro-electric 

projects in wilderness areas began in the late 

1970s, some of these ventures either failed or 

proved infeasible. Permanent human settle- ment and its negative implications for wolf 

conservation are yel to occur over most of 

Alaska. 

Rod Wolf 

Originally occurring from Texas to Florida 

and north to the Carolinas, Kentucky, south· ern Illinois, and southern Missouri (Young 

and Goldman 1944, Nowak 1970), the red wolf was widely thought to be abundant through- out the western third of its range as recently 

as the late 1950s and early 1960s (Hall and 

Kelson 1959, Burt and Grossen-heider 1964). 

However, McCarley (1962), after extensive 

study of skulls recently obtained from wild 

canids in the south-central United States, concluded that coyotes (Ca.1is latrans) had replaced red wolves in most areas presumed to 

contain large populations of the latter. 

McCarley's report prompted Pimlott and Joslin 

( 1968) to conduct extensive surveys for re· 

mainina red wolf populations in 1964 and 

1965. Based on results from howl-response 

techniques developed for use on gray wolves 

in Canada, they concluded that red wolves 

persisted only along the upper Texas Gulf 

coast and in extreme southwestern Louisiana. 

Based on similar methods, Russell and Shaw 

(1971) estimated that no more than 300 red 

wolves remained in coastal Texas by 1970. 

The status of the red wolf was obscured 

partially because of its rapid replacement by 

coyotes and because of the tendency for local 

people to refer to wild Canis as "wolves.' 

Hybridization between red wolves and coyotes has contributed to the confusion over the red 

wolf's status and poses the greatest threat to 

the remaining red wolves. Specimens of wild 

Canis from northeastern Texas and parts of 

Louisiana and Arkansas after the 1930s were intermediate in size between coyotes and 

specimens of red wolves collected before 1930 

(Paradiso and Nowak 1971, 1972). As Mech 

(1970) suggested, hybridization probably occurred intermittently for centuries. These 

crosses probably had little influence upon 

either parental population when the zone of sympatry was small and both populations were 

numerous outside the zone. 

By the 1930s, the red wolf had disappeared east of the Mississippi and persisted only in 

small, scattered populations in the western 

portions of its range. Fragmentation and 

social disruption of wolf populations, in addition to the range expansion of the coyote, increased opportunities of hybridization of 

wolves and coyotes and threatened the genetic 

integrity of the red wolf. 

As a result of the Pimlott and Jo,:in (1968) survey, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) 

listed the red wolf as critically endangered in 

1967, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

listed it as endangered soon thereafter. The 

red wolf received federal protection with 

passage of the 1973 Endangered Species Act 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1984) 

initiated a recovery program for the red wolf 

in fall 1973. Conclusions from subsequent 

field investigations were that hybridization 

was too extensive even along the Texas Gulf coast for the species to survive much longer 

in the wild. Accordingly, emphasis shifted to 

a captive propagation program, centered at the Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma, Washing-
217 

The Wildlife Society Technical Review 91-1 6 

ton (Carley 1975). Onl y 40 or 400 examined 

individuals from the Texas coast were considered sufficiently red wolf-like to qualify for 

captive breeding. The present population of 

red wolves is descended from only 17 animals 

removed from the wild (Parker 1988). 

The red wolf populations of Texas and Louisiana now are thought to consist entirely of 

hybrids. Thus, survival of the species seems to rest entirely upon captive propagation and 

restoration. 

In early 1988, there were 113 red wolves; 13 

were free-ranging in North Carolina (W. T. 

Parker, Fish and Wildl. Serv., pers. commun.), 

4 juveniles were on Bull Island, South Carolina, and 8 lived on Horn Island, Mississippi, 

as part of the propagation program. The 

remaining 88 were in 16 zoos and research 

centers. 

Mexican Wolf 

The Mexican wolf or lobo, formerly wide· 

spread in the temperate uplands or sub-Mogollon Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, 

Trans-Pecos Texas, and northern Mexico, has 

been extirpated from the wild in the United 

States and nearly so in Mexico (Brown 1983). 

The last authenticated breeding record or a 

Mexican wolf in the United States was on 

Fort Huachuca, Arizona, in 1944. In the 

United States, the last Mexican wolves were killed in Texas in 1970, in New Mexico in 

1970, and in Arizona in 1975 (Brown 1983). 

These animals were considered to have been 

either transient males from Mexico or released 

captives. Reports of Mexican wolves since that 

time are unsubstantiated and may involve 

coyotes, dogs, or escaped or released captive 

wolves or wolf -hybrids. 

The situation in Mexico is similar. In 1978, 

McBride (1980) estimated that 20 wolves re- mained in 2 areas in the state of Durango. 

another dozen or so in central Chihuahua, and 

no more than 50 in all of Mexico. The wolf's 

present status in Mexico is unknown, but must be regarded as close to extinction in its 

natural state. 

The captive Mexican wolves are closely 

related (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Beginning in 1977, under a cooperative agree- ment between the Un ited States and Mexico, 

wild Mexican wolves were captured for 

holding and breeding. Captive breeding 

efforts currently are conducted at the 

Arizona~Sonora Desert Museum near Tucson, 

Arizona; the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center near St. Louis, Missouri; the Rio 

Grande Zoological Park in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico; and the La Michilia Biosphere re- serve near Suchil, Durango (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1982). A large captive population of about 60 animals is needed to preserve the species' genome and support a 

restoration program. No wild-trapped animals 

are believed to be available for release. 

WOLF SOCIAL ECOLOGY 

The social ecology or wolves must be considered in the development or reintroduction 

plans. Gray wolves are highly social and Jive 

in packs of related individuals that range in 

size from 2 to >25 animals (Mech 1970). Mexican wolves ha ve not been studied extensivel y, 

but may occur in smaller packs of 2-8 animals 

(Bednarz 1988). Red wolf packs of 2-11 have 

been recorded; however the social structure of 

this species has not been studied completely 

(Riley and McBride 1972, Carley 1979). 

New packs or gray wolves are established by 

dispersing individuals that locate mates and 

reproduce (Rothman and Mech 1979, Fritts 

and Mech 1981). Packs establish and defend 

territories from 125 km2 (Mech 1987) to over 

2,541 km2 (Ballard et al. 1987); ranges of unmated individuals are larger and are not 

defended (Fritts and Mech 1981). Summer ac- tivities center on home sites (den and rendezvous areas) that also serve as refuges for 

pack members at other times of the year (Harrington and Meeh 1982). Densities of 0.6 to 4.3 

gray wolves/ 100 km2 have been recorded (Van 

Ballenberghe et al. 1975, Hebert et al. 1982, 

Carbyn 1987). 

Gray wolf packs maintain territories by howling (Harrington and Mech 1979) and scent 

marking (Peters and Mech 1975). Wolves howl more frequently at home sites than elsewhere 

(Harrington and Mech 1983). Lone, unmated wolves scent~mark rarely. whereas newly 

formed pairs scent-mark frequently until the y become established (Rothman and Mech 1979). Because of the large distances that dispersing 

individuals may move and the abundance of 
218 

Restoration of Wolves in North America 

potential dispersers, individual gra y wolves 

occur outside the species range in the lower 

48 states (Fritts 1983, Mech 1987). However, 

the presence of unmated wolves is not evidence of successful recolonization, considering 

the abundance of such records (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1981a.b). In most areas, the 

presence of breeding groups is eas y to determine because mated pairs, especially newl ymated pairs, are vocal and their scent marking is consp ic uous, at lea st in accessible areas. 

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 

Gone tics 

Consideration of genetics is relatively new in 

conservation. Until recently wildlife biologists had little concern for effects of genetic 

drift or inbreeding, in part because of the 

lack of empirical findings among free-living 

wild vertebrates. This lack of concern was 

reinforced by widely successful reintroductions of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus •·irginimws), wild turkeys (Me/eagris gallopm•o), and 

other game species; man y were founded by a 

f e w individuals. Declines in reproduc tion and 

survival of young among inbred populations 

of wild species in zoos caused widespread reevaluation of genetics and conservation 

(Ralls et al. 1979), and led quickly to the emergence of conservation geneti cs as a scientific discipline (Schonewald-Cox et al. 1983). 

Drawing upon established theories in popu- l3.tion genetics. conservation geneticists explained the differences between the success of reintroduced game species and the failure of 

m:1ny zoo populations. The .long·tcrm reten· 

tion of genetic variability rests on 2 campo· 

nents (Franklin 1980, Soule 1980). The first, 

f ounder group size, probably was overesti- mated in importance. The second, maintena nce of population size. was underestim:ucd. 

Both reintroduced game populations and 

captive-reared zoo populations commonly were 

founded by only a few individuals. Game 

populations often expanded and came into 

cc>ntact with one another or with extant 

native populations. As formerly isolated 

populations merged, they greatly increased the 

maintenance population size. 

Because of limited space, zoos must maintain 

each gerteration at much lower numbers than 

in the wild. This difference in maintenance 

population size probably accounts for most of the differences in the success of the restored 

game populations and their zoo counterparts. 

This difference does not, howe ver, account 

for the persistence of isolated populations 

such as moose and wolves on Isle Royale, 

although insufficient time ma y have passed 

since these 2 species colon ized that island for 

geneti c heterozygosity to be lost. 

A genetic model was developed by Ulysses Scat and Tom Foose to help set population 

goals for th e red wolf--assuming that it is a 

genetically distinct speci es. The model used 

the number of founders (17), the size of the 

actual population (85), and other specific characteristics of the red wolf population and 

indcntified goals of an actual population size 

of 220 wolves in the wild, augmented periodically from a captive population of 330 wolves 

(Anon. 1988). 

No such estimate yet has been made for the 

gray wolf, but it may be quite. different. 

Because the gray wolf is far more numerous 

over a much greater geog raphic range than 

the red wolf, it presumabl y contains substantiall y more overall genetic v:uiability than the 

red wolf. Moreover , its social beha v ior. movements, and dispersal patterns may differ from 

those of its c lose relative. 

Theoretical considerati o ns aside, the Isle 

Royale wolf population that was almost cer- tainly founded by a po pulation of 2 wolves 

has survived for 40 years. Although the 

population was at an all·time low in spring 

1989, at least I new litter of pups was produced (R. 0. Peterson, Michigan Tech. Univ., 

pers. commun.). Thus, the low of II Isle 

Royale wolves may be no more significant a 

deviation biologically than the population 

high of 50 animals. 

Estimated necessary wolf populations for 

maintaining genetic variability and for avo id· 

ing inbreeding depression will be approximate 

at best. Current methods offer only broad 

guidelines. Reintroductions of wolves into areas where they likely will remain isolated 

from other populations may require further 

reintroduction of some individuals every few 

years to maintain genetic variability. Several 

methods for systematic monitoring for levels 

of genetic variability have been recommended 
219 

The Wildlife Societ y Technical Review 9 1-1 

(Lande and Barrowclou gh 19g7). 

Minimum Viable Populations 

Small, isolated populations are more likely to 

become extinct than large, contiguous popula· 

tion s within any specific time period. In 

recent years, however, this readil y apparent 

associa tion has been refined and developed 

into th e co ncept of minimum viable populatio n (MVP). Demographic, en vironmental, and 

genetic unce rtainties and the risk of natural 

catastrophes form the ba sis for estimating 

MVPs. Ea rl y efforts (Shaffe r 1981 ) attempted 

to establish a rbitrary le ve ls of MVP for survival probabilit y ove r a specified period; e.g. a 

99% c hance of sur viving f or 1,000 years. 

Eve n though MVP currentl y docs not provide 

precise estimat es of the num bers needed to 

ensure an acceptable chance for sur viva l over 

a specific period, it provides conceptual and 

analytical tools for wolf restora ti on. Even 

very r ou gh estimates of MVPs in comb inati o n 

with information on home range, socia l be· 

ha vio r, and dispersal data ca n fu rnish im· 

proved estimates of minimum area require· 

ments (MAR) f or a ne w population. One 

rece nt MVP model, for exa mpl e, suggested 

that no more than 22% of the world's nation al 

parks a re big enough to sustain populations of 

large ca rnivores f or 100 yea rs, a nd non e ca n 

sustain large carni vo re s for 1,000 years 

(Belovsky 1987). 

One impl ic:u ion of suc h a conclusio n is that 

national p~Hk s and bi ologica l rese rves ha ve to 

be substanti ally enlarged before they ca n act 

as self·sustaining ecosystems. Th e most diffi· 

cult component of a natural ecosystem to 

mainta in in an area will be large ca rnivores 

at the top of the food c hain. 

Current MVP models suggest ot her mana ge- me nt possibilities for large ca rn ivor es. If 

national parks and other protected areas can -

not prov ide large en ough a rc:ts f or se lf-perpetuating populations of wol ves, systemati c 

and periodi c reintroducti on of wolves from 

outside ma y ensure popul a tion surv ival. Obviousl y, such a managemen t approach requires 

maintai nin g hea lth y wo lf populations else· 

where, preferably in a wild state . 

Finall y, co nsiderat io ns ot her than MVP ma y 

be more suita ble f or estimatin g the desired 

size f or reintroduced wolf populations, at 

least f or th e gray wolf. A primary justifica tion fo r restora tion of wolves is th e restora -

tion of a top preda tor to the ecosystem. 

Enough is known about wolf predation on 

ungulate populations to allow estimation of 

population sizes that arc ecologically func · 

tiona! rather than just minimall y viable 

(Conner 1988), and such ecological esti mates 

should at least supplement estimates by MVP 

theor y for dec isio ns on wo lf popu lat io n size. 

Pe rhaps the most impo rtant point co ncer n ing 

MVP theor y is tha t it seems to be a sound bul 

untested concept. Th is shortcoming can be 

remedied in large measure through t he detailed monitoring of re int rod uced populations, 

isolated pop ulat io ns, or both . Such fi eld data 

toge ther with refinements in the MVP models 

can grea tl y improve th e utilit y of the minimum v ia ble popula tion concept in co nse rvation . 

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WOLF 

RESTORATION 

Decisions about when. where, and how to 

rcinlrodu cc wolves depe nd upon soc ial valu es 

as mu c h as ecolog ical co nsiderations (Clark 

and Kcll crt 1988). Altho ugh ecologica l consi derati ons arc fundame nt a l, an e normous 

ra nge of poli cy opt ions is possible th at 

refl ec ts competing and interac tin g huma n 

val ues, soc ioeco nomic press ures, reg ula tory 

mand a tes, and administr a ti ve attitudes and 

behavior. 

Values and Attitudes 

Kcllcrt ( 1980n) deve loped a t ypology to desc ribe basic human attit udes toward anim~lls 

tha t ca n be used to consider perceptions an d 

values about wol ves. Historicall y, wolves 

have been percei ved in nega ti v isti c, utilitar· 

ian, and domini onisti c te rms (Goldman 1944, 

Young 1946, Matthi cssen 1959, Dunla p 1988). As views of wil dl ife, espec ia lly predators, 

sh ift ed during the 20 th centur y, the wolr 

became a symbol of hum:1n persec ution of 

a nima ls. Pop ular books (Mowat 1963. Lopez 

1978), films, and television programs refl ected 

this basic attitude change. Indi cati ve of th is ne w perspective, the gra y wolf w3s a mong th e 

first species to be officially listed as endan· 
220 

9 Restoration of Wolves in North America 

gered after passage of the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act in 1969. Aldo Leopold's 

career reflected this profound shift in American consciousness toward the wolf. Initially a 

strong advocate of wolf control, Leopold 

(1949) later recognized thi• animal's biological 

and symbolic significance in the preservation 

of wilderness and sustainable ecosystems. 

Among many in contemporary North America , 

however, the ambivalence remains. The wolf 

embodies new virtues of wilderness and ecology for some, whereas for others, particularly 

its old agricultural adversaries, the wolf 

remains a vicious killer. This wide variation 

in contemporary attitudes towa rd the wolf has 

been documented in several recent studies. 

Lewellyn (1978) and Kellert (1980b) reported 

widespread variations in attitudes toward 

wolves and coyotes. Nearly as many Americans had negative as positive views of these 

species. Most favorable perceptions were 

among wildlife advocates from urban areas 

and coastal states. Agriculturalists, parti ::: ularl y livestock producers, and to a lesser 

e xtent, residents of the South, respon dents 

over 55 years of age, perso ns of less than high 

school education, and nonwhites expressed 

nega tive views. A strong correlation be tween 

ne ga tive attitude and lack of factual kn owledge about the wolf was noted by Llewell yn 

(1978) and Biggs (1988). Highly antagonistic 

views of predators among livestock producer!\ 

are common (Buys 1975, Kellen 1986, Bi ggs 

1988, Bath and Buchanan 1989). Ranchers 

seem to be unwilling to c hange their views on 

wolf restoration, even if offered finan c ial 

compensation for losses of stock (Stuby ct al. 

1979, Kellert 1980c). Llewellyn (1978) and 

Kellert (1986) found unfavora ble perceptions 

among about 25% of the people living close to 

the wolf in Minnesota. Hook ;and Robinson 

(1982) reported that opposition among rural, 

lower income, male hunters and a general 

distrust of government were involved in the 

animosity toward restoration of wolves in 

upper Michigan. Of the 4 introduced wolves, 

one was killed by a car, one was shot by a 

person plinking with a .22 rifle, one wa s 

caught accidentally by a coyote trapper, and 

o ne was killed by a deer hunter. 

Kellert (1983) and Burghardt and Herzog 

(1988) suggested that negative percept ions of 

the wolf may be associated with fears about 

their presumed dangerousness, predato ry 

nature, potential threat to human property, 

wilderness associations; traditional cultural, 

historical antipathies, and perhaps to their 

nocturnal behavior. Negative attitudes toward 

wolves may be re lated strongly to hostile 

depictions of th is animal in various myths, 

childrcns' stori es, and literature depictions 

(Johnson 1974, More 1978). In an investigation of views of predators, Arthur et al. 

(1977) found that of 16 species examined, 

hostile perceptions of wolves were exceeded 

only by attitudes toward skunk s. 

Kellen (1986) and Tucker and Pletsc hcr 

(1989) f o und that most respondents suppo rted 

the right of farme rs to protect rh e ir stock 

from wolf predat io n and opposed limits on 

human settlement as a mean s of protecting 

wolf habitat. Most favored control of only 

the offending animal and th e usc of nonlethal 

methods such as relocatio n, guard dogs, and 

improved hu sban dry. These findings supported 

those of Stuby et al. (1979) and Kcllert (1985) 

on the control of depredating coyotes and by 

Biggs (1988 ) on attitudes of New Mexico 

residents about the possible restoration of 

Me xican wolves. Kcll ert ( 1986) f o und that 

most respondents in Minnesota o pposed wolf 

reductions as n mean s of increa sing deer and 

o ther game animal populations, as did Bath's 

respo ndents ( 1987) to a survey of members of 

the Wyoming Wildlife Federatio n. Most of the 

Minncsot:t publi c expressed skepticism toward 

harvesting wolv es for pelts. a lth o ugh a limited 

harvest wa s e nd orsed by a majo rit y of trappers and deer hu nters; th ese findings were 

corroborated by Tucker and Plctschcr ( 1989) in Montana. A majori r y of hu nters and residents west and adja cent to Glacier National 

Park, where natu r ally recolonizing wolf packs 

arc present , expressed posi ti ve views on wolf 

recovery (Tucker and Pletsc her 1989). However, a minorit y voiced fear of wolves as a 

threat to human :;n fct y and opposed having 

wolves in the a re a. 

McNaught ( 198 7) f ound strong su ppo rt for 

wolf restorati on among the majority of Yellowstone National Park visit ors in summer 

198 7 for a variet y of ecological, aesthetic, and 

outdoor recr ea ti ona l rea sons. Significantly 

less support Cor wolf restoration was found 

among older respondents, lodge guests as com· 

pared to campers, and the less educated indi viduals. McNaught (1987) found stronger 

support for wolf restoration among local park 

visitors from Wyoming. Idah o, and Montana 

than among persons residing out5ide the 

region , as well as stronger pro-wolf sentiments 
221 

The Wildlife Society Technical Review 91-1 10 

among persons with part-time livestock-raising 

experience compared to full-time livestock 

producers. These respondents were park visitors and not representative samples of local 

area residents or full-time ranchers. Defenders of Wildlife and Wyoming Wildlife Federation members viewed the wolf positively and 

supported the wolf restoration to Yellowstone, 

although Defenders members generally expressed stronger pro-wolf sentiments than 

Federation members (Bath 1987). 

Regulatory Issues 

Two issues are of particular concern: (1) legal 

mandates and interpretations that could affect 

the nature and course of wolf restoration, and 

(2) administrative and organizational factors 

relating to the ability of regulatory agencies 

to implement wolf restoration policy effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, system· 

atic studies of these subjects arc lacking. 

Goldman·C3rter (1983) and Coggins and Wilkinson (1987) illustrate the utility of considering reintroduc~d wolves as nonessential ex~ 

perimental populat~ons. Population manage~ 

ment involving anim~il-damage control and 

harvesting of wolves as game animals has 

been prominent in recent court cases involving wolves. For example, the legal decisions 

in Fund for Animals vs. Andrus, 1 I Environmental Reporter Cases 2189 (District Minnesota 1978) and Sierra Club vs. Clark, 755 

Federal 2d 608 (8th Circuit 1985) seemed to 

have placed fairly strict limits on the extent 

of administrative discretion permitted in 

managing a federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, particularly in the context 

of controlling livestock depredations and the 

acceptability of an annual harvest. 

Additionally, although more ambiguously, the 

courts seemed to have emphasized the primary 

responsibility of the federal rather than state 

governments in the management and conservation of a federally listed endangered or 

threatened species. In Fund for Animals vs. 

Andrus the courts, although allowing control of depredating wolves, precluded indiscrimi~ 

nate taking of nonoffending animals and, in 

effect, mandated control regulations based on 

conclusive biological and economic considerations. ln Sierra Club vs. Clark, the court suggested that a sport season or annual harvest 

of a threatened species was conceptually in~ 

consistent with Congress' intent in passing the 

Endangered Species Act. More ambiguously, 

88-881 - 95 - 8 

the court, by effectively denying state-proposed management, may have, as in Pa/ila vs. 

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 649 Federal Supplement 1070 (District 

of Hawaii 1986), discouraged state agency 

participation, but the opinion did not o::uggest 

that federal management of listed species was 

enlarged. 

No empirical research has been conducted on 

administrative implementation efforts to manage and conserve wolves, other than the work 

of Weaver (1987). However, Yaffee (1982), 

Clark and Harvey (I 988), and Clark et al. 

(1989), emphasized the importance of the effect of the regulatory agency on the success 

or failure of endangered species recovery 

efforts. 

Clark and Harvey (1988) stressed the importance of the following organizational characteristics as means of facilitating effective 

recovery programs: (I) decentralized decisionmaking abilities, (2) open flow of communication between managers and scientists, (3) 

avoidance of rigid bureaucratic structures 

characterized by an inordinate concern for 

power and control instead of goals, (4) retention of flexible and creative decisionmaking 

capacities, (5) fostering feedback procedures 

for assimilating new information, and (6) 

institutionalization of clear accountability and 

performance standards. These authors note 

that although agencies must respond to social 

and political considerations, they also need to 

be vigilant in avoiding undue external group 

influence, particularly "capture" by pressure 

groups motivated more by self-serving than by 

species-recovery objectives. 

Rigid restrictions to management of wolves by 

the Endangered Species Act prompted amend- ment of the Act in J 982 to provide for an 

experimental population designation for reintroductions (Section IO[j] of the Act; Public 

Law 97-304). This provision allows flexibility 

in managing introduced populations that docs 

not apply to wolves that naturally recolonize 

an area--they continue to be classified as 

endangered. Experimentally designated populations are treated as nonessential, which 

allows their management to be tailored to the 

specific situation by afford-ing reduced 

protection under Sections 7 and 9 of the Act 

(Parker 1989). The nonessential designation 

also is appropriate because wolves exist in 

many populations across Canada and Alaska. 

The red wolf is considered secure in widely 
222 

II Restoration of Wolves in North America 

separate captive breeding programs and zoos 

in the United States (Fed. Reg. 51[223]:41792, 

19 Nov. 1986). This amendment alleviated 

some concerns among agricultural- ists about 

protecting livestock from depreda- tions. 

r;ccause tolerance to the presence of wolves is tow among some groups, maximum flexibilit y 

to manage wolves is necessa ry to reduce 

human conflict. 

Because the human dimension is so significant 

to wolf restoration, one of the most important 

needs is public education about wolves. Such 

education must be factual and objective, both 

exposing the myths about wolves and admitting the negative aspects of wolf relations 

with humans. It should be taught in schools, 

nature centers, museums, and special forums, 

and should include the mass media. State and 

federal agencies should be involved. 

Resc:arch on wolf-livestoc k relations also is 

necessary; particularly study of factors predisposing livestock to wolf predation, nonlethal 

methods of preventing or alleviating depredations, and more effective and selective mean s 

of controlling wolves in extensive mountainous terrain. The results of this researc h and 

information about livestock husbandry practices that minimizes losses to predation should 

be made widely available to th<: public 

through extension programs. 

METHODS OF REINTRODUCING 

WOLVES 

Griffith et at. (1989) point out that the most 

successful translocations arc those that occur 

in high quality habitat well wi t hin the original range of the species. All potential translocations of wolves arc in the original range 

of the species. Best habitats for this obligate 

carnivore have an adequate prey base, suff i· 

cient size, and relatively low levels of human 

activity. 

The main problem with reintroduction is the 

tendency of translocated wolves to move long 

distances, apparently attempting to return 

home (Weise et at. 1975, Henshaw et at. 1979, 

Fritts et at. 1984). Because wolves range so 

widely, if they leave the intended reestablishment site, they may settle in areas where 

they could feed on livestock and cause serious public relations problems. 

Past releases indicate that holding wolves in a 

pen at or ncar the release site seems to disrupt their roaming and homing tendency, a nd 

that these tendencies arc weakest in young 

wolves. Restricted movements were exhibited 

by 4 6-9-month-old gray wolves translocated 

in Minnesota, even though they had not been 

held in a pen at the release site (Fritts ct aL 

1984). Likewise, 2 9-month-old red wolves 

exhibited restricted movements after just I 

week in a holdJng pen constructed a t the re- lease site (M. K. Phillips, Fish and Wildt. 

Serv .• pcrs. commun). A yearli ng and a 2-year-old red wolf both stayed at the release 

area after having been acclimat ed for only 

80-82 days (Phillips 1988a,b). Thus, most 

young wolves seem to exhibit restricted movements even in the absence of a lengthy acclimation peri od. Disadvantages of using youngof-the-year for reintroductions are that they 

are not as expe ri enced in hunting a s adults 

and may not bre ed until 2-4 years old. 

Adult wolves can be expected to roam more 

widely than yo un ger wolves. Three adult 

gray wolves held for 1 week in a pen at the 

release area in Michigan moved widely after 

release (Weise et at. 1975). Two adult, wild, 

red wolves held for 6 weeks ranged outside 

the release area (Carley 1977), whereas another pair held in the same area f or 6 months 

remained in the area after release (Carley 

1980). Four ot her pairs of red wolves that 

were born and raised in captivity and held in 

a pen at their release sites for 10 to 10 1/ 2 

months remained near the release sites (Ph il~ 

lips l988a,b). Older animals may be more 

likely to remain ncar the release site if held 

in a pen for at lc a:st 6 months. 

To encourage reestablished gray wolves to prey on a particular species of ungulate. the 

stock for release should be captured from an area where it preyed primaril y on that species. While wolves arc held at the release site, 

they should be fed prey of the target species. 

In addition , carcasses of such prey should be 

stockpiled to help subsidize the wolves for 

several weeks after release. Work with rein· 

traduced red wolves indicated that some captive-born animals may take a few weeks to 

learn to feed themselves consistentl y and that 

supplemental feeding can be successful (Phillips 1988b). 
223 

The Wildlife Society Technical Review 91-1 12 

All released wolves should be radio-collared 

and tracked so their fate and movements are 

known. Not only will this information allow 

an ongoing assessment of the reintroduction , 

but it also will help antic ipate prob lems th a t 

might be caused by the wolves straying from 

the release area and will provide valuable 

dat a for other releases. Consideration should 

be given to the use of capture collars (Mech 

et al. 1984, 1990) that will allow recapture of 

straying individuals at will. Telemetry systems that can be turned off and on with 

remote c0ntrols (Mech et al. 1990) should be 

considered where radio signals may be monitored by poachers. 

Because the Mexican wolf is now extirpated 

in the United States and is nearly so in Mexico. reestablishing this controversial animal 

will be doubly difficult. A suitable release 

site must be found and the reintroduced stock 

must consist of captive-bred animals without 

a demonstrated ability to survive in the wild. 

Simply releasing animals in suitable habitat 

with an adequate prey base will not suffice. 

The introduced wolves must successfully form 

a social unit, learn to hunt, establish a home 

range, reproduce, and su rvi ve. All of these 

behaviors will be especially important in the 

recovery effort because throughout the region 

human attitudes arc likely to be hostile. 

All releases should be restricted to "Wolf Management Areas" (WMA), and wolves would be 

considered part of an experlmental popula· 

tion under subsection IO(j) of the Endangered 

Species Act. The proposed release sites would 

be divided into 2 parts: a 'primary wolf 

management area" of sufficient size to sup· 

port a small number of wolf packs that are 

totally protected and managed, and a 'secondary wolf management area" where roaming wolves would be granted some measure of tol· 

erance and be subjected either to recapture or supervised control measures. Wolves in all 

other areas should not be protected and would 

be subject to control measures. 

Ideally, all or significant portions of the primary WMA already should be retired from 

livestock grazing (the Gila Wilderness Area in 

New Mexico where many livestock allotments 

have been retired for use by game animals 

would be an ideal WMA). Cow-calf operations 

should, if feasible, be changed to steer operations on any remaining ranches in WMAs. 

Ranchers in and outside WMAs should be 

compensated for livestock losses verified by 

Animal Damage Control personnel of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. This could be 

done through an indemnity bond or reduced 

or suspended grazing fees in WMAs. 

Red Wolf Program 

The Red Wolf recove ry program relies exclu~ 

sivcly upon captive propagation (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1984). Successful recovery 

requires suitable, essentially coyote~free res~ 

toration sites in the original geographic range 

of the species. 

In 1984, the Prudential Insurance Company 

donated nea rly 120,000 acres of undeveloped 

swamp and marsh in coastal North Carolina 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These 

lands became the Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuge. The refuge wa s considered 

an ideal site for the reintroduction of red 

wolves because it is in the historic range of 

the species, sparsely settled, and sufficiently 

isolated to facilitate management of the 

wolves and to restrict coyotes and feral dogs. 

In conjunction with adjacent Department of 

Defense lands, it is large enough to support a 

wolf population (Phillips and Parker 1988). 

Briefings of North Carolina congressmen, the 

North Carolina commissioner of agriculture, 

the governor's staff, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and 4 public meetings were held early in 1986 to gain local 

public support for restoration of red wolves. 

This support was the key to allowing the 

restoration to proceed (Parker 1988). 

Four pairs of red wolves that spent 10 months 

in acclimation pens were released in Septem· 

ber 1987 (Phillips and Parker 1988). Two 

females died in early winter and their mates were recaptured and repaired with replace· 

ment females soon thereafter. These new 

females and the 2 original males were released in April 1988 (Phillips 1988b). 

Meanwhile, another pair of red wolves was 

placed in the acclimation pen at Bulls Island, 

where it bred and produced 4 pups in late April 1988 (Parker 1988). Two pups survived, 

and they and their parents were released in 

July 1988. The adults had radio collars and 

the pups carried surgically implanted transmitters. Late that same month, the adult 

female was found dead after having been 

killed, apparently by an alligator. The male 

continued to tend the pups, and in January 
224 

13 Restoration of Wolves in North America 

1989, the pups were recaptured and taken to the Alligator River Refuge where they were 

released, thus completing the first cycle of the 

island propagation strategy. Since their 

release, the pups established a home range 

that includes the release site. Inspection of 

scats and observations of the wolves indicate 

they were feeding themselves and were in 

good health as of 20 July 1989 (M. K. Phillips, 

Fish and Wildl. Serv., pers. commun.). 

Development of a second propagation site on 

Horn Island, Mississippi, began with the introduction of a pair of red wolves on 10 January 

1989. As with the Bulls Island wolves, pups 

produced on Horn Island eventually will be 

transported to the Alligator River Refuge. 

The steps in the red wolf restoration can be 

summarized as follows: (I) location of a site 

with acceptable biological criteria and with 

sufficient areas of protected habitat, (2) ex- tensive efforts to educate the public and its 

local leadership about the values of the res- toration and the precautions to be taken by 

those involved in the recovery, (3) construc- tion of acclimation pens, (4) release of 

radio-marked wolves, and (S) monitoring of the wolves and reevaluation of the methods 

based on new data. 

These restoration sites are coyote-free, but 

because of the coyote's propensity for range 

expansion, no one can be certain that the 

threat of hybridization will not emerge again. 

Nonetheless, red wolf populations may expand 

and exclude the coyote, as they presumably 

did for centuries. This issue must be assessed 

as red wolf restoration proceeds. 

Because of the limited numbers of red wolves, 

both in captivity and in the wild, plans are underway both to expand permanent captive 

populations to augment those established in 

the wild and to restore them to Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park and other areas. Because of the remoteness of the reestablished 

populations and little or no chance that they 

will ever become contiguous. such an arrange- ment seems biologically essential. 

WOLF MANAGEMENT 

Depredation On Lhestock and Pets 

Wolves inevitably will encounter livestock and 

pets that also inhabit the recovery areas. 

Experience in Minnesota and western Canada 

suggests that losses of livestock will be low 

and can be managed by controlling individual 

offending wolves (Fritts 1982, Gunson 1983). 

Management plans for individual wolves that prey on pets at campgrounds or other installations should be developed before restoration. 

Fritts and Paul (1989) found that some wolves 

persist in preying and feeding on dogs, thereby posing a local but substantial problem. 

Control of wolves preying on livestock and 

pets is imperative and should be prompt and 

efficient if illegal killing is to be prevented 

and human tolerance of the presence of wolves is to be maintained. 

Exploitation of the Prey Base by Humans 

Exploitation of ungulates by humans in north- ern ecosystems where wolves, black bears (Ursus americmws). grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). 

and mountain lions (Felis concolor) also occur 

may result in a wide variety of responses by 

ungulate populations, including depression of prey to lower numbers than in the absence of 

predators (Bergerud 1974, Gasaway et al. 1983, 

Messier and Crete 1985). Declines of ungulate 

populations initiated by severe winters, habitat deterioration, or hunting may be accentuated by wolves and possibly other predators. 

Subsequent to these declines, population increases may be delayed when wolves are pre- sent (Mech and Karns 1977, Gasaway et al. 

1983, Ballard and Larsen 1987). Such conditions are relatively rare; many ungulate/ gray 

wolf / bear complexes in North America are 

exploited by humans without driving ungulate numbers to low levels. But when management 

goals strive to increase ungulate harvests by 

humans or restore depressed ungulate populations to much higher densities, wolf population management must be considered. Nevertheless, strong opposition in Alaska and northwestern Canada in recent years has reduced 

the number and duration of wolf control programs (Williams 1988). 
225 

The Wildlife Society Technical Review 91-1 14 

Gauthier and Theberae (1987) reviewed recent literature on ungulate/wolf /bear relationships 

and drew 9 broad conclusions: I. Wolves primarily cat large ungulates, 

but their intake of small mammals may be 

high during summer or when large ungulates 

decline. 

2. Wolf and bear predation can significantly reduce survival rates of youns un- gulates durins the calving and summer periods. 

3. Winter weather and winter forage 

availability arc important influences on ungulate vulnerability to predation. Younger ungulates (including yearlings) seem to be more vulnerable than older ungulates. 

4. Prey switching by wolves can mainta in or increase their predation rate on pri· 

mary ungulate prey, increase the rate of 

ungulate prey decline, and maintain subsequent low ungulate densities. 

5. Wolf predation can be compensatory 

with starvation when an ungulate population 

is at or near maximum numbers as determined 

by food and climate. 

6. Hunting by humans usually is additive 

with wolf predation on ungulate populations. 7. Wolf numbers largel y arc determined 

by the per capita biomass of available food 

resources. This relationship is influenced by 

social factors that may reduce the wolves' 

breeding rate and result in time lags in the response of wolves to changes in ungulate 

pre y numbers. 

8. Where wolves and brown bears are co- predators of an ungulate species. bears can 

reduce ungulate numbers more than wolves 

because of their effect on younger prey. 

Co-predators likely reinforce the regulator y 

effect of predation if they, in combination, depress prey populations more than only I 

predator. 

9. Where wolves arc the dominant pred· aror of an ungulate species and prey numbers 

are below carrying capacity, a significant 

reduction in wolf numbers can produce in· 

creases in the number of ungulate prey. 

Connolly (1978) presented a broad framework of management questions about predator 

control. Theberge and Gauthier (1985) and 

Gauthier and Theberge (1987) expanded that 

framework and applied it specifically to gray 

wolf control, emphasizing the importance of 

good biological information on predator a nd 

pre y numbers and the need to assess carrying 

capacity of prey before implementing wolf 

reductions. Methods of crudely estimating the 

impact of predation, short of conducting long- term research, include assessment of predator:prcy ratios (Keith 1983) or prcdator:prey 

biomass ratios (Mcch 1970) that involve ranges 

of empirically derived values (Gasaway et al. 

1983) identifying thresholds of regulating 

effects. Recent work in Alaska suggests that 

prey:biomass ratios have promise as predictors 

of caribou population trends in multiprcy 

bear/ wolf ecosystems (Van Ballenbcrghe 1989). 

These results imply that managers must strive 

to keep prey biomass high in relation to wolf 

numbers to avoid sharp ungulate declines and 

rcsuhing controversial wolf control programs 

(Van Ballcnbcrghc 1985). 

If wolf control is implemented, a variety of 

techniques are available, ranging from uapping to shooting from aircraft to poisoning. Large-scale programs to remove 40% or more 

(Keith 1983) of gray wolf numbers over large areas of Alaska and northwestern Canada 

have employed shooting from helicopters and 

fixed-wing aircraft. In more settled areas 

with better access, trapping may be as cffcc· 

tive (Van Ballenberghe et al. 1975). For 

closely monitored wolf populations with 

radio·collared animals, selective pack removals 

(Haber et al. 1976) or efforts to reduce 

radioed packs to pairs or trios (Ballard and 

Stephenson 1982) ma y be effective. Wolves 

may rapidly recover from control programs 

through immigration and reproduction (Bal· 

lard et al. 1987); these results suggest that 

wolf control must be considered an acceptable 

management option. 

In wilderness areas where gray wolf popula· 

tions will be recovered and big game is hunted, wolves must be managed at levels compat· 

ible with hunting activity appropriate for 

wilderness. Currently, little effort is made to 

manage hunting of big game populations at 

levels appropriate to wilderness values. When 

established, wolves are a component of the wilderness values and ::allowable take of big 

game by hunters must consider their presence. Harvests may be reduced in wilderness areas 

in some instances (J. M. Peck and D. J. Vales, 

unpub. rep. to U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service, 

Helena, Mont., 1989). Hunter harvest, big game population trends, wolf -pre y interactions, and wolf population trends will have to 

be accurately monitored. 

Enhanc:emenl of the Prey Base 

Reestablishment should not be attempted in 
226 

IS Restoration of Wolves in North America 

areas without an adequote prey base. In some areas, particularly Europe, prey populations 

themselves first must be enhanced. This can be done by tighter restrictions on prey harvesting, by habitat manipulation, and in ex- treme cases by prey restoration. Only after 

adequate prey is restored should plans be 

made to reestablish wolves. This recommendtion should not be construed to apply to wilderness areas with substantial prey populations where inclusion of wolves may mean reductions in harvest by hunters. 

CONCLUSIONS 

To succeed, wolf restorotion efforts must in· 

clude extensive public involvement. The 

values. attitudes, interests, concerns. and 

understondings of various constituent and 

public interest groups mu.st be given pa rticular attention. In addition, intergovernmental 

and legal considerations should be odcquately 

considered and understood. Finally, adminis- trative issues, particularly the behavior and 

performance of regulatory agencies, must be 

recognized and evoluated as o criticol deter· 

minant of cndongered species recovery efforts. 

Successful restorotion of wolves to wild envi- ronments will reflect our obility to motch 

effectively the biologicol potential of this 

species with the needs and interests of various human population groups, within the con· 

straints and capacities of our legal and regu· 

latory system. 

Reintroductions should be made in orcas with 

substantiol wilderness character and adequate 

prey populotions, where confl.icts with li ve- stock are least likely, and where local support 

is prevalent. Reintroduced wol ves should be radi.o·collared for monitoring locations and 

activities. Wildlife management agenc ies 

should ensure that prov isions ro carry out this 

mon.itoring process are adequate. Monitoring 

will be a cruciol port of ongoing manogement 

programs. 

Plans to rapidly address livestock depreda· 

tions must be integral to wolf restoration programs. The livestock industr)' needs to be 

assured that its concerns arc addressed. Rc· introduced wolves in wilderness areas where 

big game is hunted should be designated 

experimentol populotions for muimum flexi· 

bility in monagement of their populations. 

Criteria for evaluating the success of a res- torotion must include assessment of population trend and reproductive success. Designo· 

tion of specific population size is less impor- tant than assessment of occupied area, population trend and performonce, and measures of 

humon tolerance. Minimum viable population 

levels must include genetic considerations. Augmentation from other populations may be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity in 

isoloted populations. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Aderhold, M. 1987. All for the Wolf. Mon- tana Outdoors 18:1 S-22. 

Alaska Department ol Fish and Game. 1988. 

Federol aid in wildlife restoration onnuol 

report of survey·inventory activities. Wolf. 

Volume XVIII Port XV. Proj. S-22-6, Job 14.0. 

Anonymous. 1988. The red wolf newsletter. 

1(1):1·4. Foil/ Winter 1988. 

Arthur, L. M .. R. L. Gum, E. H. Carpenter. 

and W. W. Shaw. 1977. Predator control: the 

public viewpoint. T rans. North Am . Wildt. 

and Not. Resour. Conf. 42:137-145. 

Atkins, D. L., and L. S. Dillon. 1971. Evolution of the cerebellum in the genus Canis. J. 

Mamn·;;;. 5(:96-107. 

Ballard, W. B., and D. G. Larsen. 1987. lm- plicotions of predator-prey relotionships to moose monogcment. Poges 581 -602 in G. Goronsson and S. Lavsund, eds. Proceedings Second lnternotionol Moose Symposium, 

Swedish Wildlife Research, Supplement I, Part 

2. 

___ , J. S. Wh H'" ""• and C. L. Gardner. 

1987. Ecolog y of " " exploited wolf populotion in south-central Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 

98. S4pp. 
227 

The Wildlife Societ y Technical Review 91 · 1 16 

___ ,and R. 0. Stephenson. 1982. Wolf 

control··takc some and leave some. Alccs 18:276-300. 

Bath, A. J. 1987. Attitudes of various inter· 

est groups in Wyoming toward wolf reintro· 

duction in Yellowstone National Park. M.A. 

Thesis, Univ. Wyoming, Laramie. 123pp. 

__, and T. Buchanan. 1989. Attitudes 

of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf 

restoration in Yellowstone National Park. 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 17:519·525. 

Bednarz, J. 1988. The Mexican wolf: biology, 

history, and prospects for reestablishment in 

New Mexico. Endangered Species Rep. 18, 

U.S. Fish and Wildl. Scrv .• Albuquerque, N.M. 

70pp, 

Belovsky, G. 1987. Extinction models and 

mammalian persistence. Pages 35·57 ill M. 

Soule, ed. Viable populations for conservation. 

Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England. 

and New York. 

Bereerud, A. T. 1974. Decline of caribou in 

North America foll owing settlement. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 38:757· 770. 

Big&s, J. R. 1988. Reintroduction of the 

Mexican wolf into New Mexico: an attitude 

survey. M.A. Thesis, New Mexico State Uni v., 

Las Cruces. 66pp. 

Brown, D. E. 1983. The wolf in the south· 

west. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson. 195pp. 

Burahardt, G., and H. Herzog. 1988. Beyon d 

conspecifics: Is Brcr Rabbit our brother? 

Bioscience 30:763· 768. 

Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. 1964. 

A field guide to the mammals. Hou g htonMifflin Co., Boston. 284pp. 

Bu ys, C. 1975. Predator control and ranch- ers' attitudes. Environ. and Beha v. 7:81·89. 

Carbyn, L. N. 1975. Wolf prcdal ion and be· 

ha vioral interactions with elk and other ung ulates in an area of high pre y densit y. Ph.D. 

Diss., Univ. of Toronto, Ontario. 234pp. 

--- · 1983. Wolf predatio n on elk in Rid · ing Mountain National Park, Manitoba . J. 

Wild!. Manage. 47:963· 976. 

___ . 1987. Gray wolf and red wolf. 

Pages 360·376 i11 M. Novak , J. A. Baker, M. E. 

Obbard, and B. Mallach, eds. Wil d furbearer 

management and conservation in North 

America . Ontario Ministr y of Natural 

Resources. Toronto. 

Carley, C. J. 1975. Acti vi ties and f indings 

of the red wolf recove ry program from late 

1973 to July I, 1975. U.S. Fish and Wildl. 

Serv., Albuquerque, N.M. Mimeo rep. 2 15pp. 

___ • 1977 Repo rt, discussion. an d 

recommendations on the experimental 

translocation of a pair of red wolves (Canis ru f us) to Bulls Island, Cape Romain National 

Wildlife Refuge, South Carolina. U.S. Fish 

and Wildl. Scr v., Albuquerque, N.M. 36pp. 

___ . 1979. Status summary: the red wolf 

(Callis rufus). Endangered Species Rep. 7., 

U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Albuquerque . N.M. 

36pp, 

___ . 1980. Red wolf experimental 

translocation project summari zed. Wild Ca nid 

Survival and Research Center Bull. Part II . 

Spring:8·9. 

Clark, T. W., R. Crel<, and J. Cada. 1989. 

Designing and managin g successfu l endangered species recove r y programs. Environ . 

Manage. 13. 12pp. 

___ ,and R. Harvey. 1988. Implementing 

endangered species r ecove r y policy: learn ing 

as we go? Endangered Spec ies Update 5:35·42. 

___ ,and S. R. Keller!. 1988. T oward a 

policy paradigm of the wildlife sc iences. 

Renewable Reso ur. J. 6:7-16. 

Coggins, G. C., and C. Wilkinson. 1987. 

Federal publi c land and resources law. 

Second ed . New Yo rk Fo undation Press, 

Westburg, N.Y. 1066pp. 

Conner. R. 1'< . 198 8. Wil dlife populati ons: 

minimall y viable or ecologically f unct ional ? 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:80·84. 

Connolly, G. E. 1978. Predators a nd preda tor 

co ntrol. Pa ges 369·394 ilf J. L. Sc hmidt and D. 

L. Gilbert, ed s. Bi g ga me of North Ameri ca, 

Stackpole Boo ks, Harrisbu rg, Pa . 
228 

17 Restoration of Wolves in North America 

Cowan, I. MeT. 1947. The timber wolf in the 

Rocky Mountain National Parks of Canada. 

Can. J. Res. 25:139-174. 

Dunlap, T. 1988. Saving America's wildlife. 

Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J. 222pp. 

Franklin, I. R. 1980. Evolutionary change in 

small populations. Pages 135-149. in M. Soule 

and B. Wilcox, eds. Conservation Biology: an 

evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass. 

Fritts, S. H. 1982. Wolf depredation on 

livestock in Minnesota. U. S. Fish and Wildl. 

Scrv. Resour. Publ. 145. llpp. 

___ . 1983. Record dispersal by a wolf 

from Minnesota . J. Mammal. 64:166-167. 

___ ,and L. D. Meeh. 1981. Dynamics, 

movements, and feeding ecology of a newly 

protected wolf population in northwestern 

Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. 80. 79pp. 

___ , and W. J. Paul. 1989. Interactions of 

wolves and dogs in Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. 

Bull. 17:121-123. 

___ ,_,and L. D. Meeh. 1984. 

Movements of translocated wolves in Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:709-721. 

Gusaway, W. C., R. 0. Stephenson, J. L. Davis, 

P. E. K. Shepherd, and 0. E. Burris. 1983. 

Interrelationships of wolves. prey, and man in 

interior Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 84. 50pp. 

Gauthnyler, D. A., and J. B. Theberge. 1987. 

Wolf predation. Pages 119-127 in M. Novak, J. 

A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Mallach, cds. 

W:ild furbearcr management a nd conservation 

in North America. Ontario Min istry of Natural Resources. Toronto. 

Goldman, E. A. 1937. The wolves of North 

America. J. Mammal. 18:37-45. 

G·oldman-Carter, J. 1983. Federal conserva- tion of threatened species by administrative 

discretion or by legislative standard? Boston 

Coli. Law Rev. 11:63-104. 

Griffith, B., J. M. Scott, J. W. Carpenter, and 

C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species 

conservation tool: status and strategy. 

Science 245:477-480. 

Gunson, J. R. 1983. Wolf depredation on 

livestock in western Canada. Pages 102-105 in 

L. N. Carbyn, ed. Wolves in Canada and 

Alaska: their status, biology and management. 

Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. 45. 

Haber, G. C. 1977. Socio-ccological dynamics 

of wolves and prey in a subarctic ecosystem. 

Ph.D. Diss., Univ. British Columbia, 

Vancouver. 786pp. 

___ , C. J. Walters, and I. MeT. Cowan. 

1976. Stability properties of a wolf-ungulate 

system in Alaska and management implications. Univ. British Columbia lost. of Rcsour. 

Ecol. Resour. Rep. R-5-R. 104pp. 

Hadly, E. A. 1989. Mammals from Lamar 

Cave, a paleontological site in Yellowstone 

National Park, Wyoming. Page 15 in Proc. 

Second Annual Meeting of Research and 

Monitoring on Yellowstone's Northern Range. 

U.S. Natl. Park Scrv., Yellowstone National 

Park, Wyo. 

Hall, [. R., and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The 

mammals of North America. Ronald Press. 

New York. 546pp. 

Harrington, F. H., and L. D. Mech. 1979. 

Wolf howling and its role in territory 

maintenance. Behaviour 68:207-249. 

---· and __ . 1982. Fall and winter homesite usc by wolves in northeastern 

Minnesota. Can. Field-Nat. 96:79-84. 

___ , and ___ . 1983. Wolf pack spacing: howling as :1 territory-independent spac- ing mechanism in a territorial population. 

Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12:161-168. 

Herbert, D. M .. J. Youds, R. Davies, H. 

Lanain, D. Janz. and G. W. Smith. 1982. Preliminary investigations of the Vancouver 

Island wolf (Canis lupus cressodon) prey 

relationships. Pages 54-70 in F. H. Harrington 

and P. C. Paquet, cds. Wolves of the world. 

Noyes Data Corp. Park Ridge, N.J. 

Henshaw, R. E., R. Lockwood, R. Sehideler, 

and R. 0 . Stephenson. 1979. Experimental 

release of capti ve ·wolves. Pages 319-395 in E. 

Klinghammcr, cd. The behavior and ecology 

of wolves. Garland Press Inc., New York. 
229 

The Wildli f e Soc iet y Technical Re vi ew 91 - 1 18 

Hook, R. A., and W. L. Robinson . 1982. 

Attitudes o f Michigan citi zens toward 

predators. Pages 382-394 ill F. H. Harringto n 

and P. C. Paquet. eds. Wolves of the world. 

Noyes Data Corp., Par k Rid ge, N.J. 

Johnson, R. 1974. On t he spoo r of th e "Bi g 

Bad Wolf ". J. En viro n. Edu c. 6:37-39. 

Kaminski, T., and J. Hansen. 1984. Wo lves 

of central Idaho. Univ. Mo ntana. Montana. 

Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildl. 

Serv. Co ntra c t 14-16-0009- 15 34, Missoula . 

197pp. 

Keith, L. B. 1983. Popul a tio n d y namics o f 

wo lves. Pages 66-77 ill L. N. Carby n, cd. Wolves: their sta tu s. bio logy , and mana geme n t in 

Canad a a nd Ala ska . Can . Wil dl. Scrv. Rep. 

Scr. 45, Ott a wa . 

Kellert, S. R. 1980a. Co ntemporary valu es of 

wildl ife in Ame rican soc iet y. Pages 31 -60 in 

IV. W. Sha w a nd E. H. Z u bc cd s. Wildl ife 

valu es. U.S. Fo r. Scrv., Roc k y Mt. For. and 

Range Exp. Stn., lnst. Series Rep. I, Fort 

Colli ns, Colo. 

_ __ . l 980h. Ame ri ca n attitudes and 

kn owl edge of an imals. Tran s. No rth Am. 

Wil d l. and Na t. Rcso ur. Co nf. 45:111- l c4 . 

---· l980c. Publi c attitud es toward c ritica l w ild life and n a tural h a bitat issues. 

Go ve rnment Prin t in g Off ice 024 -01 0-00. 

Wa sh ingto n, D.C.. 138pp. 

___ . 1983. Affect ive, cog niti ve, and evaluati ve perceptio ns o f animals. Chapter 7 in I. 

Altman and J. Wohl w ill , cds. Behavio r and 

the natur al en vironment. Pl enum Publishin g Corp., New Yo r k. 

---· 198 5. Pub lic pe rception s or pre d a -

tors, pa rtic ula rl y th e wo lf a n d coyot e. Bi o i. 

Co nsc rv. 3 1: 167- 189. 

___ . 1986. Th e pu blic a nd th e ti mbe r 

wol f in Minne sota. Tr a ns. No rth Amcr. Wild l. 

and Na t. Rcsour. Conf. 51 :193-200. 

Kolenosky, G . B., and D. H. Johnston. 1967. 

Radi o-tracking timber wolves in Ontari o. Am. 

Zoo l. 7: 289-303. 

Lande, R., and G. Barrowclough. 1987. Effective po pulati o n size, geneti c var iatio n, and 

their usc in populati on management. Pages 

87-123 i11 M. So ule, cd. Viable populations for 

con ser vation . Cambridge Un iv. Press, 

Cambrid ge. En g land , a nd New Yor k. 

lawrence, 8 ., and W. H. Bos.'iert. 1967. 

Multi ple c haracte r a na lysis of Canis lupu\, 

latrans. a nd fanziliariJ, with a d iscussio n or 

the relati o nshi ps o f Crmis 11 iger. Amcr. Zoo l. 

:223~232 . 

Leopold , A. 1949. A Sa nd Count y Al mana c. 

Ox f ord Un iv . Press. Ne w Yo rk . 226pp. 

Llewellyn, L. L. 1978. Wh o speaks f or t he 

tim be r wolf~ Tra. ns. North Amcr. Wil dt. and 

Na t. Reso ur. Con i'. 43 A42-4 52. 

Lopez, B. 1978. Of wolves an d men. C ha rles 

Scribner's a nd So ns, Nev .. · York . 4:!0 pp. 

Matthiessen . P. 1959. Wil d life in Amc ricJ. 

Viki ng Press, New York. 330pp. 

McBride, R. T. 1980. T he Mex ica n wolf 

(Cani.fi lupus haile_ri): a hislo ri ca l rev iew a nd 

obse r va ti o ns o n its status an d d istr ib ut io n. 

End a nge red Spec ie s Repo rt 8. U.S. F ish and 

Wildl. Se rv .. Albuquerque, N.M. 38pp. 

1\lcCarley, H. 1962. The ta xo nomic st:l.tu s o r 

wild CaniJ (Ca ni dae) in t he so ut h· cent ra l 

United St a te s. So uthwest. Nat. 7:227-235. 

Mc Naught, D. A. 1987. Wolves in 

Yellowsto ne Par k? Pa r k visi tors respond . 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 15:518-521. 

Mcch, L. D. 1970. The wall': th e eco logy and 

behavior o f :t n e nd angered spec ies. Th e 

Natural Histo r y Press, New Yo rk . 38 4pp. 

___ . 1987. Age, seaso n, d istance, d ircc· 

tio n. and socia l aspects or wo lf dis persal f rom 

a Minneso ta pa ck. Pages 55-74 iH B. D. Chepko-Sadc and Z. Ha lpin. cds. Ma mma lian d is· 

pcrsal pa tt e rns. Un iv. Chi cago Press. C hi ca go. 

___ . 1989. Stubborn hunt e r in a ha rs h 

land. Nat. Wil d!. 27( 5):20 -24. 

___ , R. C. Chapman. W. W. Cochran. L. 

Simmons. and U. S. Seal. 1984. Ra d io-tr igge red a nesth e t ic·dart coll ar f or recap tur ing 

lar ge mammals. Wildl. Soc. Bul l. 12: 69-74. 
230 

19 Restoration of Wol ves in No rth America 

___ , S. H. Fritts, G. L. Radde, and W. J. 

Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wild\. Soc. Bull. 16:85-87. 

___ , and P. D. Karns. 1977. Role of t he 

wo lf in a d ee r d ec lin e in the Superior Na ti onal Foresl. U.S. Dcp. Agric., For. Scrv. Res. Rep. 

NC-148. 23pp. 

___ , K. E. Kunkel, R. C. Chapman, and T. 

J. Kreeger. 1990. Field testing of commercially manufa c! urcd capture coi!Jrs on 

white-tailed deer. J. Wild\. Manage. 

54:297-299. 

___ , and R. M. Nowak. 1981. Return of 

the g ra y wolf to Wisco nsin . Am. Midi. Nat. 

I 05:408-409. 

1\lelchior, H. R., N. F. Johnson, and J. S. 

Phelps. 1987. Wil d furbearc:r managemen t in 

the western United States and Alnska. Pages 

1117-1128 in M. N ovak, J. A. Baker, M. E. 

Obbard, and B. Mallac h eds. Wild fur bearer 

mnnagcmcnt and consc r v:!. ti o n in Nort h 

America . Ontario Ministr y of f\:a tural 

Resources. T o ronto. 

Messier, F., and M. Crete. 1985. !\1oosc-wolf 

dynamics and the naturJI rcgul:ltion of moose 

populations. Oecologia 65:503-512. 

Miniclier, K. 1987. Wolf re-introduction. 

National Wool Grower, July, 1987:10-11 . 

More, T. 19'1 8. Wil d li fe i n children's stories: 

the empirical Mother Goose. U .S. Dcp. Agric., 

For. Scrv., Northea st. For. Exp. Stn .• Amhe rst. 

Mass. 24pp. 

Mowat, F. 1963. Never cry wolf. Bant:tm 

B•JOks, Inc., New York. 212pp. 

Murie, A. 1944. The wolves of Mt. McKinley. 

U.S. Nat. Park Scrv. Fauna Ser. 5. 238pp. 

Nowak , R. M. 1970. Report on the red wolf. 

Defenders of Wildlife News 45( I ):82-94. 

. 1979. Northern qu a tcrnarv Canis. 

Univ. Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist. Monogr: 6. 154pp. 

___ . 1983. A perspective on the taxonomy of wolves in North Amc:rica. Pages 10-19 

in L. N. Carbvn, cd. Proc. Can. Wolf Work -

shop, Can. Wi-ldl. Serv., O!!awa. 

Paradiso, J. M., and R. l\1. Nowak. \ 9'li. r\ 

report on the taxo nomic stJtus and distribu· 

lion of th e red wolf. U.S. Dep. Int er., Spec. 

Sci. Rep . Wild l. 145. 36pp 

___ , and - --- ·· 1972. c(ll,; ~ rufus. 

Mamm. Spec ies 22 . .:lpp. 

Parker, W. T. 1988. A histori ca l perspective 

of Ca11i.\ 111 /us <l nd its recovery potential. Red 

Wolf Man age. Ser. Tech. Rep. 3., U .S. Fish and 

Wild!. Scrv., Atl:lnta, Ga. 17pp. 

___ . 1989. An overview and guuJ e for 

''experimental pop u!Jt ion" de sig nations. Red 

\Voir Management Se ries T ec h. Rep. 4 ., IJ.S. 

Fish and Wild!. Se r v., At la nt a, Ga . IOpp. 

Peters, R., and l. D. 1\1ech. 1975. Scent· 

marking in wolve s. Am. Sci. 61:628· 637. 

Peterson, R. 0. 1986. Gray wolf. Pages 

951-967 i1.- R. L. DiSilvestro, ed. Audubon 

Wildlife Report 1986. The National Audubon 

Soc. , New York. 

___ . 1989. Eco log ical studies of wolves 

on Isle Roya le, Annu. Rep., Mi ch. Tech. Un iv .. 

Ho ughton 14pp. 

___ . J. D. Woolington, and T. N. Bailey. 

1984. Wolve s of the Kenai Peninsula , .Alaska. 

Wild!. Monog r. !18. 52pp. 

Phillips, M. K. 1988a. Reestablishment of red 

wolves in the Alligator R iv er Nation al Wildlife Refuge, Nonh Carolina: Progr. Rep. 2., 

U.S. Fish and Wild!. Sc rv. , Manteo, N.C. 54pp. 

___ , 1988b. Progress or the .red wolf restoration proje c t in North Carolina . Pages 

426·434 in Proc. Annu. Meeting. Am. Assoc. 

Zool. Parks and Aquari<l, Milwaukee. Wise. 

___ .and W. T , Parker. 1988. Red wolf 

recover y: a progress repo rt. Con scr v. Bi oi. 

2:139-141. 

Pimlol!, D. H ., and P. W. Joslin. 1968. The 

status and distrl bution of the red wolf. 

Trans. North Am. Wild!. and Nat. Re so ur. 

Conf. 33:373·389. 

Ralls, K., K. Bruger, and J, Ballou, 1979. 

Inbreeding and juvenile mortality in small 

populations o f ungulates. Science 

206:1101-1103. 
231 

The Wildlife Society Technical Review 91 · 1 20 

Ream, R. R., and U. I. Mattson. 1982. Wolf 

status in the northern Rockies. Pages 362-379 

in F. H. Harrington and P. C. Paquet, cds. 

Wolves of the world. Noyes Press, Park 

Ridge, N.J. 

Riley, G. A., and R. T. McBride. 1972. A 

survey of the red wolf (Canis rufus). U.S. 

Fish and Wild!. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Wild!. 

162. 15pp. 

Robinson, W. L., and G. J. Smith. 1977. Ob· 

servations on recently killed wolves in upper 

Michigan. Wild!. Soc. BulL 5:25-26. 

Rothman, R. J., and L. D. Mech. 1979. Scent· 

marking in lone wolves and newly formed 

pairs. Anim. Behav. 27:750-760. 

Russell, D. N., and J. H. Shaw. 1971. Distribution and relative density of the red wolf 

in Texas. Proc. Southeast Assoc. Game and 

Fish Comm. 25:131-137. 

Schonewald-Cox, C., S. Chambers, B. Mac· 

Bryde, and L. Thomas, editors. 1983. 

Genetics and conservation: a reference f or 

managing wild animal and plant populations. 

Benjamin/ Cummings Pub!. Co., Menlo Par k, Calif. 722pp. 

Sharrer, M. 1981. Minimum population sizes 

for species conservation. Bioscience 31:131-134. 

Soule, M. 1980. Thresholds for survival: 

maintaining fitness and evolutionary 

potentiaL Pages 151·169 in M. Soule and B. 

Wilcox, eds. Conservation biology: an 

evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer 

Associates, Sunderland, Mass. 

Stephenson, R. 0., and D. James. 1982. Wolf 

movements and food habits in northwest Alaska. _Pages 26-41 in F. H. Harrington, and 

P. C. Paquet, eds. Wolves of the World. Noyes 

Publications. Park Ridge, N.J. 

Stuby, R., E. Carpenter, and L. Arthur. 1979. 

Public attitudes toward coyote controL U.S. 

Dep. Agric., Economics, Statistics, and Coop· 

erative Serv., ESCS-54, Washington, D.C. 

llpp, 

Theberae, J. B., and D. A. Gauthier. 1985. Models of wolf-ungulate relationships: When 

is wolf control justified? Wild!. Soc. Bull. 

13:449-458. 

Thiel, R. P. 1985. The relationship between 

road densities and wolf habitat suitability in 

Wisconsin. Am. Midi. Nat. 113:404·407. 

~and R. J. Welch. 1981. Evidence of 

recent breeding activity in Wisconsin wolves. 

Am. Midi. Nat. 106:401-402. 

Tucker, P., and D. H. Pletscher. 1989. Atti· 

tude of hunt e rs and residents tow3rd wolves 

in northwestern Montana. Wild!. Soc. Bull. 

17:509-514. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. 

Mexican wolf recover y plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wild!. Serv., Albuquerque, N.M. 103pp. 

___ . 1984. Red wolf recovery pla n. U.S. 

Fish and Wild!. Serv., Atlanta. Ga. 37pp. 

___ . 1987a. Eastern timber wolf recovery 

program: agency review draft. North Central 

Region, U.S. Fish and Wild!. Serv., Twin 

Cities, Minn. 96pp. 

___ . 1987b. Northe rn Rocky Mountain 

wolf recover y plan. U.S. Fish and Wild. Serv., 

Denver, Colo. 119pp. 

Van Ballenberghe, V. 1985. Wolf predation 

on caribou: the Nelchina herd case history. J. 

Wild!. Manage. 49:711·720. 

___ . 1989. Wolf predation on Nelchina 

herd caribou: a comment. J. Wild!. Manage. 

53:243-250. 

~ A. W. Erickson, and D. Byman. 1975. 

Ecology of the timber wolf in northeastern 

Minnesota. Wild!. Monogr. 43. 43pp. 

Weaver, J. 1978. The wolves or Yellowstone. 

U.S. Dep. Inter., Nat!. Park Serv. Nat. Resour. 

Rep. 14. 38pp. 

___ . 1987. The role of problem definition 

in policy analysis and conflict resolution: 

Wolves and the Endangered Species Act. Yale 

School of Forestry and Env ironmental Studies, 

New Haven, Conn. 40pp. 

Weise, T. F., W. L. Robinson, R. A. Hook, and 

L. D. Mech. 1975. An experimental transloca· 

tion of the eastern timber wolf. Audubon 

Conserv. Rep. 5. 28pp. 

Williams, T. 1988. Confusion about wol ves. 

Gray's Sporting J. 13:132·156. 
232 

2 1 R cstora ri on of Woh·cs in No rt h A mcri(:a 

Yaffee , S. 1982. Prohibitive poli c y. MIT 

Press, Cambridge, Mass. 239pp. 

Young, S. P. !946. The wolf in No rth 

Ame rican history . Ca xton Print e rs. Cald wel l. 

Iowa. !49pp. 

_ __ , and E. A. Goldman. 1944. T he 

wol ves of North America . Am. \V ildl. ln st. , 

Wa shingt on, D.C. 636pp. 

Print~d on Recycl~d Paper 
233 

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

5410 Grosvenor Lane. Bethesda. Maryland 20814 

The Wildlife Society, founded in 1937, is a nonprofit, scientific and educational organization 

of wildlife professionals dedicated to the wise management and conservation of the natural 

resources of the world. The principal objectives of the Society are: to develop and promote 

sound stewardship of wildlife resources and of the environments upon which wildlife and humans depend; to undertake an active role in preventing human-induced environmental 

degradation; to increase awareness and appreciation of wildJife values; and to seek the 

highest standards in all activities of the wildlife profession. The Wildlife Society's 

membership of 8,900 is comprised of research scientists, educators, resource managers, 

administrators, communication specialists, conservation law enforcement officers, and 

students from more than 40 countries. 

88-881 - 95 - 9 
234 

TESTIMONY OF RETSY SUFFINGTON 

FOR 

SIERRA CLUR 

REGARDING 

REINTRODUCTION OF WOLVES INTO YELLOWSTONE AND CENTRAL iDAHO 

REFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

JANUARY 26, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

present the views of the Sierra Club on the reintroduction of wolves into 

Yellowstone and Central Idaho. The Sierra Club has over 500,000 members, 

including more than 3,000 in the states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana . Our 

members have worked tirelessly for many years to persuade the federal 

government to return the wolf to these wild areas. 

After twenty years of debate over the reintroduction of wolves into 

Yellowstone and Central Idaho, the American people are on the verge of 

celebrating the historic return of the majestic gray wolf to a small portion 

of its native habitat . 

PUJlLIC SUPPORT FOR WOLF REINTRODUCTION 

The decision to return the wolf to these areas is the result of an 

exhaustive process which has included hundreds of public meetings across the 

country and has generated almost two hundred thousand comments from people 

thr oughout the world - 2/ 3 of which favored wolf recovery . The support of the 

American people for recovering wolf populations in the Northern Rockies is 

unprecedented in the history of conservation. 

The citizens of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are also supportive of the 

return of the wolf to their states. A public opinion study completed in 1992 

indicated that 72.4% of Idahoans supported the return of the wolf. Polls have 

shown that almost 50% of the people i.•1 Wyoming support wolf recovery, with 

21.5% undecided. A survey of Montana residents found t:hat: 65% believed that 

wolves belong in the stat:e. These trends of popular support have been 

reflected t:ime and time again in public hearings held throughout these st:ates. 

THE FEDERAL PLAN FOR REINTRODUCTION SHOULD RE STRENGTHENED 

While t:he Sierra Club is delighted t:hat this long awaited event will 

soon be celebrated, we do not: feel that the federal plan guiding 

reintroduct:ion and recovery effort:s adequately addresses many import:ant: issues 

surrounding wolf recovery. lie believe t:hat strong prot:ection for wolves is 

t:he best way to expedite recovery of the species. The plan developed by t:he 

United Scates Fish and Wildlife Service fails to provide this protection and 

therefore fails to provide t:he most efficient process to reestablish wolf 

populations. 

First, land use rest:rict:ions in areas critical to wolf recovery, such as 

denning and rendezvous sites, are not prot:ected under the federal plan . \le 

feel that it is vital chat: within a one mile radius of these sites roads 

should be closed, and mining, logging, grazing and recreation should be 

seasonally restricted. If wolves are harassed in other areas or if human 

caused mortality occur£, further land restrictions should be enforced. 
Second, the plan fails to include provisions to replace wolves which are 

killed or moved during the recovery period. We support a policy which would 

replace two wolves for each wolf illegally taken during the recovery period . 

This provision would ensure a strong disincentive for those trying to prevent 

wolf recovery. 

Third, the USFWS offers no contingency plan for action if wolf 

populations should drop below the desired goal of ten breeding pairs following 

their delisting. A threshold should be established to ensure that if wolf 

populations were to drop below this critical number in either central Idaho or 

Yellowstone, wolves would be immediately returned to their endangered and 

protected status. 

Fourth, the USFWS is proceeding with wolf reintroduction in central 

Idaho under a special, flexible and less protective designation of 

"experimental, nonessential." The agency is proceeding with this undertaking 

despite internal documents which acknowledge increasing wolf activity in the 

area snd predict breeding within the next five years. If the USFWS continues 

to reintroduce experimental, nonessential wolves to central Idaho, it must 

provide fully endangered status to all naturally occurring wolves and their 

offspring in central Idaho. 

Fifth, management of recovering wolf populations will be turned over to 

state agencies prior to full recovery. In Wyoming, state law considered the 

wolf to be a predator that can be shot without a permit at any time of the 

year. Recent legislative efforts have attempted to provide a $500 bounty for 

wolves shot in Wyoming . In Idaho the state agency in charge of wildlife 

management is legislatively prohibited from being involved in wolf management. 

Although the hostile environments of the state legislature does not reflect 

the opinion of the general public, those bodies do direct state agencies, 

their priorities and budget allocations. Given this situation, it is reckless 

to turn the management of wolves over to the states as proposed in the USFWS 

plan. We feel it is essential that the management of reintroduced wolves 

remain the exclusive responsibility of the USFWS until recovery goals have 

been met and the wolves are delisted . Once wolves have recovered all state 

management plans should be reviewed and approved by the federal agency before 

implementation. 

The American people, including those in the states which would be 

affected by reintroduction, want to return the gray wolf to the wild areas of 

the Northern Rockies. That opportunity is before us now and the more than 

500,000 members of the Sierra Club urge you to do all that you can to 

facilitate the return of wolves to Yellowstone and central Idaho . 

Thank you very much for considering our concerns. 
236 

Babbitt Finds Relocation Program 

Has Hill's Wolves Growling at Him 

"It is an 1

- ,..,_., ~ By Tom Kenworthy 

~~· -r.J ''trmP!St.d" ... enormous 

amount of money to 

spend on an 

animal that is in 

no danger of being 

wiped off the face of 

the Earth." 

-REP BARBARA CUBIN (R.Wyo.) 

"Mister 

Chairman, I 

have no doubt about 

who the alpha wolf 

is in this room." -INTERIOR SECRETARY 

BRUCE BABBITT, 

to Pubhc Lands and Resources 

Cha1rman Don Young (R·Aiaska) 

Once upon a time, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt would travel to 

Capitol Hill and di9cuss with likeminded Democrats his dream of creating a "new American land ethic." 

his ideas for "ecosystem management" and his support for a thorough 

overhaul of federal natural resource 

policies. 

Yesterday, in his firSt post-elec· 

tion appearance before the House 

Public Lands and Resources Com· mittee, Babbitt found himself fend· 

ing off a suggestion by a freshman 

Republican that he open up YeUowstone National Park to hunting. 

CaUed to defend his department's 

controveni.al progr.un ol reintroduc· 

ing gray wolves into Yellowstone 

and a central Idaho wilderness, Babbitt got a sobering glimpse into what 

his next two years may be like with 

Republicans in control ol Congress. 

Acknowledging the new political 

pecking order, Babbitt said to the 

committee's pugnacious and pro-development chairman, Rep. Don 

Young (R-Alaska): "Mister Chair· 

man, I have no doubt about who the 

alpha wolf is in this room." 

Led by Reps. Helen Chenoweth 

(R-Idaho) and Barbara Cubin (R· 

Wyo.), conservative Republicans 

who now dominate the panel complained that the wolf reintroduction 

program violates states' rights, 

abuses the Constitution, drains millions of dollars from more deserving 

federal programs and was prematurely jammed down the throats of 

westerners. 

"'It ls an enonnoos amount of money to spend on an animal that is in no 

danger of being wiped off the face of 

the Earth." said Cubin. arguing that 

wolves are plentiful in Canada and 

Alaska. 

Asoerting that the U.S. Constitu· 

tion and the laws ol Idaho give her 

state dominion over wildlife, Chenoweth implied that Idahoans would 

be within their rights to shoot 

wolves as predators. "I strongly believe, Mister Secretary, that not on· 

ly have your wolves trespassed onto 

the lands ol Idaho, but you have trespassed onto the Constitution of the 

United States." she lectured Babbitt. 

In the fu-st part of a multi-yeM 

program developed during the Bush 

administration and approved by pre· 

vious Congresses, government biologists this month released 15 Ynadi- an wolves into a wilderness area in 

central Idaho and brought another 

14 captive wolves into YeUowstone 

National Park. where they will be released in several weeks. Most ol the 

wolves released in Idaho have remained close to their release sites in 

the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. although two have 

traveled about 30 miles away and into Montana. 

The actual release of the wolves 

has sparked a political backlash, despite years of consultations with 

western officials, several sets of public hearings in the region , aod a 

drawn-out public comment process 

under the Endangered Species Act, 

all of it dictated by congressional directives. The Wyoming legislature, 

for example, is moving to approve a 

$500 bounty on wolves, and Montana state legislators have c;~Ued for 

wolf reintroduction in Manhattan 

and other eastern areas. 

Babbitt yesterday staunchly de· 

fended the wolf reintroduction, caUing it .. an impo rtant and hist oric 

chapter in American history" that 

would make amends for the government's wrongheaded extermination 

of wolves from the West 60 years 

ago. CaUing YeUowstone "America's 

Serengeti." Babbitt said restoration 

of the wolf would replace the park's 

"only missing component" and he lp 

control its soaring elk population. 

That prompted Chenoweth to 

suggest a hunting season in America's first national park as an alternative to using wolves for elk control. 

"'Wouldn't it be a better situation to 

extend hunting into YeUowstone and 

use the proceeds for a park mainte· 

nance fund?" asked Chenoweth, who 

enlivened her campaign for Congress by questioning whether salm· 

on can be endangered when consum- ers can stiU buy it canned in local 

supermarkets. 

Hunting in national parks, count· 

ered Babbitt. is "contrary to the history and traditions of the American 

people." 

But he acknowledged that Congress has the authority to remove 

the prohibition. 
237 

Babbitt: Park 'needs the wolf 

But Western lawmakefs blast Yellowstone plan WASffiNE:TON -tli\0 I• 2. 1-~J.S ASSOCIATED PRESS , , ~ay from the park. Under the plan, 

, Yellowsto'!~ National.· Park "need . , •. s . the .. ~cbers ;would be able to kill a wolf under ! 

WOlf" to restore the area'S uatural billilhce ·:'I certain conditions and be cOmpensated for 

and reduce growing populations of e11t and ··. livestock 1oaaes. . deer, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said ., Mr. Babbitt told the committee the wolf 

yesterday. plan is "the best and most balanced way" 

"There is room in the West for wolves:• to deal with the return of wolves into the 

Mr. Babbitt told the H~ Na~ Re- .:.Rocky Mountain region. He said the gray sources Comrruttee durina a bearing at ., wolf gradually is migrating south from 

which he defended the reintroduction of · Canada anyway, and eventually would re- wolves into the park. Many Qf the law- ·. turn on its own. makers from states surrounding Yellow- "The wolf in the West ignites a firestonecriticizedthewolfprogramasexpen- storm," said Rep. Pat Williams, Montana 

sive. an infringement on states' rights and Democrat, who said he was opposed to the a threat to ranchers. "WIIl8tural process" of the reintroduction 

Rep. Helen Chenoweth, Idaho Republi- and favored "Mother Nature being Mother can, suggested a better way·· ID· cull e11t Nature" without government interference. herds would be to allow hunting at Yellow- Mrs. Chenoweth said people in Idaho and stone. She suggested huntin1 feee could be other affected states are opposed to used to help pay for park maintenance. bringing the wolf back and that the issue is 

Mr. Babbitt ruled out hunting, reminding one of states' rights. She accused the late- Mrs. Chenoweth that Congress specifically rior Department of "operating outside the 

prohibits hunting at almost aU national .law [and) the will of the people." 

parks. · · Mr. Babbitt noted that the wolfOfficials of the Fish and Wildlife Service introduction controversy goes back eight 

began the long-awaited reintroduction· bf )'ears and that the Interior Department has 

the gray wolf, which was killed off in a held at least 60 public bearings on the subcampaign of extermination earlier in this ject, consulted state officials frequently to century, with the transfer of 29 wvlves into work out a plan, and has been given the 

Yellowstone and central Idaho earlier this . !IIHhead by Congress. month. 'lbe issue is not expected to go away, 

The department hopes to haw 300 . ~aowever. 

woliles in the rec1on by 2002 with two- Rep. Don "'bung, Alaska Republican and 

thirds of them - those in Wyomina and cbairman of the Natural Resources Comcentral Idaho - coming from the 80ftl'll" mitlee, promised further hearings and said ment reintroduction plan and 1111 additiGalll IIJIPropriations panels -re also expected 100 coming from the natural mlgratloa or to examine the coats involved in the proWolves from Canada into Montana. -11'8111· The Interior Department has spent 

The wolf proaram has been opposed by $5.2 million on the program so far, with 

ranchers who fear the 8JiimaJs will attack further spending expected to total 56.7 mlllheir cattle and sheep when !bey roam lion tbrouah 2002. Mr. Babbitt said. 
ALSTON CHASE 

Game of chance with the 

AWestern ranchers and 

nterior Department fficials snarl at each ther over wolf reintro· uction in Yellowstone ational Park, the nation :ot.'CD\S L-onfronted with yet another environmental cliche. 1be 

S7 million fedt:ral scheme to plant J S wolves iu the park each of the next few years, say the media, pits a rq:ional interest group qainst I he environment -a theme we've heard a zilhon times before. The selflsh interests in question lhis time suppm;edly belong to stockmen, w~ bave sued to stop 

=~~-~~=~ "Linle Red Ridinjjbood~" arandmother ond !hen wear her clolhel 

is pedoctly capable or !ICalflnB lea· of·lamb ooce in a while. Enviruamentalists dismiU this as a fairy tale spread by rednecka who lack colerance for ccm.s·dressi"' mammala. Wolves are neces-- sary for "ecolotlical balance," tbey 

iNiol, ond plaiall people wbo 1eor 

~R~~:.~:o to!!'~ shouldn't live io straw bouaes. Meanwhile, !be feds inoisl !bey..., 

merely -=nfurcing the Endanlered 

Species Act, which mysteriously 

require• .,.·ott· 'recOYery" tn Yel- lowstone but noc in, aay, Sc&nda&e, 

N.Y., or ~on's Rock Creek Pari<. But this fight isn't what it aeems. It is nor a local issue. It is not about ~lfare cowboys and has notbinl to 

do wnh "ecological balance." Rather, it raises questions about the fairness or a policy !bar will ultimately af'fect everyone. Wolf .. recovery" is another Jtep 

toward fulfiUing the environmentalist aaenda of .. returnina" the continenl to ··presettlemenl condi· 

lions:' But l'llber !boa .-nl>lina !he pu1 II& ell'ecu will be Wlique 

and unpredictable. Federal "prooervatioo" policy bu alrudy 

created unprecedented conditions ·that threaten the very values it 

seeks to enhance. Leavin& wilder- nen alone ianores how Native Americarul shaped !he landlcape 

throua:b burning and produces foresulhar are older and 1 ... bio- IO(Iically diverse !han when Colwn- bus landed. Overly proleCted game populations have reached levels newr seen be&Jre. 1bele creatures dam-,:e vegetation and provide 

unlimited - soun:ea fur moun· tain lionl, whose numben in many 

regions are greater than any time in natural history. These same miqui.ded achemes tJ:'a!tSfonned "\ellowstone. Elk, surpuoia& ariciMI number> by !;11,000 

OT more, bav.: consumed habitat important tootber animals such as white-tail and mWe deer, bi8 horn sheep and beaver. Introducing wolwt into this unusual mix will 

produce results no one can anticipate. Authorities hope the new arrivals will eat elk and won't both- er cattle. But that rDIIY not happen. In the Last century, lbese canines revealed a decided taste for live- stock. And in Mi1mesota (which has 2,000 "threatened" wolves of its own), predation on domestic ani- mals is surging. 

Rather, "reintroduction" is an ecolorgica) crap-shoot. Several sce- narios are possible: (l) Wolves may prefer to eat deer. But deer, whose park habitat has been colonized by elk, stay 

moslly i

Ergo, wo

lures an

hamburg

(2) Wo

stone's b

creature

competi

wiped o

may t.wi

tic cousi

(3) W

this food 

bers sky

and wolv

hungry 

enclaves 

taking 

retrieve

In any 

ue 1heir 

nent. Al
COMMENTARY 

AISI'ON CHASE 

Beaidea cleath ODd middle- c:IMitu cum,..,. ottbe rew cortainlia romalniDa tbeae 

.so,. is - tbe dumbiDc- -fll-willaJDtinue, 

DO matter-..-tJis tbe White Houoo or~ And a ai8n ol Ibis blpol1iaD Dart Aae is bow 

- polilicaJ pertieobUt environ- meutalllciel>a"Democntsouboert 

II. ODd Republicanllpore h. 

a::.,~~':l..~ Jut.........--"'DDeriars.u-.s 

- to aupport aooc1 ldeoce," 

----!be us. PllblllldWildlifeSerW:e-was 

-rtisiDI!amiddle--nt 

vacancy with the invitation tbat "meottlly cballeoied are lltJ'Ong)y ~to apply." As White H....., politico! cor- rednelsiiDIIermioes_...-. 

RepublicaD--~ o( 

...... diDg .. ariealatioo -uoalll)(li!MJI"<dby tbe Heri- l'l>uodatioo, r=iwd iDstruction li"om tbe II-' ocholar, Rulh Umbaucfl. And .oltboutlh these l"reably minted incumbents also board lee-

--prominent policywonlai, DOt aoe was a practicing natural resource scientist. 1bese oversights call to mind a 

rn.e-lance ecologist I know named 

m,t IUM~ington~ 

The dumbing-down of govern

Government clings to 

myth while scholors 

like Mr. Kay, too 

outspo/a!n to moke a .living in Ameriai, 

pursue stw:lies in other 

COWJtries_ 

Charles Kay. Federal agencies and 

~==~ bim. ln<*cl, although residing in Utah,.,......, •liviD& be must ocxo- liaaally ooaunu1e m Canada, whose · Put Service eppreciates tbe value 

at his wort. \lo1 Mr. Kay is amana many ll<holars who. although usually ianon:d, are precisely the people who should be working for preservation agencies and lectur- mc to Washington's anointed. 

Mr. Kay's offense, you see, is 

intellectUal honesty. Lacking polit· 

ical savvy, he actually publishes, in 

profusion, extensively researched 

conclusions that make the high priests of resource policy look like 

lgnOI"&f1t bwnpkins, which most of 

tbemare. In a nutshell. Mr. Kay finds that 

many ofticiaJ preservation strate· gies are not merely mistaken but positively harmful. The stated intent of laws such as the Wilder- ness Act is to "restore" so-calJed "'pre-settlement conditions" that existed before Columbus landed on 

tbe continent by protecting "wilder- oes.s .. from human interference. 

But lhis notion - that leaving 

nature alone recreates presc:nle· ment conditions - notes Mr. Kay, rests on four erroneous assump-- tions: (1) that early America was dominated by mature vegetation such as "old growth forests," (1) that the continent was .. untouched by the hand of man" before Colum- bus, (3) that it "teamed with wildlife,'' and (4) that native Amer- ican cultures were either too Jlrirn· 

itive and Wtderpopulated or too eco· Jo~ically wise to o\'c rust: their 

resowus. . But"'- premises, says Mr. Kay. are wrong. In a series or scholarly 

:!!~~~==; of pre-Columbian America: "North 

America was not a 'wilderness' waiting to be discovered, instead it 

was home to tens or millions of abo- riginal peoples before European- introduced diseases decimated their numbers ... These peoples .. structured entire plant and animal communities .. by limiting wildlife populations with their hunting and 

"purposefully modifying the ..:gelation with tire." Game, reJentless· 1y hunted, was usually sc..anwe, and vegetation, ratberthan mostly consisting of matw'e forest, was con- atantly renewed by frequent abo- riginal burning. Only animals such as bison, whose migrating herds periodically escaped pursuing Indians, persisted in relati\'ely large nwnbers. 

ln short, suggests Mr. Ka:.·. "The 

modern 

arcc:!' wi

myth" a

seen by E

had bee

!bey had 

peoples." 

~apoae

has comp

... SettiD

ness' .. 

n:mnant 

ate condi

for the la

Reform

Mr. Kay 

stud.ie& th

OCY·" Bu

for whic

consulta

this app

does not

This a

wrong w

nal worl

restoN t

these ear

preferri

abandon
240 

!~inion s'c;;z~~an 

Daily Chronicle 

'wolf reintroduction an ecologiq:a crap-shoot As western r £ochers an j Interior Department officials snul at :ach other over wolf reintroduction in YelloW"Stone 

National Park. the na.tion see:a.s coafronted witJ, yet another eoviroannntLI cliche. 

The $7 millioa federal scheme to plant 15 

wolves in the park each of tlle next few years, say the media. pits a ~tional inter· est group against the environment - a theme we·~ heard J. ziU,ion time s be:for.e. Tht: selAsh interests in question tt.is timt: supposedly brlong to stockmen, who 

have: sued to stop reintroductic•D .and who 

doggedly insist that my can.Uu: that could 

eat Uttle Red Riding· Hood's grandmother and lhcn wear her clothes is pe.tfecdy apa· 

ble of scarfing lt!i-of-lamb once tn a while Environml":nt3lists dismiss tt.is as 4 fairy 

tile spread by rednt:cks who lac ·k toleranQ 

!or .:ross-<ireuing ma.uunab. ·.valves are 

r.ecessary for uecolo(ical baJa,a,;c," they in· 

sist. and piggish peopl~ who feu fanged in· 

truders huffing ;u.'l.d puffin&" 11d blowiJli doors dov.n shouldn't live i11 str1.w houses Mew while. the teds ins.ist they are merely 

enforcing the Enda.cgered S:1ecies Act, w}Uch mysteriously requires \tolf .. r~ov· 

er y'' in Ye1lowstooe but n·>t in, s;y, 

Scarsdale, N.Y. or Washing to n's Rock 

Creek Park. But this tight isn't what it :;ccm.s. It is 

not i local issut-. ]t IS not ~b·)U t wcUare coQ;bO)"S and has nothing to dn with .. e<:o loaical babnee." Rather, it ra.ist 5 que5tion$ 

abo11t the fairness of a policy tur wiD ultim..atdy affect everyone. Wolf -rec.overy'' is ano\hcr step towards 

fu\fiUio.a: the environmcn~Jls . a.&"enda of 

.. retl..lmioe:" the continent to '' pre-settlement conditions." But. rather :han resemblin.e, the past it> etfed:i WJ.1l be unique iilld unpredictlblc. Fedtral ''preser11tion" poli- cy h•s already aeated unprecedented con- ditiotu. that threaten the vety value& it seeks. ro enh~nce . Leaviag wilderoen alo'ne i£nores how Native ~erican1 

sluped thl!: l.aa.dsc.ape throuah 1>u.rnin.e: and 

Alston 

Chase 

SyndiC8ted 

Columnist 

Pf04uces forests that arc older at~d less bi· 

oloiically diverse than when Columbus 

landed Overly protected game populations 

have reacht:d levels never seen before ~ 

These creatures d•ma.e:e veeetation a.od prov;de unlimited food SOW"ces for moun· 

~lions. who~e numbers i.n many re~on~ 

are greater than any time i.,., · natural hlsto· 

ry. 

The1e same misguided 6chemes trans- furmed YeUo'NSt.one . Elk. surpassing origi- 01..1 nurnberi by 50,000 or more, hi1Ve con· 

sumed habitit import.aDt to other animals such as white-tail and mule deer, big horn 

sheep and beavu. lntroducirJ.i: 'NO\vei into 

this unusu.J mix will prod11ce. results no 

one c;;m anticipate. Aut ho t~~s bope the 

new ani\'als will e<tl elk Ot..t.~ wor.'l bother 

cattle. But OUt may not h,;.ppen. 1n the !.aS! 

century, these canines revealt'd a da:ided 

taste fo r livestock . And in MinnesoU (which h•s 2.000 ''threatened" wolves of its 

OWD). predation on domes.tac: animaho is 

$ura\ng. 

Rathe:r, reintroducti on~ is an ecological 

crap-shoot Several sc~os are possibl~ 

I. Wolves may prefer to eat deer. But 

deer, whose park habi13l has been co\onin.--d 

by clk, mr mo511y iD surrounding fumlan d. 

Ereo. wolve-s will loiter in h~ pastl1reS and develop a for.dness fur h.unbur&er 

2. Wolves may ''key'' on YelloWlitone's 

hie hom shetp Since thes~ creatures are 

a\re.ady &tressed b}· eomretition wilh elk. 

they will be wiped out quickly. Then, 

wolves may switch to the biz hom'i do- mestic cousins.. 

3. Wolves may take elk. Since this food js abundant, canine numbers skyrocket. 

Elk wiJl decrea.sc a.nd >Rolves multiply until legioas of hung-ry canines invade celebrity euclncs like Jackson and Aspen, takin' 

oct2Sional Labrador retrievers. 

ln any Cilse, Violves wiU continue their 

march across the continent. A!aska has 

6,000, at1.d packs ut multiplyin£ in Nortr. Carolina .lt.ld Arizona. A rKovery progr;..m is uode:nny in Idaho. !ion c:sot.a's wolves are increASing 3 perc: eat to 5 percent a year and have reached Hinckley, not (u from 

St. P~U.l. A southw.,rd m~gration Irom Cin~da is ~mdetvr'ay in the Rocki~s . 

Ov~r time, these carnivQres may displace ranchers - which is what m.my en\i· 

ronmentalisr.s hope. Thus £ovemment is 

(arcing runt lando""'·ners tn s.ubsidiz:e the 

ab\'istic pleasures or other.; in the name of •ccoloty." The fejs won't pa · (or d.ur.ages 

done by its animals. And, :tli.h o•J gh th<: 

Defend e r:> o( Wildlife. a ronse'r.; atior. 

group, promises to compcosa te (or losses 

to c.attle (Mld not to !;heep). :;funds tTIJ£ht 

oot suffice. Minnes;,tl, whic h diibunes up 

tD $.:.0,()1).) a rear (or ::;tu..: k losses ·:'I a.,:. :·~~Jnd 

that arnoWlt insu.ffi nent ~.tust lUUs go ur. · 

reimbw-sed, and yt:l o.,.."D.er5 [l(:Vtr receive 

r;ompensation. The issue, therefore. 1~ i:a.irne!s. \\ltile 

wolves shoul d nd e~d retu rn :o 

Yellowstone, they must nor hE:come Trojan 

ho~ei for pritrJtivists who v.ish to d.i$rnan· 

t)e civilit.atioo. Justice r.;:qu.i:es t.~e a.1imals 

be con.6ned to the park and th.n realistic 

control and compensation ~)· ms beestlblished But this probably ,..:ln't happen until 

wolve s tak~ up residence on the yl.lppie 

spreaJs pro\ifcra~ ~ound Yellowstone 

'When carnivores hcgln ea•ine upsc:~le 

does a.nd sc:uing chil<ir<!h, tht p.lliti~s af 

\hjs s~e:i will ,;et really nt t: ;.~g _ 

A.Jstcu1 Chast is o 1<1atwnally .sy ,dic~Jted 

columt~Ut who live in the LiL•iPJJSttHI o,.~a. 
241 
-·-----.:.-:-·.-:~-;-~ --~~·· r- : _. ,~ ., .• _qj~~-~~~;-~~~~:..:.i~.~

Groups· suggest :r:lif.~%~~ 1~ ;~:f.'!"- -~~1-1ie'~""'- 

baitniilg 'people whe

o, scarr Mc:MJUJON 

Chroaide Slai'Wrkcr 

U ~ kiO wolves ilqally, il migllt be a 

, .. d idea to thea llcq~ the ,aJenl public oul of 

pbc:a w~c trOiwes live, a cOIISOI1iu .. oC woU 

lllllwcates told tbe U.S. Ftsh md Wildlife ~ic~ 

in a letr« today. 

Ho-. i£ J!CG91c allow ,.-oh-cs lo li•~ UAKID· 

leskd ia ltre wild, rcslridius 011 ~optc, in lum 

aJiiDalrl be minimal, acordin1 10 the collection 

or. 15 sqi ... al atld nalion:al euirononenL'II ud 

wolf advocale gJVUp.'<- . • 

1l>e IJOIIP!I wrote lo FilS, asking- Uoe :ogenq• 

to implemml ,..,..s to p,..,.;d., a "disinccnlire" 

,.-.isst kiiM1 wolves. 

- "It CRall:s so..., peer '""'san nllt to kill 

wolvn. • sllid H:~nk Fischer el l)er.,nclers of 

W'lktlift:, one ol.., l!fl1IIIJS !Otlldiq-llac lctt£r. 

1-'c.-oplc l.....e ristn al nmny public nottli•R• in 

the Norther-A Rm:kics and tlvTal~d lo hiU 

••olvcs if they an reintroduced ~o lhc area, -

F'1.~cr said in a press rek-ase. 11.ey shoufd be 

takrn sem.sty, h~ lldclcd. _ 

FWS plans lo release six small padls ol \YOiw.S lhi< wicltr.r in Ydowstbi\C Nation:~! P:uk 

and ill tht Central Idaho wilderness COJ11plcx. 

t.flll,ty randoers and other ~ bilcrlr fllllliiR 

Lhe idea. · . 

Ed D111oga, wolf recovery coonlinlllor lor 

FWS, today s:aid 01 .siruilar r~ucst was made 

when MJII n:introductia. n~lcs were i• draft 

£ot11L Th~ ;lftr:I1CY ha!l now """'"' a &ilal proposal 

•ad t. ac•·e1otint' commeut oa ~ th""•R'h Mond"J· Danes said chaures caukl be lmde but bc:-

did aal b-what lhc:y llli«fot be!. 

"We'n: llur*~ 1111 ope11 oilin4 on Ibis sMI'," 

he ,.aid. "Its MftC Loo late fur a r-' idea." 

1

it lt:ls

lioa 

for il

"

cies 

soM

lions

J

an ·e

-.h

ccre

alu

11

hill d

pro

mc n

-may 

tiwe £
243 

ALLOWING .R~ID~ra~ TO_ L~ ~~~ ~~,L~S 7/~s ,.. N8u4(J'f]A 

Funding'·irfjeopa'rdy b~use of law · · · ~·· · '· ·:•·: 1'~e l~g isl it~[ re~P9nsible iiinhe on· Jhe r~d ~oll law.' ' Wihon uid. ·.,, ,w;,;, ,,~ p;_9;•·' •. ' ·' .,,. ·:· .. • law, .Rep. Zeno ,);: ·.Edwards, R- In a letter to the federal agency, 

RALEiGH . . .:._ Federal offici~is'' Beaufort, told . the_, ~i>Uion-Saltl'll' ; state wildlife official• wrote that the 

arc considering whether more .than. Jou17_1al. on Thu!$day that the . state red-wolf law·does not interfere with 

SlOO.OOO from North. Carolinas en; doesn'( need the · federal money. the state's program to protect en· 

dangered-species program wiiJ be "Tell· them to stick it," Edwards dangered species because the r<d 

withhold because of a state law al· said. "I'm not the least bit con· wolf is classified os "an experimen· 

lowing residents of ' two' ' coastal cerned ·about. what the U.S. Fish tal, nonenential population." 

counties to kill red wolves. and Wildlife .: Service say~ " There were known to be 42 of 

Tv.·o red wolves have been thot For almost Si't months. the U.S. the animals at or near the refuge in 

to death since the law took effect Fish and Wildlife Ser-.jce has ques· Dare County last year. 

Dec. l; andanothei was caught in a tioned whether the state Wildlife · Edward• says the wolves pose a 

trap ·and drowned, after they lett Reso=e• Commission i• in com· ·threat to humans. the Alli~tat r River Wildlife ·Pre··• . ·.. . . . · · . serve. wildlife ' officials say. The phance w1th 1

a cooperative agree- "There .have b<en two of he::~ 

wolves are a fe~era ll y protected,'. : ment that cals forthe state to pro- trappe& in Beaufort County, and I'd specie's. · >. , "- :. ·'. . . · • ·, teet and manage r:ue, _threatened or be a fool if they're r.ot up 1nto Pitt 

The law allows residents of Hyde . endani<red spec•es. .·· and Martin· cour.ties bdore lvn;1." 

and Washington counties to.kiU.red.. . Randall C. Wilson. the state en· Edwards said. 

wolves if the animals come- onto dangered-species Coordinator, said The wolf was extinct in the \lild 

private property and are perceived that )lis agency receives $118,000 a in 1980. Fednal authorities intro· 

to pose a threat t_o people O(·· . . year from the federal government duced it to ea stern North Carolina 

livestock. as part of a cooperative agreement in 1987 as part of an experiment to 

Gary Henry, an endangered-spe- under the Endangered Species Act. replenish the population. 

cies specialist with the state Fish · The fe<!enl aeency h.ts renewed Federal wildlife-enforcement offi. 

and Wildlife Service, . said the its agreement for this year, but that · cials have said they· are cc-nsid<rir.g· 

agency has turned the case over to could be jeopardized by the lnterioC ~ pressing arges ag.a.inst Jn;·one 

the solicitor general of the U.S. De• Department's decision on' the red · ·found to be responsible for the ani· 

partment of Interior to detennine , .·wolve•. . .. ,_ ... .. . , mals' deaths. If convicted. a ptrson 

whether North Carolina 'is still eli· . . "They say they're !till' waiting could face a $100,000 federal ;;e neible. for .. fe.~enl funds:··· ....... , ::.'·.:.:, .... for a decision from .thei[.attorney alty and up to. one yeu ir..prison .. 
244 

___________ Inside \\ ,tshin on 

f States Revolt Against Wolf Program 

• . . ., ·:• 1"•-::: ''· ,1\ ~ .r !"'~' ; ' '' .· -• :' :·:-1_ ...... :~ "'"" .• ··-.-~, -•• • . 

i Mml~r1nt. !-• .,J oiuu r and ,. ..... -lk-1 <J,,.-,. 

lto>!J' l" !boopr._~-- •m•,.h<o!ltro"'u l\• rdt;f' :olo ll fi 

•·iab f~Jl'< -> -.. i! ~ ;"'~q.:~l tll:fl ,-:.Kh ,..-,.n.no '"~ ' 

<"<'< >~i•• <J hv hn• and """!"'W rllo"""' h;o ~ >-'f 

ru•md irn: o-u•m,.,,,.;,,.-, '" "litld bt •irlu:.olh """' 

N.C. Challengm; 

Wolf Fiasco ......... --_;"·<" <.h..'=•·••r:lc·.r.· 

·•·,· ~ ..... , .• '"· "' ,., " l> .:-; 

\· .. \lr"- '•1'1 .>: 

,,.,_.,-.: .... ,, -~- '··-: iolt<:. •. :~ .. 1 '·'-' ;~,. "' •I'• .'- : ·on:.·•k i ~" '•·-•··.,-. ~ ·., 

.,.:,• -, ,. 

,. l•;·,••. i~- ";"!. •I <' <!· 

.. ··:.•:. 

'.-, ~ 

.,·-•l:•l 

~··r• ,.· . 
245 

8 AP 01-26-95 01:16 AET 36 LINES 

BC-CO--Wolf Reintroduction,310 

Wildlife Officials to Discuss Colorado Wolf Reintroduction Friday 

LAKEWOOD, Colo. (AP) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will 

play host Friday to a discussion about the reintroduction of wolves 

to Colorado. 

The meeting follows the completion of a biological assessment of 

the proposal and a public acceptance study last year. 

The primary authors of both studies, Larry Bennett of the 

University of Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

in Laramie and Mike Manfredo of Colorado State University, will 

speak about their findings to government agencies, livestock 

producers and other interested parties at the meeting in the Fish 

and Wildlife service office in Lakewood. 

"We've invited the Forest Service, BLM, state Division of 

Wildlife, along with the Cattlemen's Association, woolgrowers, 

outfitters and guides, Big Hom Sheep Society, Sinapu, United 

Sportsmen's Council and groups like that," said Lee Carlson, Fish 

and Wildlife's Colorado supervisor for wildlife enhancement. 

Bennett, who conducted a federally-mandated $35,000 study last 

year, identified seven areas in Colorado that are large enough to 

support up to 1,128 wolves. · 

The areas include the Uncompahgre, Grand Mesa and Gunnison 

National Forests, the Weminuche and South San Juan wilderness areas 

of southwestern Colorado and the Flat Tops Wilderness. 

The study concentrated on whether enough prey species such as 

elk and deer, exist to support the wolves but did not take into 

account social, ethical or political considerations. 

Manfredo's poll of 1,450 state residents was released in 

December. It showed 65.1 percent of Western Slope residents and 

73.8 percent of Front Range residents favor reintroducing wolves. 

Respondents also said fishing opportunities, wildlife education 

in school, improving habitat and keeping more species from becoming 

endangered are more important than wolf reintroduction. 

Fifty-seven percent of those polled said protecting bald eagles 

is more important than bringing wolves back to Colorado. 
246 

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NOJtnt CAROUt..A 

1993 SESSION 

M'nFIED JILL 

Dcuia I. MCkv ~daeSaale 

. . . . DAiaSI. awr. JR. 

DAAial Biiicilt. 

Spcaktr of ella HoliK ot Jtcpruce&dves 
205 EAsT MAIN STuET 

PosT OmCE Box v BI!LHAVEN, NC 1781GOOOO 

Oc::IIAcou,NC 

(91V)V!MII8 

247 

HARVEY WRIGHT RAYNOR W 

AnoltNEY AT LAW 

February 6, 1995 

Mr. Kurt Christensen 

1413-A Longworth Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

(919) 94S-6lll 

FAX (919) 94~112 

Re: u.s. Fish and Wildlife Red wolf Program in Eastern North 

Carolina 

Dear Mr. Christensen: 

I have been told that if I write to you my opposition to the 

red wolf program in Fastern North Carolina will be noted in the 

Congressional Record and before the appropriate House committee or sub-Committee. 

As attorney for Hyde County, North Carolina I have had ar. opportunity to review Fish and Wildlife's doc"mentation regarding 

this program and hear and read public statements made by its 

representatives before governir;g Boards and legislative Committees 

and in the local newspapers. On several occasions there have been 

such discrepancies between the documents and statements that one can only assume that the statements that one can only assume that 

the statements went unintended to mislead the public and 

misrepresent the program. This lack of integrity and the arrogance 

of these representat i. ves have led me to believe that the stated 

goals and statistics regarding this program may well be untrue and 

tears axpressed by t:he common citizens of our area may be well 

founded and all ton re~l. 

Also t:he cost of this program i.s ar. extreme concern to me as a taxpayer in todays atmosphere of increased government 

accountability for tho costjbenefit of its programs. 

The red wolf program should be re--examined but regardless of 

the conclusions of any reexam.i.aation, it should be removed from 

Eastet·n North carolina where .its r.ontinued existence can only lead 

to a greater disrespo::t for the federal government; increased 

tensions between local governments, citizen"', and Fish and 

Wildli.fe; and legal conflicts between government and citizens as citizens attempt to J,Jrotect their propP.rty and families. 
Page two February 6, 1995 

Red Wolves 

248 

Again, please note my opposition to this program as appropriate. 

Sincerely, 

~ Harv~aynor w~~ I~ 
249 

CouNTY oF HYDE 

SWAN QUARTER. NORTH CAROUNA 27885 

Offlce. Board of Commissioners Trov Lane M.yo, Curritock 

Barbara 0. DeeM. Fairfiek:l 

Willie E. Git~M, Lake Landing 

o.vkl B. Styron, Ocracoke 

D. Scott Coble, Swan Quarter February 4, 1995 

Special Counsel to The House committee 

On Natural Resources 

Mr. Kurt Christensen 

141 3-A Longworth Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Christensen, 

On behalf of the citizens of Hyde County, the County 

Commissioners wish to respond to the Congressional hearing on the 

Red Wolf and to file a position of non support for the 

Congressional record. 

We currently suffer from a USFW budget cut which has cost the 

citizens approximately 7 cents on their tax rate. USFW c ontinually 

buys land for special projects, like the Red Wolf, however 

continues to reduce their land management budget. Because of this, 

the result is that the Hyde County citizens subsidize USFW land 

holdings, not the federal citizen, as some would like for you to 

believe. A closer look at cutting some of the reintroduction 

program funding in order to replace management funds is des perately 

needed . 

Red Wolves have c aused a lot of hardship in Hyde, simply 

because endangered species have more land rights than the land 

owner paying property taxes. It appears to be a "land takings" 

without compensation problem that Hyde County does not want. We 

already suffer from the wetlands definition, submerged lands, large 

federal land ownership and now endangered species' rights. We 

cannot continue to subsidize national lands and laws. 

Even with the endangered sp~cies laws, Red Wolves have been 

proven not to be a true species, but instead a coyote crossed with a gray wolf. Why does the federal government spend millions of tax payer monies to reintroduce a non-true species when their land 

management program suffers so? Recently, we were told from North 

carolina Forestry officials that USFW plans to decrease fire 

management programs until they no longer exist, once again leaving 

North Carolina and Hyde County to pick up the tab for land 

management expenses this is another fine example of USFW 

priorities which leaves us with major problems concerning fire 

protection for 120,000 acres of federally owned peat lands . How 

long will this style of USFW management last? 
250 

page 2 

Red Wolves endanger taxpayers , 1 1 vestock, hunting game and 

domestic animals. In some cases, Red Wolves endanger lives. The 

Hyde County small game population, including deer, are decreasing 

which is directly contributed to the reintroduction of a non-true 

species. Therefore, the hunting that is currently available in 

Hyde is jeopardized, further reducing incomes in this rural county. 

Why not spend money on the replenishment of the Canada Goose - a tourisa attraction that generates income as well as a true hunting 

adventure? contrary to USFW press releases, the Red Wolf is not a popular "environmental" program and we hope that you will be able 

to help us convey that to the appropriate House members. 

Thank you for your time and consideration on this most urgent 

matter. It is not often that we get a chance to register our beliefs with those that are reviewing projects such as this. We 

currently find ourselves in the position of trying to protect 

ourselves from the federal government. We look forward to a day 

when that no longer is the case. A closer look at the Department 

of Interior's priorities is definitely needed in order to be fair 

to rural counties. Your support is greatly appreciated. 

cc: The 

The 

The 

The 

The 

The 

The 

Sinc,rel~ 

. // c ' 

/ (f}~.Jv.3 ' ' 

David B. Styron, hairman 

Hyde County Board of Commissioners 

Honorable Jesse Helms 

Honorable Lauch Faircloth 

Honorable Walter Jones, Jr. 

Honorable Eva M. Clayton 

Honorable James B. Hunt, Jr. 

Honorable Marc Basnight 

Honorable Zeno Edwards 
251 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN DON YOUNG 

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE HEARING ON WOLF REINTRODUCTION 

I. RELATIONSHIPS OF STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS 

Question 1: What do your think is the proper scope of 

authority of the affected State governments vis-a-vis the Federal 

government in the development and implementation of the 

introduction plans? 

Answer: The Secretary of the Interior is designated by 

Congress as the responsible official to administer actions 

regarding species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) . It has been the practice of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), which is charged with developing recovery plans for most 

listed species, to fully involve the affected States. In the case of the gray wolf reintroduction Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana were provided funding to assist in developing the EIS. The 

alternative suggested by the State of Wyoming was chosen as the 

proposed action in the final EIS. The experimental population 

rule is written to allow complete State management if wolf 

management plans are prepared and are consistent with the rule. 

The rule used the selected EIS alternative as its basis. 

Question 2: If an affected State objected to the introduct~on of wolves into their State, would you go ~~ead and 

put them in? If so, would you place any limits/restr· .. .. ·cons on the introduction into that State? 

Answer: The State Fish and Game Agencies, who were representing the States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Mon t ana during the 

EIS and rule-making process, provided letters of support to the 

USFWS for the reintroduction of wolves under a nonessential 

experimental population rule. The Service works diligently to 

gain the support of all effected States if reintroduction is to 

be attempted. 

Question 3: The final special rules refer in many places to 

the development and implementation of State management plans to 

govern certain aspects of the introduction program after the 

wolves have been released. How many of the three affected States 

have State management plans in place? 

Answer: None of the three affected States have wolf 

management plans in place at this time. 

Question 4: Why did you not wait until the three States had 

developed State management plans before releasing wolves into 

those States? How do you expect the States to provide management without such plans? 

Answer: Throughout the 2-year EIS process that the States 
252 

fully participated in, it was clear that the reintroduction 

effort would not be dependent upon the States completing their 

wolf management plans. There was clearly time for the States to 

prepare their plans and they received Federal funding in 1994 to 

do so. The State of Idaho completed an acceptable wolf 

management plan about December 1, 1994, over a month prior to 

wolves being released. It was modified and then not passed by 

the Idaho Legislature. The States of Wyoming and Montana decided 

to delay preparation of Wolf Management Plans because the 

Yellowstone release is a soft release and management would be 

largely inside the Park. The States can participate in any or all 

of the various tasks associated with wolf recovery and management if they chose to do so, but the reintroduction was not dependent 

upon one or all the States deciding to develop plans. Delaying significant progress toward wolf recovery only increased program 

costs. 

Question 5: Who has primary responsibility for the 

management of wolves occurring on State and private land--the 

Federal government or State government? 

Answer: As directed by Congress, the USFWS has the primary 

responsibility for listed species, including wolves everywhere in 

the lower 48 States. That authority, including the lead for 

achieving species recovery, can be shared with the States or Native American Tribes if they so desire. 

Question 6: The Governor of Wyoming has written you a letter that the interests of the State require that certain 

factors occur before wolves should be released into Wyoming, and 

requesting that the wolves remain in their pens until those 

circumstances have occurred. What is your response to his 

letter? 

Answer: Please see the attached letter to the Governor of 

Wyoming:--

~uestion 6a: Will you let him develop a State management planefore wolves are unleashed in the State? (The entire State 

of Wyoming is part of the experimental area.) 

Answer: Wolves were released in March; that decision was based-on-tlie EIS, the Final Rule and the best biological information available to assure the well being of the relocated 

wolves. 

Question 6b: What reasonable assurances of Federal funding 

to carry out the program can you provide him? 

Answer: The USFWS has funded all State participation in the 

wolf recovery effort to this point and has every intention of 

continuing to do so, dependent of course on adequate funding from 

Congress. 
253 

Question 6c: What assurances can you give him regarding the 

availability of current predator control methods outside the 

Park'? 

Answer: Predator control outside the Park will continue as normar;-except with some restrictions on M-44 use in areas of 

occupied wolf habitat. Within the experimental population areas, some wolves will be accidently killed during routine ADC control 

actions and these incidents are not considered violations of the 

ESA. In Montana, where 75 wolves now live and are managed as endangered, there has been no noticeable disruption in predator control activities due to the presence of wolves and none is 

expected in the Yellowstone or central Idaho areas. During the 

past ten years only one wolf has been killed by accident in 

Montana, and that was allowed under an incidental take statement 

by the USFWS to ADC. 

Question 6d: What assurances can you give him regarding the 

"interim" measures of full access by State wildlife officials, 

and the capture of any wolf escaping from the pens? 

Answer: The State of Wyoming, as well as Montana and Idaho, was encouraged and funded to participate throughout the wolf 

reintroduction effort. USFWS and NPS biologists regularly 

discuss wolves with biologists from Wyoming Department of Game 

and Fish and other State agencies. There is no reason why this 

cooperation can not continue. No wolves escaped from the pens. 

Question 7: On what basis did you reject the Idaho Sta t e Management Plan? 

Answer: Idaho did not forward a State wolf plan to the 

USFWS-ror-formal approval . The Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

developed a draft wolf management plan that was acceptable t o the 

USFWS. A version of this plan was passed by a 5-2 vote 

(including the two Chairman of the State House and Senate natural resource committees) by the Wolf Oversight Committee established 

by the Idaho Legislature. A later draft of the plan had language 

inserted (at the request of the Idaho Farm Bureau and Cattleman's 

Association, which were the opposing votes when the Oversight Committee voted), regarding total Federal compensation for any and all potential damages and expanded the definition of 

livestock to include a wide variety of animals including dogs. Both these issues had been extensively discussed as being not 

within the provisions of the experimental rules thus, by regulation, it was not legal for the USFWS to approve a State 

plan that was outside the provisions of the experimental rules. 

However, the wolf management plan was never provided to the USFWS 

to accept or reject. The Idaho legislature voted down a bill to 

accept the plan and submit it to the USFWS. 

Question B: State health and safety laws require State 

veter1nar1ans or other appropriate State officials to inspect 

wildlife being imported into a State and to certify that it is 
2M 

free of diseases or other conditions before allowing them to 

enter. Did you give the three affected States the opportunity to 

make those inspections and make the required certifications? 

Answer: The State veterinarians in Idaho, Wyoming, and 

Montana were contacted and provided detailed documentation of the 

procedures for disease screening. The wolves received 

veterinarian approval before leaving Alberta. A veterinarian 

with the Idaho Department of Livestock and Wildlife accompanied the wolves from capture in Alberta to their release in Idaho. 

His participation was funded by the USFWS. The Idaho State 

veterinarian provided a letter certifying their disease-free 

status. The States of Montana and Wyoming were provided the same opportunity to express their concerns regarding the issues of 

diseases and parasites as wolves were reintroduced. 

Question 9: Wolves are known carriers of rabies. What certif~cation can you provide to this committee that the Canadian 

wolves that were imported into these States are free of rabies? 

Who conducted any testing, or performed any vaccination? When was any testing/vaccination done--prior to entry into the U.S.? 

Can you provide the committee with copies of paperwork from u.s. and Canadian Customs offices? 

Answer: The issue of rabies in wild wolves was addressed iQ 

detair-aurTng the EIS and planning for the reintroduction. The 

wolves were removed from areas in Alberta that were certified as free of terrestrial rabies by Canadian veterinarians. Attached are copies of the reports that certify the wolves were rabies 

free. 

II. FATE OF TBE WOLVES THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED 

Question 1: If the Farm Bureau is ultimately successful in 

its suit, what will you do regarding the wolves that have already been released? 

Answer: The final rules clearly stated that if the exper~mental status is lost by litigation or if an existing population of wolves is discovered within 90 days following release in either experimental area, the USFWS will remove the 

reintroduced wolves from the wild. Also if the reintroduced wolf 

population does not exhibit positive growth for two successive 

years, the agencies have one year to conduct management actions 

that initiate positive population growth or the experimental 

status will also likely disappear. Of course, the USFWS would 

follow any final orders from the court. 

question 2: If the Farm Bureau wins its suit, do you intend 

to retrieve all of the wolves that have been introduced, plus any 

offspring that might have been born as a result of the release? 

Answer: The experimental rules also treat any offspring 

solely resulting from reintroduced wolves as reintroduced wolves, 
255 

and they would also be removed if the experimental status was lost due to legal challenge. 

Question 3: How do you intend to retrieve them? How much 

would you estimate that s uch a retri eval wo uld cost? 

Answer: All reintroduced wolves are radio-collared and could~liably located and either darted from helicopters or shot. Retrieval cost is estimated at $2,000 per wo lf, which 

includes helicopter time and salary costs. 

Question 4: After all of the publicity that you have 

generated for this program, you can expect some con t roversy if 

you were ordered to remove the released wolves. How do you 

intend to handle that? 

Answer: The USFWS will address controversy if wolves have to be-reiDOVed in the same manner the USFWS has addressed 

controversy on reintroduction of wolves to central Idaho and 

Yellowstone. The USFWS has always taken a balanced, 

professional, and honest approach to wolf management that was open to full professional and public comment and scrutiny. The 

USFWS's wolf recovery program in northwestern Montana has been a model of local public involvement, interagency cooperation, and 

professional integrity. 

Question 5: Can you guarantee that you will be abl e to 

retrieve all surviving, previousl y released wolves and their 

offspring if the program is found to be invalid? What assurances can you give us that they will all be rounded up? 

Answer: The regulations under which the reintroduction 

program was authorized mandate wolf removal under certain 

circumstances. Control of wolves that are radio-collared is 

technically very effective, and there is little doubt that such 

control would successfully prevent the establishment of a wolf 

population. 

Question 6: The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund suit does 

not ask for invalidation of the final rules. It merely ask~ that 

all introduced gray wolves that intermingle with naturally occurring wolves in Idaho be deemed to be fully protected as the 

law requires. Should the Sierra Club prevail in their suit, what 

will be your response regarding the introduction program? 

Answer: The experimental population regulations state that 

if for-rea5ons of litigation the experimental status of wolves 

within the experimental population area is lost, then all 

reintroduced wolves will be removed. Of course, any final orders 

from the court would be followed. 

~uestion 7: The experimental population rules say that if 

exper mental designation is lost for any reason, including by 

order of a court, then you will revoke the final rules, terminate 
256 

the program, and recapture all of the wolves that have been 

previously released. Can you assure the committee that you will 

take this action? That you will take this action despite any public criticism that you might generate from the recapture of 

the wolves. 

Answer: If wolves have to be removed from the wild, it will 

be extremely controversial. The USFWS will carry out the 

regulations and law as written, as well as any orders from the 

court. 

Question 8: 

do with captured were successful. 

in the event the 

Surely you have had discussions about what to or released wolves if either of the lawsuits 

What contingency plans does the Department have 

wolves have to be recaptured and removed? 

Answer: It would be fairly straightforward to recapture 

wolves-rr-necessary. The wolves would be located by monitoring their radio collars. They could be darted with tranquilizing 

drugs or shot. 

Question 9: What do you intend to do with the wolves that 

might have to be recaptured under the scenarios described above? 

Answer: There are three options if wolves have to be 

removea-rrDm the wild. The first is to capture and offer the 

wolves back to Alberta for release in the wild. Earlier 

discussions indicated that they would not take the wolves back 

but in more recent statements, the Minister of the Environment 

indicated the Province would be willing to discuss that 

possibility if such a situation arose. Second, the wolves could 

be captured and placed in captivity at an established facility or zoo. Thirdly, the wolves could be killed. 

Question 10: Have you or your employees had any conversations with the Canadian government or the government of 

the province of Alberta regarding the return of wolves should the 

program be invalidated? What have the Canadians said? Will they take their wolves back? 

Answer: These issues have been discussed with the Canadians 

and they are willing to continue dialogue. However, until such 

time as a formal request was made, no agreements can be made 

because the length of time the wolves were out of their original 

territories, season, and other biological factors would affect 

the number of alternatives for the wolves' disposal that could be 

pursued. 

Question 11: Project director Ed Bangs testified at the 

preliminary injunction hearing that if the wolves had to be 

recaptured for any reason, then he would recommend that the 

wolves be killed rather than having them return to Canada. Would 

you accept such a recommendation? Would you accept such a recommendation knowing the significant public outcry that such a 
257 

proposal would generate from the same people who advocated wolf 

introduction in the first place? 

Answer: The USFWS would continue to rely on professi onal 

judgment and advice of those involved with the wolf 

reintroduction program. However, the USFWS reserves the right to 

critically question any recommendations made, and to make the 

final decisions regarding the DOl's official position. 

III. COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES AND DAMAGES 

You have physically captured wolves in Canada, transported them 

into the U.S., and released them into major portions of three 

Western States. A major predator, the Canadian wolf is known to 

prey on cattle, sheep, goats, and other livestock, pet dogs, as well as possibly causing other forms of property damage. Wolf 

attacks on humans have also been documented. 

Yet the wolf introduction program contains no provision to 

compensate people for any losses that might be incurred as a result of the released wolves. Instead, you direct people to 

apply to a private compensation fund for redress of their losses. 

Question 1: Is your position that the Federal Government 

has no respons~bility to compensate for losses sustained as a result of the released wolves? 

Answer: The Federal Government has had a longstanding 

policy that has been upheld in the courts that it is not directly responsible for damage to property caused by wild animals. That 

being said, the u.s. Government has had a demonstrated history of 

recognizing the concerns of property owners, particularly 

livestock producers in the western States. 

First, livestock producers who graze on public lands receive an indirect annual Federal subsidy because of wildlife damage . As 

part of the public land grazing fee formula, the annual grazing 

fee on every AUM of Federal land is reduced by 23 cents because 

of suspected higher rates of wildlife damage on public land than 

private land. In the area around Yellowstone National Park, 

there are about 1,600,000 AUM allocated to livestock annually. This means that livestock producers in that area, whether they incur predator losses or not, receive an indirect Federal subsidy of about $360,000 annually. 

Secondt USDA's ADC spends over $1 million of general tax dollars 

annually in each of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Most of these 

funds are spent controlling coyotes, the primary predator of 

livestock in the western States. These funds are also used to 

control other predators, but not wolves. There is conflicting data as to whether wolf depredation will increase or decrease the 

overall rate of livestock losses, since wolves will displace some coyotes and possibly mountain lions. The predicted rate of 

livestock loss caused by wolves, even at wolf population recovery 

88-881 - 95 - 10 
258 

levels (100 wolves), will be a very small fraction of the overall 

losses, too small in fact to measure whether any change in the 

rates of livestock losses occurred. 

Third, the Federal Government also has directly addressed the concerns of livestock producers regarding potential wolf 

depredations. The USFWS helped initiate and fund a wolf 

management specialist position with ADC so work on reducing wolf/ 

livestock conflict would not impact the established ADC program. This program has been extremely successful and greatly 

contributed to wolf recovery and reducing conflicts. In 

northwestern Montana, where about 75 wolves live, including 

several packs that are around livestock almost on a daily basis, 

there have been very few conflicts with livestock. In 1994 two 

calves were lost; in 1993 no depredations occurred; in 1992 one steer was lost; and in 1991 two steers and two lambs were killed 

by wolves. Since 1987 only 19 cattle and 12 sheep have been lost 

and 19 wolves controlled (killed, moved, or tagged and released on site). ADC believes that few if any depredations went 

undetected. In addition, the USFWS worked with a private group 

to insure that private funding, from those who support wolf 

recovery, directly reimbursed the producers for their losses. 

Reimbursement for newborn calves was at the price that the 

producer normally sold his fall calves. About $1,800 has been 

paid annually since the program began in 1987. 

Fourth, as part of the final EIS and rule, the USFWS recognized 

the concerns of the affected States and livestock producers in 

the areas where wolves would be reintroduced and permitted the 

States to include a State-run compensation program as part of a comprehensive State wolf recovery and management program, which 

would be funded by the USFWS. Idaho and Wyoming expressed some interest in compensation for livestock losses because they 

already compensate for some types of wildlife damage, but Montana 

does not directly pay for wildlife damage and did not want to 

start. 

Fifth, the USFWS developed the experimental rules to address the concerns of livestock producers that they be able to harass 

wolves, be able to kill wolves attacking their livestock, and 

have professional control of wolves if necessary. In addition, 

and at additional costs to the reintroduction program, all 

reintroduced wolves would be radio-collared and monitored to 

detect and resolve potential problems with livestock quickly. 

Sixth, livestock producers can and some do obtain insurance, 

including that offered by the American Farm Bureau Federation, 

for livestock losses caused by a wide variety of reasons. 

Question 2: If the Federal Government stationed a soldier, or an IRS agent, or anyone else in a particular area and that 

person accidentally killed some livestock, would the Federal 

Government assume liability for compensation? How is that 

situation different from the Canadian wolf introduction? 
259 

Answer: Please see the detailed response above. 

Question 3: If an introduced Canadian wolf were to attack 

and inJure a person, would the Federal Government compensate for damages incurred as a result of the attack? How is that 

different from the situation where introduced Canadian wolves 

attack and kill livestock? 

Answer: The chances of a wolf attacking a person are extremely remote. Despite fairy tales and historical rumors, 

scientific information indicates that healthy wild wolves in 

North America do not attack people. From about 1890, when good medical records of the causes of human death were accurately 

documented, until the present time, no one has been seriously injured by a healthy wild wolf in North America. There are thousands of wolves in Canada and Alaska, and millions of people who recreate outdoors, including Canadian National Parks, without 

being attacked by wolves. The last documented human death caused 

by any wolf in North America was of an Eskimo in Alaska dying of 

rabies after being bitten by a rabid wolf in the 1940's. 

Question 4: Case law indicates that the Federal Government 

may not be liable for damages caused by wild animals unless such 

animals "have been reduced to possession by skillful capture." 

Do you consider Canadian wolves that have been physically 

captured in Canada, imported into the U.S., and released to have 

been "reduced to possession by skillful capture"? Do you consider this situation to be different from the situation of 

naturally occurring wild predators? 

Answer: If the USFWS reduced a wolf to possession and then 

through negligence allowed a person to expose himself to injury 

with the captive animal, then we suspect the U.S. Government 

would have some potential for liability. However, a wild, freeranging wolf has not been reduced to possession and the Federal 

Government is not liable. 

question 5: If the Federal Government captures a major predator, imports it into the U.S., and releases it into areas where it claims that it no longer exists, should the Federal 

Government be responsible for any losses or damages caused by that major predator? 

Answer: Please see the above response . 

QueStion 6: You have referred to a private compensation fund called the Wolf Fund as a possible source of compensation for losses from the released wolves. Can you guarantee that this 

fund will compensate for all wolf losses from the released 

wolves? Can you guarantee us that this fund will continue in 

existence during the term of the wolf introduction program? 

Answer: The private compensation program for livestock 

damage caused by wolves has been developed by the Defenders of 
260 

Wildlife, a private organization. While the Defenders program is 

currently well funded, has paid for all livestock depredations in 

Montana since 1987, and the organization has publicly stated it 

will compensate for all wolf-caused losses until wolves are delisted, the USFWS has no authority to guarantee the program will continue as planned. 

Question 7: If a farmer or rancher is denied 

compensation by the private fund for any reason, what recourse does the farmer or rancher have to be compensated for his losses? 

Answer: Currently without a State compensation program, there is no recourse for a livestock producer to be directly 

compensated for any type of livestock loss including any caused 

by wolves, unless they have purchased private insurance. Also as mentioned earlier, the reduced costs for an AUM on public land to 

offset predation loss is a compensation. 

IV. INADEQUACY OF ALLOWABLE MEASURERS TO PROTECT LIVESTOCK 

The experimental population rules contain measures that are designed to allow livestock producers to protect their livestock 

from wolf predation. For example, farmers and ranchers can "harass" wolves in a non-injurious, non-lethal manner. On 

private lands, a farmer or rancher can "take" a wolf caught in 

the act of injuring or killing livestock. On Federal lands, 

ranchers must obtain a permit to "take" depredating wolves, but 

only where there are 6 or more wolf packs already established and 

where livestock losses have already occurred. 

By the same token, if the USFWS determines that any of these 

conditions have not been fully met, they may prosecute the 

individual for violations of the Endangered Species Act. 

Question 1: The experimental rules allo~1 a farmer or rancher to "take" a wolf only if he catches it in "mid-bite"--

that is, in the act of injuring or killing livestock. Actually catching a wolf in the act of depredation is a fairly rare occurrence, isn't it? 

Answer: In comments to the EIS, many livestock producers requested the authority to shoot wolves that were attacking livestock. Actually seeing a wolf attack livestock is an uncommon event. In Montana there have been 19 cattle and 12 

sheep killed by wolves since 1987. On 2 occasions producers actually saw a wolf attack livestock; on two occasions people saw a wolf fight with their dog; and once a producer caught a wolf 

feeding on a steer it had just killed. Wolves are commonly seen near livestock in Montana and no depredations occurred . 

~uestion 2: If a farmer or rancher shoots a wolf in what he 

consi ers to be the act of injuring or killing livestock, duly 

reports it as required by law, and the government official 

investigating the incident disagrees with the individual, could 
261 

that individual then be prosecuted for violations of the ESA? 

Answer: Anyone, including a livestock producer, who 

violates the terms and conditions of the experimental rule could 

be prosecuted for violating the ESA. 

Question 3: If the answer to #2 is "yes,• wouldn't that 

have a chilling effect on people trying to protect their 

livestock? 

Answer: It should make people aware that killing wolves to 

protect l~vestock is a serious issue that needs to be treated 

with responsibility. Currently this condition is no different 

than State law in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho that allows 

livestock producers to kill big game animals, such as mountain 

lions and black bears only if they are actually attacking 

livestock. Unlike coyotes, which can be killed without limit, 

for any reason, at any time, mountain lions and black bears can not be killed simply because they are near livestock or a perceived threat. Landowners can not kill other big game animals 

such as deer, elk, moose, and antelope without special permits even if they regularly destroy private property such as crops, despite the fact they regularly do so. Grizzly bears which are listed as threatened, or wolves in northwestern Montana which are listed as endangered, can not be harmed even if they are seen attacking livestock, so the experimental rule provides livestock 

producers with additional tools to address their concerns about 

losses from wolves that they would not otherwise have if wolves were to return to these areas on their own. 

Question 4: The rules state that if a person shoots a wolf 

thinking that it was, for example, a coyote, then the shooting 

would not be deemed "accidental." Mr. Bangs testified at the 

preliminary injunction hearing that such an individual would be 

subject to prosecution under the ESA. Doesn't this also have a chilling effect on a person taking appropriate measures to 

protect his livestock? Wouldn't a person be less likely to pull the trigger if he could be held liable for guessing wrong about 

what he was shooting? Won't this have an adverse impact on coyote control? 

Answer: The experimental rule allows for the incidental 

take or-wolves during otherwise lawful activities. However, 

allowing anyone to shoot a wolf and then claim it was a coyote, which is not protected by any State or Federal law, invites abuse 

of the experimental regulation and a waste of the funding that is 

being invested in wolf recovery. One of the three National Rifle 

Association's •golden rules" of hunter and firearms safety is 

that any time a person makes the decision to shoot at anything, 

he should be sure of his target. During waterfowl seasons hunters are responsible under State and Federal regulations for 

proper identification of the game they are hunting, including identification to species and sometimes, sex. A person who 

accidently kills a cow elk, thinking it was a doe mule deer is 
262 

responsible for his mistake under State law. A person who shoots a horse thinking it i s a moose is liable for damages to the 

producer. Anyone who accidentally shoots a wolf because he 

reportedly mistook it for a coyote should be prepared to be 

accountable for his actions. The legal system has been very fair 

at taking mitigating circumstances into account when judging guilt or innocence or level of punishment for violations of the 

law. 

~uestion 5: The experimental rules for the red wolf 

intro uction 1.n 1991 contained a provision allowing "take" for 

any red wolf "pursuing" livestock. Why wasn't the same provision contained in the Canadian wolf introduction special rules ? 

Answer: There is such a high level of misunderstanding about gray wolves that it appeared likely that some people would 

shoot wolves on sight if there was any excuse to do so. In fact 

several people who commented on the draft EIS said they would 

take advantage of any flexibi l ity in the law or simply abuse or violate it, if the opportunity presented itself. Those 

statements, plus the open terrain in the West and the fact that 

livestock are so common, could not allow a provision that most 

law enforcement professionals said would allow an excessive level 

of mortality in wolves. Some parts of Canada are deliberately kept wolf-free by allowing unlimited shooting of wolves by humans. Wolf recovery would not be possible with such a high 

level of human-caused mortality. 

Question 6: There is considerable grazing of Federal lands 

in the "experimental areas" designated by the rules. In some cases, Federal allotments are at a distance from the base private 

property. Yet the experimental rules offer very little 

protection for livestock grazing on Federal lands pursuant to 

Federal permits. Why is so little protection provided? 

Answer: Adequate protection for livestock on public lands as werr-as-private lands was addressed in the final experimental rules. The rules provide for professional control of problem wolves as is currently implemented in northwestern Montana. 

The.re have been no problems with documenting or resolving wolf/ 

livestock conflicts by ADC specialists in Montana. In addition, 

the experimental rules allow livestock producers in the 

experimental areas to harass any wolves near their livestock at 

any time as long as the wolves are not injured . Furthermore, the 

rules allow livestock producers to obtain a permit to kill wolves 

attacking their livestock on public lands once six packs are detected and they have had a documented loss caused by wolves. 

Since all the reintroduced wolves will be radio-collared and 

monitored, it is highly likely that any problems between 

livestock and wolves on public lands could be quickly discovered 

and resolved. While only a fraction of the wolves are radiocollared in Montana, it has been the practice of the USFWS and 

ADC to contact and work with livestock producers who may have 

wolves living among their livestock, regardless of whether 
263 

problems have been documented. 

Question 7: Why are not the same protections provided for 

livestock on Federal lands as for livestock on private lands? 

Answer: During development of the EIS and final 

experimental population rules, the public strongly indicated that 

it wanted more management flexibility for the public on private 

land and more protection for wolves on Federal lands. The final 

rules allowed the States to treat State public land as private land for the purposes of wolf management. Also, the Federal 

public lands grazing formula discounts by 23 cents the cost of 

every AUM leased on Federal grazing allotments to allow for a higher level of livestock losses on public land compared to 

private land. 

~uestion 8: The rules are silent on the protections affor ed to l1vestock on State lands or on other lands that are neither Federal or private. Which set of rules apply to those 

lands? 

Answer: In the final rules, public lands are only Federal land,~he States were offered the opportunity to expand the 

definition, if they so choose. Therefore State lands are treated as private lands unless the States, in their wolf management plans, want to offer more protection to wolves on State lands. 

Sfestion 9: The experimental rules provide that wolves may be la~ully taken in self-defense or in the defense of other 

persons. Yet in a case involving John Shuler, a person who shot a grizzly bear attacking his livestock in self-defense, the 

Department prosecuted him anyway and fined him a substantial sum of money. Can we expect the same treatment in the case of the 

Canadian wolf program? Can you assure us that this will not occur in the case of the Canadian wolf program? 

Answer: The court ruled that Mr. Shuler placed himself in 

the position of having to shoot the bear, therefore he was guilty of illegally killing a bear. If he had shot the bear in actual 

self-defense, it would have been allowed under the ESA. Since 

wolves have not been documented to attack people, killing a wolf 

for self-defense, while permitted by the ESA and specifically in 

the rules, is not expected to be an issue. The experimental rules allow for the accidental killing of wolves. However, 

individuals who violate the provisions established in the 

experimental rules and kill wolves illegally will be prosecuted. The only thing we can assure, is that the regulations will be 

implemented fairly. 

V. WDT CAN WB UPEC'f IN TBJ! I'U'l'ORB? 

If the Canadian wolf introduction program expects to obtain 

funding for 1996 and subsequent years, it is important for the 

committee to have precise ideas of where this program is headed, 
264 

and what might be expected for residents and businesses in the 

three affected States. The experimental population rules 

indicate a review of the program in 2 years, with the possibility of placing additional restrictions if the introduced Canadian 

wolf population is growing according to plan. The rules also 

contain some projections about what might constitute a recovered 

population, and targe t dates for possible delisting. 

Question 1: The rules state that the agency will review the 

progress of the introduction program periodically and may impose additional restrictions if deemed necessary for wolf "recovery." What types of additional restrictions are we talking about? 

Answer: The rules state that if the wolf population does 

not grow, that the States will be encouraged to determine what 

the problems are and t ake corrective steps within one year. If 

they do not take action, the USFWS will conduct the analysis. 

Without 3-5 years of reintroductions, it is likely the wolf 

population will not grow and the restoration effort will fail. 

If that occurs the experimental rule would be voided and wolf 

recovery will again be dependent upon natural recovery. If the 

reintroduction and recovery plan is implemented as written, there 

is very little chance that any restrictions will be required. In 

northwestern Montana virtually no land-use restrictions have been 

required to help wolf recovery, which has been proceeding at a rate of about 22 percent per year. All that said, restrictions 

such as reduced coyote hunting, protection of wolf den and 

rendezvous sites, restrictions on public land livestock grazing or control of depredating wolves and other predators, and 

restrictions on roads and motorized access have been used in 

other areas to promote wolf recovery. 

9uestion 2: Under what circumstances would any additional 

restrlction be imposed? 

Answer: The experimental rules allow for land-use 

restr1ct1ons beyond the possibility of limited April 15-June 30 

case-by-case closures to obtrusive human disturbance around 

active wolf dens on public land, if they are imposed by the 

States or if the wolf population fails to grow toward recovery 

levels for two consecutive years. 

~uestion 3: Would any of the contemplated additional 

restr ctions be applied to private or State lands? (Can you 

guarantee that private or State lands will not be affected?) 

Answer: The limited potential for land-use res.trictions in 

the rules only applies to Federal lands, unless the States or Tribes specifically provide additional restrictions under their 

wolf management plans and State or tribal authority. 

Question 4: Would any of these additional restrictions 

involve restrictions on the ability of farmers and ranchers to 

protect their livestock from predation? Would they involve the 
265 

restrictions on livestock protection measures? (Can you 

guarantee that such restrictions will not be placed? ) 

Answer: If the wolf population fails to grow and the sole 

source-or-that problem is excessive wolf mortality caused by some type of livestock protection measure, such as public aerial 

gunning for coyotes, then that practice could be affected 

temporarily to reinitiate wolf population growth. The solution 

would likely be an education course to identify wolves for people 

who shoot coyotes from aircraft. In reality, it is very unlikely that such restrictions would ever be necessary, largely because 

the reintroduction program focuses wolf recovery on public lands 

and enough wolves are reintroduced during a 3-5 year reintroduction phase that such mortality risks are simply 

overwhelmed in the early stages of recovery when the wolf 

population is most vulnerable. 

Question 5: How would reauthorization of the ESA affect 

this program? Would you amend the program to conform to any 

changes in the ESA? 

Answer: As adopted the wolf reintroduction and experimental populat~on regulations will quickly recover wolf populations in 

the northwestern U.S. Any potential changes in the program would 

be determined on what type of changes occurred to the ESA. Until 

any changes are known, it is impossible to determine if any modifications of the experimental rule would be appropriate . 

Question 6: The experimental rules provide that once a viable populat~on of wolves is achieved in the introduction 

areas, the gray wolf will be delisted. Certain target number 

figures were given as to when that would occur. The same situation was present in Minnesota, where target numbers were given. Yet there were approximately 2,000 wolves estimated in 

Minnesota, target numbers have been exceeded, and there is no move to delist the Minnesota wolves. Can we expect the same with 

these wolf populations? (Can you guarantee us that when the 

numbers set forth in the experimental population rules are satisfied, the requisite delisting will occur?) 

Answer: The issue of what factors would be required to 

delist wolves in the northwestern U.S. was looked at in depth during the EIS process and preparation of the recovery plan, and 

those findings were printed as a specific appendix in the final 

EIS. If wolf populations reach 10 breeding pairs in each of the 

three recovery areas for three consecutive years, wolves in the 

northwestern U.S. could be proposed for delisting from the ESA. 

The ESA has procedures for delisting that must be followed; 

however, if the population goals are met and the States have 

adequate regulatory mechanisms in place, as required for 

delisting, then there is no reason to suspect wolves will not be 

delisted. It was clearly stated in the recovery plan, EIS, and 

final rule that it is USFWS's responsibility and intention to recover and delist wolves. The wolf has reached the recovery 
266 

numbers in Minnesota; however, that recovery plan also calls for a portion of that population to occur in Michigan and the number 

must be met for seven consecutive years. 

Question 7: Closer to home, the Grizzly Bear Recove ry Plan 

specified that grizzly bear populations will be delisted when 

certain target number are reached, and certain other conditions are met. In 1990, both the Northern Continental Divide and the 

Yellowstone grizzly populations met or exceeded their targets, 

yet the recovery plan was amended to change the targets upward 

and add new recovery targets. Not only is there no move by the 

agency to delist either population, but petitions to delist 

either or both of these populations have been denied by the 

agency. 

Can we expect the same problem with the Canadian wolf program? Will "recovery" targets be changed at some future time? Can you 

guarantee us that targets stated in the current recovery plan, 

EIS, and experimental rules are the correct targets, and that 

they will not be revised to keep those wolves on the endangered 

species list? 

Answer: The targets for wolf recovery listed in the 

recovery plan, EIS, and final rules underwent extensive 

scientific peer review and are not expected to change. The USFWS~ 

has been working with State and Federal agencies for the last two 

years to develop a Conservation Strategy for protection of 

grizzly bear habitat after delisting. Once these documents are completed and in place, the USFWS will have a basis to begin the 

delisting process for the grizzly bea1· in the two ecosystems . 

Question 8: Have you considered, or are you now considering 

additional introductions of wolves into any place in the Rocky 

Mountain area? Or are these the only places that wolves will be 

introduced? 

Answer: There are currently no plans by the USFWS to 

reintroduce wolves into any other areas of the northwestern U.S. 

Wolves that attack livestock could be moved in the northwestern 

U.S., but the only reintroductions of wolves planned are for 

central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. 

~uestion 9: There is a great deal of discussion about the 

possi le introduction of wolves into the State of Colorado. Is 

there any truth to this? Has introduction into Colorado been 

discussed or considered by the agency? What is the nature of any 

such discussions or considerations? 

Answer: Congress directed the USFWS to investigate if wolf 

recovery was possible in Colorado. It is very possible and a majority of Colorado residents supported the idea. However, the 

USFWS has no plans to reintroduce wolves to Colorado. If the 

Colorado Fish and Game Department requested technical assistance 

for such a program, the USFWS would consider providing scientific 
267 

and technical advice. 

VI. COSTS OF TBE PROGRAM 

Question 1: What have been the annual average ADC expenses for wolf control in Montana since 1983? 

Answer: We do not have this information. The agreement with ADC 1s to provide assistance with livestock depredations in 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and 

Washington. The ADC wolf specialist also helped throughout the 

EIS and rulemaking process and charged his expenses to the 

agreement. A total of $497,000 has been provided to ADC since 

1987. If this total was divided by the 12 years since 1983, the 

annual average be $41,000 per year, but this figure covers much more than Montana. 

Question 2: What have been the average annual expenses of 

the NPS for research and management of wolves in Glacier National 

Park since 1983? 

Answer: FY 1991 

FY 1992 

FY 1993 

FY 1994 

$18,000 

$ -0-

$40,000 

$40,000 

Question 3: What have been the average annual expenses for 

research and management of wolves by USFWS in Glacier National 

Park since 1983? 

Answer: FY 1991 

FY 1992 

FY 1993 

FY 1994 

$ 17,000 

$108,300 

$ 45,900 

$ 25,000 

Question 4: The committee understands that Utah State 

Univers1ty 1 s College of Natural Resources is currently conducting 

gray wolf studies. Could you please report how much DOl money 

has been spent to date, and how much will be needed to complete the historical and attitudes studies on wolves, as well as any other wolf studies? 

Answer: There has been no USFWS or NPS funds spent on wolf 

studies in Utah, and the USFWS has no plans to recover wolves 

there. 

Question 5: The committee also understands that similar 

wolf stud1es are being done for Colorado. Could you please explain and describe the nature of those studies, DOl expenses to 

date, and the estimated total DOl costs to complete them? 

Answer: In FY 1993, Congress instructed the USFWS to spend $50,~ the study of the potential for wolf reintroduction/ 

recovery into Colorado, although the USFWS has no plan or 
268 

intention of restoring wolve s there at this time. No additi onal 

appropriations were received ; t he refore, the USFWS was r equired 

to expend these funds from exist ing recovery dollars. To compl y 

with the Congressional guidance, $35,000 was provided t o the Uni versity of Wyoming Cooperative Research Unit to conduc t a 

historical and biological feasibility study, and the remaining $15,000 was provided to the Human Dimensions Department at 

Colorado State University fo r a survey of attitudes of Colorado 

residents toward wolves . The State of Colorado provided a matching $15,000, thus $30, 000 was spent on that survey. 

Question 6 : If similar studies are being done for 

Washington and Idaho, the committee would again like to know the 

nature of those studies, DOI expenses to date, and the estima t ed 

total DOI costs to complete them? 

Answer: Washington : FY 1991 

FY 1992 

FY 1993 

FY 1994 

(wolves received l ess spent on bears) 

FY 1995 

$ 20 ,000 

$220 ,000 

$1 20,000 

$1 00,000 

priority 

$ - 0-

with most wolf/ bear funding 

Idaho : In late 1970's or early 1980's, $5, 000 was s pent t o fund surveys for wolves in Idaho . 

FY 1993 $ 60- 80,000 

FY 1994 $130,000 

FY 1995 $286,000 

being spent by USFWS and Nez Perce Tribe Qn wolf 

reintroducti on/recovery 

Question 7 : We understand that the USFWS is consideri ng introduc~ng Mexican wolves into Arizona and New Mexico. How much 

has DOI spent doing studies for these States? What are the 

estimated total costs for completing these studies? 

Answer: The cost of historical and attitude studies is not 

retrievable. This occurred in the 1970's and 1980's, and 

financial records are not maintained longer than six years. The 

cost to date is about $1.3 million. Projected costs from the 

start of FY 1996 through the year 2009 is $7. 2 million. 

Question 8 : As you know, DOI cosponsored a wolf symposium 

in 1992 in Edmonton, Alberta. How much was spent by the NPS and 

USFWS to cosponsor that symposium? How much did DOI spend in 

transportation costs for this symposium? 

Answer: Cost to the USFWS to support the meeting and 

publrsn-fne proceedings was approximately $20,000 . This was a maj or wolf conference (a once-a-decade event), with experts 

present from Alaska, Canada, and the lower 48 States, as well as 
269 

from Europe and Asia. The USFWS gave considerable priority to ensure that information from the meeting be made available to the 

scientific community and to the public. Four different USFWS 

offices across the country contributed toward these costs. Some 

States in the western U.S. also contributed. 

Travel for USFWS personnel (western u.s. only): The cost of 

attending the meeting for Montana-based personnel was $2,500. 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program personnel spent an additional 

$1,100. Each of these personnel gave major presentations at the 

meeting. 

Question 9: What were the total costs to DOI to develop the 

Wolf Recovery Plan between 1982 and 1987? 

Answer: Total cost of Wolf Recovery Plan (assumed to mean Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan): 

1974-80 $ 75,000 Prepare first recovery plan (1980) 

1981-87 $125,000 Prepare second recovery plan (1987) 

Question 10 : Has DOI funded any Canadian wolf studies? If 

so, please give a brief description of each study and list DOI 

costs. 

Answer: The only costs that would come under this category are as-IOflows: 1) During 1994, the USFWS provided technical 

assistance to the Province of Alberta and Waterton National Park 

in initiating a study of wolves in extreme southwestern Alberta. 

Cost was approximately $2,000; and 2) The USFWS provided the 

Province of Alberta with $25,000 for its part in the wolf 

reintroduction/recovery and subsequent monitoring of wolf 

populations in the areas where wolves were removed. 

Question 11: Please list and describe all DOI contracts, 

and their costs, with the University of Montana for wolf studies. 

Answer: Since June 1991, the USFWS has provided the 

Univers1ty of Montana $196,200 to conduct studies of the wolf and 

its prey in and near Glacier National Park, while the NPS has 

provided $98,000 to the University for that purpose. Annual 

breakdowns are as follows. 

Glacier National Park 

FY 1991 USFWS 

FY 1992 USFWS 

FY 1993 USFWS 

FY 1994 USFWS 

studies in 

$ 17,000 

$108,300 

$ 45,900 

$ 25,000 

recent past: NPS $18,000 

NPS $40,000 

NPS $40,000 

From 1973 to present, funding provided to the University of 

Montana by the USFWS and NPS for research of wolves and its prey has totalled about $930,000. 

Statewide: No funds were provided to the University of Montana 

for studies of wolves outside Glacier National Park. However, 
270 

the Wolf Ecology Project at the University of Montana searched 

for wolves throughout much of Montana and Idaho. 

Cooperative Unit: No funds provided to the University of Montana 

Wildlife Cooperative Unit for studies of wolves, although the 

Unit contracted some work on the economic portion of the EIS. 

Question 12 : List all BIA expenses in Montana and Idaho 

relating to wolves on the Blackfoot Reservation and any expenses with the Nez Perce Tri bes regarding wolves. 

Answer: No funds from BIA have been expended on wolf 

reintroduction/recovery. The USFWS has provided funds for their 

participation when requested. 

QUESTIONS FOR ED BANGS 

1. Newspaper reports indicate howling at wolves in 

Yellowstone National Park is banned by Park rul es . Apparently 

Mr. Mike Phillips of the NPS c lassifies this activity as "harassment." The ESA defines "take" (of an endangered or threatened species) as follows : "the term 'take' means to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt: to engage in any such conduct." 

Section lO(j) of the ESA says "For the purposes of the Act, each 

member of an experimental population shall be treated as a threatened species ... " 

Question 1: Will persons in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming be 

prosecuted, under the Endangered Species Act, for howling at 

wol11es? Is howling considered by the USFWS to be "harassment"? 

Answer: In Yellowstone National Park calling any wildlife 

is not permitted, and I assume that prohibition would be applied 

to wolves in the Park. Howling is not considered harassment of 

wolves by the experimental rules or by the USFWS unless it causes harm to the wolves, which is unlikely. 

2. During a Federal District Court hearing in Cheyenne, 

Wyoming, just before Christmas, the judge asked you, "What if I 

let these wolves into the experimental areas and ultimately determine they should be removed? What harm am I doing to the 

animal by that decision, assuming the higher courts uphold my decision?• Your response was, "My recommendation would be to 

kill the animals." 

P,uestion 2: If one of the two, or both current lawsuits, 

shou d result in the courts determining that the wolves should be 

removed, what would you recommend at this point in time? 

Answer: My recommendation would depend upon what the court 

ruling said. However, if a final legal decision required that 

all reintroduced wolves be permanently removed from the wild, I 
271 

would currently recommend that they be euthanized based on the 

information I now have at my disposal. They could however be 

captured and placed in zoos. 

3. The final rule which you prepared and which was published on November 22, 1994, in the Federal Register says: 

"All reintroduced wolves designated as nonessential 

experimental will be removed from the wild and the 

experimental population status and regulations revoked when 

(i) legal actions or lawsuits change the wolves' status to 

endangered under the Act or (ii) within 90 days of the 

initial release date, naturally occurring wolves, consisting of two breeding pairs that for 2 consecutive years have each 

successfully raised two offspring, are discovered in the 

experimental population area. The naturally occurring wolves would be managed and protected as endangered species 

under the Act." 

Question 3: When you drafted that final rule, did you, and 

the Federal Government, intend the word "removed" to mean what 

you told the judge in Cheyenne, Wyoming? 

Answer: Removed as used in the EIS means to be placed in 

capt1v1ty or killed. 

4. The final rule published on November 22, 1994, says, "If 

the wolf population does not demonstrate positive growth toward 

recovery goals for 2 consecutive years, the affected States and 

Tribes, in cooperation with the USFWS, would, within 1 year, 

identify and initiate wolf management strategies, including 

appropriate public review and comment, to ensure continued wolf 

population growth toward recovery levels," and "When six or more breeding pairs are established in an experimental population 

area, no land-use restrictions may be employed outside of 

national parks or national wildlife refuges, unless wolf 

populations fail to maintain positive growth rates toward 

population recovery levels for 2 consecutive years. If such a situation arose, State and tribal agencies would identify, 

recommend, and implement corrective management actions within 1 

year, possibly including land-use restrictions to promote growth of the wolf population." 

~estion 4a: What are these specific recovery goals, for 

both daho and Yellowstone, for each of the next 6 years? 

Answer: The goal is simply an increase in the number of 

wolves each year. By January 1996, there should be more than 15 

wolves in central Idaho and more than 14 in Yellowstone. In the 

early phase of recovery this is addressed by reintroduction. 

~estion 4b: Why does one of the above quotations refer to 

theribes and States• while the other includes the "Service?" 
272 

Answer: The intent was to encourage the States and Tribes 

to lead recovery efforts and only if they did not would the USFWS 

take the program over. 

Question 4c : Why does the quotation noted above which 

excludes the "service" refer to imposition of "land-use 

restrictions?" 

Answer: The intent of this section was to emphasize that 

the USFWS encouraged the States to lead recovery and that they should be given the first opportunity to make decisions on how 

wolf recovery could be reached. The States have a better idea of 

which additional management practices would be most accepted by local residents and would be most consistent with other wildlife 

management programs in the States. 

puestion 4d: Did the States assist with the drafting of the 

fina rule? Did they agree to impose land-use restrictions as is 

found in the second quotation noted earlier? 

Answer: The States did not assist in drafting the final rule~the rule was discussed with them and they assisted in 

preparing the final EIS which the rule simply mirrors. Neither 

the States nor the USFWS envisions imposing any land-use 

restrictions but in their comments on the draft EIS, the States 

did ask for the flexibility to do so if unforeseen conditions 

required them. 

Question 4e: What is the plan for managing wolves should 

you reach the recovery goal in each of the areas? 

Answer: That would be entirely left up to the States prov~olves would not be extirpated again. Once wolves are delisted the USFWS would have no role other than a mandatory 5-

year determination of wolf population levels under State 

management. Prior to delisting, the States would have to have 

adequate State regulatory protection for wolves so that 

populations would not fall below the 10 breeding pair level, but 

they would have great latitude in developing their own management plans. For instance, I believe they would need some sort of 

professional peer review to demonstrate that wolf populations would not again go extinct under their management strategy. Wolves could not be listed as a predator as is currently the case under Wyoming State law and be delisted, because in other areas of North America wolf populations could not sustain themselves in 

face of unregulated killing by people. Wolf populations can sustain regulated harvest and could be delisted, classified as game animals or furbearers, since populations would be sustained 

with a scientifically based harvest strategy or limited 

protection. 

Question 4f: Without an approved plan from any of the 

States, how can you assume they will take over the management of 

wolves at some time in the future? 
Answer: If the States do not develop wolf management plans they~ not assume wolf management responsibility, and the 

USFWS would manage wolves until they did or recovery is reached. 

Question 4g: Have you ever seen a wolf in the act of 

wounding, biting, or killing livestock? 

Answer: Wolves usually do not attack livestock and I have never seen a wolf attacking or biting livestock. 

Question 4h: Did the data the government used in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement consider that many livestock 

killed by wolves are never found? If you did not take that into 

consideration, what is your estimation of the magnitude of the 

losses as compared to what was reported in the FEIS? 

Answer: The estimated livestock losses were derived from 

loss est~mates throughout North America. Some of those studies 

included suspected losses. I know from my experience in Montana 

that some livestock losses caused by wolves may never be 

discovered, and that some losses not caused by wolves may be 

classified as wolf-caused losses. Despite all of that, I believe 

the estimates in the EIS are as close as can be predicted at this 

time. Based upon the rate of losses documented in northwestern 

Montana, the livestock losses predicted in the EIS are higher 

than our experience to date would suggest. 

5. Various groups have indicated they supplied the 

government with radio-collars and built the pens in Yellowstone 

because the government did not have adequate funding to carry out 

this phase of the proposal. 

Question Sa: How much funding did the government have on October 1 to carry-out this proposal? 

Answer:Region 6 USFWS $600,000 earmark 

Region 1 USFWS 

NPS 

Total 

$100,000 taken from other recovery actions 

$ 50,000 additional base from other 

recovery actions to cover overage $286,000 

$330,000 $1,366,000 

~uestion Sb: How much money has the government spent since 

Octo er 1 on this proposal? 

Answer:Region 6 USFWS $532,000 ----- Region 1 USFWS $6,000 

$50,000 salary & benefits of Idaho staff 

$157,000 Nez Perce agreement NPS $110,000 

Total $855,000 

Question Sc: How much money was expended on the pens? Who 
274 

supplied the funding? 

Answer: A total of $70,000 in NPS funding was spent on construction of pens. 

Question Sd: How much money was expended on radio-collars? 

Who supplied the funding? 

Answer: A total of $30,000 was spent on radio collars, 

which were obtained by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

through donations and contributions by Telonies Corp. 

Question Se: Did you indicate to anyone that you did not 

have adequate funding to carry-out this proposal? 

Answer: There have been numerous memorandums to the 

RegionarlDirector and Director identifying these needed expenses for the wolf reintroduction/recovery activity. If the State wolf 

management plans were in place, there would be inadequate funding 

to support those agreements at this time. Other activities that 

should be accomplished have been deferred. 

Question Sf: What has been the percentage loss for specific 

livestock owners in Minnesota who actually suffered the loss? 

(NOTE: about 3 percent cattle and 18 percent sheep). 

Answer: The losses of livestock to wolves in Minnesota has 

been est~mated at less than 0.1 percent. No records are kept on losses by individual landowners. ADC in Minnesota could possibly 

gather this information. 
275 

United States Departtnent of the Interior 

OffiCE Of THE SECRET.o.R.Y 

Wuhington. D.C. 20240 

Honorable Jia Geringer Governor of Wyoaing Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 

Dear Governor Geringer: 

Thank you for your January 16, 1995, letter regarding the 

reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park. Fifteen 

wolves have been released into the wilds of central Idaho, and one has been killed. The remaining animals are beinq monitored 

throuqh radio telemetry collars. An additional 14 wolves are beinq held in pens outside Yellowstone National Park. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service) plans to monitor those wolves and 

release them into the wild at the appropriate time. The 

Service's decision will be determined by the behavior of the 

wolves, weather conditions, and other bioloqical factors. The 

Service anticipates the release will occur at some time in late ,_ March. However, the wolves could be released sooner depending 

upon the judqment of the bioloqists on a release date that would 

have the qreatest chance of contributing to the recovery of wolf 

populations in the Yellowstone area. 

The State of Wyoming was involved throuqhout the nearly 3-year environmental impact statement (EIS) process; Wyoming's concerns as well as concerns of local residents, including livestock 

producers, were considered during the development of the · · ·- experimental population rules. At the request of the affected 

States, Tribes, and many local residents, the States were offered 

the opportunity to lead isplesentation of the wolf sanaqement policies described in the final rules. The Service believes 

those who assisted in preparation of the EIS, including the 

representatives of Fish and Gaae Departments of Wyoaing, Idaho, 

and Montana, clearly understood that the reintroduotion of wolves 

would not be contingent upon the States developing wolf plans that were acceptable to the Service. Such a provision aight result in extras• local political pressure on the states to 

indefinitely delay .the project. Postponing action would delay significant progress toward wolf recovery and delisting. Failure 

to proceed would continue the highly emotional and polarized debate that has 9one on for nearly 20 yean, and would 

unnecessarily increase pr,rea costs. The Service does not 

intend to hold the wolves n the P.ns in Yellowstone National 

Park any longer than sound bioloqy and humane treat.ent of the 

wolves allow. 
276 

Honorable Jia Gerinqer 2 

To assume aanaqeaent authority and Federal fundinq, the states 

and affected Tribes needed to develop State or Tribal wolf 

aanaqeaent plans that were within the leqal quidelines established in the final rules. The State of Idaho c:oapleted its 

plan in Deceaber 1994 prior to any release of wolves, but its 

ac:c:eptanc:e by the servic:e bas been delayed by last ainute 

aodifications and discussions within the Idaho state legislature. Sine:• that tiae the Hes Perc:e Tribe baa proposed to c:o-aanaqe the 

wolves in Idaho with the Servic:e, and the Servic:e 1s pursuinq their offer. We enc:ouraqe Wyominq to c:ontinue work on its wolf 

manaqement plan so it c:an assume the lead for wolf aanaqement in 

Wyoainq outside National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and 

tribal lands as soon as possible. Your suqqestion that Wyoainq c:ontinue to work with Service bioloqists in Helena, Montana, to 

c:omplete a State plan is an excellent one. 

Thank you for expressinq your concerns about the wolf proqram. The Service's wolf bioloqists involved in tbe Yellowstone project have been in contact with Wyominq bioloqists. The Service 

bioloqists will provide 6pecific information about the locations 

of the boldinq pens as well as provide access to all records 

aaintained on the wolves within these pens, inc:ludinq their 

locations once they are released. We assure you that the 

Service's project leader for wolf reintroduction is available to 

meet with Wyominq representatives to discuss the provisions for 

wolf management planning that were incorporated into the 

experiaental rule at the request of the States. Please contact us if you wish to pursue this offer, and we will arranqe a meetinq as soon as possible. 

Georqe T. Fraapton, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks 

cc: PMO/Secretary's Piles - 6013 MIB 

Exec Sec - 6218 MIB 

Secretary's Reading File (2) - 6013 MIB 

A/S-FWP - 3156 MIB ·· FWS/RecJional"'1)l~~r ~: R*Jion 6 • FWS/ABS - 3024 MIB 

FWS/CCU - 3012 MIB 

FWS/Directorate RF - 3012 MIB 

FWS/R6/ES:LSbanks:vs:2/2/95:lOl/236-7398:ES-100033 

Revised:SDRD:CJeffrey:lOl/236-7920:2/6/95 

Pinal Draft prepared by PWS/CCU:KL&ender:202/208-7535r2/28/95 
277 

To: Sceve Fritts, Director of scienrific investigations 

From: Marie Johnson, DVM, Wildlit'e veterinariaJI 

D11e: March 14, 1995 

Subject: Serologic investigations for gray wolf reintroduction 

All twenty-nine tr3.115located wolves were sampled JllllW)', 1995 for serologic investig1tiom 

as plU1 or lhe disease monitoring procram for gray wolf reinuoduction. Several laboratories 

participated in serologic cestm,: 

1. Wi1Sbin¥lon Animal Disease Diapostic LaboratOrY. Pullmall, Washillgton 

SerolOJY • Canine Parvovirus 

Canine Distemper 

Infectious Canine Hepatitis 

Leptospirosis 

2. Agriculture Canada, Animal Health Division, Lethbridge, Alberta 

SeroloJY • Brucellosis 

3. Agriculture Canaca, Aoimal Disuse Research Institute, Nipun, On1ario 

Serology - Rabies 

Initial samples for serologic: investigation were collected from each wolf within 24 hours of 

initial c:.aprure. Additional samples were usually collected if wolves were lwldled again. 

Seroprevaleoce of initial samples were: 

Canine distemper 

C&.lliae parvovirus 

Canine adenovirus 

Leptospira c:.aDicola 

Leptospira iccerohemorragica 

Rabies 

Brucellosis 

33,; 

100,; 

as,; 

6~ 

9~ 

0" 0" 

Serologic results show these wolves bave been exposed to common c:an.iue diseases 

(distemper, parvovirus, adenovirus, md leptospira) whic:h is c:onsiscent with wolves in 

Minocsota, Montana, md Alaska md in other wildlife throughout North America. 

Parvovirus aDd distemper has also been idcmifled in Yellowstone Parle. The high 

seroprevalcnc:c of parvovirus in these wolves demoastrates that all wolves have ann"bodies 

against parvovirus a.od m: therefore protected, in varyill& degrees, against this disease. In 

addition, all wolves were vac:cinated for these diseases. 

At intitial c:aprure from the wild, a1J wolves testl:d negative for rabies aDd brucellosis. These 

results are conslstem with documentation from Alberta fish md Wildlife Service slating that 

captUre locations are rablca and bruceUosls free areas. Tbe primary purpose for rabies 

serologic tcstillg postvaccillation was 1n determine if, and bow rapid, andbody RspODSCS 

would develop after rabies vaccination. One Initially negative wolf was mildly positive 9 

days post vaccillation with a slightly higher anu'body response 11 cays post vaccination. 

Serum collected 2-4 cays after other wolves were vaccinated were 111 negative. Positive 

tilers from tbe vaccinaled wolf SIIJiest rabies vaccines may produce pi'Olective immWlity ill 

wolves as it does in domestic dogs. 
••• -'9ricul!u1'1 

~· 

278 

Food Production Dlr..:tion gOtl~rlle. 

~ Inspection 8t InCh Pt0<1~ et inspecrion de$ lllmentr 

Dr. Hare Johnson 

Research Division 

National Park Service 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyominq 

FAX 307 - 344 • 2211 

Dear ~arc, 

March 14, 1995 

Please find attached the newest results. I repeat my previous co111111ents: All samples were tested in a regular tissue culture 

neutralization test (not the RFFIT) and antibody levels are expressed as titers (50' endpoint of serua dilution neutralizing 

cvs strain of rabies virus) as International Units (I.U.). I.V.'s are qained through co-titration of a standard serum in each test. The ratio between titers and I. 0. 'I therefor vuies 1li9htly from 

test to test. Values below o. 5 \ I. U. can be reqardecl as non-- specific. We also perfonaed with. all sera a competitive ELISA 

against a labelled nautralizin9 monoclonal antibody. In the c-!LISA we consider an inhibition below 20' as nonspecific. These cutoff 

values do not necessarily quarantee that sera with higher values 

always bear rabies-specific immunoglobulin, and that values below are ah1ays non•specific. The values for sample #2 are in this 

borderline area. 

youre sincerely 

Alexander I. wandeler, Ph.D. 

Bead, Rabie• Unit 

Aniaal Disease• Research Institute 

P.O.Box 11300, Station B 

Nepean, Ont. Jt2B IPt, CANADA 

PAX 613-t54·0614 

cc: Dr. Marqo Pybus 

Can ad~ 
279 

••• =:ur· 

Food Production l);rec1ion g"* n, atiCI ln•pection BfVIdl PIOductloii ellnspeclion des alitMniS 

Dr. Marc Johnson 

Research Division . National Park Service 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoainq 

FAX 307 - 344 .- 2211 

Dear Marc, 

February zo, 1995 

Please find attached the promised lbt ot results. All nmples were tested in a regular tissue culture neutralization test (not 

the RFFIT) and antibody levels .are expressed as International Units 

(I.U.). Values below 0.5 I.U. can be reqarded as non-specific. We 

also ran all sera in a competitive ELISA against a labelled 

neutralizing monoclonal antibody. In the c-ELISA we consider an inhibition below 20t as nonspecific. These cutoff values do not 

necessarily guarantee that sera with higher values always bear 

rabies-specific immunoglobulin. It is noteworthy that a sing'le sample with the desig'ftation RED15Y50 is "positive" in both testa. 

It would certainly be worthwhile to teat another sample fro• this 

particular wolf. 

I will be away for the next 2\ weeks (in Africa). If you urgently need more information please talk to Lindsay Elmgren, Kim 

Knowles, or Jan Armstronq at the usual phone number. 

yours sincerely 

t~><' Alexander I . wandeler, Ph.D. 

Head, Rabies Unit 

Animal Diseases Research Institute 

P.O.Box 11300, Station H 

Nepean, Ont. X2H 8P9, CANADA 

FAX 613-954-0614 

Can ad~ llecy~eG P1per I Pepler re~ 

- <.(-
280 

P.a9• No. 

95.03.15 

FINAL RE5UL T5 OF RABIES FLUORESCENT MICRONEUTRALIZATION TEST 

AND RABIES COMPETITIVE ELISA 

LAB ANIMAL BLEED DATE ANTIBODY LEVEL FINAL RESULT 

NUI'IBER TAG OR LOCATION IN I.U. RABIES C·ELISA 

~ INHIBITION 

52038 99-100 ROCK LAKE <0.08 0 

52039 88•89 BEAVER CR <0.08 0 

52040 59-60 JACKFISH L <0.08 0 

52041 BLACK F ROBS JUNC <0.08 0 

52042 WOLFitl BLACK PUP <0.08 0 

52043 WOLFII2 150-522 <0.08 0 

52044 WOLFII4 LA PECHE L <0.08 0 

52045 RED2 95/01/10 <0.08 0 

52046 RED3 95/01/10 <0.08 0 

52047 RED4 95/01/10 (0.08 0 

52048 REDS 95/01/10 (0.08 0 

52049 RED6Y48 95/01/09 <0.08 0 

52050 RED8Y47 95101109 <0.08 0 

52051 RED7Y2 94/12102 (0.08 0 

52052 RED9Y46 95/01/09 <0.08 0 

52053 RED10Y39 "/01/19 <O.OB 0 

S20S4 RED11 Y62 95/01/19 (0,08 0 

52055 RED12Y61 95/01119 0.08 0 

52056 RED13Y76 95/01/19 <0.08 0 

52057 RED14Y77 95/01/19 <O.OB 0 

52058 RED1SYSO 95/01/19 2.54 32 

52059 BL2 95/01/08 <0.08 0 

52060 BL3 95/01110 <0.08 0 

52061 BL4-R1 95/01/10 (0.08 0 

52062 BL5-Y49 95/01/08 <0.08 0 

5:?063 BL6-Y53 95/01/19 <0.08 0 

52064 BL7-Y75 95/01/19 (0.08 0 

52065 BL8-Y14 95/01/19 <0.08 0 

52066 BL9-Y38 95/01/19 <0.08 0 

5206:7 BL10-Y51 95/01/19 (0,08 0 

52068 BL12-Y54 95/01/19 (0,08 0 

52069 BL13·Y74 95/01119 <0.08 0 

52070 BL14-Y72 9$/01/19 <0.08 0 

52071 BL15•Y78 95/01/19 <0.08 0 

5207:2 BL16-Y73 95/01/19 (0.08 0 

52073 YEL88-89 95/01/17 <0.08 0 

52074 BL1 95/01/08 <0.08 0 

52075 YELl 94/12105 0.08 0 

52076 YEL45 95/01/09 <0.08 0 

52077 90·91 94/11/24 <0.08 0 

52078 88-89 94/11/22 <0.08 0 

52079 YELl 94/12104 <O.OB 0 

52080 AOCKY4 94/11/24 <0.08 0 
281 

TEST RESULTS•RABIES SERUM ANTIBODY LEVELS 

FNT-fluoresc:ent neutralization test for determination of rabies 

virus sel"WI neutralizing antibody levels (usinq cvs strain of 

rabies virus) 

C-ELISA•c:ompetitive ELISA for determination ot rabies serum antibody levels 
282 

Testimony before U. S. House of Representatives Nastural 

Resources Committee concerning Wolf Reintroduction in Idaho, 

Jan 26th 1995. 

Ted Hoffman, DVM 

Rt 1 Box 815 , Mountain Home , ID, 83647, 208-587-6374. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present what I have 

learned about the process by which wolves were reintroduced 

into Idaho by the USF&WS. I am a veterinarian and cattleman 

in Mountain Home, ID. I have been vice-chairman or chairman 

of the Idaho Cattle Association's Wildlife Committee for six 

years. I was appointed by the Idaho Director of Agriculture 

to be one of the two agricultural representatives on the 7 

member Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee (LWOC) which was 

formed by the Idaho Legislature and charged with supervising 

and directing the activities of the Idaho Department of Fish 

& Game in their participation in the Wolf EIS process and 

development of a State Wolf Management Plan. 

The J1.Sf&H5._M_11 __ CQIIPl..He.b: ... fAiled .. .t..Q_~Q.l_l.Qtt_J;_~_ir ___ r.§J[gla.t.!.QDL 

50 Cll'R5ec.l1~8lldl which requires that any experimental 

regulation shall " to the maximum extent practicable, 

represent an agreement between the F&WS, the affected state 

and federal agencies, and persons holding any interest in 

land which may be affected by the establishment of an 

experimental program." 

Tl!~L.AgUQDa .2.:LJ;.M_.f~lf5 __ or~_ua.o...1A(:.QilGistent wi tb ~!L.!li.Al 

of_th~Lindangered__.5P.J:H;1ecs..Ac.tHLE5A.}_; __ .. In carrying out the 

program authorized by this act, the Secretary shall 

cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the 

Sta.tes. ·· 

'Ihe_5_t.At.!:t.<d..~dAh~Lh&&L.udL..ll.._abwldall:Ux_c~;r_that_..the. 

atate._take.a.. _a._y_en. ~au"U.2wL.YieR....oL 112 lf ;recmren ill general 

a.o.d..ce;rtainlY_ . .d2e.a...llQ.:t; __ ll!U!PQ;r.t.... HOlf reintroduc.:t.i2D....:tlua.:t 

faila. ..... to .... .IU:2.t.ect .. _the.._ .. leK1tiaate inte:reata 2f Idaho :.a. 

clt.la.e.na..... 

Idaho Code 36-715 states that the Dep"t of F&G shall not 

participate in any activities regarding wolf recovery unless 

specifically authorized by the legislature. This law was 

amended in 1993 and again in 1994, by narrow vote margins, 

primarally at the urging of the Idaho Woolgrower"s 

Association and the Idaho Cattle Association , to permit the 

F&G to participate in the Wolf EIS process and develope a 

state wolf plan, as described above. The F&WS was clearly 

aware of this law and the reasons behind it. On a semiannual basis the F&WS issued written threats that F&WS 

funding of other F&G endangered species activities would be 

suspended unless this law was changed to allow the F&G to 

1 
283 

participate in wolf recovery activities without legislative 

oversight. 

Throughout the EIS and wolf recovery experimental rule 

process the Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee (LWOC), 

both individually and as a group communicated the following 

concerns to F&WS: 

- The experimental ,nonessential rules which allowed 

control of problem wolves were vulnerable to legal challenge 

which would leave Idaho with the wolves and without means of 

controlling them. 

- Livestock owners should be allowed to protect their 

property, and should be compensated by the federal 

government for any losses suffered. The Defenders of 

Wildlife program is unacceptable as a compensation means 

because the program is strictly voluntary on their part, not 

legally enforceable, and will only be offered while small 

numbers of wolves were present during the recovery phase . 

- Land use restrictions were neither necessary nor 

desired, unless compensated by the federal government . 

The above concerns were made known in writing and through 

verbal communication with Idaho F&G staff who were 

cooperating and coordinating with F&WS. The final draft of 

the Idaho Wolf Recovery and Management Plan was submitted to 

the F&WS in late Dec 1994 and contained provisions that 

adequately addressed those concerns. In a 1/9/95 letter, 

Elizabeth Stevens , acting Regional Director, rejected those 

provisions as unacceptable. 

T.h.e ... l!lAho ___ Catlle. ABJS.o.c.iatioo ...... l .lCAl •........ legi.tiaat.e.lJ:. 

r.ePr.e.n.e.ntiM .... :tb.e ... v.iew.u _____ o.f_i:t&t .. Af.f.e.ct~!Ll~OJJ.niD.K .. Ile.abe.r.u ..•. 

W.A~:J .... .. Joi.ne.<l ...... bY ...... II~.mY .... ot.he.r ...... Ida.ho ....... iruliv.i!lYA.l.G ....... an!l ___ o_r&<:ln.b .Atio.ne in eGre.IU3.inK .. Bi.llilar . . conc.e.rns._ The ICA views the time and 

money spent on recovering wolves as absurd . Large healthy 

populations of these destructive and potentially dangerous 

animals exist in Alaska, Canada and Minnesota. In hopes of 

resolving a seemingly endlessly contentious issue, and in 

deference to the apparent wishes of the many other Americans 

who would never be affected by the presence of wolves, we 

swallowed our good sense and decided we would accept wolf 

recovery in Idaho if the above concerns were resolved 

satisfactorily. 

We actively participated in every step of the process, 

voicing the above concerns and recommending solutions in EIS 

scoping, Draft EIS review, preparation of the experimental 

rule, and preparation of a state wolf management plan. 

Because we and the Woolgrowers had played critical roles in 

amending Idaho law to allow F&G participation in these 

processes, we also made it very clear to the F&WS that 

without resolution of the above concerns, we would not 

2 
284 

"agree" with a wolf recovery plan and the legislature could 

not reasonably be expected to " agree ". 

Ihe_..r&.WS failed t.2 achieve u~rrt. 1Ltill :thtLS t.D.te._Qf_ __ l.Q.tdlQ 

o.r ..aa.D1 Idllh~ llmdolmera by__ failiwr to adequate h .e.dd.r.§CUS. :t.h.<L .. abo.YJt.~e.rniL. Although a number of relatively minor 

changes were made to address some concerns, the main 

concerns remain unresolved . 

- The experimental, nonessential status not only 

remains vulnerable ·- it was and continues to be challenged 

by a Sierra Club lawsuit filed even before the wolves 

arrived . The F&WS promise that the wolves shall be killed 

in the event that their status changes is hollow -

environmentalist and animal-rights groups will have little 

difficulty in obstructing such an effort. 

- Livestock owners are prohibited from killing wolves 

attacking lawfully present livestock on federally managed 

lands. Livestock owners are prohibited from killing wolves 

attacking their guard or herding animals, such as dogs or 

llamas. Wolves will not be controlled unless they attack 

guard or working animals twice in one year. No federal 

compensation will be paid to compensate owners for their 

livestock or guard or herding animals which in many cases 

are much more valuable than the animals they guard or herd . 

I would like to provide a scenario which 

demonstrates how unacceptable this situation will be 

for Idahoans. Assume a cowboy or shepherd is wo rking 

with his herd o r flock on federal lands . 95% of Custer 

and Lemhi counties are federal lands. These are the 

counties closest to the wolf release sites. A good dog 

will be the firet to encounter the wolf pack . Assume 

the dog and the pack are some distance away from the 

cowboy, or difficult intervening terrain exists which 

will take some time to cross . The cowboy will be 

unnable to throw rocks or sticks near ( not at, but 

near) the wolves in an effort to scare them off, as 

permitted by the recovery rule . His only recourse is 

his rifle , which , I assure you, will become muc h more 

commonplace now . The rules require the cowboy to allow 

the wolves to kill his dog . 

He must allow the wolves to attack his herd and suffer 

another uncompensated loss , unless he is able to scare 

them off. 

He then must leave his herd or flock and contact Animal 

Damage Control. They will investigate and determine if 

wolves were involved . li they can demonstrate that more 

losses can be expected , and if at least 6 packs of 

wolves are already present in the central Idaho 

recovery area, and if F&WS concurs, and if the appeals 

of environmentalist and animal rights groups are 

denied, ADC can attempt to kill the problem wo lves . 

3 
285 

If less than 6 packs are present, ADC will only be 

permitted to attempt non-fatal control measures. If ADC 

is unnable to satisfactorily stop the losses, and we 

assume this can only mean that more uncompensated 

losses occur despite ADC"s efforts, then the livestock 

owner can ask for a permit to kill wolves attacking 

livestock. 

If that permit is granted, and if it is still valid 

after the expected appeals by environmentalists and 

animal rights groups, then the cowboy or shepherd must 

wait until the wolves attack again, probably lose 

another dog, and must wait until the wolves have left 

identifiable marks on a cow or sheep (another 

uncompensated loss) before he can legally attempt to 

shoot at the wolves. 

These rules require the cowboy or shepherd to abandon 

all their principles of stewardship for the animals in their 

care. This priciples are passed down from generation to 

generation in our families. In many cases they are also 

taught in our churches. Society in general expects us to 

follow these principles. If that cowboy allowed a pack of 

wild dogs to kill his dog or maul his cow or sheep, the same 

animal rights group could and flhould ... seek criminal charges 

for cruelty to the animals in his care. 

What do you think will happen when this scenario occurs 

in real life? Will the cowboy or shepherd obey this federal 

rule? Or will they do what they know in their heart and 

believe in their soul to be the right thing? 

- Land use restrictions will occur and will not be 

compensated. Although the F&WS communicated to the LWOC 

that restrictions are expected to be rare and limited, Ted 

Koch, the lead agent for wolf recovery in the Boise ID Field 

Office was quoted in the 1/6/95 I.ct<!.hQ S:ta:l<e..ei.mlUl as saying 

that habitat restrictions, such as limiting new logging 

roads, will be in place until 5 packs of wolves are 

restored. 

OeJm.i.t.e ... Q.Y!:tl:I~he.l•i..mt .. ev.i.d.e.o.c.e ..... .f.ro ..at .... t.be ....... o.t .. <i.t.e .... M.d .... it.~. 

c . .it..iGIUS ....... t.ha.t ... ~i.ther: JJQlve.a o.o.r. .. t.h.ilL.r.ecOY..en: .... Plao. ... were H.e.l.co.ll~L .. in.....ld.a.bo~ ....t.b..e .. ...E.MULrefUISed ... a.ni .... fur .. ther: .... .Q .. O.IIIIUnication 

a.nd...e.ffo.r.t.a ..... to ... r:each .... u.re.eaent .. a.n.d .. relea.c:u:.d. wolvea .. on ll.1 .. 41..9.5. ..... - The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, with the Wyoming, 

Montana, and American Federations, had previously filed suit 

against reintroduction in federal court. Neither this suit, 

nor the Sierra Club suit have been resolved. The F&WS 

brought the wolves with no certain knowledge of how the 

courts will decide on the manner of wolf management. 

- As the Idaho Legislature had just convened on l/9/95 

and had not had time to consider the recommendations of the 

4 
286 

LWOC, the overwhelming majority of the legislature, in a bipartisan effort, asked the Idaho Congressional delegation to 

delay wolf reintroduction. The legislature also voiced 

concerns about the pending lawsuits, failure of F&WS to 

follow their experimental regulation, the expected revision 

of the ESA, expected Unfunded Federal Mandates legislation, 

refusal of the F&WS to address the above concerns, and the 

highly questionable legality of the special Idaho permit 

issued to deliver wolves. 

- The legislature was joined by every state-wide 

elected official, including the newly elected Governor Batt . 

- The entire Congressional Delegation responded to this 

request and appealed to Secretary Babbitt to delay the 

arrival of the wolves. He refused. 

Tb!;l !J.:lWS .. J!'L .. ""···· ,r!;l O!;lK~!J!;l • .. oiJ:tJ~~ ~genG.Y ... ~b~t .. G{!.JI. ..... -- · e,li:I>eCted 

t .o .... abullo ... any_.PQH.e.r ...... :t.b.e.Y .... .b.a:v:.e. - The entire EIS and experimental rule-making process 

was an unscientific and illegal sham . I will quote just one 

line from the Final EIS, on p. 1-21. "Wolf Recovery will not 

impact or change individual private property rights as 

defined by law." 

- Their rush to place wolves in Idaho was a reckless 

act in light of the unknown disposition of pending lawsuits, 

an unwarranted breach of their own regulations and the ESA, 

and a total violation of any standard of courtesy or 

cooperation between the executive and legislative branches 

of the federal government or between the executive branch 

and the states. 

T.h.e .... l!'6.lf.S.h&IL .. nee.dl.eiUIU ..... cr.e.ii:t.ed. ..... an .. ll.t.II.O B.Pb~.re ....... o.f. .... re.a.ent.llltm.t 

and.. . .Ail.iao.lli.u .. llruLf.eAr...Jihi.cb. . ..ia __ c~J.:O.duc..UY!L :t..o __ their 

ll:liS.IS.iOJL. .. 

- Their actions will make criminals out of law-abiding 

citizens who seek to defend their property and provide good 

stewardship to the animals in their care . 

- At the 1/9/95 hearing of the joint Senate-House 

relevant committees the F&WS agent Heberger (sp ??) 

threatened to sign a wolf management contract with the Nez 

Perce tribe in the event that the legislature did not 

authorize the state F&G to enter into a cooperative 

agreement with the F&WS. In a 1/17/95 hearing of the Idaho 

House Resources and Environment Committee, Ed Bangs, the 

Wolf Recovery Project Leader for the F&WS made the same 

threat. This action exacerbates the state's legal 

differences with the Nez Perce regarding ceded lands 

management authority. Proposing to place such an important 

task before a small regional group with limited statewide 

knowledge, abilities or accountability was widely viewed as 

an insulting blackmail attempt that also played upon interracial and inter-tribal differences. 

5 
287 

- On 1/19/95, the House Resources and Conservation 

Committee voted to retain those provisions in the state 

Idaho Wolf Recovery and Management Plan despite their 

rejection by F&WS. The legislature is expected to vote on 

this plan sometime after theis hearing. In essence, this 

House committee has told the F&WS that unless these 

provisions in our plan are accepted, the state of Idaho will 

not cooperate in this wolf recovery program. 

- The relevant committee in the Wyoming legislature has 

passed a bill continuing the designation of the wolf as a 

predator and adding a bounty of $500 on any wolf found 

outside of Yellowstone Park. This bill has numerous cosponsors in both Wyoming houses. Such a law would be in 

direct contradiction of the ESA. 

- These actions demonstrate that not only have WY and 

ID disagreed with the F&WS plan, they intend to fight. 

- Ed Bangs, Wolf Recovery Project Leader, has used a 

multitude of media opportunities to mislead the general 

public about the extent of livestock losses expected and the 

availability of the Defenders of Wildlife compensation 

program. In his 1/17/95 testimony before the Idaho House 

Resources and Environment Committee, he inaccurately 

portrayed 

- the legality of wolf control measures currently 

being conducted in Montana, 

- the difficulty of of securing a permit to 

control wolves on federally managed lands, 

- the status of state as opposed to "public" 

lands, regarding wolf control options, 

- and the extreme difficulty state F&G departments 

will face in gaining permission to control wolves that are 

adversely affecting wild ungulate herds. 

Such propaganda efforts have created a great deal of 

mistrust regarding all F&WS wolf information and intentions. 

- When the above actions are viewed within the 

historical context of the state's other difficulties with 

the F&WS regarding the listing of the Bruneau Hot 

Springsnail and the Mid-Snake 5 Snail listing, both of which 

were challenged in court by Idaho agricultural organizations 

( successfully in one, the other is still pending), there is 

little hope that Idaho or most of her citizens will support 

the wolf recovery effort. 

- Without the support of the affected states, and 

without the support of the local affected populace, wolf 

recovery shall be a costly failure. 

We .. reque!'Jt the. following actJon!L t9 .helP .. CQrrect . this 

situation .and Prevent si111llar Jlltuations from developing ln 

t.he ... fut1.u.:e. 

1. Legislation or funding curtailment which will stop 

the wolf reintroduction effort. 

2. Federal funding for the Idaho's expenses in handling 

this disaster and compensation to Idaho citizens for losses 

due to wolves or land use restrictions. 

6 
288 

3. No funding for any ESA activities until the act is 

reauthorized and reformed. 

4. Reform of the ESA which prohibits: 

- Consideration of animals which are in no danger 

of extinction for ESA actions, such as the wolf . 

- Any ESA activities in a state unless the state 

agrees to that activity. 

- Actions under the ESA which damage citizens or 

require state expenditures unless all such expenses are 

fully compensated by the federal government . 

5. Agents of the F&WS and NMFS have ordered innumerable 

actions , based on scanty scientific evidence , which deprive 

citizens the use of their property or the right to protect 

their property. To stop this abuse and to prevent huge 

losses to the U.S. Treasury through the U. S . Court of 

Claims, we urge reform of the ESA to require that: 

- Any action which affects property rights must meet a 

high standard of scientific validity and necessity, and must 

be approved by independent scientific review. 

- All such actions must be compensated from funds 

annually allocated by Congress to the ordering agenc y (NMFS 

or F&WS) before such actions are taken. 

0 

ISBN 0-16-047132-X 

90000 

9 801 

7