U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Twin Cities, Minnesota 
RECOVERY PLAN

FOR THE

EASTERN TIMBER

Revised 1992

Original Recovery Plan ApprovedJune 5, 1978

Prepared by the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team

for

Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Twin Cities, Minnesota

Approved:

gional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Date:

WOLF

JAN ~;
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

0

DISCLAIMER PAGE

z

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to

recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State

agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made

available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as

well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily

represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies

involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They

represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have

been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery

plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species

status, and the completion of recovery tasks.

Page 2
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

0

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gratefully acknowledges the efforts of the many

individuals that have contributed their energy and time - official as well as personal - to

the preparation of this recovery plan. We especially extend our appreciation to the

current recovery team members, as well as former team members William Hickling,

LeRoy Rutske, and Robert Linn, and recovery team consultants Tom Weise and John

Mathisen. Ron Refsnider, staff biologist in the Endangered Species Division, Twin

Cities, Minnesota, was instrumental in getting this recovery plan revised and finalized.

Many other individuals have also assisted in this effort and we sincerely thank them all

for their various contributions.

This document should be cited as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Twin

Cities, Minnesota. 73 pp.

Additional copies may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

301-492-2603 or 1-800-582-3421

The fee for a recovery plan varies depending upon the number of pages in the plan.

Page 3
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

0

SUMMARY

Current Status: The eastern timber wolf is a subspecies of the gray wolf and is listed

as threatened in Minnesota and endangered throughout the remainder of its historic

range in the eastern United States. A stable and growing population estimated at 1550

to 1750 wolves currently exists in Minnesota. Approximately 45 to 60 wolves

comprise a second population in northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of

Michigan. An additional thirteen or fourteen wolves are located in Isle Royale National

Park, Michigan.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: This subspecies cannot survive over

the long term without (1) large tracts of wild land with low human densities and

minimal accessibility by humans, and (2) the availability of adequate wild prey, largely

ungulates and beaver. Currently, it is believed that there exists sufficient suitable

habitat in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan to achieve the recovery criteria.

Recovery Objective: Delisting.

Recovery Criteria: At least two viable populations within the 48 United States

satisfying the following conditions must exist: (1) the Minnesota population must be

stable or growing, and its continued survival be assured, and (2) a second population

outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale must be re-established, having at least 100

wolves in late winter if located within 100 miles of the Minnesota wolf population, or

having at least 200 wolves if located beyond that distance. These population levels

must be maintained for five consecutive years before delisting can occur. A

Wisconsin-Michigan population of 100 wolves is considered to be a viable second

population, because continued immigration of Minnesota wolves will supplement it

demographically and genetically for the foreseeable future.

Reclassification Criterion: The Wisconsin wolf population should be reclassified to

threatened status when the late-winter Wisconsin population is maintained at 80

wolves for three consecutive years. Reclassifying Michigan wolves also may be

considered at that time.

Page 4
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

x.x....

0

Summary of Major Changes in this Revision:

1. The Plan describes the characteristics of a “viable population” of wolves at two

levels of geographic isolation from the Minnesota population. (These characteristics were absent from the original 1978 Plan, but were added to it in 1981.) The

Plan also specifies that populations must exhibit these characteristics for at least

five consecutive years to be considered viable.

2 A Wisconsin wolf population of 80 or more for three successive years will allow

reclassification to “threatened” in Wisconsin, and possible reclassification in

Michigan.

3. The importance of minimizing roads open to the public within wolf habitat is

described and quantified in a “road density statement.”

4. The Plan recommends changes to the wolf depredation control program in

Minnesota to allow non-lethal control of depredating wolves in Zone 1, and more

timely action atsites of repeated depredations in Zones 4 and 5.

5. Several changes to the Minnesota Wolf Management Zone boundaries are

recommended to improve the original delineations. These recommendations

stem from better information on habitat conditions and wolf numbers in

portions of Zones 3, 4, and 5, and from the previous unwarranted inclusion of

several communities and built-up areas within Zone 1.

6. Areas in the southern and central Appalachian Mountains are no longer being

considered for future eastern timber wolf reintroduction.

7. The list of factors that are critical threats to the long-term survival of the eastern

timberwolf has been expanded to include diseases and parasites.

Page 5
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

Summary of Major Actions Needed:

1. Increase public education programs on wolf restoration.

2. Monitor wolf populations, habitat conditions, and prey base.

3. Maintain suitable habitat conditions and prey populations throughout recovery

areas.

4. Provide concerted law enforcement activities.

5. Minimize losses of domestic animals due to wolf predation.

6. Evaluate need and feasibility of restoring wolves to Maine-New Hampshire

and/or New York.

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery: $13,500,000

Estimated Date of Recovery: 2005

Page 6
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

EASTERN TIMBER WOLF RECOVERY TEAM MEMBERS

Ralph E. Bailey, Leader 807 W. Fair Ave.

Marquette, MI 49855

Peter Gogan Voyageurs National Park

P.O. Box 50

International Falls, MN 56649

L. David Mech U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

North Central Forest Experiment

Station

1992 Folwell Ave.

St. Paul,MN 55108

Ronald F. Nicotera Bureau of Endangered Resources

Wisconsin Dept. of Nat. Resources

Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

Mike Hathaway U.S. Forest Service

Nicolet National Forest

Federal Building

68 South Stevens

Rhinelander, WI 54501

Robert E. Radtke 2411 Ninth Avenue

Lewiston, ID 83501

David Schad Section of Wildlife

Division of Fish and Wildlife

Department of Natural Resources

Box 20, 500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, MN 55146

Karl Siderits White River National Forest

P.O. Box 948

Glenwood Springs, CO 81602

Page 7
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

rri

0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

L INTRODUCTION 10

A. Wolf Biology and Life History 10

B. Hybridization 12

C. Present Range and Population 13

D. Range Restrictions 15

E. Critical Factors 16

F. Human Density and Accessibility - Road Density Statement 17

Distribution of roads 18

Risk of the expected human use of roads 18

Road design factors influencing human use of roads 18

Road management 19

Road management guidelines 19

G. Ecologically SoundManagement 19

H. Wild Prey 20

1. Public Education 22

J. Parasites and Diseases 22

IL RECOVERY

A. Objective 23

Background 23

Viable Population 24

Wolf population goals 26

Methods ofachieving goals 26

B. Recovery Plan Outline 28

C. Literature Cited 36

III. IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 42

Page 8
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

APPENDIX I

PAST, PRESENT, AND POTENTIAL EASTERN TIMBER WOLF RANGE 33

Part 1 - Areas to be Investigated for Wolf Re-establishment 56

Part 2 - Eastern Timber Wolf Area Status Map 58

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF BASIC DATA FROM FWS/USDA WOLF-LIVESTOCK

DEPREDATION CONTROL PROGRAM IN MINNESOTA (1979-91) 39

APPENDIX III

CRITICAL HABITAT AND MINNESOTA WOLF MANAGEMENT ZONES 68

Map - Minnesota Wolf Management Zones 72

Map - Proposed Minnesota Wolf Management Zones 73

Page 9
EASTERN TIMBERWOLF

z-rl

0

INTRODUCTION

The eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) of eastern North America is one of 32

subspecies or geographic races of the gray wolf, 24 of which originally inhabited North

America (Mech 1970). An increasing number of taxonomists believe that too many

subspecies of North American wolves are recognized, and that the present number

should be reduced (Rausch 1953, Jolicoeur 1959, Kelsall 1968, Mech 1974a, Nowak

1983). Nevertheless, the latest published taxonomic revisions still recognize the

eastern timber wolf as a separate subspecies.

Originally, the eastern timber wolf occurred throughout most of the eastern United

States and southeastern Canada (Appendix I). At present, the United States

population remains only in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, comprising about

three percent of its original range. The subspecies is still relatively common

throughout most of its original Canadian range. In 1967 the eastern timber wolf was

listed by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior as “endangered” in the United States. The

Superior National Forest of Minnesota was closed to the taking of wolves in 1970, and

in August 1974 the subspecies was legally protected by the Federal Endangered

Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205). Wolves had been protected by State law in

Michigan since 1965 and in Wisconsin since 1957. Minnesota outlawed taking in 1974.

In April 1978 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reclassified the eastern timber

wolf in Minnesota as “threatened,” and in 1985 the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a

lower court’s decision outlawing the public harvest of wolves in Minnesota and

reaffirming the FWS’s responsibility for managing the subspecies.

Wolf Biology and L~fe History

The following information about the eastern timber wolf was largely condensed from

Mech (1970, 1974a), Rothman and Mech (1979), Fritts and Mech (1981), and Fuller

(1989).

Eastern timber wolves generally weigh 50 to 100 pounds (23 to 46 kg.) as adults, with

males generally heavier than females. They are usually a mixed gray, but a small

percentage are black or white (Mech and Frenzel 1971). Most wolves live in family

groups or packs consisting of two to eight members, although packs of up to 21 have

been reported.

Each pack inhabits an area of 20 to 214 square miles (51 to 555 kin2) or more and

tends to be territorial. There is a dominance hierarchy within each pack, and generally

-only the top ranking male and female breed, although there are exceptions (Packard et

al. 1983). Pups are produced from early April through early May, and under good

conditions litter sizes average four to seven (Mech 1970, Fuller 1989). Some offspring

Page 10
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

rri

0

remain with the pack, and others leave the territory as they mature. These -<

independent animals become lone wolves and either live nomadically over areas of

1,000 square miles (2,500 kin2) or more, or disperse out of the area,

sometimesmoving more than 500 miles (800 kin) (Fritts 1983). If they find a member

of the opposite sex and suitable range that is not occupied by other wolves, they may

settle into a territory, mate, and begin their own pack.

Generally the prey of eastern timber wolves consists of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus

virginianus), moose (Alces alces),and beaver (Castor canadensis), but wolves will also

take domestic animals including dogs, sheep and cattle (Appendix II). Several studies

indicate that generally the old, sick, weak, or disabled prey are most vulnerable to wolf

predation. Generally, wolves are not instrumental in causing prey declines. However,

in a portion of Minnesota the wolf has been implicated in accentuating a deer decline

that apparently began as a result of deteriorating habitat and a series of hard winters

(Mech 1977a, Mech and Karns 1977). By 1989, however, this deer herd was well on the

way to recovery (Nelson and Mech 1986, and Mech, unpublished data).

Some humans resent the wolf’s predation on livestock and big game and persecute

wolves because of it, despite State and Federal protective laws (Weise et al. 1975).

However, most citizens of Michigan (Hook and Robinson 1982, Kellert 1990) and

Minnesota (Kellert 1985, 1986) —including hunters, trappers, and farmers—hold a

positive attitude toward wolves and consider them a valuable asset. Nevertheless,

according to Kellert’s (1986) survey conducted in 1984, more than 30% of Minnesota

farmers, hunters and trappers, and 26% of northern county respondents indicated

they might shoot a wolf even though it would be illegal.

Wolves kill livestock in Minnesota each year, primarily in Zones 4 and 5 (Appendix

III). Although these depredations may bring hardships to a few individual ranchers,

on the average such losses are low. Approximately five cattle are claimed lost per

10,000, and approximately twelve sheep per 10,000, in wolf range per year (Fritts

1982). From 1979 through 1991, the total number of farmers that sustained verified

wolf depredations on livestock has varied from 9 to 55 per year which is an average of

27 farms per year. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has paid compensation

for livestock killed by wolves averaging $26,762 per year (Appendix II). The FWS

conducted a highly directed wolf control program from 1979 to 1985, and in 1986, the

program was transferred to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control Program (ADC). Some 6 to

42 wolves were killed in the control program during the period from 1979 through

1985, with an average of 26 wolves killed per year. Since that period the numbers of

depredation complaints, verified complaints, and wolves killed have increased

significantly. The number of wolves killed has increased annually, from 31 in 1986 to

91 in 1990, followed by a decrease to 54 in 1991. This is an average of 60 during this

period. In these same six years the number of farms experiencing verified livestock

losses to wolves has varied from 25 to 55, and averaged 38 per year. An average of two

dogs were verified as having been killed by wolves annually from 1986 through 1988;

Page 11
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

0

the average decreased to ten dogs for the years 1989 through 1991 (Paul 1992, in

Appendix II).

It is interesting to note that since 1974, after total legal protection (except for wolves

taken illegally and those killed for livestock-depredation control)~ wolf depredations on

livestock only began significantly increasing about 1988 (Fritts et al. in press).

Generally, year-to-year depredations seemto be primarily a function of winter weather

conditions. The milder a winter, the greater the amount of wolf depredations on

livestock the following summer. This may indicate that wolves take livestock as

secondary prey when deer fawns, their primary summer prey, are less vulnerable

due to better prenatal nutrition (Mech et al. 1986b, Fritts et al. in press).

According to Goldman (1944), the reduction of the eastern timber wolf population in

the United States was caused by: (1) intensive human settlement of the land, (2)

direct conflict with domestic livestock, (3) a lack of understanding about the animal’s

ecology and habits, (4) fears and superstitions about the animal, and (5) overzealous

control programs designed to exterminate it, and (6) perceived competition for deer

and moose.

Now that the wolf’s range has been reduced, parasites and diseases may become more

significant mortality factors. This is especially true of heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis),

canine parvovirus (CPV), and Lyme disease, which are new to the eastern timber

wolf. Heartworm has gradually spread northward, probably via southern dogs

brought to northern dog trials, and has been found in three Minnesota wolves (Mech

and Fritts 1987, and Mech, unpublished). CPV is a new disease infecting Minnesota

and Wisconsin wolves and can be fatal (Mech et al. 1986, Goyal et al. 1986). In addition,

serological evidence of Lyme disease has been found in Minnesota wolves (Thieking et

al. 1991) and Isle Royale wolves (Peterson unpublished data). At present, not enough

is known about any of these conditions to predict their effects on wolf populations, but

conceivably they could become important. Recent evidence from Minnesota indicates

that over half of the variation in annual pup production and a third of the variation in

wolf population change in the Superior National Forest is attributable to CPV (Mech

and Goyal, in prep.). These findings imply that CPV could be important in limiting

isolated or disjunct wolf populations such as those in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Hybridization

Genetic analyses of 86 wolves from Minnesota indicate that more than half of the

population have mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) derived from coyotes (Lehman et al.

1991). Because mtDNA is inherited only matrilineally, this situation could only have

resulted from male wolves having crossed with female coyotes an unknown number

of years ago and the matrilineal offspring having survived to the present. The data also

indicate that the sample of Minnesota specimens resulted from at least two

hybridizations.

Page 12
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

•~::~.• ni

0

Mitochondrial DNA is believed to only affect the function of mitochondria, and unlike

genes in the nucleus, apparently has no effect on the morphology or behavior of

individuals. Mitochondrial DNA gene flow can occur in the near absence of nuclear

gene flow, and preliminary analyses of nuclear DNA from the wolves with coyote

mtDNA indicate no substantial difference between wolves with coyote mtDNA and

those with wolf mtDNA (R. K. Wayne, pers. comm.). However, the presence of

coyote-derived mtDNA in wolves does show that hybridization between the two

species did take place. Furthermore, skull characteristics of canids found in eastern

Ontario in the early 1970’s indicated such hybridization, presumably to a much greater

degree, has taken place there, as well (Kolenosky and Standfield, 1975).

Due to changes in habitat, human habitation patterns and development, populations of

wolves may become increasingly disjunct. This tendency may increase chances for

wolf-coyote contact and thus hybridization. Although there appears to be no such

problem in Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Michigan at present, authorities must be alert to

detect any hybridization that may take place, and to evaluate its significance to wolf

recovery efforts. While hybridization does pose some threat to the integrity of wolf

populations, research to date indicates that it has not been a common occurrence

within the United States and is not a significant problem at this time.

Present Range and Population

At present, the eastern timber wolf in the United States is restricted to the

northwestern corner of its original range, an area contiguous to the Canadian

population and one of short growing season, rocky outcrops, muskeg, infertile soil,

and low human density. The value of much of the wolf’s present range for livestock

production varies from zero to moderately good. Within this region, the approximate

number of wolves remaining in specific areas correlates well with the low density of

humans in those areas (Weise et al. 1975).

In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan Hendrickson et al. (1975) estimated the presence

of at least six wolves during the early 1970’s and postulated that the existence of

wolves was due to sporadic breeding and immigration of wolves from Minnesota and

Ontario. A total of 16 wolves were recovered in the Upper Peninsula between 1960

and 1986 (Thiel and Hammel 1988). All of the nine wolf carcasses recovered in Upper

Michigan between 1967 and 1980 were found in counties adjacent to Ontario or

Wisconsin, and seven of the nine were males (Thiel, unpublished data). During 1990

there were an estimated six wolves in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. In Isle Royale

National Park, Lake Superior, 12-50 wolves have inhabited about 210 square miles

since 1949, with the population estimated at 14 wolves in 1991 (R.O. Peterson, pers.

comm.).

In Wisconsin four to six breeding packs of wolves are located in the northwest along

the Minnesota border, and six to eight breeding packs exist in the north-central part of

Page 13
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

Q

the State. Additionally, small numbers of lone wolves inhabit northeastern Wisconsin

adjacent to Michigan. Known wolf numbers in Wisconsin have fluctuated between 15

and 40 in recent years and in 1991 were estimated at a minimum of 40 wolves in 12

packs (Wydeven 1991).

Northern Minnesota, being contiguous with the Canadian population, harbors the

most wolves, but the wolf distribution there is complex. When the eastern timber

wolf was placed on the Federal endangered species list, little was known about the

status of the animal in Minnesota. In 1955 the wolf’s range in Minnesota included

12,000 square miles (30,720 kin2), andthere were an estimated 300 to 400 wolves on

7,000 square miles (17,900 kin2) of the major wolf range (Stenlund 1955). Cahalane

(1964) estimated that 350 to 700 individuals inhabited Minnesota in 1964, and their

numbers were considered to be stable or decreasing. Since that time intensive research

has been conducted on the wolf in that State, and a clearer picture of the animal’s status

and ecology there has emerged (Mech and Frenzel 1971; Mech 1972, 1973, 1974b, 1975,

1986; Van Ballenberghe and Mech 1975; Van Ballenberghe et al. 1975; Seal et al. 1975;

Fritts and Mech 1981; Berg and Kuehn 1982; Fuller 1989).

Two northeast areas of primary wolf range have been delineated in Minnesota,

including Zone 1, comprised of 4,462 square miles (11,423 kin2), and Zone 2,

comprised of 1,864 square miles (4,772 kin2); one northwest area of primary range,

Zone 3 comprising 3,501 square miles (8,963 kin2); and one area of peripheral range,

Zone 4 comprising 20,901 square miles (53,507 km2 (Appendix III). A more precise

analysis indicates a total range of 23,398 square miles (59,900 kin2) occupied by

breeding packs of wolves (Mech et al. 1988a). In 1978 the Secretary of the Department

of Interior designated Zones 1, 2, and 3 as critical habitat under the Endangered Species

Act.

The northeast part of the primary wolf range, which includes most of the Superior

National Forest (SNF) and its officially designated wilderness, the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), appeared to be supporting as many wolves as it

could in 1971-72. At that time it contained an estimated 400wolves, or one wolf per 10

square miles (26 kin2) (Mech 1973). Since then, however, the wolf population in the

800 square-mile (2,000-kin2) intensive sampling area of the Forest declined to about

one wolf per 15 square miles (38 kin2) in 1984-85 (Mech 1986), due to a drastic decline

in numbers of deer (Mech and Karns 1977), although by 1989 both deer and wolves

were increasing again (Mech unpublished data). Indications are that the number of

wolves in the rest of the Forest has fluctuated similarly, although not necessarily to

the same degree.

In the northwest section of primary range wolf numbers had been low but increased

after 1974, probably as a result of the legal protection afforded by the Endangered

Species Act of 1973. In spring 1977 there was an estimated one wolf per 13 square

miles (33 kin2) in a 1,000 square-mile (2,600 kin2) census area (Fritts and Mech

Page 14
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

1981). Prey populations appear to be adequate there to support more wolves, and wolf

numbers increased in the late 1970’s (5. H. Fritts, unpublished data).

The peripheral range generally lies south of the primary range, includes a much higher Z

density of roads, farms, and other human activities and constructions, and is highly

accessible. There are few, if any, areas in the peripheral range that are not within 3

miles (5 kin) of developed roads. The mean density of wolves in the peripheral range

is lower, and the population is more variable than in the primary range (Berg and

Kuehn 1982; Fuller 1988; Berg 1986; Fritts, unpublished data).

Because of the more settled nature of the peripheral range and the potential for wolfhuman conflicts there, attempts to maximize wolf numbers should be restricted to the

primary range, and wolf populations in theperipheral range should be held to an

average of one wolf per 50 square miles (128 kin2).

The variable and dynamic nature of wolf densities throughout various parts of

northern Minnesota makes it difficult to arrive at an accurate statewide estimate of wolf

numbers. In 1976 Mech (1976) estimated that there were 1,000 to 1,200 wolves in

Minnesota, and in 1979 Berg and Kuehn (1982) estimated 1,235. These numbers are

greater than the estimate of 500 to 1,000 made by Mech and Rausch (1975), but the

new estimates were based on considerably more data than were available to those

authors when their estimate was derived in 1973. By 1989 the statewide wolf

population had increased to an estimated 1,550 to 1,750 animals (Fuller et al. in press).

Just south and west of the peripheral wolf range is an area of greater accessibility and

human density, including a high proportion of intensively farmed areas (Zone 5).

Wolves dispersing from either the primary or the peripheral range find their way into

this farming country, and many of them are killed. By 1989, wolf populations had

begun to colonize this zone (Fuller et al. in press).

Range Restrictions

Apparently the illegal and/or accidental human kill of wolves has minimized their

increase in Michigan and Wisconsin (Henrickson et a 1975, Weise et al. 1975, Robinson

and Smith 1977, Thiel 1985) and in the agricultural and highly settled regions of

Minnesota. Such exploitation, along with government depredation-control, probably

also slows saturation of the peripheral range and any increase in Minnesota. Through

1965, when records were available in Minnesota, an average of about 190 wolves per

year were bountied there, and for many years an additional 50 to 60 were taken

annually by State DNR employees. From 1965 when the bounty was removed,

Page 15
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

0

through August 19741, a comparable number of animals are thought to have been

taken each year. From 1974 through 1977, wolves were not killed by the state or

Federal government, but from 1978 through 1991. 6 to 91 were destroyed annually by

the Federal government (Fritts 1982, Fritts et al. in press, Paul 1992).

Despite an annual kill of perhaps 20 to 30 percent of the estimated number of wolves

in Minnesota in earlier years, there was no noticeable decline in the statewide

population. This should not be surprising, because it has been demonstrated that

annual mortality of 28 percent (Fuller 1989, Keith 1983, Peterson et al. 1984) to 50

percent (Mech 1970:64, Ballard and Stephenson 1982, Ballard et al. 1987) can be

sustained by healthy, productive wolf populations. Conversely, the breeding potential

ofwolf populations with adequate prey is such that without mortality the population

could double each year.

On the other hand, total legal protection of the wolfsince 1974 has not led to a massive

increase in wolves in non-forested areas as some people had feared. From 1974

through about 1978 there has been evidence of a repopulation ofsemi-wilderness areas

adjacent to existing wolf populations, both in Zone 4 of Minnesota and in Wisconsin.

In addition, during the last ten years some wolves have repopulated brushy

agricultural areas in the north end of Zone 5. While their numbers have been reduced

through depredation control activities, livestock depredation problems are still

occurring there, indicating that depredation control activities or other wolf population

reduction measures may need to be increased and/or initiated in this area.

Conceivably, illegal taking of wolves in accessible areas could be preventing

repopulation of such areas. However, it is also possible that dispersing wolves from

forested wilderness areas might tend to shun more open, settled areas. Then, ifthe few

that do venture there are killed, this could explain the lack of further repopulation in

many such areas despite total protection.

Critical Factors

Five main factors are critical to the long-term survival of the eastern timber wolf: (1)

large tracts of wild land with low human densities and minimal accessibility by

humans, (2) ecologically sound management, (3) availability of adequate wild prey, (4)

adequate understanding of wolf ecology and management, and (5) maintenance of

populations that are either free of, orresistant to, parasites and diseases new to wolves

or are large enough to successfully contend with their adverse effects.

Exact figures are not available, but these estimates were developed using the

numbers of wolves killed in the Minnesota animal damage control program that

replaced the bounty.

Page 16
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

Development has multiple effects on wolves: (1) increased human presence increases

the chance of direct killing of wolves, (2) although undocumented, unnatural

structures, sounds, and smells might deter wolves from inhabiting an area, (3)

artificial corridors such as paved roads, powerlines, fences along interstate highways

and railroads may prevent or minimize dispersal (Mech, unpublished data; Thiel,

unpublished data), (4) increased human presence increases chances of introducing

new diseases and parasites to wolves via pets (Mech and Fritts 1987), and (5) reduced

prey species abundance and diversity reduce wolf food supply.

Human Density and Accessibility

(Road Density Statement)

No where in the United States is there an area where the eastern timber wolf will not

be affected by human activity. Because of the diversity of human attitudes, there will

always be differences of opinion about the wolf (Kellert 1986). Wherever people reside

in wolf country, they will have domestic livestock and/or pets that may be subject to

wolf attack. Thus, the combination of the other four critical factors listed above

becomes highly important.

In the long run, public education about the wolf, and the preservation of large tracts of

wild land with low human densities and minimal accessibility will best help preserve

the wolf.

Human activity and exploitation (legal and illegal) of wildlife increases with

accessibility (Holbrook and Vaughan 1985, Van Dyke et al. 1986). This is especially

true of wolves, which are strongly affected by roads in the following ways: (1) direct

mortality via vehicles, (2) allowing access by hunters and trappers, some of whom

deliberately and/or accidentally kill wolves, and (3) in the case of major highways,

barriers to dispersal.

Studies in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ontario, and Minnesota indicate that wolf populations

usually fail to sustain themselves in areas where rural roads open to the public have

densities exceeding 0.93 linear miles of road per square mile of land (0.56 km/kin2)

(Thiel 1985,Jensen et al. 1986; Mech et al. 1988a). Wolf populations in the upper Great

Lakes region are generally restricted to large blocks of land which are below this critical

road density threshold (Thiel 1985; Jensen et al. 1986; Mech et al. 1988a). However,

where areas of public road densities as high as 1.2 mile per square mile (0.72 km/kin2)

or higher occur adjacent to large roadless regions inhabited by wolves, such as in the

Superior National Forest and near the Chippewa National Forest of Minnesota, these

higher road density areas can support wolves under some conditions (Mech 1989;

Fuller, unpublished data). Nevertheless, the desired future state is to manage average

public road densities so as not to exceed 1 mile per square mile (0.6 km/kin2) in the

designated recovery areas in Michigan and Wisconsin, and in parts of Minnesota where

road density is limiting wolf recovery.

Page 17
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

To be effective, low densities of roads open to the public must be maintained over

sufficiently large areas to allow wolves to meet their biological needs free from adverse

human disturbance. Logically, the smallest area to be maintained below threshold

would be the amount of land required to sustain the needs of a pack, the basic breeding

unit of every wolf population. In Minnesota and Wisconsin wolf pack territories range

from 20 to 214 square miles (50 to 555 kin2) (Mech 1973; Fritts and Mech 1981; Berg

and Kuehn 1982; Fuller 1989; Thiel, unpublished data). Territories tend to be larger in

some colonizing populations (Fritts and Mech 1981).

However, a single pack does not constitute a minimum viable population. Although

the concept of minimum viable population is still evolving, clearly it would require far

more than one family of wolves to reach any such population. Providing for a

genetically healthy, self-sustaining population of wolves will require that much larger

areas be maintained at below threshold road density levels. Mech (in Henshaw

1979:430) and Soule (1980:163) estimated that a minimum of 4,000 to 5,000 square

miles (10,360 to 12,950 kin2) would be necessary to support a viable population of

wolves (See also p. 23). Where below-threshold regions of this magnitude do not

exist, management should be directed at maintaining below-threshold conditions in

areas of at least 100 square miles (256 kin2) which could contain at least two adjacent

wolf packs.

Although the actual public road density threshold for healthy, self-sustaining wolf

populations is still unknown and probably varies depending on conditions, two

principles for guiding road development can be given. These principles are based on

known effects of roads on wolves: (1) themore access provided to wolf range, the more

detriment there will be to wolves, (2) the higher grade (i.e. standard) the road is, the

more access it will provide.

Based on these guidelines, governmental units seeking to promote wolf conservation

should minimize road development and road upgrading. Of greatest importance is the

minimizing of new roads. The difference between a new road and any type of existing

road is far greater than the difference between one grade of road and another. Significant

increases in road quality standards, while not necessarily increasing overall road

densities per Se, may have a similar affect.

There are many pertinent variables which should be considered in evaluating the

existing or proposed road density in a given area as it pertains to wolves. These

factors include:

Distribution of roads. Where the roads are located in a given area may affect habitat

use by wolf prey. Consideration should also be given to road location in relation to

wolf dens and rendezvous sites. The layout of roads in a management unit may also

influence wolf movements.

Risk of the expected human use of roads. An open, low-standard woods road may

have greater potential human impact on wolves than a national forest highway.

Page 18
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

Lightly travelled woods roads could have high risk to wolves if they are travelled

primarily by people seeking to trap or shoot coyotes or wolves.

Road design factors influencing human use of roads. The types of vehicle use on the

road, whether logging truck, automobile, 3-wheeled vehicles or snowmobile, all

constitute a different potential threat by humans to wolves. The risk to wolves

differs with each road. The location of the existing road, or of the road to be

constructed in relation to habitat types more-or-less utilized by wolves, are factors

which may be very relevant in the evaluation of roads and their impact on wolves.

Road management. The maintenance of an open road and the seasonal closure are

important considerations in increasing or decreasing human access into an area.

Road management may differ from road to road or area to area depending on the risk

to wolves.

Integration of many of these road variables in a land-use plan is the key to effectively

providing for wolf recovery. Biologists and land-management personnel must

consider the environmental variables affecting wolf numbers in a given area along

with the variables of road design and use to accurately prescribe a suitable roadmanagement program. This type of evaluation and the recognition that access

provides risk to wolves through human activities is necessary for wolf recovery.

Road Management Guidelines: Within designated critical habitat, or areas of potential

habitat needed to achieve recovery plan objectives, the following road management

guidelines should be considered by landowners and land management agencies:

1. Ensure that the average density of roads open to public vehicles does not exceed

1 mile per square mile (0.6 km/kin2) in sufficiently large areas to allow wolves

to meet their biological needs in suitable wolf habitat. The types of roads

important in this regard are permanent roads requiring routine maintenance

that are accessible year-round by 2-wheel-drive vehicles. Included are the

following: Primary, Secondary, Arterial, Collector, Local All Weather, FederalState-County Highways, Bituminous Concrete, Soil Aggregate, Graded and

Drained, and/or U.S. Forest Service Traffic Service Levels, A, B, and C (USDA

Forest Service, 1986 and undated).

2. Review management plans and existing road systems for opportunities to

close or revegetate roads that are not needed for public use.

3. Close temporary and low standard roads as soon as their intended purpose

has been achieved.

4. On Federal, State, industrial, and private lands, consider wolf habitat

requirements. Identify areas of suitable habitat where road densities can be

managed to achieve recovery objectives. Recognize these in current and future

land management plans.

Page 19
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni n

0

Ecologically Sound Management

Ecologically sound management includes (1) protection where needed to help restore

the eastern timber wolf to areas of its original range and to preserve a naturally

functioning population that can serve as a living museum, as a scientific subject, and

as a reservoir to repopulate adjacent areas; (2) depredation control where wolves are

killing domestic animals; (3) restocking of wolves into suitable areas of their former

range, when feasible; (4) continued research and monitoring of wolf populations; and

(5) provision of adequate prey diversity and numbers through habitat and population

management and reintroductions where appropriate.

The FWS recommends that in Michigan and Wisconsin, and in Zone 1, 2, 3, and 4 of

Minnesota (Appendix III), strict protection should be afforded the wolf. Legal

protection, however, is only as effective as the public acceptance of laws and

regulations needed for wolf management, and the degree of law enforcement devoted to

it. Law enforcement is especially needed during fall and winter hunting and trapping

seasons, generally September through March. Besides more rigorous and timely

enforcement of the laws actually protecting the wolf, additional enforcement is also

necessary to insure that vehicles, including off-road vehicles, be kept off roads

restricted against their use. Even the regular presence of law enforcement agents in

wolf areas is a valuable deterrent to violations.

In all Minnesota Wolf Management Zones, however, government wolf depredation

control should be applied in documented cases of depredations on livestock and pets

where there is a likelihood that additional depredations will occur. Because livestock

raising in the primary range (Zones 1, 2, and 3) is minimal, little taking of wolves

there isanticipated. Zone 5 is not suitable for wolves. Wolves found there should be

eliminated by any legal means.

The need for a possible exception to the policy of complete protection in Minnesota

Zones 2 and 3 (except for livestock-depredation control) activities, is recognized,

however. During a series of severe winters a wolf population can contribute strongly

to the depletion of local deer herds (Mech and Karns 1977), and then itself be forced to

decrease (Mech 1977b, 1986). Therefore, to help ensure that deer populations, and

thus wolf numbers, remain high, the FWS believes that if over any 3-year period deer

numbers decline below those necessary to support one wolf per 10 square miles (26

kin2) in Zones 2 or 3 consideration should be given to artificially reducing wolf

numbers there until the deer herd recovers. Such reduction of wolves is not currently

legal, but under such conditions this measure might be biologically appropriate. The

possibility that deer numbers might drop because of habitat changes or weather

conditions, and corrective action must be taken in the form of controlling or reducing

wolf numbers, should be considered.

The same principle could also be applied to Zone 1. However, the FWS believes that

the value of this Zone for allowing wolf numbers to fluctuate naturally outweighs the

Page 20
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

advantage of trying to maintain wolves there at maximum densities. The only wolf

control permitted in Zone 1 should be livetrapping and translocation of wolves

following verified incidents of depredation on lawfully present domestic animals.

Wild Prey

The wolf is dependent upon a continual supply of deer, moose and beaver. Thus, one

of the most important aspects of this plan is to maintain habitat in a high carrying

capacity for prey. The most feasible method of doing this is through commercial and

noncommercial timbersales and habitat improvement projects for these species. Such

programs require temporary roads, but these can later be obliterated or gated. In

protected areas such as Voyageurs National Park or the Boundary Waters Canoe Area

where timber sales are prohibited or restricted the prescribed use of fire may produce

the mosaic of habitats necessary for a diversity of prey species.

Good deer habitat consists of a high percentage of early forest successional types,

especially shade-intolerant species, plus a scattering of forest openings on primarily

summer range. Winter range requires adequate shelter with good overhead crown

cover. White cedar is best, hemlock is good, and balsam fir is fair. To maintain high

density deer herds this winter range should have adequate and suitable browse

species intermixed with the cover or along edges.

This plan proposes the use of forest cuttings and prescribed burning to periodically

set back forest succession to improve deer and moose habitat. Much of this can be

done through commercial cutting developed from sound silvicultural and wildlife

management prescriptions. Where commercial sales are not possible subsidized

cutting may be called for. These subsidized cuttings and the costs of prescribed

burning may be high, butbesides helping the wolf and its prey, such improvements

will benefit many other species of wildlife as well as consumptive and nonconsumptive users of wildlife. Wildlife managers and foresters must work together in

carrying out these practices.

Timber harvesting is compatible with the achieving of wolf population objectives and

can be done while following road density guidelines. In areas where wolf numbers are

limited because of high road density any new roads required for habitat management

or timber harvest should be closed when the management or harvest is completed to

comply with road management guidelines. Alternatively, new roads could be left open

to the public while adjacent older roads are closed to achieve the same road density

goals.

It is also possible that under extreme circumstances, such as a series of severe

winters, it may be biologically sound to temporarily reduce or prohibit harvesting of

various prey species. Members of the Recovery Team have detected local public

sentiment in favor of this approach as applied to deer, beaver, and moose. The intent of

this sentiment was not to benefit the wolf but rather to help increase the numbers of

Page 21
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

n

0

the herbivores, and ultimately to benefit the humans that harvest them. However,

restricted harvesting when prey numbers are below the carrying capacity of their

range would also help benefit the wolf.

To bolster the prey base of the Minnesota wolf population, the FWS recommends

considering re-establishment of the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus) as an

alternate prey species. A remnant caribou herd inhabited Minnesota as recently as

1937 (Moyle 1965), and a large amount of bog habitat similar to that in which the last

herds lived is still present throughout much of northern Minnesota. With one more

species of potential prey in various local areas, the Minnesota wolf population would

be less subject to decline if other prey species decreased. Of special interest as caribou

habitat is the Little Saganaga Lake area of the Superior National Forest. Voyageurs

National Park is also currently conducting a caribou habitat suitability assessment for

the Park area. If a caribou re-establishment program is undertaken some local wolf

control might be necessary in early years to foster the effort.

Public Education

Because of the degree of misunderstanding about wolf ecology, population dynamics,

and management, the Recovery Plan in 1975 recommended concerted efforts at public

information and education.

Since then much popular attention has been given the wolf via magazines,

newspapers, radio, and television. In addition, the Science Museum of Minnesota

developed the 8,000 square-foot “Wolves and Humans” exhibit which was displayed in

St. Paul, Yellowstone Park, Boise, Boston, New York City, Fort Worth, Washington,

Miami, Ottawa, St. Louis, Green Bay, Seattle, Bozeman, Davis, Vancouver, and

Albuquerque, and has so far been viewed by about two million people. The exhibit

will return to Minnesota, and it will be housed permanently in an International Wolf

Center proposed to openin Ely in May of 1993. The Center was designed specifically

for the exhibit and for a variety of other wolf education activities.

Nevertheless, as surveys by Kellert (1986, 1990) indicate, considerable

misinformation still exists among several segments of the Minnesota and Michigan

population. Thus, concerted information and education are still strongly needed.

Parasites and Diseases

As stated earlier, in recent years a number of new diseases and parasites have been

clearly documented as occurring in wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and

Michigan. Heartworin, CPV, and Lyme disease each have the potential to become

limiting factors acting upon survival, reproduction, and dispersal of large numbers of

wolves, and thus may determine the fate of isolat”d wolf populations. Wolf

Page 22
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

populations will be able to survive only if they are somehow able to contend with

these new threats.

n

0

Page 23
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

0

Part II: RECOVERY

Objective

The primary objective of the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf is to maintain

and reestablish viable populations of the eastern timber wolf in as much of its former

range as is feasible.

Recovery of the eastern timber wolf will be achieved when the following two criteria

are met (see also page 25): (1) the survival of the wolf in Minnesota is assured, and (2)

at least one viable population (as defined below) of eastern timber wolves outside

Minnesota and Isle Royale in the contiguous 48 states of the USA is re-established.

When condition 1 is met and there are 80 wolves (based upon late winter counts) in

Wisconsin for a minimum of three consecutive years, the eastern timber wolf should

be downlisted to threatened in Wisconsin. At that time consideration may also be

given to the downlisting of the Michigan wolf population.

Background

The Plan’s basic approach to eastern timber wolf recovery is, and has always been, to

try to ensure that there be at least two viable populations of wolves within the

historic range in the United States. The requirement for more than a single recovery

population stems from the basic concept of conservation biology that a species can

never be assumed to be secure from extinction if only a single population exists. The

possibility of disease, loss of prey species, catastrophic habitat modifications, etc.,

adversely impacting a single population must be recognized and minimized during

recovery planning. The only satisfactory means of reducing the threat ofextinction

from an unexpected catastrophe is to ensure that more than a single population is

established prior to declaring the species recovered. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

recovery plans, in general, require multiple secure and viable populations prior to

consideration of delisting.

The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team has always recognized that the Minnesota

population represents a viable population. In fact, the Team’s earliest action was to

recommend the downlisting of the Minnesota wolf population from endangered to

threatened, which was accomplished in 1978. The Recovery Team would like to have

several wolf populations prior to recommending delisting, but settled on two as the

minimal acceptable number.

From a conservation biology standpoint, ideal multiple recovery populations should:

(1) be completely separated from each other so as to eliminate the possibility of

Page 24
EASTERN TIMBERWOLF

ni

0

transmission of disease, parasites, etc., from one population to the other, thereby

potentially transferring a catastrophe, and (2) be close enough to allow a low level of

exchange of genes between them so as to maintain maximum genetic diversity in all z

populations if they are very small.

These two ideal characteristics are frequently incompatible, and compromises usually

are necessary to arrive at realistic locations for establishing multiple recovery

populations. These compromises adopt three approaches:

1. Establish completely separate, but small, recovery populations, and

supplement their genetic diversity by transplanting animals from one to

another at appropriate intervals;

2. Establish completely separate, but larger, recovery populations with sufficient

founders so that genetic diversity is likely to be maintained without immigration;

3. Foster the establishment of small, but nearby, semi-isolated populations that

can experience natural immigration of individuals and their genetic material.

Although the 1978 Recovery Plan specifies the need for two viable populations

(including the Minnesota population) it did not specify the characteristics of the second

population. In 1981 (letter from Ralph E. Bailey, Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team

Leader, to Harvey K. Nelson, Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin

Cities, Minnesota, dated September 15, 1981; memorandum from Assistant Regional

Director (SE) to holders of the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan, dated October 19,

1981) the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team clarified this. It recommended adopting

either of the latter two approaches listed above by characterizing “viable population” in

two different ways: (1) A population of at least 200 wolves established at a distance

greater than 200 miles from the Minnesota population (e.g. northern New York or

northern Maine) is believed to be large enough Lo be viable, as well as to have sufficient

genetic diversity, to exist indefinitely in total isolation from any other wolfpopulation.

(2) A smaller population (greater that 100 wolves) in Wisconsin/Michigan, closely tied

to the Minnesota population will be able to remain viable, and by occasional

immigration of Minnesota wolves, will retain sufficient genetic diversity to cope with

environmental fluctuations. Because the immigration corridor between the Minnesota

and Wisconsin/Michigan populations is narrow, the team believes the threat of disease

transmission is at an acceptably low level for this second situation.

Viable Population

A viable population of eastern timber wolves outside of Minnesota must meet one of

the following two descriptions, based upon late winter counts:

1. An isolated eastern timber wolf population in the United States must average

at least one wolf per 50 square miles (a self-sustaining population of at least

200 wolves) distributed within a minimum area of at least 10,000 contiguous

Page 25
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

n

0

square miles (25,600 kin2) of suitable habitat over a period of five successive

years, or

2. An eastern timber wolf population in the United States, located within 100

miles (160 kin) of a self-sustaining wolf population (as described in item 1),

must average at least one wolf per 50 square miles (128 kin2) or consists of

100 wolves distributed within an area of at least 5,000 contiguous square miles

(12,800 kin2) of suitable habitat over a period of five consecutive years. These

100 wolves do not have to be evenly distributed.

A number of factors are considered essential to maintain viable populations of the

eastern timber wolf:

1. The presence of large tracts of wild land with low human densities and

minimal accessibility,

2. The use of ecologically sound management,

3. The availability of adequate wild prey,

4. Adequate understanding of wolf ecology and management, and

5. The ability of wolves to withstand new diseases such as canine parvovirus,

Lyme disease, and heartworm.

In addition, genetic variability is essential to maintaining a healthy, self-sustaining

population. Minimum-viable-population estimates are highly subjective, based on

different combinations of assumptions, upon which reasonable biologists will

disagree. The FWS judges that a healthy, self-sustaining wolf population should

include at least 100 interbreeding wolves. This level is considered essential to maintain

an acceptable level of genetic diversity.

Therefore, the FWS considers that the eastern timber wolf will be “recovered” and

removed from the Federal list of threatened and endangered plants and animals when

the survival of the wolf in Minnesota is assured, and at least one viable population

outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale in the contiguous 48 states is re-established. The

assurance of wolf survival in Minnesota assumes that (1) the provisions of this Plan

for the Minnesota wolf population will be kept in effect subsequent to delisting, and

that (2) protection of essential areas (Zone 1, 2 and 3 in Minnesota) is assured. Pages

28-3 1 reflect the considerations needed to ensure adequate protection.

In addition, the 1988 amendments to the Endangered Species Act mandate that species

which have recovered and been removed from the threatened or endangered species

list must be monitored for a minimum of five years following the delisting. Should the

wolf population fall below the levels prescribed in this plan, the wolf shall be re-listed

as a threatened or endangered species, using the emergency re-listing procedure, if

necessary. Prior to completing the delisting of the eastern timber wolf a detailed

-~monitoring plan must be developed and agreed to by the cooperating and responsible

agencies, and funding sources for the monitoring must be identified.

Page 26
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

0

Wolfpopulation goals

Federal and state natural resource management agencies have established population

goals for specific areas to facilitate planning at the management level (Table 1). Other

land managing agencies, in consultation with the FWS, are encouraged to similarly

develop goals for areas within their jurisdiction. These goals, in total, exceed what is

required for recovery and delisting of the eastern timber wolf.

Methods of Achieving Goals

This plan addresses the five factors critical to the perpetuation of the eastern timber

wolf outlined above, through the following main objectives: (1) ensuring the survival

of the animal in Minnesota by highly regulated management, including complete

protection in Zone 1 (except for livetrapping and transplanting to reduce depredation

problems), and by extensive improvement of the habitat of its prey in Zones 2-4, and

(2) attempting to re-establish at least one viable population of eastern timber wolves

outside Minnesota and Isle Royale. Both will require an intensive public education

campaign designed to enlighten the public about the ecology and management of the

wolf.

Because wolves have survived for so long in Minnesota despite bounties and yeararound hunting and trapping, there may be a question as to why any restrictions need

now be placed on the taking of the wolf. However, future circumstances are

unpredictable and those that now exist could change drastically. For example,

widespread industrialization, mineral exploitation, and general development could

threaten much of the wolf’s remaining range, making protective regulations

increasingly significant to the populations left. Additional roads, railroads, power lines,

mines, and tourist facilities could further carve up much of northern Minnesota. This

would disrupt the natural repopulation of depleted areas by wolves and promote

higher human densities which could compete with wolves for their wild prey. A

conservative approach should be taken when one is dealing with threatened or

endangered populations.

In addition to management actions, a strong research effort is also needed. This should

provide better understanding of wolf ecology, predation, population dynamics,

dispersal, and causes of range restriction and mortality including parasites and

diseases, as well as of the effects of development on wolf populations. Research into reestablishment of wolves or augmenting low wolf populations is also desirable.

Because there is so much misinformation disseminated about the wolf (Van

Ballenberghe 1974) by both pro and anti-wolf advocates, it is imperative that a strong

public information program be continued to explain wolf ecology and management.

The expected result will be a greater public understanding and acceptance of an

ecologically sound, scientific wolf management program.

Page 27
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni C~)

0

TABLE 1: Eastern timber wolf population goals for planning purposes- Year 2000

I MINNESOTA 1251-1400

No. Packs

Chippewa National Forest 5

Superior National Forest 50

Voyageurs National Park 3-4

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge 1

Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge 1

State & county owned lands None set

Private lands, including industrial forests None set

No. Wolves

40

400

20-30

5

6

None set

None set

I WISCONSIN 80

No. Packs

Chequamegon National Forest 2

Nicolet National Forest. 2

State & countyowned lands None set

Private lands, including industrial forests None set

No. Wolves

20

20

Noneset

None set I MICHIGAN 80-90

No. Packs

Ottawa National Forest 4

Hiawatha National Forest1 1

Isle Royale National Park2 3-4

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore None set

State & countyowned lands None set

Private lands, including industrial forests Noneset

No. Wolves

24

6

20-30

None set

None set

Noneset

I Total Planning Goals for Lake States 1411-1570

Recovery plan goals for Minnesota by Zone:

Zone Numerical Goal

Zone 1: 1 per 10-15 square miles 297-446

Zone 2: 1 per 10 square miles 186

Zone 3: 1 per 10 square miles 350

Zone 4: 1 per 50 square miles 418

Zone 5: no wolves 0

Total 1251-1400

I This is a joint planning goalfor Hiawatha National Forest and Seney National Wildlife Refuge

2 The Isle Royale population does not count toward achieving this recovery criterion

Page 28
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

For the present, it is important to remember that the wolf is controversial, so it is

likely there will be local opposition to any attempt to re-establish the animal or afford it

measures of protection. Similarly there will be opposition from other quarters in

efforts to control the animal, although control may be necessary for the good of the

wolf itself in certain areas. If wolf re-establishment is accomplished, regulated taking of

the animal undoubtedly will be necessary in the restored range sooner or later (Mech

1979).

For those reasons, it is imperative that re-establishment of the wolf be undertaken

only after a great deal of thought, background research,planning, and consultation with

local people—lay individuals as well as professionals. It must also be realized from the

beginning that such investigations may indicate that re-establishment of the wolf may

not be prudent.

Nevertheless, it is important to explore all possibilities and to give the highest priority

throughout this entire recovery plan to the biological and ecological considerations.

They are the only ones that will be significant 100 years from now.

Recovery Plan Outline

Primary Objective: Maintain and re-establish viable populations of the eastern timber

wolf in as much of its former range as is feasible

1 Insure perpetuation of the eastern timber wolf population at levels optimum

to the various parts of its present Minnesota range (optimum level includes

biological carrying capacity and compatibility with humans): Zone 1, to

fluctuate naturally; Zones 2 and 3, 1 wolfper 10 mi2; Zone 4, 1 wolf per 50

mi2; Zone 5, no wolves.

11 Monitor Minnesota wolf population distribution and status statewide

111 Survey canid trappers and Minnesota DNR field personnel for

information on wolf distribution at least every five years

112 Radio-track and observe wolves in sample study areas during at least

one winter every five years to accurately determine local wolf densities

113 Monitor wolf populations annually in Zone 1 to determine the extent of

normal population fluctuations under near natural conditions

113-1 Maintain a wolf population with sufficient members wearing

active radio-collars

113-2 Aerially radio-track and observe radio-collared wolves to obtain

annual counts of pack sizes

12 Monitor status of diseases and parasites in Minnesota wolf population annually

121 Obtain blood and fecal samples from wolves taken during livestockI depredation control and live-trapped for research

Page 29
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

0

122 Check wolf condition, parasite load, and disease exposure through

laboratory analyses of specimens collected

123 Examine wolves found dead and determine cause of death

13 Obtain accurate information about wolf survival, mortality causes,

productivity, ecology, behavior, and relations with prey under various weather

conditions and phases of wolf population cycle in Zone 1.

131 Continue research on wolf ecology, behavior, and genetics

132 Continue research on the ecology, behavior, and habitat requirements

of deer, moose, and beaver

14 Provide large tracts of wild land with low human densities and minimal access

in Zones 1, 2, and 3

141 Evaluate effects of changing current Minnesota Wolf Management

Zone boundaries as recommended in Appendix III, or a modification of

those recommendations, to better reflect past and present habitat

conditions and increased knowledge of wolf habitat usage. (See also

task 182.)

141-1 Obtain current data on land use, highways, forest cover,

ownership, and human population density for current

management Zones and proposed modified Zones.

141-2 Prepare economic analysis of the impacts of any proposed new

critical habitat, and carry out rule-making

142 Maintain road densities in Zones 1, 2, and 3 at present levels or reduce

them to below-threshold levels (one road mile/mi2 or 0.6 km/kin2) (See

Road Density Statement, p. 17)

143 Further study the relationship of human access by type, volume, and

periodicity on wolf behavior, survival, and distribution

144 Encourage land-use regulations in Zones 1, 2, and 3 that minimize

accessibility and intensive commercial development

145 Require federal agencies to prepare environmental assessments and/or

environmental impact statements to evaluate project impacts on the

wolf and initiate Section 7 consultation on Federal activities

146 Encourage habitat management compatible with wolf ecology

147 Discourage, in Zones 1, 2, and 3, building of permanent roads, adverse

development, settlement, and the destruction, disturbance, or other

adverse modification of habitat that might reduce wolf populations or

restrict their recovery

15 Maintain or increase prey populations in all zones by habitat improvement or

other appropriate management practices

151 Inventory forest acreage to determine conifer-hardwood composition in

age classes and vegetation types

152 Promote adequate hardwood and conifer composition in age classes and

types to provide for maintenance or improvement of forest diversity

Page 30
EASTERN TIMBERWOLF ‘,~.

ni

0

152-1 Promote logging practices to provide adequate supply,

distribution, and age classes of hardwoods, with emphasis on

aspen and birch

152-2 Design and carry out prescribed burning and other site

preparation practices to stimulate hardwood and conifer

regeneration, especially aspen and birch where possible

152-3 Create and maintain well dispersed permanent openings

153 Increase forest/wildlife coordination on the Superior National Forest

and Chippewa National Forest to promote use of the forest plan

standards and guidelines to increase habitat inventory analysis and

habitat manipulation

154 Encourage other public forest management agencies to develop

forest/wildlife coordination programs

155 Determine the degree to which lower than optimum prey populations

are the result of habitat deficiencies and/or overhunting

156 Re-establish woodland caribou in suitable range, if feasible

156-1 Review past feasibility studies and conduct new ones if necessary

156-2 Establish a task force to plan caribou re-establishment

156-3 Arrange with Canada to provide caribou

156-4 Radio-tag, release, and monitor caribou to determine survival,

behavior, and habitat use

156-5 Locally and temporarily reduce wolf density to assist in caribou

establishment, if necessary

16 Provide concerted law enforcementin all zones

161 Inform the public regarding illegality of killing wolves by posting signs

and through the media immediately before hunting season

162 Respond quickly and openly to any report of illegal killing of wolves

163 Increase law enforcement officers before and during hunting seasons

17 Regulate harvest of prey species in all zones to insure sufficient surplus for wolf

F

opulation needs

171 Monitor wolf population

172 Monitor prey populations

173 Reduce harvest of deer, moose, and/or beaver if harvesting is

demonstrated to be a cause of less than optimum numbers of wolves

18 Minimize domestic animal losses from wolf predation

181 Continue allowing the taking by authorized government (State or

Federal) employees of individual wolves killing domestic animals

182 Refine the depredation control program regulations to further reduce

depredation problems while avoiding adversely affecting the Minnesota

wolf population

182-1 Evaluate effects of changing current Zone boundaries as

recommended in Appendix Ill, or a modification of those

recommendations, to better reflect past and present habitat

Page 31
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

Q

conditions and increased knowledge of wolf habitat usage. (See

task 141.)

182-2 Carry out rule-making process for any changes resulting from

task 182-1, and for tasks 182-3, 182-4, and 182-5.

182-3 Initiate livetrapping and translocation of Zone 1 wolves

following verified incidents of depredations on lawfully present

domestic animals where there is a likelihood of additional

depredation occurring.

182-4 lnitiate preventive depredation control of wolves in Zone 4 where

a history of verified wolf depredations has been established in at

least three of the last six years and depredation is likely to recur.

Wolf trapping will be restricted to locations within one-half

mile of the previous depredation site.

182-5 Initiate similar preventive depredation control of wolves in Zone

5 if no other legal means of controlling wolf populations there is

established. Wolf trapping will be restricted to locations within

five miles of the previous depredation site.

183 Encourage ranchers to obey laws requiring proper disposal of livestock

carcasses

184 Enforce livestock carcass disposal laws

185 Encourage ranchers to keep livestock in or near barns until young are

produced

186 Study factors affecting wolf-livestock depredations

187 Encourage Minnesota Department of Agriculture to continue its

program of compensation for livestock that are killed by wolves

188 Initiate a program of Federal compensation to owners of domestic

animals verified as having been killed by wolves.

19 ‘romote efforts to educate the public about wolves

191 Encourage media to accurately report news about wolves

192 Publish research findings and provide to the media

193 Support the development and activities of public education

organizations such as the International Wolf Center

194 Develop and initiate an educational program on wolf natural history

and ecology for grade schools and high schools

195 Develop and initiate an adult education program on wolf natural

history and ecology

2 Enhance and re-establish a viable wolf population in Michigan (excluding

Isle Royale) and Wisconsin

21 Protect and enhance existing wolf populations to restore a viable population of

at least 100 wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan

211 Continue monitoring numbers, status, and distribution of wolves in

IWisconsin, and begin monitoring in Michigan

211-1 Maintain population of radio-tagged wolves

I

Page 32
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

()

0

211-2 Aerially radio-track and census radioed wolves and their packs

212 Continue monitoring disease exposure and parasite loads annually and

Idevelop treatments where necessary

212-1 Collect blood and fecal samples from live-trapped wolves

212-2 Have laboratory analyses conducted of specimens collected

212-3 Develop vaccine for canine parvovirus useful with wild wolves

213 Have each wolf found dead necropsied for cause of death

214 Conduct concerted law enforcement

214-1 Inform the public regarding illegality of killing wolves by

posting signs and through the media immediately before

hunting season

214-2 Respond quickly and openly to illegal killing of wolves

214-3 Increase law enforcement before and during hunting seasons

215 Manage recovery areas to provide open (non-gated) road densities at or

Ibelow threshold levels (see Road Density statement, p. 17).

215-1 Enter into cooperative agreements with interested agencies,

landowners, and resource-user groups to manage access

wherever possible to meet road-density guidelines

215-2 Manage roads within recovery areas to meet road density

standards

215-3 Continue research on road density wolf mortality

216 Analyze, summarize, and publish existing data about WisconsinMichigan wolf population

217 Conduct research on wolf population in the peripheral area of

Minnesota, in the St. Mary’s river area of Ontario in proximity to

Wisconsin and Michigan, and in other areas to identify habitat

components of “dispersal corridors” and to ascertain the rate of

interchange of individuals between these regions.

22 Determine where wolf re-establishment is ecologically sound and may occur

naturally or may be accomplished through a transplant

221 Consult vegetation and ownership maps, land use maps and plans, and

local biologists to define and select suitable areas for re-establishment

222 Determine potential prey densities in the selected areas

223 Determine human densities and use patterns in the selected areas

224 Determine possible impact of re-establishment on public health

225 Estimate effect of re-establishing wolves on other wildlife and domestic

animals

226 Select most inaccessible areas with adequate food supply and minimum

human population

23 Gain public support for re-establishing the eastern timber wolf

231 Obtain cooperation from appropriate State and Federal agencies

232 Obtain support of local people

Page 33
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni C) 0

Assess public attitudes and contact selected individuals and key

groups for support

232-2 Publish facts of situation in news media

233 Inform key legislators and gain their support

234 Develop management practices, including the potential taking of

problem animals, to be applied when wolf populations are re-established

(These should be agreed upon and announced before re-establishment

takes place)

235 Hold public meetings and seek support

236 Determine legal implications if transplants are proposed

237 Conduct intensive public education campaign via organizations such

as the Timber Wolf Alliance (See item #19)

24 Stock wolves in new areas if wolf populations are not rebuilding naturally

241 Obtain permits from appropriate State and Federal agencies

242 Obtain disease-free wolves from nearest substantial population

242-1 Arrange for appropriate agency in Minnesota, Ontario, or

Quebec to provide wolves

242-2 Prescribe manner and season of live-trapping and handling of

wolves

242-3 Provide holding pens in capture area

242-4 Examine, ear-tag, radio-tag, and vaccinate wolves

I 243 Deliver wolves to release point

243-1 Arrange shortest and most direct flight

243-2 Tranquilize wolves

I 244 Effect non-traumatic release of wolves

244-1 Select appropriate release sites

244-2 Build appropriate pens in release sites

244-3 Hold wolves on release site for 6 months

244-4 Feed wolves local wild prey

244-5 Allow wolves to leave pens at will after 6 months

241-6 Consider providing carcasses of wild prey near release site

25 Monitor restocking efforts and population levels in new areas; collect

appropriate research data to refine each subsequent reintroduction

251 Train local biologists to radio-track

252 Radio-track transplanted wolves daily for first week and at intervals of

twice per week for next 2 months and appropriate intervals thereafter

26 Close coyote seasons during big game season in wolf area

27 Develop and implement plans for habitat improvement and maintenance for

appropriate prey species to maintain wolf populations

Page 34
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

t-ri C) 0

3 Continue management to perpetuate natural conditions for the eastern

timber wolf on Isle Royale National Park, Michigan

31 Continue to provide complete protection

32 Permit natural fires to run their course

33 Continue research on wolf ecology

4 Re-establish wolf population in Adirondack Mountains (New York),

northwestern Maine/adjacent New Hampshire, and/or northeastern Maine

41 Determine where re-establishment is ecologically sound

411 Consult vegetation and ownership maps, land use maps and plans, and

local biologists to define and select all suitable areas for transplant

412 Determine potential prey densities in the selected areas

413 Determine human densities and use patterns in the selected areas

414 Determine possible impact of transplants on public health

415 Estimate effect of establishing wolves on other wildlife and domestic

animls

416 Select most inaccessible areas with adequate food supply and minimum

human population

42 Gain public support for re-establishing the eastern timber wolf

421 Obtain cooperation from appropriate State and Federal agencies I 422 Obtain support of local people

422-1 Contact selected individuals and key groups for support

422-2 Publish facts of situation in news media

423 Obtain approval of key legislators

424 Develop management practices to be applied when wolf populations are

re-established (These should be agreed upon and announced before

transplants take place)

425 Hold public meetings and seek support

426 Determine legal implications of transplant

427 Conduct intensive public education campaign (See item #19)

43 Stock wolves in new areas

431 Obtain permits from appropriate State and Federal agencies

432 Obtain disease-free wolves from nearest viable population

432-1 Arrange for appropriate agency in Minnesota, Ontario, or

Quebec to provide wolves

432-2 Prescribe manner and season of live-trapping and handling of

wolves

432-3 Provide holding pens in capture area

432-4 Examine, ear-tag, radio-tag, and vaccinate wolves

I 433 Deliver wolves to release point

Page 35
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

433-1

433-2

I ~ Effect

434-1

434-2

434-3

434-4

434-5

434-6

Arrange shortest and most direct flight

Tranquilize wolves

non-traumatic release of wolves

Select appropriate release sites

Build appropriate pens in release sites

Hold wolves on release site for 6 months

Feed wolves local wild prey

Allow wolves to leave pens at will after 6 months

Consider providing carcasses of wild prey near release site

44 Monitor restocking efforts and population levels in new areas

441 Train local biologists to radio-track

442 Radio-track transplanted wolves daily for first week and at intervals of

twice per week for next 2 months and appropriate intervals thereafter

45 Close coyote seasons during big game season in wolf area

46 Develop and implement plans for habitat improvement and maintenance for

appropriate prey species to maintain wolf populations

5 Create a Coordination Committee of state and Federal representatives to

implement the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan

C)

0

Page 36
EASTERN TIMBERWOLF

i-il C) 0

LITERATURE CITED

z

BALLARD, W. B., AND R. 0. STEPHENSON. 1982. Wolf control - take some and leave some.

Alces 18:276-300.

BALLARD, W. B., J. S. WHITMAN, AND C. L. GARDNER. 1987. Ecology of an exploited wolf

population in southcentral Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 98. 54pp.

BERG, W. E. 1986. Gray wolf occurrence on the Chippewa National Forest, 1985-1986. Spec.

Rep. Chippewa National Forest. 8 pp.

BERG, W. E., AND D. W. KUEHN. 1982. Ecology of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Pages

4-11. In: F. H. Harrington and P. C. Paquet (eds.) Wolves ofthe world. Noyes Publ.,

Park Ridge, NJ. 474pp.

CAHALANE, V. H. 1964. A preliminary study of distribution and numbers of cougar, grizzly

and wolf in North America. N.Y. Zool. Soc. l2pp.

FRITTS, S. H. 1982. Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv.

Resour. Publ. 145. 11 pp.

FRITTS, S. H. 1983. Record dispersal by a wolf from Minnesota. J. Mammal. 64(1):166-167.

FRITTS, S. H., AND L. D. MECH. 1981. Dynamics, movements, and feeding ecology of a newly

protected wolf population in northwestern Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. 80:1-79.

FRITTS, S. H., W. J. PAUL, L. D. MECH, AND D. P. SCOTT. In press. Wolf-livestock conflicts

in Minnesota, 1975-1986. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tech. Report.

FULLER, T. K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildl.

Monogr. 105. 41 pp.

FULLER, T. K., W. E. BERG, G. L. RADDE, M. S. LENARZ, AND G. B. JOSELYN. In Press. A

history and current estimate of wolf distribution and numbers in Minnesota. Wildl.

Soc. Bull. 20.

GOLDMAN, E. A. 1944. The wolves of North America, Part II. Classification of wolves. The

American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C. 389-636.

GOYAL, S. M., L. D. MECH, R. A. RADEMACHER, M. A. KHAN, U. S. SEAL. 1986. Antibodies

against canine parvovirus in wolves of Minnesota: A serologic study from 1975

through 1985.]. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 189:1092-1094.

HENDRICKSON, J., W. L. ROBINSON, AND L. D. MECH. 1975. Status of the wolf in

Michigan, 1973. Amer. Midl. Nat. 94(1):226-232.

Page 37
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

~~%‘

0

HENSHAW, R. E. 1979. Reintroduction of wolves in the wild. Pages 420-444 In: E.

Klinghammer (ed..) The behavior and ecology of wolves. Garland Press. N.Y.

HOLBROOK, H. T. AND M. R. VAUGHAN. 1985. Influence of roads on turkey mortality. J.

Wildl. Mgmt. 49(3):611-614.

HOLMES, R. 1988. Correspondence toJ. Gritman. May 3, 1988. MN DNR files.

HOOK, R. A., AND W. L. ROBINSON. 1983. Attitudes of Michigan citizens toward predators.

Pages 382-394. In: F. H. Harrington and P. C. Paquet (eds.) Wolves ofthe world. Noyes

Publ., Park Ridge, NJ. 474pp.

HOSKINSON, R. L, AND L. D. MECH. 1976. White-tailed deer migration and its role in wolf

predation.]. Wildl. Mgmt. 40(3):429-441.

JENSEN, W. F., T. K. FULLER, AND W. L. ROBINSON. 1986. Wolf distribution on the

Ontario-Michigan border near Sault Ste. Marie. Can. Field Nat. 100:363-366.

JOLICOEUR, P. 1959. Multivariate geographical variation in the wolf Canis lupus L. Evolution

13:283-299.

KEITH, L B. 1983. Population dynamics of wolves. Pages 66-77. In: L. N. Carbyn (ed.) Wolves

in Canada and Alaska. Proc. Canadian Wolf Workshop; Can. Wildl. Service, Ottawa.

KELLERT, S. R. 1985. The public and the timber wolf in Minnesota. Unpublished report. Yale

University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, Connecticut.

175 pp.

KELLERT, S. R. 1987. The public and the timber wolf in Minnesota. Proc. N. Am. Wildl. Nat.

Res. Conf. 51: 193-200.

KELLERT, S. R. 1990. Public Attitudes and Beliefs about the Wolf and its Restoration in

Michigan. Unpublished report. Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, Connecticut. 126 pp.

KELSALL, J. P. 1968. The migratory barren ground caribou of Canada. Can. WildI. Serv.,

Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, 340 pp.

KOLENOSKY, G. B. AND R. 0. STANDFIELD. 1975. Morphological and ecological variation

among gray wolves (Canis lupus) of Ontario, Canada. pp. 62-72. in: M. W. Fox (ed.),

The Wild Canids. Van Nostrand Reinhold, N. Y. 508 pp.

LEHMAN, N., A. EISENHAWER, K. HANSEN, L. D. MECH, R. 0. PETERSON, P. J. P.

GOGAN, AND R. K. WAYNE. 1991. Introgression of coyote mitochondrial DNA into

sympatric North American gray wolf populations. Evolution 45:104-119.

MECH, L D. 1970. The Wolf. Natural History Press, Doubleday Publishing Co.; N.Y. 389 pp.

MECH, L D. 1972. Spacing in a wolf population. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 53(2):19.

Page 38
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

..:~:-‘

ni

C) 0

MECH, L. D. 1973. Wolf numbers in the Superior National Forest of Minnesota. USDA Forest

Service Research Paper NC-97. North Central Forest Experiment Station; St. Paul,

MN.10 pp.

MECH, L D. 1974a. Canis lupus. Mammalian Species No. 37:1-6. Am. Soc. Mammal.

MECH, L. D. 1974b. Current techniques in the study of elusive wilderness carnivores. Proc.

XIth Int. Congr. Game Biol. pp. 315-322.

MECH, L. D. 1975. Disproportionate sex ratios of wolf pups.]. Wildl. Mgmt. 39(4):737-740.

MECH, L D. 1976. pp. 50-52 in Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Twin Cities, MN.

MECH, L. D. 1977a. Population trend and winter deer consumption in a Minnesota wolf pack.

pp. 55-83. In: R. L. Phillips, and C. Jonkel (eds.). Proc. 1975 Predator Symposium

Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Missoula. 268 pp.

MECH, L. D. 1977b. Productivity, mortality and population trend in wolves from northeastern

Minnesota.]. Mammal. 58(4):559-574.

MECH, L. D. 1979. Some considerations in re-establishing wolves in the wild. pp. 445-457. in:

E. Klinghammer (ed.). The behavior and ecology ofwolves. Garland STPM Press, N.Y.

588 pp.

MECH, L. D. 1986. Wolf numbers and population trend in the Superior National Forest, 1967-

1985. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-270. North Central Forest Experiment

Station; St. Paul, MN. 6 pp.

MECH, L. D. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road density. Am. Midl. Nat.

121:387-389.

MECH, L. D., AND L. D. FRENZEL, JR. 1971. Ecological studies of the timber wolf in northeastern Minnesota. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-52. North Central Forest

Experiment Station; St. Paul, MN. 62 pp.

MECH, L. D., AND S. H. FRITTS. 1987. Parvovirus and heartworm found in Minnesota

wolves. End. Sp. Tech. Bull XII No. 5-6.

MECH, L. D., AND S. M. GOYAL. In prepartion. Canine parvovirus effect on wolf population

change and pup survival. North Central Forest Experiment Station; St. Paul, MN.

MECH, L. D., AND P. D. KARNS. 1977. Role of the wolf in a deer decline in the Superior

National Forest. USDA Forest Service Research Report NC-148. North Central Forest

Experiment Station; St. Paul, MN. 23 pp.

MECH, L. D., AND R. A. RAUSCH. 1975. Status of the wolf in North America, 1973. pp. 83-88.

In: D. H. Pimlott (ed.) Proc. first meeting of IUCN-SSC Wolf Specialist Group

(Stockholm). IUCN Supplementary Paper No. 43.

Page 39
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

~ ~ ~ •~... C)

0

MECH, L D., S. M. GOYAL, C. N. BOTA, AND U. S. SEAL 1986. Canine parvovirus infection

in wolves (Canis lupus) from Minnesota.]. Wildl. Dis. 22(1):104- 106.

MECH, L. D., S. H. FRITTS, G. RADDE, AND W. J. PAUL. 1988a. Wolf distribution in

Minnesota relative to road density. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:85-87.

MECH, L D., S. H. FRITTS, AND W. J. PAUL. 1988a. Relationship between winter severity

and wolf depredations on domestic animals in Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:269-272.

MOYLE,J. B. (Ed.). 1965. Big Game in Minnesota. Minn. Dept. Cons. Tech. Bul. No. 9. 231 pp.

NELSON, M. E., AND L D. MECH. 1986. Deer population in the central Superior National

Forest, 1967-1985. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-271. North Central Forest

Experiment Station; St. Paul, MN. 8 pp.

NOWAK, R. M. 1983. A perspective on the taxonomy of wolves in North America. pp. 10-19.

In: L. Carbyn (ed.). Proc. Can. Wolf Workshop, Can. Wildl. Serv., Ottawa.

PACKARD, J. M., L. D. MECH, AND U. S. SEAL. 1983. Social influences on reproduction in

wolves. pp. 78-85. In: L. Carbyn (ed.). Proc. Can. Wolf Workshop, Can. Wildl. Serv.,

Ottawa.

PAUL, W. J. 1992. Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota, annual update of statistics -

199 1. Unpublished report by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,

Animal Damage Control; Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Bpp.

PETERSON, R. 0., J. D. WOOLINGTON, AND T. N. BAILEY. 1984. Wolves of the Kenai

Peninsula, Alaska. Wildlife Monograph No. 88. S2pp.

RAUSCH, R. L. 1953. On the status of some arctic mammals. Arctic 6:91-148.

ROBINSON, W. L., AND G. J. SMITH. 1977. Observations on recently killed wolves in upper

Michigan. Wildl, 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.

SEAL, U. S., L D. MECH, AND V. VAN BALLENBERGHE. 1975. Blood analyses of wolf pups

and their ecological and metabolic interpretation. J. Mammal. 56(a):64-75.

SOULE, W. E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential.

pp. 151-169. ln: W. E. Soule and B. A. Wilcock. (eds.) Conservation biology. Sinauer

Assoc. Inc., Sunderland, Mass. 395 pp.

STENLUND, M. H. 1955. A field study of the timber wolf (Canis lupus) in the Superior

National Forest. Minn. Dept. Cons. Tech. Bull. No. 4. 55 pp.

THIEKING, A., S. M. GOYAL, R. F. BEY, K. I. LOKEN, L. D. MECH, AND R. P. THIEL In

press. Seroprevalence of Lyme disease in Minnesota and Wisconsin wolves. J. Wildl.

Dis..

Page 40
EASTERN TIMBERWOLF

rrl

C) 0

THIEL, R. P. 1985. The relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in

Wisconsin. Am. Midl. Nat. 113:404-407.

THIEL, R. P. AND J. H. HAMMILL 1988. Wolf specimens in Upper Michigan, 1960-1986.

Jack-Pine Warbler 66(4):149-153.

USDA, Forest Service, R-9. 1986. National forest roads for all uses.Eastern Region, Milwaukee,

WI. 17 pp.

USDA, Forest Service. Undated. Nicolet National Forest Roads. Nicolet National Forest,

Rhinelander, WI. 28 pp.

VAN BALLENBERGHE, V. 1974. Wolf management in Minnesota: An endangered species

case history. Trans. N. Amer. WildI. Nat. Res. Conf. 39:313-320.

VAN BALLENBERGHE, V., AND L. D. MECH. 1975. Weights, growth and survival of timber

wolf pups in Minnesota.]. Mammal. 56(1):44-63.

VAN BALLENBERGHE, V., A. W. ERICKSON, D. BYMAN. 1975. Ecology of the timber wolf

in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs No. 43. 44 pp.

VAN DYKE, F. G., R. H. BROCKE, H. G. SHAW, B. B. ACKERMANN, T. P. HEMKER, AND F.

G. LINDZEY. 1986. Reaction of mountain lions to logging and human activity. J.

Wildl. Mgmt. 50(1):95-102.

WEISE, T. F., W. L. ROBiNSON, R. A. HOOK, AND L. D. MECH. 1975. An experimental

translocation of the eastern timber wolf. Audubon Conserv. Rept. No. 5. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minn. 28 pp.

WYDEVEN, A. P. 1991. Wisconsin’s forty wolves. International Wolf 1(3):20.

Page 41
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni C)

0

PART III: IMPLEMENTATION TABLE

INTRODUCTION

The Implementation Table that follows outlines actions and estimated costs for the

recovery program. It is a guide for meeting the objectives discussed in Part II of this

Plan. This schedule indicates task priorities, task numbers, task descriptions, duration

of tasks, the responsible agencies, and lastly, estimated costs. These actions, when

accomplished, are anticipated to bring about the recovery of the eastern timber wolf

and protect its habitat. Itshould be noted that the Plan, and thus the Implementation

Table, represent an attempt to plan for all reasonably foreseeable circumstances.

Therefore, it may not be necessary to carry out all the describe activities, or spend all

the identified funds.

Page 42
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

C)

0

EXPLANATION OF DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

USED IN TABLE

Recovery Task Priority Numbers

Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species

from declining irreversibly.

Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species

population/habitat quality, or some other significant negative impact short

of extinction.

Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.

Acronyms & Definitions

ADC - Animal Damage Control Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture

County - County or local land planningAand use agencies

CWS - Canadian Wildlife Service

DES - Division of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

DNR’s - Departments of Natural Resources in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin;

also includes other units of state governments which have authority to

conserve endangered species, such as the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

LE - Division of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

MIDNR - Michigan Department of Natural Resources

MNDOA - Minnesota Department of Agriculture

MNDNR - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

NPS - National Park Service

Private - Private organizations involved in wolf conservation activities

Refuges - Division of Refuge Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 3 - FWS Region 3, covering the Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin wolf

recovery and law enforcement activities

Region 5 - FWS Region 5, covering the Mid-Atlantic and New England wolf recovery

and law enforcement activities

Region 8 - FWS Region 8, handling FWS eastern timber wolf research projects

USFS - U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

WIDNR - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Page 43
PART III. IMPLEMENTATION TABLE FOR THE EASTERN TIMBER WOLF RECOVERY PLAN

PRIORITY#TASK

# TASK DESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

(YRS.)

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($1,OOO’s)

FWS COMMENTS

REG PROGRAM

OTHER

FY-92 FY-93 FY-94

3 11 Monitor Minnesota wolf population,

distribution and status

ongoing MNDNR

USFS

115 125 135

3 111 Survey canid trappers, DNR field personnel every 5

years

8 Research MNDNR costs included under 11

3 112 Radio-track in sample areas to determine

Local densities

every 5

years

8 Research USFS costs included under 11

2 113 Monitor annually in zone 1 ongoing 8 Research USFS costs included under 11

2 12 Monitor status of disease and parasites in

Minnesota wolves

ongoing 8 Research ADC 15 17.5 20

3 121 Obtain blood & fecal samples from

depredation control & wolves trapped for

research

ongoing 8 Research ADC costs included under 12

2 122 Check wolf condition, parasite load, &

disease exposure via lab. analysis of

specimens collected

ongoing 8 Research ADC

MNDNR

costs included under 12

3 123 Necropsy all wolves found dead ongoing 8 Research MNDNR costs included under 12

3 13 Obtain accurate information about wolf

survival, mortality causes, productivity,

ecology, behavior, and relations with prey

under various weather conditions and phases

of wolf population cycle in zone 1

ongoing 8 Research USFS 270 283 297

2 131 Continue research on wolf ecology, behavior

and genetics

ongoing 8 Research USFS costs included under 13

2 132 Continue research on the ecology, behavior,

and habitat requirements of deer, moose, and

beaver

ongoing 8 Research USFS

MNDNR

costs included under 13

2 14 Provide large tracts of wild land with low

human densities and minimal access in zones

1, 2, and 3

ongoing 3 DES USFS

MNDNR

NPS

25 30 35 costs shown are only

for monitoring and

evaluating proposed

land use_changes
TASK DESCRIPTION

TASK

DURAT-

ION

(YRS.) REGI RESPONSIBLE PARTY

FUS

PROGRAM I

OTHER

COST ESTIMATES ($1.OOOs)

FY-92 IFY-93 IFY-94

COMMENTS

3 46 DeveLop and in~lement pLans for habitat5 DES DNRs 500 600 700

improvement and maintenance for appropriate

prey_species_to_maintain_woLf_populations

35 Createa Coordination Couunittee of state and ongoing3 DES DNR’s 15 17 19

Federal representatives to impLement the NPS

Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan USFS I

TASK
PRIORITY#

TASK

# TASK DESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

CYRS.)

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($1,OOOs)

COMMENTS

FWS

REG

OTHER

FY-92 FY-93 FY-94

2 141 Evaluate effects of changing current

Minnesota Wolf Management Zone boundaries as

reconunended in Appendix III, or a

modification of those reconunendations, to

better reflect past and present habitat

conditions and increased knowledge of wolf

habitat usage

2 years 3 DES MNDNR

MNDOA

USFS

NPS

Costs to be determined

2 141-1 Obtain current data on land use, highways,

forest cover, ownership, and human

population density for existing management

Zones and proposed Zone modifications

1 year 3 DES USFS

NPS

MNDNR

MNDOA

Costs to be determined

2 141-2 Prepare economic analysis of any proposed

new critical habitat designation; carry out

rule-making

2 years 3 DES USFS

NPS

MNDNR

MNDOA

costs to be determined

2 142 Maintain road densities in zones 1, 2, and 3

at present levels or reduce them to levels

below threshold levels

ongoing 3 DES USFS

MNDNR

NPS

costs included in 14

3 143 Further study the relationship of human

access by type, volume, and periodicity on

wolf_behavior,_survival,_and_distribution

Encourage Land-use regulations in zones i,

2, and 3 that minimize accessibiLity and

intensive conunercial development

ongoing 8 Research USFS

NPS

50 60 70

3 144 ongoing 3 DES MNDNR

USFS

NPS

County

costs included in 14

3 145 Require Federal agencies to prepare

environmental assessments and/or

environmental impact statements to evaluate

project impacts on the wolf and initiate

Section 7 consultations

ongoing 3 DES MNDNR costs included in 14

2 146 Encourage habitat management compatibLe with

wolf ecology

ongoing 3 DES USFS

MNDNR

costs included in 14
IiI I

ITY# I

TASK

# TASK DESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

(YRS.)

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES (S1.OOOs)

R COMMENTS

R~A PROGRAM

OTHER

FY-92 FY-93

I

FY-94

3 147 Discourage, in zones 1, 2, and 3, building

of permanent roads, adverse development,

settlement, and the destruction,

disturbance, of other adverse modification

of habitat that might reduce wolf

populations or restrict their recovery.

ongoing 3 DES USFS

MNDNR

NPS

costs included in 14

3 15 Maintain or increase prey populations in all

zones by habitat improvement or other

appropriate management practices

ongoing 3 DES USFS

MNDNR

NPS

200 215 235

3 151 Inventory forest acreage to determine

conifer-hardwood composition in age classes

and vegetation types

.. USFS

MNDNR

costs included in 15

3 152 Promote adequate hardwood and conifer

compositions in age classes and types to

provide for maintenance or improvement of

forest diversity

ongoing USFS

MNDNR

costs included in 15

3 153 Increase forest/wildlife coordinations on

the Superior NF and Chippewa NF to promote

the use of the forest plan standards and

guidelines to increase habitat inventory

analysis and habitat manipulation

ongoing USFS

MNDNR

costs included in 15

3 154 Encourage other public forest management

agencies to develop forest/

wildlife coordination programs

ongoing 3 DES USFS

MNDNR

costs included in 15

3 155 Determine the degree to which Lower than

optimum prey populations are the result of

habitat_deficiencies_and/or_overhunting

Re-estabLish woodland caribou in suitable

range, if feasible

. . - MNDNR costs included in 15

3 156 5 years 3 DES USFS

MNDNR

costs to be determined

2 16 Provide concerted Law enforcement in all

zones

ongoing 3 LE MNDNR 60 65 70

2 161 Inform the public regarding illegality of

killing wolves by posting signs and through

the media inmnediately before hunting season

ongoing 3 LE MNDNR costs included in 16
PRIORITY#

2

TASK

#

162

TASK DESCRIPTION

Respond quickly and openly to any report of

illegal killing of wolves

TASK

DURATION

CYRS.)

ongoing

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($1,OOO’s)

COMMENTS

costs included in 16

F

FWS

REG I PROGRAM

3 LE

OTHER

MNDNR

FY-92 FY-93

I

I

2 163 Increase law enforcement officers before and

during hunting seasons

ongoing 3 LE MNDNR costs included in 16

3 17 Regulate harvest of prey species in all

zones to ensure sufficient surplus for wolf

populations needs

ongoing MNDNR costs included in 11

3 171 Monitor wolf population ongoing 8 Research MNDNR

USFS

costs included in 11

3 172 Monitor prey populations ongoing 8 Research MNDNR

USFS

costs included in 11

3 173 Reduce harvest of deer, moose, and/or beaver

if harvesting is demonstrated to be a cause

of less than optimum numbers of wolves

if

needed

MNDNR no additional cost

3 18 Minimize domestic animal losses from wolf

predation

ongoing 3 DES ADC

MNDNR

125 135 150 costs based upon

current depredation

control regulations

3 181 Continue allowing the taking by authorized

government (state or federal) employees of

individual_wolves_kiLling_domestic_animals

Refine depredation control program

regulations to reduce depredation problems

while avoiding adversely affecting the wolf

population

ongoing 3 DES ADC costing included in 18

3 182 2 years 3 DES ADC 10 7 -

3 182-1 Evaluate effects of adjusting current Zone

boundaries based upon habitat suitability

1 year 3 DES ADC See task 141. Costs

included there.

3 182-2 Carry out rule-making process for any

changes resulting from task 182-1, and for

tasks 182-3, 182-4, and 182-5

2 years 3 DES No additional cost

3 182-3 Initiate livetrapping and translocation in

zone 1 for verified depredation incidents

ongoing ADC - 5 6 Begin after finalizing

regulations; see 182-2

3 182-4 Initiate preventive depredation control in ongoing

Zone 4 at locations where ongoing

depredation_problems_are_verified

ADC - 10 12 Begin after finalizing

regulations; see 182-2

)i1
PRIORITY#

3

TASK

#

182-5

TASK DESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

(YRS)

ongoing

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($1,O00’s)

COMMENTS

Begin after finalizing

regulations; see 182-2

FWS

I

PROCRAM

OTHER

ADC

FY-92

-

FY-93

10

FY-94

Initiate preventive depredation control in 12

zone 5 if no other Legal means of control is

established

3 183 Encourage ranchers to obey laws requiring

proper disposal of livestock carcasses

ongoing ADC

MNDOA

MNDNR

2 2 2

3 184 Enforce livestock carcass disposal law ongoing MNDOA 2 2 2

3 185 Encourage ranchers to keep Livestock in or

near barns until young are born

ongoing MNDOA 2 2 2

3 186 Study factors affecting wolf-livestock

depredations

8 Research 75 80 85

3 187 Encourage Minnesota Department of

Agriculture to continue its program of

compensation for Livestock that are killed

by wolves

ongoing 3 DES MNDNR

MNDOA

40 42 0 State program should

continue if Federal

program is not

initiated

3 188 Initiate a program of Federal compensation

to owners of domestic animals verified as

having_been_killed_by_wolves

Promote efforts to educate the public about

wolves

ongoing 3 DES ADC -- -- 50

3 19 ongoing 3 DES DNRs

Private

USFS

50 55 60

3 191 Assist media in accurately reporting news

about wolves

ongoing 8

8

DES

Research

DNR’s

USFS

costs included under 19

3 192 Publish research findings and provide to the

media

ongoing 8 Research DNR’s

USFS

costs included under 19

3 193 Support the development and activities of

public education organizations such as the

International Wolf Center

ongoing 8

8

DES

Research

DNR’s

Private

USFS

International Wolf

Center startup funding

appropriated by MN

Legislature in 1990

3 194 Develop and initiate an educational program

on wolf naturaL history and ecoLogy for

grade schools and high schools

ongoing 8

8

DES

Research

DNR’s

USFS

Private

50 25 25
PRIORITY#

TASK

#

TASK DESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

CYRS.)

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($1 .000’s)

FWS COMMENTS

REG j PROGRAM

OTHER

FY-92 FY-93 FY-94

3 195 Develop and initiate an adult education

program on wolf natural history and ecology

ongoing 8

8

DES

Research

DNR’s

USFS

Private

50 25 25

3 21 Protect and enhance existing wolf

populations to restore a viable population

of at least 100 wolves in Wisconsin and

Michigan (outside of Isle Royale)

ongoing 8

8

8

DES

Refuges

Research

USFS

NPS

WIDNR

MIDNR

3 211 Continue monitoring numbers, status, and

distribution of wolves in Wisconsin and

Michigan using radio-telemetry

annually 8

8

DES

Research

USFS

WIDNR

MIDNR

100 115 130

3 212 Continue monitoring disease exposure and

parasite loads and develop treatments

annually 8 Research WIDNR

MIDNR

5 5 5 Canine parvovirus

vaccine developed

3 213 Have each wolf found dead necropsied ongoing 8 Research DNRs 1 1 1

3 214 Conduct concerted Law enforcement ongoing 3 LE DNR’s 10 10 10 see number 16

3 215 Manage recovery areas to provide open (nongated) road densities at or below threshold

Ils

ongoing 3 Refuges USFS

WIDNR

MIDNR

100 110 120

3 215-1 Enter into cooperative agreements with

interested agencies, Landowners, and

resource-user groups to manage access

wherever possible to meet road-density

guidelines

ongoing 3 DES WIDNR

MIDNR

costs included in 215

3 215-2 Manage roads within recovery areas to meet

road density standards

ongoing 3 Refuges USFS

Is

Private

County

costs included in 215

3 215-3 Continue research on road density and wolf

mortality

ongoing 8 Research USFS

DNR’s

costs included in 215

3 216 Analyze, sununarize and publish existing data

about Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population

annually 3 DES WIDNR

MNDNR

7 8 9
PRIORITY#

TASK

# TASK DESCRIPTION

DURATTASK

ION

(YRS.)

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($1,O0O’s)

FWS COMMENTS

REGI PROGRAM

OTHER

FY-92 FY-93

F FY-94

3 217 Conduct research on wolf population in the

peripheral areas of Minnesota, in the St.

Mary’s River Area of Ontario in proximity to

Wisconsin and Michigan, and in other areas

to identify habitat components of “dispersal

corridors” and to ascertain the rate of

interchange of individuals between these

regions

5 years 8 Research USFS

WIDNR

MIDNR

MNDNR

NPS

CWS

60 65 70

3 22 Determine where wolf re-establishment is

ecologically sound and may occur naturally

or may be accomplished through a transplant

3 years 3 DES USFS

WIDNR

MIDNR

50 55 60

3 221 Consult vegetation and ownership maps, Land

use maps and plans, and local biologists to

define and select suitable areas for reestablishment

3 DES USFS

WIDNR

MIDNR

costs included in 22

3 222 Determine potential prey densities in the

selected areas

3 DES USFS

DNRs

costs included in 22

3 223 Determine human densities and Land use

patterns in the selected areas

3 DES USFS

DNR’s

costs included in 22

3 224 Determine possible impact of reestablishment on public health3 DES DNR’s costs included in 22

3 225 Estimate effect of re-estabLishing woLves on

other_wildlife_and_domestic_animals

Select most inaccessible areas with adequate

food supply and minimum human popuLation

3 DES DNR’S costs included in 22

3 226 3 DES DNR’s costs included in 22

3 23 Gain public support for re-establishing the

eastern timber wolf

3 DES DNR’s 100 110 120

3 231 Obtain cooperation from appropriate State

and Federal agencies

3 DES DNR’s costs included in 23

3 232 Obtain support of local people 3 DES DNR’s costs included in 23

3 232-1 Assess public attitudes and contact selected

individuals and key groups for support

3 DES DNR’s costs included in 23

3 232-2 Publish facts of situation in news media 3 DES DNR’s costs included in 23

0
PRIORITY#

TASK

#

233

TASK DESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

(YRS.)

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($1,O0O’s)

FWS COMMENTS

REG I PROGRAM

3 DES

3 DES

3 DES

3 DES

3 DES

OTHER

DNR’s

DNR’s

DNR’s

DNR’s

DNR’s

FY-92 FY-93 FY-94

Inform key legislators and gain their

support

costs included in 23

234 Develop management practices, including the

potential taking of problem animals, to be

applied when wolf populations are reestablished

These should be agreed

upon and announced

before re-establishment

takes place. Costs to

be determined.

235 HoLd public meetings and seek support costs to be determined

236 Determine legal implications if transplants

are proposed

costs to be determined

3 237 Conduct intensive public education campaign

via organizations such as the Timber Wolf

Alliance

see item 19; costs to

be determined

24 Stock wolves in new areas if wolf

populations_are_not_rebuilding_naturally

Obtain permits from appropriate State and

Federal agencies

3 DES DNR’s costs to be determined

241 3 DES DNR’s costs to be determined

242 Obtain disease-free wolves from nearest

substantial population

3 DES DNR’s costs to be determined

3 243 Deliver wolves to release point 3 DES DNR’s costs to be determined

3 244 Effect non-traumatic release of wolves 3 DES DNR’s costs to be determined

3 25 Monitor restocking efforts and population

Levels in new areas; collect appropriate

research data to refine each subsequent

reintroduction

8

8

DES

Research

DNR’s costs to be determined

3 251 Train local biologists to radio-track 8 Research DNR’s costs to be determined

3

3

252

26

Radio-track transplanted wolves daily for

first week and at intervals of twice/week

for next 2 months and appropriate intervals

thereafter

8 Research DNR’s costs to be determined

Close coyote seasons during big game season

in wolf areas

DNR ‘5 costs to be determined
PRIORITY#

3

TASK

#

27

TASK DESCRIPTION

TASK

DURAT- ION

(YRS)

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES (11.000’s)

FWS COMMENTS

REG PROGRAM

3 DES

OTHER

DNR’s

USFS

FY-92

300

FY-93

360

FY-94

Develop and implement plans for habitat 420

improvement and maintenance for appropriate

prey_species_to_maintain_wolf_populations

Continue management to perpetuate natural

conditions for the eastern timber wolf on

Isle Royale National Park, Michigan

3 3 ongoing NPS No additional cost

3 31 Continue to provide complete protection ongoing NPS No additional cost

3 32 Permit natural fires to run their course ongoing NPS No additional cost

3 33 Continue research on wolf ecology ongoing NPS No additional cost

3 41 Determine where re-establishment is

ecologically sound in the Adirondack

Mountains, N.Y. and Maine/New Hampshire

5

5

DES DNR’s 100 110 120 4. series tasks to be

initiated if WI/MI wolf

population is failing

3 411 Consult vegetation and ownership maps, land

use maps and plans, and local biologists to

define and select all suitable areas for

wolf transplants

5

5

DES DNR’s Included in 41

3 412 Determine potential prey densities in the

selected areas

5

5

DES DNR’S Included in 41

3 413 Determine human densities and Land use

patterns in the selected areas

5

5

DES DNR’S Included in 41

3 414 Determine possible impact of transplants on

public health

5

5

DES DNR’S Included in 41

3 415 Estimate effect of establishing wolves on

other wildlife and domestic animals

5

5

DES DNR’s Included in 41

3 416 Select most inaccessible areas with adequate

food supply and minimum human population

5

5

DES DNR’s Included in 41

3 42 Gain public support for re-establishing the

eastern timber wolf

5

5

DES DNR’s 150 160 175

3 421 Obtain cooperation from appropriate State

and Federal agencies

5

5

DES DNR’s Included in 42

3 422 Obtain support of local people 5

5

DES DNR’s Included in 42

em

~-II
PRIORITY#

TASK

# TASK DESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

(YRS.)

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES ($1 ~OOO’s)

FWS COMMENTS

REG PROGRAM

OTHER

FY-92 FY-93 FY-94

3 423 Obtain support of key legislatures 5

5

DES DNR’s Included in 42

3 424 Develop management practices to be applied

when wolf populations are re-established

5

5

DES DNR’s These should be agreed

upon and announced

before transplants take

place. Costs included

in 42

3 425 Hold public meetings and seek support 5

5

DES DNR’s Included in 42

3 426 Determine legal implications of transplant 5

5

DES DNR’s Included in 42

3 427 Conduct intensive public education campaign 5

5

DES DNR’s Included in 42

see item 19

3 43 Stock wolves in new areas 5

5

DES DNR’s To be determined

3 431 Obtain permits from appropriate State and

Federal agencies

5

5

DES DNR’s To be determined

3 432 Obtain disease-free wolves from nearest

viable population

5

5

DES DNR’s To be determined

3 433 Deliver wolves to release point 5

5

DES DNR’s To be determined

3 434 Effect non-traumatic release of wolves 5

5

DES DNR’s To be determined

3 44 Monitor restocking efforts and population

levels in new areas

5

5

DES DNR’s To be determined

3 441 Train local biologists to radio-track 8 Research DNR’s To be determined

3 442 Radio-track transplanted wolves daily for

first week and at intervals of twice/week

for next 2 months and appropriate intervals

thereafter

8

8

8

DES

DES

Research

DNR’s To be determined

3 45 Close coyote seasons during big game season

in wolf area

DNR’s No additional cost

~JJ
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

~.

APPENDIX I

PAST, PRESENT, AND POTENTIAL EASTERN

TIMBER WOLF RANGE

Part 1. Areas to be Investigated in the Eastern States for Eastern Timber Wolf

Re-establishment Possibilities

Part 2. Eastern Timber Wolf Area Status Map

rzl

C)

0

Page 55
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni

C) 0

Part 1

Areas to be Investigated for

Eastern Timber Wolf Re-establishment

In that part of the United States from which the eastern timber wolf has been extirpated, several areas deserve serious investigation as potential reintroduction sites.

The FWS recognizes the desirability of establishing and maintaining separate, viable

population centers of the eastern timber wolf. Such a distribution gives greatest

protection against catastrophic loss of the last remaining population segments and

best assures the perpetuation of this (or any) endangered species.

The FWS also recognizes that vastly insufficient information exists concerning the

ecological and social realities of reintroducing the eastern timber wolf into areas from

which it has been extirpated for a considerable length of time. Prior to any

reintroduction, thorough studies are needed that would determine the status of prey

species, the adequacy of habitat factors such as available space and long-term food

supplies, the probable effects on other wildlife populations in the area, the probable

effect on domestic animals that may exist in or near the area under study, the probable

reaction of local human residents of the surrounding area, and the chances that the

eastern timber wolf could survive human antagonists.

The FWS is certain that any reintroduction scheme will fail unless the majority of the

local human population is desirous of such action, and this will, in most instances,

require that local residents be completely apprised of the facts concerning the nature of

the eastern timber wolf as a species, and the facts concerning the procedures for

making the reintroduction and the probable effects of such a reintroduction. In general,

it is recommended that biological/ecological studies be performed prior to investigations into social reactions and education attempts. If an area is ecologically unsuited

to a wolf reintroduction, there is little point in trying to convince local human

populations that a reintroduction would be a proper move. This is not to say that local

populations should not be informed about ecological studies that may be undertaken

or contemplated—all segments of the program should be completely open to public

scrutiny at all times.

All of the areas recommended for further study have been selected on the basis of (a)

low or very low human population levels within the area, (b) large blocks of public

lands characterizing the areas (except much of the land in Maine), and (c) favorable

input from the states which were identified in the original version of the Recovery Plan

as areas to be investigated. Correspondence received from the states since the original

Recovery Plan was approved and distributed has led the FWS to delete some of the

originally proposed study areas of Maine, the White Mountains, and the central and

Page 56
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

C)

0

southern Appalachians from areas to be considered for re-establishment potential.

Public sentiment, local conflicting wolf/livestock and wolf/hunter-trapper interests, and

efforts to reintroduce the red wolf to the Great Smokey Mountains have eliminated z

those areas from current consideration. The remaining areas selected as sites for

potential wolf populations are outlined on the map that follows:

A. Eastern Maine. Consisting of about 2,500 square miles, much of this area is

uninhabited on a permanent basis.

B. Northwestern Maine and Adjacent New Hampshire. This area is more than

11,300 square miles with a very low human population and includes Maine’s

Baxter State Park. Most of the land is privately owned.

C. The Adirondack Forest Preserve Area of Northern New York. Most of this area

is occupied by the Adirondack State Forest Preserve, consists of approximately

9,375 square miles, and has a low human density.

D. Upper Peninsula of Michigan. While this area of some 15,000 square miles

does contain residual wolf population elements, population strength is

marginal at best. One transplant attempt in 1974 indicated that, biologically

and ecologically, such transplants are possible, but it also showed that the

wolf was socially unacceptable to many residents at that time, since all four

transplanted wolves died of human causes (Weise et al. 1975). Further studies

that would narrow the selection of transplant sites (National Forests, National

Lakeshore, private lands, etc.) are needed. The Michigan DNR has recognized

the potential for augmentation andlor reintroduction. In 1989 a survey of

Upper Michigan deer hunters indicated that 80% of them favor wolf

reintroduction (Kellert 1990). In the summer of 1991 the first breeding pack of

wolves in 30 years was documented in the Upper Peninsula.

E. Northern Wisconsin. This is an area containing large amounts of public lands

but sparse human population, and where wolves once lived in relative

abundance. Currently a population of 30-50 wolves inhabits portions of

northern Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has

assigned a biologist to inventory the habitat and monitor the population.

Efforts are underway by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to

provide for the maintenance and subsequent enhancement of the population.

Page 57
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

Current Range of the eastern timber wolf

in the United States

Original range of the eastern timber wolf

in the United states. (Approximate boundary,

after Goldman 1944)

IT””’1 Areas with re-establishment possibilities

L.~J for the eastern timber wolf:

A. EasternMaine

B. Northwestern Maine and

adjacent New Hampshire

C. Adirondack Forest Preserve

D. Upper Peninsula of Michigan

E. Northern Wisconsin

D.

A.

Eastern Timber Wolf Area Status Map

LEGEND

Critical habitat for the eastern timber wolf

Page 58
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF BASIC DATA FROM FWS/USDA WOLFLiVESTOCK

DEPREDATION CONTROL PROGRAMS IN MINNESOTA

1979-1991

(from Paul, W.J. 1992, unpublished USDA report)

0

Page 59
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Animal Damage Control

WOLF DEPREDATION ON LIVESTOCK IN MINNESOTA

ANNUAL UPDATE OF STATISTICS - 1991

William J. Paul

USDA, APHIS, ADC

717 NE 4th Street

Grand Rapids, MN 55744

Depredation by wolves (Canis lu~us) on livestock and poultry in

Minnesota is a problem for some producers. A small percentage of

the farms in the wolf range are affected annually and a few of

these farms suffer substantial monetary loss in a given year.

From 1976 through 1991, the number of farms suffering verified

wolf depredations ranged from 9 to 55 (V = 27) per year out of

about 7,200. From 1977 through 1991 the highest cattle losses

claimed by farmers were 0.47 per 1,000 available in 1990; the

highest sheep losses claimed were 2.66 per 1,000 available in

1961. A state program which compensates farmers for livestock

destroyed by wolves has paid an average of $26,762 per year from

1978 through 1991 (range = $14,444 to $43,664). Claims of losses

(especially of calves) sometimes include missing animals.

Misidentification by farmers in the wolf range in distinguishing

wolf depredation from coyote (Canis latran s) depredation has

magnified the view of wolves as livestock predators. Most losses

occur in summer when livestock are released to graze in open and

wooded pastures. Some animal husbandry practices, such as calving

in forested or brushy pastures and disposal of livestock carcasses

in or near pastures, are believed to contribute to instances of

wolf depredation. The number of wolves captured on U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service depredation—control programs from 1976 through

1985 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture depredation—control

program from 1986 through 1991 has ranged from 15 to 95 (V = 49)

per year. Trapping that is initiated against depredating wolves

soon after losses have occurred, coupled with improvements in

animal husbandry practices, has potential for reducing both

livestock losses and the number of wolves that need to be taken.

However, the interface of these predators and livestock in

Minnesota will necessitate the continued removal of depredating

wo 1 yes.

Page 60
SUMMARY OP BASIC DATA FROM FWS LIVESTOCK DEPREDATION CONTROL PROGRAM, 1979-85

1979

Total complaints received

Complaints received involy~ng livestock

Total complaints verified—

No, complaints involving livestock that

were verified

I of total complaints that were verified

No. complainants

No. farms where livestock (excluding dogs)

were verified lost by FWS

Domestic animals claimed lost to wolves

to FWS

Domestic animals verified by FWS as lost

to wolves

Complaints trapped

Wolves captured

Wolves killed

31

29

16

15

51.6

23

12

7 cows

98 calves

1 sheep

3 chickens

1 dog

S cows

12 calves

1 sheep

1 chicken

1 dog

15

15

6

1980

47

40

28

26

59.6

31

17

10 cows

45 calves

73 sheep

56 turkeys

1 foal

2 dogs

4 cows

12 calves

56 sheep

56 turkeys

I foal

1 dog

28

26

21

1981

97

86

60

58

61.8

67

38

6 cows

60 calves

242 sheep

725 turkeys

10 geese

8 goats

1 pig

100 guineas

4 dogs

6 cows

24 calves

110 sheep

571 turkeys

6 geese

3 dogs

54

42

29

1982

76

65

34

32

44.7

60

27

1983

79

69

40

36

so. 6

63

28

4 cows

54 calves

27 sheep

434 turkeys

1 goose

4 goats

6-20 pigs

2 dogs

1 cow

23 calves

12 sheep

SO turkeys

2 pigs

2 dogs

37

24

20

1984

69

59

35

29

SO.7

53

19

17 cows

82 calves

45 sheep

127 turkeys

2 goats

284 pigs

1 horse

5 dogs

3 cows

32 calves

29 sheep

127 turkeys

6 pigs

1 horse

4 dogs

39

49

42

1985

77

70

39

36

50.6

58

21

1 bull, 4 cows

4 yrl, 37 calves

161 sheep

296 turkeys

I goat

several pigs

1 horse

12 guineas

17 dogs

1 cow, 1 yrl

8 calves

92 sheep

294 turkeys

3 pigs

1 horse

I guinea

6 dogs

25

47

36

1 bull, 14 cows

I yrl. 62 calves

149 sheep

120 turkeys

I goat

I horse

SO guineas

6 chIckens

5 dogs

3 cows, I yrl

19 calves

75 sheep

I goat

2 dogs

Al

36

31

1/

- A verified complaint is one in which FWS determines that wolves have

(1) observing wounded animals or remains of animals killed and

(2) finding evidence of wolf Involvement.

Other useful facts

1. Total farms in Minnesota wolf range - 12,230 (1979)

2. Total cattle in Minnesota wolf range - 234,000 (1979)

3. Total sheep In Minnesota wolf range - 91,000(1979)

4: Estimated no. wolves in Minnesota - 1,200; population increasing in some areas,

decreasing in others, but general population about stable.

killed or maimed one or more domostic animals as evidenced by

William J. Paul

U.S. Fish ~ Wildlife Service

North Central Experiment Station

University of Minnesota

1861 hwy 169 East

Grand Rapids, MN 55744
INDICES TO VVOLF—LIVESTOCK DEPREDATION]

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1975 76 77 78 79 90 91

YEAR

Indices to recent wolf depredations on livestock in Minnesota based on reports received by the U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) from 1975 through 1985 and the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from 1986 through

1991. Minnesota Department of Agriculture data are not included. Total number of complaints received are all

complaints received involving wolves and livestock, regardless of whether wolves killed a livestock individual.

Number of complaints verified are the number of instances in which FWS or USDA investigation of a complaint produced evidence that wolves had killed or injured livestock. Each year after 1975 n~ore than one complaint

was verified at some farms. In 1975 the FWS had only a minor program (two trappers and no publicity), but

enlarged its staff and publicity in 1976.

Li

3

z

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
SUMI4ARY OF BASIC DATA FROM USDA WOLF-LIVESTOCK DEPREDATION CONTROL PROGRAM IN MINNESOTA, 1986-89

Total complaints received

Complaints received involving livestock

Total complaints verified!1

No. complaints involving livestock that were verified

% of total complaints that were verified

No. complainants

No. farms where livestock (excluding dogs) were verified lost by USDA

Domestic animals claimed lost to wolves to USDA

Domestic animals verified by USDA as lost to wolves

Complaints trapped

Wolves captured

Wolves killed

1986

59

54

30

29

50.8

SO

25

I bull, 6 cows

4 yrl, 52 calves

36 sheep

481 turkeys

1 goat

1 horse

1 chicken

2 dogs

4 cows, 3 yrl

19 calves

13 sheep

285 turkeys

1 goat

1 dog

31

31

31

1987

65

54

38

33

58.5

S6

30

5 cows,

3 yrl, 40 calves,

24 sheep,

1903 turkeys

8 goats

1 horse

5 pigs, 7 geese

2 dogs

4 cows, 1 yrl

19 calves,

9 sheep

1,753 turkeys

5 pigs, I goose

2 dogs

34

45

43

1988

86

74

SO

45

58.1

72

35

3 cows,

7 yrl, 60 calves

112 sheep

301 turkeys

3 geese. I duck

17 chickens

15-20 dogs, 1 cat

2 cows, I yrl

28 calves

68 sheep

251 turkeys

15 chIckens,

3 dogs

52

64

59

1989

100

81

58

49

58.0

87

41

1 bull, 7 cows

5 yrl., 51 calves

73 sheep

2,031 turkeys

2 horses

I goat

20 geese

14 dogs

1 bull, 5 cows

3 yrl., 31 calves

41 sheep

1,636 turkeys

1 duck 1 goat

10 dogs

51

95

81

verified complaint is one in which USDA determines that wolves have killed or maimed one or more

domestic animals as evidenced by (1) observing wounded animals or remains of animals killed and

12~ finding evidence of wolf involvement

Other useful facts William J. Paul

1. Total farms in Minnesota wolf range — 7,200 (1982) Ii. S. Department of Agriculture

Z~ Total cattle in Minnesota wolf range — 232,000 (1986) APHIS - Animal Damage Control

3. Total sheep in Minnesota wolf range — 16,000 (1986) 717 NE 4th Street

4. Estimated no. wolves in Minnesota — 1,200; population increasing in Grand Rapids, MN 55744

some areas, decreasing in others, but general population about stable.

5~ on

0\

t%J
SUMMARY OF BASIC DATA FROM USDA WOLF-LIVESTOCK DEPREDATION CONTROL PROGRAM IN MINNESOTA,

1990

Total complaints received

Complaints received involving livestock

1/ Total complaints verified—

149

125

76

No. complaints involving livestock that were verified 65

Z of total complaints that were verified

No. complainants

No. farms where livestock (excluding dogs) were verified lost by USDA

Domestic animals claimed lost to wolves to USDA

Domestic animals verified by USDA as lost to wolves

51.0

124

55

13 cows

3 yrl, 92 calves

222 sheep

1,186 turkeys

4 horses

10 geese, 4 ducks

28 chickens

16 dogs, 20 cats

2 cows

35 calves

112 sheep

693 turkeys

1 goose, 3 chickens

11 dogs, 2 cats

41.4

117

42

5 cows

5 yrl, 95 calves

205 sheep

1,216 turkeys

1 horse, 2 goats

2 llamas, 12 geese

10 ducks, 9 chickens

11 dogs

3 cows

2 yrl, 30 calves

31 sheep

977 turkeys

1 goat, 5 geese

2 ducks, 9 dogs

Complaints trapped

Wolves captured

Wolves killed

verified complaint is one in which USDA determines that wolves have

domestic animals as evidenced by

killed or maimed one or more

(1) observing wounded animals or remains of animals killed and

j2j finding evidence of wolf involvement ~

Other useful facts

1. Total farms in Minnesota wolf range — 7,200 (1982)

2. Total cattle in Minnesota wolf range — 232,000 (1986)

3. Total sheep in Minnesota wolf range — 16,000 (1986)

4. Estimated no. wolves in Minnesota — 1,750; population increasing

William J. Paul

U. S. Department of Agriculture

APHIS Animal Damage Control

717 NE 4th Street

Grand Rapids, MN 55744

1990—91

3.991

133

117

55

49

55

91

91

46

63

54

on
Compeusatiot) paid by Minnesota Department of Agriculture for livestock destroyed by wolves

No. farmers

Calendar No. No. to which Losses authorized

Year claims made claims paid claims paid Amount paid for p.ayment

$ 8,667.50

22,482.08

20,773.22

20,459.00

38,605.60

18,971.04

24,868.66

I cow, 16 calves, 17 ewes,

76 lambs

6 cows, 69 calves, 8 eves,

29 lambs, 124 turkeys

b

9 cows, 1,8 calves ,

15 ewes, 8 lambs, 2 goats,

5 ducks

6 cows, 20 calves,

36 ewes, 72 lausabs, 1 colt,

1 horse, 56 turkeys

9 cows, 2 yrl., 24 calves,

57 ewes. 205 lambs,

2 pigs, 582 turkeys,

43 geese, 15 ducks,

100 chickens

I cow, I yrl., 30 calves,

7 ewes, 12 lasabs,

640 turkeys

2 cows, 8 yrl., 38 calves,

1 horse, 18 ewes,

II lambs, 293 pigs,

127 turkeys

cont.

on

0%

10 7 7

25 19

23 15

32

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

28

23

32

62

36

37

22

62

34

38

29

34 27
Compensation paid by Minnesota Department of Agriculture for livestock destroyed by wolves

No.

claims made

No.

claims paid

No. farmers

to which

claims paid Amount paid

Losses authorized

for payment

$19,457.74

23,558.50

14,444.19

24,233.64

28,109.90

43,663.92

42,739.04

26,485.25

( 5,811.86

still pending)

1 bull, 3 cows, 3 yrl., 24 calves,

1 horse, 2 bucks, 24 ewes, 82 lambs,

1 pig, 296 turkeys

1 bull, 12 cows, I yrl., 30 calves,

1 buck, 42 ewes, 77 lambs

4 cows, 4 yrl., 22 calves, 10 ewes,

14 lambs, 481 turkeys

5 cows, 2 yrl., 25 calves, 10 ewes,

4 lambs, 1,817 turkeys, 5 pigs

4 cows, 5 yrl., 41 calves, 32 ewes,

47 lambs, 292 turkeys, 15 chickens,

1 duck

1 bull, 6 cows, 3 yrl., 52 calves,

13 ewes, 32 lambs, 1,866 turkeys

8 cows, 3 yrl., 50 calves, 1 buck,

64 ewes, 63 lambs, 1,170 turkeys,

4 ducks

1 cow, 1 yrl., 31 calves, 11 ewes,

31 lambs, 986 turkeys, 1 goat

3 cows, 8 calves, 4 ewes, 9 lambs,

31 turkeys, 4 geese, 3 ducks,

7 chickens still pending

a

Figures for 1977 probably underrepresent losses because of the 1 July starting date and low public

awareness of the program.

b

About 35 of these calves were only missing; no remains were found, nor was there evidence that they had

been killed by wolves even though wolves may have been near the farm.

Calendar

Year

1984 33

1985

1986

1987

46

33

45

1988

31

45

32

44

49

76

82

50

18

28

25

32

30

40

51

1989 77

1990 84

1991 51 38

11 (pending)

24

8 (pending)

0%
WOL\/ES CAPTURED AND/OP REMOVED

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

~l97071 72 73 74,,75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85,~86 87 88 89 90 91

Minnesota Directed

Predator Control Program

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Control Programs

U. S. Department

of Agriculture

Control Program

Total number of wolves captured and number removed from the population by livestock-depredation control programs

~ in Minnesota, 1970-1991. All wolves captured on the Minnesota directed control program were killed. Data for

~ 1970-74 represent State fiscal years. Four wolves captured in late summer 1974 are included in fiscal year 1974. 0%

0% Data for 1975-91 represent calendar years.

I,)

Li

-f

0

3:

IL

0

a::

Li

z
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

‘“<

APPENDIX III

CRITICAL HABITAT AND

MINNESOTA WOLF MANAGEMENT ZONES

CURRENT AND PROPOSED BOUNDARIES

Page 68
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

ni n0

CRITICAL HABITAT AND

MINNESOTA WOLF MANAGEMENT ZONES

CURRENT AND PROPOSED BOUNDARIES

Minnesota Wolf Management Zones 1, 2, and 3, indicated in Appendix III, plus Isle

Royale National Park, are considered to be critical habitat for the survival and recovery

of the eastern timber wolf. These areas provide the space for normal growth and

movement of established pack units and will supply sufficient food and cover for the

assured survival of the species.

Obviously, any human activity that restricts or reduces the carrying capacity of prey

species will ultimately affect the wolf adversely. The maintenance of the present forest

products industry and its expansion, therefore, is encouraged. Activities or programs

that provide forest! wildlife management should be encouraged. Activities that

permanently remove forest cover are to be discouraged, such as road building, mining,

resort development, and major reservoir construction. State and Federal agencies

should be encouraged to purchase in-holdings in their project areas. Where

opportunities exist to expand these areas through purchase, it should be done.

Because of the diverse conditions within each zone, proposed developments would

have a varying degree of significance. Each must be appraised in relation to the specific

site for which it is proposed.

It is especially important to note that any single development may not in itself

significantly degrade an area as wolf habitat, but that each would contribute to the

ultimate unsuitability of the area for wolf survival. This cumulative effect must always

be considered in evaluating the potential harm of any development in critical habitat.

All proposed Federal and State actions or programs requiring an Environmental

Impact Statement in accordance with Section 202C of the Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (P.L. 91-190) should include an analysis of the impact of the project proposal on

the eastern timber wolf. Projects requiring an environmental assessment should

include an appraisal of its impact on the eastern timber wolf and measures to mitigate

these impacts.

Recommended Changes

Since critical habitat was originally designated for the eastern timber wolf it has

become apparent that some of the designated areas were, and continue to be, less

suitable for long-term occupancy by wolves. It has also been recognized that, at the

time of management zone delineation, certain areas of Zone 1 were too excessively

subjected to the pressures of human development to be properly considered a wolf

sanctuary. Furthermore, additional land use data now available for portions of Zones 3

Page 69
~:..j EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

rri

0

and 4 show some areas to be more like Zone 5 in many ways, while another part of

Zone 4 (much of the Chippewa National Forest) is similar to zone 3. Therefore the

following maps detail changes, recommended by the Recovery Team, to currently

designated Critical Habitat and to Minnesota WolfManagement Zone boundaries.

The changes are summarized as follows:

1. Corrections should be made to the Zone 1 boundary to exclude areas which

were, at the time of original designation, and continue to be, relatively densely

populated by humans. These changes will move out of Zone 1 all of Ely,

Winton, Isabella, the area surrounding Burntside Lake, Grand Marais, and a

strip of land one-half mile in width extending inland from the Lake Superior

shoreline. These areas will become Zone 2, with the exception of the land along

Lake Superior and around Grand Marais which will become Zone 4.

2. Zone 4 between the Red Lake Indian Reservation, Highway 2 west of Bemidji,

and the northwestern boundary of the Chippewa National Forest should

become Zone 5. A small portion of adjacent southwestern Zone 3 surrounding

Northome should similarly be considered for reclassification to Zone 5.

3. All portions of the Chippewa National Forest north of Highway 2 should be

redesignated from Zone 4 to Zone 3. In addition, the strip of land located north

of the Chippewa National Forest and south of the current zone 3 boundary also

should be redesignated as zone 3. This land is bounded on the north by State

Highway 1, on the south by the north boundary of the Chippewa National

Forest, on the east by State Highway 6, on the west by State Highway 46, and

includes approximately 50 square miles.

4. A portion of Zone 5 southeast of Hinckley contains suitable wolf habitat and

serves as part of the immigration corridor between Minnesota and WisconsinMichigan wolf populations. This area should be designated as Zone 4. The

areas to be considered forsuch designation are St. Croix State Park and adjacent

lands which are predominantly under State and Federal ownership.

Page 70
~*~: ~ EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

MAPS OF

AND

C-)

0

~<

CURRENT AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT

MINNESOTA WOLF MANAGEMENT ZONES

Page 71
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

Cli

(“-C 0

Current Wolf Management Zones

Grand Marais

Page 72
EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

0

Proposed Wolf Management Zones

Page 73

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 656-579