THE WOLF: MYTH, LEGEND & MISCONCEPTION Wolf Reintroduction throughout the United States is a highly controversial subject

THE WOLF: MYTH, LEGEND & MISCONCEPTION

By T. R. Mader, Research Director

Wolf Reintroduction throughout the United States is a highly controversial subject. Yet the concept is popular among many people today. Politics is blamed for holding up the move while others state that reintroduction is a bad idea.

Those who oppose the wolf say this animal will sow nothing but havoc and destruction. They maintain that there is no possible good in reintroduction of such a killer. Those in favor of the wolf assert that the wolf is good as it would help maintain healthier herds by killing off the old and diseased animals in ungulate populations. These advocates of reintroduction also allege the hatred of the wolf comes more from myth and legend than from reality.

So who is right? Are we turning loose an animal that will cause much destruction with little compensating good? Or are we disrupting the ecosystem, causing problems in our attempt to regulate nature as we see fit, instead of allowing nature to balance itself naturally?

This issue requires serious consideration and an honest look at the evidence from history. If we take all the prejudice and emotion away from the wolf issue, the basis is history. What happened when the wolf was here? What is happening where the wolf is now? Is this animal a contribution or a problem?

"Why do we need to study the history of the wolf when we've done all these studies on wolves?" Because wildlife management, including wolf research, is an art science, not a specific science.

A specific science is conclusive and can be tested, tested and re-tested with the same results every time. Chemistry is an example. A chemist can mix one element with another element and get a certain and definite reaction every time. That is specific.

Wildlife management is an art science in that there are so many variables that two biologists can look at the same studies and come up with different conclusions. Quite often wolf biologists do not agree with each other in their studies about wolves.

This is the very reason it's important to review history. History helps biology and wildlife management become realistic.

There are several misconceptions regarding the wolf issue. Those who favor the wolf blame those opposed to the wolf for spreading these untruths and vice versa. In reality, both sides are to blame.

Misconceptions are formed from a person's personal feelings and some aspect of truth. It may not be a person's intention to distort, but due to lack of information on both sides of the issue, a misconception is born. If the misconception is not clarified in a prompt manner, it becomes the basis for truth to those who hear it and the cycle repeats itself with worse results. This report will look at misconceptions assumed to be true - the way it would be with the wolf. Then we will then look at history to either affirm or to bring reality in perspective.

MISCONCEPTION 1 - MAN'S FEAR OF WOLVES COMES FROM MYTH AND LEGEND

It's true that there are story book tales of the "Big, Bad Wolf." Is this the real reason that there is fear and hatred toward wolves? Research doesn't support such a claim. This author has spent hundreds of hours in research and interviews with people who have had personal experiences with the wolf and there was not one time a person alluded to a myth or a legend. They spoke of what they saw with their own eyes. Here are two examples.

"I've seen the agonized look of pain in a two-year-old steer's eyes and heard his painful bellowing, lying in the hot sun with his side and hind quarter torn open by a blood-thirsty wolf that was not even hungry as he ate nothing of the animal," says Gertrude Lewis. The incident she spoke of occurred in 1913.

Gertrude's family lived on Jane Cook Hubbell's ranch on Rock Creek some 10 miles northeast of Fossil, Wyoming. They had heard the wolves, common in that day, howling at night near the homestead but hadn't given them much thought at the time.

It was early summer then and Ralph Soule, Gertrude's father, needed material to build some corrals and haystack fences. The best material in the area were Quaking Aspen located several miles from the house. Sister Elsie and Gertrude went with their father to the timber. A neighboring ranch, the BQ, had turned a herd of one hundred or more two-year-old steers in the area to graze. It was there the steer was found "lowing" in its injured state. Ralph always carried a rifle and so the poor animal was put out of its misery. Two days later, two more steers were found mutilated and still alive. They had to be disposed of. Word was sent to the foreman of the BQ and the steers were removed from the area.(1)

Floyd McLean was raised on a dry farm northwest of Red Lodge, Montana. His brother-in-law, Isaac Walters, came to the McLean place and asked Floyd if he wanted to help skin some sheep. Floyd agreed to the job and returned to the sheep pasture with his brother-in-law.

"I saw a sight I will never forget," states Floyd, "15 head in all, some dead, others with hamstrings cut and some with their flanks ripped open and their insides dragging on the ground."

The wolves weren't hungry this time, Floyd observed, as none of the sheep were eaten.(2)

MISCONCEPTION 2 - WOLVES ARE ENDANGERED THEREFORE WE MUST RECOVER THEM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES

The term "endangered" derives its familiarity from a very powerful federal law, the "Endangered Species Act (ESA)." This federal law was passed by Congress and signed into law in 1973.(3) The ESA has been accurately described as "the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation."(4) The ESA "is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It elevates the goal of conservation of listed species above virtually all other considerations."(5) Or, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, "The plain language of the Act, ... shows clearly that Congress viewed the value of endangered species as 'incalculable.'"(6) Thus, "endangered" carries the powerful weight of federal law.

"Endangered" to most people simply means "few in number." But that is not always the case. Animals can number in the thousands, be in no danger of extinction and still be listed as "endangered" on the ESA. Such is the case with the wolf.

Wolves number more than 50,000 on the continent of North America.(7) Most of these wolves reside in Canada and Alaska.

How can wolves be listed as "endangered" if there are so many on this continent? Because the ESA has two criteria for listing:

1. If an animal is actually "few in number," i.e. threatened with actual extinction;

2. "Distinct Populations" meaning a "species may be listed, even if that species is abundant elsewhere in its range."(8)

The wolf is listed under "distinct populations" for two reasons:

1. Political boundaries between countries, i.e. wolves in Canada are Canadian wolves and, therefore not counted under a U.S. law, i.e. the ESA;

2. An obsolete subspecies classification of wolves.

Obviously, animals do not recognize political boundaries. To not count Canadian wolves that are in close proximity of the United States creates a "political" definition for endangered species rather than a definition based on science. Yet, this is exactly what happened in order to mandate and force reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995 and 1996.

The obsolete subspecies classification used to promote wolf recovery is based on the book, THE WOLVES OF NORTH AMERICA, by Stanley P. Young and Edward A. Goldman, published in 1944. In that book, Young and Goldman stated there were 24 subspecies of gray wolf based on their research which included weight, skull measurements, tooth placement and hair color.(9) Their subspecies listings were based upon averages and trends in a geographic areas.(10)

With the advancement of modern science and biology, such subspecies listings are no longer consider accurate, particularly with the development of statistical analysis and other modern taxonomic methods.(11)

Yet, even with such advancement, subspecies distinction is ultimately determined by man. "It has been said that species are created by God, but that other taxonomic categories, including subspecies, are devised in the human mind... Two workers may arrive at two quite different arrangements of subspecies."(12)

Dr. David Mech, renowned wolf biologist, agrees, "Subspecies are nothing more than a local form of the wolf. Current thinking is there are only about five subspecies of North American Wolf. Even this idea should be viewed cautiously because even scientists could not tell them apart."(13)

Yellowstone's wolf recovery was based on Young and Goldman's subspecies listing of "Canis lupus irremotus" also known as "the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf." Wolf recovery in New Mexico and Arizona are based on "Canis lupus baileyi" (the "Mexican wolf") another listing by Young and Goldman.

Why would the government and biologists use obsolete, inaccurate data as the "scientific" basis for wolf recovery? Because this qualifies such recovery under "distinct populations" under the ESA.

MISCONCEPTION 3 - WOLVES ARE NEEDED FOR CONTROL OF UNGULATE HERDS

This misconception gives the idea that many ungulate herds suffer if not preyed upon by large predators. Not so! It is estimated that there are 690,000 head of elk in Western United States, Alberta and British Colombia.(14) None of the herds are in trouble. Even foreign countries maintain large herds with few predators.(15)

There is no doubt that wolves would control ungulate herds wherever they are introduced. But how well would they control them? And, how would wolves be controlled if they became a problem?

It has been stated often that Nature has a way of balancing itself. In Yellowstone National Park, for example, the elk population was perceived as high and therefore it was argued that wolves should be introduced to naturally cut back the overpopulation of elk. The result is simple, more wolves mean less elk as they would continue to depredate the herds of elk. This pattern continues until the elk, as well as other wildlife, are virtually removed and the numerous wolf population either dies off due to disease, interspecific fighting, etc. or moves out of the country in search of more prey. Then the elk would be able to increase its numbers due to less wolves in the Park. This process is often referred to as the “Balance of Nature.”

There are problems with such a cycle. How popular would the Park be to the public during the times there were little or no ungulate populations to observe? At what point of this cycle would wolves become a problem to man or his livestock, due to limited prey?

MISCONCEPTION 4 - DEPREDATION ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS OUTSIDE THE RECOVERY AREA WOULD BE INCONSEQUENTIAL

A number of assumptions are the basis of this misconception. One is that all the wolves would stay in the designated recovery area. Another assumption is that as long as there is plenty of ungulate population, domestic animals will not be bothered.

Most people assumed the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone and central Idaho would not immediately result in depredation of domestic animals. Wrong! Livestock depredation began almost immediately and has continued to increase with wolves being shot due to such depredation.

Wolves were transplanted to Yellowstone and central Idaho on the following dates in 1995: January 11, 12, 19, 21. The first livestock killed was January 29, 1995 near Salmon, Idaho. By September of 1996, nearly 20% of the transplanted wolves have been involved livestock depredations. Eight adult wolves and four pups have been captured and relocated. Four wolves have been killed by agency personnel. Over 60 head of livestock and one dog have been documented killed by these wolves in little less than two years.(16) ("Documented" or "confirmed" kills generally reflect only a portion of the actual kills – see misconception 5.)

Wolves transplanted to a recovery area will form packs, define their boundaries and generally stay within those boundaries. The question arises, "Where would the offspring go to establish their pack territories?" If those territories are outside the specified recovery (most would have to be) domestic animals will become prey for the wolf.

Wolves eat whatever is easy to prey upon. This can be an old elk or a young calf on livestock range. Wolves in the past came out of the foothills and the forest reserves to prey upon domestic animals. Note the following:

"The wolves coming down from the mountains for the past two weeks have wrought havoc among the livestock interests. Ranchers are using up good horse flesh every day in riding after them but to no avail. Nearly a score of cattle have been reported killed by the varmints which sweep down at night. The sight is heartrending to the rancher who must ride among his cattle and note the work of destruction. Many that were not killed have been badly bitten, chunks being takes out, leaving them badly crippled. There appears to be no way of getting the wolves except by running them, down on horse. The wolves breed in the mountains and Congress has been appealed to assist in the extermination of predatory wild animals which predominate the forest preserve."(17)

The U.S. Biological Survey, at the request of and in cooperation with the Forest Service, started to address this problem in the early part of this century. The Bureau of Biological Survey stated that after adoption of methods which they recommended, "so many wolves were killed that the saving of stock this year (1907) amounts to at least a million dollars."(18)

Many wolves were well-known for their extensive killings. The "Custer Wolf" was estimated to have killed $25,000 worth of livestock.(19) Figuring the rate of inflation from 1920, when the Custer Wolf was captured, to 1988, that figure would translate as $550,000 worth of livestock.(20) The "Aquila Wolf" in Arizona was known to have killed 65 sheep in one night and 40 at another time. "Three Toes of Harding County" in South Dakota was estimated to have killed $50,000 worth of livestock in its thirteen years of travel. This wolf killed 66 sheep in two nights shortly before its capture.(21)

One area of wolf depredation that is largely overlooked is the destruction of domestic pets, dogs in particular. This fact is acknowledged by both sides of the wolf issue.

Barry Lopez, in the introduction of his book, OF WOLVES AND MEN, recounts an episode of dogs killed by wolves in the Goldstream Valley in Alaska. Mr. Lopez comments, "Goldstream Valley is lightly settled and lies on the edge of an active wolf range, and that winter wolves got into the habit of visiting homes and killing pet dogs. A dog owner wouldn't hear a sound but the barking and growling of his dog. Then silence. He would pass a flashlight beam through the darkness and see nothing. In the morning he would find the dog's collar or a few of its bones stripped of meat. The wolves would have left behind little else but their enormous footprints in the snow." Lopez recalls the toll something like 42 dogs killed that one winter.(22)

A man who worked for U.S. Fish and Wildlife recalled that one female wolf came on porches of houses where children were playing and would carry off the household dog. This wolf had been hurt and had pups to feed and so opted for the dogs.(23)

Old accounts tell of the same. May Cummins and her daughter, Melva, homesteaded several miles out of Clearmont, Wyoming, in the early part of the century. They noticed and heard a large pack of wolves in their area when they moved in. Melva loved dogs. As a child they were her source of entertainment. She had a small puppy that stayed close to home. The wolves came in one night and attacked the little puppy. The little dog had enough strength to drag himself to the front door before it died.(24) Think of the loss a small child like Melva must have felt.

MISCONCEPTION 5 - CONFIRMED KILLS ARE EASY TO ESTABLISH. ONCE A CONFIRMED KILL IS ESTABLISHED, THE TROUBLESOME WOLF CAN EITHER BERELOCATED OR DESTROYED

A "confirmed" kill is evidence that a wolf attacked an animal. If a stockman finds the remains of a kill, they can call their state wildlife department who will send a man out to confirm the kill. Once confirmed as a wolf kill, a trapper is sent in to shoot or trap the wolves.

It's logical that there should be evidence of a kill before a loss can be claimed. Otherwise, any farmer or rancher could randomly claim losses to wolves.

On the other hand, confirmed kills are difficult to establish. Three natural factors make such confirmation difficult:

1. Wolves often eat all of the animal they attack, such as a sheep, lamb or calf. Often there is so little of an animal left, the carcass is not found at all.

2. If an animal attacked is not found within 24 hours of its death, scavengers - coyotes, eagles, foxes, skunks, crows, ravens, magpies, gulls - will have eliminated evidence of how an animal was killed. Decay also helps eliminate such evidence.

3. Terrain and/or heavy vegetation hide the carcass making it difficult to find. The United States has millions of acres of heavy timber making it next to impossible to find a carcass. Thus confirmed kills are certainly not accurate of actual wolf depredation in most cases.

In the late seventies during calving season in the spring, a Minnesota farmer called the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and reported a wolf attack on a calf. A conservation officer went to the farm and confirmed the attack, a calf bitten on the upper back by a wolf, leaving a hole into the chest cavity large enough to place a fist.(25)

A trapper was sent to the farm and proceeded to run some trap sets. During the time at the farm, the trapper noticed several cows, with tight udders, bawling as if in search of calves. The trapper mentioned his observation to the farmer and suggested that he count fresh cows and calves. The count revealed 26 calves missing from cows that had calved. The trapper caught two old wolves in the calving pasture shortly thereafter and the death loss ceased.

In this case, the farmer was shown as having one confirmed kill, as the trapper did not recall any remains of the 26 missing calves being found.(26)

An assumption that also comes with this misconception is that a troublesome wolf can be easily caught. Sometimes that is the case, but often the wolf proves to be very adept at evading capture.

A pack of 5 wolves came out of Glacier National Park killing sheep and cattle near Browning, Montana. Animal Damage Control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture was called in to eradicate the wolves. In 1987, $41,000 was spent and all but one of the wolves was either destroyed or captured. The lone wolf left the area for a period of time but later returned to kill calves (confirmed) in the spring of 1988. Officials stated it was impossible to catch this wolf due to its constant movement, never staying in one area.(27)

Is this an isolated case? Not hardly. In 1981 an old wolf came out of Glacier National Park and was causing considerable damage to livestock. Attempts at capture took over a year to catch this one wolf.(28)

The historical record of famous wolves confirm the elusiveness of the wolf as they worked areas for years avoiding capture. Remember "Three Toes of Harding County" remained at large for 13 years (see misconception 4).

MISCONCEPTION 6 - WOLVES KILL ONLY SICK, DISEASED AND OLD ANIMALS

Human characteristics have often been attributed to the wolf. Some people think it can reason like a human. Unfortunately that is not the case.

A wolf does not know "sick, diseased or old." These terms are not in its vocabulary. However it does know what it can catch easily and often these animals are part of its diet due to their condition. However, there are also the young, the replacement segment of the herd. They are not "sick, diseased or old," but they are relatively easy to catch. History is replete with accounts of wolves' depredation of the young.

Duncan P. Grant and his brother Bob Grant hunted wolves for years in the early part of the century. They hunted the range of the Two Bar Ranch that spread from the Nebraska line to Medicine Bow, Wyoming.

Most of the time there were six to eight wolves in a pack but they had seen packs with up to 22 wolves.

Duncan writes, "When they run in packs they would kill almost anything they wanted to. I have seen them round up from twenty-five to thirty head of cattle in a bunch, and then pick out the ones they wanted, usually yearlings and two-year-olds, both cattle and horses. Yearling colts and calves that were coming yearlings were their pick."(29)

Early newspapers frequently carried accounts as these. "Wm. Bell, in from his Redwater ranch Wednesday, reports timber wolves too numerous for comfort or profit in his vicinity. Thompson brothers have two valuable young colts badly hurt by them, so much so that it is a question they will ever recover. They attacked a young steer belonging to Fred Bond, killed and partly devoured it in full view of one of his neighbors. They also killed a cow and a calf out of his herd. Calves and colts are their favorite game but they do not hesitate to attack full grown animals when they cannot get the former."(30)

"Geo. H. Allen, who came over from Pass Creek Monday, says that he and Harry Kincaid were moving his cattle down from Perry Ault's upper ranch, on Pass Creek, he found that the wolves had killed and eaten four calves out of his bunch; they found one calf still alive, with its hinder parts eaten away."(31)

In wild game, it is much the same. David Mech and Jim Brandenburg observed a pack of Arctic wolves on 11 head of adult Musk Oxen and 3 calves. At first the Oxen stood their ground. Later they broke and run with the wolves in pursuit. A few minutes later, all three calves had been killed by the wolves.(32)

In Gary Turbak's book, TWILIGHT HUNTERS: WOLVES, COYOTES AND FOXES, he opens the section on wolves with an account in which a pack of eight wolves attack and devour a young moose calf.(33)

Wolves can decimate wildlife populations if not controlled. Biologist Vernon Bailey of the Bureau of Biological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, stated, "Wolves and coyotes cause a loss to the stockmen and farmers of the United States of several millions of dollars annually, and in some of the Northern States they threaten the extermination of deer on many of the best hunting grounds."(34)

That statement, made in 1908, was reiterated in the Annual Reports of Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey in 1922, "It has been estimated after careful investigation that not less than 10,000 deer are killed annually by predatory animals in that state (Michigan). Timber wolves, coyotes, wild cats, and foxes all join in game destruction, the kill being heaviest in winter, when snow is deep, and especially in the early spring, after the snow becomes crusted. At this period wolves and coyotes often appear to kill for no apparent reason other than for amusement or sheer lust of killing.

"A good instance of the destructiveness of deer by wolves was observed by the bureau representative in southern Marquette County the latter part of March. Evidence had been found that a pack of wolves was working in the deer yards of that section, and one night they were heard howling. The following morning investigation was made on snowshoes and the tracks of a single wolf were soon located. The trail led a short distance to a swamp, where the wolf was joined by two others and the round of destruction begun. The remains of four freshly killed deer were found on a area of about 3 acres. Subsequent investigations disclosed that in the few weeks preceding this time probably a hundred deer in yards scattered over an area of about 3 square miles in that locality were killed by these wolves. This number does not include many unborn fawns. The wolves also worked through other yarding sections, as they spent only a part of their time in the area described."(35)

Current accounts verify these same occurrences. Mark Miner assisted in an emergency deer feeding program in northern Minnesota in the early 1980s. One winter had been especially severe and the deer were in poor condition. The Department of Natural Resources allocated pellets to be fed in areas of Minnesota to keep the deer alive.

One morning Mark and a friend set out on a snowmobile to run their circuit in the Chippewa National Forest. At their first stop, they found 9 deer and fed them some pellets. Approximately 3 hours later, they came by this feeding ground on their way home. Mark's friend grabbed Mark's shoulder and pointed to some blood on the snow. Mark turned the snowmobile off the trail and pulled in the clearing in the timber where they had first fed the 9 deer. Eight deer were lying dead. None were eaten. Most showed attack on the hind legs and the head and neck. One sight especially disturbed Mark.

There was a windrow of brush at the end of the clearing. It was U-shaped. In the middle of the windrow lay a doe dead with her fawn lying beside her, still attached to its mother by the umbilical cord. From the tracks, Mark said it was apparent that the wolves had trapped the doe in the U-shaped windrow and had cut her off as she attempted to get out. The doe apparently aborted her young in all the running and then evidently collapsed and died from exhaustion. There was not a mark of blood or bite mark on the doe.(36)

Historical data indicates that game cannot withstand uncontrolled predation. Predation has caused serious problems in bringing extermination to game in certain areas.

This is still in evidence today where 90% to 95% of ungulate populations in areas of Canada were wiped out due to wolf depredation.(37)

MISCONCEPTION 7 - WOLVES KILL ONLY WHAT THEY EAT

This misconception is true in certain instances. Many times wolves devour their kill completely. A few bones or hair may be all that is left of a deer kill.

One of the difficulties of "confirming" a kill of domestic animals is finding a carcass. Wolves' killing of young calves and lambs is well documented. These small animals are often completely consumed. However, total consumption is not always the case as seen in the above statement of Annual Reports of U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey.

Those who have studied the wolf acknowledge that "overkill" does indeed occur. Some scientists think it happens due to a kind of "short-circuit" in the predators' hunting instincts. It is thought that killing in the wild is a whole series of actions including location of prey, stalking, chasing and capture. When animals are unable to escape, it is thought that wolves kill again and again because prey is available and easy to catch.(38)

Although the exact scientific explanation may never be known, it is biologically and historically correct to state that wolves do kill without regard or need for the prey attacked (see examples under misconception 1 and 6). The accounts of wanton destruction of livestock and wild game are numerous.

"I worked for Dick Richardson from 1898 to 1908 and can remember the grey wolves getting into his sheep. They cut out about fifty head and followed them for a distance of about ten miles. Three or four sheep made it to the ranch, the rest were all killed or badly bitten and left for the coyotes to finish."(39)

"In Colorado a single wolf took a toll of nearly $3000 worth of cattle in one year. In Texas two wolves killed 72 sheep valued at $9 each during a period of two weeks. One wolf in New Mexico killed 25 head of cattle in two months, while another was reported by stockmen of the same state to have killed 150 cattle valued at no less than $5000 during six months preceding his capture by a survey hunter. In Wyoming two male wolves were killed, which during one month had destroyed 150 sheep and 7 colts; another pair were reported to have killed $4000 worth of stock during the year preceding their capture; while another, captured in June, had killed 30 head of cattle during the preceding spring. The County Agricultural Agent at Coalville, Utah reported that wolves had taken 20 percent of the year's calf crop in that section. A wolf taken in New Mexico was known to have killed during the preceding five months: 20 yearling steers, 9 calves, 1 cow, 15 sheep, and a valuable sheep dog. In two weeks at Ozona, Texas, two wolves killed 76 sheep.(40)

"Timber Wolves have become so numerous and destructive to game in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and in extreme northern Wisconsin and Minnesota as to threaten to exterminate the deer...I have lately visited several localities from which the complaints came to study actual conditions with a view to the discovery of means of protecting deer from the attacks of wolves.

"Deer were found in considerable numbers in the swamps and dense timber, where, during the time of deep snow, they had gathered into well-beaten yards, often a hundred or more in a yard.

"Wolves were numerous, and dead deer were found in almost every yard visited, some partly eaten, others only torn and mangled. Large bucks, as well as does and fawns, have been killed, many more than could be eaten at the time. Only those killed since the last heavy fall of snow are visible, but in previous seasons hundreds of deer carcasses have been reported in the yards after the melting of the snow."(41)

MISCONCEPTION 8 - PREY ANIMALS KILLED BY WOLVES SUFFER VERY LITTLE

This misconception is another assumption that is true only part of the time. If the prey is a young moose calf or a fawn, the kill is often accomplished in a few moments thus reducing the suffering of the animal attacked. But as we have seen under misconceptions 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, it is apparent that there are numerous times when an animal suffers extensively - often for days - until man finds the animal and puts it out of its misery. In the wild, an animal will either suffer until it dies or perchance the wolves come back and finish off the victim. Historical accounts of the suffering animals, after wolf attack, abound.

"Some days previous a party of cowboys riding on Powder River discovered a large fat cow standing in a cut coulee, with three gray wolves keeping guard over her, and continually fighting her. Her hindquarters were almost eaten up, the cords in one leg being cut so that she could not stand upon it, and she was cut and torn all over the body, so badly that one of the men shot her to put her out of her misery."(42)

Bob Fudge lived from 1862-1933. His life was that of a cowboy. He participated in many big cattle drives from Texas to Wyoming and Montana and later settled with a big cattle outfit in Montana called the XIT. Wolves were common during Bob's years on the range. "Wolves did not wait for their meat to die. When it was down and they were hungry, their meal was being eaten while their victim was dying. I have seen cattle and horses with great holes eaten in their hams and shoulders and unable to get to their feet. We always put cattle or horses out of their misery by shooting them when found in this condition.(43)

Charles Weston and his new bride were living on his father's farm in Aitken County, Minnesota. Charles had acquired a holstein cow to start his own herd of milk cows. He had put his cow in the pasture with his father's cows. The country was wild at the time (1912) and so Charles took his rifle with him when he went to gather the cows for the evening milking.

This particular fall evening, Charles' cow was missing. Charles searched until dark, but to no avail. Finally he gave up and started home. As he was returning home, Charles ran into a pack of wolves that seemed to be interested in something in an old water ditch. The ditch was mostly mud and mire and the sight was heartbreaking for Charles.

There in the ditch was his only cow, hamstrung, partially devoured and mired in the mud. Charles got off a shot at the now fleeing wolves and killed one. Turning to the cow, a close inspection revealed that it was obvious it would not survive due to its injuries. Another rifle shot ended the suffering of the cow. Charles gathered the dead wolf and went home for the evening.

The next morning Charles went back to the scene and observed what had happened. The wolves had chased the poor cow, attacking it while it ran, until it had become mired in the ditch. Then it was a feast for the wolves as they tore the hindquarters apart and devoured them from the struggling cow. Due to the loss of flesh on the cow, it was apparent that the wolves had eaten upon it for some time and yet the cow had not succumbed when found. Charles' effort at cattle-raising came to an abrupt end.(44)

The suffering of prey animals is acknowledged by those who have studied the wolf. Ewan Clarkson in referring to David Mech's studies on Isle Royale comments, "Sometimes the end was mercifully swift. A nine-month-old calf (moose) was dispatched in five minutes, and, after a short chase, a cow was killed in ten minutes. Frequently, however, the wolves are reluctant or unable to press home their initial attack, and the wounded moose will linger for hours, its wounds slowly stiffening and its life ebbing away. All around, the wolf pack waits, licking the bloodstains from the snow or lying at ease on the ice. On occasion, the pack will abandon a wounded moose and move away to make a fresh kill, only to return a day or so later to finish off the cripple, or, if it has succumbed to its wounds, to scent out the carcass."(45)

MISCONCEPTION 9 - THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A DESIRABLE BALANCE BETWEEN PREY AND PREDATOR

History shows that there is a desirable “balance of nature” at times. But that is not always the case as we have seen in the previous biological reports. It has been assumed that, in the early part of the century, unrestricted hunting was the reason for the low numbers of wild game. This was the case in several areas. However, restrictions were imposed. Hunting was restricted, poaching curtailed and yet numbers of game continued to decline due to depredation of predatory animals. Mountain Lions and wolves were a major part in this decline.

Such an imbalance occurred in Alaska. After a wolf reduction program in the 1950s, moose and caribou populations increased, reaching peak abundance in the 1960s. From 1966 to 1976, there was a decline in the moose due to periodic deep snow, harvest by man and predation by wolves. Moose hunting harvests were reduced from 6-19% to 2% annually in 1974. Wolf predation during winters 1973-1974 and 1974-1975 was estimated at 13-34% and a high proportion of calves during summer. The caribou calf reduction was so low from 1971-1975 (hunting stopped in 1973) that biologist determined a decline would have occurred without hunting. Virtually all calves died prior to winter in 1974. This was due to the heavy depredation of wolves upon the calves during the summer months.(46)

An experimental program of wolf reduction was implemented and a 61% reduction took place. Coinciding with the reduction was increased survival of 200% to 400% for calf and yearling moose populations, thus increasing the overall moose population. Survival of caribou calves also increased, thus the caribou population increased.

The wolf population was held at a 60% reduction level for three years (1976-1979) to allow the moose and caribou population to increase. A 300% increase was realized in the three years, bringing prey populations to a suitable level.(47)

One of the conclusions of the Alaskan Report was that "great caution must be exercised in harvesting (hunting) ungulates in ecosystems where wolves are harvested lightly or are essentially naturally regulated."(48) In other words, hunting by man and wolves do not go together.

Such an imbalance is not an isolated instance as Dr. David Mech and P. Karns documented the total destruction of a deer herd in an area of over 1500 square miles in Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota. Their conclusions were that, in absence of wolves, the deer herd would have not disappeared nor would the decline of deer in surrounding area been so drastic.(49)

MISCONCEPTION 10 - WOLVES POSE NO THREAT TO MAN HIMSELF

There are numerous accounts of wolf attacks on man. Most of these were told from person to person and few, if any, are verifiable. Accounts of rabid wolves on humans have been documented.

In reality the wolf does not seek human company and will shy away from man as much as it can. But to say that the wolf has never attacked man is not telling it accurately either. History indicates that wolves, under certain circumstances, would attack man.

Accounts of wolf attacks on man are numerous in Europe and Asia. Different authors have written about such attacks. Even National Geographic Magazine mentioned such occurrences in Russia. "It is only a step from Moscow, overcrowded and teeming with its peoples of many races, with rules of every movement and police to enforce them, into wild, wide open spaces. Wolves and bears still roam in the Moscow district, and when the dull winter dusk comes at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and the country is under its white mantle of snow, hunger drives them to prey on mankind.

"They boldly attack villages and, this year, even assailed a railroad train of cattle. No peasant ventures alone far outside his village, and one group of twenty men, fancying safety in numbers, was attacked by a wolf pack. Several were killed and all seriously wounded."(50)

Such accounts are not common in the Western Hemisphere. There have been some documented accounts of wolf and man. Most of them related to being followed rather than attacked. Nevertheless, the people involved in such incidences were apprehensive to say the least.

"Farm boys south of Chugwater are carrying guns when they go out to get the cows these days. The reason is the presence in the district of two giant gray wolves so bold that it is feared they will attack some unarmed person.

"Mrs. C.M. DuVall encountered the beasts while driving in some horses. The wolves stood their ground, snarling threateningly, and Mrs. DuVall hastily retreated.

"While Viv Harry was driving in his cows he heard a panting behind him like that of a dog and wheeling was confronted by the two wolves, which were almost at his heels. He waved his arms and shouted but the wolves advanced menacingly. Harry, who was unarmed, used rocks to keep the marauders at a distance until he reached his barn, the wolves following him within a few feet of the door and hanging around expectantly for some time.

"Five of Frank Casper's calves have been killed and partly devoured, supposedly by the same wolves."(51)

"Helper engine 819, in charge of engineer Findo took a line repairer to Athol today and when coming back and within ten miles of town, the fireman spied a man on top of a telegraph pole, waving his arms frantically and as if he was in great terror. The engine was stopped, and the man threw his arms around the pole and slid to the ground, landing all in a heap. He was breathless and pale and very much excited. He proved to be a trackwalker, and, when he had sufficiently recovered, told the engineer that he had been chased by five huge grey wolves, and that the animals were at his heels as he reached the pole. 'Oh I don't know how I got up that pole. It was wet and smooth but I got there and would have been there yet if the engine hadn't come along.' The trackwalker is a level-headed man and his story is not doubted. His climbing of the telegraph pole will go on record as one of the most clever feats in western pole climbing. He says he has had all the walking he wants in a country where wolves thrive and today resigned his position."(52)

Even in the early years, issue was taken with many of the wolf attacks. Bud Dalrymple was a trapper for more than 25 years. He hunted and trapped wolves in the Badlands of South Dakota. Often he would crawl back into wolf dens, shoot the mother and bring the pups out alive and was never attacked. There were many times, he would wound a wolf, track it down and kill it. Yet there never was a time he was attacked by a wolf.(53)

But there have been documented accounts of actual wolf attacks on man. One such account was carried in the August 1947 Journal of Mammology. It was investigated by Mr. Vincent Crichton, of Chapleau, Ontario, wildlife specialist for the Fish and Wildlife Division of the Ontario Department of Lands and Forest. Sworn statements of all men involved were obtained as well as an investigation of the scene which had "undisputed signs of a struggle between man and a wolf." (statement of Investigator Crichton).

Michael Dusiak, section foreman for the Canadian Pacific Railway, was patrolling a section of track on December 29, 1942. He was traveling the track on a speeder (4-wheeled open railroad car so small a single person could lift it off the track). Suddenly something hit and grabbed Dusiak by his left arm. The impact of blow knocked Dusiak and the speeder off the track. Dusiak relates: "It happened so fast and as it was still very dark, I thought an engine had hit me first. After getting up from out of the snow very quickly, I saw the wolf which was about fifty feet away from me and it was coming towards me. I grabbed the two axes (tools on the speeder), one in each hand and hit the wolf as he jumped at me right in the belly and in doing so lost one axe. Then the wolf started to circle me and got so close to me at times that I hit him with the head of the axe and it was only the wielding of the axe that kept him from me. All this time he was growling and gnashing his teeth. Then he would stop circling me and jump at me and I would hit him with the head of the axe. This happened five times and he kept edging me closer to the woods which was about 70 feet away. We fought this way for about fifteen minutes and I fought to stay out in the open track. I hit him quite often as he came at me very fast and quick and I was trying to hit him a solid blow in the head for I knew if once he got me down it would be my finish. Then in the course of the fight he got me over onto the north side of the track and we fought there for about another ten minutes. Then a west bound freight train came along traveling about thirty miles an hour and stopped about half a train length west of us and backed up to where we were fighting. The engineer, fireman and brakeman came off the engine armed with picks and other tools, and killed the wolf."(54)

The wolf was skinned and inspected by Investigator Crichton. It appeared to be a young lean wolf in good condition.

A more recent occurrence happened in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. In August 1987, a sixteen-year-old girl was bitten by a wolf. This girl was camping in the park with a youth group and shone a flashlight at the wolf. The wolf reacted to the light by biting the girl on the arm. The bite was not hard and due to a thick sweater and sweatshirt the girl was wearing, the girl sustained two scratch marks on her arm. The wolf was shot by Natural Resources personnel and tested negative for rabies.(55)

In recent years, Vancouver Island, British Colombia has had numerous accounts of encounters of wolves and man. On the island the wolves are such a problem that there is a hunting season with a 3 wolf limit. One Specialist in Wildlife control related several accounts.

Jakob Knopp encountered a small pack of 3 wolves as he was driving his tractor. Though it was daylight, the wolves stayed with him right up to his barn. Jakob then made a dash for the barn, retrieved a rifle and had to shoot two wolves before the other one left the area.

George Williams heard noises in his chicken coop one night. He investigated and was met by a wolf in his yard. Williams had only time for a snap shot with his .22 single shot rifle and dropped the wolf. A second wolf came towards him and Williams hit it over the head with the rifle, stunning it momentarily. George headed for the house and, the next morning, found the wolf he had shot lying in the yard.

A forester was out checking the timber on the island when he encountered some wolves that started to chase him. The forester climbed a tree and radioed for help. A plane landed on a nearby lake close to the treed man. When the Conservation Officers approached the treed man, they found the wolves were still at the base of the tree. One had to be shot before the others retreated into the timber.(56)

Thus it has been confirmed that wolf attacks on man have occurred.(58)

The aggressiveness of the wolf has been witnessed with domesticated wolves. Reports of maulings, dismemberment and killings by such wolves or wolf hybrids are abundant.

MISCONCEPTION 11 - MAN INVARIABLY DISRUPTS THE BALANCE OF NATURE WHEN HE ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE IT

There is an assumption at the basis of this misconception that man disrupts and causes havoc to the environment whenever he attempts to regulate it. It is also assumed that the balance of nature is the best way to go. After all, it is "natural."

Although man has made some errors in ecology, he has done far more to enhance the earth than to destroy it. The examples are numerous, let's look at a few.

In the west, many rivers flowing out of mountain areas would dry up during hot summer months. This created a water problem in the early years of settlement. However, irrigation was implemented and ditches were built to divert the water to farm lands in order to grow crops. By diverting water into irrigation ditches, dry land was utilized and production was greatly increased in many areas of the western states. It was also found that such irrigation created a "Return Flow" pattern. This pattern made these rivers, from which the irrigation was taken, to be live streams year around. It was found that the water used in irrigation eventually flowed back to the river it came from and thus aided in making the river a better habitat for fish as well as water for livestock and wildlife. This diversion is actually a disruption from the "natural" flow of water from mountain streams, yet the benefits are enormous.

A related example is the National Grasslands and stock reservoirs. Much of western land was dry and semi-arid in many cases. Reservoirs and stock dams built provided water for livestock, wildlife, birds, etc. Thus the land was better utilized by man and nature.

Organizations have been formed to enhance habitats of wildlife. One such organization is Ducks Unlimited. This organization has assisted in many wildlife habitat improvement projects over the years.

Big Meadows Waterfowl Production Area in northwestern North Dakota is one such project. Before 1986, this 2330 acre wetland was unproductive. Upland ducks were in the area, but due to lack of nesting habitat and heavy predation of fox, skunk, raccoon and other animals, nest success for the Upland duck was estimated at 15%-20%. Ducks Unlimited, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, placed 25 3/4 acre man-made islands in the marsh. In 1987, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey estimated the duck nesting success rates at better than 90% on the man-made islands. Thus 18 acres of marsh, improved by man, resulted in a 70% increase in the nesting success of Upland ducks.(58)

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is another organization involved in conservation and improvement of wildlife habitat. This foundation cooperates with federal and state agencies in projects which improve elk habitat.

One such project is the Rock Creek Prescribed Burn Project. This project involves 33,000 acres of inaccessible timber. 95% of the area is large Lodge Pole Pine, 3% are Aspen, and only 2% is open area. Because of this dense timber mass, there is virtually no vegetation on the ground. It is best described as a "timber desert." What was needed were open areas which would grow a diversity of vegetation for elk, deer and other wildlife in the area.

Due to inaccessibility, the timber cannot be cut and therefore a long term burn project has been started. The U.S. Forest Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation have contributed to this project which involves burning 10-200 acre openings in this forest. The plan called for such burning over a span of several years in order to diversify growth patterns of vegetation in the area. This burn project has created wildlife habitat in an area virtually void of wildlife due to lack of vegetation.(59)

As seen in the above illustrations, man's regulation of nature and environment have been beneficial. Yellowstone National Park and other parks throughout the nation have been "disrupted" so that millions of people can enjoy the natural beauty and wildlife of these areas. Highways, accommodations, etc. are all a "disruptions," yet they are of benefit as people, from all over the world, can come and see the wonders of nature. Yes, man has regulated the Yellowstone, but even today only .4% of 1% of the park is developed.(60) This shows that man is concerned about conservation of nature as well as practical use of the Park. Balanced use of natural resources and their conservation are generally considered the goal to be achieved.

MISCONCEPTION 12 - THE ECOSYSTEM WOULD BE COMPLETE WITH THE WOLF

When asked as to where man fit into the term "Ecosystem," one researcher stated that man was no part or only a small non-consuming part, if any, of a complete ecosystem.(61)

This concept is similar to religious beliefs in some third world countries where people starve due to restrictions placed on their environment. Simply put, man must get out of designated recovery areas in order to return them to their natural and complete ecosystem. After all, that is the way it was, therefore it should be restored as such.

The benefits would be that nature can conduct its affairs as it sees fit, but man could not enjoy these recovery areas which are often national parks or forests as he does today. It should be remembered that man, by legislation, set these areas aside so that future generations could enjoy their beauty.

However, for most people who favor wolf reintroduction, the ecosystem is not complete only in the concept that the wolf is not there. At this point in time, man can still enjoy Yellowstone National Park and other designated recovery areas. One must then question the advantages of the wolf as opposed to the disadvantages of the wolf in such areas.

The wolf will reduce the ungulate herds in and near all recovery areas. To some, the wolf contribute to the aesthetic beauty of an area. To some, "just knowing the wolf is out there" is important. Some may be fortunate enough to hear the howl of the wolf.

Yet wolves will leave these recovery areas. This will cause a decline in big game populations because wolves have to eat. Hunting will be adversely affected. How much or to what extent? No one knows. However, history tells us the impact can be devastating.

Other wolves will prey on domestic livestock and cause economic hardship for area farmers and ranchers. A compensation program would be necessary, but the problem with "confirming" livestock loss would make it very difficult to compensate for all losses. Many would simply not be found. Also, current compensation programs have two flaws:

1. Their funds are limited;

2. They are only in effect while wolves are listed on the Endangered Species Act.

CONCLUSIONS OF HISTORICAL STUDY

1. Wolves are not biologically in danger of extinction and should be removed from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are 1,500 to 2,000 Wolves in Minnesota, 6,000 to 10,000 in Alaska and 40,000 to 50,000 wolves in Canada, according to the biologists. They are not, nor ever have been, in danger of extinction.

2. Wolf Reintroduction in any part of the United States would reduce ungulate populations in those areas. Most of these populations are at satisfactory levels at this time.

3. Wolves will affect hunting of ungulate populations in and surrounding recovery areas. Even if hunting is restricted in the recovery area, it will still affect hunting outside of the area since most ungulate animals migrate to some extent.

Regarding hunting, the actual effect of wolf depredation is unknown. History shows serious problems in that hunting has been curtailed from 6-19% to 2% and completely stopped in other instances. Wolf depredation has caused the total destruction of some wild game herds in certain areas. As one wildlife biologist put it, “Really there isn’t any room for harvest by man if you have a healthy wolf population.” (62)

4. Wolves will not stay in recovery areas. Wolves have been documented traveling hundreds of miles.

5. Wolf depredation of domestic animals will occur. Once transplanted, wolves would increase through reproduction and leave the recovery areas. The areas these "disperser" wolves would go are likely to be where livestock is raised since most recovery areas are surrounded by privately owned or forest grazing lands.

The extent of wolf depredation on domestic animals in unknown. However, recorded accounts of the past tell us that figures of loss due to wolf depredation have been estimated in the millions of dollars in the early part of this century. Compensatory amounts higher than $300,000 have been paid over a 5-year period in Alberta, Canada. Alberta pays only 80% of assessed value for confirmed losses and 50% for probable losses.(63)

Compensation of livestock loss would have to be allowed. But such compensation would not cover total losses incurred due to difficulties in confirmation of wolf kills.

6. Wolves often kill more than they eat. Although the scientific explanation may be inconclusive as to why wolves kill for the sake of killing, it is a documented fact that wolves often do kill more than they require for food.

7. Death, destruction and suffering follow the wolf. The wolf is a predator and therefore has to take life in order to maintain its own life. Sometimes the time of suffering of the prey animal is short, but at other times, this suffering last for days. In the past, man has had to take action to end such suffering.

8. There will NOT always be a desirable balance between prey and predator especially if harvest by man (hunting) is allowed. The prey populations decline drastically when harvested by man and wolf. Wolf predation directly curtails hunting. Wolf predation alone often keeps wildlife populations low for extended periods of time.

9. States must consider economic factors of wolf reintroduction. Limited game would mean limited allowable licenses for that game. For example, federal officials estimated that 10 wolf packs in Yellowstone National Park would eat more than 1000 elk annually. The State of Wyoming figures that income per elk hunter (based on 1986) is as follows: Resident = $367.93 - Out of State = $1,221.00. If those 1000 elk were harvested equally by resident and out of state hunters, income to the state would be $794,469.00 annually. Thus wolf reintroduction could mean serious loss of income for wildlifemanagement to states slated for wolf recovery.

10. Wolves, at times, do pose a threat to man himself. This is the exception to the norm. Many early accounts were unverifiable or found to be untrue. But, there are enough current documented accounts to attest to wolf attacks on man.

11. Man does modify nature when he attempts to regulate it. However, such modification is usually for the best. Land, livestock and wildlife are better utilized, preserved and restored under man's regulation. In the West, mane has created millions of acres of wildlife habitat through the distribution of water. Also, man has the power of reason, thus he can make decisions based on study to correct an error should he see one.

12. The "completeness" of a given ecosystem is clearly subjective. Therefore in light of history and current studies attesting to many problems with the wolf, the best and most honest approach would be to admit that wolves are not endangered and should be removed from the Endangered Species Act thereby terminating the need for wolf recovery in any part of the United States.

QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED ON WOLF REINTRODUCTION

1. Should the wolf be on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when there are thousands of wolves in Alaska, Canada and Minnesota?

2. Would reintroduction increase taxes in states surrounding wolf reintroduction areas due to:

A. An increase in personnel to handle the wolf problems (trappers, hunters, wildlife specialists, etc.)?

B. The loss of hunting revenue for wildlife management

3. Is there a guarantee of success in eradicating "problem" wolves?

4. Do advocates of reintroduction even care if wolves leave recovery areas? Or, do they have other objectives beyond the reintroduction of wolves such as land lock-up and control?

5. Is there a termination provision in the Wolf Recovery Plan? Example: What happens if the wolves don't stay in designated recovery areas? Would more wolves be released? Is there a quota of wolves that must stay in the recovery area for the program to be considered a success?

6. Will the federal government compensate the states for economic losses due to reduction of hunting because of wolf depredation on big game herds?

7. What are the ramifications of wolves straying from recovery areas? Where will the funding come from to eradicate the "disperser" wolves that will, year after year, come out of the recovery areas into other areas where they are not wanted?

8. What steps will be taken to assure that deer herds will not be exterminated due to wolf depredation as has happened in several areas of the Western Hemisphere?

9. Would the wolf enhance the public safety in or near recovery areas?

10. Would the wolf harm a lost child or injured hiker/snowmobiler in or near a recovery area?

11. Should tax dollars be used to fund wolf recovery or should the special interest groups promoting wolf recovery be required to fund their own agenda without handouts from U.S. Taxpayers?

12. What would a wolf do to a family pet that would get loose by accident? Would wolves come into campgrounds and attack such pets if they were tied outside a camper, trailer on motor home?

13. Should officials and/or advocates of wolf recovery be held personally liable if a pet was attacked or injured by wolves?

14. In the event of wolf attack on a human, who will be liable? What recourse can be followed in the case of injury or death due to a wolf attack? Rabid wolves have attacked man. Who would be held liable, in such cases, and, who would compensate injury or death?

15. Due to difficulty in "confirming" wolf kills, will compensation be given to "probable" kills? For example, a farmer/rancher utilizes certain grazing lands year after year with a 1% death loss in livestock. After the Wolf Reintroduction, this same farmer/rancher with the same number of livestock on the same range has an increase in death loss of livestock to 6%. If wolf kills have been established on the grazing range, will there be compensation paid on the 5% increase in death loss or will the farmer/rancher have to stand the loss without compensation?

16. Does wolf recovery really benefit wolves? Is forcing such recovery creating "hatred" as seen in years past? Why have the 3 "S's" ("Shoot, Shovel and Shut-up") become so common in the West where wolf recovery was forced upon the people of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Personal correspondence with Gertrude Lewis, Kemmerer, WY, 11/20/87.

2. Personal correspondence with Floyd McLean, Thermopolis, WY, 11/17/87.

3. Rohlf, Daniel J; THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: A GUIDE TO ITS PROTECTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS (Sanford: Sanford Environmental Law Society, 1989) pp. 23-24.

4. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978).

5. Rohlf, Daniel J; THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: A GUIDE TO ITS PROTECTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS, p. 25.

6. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. at 187.

7. Testimony before U.S. House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, January 26, 1995.

8. Rohlf, Daniel J; THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: A GUIDE TO ITS PROTECTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS, p. 26.

9. THE WOLVES OF NORTH AMERICA, by Young and Goldman, was written in two parts. Part II dealt with subspecies. This book is still available at many universities or through Inter-Library loan.

10. Nowak, Ronald M; "A Perspective on the Taxonomy of Wolves in North America" WOLVES IN ALASKA AND CANADA, Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series, Number 45, p. 13.

11. Ibid p. 11.

12. Ibid p. 13

13. Phone interview with Dr. Mech, February 28, 1990.

14. Van Zwoll, Wayne, and Weller, Susan; "Wapiti Across the West" BUGLE, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1987, p. 16.

15. Ecologist Dr. Charles E. Kay, Ph.D, stated that Sweden and Finlandmaintain a herd of 400,000 moose and the only predators are a handful f black bears. Lecture given August 23, 1991.

16. Data provided by the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 1996.

17. THE PINEDALE ROUNDUP, 2/7/06, Vol. 2, No. 23, p. 1, Courtesy Wyoming State Archives, Museums, and Historical Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

18. Biological Survey Annual Report, 1907, pp. 486-487.

19. Poster by U.S. Biological Survey, Courtesy of Lyle Crosby, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Damage Control, Casper, Wyoming.

20. Rate of inflation 1920-1988 based on Official Consumer Price index, U.S. Department of Labor & Statistics, Washington, D.C., 7/26/88.

21. Young, Stanley P. and Goldman, Edward A.; THE WOLVES OF NORTHAMERICA (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1944) pp. 276-277.

22. Lopez, Barry Holstein; OF WOLVES AND MEN (New York: CharlesSchribner's Sons, 1978) p. 2.

23. Interview with Walter Hexum, International Falls, MN, 7/19/88.

24. Westbrooke, Melva; MOM AND ME, p. 42.

25. Interview with Walter Hexum, International Falls, MN, 7/20/88.

26. Ibid.

27. Interview with Bill Rightmire, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Damage Control, Billings, MT, 7/18/88.

28. Ibid.

29. Grant, Duncan Paul; FIVE YEARS AS WOLF HUNTER, Courtesy of Bob Grant, Wheatland, Wyoming.

30. SUNDANCE REFORM, 5/18/1893, p. 3, Courtesy Wyoming State Archives, Museums, and Historical Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

31. THE SARATOGA SUN, Vol. 5, No. 23, 2/12/1896, p. 1, Courtesy Wyoming State Archives, Museums, and Historical Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

32. Mech, L. David; "At Home With The Arctic Wolf", NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, Vol. 171, No. 5, May 1987, pp. 589.

33. Turbak, Gary; TWILIGHT HUNTERS: WOLVES, COYOTES AND FOXES (Northland Press, 1987) pp. 8-10.

34. Bailey, Vernon; "Destruction of Wolves & Coyotes" U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, Circular No. 63, April 29, 1908.

35. ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Biological Survey, 1922, p. 336.

36. Interview with Mark Miner, Deer River, MN, 7/19/88.

37. Interview with John Elliot, Regional Wildlife Biologist, Ministry of the Environment, Fort St. John, British, Colombia, 7/18/88.

38. Johnson, Sylvia A and Aamodt, Alice; WOLF PACK: TRACKING WOLVES IN THE WILD (Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 1985) pp. 66-67.

39. Personal experience of Matt Damm, ECHOING FOOTSTEPS, Powder River Historical Society, 1967, p. 429.

40. Bell, W.B.; "Hunting Down Stock Killer" YEARBOOK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1920, pp. 294-295.

41. Bailey, Vernon; "Destruction of Deer by the Northern Timber Wolf" U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, Circular No. 58, May 4, 1907, p. 1.

42. THE SHERIDAN POST, No. 40, 2/9/1893, Courtesy Wyoming State Archives, Museums, and Historical Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

43. Russell, Jim; BOB FUDGE: TEXAS TRAIL DRIVER, MONTANA-WYOMING COWBOY 1862-1933, (Denver: Big Mountain Press, 1962) p. 108.

44. Personal correspondence with Mrs. Charles Weston, Royalton, MN, 2/5/88 and 3/9/88.

45. Clarkson, Ewan; WOLF COUNTRY: A WILDERNESS PILGRIMAGE, (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1975) p. 42.

46. Gasaway, William G; Stephenson, Robert O.; Davis, James L.; Shepherd, Peter E. K. and Burris, Oliver E; "Interrelationships of Wolves, Prey and Man in Interior Alaska" WILDLIFE MONOGRAPHS, No. 84, July 1983, p. 1 and p. 25.

47. Interview with Robert O. Stephenson, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 7/22/88.

48. Gasaway et al. "Interrelationships of Wolves, Prey & Man in Interior Alaska" WILDLIFE MONOGRAPHS, No. 84, July 1983, p. 46.

49. Mech, L. David and P. D. Karns, "Role of the Wolf in a deer decline in Superior National Forest" U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research Paper NC-148, 1977.

50. Wood, Janius B., "Russia of the Hour" NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, Vol. L, No. 5, November 1926, pp. 521-524.

51. "Pair of Wolves Attack Farmers Near Chugwater", WYOMING STATE TRIBUNE, 11/1/20, p.8, Courtesy of Wyoming Archives, Museums, and Historical Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

52. "Chased by Wolves" PLATTE VALLEY LYRE, 3/8/1900, Courtesy Wyoming State Archives, Museums, and Historical Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

53. Dalrymple, Bud, "Those Man-eating Wolves", HUNTER-TRADER-TRAPPER, May 1925, Courtesy Wyoming State Archives, Museums, and Historical Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

54. "A Record of a Timber Wolf Attacking a Man", JOURNAL OF MAMMOLOGY, Vol. 28, No. 3, August 1947, pp. 294-295.

55. Interview with Ron Tozer, Park Naturalist for Algonquin Provincial Park, 7/25/88.

56. Interview with Don Hamilton, Specialist in Wildlife Control, Vancouver Island, British Colombia, 7/26/88.

57. For more information on wolf attacks on humans, write: Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, P.O. Box 2, Beresford, SD 57004, and ask for their report "Wolf Attacks on Humans." A fee is charged for reprint costs and shipping.

58. Interview with Bob Meeks, Wildlife Biologist, Great Plains Habitat Office of Ducks Unlimited, Bismarck, ND, 7/26/88.

59. Interview with Paul Beels, Range Conservation Officer, U.S. Forest Service, Buffalo, WY, 7/27/88.

60. Interview with John Varley, Chief of Research, Yellowstone National Park, 7/20/88.

61. Interview with Norm Bishop, Research Interpreter, Yellowstone National Park, 7/22/88.

62. Interview with John Gunson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ministry of Environment, Edmunton, Alberta.

63. Aderhold, Mike, ALL FOR THE WOLF, p. 21.

Permission granted to quote from or reprint if full credit is given to the source.

About the Author: T. R. Mader is Research Director of Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, an independent research organization. Mader has researched wolf history for more than 15 years and has traveled over 30,000 miles conducting research and interviews on environmental issues.

For more information, contact:

ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA

P.O. Box 2

Beresford, SD 57004