Wolf Management Plan

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as a Federally Endangered Species in 1967 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and was again listed in 1974 under provisions of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. All gray wolves in the lower 48 states were considered Endangered by the U.S. Government. In 1978 wolves in Minnesota were upgraded to threatened status.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) listed the state population as Endangered in 1975, as wolves began to recolonize the state after being extirpated for 15 or more years. A recovery plan for Wisconsin wolves was initiated in 1989, and its goal of 80-plus wolves for the state was first achieved in 1995.

Because Wisconsin's gray wolf population has recovered from an endangered status, guidelines need to be developed for managing wolves as a threatened species and eventually as a nonlisted species. This plan provides guidelines for managing wolves in Wisconsin for the next 10 to 15 years. These guidelines provide a conservation strategy for maintaining a healthy viable population of gray wolves in the state, and contribute toward national recovery, while addressing problems that may occur with wolf depredation on livestock or pets.

The WDNR is directed by state statute 29.605 (formerly s.29.415) to implement programs "directed at conserving, protecting, restoring and propagating selected state endangered and threatened species to the maximum extent practicable". The proposed management plan would provide the guidelines for managing a threatened wolf population, supply criteria for delisting wolves as no longer in jeopardy of extirpation, and provide a conservation plan for managing a delisted wolf population. The goal of this management plan would be to provide long-term conservation of wolf populations in Wisconsin, while being able to adequately address problems that might be caused by wolves.

This management plan is based on state listing of endangered, threatened, or delisted wolves in Wisconsin. Mention in the plan of listing criteria and management actions will only refer to state listing, unless specifically called “federal” listing. Although the management actions in this plan are related to state listing, in some cases, federal downlisting or delisting will also need to occur before the management actions take place. Therefore although state listing criteria may be met, in some situations, it may be necessary for federal actions to take place before certain activities are permitted.

Across the State of Wisconsin are numerous Indian Nations which have management authority on tribal lands. While wolves are federally listed, tribes are required to follow federal guidelines, but once federally delisted, wolves will be managed independently on tribal lands. Portions of northern Wisconsin also consist of lands ceded from the various Chippewa bands who reserved hunting and gathering rights on these lands. Management actions proposed for this region will require cooperation with the tribes, including considerations of public harvest.

II. HISTORY OF WOLVES IN WISCONSIN AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES

Wolves occurred throughout Wisconsin prior to settlement (<1832)(Jackson 1961, Thiel 1993). Estimates of presettlement numbers vary, with the more credible being 3,000-5,000 (Wydeven 1993, Jackson 1961).

Prior to settlement, five species of ungulate were found in Wisconsin: bison, elk, moose, caribou and white-tailed deer (Schorger 1942, Scott 1939). All five species were potential prey for wolves (Mech 1970). Indeed, fur traders in the Wisconsin-Minnesota region between 1770 and 1830 documented wolf predation on bison and deer (Thiel 1993). By 1880, deer were the only wild ungulate species remaining in viable numbers within the state (Scott 1939).

Native Americans occupying Wisconsin at the time of European contact revered wolves as evidenced by their prominent role in culture and spiritual beliefs. Early fur traders were generally indifferent to the presence of wolves because they posed no threat, and were not considered valuable furbearers (Thiel 1993). Negative attitudes towards wolves prevailed among Europeans who settled in the Territory in the late 1830's. After the end of the Civil War, wolves were perceived as a menace to livestock and in response, the state legislature instituted a bounty in 1865 (Thiel 1993).

Wolves were exterminated from southern Wisconsin during the 1880's (Schorger 1953). The last wolf in central Wisconsin was killed in Waushara County in 1914 (Thiel 1993). By 1930, wolves were restricted to less than a dozen counties in northern Wisconsin. By this time, sport hunters also favored a bounty on wolves because wolves were considered unwanted competitors for deer (Flader 1974, Thiel 1993).

The wolf population declined from an estimated 150 in 1930 to less than 50 by 1950 (Thiel 1993). Wolf range was also reduced to less than 10% of the state (Figure 1). The last wolf packs in Wisconsin disappeared by 1956-57, just when the state legislature removed the timber wolf from the bounty. The last Wisconsin wolves were killed in 1958 and 1959 (Thiel 1993).

Between 1960 and 1975 the wolf was considered extirpated in Wisconsin (Thiel 1978). In 1973 wolves were afforded the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act. The Minnesota wolf population began expanding (Thiel and Ream 1995). In winter 1974-75, a wolf pack was discovered in the border area between Wisconsin and Minnesota south of Duluth-Superior (Thiel 1993). By 1980, five wolf packs were found in Wisconsin: four in Douglas County near the Minnesota border, and the other in Lincoln County (Figure 2)(Thiel 1993, Wydeven et al. 1995).

An intensive wolf monitoring program was instituted by the WDNR and the USFWS in 1979. During the 1980's wolf numbers fluctuated between a low of 15 animals (1985) to a high of 31 (1989) (Wydeven et al. 1995). High mortality rates (greater than 35% annually) were caused primarily by humans, with gunshot the leading cause of death (Wydeven et al. 1995).

Attitudinal surveys of deer hunters conducted in the early 1980's indicated that as many as 20% of Wisconsin gun-deer hunters in Douglas and Lincoln Counties harbored negative attitudes towards wolves (Knight 1985). In general, most (69%) of northern hunters believed wolves should not be eliminated from Wisconsin. Generally farmers, as a group, were less supportive of wolf recovery, and 50% of farmers in northern Wisconsin opposed wolf recovery in the 1980s. (Nelson & Franson, 1988) Recently surveys found that in 1997, 78% of hunters felt protection of wolves and other predators was important, and that only 20% opposed increasing the wolf population (See appendix H).

In 1986, the WDNR created a Wolf Recovery Team to develop a state wolf recovery plan. Public input was a critical factor in developing a plan that would lead to the successful recovery of wolves. The Wisconsin Wolf Recovery Plan was approved by WDNR in 1989, and has been the template, guiding managers in decisions that affect wolf recovery in Wisconsin (WDNR 1989, Thiel and Valen 1995). The plan’s goals were to:

The recovery goal of 80 wolves was first achieved in 1995 when 83-86 wolves were counted. By 1998, the population was up to 178-184 wolves (Figure 3), distributed in 47 territories in 13 northern and central Wisconsin Counties (Figure 4). A Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee was formed in 1992 to oversee wolf recovery in Wisconsin, and develop a Wolf Management Plan with criteria for reclassification. The Wolf Advisory Committee conducted a public review of the Wolf Recovery Plan in 1994, and found public support for contiunued wolf recovery. The Wolf Advisory Committee began work on development of a new Wolf Management Plan in 1996.

III. WOLF BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

The gray wolf, Canis lupus, also known as "timber wolf", originally occurred across North America, Europe and Asia (Nowak 1995). Coyotes, Canis latrans, are sometimes called "brush wolves" but are not true wolves.

Wisconsin’s wolves were formerly classified as the subspecies, Canis lupus lycaon (Eastern timber wolf) when the 1989 Timber Wolf Recovery Plan was approved (WDNR 1989). Recently the number of subspecies of the timber wolf has been reduced from 24 to 5 (Nowak 1995). The revised classification places all wolves in the Great Lakes Region west of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan with the subspecies Canis lupus nubilis (Great Plains Wolf). For the purpose of this management plan, we will refer only to the species, Canis lupus.

Physical Characteristics: Gray wolves resemble large dogs but usually have longer legs, larger feet, and a narrower chest (Banfield 1974). Their tail is straight rather than curving upward, and their head appears more massive due to wide tufts of hair that project down and outward from below the ears (Mech 1970). Adult males captured in Wisconsin averaged 77 pounds (57-102 pounds) and adult females averaged 62 pounds (46-75 pounds)(Wydeven et al 1995). They are 4.5 to 6.5 feet long from tail tip to nose tip and stand 28-34 inches at the shoulder. Pelt color seldom varies from a grizzled gray/brown, but at least 2 black individuals have been recently observed in Wisconsin.

Social System: Wolves live in family groups called "packs" that consist of a dominant breeding pair ("alphas"), and generally surviving offspring from the previous year, and the current year's pups (Mech 1970). Occasionally older offspring remain with the pack or an unrelated adult wolf may be a member. Pack size in Wisconsin ranges from 2-10 wolves and averaged 4.3 wolves during the 1996-97 winter (Wydeven and Cervantes 1997). Each family group occupies an exclusive territory of 20-160 square miles, averaging 70 square miles in Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 1995). Territories rarely overlap and are defended against other wolves (Peters and Mech 1975).

Yearling wolves normally disperse from their natal packs, usually during October-January, to seek a mate and their own territory. Adult dispersal has also been noted (Fritts and Mech 1981). Dispersers may travel up to 500 miles in less than 10 months (Fritts 1983). Wisconsin wolves dispersed an average of 71 miles from natal territories and have traveled 300 miles (Figure 5) (Wydeven et al. 1995).

Reproduction: Wolves are sexually mature at 22 months but generally only the alpha male and female breed (Mech 1970). The alpha pair normally inhibit sexual contact between other mature members (Packard et al. 1983). Breeding takes place between late January to early March, and gestation is 60-63 days. Pups (4-8) are born in early to mid April (Fuller 1989). The pups are kept at a den site for 6 to 8 weeks. By mid June the pups are moved to rendezvous sites where they stay while adult search for food. Throughout summer wolves utilize 2-3 rendezvous sites (Fuller 1995). In September and October, when the pups become large enough to travel with the adults, rendezvous sites are vacated and the pack moves as a single unit throughout its territory.

Mortality: Keith (1983) found that wolf populations declined when annual mortality rates of wolves greater than 6 months exceeded 30-40%. Wydeven et al. (1995) reported that average annual mortality rates for Wisconsin wolves greater than one year old decreased from 39% during 1979-85 to 18% during 1986-92.

Wolves are susceptible to diseases, predation, human persecution, starvation, and accidents. Human-caused deaths declined from 72% in 1979-85 to 22% in 1986-92. In recent years (1993-1996) 50% of wolf mortality was caused by humans, and over 25% of mortality was caused by vehicle collisions (WDNR files). Mortality rates for wolves 1 year old or older continues to be less than 20% annually.

Diseases such as canine distemper, canine parvovirus, Lyme disease, and blastomycosis have been observed in Wisconsin wolves. Wydeven et al. (1995) felt that canine parvovirus negatively impacted Wisconsin's wolf population during 1982-86. Parasites observed in Wisconsin wolves include protozoans and intestinal worms, ticks, mites, lice, and heartworm (Mech et al. 1985, Archer et al. 1986, Thiel, unpubl. data). Mange has been observed frequently in Wisconsin wolves since 1992, and has been diagnosed as the primary cause of death for at least nine wolves in the past 5-6 years. In 1992 and 1993, 58% of wolves handled by WDNR had signs of mange, but this has declined to 15% in recent years (WDNR files).

Food Habits: In the 1940's, deer occurred in 97% of 435 wolf scats found in Wisconsin, at a time when deer populations were very high and beaver numbers were low (Thompson 1952). Deer comprised 55% of scats collected between 1980 and 1982 and analyzed by Mandernack (1983). Beaver comprised 16% and snowshoe hare 10% in his analysis. Miscellaneous items accounted for the remainder. Some wolves have also killed domestic animals in Wisconsin in recent years (Appendix A).

Habitat Requirements: Wolves are adaptable and can survive on large landscapes with adequate prey populations and low rates of human persecution (Fuller 1995). Pack territories are typically 70 square miles (average pack territory size) and contain low human densities, limited public accessibility, and minimal livestock production (Thiel 1985, Mech 1986, Fuller 1995). Fuller (1995) suggested that clusters of 2-3 packs (areas of 200 square miles) represents the minimal number of packs necessary to support a viable population. The large land requirements of wolves can conflict with human use of those lands. Examples of direct conflict over land use by humans include livestock production, urban areas, and intensive recreational activities. Conflicts may also arise anywhere people have the opportunity to encounter wolves either accidentally or intentionally.

Keith (1983) and Fuller (1989) found that over 90% of the variation in wolf densities could be accounted for by variation in prey populations. In northeast Minnesota, Mech (1986) and Nelson and Mech (1986) reported a density of 1 wolf per 17 square miles in an area with deer densities of about one deer per square mile, but moose and beaver also occurred in this area. In north-central Minnesota, wolf densities of 1 wolf per 10-13 square miles were found in an area supporting 10-26 deer per square mile (Fuller 1989, Fuller 1990). Average deer density in deer management units comprising Wisconsin's Northern Forest, which includes most of Wisconsin's wolf range, was 22 deer per square mile during the 1996-97 winter and density of wolves in 2,200 square miles of wolf range was 1 wolf per 15 square miles (Wydeven and Cervantes 1997). Prey abundance should not be a limiting factor in Wisconsin.

Mladenoff et al. (1995) estimated that approximately 5,700 square miles of suitable wolf habitat exists in Northern Wisconsin and that it is highly fragmented. They suggested that human-caused mortalities and continued habitat loss due to human development could reverse wolf population trends in a fragmented region such as Wisconsin. An update of this analysis shows 5,812 mi² of primary wolf habitat and 5,015 mi² of secondary habitat and 45,252 mi² of unsuitable habitat on a statewide basis (Figure 6).

IV. MANAGEMENT GOAL AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR DELISTED STATUS

Criteria developed for managing Wisconsin’s wolf population must be flexible to provide adequate protection for a small population, and protect against damages a higher wolf population might incur upon segments of our society.

Although a population of 100 wolves would be considered a minimum viable population if connected to other populations or a large source population (Fritts and Carbyn 1995, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1992), others have suggested that over 500 wolves would be necessary to maintain viability in isolated populations (Soul� 1980). Haight, et al., (1998) showed that as few as 16 wolf territories can survive in disjunct populations if immigration remains adequate and portions of the population are protected in core areas.

The federal recovery plan for wolves in eastern U.S. suggests that 200 wolves are necessary to maintain viability in isolated populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Although Wisconsin biologists are cooperating in wolf management with those in Minnesota and Michigan the state has no control over wolf management in adjacent states, and therefore the recommended delisting criteria of 250 wolves is higher than the federal standard. The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee recommends managing a Wisconsin wolf population at a minimum of 350 wolves. More intense control will occur when the population exceeds 350.

State Listing Criteria Table 2 illustrates criteria for state (and federal) listing. State delisting would occur when the state population reaches 250 wolves. The species would be reclassified as threatened if the population falls below 250 wolves for 3 consecutive years. Wolves would be reclassified as endangered if the population falls below 80 wolves in any year. State reclassification to threatened should be completed within 1999.

Federal Delisting Criteria The Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population achieved a federal goal of 100 wolves in 1994, and has been maintained above that level since. Criteria for federal delisting of wolves in the northern Great Lakes region should be met in 1999. The USFWS will be responsible for pursuing federal delisting in this region.

V. WOLF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Zone management is frequently recommended as part of wolf recovery plans and management plans (Mech 1995) and the establishment of protective core areas helps assure long-term survival of small, disjunct wolf populations (Haight et al., (1998). The Federal Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf provides 5 different zones for managing wolves in Minnesota (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Fritts (1990, 1993) suggested 3 levels of zone management for wolves in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Fritts (1990) indicated that normally only 3 zone levels would be needed for wolf management to avoid unnecessary confusion. On the other hand, the Alaska Board of Game adopted a strategy for wolf management in 1991 that incorporated 7 zones, ranging from Zone 1 (Full Protection) to Zone 7 (High Use/Intensive Management) (Anonymous 1992).

The purpose of zone management is to vary management depending on potential wolf habitat and the possibilities of conflicts between wolves and humans. Fritts (1993) listed 3 assumptions inherent in zone management for wolves:

Generally the fewer the zones, the more simplified the management and greater the understanding by the public and agency personnel (Fritts 1990). A disadvantage to fewer zones is that less fine tuning of management is possible.

The WDNR will utilize 4 zones to manage wolves in the state (Figure 7). Such a system provides maximum protection in most portions of suitable habitat, yet allows a flexible system for controlling wolves in less suitable areas where higher levels of conflict are likely to occur. The characteristics of the 4 zones under this management system are listed below. On tribal lands tribal governments will determine management of wolves once the species is delisted.

Zone 1 Northern Forest: This zone consists of 18,384 square miles within the Northern Forest Deer Management Units and Menominee County. About 634 square miles of Zone 1 would consist of Indian reservations that have unique management systems and in many cases would provide additional protective areas for wolves. Also, a portion of Zone 1 will be designated as Wolf Core Area (3,227 square miles see below), where wolves will be given nearly complete protection. Zone 1 could support an estimated 300-500 wolves. Habitat consists mainly of forest and contains little farm land or urban area. The zone includes 90% of the states’ favorable (primary) wolf habitat. Reimbursement for losses and perhaps payments for abatement practices would be provided. Depredation controls would include livetrapping and translocation if suitable habitat exists, or euthanization of depredating wolves. Agents of the USDA-Wildlife Services; Department of Natural Resources and law enforcement agencies could euthanize nuisance animals within 0.5 miles of depredation sites. Wolf habitat maintenance would be encouraged on suitable portions of public lands by access management, protection of den and rendezvous sites, and forest management to support adequate prey populations. An existing coyote hunting closure during the deer firearm season would remain in effect for Zone 1. This would be an acreage reduction from the existing coyote closure area of 44% of the state to 33% of the state.

Following state delisting control of depredating wolves could be done by landowners acting under WDNR permit. Landowners would also be allowed to dispatch wolves in the act of attacking pets or livestock. If the minimum population goal is exceeded, proactive trapping by government trappers may occur in areas with historical wolf depredations problems.

Core Areas Within the Northern Forest Zone: Six core areas consisting primarily of public land and totaling 3,227 square miles are designated in Zone 1. Wolves would be controlled only to protect human health and safety. Reimbursement for losses, and payments for abatement practices would be provided. Wolf habitat maintenance would be encouraged on suitable portions of public lands by access management, protection of den and rendezvous sites, and forest management to support adequate prey populations. Coyote hunting would be closed during the gun deer season. No major change in management would be required in this zone as the wolf population is delisted. The wolf population would be allowed to fluctuate with the deer population. Deer populations will continue to fluctuate with winter severity and hunter harvest.

Zone 2 - Central Forest Zone: This zone consists of 4,521 square miles in the Central Forest Deer Management Units. The area is capable of sustaining approximately 20-40 wolves. Wolf habitat maintenance would be encouraged on suitable portions of public lands by access management, protection of den and rendezvous sites, and management for younger forests to support prey population. No major change in management would be required in this zone as the wolf is delisted. The wolf population would be allowed to fluctuate with the deer population. Deer populations are primarily impacted by hunter harvest, and winter severity. Reimbursement for losses and perhaps payments for abatement practices would be provided. Depredation controls would include livetrapping and translocation if suitable habitat exists and euthanization of wolves within 0.5 mile of a depredation site. Agents of the USDA-Wildlife Services; Department of Natural Resources and law enforcement agencies could euthanize nuisance animals. No coyote closed area is being proposed for this zone.

Following State Delisting control of depredating wolves could be done by landowners issued permits. Landowners would be allowed to kill wolves in the act of attacking pets or livestock. If the minimum population goal is exceeded proactive trapping by government trappers may occur in areas with ongoing wolf problems.

Zone 3 - Wolf Buffer Area: This zone represents areas having very limited habitat for packs to colonize, but probably contains patches of suitable dispersal habitat that connects the north and central management zones. The zone covers about 18,000 mi² including the mixed forest/farming areas of central Wisconsin and the rugged Coulee country of western Wisconsin (counties are 20% to 60% forested) . Most of the area has less than a 10% chance of being occupied by wolf packs, but some of the rugged bluff country or bottom land areas along the Mississippi River have greater than 25% chance of being occupied by wolf packs. Generally less than 20 wolves are likely to occur in this zone. Because of the importance of maintaining genetic diversity in the Central Forest wolf population, some level of protection should be provided for dispersing wolves in this area. Unless these wolves cause problems, they should not be controlled. Wolves that do become depredators on livestock or pets should be vigorously controlled. Trapping by government agents can be conducted up to 5 miles from depredating sites. Wolf packs that establish may be allowed to persist, but if depredation occurs the whole pack may be removed.

Following state delisting, control of depredating or nuisance wolves could also be done by landowners with WDNR permits. In addition landowners in this area would be allowed to destroy wolves caught in the act of depredation. Proactive trapping by USDA-Wildlife Services could be considered If the wolf population builds up in an area and causes chronic problems.

Zone 4 -- This zone represents areas that have almost no opportunity for colonization by wolf packs. Wolves entering this zone have a high probability of conflicting with people. This zone would include southern and eastern counties that have less than 20% wild lands and would include all the urban areas across the state. The zone would cover about 16,000 mi².

Few wolves are likely to occur in this area. Although non-depredating wolves that avoid areas of human or livestock concentration can receive some level of protection, any wolf or wolf-like animal that lacks fear of people and readily approaches pets, livestock or people should be captured or controlled. Many of the wolf-like animals that would be controlled under such circumstances would probably be free roaming wolf-dog hybrids. Along with federal and state trappers, local law enforcement and animal control officers will be allowed to control nuisance wolf-like animals in this zone.

Following state delisting, landowners could be granted WDNR permits to control wolves or wolf-like animals on their land.

Accurate counts are necessary to determine if wolves are attaining management goals. Radio tracking of collared individuals is the most precise way to monitor wolf populations (Mech 1974). By observing collared wolves with other pack members, complete counts can be made of wolf packs in winter (Mech 1974). One or two radioed animals per pack enables biologists to monitor whole packs. However, the presence of a collared wolf is not always a guarantee that the whole pack will be monitored. Sometimes collared wolves disperse prior to winter, or a pack may occur in dense conifer cover where few observations are possible. Snow tracking can be used to estimate pack size (Thiel and Welch 1982, Wydeven et al. 1996). Counting wolves by snow tracking is less precise than observing wolves from the air, but is useful for assessing wolf numbers, especially if done in conjunction with radio telemetry. Usually the tracks of a wolf pack need to be observed several times over a winter to get an accurate count.

Howling surveys are useful for determining summer home sites for wolves and pup production (Harrington and Mech 1982). These surveys are done mainly from July to October. Although howling surveys rarely allow opportunity for accurate counts of wolves, the technique does allow assessment of relative numbers and helps to separate packs.

Since 1979, the Wisconsin DNR has surveyed the state wolf population using the techniques described above. Wolf live-trapping has been performed during each spring and summer (approximately May 1 to September 15), and 3-17 wolves were caught and radio-collared each year. Wolves were located by airplane 1-2 times per week and remained on the air from 1 week to 4 or more years. Normally about 15-20% of the population was captured each year and 30-40% of the population had active transmitting collars during the year. During the winter about 50-60% of packs had at least one collared wolf. Usually 2 crews, each consisting of 2-3 people, conducted live trapping each year.

It requires 10-12 days to trap each wolf. Radio collars placed on wolves cost about $350 and it normally costs about $300 to locate all the collared wolves using aerial surveys. It costs about $1,000-1,500 to capture each wolf. Live-trapping and radio-tracking is the most precise system for monitoring wolves, but is expensive.

Snow tracking has been used to supplement telemetry data on wolves. Most winters, 2,500 - 3,000 miles of survey were conducted in suitable habitat. These surveys normally proceed at about 4-5 miles per hour thus representing 500-750 hours of track surveys.

During summers howling surveys are conducted in pack territories across the state to determine pup productivity. These surveys take about 100 hours to complete.

Monitoring needs to be continued at current levels for the foreseeable future. Federal funds for monitoring will be eliminated 5 years after federal delisting. The WDNR will survey wolves at current levels of monitoring for the next five years and will incorporate information from other surveys to supplement and enhance wolf population information.

A volunteer carnivore track survey was initiated by the WDNR in fall 1995 (Wydeven et al. 1996). Surveyors were asked to conduct 3 or more surveys of 20 - 30 miles each on snow covered roads in each of the 123 survey blocks (200 square miles each). In 1996, 32 of 46 (67%) surveys were returned for assigned survey blocks, and in 1997, 37 of 51 (75%) blocks were surveyed. Surveyors in 1997 conducted 3,317 miles of survey, averaging 90 miles and 4.7 surveys per block. Volunteer surveyors were very close to WDNR estimates of wolf numbers in 1996, but much less in 1997, probably due to poor tracking conditions. Once the volunteer tracking program has been adequately tested and refined, it may also be used as a monitoring tool, and be turned over to a volunteer organizations such as the Timber Wolf Alliance (TWA) and Timber Wolf Information Network (TWIN).

General recommendations for wolf population monitoring under threatened status and as a delisted population are described below.

Live-trapping of wolves and radio-tracking will continue. As the wolf population increases, the percentage of wolves captured and radio-collared each year will decline. Emphasis would be on collaring packs in new areas, core areas, Central Forest Areas, or in research projects where special funding is available. Other packs would be monitored mostly by snow tracking and summer howling surveys. Greater reliance would be on tracking and howling surveys conducted by volunteers. Other WDNR surveys would also be used more extensively for comparing wolf abundance with track and telemetry surveys.

The Wolf Advisory Committee believes population growth will be slowed by actions listed in this plan, including take by USDA-Wildlife Services related to depredation, control by law enforcement officers, and the take by private landowners of wolves in an act of depredating, or landowner control by permit in chronic problem areas outside Core Areas. These actions will all commence when the wolf population exceeds 250. Such control actions, along with normal mortality, will act as removals from the population that will impact overall population growth. Also if the population exceeds 350 proactive control will be allowed by government trappers, and eventually (within 5 years) public harvest would also be considered.

Threatened Status --- Only wolves causing depredations on pets or livestock would be euthanized while wolves are classified as threatened and such control would only occur outside of Core Areas in Zone 1 and in Zones 2, 3, and 4. All depredation control activity would be conducted by WDNR or USDA-WS. Under special circumstances, authorization to control nuisance wolf-like animals can be given to local law enforcement or animal control officers in urban areas. Landowner control would not be considered while wolves are listed as threatened.

Delisted status – Once delisted, the gray wolf would be classified as a "protected nongame species" (similar to the badger) . Most control activity would continue to be done by WDNR or USDA - WS personnel. Within Zone 4 and urban areas, local law enforcement officers and animal control officers could be authorized by WDNR permit to control wolf-like nuisance animals that are free-roaming in urban areas. Control in these type of situations should be flexible and be based on animal behavior. Most wolf-like animals that would be controlled in these situations would probably be wolf-dog hybrids or captive raised wolves.

Once wolves are delisted landowners can be issued permits to kill nuisance wolves on their land except within core areas in Zone 1. Landowners would be allowed to shoot wolves in the act of attacking pets or livestock on their private land with requirements that a Conservation Warden must be contacted within 24 hours and the landowners would turn the carcass over to the State.

Five years following approval of this plan, if the number of wolves exceeds minimum population goals (350) and reaches a level at which social tolerance demands a limit to the population, the Department of Natural Resources will consider a regulatory change in the status of the wolf to game animal status. This will allow a managed public take. Such a revision will require legislation, public hearings and comments. Such a change is consistent with the management of other recovered populations. It would not mandate an immediate open season. Harvest methods and rules, as well as the number of wolves to be taken would first have to be defined.

By definition population management necessitates the identification of a desirable population of a species. Preliminary analyses show a population of at least 200 Wisconsin wolves is necessary to establish and maintain a sustainable population (see appendix B). Habitat and prey-based modeling estimates a minimum carrying capacity in the state would be about 500 wolves. We do not know the level at which social tolerance may require a limit to wolf numbers. That number must yet be established. Currently the Wolf Advisory Committee recommends managing wolves at a minimum of 350 until more information on social tolerance is obtained. The DNR will review wolf population goals every 5 years at a minimum to determine if changes in goals are necessary. Any change in population goals would need thorough public review.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supports the hunting or trapping of species as a population management tool. Public harvest must depend, however, on impacts of other mortality and status of population goals.

Health monitoring is necessary to assess impact of diseases and parasites on the wolf population. Health monitoring includes collection and analysis of biological samples from live-captured wolves, analysis of wolf scats, and necropsies of dead wolves found in the field. While federally listed as endangered/ threatened, biological samples of live captured wolves and analysis of scats will be conducted by WDNR, and wolf necropsies will be conducted by the National Wildlife Health Lab in Madison. When federal delisting occurs, all health monitoring will be the responsibility of WDNR.

Intensive health monitoring will continue while wolves are listed as a state endangered or threatened species. Live-captured wolves will be tested for diseases, physiological condition and parasites. Ideally about 10% of a population of 100 wolves should be examined, but as the population continues to increase, the percentage of the population live-captured will decline. In recent years 12 to 17 wolves were captured annually. Wolf scats will be collected to monitor canine viruses and parasite levels. Dead wolves will be necropsied to determine cause of death, physical condition and disease status.

Following state delisting, live-trapping will continue, but the percentage of the population captured each year will decline. Periodic scat analyses will be performed to test for diseases and parasite loads in wolves. WDNR will continue to examine dead wolves. Special research studies may occasionally be conducted on wolves and these should include health monitoring. Wolf health monitoring should be part of the capture protocol of all live-capture studies of any wild wolves in Wisconsin, and should be carefully coordinated with WDNR wildlife health specialists.

1. Potential and Favorable Wolf Habitat: Based on computer models, Wisconsin contains large tracts of potential wolf habitat (Mladenoff et al.1995, 1997, Appendix C). The variables used to determine what makes up potential habitat include human population density, prey (deer) density, road density, vegetation cover, spatial landscape pattern, and land ownership. Of these, density of improved roads and complexity of spatial pattern are most important. Wolves have selected areas that are most remote from human influence, and with the least amount of landscape pattern (e.g. least amount of agricultural land, lakes, and other separate land cover patches). Based on these findings, there are currently 5,812 mi² (15,052 km²) of favorable wolf habitat in Wisconsin (Figure 6). Favorable (primary) habitat is defined as areas that have a greater than 50% probability of being occupied by wolf packs. Most of this favorable (primary) wolf habitat is located on public land, especially county forests, followed by national forests, and private industrial forests (Mladenoff et al. 1995 Appendix C). Wolves have naturally expanded into Wisconsin and have better defined what favorable habitat is to them by currently occupying 2,200 mi² (5,700 km²), most of which is also within the areas identified as favorable through computer models (Figure 6).

The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends cooperative habitat management efforts with land agencies and industrial forest and private land owners, especially in the 5,812 mi² of the most favorable habitat (Mladenoff 1995, Appendix C). Habitat management should include efforts at access management, corridor protection, vegetation management, and den site protection. Such habitat management should continue for wolf populations listed as threatened or delisted.

2. Access Management: Wolf populations are affected by human caused mortality (see Appendix F). Motorized access, and the level of human use on such access, has been shown to be a key factor in establishing and maintaining wolf populations (Thiel, 1985; Mech et al. 1988). These studies suggest that wolves exist primarily in areas with less than, or up to, one linear mile of open improved road per square mile (0.6 km/km²). Mladenoff et al. (1995) showed that road densities within pack territories were lower, averaging 0.37 mi/mi² (0.23 km/km²). The expanding wolf population in the Lake States, however, has shown increased tolerance for slightly higher road densities in recent years (WDNR unpubl. data; per comm. Bill Berg, MN DNR).

Access management is important for many economic, social, and biological reasons. Managing the amount, type and level of public motorized access is recommended for Zone 1 and 2. Access management can include avoidance of new road construction, using temporary or winter-only roads, closure of existing roads not needed for management or public access with gates berms or large rocks, and road obliteration. Emphasis in access management should be on maintaining existing low road densities in areas of suitable habitat. Access management may help reduce maintenance costs, provide remote recreational experiences, and may benefit certain wildlife including bear, marten, bobcat, moose, goshawk, and spruce grouse. In deciding upon an access management program, variables such as administrative controls, economic and recreational land use, human population demographics, ownership patterns, attitudes of the local population towards wolves, and historic trends in wolf mortality need to be taken into account.

Low standard roads (the ones that are not shown on county maps, including Forest Service class D roads), and off-road motorized vehicle trails (including all-terrain vehicles and dirt bike areas) and open areas, are two access situations that were not adequately addressed, in the Wisconsin Wolf Recovery Plan. Low road density correlates well with wolf colonization because road density is directly related to levels of human access. Impacts associated with open areas where off-road vehicles are not restricted to trails, and the occurrence of low standard roads are difficult to measure, but probably have similar effects on wildlife species such as wolves. The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends that development of low quality roads or trails for motorized vehicles should receive thorough review when being proposed in areas with suitable wolf habitat.

3. Vegetation Management: Wolves require deer, beaver and other prey to survive. Deer are generally most abundant in early successional forests. Historically, disturbances such as windstorms and fires created this vegetation condition, but in recent times timber harvest and other forest management practices have provided this habitat. Beaver are especially fond of aspen for food. Aspen, jack pine, and regenerating forests of all types are preferred by deer. Oak is important to deer in central Wisconsin, and seasonally throughout the state for its periodic acorn crop. Dense conifer cover such as hemlock, cedar and mixed conifer swamps are important as winter thermal cover for deer. Small grassy upland forest openings are important components of deer summer range. Wolf pack territories have a higher proportion of mixed conifer-hardwood forest and forested wetlands than non-pack areas (Mladenoff et al. 1995). Wolf territory size tends to increase as local deer populations decrease, and territory size decreases when deer numbers increase (Wydeven et al. 1995).

The committee recommends an ecosystem management approach to forest management on public and private land that balances considerations for wolves with other forest species. Young forests provide summer habitat for deer and mature conifer forests provide wintering areas. Young forests provide higher populations of provide prey, and large blocks of forest with a low density of roads provide seclusion for wolves.

4. Habitat Linkages and Corridors: Wisconsin is more fragmented with roads, towns, and open agricultural land than is northern Minnesota and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. To maintain a wolf population in Wisconsin, it is important to provide forested habitat linkages and corridors for wolf dispersal to and from Minnesota and Michigan, as well as within Wisconsin. The committee recommends the maintenance of forested blocks of land that connect wolf habitats across Wisconsin. The WDNR will encourage private landowners, tribal governments and public land agencies to cooperatively manage corridor habitats. Protection of corridor habitat should be a factor in considering acquisition of public land for other conservation purposes.

5. Management of Den and Rendezvous Sites: Wolf pups are born in dens in April and remain there until mid to late June. Dens may be excavated in the ground, or may be hollow logs and stumps, old beaver lodges, or rock caves. Wolf pups are moved to rendezvous sites in mid or late June which are used until late September or early October when wolves begin their nomadic hunting period of fall and winter. Rendezvous sites often consist of grassy areas or sedge meadows near beaver ponds or forest streams, often near dense conifer cover.

The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends the protection of active den sites and rendezvous sites in areas of suitable wolf habitat. Areas within 330 feet (100m) are recommended for total protection from tree harvest and areas within 0.5 miles (0.8km) would be recommended for protection from disturbance such as logging from March 1 to July 31. These recommendations would continue in areas both during threatened listing and eventual delisting. Normally only one or two den sites would be affected within a 50-square mile area.

To facilitate such protection wildlife biologists responsible for designating such sites and foresters will be encouraged to cooperate to best manage logging operations to protect wolves during forestry projects.

6. The Role of Wilderness and other Forest Reserves: Federal wilderness (69 mi², 5 areas), state wilderness (50 mi²) and other non-timber managed forest reserves with limited or no motorized access contribute to wolf habitat in that they provide refuge areas where wolves are not subject to high human disturbances. Although designated wilderness areas are used by wolves, experience in Wisconsin and other areas of the Great Lakes have shown that managed forests with adequate access management also provide suitable wolf habitat. Therefore it is not necessary to designate areas as wilderness for the benefit of wolves.

Wolf depredation management is one of the most sensitive segments of this Wolf Management Plan. WDNR is charged with protecting and maintaining a viable population of wolves in the state, but also must protect the interests of people who suffer losses due to wolf depredation.

Wolves occasionally kill livestock, poultry, and pets. Although wolf depredation is not anticipated to impact a significant portion of the livestock growers, poultry producers, and pet owners, it can bring hardship to individuals. Minnesota currently has more than 2,000 wolves but fewer than 1% of the farms in wolf range experience wolf depredation problems.

WDNR paid $38,340.90 in wolf damage compensation claims for 23 calves, 12 sheep, 140 turkeys, and 16 dogs during 1976-97. (See Appendix A.) Depredation on dogs represented 78% of reimbursement payments provided by WDNR. Only 0.3% of the farms in the current wolf range have experienced wolf depredation problems. Through 1998, five wolves have been translocated as a result of depredations.

Reclassifying wolves from federally and state endangered to threatened status will provide an option to euthanizing depredating wolves. Under threatened status only government agents would euthanize wolves. Once wolves are delisted permits may be issued by WDNR to enable private landowners to take depredating wolves. Public comments in autumn 1996 revealed concerns about killing wolves, particularly through public harvests. Other comments strongly supported public harvest. Most who supported euthanizing depredating wolves felt this should only be done by government professionals. Many urged educational programs and preventive efforts by livestock producers to minimize depredation losses. There was strong support for continued damage compensation programs.

The objective of the wolf depredation program is to minimize depredations and compensate people for their losses.

Translocation and euthanization are listed as depredation management options everywhere except in core areas. Depredation management will focus on prevention and mitigation rather than wolf removal. This could include cleaning up "carcass dumps," frequently checking on livestock, encouraging livestock birthing near farm buildings or in corrals, and avoiding placing young livestock in wooded pastures. It may also be necessary to include neighboring farms in some cases. Poor husbandry practices on one farm could result in depredation problems on nearby farms. Wolf removal without adequate prevention and mitigation will likely result in large annual expenditures of time and money.

Quick, uniform, and accurate verification of wolf depredation is critical. Previous experience has shown that the majority of wolf complaints turn out to be non-wolf problems when properly investigated. Immediate response to complaints by qualified people is necessary to reasonably determine cause of death.

The first two categories, "Confirmed" and "Probable" are the only ones that will warrant further action. If the investigating USDA-WS agent classifies a depredation complaint as "Confirmed Non-wolf Depredation" or "Unconfirmed Depredation", no further action will be taken except that the incident will be recorded and, if the depredation is determined to be caused by wild animals other than wolves, USDA-WS will provide the appropriate assistance.

Five control response options are available to resolve confirmed or probable depredations. (Table 3a and 3b) The depredation management program will use a combination of these options as appropriate depending upon the individual situation. These include:

Under cases of "Confirmed Depredation" or "Probable Depredation", the local WDNR Wildlife Biologist, the WDNR Regional Wildlife Expert, and USDA-WS will jointly determine appropriate management activities using the following criteria:

Some wolves may be euthanized in the future due to conflicts with humans. This option can be used when:

Initiation of translocation and/or euthanization efforts will depend upon the Wolf Management Zone in which the depredation problem occurs and the status ("threatened"; delisted) of the wolf population. Guidelines for each Wolf Zone are as follows:

Public education about wolves was a major factor in the success of wolf recovery in Wisconsin. Education emphasized greater acceptance of wolves and have reduced unfounded fears and myths. Education about wolves will continue to be important in future wolf management, with more focus on ways to live with wolves, needs for wolf control activity, and needs for more of an understanding of the role of wolves in forest ecosystems. Educational information will also be needed to explain the reclassification and delisting process to the general public as wolves pass through threatened and delisted status.

A multifaceted and multi-agency approach will be used to encourage wolf education in Wisconsin. Some of the major education steps are listed below.

Strict legal protection has been a key in the improved status of wolves in Wisconsin and the Great Lakes region. In Wisconsin, important factors in the increase of wolves has been the closing of coyote hunting across the northern half of the state during the firearm deer hunting season, increased fines for killing of endangered species, and vigorous investigation of illegal killing of wolves. Changes and potential regulations necessary for reclassified and delisted wolf populations are listed below:

Achieving the objectives of this plan requires the continued involvement and cooperation among many agencies, private individuals and organizations. The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends that the WDNR continue to mesh its objectives with those in the USFWS Recovery Plan (1992), Minnesota DNR, Michigan DNR, Wisconsin counties, industrial forests owners, Native American Nations, and other concerned agencies and organizations.

In 1992 a Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee was formed similar to other species advisory committees coordinated by the WDNR. The Wolf Advisory Committee is charged with reviewing and making recommendations on policies and management procedures affecting wolves. The current management plan was developed by the Wolf Advisory Committee. Advisory committee membership includes WDNR, USFWS, U.S. Forest Service, GLIFWC, County Forests, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, USDA-WS, and Wisconsin Conservation Congress. The committee will continue to meet regularly once the plan is approved to review and monitor progress. Committee meetings are open to the general public and other agencies.

Since 1989 Great Lakes Wolf Stewards (an informal group of state, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service biologists working with wolves) has met during most years to discuss wolf management issues affecting the Great Lakes region. This group consists of representatives from various agencies and private organizations from Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The "GIS Analysis of Wolf Habitat in the Great Lakes Region" (Mlandenoff et al. 1995) and "Guidelines for Wolf Management in the Great Lakes Region" (Fuller 1995) are two products that resulted from these meetings. The WDNR will continue to promote, support and occasionally sponsor Great Lakes Wolf Stewards meeting.

The chair of the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee and the U.S. Forest Service representative also serve on the Federal recovery team for the eastern population of gray wolves in the U.S. This committee is reviewing the 1992 recovery plan to determine if reclassification and delisting criteria are being met. The Wisconsin members serve on the federal recovery team with members from Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin Chippewa tribes, and the National Park Service. This committee will finalize recommendations for federal delisting in close cooperation with the states.

Once wolves are state delisted, the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee will continue to meet at least once per year to review wolf management in the state. Wisconsin biologists will meet periodically with biologists from Michigan and Minnesota to coordinate wolf management especially maintenance of habitat corridors that connect wolves across the three states.

A Wolf Advisory Committee will continue to oversee state wolf management in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee reports to the Bureau of Endangered Resources Director and Division of Lands, Land Leadership Team of the Department of Natural Resources. Plans prepared by the Wolf Advisory Committee are subject to approval of the Natural Resources Board. The chairperson of the wolf advisory committee will be the coordinator for wolf management activity in the state. Composition of the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee should consist of the following:

The committee can also include other cooperators from private and public agencies as are needed.

The Wolf Advisory Committee should meet at least once per year to assess the state wolf population, assess wolf management zones, review depredation control activities, assess impact of educational activities, assess needs for additional control activity, review problems and determine needs for new policies or management procedures. At 5 year intervals, a thorough review should be made of the state wolf population status, and a public review should be made to assess concerns and support of wolf management.

Many people have volunteered for wolf recovery efforts since the development of the Wisconsin Wolf Recovery Program in the 1980's. Volunteers have assisted in education programs, population monitoring, and financial donations to wolf management. Such efforts have expanded levels of wolf recovery work, provided additional funding, and helped foster citizens that are very committed to wolf recovery. As the wolf population expands, and are reclassified to threatened and eventually delisted, greater reliance will be placed on volunteers to conduct wolf conservation activity.

Timber Wolf Alliance (TWA) was formed in 1987 as a means for involving private citizens into Wisconsin wolf recovery efforts. The Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute out of Northland College, Ashland, Wisconsin sponsors TWA, in a similar fashion as it has sponsored Loon Watch, a successful program for volunteer monitoring of loon populations in the Great Lakes. TWA has developed a speakers bureau of volunteers that give wolf talks and assist at wolf education programs at sports shows and other events. TWA also has an Adopt a Pack program which provides education to groups and donates part of those proceeds from the program to DNR wolf population monitoring efforts.

Students of Northland College and UW-Stevens Point have monitored wolves. Students monitor wolves through snow tracking, howl surveys, and radio-tracking. Programs such as these can continue, and could expand to include universities, technical college and high schools.

Timber Wolf Information Network (TWIN) was formed in 1990 to encourage wolf recovery through wolf education programs. TWIN provides a wolf ecology course through which many people have been taught about wolves. TWIN also has an Adopt a Pack program to teach schools and youth groups about wolves and encourage wolf research. Volunteers trained through TWIN's workshops have assisted on wolf population monitoring efforts in the state.

The WDNR initiated a volunteer tracking program in 1995, to use trained volunteers to search for wolves in winter and assess abundance of other medium and large carnivores in Wisconsin. Forested portions of north and central Wisconsin were delineated into 123 survey blocks averaging 200 square miles each. Volunteers are requested to conduct 3 or more good snowtracking surveys covering about 30 miles of snow covered roads each on their survey block each winter. This program is being evaluated for its effectiveness in counting wolves.

Opportunities for volunteers to work directly with WDNR wolf workers are limited, therefore WDNR will continue to work with other organizations and develop the volunteer tracking program. The WDNR will continue to search for other opportunities for volunteer involvement.

Work with volunteers will also be important in developing methods for preventing depredation and providing factual information to members of the public about wolf behavior. It may be desirable to enlist a volunteer organization to fund wolf depredation claims once delisting occurs and WDNR endangered species funds are no longer available.

The WDNR has been monitoring the status of the wolf population in the state since 1979. Emphasis has been placed on determining population status, pack sizes and distribution, mortality rates and factors, productivity, rates of recolonization, dispersal behavior, and disease/health status. More intensive research was initiated in 1992 in extreme northwestern Wisconsin to determine the impacts of highway expansion on resident and dispersing wolves near U.S. Highway 53. Results of these efforts have provided excellent data for tracking the progress of Wisconsin's recovering wolf population.

Reclassifying of wolves from "Endangered" to "Threatened" status, and hopefully down to "Protected" status in the future will require additional research to safeguard the wolf population and develop/evaluate future wolf management practices. Future wolf research needs include:

Availability of funding and personnel will determine the rate at which these research needs will be met. Other research priorities may arise with changes in wolf populations, human development, and land management practices. Some research would be conducted by WDNR, universities and other cooperators. Attempts will be made to secure outside funding to allow more thorough research than possible under current funding.

A wolf-dog hybrid is the offspring of the mating of a wolf (Canis lupus) with a domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Normally these are bred in captivity because wild wolves rarely breed with dogs. These animals have rapidly grown in popularity in the late 1980's and 1990's and seem to be the pet of choice for a growing segment of the public that wants a pet that is different, intelligent, semi-wild, and independent. The characteristics of wolf/dog hybrids make them highly desirable to some people but also highly unpredictable. Estimates of the number of privately owned hybrids in this country run as high as 400,000 (Hope 1994).

The normal "predatory behaviors" of wild predators like the gray wolf have been lost in most domestic dogs. However, in hybrids these instincts are present to varying degrees yet the animals commonly lack a fear of humans.

Attacks, maulings, dismemberments and deaths caused by wolf/dog hybrids have received national media attention. Four children are known to have been killed by hybrids between 1981 and 1988. The death of a four year old in Florida in August of 1988 seemed to heighten media attention on this subject. In this case a publicly trusted institution--an animal shelter--featured a hybrid as the "pet of the week". Two hours after the animal had been brought to it's adoptive home, it killed the neighbor's child. The shelter paid a $425,000 settlement to the boy's family. This tragedy set a national precedent for animal shelters/agencies: wolf/dog hybrids are to be put down or returned to their original owner, but are not to be adopted out to an uneducated, unsuspecting public.

This precedent makes it very difficult for distressed owners of unmanageable adult wolf/dog hybrids to find a "good home" for the animal they still love but just can't live with anymore. There are numerous wolf and wolf/dog hybrid shelters throughout the country, however, space is llimited and such shelters are often filled. Unfortunately for the animals and the reputation of wild wolves, many overwhelmed hybrid owners resort to "setting their wolf free" when they cannot find a suitable home for them. These freed hybrids however lack the hunting skills and pack structure needed to survive by hunting wild prey. When these animals become hungry they instinctively return to humans for food, invariably get into trouble and often are shot to death by local enforcement officers. There have been eleven cases of free-roaming wolf/dog hybrids in Wisconsin between 1989 and 1996 (see Appendix G).

Free-roaming hybrids, and the problems they cause give wild wolves a bad reputation. Wildlife biologists may spend an extensive amount of time attempting to identify wolf-dog hybrids, document problems, and attempt to rectify such problems, which diverts time and expenses from management of wild wolves.

Wildlife biologists also worry about escaped or released wolf/dog hybrids interbreeding with wild wolves--diluting their gene pool with the instincts and behaviors of domestic dogs (Hope 1994). Dog genes in a wolf population may reduce long term viability and increase rates of livestock depredation.

Attacks on humans by captive wolves and wolf/dog hybrids will continue to contribute to a negative image of wolves to the public. Additionally, released/escaped hybrids have the potential of destroying the genetic purity and hence, the legal status, of wild wolves in Wisconsin.

Possession of pure wolves is presently allowed only by WDNR permit. While this species is listed as Endangered or Threatened the WDNR Bureau of Endangered Resources is responsible for issuing such permits. These permits can only be issued for "zoological, educational, or scientific purposes or for propagation for preservation purposes" (s.29.604 WI Stats.). The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends that the possession of wolves should continue to be highly regulated following delisting. The WDNR should promulgate specific Administrative Rules to ensure this.

Possession of wolf/dog hybrids also needs to be regulated due to their potential impact on wild, free ranging wolves. The WDNR should seek statutory authority to regulate the ownership of these animals in the state. Twenty-five other states presently regulate the possession of these animals; these regulations range from simple registration to a total prohibition of possession.

Free-roaming wolf-dog hybrids trapped at depredation sites will be euthanized unless collars provide the identification of an owner. The owner of such an animal may be responsible for the cost of depredations. Legislative authority will be sought to allow Wisconsin Conservation Wardens to destroy free-roaming wolf-dog hybrids. Local law enforcement officers may kill animals which cause a substantial risk or threat to human life by attack or aggressive behavior.

To date wolf carcasses found in the wild have been necropsied (examined) to determine cause of death and health status. While wolves are listed as endangered, the DNR policy has been to have all wolf carcasses studied by the National Wildlife Health Lab in Madison, Wisconsin. Eventually all become specimens at research institutions, with most wolf specimens deposited at the University of Wisconsin - Zoology Museum in Madison. When wolves are reclassified, and eventually delisted, the management of wolf specimens should be modified. The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee developed guidelines for managing wolf specimens under threatened and delisted classification.

Ecotourism has developed in recent years as a means for obtaining financial benefits from natural ecosystems and wild animals, while also encouraging protection of wildlands (Hunter 1996). Ecotourism at times can be a double-edged sword; it may encourage protection and conservation of biological diversity, but at times could cause disturbance of wild animals and disruption of their habitats. Guidelines and occasional regulations may be necessary to prevent or minimize negative affects of ecotourism.

Wolves can at times contribute to ecotourism. In Ely, Minnesota, tourist visits to the International Wolf Center provide a $3 million annual impact to the local economy (Mech 1996). Ecotourism dealing with wolves is not likely to be as profitable in Wisconsin, but there are means that ecotourism involving wolves could impact local economies. Howling sessions could potentially be conducted by tour guides across portions of northern Wisconsin. Tours of wolf territories to search for wolf sign could be done during winter months. Snowmobiling and ATV tours of wolf territories have been suggested for the Minocqua area. Volunteer or paid naturalist at resorts could include wolf programs and tours of wolf territories. Naturalist programs by WDNR, Forest Service or National Park Service could attract tourist use of surrounding areas by providing wolf programs. Persons attending wolf workshops at Drummond and Tomahawk, make use of restaurants, taverns, gas stations and convenient stores in the local areas.

Ecotourism could also potentially have negative impacts on wolves in Wisconsin. Excessive howling sessions could cause abandonment of preferred rendezvous sites, and perhaps displace wolves to less suitable areas Disturbance of den areas may cause premature abandonment of den sites, and may expose pups to mortality; wolf pup mortality is already fairly high in Wisconsin.

The Timber Wolf Alliance and Timber Wolf Information have developed guidelines for minimizing impact from howl surveys on wolves. These guidelines include: avoid howling during the denning period in April-June, limit howls in specific territories to once per week or less, avoid repeated howlings at individual wolf packs, and refrain from visiting rendezvous sites. Similar guidelines would be recommended to others planning to conduct wolf howls in Wisconsin. Encouragement would be made to groups conducting wolf tours or howl sessions to minimize impact on wolves, avoid certain portions of wolf territories, and refrain from excessive visits to wolf areas. It would also be recommended to any groups conducting such tours that these be conducted by individuals knowledgeable in wolf ecology and behavior. It may be necessary in the future to regulate wolf tours done for profit, in a fashion similar to existing guide permits.

VI. WOLF MANAGEMENT BUDGET

Expenditures for the Wisconsin wolf recovery program by fiscal year are shown in the table 4 below. A total of $ 1,267,686 ($739,697 federal, $276,067 state funds) was spent on wolf recovery efforts since 1979 (Table 4). Recovery program expenditures have avereged $ 107,161 per year during the past six fiscal years (ie 1991-1996); Federal funds accounted for 77%, state funds 23%.

Table 4 WI Timber Wolf Recovery Program Expenditures
Year	State	Federal	Total
1979-90	$5,000	$15,000	$20,000
1980-81	$5,425	$16,275	$21,700
1981-82	$7,734	$35,000	$42,734
1982-83	$13,013	$35,200	$48,213
1983-84	$27,905	$51,440	$79,345
1984-85	$11,804	$28,125	$39,929
1985-86	$23,625	$60,600	$84,225
1986-87	$44,129	$56,129	$100,434
1988-89	$23,888	$18,069	$41,956
1989-90	$20,411	$48,319	$68,730
1990-91	$15,508	$95,198	$110,669
1991-92	$25,769	$67,443	$93,212
1992-93	$38,651	$58,893	$97,544
1993-94	$19,006	$68,893	$87,899
1994-95	$19,404	$91,265	$110,669
1995-96	$30,819	$112,119	$142,937
Project Total:	$346,955	$920,736	$1,267,652
Yearly Average:	State $20,409	Federal $54,161	$74,568

Federal funds have come from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (source: Federal Endangered Species Act, Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act) and from the U.S. Forest Service.

State funds have come from the Wisconsin Endangered Resources Fund (ie the check-off on Wisconsin income tax forms), the Segregated Fish and Wildlife account, donations from The Timber Wolf Alliance and gifts from the public.

The Wisconsin Endangered Resources Fund pays for all damages done by state listed endangered/threatened species in addition to partially funding the wolf recovery program. Between 1984 and 1997, $40,133 has been paid to compensate people for losses due to wolves. Compensation payments are not included in the tables below.

It is anticipated that wolf management costs will remain at approximately $120,000 per year as long as wolves are on the state list and for five years thereafter.

Approximately one-third of the project costs are for the salary of the wolf program coordinator and about $42,000 are costs involving radio-telemetry surveys. Five years after wolves are federally delisted, section 6 Endangered Species and U.S. Forest Service monies will no longer be available for wolf population monitoring. In recent years Section 6 funds have normally ranged from $20,000 to $40,000 and Forest Service monies have ranged from $6,000 to $12,000. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration funds would still be available for wolf conservation work, but less may be available due to competition with other endangered species and wildlife management projects.

Once wolves are initially state delisted some limited radio telemetry surveys would continue, but at reduced levels that should cost about 75% the current rate or about $32,000 per year. Snow tracking surveys cost about $15,000 per year and howl surveys which cost about $5,000 annually would probably continue, but costs may be reduced if volunteer efforts are able to reduce the need for DNR surveys.

General involvement by wolf program personnel would be reduced, and annual costs for the initial five years after state delisting should be about $90,000.

Five years after state delisting, when the wolf population level becomes relatively stable, radio-telemetry will be discontinued. Snow track surveys and howl surveys will be done on a more limited basis, and wolf program personnel involved in wolf management should decline. Annual costs should be reduced to about $40,000 to $60,000 annually. Wolf depredation costs have averaged $2,824 annually since 1984, but 76% was payments for hounds and $680 per year for livestock. Livestock losses have increased in recent years and between 1994-1998 average payments on livestock have been $1,792 per year. Generally about $17,000 are available annually in the Endangered Species Depredation Fund. The majority of this money has been spent recently on payment for depredation of dogs.

Once wolves are state delisted, this fund would no longer be available for damage caused by wolves. Annuall costs of depredation on livestock would be projected to be about $5,000 to $10,000 when wolves are delisted. New funds would need to be identified if the WDNR is to continue reimbursing livestock owners for losses. If hound dogs are included the costs would be about four times higher. The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends that funding be identified to at least cover costs for losses to livestock.

VII. Literature Cited

Archer, F.R., S.F. Taft, and R.P. Thiel. 1986. Parasites of wolves, Canis lupus, in Wisconsin, as determined from fecal examinations. Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 53: 290-291.

Anonymous. 1992. Alaska's Wolves: How to manage for the 90's. Supplement to Alaska's Wildlife. January-February 16 pp.

Bailey, R. (ed). 1978. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 79 pp.

Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. 438 pp.

Flader, S. 1974. Thinking like a mountain: Aldo Leopold and the evolution of an ecological attitude towards deer, wolves, and forests. Missouri Univ. Press, Columbia, 284 pp.

Frair, J.L., E.M. Anderson, B.E. Kohn, D.P. Shelley, T.E. Gehring, and D. Unger. 1996. Impact of Highway 53 dxpansion on gray wolves: Preliminary Results. pp 123-131 in Defenders of Wildlife: Wolves of America Conference Preceding. 14-16 November 1996. Albany NY. 306 pp.

Fritts, S.H. 1983. Record dispersal by a wolf from Minnesota. J. Mammal. 64: 166-167.

Fritts, S.H. 1990. Management of wolves inside and outside Yellowstone National Park and possibilities for wolf management zones in the Greater Yellowstone area. pp.1-5 to 1-58 in Yellowstone National Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service University of Wyoming, University of Idaho, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, and the University of Minnesota Cooperative Park Studies Unit, ed. Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to Congress. Vol. II. Research and analysis. U.

Fritts, S.H. 1993. Controlling wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Area. pp 173-233 in R.S. Cook, editor. Ecological Issue on Reintroducing Wolves into Yellowstone National Park. Sci. Mono. NPS/NRYELL/NRSM-93/22. USDI, Nat. Park Service, Denver, CO. 328 pp.

Fritts, S.H. and Carbyn, 1995. Population viability, nature reserves and the outlook for gray wolf conservation in North America. Restoration Ecology, 3(1):26-38pp.

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: 79 pp.

Fritts, S.H., W.J. Paul, L.D. Mech, and D.P. Scott. 1992. Trends and management of wolf-livestock conflicts in Minnesota. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Resour. Publ. No 181. 27 pp.

Fuller, T.K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in northcentral Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. 105: 41 pp.

Fuller, T.K. 1990. Dynamics of a declining white-tailed deer population in north-central Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. 110: 37 pp.

Fuller, T.K. 1995. Guidelines for gray wolf management in the northern Great Lakes Region. International Wolf Center, Tech. Publ. #271. Ely, Minnesota. 19 pp.

Fuller, T.K., W.E. Berg, G.L. Radde, M.S. Lenarz, and G.B. Joselyn. 1992. A history and current estimate of wolf distribution and numbers in Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20: 42-55.

Haight, R.G., D. J. Mladenoff, and A.P.Wydeven. 1988 Modelling disjunct gray wolf populations in semi-wild landscapes. Conserv. Biology 12:879-888.

Hope, J., 1994. Wolves and Wolf Hybrids as Pets are Big Business – But a Bad Idea, Smithsonian 25(3) :34-35pp.

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of Conservation Biology, Blackwell Scentific Cambridge, MA. 402 pp.

Jackson, H.H. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 504 pp.

Keith, S.B. 1983. Population dynamics of wolves. pp. 66-77 in L.N. Carbyn, ed. Wolves in Canada and Alaska: their status, biology, and management. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. No. 45.

Knight, J.M. 1985. Survey of Deer Hunter Attitudes Toward Wolves in Two Wisconsin Counties. Master Thesis. University of Wisconsin, School of Agricultural Journalism. Madison, WI.

Kohn, B., J. Frair, D. Unger, J.T. Gehring, D. Shelley, E. Anderson and J. Ashbrenner. 1996. Impact of Highway Development on Northwestern Wisconsin Timber Wolves. Preliminary Findings May 1992 through November 1996. For Wisconsin Department of Transportation by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Unpublished report 20 pp.

Mandernack, B.A. 1983. Food habits of Wisconsin timber wolves. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Wisconsin, Eau Claire. 52 pp.

Mech, L.D. 1970. The Wolf: the Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. 384 pp.

Mech, L.D. 1995. The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations. Conserv. Biol. 9: 270-278.

Mech, L.D. 1996. A new era for carnivore conservation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24:397-401.

Mech, L.D., R.P. Thiel, S.H. Fritts, and W.E. Berg. 1985. Presence and effects of dog louse Trichodectes canis (Mallophaga, Trichodectidae) on wolves and coyotes from Minnesota and Wisconsin. Am. Midl. Nat. 114(2):404-405.

Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16: 85-87.

Mladenoff, D.J., T.A. Sickley, R.G. Haight, and A.P. Wydeven. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the Northern Great Lakes region. Conserv. Biology 9:279-294.

Mladenoff, D.J., R.G. Haught, T. A. Sickley and A.P., Wydeven. 1997. Causes and implications of species restoration in altered ecosystems: A spatial landscape project of wolf population recovery. Bioscience. 47(1):21-31

Nelson, M.E., and L.D. Mech. 1986. White-tailed deer numbers and population trend in the central Superior National Forest, 1967-1985. U.W. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-271 8 pp.

Nelson, E. and D.F. Franson. 1988. Timber wolf recovery in Wisconsin: The attitudes of Northern Wisconsin farmers and landowners. Research Management Findings No. 13. WDNR, Madison, WI., 4 pp.

Nowak, R.M. 1995. Another look at wolf taxonomy. pp. 375-397 in L.N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts and D.R. Seip. (eds). Ecology and Conservation of wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35, 642 pp.

Packard, J.M., L.D. Mech, and US Seal. 1983. Social influences on reproduction in wolves. pp. 78-85 in L.N. Carbyn, (ed). Wolves in Canada and Alaska: Their Status, Biology, and Management. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser., No. 45.

Peters, R.P. and L.D. Mech. 1975. Scent-marking in wolves: a field study. Am. Scientist 63: 628-637 pp.

Schorger, A. W. 1942. Extinct and endangered mammals and birds of the upper Great Lakes region. Trans. Wis. Adad. Sci., Arts and Let. 34: 23-44.

Schorger, A. W. 1953. The white-tailed deer in early Wisconsin. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts and Let. 42: 197-247.

Scott, W. 1939. Rare and extinct mammals of Wisconsin. Wis. Conserv. Bull. 4(10): 21-28.

Soul�, M.E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. pp 151-169 in M.E. Soul�, and B.A. Wilcox, eds. Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Thiel, R.P. 1978. The status of the timber wolf in Wisconsin, 1975. Trans. WI. Acad. Sci., Arts and Let. 66: 186-194.

Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am. Midl. Nat. 113: 404-407.

Thiel, R.P. 1993. The Timber Wolf in Wisconsin: the Death and Life of a Magnificent Predator. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 253 pp.

Thiel, R.P. and R.J. Welch. 1981. Evidence of recent breeding activity in Wisconsin wolves. Am. Midl. Nat. 106: 401-402.

Thiel, R.P. and R.R. Ream. 1995. Status of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States in 1992. pp 59-62 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts and D.R. Seip (ed..). Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35, 642 pp.

Thiel, R.P. and T. Valen. 1995. Developing a state timber wolf recovery plan with public input: the Wisconsin experience. pp. 169-175 in L. N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts and D.R. Seip (ed.). Ecology and Conservation Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35, 642 pp.

Thompson, D.Q. 1952. Travel, range, and food habits of timber wolves in Wisconsin. Journal of Mammal. 33: 329-442.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Twin Cities, MN. 73 pp.

Wydeven, A.P. 1993. Wolves in Wisconsin: recolonization underway. Int. Wolf 3(1): 18-19.

Wydeven, A.P. 1997. Gray wolf population 1996-97. Wisconsin Wildlife Surveys. 7(5): 118-122.

Wydeven, A.P., R.N. Schultz, and R.P. Thiel. 1995. Monitoring of a recovering gray wolf population in Wisconsin, 1979-1991. pp. 147-156 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35, 642 pp.

VIII. Glossary

Abatement - Techniques for reducing risk of depredation by creating exclusions, establishing barriers, or using scare methods. Abatement practices that may be used to reduce wolf depredation would include fences, guard dogs, scare devices and other techniques.

Access - Refers to the ability of humans to penetrate an area and is usually measured by roads per square mile.

Critical Habitat - Term used in the Federal Endangered Act whereby certain areas are defined as critical to the survival of a species. Such a classification may restrict land use activity within designated areas. No areas in Wisconsin have been classified as critical habitat for timber wolves by the Federal Government.

Delisting - Refers to the act of removing a species from both endangered and threatened species classification. The act of delisting does not mean a species is no longer protected. Delisting federally indicates that a species no longer has Federal Endangered Species protection, but would fall under state management and protection authority.

Depredation - Refers to predation on domestic animals or animals that a predator would not normally encountered or killed in natural habitat.

Endangered - Federal designation of the term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." [Federal Code 16USC SS 1532 (6)].

State designation of endangered species means "any species whose continued existence as a viable component of this state's wild animals or wild plants is determined by the Department to be in jeopardy on the basis of scientific evidence. [Wisconsin Statute 29.604].

Favorable Habitat – As used in GIS analysis of potential wolf habitat (Mladenoff et al. 1995), refers to areas that have a 50% or greater probability of being settled by wolf packs. Such areas may also be called suitable habitat or primary wolf habitat. Areas of favorable wolf habitat have less than 0.7 mile of road per square mile, less than 10 people per square mile, and consists of over 90% forest or wildlands.

GIS(Geographic Information System) - This is computer mapping that allows for comparison of multiple landscape features and allows the comparison of landscapes with occurrence of animal or plant species.

GLIFWC(Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission) - this agency conducts wildlife and fisheries management activity for the Chippewa tribes in the ceded territories of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.

International Wolf Center - A wolf educational organization located in Ely, Minnesota that promotes wolf education for worldwide wolf conservation activity.

Livestock - Any domesticated animal owned and raised as stock; or pen-raised animals raised on licensed game farm operations.

National Wildlife Health Lab - Facility formerly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and now in the National Geological Survey in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Madison, WI., health lab conducts research on wildlife diseases affecting migratory birds, federally endangered and threatened species, and other wildlife species of national concern.

Necropsy – an examination of an animal body after death to determine cause of death or character and changes produced by disease.

Potential Habitat - Habitat that is likely to be occupied in the future and includes mainly those areas that have a 50% or greater probability to be occupied.

Predation - Refers to the act of killing by predators for food. Predation usually is used to refer to predators killing normal prey species, whereas killing of domestic animals is referred to as depredation.

Proactive Depredation Control - Control activity conducted on predators before verified depredation has occurred, or control activity used before verification has occurred in the current season. Such activity would occur in areas of unsuitable habitat with high probability of depredations or conflict. Control activity would refer to euthanizing or translocation of potential depredators.

Reclassification - Refers to the act of changing listing from endangered to threatened. The delisting of species as neither endangered or threatened, or the relisting of species as endangered or threatened.

Roads - Generally this includes any travelways used by motorized vehicles. In GIS habitat analysis roads refers to travelways that are driveable by 2-wheel drive vehicles on a year-round basis. Low quality roads may also have some impact on wolf habitat, but are often more difficult to accurately measure and assess.

Secondary Habitat - Areas providing food and cover for wolves of a quality that would have a 10% to 50% probability of being settled by wolf packs as defined by Mladenoff, et. al. (1995)

Species - Organisms that are capable of interbreeding and is designated by a binomial term in Latin. The species designation of timber wolf or gray wolf is Canis lupus.

Subspecies -A grouping of organisms that differ from other members of their species by color, size or various morphological features; also referred to as race. Wolves in Wisconsin had been referred to as the Eastern timber wolf Canis lupus lycaon, but have recently been reclassified to the Great Plains wolf Canis lupus nubilus. The specific subspecies classification is not critical for determining wolf conservation needs.

Threatened - Wisconsin's designation of threatened species is "any species of wild animal or wild plant which appears likely within the foreseeable future on the basis of scientific evidence to become endangered" (Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 29.604 2)). Federal designation of threatened species is "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (Federal Code 16USCSS1532(20)).

TWA(Timber Wolf Alliance) - Wolf education organization working out of the Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland College in Ashland Wisconsin.

TWIN(Timber Wolf Information Network) - Wolf education organization that is independently operated by volunteers out of Waupaca, Wisconsin.

USDA-WS(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Service) - The Federal agency responsible for dealing with problems caused by wildlife species, especially in agricultural situations; formerly known as Animal Damage Control (ADC). The WDNR contracts USDA-WS to assist wildlife management controlling depredating wildlife in the state including problems caused by bear, beaver, geese, plus timber wolf and other endangered species.

USFWS(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) - The Federal agency in charge of programs on federally endangered and threatened species, as well as managing migratory birds and species having national significance.

Wilderness - Land under federal and state statues that are set aside to maintain these areas in primitive condition and are closed to any timber harvest or mechanized equipment.

Wildland - Land covered mainly be native vegetation and does not include agricultural, urban, or industrial areas.

WDNR(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) - the state agency responsible for wildlife and fisheries conservation, including responsibility for managing state endangered and threatened species.

Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee - Wisconsin DNR sponsored committee responsible for proposing and evaluating policy and management programs for the state wolf population.

DRAFT
WISCONSIN WOLF MANAGEMENT PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
by the
WISCONSIN WOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE

I. INTRODUCTION

II. HISTORY OF WOLVES IN WISCONSIN AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES

III. WOLF BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

IV. MANAGEMENT GOAL AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR DELISTED STATUS

Table 2: Wisconsin Wolf Listing/Delisting Criteria

V. WOLF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

VI. WOLF MANAGEMENT BUDGET

VII. Literature Cited

VIII. Glossary

DRAFT WISCONSIN WOLF MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by the WISCONSIN WOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE

I. INTRODUCTION

II. HISTORY OF WOLVES IN WISCONSIN AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES

III. WOLF BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

IV. MANAGEMENT GOAL AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR DELISTED STATUS

Table 2: Wisconsin Wolf Listing/Delisting Criteria

V. WOLF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

VI. WOLF MANAGEMENT BUDGET

VII. Literature Cited

VIII. Glossary

DRAFT
WISCONSIN WOLF MANAGEMENT PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
by the
WISCONSIN WOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE