Benefits of The Wolf Recovery Project

Lori Helms

Introduction

Wolves have inhabited the United States for over 750,000 years (Nowak, 2002). They existed in their environment at the top of the food chain as an efficient and majestic predator. It is estimated that 400,000 wolves inhabited this country prior to European settlement (Hampton, 1997). Gradually the wolf became the enemy as is indicated by the fact that near the end of the 1800’s, wolves were nearly hunted to extinction in all of their native habitats (Bangs et al, 1998). Popular folklore such as “The Big Bad Wolf” fairy tale, along with negative connotations like “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” stereotypes how people regarded the wolf during the late 1800’s through the mid 1900’s. The wolf was generally, and incorrectly, perceived as a dangerous, blood-thirsty killing machine that had no value unless it was dead. This attitude was part of the European tradition that, as in so many other ways, differed greatly from the Native American tradition. When the first Inuit Peoples arrived in this country by way of the land bridge eighteen thousand years ago, the wolf had long established its precedence as a mighty creature essential to the balance of nature. It is well known that the Native Americans held the wolf in high esteem. To them, the wolf was a teacher. They adopted many of the qualities of the wolf to promote their own survival. Some ideals of the wolf that are most valued by Native Americans are that wolves are fiercely loyal to their mates and family, yet maintain a high order of individualism (Franklin, 1979). Native Americans and wolves suffered much of the same fate; both were persecuted unjustly based on propaganda instead of fact. What made people believe fallacies about an animal that had never been responsible for the death of a human (Hamann, 1997)? Why did the wolf become the catch-all scape goat that needed to be destroyed? Even if all of the accusations about the wolf faced were true, should it be extirpated, or preserved in the name of biodiversity? Fortunately, the answer of whether or not the wolf should be preserved is not that difficult to answer, once we learn the truth about wolves instead of just believing old wive’s tales.

Wolves are now a protected species in the United States under The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1973). This act was passed in a time when people were just beginning to understand the impact we had created by allowing a sharp decline in wildlife species. It is still regarded as being one of the most thorough wildlife conservation laws enacted in the world (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998) With this federal protection and funding, wolves have been bred in captivity, released into the wild, and monitored. The program designed to restore the wolf populations in the United States is called The Wolf Recovery Project. The project has the goal of restoring the number of wolves and wolf packs back to specific regions so that they no longer need the protection of the ESA (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998). While this is a major milestone in renewing the balance of nature and preservation of this species, the Wolf Recovery Project does have opponents. I will prove the necessity of the Wolf Recovery Project by showing that the benefits greatly outweigh the negative effects of the program.

Biological Basis for The Wolf Recovery Project

Biodiversity and conservation biology are the major scientific purposes for supporting The Wolf Recovery Project (Hamann, 1997). Biodiversity is really a catch-all phrase that greatly effects ecosystem health. There are three major types of biodiversity: habitat diversity, genetic diversity, and species diversity (Harte, 1996). All of these three terms are interrelated; one depends on how successful the other two are. In the case of the Gray Wolf, one could argue the destruction of any of the three forms of biodiversity caused the near extinction of the species. Certainly wolves suffered habitat destruction by the conversion of wilderness to agriculture and residential lands. Genetic biodiversity of the wolf has also been tainted due to cross breeding with domestic dogs and coyotes, and blatant species biodiversity destruction has been enforced by the once popular goal to eradicate every wolf from this country. Through the help of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), we have been successful in bringing wolves back to the wild. For their populations to be sustainable, all three components of biodiversity must be monitored. Under the ESA it is a crime to kill a wolf (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1973). The U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Services is the department in charge of the wolf project and they alone are authorized to kill wolves.

The other two pieces of the biodiversity puzzle are a little more difficult to control. As far as conserving habitat biodiversity, there are protected, federally owned lands where wolves roam. However, 90% of federally owned lands in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 69% of the lands owned by the Forest Service are used by private citizens for agriculture purposes, mainly livestock grazing (Wuerthner, 2001). The laws are set up to maintain these lands essentially as a protected area, but they also allow grazing. Ranchers do not want wolves on their land for fear of predation on their livestock. However if the land they are using for their livestock is government, i.e. publicly owned, there is little room for complaints against the presence of wolves, since they have as much of a right to the land as the ranchers do. Since ranchers and livestock occupy a much larger percentage of federally owned lands than wolves do, their desire for a total removal of wolves is unreasonable. It has been said by many conservationists that virtually every piece of federally owned land that can sustain a cow, has a cow on it (Wuerthner, 2001). Assuming this is true, it is not surprising that the public statement of one representative of the Minnesota Cattlemen’s Association said it is their belief that wolves should be restricted only to the truly wild areas of the state (Hyde, 2002). Translated, this means wolves should only be allowed in the areas where it is impossible to sustain livestock and unsuitable for residential development; wolves should be given the leftover land that humans are unable to exploit. The main theme of this train of thought is that biodiversity and conservation techniques should only be applied to areas that humans can not utilize. This is not a reasonable or beneficial plan. The amount of wilderness in the United States has decreased exponentially in the last one hundred years (France, 2001). Part of the purpose of the large amounts of federally owned land is for preservation. If these lands continue to be used primarily for livestock grazing, biodiversity protection and conservation goals will not be met.

Maintaining genetic biodiversity is the component of the equation over which we have the least control. Laws can be made and enforced to keep wolves from being hunted and large tracts of land can be mandated to be used only as a wilderness refuge, but restricting the breeding in the wild of wolves and other canid species is much more difficult. Fortunately, this is not a huge problem if the other two conservation issues are properly handled. Given the proper habitat free of human influence, with a sufficient amount of food and other wolves to mate with, wolves will naturally maintain the genetic purity of their species (Nowak, 2002). There has been a surge of popularity over the last two decades in wolf-dog hybrids. The hybridization and domestication of these wolves does nothing to strengthen the pure wolf breed. The vast majority of all “wolf attacks” are not from genetically pure wolves, but from ones who have bred with a domesticated dog and released into the wild. This release of wolf hybrids into the wild happens for many reasons. First, they may simply escape from their owners and become feral and lose their fear of people. A second reason is the intentional release of wolf hybrids by owners who find out the hard way their “dog” is much more wolf than domestic pooch. Possibly feeling some sort of guilt for having what is obviously a wild creature in captivity, they free the animal to the wilderness with well-meaning intentions of having the dog join a wolf pack, or if nothing else, roam free in a more natural environment. This is very dangerous and contributes to “bad press” for the wolf. Having been raised with human interaction, along with the combination of having part of their genes come from a domesticated dog, these hybrids have very little fear of people and are notorious for attacking humans (Hope, 1994). There has never been a documented case of a healthy, wild, genetically pure wolf killing a human, which is in stark contrast to the estimated two million wolves that humans have killed in the last one hundred years. (Hamann, 1997) This being said, it is also necessary to note that the domestic dog and Canus lupus have mitochondrial DNA sequences that differ by only 0.2%. The closest wild relative of the wolf is the coyote whose mtDNA differs by 4% (Hope, 1994).

The importance of biodiversity is often pondered by the non-scientific community. First, biodiversity refers to all of the different varieties of life on Earth. More specifically, it refers to the varieties of species that compose a community and includes both species richness and species evenness as evaluation methods (Campbell, et al, 2000). Species richness is determined by the total number of different species in a community, while species evenness, or relative abundance, is a measure of the amount of evenness the species of the community make up. For example, if two different forests (forest A and forest B) both have five species of trees, they will have an equal amount of species richness. However, if forest A is dominated by one species of tree and the other four species make up a small fraction of the total count of trees, forest A will have a low species evenness (Molles, 2002). If forest B has an equally distributed number of all five tree species, it will have high species evenness. In this case, forest B will have the greater degree of species biodiversity due to the higher amount of species evenness (Molles, 2002).

Biodiversity should be important to humans for several reasons. First, the rate of extinction of life forms on earth is believed to be at its highest level in 100,000 years (Campbell, 2000). While it is true that the majority of extinction is because of man’s influence on the environment, it should be a warning to humans. We are a living portion of the environment as well, so we can not exclude the possibility that we too may join the list of endangered species one day. Secondly, because we are so dependant on our ecosystems, destruction of biodiversity may set off a chain of events that could cause disaster to humans (Campbell, 2000). We are directly and indirectly dependant on our environment; any alterations done to it will inevitably hold repercussions for us.

Wolves as Predators

In the case of the wolf, populations of animals that they feed on have experienced a huge surge of growth since the removal of natural predators. This overpopulation of animals like deer and elk have resulted in a number of negative impacts on humans. According to Farm Bureau Insurance Company, there are 1.5 million vehicle collisions with deer annually resulting in $1 billion in damages, over 200 human deaths, and over 29,000 human injuries (Farm Bureau, 2002). Additionally, overpopulated deer provide a potentially devastating health threat to people in the form of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). CWD is a form of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE); other notable TSE’s include Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or Mad Cow Disease, Scrapie, the disease that affects sheep, and Creutzfeldt-Jakobs Disease in humans (Jackson, et al, 2000). At this time it is believed that CWD is specific to ungulates and only affects Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and black-tailed deer (USDA, 2002). However, TSE is not yet completely understood. The most widely accepted theory is that TSE originates from a prion. Prions are infectious agents consisting of a self-replicating protein with no detectable nucleic acids (Tortora, et al, 2001). Prions are believed to be more “primitive” than viruses, which have a nucleic acid surrounded by a protein coat (Tortora, et al, 2001). The prion infects the central nervous system and converts normal protein structures to abnormal forms. This causes a degeneration of nervous system cells and always results in death (Cheeke, 1999). The animal literally wastes away from chronic weight loss and experiences behavioral changes (USDA, 2002).

It is believed that BSE originated by cows feeding on meat and bone meal made from sheep infected with Scrapie (Cheeke, 1999). The prion for TSE is present in the brain of infected animals; when bone and meat meal are produced, brain matter is incorporated. There is now a ban on feeding meat meal of ruminants to other ruminants, but it is allowed to be fed to monogastrics like chickens and pigs (Cheeke, 1999). It is believed that CWD spreads throughout the herd of elk or deer by animal to animal transmission, perhaps even maternally (USDA, 2002). If BSE originated as theorized through cows being exposed to another ruminant species carrying the prion, it is not unreasonable to expect CWD to evolve to infect cattle and sheep as well. In large range grazing operations in the western United States, livestock frequently intermingle with deer and elk. When Great Britain had outbreaks of BSE, the beef industry in that country was devastated (Cheeke, 1999). The United States has been fortunate enough to never have dealt with a BSE outbreak before, but this intermingling with animals infected with CWD could possibly change that. The monetary losses suffered by the beef industry would be devastating; not only must entire herds be destroyed by incineration, but they would be left with the stigma that Great Britain beef now has. Fear of contracting the disease would discourage millions of people from buying beef.

In natural selection, only the strongest survive. Wolves and other natural predators could reduce the spread of CWD by eliminating weak animals from the herd. When humans are the only predator of a species, reverse natural selection occurs. Humans shoot animals for trophies and food; we want to kill the biggest, strongest deer we can find. By removing the “best” genes from the gene pool by hunting, we are weakening the species and encouraging the spread of diseases. Monetary losses from wolf predation of livestock is very low; not only do wolves compromise a tiny fraction of livestock deaths every year, but when they do occur, the ranchers are almost always compensated for their loss by the Government and private conservation organizations. With all of this in mind, it is not a stretch to claim that wolves could be a great friend to the rancher.

It was reported that in the Rocky Mountain region between 1997-1999, sheep deaths due to wolves made up .01 percent (1 in 10,000) of total sheep losses, and cattle deaths attributed to wolves accounted for .03 percent (3 in 10,000) of all cattle losses (Meier, 2001). Every state that has wolves has compensation to ranchers who loose livestock due to depredations by wolves (Meier, 2001). Several states, like Michigan and Wisconsin, pay 100% of the value of the lost animal to the farmer (Meier, 2001). Different state and private agencies are responsible for the compensation of ranchers. In the Northern Rocky Mountain Region and other areas where the Mexican Wolf has been reintroduced, the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife pays 100% market value for livestock deaths from wolf predation (Meier, 2001). Ranchers argue that proving a loss was the result of a wolf is difficult and that the burden of proof should be on the government, not the rancher (Hyde, 2002). This is not a feasible solution. This essentially would allow ranchers to collect compensation for any animals that are missing. There are many more likely reasons to account for a missing animal besides depredations by wolves; this also would allow an unscrupulous rancher who has philosophical beliefs against wolves to scam the government. When it is proven that a wolf is making a habit of preying on livestock, that wolf is removed from the area (Meier, 2001). All states that have wolves except for Wisconsin and Michigan usually remove the problematic wolf from the area by lethal means (Meier, 2001). In Michigan and Wisconsin, a wolf that is identified as a livestock killer will be relocated to a very remote location, often in Canada (Meier, 2001).

The following table shows depredations statistics for Gray Wolves in 2000:

Gray Wolf Depredation Statistics, year 2000
	MN, WI, MI	MT, ID, WY	AZ, NM
Wolf Population, winter 2000-01	3100	432	30
Verified Cattle Losses in 2000	103	32	1
Verified Sheep Losses in 2000	20	80	1
Compensation paid in 2000	$102,375	$47,045	$3,400
Yearly cost of control program	$350,570	$238,634	$100,000
Wolves killed in control actions	148	20	0
Wolves translocated	2	16	2
Wolves captured, released on site	5	7	0
Wolves removed from the wild	0	0	8

(Table from Meier, 2001)

Ranchers often feel helpless when wolves are in their area. They feel like their livestock are sitting ducks and that the question is not if depredations will occur, but when (Hyde, 2002). This fear is much like the fear of flying. Sure, some airplanes crash and people die, but many more people die annually from car crashes. Sometimes livestock are killed by wolves, but the chances of them dying from disease and weather exposure are much greater (Hamann, 1997). In fact, in 1995 the USDA reported that 4.2 million head of cattle died due to weather, disease, theft, or poison (USDA, 1996). The same report listed 117,400 as dying from the result of predator attacks; the vast majority of which were coyotes (USDA, 1996). Wolves do not naturally recognize livestock as a food source, but when one begins to prey on livestock it is quickly removed from the situation to prevent the action from being “taught” to the others in the pack (Harper, 2001). However, just as there are certain safeties procedures that airlines follow to prevent disasters, ranchers can also take preventive measures to provide additional protection from depredations. Several popular, and effective, methods include improved husbandry methods, specialized electric fences, strobe lights, and guard dogs (Harper, 2001). Among these, guard dogs seem to offer the greatest degree of protection. These special working dogs are born and bred to have one goal in life; to protect the herd (McNally, 2002). One of the popular breeds used for herd protection are Great Pyrenees (McNally, 2002). It is not uncommon in Europe where herders have grazed sheep in the hills among wolves for years to employ as many as eight guard dogs per herd (McNally, 2002). Other animals that have been effective in deterring depredations by wolves are llamas and donkeys (Paul, 2001). These animals seem to have an inborn hate for canids in general, and will often kill any that they are able to chase down and stomp.

Recovery Plans

The US Fish and Wildlife Service have devised three distinct recovery plans for wolves according to region. The regions are known as Distinct Population Segments (DPS) and include the Western DPS, Eastern DPS, and Southwestern DPS. It is important to note that these plans are conservative; remember that in this country the historical range of the wolf included all of what we now call “the lower 48”.

The Great Lakes Plan (Eastern DPS):

This plan includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Northern Minnesota was the only place in the “lower 48” to still have a small community of wolves prior to their inclusion in the Endangered Species Act. It is no surprise that this state is currently the leader in actual wolf numbers. The wolf that is native to this area is commonly referred to as the eastern timber wolf. There are currently 3,063 wolves in this DPS; however, this figure is misleading. There are 21 states in this DPS but only three of them have known wolf populations. The recovery plan for this DPS called for a stable or growing wolf population in Minnesota, and one additional population outside of Minnesota but in the DPS that has at least 100 wolves in late winter (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998). Because Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have 2445, 323, and 295 wolves, respectively, the qualifications for reclassification are met.

The Northern Rockies Plan (Western DPS):

The Western DPS includes the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. This area also includes the greater Yellowstone area. The plan calls for establishing thirty breeding pairs for three years (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998). Wolf introduction in this area experienced extreme opposition from The American Farm Bureau Association and the Wyoming Farm Bureau. Both groups filed a federal suit to try and prevent wolf reintroduction due to the possibility of predation on livestock and decreased land values (Hyde, 2002). In spite of this resistance by some, the wolves released in Yellowstone have surpassed all expectations. A naturally occurring population of wolves established themselves in northern Montana by crossing over from Canada. If not for the protection of the ESA, certainly these wolves would have never been allowed to thrive. Central Idaho has also been successful at maintaining healthy wolf populations. As of 2002, the central part of Idaho supported 285 wolves. At the end of 2002, there were forty-four breeding pairs (and 664 total wolves) in the Western DPS. 2002 also marked the third consecutive year that more than thirty breeding pairs existed, so the Western DPS is now eligible for reclassification as well.

The Southwest Plan (Southwestern DPS):

Arizona, New Mexico and Texas make up the Southwestern DPS. This area is the least progressive DPS. There have been a total of 78 wolves relocated to these areas, but due to disease, removal due to depredation, and accidental deaths, there are currently only 21 mature wolves and an unknown number of pups (Us Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). The recovery goal for this area is to establish a wild, self-sustainable population of 100 in this DPS. This goal has not been met yet.

The Next Step

As of March 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service reclassified the Gray Wolf from endangered to threatened in the Eastern and Western DPS. The Gray Wolf remains on the endangered list for now in the Southwestern DPS, due to slow progress in meeting recovery goals. The next step is the complete delisting of the wolf and the declaration that the Gray Wolf is “recovered”. While the goal of the ESA is to eventually remove all species from its protection (because of successful re-establishment practices), there are some who feel delisting, and even reclassification, is not aiding to species survival. Defenders of Wildlife, a large nonprofit conservation group, have established the following guidelines that they submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration (Ferris, 2002):

1. Designate and plan for the restoration of sufficient distinct population segments (DPSs) of the gray wolf to assure the adequate environmental, ecological and geographical representation of the species throughout its former range. (This addresses the concern that although the original recovery goals are met, the actual historic range of Gray and Red Wolves is far from being restored.)
2. Actively restore wolves to at least two core areas for each DPS. (This makes all plans more uniform and allows for a more equal distribution of wolf populations.)
3. Support expansion of all DPSs (existing and new) into areas with sufficient habitat quality and natural prey to support the multiple, resilient populations necessary for the viability of the species. (This insures that wolves are only encouraged to populate areas that will create as little interaction with people and livestock as possible, while still expanding the species.)
4. Transfer management responsibility for wolves to state agencies when factors threatening wolves have been removed and when the states have developed management plans that demonstrate their commitment to continued wolf restoration and long-term recovery. (This is to promote state involvement in the survival of wolf populations.)
5. Encourage wolf restoration on non-federal lands by working with Congress and the conservation community to develop incentives for private landowners. (If incentives are offered to land owners, it makes them more comfortable and gives them a feeling that they are in control of their own land, while also promoting conservation and biodiversity. This provision is especially important for the success of the Red Wolf, because much of its best suited habitat is under private ownership.)
6. Request that the Department of State negotiate a treaty with Canada and Mexico to provide international protection for wolves and other large predators in North America. (This is to protect against possible harassment of the wolf and other large predators that have a naturally large territory that extends beyond the boundaries of the United States.)

The US Fish and Wildlife Service have found that tolerance and acceptance of the wolf is directly related to education. In order for the above recommendations to work, a widespread educational campaign must be implicated to gain support from the communities influenced by the presence of wolves.

Conclusion

The major arguments against the Wolf Recovery Project are the threats to human safety and damage to the livestock ranchers who graze in wolf populated areas. History is the best proof that the threat to human safety from wolves is merely a fable. Genetically pure, wild, healthy wolves (like those used in the program) have never been responsible for a human death. Wolf attacks on humans have not produced any fatalities and have occurred from wolves that had become acclimated to people due to campers feeding them (UDWR, 2001). Because wolves account for such a tiny fraction of annual livestock deaths, and because there is compensation paid to those who do suffer losses, the traditional rancher’s argument has little validity as well.

We have the ability through legislation and funds to renew an integral part of the natural ecosystem that was once essential rather than controversial. We can not truly restore a wild habitat without restoring the predators that keep it healthy and balanced. Besides the scientific advantages The Wolf Recovery Project, there have been other unexpected benefits. The eco-tourism market has experienced a boom in business in the areas wolves have been reintroduced (Sinay, 2003). These industries serve as a means of education for thousands of people each year. Not only do eco-tourism companies provide an insight on the inner workings of an ecosystem, they also educate people on the value of wildlife for purposes other than hunting. Coincidently, wildlife viewing businesses earned $100 million more than hunting businesses in Montana in 2002 and the revenue generated by hunting industries exceeded $1 billion (Sinay, 2003). This is not to suggest a dollar value should be assigned to evaluate the importance of a species in its environment, but it is interesting to note that the wolf is responsible for substantial monetary gains in many areas. Recently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service have de-listed the wolf from the endangered to threatened in the Eastern and Western DPS; it remains on the endangered list in the Southwestern DPS. While this is a major accomplishment for the project, we must be careful not to repeat the same actions that caused the extirpation of the wolf in the first place. Support of the wolf should continue as we thrive to work towards restoring a part of the rich, natural biodiversity that once flourished in this country.

Literature Cited

Bangs, E. E., S. H. Fritts, J. A. Fontaine, D. W. Smith, K. M. Murphy, C. M. Mack, and C. C. Niemeyer. (1998) Status of gray wolf restoration in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:785-798.

Campbell, N. et al. (2000) Biology: Concepts and Connections. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, CA; p. 764-765.

Cheeke, P. (1999) Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture. Interstate Publishers, Danville, IL; p. 221-223.

Farm Bureau Insurance Company. (2002) Avoiding Deer Related Collisions. Website: www.farmbureauinsurance.com

Ferris, R. (2002) Places for Wolves: A Blueprint for Restoration and Long Term Recovery in the Lower 48. Press release: http://www.defenders.org/pubs/pfw01.html

France, T. (2001) Public Lands: Wolf Debate Focuses on the Use of Public Lands for Livestock Grazing. International Wolf; vol. 11, no.3.

Franklin, Paula A Indians of North America, David McKay Co. Inc., New York, 1979.

Hamann, J. (1997) Wolves Return to Yellowstone Sparks Controversy. Website: http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9711/12/yellowstone.wolves/

Hampton, B. 1997. The Great American Wolf. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.

Harper, L. (2001) Non-lethal Wolf Depredation Control Methods: How Well Do They Work? International Wolf; vol. 11, no.3.

Harte, J. (1996) Why’s Biodiversity Important Anyway? Defender’s Magazine, Spring edition. Website: http://www.defenders.org/bio-bi03.html

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

Hyde, M. (2002) Fact Sheet: Endangered Species Act Reauthorization. National Cattlemen’s Association. Website: http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content.cfm?locationId=710&contentTypeId=1&contentId=280

Jackson, Greer, Baker. (2000) Animal Health. Interstate Publishers, Danville, IL. P. 243-244.

McNally, J. (2002) Living in Wolf Country. International Wolf; vol. 12, no. 3.

Meier, T. (2001) Wolf Depredation Remains a Controversial Issue. International Wolf; vol. 11, no.3.

Molles, M. (2002) Ecology: Concepts and Definitions. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York. P.397-401.

Nowak, R. (2002) The Original Status of Wolves in Eastern North America. Southeastern Naturalist, vol. 1, no.2; p. 95-98.

Paul, B. (2001) Wolf Depredation Control in Minnesota. International Wolf; vol. 11, no.3.

Sinay, Ken. (2003) Wolf Reintroduction Has Positive Economic Impacts, Too. Bozeman Daily Chronicle, January 28.

Tortora, G, et al. (2001) Microbiology: An Introduction. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, CA; p. 20.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (UDWR) (2001) Gray Wolves in Utah. Website: www.udwr.org

USDA. (2002) What is Chronic Wasting Disease? Website: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1973) Threatened Wildlife of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. ; p. 289.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998) ESA Basics: Over 25 Years of Protecting Endangered Species. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2002) New Information Reveals Three Year Countdown to Wolf Recovery Started in 2000. US. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C

Wuerthner, G. (2001) Restoring Wildness to the West. International Wolf; vol. 11, no.3.