Last modified: Friday, August 11, 2006

Gray wolves in Utah

Related information:
— DWR position on wolves in Utah
— Wyoming Residents' Attitudes Toward & Opinions on Wolf Management — (PDF format, 460 KB)

Historical distribution and abundance

The historical presence of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Utah is documented by the writings of early settlers. Some early references to "wolves" or "great white wolves" may have actually been referring to coyotes (Canis latrans). However, in 1888, the Territorial Legislature of Utah established bounty payments on "obnoxious animals" which included a one-dollar payment for wolves, and a fifty-cent payment for coyotes. Durrant wrote in Mammals of Utah (1952) that wolves formerly occurred throughout the state, except in the Great Salt Lake Desert. He documented specimens from Box Elder, Weber, Duchesne, and San Juan counties, but did not believe that wild wolves still existed in Utah in 1952.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Predator and Rodent Control, reported taking 162 wolves in Utah from 1917 to 1930, with a high of 48 in 1918, and only two taken after 1926. The last verified wolf taken in Utah was in 1930 in San Juan County.

General ecology

Second only to humans in its adaptation to climate extremes, the gray wolf has been known to live in desert, forest, and frozen arctic ecosystems. Until recently, the wolf was considered a wilderness species that could not survive in human-altered landscapes. However, wolves have expanded their distribution in the Great Lakes states into much semi-wilderness, demonstrating that they are more adaptable and can tolerate a higher level of human disturbance than originally thought. Wolves can survive anywhere there is sufficient food and human tolerance to allow their existence.

Gray wolf behavior is influenced by their reproductive cycle and the need to hunt in packs. A wolf pack is usually composed of related individuals, with a dominant, or alpha, pair, and their siblings and offspring. The size of a pack and the range it occupies is related to food availability or size of prey. Across North America pack size varies from 3 to 20+ animals, but averages 5 to 7 wolves. In the Rocky Mountains the range of a wolf pack averages 250-350 mi2. Wolves feed on elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), moose (Alces alces), beaver (Castor canadensis), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), and to a lesser degree on other small mammals. Although they may eat other foods, it is the larger hoofed animals that constitute the principal food supply within a pack's territory. While they may not eat for over a week, individual wolves are capable of consuming 20 pounds of meat in a single meal. In the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), wolves prey primarily on elk (>90% of all wolf kills). Kill rates (9 to 12 ungulates/wolf/year) are slightly higher than were predicted when wolf reintroductions began in that area in 1995 (Bangs et al. 1998, Smith et al. 1999).

As part of their renown, wolves are associated with numerous myths and half-truths. In general, these involve the potential dangers they pose to humans, and their impact on domestic livestock and native ungulates. It is often stated that there is no documented case of a healthy wolf killing a human in North America. This does not mean that wolves are not known to attack humans. In recent years attacks have occurred in Alaska, Algonquin Provincial Park (Ontario) and British Columbia. However, the animals responsible for these attacks were probably habituated to humans (perhaps reinforced by tourists feeding inquisitive animals around campgrounds). Habituation may have also been a factor in the injuries or deaths of more than 70 children (almost all under the age of ten) attributable to wolves in India. No matter how rare such events may be, wolves are capable of injuring humans, and the ground rules of safety applicable to tourists in bear and cougar country are also applicable to people in wolf country.

Certainly, the predatory feats of wolves on livestock have become the subject of legend as evidenced by the historical accounts of famous damaging animals or "outlaw wolves" (cf. Lopez 1978). However, the results of recent evaluations of this literature suggest that many of these accounts are inflated. Gipson and Ballard (1998) examined historical accounts of 59 famous North American wolves reported during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Fifty of these animals were purportedly responsible for great losses to livestock, but for over half of these reports, evidence suggested that two or more wolves (i.e., packs) were responsible for the losses. In addition several of the livestock-killing animals had traits suggesting that they were wolf-dog hybrids. Wolf kill rates on free-ranging livestock appeared to be inflated, compared to recently published kill rates on native ungulates and livestock (Gipson et al. 1998). Surplus killing of sheep and goats may have accounted for some high kill rates, but surplus killing of free-ranging longhorn cattle probably did not occur. These investigators advised using caution in the interpretation of historical accounts of famous wolves, especially when considering impacts of wolf reintroductions or when modeling predation rates.

An important biological and political issue in wolf management involves the extent that wolves affect deer and elk hunting. The potential effect of wolf predation on deer populations is variable and subject to numerous factors, including habitat quality and weather conditions, especially periods of deep snows that make the prey more vulnerable. Certainly, in situations where wolf densities are high and deer represent their primary prey species, wolves can reduce deer numbers substantially. In Glacier National Park, Montana, predation (by wolves, cougars, and bears) appeared to be the primary factor limiting growth of white-tailed deer and elk populations. However, the predation rate by cougars exceeded the wolf predation rate by a factor of 1.5 – 2.0 (Kunkel and Pletscher 1999). In northeastern Minnesota, Mech and Nelson (2000) reported a strong negative relationship between annual wolf numbers and buck harvests in areas of poor habitat. However, in better habitat they found no evidence of wolves influencing the deer harvest. In other areas of the state, deer harvest increased even as wolves were recolonizing new areas (Route 1998). These findings indicate that habitat quality is a primary variable influencing ungulate numbers and distribution. The nature of interactions between wolves and other large predators, e.g., cougars (Puma concolor) bears (Ursus americanus and U. arctos) and coyotes is largely unknown, principally because there are so few places in North America where these predators coexist. Is their impact on prey populations additive or compensatory? Studies currently in progress in Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks promise to shed light on these and other questions. There is, however, increasing evidence of interspecific competition between wolves and coyotes (Crabtree and Sheldon 1999). If wolves do in fact kill or displace coyotes, the result could be decreased coyote predation on deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and antelope (Antilocapra americana) fawns.

By virtue of their relatively high reproductive potential, wolf populations may respond quickly to protection. In some countries of Eastern Europe such as Poland wolves have undergone as many as three "bust-and-boom" cycles corresponding to alternating periods of near extinction and over-protection. Recent increases in the number of wolves in the Lake States may fit this pattern. Wolf populations in this area have far exceeded criteria for recovery and removal from the federal list of endangered species. In Minnesota, where the current population probably exceeds 2,500 animals, wolves have filled the wilderness and semi-wilderness areas of the state and are currently moving into agricultural lands, becoming major nuisance animals in some locations (Williams 2000). The delay in federal reclassification of wolves in this region is the result of public disagreement over how, when and where to control wolves. This situation is creating a backlash of decreased public tolerance that does not serve wolf conservation and management efforts well.

Current status

The gray wolf is listed on the Utah State Sensitive Species list as extirpated, as, until 2002, the last verified wolf taken in the State was reported in 1930. Recent events suggest wolves are beginning to disperse into Utah from expanding populations in the Northern Rocky Mountains, and may attempt to colonize portions of the State. In 2002, a radio-collared wolf was captured in northern Utah, and several sightings of wolf-like animals were reported nearby. Utah is not part of the USFWS recovery efforts for gray wolves, but they are fully protected by federal law. Wolves are also a protected species under state law (see Utah Code Sections 23-13-1, 23-13-2, 23-13-4, 23-13-14, 23-20-3, 23-20-4).

The wolf was federally listed in 1974 as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). During the succeeding quarter century, recovery efforts have resulted in substantial increases in wolf numbers in some segments of the species former range, most notably in the Great Lakes region, where over 3,000 wolves exist in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In the Northern Rocky Mountains, dispersal from Canada resulted in the natural establishment of packs in northwestern Montana. In 1995 and 1996, wolves from Canada were released into Yellowstone National Park (31 wolves) and central Idaho (35 wolves). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated these populations and others derived from them as "experimental non-essential". Some wolves have left the confines of Yellowstone National Park, and have established 8 packs, some as far south as Pinedale, Wyoming. The USFWS estimated that by January 2002, 563 wolves existed in the Northern Rocky Mountains recovery zone that encompasses parts of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Over 80% of these wolves are under the "experimental" designation. To the south of Utah, efforts to restore the Mexican subspecies of the gray wolf are also underway. The USFWS released 69 wolves from March 1998 to July 2001 in the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area located in southern Arizona and New Mexico.

In recent years, the legality of the experimental populations has been tested in court. In 1997 a federal district court fount the Department of Interior rules implementing the Northern Rocky Mountain reintroduction to be contrary to the ESA and ordered the wolves removed (Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349, D. Wyo. 1997). However, on appeal the Tenth Circuit court found that no such conflict existed and reversed the lower court's decision. In March 1998 the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association and other grops supportive of the livestock industry filed a civil suit in New Mexico to halt the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf. This case was dismissed.

The following table shows the current population status of wolves in the contiguous United States.

Number of gray wolves in the contiguous United States

Western Great Lakes states	2000	2001	Jan. 2002
Michigan*	216	249	280
Minnesota	2,445	2,600	Unavailable
Wisconsin	248	251	320
Western states	2000	2001	Jan. 2002
Yellowstone Area	118	140	218
Northwest Montana	63	107	84
Central Idaho	141	185	261
Arizona/New Mexico	21	31	45-55**

* Does not include 17-29 wolves on Isle Royale National Park
**January 2003 estimate based on number collared wolves and anticipated offspring survival

The overall success of wolf recovery efforts prompted the USFWS to propose a reclassification of the status of the gray wolf in July 2000. The proposal recommends establishing four gray wolf "distinct population segments" (DPS) in the Lower 48 States. A DPS is a population that is considered to be partially or completely isolated from other populations. Each DPS would be managed separately according to its current status under the Act. These segments are as follows:

• Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS
• Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS
• Western Gray Wolf DPS
• Southwestern Gray Wolf DPS

The USFWS proposes to change the status of wolves from Endangered to Threatened in all of these population segments except the Southwestern DPS. Animals in the Southwestern DPS would retain their endangered status. Special rules, called 4(d) rules would be established for each DPS that is reclassified as Threatened. These rules allow greater flexibility in managing wolves that are causing conflicts with human endeavor. In the Western DPS, the 4(d) rule would apply only to wolves outside the experimental areas, and would establish the conditions under which wolves may be harassed, relocated or killed in the event of conflict situations with humans. Similar, but more restrictive conditions will apply to the Yellowstone, Central Idaho, and Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Areas.

During the past several years, there have been numerous sightings of lone or single wolf-like animals in Utah. In November 2002, a radio-collared male wolf originating from Yellowstone National Park was captured in a trap set for coyotes in northern Utah, within Morgan County near the town of Morgan. This animal was released unharmed by USFWS staff in the Grand Teton National Park, and soon rejoined its pack in northeast Yellowstone National Park. As individual wolves disperse from Northern Rocky Mountain packs, sightings in Utah are likely to increase. However, most sightings confirmed to date have been wolf-dog hybrids. For example, in 1998, Wildlife Services agents saw four wolves in Utah. Three of these were captured, and all 3 were determined to be wolf-dog hybrids. Another black wolf-like animal recently observed by the USFWS near Kemmerer, Wyoming is believed to be a wolf-dog hybrid. Unofficial estimates suggest that there could be as many as 400,000 wolf-dog hybrids in private ownership throughout the United States (Hope 1994). The presence of wolf-dog hybrids in Utah complicates identification of wolf occurrence in the State, as it is virtually impossible to distinguish between various canid (dog-family) hybrids and wolves on the basis of the physical size, appearance or tracks of these animals. The only reliable method of distinguishing between hybrids and true wolves is by means of DNA analysis (Forbes and Boyd 1996) and by cranial measurements. Canid hybrids include offspring of wolf-dog, wolf-coyote, and dog-coyote crosses. Such canids often appear near human-occupied areas, cause local public concern about the safety of children, pets and livestock, but seldom reproduce or survive in the wild (Bangs et al. 1998).

Ed Bangs, Northwestern Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the USFWS, believes that the establishment of a pack of wolves in Utah may still be several years away. However, the continued appearance of single dispersing animals or non-breeding pairs is much more likely (Mech 1970). Currently, if wolves from the federal recovery areas enter Utah, they will receive full protection under the Endangered Species Act. This means that all federal actions that could affect wolves would require formal consultation with the USFWS. No lethal control by landowners or state agency employees would be allowed for livestock depredation. The animals would be monitored, and if they caused problems, the USFWS can capture the offending wolf/wolves and move them back into the experimental, non-essential area, or issue permits to Wildlife Services to lethally remove the offending animals. The USFWS has established an incidental take threshold of one wolf for Wildlife Services activities directed at other predators. If incidental take exceeds one, formal consultation would be required. The USFWS is expected to down-list the gray wolf to Threatened status in 2003, with an accompanying 4(d) rule that will allow more flexible management in Utah, including control of wolves killing livestock.

Management Considerations

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has management responsibility for all protected wildlife in the state, including the gray wolf. Given the expectation that more wolves from Wyoming or Idaho will make their way into Utah, and the imminent reclassification of wolves in the Western DPS (including Utah) to Threatened, UDWR is preparing to assume management of wolves in the near future. UDWR held several Regional Advisory Council, Wildlife Board, and independent public meetings during 2000-2001 to inform the public and to gather public opinion about wolves. The Wildlife Section is drafting a field protocol to direct UDWR response to reports of wolf sightings, incidental captures, and potential conflicts. UDWR maintains constant communication with the USFWS and conservation organizations about wolf-related issues.

The Utah Legislature and Wildlife Board will soon be providing UDWR with direction on wolf management. Given the intense interest in wolves throughout the State, and the social, political, and economic issues associated with the return of wolves to Utah, there will be considerable public comment and debate as Utah addresses wolf management questions. The USFWS, Ute Indian Tribe, and other affected agencies and publics will be consulted to determine if wolf populations should be established in Utah, conditions for controlling wolves that create conflicts with human endeavors, and the level of protection extended to wolves in the future.

---

Literature cited