Gray Wolf Management Plan

Background on Target Species 

The gray wolf is the largest member of the Canid family in the Pacific West. The gray wolves, also known as timber wolves long and bushy tails that are black-tipped. Their fur is a mix of gray and brown with markings on their undersides. Gray wolves look like German Shepherds, but they vary in size. Their bodies are three to five feet long, and their tails are two feet long. Female wolves weigh between 60 to 100 pounds, and male wolves weigh 70 to 145 pounds. 

The scientific name for the gray wolf is Canis lupus. It is a crucial predator and thrives in a wide range of ecosystems, including mountains, woodlands, tundra, temperate forests, and grasslands. In 1978, the gray wolf was listed as an endangered species in the US and Mexico (Collier, 2018). However, the state of Montana classified it as threatened and it was delisted due to recovery in 2011. The historic range of the species covered two-thirds of the United States, but they were hunted in the 1930s. Today, the gray wolf population is concentrated in Alaska, northern Michigan, northern Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho, northeast Oregon, and parts of Wyoming. The conservation efforts in the last few decades have contributed to the recovery. Gray wolves have made a promising comeback, but they occupy only 5-15% of their historic range. The gray wolf is still classified as endangered species in mountain prairie regions, and threatened in the Great Lakes-Big River region (Minnesota). The gray wolf was delisted for recovery in the Mountain-Prairie Regions of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and eastern Washington. 

Aforementioned, grey wolves thrive in different environments; they have the most extensive range in comparison to other mammals, other than human beings. Gray wolves live in all habitats in the Northern Hemisphere, aside from the tropical forest. They can survive in forests, tundra, grasslands, deserts, and mountains. Since they are carnivores, their diets include deer, moose, elk, musk-oxen and small animals such as hare and rodents. The wolves also prey on livestock when it is readily available to them. They eat up to 10kg in one sitting because they might have to wait for days before the next big kill. Gray wolves have 6 to 8 years in lifespan, while some reach 13. Gray wolves in captivity can live up to 17 years. Young gray wolves hunt small animals such as hare and rodents because they cannot tackle large ungulates. 

The species face a lot of threats right now and will continue to face them in the future. Starvation is the primary cause of death, and the mortality rate for gray wolves is as high as 60% (Bruskotter et al., 2013). Additionally, territory conflicts between other wolves lead to injuries and death. Diseases such as Lyme disease, canine mange, and parvovirus also lead to death. The biggest threat to the survival of gray wolves is humans. Human beings have a history of hunting and trapping wolves; in fact, it is still considered legal in some places. Hunting still occurs in areas where wolves are protected. Ranchers use poison or other means to kill wolves to protect their livestock. Human encroachment into their habitats is also a threat that isolates wolves’ population leading to inbreeding making them susceptible to disease. Gray wolves will continue to face the same dangers in the future unless effective recovery efforts are put in place. Poor wolf management policies among states that continue to expose wolves to threats have to change for long-term sustainability of wolf population. Gray wolves in California disappeared in the 1920s, only to re-appear during the famous wandering wolf (OR-7 stepped paw) of 2011. More gray wolves packs have been discovered in Northern California, hence the need for a management plan. 

Goals and Objectives of the Management Plan 

The goal of the gray wolf management plan is to ensure a self-sustaining population through the species’ range. With the species being classified as endangered in most states in the US, including California, the primary goal is the recovery of the wolves to sufficient abundance to fulfill their ecological role. 

The objectives of the management plan include: 

1. To ensure a self-sustaining wolf population through the species range to fulfill the role of the wolf as the top predator. 

2. To manage gray wolves as part of the national wildlife resource. 

3. To facilitate mating of wolves from different states/ locations. 

4. To manage wolf-human conflict to allow continued existence the wolves in places where they do not cause unnecessary conflicts with humans. 

5. Manage specific packs which prevent the recovery of gray wolves through predation. 

6. Establish a robust public education program. 

Resource Inventory 

Wolf management across the US is characterized by two approaches, open season or targeted removal of individuals and ensuring wolves continue to serve their ecological role as top predator. For wolves to continue to thrive, there are resources necessary for the implementation of the management plan (Ausband et al., 2013). The management plan starts on a local area, the counties, the state level and national level with the aim of attaining self-sustaining wolf population across the US. 

Some of the resources that will be used in the implementation include a topographic map, soil survey, local and regional field guides, and earlier management plans. Topographic maps are used to identify topographic features on the earth’s surface, including hills, mountains, and valleys. A topographic map shows where all the features are located, making it possible to plan on the specific management strategies that will be applied in a particular region. Topographic maps come with a variety of scales, and the common one I the 1:24,000 series with one map inch representing 2,000 feet. A topographic map tells whether the land has a green cover or a water mass or it is a densely built-up area. Studies have found out that topographic variables including elevation and slope affect certain wolf activities (Ripple & Beschta, 2006). Wolves have been driven out of areas of generally low elevations due to human settlements. With the map, it will be easier to determine the species distribution and designate a specific area for the gray wolf conservation, an area that is far from human settlement. Research studies show that the gray wolf population is more likely to increase with the protection of source populations and providing dispersal opportunities between suitable patches (Kabir et al., 2017). A topographic map will help connect wolves, enabling free dispersal between populations. 

According to Kabir et al. (2017), a significant concern for the management plan is the identification of remaining habitat that is suitable for the species to occupy. One of the methods for identifying suitable habitats is through a soil survey which is the classification of the different types of soil across. Soil survey describes each soil’s suitability to support a species. Soil survey results will be integrated into landscape planning through the identification of areas of potential conflict between humans and wolves. Like other species, gray wolves use different mechanisms to select a suitable habitat, and through soil survey, it will be possible to understand the habitat details that are important for corridor design. 

Other resources are local/regional field guides and earlier management plan. Local field guides have a better understanding of the species and its distribution. Local and regional field guides cover a limited geographic area, often defined political boundaries. They observe a particular species over time taking note of the taxonomy, basic biology, behavior, eating habits, life stages, movements, and range maps among other important factors that influence their survival. The field guides are in a better position to make suggestions about factors that limit or encourage species distribution in a particular area because of their knowledge of the local and regional landscape. Lastly, the earlier management plans are essential resources that guide new management plans. This plan will improve on other plans by incorporating new ideas. More previous management plans have suggested that predators such as the gray wolves should be managed at levels that ensure their retention on the landscape is compatible with other uses (Murray et al., 2011). Hunting wolves to the extent of extinction affect the ecosystem as wolves have a role to play. 

Management Compartments 

The territory will be divided into easily manageable units. Once the region has been selected, a wide range of information will be collected through monitoring and surveillance. Without monitoring, it is impossible to evaluate the success of the conservation effort. It is challenging to monitor vast territories, thus the need for compartments. The establishment of meaningful compartments requires analysis of the area using the information derived from the management goal and objective. 

The planners create a provisional zonation, which can be amended at a later stage during the implementation process. The compartments are captured in the zone map, which describes the site and the particular management activities that will be implemented in a specific location. While dividing the territory into various components makes it easier, other reasons guide the division (Alexander, 2016). The division makes it easy to control activities within a compartment, thus increasing the chances of achieving the objectives. 

Alexander (2016) gives further guidelines for the creation of management compartments. The first step is coming up with the justification for the selection. Secondly, a description of the function of the compartment, including the restrictions within each zone that will affect the achievement of the management plan objectives is needed. The physical features such as rivers and roads are used to create the zone, and when there is no landscape feature, permanent makers or GPS are used. The territory will be divided into Zone A and Zone B, which will be compared later to identify the best area for recovery. The habitat quality for each compartment will be evaluated as it affects the success of the management plan. According to Stricker et al. (2019), habitat evaluation helps in the sampling of the species for monitoring. Changes to the habitat during the management plan can have positive or negative effects on the wolf population. The wolves will do better in specific habitats in comparison to others, and this will be used to create a pattern for recolonization. 

Management Practices 

The implementation of the management plan will involve physical, biological actions, time, money, and other alternatives. The goal is to maintain a viable population of gray wolves such that the species will no longer be classified as endangered or threatened by the State and Federal government. The Michigan recovery and management plan made progress and defined the criterion for wolf recovery. When a state maintains a winter population of a minimum of 200 wolves for five years, the specials will be federally de-listed (Sinding et al., 2018). Therefore, the plan entails actions that will take place over time to achieve the objectives of the management plan. 

Physical actions include reintroducing wolves into protected lands or new areas. The habitat for gray wolves has decreased due to human encroachment and other reasons (Rich et al., 2019). Once the wolves have been reintroduced to the new environment, they will be monitored and secured. Physical activities include monitoring packs, breeding pairs, and other wolves. A combination of reproduction and immigration maintains wolves. Without proper channels of migration, the wolves will not reproduce, and the population will remain low. The management plan has to create physical changes to enable the wolves to migrate from one place to another without the risk of being killed. With the reintroduction of wolves, there is a need to create physical barriers to prevent human-wolf contact. The local ranchers will not welcome reintroduction if it possesses a risk to their livestock and safety. 

One of the objectives is to address the issue of human-wolf conflict. This will be achieved through public education on the benefits of the wolves to the ecosystem. The education process will also be used to seek stakeholder input about the management plan and conflict resolutions (Ausband et al., 2015). Successful management plans use incentives such as annual harvest opportunity and non-consumptive benefits to seek support. Community awareness plans take time and money, but it is an essential aspect of the management plan. 

When wolves were introduced to Yellowstone, Wyoming, biological and social changes were also observed. Thus the management will also focus on the biological impacts of the different management approaches and its implication to the plan’s goal. Gradual changes were seen in the elk and beaver population (Sinding et al., 2018). Thus, the management plan will also focus on the biological and social changes over five years. Most management plans are implemented within five years to enable real changes in the wolf population. Additionally, it takes five years for the FWS to delist wolves as endangered or threatened to depend on the wolf population. 

Summary 

The concerns for the low gray wolf population in Northern California influenced the development of the management plan. The species expatriated from Northern California in the 1920s, but it is returning on its own by dispersal. The management plan will test the adaptability of the species to two zones within Northern California with the aim of attaining a viable black wolf population. Monitoring the program is necessary to ensure the risks remain low. Recolonizing wolf population in Northern California will create concerns for livestock farmers and biologists worried about the effects of wolf predation on other species. The success of the management plan relies on the short-term management strategies for mitigating risks that come with expanding wolf population. The management plan will be constrained to a small and manageable area to minimize conservation risks and unintended consequences. The actions must be aligned with public expectations as the public is an essential stakeholder in conservation. Through public education, management decisions will be communicated to the public. Lastly, the outcomes of the plan will be monitored and assessed objectively against the goals and objectives of the plan. 

References 

Alexander, M. (2016). Wetland Management Planning: Overview.  The Wetland Book: I: Structure and Function, Management and Methods , 1-14. 

Ausband, D. E., Stansbury, C. R., Stenglein, J. L., Struthers, J. L., & Waits, L. P. (2015). Recruitment in a social carnivore before and after harvest.  Animal Conservation ,  18 (5), 415-423. 

Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A., Slagle, K. M., Berardo, R., Singh, A. S., & Wilson, R. S. (2013). Support for the US Endangered Species Act over time and space: controversial species do not weaken public support for protective legislation.  Conservation Letters ,  11 (6), e12595. 

Collier, A. (2018). This Land Was Made for You and Me-and Them: Why and How the Department of the Interior Should Give Greater Consideration to the Gray Wolf's Historical Range.  Ecology LQ ,  45 , 289. 

Kabir, M., Hameed, S., Ali, H., Bosso, L., Din, J. U., Bischof, R., & Nawaz, M. A. (2017). Habitat suitability and movement corridors of grey wolf (Canis lupus) in Northern Pakistan.  PloS one ,  12 (11), e0187027. 

Murray, D. L., Smith, D. W., Bangs, E. E., Mack, C., Oakleaf, J. K., Fontaine, J., ... & Stahler, D. (2010). Death from anthropogenic causes is partially compensatory in recovering wolf populations.  Biological Conservation ,  143 (11), 2514-2524. 

Rich, L. N., Russell, R. E., Glenn, E. M., Mitchell, M. S., Gude, J. A., Podruzny, K. M., ... & Nichols, J. D. (2013). Estimating occupancy and predicting numbers of gray wolf packs in Montana using hunter surveys.  The Journal of Wildlife Management ,  77 (6), 1280- 1289. 

Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2006). Linking wolves to willows via risk-sensitive foraging by ungulates in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem.  Forest Ecology and Management ,  230 (1-3), 96-106. 

Sinding, M. H. S., Gopalakrishan, S., Vieira, F. G., Castruita, J. A. S., Raundrup, K., Jørgensen, M. P. H., & Marquard-Petersen, U. (2018). Population genomics of grey wolves and wolf-like canids in North America.  PLoS genetics ,  14 (11), e1007745. 

Stricker, H. K., Gehring, T. M., Donner, D., & Petroelje, T. (2019). Multi-scale habitat selection model assessing potential gray wolf den habitat and dispersal corridors in Michigan, USA.  Ecological Modelling ,  397 , 84-94.