get it home page promo

FWP looks to new technique to document wolf population size

2014-06-19T06:00:00Z FWP looks to new technique to document wolf population sizeBy TOM KUGLIN Independent Record Helena Independent Record
June 19, 2014 6:00 am  • 

Researchers from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the University of Montana estimate the state’s wolf population at more than 800 using a new statistical technique.

Researchers conducted a study of the new technique from 2007 to 2012. The new method, called patch occupancy modeling, uses deer and elk hunter observations coupled with information from radio-collared wolves. The statistical approach is a less expensive alternative to the old method of minimum wolf counts, which were performed by biologists and wildlife technicians. The results of the study estimate that for the five-year period, wolf populations were 25-35 percent higher than the minimum counts for each year.

“The study’s primary objective was to find a less-expensive approach to wolf monitoring that would yield statistically reliable estimates of the number of wolves and packs in Montana,” said Justin Gude, FWP’s chief of research for the wildlife division in Helena.

Counting predators in remote and forested areas is notoriously difficult and expensive. FWP submits a required yearly wolf report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on the exact number of wolves observed through tracking by FWP wolf specialists. Biologists track wolves with on-the-ground and aerial surveys, radio collaring and denning confirmation. The minimum count has hovered around 625 for the last three years.

According to a 2012 article in Population Ecology authored by FWP and university researchers, wolf numbers remained small in the initial stages of recovery in the early 1990s, and tracking the minimum count of wolves in Montana meant only a few packs in isolated areas. In 1995, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, the minimum wolf count in Montana was 66.

With minimum counts now nearly 10 times greater, it’s more difficult to assess the minimum number of wolves. The traditional field methods yield an increasingly conservative count and well below actual population sizes, according to the article.

“It takes a lot of people and time, and the budget has gone down with delisting,” Gude said. “It’s getting more and more difficult to keep up, and we felt like we’re getting farther and farther away with the minimum count.”

In two years, FWP’s requirement to provide a yearly minimum count to the Fish and Wildlife Service expires. That expiration opens the door for state officials to use other means to estimate the state’s wolf population.

The agency plans to do both the required minimum count and the patch occupancy modeling for the next two years. After the expiration, FWP plans to transition to the new techniques and adjust field methods of gathering data accordingly, said Ron Aasheim, FWP administrator.

“Certainly there have been people out there who said we have significantly more wolves than the minimum count,” he said. “If anything, this verifies that was a minimum count and we don’t have exact numbers; we have trend counts but this gets us closer to the actual number. The more information we have the better.”

Using hunter observations during the five-week general hunting season has the immediate benefit of cost savings and accounts for those wolves not verified in the annual counts. The technique is very similar to wolf counting methods used in the upper-Midwest, which has already withstood court challenges, Gude said.

“This new approach is not only good science, it’s a practical way for Montana to obtain a more accurate range of wolf numbers that likely inhabit the state,” he said.

Using the public to count wolves has its drawbacks as biologists consider public sightings less reliable than those of professionals. Given the sample size of around 2 million deer and elk hunter days and 50,000 to 80,000 hunters interviewed in FWP’s annual telephone survey, researchers believe the sample provides a diverse observation of Montana’s hunting districts and provides an accurate picture of wolf occupancy.

Based on the study, FWP and university researchers estimated the areas occupied by wolves in packs using the hunter observations, then the number of wolf packs by dividing the occupied area by average territory size, and finally they multiplied the number of packs by the average pack size to get an estimated population. In 2012, the minimum count for wolves was verified at 625 and 147 packs. The statistical technique estimated 804 wolves in 165 packs inhabit Montana.

The study further estimated that 18, 24 and 25 percent of Montana was occupied by wolves in 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively.

In addition to wolves living in packs, various studies have documented between 10 and 15 percent of wolves living alone.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation threw its support behind the study with a $25,000 grant.

“The bottom line is you can’t have true effective wolf management if you don’t know how many wolves are really out there and where they live,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “This grant funding will help to better determine that.”

Defenders of Wildlife was still looking at the research and was not ready to comment on the merits of the science, said Erin Edge, Rockies and Plains associate for Defenders.

Wildlife program coordinator for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition Chris Colligan said his organization supports using the best available science, but planned to keep an eye on the use of the new techniques.

“We want to make sure it’s accurate and they’re making sound decisions for management,” he said.

The research has been peer reviewed, but GYC has questions about the accuracy of using hunter observations and the ability of that data to apply on a small scale to create individual quotas for hunting districts, Colligan said.

“Self-reporting of wolves has its downsides,” he said. “There’s concerns about bias in hunters reporting wolves when they’re not present. It also diminishes the need for biologists on the ground, which is a valuable resource.”

Gude cautioned that future statistical approaches need to include wolf harvest locations and how hunting and trapping influence where wolves choose to live.

“Perhaps the best future use of these statistical methods won’t necessarily only be for monitoring and keeping tabs on wolf population numbers, but to better inform the complicated decisions that accompany the public harvest and management of wolves,” he said.

Copyright 2015 Helena Independent Record. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(10) Comments

  1. MIsingleShot
    Report Abuse
    MIsingleShot - July 03, 2014 8:20 pm
    The wolf killing the neighbors dog & another's livestock is certainly not "acts of nature" .... you could use a little of that "inner search" great white. Do you benefit from a "donate here" button?
  2. MIsingleShot
    Report Abuse
    MIsingleShot - July 03, 2014 8:15 pm
    Then why spend HUGE amounts of money on lawsuits for animals not really endangered....why not demand these groups join real conservation groups to protect habitat for all animals? Sad people promote the controversy of wolves....greed on one side of the issue self preservation on the other.... you decide which is which but be careful for either way you look at it one side has the support of local people.
  3. GreatWhite
    Report Abuse
    GreatWhite - June 19, 2014 1:36 pm
    ....and here comes humanitarian #2. Justme!! Well, actually that surmises your ilks attitude perfectly!!
  4. GreatWhite
    Report Abuse
    GreatWhite - June 19, 2014 1:35 pm
    I don't think words would help you with that justme!! Yours is a vast wasteland, almost apocalyptic I imagine.
  5. justme59601
    Report Abuse
    justme59601 - June 19, 2014 1:17 pm
    no greater habitat than the human heart??? LOL that's a good one. we're all laughing here. what does the human heart pray tell have to do with wolf habitat? hang on, don't answer yet, let us get our popcorn. this should be good.
  6. justme59601
    Report Abuse
    justme59601 - June 19, 2014 1:15 pm
  7. GreatWhite
    Report Abuse
    GreatWhite - June 19, 2014 12:52 pm
    Never takes long for one of your's to show their animal discriminatory heads NONYA.

    How exactly do you expect them to eat their prey? They don't have Uzi's or Remingtons. They don't have Buck knives. They have teeth, and claws. That is all.

    How would you rip into a steak if you didn't have silverware and dishes? Would you not pick the meat up with your hands (Paws) and then bite into it with your teeth? Now, if you couldn't shoot your meat to kill it, or buy it at the store, how would you initially get it down? You'd have to attack it and kill it with your hands (Paws) I assume. And rip chunks off as you go.

    I find it incredibly ridiculous (Other words do come to mind.) anytime someone criticizes wolves for doing what they need to survive. It's really no different than a bird grabbing a worm by it's beak, tugging it out of the ground and swallowing it ALIVE and whole now is it?

    Or how about a spider when a fly gets trapped in it's web, it runs out and wraps it up, injecting venom to basically start digesting it from the inside out. Or how a rattlesnake strikes and injects it's venom and waits for it's prey to die slowly from the affects of it's specific venom action.

    Odd how those acts of nature don't seem to disturb you, but wolves do.

    Maybe you should do an inner search of why that is. Personally, I suspect a twisted jealousy at work there. Or is it because you are afraid of them? Fear not, they don't really like man much. Maybe it's for the worst reason of all...because you were told to hate them for no reason at all...just because someone else was ignorant.
  8. NONYA
    Report Abuse
    NONYA - June 19, 2014 12:37 pm
    Have you ever watched a pack tear apart a calf elk while its still alive?F your wolves whack em and stack em.
  9. GreatWhite
    Report Abuse
    GreatWhite - June 19, 2014 12:35 pm
    Amen Gary H.!!

    We've seen what the dark heart of man can do to the mighty predators already...for many generations they have suffered from ignorance and human narcissism, we need to give them room.

    Contrary to most opinions, there is plenty of room for man and predator.
  10. Gary H
    Report Abuse
    Gary H - June 19, 2014 11:45 am
    How they determine the population is not the main issue regarding wolves. The bottom line is are we willling to allow wolves to roam on the landscape simply looking to survive and to reproduce. Do we want to keep places wild enough for all predators to exist without the constant threat from humans? Habitat is the key factor for a healthy ecosystem and there is no greater habitat than the human heart.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Follow the Independent Record

Great Helena Businesses