After the decision to reintroduce gray wolves into Yellowstone as a

nonessential, experimental population was made and implemented, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service moved to monitor the wolves as had been outlined in both the
Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan as well as the draft Environmental
Impact Statement. During the initial release, each individual wolf was radio-collared
and monitored three times a week. At first, fence and enclosure integrity was
closely watched and animal activity monitoring was done with remote cameras near
release sites. There was initially some controversy about whether or not the FWS
should be monitoring Yellowstone for an already existing wolf population. However,
previous monitoring for wolf activities in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho since the
1960s indicated only the occasional lone wolf wandering into the Rocky Mountains
and no wolf packs or breeding pairs were found in Idaho or Wyoming. Since
“recovery” had been operationally defined as ten breeding pairs in Yellowstone for
three successive years, active den sites in the area were closely monitored and
human disturbance within one mile of these sites was prohibited, especially during
the first several years following reintroduction (Morgenweck 1994).
Perhaps the most significant role played by monitoring in this issue is that of
assessment or making “practical inferences about the degree to which policy
problems have been resolved” (Bartlett 1994). Since the Plan was implemented in
1994, there has been an annual report released each year detailing the findings of
relevant monitoring activities. According to these reports, inside Yellowstone, they
monitor population status, population growth, reproduction, mortalities, and
presence of disease. They also determined livestock depredation, number of packs
involved in depredations, size of wolf packs involved in depredations, time of year
and location of livestock depredations, livestock depredation control actions, and
compensation for livestock depredations. Inside the park, they examined area
closures, and the effects of tourist attraction to the wolves (Jimenez et al. 2010).
Since the Plan’s objective was to introduce and sustain a viable wolf population,
monitoring population numbers was and continues to be crucial in order to
determine the success of the Plan and its policies. This falls under the category of
what Bartlett calls “project evaluation” in which “[a] project is a time-bound effort
that may be a component of a more general continuing program” (Bartlett). In this
case, the Plan was one effort aimed at restoring one species and taken under
direction of the more general and continuing Endangered Species Act.
As the contents of the annual reports suggest, successful wolf recovery is not the
only criteria for monitoring. Management as a nonessential experimental population
under the ESA calls for “intensive monitoring and then capture and return of
dispersing animals to Yellowstone National Park as needed; immediate control by
public agency personnel of any wolves depredating on livestock” (Morgenweck
1994). The EIS outlined an Occupied Gray Wolf range- determined by a five-mile
radius around all locations of wolves and wolf signs confirmed for non-radio
monitored wolves (“credible, timely reports of wolf observation”) such as tracks,
sightings, or photographs, or around the radio location for collared wolves
(Morgenweck 1994). This was done in order to determine and predict proximity of
wolves to human activities. In addition to livestock depredation, the effects on
ungulate populations were being closely watched, although this was less salient
because predictions did not forecast dire population consequences for these
species. The FWS called for the help of other agencies in some of this monitoring;
“State, tribal, and federal land management agencies would be encouraged and
may elect to monitor or enhance ungulate populations to assist wolf recovery and
minimize potential impacts” (Morgenweck 1994).
Additionally, the considerable success of the program has led to new issues in
monitoring. As one report states, “When a species reaches recovery criteria, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviews the population status to determine whether
reclassification or delisting is appropriate. Recovery criteria differ among
populations depending on the threats to the species, the connectivity of the
populations, and local ecological circumstances” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007). The ESA also requires that wolf populations be monitored for five years after
delisting to ensure that populations remain viable without federal protection
(Morgenweck 1994). There seems to be no end in sight for monitoring of the
Yellowstone wolves and the associated effects of their reintroduction.

Bartlett, R. V. (1994). Evaluating environmental policy success and failure. In N. J. Vig, & M. E.

Kraft (Eds.), Environmental policy in the 1990s (2nd ed., ). Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Jimenez, M. D., Smith, D. W., Stahler, D. R., Erin Albers, E., & Krischke, R. F. (2010).

Wyoming wolf recovery 2009 annual report: U.S. fish and wildlife service rocky mountain

wolf recovery 2009 annual report. Helena, Montana:

Morgenweck, R. O. (1994). The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone national park and

central Idaho final environmental impact statement U.S. Department of the Interior U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007). Wolf recovery in north America U.S. Department of the

Interior.