TL;DR: Yellowstone's current wolves aren't the same as the native subspecies, they were brought here illegally, and they are destructive to their own habitat.

---

"Such was the wolf, an animal of little value to man, yet one that he had to take account of because of its troublesome habits."

~Brig. Gen. Hiram Martin Chittenden

---

The "Disappearance" of Canis lupus irremotus

In 1914, the U.S. Congress passed legislation calling for the elimination of predators from all public lands, including national parks. Yellowstone park records for 1914 include a report of a single wolf and of packs consisting of from three to eleven members. The US Cavalry killed seven wolves in the park that year, and on December 31, Captain F. T. Arnold of the 12th Cavalry wrote to the Secretary of the Interior that wolves 'are present in considerable numbers and are destroying much game.' The US Biological Survey took over predator control efforts in 1915. Wolves were reportedly abundant in Yellowstone at the time and doing much damage to wildlife in the park. That same year, in the Jackson area south of YNP, forty wolves were killed in a matter of weeks, mainly by denning. In 1916, 311 wolves were taken on national forest lands in Wyoming, which was estimated to be about 1% of the state's total wolf population. By 1926, only a few wolves remained in western Wyoming. The US Biological Survey and its cooperators had killed 566 wolves in the ten years prior to 1927. In spite of the massive efforts to eradicate all the wolves from Yellowstone park, a few wolves had survived. Two wolf pups were trapped and killed while feeding on a bison carcass near Soda Butte in October. After 1926, wolves were so rare that control of their numbers was no longer a priority. The last lobos, the renegade wolves that were named by the physical characteristics unique to each individual, and which became the worst livestock killers of all time, prompted a change in public attitude towards the species. While NPS recognized that a remnant wolf population had survived in the park through the late 1960s, it also recognized that the population was in danger of extinction. Wolves were protected within the boundaries of the park, but were not afforded any protection outside the park until 1973.

---

Reintroduction and the ESA

At the First Inter-agency Meeting for the Management of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf, held in Yellowstone National Park in 1971, Fish and Wildlife Services (FWP) and U.S National Park Services(NPS) officials discussed wolf reintroduction. Glen Cole, a federal biologist, mentioned he was concerned about the limited gene pool of Yellowstone's wolves, and wanted to strengthen it by bringing in more wolves. FWS noted: 'Possibly 30 to 40 wolves in the northern Yellowstone area could be accommodated. Cole indicated that the park would accept live-trapped wolves even though they might disrupt some of the existing packs.' In 1970, wolf expert Durward Allen had written, 'I share the view of many others about transferring animals around here and there without regard for their taxonomic position. Until we have evidence of a breeding pack in Yellowstone, I don't think the situation promises very much. If we do ever decide to put more wolves in Yellowstone, then they probably should be the nearest animals we can get. We should make certain that these are the same race as the original stock in Yellowstone.' Unfortunately, history would record that Allen's cautionary advice would not be followed.

After passage of the ESA and the resulting federal listing of wolves in 1980, an inter-agency team of biologists crafted the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (WRP). The plan's purpose was to provide a roadmap to wolf recovery - to direct agency efforts toward facilitating the recovery of wolf populations so that federal protections would no longer be needed. Recovery would focus on three areas: Yellowstone, central Idaho, and northwestern Montana.

In 1982, Congress amended the ESA to include a new subsection that would soon become the focal point of wolf recovery plans - the experimental population designation. This amendment allows the Secretary of the Interior to authorize the release of endangered or threatened species, with additional management flexibility, and species could be reintroduced into areas of their former range. In 1987, FWS approved revisions to the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery plan that called for the introduction of the experimental wolf populations. The plan stated, 'Despite the biases and limitations, wolf observations were consistently made in certain areas by well-qualified individuals. Some areas produced reports that corresponded in terms of color and number of animals involved. Such reports cannot be used to determine the actual number of wolves in the Northern Rockies but, if used carefully, they can indicate areas where wolves occur.'

In June, 1977, FWS proposed to reclassify Canis lupus irremotus by delisting this subspecies and replacing it with the entire gray wolf species which would be listed as endangered in Mexico and the United States, where wolves would be listed instead as threatened. The Federal Registrar says "The Service wishes to recognize that the entire species Canis lupus is endangered or threatened to the south of Canada, and considers that this matter can be handled most conveniently by listing only the species name."

The legality of using the experimental population designation for Yellowstone wolves was discussed as early as March, 1986, as the recovery team met to prepare the revisions to the wolf recovery plan. The revised recovery plan defined a viable population as 'a self-supporting population of wolves with sufficient numbers to ensure the species will not become threatened, endangered, or extinct,' even though, by definition, there could be no viable population of an endangered species.

Wyoming's US Senator testified against the possibility of introduction, stating: 'I remain opposed to the reintroduction of wolves, and as a rancher, don't want these animals in my state. However, I also know that wolves could arrive in Yellowstone by natural migration. If that premise is inevitable, I would prefer to have the opportunity to manage these predators on terms and conditions that the residents of my state can live with - and not be shackled by the onerous provisions of the Endangered Species Act.'

Idaho Farm Bureau president Thomas Geary testified in opposition to the bill, noting that it would not reintroduce native wolves, but would instead introduce an entirely different subspecies into the region. 'It is contrary to the Endangered Species Act to recover species in areas which are not their historic habitat,' Geary testified. 'It is also contrary to the management policies of the National Park Service which provide for the restoration of only native species.'

In 1988, a male wolf was struck and killed by a vehicle just thirty miles north of Yellowstone. FWS suggested that the animal was an escaped captive belonging to Jack Lynch, who lived in the area, but Lynch denied the allegation. Montana statute requires that all captive wolves be tattooed for identification, and this "Chico Wolf" had no such marks. FWS wolf taxonomy expert Ronald Nowak examined the skull of this male wolf and stated that it was "notably smaller" than those taken in recent years in the northwestern US, which were presumably Canadian immigrants. Nowak proposed that the Chico wolf "looks more like a member of this original US population. Its measurements fall mostly within the range shown by the subspecies C. l. irremotus of the northern Rockies." Although it was evident that a specimen of Wyoming's native wolf had just been killed outside of the park, the momentum for wolf reintroduction continued to build.

At the committee's next meeting, legal questions about using the experimental population designation were front and center once again. Committee member George Bennett "observed that Ms. Zallen's dialogue raised the specter of litigation. Hank Fischer (of Defenders of Wildlife) offered that, to add certainty, the committee could suggest in the plan that the experimental population could be terminated if a successful legal challenge changed what all parties had agreed to." The minutes noted that Zallen agreed with Fischer.

Five months later, in May, DOW wrote: "The experimental population provision of the ESA does allow for relaxation of the law. But experimental populations can only be established where populations of the species are not present and the regulations for management of experimental populations must lead to recovery. [...] To an extent, the FWS estimates around 40-50 wolves are present in northwestern Montana, and perhaps 10-20 in central Idaho. The committee’s recommendation is clearly placing an experimental population designation on top of areas where wolves are already known to exist."

In September, after waiting for something to happen, DOW filed a notice of intent to sue FWS for failing to institute of a wolf recovery program in the northern Rockies. The case was filed in federal court in Washington, DC. Defenders attempted to use the court system to force wolf reintroduction, but the court ruled that FWS should have the opportunity to move forward with its Environmental Impact Statement without judicial intervention.

Unsatisfied, DOW called for an extensive survey effort in central Idaho "to determine if wolves were present." If a wolf population was found, DOW would urge that the animals be managed as an endangered species. If no wolves were found, reintroduction would be appropriate, DOW claimed.

Director Turner of the Endangered Species Fund explained how natural immigrant wolves that recolonized Wyoming would be given full protection of the ESA, and that "clearly, management flexibility would be extremely limited." Turner then described, "a way to gain more flexibility" would be to use the experimental, nonessential designation. "If, on the other hand, we sit back and wait for wolves to recolonize the Yellowstone area on their own, the opportunity to design locally responsible and flexible management strategies will be lost. Once they reach the area on their own, the experimental population option is foregone since the Endangered Species Act stipulates that an experimental population must be 'wholly separate geographically' from non-experimental populations of the same species."

In the 26 years since wolves naturally migrated from Canada into northern Montana, only 45 wolves have been documented. Since man introduced 32 wolves into Idaho and Wyoming, over a 17 year period, there are now over 3,000 wolves.

---

Irremotus vs. Occidentalis

Dark-Hyena's visual reference comparison:


The reports of wolves in YNP doubled from the 60's to the 70's. Of the 336 reports on record, 269 were of single animals, 45 were of pairs, 11 were of three animals, 8 were of four, and 3 were of five animals. In a two-year period of 70-71, 24 reports of more than one animal were recorded. 2 of the reports from 1970 refer to pups or juveniles.

John Weaver, a federal biologist who worked in Yellowstone National Park, after reviewing the reports from '68-71, says, "Based upon geographical distribution of the sightings and some pelage differences, up to 10 of these canids may have occupied separate areas in the Yellowstone region around 1970." John Weaver's published report in 1978 changed from realizing that there were native wolves in Yellowstone to "some large canids."

Glen Cole, another federal biologist, in 1971 says, "Apparently the relatively few sightings that were officially reported between 1930 and 1967 led to some hesitancy in concluding that wolves were actually resident in the park. Observations by qualified persons were either buried in park files or not officially recorded. […] Considerations of coat color, group size, area, etc., indicate a minimum of 10 and possibly 15 different animals may be represented by the 1969 and 1970 observations. The subject wolf is probably Canis lupus irremotus. Its presence in Yellowstone can afford an opportunity to preserve this particular subspecies which is less numerous in the United States than C. l. lycaon, which is already classed as endangered."

Dr. Mech was well aware of the subspecies and records on date as well. "An immediate and concerted program is necessary. Logic dictates that the subspecies of wolves occurring in these areas, presumably Canis lupus irremotus, formerly thought to be extinct there, should be declared an endangered animal, for there must be far fewer members of this race than of the eastern timber wolf."

From the book The Wolves of North America, Goldman describes the subspecies native to Yellowstone, Canis lupus irremotus, as "a light-colored subspecies of medium to rather large size, with skull having a narrow but flattened frontal region." He later describes Canis lupus occidentalis, the subspecies which occupies a majority of Canada and the same subspecies the FWS released into Yellowstone, "the largest of the North American wolves, with a large and massive skull." Young and Goldman noted that irremotus differed from occidentalis from its "decidedly smaller size."

Ronald Nowak, a wolf taxonomist and mammalogist who worked for the FWS at the time, proposed that wolf populations in the US may have been isolated by Pleistocene glaciers and that populations might have expanded their ranges northward as the ice receded. Wolves occurring south of the ice in what is now eastern U.S. might have given rise to the wolves found historically in that region and eastern Canada. Nowak further noted that the most distinct differences between wolves that occupied the western part of the continent historically occurred along a line that, from the Pacific Ocean eastward to about the Great Lakes, closely corresponded to the Canada-US border. The wolves north of this "line" were distinctly larger than those south of it, which would mean that the differences seen today in wolves across North America are not just minor differences, but are the result of thousands of years in divergent evolution. He continued to explain in his revision of wolf taxonomy (which is not contested by other taxonomists, and is supported by studies of other researchers, all of which suggest that a major systematic north-south division of wolf subspecies exists along the Canada-US border in western North America) that the wolf subspecies situated east to west appear more closely related to each other, while the southern wolves have little affinity to their neighbors to the north.

An important quote from the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Team stated, "Our discussion pertains to the gray wolf in the NRM, rather than to any particular subspecies." (Brewster and Fritts, 1983).

Understanding the public's perception of wolves was vital to developing the restoration program. In 1978, a majority of the public was found to like wolves and were in favor of the restoration. This was because a majority of the population did not live anywhere near wolves.

"Perhaps the most pertinent finding for wolf recovery program is that members of the public most likely to encounter wolves or to perceive being affected by them have the least favorable attitude toward them. Because of their disproportionate potential impact on wolf survival, those individuals warrant special attention in conducting a recovery program. (Fontaine et. al, 1993)."

Tim Kemery is a professional trapper and did the mapping work for the Idaho Fish and Game Wolverine Study. He also mapped the Pre-Introduction Resident Wolves, and hand-delivered those maps of 18 resident wolves to Craig Groves at IDFG, Conservation Data Base, then the Heritage Center. This is how he described the difference between the native wolves and the larger, more destructive subspecies the Fish and Wildlife Service decided to introduce.

Pre-introduction resident wolves:

• Body size: Females ~55-70lbs.; Males ~85-105lbs.
• Highly secretive behavior; very sensitive to roads and highways; largely nocturnal
• Usually found either as dispersed individuals or pairs
• Packing activity was very rare except during the months of January-February
• Pack size at breeding time was usually 4-7 individuals
• Females retained pups for an average of 18 months
• Pack dispersal was very consistent after breeding season
• Litter size consistently around 1-3 pups; females bred at 2 years old
• Extremely selective regarding food source; rarely fed on old carcasses or kills of other species, except in the most harsh winter conditions
• Very much an opportunist when different prey was available; spent great percentage of hunting effort on rodent acquisition
• Surplus killing almost negligible; most ungulate depredation was consumption; typical kill showed hams and shoulders consumed
• Territory of individuals or pairs was quite large; average 2 week return cycle
• Competition with other predator species including coyote and fox was low; other canine species coexisted and thrived in presence of resident wolves
• Habitat utilized consistently: mid to high elevation, with forest and mixed taiga; resident wolves were very resistive to utilizing large areas of open rangeland with grass or sagebrush cover
• Older mature males almost always solitary
• Conflict with domestic dogs very minimal except in rare cases
• Livestock depredations extremely rare but do occur in remote areas
• Consistent avoidance of man-made structures, roads, vehicles, and humans
  

This data as well as maps locating individual wolves, as well as breeding pairs was hand delivered to Craig Groves in 1992, and entered into the Idaho Fish and Game’s Conservation Data Base by George Stephens. Craig Groves was at the time in charge of oversight of the Conservation Data Base for Idaho Fish and Game, and was an Idaho Fish and Game employee.

Introduced Mackenzie Valley wolves, 1996 to present:

• Body size: Females ~60-85 lbs.; Males ~90-120 lbs.
• Exhibits low level of fear of humans; non-secretive behavior; minimal avoidance of humans, vehicles, domestic animals; will cross large open terrain at will even when other options for cover are available
• Mackenzie Valley wolf is found in small to very large pack sizes; small packs of 5 individuals are common up to large packs with over 20 members (eg., Hog Valley wolf pack containing 40 members)
• Pack merging, which is the condition of two or more packs combining, is being observed in many areas in the west and is not uncommon; merged packs which result in 40 wolves have been observed in the central Idaho wilderness
• Females can be bred even at one year of age, and produce from 5-9 pups per season; pups usually remain with the pack but can disperse or be driven off by other pack members
• All females of breeding potential in the pack are usually bred; there is absolutely no indication that any females are kept from breeding by the lead female; large packs are quickly produced and can disperse and merge several times within a week
• Mackenzie Valley wolves show a diet preference for elk calves but will switch at will to a secondary prey species; low preference is shown for rodent species, but wolves do sporadically hunt rodents
• Surplus killing is highly developed in Mackenzie Valley wolf packs; from observations in the field, 3-5 ungulates are killed for each ungulate consumed; this killing is greatly increased if the pack size is large or packs have merged; often small wintering herds of deer or elk as well as livestock are completely extirpated in one hunting event.
• Competition with other predatory species is extreme and often fatal; both mountain lion and bear have been impacted by attacks and from reduced available prey; other canines such as coyotes and fox have been severely impacted in most of their habitats; foxes are only able to survive in habitats that include lots of willow or dense underbrush; coyote populations have been reduced by are persisting at lower than historic levels
• Mackenzie Valley wolves have been found to utilize all available habitats, from high elevation alpine to sagebrush deserts; this has allowed this variety of wolf to be opportunistic in all ecosystems available to it
• Large mature male wolves remain with the pack throughout the year, sometimes dispersing for short periods of time
• The Mackenzie Valley wolf is highly predatory on all domestic canines; hunting hounds are especially vulnerable to attacks and are usually killed outright in a confrontation by wolves
• Mackenzie Valley wolves have shown a preference for predating on domestic livestock even with abundant natural prey present; beef calves are the most common victims of wolf depredation
• Mackenzie Valley wolves show a high level of habituation to humans, and man-made structures; it is not uncommon to find Mackenzie Valley wolves in very remote areas eating out of dog dishes and coming onto porches of homes when the owners are present

---

Consequences

"It is clear from a comparison of the two varieties of wolves that control efforts will have to take into account the realities of dealing with a wolf as different as the [Mackenzie Valley wolf] is from wolves found in other parts of the continent. Both the high fecundity of the [Mackenzie Valley wolf] and its depredating qualities ensures that control efforts will have to be highly organized and long term if we are to protect our magnificent wildlife from the debacle that is ongoing in Canada and in our western states. I will not [...] go into the fraud and corruption that brought us to this wildlife disaster, but suffice it to say that had the Federal Agencies not been corrupt in dealing with the information given them by Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming citizens we would by now have had a recovered resident wolf population that would still need to be managed, but we would not have what we have now with the very existence of our ungulates hanging in the balance, and wolf borne diseases threatening our way of life. If possible and time permits I will fill you in later on how our investigation turned out, and who was responsible for purging our maps and data from the Conservation Data Base, and carrying out the introduction of the [Mackenzie Valley wolf], in direct violation of the Endangered Species Act. It is a very tragic story, but God willing we will turn this around!" -Tim Kemery

Other noted biologists such as John Gunson from the Alberta Ministry of Environment, Tom Bergerud, the Top British Coloumbia wolf expert at the time, Dr. Charles E. Kay from the Colombia Ministry of Environment and Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus from the University of Calgary have spoken out about this introduction.

"I predict that you are going to have major impacts from wolves in this state. I predict major elk decline. Wolves repeatedly depress moose, caribou and elk populations while studying them throughout Canada. I've watched herd after herd [of caribou] go EXTINCT across Canada. The problem, wolves have no known predators to keep them in balance with the ecosystem." -Tom Bergerud

Dr. Geist came to McCall Idaho in the 70's and gave Idahoans a realistic look into the future impacts of introducing the Mackenzie Valley wolf to the lower 48 states. His main issue with the plan to release this non-native subspecies was one of mismatched predators to the ecosystem.

"You do not have an ecosystem large enough in the lower 48 for this animal" -Dr. Geist

He went on to show how the Mackenzie Valley wolf had impacted large ungulates in Canada. The typical wolf predation in Canada if the gray wolf is not managed is a cycle typified by what Dr. Geist described as a localized extinction of ungulates provincial in size with a typical recovery of predator and prey base taking 50 to 90 years! Now that we have seen the Mackenzie Valley wolf in action in Idaho, we can see the accuracy of Dr. Geist's assessment.

The wolf introduction was ruled illegal by the federal government due to Congress not funding the project. Form 3-177 is a mandatory form in which you are supposed to list species, subspecies, number of animals imported and cost. This form has never been found ever since the introduction of wolves. Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental groups, plus Bruce Babbitt (the Secretary of Interior at the time) appealed the decision at the Tenth Circuit Court. The ruling was overruled: www.animallaw.info/cases/causf… The Farm Bureau, an agricultural federation, plus a few others, were the defendants. During the time that the federal government ruled the case to be illegal, this is the message they received from Defenders of Wildlife:

"In December 1997, a federal judge agreed with the Farm Bureaus, ruling the Canadian wolves imported under the federal program would have to be removed. And that's when some supporters of the wolf program decided the rule of law did not apply to them. Defenders of Wildlife launched a nationwide campaign against Farm Bureaus in the press, television, radio, and Internet, falsely describing our organization and our lawsuit. Wolf stocking program advocates, incited by Defenders of Wildlife, organized a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Farm Bureau with the aim of forcing us to ignore our farmer-written policies and to drop our lawsuit. We have since received several bomb threats and threats against the lives of Farm Bureau officers and their families. Even a federal judge's life was threatened. Hostile callers appear to be motivated by lies spread by Defenders of Wildlife. Working Assets Long Distance, a self-proclaimed 'activist' telephone company, created a toll-free complaint line to our headquarters. The hot line barrage was designed to interrupt our daily work and prevent us from pursuing continued legal actions against the wolf-stocking program. The big lie is that Farm Bureau seeks to have imported Canadian wolves killed. That is not true, never was true, and never will be true. Remember, we notified the government of the illegality of their program before a single wolf had been trapped in Canada. Yet Defenders of Wildlife continues to make their claim that Farm Bureau seeks to destroy wolves. They know full well that the federal judge ruled that 'removing' the wolves need not and should not result in killing them, but should rely on their humane relocation. They also know that he specifically ordered that the wolves could remain where they were while his ruling was appealed. Finally, federal agents assured the judge that the wolves could be captured humanely and removed to Canada without loss of life. [...] We think their campaign is more about fund raising than wolf saving. Farm Bureau and the federal judge are eager to avoid harming wolves. Yet Defenders of Wildlife talks incessantly about killing wolves."

"Primary reasons for opposition to reintroduction included cost, fear of wolves spreading outside the intended area, and expectations of livestock losses, big game declines, and land-use restrictions (Bath 1991a,b, 1992, Bath and Phillips 1990, Thompson and Gasson 1991). Opposition may also relate to wolf recovery being symbolic of the larger issue of government or outside control of the great western frontier (cf. Cohn 1990, Kirwan 1992). Primary reasons for support of reintroduction were the belief that wolves are important members of the ecological community and were historically present (Thompson and Gasson 1991)."