See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351746710

Gray Wolves

Article · May 2021

CITATIONS READS
0 153

3 authors, including:

Eric Gese Patricia Terletzky

USDA/WS/National Wildlife Research Center Utah State University
179 PUBLICATIONS 6,415 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 345 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Polar Bears View project

Cortisol and fitness of Pacific fishers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric Gese on 25 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Gray Wolves
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
Wildlife Services
May 2021

Wildlife Damage Management

Technical Series

Eric M. Gese
Research Wildlife Biologist
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services
National Wildlife Research Center
Logan, Utah

John P. Hart
District Supervisor
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services
Grand Rapids, Minnesota

Patricia A. Terletzky
Geospatial Analyst
Department of Wildland Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah

Figure 1. Gray wolf (Canis lupus).

Quick Links

Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1 Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Damage Identification 4
The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is a wide- States. Gray wolves were listed as an
Management Methods 6 ranging carnivore with a global endangered species in 1974. Subsequent
Economics 16
distribution throughout the northern recovery efforts have resulted in wolf
hemisphere. Wolves are the largest populations in the western Great Lakes
Species Overview 19 member of the family Canidae (Figure 1). Region, the northern Rocky Mountains, the
Legal Status 22 It is often considered a symbol of the southwest (Mexican wolf), and the Pacific
wilderness. Northwest.
Glossary & Keywords 23

Resources 24 Historically, wolves were found throughout Wolf conflicts are primarily related to
North America. By the 1940s, however, predation on livestock, pets and other
Appendix 29 wolves were eradicated from most of their domestic animals, as well as their direct
former range in the continental United and indirect impacts on native
Page 2 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

ungulates (i.e., big game). Economic losses vary including the hydatid worm, Echinococcus granulosus. It
widely with some livestock producers facing high can be transmitted to people and grows into a tapeworm in
levels of depredation in some areas. its host.

This publication focuses on wolf ecology, damage, and Livestock Depredation

management, particularly as it relates to wolf
depredation on livestock and other conflicts with The scale and scope of wolf depredation on livestock
people. depends on local wolf density; numbers and kinds of
livestock; livestock husbandry practices; availability and
Human Health and Safety vulnerability of alternative prey; human density; road
density; severity of winters; and local hunting pressure.
Wolves and people share the same environments
more than people realize. In the U.S., wolves are not In many instances, wolves live around livestock without
confined to wilderness areas. Though curious, wolves causing damage or only occasional damage. Wolf pack
generally fear people and rarely pose a threat to size has been shown to increase the likelihood of
human safety. Wolf attacks on people are, and always depredations on domestic animals, with larger packs
have been, very rare compared to other wildlife more likely to cause damage. Most losses occur
species. However, there have been several cases of between April and October when livestock are on
human injuries and a few deaths due to wolves in summer pastures or grazing allotments. Cattle,
North America over the past 100 years. The main especially calves, are the most common livestock killed
factors contributing to these incidents were a by wolves. When wolves kill sheep or domestic poultry,
habituation to people, rabies infections, conditioning often multiple individuals are killed or injured.
to human foods, and the presence of domestic dogs.
The number of complaints and depredations on
It is unusual for wild wolves to associate or interact domestic livestock varies by state. For example, in
with people, linger near buildings, livestock, or Montana, the number of suspected and verified
domestic dogs, but it does occur especially in areas of complaints of wolf damage to livestock steadily
high wolf densities in and around rural communities. increased following the reintroduction of wolves to the
This type of behavior may be more prevalent in areas northern Rocky Mountains in 1995. Then after 2010,
where wolves are not legally harvested. This “bold” when the state began a legal harvest and trapping
behavior is more typical of a habituated or food- season on wolves, wolf depredations declined and
conditioned animal, a released captive wolf, or a plateaued at a lower level (Figure 2). Similarly, in
released wolf-dog hybrid. Wolves are sometimes Minnesota where wolves were not extirpated and
attracted to human settlement because of high prey recovered naturally after federal protection, the wolf
densities (e.g., deer) or other items, such as livestock population, their geographic range, and depredations
carcasses or bone piles. on livestock increased steadily in the 1990’s, but has
remained relatively stable over the past 20 years as the
The effects of epizootics and enzootics on wolf wolf population size and range has stabilized (Figure 3).
populations is not well documented. The transmission In Minnesota, only 1 to 2% of livestock operations in
of diseases, such as canine parvovirus, from domestic wolf range are impacted by verified wolf depredations
dogs to wild wolves is a conservation concern. Rabies annually. It is important to note, however, that losses
is a human health concern but is infrequently can be significant to individual producers or producers
reported in wolves. However, it may have been a located in the same region in given years.
cause for attacks on people in European history.
Wolves are hosts to various protozoans and parasites,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 3

Figure 2. Number of suspected and verified wolf depredation complaints received by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife
Services program in Montana, 1997—2017.

Figure 3. Mid-winter population size of wolves in Minnesota, 1989-2018.

Page 4 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

Guarding Animals and Pets the relationship between wolves and moose on Isle
Royale remains ambiguous. Results of almost 60 years of
In addition to livestock depredation, wolves sometimes study show the dynamics between wolves and moose to
kill and injure domestic pets and livestock guarding be a complex interaction of disease, genetics and
animals, such as livestock protection dogs (LPD) and inbreeding, and food limitations all contributing to
donkeys. changes in wolf and moose abundance on this island
ecosystem.
Wolf attacks on domestic pets (mostly dogs), have
increased as wolf numbers have increased in the lower 48 In the northern Rocky Mountains where several areas
states. Many attacks on domestic dogs seem to be contain multiple prey species and multiple predators, the
triggered by territorial behavior where wolves view dogs as interactions in this complex ecosystem is even more
canine competitors. In such cases, the dogs are often difficult to predict. The presence of wolves, grizzly bears,
killed or injured. Only occasionally are they fed upon. While and cougars preying on elk, deer, and moose, makes
generally, there is no compensation for these losses of predicting or elucidating the causes responsible for
pets, some state damage management boards are now declines as well as increases in ungulate populations
compensating for the loss of livestock protection dogs difficult. In some areas, ungulate abundance has
(LPD). People residing in wolf country should be aware of declined in the face of predation combined with human
the vulnerability of their pets and keep them near their hunting. While in other areas, elk abundance is over
residence or have fencing to contain their pets and population objective as identified by state wildlife
exclude wolves. agencies. Multiple factors, including predation, winter
severity, human hunting pressure on both prey and
For decades, LPDs have helped protect livestock from predators, interspecific competition among predators and
coyotes, feral dogs, foxes, and mountain lions in the U.S. prey species, and changing landscapes via habitat loss
However, some of the dog breeds currently used to protect and fragmentation, all contribute to the complexity and
livestock from coyotes are no match for larger predators, difficulty of determining cause and effect in changing
such as wolves and grizzly bears. Recent research has dynamics and abundance of ungulate populations.
investigated the use of larger European dog breeds to
protect livestock from wolves.

Natural Resources Damage Identification

As a keystone species, wolves play a critical role in Wolves prey mainly on wild ungulates, such as deer,
ecosystems dynamics and the regulation of native caribou, moose, and elk. Cattle, especially calves, and
ungulate populations. Wolves are large-bodied carnivores domestic sheep are also vulnerable to wolf predation.
that primarily prey upon large herbivores, with prey While predation on livestock is not as common as
species varying by location. For example, elk and deer are predation on wild ungulates, wolf predation on cattle and
more plentiful in the northern Rocky Mountains and are sheep has been increasing in the lower 48 states as wolf
the primary prey of wolves in that region, while moose populations increase.
and deer are more commonly available and preyed upon
in the Great Lakes region. Wolves are not the only predator species that kill
livestock. Other predators besides wolves include
The impact that wolves have on native ungulate species coyotes, domestic dogs, black bear, grizzly bear and
is highly variable and dependent on a multitude of mountain lions. In the northern Rocky Mountains, it is
factors. For example, in what might at first appear to be a common for grizzly bears to displace wolves from a
relatively simple ecosystem of one prey and one predator, carcass making it difficult to ascertain what species
 U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 5

Figure 4. Wolf predation on domestic livestock often results in most of the carcass being consumed.

actually killed the animal. It is important to accurately investigation. Large bones may be chewed or cracked
identify the species responsible in order to select the open. Wolves may carry or drag parts of the carcass to
most appropriate methods and techniques to use in an nearby vegetative cover, dens or rendezvous sites for
integrated damage management program. Tracks and the young to consume. Generally, most of the carcass is
scats found at a depredation site are often used in eaten (Figure 4), sometimes over the course of multiple
conjunction with the killing and feeding pattern found feedings. Occasionally, feeding is interrupted by other
on a carcass to determine the predator involved. livestock, especially the mother cow, or by the producer.

Wolf Depredation Signs Wolves readily scavenge dead livestock, thus wolves
found feeding on a livestock carcass or having livestock
Wolves usually kill ungulates by attacking the hair in their scat may not have killed the animal.
hindquarters or by seizing the flanks. Wolves often bite
mid-sized calves (100 to 250 pounds (lbs)/45 to 115 Coyote Versus Wolf Depredation Signs
kilograms (kg)) over the top of the back between the
rear of the ribs and the pelvis. Sometimes their canine Wolf and coyote damage can overlap with depredations
teeth penetrate the body cavity with this bite and occurring on the same property and within days of each
sometimes the bite is strong enough to separate the other. Coyotes normally kill livestock with bites to the
vertebrae. neck and throat, but may pull the animal down by
attacking the side and hindquarters. Young calves may
Slash marks made by the canine teeth may be found on be bitten in the flanks, and entrails eaten, destroying
the rear legs and flanks. When the victim is badly any discernable evidence of predation at the site of the
wounded, wolves will often disembowel the animal. attack. The rumen (first stomach) and intestines of
Wolves usually eat the viscera (internal organs) and sheep are generally not eaten, but are often removed
hindquarters first. and dragged away from the carcass. When coyotes kill
small lambs, their upper canine teeth often penetrate
Wolf kills are characterized by massive trauma, and the top of the neck or the skull.
large tooth marks may not be visible until the animal is
skinned or partially skinned during a depredation Calf predation by coyotes is most common when calves
are young. Calves attacked, but not killed, exhibit
Page 6 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

wounds to the flank, hindquarters, or front shoulder. Animal Husbandry

Coyotes generally have a lighter feeding pattern (they do
not completely dismember the carcass and crush all the Animal husbandry includes a variety of activities related to
long bones) than wolves, and often the carcasses of the care and attention given to livestock. Generally, when
calves or ewes are still intact, with entrails and meat the frequency and intensity of livestock husbandry
eaten. Coyotes will return to carcasses for multiple increases, so does the degree of protection from
feedings, scavenge on wolf kills, and at times, multiple predators.
coyotes (often family groups), can consume large amounts
of meat, making it difficult to distinguish between coyote Various animal husbandry practices can reduce
and wolf depredations. depredation losses by wolves. Some of the most common
include:
Domestic Dog Versus Wolf Depredation Signs
• confining or concentrating herds/flocks during periods
Depredation by domestic dogs also can be confused with of vulnerability (e.g., at night or during lambing),
wolf or coyote kills. Domestic dogs can be a serious
problem to livestock, especially to sheep pastured near • using herders or “range riders” (Figure 5),
cities and suburbs. Dogs vary how and where they
attack, but often attack the hindquarters, flanks, and • shed lambing,
head. They rarely kill as effectively as wolves or coyotes
and are considered “sloppy” predators, slashing and • synchronizing birthing,
tearing prey that sometimes results in many injured
animals. Dogs generally wound animals in the neck and • keeping young animals in areas with little vegetative
front shoulders; the ears often are badly torn. Skinning cover and in close proximity to human activity, and
the carcass often reveals bruises on 80% of the body
due to bites that did not penetrate the skin. Dogs rarely • properly disposing of livestock carcasses by rendering,
feed on the carcass. If dogs eat sheep or big game, they burying, composting, or burning to discourage
normally eat the thighs and rear end and often vomit scavenging by wolves.
near the site.

Management Methods
Responsible and professional reduction or elimination of
wildlife damage is the goal of wildlife damage management
practitioners. This is best accomplished through an
integrated approach. No single method is effective in every
situation, and success is optimized when damage
management is initiated early, consistently, and adaptively
using a variety of methods. Because the legality of
methods vary by state, consult local laws and regulations
prior to the implementation of any method.
Figure 5. The use of range riders (a person patrolling a range on horseback) is
For a summary table of wolf management methods, please growing in popularity in many areas with wolves. They help to deter wolves and assist
see the Appendix. in herd management.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 7

These practices generally require additional resources (Lycaon pictus) from leaving protected reserves and
and effort, and may only delay the onset of predation, or entering farmlands to depredate livestock. However,
may have undesirable side effects (e.g., night penning biofences have had limited success in altering wolf
requires added effort and frequently causes spot pack movements and are not really considered an
deterioration of pastures, or shed lambing requires effective management technique for wolves
added labor and feed costs). For these methods to be depredating livestock. Wolves may habituate to a
effective, producers must develop and adapt strategies biofence more quickly without the occasional physical
to fit their unique situations. Although the economic confrontation at territorial borders necessary to
advantages of modifying husbandry practices may be reinforce territory boundaries among wolves.
difficult to quantify, the changes can assist in herd
management and production (e.g., range riders often Electronic Training Collar
find calves that may have been abandoned or are in
distress). Electronic training collars are a nonlethal method for
deterring wolf predation by potentially changing a wolf’s
Birthing Pens behavior during a predation attack (Figure 6). They are
similar to shock collars used to train domestic dogs.
Birthing pens are a form of temporary or permanent Studies have shown that wolves with electronic collars
fencing where cows or ewes are given extra protection avoided bait sites more than wolves without collars.
during a vulnerable time. Non-protected birthing on the Collared wolves also moved further away from bait
open range is not recommended in wolf country. Not stations after being shocked. However, the avoidance
only are birthing animals and their newborn calves or behavior did not continue once shocking ceased.
lambs extremely vulnerable to depredation during and
immediately following birth, but the blood and afterbirth Investigators note that electronic collars may have limited
can be strong attractants to all types of predators. The field applicability since they require the capture and
effectiveness of birthing pens and/or night pens can be handling of wolves in order to attach the collars or change
enhanced with fladry or turbo-fladry (described below). the collar’s batteries. Also, non-collared wolves

Night Penning

Bringing livestock herds or flocks into paddocks or

pens at night can help to reduce wolf depredations.
Night penning may require a period of adjustment
and the help of herding dogs, as livestock become
used to being gathered together at night. Eventually,
the animals head for the night pens willingly. An
added benefit of night penning is that producers are
able to monitor the health of the herd and individual
animals on a regular basis.

Biofence

A “biofence” is a type of biological barrier that uses

artificial scent-marks (e.g., feces and urine) to exploit
the territorial behavior of predators. This concept
Figure 6. Electronic training collar used to shock a collared wolf
originated in Botswana to keep African wild dogs
when it enters a designated area. Requires capture and
placement of the collar on the wolf.
Page 8 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

are not affected and may still cause damage. Although Adding an electrified single-wire strand charged by a
this document provides information on this technique, it commercial fence charger to the woven-wire fence can
likely is not a practical solution for managing depredation increase its effectiveness. The electrified wire should
problems. However, if costs and labor are not an issue be placed 8 inches (20 centimeters (cm)) outside of the
and these collars are used, the receiver could be tuned main fence line and 8 inches (20 cm) above the
to communicate with the collar at a distance equal to the ground.
width of the pasture or area containing the stock needing
protection. Having a radio-collared wolf with the training Additionally, a 5 ft (1.5 m) woven-wire fence with 9 to 12
collar could then be triggered when the radio-collar is alternating ground and charged wires spaced 4 to 6
detected within the range of the receiver. inches (10 to 15 cm) apart is an effective barrier against
coyotes, and may be effective against wolves. A high-
Exclusion tensile woven-wire fence is more versatile, longer
lasting, and can be tightened more than a conventional
Effective barriers for excluding wolves from livestock wire mesh fence.
include wire fences, fladry or turbo- fladry.
It is unlikely that fences will totally exclude all wolves from
Fencing an area, however, fences can increase the effectiveness of
other damage management methods, such as penning
Wolves may be excluded from pastures with well- livestock, using guard animals, and trapping. For example,
maintained woven-wire fences that are 6 to 7 feet (ft) (2 the combined use of LPDs and fencing may be more
to 2.5 meters (m)) high. However, many factors, successful than either method alone. Installation costs
including the density, behavior and motivation of wolves, usually preclude the use of fences for protecting
terrain and vegetative conditions, availability of prey, size livestock in large pastures or under range conditions.
of pastures, and time of year, as well as the fence design,
construction, and maintenance, will impact the overall Approximately 52% of surveyed livestock producers
effectiveness of a fence. use fencing to exclude predators from sheep and
lambs.

Figure 7. A corral of fladry erected on a grazing allotment in Idaho for night-penning sheep (left), and fladry being set-up on a farm in Minnesota (right).
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 9

Fladry Fertility Control

Fladry consists of polypropylene cording or similar Currently, there are no fertility control products registered
material on which red or orange cloth flagging or plastic for use with wolves. Vasectomy of male wolves has been
vinyl taping is hung at 18-inch (46 cm) intervals and proposed as a method to manage populations, but has not
strung on temporary or permanent fence posts (Figure been tested and may be impractical or economically
7). First used in Europe to surround wolves in order to infeasible. While not tested on wolves, sterilized coyotes
hunt them, fladry has been adapted for use as a killed significantly less domestic sheep than intact coyotes.
nonlethal wolf deterrent. Because carnivores are often
wary of new items in their environment (like fluttering Frightening Devices
flags), they are cautious about crossing the fladry
barrier. Lights, distress calls, loud noises, scarecrows,
plastic streamers, propane cannons, aluminum pie
Turbo-fladry is similar to fladry but is strung on electric pans, and lanterns have been used to frighten
fencing material, often PVC-coated for durability. Turbo- predators. While all of these devices can provide
fladry combines the effectiveness of fladry with the shock- temporary relief from predator damage, wolves may
delivering power of an electric fence. If a wolf overcomes quickly habituate to them. Changing the location of
its innate fear of the flagging and attempts to pass the devices, the pattern of the disruptive-stimuli or
fladry barrier, a shock is delivered. The added “shock combining several techniques prolongs the
value” of the turbo-fladry appears to enhance the frightening effect. One research study suggests that
avoidance time for wolves. light may be the most important component of a
frightening device.
Both types of fladry are recommended for temporary use,
such as on calving or lambing areas, and are typically Devices developed to deter wolf predation and prevent
effective for 90 to 120 days. habituation include the Radio Activated Guard (RAG) box
(Figure 8) and the Movement Activated Guard (MAG)
Fladry and turbo-fladry are easy to install. A number of device. The RAG box is triggered and emits lights and
producers have developed bagging systems for fladry or
reels that can fit on the back of a pickup, ATV, or saddle for
easy and rapid installation. Fiberglass poles can be carried
and quickly installed with a hammer or sleeve driver. The
fladry can be strung through the metal clips normally used
with such poles. Turbo-fladry is generally powered by golf-
cart or marine batteries that are recharged using solar
panels.

As part of a collaboration between the Defenders of

Wildlife and USDA Wildlife Services, the combined use of
fladry, LPDs, and herders has effectively deterred wolf
predation on sheep in Idaho while limiting the need to
remove wolves from the area.

Figure 8. A Radio-Activated Guard (RAG) box consisting of a radio-telemetry receiver

that activates the unit when a radio-collared wolf is detected. Unit consists of strobe
lights, solar-powered battery, user defined activation distance, and plays more than
30 different sounds to scare the wolf away.
Page 10 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

Livestock Protection Dogs

Livestock protection dogs (LPD) are used to deter

predators from livestock in many countries worldwide.
Approximately 32% of surveyed livestock producers in
several western states use LPDs to protect their flocks. In
Colorado, a study reported sheep producers estimated
their LPDs saved them an average of $3,216 annually from
coyote depredations and reduced their need for other
control techniques.

Dog breeds most commonly used as LPDs include Great

Figure 9. Less-Than-Lethal-Munitions are fired from a shotgun at a wolf to scare the Pyrenees, Komondor, Akbash, Anatolian, and Maremma.
animal from an area. However, these breeds may be vulnerable to wolf
predation. With the expansion of wolf populations into the
northern Rocky Mountains and the northwestern U.S., new
larger-bodied breeds of LPDs from Europe have been
evaluated for use as LPDs. A USDA Wildlife Services study
sounds when a radio-collared wolf comes within a examined three LPD breeds from Europe (Turkish Kangal
predetermined distance (e.g., the width of the pasture) of (Figure 10), Bulgarian Karakachan, and the Portuguese
the device. The RAG box has been recently redesigned and Transmontano) and determined they all successfully
now includes a text alert system to alert the rancher or protected sheep from a variety of large predators but
herder via cell phone when the device is triggered by a showed different guarding traits and behaviors. Producers
radio-collared wolf. However, use of these devices require may want to balance the traits of multiple dog breeds by
recapturing the wolf to replace the collar’s battery. having some that prefer to stand guard with the flock and
Alternatively, the MAG device is activated by a passive others that seek out and investigate potential threats.
infrared motion detector eliminating the need for collaring
wolves. RAG and MAG boxes are generally available from
USDA Wildlife Services offices with assistance from WS
personnel. Defenders of Wildlife is making the redesigned
RAG box available to state wildlife agencies.

Another tool used to frighten wolves from an area is Less-

Than-Lethal-Munitions (Figure 9) which fire nonlethal
munitions (e.g., small plastic projectile, small bean bag,
cracker shells) from a shotgun. This tool has a limited
range and requires the shooter to be within 300 feet
(100 m) of the wolf in order for it to be effective.

Guarding Animals

The use of guarding animals, such as dogs and donkeys, to

protect flocks and herds from predators is a common
nonlethal predation damage management tool. Figure 10. The Turkish Kangal (shown) is one of three large European dog breeds
investigated to reduce predation by large carnivores.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 11

Studies investigating the efficacy of LPDs have shown the selecting a guard llama include leadership (frequency with
dogs to be effective in some situations and ineffective in which individuals were followed by other llamas), alertness,
others. This may be due to the inherent difficulty of guard and body weight.
dogs protecting large flocks dispersed over rough terrain
and in areas where thick cover conceals approaching Although guard animals may not deter wolves completely,
predators. Some poorly trained or minimally supervised they may change the predators’ behavior and activity
guard dogs have killed sheep and lambs, harassed or patterns when near livestock. In several states, such as
killed wildlife, and threatened people that intrude upon Minnesota, both guard donkeys and llamas have been
their territory. However, not all LPD failures or undesired killed by wolves.
behaviors stem from poor training or supervision. There is
considerable behavioral diversity within a litter of guard Repellents
dog pups; some turn into valuable and effective guard
animals, while others do not, despite similar training and There are no effective chemical repellents for use with
effort. The use of LPDs may preclude the use of other wolves.
management methods, such as snares and traps.
Shooting
Donkeys and Llamas
Shooting is a selective and common method for lethally
Approximately 6% and 22% of surveyed livestock removing wolves. Safety is a critical factor and may preclude
producers in the western U.S. use donkeys and llamas as the use of firearms due to local laws or human habitation.
guard animals, respectively. Consider all available management options and proceed
accordingly.
The protective behavior of donkeys apparently stems from
their dislike of dogs. A donkey will bray, bare its teeth, The choice of firearm, caliber, and bullet will vary based on
chase and try to kick and bite wolves. If using guard circumstances in the field. Rifles suitable for taking wolves
donkeys, it is recommended to only use a jenny (female) or include a .243 caliber, 6 mm, or larger with a suitable
gelded jack (male; intact jacks are too aggressive towards bullet type for taking an animal up to 120 lbs (55 kg).
livestock), and to place one donkey per flock or group and
keep other donkeys or horses away to prevent the guard Aerial Operations
donkey from bonding with them versus the flock or herd.
Furthermore, donkeys should be introduced to the The use of aircraft for shooting wolves is regulated by
livestock about 4 to 6 weeks prior to the onset of the Airborne Hunting Act and is allowed under special
anticipated predation events to properly bond with the permit in states where legal. Aerial operations are very
group. Donkeys are most effective in small, fenced selective, allowing for the removal of targeted packs or
pastures. Donkeys are relatively low maintenance. They individuals.
generally eat pasture or rations suitable for other livestock
and need only general health care – usually having their Aerial operations, using fixed–winged airplanes and
hooves trimmed once a year. helicopters, are used for removing wolves that are
depredating livestock. Fixed-wing aerial operations are
Llamas are also a practical and effective tool for deterring limited primarily to open areas with little vegetative cover.
predators, mainly coyotes, from livestock. Llamas can be Because of their maneuverability, helicopters are useful for
kept in fenced pastures with sheep or goats, do not require shooting in areas of brush, scattered timber, and rugged
any special feeding program, are relatively easy to handle, terrain.
and live longer than LPDs. Traits that may be useful in
Page 12 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

Although aerial operations can be conducted over bare predators. Translocation of wolves from Canada to central
ground, they are most effective where there is snow cover. Idaho and Yellowstone National Park led to the recovery of
Wolves are more visible against a background of snow wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. However,
versus brown vegetation. Their tracks are also more visible capturing and moving animals causing damage is not
in the snow. During the summer, vegetation that is still considered a viable solution for solving wildlife damage
green also makes for a good background for spotting problems. Wolves that have killed domestic animals and
wolves. are translocated to prevent future damage typically leave
the release site, travel great distances, and return to the
Aerial operations can be more efficient if a ground crew original capture site or another area containing domestic
works with the aircraft. Before the aircraft arrives, the animals where they resume depredation activities.
ground crew often works to locate wolves in the area by
eliciting howls. Two-way radio communication allows the Trapping
ground crew to direct the aircraft toward the sound of the
wolves, thus reducing search times. Trapping describes several types of tools and techniques
used to commonly capture wolves. These include foothold
In areas where aerial operations are allowed, federal law traps and cable restraint devices that are designed to live-
requires each state to issue permits. Some states or capture wolves.
federal agencies may also require low-level flying waivers.
Aerial operations require special skills and training for both Trapping rules and regulations vary by state. Most states
the pilot and gunner. have regulations on various types of traps, baits, sets, and
trap visitation schedules. Some states do not allow the use
The addition of radio-collars to study and locate the pack of foothold traps. Consult local laws and regulations prior
has also proved useful in wolf management for many to using any traps.
western states. The radio-collar allows for identification of
nearby packs that may be depredating livestock, and can Wolf trapping success varies with local wolf densities
then be relocated when needed. and activity patterns, soil and snow conditions, trapper
skill, abundance of livestock, wild ungulate density,
Recreational Hunting other large carnivore activity, and other factors.
Productive areas for capturing wolves are identified by
Where legal, firearms can be used to lethally take wolves observing wolf sign (e.g., wolf tracks, scat, scratches)
causing damage found near depredation sites and and other evidence of regular wolf use. Often wolf sign is
livestock production areas. In some areas, local wolf found on wolf travel routes such as forest roads,
populations also may be reduced through recreational minimum maintenance roads, agricultural field roads,
hunting. Wolves may be called into firearm range with a cattle trails, snowmobile trails, dikes and other routes
predator call or by voice howling. through wolf habitat that provide easier travel for wolves
than surrounding habitat. Setting traps on these wolf
Toxicants travel routes, as well as near wolf kills, rendezvous sites,
and scavenging sites are effective ways to capture
There are no toxicants currently registered for use with wolves.
wolves in the United States.
Using a trap to selectively remove an animal that is
Translocation causing depredation is difficult. However, removing wolves
in close proximity to a damage site in the days immediately
Although translocation efforts are expensive, they are often following a verified wolf depredation has proven successful
considered essential when dealing with rare or endangered in reducing or delaying subsequent damage. Generally, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 13

more wolves removed, the longer the delay until the next
damage incident. Sometimes just attempting to trap the
offending animal and increasing the level of human activity
in the area may deter future depredations.

Foothold Traps

Commonly used foothold traps for capturing wolves

include #4, #5, #7, MB-750, Alaskan #9, Braun wolf trap,
and others with coil-spring or double-long spring
mechanisms. Wide, offset jaws, padded or rubber coated
jaws (McBride EZ-grip), multiple swivels, and shock springs
are common modifications on foothold traps to help
reduce capture-related injuries.
Figure 11. Foothold trap configured with chain and 2-pronged drag-hook.

Foothold traps for wolves can be equipped with a long

(minimum 8 ft [2.4 m]) chain attached to a heavy duty two-
pronged drag in areas with suitable vegetation (Figure 11).
A drag allows a captured wolf to move from the set
location and seek shelter in vegetation. Drags are typically
used instead of in-ground anchors in sandy or loose soils,
and in areas with dense vegetation for the drag to hook
onto away from the trap site.

In terrain or habitat unsuitable for drags, foothold traps

can be anchored solidly at the trap set location with the
use of trap stakes (Figure 12) or other anchoring systems.
Often two re-bar stakes (½-inch (1.3 cm) diameter by 24-
Figure 12. Foothold trap configured with two stakes for anchoring the trap in place.
inch (60 cm) long) are hammered into the ground in a
“cross-staked” pattern to prevent stakes from being pulled
out by a captured animal. Alternatively, a “bullet” or earth
anchor can be used to secure a foothold trap (Figure 13).
These devices are attached to the trap chain using a chain
or strong cable (1/8-inch [0.3 cm] diameter minimum),
and driven into the ground to a depth of 18 to 24 inches
(46 to 61 cm) below the trap with a specialized driver.

All swivels, j-hooks, s-hooks, and other connections on

wolf traps and chains should be spot-welded so captured
wolves cannot open the connections and escape. Pan-
tension devices also should be considered to minimize
captures of smaller nontarget species. Use of trap
monitors can be beneficial for traps set in areas with Figure 13. Foothold trap equipped with a “bullet” anchor which is driven into the
ground. When the chain is pulled, the anchor pivots, anchoring the trap in place.
difficult access, or in areas occupied by endangered
species requiring prompt removal of an animal from the
Page 14 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

A B

C D

Figure 14. Placement of a foothold trap in the ground begins with two-stakes in a “cross-staking” configuration and chain to anchor the trap in place (A), then dirt is filled around
the trap with a plastic baggie over the pan preventing dirt from getting under the pan (B), more dirt is then sifted over the trap (C), with the final trap set being blended into the
surroundings to conceal the trap (D).

trap. Additional anchoring of the trap may be needed soil from getting beneath the pan and preventing it from
when working in areas with grizzly bears to allow being depressed by the target animal. Alternatively, closed
release of the bear from the trap. cell foam or other compressible material can be placed
underneath the trap pan to keep out dirt. The weight of a
A foothold trap usually is set in the ground by digging a wolf’s foot on the pan will compress the material under the
trench just deep and wide enough to fit the trap, stake (or pan and allow the trap to trigger. Cover the trap with soil
drag), and chain in the bottom of the hole. The trap is set and other natural materials (i.e., leaves, pine needles, dry
firmly on top of the buried chain and should be about ¼ to grass) found in the area near the trap.
½-inch (5 to 10 mm) below the soil surface (Figure 14). A
piece of canvas, cloth, mesh screen, waxed paper, or a There are two main types of foothold trap sets: blind and
plastic sandwich bag is placed over the trap pan to prevent flat. A blind or trail set is used to trap an unsuspecting wolf
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 15

as it is traveling on its commonly used trails. It is set length, and whether the captured wolf can entangle itself
without a bait or attractant. A flat set takes advantage of a in nearby vegetation or fencing. The device is set where
wolf’s curiosity and urge to investigate smells. It is often an animal crawls under a fence, travels through tall
set off of the travel route and baited with an attractant, grass, brush or some other narrow passageway. The
such as meat bait, scat or urine, on or near a grass clump, device is placed so the animal must put its head through
log end, rock, bone or some other natural backing to entice the cable loop as it passes through the restricted area.
the wolf to stop and smell the attractant, but not roll on it. The device’s loop tightens as the wolf proceeds through
Alternatively, the attractant could be placed in a small hole the loop and the lock travels toward the terminal end of
(at least 6 inches [15-cm] deep) dug behind the trap. the cable, holding the captured wolf by the neck. Cable
devices should be strong enough to resist twisting and
Many states do not allow trapping of wolves, or restrict chewing by a captured wolf. Cable that is 1/8-inch (0.3
trapping near a carcass or exposed bait, so check local cm) diameter (e.g., 7 x 7 cable) is frequently used. A
and state regulations. Foothold traps must be checked cable device’s loop is typically 13 to 16 inches (33 to 41
often to minimize the amount of time animals are cm) in diameter and is placed so it hangs 16 to 18 inches
restrained. To avoid catching nontarget animals, such as 41 to 46 cm) above the ground.
bears, eagles and vultures, do not place foothold traps
near a carcass. Care should be taken when using neck cable devices to
avoid unintentional capture of wild ungulates, livestock,
Cable Restraint Devices or bears. Selectivity, effectiveness, and risk of capture
of nontarget species can be improved with proper
Cable restraint devices (also known as snares) are made design and placement. A breakaway device and a snare
of varying lengths and sizes of wire or cable that is looped stop incorporated into the cable device’s lock allow
through a locking device that allows loop to tighten larger animals to escape if accidentally caught and
(Figure 15). There are generally two types of cable should be considered in areas where there is the
devices: neck and foot. Neck cable devices can be used potential to catch nontarget species. Diverter wires or
to restrain a live animal or as a lethal tool depending on sticks placed directly over the set are used successfully
their design, lock type, cable diameter, anchor type, in some locales to reduce unintentional capture of wild
ungulates. Deer and livestock can be prevented from
interfering with a cable device by placing a pole or
branch across the trail, directly over the set about 3 ft
(0.9 m) above the ground.

Spring-activated cable devices are used to capture

wolves and other large predators by the foot. When the
animal steps on the trigger the spring is released,
propelling the device’s loop around the foot. The animal
instinctively recoils, tightening the cable.

Foot cable devices can be used in a cubby set (a set which

funnels the wolf to step on the trap from one direction), or
set in a narrow trail known to be traveled by wolves.
Selectivity of the cable device may be improved by placing
sticks under the trigger that break only under the weight of

Figure 15. Cable restraint devices are made of varying lengths and sizes of wire or
cable looped through a locking device that allows the loop to tighten.
Page 16 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

heavier animals. Open-cell foam pads can be placed under Disposal

trigger pans to prevent unintentional triggering of devices
by small mammals. Foot cable devices are generally not as Check your local and state regulations regarding carcass
effective at capturing wolves as more traditional foothold disposal. In some disease-related cases, deep burial, or
traps, but they are lighter and easier to carry. incineration may be warranted.

Handling and Euthanasia

Wear protective equipment (i.e., disposable latex or nitrile Economics

gloves, safety glasses) when handling live or dead wolves.
Avoid contact with claws, teeth, blood, saliva, urine, or Economic benefits of wolves are mainly through
feces. consumptive and non-consumptive uses. Wolf hunting
is now allowed in much of the northern Rocky
The most dangerous part of a wolf is its mouth with sharp
Mountains, which generates revenues that would be
teeth and the ability to break bones with the power of its
considered consumptive use (e.g., the sale of licenses
bite. A catchpole or Y-pole may be used to momentarily
for hunting and trapping wolves in Montana is over
restrain a wolf, but administration of immobilizing drugs is
$400,000 per year). Plus, hunters spend money for
recommended if handling or transporting the animal is
travel, housing, food, and equipment, generating
required.
income for hotels, restaurants, and hunting
guides. Some ranchers may be able to offset losses
When working with a live wolf, move slowly and
associated with wolves by providing access to their
deliberately. Speak in a calm voice. Place a hood or towel
property and services (e.g., guiding, housing) to people
over the wolf’s eyes to reduce stress. Keep a live wolf
that hunt wolves. An outfitter in Idaho offers wolf
cool or in a shaded area to avoid heat-related injury.
hunting on Idaho ranches for $3,800 for a single
hunter.
Thoroughly washing your hands, body, and clothing
after trapping and handling wolves will reduce the
In terms of non-consumptive use, wolves provide
chances of contracting a zoonotic disease or parasite,
opportunities for people to view, film, photograph,
such as tapeworms.
listen to, or otherwise experience wolves in their
natural habitats. Tourists flock to Yellowstone National
The American Veterinary Medical Association provides
Park for a chance to see wolves. When first introduced
guidelines for euthanizing animals. Pharmaceutical
into Yellowstone National Park in 1995, economists
euthanasia agents (including barbiturates) can only be
estimated that visitor use would increase by 5% for
administered by a licensed veterinarian or someone
out-of-area residents and 10% for local residents. Ten
working under the direction and control of a veterinarian.
years later, economists confirmed that visitation
It is recommended that applicators use a sedative
increased as predicted and that wolf-related visitation
followed by an intravenous injection of the euthanasia
produced $47 million annually in travel expenditures in
agent.
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Captured wolves may also be euthanized with a well-placed
The largest economic cost is from wolves harassing
shot to the brain with a hollow-point bullet from a .22
and/or killing livestock (Figure 16). The economic cost
rimfire cartridge (or of equivalent or greater velocity and
of livestock killed by wolves is determined by
muzzle energy) or a centerfire rifle bullet to the heart, if the
multiplying the number of animals lost times fair
brain cannot be safely and reliably targeted.
market value. However, counting these losses is
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 17

difficult because the exact number of livestock killed

by wolves is not known. From 1987 to 2005 in
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, 528 cattle, 1,318
sheep, 83 dogs, 12 goats, 9 llamas, and 6 horses were
confirmed killed by wolves, and over $550,000 was
paid from a private compensation fund (Defenders of
Wildlife). In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
confirmed a total of 136 cattle (both adults and calves)
and 114 sheep (adults and lambs) killed by wolves in
2014 in the northern Rocky Mountains. Generally, the
proportion of livestock killed by wolves is low, and
mortality caused by wolves is a small economic cost to
the livestock industry as a whole. Although wolf
Figure 16. Direct damage costs from wolves include the death and caring of injured
predation on cattle and sheep accounts for less than livestock as a result of being pursued or attacked.
1% of the annual gross income from livestock
operations in the northern Rocky Mountains, these
costs are unevenly distributed and localized.
local level in states with high wolf populations, elk
In the Great Lakes region, the 3 states (Wisconsin, numbers are stable or increasing in many areas where
Michigan, Minnesota) reported a total of close to wolves and elk interact, but they have declined in
$300,000 in compensation for wolf damage to others. At the statewide level, the number of elk
livestock in 2019. In 2020, these 3 states also harvested by hunters has not declined in the northern
reported about $770,000 in management costs Rocky Mountains, despite increases of wolves. An
dealing with wolf damage (this includes federal and economic analysis in Montana concluded that, overall,
cooperator funding, and funds for employing nonlethal wolves have not had a significant economic effect on
methods). elk harvest in the state. Rather, demand for hunting
shifted from the southwest region near Yellowstone to
Additionally, studies show that costs could be higher areas farther away from where wolves were first
when including unconfirmed deaths and indirect losses introduced. However, at a local level, where wolves
such as lower market weights, reduced conception contribute to declines in big game herds and hence
rates due to stress, and producer mitigation costs to hunting opportunities, this resulted in a cost to those
deter wolves or to seek compensation. For example, reliant on hunting to support their livelihoods.
one study found that calves in herds that experienced
predation were 22 lbs lighter and, when added across Many states fund compensation programs for livestock
all calves in those herds, accounted for a greater loss producers impacted by confirmed wolf depredations with
than confirmed depredations. Other studies found some non-governmental organizations contributing
unverified and indirect losses to be at least 6 times toward nonlethal damage management programs (e.g.,
that of verified losses. A later study found that these funding range riders and fladry) on private and public
estimates of unaccounted losses may be lands.
overstated. Clearly, more research is required to know
exactly how much producers might lose if wolf Livestock compensation programs for losses due to wolf
populations expand. damage vary by state with some states compensating
only for verified losses, and others compensating for
Another potential cost of wolves is reduced income for both verified losses and unrecovered livestock. A study
some businesses, primarily big game hunting. At a in Idaho documented that for every verified wolf
Page 18 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

depredation, there may be 7 to 8 head of cattle that costs associated with livestock management, such as
were also depredated but never found or verified. Some spending more time patrolling herds to keep wolves’
states, therefore, make compensation payments at a away, locating kills, and potentially implementing
ratio of 7 head for every one verified loss. Check state increased nonlethal measures that were not necessary
regulations for information on compensation payment before.
programs.
Wolf damage estimates to livestock varies by state. For
Current compensation programs generally only consider example, Minnesota has a well-established wolf
direct losses from wolf predation, while indirect effects population and control of wolves for livestock
may be just as costly. The presence of wolves in an area depredations has been quite consistent for several
may cause livestock to change their behavior, similar to decades. Conversely, in neighboring Wisconsin, the wolf
changes in elk behavior following wolf reintroductions. population has grown steadily since the late 1990s
Increased vigilance in livestock and less time foraging (Figure 17) with increasing depredations on livestock. The
may cause livestock to lose weight, thereby reducing re-establishment of wolves grew rapidly following
overall herd productivity which translates into reduced reintroduction and current populations in Montana,
profit margins when selling. Other indirect effects Wyoming, and Idaho are relatively constant with surplus
include changes in weaning weights and conception animals dispersing into Oregon, Washington, California,
rates, and increased cattle sickness. Producers have Utah, and Colorado. Each state has or is developing wolf
reported less weight gain in cattle and underutilized management plans for addressing their wolf populations
forage in pastures having high levels of wolf activity. The based on the wolves’ status (i.e., endangered, delisted,
presence of wolves in an area may result in increased etc.), population size, and public attitudes.

Figure 17. Wolf population numbers in Wisconsin, 1980-2018.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 19

Most state and federal agencies recognize the need to

manage wolf populations, particularly addressing
livestock depredations. Educating the public on these
needs and balancing the public attitudes towards lethal
removal of wolves makes the situation controversial.
The economics gained by some, at the expense of
others, will continue to be debated as wolf populations
expand into surrounding states.

Species Overview
Figure 18. Range of wolves in North America as of 2018. Tan color indicates range of
the gray wolf, while green color indicates range of the Mexican wolf in the southwest
Identification U.S. The range of the red wolf in northeastern North Carolina is not depicted.

The gray wolf belongs to the Canidae family in the genus

Canis. With the help of advanced genetic analysis, there
are currently four recognized subspecies of gray wolf in having fur that is completely black, to the Arctic wolf which
North America. These include: has fur that is completely white. In general, the pelage of
gray wolves is tan or light brown mixed with brown, black,
• Arctic wolf (Canis lupus arctos) - endemic to and white.
the Elizabeth Islands, Canada
Range
• Great Plains wolf (Canis lupus nubilus)
Historically, the gray wolf was found throughout Eurasia
• Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) and North America except in the southeastern United
States. Gray wolves can live in almost all types of habitats
• Northwestern wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) from tundra to forests and from deserts to swamps.
Present distributions have been severely restricted and
The red wolf (Canis rufus) is recognized as a separate gray wolves are found primarily in Alaska, Canada,
species. Historically, the red wolf was found throughout the northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, Michigan’s
eastern United States from east Texas to Florida and as far Upper Peninsula, and areas of Idaho, Wyoming,
north as Pennsylvania. Today, a small wild population Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, and Montana
resides in eastern North Carolina. Approximately 200 (Figure 18). However, wolves are currently expanding their
individuals are found in zoos and other captive facilities range in the contiguous United States. Between 1995 and
across the United States. 1996, 31 gray wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone
National Park. In 2019, there was an estimated 60 wolves
Physical Description in the Park, but over 520 estimated in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wolf packs have recently been
Canis lupus is the largest living canid. Males weigh from 44 found in northern California and northwestern Colorado.
to 175 lbs (20 to 80 kg) and females 35 to 120 lbs (16 to
55 kg), with larger individuals found further north. Although
called the gray wolf, their pelage varies with some wolves
Page 20 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

10 weeks old and begin to learn about the social

Pack Structure and Function
structure of the pack and hunting. When the young are
approximately 10 to 20 weeks old, the pack leaves the
Wolves are social animals that live in family-based groups
den area and moves to a “rendezvous site” where there
or “packs” that have a linear-hierarchical social structure.
are numerous “nest” sites, trails and play areas. The
The “alpha” male and female are the dominant individuals
rendezvous site (or sites) serves as a focal point for
in a pack. All other wolves in the pack are subordinate. An
pack members to congregate and are often used
individual wolf’s social status within a pack can change
through the summer months into early fall. When the
over time and is determined by age, health, physical
young-of-the-year are large enough to travel with the
condition, and other factors.
adult wolves, the rendezvous sites are generally
Packs function as a unit that defends a specific area called abandoned.
a territory. While defense of the territory is mainly
conducted by the alpha pair, all individuals undertake Mortality and Life Span
subtle defensive actions including scent marking and
Wolves in the wild typically live 4 to 5 years, but there are
howling. Scent marking occurs mostly along territorial
reports of wild 11-year-old female wolves producing litters;
boundaries. Howling is used not only to communicate
although older female wolves may enter reproductive
among pack members but also to inform neighboring
senescence before that age.
packs of the resident packs’ presence. The alpha pair are
generally the only individuals to engage in direct attacks on
Wolves primarily die from accidents, disease, starvation,
encroaching wolves.
injuries from fights with other wolves, injuries from prey,
and human-caused mortality. As densities of prey
Reproduction
decrease, more wolves die due to starvation. Human-
caused mortality is due to legal and illegal hunting and
In general, the alpha pair breeds in January or February.
vehicle accidents.
Subordinate females occasionally breed and produce a
successful litter.
The effects of pathogens and parasites on wolf populations
is not well documented. In some wolf populations, 2 to
After a gestation period of 62 to 63 days, a pregnant
21% of wolf mortality was attributed to disease. The most
female wolf gives birth to an average of 6 young. Litter
common diseases of adult wolves are mange and rabies,
sizes range from 1 to 11 individuals. The young are born
with pups being susceptible to canine distemper virus and
blind and are completely dependent on the mother during
canine parvovirus. The transmission of diseases, such as
lactation, and on the pack for food provisioning once the
canine parvovirus, from domestic dogs to wild wolves is a
young are weaned. Members of the pack feed the young
conservation concern. A study of serum samples from 387
by regurgitating food or indirectly by provisioning the
wolves in Minnesota documented serologic exposure to
lactating female. Young reach sexual maturity around 3
eight diseases. Diseases included canine parvovirus (82%
years old at which time they may disperse and leave the
adults, 24% young), canine adenovirus (88% adults, 45%
pack.
young), canine distemper virus (19% adults, 5% young),
eastern equine encephalitis (3% adults), West Nile virus
Dens and Rendezvous Sites
(37% adults, 18% young), heartworm (7% adults, 3%
Pregnant female wolves give birth to young in a den young), and Lyme’s disease (76% adults. 39% young).
where they remain for approximately 5 weeks. Although Parasites were found in 15% of fecal samples examined.
the young are mobile enough to move around, they stay Mange and lice are also present in many wolf populations.
relatively close to the den until they are approximately There is no reported relationship between prey density and
the incidence of disease in wolf packs.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 21

Population Status opportunistic hunters, pursuing prey whenever the

chance arises. However, successful capture of prey is
As of 2019, stable wolf populations exist in many regions often very low.
in the U.S., including Alaska, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, with growing Voice and Sounds
populations in parts of Oregon and Washington (Figures
19, 20). Wolves have recently been documented in Gray wolves make a variety of sounds, including barks,
northern California and northwestern Colorado. A small growls, howls, whimpers, whines, and yelps. Whines,
population of introduced Mexican wolves exists in Arizona whimpers and yelps indicate submissiveness, distress or
and New Mexico, and a small population of red wolves friendly behaviors, while growls and barks suggest
exists in eastern North Carolina. Both the Mexican and red dominance or aggression. While most vocalizations are
wolf populations are considered more vulnerable to used to communicate over short distances, howls can
extinction than other North American wolf populations. carry over long distances and are used to communicate
between packs or to members within a pack who are
Food Habits separated from each other. Although the specific purpose
of howls is not clear, it is thought that howling aids in the
As obligate carnivores, wolves eat primarily meat. Their coordination of movements among pack members, and
main prey includes large ungulates, such as moose, facilitates spacing among packs, social bonding among
deer, and elk. In Alaska, wolves also prey upon caribou pack members, and mating.
and musk oxen. Beavers are an important seasonal food
source in some locales. Occasionally, wolves eat small
mammals or scavenge on carcasses. While wolves are
more successful hunting vulnerable prey (i.e., small,
young, or old individuals that are easy to catch), they are

Figure 19. Minimum number of wolves and number of depredation events in Oregon, Figure 20. Known number of wolves and number of breeding pairs in Washington,
2009-2018. 2008-2018.
Page 22 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

Tracks and Sign Legal Status

Although adult wolves, adult coyotes, and large dogs have
The legal status of wolves varies from state to state.
four symmetrical toes on the front and hind feet, adult gray
For example, in California the gray wolf is protected as
wolf tracks are much larger and distinguishable by their
an endangered species under both the California and
more oval shape and forward pointing middle toes (Figure
federal Endangered Species Acts. In Wyoming, gray
21). Other wolf signs include scat, urine deposits, and
wolves are delisted and managed by the state. In North
scratch-ups (scratches on the ground), which are generally
Carolina, the red wolf is protected as a federally listed
thought to be territorial boundary markers. Wolf kills are
endangered species.
characterized by massive trauma and large tooth marks
usually on the hindquarters or flanks.
The legal status of many wolf populations remains in
flux as opposition to delisting in some states is
challenged in the courts. Check the legal status of
wolves in the state prior to implementing any
management methods.

Figure 21. Track sizes of a wolf, domestic dog, and coyote.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 23

Acknowledgements
Figure 1. Photo by Eric Gese, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
Figure 2. Graph from Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Figure 3. Graph from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Figure 4, 11-13, 15. Photos by John Hart, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
Figure 5-9, 14. Photos by USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
Figure 10. Photo by Julie Young, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
Figure 16. Photo by Len Fortunato Courtesy Heather Thomas
Figure 17. Graph from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Figure 18. Graph from 2018 IUCN Red List, Canis lupus
Figure 19. Graph from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Figure 20. Graph from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Figure 21. Drawing by David Moskowitz; http://westernwildlife.org/gray-wolf-outreach-project/signs-of-wolves/
We thank Julie Young, Anthony Duffiney, John Steuber, and Michael Burrell for providing critical reviews of this manuscript.

Glossary Disclaimer
Alpha: The highest ranking individual in a social group. Wildlife can threaten the health and safety of you and
Other animals in the same social group may exhibit others in the area. Use of damage prevention and control
deference or other species-specific subordinate behavior methods also may pose risks to humans, pets, livestock,
towards the alpha or alphas. other non-target animals, and the environment. Be aware
of the risks and take steps to reduce or eliminate those
Carnivore: Animal whose diet mainly consists of meat. risks.

Depredation: The act of consuming agricultural resources Some methods mentioned in this document may not be
(i.e., crops or livestock). legal, permitted, or appropriate in your area. Read and
follow all pesticide label recommendations and local
Fladry: A simple, nonlethal tool used to prevent livestock requirements. Check with personnel from your state
predation. It is a temporary fence, consisting of a line of wildlife agency and local officials to determine if methods
brightly colored flags hung at regular intervals along the are acceptable and allowed.
perimeter of a pasture.
Mention of any products, trademarks, or brand names
Nontarget Species: Animals inadvertently or unintentionally does not constitute endorsement, nor does omission
impacted by a management action. constitute criticism.

Territory: The area a wolf pack resides in and actively

defends from other intruding wolves.
Citation
Ungulate: A hooved, plant-eating mammal, such as an elk,
Gese, E.M., J.P. Hart, and P.A. Terletzy. 2021. Gray Wolves.
moose, sheep, cow or horse.
Wildlife Damage Management Technical Series. USDA,
APHIS, WS National Wildlife Research Center. Fort Collins,
Colorado. 29p.
Keywords
Canids, Canis lupus, Depredation, Fladry, Guardian
animals, Livestock, Snares, Traps, Wolves
Page 24 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

Resources
Acorn, R.C. and M.J. Dorrance. 1998. Coyote predation on livestock. AGDEX 684–19, Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural
Development, Edmonton, Canada.

Andelt, W.F. 1992. Effectiveness of livestock guarding dogs for reducing predation on domestic sheep. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 20:55–62.

Asa, C.S. and C. Valdespino. 1998. Canid reproductive biology: An integration of proximate mechanisms and ultimate
causes. American Zoologist 38:251-59.

Ausband, D.E., M.S. Mitchell, S.B. Bassing, and C. White. 2013. No trespassing: using a biofence to manipulate wolf
movements. Wildlife Research 40:207–216.

Ballard, W.B., L.A. Ayers, P.R. Krausman, D.J. Reed, and S.G. Fancy. 1997. Ecology of wolves in relation to a migratory
caribou herd in northwest Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 135:1-47.

Bangs, E.E., S.H. Fritts, D.R. Harms, J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, W.G. Brewster, and C.C. Niemeyer. 1995. Control of
endangered gray wolves in Montana. Pages 127–134 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, editors. Ecology and
conservation of wolves in a changing world. Occasional Publication 35, Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Canada.

Bangs, E., M. Jimenez, C. Niemeyer, J. Fontaine, M. Collinge, R. Krischke, L. Handegard, J. Shivik, C. Sime, S. Nadeau, C.
Mack, D. W. Smith, V. Asher, and S. Stone. 2006. Non-lethal and lethal tools to manage wolf-livestock conflict in the
northwestern United States. Vertebrate Pest Conference 22:7–16.

Bomford, M. and P.H. O’Brien. 1990. Sonic deterrents in animal damage control: a review of device tests and effectiveness.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:411–422.

Bradley, E.H., D.H. Pletscher, E.E. Bangs, K.E. Kunkel, D.W. Smith, C.M. Mack, T.J. Meier, J.A. Fontaine, C.C. Niemeyer, and
M.D. Jimenez. 2005. Evaluating wolf translocation as a nonlethal method to reduce livestock conflicts in the northwestern
United States. Conservation Biology 19:1498-1508.

Bradley, E.H., H.S. Robinson, E.E. Bangs, K. Kunkel, M.D. Jimenez, J.A. Gude, and T. Grimm. 2015. Effects of wolf removal
on livestock depredation recurrence and wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management
79:1337-1346.

Brannon, R.D. 1987. Nuisance grizzly bear, Ursus arctos, translocations in the Greater Yellowstone area. Canadian Field-
Naturalist 101:569–575.

Breck, S.W., R. Williamson, C. Niemeyer, and J.A. Shivik. 2002. Non-lethal Radio Activated Guard for deterring wolf
depredation in Idaho: summary and call for research. Vertebrate Pest Conference 20:223–226.

Carbyn, L.N. 1982. Incidence of disease and its potential role in the population dynamics of wolves in Riding Mountain
National Park, Manitoba. Pages 106-116 in F.H. Harrington and P.C. Paquet, editors. Wolves of the world: perspectives of
behaviour, ecology, and conservation. Noyes, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 25

Carstensen, M., J.H. Giudice, E.C. Hildebrand, J.P. Dubey, J. Erb, D. Stark, J. Hart, S. Barber-Meyer, L.D. Mech, S.K. Windels,
and A.J. Edwards. 2017. A serosurvey of diseases of free-ranging gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Minnesota, USA. Journal of
Wildlife Diseases 53:459-471.

Chavez, A.S. and E.M. Gese. 2005. Food habits of wolves in relation to livestock depredations in northwestern Minnesota.
American Midland Naturalist 154:253-263.

Chavez, A.S. and E.M. Gese. 2006. Landscape use and movements of wolves in relation to livestock in a wildland-
agriculture matrix. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1079-1086.

Cluff, H.D. and D.L. Murray. 1995. Review of wolf control methods in North America. Pages 491–504 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H.
Fritts, and D.R. Seip, editors. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Occasional Publication 35, Canadian
Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Canada.

Cronin, M.A., A. Cánovas, D.L. Bannasch, A.M. Oberbauer, and J.F. Medrano. 2015. Wolf subspecies: Reply to Weckworth et
al. and Fredrickson et al. Journal of Heredity 106:417-419.

Darrow, P.A. and J.A. Shivik. 2009. Bold, shy, and persistent: variable coyote response to light and sound stimuli. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 116:82–87.

DeCesare, N.J., S.M. Wilson, E.H. Bradley, J.A. Gude, R.M. Inman, N.J. Lance, K. Laudon, A.A. Nelson, M.S. Ross, and T.D.
Smucker. 2018. Wolf-livestock conflict and the effects of wolf management. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:711-722.

Erb, J. and C. Humpal. 2019. Minnesota wolf population update 2019. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Grand
Rapids, Minnesota. 7 pp.

Fredrickson, R., P. Hedrick, R. Wayne, B. vonHoldt, and M. Phillips. 2015. Mexican wolves are a valid subspecies and an
appropriate conservation target. Journal of Heredity 106:415-416.

Fritts, S.H., W.J. Paul, and L.D. Mech. 1984. Movements of translocated wolves in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife
Management 48:709-721.

Fritts, S.H., W.J. Paul, L.D. Mech, and D.P. Scott. 1992. Trends and management of wolf-livestock conflicts in Minnesota.
Resource Publication 181, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.

Fuller, T.K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 105:1-41.

Fuller, T.K, L.D. Mech, and J.F. Cochrane. Wolf population dynamics. Pages 161-191 in L.D. Mech and L. Boitani, editors.
Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Gable, T.D., S.K. Windels, M.C. Romanski, and F. Rosell. 2018. The forgotten prey of an iconic predator: a review of
interactions between gray wolves Canis lupus and beavers Castor spp. Mammal Review 48:123-138.

Gates, N.L., J.E. Rich, D.D. Godtel, and C.V. Hulet. 1978. Development and evaluation of anti-coyote electric fencing.
Journal of Range Management 31:151–153.

Gese, E.M. and L.D. Mech. 1991. Dispersal of wolves (Canis lupus) in northeastern Minnesota, 1969-1989. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 69:2946-2955.
Page 26 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

Gese, E.M., S.P. Keenan, and A.M. Kitchen. 2005. Lines of defense: coping with predators in the Rocky Mountain region.
Utah State University Cooperative Extension Service, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 33 pages.

Gese, E.M., P.A. Terletzky, J.D. Erb, K.C. Fuller, J.P. Grabarkewitz, J.P. Hart, C. Humpal, B.A. Sampson, and J.K. Young. 2019.
Injury scores and spatial responses of wolves following capture: cable restraints versus foothold traps. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 43:42-52.

Green, J.S. and P.S. Gipson. 1994. Dogs (feral). Pages C77–C81 in S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm, and G.E Larson, editors.
Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA.

Green, J.S., F.R. Henderson, and M.D. Collinge. 1994. Coyotes. Pages C51–C76 in S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm, and G.E.
Larson, editors. Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
USA.

Gula, R. 2008. Wolf depredation on domestic animals in the Polish Carpathian Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management
72:283–289.

Haight, R.G. and L.D. Mech. 1997. Computer simulation of vasectomy for wolf control. Journal of Wildlife Management
61:1023–1031.

Harper, E.K. 2004. An analysis of wolf depredation increase and of wolf control effectiveness in Minnesota. M.S. thesis,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Harper, E.K., W.J. Paul, and L.D. Mech. 2005. Causes of wolf depredation increase in Minnesota from 1979 -1998. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 33:888-896.

Harper, E.K., W.J. Paul, L.D. Mech, and S. Weisberg. 2008. Effectiveness of lethal, directed wolf-depredation control in
Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:778–784.

Harrington, F.H. and C.S. Asa. 2003. Wolf communication. Pages 66-103 in L.D. Mech and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves:
behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Hawley, J.E., T.M. Gehring, R.N. Schultz, S.T. Rossler, and A.P. Wydeven. 2009. Assessment of shock collars as nonlethal
management for wolves in Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:518–525.

Hawley, J.E., S.T. Rossler, T.M. Gehring, R.N. Schultz, P.A. Callahan, R. Clark, J. Cade, and A.P. Wydeven. 2013. Developing a
new shock-collar design for safe and efficient use on wild wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:416-423.

Kinka, D. and J.K. Young. 2018. A livestock guardian dog by any other name: similar response to wolves across livestock
guardian dog breeds. Rangeland Ecology and Management 71:509-518.

Kinka, D. and J.K. Young. 2019. Evaluating domestic sheep survival with different breeds of livestock guardian dogs.
Rangeland Ecology and Management 72:923-932.

Koehler, A.E., R.E. Marsh, and T.P. Salmon. 1990. Frightening methods and devices/stimuli to prevent animal damage - a
review. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 14:168–173.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 27

Lance, N.J., S.W. Breck, C. Sime, P. Callahan, and J.A. Shivik. 2010. Biological, technical, and social aspects of applying
electrified fladry for livestock protection from wolves (Canis lupus). Wildlife Research 37:708-714.

Linhart, S.B. 1984. Strobe light and siren devices for protecting fenced-pasture and range sheep from coyote predation.
Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 11:154–156.

Linhart, S.B., R.T. Sterner, G.J. Dasch, and J.W. Theade. 1984. Efficacy of light and sound stimuli for reducing coyote
predation upon pastured sheep. Protection Ecology 6:75–84.

Linhart, S.B., G.J. Dasch, R.R. Johnson, J.D. Roberts, and C.J. Packham. 1992. Electronic frightening devices for reducing
coyote depredation on domestic sheep: efficacy under range conditions and operational use. Proceedings of the Vertebrate
Pest Conference 15:386–392.

Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani. 2003. Introduction. Pages xv-xvii in L.D. Mech and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology,
and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani. 2003. Wolf social ecology. Pages 1-34 in L.D. Mech and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior,
ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Musiani, M., C. Mamo, L. Boitani, C. Callaghan, C.C. Gates, L. Mattei, E. Visalberghi, S. Breck, and G. Volpi. 2003. Wolf
depredation trends and the use of fladry barriers to protect livestock in western North America. Conservation Biology
17:1538–1547.

O’Gara, B.W. 1978. Differential characteristics of predator kills. Proceedings of the Biennial Pronghorn Antelope Workshop
8:380–393.

Oakleaf, J.K., C. Mack, and D.L. Murray. 2003. Effects of wolves on livestock calf survival and movements in central Idaho.
Journal of Wildlife Management 67:299–306.

Packard, J.M. 2003. Wolf behavior: reproductive, social and intelligent. Pages 35-65 in L.D. Mech and L. Boitani, editors.
Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Paquet, P.C. and L.N. Carbyn. 2003. Gray Wolf (Canis lupus and Allies). Pages 482-510 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson
and J.A. Chapman, editors. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and conservation, 2 nd Edition. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Paul, W.J. and P.S. Gipson. 1994. Wolves. Pages C123–C129 in S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm, and G.E. Larson, editors.
Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA.

Peterson, R.O., J.D. Woolington, and T.N. Bailey. 1984. Wolves of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 88:1-
52.

Rossler, S.T., T.M. Gehring, R.N. Schultz, M.Y. Rossler, A.P. Wydeven, and J.E. Hawley. 2012. Shock collars as a site-aversive
conditioning tool for wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:176-184.

Sahr, D.P. and F.F. Knowlton. 2000. Evaluation of tranquilizer trap devices (TTDs) for foothold traps used to capture gray
wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:597–605.
Page 28 WDM Technical Series─Gray Wolves

Schultz, R.N., K.W. Jonas, L.H. Skuldt, and A.P. Wydeven. 2005. Experimental use of dog-training shock collars to deter
depredation by gray wolves (Canis lupus). Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:142–148.

Shivik, J.A. 2006. Tools for the edge: what’s new for conserving carnivores. BioScience 56:253–259.

Shivik, J.A. and D.J. Martin. 2001. Aversive and disruptive stimulus applications for managing predation. Wildlife Damage
Management Conference 9:111–119.

Shivik, J.A., A. Treves, and P. Callahan. 2003. Nonlethal techniques for managing predation: primary and secondary
repellents. Conservation Biology 17:1531–1537.

Steele, J.R., B.S. Rashford, T.K. Foulke, J.A. Tanaka, and D.T. Taylor. 2013. Wolf (Canis lupus) predation impacts on
livestock production: direct effects, indirect effects, and implications for compensation ratios. Rangeland Ecology and
Management 66:539-544.

Stone, S.A., S.W. Breck, J. Timberlake, P.M. Haswell, F. Najera, B.S. Bean, and D.J. Thornhill. 2017. Adaptive use of
nonlethal strategies for reducing wolf-sheep conflict in Idaho. Journal of Mammalogy 98:33–44.

Wade, D.A. and J.E. Bowns. 1982. Procedures for evaluating predation on livestock and wildlife. Bulletin B-1429, Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, San Angelo, USA.

Weise, F.J, J. Lemeris, K.J. Stratford, R.J. van Vuuren, S.J. Munro, S.J. Crawford, L.L. Marker, and A.B. Stein. 2015. A home
away from home: insights from successful leopard (Panthera pardus) translocations. Biodiversity and Conservation
24:1755-1774.

Young, J.K. and J.S. Green. 2015. Predator damage control. Pages 901-944 in Sheep production handbook, volume 8.
American Sheep Industry, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Young, J.K., J. Draper, and S. Breck. 2019. Mind the gap: experimental tests to improve efficacy of fladry for nonlethal
management of coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43:265-271.

Young, J.K., E. Miller, and A. Essex. 2015. Evaluating fladry designs to improve utility as a nonlethal management tool to
reduce livestock depredation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:429-433.
 Page 29
Appendix
Damage Management Methods for Gray Wolves

Type of Control Available Management Options

Animal Husbandry • Carcass removal and disposal

• Herders/shepherds/”Range Riders”
• Night penning and shed lambing
• Pasture selection
• Synchronized birthing

Exclusion • Woven-wire and electric fencing

• Corrals
• Fladry/Turbo-fladry

Fertility Control No fertility control agents available

Frightening Devices • Less-Than-Lethal Munitions

• Radio Activated Guard and Motion Activated Guard
• Strobe lights and noise makers

Guarding Animals Livestock protection dogs, donkeys, llamas, and other guarding animals

Repellents No effective chemical repellents available

Shooting May require use of non-toxic/non-lead ammunition; Allowed with proper Federal and State permits

Trapping Foothold traps, cable restraint devices; Allowed with proper Federal and State permits

View publication stats