Search USGSSearch

USGS · ofr20051408

Public acceptance of management actions and judgments of responsibility for the wolves of the southern Greater Yellowstone Area: Report to Grand Teton National Park

Abstract

Introduction Wolves of Grand Teton National Park and the Greater Yellowstone Area Gray wolves (Canis lupus) appeared in Grand Teton National Park (GRTE) in October of 1998, two years after being reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park (YNP). Since that time, five packs have been within the GRTE borders - Gros Ventre Pack, Nez Perce Pack, Yellowstone Delta Pack, Teton Pack, and Green River Pack (Table 1). Wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Area are increasing and spreading out geographically (USFWS and others, 2004). This dispersion was demonstrated recently by the death of a 2-year-old female wolf from the Swan Lake pack on I-70 in Colorado (June 7, 2004; http://mountain-prairie.USFWS.gov/pressrel /04-43.htm). The organization of wolf packs in the GYA is dynamic and highly structured. In 2003, for example, a wolf from the Teton Pack joined with the Green River Pack, and several young wolves left the Teton Pack and moved south (USFWS and others, 2004). Pack size (averaging five to ten members) is dependent on hunting efficiency, which depends on prey size, type, and density. Each pack defends home ranges of several hundred square miles. The social structure of the pack is based on a breeding pair (an alpha male and female). Other wolves in the pack can be categorized as betas (males and/or females second in rank to the alphas), subordinates, pups, and occasional omegas (outcasts). Because generally only the alpha pair breeds, subordinate wolves of reproductive age must disperse from their packs and form new associations in order to breed. (http://www.nps.gov/grte/wolf/biolo.htm). The reintroduced wolves are classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as "nonessential experimental" under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. The recovery criteria for the GYA wolves were met in 2002 for removing the wolves from the Endangered Species List (30 or more breeding pairs). Currently, the USFWS manages wolf populations in the GYA until delisting occurs. After delisting, state Fish and Wildlife Services in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming will be responsible for managing wolves. Each state must submit a wolf management plan to the USFWS which then must be approved before management shifts occur. As of this writing, the process of delisting the wolves in the state of Wyoming is ongoing. However, the reclassification of wolves nationwide was completed on April 1, 2003. Wolves outside of YNP changed in status from endangered to threatened. The wolves classified in the experimental nonessential population did not change in status (USFWS and others, 2004). This classification of experimental nonessential population allows for flexibility in management decisions concerning the wolves (Smith and others, 2004). For example, control actions in the GYA included trapping and radio-collaring four wolves; intensive monitoring; increasing riders on grazing allotments; harassing wolves with rubber bullets, cracker shells, and lights; moving livestock to different pastures; and issuing four shoot on-sight permits. When non-lethal control methods were not effective, wolves were killed in an attempt to prevent further livestock depredations (USFWS and others, 2004; Table 1). At the same time that wolf numbers are rising, human population statistics in the GRTE area are also rising. The population of Teton County, Wyoming in 1990 was just over 11,000 people; today that number has increased to approximately 19,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). park visitation for GRTE has been substantial over the last several years with an average visitation of 2.5 million visitors (NPS, 2004a). Furthermore, land ownership surrounding GRTE and the establishment of grazing rights within park boundaries are problem areas for wolf-human interactions due to livestock depredation. With increasing numbers of visitors, residents, and livestock it is reasonable to assume that conflicts are going to increase also. In 1950, GRTE was expanded to in

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jonathan G. Taylor, S. Shea Johnson, Lori B. Shelby. 2005. Public acceptance of management actions and judgments of responsibility for the wolves of the southern Greater Yellowstone Area: Report to Grand Teton National Park. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20051408

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona