The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery plan proposed reintroduction of Canis lupus (gray wolf) to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho as part of a wolf restoration plan for the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. Strong opposition from some factions within the region forestalled the action for two decades. An environmental impact statement, conducted in 1992–1994 with extensive public input, culminated in a proposal to reintroduce wolves designated as “non‐essential—experimental” under Section 10 (j) of the federal Endangered Species Act. This approach, approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1994, provided for wolf restoration while allowing management flexibility to deal with concerns of the local public. A reintroduction plan was developed in the summer and fall of 1994. Acquiring, holding, transporting, and releasing suitable wolves for reintroduction presented a myriad of technical and logistical challenges that required effective planning and coordination by all participants. In January 1995, 29 wolves were captured in Alberta and transported to Yellowstone National Park (14) and central Idaho (15). Idaho wolves were freed immediately upon arrival; Yellowstone wolves (three family groups) were held in acclimation pens in the park until late March. Most Idaho wolves traveled extensively within the area intended for them, averaging 82 km net distance away from release sites after 5 months (range = 30–220 km), and three male‐female pairs formed by July. After 5 months in the wild, at least 13 of 15 Idaho‐released wolves were alive within the intended area, as were 13 of 14 Yellowstone wolves; one wolf was known to have been illegally killed in each area. No livestock were killed. Wolves released into Yellowstone Park continued to live as packs, stayed closer to their release sites (x = 22 km at end of June), and settled into home ranges; two packs produced a total of nine pups. The progress of the reintroduction program in its first year far exceeded expectations. Reintroductions of about 15 wolves to each area for 2–4 more years are scheduled, but the project may be shortened because of early successes. Future reintroduction planners can expect sociocultural issues to pervade the effort, but they can be optimistic that, from a biological standpoint, reintroduction of wolves has strong potential as a restoration technique.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Theoretical work on population viability and extinction probabilities, empirical data from Canis lupus (gray wolf) populations, and expert opinion provide only general and conflicting conclusions about the number of wolves and the size of areas needed for conservation of wolf populations. There is no threshold population size or proven reserve design that guarantees long‐term (century or more) survival for a gray wolf population. Most theoretical analyses of population viability have assumed a single, isolated population and lack of management intervention, neither of which is likely for wolves. Data on survival of actual wolf populations suggest greater resiliency than is indicated by theory. In our view, the previous theoretical treatments of population viability have not been appropriate to wolves, have contributed little to their conservation, and have created unnecessary dilemmas for wolf recovery programs by overstating the required population size. Nonetheless, viability as commonly understood may be problematic for small populations at the fringe of or outside the contiguous species range, unless they are part of a metapopulation. The capability of existing nature reserves to support viable wolf populations appears related to a variety of in situ circumstances, including size, shape and topography of the reserve; productivity, numbers, dispersion, and seasonal movement of prey; extent of poaching inside; degree of persecution outside; exposure to enzootica; attitudes of local people; and proximity to other wolf populations. We estimate that a population of 100 or more wolves and a reserve of several thousand square kilometers may be necessary to maintain a viable population in complete isolation, although 3000 km2 or even 500–1000 km2 may be adequate under favorable circumstances. In most cases, management intervention is probably necessary to assure the viability of relatively small, isolated populations. Because most reserves may be inadequate by themselves to ensure the long‐term survival of wolf populations, favorable human attitudes toward the species and its management must be recognized as paramount, and cooperation of neighboring management jurisdictions will be increasingly important.