University of Idaho

Conflict Between Wolves and Humans in the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States
Situational Analysis

Jessica Billman
ENGL 522
March 2015

General Overview
The gray wolf is making a comeback in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming. After having been almost completely eradicated from the lower 48
states of the U.S., countless petitions, movements, and field efforts have finally reintroduced the
gray wolf into its historic range. Intelligent and adaptable, the reintroduced wolf population of
the NRM has grown from an initial few to over 1,500 wolves. The return of this top predator has
had a beneficial cascade effect on the regional ecosystem, resulting in more food sources for
other species, the reappearance of some plant and animal species, and overall increased
biodiversity for the region (Wolf Restoration 2015).
But with the return of the wolf comes the return of old conflicts. Farmers and ranchers in the
NRM, determined to protect their livestock, are motivated to eliminate the gray wolf from the
area once again. Initially placed on the endangered species list in 1974, the gray wolf was
delisted in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming in 2011 and 2012 (Gray Wolves 2014). After it was
delisted, the NRM wolf population suffered losses of hundreds of wolves at the hands of humans
(Protected 2013)no small amount when the total population is under 2,000.
A great deal of misinformation is circulating about the wolf-human conflict. Many people in the
NRM region do not recognize the key role wolves play in maintaining a healthy, balanced
ecosystem. But the health of that ecosystem is directly linked to the health of the lands that
farmers and ranchers cultivate and upon which they graze their livestock. In this way, the
ecosystem also impacts the health of the regional economy, as well.
With an organized and effective communication plan, vital information can be distributed to the
people of the NRMthose who are ultimately responsible for stewarding the land and animals
upon which they depend for a living. Given compelling evidence and stories about the success
of nonlethal wolf management techniques, as well as information explaining the benefits of an
ecosystem with wolves in it (and the consequences of one without), the people of the NRM can
be empowered to find more peaceful solutions for sharing the land with wolves.

Page 2 of 17

Background
When European settlers first arrived in North America, wolves roamed freely throughout the
mountains of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. These wolves primarily preyed upon deer, bison,
elk, bighorn sheep, and pronghorns (Fritts et al 1997). As settlers continued to push westward,
wolf populations were viewed as a threat to the settlers and to their livestock; wolves were also
thought to serve as formidable competition for the areas prey animals (Wolf Restoration 2015).
Compounding matters was the fact that as the settlers hunted and drastically reduced prey animal
populations, wolves were forced to seek out other food sourcesnamely, livestock (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1987).
Humans retaliated against the wolves, who were seen as a danger to food sources and to
livestock (Wolf Wars 2014). Demonized by folklore, wolves were shot, poisoned, or baited and
trapped; bounties were offered for dead wolves (Wolf Wars 2014). Due to a failure to recognize
the wolves integral role in maintaining healthy ecosystems, wolf eradication efforts even arose
from unlikely sources: in 1906, the U.S. Forest Service called upon the Bureau of Biological
Survey to clear wolves from cattle ranges; and John James Audubon, famed naturalist and
namesake of the National Audubon Society (an organization dedicated to the conservation and
restoration of natural ecosystems), is reported to have assisted farmers in trapping and mutilating
wolves (Wolf Wars 2014).
Wolves were almost completely eliminated from the continental United States by the middle of
the twentieth century (Wolf Restoration 2015) and were listed as an endangered species in 1974
(Gray Wolves 2014). In 1995, wolf reintroduction programs were implemented in Yellowstone
National Park (YNP) and central Idaho (Wolf Restoration 2015). In these programs, gray wolves
were captured in Canada and relocated to parts of YNP and central Idaho (Wolf Restoration
2015). By most measures, these restoration efforts have been remarkably successful. By the end
of 2013, an estimated 1,691 wolves inhabited the NRM, including at least 320 packs and at least
78 breeding pairsnumbers that have prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to declare the
NRM wolf population recovered (Gray Wolves 2014). In May of 2011, wolves were removed

Page 3 of 17

from endangered species lists in Idaho and Montana; in August 2012, wolves were delisted for
Wyoming as well (Gray Wolves 2014).
These successes may prove to be a double-edged sword, however. After they were delisted in
Wyoming, for instance, wolves were no longer protected and were subject to management plans
that included kill on sight policies (Oatman 2014). Over the course of the 2012-2013 hunting
season, more than 550 gray wolves were killed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (Protected
2013). This is a hard blow to a population of less than 2,000 wolves. If current wolf
management policies are designed to allow similar numbers to be killed each year, those policies
cannot possibly be sustainable.
In light of this evidence, a judge in Wyoming ruled in September 2014 that it was once again
illegal to kill wolves in the state of Wyoming (Oatman 2014). While a victory for the wolves,
the ruling illuminates the Catch-22 of wolf protection: while protected, wolves have a chance to
grow their numbers; but once those numbers are deemed high enough, wolves will no longer
be protected. Unprotected, wolves may be hunted until they are once again endangeredand so
the cycle will continue.
There is also mounting evidence that, paradoxically, killing wolves may actually lead to an
increase in livestock kills. In one study, Rob Wielgus, a Washington State University ecologist,
found that killing a single wolf in a state increased the likelihood of livestock depredation by
four to six percent for that stateand with each additional wolf death, the likelihood of further
livestock depredation rose (Cornwall 2014). Wielgus theorized that if one or both leaders of a
pack (one male, one female) are killed, the pack may break into several smaller packs, thus
increasing the number of breeding pairs and the number of mouths to feed (Cornwall 2014).
Another theory is that when wolves are killed, it is often the older, more experienced wolves that
are killedthe teachers of the pack. With these teachers gone, younger, less experienced wolves
lack the skills to take down wild prey, and will seek out easier food sources like livestock
(Protected 2013).

Page 4 of 17

Nonlethal, sustainable wolf management techniques do exist. In the early 1990s, a conflict arose
between wolves and livestock owners as a result of wolf recolonization in the French Alps
(Espuno et al 2004). In Espunos 2004 study, it was found that in 81 percent of pastures,
confining sheep at night in conjunction with the presence of several guard dogs was effective in
preventing more than 95 percent of the sheep kills that would have occurred had the sheep been
roaming free without guard dogs. There is evidence, however, that this method is most effective
when livestock owners work directly with the dogs; in North America, this is often not the case,
and the use of guard dogs has had limited success in the NRM (Musiani et al 2003).
Another study was performed in areas of the NRM and in Alberta, Canada, testing the
effectiveness of deterring wolves with the use of fladry barriers, barriers constructed of flags
hung from rope stretched a short distance above the ground. Observations of baited sites and
cattle pastures led to the conclusion that fladry barriers were effective in deterring wolves from
food sources (livestock) and smaller areas for at least 60 days (Musiani et al 2003). Musiani et al
also predicted, however, that the presence of alternative food sources (such as native prey
species) would be critical to the success of fladry barriers (2003). If true, this prediction would
require that NRM ranchers and hunters avoid overhunting local prey species in order to leave
enough wild prey to satisfy the wolves.
Suzanne Stone, the senior Northwest representative for the organization Defenders of Wildlife,
runs a program in Idaho with the goal of finding nonlethal ways to keep wolves away from
livestock (Protection 2013). Under the program, a variety of tactics are employed: monitoring
denning sites in order to graze livestock far away from them; using guard dogs; using flashing
lights to frighten off wolves; using fladry barriers; and increasing the number of people tending
livestock (Protection 2013). Stone reported that in seven years, fewer than thirty sheep were lost
to wolves, and no wolves were killed (Protection 2013).
Peaceful coexistence between wolves, humans, and livestock is not out of reach. But achieving
that coexistence will take cooperation and commitment.

Page 5 of 17

Scope and Urgency

The escalating conflict between wolves and humans in the NRM is problematic for all parties
involved. While farmers and ranchers are understandably interested in protecting their livestock
and livelihoods, there is still a troubling lack of understanding of the critical role wolves play in
maintaining healthy ecosystemsand a healthy economy for human populations.
Top predators are essential in maintaining the biodiversity of an ecosystem. Wolves prevent their
natural prey speciestypically ungulates such as deer, moose and elkfrom becoming
overpopulated and overgrazing the landscape. Wolf predation also helps to provide food sources
for other predators: in YNP, for example, carcasses left by wolves provide food for hungry
grizzlies in lean food years, as well as for smaller scavenging species (Wolf Restoration 2015). It
was also observed in YNP that after wolves had been eradicated from the park, the coyote
population rose in the absence of a larger competing predator (Wolf Restoration 2015). After
wolves were reintroduced to the park, however, the coyote population decreased, allowing
smaller predator and prey species, such as birds of prey and rodents, to once again thrive in their
original habitat (Wolf Restoration 2015).
If not addressed soon, the conflict between wolves and humans may have more dire
consequences down the line. When top predators are absent from an ecosystem, grazing species
have the opportunity to overgraze and reproduce almost without limit. This overgrazing and
overpopulation can severely reduce the biodiversity of an ecosystem, as well as have negative
economic impacts.
On the East Coast, for example, where top predators have not existed for decades, deer
overpopulation has become a serious issue. In the early 1900s, due to aggressive hunting
practices by early settlers, the white-tailed deer population in New York was only about 20,000
but since then, the population has rebounded to over a million (Curtis 2001). Other states on
the East Coast have seen similar booms in deer populations. Heavy overbrowsing by deer has
decimated seedling and sapling tree populations and has destroyed the foliage layer on the forest
floor in many areas. This not only creates tree populations of a limited age range, which in turn
Page 6 of 17

can create wildfire fuel as large numbers of trees die off at once, but it also destroys habitat for
songbirds and small animals who make their homes in the forest understory (Curtis 2001). Once
the understory is cleared, plant species less palatable to deer may fill in the empty space, creating
an understory populated with only a single or few plant species (Curtis 2001) (see Figure 1).
In many parts of the Eastern U.S., deer exclosures have been built in order to observe how the
forest will grow in the absence of deer browsing. Consistently, these studies find that without
deer overbrowsing, there is greater species variety, diversity of tree ages, and a thick understory
(Deer Exclosures 2009) (see Figure 2).
Figure 1 Effects of Overbrowsing on Eastern U.S. Forest (New Jersey n.d.)

Figure 2 Effects of a Deer Exclosure in a Pennsylvania Forest (Deer Exclosures 2009)

Page 7 of 17

In addition to damaging forests and reducing biodiversity, ungulate overbrowsing can have
harmful economic impacts on the surrounding region. As the biodiversity of a forest plummets,
tree species valued as timber are often eliminated from the region; an estimated $750 million is
lost for this reason in the timber industry each year (Curtis 2001). As their populations continue
to grow even as their habitat shrinks due to development, deer are often pushed to browse on
crops to find food, leading to more than $100 million in crop damage each year (Curtis 2001).
Furthermore, as rising numbers of deer are forced to inhabit ever-smaller patches of forest, they
frequently find themselves coexisting with humans in suburban and heavily populated areas.
Here, deer not only make meals of peoples landscaping, they also become a very dangerous
traffic hazard. Annually, deer cost an estimated $250 million in landscaping damage and $1
billion in car damage (Curtis 2001).
While the bulk of the damage from ungulate overbrowsing has been observed on the East Coast
and in the Midwest, the NRM region is not immuneand if peaceful solutions to the wolfhuman conflict are not found, the NRM states are likely to find themselves facing similar
dilemmas. Results from studies on the use of nonlethal wolf management techniques using
guard dogs or fladry barriers offer a viable starting point for developing solutions. While these
methods have proven successful in several different regions, they do require commitment and
consistency from the farmers and ranchers who use them.
Target Population Data
The population most affected by this issue includes the residents of Idaho, Montana and
Wyoming. These are the people who work in the NRM and who rely on the livestock grazed
there. Above all, this population is most able to influence the future course of wolf management
in the NRM region and to elect policymakers who will pass effective wolf management laws.

Page 8 of 17

Demographics (see Table 1)

Table 1 Demographics of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
Idaho

Montana

Wyoming

Median age
36
40
37
High school graduate
89%
92%
92%
Bachelors degree or
25%
29%
25%
higher
Median household income $46,767/year
$46,230/year
$57,406/year
Most popular religion(s)
Mormon
Catholic
Mormon, Catholic
Primary political party
Republican
Republican
Republican
(Table 1 sources: Median n.d., State & County (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) 2015; Chokshi
2013; President 2012)
Ideology and Lifestyle Factors
As cited in Table 1, the target population has a median age of 36-40, with most members
possessing at least a high school diploma. Most members of this population identify as
conservative in politics and religion. The economy of this population is primarily based on
agriculture, ranching and mining, the former two of which are potentially impacted by wolf
reintroduction in the NRM.
For these reasons, the target population was identified as primary stakeholders in the wolf-human
conflict. If excessive livestock are lost to wolf depredation, the residents of Idaho, Montana and
Wyoming will feel the greatest economic impact. If nonlethal wolf management techniques are
widely adopted, it will be the people of this population that will be responsible for practicing
themand paying for them. And as a primarily politically conservative population, the residents
of these states may resist government interference or regulation in wolf management policies.
Potential Motivators and Barriers
Farmers and ranchers are motivated to keep their livestock safe to protect their own livelihoods.
In many cases, the cheapest and fastest available method of preventing depredation by wolves is
to simply eliminate themby shooting, poisoning, or baiting and trapping. Farmers and
Page 9 of 17

ranchers may not be willing to expend the time, labor or capital to set up nonlethal wolf
deterrents. Erecting fladry barriers, for instance, requires time and money; purchasing, feeding
and sheltering guard dogs costs money; and hiring extra hands to protect herds costs money and
also requires time for training. Furthermore, as a predominantly politically conservative
population, these residents may not support or welcome government interference or regulation in
wolf management.
Despite their potential opposition to wolf protection and nonlethal wolf management methods,
this population will nevertheless play a pivotal role in determining the future of the NRM
wolves. The residents of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have control over their own actions as
stewards of their land and livestock, and they have the power to elect policymakers who will
pass laws to protector notarea wolf populations. Therefore, it is crucial to convince this
group that a healthy regional wolf population is necessaryto help ensure the health of the land
and, ultimately, their own livelihoods.
Available Resources
According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center that evaluated the most- and leasttrusted news sources by ideological group, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News were the two
major news sources most trusted by conservative and mostly conservative groups (Engel
2014). Other major outlets trusted by mostly conservative groups included the BBC, ABC
News, USA TODAY, and Google News (Engel 2014). While some of these sources are available
in print but not on television, and others are available on television but not in print, all are
available via the Internet. Nearly every major news outlet has also penetrated the social media
scene with Facebook pages and Twitter feeds.
The target population is largely conservative, politically and ideologically, and is likely to be
influenced by their political and religious leaders. Political and religious leaders have not been
excluded from the Internet and social mediathe Pope even has his own Twitter feed.

Page 10 of 17

While many of the major trusted new sources for the NRM region are available for TV
viewing, the Internet and social media would be much more viable channels of communication.
In more remote areas, such as those that ranchers might be patrolling, this is particularly true. If
working out in the field, ranchers are unlikely to have easy access to a television for long periods
of timebut the odds are good that they would be carrying a cell phone. In a 2011 survey
conducted by Successful Farming magazine, more than 70 percent of respondents said that they
access agriculture-related information or services on their smartphones (Walter 2011). For
younger people who will become the next generation of farmers and ranchers, the primary source
of news and social updates is extremely likely to be the Internet and social media. In the same
2011 survey, 71 percent of respondents under the age of 39 said that they owned a smartphone
(Walter 2011). Both media are portable and fast, and citizens across the nation are finding them
increasingly invaluable in conducting business and everyday lives.
Evidence of the change in media habits can be seen in the growing trend of people choosing
Internet service over TV service. In 2005, 98.7 percent of U.S. households owned a television,
whereas only 54.5 percent owned a cell phone (Rector & Sheffield 2011). But by 2011, the
number of wireless devices in the U.S. overtook the actual U.S. population, with a reported 327.6
million wireless devices in use and only 312.4 million people in the U.S. (Goldman 2011).
Further, Yarow (2013) reports a steady downward trend in the number of new paid television
subscriptions each year since 2009. With easy access to services like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube
and Amazon Instant Video, even when people are watching television programming, it is safe to
say they are probably watching it via the Internet or on a cell phone.
In a 2013 report published by the Pew Research Center, it was noted that traffic to the top 25
news websites increased by 7.2 percent; 39 percent of respondents said that they got their news
online or from a mobile device, an increase of five percent since 2010 (State of the News 2013).
According to the same report, 62 percent of smartphone users reported that they accessed news
content on their devices at least weekly (State of the News 2013). In another study conducted by
the Pew Research Center, it was found that 52 percent of all Twitter users also received news
from Twitter, while 47 percent of Facebook users got news from that site (Holcomb et al 2013).

Page 11 of 17

In short, while television may still be the primary source of news for most Americans, the
Internet and social media are catching up quickly. It is not inconceivable that television will,
perhaps in the not-too-distant future, fall behind as the primary news source for Americans
especially as younger generations grow up and become the nations new ranchers and farmers.
An effective communication plan, therefore, must consider future trends and audiences, not just
the present situation.
The Internet and social media are ideal channels for communicating information about the wolfhuman conflict. The one click nature of the Internet is perfect for grabbing peoples attention
there are likely very few people who have not, at least once, clicked on an ad, or a
commercial, or a link in the You May Also Like section at the end of a news article. For better
or worse, the Internet and social media are designed to suck in the userand many times, the
user happy to oblige.
With proper market research, these hooks could easily be tailored to communicate valuable
information to those who may not otherwise receive it. For instance, if an anti-wolf rancher is
searching the Internet for new, lethal wolf management methods, perhaps he might also be
presented with a link to an article detailing how a particular nonlethal method could save him
money. Or a shepherd interested in peacefully keeping wolves away from his flock might
subscribe to a Twitter feed that broadcasts the latest developments in nonlethal wolf management
or success stories from other shepherds. Both the Internet and social media offer widespread,
easily-accessed coverage, with the added benefit of being able to include links to other sites and
subscriptions with one click or tapa feature not available on the typical television.
Funding Sources
Government Sources
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Park Service (NPS) both fund a wide
range of communication efforts. Furthermore, both institutions have Facebook pages and Twitter
accounts as well as comprehensive websites that enable them to reach large and highly diverse
Page 12 of 17

audiences. The FWS and NPS also have monetary and labor resources available to physically
reach the people and field sites of the NRM, offering even greater ability to communicate
information. Additionally, state governments in the NRM region have Internet and social media
presences, as well as funds and personnel that could be utilized in wolf management and
communication efforts.
Non-Government Sources
Several non-government organizations (NGOs) exist with the ability to fund communication
efforts. One of the most well-known, Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders), is particularly involved
in the wolf-human conflict in the NRM. Defenders is one of the more vocal and controversial
NGOs involved in this issue, and so may not be the best source for convincing farmers and
ranchers to switch to nonlethal wolf determent tacticsbut with active Internet, Facebook and
Twitter presences, the organization has multiple outlets from which to distribute information
about nonlethal wolf management techniques and success stories.
Other well-known national NGOs with stakes in this matter include the National Wildlife
Federation (NWF) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Both of these organizations are
dedicated to conservation, the balance and health of natural ecosystems, and the continual
education of the public on environmental issues. More local NGOs include the Rocky Mountain
Association of Environmental Professionals, which has a website, and the Idaho, Montana and
Wyoming chapters of the Sierra Cluball of which have websites and Facebook pages, while
the Idaho and Wyoming chapters maintain Twitter feeds as well.
Summary

For the people of the NRM, the idea that wolves are nothing more than killers of livestock and
competition for prey is a deep-seated one. It is only within the past 50 years or so that scientists
view of the wolf has shifted from one of a dangerous predator worthy of destruction to one of an
intelligent animal that is vital to ecosystem health. Overcoming such long-standing prejudices is
a great challenge, to be sure, but with new research, changing attitudes, and an effective
Page 13 of 17

communication campaign, there is hope that humankind may make peace with its canine
neighbors.
A particularly interesting observation of this situation is how quickly the wolves protected status
can change. The fact that in Wyoming, the wolf was delisted as an endangered species in late
2012, then given protected status again a mere two years later, highlights the sharp divide
between pro-wolf and anti-wolf groups. Incidents like this make it seem as though some people
are simply waiting on the sidelines, ready to pounce as soon as the wolf is delisted again. It is
heartening that conservationists have been able to get wolf protection policies enactedbut it
seems there has been little success in bringing pro-wolf and anti-wolf activists together.
However, scientific research has clarified the role wolves play in an ecosystem, and it is clear
and compelling: top predators are necessary to maintain balance. The real issue now is finding a
middle ground between the human groups that recognize the value of wolves and those that do
not. As long as pro-wolf and anti-wolf groups remain so intensely polarized, a peaceful solution
will never be reached; as soon as wolves are delisted, anti-wolf groups will try to destroy them,
until the point when the population becomes too small, and wolves are once again listed as an
endangered species.
Communication, in this case, is needed, not only to distribute usable information to farmers and
ranchers on nonlethal wolf management techniques, but also to bridge the gap between humans.
To truly end the conflict between wolves and humans, we must also end the conflict between
humans and humans.

Page 14 of 17

References
Chokshi, Niraj. (2013, December 12). Religion in Americas states and counties, in 6 maps.
Retrieved March 8, 2015 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/12/religion-in-americas-states-andcounties-in-6-maps/
Cornwall, Warren. (2014, December 3). Why Killing Wolves Might Not Save Livestock.
Retrieved March 7, 2015 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141203wolves-hunting-livestock-ranchers-endangered-species-environment/?
rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=2015012_invitation_ro_all#
Curtis, Paul, and Sullivan, Kristi. (2001). Wildlife Damage Management Fact Sheet Series:
White-Tailed Deer [Electronic version]. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY. 6 pp.
Deer Exclosures: A Comprehensive Practical Guide [Electronic version]. (2009, June).
Retrieved March 8, 2015 from http://www.scatacook.org/Downloads/DeerExclosures/DeerExclosure-Report.pdf
Engel, Pamela. (2014, October 21). Here Are The Most- and Least-Trusted News Outlets In
America. Retrieved March 7, 2015 from http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-andleast-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2014-10
Espuno, Nathalie, et al. (2004, Winter). Heterogeneous Response to Preventive Sheep
Husbandry during Wolf Recolonization of the French Alps [Electronic version]. Wildlife Society
Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1195-1208.
Fritts, Stephen H., et al. (1997, March). Planning and Implementing a Reintroduction of Wolves
to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho [Electronic version]. Restoration Ecology Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 7-27.

Page 15 of 17

Gray Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, Mountain Prairie Region. (2014, September
25). Retrieved March 7, 2015 from http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/wolf/
Holcomb, Jesse, et al. (2013, November 14). News Use Across Social Media Platforms.
Retrieved March 7, 2015 from http://www.journalism.org/2013/11/14/news-use-across-socialmedia-platforms/
Median age of U.S. population in 2013, by state. (n.d.). Retrieved March 8, 2015 from
http://www.statista.com/statistics/208048/median-age-of-population-in-the-usa-by-state/
Musiani, Marco, et al. (2003, December). Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry
Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America [Electronic version]. Conservation
Biology, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 1538-1547.
New Jersey Fact Sheet: White-Tailed Deer Impacts and Forest Management [Electronic
version]. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2
pp.
Oatman, Maddie. (2014, September 24). Its Now Illegal to Kill Wolves in Wyoming. Retrieved
March 7, 2015 from http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/09/wolf-hunts-canceledwyoming-endangered-species-gray-wolf
President Map. (2012). Retrieved March 8, 2015 from
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president
Protected no longer, more than 550 gray wolves killed this season by hunters and trappers.
(2013, March 6). Retrieved March 7, 2015 from
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/17213786-protected-no-longer-more-than-550gray-wolves-killed-this-season-by-hunters-and-trappers

Page 16 of 17

Rector, Robert, & Sheffield, Rachel. (2011, July 19). Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox:
What is Poverty in the United States Today? Retrieved March 7, 2015 from
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
State & County QuickFacts (Idaho). (2015, February 5). Retrieved March 8, 2015 from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16000.html
State & County QuickFacts (Montana). (2015, February 5). Retrieved March 8, 2015 from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/30000.html
State & County QuickFacts (Wyoming). (2015, February 5). Retrieved March 8, 2015 from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/56000.html
The State of the News Media 2013. (2013) Retrieved March 7, 2015 from
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/overview-5/key-findings/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1987, August 3). Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.
Walter, John. (2011, November 2). Smartphones a big trend. Retrieved May 9, 2015 from
http://www.agriculture.com/farm-management/technology/cell-phone-and-smartphones/smartphones-a-big-trend_325-ar20351
Wolf Restoration Continued. (2015, February 26). Retrieved March 7, 2015 from
http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolfrest.htm
Wolf Wars: Americas Campaign to Eradicate the Wolf. (2008, September 14). Retrieved March
7, 2015 from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-wolf-that-changed-america-wolf-warsamericas-campaign-to-eradicate-the-wolf/4312/

Page 17 of 17