By Ken Fischman, PhD. on 09-03-08

Dear Bill: Thank you for your thoughtful article on wolves.  I did not find it “too rational,” Ed Bangs opinion to the contrary. I do however differ with your definition of “genetic connectivity.” It does not mean “wolves moving back and forth between the three recovery zones.” It means actual exchange of genes between these populations.  Such exchanges can be measured. Dr. John Pollinger and his colleagues are currently doing this with Yellowstone wolves and have found “a resulting lack of gene flow.” (Pollinger et al. North American Wolf Conference, April 7-10, 2008)
Certainty in numbers of wolves as well as in other populations of wild animals are hard to come by.  The state agencies have no accurate way of measuring, so they are relegated to questionable estimates. Fortunately, we do not have to guess what a healthy wolf population in balance with prey population would look like.  We have the example of the Great Lakes wolf populations.  There are over 2,000 wolves in Minnesota alone. Their prey is mostly white-tailed deer, whose numbers have remained steady for several years.  This is also true for Wisconsin
Many experts believe that the minimum number of wolves needed for genetic connectivity in the Northern Rockies is about 3,000.  It is doubtful if such a relatively small population in such a vast area would decrease prey numbers or have much effect on livestock. Idaho Fish & Game’s last published estimates(2007) were 700 wolves and 109,000 elk, an increase of almost 7,000 elk from the year before.