Heck--I'm just glad that they got the bears.
Releasing them is not advisable. It's like in India--if a tiger goes into a village or near one and kills a human, that tiger must be shot. People meat must taste pretty good, eh?

Meanwhile, it might be worthwhile for someone to invent a cip-activated warning signal that would scare off any approaching animals to a campground. It would automatically turn on at night and go off after sunset. Works for dogs in urban areas--why not animals in forest areas?

Wny should the tiger be shot? because it killed a person? oh no, it killed a person so now it should die as well? Do you realize how many tigers have been shot to death over the years by humans and you would give tigers a death sentence just because it killed some people? The tiger's prey is diminishing because of the 1 billion plus people in India. I say if a tiger wants to eat people in order to survive let him do it. We humans are apart of nature and we should face the same wrath as any other prey animal would. There are too many people in India and tiger #s are dwindling fast. It would do India's population some good if a tiger ate some people.

I am sad for the bear. No one will ever know why she and possibly her cubs attacked the people sleeping in the campgrounds. I am sad for the person killed.

I do not believe that the bear was in any way evil. People do evil things -- killing on purpose for sport or out of fear.

It is sad that a bear will loose her life and that her cubs may be killed as well.

As a race we have become so far removed from anything wild that we have lost whatever chance there ever was to communicate with and live in harmony with anything wild. What have we done to our world? The loss of several bears because we insist in trying to find space in their world and don't learn to understand and honor it leaves me with tears.

To the tiger enthusiast: I was stating a fact, not advocating shooting tigers. Anything that attacks humans is assumed to have been infected by the taste of human. I wonder what the evidence for that is.

"As a race we have become so far removed from anything wild that we have lost whatever chance there ever was to communicate with and live in harmony with anything wild. What have we done to our world?" Agreed. Humans have gtossly overpopulated the world.

However, the same folks who want to preserve the animals also fight to preserve everyone's right to bear as many children as they want, regardless of the impact on the environment. Any time anyone advocates population limits, the opposition is hysterical.

jo, no, I believe people should have only one or 2 children. The problem is with countries like India and Africa, people are having way more than that and it's disgusting and it should be stopped. The tigers are suffering as a result. I mean when are we going to say enough is enough. The human population is growing each and every day and tigers are dying. The animals are going to pay with their lives as our population just continues to grow and grow to unsustainable numbers.

Apparently when people become at least middle class, they realize that they can't afford so many kids but the poor continue to breed like crazy. You'll have to wait awhile for the human primate population to shrink. But there's hope. The birth rate has dropped below replacement rate in most of the advanced post industrial countries and as more or worlds population become middle class they will probably slow their rate of pooping out babies. I would suggest helping planned parenthood and organizations which teach birth control instead of just bitching if you're concerned about over population. Planning and Zoning used as a tool to keep people from coming to join you won't keep people from having babies.

For years, we have intruded on the habitats of wildlife. People ask why we're seeing more and more animals coming down into towns and other lower portions. People ask why an animal would harm a human. We're driving the wildlife out, that's why. We're taking over their space, which was there long before we were. As for the bear, it's common knowledge that bears would resort to violence if their cubs are threatened. Just like we humans would, right? There's a big difference in why wild animals and humans harm or kill... Animals kill because they've been provoked or they're hungry. Humans kill for the thrill. Nuf' said.

The bears were hungry evidently, all are underweight. The bears have relied on winter kill when they came out of hibernation since time immemorial, but that is no longer there, the wolves have eaten it all, there are few elk left so there are few elk calves to eat and a lot of competition for what few are left. When you couple that with loss of cutthroats and white bark pines problems are going to develop. The answer is to head to court and sue for more wolves and more money in environmental groups pockets.

My comment about how we have become disconnected from the natural world had nothing to do with population and the opinions of many as to what is good or bad about how many people there are.

It did have to do with how there is little evidence today that there is a desire for education about how we can do better when it comes to a willingness to understand anything you don't see on an i phone.

It seems to be easier to fear and hate than work together in the understanding that everything is connected.

Also - about the bear - A previous camper or campers could have left some evidence of food at the sites and no one knew about it.
No one deserved to die-including the bear.

There seems to be a lot of hype, hysteria and sentimentality focused on this particular bear attack and response. Its worth noting that recorded fatal bear attacks in North America from 1900 to 2003 amount to about 110 total. Even if you assume that documentation wasn't the norm during the first half of the 20th century and you double that number, you get an average of two people killed by bears in North America every year during the last 100 years. On the other hand, Humans killed by domestic dogs has been averaging about 26 per year in the U.S. since the year 2000. And domestic dogs are almost always put down after they have killed a human. Some perspective is in order.

And of course its also worth noting without citing murder stats or fatal wolf attack stats that humans kill humans much more frequently that Bears, Wolves, or dogs kill humans making humans the most dangerous species for most humans.

Still another bear in the back country was killed for having chased humans away from their food and eating it and destroying the camp. Perhaps she had been fed before and perhaps she was so hungry that she was willing to fight for food.

Carolyn, the grizzly was killed becasue she was extremely dangerous to humans. Obviously the family was undernourished and hungry. No one hated her, I'm sure those who had the job of putting her down hated it, those of us who love Yellowstone hate to see this sort of thing happen. there is no doubt the bears have become very comfortable around humans as they are searching for food this year, bear problems have been the most I can think of for a very long time.

it is disingenuous to have a World Wildlife Reserve, like Yellowstone, preserved as habitat for the range of animals and plants that are native to the area, and then plop humans into the equation in tents and sleeping bags. Packaged food for bears, and if the bears dare touch it, the bears are killed. Humans would be better served (rare, I suppose) to be constrained to tour buses and hotel rooms, and leave the out of doors alone for the critters.

The first Grizzly extinction in the Park was when they closed down the garbage dumps, tore down the bleachers set up to watch the bears go through garbage, and suddenly require the grizzly bears to go back to territories and natural food. Tough transition, and many bears were failures, and subsequently were killed for their inability to forage and not interact with humans and their intrusions.

Gradually the bears became wild bears again, and scattered to the far reaches of the Park and beyond. Then wolves were reintroduced. Easy pickings, those elk, for wolves, and they eat 12 months of the year. Bears 8 months at most. So now when the bears come out of hibernation, their superior olfactory senses geared to finding winter kill for the protein to get started on, there is little, and they have to fend off wolves all to often just to get something to eat until they can kill larger prey, and even then the wolves come around for their tithe. These bears were undersize, way underweight, and in a struggle to survive and make the gains they need to survive this coming winter hibernation. No need now. ESA listed animals were killed because they deemed to chew on human flesh. Or were at the least willing to bite and maul to protect territory and their right to scavenge the campground. Doing what comes naturally, as the Disney songs says. And they are killed for their being bears.

When you lose three females out of the grizzly gene pool, all young, the loss will resonate for twenty or more years. That is twenty or more bears that will never be. That is a loss that is hard to comprehend just so some idiot can camp under the stars in bear habitat. Our priorities are wrong. Either we are going to have Yellowstone be natural habitat, or it is the Big Zoo, which is what the public wants. If so, put them in vehicles and sleep them in buildings. Quit the bag in a tent deal. Quit the solitary and small group hikes. Leave the Park to its denizens, and the humans to their safe enclaves from which to observe the natural order in it comings and goings. The public doesn't want roads, and the bears don't want people. That is a fair trade. We do owe the bears some consideration for making their lives very difficult with the wolf reintroduction. Bears are leaving and wolves are leaving, and that was the objective, and if it is fair to foist wolves and out migrating bears on private land, it is certainly more than fair to have no people out and about being prey for apex predators. We don't belong there in the modern thinking, and should not be. After all, for 500 years the non Native American population has denied their existence on the land, and were determined to call it all Wilderness. Now is the chance. People in buses and hotels, and bears in the Park doing bear stuff.

Bearbait, that is the best disertation on this I have heard yet. A black bear was killed yesterday when she chased humans in the back country away from their food for the second time. I suspect she was very hungry and challenging one skinny human for food versus challenging a pack of wolves for a carcass or gizzlies for one seemed a good idea. That worked so well she challenged 5 I think the second time which seemed to work well since she again got to eat.

And you wonder why people fought so hard for the guns in parks legislation last year?

"People do evil things -- killing on purpose for sport or out of fear."

The bears killed due to hunger,caused by humans introducing wolves into the ecosystem,which eat food the bears used to eat.
Wolves kill for no apparent reason, and do not eat what they have killed a lot of the time. They leave it, and coyotes and other scavengers eat the kill.
Wolves also have eaten what the bears used to eat in the early spring, winter killed deer and elk. There is no longer enough food to support the bear population at the current levels. These bears were all malnourished, and underweight.
The hungry bears smelled the campers food, and were willing to fight the humans for the food,it is easier for them to fight off humans sleeping in tents than for the bears to fight off a pack of wolves.
If people are going to continue camping in the area, then there has to be a reduction in both the bear and the wolf populations.

"Humans kill for the thrill. Nuf' said."
So do other species like wolves.

The biggest part of the problem is people camping where bears live who do not know how to set up camp in "bear country".
If you leave no food, food scraps or dirty dishes,pots,pans etc. around your camp, the bears have no reason to come near your camp. Store food suspended off the ground, tied to a smaller tree branch,away from the trunk of the tree,and bears can't get to it.
Bears that become used to humans have to be trapped,and relocated far from campgrounds,and they usually are no longer a problem. A few will keep returning,these are the ones that get euthanized. The parks and campgrounds were created for humans to use,not for bears,sometimes a bear has to be put down because it is a danger to humans.

"We're taking over their space, which was there long before we were."

That is what people have been doing since the first europeans came to North America. I don't see a big outcry to give the land back to the native Americans.

I think we have to face the fact that extremely hungry bears are going to go get food where they smell food. There is no way they cannot smell back country users cooking their meals.
Stop and think, if a camper in a regular campground left his soap, hand lotion, toothpaste, etc in a back pack in camp he'd get find, but back country campers do not have a vehicle to elave them in, so they have all of that stuff with them and there is no way a bear can't smell it.

We have a finite back country reserve, with an even larger buffer, into which wolves were reintroduced. Wolves from far to the north in Canada. Not wolves from the Great Lakes. Wolves from moose eating country. Long legged wolves adapted to running down moose and caribou. And all into an environment of ignorant prey, with little understanding of how to survive against an introduced predator that their gene pool had not seen in fifty generations. The evolved moose and elk in Yellowstone were not cognizant of how to deal with a wolf pack, and the wolves had their way. 18,000 elk became maybe 5,000 elk. And the wolves went from a handful to thousands across a multi state landscape. Meanwhile, ESA listed grizzly bears that once arose from hibernation to a nose detectable supply of winter kill as their first food supply, the grub to help nurse cubs, now find little more than some scraps of skin and broken bones. That will impact how they live, how they approach gaining food. And that was probably the driving force for the sow that chewed on campers in a place that is the epicenter, or was, of winter wolf kills, and the food supply area of choice for a grizzly. The whole of the Lamar plain and the river is there for their use. But now it does not include adequate food. That was an unintended consequence of wolf reintroduction. Shit happens. So now there has to be better planning, and management of PEOPLE to keep the place amenable to the Great Bears.....this is not a failure of wildlife, which results in the extirpation of four bears. This is a failure of PEOPLE management. And you do have to manage the people. We can't let well meaning idiots drive species to extinction, as we have done for a long time. This is a failure of the agency whose responsibility to manage has been compromised by anthropomorphism. You either manage for wildlife or you have a zoo for people. There is no middle ground. There are no renegade bears. There are no renegade wolves. Bears act like bears, and wolves act like wolves. That is how it works in the wild. And if you get killed or maimed by a bear or a wolf or a badger, that is YOUR FAULT. We either is or we ain't. But that decision has to be made. And made to suit ESA listed species for which the frigging Park was designated to be. Those who want to be a part of the Flying Tourists via Bison, the Bear Snacks, or whatever else wildlife might bring. Being an unwilling dancer with the Moose Stomp Dancers, whatever, it is YOUR fault. You are in the wrong. The animal is just being what it is. There are no trained bears unless we train them. Leaving food out is bear training. Once the bear is trained, it is trained for life. Live with it. Or stay home.

I'm with bearbait on the wolves issue.
I was against introducing Canadian wolves from the start. Don't know about MT, but ID has always had some native timber wolves and it should have been left at that.
What the heck is the natural predator to keep the wolf population from exploding, except for the humans? I never hear or read of cougars getting wolves. Has anybody heard of it? Do these introduced animals have any natural predators?

I have spent a lot of time out west, but I live in Ohio. We have bioligists who actually work with the Fish and Game that help decide on seasons and set up wildlife laws and regs. We do not technically have bears in Ohio. Every year, though, the sightings have increased so much, that they finally admitted that we have about 5 breeding pairs of black bears in OH. Today, while walking in a local park where a black bear was spotted two days ago, I ran into a woman who could only talk about the bear. Before long she revealed her small can of pepper spray. OY.
All I am saying to my friends out west, if people think it, it is gonna happen.
We should be leaving bear and wolf legislation to the scientists, instead we are all going out and buying pepper spray and condemning others. Wildlife and humanity have been in each others faces since the beginning of time. There are no lions outside of Rome because of habitat destruction and fear of man and decimation. We have a special thing going here in America, called National Parks and wildlife travel corridors. Instead of worrying about bears and preying wolves, why not worry about a moratorium on building in wilderness areas and restoring developed land into parks and recreation areas where animals and humans can both prosper?

Do wolves have any natural predators? Bears will eat wolves on the rare occasion that they catch one. Beyond that, Wolves kill one another over territory, and Wolf populations and packs collapse all the time from diseases and viruses. Making Humans and Wolves the bad guys and Bears the good guys is silly.

Jack, unfortunately wolf and bear management are not managed by biologists so much as they are managed by environmental lawyers and judges. To compoound the problems the judges then award big court awards to the environmental litigants. If you want an eyeopener pull up the 990s for various environmental groups, especially those who file lawsutis, and see how many millions they have received in court awards. That is money not available for wildlife management.
The wolves are being used to try to destroy ranching in this part of the country. They reproduce very rapidly, some packs had as many as 5 liters per year at the height of their increase, there is a possibility of 2 in one pack this year, I believe is all. They will fight to the death, but mostly they disperse which of course was the whole idea. I see on todays news that one pack killed a guard dog outside of Evanston, WY, one of the larger towns in the state. I don't know of anything that can successfully fight back against a wolf pack.

jo, "native" timberwolves as some called them were wiped out with the help of ranchers, hunters, and the federal govt. These people were responsible for wiping out the wolf. The wolves you see today are the same wolves that have been crossing the border into Idaho, Montana, and Idaho throughout the years. There is no such thing as a native wolf as wolves move around from place to place. A gray wolf is a gray wolf. Size or behavior does not change.

Will, the wolves varied across the United States prior to the settlement of the country, those removed on the east coast were not like the "buffalo wolves" of the plains, and they were not like the irremotus of the northern Rockies. The big wolves brought down from Canada were more like the buffalo wolves they were accusotmed to big prey like caribou, none the less, they have so severely impacted the moose and caribou herds in Alaska that there is no long subsistance food for the natives who live in remote areas far from stores. that is why Alaska has hunting of wolves.
Incidently the wolf like animal killed just outside of Yellowstoen when it was mistaken did not match wolves, dogs, or coyotes for DNA. Since it was a 2 year old, it stands to reason that there were others, including the wolf photographed in the park prior to the introduction.
Then the cry was that's "not enough wolves" as it still is today, when we probably have 3-5000 of them. Teh numbers you read are only those physically counted, no estimates like all other wildlife.

This endless debate about Wolves is nonsense. Wolves are native,and are here to stay, so get over it. Before the white man came to North American there were Hundreds of thousands of Wolves, Bear, Coyotes Foxes and Mountain Lions along with millions of grazing animals, Bison, Deer, Elk, Antelope, Big Horn Sheep, Moose etc. All of these animals coexisted and thrived. Now, remnant populations of Native wildlife can coexist and thrive in lesser numbers if managed properly.

The judge just ruled, NO management. But since you feel we all should share and have lots of wildlife I guess you are willing to be the one this time to pay for a trained Great Pyrenees dog that was killed near Evanston huh? I'm sure you are not the sort of person that expects others to be forced to pay for having lots of wolves to make you happy.

Re-listing in my opinion was caused by idiot Wyoming politicians bending over backwards to kiss the Wyoming ranchers' asses. If the Wyoming pols would have had reasonable management practices, the re-listing never would have happened.

Yes, I've heard that timber wolves were all killed off, but don't believe it...yet. My son says he saw one while camping back in the forest up north.

Speaking of grizzly bears, our local public lib. just got this book, in case anyone would be interested:
Blindsided: Surviving a Grizzly Attack and Still Loving the Great Bear By Jim Cole, with Tim Vandehey. St Martins Press.

Cheers all---enjoy the wolves.

Teh original wolf was much smaller than the timber wolves brought down from Canada.
This grizzly and her cubs were starving, she was about 60% of her low normal weight, the cubs were less than half, and have not even shed winter coats. There is not enough food for the truly endangered grizzlies, and a sow with cubs, nor even a big boar for that matter, are no match for a pack of wolves.
The enviros do not care, their ability to control other people's lives and gain power and money from lawsuits are the only thing they care about. We were supposed to have 10 packs/100 wolves in each of the three states. They lied. At no point have the enviros kept their word in anything. There is no number nor any amount of destruction to humans or other wildlife that is adequate for them.

You're making stuff up, Todd. Brown Bears regularly steal Wolf kills from feeding wolves in Yellowstone and world wide, where Brown Bears share the same territory as wolves. Brown Bears and Wolves also eat one another's cubs when they can catch them.

The original wolf was not much smaller. There was a 20 pound difference between the wolves. Todd, the grizzly who attacked the 3 campers was NOT starving. You have incorrect information and I am not surprised one bit.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128825639


A grizzly bear that preyed on three campers outside Yellowstone National Park was underweight but not starving, and it was in an area with ample natural food supplies, wildlife officials said Monday as they worked to figure out why the animal attacked.

With the necropsy on the female grizzly still being analyzed, officials had no explanation for what caused the bear to rampage through a campground Wednesday with cubs in tow.

"Trying to make some connection between body size of a bear and strange behavior is a stretch," said Chris Servheen, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist coordinating the investigation.

Todd, I know what you are getting at. You are one of those nimrods who want to believe the grizzly attacked the campers because it was starving because it couldn't find food because supposedly the wolves wiped out the food right? You people are so predictable.

One other thing Todd, the supposed deal between the states to each have only 150 wolves in their states never happened. Any biologist will tell you 150 wolves in each state isn't even close to the amount needed. You people and your incorrect information.

Will the sow should have weighed between 300 and 400 pounds she weighed 220. The cubs weighed 60 to 80 pounds and should weigh 130. They all should have been weighing on the high side this late in the season. The prolonged cold this spring delayed plants and the chokecherries are skimpy and still haven't ripened due to the late spring. There are no longer winter killed carcasses when the bears come out of hibernation, which is a vital food source and the elk calves are very skimpy due to lack of cows, failure of chronically stressed cows to produce, and competition with wolves.
You are right, the 150 wolves never happened, that was an OFFER by the 3 states to sweeten the pot to get them delisted. I suspect the enviros were laughing their heads off knowing they could count on Malloy to keep them in charge of our land in perpetuity. The original number that would trigger delisting that is mentioned in the decision to introduce Canadian wolves is 300 total for the 3 states. It was a lie, 3000 are not enough now. Wolves are not and never were in danger of extinction, there are 10s of thousands on this continent alone.
Part of the problem is the money awarded to these groups tax free for winning. They bill the American taxpayer up to $800 per hour for their time raping us. Collectively environmental groups are raking in millions, and they do not have to account for it nor pay taxes on it. Read the 990s for your favorite group, realize how much they take in, notice how little accountability they have for where it goes.

By Will, 8-06-10
One other thing Todd, the supposed deal between the states to each have only 150 wolves in their states never happened. Any biologist will tell you 150 wolves in each state isn't even close to the amount needed. You people and your incorrect information.

not so fast there sparky, even Ed Bangs Wolf Recovery Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the verdict is still out on that one
"Wolf Population Recovery-By every biological measure the NRM wolf population is fully recovered. Resident packs now appear to saturate suitable habitat in the core recovery areas and dispersing wolves routinely travel between them and successfully bred. Consequently, genetic diversity in the NRM remains very high. The 3 subpopulations function as a single large NRM metapopulation (Figure I). Lone dispersing wolves have also traveled beyond the core recovery areas and some of them have bred. Otllers have gone into most adjacent states. Numerous research projects are underway examining: wolfpopulation dynamics, predator-prey interactions, wolf interactions with otller wildlife species, wolf diseases and parasites, wolf population genetics, possible wolf-caused trophic cascades, and livestock depredation by wolves. Biological restoration of wolves to the NRM was maintained. Nunlerous scientific papers were published about wolves in the NRM. State, tribal, and others are in preparation. USFWS, state and tribal management maintained a fully recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS."
the research is not published yet but UCLA as well as the university of wyoming are due to release their findings this winter saying that 300 total for the 3 states is actually more than what is needed. the science of wolf conductivity is really pretty simple when you consider the range a wolf will travel to find a breeding partner.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/post-delisting-wolf-monitoring/doc20100428072425.pdf
looks like the origional numbers by the delphi 15 were correct at 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs

Sorry zbiker, but that is incorrect info. No biologist in the world will ever claim that 150 wolves in each state is enough. There was no deal made as some claim. Just grasping at things that aren't there. Pitiful bunch people like you are. Resorting to lies to push your agenda.

This back 'n forth between those claiming 150 and those claiming more is getting to be ridiculous. Why don't you people give citations to creditable studies to back up your claims, and stop calling each other names.
We all now know what your views are, so RIP!
Geez!

I'm an EMT near Yellowstone disgusted by the sick, misanthropic posts here and elsewhere.

What an insane world we live in when so many arm-chair "naturalists" can kick back and blithely say, "Sure, let the bears eat people whose only crime was wanting to enjoy nature. That's what bears do."

So, how about Elora Petrasek--the 6-year-old little girl who was killed by a bear in Tennessee? Nothing wrong with that in your eyes?

Or 93-year-old Adelia Maestras Trujillo, who was savagely mauled to death in her own home when a bear broke in?

Or 5-month-old, Ester Schwimmer, who was snatched from a stroller on the front porch of her Fallsburg, New York residence and killed in front of her horrified parents?

I suppose they were "just in the wrong place at the wrong time?" I'm sure a few you will say, "Oh, well, that's different." No it isn't. It doesn't matter where someone is murdered. What matters is that steps are taken to make damn certain the murderer doesn't strike again.

You can't simply trap a killer bear and move it. Bears are territorial. "Problem" bears have been trapped multiple times near the same spot they have been trapped before after being transported far out into the wilderness; they simply return "home." Trapping and relocating is not a solution for killer bears. Put them in a zoo? Quite a threat to the workers who have to take care of them and clean up their areas and maintain the bear's health, wouldn't you say? Would you want your daughter taking care of a bear who had killed someone else's son or daughter? How about if we just give the bear to you? You like animals more than people, you can take care of it.

So, it's alright, in your eyes, for a mother bear to kill a human whom she, (mistakenly), believes a threat to her family, yet it isn't alright for humans to do the same?

You people justify your warped delusions with irrelevant, soulless, statistics such as, "there are x number of humans, and y number of bears, therefore, humans are the problem," as if that somehow makes things hunky-dory.

Well, if those statistics bother you so much, I suggest you do something about it and stop breeding. Those of us who remain sane and harbor a love for our own species and children, instead of a demented, bitter hatred, would prefer it if you didn't.

EMT, we humans are apart of nature and just like those that claim animals have to be controlled, our species does as well. There are 6 billion of us. Our numbers need thinning. death is natural, no matter what is the cause. there are by far way too many people on the planet. If you ignore this, you are unwilling to accept the truth. We need culling as well.

To Realist:
Lead the way!

"By Will, 8-07-10
Sorry zbiker, but that is incorrect info. No biologist in the world will ever claim that 150 wolves in each state is enough. There was no deal made as some claim. Just grasping at things that aren't there. Pitiful bunch people like you are. Resorting to lies to push your agenda."
hi will
it is actually not my agenda, but be that as it may 4 uswf biologists as well as others are "claiming" that it is and they seem to have sound science behind them, as ed bangs stated in his report genetic conductivity is not to much of an issue for an animal that will disperse over 500+ miles to find a mate and become a breeding pair.
just to bring you up to speed actually their was/is a deal made as some claim. even as far back as the delphi 15's report to congress in oct of 1994. http://cpsp.cfans.umn.edu/Research/ResSum1-Wolf.pdf it is under congressional instruction that these numbers be used and it was under these regulations that (at least until 2008) the states were legally bound two uphold. in 2008 defenders of wildlife and others in an effort to stop wyoming from having a preditor zone raised the question of whether 150 wolves with 15 breeding pairs was sufficient.
what congress and the usfs had outlined was simply 10 breeding pairs as per the usfs and the northern rocky mountain wolf recovery team on august 3rd 1987
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan.pdf