Warren Ballard Ed Bangs Bob Ream L. David Mech 2010 <p>Implementing the proposal set forth by Licht and colleagues (<i>BioScience</i> 60: 147&ndash;153) requires restricting wolves to tiny "islands," areas that are magnitudes smaller than the ranges of most wolf populations. Wolves naturally have large ranges; restricting their spatial needs increases the risk of wolves escaping, exacerbating public relations and political and legal problems.</p> <p>These problems would not be solved by (a) scaring back straying radioed wolves; (b) controlling reproduction; or (c) the use of physical, virtual, or biological barriers. The problem is not wolves breeding; it is wolves killing livestock and pets, or at least people fearing they will. Standard wolf-proof barriers are 10-feet-high, chain-link fences with a 4-foot apron buried 2-feet below ground. Virtual fences, shock-collars with electrodes continually touching the skin, and frequent battery replacement are all problematic, even for captive wolves (Shivik et al. 2002). Scent-marking and howling, controls suggested by Licht and colleagues, can affect wolf movements, but our research demonstrates that trespass is common (Mech 1994).</p> <p>The prospects for public tolerance of such costly and intensive management seems dim anytime soon.</p> application/pdf en American Institute of Biological Sciences Restricting wolves risks escape article