Presented by Lauren N. Watine The Wolf Presented by Lauren N. Watine

“We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes... I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.” Aldo Leopold Throw this in here because until this point, we’ve dealt with only prey-animals. Predators are going to be very different – naturally low densities, in addition to much controversy, makes their management difficult.

What is a wolf? Introduction Ecology Management The Future

Introduction Origins Fox-like ancestors in early  middle Pliocene Eurasia: Pleistocene period ~1 million years ago

Introduction Classification and Taxonomy Largest living WILD canid Grey wolf Red wolf

Introduction Classification and Taxonomy Grey Wolf Red Wolf Order: Carnivora Family: Canidae Genus: Canis Species: lupus Order: Carnivora Family: Canidae Genus: Canis Species: rufus Gray Wolf, Tundra Wolf, Arctic Wolf, Grey Wolf, Mexican Wolf, Plains Wolf, Timber Wolf, Common Wolf, Wolf, lobo Red Wolf

Introduction Classification and Taxonomy 5-24 ssp. recognized in North America Nowak Canis lupus occidentalis Canis lupus nubilis Canis lupus arctos Canis lupus lycaon Canis lupus baileyi Canis lupus occidentalis  northern, Beringia origins Canis lupus nubilis  central plains south of ice sheet Canis lupus arctos  Pearyland refugium Canis lupus lycaon  eastern; origins in a SE refugium eastern timber and red wolf may be the same species, suggested both change to Canis lycaon Canis lupus baileyi  southwest small form

Introduction Classification and Taxonomy Hybridization Canis lupus x Canis latrans Eastern grey wolf x coyote hybrids Canis lupus x Canis latrans produce fertile hybrids Eastern grey wolf x coyote hybrids Hybridization not normally seen in western grey wolves and coyotes Argument: coyotes more closely related to EGW than WGW

Introduction Physical Characteristics Grey Wolf Red Wolf Mature males 20-80 kg 1.27-1.64 m long 66-81 cm shoulder height Mature females 16-55 kg 1.37-1.52 m long Mature males 1300-1600 mm long 20-35 kg Mature females 16-25 kg Red wolf Resembles grey wolf, but smaller average size Longer legs, larger ears, shorter fur Stronger reddish TINGE to flanks and limbs – not actually a red coat Overall size and weight increases south  north

Introduction Physical Characteristics Proportionally longer legs, larger feet, narrower chest Face: wide tufts of fur project down and out from below ears Straight tail without curve Mane has longest hairs  special erectile part of pelage Center of back from neck  behind shoulders Highly variable colors: white  black, generally light tan/cream mixed with brown, black, and white Black: concentrated on back Brown: tends to be on forehead Whitish on lower parts of head and body

Introduction Distribution and Abundance Circumpolar throughout Northern hemisphere North of 15-20° N latitude Global historic range: nearly all of Eurasia and North America Extirpated from most of this Mostly found now in remote/undeveloped areas with sparse human populations NA mainland historic range: everywhere except SE US, California west of the Sierra Nevadas, and tropical/subtropical parts of Mexico North of 20degN latitude Red wolf replaced grey wolf in SE US

Introduction Conservation and Legal Status Grey wolf Red wolf IUCN: Least Concern Red wolf IUCN: Critically Endangered Grey wolf regionally threatened!

Introduction Population Trends Many populations have been decimated or completely extirpated Causes of decline Agricultural expansion Overhunting of ungulate prey Intensive predator control Canada = most important stronghold! Overall distribution hasn’t changed much in last 40 years, still constitutes 80% of historic range

Introduction Value Traditionally: pelts Scientists: natural ecosystems 1970s: symbol of wilderness Economics Wildlife Viewing Ecotourism companies 1960s  environmental movement, one of the first to be listed under ESA Scientists  recognized the need for predators to the health of the ecosystem Other Wyoming 2007: $2.7 billion, average $1207 on a 4 day trip 44% of visitors to YNP in 2005 wanted to see wolves Ecotourism companies: single and multiple day trips in Grand Teton, YNP, and Jakson Hole Trips catered specifically to seeing wolves $650-$2000 per trip, estimated revenue of $422,500-$1,300,000

Ecology

Ecology: Natural History Survival and longevity 13 years in the wild Pup Survival Van Ballenberghe and Mech, 1975 pups <65% of the standard relative weight had poor survival vs. pups >80% had higher survival

Ecology: Natural History Diet Selection Obligate carnivores Ungulates Beavers Hares Scavenging Daily maintenance requirement: 1.7 kg/wolf/day

Ecology: Natural History Habitat generalist Influences on use? Deserts, grasslands, forests, arctic tundra Influences: availability/anundance of prey, snow conditions, protected and public lands, absence/low occurrence of livestock, road density, human presence, and topogrpahy

Ecology: Natural History Sex Ratios Males more common in high density populations

Ecology: Natural History Physiology and growth Sexual maturity 9-46 months 62-63 day gestation Average litter: 4-6 pups

Ecology: Natural History Physiology and growth Pups Blind Deaf Thermoregulation? Waste elimination? THERMOREG: TELL ABOUT PUP CAPTURES, WRAPPING IN OUR JACKETS

Ecology: Natural History Reproductive Strategy High reproductive potential Females in estrus 5-7 days 1-3 breeding females Mate January  April Latitude-dependent Litters-per-pack?

Ecology: Natural History Reproductive Strategy Percent pups in unexploited vs. exploited populations Wood Buffalo National Park Great Slave Lake Area (Kelsall 1968) Wolf responses to increased mortality reflected Wood Buffalo National Park: percent of pups in a population under natural control increased from 20-35% one year after wolf control began; 55% 2 years later Great Slave Lake Area (Kelsall 1968): wolf control caused increase of 46% 1 year later, and 73% 5 years later, compared to 13% under natural control

Ecology: Natural History Reproductive Strategy Unexploited populations: 60% of females breed Exploited populations: 90% of females breed Management implications?

Ecology: Behavior Social Structure THE PACK Hierarchical 5-12 individuals Basic social unit! Complex social structure  rank not static! Agonistic contests most intense during winter breeding period USUALLY breeding pair and offspring of previous 1-3 years Live in packs to facilitate predation on large prey Typically 5-12 indiv Mech: central MN, 22-23 Alberta, Canada: 40 following mig caribou

Ecology: Behavior Communication Postures Scent Vocalization Video Facial expressions = most dramatic form of communication Urine and fecal material = social status, breeding condition, territorial occupancy; often in conjunction with scratch marks

Ecology: Behavior Interspecific interactions Interference competition Positive and negative effects: other predators Ravens Brown bears

Ecology: Behavior Movements Dispersal Migration Home-range Caribou movements Home-range Territories Pimlott et al. 1969 Oosenbrug and Carbyn 1982 Home-range Stable, exclusive territories Territorial behavior is a spacing mechanism, adjusts wolf densities to their food level – LINKED WITH FOOD AVAILABILITY Varies by area: depends on type and density of prey and season more closely correlated with pack size than prey density Pimlott et al. 1969: Algonquin Park (104-311 km2), O and C: central manitoba (boreal area; 283 km2, WTD primary prey), Wood Buffalo NP (bison prim prey, 1250 km2)

Ecology: Population Biology Mortality Starvation Intraspecific aggression Disease Compensation?

Ecology: Population Biology Mortality Harvest Road-kills

Ecology: Population Biology We’ve been over that wolves have a high reproduction potential – however, excessive harvest will ALWAYS negatively impact populations, regardless of spp! DECLINE due to hunting pressure  leads into management!!

Management

Management The Endangered Species Act 1995: Yellowstone National Park Translocation June 2013 Proposal Wolf Management is PEOPLE Management. Given enough prey and space, wolves thrive. Numbers have always been in jeopardy where in contact with people.

Management Current Management Regulation of legal harvest Protection from harvest Translocations Wolf population reduction*

Management Monitoring Harvest statistics Radio telemetry Age assessment Radio telemetry Ground surveys Aerial surveys* Line-intercept track sampling* Age assessment: cementum annuli counts most accurate and cost-effective why might it be important to know the ages of harvested animals?  with adequate snow conditions, best methods when large/relatively open areas must be surveyed Other methods: howling surveys, hunter observations to assess trends No consistency in methods used among agencies, most estimates NOT objective or contain no measure of precision

Management Harvest Exports/imports CITES, Appendix II Wolf Management is PEOPLE Management

Management Harvest UPDATED 2013-2014 Seasons Implications on wolf susceptibility? Why might there be no trapping season, but an open hunting season?

Management Harvest Alaska: the only state to allow public harvest 1960: declared a game species 1996: eliminated aerial hunting Require an export permit to remove from the state Elaborate monitoring system for harvest 26 GMUs, annually set trapping/hunting seasons ADGF inspects EVERY harvested wolf color, sex, age class, method of take, date/location of harvest Each hide receives a metal tag Require an export permit to remove from the state

Management Harvest Alaska: the only state to allow public harvest Compliance? Liberal regulations Annual harvest 700-1600 individuals Good compliance most areas, poor for rural subsistence users Regulations generally liberal because harvest is relatively low and well within sustained yield levels Annual harvest fluctuates depending on snow and other weather factors

Management Habitat Park size Travel corridors Logging operations Buffer zones? Travel corridors Logging operations As generalists, direct habitat management not necessary – it’s a SPACE issue Park size: some may be too small to hold viable populations Seasonal movements from these areas subject wolves to human-caused mortality Not recommended to create travel corridors like has been done for other large wide-ranging carnivore species (e.g., bears) – makes prey too susceptible/vulnerable to wolf predation! Logging ops: recommended controlling access on roads following logging

Management Livestock Depredation Wolf control Annual depredation 0.23-3.0/1000 cattle 2.66/1000 sheep Wolf Management is PEOPLE Management Removal of damaging wolves, education of livestock owners, and compensation to owners Compensation: Defenders of Wildlife, PERC

Management Humans Increase ungulate species for harvest? Controversial Lethal and nonlethal methods guard dogs, birth control, denning, steel leghold, shooting… All programs have increased ungulate survival, human harvest of prey spp, and maintained viable wolf populations

Management Red Wolves and Coyotes North Carolina Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Wolf Management is PEOPLE Management

The Future

The Future Coexistence at the local level Social acceptance Biological requisites Biological requisites Adequate forest cover, few roads, small human densities, adequate prey base, absence/low livestock occurrence

The Future Coexistence at the local level Public education Persecution Public education required to make need for control understood in areas where wolves and livestock come in contact Persecution: if not persecuted, able to occupy areas of more human activity than previously believed! Still occur more often where people and road densities are low

“We shall never achieve harmony with the land, anymore than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations the important thing is not to achieve but to strive.” Aldo Leopold

Current Event What do we know about Canis rufus? Extinct in the wild by 1980 Grey wolf X coyote hybrids not uncommon Wolf X coyote hybrid, grey wolf, or a distinct species Does it matter? http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2013/10/should-north-carolina-allow-coyote-hunting-red-wolf-country

Questions?

Idaho Department of Fish and Game: Wolf Monitoring Program http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkCE2IqYTFc

Sources Wild Mammals of North America - P. Paquet and L. N. Carbyn Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America - Demarais and Krausman http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/links/3746/0 http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/links/3747/0 http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/ http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/ http://www.fws.gov/director/dan-ashe/index.cfm/2013/6/7/Gray-wolves-are-recovered-next-up-the-Mexican-wolf#more http://wyoming.sierraclub.org/WOLVES%20AND%20ECONOMICS.pdf http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2013/10/should-north-carolina-allow-coyote-hunting-red-wolf-country http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/