Explore the vast range of titles available.

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were extirpated from the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States by the 1930s. Dispersing wolves from Canada naturally recolonized Montana and first denned there in 1986. In 1995 and 1996, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced 66 wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. By 2008, there were ≥1,655 wolves in ≥217 packs, including 95 breeding pairs in the NRM. From 1993–2008, we captured and radio-collared 1,681 wolves and documented 297 radio-collared wolves dispersing as lone individuals. We monitored dispersing wolves to determine their pack characteristics (i.e., pack size and surrounding pack density) before and after dispersal, their reproductive success, and eventual fate. We calculated summary statistics for characteristics of wolf dispersal (i.e., straight-line distance, age, time of year, sex ratio, reproduction, and survival), and we tested these characteristics for differences between sexes and age groups. Approximately, 10% of the known wolf population dispersed annually. The sex ratio of dispersals favored males (169 M, 128 F), but fewer dispersed males reproduced (28%, n = 47) than females (42%, n = 54). Fifty-nine percent of all dispersers of known age were adults (n = 156), 37% were yearlings (n = 99), and 4% were pups (n = 10). Mean age at dispersal for males (32.8 months) was not significantly different (P = 0.88) than for females (32.1 months). Yellowstone National Park had a significant positive effect on dispersal rate. Pack density in a wolf’s natal population had a negative effect on dispersal rate when the entire NRM population was considered. The mean NRM pack size (6.9) from 1993 to 2008 was smaller than the mean size of packs (10.0) from which wolves dispersed during that time period (P < 0.001); however, pack size was not in our most supported model. Dispersals occurred throughout the year but generally increased in the fall and peaked in January. The mean duration of all dispersals was 5.5 months. Radio-collared wolves dispersed between Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to other adjacent states, and between the United States and Canada throughout the study. Mean straight-line distance between starting and ending points for dispersing males (98.1 km) was not significantly different than females (87.7 km; P = 0.11). Ten wolves (3.4%) dispersed distances >300 km. On average, dispersal distance decreased later in the study (P = 0.006). Sex, survival rate in the natal population, start date, dispersal distance, and direction were not significant predictors of dispersal rate or successful dispersal. Wolves that formed new packs were >11 times more likely to reproduce than those that joined packs and surrounding pack density had a negative effect on successful dispersal. Dispersal behavior seems to be innate in sexually mature wolves and thereby assures that genetic diversity will remain high and help conserve the NRM wolf population.

Wolf (Canis lupus) predation on livestock and management methods used to mitigate conflicts are highly controversial and scrutinized especially where wolf populations are recovering. Wolves are commonly removed from a local area in attempts to reduce further depredations, but the effectiveness of such management actions is poorly understood. We compared the effects of 3 management responses to livestock depredation by wolf packs in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming: no removal, partial pack removal, and full pack removal. We examined the effectiveness of each management response in reducing further depredations using a conditional recurrent event model. From 1989 to 2008, we documented 967 depredations by 156 packs: 228 on sheep and 739 on cattle and other stock. Median time between recurrent depredations was 19 days following no removal (n = 593), 64 days following partial pack removal (n = 326), and 730 days following full pack removal (n = 48; recurring depredations were made by the next pack to occupy the territory). Compared to no removal, full pack removal reduced the occurrence of subsequent depredations by 79% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.21, P < 0.001) over a span of 1,850 days (5 years), whereas partial pack removal reduced the occurrence of subsequent depredations by 29% (HR = 0.71, P < 0.001) over the same period. Partial pack removal was most effective if conducted within the first 7 days following depredation, after which there was only a marginally significant difference between partial pack removal and no action (HR = 0.86, P = 0.07), and no difference after 14 days (HR = 0.99, P = 0.93). Within partial pack removal, we found no difference in depredation recurrence when a breeding female (HR = 0.64, P = 0.2) or ≥1-year-old male was removed (HR = 1.0, P = 0.99). The relative effect of all treatments was generally consistent across seasons (spring, summer grazing, and winter) and type of livestock. Ultimately, pack size was the best predictor of a recurrent depredation event; the probability of a depredation event recurring within 5 years increased by 7% for each animal left in the pack after the management response. However, the greater the number of wolves left in a pack, the higher the likelihood the pack met federal criteria to count as a breeding pair the following year toward population recovery goals. Published 2015. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

After roughly a 60-year absence, wolves (Canis lupus) immigrated (1979) and were reintroduced (1995–1996) into the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM), USA, where wolves are protected under the Endangered Species Act. The wolf recovery goal is to restore an equitably distributed metapopulation of ≥30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, while minimizing damage to livestock; ultimately, the objective is to establish state-managed conservation programs for wolf populations in NRM. Previously, wolves were eradicated from the NRM because of excessive human killing. We used Andersen–Gill hazard models to assess biological, habitat, and anthropogenic factors contributing to current wolf mortality risk and whether federal protection was adequate to provide acceptably low hazards. We radiocollared 711 wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (e.g., NRM region of the United States) from 1982 to 2004 and recorded 363 mortalities. Overall, annual survival rate of wolves in the recovery areas was 0.750 (95% CI  =  0.728–0.772), which is generally considered adequate for wolf population sustainability and thereby allowed the NRM wolf population to increase. Contrary to our prediction, wolf mortality risk was higher in the northwest Montana (NWMT) recovery area, likely due to less abundant public land being secure wolf habitat compared to other recovery areas. In contrast, lower hazards in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) and central Idaho (CID) likely were due to larger core areas that offered stronger wolf protection. We also found that wolves collared for damage management purposes (targeted sample) had substantially lower survival than those collared for monitoring purposes (representative sample) because most mortality was due to human factors (e.g., illegal take, control). This difference in survival underscores the importance of human-caused mortality in this recovering NRM population. Other factors contributing to increased mortality risk were pup and yearling age class, or dispersing status, which was related to younger age cohorts. When we included habitat variables in our analysis, we found that wolves having abundant agricultural and private land as well as livestock in their territory had higher mortality risk. Wolf survival was higher in areas with increased wolf density, implying that secure core habitat, particularly in GYA and CID, is important for wolf protection. We failed to detect changes in wolf hazards according to either gender or season. Maintaining wolves in NWMT will require greater attention to human harvest, conflict resolution, and illegal mortality than in either CID or GYA; however, if human access increases in the future in either of the latter 2 areas hazards to wolves also may increase. Indeed, because overall suitable habitat is more fragmented and the NRM has higher human access than many places where wolves roam freely and are subject to harvest (e.g., Canada and AK), monitoring of wolf vital rates, along with concomitant conservation and management strategies directed at wolves, their habitat, and humans, will be important for ensuring long-term viability of wolves in the region.

Reliable analyses can help wildlife managers make good decisions, which are particularly critical for controversial decisions such as wolf (Canis lupus) harvest. Creel and Rotella (2010) recently predicted substantial population declines in Montana wolf populations due to harvest, in contrast to predictions made by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). We replicated their analyses considering only those years in which field monitoring was consistent, and we considered the effect of annual variation in recruitment on wolf population growth. Rather than assuming constant rates, we used model selection methods to evaluate and incorporate models of factors driving recruitment and human‐caused mortality rates in wolf populations in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Using data from 27 area‐years of intensive wolf monitoring, we show that variation in both recruitment and human‐caused mortality affect annual wolf population growth rates and that human‐caused mortality rates have increased with the sizes of wolf populations. We document that recruitment rates have decreased over time, and we speculate that rates have decreased with increasing population sizes and/or that the ability of current field resources to document recruitment rates has recently become less successful as the number of wolves in the region has increased. Estimates of positive wolf population growth in Montana from our top models are consistent with field observations and estimates previously made by MFWP for 2008–2010, whereas the predictions for declining wolf populations of Creel and Rotella (2010) are not. Familiarity with limitations of raw data, obtained first‐hand or through consultation with scientists who collected the data, helps generate more reliable inferences and conclusions in analyses of publicly available datasets. Additionally, development of efficient monitoring methods for wolves is a pressing need, so that analyses such as ours will be possible in future years when fewer resources will be available for monitoring. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

Managers of recovering wolf (Canis lupus) populations require knowledge regarding the potential impacts caused by the loss of territorial, breeding wolves when devising plans that aim to balance population goals with human concerns. Although ecologists have studied wolves extensively, we lack an understanding of this phenomenon as published records are sparse. Therefore, we pooled data (n = 134 cases) on 148 territorial breeding wolves (75 M and 73 F) from our research and published accounts to assess the impacts of breeder loss on wolf pup survival, reproduction, and territorial social groups. In 58 of 71 cases (84%), ≥1 pup survived, and the number or sex of remaining breeders (including multiple breeders) did not influence pup survival. Pups survived more frequently in groups of ≥6 wolves (90%) compared with smaller groups (68%). Auxiliary nonbreeders benefited pup survival, with pups surviving in 92% of cases where auxiliaries were present and 64% where they were absent. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the number of adult-sized wolves remaining after breeder loss, along with pup age, had the greatest influence on pup survival. Territorial wolves reproduced the following season in 47% of cases, and a greater proportion reproduced where one breeder had to be replaced (56%) versus cases where both breeders had to be replaced (9%). Group size was greater for wolves that reproduced the following season compared with those that did not reproduce. Large recolonizing (>75 wolves) and saturated wolf populations had similar times to breeder replacement and next reproduction, which was about half that for small recolonizing (≤75 wolves) populations. We found inverse relationships between recolonizing population size and time to breeder replacement (r = −0.37) and time to next reproduction (r = −0.36). Time to breeder replacement correlated strongly with time to next reproduction (r = 0.97). Wolf social groups dissolved and abandoned their territories subsequent to breeder loss in 38% of cases. Where groups dissolved, wolves reestablished territories in 53% of cases, and neighboring wolves usurped territories in an additional 21% of cases. Fewer groups dissolved where breeders remained (26%) versus cases where breeders were absent (85%). Group size after breeder loss was smaller where groups dissolved versus cases where groups did not dissolve. To minimize negative impacts, we recommend that managers of recolonizing wolf populations limit lethal control to solitary individuals or territorial pairs where possible, because selective removal of pack members can be difficult. When reproductive packs are to be managed, we recommend that managers only remove wolves from reproductive packs when pups are ≥6 months old and packs contain ≥6 members (including ≥3 ad-sized wolves). Ideally, such packs should be close to neighboring packs and occur within larger (≥75 wolves) recolonizing populations.

Successful nonlethal management of livestock predation is important for conserving rare or endangered carnivores. In the northwestern United States, wolves (Canis lupus) have been translocated away from livestock to mitigate conflicts while promoting wolf restoration. We assessed predation on livestock, pack establishment, survival, and homing behavior of 88 translocated wolves with radiotelemetry to determine the effectiveness of translocation in our region and consider how it may be improved. More than one-quarter of translocated wolves preyed on livestock after release. Most translocated wolves (67%) never established or joined a pack, although eight new packs resulted from translocations. Translocated wolves had lower annual survival (0.60) than other radio-collared wolves (0.73), with government removal the primary source of mortality. In northwestern Montana, where most wolves have settled in human-populated areas with livestock, survival of translocated wolves was lowest (0.41) and more wolves proportionally failed to establish packs (83%) after release. Annual survival of translocated wolves was highest in central Idaho (0.71) and more wolves proportionally established packs (44%) there than in the other two recovery areas. Translocated wolves showed a strong homing tendency; most of those that failed to home still showed directional movement toward capture sites. Wolves that successfully returned to capture sites were more likely to be adults, hard (immediately) rather than soft (temporarily held in enclosure) released, and translocated shorter distances than other wolves that did not return home. Success of translocations varied and was most affected by the area in which wolves were released. We suggest managers translocating wolves or other large carnivores consider soft releasing individuals (in family groups, if social) when feasible because this may decrease homing behavior and increase release-site fidelity.

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) populations have persisted and expanded in northwest Montana since 1986, while reintroduction efforts in Idaho and Yellowstone have further bolstered the regional population. However, rigorous analysis of either the availability of wolf habitat in the entire region, or the specific habitat requirements of local wolves, has yet to be conducted. We examined wolf-habitat relationships in the northern Rocky Mountains of the U.S. by relating landscape/habitat features found within wolf pack home ranges (n = 56) to those found in adjacent non-occupied areas (n = 56). Logistic regression revealed that increased forest cover, lower human population density, higher elk density, and lower sheep density were the primary factors related to wolf occupation. Similar factors promoted wolf pack persistence. Further, our analysis indicated that relatively large tracts of suitable habitat remain unoccupied in the Rocky Mountains, suggesting that wolf populations likely will continue to increase in the region. Analysis of the habitat linkage between the 3 main wolf recovery areas indicates that populations in central Idaho and northwest Montana have higher connectivity than either of the 2 recovery areas to the Greater Yellowstone recovery area. Thus, for the northern Rocky Mountains to function as a metapopulation for wolves, it will be necessary that dispersal corridors to the Yellowstone ecosystem be established and conserved.

Under the Endangered Species Act, documenting recovery and federally mandated population levels of wolves (Canis lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) requires monitoring wolf packs that successfully recruit young. United States Fish and Wildlife Service regulations define successful breeding pairs as packs estimated to contain an adult male and female, accompanied by ≥2 pups on 31 December of a given year. Monitoring successful breeding pairs will become more difficult following proposed delisting of NRM wolves; alternatives to historically intensive methods, appropriate to the different ecological and regulatory context following delisting, are required. Because pack size is easier to monitor than pack composition, we estimated probability a pack would contain a successful breeding pair based on its size for wolf populations inhabiting 6 areas in the NRM. We also evaluated the extent to which differences in demography of wolves and levels of human-caused mortality among the areas influenced the probability of packs of different sizes would contain successful breeding pairs. Probability curves differed among analysis areas, depending primarily on levels of human-caused mortality, secondarily on annual population growth rate, and little on annual population density. Probabilities that packs contained successful breeding pairs were more uniformly distributed across pack sizes in areas with low levels of human mortality and stable populations. Large packs in areas with high levels of human-caused mortality and high annual growth rates had relatively high probabilities of containing breeding pairs whereas those for small packs were relatively low. Our approach can be used by managers to estimate number of successful breeding pairs in a population where number of packs and their sizes are known. Following delisting of NRM wolves, human-caused mortality is likely to increase, resulting in more small packs with low probabilities of containing breeding pairs. Differing contributions of packs to wolf population growth based on their size suggests monitoring successful breeding pairs will provide more accurate insights into population dynamics of wolves than will monitoring number of packs or individuals only.

Model-based predictors derived from historical data are rarely evaluated before they are used to draw inferences. We performed a temporal validation, (i.e. assessed the performance of a predictive model using data collected from the same population after the model was developed) of a statistical predictor for the number of successful breeding pairs of wolves Canis lupus in the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM). We predicted the number of successful breeding pairs, β, in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming based on the distribution of pack sizes observed through monitoring in 2006 and 2007 (β̂), and compared these estimates to the minimum number of successful breeding pairs, βMIN, observed through intensive monitoring. βMIN was consistently included within the 95% confidence intervals of β̂ for all states in both years (except for Idaho in 2007), generally following the pattern β̂L (lower 95% prediction interval for β̂) < β̂MIN < β̂. This evaluation of β̂ estimates for 2006 and 2007 suggest it will be a robust model-based method for predicting successful breeding pairs of NRM wolves in the future, provided influences other than those modeled in β̂ (e.g. disease outbreak, severe winter) do not have a strong effect on wolf populations. Managers can use β̂ models with added confidence as part of their post-delisting monitoring of wolves in NRM.

Dog Lice frequently infest domestic dogs and other wild canids in North America. Gray Wolves infested with Dog Lice were identified on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska in 1981-1983 in Interior Alaska near Denali National Park in 1999 and in Tanana Flats, south of Fairbanks, Alaska in 2003. Here, Jimenez et al report their first recorded cases of Dog Lice infesting 14 Wolves in 9 different packs in Montana and Idaho from 2005 through 2007. In 2006 and 2007, state veterinarians documented Idaho wolves infested with Dog Lice during necropsies performed at the Idaho Fish and Game wildlife Health Laboratory in Caldwell, Idaho. They stress that Dog Lice are difficult to diagnose by the naked eye unless specifically searched.