Showing posts sorted by relevance for query WOLVES. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query WOLVES. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Dire Wolves Were Not Really Wolves, 
New Genetic Clues Reveal

The extinct giant canids were a remarkable example of convergent evolution

By Riley Black on January 13, 2021
Somewhere in Southwestern North America during the late Pleistocene, a pack of dire wolves (Canis dirus) are feeding on their bison kill, while a pair of grey wolves (Canis lupus) approach in the hopes of scavenging. One of the dire wolves rushes in to confront the grey wolves, and their confrontation allows a comparison of the bigger, larger-headed and reddish-brown dire wolf with its smaller, grey relative. Credit: Mauricio Antón


Dire wolves are iconic beasts. Thousands of these extinct Pleistocene carnivores have been recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. And the massive canids have even received some time in the spotlight thanks to the television series Game of Thrones. But a new study of dire wolf genetics has startled paleontologists: it found that these animals were not wolves at all, but rather the last of a dog lineage that evolved in North America.

Ever since they were first described in the 1850s, dire wolves have captured modern humans’ imagination. Their remains have been found throughout much of the Americas, from Idaho to Bolivia. The La Brea asphalt seeps famously document how prey animals mired in tar lured many of these ice age predators to a sticky death. The dire wolves’ tar-preserved remains reveal an imposing hunter up to six feet long, with skull and jaw adaptations to take down enormous, struggling megafauna. Though these canids had clearly evolved to handle the mastodons, horses, bison and other large herbivores then roaming the Americas, skeletal resemblances between dire wolves and the smaller gray wolves of today suggested a close kinship. It had long been assumed that dire wolves made themselves at home in North America before gray wolves followed them across the Bering Land Bridge from Eurasia. Now some well-preserved DNA seems to be fundamentally changing the story.

The new study, published on Wednesday in Nature, began as an effort to understand dire wolves’ biological basics. “For me, it started with a decision to road-trip around the U.S. collecting dire wolf samples and see what we could get, since no one had managed to get DNA out of dire wolf samples at that point,” says Durham University archaeologist and study co-author Angela Perri. At the same time, geneticist and co-author Kieren Mitchell of the University of Adelaide in Australia was also trying to extract and study ancient DNA from dire wolf remains—as were other labs that eventually collaborated on the project.

One of the researchers’ questions was how dire wolves were related to other wolves. For decades, paleontologists have remarked on how similar the bones of dire wolves and gray wolves are. Sometimes it is difficult to tell them apart. “My hunch was that dire wolves were possibly a specialized lineage or subspecies of gray wolf,” Mitchell says.

But the new evidence told a different story. Preliminary genetic analyses indicated that dire and gray wolves were not close relatives. “I think I can speak for the whole group when I say the results were definitely a surprise,” Perri says.

After sequencing five genomes from dire wolf fossils between 50,000 and 13,000 years old, the researchers found that the animals belonged to a much older lineage of dogs. Dire wolves, it now appeared, had evolved in the Americas and had no close kinship with the gray wolves from Eurasia; the last time gray wolves and dire wolves shared a common ancestor was about 5.7 million years ago. The strong resemblance between the two, the researchers say, is a case of convergent evolution, whereby different species develop similar adaptations—or even appearances—thanks to a similar way of life. Sometimes such convergence is only rough, such as both birds and bats evolving wings despite their differing anatomy. In the case of dire and gray wolves, lives of chasing large herbivores to catch some meat on the hoof resulted in two different canid lineages independently producing wolflike forms.

“These results totally shake up the idea that dire wolves were just bigger cousins of gray wolves,” says Yukon paleontologist Grant Zazula, who was not involved in the new study. In fact, the similarity between the two has led gray wolves to be taken as proxies for dire wolf biology and behavior, from pack dynamics to the sound of the animal’s howls. The dire wolf’s new identity means that many previous assumptions—down to what it looked like in life—require reinvestigation. “The study of ancient DNA and proteins from fossil bones is rapidly rewriting the ice age and more recent history of North America’s mammals,” Zazula says.

In technical terms, the new findings mean dire wolves may need a new genus name to indicate they are no longer be part of the genus Canis, to which gray wolves belong. Perri, Mitchell and their colleagues suggest Aenocyon, meaning “terrible wolf.” But the researchers don’t expect their findings to completely overturn tradition, and Aenocyon dirus would likely continue to be called the dire wolf. “They will just join the club of things like maned wolves that are called wolves but aren’t really,” Perri says.

The new findings also add layers to experts’ ruminations on why dire wolves eventually disappeared as the last ice age closed. These predators became specialized in hunting camels, horses, bison and other herbivores in North America over millions of years. As those prey sources disappeared, so did the dire wolves. “In contrast to gray wolves, which are a model for adaptation,” Perri says, “dire wolves appear to be much less flexible to deal with changing environments and prey.”

Nor did dire wolves leave a genetic legacy beyond the decaying DNA in their ancient bones. Although canids such as wolves and coyotes often create hybrids, dire wolves apparently did not do so with any other canids that remain alive today. Perri, Mitchell and their colleagues found no DNA evidence of interbreeding between dire wolves and gray wolves or coyotes. Dire wolves were genetically isolated from other canids, Mitchell notes, so “hybridization couldn’t provide a way out” because dire wolves were probably unable to produce viable offspring with the recently arrived wolves from Eurasia.


By 13,000 years ago, dire wolves were facing extinction. Evolving in the harsh, variable environments of Eurasia may have given gray wolves an edge, Zazula notes, “while the big, bad dire wolves got caught off guard relaxing in southern California at the end of the ice age.” But what might sound like the end of the dire wolf’s story is really only the beginning. Preserved genes have shown that dire wolves and their ancestors were top dogs in the Americas for more than five million years—and the early chapters of their story are waiting to be rewritten.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Riley Black, who formerly wrote under the name Brian Switek, is the author of Skeleton Keys and My Beloved Brontosaurus. She lives in Salt Lake City, Utah. Follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

Tuesday, February 01, 2022

WOLVES ARE ENDANGERED
With wolves in Colorado, here's everything you need to know: It's complicated


Miles Blumhardt, Fort Collins Coloradoan
Mon, January 31, 2022

The most polarizing predator of the West is back in Colorado, and recent kills by wolves have stoked the embers of emotions on the issue.

For the first time in eight decades, the state has a wolfpack whose six pups were born in Colorado.

That pack over the past month has killed three cows and a working cattle dog north of Walden in Jackson County, with the state's voter-approved reintroduction of wolves still a year away.


Emotions have heightened while ranchers, wolf advocates and state wildlife officials scramble on how to quell the killing. That anxiety has created a swell of misinformation and misconceptions on both sides of the issue, quieting the science of wolves' behaviors and impacts.

With that backdrop, here are answers to 10 frequently asked questions regarding wolves compiled from wolf experts, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and Colorado State University's Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence.

Helping hand: Neighbors, officials assist Colorado rancher with wolf hazing fencing
Where did the wolves in Colorado come from? Were they reintroduced?

The wolfpack was not reintroduced; the parents of the pack naturally migrated into the state from Wyoming over the past several years.

The pack consists of two adults and six young, which were born last spring. The female had a tracking collar on her from Wyoming, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife captured the male and attached a tracking collar.
Why are we reintroducing wolves if they are already in Colorado?

Wolves were eradicated in Colorado by the 1940s largely through shooting, trapping and poisoning.

There have been infrequent sightings of wolves in the state since then and no breeding packs in the state until last year, when the pair was discovered right around the time the measure to reintroduce wolves was working its way onto the ballot.

Some groups wanted to speed up the process to restore wolves to a sustainable level on the Colorado landscape, like what had been done in Wyoming and Idaho in 1995 when wolves were reintroduced there.

Supporters received enough signatures to get a wolf reintroduction measure on the 2020 ballot. Voters narrowly passed Proposition 114: 50.91% for and 49.09% against.

The measure requires the Colorado Parks and Wildlife to complete a plan that includes reintroducing wolves west of the Continental Divide no later than the end of 2023. It also mandates that landowners be compensated for livestock losses due to wolves.



Do wolves kill a lot of livestock?

Wolf depredation is a small economic cost to the livestock industry overall, but the impacts to individual ranchers can be substantial.

There are many ways to break down the data, depending on which numbers you use, but overall, an accurate percentage of loss of livestock to wolves is somewhere in the single digits.

Colorado controversy: Experts say wolf depredation on cattle needs urgent attention
Why do wolves kill cattle and sheep instead of elk and deer?

The main prey base of wolves are elk, deer and moose, but wolves are opportunistic predators, meaning anything is on the menu if the amount of energy to kill it is rewarding.

Wolves are known to live among cattle and sheep and cause no harm. Other wolfpacks have found killing livestock is easier than killing wildlife. Experts agree that this learned behavior is difficult to break and can require killing (where legal) or removing all or part of the pack to address the issue.

In Colorado, where killing wolves is illegal except to protect human life and removal is considered a low-level option, various methods of nonlethal hazing of wolves are advocated. The effectiveness of these methods varies but usually lasts several weeks to several months before wolves move on or are no longer afraid of the devices.




Will wolves wipe out our deer and elk herds?

Like in the livestock industry, in some areas where wolves exist at a sustainable population level, wolves have impacted deer, elk and moose populations. When this happens, it can have an economic impact on small communities and outfitters that rely on business from hunting.

At a statewide level, wolves are unlikely to have a major impact on overall deer, elk and moose populations or hunting opportunities in Colorado, based on evidence from northern Rocky Mountain states.

Colorado boasts the largest elk population of any state, with a stable number estimated at 287,000. The mule deer population is estimated to be 450,000, which is about 25% below what is desired. The moose population is about 3,000 and thriving.



Why are livestock owners who lose livestock to wolves compensated?

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is required by state statue to compensate ranchers and farmers for depredation by predators, such as coyotes, black bears, mountain lions and now wolves. It also compensates landowners for such things as hay eaten by elk and moose tearing down fences.

The ballot initiative required compensation to landowners for confirmed wolf kills of livestock. Funding for wolf depredation comes from the state's general fund, the Species Conservation Trust Fund, the Colorado Nongame Conservation and Wildlife Restoration Cash Funds or other sources from nongame species.

How do they determine how much to pay a rancher for the loss of livestock?

That is the million-dollar question.

Generally, the rancher is paid market price.

Livestock owners point out the compensation doesn't pay them for the loss of young that could have been produced if a female is killed, reduction in birth rates and weight loss from wolves harassing their livestock. Others say that is the price of doing business where predators share the landscape.

Do wolves kill people and pets?


Wolves attacking or killing humans is extremely rare and infrequent for dogs.

Unless habituated to humans with food, wolves instinctively avoid humans.

There were no documented accounts of humans killed by wild wolves from 1900 to 2000, and few reports of wolves attacking people.

Wolves may have killed a person in Canada in 2005 and a woman jogging alone in a remote part of Alaska in 2010.

Since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1995, there have been no attacks on humans there despite annual visitation of 4.5 million people.

Wolves see dogs as competition to their territory and food supply and will aggressively attack and kill them, just as they will other wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and black bears.

Do wolves consume what they kill or do they kill for fun?


On average, wolves are successful when hunting wild game less than 20% of the time, and a wolf will consume approximately 7 to 10 pounds of meat per day.

On rare occasions, wolves eat only a portion of what is killed. And though rare, confirmed "surplus kills'' have been reported on elk and sheep. Surplus killing is when animals kill more prey than they can immediately eat and then cache or abandon the remainder.

Surplus killing by wolves is more common on domestic livestock than wild game, which have natural defenses against predators.

The leading theory of surplus killing behavior is it occurs usually in late winter, when prey are more vulnerable and easier to catch. Wolves are programmed to kill whenever possible, so they take advantage of an unusual killing opportunity.

Are wolves endangered?

Wolves are likely the most adaptable and thus among the easiest species to return to sustainable populations ever listed on the federal Endangered Species Act.


They were largely killed off in the contiguous U.S. by 1973, when they were added to the ESA. They were delisted in 2021 after their numbers exceeded 7,000, including more than 3,000 in western states.

More than 10,000 gray wolves live in Alaska.


The number of wolves in an area is largely determined by humans, which are the primary threat to their existence.

When the federal government delisted gray wolves, management within Colorado was transferred to Colorado State Parks and Wildlife. Wolves remain a designated endangered species in Colorado, and it is illegal to kill wolves in the state except to protect human life.

The penalty for illegally killing a wolf in Colorado is a fine up to $100,000, up to one year in jail and possible loss of hunting privileges for life.

Wolves in Rocky Mountain National Park?: Some believe it should be a release site
Dig deeper into Colorado wolf information

Colorado Parks and Wildlife: Visit https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/Wolves-in-Colorado-FAQ.aspx

Colorado State University: Visit https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/centerforhumancarnivorecoexistence/

Reporter Miles Blumhardt looks for stories that impact your life. Be it news, outdoors, sports — you name it, he wants to report it. Have a story idea? Contact him at milesblumhardt@coloradoan.com or on Twitter @MilesBlumhardt. Support his work and that of other Coloradoan journalists by purchasing a digital subscription today.

This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Wolves in Colorado: An FAQ on attacks, behavior, environmental impact

Tuesday, January 05, 2021


Despite 'Meager Numbers,' Trump Administration Removes Gray Wolves From Endangered Species List

"The delisting of gray wolves is the latest causality of the Trump administration's willful ignorance of the biodiversity crisis and scientific facts."


Published on
by

A family of gray wolves tends to their pups. After 45 years, gray wolves were delisted from the Endangered Species Act by the Trump administration on January 4, 2021. (Photo: Chad Horwedel/Flickr/cc)

Wildlife advocates on Monday accused the Trump administration of "willful ignorance" after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act after 45 years of protection, even though experts say the animals are far from out of the proverbial woods. 

"Even with Trump's days in office dwindling, the long-term impact of illegitimate decisions like the wolf delisting will take years to correct."
—Lindsay Larris,
WildEarth Guardians

USFWS announced the rule change—one of over 100 regulatory rollbacks recently pushed through by the Trump administration—in October. The move will allow state authorities to treat the canines as predators and kill or protect them according to their respective laws. 

In South Dakota, for example, hunters, trappers, landowners, and livestock producers are now permitted to kill gray wolves after obtaining the necessary paperwork, which includes a predator/varmint, furbearer, or hunting license. Landowners on their own property and minors under the age of 16 are exempt from licensing requirements.

In neighboring Minnesota, gray wolves will retain a higher level of protection in the northern part of the state—owners of livestock and other animals can kill wolves that pose an "immediate threat"—while in the southern two-thirds of the state people can shoot wolves that they believe pose any threat to livestock, as long as they surrender the carcass.

In Oregon, on the other hand, "wolves remain protected throughout the state," according to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. "Hunting and trapping of wolves remains prohibited statewide."

Last September, Common Dreams reported that an analysis of deregulation in some Western states revealed that a record-breaking 570 wolves, including dozens of pups, were brutally killed in Idaho over a recent one-year period.

"Tragically, we know how this will play out when states 'manage' wolves, as we have seen in the northern Rocky Mountain region in which they were previously delisted," Samantha Bruegger, wildlife coexistence campaigner for WildEarth Guardians, said in reaction to Monday's delisting.

Bruegger cited the Idaho killings, as well as the situation in Washington, where last year "the state slaughtered an entire pack of wolves due to supposed conflicts with ranching interests," as proof that "without federal protections, wolves are vulnerable to the whims and politics of state management."

Monday's delisting comes despite the enduring precarity of wolf populations throughout much of the country. According to the most recent USFWS data, there are only 108 wolves in Washington state, 158 in Oregon, and 15 in California, while wolves are "functionally extinct" in Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.

"These meager numbers lay the groundwork for a legal challenge planned by WildEarth Guardians with a coalition of conservation groups to be filed later this month," said Bruegger. 

Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement that "the delisting of gray wolves is the latest causality of the Trump administration's willful ignorance of the biodiversity crisis and scientific facts."

"Even with [President Donald] Trump's days in office dwindling, the long-term impact of illegitimate decisions like the wolf delisting will take years to correct," Larris added. "Guardians is committed to challenging this decision in court, while working across political channels to ensure wolves receive as much protection as possible at the state level in the interim


 

For Immediate Release

Organization Profile: 
Contact: 

Samantha Bruegger, WildEarth Guardians, 970-363-4191, sbruegger@wildearthguardians.org
Lindsay Larris, WildEarth Guardians, 310-923-1465, llarris@wildearthguardians.org










Gray Wolves Lose Federal Endangered Species Act Protections

WildEarth Guardians mourns loss of protections for all gray wolves across the lower 48 and vows legal action.

WASHINGTON - Today, the Trump administration’s decision to prematurely strip gray wolves of federal Endangered Species Act protections takes effect. The decision, first announced on October 29, 2020, applies to all gray wolves in the lower 48 states despite the lack of scientific evidence showing true recovery across gray wolves’ historic range. Starting today, management of wolf populations will return to individual state wildlife agencies, some of which are already reinstating hunting and trapping season on wolves.

“Tragically, we know how this will play out when states 'manage' wolves, as we have seen in the northern Rocky Mountain region in which they were previously delisted,” stated Samantha Bruegger, wildlife coexistence campaigner for WildEarth Guardians. “In Idaho, nearly 600 wolves were brutally killed in a one-year span from 2019-2020, including dozens of wolf pups. Last year in Washington, the state slaughtered an entire pack of wolves due to supposed conflicts with ranching interests.  Without federal protections, wolves are vulnerable to the whims and politics of state management.”

According to data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), there are only 108 wolves in Washington state, 158 in Oregon, and a scant 15 in California. Nevada, Utah, and Colorado have had a few wolf sightings over the past three years, but wolves remain functionally extinct in these states. These meager numbers lay the groundwork for a legal challenge planned by WildEarth Guardians with a coalition of conservation groups to be filed later this month.

“The delisting of gray wolves is the latest causality of the Trump administration’s willful ignorance of the biodiversity crisis and scientific facts,” said Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians. “Even with Trump’s days in office dwindling, the long-term impact of illegitimate decisions like the wolf delisting will take years to correct. Guardians is committed to challenging this decision in court, while working across political channels to ensure wolves receive as much protection as possible at the state level in the interim.”

In delisting wolves, USFWS ignores the science showing they are not recovered in the West. The USFWS concluded that because in its belief there are sufficient wolves in the Great Lakes states, it does not matter that wolves in the West are not yet recovered. The ESA demands more, including restoring the species in the ample suitable habitats afforded by the wild public lands throughout the West.  Wolves only occupy a small portion of available, suitable habitat in Oregon and Washington, and remain absent across vast swaths of their historical habitat in the West, including in Colorado and the southern Rockies.

BACKGROUND: The state of Idaho offers a perfect example of what state "management" of wolves may look like across the American West. According to an analysis of records obtained by Western Watersheds Project, hunters, trappers, and state and federal agencies killed 570 wolves in Idaho during a 12-month period from July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020. Included in the mortality are at least 35 wolf pups, some weighing less than 16 pounds and likely only 4 to 6 weeks old. Some of the wolves shattered teeth trying to bite their way out of traps, others died of hyperthermia in traps set by the U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services, and more were gunned down in aerial control actions. The total mortality during this period represented nearly 60 percent of the 2019 year-end estimated Idaho wolf population.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) recently announced it had awarded approximately $21,000 in “challenge grants” to the north Idaho-based Foundation 4 Wildlife Management, which reimburses wolf trappers a bounty up to $1,000 per wolf killed. The Foundation also has received funding for wolf bounties from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. A single individual may now kill up to 30 wolves under IDFG hunting and trapping rules—a new increase from the 20 wolves previously allowed.

Monday, May 12, 2025

Wolves Have a Bad Reputation. One Yellowstone Naturalist Is Trying to Fix It.

Wildlife guide Audra Conklin Taylor shows the beauty, value, and character of the park’s packs.


BY LINA ZELDOVICH
MAY 12, 2025
ATLAS OBSCURA 


Though they’re protected inside the park, wolves can be killed when they cross its borders. JULIE ARGYLE


In This Story

THE WOLVES TROT OUT OF the morning fog and settle around a bison herd that had overnighted in the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park. There are a couple hundred bison and only four wolves, but the herd immediately becomes agitated—they begin to move around, and the wolves follow. A human family of four, we watch them from a hill across the valley, sometimes through the scopes that our guide, Audra Conklin Taylor, has brought along, sometimes just squinting in the morning sun. “The adult bison are too big for them so they’re after the calves,” she explains.


“Poor things,” we gasp, imagining one of the fluffy, light-brown creatures becoming breakfast. But as Taylor explains the complexity of the Yellowstone ecosystem, our perspective shifts. As apex predators, wolves are vital for Yellowstone ecology and health: They keep the herds in check, preventing overgrazing. After wolves had been killed off here in the 1920s, the elk, bison, and deer populations exploded, destroying trees, valleys, and riverbanks.

“When wolves were reintroduced in 1995, scientists watched the entire park rebound,” Taylor says. It was a result of the “trophic cascade of ecological change”—a ripple effect of removing or introducing a top predator into a food web—which first brought back the trees, followed by beavers and birds, who rely on trees for their living environment.

Without wolves, Yellowstone’s elk, bison, and deer populations reach levels that are destructive to trees, valleys, and riverbanks. JULIE ARGYLE

Culturally and historically, wolves have earned a bad rep because they preyed on farmers’ cows. Written records ascribe all kinds of evil qualities to them. The Bible refers to wolves as metaphors for greed and destructiveness. Fairy tales like “Little Red Riding Hood” portray them as preying on humans. Some stories even assign paranormal qualities to them, such as werewolves. And modern media still perpetuates wolves’ negative image in cartoons and movies.

“They have been demonized to us since we were children,” Taylor points out. In reality, however, wolf attacks on humans are extremely rare, which differs drastically from, say, grizzlies. “If you were to walk up on a grizzly bear eating a carcass, that grizzly bear is going to come after you full force,” Taylor says. “If you walk up on a carcass and there are wolves, they are likely going to run away. They are afraid of us. They want nothing to do with us.”

Part of Taylor’s job is restoring wolves’ reputation. She has spent her life caring for orphaned and injured wildlife, and describes herself as a naturalist. Originally from Massachusetts, Taylor fell in love with Yellowstone after she vacationed there in 2010 with her mother. Four years later, she sold her company and decided to come back to spend three months in nature.

“And three months turned into 12 years,” she says. At first, she was volunteering, shadowing wildlife biologists and working with park guides. Then, she started to take groups to see the park’s spectacular wildlife and launched her own company, Lamar Valley Touring, based in Gardiner, Montana.

Taylor’s work highlights the value and unique personalities of wolves. JULIE ARGYLE

We’re on one of her tours that morning at Yellowstone. As we watch, the hunting scene in front of us escalates. The wolves single out a parentless calf and give chase. The calf gallops, the wolves circle, the calf turns back, skids, careens, loses speed—but just as one wolf leaps for the kill, a huge bull cuts in between. The wolves miss. “Poor things, now they’ll go hungry,” we say as the foursome leaves the battlefield. After everything we’ve learned about their role in the ecosystem, we now see the importance of a successful hunt.

“They are used to being hungry,” Taylor says, adding that wolves are resilient and adaptable. “Most hunts aren’t successful. These four look young. They’re juveniles, so it’s not surprising they missed.”

Wolves occupy a special place in Taylor’s heart. “They’re so incredibly misunderstood and so incredibly parallel to us humans,” she says. A wolf pack is a family unit, sometimes with “friends” who join in for genetic diversity, “because wolves are too smart to interbreed,” she says. Packs usually have an alpha male and an alpha female, who sire pups, some of which may stay with the pack while others may leave. Sometimes, a pack is run by an old matriarch, a grandma who keeps pups in check. Sometimes more than one female in a pack gives birth, so they rear the pups together, taking turns babysitting. Young female or male wolves may babysit, too, just like older human cousins do.

Although protected inside Yellowstone, wolves can be hunted once they leave the park. In 2022, NPR reported that a record number of wolves were shot outside the park—25, which amounted to 20 percent of the wolf population. In 2025 so far, about 10 wolves that ventured beyond Yellowstone’s borders have been killed. Although the park rangers and biologists aren’t yet sure of the exact numbers, they no longer see the pack members they used to see, says Rick McIntyre. McIntyre is a world-famous wolf expert and author of a book series about Yellowstone wolves, including Thinking Like a Wolf, which features Taylor’s work. McIntyre started working for the U.S. National Park Service in 1975 and specifically at Yellowstone in 1994, where his responsibilities included explaining the wolf reintroduction program to visitors and studying the animals.

A wolf pack is a family unit, with every member playing a role. JULIE ARGYLE

Over the years, McIntyre has had over 100,000 sightings of wolves—more than any other person in history. “I’m out with the wolves every day, and I have seen so much over the years,” he says. He’s watched wolves wage wars over territory, form lifelong partnerships, risk their lives by leading enemy packs away from their offspring, and die in battle to save their pups.

Taylor’s work advocating for wolves involves educating people about wolves’ importance to the ecosystem and their characters. But she feels that sometimes human animosity toward wolves runs too deep to mend, particularly with farmers and ranchers who believe that wolves threaten their cattle. “I’ve never had a rancher or a farmer on a tour with me,” she says. “They don’t want to talk to me. I’ve been advocating for 12 years now; they don’t care.”

McIntyre says he understands ranchers and farmers who retaliate when they believe wolves take or threaten their cattle. “I am sympathetic to their situation,” he says, because they put a lot of work into raising the animals, and losses affect their business. “So if it’s a rancher that feels, rightly or wrongly, that wolves have killed some sheep or calves, I can understand how they would feel that way.”

But Taylor says people sometimes kill wolves just for fun. She shares a story of the Lamar Canyon pack, whose matriarch was killed in 2018. “She used to keep watch on the pups and their older ‘teen’ siblings while their parents went hunting,” Taylor says. But a local hunter had been stalking her for months and finally caught her when she wandered about a mile outside the park. “I was burying her scat and covering her tracks, trying to keep the hunter from finding her,” Taylor says. But he was determined. “He wound up getting her when I wasn’t around.”

Wolves are essential to Yellowstone’s ecosystems. JULIE ARGYLE

He brought her body back to his house, and her grandchildren followed the scent all the way to town, Taylor says. Upset and distraught, they were howling nearby. “They knew she was there, and they were howling and crying,” she says. Eventually they killed someone’s dog, which only brought more wrath to their pack, which eventually disbanded. “I think a couple of them wound up getting killed because they were out of the park,” Taylor says. “Basically, because he killed the matriarch, the entire pack fell apart.”

Notably, living wolves are worth a lot more than dead ones—to their packs, to ecosystems, and even to human livelihoods. “Having wolves in Yellowstone is contributing $82 million to our local economy, because people come to Yellowstone to see the wolves,” McIntyre says. “So that’s $82 million to the local businesses, which obviously creates a lot of jobs for people.”

For Taylor, it’s simply the joy of watching the animals form families, have pups, and raise their young year after year that makes it worthwhile. “I love watching wolves just being wolves,” she says. “And I love showing people how much humans and wolves have in common.”

Saturday, August 19, 2023

  

Canadians have highly positive views of wolves, survey finds

grey wolves
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Who is afraid of the big bad wolf? Turns out, fewer Canadians than you might think. But that was not always the case.

Aug. 13 marks International Wolf Day. But 100 years ago, it is hard to imagine there would have been any ability to even conceive of such a day, at least on the part of settlers. Celebrating wolves would have seemed ridiculous, even dangerous.

Wolves have historically been viewed with fear by most Canadians. So much so that provincial bounties were established to pay people to kill wolves, and many would not have thought twice about shooting a wolf if they had encountered one on their farm or in the wild.

This was in stark opposition to how many Indigenous nations thought and continue to think about wolves, as kin, brother and a hunter whose skill should be emulated.

So, how did Canadians go from shooting wolves to having a day that honors them? A lot has changed in the intervening years. But do people really want to celebrate wolves? Do they have  about them and think they deserve protection? That is what we were interested in finding out.

Canadians have generally positive attitudes toward wolves

In March 2023, partnering with conservation researcher Valli-Laurente Fraser-Celin and The Fur-Bearers, a Canadian charitable organization working to protect fur-bearing animals, we developed a survey that was administered by polling firm Research Co. and completed by 1,000 people. We asked Canadians about their knowledge of, and attitudes about, wolves and what circumstances might prompt them to act for their protection.

What we found is that most Canadians might find the idea of celebrating wolves quite appealing. Across Canada, 70 percent of survey participants had moderately or very  toward wolves. Moreover, 77 percent considered them to be an iconic species and 83 percent thought of them as important ecosystem members.

Interestingly, these feelings are remarkably even across gender, income, party preference in the 2021 federal election, and province or territory of residence. It seems we are a country of wolf lovers.

This is perhaps unsurprising given that across Canada, wolves have remained abundant, occupying nearly 80 percent of their historic range. This differs from the United States where wolves were almost entirely eradicated.

Indeed, when Canadians celebrate International Wolf Day, we can proudly claim to be home to approximately 60,000 of the 200,000 to 250,000 gray wolves left in the world.

Clip from BBC Earth showcasing the bonds of wolf families.

These positive feelings may also be influenced by the works of writers like Farley Mowat who encouraged readers in Never Cry Wolf to see wolves as noble, affectionate and playful individuals who live in families much like our own. And the audience for this view only grew when the novel was adapted into a film of the same name.

When we broke positive attitudes down by community type, the results were even more intriguing. Previous research and  suggests that rural dwellers do not like wolves. This would seem to make sense;  are more likely to be ranchers, farmers and hunters whose interactions with wolves can be negative.

However, we found that people in rural and remote communities had the most positive views at 74 percent, compared to 64 percent of suburban residents. It may be that familiarity with wolves has bred a degree of tolerance. In Canada, rural and remote dwellers are more likely to see or hear a wolf near their home and are 22 percent more willing to accept having wolves live within five kilometers of their home.

It seems that in Canada, wolves are more welcomed in the places they are also more likely to thrive: sparsely populated wild places.

Livestock loss remains a stumbling block

While people expressed fondness for wolves, they do not always like what they do. A clear majority of our survey respondents—60 percent—felt wolves were a primary threat to livestock.

Wolves do prey on livestock, and those losses are keenly felt, both economically and emotionally. But livestock are not under intense threat from wolves across Canada, even if there are some parts of the country, like Alberta, that experience higher rates of depredation.

Evidence shows that wolves will prey on livestock, especially if they are unprotected. Moreover, if wolves do not have wild prey to eat, they will turn to domesticated animals. Managing wolf predation is linked to making sure that other wild prey like moose, caribou and deer have space to flourish. In this way, wolf protection is tied to broader conservation aims that may also work to alleviate the livestock losses felt by ranchers and farmers.

Fostering wolf protection

Our survey also asked participants what would motivate them to act to protect wolves. Put differently, how can we mobilize affection for wolves?

Forty-two percent of people surveyed reported that they would act if wolf populations decreased. Forty-one percent reported they would act if they learned more about the ecosystem benefits that  provide, while a further 41 percent said they would act if they learned that a wolf had been killed illegally. Thirty-three percent reported that they would act if they saw a news report that wolf habitats were threatened.

These answers point to a desire for the preservation of  habitats and populations, so they can continue their role as keystone predators. This requires ongoing dialog and a focus on broader conservation efforts to make sure that next year on International Wolf Day, they continue to thrive.

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation


Gray wolf recovery: Conservationists discuss the challenges of success

gray wolves
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Over the past 30 years, efforts to recover gray wolf populations in the United States have been broadly successful, with many regions now sporting robust populations of the carnivore. Writing in BioScience, wolf experts David E. Ausband and L. David Mech describe the conservation landscape and also the obstacles that wolves face as their populations expand into their historical ranges.

"Remarkable wolf conservation success yields remarkable challenges," say the authors, as 6,000  now occupy habitat across 11 states. These growing populations now face significant threats as they attempt to colonize human-dominated areas, among them "fragmented habitats and barriers to dispersal, as well as increased encounters with humans, pets, and livestock."

In response to those concerned about wolves' potential impacts to prey populations and domestic livestock production, many jurisdictions have ramped up wolf efforts. For instance, in Wisconsin, "the legislature requires a public hunting or trapping season whenever wolves are delisted from the US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) list of Endangered species."

In contrast, wolves are seen as desirable in other areas, such as Colorado, where voters recently passed a ballot initiative to reintroduce them in the state. The authors caution that such pro-reintroduction initiatives, which may seem initially promising for wolves, could have the unintended consequence of setting precedent for laws barring reintroduction and thus complicate management. An uncertain regulatory regime, say Ausband and Mech, could cause major fluctuations in wolf populations, with dire consequences for .

The answer to this quandary, the authors suggest, is thoughtful management that carefully considers the needs of diverse stakeholders.

"Future wolf conservation in the United States will be affected by the ability of managers to predict colonization and dispersal dynamics, to reduce hybridization and , to mitigate and deter wolf–livestock conflicts, to harvest wolves sustainably while satisfying diverse stakeholders, to avert a reduction in tolerance for wolves due to a disinterest in nature, and to engage diverse stakeholders in wolf conservation to avoid management by ballot initiative or legislative and judicial decrees."

Only through such science-informed management, argue Ausband and Mech, can the present success of wolf  be built on in the future.

More information: David E Ausband et al, The challenges of success: Future wolf conservation and management in the United States, BioScience (2023). DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biad053academic.oup.com/bioscience/ar … .1093/biosci/biad053

Journal information: BioScience 


Wednesday, April 20, 2022

The answer to keeping moose populations healthy? Wolves

The answer to keeping moose populations healthy? Wolves
Osteoarthritis in a moose's hip joint. Credit: Rolf Peterson

Predators may keep prey populations healthy by acting as a selective force against genetic diseases. A new study found that wolves select adult moose based on age and osteoarthritis, a chronic disease that can be influenced by genetics. Wolves also showed a strong preference for elderly moose over prime-aged adults. The results indicate that wolves play an important role in keeping prey populations healthy and have considerable implications for the conservation management of predator and prey populations.

Over the last decade,  have been at the center stage of conservation news. They were once one of the most widely distributed wild mammals on Earth. But after decades of habitat destruction and human persecution, wolves now only occupy about two thirds of their former range.

Wolves as biodiversity managers

Now, the wolf is making a comeback. The US has seen an increase in their wolf populations across the country, and extensive conservation efforts have led to a comeback across Europe. Yet their return has not been well-received by everyone. Predators may lead to human-wildlife conflicts, as wolves can pose a threat to livestock and pets.

Even so, multiple , such as the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone, have shown that the presence of wolves favors ecosystem health. Wolves keep prey populations, such as deer, elk, and , in check, which benefits vegetation. Carcasses left behind by wolves provide food for other animals such as scavengers and redistribute nutrients.

A new study published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution found another way in which wolves may be beneficial for biodiversity: selective . Wolves preyed more on prime-aged adult moose with osteoarthritis than healthy prime-aged individuals. Wolves also showed a strong preference for elderly moose over prime-aged adults.

Selective predation

Selective predation means that a particular type of prey occurs more frequently in a predator's diet than what is expected based on the prey type's frequency in an environment. Predators tend to select individuals that are easier or less risky to hunt.

Selective predation can have important impacts on prey  dynamics. Prey population growth rates are less impacted by predation when predators go for juveniles or elderly adults, as these individuals have lower reproductive values.

Less well understood is the impact of predation of sick individuals on prey population health.

"Wolf biologists have in the past assumed that wolves play an important role in regulating the health of  populations by selectively removing old or diseased animals," said Dr. Sarah Hoy, of Michigan Technological University. "However, a rigorous assessment of that idea has not been tested until now."

Healthy moose populations

Hoy and her colleague assessed the extent that wolves select adult moose on the basis of age-class and osteoarthritis.

"Osteoarthritis is a progressively crippling disease caused by deterioration of cartilage on the surfaces of moveable joints (for example, knees and hip joints)," explained Hoy. "As individuals get older, they are more likely to develop osteoarthritis and develop more severe forms of the disease."

They also examined how temporal variation in kill rates were associated with the subsequent incidence of osteoarthritis in the moose population over a 33-year period.

"When it comes to wolves and moose, it makes a lot of sense that wolves would preferentially target moose that are in poorer condition because adult moose weigh between 800 and 900lbs which is between eight and 10 times as heavy as a wolf," said Hoy.

They found that wolves showed strong selection for elderly moose and avoided prime-aged adults. The presence of severe osteoarthritis, but not mild or moderate, increased the vulnerability of prime-aged moose to predation.

"But the situation is different for older moose. While older moose are more vulnerable to predation, that vulnerability does not strongly depend on whether an old moose has osteoarthritis," explained Hoy.

They also found that the incidence of osteoarthritis in the moose population declined following years with higher kill rates.

"The decline in osteoarthritis following years with more predation is—we think—because wolves preferentially removed moose with  from the population," said Hoy.

Wolf conservation

The results have important implications for wolf management and conservation. Hoy explained: "The management and conservation of wolves is controversial among the public. Yet our results suggest wolves might be an effective, natural, and more ethical way of regulating the health of deer and moose populations—as opposed to using culls or recreational hunting to reduce the incidence of diseases or parasites of concern."

"The results are also relevant for policy-related arguments about reasons to refrain from intensively hunting ," continued Hoy.

"When deciding whether to hunt wolves it is important to not only consider issues that may be caused by wolves (ie, occasional predation of livestock) but to also consider the important ecological benefits that wolves may provide by removing old and diseased animals from the populations."Research indicates that wolves might help moose avoid acquiring a deadly deer parasite

More information: Sarah R. Hoy et al, The Role of Wolves in Regulating a Chronic Non-communicable Disease, Osteoarthritis, in Prey Populations, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution (2022). DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2022.819137

Journal information: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 

Provided by Frontiers