Browsing by Subject "wolves"
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item 2022-2023 Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem Wolf Population Report(2023) Gable, Thomas D; Homkes, Austin T; Bump, Joseph KDuring April 2022-April 2023, we studied the wolf population in the Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem (GVE), Minnesota in an effort to understand wolf population dynamics and how changes in population dynamics are connected to or influence predation behavior, wolf pup survival, and changes in prey density. We estimated the area of 8 wolf pack home ranges/territories and estimated the size of 20 wolf packs based on an average of 11.7 independent observations of each pack at the estimated size (i.e., the number of wolves we determined were in a given pack). In total, we recorded 606 observations of 2 or more wolves traveling together during the winter survey period. The 2022-2023 survey effort was the most intensive survey effort to date in the Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem, Minnesota. We estimate that wolf population density in the Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem in 2022-2023 was 65.2 wolves/1000 km^2 (95% confidence interval: 53.7-87.8 wolves/1000 km^2), indicating that wolf density remained unchanged from 2021-2022 (65.7 wolves/1000 km^2). Although wolf density has varied annually in the GVE since 2015, there is no indication that wolf density has increased or decreased with time. In other words, the population has remained relatively stable and current population density (65.2 wolves/1000 km^2) is close to the average population density (60.4 wolves/1000 km^2) over the past 9 years (2015-2023) in the GVE.Item 2023-2024 Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem Wolf Population Report(2024-10-11) Gable, Thomas D.; Homkes, Austin T.; Bump, Joseph K.During April 2023-April 2024, we studied the wolf population in the Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem (GVE), Minnesota to understand wolf population dynamics and how changes in population dynamics are connected to or influence predation behavior, wolf pup survival, and changes in prey density. We estimate that wolf population density in the Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem in 2023-2024 was 55.4 wolves/1000 km^2, a 15% decrease in wolf population density from 2022-2023 (65.1 wolves/1000 km^2). Because average pack size remained virtually the same between 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 (4.2 wolves vs 4.3 wolves), the decrease in population density can be attributed entirely to a substantial increase in territory size. Indeed, average territory size increased by 21% from 95.5 km^2 in 2022-2023 to 115.6 km^2 in 2023-2024. With the increase in territory size came a marginal increase (3.6 km^2) in territory overlap between neighboring packs that reduced, to a small degree, the effects of increased territory size on overall population density; i.e., territory size increased by 21% but population density only decreased by 15%.Item Ecocenter as Tourist Attraction: Ely and the International Wolf Center.(Tourism Center, Extension, 1996) Schaller, David T.Item The Hunter’s Pulse: Non-target consumer use, hunter participation, and prey behavior shift in reference to hunter bait sites(2021-12) Candler, EllenThe hunting hypothesis emphasizes the importance that hunting has had on the development of the human species. Anthropologists often credit hunting with tool development, increased meat eating, and larger brain size (Domínguez-Rodrigo 2002). One such tool, or method, that hunters developed was the use of bait to attract animals to an ideal hunting location. This centuries old method is even recognized as one possible reason for animals domestication (Svizzero 2016). Today this hunting method is used around the world to lure animals away from places such as farm fields, increase herd size or supplement feed in winter, or for the original purpose, hunting (Litvaitis and Kane 1994, Smith 2001, Putman and Staines 2004). Baiting for the purpose of hunting is controversial among the wildlife managers, the public, and hunters alike (Peyton 1989, Dunkley and Cattet 2003). It challenges the hunting ethic of fair chase that values the pursuit of an animal and emphasizes the fairness of the capture and kill (Morris 2013). Conversely, the idea of an ethical shot stresses a quick kill with minimal suffering (Stokke et al. 2018). Hunting over bait increases the possibility of an ethical shot and increases the likelihood of harvesting an animal. Though baiting has proven to be an effective method for attracting target species to bait for the purpose of hunting, it does not come without consequences to the bait consumers. For example, black bears in Wisconsin that frequent bait often limit hibernation time to maximize bait consumption (Kirby et al. 2019). This results in shorter telomere length consequently impacting cellular aging (Kirby et al. 2019). Impacts and visitation of non-target species to bait is less known, however. In this dissertation, I focus on three aspects of hunter bait: non-target species use of black bear bait (chapter 1 and 2), gray wolf (Canis lupus) olfactory cue impacts on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) behavior at deer hunter bait (chapter 3), and wolf space use shifts in relation to black bear hunter bait (chapter 4). In Chapter 1, I focus on non-target species use of black bear bait in the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan. Baiting for bears in the United States, and in particular Michigan, is a common practice used to attract bears to a central location and create a good shooting opportunity. Hunters often use a recipe of pastries, fruits, grains, and meat products to create an enticing slurry to attract bears. This formula is not only likely to attract bears, but also non-target species that find the bait attractive. Though research has looked into nontarget species use of white-tailed deer bait, the extent of visitation by nontarget species to black bear bait sites is unknown (Bowman et al. 2015). To fill this research gap, I carried out a study using remote cameras and pseudo black bear bait sites to record nontarget species use of black bear bait. I collected data at 21 pseudo bear bait sites in the Baraga Hunting Unit in the UP of Michigan over the course of six weeks in August and September 2016 collecting 8,642 pictures. Using a paired t-test, I evaluated black bear and carnivore non-target species use of hunter bait sites before and during the hunting season. I found that black bears reduce their daily visitation during hunting season while all other carnivore species increase their visitation. I also used a nonparametric kernel density estimation procedure to compare diel activity of the same species between the two time periods and found that black bears become more nocturnal during the hunting season while most other carnivores maintain their diel activity between both time periods. In Chapter 2, I demonstrate the potential of observations from remote cameras that hunters use at their bear bait sites and report via hunter surveys to be an effective method to monitor multiple species. Monitoring wildlife is essential for wildlife managers to understand population trends and adjust management plans. As technology advances, new wildlife monitoring techniques come on board and enable managers and researcher to better understand many aspects of wildlife populations. Remote cameras are one such technology that has enabled researchers to better understand the occupancy as well as spatial and temporal patterns of different species (Wang et al. 2015, O’Malley et al. 2018, Candler et al. 2019). As remote cameras become increasingly more affordable, the public has become increasingly interested in using them to peer into the lives of wildlife that share their spaces (Lasky et al. 2021). Hunters, in particular, have become interested in using remote cameras to investigate the species that are walking their hunting trails or visiting their bait sites. As hunter use of remote cameras become more widespread, more data are being collected, but currently those data are going unrecorded by researchers. In this chapter, I demonstrate how hunter surveys, commonly used to collect target species harvest and hunter satisfaction data, can be an effective tool for collecting hunter recorded remote camera images for multiple species. I collaborated with the Michigan Department of Natural Resource (DNR) to add questions to the annual Michigan Black Bear Hunter Survey regarding hunter remote camera use as well as animals they see at their bait sites. I compare remote camera image results from pseudo black bear hunter bait sites in fall of 2016 to remote camera observation from hunters reported via hunter surveys in the same hunting unit over the same time. I also test the effectiveness of these reports to be and index for multiple species by comparing them to gray wolf survey, mustelid (Mustelidae) trapping, and deer hunter harvest reports from 2016-2018. Using a Fisher exact test, I found that hunter reports are a useful tool for reporting remote camera images for four of the six species observed. Additionally, using Pearson’s correlation coefficients and simple linear regression models, I found that these hunter reported remote camera images have great potential to be an effective way of indexing multiple species. In Chapter 3, I illustrate the behavioral effect that a predator has on a naïve and an experienced prey population at hunter bait. For similar reasons to bear baiting, hunters use bait to attract deer to a central location to create a good shooting opportunity. However, deer are not the only species attracted to deer hunter bait (Bowman et al. 2015). Other species, such as wolves, have been recorded visiting hunter bait, even scent marking (Ruid et al. 2009, USFWS: Q and A’s about Gray Wolf Biology 2011, Bowman et al. 2015). These olfactory cues left by wolves are likely to impact the intended bait target, deer, by changing their vigilance behavior or time spent at the bait site (Melchiors and Leslie 1985, Kuijper et al. 2013, Chamaillé-Jammes et al. 2014, Wikenros et al. 2015, Sahlén et al. 2016). However, research has demonstrated that naïve prey do not maintain an innate threat sensing ability when it comes to extirpated predators (Berger et al. 2001). Therefore, we would expect deer would not change their behavior around bait visited by wolves in areas where wolves have been extirpated and remain absent, such as the Lower Peninsula (LP) of Michigan. However, in areas where wolves are established, such as the UP of Michigan, we would expect deer to be more vigilant and spend less time at bait that has been visited by wolves. In this chapter, I experimentally test the behavioral reaction of deer to wolf urine at deer hunter bait sites for both wolf savvy and wolf naïve white-tailed deer populations in Michigan. In September to November 2018, I constructed 30 deer bait sites between the UP and LP and used a before, after, control, impact (BACI) design with three treatment types (water, lemon juice, or wolf urine). Using remote cameras, I recorded white-tailed deer images and evaluated deer behavioral metrics and diel patterns before and after treatment, among treatments, and between the UP and LP. By analyzing 213,264 images and comparing the difference in behavioral metrics before and after treatment, I found that wolf urine had little effect on deer behavior in either area. However, when vegetation cover was compared to vigilance intensity using generalized linear models, a significant pattern emerged in the UP where wolves are present, but not in the LP, where they are absent. This indicates that vegetative obscurement, not predator olfactory cues, have more impact on savvy deer population vigilance. In Chapter 4, I consider the impacts that a predictable hunter food source has on the movement of a predator. Predator-prey systems are rarely simple systems with a single predator and single prey. Looking at predator-prey interactions through this simple lens will produce an incomplete picture of the ecosystem process. A complete understanding of predator-prey interactions requires consideration of all consumers and prey or other food in the ecosystem, including consideration of scavenged food sources such as anthropogenic food. Anthropogenic subsidies can act as an alternative food source, taking pressure off other prey species (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2014, Ciucci et al. 2020). Alternatively, it can increase pressure on prey by improving predator fitness (Robb et al. 2008, Oro et al. 2013, Plaza and Lambertucci 2017). Before the effects that these anthropogenic inputs have on predator-prey systems can be understood, the extent of use by predators needs to be understood. In this chapter, I focus on wolf movement shifts in relation to black bear hunter bait in the Greater Voyagers Ecosystem (GVE). I conduct a preliminary analysis of six GPS collared wolves in the GVE and their recursion movements in relation to black bear hunter bait sites, homesites, and other site types for the baiting and hunting time periods in the GVE from 2017-2019. Using student’s t-test and a nonparametric kernel density estimation procedure, I found that black bear bait sites are returned to often during the baiting and hunting periods, but that visitation becomes shorter and more nocturnal during the hunting season. For the remainder of this dissertation, I will use ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ to reflect that multiple people made this work possible. The first chapter of this dissertation is published in Human–Wildlife Interactions (Candler et al. 2019) and Chapter 2 is in published in Conservation Science and Practice (Candler et al. 2021).Item International Wolf Center Program Development Survey. Final Report: Survey Results.(Duluth: Department of Sociology-Anthropology, Outdoor Recreation Program, Center for Community & Regional Research, University of Minnesota, Duluth., 1990) Fleischman, William A; Franz, Robert E, Jr; Gilbertson, Kenneth LThe successful design, development and marketing of programs depends upon a number of factors, not the least of which are funding, staffing, and demand. It is most often the case that demand provides the basis for decisions regarding funding and staffing. Therefore, the description of the nature and extent of the demand is crucial for program management. The International Wolf Center (IWC) expressed a need for data that would provide a basis for managing and developing programs. The research that is being reported here was designed to assist the IWC in its efforts to develop and market new as well as existing programs. There are a number of ways in which demand can be assessed in order to (1) describe the existing and projected interest, (2) determine the direction for program development, and (3) provide a basis for structuring programs to meet and cultivate the variety of interests in wolves and wolf-related topics. The method used in this study to meet the program development and marketing objectives of the International Wolf Center involved the development of a questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to collect data which would provide the basis for describing the nature and extent of the demand for IWC programs and services, and to facilitate the identification and development of the market segments.Item Observations of wolves eating berries in the Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem(2024-07-18) Evavold, Isabella; Gable, Thomas D; Homkes, Austin T; Bump, Joseph K; gable079@umn.edu; Gable, Thomas; University of Minnesota Voyageurs Wolf ProjectWolves are opportunistic generalists that can respond quickly to new and unique food sources. Wolves in some ecosystems will consume berries and other fruits when they are abundant and available, however many aspects of this behavior remain unknown. In the Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem (GVE), Minnesota, USA, wolves consistently consume berries, particularly blueberries, when they are available. We deployed remote cameras in blueberry patches to record wolves foraging on berries over several years. We captured footage of wolves of all age-classes, social statuses, and sex foraging on blueberries alone or with other wolves. Our observations indicate berry consumption by wolves is a widespread behavior in the GVE and likely similar southern boreal ecosystems. We hope our work spurs researchers across wolf range to examine whether berry consumption by wolves is a widespread and ubiquitous behavior for wolves.Item Seasonal Diet Composition of Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) in Northeastern Minnesota Determined by Scat Analysis(2015-08) Chenaux-Ibrahim, YvetteI determined seasonal diet composition of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in northeastern Minnesota from 2011 to 2013. Average occurrence of prey items was identified in 1,000 scats collected in the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, Voyageurs National Park area, and the 1854 Ceded Territory (greater northeastern Minnesota). Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), moose (Alces alces), and beaver (Castor canadensis) composed the majority of wolf diet, with moose the primary prey in Grand Portage and deer the primary prey in the Ceded Territory and Voyageurs National Park. Beaver were important in spring and summer in Grand Portage and Voyageurs National Park. I performed a sensitivity analysis of expected densities of deer, moose, and beaver to calculate prey preference and determined that at most prey densities, moose were preferred and deer avoided in Grand Portage and the Ceded Territory and beaver were preferred in Voyageurs National Park. Small mammals, black bear (Ursus americanus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), and canids composed a minor portion of wolf diet. Calves were important prey in spring in the Ceded Territory and fawns were important prey in spring and summer in Grand Portage and in summer in Voyageurs National Park. I estimated that wolves consumed about 30% of calves born each year in Grand Portage. I performed a sensitivity analysis to test how selecting 3, 6, 12, and 25 hairs per scat affects accuracy in determining diet composition. Prey items were occasionally missed when selecting fewer hairs, thus I recommend selecting 12 hairs per scat when using the point-frame method to determine wolf diet.Item Wolf-Beaver Dynamics in a Southern Boreal Ecosystem(2021-04) Gable, ThomasPredator-prey relationships can have wide-ranging ecological and landscape-level effects. Knowledge of these relationships is therefore crucial for understanding how changes in predator-prey communities affect ecosystems. Throughout much of the circumpolar boreal ecosystem, wolves are significant predators of beavers and beavers important prey for wolves, yet wolf-beaver dynamics remain poorly understood. My objective was to shed light on this predator-prey dynamic by studying wolf-beaver interactions in the Greater Voyageurs Ecosystem (GVE), a southern boreal ecosystem in Northern Minnesota. Specifically, I wanted to understand where and how wolves hunt beavers, what impact wolf predation has on beaver populations, and how wolf predation on beavers might impact ecosystem function. By searching 11,817 GPS-clusters from 24 GPS-collared wolves during 2015-2019, I documented 748 instances where wolves attempted to ambush beavers and 214 instances where wolves killed beavers. Through this, I determined wolves are able to ambush beavers by anticipating the movements and behavior of beavers due to a fundamental understanding of beavers’ sensory abilities. Further, wolves can strategically select ambushing locations by simultaneously accounting for abiotic and biotic factors, ultimately allowing wolves to counter beaver’s defenses and exploit this unique prey. The extent to which wolves influence beaver population change has been debated for decades despite a complete lack of quantitative data on the subject. I estimated, by determining kill and predation rates, that wolf packs can remove 38-42% of the beaver population in their territory in a year. Yet, in high-density beaver populations such as the GVE, predation pressure appears to have little influence on beaver population dynamics because beaver populations can quickly compensate for predation. Though wolves may not alter beaver population size, I demonstrate how wolves alter wetland creation and recolonization by killing dispersing beavers. By studying beaver pond creation and recolonization patterns, I determined that 84% of newly created and recolonized beaver ponds in the GVE remained occupied until the fall, whereas 0% remained active after a wolf killed the dispersing beaver that colonized that pond. By affecting where and when beavers engineer ecosystems, wolves alter all of the ecological processes that occur due to beaver-created impoundments.