description: Twenty six wolves were captured and radio collared in 1984 and 1985 on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These wolves included members of 8 packs and 11 lone wolves. Average weights were 43.1 kg for males and 36.7 kg for females with the average age being 2-3 years old. Only 5 wolves were 4 years old and older. Activity areas were delinieated for all packs as some packs had insufficient data to accurately define territories. These activity areas were non-overlaping. Only 1 wolf pack had a large scale seasonal shift in areas used. Formation of new packs and long-distance movements were common. One wolf had a documented movement of 770 km, the longest recorded movement in Alaksa. Wolf densities were 1/726 km2 in 1984 and 1/686 km2 in 1985 for an area of 24,700 km2. Litter sizes averaged 3.0 and 4.2-4.75 in 1984 and 1985 respectively. Over-summer pup survival was related to pack size; more pups survived in larger packs. This was in contrast to other studies where pup survival and pack size were unrelated. After wolves had left, den sites were visited, scats were collected, and dens were mapped. Mortality (natural and human induced) was 35% of the fall population. Rabies was documented in the wolf population in the spring on 1985. It is believed that rabies in the wolf population in the arctic is more common than previously thought and may be cyclic in conjunction with outbreaks of rabies in the Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) population.; abstract: Twenty six wolves were captured and radio collared in 1984 and 1985 on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These wolves included members of 8 packs and 11 lone wolves. Average weights were 43.1 kg for males and 36.7 kg for females with the average age being 2-3 years old. Only 5 wolves were 4 years old and older. Activity areas were delinieated for all packs as some packs had insufficient data to accurately define territories. These activity areas were non-overlaping. Only 1 wolf pack had a large scale seasonal shift in areas used. Formation of new packs and long-distance movements were common. One wolf had a documented movement of 770 km, the longest recorded movement in Alaksa. Wolf densities were 1/726 km2 in 1984 and 1/686 km2 in 1985 for an area of 24,700 km2. Litter sizes averaged 3.0 and 4.2-4.75 in 1984 and 1985 respectively. Over-summer pup survival was related to pack size; more pups survived in larger packs. This was in contrast to other studies where pup survival and pack size were unrelated. After wolves had left, den sites were visited, scats were collected, and dens were mapped. Mortality (natural and human induced) was 35% of the fall population. Rabies was documented in the wolf population in the spring on 1985. It is believed that rabies in the wolf population in the arctic is more common than previously thought and may be cyclic in conjunction with outbreaks of rabies in the Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) population.

1. Top predators have cascading effects throughout the food web but their impacts on scavenger abundance are largely unknown. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) provide carrion to a suite of scavenger species, including the common raven (Corvus corax). Ravens are wide-ranging and intelligent omnivores that commonly take advantage of anthropogenic food resources. In areas where they overlap with wolves, however, ravens are numerous and ubiquitous scavengers of wolf-acquired carrion. 2. We aimed to determine whether subsidies provided through wolves are a limiting factor for raven populations in general and how the wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park in 1995-1997 affected raven population abundance and distribution on the Yellowstone's Northern Range specifically. 3. We counted ravens throughout Yellowstone's Northern Range in March from 2009 to 2017 in both human-use areas and wolf habitat. We then used statistics related to the local wolf population and the winter weather conditions to model raven abundance during our study period and predict raven abundance on the Northern Range both before and after the wolf reintroduction. 4. In relatively severe winters with greater snowpack, raven abundance increased in areas of human use and decreased in wolf habitat. When wolves were able to acquire more carrion, however, ravens increased in wolf habitat and decreased in areas with anthropogenic resources. Raven populations prior to the wolf reintroduction were likely more variable and heavily dependent on ungulate winter-kill and hunter-provided carcasses. 5. The wolf recovery in Yellowstone helped stabilize raven populations by providing a regular food supply, regardless of winter severity. This stabilization has important implications for effective land management as wolves recolonize the west and global climate patterns change.

1. Human-caused harassment and mortality (e.g. hunting) affects many aspects of wildlife population dynamics and social structure. Little is known, however, about the social and physiological effects of hunting, which might provide valuable insights into the mechanisms by which wildlife respond to human-caused mortality. To investigate physiological consequences of hunting, we measured stress and reproductive hormones in hair, which reflect endocrine activity during hair growth. Applying this novel approach, we compared steroid hormone levels in hair of wolves (Canis lupus) living in Canada's tundra–taiga (n = 103) that experience heavy rates of hunting with those in the northern boreal forest (n = 45) where hunting pressure is substantially lower. The hair samples revealed that progesterone was higher in tundra–taiga wolves, possibly reflecting increased reproductive effort and social disruption in response to human-related mortality. Tundra–taiga wolves also had higher testosterone ...

World of Wolves is a teacher’s activity guide for the Wolf Edukit, developed to assist educators in introducing students from grades seven through ten to wolves and wolf ecology. Although the program has been developed for these grades, it can be modified for use in other grades. A separate program called Wolves and Me has been developed for students in grades three to six. This student-directed program provides the opportunity for students to: • examine their own attitudes and opinions about wolves • identify the issues involving wolves • study wolf biology, behaviour, and ecology • investigate at least one of these issues • present their research findings in one of four formats • complete an action plan and act upon it.

description: Widespread observations of wolves and their habits in Alaska during the period 1948-1954 generally confirm published reports of these phenomena elsewhere. Significant finding in Alaska include: the late pupping season May and June; the predominance of black wolves in the forested sections and of gray wolves on the Arctic tundra; the well-defined wolf trails on the islands of Southeastern Alaska and their movements in the arctic governed by the pattern of caribou migrations; distribution limited by physical barriers and the presence of big game animals, principally caribou; wolves occur most frequently in pairs and the average pack numbers five animals; the largest wolf weighed was 112 pounds with the average weight of males being 90 lbs. and females 67 pounds.; abstract: Widespread observations of wolves and their habits in Alaska during the period 1948-1954 generally confirm published reports of these phenomena elsewhere. Significant finding in Alaska include: the late pupping season May and June; the predominance of black wolves in the forested sections and of gray wolves on the Arctic tundra; the well-defined wolf trails on the islands of Southeastern Alaska and their movements in the arctic governed by the pattern of caribou migrations; distribution limited by physical barriers and the presence of big game animals, principally caribou; wolves occur most frequently in pairs and the average pack numbers five animals; the largest wolf weighed was 112 pounds with the average weight of males being 90 lbs. and females 67 pounds.

In 2022/23, there were 47 wolf couples counted in Germany. This was the highest figure since 2018/19.

Snow track surveys are a common method of estimating relative abundance, estimating density, and documenting range use of furbearers and large carnivores. The purpose of this project was to investigate the feasibility of snow track surveys as a tool for monitoring distribution and density of wolves (Canis lupus) on Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (Tetlin Refuge) and adjacent areas. The estimated wolf density (8.1 ± 4.4 wolves/1,000 km2) was comparable with earlier qualitative reports (7.2 to 9 wolves/1,000 km2) for the area, although the estimate’s precision was low. Improving the stratification should improve precision in future surveys.

This paper discusses the status and possible future of wolf management in interior and arctic Alaska. The paper begins by discussing the history of the human-wolf relationship, and moves on to current control techniques. An analysis of the preliminary results related to age composition of populations, age of sexual maturity, number of young produced, the survival of these young, and factors that tend to inflict mortality to wolf populations other than human causes in included.

Recent advances in genomics and palaeontology have begun to unravel the complex evolutionary history of the gray wolf, Canis lupus. Still, much of their phenotypic variation across time and space remains to be documented. We examined the limb morphology of the fossil and modern North American gray wolves from the late Quaternary (< ca.70 ka) to better understand their postcranial diversity through time. We found that the late-Pleistocene gray wolves were characterised by short-leggedness on both sides of the Cordilleran-Laurentide ice sheets, and that this trait survived well into the Holocene despite the collapse of Pleistocene megafauna and disappearance of the “Beringian wolf” from Alaska. In contrast, extant populations in the Midwestern United States and north-western North America are distinguished by their elongate limbs with long distal segments, which appear to have evolved during the Holocene possibly in response to a new level or type of prey depletion. One of the consequences of recent extirpation of the Plains (C. l. nubilus) and Mexican wolves (C. l. baileyi) from much of the United States is an unprecedented loss of postcranial diversity through removal of short-legged forms. Conservation of these wolves is thus critical to restoration of the ecophenotypic diversity and evolutionary potential of gray wolves in North America.

In 2022/23, there were 184 wolf packs counted in Germany. The numbers have been constantly increasing since 2013 and 2022/23, saw the highest number of packs.

This report covers the prey utilization by wolves and an assessment of wolf and prey densities in 3 drainages within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The relative utilization and availability of prey types used by wolves (Canis lupus) in the Kongakut, Hulahula and Canning River drainages was assessed by visual observation and by analysis of wolf scats. Wolves were observed in each of the 3 drainages. Visual assessment indicated that moose (Aloes aloes), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), and Dall sheep (Ovis dalli) were available to the wolves in the Kongakut drainage. In the Hulahula drainage, sheep seemed to be the prey species most available, while in the Canning moose were present in relatively high densities and caribou at a lower but stable density. Scat analysis indicated that the Kongakut wolves preyed on the 3 available ungulates, but focused on caribou; the Hulahula wolves also utilized all 3 species, but ate relatively more sheep; while no moose remains were found in the scats from the Canning.

Previous genetic studies of the highly mobile gray wolf (Canis lupus) found population structure that coincides with habitat and phenotype differences. We hypothesized that these ecologically distinct populations (ecotypes) should exhibit signatures of selection in genes related to morphology, coat color, and metabolism. To test these predictions, we quantified population structure related to habitat using a genotyping array to assess variation in 42,036 SNPs in 111 North American gray wolves. Using these SNP data and individual-level measurements of 12 environmental variables, we identified six ecotypes: West Forest, Boreal Forest, Arctic, High Arctic, British Columbia, and Atlantic Forest. Next, we explored signals of selection across these wolf ecotypes through the use of three complementary methods to detect selection: FST/haplotype homozygosity bivariate percentile, BayeScan, and environmentally correlated directional selection with Bayenv. Across all methods, we found consistent signals of selection on genes related to morphology, coat coloration, metabolism, as predicted, as well as vision and hearing. In several high-ranking candidate genes, including LEPR, TYR, and SLC14A2, we found variation in allele frequencies that follow environmental changes in temperature and precipitation, a result that is consistent with local adaptation rather than genetic drift. Our findings show that local adaptation can occur despite gene flow in a highly mobile species and can be detected through a moderately dense genomic scan. These patterns of local adaptation revealed by SNP genotyping likely reflect high fidelity to natal habitats of dispersing wolves, strong ecological divergence among habitats, and moderate levels of linkage in the wolf genome.

In this activity, some learners pretend to be wolves, while the other learners pretend to be the prey of the wolf. The goal of the simulation is to have the wolves work together to survive. This activity works best with a larger group of at least 25 learners, but can work with smaller groups of at least 16 learners. Use this activity to discuss predator/prey relationships and the importance of communication for both animals and people.

Although local variation in territorial predator density is often correlated with habitat quality, the causal mechanism underlying this frequently observed association is poorly understood and could stem from facultative adjustment in either group size or territory size. 2. To test between these alternative hypotheses, we used a novel statistical framework to construct a winter population-level utilization distribution for wolves (Canis lupus) in northern Ontario, which we then linked to a suite of environmental variables to determine factors influencing wolf space use. Next, we compared habitat quality metrics emerging from this analysis as well as an independent measure of prey abundance, with pack size and territory size to investigate which hypothesis was most supported by the data. 3. We show that wolf space use patterns were concentrated near deciduous, mixed deciduous/coniferous and disturbed forest stands favoured by moose (Alces alces), the predominant prey species in the diet of wolves in northern Ontario, and in proximity to linear corridors, including shorelines and road networks remaining from commercial forestry activities. 4. We then demonstrate that landscape metrics of wolf habitat quality – projected wolf use, probability of moose occupancy and proportion of preferred land cover classes – were inversely related to territory size but unrelated to pack size. 5. These results suggest that wolves in boreal ecosystems alter territory size, but not pack size, in response to local variation in habitat quality. This could be an adaptive strategy to balance trade-offs between territorial defence costs and energetic gains due to resource acquisition. That pack size was not responsive to habitat quality suggests that variation in group size is influenced by other factors such as intraspecific competition between wolf packs.

Data file containing spatial variables of wolf GPS-positions and random points for step selection functions that is used in the article “Wolves at the door? Factors influencing the individual behavior of wolves in relation to anthropogenic features”. Abstract: The recovery of large carnivores in human-dominated landscapes comes with challenges. In general, large carnivores avoid humans and their activities, and human avoidance favors coexistence, but individual variation in large carnivore behavior may occur. The detection of individuals close to human settlements or roads can trigger fear in local communities and in turn demand management actions. Understanding the sources of individual variation in carnivore behavior towards human features is relevant and timely for ecology and conservation. We studied the movement behavior of 52 adult established wolves (44 wolf pairs) with GPS-collars over two decades in Scandinavia in relation to settlements, buildings, and roads. We fit fine-scale movement data to individual step selection functions to depict the movement decisions of wolves while travelling, and then used weighted linear mixed models to identify factors associated with potential individual pair deviations from the general behavioral patterns. Wolves consistently avoided human settlements and main roads, with little individual variation. Indeed, after correcting for season, time of the day, and latitude, there was little variability in habitat selection among wolf pairs, demonstrating that all wolf pairs had similar movement pattern and generally avoided human features of the landscape. Wolf avoidance of human features was lower at higher latitudes particularly in winter, likely due to seasonal prey migration. Although occasional sightings of carnivores or their tracks near human features do occur, they do not necessarily require management intervention. Communication of scientific findings on carnivore behavior to the public should suffice in most cases.

Map of gray wolf and red wolf current and historic range and suitable habitat across the U.S. and Mexico. Produced by Defenders of Wildlife (2021). All data sources listed below:Gray Wolf:Historic Range: The historic range for the gray wolf was delineated with the help of peer reviewed sources: Rutledge et al. 2010. Genetic and morphometric analysis of sixteenth century Canis skull fragments: implications for historic eastern and gray wolf distribution in North America.Current Range: Range delineation was based on range data from IUCN and USFWS, expert knowledge, and personal communications from Defenders of Wildlife field teams, academia, and federal agencies. Details of delineations focused mostly on the United States and Mexico as ranges north of that couldn’t be confirmed due to controversies.Suitable Habitat:Bennett, L.E. 1994. Colorado Gray Wolf Recovery: A biological feasibility study. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and University of Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Cooperative research unit, Laramie, Wyoming, USA. Available at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p00672031a;view=1up;seq=146California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016b. Potential Suitable Habitat in California. Pages 153-160 in Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California Part 2. Carroll, C., Phillips, M.K., Lopez-Gonzalez, C.A., and Schumaker, N.H. 2006. Defining Recovery Goals and Strategies for Endangered Species: The Wolf as a Case Study. BioScience 56(1): 25–37, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0025:DRGASF]2.0.CO;2Carroll, C. 2003. Impacts of Landscape Change on Wolf Viability in the Northeastern U.S. and Southeastern Canada. Wildlands Project Special Paper No. 5, available at https://www.klamathconservation.org/docs/wolfviabilitypaper.pdf.Carroll, C. 2007. Application of habitat models to wolf recovery planning in Washington. Unpublished report.Defendersof Wildlife. 2006. Places for Wolves: A Blueprint for Restoration and Recovery in the Lower 48 StatesDefenders of Wildlife. 2013. Places for WolvesHarrison, D. J., and T. G. Chapin. 1998. An assessment of potential habitat for eastern timber wolves in the northeastern United States and connectivity with occupied habitat in southeastern Canada. Wildlife Conservation Society, Working Paper Number 7.Harrison, D. J., and T. G. Chapin. 1998. Extent and connectivity of habitat for wolves in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 767-775, available at https://wolfology1.tripod.com/id207.htmHearne D., Lewis K., Martin M., Mitton E., and Rocklen C. 2003. Assessing the Landscape: Toward a Viable Gray Wolf Population in Michigan and Wisconsin. Hendricks, S.A., Schweizer, R.M., Harrigan, R.J., Pollinger, J.P., Paquet, P.C., Darimont, C.T., Adams, J.R., Waits, L.P., vonHoldt, B.M., Hohenlohe1, P.A. and R.K. Wayne. 2018. Natural recolonization and admixture of wolves (Canis lupus) in the US Pacific Northwest: challenges for the protection and management of rare and endangered taxa. The Genetics Society. Heredity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-018-0094-x.Jimenez, M.D. et al. 2017. Wolf Dispersal in the Rocky Mountains, Western United States: 1993–2008. The Journal of Wildlife Management 81(4):581–592.Larson, T. and W.J. Ripple. 2006. Modeling Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) habitat in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Journal of Conservation Planning 2:17-33.Maletzke, B.T. and R.B. Wielgus. 2011. Development of wolf population models for RAMAS© analysis by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Martinez-Meyer E., Gonzalez-Bernal A., Velasco J.A., Swetnam T.L., Gonzalez-Saucedo Z.Y., Servin J., Lopez-Gonzalez C.A., Oakleaf, J.A., Liley S., and Heffelfinger J.R. 2020. Rangewide habitat suitability analysis for the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) to identify recovery areas in its historical distribution. Diversity and Distributions 00:1-13.McNab, W.H., Cleland, D.T., Freeouf, J.A., Keys, Jr., J.E., Nowacki, G.J., Carpenter, C.A., comps. 2007. Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States [CD-ROM]. Gen. Tech. Report WO-76B. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p.McNab, W.H. and P.E. Avers. 1995. Ecological subregions of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, available at https://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/.Mladenoff, D.J., Sickley, T.A., Haight, R.G. and Wydeven, A.P. 1995. A Regional Landscape Analysis and Prediction of Favorable Gray Wolf Habitat in the Northern Great Lakes RegionMladenoff, D.J. and T.A. Sickley. 1998. Assessing Potential Gray Wolf Restoration in the Northeastern United States: A Spatial Source. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(1): 1-10.Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources. 2001. Minnesota Wolf Management Plan. Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources. 2017a. Gray Wolf, available at https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/mgmt.html.Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks. 2004. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.Montana Fish,Wildlife & Parks. 2018. Montana Annual Report 2018: Wolf Conservation and Management.Oakleaf J.K., Murray D.L., Oakleaf J.R., Bangs E.E., Mack C.M., Smith D.W., Fontaine J.A., Jimenez M.D., Meier T.J., and C.C. Niemeyer. 2006. Habitat Selection by Recolonizing Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(2):554-563.Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Updated mapping potential gray wolf range in Oregon.Potvin M.J., Drummer T.D., Vucetich J.A., Beyer E. Jr., and J.H. Hammill. 2005. Monitoring and Habitat Analysis for Wolves in Upper Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4):1660-1669.Treves A., Martin K.A., Wiedenhoeft J.E., Wydeven A.P. (2009) Dispersal of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region. In: Wydeven A.P., Van Deelen T.R., Heske E.J. (eds) Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85952-1_12USGS Gap Analysis Project Species Range and Predicted Habitat: Gray wolf: https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/apps/species-data-download/Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017. Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2017 Annual Report.Wiles, G. J., H. L. Allen, and G. E. Hayes. 2011. Wolf conservation and management plan for Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 297 pp.Red Wolf:Historic Range:Red wolf historic range established by USFWS based on information provided by the 2016 Wildlife Management Institute report [ Wildlife Management Institute: A Review and Evaluation of the Red Wolf (Canis rufus) Historic Range, Final Report – 5/25/2016]. The historic range layer is a combination of the following Level II EPA Ecoregions: 1) Mississippi Alluvial and Southeast USA Coastal Plains, 2) Ozark/Ouachita-Appalachian Forests, 3) South Central Semi-Arid Prairies, 4) Southeastern USA Plains, and 5) Texas-Louisiana Coastal PlainsCurrent Range (Recovery Area):Red wolf recovery area adapted from the USFWS current range information.Suitable Habitat:Toivonen L.K. (2018) Assessing red wolf conservation based on analyses of habitat suitability and human perception of carnivores.Karlin M., Vaclavik T., Chadwick J., and R. Meentemeyer. (2016) Habitat use by adult red wolves, Canis rufus, in an agricultural landscape, North Carolina, USA. Mammal Study 41:87-95.

In 2020, 3,444 sheep in Germany were attacked by wolves. Based on the graph, sheep were the most attacked animals. The graph shows the number of farm animals attacked by wolves in Germany in 2020, with animals being killed and wounded or missed.

Eastern wolves have hybridized extensively with coyotes and gray wolves and are listed as a ‘species of special concern’ in Canada. However, a distinct population of eastern wolves has been identified in Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) in Ontario. Previous Canis studies have not linked genetic analysis with field data to investigate genotype-specific morphology or determine how resident animals of different ancestry are distributed across the landscape in relation to heterogeneous environmental conditions. Accordingly, we studied resident wolves and coyotes in and adjacent to APP to identify distinct Canis types, clarify the occurrence of eastern wolves adjacent to APP, and investigate spatial genetic structure and landscape-genotype associations in the hybrid zone. We documented 3 genetically distinct Canis types that also differed morphologically, corresponding to putative gray wolves, eastern wolves, and coyotes. We also documented a substantial number of hybrid individuals (36%). Breeding eastern wolves were less common outside of APP, but occurred in some unprotected areas. We identified a steep cline extending west from APP where the dominant genotype shifted abruptly from eastern wolves to coyotes and hybrids. The genotypic pattern to the south and northwest was a more complex mosaic of alternating genotypes. We modeled genetic ancestry in response to prey availability and human disturbance and found positive and negative associations between wolf ancestry and 1) moose density and 2) road densities, respectively. Our results clarify the structure of the Canis hybrid zone adjacent to APP and provide unique insight into environmental conditions influencing hybridization dynamics between wolves and coyotes.

Proportion of wolves harvested throughout Minnesota wolf range November-January 2012/2013, 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 that had bred the previous spring based on placental scars.