After the release of wolves back into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and 1996, the various packs have continued to change and move to different locations and different groups. The Yellowstone Wolf: Project Citizen Science collects information from park visitors, photographers and regular wolf watchers. With the help from citizens this project has been able to collect general information and monitor the whereabouts of many wolves throughout Yellowstone. This information includes date sited, location, ID of wolf, pack composition, individual histories and if individuals are infected with sarcoptic mange (mite infection causing hair loss). Pooling this information conveniently into one online location creates an educational tool for wolf enthusiasts. Over the years the location and composition of each pack has changed dramatically but the population of wolves in Yellowstone has increased since they were reintroduced to Yellowstone. A rising issue with currently wolf pack movement is that they do not understand political and human made boundaries. As the wolves move farther out of Yellowstone the more likely the wolves are to be hunted or gunned down by ranchers to protect their own livelihoods. The area represented in blue displays the areas of legal wolf hunting surrounding Yellowstone for 2014. The Yellowstone Delta pack is starting to branch into this area. There are also areas of possibly new packs that are coming closer to the boarder of Yellowstone, such as Bechler, Snake River, and Clear Creek areas. This could create possible issue with Ranchers and health of wolf populations. To learn more about these territories follow the link: http://www.yellowstonewolf.org/index.php Become a Citizen Scientists yourself by contributing information on their site!

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.

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.

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are group-living carnivores that travel over large areas and are one of the most controversial species in North America. Gray wolf management over the last century has ranged from eradication by nearly any means to preservation under the Endangered Species Act to state-managed which often includes limited hunting and, in some areas, population reduction. Management decisions are complicated by transboundary movements of wildlife, especially when the bordering agencies have disparate goals or mandates. This data is specific to gray wolves and packs using five National Park Service (NPS) units (years of data): Denali National Park and Preserve (33 years), Grand Teton National Park (23 years), Voyageurs National Park (12 years), Yellowstone National Park (27 years), and Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve (23 years). This dataset features two measures of gray wolf biological processes, pack persistence and reproduction, and was used to determine the impacts of ...

Monitoring wolves (Canis lupus) is a difficult and often expensive task due to high mobility, pack dynamic, shyness and nocturnal activity of this species. Wolves communicate acoustically through howling, within pack and with packs of the neighbourhood. A wolf howl is a low-frequency vocalization that can be transmitted over long distances and thus it can be used for monitoring. Elicited howling survey is a current method to monitor wolves in different areas all over the world. Elicited howling, however, may be invasive to residential wolf packs and could create possible negative reactions from the human population. Here we show that it is possible to detect wolves by recording spontaneous howling events. We measured the sound pressure level of wolf howls by captive individuals and we further found that elicited howling may be recorded and clearly identified up to a distance of 3 km. We finally conducted a non-invasive acoustic detection of wolves in a free-ranging population. The use of passive sound recorders may provide a powerful non-invasive tool for future wolf monitoring and could help to establish sustainable management plans for this species.

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.

1. The return of top carnivores to their historical range triggers conflicts with the interests of different stakeholder groups. Anticipating such conflicts is key to appropriate conservation management, which calls for reliable spatial predictions of future carnivore occurrence. Previous models have assessed general habitat suitability for wolves, but the factors driving the settlement of dispersing individuals remain ill-understood. In particular, little attention has been paid to the role of prey availability in the recolonization process. 2. High-spatial-resolution, area-wide relative densities of the wolf’s main ungulate prey species (red deer, roe deer and chamois) were assessed from snow-track surveys and modelled along with wolf presence data and other environmental descriptors to identify the main drivers of habitat selection of re-establishing wolves in the Western European Alps. 3. Prey species abundance was estimated from the minimum number of individuals recorded from snow-...

Research on large predator-prey interactions are often limited to the predators' primary prey, with the potential for prey switching in systems with multiple ungulate species rarely investigated. We evaluated wolf (Canis lupus) prey selection at two different spatial scales, i.e., inter- and intra-territorial, using data from 409 ungulate wolf-kills in an expanding wolf population in Scandinavia. This expansion includes a change from a one-prey into a two-prey system with variable densities of one large-sized ungulate; moose (Alces alces) and one small-sized ungulate; roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Among wolf territories, the proportion of roe deer in wolf kills was related to both pack size and roe deer density, but not to moose density. Pairs of wolves killed a higher proportion of roe deer than did packs, and wolves switched to kill more roe deer as their density increased above a 1:1 ratio in relation to the availability of the two species. At the intra-territorial level, wolves again responded to changes in roe deer density in their prey selection whereas we found no effect of snow depth, time during winter, or other predator-related factors on the wolves' choice to kill moose or roe deer. Moose population density was only weakly related to intra-territorial prey selection. Our results show that the functional response of wolves on moose, the species hitherto considered as the main prey, was strongly dependent on the density of a smaller, alternative, ungulate prey. The impact of wolf predation on the prey species community is therefore likely to change with the composition of the multi-prey species community along with the geographical expansion of the wolf population.

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.

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.

The book The rise of wolf 8 : witnessing the triumph of Yellowstone's underdog is about Wolves-Reintroduction-Yellowstone National Park and was written by Rick McIntyre. It was published in 2019.

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 ...

There is considerable interest in the genetics of wolves (Canis lupus) because of their close relationship to domestic dogs (C. familiaris) and the need for informed conservation and management. This includes wolf populations in Southeast Alaska for which we determined genotypes of 305 wolves at 173662 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) loci. After removal of invariant and linked SNP, 123801 SNP were used to quantify genetic differentiation of wolves in Southeast Alaska and wolves, coyotes (C. latrans), and dogs from other areas in North America. There is differentiation of SNP allele frequencies between the species (wolves, coyotes, and dogs), although differentiation is relatively low between some wolf and coyote populations. There are varying levels of differentiation among populations of wolves, including low differentiation of wolves in interior Alaska, British Columbia, and the northern US Rocky Mountains. There is considerable differentiation of SNP allele frequencies of wolves in Southeast Alaska from wolves in other areas. However, wolves in Southeast Alaska are not a genetically homogeneous group and there are comparable levels of genetic differentiation among areas within Southeast Alaska and between Southeast Alaska and other geographic areas. SNP variation and other genetic data are discussed regarding taxonomy and management.

Gray wolf suitable habitat for the U.S. and Mexico based on a compilation of habitat models and sources (listed below).Sources: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.

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.

Wolf harvest numbers and quota numbers by FWP's trapping districts and wolf management unit (WMU) for the current hunting/trapping season in Montana. For display in the Montana Wolf Harvest Dashboard: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/e6fb069d45b74034ad85569e5f96ae7a . Data are from the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks' mandatory reporting records provided by hunters and trappers, wolf regulations and FWP Commission. Harvest numbers are updated multiple times per day during the hunting/trapping season. This data is also displayed on the wolf harvest status web page: https://myfwp.mt.gov/fwpPub/speciesHuntingGuide?wmrSpeciesCd=GW. More information about wolf hunting and trapping in Montana is available at: https://fwp.mt.gov/hunt/regulations/wolf

The functional response of a predator describes the change in per capita kill rate to changes in prey density. This response can be influenced by predator densities, giving a predator-dependent functional response. In social carnivores which defend a territory, kill rates also depend on the individual energetic requirements of group members and their contribution to the kill rate. This study aims to provide empirical data for the functional response of wolves Canis lupus to the highly managed moose Alces alces population in Scandinavia. We explored prey and predator dependence, and how the functional response relates to the energetic requirements of wolf packs. Winter kill rates of GPS-collared wolves and densities of cervids were estimated for a total of 22 study periods in 15 wolf territories. The adult wolves were identified as the individuals responsible for providing kills to the wolf pack, while pups could be described as inept hunters. The predator-dependent, asymptotic functional response models (i.e. Hassell-Varley type II and Crowley-Martin) performed best among a set of 23 competing linear, asymptotic and sigmoid models. Small wolf packs acquired > 3 times as much moose biomass as required to sustain their field metabolic rate (FMR), even at relatively low moose abundances. Large packs (6 - 9 wolves) acquired less biomass than required in territories with low moose abundance. We suggest the surplus-killing by small packs is a result of an optimal foraging strategy to consume only the most nutritious parts of easy accessible prey while avoiding the risk of being detected by humans. Food limitation may have a stabilizing effect on pack size in wolves, as supported by the observed negative relationship between body weight of pups and pack size.

A total of 60 observations of wolf track(s) were recorded and 12 wolves were observed (groups of 3, 3, 4 and. 2) (Figure 2). Tracks were observed along all of the transects flown. As expected, wolf activity was most concentrated in drainages, i.e. along the Yukon and Nowitna rivers and their tributaries. Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the number of wolves seen, it is highly unlikely that this type of survey would result in nearly 20% of the total wolf population being observed. This lends further credence to our belief that the wolf numbers derived are minimum estimates. Known harvest levels for wolves have been relatively low in recent years (3 in 1985, 3 in 1986), although refuge trappers have reported an increase in wolf numbers. Land and shoot wolf tapping activity has apparently increased on the refuge in 1987, and at least 12 wolves have been harvested this spring. An accurate determination of the Nowitna NWR wolf population has become necessary in light of the recent decline in the area's moose population.