Fall and winter homesite use by wolves in northeastern Minnesota

F.H. Harrington; L.D. Mech

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 5221785

Fall and winter homesite use by wolves in northeastern Minnesota

F.H. Harrington·L.D. Mech

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Post-abandonment homesite use by wolves (Canis lupus) was studied by radio-tracking and simulated howling in two packs in Superior National Forest, Minnesota. Pups, yearlings, and adults returned intermittently to former homesites up to four months after abandonment, usually after prolonged separation from the pack in early fall. Returns sometimes exceeded one week. Preferred summer homesites were revisited most frequently. Visits declined as the season progressed either because attempts to relocate the pack were not facilitated, or simply because separations became rare. While temporarily at homesites, single wolves replied significantly more to simulated howling than when anywhere else, suggesting that homesites may provide reassurance for separated wolves.

Explore related subjects

Canadian Field-Naturalist Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

F.H. Harrington, L.D. Mech. 1982. Fall and winter homesite use by wolves in northeastern Minnesota. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/5221785

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2019

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) recolonization failure: A Minnesota case study

During the past few decades, Gray Wolves ( Canis lupus ) have recolonized many areas in the United States and Europe. In many other cases, however, although dispersing wolves reached areas with adequate prey, a population failed to recolonize. Herein, we provide a case study detailing how a wolf pack attempted for three years to recolonize an area 55 km from a long-established population and within 25 km of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, but failed. The pack produced three litters of pups and at one time included 11–19 members, but it preyed on livestock and dogs and, consequently, was lethally removed. The history of this pack’s attempt to recolonize an area long devoid of wolves exemplifies the issues that have prevented earlier recolonizations in non-wild lands in Minnesota and elsewhere and that promise to do so well into the future.

Minnesota↗

USGS2017

Extinguishing a learned response in a free-ranging gray wolf (Canis lupus)

A free-ranging Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), habituated to human presence (the author) on Ellesmere Island, Canada, learned to anticipate experimental feeding by a human, became impatient, persistent, and bold and exhibited stalking behaviour toward the food source. Only after the author offered the wolf about 90 clumps of dry soil over a period of 45 minutes in three bouts, did the wolf give up this behaviour. To my knowledge, this is the first example of extinguishing a learned response in a free-ranging wolf and provides new insight into the learning behaviour of such animals.

Ellesmere Island↗

USGS2017

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) subsidize gray wolves (Canis lupus) during a moose (Alces americanus) decline: A case of apparent competition?

Moose ( Alces americanus ) in northeastern Minnesota have declined by 55% since 2006. Although the cause is unresolved, some studies have suggested that Gray Wolves ( Canis lupus ) contributed to the decline. After the Moose decline, wolves could either decline or switch prey. To determine which occurred in our study area, we compared winter wolf counts and summer diet before and after the Moose decline. While wolf numbers in our study area nearly doubled from 23 in winter 2002 to an average of 41 during winters 2011–2013, calf:cow ratios (the number of calves per cow observed during winter surveys) in the wider Moose range more than halved from 0.93 in 2002 to an average of 0.31 during 2011–2013. Compared to summer 2002, wolves in summers 2011–2013 consumed fewer Moose and more White-tailed Deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ). While deer densities were similar during each period, average vulnerability, as reflected by winter severity, was greater during 2011–2013 than 2002, probably explaining the wolf increase. During the wolf increase Moose calves remained a summer food item. These findings suggest that in part of the Moose range, deer subsidized wolf numbers while wolves also preyed on Moose calves. This contributed to a Moose decline and is a possible case of apparent competition and inverse-density-dependent predation.

Canadian Field-Naturalist↗