An Experimental Translocation of the Eastern Timber Wolf

Chapter II: Part 2

Text size

Wolf No. 13 was killed next. He had been located south of Sagola in Dickinson County on July 20, the first time he was found since June 27. He was still there on July 27, so a ground check was made. It revealed that the wolf had been dead for perhaps 2 or 3 weeks. His flesh had decomposed, and only hair, bones and the transmitting collar remained (Fig. 23). His leg bones and ribs were mostly disarticulated, his skull was separated from the vertebral column, and his mandible had separated. A small caliber bullet had passed through the ramus of the left mandible and had entered the base of the cranium. The hole through the mandible was 0.26 inch x 0.34 inch (6.6 mm. x 8.6 mm.) and that through the cranium was 0.34 inch x 1.30 inch (8.6 mm. x 33.0 mm.). Three small lead fragments were removed from the cranium.

The remains of Wolf No. 13 were sent to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Research Center at Rose Lake and examined by staff pathologists Dr. L. D. Fay and Mr. John Stuht. No fractures or other signs were found that might indicate that he had been trapped. However, some of the smaller foot bones were missing and a complete examination was not possible. Notches were found in both shoulder blades, and one rib was broken, suggesting that the animal had been shot twice by a small caliber firearm in addition to the head shot. The hole in the left scapula indicated a deep penetrating wound. The notch in the right scapula indicated a bullet traveling more parallel to the body.

_Table 8. Details of Deaths of Translocated Wolves_

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf No. 10 11 12 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex Female Female Male Male

Last date
tracked Nov. 17 Sept. 19 July 10 July 27

Date Nov. 16[14] Sept. 20 June 28 to Early
killed July 4 July[14]

Date Nov. 18 Sept. 20 July 11 July 28
found

Manner Gunshot in Gunshot in, Struck by Gunshot in
of death head and head, after automobile head and
right foreleg being trapped chest

Location Van Riper Lake Floodwood 1.9 miles (3.0 2 miles (3.2
of death 5.4 miles (8.7 Plain 3.1 km) north of km) south of
km) north of miles (5.0 Amasa (T45N- Sagola (T42N
Champion (T49N km) south of R33W-Sec 17) -R30W-Sec 5)
-R30W-Sec 36) Witch Lake
(T44N-R24W-
Sec 11)

Weight 52 lb. 56.5 lb.
(23.6 kg) (25.6 kg) Unknown[15] Unknown[15]

Condition Excellent Good Unknown[15] Unknown[15]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[14] Estimate

[15] Decomposed

Wolf No. 11 was caught the night of September 19, 1974 in a coyote trap set by a trapper from Channing. The next morning the trapper came upon the trapped wolf by surprise at a range of 12 feet (3.6 m). She growled and lunged toward him, and thinking he was in danger, the trapper shot the wolf in the head. The .22 caliber bullet entered below the right eye and lodged in the skull. The trapper immediately took the animal to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources office in Crystal Falls and reported the incident.

The wolf weighed 56.5 lb. (25.6 kg), 1.5 lb. (0.68 kg) less than when she was brought to Michigan. Her general condition was good, with some omental fat, but no subcutaneous fat. She did harbor ten tapeworms (_Taenia pisiformis_) about 40-50 cm long and a few hookworms (_Uncinaria stenocephala_), as determined by Mr. John Wenstrom (personal communication), Biology Department, Northern Michigan University. Both are common tapeworms of wolves (Mech 1970).

Wolf No. 10 was shot by a deer hunter, probably on the morning of November 16, the second day of firearms deer season. On November 17 her signal was heard from near a cabin on the south shore of Van Riper Lake. The hunters occupying the cabin later said they had removed the collar from the wolf, which they had found dead on the afternoon of November 16. Before we had learned this, the carcass of Wolf No. 10 was discovered without the collar by another hunter, about a half mile (0.8 km) south of Van Riper Lake. It had been shot through the right leg, shattering the radius and ulna, and through the head, the bullet entering the left frontal bone and exiting below the right eye. In addition the radio collar had been shattered by a bullet and was missing, and one ear had been cut off. We identified the wolf from the tag in the other ear.

The wolf had gained 6 lb. (2.7 kg) since she had been brought to Michigan, and had heavy internal and subcutaneous fat. She had light infections of two species of tapeworms (_Echinococcus granulosus_ and _Taenia pisiformis_), and of one species of hookworm (Uncinaria stenocephala), as determined by John Wenstrom. _Echinococcus granulosus_ is not uncommon in wolves (Mech 1970). The other two species were discussed above.

DISCUSSION

Wolves No. 11, 12, and 13 undoubtedly were members of the same pack. This conclusion is based on the fact that they did not fight when placed together in captivity, that they freely intermixed while penned, that No. 11 and No. 12 copulated, and that all three wolves generally traveled as a unit after their release. No. 11 and No. 12 were always located together from a few days after their release until the death of No. 12. Temporary splitting, as with No. 13 is a normal occurrence in wild wolf packs (Mech 1966).

The identity of Wolf No. 10 remains unknown. She was captured 7.5 miles (12.1 km) away from the other three, and in captivity she behaved differently from them, remaining more to herself but intermingling with the others occasionally, with no signs of aggression. The face licking of No. 10 by No. 11 could be interpreted as a sign of patronizing intimacy as an adult might treat a subordinate offspring. The teeth of Wolf No. 10 had very little wear, indicating that she probably was less than 3-years old, whereas the teeth of No. 11 were blunt from wear. The tendency for No. 10 to withdraw from the others and from human beings indicated that she probably was a low-ranking or subordinate animal, a peripheral member of the pack (Woolpy 1968), or even a lone wolf currently dispersing from the pack (Mech 1973).

The separation of No. 10 from the others upon release does not necessarily mean that she was not a member of the pack. No. 10's radio collar was replaced just before she was released. The handling without sedation could have frightened her enough that she ran some distance before the others were even released. The fact that No. 10 returned to within a half mile (0.8 km) of the release pen on March 20 and to within less than 100 feet (30.5 m) on April 18 may indicate she was seeking the other wolves. However, she may also just have used the release pen as a reference point in a generally unfamiliar area, or may have been attracted by the remains of carcasses left there.

Effect of Captivity and Human Contact

The necessary capture, captivity, translocation and contact of the experimental wolves with humans had an unknown effect on the wolves. They had been exposed to humans for over 2 months while in captivity. No attempts were made to tame them, and they never passed the escape stage of socialization as described by Woolpy and Ginsburg (1967). The dominant wolves (No. 11 and No. 12) were more relaxed when approached than were No. 10 and No. 13, however.

The failure of female No. 11 to bear young probably can be attributed to her captivity and handling. The fact that two couplings were observed over a 5-day period indicates normal estrus in the female, and a normal response in the male. Conception would have been expected from such a mating. In wild wolves, it is known that there is only a small loss between number of ova shed, number of embryos implanting, and number of fetuses being carried (Rausch 1967). Thus it seems unlikely that, if No. 11 conceived, she lost her fetuses _in utero_. Rather, she probably did not conceive, or perhaps the embryos never implanted. This wolf lost about 11% of her capture weight during captivity, despite an adequate food supply. This fact, plus the results of her blood tests indicate a high degree of stress, which probably explains why she never produced pups.

The possible interference of the drugs used can be ruled out, for they were chosen because of their known lack of effect on pregnancy (Seal et al. 1970).

The radio collars placed on the wolves had no noticeable effect on the animals. Radioed wolves are regularly accepted back into their packs in Minnesota, where they also reproduce and function normally (Mech and Frenzel 1971; Mech 1973, 1974).

Movements

Environmental Influences

Lake Superior was a barrier to the northward and eastward movements of the wolves. Apparently it also directed wolves No. 11, 12, and 13 southward around Keweenaw Bay, and possibly it prevented their eastward movement on April 2 when they approached Keweenaw Bay from the western side. The Bay is approximately 6-miles (9.6 km) wide there, and was frozen until late April.

One to two miles (3.2 km) south of the release site, the Huron Mountains, with an elevation of 1,500 feet (457.5 m) might have prevented the southward movement of the wolves. Along the lakeshore, the land is relatively flat, which may have facilitated east-west movement. Wolves No. 11 and 13 were found at an elevation of 1,300 feet (490 m) the day after release but had returned to the flat shore areas (600 to 700 feet, or 200 to 230 meters above sea level) by the next day. Topography likely had effects in other areas but the actual travel routes, in most instances, are unknown. The pack did travel along an abandoned railroad grade near Gibbs City and for 2 miles (3.2 km) on a muddy road north of Kenton. Wolf No. 10 used a railroad bridge to cross a river in mid-March. It is well known that wolves generally choose the easiest routes of travel (DeVos 1950, Stenlund 1955, Mech 1966).

Possible Homing Tendencies

Some of the movements of the wolves during the Directional Movements Phase could in part have resulted from a tendency for the animals to home, that is to return to their home territory. Packs have been observed to travel 45 miles (72 km) in 24 hours in Minnesota (Stenlund 1955), Alaska (Burkholder 1959) and on Isle Royale (Mech 1966). In Minnesota, a radioed wolf was tracked a straight-line distance of 129 miles (208 km) over a 2-month period before being lost by researchers (Mech and Frenzel 1971), and annual migratory movements of over 200 miles (320 km) have been reported for Canadian wolves (Kuyt 1972). Therefore it seems within the capabilities of the released wolves to return the 270-mile (434 km) straight-line distance, or the 340-mile (547 km) travel distance around Lake Superior to Ray, Minnesota, if the orientation ability and inclination were present.

Homing tendencies have been reported in wolves and other carnivores. One of five laboratory-reared wolves returned to her Barrow, Alaska homesite within about 4 months after a 175-mile (282 km) displacement (Henshaw and Stephenson 1974). An adult female red fox (_Vulpes vulpes_) returned to her homesite within 12 days after being displaced 35 miles (56.3 km) (Phillips and Mech 1970). For black bears there are many records of apparent homing. Harger (1970) displaced 107 adult black bears from 10.0 to 168.5 miles (16.1 to 270.3 km) with an average displacement of 62.5 miles (100.6 km). Thirty-seven of them homed and 11 others moved long distances toward home. The longest distance homed was 142.5 miles (229.4 km). The return travel routes seemed direct, with little evidence of wandering or circling. Harger (1970) concluded that bears could navigate by some means, as yet undetermined.

There is some indication that the pack of three wolves may have attempted to return home to Minnesota, although it is possible that exploration itself also may have produced the movement pattern observed.

If the translocated wolves were to try homing directly toward their previous territory, they would have had to travel west-northwestward. However, within a few miles they would have encountered Lake Superior. The next closest choice would have been to head westward, and this is what the pack did (Fig. 17). The next possible barrier to their homeward movements would have been Huron Bay, which would have forced them southwestward, at least temporarily. Again this is what actually happened. The pack maintained its southwestward movement beyond Huron Bay until reaching a point southeast of the next possible barrier, Keweenaw Bay. They then continued westward south of Keweenaw Bay to the Prickett Dam area, and veered northwestward to Twin Lakes on March 25.

By this time, the wolves had traveled for 13 days and covered a minimum distance of 59 miles (94.9 km), and they were 42 miles (67.6 km), closer to home (16% of the straight-line distance between home and release site). The directions of the movements of the wolves were consistent with what they would have to be if the wolves were to return home.

However, after March 25, the directionality in the movements of the pack ended (Fig. 17), and the animals began what we consider the Exploratory Phase of their movements. If the wolves actually were homing, perhaps the tendency diminished as they failed to encounter familiar terrain, or perhaps they met too many obstacles, or became confused after encountering too much human activity. Or possibly these factors or the need to find food and security overcame the homing tendency. As discussed earlier in relation to the unusual number of times the wolves were observed, it is clear that they were not moving normally during this period.

The lone wolf, No. 10, dispersed from the release site in as much of an opposite direction as it could from the pack (Fig. 20). Thus there is no evidence that this animal was trying to home. However, it is of interest to note that the first 32 miles (51.5 km) of her travel was directional rather than random. Furthermore, when the animal encountered what probably was a psychological barrier, a high concentration of human activity along Highway 41, she reversed her movements but still maintained a directionality by returning to the release area. In fact a striking pattern of southeast-northwest movements characterized this wolf's travels for several months after her release, with a gradual westward drift developing in the southeast-northwest movements (Fig. 20).

Mech and Frenzel (1971) found that a wolf dispersing from his former home range in Minnesota maintained a general southwestward movement for a straight-line distance of 129 miles (207.6 km) over a 2-month period, and Mech (unpublished) has three additional records of dispersing wolves that maintained directionality for distances of 48 to 130 miles (77.2 to 209.2 km). Storm (1972) followed 12 dispersing red foxes in Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota that moved directionally for distances of 12 to 110 miles (19.2 to 176.0 km).

The ability of wolves to orient and navigate even in unfamiliar surroundings was demonstrated dramatically by the separation of Wolf No. 13 from his two packmates and his later rejoining of them. On May 2 he was 51 miles (82.1 km) away from them. Five days later he and his packmates were only 6 miles (9.6 km) apart, in an area 62 miles (99.8 km) from where No. 13 had been on May 2, and 45 miles (72.4 km) from where his packmates were on that date (Fig. 18 and p. 11).

Because No. 13 had taken such a divergent route from that of No. 11 and 12 upon splitting, and then had met them again at a point so far from (1) where they had split and (2) where either had gone after the split, mere backtracking would seem to be ruled out as explanation of how they were able to rendezvous. Possibly No. 13 backtracked to the separation point and then followed the others by scent, although this seems unlikely because of the amount of time that had elapsed. Perhaps a combination of memory of the general lay of the land, and some backtracking and eventually howling and the crossing of each group's fresh tracks could explain this remarkable feat.

Distances Traveled

The average daily straight-line distances (average of all known 24-hour moves) traveled by Wolf No. 10 was 3.6 miles (5.8 km). For Wolf No. 11 and her associates it was 5.8 miles (9.3 km) for the period before the settled Phase of their movements. The daily summer straight-line movements of an immature radioed female in Ontario ranged from 0.0 to 3.5 miles (5.6 km) per day and averaged 1.0 (1.6 km) per day (Kolenosky and Johnston 1967). Mech and Frenzel (1971) found that the average daily straight-line distance traveled in Minnesota by three lone wolves was 2.0, 1.0 and 2.9 miles (3.2, 1.6, and 4.6 km), and a pack of five averaged 2.5 miles (4.0 km) straight-line distance per day. A pack of eight wolves in Ontario traveled actual distances of 0.0 to 13.2 miles (21.1 km) per day during winter with an average movement of 4.4 miles (7.1 km) per day (Kolenosky 1972).

Thus distances moved by both lone Wolf No. 10 and the pack were greater than the distances reported for lone wolves and packs in their native range. In Harger's (1970) study of homing in black bears, he also found increased movement by displaced animals.

There was a general reduction in distances moved by the pack in May and June after the wolves had settled in Iron County (Fig. 19), compared with their earlier exploratory movements (Fig. 24). The movements during the Settled Phase were similar to those reported from the studies in Ontario and Minnesota.

Home Range Size

At least in some areas, wolves are territorial (Mech 1972, 1973), and the sizes of their home ranges are restricted somewhat by boundaries established by the scent marks of surrounding packs (Peters and Mech 1975). The introduced wolves probably encountered no native packs with established territories (Hendrickson et al. 1975), so they would not be similarly restricted. The total area that wolves No. 11, 12, and 13 explored, 2,918 square miles (7,586 km^2), is larger than any reported from the Great Lakes area and is comparable to home ranges of "tundra wolves" (Mech 1970). Even the area in which they settled (May 7 to July 6) until the deaths of the males was 246 square miles (637 km^2), which is larger than most reported ranges in the Great Lakes Region.

The deaths of the two males seemed to cause an increase in both daily distance traveled and home range in Wolf No. 11. Essentially she began traveling as extensively as do lone wolves in Minnesota (Mech and Frenzel 1971).

The home range of Wolf No. 10 from March through mid-November, 346 square miles (895.7 km^2), was smaller than those of lone wolves in Minnesota (Mech and Frenzel 1971). Apparently she was still expanding her range when killed, however.

Selection of a Territory

The eventual settling of the pack of translocated wolves into a territory would be expected because such behavior is characteristic of wolves in other areas. The translocated pack did settle into a territory of 246 square miles (637 km^2) after about 2 months (Fig. 18). Although the region where they settled was not as remote as the release area, it was more inaccessible than most of the rest of the 1,631 square mile (4,224 km^2) area they explored after dispersing. As with the rest of Upper Michigan, the pack's adopted territory was inhabited by a moderate population of deer and beavers. It seems significant that this area is one of three where a few native Michigan wolves are known to still exist (Hendrickson et al. 1975).

Vulnerability and Mortality

It could be expected that the translocated wolves would be more vulnerable than wolves in their native environment. Although no data are available from any previous study of translocated wild wolves, Harger's (1970) investigation of displaced wild black bears showed that they were more vulnerable. In our study, it was clear that during the Directional Movement and Exploratory Phases Wolves No. 11, 12, and 13 were observed by local residents an unusual number of times (Table 6). No. 10, which did not explore such an extensive area and which spent considerable time in a more remote area, was seen less (Table 5).

It is not clear why the wolves were not killed by humans during these periods when they appeared so vulnerable. Perhaps the novelty of the transplant coupled with the awareness that frequent aerial checks were being made of the wolves had some effect. Furthermore, spring is not generally a season of intensive hunting and trapping.

Whatever the explanation, the wolves did survive what seemed to be their most vulnerable period. We do not believe that the deaths of the wolves can be attributed to the conditions of their translocations. Instead, we think that the most important factor in their demise was the accessibility of the area to human beings and the attitudes of humans towards wolves.

As indicated earlier, there appears to be an inverse relationship between human density and wolf density in the Great Lakes Region (Table 1). Wolves are vulnerable to both accidental and deliberate mortality from humans. For example, in winter 1947-48 at least 14 wolves were struck by automobiles in northern Ontario (DeVos 1949). In Michigan, a $15-$20 bounty still exists on coyotes, so these animals are commonly shot and trapped. Because many people cannot distinguish wolves from coyotes, and because wolves are often caught in the same kind of trap sets made for coyotes, wolves might be killed accidentally.

Whether the killing of the translocated wolves was deliberate or accidental is unknown except in the case of No. 11. No. 11 was caught accidentally in a coyote trap, but was killed deliberately when the trapper thought the animal might attack him. The best guess about No. 12, which was killed by a car, is that it was accidental. No. 10 and No. 13 were shot, but it is possible that the hunters in each case may have mistaken them for coyotes. On the same day that No. 10 was killed, a deer hunter shot a 76-lb. (34.5 kg) native Michigan wolf and turned himself in to authorities, stating that he had thought it was a coyote, and in March 1975 there was a similar occurrence.

Some Upper Michigan residents strongly opposed the transplant experiment, largely out of concern for deer populations. The Northern Michigan Sportsmen's Association passed a resolution against it, and the Baraga County Wolf Hunters Association was formed with the express purpose of interfering with the transplant effort. This association offered a reward of $100 to a person killing a wolf (Fig. 25). Supposedly 132 memberships at $1.50 each were sold.

It is unlikely that members of the Baraga County group killed the experimental wolves, for it would be extremely difficult for anyone to deliberately hunt down and kill a wolf. Most wolves that are shot anywhere just happen to be seen by a few of the hundreds of thousands of hunters that are afield or by local residents who keep a gun handy. Thus the more accessible the area, and the higher the density of human beings, the greater the chances that wolves will encounter such people.

Of course there was also excellent public support for the experiment. With weekly newspaper accounts of the travels of the wolves, many people began to develop an interest in, and sympathy for, the wolves. Some letters in the newspapers expressed regret that the animals had been killed.

Food Habits and Predation

The translocated wolves apparently scavenged more in Michigan than in Minnesota, at least shortly after their release. There were no known garbage dumps within their native territory. The dumps in Michigan presumably offered more readily available food during a time when the wolves appeared preoccupied with extensive travel.

Nevertheless, the wolves did kill at least the three deer that we found, and no doubt took several others. Although the sample size is small, the results of our analysis of the condition of the deer are consistent with those from other studies, indicating that wolves prey primarily on debilitated deer (Pimlott et al. 1969, Mech and Frenzel 1971).

All three deer killed by the wolves were seriously malnourished, with 6% or less fat content in the marrow of their femurs, or thigh bones. At less than 25% fat in the marrow, serious malnutrition has developed (Cheatum 1949). (In comparison, the femur fat of 59 doe deer killed by automobiles in the Upper Peninsula in March and April 1974 averaged 46%, according to Dr. L. D. Fay, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.) In addition, one of the animals killed by the wolves had been wounded by a bullet and had a broken leg; all three were does, and were over 4 years of age, a factor that Pimlott et al. (1969) and Mech and Frenzel (1971) have also found important in wolf kills.

An Alternate Approach

Although the time of release for the four wolves in this study was selected in order to maximize chances that they would remain in their new range, possibly a release earlier in winter would be more successful. The failure of the adult female to conceive was probably a result of captivity and handling, although this needs confirmation through additional studies. Nevertheless, an early winter release might be favored by deep snows hindering travel. Furthermore, by breeding season in late February the wolves might already have settled into an area. Then the entire breeding cycle might take place outside captivity and stand a better chance of succeeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Three principal conclusions can be drawn from the results of this experiment: (1) It is possible to transplant a pack of wild wolves into a new range. That new range, however, must be large enough to permit some initial wandering. The animals cannot be expected to establish a home range centered on or even including the point of release. (2) The habitat in Upper Michigan apparently is adequate to support wolves, in terms of food and cover, for the carcasses of the two experimental wolves that could be examined intact had maintained or improved their condition during their 6-to-8-month residence in Michigan. (3) The reason for the failure of the experimental wolves to re-establish themselves was direct mortality by human beings, just as Hendrickson et al. (1975) concluded was the case for the failure of native and immigrant Michigan wolves to re-establish a population. This mortality probably is related to two factors, negative human attitudes toward wolves and accessibility of humans to wolf range.

We are convinced that, ecologically, wolves can be re-established in Upper Michigan. However, a successful program of re-establishment will require the following:

1. A survey of public attitudes in Upper Michigan toward re-establishing wolves,

2. An intensive public relations campaign to promote an understanding of wolf ecology and the benefits of a wolf population,

3. Suspension or removal of the bounty on coyotes,

4. Releases of additional wolves in larger numbers perhaps over a period of a few years, if public attitudes appear favorable,

5. A concentrated effort to inform the public of the penalties for killing wolves,

6. A concerted law enforcement program, and

7. Monitoring of translocated animals through radio-tracking to determine the results.

_Fig. 25.--Although the transplant experiment enjoyed wide public support, some people opposed it and organized the Baraga County Wolf Hunters Association to try to prevent the re-establishment effort_]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was a cooperative effort among the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Michigan University, the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation, and the National Audubon Society.

The Michigan and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources provided the legal permits and logistical support necessary for the transplant. The Fish and Wildlife Service assisted in the planning and fund-raising for the overall project, and provided the technical expertise in the live-trapping, radio-tagging and radio-tracking of the wolves. Northern Michigan University initiated and administered the project and conducted the Michigan aspects of the work. Financial support was provided by the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation and the National Audubon Society.

Dr. U. S. Seal of the Veterans Administration Hospital in Minneapolis analyzed and interpreted the blood samples, and Dr. Ray D. Barnes, University of Minnesota, the female reproductive tracts.

The authors wish to thank all of the people mentioned above and the following individuals: Ralph Bailey and Robert Rafferty, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Jeff Renneberg, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Fred Harrington, State University of N. Y. at Stony Brook; Roger Peters, University of Michigan; Tom Jernstad, Leo Maki, and Leo Wouri, Huron Mountain Club; the late William P. Harris Jr. and Theodore A. McGraw of the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation; Edward H. Brigham III, National Audubon Society; Dennis Diaz and William Rowloff, pilots of Northern Airmotive; Robert Neil, owner of the research airplane; Denis Kallery, Cynthia Watt, and George Wilson of Marquette; and last but certainly not least, wolf-trapper Robert Himes of Ray, Minnesota.

LITERATURE CITED

Brown, C. E. 1936. Rearing wild animals in captivity, and
gestation periods. J. Mammal. 17:10-13.

Burkholder, B. L. 1959. Movements and behavior of a wolf
pack in Alaska J. Wildl. Manage. 23:1-11.

Cheatum, E. L. 1949. Bone marrow as an index of
malnutrition in deer. N. Y. State Conservationist
3(5):19-22.

Cochran, W. W., and R. D. Lord. 1963. A radio-tracking
system for wild animals. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:9-24.

DeVos, A. 1949. Timber wolves (_Canis lupus lycaon_)
killed by cars on Ontario highways. J. Mammal. 30:197.

DeVos, A. 1950. Timber wolf movements on Sibley Peninsula,
Ontario. J. Mammal. 31:169-175.

Dice, L. R. 1952. Natural communities. Univ. of Mich.
Press, Ann Arbor. 547 p.

Douglass, D. W. 1970. History and status of the wolf in
Michigan. p. 6-8 _In_ Jorgensen, S. E., C. E. Faulkner,
and L. D. Mech (_Ed._) Proc. Symp. on Wolf Management in
Selected Areas of North America. U. S. Fish & Wildl.
Serv., Twin Cities, Mn. 50 p.

Harger, E. M. 1970. A study of homing behavior of black
bears. Unpubl. Master's Thesis. North. Mich. Univ.,
Marquette. 81 p.

Hendrickson, J., W. L. Robinson, and L. D. Mech. 1975. The
status of the wolf in Michigan--1973. Am. Midl. Nat. (In
press).

Henshaw, R. E. and R. O. Stephenson. 1974. Homing in the
gray wolf (_Canis lupus_). J. Mammal. 55:234-237.

Kolenosky, G. B. 1972. Wolf predation on wintering deer in
east-central Ontario. J. Wildl. Manage. 36:357-369.

Kolenosky, G. B., and D. H. Johnston. 1967. Radio-tracking
timber wolves in Ontario. Amer. Zool. 7:289-303.

Kuyt, E. 1972. Food habits of wolves on barren-ground
caribou range. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Series No. 21. 36
p.

Laundre, J. 1975. An ecological survey of the mammals of
the Huron Mountain Area. Occ. Pap. Huron Mt. Wildl.
Found. No. 2.

Mech, L. D. 1966. The wolves of Isle Royale. U. S. Nat.
Park Serv. Fauna Ser. 7. 210 p.

Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an
endangered species. The Nat. Hist. Press. Garden City,
New York. 384 p.

Mech, L. D. 1972. Spacing and possible mechanisms of
population regulation in wolves. Am. Zool. 12(4): 9
(abstract).

Mech, L. D. 1973. Wolf numbers in the Superior National
Forest of Minnesota. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St.
Paul, Minn. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-97. 10 p.

Mech, L. D. 1974. Current techniques in the study of
elusive wilderness carnivores. Proc. XI Int. Cong. Game
Biol., Stockholm, p. 315-322.

Mech, L. D., and L. D. Frenzel, Jr., eds. 1971. Ecological
studies of the timber wolf in northeastern Minnesota.
North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn. USDA For.
Serv. Res. Pap. NC-52. 62 p.

Mech, L. D., and R. A. Rausch. 1975. Status of the wolf in
the United States, 1973. Proc. of First Meeting of
IUCN-SSC Wolf Specialist Group, Stockholm (In press).

Merriam, H. R. 1964. The wolves of Coronation Island.
Proc. Alaska Sci. Conf. 15:27-32.

Nellis, C. H. 1968. Some methods for capturing coyotes
alive. J. Wildl. Manage. 32:402-405.

Peters, R. R., and L. D. Mech. 1975. Scent-marking in
wolves: a field study. American Scientist 63(4) (In
press).

Peterson, R. O. 1974. Wolf ecology and prey populations on
Isle Royale. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue Univ.,
Lafayette, Ind. 368 p.

Phillips, R. L., and L. D. Mech. 1970. Homing behavior in
a red fox. J. Mammal. 51:621.

Pimlott, D. H. 1967. Wolf predation and ungulate
populations. Amer. Zool. 7:267-278.

Pimlott, D. H., J. A. Shannon, and G. B. Kolenosky. 1969.
The ecology of the timber wolf in Algonquin Park. Ont.
Dept. Lands and Forests. Res. Rep. (Wildlife) No. 87. 92
p.

Rausch, R. A. 1967. Some aspects of the population ecology
of wolves, Alaska. Am. Zool. 7:253-265.

Schenkel, R. 1947. Expression studies of wolves. Behaviour
1:81-129. (Translation from German by Agnes Klasson).

Seal, U. S., A. W. Erickson, J. G. Mayo. 1970. Drug
immobilization of the Carnivora. Int. Zoo Yearbook
10:157-170.

Seal, U. S., L. D. Mech, and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1975.
Blood analyses of wolf pups and their ecological and
metabolic interpretation. J. Mammal. 56:64-75.

Spencer, J. S., Jr., and R. E. Pfeifer. 1966. The growing
timber resource of Michigan--1966. Unit 2--the Western
Upper Peninsula, Mich. Dept. Nat. Res., Lansing.

Stenlund, M. H. 1955. A field study of the timber wolf
(_Canis lupus_) on the Superior National Forest,
Minnesota. Minn. Dept. Cons. Tech. Bull. No. 4. 55 p.

Storm, G. L. 1972. Population dynamics of red foxes in
northcentral United States. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of
Minn., Mpls., 227 p.

Thompson, D. Q. 1952. Travel, range, and food habits of
Timber Wolves in Wisconsin. J. Mammal. 25:37-43.

U. S. Bureau of Census. U. S. Census of Population: 1970.
No. of inhabitants. Final Rept. PC(1).

Westover, A. L. 1971. The use of a hemlock-hardwood winter
yard by white-tailed deer in northern Michigan. Occ.
Pap. Huron Mt. Wildl. Found. No. 1. 59 p.

Wolfe, M. L., and D. L. Allen. 1973. Continued studies of
the status, socialization, and relationships of Isle
Royale wolves, 1967 to 1970. J. Mammal. 54:611-635.

Woolpy, J. H. 1968. The social organization of wolves.
Nat. Hist. 77(5):46-55.

Woolpy, J. H., and B. E. Ginsburg. 1967. Wolf
socialization: a study of temperament in a wild species.
Am. Zool. 7:357-363.

_The Audubon Conservation Report series_:

No. 1 THE GOLDEN EAGLE IN THE TRANS-PECOS AND EDWARDS
PLATEAU OF TEXAS by Walter R. Spofford. 1964.

No. 2 THE SUBURBAN WOODLAND/Trees and Insects in the Human
Environment by Roland C. Clement and Ian C. T.
Nisbet. 1972.

No. 3 SOME ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION'S 1972 DRAFT REPORT by
Roland C. Clement and Robert K. Davis. 1973.

No. 4 PROCEEDINGS OF A CONFERENCE ON PEREGRINE FALCON
RECOVERY Edited by Roland C. Clement. 1974.

No. 5 AN EXPERIMENTAL TRANSLOCATION OF THE EASTERN TIMBER
WOLF by Thomas F. Weise, William L. Robinson,
Richard A. Hook, and L. David Mech. 1975.

National Audubon Society, 950 Third Avenue, New York City 10022

Comments

An Experimental Translocation of the Eastern Timber WolfChapter II: Part 2

0%24 min left in chapter