The Grey wolf (C. lupus) has been lost from much of its former range across the Northern hemisphere due to human actions. In Canada, wolves are not protected outside of National Parks. In the past few decades, human use has intensified both within parks and surrounding these protected areas. Pressures from industrial, commercial, and recreational activities are compromising the ecological integrity of these ‘wilderness areas’. (13) Currently, most protected areas are too small and too isolated to ensure adequate protection of biodiversity and ecological integrity. (13) Wolves have extreme value in and of themselves, but are also incredibly important to the functioning and ballance of healthy ecosystems, along with holding sacred and ancient cultural values to many First Nations peoples.
The Central Rockies represent a unique ecological region of Canada, and wolves (C. lupus) here have geographically distinct subpopulations, varying from B.C.’s coastal wolves and Eastern Canada’s red wolves (C. rufus). We need to set goals to conserve genetic diversity in large carnivores across the country.
Biologists researching wolves on behalf of Parks Canada have recognized C. lupus as a keystone species, capable of causing a trophic cascade when populations dip below a critical threshold (2). As wolves’ numbers decline, elk density increases and adversely affects the growth of aspen and willow, with reduced plant biomass resulting in a reduction of active beaver lodges, negatively affecting songbird abundance and diversity (3). As the number of grey wolves declines in the Central Rockies, a cascade effect is observed in which small mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, ungulates, tree species and vegetation all suffer.(16)
It is time for action, not further studies. Wolves will ALWAYS be partially dependant upon adjacent provincial lands. A World Wolf Congress held in 2003 agreed that ‘co-operation between neighbouring jurisdiction is needed to ensure the survival of wolves in the central Rockies’.(8)
As Hummel and Pettigrew state, “Top predators are among the most outstanding achievements of wilderness, evolving over hundreds of centuries to preside at the top of the natural food chain. Now we challenge Canadians to wake up in time to make sure such outstanding achievements stay with us”. (1) “If we’re not saving top predators, we’re not saving true wilderness. And if we are not saving true wilderness, we will not save top predators” (1)
"It is the pack that is the top predator, not the individual…” (Wallach et al. 2009). This is of critical importance for both ecological functioning and conservation.
All species have intrinsic values. Wolves also live in families and form loyal, sometimes lifetime bonds with each other.
Social chaos vs. pack stability: disruption of wolf social structure through hunting or other exploitation can lead to increased numbers of conflicts with humans and livestock, similar to people reacting to war zone (stealing, cheating, killing)
-control breaks down pack social structure, can lead to changes in age composition, groups size, survival rates, hunting abilities, territory size and stability, social behaviour, genetic identity and diversity(Wallach et al. 2009, Rutledge et al 2010).
-Wallach et al. (2009) study indicated that the longer an area was allowed to recover from control of dingos (poison, traps, hunted), the more they returned to using indicators of social stability (scent marking and howling). These indicators for social communication were lost in areas with high persecution.
-research on dingos provided evidence that relationship between abundance and social stability is not linear, and that lethal control fractures stability and can drive population size in either direction (yet not benefit ecological role).
-Rutledge et al. (2010) research on Eastern wolves in Agonquin provincial park (following implementation of Buffer Zones 2001) combined ecological and genetic data to show that reducing human-caused wolf mortalities (through hunting and trapping) restored the natural structure of wolf packs (kin-based families) without a marked increase in population.
-Natural mortality replaced human caused deaths
-stopped recruiting ‘foreigners” when not exploited and saw reduction in unrelated adopted animals in 17 packs (80% pre-ban unrelated vs. 6% post-ban unrelated), and incestuous matings remained rare (Rutledge et al 2010)
-provides evidence that even protected areas can act as sinks if not large enough, and with non-stable social units less able to adapt to evolutionary changes and function in ecological role (fitness benefits accompany social unit, experience and learning are important.
Eg. Pro basketball team winning championship and trading 5 top players to replace with rookies…would not have a successful season the following year….may have to cheat -> livestock
-2010 Ontario government banned hunting in 39 townships surrounding Algonquin Provincial Park, increasing protected area for park wolves and coyotes by 6340 sq. km. (Rutledge et al 2010).
-this resulted largely from research by John and Mary Theberge over 20 years who noted APP wolves killed beyond boundaries led to smaller packs, not working together during hunts, not reusing rendezvous sites, more dispersers and less defined territories.
Rutledge et al (2010) demonstrated that following the implementation of the harvest ban, comparing 138 individuals living in 17 packs over 5 years, human caused deaths dropped from 67% to 16%, number of natural deaths increased from 33% to 84%, and number of pack with unrelated animals dropped from 80% to 5.9%.
-Biologist Chris Darimont urges that conservation of wolves and ecosystems requires maintaining not only viable populations, but also naturally-functioning populations where “fitness is likely to be optimized when evolutionary adaptation is driven by natural rather than artificial (ie human mediated) selection pressures” (Rutledge et al 2010 and personal communication).
-Rutledge et al (2010) state that this “social component may stimulate natural regulation at other trophic levels” and is “evolutionarily important”.
-Stability of packs may be as important to role as keystone species as population size, but not considered in N. America.
-Population control (through livestock, unregulated hunting, or control programs) may have “profound ecological implications that remain largely invisible if only their abundance is considered” (Wallach et al 2009).
-Rutledge et al (2010) argues “When compared to other conservation and management approaches such as translocations and habitat restoration, reducing levels of exploitation by expanding no-harvest zones to include areas outside park boundaries is a relatively simple, long-term solution to promote persistence of top predators that are integral to healthy ecosystems”
-Wallach et al (2009) research urges management decisions for large social predators to include factors affecting social stability to ensure conservation and ecological functioning of species and ecosystem.
-Wallach et at. (2009). proposes socially complex species (such as wolves and dingoes) can fluctuate between 3 main states:
A. Below carrying capacity and socially fractured
B. Above carrying capacity and socially fractured
C. At carrying capacity and socially stable
-predict that lethal control would drive into states A or B, and relaxation of control would allow recovery towards C
-eg’s of social stability under natural conditions
– wolf pack distinct family lineage for over 50 years, with alpha female same role 13 years (Wallach et al 2009)
-loss of pack stability has created other problems as well, such as hybridization of wild canines (grey wolves, Eastern wolves, coyotes, dogs, dingoes) which are threatening survival of species and creating other concerns because of behavioural differences (eg. coyotes more adaptable to human areas, potentially greater threat to livestock, pets and humans)
-“Loss of large carnivores had cascading influences on lower trophic levels, smaller bodied carnivores and vegetation dynamics” (Treves 2009), as evidenced in Yellowstone and Banff National Park specifically for wolves as a keystone species.
REFERENCES:
Musiani,M., C. Mamo, L. Boitani, C. Callaghan, C. Cormack Gates, L. Mattei, E. Visalberghi, S. Breck, G. Volpi (2003) Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America, Conservation Biology, pp 1538-1547, Vol. 17 No 6 Dec. 2003
Musiani M., T Muhly, C. Cormack Gates, C. Callaghan, M. Smith, E. Tosoni (2005). Seasonality and reoccurrence of depredation and wolf control in western North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33 (3): 876-887.
Harper E., P. J. William, L.D. Mech, S. Weisberg (2008). Effectiveness of Lethal, Directed Wolf-Depredationb Control in Minnesota. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (3): 778-783.
Wallach A.D., E.G. Ritchie, J. Read, A.J. O’Neill (2009). More than Mere Numbers: The Impact of Lethal Control on the Social Stability of a Top-Order Predator. PloS ONE 4 (9): 1-7, e6861.
Adrian Treves. (2009). Hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 1350-1356. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01729.x
Robichaud, C. and M.S. Boyce (2010) Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Wolf Harvest on Registered Traplines in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 74 (4): 635-643. DOI: 10.2193/2009-260
Rutledge, L., B. Patterson, K. Mills, K. Loveless, D. Murray, B. White (2010). Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biological Conservation 143: 332-339. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.017
