Environmental Petition Requesting 200km Buffer Zones around each of the 7 Mountain National Parks Submitted March 2009.

The number of signatures collected from August 3, 2008 to February 14, 2009 is as follows:

1,484 Canadian residents

1,702 International residents

TOTAL:3185

Wolves are ecologically important to our wilderness as a top predator and keystone species. Their presence and numbers indicate intact wilderness and a healthy ecosystem. Where wolves have decreased in numbers, biodiversity is also greatly decreased.

Currently, wolves are protected within the boundaries of National Parks. Within the boundaries wolves suffer high mortality rates due to collisions with vehicles and trains, as well as disturbance from human activities and facilities. Outside of the Park, wolves face the extra risks of hunting, trapping, and poisoning. Only 5 % of wolves in the Central Rockies die of natural causes; and have less than 1% chance of surviving 10 years². Most Park wolves are killed by people.

Due to a limited amount of habitat suited for prey along the valley bottoms, wolves in the Rockies require vast territories. Wolves will ALWAYS be partially dependent upon adjacent provincial lands used by landowners, recreationists, etc.

Include BUFFER ZONES as part of the NEW management plans for Canada's mountain National Parks 

Wolf Mortalities by Road and Rail in Jasper:

1999 - 2008

Year	Road	Rail
1999	4	3
2000	1	1
2001	1	1
2002	1	0
2003	3	2
2004	6	0
2005	4	0
2006	3	2
2007	2	1
2008	7	0
TOTAL:	34	13

Taken from Transportation Coridor Ungulate and Large Carnivore Mortality Statistics Jasper National Park 1980 to 2008by Wes Bradford, Wildlife Conflicts SpecialistJasper National Park - January 2009

Wolf Mortalities in Banff, Kootenay and Yoho National Parks by road & rail.

Year	Ba	Ko	Yo	Total
2009	3	1	2	6
2008	3	2	1	6
2007				0
2006	3		2	5
2005	1		1	2
2004			1	1
2003	1		1	2
2002	1		3	4
2001	1	1	1	3
2000			2	2
1999		1	4	5
Total	13	5	18	35

Source: Parks Canda

The wolf mortality data contained in the above chart has been extracted from the Banff, Yoho and Kootenay National Park Wildlife Mortality Master database. The 2009 data includes mortalities to Sept. 4, 2009.  Parks Canada endeavours to maintain accurate data however, due to the nature of wildlife data, improvements in mapping and data technology and as more information comes available, some changes may occur. For more information; please contact a Parks Canada Wildlife Specialist: Alan.Dibb@pc.gc.ca or Tom.Hurd@pc.gc.ca

Wolf Mortalities Inside Jasper, Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks by Road and Rail 1999-2009

SOURCE:  1. Transportation Coridor Ungulate and Large Carnivore Mortality Statistics Jasper National Park 1980 to 2008, by Wes Bradford, Wildlife Conflict Specialist

2.  Banff, Yoho and Kootenay National Park Wildlife Mortality Master Database

Learn about the success of a Buffer Zone around Ontario's Algonquin Provincial Park...Eastern wolf families have something to celebrate!

http://journalwatch.conservationmagazine.org/2009/12/08/back-in-the-family/

LETTER WRITING - GET ACTIVE! Contact information below.

KEY POINTS to address in a letter to decision-makers.

   * The wolf population in the Central Rocky Mountains is among the lowest density of wolves in the world

   * Our protected areas within the Rockies are not big enough to maintain a healthy population of wolves

   * The territory of every wolf pack in the National Parks extends OUTSIDE of the protected areas

   * Human-caused mortality is the biggest threat to long-term health of wolf populations in the Central

      Rocky Mountains 

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Mr./Mrs.___________________

As the number of grey wolves declines in the Central Rockies, a cascade effect is being observed. Small mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, ungulates, tree species and vegetation all suffer¹. As a keystone species, wolves maintain the balance and diversity within our natural ecosystems.

Wolves are protected within our National Parks, but their total annual mortality exceeds their total annual gain. Over 4 years (winter 1999-spring 2004), 13 adult wolves died WITHIN the boundaries of Banff National Park, which greatly exceeds a sustainable rate of loss². A wolf pack living within Kootenay National Park requires a territory of 2800 km² because only ¼ of the valley is suitable for prey³. Wolves collared in Kootenay National Park travel as far as 250 km outside of Park boundaries³. Even with sufficient prey and habitat within a park, the number of wolves declines as they travel outside the boundaries; hunting and trapping are major contributors. A year-round ban on hunting/trapping in the areas surrounding National Parks will likely reduce the annual mortality rate of wolves, keeping their population stable.

Grey wolves have been reduced from former healthy populations worldwide. It is unacceptable for your government to sit by and watch these top predators disappear. A healthy wilderness depends on wolves. We need to take measures to save the wolves in the Central Rocky Mountain regions of Canada.

Wilderness tourism can mean long-term financial benefits for our country; as an example, the reintroduced wolves of the Greater Yellowstone area benefits the U.S. Northern Rockies’ economy to the tune of $35-million tourist dollars annually⁴. We can improve our conservation efforts and image, attracting millions, by protecting the long-term health of our wilderness. It is time for action, not further studies. I look forward to your response on creating a 200 km buffer zone around protected areas where wolves cannot be hunted.

References:

1.Hebblewhite et al., "Human Activity mediates a Trophic Cascade caused by Wolves," Ecology 86 (8), August 2005
2.Banff National Park of Canada, HJD 7/30/2004
3.Kootenay National Park of Canada, Natural Wonders and Cultural Treasures, accessed June 2007
4.Defenders of Wildlife (defenders.org), 2006 statistics, accessed June 2007

Contacts:

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada   

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Fax: (613) 941-6900
Email: pm@pm.gc.ca

The Honourable Jim Prentice, Federal Minister of the Environment

Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere
10 Wellington St., 28th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3Phone:819.997-1441
Fax: (819) 953-3457
Email: Minister@ec.gc.ca

Honourable Ed Stelmach, Alberta Premier

Room 307, Legislature Building
10800 - 97th Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6
Phone: (780) 427 2251
E-mail from: http://www.gov.ab.ca/premier/feedback.cfm
or http://premier.alberta.ca/contact/ 

Honourable Rob Renner, Alberta Minister of Environment

Room 425, Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6
Phone: (780) 427-2391
E-mail: rob.renner@assembly.ab.ca

Honourable Gordon Campbell, BC Premier

Box 9041, Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC V8W 9E1
Fax: (250) 387-0087
Email: premier@gov.bc.ca

The Honourable Barry Penner, BC Minister - Water Land and Air Protection

 PO Box 9047, Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC V8W 9E2Phone:250-387-1187
Fax: (250) 387-1365
Email: env.minister@gov.bc.ca

BACKGROUND INFORMATION for the need to establish:

1. Buffer Zones around National Parks in Central Rocky Mountains

2. National Wolf Management Plan

 The Northern Lights Wildlife Wolf Centre is appealing to the federal government, environment minister Jim Prentice, Parks Canada and any others who have jurisdiction to create legislature that would establish Buffer Zones to protect wolves around the 7 National Parks in the Canadian Central Rocky Mountains. (Banff, Jasper, Yoho, Kooteny, Glacier, Mount Revelstoke, Waterton). 

 Science has shown us that these designated wilderness areas are not big enough to maintain a healthy population of wolves, and are too small to effectively conserve biodiversity. We wish to prevent a trophic cascade within our Parks by increasing the protected areas of keystone species such as wolves.

The Rocky Mountain Corridor is essential in maintaining a healthy gene flow among wolves between Canada and the United States, and a stretch of connected wilderness across North America.

By expanding protected areas for wolves, the ecological integrity of these National Parks will be maintained. Top predators, such as wolves, are vital in maintaining the balance of a healthy ecosystem.

These 7 Parks are currently reviewing their Park Management Strategies, and accepting input to help shape plan revisions, (Parks Canada Newsletter, 2008). This provides an excellent opportunity to enlarge protected areas for wolves whose territories extend beyond the boundaries of these parks.

     The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Manifesto on Wolf Conservation recognizes the effects economic development has had on the environment, and states that the importance and status of wolves should be taken into account by legislation and in planning for the future of any region, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991). They also advocate excluding economic development that is detrimental to the wolf and its habitat; the prohibition of hunting, poisons, bounty systems and use of mechanized vehicles; and legislation requiring the registration of each wolf killed, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991). We need to pass legislation to perpetuate existing populations where they occur, as recommended by the IUCN’s guidelines on wolf conservation, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991). We have a worldwide task of preserving biological diversity, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991).

     Historically, the Canadian government has often favoured protecting the interests of industries over the needs of wildlife. One view is that hunting and trapping, as well as industrial practices and resource extraction are needed for the Canadian economy. Wilderness tourism can mean long-term financial benefits for our country. For example, the wolves reintroduced to the Greater Yellowstone area benefits the U.S. Northern Rockies’ economy to the tune of $35-million tourist dollars annually, (Defenders of Wildlife, 2006). By improving our conservation efforts, we can improve our environmental image and protect the long-term health of our wilderness, which can attract millions of tourism dollars.

     A broad legislative tool protecting buffer zones would enable us to properly manage the land use of areas adjacent to protected land. Incompatible land use has been ranked as the most serious threat to parks and protected areas by most Park jurisdictions across Canada, (Environment Canada, 2006).

Importance of Grey Wolves to Canada

     The Central Rockies represent a unique ecological region of Canada, and wolves (Canis lupus) here have geographically distinct subpopulations, varying from B.C.’s coastal wolves and Eastern Canada’s red wolves (Canis rufus). We need to set goals to conserve genetic diversity in large carnivores.

     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, (Hurd, et al. 2002). 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, (Hebblewhite, et al. 2002). 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, (Banff National Park of Canada, 2004).

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’, (Alberta Wildlife Enhancement Society, 2003).

Current Situation

Grey wolves (Canis lupus) used to roam the northern hemisphere, but they have declined significantly throughout their former range due to habitat and human exploitation. Many countries are currently trying to reintroduce wolves with limited success to restore ecological balance and return this awesome predator. 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’, (CPAWS, 2007).

As a keystone species, (Hurd, et al. 2002), wolves maintain balance and diversity within our natural environment. If we wait to take action, it may be too late to save this ecologically important species, and we will continue to lose biodiversity. Currently, most protected areas are too small and too isolated to ensure adequate protection of biodiversity and ecological integrity, (CPAWS, 2007).

Source populations of wolves residing in Banff National Park (BNP) have historically come from OUTSIDE the park, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002). Furthermore, biologists researching wolves in BNP recognize that the mostly alpine and subalpine habitats within the park provide less than optimal conditions for wolves to establish territories, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002). Wolves that are able to stay within BNP have greater survival rates than wolves outside the boundaries, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002).   Jim Pissot, executive director of Defenders of Wildlife tells us that most packs that summer in protected areas winter at lower elevations in non-protected areas where the elk are, (Alberta Wildlife Enhancement Society, 2003). As of 2004, at least 2 of every 10 adult wolves were dying in BNP each year, which is a rate considered to be sustainable, but definitely high for a protected area, (Parks Canada, 2004). The park has stated “to have wolves inside the park, we need healthy wolf populations and accessible habitat outside the park”, (Parks Canada, 2004). This will not be possible in the future unless we take steps now. 

Kootenay and Yoho National Parks (KNP and YNP) both share low ungulate densities as well, causing wolves to require enormous territories to find an adequate prey base, (Kootenay National Park of Canada, 2008), and (Parks Canada, 2006). 

The wolf pack in Kootenay requires a territory of almost 3,ooo km², as only ¼ of the valley bottom is suitable for prey, (Kootenay National Park of Canada, 2008). Wolves collared in KNP travel as far as 250 km outside of Park boundaries, (Kootenay National Park of Canada, 2008). The last pack residing in Yoho covered an area of about 1,000 km², (Parks Canada, 2006). As of 2000, Yoho National Park recognized that it “did not contain sufficient habitat and prey animals to wholly support a wolf pack”, and stated that Yoho wolves would “always be dependent on adjacent provincial lands”, (Parks Canada, 2006). YNP has identified that in order for wolves to be present in the area, the park must work with private landowners, local citizens and recreationists, (Parks Canada, 2006), quintessentially, this will require the formation of buffer zones. 

In 2002 the Central Rockies Wolf Project indicated that out of 12 packs, 9 needed protection beyond the National Parks if ecological integrity were to be maintained without wolves being introduced from other regions, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002). Researcher Carolyn Callahan of the Central Rockies Wolf Project tells us that “very few wolves that occupy [the Bow Valley region in BNP] are actually fully protected by national parks”, (Ellis, 2002).

A year-round ban on hunting and trapping in the areas surrounding these National Parks will likely reduce the annual mortality rate of wolves and assist in achieving stable populations. For example, over a period of 4 years (winter 1999 – spring 2004), 13 adult wolves died within the boundaries of BNP, which greatly exceeds a sustainable rate of loss, (Banff National Park of Canada, 2004). 

Banff National Park has already asked the province of Alberta to limit access to motorized vehicles surrounding the Park, requesting a buffer zone be placed around the boundaries in this regard, (Syme, 2003). BNP has also recognized that wolf numbers reflect the level of human-caused mortality, (Parks Canada, 2004).

Although wolves require and adequate prey base, the defining factor in wolf persistence is protection from humans, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002). Human use and access can be can be directly linked to wolf mortality rates and locations, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002). Where prey abundance is low, human use becomes even more significant to adversely affect wolves.

In 2002 Banff National Park’s wildlife biologist Tom Hurd affirmed that in areas with low ungulate populations, such as Yoho and Kootenay, emphasis needs to be placed on reducing human-caused mortality of wolves, and developing co-ordinated inter-jurisdictional objectives, (Hurd, et al. 2002). Indeed, biologists have recommended that human-caused mortality of wolves must be minimized to manage the decline of wolves in the area, and it has even been suggested that population restoration may be required, (Dalman, et al. 2002). We can prevent this.

KEY POINTS: 

• the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) is endangered in many parts of its former range around the northern hemisphere, but not protected outside of Canada’s National Parks.

• The wolf population in many areas of Canada, like the Central Rocky Mountains, is among the lowest density of wolves in the world, and yet Canada supposedly has one of the highest populations left in the world

• Our protected areas are not big enough to maintain a healthy population of wolves

• The territory of wolf packs living in National Parks often extends OUTSIDE protected areas

• Human-caused mortality is the biggest threat to long-tern health of wolf populations

• pressure from industrial, commercial, and recreational activities are compromising the ecological integrity of Canadian National Parks.

• wolf numbers decline beyond park boundaries, with hunting and trapping being the major cause of mortality, and human-caused mortality being the biggest threat to long-term health of wolf populations.

• the Rocky Mountain corridor is vital in maintaining gene flow of wolves between Canada and the United States.

• these wolves are of significance to all Canadians & naturalists worldwide.

References

1. Hummel, M. & Pettigrew, S.1991. Wild Hunters – Predators In Peril. Key Porter Books Ltd.  

2. Hurd, T. White, C., Pengelly, I., & Pacas, C. 2002. Humans, Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow (HWEAW) Research Overview. From Proceedings of Humans, Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop, Session 1: The Current Situation in the Banff Bow Valley. Banff, Alberta.

3. Hebblewhite, M., Nietvelt, C., White, C., McKenzie, J. & Hurd, T. 2002. Wolves As A Keystone Species in Montane Ecosystems of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Proceedings of Humans, Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop, Session 2: Into The Future: Predation, Predation Risk, and Low Density Prey Populations. Banff, Alberta.

4. Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues. 2002. From Proceedings of Humans, Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop, Evening Session. Banff, Alberta.

5. Dalman, D., Shury, T., & White, C. 2002. Workshop Synthesis. From Proceedings of Humans, Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop. Banff, Alberta.

6. Ellis, C. 2002. Parks Canada Asks Alberta to Help Protect Wolves. Calgary Herald. Calgary, Alberta.

7. Syme, I. 2003. Chief Park Warden for Banff Field Unit, Parks Canada. Alberta Wildlife Enhancement Society. www.wildlife-enhancement.ca

8.  Alberta Wildlife Enhancement Society. 2003. Co-operation Called For To Save Wolves. www.wildlife-enhancement.ca

9. Kootenay National Park of Canada. 2008. Natural Wonders and Cultural Treasures. Kootenay National Park Website. http://www.parcscanada.com/pn-np/bc/kootenay/natcul/natcul7_E.asp

10. Parks Canada. 2006. Yoho National Park of Canada – Natural Wonders – Wolf Research and Management. www.pc.gc.ca.pn-np/bc/yoho/natcul20_E.asp

11. Parks Canada. 2004. Banff National Park of Canada. How Many Wolves are in Banff National Park? Banff Website

12. Defenders of Wildlife. 2006. Statistics. www.defenders.org

13. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Northern Alberta. 2007. Parks Watch Report.

14. Environment Canada, 2006. Canadian Protected Areas Status Report 2000 – 2005. Government of Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.

15. Hebblewhite et al.2005. Human Activity Mediates a Trophic Cascade Caused By Wolves. Ecology 86 (8)

16. Banff National Park of Canada. 2004.HJD

17. Parks Canada Newsletter, Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks of Canada, 20 

18.  

    ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES OF WOLVES
    IN THE BOW VALLEY
    OFBANFFNATIONALPARK
     
    A review of wolf behaviour patterns in a human dominated environment.
     
    Guenther Bloch; Canid Behaviour Center (Hunde-Farm Eifel)
    E-mail: canidexpert@aol.com
     
    Mike Gibeau; Parks Canada.
    E-mail: mike.gibeau@pc.gc.ca
     
     
    There has been an ongoing debate among scientists, wildlife managers and the public about what is considered “wild”. However, “wild” is a human concept. In reality, individuals of many different species can display a wide variety of behaviours. Some of these behaviours fall into the category of what we consider “wild” and some do not.
     
    So what is “wild”?
    In African national parks for instance an entire industry has been built upon close observations of all types of “wild animals”. All of these observations have included countless encounters with predators such as lions, leopards and African wild dogs. The phenomena of wolves adapting to a human dominated environment and interacting with people, is not new. In fact, there are many documented examples of wolves coexisting with humans around the world. Here are some remarkable examples:
     
    • 1.) Wolves in Africa: Over the last decade, wild Ethiopian wolves were closely observed on a daily base by biologist D. Mcdonald & C. Sillero-Zubiri (2006). These unique wolves did not show significant signs of fear and adapted well to the regular presence of cross country vehicles. The wolves were hunting small prey species and even interacting with livestock guardian dogs as witnessed by field researchers.
     
    • 2.) Wolves in Europe: In most European countries, wolves and other predators live in cultivated landscapes that are not considered “wilderness”. Zoologist E. Zimen’s (1986, 1990) studies in Italy showed wolves drinking well water in villages. Erik Zimen (2003) also observed “wild” wolves playing in the cornfields near the city of Leon, Spain, while tractors and farmers were present.
    • Recently, there have been several TV reports from both Romania and Germany documenting some astonishing adaptive strategies of wild wolves. The members of a Romanian wolf pack regularly traveled through the suburbs of the city of Brassov as part of their normal routine. Likewise, it became a well known fact that several German wolf packs established their territories on military base properties. German wolves were not only traveling along coal slag heaps and villages, but also scent marking roads as part of their home ranges.
     
    • 3.) Wolves in Canada/USA: Over three decades ago, field biologist E. Grace (1976) documented prolonged encounters with wolves near the Eureka weather station on Ellesmere Island. J. Halfpenny (2003), D. Smith & colleagues (2002-2008), as well as R. McIntire (2005) have chronicled a highly visible wolf population in the Yellowstone ecosystem. This has led to not only thousands of people watching wolves, but these wolves adapting to humans as well. In Denali National Park, wolves also use human infrastructure (including roads), making them highly visible to people (Mech 1998).
     
    • 4.) Wolves in Captivity: In the words of ethologist E. Klinghammer (2001), even wolves living in enclosures (that have been tamed by, and socialized with humans) should still be referred to as “wild”.
     
    • 5.) Bow Valley Wolves: It is widely accepted among scientists that habitat dictates behaviour (Hummel 1991, Mech 1988, Hebblewhite 2000, Bekoff 2006, Mech & Boitani 2003). Consequently, there can be no doubt that the wolves of the Bow Valley show a high degree of behavioural flexibility. Over decades, their habitat specific behaviour routines have been strongly influenced and shaped by a human-made infrastructure.
     
    So the question, whether Bow Valley wolves should be considered “wild” or not can easily be answered:  Yes, they were and still are wild predators.
     
     
    Summary of the history of wolves in the Bow Valley
    It is the understanding of the authors that the Bow Valley in Banff National Park (BNP) should not be considered “wilderness”. Like other parts in the world, the Bow Valley is characterized by human infrastructure and a multitude of human activities. More than any other area in BNP, the Bow Valley is fragmented by the Highway (TCH), the CP Railway (CPR) as well as the Parkway (1A), many secondary off-roads, powerlines and campgrounds (Callaghan 2002). P. Paquet (2009) suggests that wolves in the Bow Valley must contend with multiple threats to their livelihood. In essence, he maintains this impoverished environment is a “wilderness ghetto” for wolves.
     
    By the late 1980’s BNP Wardens verified that two or more wolf packs had become established in or near the central Bow Valley (Mickle et al. 1986).  Rick Kunelius was the first to observe a wolf interacting with people on the Parkway. In 1987, he observed a young female wolf known as “Gaby” following the road maintenance crew in a curious but not aggressive manner. In the early 1990’s, as wolves were becoming more common, a section of the Bow Valley Parkway became known as “wolf alley” due to frequent sightings on the road.
     
    From 1995 onward, the pack dynamics of both the “Castle Mountain Pack” and the “Spray Pack” changed, resulting in only one pack known as the “Bow Valley Pack”. All of these wolves were observed using the railway regularly as a travel corridor (Callaghan 2002). Additionally, wolves traveling the Parkway were documented on a nearly daily basis (Bloch 2002, 2004). Pups were raised in the “traditional and cultural” environment of their parents and emulated established patterns of behaviour (Paquet 2009).  These observations included passing parked cars, as well as both walking and resting on the roadway. The wolves appeared not to discriminate among various vehicles, displaying these behaviours around the parked cars of visitors, CP, powerline and gas maintenance crews (Bloch & Bloch 2002).
     
    In addition to the “Bow Valley Pack”, another group of wolves emerged in 1999 and became known as the “Fairholme Pack”. As theses wolves adapted to human presence, they too started using human infrastructure including roads and rails as travel routes. The Fairholme wolves were even hunting and killing so called “town elk” very successfully. By 2002 both packs had collapsed due to high mortality rates and a low prey base. In 2009 the Bow Valley wolves were displaced by a new group, later known as the “Pipestone Pack”. Interestingly, this pack has also adapted to the human dominated environment extremely quickly and is now using the Parkway, railway and other infrastructure on a regular basis.
     
     
    Understanding behavioural dynamics of wolf packs:
    D. Mech (1999) described the social structure of wild wolves as “parent-offspring-dominance-systems”. Life in social groups holds a variety of benefits such as protection from other predators, cooperative defence of food, and collective rearing of offspring as well as the opportunity for long-ranging social relationships (Fengler 2009). For the same reasons, Bow Valley wolves also tend to build family groups so that they can benefit from them.
     
    Use of technology such as radio collars and even remote cameras has helped to provide some ecological insights, but the important and intimate details that are the essence of behaviour are best revealed via direct observation (Paquet 2009). It is widely agreed among scientists that long-term ground observations are the basis to understanding the social organization of wolf packs, to determine the sex, social status, colour, individual fitness and character of each adult and juvenile wolf (Murie 1985, Coscia 1991, Carbyn et al. 1993, Mech 1998, Bloch & Callaghan 2000, Peterson 2008, Smith et al. 2005). Therefore, we have been involved in direct behaviour observations since summer 1992 under the direction of Paul Paquet, from 1995 under the direction of Carolyn Callaghan (Central Rockies Wolf Project) and since 2003 with carnivore specialist Mike Gibeau.
     
    Our most important finding was that the social organization of Bow Valley wolves did not conform to the generally accepted and conventional view of rigid and hierarchical group relationships. In fact, dominance interactions occurred frequently between females and males (Bloch & Dettling 2009, Paquet 2009). Even breeding females that were no longer fertile maintained their high ranking social status while allowing other females in the pack to produce pups. Individual wolves responded differently to roads, railways and wildlife crossing structures. These responses were developed through different social bonding with breeding wolves (parents), early experiences with roads, railways and through individual temperament. The movement patterns of the wolves in the Bow Valley that consisted of individuals with variable behavioural character types were not always cohesive (Bloch & Bloch 2002).
     
    We have documented many changes in wolf population dynamics, improved general understanding of the adaptation and/or habituation processes involved in wolves living in areas close to humans and their vehicles, and contributed to knowledge regarding  the effects of human activities, infrastructure and cars on movement patterns, hunting patterns and mortality risks pertaining to wolves (Bloch 2002, Bloch & Dettling 2009).
     
    The difference between adaptation and habituation
    Even today there seems to be some confusion among park personnel, wildlife managers, photographers and the general public about the terms “adaptation” versus “habituation”. However, German ethologist D. Feddersen-Petersen (2004) describes:
     
    a.)     adaptation as “a characteristic which increases individuals’ overall fitness through adjusting or conforming”
    b.)    habituation as “a learning process, in which individuals stop reacting to stimuli that have no consequences”.
     
    In this context, the Bow Valley wolves, using human infrastructure, are often wrongly classified as being “too habituated”. In fact, what we are seeing is adaptation to their specific environment. According to wolf biolgist D. Smith (2003), central to wolf management is an understanding of wolf behaviour, especially what constitutes normal versus abnormal. P. Paquet (2009) suggests that “individual wolves are unique in their behaviour and habits, the actions and traditions of wolf families reflect the collective interactions of these unique individuals”.
     
    According to Smith (2003), “Wolves living in fragmented habitats, or areas with partial to frequent human presence, generally show a high degree of tolerance towards human activity and infrastructure, but still exhibit avoidance and fear in direct encounters. In such areas, wolves traveling near human developments, using roads as travel corridors, and showing a certain level of curiosity towards human activity, should all be considered normal wolf behaviour, because these behaviours reflect wolves’ natural ability to adapt to their surroundings”.
     
    Why do the wolves of the Bow Valley behave as they do?
    Based on nearly 20 years of work and over 9,000 direct observations of behaviour patterns of Bow Valley wolves, we conclude that their behaviour has been shaped by the infrastructure of the Bow Valley. Between 39-59% of all direct behaviour observations and sightings were of wolves in proximity to human infrastructure such as the Parkway and railway (Bloch & Dettling 2009). We can draw a number of general conclusions from these observations:
     
    • 1.)Wolves are often described as “intelligent” animals (Bekoff 1977, Brandenburg 1990, Fox 1978, Mech 1977, Feddersen-Petersen 2008). However, “intelligence” is more complex than most people believe. Based on K. Kotrschal’s (2003) findings, there is not only social intelligence, but also “collective, emotional and habitat intelligence”. Adult wolves in the Bow Valley pass this “habitat intelligence” (including their adaptive behaviour strategies in using human infrastructure) on to young wolves over multiple generations as a form of “landscape mapping”
     
    • 2.) K. Lorenz (1961, 1970) originally developed the concept of social imprinting. A. Hess (1973) and E. Klinghammer (1994) later expanded the concept to include “food and habitat imprinting”. In the case of the Bow Valley wolves all, of their den sites have been observed close to human infrastructure. This exposes wolf pups to the sights, smells and acoustics of humans at a very early age. Coppinger et al. (2000) found that by the age of 18 weeks, 80% of all adult wolf characteristics were already “hard wired” in the brain. It is no wonder that Bow Valley wolves are accustomed to the presence of people, cars, trains and roadways.
     
    • 3.) Wolves are forced to use a lot of energy while traveling through deep snow (Pulliainen 1982). As an adaptation to their environment, Bow Valley wolves take advantage of a number of energy saving opportunities. In the winter any smart wolf would not travel in deep or wet snow when they can save energy by walking on the road. Furthermore, in the late spring and early summer, wolves have been observed using roads and rails during the high waters of spring runoff (Bloch & Dettling 2009). Lastly, because of the predominating influence of a low density prey base, wolves especially in the western part of the Bow Valley must travel long distances. The older wolves get the more they maximize their use of human infrastructure to minimize their energy output.
     
    • 4.) Ethologists and behavioural biologists separate animal behaviour into two general personality types: the A type and the B type (Bibikow 1988, Wilson 1998, Bloch 2004, Ganslosser 1998, 2007, Bloch 2007). The A type is characterized as “bold, extrovert and daring”. The B type is characterized as “shy, introvert and reserved”. This explains why some wolf individuals are nonchalant around roads and people, while other individuals panic when confronted with new situations. In the same manner, some individuals in the Bow Valley wolf pack will walk right past parked cars (A type), while others will detour around them (B type).
     
    • 5.) It is recognized that wolf packs are not led exclusively by the so-called “alpha male” (Mech 2000, Bloch 2001, Smith 2002, Ganslosser 2007). To that end, a strict linear social rank order was not evident among the Bow Valley wolves. Social status was not related to sex, with females often functioning as group leaders and acting as the primary decision makers within packs (Paquet 2009, Bloch & Dettling 2009). Given this, all combinations of age, sex and social rank could be perceived as “leading” the group when in proximity to human infrastructure.
     
    •  6.) All canids use scent marking as a primary means of communication. Bow Valley wolves often use human infrastructure to scent mark and delineate their central territory. These chemical messages are crucial to establish the Parkway as part of their territory for other wolves, coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs. Canids also more typically scent mark natural objects such as rocks, bushes, trees and diverging pathways.
     
    Aggression or not?
     The general interpretation of “aggressive behaviour” in wolves has been confused or misunderstood with “predatory behaviour” in the past. There is a body of literature describing “functional systems” in canids (Immelmann 1979, Trumler 1987, Feddersen-Petersen 2004, Kappeler 2006, Zimen 2003). “Aggressive behaviour” is generally related to the functional system of defending offspring, food and self defence. These three classic forms of aggression can only be intensified by the phenomena best described by behaviour biologists as priming (Ganslosser 2007). Furthermore, these forms of aggression may be both “interspecific” (aggression against non-group members) as well as “intraspecific” (aggression among group members). By contrast, predatory behaviour is related to food acquisition and has nothing do with aggression (Ganslosser 1998, Zimen 2003).
     
    In addition, there are behavioural functional systems which relate to territoriality. Wolves tend to aggressively defend their core home ranges (preferred resting and sleeping spots, rendezvous areas, territory boundaries) against competitors such as bears, cougars, coyotes, foxes and other wolf packs. However, all of these functional systems come with a clear distinguishable set of body language (Ohl 1999, Feddersen-Petersen 2008). This is the reason people must learn to understand and recognize differences in body language in order to correctly interpret wolf behaviour. For example:
     
    1.)    Wolves chasing prey are not aggressive. Any wolf approaching a prey species will show an “automatic” series of predatory sequences (eye-stalk-chase). It is important to note that predatory behaviour always comes along with typical “streamlined” body postures (hackles and tail down, no stiff body posture, no growling or snarling).
     
    2.)    When a wolf approaches people it does not necessarily mean it is being “aggressive”. On the contrary, most of the time, it is often a young wolf who would behave this way out of curiosity. Its body language is neutral and “relaxed” (hackles and tail down, no stiff body posture, no growling or snarling). However, it may let out a short “wuff” to express alarm in an unexpected situation.
     
    3.)    If a person were to approach either a carcass or a den site area, a wolf may display antagonistic body language signalling  aggression (hackles and tail up, stiff body posture, growling or snarling).
     
    4.)    Wolves that become “food conditioned” to human food or garbage are a serious problem that can result in wolves showing/displaying aggression towards people. There is a progression of behaviour that starts with begging and may lead to demanding food in an aggressive way.  
     
     
    Mortality: the down side to adaptation
    Many wolves have been killed over the years in the Bow Valley due to interactions  with human infrastructure (TCH, CPR, Parkway). The situation is complicated by wolves accessing the TCH through holes in the existing fence. Hunting or chasing small prey such as snowshoe hare, squirrels etc., is one reason wolves continue to find holes in the TCH fence (Bloch & Dettling 2009). However, Bow Valley wolves’ familiarity with using human infrastructure elevates their probability of being struck by a vehicle or train. Even though these wolves are completely familiar with roads and vehicles, they do not pay attention to traffic while hunting. This single minded focus on hunting is hard wired, once the sequence is initiated. This is exacerbated by low prey densities as wolves in the Bow Valley have few opportunities to hunt large prey.
     
    In the past, hazing and aversive conditioning have complicated both traveling and hunting patterns for wolves as little or no attention was given to individual behaviour character types. Hazing “A type” wolves can be successful in driving them away from the Parkway, but it can also increase their mortality risk through increasing their exposure to the railway and TCH. It is typical for “A type” wolves to become totally confused when confronted with a situation (in this case hazing) they cannot control (Ganslosser 1998).
     
     
    Final remarks:
    Adaptive behaviour is wide spread in many species around the globe. People have accepted this adaptability even in the Bow Valley with some species such as coyotes (Gibeau 1993). So why is there so much misunderstanding when it comes to adaptive behaviour strategies in wolves? One possible explanation is that wolves have somehow become a symbol of our human notion of “wilderness”. The literature is full of references of wolves being an indicator of wilderness. Of course, wolves can live anywhere, as long as they are given the opportunity to adapt to their surroundings.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Literature cited:
     
    Bekoff, M. (1977): Social communications in canids: Evidence for the evolution of a stereotyped mammalian display; Science No. 1977.
     
    Bekoff, M. (2006): Animal passions and beastly virtues, reflections on redecorating nature; Temple University Press.
     
    Bibikow, D. (1988): Der Wolf; Neue Brehm Bucherei.
     
    Bloch, G. (2001): Alpha-concept, dominance and leadership in wolf families; Canid Behaviour Center.
     
    Bloch, G. (2002): The influence of highway traffic on movement patterns of the bow valley wolf pack; Report to Parks Canada. Canid Behaviour Center.
     
    Bloch, G. & K. (2002): Timberwolf Yukon & Co; Kynos.
     
    Bloch, G. (2004): Der Wolf im Hundepelz; Kosmos.
     
    Bloch, G. (2007): Die Pizza-Hunde; Kosmos.
     
    Bloch, G. & Callaghan, C. (2000): Den site monitoring, summary report 1988-2000; Central Rockies Wolf Project.
     
    Bloch, G., Dettling, P., Paquet, P. & Gibeau, M. (2009): Auge in Auge mit dem Wolf; Kosmos.
     
    Brandenburg, J. (1990): White Wolf: Living with an arctic legend; Northwood Press.
     
    Callaghan, C. (2002): The Ecology of Gray Wolf: habitat use, survival and persistence in the central rocky mountains, Canada; Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of zoology, university of Guelph.
     
    Carbyn, L., Oosenbrug, S. & Anions, D. (1993): Wolves, Bison and the dynamics related to the Peace-Athabasca delta in Canada’s wood buffalo national park; Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Series 4.
     
    Coppinger, R., James, K. & Feinstein, M. (2000): Kennel Enrichment; Hampshire College Dog Study Program.
     
    Ganslosser, U. (1998): Saeugetierverhalten; Filander.
     
    Ganslosser, U. (2007): Verhaltensbiolgie fuer Hundehalter; Kosmos.
     
    Gibeau, M. (1993): Use of urban habitats by coyotes in the vicinity of Banff, Alberta. Master of Sciences thesis, University of Montana.
     
    Feddersen-Petersen, D. (2004): Hundepsychologie; Kosmos.
     
    Feddersen-Petersen, D. (2008): Ausdrucksverhalten beim Hund; Kosmos.
     
    Fengler, M. (2009): Conflict management of social canids; Master thesis, University of Bonn.
     
    Fox, M. (1978): The Dog: Its domestication and behaviour; Garland Press.
     
    Grace, E. (1976): Interactions between men and wolves at an arctic outpost on Ellesmere Island; Dept. of Zoology, University of Toronto.
     
    Halfpenny, J. (2003): Yellowstone Wolves, in the wild; Riverbend Publishing.
     
    Hebblewhite, M. (2000): Wolf and elk predator-prey dynamics in BNP; Master of Science thesis, University of Montana.
     
    Hess, E. (1973): Early experiences and the developmental psychobiology of attachments; D. van Nostrant Company.
     
    Hummel, M. (1991): Wild Hunters: Predators in peril; Key Porter Books.
     
    Immelmann, K. (1979): Einfuehrung in die Verhaltensforschung; Parey.
     
    Kappeler, P. (2006): Verhaltensbiologie; Springer.
     
    Klinghammer, E. (1994): Praegung und fruehkindliche Erfahrungen; Ethology Series No.3; Eckhard Hess Institute of Ethology.
     
    Klinghammer, E., Goodman, P. & Willard, J. (2001): Wolf Ethogram; Ethology series No.3, Eckhardt Hess Institute of Ethology.
     
    Kotrschal, K. (2003): Im Egoismus vereint? Tiere und Menschentier – das neue Weltbild der Verhaltensforschung; Filander.
     
    Lorenz, K. (1961): Phylogenetische Anpassung und adaptive Modifikation des Verhaltens; Zoologische Tierpsychologie 18, pp. 139-187.
     
    Lorenz, K. (1970): Studies of Human and Animal Behaviour; Harvard University Press.
    Mcdonald, D. & Sillero-Zubiri eds: (2006) in Wilde Hunde; Filander.
     
    McIntyre, R. (2005): A personal reflection of an end of an era, in: Smith et al., Yellowstone Wolf Project; annual report 2004.
     
    Mech, D. (1977): The Wolf, the ecology and behaviour of an endangered species; University of Minnesota Press.
     
    Mech, D. (1988): The Arctic Wolf, living with the pack; Key Porter Books.
     
    Mech, D. (1998): The Wolves of Denali; University of Minnesota Press.
     
    Mech, D. (1999): Alpha Status, Dominance, and division of labour in wolf packs; Canadian Journal of Zoology 77.
     
    Mech, D. (2000): Leadership in Wolf Packs; Canadian Field Naturalist 114.
     
    Mech, D. & Boitani, L. (2003): Wolves, behaviour, ecology and conservation; University of Chicago Press.
     
    Mickle, D., Fortin, G. & Kurnelius, R. (1986): Status of Wolves in Banff National Park; Parks Canada, BNP Warden Service.
     
    Murie, A. (1985): The Wolves of Mount McKinley; University of Washington Press.
     
    Ohl, F. (1999): Koerpersprache des Hundes; Ulmer.
     
    Paquet, P. (1993): Ecological studies of recolonizing wolves in the Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Final Report 1989-1993; John, Paul & Associates.
     
    Paquet, P. (2009): Preface and introduction in: Bloch & Dettling; Auge in Auge mit dem Wolf; Kosmos.
     
    Peterson, R. (2008): The Wolves of Isle Royale, a broken balance; B&T Publications.
     
    Pulliainen, E. (1982): Behaviour and structure of an expanding wolf population in Karelia, Northern Europe in: Harrington, F. & Paquet, P. (eds.): Wolves of the world, pp. 134-145.
     
    Smith, D. (2002): Wolf Pack Leadership; Howling Publications, Central Rockies Wolf Project.
     
    Smith, D., Stahler, D. & Guernsey, D. (2002-2008): Yellowstone Wolf Project, annual reports 2002-2008; National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources.
     
    Smith, D. (2003): Management of Habituated Wolves in Yellowstone National Park; National Park Service.
     
    Trumler, E. (1987): Mit dem Hund auf Du; Piper.
     
    Wilson, D. (1998): Adaptive individual differences within single populations; Phil. Trans.R.Soc.Land, No.333, pp. 199-205.
     
    Zimen, E. (1986): The Wolf, his place in the natural world; Souvenir Press.
     
    Zimen, E. (1990): Wildwege Europas; Knesebeck & Schuler.
     
    Zimen, E. (1998): Ehtologie des Wolfes; ATN Publikation.
     
    Zimen, E. (2003): Der Wolf, Kosmos.