Mixed Messages about Opportunistic Carnivores

The Wolves of Algonquin Park. A 12 Year Ecological Study . J. B. Theberge, and M. T. Theberge . University of Waterloo Monograph 56 . 168 pp . $20.00 (paperback) . ISBN 0-921083-67-X . Wolves are well studied. This is partly because they rank among the most controversial wildlife species in North America and arguably in the world. I met recently with a group of wildlife managers from Asia interested only in killing wolves, stating that we had done a good job in America and could I spare them the biological details. But more study is warranted because, despite recent range expansion in both North America and Europe, wolves are still a species in need of conservation attention. Throughout much of history, wolf death has come about emotionally and fearfully, not scientifically or even logically. Values, opinion, culture, and myths have all played into why wolves have died in such great numbers. Add to this some recent biological justification, and the case to kill wolves is often compelling. Some would say airtight. And consider too that wolves are a very opportunistic and adaptable species, resilient to a degree in the face of human persecution and habitat alteration. They are quite forgiving to management blunders. Why concern ourselves with more wolf study? John and Mary Theberge, a husband and wife team studying wolves in Algonquin Provincial Park for 12 years, make the case that wolves may not be as resilient as we think and that sometimes they are deserving of a great deal of protection. They also show that it can take time to tease out important ecological details. Algonquin wolf research began in 1959 with Douglas Pimlott, considered one of the early leaders and visionaries in the world of wolf research (add Adolph Murie and Durward Allen and one has the early pioneers). John Theberge, the senior author of the monograph, worked for Pimlott as a technician from 1959 to 1962 and uses his familiarity with the earlier work (Pimlott et al. 1969) to make comparisons to his more recent data. Throughout the monograph, frequent referrals to this earlier time are made. Strung together the Pimlott et al. and Theberge et al. (J. Theberge was a professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario for 30 years and supervised numerous graduate students on Algonquin wolf studies) investigations span 40 years, providing an impressive long-term data set. And despite the departure of the Theberges, it is not over in Algonquin Park. Brent Patterson of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Dennis Murray from Trent University continue to study wolves in the park and have intensified the work (e.g., more radio-collared wolves, more aerial work). As well they should, because there are many issues worthy of continued study. An early example of the Pimlott versus Theberge comparisons is in chapter 2, the subject of which is how morphologically unique are Algonquin wolves and are they changing. The Theberges contend that Algonquin wolves now are different from what they were, smaller and more coyote-like, and are something altogether different from the gray wolves that occur in much greater numbers to the north. This difference they state warrants greater protection and conservation attention. Algonquin wolves were originally classified as a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus lycaon (Hall & Kelson 1959). Recent work by the Theberges and others (Wilson et al. 2000) has cast doubt on this classification, suggesting instead that Algonquin wolves may be more closely related to red wolves (Canis rufus) that currently are present in North Carolina but historically ranged throughout the U.S. Southeast (some would say they had an even wider range; see Nowak [2002] for a more detailed discussion of gray wolf and red wolf taxonomy and interbreeding). This reclassification has not been accepted universally (Grewal et al. 2000), and they acknowledge a lack of statistical significance between their data and Pimlott's. Nonetheless they make the case that Algonquin wolves are different and therefore rare, inferring greater value than nearby wolf populations. They suggest possible new species status: Canis lycaon, Algonquin wolf. They cite data on body size (Pimlott et al.'s [1969] wolves are larger than 1990s wolves), skull characteristics (smaller anywhere from 1 to 6%), and scat diameters (smallest of any regional wolf population, statistically different from three of five populations). The main reason for this downward slide in wolfish traits is hybridization with coyotes. Since Pimlott's time, coyotes have become much more common in the Algonquin area, especially to the south of the park, and interbreeding with Algonquin wolves is occurring and making wolves more coyote-like. This kind of hybridization also has been documented for red wolves in the southeastern United States (Phillips et al. 2003). The argument is made that undisturbed tracks of land will favor the Algonquin wolf over coyotes. Coyote intermixing also may be occurring at a higher rate than during Pimlott's time because the Theberges found a remarkable shift in wolf movements (chapter 5). Historically Algonquin park wolves were park wolves, but beginning in 1990–1991 the Theberges documented a shift in wintertime behavior in which two-thirds of the wolves from the east side of the park migrated out of the park to a winter deer yard (Round Lake). From a purely biological perspective, this was a fascinating discovery in that most wolf populations do not migrate (caribou-feeding wolves and wolves in Wood Buffalo National Park, Alberta, are notable exceptions). From a strictly biological standpoint there is a lot here in terms of wolf biology: collapse of territoriality among intermixing packs on the deer yard, more tolerance for wandering wolves, more frequent scavenging of other packs' kills. Most important, though, this “new” migratory behavior not only exposed wolves to more coyotes (the deer yard is in an area of high human density, where coyotes are more common and the wolf breeding season is midwinter) but also exposed them to more humans, and historically wolf–human relations have not always been amicable. Wolf mortality is the subject of chapter 4, but it is also discussed and related to population size in chapter 3. Human-caused death was >60% (Fig. 4.1) throughout the study, and average annual mortality was 33%, which is right at the sustainable mortality rate for wolf populations (Keith 1983; although Mech [1970] suggests mortality can be higher). High wolf mortality in Algonquin affects wolf density (declining, Fig. 3.1), pack sizes (declining, Fig. 3.2), high year-to-year variation in survival (Table 3.1), and low yearling recruitment (Table 3.1). With these data they used a vortex model to predict the future of the population and found that they all lead to extinction, with the median time to extinction of 26 years. Some, however, do not agree with this modeling assessment. It is hard to find any good news in all of this. But there is some. In 2003 the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources enacted a ban on harvest of wolves in the park and the surrounding townships, which includes the Round Lake deer yard. This is an unprecedented conservation move. I work in Yellowstone National Park, and such a measure here would be impossible, in fact ludicrous to suggest, because the opposition would be so monumental. (Denali National Park in Alaska and Banff National Park in Alberta, to name a couple, wrestle with the same issue because the park boundaries are hard ones—a wolf leaves and it is subject to harvest). As a conservation measure for large carnivores this is surely noteworthy. Certainly this is cause for optimism. A major concern for hybridization was keeping an Algonquin wolf population intact and protected from disturbance so they would be able to fend off the advancing coyotes (which is the same strategy for North Carolina's red wolves). Increasing wolf survivability certainly is a step in the right direction, but recent research by Patterson and Murray suggests that the ban is sometimes ignored. Currently it seems the Algonquin wolf system has returned to one in which the population is regulated more naturally through density-dependent effects of competition. But concerns go beyond hybridization. Logging, increasing road density, climate change, and declining moose density (a major wolf prey in Algonquin and to the north), possibly connected with climate change, temper the optimism, and because wolf killing is value laden and insensitive to these concerns the future may not be as bright as one might to think, even with increased protection. Is there a conservation message here? The main one is that long-term research does reap benefits. Administrators are often skeptical of ongoing work, believing that we already know enough. But deep knowledge of the details is invaluable and can lead to wise management decisions (but not always because politics will play a role). Consider the Isle Royale wolf and moose studies. After five decades, researchers are still learning new things, and some of this knowledge is among our most treasured in ecology. Another lesson is that change takes time. Once the information is learned, its application comes over time. It also takes time to build a network, learn the key players, and develop a rapport with them. The Theberges exemplified this process as well as any. A lot is known about wolves and the Algonquin system. Studies continue, the harvest ban is permanent, for now moose and deer still exist in adequate numbers, the park is secure (although hunting and logging both take place within park boundaries), and wolf densities are up slightly since the Theberge study. Their monograph and the more popular version of the story (Wolf Country: Eleven Years Tracking the Algonquin Wolves) allow one a fairly good look into 40 years of wolf research in Algonquin. If one also reads Pimlott et al. (1969), the mixed messages of hope and despair that everywhere characterize the conservation of this opportunistic carnivore will become clear.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.