Several conceptual models describing patterns of prey selection by predators have been proposed, but such models rarely have been tested empirically, particularly with terrestrial carnivores. We examined patterns of prey selection by sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and cougars (Puma concolor) to determine i) if both predators selected disadvantaged prey disproportionately from the prey population, and ii) if the specific nature and intensity of prey selection differed according to disparity in hunting behavior between predator species. We documented prey characteristics and kill site attributes of predator kills during winters 1999–2001 in Idaho, and located 120 wolf‐killed and 98 cougar‐killed ungulates on our study site. Elk (Cervus elephus) were the primary prey for both predators, followed by mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Both predators preyed disproportionately on elk calves and old individuals; among mule deer, wolves appeared to select for fawns, whereas cougars killed primarily adults. Nutritional status of prey, as determined by percent femur marrow fat, was consistently poorer in wolf‐killed prey. We found that wolf kills occurred in habitat that was more reflective of the entire study area than cougar kills, suggesting that the coursing hunting behavior of wolves likely operated on a larger spatial scale than did the ambush hunting strategy of cougars. We concluded that the disparity in prey selection and hunting habitat between predators probably was a function of predator‐specific hunting behavior and capture success, where the longer prey chases and lower capture success of wolf packs mandated a stronger selection for disadvantaged prey. For cougars, prey selection seemed to be limited primarily by prey size, which could be a function of the solitary hunting behavior of this species and the risks associated with capturing prime‐aged prey.

Managers of recovering wolf (Canis lupus) populations require knowledge regarding the potential impacts caused by the loss of territorial, breeding wolves when devising plans that aim to balance population goals with human concerns. Although ecologists have studied wolves extensively, we lack an understanding of this phenomenon as published records are sparse. Therefore, we pooled data (n = 134 cases) on 148 territorial breeding wolves (75 M and 73 F) from our research and published accounts to assess the impacts of breeder loss on wolf pup survival, reproduction, and territorial social groups. In 58 of 71 cases (84%), ≥1 pup survived, and the number or sex of remaining breeders (including multiple breeders) did not influence pup survival. Pups survived more frequently in groups of ≥6 wolves (90%) compared with smaller groups (68%). Auxiliary nonbreeders benefited pup survival, with pups surviving in 92% of cases where auxiliaries were present and 64% where they were absent. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the number of adult‐sized wolves remaining after breeder loss, along with pup age, had the greatest influence on pup survival. Territorial wolves reproduced the following season in 47% of cases, and a greater proportion reproduced where one breeder had to be replaced (56%) versus cases where both breeders had to be replaced (9%). Group size was greater for wolves that reproduced the following season compared with those that did not reproduce. Large recolonizing (>75 wolves) and saturated wolf populations had similar times to breeder replacement and next reproduction, which was about half that for small recolonizing (≤75 wolves) populations. We found inverse relationships between recolonizing population size and time to breeder replacement (r= —0.37) and time to next reproduction (r= —0.36). Time to breeder replacement correlated strongly with time to next reproduction (r=0.97). Wolf social groups dissolved and abandoned their territories subsequent to breeder loss in 38% of cases. Where groups dissolved, wolves reestablished territories in 53% of cases, and neighboring wolves usurped territories in an additional 21% of cases. Fewer groups dissolved where breeders remained (26%) versus cases where breeders were absent (85%). Group size after breeder loss was smaller where groups dissolved versus cases where groups did not dissolve. To minimize negative impacts, we recommend that managers of recolonizing wolf populations limit lethal control to solitary individuals or territorial pairs where possible, because selective removal of pack members can be difficult. When reproductive packs are to be managed, we recommend that managers only remove wolves from reproductive packs when pups are ≥6 months old and packs contain ≥6 members (including ≥3 ad‐sized wolves). Ideally, such packs should be close to neighboring packs and occur within larger (≥75 wolves) recolonizing populations.

No abstract

Traditional methods of monitoring gray wolves (Canis lupus) are expensive and invasive and require extensive efforts to capture individual animals. Noninvasive genetic sampling (NGS) is an alternative method that can provide data to answer management questions and complement already‐existing methods. In a 2‐year study, we tested this approach for Idaho gray wolves in areas of known high and low wolf density. To focus sampling efforts across a large study area and increase our chances of detecting reproductive packs, we visited 964 areas with landscape characteristics similar to known wolf rendezvous sites. We collected scat or hair samples from 20% of sites and identified 122 wolves, using 8–9 microsatellite loci. We used the minimum count of wolves to accurately detect known differences in wolf density. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian single‐session population estimators performed similarly and accurately estimated the population size, compared with a radiotelemetry population estimate, in both years, and an average of 1.7 captures per individual were necessary for achieving accurate population estimates. Subsampling scenarios revealed that both scat and hair samples were important for achieving accurate population estimates, but visiting 75% and 50% of the sites still gave reasonable estimates and reduced costs. Our research provides managers with an efficient and accurate method for monitoring high‐density and low‐density wolf populations in remote areas.

After roughly a 60-year absence, wolves (Canis lupus) immigrated (1979) and were reintroduced (1995)(1996) into the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM), USA, where wolves are protected under the Endangered Species Act. The wolf recovery goal is to restore an equitably distributed metapopulation of L 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, while minimizing damage to livestock; ultimately, the objective is to establish state-managed conservation programs for wolf populations in NRM. Previously, wolves were eradicated from the NRM because of excessive human killing. We used Andersen-Gill hazard models to assess biological, habitat, and anthropogenic factors contributing to current wolf mortality risk and whether federal protection was adequate to provide acceptably low hazards. We radiocollared 711 wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (e.g., NRM region of the United States) from 1982 to 2004 and recorded 363 mortalities. Overall, annual survival rate of wolves in the recovery areas was 0.750 (95% CI 5 0.728-0.772), which is generally considered adequate for wolf population sustainability and thereby allowed the NRM wolf population to increase. Contrary to our prediction, wolf mortality risk was higher in the northwest Montana (NWMT) recovery area, likely due to less abundant public land being secure wolf habitat compared to other recovery areas. In contrast, lower hazards in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) and central Idaho (CID) likely were due to larger core areas that offered stronger wolf protection. We also found that wolves collared for damage management purposes (targeted sample) had substantially lower survival than those collared for monitoring purposes (representative sample) because most mortality was due to human factors (e.g., illegal take, control). This difference in survival underscores the importance of human-caused mortality in this recovering NRM population. Other factors contributing to increased mortality risk were pup and yearling age class, or dispersing status, which was related to younger age cohorts. When we included habitat variables in our analysis, we found that wolves having abundant agricultural and private land as well as livestock in their territory had higher mortality risk. Wolf survival was higher in areas with increased wolf density, implying that secure core habitat, particularly in GYA and CID, is important for wolf protection. We failed to detect changes in wolf hazards according to either gender or season. Maintaining wolves in NWMT will require greater attention to human harvest, conflict resolution, and illegal mortality than in either CID or GYA; however, if human access increases in the future in either of the latter 2 areas hazards to wolves also may increase. Indeed, because overall suitable habitat is more fragmented and the NRM has higher human access than many places where wolves roam freely and are subject to harvest (e.g., Canada and AK), monitoring of wolf vital rates, along with concomitant conservation and management strategies directed ...