Figure
1. Roads and trails surveyed for wolf
sign at least once (88,298,092 mi, 1313,353,023 km) during the winter 2003
MASSIVE
WINTER TRACK SURVEY REVEALS NO EVIDENCE OF COUGARS IN MICHIGAN'S UP
Federal and State biologists surveyed 8,298 miles
of roads and trails during their annual wolf population survey.
2,005 man-hours
were expended. The survey encompassed
all UP counties. A minimum of 360 wolves were counted. No
cougar tracks were found, and none have been found in any of the previous
surveys conducted since 1996.
Note: The
following report does not specifically reference
cougars. However, consultations with the biologists
involved have revealed that the
cougar was a targeted species during the survey. The
surveyors were trained and qualified to
recognize cougar tracks. The report is particularly notable
for its scope, which covered every county in the Upper Penninsula.
2004 Survey of the
Gray Wolf Population
in Michigan’s
Upper Peninsula
Dean E. Beyer, Jr., Brian J. Roell, and Donald H. Lonsway
Introduction
Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are native to Michigan and were distributed throughout
the state at the beginning of European settlement. Human alteration of habitat and persecution significantly reduced
wolf numbers during the 1800s. Wolves
were probably extirpated from the lowerLower
Peninsula of Michigan by the early 1940s (Stebler 1944). In the mid 1950s, Arnold and Scholfield
(1956) estimated there were from 30-100 wolves in the Upper Peninsula (UP). Hendrickson et al. (1975) reasoned that the Upper PeninsulaUP wolf
population had declined to about six individuals by 1973. In 1974, a pack of four wolves from
Minnesota was introduced into Marquette County of the Upper PeninsulaUP. All four animals died from direct human
activity within eight months and did not reproduce. Also in 1974, gray wolves in Michigan were listed as an
endangered species by the Federal government.
State listing as an endangered species occurred in 1976. Wolves were at least periodically present in
the Upper PeninsulaUP during
the late 1970s and the 1980s. Thiel and
Hammill (1988) reviewed 16 wolf specimens recovered from the Upper PeninsulaUP from
1960-1986; nine of these specimens were recovered from 1970-1986. All specimens were recovered along the
borders of Wisconsin and Ontario, adjacent to areas with known breeding packs
of wolves. Presence of wolves in the Upper PeninsulaUP during
the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s appears to have been more dependent on immigration
of individuals rather than breeding within the Upper PeninsulaUP
(Hendrickson et al. 1975, Thiel and Hammill 1988).
In 1989, biologists verified the
presence of a pair of wolves in the central Upper PeninsulaUP and production
of pups was first noted . Pups were produced in this territory in
the spring of 1991. A winter track
count survey was initiated in 1989 (Population
monitoring efforts, in the form of a winter track count survey, began in 1989, primarily
in the western Upper PeninsulaUP) to monitor
the wolf population. However, bBy 1994,
most of the Upper PeninsulaUP was
being surveyed. The number of wolves in
the Upper PeninsulaUP has been increaseding since monitoring efforts began,
except for a slight decline in 1997.
The Federal wolf recovery plan provides for delisting of wolves (i.e.,
removal from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species) in Michigan
when the combined count of wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin exceeds 100 animals
for 5 consecutive years. Delisting is
also contingent on the assurance of the survival of wolves in Minnesota, the
reduction of threats that caused the species to be listed, and the reduction of
any new threats that could cause the species to become endangered in the future
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992).
The first step towards delisting was taken on April 1, 2003 when the
Fish and Wildlife Service reclassified wolves in the Eastern Distinct
Population Segment (which includes Michigan) from endangered to threatened
status. The State of Michigan had
previously reclassified wolves from endangered to threatened on June 17,
2002. Wolves will be considered
recovered in Michigan (delisted) when the population has maintained 200 or more animals
or more for 5 consecutive years
(Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1997).
The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of
the winter 2003 2004 wolf
population survey in Michigan’s Upper PeninsulaUP. Information on the status of wolves on Isle
Royale can be found elsewhere (e.g., Peterson and Vucetich 20032004).
Methods
The purpose of the winter track count survey
was to derive determine a
minimum estimate of number of wolveswolf numbers
in the Upper PeninsulaUP,
excluding Isle Royale. The winter wolf
survey consisted of an intensive and extensive search of roads and trails
throughout the Upper PeninsulaUP for
wolf tracks, scats, and other sign. The
search was systematic and guided by citizen observations of wolves, results
from previous winter surveys, and movement information collected on
radio-collared wolves. The survey also incorporated observations of packs with
radio-collared wolves made from fixed-wing aircraft.
The Upper PeninsulaUP was
divided into seven zones (1147 mi2 to 3847 mi2; 2971 km2
to 9964 km2). with fField
personnel (trackers) were assigned responsibility for track counts
in those specific zones.
Surveys in adjacent zones were coordinated in time and space along zone
boundaries to avoid duplicate counting of wolves whose home ranges overlapped
those boundaries.
We searched for
wWolf sign was searched
for by traveling along roads and trails by in trucks or on snowmobiles. Trucks and snowmobiles typically traveled at
3 to15 mph (5 – 24 km/hr) depending
on snow surface conditions and traffic.
In most cases, trackers worked alone.
However, on busy highways and/or when difficult tracking conditions existed, two
person crews (driver and a tracker) were used.
Trackers have developed an extensive network of local contacts, usually
loggers, hunters, trappers, and farmers, which help pinpoint areas where fresh
wolf sign has been observed.
When wolf tracks were found, pack
size was estimated by following the tracks as far as practicable, searching for
distinct trails of individual animals.
Other information collected included the date,
time and location of the tracks, measurements of track size and stride length,
estimated age of the track and the distance followed. The time since the last snowfall also was
recorded and used to help estimate track age.
Scent-marks such as urination, defecation and scratching also were
recorded to help identify territorial pairs and packs. Observations of In addition to blood
in urine
and, scent-marks such as raised leg
urinations provided indirect evidence of breeding (Rothman and
Mech 1979).
The integrity of the minimum
population estimate was maintained by using established procedures designed to
avoid double counting of wolves.
Separation of adjacent packs, /pairs, and /loners was based on a variety of
evidence. Aside from observing and
counting packs from the air, the movements of radio-collared animals were the best information used to
distinguish between and among packs,/ pairs, and/ loners. was the movements
of radio-collared animals. In areas where radio-collared wolves
were not present, identification of different packs relied on finding fresh
tracks in adjacent, distinct areas with no sign of movement
between the two areas. Additional evidence that supported the
conclusion that sign found was made by different packs was recorded. This evidence included historical knowledge
of wolf territories in the area, previous knowledge of den sites and/or
presence of pups, and/or observations of fresh (same age) tracks traveling in
different directions in adjoining areas.
Often, repeated surveys of an area were needed to make the
determinationconfirm that wolf sign located in two adjacent
areas was made
by distinct groups of wolves. In some certain areas
of high wolf density, coordinated searches involving four to six trackers,
sometimes with concurrent aerial tracking of available radio-collared wolves, was were conducted
to separate adjacent packs. All
spatially referenced data (e.g., citizen observation reports, den locations,
locations of radio-collared wolves, track observations) were compiled and
reviewed in a geographic information system.
The amount and distribution of
effort was documented by identifying all roads and trails, or portions thereof,
which were searched for sign at least once on county maps. We determined the miles of roads
and trails searched . An estimate of the miles of roads and trails searched
was made using with a geographic information system. The
number of hours spent conducting the survey also was
tallied.
Results
Trackers searched 8,298092 miles (13,353023 km) of roads and trails at least once
for wolf sign (Fig. 1). The actual distance
searched was much greater because many roads and trails were searched by more
than one tracker (e.g., along tracking zone boundaries) and repeated searches
were often necessary to separate adjacent groups. The number of miles searched
was slightly similar to thehigher than the previous two years
(Table 1). This increase was due to lower than normal snow
depths for much of the winter in many areas, allowing more areas to be searched
with 4-wheel drive trucks than in previous years. Trackers spent 2,005almost 2,385 hours conducting the survey. Survey coverage
was good throughout the Upper Peninsula. [Not sure what you mean here. I think you are arguing that the survey
coverage was adequate, yet there are no parameters established that would
indicate this was the case. I’d just
delete the entire sentence.]
The Upper Peninsula wolf population continued to
grow; Aa
minimum of 321 360 wolves
were counted in the winter 2003 2004 survey
(Table 1; Fig. 2). This is a
12% increase over
the number of wolves counted in 2003. Wolf sign was found in all Upper PeninsulaUP
counties, except Keweenaw (Fig. 3).
Approximately 4952%, 4543%, and 65% of the wolves were found in the Lake
Michigan, Lake Superior, and Lake Huron watersheds, respectively. SixtySeventy-eight seven packs (with two or more individuals) were
identified (Table 1). This included 18 24 pairs
and 50 53 packs with 3 or more individuals. Indicators of bBreeding
and/or territorial sign wereas
found in 56 of these 77 pack areas. In addition, 11Six lone
wolves were counted. The number of
packs with
2 wolves increased slightly from the previous year (Table 1).
However,although the average pack size remained about the same as last year
(Table 1). Sixty-threeThirty-eight
individual wolves in 210
packs were counted during aerial observations of packs with one or more
radio-collared animals. Trackers also
found equivocal evidence of 10 additional wolves (3 pairs, a lone animal, and a pack of
3) that were not included in the minimum count..
This was the fourth fifth consecutive year
the minimum
Upper PeninsulaUP wolf
population has exceeded 200 animals. since
monitoring began in 1989. The population will be
considered recovered andhas met the state recovery goal and is will be eligible for removal from the
State’s endangered species list if numbers remain over 200 for one more year. However,
even if the population goal is reached, state delisting cannot occur until wolves are after Federal
delisting occurs.federally
delisted. The Federal delisting requirement of a population of 100 wolves
in Michigan and Wisconsin combined for 5 consecutive years was reached in
1998. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service published an advanced notice of theiris expected to
publish their proposal to delist wolves in the Eastern
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in July 2004 intention to
propose delisting of wolves in the Eastern Distinct Population Segment,
although no timeline has been issued. The eastern DPS includes Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota.
Acknowledgements
Many
people assisted with the winter wolf survey.
Primary trackers included Rex Ainslie, Terry Gouza, Michael Haen (USDA
Wildlife Services), Bradley Johnson, Jeffery Lukowski, and Terry
McFadden
and Kristie Sitar.. Additional tracking was done by Rex Ainslie, Robert
Aldrich, Sherry Mackinnon, Terry Minzey, and Brian
Roell. Pilots
Neil Harri and Dean Minett monitored radio-collared wolves from the air and
safely flew observers Tom WeiseKristie Sitar
and Bradley Johnson. Adrian Wydeven (WI
DNR) provided informationcoordination of surveyon survey
efforts and interpretation along the
Wisconsin border.
Funding for the wolf survey was provided by Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Michigan Project W-127-R.
Literature Cited
Arnold, D. A. , and R. D. Schofield. 1956. Status of Michigan timber wolves, 1954-1956. Michigan Department of Conservation, Game Division Report No. 2079. 2pp.
Hendrickson, J., W. L. Robinson, and L. D. Mech. 1975. Status of the wolf in Michigan, 1973. American Midland Naturalist 94:226-232.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Michigan gray wolf recovery and management plan. Lansing, Michigan. 58pp.
Peterson,
R. O., and J. A. Vucetich. 20032004. Ecological studies of wolves on Isle Royale,
annual report 20022003-20032004. Michigan Technological University, Houghton,
MI 16pp.
Stebler, A. M. 1944. The status of the wolf in Michigan. Journal of Mammalogy 25:37-43.
Thiel, R. P., and J. H. Hammill. 1988. Wolf specimen records in Upper Michigan, 1960-1986. Jack-Pine Warbler 66:149-153.
Rothman, R. J., and L. D. Mech. 1979. Scent marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs. Animal Behavior 17:750-760.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for the eastern timber wolf. Twin Cities, Minnesota. 73pp.
|
Table 1. Summary
of gray wolf population surveys in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 1996 |
|||||||||
|
Parameters |
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
|
Population estimate |
116
|
113
|
139
|
169
|
216
|
249
|
278
|
321
|
360
|
|
No. of packs1 |
33
|
35
|
42
|
52
|
63
|
70
|
63
|
68
|
77
|
|
No. of pairs |
13
|
18
|
18
|
25
|
27
|
33
|
17
|
18
|
24
|
|
No. of lone wolves |
6
|
12
|
7
|
12
|
14
|
5
|
8
|
11
|
6
|
|
Mean pack size (standard error) |
3.3 (0.3)
|
2.9 (0.2)
|
3.1 (0.2)
|
3.0 (0.2)
|
3.2 (0.2)
|
3.5 (0.3)
|
4.3 (0.3)
|
4.6 (0.3)
|
4.6 (0.3)
|
|
Range of pack sizes |
2 – 10
|
2 – 5
|
2 -7
|
2 – 7
|
2 – 7
|
2 – 11
|
2 – 10
|
2 - 14
|
2 - 12
|
|
Miles of road surveyed2 |
|
|
|
|
6,314 |
6,205
|
7,326
|
8,092
|
8,298
|
|
Field hours |
|
|
|
|
2,550 |
2,120
|
2,447
|
2,385
|
2,005
|
1Packs are defined as groups of wolves with 2 or more animals
2Miles of roads and trails searched at least once for wolf sign
Figure
1. Roads and trails surveyed for wolf
sign at least once (88,298,092 mi, 1313,353,023 km) during the winter 2003