Management of Wolf-Livestock Conflicts in Minnesota

In 1975, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) population in Minnesota was protected by the federal Endangered Species Act (USA). At that time, there were 500-750 wolves. By 2004, the population had grown to an estimated 3,020 wolves. Over time, conflicts between wolves and livestock increased. Wolf depredation control programs have been conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1975-1986) and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program (1986 to present). In 1978, Minnesota’s wolves were reclassified from endangered to threatened which allowed authorized federal agents to lethally remove wolves that had depredated on livestock or pets. A State funded wolf compensation program was also established in 1978. Wildlife Services’ wolf damage management approach utilizes both nonlethal and lethal methods of control. Currently, wolf depredations are verified at 60-85 farms annually and 125-175 wolves are taken each year. Wolf compensation payments to livestock producers have averaged $67,111 per year during the past five years. Most livestock losses occur during spring and summer. Selective removal of depredating wolves, coupled with improvements in animal husbandry practices, has potential for reducing wolf-livestock conflicts. Minnesota’s wolf population is currently considered to be fully recovered and federal delisting is expected to occur in the near future.

The Effects of Ornamentation on Wolf Spider Foraging

ABSTRACT: As a secondary sexual trait that can increase reproductive success, ornamentation is believed to be costly for organisms to acquire and possess. This study investigates possible costs of ornamentation on wolf spider foraging by comparing foraging abilities of two male forms that differ in ornamentation upon maturation. The two male forms, found syntopically in a mixed population in Mississippi, USA, resemble two sibling species: Schizocosa ocreata, in which males develop large black brushes on their forelegs upon maturation, and Schizocosa rovneri, in which males lack ornamentation following maturation. Individuals of both forms participated in foraging trials as penultimates (juveniles) and as matures. Analyses were conducted to compare behaviors and determine changes in foraging abilities between male forms (non-ornamented vs. brush-legged) and between age groups (penultimate vs. mature). Most foraging behaviors of the two male forms during immaturity were similar with the exception that brush-legged males attacked more frequently than non-ornamented males. Brush-legged males attacked less, spent more time moving, and improved capture abilities as matures, while non-ornamented males retained similar trends for these behaviors with age. Additionally, while capture abilities improved with age among brush-legged males, killing abilities remained constant. This disparity was due to increased escapes made by captured prey items, possibly due to hindrances caused by brush presence preventing secure holds onto crickets. In summary, differences in foraging exist between brush-legged and non-ornamented males prior to sexual maturation, and the development of/presence of brushes appears to influence adult male foraging efficiency.

WOLF CONTROL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

Up to 1949, the Fish and Game Branch employed personnel, some of whom were temporary, to attempt control of the extremely high wolf pop¬ulations of the central and northern portions of British Columbia. Coyotes were also very numerous in the central and southern regions and had to be considered because of their depredations. The field men were keen and conscientious but their efforts were not co-ordinated. Control areas were severely restricted in size as techniques were not adaptable enough and because of a lack of manpower. Eventually, sheepmen went out of business entirely over wide areas, cattlemen were subjected to huge annual losses, and sportsmen were very concerned. However, stock losses constituted the major complaint and resulted in ranchers demanding action* Two major changes came out of this. First, the bounty on wolves was raised and second, the present Predator Control Division was formed. The administration was convinced that a force of experienced, fully-trained field staff under a single supervision would be far more effective than bounty payments. Unfortunately, bounties were in vogue during that time and forced the necessity of proving the worth of organized controls before any consideration could be given to the elimination of the bounty system.