HIGH ARCTIC WOLF ECOLOGY FIELD REPORT, SUMMER 2014

HIGH ARCTIC WOLF ECOLOGY
FIELD REPORT, SUMMER 2014
MORGAN ANDERSON1
DAN MacNULTY2
H. DEAN CLUFF3
L. DAVID MECH4
20 May 2015
Submitted to meet requirement of Wildlife Research Permit WL 2014-010
1 Wildlife
Biologist, High Arctic Region, Wildlife Research Section Department of Environment,
Government of Nunavut, Box 209 Igloolik NU X0A 0L0
2 Assistant Professor, Wildlife Ecology, Utah State University Wildland Resources Department, 5230 Old
Main Hill, Logan UT 84322-5230
3 Wildlife Biologist, Yellowknife NT X1A 3G9
4 Senior Scientist, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey; Adjunct Professor, Department
of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, and Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of
Minnesota, 1920 Fitch Ave, St. Paul, MN 55108
FIELD REPORT
NUNAVUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
WILDLIFE RESEARCH SECTION
IGLOOLIK, NU
Summary
Three Arctic wolves were fitted with satellite collars near Eureka, Ellesmere Island, and another collar was
deployed on a wolf on eastern Axel Heiberg Island. The collars are scheduled to automatically release in
July 2015. Grise Fiord was not concerned about wolf collaring, as long as it was conducted responsibly
and there were no plans to deploy collars on caribou, which they view as more sensitive to handling and
disturbance. Besides providing information on a data-deficient subspecies, the collar data is likely to
inform management and recovery options for Peary caribou, an endangered species with significant
knowledge gaps involving predation and interspecies interactions.
Location data from collars will allow us to define movement and home range parameters for the collared
wolves. Preliminary results suggest that they remain mostly in discrete territories, although these may
overlap along the borders. No long distance migration movements have been observed, although offterritory forays occasionally occur.
Besides providing information on space use, locations can be combined with accelerometer readings,
which provide an index to animal activity, to locate potential kill sites. We accessed 50 clusters of
telemetry locations from the 2 wolves collared in June and July, and found 14 muskox kills. Wolves also
hunted Arctic hares and leverets regularly, although small prey are not well represented by investigating
location clusters. Other clusters were at dens and rendezvous sites.
We checked 13 den sites for wolf activity and found pups at 5 sites. All litters on the Fosheim Peninsula
were 3 pups although pack sizes varied from a breeding pair (although the male was not observed) to 6
adults. The Axel Heiberg den had 4 pups and 7 adults in June, but the pack must have had at least one
other breeding female and den, since 9 pups were counted at the end of the summer.
Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 4
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 5
Consultation .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Den Status..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Pack and Litter Size ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Collar Deployment ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Home Ranges ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Prey Surveys ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Muskox.................................................................................................................................................... 14
Arctic Hare .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Kill Site Investigations ................................................................................................................................. 17
Incidental Reports ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Management Implications and Future Work ............................................................................................... 19
References .................................................................................................................................................. 20
List of Figures
Figure 1. Locations of collared male wolf July 8 2009 to April 13 2010. ....................................................... 6
Figure 2. Location and status of dens investigated in June 2014. ................................................................ 8
Figure 3. Locations of 4 collared wolves on the Fosheim Peninsula and eastern Axel Heiberg Island,
September 29, 2014. ................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Tracks following Mount Lockwood pack (green) and approximation of territory based on those
(red). The marked ‘wolf mortality’ is where 3 of the Mount Lockwood wolves attacked a lone wolf and left it
for dead, although it was last seen struggling to its feet and may not have died. ...................................... 12
Figure 5. Home ranges calculated with a Brownian bridge movement model (BBMM) for summer 2014,
with 95% use areas outlined and core 50% use areas solid. ..................................................................... 13
Figure 6. MCP home ranges for summer 2014. Background image is a digital elevation model with lighter
areas representing higher elevations (828’ is the highest point on Blacktop Ridge). ................................. 14
Figure 7. Muskox survey over W441's MCP home range, Sept. 3, 2014. .................................................. 16
Figure 8. Number of hares seen on survey as index to hare population in the area, during Mech’s work
2000-2006 (Mech 2007), and including this year’s count of 35 hares. ....................................................... 17
Figure 9. Location cluster sites investigated on Aug 29 (W441) and Sept 1 (W440), 2014. ...................... 18
List of Tables
Table 1. Arctic wolf packs observed during summer 2014 fieldwork. ........................................................... 9
Table 2. Collared wolves, High Arctic wolf ecology project, summer 2014. ............................................... 10
Introduction
Arctic wolves (Canis lupus arctos), a subspecies of grey wolf inhabiting the Canadian Arctic Archipelago,
were classified in 1999 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as
Data Deficient due to insufficient information on populations, trends, and diet (Van Zyll de Jong and
Carbyn 1999). They are generally white or whitish, with darker hairs along the shoulders, spine, and base
of the tail at the precaudal gland (Mech 1970). They have likely always persisted at low densities,
possibly reaching only about 200 individuals on the Queen Elizabeth Islands (Miller 1993, Miller 1995),
declining after population crashes in the ungulate prey base (Miller and Reintjes 1995, Mech 2007).
Carmichael et al (2007) noted signatures of genetic bottlenecks in High Arctic wolves (11 samples from
Devon and southern Ellesmere islands),and suggested that High Arctic populations may be maintained
by occasional influx of wolves from Victoria Island in the west and Baffin Island in the east. Their range
also extends to Greenland, where low densities and low invasion/re-invasion rates may be partially
responsible for a 40-year absence of wolves in northern Greenland, although they have since recently
become re-established, apparently from northern Ellesmere Island (Marquard-Petersen 2009, MarquardPetersen 2011).
Arctic wolves frequently approach and inspect field camps and weather stations, and they are especially
well-known for this at Eureka. A high arctic weather station was established at Eureka on the north shore
of Slidre Fiord in 1947. The wolves were originally viewed as a threat, consistent with the prevailing
attitude towards predators at the time. From 1947 to 1954, wolves were recorded 102 times, shot at 58
times of which 31 were known killed and 7 known injured (Grace 1976 in Miller 1993). As the general
perception of wolves shifted, they were tolerated around the station, even fed and habituated. Changing
attitudes, tighter regulations, and more oversight have continued to define how wolves and people
interact, and staff no longer feed the wolves. Food waste is incinerated and weather station staff and
military personnel (at Fort Eureka, 3 km from the weather station at the airstrip) are not permitted to feed
the wildlife. The wolves remain accustomed to people and are easily approached, including walking
beside people, approaching to within a few feet, walking into buildings, stealing items (sometimes out of
peoples’ pockets), and occasionally grabbing clothing.
These habituated wolves provided a unique opportunity to document wolf behaviour that has rarely been
observed in the wild. Much of our knowledge of arctic wolf ecology comes from Dave Mech and
associates’ observations over summers 1986-2010 (excluding 1999; Mech 1987, 1995, 1997, 2004, Mech
and Cluff 2011). Most of this work centered on a single pack that typically denned at a rock den on a ridge
6 km north of Eureka. No pups were produced in 1998 or 2000-2003, and no resident wolves were at the
den in 2001 or 2002 (Mech 2005).
In 2009, the breeding male of the Eureka pack, W410 nicknamed ‘Brutus,’ was immobilized with telazol
delivered by blowgun dart, and fitted with a satellite GPS collar (Mech and Cluff 2011). He was estimated
at 9 years old (Mech and Cluff 2011). His movements ranged from Eureka west to Axel Heiberg Island
and south to the Svendsen Peninsula on southern Ellesmere Island before he died in April 2010,
apparently of starvation and/or cancer (Mech and Cluff 2011; Figure 1). The only other High Arctic wolves
for which movement data are available are 2 wolves collared on a Parks Canada project in Quttinirpaaq
National Park. Wolf 7702’s collar was active from April 1995 to October 1997, delineating movements
north of Lake Hazen to Alert and down the east coast to Fort Conger. Despite a collar schedule of one
location every 4 days, Wolf 7702 only recorded 34 locations over the 2.5 year collar deployment. Wolf
7703 recorded locations every 4 days from May 9 to Jul 2, 1995, but all locations following capture were
localized on the west shore of Lake Hazen (Parks Canada, unpubl. data).
Figure 1. Locations of collared male wolf July 8 2009 to April 13 2010.
Research on the Eureka wolves resumed in 2014, when a filming project provided funding and logistics
for researchers to deploy collars, check den status, and assess kill sites. The objectives of the 2014 field
season were to update den status, determine if ground darting could be used effectively to deploy satellite
collars, and, assuming collars could be deployed, verify kill sites to develop a cluster algorithm to locate
potential kill sites from telemetry data.
Consultation
Patrick Evans, who coordinated much of the BBC filming, had been in contact with Marty Kuluguqtuq in
Grise Fiord (Grise Fiord Hamlet and Iviq Hunters and Trappers Association [HTA]) with regards to the
filming, collaring, and local involvement. Morgan Anderson followed up to discuss the research project
specifically with the HTA on April 1. The HTA members were not concerned about collars on the wolves
as long as no caribou were being collared. Wolves are seen as more resilient to collaring activities and
people were not as concerned about handling. Following collar deployment, occasional updates including
maps of the hourly locations were provided via e-mail, as well as fieldwork updates, to Iviq HTA. Resolute
Bay HTA was also sent summary maps and a summary of the fieldwork for their interest and input. Follow
up consultation with the results of the pilot study and potential avenues for continuing research will be
presented to the Iviq HTA and Grise Fiord Hamlet over fall/winter 2014-15. Etuangat Akeeagok, from
Grise Fiord, was hired under the Government of Nunavut’s Summer Student Employment Equity Program
as a field technician and assisted with captures, behavioural observations, and sample collection.
Den Status
Eleven dens or potential dens had been previously recorded by researchers and weather station staff.
These were checked in mid-June 2014 to determine whether they were active. Two of the dens were not
located, although one of the recorded dens did not include a den entrance, only an observation of a
young pup. The other den was in a rocky canyon, but the waypoint was not exact and no wolf activity was
present to pinpoint a den in the extensive area of suitable terrain, despite 2 visits by 3 biologists to the
area. A twelfth den was located near Mount Lockwood during a helicopter flight to check for possible dens
being used by the Eureka pack, as the traditional rock den was not active this year. Another den was
located from the ground on eastern Axel Heiberg Island during other fieldwork. Following up on location
clusters of a collared pack near Cañon Fiord revealed another den, although it was not active this year.
In total, 5 active dens were located for summer 2014. These included dens at Bay Fiord (1 adult female, 3
pups), Vesle Fiord (3 adults, 3 pups), Cañon Fiord (6 adults, 3 pups), Mount Lockwood (5 adults, 3 pups),
and Gibbs Fiord on Axel Heiberg Island (7 adults, 4 pups). A sixth den south of Eureka had an adult
female present on the first den check in June, but when it was investigated later, the only signs of use
were some recent digging around a collapsed area. None of the holes appeared to be an active den. Two
wolves previously seen regularly at the Eureka dump visited the area overnight but left in the morning.
The den overlooks a wide valley and has clearly been used repeatedly based on the lush greenery,
multiple old den holes, and accumulated detritus of scat and bones around the den. It is likely a regular
rest spot even when not being used as an active den. Whether it was active earlier this season and
collapsed, or whether it collapsed prior to denning season could not be determined.
Figure 2. Location and status of dens investigated in June 2014.
Pack and Litter Size
We observed some wolves regularly at the weather station and dump, and several other packs at their
dens or while conducting fieldwork. Table 1 summarizes the packs and pup counts from the summer.
Table 1. Arctic wolf packs observed during summer 2014 fieldwork.
Pack/Area
Weather Station
Eastwind Lake
Adults
6
6
Pups
0
0
Weather Station
3
0
Weather Station
Weather Station
Gibbs Fiord
(Axel Heiberg)
1
1
7
0
0
9
Cañon Fiord
6
3
Mount Lockwood
5
3
Vesle Fiord
3
3
Bay Fiord
2
3
Blacktop Ridge
4
4
Blacktop Ridge
2
0
Svartfjeld Peninsula
3
0
Comments
No pups seen (Jul 8, returned a few days later).
Seen late Aug - possibly same group that frequented
weather station?
Male ‘Poodles’ and female, joined by another male in
July.
‘George’, lone male.
Lone female.
4 pups at one den, 9 pups seen in Sep 1 – pack must
have had at least 2 breeding females and dens. Includes
W440.
2 yearling males, 1 2-yr-old female (W441), 1 adult male,
breeding pair. Third pup was not seen with the pack on
Sep 6 (had been seen Sep 5).
At least 2 other wolves approached the den and were
chased off in mid-July. The pack also attacked another
lone wolf east of their den that was not part of the
neighbouring Cañon Fiord pack. Last pack count Jul 22.
Another 2 wolves were seen southeast of the den by
about 15 km but never at the den (nor at Bay Fiord),
although they may have been associated with either
pack. Last pack count Jul 10 – by Jul 11 pups have been
moved.
Only the breeding female was ever seen at the den, but
we assumed the male was out hunting. Last checked Jul
8.
Including W442, seen Sep 5-6 feeding at a recent
muskox kill.
Male (W443) and female seen Sep 6. Urination patterns
suggest they are a breeding pair.
Male, female, and another adult seen traveling along
Hare Fiord, Aug 31.
Our observations of animals at active dens, assuming a breeding male present at Bay Fiord, suggest an
average pack size of 4.5±0.70 SE (range 2-7) with 4.2±0.89 SE (range 3-9) pups. Including all other
packs or potential packs seen, the average pack size would be 3.77±0.55 SE (range 2-7), but incidental
sightings may only be part of the pack travelling together.
From 1967-81, 34 packs (averaging 4.4±0.41 SE, range 2-11) and 47 singletons were observed by
researchers on Ellesmere Island (Miller and Reintjes 1995). Observations were made for a shorter period,
1981-90, on Axel Heiberg Island, of 7 packs (averaging 3.3±0.61 SE, range 2-6) and 7 single wolves
(Miller and Reintjes 1995). Miller and Reintjes (1995) reported the most frequent litter size as 4-5 pups,
although only 14% of the 118 packs (including pairs) reported were observed with pups. The largest litter
reported by Miller and Reintjes (1995) was a pack on Melville Island with 10 pups. Pack size from our
observations was much larger than that reported for north and eastern Greenland by Marquard-Petersen
(2009), where only 3.8% of packs in early winter 1978-1998 were made up of 4 or more animals.
Collar Deployment
Wolves were immobilized with a 300 mg dose of telazol (reconstituted at 7 mg/mL) delivered by 3-cc
barbed darts fired from a Pneu-Dart CO2 pistol, Pneu-Dart compressed air pistol, or Pneu-Dart rifle with
brown .22 blank charges. Although wolves were relatively approachable, the power and accuracy of the
dart pistols limited them to shots where the wolf was less than 15 m away. Two shots with the CO2 pistol
bounced off the wolf (non-barbed 2-cc darts), and another 4 shots (barbed 3-cc darts) with the air pistol
also bounced off. Inspection of the darts showed that the internal charge for drug delivery had fired, but
there was no blood, hair, or tissue attached to the barb or plugging the needle. Helicopter captures used
only the Pneu-dart rifle. Once immobilized, wolves were weighed, measured, sampled, and fitted with a
Lotek Iridium Track 2D M satellite collar.
One collar was deployed on a 2-year-old female at Cañon Fiord by ground darting from <5 m away with
the CO2 pistol, but only a partial dose was delivered and additional drug was delivered by hand injection.
An adult female was collared by ground darting with the dart rifle at a muskox kill east of Blacktop Ridge,
and was approachable enough to likely be a wolf that frequents the weather station. Two others, an adult
male immediately south of the Cañon Fiord pack territory and a 2-year-old male on eastern Axel Heiberg
Island, were darted from a Bell 206 helicopter. Another male, travelling with an adult female and another
wolf, was darted near Hare Fiord on the Svartfjeld Peninsula, but the internal charge apparently did not
fire and the wolf did not go down. Collared wolves are summarized in Table 2 and locations are shown in
Figure 3. An approximate outline of the territory of the uncollared Mount Lockwood pack, based on the
Silverback film crew’s intensive tracking by helicopter and ATV in July, is shown in Figure 4.
Table 2. Collared wolves, High Arctic wolf ecology project, summer 2014.
Wolf
ID
W441
Collar ID
Sex
Age
36136
Capture
Date
30-Jun-14
Capture
Longitude
-83.5726
Weight (kg)
2 yrs
Capture
Latitude
80.17695
F
W440
36134
15-Jul-14
M
2 yrs
79.89303
-88.3022
34.5
W442
36135
06-Sep-14
F
Adult
79.95317
-84.6779
27.0
W443
36137
06-Sep-14
M
Adult
80.12227
-84.5502
35.0
29.5
Figure 3. Locations of 4 collared wolves on the Fosheim Peninsula and eastern Axel Heiberg Island,
September 29, 2014.
Figure 4. Tracks following Mount Lockwood pack (green) and approximation of territory based on those
(red). The marked ‘wolf mortality’ is where 3 of the Mount Lockwood wolves attacked a lone wolf and left it
for dead, although it was last seen struggling to its feet and may not have died.
Ground darting at dens is not recommended as the sole method of collar deployment in future, even with
the Eureka dump wolves. It is possible to get close enough for a shot, especially using a truck or ATV at
the dump where the wolves expect to encounter people, but in other areas wolves need to be acclimated
to human presence, a time-consuming process. We also attempted to collar the Axel Heiberg, Vesle
Fiord, and Mount Lockwood packs at their dens, without success. The Axel Heiberg wolves did not
tolerate us approaching closer than about 300 m from the den, which may have been due partly to the
topography (crossing a large open valley on approach to the den) and our recent disturbance (finding the
den by accidentally hiking within 20 m of it). It may have been possible to habituate the pack and
approach closer, but this would have required a substantial investment of time that was not available. At
Vesle Fiord, we camped 350 m below the den with access to boulder fields and a gully to provide cover
while approaching the den. The wolves tolerated us when we were in our tents but barked and howled if
we moved around camp. It was soon clear that the Vesle Fiord wolves were not going to approach close
enough on their own to allow a shot, and waiting in ambush near the den was not effective. On our last
day at the den the pups had moved - not only did this strategy not work, it disturbed the wolves and is not
recommended for future collaring attempts. The Mount Lockwood wolves, being close (20 km) to Eureka
and acclimated to several weeks of film crew activity, were more tolerant of human activity, but still
remained out of dart range. We camped out-of-sight and attempted to approach the den unseen to get
within dart range, usually while the wolves were sleeping near the den, but it was on an open gravel ridge
with limited cover getting into a position for a shot gave away the shooter’s position to at least one
member of the pack. Because the wolves were only approachable while bedded, the only targets usually
available were the head or abdomen, neither of which is acceptable dart placement.
Home Ranges
We calculated a Brownian bridge movement model (BBMM) home ranges using the R package
‘adehabitat’ (Calenge 2006) in R 2.15.3 (R Core Development Team 2013). Unlike kernel methods, which
calculate a utilization distribution based on locations only, BBMMs assume a Brownian walk between
successive locations, with the probable path influenced by the length of time and the distance between
points (Bullard 1999, Horne et al. 2007, Kie et al. 2010). Also unlike kernel methods, BBMM home ranges
avoid the problems associated with assuming independent points when locations depend on previous
locations, and they avoid problems associated with large datasets, which are becoming increasingly
common in telemetry studies (Hemson et al. 2005, Kie et al. 2010). The greatest positional uncertainty is
halfway between known location points. The method works best with short intervals between successive
locations, like the 1-hour fix interval used on these collars, and since it takes the time between points into
consideration, autocorrelation is not an issue. It is sensitive to 2 smoothing parameters, one based on the
GPS positional accuracy (taken here conservatively as 30 m, Loveless 2010, although retrieval of
dropped collars will give us a better estimate for our system) and one based on the distribution of
locations (i.e. the animal’s behaviour and movement) and estimated here with the liker function in
adehabitat.
Figure 5. Home ranges calculated with a Brownian bridge movement model (BBMM) for summer 2014,
with 95% use areas outlined and core 50% use areas solid.
There was noticeable overlap in the 95% BBMM home ranges of neighbouring packs, including overlap of
core (50% probability of use) areas (Figure 5). Core areas included den and rendezvous sites for W440
and W441, as well as some kill sites, but clusters have not been verified for W442 and W443 as of winter
2014. Additional cluster sites will be investigated in June 2015. Minimum convex polygon (MCP) home
ranges were also generated with the Geospatial Modelling Environment (Beyer 2012) to facilitate
comparison with other work, since, despite numerous drawbacks, MCP remains a simple, easily
understood, and widely utilized form of home range representation (Figure 6).
Figure 6. MCP home ranges for summer 2014.
Prey Surveys
Muskox
In previous years, a qualitative prey survey has been done each summer for muskox by counting all
muskox visible in the valleys around Eastwind Lake from Blacktop Ridge (Mech 2007). The value of this
kind of survey is in its repetitive nature, allowing it to be used as an index over time although it does not
provide accurate estimates of prey density. In 2010, a helicopter survey replaced the Blacktop Ridge
survey, although it was a non-systematic survey. Again, while this can give a good estimate of population
indices like calf production and recruitment, it does not provide an overall population estimate.
On September 3, 2014, we flew 4 helicopter transects over the 472-km2 Cañon Fiord pack territory
(defined as the minimum convex polygon home range of W441 generated between collar deployment on
June 30 and August 28) to determine whether we could calculate muskox abundance on the territory. We
oriented transects 5-km apart parallel to the longest axis of the territory, approximately northwestsoutheast, and estimated a strip width of 1.3 km either side of the helicopter, based on where we
detected groups of muskoxen (on the survey and on previous flights over the area this summer). This
provided 48% coverage of the area. The terrain was mostly flat or rolling with excellent visibility (Figure 7).
Population estimates for strip sampling were determined following Jolly’s Method 2 for uneven sample
sizes (Jolly 1969; summarized in Caughley 1977):
𝑌̂ = 𝑅𝑍 =
∑ 𝑦𝑖
𝑍
∑ 𝑧𝑖
Where Ŷ is the estimated number of animals in the population, R is the observed density of animals (sum
of animals seen on all transects Σyi divided by the total area surveyed Σzi), and Z is the total study area.
The variance is given by:
𝑉𝑎𝑟(𝑌̂) =
𝑁(𝑁 − 𝑛)
× (𝑠𝑦2 − 2𝑅𝑠𝑦𝑧 + 𝑅2 𝑠𝑧2 )
𝑛
Where N is the total number of transects required to completely cover study area Z, and n is the number
of transects sampled in the survey. sy2 is the variance in counts, sz2 is the variance in areas surveyed on
transects, and syz is the covariance. The estimate Ŷ and variance Var(Ŷ) are calculated for each strata (in
this case, only one stratum).
We observed 5 groups of 40 adult muskoxen on transect, for a density of 38 muskoxen/100 km2 and a
population estimate of 177±487 (95% CI) muskoxen (Figure 7). Transect 4 overlapped areas outside the
MCP home range but muskox density there is expected to reflect muskox density within the MCP. The
paucity of observations, despite high coverage, results in a very wide confidence interval, bounded at the
low end by a minimum count of 40. If we preliminarily assume that the kill sites found at telemetry clusters
represent muskoxen that were killed over the collar period (June 30 to Aug 29 2014), i.e. 6 muskoxen in 2
months, we would expect the pack to kill 36 muskoxen per year, or 20% of the population over the
territory. This is probably not a realistic figure since muskoxen move on and off the territory, and because
the kill rate is based on 2 summer months, when other prey (muskox calves, Arctic hares and leverets,
lemmings, waterfowl) are accessible. This kind of survey would be more effective over a large area, rather
than on a per-territory basis.
The effective prey availability to the wolves is unknown since muskoxen move across the landscape and
are not always within a pack’s territory. It can also be difficult to determine which muskoxen in a
population are susceptible to wolf predation (besides readily identifiable calves) – the thick hair of
muskoxen can hide body condition indicators used on other ungulates, like rump angle and rib
prominence. Additional work with hair corticosteroids may provide insight into the general stress level of
muskox populations and the condition of muskoxen that wolves are able to kill.
Figure 7. Muskox survey over W441's MCP home range, Sept. 3, 2014.
Arctic Hare
Each year, a ground survey is conducted for Arctic hares (Mech 2007; Figure 8). The survey consists of 2
people on ATVs, one ahead and one behind, driving the road to Skull Point and PEARL (Polar
Atmospheric Environment Research Laboratory). Each surveyor counts the number of hares (adults and
leverets) he or she sees on the way there and again on the way back, and the largest count is taken as
the number of hares on the survey. The defined route along the road makes the survey repeatable, and it
may provide some indication of widespread drastic changes in hare numbers, but again, it is an index.
The count for the hare survey this year was 35 hares. A drive to PEARL on Sept 4 at 13:30 provided a
count of 268 hares, emphasizing the difference season and time of day could make in the survey. There
were reports from the helicopter den searches and helicopter-based filming of the Mount Lockwood
wolves of valleys with hundreds of hares grazing. Whether the lower hare numbers on the ground survey
represent lower numbers for the region cannot be determined, since the helicopter effort was not
employed in previous years and was not conducted in a systematic manner. Quantifying hare abundance
will be key to investigations of predator-prey interactions, as hares make up a substantial portion of the
Arctic wolf diet, at least in summer (Mech 2007). The Cañon Fiord wolves regularly hunted hares, and the
Mount Lockwood wolves appeared to subsist almost entirely off hares from late June until late July. The
Mount Lockwood pack was not collared, but the intensive ground and helicopter monitoring in July
suggested that no muskox or other large prey were killed by the wolves during this time. Hares were
encountered less frequently on Axel Heiberg Island, and it is not known how important they are to the diet
of the wolves there.
Figure 8. Number of hares seen on survey as index to hare population in the area, during Mech’s work
2000-2006 (Mech 2007), and including this year’s count of 35 hares.
Kill Site Investigations
Following deployment of collars on W440 and W441, we were able to check several clusters of locations
provided by the collars (set for hourly location fixes; Figure 9). We adapted a cluster algorithm developed
for cougar predation, with clusters defined as 2 or more points within 175 m (Knopff et al. 2009) to locate
potential kill sites. This provided a very coarse filter and we checked 30 clusters for W441 and 20 clusters
for W440, resulting in 8 muskox kills and 2 potential waterfowl hunting sites for W440 and 6 muskox kills
for W441. Rendezvous sites accounted for 8 clusters for W441 and 5 clusters for W440. Results of cluster
investigations are shown in Figure 9. Although no caribou were found at cluster sites, remains of one
caribou were found on Rose Rock Creek, likely from last winter or spring. Although wolves had eaten the
carcass, it cannot be determined whether it was predation or scavenging. Several cluster sites with no
obvious remains may also have been associated with small prey. One of W440’s clusters revealed a dirt
creek bank with extensive digging. Several other sites were along ridge tops, which provide excellent
vantage points for hunting and also areas where we frequently saw hares.
Since the satellite collars are also outfitted with accelerometers, we will be able to refine the kill cluster
algorithm to more accurately identify kill sites. Wolf behaviour at kill sites is different from behaviour at
rendezvous sites, bed sites, and dens, and even incorporation of basic accelerometer data (sum of
activity over cluster locations) provides marked improvement over algorithms based only on location
information (Moffatt 2012). Whiskers collected from captured wolves can be analyzed for stable isotopes
to determine the contribution of different prey types to the diet.
Figure 9. Location cluster sites investigated on Aug 29 (W441) and Sept 1 (W440), 2014.
Incidental Reports
Discussions with Grise Fiord in April and over the summer confirmed that wolves moved through
infrequently – although several sport hunters purchased wolf tags, none were seen during the polar bear
sport hunt season (J. Neely, Grise Fiord Wildlife Officer, pers. comm.). Wolves appear to move through
the south coast of Ellesmere and Jones Sound, but may not be plentiful there.
Other researchers also shared their sightings of wolves over the field season. Doug Stern (Parks Canada,
at Quttinirpaaq National Park) reported a pack of 8 wolves by Lake Hazen at the end of July. He
commented that they were moving one after the other and likely weren’t tied to a den. This late in the
season, it is possible that the entire pack was out hunting and the pups were left at the den or rendezvous
site.
The staff at the Eureka Weather Station reported several individuals that we later observed at the weather
station, the dump, and the surrounding area: a male with a unique shedding pattern (‘Poodles’) and a
female dominant to him, later in July joined by another female; a lone female; a lone male (‘George’) who
had been observed the previous summer around the station as well, also as a loner; and a pack of 5-6
that occasionally moved through. The same animals would visit the weather station, the military base at
the airstrip, and the dump, often every 3 days or so. By the end of August, there were regularly more than
100 hares around the dump and about 40 muskoxen in the area, and wolves were seldom seen at the
weather station or dump.
The Exeter University brant goose crew reported a wolf coming to check out their camp on the narrow
isthmus of the Schei Peninsula (Axel Heiberg Island) in mid-July. It circled camp, checked the latrine
area, and moved off. The collared wolf at Gibbs Fiord had not visited this area at the time.
The Queens University camp at Cape Bounty (Melville Island) reported seeing 2 wolves, most recently in
the first week of August, checking out camp, particularly the latrine, and when we visited the area August
5, there were still tracks and scrapes around camp. Food was securely stored at the camp. Wolves had
been seen around camp since about 2012 (Scott Lamoureux had been working out of the camp since
2003, and the weather haven had been a permanent year-round structure since 2012), and caribou and
muskoxen both frequented the area, especially in the last few years.
Universal Helicopters pilot John Innis noted that he had seen wolves on Lougheed Island shortly after the
2007 caribou/muskox survey, which found a high density of caribou but no wolves or muskoxen. He
suggested checking to see if the caribou were still on the island or if the wolves had chased or killed them
off.
Management Implications and Future Work
The knowledge gaps in the muskox-caribou-wolf system have been brought up by the Peary Caribou
Recovery Strategy Science Assessment Team (most recently at All Chairs Meeting in Yellowknife, Feb
17-19, 2015) and by COSEWIC during the on-going Peary caribou status assessment (threat assessment
conference call Sept 12, 2014). Certainly communities in the Northwest Territories, like Sachs Harbour
and Ulukhaktok, and in the Kitikmeot, like Cambridge Bay, have mentioned increasing wolf populations as
a threat to Peary caribou recovery (Peary Caribou Recovery Strategy consultations, Feb 26-28 and Mar
4-5, 2013 and All Chairs Meeting in Yellowknife, Oct 22-24, 2013). Caribou predation by wolves was not
a concern of Grise Fiord, but Resolute Bay did point out the effect wolves can have on caribou, in the
context that any restrictions on Inuit harvest should be accompanied by some action to decrease wolf
harvest of caribou (Resolute Bay HTA meeting, July 24 2014). Although a classic apparent competition
scenario could be present with the wolf-caribou-muskox system (Miller 1993), it has not been investigated
to present, and the mechanism of caribou decline when muskoxen are abundant (an often observed
pattern also known through Inuit qaujimajatuqangit) is unknown.
With the unexpected lack of caribou on Axel Heiberg Island in summer 2014 and lack of knowledge on
caribou movements, it is possible that collared wolves could identify caribou ranges. With community
resistance to collaring caribou, it might be possible that the collared wolves will provide some indication to
seasonal ranges or an indication of where they have moved, if the animals on eastern Axel Heiberg in
2007 largely moved to another area. The area has been hypothesized as a refuge from freezing rain and
thaw-freeze events that cause die-offs in muskoxen and caribou elsewhere across the archipelago. This
may have metapopulation implications if these events increase in severity and frequency, as some
climate models predict. Monitoring the ungulate and predator populations in what may be a ‘source’
population could be critical to determining the true status of populations across the Archipelago.
From an ecosystem monitoring standpoint, the project would provide more baseline information on the
ecology and biodiversity of the high arctic. The Fosheim Peninsula is of interest for coal development and
partially under license for coal. The impact of climate change is another potential alteration to the system
that could be monitored – the relative simplicity of the system, its accessibility, and a 30-year history of
detailed wolf observations and decades of climate records make it a good option for long-term monitoring.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to everyone at the Eureka Weather Station and Polar Continental Shelf Program for coordinating
logistics. The wolf observations of the Eureka staff continue to be a huge asset to the project. In-kind
support was largely provided by the BBC and thanks to the film and field crew for their observations and
assistance throughout the summer (Joevy Acbayaan, Michael Becker, Gordon Buchanan, Cheyenne
Burnett, Jason Carpenter, Patrick Evans, Max Hug-Williams, Anwar Mamon, Ted Oakes, Rae Spain,
Candice Sudlovenick). The Silverback film crew also provided observations (Alistair Fothergill, Jonnie
Hughes, Kieran O’Donovan, Kira Cassidy). Summer student Etuangat Akeeagok assisted with captures
and den watches. Universal Helicopter pilots John Innis, Jim Barry, Stieg Sande, and Steve Lodge
provided access to sites; Stieg and Steve flew for aerial captures. Kenn Borek Air Twin Otter pilots ferried
gear and crew to Eureka and back to Resolute. Thanks to everyone who lent us specialized gear,
sometimes at the last minute, without which we could not have completed this project. Malik Awan and
Guillaume Szor provided comments on the research proposal. Thank you to the Iviq Hunters and
Trappers Association and hamlet of Grise Fiord for supporting the research and for their continued
interest and insight into the ecology of the Fosheim Peninsula and Axel Heiberg Island.
Literature Cited
Aastrup, P. 2003. Muskox site fidelity and group cohesion in Jameson Land, East Greenland. Polar
Biology 27: 50–55.
Beyer, H. L. 2012. Geospatial Modelling Environment (Version 0.7.2.0). (software). URL:
http://www.spatialecology.com/gme.
Bullard, F. 1999. Estimating the home range of an animal: a Brownian bridge approach. MSc thesis.
University of North Carolina, Department of Statistics, Chapel Hill, NC: 27.
Calenge, C. 2006. The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat
use by animals. Ecological Modelling 197: 516-519.
Carmichael, L. E., J. Krizan, J. A. Nagy, M. Dumond, D. Johnson, A. Veitch, and C. Strobeck. 2007.
Northwest passages: conservation genetics of Arctic Island wolves. Conservation Genetics DOI
10.1007/s10592-007-9413-0.
Grace, E. S. 1976. Interactions between men and wolves at an Arctic outpost on Ellesmere Island.
Canadian Field-Naturalist 90: 149-156.
Gunn, A., F. L. Miller, S. J. Barry, and A. Buchan. 2006.A near-total decline in caribou on Prince of Wales,
Somerset, and Russell Islands, Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59(1): 1-13.
Hemson, G., P. Johnson, A. South, R. Kenward, R. Ripley, and D. MacDonald. 2005. Are kernels the
mustard? Data from global positioning system (GPS) collars suggests problems for kernel homerange analyses with least squares cross-validation. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 455-463.
Horne, J. S., E. O. Garton, S. M. Krone, and J. S. Lewis. 2007. Analyzing animal movements using
Brownian bridges. Ecology 88: 2354-2363.
Kie, J. G., J. Mattiopoulos, J. Fieberg, R. A. Powell, F. Cagnacci, M. S. Mitchell, J.-M. Gaillard, and P. R.
Moorcraft. 2010. The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern
telemetry technology? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365: 2221-2231.
Larter, N. C. and J. A. Nagy 2004. Seasonal changes in the composition of the diets of Peary caribou and
muskoxen on Banks Island. Polar Research 23(2): 131–140.
Loveless, K. 2010. Foraging strategies of eastern wolves in relation to migratory prey and hybridization.
MSc thesis. Trent University, Department of Environmental and Life Sciences, Peterborough, ON.
73 pp.
Knopff, K. H., A. A. Knopff, M. B. Warren, and M. S. Boyce. 2009. Evaluating Global Positioning System
telemetry techniques for estimating cougar predation parameters. Journal of Wildlife Management
73(4):586–597.
Marquard-Petersen, U. 2009. Abundance, social organization, and population trend of the arctic wolf in
north and east Greenland during 1978–1998. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87: 895–901.
Marquard-Petersen, U. 2011. Insular and disjunct distribution of the Arctic wolf in Greenland,1978–1998.
Polar Biology 34:1447-1454.
Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf: The ecology and behaviour of an endangered species. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 384 pp.
Mech, L. D. 1987. At home with the arctic wolf. National Geographic 171:562–593.
Mech, L. D. 1995. A ten-year history of the demography and productivity of an Arctic wolf pack. Arctic
48(4):329–332.
Mech, L. D. 1997. The arctic wolf: Ten years with the pack. Stillwater, Minnesota: Voyageur Press. 144 p.
Mech, L. D. 2004. Is climate change affecting wolves in the High Arctic? Climatic Change 67(1):87– 93.
Mech, L. D. 2005. Decline and recovery of a high arctic wolf-prey system. Arctic 58(3):305-307.
Mech, L. D. 2007. Annual arctic wolf pack size related to arctic hare numbers. Arctic 60(3):309-311.
Mech L. D., and H. D. Cluff. 2011. Movements of wolves at the northern extreme of the species’ range,
including during four months of darkness. PLoS ONE 6(10): e25328.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025328.
Miller, F. L. 1993. Status of wolves in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Technical Report Series 173.
Canadian Wildlife Service, Prairie and Northern Region, Edmonton, AB. 63 pp.
Miller, F. L. and F. D. Reintjes 1995. Wolf-sightings on the Canadian Arctic Islands. Arctic 48(4): 313-323.
Moffatt, S. 2012. Time to event modelling: wolf search efficiency in northern Ontario. MSc thesis.
University of Guelph Department of Integrative Biology, Guelph, ON. 57 pp.
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/.
Van Zyll de Jong, C. G., and L. N. Carbyn. 1999. COSEWIC status report on the grey wolf (Canis lupus)
in Canada. COSEWIC, Ottawa.