No trespassing: using a biofence to manipulate wolf movements
David E. Ausband A C , Michael S. Mitchell A , Sarah B. Bassing A and Craig White BA Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA.
B 600 S. Walnut Street, Boise, ID 83712, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: david.ausband@mso.umt.edu
Wildlife Research 40(3) 207-216 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12176
Submitted: 4 June 2012 Accepted: 12 March 2013 Published: 8 April 2013
Abstract
Context: Conserving large carnivores can be challenging because of conflicts with human land use and competition with humans for resources. Predation on domestic stock can have negative economic impacts particularly for owners of small herds, and tools for minimising carnivore depredation of livestock are needed. Canids use scent marking to establish territories and avoid intraspecific conflict. Exploiting scent-marking behaviour may provide a means for manipulating canid movements.
Aims: We hypothesised that human-deployed scent marks (i.e. ‘biofence’) could be used to manipulate the movements of grey wolves (Canis lupus) in Idaho, USA.
Methods: We deployed 65 km of biofence within three wolf-pack territories during summer 2010 and 2011 and used location data from satellite-collared wolves and sign surveys to assess the effectiveness of biofencing.
Key results: Location data provided by satellite-collared wolves and sign surveys in 2010 showed little to no trespass of the biofence, even though the excluded areas were used by the packs in previous summers. We also opportunistically deployed a biofence in between a rendezvous site of a resident pack and a nearby sheep grazing allotment; the pack was not implicated in any depredations in summer 2010, even though they had killed sheep every year since 2006. Location data provided by satellite-collared wolves in summer 2011 showed that wolves did trespass biofences.
Conclusions: Biofencing effectively manipulated the movements of wolves in the first year of our study, but not the second.
Implications: Our work suggests that biofencing may be most limited by the apparent necessity to maintain a continuous presence once the biofence is established. The inherent labour and costs associated with such efforts may limit the usefulness of biofencing. Our work can be improved on through further testing that maintains biofencing over a longer timeframe (>3 months), samples several animals per treatment pack, and uses a treatment and control design.
References
Arnold, J., Soulsbury, C. D., and Harris, S. (2011). Spatial and behavioral changes by red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in response to artificial territory intrusion. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89, 808–815.| Spatial and behavioral changes by red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in response to artificial territory intrusion.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ausband, D. E., Mitchell, M. S., Doherty, K., Zager, P., Mack, C. M., and Holyan, J. (2010). Surveying predicted rendezvous sites to monitor gray wolf populations. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 1043–1049.
| Surveying predicted rendezvous sites to monitor gray wolf populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ausband, D. E., Skrivseth, J., and Mitchell, M. S. (2011). An automated device for provoking and capturing wildlife calls. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35, 498–503.
| An automated device for provoking and capturing wildlife calls.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barja, I., de Miguel, F. J., and Barcena, F. (2004). The importance of crossroads in faecal marking behaviour of the wolves (Canis lupus). Naturwissenschaften 91, 489–492.
| The importance of crossroads in faecal marking behaviour of the wolves (Canis lupus).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXotlKns70%3D&md5=0a829b63fbc7f0880259b57494669c7cCAS | 15349691PubMed |
Berger, K. (2006). Carnivore–livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry. Conservation Biology 20, 751–761.
| Carnivore–livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16909568PubMed |
Bradley, E. H., Pletscher, D. H., Bangs, E. E., Kunkel, K. E., Smith, D. W., Mack, C. M., Meier, T. J., Fontaine, J. A., Niemeyer, C. C., and Jimenez, M. D. (2005). Evaluating wolf translocation as a nonlethal method to reduce livestock conflicts in the northwestern United States. Conservation Biology 19, 1498–1508.
| Evaluating wolf translocation as a nonlethal method to reduce livestock conflicts in the northwestern United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Breck, S. W., Niemeyer, C., Williamson, R., and Shivik, J. A. (2002). Non-lethal radio activated guard for deterring wolf depredation in Idaho: summary and call for research. USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Staff Publications. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Feldhamer, G. A., Drickamer, L. C., Vessey, S. H., and Merritt, J. F. (2004) ‘Mammalogy: Adaptation, Diversity, Ecology.’ (McGraw-Hill: New York.)
Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., Provost, M. L., and Cellar, A. C. (2010). Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms. Wildlife Research 37, 715–721.
| Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gese, E. M. (1998). Response of neighboring coyotes (Canis latrans) to social disruption in an adjacent pack. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76, 1960–1963.
Green, J. S., Henderson, F. R., and Collinge, M. D. (1994). Coyotes: damage prevention and control methods. Cooperative Extension Division, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Harrington, F. H., and Mech, L. D. (1979). Wolf howling and its role in territory maintenance. Behaviour 68, 207–249.
| Wolf howling and its role in territory maintenance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hayes, B. (2010). ‘Wolves of the Yukon.’ (Wolves of the Yukon Publishing: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada.)
Jackson, C. R., McNutt, J. W., and Apps, P. J. (2012). Managing the ranging the ranging behaviour of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) using translocated scent marks. Wildlife Research , .
| Managing the ranging the ranging behaviour of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) using translocated scent marks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jedrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., Theuerkauf, J., Jedrzejewska, B., and Okarma, H. (2001). Daily movements and territory use by radiocollared wolves (Canis lupus) in Bialowieza Primeval Forest in Poland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79, 1993–2004.
| Daily movements and territory use by radiocollared wolves (Canis lupus) in Bialowieza Primeval Forest in Poland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Macdonald, D. W., and Sillero-Zubiri, C. (2004). Conservation: from theory to practice without bluster. In ‘The Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids’. (Eds D. W. Macdonald and C. Sillero-Zubiri.) pp. 353–372. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Mech, L. D., and Boitani, L. (2003). Wolf social ecology. In ‘Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation’ (Eds L. D. Mech and L. Boitani.) pp. 1–34. (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.)
Moorcroft, P. R., Lewis, M. A., and Crabtree, R. L. (1999). Home range analysis using a mechanistic home range model. Ecology 80, 1656–1665.
| Home range analysis using a mechanistic home range model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Musiani, M., Mamo, C., Boitani, L., Callaghan, C., Gates, C. C., Mattei, L., Visalberghi, E., Breck, S., and Volpi, G. (2003). Wolf depredation trends and the use of fladry barriers to protect livestock in western North America. Conservation Biology 17, 1538–1547.
| Wolf depredation trends and the use of fladry barriers to protect livestock in western North America.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nickel, B. (1993). Livestock guardian dogs. Countryside & Small Stock Journal 77, 56–62.
Paquet, P. C. (1991). Scent-marking behavior of sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) in Riding Mountain National Park. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69, 1721–1727.
| Scent-marking behavior of sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) in Riding Mountain National Park.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Peterson, R. O. (1977). Wolf ecology and prey relationships on Isle Royale. US National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series, No. 11. Washington, DC.
Reynolds, J. C., and Tapper, S. C. (1996). Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation. Mammal Review 26, 127–155.
| Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Robinson, M. J. (2005). ‘Predatory Bureaucracy: the Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West’. (University of Colorado Press: Boulder, CO.)
Rothman, R. J., and Mech, L. D. (1979). Scent-marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs. Animal Behaviour 27, 750–760.
| Scent-marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Scheinin, S., Yom-Tov, Y., Motro, U., and Geffen, E. (2006). Behavioural responses of red foxes to an increase in the presence of golden jackals: a field experiment. Animal Behaviour 71, 577–584.
| Behavioural responses of red foxes to an increase in the presence of golden jackals: a field experiment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shivik, J. A., Wilson, R. R., and Gilbert-Norton, L. (2011). Will an artificial scent boundary prevent coyote intrusion? Wildlife Society Bulletin 35, 494–497.
| Will an artificial scent boundary prevent coyote intrusion?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sillero-Zubiri, C., Reynolds, J., and Novaro, A. J. (2004). Management and control of wild canids alongside people. In ‘The Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids’. (Eds D. W. Macdonald and C. Sillero-Zubiri.) pp. 107–122. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Stenglein, J. L., Waits, L. P., Ausband, D. E., Zager, P., and Mack, C. M. (2010). Efficient noninvasive genetic sampling for monitoring reintroduced wolves. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 1050–1058.
| Efficient noninvasive genetic sampling for monitoring reintroduced wolves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Treves, A., and Naughton-Treves, L. (2005). Evaluating lethal control in the management of human–wildlife conflict. In ‘People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence’? (Eds R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood and A. Rabinowiotz.) pp. 86–106. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)
USA Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services (2005). Rocky Mountain wolf recovery 2004. Annual report. Helena, MT.
USA Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services (2006). Rocky Mountain wolf recovery 2005. Annual report. Helena, MT.
USA Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services (2007). Rocky Mountain wolf recovery 2006. Annual report. Helena, MT.
USA Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services (2008). Rocky Mountain wolf recovery 2007. Annual report. Helena, MT.
USA Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Idaho Fish and Game, and USDA Wildlife Services (2009). Rocky Mountain wolf recovery 2008. Interagency annual report. (Eds C. A. Sime and E. E. Bangs.) Helena, MT.
Western Regional Climate Center (2011). Historical climate information. Available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu [verified 12 November 2011].
Zimen, E. (1981). ‘The Wolf: a Species in Danger.’ (Delacorte Press: New York.)
