On Wolverine Conservation – A Naturalist’s Letter to His Colleagues

Our wolverine monitoring spanned a decade of winters spent in Alberta’s Chinchaga wilderness [northern Canada], yet it was a modest initiative involving only one man “on the ground.”  That’s one of the reasons it lasted ten years – it was realistic to the client.  Comments from biologists studying wolverine – the living definition of “elusive” - about costs versus results I hear loud and clear!  I was thinking the other day that I wonder how much each remote-camera image we got showing a wolverine cost in terms of time, money, and ecological impact (invasiveness, greenhouse gases emitted, establishing trails for trappers to follow and showing them where the animals were, etc…) Was it worth it?  To me, personally – selfishly – absolutely.  To the client?  I certainly hope so.  Academically?  Yeah, probably – it’s interesting stuff!   In the bigger scheme?  To the wolverines? 

Well…

Be forewarned that I always take the opportunity these days to present the broader views I have arrived at through extended solitudes in wolverine country and other fastnesses, whether I’m talking about wolverine or some other creature.  I do this because I consider it my job in a democracy to speak out, the most important one I have, and never more so than in an eroded one like ours.   

Background

We began monitoring wildlife in Pioneer Natural Resources Canada’s Chinchaga gasfield in 1997.  We were funded by Pioneer to do this because the CEO believed simply that this was the kind of thing corporations should be doing.  He viewed his position as important in the larger social sphere in that it afforded him the privilege of being able to make a contribution of this type. Integral to this ethos, he engaged at times in political struggles within the company to keep the project going, and told me he didn’t care if he was ultimately fired as a result.  I found him a rare, refreshing, and inspiring man.

We started snow-tracking to get a feel for the ecosystem.  Detecting wolverine in the area, we chose them as an “indicator species” of healthy wilderness values and eventually wrote a couple of papers on the findings of our snow-tracking component.  About how they avoided deep powder snow in the winter and stuck to areas where more continuous conifer cover reduced snow depth underfoot and how they cached their excess food and where – mostly in old-growth forest stands.

Remote Cameras – They Worked!

In 2000, we decided we needed to know whether the wolverines in the area were dispersers or territory holders.  Being no fans of traditional mark-recapture/radio telemetry due to its extremely invasive nature, and influenced by the success of biologists in using cameras to identify individuals of everything from tigers to wild dogs to whales (but not mustelids at that time), we thought it might be a good tool for wolverines and other forest carnivores based on their chest and throat markings.  Our first year, we successfully documented fisher and marten to the individual.  We employed only three cameras (budget restraints, other jobs to be done as well, and one guy on the ground), but by this time were intimate with the knowledge of where wolverines in the area would faithfully show up.

The second year of the camera study, with the three cameras, we successfully documented our first wolverines to the individual based on our hypothesis, as well as “recaptures” of other forest carnivores. We introduced the method of photo-ID as applied to wolverine, with examples of our pictures, to a panel of wolverine researchers at Monterey CA.  None seemed overly enthusiastic about the idea, especially the Scandinavians whose wolverines are darker than ours, often with no chest markings.  Several years later, however, wolverine gurus who had been present at Monterey adopted the technique for wolverine ID in Ontario.

Individual Wolverines

We documented only five individual wolverines in our approximately 1100 square kilometer boreal forest study area in six years. Two were territory holders. One, believed to be a male, was “recaptured” annually on film in the area for five years up until the study ended, having been first documented in the second year of camera use as a juvenile.  The second territory holder documented was believed to be a female and was documented the past two years of the study.  Snow tracking suggested we were documenting the individuals present – we were not significantly “missing” wolverine.

Wolverines and Oil and Gas

Our study area, with the exception of two out of ten winters, hosted oil and gas development exclusive of other anthropogenic pressures (forestry, trapping, ecotourism) save the odd sport hunter who came mostly for moose or bear during a restricted window.  In this relatively simple “laboratory”, at least one wolverine persisted in the periphery of the field during the heavy development stage, and incorporated the core of the field in its territory once development was established and facilities being primarily maintained only (less activity).

How many areas of wolverine range in Alberta are in this situation, however?  What if forestry had been added to our area?  What if forestry and all three traplines active – or only one active but for the full decade duration - had been added?  And, as Audrey Magoun, (pioneer of wolverine research in North America) once pointed out to me, wolverines are individuals – what one individual may do and tolerate may not necessarily be accurately implied of the next. Continued Here.