The
wolf is the largest wild member of the canidae or dog
family. Many of the wolf's physical and behavioral
characteristics reflect the fact that it cooperatively
hunts, pursues, attacks, kills, and eats animals larger
than itself.
Subspecies
of wolves:
Based
largely on the work of Goldman (1944) 24 subspecies of
wolves were recognized in North America at that time.
However Goldman did not employ statistical analysis and
had relatively few specimens from some regions. In addition,
there are documented cases of wolves crossing subspecies
boundaries during dispersals (Fritts 1983). Analysis
of current skull collections by Nowak (1984) led him
to propose that the number of wolf subspecies be greatly
reduced. Regardless of the final taxonomical a conclusion,
wolves are remarkably similar physically and behaviorally;
without extensive skull measurements, subspecies identification
is impossible.
Physical
appearance of wolves and similar species:
Wolves
in the Rockies usually weigh 70 to 115 Ibs. (32-52 kg),
with males tending toward the higher end of the spectrum.
They average 26 to 32 inches (65-80 cm) tall at the shoulder
and measure 57 to 76 inches (145-193 cm) in length (Ream
et al. 1987). The tail is long and bushy and is usually
carried down or straight out, never curled. Ears are
erect, rounded and 2 inches (5 an) long. Eyes are yellow
and eyeshine is greenish gold (Burt and Grossenheider
1964).
Table
I: Differences in Physical appearance between canids:
SPECIES |
WOLF |
COYOTE |
DOG |
Weight
(lbs) |
70-115 |
20-35 |
variable |
Height
at Shoulder |
26-34
in. |
16-20
in. |
variable |
Color |
black,
white, all shades of gray & tan, grizzled,
never spotted |
all
shades of gray & tan, white or black very
rare, never spotted. |
variable,
may be spotted |
Tail
Carriage |
hangs
down or straight out, never curls |
hands
down or straight out, never curls |
variable,
may curl |
General
Appearance |
massive,
long legged, first impression is often calf or
deer |
delicate,
medium size, dog-like proportions with fox-like
face. |
variable |
Ears |
rounded,
relatively short, never hang down |
pointed,
relatively long, never hang down |
variable,
may hang down |
Muzzle |
large
and blocky |
long
and pointed |
variable |
Wolves'
chests are narrow and keel-like, and their fore limbs
seem pressed into their chests with elbows turned inward
and paws turned outward (Young 1944, Iljin 1941). Milton
Hildebrand analyzed the body proportions of various members
of the dog family and concluded that wolves' legs are
moderately long compared to the legs of other canids
(Mech 1970)
Color
ranges from white to black shades of brown and gray.
White and light-colored waives predominate in the arctic,
while black and gray are common in the subarctic and
boreal forest regions (Banfield 1974). Gray phases prevail
in the south. The wolves in north-western Montana are
predominantly gray (45% ) or black (55% ) (Ream et al.
1987). The coat consists of a dense layer of soft, fine
fur topped by long guard hairs, which give the coat its
color (Mecli 1970).
The longest
hair, as long as 6.7 inches (16.75 cm), is found in the
mane. Wolves can raise and lower this hair depending
on their state of aggression (Carbyn 1987). The mane
hair, along with hair on the base of tail, is generally
darker than the rest of the body. Patterns of color in
facial hair accentuate expressive features. Wolves appear
lankier and less robust in summer due to a much thinner
coat.
It is
difficult to distinguish between wolves, coyotes and
dogs, especially if the light is bad, the sighting is
brief or the animal is far away. Table I show key characteristics
of wolves, coyotes, and two breeds of dogs that can be
easily mistaken for wolves. Because of their relatively
long legs and lanky body, the first impression of a wolf
is often that of a deer or calf, not of a large dog or
coyote. Skulls of wolves, dogs and coyotes can usually
be distinguished by measurements of teeth, orbital angle
and the angle at which the rostrum and brain-case meet
(4748: Hoffmann and Pattie 1968). Hybrids are more difficult
and may be misclassified even with sophisticated measurements.
Differentiating
wolf hair from other species :
Currently
no techniques exist for distinguishing between wolf and
coyote hair. However, the hair of these two species can
be distinguished from other members of the Canidae family
through microscopic analysis (Kennedy 1982, Moore et
al. 1974). Inquiries regarding canid hair identification
may be sent toA.J. Kennedy, Predator Laboratory Services,
11416 - 50th Ave., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6H OJ3. A
technique that shows promise, but has not yet been tested
with wolves and coyotes, is isoelectric focusing. This
technique relies on examination of hair protein, which
appears to be diagnostic for species and even breeds
of domestic dogs (Carracedo et al. 1987). The Wyoming
Fish and Game Laboratory is currently studying this technique.
Inquiries as to its status may be directed toWyoming
Fish and Game, University Station, Box 3312, Lararnie,
WY 82071.
Differentiating
wolves from other species:
Wolves,
dogs and coyotes are nearly identical genetically, and
no tested method exists for distinguishing them on that
basis (Robert Wayne, Dept. Biol., U.C., Los Angeles,
pers. common.). Obviously, hybrids of 2 or more of the
species are even more confusing. Work is being done in
this area, and samples of tissue or heparinized blood
may be sent to Robert Wayne, Dept. Biol., U.C.-Los
Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90024 or U.S.F.W.S., Division
of Law Enforcement, 1490 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520. Investigators
should contact the above labs for sample size, storage
and shipping protocol.
Appearance
of tracks of wolves and similar species:
Wolves
often travel long distances in the course of their daily
activities. It is not uncommon for wolves to travel 20
miles in a as 24-hour period. Such distances are covered
primarily at a trot. The wolf's stride length at a trot
is generally more than that of other species with similar
tracks. Stride is the distance from one footprint in
a trail to the next footprint made by the same foot,
and is usually the measurement found in track identification
books. WEP has found that measurement of intergroup distance
is easier and less subject to error than measurement
of stride. Intergroup distance is the distance from one
print to the next (fig. 11). Several intergroup distance
measurements should be taken to determine an average.
A wolf's
front feet are larger than its hind feet, and the toes
spread more. The hind foot often lands in the print made
by the front foot on the same side.
Wolf
tracks are similar in shape to coyote and dog tracks
(figs. 12-16) The track of a wolf is considerably larger
than a coyote's, but tracks of some breeds of dogs overlap
those of a wolf. Harris and Ream (1983) developed a method
to aid in distinguishing between those dog breeds and
wolf tracks. This method relies on measurements intergroup
distance made from casts of undistorted tracks. See Harris
and Ream (1983) for necessary measurements. The authors
caution that this method should not be used in isolation,
but in conjunction with other relevant information such
as length of stride and track pattern. They also suggest
that only tracks greater than 4 inches (11 cm) long be
subjected to this method (Harris, pers. commun. ). Tracks
less than this length may be assumed to be dogs or coyotes.
Only a few breeds of dogs such as Great Danes, St. Bernards
and blood hounds leave tracks longer than 4 inches, and
the method can be used to eliminate these breeds. The
tracks of German shepherds, malamutes, retrievers and
setters are usually less than 4 inches long.
Since
dogs have proportionally wider chests than wolves, the
width of a dog's stride (straddle) is greater, especially
for dogs with tracks as large as a wolf For the same
reason, dogs place their hind foot beside their front,
whereas wolves place their hind foot on the same line
as the front foot (Mech 1970).
Wild
canids and felids tend to walk straight, and their trails
give the appearance that the animal is on a "bee-line." Quite
often an imaginary line can be drawn through their tracks
that is remarkably straight (fig. 17). Dogs tend to meander,
giving their trails a zigzag appearance (fig. 18) (Dick
Thiel, pers. common.). However, both species can vary
and tracks should be followed for considerable distances
before a decision as to species is made.
Appearance
of nearby scats and proximity to people should be considered
when large canid tracks are encountered. In some remote
areas, large canid tracks may result from the practice
of using hounds to hunt mountain lions (Felis concolor).
Mountain
lion tracks are often confused with wolf tracks. Distinguishing
features of a mountain lion track are its roundness,
the shape of the planter pad (main foot pad) and asymmetry
of both the foot and the individual toes (figs. 19, 20).
The intergroup distance of a mountain lion is also less
than wolves', though there is overlap. Because cats have
retractable claws, mountain lion tracks do not usually
show dew marks. This is not always true, however, as
mountain lions sometimes use their claws to increase
traction on steep or slippery terrain. Claw marks may
also be present if the animal is traveling fast. If dew
marks are visible, they will be directly joined to the
toe, while the wolf track exhibits a 1/4-inch separation
between claw and toe.
Table
II and Figures 19-22 show distinguishing measurements
and characteristics of tracks and intergroup distances
for wolves and other species in the Rockies that can
be confused with the wolf
WEP
suggests that an observer first decide if the track was
made by a predator or an ungulate. This can be difficult
in loose deep snow, but generally you can distinguish
the two, even at a distance, by imagining a line drawn
down the center of a set of tracks. Predator tracks will
be close to the center line because of their smaller
chest width, while ungulate tracks will straddle the
center line with wider separation (fig 23). Next, examine
intergroup distance and the direction of travel. If intergroup
distance is more than 24 inches (61 cm) and the direction
of travel is straight, then inspect individual tracks.
The
following measurements should be recorded: intergroup
distance (fig. 11) and length and width of track (fig.
12). Tracks can appear elongated if the animal slips,
and tracks in snow enlarge in warm weather. Track width
is more variable than length because an animal can splay
its toes in response to terrain. These factors must be
kept in mind. A guide to animal tracks is an indispensable
field aid. Murie (1974), Halfpenny (1986) and Forrest
(1988) are very good.
Table
II: Distinguishing track characteristics:
SPECIES |
General
Shape |
Intergroup
Distance |
Print
Size
(front foot) |
Other |
WOLF |
4
toes, symmetrical, longer than wide, rectangular
shape, typical canid-shaped planter pad, nail
marks not attached to toe mark |
>26" |
L>4
3/4"
W>3 3/4" |
travels
straight line,
usually |
DOG |
same
as wolf |
variable |
variable
most breeds
< 4" long |
lots
of meandering |
COYOTE |
same
as wolf |
<16" |
L<2
3/4"
W<2 1/2" |
travels
straight line,
usually |
COUGAR |
4
toes, asymmetrical, typical felid-shaped planter
pad, round shape, no nail marks usually, if present
then attached to toe. |
>20" |
L>3"
W> 3 1/2" |
travels
straight line, usually, may leave tail drag mark
in soft deep snow |
LYNX |
same
as cougar but with "feathery, blurred" appearance
around print due to foot fur |
<14" |
L>3
1/2"
W 3 3/4" |
|
WOLVERINE |
5
toes (small toe does not always show), nail marks
unattached, mustelid-shaped planter pad (entire
pad may nor show) |
3-12"
(up to 35" when bounding) |
L>4"
W>4" |
different
gait pattern |
Making
permanent track records:
Casts
of tracks can be made with plaster of Paris, which
is available at hardware stores, or dental plaster
which can be obtained from dental supply companies.
Dental plaster hardens faster than plaster of Paris
and picks up detail better. About 1 cup of plaster
is needed for a wolf track. The following procedure
must be done quickly, before the plaster hardens.
Add water to the plaster while mixing until the mixture
is the consistency of thick pancake batter, then
pour it into the track, making sure to cover the
entire print. If the mixture is too thick, mock details
such as claws will be obscured. If it is too thin,
the cast will be brittle and take a long time to
dry. Gently "pat" the plaster with a stick
to work it into details of the print. Leave a smooth
surface on the top to record information (date, location,
and collector). Allow the cast to harden for 15 to
20 minutes (5 minutes for dental plaster) before
prying it out with a knife
Tracks
can also be casted in snow, but the plaster takes up
to an hour to harden. There are 4 methods for casting
tracks in snow. One method entails spraying the track
with a fine mist of water until a coating of ice forms
so that the plaster mixture will not melt through. Adding
snow to the plaster mixture will cool it down and make
melt-throughs less likely.
The second
method uses a spray wax which can be purchased from Kinderprint
Co., Inc., P.O. Box 16, Martinez, CA 94553. The track
is sprayed with 2 to 3 coats of wax, allowing 1 minute
between coats. A cast is then made with plaster. In subzero
temperatures the track should be covered with plastic
or newspaper and then covered with snow. Otherwise the
water may freeze before the plaster sets up (Barbat et
al. 1990).
The third
method uses elemental sulfur, which may be purchased
at gardening centers and drug stores. Heat and stir the
sulfur in a pot until it liquefies. Do not inhale the
fumes. Remove the pot from the stove and continue to
stir until the mixture hardens just a little and then
pour the substance into the track. It takes about 2 minutes
for the cast to harden. It is difficult to make good
casts in fine-grained, powdery snow with any method.
The fourth
method uses silicone (which can also be used in other
substrates). Silicone makes a virtually unbreakable cast
but costs about $5.00 per track. Directions and materials
for making silicone casts can be obtained from Sirchie
Fingerprint Laboratories, Raleigh, North Carolina 27662.
The reader
is encouraged to experiment with track casting under
a variety of conditions before going into the field.
Photographs
also form a permanent track record. A ruler or other
object should be included in the photo for scale. Several
photos should be taken from diffract angles, distances
and F stops. Infrared film works better in snow than
regular film.
Differentiating
wolf howling from other canids:
Wolves
vocalize by howling, barking whimpering, and growling.
Wolves may bark when their den is disturbed of if they
are surprised at a kill. The bark is deep and sounds
much like a large dog's bark.
The howl
of a wolf is most described as deep and mournful. Theberge
and Falls (1967:334) described it as follows: "The
howl is a continuous sound from about half a second to
11 seconds in length. Most of the time, the pitch remains
constant or varies smoothly, and may change direction
as many as four or five times. Total intensity does not
greatly vary throughout." A howling session by a
single wolf lasts an average of 35 seconds, during which
the animal howls several times. A howling session by
a pack lasts an average of 85 seconds. It is initiated
by one wolf, and after its first or second howl one or
more others may join in (Joslin 1966) It is extremely
difficult to assess how many wolves are howling if there
are more than 3 or 4 (Harrington and Mech 1982). Fuller
(1988) found that more than 80% of wolf howls were heard
at 0.9 miles (1.5 km) and less, but none were heard at
greater than 1.5 miles (2.5 km). This research was conducted
in flat, wooded terrain.
Except
for high-pitched yapping if pups are present, wolf howls
almost never include barking. The howls of coyotes are
higher pitched than wolf howls and usually include yapping
and barking before, during, and after howling. The howling
of large breeds of dogs are sometimes difficult to distinguish
from wolves, but dog howls almost always include some
barking and are usually associated with human activity.
Characteristics
of estrous, and differentiating scats of similar species:
Blood
found in urination marks in January and February is indicative
of a female coming into estrous. If this sign is found
along with the tracks of 2 or more wolves, a strong possibility
exists that breeding will occur.
Scats
are runny and black after wolves have fed on fresh meat.
They then gradually become firmer and more formed. Formed
wolf scats usually have ungulate fur and/or bones in
them. Volume is similar to a large dog's scat. Scat deposits
may be many miles apart if wolves have not fed recently.
Considerable
overlap exists between the size of wolf and coyote scats.
Air-dried scats of 1.2 inches (30 mm) and larger in diameter
are wolves 95% of the time. However, 2/3 of the time
wolf scats are less than 1.2 inches (Weaver and Fritts
1979). Coyote scats often contain hair and bones of small
mammals. However, this is not diagnostic as wolves also
eat small mammals, and coyotes scavenge and sometimes
kill ungulates.
The scats
of a black bear that has been eating meat are similar
to wolf scat, but with a larger volume and a different
odor. Mountain lion scats are more segmented than wolf
scats but are similar in size, volume and content. However,
mountain lions often cover their scats with leaves, sticks
and dirt.
At present
there are no techniques for conclusively matching scat
with the species from which it came. However, scat contains
self groomed hair, and if hair identification improves,
this method may work for scat identification. Additionally,
some work is being conducted using thin layer and gas
liquid chromatography to determine species based on chemical
composition of fecal bioacids (Mark K. Johnson, Univ.
Louisiana, pers. common.). This may become a viable method
in the future
Scats
should be collected without touching them and placed
in a sealed plastic bag and than sterilized before the
contents are examined. Canid scat may contain parasites
that can be harmful or fatal if ingested or inhaled.
To destroy parasites, heat scat above 212°F for
15 minutes. This can be accomplished by using an autoclave
or pressure cooker. WEP places each scat in an aluminum
can with the top cut out, and puts these in a pressure
cooker that is brought up to temperature and pressure
on a Coleman stove outdoors.
Differentiating
wolf kills from other predators' kills:
Mech
(1966 and 1970), and Roy and Dorrance (1976) describe
attacks by wolves on wild ungulates and domestic livestock.
Wolves typically attack the hindquarters, flanks, shoulders,
nose, and tail. They feed preferentially on the viscera
and hind limbs. This is not obvious if the animal is
attacked by a pack, as the entire carcass is usually
quickly consumed. Table Ill shows characteristics distinguishing
wolf-killed animals from animals killed by coyotes, dogs,
bears and cougars.
Search
the area surrounding the carcass thoroughly for tracks,
hair and scat.
Animals
that have starved often die resting on their sternum
with their legs folded under their sternum, while predator-killed
animals are usually found lying on their side with legs
extended.
Table
III: Kill characteristics of predatory species in the
Northern Rockies:
SPECIES |
WOLF |
COYOTE |
DOG |
BEAR |
COUGAR |
Area
of
conflict |
Fringe
of settlement |
State-wide |
Settled
areas |
Forested
areas |
Mountains
and foothills |
Prey |
Deer,
elk, moose, beaver, cattle, sheep, horses, dogs |
Wild
ungulate, young rabbits, sheep, calves, poultry,
rodents, birds |
Sheep,
calves, poultry |
Wild
ungulate, young rodents, cattle, sheep, swine |
Deer,
elk, rabbits, cattle, sheep |
Attack
Behavior |
Trails
of blood and hair; bites on hindquarters, flanks,
shoulders, nose, tail |
Sheep;
bites on throat and head. Calves; bites on hindquarters
and flanks |
Harassment,
mutilation, bites on ears, shoulders, flanks,
hindquarters, tail |
Blow
to anterior, claw marks on face and shoulders,
bites on head, neck and back, wounded prey common |
Leaps
on back and bites into neck and back vertebrae;
teeth marks on upper neck, claw marks on shoulders |
Feeding
Behavior |
Prefers
visera and hind limbs, preferential feeding nor
obvious in packs. Except for stomach contents,
carcass may be entirely consumed. Especially
true of young or small animals |
Enter
through upper most flank, consumes visera and
upper most thigh first, leaves hide in more or
less one piece |
Feed
lightly or not at all |
Drag
prey to cover, flesh of hind limbs consumed first,
skin and bones remain more or less intact. Grizzles
cover prey, black bears usually do not |
Heart,
lungs, liver, kidneys - then meat |
Characteristics
of wolf dens:
Wolf
dens are located near water and are usually dug into
well- drained soil on a south-facing slope. They can
be dug under a boulder, among tree roots, or in cut banks,
hollow logs or other features. Wolves often enlarge coyote
or fox dens. Den entrances measure about 18 inches (45
cm) in diameter and are usually large enough for a thin
per- son to squeeze through. The passageway, which may
be straight, forked or hooked, is 4.5 to 17.5 feet (5.3
m) long with a chamber measuring approximately 18 inches
high by 48 inches wide by 41 inches deep (46 by 122 by
104 cm). No bedding is in the den. If the den has been
used in the last several years, bones will be scattered
about and well-defined trails should radiate from the
den. It is common for dens to be reused (Ballard and
Dau 1983, Stephenson 1974, Fuller 1989).
Often,
other diggings are found near the den. These holes are
of lesser diameter and usually do not extend inward as
far as the den. Collect hair from suspected dens.
Comparison
of adult coyotes and wolf pups:
Wolf
pups vary greatly in graph rate and size (Van Ballenberghe
and Mech 1975). In August, pups weigh about 40 Ibs (18
kg), about the weight of a healthy coyote, but by the
beginning of July they are usually taller than coyotes.
They are also distinguishable from coyotes by their puppyish
features---feet "too big" for their bodies,
legs "too long", blunt nose, and shorter, less
bushy tail. Wolf pups have nearly adult-sized feet by
late July.
|