Dave Ausband - Research Associate

Ph.D. Candidate - Wildlife Biology

Email: david.ausband@mso.umt.edu
Natural Science Building - Room 312A
Phone: 406-243-4329

Dave and B390 shortly before being radiocollared and released in central Idaho

UPDATE:

Wolf population monitoring

We have devised a wolf population monitoring program rooted in patch occupancy modeling, a statistical technique that can integrate data from multiple sampling methods. To populate a patch occupancy model, we are evaluating a variety of survey methods that have demonstrated strong relationships to wolf abundance and distribution. The survey methods we are testing are hunter surveys, rendezvous site surveys, howlboxes, and rub stations.

We conducted a statewide survey of 13,000 hunters in Idaho in 2010 and again in 2011 to generate data for use in an occupancy model. Data are currently being analyzed and we will use these data to populate a statewide occupancy model that can generate wolf abundance estimates for Idaho. We worked with the University of Montana’s Computer Sciences Department to improve the howlbox and tested its efficacy under field conditions in 2011. We found the device lasts 5-6 days and broadcasts > 3 km and records >2 km. Each of the survey methods we have designed over the course of this project (hunter surveys, rendezvous site surveys, howlboxes, and rub stations) can provide the data needed to populate a patch occupancy model; further, some of the methods can yield highly detailed information on wolves in focal areas, providing biologists with unprecedented tools for understanding wolves in areas where management interest is high. We suggest a monitoring framework based on patch occupancy modeling, using observations available from a variety of sampling techniques, can provide reliable statewide estimates of wolf population size.

 Biofence project

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) can conflict with livestock production throughout Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Generally, wolves that prey on domestic livestock are killed by management agencies or private landowners. These actions typically stop depredations for producers in the short-term but are not a lasting solution because wolf packs generally fill the recently vacated territory within 1 year and livestock predation often continues. Most tools currently available for non-lethal control of wolves are short-lived in their effectiveness or require constant human presence. Wolves, like most canids worldwide, use scent-marking (deposits of urine, scat, and scratches at conspicuous locations) to establish territories on the landscape and avoid intraspecific conflict. We hypothesized that human-deployed scent-marks consisting of scat and urine (i.e., "biofence") could be used to manipulate wolf pack movements in Idaho.

We deployed 64.7 km of biofence within 3 wolf pack territories in central Idaho during summer 2010. Location data provided by satellite collared wolves in 2 of the packs showed little to no trespass of the biofence even though the excluded areas were used by the pack (> 75% kernel level) in previous summers. Sign surveys at predicted rendezvous sites in areas excluded by our biofence yielded little to no recent wolf use of those areas. Lastly, we opportunistically deployed a biofence in between a resident wolf pack’s rendezvous site and a nearby (< 1.6 km) active sheep grazing allotment totaling 2,400 animals. This pack was not implicated in any depredations even though their rendezvous site was in close proximity to sheep. Our pilot test provides preliminary evidence that wolf movements can be manipulated using human-distributed scent-marks. We satellite-collared additional wolves in these 3 packs in January 2011 and repeated biofence testing in the summer of 2011. Data analyses are currently underway.