It has been very exciting to reconstruct the histories of the original recolonizers of Oregon.
The first wolf families to settle anywhere likely establish a legacy that does not fade easily even if packs replace one another.
For example, the first settlers choose their home in accordance to the configuration of the landscape with respect to prey abundance and distribution, forested areas (den sites, remoteness), lack of disturbance etc.
Some of these factors might change more dynamically than others, but, overall, while, under the conditions of a growing population, the territory might shift its boundaries (shrinking but perhaps expanding or splitting to accommodate offspring packs), some of its features might remain constant.
For example, the heirs to this territory would probably follow the same hunting trails (worn into the soil by the former pack), they might use the same den sites and rendevouz sites etc.
And, indeed, it would be interesting to learn whether wolves that establish their homes in ranges that have already been used by packs prior to them have an easier time as the trails, marks and other cues can tell the new family where to find resources, where to travel without exerting too much effort, where to den without the risks of suffering flood or predation on the pups, and so on.
It is not merely a range that is passed on. It is a lifestyle or even a culture of the particular home.
Minam Pack may or may not exist in 2024.
A Minam Pack (which was not composed of the original Minam wolves but which had taken over the Minam home) existed in 2023 although it was not a year that brought them great fortunes and, by the end of the year, their status was unclear.
However, any wolves who may now live on Minam’s range, have arrived to a place which has been explored, which has been settled, organized and which has acquired its traditions.
The original Minam Pack that was founded near the Minam River, was not as fortunate as to grow into customs already set out for them.
Oregon used be a wolf land prior to the wolf persecutions in the 18th and 19th century, and as Minam Pack arrived to settle in the NW of Wallowa-Whitman Forest where wolves certainly used to live in those ‘more ancient days’, it is curious to wonder how much had changed since the times of the last wolves in Oregon and, to what extent, Minam Pack, unknowingly, mimicked the packs that had dwelt in this range before them; and to what extend, they discovered ‘a new land’ which had changed and which had placed new rules upon the wolf population.
We do not have reports of the wolf territories and the pack stories from the 19th century or times earlier than that but if there is a wolf family reading my report from its afterlife, I hope they will be able to appreciate the great effort by the Minam Pack.
Perhaps these wolves, despite the troubled times that befell between their legacy and the legacy introduced by Minam Pack, might be able to recognize their old home and its heritage in some of the choices, joys and hardships that Minam Pack made, experienced and endured.
I wonder how many years it takes for the evidence of wolf residency to fade (to the perception by other wolves).
There have been dens in use by wolf packs for centuries (see, e.g., Mech, L.D. & Packard, J.M., 1990).
These dens are mostly located in the arctic or boreal regions where den site availability might be limited (whereby wolves must use the same dens over and over again), where dens are often located in rocky crevices rather than dug out in less permanent substrate and where the environment (due to frost and low wildlife/human densities) might be more preserving of existing features.
Moreover, ungulate bones might preserve longer in the cold climate (also for hundreds of years) and they might be better exposed and some of such bones might bear the teeth marks of wolves indicating of their former activity.
Thusly, wolves arriving even after decades or hundreds of years might stumble upon evidence of other wolves who had been there (who had hunted or scavenged, or who had themselves died) before them.
Oregon might be a region of a more dynamic nature where not as many landscape features and objects persist for prolonged periods.
However, it is interesting to consider that these recolonizing wolves did not explore their new home ‘from anew’ even if they found no physical/chemical evidence of wolf existence in the area.
Perhaps, on some level, they tuned in to the long history of wolves exploring their habitats (it is largely not known how wolves assess the landscapes they are travelling through and how they might perform the evaluation of a potential home range they have come across).
These wolves might have united their perceptions and cognition with the wolves who appreciated and appraised this very same homeland before them.
Their cognitive processes might not have been different from those exhibited by the wolves before them and, in this process of sizing up a potential home, they could have been united through time (although the more ancient wolves might have met a different prey basis).
Conversely, these wolves might have wondered why wolves no longer resided in these habitats where there was prey, where there were forests.
These wolves (and many wolves immigrating into the US from Canada) might have been startled to find a land void of other wolves where there could and should have been an abundance.
Unless wolves have a collective memory that bears the successes and sorrows of the history of the species, unless they carry the recent grievances with them as awareness that things are not as they ought to be, it might have been puzzling for individuals to reach places where one would expect to meet others or to discover signs of recent occupancy – but where one finds none of it.
While the lack of a local wolf population offers opportunities to a wolf who wishes to have a home and a family of their own, the process of settling in these wolf-forsaken regions might also be confusing and lonesome.
Note – it would be interesting to assess whether reproductive rates and first year pack persistence is enhanced if the new wolf pair/pack establishes in a formerly owned wolf territory vs. an area which has not been inhabited by wolves for decades (i.e., if this pair/pack encounters cues as to where to find prey, where to den, where to travel in the form of wolf-created landmarks such as trails).
I hope that the history of wolves in Wallowa-Whitman Forest is never again interrupted and that either legacies are held by long-standing packs and their heirs (the offspring); or that the packs who take over (and who are not related to the former families) do not have to start afresh and they can build upon the lifestyle and culture once established by their predecessors adding their own unique family character to the home’s now uninterrupted timeline.
With these statements, I wish for us to realize that these packs were not colonizers but recolonizers of lands that had belonged to the wolves since hundreds of thousands of years, and that they did not start the wolf history of Oregon but simply resumed it.
For the purpose of reconstructing Minam Pack’s history , I will be using the Annual Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Reports (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) and the timeline of Minam Pack also provided by the ODFW.
According to the official reports, Minam Pack was established in the year of 2012 (but see below) and it could perhaps be considered as representative of the third wave of recolonizing families (the first being Wenaha and Imnaha before 2010 and then Snake River and Walla Walla in 2011).
I find it interesting that right after the establishment of Wenaha and Imnaha (2008-09), the following year (2010) did not show an increase in the population.
2011 brought along two other packs and one of these packs (Walla Walla) might have been a displaced family unit which is a condition rather different from those who arrive to ‘start from scratch’.
In 2012, Umatilla River Pack emerged (which was, in fact, a kin group to Walla Walla and the founder(s) of which arrived with Walla Walla).
In 2012, also Minam and Sled Springs Pair appeared but Sled Springs Pair was a Wenaha daughter-pack.
2013 also saw a rise in Oregon’s pack count. However, Mt. Emily Pack was, in truth, a pack established by a Walla Walla son.
In 2013, however, 5 more wolves were spotted (near Minam’s range) that did not take residence and probably a great number of wolves had been wandering here and there unnoticed (especially, further from the already tracked and observed pack ranges).
Since 2014, the population increased and it was augmented by an apparent influx of pairs, the members of which had not been born into the local packs.
Thusly, it appears to me that Minam was the last pack which could be perhaps considered a true recolonizer of a few-wolf-land.
Minam might have concluded the phase of daring to settle quite outside of an existing wolf population.
After Minam, it would seem that the immigrants were already attracted to what was a substantial wolf population in NE Oregon (they did not establish far from the known wolf packs) and these immigrants might have faced different experiences and decisions than the first settlers.
They did not have to fret as greatly over meeting a mate and over securing a mate for their offspring.
However, they did not have free choice in all pieces of land any longer.
In 2013 already there were wandering wolves in NE Oregon and the year of 2014 saw a growth in the number of new pairs which were not of Oregon origin.
Thusly, I am writing this post as a conclusion to the first stage of Oregon’s recolonization by wolves.
I believe it is also quite important to distinguish between these packs (Wenaha, Imnaha, Snake River, Minam) that very likely made their choice to exit a dense wolf population and to start their lives ‘in the middle of nowhere’ vs. the later-arrivals who already joined a recently established wolf society with its opportunities (mates) and difficulties (competition).
To some degree, Walla Walla and Umatilla River were, of course, also among the first founders but I would like to single… double them out because they arrived as a group and such arrival could have affected their impressions and motivations quite differently spinning a story that does not wholly parallel those of the single wolves and pairs.
However, Minam is also a somewhat ‘dubious case’ as it appeared to have three adults in the pack during its very first year (my suspicion is that Minam Pack might have reproduced in 2011 already).
I believe that, after Minam, the individuals and pairs who arrived had a different mindset and a different outlook.
The pre-Minam packs could have been characterized by traits that allowed them to make bold decisions and to persist in conditions where no current traditions and rules exist.
They made their decisions based on a wolf’s intuition of what a family needed, and not as a consequence of adjusting to the decisions made by wolves prior to them.
The post-Minam packs joined a community where some decisions had already been made for them and they need to ‘fit in’ rather than form the very foundations of a basic population structure.
Who were these ‘last of the first colonizers’ and where did they settle?
Minam Pack was discovered in June, 2012, in the Eagle Cap Wilderness which is a part of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Perhaps the pack’s choice of land already demonstrates the constraints put on the settling wolves – while Minam appeared early enough to take over a true wilderness unit (unlike other packs later on and even prior to Minam (Umatilla River Pack) who had to settle for edge habitats between wilderness and civilization), Eagle Cap Wilderness is a more ‘complicated’ area than some less rugged and more greatly forested habitats.
It is more up-and-down-slopey and more open than perhaps a wolf would prefer.
However, there are trees in the valleys and the area is relatively undisturbed.
Minam Pack could hunt mule deer and elk but also mountain goats and sheep.
However, the mountain goats and sheep are not wolf’s favourite prey because they live in higher altitudes (than even the relatively mountain-loving mule deer) where travelling and hunting is not easy and often even impossible.
There were also very few moose and a sparse population of white-tailed deer.
Mule deer and elk would have been the pack’s dominant prey but Minam Pack also had to account for the migratory behaviour of these species in the mountainous area.
Elk and mule deer do not emigrate out of the Eagle Cap Wilderness entirely but they move along the terrain gradient following the distribution of vegetation.
For example, during winter, ungulates tend to descend into river valleys while, during spring, they can travel slightly upslope in order to keep up with the ‘green wave’ (vegetation appears first in lower elevations but then sprouts higher in the mountains; ungulates benefit most from the most recent growth that has the greatest nutritional value and therefore they can travel uphill to always forage on the ‘freshest’ vegetation).
This might have meant that the wolf pack had to base their own summer and winter locations on the movement of their prey up and down the mountains.
During summer, Minam Pack might have wished to den in the valley where there more trees but if their prey migrated uphill, they would have to travel further in order to hunt and to provide for their pup.s
This might cause Minam trouble, especially, because domestic cattle and sheep are grazed in the mount-foot valleys.
While many conflicts occur during summer when other prey is typically available, spring period could have been treacherous for Minam Pack if they wished not to journey the challenging mountains in order to hunt their favoured wild prey and if they happened upon livestock instead – at lower elevations.
Also, migratory prey tend to form herds and their distribution is often clumped which determines the distribution of the wolves hunting them, as well.
This would be especially relevant during winter when Minam Pack might have had to use some parts of their range more than others if their prey gathered in wintering yards.
There were some smaller mammals (beavers, marmots) to prey upon during summer which might have been the more challenging season for Minam Pack due to restricted movement (immobile pups, centering around homesites) and dispersal of their wild prey higher up in the mountains.
Among competitors and potential predators, black bears, cougars and, to a sparser extent, grizzlies and wolverines must have been taken account of.
Vegetation was represented by grassland species in river valleys as well as conifers higher in the mountains.
Minam Pack apparently settled on the banks of the Minam River after which it the family was named and which offers abundant riparian vegetation of softwood forests and shrubs.
In some respects, Minam Pack’s home perhaps resembled more the homes of wolves in boreal regions than the homes of many other wolves in NE Oregon.
The Minam wolves were first spotted already during the pup-raising period of 2012.
Wolf activity had been noted in the area several years prior to 2012 and it is difficult to determine when the founders of the Minam family truly arrived, especially, as there appeared to be several adults (/subadults) in 2012 and these might have been pups of 2011 already.
On June 4, only the lactating female was seen (trail camera footage).
On May 16, 2013, this female will be radio-collared and she will be thence known as OR20.
The early tracking of Minam Pack was confounding.
In June, 2012, ODFW team attempted to find the reported wolf pack and they discovered three adults (but no pups) on the eastern side of Minam River.
Later in July, no wolves were found at all thereabouts and it was assumed that the pack had left the area.
In August, 2012, ‘a new wolf pack’ was observed upstream from the ‘former pack’.
It was believed that this was a different pack (a pair + 5 pups) because the breeding wolves were grey and their pups were grey, as well, while the lactating female spotted in the camera footage (Jun 4) had been black.
Therefore, it was assumed that there had been two ‘Minam Packs’ (Lower Minam and Upper Minam) and the Lower Minam Pack (led by OR20) was perhaps gone or it existed as a separate unit (having lost its pups?) and only Upper Minam remained.
However, in the beginning of 2013, it was confirmed that Lower Minam and Upper Minam packs were genetically related (scat DNA testing) and OR20 was this pack’s breeding (black) female.
Apparently, OR20 might have moved her pups during the period between June and August which could suggest that the pack’s prey began moving, as well, from the mid-valley of Eagle Cap Wilderness to the southern parts, perhaps closer to the wintering grounds.
It is not uncommon for wolves to move the pups several times.
The first move would be that from the natal den to the first rendevouz site and several rendevouz sites (meeting spots where pups stay waiting for the adults to come back from the hunt) can be used throughout the summer and early autumn (several den sites with burrows or holes can also be used by the mother wolf before moving to a more open and cavity-less rendevouz site).
The distribution of the rendevouz sites can follow prey movements more closely because there is a greater availability of suitable places compared to the den sites which require dens (burrows, caverns etc.), tree cover, remote, concealed location and so on.
The story becomes bewildering as:
- the 5 pups observed in 2012 had been grey as had been the two adults spotted with them (a black female and a grey male could produce all-grey pups, however, and the adults could have been babysitters and not the parental pair or, more likely, the father and a babysitter as there had been three adults in Lower Minam in June);
- in Feb, 2013, it was estimated that Minam Pack had two surviving pups and the end of year count for 2012 was changed to 7 wolves.
It was not explained what this new end of year total entitled.
Namely, the 2012 report had stated that Minam Pack had 2 adults + 2 pups + 1 unknown individual (possibly, adult, observed in June).
If the end of year count had been changed after the 2012 report was published, were the 2 surviving pups observed with the pack added to the 2 pups registered in the pack total in 2012?
This would make the total count of 3 adults and 4 pups = 7 wolves.
However, it is be unlikely ODFW would change the number of pups if they felt sure that only 2 pups had survived.
In such case, how did the pack end up comprised of 7 individuals?
If only 2 pups survived, a pack of 7 individuals would be represented by 5 adults/subadults.
Had there been 2 surviving pups in Minam (reported both in 2012 and Feb, 2013) and was the 2012 comprised of the three adults estimated to have been there in June through tracks, scats and howls + two grey adults actually observed in August + 2 pups?
This scenario is more probable despite the sad implication that only 2 pups (out of possibly 5) survived.
Late summer and autumn is a crucial time for wolf pup survival and much mortality is restricted to this period when the ungulate calves and fawns are grown enough to escape wolves successfully and the ungulates, as a population, are well-nourished after the summer, relatively invulnerable to wolf attacks until snowfall.
The move from Lower Minam to Upper Minam might suggest the pack was struggling to obtain resources.
During migration, ungulates can be more vulnerable to wolf predation and Minam Pack might have moved their homesite closer to the migration route between the higher elevations and the valleys.
This might be an important notice as Minam Pack did not have the highest pup production rate among Oregon’s wolf families but it is, of course, challenging to determine whether they had relatively low birth rates or relatively low pup survival rates.
If the year of 2012 is any indication, it appears that birth rates were average/above average (at least 5 pups) but mortality struck during the months of August – September which will remain a risk period for any wolves residing on Minam’s range.
Without commentary by officials, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the total pack count of 2012.
The two grey adults seen with the pups in August, 2012, could have been the same individuals spotted with OR20 in June of the same year but only one of them might have been a breeding adult (male) while the other must have been an additional packmate (subordinate).
However, if there had been 5 adults in 2012, OR20 could have been with an entirely different group of packmates in June than the ones observed in August.
It is likely that ODFW determined a pack count of 7 individuals out of whom 2 were definite pups born in 2012.
Thusly, by the end of 2012, Minam Pack could have been comprised of the breeding pair + 2 pups + 3 individuals who could have been larger pups also born in 2012 (out of the 5 pup litter) but who could have also been a mix of pups and older subordinates (e.g., two pups and 1 grey subordinate who had been spotted with the pack in summer).
Having deliberated all the scenarios, I find it conceivable that Minam Pack had been, in fact, around since 2011 already and that they had produced a litter in 2011 unnoticed to the ODFW.
In 2012, some of the offspring would have stayed behind as subordinates (perhaps 2 subordinates but maybe 1 or 3).
In 2012, a new litter was born (possibly, 5 pups out of whom only 2 had been identified by tracks) which was moved to a rendevouz site by August where it was observed being attended by subordinates (if there had been more than 1) or by a breeding male and a subordinate.
At least two pups of this litter survived until Feb, 2013, when their tracks were observed by the ODFW staff.
There is a possibility that more pups (e.g., 4) survived as it would be difficult to clearly tell pups apart from adults in the February following their birth, especially, from tracks alone (and it has not been stated how these two pups were recognized as representative of this age group, i.e., whether by tracks or by sight).
Thus, Minam Pack could have begun the year of 2013 with the breeding pair (a black female + a grey male) and a mixed number of pups as well as some subordinates born in 2011 (perhaps only 1 but up to 3).
I find it less likely that Minam Pack accepted other adults (related or unrelated) because if there had been any adults, they might have not stayed with the pack after summer of 2012 but the 2013 count suggests that whoever these 5 subordinates were – they had remained with the breeding pair.
On the other hand, Minam Pack seemed to adopt a strategy of keeping a large pack size (and thus they might have ‘adopted’ subordinates in order to adopt the strategy) which was perhaps important if prey needed to be tracked far from homesites during summer (homesites perchance having been located at lower elevations with a greater tree cover while the prey could have migrated upslope).
Whoever these subordinate individuals were, they stayed in the pack until the end of 2013 when the pack count increased to 12 (with 5 pups born in 2013).
It is likelier for yearlings to remain in the pack (than for two-year-olds) whereby I believe that more than 2 pups (born in 2012) survived in 2012/13.
It was probably beneficial for Minam to grow its social group size as the region was gradually being colonized by wolf packs and not many optimal ranges were available anymore to the new settlers.
These later-day arrivals had to choose territories in areas edging between wilderness and civilization and they would have likely been delighted at an opportunity to slightly expand into less disturbed lands.
At first, competition was greater with regard to the dispersing individuals from the few Oregon packs but starting from 2013-14, the pressure by lone wolves and pairs must have become notable, as well.
For example, tracks of 5 wolves were discovered just south of Minam Pack’s range (overlapping it) and while it is not known who these wolves were, it was a formidable group.
It is easier for established packs to ward off single individuals or duos but a 5 wolf alliance calls for a big enough residential group size to hold their own against the claimants of land.
I find it probable that Minam Pack kept its pack size large also in order to prevent other wolves from settling at one or the other end of their elongated range (see below).
Minam Pack must have been in need to control the Minam River valley in as much of its length as possible (see their ODFW range map for the year of 2013).
If they were forced constrained their range only to the upper or lower part of the valley, the proportion of the valley (which is easier travelled and perhaps more suited for denning as well as for winter hunting) on their range would have decreased and they might have come by too great proportion of mountainous terrain in their home.
Elk and mule deer do not ascend to the tops of the mountains even while they are ‘catching the green wave’ and it would make most sense for the wolves to inhabit river valleys including only the lower or middle parts of the slopes and not entire mountain ranges.
The tops of these ranges are difficult to cross and they offer little resources (sheep and goat, the only two ungulates to ascend to higher elevations, are scarce).
Therefore, those are the river/creek valleys and the foothills of the ranges that the wolves utilize.
It is more practical to control a river valley and its adjacent slopes rather than to cross several ranges in order to travel between river/creek valleys that are separated by mountains.
As a result, a long territory is formed along the valley rather than a round/square territory stretched across several valleys and the several ranges between them.
Thus, it is likely Minam Pack needed to hold a territory along the river/creek valleys but this also meant that their territory was difficult to patrol and to defend.
Minam Pack needed to ensure that other pairs did not establish in the northern or the southern part of their range which meant that they had to be able to keep track of both far ends of their territory at all times (more easily achieved with a larger number of members in the pack).
(Another strategy could have been that of allocating part of their southern territory to their own offspring which Minam Pack accomplished in 2014; see below. Southern parts of their range were probably more vulnerable than the northern parts due to the configuration of the landscape.)
After the collaring of OR20 (Minam’s breeding female), it was possible to determine the approximate boundaries and size of Minam’s territory (according to her movements).
Territory size was perhaps rather average (394 mi2 or 1021 km2) for North America and – because it was mainly contained within Eagle Cap Wilderness (officially designated nature area), most of the pack’s range lay on public land.
Such configuration can be beneficial for wolves as their residency on public land causes less controversy in the public.
The shape of their territory, meanwhile, was more curious, and I have touched upon this consideration already when discussing why and how Minam Pack might have wished to inhabit the river valley rather than keeping a more ’rounded’ range in either the northwest or the southeast of the rivers/creeks.
Minam’s territory was rather elongated (see map on pp. 5 in ODFW Wolf Annual Report, 2013).
Elongated territories are more difficult to utilize and to maintain.
The perimeter is longer but it still needs to be patrolled, and many points on the boundaries are more difficult to access as they are located far from the central area and far from one another.
During the pup-raising period when the activity is centered around the den site or the rendevouz site (homesites), wolves behave as ‘central place foragers’, namely, they localize near the pups and thence they depart to hunt and to bring back food for the little ones.
It is more beneficial for the adults (and assisting subadults) to be able to travel from the homesite in all directions equally reducing the amount of time invested in hunting and returning to the pups as well as efficiently covering all of their range during search for prey.
This might be one of the reasons why den sites are often positioned centrally within the territory (but not exclusively so because den sites can have specific requirements such as shelter, ‘diggable’ soil, proximity to water etc., that are or are not met in the central portion of the range).
Elongated ranges are not as convenient because some areas are very close (not much ground to cover in search for prey) while other areas are very far – adults have to expend a lot of energy travelling them and, without babysitters, pups might become left unattended for long periods during which time they are at risk from predators, accidents etc.
In families where the adults cannot spend as much time with the pups, pups are probably also limited in their developmental opportunities as they can mainly learn from one another and from the environment but less so from the adults who are absent or very tired (after return).
While I have stated that Minam’s territory size was not extraordinary, Minam’s territory was larger than the territories of some other more recent packs (e.g., Walla Walla, Umatilla River) but not larger than the territories of older packs (Wenaha, Imnaha) and comparable to Snake River which was established either a year earlier or in the same year (on occasion Minam Pack actually reproduced in 2011 already).
Interestingly, territory size similarity between Minam and Snake River coincides with the relative remoteness, wilderness, natural isolation and ruggedness of their home.
There had to a be a reason behind the perhaps slightly large territory and its inconvenient shape.
The elongation direction was that of NW-SE (mainly, N-S).
The areas to the west were likely suboptimal as they were already somewhat outside of forested land and probably outside of Eagle Cap Wilderness, close to trails, roads and other human infrastructure.
To the east, Minam Pack might have afforded some extra square miles before they encountered more intense human activity.
In both directions, they might have been restricted by mountain ranges.
The elongated shape could have been the result of adjustment to the utilization of particular river channels (River Minam, perhaps Trout Creek) and their respective riparian areas surrounded by rugged terrain.
Also, as mentioned before, the prey basis was not stable for this pack and there would have been migrations by prey along an altitudinal gradient.
If prey had a tendency to congregate in certain areas seasonally (which can be typical of migratory species), the pack might have had to adjust their own distribution.
Minam Pack could have been forced to adjust their movements with respect to the dynamically changing prey-encounter locations and if those were, for example, centered in the north in one season and in the south in another season, Minam Pack would have had to include both north and south in their range in order to be able to sustain themselves all through the year.
(This hypothesis cannot be tested because I am not informed of prey habitat use on Minam’s range.)
Perhaps the large pack size was needed because it was difficult to patrol territory boundaries while focusing on prey in the far end of the territory or while denning far from N or S border (a similar situation was observed in Imnaha which also had a larger, longer territory than other packs and more pack members throughout most years).
Also, if the wolves had to travel further during hunting trips during the pup-raising period (e.g., searching for prey upslope), they might have needed a substantial amount of babysitters who would take shifts guarding the pups during the hunting parties’ longer absences.
The last map in which Minam’s territory is still clearly delineated (see map on pp. 7 in ODWF Annual Wolf Report, 2019) shows that the elongated shape had been maintained throughout the years.
After that, the population had become very dense and the pack boundaries in the report maps were not marked clearly (overlap) making it difficult to determine where one pack’s territory began and another pack’s territory ended.
It is apparent in these later-year maps that the lands to the NE-E from Minam were never occupied by any wolves and therefore the shape of Minam’s range must have been determined not only be the direction of rivers/creeks but also by either natural or anthropogenic landscape configuration factors to the east (and perhaps also to the west).
In 2020, Minam Pack disappeared and the territory was taken over by a new pair who established a pack in 2021 and who were named after the original pack (and, indeed, after the home which was centered around Minam River).
Often it is useful to observe whether the heirs continue the territory use pattern set by the former family as it attests to the influence on the territorial configuration by some environmental factors rather than by the pack’s unique character (e.g., reproductive rate, curiosity, travel rates, social cohesion etc.).
Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, since 2021, the area has been densely settled by wolf packs and the accessible maps do not allow to properly delineate separate pack territories (on the maps they appeared fused into one ‘meta-territory’).
Therefore, it is impossible to know with certainty whether the new Minam pair also had an elongated range.
If they did, both Minam Packs apparently had adjusted to their habitat.
Such ‘disproportionate’ territories can be difficult to manage, and for packs that have to patrol ranges far from where their activities are centered at the moment (during denning or while following seasonally localized prey) often get into trouble with livestock (especially, if livestock is grazed in the wilderness) because they either cannot hunt as efficiently near their den (some hunting trips have to be too long to encounter wild prey and easier prey might be preferred closer to the homesite) or because some individuals must travel in smaller groups to patrol the far end of their territory at all times (single individuals or small groups can have a greater likelihood of attacking livestock opportunistically).
It might have also meant that subadults separated from parents more often than usual so that parents could exploit the areas near the spring to autumn homesites while the subadults explored and hunted farther because they were not as intensely needed near the den/rendevouz site.
Young wolves on their own (loosely associated with adults) can be less efficient hunters and more curious in their character venturing where adults would not venture and preying on species that are not as vigilant and flighty as wild ungulates (due to lower hunting expertise level by the subadults).
The situation was even more complicated if Minam Pack did not have abundant prey resources all through the year (e.g., if the densites and homesites were largely located in the valley while the prey was distributed across higher altitudes).
I am not certain where livestock was being grazed on Minam’s range.
However, if there were any locations during summer where the livestock was found in lower elevations than the wild prey, this could have stirred up conflict.
However, despite livestock grazing permits in Eagle Cap Wilderness and the aforementioned complications, had not had a single livestock depredation attributed to them from 2012 to 2022.
Partly, this could have been the result of Minam Pack’s decision to keep a long territory covering much of the river valley rather than expanding to left and to right.
I suppose that Minam River valley was the core wilderness area while livestock could have been grazed closer to settlements (on the ‘outter’ side of the ranges bordering the river valley), slightly peripheral or external to Minam’s territory.
Still, Minam must have kept tight group cohesion if their whole large pack, at all times, stayed more or less together and did not venture out our their central range despite its restrictions.
While I do not believe that packs which happen into trouble with livestock are ‘worse’ or ‘bad’, I would like to praise Minam Pack for its skill to avoid conflict despite somewhat high probabilities of depredation risk on their range (due to the shape of the territory, the pack size, the relative scarcity of ungulates and the prey migratory behaviour).
It would benefit us to study this pack in order to understand how these wolves managed the difficult situation.
One figure that seems rather striking is that Minam Pack always had rather high numbers of individuals remaining through winter despite their territory size only slightly larger than average.
It might be that keeping the pack large enough was important for Minam and this behaviour both caused a risk factor but also mitigated problems they could have had with livestock
For example, it is likely that hunting trips had to be longer in duration because of the configuration of the pack’s territory and prey behaviour.
In smaller packs, such hunting trips would be undertaken by smaller groups or single individuals (while others would have had to, preferably, stay close to the den guarding and tending the pups).
Minam’s individuals who went on hunts or on patrols probably could travel in larger groups thereby improving their hunting efficiency (without the need to resort to ‘easier prey’).
Thus, during the pup-raising period, the subadults were engaged enough in social interactions and family responsibilities to avoid unnecessary, risky adventures.
Many wolves whose prey is migratory in the boreal/arctic systems tend to have larger packs and it could have been a strategy to cover their entire territory (insuring against conspecific claimants of their range) or to sometimes perform hunting trips to the mountains (where sheep and goat could be found beside the more typical prey) or to search more grounds for the scarce prey (splitting up in small hunting groups and not travelling singly).
Apparently, the pack was doing well in Eagle Cap Wilderness as the pup production rate throughout the years was near average (3) or average (5) and many subordinates could stay.
The pup-raising period is the most crucial time when prey availability and distribution can determine everyone’s chances because, unlike in winter, wolves are not able to range as extensively and prey should be close enough to be brought back to the pups in a regurgitated delivery or as whole body parts.
Meals that are carried in wolves’ stomachs (and later regurgitated to the pups) probably can travel long distances but it might be important for pups to access prey parts even before they have been weaned and their food intake has become largely solid.
Pups should acquire familiarity with their food, resistance against pathogens and parasites found in the food and the opportunity to gnaw on bones might be of importance with regard to proper jaw/teeth development.
No studies have been conducted to analyze potential effects of exposure to ungulate body parts in young pups vs. consumption of ‘processed food’ (milk, regurgitated matter) but I should assume that being able to handle prey parts might improve such aspects of pups’ fitness as immunity, teeth/jaw development, motor functions etc.
Minam Pack was likely a bit aggravated prey-wise during summer but they apparently had figured out effective family household management strategies to track prey in higher elevations.
These strategies (large group which could split in smaller groups as well as ‘chores for everybody’) could have prevented the pack’s youth from wandering off on their own and pack’s cohesion was tight.
Nevertheless, throughout the upcoming years (excluding the initial stage of pack establishment) it was seen that the pack mainly focused on retaining yearlings while two-year-olds tended to disperse.
I have theorized that two-year-olds have educational needs which are different from those of yearlings.
Yearlings are likely eager to improve their hunting skills, to learn taking care of the young as well as to gradually acquire a more independent lifestyle (independence is crucial during dispersal and the first years that the newly formed pair spend together because, during these periods, individuals cannot rely as much on cooperation by a large group).
Meanwhile, I believe that two-year-olds are in greater need to explore and to master social skills not with regard to their own kin but with regard to other, non-related wolves (neighbours, unrelated packs, lone wolves etc.).
Minam Pack was altogether rather isolated, even topographically, from other packs and two-year-olds, during the later years when they were no longer needed in the pack to help the parents, probably felt inclined to leave in order to pursue ‘the next level’ in their education.
The second (or possibly third (if Minam Pack had been around since 2011 already) year in the pack’s history (2014) saw a slight reduction in pack’s pup production rate (3 pups), pack’s total winter count (9 wolves) and pack’s territory size (352 mi2 or 912 km2; down by 42 mi2 or 109 km2).
It appears that the pack count was mainly influenced by lower pup survival rather than by a change in the breeding pair’s strategy concerning the retention of subordinates.
With 3 surviving pups, the pack would still have had 4 subordinates staying with the parents.
This suggests that the decrease in pup production was probably not attributable to a reduction in available resources (at least not in a manner that the wolves recognized to be threatening to their family success).
The assumption can be confirmed with the fact that in the following year also at least 3 pups survived but the pack count by the end of the year had reached 13 (the largest pack in NE Oregon at the time).
Had Minam been worried about resource allocation to pups vs. subordinates, they would have cut off ‘family membership’ to the older offspring.
It seems that it was important and perhaps even vital for Minam Pack to have a large family.
It is not clear, however, whether the pup production rate in 2014 had, in truth, been lower.
Minam Pack lived in an area which must have been difficult to access for monitoring purposes and it is possible that their pack size was quite constantly underestimated.
The pack count of 2015 suggests that the number of surviving pups could have been higher both in 2014 (or 2015).
If 9 wolves remained in the pack by the end of 2014, it would mean that the pack was probably comprised of the breeding pair + 3 pups + 4 yearlings (born in 2013).
A pack count of 13 in 2015 (with only 3 surviving packs in both previous years) would inform us that there had to be additional 5 subordinates in the pack in 2015 besides the pups produced in 2014 and 2015 (13 – 2 – 6 = 5).
It is unlikely that an offspring born in 2012 who had already dispersed in 2014, returned to the natal pack in 2015 (although it is possible and female OR27 who was born in 2012 settled adjacent to her parents’ territory even overlapping it thereby she might have been spotted with the family if she had not disengaged from her parental group entirely and sometimes visited them).
It is more probable, however, that more pups survived in either 2014 or 2015 (or in both years) (because in 2015 OR27 was busy with her own pups – see Catherine Pack).
OR27’s collaring and dispersal were the other two events of significance (accounted for) in 2014.
I have discussed the formation of Catherine’s Pair in Snake River Pack’s history, as well, because OR27 (who was estimated to have been born in 2012) paired up with the Snake River male OR24 (see Snake River Pack, Oregon – following pack’s history (with a slight sidestory of Horseshoe Pack).
OR27 was radiocollared on June 3 (2014) back in her parents’ pack and then she apparently met (upon her own dispersal) or was wooed out of her pack by OR24 who had journeyed all the way from Hells Canyon, Oregon.
OR27 was one of those wolves who did not get to embark on a lengthy and perilous dispersal adventure because she settled right beside her parents’ territory and her parents tolerated the new pair by giving up some of their range (which could partly explain the reduction in Minam Pack’s territory size that year).
It was probably beneficial for Minam to have a kin pack living to their south where wolves were likelier to roam and to attempt starting a family.
If they were ‘covered’ from southwest, Minam did not have to be as concerned over the shape of their territory.
While OR27 never fully left her parental pack (in spatial terms, not in social terms), it could not be stated that she was ‘forcibly deprived’ from this experience because it was quite conclusively a decision she had made.
OR27 met OR24 in July, and there were about 7 months left until the breeding season.
OR27 could have chosen to seek out other opportunities or to remain with her parents but it would appear that OR24 was an excellent candidate for a partner and a father to her pups and thus they stayed together all through the late summer, autumn and winter.
It appears that during this initial stage of recolonization, females did not have trouble finding mates even without leaving their pack (OR27, her sister OR35 who did not settle near her parents’ pack but who apparently had found a male companion shortly after leaving – see below, Wenaha female who founded Sled Springs Pair).
Overall, from the case studies I have read, it seems that females are wooed out of their natal packs more frequently than males are (i.e., females pair up with a dispersing male who has arrived at their ‘doorstep’) despite the known statistics which rarely show any significant differences between male and female dispersal (frequency, age at dispersal, distance travelled, duration etc.).
I find it quite interesting and I wonder why (if it is, indeed, so) males might be less likely to be wooed while still with their parents.
Perhaps males are bolder than females are, and they might more easily find the courage and/or social skills to approach another pack and to spend time near it or to spend time trespassing in its territory in order to capture the attentions by the available female.
Males, in wolf packs, might naturally pick up different social skills than females.
Subadult females are likelier to concentrate their activities around the den where many social interactions are determined by the presence of the pups.
Thus, they might slightly miss out on the experiences attained by males during summer when the pack is not as cohesive and when individuals learn to be more independent (travel singly) or to communicate in small subgroups (e.g., duos or trios).
During winter, the group travels and hunts together.
As a result, young females might be warier while on their own or when interacting with only a few individuals (outside of a homesite context) because, throughout their development, they might have been more tightly engulfed in the centre of the activity of the whole group (and if not the whole group, then the pups and those who remain in the homesite).
During their dispersal, these subadult/young adult females might be more timid at times but certainly not always (see, for example, this video by Voyageurs Wolf Project of a lone female who even dares to howl on another (unrelated) pack’s range despite the fact that most lone individuals avoid scent-marking and leaving any other cues of their presence while travelling in other wolves’ territories).
If it is true and mate availability was greater for females rather than males during this period in Oregon’s wolf history, OR27 did not have to fret over not being able to find a mate in the sparse population.
OR27 had been around also when the 5 wolf group was ‘hanging out’ in the area where OR27 and OR24 would later establish their home but she was not solicited out of her pack by any of them.
Thusly, it can be assumed that OR27 found her true mate in OR24 and she chose him not because she had no other choices but because she favoured him over other males and over adventures.
I find their story very touching because it seems it was love at first sight and neither of them wished to look any further.
The ability to achieve awe-inspiring dispersal feats by wolves sometimes leads to assumption that all wolves disperse far and make these extraordinary trips.
However, I suppose that most wolves only disperse as far from the natal pack as to reach the edge of their natal wolf population (the population into which they have been born) where land ownership can be prospected (or they can end up in an existing pack on the way if it has lost its breeder, for example).
And in such low density populations as NE Oregon during the initial stages of recolonization, several wolves settled very close to their parents’ territory or even partly in it (see Mt. Emily Pack and Sled Springs Pair).
These wolves did not really travel anywhere (Sled Springs female) or only dispersed over a few kilometres (Mt. Emily male).
In fact, it is worth noting that all three examples I have provided (Mt. Emily, Sled Springs and Catherine) occurred in 2013-14, very early in the recolonization of the region and only a few years after the establishment of their parental pack.
Later on, it would probably become next to impossible for an offspring to carve out a territory next to that of their parents unless the parents gave up a significant part of their own range (which they could not do because they needed resources for the new siblings of these older offspring and frequently their range had already shrunk due to the pressure of the growing population).
From then on, the predominant way to remain on the natal range was to inherit it from the parents (which did not appear to have happened commonly in NE Oregon) – that is, unless a neighbouring pack was disrupted and dissolved leaving a territory vacancy (which happened at times in NE Oregon but the timing had to be very precise for a takeover by a neighbouring individual rather than by a new pair or a neighbouring pack as a whole social unit).
I wonder how pack interrelations might unfold in these cases where a daughter or a son establishes a family of their own becoming neighbours to their parents.
Some authors have reported greater tolerance among kin packs (see, e.g., ‘Eleven Years Tracking the Algonquin Wolves’ by Theberge, J.B. & Theberge, M.T., 1998).
This could be of vital importance during the first year of the new pack’s establishment but also during subsequent years (if prey was scarce).
While the breeding pair does not have any helpers (subordinates) yet, it might be challenging for them to take care of the pups, to protect the pups, to attend to the pups as often as possible while also assuming the responsibilities of hunting, territory patrolling, watching out for intruders etc.
For a certain period, the female might be restricted to the den leaving the rest of the chores to the male.
Coincidentally, this vulnerable phase typically occurs during the initial stage of the territory foundation when the pair might not yet be closely familiar with the prey distribution in their home, nor the terrain (and their cooperative skills might also need some fine-tuning as in all new couples).
Hunting trails and patterns would only arise as the pair becomes used to their territory but also as they learn to cooperate efficiently (which can take time).
When settling next to parents, some of these problems might be mitigated, for example, through the lack of need to intensely protect the territory boundary adjacent to the parental pack.
Also, the terrain and prey basis might be already somewhat familiar to at least one of the newly-paired wolves (the one who was born in the neighbouring pack).
The parents might not be hostile if the pair (or later – the pack) at times intruded into their range while chasing prey or even if the related pack took an ungulate or two out of their own stock under conditions of prey scarcity or – while the pair is still developing its local hunting routines.
The proximity to the known area and the parental group (hearing their howls, finding their scent, bumping into a parent or a sibling) might offer some peace of mind to the individual born into the neighbouring pack.
Both individuals in the new pair might be less anxious about their neighbours if hostility was unlikely upon an accidental encounter.
Lower stress levels could result in better reproductive and otherwise performance.
In fact, during this initial, vulnerable stage some packs even accept unrelated individuals in order to have a larger group which can be of assistance in carrying out the territory maintenance and hunting tasks.
Such behaviour suggests that initiating a family is not an easy task.
It is true that many pairs probably attempted to establish in NE Oregon but they were not successful (as I have mentioned before, in Catherine Pack’s range 5 wolves had been noted the previous winter but apparently they failed to settle despite their group being big enough).
In fact, it is curious why some packs are formed while others are not.
The lone wolf ratio in established populations is approximate to 15%-20%.
In recolonization areas far from established populations (not highly attractive for dispersing individuals who are seeking mates) the ratio might be lower but it is still very probable that NE Oregon experienced some migration between the developed wolf populations in Idaho and British Columbia as well as through the recently recolonized Washington.
Why did some individuals fail to settle while others did not?
Apart from the original founding packs, during the subsequent few years, locally-born individuals seemed more successful at establishing (when only the ability to form a pair bond and to reproduce at least once is considered) than lone immigrants.
Only when the population had grown substantially, many new pairs emerged who had not descended from the founding packs.
I find it difficult to believe that there were very few pairs wandering NE Oregon during these initial years.
I find it likelier that these pairs simply failed to form families, and the success rate by the sons and daughters of the founding packs suggests that there is a benefit to establishing one’s family near parental range if perhaps only during the first, crucial year.
However, it does not appear that the relatedness brought substantial benefits to the new pack in terms of reproductive performance throughout the new family’s reproductive career.
In fact, the reproductive output and other factors that might be indicative of the quality of the territory, in several cases (Catherine, Umatilla River, Sled Springs Pair), suggest that these individuals chose to reside close to the kin of one of the breeders despite perhaps the slightly suboptimal or even highly suboptimal (Umatilla River Pack) nature of the newly claimed range (while perhaps some better ranges were available further from the natal grounds).
If such behaviour does not always yield reproductive benefits and if it might even be costly in the long term, why would wolves do that?
Frequently, it is assumed that everything that wild species do comes out of some ‘calculated move’, i.e., it has to be advantageous, nothing is done out of motivation that is not gainful (in the short- or in the long-term).
I do not see anything wrong with that (after all, animals must think about their offspring).
However, it happens that people tend to distinguish between ‘unselfish acts’ as those which do not yield profit and ‘selfish acts’ as those which are profitable.
Hence, animals are regarded as inherently selfish because what they do, is beneficial for them (and for other species and for our planet).
According to this logic, only foolish and/or destructive acts are entirely unselfish 🙂
It can well be that ‘selfish’ (profitable) acts are done out of ‘purity of heart’ because the profitability of the act might not be the objective/motivation behind the act.
For example, if wolves profit from having established near their parents (it is easier to start up a family compared to persisting during the first year far from home), it cannot be stated that these wolves settled next to their kin pack with the intent to profit.
It is as possible that the motivation, according to how the wolves experienced it internally, was based on a mixture of ‘genetic advice’ as well as the individual’s attachment to the parents and their natal home.
There have been several confounding cases (e.g., wolf V085 in Huron Pack in Voyageurs NP and Greater Ecosystem) where individuals seemed to prefer staying in their old home with non-kin vs. leaving the natal range with their kin group (after the kin group was displaced from their former territory).
In some situations, this could be related to mating opportunities (the new pack is unrelated and, thereby, the individual might hope to breed in this pack as a second mate or as a substitute for the former breeder of the same sex).
However, it appears that wolves do become attached to their home as well as to their family and that the motivation to remain near kin or natal grounds can be strong regardless whether it has genetic and/or adaptive basis or not.
This assumption might be partly supported by OR35 (see below) who did not get to reside near her family and her natal home but who eventually selected a range which perhaps highly resembled her natal range.
It can be argued that any benefits of settling near related pack/familiar range are ‘coincidental’ (because most species, except humans, have evolved to survive and to make clever choices whether these choices are based on instinct, emotion or cognition) and the behaviour itself was guided by psychological affiliations that are rooted in genetics and/or individual experiences.
It is wrong to assume that truly good deeds should not be rewarded, and that any deeds that are rewarded cannot be made out of moral reasons (e.g., loyalty).
Our old folk tales are full of stories where people did some kindness out of the goodness of their heart and they became rewarded for their merit (they got to marry a princess or they were given some magic item that nevermore left them hungry and wanting).
When we read those stories, we do not criticize their insincerity because the goodwill was rewarded.
When we read about animals (including wolves) who restore ecosystems and who bring hope for our future, should we criticize them for being ‘selfish’ because they, too, benefit from their activities?
If so, I should say we must urgently become selfish in all earnest if we wish to persist on this planet 🙂
It has been largely through Christianity that the concept of good deeds yielding no benefits during one’s own lifetime or even resulting in sacrifice of oneself was introduced (although the promise was made that this would pay off in afterlife).
Christianity has been the faith in which compassion, forgiveness, kindness, generosity etc. are practised to bring about the total destruction of all evil as God and Jesus descend on Earth and bliss ensues forever.
What does it mean?
It means that we might persist at enacting some behaviours because we believe that this would bring about a better society or a paradise on Earth even if we never benefit from them during this lifetime, personally.
It is, so to speak, an attempt at organized, directed evolution (repeating behaviours until they become a part of what our species is).
It has not been ever assumed that animals might carry out similar agendas.
If wolves do not necessarily profit greatly over their own reproductive years (but they do not suffer extraordinary costs, either, e.g., pup starvation etc.) by establishing near their parents, there is a possibility that either wolves have already, once upon their evolutionary history, done this on a regular basis and with enough success for the behaviour to have become embedded in their genetics (whence it is carried out as a formerly adaptive pattern regardless of the current circumstances), or it is also possible that wolves might be acting this way because that is how they wish for their offspring to be able to live someday without any costs to their fitness.
Our idea of the ‘purpose that animals pursue’ is that of reproducing and having one’s genetic legacy expressed in one’s offspring.
It is thereby a dedication to the future generations which (supposedly) drives animals.
But what if animals are also simultaneously designing a world in which their offspring should not only be able to survive and reproduce but also to lead good lives, flourish?
Namely, unless these individuals are seriously risking the chances of having a family at all, they might tolerate poorer conditions if it meant they could live as they wanted and as they thought wolves would want to live in the future.
Their objective might be that of pursuing a behaviour and evolving adaptations on the go in order to mitigate costs for this ‘ideal scenario’.
Both possibilities do not exclude one another (i.e., wolves have once used to regularly settle next to their kin and they remember it, on a genetic level, as something they should want to continue as a worthy custom despite its relative unprofitability during the present time because it might, once more, become profitable in the future).
Of course, this brings to a discussion of natural selection (weeding out those who act on some traditions which are no longer relevant) but these family groups were not entirely unsuccessful either and they were more successful than family groups which never got to establish in the first place.
We cannot yet measure the profit that is gained through attaining healthy psychological states, nor the intensity of motivation derived from these states.
In humans, it is clear that we stick to perhaps outdated (from a pragmatic viewpoint) practices because of how they make us feel and because we think these practices should not be lost for future generations even if they inconvenience us.
There are many examples when wolves have acted on their feelings (rather than on a calculated sense of survival).
I believe that feelings, attachment etc. can be a great driving force in wolves as long as their family (their offspring) is not put to substantial risk.
I mostly wonder whether the parent pack keeps track of their offspring pack’s affairs during the first year of establishment but also during the subsequent years.
For example, Walla Walla Pack appeared to suffer low pup production rates one year after the disruption of their kin Umatilla River Pack (2015) and there ware shake-ups in Walla Walla coincident with the social instability and the eventual disappearance of their son’s pack (Mt. Emily).
It seemed almost as if Walla Walla responded to the events in these related packs which were also located adjacent to it.
It might be difficult for the parents to watch the stories of their offspring unfolding while the parents themselves are too busy caring for their own families to provide assistance.
It is very hard to disentangle among several factors which could bear influence on pack’s success (reproductive output probably being our only quantifiable variable to determine any potential consequences caused by upset and resulting in the parents’ performance).
Catherine Pack was a moderately stable pack which never produced many pups (2 surviving pups on average).
However, OR27 (Minam’s daughter) died relatively young (i.e., ‘young’ for a NE Oregon wolf where many breeders lived to be even 10 – 11 years old although in other regions life expectancy might not even exceed 5 years) – at the age of 7 in 2019.
If there had been any pups born (OR27 died in April), that year they perished along with their mother.
In 2020, coincidentally, Minam Pack disappeared and after that, a new Minam Pair inherited the range starting from 2021.
Did Minam Pack’s breeders suffered additional stress if they sensed the loss of their daughter?
They were old enough in 2020 (if Minam was established in 2012, they would have been at least 10 years old in 2020).
Thus, it is not possible to claim exclusively that the daughter’s death and the destabilization of her pack affected OR27’s parents to the point that they could not maintain their family, either.
The Minam’s breeders were already old and the pack likely vanished because one of the breeders (or both) died.
However, awareness of such events unfolding in Catherine could have further diminished their condition contributing to the pack’s demise (and perhaps to the Minam’s original breeding pair’s inability to hold their family together long enough so that one of their offspring inherited their territory).
Interestingly, in 2016, Catherine Pack produced at least 3 surviving pups (more than usual) and in 2017, Minam Pack produced at least 5 pups (more than their output during previous years) as if responding to their daughter’s success.
It is probable that any surveying of the neighbours’ status occurs mainly during winter when the pups join the adults and the pack travels its outer boundaries where they can scent-mark and howl leaving notices of their status.
Thus, the parents would likely learn of their daughter’s pack success toward the end of the year and any consequences to an emotional response would be observed in the following year.
It cannot be assumed that both packs simply responded to favourable conditions because such conditions would have occurred simultaneously (during the same year) in both packs with no lag effect in one pack vs. the other.
Personally, I would like to believe that it is true and that wolf parents, to their best ability, keep track of their kids’ lives long after they have left the pack if it is at all possible for them.
It is not known what happened to OR27 littermates and other subordinates who belonged with the Minam’s first generations (the putative pups of 2011).
It is rather curious that the majority of wolves born during this time into the low density population still dispersed out of NE Oregon despite the availability of land and probably also not a dire paucity of mating opportunities (as local packs were already producing pups and other individuals also immigrated from Idaho and Washington).
So why did they not use these opportunities? What prompted them to wander off?
Their fates are mostly unaccounted for. Many of them would have died as dispersal is a dangerous undertaking.
Apparently not all wolves are inclined to find a decent range (territorial vacancy) and then to linger about until a prospective mate shows up.
This strategy could also be less viable in a sparser population where the probability of a lone wolf wandering into their chosen range is lower compared to denser populations where any gaps between pack territories will be investigated (in such populations, on the other hand, it might be difficult to hold the range while the individual has not yet paired up).
However, chances are that a mate might show up and therefore the proactive approach of not staying and first looking for a mate might have other explanations.
Perhaps wolves do not develop a sense of attachment to a range simply because it is viable for occupancy (although some wolves might as suggested by OR3’s story – see Imnaha wolf pack, Oregon – following pack’s history).
Such attachment might arise once they have found a mate (e.g., through a shared scent-marking activity).
I believe that wolves might form attachment to a territory predominantly due to social factors (determined by the family into which they were born, by the mate they have found or even by the local wolf population as such).
For example, OR24 stayed around on his ‘newfound land’ for months before reproduction but he had also met OR27 and this bond might have caused him to also form a bond with the range.
Other wolves might be inclined to keep going – not until they find a vacant range but until they find a mate or at least a local society.
However, this is not the only scenario and many stories are known when lone wolves appear to have defended ranges until they can acquire a mate to make that range their true home.
And there are individuals such as Imnaha’s wolves who were never daunted by lack of social opportunities near where they had discovered unoccupied lands.
I wonder if there might be additional reasons behind this ‘floating off’ among a large number of wolves before the local population has truly formed (and even after that, the majority of wolves probably disperse out of it while the more family-driven ones establish on the outskirts of the population).
One explanation could be that of inbreeding avoidance.
If all wolves had the propensity to remain close enough to their natal pack (perhaps not as neighbours to their parents but within the same subpopulation, the same general region), over time, it might be difficult to find local mates who are not related or distantly related and it might also be difficult to determine who is a distant relative because packs of older siblings would produce pups that never meet the pups produced by the parents back at the natal range.
Such individuals from closely related families (aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, cousins – although, strangely, often of the same age) would only meet after they have dispersed from their packs and they might have a hard time determining the degree of relatedness.
Moreover, it would also mean that the local packs would interbreed with one another greatly and eventually all wolves in the subpopulation would be more or less related even if, at first, they managed to choose mates from unrelated packs because, over time, the number of wholly unrelated packs would decrease to zero as their offspring would keep mating with one another.
However, I also wonder whether we can truly state that reproduction is the only life objective in animal species.
It must be known by wolves that not all individuals end up forming families and establishing territories.
Indeed, perhaps a minor fraction of pups produced by any wolf pair end up producing pups of their own.
Wolves are overall a K-strategy species investing in each pup raised.
Is it truly that after the entire group’s effort to ensure the survival and education of each youngling, after such sacrifice and exertion, once the pups have left the pack, the wolf families would rely on a hope that at least one might make it?
Under current conditions (in a world hostile to wolves), it can truly happen that only one makes it with regard to bare survival, not to mention reproductive success.
Perhaps it has not always been so and in those times when prolonged dispersal was not an almost certain death sentence (due to traffic, hunting, poaching etc.), the hopes to reproduce were greater even if the individual floated for several years until they finally encountered their chance.
Nowadays, many dispersing wolves die within 1 – 2 years unless they have succeeded early on in their ‘independent career’.
Formerly, when wilderness was more abundant and dispersal could be prolonged in areas without threat posed by humans, perhaps a wolf did not have to lose hope even after more than 2 years of roaming and searching.
Still, even in those ‘golden days’ (which were probably never that ‘golden’ as wolves have been persecuted probably since there was a man to persecute them), the populations would have been dense enough and out of, for example, 3 – 5 surviving offspring, not everyone would have ended reproducing.
I do not disagree that reproduction is likely the highest achievement in most if not all species.
However, is it the only value by which wolves judge their success?
Wolves are such avid travellers and explorers.
Sometimes I wonder whether those wolves who do not find their chance, still enjoy the educational opportunity, the adventure.
My theory is that wolves who do not get to become parents and home-owners, become scholars and do not deem themselves ‘failures’.
Otherwise nature would have selected smaller litter size in wolves so that almost every pup born also became a father/mother and a territory owner.
It is assumed by modern science that the ultimate goal for any living organism is to multiply their own genes, to become perpetuated in the natural life itself.
Personally, I disagree although I cannot yet found my assertions with examples and facts.
I believe that there is also a purpose of bringing about a change, influencing the world for the better, creating a world not where one’s own genome is reflected forever, but a world where the perfect genomes exist according to the ideals elaborated by the species.
‘Perfect genome’ sounds very Nazi-like when applied to some rigid ‘standards’ but our societies, as well, are trying to form healthy, compassionate, dedicated, sharp-minded but also dynamically adjusting individuals and we dream that, in our lifetime, we might achieve enough so that someday species can live in peace and friendship (even if it is after our lifetime).
Thus, it is not about selecting the best individuals currently but rather shaping an environment where everyone can become healthier, smarter, kinder from year to year.
By ‘perfect genome’ I do not imply any existing genome or specific, limited, inflexible sets of traits but rather an assembly of dynamically changing genomes that all can eventually get along and thrive.
I do not believe that such purpose only belongs with humans.
If animals attempt to perpetuate their own genome, it is perhaps because they value themselves and the legacy of their ancestors.
However, we have never tested a theory that animals might not be merely attempting to perpetuate themselves indefinitely (in an unaltered form) but, by investing their best traits, they might be trying to bring about a better world in which these traits might or might nor survive directly but the main point would be that they will have contributed, as a legacy, to the formation of… well, some sort of a paradise 🙂
Under such perspective, reproduction is not the only method of contribution.
It is possible to influence the future also through other types of interactions and investments, such as, social learning or interspecific learning, or simply through bearing one’s influence on the surrounding environment so that the environment changed in a manner that accounted for the individual’s existence.
In human world, this would be akin not to giving birth to children but perhaps to planting trees or protecting trees which are not related to human genome at all but which can improve the world so that humans became healthier, happier as a species.
Many people will dismiss the idea of animals investing into improving their genomes (or, more precisely, creating genomes that suffered less, played more, fought less and explored more etc.) and shaping their environment for the sake of the future generations because such idea is considered too ‘naive’ and it does not correspond well with the observed competition.
However, the evolutionary history of animal species (but not only animal species) has been driven toward collaboration, symbiosis, advanced cognition and advanced empathy as well as conflict resolution through displays rather than through combats.
Has it been brought about by chance or by the animals’ inherent awareness that their own children will be likelier to thrive in a world where they can have friends and not mortal enemies, a world that knows them, a world in which there is a place for them – a place they do not have to acquire through fierce battles…?
Lone wolves can learn and pass on what has been learned, they can adapt and cause others to adapt, they can have partake in the shaping of the world, as well.
By cutting their lives short, we might be depriving wolves from reaching their secondary life strategy – scholarship.
In fact, scholars who turn educators/influencers, may have an opportunity to exert an even vaster influence on the genome of not merely their relatives but of the entire population or the species if their teachings become acquired widely as a new norm setting standards for future genetic selection.
For example, if all societies are evolving to reduce the rates or mortality, these individuals might be advancing wolf societies toward acceptance of strangers (which has to be incorporated into the pattern of resource use and availability in avoid to starvation and ‘plagues’) which could lessen the impacts of intraspecific strife – a significant mortality factor in unexploited wolf populations (i.e., these wolves might be evolving methods of how to tolerate ‘guests’ without detrimentally impacting one’s own family’s prospects as well as the quality of one’s own habitat that has a certain carrying capacity).
There could be interactions that lone wolves carry out with other species (and in their single individual capacity, their way of interacting with other species as well as the array of the species interacted with would be different from the interactions carried out by pack-living wolves) which might lead to alterations in how prey or non-prey perceive wolves and what their relationships evolve to be.
Of course, this can only bear evolutionary significance if the new discovery becomes a norm in a larger number of individuals (e.g., if it is passed on through social learning).
In fact, by killing off long-term dispersing wolves, we might be hampering wolf evolution because individuals who have spent several years discovering the world and then end up pack leaders and breeders could have a great influence on the culture passed on in their pack (and thence into other packs formed by their offspring).
If wolves did have time to educate themselves prior to establishing a family, their cultural diversity might be much higher.
Regardless of whether living organisms are somehow actively proceeding toward a more harmonious coexistence or whether it is a result of natural selection (whereby cooperative or tolerant animals are selected for because their behaviour gives them an advantage), perhaps it is the ‘behest’ of our very planet with its propensity for energy loss to pursue mutualism.
More efficient use of energy often calls for collaboration between metabolizing organisms (e.g., mammals and gut microbiota).
It might be our planet itself that selects for those who can fit themselves into the intricate energy use networks where close associations among organisms are often needed in order to benefit from each other’s metabolic processes (e.g., using up what is another’s ‘waste’) and these associations can be agonistic or cooperative but agonism often leads to higher mortality rates which is not beneficial, nor it is considered success.
Another reason behind the fact that the majority of wolf offspring appears to roam far from home could be rooted in population density.
Currently, wolves are recolonizing their historical range but before wolves were exterminated, their populations might have been dense enough most everywhere so that the dispersing individuals had no other choice but to travel crossing the existing wolf homes and looking for chances on population edges or in sudden openings in mid-population vacancies.
The tendency to head out might be the result of thousands of years of relatively dense population conditions.
In 2015, Minam Pack produced at least 3 surviving pups (although, as it has been mentioned above, perhaps more).
The end of year pack count was that of 13 wolves which was, once more, the highest pack count in NE Oregon.
In fact, it is interesting to compare the pack numbers during 2015 in the entire recolonized region (see Table 1 on pp. 6 in ODFW Annual Wolf report, 2015).
The top pack sizes are represented by the founding families (Wenaha, Walla Walla, Snake River, Minam).
The relative ‘newcomers’ (some of whom had been born in Oregon) are catching up quickly with numbers ca. 6 – 9.
And then the third part of the population consists of new pairs and very small packs (2 – 4 individuals).
These data illustrate the colonizing process demonstrating that there was still available land and how the families were stratified at the time according to their stage of development but also according to their historical opportunity (the first arrivals had enough land to form a larger group).
Looking at where these families/pairs resided, it can be seen that the large packs occupy wilderness, the middle-size packs typically occupy areas on the edge of wilderness but with relatively low disturbance rates while the small packs/pairs already must tolerate the living on the outskirts of true wilderness.
Interestingly, this stratification will persist.
While all wolf packs will attempt to increase their numbers, there will be few large packs, and then about a half to half medium-sized : small-sized packs.
The suboptimal conditions will not allow for the packs to substantially cross the threshold of the population pack size average although some packs will be able to profit from the disappearance of older packs and there will be shifts in pack size proportions as the original pack breeders age and their packs dwindle in size until, often, they vanish.
Then it will be a matter of whether these territories become inherited by surviving pack members, taken over entirely by new packs or split between existing packs.
Overall, it seems that the pack size in the population, over time, tends to decrease and so does territory size (although pack size and territory size are not necessarily related in wolf societies – larger territories do not always lead to larger packs although smaller territories will probably lead to smaller packs).
For example, in 2019 (see Table 1 on pp. 6 in ODFW Annual Wolf Report) only one pack has 11 members and the number of small packs perhaps predominates although the situation seems to improve after 2020 and medium-sized packs gain advance.
These tendencies would be worth a separate post because they can explain the local dynamics of pack establishment, expansion, shrinking, senescing/disappearing and the redefining of the lost ranges.
It is worth noting that reproductive rate as such is not necessarily the determining factor of pack size because in 2015, Minam only produced 3 or 4 pups (and, similarly, in 2014) but their pack size was the largest of all years.
It is likely that the pack size depends on the pack’s strategy, needs (e.g., to defend a large or long range and to hunt efficiently), resources (whether the pack can or cannot sustain many members with what is available in their home) and population pressure (whether there are many territory seekers who would like to settle in or to expand their existing range if a pack was too small to defend it).
While the pack size was growing, their territory size actually became smaller (285 mi2 or 738 km2 which is by 67 mi2 or by 174 km2 less than in 2013).
However, I would not necessarily trust these estimates.
Territory size is based on the readings obtained from radio-collared individuals.
At the time, there were collared females in the pack one of whom was OR20, the breeding female.
OR20’s collar failed in May and, thereby, her readings would not have provided data on pack’s territory use in winter 2015/16.
Meanwhile, packs roam more widely during winter than during summer and in April, May the breeding female’s locations are centered around homesites where pups are being raised.
The other female OR35 was collared on May 17 and she dispersed in August.
Thus, her data would also represent the pack’s constricted summer range.
Perhaps Minam’s range was larger in 2015 and it was simply assessed based on female summer readings.
OR35 was estimated to have been ‘adult’ in May (2015) when she was trapped for collaring and she might have been born in 2013.
OR35 apparently found a potential mate (a male wolf whom she travelled with) already in 2015 and their locations covered Minam/Keating Wildlife Management Units (WMU)
Unfortunately, their activity has not been mapped in 2015 but it would appear they were travelling south of OR35 sister’s pack (Catherine) – in an area which was already subject to intense human activity (many roads, sparser forest cover).
It is not know what happened exactly but by November 2016, OR35 had left the state of Oregon and she was located in Washington.
Perhaps OR35 was not contented with the territorial opportunities available to her near her natal range (suboptimal habitats).
Wolves did not settle in the area she had been prospecting with her male companion adjacent to her sister’s range.
Wolves only established there in 2018 (Keating Pack which had conflicts with farmers that suggests their range was difficult for wolves to inhabit).
After having deemed the lands near her kin too unsuitable, OR35 might have travelled north (because there was no wolf population to the south and she was apparently interested in keeping close to the wolf societies) in search for other options.
OR35 first dropped by to explore the south of Washington but then she returned to NE Oregon where she temporarily (from May to unknown time, maximum, by early November) settled in the Sled Springs Unit.
While it is not known whether OR35 travelled alone, it is likely OR35 became separated from her first companion either through choice, or through mortality because a pair might have localized around mating season (Feb, 2016) and such extensive roaming is probably not as feasible for a pair (although not exclusively so, especially, in the sparsely-colonized NE Oregon) if for the risk of being detected by resident wolves and finding it hard to sustain themselves.
By the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, Washington was already a state with a substantial wolf population (90 wolves, 18 known packs, 8 breeding pairs).
However, wolves do not perceive state boundaries the way we do and if they sense some changes due to differences in infrastructure, hunting seasons or other such factors, they probably do not make their major decisions according to state policies but rather on the basis of the distribution of wolf populations and available ranges.
Thus, according not to the state boundaries but to wolf population boundaries, OR35 never truly left what was her natal population because several packs (e.g., Wenaha, Walla Walla) had their ranges overlapping the state boundaries between Oregon and Washington.
In some ways, it cannot be claimed that she ‘dispersed from Oregon’ because clearly she bid her time around Oregon packs and, eventually, she founded her home adjacent to the wolf population which was predominantly located in Oregon.
During her briefer visit to Washington and later as she settled in this state (her range not overlapping Oregon boundary), OR35 – in her decision-making and in her behaviour – was still impacted by Oregon’s wolves to a greater degree than by Washington’s wolves, and her story is a nice illustration to how populations are truly formed and what factors bind them (not invisible boundaries but influences, opportunities that might be found here or there).
As OR35’s travels have become slightly difficult to follow, I will repeat that in August, 2015 she dispersed to the south from her natal pack and to the south from her sister’s pack (Catherine), then she travelled north crossing into Washington but soon enough crossed back into NE Oregon (where she did not stay all that long and by November, 2016, she was in SE Washington again).
So far we have followed her to her return to NE Oregon (ca. May, 2016).
In May, OR35 2016 took over Sled Springs range which at the time had a vacancy opening after the original Sled Springs Pack (a female from Oregon’s Wenaha Pack and her mate who, as a pair, established their family in 2014 and produced pups in 2015) disappeared in August, 2015, possibly due to fowl play by humans as both breeding adults were found dead and the pups might not have survived on their own at such a young age.
Thus, when OR35 arrived, the area might have been available and she might have stayed there with a male she had met already or waiting until a male showed up.
It is not known why OR35 did not remain in Sled Springs Unit (mating opportunities should have been available for her there), nor it is known at which point she dispersed back to Washington (she was there in November, 2016, but she might have left Oregon prior to that).
Perhaps OR35 compared the Sled Springs range with her former dispersal experiences and then she decided to head back to what she had deemed to be better options on the northern edge of her natal wolf population (NE Oregon/SE Washington).
The sad fate of the Sled Springs Pack suggests that their range was not an easy one to live in.
However, Noregaard Pack which was established in 2017 in Sled Springs Unit thrived becoming one of the most influential packs in Oregon, although, over time, they shifted their range to the west.
Perhaps Noregaard, once it had grown in power, wished to better their chances and to expand their territory.
They could not take on the mighty Wenaha Pack and thus they had to expand ‘around the neighbours’.
However, Noregaard’s move also implies that Sled Springs Unit was not the top choice (unless, like in the case of the Wenaha female, one wished to settle next to parents).
OR35’s fortunes have not been further discussed in the ODFW reports where her story is concluded at ‘becoming resident in Washington State’ (in November, 2016).
‘Becoming resident’ suggests she centered her activities in a specific area because otherwise she would have been termed as ‘roaming in Washington’, and, indeed, the Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2016 Annual Report reveals that OR35 formed Touchet Pack with an unknown male in eastern Washington (see map on pp. 15 in WDFW Annual Wolf Report, 2016).
It is quite probable that OR35 returned to an area she had already prospected during her exploratory travels and it is also conceivable she considered herself not as someone who had dispersed outside of her natal population (despite having left Oregon) but as someone who had chosen to settle on its outmost edge.
While one might assume that the range OR35 had chosen was superior to the ranges she had turned down, the issue is rather spurious (see below) and perhaps the qualities she was searching for in ‘the perfect home’ were such that made her future home similar to that of her parents’ (remoteness, wilderness, mountainous region).
OR35, during her move from Oregon to Washington, had explored the western part of Wallowa-Whitman Forest (her natal area) as well as four Oregon counties, southern Washington and the forested area near Sled Springs Unit but she ended up in Umatilla National Forest (WA), very likely close to (or in) Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness which is an officially designated wilderness area and could have been subjected to far lower disturbance levels then the outskirts of south W-WF as well as the forests in SSU.
OR35 probably made a smart decision.
It is interesting to consider choices made by wolves born into these first-colonizing families (while ranges were still relatively available).
For example, OR35, initially, might have wished to follow her sister’s (OR27) example by not venturing too far from the related families (Minam and Catherine).
However, the nearby ranges were obviously suboptimal (beyond tolerating some downsides in order to stay close to natal home).
Perhaps OR35 additionally disfavoured being separated from the rest of the wolf population (due to lack of mates for her offspring and a higher inbreeding risk) because if she chose to settle south of Catherine, she would have reached the furthest southern point of her natal population which, coincidentally, was also the southern limit of the range of the wolf recolonized area.
Namely, in Washington, OR35 also opted for a territory on the (northern) border of her natal population but this area received a far greater number of migrating wolves from Canada and such states as WA, OR, ID.
Meanwhile, south of Catherine, her pack’s territory would have been buffered from the ‘wolf hotspot’ by two related pack ranges (high inbreeding risk for OR35’s offspring) and there were not many wolves expected to be met to the south, nor to the west at the time.
OR35 travelled around quite a bit before making the final decision but she seemed to be rather critical and particular as to where she wished to start her family and where to raise her pups.
It is assumed (and rightfully so) that, upon making second-order selection (selecting home range within the larger landscape), wolves look for contiguous wilderness as well as forest cover (to raise pups but also because wolf prey is typically forest-dwelling or associated with forests and forest edge habitats) and low human disturbance.
However, the picture is more complicated when separate cases are studied.
For example, several individuals (already mentioned above) during this recolonization stage chose to remain close to their natal pack.
Umatilla River Pack even took this priority to its extreme by settling next to Walla Walla Pack (which was related to the Umatilla breeding male who was perhaps father to the Walla Walla breeding female or male) despite the fact that Umatilla River territory was not optimal at all and much better ranges were available quite nearby.
It appeared that it was of utmost importance for the Umatilla male to stay as close as possible to Walla Walla Pack.
OR35 did not end up selecting the range close to her parents’ perhaps because it was even far less optimal than Umatilla River range (her decision could have been affected by a loss of the male companion she had been spotted with if such tragic event transpired).
Then OR35 turned down Sled Springs Unit, as well.
This was an interesting decision because Sled Springs Unit met the basic requirements for wolf settlement (wolves had lived there before and wolves lived there after) but OR35 was not satisfied with this option.
Perhaps individuals who are born in families that have been fortunate enough to live on some of the best ranges available to wolves (and the first founding families almost all lived on such ranges, including Minam) can differentiate between the ranges they encounter during their dispersal on a highly thorough level.
They might be more selective and more critical than individuals who were already born in suboptimal homes, who only had had such experiences and who had adapted to some disturbance.
All individuals instinctively seek out wilderness but some individuals with certain ‘puphood’ and ‘yearlinghood’ experiences might know that there exists ‘a wilder wilderness’ than the ‘semi-wild wilderness’ which other individuals have grown up in; and, more importantly, while most wolves, during dispersal, get to travel through different types of wolf pack territories, the individuals born in the ‘very wild wilderness’ have actually lived and tasted, smelled, touched, heard, seen what it meant to utilize such ranges fully.
These ‘wild child’ types might also not be as adjusted to disturbance and they might find disturbance more upsetting and off-putting (although some individuals exhibit extraordinary adaptivity; see, for example, OR30’s story (Snake River Pack/Horseshoe Pack).
Perhaps OR35 had to make a choice between living on the outskirts of her natal population (which she apparently did not fancy as she had turned down Minam/Keating Unit and she also had initially wandered back into Oregon from southeast Washington, i.e., the northern limit of the population) vs. living in what she considered a suboptimal range.
She made the former choice selecting a home which quite resembled the parents’ range which she had left.
It is interesting why Sled Springs original female (OR21 from Wenaha) did not settle in SE Washington rather than in the potentially lower-quality Sled Springs Unit.
Apparently, OR21, too, wished to live next to her parents who allotted portions of their range to her and who perhaps assisted her (and her mate) in holding the territory during the early stage of the new family’s establishment.
Wenaha spent some time in SE Washington and OR21 might have been familiar with these lands to the north of her parental pack and to the north of the Oregon’s wolf population.
Was staying close to her parents the only reason why she did not contemplate Washington as her area of residence?
Maybe OR21 met her partner in Sled Springs Unit or perhaps she was also cautious to settle so far out where mating opportunities would be limited for herself and for her offspring.
The validity of these hypotheses could be evaluated if I had access to more detailed territory configurations and the estimates of prey availability, accessibility etc.
It is possible that Wenaha was far less active in SE Washington than it was near Sled Springs Unit and OR21 prioritized overlapping her range with her parental home rather than striking out and establishing somewhere where she might or might not sense her parents nearby (depending on the annual activity level by her parental pack which some years might have extended into Washington and some years not).
It would be difficult to put to test my earlier supposition, i.e., that wolves from better quality homes are pickier.
Most wolves simply do not have that much choice.
Such hypothesis would be easiest to test in recently recolonized areas where individuals have a greater scope of decision.
However, OR35 at least seems to have proven the point.
Minam Pack was not able to track their daughter’s (OR35) fates and therefore we will tell them how she fared.
In 2017, Touchet Pack (OR35’s pack) produced 2 pups. At least one of these pups survived (male WA79m) and, in 2018, WA79m dispersed to Idaho.
In 2018, the pack did not den and OR35 left the former Touchet range but she did not venture far.
By the end of the year she had found a a new mate establishing to the south from her former home and slightly overlapping with what had been Touchet range (in Blue Mountains, SE Washington).
This pair was then named Butte Creek Pair.
It is likely that OR35 lost her mate because it is generally uncustomary for breeding wolves to leave their homes without a tragic reason.
Also, the absence of denning in 2018 and the dispersal by WA79m attest to some great change (yearlings certainly do disperse from packs but, in newly formed packs, older subordinates are often preferred to be kept around; thereby, his dispersal might be a cue to some internal instability in the pack).
OR35 did not travel far which suggests she had not been overall discontented with her choice of home and her dispersal was not motivated by a wish to find a better range.
Over the following years, Butte Creek Pack existed side by side with Touchet Pack (which had apparently not dissolved completely).
While there is a possibility that OR35 simply divorced her first mate (who continued as Touchet breeding male), I, personally, find it quite improbable that, under such conditions, the two packs (Touched and Butte Creek) would have coexisted so closely and even slightly overlapping.
On the other hand, besides WA79m, there had only been one other pup born in 2017 who would have been a mere yearling in 2018.
While the fact that OR35 established Butte Creek next to Touchet rather suggests that the Touchet breeder was related to her (the pup born in 2017), the situation is quite confusing.
Firstly, the pup born in 2017 would have been only a yearling in 2018.
Wolves reach sexual maturity at about the age of 2.
Certainly, there are yearlings who breed but the question is – how did the yearling find a mate before the mother did?
If OR35 left because her yearling paired up with a dispersing wolf before she had a chance to find a new mate, this might mean that WA79m had had a brother rather than a sister because an immigrant wolf would have rather paired up with the mature OR35 (than with her immature daughter).
Also, an unrelated breeding male could have bred both the mother and the daughter (which sometimes happens) and there would have been no cause to leave.
On the other hand, if OR35 had another son and the first immigrant to arrive was a female (and not a male who would have been a fitting mate for OR35 herself), perhaps OR35 felt she was too young to accept a subordinate position and she wished to form a new pack with a new mate which prompted her to leave.
It is less likely that OR35 left and the other yearling (sibling to WA79m) stayed behind holding the range and hoping that a mate would show up.
It is less likely because, in such disrupted packs, a young wolf would also have had dispersed.
Additionally, WDFW has not explicitly stated that Touchet Pack persisted as the same genetic unit (continued by the former breeding male or by OR35’s offspring) and there is a possibility that a new pack settled in the range which was then named after the old pack despite having no kinship relation to OR35’s first family.
However, it has been stated in WDFW Report (2018) that two wolves dispersed from Touchet Pack which implies that OR35 and WA79m dispersed from the same pack which later remained on Touchet range.
To make it all more confounding, Touchet winter count of 2018 has been estimated at 4 wolves.
Pups were not produced that year and, thereby, these must have been 4 adults/subadults.
Who were these individuals?
It is not entirely clear what happened. Was OR35’s mate still alive and did he pair up with another mate keeping the pack going while also retaining the one pup born in 2017?
If so, who was the fourth wolf?
Was Touchet taken over by OR35’s other surviving pup of 2017 who had found a mate?
It seems the most probable scenario but who then were the three additional individuals (OR35’s yearling + the new mate + 2 wolves who arrived with the new mate?)?
Unfortunately, with the data available, I cannot provide any answers.
From then on, Butte Creek Pack’s range overlapped with NE Oregon state territory even more greatly than Touchet range might have but Butte Creek was still a Washington Pack on the edge of the NE Oregon/SE Washington wolf population with denning sites in Washington.
In 2019, Butte Creek produced 2 pups and in 2020, they might have produced even 9 pups but as the pack count in the winter of 2021 was down to 6, not many of these pups would have survived.
It is impossible to tell how many pups were born in 2021 as the WDFW only provides the total winter count which includes the breeders, pups of the year and any subordinates.
However, it is also possible that many yearlings dispersed (the drop in numbers could have been the result of young wolves setting out on their adventures, not the result of high mortality).
In 2022, the family was comprised of 4 individuals which would have been the breeding pair (OR35 and her mate) + perhaps 2 pups born in 2022.
In 2023, the pack was up to 9 individuals but one yearling (born in 2022) dispersed.
Such data suggest that at least 6 or perhaps even 7 pups were born in 2023 and survived until winter.
The yearling who dispersed was known as 164M and he left the pack after September, 2023 (when he was collared).
164M dispersed to Oregon but no further mention of him has been made either in WDFW, nor WDFW 2023 reports (however, if his dispersal happened to result in a breeding activity, it would be noted in 2024 report).
Thus, OR35’s pack likely still exists although it cannot be claimed with certainty that the pack is still led by OR35 because, in 2014, she would have been 11 years old which is a great age for a wolf.
At such age, reproduction is possibly and occurs but the sudden rise in pack count and the potential production of 6 or 7 pups could indicate that OR35 had been replaced by a younger breeding female.
If OR35 died in 2024, she had led a long life but she had also known hardship, loss and she had been capable of reforming her own fate.
If there was a tendency for yearlings to disperse in Butte Creek Pack, the pup production rates might not have been low over the years.
Dispersal of all yearlings would have been a strikingly different strategy observed in OR35’s families compared to the strategy originally experienced by OR35 in her parents’ pack where the pack size was constantly large.
There could have been some restrictions to territorial expansion in SE Washington that are not apparent from the crude maps that I can obtain.
The Blue Mountains range might have limited the extent to which the SE Washington/NE Oregon wolf packs could expand their ranges and scatter them over larger area.
Butte Creek Pack was rather cramped between Touchet Pack, Tucannon Pack and Grouse Flats Pack and perhaps Wenaha to the south, and it is possible that the family home was somewhat spatially limited with regard to the number or subordinates that it could accommodate.
OR35 had made the right choice regarding her departure from Sled Springs Unit (Noregaard moved out of it as soon as the had the resources to make bolder territorial claims; Wildcat Pack which established there in 2018 was struggling and no pups were produced in 3 out of 5 years (2 pups in the remaining 2 years)).
Keating Pack which settled in Keating/Minam Unit (a range also turned down by OR35) had perhaps similar pup production rates to Butte Creek but data has not been provided as to how many subordinates these wolves could sustain and it was also apparent that their home was suffering comparatively higher disturbance rates.
I suppose that OR35’s considerations for accepting/turning down potential home ranges were not based simply on prey availability and closeness to other wolf packs but largely on the state of wilderness of the area (and, in Keating/Minam Unit’s case, also on the availability of unrelated mates for her offspring).
It appears OR35 who had grown up in her mountain home, was looking for a similar habitat even if it meant ruggedness of the terrain and other inconveniences such as up-and-down-slope migrating prey.
OR35 must have had a very enjoyable childhood and yearling stage if she sought to provide similar experiences for her own offspring.
The last thing I would like to mention about OR35 was her ability to adapt to new partners and new homes.
OR35 had at least one companion (but perhaps more) during her dispersal phase.
Then she paired up with the Touchet male.
Later she founded a new pair with the Butte Creek male.
This makes me wonder whether individuals who grow up in large families with many older siblings have an easier time relating to other wolves whom they meet outside of their pack.
Loss of mate and disruption of a social bond is not easy during any stage but perhaps wolves who have had many social interactions (diverse interactions with different personalities) can establish new relationships more readily (it does not take them as much time to accept the new individual and to cooperate successfully with them even if might take time to truly affiliate with them on a mate-mate level).
Perhaps such individuals have an advantage in the contemporary circumstances where pack turnover is a frequent occurrence and many breeders can lose their mates to intraspecific strife or to legal/illegal hunting activity, or to traffic accidents etc.
The high rates of disruption of packs who have lost one breeder and the inability of the surviving breeder to find a new mate might be more pronounced in populations that have smaller packs where often only littermates associate with each other and with parents but there are no older siblings around to learn a more diverse array of communication skills and also to learn to interact with other adult wolves (besides parents).
OR35’s pack has outlasted both her parents’ and her sister’s packs, and her story is still ongoing regardless of whether she is yet the breeder of Butte Creek Pack or the pack merely continues her legacy.
Returning to Minam Pack’s story…
The following years appear to have been steady in Minam Pack’s history.
In 2016, at least three pups were produced and the winter count was, as usual, very high – that of 11 wolves (side by side with the prominent founders Wenaha and Walla Walla).
Such end of year pack count would suggest that the pack was comprised of the breeding pair + 3 pups born in 2016 and then a mix of subordinates (6 wolves).
It is possible that 3 (or 4) of those were yearlings born in 2015.
There could have been another subordinate who was older but it is also possible that there had been 4 and not 3 surviving pups born in 2016.
It appears that, by this time, older siblings (2 years of age) had ceased to stay in the parental pack although this had not significantly affected the pack’s reproductive output, nor the end of year count.
The year of 2017 brought about a greater pup production rate (5 pups) and, once more, Minam prided in the largest family of the NE Oregon packs (11 wolves: 2 breeders + 5 pups + 4 additional individuals which suggests that there, indeed, might have been 4 and not 3 surviving pups born in 2016).
I wonder if the strategy to keep the pack large enough during the initial years by retaining both yearlings and two-year-olds was purposed to establish and to defend a range which would one day be just large enough to keep this steady rate of pup production and yearling retention.
Perhaps wolf families plan for the future and the two-year-olds who stay during the early phases of pack development, are there as ‘placeholders’ to maintain a territory of a sufficient size so that, once the pack has established its average pup production rate, the range is large enough for pups + yearlings.
Territories tend to shrink and, early on, the packs might attempt to hold very large territories to account for the subsequent losses of land area.
Namely, almost any pack’s territory shrinks over the time but before the family has learned how many pups can be produced with the resources available to them and how many wolves are needed in the pack to be able to provide for the family as well as to maintain the range, the two-year-olds stay behind to keep the range slightly larger than will be needed later on.
Once the ‘steadier rate’ has been figured out, the pack can then decide whether they are capable of keeping up with the maintenance of a home which is larger than required by the most basic family unit (breeders + pups + yearlings; although it could be argued that the basic family unit is that of breeders + pups but it is certainly beneficial and perhaps crucial for yearlings not to disperse too early) in order to also take delight in their older offspring who keep exploring, learning important life lessons and investing their skills as well as their playful spirit in the pups.
If the territory is too large to be managed without risking the basic family unit (e.g., in some years the two year olds might be too eager to disperse early and in such years, the basic family unit would have to hold their large territory all by themselves), two-year-olds mostly cease staying with the parents unless fewer pups have survived or some yearlings have dispersed.
The last two years (2018 and 2019) in Minam Pack’s history saw poorer pup production rates (2 surviving pups each year).
The drop in productivity could have been the result of the ageing of the breeders (they would have been at least 8 years old in 2018, but perhaps older).
However, pack count was still steadily decent with 8 wolves (2 breeders + 2 pups + 4 yearlings out of 5 pups born in 2017) in 2018 and with 8 wolves (2 breeders + 2 pups + 2 yearlings born in 2018 and apparently + 2 two-year-olds born in 2017) in 2019.
Thus, it can be seen that the pack adjusted subordinate retention rates to pup production rates but not in the usual manner.
Namely, Minam was not focused on expelling yearlings during times when many pups had been born but they were intent on keeping many subordinates during times when fewer pups had been born.
This indicates at their active large-pack-size-keeping strategy.
It is rather confounding why Minam’s territory in 2020 was not inherited by any of their offspring, especially, when, during other years, there had always been subordinates around and in 2019, there even had been two-year-olds.
2020 saw no reproduction in the pack and by the end of the year the pack was simply gone.
Many other packs in NE Oregon that had older breeders started losing subordinates at greater rates as the breeders aged (two-year-olds often had not stayed with the pack for years already and even yearlings began to leave earlier).
Such packs were subject to territory turnover because there were no subordinates left to inherit the range after one (or both) of the parents died.
Sometimes there were also other wolves (even pairs or small packs) vying for the territory (which could have decreased chances for inexperienced subadults to persist on their right to inheritance).
However, on Minam’s range new wolves had not been spotted in 2020.
The 2 two-year-olds present in 2019 would likely have had dispersed before the mating season in February, especially, if both parents were still alive at the time.
It is not known why the yearlings of 2019 (almost two-year-olds in 2020) did not stay but, more importantly, why did the pups of 2019 disperse (as yearlings)?
It appears that perhaps the reproductive failure followed a successful mating attempt (as a result, any two-year-olds might have surmised the parents were continuing family life as usual – and they might have thought about themselves and their plans).
Perhaps one of the breeders died in late February or March, possibly the female resulting in a failure to give birth to pups.
Minam’s range was a bit isolated by mountain ranges.
The surviving breeder and any remaining subordinates might have been unable to find a new mate without leaving the home.
It is one of the reasons why lone wolves are very important in any wolf population – they can rescue such disrupted packs by pairing up with the surviving breeder or their offspring.
If lone wolves do not show up, the individuals must travel out of their home and it may not always be easy/possible to return.
The loss of a mate/parent must be very disconcerting and if the other parent is elderly (grieving the loss of a mate of 9 – 10 years), they might not be able to provide enough hope in the pack’s future to maintain cohesion.
Moreover, the motivation by yearlings could be related to learning pup-raising skills but, without pups, there is less to hold their interest.
I am not implying that wolves are ‘self-absorbed’ (‘I am bored and I want to leave’).
I simply think it is very important for a wolf to feel useful and to feel like a part of a social unit which depends on them for their future.
In other packs where the surviving breeder had been younger, subordinates have stayed and the territory has been held until a new breeder was found.
Perhaps in this family where the older breeder had himself (/herself) lost hope, it was too difficult to maintain ‘the vision’ of what was yet to be expected in this home.
Additionally, as I mentioned before, new mating opportunities were probably very limited in the isolated territory and any remaining pack members might have had to roam out of Minam’s old range anyway where they perhaps met up with other wolves, died or became otherwise solicited by fate other than their natal family’s calling.
2020 was the end of the original Minam Pack.
Minam Pack’s heritage was that of a beautiful, pristine, wild home in which they had lived in good accord with one another (reaching record pack count in many of years) and also in good accord with the local livestock farmers.
Catherine Pack had even chosen to settle in a range which was perhaps slightly wanting in quality in order to be close to parents.
Minam’s life had probably not been a very easy one (due to the rugged terrain, scattered prey and long travels) but they must have had fun and adventures as OR35 wished to lead a similar lifestyle as a mother and a leader of her own pack(s).
Minam was also one of the packs that produced two offspring (OR27 and OR35) who expanded the family’s legacy and influence further in the NE Oregon population (including its northernmost reaches in the state of Washington).
In 2021, a new pair settled in Minam’s range and this pair was named after the original pack.
The pair must also have inherited Minam’s den sites and hunting trails which was likely of great benefit if the prey was not that easy to track from season to season.
Currently, wolves still live in Minam’s territory (2 breeders + 2 pups in 2021; 2 breeders +1 pup + 1 yearling in 2022; 2 breeders + 8 subordinates in 2023).
It is improbable that a beautiful, relatively pristine if somewhat challenging range like Minam’s would go unoccupied.
It will be interesting to see whether the new family also maintains high numbers (thus far it seems to be the case) and an elongated range as well as a habit of steering clear of trouble.
This is the end of the history of the last of the true founding packs of Oregon’s recolonizing wolf population.
References
Mech, L. & Packard, Jane. (1990). Possible use of Wolf, Canis lupus, den over several centuries. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 104. 484-485. 10.5962/p.356419.
ODFW Annual Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Reports, https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/annual_reports.asp
ODFW Catherine Pack webpage, https://dfw.state.or.us/wolves/Packs/Catherine.asp
ODFW Keating Pack webpage, https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/Counties/Baker.asp#Keating
ODFW Minam Pack webpage, https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/Counties/Wallowa.asp#Minam
ODFW Mt. Emily Pack webpage, https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/Packs/Mt_Emily.asp
ODFW OR-35 Pair webpage, https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/Packs/OR35_Pair.asp
ODFW Sled Springs Pair webpage, https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/Packs/Sled_Springs.asp
Theberge, J.B. & Theberge, M.T. Wolf Country: Eleven Years Tracking the Algonquin Wolves, McClelland & Stewart, 1998, ISBN 0-7710-8562-1
Voyageurs Wolf Project Reports, https://www.voyageurswolfproject.org/project-reports
Voyageurs Wolf Project YouTube channel, Striking lone wolf howling, carrying beaver tail, checking out our camera, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEB4eYkyCvA&t=1s
Washington Gray Wolf Convervation and Management 2016 Annual Report, https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01895/wdfw01895.pdf
Washington Gray Wolf Convervation and Management 2018 Annual Report, https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02062
Notes by Ieva 