For the purposes of this pack history reconstruction, I will use the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Annual Reports and Specific Wolves and Wolf Packs entries provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Walla Walla wolf pack was one of the first packs to recolonize Oregon.
Walla Walla Pack settled in NE Oregon in 2011 (first year with confirmed pup production) – three years after the Wenaha Pack (2008), two years after the Imnaha Pack (2009?) and almost simultaneously with the Umatilla River Pack (which was founded by a Walla Walla relation) as well as Snake River Pack (both of which only produced pups in 2012, however).
Walla Walla Pack is known not to have been related to any other Oregon Packs at the time apart from Umatilla (i.e., they colonized from outside Oregon).
However, the Walla Walla Pack appeared to have 8 individuals during 2011 winter count comprised of 3 adults, 3 pups and 2 unknown age wolves.
Even if we assume that both unknown age wolves were also pups, there is at least 1 ‘extra adult’ in the pack.
The ‘extra adult’ apparently was not the related wolf who founded Umatilla River Pack because he has already been counted into his new pack.
This might lead to conclusion that the pack had bred previously (and the subordinate was a wolf born in 2010 or 2009 etc.) without having been noticed by the ODFW or local state residents.
This scenario is acceptable because wolves only had begun establishing in NE Oregon and monitoring was in its early stages.
However, Walla Walla Pack’s territory lies close to the Wenaha Pack’s territory which had been active since at least 2008.
Accordingly, the area was also likely monitored and the probability of detecting another breeding pair would have been higher than in ‘no-wolf land’.
On the other hand, these two wolf packs were located in different albeit neighbouring counties (Umatilla County for Walla Walla and Wallowa County for Wenaha Pack).
Therefore, the monitoring efforts might not have been consolidated.
It is also possible that the Walla Walla Pack arrived with an additional related subordinate (or two, or even several because the Umatilla River Pack founder was assessed to be an older wolf in 2012 already) or that it accepted another, unrelated adult wolf which had been ‘picked up’ during dispersal (or, alternatively, Walla Walla Pack had been a dispersing pack which had been, e.g., displaced from its former territory etc.).
It can sometimes happen that ‘lone wolves’ disperse in not such a lonesome way, and dispersing wolves sometimes form larger groups of unrelated individuals before settling in any given area which perhaps give them a competitive advantage (not entirely necessary in this formerly uncolonized area) but which might also improve provisioning and defense during dispersal (however, some individuals will not benefit as greatly because, commonly, only two adult wolves will claim the breeding positions in the new territory).
It is also known that a male wolf from Walla Walla Pack (OR14) dispersed at some point (likely in the winter of 2011/12) and established the Umatilla River Pack in 2012.
In 2012, he was estimated to have been at least 6 years old which would make him an unlikely offspring of the Walla Walla breeding pair (which had established in their territory only 1 year prior to OR14’s founding of Umatilla River Pack).
It was known, however, that he was related to Walla Walla and therefore he could have been a father of either of the Walla Walla breeding adults.
He founded his own pack adjacent to Walla Walla’s territory.
I would place my bet on Walla Walla breeders having arrived with related pack mates (perhaps from their natal pack) and that Walla Walla Pack was not, strictly speaking, a new pack but a reformed pack which had been displaced from its former territory somewhere outside of Oregon.
Group dispersal is known not just in disrupted packs but also in intact and functional residential packs among dispersing siblings.
For example, in 2012, as well, a yearling wolf OR16 that dispersed from the Walla Walla Pack appeared to be travelling with another Walla Walla yearling OR10.
Their companionship was seemingly not long-lasting because OR16 dispersed to Idaho while his sister briefly returned to her parental pack before commencing her own dispersal.
Their travel together could have been a pre-dispersal foray.
Indeed, the 2013 data claims that OR10 dispersed later (in February, 2013) while OR16 dispersed in November, 2012.
Thus, it can be presumed that they had been observed on an extraterritorial foray after which OR16 dispersed right away while OR10 returned to her natal pack, mulled it over and then dispersed a bit later to end up in Idaho (although she also visited Montana).
They did not conduct the entire dispersal together but if there was an extraterritorial foray which they attempted commonly, this could indicate at a ‘dispersing buddy’ tendency in Walla Walla wolves.
It is interesting to consider the reasons why one wolf dispersed in November but another in February.
They were both of the same 2011 litter and thereby of the same age.
The pack was not that large and their range could probably sustain all these individuals.
The female was not ‘travel-shy’ as she even reached Montana (her brother stayed in Idaho but in the south which is why it is difficult to determine who dispersed further).
(It has not been stated when their brother who also dispersed and who – in 2013 – founded Mt. Emily Pack dispersed.)
Dispersal in February might be suggestive of reproductive reasons because it is closer to the wolf mating season.
In February, 2013, OR10 might have felt some pressure as the breeding season began and the social tension in the pack could have slightly increased, and perhaps she had, too, reached sexual maturity.
Wolves become sexually mature at about 2 years of age.
If OR10 was born in (April?) 2011, she would have been almost 2 years old in February, 2013.
The early Oregon wolves were characterized by rather high pup production rates, big groups and longevity.
It is likely that under the favourable resource availability conditions (low density wolf population, possibly yet wolf-naive prey) OR10 reached maturity in late winter of 2013.
The hormonal changes might have provided the boost to leave her pack.
It is interesting that she did not pair up with any of the wolves she would have encountered on her way to Idaho (and the same is relevant for her brother).
If Walla Walla was not related to Wenaha, Snake River and Imnaha packs, breeding opportunities could have been awaiting there… on almost any other year but 2012/2013.
Precisely in 2012/13, Imnaha Pack had zero subordinates (accounted for by population monitoring staff) while Snake River Pack had perhaps 1 subordinate and Wenaha Pack had 2 subordinates (who might have been ‘underage’ at least in Nov, 2012 and who might have been the ‘wrong sex’ although one of them probably was not ‘underage’ because the pack had two breeding females in 2013).
In other years, the proportion of ‘available subordinates’, in my subjective and unquantified opinion, was higher.
This was probably the reason why OR16 and OR10 ended up back in Idaho.
If they observed the course toward Idaho early on during their dispersal, the probability of meeting lone wolves might have been lower, as well, on these lands that already had wolf packs.
Returning to the ‘dispersal buddy’ theory, if there was such a tendency, the 3 adult wolves (or possibly, 4 or 5 adult wolves) in Walla Walla Pack in 2011 would suggest the breeding pair arrived in the area with companions from their own natal pack or that their natal pack had dissolved / displaced (e.g., due to loss of breeders or territorial strife) resulting in the survivors travelling together.
Under the latter circumstances, it is even possible that OR14 was the father to Walla Walla breeders (given the old age estimate).
However, they must have apparently picked up at least one unrelated wolf during their group dispersal and this wolf could then have been a male rather than a female (outcompeting the old male and claiming a female from the group).
Of course, picking up new unrelated members is also a viable strategy that had been used by the nearby Imnaha Pack.
These two ‘extra’ individuals, however, dispersed only during the 2012 and prior to their dispersal or during it or right after it, the Walla Walla Pack also had a pup season producing 2 pups.
Thus, the pack’s winter count in 2012 was 4 adult wolves + 2 pups = 6 individuals.
Such pack size is smaller than in 2011 and a large number of individuals dispersed (or died), i.e., 4 subordinates.
Interestingly, in the winter of 2013, the Mt. Emily Pack was formed by a male disperser from the Walla Walla Pack who likely left the pack in the winter of 2012/13 (one of the 4 dispersers).
Mt. Emily Pack was separated from Walla Walla Pack by the Wenaha Pack territory which had grown considerably in 2013 but it is difficult to determine whether the Wenaha territory was already overlapping with the south Walla Walla range at the time when the Mt. Emily founding male dispersed (Mt. Emily Pack was formed to the south of Walla Walla).
It is interesting to consider because without Wenaha’s (and slightly related Umatilla River Pack’s from the west) influence, the Mt. Emily Pack may have possibly been formed closer to Walla Walla’s territory (adjacent to it).
Perhaps the strategy was to establish a bit further and then to expand both packs’ territories or at least the range of the new pack for both territories to connect.
However, this is also determined by the habitat quality and, crucially, by the den sites that the new pair could find for their first reproductive season (with the strong Wenaha influence, the pair might have selected to den further from the interpack boundary which resulted in a territory removed from the male’s natal pack).
I suppose that the habitat between Walla Walla and Mt. Emily packs was optimal because it was taken over by Wenaha and when Wenaha Pack had to withdraw, there were at all times other wolf packs using the area.
At this time, there was a rather vast Walla Walla genetic coverage of the area (with both Mt. Emily and Umatilla River packs related to Walla Walla).
While Walla Walla Pack itself never conquered vast ranges, its influence was most prominent and the tendency of related wolves to establish nearby, was, I believe, quite apparent (as long as inbreeding can be avoided).
The founding of the Mt. Emily Pack is also an important milestone because through this particular dispersal, the Walla Walla Pack not only established its legacy in NE Oregon (Mt. Emily Pack persisted until 2021 and possibly produced other dispersers who became breeders in other local packs which I will not trace at the moment) but also in California.
The Whaleback Pack in Siskiyou Country, Ca, was founded in 2020 by OR85 (male from Mt. Emily Pack, born in 2019) and female WHA01F from Rogue Pack, Oregon.
Their partnership is significant because the other wolf packs in California consist of rather closely related individuals while OR85 in particular (because WHA01F is also related to many of the current Californian wolves) provides crucial genetic rescue (his ancestors were from Walla Walla pack and not from Imnaha Pack >> Rogue Pack which produced the first dispersers to recolonize California).
However, it cannot be claimed with certainty that OR85 was a direct descendant of Walla Walla progenitors because in 2019, the Walla Walla male founder of Mt. Emily Pack would have been about 7 years old.
His mate had already died in 2018 and it has not been stated clearly that the Mt. Emily’s new breeding female paired with the old breeding male.
Returning to the Walla Walla Pack, by 2013, they were already rather limited by neighbours (Wenaha and Umatilla) and any prospects to expand would likely be at expense of strife with other packs.
While the Walla Walla Pack was one of the largest packs throughout the years (with respect to wolf count), the territory size appeared rather unchanged and they did not strive to retain subordinates (dispersal rate was higher than in the neighbouring Wenaha Pack) or to add unrelated packmates (the way Imnaha Pack likely did) in order to grow in numbers and to be able to expand and to dominate the area.
They did not really go through the ‘large range’ phase which was characteristic to other founding packs (Wenaha, Imnaha, Snake River, even Umatilla River in 2013) after which their territories shrank (gradually or sharply).
I do not believe that this testifies to Walla Walla’s lack of ambition and to lower cohesion (lesser willingness to stay in the natal pack and to retain older offspring).
Walla Walla’s wolves were ambitious dispersers and perhaps this pack represents a family that prepares its offspring very efficiently for independent life and these individuals are subsequently demonstrating the same will to manage their own destinies as their parents once were.
They are adventurous (unadventurous individuals would not have settled in NE Oregon which had a sparser wolf population because many dispersing wolves are attracted by established wolf populations) but not overly so (because they settled relatively close to the existent founding packs which might signify that creating a family was more important to these wolves than overcoming challenges and pushing some limits).
The cautious and family-oriented attitude is reflected through their ‘safe dispersal’ strategy where the early dispersers mostly aimed for the already settled wolf ranges (near the NE Oregon wolf core area or toward Idaho).
I believe that they are different from Imnaha Pack because their ambition is less individualistic and more family-oriented.
But they are also different from Wenaha Pack because the individuals born into this family seem to want to build lives of their own rather than staying in the big old family.
This pack suggests of initiative combined with a strong sense of responsibility and a touch of daring.
In 2013, despite the increasingly confined territorial setting, Walla Walla flourished and brought their winter count up to 9 wolves.
As 5 pups survived to the year’s end, this would have meant dispersal of 2 subordinates (6 + 5 – 9 = 2).
However, it has been stated that 3 wolves dispersed in winter of 2012/13 which is a bit confusing because 6 wolf count in winter 2012 (as stated in the Report of 2012) would lead to 3 wolves remaining + 5 pups = 8 wolves.
I cannot resolve this mystery because 3 wolves, indeed, were confirmed to have dispersed (OR10, OR16 and Mt. Emily founding male).
I will also mention that the packs were tested for parvovirus in 2013, and Walla Walla Pack was found to be positive but, unlike the neighbouring Wenaha Pack, Walla Walla was not affected in its 2013 pup survival rate, nor the virus affected adults.
It might be interesting to try and understand why one pack succumbed to the effects of parvovirus while the other (living so close nearby) did not.
2014 was a difficult year to track Walla Walla Pack because the three members had dispersed and those were the only ones in the pack wearing radiocollars.
Thus, knowledge of their family affairs in 2014 is scarce and the extent of their territory has only been assessed with a high degree of approximation.
Their winter count remained stable with 9 wolves (2 breeders + 4 pups + 3 subordinates who were likely the pups of 2013).
It was probably a stressful year because the influence of the neighbouring Wenaha Pack was still quite strong – although not at stressful as 2013 because by the end of the 2013 Walla Walla Pack did not appear to have any subordinate helpers.
Perhaps it was this pressure that encouraged retention of the 3 subordinates in 2014.
It would be interesting to study subordinate retention rates with respect to neighbouring pack social dynamics (expansion vs. shrinking of neighbouring range; growth or decrease in pack size; denning close to territory boundary or in a more central core area etc.).
As Wenaha range had grown large in 2012 already, it seems that Walla Walla pack reacted (if it did) with a year lag time.
Perhaps wolf packs are aware of territorial fluctuations and only become concerned if they seem more permanent (e.g., when the same tendency and occupancy is observed two years in a row).
Unfortunately, data regarding the pack’s history in 2015 is also scarce because 1 individual was collared in May but this individual was illegally killed and thus the pack could only be tracked during a very limited period (which is the lesser of the tragedies described here albeit when it comes to understanding the process of wolf recolonization and developing concern for individual wolf families, it is also highly unfortunate (if the term ‘fortune’ can be ascribed to malevolent act of cruelty)).
I would not really claim this fact ‘interesting’ but the illegal killing of the Walla Walla wolf occurred precisely int he first year when the grey wolf was delisted as an endangered species in Oregon.
Some studies (e.g., Chapron, G. & Treves, A., 2016) suggest that legal killing of wolves increases the rates of illegal killing.
Not all mortalities are accounted for but as far as I can trace the history of illegal wolf killings in Oregon, there were none documented in 2011, 1 in 2012, 1 in 2013, 0 in 2014.
In 2015, protections were partly removed in the eastern part of Oregon.
In 2015, 6 illegal mortalities were reported or suspected (in 2 cases).
In 2016, 2 illegal killings were reported, 4 in 2017, 2 in 2018, 0 in 2019, 4 in 2020.
In 2021, wolves were delisted in greater portions of Oregon (almost half of the state to the east).
8 illegal mortalities were reported in 2021 and 7 were reported in 2022.
I believe the pattern is rather clear – there is a surge in illegal killing following any legal delisting and the increased rate is apparently sustained in the years after the delisting.
It could be argued that the growing number of illegal killings are related to the increasing wolf population but it should be remembered that the ODFW reports account for other, legal types of wolf mortality (e.g., collisions with vehicles, protection of livestock when under direct attack etc.)
Thus, illegal mortalities predominantly reflect the attitudes by people and not mortality rates (e.g., traffic-caused) that are likely to increase as the wolf population grows.
Of course, as the wolves distribute themselves over the area, some packs could come into contact with specific humans who are more hostile than humans elsewhere leading to higher illegal mortality rates (also, hunting accidents can become more common although many of those are cancelled out by the reduced risk of having mistakenly killed a wolf rather than the target species because wolf is no longer a protected animal and the punishment would be less severe leading to a greater willingness to report the accident).
However, the illegal mortality appears to have affected several packs and not just one or few packs exclusively.
Besides, the individuals killed belonged not to new packs but to old packs that had not suffered illegal mortality prior to this and that had not been involved in livestock depredation (it was not a retaliation killing in the specific territory).
Killing of individuals of old packs suggests that the same people who had been living alongside these packs suddenly felt enabled to express hostile attitudes toward their neighbours.
The study by Chapron, G. & Treves, A., 2016 also refers to lethal wolf management after depredation as a potential signaling mechanism of low wolf conservation status.
However, depredation culls had been implemented since 2010 and thereby, the illegal killings following the delistings mainly reflect the influence of the delisting action itself.
I wished to include this sad analysis in Walla Walla story because Walla Walla Pack was one of the first packs that suffered due to the first delisting in 2015 and I wanted to dedicate analytic effort in order to honour the lost individuals (including Walla Walla’s female OR34 who was shot) and to attempt to shed light on the peril of delisting wolves without having ensured their protection from human persecution.
Let us return to the Walla Walla story…
It is known that Walla Walla Pack produced at least 4 pups in 2015 and the winter count was that of 11 wolves (adequate family strength relative to Wenaha’s 12).
Umatilla River Pack, another Walla Walla’s neighbour and also Walla Walla’s kin pack (established by Walla Walla’s relative OR14 in 2012), was shaken up in 2015; as a the result, the breeding male left the area and travelled to Washington.
It is not known why he dispersed.
He was deemed a rather old wolf even when he founded Umatilla River Pack in 2021 but it does not appear that he was chased out of the pack because the pack itself, too, dissolved.
It is not know how old his mate was but would he not have met her in 2011 or 2012 which prompted the separation from Walla Walla kin and the establishment of a new family?
This remains unknown.
During spring/summer, Umatilla River Pack disappeared from the area and for about a year the former Umatilla River Pack’s range was subject to lone wolf travels and temporary residence until it was permanently occupied by North Emily Pack in 2016.
This could have inspired Walla Walla to grow in size even further (the winter pack count would have been 12 wolves had the collared subordinate female OR34 not been shot illegally).
The 2015 report also mentions that Walla Walla Pack was one of the 3 long-term wolf packs with zero livestock depredation cases until 2015 (which could attest to their stable dynamics but also to their beneficial habitat conditions).
This is another reason why illegal killings can be so unjust.
Walla Walla Pack lost its subordinate female OR34 despite the fact that the pack had never caused trouble and to the end of its tenancy in 2021, it depredated livestock twice – 1 lamb in 2016 and 1 calf in 2017 (ironically, precisely after the illegal killing).
Starting from 2016, things for Walla Walla Pack began going downhill.
In 2016, 2 pups were produced but in 2017, 2018 and – 3 pups were produced (compared to the former 4 pup average).
If the pack was established in 2011, the breeding pair would have been at least 6 years old by 2016.
More likely, 7 years old (2 years being the average age of sexual maturity and reproductive activity in wolves).
Reproductive senescence in Yellowstone wolf population was detected at the age of 4 – 5 years already (Stahler, D.R. et al., 2012).
If at no point during the pack’s history the breeding pair or one of the breeding partners had actually been replaced by younger individuals, lower reproductive rates could have been observed in Walla Walla as early as in 2012 – 2015.
However, Oregon wolves appear to be healthy (large litter size) and long-lived (many wolves reach a considerable age of 7 or even 11 etc.).
It would be interesting to evaluate what factors (environmental factors, population density, genetics etc.) influence these differences between wolf populations in different locations during various colonization phases.
The slight decrease in number of surviving Walla Walla pups could be the result of reproductive senescence of the aged breeders or the result of growing population density, or perhaps there was a change in the breeding status (a replacement of one of the breeders) which can sometimes lead to lower reproductive rates, at least initially.
Walla Walla range does not appear to have fluctuated greatly.
Growing population density sometimes impacts wolf families through, e.g., the shrinking of their territories but territorial loss does not appear to have been the case in Walla Walla’s history.
It might be important to note that Walla Walla Pack killed livestock in 2016 and 2017 which was untypical of the pack.
This could suggest of depleted prey population (increasing wolf density and the relatively many years since recolonization might contribute to lower prey numbers on the landscape or perhaps the prey was less easily available because it was no longer predator naïve) leading to acquiring alternative food resources.
It could also be indicative in alterations in the pack’s social structure (e.g., destabilization after change in breeders or due to other cause).
Both farm animals that were killed by Walla Walla, were young of the year (lamb in 2016 and calf in 2017).
The lamb was killed in May but the calf was killed in August.
It could be important to remember because:
- thereby we can make assumptions regarding the availability of prey resources during the particular period when depredation occurred;
- we can try to understand what social factors could have been of influence contributing to depredation.
Of course, there is a lack of information regarding prey numbers, environmental variables and even the farm status (perhaps it was a newly established livestock operation which took the wolves ‘by surprised’ as it appeared on their territory or near it).
Both May and August are months when wolves often hunt alone or in small groups.
It is also a time when wolves keep closer to the den which means that the livestock operation was probably located rather centrally in the wolf territory.
The fact that no problems occurred in the denning periods prior to 2016 could suggest that the farm was recently established or the Walla Walla Pack had moved from their traditional den site (supporting the change in breeders theory or indicating an otherwise significant modification in the groups’ resources that could have led to both preying on livestock and changing denning area).
However, despite lower pup production rate (2) in 2016, Walla Walla Pack was still 11 wolves strong in winter, 2016.
This means that only two subordinates wolves were lost in 2016 (and pack stability would not have been an issue unless a change in breeding position occurred; however, change in breeders frequently leads to dispersal of a larger number of pack members).
Once again, a subadult wolf was shot in March, 2016 illegally which suggests that the wolf killer likely lived near the Walla Walla Pack or on its territory (if the pack suffered illegal mortalities two years one after another).
Another Walla Walla adult was killed in May, 2016 as the wolf had been caught attacking livestock and it was shot in order to stop the attack.
It can be concluded that 0 wolves actually dispersed and this is quite incompatible with the assumption of a replacement of breeder(s) – a process that usually results in pack restructuring.
However, the sudden low count (poor survival) of pups could have been the result of death/disappearance of one of the breeders and the social consequences might have become reflected in dispersal patterns in the following year (on condition that the new breeder joined several months after the death of the former breeder).
In 2017, Walla Walla numbers dropped to 7 wolves in winter (3 pups).
However, not much more is known about the pack’s life during 2017.
Another livestock depredation occurred in August, 2017 which might imply that the pack, once again, had denned in another area (or that their summer resources were otherwise at risk).
No conflicts were registered after 2017.
The pack might have changed denning site again or perhaps the farm implemented preventive measures, or perhaps the drop in the pack member count made the resources more sufficient.
The decrease in pack size was, in fact, dramatic.
If 3 pups were produced, it would mean that during 2017, 8 subordinates dispersed.
Mortalities in the pack have not been reported, and particular dispersers have not been noted, either.
I find it curious why the pack suffered such a reduction in size in 2017.
There was also a big change in the pack layout between 2016 and 2017 in NE Oregon.
There was instability in the former Umatilla River Pack’s territory in 2016 – 2017 with lower occupancy density and this could have facilitated dispersal.
Mt. Emily Pack (another neighbour) did not reproduce in 2016, either, and by 2017, they had lost a lot of their former territory.
There was a lot of pack restructuring in 2017 with formation of 2 new packs in the general area and several pairs looking to establish (although these were rather further south from Walla Walla).
The commotion itself might have prompted dispersal due to sudden increase in mate resources.
However, it does not appear that any of these dispersers established a new pack (at least not in Oregon) during 2017 – 2018.
I find this very perplexing.
However, lower wolf density and shifting ranges allow for easier travel by lone wolves (compared to crossing and hunting on long-established large pack territories).
In 2018, Walla Walla Pack produced, once again, 3 pups and it was 8 wolves strong in winter.
This means that 2 subordinates dispersed which is likely ‘normal’ but not much more is known of the pack’s affairs during this year.
While 2 subordinates left the pack (or died), 3 stayed with the pack which suggests there was no resource scarcity and it was still important to keep numbers during the times of territorial restructuring and many smaller packs around (who would likely seek to expand as they, too, acquired a greater packmate count).
2019 was a poor year for Walla Walla – reproduction was confirmed but no pups were observed in winter.
The winter count was still 7 wolves with only 1 wolf from 2018 lost from the pack.
2020 was also a poor year with 1 pup surviving but the pack also lost all of its subordinates who were probably yearlings, two-year-olds and even three-year-olds.
Walla Walla pack count fell to 3 (breeding pair + surviving pup) and this would have been extremely dangerous with even more new packs around.
In 2021, Walla Walla Pack was no longer observed and its territory was largely overtaken by the Noregaard Pack which had become the new local family of influence (with its daughter-pack – the Balloon Tree Pack).
Walla Walla has still been included in the 2022 Report but the Specific Wolves and Wolf Packs in Oregon Walla Walla section discontinues it starting from 2021.
By 2012, the NE was almost continuously occupied by wolf packs with adjacent or slightly overlapping territorial boundaries.
It appears that there had been two shake-ups in the Walla Walla Pack history the reasons for which are not known.
One could have occurred in 2016 when the pup production rate dropped from 4 (over the previous two year period) to 2 (in 2016) and then rose to 3 (for the following two year period).
After that, the second shake-up might have affected the pack in 2019 – 2020 resulting in the pack’s demise.
As I have mentioned before, the Walla Walla breeding pair would have been at least 7 years old in 2016 and if they had not been replaced (individually or commonly), at least 10 – 11 years old in 2019 – 2020.
This could explain the changes in reproductive output.
However, I also thought to analyze the pup production rates in 2016 and 2019 – 2020 in the neighbouring packs to examine the possible effects of environment and population dynamics.
In 2016, Walla Walla’s closest neighbours were Wenaha, North Emily, Meacham, Mt. Emily, Catherine, Minam.
In 2019, the closest neighbours were Wenaha, North Emily, Ruckel Ridge, OR63, Noregaard, Wenaha, Mt. Emily, Five Points.
This list alone demonstrates the growth in population density (and territories of individual packs had become smaller).
It is rather curious because it could be the result of natural population tendencies but it could also have been the result of lethal wolf management which can destabilize populations leading to a greater number of small packs and increased population density.
In 2020, the closest neighbours were different than those in 2019: Wenaha, Noregaard, Balloon Tree, Touchet, North Emily, Ruckel Ridge, OR30, Five Points, Clark Creek.
I will, however, analyze only 2019 neighbour data because many of the 2020 packs were newly established and there is not a tendency to be observed yet.
And I will altogether analyze packs that had formed at least 2 years prior to 2016 or 2019.
Their reproductive success could have been impacted by the ‘freshness’ (or instead ‘senescence’) of the pack.
Wenaha Pack did not attest to any significant changes in reproductive rates of 2016.
However, Wenaha’s 2019 – 2020 reproductive rates were affected by the loss of the aged breeding female.
Accounting for this change in the pack’s composition, their reproductive rates were stable but pup production was below the former average (ca. 2 pups compared to ca. 4).
North Emily does not provide ‘stable data’ for 2016 because that was when the pack established (after the dissolution of Umatilla River Pack).
However, in 2019 and 2020, their reproductive rates also dropped from 4 – 5 to 1 – 2.
Meacham Pack does not attest to significant changes in 2016 but they were also a comparatively new pack (2014).
2016 was also a bad year for the related Mt. Emily Pack (founded in 2013 by a Walla Walla male) and they did not produce pups at all but they produced 3 pups both in 2015 and 2017.
In 2019, Mt Emily produced 5 pups despite the breeding female’s death in 2018 which counters the poor pup production tendency in 2019 (Walla Walla, Wenaha, North Emily, Minam, Ruckel Ridge, Noregaard).
Sadly, in 2020 the pack was no longer around.
Minam Pack did not show any changes in reproductive rates in 2016 but in 2019 and 2020 their reproductive rate fell, as well.
In 2019 and 2020, Ruckel Ridge produced a lower count of pups (3 and 2, respectively) than in 2018 and 2021 (both 4).
Noregaard also suffered lower reproduction in 2019 (2 pups) but not in 2020 (6 pups) than their long-term average.
The recently established Five Points Pack did not produce fewer pups in 2019, nor 2020.
It can be concluded that the 2016 demographic fall in Walla Walla Pack was likely caused by internal issues (internal socially or internal to their territory).
Interestingly, it almost seems as if the pack reacted to the changes in its kin packs.
Firstly, the Walla Walla-related breeding male left the Umatilla River Pack which dissolved in 2015 and in 2016, Walla Walla suffered lower pup production.
I cannot see how these events were directly connected (apart from the age of the individuals involved) but, personally, I also believe in moral and spiritual strength that can weaken if we lose our loved ones or if they are no longer near us.
Perhaps with the disappearance of the Umatilla River Pack’s breeder who was potentially a father to one of the Walla Walla breeders and who likely dispersed due to his own old age, forced the Walla Walla breeders to acknowledge their own eventual mortality and to make preparations.
Secondly, in 2018, the breeding female of Mt. Emily Pack died (and Walla Walla suffered reproductive failure in 2019).
She was not related to Walla Walla but her partner was and it appears as if the anxieties in Mt. Emily had drained some strength from Walla Walla, as well.
These are, of course, musings not entirely of scientific nature because science currently does not recognize, e.g., spiritual connection between related individuals (it is not probable that Walla Walla breeders kept actual track of the affairs of their putative father and son but their territories at times touched and approached one another and they might have been able to detect social changes in the kin packs through scent-marking deposits or howls).
While the shift in 2016 might have been caused by reproductive senescence, the 2019 – 2020 reproductive reduction is not as clear because it appears that other packs (Wenaha, North Emily, Minam, Ruckel Ridge, Noregaard – partly) had fewer pups in 2019 and 2020, too.
I do not have sufficient information to determine causes for this reproductive decrease in the area.
There was a greater number of lone wolves/pairs in 2019 than in 2018 (resource pressure) but I am not sure if this alone could have affected the demographics of the established packs (e.g., Walla Walla territory was not reduced).
The winter of 2018 – 2019 was very cold but this would have weakened the prey rather than the wolf.
However, the summer of 2019 was apparently record-hot and the heat in combination with old age in the breeders could have lowered their success.
I believe that the history of Walla Walla Pack was the history of a breeding pair and their stronghold from which many individuals dispersed set on creating their own families.
For several years, Walla Walla held its influence in the area not through its own large pack size (although the pack size was most often adequate to the averages of the long-term groups as well as the threats the pack was facing), nor through its own large territorial size but through the coverage of the lands occupied by its blood-kin (Umatilla River and Mt. Emily).
They did not appear to have the ambition of becoming ‘formidable’, so to speak.
I suppose that their strategy (predisposition as well as pack values) was oriented toward establishing and maintaining a good home where the offspring could learn all that was needed for their later independent lives.
I think it was rather ominous that the 8 wolves dispersed in 2017.
This happened after the poor pup production rate in 2016 which means that the social tension in the pack due to shared resources would not have been high.
Probably the poor pup survival was the reason why these subordinates had stayed behind in the first place because there was no need to leave (and the large dispersal count in the following year simply reflected the large number of individuals who had not been motivated to leave in 2016).
However, they did not attempt to establish new packs in NE Oregon close to Walla Walla Pack.
If the breeder(s) had aged, this also suggests that there was no ‘plot’ to remain and to eventually take over the parental territory.
As Walla Walla was active for at least 3 – 4 more years, I would say that the subordinates still had faith in the breeding pair whether it consisted of the original old couple or one of the original breeders paired up with a younger mate.
But the senescence was perhaps sensed and calculated into the decision making.
For example, there was obviously a suitable range right beside Walla Walla Pack (to the east, southeast) – the range which was taken over by Noregaard in 2018 and later inherited by Noregaard’s OR63 who formed the Balloon Tree Pack in 2020.
Noregaard Pack was 9 wolves strong in winter, 2017/18 but 7 of those wolves were pups who did not have experience in territory defense.
Would it have been difficult for Walla Walla’s subordinates to ‘gang up’ on Noregaard’s wolves in order to carve out a place for themselves beside their parental home?
Sometimes I read about wolves who seem to get attached greatly to their home (e.g., Half-Moon pack subordinate in the Voygageurs Ecosystem who rather chose to stay back in her natal territory with the new pack that had displaced her own family than to follow her family which had settled slightly south of the old range).
There are other stories where I come by impression that the pack has intended to become a large group which is either prominent, or very durable and stable (e.g., Imnaha and Wenaha, respectively) and where the emphasis appears to have been placed on the family unit and its internal interest.
Walla Walla Pack, to me, seems to have entertained a selfless ambition which is not as much related to the home or the family unit itself (internally) but to the formation of an environment where children can thrive and grow to make independent decisions (which are family-oriented but oriented mainly toward their future prospects at having a family, not at the parental family).
Siblings stay behind in order to secure this space in which their younger brothers and sisters can grow up to claim the confidence of adulthood.
And then they leave, and the core of the family unit is still the breeding pair which, however, is perhaps unaware of their ‘coreness’ because their concern lies external to them (in their children).
I think that the determination to have families of their own can be evidenced in the stronger inclination by Walla Walla dispersers to migrate back into Idaho where the wolf population is denser (greater likelihood to pair up with a mate) but due to the delisting status of wolves in Idaho and the aforementioned population density factor the actual success is currently unknown (unless I gain access to Idaho wolf pack summaries which could indicate if any of the packs had Walla Walla breeders for their leaders).
As the power of the Walla Walla breeding pair waned, their offspring, curiously, did not attempt to secure the position and the territory.
It was almost as if the uniting, binding power had faded with the Walla Walla pair itself.
Mt. Emily Pack and North Emily Pack, likewise, faded.
It appears that Walla Walla Pack had taken the bold decision to venture out into the few-wolf land in order to make the best of it for its children but that this pack’s intent was not to achieve a permanent and indelible presence.
It was never about them – it was all about the futures of their children, and it was almost as if Walla Walla Pack never considered itself a ‘claimant of Oregon’ but rather viewed itself as an ‘Idaho-exile’ establishing a transient stronghold in Oregon (the land of the plenty) whence its children could have a chance to reclaim the lands of their ancestors.
Mt. Emily Pack’s male might have been guided by similar motivations.
It is not unlike the history of the settlement of the US by many European families who sought to escape overpopulation and poverty (as well as political persecution) and who hoped to one day return to the land of their foremothers and forefathers.
It is even possible that Walla Walla pack itself did not strive for permanency and wished to migrate back before their own end-days.
It should be mentioned that Walla Walla Pack also had a portion of their range in Washington but they always denned in Oregon and were thereby counted as an Oregon wolf pack.
References
Guillaume, C. & Treves, A., 2016. Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2832015293920152939, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2939
ODFW Annual Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Reports, https://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/annual_reports.asp
ODFW Mt. Emily Pack webpage, https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/Packs/Mt_Emily.asp
ODFW Umatilla River Pack webpage, https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/Packs/Umatilla.asp
ODFW Walla Walla Pack webpage, https://dfw.state.or.us/wolves/Packs/Walla_Walla.asp
Stahler, D.R., MacNulty, D.R., Wayne, R.K., vonHoldt, B. and Smith, D.W. (2013), The adaptive value of morphological, behavioural and life-history traits in reproductive female wolves. J Anim Ecol, 82: 222-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2012.02039.x
Notes by Ieva 