1 | P a g e

Surveying for rare and elusive predators during summer months using

altered winter methods in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, Montana,

with an emphasis on wolverine (Gulo gulo) survey techniques

Mountain lion (Puma concolor) at camera station 13 in AB Wilderness, MT

Blake M. Brightman

Undergraduate Student Researcher

Rocky Mountain College

Yellowstone River Research Center

1511 Poly Drive

Billings, Montana 59102

blake.brightman@rocky.edu

Kayhan Ostovar

Associate Professor

kayhan.ostovar@rocky.edu

Please cite this report as:

Brightman, B.M., S.J. Durney, K. Ostovar and L. Ward. 2014. Surveying for rare and elusive predators during summer

months using altered winter methods in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, Montana, with an emphasis on wolverine

(Gulo gulo) survey techniques. Report YRRC 2014-02. Submitted to the Custer Gallatin National Forest, Cinnabar

Foundation and Montana Wilderness Association. Yellowstone River Research Center, Rocky Mountain College,

Billings, MT. Pp 1-17.

Lucas Ward

Assistant Professor

Lucas.ward@rocky.edu

Simone Durney

Rocky Mountain College Alumni

simone.durney@gmail.com

2 | P a g e

Introduction

Importance of Study

Predators such as the wolverine (Gulo gulo) provide top-down control of community

structures, making them an important part of mountainous ecosystems. Wolverines are a species

sensitive to both climate change and human activity in wilderness areas (Worsely 2011), making

them a good indicator species for evaluating the overall ecological integrity of an ecosystem.

This paper describes a project that sought to (a) evaluate the distribution of wolverines and other

predators throughout 117,731 hectares of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness (ABW) identified

as ‘suitable habitat’, (b) determine if non-invasive methods and non-bait scent lures adapted to

wilderness use would be effective for a summer wolverine and (c) increase public involvement in

wolverine conservation by incorporating citizen science efforts.

Wolverines in the ABW

This study was designed to document the presence of wolverines in Montana’s ABW,

which is located in south central Montana, just north of Yellowstone National Park. The ABW is

defined by the Beartooth Mountains which rise from about 6,000 feet to more than 11,000 feet

above sea level. The ABW features a variety of vegetation types, including vegetation preferred

by wolverines during summer months such as whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) (Absaroka-

Beartooth Wilderness Foundation 2014). Only two previous known records exist within the

study area, one of them dating back to August 1894 (Figure 1).

Wolverines have a large home range and their presence has been documented throughout

a variety of coniferous forest types including whitebark pine, lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta),

Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Wolverines require

cold-conditions and limit their distribution to high elevations in northern latitudes (Federal

Register 2013). During summer months, wolverines prefer whitebark pine forests and north-

facing slopes for the purpose of thermoregulation and hunting (Copeland et al. 2007). Successful

reproduction (natal denning), requires persistent snow cover (Copeland et al. 2010, Federal

Register 2013), such as that found at high elevations within the ABW.

3 | P a g e

Figure 1. Historic wolverine records within the current study area in the AB Wilderness, MT.

Susceptibility

Wolverines are a species that is particularly vulnerable to human activity and climate

change. Ecological theory suggests that wolverines could be particularly susceptible to climate

change due to their generally low density, resource-limited populations and high-alpine habitat

dependency (Brodie and Post 2009). Recent studies suggest that as global warming trends

increase due to climate change, wolverine habitat in places like the ABW will continue to

dissipate and populations will become increasingly isolated and susceptible to decline

(McKelvey et al. 2011). Human activity, such as snowmobiling and back country skiing, creates

a potential for habitat fragmentation, additive mortality and displacement of wolverine

populations (Krebs and Lewis 2000). Similarly, human predation poses a threat to wolverine

populations in Montana. Historically, wolverines have been classified as ‘furbearers’ in the state

of Montana. Previous trapping regulations allowed the limit of one wolverine per trapper under a

long-standing state wide quota of five animals per season (MNHP and MFWP 2014). In 2012,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the wolverine as a threatened species under

4 | P a g e

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This would prohibit intentional killing, i.e. trapping.

Wolverines are not currently protected by the ESA (USFWS 2014). This susceptibility, coupled

with a general lack of knowledge, makes wolverine management and conservation difficult for

wilderness managers in the ABW.

Methods

Study Area

The study area encompassed 117,731 hectares of the ABW, Montana in the following

drainages: West Rosebud, East Rosebud, West Fork and Lake Fork (Figure 2). In an effort to

document wolverine presence in these drainages, three student researchers worked from May

through October to set up seven wolverine camera stations in carefully selected locations ranging

from 8980 feet to 9912 feet in elevation.

Figure 2. Drainages surveyed in ABW and study area relative to Red Lodge, MT

5 | P a g e

Site Selection

Past sightings and vegetation type were the primary factors in site selection. United States

Forest Service (USFS) Vegetation Mapping was used in conjunction with ArcMap GIS

workflows (slope and aspect analyses and geoprocessing) to determine areas of suitable

vegetation type for wolverine prior to fieldwork. Suitable habitat criteria included: (a) vegetation

type (preferably whitebark pine), (b) elevations of 8,000 feet or greater and (c) north-facing

aspects (Hornocker and Hash 1981). On-site selection was based on suitable habitat criteria and

available resources for set-up, such as natural feature material. Vegetation mapping included the

following vegetation types: whitebark pine, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce.

Student researchers also spent one day training under an experienced wolverine camera trap

surveyor, Kalon Baughan, determining suitable habitat and setting up efficient camera stations

(Baughan 2014).

Camera Details

Seven multi-shot cameras were used as the primary data collection tools for this study.

Camera images recorded: time, date, temperature, moon phase and camera number. Moultrie

Model # MFH-DGS-D55R cameras were set up at Site 1 (Silver Run Elk Trail) and Site 1(2)

(Silver Run Plateau Ridge). Moultrie Model cameras had 5.0 MP image resolution, 50 feet

trigger range, one minute delay and multi-shot collection of three images per one trigger.

Reconyx HC600 HyperFire H.O. Covert IR cameras were set up at Site 5 (Timberline Lake), Site

6 (Sylvan Lake Ridge), Site 8 (Phantom Lake), Site 12 (Silver Run Plateau Bowl), and Site 13

(First Rock Lake). Reconyx HC600 cameras had 3.1 MP image resolution, 60 feet trigger range,

zero second delay and multi-shot collection of five images per one camera trigger. Each camera

was encased by a Reconyx HyperFire Security Enclosure to protect cameras from animals and

theft. Throughout this paper, camera site coordinates refer to physical camera locations. Camera

stations were checked roughly every two week after set up.

Camera Station Elements

At each site, a “natural feature” was constructed in camera view roughly 4-6 meters from the

camera location (Figure 3).

6 | P a g e

Figure 3. “Natural feature” created at Camera Site 6 with scented carpet pad and hair snare in

background.

Natural features were constructed using available material (i.e. fallen tree), which were further

modified using light-weight hatchets (Baughan pers communication 2014, Schlexer 2012).

Hair snares made from carpet squares with ten 1 inch barbed nails passed through the carpet

were attached about 17 inches high on either the natural feature or nearest, stable tree in camera

view in attempt to collect hair samples for possible DNA analysis for species confirmation

(Figure 4) (Gompper et al. 2006).

Figure 4. Hair snare and carpet square setup.

7 | P a g e

The scent mixture consisted of a 1:6 ratio of Minnesota Trapline Inc. glycerine and Hawbakers

Long Distance Call 600. For each ounce of scent mixture, 10 drops of Dr. Adorable Inc. catnip

oil was added. The decision to use scent lures over bait was made in an effort to avoid bears,

which are more numerous than wolverines in the ABW and readily attracted to bait. Scent lures

consisted of five centimeter by five centimeter carpet squares which were soaked in prepared

scent solutions and suspended above the natural feature using fishing line. Additional carpet

squares were placed above hair snare locations. Owl feathers were used as visual attractants and

were hung by fishing line roughly 12-16 meters away from the surrounding camera location

(Figure 5). Three visual attractants were used at each site.

Figure 5. Camera Site setup example

Data Collection and Analysis

Twenty four GB SD memory cards were used to store data (images) from cameras. An

A1337 iPad was used to download camera data on site during each camera check. After the

download was complete, camera data was deleted from memory cards which were then placed

back in the camera for further data collection. Camera data was briefly analyzed on site and the

number of species and individual captures were recorded. Regardless of the number of camera

triggers and images, a 24-hour period defined one capture per individual animal. Hair snares

8 | P a g e

were checked for hair samples. Hair samples, when present, where collected using needle nose

tweezers and placed in standard size seed packet envelopes. Other notes such as site disturbance,

scat, etc. were recorded on site.

Results

Species Detected

Wolverines were not detected at camera stations during the five months of this study.

However, non-bait scent lures proved effective at detecting a wide range of species, including

more elusive carnivores. A total of 18 species were documented throughout the course of this

study. These species included: American black bear (Urses americanus), American marten

(Martes americana) (Figure 6), American red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), American

robin (Turdus migratorius), bobcat (Lynx rufus) (Figure 7), bushy tailed woodrat (Neotoma

cinerea), coyote (Canis latrans), dusky grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), elk (Cervus

canadensis), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), yellow

bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris), moose (Alces alces), mountain goat (Oreamnos

americanus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), American pika

(Ochotona princeps), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus).

Figure 6. Reconyx HC600 image of an American marten (Martes americana) at Camera Site 5

9 | P a g e

Figure 7. Moultrie Model # MFH-DGS-D55R image of a bobcat (Lynx rufus) at Camera Site 1.

Species diversity

Species diversity was calculated as the number of species detected at each camera station

(Figure 8). Camera Site 5 (Timberline Lake) was the most diverse camera station with seven

species, including: American red squirrel, American marten, elk, American robin, coyote, red

fox, and American black bear. Camera Site 6 (Sylvan Lake Ridge) was the least diverse camera

station.

10 | P a g e

Figure 8. Species diversity at each camera site.

Capture Success Rate

Cameras were deployed for a total of 11,016 hours. A total of seven carnivore species

were captured during this study. Capture success rate was calculated as the number of individual

species detected divided by the total hours of all cameras deployed and calculated for each

species detected (Figure 9). Species with the highest capture success rate were snowshoe hare,

American red squirrel, elk, American black bear, American marten and mule deer.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 1(2) 5 6 8 12 13

Nu

mb

er

of

Spe

cie

s D

ete

cte

d

Camera Site Number

11 | P a g e

Figure 9. Capture success rate of species detected

Notably, a total of 37 individual snowshoe hares were captured (detected) throughout the course

of this study. Thirty-seven snowshoe hare divided by 11,016 total camera hours is a capture

success rate of 0.0034. This was the highest capture success rate of all species detected. The

American red squirrel had the second highest capture success rate with a capture success rate of

0.0028. The coyote, grizzly bear, mountain lion, house wren and pike had the lowest capture

success rates of all species detected with capture success rates of 0.00009.

Citizen Science Results

An unanticipated result of this study was that due to publicity that appeared on the front

page of The Billings Gazette (http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/capturing-

photographs-of-lynx-wolverine-proving-tough-for-students/article_68a34ed9-6ea8-5e66-98bd-

7c5d96fb7280.html) and outreach generated with our partnerships, five new reliable sightings of

wolverine in the ABW were confirmed (Figure 10). Four of these new wolverine sightings were

within the current study area. The fifth new wolverine sighting was outside of the study area,

near the Boulder River Drainage. A brief anecdote about this observation provides an example of

how the citizen scientist reporting worked. After reading about the present study in the

newspaper, citizen scientist Kim Latterall submitted an image to the local Montana Fish Wildlife

and Parks office an image of a wolverine near West Boulder Lake (near the Boulder River

Drainage) that was taken on July 24, 2014 (Figure 11). The image was then submitted to the

Yellowstone River Research Center by the other hiker with a full detailed description of the

wolverine behavior and exact location. Latterall stated, “the wolverine traveled around the east

0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

0.003

0.0035

0.004

Cap

ture

Su

cce

ss R

ate

Species Detected

12 | P a g e

and south end of West Boulder Lake and crossed the divide into the Prospect Lake Drainage.”

Latterall also captured and submitted an image of the wolverine’s tracks imprinted in the snow

(Figure 12). Five new confirmed wolverine sightings resulted in a 150% increase of confirmed

wolverine sightings in the ABW.

Figure 10. Five new reliable confirmed sightings of wolverine in the ABW.

13 | P a g e

Figure 11. Image of a wolverine near West Boulder Lake taken by citizen scientist Kim Latterall

on July 24, 2014. Note the distinctive brown color on the back of the animal.

Figure 12. Image of wolverine tracks near West Boulder Lake taken by citizen scientist Kim

Latterall on July 24, 2014.

14 | P a g e

Discussion Non-invasive Methods, Non-scent Bait Lures and Wilderness Etiquette

In general, carnivore species can be difficult to study because of their cautious nature

towards humans. United States Forest Service (USFS) protocol suggests flashers, photographic

bait stations and snow tracking as primary methods for carnivore surveys. The USFS encourages

the use of road-kill as bait for attracting carnivores. Visual attractants or “flashers” suggested by

the USFS include aluminum pie plates, sandwich bags, and compact discs. USFS protocol also

suggests the use of single-sensor, double-sensor and line-triggered cameras for detecting

carnivores (USFS 1995). Magoun et al. (2011) suggests the construction of a support structure in

camera view for specific wolverine identification purposes.

During summer months in the ABW, bait is inefficient and potentially dangerous to

hikers in the area due to the potential to habituate bears to food and attract them for long periods

of time. The presence of bears and other large predators alone could contribute to the absence of

wolverine. There is also evidence that suggests wolverines are less attracted to non-bait scent

lures due to natural food availability. To be sensitive to Wilderness Area etiquette and laws no

man-made objects were used as visual attractants, instead large owl feathers and only natural

objects were used to construct the photographic “site” and attract predators. Due to the

limitations of using bait in the summer months and ease of winter tracking surveys in some

areas, summer carnivore surveys are not often conducted and thus valuable knowledge about

carnivore habitats during summer are lacking. This study found that altering traditional winter

techniques (bait and man-made attractants and constructed photo site”) had great success at

attracting a variety of carnivore species (seven total).

Unexpected Citizen Science Success

Citizen science involves the collaboration of scientists and volunteers in the collection of

scientific data to improve research, and to promote educations and environmental action (Brewer

2002, Toomey et al. 2013). Coop et al. (2014) found that citizen science involvement was

particularly useful for documenting large-scale spatial patterns and long-term population trends.

Local publicity (French 2014) and partnerships with NGOs increased community awareness

about wolverine conservation. All new wolverine records confirmed during this study were

submitted by reliable citizen scientists and were often accompanied by detailed accounts and

location information. This suggests that in addition to active survey efforts, the documentation of

rare and elusive carnivores, in vast areas such as the ABW, with limited winter access, requires

the cooperation and active engagement of scientists, and community members.

Capture Success Rate: Rare Carnivores and Incidentals

Capture success rate varied among species. Frederick et al. (1998) describes capture

success rate as an indication of frequency that a species is found in an area. Elusive carnivores

and incidental species had the lowest capture success rate. Carnivores with relatively low capture

success rates included mountain lion, grizzly bear, coyote, bobcat and red fox. Low capture

success rates indicate the need for many hours of camera deployment for detection to be

achieved for some of these more elusive species. The fact that wolverines were not detected does

not mean that they are not in the area. It is clear when looking at species detection rates that it

takes many hours of camera deployment to record rather common carnivores like American

black bears. Incidental species also had low capture success rates assumedly because they had no

motive to return to camera sites and were often not drawn to the camera by scent.

15 | P a g e

Conclusion

This project pioneered some new techniques for use in Wilderness Areas that are

successful at attracting carnivores. The diversity of carnivore species recorded with just a small

number of cameras is encouraging. With the guidance from new information on wolverine

locations from the recent citizen science observations, continued camera trap survey work can

now focus on those areas next summer. Summer records of wolverine are important as they may

eventually help identify important denning locations.

Acknowledgements This research would not have been possible without the help of Kalon Baughan, an

experienced wolverine camera trap surveyor from Western Montana and part-time employee and

volunteer of Wild Things Unlimited, and Simone Durney, 2014 Yellowstone River Research

Center grantee and lead researcher of this study. Funding and other support was received from

the Yellowstone River Research Center, United States Forest Service – Custer Gallatin National

Forest, Cinnabar Foundation, Eastern Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Association and the

Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Foundation. Dick Hatfield, former backcountry ranger of the

ABW, also contributed past and current knowledge of wolverine sightings. Thanks to all of those

who helped in the field, Kayhan Ostovar, Lucas Ward, Megan Poulette, Josh Poulette, Greg

Farnum, Jon Kohn, Zach Farrand, Renee Seacor, Linnea Warlick, Joe Cunningham, Michael

Eggen, Alex Garcia, D’Jeane Peters, and Tyler Kethley. We would like to thank Dick Hatfield,

Kim Latterall, and any other citizen scientists that provided observations of lynx or wolverine in

the ABW. Thanks to the Billings Gazette for their article on our study. A final thanks to Zach

Farrand for initiating the idea for this study when he realized how few records existed in this

portion of the ABW.

Literature Cited Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Foundation. 2014. Geology of the Beartooth Mountains.

Retrieved from http://www.abwilderness.org/beartooth-geology.html

Baughan, Kalon. 2014. Wildlife Monitoring and Remote Camera Specialist. Personal

communication.

Brewer, C. 2002. Conservation education partnerships in schoolyard laboratories: A call back

to action. Conservation Biology. Vol. 16: 577-579.

Brodie, J.F. and E. Post. 2009. Nonlinear responses of wolverine populations to declining winter

snowpack. Population Ecology, 52, 279-287.

Coop, C.B, J. Shirk, B. Zuckerberg. 2014. The Invisible Prevalence of Citizen Science in Global

Research: Migratory Birds and Climate Change. PLOS ONE. Vol. 9(9): e106508.

Doe:10.1371/journal.pone.0106508.

Copeland, J.P., J.M. Peek, P.R. Groves, W.E. Melquist, K.S. McKelvey, G.W. McDaniel, C.D.

Long and C.E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central

Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(7), 2201-2212.

16 | P a g e

Copeland, J.P., K.S. McKelvey, K.B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R.M. Inman, J. Krebs,

E. Lofroth, H. Golden, J.R. Squires, A. Magoun, M.A. Schwartz, M.K. Schwartz, J.

Wilmot, C.L. Copeland, R.E. Yates, I. Kojola and R. May. 2010. The bioclimatic

envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic

distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology, 88, 233-246.

Federal Register. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for the

distinct population segment of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous

United States. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Volume 78, No. 23.

7864-7890.

Frederick, Scharf S., Jeffrey A. Buckel, Francis Juanes, and David O. Conover. 1998.

Predation by juvenile piscivorous bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix): the influence of prey to

predator size ratio and prey type on predator capture success and prey profitability.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 55: 1695-1703.

French, Brett. 2014. Camera Shy: Capturing photographs of lynx, wolverine proving tough for

students. The Billings Gazette.

Gompper, Matthew E., Roland W. Kays, Justina C. Ray, Scott D. LaPoint, Daniel A. Bogan,

and Jason R. Cryan. 2006. A comparison of noninvasive techniques to survey carnivore

communities in northeastern North America. 2006. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 34(4):

1142-1151.

Hornocker, M.G, and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana.

Canadian Journal of Zoology. Vol. 59: 1286-1301.

Krebs, A. J. and D. Lewis. 2000. Wolverine Ecology and Habitat Use in the North Columbia

Mountains: Progress Report.

Magoun, A.J., P. Valkenburg, D.N. Petersen, C.D. Long and R.E. Lowell. 2011. Wolverine

images – using motion-detection cameras for photographing, identifying, and monitoring

wolverines. Blurb <http://www.blurb.com/bookstore>.

McKelvey, K.S., J.P. Copeland, M.K. Schwartz, J.S. Littell, K.B. Aubry, J.R. Squires, S.A.

Parks, M.M. Elsner and G.S. Mauger. 2011. Climate change predicted to shift wolverine

distributions, connectivity, and dispersal corridors. Ecological Applications, 21(8), 2882

2897.

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Feds seek to list wolverine as threatened species. 2014.

Retrieved from http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/headlines/nr_4064.html

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Wildlife Management and Regulated Trapping in Montana.

2014.

17 | P a g e

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Montana Field

Guide. 2014. Retrieved from http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AMAJF03010.aspx

Schlexer, Fredrick V. 2012. Chapter 10: Attracting Animals to Detection Devices. Noninvasive

Survey Methods for Carnivores. Pp 263-282. Edited by Long, Robert A., MacKay,

Paula., Zielinski, William J. and Ray. J.C.

Worsely, Siemens A. 2011. Status Assessment: Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) in Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre, Fish and Wildlife Branch, 3211 Albert Street,

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, S4S 5W6.

Toomey, Anne H. and Margret C. Domroese. 2013. Can citizen science lead to positive

conservation attitudes and behaviors? Human Ecology Review. Vol. 20, No.1. 2013.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Species Profile: North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus).

2014. Retrieved from:

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0FA

U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2014. Decayed Wood Advisor: List of Tree

Species Codes. Retrieved from: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/pages/Tree-

Codes.html.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Zielinski, William K., and Kucera, Thomas E. American marten, Fisher,

Lynx, and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection. United States Department of

Agriculture Forest Service. Retrieved from:

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-157/.