SPECIES FACT SHEET
Common Name: California Wolverine
USFWS website
Scientific Name: Gulo gulo luteus
Subspecies of Wolverine Gulo gulo
Phylum:
Class:
Order:
Family:
(Elliot, 1904
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Craniata
Mammalia
Carnivora
Mustelidae
Taxonomic Comments: Not a well-defined subspecies. In the original
description, based on only two specimens, Elliot (1904) distinguished this
taxon only by noting that it is a "pale species of wolverine, strikingly
different...." He stated that the type specimen from Mount Whitney, California,
was colored exactly like a specimen from Alaska (subspecies luscus, according
to Hall 1981). Not recognized in Wilson and Ruff (1999).
OR/WA BLM and FS Region 6 Units where Suspected or Documented:
Both the Forest Service and BLM have listed the wolverine as a Sensitive
Species/Special Status Species in Oregon and Washington.
The California wolverine has been documented or is suspected of occurring on
sixteen National Forests in Oregon and Washington (CRG, COL, DES, FWI, GIP,
MAL, MBS, MTH, OCH, OKW, RRS, SIU, UMA, UMP, WAW and WIL), two BLM
districts in Oregon (BU, PV) and the Spokane BLM district in Washington.
Natural Heritage Program Rank and Status:
 Oregon State Rank: S1?; critically imperiled.
 Washington State Rank: S1; critically imperiled.
 National Rank: N3; vulnerable to extirpation or extinction.
 Global Rank: G4T3Q. Not rare; apparently secure globally. Subspecies
review for taxonomic listing.
According to the Heritage Program, based on recent years through the mid1970s the global short-term trend appears to be increasing in California,
Oregon, and Washington (see Wilson 1982). However, the long-term trend
shows a steady decline in the U.S. beginning in the latter half of the 1800s.
The species apparently no longer occurs east of Montana and Wyoming. The
last reliable sighting in California was in 1922 (K. Aubrey, cited by Rowland et
al. 2003). Wolverines are now very rare or extirpated at the southern periphery
of the range in Colorado (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The species apparently has
made a comeback in recent years in Idaho, Montana , and some other western
states. Some areas of the U.S. along the continental divide have been
recolonized from Canada (Wilson 1982). Hornaker and Hash (1981) asserted
stable populations on their study area in Montana, with high dispersal
patterns maintaining the stability, rebounding from near extinction in Montana
from 1920-1940 (Newby and Wright 1955). In summary, the species has been
extirpated from most of range in the contiguous United States, with promising
signs of semi-recovery in selected western states.
Figure 1. NatureServe map of the conservation status of the species wolverine (Gulo gulo) in the United
States and Canada is shown here for informational purposes. The subspecies Gulo gulo luteus is restricted to
the Pacific Coast states and the status for Oregon differs somewhat from what is shown in the map above.
State Status:
 Oregon State Status: LT; listed as threatened species.
 Washington State Status: C; candidate for listing; currently under
review.
Federal Status:
 SOC; species of concern; an unofficial status, the species appears to be
in jeopardy, but insufficient information to support listing1.
Technical Description:
The wolverine is the largest terrestrial species of the “mustelid” or weasel
family. It is a somewhat bear-like mustelid with massive limbs and long, thick
dark brown fur that is paler on the head. There are two broad lighter brown or
yellowish stripes that extend from the shoulder to join on the rump. The
wolverine has a bushy tail and relatively large feet for traversing snow. Total
length 650-1125 mm; tail length 170-260 mm; hind foot measures 180-192
mm (NatureServe 2007). The wolverine has strong jaws enabling it to feed on
frozen carrion and bones. Adults weigh from 17 to 40 pounds (7-32 kg);
females average about 10% less than males in linear measurements and 30%
less in mass (Hall 1981, Ingles 1965, Nowak 1991).
Similar Species:
Differs from the fisher in having yellowish stripes on the sides. Differs from the
badger in having darker overall coloration (badger is yellowish gray), yellowish
lateral stripes, and longer limbs; lacks the white stripe that in the badger
extends from the snout over the top of the head to at least the neck
(NatureServe 2007).
Life History:
The wolverine is one of the rarest and least-known mammals in North America.
It occurs at low densities and is secretive and difficult to observe, even in core
areas of its range (Aubry et al. 2007). North American wolverines occur
primarily in tundra, taiga, and subalpine environments (Ruggiero et al. 2007).
The wolverine is one of the least-studied carnivores in North America and its
biology remains poorly understood, with many fundamental issues needing
additional research. This is particularly true for populations at the southern
extent of its range (Ruggiero et al. 2007).
The wolverine is active both day and night but is primarily nocturnal. They
tend to occupy higher elevations in summer and lower elevations in winter
(Hornocker and Hash 1981, Whitman et al. 1986). They breed April-October,
usually in the summer, although this can vary. Implantation is delayed
generally until winter. Gestation lasts from seven to nine months; active
gestation is from 30-40 days (NatureServe 2007). One to six (usually 2-4)
young are born January-April; mainly February or March (reportedly AprilJune in the Pacific states, Ingles 1965).
1
In July 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and
others to list the wolverine within the contiguous United States as a threatened or endangered species and to
designate critical habitat for the species. The Service published a petition finding in October 2003 stating that the
petition failed to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that listing the wolverine may
be warranted. Subsequently, Defenders of Wildlife and others filed a complaint in June 2005 alleging the Service
used the wrong standards to assess the wolverine petition. The U.S. District Court of Montana ruled that the petition
finding was in error and ordered the Service to undertake a status review of the wolverine. The Service intends to
complete this review by the court ordered due date of February 28, 2008.
Young are weaned beginning at about 7-8 weeks and separate from the mother
in the fall. Subadults become independent of their mother at about 9 months
of age (Copeland 1996). Individuals become sexually mature generally in the
second or third year. Males are sexually mature sometimes as yearlings
(Alaska and Yukon); males over three years old were sexually mature in British
Columbia. Some females mature at 12-15 months and produce their first litter
when two years old (Wilson 1982). In some areas, females may produce litters
only every 2-3 years. In British Columbia, most mature females were
reproductively active. Lifespan is about 10 years; sometimes 15-18 years
(NatureServe 2007, Wilson 1982).
The wolverine is carnivorous but is also an opportunistic feeder. It feeds on a
wide variety of roots, berries, small mammals, bird eggs, fledglings, and fish.
Wolverine may attack moose, caribou, and deer that are hampered by deep
snow. Small and medium size rodents and carrion (especially ungulate
carcasses) often make up a large percentage of the diet. They may cache prey
in the fork of tree branches or under snow (NatureServe 2007). The wolf and
mountain lion are commonly cited as predators of the wolverine
(Copeland et al. 2007).
Wolverines are solitary, wide-ranging animals. Male home ranges are large, up
to 1,000 square kilometers (RIC 1999); averaging 422 square kilometers in
Montana (Hornocker and Hash 1981) and 535 square kilometers in Alaska
(Whitman et al. 1986). Home ranges of females with young are much smaller,
ranging from 73 to 416 square kilometers (Hornocker and Hash 1981, Gardner
1985, Magoun 1985, Whitman et al. 1986, Banci 1987, Copeland 1996).
Subadults remain associated with their natal area until sexual maturity at
about 2 years of age (Copeland 1996). Available evidence indicates that
juveniles disperse around 30-100 km from their natal range, although
dispersal movements of more than 300 km are known (Magoun 1985, Gardner
et al. 1986). Mountain ranges and large rivers are not barriers to the same
extent that they are for many related species (Hornocker and Hash 1981, Banci
1987).
In some areas males appear to be territorial, but in Montana there was
extensive overlap of the ranges of both the same and opposite sexes.
Apparently territory/range size depends on availability of denning sites and
food supply (see Wilson 1982). Some individuals travel regularly over the same
route (Wilson 1982).
Range, Distribution, and Abundance:
This subspecies of wolverine is found in California, Oregon, Washington, and
part of southern British Columbia (Hall 1981). (However, subspecies status,
specifically whether there are subspecies of this animal, is in question). In
California, it historically ranged from Del Norte and Trinity counties eastward
through Siskiyou and Shasta counties, and southward through the Sierra
Nevada to Tulare County (Schempf and White 1977); elevational range 160014,200 ft, mean of 143 sightings about 8000 ft (California DF&G 1990). In the
southern Sierra Nevada, range includes high elevation facilities associated with
Eastside Hydro at Bishop Creek and Rush Creek and Westside Hydro at
Kaweah (Biosystems Analysis 1989). In Oregon, it is recorded in the Cascade
Mountains from Mount Hood, McKenzie Valley, near Three Fingered Jack
Mountain, and Steen's Mountain in Harney County (see Wilson 1982). It is
also recorded from the Cascade Mountains in Washington (see Johnson (1977)
for a review and maps of all twentieth-century records through the mid-1970s).
Figure 2. The current estimated range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause
narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences
are depicted. Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo
Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation InternationalCABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE.
Since the 1800s, dramatic contractions have occurred within the historical
range of the wolverine in the contiguous United States (Ruggiero et al. 2007).
Aubry et al. (2007) discusses that by the mid-1900s, evidence of wolverine
occurrence in the contiguous United States had become so scarce that many
believed it had been extirpated from most or all of its former range (e.g., Wright
and Thompson 1935, Grinnell et al. 1937, Allen 1942, Newby and Wright
1955). Results from Aubry (2007) suggest that the wolverine may have
experienced significant population declines or local extirpations in the Cascade
Range and northern Rocky Mountains during the early 1900s, as previous
authors have speculated (Wright and Thompson 1935, Newby and Wright
1955, Newby and McDougal 1964). However, numerous wolverine records in
the contiguous United States dating from the 1960s and 1970s suggested that
the wolverine was reclaiming portions of its former range during that time
(Nowak 1973, Yocom 1974, Johnson 1977).
Figure 3. Historical Wolverine Records in the Contiguous United States—1801 to 1960. Aubry et al. 2007.
Wolverine2 distribution in the contiguous United States appears to be closely
related to habitat conditions that become increasingly fragmented in more
southerly regions. Consequently, there is a much greater potential for
wolverine populations in the contiguous United States to become isolated than
has been recognized previously (Aubry et al. 2007). Nuclear and mitochondrial
DNA data (Schwartz et al. 2007) indicate the wolverine has been isolated for a
2
In many instances, the information provided refers to the species Gulo gulo as a lack of information exists for the
subspecies Gulo gulo luteus.
substantial period of time, consistent with the hypothesis of Aubry et al. (2007)
regarding the disjunct nature of the wolverine's range in the mountains of the
Pacific Coast. This is also consistent with Grinnell et al. (1937), as they found
little evidence that wolverines historically occurred north of the central Sierra
Nevada (Schwartz et al. 2007).
Many wolverine populations appear to be relatively small and isolated. Even in
“high-quality” habitat, wolverines exist at low densities (Ruggiero et al. 2007).
Outside of Alaska, Montana and Idaho likely have the largest populations in
the United States (perhaps a few hundred individuals in each state)
(NatureServe 2007). Acknowledging a lack of substantial data, Predator
Conservation Alliance (2001) stated that extrapolation of the best available
information indicates an estimated population of fewer than 750 wolverines in
the contiguous United States, including an estimated 400-600 in the U.S.
northern Rocky Mountains, and perhaps 100 across the Northwest and Sierra
Nevada. They may occur at relatively low population densities, as low as one
wolverine per 65 sq km in Montana (Hornocker and Hash 1981).
Figure 4. Recent (a) and current (b) wolverine records in the contiguous United States—1961 to 1994.
(Aubry et al. 2007).
As per Aubry et al. (2007), between 1921 and 1950, there is only 1 wolverine
record from Washington, 1 from Oregon, 5 from Idaho, 13 from Montana, and 1
from Wyoming. The most recent verifiable record of wolverine occurrence in
California dates from 1922. However, records from these states in subsequent
years were relatively numerous, suggesting that wolverines may have become
reestablished in northwestern regions after a period of range-wide decline.
During the 1960s and 1970s, wolverines began appearing in low-elevation,
non-forested habitats in eastern Washington and Oregon (Fig. 4a). However,
there is no evidence of wolverine occurrence in eastern Washington or Oregon
currently (Fig. 4b). It is unclear why wolverines began appearing in previously
unoccupied areas during this time period, but Aubry et al. (2007) agrees with
Verts and Carraway (1998) that these records probably represent extreme
dispersal events that were not representative of self-sustaining populations.
Habitat Associations:
The wolverine is found chiefly in subalpine and alpine forests (Ingles 1965);
also alpine meadows, forests of lodgepole pine and red fir (Biosystems Analysis
1989).
Figure 5. Historical wolverine records from the western United States on Holdridge climatic life zones (figure
from Aubry et al. 2007).
Fallen logs and debris are important habitat components. The wolverine dens
in caves, rock crevices, under fallen trees or tree roots, in thickets, or similar
sites (NatureServe 2007). It is generally found in areas remote from humans
and human development, the habitat conditions that influence its distribution
and abundance are largely unknown (Banci 1994).
Figure 6. Historical wolverine records from the western United States on selected Kuchler potential natural
vegetation types (figure from Aubry et al. 2007).
As stated in Copeland et al. (2007), Wright et al. (1932) characterized the
wolverine as “being restricted to the higher life zones” and recommended
protection and “enlargement of park areas in the upper Canadian and
Hudsonian zones” to ensure wolverine persistence. This Hudsonian life zone
signature may define a niche that is limited to high-elevation mountain ranges
in the conterminous United States that is critical to wolverine persistence.
In the western mountains, historical wolverine records generally occurred in or
near alpine vegetation (Aubry et al. 2007). Wolverines favored high elevations
in nearly all of Copeland et al. (2007) models; 83% of all wolverine use points
occurred in the 2200 – 2600 meter elevation zone. This preference was not
restricted to either summer or winter. Although a seasonal shift in elevational
use occurred, it was relatively minor. Wolverines moved from high-elevation
whitebark communities in summer to mid-elevation Douglas-fir and lodgepole
pine in winter (Copeland et al. 2007). It is suggested by Magoun and Copeland
(1998) that high elevations provide deep and persistent snow cover necessary
for the presence and maintenance of late winter reproductive dens. Aubry et
al. (2007) investigated potential relations between wolverines and alpine
vegetation, cold temperatures, and spring snow cover during the latter portion
of the wolverine denning period (15 Apr–14 May). The only habitat layer that
fully accounted for historical distribution patterns was spring snow cover.
Figure 5. All areas in the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountains with numerous wolverine records, including
areas that generally lacked alpine vegetation or climatic conditions (e.g., northern ID, northwestern MT, and
northern UT; Figs. 3, 4) had >25% probability of spring snow cover, and most had >50% probability (figure
from Aubry et al. 2007).
Snow cover that persists through the spring denning period appears vital to
reproduction. Elevations and habitats associated with this attribute may be
critical for successful natal (birthing) dens throughout the wolverine's range
(Ruggiero et al. 2007). Understanding the ecological and environmental
characteristics of wolverine natal dens in North America is based on
descriptions of 15 dens established by only five females – three in Alaska and
two in Idaho (Magoun and Copeland 1998).
It appears that wolverines, at least in the Pacific Coast mountains, are
associated with relatively large expanses of alpine habitat conditions and snow
cover that persists through the spring denning season (Schwartz et al. 2007).
Although these findings have range-wide implications, they may be most
relevant in peripheral portions of the wolverine's range where increasing
temperatures associated with global climate change could shift treeline to
higher elevations, in effect shrinking the alpine zone (Millar et al. 2004) and
decreasing the probability of spring snow cover. If such changes occur, current
wolverine habitat at the periphery of the range may lose the ability to support
viable populations of wolverines (Schwartz et al. 2007).
Threats:
Wolverine may be impacted by management practices that influence subalpine
and alpine communities, particularly those that reduce the presence and
opportunity for carrion availability (Copeland et al. 2007).
Resource extraction (including timber harvesting), backcountry skiing and
snowmobiling, roads, and other forms of human disturbance can impact
wolverine (Ruggiero et al. 2007). Researchers in British Columbia found a
consistent negative association between wolverine occurrence and areas where
helicopter and backcountry skiing occur. However, the causal factors
associated with these patterns are not well understood (see Copeland et al.
2007, Krebs et al. 2007).
Trapping has been the primary source of wolverine mortality in North America
(Predator Conservation Alliance 2001). Wolverines are managed as a
commercial furbearer species in British Columbia (Hatler 1989), and they have
been harvested commercially for nearly two centuries (Novak et al. 1987).
Wolverine populations have limited growth capability and are sensitive to
overharvest. Because current provincial wolverine harvest is within overall
sustainable limits, harvest management changes are likely not warranted.
Wolverine populations in British Columbia are contiguous to those in adjacent
jurisdictions of Canada and the United States. Management of wolverines in
British Columbia will likely influence wolverine populations in those
jurisdictions and vice versa (Lofroth and Ott 2007).
High road densities, timber sales, or housing developments on the fringes of
subalpine habitats may reduce potential for winter foraging and kit rearing,
and increase the probability of human-caused wolverine mortality.
(www.wolverinefoundation.org).
Conservation Considerations:
Management programs bearer likely most effective when covering a regional,
rather than local scale, for this wide-ranging, low-density species. Maintaining
wilderness and roadless areas is critical (NatureServe 2007).
Protection of natal denning habitat from human disturbance may be critical.
Montane coniferous forests, suitable for winter foraging and summer kit
rearing, may only be useful if connected with subalpine cirque habitats
required for natal denning, security areas, and summer foraging. In addition,
these habitats must be available during the proper season. Subalpine cirque
areas, important for natal denning, may be made unavailable by winter
recreational activities (www.wolverinefoundation.org).
These environments become increasingly fragmented at southern latitudes,
where wolverine populations occur at low densities and are potentially
vulnerable to human-caused mortality (Ruggiero et al. 2007). High levels of
genetic structure observed in both current and historical populations indicate
that dispersal between mountain ranges is limited. Where populations are
fragmented, persistence is critically dependent on dispersal between habitat
islands (Ruggiero et al. 2007).
Although available data indicate that the habitat conditions required for
wolverine dens play an important role in limiting their distribution and
abundance, the understanding of habitat requirements continues to be
extrapolated from a limited data set. Additional field studies are urgently
needed to fill these and other critical information gaps, including the potential
effects of global warming (Ruggiero et al. 2007).
Because alpine conditions become increasingly fragmented at southern
latitudes, opportunities for population recovery and natural recolonization will
be limited in these areas (Ruggiero et al. 2007). Given current predictions
about warming climates, this situation will likely be exacerbated (see Aubry et
al. 2007, Copeland et al. 2007, Schwartz et al. 2007).
Given the fragmented nature of suitable habitat conditions for the wolverine at
the southern extent of its historical range in North America and extensive
urban and agricultural development in intervening areas, the reestablishment
of southern wolverine populations seems unlikely to occur without human
intervention (Aubry et al. 2007). Because southern wolverine populations
appear to have been extirpated by human-caused mortality factors that no
longer pose a significant threat, reintroduction may be an appropriate
management strategy. However, the potential effects of increased human
activities and disturbance on the reestablishment and persistence of wolverine
populations should receive careful consideration during reintroduction
planning (Aubry et al. 2007).
Because wolverine are highly susceptible to the effects of human disturbance,
protecting areas to reduce or mitigate disturbance can be effective management
tools. Options to consider include restricting access to areas utilized by
wolverine. Roads and trails that provide vehicle access and snowmobiles and
skiing that provide cross-country access all contribute to potential disturbance
within wolverine habitat. In certain areas it may be appropriate to seasonally
restrict this type of access in order to protect the species.
Ski area development or expansion is another potential impact to wolverine,
resulting in loss of habitat and an increase in disturbance to the species. Any
proposed areas should be carefully assessed for their impacts. Potential
development should be situated in areas less likely to be used by wolverine.
Areas of suitable denning habitat should be protected from development.
As with activities associated with recreation, management actions such as
timber harvest also have the potential to impact wolverine by reducing habitat
and increasing disturbance. Areas proposed for harvest should also be
carefully assessed for impacts. Seasonally restricting harvest activity may be
appropriate.
Other pertinent information (references to Survey Protocols, etc):
Rowland et al. (2003) evaluated performance of landscape models for
wolverines within their historical range at 2 scales based on recent
observations (n = 421) from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. At the
subbasin scale, simple overlays of habitat and road-density classes were
effective in predicting observations of wolverines. At the watershed scale, they
used a Bayesian belief network model to provide spatially explicit estimates of
relative habitat capability.
The model had three inputs: amount of habitat, human population density,
and road density. At both scales, the best models revealed strong
correspondence between means of predicted counts of wolverines and means of
observed counts. Their results can be used to guide regional conservation
planning for wolverines.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix 1. Wolverine Photos (Copyright C. Long, The Wolverine
Foundation, Inc.
Appendix 2. Wolverine Distribution Information. Aubry et al. (2007).
Appendix 3. Keystone Conservation (formerly Predator Conservation
Alliance) Management Recommendations.
Preparer:
Theresa Stone, Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg OR
Date Completed:
26 September 2007
REFERENCES
Allen G. M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the western hemisphere,
with the marine species of all the oceans. American Committee for
International Wild Life Protection. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Aubry K. B., Lewis J. C. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes
pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific
states. Biological Conservation. 114: 79–90
Aubry, K. B., K. S. Mckelvey, J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and
Broadscale Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United
States. Journal of Wildlife Management. Article: pp. 2147–2158
Banci, V. 1987. Ecology and behaviour of Wolverine in Yukon. M.Sc. Thesis,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. 178pp.
Banci V. 1994. Wolverine. Pages 99–127 in Ruggiero L. F., Aubry K. B.,
Buskirk S. W., Lyon L. J., Zielinski W. J. The scientific basis for
conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher lynx and wolverine
in the western United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1989. Endangered Species Alert Program Manual:
Species Accounts and Procedures. Southern California Edison
Environmental Affairs Division.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). 1990. 1989 annual report
on the status of California's state listed threatened and endangered
plants and animals. 188 pp.
Coman K. 1912. Economic beginnings of the Far West: how we won the land
beyond the Mississippi. Macmillan. New York, New York, USA.
Grinnell et al. 1937
Copeland, J. P. 1996. Biology of Wolverines in central Idaho. M.Sc. Thesis,
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 178pp.
Copeland J. P., Peak J., Groves C., Melquist W., McKelvey K. S., McDaniel G.
W., Long C. D., Harris C. E. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the
wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2201–
2212
Elliot D. G. 1903. Descriptions of twenty-seven apparently new species and
subspecies of mammals. Field Columbia Museum Publication 87,
Zoological Series. 3: 239–261.
Elliot. 1904. Field Columbian Museum, Publ. 87, Zool. Ser. 3:260-261.
Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of
Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of
Colorado.
Fritz P. S. 1941. Colorado, the centennial state. Prentice-Hall. New York, New
York, USA.
Gardner, C. L. 1985. The ecology of wolverines in southcentral Alaska. M.Sc.
Thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 82pp.
Gardner, C. L., W. B. Ballard and R. H. Jessup. 1986. Long distance
movements by an adult wolverine. J. Mammal. 67:603.
Grinnell J., Dixon J. S., Linsdale J. M. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of
California. University of California Press. Berkeley, USA.
Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The Mammals of North America, Vols. I & II. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.
Hatler D. F. 1989. A wolverine management strategy for British Columbia.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch. Wildlife
Bulletin Number B-60, Victoria, Canada.
Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in
northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1301.
Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, California.
Johnson, R. E. 1977. An historical analysis of wolverine abundance and
distribution in Washington. Murrelet 58:13-16.
Krebs J., Lofroth E. C., Parfitt I. 2007. Multiscale habitat use by wolverines in
British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2180–
2192.
Kucera T. E., Barrett R. H. 1993. The California cooperative wolverine survey: a
progress report. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife
Society. 29: 49–53.
Lofroth, E. C., Ott, P. K. 2007. Assessment of the Sustainability of Wolverine
Harvest in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management.
71: 2193–2200.
Magoun, A. J. 1985. Population characteristics, ecology, and management of
Wolverines in northwestern Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, AK. 197pp.
Magoun A. J., Copeland J. P. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive
den sites. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62: 1313–1320.
McKelvey K. S., Johnston J. D. 1992. Historical perspectives on forests of the
Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges of southern California: forest
conditions at the turn of the century. Pages 225–246 in Verner J.,
McKelvey K. S., Noon B. R., Gutierrez R. J., Gould G. I. Jr., Beck T. W.
technical coordinators. The California spotted owl: a technical
assessment of its current status. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service. General Technical Report PSW-133, Albany, California, USA.
Melchior H. R., Johnson N. F., Phelps J. S. 1987. Wild furbearer management
in the western United States and Alaska. Pages 1117–1128 in Novak M.,
Baker J. A., Obbard M. E. Wild furbearer management and conservation
in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto,
Canada.
Millar C. I., Westfall R. D., Delany D. L., King J. C., Graumlich L. J. 2004.
Response of subalpine conifers in the Sierra Nevada, California, U.S.A.,
to 20th-century warming and decadal climate variability. Arctic Antarctic
and Alpine Research. 36: 181–200.
NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.
Newby, F.E., and P.L. Wright. 1955. Distribution and status of the wolverine in
Montana. Journal of Mammalogy 36(2):248-53.
Newby F. E., McDougal J. J. 1964. Range extension of the wolverine in
Montana. Journal of Mammalogy. 45: 485–487.
Newby F. E., Wright P. L. 1955. Distribution and status of the wolverine in
Montana. Journal of Mammalogy. 36: 248–253.
Novak M., Obbard M. E., Jones J. G., Newman R., Booth A., Satterthwaite A.
J., Linscombe G. 1987. Furbearer harvests in North America 1600–1984.
Supplement in Novak M., Baker J. A., Obbard M. E., Malloch B. Wild
Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto, Canada.
Nowak R. M. 1973. Return of the wolverine. National Parks and Conservation
Magazine. Feb: 20–23.
Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. Fifth edition. Vols. I and
II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. 1629 pp.
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P.
Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of
the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe,
Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Predator Conservation Alliance. 2001. Predator Conservation Alliance's
Literature Summary. Conservation Status and Needs of the Wolverine
(Gulo gulo). Draft report, January 24, 2001. 29 pp.
Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1999. Inventory methods for mediumsized territorial carnivores: Coyote, Red Fox, Lynx, Bobcat, Wolverine,
Fisher and Badger. Standards for components of British Columbia's
biodiversity No. 25. Prepared by Resources Inventory Branch, British
Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, for Terrestrial
Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee. Available online
at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ric/Pubs/teBioDiv/MedCarn/index.htm .
Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, D. H. Johnson, B. C. Wales, J. P. Copeland,
and F. B. Edelmann. 2003. Evaluation of landscape models for
wolverines in the interior Northwest, United States of America. Journal of
Mammalogy 84:92-105.
Ruggiero, L.F. et al. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores:
American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United
States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO:USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p.
Ruggiero, L. F., McKelvey, K. S., Aubry, K. B., Copeland, J. P., Pletscher, D.H.,
Hornocker, M.G. 2007. Wolverine Conservation and Management.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2145–2146.
Schempf, P. F., and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the
mountains of northern California. USDA Forest Service, California
Region. 51 pp.
Schwartz M. K., Aubry K. B., McKelvey K. S., Pilgrim K. L., Copeland J. P.,
Squires J. R., Inman R. M., Wisely S. M., Ruggiero L. F. 2007. Inferring
Geographic Isolation of Wolverines in California Using Historical DNA.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2170–2179.
USFWS 2007 website:
http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/mammals/wolverine/
Verts B. J., Carraway L. N. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of
California Press. Berkeley, USA.
Whitman, J. S., W. B. Ballard, and C. L. Gardner. 1986. Home range and
habitat use by wolverines in southcentral Alaska. Journal of Wildlife
Management 50:460-463.
Wilson, D. E. 1982. Wolverine (Gulo gulo). Pages 644-652 in J. A. Chapman
and G. A. Feldhamer, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology,
management, and economics. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
1147 pp.
Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American
mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.
Wolverine Foundation, Inc. http://www.wolverinefoundation.org/
Wright G. M., Dixon J. W., Thompson B. H. 1932. Fauna of the National Parks
of the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service.
Fauna Series Number 1, Washington, D.C., USA.
Wright G. M., Thompson B. H. 1935. Fauna of the National Parks of the United
States. National Park Service, Fauna Series No. 2. Washington, D.C.,
USA.
Yocom C. F. 1974. Wolverine. American Hunter. 2: 54–56.
Zielinski W. J., Truex R. L., Schlexer F. V., Campbell L. A., Carroll C. 2005.
Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the
Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography. 32: 1385–1407.
Appendix 1. Wolverine Photos (Copyright C. Long, The Wolverine
Foundation, Inc.
Appendix 2. Wolverine Distribution Information; Aubry et al. (2007).
Re: your comment – maybe Pacific Coast states would be more appropriate?
Historical Wolverine Records in the Contiguous United States—1801 to 1960
Pacific Coast mountains. We found many historical records of wolverine
occurrence in the Pacific Coast mountains located almost entirely in
Washington (29 records; 4 verifiable) and California (58 records; 10 verifiable);
we found 2 documented records in Oregon. We mapped 24 records in northcentral Washington, 2 in north-central Oregon, and 36 in central California
(Fig. 3). Our findings indicate that the wolverine's historical range was
discontinuous in the Pacific states. The holotype specimen of the southern
wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) was collected in California in 1903 (Elliot 1903).
Recent Wolverine Records in the Contiguous United States—1961 to 1994
Pacific Coast mountains: We found 23 recent records of wolverine occurrence
in the Pacific states, including 17 in Washington (11 verifiable) and 6 in Oregon
(5 verifiable); we found none in California. We mapped all records in both
states, including many records located in physiographic provinces that lacked
historical records, such as the high plateaus of northeastern Washington, the
Columbia River Basin in both states, and the basin and range areas of
southeastern Oregon (Fig. 4a).
Current Wolverine Records in the Contiguous United States—1995 to 2005
The distribution of current wolverine records in the contiguous United States is
limited to north-central Washington, northern and central Idaho, western
Montana, and northwestern Wyoming (Fig. 4b). The most likely explanation for
this apparent range loss involves human activities. There is a long history of
mining and high-elevation sheep grazing during spring and summer (Fritz
1941, McKelvey and Johnston 1992), and commercial trapping of American
marten (Martes americana) and other boreal furbearers during winter (Coman
1912, Grinnell et al. 1937, Melchior et al. 1987). Each of these activities would
have increased the likelihood of human encounters with wolverines.
Pacific Coast mountains: We mapped 7 verifiable records of wolverine
occurrence in northern Washington (Fig. 4b). We found no current records in
Oregon or California, despite concerted efforts to obtain verifiable evidence of
wolverine occurrence using remote cameras, bait stations, and helicopter
surveys in many areas of the Pacific states (Kucera and Barrett 1993; Aubry
and Lewis 2003; Zielinski et al. 2005; K. B. Aubry, unpublished data).
Appendix 3. Keystone Conservation (formerly Predator Conservation Alliance)
Management Recommendations
Predator Conservation Alliance's Literature Summary
Draft - January 24, 2001 - Draft
Conservation Status and Needs of the Wolverine (Gulo gulo)
(used by permission)
Science-based policies needed to protect and restore the wolverine and its habitat
throughout the U.S. lower 48 states
A. Forest practices, access, and recreation
1. Maintain forested areas largely free of human disturbance
a. Identify priority habitat for wolverines
b. Protect suitable habitat from human disturbance
i. Maintain unroaded areas and restore roaded areas by maintaining
road densities at no greater than one mile of road per square mile
of habitat.
ii. Limit clearcut logging within priority wolverine habitat.
iii. Roads used to access logging operations and other developments
should be closed and obliterated, including snowmobile use in
winter.
iv. Mining activity, developed campgrounds, and other permanent
developments should be prohibited from priority wolverine habitat,
because the associated human activity is likely to displace
wolverines from the area.
2. Protect wolverine denning habitat from human disturbance
a. Identify suitable denning habitat
b. Protect suitable denning habitat from snowmobiles, helicopter skiing, and
other forms of intensive human use, especially during denning season
(February through May)
3. Maintain and restore quality habitat for ungulates and other prey within wolverine
habitat.
B. Trapping
1. Trapping has been the primary source of wolverine mortality in North America.
2. Trapping for wolverines should be prohibited from all areas where the practice is
not known to be sustainable and compatible with maintaining healthy and robust
wolverine populations.
3. Incidental take - wolverines killed in traps set for other species - is a significant
threat to the wolverine, and thus all trapping that may pose a risk to wolverines
should be prohibited within priority wolverine habitat.
C. Connectivity vs. Fragmentation
1. Because of their wide ranges and low population densities, wolverine conservation
and management requires a regional perspective. Priority habitats for
subpopulations should be identified and protected, as well as areas of
connection between these sub-populations, across the entire western United
States and Canada.
2. Highways threaten wolverines due to direct mortality and especially because they
may pose a barrier to movement, thereby isolating wolverine populations and
areas of suitable habitat across the Rocky Mountains of the U.S. and Canada.