DOCSLIB.ORG

Wolf Conservation and Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wolf Conservation and Management Plan Wolf Conservation and Management Plan STATE OF WASHINGTON December 2011 by Gary J. Wiles, Harriet L. Allen, and Gerald E. Hayes Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program In 1990, the Washington Wildlife Commission adopted procedures for listing and delisting species as endangered, threatened, or sensitive and for writing recovery and management plans for listed species (WAC 232-12-297, Appendix A). The procedures, developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies, require preparation of recovery plans for species listed as threatened or endangered. This Wolf Conservation and Management Plan summarizes the historical and current distribution and abundance of wolves in Washington and describes factors that affect wolf recovery. It provides recovery goals for downlisting and delisting the species and prescribes strategies to achieve these goals, including management of conflicts with livestock and ungulates. As such, it serves as the recovery plan for wolves in Washington, per WAC 232-12-297. A Draft EIS/Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for Washington was developed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) during 2007-2009 and the Final EIS/Recommended Plan was completed in 2011 following public review. WDFW received extensive input from the advisory Wolf Working Group, which was comprised of 17 citizens from a broad range of perspectives and values. The group met eight times over a 15-month period in 2007 and 2008 to develop recommendations to the Department on a plan that would achieve wolf conservation and management. Following peer review by 43 reviewers, WDFW addressed their comments and met again with the Wolf Working Group in 2009 to review the changes. The Working Group provided additional comments on the revised draft, which were then incorporated in the Public Review Draft EIS/Plan. This document underwent a 95-day public review and blind peer review by 3 anonymous reviewers in 2009-2010. Nearly 65,000 people provided comments on the Draft EIS/Plan. WDFW addressed the public input and met with the Working Group in June 2011 for review and comment on the proposed changes. The Final EIS/WDFW Recommended Plan was presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission for consideration on August 4, 2011. The Commission held three workshops on the plan from August through November 2011, where additional public comment was taken. On December 3, 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Commission unanimously adopted the Recommended Plan, with revisions. Information on the full process to develop the plan is posted at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/mgmt_plan_process.html. For additional information about wolf recovery or other state listed species, see: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/, or contact: Endangered Species Section Manager Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 This plan should be cited as: Wiles, G. J., H. L. Allen, and G. E. Hayes. 2011. Wolf conservation and management plan for Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 297 pp. Cover photos by Gary J. Wiles. WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WASHINGTON Prepared by Gary J. Wiles Harriet L. Allen Gerald E. Hayes Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, Washington December 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 8 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 12 2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 16 A. History of Wolves in Washington and Surrounding Areas .......................................................... 16 B. Current Status of Wolves .................................................................................................................. 20 C. Biology ................................................................................................................................................. 25 D. Legal Status ......................................................................................................................................... 36 E. Social, Cultural, and Economic Values ........................................................................................... 40 3. WOLF CONSERVATION ................................................................................................................. 46 A. Scientific Basis for Conservation Planning ..................................................................................... 46 B. Recovery Objectives for Washington .............................................................................................. 58 C. Management after Delisting .............................................................................................................. 70 4. WOLF-LIVESTOCK CONFLICTS ................................................................................................. 72 A. Wolf Depredation on Livestock ...................................................................................................... 72 B. Management Tools for Reducing Wolf Depredation ................................................................... 76 C. Compensation Programs for Wolf-Related Losses and Deterrence in Other States ............... 81 D. Predicting Losses of Ranch Animals in Washington Due to Wolves ........................................ 84 E. Management of Wolf-Livestock Conflicts in Washington ........................................................... 85 F. Proactive Measures to Reduce Wolf-Livestock Conflicts in Washington ................................. 89 G. Compensation for Wolf-Caused Livestock Depredation in Washington .................................. 90 5. WOLF-UNGULATE INTERACTIONS ........................................................................................ 95 A. Wolf Predation of Ungulates ............................................................................................................ 95 B. Recent Impacts of Wolves on Ungulates in Other States ............................................................ 99 C. Ungulate Status in Washington ...................................................................................................... 101 D. Wolf-Ungulate Interactions on Wintering Grounds ................................................................... 113 E. Predicted Levels of Wolf Predation on Ungulates in Washington ........................................... 114 F. Management of Wolf-Ungulate Interactions in Washington ..................................................... 115 6. WOLF INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SPECIES................................................................. 118 A. Wolves and Other Carnivores ........................................................................................................ 118 B. Wolves and Scavengers ................................................................................................................... 121 C. Wolves and Listed/Candidate Species .......................................................................................... 121 7. WOLF-HUMAN INTERACTIONS .............................................................................................. 123 A. Human Safety.................................................................................................................................... 123 B. Interactions with the Public ............................................................................................................ 125 C. Interactions with Domestic Dogs .................................................................................................. 126 D. Wolf Hybrids and Pet Wolves ........................................................................................................ 127 E. Tapeworm Disease and Wolves ..................................................................................................... 128 8. LAND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................. 130 A. Federal Land ..................................................................................................................................... 130 B. State Land .......................................................................................................................................... 131 C. Private Land ...................................................................................................................................... 131 9. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION ........................................................................................ 133 10. RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................................... 134 Table of Contents 1 Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife 11. REPORTING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 135 12. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, AND TASKS ............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska's Predator Control Programs
    Alaska’sAlaska’s PredatorPredator ControlControl ProgramsPrograms Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? In 1995, Alaska Governor Tony Knowles responded to negative publicity over his state’s predator control programs by requesting a National Academy of Sciences review of Alaska’s entire approach to predator control. Following the review Governor Knowles announced that no program should be considered unless it met three criteria: cost-effectiveness, scientific scrutiny and broad public acceptability. The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) released its review, Wolves, Bears, and Their Prey in Alaska, in 1997, drawing conclusions and making recommendations for management of Alaska’s predators and prey. In 1996, prior to the release of the NRC report, the Wolf Management Reform Coalition, a group dedicated to promoting fair-chase hunting and responsible management of wolves in Alaska, published Showdown in Alaska to document the rise of wolf control in Alaska and the efforts undertaken to stop it. This report, Alaska’s Predator Control Programs: Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? picks up where that 1996 report left off. Acknowledgements Authors: Caroline Kennedy, Theresa Fiorino Editor: Kate Davies Designer: Pete Corcoran DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. www.defenders.org Cover photo: © Nick Jans © 2011 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4604 202.682.9400 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302 Anchorage, AK 99501 907.276.9453 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 2. The National Research Council Review ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Should We Hunt Gray Wolves in Michigan?
    SHOULD WE HUNT GRAY WOLVES IN MICHIGAN? AUGUST 2018 Dean’s Welcome Welcome, SEAS students! Before you know it, you will be boarding a bus with your classmates, headed for the University of Michigan Biological Station (the “Biostation”) in beautiful Northern Michigan—or “Up North” as Michiganders call it. There, during an immersive orientation experience, you will explore, learn, bond—and become an integral part of our community. This is just the beginning of your graduate career at SEAS, throughout which we will work together to solve some of the world’s most complex environmental problems. This is why you chose SEAS, and why we chose you. It is all very exciting, and we cannot wait to get started. So, why wait? The following case study details an active issue in the state of Michigan: whether or not to allow a public wolf hunt. During your time at the Biostation, you will be asked to examine the issue from opposing, nuanced perspectives, challenging your own gut reaction to the problem. Discussions will be guided by the scientific, political, economic, and social analyses included in these pages. You will actively collaborate with your classmates to uncover and synthesize facts, ultimately building a responsible, sustainable policy recommendation on Michigan’s wolf population. To prepare, simply read the case study and let it simmer. There is no need to do additional research. Enjoy your time at orientation. Get to know your classmates. Explore the gorgeous landscape. And then, come September 4th, join us back at the Dana Building ready to launch your graduate education and set out on a path of meaningful work—work that will have an impact on generations to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Wolf Hunting Policy on Moose Populations in Northern Minnesota Thomas J Mackey† and Thomas Bryce Kelly*
    Impact of wolf hunting policy on moose populations in northern Minnesota Thomas J Mackey† and Thomas Bryce Kelly* *Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Email: [email protected] 5 † Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Email: [email protected] s t n i r P e 10 r P 15 Abstract An ongoing and politically sensitive aspect of proper ecological stewardship revolves around improving the conditions and health of all of the species in the area of 20 concern including both predator and prey species. Human industrial activities have dramatically reduced the land area available to the native species which has placed stresses and fragility into the ecological web. Maintaining proper ecological dynamics has become a critical aspect of policy initiatives designed to safeguard our natural reserves including the establishment of ecological forests and sanctuaries. Herein we 25 outline our proposal to tackle a central issue in wildlife management: improving our knowledge of predator-prey dynamics that vary both temporally and specially in non- linear ways. By leveraging techniques pioneered in other disciplines in addition to the traditional methods, we aim to drastically improve our understanding of the Moose-Grey Wolf interaction and to develop a system with applicability in other regions and other 30 species. PeerJ PrePrints | http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.769v2 | CC-BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 31 Dec 2014, publ: 31 Dec 2014 2 | Mackey and Kelly Introduction Northern Minnesota exists at the southern boundary of Moose (Alces alces) distributions in central North America. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 5 (Minnesota DNR) conducts annual aerial plot surveys to estimate Moose populations.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2021 Wolf Hunting and Trapping Regulations
    FEBRUARY 2021 WOLF HUNTING AND TRAPPING REGULATIONS The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to: Chief, Public Civil Rights, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. This publication is available in alternative format (large print, Braille, etc.) upon request. Please call Accessibility Coordinator at 608-267-7490 for more information. REMEMBER • You must notify the DNR within 24 hours of harvest by visiting GameReg. wi.gov or by calling 844-GAMEREG (844-426-3734 • You must also exhibit your wolf to an authorized DNR representative (usually a Conservation Warden) for registration and tagging no later than March 7, 2021. -Before registering a wolf with an authorized DNR representative, you must skin the animal and separate the pelt from the carcass. Be sure it is thawed out on the day of registration so that the registration tag can be attached. This does not need to be completed before registration for specimens going to a taxidermist. Persons who intend to have the wolf mounted by a taxidermist may exhibit the wolf to the department for registration without separating the pelt. The skinned carcass must be exhibited to the department within 30 days of registration. (Note: These animals must still be registered prior to taxidermy). -Contact the local Conservation Warden or wildlife biologist or call 888- 936-7463 to determine available times for registration. • This pamphlet gives a summary of Wisconsin’s wolf hunting and trapping laws and how they affect you; it is not a complete set of all the hunting- related laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I December 2016
    California Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California Part I December 2016 Charlton H. Bonham, Director Cover photograph by Gary Kramer This document should be cited as: Kovacs, K. E., K.E. Converse, M.C. Stopher, J.H. Hobbs, M.L. Sommer, P.J. Figura, D.A. Applebee, D.L. Clifford, and D.J. Michaels. Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California. 2016. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA 329 pp. The preparers want to acknowledge Department of Fish and Wildlife staff who contributed to the preparation of this document. They include Steve Torres, Angela Donlan, and Kirsten Macintyre. Further, we appreciate the agencies and staff from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Wildlife, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their generous support in our efforts to prepare this document. We are also indebted to our facilitation experts at Kearns and West, specifically Sam Magill. Table of Contents – PART I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Plan Development ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Plan Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Historical Distribution and Abundance of Wolves in California .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT RABON, DAVID REID, JR. Factors Affecting Reproduction
    ABSTRACT RABON, DAVID REID, JR. Factors Affecting Reproduction in the Red Wolf ( Canis rufus ). (Under the direction of Dr. Harold F. Heatwole). The endangered red wolf ( Canis rufus ) was preserved in captivity with just 14 founders following its planned extirpation in the wild. Longitudinal reproductive events were investigated to determine whether inbreeding, parental age, and breeding experience were factors in reproductive performance and fitness. A behavioral preference study using olfactory presentations of conspecific and congeneric social odors also was conducted to determine those factors that are important in the selection of mates. Over 30 years of managed breeding, the level of inbreeding in the captive population has increased, and litter size has declined. Inbreeding levels were lower in sires and dams that reproduced than in those that did not reproduce, but there was no difference in the level of inbreeding of actual and predicted litters. Litter size was negatively affected by offspring and paternal levels of inbreeding, but the effect of inbreeding on offspring survival was restricted to a positive influence. Younger wolves were more likely to reproduce, and were more likely to produce larger litters, than were older individuals. The age of the dam, but not the sire, had a significant negative effect on pup survival. Sires and dams that had prior experience in the production of offspring were more likely to reproduce again than were individuals without prior reproductive success, but prior sexual experience alone was not a factor in the production of offspring. Parental breeding experience had a significant negative effect on pup survival, but no apparent relationships with size or sex ratio of the litter.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’S Madison Range
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service May 2007 Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s Madison Range Todd C. Atwood Utah State University, Logan, UT Eric M. Gese USDA/APHIS/WS National Wildlife Research Center, [email protected] Kyran E. Kunkel Utah State University, Logan, UT Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Atwood, Todd C.; Gese, Eric M.; and Kunkel, Kyran E., "Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s Madison Range" (2007). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 696. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/696 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Research Article Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s Madison Range TODD C. ATWOOD,1,2 Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA ERIC M. GESE, United States Department of Agriculture–Animal Plant Health Inspection Service–Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA KYRAN E. KUNKEL, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA ABSTRACT Numerous studies have documented how prey may use antipredator strategies to reduce the risk of predation from a single predator.
    [Show full text]
  • Gray Wolves Are Undoubtedly Reclaiming Their Previous Territory at a Rapid Pace
    Species: Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Diet: Carnivore Size: 26-32 inches tall; 4.5-6.5 feet long and one of the largest mammalian carnivores found in the Pacific West, next to the Grizzly Bear, Black Bear and Mountain Lion (Cougar) Weight: 55-130 lbs. Delta Pack gray wolf, Yellowstone National Park. Lifespan in the wild: 7-8 years Credit: USNPS. Diet: Primary prey consists of ungulates, or hoofed mammals, such as deer or elk. Though wolves generally rely on large prey species, they are opportunists and have also been known to consume smaller mammals, such as beavers or rabbits, as well as scavenge upon already-dead animals. During periods of abundant food, wolves can eat up to 30 pounds of meat per day. Fluctuating environmental conditions require wolves to adapt to sudden abundances of prey often followed by days of prey scarcity. Roosevelt bull elk. Behavior: Wolves are social animals that usually Credit: ODFW. live in packs. Packs are typically family groups that consist of a breeding male and female (also called the breeding pair) and their offspring. Sometimes called “alphas,” the breeding pair are usually responsible for tracking and hunting prey, establishing territories, finding den sites, and reproducing. Subordinate wolves often assist in rearing young pups, hunting, and other responsibilities. Sometimes wolves depart from their pack to establish new territories and form new packs. This is called dispersal. One of the most exciting aspects of wolf © Pacific Wolf Coalition, Summer 2017 1 research is our constantly-evolving understanding of their complex social dynamics. Communication is an important component of wolves’ social structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Niche Separation Between Wolves and Cougars Realized in the Rocky Mountains?
    Is niche separation between wolves and cougars realized in the Rocky Mountains? by Kerri Elizabeth Krawchuk A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Ecology Department of Biological Sciences University of Alberta © Kerri Elizabeth Krawchuk, 2014 ABSTRACT Multiple carnivore species can have greater population limiting effects than single carnivores. Two coexisting carnivores can only be similar up to a certain extent. I investigate how two carnivores, wolves (Canis lupus) and cougars (Puma concolor), coexist through niche partitioning in the central east slopes of the Alberta Rocky Mountains. Wolf packs spatio- temporally avoided other wolf packs more than they did cougars, while cougars avoided conspecifics as much as wolves. Reinforcing spatial separation, temporally wolves had two crepuscular movement peaks while cougars had just one. Male cougar movements peaked in the late evening and was high over night, while female cougar movement increased throughout the day and peaked in the evening. Female cougars selected different habitat features from male cougars and from wolves during both the day and night, while male cougars had more habitat selection differences from wolves at night. I found some evidence that cougars were more influenced by landscape features than wolves. Differences in the predators’ habitat selection were primarily for prey density contingent upon habitat features, likely related to maximizing hunting efficiency. Both species killed primarily deer (Odocoileus virginianus, O. hemionus), though wolves and male cougars killed and selected more large-bodied ungulate prey, such as elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces) and/or feral horses (Equus calabus) than female cougars, who strongly selected for deer.
    [Show full text]
  • Predators in the 'Hood
    NEWSFOCUS on October 3, 2013 www.sciencemag.org At home. An American black bear roamed downtown Predators in the ‘Hood Aspen, Colorado, on a summer night. especially in cities of the western United States, seem willing to have them back, says As cougars, coyotes, and bears spread into backyards and downtowns, Stanley Gehrt, a wildlife biologist at Ohio science is helping to show how people and predators can coexist State University, Columbus, who tracks Downloaded from Chicago’s coyotes. That leaves scientists, TWO YEARS AGO, IN JUNE 2011, A COUGAR Once hunted nearly to extinction in conservationists, and wildlife managers wandered through backyards and peered the lower 48, America’s biggest preda- all scrambling to figure out how to best into homes in Milford, Connecticut, the tors are making a remarkable comeback. manage animals that literally live next door fi rst mountain lion in that state in more than Their return has sparked a range of emo- and are capable of killing humans. “If you’re 100 years. Later that same year, a gray wolf tions, from surprise and joy to demands that interested in large carnivores, it’s a very crossed the Oregon border into California, the the animals be harshly controlled, if not exciting time,” Gehrt says. “There are more fi rst wolf in that state in more than 80 years. shot outright. Europe is expe- people than ever and yet we’re Black bears now lumber through subdivisions riencing a similar resurgence, seeing a resurgence and accep- in Ohio and Missouri, states that were bearless and similar reactions (Science, Online tance of these predators.
    [Show full text]
  • FWP HUNTING and TRAPPING REGULATIONS Fwp.Mt.Gov
    2020 WOLF FWP HUNTING AND TRAPPING REGULATIONS Gray Wolf Canis lupus TURN IN POACHERS: CALL 1-800-TIP-MONT fwp.mt.gov Highlights & Reminders Obtain a License • Once you have established your residency, you must continue to meet all these • Two swivels, including a center swivel on The combined maximum hunting and trapping requirements and physically reside in the base of the trap, will be required for all bag limit is five wolves per person during the Montana as your principal or primary ground set foothold traps. For details, visit: 2020-2021 season. Five wolves can be taken place of abode for not less than 120 days fwp.mt.gov/hunting/trapping. by means of hunting each with a valid Wolf per year (days need not be consecutive). • Beginning Oct. 1, 2020, a hunter or trapper License. Trapping is authorized Dec. 15, 2020 • To purchase an annual resident who has completed a transfer form may - Feb. 28, 2021, with a valid Trapping License have a representative present the hide Conservation License, you will be required and upon completion of mandatory wolf- to show a valid Montana Driver’s License and skull to a Montana FWP official for trapping certification. Persons could take up inspection. See mandatory reporting (MDL), a valid Montana Identification Card to five wolves via any combination of hunting (MIC), or a valid Tribal Identification Card. requirements section for details. and trapping (maximum harvest of five wolves • Collared wolves can be lawfully taken, but • If your MDL or MIC has been issued for per person). For hunting, a separate license less than six months, you may be required they provide important information for is required for each wolf.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Individual Identification of Wolves (Canis Lupus) Using the Fundamental Frequency and Amplitude of Their Howls: a New Survey Method
    Improving Individual Identification of Wolves (Canis lupus) using the Fundamental Frequency and Amplitude of their Howls: A New Survey Method Holly Root-Gutteridge A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Nottingham Trent University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2013 1 This works is the intellectual property of the author. You may copy up to 5% of this work for private study, or personal, non-commercial research. Any re-use of the information contained within this document should be fully referenced, quoting the author, title, university, degree level and pagination. Queries or requests for any other use, or if a more substantial copy is required, should be directed in the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights. 2 Abstract Many bioacoustic studies have been able to identify individual mammals from variations in the fundamental frequency (F0) of their vocalizations. Other characteristics of vocalization which encode individuality, such as amplitude, are less frequently used because of problems with background noise and recording fidelity over distance. In this thesis, I investigate whether the inclusion of amplitude variables improves the accuracy of individual howl identification in captive Eastern grey wolves (Canis lupus lycaon). I also explore whether the use of a bespoke code to extract the howl features, combined with histogram-derived principal component analysis (PCA) values, can improve current individual wolf howl identification accuracies. From a total of 89 solo howls from six captive individuals, where distances between wolf and observer were short, I achieved 95.5% (+9.0% improvement) individual identification accuracy of captive wolves using discriminant function analysis (DFA) to classify simple scalar variables of F0 and normalized amplitudes.
    [Show full text]