wolf management dissertation

ScholarWorks at University of Montana

• < Previous

Home > Graduate School > Graduate ETDPs > 11652

Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers

Adaptive harvest management of wolves: the role of recruitment and hierarchical demography in population dynamics of a social carnivore.

Allison Christine Keever

Year of Award

Document type.

Dissertation

Degree Type

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Degree Name

Wildlife Biology

Department or School/College

W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, Division of Biological Sciences, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit

Committee Chair

Michael S. Mitchell

Commitee Members

David E. Ausband, Mark Hebblewhite. Angela D. Luis, Paul M. Lukacs, James T. Peterson, Kevin M. Podruzny

adaptive management, Bayesian, harvest management, integrated population model, population ecology, wolves

Regulated public harvest became an important management tool following recovery of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains. Decisions on harvest regulations, however, can be contentious due to conflicting stakeholder values, uncertainties in the effects of harvest on wolves, and difficulty in monitoring wolves. We addressed challenges associated with wolf management by 1) developing methods to estimate recruitment, 2) evaluating the role of hierarchical demography in wolf population dynamics, 3) developing competing population models to address uncertainty, and 4) developing an adaptive management framework to identify harvest regulations that best meet objectives for wolf management. We developed integrated population models (IPM) with and without social structure to evaluate the role of hierarchical demography in population dynamics of wolves. We tested and compared the IPMs on simulated populations with known demographic rates. We then used the IPM with hierarchical demography to estimate recruitment and population dynamics in wolves when productivity data were lacking. In addition, we developed a model to predict recruitment based on empirical data from Idaho and then tested the model in Montana. To better understand wolf population dynamics, we tested competing hypotheses of additive or compensatory harvest mortality and density dependent or density independent recruitment using population models and Bayesian model weight updating. Finally, we used stochastic dynamic programming and passive adaptive learning to find optimal season lengths and bag limits for wolf management in Montana. This framework accounted for uncertainty and included biological and societal objectives. We found that accounting for hierarchical demography improved estimation of demographic rates and population dynamics of wolves. Although regulated public harvest has appeared to decrease recruitment of pups and survival of adults, the population remained relatively stationary or only slightly declined. Using passive adaptive management, we found support for the hypothesis that net immigration into Montana was zero. Additionally, we found the optimal harvest strategy became more liberal as the wolf population grew. Following the optimal harvest strategy, we found that the wolf population was maintained around 650 wolves, which suggests that maintaining the population at this size best meets objectives.

Recommended Citation

Keever, Allison Christine, "ADAPTIVE HARVEST MANAGEMENT OF WOLVES: THE ROLE OF RECRUITMENT AND HIERARCHICAL DEMOGRAPHY IN POPULATION DYNAMICS OF A SOCIAL CARNIVORE" (2020). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers . 11652. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11652

Since September 15, 2020

© Copyright 2020 Allison Christine Keever

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Submit Research
• University of Montana
• Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

About UM | Accessibility | Administration | Contact UM | Directory | Employment | Safety

• < Previous

Home > Graduate Research > Master's Theses > 4225

Master's Theses

Ethics and wolf management: attitudes toward and tolerance of wolves in washington state.

Julie Callahan , San Jose State University Follow

Publication Date

Degree type, degree name.

Master of Science (MS)

Environmental Studies

Will Russell

Attitudes Toward Wolves, Ethics, Large Carnivores, Values, Wolf Management, Wolves

Subject Areas

Ethics; Wildlife management; Environmental studies

Approximately seventy-five years after extirpation from Washington State, gray wolves (Canis lupus) returned. As of December 2012, eight packs had arrived from adjacent states and provinces. Delisted from the Federal Endangered Species List in the eastern one-third of Washington, state wildlife managers now have the authority to manage wolves without federal supervision. As a result, one seven-wolf pack has been destroyed. The current study was developed to provide information for managers and policymakers to modify wolf management policies to fit the new regulatory context. Effects of a range of cultural and demographic factors on attitudes toward wolves and tolerance of wolf-human interactions were assessed using surveys mailed to 1,500 residents in Washington State. Factors included risk perception, experience with and knowledge of wolves, socio-demographic factors, and cultural attributes. Unexpectedly, 48.3% of respondents approved of wolves; only 18.1% disapproved of them in the area. Most respondents (57.2%) also indicated that danger to humans was not a reason to disapprove. Disapproval of wolves by suburban respondents (53.7%) was surprisingly greater than by citizens living in rural regions (39.0%). Wildlife managers must avoid preconceived stereotypes and guide differing groups to unite to minimize wolf-human conflicts, building bridges among stakeholders believed to hold irreconcilable differences, in order to support sustainable recovery of wolves.

Recommended Citation

Callahan, Julie, "Ethics and Wolf Management: Attitudes Toward and Tolerance of Wolves in Washington State" (2012). Master's Theses . 4225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.gufg-5sx3 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4225

Since January 29, 2013

https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.gufg-5sx3

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines
• San José State University
• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Sponsored by San José State University Library

San José State University Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0028

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides

Breaking News -

Evolving wolf management concerns.

News News | Sep 9, 2024

A letter to Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Director Jeff Davis The recent Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission announcement on 2024 plans for the second wolf release was another polarizing and even alarming step in wolf management or non-management. Club 20 policy reiterates our position to pause the efforts until management plans are adapted and questions are answered. It was just a year ago when we invited you to speak at the Club 20 policy committee meeting. At that time, our committees committed to direct communication with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, transparency and following a fact- based approach to the wolf introduction effort. A previous letter that we sent in April is attached to this correspondence. Since then, we have followed the increases in depredation experienced by the Middle Park and North Park Stockgrowers, the wildlife commission decisions on using lethal means of control, the ongoing meetings held on the Western slope, the denial of a Chronic Depredation Permit, the decisions on the wolf releases for 2024, and now, the welcome news for the relocation of the Copper Creek wolf pack. Our primary concern was to protect the long-standing efforts to build trust between our Western Slope communities and CPW. Our input has been that this bond is severely strained, if not broken at this point. The recent article in the Vail Daily, “Wolf Reintroduction has made it a lot harder to be a Colorado Parks and Wildlife employee,” very accurately portrays what we are hearing from affected ranchers and stockgrowers. The April Club 20 letter spoke to the concerns about secrecy, and lack of transparency and yet the relationships between CPW leadership and local ranchers continue to deteriorate. The Middle Park Stockgrowers letter was a complete outline of the depredation that has occurred in their geographic area this year. A Chronic Depredation Permit or CDP was submitted in May and was denied July 31. In our communities, this was more evidence that CPW leadership is choosing to ignore the entirety of the Wolf Management Plan that was developed as a “road map” for wolf introduction. Our committees have specifically asked for a pause in the releases to assure mutual understanding about CPW plans and to assure ranchers of certainty about the safety and well-being of their herds. This pause is essential to achieve a successful wolf introduction program. The original management plan mentioned 30-50 wolves in three to five years which gives time for a pause. It would be sensible to use this time wisely. Considering the CPW denial of the CDP and a lack of transparency, evidenced by no response to the critical issues raised in the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association April letter, a revised approach is essential to a successful relationship between CPW and the livestock producers of the western slope. A pause would allow CPW to make course corrections and develop a revised approach. Natural resource management is based on adaptive management and this wolf process in particular needs adaptation. A pause would give CPW the necessary time to locate APPROPRIATE wolves for a future release. The recent disclosure of the Colville Tribe’s rescinded authorization to move wolves to Colorado at this time was more evidence that adequate planning and wildlife management needs to occur. The definition of chronic depredation continues to create confusion and undermines workable partnerships. This specific issue should have been addressed in the management plan, and absolutely needs to be resolved immediately. A pause would allow CPW to develop a timely and workable reimbursement program. Much of the information available to the public when voting on the 2020 Ballot Proposition 114: Reintroduction and Management of Gray Wolves indicated that wolves would first cull older and injured wildlife. Upon release, the first wolf issues with prey were several attacks on livestock in the area; evidently, there wasn’t sufficient time to hire and train enough staff to actually “document” the number of these wolf kills. Utilizing an APHIS Wildlife Services contract with the USDA would provide additional resources to investigate the livestock losses more efficiently in a timely manner. Presently, CPW utilizes this agency to manage problem predators, through a memorandum of understanding, targeting bears and lions that are creating problems for livestock producers. In effect, it has saved killing bears and mountain lions haphazardly, that has occurred in the past by identifying the specific problem animal. Wildlife services’ employees have extensive experience in identifying wolf depredation. Would CPW consider using a tool like this in wolf management as Colorado field staff gain this expertise? These ongoing issues are more evidence that ballot biology does NOT work. It is widely accepted that the wolf introduction effort will continue, but it needs to be successful. To that point, we ask for definitive information and direction on the issues raised this year. Will the Middle Park Stockgrowers receive answers to all of their questions? Is there another upcoming “paws on the ground” deadline looming? Is there a timeline for a implementable definition for “chronic depredation?” When will the stockgrowers begin to receive compensation for losses this spring? Last, will the questions from our Western Slope tribes get public answers? For example, do declining elk numbers factor in the decisions on locations for future releases? Club 20 is on record supporting balanced wildlife management that values protections among competing wildlife species (moose, mule deer, elk and lynx) and our numerous other predators. A response to these issues and questions would be appreciated. Trust depends on clear and honest answers from CPW leadership. There is risk of reaching a tipping point where wolf management becomes single species management with dire consequences for the many other species dependent on private land partnerships for winter range. The relationship between western landowners and CPW field staff is highly valued but becomes marginalized and jeopardized without learning the “real” wolf management plan as decided in Denver. Club 20 can be of assistance to the CPW if we learn the facts, nuances, and adaptive approach decisions as you go.

Copper Creek Pack captured; Adult male wolf underweight, injured and later died

Sep 9, 2024

Stabenow, Thompson, Farm Bureau comment on USDA reports

Over 300 groups call on Congress to pass robust farm bill

Commission’s ag reps clarify livestock handling, applaud wolf impacted producers

Sep 6, 2024

UK Labour government launches new bTB eradication strategy

Sep 5, 2024

Oklahoma based Beutler & Son Rodeo Company loses horses

Sep 4, 2024

More than a meat scientist

Neb. governor is a hard no on lab meat

Be a gentleman

Aug 30, 2024

[placeholder]

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Newsletters
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Online checking
• High-yield savings
• Money market
• Home equity loan
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Options pit
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Wolf pack blamed in Colorado livestock attacks is captured and will be relocated

Colorado wildlife officials said Monday that they captured and plan to relocate five members of the first pack of wolves to form under the state's ambitious wolf reintroduction program .

A sixth wolf — the pack's adult male — was captured but died in captivity due to injuries unrelated to its capture, officials said. That wolf had been involved in repeated attacks on livestock and officials said it would have been kept in captivity if it survived.

The attacks and subsequent capture of the Copper Creek pack mark an early stumble in a voter-driven initiative to restore wolves to a state where they were wiped out decades ago by poison, trapping and hunting.

The pack formed after 10 of the predators from Oregon were released in December over bitter opposition from livestock groups .

The bid to capture them went against Colorado’s wolf management plan, which says relocation has “little technical merit” because it could create problems elsewhere if the animals continue attacking livestock. The plan calls for using non-lethal approaches, such as patrolling ranches with range riders and scaring away problem wolves, or killing them if necessary to stop ongoing attacks on livestock.

State officials said the female and four pups were not involved in the killings of cattle and sheep in Grant County.

They decided against killing the pack in part because it would have been a major setback for a restoration effort still in its infancy.

“It was a very, very unique situation right out of the gate and it demanded a unique response and part of that is making sure the pups in particular have a second chance in the wild,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Jeff Davis said at a Monday news conference.

A decision is pending on where the remainder of the pack will be released. That will occur after the pups get larger and can hunt on their own, officials said.

Ranching groups wanted the wolf pack killed. Moving them elsewhere will just relocate the problem, said Tim Ritschard, president of the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association.

“We know these wolves have been part of the killing, even though CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) says otherwise,” Ritschard said. “In a few years we're going to have to remove these pups when they get older.”

Owners of calves that are killed can be compensated by the state for the animal’s market value, up to $15,000.

Wildlife advocates objected to capturing the animals. They said relocating pups risks their survival and wanted more done to keep the pack from killing livestock, such as using electric fencing that can better deter attacks.

Michael Saul with Defenders of Wildlife said state officials should adopt rules requiring that livestock attack avoidance techniques be exhausted before wolves can be relocated.

“It's the least-bad outcome from a really difficult situation," Saul said. “CPW must now turn its attention to ensuring it does not have to come to this impossible decision again.”

In other parts of the U.S. where wolves are well-established — including in the northern Rocky Mountains and around the Great Lakes — the predators are routinely killed by wildlife officials in response to livestock attacks. Wolves are prolific breeders so removing some animals doesn’t major effects on a large population.

Wolf reintroduction in Colorado was narrowly approved by voters in a 2020 ballot measure. Wildlife officials expect to release an additional 30 to 50 wolves over the coming years. A handful of wolves have also wandered into Colorado from Wyoming.

Proponents argued that the apex predators would reestablish an ecological balance in the area.

Commission’s ag reps clarify livestock handling, applaud wolf impacted producers

From The Fence Post:

Delia Malone, wildlife chair of the Colorado Sierra Club, Dallas Gudgel, wildlife and Tribal policy director for International Wildlife Coexistence Network, and Dr. Adrian Treves, director of the Carnivore Coexistence Lab at the University of Wisconsin appeared before the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on Aug. 23.

Malone asked the commission to ensure that the state require that livestock producers exhaust proactive, appropriate, and properly implemented non-lethal coexistence methods that are based on best available science to reduce and minimize conflict between livestock producers and gray wolves prior to any issuance of a permit to kill a wolf. This is already clarified in the state Wolf Plan.

Click here for the full article.

The International Wolf Center advances the survival of wolf populations by teaching about wolves, their relationship to wildlands and the human role in their future.

Introduction of muskrat in Omsk oblast

• Published: 22 September 2017
• Volume 8 , pages 232–243, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• B. Yu. Kassal 1  

30 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

The muskrat population was formed in Omsk oblast in four stages. The first stage began in 1936 and lasted for 15 years; it was then interrupted by tularemia epizootic. The muskrat number recovered in the next 20 years and was again interrupted by another tularemia epizootic. The recovery of the muskrat population and its introduction throughout Omsk oblast began in 1971. Since 1996, the area has been fully populated by muskrat and changes in the number of the species have assumed the nature of fluctuations with a periodicity of 5 to 6 years. Under conditions of changing moisture content from 1936 to 2015, changes in the muskrat population had a weak direct correlation with the phases of the Bruckner cycle and with the water level in water bodies and a very weak inverse correlation with the solar activity indices (W, Wolf numbers). At the current stage of the formation of the muskrat population in Omsk oblast, the distribution of the indices of its average annual abundance and the average annual density of the population have a medium direct correlation with the area of the water bodies that are available in the area under study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Invasion of the European Mink in Omsk Oblast

On the current state of the caucasian tur ( capra caucasica ) population in the central caucasus.

From global to local scale: where is the best for conservation purpose?

Atlas Omskoi oblasti (Atlas of the Omsk Region), Kalinenko, N.A., Ed., Moscow, 1996.

Bakeev, Yu.N., Analysis of furs consumption by the urban population of the south of the western part of the USSR, in Okhota, pushnina i dich (Hunting, Fur, and Game), Sb. Nauchno-Tekh. Inf. Vseross. Nauchno-Issled. Inst. Okhotoved. Zverovod., Kirov, 1976.

Google Scholar  

Bobrov, V.V., Varshavskii, A.A., and Khlyap, L.A., Chuzherodnye vidy mlekopitayushchikh v ekosistemakh Rossii (Alien Species of Mammals in Ecosystems of Russia), Dgebuadze, Yu.Yu. and Neronov, V.M., Eds., Moscow: KMK, 2008.

Brückner, E., Klima-Schwankungen seit 1700 nebst Bemerkungen über die Klimaschwankungen der Diluvialzeit , Wien: Hölzel, 1890.

Chashchukhin, V.A., Ondatra: prichiny i sledstviya biologicheskoi invazii (The Muskrat: Causes and Consequences of Biological Invasions), Moscow: KMK, 2007.

Chesnokov, N.I., Introduction of wild animals, Priroda (Moscow) , 1989, no. 4, pp. 59–68.

Chesnokov, N.I., The muskrat: myths and riddles of the universe, Priroda (Moscow), 2002, no. 9, pp. 21–26.

Doklad o sostoyanii okruzhayushchei prirodnoi sredy Omskoi oblasti v 1993 g. (Report on the Environmental Situation in the Omsk Region in 2013), Omsk: Omsk. Obl. Komm., Okhr Prirody, 1994. http://mpr.omskportal.ru//Ecobezopasnost//doklad2013.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2014.

Eliseeva, I.I. and Yuzbashev, M.M., Obshchaya teoriya statistiki (General Theory of Statistics), Eliseeva, I.I., Ed., Moscow: Finansy i Statistika, 2002.

Elton, C.S., The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants , Chicago: Kluwer, 1958.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fauna mira. Mlekopitayushchie (Fauna of the World. Mammals), Moscow: Agropromizdat, 1990.

Kadastr okhotnich’e-promyslovykh vidov zhivotnykh Omskoi oblasti (Cadastre of Hunting and Commercial Species of Animals in the Omsk Region), Telepnev, V.G., Kryuchkov, V.S., Sidorov, G.N., Eds., Novosibirsk: Zapadno-Sib. Fil., Vseross. Nauchno-Issled. Inst. Okhotoved. Zverovod., 2001.

Kassal, B.Yu., Obratnyi otschet vremeni (XX puteshestvie omskogo naturalista) (Countdown Clock (XX Journey of the Omsk Naturalist)), Omsk: Akademiya, 2008.

Kassal, B.Yu., 60 sekund po parku, kotorogo ne bylo (XXI puteshestvie omskogo naturalista) (60 Seconds Along the Nonexistent Park (XXI Journey of the Omsk Naturalist)), Omsk: Pervopechatnik, 2009.

Kassal, B.Yu., Zhivotnye Omskoi oblasti: biologicheskoe mnogoobrazie. Monografiya (Animals in Omsk Region: Biological Manifold. Monograph.), Omsk: AMFORA, 2010a.

Kassal, B.Yu., The muskrat, in Entsiklopediya Omskoi oblasti (Encyclopedia of the Omsk Region), Rusakov, V.N., Ed., Omsk: Knizhn. Izd., 2010b, pp. 158–159.

Kassal, B.Yu., The nature protection status of mammals of the Omsk oblast, Omsk. Nauch. Vestn., Ser. Resursy Zemli. Chelovek , 2014, no. 1 (128), pp. 155–159.

Khlyap, L.A., Bobrov, V.V., and Varshavsky, A.A., Biological invasions in the territory of Russia: mammals, Ross. Zh. Biol. Invazii , 2008, no. 2, pp. 78–96.

Korsakov, G.K., Reproduction of muskrat in the foreststeppe of Western Siberia, Tr. Vses. Nauchno-Issled. Inst. Zhivotn. Sy‘rya Pushniny , 1959, no. 18, pp. 64–87.

Korsakov, G.K., Muskrat individual and group behavior, Pervoe Vsesoyuznoe soveshchanie po ekologicheskim i evolyutsionnym aspektam povedeniya zhivotnykh, Tezysi dokladov (The First All-Union Conf. “Ecological and Evolution Aspects of Animal Behavior,” Abstracts of Papers), Moscow: Nauka, 1972, pp. 178–180.

Korsakov, G.K., The muskrat, in Itogi mecheniya mlekopitayushchikh (The Results of a Mammal Tagging), Moscow, 1980, pp. 259–271.

Korsakov, G.K. and Shilo, A.A., Intraspecific relationships of muskrats, Sb. Nauchno-Tekh. Inform. , 1967, no. 17, pp. 9–19.

Korsh, P.V., Epizootological state of populations of muskrat in the Omsk oblast for the last 22 years, in Mater. nauch. konf. “Voprosy infektsionnoi patologii” (Proc. Sci. Conf. “Questions of Infectious Pathology”), Omsk: Nauchno-Issled. Inst. Prirodoochag. Infekts., 1970, no. 2, pp. 79–81.

Korsh, P.V., Ravdonikas, O.V., and Mal’kov, G.B., Carrying and contact with pathogens of viral and bacterial infections among wild animals in the Omsk oblast, Vopr. Infekts. Patol. , 1970, no. 2, pp. 75–78.

Kudryashov, V.S., Nazemnye sposoby ucheta ondatry v lesnoi zone (Ground-Based Accounting Methods for Muskrat in the Forest Area), Ryazan: Mosk. Rabochii, 1973.

Lakin, G.F., Biometriya (Biometry) , Moscow: Vyssh. Shk., 1980.

Lavrov, N.P., Akklimatizatsiya ondatry v SSSR (Introduction of the Muskrat in the USSR), Moscow: Tsentrosoyuz, 1957.

Leonov, Yu.A. and Barbash, L.A., Contacts of Muskrat with a Water Rat and a Mouse Vole-Housekeeper in the Lake Basins of North Kulunda, in Ondatra Zapadnoi Sibiri (Muskrat in the Western Siberia), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1966, pp. 30–39.

Lobachev, Yu.S., Muskrat in Kazakhstan and the factors affecting its strength, Vses. Sovesh. “Vliyanie antropogennoi transformatsii landshafta na naselenie nazemnykh pozvonochnykh zhivotnykh,” Tezisy dokladov (All-Union Conf. “Influence of Anthropogenic Transformation of the Landscape on the Population of Terrestrial Vertebrates,” Abstracts of Papers), Moscow, 1987, part 1, pp. 301–302.

Main Astronomical Observatory of Russ. Acad. Sci. http://www.gao.spb.ru. Accessed December 30, 2014.

Maksimov, A.A., Interspecific relationships and types of dynamics of the muskrat and water rat populations, in Ondatra Zapadnoi Sibiri (Muskrat in the Western Siberia), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1966, pp. 9–29.

Maksimov, A.A., Kharitonova, N.N., Kadenatsii, A.N., and Abashkin, S.A., Epizootii v populyatsiyakh ondatry v SSSR (Epizootic in Populations of Muskrats in the USSR), Novosibirsk, 1975.

Metodicheskie ukazaniya po provedeniyu Vserossiiskikh uchetov ondatry (Odobreny metodicheskoi komissiei TsNIL Glavokhoty RSFSR, soglasovany s otdelom okhotnich’ego khozyaistva Glavokhoty RSFSR i rekomendovany kak unifitsirovannaya metodika po organizatsii i provedeniyu Vserossiiskogo ucheta chislennosti ondatry po programme Gosudarstvennoi sluzhby ucheta okhotnich’ikh resursov RSFSR, utverzhdeno Glavokhotoi RSFSR 15.12.1986) (Methodical Instructions for Conducting All-Russian Accounts of the Muskrat. Approved by the Methodological Commission of the Central Research Institute of Glavokhoty of the Russia, and Are Recommended as a Unified Methodology for the Organization and Conduct of the All-Russian Account of the Number of Muskrats under the Program of the State Service for the Accounting of Game Resources of the Russia, Approved by Glavokhota of the Russia in December 15, 1986), Moscow: Glavokhota, 1987.

Strautman, E.I., Muskrat ( Ondatra zibethicus L., 1776), in Mlekopitayushchie Kazakhstana (Mammals of Kazakhstan), Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1978, vol. 1, part 3, pp. 118–146.

Neronov, V.M., Khlyap, L.A., Bobrov, V.V., and Warshavsky, A.A., Alien species of mammals and their impact on natural ecosystems in the biosphere reserves of Russia, Integr. Zool. , 2008, no. 3, pp. 83–94.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Obshchaya teoriya statistiki (The General Theory of Statistics), Shmoilova, R.A., Ed., Moscow: Finansy i Statistika, 2002.

Ondatra: morfologiya, sistematika, ekologiya (The Muskrat: Morphology, Systematics, Ecology), Sokolov, V.E., Ed., Moscow: Nauka, 1993.

Sabdinova, D.K. and Rachkauskene, E.V., Population dynamics of Marmota bobak and Ondatra zibethicus in conditions of the Timiryazev district, the North-Kazakhstan oblast, Issled. Obl. Estestv. Nauk , 2012, no. 6. http://science.snauka.ru/2012/06/763. Accessed August 2, 2014.

Shukhov, I.N., Catalog of fauna of Omsk oblast (Middle Priirtyshye), in Pozvonochnye, No. 2: Mlekopitayushchie (Vertebrates, No. 2: Mammals), Palashenkov, A.F., Ed., Omsk: Omskii Zheleznodorozhnik, 1949.

Sidorov, G.N. and Kruchina, V.G., Features of the territorial distribution and dynamics of the muskrat population in the Omsk oblast, in Estestvennye nauki i ekologiya: Ezhegodnik OmGAU (Natural Sciences and Ecology: Annual Publications Omsk. Gos. Agr. Univ.), Omsk: Omsk. Gos. Agr. Univ., 2000, no. 5, pp. 161–167.

Sidorov, G.N., Kassal, B.Yu., Frolov, K.V., and Goncharova, O.V., Pushnye zveri Srednego Priirtysh’ya (Teriofauna Omskoi oblasti): Monografiya (Furry Animals of Middle Priirtyshye (Teriofauna of Omsk Region): Monograph), Omsk: Nauka, 2009.

Sidorov, G.N., Kassal, B.Yu., Mishkin, B.I., Goncharova, O.V., and Frolov, K.V., Promyslovye gryzuny i zaitsy Omskoi oblasti (Teriofauna Omskoi oblasti): Monografiya (Field Rodents and Hares of Omsk Region (Teriofauna of Omsk Region): Monograph), Kassal, B.Yu. and Sidorov, G.N., Eds., Omsk: Nauka, 2011a.

Sidorov, G.N., Kassal, B.Yu., Goncharova, O.V., Vakhrushev, A.V., and Frolov, K.V., Teriofauna Omskoi oblasti. Promyslovye gryzuny: Monografiya (Teriofauna of Omsk Region. Field Rodents: Monograph), Omsk: Nauka, 2011b.

Sludskii, A.A., Ondatra i akklimatizatsiya ee v Kazakhstane (Muskrat and Its Introduction in Kazakhstan), Alma-Ata: Akad. Nauk KazSSR, 1948.

Syroechkovskii, E.E. and Rogacheva, E.V., Zhivotnyi mir SSSR (Geografiya resursov) (Fauna of the USSR (Geography of Resources)), Moscow: Mysl’, 1975.

Vereshchagin, N.E., Ot ondatry do mamonta. Put’ zoologa (From the Muskrat to the Mammoth. The Way of the Zoologist), St. Petersburg: Asterion, 2002.

Vitinskii, Yu.I., Kopetskii, M.V., and Kuklin, G.V., Statistika pyatnoobrazovatel’noi deyatel’nosti Solntsa (Statistics of Solar Spot Generation Activity), Moscow: Nauka, 1986.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Omsk State University, Omsk, Russia

B. Yu. Kassal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Yu. Kassal .

Additional information

Original Russian Text © B.Yu. Kassal, 2017, published in Rossiiskii Zhurnal Biologicheskikh Invazii, 2017, No. 2, pp. 46–60.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kassal, B.Y. Introduction of muskrat in Omsk oblast. Russ J Biol Invasions 8 , 232–243 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2075111717030067

Download citation

Received : 25 February 2015

Published : 22 September 2017

Issue Date : July 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1134/S2075111717030067

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• muskrat population
• Omsk oblast
• hunting yield
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research