Territoriality in Female Wolverines

For reasons that I’ll get into in a future post, I feel suddenly compelled to write up a quick literature review on the topic of territoriality in female wolverines.

Let’s get this out of the way immediately: female wolverines are territorial. This is evident throughout the recent literature. Out of concern for the safety of resident adult wolverines in the US, researchers generally don’t publish maps of wolverine home ranges, but anyone who has had the chance to look at the minimum convex polygons of study animals can see a pretty clear pattern. Adult female wolverines don’t overlap with other adult female wolverines. The territorial boundaries are pretty strict, often down a drainage that both animals will approach and traverse, but that neither will cross. There are instances of incursions and small amounts of overlap, but this is generally less than 2% of any female’s home range. Adult males are also territorial, but with varying degrees of territorial incursion or excursion. The territoriality of wolverines is one of the most important factors for understanding wolverine distribution, their natural rarity, and, importantly, conservation concerns and strategies as we look at a warming world.

Strictly speaking, a territory is a patch of ground that an animal defends, and a home range is a patch of ground that an animal occupies and uses for subsistence. In the wolverine research community, including in published papers, these terms are used in a conflating fashion, although some papers do make a distinction. In presentations and talks and casual conversation, we often use the words “home range” to refer to the area that a wolverine (male or female) occupies, but we mean this as a defended home range, which is actually a territory.

Territoriality in the Literature

While the territoriality of wolverines is widely understood at this point, I was surprised to note that there are few American or Canadian papers or book chapters that deal explicitly with the question of how territoriality functions, or the ways in which it potentially limits population in areas of restricted habitat where the population fragments into a meta-population structure. The Scandinavians, on the other hand, do tend to deal with territoriality, probably because the management imperatives are more urgent in places where depredation on domestic reindeer is a major problem. A Norwegian master’s thesis from 2014 looks at genetic sampling as a method to determine territoriality, in comparison to GPS collar data. Jens Persson’s dissertation deals in some depth with possible explanations for territoriality, and how those explanations may differ between males and females. Proving that the Scandinavians more or less own this topic, a 2017 thesis by Malin Aronsson closely focuses on the dynamics of territoriality and dispersal among female wolverines (and lynx). But the territoriality of the species is taken for granted in most publications, especially the North American publications.

I was also reminded of the absence of peer-reviewed publications focusing specifically on several of the major American wolverine research projects. Doug Chadwick’s popular-science book The Wolverine Way remains the best published account of the Glacier wolverine project. The Rocky Mountain Research Station has put out a number of impressive papers that draw on the Glacier data to ask large-scale questions about habitat relationships, population genetics, dispersal, and climate change effects, but the annual project reports remain the best source of information for the park population itself. The same is true of the Absaroka-Beartooth project, the project with which I got my start in the wolverine world, working as a volunteer. Peer-reviewed papers for that project were somewhat limited by the low numbers of detected wolverines within the study area – sample sizes and statistics being the perennial priority for most journals these days – but the eerie emptiness of prime modeled wolverine habitat deserves some consideration, hopefully in future publications.

Back in 1981, Hornocker et al published a study asserting that wolverines were not territorial. This was one of the earliest studies of wolverines in the lower 48, lasting from 1972-1977, on the Flathead National Forest. It was a telemetry study in which the researchers observed overlap among many different wolverines, and concluded that wolverines were tolerant of fellow wolverines. They reported “no intraspecific strife” and discussed how a wounded female wolverine, whose injuries they first attributed to another wolverine, were likely caused by a mountain lion. (Despite assertions that wolverines are not territorial, the home range maps that are included in this paper do show a familiar pattern – two male wolverines who don’t overlap, one female wolverine who sticks to a fairly tight home range, and a second female, overlapping the first, who makes wider movements that include the home range of the male who overlaps the first female. If I were to guess, many years later, what was up with this scenario, I’d suggest a male-female pair and their juvenile daughter, preparing to disperse. The second male looks like an unrelated individual as his range does not overlap with any of the other animals.) Earlier observational studies of wolverines, and books about the species, also fail to make note of territorial behavior. The same is largely true for the Mongolian hunters and herders who I interviewed; they were well aware of the wolverine’s rarity and ability to travel over long distances, but only a few noted that a wolverine would reappear in a particular spot at intervals. None of those interviewees made a leap to territoriality as an explanation, but some did refer (maybe jokingly) to a wolverine’s nutag, which is a Mongolian concept denoting an individual’s homeland.

Home range maps showing seasonal movements for four wolverines in NW Montana, from Hornocker et al 1981

Home range maps for four wolverines in NW Montana, showing seasonal movements, from Hornocker et al 1981

Observation, track surveys, and radio telemetry, of course, are limited in important ways. These methods allow glimpses of an animal only at the moments when the observer or listener happens to have their eyes or telemetry antenna trained on the animal. Finding dens is more difficult, which – in the absence of DNA techniques – makes understanding relatedness more difficult as well. With the advent of GPS collars and DNA analysis, we were able to observe wolverines more closely and consistently. Hundreds of locations for multiple animals, taken over months, in combination with VHF locations over the course of years, made the territorial behavior of the species clear. Den locations and kit collaring showed that wolverines will tolerate their own offspring within their territories for up to two years after birth. This could account for Hornocker’s and others’ observations of multiple wolverines sharing the same home range, and photos like those that Igor Shpilenok took in Kamchatka, of up to six wolverines on a bear carcass at the same time.

The Wildlife Conservation Society’s Yellowstone Wolverine Project likewise relied on annual reports and white papers to convey results for many years. The project director, Bob Inman, was in the process of getting his PhD, so his dissertation eventually yielded several published papers. Again, though, these deal mostly with larger-scale questions about habitat relationships and conservation priorities. Several of his papers do discuss territoriality, but again, for obvious reasons, most of the published papers don’t include home range maps.

What all of these papers and sources do include, however, is an assumption that territoriality is important. Some imply territoriality; for example, in a summary of draft papers from 2007, the WCS project notes in the abstract for a chapter on wolverine space use:

Mean annual (1 Mar–28 Feb) 95% fixed kernel home range size was 453 km2 for adult females (n = 15 wolverine years) and 1,160 km2 for adult males (n = 13 wolverine-years). Mean percent area overlap of same-sex adults was < 1% (SE = 0.00, range = 0–2%, n = 12 pairs) using annual 100% minimum convex polygon home ranges.

The “<1% overlap” suggests territoriality, although it’s not explicitly stated here. In a 2012 review of wolverine reproductive chronology, however, Inman et al do note this:

Throughout its distribution, the wolverine displays extremely large home ranges, territoriality, low densities, and low reproductive rates (Copeland 1996; Inman et al. 2012; Krebs et al. 2007; Lofroth and Krebs 2007; Magoun 1985; Mattisson et al. 2011a; Persson et al. 2006, 2010). These adaptations are necessary for exploiting a cold, low-productivity niche where growing seasons are brief and food resources are limited (Inman et al. 2012).”  

Another 2012 Inman et al paper on spatial ecology does deal explicitly with the question of territoriality vs. undefended home ranges and is probably the most extensive discussion of this topic in the literature on wolverines in the lower 48. This paper does include some home range maps, with the locations stripped out.

Spatial distribution patterns of the Mustelidae are typically described as intra-sexual territoriality, where only home ranges of opposite sexes overlap (Powell 1979). Wolverine-specific reports exist for both intra-sexual territoriality (Magoun 1985, Copeland 1996, Hedmark et al. 2007, Persson et al. 2010) and for a high degree of spatial overlap but with temporal separation (Hornocker et al. 1983). Arguments against territoriality by wolverines include the lack of ability to defend such a large home range (Koehler et al. 1980). Our data on movement rates in relation to home range size, temporal development of the home range, minimal overlap of same-sex adults, and relatively immediate shifts upon a death suggest that wolverines are capable of patrolling a large territory and provide further support for intra-sexual territoriality. Reproductive success is closely correlated to the amount of energy that a female wolverine can obtain (Persson 2005), and for predators that are capable of individually acquiring prey, the presence of conspecifics reduces foraging efficiency (Sandell 1989). Since wolverines feed on individually obtainable prey and occupy relatively unproductive habitats, it follows that behaviors for maintaining exclusive access to resources would likely have selective advantage. Frequent marking behavior (Pulliainen and Ovaskainen 1975, Koehler et al. 1980) is likely part of an adaptive strategy that involves maintenance of exclusive territories within sexes so that feeding and breeding opportunities are monopolized by dominant individuals and their immediate offspring.

Female wolverine territories in Wyoming, with takeover of one home range by a female kit after the death of the resident adult female. From Inman et al 2012

The Scandinavian literature is also rife with references to territoriality among both male and female wolverines. Jens Persson, who works on wolverines in Sweden, reflects in his dissertation on the reasons for territorial behavior in female wolverines, and concludes that it’s related both to food, and also potentially to the need to protect kits against infanticide. Historically, it was widely believed that male wolverines would kill any kits they encountered, even their own; this has since been proven false, but the idea that males kill unrelated kits persists. Persson is the first researcher I’m aware of to suggest that female territoriality may actually be a defense against other females intent on infanticide.

Females could also gain from infanticide by eliminating non-related progeny to decrease future competition for territories or denning areas for her and her progeny. In addition, the death of an unrelated infant could also reduce the net reproductive success of a competitor (Hrdy & Hausfater, 1984). Competition for territories determine dispersal behaviour in female wolverines (Paper IV), suggesting that there is strong competition for territories among female wolverines.

 Wolff and Peterson (1998) hypothesized that a primary function of female territoriality in solitary mammals could be to protect vulnerable young from infanticidal conspecific females. Four predictions can be deduced from their offspring-defence hypothesis: 1) Female territoriality should be associated with young that are vulnerable to infanticide. 2) Female territoriality should be associated with defence of offspring, and therefore most pronounced during the offspring-rearing season. 3) Defence will be greatest against the segment of thepopulation that commits infanticide and against those individuals that females can dominate. 4) Optimal territory size should be a function of intruder pressure, intruder detectability, female response distances and offspring vulnerability, and changes in food abundance and distribution should not affect territory size directly unless they are correlated with the other factors. In concordance with predictions 1-3, wolverines have altricial young that are vulnerable from late winter until late summer (March – August) and female territoriality seem to be strongest during this period (Magoun, 1985; Landa, Lindén & Kojola, 2000). We lack data to evaluate prediction 4. However, in contrast to prediction 4, I believe that food actually is an important determinant of territory size in wolverine females (see Banci, 1994).

Malin Aronsson’s 2017 thesis examines the territorial dynamics of female wolverines, using the vast dataset from Swedish studies dating back to the 1990s. She makes some interesting observations about the counter-intuitive conclusion that wolverines are territorial despite living in low-resource environments, which is the opposite of what studies on other carnivores would suggest:

Wolverines are highly territorial (Persson et al. 2010), and by comparing space use overlap between years for the same individual I found that wolverines show high territorial fidelity resulting in a stable distribution of resident individuals. Interestingly, territorial fidelity in general is predicted to be low in habitats where food resources are low, variable, unpredictable or deplete fast (Wauters et al. 1995; Kirk et al. 2008; Edwards et al. 2009), which corresponds to the characterization of wolverine habitat in general (Inman et al. 2012b), and particularly in this study area (Person 2005). However, scavenging and caching are integral parts of wolverine biology (Inman et al. 2012b; Mattisson et al. 2016), which increase resource predictability, decrease depletion rate and create a valuable resource (i.e. cache sites) to defend, promoting high territorial fidelity despite the unpredictable environment (Tye 1986; Eide et al. 2004). In addition, occurrence of more efficient predators, such as the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), provide carcasses for direct consumption and caching (Mattisson et al. 2011b). Furthermore, both males and females showed higher between-year fidelity at the territory level (i.e. 90% isopleth) compared to the core areas (i.e. 50% isopleth). That fidelity was lower at the core area compared to territory level suggests that it is critical to maintain the outer territory boundary to secure long-term resources, while the most used area within the territory may vary between years due to spatial fluctuations in key resources, or, for females, location of den sites may vary between years.

Aronsson also documents a few cases of territorial adult females shifting territories after successfully reproducing. Why this happened, and how frequently such moves occur, would be interesting questions for further investigation.

Another Scandinavian paper, a master’s thesis from 2014 by Espen Gregersen, compares home range and territoriality derived from GPS data to those derived from scat analysis. The question in this thesis was not so much “are wolverines territorial?” as “can wolverine territoriality be detected using non-invasive methods like scat analysis?” It’s an interesting question and one of relevance to those of us who have limited resources for large-scale trapping efforts in places like, say, Mongolia. Gregersen concludes that yes, we can indeed determine home range size and observe territoriality using scat samples – but it takes a very large number of samples. This thesis also addressed the question of territorial turnover after the death of a resident adult, which is particularly interesting at the southern edge of distribution, where wide separation of habitat patches makes recolonization less certain.

Finally, a forthcoming book chapter from Copeland et al. proposes a slightly different take on territoriality among male and female wolverines. That chapter will be out soon and I’ll look at it in depth once it’s published, but it too reinforces the idea that female wolverines are highly territorial, and maybe even more strictly territorial than males.

There are many other papers out there that include brief mentions of territoriality and intrasexual exclusion in home ranges. These are just a sample, and this write-up fairly cursory, but I hope they’re adequate to illustrate that wolverines – both male and female – are territorial.

Territoriality and Conservation

At this point, territoriality in wolverines is accepted as an important feature of their life history and ecology. The question of why hasn’t yet been answered, but the fact that wolverines require such large territories, and the fact that their reproductive rates are so low, accounts for their natural scarcity on any landscape – let alone one in which suitable habitat is located only at certain elevations in widely scattered patches across a sea of non-habitat.

Female territories structure the wolverine population. Females must have adequate resources to meet their needs and, hopefully, to reproduce. They occupy and defend territories that allow them to do this. Males in turn seem to select for territories that overlap with resident females. Whether this represents a territorial strategy for sexual monopoly, or whether it’s defined by the male’s capacity for paternal investment, or some combination, is worth investigation (male wolverines seem not to always entirely encompass a female’s territory, leaving her open to potentially overlap with other males, which raises questions about the accepted narrative of males “controlling” access to females). Both males and females disperse over long distances, although the longest movements have been observed in males like M56.

Habitat availability for females is the limiting factor on wolverine population growth and range expansion in the US Rockies. I’d hypothesize that keeping a certain number of territories occupied is critical to the long-term persistence of wolverines in the lower 48, and that there is some distinction to be made between female population numbers, strictly speaking; the percentage of habitat that’s occupied; and where that habitat is located in relation to other habitat. There’s been an enormous focus on “connectivity”– concurrent with the fashion for corridors among conservationists –  but a surprising lack of attention paid to the population nodes themselves. For example, the question that Gregersen raises about recolonization of vacant territories is interesting and important, especially given the observed disappearance of wolverines from places like the Tetons. Presumably this disappearance represents some kind of natural cycle of die-off for a relatively isolated population node, but how long does it take before those territories are reoccupied? And how is time-to-recolonization related to population density and occupancy of the next-nearest population nodes? Questions about functional connectivity among wolverine population nodes are important, but connectivity as a single conservation strategy for wolverines seems like an odd allocation of resources; wolverines don’t migrate, they disperse, and their dispersal patterns are unique and erratic. They are likely to benefit from the broad and intense focus on connectivity and road-crossing structures for other species, but trying to preserve wolverine-specific corridors seems like a good recipe for driving oneself nuts. As one of my Mongolian interviewees once said when discussing wolverines, “One day it’s here, the next day it’s 50 kilometers away. It could turn up anywhere!” I hope to see a greater focus on what’s going on within habitat in the future, including investigation of questions about what drives territoriality and territory size, and how territorial turnover works in a meta-population.

That’s it for now. If any of you have any thoughts about the function of territoriality in female or male wolverines, if you want to point out an obvious resource on this question that I overlooked, or if you just want to say hi, please feel free to comment.

References (with apologies for lack of consistent style formatting and for referring to multiple authors as “et al” instead of writing them out. Time constraints!)

Aronsson, M. 2017. ‘O Neighbour, Where Art Thou?’ Spatial and social dynamics in wolverine and lynx from individual use to population distribution. Doctoral dissertation. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala. ISBN (electronic version) 978-91-576-8822-4

Chadwick, D. 2010. The Wolverine Way. Patagonia press.

Copeland, J. P., Landa, A., Heinemeyer, K., Aubry, K. B., van Dijk, J., May, R., Persson, J., Squires, J., and Yates, R. 2017. Social ethology of the wolverine. In: Biology and Conservation of Musteloids. Edited by David W. Macdonald, Christopher Newman, and Lauren A. Harrington: Oxford University Press. DOI 10.1093/oso/9780198759805.003.0018

Gregersen, E. 2014. Assessing territoriality in wolverines (Gulo gulo) using non-invasive genetic sampling. Master’s thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Hornocker, M and H Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology. V. 59. pp. 1286-1301.

Inman et al. 2007. Wolverine space use in greater Yellowstone. In Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program Cumulative Report. Wildlife Conservation Society.

Inman R. et al. 2012. The wolverine’s niche: linking reproductive chronology, caching, competition, and climate. Journal of Mammalogy 93(3):634-644.

Inman, R. et al. 2012. Spatial Ecology of Wolverines at the Southern Periphery of Distribution. Journal of Wildlife Management. 76(4). 778–792. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.289

Persson, J. 2003. Population Ecology of Scandinavian Wolverines. Doctoral dissertation. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala.



Wolverine Talk in Orem, Utah

I’ll be giving a wolverine talk this coming Monday, September 11th, on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. I’m excited about this opportunity – it’s the first time I’ll give a wolverine talk in Utah, and I love talking to university students.

Also, whoever designed this poster has a fantastic sense of humor. So I’m looking forward to hanging out with these folks.

I think this is open to the public – most university guest lectures are – so please drop by if you are in the area. 



A Little Wolverine Music

If you want to brighten your day with a wolverine-themed kids’ song from a fun Montana group, check out the Whizpops’ new music video, “Gulo gulo.”

I’m especially fond of this piece because it’s pretty scientifically accurate (I’m not sure that wolverines have ever literally scared the hair off a grizzly bear, but I’ll let that go…), and it uses footage from Swan Valley Connections’ wolverine cameras, deployed as part of the multi-year, multi-partner Southwest Crown of the Continent Carnivore Monitoring Project. This project is one of the most overlooked projects within the wolverine world, but if gulo fans knew half of what the project partners were up to, they’d be ecstatic. I worked with the SWCC project last year and hope to give some more attention to their program in coming months, because they have amazing data and even better field stories. This video nicely illustrates their fun approach to getting the word out about wolverines, and also highlights some of the great video footage that they’ve obtained. Enjoy!

Burning down the ecosystem

By now, it should be obvious to everyone that we have a problem with the discourse around facts and science in the United States.

Over the years that I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve sometimes felt sheepish about picking apart wolverine articles and coverage in the popular press, harping on nuances of language, word choice, and representation of the science. It felt like overkill, sometimes. But it also felt like the conversation around the facts and the science and the narrative was becoming more and more skewed as time went on, and it seemed important to try to counteract that.

Of course, anyone who even remotely dabbled in climate-related research knew that there was a concerted campaign to discredit climate scientists, and anyone who paid attention to politics and the media environment knew that this campaign widened into a broader anti-science stance by the right. But reality-based Americans understood which media sources were factually accurate and which outlets were propaganda-slingers. Correcting inaccurate reporting on wolverines involved assuming that someone from a reputable media outlet had, in good faith, made a mistake, and that the media ecosystem itself would value correction in the interest of its mission to accurately report the news. Still, the inaccuracies and errors seemed to get worse over the years, and that left me more and more perplexed as time went on.

If the span between 2009 and 2015 was spent contemplating the specifics of the wolverine situation, 2016 was like looking up from a single blade of burning grass and discovering that the entire forest was a raging inferno. For seven years I’d been asking, “Why is this piece of grass on fire?” but as it turns out, the whole ecosystem was going up in flames. In the space of a couple of months, my personal fixation on accurate representation of wolverine science became laughably quaint in the face of much larger concerns about facts and bias in the media.

I’d be lying if I claimed that this was anything less than wildly depressing, to the point of being incapacitating; every time I tried to write a post, I’d give up in frustration, because it seemed necessary to situate it within a larger framework of inaccurate messaging, propaganda, and outright self-serving lies that were being perpetuated across media platforms. Doing that seemed impossibly complicated. There have always been intense politics around wildlife conservation, but those politics have been relatively systematic and fairly easy to grasp. 2016 pushed the broader political discourse into the realm of the deranged, revealing a disorder and a breakdown that appeared impossible to make sense of, let alone surmount. It’s very obvious that this problem is not going away any time soon.

The wider media ecosystem is full of would-be firefighters ready to jump in with analysis and advice and off-the-cuff prescriptions for how to remedy the collapse of media sanity. It’s also full of ninja arsonists who gleefully throw fuel on the fire at the least provocation. And to make matters more complicated, sometimes the wannabe firefighters are actually serving the role of accidental ninja arsonists. This made me even more cautious about weighing in. Maybe it’s the anthropological background, but I felt the need to sit and watch for a while, to try to make sense of what I was seeing before becoming another voice claiming some kind of authority that I don’t actually possess.

More than that, though, I needed to answer questions for myself: Is it still worth it to write about wolverines? Is it worth it in light of the fact that the wolverine discussion is deeply embedded in these larger problems? And beyond that, do I still have anything useful to say on a topic I’ve been writing about for nearly ten years? Can an author write usefully from a place that has become, primarily and nearly purely, angry and grief-ridden? At one time this blog was a love letter to the species, to its landscapes. Now it feels like a requiem. And while things written from places of grief, depression, and anger can be cathartic, hand-wringing is seldom of much literary value. So again: Is it worth it to continue?

That question is still under assessment.

In the absence of a decisive answer, I will keep writing for now, but I want to make this more complicated context explicit for whoever is reading this. I’ve always aimed to make this blog clear and upfront about biases and standpoint, in hopes of encouraging the reader to consider their own, and to understand the point at which claims, assertions, and interpretation of the science become subjective and value-laden. I also believe that facts and science are real things, and that truth (with a small t) can be at least agreed upon, even if it can’t established in an absolute sense. The past year has been disruptive to many of my core beliefs – especially to my ever-tenuous but previously-persistent faith in the human capacity for enlightened thinking. (If people aren’t capable of logic and reason, if they do not love the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, then what are we all doing here anyway?) Nevertheless, I’ll keep putting forth my meagre attempts to clarify the wolverine science, because putting out one small fire probably makes some sort of contribution. But I hope the rest of you are out there putting on your fire-fighting gear, because we have a big, big job ahead of us.













Support the Wolverine Foundation through Give Big Gallatin Valley

Wolverine enthusiasts, please consider supporting the Wolverine Foundation during the 24-hour Give Big Gallatin Valley fundraising event. It starts tonight, May 4th, at 6 pm and ends tomorrow, May 5th, at 6 pm. All donations made through TWF’s Give Big donation page during the event will be partially matched by the Bozeman Area Community Foundation, increasing the impact of your support for wolverine research and conservation.

The Wolverine Foundation has been integral to the advance of wolverine science and management over the past 20 years. The organization supports research projects with small grants, conducts education and outreach through talks at community organizations and schools, and supports researchers and students through dialogue, mentorship, and organization of workshops and other events.

Thank you!


Two new wolverines at ZooMontana

For those who haven’t been fortunate enough to see a wolverine in the wild, you’ll soon have a chance to view a gulo in a more accessible location – if you’re in Montana, anyway. ZooMontana, in Billings, will open a new wolverine exhibit featuring two Scandinavian wolverines, Sid and Ahmari. Sid is Swedish, Ahmari is from Finland, and you can read more about them, and check out a video, here. There’s additional information here. The opening date of the new wolverine enclosure is not yet certain, but it should occur by the beginning of May.

The Billings Zoo previously had a wolverine, but he passed away in 2012. The new wolverine program is significant because ZooMontana will be participating in an attempt to breed wolverines in captivity – notoriously difficult to do. Will we have the very rare opportunity to observe wolverine kits up close in a few years? Stay tuned. And drop by to say hello to Ahmari and Sid if you’re in Billings.

Wolverines in “Wild Hope”

Last year, author Colleen Morton Busch contacted me to report a possible wolverine sighting in the Sierra Nevada near Tahoe, California. She knew that her sighting, lacking the evidence of photographs or DNA, wouldn’t be conclusive, but her descriptions of the animal she’d briefly spotted sounded distinctly gulo, and we suspected that Buddy, the California wolverine, was still somewhere in the area. We’re always conservative in assessing these sorts of reports, so I had to tell her that I couldn’t consider it a definite sighting, but I felt that it was probable that she’d seen a wolverine.

As we continued to email, the conversation evolved into a meditation on broader themes in conservation, and how those themes tied to Buddhism, with which both Colleen and I have some background. She wanted to write an article about her wolverine encounter that dealt with some of these themes, which made an intriguing divergence from the usual reporter inquiries about species biology and the policy situation around listing. Our ongoing email conversation was a highlight of last spring, particularly as she asked questions about the toll that immersion in the climate change scene takes on researchers. These are questions that people don’t usually ask, and that touch on the weights that we all carry; depression is common among climate researchers and people in affiliated fields. So it was wonderful to talk with someone who was aware of the dynamic between loving what you do, and constantly searching for some small hope – or, failing that, at least the equanimity to continue to love, and to accept impermanence, in the absence of hope.

Appropriately, then, Colleen’s article appears in the most recent volume of Wild Hope, a magazine that celebrates biodiversity and relates well-written stories of species accompanied by lush photography. There is no digital link to this article, but I’d encourage people to buy a copy if you want to read a great reflection on what wolverines mean to the people who are lucky enough to catch even a quick glimpse of one. As scientists, the emotional or psychological meaning of nature and wildlife is a topic that we’re wary of engaging with, but if we’re being honest, most of us would have to admit that we’re in this field in part because of our own dependence on the wild for some form of sustenance, and that we believe that protecting that source of inspiration is important for humanity. So it’s nice to read an account of how much a single, fleeting encounter meant to one person. As Colleen writes, “One wolverine sighting is likely all I’ll get in this life, so I’m grateful to have crossed paths ever so briefly. But seeing the wolverine lit a fire in me. It led to my education. And now I’m telling you, who may or may not live in a state where wolverines can be seen, but who are likely concerned about the changes we humans have wrought on our planet, about any threat of extinction, because the loss of the wolverine is connected to our shared future. Because there’s a glimmer of hope in an encounter between two beings – one wild and the other, a lover of wild things – even if it’s undocumented and unverified.”

A single wolverine encounter changed my life, so I understand this sentiment. There’s something uniquely compelling about this species, something that causes the mind to open in particular ways. Colleen’s captured that in her article, and that’s a great thing. Check it out.