New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Microscopic Hunters Prey on Yellowstone’s Wolves

Microscopic predators join the hunt for wolves in the Rockies

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Two years after Congress removed gray wolves from the endangered species list in the northern Rockies, the animals are facing a new threat: disease. Outbreaks of infections such as sarcoptic mange, which is spread by mites, and canine distemper virus (CDV), have reduced wolf survival rates and contributed to an overall decline in Yellowstone National Park wolves.

Until recently, wolf populations in Yellowstone had been on a steady upswing. In 1995 park managers brought in 31 gray wolves from Canada to restore a population that had been virtually wiped out by hunting and other forms of depredation. (Montana veterinarians introduced the mange-carrying mite Sarcoptes scabiei to Yellowstone in 1905 in an effort to extirpate the wolves.) The most recent count put the regional wolf population at 1,727 in 2011, well above the lower limit set by federal agencies.

The Yellowstone wolves may be particularly susceptible to disease because, as transplants, they are relatively new to their environment. And wolf pups are the most at risk: only 16 survived this year, down from 34 in 2011.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Although scientists do not believe the illnesses pose a threat to the wolves' long-term survival, the new data may spur managers to tweak conservation plans. Wyoming has already reduced its hunting quota from 52 to 29, which experts say is a step in the right direction but may not be enough to shield the population from chance disturbances, be they trophy hunts or diseases. “Whether this is enough of a reduction will be evaluated following the next hunt,” which begins in December, says Emily Almberg, a graduate ecology student at Pennsylvania State University who studies the wolves.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe