by johnm » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:06 pm
by RoryKuykendall » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:07 pm
by mountainsandsound » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:51 am
RoryKuykendall wrote:Yeah, that's true,but wolverines don't EAT habitat! They eat dead ungulates like mountain goats, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep. Other than mule deer (which tend to avoid the high country) and a critically endangered population of Bighorn Sheep, California can't even begin to match the "more northern latitudes" in this department.
by splattski » Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:09 am
by RoryKuykendall » Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:06 am
They actually eat anything from mice and shrews to moose or caribou, dead or alive. They are very resourceful generalist predators and scavengers. Living in very low densities, having extremely large home ranges, a not too large body size, and hunting/scavenging only for themselves (rather than a whole pack) are traits that give them a lot of options.
by RoryKuykendall » Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:21 am
by lcarreau » Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:22 am
by mountainsandsound » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:49 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 84593.html
by johnm » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:35 am
by RoryKuykendall » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:01 am
I wonder if there used to be more ungulates in that area before that took some of the predation pressure away from sheep. Or maybe grizzlies could have played a role in keeping lions down back then.
by RoryKuykendall » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:22 am
by mountainsandsound » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:40 pm
RoryKuykendall wrote: My understanding is that the real heart of wildlife activity in California was at lower elevations.
by Vitaliy M. » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:45 pm
included pieces of potential wolverine scat.
Users browsing this forum: bearflag and 0 guests