As gray wolves begin to return to California, a study released today
by the Sonoma State University Anthropological Studies Center sheds new
light on the widespread historical distribution of wolves in the state.
The report comes as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is
considering whether to protect the animals under the state’s Endangered
Species Act; it demonstrates the historic presence of gray wolves
across California.
“The new research is relevant to the state’s decision,” said Lauren
Richie, Northern California associate director for the California Wolf
Center, “since it provides evidence of the widespread distribution of
California’s wolf population across diverse habitats before wolves were
hunted to extinction here.”
The study, conducted by the university’s staff archeologist Michael
Newland and faunal specialist Michael Stoyka, found linguistic and
cultural evidence indicating that indigenous peoples across California
had words for, and rituals involving, wolves. No fewer than 15 of
California’s indigenous languages have distinct words for “wolf,”
“coyote” and “dog,” and in the oral traditions of five languages, wolves
appear as deities or a part of ceremony or ancestral history.
The wolf is a creator deity, for instance, in Southern Paiute
traditions; sorcerers are capable of turning into wolves in Tolowa
traditions; and three Northern California tribes — the Karuk, Hoopa and
Yurok — used wolf fur in their dance regalia. Evidence also exists that
some California tribes ate wolves as food. The widespread distribution
of evidence implies the wolf itself once had an expansive range, from
north to south and from east to west throughout the state.
“In modern times we talk about wolves being ecologically important,”
said Amaroq Weiss, a West Coast wolf organizer at the Center for
Biological Diversity, “but this research shows us that wolves have been a
part of California’s cultural heritage for thousands of years.”
Previous research had compiled historical accounts of sightings of
wolves in California by European explorers and settlers, and these
accounts were from locations scattered widely across the state. But
because it was not always clear that observers were familiar with, and
could distinguish between, wolves, coyotes and dogs, the reliability of
such accounts had been called into question. The new study’s linguistic
analysis honed in on whether indigenous people distinguished between
these three canids, and the study’s examination of the role ascribed to
wolves in cultural stories and traditions revealed unique treatment of
the wolf — quite distinct from roles or characteristics assigned to
coyotes or dogs.
“This study sets a baseline for understanding that many indigenous
people across California came into contact with wolves and also helps to
identify additional research areas that would broaden our understanding
of the historical distribution, role and cultural significance of
wolves in California,” said Newland.
Wolves were driven to extinction in California by the mid-1920s, but in late 2011 a wolf from Oregon, known as OR-7
or “Journey,” entered California and remained in the state for 15
months, wandering throughout seven northern counties before returning to
Oregon in March. The dispersal of this wolf into California sparked
efforts to gain full state protections for the species, in anticipation
that Oregon’s growing wolf population will result in more wolves finding
their way into California. A state listing petition filed in 2012 by
the Center for Biological Diversity and allies resulted in the gray wolf
being declared a candidate for listing; the state is expected to
complete its status review and issue a recommendation on listing late
this year.
This project was administered by the California Wolf Center and was
supported with funds from the California Wolf Center, Center for
Biological Diversity, Klamath Forest Alliance, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Sierra Club California and Winston Thomas, Ph.D.
source
Monday, September 30, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Michigan wolf hunt licenses nearly sold out--You can help stop it!
Sep. 28, 2013
|
This undated photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows a gray wolf. / AP
Less than two hours after the sale began at noon, 991 of the 1,200 licenses that are available for the hunt had already been sold. By 5 p.m., more than 1,100 had been sold during a day that Michigan Department of Natural Resources spokesman Ed Golder said went “extremely well.”
Tim Payne, the DNR’s Southeast Regional Wildlife Supervisor, considered the day a milestone. He’s been with the DNR for more than 40 years but had never seen a wolf-hunting license. Although only one sale had taken place at the Southfield office by 12:30 p.m., it was still special, he said.
“It was cool,” he said.
Wolf season runs Nov. 15-Dec. 31, and any remaining licenses will be on sale until Oct. 31. They cost $100 for state residents and $500 for nonresidents, Payne said the hunt is necessary because wolves have attacked livestock and dogs in the Upper Peninsula and it’s important to keep them from becoming acclimated to humans like some coyotes have become. He noted that the number of wolves killed will be small.
A wolf-hunting season almost didn’t happen this year after animal-rights groups turned in enough signatures to call for a statewide referendum. Despite legislative action that allowed the hunt to move forward this year, groups were out on Saturday collecting signatures for a second attempt to get the issue before voters. “It's not right to spend decades bringing the wolf back from the brink of extinction only to turn around and allow them to be hunted and trapped for trophies,” according to Keep Michigan Wolves Protected’s Web site.
“This hunt is only moving forward because the Legislature did some dirty tricks and a runaround on the first petition drive,” said Jill Fritz, director of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected and state director of The Humane Society of the United States. “Legislators knew that the citizens of Michigan do not want their wolves hunted.”
The state’s Natural Resources Commission approved the killing of 43 wolves in three areas of the Upper Peninsula. Hunters are required to call 855-345-9653 to report their wolf kills before the end of the day, and are encouraged to call before heading out to make sure the limit has not been reached.
“The odds of us having an impact on the wolf population in the Upper Peninsula as a whole is close to zero,” Payne said.
But Fritz was critical of the motives behind the hunt, and claimed the 43-animal limit is a small number designed to avoid scrutiny. “Their claim that a wolf hunt is needed to address livestock depredations is not telling the whole story,” Fritz said. “The current law already allows farmers to protect their animals from predators ... including wolves.”
source
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
End Wolf Hunting in Minnesota
By Jennifer HartmannTarget: Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton
Goal: Discontinue the practice of hunting wolves for sport in Minnesota
Wolf hunters claim that the goal of the state-approved wolf hunt in Minnesota is to control population and reduce the frequency of attacks on humans and pets in the area by wolves. Yet most people are aware that wolf populations are dwindling and that hunting them for sport is destructive in many ways. Urge Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton to suspend this year’s hunting season and opt for future non-lethal forms of wolf management to control populations if needed.
The wolf hunt is set to start in November of 2013, but many organizations are speaking out about the dangers of the practice. Though hunting permits were decreased this year, the state is still allowing the harvest of 220 wolves. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) claims that the harvest quota ensures the long term survival of wolf populations, but others disagree. Wolf population levels are at their lowest since 1988, and hunting and trapping dramatically decreases their numbers in a short period of time. Last year, the wolf harvest quota was a whopping 400.
Humane Society of the United States representatives have argued that the risk is simply too high. Wolf populations must recover from mass hunting and trapping, and they are presently believed to be too low to sustain themselves if another hunt is scheduled as soon as this upcoming November. Ideally, future hunting will be rendered unnecessary, if not banned, due to long-term and non-lethal management goals that provide wolves with expansive and safer habitats free from human encroachment.
Urge Governor Mark Dayton to speak out against wolf hunting and trapping, and ask him to fight for wolf protection as long as their populations are at risk.
Click here to sign the petition!!!
Ranchers Get Compensation for Damages Caused by Wolves
HAILEY, Idaho (IME)-The
Idaho State Wolf Depredation Compensation Board on Wednesday
distributed $72,000 in federal funds to ranchers who had sustained
livestock losses due to wolf depredation in 2012.
Two ranchers who graze sheep in Blaine County were among those awarded the money. The Idaho Mountain Express reports the eight-member board is composed of county representatives and is part of the Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation.
Office Administrator Dustin Miller said the “confirmed and probable” losses verified by the federal Wildlife Services agency totaled 12 cows, 44 calves, 138 ewes, 66 lambs, two rams and one dog. Those numbers included 25 ewes and 12 lambs lost at the Flat Top Ranch near Carey, as well as 18 ewes and 18 lambs lost by the Faulkner Sheep Co., which is based in Lincoln County but grazes animals on federal land in Blaine County.
The compensation money came from legislation passed by Congress in 2009 creating the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Project. The bill provided states and Indian tribes with $1 million annually for five years, divided equally between compensation funds and money to help ranchers undertake non-lethal prevention activities. The funds were appropriated in 2010 and 2012, but not for 2011 or 2013.
source
Poster's note:
Really, Idaho. You ranchers get all that money for farming out your livestock on government owned land and you still want to eradicate the wolf from your state? Please shut up, put your guns up, and sit the heck down. You have no pity from me.
Two ranchers who graze sheep in Blaine County were among those awarded the money. The Idaho Mountain Express reports the eight-member board is composed of county representatives and is part of the Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation.
Office Administrator Dustin Miller said the “confirmed and probable” losses verified by the federal Wildlife Services agency totaled 12 cows, 44 calves, 138 ewes, 66 lambs, two rams and one dog. Those numbers included 25 ewes and 12 lambs lost at the Flat Top Ranch near Carey, as well as 18 ewes and 18 lambs lost by the Faulkner Sheep Co., which is based in Lincoln County but grazes animals on federal land in Blaine County.
The compensation money came from legislation passed by Congress in 2009 creating the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Project. The bill provided states and Indian tribes with $1 million annually for five years, divided equally between compensation funds and money to help ranchers undertake non-lethal prevention activities. The funds were appropriated in 2010 and 2012, but not for 2011 or 2013.
source
Poster's note:
Really, Idaho. You ranchers get all that money for farming out your livestock on government owned land and you still want to eradicate the wolf from your state? Please shut up, put your guns up, and sit the heck down. You have no pity from me.
Wolves in Yellowstone
Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
By Sarayu Adeni
Driving through Yellowstone National Park over the summer, our guide touched upon rising tensions between the local cattle ranchers and wolves. “Out here, they have a saying,” he said. “Shoot, shovel, and shut up.”
Wolves may seem plentiful now, especially as the U.S. Department of Natural Resources removed the gray wolf from the endangered species list, along with the bald eagle, this August. But they have come a long way. In 1994, humans had completely eliminated gray wolves from Yellowstone and its surrounding areas. A species reintroduction program was implemented in 1995, which was hugely successful. Victory here, however, is a double-edged sword. While conservationists had set their sights on simply reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone, there was no overarching contingency plan for the program’s success.
The presence of a healthy wolf population in the park is crucial for controlling elk numbers. It gives way for willows and other foliage to thrive and animals dependent upon the vegetation for shelter – like birds, fish, and beavers – are then similarly allowed to flourish.
Unfortunately for cattle ranchers, however, wolves do not discriminate on prey. Wolves killed over 65 livestock in 2011 in Wyoming, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With their livelihoods threatened, ranchers started taking matters into their own hands. They retaliate with poison, traps, and guns, thus perpetuating the same vicious cycle that extinguished Wyoming’s gray wolves in the first place.
People today may be working to protect biodiversity from human encroachment, but when animals start to encroach upon us, there is no widespread plan – even around national parks – to stop angry locals from counteracting violently, unraveling whatever progress was made.
Building awareness, especially after the implementation of a successful program like reintroducing wolves in Yellowstone, should be a vital component in conservationist strategies. It is often forgotten that humans are a part of the environment. And once you set about changing an environment that affects humans and animals alike, the work doesn’t end there.
Thankfully, there are organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, which prides itself on changing attitudes by helping rancher manage wolf attacks in eco-friendly ways, such as using air horns and flag systems near pastures. Policymakers in some states have also initiated compensation programs for livestock losses due to wildlife.
These are important steps, but the fear is that it may be too little, too late. What we should be doing is figuring out how to live our lives safely amongst what we have saved. If we don’t attempt environmental coexistence, achieving widespread sustainable development is nothing more than a howl at the moon.
Sarayu Adeni is a first-year MDP at SIPA.
source
Until the 20th century, wolves inhabited much of CA
Study results are relevant to decision whether to put wolves under the state’s ESA-
San Francisco. There are those who say the gray wolf had just a marginal presence in California before it was killed off in the 1920s. However, the Sonoma State University Anthropological Studies Center has now shown there was a widespread presence of wolves in California. This report comes at an important time. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is deciding whether to protect the animals under the state’s Endangered Species Act.The study found linguistic and cultural evidence that indigenous peoples across California had words for wolf. They also performed rituals featuring wolves in some fashion. At least fifteen of California’s indigenous languages have distinct words for “wolf,” “coyote” and “dog,” and in the oral traditions of five languages, wolves appear as deities or a part of ceremony or ancestral history.
“In modern times we talk about wolves being ecologically important,” said Amaroq Weiss, a West Coast wolf organizer at the Center for Biological Diversity, “but this research shows us that wolves have been a part of California’s cultural heritage for thousands of years.”
Previous research had compiled historical accounts of sightings of wolves in California by European explorers and settlers, and these accounts were from locations scattered widely across the state. But because it was not always clear that observers were familiar with, and could distinguish between, wolves, coyotes and dogs, the reliability of such accounts had been called into question. The new study’s linguistic analysis honed in on whether indigenous people distinguished between these three canids, and the study’s examination of the role ascribed to wolves in cultural stories and traditions revealed unique treatment of the wolf — quite distinct from roles or characteristics assigned to coyotes or dogs.
- – - – - – -
source
Saturday, September 28, 2013
California Wolf Center announces 2 dates for proposed delisting of wolves hearings
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Friday, September 27, 2013
Image of the Day
wild wolf (canis lupis) in the Altai Region of Bayan-Ölgii in Western Mongolia, a photo by jitenshaman on Flickr.
wild wolf (canis lupis) in the Altai Region of Bayan-Ölgii in Western Mongolia.
Wolf Weekly Wrap-up
27 September 2013
| 
Get ready to rally! – Are you ready to stand up for wolves? You better be, because next week is your best chance to show your opposition to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s premature delisting proposal. Defenders is hosting three rallies across the country to precede the Service’s official public hearings. On Monday, Defenders President Jamie Rappaport Clark will be taking the stage in DC alongside some of our conservation colleagues from Sierra Club and the Endangered Species Coalition (and we’re hoping a few members of Congress will show up too). On Wednesday and Friday, several of our regional wolf experts will be in Sacramento and Albuquerque, respectively, to get wolf advocates fired up for action. See rally details here.
The goal of these rallies is to show FWS that local residents want federal protection to remain in place until wolves are fully recovered. We will also be training participants how to deliver effective testimony at the public hearing and fine-tuning our messaging to make sure we are all speaking with one voice. This is a great opportunity to make a difference for the future of wolf recovery, so don’t miss out!
A Mexican gray wolf pup howling. (Photo courtesy of the USFWS.)
Mexican gray wolves are on the brink of a second extinction in the wild and if in fact this is another loss, it is nothing short of devastating for the population fighting to barely survive. The lobos are vanishing one by one from America’s wilds and unless the Fish and Wildlife Service makes some immediate, drastic changes to recovery efforts, we could lose one of our country’s most iconic species.
“If these wolves are going to have any kind of fighting chance at survival, the Fish and Wildlife Service must do everything in its power to ensure recovery beyond merely investigating this incident,” says Eva Sargent, Defenders director of Southwest programs. “It must complete and implement a comprehensive recovery plan that includes the release of many more wolves into the wild, and that establishes the additional core populations lobos need to survive and thrive.”
This troubling news is yet another reminder of just how important it is for wolf supporters to attend the public hearing in Albuquerque on Oct. 4th (one week from today!) in order to speak out on behalf of Mexican gray wolves.
California wolves need protection – Defenders California Representative Pam Flick and California Wolf Center’s Lauren Richie (formerly at Defenders) took to the airwaves recently to explain why it’s so important to protect wolves like OR-7 that might soon return to California, at both the state and federal level. Listen to Pam on Public News Service and watch Lauren on CBS-8 San Diego.
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
source
Jessica Lange to Dayton: Halt wolf hunting in Minnesota
- Article by: PAUL WALSH
- Updated: September 26, 2013
The actress urges the governor to suspend the next wolf hunting season in the state; he said he can’t.
Jessica Lange
Photo: Chitose Suzuki, Associated Press - Ap
Hollywood actress and “Minnesota daughter” Jessica Lange is urging Gov. Mark Dayton to suspend the next wolf hunting season in Minnesota.
Lange cites the sharp drop in the state’s
wolf population following the first of the newly reinstituted hunts last
year and adds that hunters do this for no more than sport, fun or
trophies.
“Nearly all Minnesotans believe the wolf
is an asset that should be protected for future generations,” wrote
Lange, who grew up in Cloquet, lived for a time in Stillwater and now counts a place in the woods near where she was raised as one of her homes.
In the letter released Wednesday by the
Twin Cities-based advocacy group Howling for Wolves, Lange said the
state’s reauthorization to resume the hunting of wolves was rushed by
the Legislature and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
“to cater to particular groups, who for years had been clamoring for the
chance to kill wolves.”
Dayton responded in a written statement, pointing out that he does not have the power to halt the hunt.
“Since Ms. Lange no longer lives in
Minnesota, it is understandable that she is not familiar with all of the
considerations in the Legislature’s decision to establish a wolf
hunting season in Minnesota,” the statement began. “That decision was
written into law; thus only the Legislature can change its terms.”
Maureen Hackett, founder and president of
Howling for Wolves, said that Lange “contacted us and asked what she
could do … to be of help to the wolf.”
Hackett said having Lange’s support for
her group’s effort to halt the hunt is beneficial because “she’s a
Minnesota daughter, so to speak … and lives in wolf country.”
The number of wolves that hunters can kill
in Minnesota this fall will be slashed nearly in half, from 413 a year
ago to 220. Also, only 3,300 hunters and trappers will be given permits
this year to kill wolves, down from 6,000. The early season runs from
Nov. 9 to Nov. 24.
The licensing reductions follow a survey
last winter that estimated the state’s wolf population at 2,211 — a 24
percent decline from 2008, but a figure that didn’t include this year’s
surviving pups.
In that first season since wolf hunting
resumed in Minnesota, Lange contended that more than half of the wolves
killed were less than 2 years old and almost a third were less than a
year old.
“They were not problem wolves,” her letter
said. “They were not in conflicts with people, livestock, or domestic
animals. They were just wolves living wild and free in our North Woods.”
The state’s recent announcement of a
nearly 25 percent drop in Minnesota’s wolf population “should compel
action,” she said. “We haven’t had this few wolves in our state since
1988.”
Lange, whose Minnesota property is within
one of the wolf hunting zones, also went after the “cruel methods” used
to hunt and trap wolves, referring to “metal leg-hold traps that crush
limbs, wire choke snares that cause painful brain bleeding, and bait
like food and the calls of wolf pups in distress that lure adult
protectors to their death.”
Should the declining inbred wolves of Isle Royale N.P. be augmented?
Should there be genetic rescue (outside wolves brought in)-
For many years the wolves and moose of Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior have shown that wolves do not wipe out their prey. When wolves become abundant enough that the disappearance of prey seems probable, the wolves die back.
On the other hand, when wolves have declined to few in number, the moose population expands and begins to decimate its prey — the moose-edible vegetation of the island.
This rough balance has existed ever since wolves colonized the island one hard winter. In 1949 a pair of wolves walked over to the island on the frozen lake. The pair found an island overrun with moose. The moose themselves had migrated to the island 40 years earlier.
The wolf population expanded, of course, and brought the moose number in check (and more). Then the wolves began to starve off and the cycle began.
The moose prefer aspen, and they do well eating it. However, they mostly wiped that out before the wolves came. Ever since, they have relied primarily on the less nutritious balsam fir and lichens.
Both the moose and the wolves are also subject to inbreeding. It is especially a problem for the wolves, all of which descended from the original pair. So, in addition to the cyclic malnutrition when the moose population drops too low, the wolves have been seen to suffer from increasing genetic defects. One of these is poor reproduction even when there is enough food.
Down to just 8 wolves, they seem doomed without outside genes from new wolves. There have been up to 50 wolves at a time on the island, although many scientists think a stable number is about 25. It should be noted that there have always been wide fluctuations around this “mean.” The eight wolves seem to have gained a brief reprieve with the birth of 2 or 3 pups in 2013 after several years with none. Nevertheless, it is hard to see how the unaugmented population can survive much longer. It is less and less likely that the lake will freeze and wolves from Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin find their way to the island.
The wolves and their relationship to the moose and the vegetation have been studied since 1958. Dr. Rolf Peterson, in particular, is the person most closely associated with the studies. He would like to see some genetic rescue. Dr. Dave Mech, however, who is another avid student of the island’s wolves is reported to want to first let natural events play out.
With the wolf population so low, we would now expect the moose population to be expanding. It is. However, it is increasingly suffering from tick infestation. This is a problem for moose in general during winters, but Isle Royale has seen warmer winters as the climate changes. This makes the effects of the bloodsucking arachnids more severe.
Rolf Peterson recently sent out the following letter.
For many years the wolves and moose of Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior have shown that wolves do not wipe out their prey. When wolves become abundant enough that the disappearance of prey seems probable, the wolves die back.
On the other hand, when wolves have declined to few in number, the moose population expands and begins to decimate its prey — the moose-edible vegetation of the island.
This rough balance has existed ever since wolves colonized the island one hard winter. In 1949 a pair of wolves walked over to the island on the frozen lake. The pair found an island overrun with moose. The moose themselves had migrated to the island 40 years earlier.
The wolf population expanded, of course, and brought the moose number in check (and more). Then the wolves began to starve off and the cycle began.
The moose prefer aspen, and they do well eating it. However, they mostly wiped that out before the wolves came. Ever since, they have relied primarily on the less nutritious balsam fir and lichens.
Both the moose and the wolves are also subject to inbreeding. It is especially a problem for the wolves, all of which descended from the original pair. So, in addition to the cyclic malnutrition when the moose population drops too low, the wolves have been seen to suffer from increasing genetic defects. One of these is poor reproduction even when there is enough food.
Down to just 8 wolves, they seem doomed without outside genes from new wolves. There have been up to 50 wolves at a time on the island, although many scientists think a stable number is about 25. It should be noted that there have always been wide fluctuations around this “mean.” The eight wolves seem to have gained a brief reprieve with the birth of 2 or 3 pups in 2013 after several years with none. Nevertheless, it is hard to see how the unaugmented population can survive much longer. It is less and less likely that the lake will freeze and wolves from Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin find their way to the island.
The wolves and their relationship to the moose and the vegetation have been studied since 1958. Dr. Rolf Peterson, in particular, is the person most closely associated with the studies. He would like to see some genetic rescue. Dr. Dave Mech, however, who is another avid student of the island’s wolves is reported to want to first let natural events play out.
With the wolf population so low, we would now expect the moose population to be expanding. It is. However, it is increasingly suffering from tick infestation. This is a problem for moose in general during winters, but Isle Royale has seen warmer winters as the climate changes. This makes the effects of the bloodsucking arachnids more severe.
Rolf Peterson recently sent out the following letter.
The National Park Service is interested
to receive your input on the pending decision regarding the future
management of wolves on Isle Royale. Please send your input to the
following email address:
ISRO_Wildlife@nps.gov (note the “underscore” between ISRO and Wildlife)
The Park Service is considering three
options: (1) do nothing, even if wolves go extinct; (2) allow wolves to
go extinct (if that is what they do), and then introduce a new wolf
population; or (3) conserve Isle Royale wolves with an action known as
genetic rescue by bringing some wolves to the island to mitigate
inbreeding.
While expressing your view, consider
providing as much detail on the reasons for your preference, as the Park
Service believes the reasons for your view are as important as your
view. If you have any questions on the process or anything relating to
providing input, please do not hesitate to ask me.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Europe's key animals 'making a comeback'
Frans Schepers and Davor Krmpotic from Rewilding Europe explain why bears are doing well in Croatia
Some of Europe's key animals have made a comeback over the past 50 years, a report suggests.
Conservationists say species such as bears, wolves, lynx, eagles and vultures have increased in numbers. They believe that protection, curbs on hunting and people
moving away from rural areas and into cities have helped Europe's
wildlife to recover.The analysis was carried out by the Zoological Society of London, Birdlife and the European Bird Census Council.
The report was commissioned by the conservation group Rewilding Europe. Frans Schepers, the organisation's director, said: "People have this general picture of Europe that we've lost all our nature and our wildlife. And I think what the rest of the world can learn from this is that conservation actually works. If we have the resources, a proper strategy, if we use our efforts, it actually works."
The white stork declined until the mid-1980s due to poor feeding conditions. Over the past few centuries, animals in
Europe have not fared well. Hunting, habitat loss, and pollution have
sent animals into decline. But this report marks a reversal in fortunes. The researchers looked at 18 mammals and 19 bird species found across Europe.
Frans Schepers -- Rewilding Europe
They found that all, apart from the Iberian lynx, had increased in abundance from the 1960s. The largest increases were for the European bison, the Eurasian beaver, the white-headed duck, some populations of the pink-footed goose and the barnacle goose. These had all increased by more than 3,000% during the past five decades.
For top predators such as the brown bear, numbers have doubled. And for the grey wolf, which saw serious losses in the past, populations have climbed by 30%. For mammals, the comeback was largest in the south and west of Europe, and their range had increased on average by about 30%. The average range of the birds remained stable.
Frans Schepers -- Rewilding Europe
They found that all, apart from the Iberian lynx, had increased in abundance from the 1960s. The largest increases were for the European bison, the Eurasian beaver, the white-headed duck, some populations of the pink-footed goose and the barnacle goose. These had all increased by more than 3,000% during the past five decades.
For top predators such as the brown bear, numbers have doubled. And for the grey wolf, which saw serious losses in the past, populations have climbed by 30%. For mammals, the comeback was largest in the south and west of Europe, and their range had increased on average by about 30%. The average range of the birds remained stable.
Wolves have fared well in Europe after many centuries of decline
Global view
The researchers believe a combination of factors have been driving this return. Legal protection in the European Union, such as the birds directive and habitats directive, had helped to revive the fortunes of species, as had dedicated conservation schemes, said Mr Schepers.
And while some animals are still hunted in parts of Europe, there are often limits on the number that can be killed. "It is also because people are leaving the countryside, which leaves more space for wildlife," said Mr Schepers. The recovery of some species, particularly large predators, has raised concerns. In France, for example, where wolves have recently returned, farmers are concerned that their livestock is at risk.
The northern chamois has increased in abundance and distribution
The finding is surprising when seen in the global context, where biodiversity is in continuing decline. Prof Jonathan Baillie, director of conservation at the Zoological Society of London, said: "We're trying to find success stories so we can learn from them, so we can see what works and scale that up across the conservation movement globally. And it is really important that we focus on success and where we are winning. But there are massive challenges out there globally. And we have to realise that the threats that Europe creates are not just within our borders, it's internationally, and that we are having an impact on the 60% decline we're seeing in low income countries around the world."
He also warned that Europe's wildlife was at a pivotal moment. "We just have to be aware that into the future there will be increasing pressure for food production and so on within Europe," he said. "And for a lot of these species, where we have seen the gains, we might lose them again if we are not careful. So it's our job to keep our eye on the ball."
source
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Wisconsin Pays Bear Hunters For Dogs Killed By Wolves. WHY?
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
The State of Wisconsin allows bear hunters to use dogs in the chase.
Bear hunters are even given maps, public information and common-sense
warnings by the DNR to avoid letting their dogs train and run to their
death near bear bait sites or known wolf rendezvous areas (read the comments) - - but the DNR still pays up to $2,500 for any dog killed by a wolf.
What's the message and justification there?
To date this year, 23 dogs have been killed by wolves in Wisconsin, records show.
Details from the DNR's website, here, and from one recent news story:
What's the message and justification there?
To date this year, 23 dogs have been killed by wolves in Wisconsin, records show.
 |
| DNR Secretary Stepp With Future Sport Prey |
Details from the DNR's website, here, and from one recent news story:
Wolves have killed 16 dogs being trained to hunt bears so far this season, including five in the past three days....
When wolves attack dogs in hunting or training situations on public land, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources creates "wolf caution areas" to warn hunters that a specific pack has attacked a dog or group of dogs.
Bear hunters are urged to exercise greater caution if they plan to train hounds or hunt bear with hounds near any caution area, especially if near an actual kill site....Using dogs in wolf-hunting is tied up in court, but no doubt state payments for dogs torn to pieces by predatory wolves would dramatically increase, were it allowed.
Adult wolves are very defensive of pups at rendezvous sites and will attack other predators, including dogs, that get too close to the rendezvous site or the pups.
Wisconsin pays hunters up to $2,500 per dog for dogs killed by wolves.
-
Anonymous said...
-
Very good question. Why do hunters have more rights than the wildlife?
They know what they are training their dogs to do and the risk
involved. What makes hunters so special? They are not the major
contributors to protection of natural resources or wildlife. The major
contributors are all taxpayers and tourists and not the hunters, no
matter how much they say they are.
-
Anonymous said...
-
Hounders should NEVER be paid for lost dogs. The chance of that
happening is the price hounders should pay. Take responsibility. I hate
hounding. It's an evil practice.
-
Anonymous said...
-
Here’s an novel idea…...any hound hunter who has a dog killed after he
chooses to turn his pack of hounds loose in a “wolf caution area”, gets a
hefty fine. Let’s say $2,500., for causing the intentional death of his
dog.
Michigan wolf hunt: With licenses set to go on sale this Saturday, opponents cry foul
FILE - In this April 18, 2008, file photo provided by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife shows a gray wolf. The Michigan Natural Resources
Commission on Thursday, July 11, 2013, again approved hunting of the
once-federally protected wolves in the Upper Peninsula under a new state
law passed to circumvent a referendum on an earlier hunting law. (AP
Photo/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gary Kramer, File)
( (AP Photo/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gary Kramer, File))
"There is no scientific justification for a wolf hunt —€” people can already shoot wolves that are threatening livestock or property, and people don't hunt wolves for food," Jill Fritz, director of the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected ballot committee, said Tuesday.
Her group, which already turned in more than 250,000 signatures in a thwarted attempt to block this year's hunt, is in the midst of a second petition drive seeking to repeal a new law enacted after an earlier version was suspended.
"This wolf hunt is not based on science, but on politics," said Fritz, who also works as state director for the Humane Society of the United States, which has spent millions on the effort in Michigan.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources on Saturday will begin selling licenses for the state's first wolf hunt, which will be limited to three areas of the Upper Peninsula. The agency had planned to offer licenses back in July but delayed the sale in order to better prepare for what is expected to be heavy demand.
Beginning at noon on Saturday, up to 1,200 hunters will be able to purchase wolf licenses, which will cost $100 for a resident and $500 for a non-resident. The hunt will begin on November 15 and last through December -- or until 43 wolves are killed.
Related: DNR's 2013 Michigan Wolf Hunting Digest (.pdf)
Keep Michigan Wolves Protected has warned voters that the state could lift the 43-animal quota in future seasons and allow for more wolves to be killed.
State Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, hopes so. "Forty-three isn't enough," said Casperson, who sponsored the wolf hunting bills after farmers in his district told him they were losing livestock in wolf attacks. "If opponents were honest with people, they'd agree that we have to control the herds. But they're not.
"They're placing more importance on a wolf -- an animal -- than they are on these people that are trying to make a living for themselves. It's sad, because I think I'm losing the battle down here because the public doesn't see what's happening up there."
Michigan's Upper Peninsula is currently home to an estimated 658 wolves, which had been on the federal endangered species list until early in 2012. That's up from roughly 500 in 2008 and approximately 200 in 2000. The state counted just three wolves in 1989.
Keep Michigan Wolves Protected claims that hunting proponents have been over-exaggerating livestock attacks in an attempt to win public support.
The group used a Freedom of Information Act request to secure DNR records related to one of the three areas where wolf hunting will be allowed this fall. Of the 120 wolf-related livestock deaths reported in that area between 2010 and 2013, the coalition said that 96 of them occurred on a single farm where the owner had failed to utilize state-funded deterrence methods, according to the records.
"One negligent farmer who refused to use the fences and guard donkeys given to him for free by the state cannot be held up as the poster child for Michigan's wolf hunt," Fritz said last month. "The true intent of the wolf hunt in Michigan has nothing to do with livestock conflicts. It is purely to satisfy a vocal minority who just want a trophy hunt."
Attacks have not been limited to that one farm, however. The DNR recently confirmed that at least five beagles were eaten by wolves last month in the eastern Upper Peninsula, and Casperson said he talked with a farmer in the western UP who, having already lost livestock to wolves, recently stayed up all night driving his property after hearing howls.
"He was out there at three in the morning," Casperson said. "So for these people to suggest that the problem is solved because he has the right to shoot wolves if they're attacking his animals? There's not one of those people who would want to live like that. What that man is doing is trying to make a living for him in his family. I'll defend him all day long."
Earlier this year, wolf hunt opponents turned in enough signatures to temporarily suspend Public Act 520 of 2012, which added grey wolves to the list of Michigan game species that can be hunted. Casperson and his fellow Republicans in the state Legislature responded by approving another bill that gave the state's Natural Resources Commission the authority to add a new species to the game list.
The upcoming hunt will be limited to three areas in the Upper Peninsula. A) A portion of Gogebic County including the city of Ironwood; B) Portions of Baraga, Houghton, Ontonagon and Gogebic counties; and C) Portions of Luce and Mackinac counties.
Hunters will be required to a report any wolf kills by phone on the day that it occurs. Once the target number of wolves are killed in a specific hunting area -- 16 in Zone A, 19 in Zone B and 8 in Zone C -- that unit will be closed to hunting. License holders will be required to check daily by phone or online to determine whether any zones have been closed.
source
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Wolves are an iconic symbol of New Mexico, but not a treasured species
SANTA FE -- Enchanting New Mexico is the land of inconsistency.
Tens of thousands of its inhabitants love the Lobos, even swear by them.
Many of these same people despise lobos and swear at them.
The University of New Mexico named its sports teams
Lobos because no other mascot was so fitting as a fierce, proud symbol
of the Southwest.
Another part of government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, in the 1950s tried to trap, shoot and poison the real New
Mexico lobos out of existence. It nearly succeeded.
The federal government even sent poisons and canine
killers into Mexico, figuring that nobody would object to reviled wolves
being wiped out before they could cross into New Mexico or Arizona.
If history has taught us anything, it is that the
imagery of lobos is easy to embrace. The spine-tingling howl of a wolf
stirs us. But it's not enough for us to focus on how few Mexican gray
wolves exist.
Only about 75 roam free in New Mexico and Arizona. That is the entire U.S. population in the wilds.
The number of Mexican wolves is up a bit, but their
strength is not. With only three breeding pairs, wild Mexican wolves are
producing small litters and pups with low survival rates, said Michael
Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity.
Along with the 75 Mexican wolves that are fending for
themselves, another 248 were in zoos as of last month. More rove
northern Mexico, though nobody can say for sure how many packs exist.
Even with a population that is tiny and weak, these lobos are under siege.
U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-Hobbs, sent out a
celebratory statement this month after the Fish and Wildlife Service
cleared a New Mexico rancher who killed a Mexican wolf in defense of his
livestock.
"However, we must not forget that the wolf program remains a major problem for New Mexicans," Pearce said.
One of Pearce's favorite themes is that federal
protection for species with dwindling populations puts humans at a
disadvantage for jobs and business development. He has made political
hay by fighting protections for the dunes sagebrush lizard, the lesser
prairie chicken and the Mexican wolf.
Pearce said the case of a rancher who killed to
protect his own animals "only reiterates the terror that wolves cause
for New Mexicans, and calls attention to the need to rethink this costly
and dangerous program."
Robinson, whose organization regularly battles Pearce,
says Mexican wolves do not have the numbers to be a societal danger.
More than 6 million acres are in the territory designated for a wild
population of 75 lobos.
Even so, he says government regulations are
constricting Mexican wolves. Robinson wants wolves from zoos to be
released into Gila National Forest in New Mexico. Current regulations
mandate that captive Mexican wolves can only be freed in the Blue Range
Recovery Area in Arizona.
Carlos Carroll, a California biologist who is part of
the national wolf recovery team, says funneling wolves into one spot
jeopardizes the newcomers. Established packs control the territory and
turn on imported wolves.
Carroll said wild Mexican wolves need to number 750 to ensure that the subspecies survives.
From a scientific standpoint, he said, Mexican wolves
would have a better chance if government broadened their territory to
include Utah and southern Colorado. Currently, I-40 is a government
boundary that Mexican wolves are not supposed to cross.
Opposition to allowing Mexican wolves in the southern
Rockies and Grand Canyon area would be ferocious, as Pearce's stand
demonstrates.
The alternative is not having any lobos in New Mexico,
except the ones on postcards, coffee cups and UNM sweatshirts -- all
beautiful images of what the Southwest is supposed to be.
source
source
Monday, September 23, 2013
Arizona Game and Fish Department to hold informational meetings this week on federal proposals regarding Mexican wolf conservation
 |
|
Reminder:
Sept. 22, 2013
|
|
|
|
The Arizona
Game and Fish Department will hold public meetings this week in Payson,
Tucson and Pinetop to share information with constituents on two
proposed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules dealing with Mexican wolf
conservation, and how the public can provide comments to the Service.
The first federal rule proposes delisting the gray wolf from the federal list of threatened and endangered species but maintaining endangered status for the Mexican wolf. The second federal rule proposes expansion of the geographic boundaries of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area in Arizona and New Mexico, as well as modification of the 10(j) rule for managing the experimental Mexican wolf population. Public comments to the Service on both proposed rules are due by Oct. 28, 2013. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the agency responsible under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for taking comments from the public regarding the two proposals, but the Service is not holding any public hearings in Arizona. It has only scheduled public hearings in three out-of-state locations: Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, Calif., on the first rule, and Albuquerque, N.M. on both rules. "Since the Service has not scheduled any public hearings in our state, we feel it's important for Arizona Game and Fish, as the state agency responsible for managing wildlife in Arizona, to meet with constituents so they are informed about these proposals and are aware of how they can provide formal comment to the Service," said Jim deVos, assistant director for Game and Fish’s Wildlife Management Division. "The questions and input we hear at these meetings will also continue to inform us of the desires and concerns of our diverse constituency." The meetings will be held from 4-7 p.m. on the following dates:
Arizona Game and Fish also plans to post a video of the presentation on its website at www.azgfd.gov sometime the week of Sept. 23. More information about the proposals and how to submit comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is on the Service's website at www.fws.gov/ |
New Study: Wolves Once Roamed Across Most of California
Sunday, September 22, 2013
As
gray wolves begin to return to California, a study released today by
the Sonoma State University Anthropological Studies Center sheds new
light on the widespread historical distribution of wolves in the state.
Image of the Day
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Wolf Weekly Wrap-up
John Motsinger | Posted on 20 September 2013
Poll shows strong support for wolf recovery in Pacific Northwest – Most residents of California, Oregon and Washington believe wolves should continue to be protected under the Endangered Species Act, according to a new poll released by Defenders of Wildlife. The poll, conducted in early September for Defenders by Tulchin Research, shows that most Californians, Oregonians and Washingtonians want wolf recovery efforts to continue:
- More than two-thirds in each state agree that wolves should be protected in their state and are a vital part of the America’s wilderness and natural heritage (OR – 68%; WA – 75%; CA – 83%)
- More than two-thirds in each state agree that wolves play an important role in maintaining deer and elk populations, bringing a healthier balance to ecosystems (OR – 69%; WA – 74%; CA – 73%)
- At least two-thirds in each state support restoring wolves to suitable habitat in their states (OR – 66; WA – 71%; CA – 69%)
- Large majorities in each state agree that wolves should continue to be protected under the Endangered Species Act until they are fully recovered (OR – 63%; WA – 72%; CA – 80%)
What’s an “eastern wolf”? – Part of the scientific controversy surrounding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s current gray wolf delisting proposal involves the classification of wolves in the eastern United States. Historically, wolves ranged all across North America — from the Arctic Circle down to the Chihuahua Desert of Mexico, East Coast to West. This includes places like northern Maine and upstate New York, where suitable habitat still remains.
But FWS has determined, based on limited genetic and morphological evidence, that wolves occupying the Northeast were a distinct species. What difference does it make? As the Boston Globe points out, if eastern wolves are classified separately as a unique species, then they can be treated differently under the Endangered Species Act. The eastern United States would no longer be included as part of the broader gray wolf range being considered for delisting, and the subspecies currently occupying parts of the Rockies and Great Lakes would therefore represent a greater portion of its range. The net result is that FWS would have a stronger case for delisting wolves by treating eastern wolves as a separate species.
Ultimately, expert scientists will have to determine whether eastern wolves are truly a unique species. So far, genetic studies yielded mixed and inconclusive results. What’s troubling though is that FWS is moving forward based on just one study – one conducted by FWS biologists and published in its own journal, which hadn’t published an article since 1991 prior to the publishing of this study. It’s hard to see how that qualifies as the “best available science,” especially when contradictory studies have been published by university researchers in well-respected, peer-reviewed journals.
Read more about the ongoing debate in the New Scientist.
Senator Bennet from Colorado Talks to our Volunteers on Capitol Hill
Colorado holds the largest, best wolf habitat in the lower 48 states but not a single known wild wolf exists there today. Despite this fact, the Service has proposed to change the status of wolves there from fully endangered to fully recovered in the western USA. A hearing in Denver is more than warranted given the importance of this decision.
The hunt is on – Wolf hunting seasons are now open in both Montana and Idaho, and about 20 wolves have already been killed so far. There is no statewide quota in either state, but Montana hunters are limited to harvesting seven wolves in two management units adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. Montana also raised its “bag limit” to five wolves per hunter and extended the season by a month and a half. The hunting season runs until March 15, while trapping is allowed Dec. 15 to Feb. 28. Read more in the Great Falls Tribune.
source