27 June 2014
Monday, June 30, 2014
Reduced Wolf Hunt Quota Fails to Assuage Concerns of Critics in Wisconsin
DNR biologists say the reduced quota is designed to continue, but slow the pace of a planned reduction in the state’s wolf population.
At its meeting held in Milwaukee, the Natural Resources Board approved the plan Wednesday.
There was no shortage of public comment. Some testified long-distance, via a computer connection in Rhinelander.
Sturgeon Bay resident Laura Menefee traveled to the meeting on behalf of the John Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club. “I urge the Natural Resources Board to consider our opposition to the proposed 2014-15 quota of 156 wolves," Menefee says. "The Sierra Club has serious reservations regarding an aggressive recreational and trophy harvest that has the potential to reduce Wisconsin’s wolf population from approximately 850 to 350."
Menefee was referring to the DNR’s goal of whittling the number of wolves to 350. That’s the goal the agency set in a wolf management plan laid out in 1999.
Bob Welch says the number would ensure a wolf density both the landscape and residents can support. Welch represents the Hunters Rights Coalition. “The goal is 350, don’t change that goal, a lot of people are saying change that goal, the goal was set for a reason," Welch says."I want to say, we don’t hate wolves – we manage wildlife and we think it should be based on science."
After several hours of listening, the Natural Resources Board issued a speedy vote.
DNR biologists and its wolf advisory committee have busy times ahead. In eight months, they must return with a permanent wolf management plan in hand.
source
How to find a wolf: Scientists use CSI-style tests to count Alaska packs
June 29, 2014
Ray Slayton / U.S. Forest ServiceBiologists are
using new techniques to study wolf populations, including those on
Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Researchers such as Logan and his Alaska Department of Fish and Game colleagues are tasked with counting the animals in Southeast Alaska. For years that chore meant trapping the elusive wolves and fitting them with tracking collars, then flying circles above the canopy of spruce and hemlocks in hopes of sighting a pack. The problem? Clear days for flying are rare in the Alaska rainforest, and finding a few dozen wolves on the third-largest island in the United States is no easy job.
For the past year, however, they have been testing a powerful, CSI-style tool that promises to deliver new data on one of Alaska's most closely-watched wolf populations. The project began in fall 2012 and works like this: Researchers sleuth out areas on Prince of Wales frequented by wolf packs and their prey. There, the biologists hide planks of wood stapled with lengths of barbed wire and scented with a cocktail of odors, such as coyote urine, that are irresistible to wolves. Then they wait. Motion-sensing trail cameras capture what happens next. "Wolves are dogs and anybody knows, that has a dog, they like to roll in stinky things," Logan said.
Photo courtesy of U.S. Forest
Service
When the animals sniff out the wooden planks and rub against the wire, they leave strands of fur behind that Alaska researchers collect and ship 1,000 miles away for study at a Montana university for genetics testing. The DNA results can show how many different wolves came into contact with the lures -- a less invasive, less dangerous method than trying to collar or count the animals from the air.
The approach now being tested across 540 square miles on Prince of Wales might also be used to determine the ancestry and sibling relationships among the animals. The more scientists know about the wolves, the theory goes, the better they can regulate hunting and trapping.
Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest Service have partnered to study the effectiveness of the counting technique, with the effort expected to continue through early 2016, Logan said. A legal fight over the fate of Southeast Alaska wolves has been simmering for years. The new research comes at a key moment.
Photo courtesy of U.S. Forest
Service
Conservationists, including Greenpeace, have filed an administrative appeal to prevent old-growth logging in the area and have petitioned to list a sub-species of the wolves as endangered or threatened. In 2013 the U.S. Forest Service announced it would delay a decision to open the Big Thorne timber project that would allow logging on 9 square miles of the island, pending a review of the project's potential impact on wolves.
The Center for Biological Diversity and others sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on June 10, accusing the agency of "delaying Endangered Species Act" protection for the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Native to Southeast Alaska, the animals are often black or dark gray, eat salmon in the fall and are smaller than mainland wolves. "As the old-growth is logged, there's less habitat for the deer which means there is less food for the wolves and the hunters," said Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for the center.
The status of the wolf is under review, according to Fish and Wildlife. The work published by wolf biologists for Fish and Game and the federal government avoids wading into the wildlife politics debate and instead focuses on how their new counting effort is working.
It's unclear exactly how many gray wolves live on Prince of Wales and small, surrounding islands. Tough to trap and rarely seen, the animals are notoriously hard to count. The number peaked at 250 to 350 wolves in the mid-1990s, according to 2012 estimates by now-retired Fish and Game biologist David Person.
The sub-species conservationists are hoping to list as threatened or endangered is named for the cluster of 1,000 islands that includes Prince of Wales. The area under study for hair-snaring techniques is a fraction of the total island, which is larger than Delaware.
Researchers estimated there were about 24 wolves in the study area in early 2013, although many had died by spring. A dozen were legally harvested by humans. One was hit by a car and two more were killed illegally. Others vanished.
In addition to estimating the number of animals overall -- which could be used to set harvest limits and monitor land-management tactics -- the researchers intend to start looking at deeper questions of how the wolves are related genetically to other wolves in the area. "Do they share DNA markers in common with some of those other islands? Are they a distinct population segment? These are all questions that remain to be answered," Logan said.
Between Jan. 1 and May 31 of last year, biologists set the hair-snaring boards at more than 30 locations in areas where wolf and deer tracks have been spotted. When the animal rubs against the board, hair can become trapped in the barbed wire. The researchers collected 67 hair samples. "Wolves aren't the only things that like to roll in stinky things. We've gotten many, many samples of black bear, and we've also got some dogs, of course," Logan said.
Logan said the Southeast Alaska effort is the first attempt to use hair-snaring lures to count a wolf population in Alaska, although the methods have been used here and elsewhere to learn about bears, lynx, marten and other animals. "Non-invasive genetic sampling using hair snares is becoming more common everywhere," he said.
Montana researchers wrote in a 2011 report in the Wildlife Society Bulletin on efforts to study hair-trapping of wolves and coyotes in that state. The scientists used plywood lined with barbed wire or the bristles from metal brushes used to clean shotguns to snag hairs from the animals.
Among their conclusions: Setting smelly lures that carnivores are likely to rub their fur against has advantages over a more commonly used DNA-collection method of sampling animal scat. Species like wolves have relatively small populations and cover a lot of ground, meaning it can be hard to find their droppings.
That's particularly true on Prince of Wales Island, Logan said. Wolf scat doesn't last long in the rain.
For the Alaska project, researchers have trapped and placed collars on wolves and continue to fly above the area about once of month to see how well the new counting method compares to the old.
The hair-snaring tactic could one day reduce the need for flying, which Logan said is expensive, prone to weather delays and sometimes dangerous. Wolf biologist Gordon Haber died in 2009 when the Cessna 185 he was flying in to monitor Denali packs crashed in spruce trees. "(It is) relatively risky, being a small plane and trying to find animals on the ground," Logan said.
source
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Interesting, but Informative Short Article on Wolves in WA
By RICH LANDERS/Spokane Spokesman-Review
Published: June 29, 2014
Maybe Eastern Washington has a solution to the hoof disease plaguing elk in southwestern Washington – wolves. When Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife officials announced last week that they were planning to euthanize elk with severe symptoms of the painful hoof deformity to put them out of their misery, some sportsmen asked if they could get special permits so the meat could be salvaged. But who could do the job better than a pack of gray wolves?
Published: June 29, 2014
Maybe Eastern Washington has a solution to the hoof disease plaguing elk in southwestern Washington – wolves. When Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife officials announced last week that they were planning to euthanize elk with severe symptoms of the painful hoof deformity to put them out of their misery, some sportsmen asked if they could get special permits so the meat could be salvaged. But who could do the job better than a pack of gray wolves?
The Spokesman-Review posed the question to Game Division manager Dave Ware: “Why not translocate wolves to the Mount St. Helens area to do the job naturally? This would kill two birds with one stone by eliminating the sickest of the elk while speeding the outlined recovery of wolves in the state.”
Ware answered:
“As described in the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, such an endeavor would require the Department to go through the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) process. The Department is not prepared to go through what would likely be a very contentious process at this point, because we are pretty sure that wolves will get into the south Cascades fairly soon. We have had good evidence (tracks and photographs) that wolves have at least explored areas south of I-90 clear to the Oregon border. We just haven't documented them establishing territories or breeding.”
source
Wolf Owner Apparently Did Not Have Permit
Posted: Saturday, June 28, 2014
The timber wolf in
Franklin County may have been kept in violation of county zoning code,
but the planning department won’t pursue any punishment.
Owning a timber
wolf as a pet isn’t illegal in Franklin County, as long as the owner
lives in the appropriate zoning district and has a conditional use
permit.
Scottie Eagan, planning director, said her office is unsure if the wolves’ owner met these two conditions. “We don’t know where his property is actually located within the county,” Eagan said. “... We were given very little information. We don’t know the owner’s name, we don’t know where he lives.”
Owning a timber wolf, or any other exotic pet, in Franklin County is prohibited in most districts. Eagan said there is only one zoning district in the county that would even allow the owning of a timber wolf. “According to our regulations, in the nonurban and agricultural district, exotic and wild animals, as defined by state statutes, require a conditional use permit,” Eagan said. “That’s the only district that allows that.”
Even if the owner lived in the right district, he would still need a conditional use permit to have the wolves legally. Eagan said without knowing the owner’s name it’s hard to be certain, but her office doesn’t believe anyone has applied for a CUP to own a wolf. “None of us remembers any individual coming in about wolves,” she said.
Despite the owner likely not having the proper paperwork, Eagan said it would be unlikely for the planning department to seek punishment. “We spoke to the prosecutor and he said this office probably isn’t the route to go for violations,” Eagan said. “Since the wolves are gone, we don’t have any proof where they were on the property. We don’t have the manpower to go out there and see where the wolf was even at.”
There have been no confirmed wolf sightings as of Friday.
source
Scottie Eagan, planning director, said her office is unsure if the wolves’ owner met these two conditions. “We don’t know where his property is actually located within the county,” Eagan said. “... We were given very little information. We don’t know the owner’s name, we don’t know where he lives.”
Owning a timber wolf, or any other exotic pet, in Franklin County is prohibited in most districts. Eagan said there is only one zoning district in the county that would even allow the owning of a timber wolf. “According to our regulations, in the nonurban and agricultural district, exotic and wild animals, as defined by state statutes, require a conditional use permit,” Eagan said. “That’s the only district that allows that.”
Even if the owner lived in the right district, he would still need a conditional use permit to have the wolves legally. Eagan said without knowing the owner’s name it’s hard to be certain, but her office doesn’t believe anyone has applied for a CUP to own a wolf. “None of us remembers any individual coming in about wolves,” she said.
Despite the owner likely not having the proper paperwork, Eagan said it would be unlikely for the planning department to seek punishment. “We spoke to the prosecutor and he said this office probably isn’t the route to go for violations,” Eagan said. “Since the wolves are gone, we don’t have any proof where they were on the property. We don’t have the manpower to go out there and see where the wolf was even at.”
There have been no confirmed wolf sightings as of Friday.
source
Conservationists rally outside Yellowstone to protest wolf hunting
The Yellowstone River winds through the
Hayden Valley in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, June 9, 2013. Credit: Reuters/Jim Urquhart
Demonstrators at the event in Gardiner, Montana, at the northwest entrance to the park called for an overhaul of government wildlife management policies for the animals.
Thousands of wolves have been legally hunted, trapped or snared in the three years since the predators were removed from the federal endangered and threatened species list in the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes. “We need some places out West where wolves can be wolves without fear of being shot, trapped, strangled or beaten to death,” rally organizer Brett Haverstick said in a telephone interview.
Haverstick said roughly 150 people attended the rally, with participants coming from a range of U.S. states such as Idaho, Montana, California and Florida.
Wolves neared extinction in the Lower 48 states before coming under U.S. Endangered Species Act protections in the 1970s. Federal wildlife managers two decades ago released fewer than 100 wolves in the Yellowstone area over the objections of ranchers and hunters, who complained wolves would prey on livestock and big-game animals like elk.
Wolves in the park and its border states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming were estimated at nearly 2,000 at the time of delisting and now number about 1,700 due to liberal hunting and trapping seasons and population control measures by states such as Idaho.
Ranchers and sportsmen say wolf numbers must be kept in check to reduce conflicts. “Livestock producers have made many concessions to accommodate wolves on the landscape and the result is we have a healthy wolf population and yet a decrease in cattle depredations,” said Jay Bodner, natural resource director for the Montana Stockgrowers Association.
(Reporting by Laura Zuckerman in Salmon, Idaho, Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis, Bernard Orr)
source
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Wolves, sharks and crocs: World's deadliest animals?
Submitted by atodd on Fri, 06/27/2014
A
new study published in Science magazine shortly after this article was
written has found that the current rate of species extinctions is more
than 1,000 times greater than the natu- ral rate. The estimates are
based on the fossil record and genetic data spanning millions of years.
"These are higher than previously esti- mated and likely still
underestimated. Future rates...are poised to increase. [R]apid progress
in developing protected areas...are not ecolog- ically representative,
nor do they optimally protect biodiversity."Hmm. Maybe snakes are the world's dead- liest, come to think of it. Certainly, the answer is one of these four "deadly" animals, right?
Wait. What about big cats? Man-eating tigers, for example, might be a problem if they weren't nearly extinct now. In fact, most of the world's big cats – lions, panthers, leopards, cougars – are fac- ing extinction within two decades, according to conservation scientists. Sadly, they've been deci- mated by an even more deadly species bent on killing every last one.
When it comes to our primordial fear of animals that can kill us, it's often hard to sepa- rate fact from fiction. Science is fine, but when science contradicts our gut reactions to a thing (spiders!), emotion trumps reason.
That said, here's a little multiple-choice quiz. If you get all three questions right, you're a certifiable genius.
If you get two out of three right, you have a bright future in rocket science or possibly neurobiology.
If you get one right, don't feel bad – you're above average.
Finally, if you get 'em all wrong and any- body asks you how you did on the quiz, just shrug and say you don't want to brag.
Question #1 – Name the world's deadliest animal:
A. Snake B. Wolf C. Shark
D. Mosquito E. Crocodile F. None of the above
Question #2 – Name the world's second deadliest animal:
A. Tsetse fly B. Tapeworm C. Human
D. Snail E. Shark F. None of the above
Question #3 – Choose the pair in this list that cause the fewest human deaths each year:
A. Mosquitoes and humans B. Roundworms and tapeworms C. Sharks and wolves D. Dogs and elephants E. Tsetse flies and assassin bugs F. Butterflies and honey bees The correct answers are D, C, and C.
If you got the first two right and missed the third one, don't tell a soul. I'm pretty sure I would have missed all three if it hadn't been for my buddy, Bill Gates. Okay, we're not buddies, but he recently posted a very cool chart ("The World's Deadliest Animals) on his blog at http://www.gates-
notes.com.
The chart ranks the world's 15 deadliest animals and how many people they kill each year:
1. Mosquito: 725,000
2. Humans: 475,000
3. Snakes: 50,000
4. Dogs (rabies): 25,000
5. Tsetse fly (sleeping sickness): 10,000
6. Assassin bug (Chagas disease: 10,000
7. Freshwater snail (schistosomiasis): 10,000
8. Ascaris roundworm: 2,500
9. Tapeworm: 2,000
10. Crocodile: 1,000
11. Hippopotamus: 500
12. Elephant: 100
13. Lion: 100
14. Wolf: 10
15. Shark: 10
When it comes to killing people, mosquitoes make sharks look benign by comparison. Malaria, Gates writes, "kills more than 600,000 people every year; another 200 million cases incapacitate people for days at a time. It threatens half of the world’s population and causes billions of dollars in lost productivity annually. Other mosquito-borne diseases include dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis."
Sharks, crocs, wolves and snakes get a lot of press — especially sharks. Gates: "Sharks kill fewer than a dozen people every year.... Mosquitoes kill 50,000 times as many people, but if there’s a TV channel that features Mosquito Week, I haven’t heard about it." Ouch, that stings.
Strange to think that the only thing in this world more dangerous than a human with a gun is a mosquito with a pathogen. Sleeping under a mosquito net greatly reduces the risk of contracting malaria in the tropics. It's just one example of a simple step that can save thousands of children's lives.
Unfortunately, as young Elliot Rodgers' rampage in Santa Barbara reminds us, science has no answers for how to protect ourselves from the second biggest threat to humans – us.
And our craven politicians are certainly no help.
source
Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014
An opportunity for the American people to unite and demand wildlife management reform and restore our national heritage.
On June 28-29 2014, Americans of all-walks-of-life will meet in Arch Park in Gardiner, Montana to tell our elected leaders that we need to reform wildlife management, at both, the state and federal level.
Approximately 3000 grey wolves have been killed in the northern
Rockies and Great Lakes region since they were delisted from the
Endangered Species Act.
Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014 is about taking an important step towards stopping the wolf slaughter that is currently taking place across the United States. We must take bold measures, however, and address the root-cause(s) of the wolf slaughter. Wildlife management in America needs to catch up with the science of the 21-st century and the ever changing demographics and values of all Americans. The status quo for wildlife management in America is broken and it must be fixed.
Help to fund the event
As a grassroots movement this event needs your help! Please consider making a generous donation. Or buy an event t-shirt. All t-shirts are organic cotton and are made in the USA.100% of donations and proceeds go to fund the event. Donations are tax-deductible.
Event details
Schedule & Program
- Discussion panel and films
- Speakers
- Activities
- Where is the Arch Park & how to get there
- Lodging
- Camping
sourceHow Many Wolves Died for Your Hamburger?
When you bite into a hamburger or steak, you already know the cost to the cow, but what about the wolves, coyotes, bears and other wildlife that were killed in getting that meat to your plate?
There are a lot of ways that meat production hurts wildlife, from habitat taken over by feed crops to rivers polluted by manure to climate change caused by methane emissions. But perhaps the most shocking is the number of wild animals, including endangered species and other non-target animals, killed by a secretive government agency for the livestock industry.
Last year Wildlife Services, an agency within the Department of Agriculture, killed more than 2 million native animals. While wolf-rancher conflicts are well known, the death toll provided by the agency also included 75,326 coyotes, 3,700 foxes and 419 black bears. Even prairie dogs aren't safe: They're considered pests, blamed for competing with livestock for feed and creating burrow systems that present hazards for grazing cattle. The agency killed 12,186 black-tailed prairie dogs and destroyed more than 30,000 of their dens.
The methods used to kill these animals are equally shocking: death by exploding poison caps, suffering in inhumane traps and gunned down by men in airplanes and helicopters.
How many of the 2 million native animals were killed to feed America's meat habit? No one really knows. This is where the secrecy comes in: While we know that they frequently respond to requests from the agricultural community to deal with "nuisance animals," Wildlife Services operates with few rules and little public oversight. That's why the Center for Biological Diversity, where I work, has called on the Obama administration to reform this rogue agency to make it more transparent and more accountable. Despite the growing outcry from the public, scientists, non-governmental organizations and members of Congress, the federal agency shows no signs of slowing its killing streak.
There are two important ways that you can help rein in Wildlife Services. First, sign our online petition demanding that the Department of Agriculture create rules and public access to all of the agency's activities. Second, start taking extinction off your plate. Our growing population will mean a growing demand for meat and for the agency's deadly services, unless we take steps to reduce meat consumption across the country. By eating less or no meat, you can reduce your environmental footprint and help save wildlife.
source
#Wolf Weekly Wrap-up by @Defenders of Wildlife
That Wolf IS Looking at You! Japanese researchers released a study this month
showing that gray wolves use their eyes to communicate with each other.
The team of scientists examined the eyes of over 20 different types of
canid species – including wolves, foxes, dogs – concluding that those animals with the most visible eyes are also the most social animals.
The researchers identified three different categories of eyes for these
canid species: A, B and C. With lighter irises than pupils and facial
markings that emphasize eye placement, type A eyes are much easier to
locate at first glance. Type B and C eyes are more camouflaged on the
animals’ bodies. Gray wolves fall into type A – highly visible eyes. It
turns out that the animals that have type A eyes are also the species
likely to live in packs and hunt as part of a group. While this research
proves that there is a correlation between “gazing” and the sociability
of wolves, there is still much to be learned about how gazing affects
wolves’ behavior.
Captive Mexican gray wolf and pup (©Joel Sartore)
What Does the Science Say? Mountain Lions and Wolves: It’s been long suspected but biologists have now confirmed that mountain lions avoid core wolf pack range indicating that wolves, when in packs, are a more dominant predator on the landscape than cougars.
Moutain lions, like this one, call the Coronado National Forest home.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
The Wolf Effect: Will recolonization of wolves suppress coyote populations, boost red foxes?
As of Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Scientists
have used coyote and red fox fur trapping records across North America
to document how the presence of wolves influences the balance of smaller
predators further down the food chain.
From
Alaska and Yukon to Nova Scotia and Maine, the researchers have
demonstrated that a “wolf effect” exists, favoring red foxes where
wolves are present and coyotes where wolves are absent.
This
effect requires that enough wolves be present to suppress coyotes over a
wide area. Fur trapping records from Saskatchewan and Manitoba reveal
that where wolves are absent in the southern agricultural regions of
each province, coyotes outnumber foxes on average by 3-to-1.
However,
where wolves are abundant in the North, the balance swings dramatically
in favor of foxes on average by 4-to-1 and at an extreme of 500-to-1 at
one site. In
between is a 200-kilometer (124-mile) transition zone where too few
wolves are present to tip the balance between coyotes and foxes.
The
results of the study by Thomas Newsome and William Ripple in the Oregon
State University Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society were
published today in the Journal of Animal Ecology by the British
Ecological Society. “As
wolves were extirpated across the southern half of North America,
coyotes dramatically expanded their range,” said Newsome, a
post-doctoral researcher. “They were historically located in the middle
and western United States, but they dispersed all the way to Alaska in
the early 1900s and to New Brunswick and Maine by the 1970s.” “So
essentially coyotes have been dispersing into wolf and red-fox range in
the North but also into areas where wolves are absent but red fox are
present in the East,” Newsome added.
Newsome
came to the United States on a Fulbright scholarship from Australia
where he earned a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney and specialized in
the study of dingoes, that continent’s top predator. There’s a debate
among Australians, he said, about the potential role of dingoes in
suppressing introduced pests that have already decimated wildlife there.
Over
the last 200 years, Australia has had the highest extinction rate in
the world,” Newsome said. “The debate is about whether the dingo can
provide positive ecological benefits. Where dingoes have been removed,
the impacts of introduced red foxes and feral cats have been quite
severe on native fauna.”
Dingoes
are managed as a pest in New South Wales, the country’s most populous
state. To reduce dingo predation in the livestock industry, Australia
also maintains the world’s longest fence, which runs for 5,500
kilometers (3,400 miles) in an attempt to exclude dingoes from almost a
quarter of the continent.
In
North America, the effect of wolves on coyotes and red foxes provides a
natural case study that can be instructive for Australians.
“Australians can learn a lot from how wolves are managed in North
America, and Americans can learn from the ecological role of the dingo,”
Newsome said.
As
coyotes have expanded in North America, they have become a major cause
of concern for the livestock industry. In the United States in 2004,
researchers estimated annual losses due to coyote predation on sheep and
cattle at $40 million. To reduce those damages, the Wildlife Service of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture has a program to reduce coyote
numbers, an effort that has drawn criticism from conservation groups.
In
reviewing the fur trapping data from two U.S. and six Canadian
jurisdictions, Newsome and Ripple eliminated potential sources of bias
such as records from fur farms that raise foxes. The fur prices of
coyotes and red foxes are also strongly correlated, and the two species
occupy much of the same types of habitat, so they are equally likely to
be targeted and caught in hunters’ traps.
This
study gives us a whole other avenue to understand the ecological
effects of wolves on landscapes and animal communities,” said Ripple. He
has studied the influence of carnivores on their prey — such as deer
and elk — and on vegetation from aspen trees to willows. He and his
colleagues have shown that the removal of top predators can cause
dramatic shifts within ecosystems.
Wolves
are naturally recolonizing many areas of the United States following
their reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park and surrounding
areas in 1995. Scientists are studying wolf interactions with other
species, and in particular, there is interest in determining whether
recolonizing wolves will suppress coyote populations and have cascading
effects on red foxes and other species.
UPDATE: Sheep Rancher Moves Flock to Avoid Wolves
DREW
NASH • TIMES-NEWS A new Sheep Monument dedicated to the pioneers of the
sheep industry is presented Saturday, June 29, 2013 in Hagerman.
KETCHUM (AP) — A central
Idaho sheep rancher whose flock sustained losses to wolves each spring
during lambing season moved them this year from his ranch near Carey to a
new area where wolves aren't present. "It turned out just fine,'' John Peavey told the Idaho Mountain Express in a story on Wednesday. "We were really pleased.''
Peavey moved 1,800 ewes in April to the desert about 20 miles south. He said he lost a couple lambs to coyotes but none to wolves. ``We're very pleased that John's been able to change his lambing practices,'' said Suzanne Stone, program manager for the Wood River Wolf Project. ``I think he deserves strong recognition for his willingness to address these conflicts.''
The organization attempts to use nonlethal deterrents to reduce the number of sheep killed by wolves in the Wood River Valley of central Idaho, a region that besides a lot of open land also includes the resort areas of Ketchum and Sun Valley.
During lambing season, the flock is spread out so lambs can hear the calls of their mothers and form a bond, Peavey said. But that also makes them susceptible to wolf attacks at his Flat Top Ranch. ``The wolves were in the sheep every night,'' Peavey said.
Since 2008, wolves killed 153 sheep and three calves in the Flat Top Ranch area in 19 incidents, according to Idaho Wildlife Services. The agency killed 15 wolves in response.
About half the ewes gave birth in the new area before he had to move the flock north as the desert dried in May, Peavey said. The rest of the ewes gave birth on his ranch in the Muldoon Creek area, he said. He didn't lose any sheep to wolves near Muldoon, an area where Wildlife Services killed six wolves last year, Peavey said.
source
Peavey moved 1,800 ewes in April to the desert about 20 miles south. He said he lost a couple lambs to coyotes but none to wolves. ``We're very pleased that John's been able to change his lambing practices,'' said Suzanne Stone, program manager for the Wood River Wolf Project. ``I think he deserves strong recognition for his willingness to address these conflicts.''
The organization attempts to use nonlethal deterrents to reduce the number of sheep killed by wolves in the Wood River Valley of central Idaho, a region that besides a lot of open land also includes the resort areas of Ketchum and Sun Valley.
During lambing season, the flock is spread out so lambs can hear the calls of their mothers and form a bond, Peavey said. But that also makes them susceptible to wolf attacks at his Flat Top Ranch. ``The wolves were in the sheep every night,'' Peavey said.
Since 2008, wolves killed 153 sheep and three calves in the Flat Top Ranch area in 19 incidents, according to Idaho Wildlife Services. The agency killed 15 wolves in response.
About half the ewes gave birth in the new area before he had to move the flock north as the desert dried in May, Peavey said. The rest of the ewes gave birth on his ranch in the Muldoon Creek area, he said. He didn't lose any sheep to wolves near Muldoon, an area where Wildlife Services killed six wolves last year, Peavey said.
source
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Black BeautyDNR Board Wednesday Should Use Science To Set Wolf Kill Quota
Monday, June 23, 2014
A guest post from Rachel Tilseth, Founder of Wolves of Douglas County, about the important DNR board meeting Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. in the Marquette Room at the Ambassador Inn at Marquette, 2301 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (agenda, details here):I want to remind Wisconsinites that you can make a difference as citizen lobbyists by making your voices heard regarding our wild wolves. This coming Wednesday June 25 the Natural Resources Board will be deciding how many wolves can be killed for this wolf hunt season. The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends that the NRB approve a kill quota of 156, which is 24%, or nearly one quarter of the population of wolves across the entire state.
The Wolf Advisory Committee is advisory only, consisting of a majority of pro- hunt citizens who refuse to accept scientific methodology - - even suggesting a higher quota of 300. Current scientific data recommends that two years of hunting has put the genetic pool of wolves at risk.
I recommend that citizen wolf advocates make their voices heard by calling or emailing the secretary of the WDNR Cathy Stepp at 608-266-2121, or DNRsecretary@wisconsin.gov and expressing how this current wolf kill quota of 156 is not healthy, and will seriously damage the genetic pool.
Therefore, let science, not trophy hunting interests, be the leading factor, as wolves are a cornerstone species that keep our environment healthy.
source
Does Our Language Regarding Wolves and Bears Shape Our Attitudes?
June 24, 2014
In Wisconsin where I live, we call three large predators “neighbors”: the black bear, the gray wolf,
and the occasional mountain lion. Because of this, you might think that
Wisconsinites’ attitudes toward all three animals would be similar. But
a guest columnist in our local newspaper on Sunday, June 22, 2014,
pointed out how differently people in the northern portion of the state
regard bears and wolves: black bears are considered formidable but
mostly benign, while wolves are thought to be dangerous and in need of
strict control — or gotten rid of altogether.
These convictions, however, aren’t limited to Wisconsin. In fact, I believe they may be worldwide. So, why have we singled out the wolf for our vitriol?
The answer could be as simple as the language we use and the stories we tell to describe them.
Although in Wisconsin we live with nearly 18,000 black bears as
opposed to only about 800 wolves, we seem to regard the wolf as a far
greater threat to our lives and livelihoods. In a 2013 Wolf Policy Survey
conducted by Dr. Adrian Treves and colleagues at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, the
attitudes of 1,311 previous respondents to a wolf-attitude survey were
resampled. A majority of respondents who lived in the state’s wolf range
approved the legislative decision to open a wolf hunting and trapping season
for the first time in the modern era in October 2012. But surprisingly,
after the “harvest” (the quota for 2012 was 201 wolves), tolerance for
the remaining wolves didn’t grow but decreased among male respondents
living in wolf range. Having fewer wolves, it turns out, was not
associated with an increase in acceptance of them.
Yet in Wisconsin, it is the black bears that trample and destroy field crops, routinely damage cabins and homes while breaking in and rummaging for food, kill livestock, and cause extensive damage to trees by feeding on the inner bark or by clawing it off to leave territorial markings. Black bears destroy entire orchards by breaking down trees and branches to reach the fruit. And while people tend to erroneously blame our Wisconsin wolves for lowering whitetail deer population numbers, it is the bears that are incredibly efficient at preying on fawns.
From 1900 to 1980 in North America, black bears caused twenty-three human fatalities. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, only two human deaths on the continent have been attributed to wolves in the past one-hundred-plus years. More humans have been killed by alligators (seventeen since 1948) and mountain lions (twenty-two since 1890). Statistically, our dogs are far more dangerous than wolves: dogs kill about thirty Americans each year. In Wisconsin, whitetail deer have caused more than four hundred human fatalities and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and government costs since 1970.
America’s love for black bears may stem from the first teddy bear. ©Henry H. Holdsworth
One theory about why there is such a difference in the attitudes we
humans seem to have toward wolves versus bears points at the language we
use and the very different stories we tell ourselves and our children
regarding them. In 2001 in a study titled Ravenous Wolves and Cuddly Bears: Predators in Everyday Language, Silvia
Dingwall of the University of Zurich in Switzerland conducted research
on frequently used expressions in several European languages containing
the words for wolf, lynx, and bear. She found that of the three animals,
the wolf was associated with the most numerous, complex, and negative
range of expressions, whereas the bear was portrayed in a less negative
way, and the lynx was hardly present in the languages at all.
I think that here, in the United States, our stories could be at fault. Ever since President Teddy Roosevelt refused to shoot a black bear in 1902, we’ve cuddled up to our “teddy’s bears” as small children. We don’t have a comparable story when it comes to wolves: we grew up reading Little Red Riding Hood and hearing Peter and the Wolf.
Have you ever noticed a difference in the words used to describe wolves versus bears in the media or elsewhere? Why do you think we generally fear the wolves in our midst more than bears?
source
We think of black bears as formidable but mostly benign. ©Henry H. Holdsworth
These convictions, however, aren’t limited to Wisconsin. In fact, I believe they may be worldwide. So, why have we singled out the wolf for our vitriol?
The answer could be as simple as the language we use and the stories we tell to describe them.
Wolves and bears, by the numbers
Although black bears are far more destructive than wolves, wolves are more feared. ©Brad Josephs
Yet in Wisconsin, it is the black bears that trample and destroy field crops, routinely damage cabins and homes while breaking in and rummaging for food, kill livestock, and cause extensive damage to trees by feeding on the inner bark or by clawing it off to leave territorial markings. Black bears destroy entire orchards by breaking down trees and branches to reach the fruit. And while people tend to erroneously blame our Wisconsin wolves for lowering whitetail deer population numbers, it is the bears that are incredibly efficient at preying on fawns.
From 1900 to 1980 in North America, black bears caused twenty-three human fatalities. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, only two human deaths on the continent have been attributed to wolves in the past one-hundred-plus years. More humans have been killed by alligators (seventeen since 1948) and mountain lions (twenty-two since 1890). Statistically, our dogs are far more dangerous than wolves: dogs kill about thirty Americans each year. In Wisconsin, whitetail deer have caused more than four hundred human fatalities and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and government costs since 1970.
Wolves and bears, by the stories
In Europe, attitudes regarding wolves and bears follow the same pattern as that found in Wisconsin. In March 2000, the World Wildlife Fund published a report titled Europe’s Carnivores: A Survey of Children’s Attitudes Towards Wolves, Bears, and Otters. Researchers asked teenagers in the United Kingdom, Croatia, Poland, Slovenia, and Spain how they felt about the three animals. While there have been no documented cases in recent history of a healthy, nonrabid wolf killing a human in Europe, this is not the perception among the students questioned. Nearly one in four (24 percent) in Northern Ireland believed attacks on humans by wolves were common (in the UK as a whole, the average was 18 percent).
America’s love for black bears may stem from the first teddy bear. ©Henry H. HoldsworthI think that here, in the United States, our stories could be at fault. Ever since President Teddy Roosevelt refused to shoot a black bear in 1902, we’ve cuddled up to our “teddy’s bears” as small children. We don’t have a comparable story when it comes to wolves: we grew up reading Little Red Riding Hood and hearing Peter and the Wolf.
Have you ever noticed a difference in the words used to describe wolves versus bears in the media or elsewhere? Why do you think we generally fear the wolves in our midst more than bears?
source
Our View: Bears, wolves, cougars could return to Illinois
Published: Tuesday, June 24, 2014
The
day might come when black bear sightings such as this month’s go from
being a novelty to a fact of life in northern Illinois.
Allowing bears, wolves and mountain lions to return is fine, so long as the public can be educated on how to live with them and their population can be kept to a level that is acceptable and safe.
source
State
lawmakers and wildlife officials seem to be planning on it. As there’s
little to stop these top-of-the-food-chain predators from making their
way here, it makes sense to take steps to protect them – and us.
Managing these populations means protecting them from unregulated hunting, but it also means keeping them away from people and teaching people ways to keep them from feeling too welcome in the neighborhood.
About a week before a black bear made its way from the Rockford area into DeKalb County and then off to the west, lawmakers passed a measure that would add bears, along with mountain lions and gray wolves, to the list of protected species in Illinois.
The measure, which has been sent to Gov. Pat Quinn for his signature, would make it illegal to hunt these animals unless a landowner feels their life is in jeopardy. If they are posing a nuisance that damages property, a landowner would be able to apply for a permit from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to kill them.
All three of these predators have made a comeback in other parts of the Midwest, and all three lived around the state before hunters drove them off in the 19th century.
Gray wolves number in the thousands in their range of the timber forests of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.
Mountain lions, also known as cougars, have a thriving population in South Dakota and have been known to roam into Illinois. In November, a state wildlife official killed a cougar on a Whiteside County farm.
As these predators grow in number in other states, their visits to Illinois are likely to grow more frequent as younger animals search for unclaimed territory. We can coexist with these animals, which in the wild almost always show fear of humans and rarely attack unless cornered.
Northeastern Illinois might be more densely populated than other Midwestern states, but bears and people inhabit the same territory in populous areas such as New Jersey, where black bears have been sighted in all of that state’s counties.
All of these predators can pose a nuisance to farmers, however. Bears in particular can do significant damage, carving out huge “bear rolls” in cornfields. Hence, it makes sense that farmers have the ability to secure a permit to kill an animal that is stealing livestock or damaging crops.
These predator animals are part of our ecosystem, but
many people never have lived alongside them, and we’d rather they not be
stalking our neighborhoods threatening pets, livestock, bird feeders
and trash bins.Managing these populations means protecting them from unregulated hunting, but it also means keeping them away from people and teaching people ways to keep them from feeling too welcome in the neighborhood.
About a week before a black bear made its way from the Rockford area into DeKalb County and then off to the west, lawmakers passed a measure that would add bears, along with mountain lions and gray wolves, to the list of protected species in Illinois.
The measure, which has been sent to Gov. Pat Quinn for his signature, would make it illegal to hunt these animals unless a landowner feels their life is in jeopardy. If they are posing a nuisance that damages property, a landowner would be able to apply for a permit from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to kill them.
All three of these predators have made a comeback in other parts of the Midwest, and all three lived around the state before hunters drove them off in the 19th century.
Gray wolves number in the thousands in their range of the timber forests of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.
Mountain lions, also known as cougars, have a thriving population in South Dakota and have been known to roam into Illinois. In November, a state wildlife official killed a cougar on a Whiteside County farm.
As these predators grow in number in other states, their visits to Illinois are likely to grow more frequent as younger animals search for unclaimed territory. We can coexist with these animals, which in the wild almost always show fear of humans and rarely attack unless cornered.
Northeastern Illinois might be more densely populated than other Midwestern states, but bears and people inhabit the same territory in populous areas such as New Jersey, where black bears have been sighted in all of that state’s counties.
All of these predators can pose a nuisance to farmers, however. Bears in particular can do significant damage, carving out huge “bear rolls” in cornfields. Hence, it makes sense that farmers have the ability to secure a permit to kill an animal that is stealing livestock or damaging crops.
Allowing bears, wolves and mountain lions to return is fine, so long as the public can be educated on how to live with them and their population can be kept to a level that is acceptable and safe.
source
Wolves on agenda for Oregon, Washington cattlemen meeting
By Eric Mortenson
Capital Press
June 23, 2014
As producers gather for mid-year convention, the Oregon Cattlemen's Association is considering a PR offensive regarding its wolf problem
Capital Press
June 23, 2014
As producers gather for mid-year convention, the Oregon Cattlemen's Association is considering a PR offensive regarding its wolf problem
Wolves, sage-grouse and water quality are on the agenda when the Oregon and Washington cattlemen’s associations hold a joint mid-year conference and trade show June 26-28 in Pendleton.
A Thursday afternoon workshop focuses on identifying signs of wolf “depredation,” a key factor in compiling evidence for wolf control work and compensation due producers whose livestock are killed or injured by the revived packs of northeastern Oregon.
It’s a recurring topic as the Pacific Northwest balances recovery of an endangered species with the interests of ranchers who are trying to make a living raising cattle or sheep. In addition to physical injury or death, a 2010 study by Oregon State University estimated that wolves cost northeast Oregon ranchers $261 per head of cattle in the form of weight loss, lower pregnancy rates and management costs.
The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association appears to be stepping up its effort to draw attention to the impact of wolves. For the first time, the association last week issued a news release about an attack on a cow in Umatilla County and released a graphic photograph of the cow’s injury — a gaping bite wound to its left hind leg. The photograph was taken by the rancher, Mark Lane.
In the past, the association has not said anything about individual livestock attacks. Such incidents are investigated and reported in low-key fashion by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. In this case the department confirmed the depredation by the Umatilla River pack and said the “exposed bite-caused muscle tissue damage on th left hind leg was especially severe.” The department does not include photographs with its reports.
The report is available online at : http://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/dep_inv/140614_Umatilla_Depredation_Report.pdf
Kay Teisl, executive director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, said the group is “definitely working toward informing the public more about the issues that effect ranching.” The association recently hired a former TV and newspaper reporter, Scott Anderson, as communications officer.
Meanwhile, rancher Mark Lane said the injured cow appears to be recovering. The cow had been bred, however, and he doesn’t know yet if it kept its calf. “It looks like it’s probably going to make it, I’m keeping the infection down,” he said.
Lane said he’s moved most of his cows from the pasture where the attack happened. He said he is a small operator compared to many, with 45 cow-calf pairs.
source
Monday, June 23, 2014
FWP looks to new technique to document wolf population size
Researchers from Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the University of Montana estimate the
state’s wolf population at more than 800 using a new statistical
technique.
Researchers conducted a study of the new technique from
2007 to 2012. The new method, called patch occupancy modeling, uses
deer and elk hunter observations coupled with information from
radio-collared wolves. The statistical approach is a less expensive
alternative to the old method of minimum wolf counts, which were
performed by biologists and wildlife technicians. The results of the
study estimate that for the five-year period, wolf populations were
25-35 percent higher than the minimum counts for each year. “The
study’s primary objective was to find a less-expensive approach to wolf
monitoring that would yield statistically reliable estimates of the
number of wolves and packs in Montana,” said Justin Gude, FWP’s chief of
research for the wildlife division in Helena.
Counting predators in remote and forested areas is notoriously difficult and expensive. FWP submits a required yearly wolf report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on the exact number of wolves observed through tracking by FWP wolf specialists. Biologists track wolves with on-the-ground and aerial surveys, radio collaring and denning confirmation. The minimum count has hovered around 625 for the last three years.
According to a 2012 article in Population Ecology authored by FWP and university researchers, wolf numbers remained small in the initial stages of recovery in the early 1990s, and tracking the minimum count of wolves in Montana meant only a few packs in isolated areas. In 1995, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, the minimum wolf count in Montana was 66.
With minimum counts now nearly 10 times greater, it’s more difficult to assess the minimum number of wolves. The traditional field methods yield an increasingly conservative count and well below actual population sizes, according to the article. “It takes a lot of people and time, and the budget has gone down with delisting,” Gude said. “It’s getting more and more difficult to keep up, and we felt like we’re getting farther and farther away with the minimum count.”
In two years, FWP’s requirement to provide a yearly minimum count to the Fish and Wildlife Service expires. That expiration opens the door for state officials to use other means to estimate the state’s wolf population.
The agency plans to do both the required minimum count and the patch occupancy modeling for the next two years. After the expiration, FWP plans to transition to the new techniques and adjust field methods of gathering data accordingly, said Ron Aasheim, FWP administrator. “Certainly there have been people out there who said we have significantly more wolves than the minimum count,” he said. “If anything, this verifies that was a minimum count and we don’t have exact numbers; we have trend counts but this gets us closer to the actual number. The more information we have the better.”
Using hunter observations during the five-week general hunting season has the immediate benefit of cost savings and accounts for those wolves not verified in the annual counts. The technique is very similar to wolf counting methods used in the upper-Midwest, which has already withstood court challenges, Gude said. “This new approach is not only good science, it’s a practical way for Montana to obtain a more accurate range of wolf numbers that likely inhabit the state,” he said.
Using the public to count wolves has its drawbacks as biologists consider public sightings less reliable than those of professionals. Given the sample size of around 2 million deer and elk hunter days and 50,000 to 80,000 hunters interviewed in FWP’s annual telephone survey, researchers believe the sample provides a diverse observation of Montana’s hunting districts and provides an accurate picture of wolf occupancy.
Based on the study, FWP and university researchers estimated the areas occupied by wolves in packs using the hunter observations, then the number of wolf packs by dividing the occupied area by average territory size, and finally they multiplied the number of packs by the average pack size to get an estimated population. In 2012, the minimum count for wolves was verified at 625 and 147 packs. The statistical technique estimated 804 wolves in 165 packs inhabit Montana.
The study further estimated that 18, 24 and 25 percent of Montana was occupied by wolves in 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively.
In addition to wolves living in packs, various studies have documented between 10 and 15 percent of wolves living alone.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation threw its support behind the study with a $25,000 grant. “The bottom line is you can’t have true effective wolf management if you don’t know how many wolves are really out there and where they live,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “This grant funding will help to better determine that.”
Defenders of Wildlife was still looking at the research and was not ready to comment on the merits of the science, said Erin Edge, Rockies and Plains associate for Defenders.
Wildlife program coordinator for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition Chris Colligan said his organization supports using the best available science, but planned to keep an eye on the use of the new techniques. “We want to make sure it’s accurate and they’re making sound decisions for management,” he said.
The research has been peer reviewed, but GYC has questions about the accuracy of using hunter observations and the ability of that data to apply on a small scale to create individual quotas for hunting districts, Colligan said. “Self-reporting of wolves has its downsides,” he said. “There’s concerns about bias in hunters reporting wolves when they’re not present. It also diminishes the need for biologists on the ground, which is a valuable resource.”
Gude cautioned that future statistical approaches need to include wolf harvest locations and how hunting and trapping influence where wolves choose to live. “Perhaps the best future use of these statistical methods won’t necessarily only be for monitoring and keeping tabs on wolf population numbers, but to better inform the complicated decisions that accompany the public harvest and management of wolves,” he said.
source
Counting predators in remote and forested areas is notoriously difficult and expensive. FWP submits a required yearly wolf report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on the exact number of wolves observed through tracking by FWP wolf specialists. Biologists track wolves with on-the-ground and aerial surveys, radio collaring and denning confirmation. The minimum count has hovered around 625 for the last three years.
According to a 2012 article in Population Ecology authored by FWP and university researchers, wolf numbers remained small in the initial stages of recovery in the early 1990s, and tracking the minimum count of wolves in Montana meant only a few packs in isolated areas. In 1995, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, the minimum wolf count in Montana was 66.
With minimum counts now nearly 10 times greater, it’s more difficult to assess the minimum number of wolves. The traditional field methods yield an increasingly conservative count and well below actual population sizes, according to the article. “It takes a lot of people and time, and the budget has gone down with delisting,” Gude said. “It’s getting more and more difficult to keep up, and we felt like we’re getting farther and farther away with the minimum count.”
In two years, FWP’s requirement to provide a yearly minimum count to the Fish and Wildlife Service expires. That expiration opens the door for state officials to use other means to estimate the state’s wolf population.
A technician with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks collars a wolf pup so the agency can track it and check its health. Courtesy photo
The agency plans to do both the required minimum count and the patch occupancy modeling for the next two years. After the expiration, FWP plans to transition to the new techniques and adjust field methods of gathering data accordingly, said Ron Aasheim, FWP administrator. “Certainly there have been people out there who said we have significantly more wolves than the minimum count,” he said. “If anything, this verifies that was a minimum count and we don’t have exact numbers; we have trend counts but this gets us closer to the actual number. The more information we have the better.”
Using hunter observations during the five-week general hunting season has the immediate benefit of cost savings and accounts for those wolves not verified in the annual counts. The technique is very similar to wolf counting methods used in the upper-Midwest, which has already withstood court challenges, Gude said. “This new approach is not only good science, it’s a practical way for Montana to obtain a more accurate range of wolf numbers that likely inhabit the state,” he said.
Using the public to count wolves has its drawbacks as biologists consider public sightings less reliable than those of professionals. Given the sample size of around 2 million deer and elk hunter days and 50,000 to 80,000 hunters interviewed in FWP’s annual telephone survey, researchers believe the sample provides a diverse observation of Montana’s hunting districts and provides an accurate picture of wolf occupancy.
Based on the study, FWP and university researchers estimated the areas occupied by wolves in packs using the hunter observations, then the number of wolf packs by dividing the occupied area by average territory size, and finally they multiplied the number of packs by the average pack size to get an estimated population. In 2012, the minimum count for wolves was verified at 625 and 147 packs. The statistical technique estimated 804 wolves in 165 packs inhabit Montana.
The study further estimated that 18, 24 and 25 percent of Montana was occupied by wolves in 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively.
In addition to wolves living in packs, various studies have documented between 10 and 15 percent of wolves living alone.
The alpha female of the Cache Creek Pack west of Missoula. Courtesy photo
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation threw its support behind the study with a $25,000 grant. “The bottom line is you can’t have true effective wolf management if you don’t know how many wolves are really out there and where they live,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “This grant funding will help to better determine that.”
Defenders of Wildlife was still looking at the research and was not ready to comment on the merits of the science, said Erin Edge, Rockies and Plains associate for Defenders.
Wildlife program coordinator for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition Chris Colligan said his organization supports using the best available science, but planned to keep an eye on the use of the new techniques. “We want to make sure it’s accurate and they’re making sound decisions for management,” he said.
The research has been peer reviewed, but GYC has questions about the accuracy of using hunter observations and the ability of that data to apply on a small scale to create individual quotas for hunting districts, Colligan said. “Self-reporting of wolves has its downsides,” he said. “There’s concerns about bias in hunters reporting wolves when they’re not present. It also diminishes the need for biologists on the ground, which is a valuable resource.”
Gude cautioned that future statistical approaches need to include wolf harvest locations and how hunting and trapping influence where wolves choose to live. “Perhaps the best future use of these statistical methods won’t necessarily only be for monitoring and keeping tabs on wolf population numbers, but to better inform the complicated decisions that accompany the public harvest and management of wolves,” he said.
source
The
Cache Creek Pack, west of Missoula, is pictured during a wolf counting
flight conducted by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks on March 26, 2013. Courtesy photo
Fewer Red Wolf Litters Reported for 2013 Whelping Season
 Alligator River/Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge P. O. Box 1969 Manteo, North Carolina 27954 Contact: Bonnie Strawser - 252-473-1131 |
 |
 |
News
Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 11, 2013 Contacts:
David Rabon, Red Wolf Recovery Program Coordinator, david_rabon@fws.gov, 252-473-1132
Tom MacKenzie, tom_mackenzie@fws.gov, 404-679-7291, M: 678-296-6400
The final red wolf pup count for the 2013 whelping season has been tallied. Thirty-four pups in seven litters were found in the restored red wolf population in eastern North Carolina. These numbers are down slightly from recent years’ pup counts. The Red Wolf Recovery Program reported 39 pups from nine litters born in the wild in 2012, 40 pups from 10 litters in 2011, and 43 pups from nine litters in 2010. The Red Wolf Recovery Program also reported 23 pups from 4 litters born in zoos and nature centers participating in the Species Survival Plan captive breeding program. In addition, as part of our efforts to increase the genetic diversity of the wild population, a captive-born pup was fostered into a wild-born litter to be raised as a wild wolf. Reasons for the decline in the number of pups born in the wild this year are not apparent.
The red wolf (Canis rufus) is one of the world’s most endangered wild canids. Once common throughout the southeastern United States, red wolf populations were decimated by the 1960’s due to intensive predator control programs and loss of habitat. A remnant population of red wolves was found along the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana. After being declared an endangered species in 1967, efforts were initiated to locate and capture as many wild red wolves as possible. Of the 17 remaining wolves captured by biologists, 14 became the founders of a successful captive breeding program. Consequently, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service declared red wolves extinct in the wild in 1980.
The first litter of red wolves born in captivity occurred in 1977. By 1987, enough red wolves were bred in captivity to begin a restoration program on Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern North Carolina. Since then, the experimental population area has expanded to include three national wildlife refuges, a Department of Defense bombing range, state-owned lands, and private property, spanning a total of 1.7 million acres.
About 100 red wolves roam their native habitats in five northeastern North Carolina counties. Additionally, nearly 200 red wolves comprise the Species Survival Plan captive breeding program in sites across the United States, still an essential element of red wolf recovery. Interbreeding with the coyote (Canis latrans), a species not native to North Carolina, has been recognized as a threat affecting restoration of red wolves in this section of their historical home range. Currently, the Red Wolf Recovery Program is using adaptive management strategies to reduce the threat of coyotes while building the wild red wolf population in northeastern North Carolina. In addition, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is committed to working with the Fish and Wildlife Service in the development of a comprehensive canid management plan that includes methods for controlling coyote populations and incorporates the conservation goals of the red wolf.
The red wolf is one of two species of wolves in North America, the other being the gray wolf, (Canis lupus). As their name suggests, red wolves are known for the characteristic reddish color of their fur most apparent behind the ears and along the neck and legs, but are mostly brown and buff colored with some black along their backs. Intermediate in size to gray wolves and coyotes, the average adult red wolf weighs 45-80 pounds, stands about 26 inches at the shoulder and is about 4 feet long from the tip of the nose to the end of the tail.
Red wolves are social animals that live in packs consisting of a breeding pair and their offspring of different years, typically five to eight animals. Red wolves prey on a variety of wild mammals such as raccoon, rabbit, white-tailed deer, nutria, and other rodents. Most active at dusk and dawn, red wolves are elusive and generally avoid humans and human activity.
To learn more about red wolves and the Service’s efforts to recover them, please visit www.fws.gov/redwolf.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov. Connect with our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/usfwssoutheast, follow our tweets at www.twitter.com/usfwssoutheast, watch our YouTube Channel at http://www.youtube.com/usfws and download photos from our Flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwssoutheast.
source
Wolves on B.C.'s islands, mainland genetically different
Heiltsuk people had long known coast and timber wolves as distinct
By By Emily Chung, CBC News
Posted: Jun 10, 2014
Wolves that live on islands off the B.C. coast eat mostly
fish, such as salmon and shellfish such as clams and mussels. (Guillame
Mazille/Raincoast Conservation Foundation)
If you are a wolf cub on B.C.'s mainland, your parents will feed
you moose, deer and beaver and will teach you to hunt as you get older.
If you are a wolf cub on the islands off the B.C. coast, salmon will be
on heavy rotation at mealtime, and your parents will teach you to dig
clams and catch fish.
Either way, you will likely one day settle down with someone special who was raised the way you were.
That's what a new study by Canadian and Polish researchers shows — that two groups of wolves that live side-by-side along B.C.'s coast live very different lives and don't interbreed much. Statistical tests show they're far more genetically different than expected for such close neighbours.
"They kind of stick to their own," said Chris Darimont, senior author of the paper published today in BMC Ecology.
Up until recently, scientists didn't think wolves that close to one another would be so genetically different, but Darimont said it makes sense given the wolves' huge differences in behaviour ."Part of the way they're maintained is probably through learning and culture, absolutely," he added. "These are long-lived and intelligent animals."
When he first started studying the wolves 14 years ago, Darimont, a
biologist at the University of Victoria and the Raincoast Conservation
Foundation, believed there was only one kind of wolf that crossed freely
between the islands and the mainland, which were separated by a few
hundred metres of water that wolves could easily swim — and do easily
swim when crossing between islands.
At that time, Chester Starr, an elder from the Heiltsuk First Nation near Bella-Bella, was helping him in his research. Starr started off by asking Darimont a question that the scientist thought was "so strange" at the time. "And that was, 'What wolves are we going to study? The timber wolves' – he kind of looked over to the mainland – 'or the coastal wolves on these islands?'"
With Starr's help, over the course of his research, Darimont came to learn how different the wolves of the outer islands were from those of the mainland, mainly by studying samples of their hair and feces.
"We picked up a lot of feces, mountains of feces — 7,000 [samples] over the decade," Darimont said.
He discovered that wolves on B.C.'s outer islands have a diet that is 90 per cent seafood, including salmon, clams and mussels, and even those in the islands closer to the coast eat as much seafood as meat. Meanwhile, those on the land almost exclusively hunt land animals such as deer, moose and beaver.
Darimont's latest study, led by Astrid Stronen at the Polish Academy
of Sciences and Erin Navid at the University of Victoria, show the
wolves' genetics mirror that pattern, with little mixing between the
outer islands and the mainland, and the wolves on the inner islands
somewhere in between.
Although that's interesting, Darimont said that, for him, "the most exciting part of this work is how science and indigenous knowledge, even though they use very different approaches, can often point to the same conclusion." He added that the people who have lived in the region for millenniums have spent that time observing the wolves and that the new DNA data complements their knowledge.
Darimont thinks the dietary differences among the wolf populations are there because if mainland wolves wanted to eat salmon, they would compete with big, ferocious grizzly bears, which are common on the mainland but rare on coastal islands.
Because the island wolves rely so heavily on seafood such as fish and clams, it means that along with whales and seabirds, they might be vulnerable to a potentially large oil spill, Darimont said. "We risk losing them and biological diversity within wolves should [a spill] happen."
Environmental groups such as the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the lead funder of the study, worry about the increased risk of such spills if the Northern Gateway pipeline is approved. The western terminus would be Kitimat B.C., turning the surrounding waters into a major oil shipping channel. A government decision on whether to approve the pipeline is expected this week.
Other funding for the study was provided by the National Geographic Society, the Wilburforce Foundation, the Tula Foundation and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
source
Either way, you will likely one day settle down with someone special who was raised the way you were.
That's what a new study by Canadian and Polish researchers shows — that two groups of wolves that live side-by-side along B.C.'s coast live very different lives and don't interbreed much. Statistical tests show they're far more genetically different than expected for such close neighbours.
"They kind of stick to their own," said Chris Darimont, senior author of the paper published today in BMC Ecology.
Up until recently, scientists didn't think wolves that close to one another would be so genetically different, but Darimont said it makes sense given the wolves' huge differences in behaviour ."Part of the way they're maintained is probably through learning and culture, absolutely," he added. "These are long-lived and intelligent animals."
Wolves on B.C.'s mainland hunt deer, moose and beaver. (Dawn Villella/Associated Press)
At that time, Chester Starr, an elder from the Heiltsuk First Nation near Bella-Bella, was helping him in his research. Starr started off by asking Darimont a question that the scientist thought was "so strange" at the time. "And that was, 'What wolves are we going to study? The timber wolves' – he kind of looked over to the mainland – 'or the coastal wolves on these islands?'"
Mountains of feces
Starr, 63, told CBC News that his father talked about watching wolves get salmon out of the river. He himself would see them in rivers and estuaries. Over time, as their original territory was logged, the wolves even moved onto islands that they never inhabited before, he added. "It's not a good habitat," he said. "The deer have pretty much eaten all the vegetation they could eat there."With Starr's help, over the course of his research, Darimont came to learn how different the wolves of the outer islands were from those of the mainland, mainly by studying samples of their hair and feces.
"We picked up a lot of feces, mountains of feces — 7,000 [samples] over the decade," Darimont said.
He discovered that wolves on B.C.'s outer islands have a diet that is 90 per cent seafood, including salmon, clams and mussels, and even those in the islands closer to the coast eat as much seafood as meat. Meanwhile, those on the land almost exclusively hunt land animals such as deer, moose and beaver.
Wolves
swim easily between islands, and have no trouble crossing the short
distances between the islands and the mainland of B.C. (Chris
Darimont/University of Victoria)
Although that's interesting, Darimont said that, for him, "the most exciting part of this work is how science and indigenous knowledge, even though they use very different approaches, can often point to the same conclusion." He added that the people who have lived in the region for millenniums have spent that time observing the wolves and that the new DNA data complements their knowledge.
Darimont thinks the dietary differences among the wolf populations are there because if mainland wolves wanted to eat salmon, they would compete with big, ferocious grizzly bears, which are common on the mainland but rare on coastal islands.
Because the island wolves rely so heavily on seafood such as fish and clams, it means that along with whales and seabirds, they might be vulnerable to a potentially large oil spill, Darimont said. "We risk losing them and biological diversity within wolves should [a spill] happen."
Environmental groups such as the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the lead funder of the study, worry about the increased risk of such spills if the Northern Gateway pipeline is approved. The western terminus would be Kitimat B.C., turning the surrounding waters into a major oil shipping channel. A government decision on whether to approve the pipeline is expected this week.
Other funding for the study was provided by the National Geographic Society, the Wilburforce Foundation, the Tula Foundation and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
source