A Mexican Dream
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Arizona wolf pups thrive in New Mexico pack
BACK STORY:
6 Mexican wolves released into Gila Wilderness
Thursday, July 24, 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE:
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
PHOENIX
(AP) — Wildlife managers say two Mexican gray wolf pups from an Arizona
pack are thriving with their new family in New Mexico.
6 Mexican wolves released into Gila Wilderness
Thursday, July 24, 2014
ALBUQUERQUE,
N.M. (AP) — Six Mexican wolves were released Tuesday into the Gila
Wilderness as part of its 15-year-effort to reintroduce the endangered
predator to the Southwest, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials announced. According
to the agency, the wolves were driven from the wolf sanctuary in
Sevilleta to the Gila Cliff Dwellings on Monday night, then packed into
the wilderness for release.
The
female wolf is one who was recaptured in May after becoming separated
from her mate and having six pups with no wildlife experience,
officials said.
Two of the pups were put with another pair of wolves that had a smaller litter and more rearing experience. At the sanctuary, the mother and her four remaining pups were reintroduced to a former mate, who officials say adopted the pups as his own.
January numbers show that there were 83 Mexican wolves — 46 in New Mexico and 37 in Arizona — in the wild.
Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said he was happy that wolves were being released into the wild but still had concerns that they were coming from only five breeding pairs.
"There's a lot of inbreeding going on and we are seeing smaller litters of pups," he said.
On Thursday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also announced a proposal aimed at the release of captive-bred wolves into new areas of New Mexico and parts of Arizona. The move, which is subject to 60 days of public comment, would expand areas where Mexican wolves can be released and disperse, allowing them to roam from the Mexican border to Interstate 40.
"Over the last 16 years, we have learned much about managing a wild population of Mexican wolves," Southwest Regional Director Ben Tuggle said. "And it is clear that the current rule does not provide the clarity or the flexibility needed to effectively manage the experimental population in a working landscape."
Robinson said the center was encouraged that more wolves will be able to roam more widely under the proposals. However, he said the proposed changes also broaden guidelines allowing ranchers to kill Mexican wolves.
"Increasing the authority to kill wolves is disappointing and will further imperil them," he said.
Two of the pups were put with another pair of wolves that had a smaller litter and more rearing experience. At the sanctuary, the mother and her four remaining pups were reintroduced to a former mate, who officials say adopted the pups as his own.
January numbers show that there were 83 Mexican wolves — 46 in New Mexico and 37 in Arizona — in the wild.
Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said he was happy that wolves were being released into the wild but still had concerns that they were coming from only five breeding pairs.
"There's a lot of inbreeding going on and we are seeing smaller litters of pups," he said.
On Thursday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also announced a proposal aimed at the release of captive-bred wolves into new areas of New Mexico and parts of Arizona. The move, which is subject to 60 days of public comment, would expand areas where Mexican wolves can be released and disperse, allowing them to roam from the Mexican border to Interstate 40.
"Over the last 16 years, we have learned much about managing a wild population of Mexican wolves," Southwest Regional Director Ben Tuggle said. "And it is clear that the current rule does not provide the clarity or the flexibility needed to effectively manage the experimental population in a working landscape."
Robinson said the center was encouraged that more wolves will be able to roam more widely under the proposals. However, he said the proposed changes also broaden guidelines allowing ranchers to kill Mexican wolves.
"Increasing the authority to kill wolves is disappointing and will further imperil them," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE:
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Biologists
in May transplanted a pair of 2-week old pups born in a large litter to
another pack of wolves with a smaller litter and more
rearing experience.
Wildlife managers have been troubled by the survival rates of wild-born pups. The goal with cross-fostering is to improve the genetic health of the endangered predators as they are reintroduced to the American Southwest.
The technique has worked with red wolves on the East Coast. This marks the first time it has been tried with Mexican gray wolves.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department said this week that a trail camera photo shows that the pups are alive and doing well.
source
Wildlife managers have been troubled by the survival rates of wild-born pups. The goal with cross-fostering is to improve the genetic health of the endangered predators as they are reintroduced to the American Southwest.
The technique has worked with red wolves on the East Coast. This marks the first time it has been tried with Mexican gray wolves.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department said this week that a trail camera photo shows that the pups are alive and doing well.
source
#Wolf Alert! Feds Propose Roadmap for Mexican Gray Wolf's Future in AZ, NM
 |
|
For Immediate Release, July 24, 2014 Contact: Michael Robinson, (575) 313-7017
Feds Propose Roadmap for Mexican Gray Wolf's Future in Arizona, New Mexico
Wolves Would Get More Room to Roam But Face Increased Risk of Shootings
The proposed changes will be subject to 60 days of public comment, including two public hearings next month in Arizona and New Mexico. The Fish and Wildlife Service must finalize a new rule by Jan. 12, 2015, according to a legal settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re glad Mexican wolves will be allowed to roam more widely and will be introduced directly into New Mexico,” said the Center’s Michael Robinson. “But increasing the authority to kill wolves is disappointing and will further imperil them.” In its revised proposed rule on management of the Mexican wolf population, which was reintroduced in 1998, the Fish and Wildlife Service also proposes to grant broad authority to state agencies to kill wolves, including for “unacceptable impacts” to herds of elk, deer or other wild ungulates. “Given the Arizona and New Mexico game commissions’ close ties to the livestock and hunting industries, handing them more discretion to kill Mexican wolves is like handing them loaded guns,” said Robinson. “Their record of aggressive hostility to the presence of wolves doesn’t bode well for these vulnerable animals.” The federal proposal would also authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service or state agencies to allow ranchers and their agents to kill wolves, even those that may not have attacked domestic animals, on specified private or state-owned lands. As a result the proposal in part privatizes the killing of wolves, thereby restricting public oversight of activities fraught with opportunities for abuses such as killing more wolves than authorized or baiting wolves to their deaths. Today’s revised proposed rule will be the subject of two public hearings:
At last count in January, only 83 Mexican wolves survived in the Southwest, including a mere five breeding pairs. Scientists have shown that inbreeding caused by a lack of wolf releases to the wild, coupled with too many killings and removals of wolves, is causing smaller litter sizes and lower pup-survival rates in the wild population. Expanding wolf releases to New Mexico’s Gila National Forest, in particular, would enable managers to diversify the population through new releases and diminish inbreeding.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national,
nonprofit conservation organization with more than 775,000 members and
online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and
wild places.
|
3 wolves killed in Sawtooth Valley
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Animals deemed responsible for calf kills
By GREG MOORE
Express Staff Writer
Three wolves were killed this month by a government trapper due to a depredation incident on a ranch in the Sawtooth Valley, and trapping may continue as the result of additional incidents that have occurred since then.
Todd Grimm, Idaho director for Wildlife Services, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said wolves killed a calf on a ranch near Fisher Creek on June 29, and the wolves were killed between July 1 and July 11. He said the first and third wolves killed were caught in traps and the second was shot.
Grimm said the traps were removed Friday for the time being, but may be replaced due to two additional depredation incidents on two other nearby ranches that occurred on July 18 and July 23.
“There’s still an open control action,” he said.
Two of the wolves killed were wearing radio collars installed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Jason Husseman, the department’s Salmon Region biologist, said the department had requested that those wolves be released, and department spokesman Mike Keckler said the department’s general policy is “to keep as many collars out there as possible.”
However, Grimm said the wolves killed near Fisher Creek were deemed too great a threat to livestock to be allowed to go free.
“The traps were set near the depredation sites,” he said. “The wolves were returning to the sites when they were killed.”
Grimm acknowledged that the two wolves were probably too badly injured by the traps to have survived if they had been released. He said Wildlife Services trappers generally check their traps every day, partly to reduce the chance of anyone tampering with them, but acknowledged that there’s always a chance that an animal caught in a foothold trap will sustain serious injuries shortly after it’s caught.
“The wolves were returning to the sites when they were killed.”
Todd Grimm
Wildlife Services
Todd Grimm
Wildlife Services
Grimm said the agency always puts up warning signs for hikers and pet owners in areas where trapping is being conducted stating that animal capture devices are in the vicinity.
“We put signs up at all access points,” he said. “If someone goes down a path that’s going to allow them to interact with our traps, they’re going to be warned beforehand.”
Grimm said suspected wolf attacks are confirmed by a necropsy focused on evidence of subcutaneous hemorrhaging and canine-tooth bite marks. He said the existence of hemorrhaging indicates that an animal was killed while it was still alive, rather than scavenged upon. He said the tooth marks of bears and mountain lions have about the same spacing as those of wolves, but bear and lion attacks usually leave claw marks and evidence of damage to different parts of the body.
Grimm said that since wolves were reintroduced into Idaho in 1995, there have been 1,717 incidents of depredation on livestock and domestic animals reported statewide by 318 livestock producers. He said Wildlife Services has confirmed 1,100 of those cases, which involved 2,700 sheep, 538 calves, 86 adult cattle, 70 dogs and eight horses or mules.
He said that since wolves were removed from the endangered species list in May 2011, 325 confirmed depredation incidents have been blamed on wolves, 34 on mountain lions and 20 on bears.
Local pro-wolf activists have advocated that Sawtooth Valley ranchers undertake non-lethal deterrents to better protect their livestock from wolf attacks. Various methods have been used successfully to guard sheep in the Wood River Valley, though ranchers say the more widely dispersed cattle are more difficult to protect.
source
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
EDITORIAL: Lawmakers should allow voters to settle debate on wolf hunt
Jul. 26, 2014
|
The state Legislature has a reputation for not just cherry-picking battles, but choosing winners and losers, as well. We still hold out hope, however, that lawmakers will do the right thing and sit out the pitched battle over the hunting of wolves in the Upper Peninsula.
The Board of Canvassers on Thursday unanimously approved a third wolf petition for the November election, teeing up an opportunity for lawmakers to nullify two other proposals already on the ballot.
The third ballot proposal comes courtesy of Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management, which turned in nearly 300,000 valid signatures, easily surpassing the required 258,088.
The Legislature has 40 days either to pass the initiative, come up with a competing proposal, reject it, or do nothing. This is one case in which doing nothing, which our Legislature has been known to do on far more pressing issues, is the only decent alternative.
Were the Legislature to pass the initiative — and it’s already voted twice in the past two years to support a wolf hunt — it automatically becomes law. If they reject it or do nothing, the initiative will appear on the November ballot along with two other anti-wolf hunting proposals that have already been approved for the ballot, leaving the whole issue up to voters.
We’re not big fans of making policy through ballot initiatives — a blunt instrument that rises and falls less on substance or merit than it does on emotion, and few issues are more emotional — and polarizing — than the debate over wolf management.
Yet it’s unseemly — and undemocratic — for an elected body to so blatantly ignore the will of its citizens, particularly absent a compelling public interest that might justify taking an unpopular stand.
Strictly speaking, we do not oppose the hunting of gray wolves. Those who do have legitimate objections about the haste in which the Legislature cleared the way for A hunt, basing its decision not on science but on the discredited ravings of a few zealots whom it seems would like nothing better than to see the gray wolf again disappear.
Neither are we impressed, however, with anti-hunting crowd’s vitriol toward those they disparagingly refer to as “trophy hunters,” as though the only legitimate hunters were those who did so for sustenance and some spiritual connection to our lost wilderness.
Wildlife management isn’t romantic nor, for many, is hunting, but hunters play an integral role in the states’ management of the wild, and those states, including Michigan, have an excellent track record of managing other formerly rare species such as deer, elk, mountain lions and black bears. What's more, wildlife management experts and biologists understand that wolves are good for the ecosystem and are highly motivated to see the species succeed. So are we.
Forget hunting. A far greater threat to the future of the gray wolf in North America is the vicious cultural war that puts this beautiful predator species — demonized by myth and ignorance — in the middle of a zero-sum game that marginalizes efforts to educate the public and create consensus-based policies.
The Republican-controlled Legislature’s zeal to appease a vocal minority — even if it means circumventing voters — only fuels that war.
There is no imperative — no pressing public interest — to establish a wolf hunt, certainly not against the will of the majority of Michigan voters, all of whom share an equal stake in the preservation of our natural resources.
If lawmakers give a lick about the rights of its citizens and the democratic process, they will let voters decide this issue.
source
The state Legislature has a reputation for not just cherry-picking battles, but choosing winners and losers, as well. We still hold out hope, however, that lawmakers will do the right thing and sit out the pitched battle over the hunting of wolves in the Upper Peninsula.
The Board of Canvassers on Thursday unanimously approved a third wolf petition for the November election, teeing up an opportunity for lawmakers to nullify two other proposals already on the ballot.
The third ballot proposal comes courtesy of Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management, which turned in nearly 300,000 valid signatures, easily surpassing the required 258,088.
The Legislature has 40 days either to pass the initiative, come up with a competing proposal, reject it, or do nothing. This is one case in which doing nothing, which our Legislature has been known to do on far more pressing issues, is the only decent alternative.
Were the Legislature to pass the initiative — and it’s already voted twice in the past two years to support a wolf hunt — it automatically becomes law. If they reject it or do nothing, the initiative will appear on the November ballot along with two other anti-wolf hunting proposals that have already been approved for the ballot, leaving the whole issue up to voters.
We’re not big fans of making policy through ballot initiatives — a blunt instrument that rises and falls less on substance or merit than it does on emotion, and few issues are more emotional — and polarizing — than the debate over wolf management.
Yet it’s unseemly — and undemocratic — for an elected body to so blatantly ignore the will of its citizens, particularly absent a compelling public interest that might justify taking an unpopular stand.
Strictly speaking, we do not oppose the hunting of gray wolves. Those who do have legitimate objections about the haste in which the Legislature cleared the way for A hunt, basing its decision not on science but on the discredited ravings of a few zealots whom it seems would like nothing better than to see the gray wolf again disappear.
Neither are we impressed, however, with anti-hunting crowd’s vitriol toward those they disparagingly refer to as “trophy hunters,” as though the only legitimate hunters were those who did so for sustenance and some spiritual connection to our lost wilderness.
Wildlife management isn’t romantic nor, for many, is hunting, but hunters play an integral role in the states’ management of the wild, and those states, including Michigan, have an excellent track record of managing other formerly rare species such as deer, elk, mountain lions and black bears. What's more, wildlife management experts and biologists understand that wolves are good for the ecosystem and are highly motivated to see the species succeed. So are we.
Forget hunting. A far greater threat to the future of the gray wolf in North America is the vicious cultural war that puts this beautiful predator species — demonized by myth and ignorance — in the middle of a zero-sum game that marginalizes efforts to educate the public and create consensus-based policies.
The Republican-controlled Legislature’s zeal to appease a vocal minority — even if it means circumventing voters — only fuels that war.
There is no imperative — no pressing public interest — to establish a wolf hunt, certainly not against the will of the majority of Michigan voters, all of whom share an equal stake in the preservation of our natural resources.
If lawmakers give a lick about the rights of its citizens and the democratic process, they will let voters decide this issue.
source
Wolf pup, moose hit by vehicles in Banff National Park
July 22, 2014
PHOTO: Amar Athwal
The seven-member Bow Valley wolf pack hanging out along the Bow Valley Parkway in December 2013.
On July 15, resource conservation officers responded to a report that a wolf pup was hit on the exit to Sunshine Village ski resort. “A vehicle behind saw the animal limping,” said Mike Grande, resource management officer with Banff National Park.
Grande responded to the scene and did a foot patrol in the area, but said he wasn’t able to find the wolf pup in the area to confirm whether it was injured or killed. “It could be a coyote as well,” he said, noting it was reported as a grey and black animal.
Later that week, on July 19, officers also responded to a report from RCMP of a moose being struck by a car on Sulfur Mountain Road. It was after dark and they couldn’t see it in the immediate area.
Grande said they returned the next morning and found a moose within 50 feet of the road.
It walked with a distinct limp, he said, explaining officers slowly moved the animal out of the area into a wildlife corridor. They monitored it for the next few days for signs of shock.
A moose in Kananaskis Country. Photo: Brendan TroyAs for the bears, many have started to move up to higher ground as they transition to berry crops.
There are, however, a couple of new warnings along the Icefields Parkway in Banff National Park — including a black bear at the Rampart Creek campground and some grizzly bears around Num-Ti-Jah Lodge.
With that update, I’m on holidays until after the August long weekend.
source
Pro-wolf hunt proposal heads to Michigan lawmakers, who could approve or send to ballot
A wolf killed by Jeff Powell is checked into the DNR station
at Wakefield in Ontonagon County on Friday, Nov. 15, 2013. The wolf was
the second recorded kill in the Michigan's first wolf hunt.
(Cory Morse | MLive.com)
on July 24, 2014
LANSING, MI -- Michigan lawmakers will have 40 days to act on a pro-wolf hunt measure that would undermine two statewide ballot proposals designed to stop a second and subsequent hunts.
The Board of State Canvassers on Thursday unanimously approved "citizen initiated legislation" that would reaffirm the ability of the Natural Resource Commission to designate game animals and establish hunts.
The measure now heads to the state Legislature, which is on summer break but could return to approve or enact the proposal. If lawmakers choose not to act, all three wolf hunt proposals would appear on the ballot, allowing voters to have the final say.
A group called Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management turned in 375,745 signatures for the pro-hunt measure. The Michigan Bureau of Elections estimated that 297,051 of those signatures were valid, easily topping the required number of 258,088.
The state House is tentatively scheduled to meet on July 30, August 13 and August 27. All three dates would fall inside the 40-day window that lawmakers will have to consider the citizen-initiated legislation under Michigan law.
House Republican spokesperson Ari Adler said leadership will review the legislation when it is presented by the Secretary of State, likely later Thursday, before making any decision on whether or not to vote on the measure.
Merle Shepard, who chairs the pro-hunt coalition and heads up Michigan chapters of Safari Club International, said he expects lawmakers to act on August 13. "We've been working with them and trying to get them up to speed on the issue," said Shepard. "We think we have the support there, and we're going to continue pushing until it happens."
Shepard and other wolf hunt advocates say that science should dictate hunting regulations, not the public, which could be swayed by emotional advertising funded by out-of-state interests.
But critics note the Natural Resources Commission does not actually have any scientists for members and argue that last year's first-ever wolf hunt was authorized based on faulty information and despite opposition from some experts.
Jill Fritz, director of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected and state director for the Humane Society of the United States, said legislators should trust residents who put them in office by allowing a vote on the initiative. "They should reject the cynical attempt to get the legislature to rubber-stamp this measure and undermine the referendum process once again, before the people are even allowed to vote," Fritz said in a statement. "If there's one thing we've learned during our two petition drives, it's that Michigan residents value their right to vote and don’t want their voices silenced by extremist politicians and special interests in Lansing."
The Humane Society has poured money into two statewide petition drives seeking to ban wolf hunting in Michigan, spending roughly $1 million. Their first effort was sidestepped by the state Legislature, which passed a new law when an older version was suspended pending a public vote.
The pro-wolf hunt group, meanwhile, had raised more than $450,000 through late April, largely from hunting and conservation groups, according to campaign finance documents. The largest donation came from Michigan Bear Hunter Conservation.
Twenty-two wolves were legally killed in last year's wolf hunt, about half of what the state wanted, even in a limited hunt in three specific areas of the Upper Peninsula.
The citizen-initiated legislation would also require the state to continue offering free hunting, fishing and trapping licenses for active military members and set aside $1 million to fight Asian carp and other invasive species. Because it contains an appropriation, the measure would be immune from referendum, meaning anti-wolf hunting groups could not attempt to overturn it.
source
Idaho Suspends Wilderness Wolf-Killing Plan In Face of Court Challenge
On July 29, 2014 ·
POCATELLO,
Idaho – Faced with a legal challenge by conservationists and an
imminent hearing before a federal appeals court, the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game (“IDFG”) has abandoned its plan to resume a professional
wolf-killing program in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness
during the coming winter.
In a sworn statement submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 24, 2014, IDFG Wildlife Bureau Chief Jeff Gould stated that IDFG “will not conduct any agency control actions for wolves within the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness before November 1, 2015.” IDFG had previously advised the court that the program could resume as early as December 1, 2014.
A professional hunter-trapper hired by IDFG killed nine wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness last winter and state officials in February announced plans to kill 60 percent of the wolves in the Middle Fork section of the wilderness over a period of several years in an effort to inflate wilderness elk populations for the benefit of commercial outfitters and recreational hunters.
“As we mark the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act this September, we are relieved that the Frank Church Wilderness will be managed as a wild place, rather than an elk farm, for at least the coming year,” said Earthjustice attorney Timothy Preso, who is representing conservationists challenging the wilderness wolf-killing program. “Now we must make sure that wilderness values prevail for the long term.”
Earthjustice is representing long-time Idaho conservationist and wilderness advocate Ralph Maughan along with four conservation groups—Defenders of Wildlife, Western Watersheds Project, Wilderness Watch, and the Center for Biological Diversity—in the lawsuit challenging the wolf-killing program. The conservationists argue that the U.S. Forest Service, which is charged by Congress with managing and protecting the Frank Church Wilderness, violated the Wilderness Act and other laws by allowing and assisting the state wolf-killing program in the largest forest wilderness in the lower-48 states.
In a separate sworn statement filed with the Ninth Circuit on July 24, the Forest Service committed to providing the conservationists with notice by August 5, 2015 of any plans by IDFG to resume professional wolf-killing in the Frank Church Wilderness during the 2015-16 winter, as well as “a final determination by the Forest Service as to whether it concurs with or objects to such plans.”
“IDFG’s announcement now gives the Forest Service the chance to play out its mission—its obligation to protect our irreplaceable Frank Church Wilderness for the American people and for all its wildlife against an effort to turn it into a mere elk farming operation on infertile soil,” said Maughan, a retired Idaho State University professor who was a member of the citizens’ group that drew up the boundaries of the Frank Church Wilderness 35 years ago.
“We are pleased to see this truce in Idaho’s wolf reduction efforts in the Frank Church for a full year,” said Suzanne Stone, Defenders’ regional representative who has worked nearly three decades to restore wolves in Idaho. “The Frank Church is both the largest forested wilderness area and a core habitat for gray wolves in the western United States. Wolves belong here as they have made the ‘Frank’ truly wild again. Ensuring healthy wolf populations here is critical for the recovery of wolves throughout the entire northwestern region.”
“It is hard to imagine a decision more inconsistent with wilderness protection than to allow the hired killing of wolves,” added Travis Bruner, executive director of Western Watersheds Project. “Today, some relief for wild places flows from the news that IDFG will not continue that odious operation this year. Next we will see whether the Forest Service will take action to protect the Frank Church Wilderness from such atrocities in the future.”
“It’s time for the Forest Service to stand with the vast majority of the American people by taking the necessary steps to protect wolves in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness for the long-term, not just the next 15 months,” stated George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch. “Wolves are the epitome of wildness. Their protection is key to preserving the area’s wilderness character.”
“We’re glad Idaho’s wolves are rightly getting a reprieve from the state’s ill-conceived predator-killing plan, at least for a year,” said Amy Atwood, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re also happy to see the Forest Service agree to be more transparent about any future decision to allow Idaho to kill wolves in the Frank Church.”
BACKGROUND: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had scheduled an August 25, 2014 court hearing to address the conservationists’ request for an injunction to prevent IDFG from resuming its program of professional wolf killing in the Frank Church Wilderness during the coming winter. IDFG commenced the program in December 2013 without public notice but abruptly suspended the program on January 28, 2014 amidst emergency injunction proceedings before the Ninth Circuit. Since then, the conservationists have continued to press their case for an injunction before the Ninth Circuit, which led to the scheduled August 25 court hearing.
Because IDFG has abandoned the 2014-15 professional wolf-killing program in the wilderness, the conservationists have agreed to forego the scheduled court hearing, but they renewed their call for the Forest Service to fulfill its legal duty to protect the Frank Church Wilderness.
source
In a sworn statement submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 24, 2014, IDFG Wildlife Bureau Chief Jeff Gould stated that IDFG “will not conduct any agency control actions for wolves within the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness before November 1, 2015.” IDFG had previously advised the court that the program could resume as early as December 1, 2014.
A professional hunter-trapper hired by IDFG killed nine wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness last winter and state officials in February announced plans to kill 60 percent of the wolves in the Middle Fork section of the wilderness over a period of several years in an effort to inflate wilderness elk populations for the benefit of commercial outfitters and recreational hunters.
“As we mark the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act this September, we are relieved that the Frank Church Wilderness will be managed as a wild place, rather than an elk farm, for at least the coming year,” said Earthjustice attorney Timothy Preso, who is representing conservationists challenging the wilderness wolf-killing program. “Now we must make sure that wilderness values prevail for the long term.”
Earthjustice is representing long-time Idaho conservationist and wilderness advocate Ralph Maughan along with four conservation groups—Defenders of Wildlife, Western Watersheds Project, Wilderness Watch, and the Center for Biological Diversity—in the lawsuit challenging the wolf-killing program. The conservationists argue that the U.S. Forest Service, which is charged by Congress with managing and protecting the Frank Church Wilderness, violated the Wilderness Act and other laws by allowing and assisting the state wolf-killing program in the largest forest wilderness in the lower-48 states.
In a separate sworn statement filed with the Ninth Circuit on July 24, the Forest Service committed to providing the conservationists with notice by August 5, 2015 of any plans by IDFG to resume professional wolf-killing in the Frank Church Wilderness during the 2015-16 winter, as well as “a final determination by the Forest Service as to whether it concurs with or objects to such plans.”
“IDFG’s announcement now gives the Forest Service the chance to play out its mission—its obligation to protect our irreplaceable Frank Church Wilderness for the American people and for all its wildlife against an effort to turn it into a mere elk farming operation on infertile soil,” said Maughan, a retired Idaho State University professor who was a member of the citizens’ group that drew up the boundaries of the Frank Church Wilderness 35 years ago.
“We are pleased to see this truce in Idaho’s wolf reduction efforts in the Frank Church for a full year,” said Suzanne Stone, Defenders’ regional representative who has worked nearly three decades to restore wolves in Idaho. “The Frank Church is both the largest forested wilderness area and a core habitat for gray wolves in the western United States. Wolves belong here as they have made the ‘Frank’ truly wild again. Ensuring healthy wolf populations here is critical for the recovery of wolves throughout the entire northwestern region.”
“It is hard to imagine a decision more inconsistent with wilderness protection than to allow the hired killing of wolves,” added Travis Bruner, executive director of Western Watersheds Project. “Today, some relief for wild places flows from the news that IDFG will not continue that odious operation this year. Next we will see whether the Forest Service will take action to protect the Frank Church Wilderness from such atrocities in the future.”
“It’s time for the Forest Service to stand with the vast majority of the American people by taking the necessary steps to protect wolves in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness for the long-term, not just the next 15 months,” stated George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch. “Wolves are the epitome of wildness. Their protection is key to preserving the area’s wilderness character.”
“We’re glad Idaho’s wolves are rightly getting a reprieve from the state’s ill-conceived predator-killing plan, at least for a year,” said Amy Atwood, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re also happy to see the Forest Service agree to be more transparent about any future decision to allow Idaho to kill wolves in the Frank Church.”
BACKGROUND: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had scheduled an August 25, 2014 court hearing to address the conservationists’ request for an injunction to prevent IDFG from resuming its program of professional wolf killing in the Frank Church Wilderness during the coming winter. IDFG commenced the program in December 2013 without public notice but abruptly suspended the program on January 28, 2014 amidst emergency injunction proceedings before the Ninth Circuit. Since then, the conservationists have continued to press their case for an injunction before the Ninth Circuit, which led to the scheduled August 25 court hearing.
Because IDFG has abandoned the 2014-15 professional wolf-killing program in the wilderness, the conservationists have agreed to forego the scheduled court hearing, but they renewed their call for the Forest Service to fulfill its legal duty to protect the Frank Church Wilderness.
source
Monday, July 28, 2014
Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Monthly Update
 |
| Endangered Species Updates |
|
June 28, 2014
|
|
Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Monthly Update June 1-30, 2014 |
|
The following
is a summary of Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project (Project)
activities in Arizona on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNF)
and Fort Apache Indian Reservation (FAIR) and in New Mexico on the
Apache National Forest (ANF) and Gila National Forest (GNF). Non-tribal
lands involved in this Project are collectively known as the Blue Range
Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA). Additional Project information can be
obtained by calling (928) 339-4329 or toll free at (888) 459-9653, or by visiting the Arizona Game and Fish Department website at http://www.azgfd.gov/wolf
or by visiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/
To view weekly wolf telemetry flight location information or the 3-month wolf distribution map, please visit http://www.azgfd.gov/wolf.
On the home page, go to the “Wolf Location Information” heading on the
right side of the page near the top and scroll to the specific location
information you seek.
Please report any wolf sightings or suspected livestock depredations to: (928) 339-4329 or toll free at (888) 459-9653. To report incidents of take or harassment of wolves, please call the AGFD 24-hour dispatch (Operation Game Thief) at (800) 352-0700.
Numbering System:
Mexican wolves are given an identification number recorded in an
official studbook that tracks their history. Capital letters (M = Male,
F = Female) preceding the number indicate adult animals 24 months or
older. Lower case letters (m = male, f = female) indicate wolves
younger than 24 months or pups. The capital letter “A” preceding the
letter and number indicate breeding wolves.
Definitions:
A “wolf pack” is defined as two or more wolves that maintain an
established territory. In the event that one of the two alpha
(dominant) wolves dies, the remaining alpha wolf, regardless of pack
size, retains the pack status. The packs referenced in this update
contain at least one wolf with a radio telemetry collar attached to it.
The Interagency Field Team (IFT) recognizes that wolves without radio
telemetry collars may also form packs. If the IFT confirms that wolves
are associating with each other and are resident within the same home
range, they will be referenced as a pack.
CURRENT POPULATION STATUS
At the end of
June 2014, the collared population consisted of 49 wolves with
functional radio collars. M1282 and F1295 were translocated to McKenna
Park in the Gila Wilderness on June 18. They will now be referred to as the Lava Pack. There are currently 18 packs and 4 single wolves in the BRWRA.
IN ARIZONA:
Bluestem Pack (collared AF1042, AM1341, mp1330, mp1331, fp1332, fp1333, fp1339, and fp1340)
During June, the Bluestem Pack continued to use their traditional territory in the central portion of the ASNF. The Bluestem Pack continues to exhibit denning behavior during the month of June. On June 18 Wildlife Services investigated a dead calf near Kettle Holes in Arizona. The investigation determined that the calf was killed by a wolf. The depredation was assigned to f1332. The wolf f1332 has been located separate from the rest of the Bluestem Pack during the month of June. Elk Horn Pack (collared AM1287 and F1294) In June, the Elk Horn Pack exhibited denning behavior within their traditional territory in the northeast portion of the ASNF in Arizona. The IFT documented AM1287 with F1294 with the use of a trail camera this month. The collar on AM1287 is not functional.
Hawks Nest Pack (collared AF1280)
During June, the Hawks Nest Pack was located within their traditional territory in the north central portion of the ASNF. The Hawks Nest Pack continues to exhibit denning behavior. The collar on AM1038 has stopped working, but the IFT has documented AM1038 is still with f1280 with the use of a trail camera.
Hoodoo Pack (collared M1290)
In June, M1290 traveled between the northern portion of the FAIR and the north portion of the ASNF. The IFT again documented an uncollared wolf with M1290 during this month. Maverick Pack (collared AM1183, AF1291, f1335, mp1336, and m1342) During June, the Maverick Pack was located within their traditional territory both on the FAIR and the central portion of the ASNF. The Maverick Pack continues to display denning behavior.
Rim Pack (collared AM1107 and F1305)
In June, the Rim Pack was located in the south-central portion of the ASNF. The pack is still exhibiting denning behavior.
ON THE FAIR:
Tsay o Ah Pack (collared M1343 and AF1283) Throughout June, the Tsay o Ah Pack was located on the FAIR. The IFT continues to document denning behavior in this Pack.
M1249 (collared)
The wolf M1249 was located on the FAIR throughout the month of June.
IN NEW MEXICO:
Canyon Creek Pack (collared M1252 and F1246)
During June, the IFT located these wolves within their traditional territory in the central portion of the GNF. The IFT has documented denning behavior in this pack during this month.
Dark Canyon Pack (collared AM992, AF923 and M1293)
Throughout June, the IFT located this pack within its traditional territory in the west-central portion of the GNF. The Dark Canyon Pack continued to display denning behavior during the month of June. In May 2 pups from the Coronado Pack were cross-fostered into the dark Canyon Pack. A food cache was established to help the Dark Canyon Pack care for the extra puppies. The IFT documented the three collared members of the Dark Canyon Pack utilizing the food cache during the month of June. Although the Dark Canyon Pack continues to display denning behavior the IFT has yet to document the presence of pups since the cross-fostering was implemented. Fox Mountain Pack (collared AM1158, AF1212, M1276 and m1345) During June, the IFT documented these wolves within the northwest portion of the GNF. M1276 has not been located during the month of June and is now considered fate unknown. The Fox Mountain Pack continues to display denning behavior. A food cache was established by the IFT to deter the pack from depredating on livestock and no depredations have resulted since the food cache has been established. On June 23, 4 pups from the Fox Mountain Pack were documented on a trail camera visiting the food cache.
Lava Pack (collared M1282 and F1295)
On June 18, the Lava Pack was translocated and released at Gila Flats in New Mexico. The pair has since split up after their release. The wolf F1295 has remained in the Gila Wilderness and M1282 has not been located since shortly after the release.
Luna Pack (collared AM1155, AF1115, and m1337)
In June, the IFT located the alpha pair within their traditional territory in the north-central portion of the GNF. The Luna Pack continues to display denning behavior. On June 2, during the weekly telemetry flight IFT personnel observed m1337 chasing livestock however a search of the area later revealed no dead livestock. Prieto Pack (collared F1251) In June, the IFT located this wolf within its traditional territory in the north-central portion of the GNF. The IFT documented denning behavior in this pack during this month. A food cache has been established to prevent livestock depredations by the Prieto Pack. Both adult wolves associated with the Prieto pack have been documented using this food cache in June.
Mangas Pack (collared AM1296)
In June, the Mangas Pack utilized the area in the Northeastern Portion of the GNF. The IFT has documented denning behavior in this pack during June. During June f1327 was located dead in New Mexico. The incident is under investigation. A supplemental food cache was started to help M1296 feed any pups associated with the Mangas Pack.
San Mateo Pack (collared AM1157 and AF903)
In June, the IFT located AM1157 and AF903 in the pack’s traditional territory in the northern portion of the GNF. Although denning behavior has been documented, the IFT has yet to observe pups with the pack.
Willow Springs Pack (collared AM1185, AF1279, and mp1338)
In June, the Willow Springs Pack used their traditional territory in the north central portion of the GNF. On June 14 the IFT documented three collared wolves and two uncollared wolves using the Willow Springs food cache. The Willow Springs Pack continues to display denning behavior.
Iron Creek Pack (collared M1240 and F1278)
In June, the Iron Creek Pack continued to display denning behavior. This pack has localized in the northern portion of the Gila Wilderness and the southern portion of the Gila National Forest. The pack has been documented using this area of the GNF as their territory.
M1254 (collared)
In June, the IFT located M1254 for the first time in over a year. The wolf was located in the in the north western part of the GNF. The Wolf has traveled between the north western portion of the GNF and the western portion of the GNF since he was rediscovered.
M1284 (collared)
In June, M1284 made wide dispersal movements in the GNF of New Mexico.
M1285 (collared)
In June, M1285 made wide dispersal movements in the GNF of New Mexico and the Gila Wilderness area.
M1286 (collared)
In June, M1286 continued to make wide dispersal movements in the GNF.
MORTALITIES
In June, F1327 was found dead in New Mexico. The incident is under investigation.
INCIDENTS
During June there were three livestock depredation reports and one nuisance report in the BRWRA.
On June 2,
members of the IFT observed M1337 of the Luna Pack chasing livestock in
New Mexico. There were no dead livestock found in the area.
On June 4,
Wildlife Services investigated one dead cow and one dead calf near
Canyon Del Buey, New Mexico. The cow-calf pair died of unknown cause
not related to wolves.
On June 21,
Wildlife Services investigated a dead calf near Kettle Holes in
Arizona. The investigation determined the calf was killed by a wolf and
the depredation was assigned to f1332 of the Bluestem Pack.
On June 24,
Wildlife Services investigated a dead calf near White Mountain
Reservoir in Arizona. The calf was determined to have been killed by
coyotes.
CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
On June 15,
Coronado pups, fp1348, mp1349, mp1350, and mp1351 were captured at the
Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility and received veterinary health
checks. The pups were determined to be healthy and thriving.
On June 16, F1226, F1222, and M1274 were captured at the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility and received veterinary health checks. On June 18, Lava M1282 and F1295 were captured at the Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility and transported to Gila Flats NM for translocation to the wild. Wolf program staff also captured and transported F858 from the Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility to the Southwest Wildlife Conservation Center. On June 30, Coronado pups, fp1348, mp1349, mp1350, and mp1351 were captured at the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility and received veterinary health checks. The pups were determined to be healthy and thriving. F1202 was captured and moved to a different pen at the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility.
COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION
On June 21,
the IFT gave a presentation at the Phoenix Zoo to 36 teachers from
across Arizona. The presentation was part of a program that showed the
different perspectives of managing endangered species in Arizona.
PROJECT PERSONNEL
In June,
Brent Wolf and Ed Davis started working with the AGFD on the Mexican
Wolf Project. Welcome to the project Brent and Ed!
REWARDS OFFERED
The USFWS is
offering a reward of up to $10,000; the AGFD Operation Game Thief is
offering a reward of up to $1,000; and the NMDGF is offering a reward of
up to $1,000 for information leading to the conviction of the
individual(s) responsible for the shooting deaths of Mexican wolves. A
variety of non-governmental organizations and private individuals have
pledged an additional $46,000 for a total reward amount of up to
$58,000, depending on the information provided.
Individuals
with information they believe may be helpful are urged to call one of
the following agencies: USFWS special agents in Mesa, Arizona, at (480) 967-7900, in Alpine, Arizona, at (928) 339-4232, or in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at (505) 346-7828; the WMAT at (928) 338-1023 or (928) 338-4385; AGFD Operation Game Thief at (800) 352-0700; or NMDGF Operation Game Thief at (800) 432-4263.
Killing a Mexican wolf is a violation of the Federal Endangered Species
Act and can result in criminal penalties of up to $50,000, and/or not
more than one year in jail, and/or a civil penalty of up to $25,000.
|
Why do dogs smell each other’s behinds? Chemical communication explained (video)
July 28, 2014
Here at Reactions, we ask the
tough questions to get to the bottom of the biggest scientific
quandaries. In that spirit, this week’s video explains why dogs sniff
each other’s butts. It’s a somewhat silly question with a surprisingly
complex answer. This behavior is just one of many interesting forms of
chemical communication in the animal kingdom.
Timberwolf mom and pup in a tender hugging momentSunday, July 27, 2014
Northeastern States Wolf Protection Status
Wolves
roamed the Northeast into the last century, until they were eliminated
by persistent anti-wolf campaigns and the decimation of timberlands.
Successful forest regeneration in the past 100 years has created
suitable wolf habitat again in the region, and scientists continue to
study the possibility of the natural recolonization and restoration of
wolves to the ecosystem. According to the 1999 Edition of the USFWS' Wolf Tracks:
"The Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf identifies several areas in the Northeastern United States as potential sites for the restoration of the gray wolf. These areas include a portion of eastern Maine, northwestern Maine and an area of adjacent New Hampshire, and the Adirondack Forest Preserve Area of northern New York. All of these areas are within the Northern Forest Ecosystem, a 26 million-acre forested area that extends from the Adirondack Mountains of New York east through most of Maine. The area contains suitable gray wolf habitat and lies within the historic range of the gray wolf."
Status by State
If the gray wolf loses federal protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act,
its future depends on its status at the state level.
its future depends on its status at the state level.
New York State:
Presently the gray wolf is listed on New York State's Endangered Species List. The state has no plan to address the wolf's potential return and no plan to promote its recovery. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service require states to revise their wildlife action plans at least every 10 years. New York's Dept. of Environmental Conservation and conservation partners are working to update New York's Wildlife Action Plan by 2015.
New Hampshire:
Presently the gray wolf is listed on New Hampshire's Endangered Species List. Although the gray wolf is mentioned in the state's Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, the state has no management plan to address the wolf's potential return nor a plan to promote its recovery. In 1999, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law (HB 240) that bans the reintroduction of wolves into the state. The law does not restrict a natural recolonization by wolves.
Presently the gray wolf is listed on New York State's Endangered Species List. The state has no plan to address the wolf's potential return and no plan to promote its recovery. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service require states to revise their wildlife action plans at least every 10 years. New York's Dept. of Environmental Conservation and conservation partners are working to update New York's Wildlife Action Plan by 2015.
New Hampshire:
Presently the gray wolf is listed on New Hampshire's Endangered Species List. Although the gray wolf is mentioned in the state's Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, the state has no management plan to address the wolf's potential return nor a plan to promote its recovery. In 1999, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law (HB 240) that bans the reintroduction of wolves into the state. The law does not restrict a natural recolonization by wolves.
Vermont: Presently the gray wolf is not listed on Vermont's Endangered Species List. The species is presumed extinct/extirpated: not located despite intensive searches with little likelihood of rediscovery. Presently, the state has no protections in place for wolves, it has no plan to address the wolf's potential return, and it has no plan to promote its recovery.
The list of Vermont's rare and uncommon animals is produced by the Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory, a unit of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. The Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory is the state’s official repository for records of rare, threatened, and endangered species.
According to this document, the wolf is listed as a "Species of Greatest Conservation Need" as identified in the Vermont Wildlife Action Plan. However, this designation does not denote legal protection.
Massachusetts:
Presently the gray wolf is not listed on Massachusetts List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Species. Presently, the state has no protections in place for wolves, it has no plan to address the wolf's potential return, and it has no plan to promote its recovery. The wolf is not listed as a "Species of Greatest Conservation Need" as identified in the Massachusetts Wildlife Action Plan.
Maine:
The gray wolf is not listed Maine's Endangered Species List. Presently, the state has no protections in place for wolves, it has no plan to address the wolf's potential return, and it has no plan to promote its recovery. The wolf is listed as a "Species of Special Concern" but is not listed on Maine's Wildlife Action Plan. A species of special concern is any species of fish or wildlife that does not meet the criteria of an endangered or threatened species but is particularly vulnerable, and could easily become, an endangered, threatened, or extirpated species due to restricted distribution, low or declining numbers, specialized habitat needs or limits, or other factors. Special concern species are established by policy, not by regulation, and are used for planning and informational purposes; they do not have the legal weight of endangered and threatened species. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife reviews the list of special concern species at the beginning of each calendar year. According to the Maine Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, "uncertainty about which subspecies of wolf occurred in Maine in the past, and whether wolf genes occur in Maine's coyote population are questions that must be considered before developing plans for wolf recovery."
Connecticut:
Presently the gray wolf is listed as a "Species of Special Concern" on Connecticut's Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Concern Species List, 2010. This designation, however, does not denote legal protection for the gray wolf in the state once the wolf loses its federal protection. Presently, the state has no protections in place for wolves, it has no plan to address the wolf's potential return, and it has no plan to promote its recovery.
All information courtesy of the Northeast Wolf Coalition; please visit them by clicking this link.
Wolf season harvest framework is set
Glen Schmitt
July 26, 2014
A total of 3,800 hunting and trapping licenses will be available for the 2014 wolf season, according to the Department of Natural Resources. That’s 500 more licenses than last year, and the statewide harvest target is 250 wolves, about 30 more than last season. The slight increase is based on a wolf population that is comparable to last year.
The latest population survey results reflect an estimated 470 wolf packs or about 2,423 wolves inhabiting the state’s primary wolf range this past winter. That’s 212 more wolves than were estimated during the 2013 winter survey. “Estimates show a stable population with no significant change from the 2013 estimate of 2,211 wolves,” said Dan Stark, DNR large carnivore specialist, in a news release issued Friday. “We will continue to evaluate the wolf population annually to ensure the wolf population remains well established across northern and Central Minnesota.”
The goal of DNR officials concerning wolf management is to ensure the long-term survival of wolves in the state while addressing conflicts between wolves and humans. The early wolf season begins Saturday, Nov. 8. On Aug. 1, hunters and trappers can start applying for 2,300 early season and 1,500 late-season licenses. The deadline to apply for the license lottery is Thursday, Sept. 4. Early season hunting (Season A) will again open at the same time the firearms deer season begins Saturday, Nov. 8, and run through Sunday, Nov. 23, in all Series 100 deer permit areas or through Sunday, Nov. 16, in Series 200 deer permit areas. I
n the east central zone, the early season is scheduled to be a two-day hunt concluding Sunday, Nov. 9. The zones will close earlier if the target harvest is met. Late season hunting (Season B) runs from Saturday, Nov. 29, through Saturday, Jan. 31, or when the target harvest is met, whichever occurs first. If the east central zone’s target harvest is met during the early season, the late season east central season will not open. Late season trapping (Season C) runs from Nov. 29 through Jan. 31, or when the target harvest is met. Stark added that the statewide bag limit is one wolf and licenses are not zone-specific. “Lottery winners will be notified and receive a wolf hunting booklet with their notification,” Stark said.
By the numbers Number of hunting and trapping licenses available for wolf season - 3,800 Statewide harvest target of wolves - 250.
source
July 26, 2014
A total of 3,800 hunting and trapping licenses will be available for the 2014 wolf season, according to the Department of Natural Resources. That’s 500 more licenses than last year, and the statewide harvest target is 250 wolves, about 30 more than last season. The slight increase is based on a wolf population that is comparable to last year.
The latest population survey results reflect an estimated 470 wolf packs or about 2,423 wolves inhabiting the state’s primary wolf range this past winter. That’s 212 more wolves than were estimated during the 2013 winter survey. “Estimates show a stable population with no significant change from the 2013 estimate of 2,211 wolves,” said Dan Stark, DNR large carnivore specialist, in a news release issued Friday. “We will continue to evaluate the wolf population annually to ensure the wolf population remains well established across northern and Central Minnesota.”
The goal of DNR officials concerning wolf management is to ensure the long-term survival of wolves in the state while addressing conflicts between wolves and humans. The early wolf season begins Saturday, Nov. 8. On Aug. 1, hunters and trappers can start applying for 2,300 early season and 1,500 late-season licenses. The deadline to apply for the license lottery is Thursday, Sept. 4. Early season hunting (Season A) will again open at the same time the firearms deer season begins Saturday, Nov. 8, and run through Sunday, Nov. 23, in all Series 100 deer permit areas or through Sunday, Nov. 16, in Series 200 deer permit areas. I
n the east central zone, the early season is scheduled to be a two-day hunt concluding Sunday, Nov. 9. The zones will close earlier if the target harvest is met. Late season hunting (Season B) runs from Saturday, Nov. 29, through Saturday, Jan. 31, or when the target harvest is met, whichever occurs first. If the east central zone’s target harvest is met during the early season, the late season east central season will not open. Late season trapping (Season C) runs from Nov. 29 through Jan. 31, or when the target harvest is met. Stark added that the statewide bag limit is one wolf and licenses are not zone-specific. “Lottery winners will be notified and receive a wolf hunting booklet with their notification,” Stark said.
By the numbers Number of hunting and trapping licenses available for wolf season - 3,800 Statewide harvest target of wolves - 250.
source
Wolf Park hosts annual beer on the bridge event
Published: BATTLE GROUND, Ind. (WLFI) – The fourth annual Brew on the Bridge took place Saturday night.
The event is put on by Wolf Park, People’s Brewery and South Street Smokehouse.
With musical guests 3 Lane Hill playing music for the visitors.
Proceeds from the event are donated to Wolf Park to help maintain the health and wellness of the wolves and other animals at the park.
“We have brew on the bridge this evening and it’s a benefit to help raise money for wolf park. We have three lane hill playing, we have People’s providing beverages, and South Street Smokehouse providing food for us this evening and it’s just a benefit to help us raise money for the park” said Chris Linder who put this years event.
Money collected during tonights event will help Wolf Park build a new veterinary care and research center.
This will help cut down on medical costs that are associated with caring for the wolves.
source
‘Wolf’ book chronicles end of species in W.Va.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
“The Last Appalachian Wolf,” by Edwin Daryl Michael. West Virginia Book Co. 160 pages. $12.95. Paperback.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — “The Last Appalachian Wolf” is a captivating historical novel. It chronicles the lives of wolf packs from 1750 to 1897 in the Cheat Mountain area of West Virginia.
Dr. Edwin Daryl Michael gives the wolves names and the book follows them from generation to generation. Young pups are described from when they stick close to their mothers, and then as they tentatively venture out to play games with each other, all the way to adulthood and becoming pack leaders.
Michael, professor emeritus of wildlife ecology at West Virginia University, spent a 12-year period researching the history of wolves in West Virginia.
A feature of the novel that made it so enjoyable for me to read was the detailed description of the social structure of a wolf pack and how such cohesiveness within the family groups influenced every aspect of the daily lives of pack members.
Mating, rearing of pups, hunting strategies, play and establishment of dominance are important behavioral traits described throughout the novel. Wolves cannot survive without cooperation, and seeing the inner dynamics of their lives gave me a new appreciation and admiration for wolves.
One chapter, “Wolf History,” explores how this social structure influenced the domestication of wolves — the first wild animal to be domesticated by humans, and still considered “man’s best friend” to this day.
After gaining strength and coordination from game playing, eventually the young wolves are invited to go on a first hunt with the adults. The pack leader decides where and when to hunt, and everyone has a role to play for the survival and wellbeing of the pack.
The alpha male is usually the pack leader, but in some cases the alpha female can become the leader.
After showing the dynamics in a wolf pack, Michael describes the land and ecosystem of the Cheat Mountains in present-day Randolph and Pocahontas counties.
Informative and entertaining descriptions of the habits and traits of white-tailed deer, buffalo, elk, black bear, mountain lions, river otter, snowshoe hare, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, ravens, passenger pigeons and golden eagles are in every chapter.
Historical records indicate timber wolves were common throughout West Virginia prior to the arrival of settlers. George Washington and Daniel Boone both encountered wolves in their travels into what is now West Virginia.
According to an article published in the Webster Republican, the last timber wolf in West Virginia, and possibly the last wolf in the central Appalachian Mountains, was killed during a five-day hunt in January 1897. That hunt, which took place in Randolph County and involved as many as 15 men, formed the basis for the final chapters of this book.
“The Last Appalachian Wolf” evaluates the impacts of several historic events on wolf populations of the Allegheny Mountains. Included are: construction of the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike, construction of Cheat Summit Fort during the Civil War, certain local civil war battles, logging, logging railroads and sheep ranching.
Michael also details the extent of the bounty system in Randolph County, which resulted in payments for the deaths of more than 1,100 wolves during 1800-1840.
Wolves and American Indians peacefully coexisted, although Indians most likely killed a few wolves each year. Of greater significance, wolves benefited from the Indians’ widespread burning of the forests and the subsequent increase in prey animals such as buffalo, elk and deer.
Michael explains the impacts of the major events that ultimately led to the demise of the timber wolf. He believes early settlers had only minor impacts on the numerous packs of wolves that inhabited the region. However, the relentless killing of buffalo, elk and deer by later settlers ultimately led to the demise of timber wolves. With a shortage of natural prey, the remaining wolves began killing cattle and sheep.
Ranchers subsequently turned to steel traps and strychnine in attempts to eliminate wolves. These weapons caused a huge decline in wolf numbers, one from which they would never recover.
Michael has the rare ability to incorporate the natural history of wildlife and the major events of human history within a fascinating novel involving specific individuals, both animal and human. Readers will share the lives of individual wolves as they play, hunt, mate, rear families and meet untimely deaths in the Appalachian wilderness.
The book is available locally at Taylor Books, West Virginia Marketplace at Capitol Market, and online from the West Virginia Book Co. for $12.95. Orders can be placed at 304-342-1848 or www.wvbookco.com.
Bill Clements is the owner and operator of the West Virginia Book Co.
source
“THE LAST APPALACHIAN WOLF”
By Edwin Daryl Michael
West Virginia Book Co. 160 pages. $12.95. Paperback.
_______
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — “The Last Appalachian Wolf” is a captivating historical novel. It chronicles the lives of wolf packs from 1750 to 1897 in the Cheat Mountain area of West Virginia.
Dr. Edwin Daryl Michael gives the wolves names and the book follows them from generation to generation. Young pups are described from when they stick close to their mothers, and then as they tentatively venture out to play games with each other, all the way to adulthood and becoming pack leaders.
Michael, professor emeritus of wildlife ecology at West Virginia University, spent a 12-year period researching the history of wolves in West Virginia.
A feature of the novel that made it so enjoyable for me to read was the detailed description of the social structure of a wolf pack and how such cohesiveness within the family groups influenced every aspect of the daily lives of pack members.
Mating, rearing of pups, hunting strategies, play and establishment of dominance are important behavioral traits described throughout the novel. Wolves cannot survive without cooperation, and seeing the inner dynamics of their lives gave me a new appreciation and admiration for wolves.
One chapter, “Wolf History,” explores how this social structure influenced the domestication of wolves — the first wild animal to be domesticated by humans, and still considered “man’s best friend” to this day.
After gaining strength and coordination from game playing, eventually the young wolves are invited to go on a first hunt with the adults. The pack leader decides where and when to hunt, and everyone has a role to play for the survival and wellbeing of the pack.
The alpha male is usually the pack leader, but in some cases the alpha female can become the leader.
After showing the dynamics in a wolf pack, Michael describes the land and ecosystem of the Cheat Mountains in present-day Randolph and Pocahontas counties.
Informative and entertaining descriptions of the habits and traits of white-tailed deer, buffalo, elk, black bear, mountain lions, river otter, snowshoe hare, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, ravens, passenger pigeons and golden eagles are in every chapter.
Historical records indicate timber wolves were common throughout West Virginia prior to the arrival of settlers. George Washington and Daniel Boone both encountered wolves in their travels into what is now West Virginia.
According to an article published in the Webster Republican, the last timber wolf in West Virginia, and possibly the last wolf in the central Appalachian Mountains, was killed during a five-day hunt in January 1897. That hunt, which took place in Randolph County and involved as many as 15 men, formed the basis for the final chapters of this book.
“The Last Appalachian Wolf” evaluates the impacts of several historic events on wolf populations of the Allegheny Mountains. Included are: construction of the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike, construction of Cheat Summit Fort during the Civil War, certain local civil war battles, logging, logging railroads and sheep ranching.
Michael also details the extent of the bounty system in Randolph County, which resulted in payments for the deaths of more than 1,100 wolves during 1800-1840.
Wolves and American Indians peacefully coexisted, although Indians most likely killed a few wolves each year. Of greater significance, wolves benefited from the Indians’ widespread burning of the forests and the subsequent increase in prey animals such as buffalo, elk and deer.
Michael explains the impacts of the major events that ultimately led to the demise of the timber wolf. He believes early settlers had only minor impacts on the numerous packs of wolves that inhabited the region. However, the relentless killing of buffalo, elk and deer by later settlers ultimately led to the demise of timber wolves. With a shortage of natural prey, the remaining wolves began killing cattle and sheep.
Ranchers subsequently turned to steel traps and strychnine in attempts to eliminate wolves. These weapons caused a huge decline in wolf numbers, one from which they would never recover.
Michael has the rare ability to incorporate the natural history of wildlife and the major events of human history within a fascinating novel involving specific individuals, both animal and human. Readers will share the lives of individual wolves as they play, hunt, mate, rear families and meet untimely deaths in the Appalachian wilderness.
The book is available locally at Taylor Books, West Virginia Marketplace at Capitol Market, and online from the West Virginia Book Co. for $12.95. Orders can be placed at 304-342-1848 or www.wvbookco.com.
Bill Clements is the owner and operator of the West Virginia Book Co.
source
Third wolf hunt petition approved, headed to Michigan Legislature
Jul. 26, 2014
|
Twenty-three wolves were killed during Michigan's first wolf hunt in four decades, which was held late last year. / AP
Supporters of the wolf hunt needed to collect 258,088 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. The Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management turned in 375,475 signatures and the Secretary of State’s Office found that 297,051 of those signatures were valid.
The Legislature has 40 days either to pass the initiative — which was spearheaded by a group supportive of the hunting of gray wolves in the Upper Peninsula — come up with a competing proposal, reject it, or do nothing.
If the Legislature passes the initiative — and they’ve already voted twice in the past two years to support a hunt — it automatically becomes law. If they reject it or do nothing, the initiative will appear on the November ballot along with two other anti-wolf hunting proposals that have already been approved for the ballot.
The Legislature is back in session Aug. 13 and could bring the issue up then.
Activists opposed to the wolf hunt have already turned in two petitions. After the first petition was turned in — which would repeal the first law passed by the Legislature in 2012 allowing for a wolf hunt — the Legislature passed another law that circumvented that petition.
The anti-wolf hunt forces have since turned in a second petition to repeal the second wolf hunt law passed by the Legislature. The third wolf hunt ballot question, which supports the hunt, is meant to preempt the second anti-wolf hunt petition. But the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected group, which opposes the hunt, said it hopes the Legislature does nothing and lets the people decide.
“Legislators need to trust the voters who put them in office by allowing a fair vote of the people on this initiative,” said Jill Fritz, director of the group. “They should reject the cynical attempt to get the Legislature to rubber-stamp this measure and undermine the referendum process once again, before the people are even allowed to vote.”
The pro-wolf hunt initiative would give hunting-related decisions to the Natural Resources Commission, which has already approved and set a wolf hunt for three areas in the Upper Peninsula. The first wolf hunt was held in November and December and had a goal of killing 43 of the Upper Peninsula’s population of more than 650 wolves. The hunt resulted in 23 wolves being killed by hunters.
The anti-wolf hunt forces said they haven’t ruled out filing a lawsuit against the third, pro-hunt petition.
source
Opinion: In proposal to strip gray wolves' protection, agency ignored the science
Opinion: In proposal to strip gray wolves' protection, agency ignored the science
Silicon
Valley embraces science and loves innovation. Sadly, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has recently shown contempt for both when it comes to
the recovery of gray wolves -- particularly in the wilds of Northern
California, where a lone wolf recently visited for the first time in
more than 80 years.
Our unflattering assessment derives from the
peer review of the service's 2013 proposal to strip Endangered Species
Act protections from most wolves in the West. The service's
recommendation to "delist" wolves was judged to have ignored and
misrepresented the "best available science," which is the unambiguous
standard for species listing decisions. We wholeheartedly agree with the
peer reviewers' troubling conclusions, and we are disappointed that the
service pursued political expediency rather than abiding by the lawful
provisions of the ESA.
This Nov. 14, 2011, photo from a hunter's trail camera appears to show
OR-7, the young male wolf that has wandered more than 1,000 miles across
Oregon and Northern California. (Allen Daniels / Mail Tribune)
The more we study wolves, the more they teach us. We have known for years that wolves disproportionately affect their environment relative to their abundance. As top-level predators, they are influential in shaping and maintaining the structure of their natural communities. Their presence and activities benefit numerous other species, helping determine the numbers and kinds of mammals, birds and plants in an area.
For example, bears, weasels, ravens and eagles often scavenge on elk and deer carcasses left by wolves. Wolves alter the feeding behavior of elk and deer, which limits over-browsing -- the consumption of too much vegetation -- and prevents the destruction of plants and habitats vital to many species of birds. When wolves recolonize areas, they induce vegetative changes allowing for the return of beaver and migrating birds previously driven out of denuded habitats. Predation by wolves also removes animals that are weaker genetically or harbor sicknesses.
Historically, wolves in Washington, Oregon and Northern California were likely a mixture of the distinct forms we now see in coastal British Columbia and the Rockies. Wolf populations in Southern California probably included the desert dwellers. Accordingly, to assure wolf recovery we need to secure the natural travel corridors that connect coastal, mountain and desert environments, allowing wolves to move freely about the Pacific Northwest and California. The assemblage of wolves from these different environments will eventually yield wolves similar to those that once graced our wildest habitats. In light of this, the biggest lessons that wolves have still to teach us might be patience and faith.
The service, when it reconsiders the delisting proposal, needs to remember these lessons and accept the scientific criticisms if they are to regain credibility lost during this exercise. And that means maintaining protections so that western wolves and environments have time to do their work.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who ultimately decides whether western wolves are stripped of protection, recently proclaimed, "It's about science, and you do what the science says." We agree and will hold her to that promise while helping her succeed in developing an approach that fully embraces science and innovation, making an appropriately recovered gray wolf real.
Paul Paquet is an internationally
prominent wolf scientist and senior scientist at Raincoast Conservation
Foundation. Bob Ferris, executive director of Cascadia Wildlands, has
been a leader in wolf advocacy for two decades. They wrote this for this
newspaper.
New Photos Show Oregon's Famous Wolf, OR-7, Raising Three Pups
Posted:
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — New photos show that Oregon's famous wandering wolf, OR-7, has at least three pups that he and a mate are raising in the Cascade Range of southern Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist John Stephenson said Friday that the photos taken July 12 by an automatic camera in a remote section of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest show two gray pups.
Combined with one black pup Stephenson observed outside the pack's den in June, that makes at least three.
OR-7 set off in search of a mate in September 2011, covering thousands of miles from his birthplace in northeastern Oregon to Northern California before settling in southwest Oregon. The wolf gained worldwide fame as his GPS tracking collar showed his wanderings.
source