Larger wolf packs are less successful in the hunt

By Brian Maffly

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: September 30, 2011

Steve Griffin | Tribune file photo A wolf from the Druid Peak pack pauses to watch two bison in Yellowstone National Park​ in December 2002. 

 

 

 

A few weeks ago Yellowstone National Park officials discovered the carcass of one of the park’s deadliest wolves, an aging male that scientists knew to be an aggressive bison hunter.

Wolf No. 495 died naturally, but his body bore bruises consistent with injuries inflicted in an encounter with large game, according to Dan MacNulty, an assistant professor of wildlife ecology at Utah State University.

The wounds found on No. 495 help explain MacNulty’s latest findings that wolves’ hunting success bears little correlation to the size of the hunting party. Wolves hunt in groups because taking down large hoofed animals is not only challenging but dangerous.

But if the attack party exceeds four animals, the chance of success can actually diminish, according to research MacNulty and colleagues published this week in the journal Behavioral Ecology.

“Wolves aren’t as effective hunters as we think they are. That perception is premised on the notion that each individual contributes to the hunt, so there is an additive effect when the group is bigger. That is just not the case,” said MacNulty, an assistant professor of wildland resources. “Individuals are responding to the threat of injury and death that large prey poses, so they are pulling back, making decisions to avoid the cost of injury.”

The new research is based on eight years of observations in Yellowstone’s Northern Range involving 94 wolves from five packs, including the late No. 495 from Mollie’s pack.

Once eradicated from the Northern Rockies, wolves were reintroduced at Yellowstone in 1995. These animals and their descendants are among the most closely studied populations in the world. The observations track behavior of individual animals over the course of their lives, creating a powerful data set for understanding this controversial social predator.

The findings suggest group hunting is not the main reason wolves live in packs, according to co-author David Mech of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. “Looking to lions and other social predators, it provides further insight into the evolution of living in groups,” he said.

Hunting is a four-stage process for wolves that grows increasingly dangerous. First the group approaches a prey herd, then chases it and singles out an individual before taking it down.

MacNulty’s data tracked how many wolves were involved at each stage of particular hunts and their outcomes. But his team also knew a lot about each wolf involved, which gave the team insights into wolf behavior.

“We knew the gender, the age, whether they were breeding,” said MacNulty. “Parents generally take the lead because they have offspring to provide for. … Given a choice, wolves will stay out of harm’s way until it’s safe to enjoy the spoils of the hunt. They’re opportunists. And this challenges the popular belief that wolves are highly cooperative hunters.”

MacNulty has been involved with the Yellowstone Wolf Project from its inception. Co-author Doug Smith, of the National Park Service, leads the program and conducted some observations aerially, although most were done on the ground by volunteers.

According to its 2010 annual report, the project recorded 268 wolf-related kills in the park that year. Elk comprised 79 percent and bison nine percent. Of the elk, only 18 percent were bulls.

Researchers hope the livestock industry can use their findings to reduce wolf depredation.

Real wolves bear almost no resemblance to their fairy-tale caricatures. In previous research, MacNulty demonstrated that wolves’ hunting prowess peaks at age two or three, then declines rapidly. These archetypal killers aren’t well-built for killing big prey anyway.

Cougars’ claws and powerful forelimbs are not only effective tools on large prey, but also enable the predator to kill without being killed. By contrast, wolves’ tools are teeth and jaws, but to put them to use, they must expose themselves to serious harm.

“Wolves are risk averse. They are cautious hunters,” MacNulty said. “Hunting success also peaks in small groups with other social predators. But our study is the first to rigorously test this pattern and demonstrate that it’s likely due to individuals switching from cooperation to ‘free riding’ as group size increases.”

Co-authors include John Vucetich of Michigan Technical University and Craig Packer of the University of Minnesota. Funders include the National Science Foundation​, National Geographic and the Yellowstone Park Foundation and USGS.

source 

Population of wolves drops, but packs are expanding

Posted: Thursday, September 29, 2011

By ANNA WILLARD East Oregonian

 

A decision by state wildlife officials to kill two wolves of the Imnaha pack in Wallowa County leaves ranchers pleased and environmental groups disappointed.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife last week decided to eliminate the pack's alpha male and male yearling after determining the pair is responsible for killing a calf near Joseph Sept. 22.

Records from the alpha male's radio collar put the wolf at the scene. A close look at the dead calf showed another wolf took part in the kill, said Russ Morgan, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife wolf coordinator.
That means it's time for the alpha male to go, said Rod Childers, chairman of the Oregon Cattleman's Association wolf task force. But taking out the wolves spells doom for the Imnaha pack, said Sean Stevens, Oregon Wild communications director.
"If the state continues with heavy-handed management, the wolf population will remain in stasis and they will keep their token wolf population around,"  Stevens said.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists will be responsible for shooting the animals, Morgan said.
He said the wolf count in Oregon is currently 14, but will drop to 12 after two Imnaha wolves are killed.
Even though their numbers have slipped from 21 last year, wolves are moving to different parts of Eastern Oregon.
State fish and wildlife said it discovered at least two pups in trail-camera footage taken Sept. 5 in Umatilla County. The new additions belong to the Walla Walla pack. If at least two of the pups live through the year, the Walla Walla pack would be considered a successful breeding pair.
"Generally, pup survival is pretty good in new areas," Morgan said.
Factors that commonly limit pup survival are diseases, accidental or illegal shootings and other wolves outside the pack or within the pack.
In addition to the new arrivals in Umatilla County, a wolf formerly of the Imnaha pack has taken up residence near Fossil in Wheeler County, Morgan said.
"Just as we've documented, the new activity and new reproduction, that's a good indicator, even though it will be slowed by the action we're taking right now," he said.
In Wallowa County, the radio collar attached to the alpha male placed him at or near other confirmed livestock kills, Childers said.
"We confirmed the depredation and very shortly after that to kill the wolves because we are in a chronic depredation situation,"?Morgan said. "It's frustrating for producers in the area and frustrating for those that want to see more wolves and it is frustrating for us."
Last year the Imnaha pack committed seven confirmed livestock kills. The most recent kill near Joseph marks the seventh confirmed this year, also by the Imnaha pack, Morgan said.
"The plan says they'll kill them when they're causing a problem and we agree with that," Childers said. "We recognize they're going to be here and all we're asking is they give us the chance to protect our private property."

source

Image of the Day

gw7411, a photo by Tom _Middleton_Photography on Flickr.

Police arrest 2 protesters of plan to kill wolves

JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 SALEM, Ore. (AP) — 

Two environmental activists were arrested Tuesday after using U-shaped bicycle locks to attach their necks to the door of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife offices.
A spokesman for the activists said they were protesting a decision by the wildlife agency to kill two wolves that have preyed on livestock. They were taken into custody on misdemeanor charges of trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstructing governmental administration, said Lt. Gregg Hastings, an Oregon State Police spokesman.
Police removed the door handles before handcuffing the activists, who did not resist arrest, according to cellphone videos shot by other protesters. Police identified the arrested activists as Stephanie Taylor, 28 and Justin Kay, 22.
The Fish and Wildlife department announced last week that it will kill two of the four remaining members of the Imnaha pack, which has been responsible for 14 confirmed livestock kills over the last two years.
"Unfortunately, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is greatly swayed by the interests of cattlemen and ranchers," said Tim Hitchins, a spokesman for the Portland Animal Defense League, one of several organizations involved in the protest. "The voices of wildlife activists have been ignored."
Wildlife department spokeswoman Michelle Dennehy said the decision to kill wolves is not made lightly but the agency is working toward long-term wolf conservation, which sometimes requires wolves be killed when they come into consistent conflict with wildlife. She said the wolf kills are authorized by a management plan developed in conjunction with wildlife activists.
Nonlethal measures have not successfully prevented wolves from killing livestock, Dennehy said.
Two other members of the Imnaha pack, the only one of three packs in Oregon that has been tied to livestock attacks, were shot earlier this year. A third kill order was not carried out, and two members of the pack have left Oregon, one going to Idaho and the other to Washington.
State wolf coordinator Russ Morgan has said leaving just two survivors in the Imnaha pack could mean its demise, but he said the overall dispersal of wolves in Oregon is expanding.

source

Project testing ways to keep wolves, cattle apart

By: MARTIN KIDSTON | 09/28/11
The Billings Gazette

AP Photo/Wildlife Conservation Society via The Billings Gazette

In an undated photo provided by the Wildlife Conservation Society, Chet Robertson, a range rider in the Big Hole Valley in Montana, keeps an eye on the cattle and an ear out for wolves. 

 

When Tatjana Rosen arrived in the Big Hole Valley in southwestern Montana, she was seen as an outsider. Her European accent was a giveaway. As a wildlife conservationist, her motive for being there drew suspicion.
But over the past year, Rosen and a team of Big Hole Valley ranchers have formed an unlikely alliance, joining forces to test nonlethal methods of keeping wolves and cattle apart.
If the efforts pan out, the project could be continued in other areas of the Northern Rockies and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, where people and wolves now coexist.
"Over time, the ranchers I've been working with have started trusting us," said Rosen, a field scientist with the Wildlife Conservation Society. "When working on wolf or bear conservation, you realize you need to engage with people and respect them."
Before the project began this spring, 67 wolves had been lethally removed from the Big Hole Valley since 2009.
Hoping to reduce those numbers, the Wildlife Conservation Society formed an alliance with three Big Hole Valley ranchers, along with the Big Hole Watershed Committee and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, among other agencies.
"We didn't propose our ideas as silver bullets," said Rosen. "Wolves are very smart animals. There's only so much you can do to reduce the conflicts. You'll never completely eliminate it, but we believe we can help minimize it."
Participants in the "Coexistence Project" have experimented with several nonlethal deterrents over the past year, including the use of fladry, or flagging, which has shown some success in keeping wolves at bay.
They've also experimented with electrified versions of fladry, along with a range rider — a backcountry horseman who helps keep an eye on the cattle much as a shepherd does with a flock of sheep.
Blake Huntley, a Big Hole Valley rancher, joined the project earlier this year. He was eager to see if the methods could work to reduce the depredation of his cattle. So far, he said, the jury's still out, though he remains optimistic.
"The fact of the matter is, these darned wolves are pretty unpredictable," he said. "I don't think I have enough experience under my belt yet to say if the experiment is working or not."
If recent years are any measure, Huntley said, area wolf packs typically disappear after June. Past and current summers have been quiet, just the way Huntley likes it. The range rider didn't report much howling and no cattle have been killed.
But then, as in years past, the wolves returned this September. That leaves Huntley uncertain whether the efforts are working, and whether he can spare the personnel to continue the project when the Wildlife Conservation Society leaves.
"Their acts of aggression are so random and their movement is so large, you might not think there's any wolves present, and all of a sudden, they're there," Huntley said. "From my viewpoint, at this point in time, I don't know if the range rider is a plus or not."
By 1900, wolves in the West had been hunted almost to extinction. Ranches evolved in the Northern Rockies without the presence of the wolf.
But since their reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s, wolves have returned to their historic range across parts of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.
Some have hailed the animal's presence, calling it a powerful symbol of America's wild places. Others have been slow to accept their return.
"It has definitely changed the landscape," said Nathan Lance, wolf management specialist with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "The simple solution is that either the carnivore leaves or the livestock leaves. But that's not where we are and it's not where any of us wants to be. It's about stopping the losses and minimizing the risks."
Lance said the project has enjoyed its share of success, including its ability to bring groups together in search of a common solution to a longstanding problem. The range rider project also has shown positive signs, not only because it keeps a watch out for carnivores, he said, but because it keeps an eye on the cattle.
In years past, Lance said, when cattle returned home for the season and ranchers wound up one or two cows short, wolves more often than not got the blame.
But the range rider is able to alert ranchers to sick cattle and cows that have died. By working with watering sources, the rider also has lent a hand in range management, something Lance is pleased to see.
"It all boils down to how a rancher or an interest group wants to define something," Lance said. "If this goes two months and you don't have any losses, and then you have a calf killed, how do you define that? Is it still a success? There's no major cure-all, no 100 percent stopping it."
Other states, including Idaho, have used range riders and fladry to help keep wolves and cattle apart. Minnesota and Wisconsin have also employed proactive methods to reduce conflicts.
Lance said there's no reason Montana and Wyoming couldn't do the same. He'd like to see the project move into a second year, revealing trends while giving those involved a better understanding of what works and what doesn't.
"Some of it is community acceptance toward new kinds of practices," said Lance. "We'll have to soul search and define what we deem success. I think a second year would really help. It'll start giving you that trend."
Though skeptical, Huntley isn't dismissing the efforts just yet. He's looking to work with state and federal agencies charged with managing wolves, along with the conservation groups hoping to reduce their conflicts with cattle.
"You're better off trying to work with them than turning your nose and saying no," Huntley said. "Our goals are somewhat different, but at the end of the day, if the wolves aren't eating my cows, that's good with me and it's good with them, too."

source

Image of the Day

wolf, a photo by ⊄⊅ on Flickr.

Kill order means initial wolf pack may not survive

JEFF BARNARD, AP Environmental Writer

Monday, September 26, 2011

• 
  This trail camera photo provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife shows two wolves from the Imnaha pack on June 22, 2011 on the Wallowa Whitman National Forest in Wallowa County. The wolf on the left is a 2-year-old male, and the wolf in the center is the alpha female. A state wildlife official said Monday that the pack may not survive an order to kill two of its members for attacks on livestock, but the restoration of wolves in Oregon in general is progressing. Photo: Oregon Department Of Fish And Wildlife / AP

The decision to kill two more wolves for preying on livestock could mean the end of the first Oregon wolf pack to successfully breed since efforts began to restore the predators.

State wolf coordinator Russ Morgan said Monday that despite this setback, restoration of wolves is moving forward, with individuals striking out for new territories, and the newly formed Walla Walla pack in Umatilla County breeding its first two pups.

"Recovery has a number of barometers," Morgan said from his office in LaGrande, Ore. "If we look at dispersal in the overall area in Oregon, it's clearly expanding.

"The lethal control actions we are involved with now may have the effect of slowing recovery. But it is also tied to recovery. One of the premises of the Oregon wolf plan is that by directly dealing with depredation issues, that helps create a bit of tolerance. I suppose that remains to be seen."

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife announced last week that it will kill two of the four remaining members of the Imnaha pack, which has been responsible for 14 confirmed livestock kills over the last two years.

A department hunter is looking first for a member of the pack not collared with a radio transmitter, Morgan said. Then he will go after the alpha male, which goes by the number OR4 and sired the first pups in Oregon since wolves began moving back into the state from Idaho in the 1990s.

Two other members of the pack, the only one of three packs in Oregon that has been tied to livestock attacks, were shot earlier this year. A third kill order was not carried out, and two members of the pack have left Oregon, one going to Idaho and the other to Washington.

Morgan said the loss of the alpha male and leaving just two survivors of the pack could mean its demise, but he said that prospect had nothing to do with the decision to kill two members.

Enterprise rancher Todd Nash owned the calf whose death earlier this month led to the kill order. It was part of a herd of 150 grazing on private land east of Joseph in an area known as The Divide. He was not using nonlethal controls such as flagging and electric fencing but did have a range rider checking the cattle.

Nash was visiting a new grandchild in California when he got the call from the department that they had GPS tracking information on the Imnaha pack that led them to believe they might have gone after his cattle. A friend found the remains of the 550-pound calf.

Nash said losses to wolves are not threatening to put him out of business, but they are having an impact. And the compensation program approved by the Legislature this year does not fully cover the problem.

"We spend so much money trapping, collaring, and helicopter guarding and one thing and another. Then they end up killing the darn things. Because we can't coexist with them. That's the plain and simple fact," he said. "This pack should have been removed a long time ago."

Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild blamed the kill order on the fact that Nash has been an outspoken opponent of restoring wolves — an assertion that Morgan denied.

Pedery added that the state needs to do more to prevent livestock attacks without resorting to killing wolves.

"ODFW has been under really intense pressure from the cattlemen," Pedery said from Portland, Ore. "This is really a kill order on the pack. It is very unlikely the mother and her pup will survive the winter unless they feed on gut piles (left by deer and elk hunters), which puts them at risk of poachers, or feed on livestock. They really have little hope of bringing down a deer or elk by themselves."

source

Image of the Day

Juneau, a photo by blind_dave79 on Flickr.

Image of the Day

Next?, a photo by C.R. Courson on Flickr.

Biologists say Oregon down to a dozen wolves

Published , Sunday, September 25, 2011

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon's largest wolf pack has moved deep into the state and into Washington.
The Oregonian http://bit.ly/oGrTyt ) reports that tracking by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife indicates four wolves in the Imnaha pack.
Oregon wildlife biologists last spring killed two wolves in the pack after ranchers' calves were attacked. A third wolf died after being captured and collared.
The department says it will kill two more of the pack after the alpha male's GPS collar confirmed it was at the scene of a calf kill last week.
The department's assistant wolf coordinator, Roblyn Brown, says fluctuation of wolf numbers and movement is normal.
The overall number of wolves in the state fell from 21 to 12. The number is expected to climb.

source

Wolves of the Yellowstone Ecosystem -Worth the Read!

T.R. Michels

T.R. Michels is a professional guide who specializes in trophy whitetail, turkey and bear hunts in Minnesota. He has guided in the Rocky Mountains for elk and mule deer, too. He publishes the Trinity Mountain Outdoors website at www.TRMichels.com.

Wolves of the Yellowstone Ecosystem Part One

Posted by: T.R. Michels / September 22, 2011 

 

I recently receivd an e-mail with a link to a video on the Wolves of the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Here were my thoughts on it:

I watchced this film - on the wolves of Yellowstone http://bowhunting.net/video/2011/09/crying-wolf-movie/ - with interest,but as it went on I had a number of questions about what was beind said. And I did some in-depth checking on it.

It is not an investigative piece, it is obviously a personal opinion/desire piece, designed to sway the watcher into taking the side of the video maker. It does not present a balanced look at both sides of the issue. There is nothing wrong with trying to sway people, even if you present only one sideof the issue - I do it all the time on my Mineapolis Star Tribune Blog, But, one should always check their "facts' to be sure that the are in deed - facts. I, as s Christian, could not prsent this issue, or any other one, without making darn sure I have the facts on my side, and this video producer does not have them. It is inexcusable.

This piece is filled with many misleading statements, half truths and "out and out" falsehoods.

On the video: 

Someone mentioned that wolves had never been a part of the Yellowstone Ecosystem. That is false, most westerners know that wolves were found all around it, and records that show they were in it. Nothing kept them out.

Someone said wolves killed more buffalo then whites and Indians combined. During some years that may have been true. Over the period of the existence of the wolf - certainly, because they werre here long before the Native Americans or Europeans. But, during the days of Wild Bill Cody, Buffalo Bill etc. hunters killed far more buffalo in a week, the wolves did in a year. 

Someone mentiond 10's of thousands of wolves. There were only 50,000-70,000 wolves in the 80's - in all of North America - not the US - as implied. Currently the US has about 9,000 wolves, with about 4,00 of those in my home sate of Minnesota. And we do not complain like westeners do, and we do have livestock loses - becasue we do not have the large elk and bison herds that the west does. We do have whitetals, .
Someone said that wildlfe increase is healthy. That could be, but it is no healthy for the ecosystem, because many native plants are either in danger or no longer in existence in many areas, due to overgrazing by both cattle and wildlife. I'll write more about this later. 

Someone said that a single wolf can raise 20 pups in 3 years, That is only true if there are abundant prey species in the area - every year. The Alpha female of a pck of wolved can have up to 6 pups per year, but- she is the only one of the pack (which may contain an average of 4 other females and 1-2 males (her pups) that normally has pups, and up to 80% of the pups born each year may die. So, out of a group of 100 wolves, there may be only 40 females, of which only 10 are Alpha females, that may raise to adulthood 10 wolves every 3 years - not 40. And in aera werh teh wolf populatin has reache balanced predator pry spcied number, that are also in balance with the ecosystem carrying capacity - enough wolves will die each year, from disease, injury or malnutrition - the ther is no increasein wolf number over th long term. 

Here are the 2001 Yellowstone wolf study results.

At the end of 2010, at least 97 wolves (11 packs and 6 loners) occupied Yellowstone National Park (YNP). This is nearly the same size population as in 2009 (96 wolves) and represents a stable population. Breeding pairs increased from six in 2009 to eight in 2010. The wolf population declined 43% from 2007 to 2010, primarily because of a smaller elk population, the main food of northern range wolves. The interior wolf population declined less, probably because they augment their diet with bison. The severity of mange declined in 2010 and there was no evidence of distemper being a mortality factor as it was in 1999, 2005, and 2008. Pack size ranged from 3 (Grayling Creek) to 16 (Mollie's) and averaged 8.3, slightly higher than in 2009 (7.1), but lower than the long-term average of 10 wolves per pack. Eight of the 11 packs reproduced (73%). The average number of pups per pack in early winter for packs that had at least one pup was 4.8, compared to the 2009 average of 3.8. A total of 38 pups in YNP survived to year end.

Wolf Project staff detected 268 wolf kills in 2010 (definite, probable, and possible combined), including 211 elk (79%), 25 bison (9%), 7 deer (3%), 4 wolves (1%), 2 moose (<1%), 2 pronghorn (<1%), 2 grizzly bears (< 1%), 4 coyotes (1%), 2 ravens (<1%), and 10 unknown species (4%). The composition of elk kills was 43% cows, 25% calves, 18% bulls, and 15% elk of unknown sex and/or age. Bison kills included 4 calves, 6 cows, 7 bulls, and 8 unknown sex adults. Intensive winter and summer studies of wolf predation continued.

 The pup ratio per 100 wolves was 38:100.

What wolf reintroduction to the Yellowsoten Ecosystem is about, is a balanced "predator/prey/prey forage base" system and the associated bird, insect, fish, reptile, amphibian, crustacean, mullosk, and invertebrate populations - meaning that we should take into account how the loss of one of those components - impacts the whole ecosystem balance. In this case, when wolves were not in the Yellowstone ecosystem, elk and bison number increases, which resulted in the loss of many native plant speceis, and the suppression of other species (shrubs and wildflowers) - mainly aspen, cottonwood and willow, which are a primary food source for elk and moose during the winter.

 Here is one example of how the increase in elk, beyond blanced predator/pray number can affect an ecosystem.

 ... if the Northern Range elk population does not continue to decline -- their numbers are 40 percent of what they were before wolves -- many of Yellowstone's aspen stands are unlikely to recover

I suggest you read this account of scientific findings; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031029064909.htm.

Hopefully it will help you see the other side of this issue. There are several other articles there, relating to this issue. It is much broader than just wolves, elk, bison and livestock.

What people around the world need to think about - if they want to continue to enjoy nature and its widllife - is total ecosystem based conservation - not just the wants, needs or desires of a few people - concerned for their own welfare.

God bless,

T.R.

source 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wolves of the Yellowstone Ecosystem, Part 2

Posted by: T.R. Michels / September 25, 2011 

There is no question that wolves have reduced the number of elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem. And it was known that this would happen, because, since big cattle ranches grew up on the edges of Yellowstone Park and the Teton National Wilderness Area, and the inception of the National Elk Refuge (mainly for the purpose of hunting, not for a balanced ecosystem) the number or elk, when considered as part of the ruminant species foraging on the wild plants of Yellowstone has, grown too big. The ruminant base has greatly impacted, and in some places destroyed, the native flora of that ecosystem.

That ecosystem did not develop into what it was before the National Elk Refuge, or modern hunting, without wolves as part of the equation, (along with bears, and mountain lions) to prey on the larger prey/fauna of ecosystem, in order to keep them in check within the carrying capacity of the habitat. It did not develop to hold that many elk, bison, mule deer, moose, bighorn sheep and pronghorns (but mainly elk) without wolves to keep them in check. Thus it was an unbalanced ecosystem - before ranching, and before the elk refuge. What it is now, is an artificially manage ecosystem, with wildlife viewing and hunting as two components of that management. This is not responsible ecosystem management – at all.

Most people today are unaware of what the Yellowstone area originally was, and what it was meant to be - by God (if you believe in Yahweh). All they know is the wolves reduce their precious elk numbers, which reduces the hunting availability. And that is all they care about. They do not care that the aspen, willow and cottonwood forests are no longer regenerating in some areas, making it hard for their precious elk to find forage in the winter, which, if it keeps up, can lead to starvation of their precious elk herds. The loss of those forests also affects songbird nesting and thus raptors; riparian forage habitat and thus waterfowl and shorebirds, shade to create cool streams and thus trout;, trout and thus wading birds, bears, mink fisher, weasels and otter; insects and crustaceans and mollusks and thus amphibians and reptiles. And on and on.
Now don't get me wrong, I probably know I enjoy watching, researching an hunting elk more than any hunter who is likely to respond to this post, because I have spent 10 years of my life guiding for elk, and 3 years researching elk. I like elk more than whitetails. If I could have my way, we would restore elk to all of the eastern 2/3s' fo North America, but is not feasible.

But wolf reintroduction is not about what ranchers or hunters want. It is about total ecosystem management, with a balanced predator / prey relationship, and keeping the prey species within the carrying capacity of the habitat.

Yellowstone never, at anytime in recent memory, developed into an ecosystem that was designed to hold as many bighorn sheep, mountain Goats, moose, mule deer and elk, as now live within the boundaries of the park. It currently holds more than 30,000 elk from 7-8 different herds in the summer, with approximately 15,000 to 22,000 wintering in the park. Lack of forage and deep snow depths are why elk and bison migrate out of the park every winter, and forage on the ranchers land and haystacks. There are too many elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Their number are artificially inflated because of the extinction of one of the keystone predators – the wolves, and the creation of the National Elk Refuge – for the purpose of wildlife watching and hunting.

Ranchers in the Yellowstone Ecosystem complain about the bison that leave the park every winter, because they may carry brucellosis. They would also complain about the elk, except that they would loose the money they get leasing the hunting rights to their property for elk hunts. But interestingly, it is not the ranchers that are complaining the most loudly about lower elk numbers, it is hunters, many of who do not have any economic stake in the area - just hunting rights - who complain most about the wolf reintroduction.
And they do it to save their hunting possibilities, with very little concern for the health of an entire very ecosystem. But, not just any ecosystem, the most beautiful, pristine, magnificent, geothermally active ecosystem, in the world.

If we do not restore all of Yellowstone to what it developed itself into being, we will eventually loose parts of it, and more parts, and more parts, until it can no longer maintain itself. All because hunters do not want the keystone predator of that ecosystem, to exist within it - just so they can keep hunting elk.

There is something really wrong with that thinking, or that lack of understanding and caring about our environment. No one, not ranchers, or hunters or developers - should have their voices be more relevant than the voices of the public as a whole, and the scientists.

May God help us all, to see the wisdom of total ecosystem management, helping it to become as close to natural as we can, or as close as we can maintain it.

God bless,

T.R.
source


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yellowstone Wolf Reintroduction is not all about Elk Hunting!!!

Posted by: T.R. Michels / September 26, 2011

 

The Wolves of Yellowstone: Part 3

In case the hunters have not figure it out yet - Wolf Reintroduction into the Yellowstone Ecosystem, is not solely about elk hunting opportunities.

An interesting article on the effects of wolf reintroduction looks at the fact that elk numbers have decreased after the reintroduction of wolves, probably as a result of the wolves. I never said that wolves would not decrease elk populations. And I doubt that any knowledgeable wolf biologist would suggest that elk numbers would not decline. In fact most biologists expected they would, because of the wolves. It was expected. And, I for one am not ducking that fact.

But, the reduction in the size of the northern elk heard can also be attributed to the change from a moderate to liberal hunting harvest policy. And there has also been an increase in predation by a growing population of grizzly bears. But, the answers to why the elk herd has declined in recent years, are both elusive and often wrong, say scientists, citing the sheer complexity of the northern range ecosystem.

One of the latest studies has suggested that the northern elk herd decreased in numbers due to poor nutrition of adult elk and lower calf survival rates in that area. These are two unexpected results of the wolf reintroduction; which is to say that the scientists are still learning something from this study. Interestingly there appeared to be no connection between poor nutrition and lower calf survival rates. Poor nutrition was attributed to the elk being harassed more by wolves (which just makes sense). And lower calf survival was attributed to lower progesterone levels. You can read more about this study - and many more articles relating to the wolf re-introduction here:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031029064909.htm.
I, for one, have never suggested that wolf reintroduction would not result in lower elk numbers. In fact, I believed that wolf reintroduction would reduce the size of the elk herds, because wolves prey on elk. But, if we are talking about naturally balanced ecosystems, or those as natural as we can now hope to repair them to, then reducing the elk herds is a good thing, because there is no doubt that there are more elk in the ecosystem than it originally developed to hold.

The overly abundant elk herds are being kept at artificially high numbers, due in part to the National Elk Refuge feeding program in the winter, and the ability of the elk in the north to migrate out of the park and onto private land, where ranchers have maintained, improved or created hayfields and pastures suited to both elk and cattle, they also have large supplies of hay, in the form of haystacks for winter use, which the elk readily take advantage of. Take away the artificially maintained or created pasture and hayfields and haystacks, and the feeding program of the elk refuge, and elk numbers will decrease - due to starvation in large numbers. Such widespread elk deaths could lead to the appearance of deadly microorganisms, and the spread of diseases. So, no one is willing to take such a step, and I am not advocating it.

For many hunters, someplace between the time they first took up hunting, or learned to hunt, and where they are now, they have forgotten that hunting is a privilege, not a right, and that without good conservation measures, in this case total ecosystem management, we may not have either the habitat to support the game we love to hunt, or we may not have the game we love to hunt on that habitat, or both.

You would think that we would have learned from the past, when in the early 1900’s, due to unregulated hunting, we brought the populations of many game animals (white-tailed deer, elk, bison, turkey, pheasants, almost all waterfowl species) to the brink of extinction. In fact, about 100 years later, some of those species have still not recovered (wolves, bison, pheasants, swans and some species of ducks). At that point in time it was not so much the habitat that was in jeopardy, it was the game. But, without the habitat, the game cannot or will not survive, and now it is the habitat that we need to worry about. I’m referring to healthy habitat, brought about by balanced predator/prey relationships, and keeping prey species in balance with the carrying capacity of the land - as in its forage base for large herbivores. There is no question that the trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, sedges etc. of he Yellowstone Ecosystem – are nowhere near as healthy as they once were – due in part to the removal of wolves in the ecosystem back as far as 1926 – 86 years ago.

To use the argument that the "trophic cascading" hypothesis (the loss or reduction of one species leads to the loss or reduction of another species) as a reason to justify removing wolves from the Yellowstone Ecosystem is not relevant to this post. I would suggest that in the case of the Yellowstone ecosystem, not enough time has elapsed after the removal of wolves from the ecosystem in 1926, to be able to tell if the loss of the wolves in the ecosystem than lead to declines or extinction of other species later. Even if this is not true, recent studies have shown that many plant species (that elk use as forage) that were formerly found in Yellowstone, are either reduced or in decline as a result of the removal of the wolves and the increase in elk numbers, almost 100 years ago.

If we look at the first portion of this article, we see that in fact, because wolves harass elk in northern Yellowstone, the elk have poor nutrition – which means they are either not eating as much, or they are eating different species, or they are feeding in different areas, or any combination of the three. This in turn suggests that some plant species that the elk were foraging on, are no longer being eaten by the elk. And we can conclude from that, that those plant species are either increasing, or not declining. Thus, there appears to have been a "cascading effect".

How About No Wolves?

Let us look at this from another aspect. Let us assume that the wolves do not affect elk numbers enough to allow any type of plant species to re-establish itself, prosper or stop declining in Yellowstone Park or the Yellowstone Ecosystem. The wolves did not have a secondary affect the flora in any way at all. The only thing they did was take down young, old or diseased elk, or other elk for some reason. If, for no other reason than the fact that they are culling the elk herd, to even a minor extent (hunters claim wolves are taking a lot of elk each year), would not that be enough to warrant keeping elk in the ecosystem? Or, wouldn’t the ability of park goers to see wolves, hear them howling, and photograph wolves, in a natural setting, in the most beautiful geothermal area of the world – be enough to justify keeping the wolves in the ecosystem? Would not the fact that there is now, or will be in the future, a balanced predator/prey relationship between the elk and wolves, be enough to justify keeping wolves in the ecosystem? I think the answer to those questions is a resounding yes.

Does wolf re-introduction have to be about total ecosystem balance, in order to justify having them in the Yellowstone Ecosystem? I think the answer to that question is no.

Should the wants and desires of a few very vocal and outspoken hunters and ranchers - outweigh the wants and desires of the United States public citizens as a whole, or should the wants and needs of the greater non-hunting public decide whether or not there are wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem?

I’ve been in Yellowstone Park and the surrounding areas several times, starting as far back as the 1960’s. I’ve been there before there were any wolves there, when you could not find a bald eagle or a sandhill crane or trumpeter swan, and grizzly bears were abundant – in the garbage dumps. But, elk were hard to locate. And I’ve been there when there were lots of elk, a few grizzly and black bears, and a few wolves. I think the park, and the experience of visiting it, are enhanced by every species that has made a comeback or been re-introduced there. For many people, the animals of the area are what Yellowstone Park is all about, and that should be a good enough reason for keeping wolves in the ecosystem.

The park, and the surrounding ecosystem, are not there just for hunters. Yellowstone is for everyone, and for all the animal and plant species that belong there.

If you get a chance to visit Yellowstone Park, I’m sure you will enjoy seeing, hearing or photographing the wolf packs there. Do it soon, before it is gone.

If you have a positive Yellowstone story, I urge you to post it in the comments box.
God bless,
T.R.

source

Image of the Day

DSC_2026, a photo by blind_dave79 on Flickr.

Could you shoot this animal?

ODFW to kill two more Imnaha pack wolves

Posted: Friday, September 23, 2011 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife staff will kill two wolves from the Imnaha pack after confirming they were involved in another livestock loss.

The two wolves that will be targeted are the alpha male and an uncollared wolf in the pack. Data from the alpha male’s GPS collar confirm he was at the scene where the calf was killed earlier this week.

Removing two wolves will reduce the size of Imnaha pack to two—the adult/alpha female and a pup born in spring 2011. Other wolves from the Imnaha pack moved to new areas earlier this year.

“Today’s decision was not made lightly,” said ODFW Director Roy Elicker. “We’re working hard to conserve wolves in Oregon, yet be sensitive to the losses suffered by livestock owners.”

Yesterday’s investigation brings to 14 the number of livestock animals confirmed to be killed by the Imnaha pack in the past year and a half. ODFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed seven losses this year (two in February, and on April 30, May 4 and 17, June 5, and Sept. 22) and seven last year.

The 2011 losses are repeating a pattern similar to 2010, when the Imnaha pack wolves killed livestock April through early June and again in the fall (September). An additional two losses were determined to be probable wolf kills by this pack, including one on Sept. 7, 2011.

ODFW assumed responsibility for wolf management in the eastern third of Oregon May 5, 2011, after wolves in this area were delisted from the federal Endangered Species Act. After four confirmed livestock losses in spring 2011, ODFW killed two wolves from the Imnaha pack in mid-May.

Under the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, ODFW kills wolves after chronic livestock depredation.

Yesterday’s investigation scene showed clear evidence of a wolf attack. The large spring calf had been dead less than two days, yet was almost completely consumed, suggesting the entire pack had fed on it. The alpha female was observed near the investigation site the following day, and GPS collar data indicates the alpha male was with her at the time.

This latest confirmed depredation occurred in the same area where livestock losses had been confirmed in May and June 2011, on private property with livestock operations near Joseph.

Landowners in this area have been using numerous non-lethal measures to avoid wolf-livestock problems.

source

Wolves, Caribou, Tar Sands and Canada's Oily Ethics

Chris Genovali

Executive Director, Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Posted: 9/22/11  

In western Canada, wolves are routinely, baselessly and contemptuously blamed for the demise of everything from marmots to mountain caribou. Given that attitude, we at Raincoast Conservation Foundation are appalled, though not surprised, by Canada's proposed strategy to recover dwindling populations of boreal forest caribou in northern Alberta's tar sands. Essentially, the plan favours the destruction of wolves over any consequential protection, enhancement, or expansion of caribou habitat ("Federal recovery plan for caribou suggests thousands of wolves stand to die," Winnipeg Free Press, September 12, 2011). 

 

Clearly, the caribou recovery strategy is not based on ecological principles or available science. Rather it represents an ideology on the part of advocates for industrial exploitation of our environment, which subsumes all other principles to economic growth, always at the expense of ecological integrity. Owing to the breadth of the human niche, which continues to expand via technological progress, the human economy grows at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate. The real cost of Alberta's tar sands development, which includes the potential transport of oil by Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines is being borne by wolves, caribou, and other wild species. Ironically, the caribou strategy also unintentionally confirms what government and industry have long denied -- that tar sands development is not environmentally sustainable.

Consistent with Canada's now well deserved reputation as an environmental laggard, the caribou recovery strategy evolved over several years and many politicized iterations, carefully massaged by government pen pushers and elected officials who did their very best to ignore and obscure the advice of consulting biologists and ecologists. So, the government should quit implying that the consultation approach provides a scientifically credible basis for decisions. Apparently, scientists can lead federal Environment Minister Peter Kent to information but they cannot make him think.
Egged on by a rapacious oil industry, the federal government has chosen to scapegoat wolves for the decline of boreal caribou in a morally and scientifically bankrupt attempt to protect Canada's industrial sacred cow -- the tar sands. Yet, the ultimate reason why the caribou are on the way out is because multiple human disturbances -- most pressingly the tar sands development -- have altered their habitat into a landscape that can no longer provide the food, cover, and security they need.

The relentless destruction of boreal forest wilderness via tar sands development has conspired to deprive caribou of their life requisites while exposing them to levels of predation they did not evolve with and are incapable of adapting to. Consequently, caribou are on a long-term slide to extinction; not because of what wolves and other predators are doing but because of what humans have already done.
Controlling wolves by killing them or by the use of non-lethal sterilization techniques is biologically unsound as a long-term method for reducing wolf populations and protecting hoofed animals (ungulates) from predation. Lethal control has a well documented failed record of success as a means of depressing numbers of wolves over time. Killing wolves indiscriminately at levels sufficient to suppress populations disrupts pack social structure and upsets the stability of established territories, allowing more wolves to breed while promoting the immigration of wolves from nearby populations.

At the broadest level, the caribou strategy favours human selfishness at the expense of other species. Implicit is the idea that commercial enterprise is being purchased by the subversion of the natural world, with one set of ethical principles being applied to humans and another to the rest of nature. The strategy clearly panders to the ecologically destructive wants of society by sacrificing the most basic needs of caribou. In doing so, it blatantly contradicts the lesson Aldo Leopold taught us so well -- the basis of sound conservation is not merely pragmatic; it is also ethical.

Simply, the caribou strategy is not commensurate with the threats to the species' survival. What is desperately needed is a caribou strategy designed to solve the problem faster than it is being created. Protecting limited habitat for caribou while killing thousands of wolves as the exploitation of the tar sands continues to expand will not accomplish this goal. Yet, against scientific counsel to lead otherwise, politicians have decided that industrial activities have primacy over the conservation needs of endangered caribou (and frankly, all things living).

Tar sands cheerleaders try hard to convince Canadians that we can become an 'energy superpower' while maintaining our country's environment. They are of course wrong. Thousands of wolves will be just some of the causalities along the way. Minister Kent and his successors will find more opportunity to feign empathy as Canadians also bid farewell to populations of birds, amphibians, and other mammals, including caribou, that will be lost as collateral damage from tar sands development. The most difficult ministerial message, we suspect, will be this government's need to issue ongoing apologies for the scores of species that will continue to be poisoned, persecuted and dispossessed because of tar sands development. This raises many difficult questions; in particular, how much of our country's irreplaceable natural legacy will Canadians allow to be sacrificed at the altar of oil industry greed?

This article was co-authored with Dr. Paul Paquet, Raincoast Conservation Foundation senior scientist, and Dr. Chris Darimont, Raincoast's science director.
A version of this article previously ran in The Guardian.

source 

Image of the Day

Pretty but special wolf, a photo by Tambako the Jaguar on Flickr.

Image of the Day

Mai, a photo by FurLined on Flickr.

Wolves fall prey to Canada's rapacious tar sands business

On the pretext of protecting caribou, wolves are threatened with a cull. But the real 'conservation' is of oil industry profits

• • Paul Paquet
  • guardian.co.uk, Saturday 17 September 2011 

A gray wolf: in western Canada, wolves are now threatened with a cull to protect caribou in habitat where tar sands oil extraction is taking place. Photograph: Panoramic Images/Getty Images
 
Wolves are routinely, baselessly and contemptuously blamed for the demise of everything from marmots to mountain caribou in western Canada. Given that attitude, we at Raincoast Conservation Foundation are appalled, though not surprised, by Canada's proposed strategy to "recover" dwindling populations of boreal forest caribou in northern Alberta's tar sands territory. Essentially, the plan favours the destruction of wolves over any consequential protection, enhancement or expansion of caribou habitat.

Clearly, the caribou recovery strategy is not based on ecological principles or available science. Rather, it represents an ideology on the part of advocates for industrial exploitation of our environment, which subsumes all other principles to economic growth, always at the expense of ecological integrity. Owing to the breadth of the human niche, which continues to expand via technological progress, the human economy grows at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate. The real cost of Alberta's tar sands development, which includes the potential transport of oil by Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines is being borne by wolves, caribou and other wild species.

Consistent with Canada's now well-deserved reputation as an environmental laggard, the caribou recovery strategy evolved over several years and many politicised iterations, carefully massaged by government pen pushers and elected officials who did their very best to ignore and obscure the advice of consulting biologists and ecologists. So, the government should quit implying that the consultation approach provides a scientifically credible basis for decisions. Apparently, scientists can lead federal Environment Minister Peter Kent to information, but they cannot make him think.

Egged on by a rapacious oil industry, the federal government has chosen to scapegoat wolves for the decline of boreal caribou in a morally and scientifically bankrupt attempt to protect Canada's industrial sacred cow: the tar sands. Yet, the ultimate reason why the caribou are on the way out is because multiple human disturbances – most pressingly, the tar sands development – have altered their habitat into a landscape that can no longer provide the food, cover and security they need.

The relentless destruction of boreal forest wilderness via tar sands development has conspired to deprive caribou of their life requisites while exposing them to levels of predation they did not evolve with and are incapable of adapting to. Consequently, caribou are on a long-term slide to extinction; not because of what wolves and other predators are doing but because of what humans have already done.

Controlling wolves by killing them or by the use of non-lethal sterilisation techniques is biologically unsound as a long-term method for reducing wolf populations and protecting hoofed animals (ungulates) from predation. Lethal control has a well documented failed record of success as a means of depressing numbers of wolves over time. Killing wolves indiscriminately at levels sufficient to suppress populations disrupts pack social structure and upsets the stability of established territories, allowing more wolves to breed while promoting the immigration of wolves from nearby populations.
At the broadest level, the caribou strategy favours human selfishness at the expense of other species. Implicit is the idea that commercial enterprise is being purchased by the subversion of the natural world, with one set of ethical principles being applied to humans and another to the rest of nature. The strategy panders to the ecologically destructive wants of society by sacrificing the most basic needs of caribou. In doing so, it blatantly contradicts the lesson Aldo Leopold taught us so well: the basis of sound conservation is not merely pragmatic it; is also ethical.

Simply, the caribou strategy is not commensurate with the threats to the species' survival. What is desperately needed is a caribou strategy designed to solve the problem faster than it is being created. Protecting limited habitat for caribou while killing thousands of wolves as the exploitation of the tar sands continues to expand will not accomplish this goal. Against scientific counsel otherwise, though, politicians have decided that industrial activities have primacy over the conservation needs of endangered caribou (and frankly, all things living).

Tar sands cheerleaders try hard to convince Canadians that we can become an "energy superpower" while maintaining our country's environment. They are, of course, wrong. Thousands of wolves will be just some of the causalities along the way. Minister Kent and his successors will find more opportunity to feign empathy as Canadians also bid farewell to populations of birds, amphibians and other mammals, including caribou, that will be lost as collateral damage from tar sands development. How much of our country's irreplaceable natural legacy will Canadians allow to be sacrificed at the altar of oil industry greed?

source

September 20, 2011

Wyoming wolves on road to delisting

Written by Gib Mathers

Wyoming will keep its dual status if all goes according to its plan in the coming months under a wolf management plan approved Wednesday by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission.
Quota-managed hunting could begin in the fall of 2012.

In the predator zone, covering approximately 90 percent of the state, wolves could be shot on site year-round.

However, within the predator zone is a flex zone covering northern Sublette and Lincoln counties and southern Teton County where wolves would be protected from Oct. 15 to the end of February each year to allow the canines genetic connectivity to wolves in Idaho.
“The key thing for our members in the predator area is that if they see a wolf, they can shoot that wolf,” said Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association at the commission meeting.

Next, a delisting ruling would be published in the Federal Register this fall. The Wyoming Legislature would approve the changes during the 2012 budget session or during a special session requested by Gov. Matt Mead, who hammered out the agreement with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar this spring.
Wyoming would maintain at least 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs outside Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation.

There are approximately 97 wolves in Yellowstone and 230 in Wyoming, with about 30 of those in the predator zone, said Chris Colligan, wildlife advocate for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in Jackson.
This year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service killed 25 livestock-depredating wolves. If wolves are delisted, the Game and Fish will handle wolf depredations and they won’t manage wolves in the predator zone, Colligan said.

With that said, the Game and Fish will have to figure hunting quotas very carefully when it conducts season-setting meetings this winter, Colligan said.
“We were fully supportive of what the governor’s done, and we were fully supportive of this plan as the department presented it to the commission today,” Magagna said. “We think it’s the right step forward.”
Wyoming has brought litigation against the Fish and Wildlife Service and so have conservation groups concerning wolves.

Filing lawsuits when an endangered species comes up for delisting is not uncommon, Colligan said.
More lawsuits could be filed by conservation groups because of Wyoming’s dual status plan and the commission’s removal from the plan to mandate reports of wolf killings in the predator zone. “I think it is certainly a possibility,” Colligan said.

There is a Congressional bill awaiting vote that would prevent more wolf suits in Wyoming.
Wyoming would be the only state to allow unregulated wolf killing.
“Wyoming’s proposal to allow the killing of a huge percentage of the state’s wolves is extreme and all about politics, rather than science,” said John Spahr of the Wyoming chapter and co-lead for the Sierra Club’s resilient habitats campaign in a statement Wednesday.

source

Who should decide if wolves are the culprits?

Cassandra Profita | September 19, 2011

emerald isle druid/Flickr

Did you guys kill that yourself? Or are you just scavenging leftovers? The latest debate about wolves in Oregon is who should decide whether dead livestock were actually killed by wolves. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been less likely to confirm wolf kills than the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services, and the Oregon Cattlemen's Association has requested an appeal process for ODFW's decisions.
A new debate over wolves in Oregon is gaining steam. This month, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association presented a letter to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission asking for a way to appeal the state determination on whether dead livestock have been killed by wolves.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s decision on whether wolves are the culprits is important for a couple reasons:

• One, the confirmation will most likely be needed before the owner can be reimbursed for the loss through the state’s new wolf compensation program.
• Two, it is a key factor in the state’s decision to authorize a wolf kill (and right now the state is the only entity that can authorize wolf kills in the eastern third of Oregon, where gray wolves are protected under the state Endangered Species Act).

Kay Teisl, executive director or the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, told the Fish and Wildlife Commission in a letter Sept. 1 that ranchers want some recourse when the state disagrees with local veterinarians and officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services agency about whether dead livestock were killed by wolves. Time and time again, she argued, Wildlife Services has confirmed wolf kills that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife hasn’t.

Cattle ranchers are having “horrific experiences” with wolves in Northeast Oregon, she wrote, finding cattle “with blood dripping from their mouths, broken legs, bite marks, badly torn udder.” But if ODFW decides wolves weren’t the culprits, they “are left with little recourse for reconsideration.”

“Frustration among ranchers is mounting from the conflicting wolf kill determinations to date. More specifically, because the ODFW determinations tend to widely differ from those wildlife experts and livestock professionals who have been on investigation sites time and time again.”

Tiesl suggested an appeals process that would allow “a third-party expert or panel of two veterinarians and the Washington State University lab analysis to be used to judicially resolve disagreements on wolf depredation determinations.”

She pointed to a case in which two local vets, Wildlife Services and the WSU lab all confirmed a wolf had killed a calf in March when ODFW said it wasn’t a wolf kill.

Wolf advocates disagree

Rob Klavins, a wolf advocate with Oregon Wild, says ODFW is going “as good a job as anybody” at determining whether wolves are to blame for livestock kills, and he doesn’t trust Wildlife Services to make unbiased decisions. “We really hope ODFW will continue to be the investigator,” he said.

Klavins said he’s not opposed to ranchers being compensated for livestock losses to wolves, but he suspects that some cattlemen just want to make sure wolves take the blame for more livestock losses so there’s a better chance of getting compensation and a better chance of more wolves being killed. In the grand scheme of things, wolves are a relatively minor threat to ranchers, Klavins said. “There are 1.3 million cattle in Oregon, and 55,000 were lost before they made it to the slaughterhouse last year,” he said. “Even if you give credibility to the most extreme calls, wolves are only taking one one-thousandth of what’s being lost. They’re dying out there from all sorts of causes.” But fear, resentment of the government for reintroducing wolves, and the financial incentive to prove a wolf kill and get compensation are all contributing to anti-wolf sentiment, Klavins said, in spite of how many livestock wolves actually kill.  

How many cattle do wolves actually kill?  

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Klavins’ figures are correct. But there’s more: Of the 55,000 Oregon calves and cattle losses last year, 3,800 were lost to predators (600 cattle and 3,200 calves); wolves claimed less than .1 percent of the depredated cattle and 7.7 percent of the calves, according to the USDA. Coyotes took far more – 63 percent of cattle and 70 percent of the calves. But I would add a couple notes here:

• One, wolves are still relatively new to Oregon, and concentrated in the northeast corner of the state. So the 2010 numbers don’t reflect the potential for wolves to have more of an impact in the future (in Idaho, where wolves are more established, wolves claimed 47 percent of the calves that died from predators while coyotes only took 26 percent).
• Two, Oregon ranchers are allowed to kill coyotes but not wolves, unless they catch one actually attacking livestock.

I heard a presentation by Russ Morgan, ODFW’s wolf coordinator, several months ago. He explained how there are “whole packs (of wolves) walking down the streets close to Joseph. You can imagine the concern in March when most of the livestock calves start hitting the ground. There’s constant fear.”
“… Wolf biology isn’t complicated,” he said. “It’s the people management that’s hard. Like it or not, wolves eat livestock and will continue to eat livestock.”

Does ODFW have a conflict of interest in investigating wolf kills? I get the sense from the Cattlemen’s Association letter that ranchers think the state has a reason not to confirm livestock losses as wolf kills. But I put in calls to several association members to ask them about this and haven’t heard back yet. An independent review of ODFW’s wolf kill investigation process is due out this week, according to ODFW spokeswoman Michelle Dennehy. In January, ODFW staff will present its investigation procedures to the Fish and Wildlife Commission, so the board can decide whether to explore the appeal process requested by the cattlemen. Dennehy said when her agency is called in after a livestock depredation, officials have to determine whether wolves actually did the killing or if they just scavenged a carcass that was killed by something else. Investigators look at bite marks, check data on collared wolves to see if they were in the area, look for evidence of a chase and for wolf tracks.


Here’s what Morgan said in his presentation on wolf management earlier this year:

“It’s very easy to document wolf kills. There are telltale signs in a necropsy. … When wolves kill, there’s a lot of biting, but a lot of times they don’t even puncture the skin. Most dead lambs, there’s not a speck of blood on them. They bite and bruise and the animals go into shock. They almost always attack behind the front shoulders or behind the back legs. They’re also very good at consuming everything – very large bones, entrails. So sometimes even though a wolf could have done it, if you eat the evidence, it’s pretty hard to say.”

Read more on ecotrope.opb.org

source

Image of the Day

Wolf, a photo by RickardSjödén on Flickr.

Image of the Day

Arctic Wolf seen between two trees in winter, a photo by Bad1001... on Flickr.

Image of the Day

Elara - 3 September 2011 (1), a photo by *Arctic Fox* on Flickr.

A female Scandinavian Gray Wolf

Image of the Day

Young wolf with cute tongue, a photo by Tambako the Jaguar on Flickr.

Wolf Weekly Wrap-up

Defenders of Wildlife Blog

---

Posted: 16 Sep 2011

Guard dog saves sheep in Washington state – You couldn’t ask for a better example of wolf coexistence tools in action. Recently, a guard dog named Gabby sustained an injury from a wolf attack while protecting a flock of sheep in the Teanaway Mountains, 90 miles from Seattle, Wash. Gabby is one of several guard dogs employed by herders with Mark Martinez’s sheep operation, that uses summer grazing lands now in the range of the so-far elustive Teanaway wolf pack. Here’s what happened: the herder was alerted to the presence of wolves during a lunch break, thanks to Gabby’s barking, and sprang into action, firing a warning shot that scared the wolves away. Gabby ultimately survived the incident and has made a full recovery.

It proved to be both a valiant and successful effort, since she prevented any sheep from being harmed. Notably, the wolves had been drawn to the area by the smell of a dead sheep that had been previously killed by a cougar (clearly, wolves are not the only predators of concern in the area). Washington’s Division of Fish and Wildlife is in the process of finalizing a comprehensive wolf plan by the end of the year that will include a compensation program for ranchers that lose livestock to wolves. Proven coexistence tools, like guard dogs, should be an essential part of the mix as well. This incident is a great reminder that, with a little extra effort, coexistence does work.


Watch this news report from KING5-WA for the full story:

 

Under the gun in Oregon — Despite Oregon’s best attempts to implement a well-balanced wolf conservation plan, including putting in place the most forward-thinking compensation and coexistence program in the country, some ranchers are still crying wolf. Several stockgrowers in the eastern part of the start are doing everything they can to get USDA’s Wildlife Services, the federal agency responsible for removing “problem” wolves, to take aggressive action to kill even more wolves. Read the full AP story on Huffington Post.

Biologists with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have been carefully investigating reported livestock losses. But their refusal to rubber-stamp those losses as wolf kills has pitted them against those who are anxious to get rid of wolves. The Cattlemen’s Association has sent a letter to the Governor demanded that ODFW step up wolf control efforts, even though at least four wolves have been killed already in response to depredations. Only about two dozen wolves are believed to exist in Oregon. We support the state’s continued efforts to conduct thorough investigations and are working with ranchers to implement nonlethal tools wherever possible to protect their livestock, before conflicts arise.


Teton wolves in danger — The superintendent of Grand Teton National Park Mary Gibson Scott has confirmed our suspicions about Wyoming’s pending wolf plan. Her letter to Wyoming Game and Fish says that the state’s aggressive plan to treat wolves as unwanted predators across the vast majority of the state will put the population at risk, including on public lands in our national parks and forests. Specifically, she points out that allowing wolves that move through the Grand Teton area to be shot on sight in national forest outside the park would limit dispersal and compromise genetic connectivity to surrounding areas.

“Maintaining genetic connectivity between Wyoming and Idaho is important for the long-term resilience and persistence of wolves that reside in Grand Teton National Park,” Scott said. “The best way to ensure that genetic exchange occurs is to allow for dispersal year-round.
“Therefore, I urge you to consider removing the seasonal portion of the [wolf trophy game management area] and treat the entire delineated area as permanent … or, at a minimum extending the window for protection in the seasonal portion of the [wolf trophy game management area] through March and April to better ensure successful dispersal of wolves.” (from report in Jackson Hole News & Guide

 

, 9/14/11)

Scott also mentioned in her letter that claims that wolves had destroyed the local moose population were misleading are not supported by the data. Historical records show that the moose population was in decline almost a decade before wolves returned to the area, and likely suffered as a result of other factors.

Conservation easement to include “nonlethal” provisions – The ongoing saga with wolves near the Flat Top Ranch in Carey, Idaho took an interesting turn this week. Blaine County is considering using local tax dollars to help purchase a conservation easement for the property to protect a two-mile stretch of river and surrounding lands, including important wildlife habitat. But in recent weeks, the ranch has also been the site of the aerial gunning of three wolves in response to livestock losses. The owner, John Peavey, wrote in a letter to the Idaho Mountain Express that he did not make the call to federal agents with Wildlife Service to remove the wolves. Nonetheless, many local residents were not pleased with the outcome and expressed concerns with purchasing a conservation easement where lethal control of wolves was going to be permitted. To resolve the situation, our wolf coexistence expert Suzanne Stone stepped in with other conservation organizations to make the use of nonlethal options a part of the agreement. Hopefully, this will help turn an unfortunate incident into a long-term conservation success story. Read the full story in today’s Idaho Mountain Express

 

.source: Defenders of Wildlife blog