Friday, November 30, 2012
Park-area wolf deaths disturbing
After YNP wolf deaths, will Montana make changes to hunting laws?
It started with a Facebook message from a friend: “What is all this (BS) I hear about 7 YNP wolves shot outside the park?”
Joe hadn’t ever reacted like this over wolves — not when they were removed from Endangered Species Act protections in Idaho and Montana, not when hunting seasons began in both states, not even when Wyoming was handed management reins despite a biologically flawed road map that allows wolves to be killed like varmints anytime, anywhere and in almost any manner across more than 80 percent of the state.
Now he was incensed, like many others who’d spent memorable outings watching some of the very wolves he now feared dead.
I checked for confirmation. Sure enough, seven wolves dead, all legally shot just outside of Yellowstone National Park’s boundaries. Two were “dispersers” that hadn’t spent much time in Yellowstone of late, but three were from packs synonymous with the park’s wolf mystique — the Mollies, Blacktail Plateau and Lamar Canyon.
Ever since, I have tried to absorb the unsettling news.
Now, I have long maintained that wolves are neither demons nor deities. Irrational vitriol from the feverish anti- and pro-wolf crowds have only inflamed emotions over a creature that simply plays a vital role in a healthy ecology — and, as it turns out, economy.
All the bluster about wolves being exotic, over-sized, parasite-ridden wanton killers that have wiped out half the livestock and elk populations of the Northern Rockies is no more or less ridiculous than assertions that anyone who wishes to hunt a wolf should have their guns impounded, be imprisoned or worse.
Further, I understood that even with Endangered Species Act protections many wolves from this new “non-essential experimental” population would necessarily perish due to livestock predation, as nearly 2,000 have from government bullets since 1995.
I also recognized hunting as a valuable tool for maintaining balance among wildlife populations.
Even Yellowstone wolves I readily acknowledged as wild animals in a wild world fraught with peril.
They would starve. They would contract lethal diseases. They would die from the thrash of an elk hoof, the swat of a grizzly bear paw, or in the clenched jaws of another turf-hungry wolf.
At the same time, for 17 years, hundreds of thousands of people have come to Yellowstone solely for the privilege of viewing a wolf in the wild. Weren’t at least these mere 88 park wolves roaming a sanctuary of sorts, safe from the crosshairs of high-powered rifles?
That perception has been shattered.
It’s important to note that Montana has been a laudable manager of wolves. Now the state has another opportunity to show leadership on this highly sensitive issue, and to avoid the international black eye sure to follow if every effort isn’t made to limit Yellowstone wolf mortality.
Priority No. 1: banning wolf trapping — a practice neither Wyoming nor Idaho allows in most of Greater Yellowstone — in hunting units adjacent to Yellowstone, set to begin Dec. 15.
Further, Montana should consider reducing quotas or eliminating hunts in areas surrounding the park.
Yellowstone-area wolf populations have stabilized. Livestock predation has been negligible or, in the case of Gallatin County, non-existent. Population objectives needn’t be met on the backs of Yellowstone wolves.
Already this fall in Montana, 23 wolves have been killed with firearms near the park. A one-two punch of hunting and trapping surely will dramatically impact an animal whose presence benefits the park and gateway communities to the direct tune of $35.5 million annually.
Some contend that wolves are wolves, and that these animals are no different than any of 1,650 others in the Northern Rockies. They say the loss of a few Yellowstone wolves won’t impact the overall population. Other wolves will be collared, and research will carry on.
Even if true, they miss the point. These weren’t just any wolves.
Just ask my Facebook friend Joe and millions of coming visitors who are wondering: what does the future hold for the wolf in Yellowstone now?
— Jeff Welsch is communications director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He can be reached at jwelsch@greateryellowstone.org.
source
It started with a Facebook message from a friend: “What is all this (BS) I hear about 7 YNP wolves shot outside the park?”
Joe hadn’t ever reacted like this over wolves — not when they were removed from Endangered Species Act protections in Idaho and Montana, not when hunting seasons began in both states, not even when Wyoming was handed management reins despite a biologically flawed road map that allows wolves to be killed like varmints anytime, anywhere and in almost any manner across more than 80 percent of the state.
Now he was incensed, like many others who’d spent memorable outings watching some of the very wolves he now feared dead.
I checked for confirmation. Sure enough, seven wolves dead, all legally shot just outside of Yellowstone National Park’s boundaries. Two were “dispersers” that hadn’t spent much time in Yellowstone of late, but three were from packs synonymous with the park’s wolf mystique — the Mollies, Blacktail Plateau and Lamar Canyon.
Ever since, I have tried to absorb the unsettling news.
Now, I have long maintained that wolves are neither demons nor deities. Irrational vitriol from the feverish anti- and pro-wolf crowds have only inflamed emotions over a creature that simply plays a vital role in a healthy ecology — and, as it turns out, economy.
All the bluster about wolves being exotic, over-sized, parasite-ridden wanton killers that have wiped out half the livestock and elk populations of the Northern Rockies is no more or less ridiculous than assertions that anyone who wishes to hunt a wolf should have their guns impounded, be imprisoned or worse.
Further, I understood that even with Endangered Species Act protections many wolves from this new “non-essential experimental” population would necessarily perish due to livestock predation, as nearly 2,000 have from government bullets since 1995.
I also recognized hunting as a valuable tool for maintaining balance among wildlife populations.
Even Yellowstone wolves I readily acknowledged as wild animals in a wild world fraught with peril.
They would starve. They would contract lethal diseases. They would die from the thrash of an elk hoof, the swat of a grizzly bear paw, or in the clenched jaws of another turf-hungry wolf.
At the same time, for 17 years, hundreds of thousands of people have come to Yellowstone solely for the privilege of viewing a wolf in the wild. Weren’t at least these mere 88 park wolves roaming a sanctuary of sorts, safe from the crosshairs of high-powered rifles?
That perception has been shattered.
It’s important to note that Montana has been a laudable manager of wolves. Now the state has another opportunity to show leadership on this highly sensitive issue, and to avoid the international black eye sure to follow if every effort isn’t made to limit Yellowstone wolf mortality.
Priority No. 1: banning wolf trapping — a practice neither Wyoming nor Idaho allows in most of Greater Yellowstone — in hunting units adjacent to Yellowstone, set to begin Dec. 15.
Further, Montana should consider reducing quotas or eliminating hunts in areas surrounding the park.
Yellowstone-area wolf populations have stabilized. Livestock predation has been negligible or, in the case of Gallatin County, non-existent. Population objectives needn’t be met on the backs of Yellowstone wolves.
Already this fall in Montana, 23 wolves have been killed with firearms near the park. A one-two punch of hunting and trapping surely will dramatically impact an animal whose presence benefits the park and gateway communities to the direct tune of $35.5 million annually.
Some contend that wolves are wolves, and that these animals are no different than any of 1,650 others in the Northern Rockies. They say the loss of a few Yellowstone wolves won’t impact the overall population. Other wolves will be collared, and research will carry on.
Even if true, they miss the point. These weren’t just any wolves.
Just ask my Facebook friend Joe and millions of coming visitors who are wondering: what does the future hold for the wolf in Yellowstone now?
— Jeff Welsch is communications director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He can be reached at jwelsch@greateryellowstone.org.
source
ASPCA files brief in wolf hunting with dogs lawsuit
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is the latest organization seeking to stop the use of dogs to hunt wolves in Wisconsin.
The ASPCA issued a news release Thursday stating it had filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of the lawsuit against the Department of Natural Resources.
The animal rights organization has asked the court to "prohibit the DNR from authorizing the use of dogs for wolf hunting unless and until restrictions are enacted that conform to state law."
According to the ASPCA’s brief, the DNR exceeded its authority by enacting regulations that do not impose the necessary restrictions on the training and use of dogs to hunt wolves, and instead "guarantee tragic encounters that will mutilate and kill hunting companions and pets."
Wisconsin is the only state to authorize the use of dogs to hunt wolves. The practice was authorized by the Legislature in Act 169. The legislation was passed in April.
The lawsuit challenging the use of dogs to hunt wolves in Wisconsin was filed Aug. 8 in Dane County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs include humane societies and individuals in Wisconsin.
Judge Peter Anderson placed a temporary injunction on wolf hunting with dogs while the case is decided.
The Wisconsin wolf hunting and trapping season has proceeded with all other aspects of Act 169 in place. Two of six wolf management zones were closed in mid-November as their harvest quotas were reached.
As of Thursday, the DNR reported 99 wolves had been killed out of a statewide quota of 116. The season was scheduled to run through Feb. 28 but is likely to end much sooner as quotas are reached in the remaining management zones.
A group called Mainstream Wisconsin Hunters also filed a brief in support of the lawsuit earlier in November.
In October, hunting organizations U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, Safari Club International, the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association and United Sportsmen of Wisconsin were granted a motion to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of the DNR.
Jeremy Rine, attorney for the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, said the group hopes to assist the DNR in the case by providing additional information from hunters who use dogs.
A hearing on the parties’ cross-motions is scheduled Dec. 20 in Dane County Circuit Court.
In the Thursday press release, Stacy Wolf, vice president and chief counsel of the ASPCA’s Legal Advocacy and Humane Law Enforcement departments, said: “This is an important case because it asks the court to ensure that when states implement laws allowing hunting practices, they make certain that these provisions do not run afoul of state anti-cruelty laws. The decision in this case could have far reaching effects on how these laws are interpreted in the future, both in the state of Wisconsin and across the country.”
source
Lansing-area residents say wolf-like creature prowls neighborhood; Michigan DNR says it's a coyote
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources says this animal
is a coyote. But residents who have encountered it in the area of St.
Joseph Highway and Upton Road in Delta Township say it's more like a
wolf.
(Photo by courtesy)
By
November 30, 2012
LANSING, MI -- There's something very, very strange in these old woods.
That's what some neighbors in the area of St. Joseph Highway and Upton Road in Delta Township say, at least.
Brad
Wallen has encountered what he described as a wolf-like creature six
times in the past three months, and as recently as Wednesday when it
darted through his backyard. He said he's never seen anything like it
before.
"I'm guessing this thing is between 65
and 80 pounds," he said. "It's not afraid of humans. It walks right out
into the yard and lays down."
Wallen said the
beast has made several trips onto his property. On one such occasion,
Wallen was able to snap a couple pictures. Even then, the creature
wasn't scared away.
"That's the thing that
worries me the most -- I walked out back and it just sat there looking
at me, and it's not afraid of me," Wallen said. "It psyched me out. For
it not to be running or hiding, it alarmed me.
"I'm
225 pounds, and it just kind of looked at me like, 'Why don't you come a
little bit closer, old man, and see how fast I can catch you?'"
Wallen reported his sightings to the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, along with his pictures (which are embedded adjacent
to this text). He said DNR officials told him the animal is a
wolf-coyote hybrid, the result of wolves migrating south from the Upper
Peninsula and mating with coyotes.
But Adam Bump, bear and fur bear specialist for the DNR, who investigated Wallen's report, said Wallen misunderstood.
Bump
said he and the DNR's wolf expert from the Upper Peninsula reviewed
Wallen's photos and agreed the animal is a coyote. Bump said Wallen's
confusion is understandable.
A number of years
ago, Bump said, canines exhibiting the physical characteristics of
wolves emerged in the northern Lower Peninsula. But genetic work done at
Trent University in Ontario revealed the animals were, in fact,
coyotes.
"Some time in the very distant past it
looks like they have a female relative that was an eastern wolf," Bump
said. "So these canines were behaving like coyotes, but they looked like
wolves. We have a very complicated genetic situation when it comes to
wolves and coyotes, so there's that confusion."
Bump
added that gray wolves, which are found in the Upper Peninsula, are not
capable of interbreeding with coyotes. Also, Wallen's pictures clearly
indicate the creature in the Delta Township woods is a coyote, he said.
"Its
color is very consistent with Michigan coyotes," Bump said. "The ears
that look large relative to the face, the long, slender nose -- the face
is consistent with a coyote more than a wolf."
The
animal's thick, full coat is indicative of a healthy coyote, Bump said.
Dense fur on a coyote can often mislead people to believe the animal is
a wolf as many coyotes seen in populous areas are infirm and thus have
thinner coats.
But some residents remain unconvinced.
Robert
Merritt, who serves as public information officer for the Lansing
Police Department and is a neighbor of Wallen, also encountered the
creature in question.
Merritt was walking his
two English bulldogs several weeks ago when his male darted off into the
woods. Merritt chased after his dog, soon realizing it was on the trail
of something. That's when he saw it.
"My dog
is running down this woodline, and about 40 yards ahead of me, out pops
this wolf or whatever it was," he said. "So my dog was chasing this
thing, and it's running away. But now I'm running full tilt thinking if
this thing turns on my dog he doesn't have a chance in the world."
When Merritt finally caught up to his dog and ended the chase, the creature turned and stared, he said.
"It
never, ever was aggressive to my dog or me," he said. "It wasn't in
fear. It was just staring at me, and I'm thinking, 'Oh boy.' She was
huge. She's got to be 60, 70 pounds.
"I would've bet any amount of money it was a wolf. Trust me. I've seen coyotes."
Merritt,
who has worked in law enforcement for more than 20 years, likened the
animal's size to that of a full-grown German shepherd. He said another
neighbor awoke in the middle of the night a few weeks ago to "hellacious
screaming like an animal crying out." The next day, neighbors found a
mauled deer in the woods.
After his encounter
with the beast, Merritt said he found the deer's carcass about
one-and-a-half days later. The only flesh left was its hindquarters.
Bump
said the anecdotal evidence is consistent with the behavior of coyotes.
It's not uncommon for them to be found in urban areas and backyards, he
said, and they don't often cause problems.
"Coyotes
are intelligent," Bump said. "They can learn very easily that people
don't pose a risk. But if you go out and yell and wave your arms,
they'll likely run away."
Coyote attacks on
humans are rare even nationwide, Bump said, but they do happen, usually
in instances where the animals have been habituated, such as by people
feeding them.
But Wallen and some of his neighbors remain concerned.
"We
have a lot of kids here who play outside," he said. "I think parents
should know to be aware. This thing is a predator, and it's hunting."
Bump
said the coyote's presence in the neighborhood poses no cause for
alarm. He said the DNR is not actively attempting to trap it, but that
residents have recourse available if they truly feel threatened.
Michigan
regulations allow citizens to hunt and trap coyotes on their property
without a license if the animal is a risk to cause damage. The DNR's website is home to information on that and more, such as a listing of wildlife removal companies.
In the meantime, Bump said residents should handle the coyote with normal precautions.
"Just
be respectful of the animal," he said. "If you have an animal that
isn't exhibiting fear of people, you should give it a wide berth.
Attacks are rare, but they do happen."
Gray wolves may soon face Michigan hunters
Gray wolves were put on the endangered species list in 1973 when the population in the Upper Peninsula had dwindled to six on Isle Royale. The population grew to nearly 700 by 2011. / 2004 photo by Dawn Villella/Associated Press
LANSING -- Gray wolves beware!
By a 23-15 vote Thursday, the state Senate approved the creation of an open hunting season on Canis lupus.
"We need to give the Department of Natural Resources another tool to manage the wolves," said state Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, one of the sponsors of the bill. "The Ironwood city manager testified that they had to shoot eight animals because they were right in the city."
Gray wolves were put on the endangered species list in 1973 when the population in the Upper Peninsula had dwindled to six on the isolated Isle Royale. Protected by that designation, the population grew to nearly 700 by 2011.
The wolves were removed from the endangered species list in January, but only the DNR is allowed to manage the wolf population, which has begun to encroach upon U.P. towns, according to residents. The animals also are having a big impact on the U.P.'s deer population, killing between 17,000 and 29,000 deer every year, according to a report from the DNR.
"I know this is kind of a U.P. issue," Casperson said. "But you let any wolves go in Detroit, or Traverse City, or Alpena and it would be a national story."
The Michigan Humane Society opposes the legislation, preferring nonlethal means of solving conflicts between humans and wolves to an open hunting season.
"They just came off the endangered species list," said Kevin Hatman, spokesman for the humane society. "There have been no reported human fatalities from gray wolves, so establishing a hunting season seems like using a sledgehammer on the problem."
The bill calls for the Natural Resources Commission to establish the hunting season, with a $100 license for the season for residents and $500 for nonresidents.
In nearby Minnesota, which has a wolf population of 2,900, the state issued 6,000 licenses in 2012 and is anticipating that 400 wolves will be killed by hunters, according to an analysis of the Michigan bill by the Senate Fiscal Agency.
The bill now goes to the House for consideration, and sponsors are hopeful it will be finished and sent to Gov. Rick Snyder before the end of the year.
source
By a 23-15 vote Thursday, the state Senate approved the creation of an open hunting season on Canis lupus.
"We need to give the Department of Natural Resources another tool to manage the wolves," said state Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, one of the sponsors of the bill. "The Ironwood city manager testified that they had to shoot eight animals because they were right in the city."
Gray wolves were put on the endangered species list in 1973 when the population in the Upper Peninsula had dwindled to six on the isolated Isle Royale. Protected by that designation, the population grew to nearly 700 by 2011.
The wolves were removed from the endangered species list in January, but only the DNR is allowed to manage the wolf population, which has begun to encroach upon U.P. towns, according to residents. The animals also are having a big impact on the U.P.'s deer population, killing between 17,000 and 29,000 deer every year, according to a report from the DNR.
"I know this is kind of a U.P. issue," Casperson said. "But you let any wolves go in Detroit, or Traverse City, or Alpena and it would be a national story."
The Michigan Humane Society opposes the legislation, preferring nonlethal means of solving conflicts between humans and wolves to an open hunting season.
"They just came off the endangered species list," said Kevin Hatman, spokesman for the humane society. "There have been no reported human fatalities from gray wolves, so establishing a hunting season seems like using a sledgehammer on the problem."
The bill calls for the Natural Resources Commission to establish the hunting season, with a $100 license for the season for residents and $500 for nonresidents.
In nearby Minnesota, which has a wolf population of 2,900, the state issued 6,000 licenses in 2012 and is anticipating that 400 wolves will be killed by hunters, according to an analysis of the Michigan bill by the Senate Fiscal Agency.
The bill now goes to the House for consideration, and sponsors are hopeful it will be finished and sent to Gov. Rick Snyder before the end of the year.
source
Researchers count just 57 Denali wolves
By TIM MOWRY, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
Thursday, November 29, 2012
FAIRBANKS,
Alaska (AP) — The number of wolves in Denali National Park and Preserve
is the lowest in 25 years, which has supporters howling to stop
trapping and hunting of wolves on state land just outside the northeast
boundary of the park.
Researchers counted just 57 wolves in nine packs during the October survey that was posted on the National Park Service's website on Tuesday. That's down from 72 wolves in eight packs last year, a 24 percent decrease, and represents a 63 percent decline from an all-time high population of 143 wolves in 2007.
Not surprisingly, groups and individuals who have been trying to protect wolves in the park seized on the survey to rekindle their efforts to reinstitute a protective buffer zone along the northeast boundary of the park near Healy. The buffer zone, which prohibited the hunting and trapping of wolves on state land adjacent to the park, was eliminated in 2010 by the Alaska Board of Game.
The survey results "confirm fears expressed earlier this year by wildlife conservation advocates and biologists regarding the continued take of park wolves when they cross the park's northeastern boundary onto state lands," Rick Steiner, an Anchorage marine biologist who has picked up the Denali Park wolf torch that was carried by independent biologist Gordon Haber for many years before he died in a plane crash four years ago.
Citing the survey numbers, Steiner sent an email to Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Cora Campbell on Tuesday asking her to use her authority to issue an emergency closure for trapping and hunting in what used to be the buffer zone. The Alaska Wildlife Alliance, another group that has advocated for the return of the buffer zone, did the same, according to president Tina Brown.
"When you see a dramatic decline like this it's common sense something should be done," Brown said. "This is one step the Board of Game or commissioner could take to address the decline of wolves in the park and in doing so would most likely increase viewing of wolves in the park."
Similar requests and petitions submitted to Campbell in May and the Alaska Board of Game in September and October, before the trapping season opened Nov. 1, were denied because neither Campbell nor the game board deemed the situation an emergency.
Campbell couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday but Dale Rabe, deputy director for the Division of Wildlife Conservation in Juneau, said nothing has changed and the state isn't likely to take any action. The state doesn't manage wolves inside the park and wolf populations on state land outside the park appear to be healthy, Rabe said.
"The commissioner and department have looked at the viability of populations outside the park and inside the park relative to trapping and harvest records and concluded that there are no conservation or sustainability questions there," Rabe said. "Without that the commissioner is not inclined to use her emergency closure authority."
The state manages wildlife populations on a sustainable basis, and it's the Board of Game's job to allocate those populations among users, he said. It would take a "compelling conservation concern" to warrant a closure, Rabe said.
Rabe noted that the park's wolf population declined every year since 2007 and the buffer zone was in place much of that time. He said only two wolves were taken by trappers or hunters last year after the buffer zone was removed, which represents only a small percentage of this year's decline.
While Steiner acknowledges there are likely multiple reasons for the decline in the park's wolf population, he said there's no denying trapping and hunting on state land has contributed to that decline. He pointed to the trapping of the last breeding female in the most-viewed pack in the park, the Grant Creek Pack, which was trapped in what used to be the buffer zone in May. After the female was trapped and killed, the rest of the pack abandoned their den and split up. The pack didn't produce any pups this year, he said.
"There's six or seven animals gone right there," he said. "Now there are only five of what used to be a 15-member pack, probably due to the trapping of that one female."
For its part, the National Park Service says it's not concerned about the overall number of wolves in the park as much as it is about the individual packs that are most often seen by park visitors, such as the Grant Creek Pack, because the park's wolf population varies from year to year, depending on a variety of factors, spokeswoman Kris Fister said.
"The low numbers could be the result of a lot of different factors," she said.
Wolf viewing in the park was down considerably this summer, in large part because of the demise of the Grant Creek Pack, which had denned close to Denali Park Road the previous three summers and were seen by thousands of tourists, she said.
That said, Fister said the Park Service, which has advocated for a buffer zone in the past to protect wolves that are seen by visitors and stray out of the northeast corner of the park, "would continue to work with the state to come up with a resolution that will benefit both parties."
___
Information from: Fairbanks (Alaska) Daily News-Miner, http://www.newsminer.com
source
Researchers counted just 57 wolves in nine packs during the October survey that was posted on the National Park Service's website on Tuesday. That's down from 72 wolves in eight packs last year, a 24 percent decrease, and represents a 63 percent decline from an all-time high population of 143 wolves in 2007.
Not surprisingly, groups and individuals who have been trying to protect wolves in the park seized on the survey to rekindle their efforts to reinstitute a protective buffer zone along the northeast boundary of the park near Healy. The buffer zone, which prohibited the hunting and trapping of wolves on state land adjacent to the park, was eliminated in 2010 by the Alaska Board of Game.
The survey results "confirm fears expressed earlier this year by wildlife conservation advocates and biologists regarding the continued take of park wolves when they cross the park's northeastern boundary onto state lands," Rick Steiner, an Anchorage marine biologist who has picked up the Denali Park wolf torch that was carried by independent biologist Gordon Haber for many years before he died in a plane crash four years ago.
Citing the survey numbers, Steiner sent an email to Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Cora Campbell on Tuesday asking her to use her authority to issue an emergency closure for trapping and hunting in what used to be the buffer zone. The Alaska Wildlife Alliance, another group that has advocated for the return of the buffer zone, did the same, according to president Tina Brown.
"When you see a dramatic decline like this it's common sense something should be done," Brown said. "This is one step the Board of Game or commissioner could take to address the decline of wolves in the park and in doing so would most likely increase viewing of wolves in the park."
Similar requests and petitions submitted to Campbell in May and the Alaska Board of Game in September and October, before the trapping season opened Nov. 1, were denied because neither Campbell nor the game board deemed the situation an emergency.
Campbell couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday but Dale Rabe, deputy director for the Division of Wildlife Conservation in Juneau, said nothing has changed and the state isn't likely to take any action. The state doesn't manage wolves inside the park and wolf populations on state land outside the park appear to be healthy, Rabe said.
"The commissioner and department have looked at the viability of populations outside the park and inside the park relative to trapping and harvest records and concluded that there are no conservation or sustainability questions there," Rabe said. "Without that the commissioner is not inclined to use her emergency closure authority."
The state manages wildlife populations on a sustainable basis, and it's the Board of Game's job to allocate those populations among users, he said. It would take a "compelling conservation concern" to warrant a closure, Rabe said.
Rabe noted that the park's wolf population declined every year since 2007 and the buffer zone was in place much of that time. He said only two wolves were taken by trappers or hunters last year after the buffer zone was removed, which represents only a small percentage of this year's decline.
While Steiner acknowledges there are likely multiple reasons for the decline in the park's wolf population, he said there's no denying trapping and hunting on state land has contributed to that decline. He pointed to the trapping of the last breeding female in the most-viewed pack in the park, the Grant Creek Pack, which was trapped in what used to be the buffer zone in May. After the female was trapped and killed, the rest of the pack abandoned their den and split up. The pack didn't produce any pups this year, he said.
"There's six or seven animals gone right there," he said. "Now there are only five of what used to be a 15-member pack, probably due to the trapping of that one female."
For its part, the National Park Service says it's not concerned about the overall number of wolves in the park as much as it is about the individual packs that are most often seen by park visitors, such as the Grant Creek Pack, because the park's wolf population varies from year to year, depending on a variety of factors, spokeswoman Kris Fister said.
"The low numbers could be the result of a lot of different factors," she said.
Wolf viewing in the park was down considerably this summer, in large part because of the demise of the Grant Creek Pack, which had denned close to Denali Park Road the previous three summers and were seen by thousands of tourists, she said.
That said, Fister said the Park Service, which has advocated for a buffer zone in the past to protect wolves that are seen by visitors and stray out of the northeast corner of the park, "would continue to work with the state to come up with a resolution that will benefit both parties."
___
Information from: Fairbanks (Alaska) Daily News-Miner, http://www.newsminer.com
source
For The Wild Ones
Posted: 29 Nov 2012
Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies Representative
Defenders of Wildlife long ago recognized the importance of tribal wildlife programs to a vast number of species across the country, including salmon, grizzly, bison, black-footed ferret and more. In the West, more than 55 million acres are held in trust for tribal reservations, and even more are dedicated as ceded lands, which are held or managed by treaty. When combined with federal lands managed by agencies such as the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, these lands represent the majority of wildlife habitat in the western United States. But beyond providing significant habitat for wildlife, tribal leaders and scientists have assisted with the restoration of imperiled native species, including the return of wolves to the northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest.
In 1995, when the state of Idaho refused to participate in the restoration of wolves to the region, the Nez Perce tribe offered to take their place. The tribe entered a contract agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and assisted with the reintroduction efforts, then monitored wolf restoration for the next decade. Horace Axtell, now 87 years old and a venerated World War II veteran, is a spiritual leader of the tribe. He and other tribal elders conducted a ceremonial blessing for the wolves before they were set free to repopulate the state. Click here to listen to Horace share the stories passed down from his grandmother, who remembered the bond that the tribe held with wolves before they were eradicated from the region.
Jaime Pinkham, Nez Perce leader and former Defenders of Wildlife board member, explains that the Nez Perce shared a similar fate to wolves as both were driven from their homelands in the region. Wolves, he explains
, are a “kind of mirror for Indian people. When the non-Indian settled the West, there were obstacles. The Nez Perce people were one of them: They got in the way, and they were removed. The gray wolf suffered a similar fate. Now, man and animal are each struggling to regain their rightful place.” Nez Perce schoolchildren named one of the reintroduced wolves “Chat Chaaht,” which means “older brother.” Chat Chaaht became an alpha male of his pack and lived to be 13 years of age — one of the oldest documented wolves in the region.
Defenders of Wildlife long ago recognized the importance of tribal wildlife programs to a vast number of species across the country, including salmon, grizzly, bison, black-footed ferret and more. In the West, more than 55 million acres are held in trust for tribal reservations, and even more are dedicated as ceded lands, which are held or managed by treaty. When combined with federal lands managed by agencies such as the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, these lands represent the majority of wildlife habitat in the western United States. But beyond providing significant habitat for wildlife, tribal leaders and scientists have assisted with the restoration of imperiled native species, including the return of wolves to the northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest.
In 1995, when the state of Idaho refused to participate in the restoration of wolves to the region, the Nez Perce tribe offered to take their place. The tribe entered a contract agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and assisted with the reintroduction efforts, then monitored wolf restoration for the next decade. Horace Axtell, now 87 years old and a venerated World War II veteran, is a spiritual leader of the tribe. He and other tribal elders conducted a ceremonial blessing for the wolves before they were set free to repopulate the state. Click here to listen to Horace share the stories passed down from his grandmother, who remembered the bond that the tribe held with wolves before they were eradicated from the region.
Jaime Pinkham, Nez Perce leader and former Defenders of Wildlife board member, explains that the Nez Perce shared a similar fate to wolves as both were driven from their homelands in the region. Wolves, he explains
, are a “kind of mirror for Indian people. When the non-Indian settled the West, there were obstacles. The Nez Perce people were one of them: They got in the way, and they were removed. The gray wolf suffered a similar fate. Now, man and animal are each struggling to regain their rightful place.” Nez Perce schoolchildren named one of the reintroduced wolves “Chat Chaaht,” which means “older brother.” Chat Chaaht became an alpha male of his pack and lived to be 13 years of age — one of the oldest documented wolves in the region.
With the help of the Nez Perce and other tribes, wolves are regaining
range across much of their historic homeland. Before federal
protections were removed from wolves in Idaho, the state’s restored wolf
population peaked at nearly 1,000 wolves. Wolves dispersing from Idaho
have also now returned to other parts of their traditional homeland in
Oregon and Washington. One adventurous, wide-ranging wolf dubbed
“Journey” (also known as OR7) is now the first documented wolf to return
to California since the early 20th century.
As wolves disperse, they are being aided and monitored by tribal
wildlife officials. This summer, I was thrilled to hear that the
Umatilla tribe in northeastern Oregon had documented the return of the
first wolves to their land. The tribal wildlife managers had helped
develop the Oregon Wolf Conservation Plan and had waited a long time for
wolves to make it back to their homeland. Defenders assisted the tribe
with monitoring cameras, and tried to ease the transition with area
livestock owners by offering our expert information on nonlethal
measures to help wolves avoid conflict with livestock. Carl Scheeler,
Umatilla biologist and tribal liaison for the Oregon Wolf management
team, said that as wolf range expands in the state, there are still some
groups that demonize wolves, while others welcome their return.
“Currently, we’re looking at wolves through a magnifying glass. Every single depredation is elevated in the public eye. Every time a sheep dies by a wolf it makes front page news, but cougars, bears and coyotes still represent the vast majority of depredation losses.” Like the Umatilla elders, he values their return, not just in a cultural sense, but in an ecological way as well. “I believe wolves fill an apex predatory role in the ecosystem,” he says.
In Washington, more tribal governments are taking an active role in wolf conservation as new packs become established in the state. Among the newest is the Colville nation, which has named its first reestablished pack “Nc’in,” the Okanogan word for wolf. While the tribe has some concerns regarding competition for elk and deer, a main source of sustenance for their community, they are willing to share their land with wolves and welcome their return. Just this fall, Colville tribal biologists documented another new pack, now the ninth documented pack in the state, and named it the Strawberries pack.
Another tribe associated with wolves in Washington is the Quileute Nation, made famous by the popular series Twilight.
Like other tribes, the Quileute still have a long and rich cultural tie
to wolves, despite the fact that no wolves have yet been restored to
their historical coastal range in the Olympic Peninsula west of Seattle.
The Quileute celebrate their long-held connection with wolves through
special dance and stories, which they often share with visitors. Last
year, Defenders helped arrange for the Quileue people to meet ambassador
wolves from Mission: Wolf, and study the wolves’ movements to help with their dance techniques. The tribal gathering
included the youngest to eldest tribal members, and was a memorable,
heartfelt celebration.
It is our hope that someday wild wolves will regain their homeland in the Olympic range and fulfill their historic role, not only as a native cultural icon, but as an important carnivore in this spectacular and rich ecosystem.
I’ve had the honor to work with tribal leaders from across our region, and their wisdom guides much of our work today. Perhaps a quote from Chief Dan George of the Tsleil-waututh Nation in Burrard Inlet, British Columbia best sums it up: “If you talk to the animals, they will talk with you and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them, you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear. What one fears, one destroys.” Our goal in promoting coexistence with wolves is to help people better know and understand wolves as a valuable species, and not one they should fear.
source
Wolf pups spotted on Umatilla land.
“Currently, we’re looking at wolves through a magnifying glass. Every single depredation is elevated in the public eye. Every time a sheep dies by a wolf it makes front page news, but cougars, bears and coyotes still represent the vast majority of depredation losses.” Like the Umatilla elders, he values their return, not just in a cultural sense, but in an ecological way as well. “I believe wolves fill an apex predatory role in the ecosystem,” he says.
In Washington, more tribal governments are taking an active role in wolf conservation as new packs become established in the state. Among the newest is the Colville nation, which has named its first reestablished pack “Nc’in,” the Okanogan word for wolf. While the tribe has some concerns regarding competition for elk and deer, a main source of sustenance for their community, they are willing to share their land with wolves and welcome their return. Just this fall, Colville tribal biologists documented another new pack, now the ninth documented pack in the state, and named it the Strawberries pack.
High school students perform the Quileute “wolf dance” when an ambassador wolf visits from Mission: Wolf.
It is our hope that someday wild wolves will regain their homeland in the Olympic range and fulfill their historic role, not only as a native cultural icon, but as an important carnivore in this spectacular and rich ecosystem.
I’ve had the honor to work with tribal leaders from across our region, and their wisdom guides much of our work today. Perhaps a quote from Chief Dan George of the Tsleil-waututh Nation in Burrard Inlet, British Columbia best sums it up: “If you talk to the animals, they will talk with you and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them, you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear. What one fears, one destroys.” Our goal in promoting coexistence with wolves is to help people better know and understand wolves as a valuable species, and not one they should fear.
source
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Killing Wolves Ruins Research in Yellowstone
source
Hunters killing these carnivores are negatively impacting long-term studies.
Wolves
are amazing social carnivores who have been targeted and wantonly
killed for years on end because they supposedly are dangerous to humans
and to livestock, despite the fact that there have been only two known fatal attacks by wolves on humans in North America and they really do extremely little damage to livestock. Indeed, a recent study showed that sheep predation could be greatly reduced without killing wolves. As I wrote in another essay, it seems that some people simply enjoy torturing and killing wolves and perhaps other animals.
Wildlife biologist Douglas Smith, leader of Yellowstone's wolf project, which has tracked the wolves since their reintroduction in 1995 notes, "'Losing the wolves has been a big hit to us scientifically' ...The killings came just as researchers, who are partly funded by a 5-year U.S. National Science Foundation grant, were set to begin the wolf project's annual winter survey of the canids' predatory habits." Having been up there during this time period I know that the loss of these data is a significant blow to the on-going studies that are collecting new and very important information.
For example, the killing of wolves will surely affect their social structure and pack stability and also "have a big impact on both the park's research project and numerous other independent studies investigating a variety of issues, such as elk management and ecology. The collars [on the wolves] collect data intended to help wildlife managers better understand wolf behavior, particularly the canids' effect on elk. And unless a wolf is wearing a collar, researchers say they can't be sure that it is an animal that uses the park."
Getting out of the kill, reintroduce, and kill cycle
I call your attention to these wolf killings because of their negative impacts on the ongoing excellent research projects, because wolves are not the killing machines they're made out to be, because of the many ethical issues that are raised, and also because our taxes are used to fund these sorts of projects. And, it's not unlikely that someday wolves will once again be gone from Yellowstone and all of the time, person power, and money that went into their reintroduction and learning about them will be lost and someone will suggest something like, "Let's get wolves back into Yellowstone." And the kill, reintroduce, kill cycle begins once again.
We need to get out of this cycle, and now is a good time to do it. Please contact Yellowstone National Park officials including Dan Hottle (307-344-2015), a park spokesperson who thinks that the wolf killings will not "adversely affect our ecosystem." The scientists who actually have studied and know these wolves strongly disagree.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
DNR hosting wolf management meeting in St. Ignace
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
ST. IGNACE, Mich. (AP) — The state Department of Natural Resources
is hosting a meeting in the eastern Upper Peninsula next week on
management of gray wolves, which federal officials recently removed from
the endangered species list after 38 years.
The Michigan Wolf Forum meeting is Dec. 5 at Little Bear Arena in St. Ignace. It runs from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The DNR says its staff will update the public on current wolf management activities and gather opinions from forum participants.
Wolves have rebounded from near extinction in the Upper Peninsula, where the population is estimated at about 700. Wisconsin and Minnesota began allowing wolf hunts this fall.
A Michigan Senate committee has voted to designate the gray wolf a game species.
source
The Michigan Wolf Forum meeting is Dec. 5 at Little Bear Arena in St. Ignace. It runs from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The DNR says its staff will update the public on current wolf management activities and gather opinions from forum participants.
Wolves have rebounded from near extinction in the Upper Peninsula, where the population is estimated at about 700. Wisconsin and Minnesota began allowing wolf hunts this fall.
A Michigan Senate committee has voted to designate the gray wolf a game species.
source
Killing of endangered red wolf continues in North Carolina
Special to The Chronicle
Four
red wolves have been killed in Hyde County, N.C. since the start of
this year's hunting season, a blow to the critically endangered species.
The
fourth killing of a critically endangered red wolf since September in
Hyde County, N.C., raises alarm for those part of the revitalization
effort.
The red wolf species nearly faced extinction three decades ago and has recovered slowly through captive breeding efforts, but the recent attacks threaten the small population now living in the wild in North Carolina. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has offered a reward up to $2,500 to anyone with information about the red wolf death that occurred Nov. 14 as a result of a suspected gunshot wound.
“There are a certain number of people who do mistakenly shoot these animals, but there are also a good number of people who know they are shooting red wolves,” said Frank Simms, National Wildlife Refuge System law enforcement officer. “In both circumstances they are investigated equally, regardless.”
The original red wolf population size was in the tens of thousands and spanned across the country from central Texas to Pennsylvania, said Robert Wayne, North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission officer. An excess amount of hunting, however, throughout the 19th and 20th century dwindled the population size to 17 wolves in the Southeast.
When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service saw the wolves nearing complete extinction, the Red Wolf Recovery Program was created—a mass effort that rounded up the remaining red wolves and put them in captivity for breeding in the 1970s. As a result, the wolves were officially declared as extinct in 1980 since no species remained in the wild. Because wolves had to be purebred in order to partake in the program, only 14 wolves served as the founders of the initiative.
A small population of around 100 wolves now live in five northeastern counties of North Carolina as a result of the program’s efforts. The recent death, however, alarms those who have seen an increase in the deaths by hunting of the already devastated species in the past couple of years.
The red wolf is protected under the Endangered Species Act, which provides conservation for ecosystems that fish, wildlife and plants depend on and penalizes anyone who breaks the provisions of the act. A person charged with the unlawful taking of a red wolf faces up to one year imprisonment and $100,000 in fines.
“A lot of these typically go unsolved and the ones that go unsolved would be the ones who know what they’re shooting,” Simms said. “We are constantly finding animals where the collar was cut off or the animal was found with no collar, which leads me to believe that someone knew what they were doing and tried to hide the evidence.”
The collar allows members of the Recovery Program to track the wolves’ whereabouts as well as alert hunters that these are endangered animals, Simms said. He added that people who usually shoot the animals by accident typically call to say they have shot the animal since there is a collar on it.
Wayne said there has been an increase in gunshot mortality in the past seven years. Previously, only an average of two animals each year died as a result of gunshot wounds since the program began. In the last seven years, however, around six to eight red wolves were killed due to hunting.
“When hunting season is in full swing, when there are more hunters in the field, it’s going to cause more animals to be shot,” Simms said. “There’s no evidence suggesting it’s the same person.”
Wayne, however, believes there are many factors contributing to the increase in deaths, one of which is a desire to kill wolves because they are perceived as bad creatures who do not serve a purpose—a sentiment that extends back into the 1800s.
“Initially the hunting was this fear of top level predators—that the wolf is a big bad creature that is going to steal your babies,” Wayne said. “That same mentality has been brought over—they don’t serve a purpose, therefore they must be eliminated.”
He added that people also enjoy hunting the animals for sport since wolves are strong and tough, making them difficult to take down.
Simms said sometimes hunters will kill red wolves, mistaking them for coyotes, which are often viewed as “pest species.” Coyotes are not an endangered species.
“You’ve got people who are out to kill red wolves because it’s a symbol of toughness, people who want to eradicate them because they fear [them]…and then people who honestly mistake them as a pest species,” Wayne said. “It’s a new problem now.”
source
The red wolf species nearly faced extinction three decades ago and has recovered slowly through captive breeding efforts, but the recent attacks threaten the small population now living in the wild in North Carolina. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has offered a reward up to $2,500 to anyone with information about the red wolf death that occurred Nov. 14 as a result of a suspected gunshot wound.
“There are a certain number of people who do mistakenly shoot these animals, but there are also a good number of people who know they are shooting red wolves,” said Frank Simms, National Wildlife Refuge System law enforcement officer. “In both circumstances they are investigated equally, regardless.”
The original red wolf population size was in the tens of thousands and spanned across the country from central Texas to Pennsylvania, said Robert Wayne, North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission officer. An excess amount of hunting, however, throughout the 19th and 20th century dwindled the population size to 17 wolves in the Southeast.
When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service saw the wolves nearing complete extinction, the Red Wolf Recovery Program was created—a mass effort that rounded up the remaining red wolves and put them in captivity for breeding in the 1970s. As a result, the wolves were officially declared as extinct in 1980 since no species remained in the wild. Because wolves had to be purebred in order to partake in the program, only 14 wolves served as the founders of the initiative.
A small population of around 100 wolves now live in five northeastern counties of North Carolina as a result of the program’s efforts. The recent death, however, alarms those who have seen an increase in the deaths by hunting of the already devastated species in the past couple of years.
The red wolf is protected under the Endangered Species Act, which provides conservation for ecosystems that fish, wildlife and plants depend on and penalizes anyone who breaks the provisions of the act. A person charged with the unlawful taking of a red wolf faces up to one year imprisonment and $100,000 in fines.
“A lot of these typically go unsolved and the ones that go unsolved would be the ones who know what they’re shooting,” Simms said. “We are constantly finding animals where the collar was cut off or the animal was found with no collar, which leads me to believe that someone knew what they were doing and tried to hide the evidence.”
The collar allows members of the Recovery Program to track the wolves’ whereabouts as well as alert hunters that these are endangered animals, Simms said. He added that people who usually shoot the animals by accident typically call to say they have shot the animal since there is a collar on it.
Wayne said there has been an increase in gunshot mortality in the past seven years. Previously, only an average of two animals each year died as a result of gunshot wounds since the program began. In the last seven years, however, around six to eight red wolves were killed due to hunting.
“When hunting season is in full swing, when there are more hunters in the field, it’s going to cause more animals to be shot,” Simms said. “There’s no evidence suggesting it’s the same person.”
Wayne, however, believes there are many factors contributing to the increase in deaths, one of which is a desire to kill wolves because they are perceived as bad creatures who do not serve a purpose—a sentiment that extends back into the 1800s.
“Initially the hunting was this fear of top level predators—that the wolf is a big bad creature that is going to steal your babies,” Wayne said. “That same mentality has been brought over—they don’t serve a purpose, therefore they must be eliminated.”
He added that people also enjoy hunting the animals for sport since wolves are strong and tough, making them difficult to take down.
Simms said sometimes hunters will kill red wolves, mistaking them for coyotes, which are often viewed as “pest species.” Coyotes are not an endangered species.
“You’ve got people who are out to kill red wolves because it’s a symbol of toughness, people who want to eradicate them because they fear [them]…and then people who honestly mistake them as a pest species,” Wayne said. “It’s a new problem now.”
source
Second coalition challenges Wyoming wolf delisting
BEN NEARY, Associated Press
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A second coalition of environmental groups has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claiming it violated the Endangered Species Act by ending federal protections for wolves in Wyoming this fall.
The eight groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Denver. They say Wyoming's management plan classifying wolves as predators that can be shot on sight in most of the state is inadequate.
As of early this week, more than 50 wolves have been killed in Wyoming since the state took over their management Oct. 1. Of that number, Wyoming hunters have killed a few dozen wolves in a designated trophy hunting zone outside Yellowstone National Park, while most of the rest have been killed in other areas of the state where wolves are unprotected.
"The current hunting regulations and wolf management policy in Wyoming that basically leaves wolves vulnerable in 85 percent of the state year-round, I think are almost a dereliction of duty, or a form of negligence on the part of the state in terms of wolf management," said Duane Short, wild species program director at the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance in Laramie.
The groups that filed Tuesday's lawsuit are Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Conservation Congress, Friends of Animals, Friends of the Clearwater, National Wolfwatcher Coalition, Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians.
Steve Segin, spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Colorado, said Tuesday the agency had no comment on pending litigation.
Wyoming has committed to maintaining at least 10 breeding pairs of wolves and at least 100 individual animals outside of Yellowstone and the Wind River Indian Reservation, in the central part of the state. Wildlife managers estimated there were roughly 300 wolves outside of Yellowstone, where no hunting is allowed, when the state took over.
Wolves were largely killed off in the West by early last century. The federal government reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone in the mid-1990s. Wyoming has fought for years to gain management of the wolves, which some hunters and ranchers in the state believe take an unacceptable toll on other game and livestock.
Montana and Idaho gained control of their own wolf populations earlier than Wyoming, and both have allowed hunting. Although Congress has acted to bar lawsuits challenging wolf delisting in Montana and Idaho, it hasn't granted Wyoming similar protection.
Tuesday's lawsuit follows a federal suit filed by another coalition earlier this month in Washington, D.C. Both suits seek to force the Fish and Wildlife Service to rescind its transfer of wolf management authority to Wyoming and protect them again under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Both lawsuits also generally charge that Wyoming's approach to wolf management won't allow wolves to expand their numbers substantially beyond the borders of Yellowstone, where hunting is prohibited. The groups maintain that the Wyoming wolves won't be free to mingle with other wolf populations, making their prospects for long term survival dim.
"After delisting, the wolf population will no longer be growing and will likely be reduced to a lower level," the lawsuit filed Tuesday claims. "State management will also likely result in higher mortality rates for both dispersing wolves and resident wolves."
The federal government has sought to have the first lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., this month moved to Wyoming. In papers filed last week, lawyers for Fish and Wildlife Service say a Wyoming court would be more appropriate in hearing the case.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead has said he's confident the state's plan offers adequate protection for wolves. He has emphasized that after pushing for years to get state control of wolves, the state has no interest in seeing the population fall low enough to trigger a return to federal control.
Renny MacKay, spokesman for Mead, said Tuesday the governor believes both lawsuits challenging wolf delisting should be filed in Wyoming.
"This lawsuit really is about Wyoming and what happens in Wyoming and the lawsuit, the arguments and the decision should take place in Wyoming, not in Washington, D.C., or Denver, Colo.," MacKay said Tuesday.
source
The eight groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Denver. They say Wyoming's management plan classifying wolves as predators that can be shot on sight in most of the state is inadequate.
As of early this week, more than 50 wolves have been killed in Wyoming since the state took over their management Oct. 1. Of that number, Wyoming hunters have killed a few dozen wolves in a designated trophy hunting zone outside Yellowstone National Park, while most of the rest have been killed in other areas of the state where wolves are unprotected.
"The current hunting regulations and wolf management policy in Wyoming that basically leaves wolves vulnerable in 85 percent of the state year-round, I think are almost a dereliction of duty, or a form of negligence on the part of the state in terms of wolf management," said Duane Short, wild species program director at the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance in Laramie.
The groups that filed Tuesday's lawsuit are Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Conservation Congress, Friends of Animals, Friends of the Clearwater, National Wolfwatcher Coalition, Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians.
Steve Segin, spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Colorado, said Tuesday the agency had no comment on pending litigation.
Wyoming has committed to maintaining at least 10 breeding pairs of wolves and at least 100 individual animals outside of Yellowstone and the Wind River Indian Reservation, in the central part of the state. Wildlife managers estimated there were roughly 300 wolves outside of Yellowstone, where no hunting is allowed, when the state took over.
Wolves were largely killed off in the West by early last century. The federal government reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone in the mid-1990s. Wyoming has fought for years to gain management of the wolves, which some hunters and ranchers in the state believe take an unacceptable toll on other game and livestock.
Montana and Idaho gained control of their own wolf populations earlier than Wyoming, and both have allowed hunting. Although Congress has acted to bar lawsuits challenging wolf delisting in Montana and Idaho, it hasn't granted Wyoming similar protection.
Tuesday's lawsuit follows a federal suit filed by another coalition earlier this month in Washington, D.C. Both suits seek to force the Fish and Wildlife Service to rescind its transfer of wolf management authority to Wyoming and protect them again under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Both lawsuits also generally charge that Wyoming's approach to wolf management won't allow wolves to expand their numbers substantially beyond the borders of Yellowstone, where hunting is prohibited. The groups maintain that the Wyoming wolves won't be free to mingle with other wolf populations, making their prospects for long term survival dim.
"After delisting, the wolf population will no longer be growing and will likely be reduced to a lower level," the lawsuit filed Tuesday claims. "State management will also likely result in higher mortality rates for both dispersing wolves and resident wolves."
The federal government has sought to have the first lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., this month moved to Wyoming. In papers filed last week, lawyers for Fish and Wildlife Service say a Wyoming court would be more appropriate in hearing the case.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead has said he's confident the state's plan offers adequate protection for wolves. He has emphasized that after pushing for years to get state control of wolves, the state has no interest in seeing the population fall low enough to trigger a return to federal control.
Renny MacKay, spokesman for Mead, said Tuesday the governor believes both lawsuits challenging wolf delisting should be filed in Wyoming.
"This lawsuit really is about Wyoming and what happens in Wyoming and the lawsuit, the arguments and the decision should take place in Wyoming, not in Washington, D.C., or Denver, Colo.," MacKay said Tuesday.
source
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Feds: Wandering wolf pups reunite with alpha male
Monday, November 26, 2012
ALBUQUERQUE,
N.M. (AP) — Two six-month-old Mexican gray wolf pups have reunited with
their troubled pack in southwestern New Mexico, bringing some relief to
environmentalists who were concerned about their chances for survival.
Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say the Fox Mountain pack — including the two pups — was spotted feeding on an elk carcass late last week.
Biologists say it's not uncommon for pups to start venturing out on their own at this time of year and that the two pups in question will likely return to the pack intermittently before they disperse for good.
The pack's four wolves all have radio collars and the agency says they will continue to be monitored.
Environmentalists were concerned because the Fish and Wildlife Service had the pack's alpha female — the pups' mother — captured and removed from the wild following a string of cattle kills.
source
Biologists say it's not uncommon for pups to start venturing out on their own at this time of year and that the two pups in question will likely return to the pack intermittently before they disperse for good.
The pack's four wolves all have radio collars and the agency says they will continue to be monitored.
Environmentalists were concerned because the Fish and Wildlife Service had the pack's alpha female — the pups' mother — captured and removed from the wild following a string of cattle kills.
source
DNR: 20 wolves killed during gun deer hunt
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012
MADISON — Twenty wolves were reported killed during this year's gun deer hunting season in Wisconsin.
According to the Department of Natural Resources, 18 were killed by hunters with firearms. The other two were taken by trappers using foothold traps.
As of Monday morning, hunters have killed 98 wolves this season.
The wolf hunting and trapping season opened Oct. 15 and will close Feb. 28 or when harvest quotas are reached, whichever comes first. The DNR set a statewide harvest quota of 116 wolves for nontribal hunters and trappers.
The 116 wolves were apportioned into six management zones. Two zones were closed in mid-November as wolf kills neared the quotas. Two of the wolves killed had radio collars.
source
According to the Department of Natural Resources, 18 were killed by hunters with firearms. The other two were taken by trappers using foothold traps.
The wolf hunting and trapping season opened Oct. 15 and will close Feb. 28 or when harvest quotas are reached, whichever comes first. The DNR set a statewide harvest quota of 116 wolves for nontribal hunters and trappers.
The 116 wolves were apportioned into six management zones. Two zones were closed in mid-November as wolf kills neared the quotas. Two of the wolves killed had radio collars.
source
Feds want wolf lawsuit to be returned to state
By Mike Koshmrl, Jackson Hole, Wyoming
November 27, 2012
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is attempting to transfer Earthjustice’s wolf lawsuit home to a Wyoming court.
Filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the suit, if successful, would pull wolf management out of state hands while re-establishing Endangered Species Act protection for the controversial predators. Earth-justice, which represents Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, will file a brief opposing the transfer within the next week, Earthjustice managing attorney Tim Preso said Monday.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s motion to transfer, issued Nov. 20, argues that three “public interest” factors “firmly support” transferring the case to Wyoming. In a 30-page document, federal attorneys contend that the Wyoming district’s familiarity with the issue, the “relative congestion of the court calendar” and local interests favor the transfer.
“In sum, this case implicates substantial local interests and matters that have been litigated in Wyoming for decades,” the motion reads.
State officials have gone on record supporting a change of venue.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead issued a statement in support of the change of venue.
“This lawsuit really is about Wyoming and what happens in Wyoming, and the lawsuit, the arguments and the decision should take place in Wyoming, not in Washington, D.C.,” he said.
Preso declined to comment on the implications if the request for a change of venue were to be granted.
The Earthjustice managing attorney did say that Fish and Wildlife Service would “essentially be invoking Judge Johnson’s prior decision.”
In 2010, U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should not have rejected Wyoming’s wolf management plan. Johnson also threw out a Fish and Wildlife Service requirement that Wyoming manage wolves as “trophy game” throughout the state.
The litigation kicked around until this year, when Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed off on a plan that allows managed trophy game hunting of wolves in about 15 percent of the northwest corner of the state. Wolves are managed as predators in the rest of Wyoming, and can be killed without a license and by almost any method.
Wyoming’s inaugural Canis lupus hunt kicked off Oct. 1, and 36 wolves have been killed to date in the managed hunt. Another 18 wolves have been tallied killed in the state’s predator zone. Going into the hunting season, there were an estimated 300 wolves in Wyoming.
—The Associated Press contributed to this story.
source
Cathy Stepp, On Night Hunting; Wolves, Yes - - Deer, No
Monday, November 26, 2012
Cathy Stepp, On Night Hunting; Wolves, Yes - - Deer, No
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources chief Cathy Stepp is embroiled in a fight with tribes over their plan to use lights in this year's annual off-reservation deer hunt - - with subtexts from wolf-hunting to spear-fishing to mining and water quality.
Not sure why she wants to go down this road - - even sending all DNR staff a "Dear Colleague" email about it today:
Not sure why she wants to go down this road - - even sending all DNR staff a "Dear Colleague" email about it today:
Dear Colleagues,
You may have heard about potential shining – or night hunting of deer – by Tribal members in the Ceded Territory, which is roughly the northern third of Wisconsin. I want to give you an overview from the State’s perspective.
We have been informed the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission today issued an order allowing Chippewa Tribal night hunting for deer in the Ceded Territory starting Nov. 26.
DNR does not approve of this action and the State will file suit today seeking a federal court order requiring the Tribes to comply with the court’s prohibition on deer shining and confirming the State’s right to enforce the state shining law against Tribal hunters in the Ceded Territory.
Why?
We have concerns about the short amount of time to notify the public, the circumvention of court oversight and past rulings on night hunting for deer, and public safety.
We understand that the Tribes contend they should be allowed to hunt deer at night because a recently adopted State law permits the night hunting of wolves.
We believe that this is essentially the same argument the Tribes unsuccessfully asserted in federal court in the 1989 “deer trial” when they argued that State’s provision for night hunting coyotes should allow them to hunt deer at night.
After a week-long trial, the court concluded that deer shining was much more dangerous to public safety than the nighttime hunting of predators like coyotes, and so Judge Barbara Crabb rejected the tribes’ challenge to the State’s deer shining law.
We believe that the State’s legalization of night hunting of wolves, another predator species, changes nothing in this respect.Importantly, even if it were legal for the Tribes to hunt deer at night – which we believe it is not – we believe GLIFWC acted with too little notice and too little consultation with the State.
We have not been able to discuss adequately many safety aspects with the Tribes and believe the current order has inadequate Tribal regulation of hunter conduct to assure safe shooting, ill-defined hunter training requirements, and inadequate review mechanisms of deer shining “safety plans” to assure safety to the public.
Indeed, the department is not aware of any State or Tribe anywhere in this country which authorizes night hunting of deer in the manner proposed by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Among other things, we need time to be sure that people using public lands with no expectation of night deer hunting would be aware of any such change.
Due to your work, DNR has diligently and in good faith implemented numerous enhanced Tribal resource harvesting opportunities, including updating and increasing harvest limits for Tribal harvest of a host of species; honoring self-regulation for gathering forest products on State lands; agreeing to alternative monitoring of walleye harvest to save creel clerk expenses; youth hunt mentoring; improving mapping of the Ceded Territory in Wisconsin; and responsive and flexible state park hunting opportunities mechanism – all of which have operated almost exclusively for the Tribes’ benefit.
I’m proud of that record, and I believe our actions of the past give us strong credibility is addressing this issue.
I contacted GLFWC Executive Administrator Jim Zorn and the Tribal Chairs and respectfully asked the Tribes to not go out shining until the federal court rules on our motion.
I assured Administrator Zorn of our continuing commitment to the court-approved process for negotiating changes to our past agreements on regulatory matters.
I let him know we are hopeful this does not put the Tribes and State with odds with each other.
But I also informed him that it is DNR’s job to honor court decisions and directives and to enforce the laws that are in place at this time, and we will do so. In the meantime, I ask that all of us – Tribal members, governmental agencies, and the public – work together to manage court-affirmed hunting and gathering rights in a safe and legal manner.
Cathy
3 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
The final judgment of judge Crabb was accepted by both sides at the
time, those sides being the DNR and the tribes. The judgment which they
agreed to specifically prohibits shining deer, so it is difficult to
see how the indians would hope to prevail in court. One explanation
theorizes that the Indians want to force a test case to hope to obtain
rights to co-manage the fish and game populations. They claim to have
this now, but a careful reading of the judgment clearly gives the DNR
ultimate responsibility and authority.
Cathy Stepp is truly standing up to ensure that the interests of Wisconsin citizens are protected and she deserves to be supported, not ridiculed as your pathetic misinterpretation of the facts seem to do.
-
Anonymous said...
-
If the Indians are threatening to go back to court over treaty
privileges, the DNR should welcome this. The Crabb ruling is deeply
flawed and needs to be over turned. It is a travesty that the DNR
never appealed the ruling before. Any ruling which creates a
privileged class is a clear and open violation of the constitution.
Go back and read the treaty, word for word, and then enforce it to the
absolute letter of what is actually written, not what the Indians want
it to have said. The treaty gives Indians the temporary right to hunt
and fish until they are removed from the land to allow for mineral
development. There is nothing about having rights over and above other
citizens of the US, or that other laws which apply to everyone else do
not apply to them. A right to hunt and fish will never be
interpreted to be an unlimited right in any fair court in the land.
Bring it on.
rk
-
Anonymous said...
-
Heard a spokesperson for tribal government on WORT-FM last night who
said that this is not "shining." Apparently the only illumination
allowed would occur after the deer is targeted, just before the trigger
is pulled.
I don't see how the state can maintain two standards, one for wolves and one for deer. Stepp should admit that the wolf-hunting rules have unintended consequences and were ill-considered.
Monday, November 26, 2012
At least 17 wolves taken so far in late wolf season in Minnesota
Published November 26, 2012
By: News Tribune staff, Duluth News Tribune
Hunters and trappers took at least 15 wolves during the opening weekend of Minnesota’s late wolf season, which opened Saturday.
There is a statewide quota of 253 wolves for the season, which runs until Jan. 31 and follows an early hunting season earlier this month. A total of 2,400 licenses were available for the late season.
As of Sunday evening, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources reported that hunters and trappers took seven wolves in the Northeast Zone, where the season quota is 56, and 10 wolves in the Northwest Zone, where the season quota is 187. No wolves were reported killed in the state’s East-Central Zone.
The statewide total was a marked decrease from the opening weekend of the early hunting season, when at least 50 wolves were killed. The opening of the early season coincided with the state’s firearms deer season, so many more hunters were in the woods.
Minnesota’s wolf season has been controversial, and two groups were unsuccessful in legal efforts to stop the hunt. DNR officials estimate that 3,000 wolves roam the state.
In Wisconsin’s wolf hunt, hunters and trappers had taken 95 wolves through Sunday. The Wisconsin season opened Oct. 15 and continues through Feb. 28 or until the statewide quota of 116 is reached.
source
By: News Tribune staff, Duluth News Tribune
Hunters and trappers took at least 15 wolves during the opening weekend of Minnesota’s late wolf season, which opened Saturday.
There is a statewide quota of 253 wolves for the season, which runs until Jan. 31 and follows an early hunting season earlier this month. A total of 2,400 licenses were available for the late season.
As of Sunday evening, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources reported that hunters and trappers took seven wolves in the Northeast Zone, where the season quota is 56, and 10 wolves in the Northwest Zone, where the season quota is 187. No wolves were reported killed in the state’s East-Central Zone.
The statewide total was a marked decrease from the opening weekend of the early hunting season, when at least 50 wolves were killed. The opening of the early season coincided with the state’s firearms deer season, so many more hunters were in the woods.
Minnesota’s wolf season has been controversial, and two groups were unsuccessful in legal efforts to stop the hunt. DNR officials estimate that 3,000 wolves roam the state.
In Wisconsin’s wolf hunt, hunters and trappers had taken 95 wolves through Sunday. The Wisconsin season opened Oct. 15 and continues through Feb. 28 or until the statewide quota of 116 is reached.
source
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Wolves close in on Berlin after more than a century
Tuesday 20 November 2012Tont Paterson
Naturalists in Berlin have sighted a pack of wolves and their cubs just 15 miles south of the German capital for the first time in more than 100 years.
The German office of the World Wildlife Fund said yesterday that
farmers had alerted its field workers to the existence a wolf pack which
appeared to have moved into a deserted former Soviet army military
exercise area near the village of Sperenberg south of Berlin.
Janosch Arnold, a WWF wolf expert, told Berlin's Die Tageszeitung that naturalists equipped with infra-red night vision cameras had filmed the animals in the area overnight.
"There is definitely a wolf pack with cubs and they seem to be on top of the world," he said.
Germany's "last wolf" was reputed to have been shot and killed by hunters in 1904. In 1990, a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the animals were declared a protected species and the population began to grow again. Wolves were sighted in remote areas of eastern Germany after they entered from neighbouring Poland.
The discovery of wolves living and apparently breeding so close to a large urban conurbation like Berlin is the first since German reunification in 1990. But Mr Arnold said the areas of largely uninhabited forest in the surrounding state of Brandenburg and plenty of deer and wild boar were decisive factors.
"In principle, the whole of Brandenburg is attractive for wolves. Anywhere that a wolf finds peace and quiet and food offers the animals good living conditions," he said.
Since 1990 the number of wolf packs, comprising two parent wolves and usually cubs aged up to two years, is estimated to have risen to a total of 14 in Germany. Their presence is mostly confined to the former communist east. Mr Arnold said fear of wolves was unjustified as the animals were reclusive and shy of humans.
source
Janosch Arnold, a WWF wolf expert, told Berlin's Die Tageszeitung that naturalists equipped with infra-red night vision cameras had filmed the animals in the area overnight.
"There is definitely a wolf pack with cubs and they seem to be on top of the world," he said.
Germany's "last wolf" was reputed to have been shot and killed by hunters in 1904. In 1990, a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the animals were declared a protected species and the population began to grow again. Wolves were sighted in remote areas of eastern Germany after they entered from neighbouring Poland.
The discovery of wolves living and apparently breeding so close to a large urban conurbation like Berlin is the first since German reunification in 1990. But Mr Arnold said the areas of largely uninhabited forest in the surrounding state of Brandenburg and plenty of deer and wild boar were decisive factors.
"In principle, the whole of Brandenburg is attractive for wolves. Anywhere that a wolf finds peace and quiet and food offers the animals good living conditions," he said.
Since 1990 the number of wolf packs, comprising two parent wolves and usually cubs aged up to two years, is estimated to have risen to a total of 14 in Germany. Their presence is mostly confined to the former communist east. Mr Arnold said fear of wolves was unjustified as the animals were reclusive and shy of humans.
source
Wolf contest sparks outrage
A wolf-kill contest sponsored by local
businesses has provoked outrage in the provincial media and has lead to a
steady stream of angry letters to the Alaska Highway News from
concerned citizens.
Richard Petersen, a resident of Fort
St. John, has become a target of public scorn after comments he made in
defense of the contest in a provincial newspaper.
“It’s not a contest to exterminate wolves, not an organized thing where we go out and shoot every wolf in the country. If you are driving down the road and see one and you happen to shoot it and you’re in this contest, you have a chance to win something,” Petersen said in the news article. The contest is $50 to enter. At the end of the contest, on May 31, the winners will receive prizes ranging between $250 to upwards of $1,000, it has been reported.
The article said that winners are determined by the size of their kill. There is also a booby prize of $150 for the smallest wolf. Other prizes include free taxidermy work and rifles. Each contestant is allowed to submit three wolves for evaluation.
John Marriot, an accomplished nature photographer based in Canmore, Alta. has used his popular photography blog to urge a tourism boycott of the Alaska Highway until the contest is stopped. In response, The Alaska Highway News has received many letters from British Columbians angered by the wolf-kill contest and, in particular, Petersen’s description of himself as a wildlife conservationist.
“Giving a prize for killing the smallest wolf, which would generally be a pup or youngster, leaves me entirely speechless,” wrote Catherine E. Fox, barrister and solicitor, in an email. “I cannot believe that this is being done in this province,” wrote Patricia Watson from Lions Bay, B.C. “In protest I will boycott all travel along the Alaska Highway and any businesses that support such an action.”
"Sponsoring a contest under the ReMax banner that promotes the indiscriminate killing of wolves and offering prizes for the biggest and the smallest animal killed is absolutely disgraceful!" wrote Ron Robertson from Leduc, Alta.
Petersen would not comment.
A representative, who prefers to remain nameless, from the North Peace Rod and Gun Club, a group which also sponsored the event, said that regardless of the bad press the contest is going ahead as scheduled. “You need to have permission to hunt on someone’s land and hunting regulations mean you can’t just pop off the highway and shoot… you have to be at least a kilometre away from the highway… it’s not like it’s a shoot fest,” said the gun club representative.
According to Kevin Boon, general manager of the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association, ranchers are losing 10 to 25 per cent of their cattle to wolf predation. “We have to start a process of getting rid of some of them to bring the population back to a point where we can coexist,” he told the Alaska Highway News in an earlier interview. “There isn’t a cattleman out there who doesn’t expect to lose some to them, it’s just they can afford the loss of what they are losing.”
A provincial Ministry of Agriculture report shows that $63,800 in compensation payments were paid out last to year to provincial ranchers who lost a total of 133 head of cattle. “My guess is that many people have no idea the effect that these wolves have on people’s livelihoods up here,” said Blair Lekstrom, MLA for Peace River South.
“I think the issue here that people are concerned about is the use of the word ‘contest’ but there is no doubt in my mind that we have to take some of the wolves out. I’ve talked with some ranchers who’ve lost 10 per cent of their herd to wolves,” said Lekstrom. “There’s not a huge margin and profit as far as the cattle industry goes. These people aren’t in it for the dollars. It’s a way of life but they also can’t go broke doing it supplying the food that we all need,” said Lekstrom.
According to the government’s recently released Management Plan for the Grey Wolf the population of grey wolves in the province is relatively stable, rising from about 8,100 to 8,500 in the past twenty years. However, they are having an effect on local wildlife. Experts believe wolves accounts for about 75 per cent of adult mortality among caribou in the South Peace.
“I do believe it [the contest] was well intentioned in order to take the number of wolves down somewhat,” said Lekstrom. As co-owner and the retired manager of the Fort St. John Re/Max Action Realty, some of the criticism of Richard Petersen has been directed to that local business.
“It’s not affiliated with Re/Max or the City of Fort St. John. It’s a private contest with sponsors that needs to be governed or regulated by the province or fed,” said Trevor Bolin, the realty company’s current Fort St. John branch manager and co-owner.
“Part of the problem is this is something that is not illegal. For them to either personally attack Rich or the Re/Max brand because of his affiliation is wrong … This all got started by people who have no idea about the impact of a large wolf population,” said Bolin, who in addition to his day job also serves a city councillor.
He noted that there is not much of a difference between this contest and other popular worldwide shooting competitions, such as hunting for big buck. “I’ve definitely fielded a whack of emails and phone calls. I definitely understand that people outside of this area have a problem, with it but if you talk to a farmer or hunter, you’re going to hear a different story than what you hear in Vancouver,” said Bolin, who added that he is not a hunter. The wolf management plan included many techniques to reduce the population of wolves in B.C., including shooting them from a helicopter, increasing the length of hunting and trapping seasons and increasing an individual hunter’s bag limit.
“It sounds like a really backwards, naïve solution” said Kai Chan, a Canada Research Chair and associate professor at UBC’s Institute for Resource, Environment and Sustainability said about the contest. He noted that in many other regions the practice of indiscriminately killing large carnivores to control their population has not worked.
“This is because of wolf population biology,” said Chan, “One of the dangers of shooting the wolves is splintering the pack which can lead to more problems such as renegade wolves.” Chan said that in some regions, insurance schemes that minimize the economic risk for ranchers and farmers of losing their livestock have played a role in reducing the number of ranchers who kill predators. He noted that this strategy has worked particularly well in India and resulted in fewer tigers being killed by ranchers.
He also said that there are other more humane and more effective ways for ranchers to manage wolves in a non-lethal way. “In Idaho they’ve had a 90 per cent decline in wolf problems. By using behavioural conditions – loud noises – to scare the wolves away. The idea is that wolves are smart and they are afraid of people. Ranchers can use that to their advantage,” said Chan.
Chris Genovali, executive director at Raincoast Conservation Foundation, says that humans and not the wolves at are at fault for the loss of caribou. “How we humans are altering the landscape is really the ultimate cause of caribou decline. Whether it’s through logging, building roads and fencing habitat, humans are creating a landscape where it is easier for wolves to predate on caribou. In many areas its not just wolves that are preying on caribou. It’s also cougars, grizzly bears and black bears,” said Genovali.
Genovali said that the province’s new wolf management plan encourages hunters in different regions to kill more wolves, and that wolves are highly complex, highly social, intelligent and sensitive animals that live in family groups. “I think that when your policy is to kill more wolves, the natural outgrowth of that will be the prize or the wolf-killing derby type of situation.”
source
“It’s not a contest to exterminate wolves, not an organized thing where we go out and shoot every wolf in the country. If you are driving down the road and see one and you happen to shoot it and you’re in this contest, you have a chance to win something,” Petersen said in the news article. The contest is $50 to enter. At the end of the contest, on May 31, the winners will receive prizes ranging between $250 to upwards of $1,000, it has been reported.
The article said that winners are determined by the size of their kill. There is also a booby prize of $150 for the smallest wolf. Other prizes include free taxidermy work and rifles. Each contestant is allowed to submit three wolves for evaluation.
John Marriot, an accomplished nature photographer based in Canmore, Alta. has used his popular photography blog to urge a tourism boycott of the Alaska Highway until the contest is stopped. In response, The Alaska Highway News has received many letters from British Columbians angered by the wolf-kill contest and, in particular, Petersen’s description of himself as a wildlife conservationist.
“Giving a prize for killing the smallest wolf, which would generally be a pup or youngster, leaves me entirely speechless,” wrote Catherine E. Fox, barrister and solicitor, in an email. “I cannot believe that this is being done in this province,” wrote Patricia Watson from Lions Bay, B.C. “In protest I will boycott all travel along the Alaska Highway and any businesses that support such an action.”
"Sponsoring a contest under the ReMax banner that promotes the indiscriminate killing of wolves and offering prizes for the biggest and the smallest animal killed is absolutely disgraceful!" wrote Ron Robertson from Leduc, Alta.
Petersen would not comment.
A representative, who prefers to remain nameless, from the North Peace Rod and Gun Club, a group which also sponsored the event, said that regardless of the bad press the contest is going ahead as scheduled. “You need to have permission to hunt on someone’s land and hunting regulations mean you can’t just pop off the highway and shoot… you have to be at least a kilometre away from the highway… it’s not like it’s a shoot fest,” said the gun club representative.
According to Kevin Boon, general manager of the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association, ranchers are losing 10 to 25 per cent of their cattle to wolf predation. “We have to start a process of getting rid of some of them to bring the population back to a point where we can coexist,” he told the Alaska Highway News in an earlier interview. “There isn’t a cattleman out there who doesn’t expect to lose some to them, it’s just they can afford the loss of what they are losing.”
A provincial Ministry of Agriculture report shows that $63,800 in compensation payments were paid out last to year to provincial ranchers who lost a total of 133 head of cattle. “My guess is that many people have no idea the effect that these wolves have on people’s livelihoods up here,” said Blair Lekstrom, MLA for Peace River South.
“I think the issue here that people are concerned about is the use of the word ‘contest’ but there is no doubt in my mind that we have to take some of the wolves out. I’ve talked with some ranchers who’ve lost 10 per cent of their herd to wolves,” said Lekstrom. “There’s not a huge margin and profit as far as the cattle industry goes. These people aren’t in it for the dollars. It’s a way of life but they also can’t go broke doing it supplying the food that we all need,” said Lekstrom.
According to the government’s recently released Management Plan for the Grey Wolf the population of grey wolves in the province is relatively stable, rising from about 8,100 to 8,500 in the past twenty years. However, they are having an effect on local wildlife. Experts believe wolves accounts for about 75 per cent of adult mortality among caribou in the South Peace.
“I do believe it [the contest] was well intentioned in order to take the number of wolves down somewhat,” said Lekstrom. As co-owner and the retired manager of the Fort St. John Re/Max Action Realty, some of the criticism of Richard Petersen has been directed to that local business.
“It’s not affiliated with Re/Max or the City of Fort St. John. It’s a private contest with sponsors that needs to be governed or regulated by the province or fed,” said Trevor Bolin, the realty company’s current Fort St. John branch manager and co-owner.
“Part of the problem is this is something that is not illegal. For them to either personally attack Rich or the Re/Max brand because of his affiliation is wrong … This all got started by people who have no idea about the impact of a large wolf population,” said Bolin, who in addition to his day job also serves a city councillor.
He noted that there is not much of a difference between this contest and other popular worldwide shooting competitions, such as hunting for big buck. “I’ve definitely fielded a whack of emails and phone calls. I definitely understand that people outside of this area have a problem, with it but if you talk to a farmer or hunter, you’re going to hear a different story than what you hear in Vancouver,” said Bolin, who added that he is not a hunter. The wolf management plan included many techniques to reduce the population of wolves in B.C., including shooting them from a helicopter, increasing the length of hunting and trapping seasons and increasing an individual hunter’s bag limit.
“It sounds like a really backwards, naïve solution” said Kai Chan, a Canada Research Chair and associate professor at UBC’s Institute for Resource, Environment and Sustainability said about the contest. He noted that in many other regions the practice of indiscriminately killing large carnivores to control their population has not worked.
“This is because of wolf population biology,” said Chan, “One of the dangers of shooting the wolves is splintering the pack which can lead to more problems such as renegade wolves.” Chan said that in some regions, insurance schemes that minimize the economic risk for ranchers and farmers of losing their livestock have played a role in reducing the number of ranchers who kill predators. He noted that this strategy has worked particularly well in India and resulted in fewer tigers being killed by ranchers.
He also said that there are other more humane and more effective ways for ranchers to manage wolves in a non-lethal way. “In Idaho they’ve had a 90 per cent decline in wolf problems. By using behavioural conditions – loud noises – to scare the wolves away. The idea is that wolves are smart and they are afraid of people. Ranchers can use that to their advantage,” said Chan.
Chris Genovali, executive director at Raincoast Conservation Foundation, says that humans and not the wolves at are at fault for the loss of caribou. “How we humans are altering the landscape is really the ultimate cause of caribou decline. Whether it’s through logging, building roads and fencing habitat, humans are creating a landscape where it is easier for wolves to predate on caribou. In many areas its not just wolves that are preying on caribou. It’s also cougars, grizzly bears and black bears,” said Genovali.
Genovali said that the province’s new wolf management plan encourages hunters in different regions to kill more wolves, and that wolves are highly complex, highly social, intelligent and sensitive animals that live in family groups. “I think that when your policy is to kill more wolves, the natural outgrowth of that will be the prize or the wolf-killing derby type of situation.”
source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)