Book Review - "The Hidden Life of Wolves"

April 27, 2013

"The Hidden Life of Wolves" by Jim and Jamie Dutcher National Geographic Books

THE HIDDEN LIFE OF WOLVES
Jim and Jamie Dutcher
National Geographic Press
$25, 210 pages   

For six years they shared a 25-acre enclosure at the base of Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains with a pack of wolves. Their office was a Mongolian yurt; their sleeping quarters a canvas tent. The path to the outhouse required frequent snow-shoveling for below-zero excursions.

This was the life of Jim and Jamie Dutcher, award-winning documentary filmmakers. Their new book, "The Hidden Life of Wolves," is the culminating portrayal of their experiences.

Although "The Hidden Lives of Wolves" is an oversized book and contains hundreds of the Dutchers' compelling photographs, as well as maps and illustrations, it is not a coffee-table book. The text contains an extensive study of wolves, both those inside and out of the enclosure, comparable in depth to Barry Lopez's "Of Wolves and Men."

"The Hidden Life of Wolves" details all aspects of wolf life, their social structure, hunting techniques and body language, as well as human-influenced issues, including the Yellowstone and central Idaho wolf reintroductions of the mid-1990s.

Readers explore the similarities between the eradication of wolves in the 1800s and the current profusion of hunting and trapping, made legal when wolves were dropped from the Endangered Species List in 2011. Solutions to wolf problems, including livestock depredation, are explored. The Little Red Riding Hood myth is thoroughly debunked. There are references to many authorities, including Aldo Leopold, Gordon Haber, L. David Mech and Carter Niemeyer.

The Dutchers suggest the wolf "may be the greatest shape-shifter in the animal kingdom," acknowledging the vast disparity in our opinions of Canis lupus. Through intensive observation of their hand-raised pack, the Dutchers gained intimate knowledge of the inner workings of wolves. Their conclusion was that their subjects were extremely social and complex animals that were "neither demon, nor deity, nor data."

Readers come to know the Sawtooth wolves personally. Kamots is the benevolent leader. Without undue force, this striking gray wolf maintains order among his peers. Littermate Lakota is larger than Kamots yet remains at the bottom of the pecking order, often harassed by the other wolves. Younger brother Matsi comes to Lakota's rescue, blocking blows from offending wolves. Amani, the adoring uncle to all pups in the pack, endures onslaughts of sharp puppy teeth.

These and other wolves are brought to life as they interact with each other and with the Dutchers, who record the wolves with camera and sound device, their hearts never quite out of the picture but at a distance that allows for an objective view.

Published by National Geographic and with a forward by Robert Redford, "The Hidden Life of Wolves" is a richly layered work that speaks to the intricate and controversial relationship between wolves and humans.

While some see the wolf as a scapegoat for a litany of evils, the Dutchers maintain: "More than wolves themselves, it is our relationship with them that needs to be managed." Their aptly titled book is a valuable guide for this process.

-- Beckie Elgin

source

I can't make this crap up--Local lawmakers support rule change on wolf killing !

Posted on April 29, 2013

By Mike Faulk

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Central Washington lawmakers are pleased with the state Fish and Wildlife Commission’s new emergency rule allowing the killing of wolves caught in the act of killing livestock.

Previously, livestock owners were required to obtain a state permit to kill gray wolves attacking their animals. “I have heard repeatedly from my constituents about their concerns with a great expansion of wolves,” Rep. Charles Ross, R-Naches, said in a news release. “People should have the right to protect their livestock and pets on their own property.” 

The new rule, approved Friday, requires property owners to report the incident within 24 hours, surrender the wolf carcass to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and provide investigators access to the property where the wolf was killed. If the killing was not justified, the killer of the wolf may be prosecuted for unlawful taking of endangered wildlife, the rule said. “This emergency rule restores common sense to this threat and will give all parties time to find a solution that is agreeable for all,” Rep. Norm Johnson, R-Yakima, said in a statement. 

Reps. Bruce Chandler, R-Granger, and David Taylor, R-Moxee, also issued statements supporting the rule change. Chandler co-sponsored House Bill 1191, which would have allowed property owners the authority granted to them under the rule change made Friday. Neither that bill nor its companion, Senate Bill 5187, were able to clear both houses this session. The Senate bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside. 

The rule can remain in effect for up to eight months. The panel also decided to pursue a permanent rule allowing the killing of a wolf caught in the act of attacking livestock or pets — a process that will take months and could result in a rule different from the emergency provision.

Commissioners noted there have been recent and escalating reports of wolf attacks on pets and livestock, particularly in northeastern Washington, where the bulk of the state’s estimated 100 gray wolves are located. Wolf numbers have grown rapidly in recent years as the animals migrate to Washington from other states.

The state last year had to wipe out a pack of wolves known as the Wedge Pack that was preying on cattle.

• Information from the Associated Press was used in this blog post. 

source 

Image of the Day

Interracting wolves, a photo by Tambako the Jaguar on Flickr.

Gray Wolf Protections Lifted Across Lower 48 States Under Proposed Federal Rules

By MATTHEW BROWN and JOHN FLESHER 04/26/13

BILLINGS, Mont. — Federal wildlife officials have drafted plans to lift protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, a move that could end a decades-long recovery effort that has restored the animals but only in parts of their historic range.

The draft U.S. Department of Interior rule obtained by The Associated Press contends the roughly 6,000 wolves now living in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes are enough to prevent the species' extinction. The agency says having gray wolves elsewhere – such as the West Coast, parts of New England and elsewhere in the Rockies – is unnecessary for their long-term survival.

A small population of Mexican wolves in the Southwest would continue to receive federal protections, as a distinct subspecies of the gray wolf.

The loss of federal protections would be welcomed by ranchers and others in the agriculture industry, whose stock at times become prey for hungry wolf packs. Yet wildlife advocates say the proposal threatens to cut short the gray wolf's dramatic recovery from widespread extermination.

The proposal was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Friday the rule was under review and would be published in the Federal Register and opened to public comment before a final decision is made.

If the rule is enacted, it would transfer control of wolves to state wildlife agencies by removing them from the federal list of endangered species. The government has been considering such a move since at least 2011, but previously held off given concerns among scientists and wildlife advocates who warn it could effectively halt the species' expansion.

John Vucetich, a wolf specialist and biologist at Michigan Tech University, said suitable habitat remains in large sections of the Rockies, the nation's midsection and the Northeast. Wolves presently occupy only about 15 percent of their historical range, but that could be greatly expanded if humans allow it, he said.

"It ends up being a political question more than a biological one," Vucetich said. "It's very unlikely the wolves will make it to places like the Dakotas and the Northeast unless the federal government provides some kind of leadership."

Meanwhile, increasing wolf numbers in parts of the country have stirred a backlash from agricultural and hunting groups upset by the predator's attacks on livestock and big game herds such as elk. Their complaints spurred Western lawmakers two years ago to remove wolves from the endangered list in five states by force, after the issue got bogged down by environmentalists' lawsuits.

Paul Schlegel with the American Farm Bureau Federation said any step toward dropping wolves from the endangered list would be welcome to ranchers who have lost cattle, sheep and other animals to wolves or fear they might if the predators enlarge their territory.

"There's a lot of anxiety when a listed species attacks your livestock and you have no way of protecting them," he said.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association said the government also should remove protections for wolves in the Southwest, where agencies have struggled to re-establish wolves in parts of New Mexico and Arizona. That population is believed to number only about 75 animals.

"Repeated failed attempts to achieve unnaturally high population levels in that region have put undue strain on livestock producers" and government resources, spokesman Chase Adams said.

Some biologists have argued wolves will continue spreading regardless of their legal status. The animals are prolific breeders, known to journey hundreds of miles in search of new territory. They were wiped out across most of the U.S. early last century following a government sponsored poisoning and trapping campaign.

In an emailed statement, the Fish and Wildlife Service pointed to "robust" populations of the animals in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes as evidence that gray wolf recovery "is one of the world's great conservation successes."

Wolves in those two areas lost protections under the Endangered Species Act over the last two years. Advocacy groups have filed federal suits challenging decisions to lift protected status from wolves in Wyoming, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is evaluating the appropriate management status of the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act outside of these recovered population areas," the agency said in its Friday statement. "This is a matter still under internal review and discussion."

In some states where wolves have recovered, regulated hunting and trapping already has been used to drive down their populations, largely in response to wolf attacks on livestock and big game herds.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently released data showing wolf numbers dropped 7 percent last year in the face of newly-expanded hunting and trapping seasons in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. That's the most significant decrease since they were reintroduced in the mid-1990s.

"There's a race to the bottom to see who can be more anti-wolf," said Don Barry, a former Interior Department assistant secretary under President Bill Clinton and now a vice president at Defenders of Wildlife. "They're basically giving up on wolf recovery before the job is done."

Federal officials have said they are monitoring the states' actions, but see no immediate threat to the gray wolf's survival.

In Oregon and Washington, which have small but rapidly growing wolf populations, the animals remained protected under state laws even after federal protections were lifted in portions of the two states.

Between 1991 and 2011, the federal government spent $102 million on gray wolf recovery programs and state agencies chipped in $15.6 million. Federal spending likely would drop if the proposal to lift protections goes through, while state spending would increase.
__
Flesher reported from Traverse City, Mich.

source

Graphic: Gray wolves’ history and recovery

Hunting virtually eliminated gray wolves from the western U.S. by the 1930s. The Endangered Species Act offered Canis lupus federal protection in 1973, and wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park more than 20 years later.

Milestones

 

Milestones

1973 Northern Rocky Mountains gray wolf placed on endangered species list.

1978 Gray wolf listed throughout range in the Lower 48 states.

1995-96 Wolves from Canada are reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.

2002 Reintroduced wolves in the Northern Rockies exceeded population goals for 10 consecutive years.

2003-08 The U.S. tries to delist the gray wolf at least three times, but is defeated in court.

2009 Wolves are delisted in Idaho and Montana, where wolf hunting begins; 260 wolves are killed.

2010 Wolf protection is reinstated by a district court.

2011 Federal protections are officially removed in Idaho and Montana, but remain in place in Wyoming.

2012 Wyoming wolf population is delisted and managed by the state. Wolves in the western Great Lakes states are removed from the endangered species list.

April 2013 U.S. officials propose to delist gray wolves in the Lower 48 states, except for a small population in the Southwest.

Sources: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Defenders of Wildlife.

Credits: Graphic by Lorena Iniguez Elebee. Graphics reporting by Julie Sheer. Programming by Anthony Pesce.

Published: April 26, 2013

source 

Image of the Day

Two arctic wolves stand in the snow on January 16, 2013 at the small zoo of Servion, Western Switzerland.

source

Image of the Day

Wölfe, a photo by CROW1973 on Flickr.

Aw c'mon! Let's play!

Wolves need more time

Editorial

Feds should abandon planned delisting in Lower 48

 

---

April 27, 2013 - The Register-Guard, Michigan

---

 

The recovery of the gray wolf is a success story that illustrates the effectiveness of the federal Endangered Species Act. But the Obama administration fails to see that it’s a story whose final chapters have yet to be penned.

The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that federal authorities intend to remove endangered species protection for nearly all gray wolves in the Lower 48 states. A draft rule, expected to be announced shortly and finalized within a year, would hand over the management of wolf populations to state wildlife agencies.

Federal officials insist that the approximately 5,000 wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes region are enough to prevent extinction. But that conclusion ignores warnings from scientists and conservationists that the wolves’ numbers have not reached sustainable levels and that the agency’s analysis of wolf subspecies and habitat is flawed.

Those same critics challenged the federal government’s decision two years ago to withdraw Endangered Species Act protection in the Northern Rockies, Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington and give the job of wolf management to the states. Since that delisting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in sanctioned hunts, including 422 wolves last year in Idaho alone.

Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering removing protections in the protected areas that remain. Yet the wolves are just beginning to get a foothold in Western Oregon, Washington, Utah and Colorado, and it’s too early to end federal protection in those areas.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is under intense pressure from ranchers, hunters and some federal and state officials to remove the remaining protections. As Jamie Rappaport Clark, the former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and now the president of Defenders of Wildlife, notes, the agency’s latest delisting decision “reeks of politics.”

Wolves were once abundant in the West before white settlers arrived. But they were hunted nearly to extinction — and were wiped out entirely in Oregon — before a small number were reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park and in central Idaho in the mid-1990s. Under federal protection, the animals thrived. At least 1,600 wolves now populate the northern Rockies, although last year the population fell by an alarming 7 percent, primarily because of the 2011 delistings and the recreational hunting that resulted.

Sally Jewell, the new secretary of the Interior, should take a hard look at the Fish and Wildlife Agency’s decision, and pull the plug on the proposed delisting. Gray wolves need more time to find their balance and build strong, genetically healthy populations that can endure for many years to come.

source 

 

U.S. plans to drop gray wolves from endangered list

The planned ruling would eliminate protection for the top predators, but scientists and conservationists say the proposal is flawed.

The gray wolf was reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995. More than 1,600 now roam the northern Rockies. (Yellowstone National Park)

• Graphic: Gray wolves' history and recovery

By Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times

April 25, 2013

Federal authorities intend to remove endangered species protections for all gray wolves in the Lower 48 states, carving out an a exception for a small pocket of about 75 Mexican wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, according to a draft document obtained by The Times.

The sweeping rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would eliminate protection for wolves 18 years after the government reestablished the predators in the West, where they had been hunted to extinction. Their reintroduction was a success, with the population growing to the thousands.
But their presence has always drawn protests across the Intermountain West from state officials, hunters and ranchers who lost livestock to the wolves. They have lobbied to remove the gray wolf from the endangered list.

DISCUSSION: Should the gray wolf be dropped from endangered list?

Once those protections end, the fate of wolves is left to individual states. The species is only beginning to recover in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. California is considering imposing its own protections after the discovery of a lone male that wandered into the state's northern counties from Oregon two years ago.

The species has flourished elsewhere, however, and the government ended endangered status for the gray wolf in the northern Rockies and Great Lakes regions last year.

Mike Jimenez, who manages wolves in the northern Rockies for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said delisting in that region underscored a "huge success story." He said that while wolves are now legally hunted in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the federal agency continues to monitor pack populations and can reinstate protections should numbers reach levels that biologists consider to be dangerously low.

Scientists and conservationists who reviewed the plan said its reasoning is flawed. They challenged how the agency reconfigures the classification of wolf subspecies and its assertion that little habitat remains for wolves.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, the former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and now the president of Defenders of Wildlife, said the decision "reeks of politics" and vowed that it will face multiple legal challenges.

"This is politics versus professional wildlife management," Clark said. "The service is saying, 'We're done. Game over. Whatever happens to wolves in the U.S. is a state thing.' They are declaring victory long before science would tell them to do so."

The Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to release its decision to delist the wolves in coming weeks and it could become final within a year. Brent Lawrence, a Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman, said Thursday that the agency would not comment.

The proposed rule is technically a draft until it is entered into the Federal Register.
Some scientists agreed with the decision to delist the wolves. But several took exception to some of the findings that the agency included in the document, including the scientifically disputed issue of defining wolf subspecies.

"It's a little depressing that science can be used and pitched in this way," said Bob Wayne, a professor of evolutionary biology at UCLA.

Wolves were once common and ranged across much of the continental United States, a vestigial symbol of the Old West and its expanse of open, wild country.

But as the West became urbanized and ranching spread, government-subsidized hunting that offered bounties for wolf kills virtually wiped out the animals by the 1930s.

A half-century later, scientists recognized the value in restoring top predators to re-balance ecosystems, and federal wildlife managers hashed out a reintroduction program. A group of 66 Canadian wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and the animals have thrived, exceeding recovery goals each year. More than 1,600 now roam the northern Rockies, although last year the population fell by 7%.

Wolves and their presence on the landscape have always elicited passionate responses and stirred political action. In 2011, for example, language that Congress buried in a defense appropriations bill directed the Interior secretary to remove most wolves in the Rockies from the endangered classification. Such decisions are normally left to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Delisting is not common, and is generally accompanied by much fanfare as the move signifies a great effort in pulling a species back from the brink of extinction. Only two dozen species have ever been removed from the list.

Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity has been tracking the progress of Mexican wolves and applauded the decision to designate that species as endangered.

"The importance of a subspecies listing is that it will finally compel the service to do what it says it's wanted to do for 25 years — which is to complete a recovery plan," he said.

The recognition of the Mexican gray wolf as a subspecies represents an about-face for the agency. The Fish and Wildlife Service denied a listing petition for the Mexican wolf in October.

The Mexican wolf reintroduction program, begun in 1995, has been a disaster. Only one wolf has been released from the captive breeding program in the last four years — in January. That male was recaptured three weeks later.

source

Letters: Readers howling mad at wolf-hunting bill

April 23, 2013   

As an anthrozoologist, I am well aware of the powerful link between animal abuse and human cruelty. The horrendous assault on Michiganders’ voting rights evident by the proposition of Senate Bill 288 is just the latest example.

Introduced on April 9 by state Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, Senate Bill 288 seeks to allow unelected members of the Natural Resources Commission — and not the voters of Michigan — to determine whether wolves and other animals should be hunted and trapped for trophies after decades of protection. This is an egregious attack not only on Michigan wildlife but also on the fundamental rights of Michigan voters.

As important as the wolf issue is, this debate has now spiraled into one even greater. No longer is this just about wildlife. This is now about voting rights. Do not let this blatant display of political bullying go by unnoticed. Call your representative now and urge him or her to oppose SB 288.
John Di Leonardo
Berkley

Bill tries to go around petition drive

Why would legislators voluntarily give up authority? Under current law, only the Legislature can add an animal to the list of species to be hunted. Senate Bill 288 would give seven unelected members of the Natural Resources Commission that same right to designate animals as game species. Proponents claim that, if the bill passes, the decision of which animals are hunted would be based on only “sound science” and not on politics. Is it just a coincidence that this bill was introduced less than two weeks after the Keep Wolves Protected campaign, a coalition of Michigan citizens and organizations, turned in more than a quarter million signatures in a referendum to let voters decide whether to hunt wolves? If SB 288 is signed into law, public oversight of the process would be marginalized if not curtailed. This bill is bad for legislators, bad for people and, ultimately, bad for wildlife.

Beatrice M. Friedlander
Canton

source

Famous Yellowstone elk likely killed by wolves

Associated Press

Posted: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 

BILLINGS — A Yellowstone National Park bull elk featured in a BBC film has died after likely being killed by a wolf pack.
Park officials confirmed Tuesday that elk No. 10 was found dead near the Wraith Falls trailhead Saturday. He was believed to be between 16 and 18.

Gardiner, Mont.-based naturalist Jim Halfpenny told the Billings Gazette (http://bit.ly/13ScU7w) that the elk "held court" in the Mammoth Hot Springs area area starting in 2006, when he chased off another bull and took over a harem there. No. 10 became famous after being included in the BBC film on the Mammoth elk, "Street Fighters." Bulls are shown fighting each other and chasing off tourists.

No. 10 got his yellow numbered tag after being tranquilized in 2001 after getting caught in a badminton net at a school.

source

The Secret Reasons Wolves Are Dying in Denali National Park

Some say natural causes explain why the park’s wolf population has hit a 26-year low, but there’s more to the story than that.

 

By Tracy Ross

April 23, 2013

 

(Photo: Andy Gehrig/Getty) 

 

Of the top reasons tourists travel thousands of miles for a 12-hour round-trip bus ride into Denali National Park, wolves rank right up there with grizzly bears and the sight of 20,320-foot Mount McKinley on a rare bluebird day. To the few who know, members of Denali’s wolf population are also some of the longest, continuously studied animal groups in the world, besting even Jane Goodall’s chimps. But in recent years, wolf numbers in the 7,370-square-mile park have decreased even faster than the TV audience of Sarah Palin’s Alaska on TLC. In 2007, Denali Park biologists counted 147 wolves in nine groups that roamed the 93-year-old park. But in their most recent count, taken last autumn, numbers had declined to 54, the lowest since 1986.

Some, like the Alaska Board of Game, blame this die-off on natural causes—wolves killing wolves and low sheep populations. But others, including private citizens, park biologists, and members of the environmental advocacy group the Alaska Wildife Alliance (AWA), believe there are more sinister reasons. According to some AWA members, the recent, radical decline of the park’s most visible wolves—called the Grant Creek group—is the result of three main factors: the dissolution of Denali’s protective buffer zone, the Palin-appointed Alaska Board of Game, and the acute, ethically questionable actions of a small handful of local trappers, including a man named Coke Wallace.

We’ll start with the protective buffer zone. Between 1966 and 2009, celebrated wolf biologist Gorden Haber studied wolves, on the ground, in Denali, hundreds of hours each year. During his extensive observation, Haber witnessed wolves wandering just outside the park and trappers laying their snares along the park’s boundary to kill these wolves. Thanks to his studies, Haber was able, in 2000, to convince the then-Board of Game to establish a protective buffer along the outside edge of the park, within a finger of state land, where wolf trapping was otherwise legal. Tragically, Haber died in a plane crash while observing wolves in late 2009. And the following March, the Board of Game rescinded the protective area.

Trappers once again position their snares along the park boundary, killing not only adult wolves, but pups. And last May, in an act that infuriated both wolf advocates and the usually detached Denali Park Service, the local trapper, Coke Wallace, hitched a dead horse to his four-wheeler, dragged it to the park boundary, and used it to lure and snare the pregnant alpha female of the park’s wolf group, Grant Creek.

AWA member Marybeth Holleman studied these ongoing events as she wrote her forthcoming book, Among Wolves, a profile of the late biologist Gordon Haber. She says that Denali Park biologist Tom Meier (also recently deceased) reported that he and other park biologists believed declining wolf populations weren’t the result of declining prey. Nor did they blame habitat, which is abundant in the 6.3 million-acre park. That, Meier said, left two causes: trapping on park borders and the vigorous predator-control program against bears and wolves currently under way in areas adjacent to the park.

 “What Tom told me is that when game officials do intensive predator control, it creates a vacuum,” says Holleman. “He believed that Denali wolves may have expanded their territory to fill it.”
Holleman, along with several wolf advocacy groups, have petitioned the Board of Game to “reinstate the protective buffer.” But in about six attempts, between 2010 and present, the Board refused and created a potentially illegal eight-year “moratorium” on even discussing the buffer zone. At its January meeting, the Board also discussed the petition “behind closed doors,” possibly violating the Alaska Open Meetings Act. The AWA has filed a lawsuit contesting the Board’s conduct with that meeting, results withstanding.

Another petition to reinstate the buffer will be discussed at the next meeting of the Board of Game, this May.

source

Rule allows killing of wolves attacking livestock

Friday, April 26, 2013

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS

Associated Press

SPOKANE, Wash. — A wolf caught in the act of attacking livestock or pets in parts of Washington can immediately be killed by the property owner without a permit, the state Fish and Wildlife Commission decided Friday. Previously, livestock owners needed to obtain a state permit to kill a gray wolf that was attacking their animals.

The commission unanimously approved a temporary emergency rule requested this week by a bipartisan group of state legislators. "We feel this proposed emergency rule is necessary for public safety and welfare," said commission chair Miranda Wecker of Naselle.

The rule can remain in effect for up to eight months. The panel also decided to pursue a permanent rule allowing the killing of a wolf caught in the act of attacking livestock or pets - a process that will take months and could result in a rule different from the emergency provision.

Commissioners noted there have been recent and escalating reports of wolf attacks on pets and livestock, particularly in northeastern Washington, where the bulk of the state's estimated 100 gray wolves are located. Wolf numbers have grown rapidly in recent years as the animals migrate to Washington from other states.

The state last year had to wipe out a pack of wolves known as the Wedge Pack that was preying on cattle. Mitch Friedman of Conservation Northwest said the environmental group did not oppose the emergency rule. "Adoption of this rule is overall in the best interests of wolf recovery," Friedman said
The emergency rule covers only parts of the state, primarily northeastern Washington, where wolves are not protected by the federal endangered species act. However, federal officials have drafted rules to rescind endangered species protection from wolves across the Lower 48 states.

Under the emergency rule, the owner of domestic animals, or a family member or employee, may kill one gray wolf without a permit issued by the director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Any wolf killed must be reported to the state within 24 hours, and the wolf carcass must be surrendered to the wildlife department. The owner of the domestic animals must allow the agency access to their property to investigate whether the killing was justified.

If the killing was not justified, the killer of the wolf may be prosecuted for unlawful taking of endangered wildlife, the rule said. Conversely, the director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife may authorize the killing of additional wolves if needed.

Commissioners were told the rule is needed because lambing and calving season has arrived, and livestock are moving into open range where more wolf attacks are anticipated. Warming weather also means more people and pets will be outdoors.

Other states have similar rules, and they typically result in only a handful of wolf deaths per year because it is difficult to catch wolves in the act of attacking livestock or pets, commissioners were told. In Idaho, for instance, only 50 wolves were killed between 2001 and 2010 under such circumstances, DFW Director Phil Anderson told commissioners. "This rule will not inhibit or take away from the speed at which the wolf population will recover in the state of Washington," Anderson said.

He noted the public will have ample opportunity to comment as the agency works to create a permanent rule that allows owners to kill wolves caught in the act of attacking livestock or pets.
Commissioner Chuck Perry of Moses Lake said he was a little concerned about the limit of killing one wolf, because they are pack animals.

But Anderson said a pack of wolves is likely to scatter quickly if one of their members is shot. "They don't like guns or gunfire," Anderson said.

Commissioner Larry Carpenter said the rule might actually prove beneficial to wolves, as being shot at might teach them not to target livestock or pets as food.

source

Wolves kill sheep near Gardiner

Friday, April 26, 2013 BOZEMAN, Mont. (AP) — A big game outfitter and outspoken opponent of wolves had 13 sheep killed by the predators on property north of Gardiner, federal wildlife officials said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services verified that two wolves killed sheep owned by William Hoppe sometime between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, The Bozeman Daily Chronicle (http://bit.ly/14jI73S) reported Friday.

USDA Wildlife Services state director John Steuber said five ewes and eight lambs died. Three others were injured but were expected to survive, he said.

The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks issued Hoppe a shoot-on-sight permit for two wolves, but they can be shot only on the property where the attack occurred, said agency spokeswoman Andrea Jones. Hoppe said he planned to move the remaining sheep off the property and closer to his house and maybe buy a few more.

Steuber said federal trappers won't take any lethal action against the wolves because Hoppe is moving his sheep. "We don't remove wolves to punish them; we only do it to prevent further predation, and now there's nothing to protect," Steuber said. "Plus, we don't know which wolves were involved. We don't just randomly go after wolves."

Fish, Wildlife and Parks will monitor wolf activity in the area closely, Jones said.

Hoppe will be able to claim almost $2,000 in compensation for the sheep from the Montana Livestock Loss Board. He had purchased the sheep just a few weeks before they were killed.
Hoppe is a former president of the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. In January, he opposed the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission's decision to close wolf hunting around Yellowstone National Park. He argues wolves are driving down the elk population in the area.
___
Information from: Bozeman Daily Chronicle, http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com

source 

Wolf hunt opponents: Legislation an attempt to suppress voice of the people

Courtesy: caninest@Flickr (April 26, 2013)

 April 26, 2013

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Republican-led state Senate approved legislation Thursday that could block a group's effort to ban wolf hunting in Michigan and make hunting and fishing rights a part of the state constitution.

Wolves were taken off the endangered species list in the state last year, but their population has declined slightly -- down to 658 from 687 two years ago. 

Legislation passed on a 25 to 11 party line vote Thursday would empower the Natural Resources Commission to decide which types of wildlife could be hunted. If signed into law, the measure effectively renders meaningless a potential statewide vote next year on overturning the Legislature's designation of wolves as a game species.

Lawmakers say wolf hunting is necessary to ensure the safety of citizens and livestock in rural areas where the wolf population is larger. But opponents say wolves pose little danger to humans, and there are ways to protect livestock that don't involve killing. They also say the measure is an attempt by lawmakers to suppress the voice of the people.

Currently, only the Legislature has the power to designate a game species, but under the proposal passed Thursday, the seven-member regulatory panel appointed by the governor would also have that power. The legislation originally included a $1 million appropriation, which means under Michigan law that it can't be subject to referendum on the ballot. That language was removed from the bill Thursday.

Lawmakers approved the measure designating wolves as a game species last year. Earlier this month, opponents gathered the more than 240,000 signatures necessary to request a statewide vote on whether the animals should be hunted. If a certain number of the signatures are considered valid, wolf hunting would be suspended until a vote is held in 2014.

But if the bill passed by the Senate Thursday — which now heads to the House — is signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, even if voters strike down wolf hunting in 2014, the NRC could approve wolf hunting anyway.

Jill Fritz, the director of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, the group backing the proposed referendum, told the more than 100 opponents protesting the bill on the steps of the Capitol Tuesday that the measure is an "extreme power grab by politicians or a deliberate attempt to subvert democracy and silence the voice of Michigan voters."

Republican Sen. Tom Casperson of Escanaba, who is sponsoring the measure, said in Ironwood, an Upper Peninsula city in his district, parents are worried to let their children outside because of the wolves.

However, experts say wolves are timid around humans and make an effort to avoid them -- even abandoning kills if they sense a human approaching. And the instances of confirmed wolf attacks on humans are almost non-existent when compared to attacks by other animals. You are much more likely to be attacked by a bear or even someone's dog than by a wolf, according to conservation experts. 

Lawmakers say the Natural Resources Commission is better apt at determining wildlife management policies — using scientific data, like changes in the wolf population — than the Legislature.

Last month, the commission recommended scheduling a two-month season this fall during which hunters could kill a maximum of 43 wolves. The hunt would be held in three zones where Department of Natural Resources officials say they've received a high number of complaints and other control methods have failed.

Snyder on Tuesday took no position on the legislation, saying it is up to lawmakers to set their agenda.

"That's part of their prerogative of coming up with what they think is the best way to handle issues," he told reporters. "I think the general concept of saying that we should do scientifically based hunting is a good concept."

Michigan Tech University biologist John Vucetich, a wolf and moose specialist, said while scientific data is important for determining wildlife management policies, another essential element is the opinion of the people.

"Science is not particularly suited to tell us what is a good and right thing and that's where democracy plays such an important role," he said. "This bill is intended to thwart a democratic process that is a very important part of wildlife management."

The Senate also approved a measure Thursday that would add a proposal to the 2014 ballot that would enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the state's constitution.

Republican Sen. Dave Hildebrand of Lowell, who is sponsoring the legislation, said he has wanted to add such language to the state's constitution for a while, but acknowledged that the referendum to ban wolf hunting "may have given it more energy this time around."

Hildebrand said hunting would still be held to the rules and regulations laid out by the state, but the constitutional amendment, would ensure that hunting is "protected for years to come."
___
Online:
Senate Bill 288: http://1.usa.gov/ZH4MTy
SJR S: http://1.usa.gov/13XYlzz
___
Associated Press reporter David Eggert contributed to this report

source 

No more protection for gray wolves in Lower 48? Draft rule proposes just that

Macneill Lyons / AP file

An image provided by Yellowstone National Park, Mont., shows a gray wolf in the wild.

By John Flesher and Matthew Brown, The Associated Press

BILLINGS, Mont. -- Federal wildlife officials have drafted plans to lift protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, a move that could end a decades-long recovery effort that has restored the animals but only in parts of their historic range.

The draft U.S. Department of Interior rule obtained by The Associated Press contends that roughly 5,000 wolves now living in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes are enough to prevent the species' extinction. The agency says having gray wolves elsewhere — such as the West Coast, parts of New England and the Southern Rockies — is unnecessary for their long-term survival.

A small population of Mexican wolves in the Southwest would continue to receive federal protections, as a distinct subspecies of the gray wolf.

The document was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Friday the rule was under internal review and would be subject to public comment before a final decision is made.

If the rule is enacted, it would transfer control of wolves to state wildlife agencies by removing them from the federal list of endangered species.

Wildlife advocates warn that could effectively halt the species' expansion, which has stirred a backlash from agricultural groups and some hunters upset by wolf attacks on livestock and big game herds such as elk.

Some biologists have argued wolves will continue spreading regardless of their legal status. The animals are prolific breeders, known to journey hundreds of miles in search of new territory. They were wiped out across most of the U.S. early last century following a government sponsored poisoning and trapping campaign.

In an emailed statement, the agency pointed to "robust" populations of the animals in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes as evidence that gray wolf recovery "is one of the world's great conservation successes."

Wolves in those two areas lost protections under the Endangered Species Act over the last two years.
In some states where wolves have recovered, regulated hunting and trapping already has been used to drive down their populations, largely in response to wolf attacks on livestock and big game herds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently reported that wolf numbers dropped significantly last year in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana for the first time since they were reintroduced in the mid-1990s.

Federal officials have said they are monitoring the states' actions, but see no immediate threat to their survival.

In Oregon and Washington, which have small but rapidly growing wolf populations, the animals have remained protected under state laws even after federal protections were lifted in portions of the two states.

Between 1991 and 2011, the federal government spent $102 million on gray wolf recovery programs and state agencies chipped in $15.6 million. Federal spending likely would drop if the proposal to lift protections goes through, while state spending would increase.

John Flesher reported from Traverse City, Mich.

source 

New focus on wolves that attack livestock

April 26, 2013 

Backer says kill permit would be unnecessary

Jim Camden The Spokesman-Review

The state Fish and Wildlife Department said the wolf population in Eastern Washington is growing faster than the management plan anticipated, up from five packs in 2012 to 11 packs this year.
Farmers and ranchers have reported wolf attacks on livestock, and in some cases on pets.

OLYMPIA – New rules for dealing with wolf attacks on livestock and domestic animals, which seemed stalled in the Legislature, may be announced as early as today as a result of action by key legislators and a state commission.

On Thursday, the House gave final approval to a bill that adds $10 to the cost of certain specialty license plates to provide money for nonlethal methods to control the growing gray wolf populations in Eastern Washington. After being pulled out of committee by a special parliamentary maneuver, it passed unanimously.

Today, the state Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider rules that would allow residents to kill a wolf that is attacking livestock or pets. The rules are expected to be similar to the provisions of a separate bill that generated hot debate between rural Republican legislators from Eastern Washington and their urban Democratic counterparts. It narrowly passed the Senate but stalled in the House.
The new Fish and Wildlife rule is expected to give residents an “affirmative defense” on wolf attacks, said Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda. A resident won’t need a permit to kill a wolf attacking livestock but will have to report the kill within 24 hours and deliver the carcass to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

“It’ll ease the tensions a bit,” he said. “I’m just getting phone calls and people sending me pictures of wolves every day.”

Changes are also coming at the federal level. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has drafted a proposed rule that would remove wolves from the federal endangered species list for the Lower 48 states, giving states full control over wolf management, the Los Angeles Times reported today. The gray wolf remains on Washington’s endangered species list, under which it has been protected since 1980.

Wolves were once protected as an endangered species in most Western states, but their numbers have grown since they were reintroduced to remote areas of the Rocky Mountains in the mid-’90s and began migrating. The state Fish and Wildlife Department said the wolf population in Eastern Washington is growing faster than the management plan anticipated, up from five packs in 2012 to 11 packs this year.

Farmers and ranchers have reported wolf attacks on livestock, and in some cases on pets. Some Eastern Washington county officials told a legislative committee last month they would declare a state of emergency if the Legislature didn’t act to allow residents to kill wolves attacking their animals.

The commission could set up the rule to take effect immediately, said Kretz, who pushed several proposals to control the growing wolf population this session, including one to capture wolves in Eastern Washington and relocate them to the districts of West Side legislators opposed to any controls on the predators. Kretz said he was only half joking.

Sen. John Smith, R-Colville, said the details of the rules, and whether they are adopted on an emergency basis, are up to the commission but added that “it’s looking good.”
Any rule the commission adopts is only the first step, said Smith, who was the prime sponsor of wolf control legislation in the Senate. Public meetings should continue through the summer and fall, he said, to discuss other solutions.

“We may need to come back and do something statutorily next session,” Smith said. “There are not going to be quick fixes.”

source 

Draft rule ends protections for gray wolves

April 26, 2013

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Federal wildlife officials have drafted plans to lift protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, which would end a decades-long effort that has restored the animals but only in parts of their historic range.

A draft U.S. Department of Interior rule obtained by The Associated Press says roughly 5,000 wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes are enough to prevent the species' extinction. The document was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

It says having gray wolves elsewhere — such as the West Coast, parts of New England and the Southern Rockies — is unnecessary for their survival.

The rule would give control of wolves to state wildlife agencies, which wildlife advocates warn could effectively halt the species' expansion.

A small population of Mexican wolves in the Southwest would continue to receive federal protections.
__
Flesher reported from Traverse City, Mich.

source 

Court: Dual lawsuits will proceed over Wyoming wolves

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Environmental groups are challenging the federal government's transfer of wolf management to the state of Wyoming.

April 24, 2013  •  Associated Press

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A recent ruling by a federal judge means that two parallel lawsuits will continue to run in Cheyenne and Washington, D.C., over environmental groups' challenges to the federal government's transfer of wolf management to the state of Wyoming, lawyers say.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington this month denied a request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state of Wyoming to transfer one lawsuit to federal court in Cheyenne, where a similar case already is pending.

Environmental groups in both lawsuits claim Wyoming's management plan classifying wolves as predators that can be shot on sight in most of the state is inadequate. They want the courts to restore federal protections.

Wyoming's wolf management plan allows trophy hunting in a flexible zone along the border of Yellowstone National Park. The state game department recently reported that hunters killed 68 wolves in the state from Oct. 1, when federal management stopped, through Dec. 31. Of those, 42 were killed in a trophy hunting zone bordering Yellowstone National Park, while 26 were killed as unprotected predators elsewhere in the state.

The game department is proposing to reduce wolf hunting quotas by half for this fall's hunting season. An agency official told the Casper Star-Tribune recently that the state's wolf population couldn't withstand another similar hunting season like last year's without coming dangerously close to the required minimum set in Wyoming's delisting plan.

Wyoming must maintain at least 10 breeding pairs of wolves and at least 100 animals outside of Yellowstone and the Wind River Indian Reservation. Wildlife managers say the state had about 300 wolves outside of Yellowstone, where no hunting is allowed, when state management began Oct. 1.
Ralph Henry, deputy director of litigation with The Humane Society of the United States in Washington, D.C., said Tuesday that his group is pleased that Jackson refused the request from the federal wildlife agency and Wyoming to transfer his group's lawsuit to Wyoming. Jackson has merged the lawsuit brought by the Humane Society and other groups together with another lawsuit filed by the Defenders of Wildlife and others.

"We're very pleased that she kept both of these cases which involve the majority of litigants in Washington, D.C., because it's an issue of national importance," Henry said.

The federal government reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone in the mid-1990s. In recent years, Congress ended federal protection for them in Montana and Idaho while prohibiting legal challenges to state management in those states. The delisting of wolves in Wyoming, however, had no such prohibition against legal challenges.

In her ruling, Jackson stated delisting wolves in Wyoming has great national significance. She stated ending federal protection for wolves in Wyoming affects the wolf population across the entire northern Rocky Mountains. "Although the delisting rule is aimed at gray wolves located in Wyoming, wolves often cross state lines, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles," she wrote.

Renny MacKay, spokesman for Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, said Tuesday that the governor believes challenges to the state's wolf management plan should be heard in Wyoming.

"We believe this is a Wyoming issue, affecting the citizens of Wyoming and Wyoming's wolves," MacKay said. "We believe that matters of strong local interest, such as this, should be decided at home."

MacKay said the decision to hear the case in Washington won't affect the state's ability to defend Wyoming's wolf management practices. "Wolves in Wyoming are clearly recovered," he said. "Our management plan is based on the best available science, committing to the sustainability of the wolf population and genetic connectivity in the Northern Rockies. More importantly, our wolf management since delisting has proven the State's ability and commitment to responsibly manage wolves."

U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson of Cheyenne is presiding over a similar lawsuit in which eight environmental groups are challenging the Wyoming wolf delisting.
Johnson granted a request last week from the Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association to intervene in the lawsuit to make sure the interests of people who hunt wolves are represented. The same groups have asked to intervene in the lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C

source

Image of the Day (Catch-up post)

Eyes!

Image of the Day

Cute arctic wolf, a photo by Tambako the Jaguar on Flickr.

Happy Earth Day, Wolves!

"Please save the earth, and while you're at it, please save me, too!"

Fighting for wolves — and democracy

Apr 20, 2013   |  

Wolves have increased in number in Michigan. Now some people want to hunt them.

Written by Greg Kowalski - Staff Writer

For Brenda Shufelt of Birmingham, it isn't just about the wolves.
Shufelt, a counselor with the St. Clair Shores Schools, is a longtime animal lover and has been circulating petitions to stop the proposal to hunt wolves in Michigan.


For weeks, she and some 2,000 other volunteers collected signatures to present to legislators in Lansing, and on March 27, the petitions were delivered.
The message was clear: More than 253,000 people in Michigan wanted to be given the opportunity to vote on the possibility of allowing wolf hunts, or to keep the animals protected and out of the gun sight of hunters.


But it doesn't look as though the people of Michigan are going to get a chance to decide that question.
State Sen. Tom Casperson, a Republican who represents the western half of the Upper Peninsula, introduced legislation that would give the state Department of Natural Resources the sole right to add and remove species from the list of those that are hunted. And he threw in a $1 million appropriation for “research, education and outreach,” which automatically means the measure cannot be put up to the vote of the people.


All of this, said Shufelt, has subverted the democratic process. “The people of Michigan should have the right to say which animals should be hunted,” Shufelt said. And essentially all the petition signatures that were collected are now meaningless. “There's nothing we can do,” she said. “All we're asking for it to allow the people of Michigan to decide. The people of Michigan are losing their rights as citizens.”

Increasingly, the state legislators have been using the tactic of attaching appropriations to controversial bills to prevent them from being challenged by voters. Under the state Constitution, measures with appropriations cannot be put up to a vote.


Frustrated supporters of the wolves are planning a rally for 11 a.m. Tuesday, April 23, on the steps of the state Capitol. Shufelt and other supporters of the wolves are urging residents to write to their legislators to oppose SB 288 and HB 4552, the measures that ultimately allow the wolf hunts.
On his website, Casperson, who is chairman of the state Natural Resources, Environment and Great Lakes Committee, said the pair of bills “build upon voter-approved policy from 1996's Proposal G, which charged the Natural Resources Commission with regulating the taking of game based on sound scientific management.”

“In 1996, the voters wisely decided that they wanted the NRC to regulate the taking of game based on science. And, from what I continue to hear, especially lately, the belief that we need to manage game scientifically is even more strongly held today,” Casperson said.


“Management of wildlife is an issue that constituents routinely raise as one of great concern for economic, recreational and social reasons. The proposed legislation looks to maintain and build upon that objective while ensuring that management by hunting and fishing is preserved for the future.”
But for Shufelt and other members of the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected organization, what's happening to the wolves is symptomatic of a deeper threat to the rights of voters.


“We have to protect our democracy,” she said.

source

Image of the Day

loup du mercantour, a photo by mikxel on Flickr.

Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2012 Interagency Annual Report

Press Release: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Agencies Release 2012 Annual Report for Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Population

 

Annual Reports

Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2012 Interagency Annual Report Summary

Maps and Charts (not included in the documents above)

Figure 1. Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment Area
Figure 2. Northwest Montana Wolf Recovery Area
Figure 3. Greater Yellowstone Wolf Recovery Area
Figure 4. Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Area
Figure 5. Oregon/Washington Wolf Pack Locations
Figure 6.

• Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Population Trends By Recovery Area: 1982-2012
• Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Breeding Pair Trends by Recovery Area: 1982-2012

Figure 7.

• Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Population Trends in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming: 1982-2012
• Northern Rocky Mountain Breeding Pair Trends in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming: 1982-2012

Tables (not included in the documents above)

Table 1a: Wolf Packs and Population Data for Montana's Portion of the Northwest Montana Recovery Area, 2012
Table 1b: Wolf Packs and Population Data for Montana's Portion of the Greater Yellowstone Recovery Area, 2012
Table 1c: Wolf Packs and Population Data for Montana's Portion of the Central Idaho Recovery Area and Montana Statewide Totals 2012
Table 2a: Wolf Packs and Population Data for Wyoming's Portion of the Greater Yellowstone Recovery Area (Outside Yellowstone National Park), 2012
Tables 2b and c:

• Wolf Packs and Population Data for Yellowstone National Park's Portion of the Greater Yellowstone Recovery Area and Wyoming Statewide Totals, 2012
• Wolf Population Data for the Greater Yellowstone Recovery Area, 2012

Tables 3a, b, c and d:

• Wolf Packs and Population Data for Idaho's Portion of the Central Idaho Recovery Area, 2012
• Wolf Packs and Population Data for Idaho's Portion of the Northwest Montana Recovery Area, 2012
• Wolf Packs and Population Data for Idaho's Portion of Greater Yellowstone Experimental Area and Idaho Statewide totals, 2012
• Wolf Population Data for the Central Idaho Experimental Area, 2012

Table 4a: Northern Rocky Mountain minimum year-end wolf population and breeding pairs by Recovery Area 1982-2012 Table 4b: Northern Rocky Mountain minimum year-end wolf population and breeding pairs by State, 1982-2012
Table 5a: Northern Rocky Mountain confirmed wolf depredations by recovery area, 1987-2012
Table 5b and 5c:

• Northern Rocky Mountain confirmed wolf depredations by State, 1987-2012
• Confirmed Wolf Depredations Elsewhere, Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment, 2009-2012

Tables 6 and 7:

• Wolf Packs and Population Data for Oregon and Washington Inside the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment 2012
• Wolf Packs and Population Data for Oregon and Washington Outside the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment 2012

2012 Idaho Wolf Monitoring Progress Report

Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2012 Annual Report

2012 Wyoming Gray Wolf Population and Management Annual Report

 

Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2012 Annual Report

Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan: 2012 Annual Report

Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Publications 2003 - 2012

 

Last updated: April 17, 2013
source