When Did We Stop Howling?

Posted: 30 Jul 2013

Courtney Sexton, Communications Associate

When I went to visit my parents a few weeks ago, one of the first things my mother said was, “Bob, show her how Hannah howls.” My father grabbed the smallest of our family’s pack, the cocker spaniel dancing at our feet, and held her in his arms while she licked his face, tail stub wagging uncontrollably. I waited. My father tilted his head back, made an “O” with his lips and began to vocalize a series of long, high howls. Within seconds, Hannah – torn by having to stop licking his face – tilted her own head back to mirror my father’s and, muzzle to the sky howled with all her little might. They continued like this in unison until, amazed and crying from laughing, we made them stop.

A Mexican gray wolf pup howling. (Photo courtesy of the USFWS.)

Of course, part of our amazement at Hannah’s impassioned cry was that it was so unexpected. It is rare these days to come across a dog (especially a cocker spaniel) – let alone a human – that remembers how to howl. While the instinct may remain, it has been subverted, hidden deep in the recesses of the gene pool by decades of domesticity.

If you listen hard enough, though, this howl can still be heard in special places around our country – thanks to a fervent campaign to save wolves
(now being threatened by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s premature delisting proposal) the calls of the modern dog’s wild relatives, gray wolves, echo through the Northwest forests, in the crags of the Rockies, along the shores of the Great Lakes and in the canyons of the great American West. It is here, however, in this last landscape, where the lonesome cries of the few remaining Mexican gray wolves, one of the most endangered animals in the world, is barely being heard over the howls of protest and mis-information by the anti-wolf crowd. Last month, FWS released a final proposal to delist gray wolves throughout almost all of the country. While the Mexican gray wolf subspecies would remain protected, the Service released a related proposal that would severely hamper real chances for their recovery – especially when needless killings like the one we recently learned of continue. The Service is proposing a series of changes to the rules that govern the Mexican wolf recovery program, but most of these changes seem to have been written in a vacuum – they ignore and in some cases contradict the best available science – even that of the Service’s own Mexican wolf recovery team (which hasn’t met since 2011).

A significant obstacle that the wolves must overcome to recover is their limited genetic diversity. To overcome this obstacle, published scientific studies and the work of the present and previous recovery teams indicate that new core populations, created by the release of more captive wolves into the wild, are essential. At least three distinct populations, established in different areas of suitable habitat with dispersal allowed between them, are necessary.

A Mexican gray wolf is released from captivity. (Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Instead of arranging for the vital immediate releases, FWS is wasting critical time rewriting rules that do not further recovery, and in truth, stall it. If action is not taken, this proposal may destroy the chances that the few remaining wild Mexican gray wolves have for long-term survival. What the lobos need, and need NOW, is the following:

• A comprehensive recovery plan…  Mexican gray wolves haven’t had an up-to-date recovery plan in 31 years (1982). The current recovery team has done extensive, rigorous work to determine what needs to be done to save the Mexican gray wolf.  A new plan, based on this best science, must be completed and implemented.

• Release of new breeding pairs into the wild…  Numbers are important, but new genes are crucial. In order to overcome the challenges of a severely limited genetic heritage, many more of the wolves currently in the captive breeding program need to be released into the wild. 

• New core populations…  Wolves are currently barred from a significant amount of suitable habitat (the FWS proposal makes it harder for the wolves to disperse into suitable habitat in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah – if any are found outside of the arbitrary lines on a map they will be immediately trapped and moved back within the set boundaries). The wolves need help getting to the suitable habitat areas in order to establish the new populations that are key to their recovery.

Best science tells the FWS all of these things and yet still our government is stalling on its commitment to Mexican gray wolves – when did it, when did we stop howling with them? Let’s start again; the Mexican gray wolf, one of the rarest animals in the world, desperately needs us to.

source

Image of the Day

Pair of Wolf pups., a photo by palmerb16 on Flickr.

Two female Mexican Wolf pups, at Mesker park zoo.

BBC Scotland crew visited Wolf Park

BBC Scotland crew visited Wolf Park

Updated: Tuesday, 30 Jul 2013

• Tom Sheehan

BATTLE GROUND, Ind. (WLFI) - A film crew from BBC Scotland has been filming in Tippecanoe County this week.

The crew has been shooting at Wolf Park for part of three one hour series’ called "Inside the Animal Mind."

The show will compare dogs and wolves and their ability to read humans, while testing their sense of smell.

It also looks at how the animals change their behavior after domestication.

Dr. Kathryn Lord, who has conducted research and helped socialize litters of wolf pups at Wolf Park, was interviewed for the production.

Host of the show, Chris Packham said it will be a science based show, but said there aren't many wolves in the UK.

Packham said the show will be meant to test animals' senses, ability to learn, and problem solving skills.

“Over the process of domestication, dogs have learned to use us to look at us, to receive commands, but wolves haven't done that. So, everything is going very well and they've got a great bunch of wolves here,” said Packham.

BBC also shot this week at People’s Brewing Co. to film a blind man who used sound to navigate.
Packham said the series should be completed by November and will be on the air early next year.


source

Minnesota wolf hunt: DNR nearly halves kill limit

By Dave Orrick

Posted:   07/29/2013

As for the reduction leading into this season, Stark said: "The changes are a management response to the most recent wolf population estimate. As with other game species DNR manages, adjustments are made to regulate hunting pressure and harvest to ensure long-term population sustainability and provide hunting and trapping opportunities." 

The season remains controversial and has been the subject of multiple failed attempts to stop it in court, similar to open seasons in Wisconsin and Michigan. A lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's removal of Great Lakes wolves from the endangered species list is pending in federal court. 

"There is no reason to hunt these top predators that are crucial to the health of our northwoods ecosystem," said Dr. Maureen Hackett, founder of Howling for Wolves, a group opposed to the hunting season. "We urge all Minnesotans that value the wolf to ask Governor Dayton and their state lawmakers to intervene and stop this hunt." 

By state law, wolf hunting begins on the same day as the deer firearms opener -- Minnesota's most popular hunting day of the year. This year, that day is Saturday, Nov. 9, and hunting continues through Nov. 24. A second wolf season, which includes hunting and trapping, runs from Nov. 30 through Jan. 31. The wolf season is broken into three zones, with a different kill limit. When a kill limit is met in a zone, hunting and trapping are halted. 

As a result of the lower quota, fewer wolf licenses will be available this year as well.
Starting Thursday, Aug. 1, hunters and trappers can apply for 2,000 early-season licenses and 1,300 late-season licenses. That's down from 3,600 early-season and 2,400 late-season licenses in 2012. The deadline to apply for the hunting and trapping license lottery is Thursday, Sept. 5. 

For more details, go to blogs.twincities.com/outdoors. 

source 

Image of the Day

Rolling in Daisies, a photo by ionamck on Flickr.

Wolves in Yellowstone Help Grizzly Bears Fatten Up

By Tia Ghose, Staff Writer   |   July 29, 2013 

Grizzly bears live throughout the northern and western portions of North America. The omnivorous creatures eat both berries, fish and large mammals where they are available. Credit: Yellowstone National Park View full size image

The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park has an unexpected upside: It's helping to fatten up the bears, new research suggests.
The wolves have kept the park's population of elks (prey for wolves) in check, which in turn limits how many berry-producing shrubs the elks consume. As a result, the bears have more tasty berries to eat, finds a study published today (July 29) in the Journal of Animal Ecology.

The study points "to the need for an ecologically effective number of wolves," said co-author Robert Beschta, a researcher at Oregon State University, in a statement. "As we learn more about the cascading effects they have on ecosystems, the issue may be more than having just enough individual wolves so they can survive as a species. In some situations, we may wish to consider the numbers necessary to help control overbrowsing, allow tree and shrub recovery, and restore ecosystem health."


Wolves were first removed from Yellowstone National Park in the 1920s, after which the elk population soared. The huge herds of elk heavily browsed aspen and willow in the park and reduced the berry-producing shrubs. Past studies showed the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 has led to willow and aspen populations rebounding. [Photos: The Wonders of Yellowstone National Park]
The reintroduction seemed to have a beneficial effect on bears.

Now, Beschta and colleagues have found the amount of fruit in grizzly bear scat doubled in August in recent years, which means the bears were eating more of it. The grizzlies love to graze on the park's many wild berry species, such as serviceberry, chokecherry, buffaloberry, twinberry and huckleberry.
"Wild fruit is typically an important part of grizzly bear diet, especially in late summer when they are trying to gain weight as rapidly as possible before winter hibernation," said study co-author William Ripple, a forest ecosystems researcher at Oregon State University, in a statement. "Berries are one part of a diverse food source that aids bear survival and reproduction, and at certain times of the year can be more than half their diet in many places in North America."

Because bears have made up for the decline in berries by eating more elk in the last 50 years, the berry bounty may also help offset the decline in elk.

source

Image of the Day

Canis lupus, a photo by Mark...L on Flickr.

Protections still needed for wolves

By Patrick C. Valentino - July 27, 2013

In June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to remove gray wolves from the endangered species list despite wolves occupying only about 5 percent of their historic range. The service reminds us that the Endangered Species Act was not intended to provide indefinite life support. This is certainly true, and there might have been a compelling case for delisting today had the science supported it and had wolves reached a fuller stage of recovery.

But that hasn’t happened. In fact, three states in our Northern Rockies, already charged with wolf management, have unleashed an intense and partisan desire to reduce wolf numbers to the barest minimum allowable. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming now have recreational hunting and trapping seasons, and in the past two years nearly 1,200 wolves have been killed. Well-known and well-loved wolves from Yellowstone National Park were killed, including the cherished Lamar Canyon pack’s alpha female. This degree of backlash questions whether our society has advanced past treating predators as a disposable commodity, a mindset that nearly wiped out wolves by the early 1900s. 

There is an alternative path: one that recognizes that the majority of Americans support wolves as part of our wilderness and heritage, looks beyond managing wolves on the basis of population numbers along, recognizes the inherent value of wolves to exist in the wild as nature intended, and focuses on solutions to conflicts with livestock, such as nonlethal predator deterrents.

California is currently developing a wolf management plan and reviewing whether to protect wolves under state law in preparation for a future wolf population. Californians have a chance to lead the way and demonstrate how to afford the wolf the value it deserves, work together to reduce conflicts, and hopefully one day celebrate the recovery of wolves in our state.

The mission is far from accomplished. Delisting now is a political decision defying the majority’s desire for a more complete, science-based recovery of gray wolves. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to protect gray wolves and maintain their rightful place on our wild landscape.

Valentino is director of California Wolf Recovery.

source 

Image of the Day

5 week old Mexican Wolf pup., a photo by palmerb16 on Flickr.

What a cutie!

Image of the Day

Namskogan familepark juli 2013, a photo by AH Robberstad on Flickr.

We are family!

Wolf Weekly Wrap-up

John Motsinger | Posted on 26 July 2013

An agency out of control — Need more reasons why Wildlife Services is sorely in need of reform? Then you should read Monday’s editorial from the Eugene Register-Guard in its entirety. In a nutshell:

“This low-profile arm of the U.S. Agriculture Department wastes money killing wildlife, with no demonstrable benefits for the public or the environment.”

The agency’s budget lacks transparency, its programs are expensive, and predators quickly return to areas where they were removed, perpetuating the endless cycle of pointless killing. It’s long past time for a new approach. When will the federal government finally start listening?

Wood River update – Last week our Wood River Wolf Project team leader (and former Idaho representative for Defenders) Jesse Timberlake spent time talking to sheep herders. Their job is to guard sheep as they pass through the Idaho backcountry. Since they’re living outside with the sheep full-time, from spring until fall, they know the landscape and the animals better than anyone. So Jesse wanted to get their opinion of which nonlethal deterrents worked best to keep hungry predators away from their flocks. Though portable flagging can work well in some settings, the herders prefer to use air horns and high-powered spotlights to scare off wolves that venture too close.

In addition to working closely with the herders to protect their sheep, our team continues to monitor the area for wolf activity using motion-activated cameras. Below are a few more pictures we’ve captured in recent weeks. You never know what you may find out there…

Sheep herder and his might steed

Porky

A porcupine scales a tree in the Sawtooth Mountains. Photo courtesy of Defenders of Wildlife.

The mouth carry

This wolf has found itself a tasty treat.

Identifying the call of the wild – Wolf researchers may soon have a new way to track wolves in the wild…by their howl. NBC News reports that scientists in the U.K. have developed a computer program that can identify individual wolves by the pitch and volume of their howl. Each wolf has its own unique howl that can be used to detect its presence from far away, potentially making it easier for biologists to monitor wolf activity in hard-to-reach places. Once perfected, this technique could allow wolf managers to survey wolf populations more accurately and more cheaply. Now that’s something to howl about.

source

Wolves howl like humans, new voice recognition study shows

Emily Brown, The Conversation

Thursday, 25 July 2013

Every wolf has a distinctive howling style. Image: Cynthia Kidwell/Shutterstock The ominous howl of the wolf has long been a source of fear and fascination for mankind. But new research shows they are not so different from people – for every wolf has its own distinct voice. By recording and analysing wolf howls, scientists have discovered a new way of identifying individual animals. Holly Root-Gutteridge of Nottingham Trent University has developed sound analysis code that can tell which wolf is howling with 100% accuracy. Previously, pitch was used to tell wolves apart, but these only achieved an accuracy rate of 76%. Adding information about volume – or “amplitude” – to the code was key to increasing its accuracy, according to Root-Gutteridge. “In humans, differentiating between voices of different pitch might allow us to tell the difference between, say, men and women. But by adding more information, we can differentiate more precisely between individuals,” Root-Gutteridge said. The same applies for wolves: the more information analysed, the more accurate the results. Wolf howl (Copyright British Library Sound Archive) with the spectogram produced by Root-Gutteridge’s code. Warmer colours represent higher volumes. All the better to see you with The new code could prove very useful for monitoring wolves in the wild. Root-Gutteridge explained that there are currently three main methods for counting and locating wolves. Snow tracking involves waiting for snowfall then studying the footprints wolves leave in the snow. But this method has the disadvantage of being weather dependent. Fitting wolves with GPS collars allows scientists to know the location of individual wolves via satellite signals. Unfortunately, this is an expensive exercise: “Each collar costs £2000 and you have to catch each individual wolf, tag it and release it back into the wild before you can start gathering data,” Root-Gutteridge explained. “Another method researchers use is to go into the wild and howl at the wolves, then record their replies,” she added. “While this method is definitely the most fun, the results formerly had big error margins, as it was impossible to tell whether you were hearing the same wolf on different nights.” Now, Root-Gutteridge’s sound analysis code offers a way to reduce these error margins extensively. What are they howling about? Wolves howl for a host of different reasons. “Wolves use howling as a territorial defence, to help locate other pack members and also as a social activity: they seem to really enjoy it,” said Root-Gutteridge. David Mech of the University of Minnesota added that howling seems to serve a “motivation function” in various circumstances. “After awakening, the wolves are logy [sluggish], but after a group howl, they rush off quite motivated,” he said. Mech also observed wolves howling to motivate their fellow pack mates. “I have several times seen a breeding female lure a sleepy mate off to hunt by howling and then return after the male is long on his way,” he said. Wolves also appear to be very good at locating the origin of a howl. Mech recounted that when he howled at a group of wolves, they came to the spot where he had howled, even though they could not have seen him. Conservation implications Mech said that in most areas, wolf populations are recovering from being endangered. But this is not the case for all species: populations of Maned, Ethiopian, Red, and Gray wolves are still endangered. Lucy Tallents, an expert on Ethiopian wolves, was excited about the research. “For Ethiopian wolves, which are subject to pressures like rabies and habitat loss, it is critical to keep track of population sizes,” she said. “The best way of doing this is to count individuals.” “Acoustic sensing is becoming much more popular in conservation, and it’s easy to see why,“ Tallents added. Methods like radio collaring and ear tags require the wolves to be caught, which carries a small risk of injury and can cause disruption to the pack’s activities. "Being able to identify individuals aurally would be really useful to us, and cause much less disturbance to the wolves themselves.” The method can never give a definitive count though. “We can only ever detect a minimum number of wolves in a pack: if they are not howling, we won’t know they are there,” Root-Gutteridge said. “But the real revelation here is that we can now identify individual wolves.” And the possibilities do not end with wolves. “Although the research has not been released yet, I have successfully used the method on other wolf subspecies and other canids.” Root-Gutteridge said. “Whether it’s wild dogs or coyotes; if it howls, we can analyze it.” source

Wolves threatened: Ending federal protection is a mistake

By Winston Thomas

Special to the Mercury News

Posted:   07/02/2013 

Until recently the restoration of the gray wolf to a portion of its natural habitat in the lower 48 was one of the success stories of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. However, the job is far from complete, and now the U.S. Department of the Interior wants to allow the states to return to many of the same methods of the late 1800s and early 1900s that led to the eradication of the wolf in California and elsewhere.

On June 7, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced its plan to remove the gray wolf, Canis lupus, from the federal list of endangered wildlife in the remainder of the lower 48 states where it is not already delisted (except for the Mexican wolf in New Mexico and Arizona). The gray wolf will

Gray wolf at the Wildlife Science Center in Forest Lake, Minn. (DAWN VILLELLA / AP)

be dropped, not because it has recovered across most of its former range, but because the Department of the Interior appears to be responding to political pressure rather than peer-reviewed science.Elk hunting groups mistakenly see the wolf as competition for their sport. This represents a grave misunderstanding of the ecology of predator-prey relationships.

Many livestock producers have not begun to explore the nonlethal methods proven to reduce conflict between wolves and livestock. Even though livestock losses to wolves accounted for less than .01 percent of the total livestock in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana in 2012, many sheep and cattle ranchers want to see the wolf eradicated.

If the gray wolf is delisted, then management of wolf populations reverts to each state. Wolves were delisted in 2011 in Idaho and Montana, and 2012 in Wyoming. Management in these states is a cruel euphemism for indiscriminate, aggressive hunting, trapping and snaring of wolves. Since delisting in Idaho, nearly 700 wolves have been killed by recreational hunting. In some areas of Idaho, wolves, including lactating females and pups, can be killed at any time. In 83 percent of Wyoming, wolves can be killed year round, in any number of ways, without a license. And Montana's proposed management plan will allow up to five wolves to be killed per hunter/trapper. This is not scientific stewardship.

The now famous lone wolf OR-7 traveled from Oregon into California in December 2011 but wandered back into Oregon in March of this year. It defies logic to declare the gray wolf population recovered in California. The same is true in other states with excellent wolf habitat and abundant elk and deer such as Utah and Colorado. Like California, these states have no established wolf populations, yet there would be no federal protection for a wolf should it wander in. This action will end recovery in these states before it starts. Why delist the gray wolf in states where it does not yet exist, unless the goal is to keep the population at zero?

The bald eagle was delisted in 2007, but we have not allowed open hunting and trapping. Why should we do that with wolves? The stated goal of the Endangered Species Act is to save species from extinction and to fully recover the species by removing threats to its survival.

The 90-day public comment period for the proposed gray wolf delisting ends Sept. 11. Newly confirmed Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell needs to hear from the public that wolf recovery has not even begun in California and other states. Wolves need our voices. Please howl your support for federal protection of the gray wolf until recovery is complete, and stop the wolf hunt.

Winston Thomas, a biologist and geneticist who has worked in the Bay Area biotech industry for 22 years, is Pacific Region representative and an advisory board member of Living with Wolves (www.livingwithwolves.org). He wrote this for this newspaper.

source 

Group works to protect Michigan wolves

by Jerry Tudor

Posted: 07.25.2013

MARQUETTE -- The group Keep Michigan Wolves Protected is working to gain more than 225,000 signatures to make this fall's wolf hunt the last. The group kicked off its petition campaign Thursday at the Ramada Inn in Marquette. Members are looking to put forth a second referendum that will give Michigan voters the choice to keep or end the wolf hunts. They feel current wolf management practices are effective. "There are not enough wolves in Michigan; there are only 658 of them and there are just too few.  There's absolutely no reason to start a wolf hunting season in Michigan," said Jill Fritz, the Director of the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected Campaign. "Wolves are already under state control. There is a state law that allows the DNR to manage wolves, and they seem to have done it effectively so far." The group has been working with wildlife scientists from Michigan Tech as well as Native American tribes in the U.P. to collect information and signatures. The last time they took up this issue, they managed to get 250,000 signatures. source

Michigan's first wolf hunt will no longer include trapping

July 26, 2013   |  

A gray wolf is shown on Isle Royale National Park in northern Michigan in 2006. / Michigan Technological University via Associated P

By Keith Matheny

Detroit Free Press staff writer

Zoom

Michigan’s first-ever wolf hunt this fall and winter will no longer include trapping, after the state Natural Resources Commission rejected the use of steel-jaw leg traps on private and public land as part of the hunt.

The commission, for the second time in two months, approved a wolf hunt on July 11 for three zones of the Upper Peninsula. The second approval came in light of the passage of Public Act 21, a bill by Republican state Sen. Tom Casperson of Escanaba allowing the commission to designate animals as game species — a bill critics say was designed specifically to circumvent a petition drive to put the wolf hunt to a public vote.

The hunt approved in May allowed steel-jaw leg traps. But trapping was removed in the second approved hunt.

“The primary reason was just looking at starting conservatively with our approach in how we move forward with implementing public harvest of wolves as a management tool,” said Adam Bump, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ fur-bearing animal specialist.

But Jill Fritz, state director of the Humane Society of the United States, which is spearheading a second petition drive to try to repeal Casperson’s bill, suspects a different motive for dropping trapping from the hunt.

“It’s to make it more public-friendly, because they know Michiganders are horrified by the thought of this still-recovering species writhing and dying in traps,” she said.

Wolves were all but eradicated in much of the country by the 1930s. Michigan and other Great Lakes states lost almost all of their wolves by the end of the 1950s.

In 1973, Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act and officially protected the wolf that same year, sparking a resurgence in the wolf population. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula was known to have three wolves as recently as 1989. The population today stands at 653 wolves. The wolves have made an even more substantial recovery in Wisconsin (834 wolves) and Minnesota (3,000).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed wolves from the federal endangered species list in January 2012, and several states, including Michigan, began planning for wolf hunting seasons.
Wisconsin and Minnesota established their initial wolf hunts last year, and trapping proved by far a more effective means of harvesting wolves than firearms hunting. In Minnesota, wolf takes by rifle were about 4% successful, compared with about 25% through trapping.

Michigan’s season will begin Nov. 15 and run through December, or until 43 wolves are harvested. Bump said the number was established with firearm hunting in mind.

“Our expectation is even with just hunting we will be able to achieve our targeted harvest,” he said.
Tony Hansen, spokesman for the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, said the coalition is disappointed that trapping was removed.

“It’s a viable, effective and scientific method to control wildlife populations,” he said.
Bump said the DNR will continue to use traps as necessary to take problem wolves throughout the year, and trapping will be reconsidered as part of the hunt in future years.

“The department’s position is trapping is a humane and effective wildlife management tool,” he said.
Nancy Warren, an Ontonagon County resident and Great Lakes regional director of the nonprofit National Wolfwatcher Coalition, is opposed to trapping — and the hunt in general.

The state is establishing the hunt to reduce conflicts between wolves and humans, such as wolves coming into towns or preying on cattle or pets. But Warren said the state’s own data on wolf depredations show the vast majority are occurring on one farm in her county, whose owner, John Koski, has been criticized for his actions and inaction that may contribute to wolf attacks on his livestock.

“When you take that farm out of the equation, there is no need for a wolf hunting season in this unit,” she said. “The truth is, some people want a hunting season; they want to kill wolves out of hatred, and they are using this as an excuse.”

Wolf hunting licenses go on sale starting Aug. 3 until Oct. 31, or when 1,200 licenses are sold. The licenses are $100 for Michigan residents and $500 for nonresidents and are available at authorized license agents, a number of DNR offices statewide or online at www.michigan.gov/huntdrawings.

source 

Image of the Day

Look at this mural a very talented Finnish painter created for her wall.

source

Image of the Day

Namskogan familepark juli 2013, a photo by AH Robberstad on Flickr.

Image of the Day

Friendly wolf, a photo by Tambako the Jaguar on Flickr.

Relegating Wolves to the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes

Posted on 23 July 2013 |

Jason Rylander, Senior Staff Attorney

“There seems to be a tacit assumption that if grizzlies survive in Canada and Alaska, that is good enough. It is not good enough for me…. Relegating grizzlies to Alaska is about like relegating happiness to heaven; one may never get there.”
— A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There

When famed conservationist Aldo Leopold wrote these words in 1948, he might as well have been talking about the gray wolf today. Just as it was imperative to restore grizzly bears to the lower 48 states, we have also worked diligently to restore wolves to their rightful place on the landscape.

Wolf OR7 gained national attention when spotted in California – the only wolf in the state, despite a great deal of suitable habitat.

But the Obama Administration is now proposing to strip Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection for most gray wolves in the lower 48 states, even though there are huge areas of suitable wolf habitat in the west with no wolves at all. That’s not good enough for us. You might get the chance to travel to Idaho or Minnesota to see a wolf, but many people may never get there. And if you live in prime unoccupied wolf habitat in Colorado or Northern California or Utah, you shouldn’t have to go elsewhere to see wolves.

The return of the wolf in the Northern Rockies and the Great Lakes is an incredible success story marred only by the insistence of the Northern Rockies states on aggressive wolf management. But now, on the basis of just these two populations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says its recovery work is done and wants to delist gray wolves everywhere except for the Southwest.

The ESA sets higher recovery standards than that, and we should not permit the Obama Administration to walk away from recovery of wolves with the job half finished. Rather, we will fight tooth and claw to see that this latest plan to shortchange wolf recovery does not succeed. Not just for the sake of wolves, but all species protected under the ESA.

The Endangered Species Act has successfully restored bald eagles, our national symbol, and set many other species on the road to recovery. (©Heather Green)

The very premise of the ESA is that “various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation” and that “these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people” (16 U.S.C. § 1531). The Act requires that species be listed when threatened with extinction in “all or a significant portion” of their range. Species are only to be delisted when, among other things, the original threats to their survival are eliminated and the affected states have adopted adequate safeguards to ensure their continued conservation.

The ESA does not support a selective “museum piece” approach to conservation. Indeed, the framers’ intent was very clearly to restore threatened and endangered species throughout suitable habitat in their historic range—not just in a few isolated pockets.

Many scientists strongly agree that gray wolves have not been recovered throughout a significant portion of their historic range. Last month in anticipation of the Service’s proposal, 16 of the nation’s leading scientists with experience in wolf biology wrote to the Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe to protest wolf delisting. In their words:

“The gray wolf has barely begun to recover or is absent from significant portions of its former range where substantial suitable habitat remains. The Service’s draft rule fails to consider science identifying extensive suitable habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast. It also fails to consider the importance of these areas to the long-term survival and recovery of wolves, or the importance of wolves to the ecosystems of these regions.”

©ChagaresPhotography

Defenders’ policy and legal experts are preparing detailed comments opposing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s gray wolf delisting proposal. The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently taking public comments for 90-days, so you too can weigh in. And if the Obama administration approves this scientifically-flawed and legally deficient proposal, we’ll be back in court once more.

Whether wolves ever get to howl again in Rocky Mountain National Park, or the Olympic peninsula, or the High Sierras of California should not be left entirely up to the interest of particular states. The Endangered Species Act was enacted to protect wildlife in our national interest.

Get involved in the fight against this reckless delisting proposal! Click here to learn how to submit comments, reach out to your elected officials, and more. 

source 

Image of the Day

Wolf (Canis lupus) Tracks, a photo by GlacierNPS on Flickr.

New Poll: Americans Love Wolves and Want Them to Stay Protected

Posted: 07/22/2013

 

Wolves today live in just five percent of their historic range -- hardly enough to consider them recovered in the lower 48 states.

Our top scientists know that.

Apparently most Americans know it too.

A new national poll shows that just one in three Americans support the Obama administration's plan to drop Endangered Species protections for wolves across most of the U.S.

The poll's findings demonstrate that a majority of voters understand and support what our leading wolf researchers are telling us -- that wolves have not recovered and should be returned to hundreds of thousands of acres of prime but uninhabited wolf territory in places like California, the Northwest, southern Rockies and Northeast.

The poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe wolves are a "vital part of America's wilderness and natural heritage," and should be allowed to play their role in nature. Such views are supported by decades of research showing that wolves create a cascade of changes that benefit a wide range of species, including songbirds, fishes, foxes, pronghorn and many others.
With such strong support for wolves, particularly among Obama voters, it defies reason that the president is moving forward with stripping protections.

Opposition to wolf recovery in the U.S. has always been driven not by science or an intolerance of wolves among the majority of Americans but by well-connected special interests in the livestock and big-game hunting industries. As a result, despite the fact that taxpayers in most states reimburse livestock operators for wolf-caused losses (which amount to a tiny fraction of 1 percent of overall livestock losses), the political influence of wolf opponents continues to trump logic, science and the will of the American people.

As this latest poll makes obvious, the vast majority of voting Americans understands what our politicians are determined to ignore - that it's a national embarrassment to claim wolf populations in the lower 48 are healthy and recovered, particularly when aggressive hunting and trapping seasons designed to drastically reduce populations have been enacted in states where federal protections have already been removed. The new poll indicates only 1 in 3 Americans favor these hunting and trapping practices that in the past two years have resulted in the killing of more than 1,800 wolves.

There is simply no doubt that the majority of American voters like many of the nation's leading scientists don't support the plan to strip wolves of Endangered Species Act protections.
The question is, is the Obama administration even listening?

I have to hope so. We've come way too far in our efforts to recover these magnificent animals to give up now.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is taking comments through Sept. 11 on the plan to drop wolf protections.

It's an opportunity for Americans across the country to let the Obama administration know that wolves still matter, that science still matters, and that the irreplaceable wild places that have long defined the American spirit are not a political bargaining chip to be sold to the highest bidder.

 

Follow Noah Greenwald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Noah_Ark_757 

source 

Image of the Day

Grey Wolf (Canis lupus), a photo by John C. Murphy on Flickr.

Wolf howl identification technology excites experts

22 July 2013 
By Michelle Warwicker BBC Nature

Which wolf is which? Experts may soon be able to monitor individual wild wolves by just their howls

Individual wild wolves can be recognised by just their howls with 100% accuracy, a study has shown.

The team from Nottingham Trent University, UK, developed a computer program to analyse the vocal signatures of eastern grey wolves.

Wolves roam huge home ranges, making it difficult for conservationists to track them visually.
But the technology could provide a way for experts to monitor individual wolves by sound alone.
"Wolves howl a lot in the wild," said PhD student Holly Root-Gutteridge, who led the research.
"Now we can be sure... exactly which wolf it is that's howling."

Watch rare footage of a coastal wolf fishing
See pups make an unusual appearance

The team's findings are published in the journal Bioacoustics.

Singing wolves
 
Wolves use their distinctive calls to protect territory from rivals and to call to other pack members. "They enjoy it as a group activity," said Ms Root-Gutteridge, "When you get a chorus howl going they all join in."

The team's computer program is unique because it analyses both volume (or amplitude) and pitch (or frequency) of wolf howls, whereas previously scientists had only examined the animals' pitch.
"Think of [pitch] as the note the wolf is singing," explained Ms Root-Gutteridge. "What we've added now is the amplitude - or volume - which is basically how loud it's singing at different times."
"It's a bit like language: If you put the stress in different places you form a different sound."

The scientists put their new tool to the test by studying dozens of archive recordings of wild eastern grey wolf howls, living mainly in Algonquin park, Canada, and collected by the British Library in London.

Their success rate was 100% when recognising individual wolves from their solo howls. And they achieved an accuracy of 97% when identifying wolves calling together in a "chorus howl".
Ms Root-Gutteridge said that the technology is in the last stages of development but she hopes it can be used by conservationists in the wild in the near future.

Howling facts

• A wolf howl can resonate over six miles.
• The low pitch and long duration of a howl is well suited for long distance communication in forest and across tundra.
• A lone wolf howls to attract the attention of its pack, while communal howling can act as a warning to rival packs to stay away.
• Wolves may simply howl to join in with other wolves.
• Wolves are able to recognise each other through the unique features of an individual's call.

• Watch wolves howling

"In scientific terms this is really exciting, because it means that if we hear a howl on one night we can tell if it is or isn't the same wolf that you hear on subsequent nights," she said.

Similar technology has been tested on captive wolf howls but this study is the first time such accurate results have been achieved from recordings taken from the wild, where varying conditions make recognition considerably more difficult.

Previously, an accuracy rate of 76% had been achieved by scientists using audio sampling to identify wild wolves.

"The two biggest challenges are getting 'clean' recordings... and sometimes the wolves just don't want to howl," said Ms Root-Gutteridge.

Experts have successfully used acoustic sampling to monitor other wild animals such as bats and marine mammals. Last week, scientists in Puerto Rico revealed audio technology that can recognise rainforest animals by the sounds they make.

Ms Root-Gutteridge speculated that her team's new vocal "extraction code" could be used in acoustic studies for "[other] wolves; coyotes; dogs. Anything that howls really."

source

Book Review - "The Secret World of Red Wolves"

Book Review

By Ann Allen

Posted: Sunday, Jul. 21, 2013

• -

  T. DeLene Beeland is author of "The Secret World of Red Wolves: The Fight to Save North America’s Other Wolf" (UNC Press; $18.83

  Store |

Though most people have never seen a wolf, the creatures evoke an unusual fascination. And “The Secret World of Red Wolves” provides an abundance of wolfish lore.
But the book does much more. It dives into this promised “secret world” and carries us along, offering revelations on every page about the wolves’ latest home in the Albemarle Peninsula of Eastern North Carolina, their history, biology and interactions with other species – especially humans.

By the time the last page turns, the reader will have been taught and entertained in equal measure, and it will be a rare person who doesn’t feel more empathy for all those involved with the perilous life of this rare creature.

The author, science writer T. DeLene Beeland of Asheville, is a longtime contributor to SciTech and has told some of the story of Canis rufus on these pages. Her fine writing shines through the book, lending clarity to complex questions such as how the wolf evolved (which still remains subject to debate), and charm to stories of the region and the people who have worked so hard to drag the wolf from the jaws of extinction.

The landscape itself merits descriptive flair; as she approaches the Red Wolf Recovery Program’s offices on Roanoke Island, she writes, “In the distance, pine trees taper out into the marsh at the horizon line until their trunks are visible singly, like a row of slim men marching to sea.” She revisits the state of the marshes later, showing how saltwater intrusion is threatening the secret world where the wolves have been established.

These wolves, generally larger than coyotes but smaller than gray wolves, don’t at all match the mythical image of a fearsome predator bringing down elk or bison. The red wolf, remarkably shy, would much rather run than encounter a human.

They generally dine on small prey such as muskrats, rabbits and nutria, which has won the appreciation of some farmers in the North Carolina recovery area.

Regardless, each year finds wolves dying of gunshot wounds, though shooting them is illegal. And though the recovery program works to prevent interbreeding with coyotes, it still sometimes occurs, threatening the integrity of Canis rufus.

In the end, however, the red wolf may be most threatened not by actions, but by inactions. The federal program that undergirds them is costly; Beeland writes that it likely will go to the state of North Carolina, though the state has shown little interest in continuing it. And climate change constantly lifts the sea toward the home of the red wolves.

Meanwhile, the wolves have their puppies each spring, pursue their small prey, flee their hunters, and sing their wolfish songs into the night.

source

Author Asserts that Wolves are Mismanaged at State Level

7 hours ago

State and federal wildlife agencies are not listening to anyone but themselves, sportsmen and ranchers, but then they always have been such from their inception. Ranchers and sportsmen irrationally hate wolves. Few listen to science, reason or outsiders. Wolves do not need to be "managed" in general; maybe problem wolves or packs, and nonlethal means should be mandatory, in place and tried.

Oregon has set up such a wolf policy program, and I think we can look to California to set up a wolf-friendly policy. Wolves will manage their own populations. Killing them in general is just crazy for a number of reasons: It does not make any ecological sense and it disrupts their families and likely will cause problems the wolf killers allege, but not proven. They should not be managed by the states mentioned because it is political management of a species. They should not be delisted because they have not yet filled up the many viable niches still available in their old ranges.

I have been observing for years that talking to the wolf haters is like talking to the far-right and not-so-far-right Republican brain, which makes up and lives in its own universe and is impervious to logic, science, facts or reason. Wolves should not be in the hands of state management, especially in states of such proven hostile mentality as Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Wisconsin. Before a state can manage the wolves therein, they should have in place a policy like Oregon.

“Whenever and wherever men have engaged in the mindless slaughter of animals (including other men), they have often attempted to justify their acts by attributing the most vicious or revolting qualities to those they would destroy; and the less reason there is for the slaughter, the greater the campaign for vilification.” — Farley Mowat, naturalist, conservationist and author of “Never Cry Wolf.”

Roger Hewitt

Great Falls

source 

Image of the Day

20110130-0005, a photo by s.baerfuss on Flickr.

Mongolian wolves

Image of the Day

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

Two Mongolian wolves

Wolf Weekly Wrap-up

Posted: 19 Jul 2013

Most Americans don’t support delisting – A new national poll shows that only 1 in 3 Americans supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to strip federal Endangered Species Act protections for most gray wolves nationwide. Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,378 registered voters and found that 70 percent believe that wolves are a vital part of America’s wilderness and natural heritage. Half of the respondents think the wolf population in the lower 48 has still not recovered, and more than half think wolves should be given a chance to return to places like Colorado and California where there are no wolves today.

These results help us make our case that the current delisting proposal is premature. The federal government should not be giving up on wolf recovery before the job is finished, especially when there is still so much good wolf habitat left unoccupied. Please submit your comments today opposing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s premature proposal.  

Wolf wars continue in Wyoming – Despite strong national support for continued wolf recovery, public opinion is still extremely divided in the heart of wolf country. A recent feature story from the Spokesman Review shows the challenges that wolf advocates are up against in Wyoming, where some ranchers and hunters blame wolves for cutting into their business.

Unfortunately, there’s no discussion of nonlethal tools available to ranchers to reduce conflict and no mention that overall elk numbers are at record highs across much of the Northern Rockies. Yes, wolves do have some localized impacts on livestock and game herds. But on a broader scale, wolves are helping to restore degraded ecosystems and providing new economic opportunities through wildlife tourism.  

Wyoming halves wolf hunt quota – Though some wolf opponents are eager to get rid of wolves, the state has reduced the number that can be killed during next year’s hunt. Last week Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved new hunting regulations that set the limit at 26 wolves, half the number from last year. Sadly, more wolves can still be killed anytime by any means in the so-called “predator zone” that encompasses more than 80 percent of the state.  

Why kill native wildlife? – For years we’ve been railing against the arcane, disastrous practices of Wildlife Services, a branch of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture responsible for killing millions of native animals. Finally, others are starting to take notice as well.

Last year, Sacramento Bee investigative reporter Tom Knudson ran an in-depth series on the secretive agency. This summer, our colleagues at NRDC released a short film about their practices. Last week a scientific paper was published in Conservation Letters examining damage done to our ecosystems. And this week, the New York Times editorial board called for careful scrutiny:

“It is time the public got a clear picture of what Wildlife Services is up to, and time for the Department of Agriculture to bring the agency’s work into accord with sound biological practices. Resolving wildlife conflicts need not involve indiscriminate killing.”

We couldn’t agree more. Click here to support our campaign to reform Wildlife Services.  

Washington wolves under attack (again)? – Capital Press reports that wolves in northeast Washington are being blamed for the death of a three-day-old calf. Len McIrvin, the owner of the Diamond M Ranch whose livestock losses led to the removal of six wolves from the Wedge Pack last year, says wolves dragged off one of his calves recently.

But Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife has determined that the evidence found was ultimately inconclusive. In addition to finding coyote tracks in the vicinity of the incident, there was no indication that wolves had breached the barbed wire fence surrounding the calving enclosure. We’ll be keeping a close eye on the situation, but it’s good to see the state wildlife agency conducting such thorough investigations. We continue to offer our assistance to ranchers in the area to help protect their livestock from wolves and other predators using nonlethal deterrents and better animal husbandry practices.  

Cancer survivor howls for wolves — Gudrun Pflueger was a professional cross-country skier in Austria who turned her love of the outdoors into a career tracking wolves in the Canadian wilderness. After winning a three-year battle with brain cancer she returned to Canada in search of wolves. Click here to watch her howl for wolves with her dog, while cross-country skiing with her young son strapped to her back. Now that’s some serious dedication!

source

Kitzhaber signs 'last resort' wolf-killing bill

Friday, July 19, 2013

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Gov. John Kitzhaber has signed a bill allowing the state to resume killing wolves that make a habit of attacking livestock.

The governor signed the measure Friday, making Oregon the only state in the West where killing wolves that attack livestock is a last resort.

The measure puts into law provisions of a settlement between conservation groups and ranchers. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted other provisions of the settlement a week ago.

Ranchers will get new rights to shoot wolves that they see attacking their herd, but only if the attacks have become chronic and the ranchers can show they've taken nonlethal steps to try and stop them.
The Oregon Court of Appeals has blocked the state from killing wolves for more than a year.

source