Isle Royale wolves at risk from climate change, isolation

Isabelle, seen in the upper left in this 2013 photo, was one of the few remaining gray wolves on Isle Royale in Minnesota before escaping to the mainland this winter. In February the 5-year-old was found dead of unknown causes in northeastern Minnesota. (Rolf Peterson / Michigan Technological University / February 8, 2013)

By Paresh Dave

February 28, 2014

On an icy island wilderness near the tip of Minnesota, a female gray wolf's demise has added to the debate about whether authorities should try to save the wolves of Isle Royale National Park.

Once, wolves could regularly move on and off the island along ice bridges to find fresh mates. Now, researchers say, climate change has made ice bridges rare on Lake Superior, and the increasingly isolated wolf population has grown weak through inbreeding. The death of the wolf nicknamed Isabelle -- who had apparently crossed an ice bridge in search of a mate -- reduced the known population to nine.

The researchers have called on the federal government to interfere with a wilderness area -- a drastic break from tradition that they say has been forced by climate change. They want the National Park Service to import fertile wolves from robust neighboring populations. “To preserve a healthy ecosystem with climate change, we at times are going to have to intervene, and that’s a hard thing to wrap our heads around,” said Michael Nelson, an Oregon State University professor who specializes in environmental ethics and philosophy. “You don’t just wake up one day to that realization and change what you do.”

That proposal is controversial, however, and the National Park Service has not decided what to do.
The carcass of 5-year-old Isabelle, one of three potentially fertile Isle Royale wolves, was found Feb. 8 and announced this week. An initial autopsy failed to determine her cause of death.

At least, researchers say, three of the island’s surviving wolves are less than a year old -- a welcome development after a worrisome year without any pups. “That gives us some breathing room,” Nelson told the Los Angeles Times. “But you want to make sure you don’t waste that space, and that you instead use that space to do the hard thinking.”

Isle Royale is a rare place where predator and prey, wolves and moose, can fend for themselves without interfering predation from humans or bears. The matchup has been closely tracked since 1959. The park gets fewer visitors in a year than Yosemite National Park sees in two days, but thanks in part to scientists, Isle Royale has more repeat visitors than anywhere else.

Moose migrated to Isle Royale around World War I, and wolves after World War II. Two decades ago, the wolf population dipped from 50 to about a dozen. Researchers won approval to install tracking devices on some of the wolves and draw their blood.

Researchers discovered that the wolves had been ravaged by a disease brought to the island by visitors' pet dogs. All they could do was wait to see if the population would rebound. It did, reaching 30 before falling again about five years ago.

Now, climate change is further stressing the wolves. Once, solid ice bridges to Minnesota happened seven out of 10 winters. Now, it's more like once a decade, including in 2008 and two weeks this winter.
By 2040, ice bridges won't exist, said John Vucetich, a Michigan Tech University population biologist who studies the wolves and moose of Isle Royale.

Inbreeding has led to genetic abnormalities, including deformed backs. Vucetich and his colleagues said that could be remedied by importing wolves from abundant packs in Minnesota or Ontario. That would also ensure that Isle Royale’s population doesn’t disappear, researchers say.

If the National Park Service decides to let nature take its course and the wolves die out, researchers warn, the moose population could boom and destroy the park's ecosystem. “We have certain perceptions about what constitutes a healthy landscape, and typically we don’t consider dramatic, out-of-whack cycles in that,” Nelson said, referring to what might come of moose unchecked by wolves.

Speaking to The Times from the national park, Vucetich said that he, Nelson, ecologist Rolf Peterson and others who say man should intervene have faced three types of critics.

One group insists on a hands-off policy toward wilderness areas, regardless of the consequences. They worry that intervening in Isle Royale would open the floodgates nationwide. And they say researchers would lose the ability to study the island's small gene pool if more wolves were introduced.

Others say island fauna populations shift all the time, and nature should prevail despite the observations that might be lost without the unique predator-prey ecosystem.

Then there are the optimists, who say everything will work out. Vucetich says he prefers the activist approach because "there's some things we can resist and hang on to and not let climate change take away."

He says the cost of protection -- moving some wolves to the island -- is low and the benefit -- preservation of the status quo despite climate change -- is great. "Genetic rescues" have been successful, including with Florida's panthers. The action is also the option with the least risk of causing irreparable harm, Vucetich said. “That the parks officials are having trouble with this doesn’t bode well for the future, because this one is an easy one,” he said. "There’s a lot of things like this coming soon."

Phyllis Green, Isle Royale’s park superintendent, says officials are summarizing the more than 1,000 public and expert comments they’ve gathered in the last two years. She expects to release a report in the late spring "We’re going to take our time and make the most right decision we can," Green said. "Try as we might as humans to predict what’s going to happen, the more we know, sometimes the clearer the path -- but sometimes it’s still a trade-off."

source

Why would anyon want to destroy this family?

Wolves in Spearfish? Residents, officials disagree

Posted 02-28-2014

SPEARFISH, S.D. — Some Spearfish residents say they've seen wolves in the area, but police and wildlife officials are skeptical.

Mary and Jack Sty believe they saw three wolves near their home in December, and Pete McNamee reported a wolf sighting this week, the Black Hills Pioneer reported (http://bit.ly/1hCDEM6 ).

McNamee said the animal he spotted was "thicker and sturdier" than a coyote. Jack Sty said he initially mistook the animals he saw for deer because of their size, but then he saw the tails. He watched the animals from his house using a rifle scope, from a distance of about 35 yards. "It was just unquestionable that they were wolves," he said. "The length of the legs on these wolves were longer than coyotes," he said. "The tracks were, I'd say, about 2½ times larger than coyotes. Their faces and ears were typical of wolves ... their mannerisms were different too. Coyotes will take off running when you open the door to a truck. These guys just walked off and looked back."

Wildlife officials say wolves occasionally wander through the state, but there isn't suitable habitat for the predator in South Dakota. The closest known population of wolves is in the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming, according to John Kanta, regional wildlife manager with the state Game, Fish and Parks Department.

The Spearfish sightings probably are cases of mistaken identity, Game, Fish and Parks conservation officer Mike Apland said. "There have been plenty of sightings of mountain lions that turn up to be orange tabby cats," he said.

source

OR wolf population grows modestly in 2013, but breeding pairs down

By Ralph Maughan On February 26, 2014

The Oregon wolf population is at least 64 wolves at the end of 2013-

Oregon is perhaps the state with wolves that treats them the best. An official wolf count began in 2009 when 14 wolves were detected. Since then it has grown steadily though more slowly than did wolves in neighboring Idaho.

At the end of 2013, the minimum number of wolves was determined to be 64, up from 48 the previous year.  In 2013 six breeding pairs of wolves were found, but in 2013 that fell to four.  All the known wolves were in extreme NE Oregon, with the lone exception of famous wolf OR-7, named “Journey” by many folks. He lives in SW Oregon’s Cascade Mountains. He sometimes still ranges down into California.

Update: There just recently was a confirmed sighting that shows a second wolf has come to the Cascade Mountains. It was documented to be near Mt. Hood.

The packs are named Imnaha, Wenaha, Walla Walla, Umatilla River, Snake River, Mt Emily, Minam, and  “New Pack in Catherine Cr / Keating.” Snake River, Umatilla River, Minam and Walla Walla are the packs with breeding pairs. Minam is the largest pack with 12 wolves. In 2012 the Wenaha Pack was the largest with eleven wolves. This year Minam dropped to nine,  and were not considered to be a pack with a breeding pair of wolves.

There were two new packs detected in 2013 — probably five wolves in the “Catherine Cr/Keating Units.” This is near Medical Springs on the west side of the Wallowa Mountains.  Four wolves were detected northwest of LaGrande, Oregon and named the Mt. Emily Pack.  Mt. Emily came from a pair of wolves that had 3 pups last spring. Only one pup is thought to have survived and so Mt. Emily is not an official “breeding pair.”

All of the packs live (see map) in the part of the state where the federal government delisted wolves but they still have Oregon state endangered species status. Only OR-7 is in the part of Oregon where the federal government still maintains endangered species status for the gray wolf. The Snake River Pack spent 99% of its time in 2013 in the Hells Canyon Recreation Area, just across the Snake River from lethal Idaho.

Map of Oregon wolf pack territories. 2013. By Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Most of the wolf packs are genetically related, but the Walla Walla Pack is unique, not related to the other packs.

The scattered size information released on the Oregon wolves shows that those captured and weighed were all somewhat small — less than 100 pounds.

Oregon wolves were unique in that within the state’s boundaries only one of them was killed by a human. Two former Oregon wolves did die when they migrated to Idaho. One was shot in the wolf hunt and one was trapped.

- – - – - – -
Download the 2013 Oregon wolf report (pdf file)

 source

Image of the Day

Mexican Wolf, a photo by Mark Dumont on Flickr.

It’s Time for a Serious Course Correction on Wolves

Gray wolf in Yellowstone National Park (© Sandy Sisti)

26 February 2014

Posted by: Jamie Rappaport Clark |  
       
I cannot say I was surprised by the recent peer review report on wolf delisting from a panel of independent scientists. They unanimously concluded that the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s (the Service) proposal to strip federal protections for gray wolves across nearly all of the lower 48 states was not supported by the best available science. Ever since the Service announced its delisting proposal, scientists, conservation groups and concerned citizens have been telling the Service that the delisting proposal is premature and shortsighted, and above all, based on bad and incomplete science.

But my lack of surprise does not make the panel’s findings any less egregious; the Endangered Species Act (ESA) expressly requires that listing and delisting decisions be made only on the basis of the “best available science.” Now, the wolf peer review report proves that the Service has failed to properly implement the ESA because it did not use the best available science to guide its decisions on wolf recovery.

I was director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1997 -2001 and have over 30 years of experience with the ESA. Needless to say, I know what it’s like to make tough calls on species listing and delisting decisions. But no matter how difficult these decisions were in the past, we always based them on the best available science and an optimistic vision of what species recovery should mean. The gray wolf delisting proposal represents a disappointing and flawed departure from the scientific standards that we embraced when I used to work for the Service.

It’s not uncommon for peer review panelists to disagree among themselves during the peer review process. In fact, it’s the job of any peer review committee to raise questions and concerns about the science underpinning the issue or proposal under review. But what was most remarkable about the unanimous panel conclusion repudiating the Service’s science is that the panel had members who professionally disagreed over the underlying policy question of whether wolves should be delisted at all. Thus, despite their differing views on delisting itself, they found themselves in agreement that the science relied upon by the Service was seriously flawed.

In this case, the peer reviewers criticized the Service for relying on just a single scientific report, the Chambers et al. analysis, as the basis for their delisting proposal. They pointed out that that study was highly selective in the data it used. Evidence that did not support the proposal to delist was criticized and dismissed by Chambers et al., whereas evidence that supported the proposal to delist was accepted uncritically. Peer reviewers also said the Service got the taxonomy and range of wolves all wrong in their delisting proposal. For example: gray wolves may have lived in the Northeast, wolves of the Pacific Northwest are likely distinct from other populations, and Mexican gray wolves historically had a much larger range than the Service claimed.

The process used to generate and publish the Chambers study was also problematic. The study was written by scientists from the Service itself and was only published in a Service publication and not by a respected independent journal as one would expect. Mysteriously, the Service’s publication had been defunct for more than 20 years and seemed to have been brought back to life to publish this paper.

If this peer review process tells us anything, it tells us – yet again – that the Service is not treating wolves in the same way it treated the recovery of the bald eagle, peregrine falcon or the American alligator. Each of these species reached recovery throughout their range before being taken off the endangered species list. There is still much unoccupied suitable habitat available for wolves. Delisting should not be considered until wolves reach true recovery.

So now, the Service needs a dramatic mid-course correction on wolves. At each step of this delisting proposal – written comments, public hearings and testimony and now the peer-review process – the Service’s delisting proposal has been called into question for being premature and based upon bad science. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe have repeatedly asserted that the Service will base decisions on the status of wolves only on the best available science. In light of this damning peer review report on wolves, the Service should withdraw its current delisting proposal, and instead chart a sustainable recovery path for wolves that is truly based upon the best science on the subject.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, President & CEO 

Click here to ask Secretary Jewell to withdraw this misguided proposal!

source

Image of the Day

Mexican Wolf Gaze

Image of the Day

Waiting for the pups!, a photo by instinctforfilm on Flickr.

One of few Isle Royale gray wolves dies after escaping

Wolves have killed 67 animals on farms in the Upper Peninsula compared to 16 in 2009. (Courtesy Photo | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

By The Associated Press

on February 25, 2014

By John Flesher

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) - One of the few remaining gray wolves of Isle Royale National Park has been found dead after escaping to the mainland across a Lake Superior ice bridge, a scientist said Tuesday.

The 5-year-old female's body was discovered earlier this month along the shoreline on the Grand Portage Indian Reservation in northeastern Minnesota, biologist Rolf Peterson of Michigan Technological University told The Associated Press. She apparently hadn't been shot and the cause of death could not be determined immediately, he said. She had been severely wounded last year in attacks by other wolves.

The dead wolf had been fitted with a radio collar and its serial numbers confirmed her identity, Peterson said. He and other scientists who study the island park's wolves and moose had nicknamed her "Isabelle."

Her loss was a blow to an already struggling wolf population at Isle Royale, which has fallen sharply in recent years. Only eight remained in 2013, down from 24 just five years earlier. The population last year was the smallest since scientists began observing the island's wolves in the 1950s.
Three pups are believed to have been born in the past year, boosting the population to 11, although Isabelle's death and the death of another adult on the island reduced it to nine.

The slump has touched off a debate over whether humans should bring more wolves to the island to replenish the severely inbred population. Peterson and Michigan Tech biologist John Vucetich, longtime leaders of the study, are among scientists who support the idea. Others oppose it, saying nature should take its course. The National Park Service is weighing its options.

This winter's prolonged deep freeze has caused most of Lake Superior's surface to freeze at times. Peterson and Vucetich had hoped that one or more wolves might use the opportunity to migrate from the mainland to the island, about 15 miles away, just as the park's first wolves are believed to have done in the late 1940s. None have done so this year.

But the scientists acknowledged there was also a chance that some of the Isle Royale wolves might head in the opposite direction. "There's a tendency for people to think an ice bridge is a one-way street and will solve everything," Peterson said in a phone call from the island. "We've been telling people it's more likely that wolves will leave Isle Royale rather than come to Isle Royale."

Wolves are wanderers by nature and can cover many miles in a single day, he said. Despite their low numbers, their density on Isle Royale is actually high for their species. "On the mainland their density is lower, they have a lot more directions they can disperse to," Peterson said. "Isle Royale wolves have a lot of reasons to leave ... and just one way to go."

Peterson and Vucetich spend seven weeks at the snowbound wilderness park every winter studying the wolves and the moose on which they feed. It's one of the world's longest continuous studies of a predator-prey relationship in a closed ecosystem and has generated numerous discoveries.
During their frequent observational flights in a small plane, they spotted Isabelle wandering shoreline areas late last month. She was last seen Jan. 21, heading toward the pack that had assaulted her last year, Peterson said. She may have veered across the ice that night.

At age 3, she had had left the pack into which she was born, which is normal behavior for a wolf, Peterson said. "They disperse and look for vacant territory and an opportunity to mate," he said. "But she's been trapped on Isle Royale. She'd been traveling on her own for two years and never had pups."

Ice bridges in western Lake Superior were commonplace in the 1960s and 1970, and it's likely that other wolves crossed them to reach Isle Royale in those days, Peterson said. But they've become increasingly scarce as Great Lakes ice cover has shrunk in recent decades, contrary to the widespread cover this winter. "That just isn't going to work very well" as a way to build Isle Royale's wolf numbers, he said. "Ice just is not forming the way it used to."

source 

Will the Wolf Survive? (Video)

Senate passes bill allowing killing of wolves

By: The Associated Press February 24, 2014 

 

The Arizona Senate has approved a bill that allows livestock owners to shoot wolves protected by federal regulations if the wolf is attacking other animals.

Senate Bill 1211 passed by an 18-12 vote on Monday.

The bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Gail Griffin of Hereford allows livestock owners and employees of the Arizona Department of Agriculture to shoot a wolf that is endangering a person or animal. That includes Mexican wolves.

Mexican wolves are considered endangered species. Griffin’s bill is a push-back against a federal program that aims to increase the wolves’ population in Arizona and other states. Opponents of the bill say it is unnecessary because there are only 33 Mexican wolves in both Arizona and New Mexico.

The bill will now go to the House of Representatives.

source

Should bears or wolves be hunted for their fur? by one smart kid

Krystal Ruiz

Feb 24 2014

Once, while watching the news with my dad, I heard a reporter talking about open season for hunting. Now this didn't seem very strange to me, considering I have many friends who hunt deer and elk and different kinds of birds, but it shocked me when the reporter mentioned wolves and bears.

Though I knew my friends hunted for food, it never occurred to me people would hunt for sport.

Because really, who's going to eat a bear other than people in Alaska? The reporter went on to talk about the season taking place in Wyoming, but I couldn't watch or listen to the reporter anymore.
I thought, "What do you need a bear or a wolf for?" You don't eat bears and wolves. And then it occurred to me -- fur.

I'm sure bear and wolf fur makes for a nice rug, but seriously? I couldn't help but wonder why you'd want to kill such animals, unless it was in self-defense.

I began to think about my time on the National Academic League speech team when I was in junior high. We once gave a speech about the reintroduction of wolves into the Yellowstone National Park area. We analyzed and discussed that many ranchers were worried about their livestock being stalked and eaten by the wolves, so they were defending their right to kill the wolves.

Environmentalists argued that wolves were necessary for the ecosystem of the national park and surrounding areas, and they ultimately won the debate. But when environmentalists worked so hard to get the endangered wolves back in the area, why are we now allowing people to hunt them for sport? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I may be slightly biased, seeing as how I have never gone hunting nor have I ever shot a gun. But I feel very upset that there is such a thing as open season for bears and wolves. In all honesty, what has a wolf or bear ever done to you? What has any animal done to a hunter?

You may be thinking, "Well, she's a real tree-hugger. She must be a vegetarian." While I will admit I am a tree-hugger, I completely disagree with the vegetarian bit. I love meat as much as the next person, but I believe there is a huge difference between hunting for food and survival, and hunting for the pure fun of it.

OK, maybe that sounded a little rude. Not all hunters are cold-blooded murderers. But in my opinion, deer, bears, wolves and any other animal that roams this earth has the right to roam free without feeling like they have a target on their back. Because that is what our society has done to animals; we put a target on their back justifying it with a solid amount of money. But no amount of money is worth the life of a living, breathing animal.

Animals have voices, but how are we supposed to do what's best for them when we refuse to listen because the shot of a gun sounds better? I think we all need to listen and look.

Think of Yellowstone National Park. Listen to the sounds of the rivers and the calling of birds. And think of the first time you saw a bear rising over the ridge of a hill, or saw a pack of wolves running across an open area.

Now, imagine all of that gone.

In biology, we learn that each animal and organism in an ecosystem is dependent on each other. Is a rug or thousands of dollars really worth ruining the very earth we live on? If we keep allowing hunters to kill these animals, we will lose them. Think about it.

Krystal Ruiz is a junior at Weber High School. Contact her at kruiz.melody@gmail.com.

source 

Image of the Day

Orion, a photo by Kataaku on Flickr.

Reward offered in wolf killing case

Sunday, February 23, 2014

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A conservation group is offering a $7,500 reward for help solving the case of an endangered gray wolf found shot to death on Feb. 9 in Stevens County.

A Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife enforcement official told the Spokesman Review (http://is.gd/u6VSih ) that the wolf died from gunshot wounds.

Gray wolves are protected in Washington state endangered species laws.

State biologists had been monitoring the female wolf since February 2013, when they fitted the animal with a GPS collar.

WDFW's Donny Martello says the wolf was once part of the Smackout Pack in northeast Washington but appeared to have been traveling alone since April.

Conservation Northwest put up the reward. The group has helped promote range riders to protect livestock from wolves.

The group says location data from the radio collar was helping guide activities to avoid wolf-livestock conflicts.

source
___

Effects of Sarcoptic Mange on Gray Wolves in Yellowstone National Park.

Funding Sources: USGS-NPS POBS funding; Collaborators: Doug Smith - Yellowstone National Park Wolf Project, Adam Munn, Peter Hudson, Andy Dobson, John Heine - Grizzly and Wolf Discovery Center.

Image credit: USGS

Sarcoptic mange is a highly contagious canine skin disease caused by mites that burrow into the skin causing infections, hair loss, severe irritation and an insatiable desire to scratch. The resulting hair loss and depressed vigor of an infected animal leaves them vulnerable to hypothermia, malnutrition and dehydration, which can eventually lead to death. Mange was introduced into the Northern Rockies in 1909 by state wildlife veterinarians in an attempt to help eradicate local wolf and coyote populations. Scientists believe the troublesome mite that causes the disease persisted among coyotes and foxes after wolves were exterminated. Since their reintroduction into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in 1995-96, wolves appeared to be free of mange until 2002. As of November 2012, 4 of 8 known packs in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) have mange, mostly in the Northern Range and the prevalence within a pack ranges from 30 to 80%.

Wolves are a popular feature for the public visiting YNP and as a result mange in wolves is likely to become a topic of visitor interest. At present limited information is available on the impacts of mange in wolves at both the individual and population levels. We are examining the impacts of sarcoptic mange on the survival, reproduction and social behavior of YNP wolves, as well as document the progression of infection and associated host recovery rates. This project is providing technical assistance to YNP and simultaneously exploring an emerging issue, providing a foundation for future long-term monitoring that will be useful to state and federal management of wolves in the Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho wolf recovery areas.

To help understand the role of mange in the lives of gray wolves, researchers need to understand the costs and extent of infection. Thermal imagery of wolves allows scientists to not only document the extent of hair loss caused by mange, but the actual loss of heat associated with the different stages of infection.

Researchers at NOROCK and their partners are using thermal cameras at the Grizzly and Wolf Discovery Center in Montana to assess the amount of heat lost under a range of environmental conditions with and without hair. In this image, brighter areas are giving of more heat.

To simulate hairloss that occurs in the later stages of mange infection, patches are shaved on the wolves (red spot on hind leg) to allow the researchers to measure temperature loss from the hairless patches and compare this with temperature loss from natural fur. By helping out with this research the wolves in the enclosure are helping scientists better understand how mange operates in their wild counterparts throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.



All research animals are handled by following the specific requirements of USGS Animal Care and Use policies.


Click here to view videos.


Click here to view additional images.


Citations:
Almberg, E.S., P.C. Cross, A.P. Dobson, D.W. Smith and P.J. Hudson. 2012. Parasite invasion following host reintroduction: a case of Yellowstone’s wolves. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 367, 2840-2851. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0369.

source

Wolf Day at MN State Capitol

2014-02-27

When: February 27, 2014, 12:00 PM - 4:00 PM (Rally 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM following meetings with legislators) 
 
Where: Minnesota State Capitol, 75 Rev. Martin Luther King Blvd., St. Paul, MN (map)
Join Howling For Wolves at the Capitol in St. Paul for Wolf Day. This is an all-day event from 12-4 PM that includes  meetings with legislators and a one hour rally in the Capitol Rotunda. With your participation, we can show lawmakers that changes are needed to protect our Minnesota wolves.

While we cannot accept additional RSVP's for Wolf Day legislator meetings, you are needed at the Rotunda Rally from 3-4 PM on Feb 27th. Let's fill the Rotunda!

Please help to invite more people to Wolf Day. Print out and place this flyer at your favorite coffee shop, place of work and other appropriate places (click to download): Wolf Day Flyer.PDF

Wolf Day Event: February 27th 12-4 PM

• Meetings with legislators 12-2 PM
• Rally in the Capitol Rotunda 3-4 PM - See Featured Speakers Schedule
• Exclusive Wolf Day t-shirts will be provided free of charge for confirmed participants, we'll also have some extras on hand for those who show up (supplies limited)
• Do NOT bring signs or posters for the 3 PM rally, we will have volunteers distribute signs created just for this event
• Disposable cameras will be distributed to all-day participants so you can help us capture Wolf Day 2014
• A professional photographer will be documenting the day and the Rotunda rally
• Rally-only participants can be any age, assuming children under 16 years old are accompanied by a parent. Rally-only bus transportation is available to those of all ages, including children accompanied by a parent

Please help to invite more people to the Wolf Day. Print out and place this flyer at your place of work and other appropriate places (click to download): Wolf Day Flyer.PDF
Wolf Day Event Documents

We've created a few documents to help participants on the day of the event, you can view/download them in PDF using the links below.

General Information Guide for Wolf Day 2014
Legislator Meetings Guide for Wolf Day 2014
Capitol Floor Map for Wolf Day 2014

We encourage people to meet with their lawmakers both in their district and at the capitol over hte next few weeks.  If you are willing to make a meeting with your lawmaker to toalk about wolves then we would like to assist you and to hear about how it goes. 

Please email us at: info@howlingforwolves.org.

Howling for Wolves--PLEASE support them!

Image of the Day

Why Wolves? - David Parsons (A video lecture)

On November 12, 2013, the Santa Fe Science Café for Young Thinkers presented David Parsons, Carnivore Conservation Biologist at the Rewilding Institute in Albuquerque, who discussed "Why Wolves?" The Café was sponsored by the Santa Fe Alliance for Science, the Santa Fe Public Schools, the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum, the Fractal Foundation and the Santa Fe Institute. This was Mr. Parsons' presentation:

Why The Polar Vortex is Good for Wolves

Thursday, February 20, 2014

A rare ice bridge between Isle Royale National Park and the mainland offers a lifeline to the island's dwindling wolf pack.

 

The wolves of Isle Royale National Park have lived in isolation for over four years, but ice bridges caused by an extremely cold winter may change that.     Photo: Rolf Peterson

The Park Service website for Michigan's Isle Royale National Park describes it as "a rugged, isolated island where wolves... abound." Rugged and isolated, yes. Wolves abounding? Not quite. Only 8 wolves live on the 133,000-acre island today, down from 24 in 2009, according to Lake Superior Magazine's Phil Bencomo. The pack's isolation, and resulting lack of genetic diversity, is causing its decline.

But the deep freezes accompanying this winter have have brought more to the upper Great Lakes that ice caves, it has formed ice bridges between the island and the nearest mainland, around 20 miles away. This is a rare event, not seen since 2008. That time, no new wolves came to the island—in fact, two collared wolves are believed to have to used the bridge leave it. Prior to 2008, the water had remained open since 1997, when an alpha male came to the island via the frozen lake. All the island's wolves alive today descend from that animal.

Rolf Peterson, a Michigan Technological University researcher who has studied Isle Royale’s wolves and moose for more than 40 years, told Bencomo that he predicts that, by 2040, Lake Superior simply won't have significant ice cover in the winter.

This might be one of the wolf pack's last chances to stem its decline—and if temperatures continue to rise as they have this week, the window is quickly closing.

Meanwhile, a major debate is brewing around whether biologists should intercede by introducing new wolves and deepening the genetic pool. Nearly the entire island is Wilderness with a capital W, and thereby protected by the Wilderness Act, so the short answer is "that's not legal."

But here’s the thing: the reason the wolves are suffering is tied directly to the fact that cold winters are exceedingly rare. So, the only way to effectively and sustainably help the island's wolves is to, basically, reverse climate change. This makes the whole argument over the legal implications of the Wilderness Act rather inconsequential.

Writes Bencomo: "Rolf [Peterson] contends that humans have already significantly impacted Isle Royale through climate change and other influences, so wilderness preservation today requires active human assistance, not merely drawing up park boundaries and stepping away. 'The 20th century notion of ‘wilderness’ is not immutable.' He argues that intervention is essential to fulfilling the NPS mission of conservation."

I expect that we are going to see more and more instances where land managers are stuck between preserving ecosystems (by leaving them alone) and trying to somehow preserve them by helping them adapt to a changing climate.

As Isle Royale's superintendent Phyllis Green said: “When you get these really large effects that are more indirect, I mean, climate change is so huge, it’s not like a situation where people went in and trapped out a species. You have this very insidious effect that’s going to happen over time to multiple species. So trying to sort out our role in that is why this decision process is taking the time it is.”

Read more about the decades-long Isle Royale wolf and moose study on this website, and sign up for email dispatches during the winter study here.

By: Mary Catherine O' Connor

source

Wolves: Soul of the Wild with Carter Niemeyer (Video)

Wolves: Soul of the Wild with Carter Niemeyer

January 27, 2014

Hosted by Eli Weiss

Both reviled and loved, our history with the wolf is complex and emotional and the stuff of legends. Today, we have an opportunity to learn from one of the most knowledgeable wolf biologists around, Carter Niemeyer, author of “Wolfer” which should be prerequisite reading for everyone involved in the back and forth of the wolf debate! We’ll get into the politics and policies that surround wolf management to human interaction and conflict, to public perceptions vs. those of ranchers and the vested interests of those who want to see all wolves dead. From our earliest history to now we continue to wage war against the wolf, and it ‘s taken more than 100 years for science to catch up to understand the ecological cascade of consequences in the wake of their absence and what their presence means for our future- the wolf issue a parable and a symbol of the very soul of wildness.

Click this link to see the full video!

Many thanks to @wildize on Twitter for the heads up!

Global Wolf Nature Documentary

 

Many thanks to @Wulalowe on Twitter for the heads up!

Wolf hunt stand-off in Sweden heightens rural tensions

Agence France-Press | Updated: February 22, 2014

A picture taken on January 2, 2010 shows a dead female wolf of 39.5 kg lays in the the snow after a wolf hunt near Kristinehamn, Sweden.

Karlstad:  Farmers and hunters in Sweden are crying foul over a wolf hunt ban which they say threatens their way of life and may lead to civil disobedience.

"I think we could live with some wolves, but not as many as there are now. They're getting too close to people," Elsa Lund Magnussen told AFP at her small sheep farm and abattoir outside Karlstad in south-central Sweden.

She pointed through the driving snow to a wooded area a stone's throw from her traditional red wooden house and sheds.

"A wolf killed a moose calf just over there a week ago," she said, shaking her head.

"When you know a wolf can turn up on your land anytime, it changes your whole quality of life. You don't dare let your dogs out in the yard ... and people say you need to take a rifle when you walk in the forest!"

Wolf hunting is a sensitive issue in Sweden, as in other European countries where the carnivores were re-introduced in recent decades and enjoy protected status under EU conservation laws.

The European Commission threatened the Nordic country with legal action in 2013 over a planned cull, later stopped by a Stockholm court.

Then the wolf conflict worsened in January when the court blocked another planned cull of 30 wolves following an appeal by environmental groups on the grounds that it violated EU law.

Now only strictly limited "protective hunts" are allowed in the event of wolves killing livestock or posing a clear threat.

- 'I'm not a wolf hater' -
The ruling came just a month after the government unveiled a new wildlife policy allowing the wolf population to be culled down to 270 from the current level of about 400.

"Sweden has never had so many large predators as now," Environment Minister Lena Ek said at the launch of the report, which said the country had a viable wolf population that needed curbing to "take into account people who live and work in areas with a concentration of predators".

Environmentalists rejected that claim, calling it a political decision taken on shaky scientific grounds.

Their legal victory has angered many small farmers like Lund Magnussen who point to rising numbers of sheep attacked by wolves across the country -- up from 292 in 2008 to 411 in 2012.

"I'm not a wolf hater, but if my animals are attacked by wolves I will lose a lot of money and it could put me out of business," she said, adding that totally fencing off wolves is impossible and far too costly.

Another group who say they are paying too high a price for protecting wolves are Sweden's hunters - about 500 of whom live in this part of Vaarmland county, including Gunnar Gloeersen, who organises the local hunt outside Karlstad.

"Of course wolves have to eat too, but the question is how much?" he asked.

Gloeersen - who is also the national hunters' association spokesman on predators -- said wolves are decimating game stocks and injuring hunting dogs, which are essential for tracking moose over large areas.

"There's a limit to how much you can torment people. Dead wolves are going to start showing up," he said with a shrug.

"If democratic rules drawn up by parliament are not applied I'm convinced that illegal hunting will explode."

And there are some indications that that has already begun, with reports of a growing number of wolves with new mates - an indication that an existing mate was killed.

Jan Bergstam, a burly environmental activist, believes hunters and farmers are exaggerating the wolf threat to get subsidies and because they are angry that the predators get in the way of hunting with dogs.

source

Image of the Day

Thirsty at night ...
Photo: Carlos Barriuso Amo

Wolf Weekly Wrap-Up

21 February 2014

Posted by: Melanie Gade

      

Wolf Advocates Outnumber Anti-wolf Extremists at Monday’s Hearing on Gov. Otter’s Wolf Control Board: Legislation to authorize Gov. Otter’s wolf control board continued to work its way through the state legislature this week as an Idaho House Committee took the issue up on Monday. Defenders and other groups organized local supporters to testify against this legislation at the hearing and turnout was amazing! For the first time, the number of wolf supporters exceeded the number of anti-wolf supporters as the committee heard compelling testimony from hunters, scientists, wolf friendly agricultural folks, and even a county commissioner who told the Committee they should not be “implementing a 19^th century solution to a 21^st century conflict.”

©Chagares Photography

The bill sponsors stated to local media that their goal is to use this funding to drive Idaho’s wolf population down as low as 150 from a current population of 500 – 600 wolves. Defenders continues to explain to state officials that there are much more cost effective and non-lethal ways to manage wolves like some of the coexistence projects we’ve pioneered, including the Wood River Wolf Project in Idaho.

This project has successfully protected more than 25,000 sheep annually grazing on the Sawtooth National Forest, losing fewer  than 25 sheep total over the last 6 years – without having to kill a single wolf in the project area. Here are a few statements Suzanne Stone, Defenders wolf expert and Idaho resident, made last week when the bill gained traction in the House.We expect this bill to move to the House floor for a vote in the coming days before it is moved to the Senate for vote. In other words, now is a critical time for Idahoans to oppose this legislation. Please contact your legislators to oppose House Bill 470.

Yellowstone Park Biologists Say No Monitored Wolves Killed in 2013 : According to an article this week, no collared or monitored wolves tracked by Yellowstone Park’s Wolf Project team were killed  by hunters in 2013. Park officials put a preliminary count on the number of wolves in Yellowstone National Park at 86 – which is an increase of three animals from 2012. So, why the difference between hunting associated deaths from 2010- 2012? This could be partially due to pressure from Yellowstone officials that urged Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to create lower quotas for hunting and trapping around the northern border of the Park.

In addition, Wyoming Game and Fish Department reduced its hunting quotas in their trophy zone from 52 in 2012 to 26 in 2013. By reducing hunting quotas, it seems that Montana and Wyoming have given wolves some level of protection from hunters and trappers as they exit the Park’s perimeter. We hope to see Yellowstone’s wolf population remain stable or increase in 2014.

A collared gray wolf in Yellowstone. Photo courtesy of William C. Campbell/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Investigates Dead Wolf in Northern Washington:  On Feb. 9, state agency officials found a radio-collared female wolf from the Smackout pack dead in Stevens County, Washington. Wolves in this part of the state were federally delisted a few years ago, but they are still protected under state endangered species laws and managed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.  This incident is still under investigation; WDFW said the wolf died under “suspicious circumstances” and investigators are still trying to determine whether a crime was committed.  A final necropsy on the wolf is scheduled for later next week.

Wolf Baiting Proposal for Idaho’s Panhandle?  News surfaced this week about a new proposal by Idaho Fish and Game which would allow outfitters and trappers to bait wolves in Idaho’s panhandle in order to increase kills. This proposal will be the subject of an open house on February 27in Coeur d’Alene from 4:30 – 7:30 p.m. PST (Best Western, 506 W. Appleway Ave. Coeur d’ Alene) but the proposal will require action by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the state legislature before it could be implemented.

 source

Wolves kill one deer, one elk in Baker County

Written by Baker City Herald February 20, 2014 

---

 By Jayson Jacoby

A pack of wolves has killed at least one deer and one elk in Baker County over the past two weeks.

A biologist from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife said a group of four wolves killed a female deer on Feb. 7 near Ruckles Creek, about 10 miles east of Baker City.

 

Brian Ratliff, district wildlife biologist at the ODFW office in Baker City, also said that a group of three to four wolves ate, and probably killed, an adult cow elk around Feb. 16 near Durkee.

 

ODFW officials don’t know where the wolves came from or where they are now, and no one has reported seeing any wolves in either area, Ratliff said. No attacks on livestock have been reported.

It’s quite possible that the wolves are the same animals that Russ Morgan, ODFW’s wolf program coordinator, believes had been living in the Medical Springs area for most of January.

 

In early February Morgan said he had found tracks from what he believes are five wolves in that area, which is about 22 miles northeast of Medical Springs. Ruckles Creek is about 16 miles south of Medical Springs, and Manning Creek, where the cow elk carcass was found earlier this week, is about 16 miles southeast of Ruckles Creek.

 

Wolf packs can cover those distances easily, sometimes in less than a day, Morgan said. “We have reason to believe these are the same wolves (in all three locations), but it is difficult to say for sure,” he said.

 

Morgan said scat samples collected near Medical Springs in early January were tested for DNA, and results showed that at least two of the wolves that left tracks in that area came from the Imnaha pack in Wallowa County. It’s not possible, though, to say when those wolves dispersed from the Imnaha pack, Morgan said. “That pack has been producing pups for several years now,” he said.

 

Morgan said ODFW’s main goal is to capture at least one wolf and fit it with a radio-tracking collar.

Ratliff said he was able to pinpoint the time the wolves killed the deer near Ruckles Creek because ODFW, along with the Oregon State Police, were investigating a report of dead golden eagles near Ruckles Creek on Feb. 6. 

 

The next morning, in the same area they had looked at the previous day, officials found the dead deer, and tracks from four wolves in the snow, Ratliff said. “The deer was not there the day before,” he said. The dead cow elk was on Bill Zikmund’s irrigated grain field along Manning Creek Road about a mile north the Durkee exit on Interstate 84. Zikmund said a neighbor told him on Sunday, Feb. 16, that he had seen a dead animal in the field. “He saw birds circling the carcass,” Zikmund said. When Zikmund and his wife, Vivian, rode their side-by-side four-wheel ATV to the site, they found the carcass of the elk.

 

Bill Zikmund said he recognized it was a wolf kill based on the 5fi-inch-long canine tracks in the mud around the carcass. “They had pretty much eaten the whole thing; the bones and the hide was about all that was left,” he said. Zikmund said he considered setting up a trail camera in the area but he didn’t because he figured the wolves, having eaten most of the elk, wouldn’t return.

But they did come back Monday night, as he and ODFW officials found fresh tracks on Tuesday morning.

 

Ratliff said the elk carcass was in such condition that it wasn’t absolutely certain the wolves killed the elk, but that’s likely. Ratliff said he took an airplane flight over the area Tuesday morning but he didn’t see any wolves. He said officials collected wolf scat but so far no samples have been submitted for DNA testing.

 

Zikmund doesn’t own cattle, but he said several of his neighbors who do have cattle are worried about the wolves, especially with calving season under way. He said one neighbor photographed a wolf track in the snow earlier this month in the area, and another neighbor followed a set of wolf tracks east of Manning Creek in the North Swayze Creek area. “They’re definitely around,” Zikmund said. “It’s real disconcerting to people who have cattle.” Zikmund said he “doesn’t care if the wolves are around,” and in fact he said he’d like to see one. “But we’re a split household,” he said. “My wife definitely is not liking having them here.”  

source 

From 'Wolf to Woof,' new exhibit focuses on canine, human connection

The traveling “Wolf to Woof” exhibit now at the Florida Museum of Natural History features four themed sections with artifacts, multimedia displays, photomurals and dioramas.
Doug Finger/Staff photographer

 

By Samantha Schuyler
Correspondent

Published: Thursday, February 20, 2014

Man's best friend has taken center stage in a new exhibit at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

Facts

‘Wolf to Woof: The Story of Dogs’

What: Temporary exhibit billed as the world’s largest exhibition on the history, biology and evolution of dogs features multimedia displays, dioramas and interactive stations

When: Opening celebration is 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday; exhibit hours are 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Mondays-Saturdays, 1-5 p.m. Sundays through Sept. 1

Where: Florida Museum of Natural History, 3215 Hull Road

Cost: Admission to the “Wolf to Woof” exhibit is $7 for adults, $6 for Florida residents and seniors, $4.50 for ages 3-17 and free to museum members and UF students with a Gator 1 card; special activities on Saturday are free

Info: 846-2000, www.flmnh.ufl.edu

Facts

'Wolf to Woof' celebration on Saturday

A day of free special activities celebrating the exhibit is planned from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Florida Museum. Demonstrations include Pepe Dogs' detection dogs at 11 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., and the Univerity Police Department K-9 unit at noon and 2 p.m. Also featured are agility demonstrations by the Greater Ocala Dog Club. Groups making presentations include the Carolina Dog Society, Homosassa Springs State Wildlife Park, Patriots PAWS, Red Cross of North Central Florida, Alachua County Human Society, Haile's Angels Pet Rescue and the UF College of Veterinary Medicine. “Wolf to Woof: The Story of Dogs,” a traveling exhibit by Wonderworks, runs through Sept. 1 and will be celebrated Saturday with a day of free activities at the museum.

The exhibit tells the story of how dogs have forged a deep relationship with humans over thousands of years, says Tina Choe, museum exhibit director. It also covers the history, biology and evolution of dogs.

The exhibit is split into four components, each covering a different aspect of the species, Choe says. Visitors can learn about the different types of dogs, how they are related to wolves, how they have helped humans and what we can do to help them. Some parts of the exhibit are interactive, Choe says. For example, visitors can compare their sense of smell to a dog's or learn what different howls mean.

Not only can visitors learn about dogs and wolves from a distance, they also can see them up close with taxidermy displays. “There are several wolves, and also all other kinds of canines that are connected to wolves,” Choe said. “It is very well done visually.”

Museum assistant director Paul Ramey says “From Wolf to Woof” is the most comprehensive traveling exhibit created about dogs. Ramey says it is also special because the museum often has exhibits on paleontology or archeology. “I can't remember the last time we had an exhibit like this one,” he says.

Choe says “Wolf to Woof” received a lot of attention when museum staff members were deciding on the next exhibit. “All of us are dog-owners or love dogs,” she said. “And Gainesville is a very dog-friendly town.” She says the museum wanted to highlight how special and unique the relationship between dogs and humans is. 

source 

Wolf Center fights to keep wolves on endangered list

By Reece Alvarez on February 21, 2014

Alawa is one of 17 gray wolves at the Wolf Conservation Center in South Salem and one of three ambassador wolves that participate in educational programs produced by the WCC. (Maggie Howell photo)

The Wolf Conservation Center (WCC) fights all kinds of dangers that threaten its mission of protecting America’s wolves. The South Salem organization recently claimed a small victory against one of those dangers, when the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s bid to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List was temporarily halted.

Last June the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) declared it had accomplished its mission of recovering the endangered wolf species across a significant portion of its original habitat, which includes much of the United States outside of the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic.

To remove a species from the endangered list, the USFWS is required to have its proposals reviewed by an independent panel of scientists.

Earlier this month USFWS released the peer review, which included sharp criticisms of the proposal and asserted that the basis on which the USFWS sought to de-list the gray wolf was not supported by the best science available. The report also refutes the USFWS’s claim that the gray wolf is not native to the northeastern United States. “There is no evidence that shows the Northeast was not a part of the historic range of gray wolves,” said Maggie Howell, executive director of the WCC. “That enables the Northeast to maybe one day down the line welcome gray wolves into the vast habitat that has been screaming for a predator like the wolf for some time.”

The attempt to de-list the gray wolf becomes more complicated, as the peer review revealed that the “scheme” by which USFWS tried to do so was based largely on a reclassification of Northeastern wolf species by scientists employed by the USFWS.

Based in part on preliminary conclusions from a single 2012 paper written by biologists employed by the USFWS, the USFWS contended that the eastern half of the United States was occupied by Canis lycaon, or the “eastern wolf,” a distinct species of wolf that does not belong to the gray wolf species Canis lupus, according to the WCC.

The WCC is home to 22 wolves, including 17 Mexican gray wolves, and much of its efforts involve supporting initiatives and legislation that help protect wolf populations throughout the country. Since the USFWS announced its plan to de-list gray wolves, the WCC has been building opposition to the proposal, including urging people to submit comments to the USFWS. The USFWS has received more than a million comments on the issue, a record for any de-listing proposal, Ms. Howell said.
Representatives from the WCC even showed up in Albuquerque and Washington, D.C., to testify on behalf of WCC’s gray wolves and their estimated 6,000 relatives across the continental U.S.

Wild wolves will never call Westchester County home, but portions of northern New York and the Northeast are suitable for wolf habitation, if the species has the opportunity to expand, Ms. Howell said. Gray wolves were once common throughout the United States, but by the early 20th Century had been all but eradicated from the wild.

Once numbering approximately 2 million, the wolf population has rebounded thanks to conservation efforts, and is now estimated to be between 7,000 and 12,000 strong and increasingly present in such states as Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. “Wolves are a critical keystone species in a healthy ecosystem. By regulating prey populations, wolves enable many other species of plants and animals to flourish. In this regard, wolves ‘touch’ songbirds, beaver, fish, and butterflies. Without predators, such as wolves, the system fails to support a natural level of biodiversity,” said Ms. Howell, who also shared a quote by the 20th-Century environmentalist Aldo Leopold. “I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades.”

In light of the peer review, the USFWS has reopened the comment period on its proposal to de-list the gray wolf from the endangered species list for a period of 45 days that began Feb. 10.

Information regarding the peer review and the USFWS proposal, as well as how to submit comments, may be found here.

source

The Rewilding of the North Cascades

 A Tale of Gray Wolves and Grizzly Bears

Posted by: Christian Martin February 19, 2014 

Grizzly Bear. Photo by Chris Morgan

Grizzly bears roaming the hills a few ridges east of Bellingham? A pack of wolves on the hunt in forests less than 100 miles from downtown Seattle?

In a time of environmental crisis – a warming, overcrowded planet, ocean acidification, an ark’s worth of species on the brink of extinction – there is something amazing happening here in our own backyard: the renewed presence of rare, large mammals in the North Cascades.

The North Cascades are an international ecosystem that stretches from the Fraser River in the north to Stevens Pass in the south, and from the Okanagan highlands to the east all the way down to the shores of the Salish Sea. This ecosystem is defined by its complex and dramatic geology – the ways that multiple ice ages and glaciation have shaped the topography – and by the biological diversity that is a result of varied terrain, climate and vertical relief.

It is a landscape of superlatives: 15 peaks tower over 9,000 feet and another 300 rise between 7,000 and 9,000 feet; it’s the most glaciated region with the most vertical relief in the Lower 48; and the biological diversity is profound, including the largest concentration of bald eagles in the US outside of Alaska, many unique botanical communities and a host of rare carnivores, including lynx, wolverine, pine marten, bears and wolves.

Fortunately, it is also a region protected by a mosaic of public lands, including North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests and eight Wilderness areas. North of the border, Manning and Cathedral Provincial Parks, the Skagit and Cascade Recreation Areas and Provincial Forests provide conservation protection.

What all of this adds up to – rugged and remote landscapes, lots of pristine habitat and varied ecosystems, robust federal protection – is a place where wilderness still has a chance to express itself, a refugium of the natural world that closely resembles what it was before Euro-Americans moved in.
“What’s so exciting about the North Cascades ecosystem,” explains local wildlife biologist Bill Gaines, “is that it is really rare to have such large connected wildlands and have the opportunity to restore a full compliment of large carnivores. There are few places in the Lower 48 that this is even possible, really only the Rockies and the North Cascades. Other places have a lot of wildlands but have to start restoration missing several pieces of the puzzle.”

Two pieces of this puzzle – gray wolves and grizzly bears – tell two different stories about the state of carnivores in the North Cascades

Grizzly bear © Chris Weston, chrisweston.uk.com

Gray Wolves 

Gray wolves were extirpated from Washington State by the 1930s through campaigns of poisoning, hunting and trapping. On the brink of extinction, wolves were given protection under the Endangered Species Act in 1973 when they were close to being wiped out across the US.

The troubled relationship between Canis lupus and Homo sapiens began a new chapter when the federal government reintroduced wolves in Yellowstone National Park and Idaho in 1995. Since then, wolves have steadily rebounded in the northern Rockies and surprised many people when they began being sporadically sighted in northern Washington State in 2005.

Gray Wolf

The first wolf pack with pups in the North Cascades was confirmed in 2008 in Okanagan County, marking the first time they have taken up residence here in more than 80 years. The past five years have seen a remarkable comeback for wolves in the Evergreen State. The 2012 census found nine packs with at least five breeding pairs in places including the Selkirk Mountains, the Spokane and Colville Indian Reservations, Wenatchee and Teanaway. “Wolf populations can grow quite quickly once they establish a foothold in a landscape,” explains David Moskowitz, author of the recently published Wolves in the Land of Salmon. “ They have a high reproductive rate for a large carnivore. Young adults will either disperse to areas adjacent to where they were born or travel several hundred miles before settling down.”

These wolves are returning to Washington under their own power, which Moskowitz says is a good thing: “Allowing wolves to naturally repopulate is less expensive and less likely to trigger people who are suspicious of the government and its intentions related to managing landscapes.”

The wolves on the east side of the state have wandered in from Montana and Idaho, while the ones taking up residence in the North Cascades are from a different subspecies population found in the Coast Range and Vancouver Island of British Columbia. “Ecologically, these BC wolves have adapted to the unique coastal rainforest habitat,” says Moskowitz. “This shows up in their behavior – traveling along shorelines and swimming between islands extensively. It also shows up in their diet. In some packs, salmon and animals harvested in the intertidal zone make up the majority of their diet at certain times of the year, compared to in the Rockies where deer, elk or moose are almost always the primary food source.”

The state has responded, rather quickly, by adopting the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan in 2011 “to guide recovery…of gray wolves as they naturally recolonize the State of Washington.” The goal is to have 15 breeding pairs spread out geographically across the state. “Washington’s Wolf Management Plan is probably the most progressive and scientifically and socially well thought-out management plan of any western state,” opines Moskowitz. “Ultimately, I think the plan does a good job of attending to the variety of needs and interests of the people of the state. The biggest challenge now is to implement it fairly. If we do, it is very likely wolves will recover in the state, there will still be a huge livestock industry in the state, and people will still have ample deer and elk hunting opportunities.”

Grizzly Bears 

Grizzly bears, on the other hand, are just barely holding on to their foothold in the North Cascades. It is believed that between 10-20 grizzlies still roam the most remote corners of the international ecosystem, though hard proof has been nearly impossible to come by despite decades of searching.

There was once a thriving population of grizzlies in the Cascades but, like the gray wolf, they were systematically destroyed by trapping and hunting. High Country News reports that “by 1860, an estimated 350 grizzly bears survived in the Cascades, down from an historical population of around 1,000.” The last documented grizzly on the US side of the border was shot in 1967 in Fisher Creek basin, the heart of the North Cascades. Less than ten years later, they were recognized as a threatened species by the US.

This grizzly was photographed in the North Cascades in October, 2010 by Joe Sebille.

Gaines has been studying Ursus arctos since the mid-1980s when he was hired to work on the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Evaluation Project. His survey helped determine the North Cascades as having outstanding habitat for grizzlies and led to the region being designated as an official recovery zone by US Fish & Wildlife in 1993.

But since then, efforts at restoring grizzly bears in Washington have stalled, primarily due to lack of funding. Gaines continues to lead scientific expeditions into the far reaches of the ecosystem, searching for brown bears and mapping habitat. It’s an interesting paradox: he loves working outdoors in some of the most magnificent country in the world, but after more than 25 years, he has still not found the object of his quest.

“To date, based on thousands of DNA samples we’ve sent to the lab and thousands of photos, we have not been able to detect a grizzly bear in the North Cascades,” he explains. “While it’s been rewarding to put a pack on my back and go to work in places I love, it’s also disheartening to come up empty-handed in the search for grizzlies.”

It’s puzzling to him and other scientists because the North Cascades have lots of protected space, relatively few people and plenty of food. “When I think about the North Cascades as an ecosystem, I ask ‘are all the pieces of the puzzle here to make the ecosystem whole?’” Gaines continues. “The grizzly bears are a piece needing more time and effort.”

The Future 

Looking ahead, the North Cascades ecosystem, like all other irreplaceable wild places, faces several challenges. While there are several worthwhile campaigns underway to increase protections in the region, it will take monumental action to slow down the warming of the planet. Climate change is driving temperatures in the North Cascades steadily upwards, including hotter, drier summers and milder winters with less snowfall. More precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow, and the glaciers that stabilize the ecology in so many different ways are in retreat.

Map created by Analisa Fenix/Ecotrust under a Creative Commons license and prepared for publication by Laken Wright.

“In the last 50 years, the average winter freezing level has risen 600 feet, or around 12 feet a year,” says Jon Riedel, a glacial geologist with North Cascades National Park. “That’s huge and it impacts everything from when things bloom, when pollinators arrive, when birds migrate, the life-cycles of marmots and pikas. Climate change is not something projected to happen, it is happening now.”
Wildlife biologists are looking to habitat connectivity as one way to plan ahead for the changes taking place. “As climate changes,” Gaines explains, “animals are going to shift ranges to adjust to a changing environment.”

The North Cascades have room to roam as well as natural corridors for the movement of animals.
Will wolves continue to reclaim their former habitats in northern Washington State? Can grizzly bears hold on without direct intervention from land managers? The continuing saga of Cascadian carnivores continues and it will be fascinating to see what happens next.

source