#Wolf of the Day

  Iberian Wolf (Canis lupus signatus) by Ellen van Yperen   

#Wolf collaring efforts in Banff National Park delayed due to weather

Colette Derworiz, 

Calgary Herald 

Published on: March 30, 2015

The seven-member Bow Valley wolf pack hanging out along the Bow Valley Parkway in December 2013..
Amar Athwal / For the Calgary Herald

A plan to capture and collar two wolves from each of the three packs in Banff National Park has been thwarted by the lack of snow this year.

In March, Parks Canada tried to collar six wolves from the Bow Valley, Red Deer and Fairholme packs with high-tech GPS collars to get information for four different research projects. “Due to poor snow tracking conditions, the mission was unsuccessful,” spokeswoman Tania Peters said in an emailed statement Monday.

None of the wildlife experts were immediately available for further comment, but the statement said the plan could resume next winter. “The need to collar wolves for monitoring and management purposes is not bound by time constraints and data collected in future years will be just as valuable as data we hoped to collect in 2015,” said the email. “Over time, this work will help us to better understand how wolves use the landscape, so we can continue to make informed management decisions that will benefit the overall ecosystem of Banff National Park.”

There are at least three wolf packs in Banff National Park — including the well-known Bow Valley pack, which spends a lot of time along the Bow Valley parkway.
Faith and Spirit, the breeding pair with the pack, haven’t been seen since last summer.

There were reports of one or two wolves being hit on the Trans-Canada Highway last summer, but officials have said the description of the animals did not match that of Faith and Spirit.

There’s another pack of at least nine wolves that was detected last year on remote cameras near Brewster Creek and around Spray Lakes, as well as the Fairholme pack that travels between Banff and Canmore.

The research on the packs would have looked at how much time wolves are spending in caribou range, how wolves are using the Bow Valley Parkway during a spring closure, how they use wildlife corridors and how they prey on mountain goats.

Despite the collaring not going ahead, officials said there is still active monitoring of the wolves along the Bow Valley Parkway with remote wildlife cameras and other methods. “Continued research will help Parks Canada determine how wolves are benefiting from the annual mandatory Bow Valley Parkway seasonal travel restriction and how this management action is helping wolves move freely through this important habitat at this critical time to forage for food before weaning young pups,” said Peters in the statement. “The wolf monitoring will also help us better understand how wolves use important habitat (wildlife corridors) to help inform wildlife management practices in Banff National Park.”
 
If you see a wolf in the park, officials ask that you do not approach it, never feed or bait it and keep your pets on a leash.

source

Do #wolves kill prey for sport?

Eric Burnham published this about 17 hours ago 

 

The answer is yes, but only very rarely, and under special circumstances. I ask this question because it has often come up when I have spoken with hunters. Some elk hunters argue that wolves hunt for pleasure (so called surplus killing) because this seems to provide evidence that wolves do not eliminate the weakest members of a herd, wolves do not strengthen the herd, and therefore, wolves are unnecessary at best.

When wolves kill excessively, not consuming some of the animals they kill, it is usually under one or two circumstances: (1) the snow depth is greater than 70 cm for white-tailed deer (see DelGiudice, G. D. 1998. Surplus Killing of White-Tailed Deer by Wolves in Northeastern Minnesota, Journal of Mammology, (79)1:227-235), and/or (2) the size of the pack is very small (see Zimmermann, B., et al. 2015. Predator-dependent functional response in wolves:from food limitation to surplus killing, Journal of Animal Ecology. 84:102-112). However, either case is very rare, and L. David Mech, in The Wolf, The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species, reports on p. 118 that "...72% (of wolf-killed deer carcasses) were utilized 75% or more."

Further, wolves do focus on the weakest members of a herd - the very young and the very old; those animals that have a very low reproductive value. In contrast, human hunters kill those animals that have a high reproductive value. (For a great discussion of this, see Wright, W. J., et al. 2006. Selection of Northern Yellowstone Elk by Gray Wolves and Hunters, Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 70 Issue 4, p1070, 9p.)

However, a more basic question is how to convince those who are committed to be against wolf reintroduction. Sometimes, no evidence is good enough. In that situation, I believe it is most important to keep the dialog open, and to find some thing or things that we can agree upon. Such a process is very slow, but I try to always remain optimistic.

source

Donkeys protect German sheep from #wolves

German farmers have come up with a novel way to stop wolves attacking their sheep. They are using donkeys to stand guard and scare off the predators.

AAP

31 Mar 2015 

A farmer in Germany is planning to use donkeys to protect his sheep from wolf attacks. "Unlike the sheep, the donkey has no flight behaviour. It faces the predator and attempts to drive it away, first with noise and then with kicks," Tino Barth from Twistringen in Lower Saxony told dpa.

Barth has recently bought three donkeys to protect his 200 sheep. He says the donkeys can protect sheep from attacks by wolves, dogs or lynxes. "The screeches that a donkey in danger makes are frightening," he says.

The animals are integrated with the sheep and help to keep the flock together, preventing the running away that further incites the wolves to attack. Many German sheep farmers have already bought donkeys to protect their flocks.

The growing number of wolves in Germany is a problem for farmers with estimates there are around 200 animals in 25 packs. The numbers have almost doubled in the last two years. Young males in particular roam widely and prey on sheep.

source

Denali buffer is about protecting #wolves we can see, song we can hear

Commentary

By Vic Van Ballenberghe

March 30, 2015

 

OPINION: More wolves would be nice, but the real purpose of Denali buffer zone is to maintain packs that people can actually see and hear. Pictured: A wolf in Denali National Park. Kevin Powell

Like many who oppose protecting Denali National Park’s wolves, Pete Buist misrepresents those who support protection (ADN, March 30). He argues that proponents want to increase wolf numbers in and near the park, but the real issue is preserving the opportunity to see and hear wolves.

Wolf viewing success at Denali declined from 44 percent to 4 percent following repeal of wolf protection regulations in 2010. After the repeal, trapping wolves just outside the park’s boundary reduced and fragmented the packs most often viewed by park visitors. Wolves are now rarely seen or heard and this will likely continue absent adequate protection. More wolves would be nice but will not suffice as long as those who leave the park are killed.

The problem centers around the fact that wolves born in the park and living there most of the year occasionally venture outside the park in winter. These are the same wolves that park visitors see on and near the park road. Some wolves learn that humans in the park are no threat, a fatal flaw as they venture outside and encounter hunters and trappers at the boundary.

I have been involved in this issue for the last 15 years, both as a Game Board member and as a person who has been in the park every year for extended periods over the last 35 years. The decline in wolf sightings after 2010 came as no surprise. Similar declines occurred in previous years after hunting and trapping losses reduced or eliminated key wolf packs. The Game Board reacted by establishing two small no-take buffers just outside the park. The buffers helped but were too small to completely solve the problem.

In 2010, proposals by conservation groups and the National Park Service were submitted to the Game Board to moderately expand the buffers based on the best science available. Despite overwhelming public support, the board not only rejected the proposals -- it rescinded the existing buffers and placed a six-year moratorium on similar proposals. Over the past five years as wolves were killed and sightings plummeted, several requests for emergency action and petitions were submitted to the Fish and Game commissioner and the board. These were all denied thereby likely allowing additional hunting and trapping losses further reducing wolf viewing in the park.

My own experiences in the park from 1980 to the present highlight changes in wolf viewing over time. As a biologist I know that wolf numbers vary in response to prey numbers and winter conditions, but when hunting and trapping take a heavy toll on wolves, packs may disappear. It is true that new packs form to replace them but often it takes time for them to be viewable. I’ve witnessed several cycles of packs coming and going in response to trapping. But the most viewable packs were those that avoided trappers and remained stable for several years. This requires protection by establishing buffers on land adjacent to the park.

The wolves of Denali National Park are well known both by Alaskans and by those Outside. When the buffers were intact, Denali was perhaps the only place along Alaska’s road system where wolves could reliably be seen or heard. What about the Denali, Taylor, Steese, Sterling, Richardson or Glenn highways? Wolf control programs and hunting and trapping reduced wolves in these areas to very low numbers and made them too wary to observe.

Is it asking too much to provide protection for a very small number of wolves so that a very large number of people can view an iconic wild predator? Does Alaska deserve a reputation as only supporting hunting, trapping and wolf reduction programs while ignoring those who wish to preserve one place where wolves can be reliably seen? If not, the Game Board must abandon its steadfast opposition and re-establish the buffers. I contend that most people think it’s the right thing to do.

Vic Van Ballenberghe lives in Anchorage and has researched wolves and moose in Alaska since 1974. He is a former Game Board member.

source 

7 Reasons to End #Wolf Hunting near #Yellowstone National Park

I found this list on the Campaign for Yellowstone's Wolves' page on Facebook and it is so good that it deserves a much wider audience. Folks, this list makes sense and I recommend that you pass it on to others. We must keep the necessity, the essential need for wolves, constantly in the minds of everyone. If we fail in this task, then we stand to lose our most precious natural resource-our wolves.

 

Keep up the good fight and howl on!

 

Lin 

Campaign for Yellowstone's Wolves

 

7 REASONS TO END WOLF HUNTING NEAR YELLOWSTONE NAT'L PARK (and 7 Refuted Reasons Not To)

1. People Do Not Want Park Wolves Hunted. They are a national treasure cherished by countless Americans and people all over the world. Park wolves are accustomed to being watched and admired, and should not be shot or trapped as “trophies” when they happen to cross the park boundary.

2. Yellowstone Wolves Are Very Special. Growing numbers of people follow and script the lives of park wolves, often from one wolf generation to the next, by frequenting the park or through the popular media. Many “wolf watchers” have formed emotional and spiritual bonds with park wolves. Free from exploitation, Yellowstone wolves are “ambassadors” for wild nature and compassionate civilization. And they are helping create a new generation of citizen naturalists!

3. Wolf Hunting’s Tragic Outcomes. Hunting disrupts natural wolf behavior and presence, may destabilize or eliminate wolf families and lineages, can impede transfer of adaptive genetic and cultural information between generations, and may impact wolf viewing. Hunting and general “control” of wolves near Yellowstone Nat’l Park may also, by altering wolf society and demography, increase wolf depredation on livestock. These practices also risk suppressing ecological benefits that wolves provide for plant life, songbirds, and other wildlife, including elk and other wolf prey.

4. It’s Also About Economics. Yellowstone wolf watching is an important economic asset that is surging in popularity. It should not be jeopardized by wolf hunting and trapping around the park. In 2005, visitor spending due exclusively to wolf presence in Yellowstone Park was estimated at $35.5 million. Since then, wolf watching in Yellowstone has become ever so more popular.

5. Government Policies Have Failed To Protect Park Wolves. Trophy hunting of wolves near the park has already eliminated at least 27 park wolves, including some of the park’s most popular. The situation will worsen if wolves are entirely removed from the national endangered species list. State wolf hunting “quotas” near the park afford park wolves little protection.

6. It’s About Democracy Too! Yellowstone Park is surrounded by national forests that belong to all Americans. Citizens who favor protecting wolves or want wildlife populations shaped by natural factors rather than by human impacts have every right to have some national forest lands free of wildlife exploitation.

7. Yellowstone Park Is No Island. The national park goal of conserving wildlife in a natural, unimpaired state for the benefit of people can be achieved only if wide-ranging park wildlife like wolves have “breathing room next door” that is free from habitat destruction, hunting, and trapping. It’s time for genuine “ecosystem management” by giving our park wildlife a break!

Ok, now for the arguments often heard in favor of wolf hunting near Yellowstone Park, with our response (OR):

1. Some hunters and trappers want to harvest wolves right to the park boundary. OR: Yellowstone Park does not raise wolves to be “harvested” for the benefit of so few to the detriment of so many.

2. Local elk herds are being decimated by wolves – it’s bad for hunters, bad for the elk. OR: The truth is that elk hunters, before wolf reintroduction, grew accustomed to having inflated numbers of elk that were considered by many experts to be damaging range and occurring in unhealthy, unnatural concentrations. Wolves have changed that dynamic for the better, while there remain plenty of opportunities for elk hunting.

3. Outfitters will lose out if wolves are off limits to hunting near the Park. OR: Outfitters may benefit by instead offering quality wolf-watching and tracking experiences in authentic wild country near Yellowstone Park. Elsewhere, state game agencies will no doubt offer lots of wolf hunting opportunities and, as current trends suggest, far more than hunters want.

4. There’ll be more livestock depredation by wolves without wolf trophy hunting near the Park. OR: In fact, the reverse may be true. A recent scientific study suggests that wolf killing in general actually increases predation on livestock. Wolf packs that are fragmented by hunting or trapping can produce more breeding pairs and younger wolves more likely to get into trouble.

5. The States should manage wolves as they see fit. OR: This shallow argument simply defends the status quo. The States surrounding Yellowstone have thus far insisted on wolf hunts near the Park despite it being bad policy not in the public interest.

6. A modest harvest of park wolves won’t harm the Yellowstone wolf population. OR: Unfortunately, this is the position of Park Service higher-ups. Overly focused on “the numbers,” it ignores the impact that trophy hunting has on wolf behavior and social organization as well as other potentially harmful biological consequences. And it dismisses the public's interest in safeguarding the natural lives of individual park wolves and wolf families.

7. If a protective area or buffer zone for wolves is created around the park, it will lead to another buffer zone and then yet another. OR: This argument misconstrues the concept of a “buffer zone,” namely to protect wolves that live a substantial part of their lives in Yellowstone National Park.

Source:

Campaign for Yellowstone's Wolves

Please like their page and follow them for updates!!! Many thanks to these good folks for their hard work and such a fantastic post!

Violation of the Endangered Species Act - #wolf shot in Brandenburg, Germany

Another shot wolf has been found in Brandenburg. It is the third animal killed within a few months. LKA investigators now assume the deed was rooted in hatred for wolves. The wolf carcass will now be autopsied. Ammunition traces could give clues as to the perpetrators.

Walkers discovered the animal's body on Sunday in a forest near Schoenewalde (Elbe-Elster). The police announced on Monday that the wolf, unlike the other two cases, did not have a separated head. "We are investigating," said a police spokeswoman. The dead animal will be autopsied.

Background

Since 2000, nearly 500 animals have been killed by wild wolves in Brandenburg. Most recently, 15 deer were killed in Brandenburg. For farmers, the wolves are a nuisance - Conservationists insist, however, on the protection of wolves.

LKA already determined in two previous cases

According to previous investigations, the wolf was not shot where he was discovered. The Landesjagdverband condemned the act. Back in December a shot and decapitated a wolf had been discovered at Hirschberg in the same district on the border of Saxony. Before this time, an incident had occurred in August at love Rose (Dahme-Spreewald). All three cases are under investigation for violating the Endangered Species Act.

14 packs of wolves in Brandenburg

The third case appears to not be connected to the two previous ones, said the Police Bureau in Potsdam. Authorities have completed their investigations into the prior two decapitated wolves and have handed the case over to prosecutor Cottbus. The past secured ammunition tracks will now be compared with those new tracks. About 14 packs of wolves live in Brandenburg, especially in the south. Additionally, there are a number of individual wolves in the same location, according to the Environmental Agency.

source 

#Wolf of the Day

  Wolves at Wolf Park IN by Max Goldberg   

Lab expansion sought for International #Wolf Center

Submitted by admin on Fri, 03/27/2015

 

EXPLAINING THE NEED for the International Wolf Center’s lab expansion last Saturday were Wolf Curator Lori Schmidt and Veterinarian Dr. Chip Hanson.

Article and photo by Pam Roberts

The International Wolf Center hosted a fund raiser March 21 for expansion of the Wolf Lab before the 2016 pups arrive. The Wolf Lab expansion would enable more freedom to move the wolves and the puppies from the outside into the lab kennels, a more protected space. The fund raiser featured music, silent auction, kids games and special speakers: Lori Schmidt, Wolf Curator, and Dr. Chip Hanson who has been the veterinarian of choice since his beginnings in Ely. Schmidt and Hanson teamed up to share some of their experiences over 26 years of working with wolves as they move forward to this next phase. The event was well attended and hopefully by 2016 the new lab area will be even more conducive to animal management.

Wolves are not bred at the IWC for several reasons. Open since 1989 that would have created a lot of captive wolves. Wolves born in captivity stay in captivity 10 to 15 years because there is no release program.

When the center wants new pups they are acquired from a license facility and that process is started a year in advance. They look at veterinary records, parent health and all kinds of things and also need a back up plan in case something doesn’t work out.

Tentatively they are looking at some Arctic stock. They haven’t had Arctic wolves since July of 2014 when they lost their 14 year old Arctic wolf Shadow. It’s been a while since they’ve had three subspecies. And that’s another reason for not breeding, so the species don’t mix as they would not intermix in the wild.

source

El Lobo's Uncertain Future

Cristina Eisenberg  Ecologist, Author 
Posted: 03/26/2015

Lobo Week, March 23-30, 2015, marks the 17th anniversary of the Mexican gray wolf's return to the wild. However, this wolf subspecies' tortuous recovery journey actually began over 40 years ago, when the 1973 Endangered Species Act inspired Americans to build an ark. One of the first creatures we welcomed onto our ark was the gray wolf. But arks and best-laid plans sometimes don't work as intended.

In 1977, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) contracted Roy McBride to capture wild Mexican wolves in Mexico to begin a breeding program for this nearly extinct subspecies of gray wolf. Ironically, McBride, who for years had lethally trapped wolves, now applied his considerable skills to wolf conservation. In three years he caught five animals. Just in the nick of time, too, because by the early 1980s the Mexican gray wolf had gone completely extinct in the wild.

Mexican Gray Wolf, California Wolf Center. Photo by Cristina Eisenberg
In 1990, USFWS hired David Parsons to lead the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program. Parsons augmented McBride's five wolves with two certified pure Mexican gray wolves from captive populations in New Mexico and Mexico. The USFWS then designated the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which straddled Arizona and New Mexico, where these wolves would be released. It totaled 7,000 square miles of national forest lands and contained a primary recovery area nested within a broader secondary recovery area.

Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. Photo by Cristina Eisenberg
Due to politics and resistance, it would take a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity to spur the 1998 USFWS release of eleven captive-bred Mexican wolves into the Blue Range. Since then, an influx of captive-bred wolves has bolstered this population. Today fifty licensed centers breed wolves for this federal program. Top facilities include the Wolf Conservation Center in New York, the California Wolf Center, and the Turner Endangered Species Fund's Ladder Ranch in New Mexico.

Mexican Gray Wolf, California Wolf Center. Photo by Cristina Eisenberg.
By 2014, only 83 Mexican gray wolves survived in the wild. This population struggled due to poaching and legal killing by the federal government for livestock depredation. Conservation biologist Paul Paquet and others concluded that it faced a very uncertain future without key management reforms.

To learn more about lobo recovery, I spent a crisp autumn day afield with educator and filmmaker Elke Duerr in the New Mexican portion of the Blue Range. To get there we travelled south through El Malpais National Monument into Catron County. This economically strapped county provides a home to 3,500 people, 12,000 elk, lots of cattle, a smattering of wolves and some of the most virulent wolf hatred in the West. The Gila National Forest makes up a large chunk of the county. Wolves gravitate to the beautiful mixed open meadows and woodlands here, and so did we -- to track these elusive carnivores.

Gila National Forest. Photo by Cristina Eisenberg
We entered the forest on foot, following a narrow stream. Cattle sign far outnumbered other animal sign. The cattle had trampled the riparian vegetation, causing the barren stream banks to erode. We spotted coyote, elk, and deer tracks. In a clearing next to the stream, we found a wolf-killed elk carcass. Its femurs had been bitten in two, the marrow sucked out -- evidence of wolves, because in this area only they have carnassial teeth big enough to bite an elk femur in half. This carcass gave us hope.

Back on the highway, we continued south to Apache Creek where we stopped for gas and some big lessons about wolf recovery. Across the street from the gas station stood a billboard emblazoned with a lurid photograph of a dead calf, and another of a dead horse. Both had had their bellies torn open. The billboard caption read, "Beware, Wolves Nearby! Keep Kids and Pets Close!" This community even had installed cages for kids, to keep them safe from wolves as they waited for the school bus.


Catron County Billboard. Photo by Cristina Eisenberg
I found this entrenched wolf hatred irrational and sobering. Irrational because wolf depredation accounted for a minor amount of total livestock losses, and no wild wolf had ever killed a human in the U.S. Sobering because these fears were rooted in something very difficult to change: people's worldviews.

In this impoverished county, people despise the federal government. They've turned the wolf into a scapegoat for what they fear most: government control over what they can and can't do on their land. They fear being forced off public land, where some families have held grazing leases for several generations.

The Apache Creek billboard depicted the powerful clash between the old and new West. Unlike the old West, in which the only good varmint was a dead one, a growing number of living wolves populates the new West. People in places like Catron County are desperately trying to hold onto the mythical West and all its lawlessness, unfettered human freedom, and shoot-shovel-and-shut-up ways of dealing with wolves.

Defenders of Wildlife has made commendable inroads in reducing conflicts between wolves and livestock here. Depredation prevention measures include range riders, fladry, alternative pastures, and community calving. However, old ways die hard. Some ranchers have accepted this help -- but others have refused.

When I asked Duerr what would increase social acceptance of wolves, she said, "Educating the next generation is our best hope." To that end, she and those involved in Mexican wolf conservation, particularly federally licensed captive-breeding centers, have developed outstanding education programs.

Other recovery tools include the 2015 USFWS Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule. It increases ten-fold the area where wolves can be released and raises the recovery goal to 300-325 individuals. Yet experts call this insufficient. In the meantime, el lobo continues to face an uncertain future.
_____ Learn more about the importance of wildlife corridors by reading The Carnivore Way: Coexisting with and Conserving North America's Predators, by Dr. Cristina Eisenberg. Learn more about large carnivore conservation by joining Cristina afield on her Earthwatch expedition, Tracking Fire and Wolves through the Canadian Rockies.

source 

#Wolf advocates fight prejudice as predators return

As wolves return to Germany and Europe, the top predators continue to get a bad rap. Although efforts are underway to improve their image, these come up against deeply ingrained prejudices.

Once upon a time, the forests of Germany were thick with wolves. For hundreds of years, the wild canines lived on the fringes of human civilization, feasting on sheep and goats whenever a herder's lapse in concentration allowed.

But with humans depending on the livestock the wolves stole, they waged a battle against their fanged foes - and won, through methodical extermination of the species. Then, for a century and a half, the only wolves in Germany were mythical creatures on the pages of storybooks.

But thanks to extensive conservation measures, for the past 15 years wolves have been padding back across the Polish border into eastern Germany. And as a threatened species that enjoys legal protection in Germany, the wolf looks set to stay. But the return of the wolf has raised safety concerns among the German population. The fact is, wolves do not have a good reputation.

Unfairly so, according to Markus Bathen, a forest ranger, hunter and wolf specialist with NABU (Nature And Biodiversity Conservation Union). "Talking about them helps prevent prejudice," he said. He believes articles about "the big bad wolf," and discussions and debates about "wolf-free zones" - as occur in the German public discussion on wolves - fuel an existing tendency toward hysteria over human relations with this top predator.

Bathen fights against anti-wolf prejudices with information

Even in regions where Canis lupus has yet to make an appearance, sheep farmers and goat herders are legally entitled to subsidies - so long as they put up electric fences and train protection dogs. That makes them eligible for compensation for losses caused by wolves.

Crying wolf

Markus Bathen, who also gives lectures and advises state governments on wolf management, has counted 35 wolves so far. But he expects the number to increase - and for the species to continue ranging further west. "They clearly find plenty of ideal habitat," he told DW.

Yet for all that, the chances of coming face to face with a wolf are much slighter than divisive headlines might have one believe. As wild animals, wolves are shy and tend to flee from, rather than seek out, humans. Bathen has only actually seen two animals in 12 years - not for want of trying.

He regularly follows their tracks, though, which he describes as an exciting way to gain deeper insight into their behavior. "It's impressive, like reading a diary," he says as he recounts tracking a several-hundred-meter hunt for a stag on sandy ground.

Dogs effectively protect sheep from wolves

Bathen says any human effort to keep wolves out of Germany would be akin to slipping back into the Middle Ages, when all animals were classified as either good or bad - the latter including those that posed any threat to human survival.

Granted, the relationship remains ambivalent. If given the chance, wolves would still snatch sheep from their pens. But Bathen emphasizes how important it is to establish an intellectual and prejudice-free approach to the discussion.

Respecting what's wild and free - also in captivity

Tanja Askani has been singing praise for wolves since she first held wolf puppies in her arms, back in 1992. Their mother had died after giving birth, so she stepped into the breach. Since then she has hand-reared several packs - which she said has helped her to understand their needs and habits. "Wolves are wild animals, with a natural shyness and sense of freedom - they don't need people around them," Askani said. "As they approach maturity, they peel away from their parents and siblings."

Wolves go in search of new hunting grounds and mates, roaming far and wide. As such, they could scatter across Germany in years to come. That implies an even greater need to dispel the myths that surround them.

Askani: wild wolves are not to be cuddled

And Askani believes the animals she cares for are helping to do just that. Having being reared by humans, they are unfit for life in the wild, and therefore remain in captivity.

From the earliest possible moment, they hear children screaming and see groups of people peering at them through the fence. And they provide the public with an invaluable opportunity to see them up close. "It's about letting people getting to know these unknown and highly intelligent creatures from a different perspective," Askani said, adding that wolves can never be ruled or dominated by humans in the way dogs can.

With that in mind, she tells her visitors to remain at a respectful distance and to treat the animals "like strangers."

source

NWF might back congressional bid to delist Great Lakes #wolf

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

Greenwire: Wednesday, March 25, 2015

The National Wildlife Federation might support legislation in Congress to delist the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes.

The organization's state affiliates will vote this weekend on a resolution supporting a "narrow fix" to a federal judge's decision last December to restore federal protections for wolves in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

The resolution, if adopted, would mark a policy shift at one of the nation's oldest and largest conservation organizations and has drawn some criticism from environmentalists outside NWF. "Although the National Wildlife Federation has historically opposed such congressional intervention in agency decision-making and judicial review, these are exceptional circumstances, and without congressional intervention the letter and spirit of the Endangered Species Act regarding gray wolf recovery would be permanently thwarted by the courts," the resolution states.

It is one of nine resolutions to be considered at NWF's annual meeting this weekend in Shepherdstown, W.Va., at the Fish and Wildlife Service's National Conservation Training Center.
NWF resolutions, which are crafted by its 49 state affiliates, "provide the backbone of the conservation work of NWF" and state the organization's positions on conservation issues, according to an information packet on the meeting.

The wolf resolution, which was submitted by NWF state affiliates Michigan United Conservation Clubs and the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, follows a Dec. 19, 2014, ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn Fish and Wildlife's decision in 2011 to delist the animals.

The Great Lakes delisting, while backed at the time by NWF, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, was "predicated on both an untenable reading of the ESA and otherwise flawed findings," the court found.

The NWF resolution states that gray wolf populations in the three states have exceeded recovery targets by a factor of 10. The iconic predators, if left unchecked, will continue to threaten domestic livestock, it states.

Miles Grant, an NWF spokesman, said resolutions are typically "vigorously debated, sometimes modified, and it's not at all certain yet whether any given resolution will pass or fail."

"As a federation, our affiliates are in control of this process," he said.

But NWF's national staff has recommended that state delegates endorse the resolution, arguing that the court's decision -- which was the latest in a string of judicial decisions overturning wolf delistings -- is creating "an unnecessary but fierce backlash" against the Endangered Species Act at a time when Republicans in Congress are looking to dismantle the law.

"This situation is bad for wolves, people and the Endangered Species Act and is precluding sound management by professional wildlife managers," NWF staff wrote.

"In this exceptional case, NWF supports this resolution calling for a very narrow legislative measure that restores the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's delisting decision in the Great Lakes. Such legislation would be supporting science, scientists and the agency decision -- not playing politics with them."

Contentious issue

Yet the resolution has stirred opposition from some wildlife conservationists who feel congressional meddling in ESA issues is a slippery slope. Some wildlife groups are still seething over Congress' decision in 2011 to legislatively overturn a judge's decision to reinstate protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho.

"We're hoping that NWF does not support the resolution," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Congress again stepping in and legislatively removing protections for Great Lakes wolves is also a disaster for the Endangered Species Act, whereby every time a species becomes inconvenient to special interests, Congress meddles in what should be a scientific decision."

Greenwald said gray wolves inhabit less than 10 percent of their historical range and face continued persecution in Wisconsin, which wants to cut its population by half. They have yet to fully recover, he said.

NWF and federal and state wildlife agencies disagree.

In late February, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin, and Michigan notified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit of their plans to appeal the district court ruling, according to the Associated Press. Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC), the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International and the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association also have filed notices of appeal, AP reported.

MUCC in mid-February announced that it supports H.R. 884, a bill by Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) that would reinstate FWS delisting rules in the Great Lakes and in Wyoming, where the district court last August invalidated a separate Fish and Wildlife delisting plan.

"Their continued presence on the Endangered Species list, under any designation, makes a mockery of the Endangered Species Act and jeopardizes its integrity to be used for truly endangered species," said a statement last month by Dan Eichinger, MUCC's executive director.

The proposed NWF resolution does not mention Wyoming wolves and does not endorse any particular bill.

But it follows NWF CEO Collin O'Mara's push to return the 79-year-old organization to its hook-and-bullet base, even as it continues to advocate for members including bird lovers and gardeners. O'Mara has trimmed NWF's Washington staff while empowering its field offices and 49 state affiliates (Greenwire, March 3).

NWF delegates this weekend will also consider a resolution urging Congress and the Obama administration to "clarify" ESA to "ensure that there is a clear, durable and enduring process for delisting once the species reaches its recovery goals and adequate management plans are in place to continue the conservation of the species."

Another resolution would support efforts at the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to keep domestic sheep away from bighorn sheep to minimize the likelihood that domestic herds will infect their wild kin with a pneumonia-like disease that has wiped out many bighorns.

source

MN town hall meeting set on livestock losses due to #wolves, birds, weather

By Brainerd Dispatch on Mar 25, 2015 

 

ST. PAUL - The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) will host a series of town hall meetings in northern Minnesota to explain state and federal programs focusing on livestock losses due to wolves, birds of prey, and weather.

The MDA offers a wolf depredation program that compensates farmers and ranchers for livestock losses due to wolves. Recently, the program funds were depleted because of an increase in claims. Gov. Mark Dayton's budget proposal seeks to double the funds available to producers.

The FSA's Livestock Indemnity Program, a new program funded through the 2014 Federal Farm Bill, compensates producers for livestock losses due to weather, wolves and avian predators.

Presenters will explain, compare, and contrast the state and federal livestock loss programs. Attendees will be given information on the record-keeping expectations and claims processes for the two programs.

Scheduled to be at the program are: Assistant Commissioner Charlie Poster, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, representatives from the MDA Wolf Depredation Program, representatives from the FSA, representatives from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, representatives from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

In the region, there will be a program from 1 — 2 p.m. April 3 at the Aitkin Public Library Community Room, 110 First Ave. NE, Aitkin.


source

Does Alaska want more #wolves? Well, do the math.

Pete Buist

March 29, 2015

Denali NPS Twitter feed

Recently the Alaska Board of Game voted to turn down an emergency petition that would have closed many acres of state and private land outside Denali Park to the taking of wolves. Denying the petition was inevitable, since the request did not meet the statutory definition of “emergency.” But it is interesting to consider what the real reasons might be for the support for the petition by the anti-hunting/trapping group that submitted it and members of the public who supported it.

No one disputes that the wolf population in Denali Park has plummeted in the last few years. The reason for the low numbers of wolves probably is not clear but one thing is for sure: It is not logical or fair to blame hunting and trapping in or near the “hard park” portions of Denali.

The National Park Service appeared to be neutral regarding the petition. At times, even the petitioners admit that hunting and trapping are not responsible for the low numbers of wolves in the park. Park Service research states clearly that human harvest of wolves is low and infrequent near the boundaries. Ironically, the most robust, viable and healthy wolf packs in the park are at the northeast corner, exactly where the petition sought to restrict harvest on lands adjacent to the park.

Further, Park Service scientists have documented wolf losses appearing to be related to starvation in the northwest part of the park. They believe that this correlates to low prey populations and unfavorable hunting conditions for wolves in recent years. This is very reasonable.

There were many public comments supporting the petition. I read both the petition and the supporting comments, and was struck by a couple things.

First, the general public is abysmally ignorant about wolf biology, wolf behavior and wolf management programs. Virtually all the public support for the petition was from outside of Alaska and based on emotional arguments that have little to do with the real world of wolves in and around Denali Park. Here are some shining examples from the Record Comments submitted to the Board of Game:

“Please protect our wolves in Yellow Stone National park.”

“The wolves will always cross over into the higher dimension frequencies. It is the human that murders and gloats, that will stay in the lower realms after they die.”

“Please save the wolves; they are vital to the echo system …”

“Killing these wolves will result in the catastrophic collapse of our own ecosystem and the subsequent extinction of all living things existing anywhere.”

“Without the wolves to help manage the caribou their population will become overwhelming and they strip the land of vegetation which can lead to mud slides and other problems …”

As for the petitioners, I’m left thinking that this campaign was more a way to raise money than to actually benefit wolves. It was anti-hunting and -trapping, NOT pro-wolf. One has only to observe areas near the park and similarly situated to see this clearly demonstrated.

Denali Park is 6 million acres. According to the Park Service, the number of wolves fell from 143 in 2007 to 50 wolves by 2014.

Just to the east lies Game Management Unit 20A. This smaller area (4.2 million acres) is mostly state land. It is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. GMU 20A features one of the most productive moose hunting areas in the entire state. It supports 10,000 moose and in the neighborhood of 300 wolves. Humans harvest several hundred moose each fall in the unit and wolves take about another 2,000 moose. As in most of Alaska, the take by predators is far higher than the human take, a fact conveniently ignored by most wolf supporters.

Virtually every biologist, trapper, hunter and bush resident knows that wolf populations reflect the availability of their prey. When prey is abundant, wolves flourish. When prey populations are low, wolf populations become low.

So it’s clear that folks who honestly want to see more wolves should not be wasting their time petitioning to close lands adjacent to the park to harvest. Instead they should be supporting more intensive ADFG management on these lands.

What management regime is more “pro-wolf?” The one that results in 50 wolves on 6 million acres? Or the one that results in a robust 300 wolves on 4.2 million acres that also produces thousands of pounds of moose meat for Alaska families?

Pete Buist of Fairbanks is retired from the Alaska Division of Forestry. He is a past member of the Alaska Board of Game. He holds degrees in biology and forestry from the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Syracuse University.

source 

Timber #Wolf Alliance returns home

The Timber Wolf Alliance returned north to Northland College in Ashland after a seven-year tenure at The Discovery Center in Manitowish Waters, Wis. 

 

By Jamey Malcomb 
Today 
 

After a seven-year tenure at the North Lakeland Discovery Center in Manitowish Waters, Wis., the Timber Wolf Alliance is in the process of returning north to Northland College. "We birthed this program and handed it off during a period when we couldn't sustain it, but now it makes sense to bring it back," said assistant professor of natural resources Erik Olson, who sits on the TWA board and will provide faculty support to the programs.

Northland College started TWA in 1987 as a way to educate citizens about the wolf recovery plan in Wisconsin. In 2008, the Discovery Center offered to house the program — an offer Northland accepted. "As a small nonprofit nature center in northern Wisconsin, the North Lakeland Discovery Center is very proud to have fulfilled the role of host organization for the Timber Wolf Alliance," executive director Azael Meza said.

From early 2008 through 2014, the Discovery Center provided a home for TWA board meetings, delivered outreach educational programs and events, managed memberships and directed fundraising efforts, such as the Wolf Awareness Week poster. "But as the vision for the Alliance expands from a regional focus to the national arena, we are delighted to work with the Northland College Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute and the TWA board, to ensure a smooth transfer that is mutually beneficial," Meza said.

The belief is that Northland will provide TWA with fertile academic ground, additional resources and dedicated leadership that will help it flourish. Olson will provide faculty support to the TWA program by assisting with the development of Wolf Awareness Week activities and by organizing three one-credit courses that align with the TWA mission — Wolf Ecology and Management, Furbearer Ecology and Management and Carnivore Tracking — available next year to both students and the public.

Olson is also teaching an upper level course titled Wolf Ecology, Management and Research. This year students in that course completed a survey of local attitudes regarding various wolf management strategies.

Leadership will also come from Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute executive director Mark Peterson who is shepherding the move. "As a society, we have a long way to go in finding common ground that benefits humans and predators like wolves," Peterson said. "My hope is that with the science and research of our faculty combined with our outreach efforts, we will not only educate the public, but help resolve conflicts."


Submitted by Julie Buckles
source 

#Wolf of the Day

    Wolves at Wolf Park IN by Max Goldberg     

#Wolf of the Day

  Portrait by Kataaku     

#Wolf Totem animal trainer sees risks for Hollywood in China

By Mary Hennock

27.03.2015

Hollywood’s thirst to reach Chinese audiences could eventually force better treatment of animals on Chinese film-sets, says Andrew Simpson, wolf-trainer on made-in-China blockbuster Wolf Totem

Simpson raised three litters of wolves to work on the film as only newborns are trainable  (Image：Instinct Animals for Films)

Wolf trainer Andrew Simpson has just wrapped up three years in Beijing coaching wolves to perform in the film version of novel Wolf Totem (狼图腾). The Sino-French adaptation of the Jiang Rong’s best-selling 2004 novel opened in Beijing and Europe in February.

Wolf Totem’s release has coincided with a social media outcry about the treatment of animals in Chinese film and TV, sparked by Hunan TV’s  show “Wonderful Friends” in which celebrities intern as zoo keepers, dress up baby chimpanzees, and take them shopping.  

 

Activists want “Wonderful Friends” banned as cruel and misleading, and it has been widely criticized on social media.

 

Simpson checked China’s rules on filming with animals before he started and found none. In three years, he says the crew did not receive one single vet’s inspection or any regulatory checks from Chinese officials.

 

“There is no restriction to filming with animals, which is sad,” he said by phone from his home in Canada.

 

“The only governing body on the set was myself,” he added.

 

Public pressure

However, he predicts changes will come, because Hollywood’s eagerness to make co-productions with Chinese studios risks drawing international campaigners’ attention to any instance of bad practice. The US film industry’s humane standards and regulations only emerged through public pressure, he points out.

 

“A lot of stuff that went on in Hollywood in the 50’s and 60’s wasn’t ethical at all,” he says.  The current regime of US Department of Agriculture inspections to ensure animals have food, shade, and clean conditions exists because of public opinion.

Chinese film-goers provide Hollywood with its biggest box-office takings outside North America, even though foreign imports are limited to 20 films a year. Co-productions offer a way round the restrictions. Wolf Totem was produced by China Film Group Corporation, one of China’s biggest.

 

“It’s only a matter of time before the animal side of it gets more and more attention,” he said.

Protests are already gathering momentum. Encouragingly, a growing Chinese lobby against animal cruelty is already pushing international organisations to object, rather than the other way round.

Animal welfare movement grows

On March 17, Chinese activists persuaded 19 primate conservation groups to issue a joint statement expressing “deep concern” over “Wonderful Friends” for “promoting close and unnatural contact” between people and zoo animals.

The 19 groups included the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), and the American Humane Society, which promotes the tag line “No animals were harmed,” an essential disclaimer in Hollywood.

In a separate statement, WAZA said it was “shocked and disappointed” at the portrayal of apes as cute pets, and reprimanded singer Li Yuchun for taking part as she has campaigned for WWF.

Simpson’s own experience was that though film sets are unregulated, the zoos that supplied wolf cubs did enforce controls: “We had a lot of paperwork we had to do to keep our wolves.”

Wild wolves are untamable, so he and partner Sally Jo Susa raised three litters of zoo-born cubs in his Beijing apartment, even sleeping alongside them so they would be comfortable around people on the film set.

Living with newborn cubs is essential for bonding: “We had them literally 24 hours a day for the first three months – you eat with them, you sleep with them, you’re down on the floor with them,” he says.

Other residents were startled to see wolf cubs gamboling next to roller-skating toddlers. “When they started to grow, we realized,” says Helen Wing, a resident at the time. “They were puppies who happened to be wolves. They were clearly domesticated.”

Simpson is convinced that his wolves were willing film actors as he used only those who readily jumped in the truck each morning, and showed enjoyment on set.

“With a wolf, you can raise it with the best of intentions, but you don’t know what it’s going to be like till it gets into adulthood,” he says, “You can never make a wolf do what it doesn’t want to do.”

He sees “no point” in forcing animals to act: “We had a couple that were nice wolves, they were sweet, but they didn’t want the attention. They just wanted to be wolves; they didn’t want to be movie wolves.”

“They still interact with the pack, they’re still an asset,” he adds.

 

Cruelty to chimps

 

However, there are animals he believes it is inappropriate to use in film, and draws the line at working with great apes and chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees' intelligence and similarity to humans make them popular zoo attractions and movie stars. But chimps have suffered much abuse. A 5-year old chimp has 7 times the strength of a full grown man so their mix of intelligence and strength easily intimidates trainers, who too-readily become “very dominant, very abusive,” explains Simpson.

He considers reality TV shows a worrying format because “everybody’s looking for the next edge,” though he did not wish to comment on “Wonderful Friends” as he is now in Canada and has not seen it.

CGI and animatronic puppets are increasingly replacing real animals on film sets. So will working with live animals come to an end? Unsurprisingly, Simpson thinks there are stories that cannot be told effectively with puppets, and that Wolf Totem was one, as director Jean-Jacques Annaud wanted to make the story “as well as it could be made”. 

The story is driven by the interplay of animal and human intelligence as wolves and herders battle to live off the same flocks. Only the glinting eyes of a real wolf would do. (Remember “An American Werewolf in London”? Its animatronic werewolf was as frightening as a hamster.)

A seasoned elder huntsman teaches Chen to respect the wolf pack’s ferocious strategic intelligence as hunters, drawing out life lessons for his human cub. The young man is so entranced that he secretly steals and raises a wolf cub to learn more about the top predators, perverting his trainer’s key lesson.

There is a lot of gore in Wolf Totem, and Simpson is proud that “98% of everything the audience sees is real” but “done safely”. A traumatic scene in which horses trample the wolves “into a bloody, agonising mess” was done by putting fake blood on the ground mixed with a wolf-friendly scent (such as toothpaste) for them to roll in, then filming close-ups. Fake horses were used in some scenes.

 

Hunan TV’s critics have objected to the fakery of mixing species that would never meet in the wild. Wolf Totem introduces live horses to their predators, so cannot be accused of creating cute deceptions. But it took two months of careful training for both to accept each other enough to shoot chase scenes. “They’ll never be friends,” says Simpson.

Amid lack of regulation, he has heard anecdotal accounts of fireworks being used to make horses run, or animals being drugged, sometimes fatally, to make them sleep.

With a crew of 480 people, Wolf Totem is the biggest animal movie ever made in China. CFG can “hold its head up”, he says. He hopes for further opportunities to be “instrumental in changing how things are done.” 

 

source 

#Wolf harmony is possible

Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2015

KEVIN BROWN/Guest Opinion 

Here is the truth about how wolves were suddenly removed from the Endangered Species List: It was Mike Simpson of Idaho and Jon Tester of Montana who were responsible for the delisting of the gray wolf. They had attached a "poison pill" into a "must pass" bill that was to remove the wolf from the endangered species list indefinitely.

Federal Court Chief Judge Malloy from Montana had stated that the federal government likely violated the law when it removed the gray wolf from the ESL. Wolves are big game animals and are not considered to be fur bearers which are only what trappers are allowed to trap ... that is ... until the "witch hunt" started.

When the wolf was eradicated from Yellowstone National Park in the 1920s, the parks entire ecosystem changed. It had become noticeably anemic. What was discovered (as expressed in the documentary "LORDS OF NATURE" from PBS), was that when the wolf kept deer and elk populations constantly moving and thinned out ... they had healthier deer and elk.

Aspen trees, cottonwood trees, grasses, various frogs, beetles and a variety of bird species (to name a few) began to come back and thrive again. Stream banks weren't being overgrazed anymore so the beaver also thrived. It was clear that the reintroduction of wolves was breathing life back into Yellowstone once again. It began to flourish while restoring this delicate balance.

Many livestock owners in Montana, Washington, Oregon and several other states have now woven the wolf into their livestock operations ... but the biggest wolf success story is what is happening in Minnesota where the wolf is still on the Endangered Species List. The ecology of wolves and their relationships to humans have been more studied in Minnesota than anywhere else in the world.

They have a management plan to ensure the long-term survival of wolves while addressing wolf-human conflicts that result when wolves and people live in the same vicinity. Wolf populations in Minnesota will be allowed to continue to expand with a minimum population goal of 1,600 while it remains 150 in Idaho. The illegal taking of a wolf is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by fines around $3,000 and imprisonment in the county jail up to one year while restitution is up to $2,000. The hunters in Minnesota welcome the wolf and the hunting is "fantastic."

This is a far cry from what Idaho is doing to wolf populations. To say that "the wolf harasses wildlife" is nothing short of an oxymoron statement by anyone who doesn't understand this delicate balance that we so desperately need ... especially after seeing the phenomenal change that took place in Yellowstone.

The fertile smells of life and growth aren't in our forests anymore. The wolf ... also the mountain lions, bobcats, bears and coyotes, etc. ... all play a huge part in this equation. There was a reason why we reintroduced the wolf. We need our predators and we need to start taking notes if for no other reason than for our own survival.

No one appears to be talking about this amongst our elected officials. It is my opinion that they have taken up the charge to reduce wolf populations in the most archaic, outdated, wild-wild west type of approach ... and all of this ... in the face of proven statistics that have shown a more humane and viable way of handling this issue. I feel that taxpayer dollars could go a lot farther if wiser choices were being made that could benefit both livestock owners and wolves.

As far as the livestock industry goes, there is an abundance of help and information available now for ranchers to stand on the shoulders of those who already are using these proven techniques today. They would probably discover that the new methods are cheaper than the "shoot from the hip" mentality that the Wolf Board has chosen to use in this state.

We need to take a deeper and more sensitive look into what all of this means for us down the road for the survival of our own species.

Animals will flourish without humans ... but humans will perish without animals.

Kevin Brown is a Kootenai County resident.

 source