Efforts underway to overturn court decision barring their hunting or trapping
By
Doug Smith
Special to the Star Tribune
November 28, 2015
Wolves
are safe from hunters and trappers now — except federal trappers — but
efforts are underway to change the court decision that prevented a wolf
season this year. Gary Kramer • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via AP
For
the first time in four years, Minnesota’s 2,200 wolves aren’t in the
crosshairs of hunters or trappers. • The state’s fledgling wolf season
was killed last December by a federal court ruling that reinstated canis
lupus to the protection of the endangered species list. • Now
individuals can kill a wolf only in defense of human life, and only
federal trappers can remove or kill wolves causing livestock
depredation. • Hunters and trappers killed 272 wolves last year. • “The
intent of the wolf season was to allow sustainable hunting and
trapping,” said Dan Stark, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
wolf specialist. “We weren’t trying to have an impact on the [wolf]
population or [livestock] depredations.” • Winter severity and
fluctuations of deer numbers have greater impact on wolf numbers than
hunting and trapping, Stark said. • The DNR estimated 2,221 wolves
inhabited Minnesota last winter and 2,423 wolves the winter before, a
statistically insignificant difference.
A
limited wolf hunting and trapping season could return as soon as next
fall if efforts are successful to reverse the court decision, or if
legislation introduced in Congress returns wolves in Minnesota,
Wisconsin and Michigan to management by those states.
The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with Michigan, Wisconsin and
several hunting groups, has appealed the Dec. 19, 2014, wolf ruling by
Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia. Minnesota isn’t a party
to the appeal but supports it.
The
federal government argued in an 85-page brief filed earlier this month
that wolves in the three states aren’t threatened or endangered and
claimed the judge incorrectly interpreted the Endangered Species Act.
In
support, 26 U.S. and Canadian wolf and wildlife experts, including
renowned researcher David Mech of the University of Minnesota, recently
sent a letter to the U.S. Interior secretary and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service director arguing that wolf populations in Minnesota,
Wisconsin and Michigan should be taken off the endangered species list.
More than 3,700 wolves roam the three states.
Michigan had its first wolf hunt in 40 years in 2013,
but this year’s hunt was banned there and elsewhere by court action.
“We
believe that failure to delist wolves in these states is
counterproductive to wolf conservation there and elsewhere where
suitable habitat may exist,” the scientists wrote.
“The
integrity and effectiveness of the [Endangered Species Act] is undercut
if delisting does not happen once science-based recovery has been
achieved.”
Said
Adrian Wydeven, coordinator of the Timber Wolf Alliance in Ashland,
Wis., and the author of 42 papers on wolves: “It is time for wolves in
this region to return to state management and for the Endangered Species
Act to focus funds and resources on truly endangered wildlife.”
Groups sought protection
The Humane Society of the United States, among other groups, filed the wolf-protection lawsuit that is now under appeal.
Supporting
this effort, the Minnesota-based group Howling for Wolves has posted on
its website an open letter from 29 scholars who believe Great Lakes
wolves should remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The
letter questions the adequacy of state wolf management and says wolf
hunting and trapping seasons pose a significant threat to wolf recovery.
“Delisting
is possible, if and when the Fish and Wildlife Service uses the best
available science that justifies delisting,” the letter states.
“Currently it does not.”
A wild card — congressional action — could make the court case moot.
Legislation
has been introduced in Congress to remove Great Lakes wolves from the
endangered species list. Rep. Reid Ribble, R-Wis., is chief author, and
several Minnesota representatives have signed on.
Minnesota
Sen. Amy Klobuchar believes the science and facts support delisting,
according to a spokesperson. She agrees with the federal government’s
decision to appeal the court decision, and will consider supporting
legislation to delist the wolf “if it becomes necessary,” her
spokesperson said.
213 wolves trapped, removed
So
far this year, U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services
trappers have killed 213 wolves in Minnesota. Last year, federal
trappers killed 172 wolves here.
Previously, the state also hired trappers to remove problem wolves.
USDA
Wildlife Services has received 214 complaints this year in Minnesota;
last year, it received 115. Among domestic animals killed by wolves this
year were 66 calves, 17 cows, 12 sheep and 14 dogs.
Just two dogs were reported killed by wolves here in 2014, five in 2013.
Gary
Nohrenberg, Wildlife Services state director, said a lower deer
population combined with a relatively mild winter last year might be
responsible for the increased dog loss.
Wolves tend to thrive when snow is deep, Nohrenberg said, making it more difficult for deer to escape.
“If they’re hungry, they won’t pass up a dog,” Nohrenberg said.
Many of the dog deaths occurred along the North Shore.
The
federal agency ran out of funds for its depredation control program
Nov. 6, and local officials are waiting to see whether additional
funding will be forthcoming.
“We’ll still respond to human safety calls,” Nohrenberg said.
Meanwhile, the DNR will again estimate the wolf population this winter, using radio-collared wolves, Stark said.
People share the northern Wisconsin forests with
wolves. These folksview the wolf from several perspectives: some
fear him, others love him, and still there are those who outright
hate him. Regardless of opinion, the wolf is the most talked about
wild animal in Wisconsin. So how do we all live in these woods with
such a well-known creature?
Dr. Jane Goodall believed in order to save Chimpanzees local people’s
needs must be addressed; she said: ”People living in the forests
surrounding critical chimpanzee habitat are among the poorest on the
planet. Consequently, it is short-sighted to develop solutions for
chimps without addressing the needs of local people. Effective programs
must provide win-win solutions for both chimps and people. Thankfully,
conserving forests benefits both local people as well as chimps and
other fauna (Source: Lessons Learned from Dr. Jane Goodall, by Nancy Merrick).
Dr. Jane Goodall
We can apply these same words to our situation by meeting the needs
of our own locals. Firstly, these needs can be economic. If local
communities rely heavily on hunting to meet their financial needs, then
we need to offer alternatives. Wolf-ecotourism could be that
alternative. Such an endeavor would offer job opportunities to many. But
how does that affect wild wolves? People traipsing all over wolf
habitat in the hope of viewing the elusive wild wolf will likely only
disturb them. Perhaps then, we should arrange for guided tours that are
allowed to go only in certain areas.
Secondly, another way to meet the needs of the local people would be
in providing wolf education and awareness. Living with Wolves and
National Geographic developed a Grey wolf Educator’s Guide for schools.
This guide is about: “The purpose of this guide is to provide educators
of students from kindergarten to high school with activities that will
enrich students’ understanding about the gray wolf of North America. The
activities are intended to dispel common myths and prejudices that are
held about these animals and to encourage youth to get involved in
conservation efforts” (Source:
Grey Wolf Educator Guide, by Living with Wolves and National
Geographic). These guides would benefit local people and wolves. People
would have a new perspective about how beneficial wolves are for
ecosystems.
Living with Wolves
Lastly, helping local people live alongside a large carnivore such as
the wolf requires a way to mitigate conflicts. Wisconsin Department of
Natural resources has a Wildlife Damage Specialist, Brad Koele. ( Click here to watch WODCW’s video interview with Koele ) The
WDNR Wildlife Damage program could be expanded to add citizen liaisons
as volunteers. Volunteers would attend local county board meetings. The
volunteers would take any wolf related concerns back to the WDNR
Wildlife Damage specialist. A volunteer wolf liaison program would give
local people a voice in wolf management.
Solving the needs of the local people is a necessary step to
resolving conflicts that stand in the way of coexisting with wolves.
OR-3, a three-year-old male wolf from the
Imnaha pack, is shown in this image captured from video taken by an
ODFW employee on May 10, 2011, in Wallowa County, Ore. A wolf researcher
says Oregon’s wolf management plan will one day include hunting.
More than two dozen scientists ask U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - again - to take gray wolves off the endangered species list.
Oregon, which removed gray wolves from the state endangered species
list Nov. 9, most likely will eventually allow hunting or trapping of
wolves in order to manage their recovery, a Minnesota expert said.
David
Mech, a University of Minnesota researcher who studies wolves and their
prey, said wolf recovery and management tends to play out the same in
every region, and probably will in Oregon as well.
Wolves are prolific and quickly disperse “far and wide” to new territory, he said.
“When
the states get their (management) jurisdiction back, most states
conclude they need to control the population in some way,” Mech said.
In
Minnesota, the government authorizes hunters and trappers to kill 100
to 200 wolves annually to control depredation on livestock and pets, he
said. Wolves in Minnesota are listed as “threatened” under the federal
ESA rather than endangered.
Mech, pronounced “Meech,” was among 26
scientists who recently signed a letter asking U.S. Interior Secretary
Sally Jewell to take gray wolves off the federal endangered species list
in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin.
The states have a combined
population of more than 3,700 wolves and their numbers are “robust,
stable and self-sustaining,” the scientists said in the letter.
“The
integrity and effectiveness of the ESA is undercut if delisting does
not happen once science-based recovery has been achieved,” the
scientists continued. Failure to do so creates public resentment toward
the species and the Endangered Species Act, they said.
U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has four times moved to delist gray wolves in the
western Great Lakes states but has been “foiled or reversed by
litigation typically based on legal technicalities rather than biology,”
the scientists said.
“It is ironic and discouraging that wolf
delisting has not occurred in the portions of the Midwest where
biological success has been achieved as a consequence of four decades of
dedicated science-based work by wildlife management professionals,”
they said in the letter.
Mech said he’s familiar with Pacific
Northwest wolf issues, including Oregon’s action to take wolves off the
state endangered species list.
He said Oregon’s wolf management
plan — drawn up and approved by a group that included cattle ranchers
and wildlife activists — clearly called for taking wolves off the state
ESA when the population hit a certain level.
“They agreed to those
delisting criteria,” Mech said. “When it was met it was sort of
automatic; that’s really all that happened.”
To oppose state delisting now is “changing the rules in the middle of the game,” Mech said.
Gray
wolves in the eastern third of Oregon and Washington were removed from
federal ESA listing some time ago, but remain on the federal list in the
western two-thirds of the states. Washington retains a state ESA
listing statewide, as Oregon did before Nov. 9.
Idaho wolves were
federally delisted in 2011, and the state allows hunters and trappers to
kill them in season. In 2014-15, hunters and trappers killed 250 wolves
in Idaho. They’ve killed 102 so far in 2015-16.
Mech agreed
healthy deer and elk populations are a buffer between wolves and
increased attacks on livestock. In the letter to Jewell asking for
federal delisting in the Great Lakes states, he and the other scientists
said an uncontrolled wolf population could upset the balance.
“There
are few, if any, areas in these or surrounding states where wolves
could live on natural prey without exceeding socially tolerable levels
of depredation on livestock and pets,” the scientists said.
“There’s
no reason to think wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan or Minnesota, or in
those states combined, are threatened or in danger of extinction,” Mech
said.
FWP
will hold two wolf trapping classes next month, but the certificates
they give out could soon be useless. Controversy over trapping practices
has opponents pushing for a ballot initiative that would ban the
practice for commercial and recreational trapping.
Officials
here at FWP say the classes only run about four hours. In the class
students learn trapping techniques and history, but most importantly FWP
officials say the classes teach ethical trapping practices. While the
class is required for anyone who wants to trap wolves in Montana--
opponents of trapping say a class is not enough.
As
these wolves run through the woods this winter they face a threat from
not only hunters, but also trappers. Montana lawmakers legalized wolf
trapping back in 2012 to better control the growing population.
"From a standpoint of managing the population it has helped," said Howard Burt, FWP Wildlife Manager.
FWP
reports since trapping was implemented, population numbers are
beginning to plateau, helping to solve problems of livestock loss and
wildlife herd depletion. But before anyone can begin trapping wolves,
they must first take an FWP class to get certified.
"Typically
it's intended to teach a lot of ethics. Some history about wild biology
and then a little basic trapping techniques, and those type of things,"
said Burt.
Opponents of trapping say a class is simply not enough.
"We're
opposed to trapping in general. Honestly there is no such thing as wolf
trapping. Which is part of the whole problem. It's indiscriminate,"
said K.C. York with Trap Free Montana Public Lands.
Opponents
say a trap can catch a variety of animals aside from its intended
targets, leaving many animals to suffer if the trap is not checked
regularly. Which is why activists with Trap Free Montana are busy
gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that would ban the
practice.
But if outlawing the practice isn't possible, opponents are calling for policy changes.
"I
would at least hope that they would tighten up these classes and
require like they do, with hunter education where there's field work
involved and you have to pass a test," said York.
Despite
controversy over trapping, FWP officials say it is not as harmful to
the animal as many people think. The next trapping classes will be held
in Missoula and Kalispell on December 5th. Wolf trapping season
officially starts on December 15th.
Tonight, DNR officials
are still searching for a suspect in a gray wolf poaching case that
happened in Houghton County on Monday. DNR officials say it happened along M-26, a half-mile south of Twin Lakes, between 10 a.m. And 1:30 p.m.
Gray wolves are a federally endangered species and are protected in Michigan.The idea of having a legal wolf hunting season has been a topic of debate in recent years, especially in the Upper Peninsula. The Michigan wolf population has rebounded naturally after a DNR attempt to reintroduce wolves in the 1970's failed. The population growth has left scientists at odds with each other on how the species should be handled according to John Pepin, the Deputy Public Information Officer for the DNR
"There's
different groups of scientists who believe that the wolf has reached
its recovery and not de-listing them and not allowing them to be managed
is a detriment to them," said Pepin. "And there are scientists on the
other side who think that despite the fact that the wolves have
recovered the initial population goals that their population hasn't
recovered throughout its entire range."
And this ongoing debate leaves wolf management in the great lakes area at a stalemate.
Pepin continued, "Basically there's nothing that can be done lethally
right now to control wolves, including holding a hunt. There can't be a
wolf hunt until the wolves are no longer a federally endangered
species."
Currently wolves must be managed using non-lethal methods, unless they are threatening human lives. The last time Michigan held a legal wolf hunting season, hunters were only able to harvest 23 wolves in a nearly two month long season.
If you witness or have suspicions of poaching, call the Report All Poaching hotline at 800 292 7800 FREE.
Associated Press file photo
A photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows gray wolf rests in tall grass.
Collateral damage » Do wolves stand a chance here if their smaller cousins are always in crosshairs?
Another gray wolf has perished in Utah from lethal force targeting coyotes.
On Nov. 7, a private trapper discovered an
89-pound female dead in a neck snare he set west of Randolph near the
Idaho state line, according to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
"We're pretty sure it's a wolf and we sent out a
hair sample to a lab to be sure. At this point it's an open
investigation," said Kim Hersey, DWR's mammal conservation coordinator.
Officials will use genetic testing to rule out the possibility that the
uncollared carcass is that of a dog-wolf hybrid.
The death comes less than a year after a pair of hunters shot a wolf outside Beaver after mistaking the collared animal for a coyote.
The gray wolf remains a protected species
under the Endangered Species Act, but the Randolph animal died in the
small slice of northern Utah included in wolves' Northern Rockies
recovery zone spanning parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. Gray wolves
have been delisted for much of this region, thanks to their successful
re-introduction 20 years ago around Yellowstone, so the animal killed
outside Randolph was not protected under federal law.
This killing prompted wildlife advocates to
renew criticism of Utah policies that not only allow, but encourage
indiscriminate killing of coyotes, which bear some resemblance to the
gray wolf.
"Wolves that happen to move into Utah or
Colorado will most likely end up dead and hence we won't have wolves
established in either of those states," said Kirk Robinson, executive
director of the Western Wildlife Conservancy. "It's a real issue."
The wolf that died outside Beaver last year had
been observed that fall on the Grand Canyon's North Rim and was later
dubbed Echo following a naming contest. It had roamed all the way from
Wyoming, then back into Utah, where it took a .223-caliber round on Dec.
28 and was finished off with a pistol shot to the head.
Federal prosecutors declined to charge
the Beaver men who killed Echo or another hunter who shot a wolf last
spring near Kremmling, Colo. In both cases, federal authorities
concluded the hunters believed they were drawing a bead on coyotes,
which hunters may kill without a license or bag limit, and regardless of
the season.
Wolves' pesky, smaller cousins have
proliferated in Utah thanks in part to the elimination of the top dog
from the landscape. Utah taxpayers now subsidize coyote slaughter
through a $50 bounty established in 2012 in the name of protecting mule
deer. Thousands of coyotes are trapped, shot and poisoned each year, yet
their numbers remain strong in many places.
Coyote hunting contests remain common in some
Western states, despite intense opposition from some wildlife and
animal-welfare groups. A month before Echo's death, Beaver hosted a
coyote "calling" contest in which contestants killed 35 animals and
turned in the carcasses for points.
With wolves dwindling and moose booming, the National Park Service
must
decide how to manage these iconic species on Isle Royale.
Brian Kaufman/Detroit Free Press
Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press
November 15, 2015
WASHINGTON
— From new vehicle fuel standards and higher renewable energy targets
to controversial plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions on coal-fired
power plants, the Obama administration — in its words — has been
“leading global efforts to address the threat of climate change.”
Those
sweeping efforts, however, have done nothing so far to save a small,
dwindling, treasured pack of gray wolves on a remote Michigan island,
presumably due federal protection as a threatened species and guaranteed
sanctuary in a national park, but still facing short-term extinction
largely because of a warmer climate that prevents the formation of
natural ice bridges that once allowed mainland wolves to travel to the
island and kept the population healthy.
Over the past few years,
varied proposals have been floated and considered for saving the Isle
Royale wolves: from taking no action and letting nature decide, to
adding wolves to prevent inbreeding that can produce unhealthy pups, or
culling a burgeoning moose herd — growing because of the steep drop in
predator wolves — without adding wolves.
Wary of setting a
precedent and aware of the threat posed by litigious wilderness groups
urging a hands-off approach, the National Park Service this summer
launched a $250,000 study to help decide the future of the island’s
three remaining wolves. If all goes as planned, it could be done by late
2017.
National Park Service's response to climate change
But
coming nearly five years after the Park Service was alerted to the dire
prospects for the 16 or so wolves left then, and two years after park
managers began asking geneticists how to respond, questions are being
raised now as to whether the bureaucracy poses as much a threat to the
wolves of Isle Royale as climate change does.
“The Park Service
was slow in initiating this process, there’s no question about it,” said
U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who has argued the new study could
easily outlast the pack and has urged NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis to
speed up the process to no avail. “We could have been wrapping it up by
now.”
Peters wants “the best science” to dictate what happens. But
others, including dozens of scientists and researchers, say the Park
Service already has all the data it needs to add a few wolves before the
pack is lost entirely. Already, many say, the island’s ecosystem is
being ravaged without a top predator to cull the growing moose herd. If
the wolves are lost, the damage to forestation could be irreparable.
“Wolves
would restore balance to the system, and their numbers on Isle Royale
should be augmented now,” 47 top conservation scientists wrote Jarvis
last month, noting that moose numbers are exploding. “Delays in acting
will only worsen the situation.”
Isle
Royale’s superintendent, Phyllis Green, said there are many more
considerations to be made, however, before moving on any plan regarding
the wolves, the island and climate change. And they include the same
vexing questions being asked across the Park Service’s hundreds of
sites: Those questions range from whether the reintroduction or
protection of a species could violate specific federal laws, to the Park
Service’s chances of success, and whether such actions will provide for
a sustainable species if, as expected, temperatures keep climbing.
As
Green noted, her park’s most recent climate report indicated that moose
on the island — the wolves’ main source of food — may not even survive
the next 50 years.
“We’re just at the beginning of deciding what
species we can make a significant impact on as climate changes roll
through these national parks,” said Green, from her office on the
Keweenaw Peninsula just a few days after closing down the uninhabited
45-mile-long island some 55 miles away across Lake Superior for the
winter. “It’s a question we’re going to face time and time again.”
“I know people want us to rush through things,” she said. “It’s just not going to happen.”
Don’t try to do the impossible
In
many ways, Isle Royale is unique. It’s the least-visited park in the
lower 48 states. It’s closed six months of the year. Protected from
hunting and logging, its wolf pack and moose have been the subject of a
57-year-long ecological study, the longest-continuous predator-prey
research on record and one that has produced insights into topics as far
afield as arthritis and air pollution.
But
the threat posed by climate change — on Isle Royale, it’s the loss of
consistent winter ice cover on the lake allowing mainland wolves to
migrate to the island to lessen inbreeding — is being felt across the
National Park system. So far, it has met with varied responses.
For
instance, at Glacier National Park in Montana, rangers are moving
threatened bull trout to higher elevations, in part, because those
waters are less likely to be affected by warming. And at two parks in
Hawaii, officials are supplementing rare plants with greenhouse-grown
seedlings in hopes that a larger population will have a better chance to
survive in their native habitat.
But at Joshua Tree National Park
in California, officials suspended work on a plan that may have
addressed the threat posed to the park’s namesake tree and acknowledge
they are at nature’s mercy given the mammoth task of irrigating a park
the size of Rhode Island. At Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore,
endangered butterflies along Lake Michigan disappeared in 2015 after
years of decline.
Park Service managers, said Gregor Schuurman, an
NPS climate change ecologist, have wide latitude in determining
appropriate responses to threats but are expected to take into account
many factors, including whether a species faces total extinction in its
native habitat — such as with the Hawaiian plants — or whether the
climate has changed so drastically that reintroducing them, as may be
the case at Indiana Dunes, makes little sense.
“A (park) manager
is expected to act on the best available science,” he said. “They’re not
expected to do what is impossible or unfeasible,” he said.
Let nature decide
Guiding those decentralized decisions are agency policies, guidelines and federal legislation that can often seem contradictory.
For
instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has primary responsibility
for protecting gray wolves in the upper Midwest. But it has never
considered Isle Royale’s population to be part of wolf recovery efforts
because its population is so isolated. Fish and Wildlife wants wolves in
the Great Lakes states taken off the endangered species list anyway,
believing they’ve recovered.
Meanwhile,
the Park Service’s own code says its mission is “to conserve … wildlife
and to provide for the enjoyment of those resources in a manner that
will leave them unimpaired,” which could argue for intervention. But the
Wilderness Act, which applies to Isle Royale as a designated
wilderness, says lands are to remain “untrammeled … with the imprint of
man’s work substantially unnoticeable.”
Groups, including
Wilderness Watch — which over the years has had several court victories
forcing federal agencies to strictly enforce the Wilderness Act — say
those edicts don’t envision reintroductions like that being talked about
with wolves on Isle Royale.
“Doing so would be a direct
manipulation of the wolf population on the island and we believe the
Wilderness Act calls for us not to do those kind of manipulations,” said
Kevin Proescholdt, the group’s conservation director. “We let nature
decide, we don’t manipulate it.”
Indirect effects
But
the wolves on Isle Royale have their supporters, too, many of whom
argue that the Park Service can’t let the wolves disappear without
permanently affecting the wilderness nature groups like Wilderness Watch
want to protect.
“This was a park where the idea of letting
nature do everything actually worked,” said Rolf Peterson, a research
professor at Michigan Technological University in Houghton who, for 45
years, has been involved in the annual survey of Isle Royale’s wolves
and their interaction with moose. “It wasn’t because of keeping hands
off; it was because there were top carnivores (living there).”
Every
year, Peterson and his colleague John Vucetich issue an annual report
on the state of the wolves and moose on the island. Since the survey was
started in the 1950s, the historical average has been between 18 and 27
wolves a year and 700 to 1,200 moose.
In 2011, when they noticed a
steep decline in the wolf number, there were 16 and about 515 moose.
This year, they estimated three wolves and 1,250 moose. Two wolves
briefly visited the island during record winter ice cover the last two
years but left. Where decades ago, ice bridges led to the island eight
out of every 10 years, now it is approximately one in 10, leaving little
chance to introduce genetic diversity into the pack.
“We
reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone (National Park), but they’d say, in
that case, we shot wolves, in this case the human factor is indirect,”
said Vucetich. “What makes this so disturbing is that climate change is
all about indirect effects.”
An emotional issue
Part
of the concerns being raised by supporters involve a time line for
study that Peterson — who says he could have put new wolves on the
island a few years ago for as little as $5,000, a claim Green dismisses —
and others openly describe as dithering.
Under law, federal
agencies must take into account environmental impacts when making
decisions. But, depending on the action being looked at, the time line
can be shorter or longer.
Isle Royale is taking a longer, more
thorough “environmental impact statement” route projected to last
2½ years. But they can take far longer. According to the National
Association of Environmental Professionals’ data, final environmental
impact statement reports by the National Park Service in 2012 and 2013
took, on average, more than six years to complete.
“It’s been
talked about, much researched, much debated (but) we may not have wolves
after this winter,” said Christine Goepfert, a manager for the National
Parks Conservation Association, which advocates for the parks and wants
wolves reintroduced to Isle Royale. “They’re dragging their feet
because it’s an emotional issue. … In some ways they probably want to
avoid making a decision.”
Green, the park superintendent, said
using the more thorough EIS process “fits,” given the level of
controversy. And there is a lot to be done: Each of the proposed options
— from taking no action to adding wolves or culling the moose herd
without adding wolves — must be thoroughly vetted. The key, she said,
will be deciding what is best for the whole island and its food chain.
Simply
reintroducing a handful of wolves — which was also done decades ago,
with limited success — may not work, she said, which is why that option
requires research on everything from the genetic makeup of the would-be
additions to how many would be needed and how to handle and deploy them.
It would probably cost at least $100,000 she said.
Green said
that even if wolves are lost to the island, they could still be
reintroduced later, but Vucetich said the damage moose could do to the
forest in that time could be so vast that it would no longer support
them in the long term. And no moose, no wolves.
But even without
climate change, island ecology is notoriously fragile. The number of
wolves and moose on Isle Royale have varied widely since both reached
the island within the last 100 years. And if the Park Service is going
to restore species impacted by human actions, why stop at wolves? Lynx
and caribou were trapped and hunted out of existence on the island
decades ago. A cold-water fish called cisco just recently disappeared
from the island
“If you’re going to make a national park into an ark,” Green asked, “which species are invited on? Which aren’t?”
“It’s
crystal balls. It’s probabilities. It’s uncertain,” she said. “It’s
making a value judgment that trades off between policies, and the Park
Service never trades off between policies lightly.”
There's
no wolf hunting or trapping season in Wisconsin this fall, but
scientists and advocates have been debating over whether hunting and
trapping of gray wolves should come back — either through efforts in
Congress or in the federal courts.
Last December, a federal judge in the District of Columbia put the
gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region back on the endangered or
threatened species lists, halting wolf hunts in Michigan, Minnesota and
Wisconsin. The ruling came as part of a lawsuit filed by the Humane
Society of the United States against a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
move in 2009 that delisted the wolf in the three states.
The USFWS has appealed the judge's decision, and some members of
Congress, mainly Republicans, are promoting bills that would return the
gray wolf to delisted status. Sen. Ron Johnson and Rep. Reid Ribble are
among them.
In recent weeks, scientists and researchers have been speaking
up. Adrian Treves, a University of Wisconsin-Madison environmental
studies professor, has co-authored a paper in the journal Biological
Reviews that says by allowing hunters to shoot and trap wolves,
Wisconsin legislators violated the Public Trust Doctrine that says
governments must maintain natural resources for the use of current and
future generations of the general public.
Treves said lawmakers and the state Department of Natural Resources
set aside too many of the wolves for hunters, "without regard to other
users, even those who would enjoy wolves aesthetically or their
existence value, and tribes that would revere the wolf."
DNR officials declined comment on Treves' paper, but during the years
that Wisconsin wolf hunts took place, the DNR said safe populations of
the wolves were being maintained.
This week, Treves joined 28 other scientists in arguing that
Endangered Species Act protection for the wolves should be kept. Treves
contends a different group of scientists that released a pro-delisting
letter last week misunderstood the finer points of law, public
attitudes and scientific evidence.
Treves argues the popularity of wolves is high nationwide and said
states may not be well-prepared to manage wolf populations if federal
protections are removed again. "We present the scientific evidence that there's a lot of questions
about adequate state management of wolves," he said. "A lot of
unanswered scientific questions."
The 26 pro-delisting scientists argued there is more certainty about the safety of taking wolves off the federal lists.
Former DNR wolf biologist Adrian Wydeven, now coordinator of the
Timber Wolf Alliance at Northland College in Ashland, said the group has
a message for Congress: "Just want to let them know that many of us
feel wolves have recovered and they should be a state-managed species at
this point," Wydeven said.
Various advocates are lining up behind the two groups of scientists.
Rachel Tilseth, of Wolves of Douglas County Wisconsin, disagreed with
Wydeven. "Can states be trusted to manage wolves? I think not, and many other
scientists agree that individual states cannot be trusted," Tilseth
said. She said many wolf advocates are trying to revive an idea rejected
this year by the USFWS that grey wolves in Wisconsin be listed as
threatened. That would still ban hunting, but allow livestock owners and
others to use more non-lethal ways to control problem wolves.
The debate may continue for months, as both sides wait for more court action, or possibly, movement on legislation in Congress.
Editor's Note: Danielle Kaeding contributed reporting to this story.
National park outside Warsaw says several of the animals seem to have settled there again after government cull in the 1960s
Wolves have returned to Poland after disappearing in the 1960s.
Photograph: Alamy
Agence France-Presse in Warsaw
Wolves have returned to a large national park on the outskirts of
Warsaw, decades after they were wiped out there under a hunt launched by
the communist authorities.
“We’re really happy,” said Magdalena KamiÅ„ska, spokeswoman for the
150sq mile (385sq km) Kampinos national park, Poland’s second largest.
“The fact that wolves have returned to our park, from which they
completely disappeared in the 1960s, means that nature is in good health
and is renewing itself.”
Park employees spotted a first wolf in 2013, but the animal was just
passing through. Now there are several and they appear to have settled
in for the long haul, Kamińska said.
A young male wolf was caught on a hidden camera just a few days ago,
and in September another was spotted drinking at a watering hole.
Poland’s communist regime organised a vast wolf cull in the 60s in
response to their perceived danger, paying residents for every animal
shot dead. The park’s last wolf pack was killed in 1964.
Officials added the wolf – rare or extinct in much of western Europe
– to the country’s list of endangered species in the 1990s following
protests from ecologists and animal rights activists, including the
former French film star Brigitte Bardot.
The move helped reinstate wolves in certain areas, including the
mountainous region of Bieszczady in the south-east. There are about
1,000 wolves in Poland today.
Still listed for protection west of Highway 97, wolves are gaining ground. But people remain their biggest problem.
By Lynda V. Mapes
Seattle Times environment reporter
Washington’s newest wolf pack, the Loup Loup, has taken up residence near the towns of Twisp and Omak in Okanogan County.
The Methow pack was confirmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on Tuesday, following a cluster of public wolf sightings. The wolves,
previously undocumented in the area, moved in on their own, continuing a
westward expansion from Idaho and Montana.
The
confirmation of the newest pack brings Washington’s total minimum
number of packs to 17, nearly all of them east of the Cascades. Wolves
have also been spotted in the North Cascades near Hozomeen, Whatcom
County, where they have been moving back and forth across the border
with Canada. Federal and state wildlife agents intend to monitor the
newest pack over the winter, and get a radio collar on one of the wolves
in the summer of 2016 to follow the pack’s travels.
Ann Froschauer, spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, said the precise number of animals in the Loup Loup
Pack is not yet known, but biologists tracked up to six animals
traveling together in recent snows.
“Obviously a new pack shows the population is recovering; a new pack
is a good signal that wolves are naturally re-establishing themselves in
Washington,” Froschauer said.
Shot, poisoned and trapped nearly to extinction in Washington and
elsewhere by the 1920s and 1930s, wolves began their return to
Washington in earnest about 15 years ago, with increased sightings
leading to the first confirmed pack in 2008 north of Cle Elum.
It’s been a rocky road to recovery. People so far have proved the
biggest block to the recovery and survival of a species that can travel
70 miles a day crossing major rivers, mountain ranges and lakes, and
endure days without food and freezing temperatures.
The gray wolf is federally listed as an endangered species within the
western two-thirds of Washington. East of Highway 97, the wolves are
not federally protected, but are listed for protection by the state of
Washington.
Nonetheless at least half a dozen wolves have been killed by poachers
since 2012, including a Whitman County man fined $100 last September.
Another wolf was struck and killed on Interstate 90 between North Bend
and Snoqualmie Pass last April. State sharpshooters in helicopters shot
and killed seven wolves in one pack north of Kettle Falls, Stevens
County, in 2012 for preying on livestock.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat in the packs’ home ranges
in Eastern Washington burned in wildfires during the past two summers.
Yet wolves are still gaining ground in Washington. “This animal is doing very well,” said Mike Jimenez, Northern Rocky
Mountain wolf coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “This
is a very tenacious, robust, strong, highly mobile animal, widely
distributed across the globe. The trouble is people are like that as
well. The problem is, how do you fit this animal back on the landscape?”
As the number of wolves has grown in Washington, so have conflicts
with people, resulting in more wolves shot or poached. That can make
conflict worse. “You create problem packs when you take out leaders,”
said Mitch Friedman, executive director of the nonprofit Conservation
Northwest. Advocates of wolf recovery, the group has been working to
help manage conflict between people and wolves with nonlethal methods,
including deploying range riders on horseback to help guard their stock.
“Wolves are incredibly resilient, no one should worry about the
population ever going away at this point,” Friedman said. “ What we
should worry about is effects on their behavior because of human-caused
dynamics.”
Donny Martorello, wolf policy lead for the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, said at this point the department’s recovery plan is
on track for canis lupis but when it comes to homo sapiens,
it’s a struggle. “In terms of the numerical side of the recovery,
wolves are doing what they need to do with very little effort by the
state,” Martorello said. “It’s the people that seem to be the biggest
challenge.
“One
of our goals is also to promote an understanding for wolves and
coexistence. That is the one we are looking at and struggling with the
most, we have seen the least amount of progress there. It’s really a
people issue, a social carrying capacity, if you will.”
The state has hired an outside conflict resolution expert, and
expanded its citizen advisory panel to include more points of view,
including hunters. “We are hoping to break the pattern as wolf recovery
goes on, we want to see the public understanding grow toward
coexistence.”
The wolves colonizing Washington now are mostly radiating from the
original population from Canada moved by the Fish and Wildlife Service
in 1994 to jump start recovery, with a reintroduction of 31 wolves in
Yellowstone National Park and 35 in Central Idaho. Those animals have
been multiplying and dispersing ever since.
There were at least 1,657 wolves counted in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming last year in 282 packs, including 85 breeding pairs.
Oregon last year had at least 77 wolves in 15 packs and eight
breeding pairs. Washington now has 17 packs. Last year it had five
breeding pairs and at least 68 wolves.
Jimenez is not surprised wolves have made it as far west as they
have; it seems only a matter of time before they make it south of I-90,
and then move on to the Olympics, packed with deer, elk and other prey.
Wolves are hard-wired to disperse, with young on their own and on the
move by the time they are 3, in search of mates and territory of their
own.
Wolves are also legendary travelers. A collared wolf was tracked from
Cody, Wyoming to the north rim of the Grand Canyon last winter, Jimenez
said. Another roamed from Bozeman to Vail, some 400 miles in a straight
line. A year-and-a-half-old female traveled more than 3,000 miles in
just six months.
Wolves have swam the Snake River to recolonize Oregon and Washington,
and a wolf crossed the Cascades last April — only to get killed on
I-90. At least one wolf has made it as far as California.
“There isn’t much that stops them,” Jimenez said. “If you give them a
little bit of protection from human persecution and they have an
adequate prey base they respond very quickly, and come back.”
For more information, visit the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife’s website.
A group of scientists is taking issue with colleagues who want
the federal government to remove gray wolves in the Great Lakes region
from the endangered species list
This
Feb. 15, 2015 photo released by Michigan Technological University shows
the last three wolves known to live at Isle Royale National Park in
Lake Superior. A group of scientists are taking issue with colleagues
who want the federal government to remove gray wolves in the Great Lakes
region from the endangered species list. (Rolf Peterson/Michigan
Technological University via AP)(Rolf Peterson)
By JOHN FLESHER AP Environmental Writer
Posted on Nov. 24, 2015
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Gray wolves in the western Great
Lakes region should not yet be removed from the federal endangered
species list, a group of scientists and scholars said Tuesday,
disagreeing with colleagues who said the population has rebounded
sufficiently.
Lifting government protection from wolves in Michigan,
Minnesota and Wisconsin could be justified if and when the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service “uses the best available science that justifies
delisting,” 29 scientists from the U.S. and several other nations said
in an open letter. “Currently it does not.”
The scientists said they were responding to 26 colleagues who
sent a letter last week to U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell saying
it was time for wolves to lose their endangered status in the western
Great Lakes, where their combined population is estimated at 3,700. When
given protection in 1974, about 750 wolves in northeastern Minnesota
were the only ones remaining in the lower 48 states after a century of
persecution.
The department has tried repeatedly to drop the region’s
wolves from the list but has been thwarted by federal courts in response
to lawsuits from animal protection groups.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled in December 2014 that
the Midwestern states that would assume responsibility for wolf
oversight didn’t have suitable plans to safeguard them from humans,
disease and habitat loss. The government is appealing Howell’s decision,
and bills pending in Congress would overturn it.
In their letter to Jewell, whose department includes the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the first group of scientists said the agency had
done its job by shielding Great Lakes wolves until their population
could recover from previous efforts to exterminate them. “The integrity and effectiveness of the (Endangered Species
Act) is undercut if delisting does not happen once science-based
recovery has been achieved,” they said. “When this happens, it creates
disincentives for the states to continue to be active participants in
recovery efforts and creates public resentments toward the species” and
the law.
Among those who sent the letter were David Mech, a wolf
specialist with the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of
Minnesota, and Adrian Wydeven, a retired Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources wildlife biologist.
In their rebuttal, the second group of scientists said public
tolerance of wolves has risen substantially since they were given
protection and suggestions that patience is wearing thin are spread by
“special interest groups that are vocal, but small in number.”
They echoed Howell’s concerns about state management plans,
particularly their inclusion of hunting and trapping as tools for
keeping the predator species’ population under control. “Quite simply, wolves still fit the legal definition of
endangerment in the Great Lakes region and nationwide,” said the
scientists, including John Vucetich and Rolf Peterson of Michigan
Technological University, leaders of a longstanding study of wolves at
Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior.
Written by Marjorie Mulhall, Legislative Counsel for Earthjustice who works to defend and strengthen the Endangered Species Act.
The
current U.S. Congress is a minefield for all of our core environmental
protection laws, including the Endangered Species Act. More than 80 bills and amendments
have already been introduced this year in the U.S. House and Senate to
weaken this vital law. And now some members of Congress and their
corporate special interest backers are working to eliminate Endangered
Species Act protections for certain species through must-pass spending
legislation.
The Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest,
most effective wildlife protection laws in the world. It was passed
with overwhelming bipartisan support more than 40 years ago to protect
species that are in danger of disappearing forever. In the years since
it was enacted, the Endangered Species Act has prevented 99 percent
of the species under its care from going extinct. That’s an astonishing
record of success. This act has prevented the extinction of the bald
eagle, the American alligator, the California condor and thousands of
other species.
Legislative
Counsel Marjorie Mulhall and Managing Attorney Tim Preso discuss
Earthjustice's efforts to safeguard the Endangered Species Act.
Because the act is so effective at protecting imperiled species and 90 percent of American voters support
it, those who oppose the Endangered Species Act are resorting to shady,
backroom deals to undermine this law by adding “riders,” – provisions
relating to policy, not funding levels – to must-pass spending
legislation.
Over the next few weeks, Congress and the Obama
administration are expected to finalize a spending deal to fund the
federal government. More than 100 anti-environmental riders are in play,
including 13 anti-Endangered Species Act riders that were included in
House and Senate bills to fund the Department of the Interior and other
agencies. There is a very real threat that some of these anti-species
riders could become law, unless President Obama and Democratic leaders
in Congress stand firm in rejecting them.
These anti-Endangered Species Act riders threaten imperiled species in a variety of ways, including:
Removing Federal Protections for Gray Wolves
This
rider would strip wolves in Wyoming, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin
of existing federal protections. The rider does this by overriding two
federal court decisions (including an Earthjustice victory for wolves in Wyoming)
that found these states’ management plans do not sufficiently protect
wolves. This wolf rider would also block judicial review of these court
decision overrides, stripping citizens of their ability to further
challenge these wolf delistings in court.
Blocking Federal Protections for the Greater Sage Grouse
This
rider would prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from even
considering protecting the greater sage grouse—a species whose
population has plummeted by as much as 90 percent due to development,
including mining and drilling operations. The Obama administration
recently announced that it would not list the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act,
citing conservation plans and agreements that are underway to help the
bird. However, this rider still threatens the sage grouse by interfering
with science-based decision making about what to protect under the
Endangered Species Act.
Removing Federal Protections for the Lesser Prairie Chicken
The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed this unfortunately named, but
actually magnificent bird as “threatened” under the Endangered Species
Act in 2014, citing a “rapid and severe decline”
in its population. This rider would strip away existing federal
protections for the bird, taking decision-making about this species out
of the hands of biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
handing it to Congress instead.
A lesser prairie chicken in eastern New Mexico. (D. Longenbaugh/Shutterstock)