The fight over MI wolves is not finished yet

by Joel Feick

Posted: 06.17.2013

VIENNA TOWNSHIP -- The head of a coalition that opposes hunting wolves in Michigan says the group is still deciding what it's next move will be, but one thing is clear: the fight isn't over.
Another thing appears certain: a wolf hunt is on for later this year.
Jill Fritz, the head of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, said on NBC 25 Today the controversy and debate over wolves in Michigan is based largely on mis-information.
Her group gathered more than 255,000 signatures seeking a statewide vote on a new law designating the wolf as a game species. But legislators rushed through another measure that would make the referendum meaningless by allowing the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunt. The commission last month scheduled an Upper Peninsula hunt for Nov. 15 to Dec. 31.
NBC 25 Today is reaching out to pro wolf-hunting advocates to tell their side of the story.

source 

Wolf Harassment Has Little Impact on Elk

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 

 

In partnership with: University of Wyoming

 

LARAMIE, Wyo. — The mere presence of wolves, previously shown to affect the behavior of elk in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, is not potent enough to reduce the body condition and reproductive rates of female elk, according to new research published today.

The research, led by recent University of Wyoming Ph.D. graduate Arthur Middleton, provides the most comprehensive evidence to date refuting the idea that wolves are capable of reducing elk calf recruitment indirectly through predation risk. The findings were published in the scientific journal Ecology Letters. "Elk respond to wolves, but less strongly and less frequently than we thought," says Middleton, who for three years closely followed the Clarks Fork elk herd west of Cody, along with the wolf packs that prey on it. "We found that wolves influence elk behavior, but the responses were subtle and -- over the course of winter -- did not reduce body fat or pregnancy. Our work indicates that the effect of wolves on elk populations is limited to direct predation and doesn't include so-called harassment, stress and fear, which have been proposed as additional indirect effects on prey populations."

Working as part of the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit-- a U.S. Geological Survey program housed at UW in cooperation with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department -- Middleton and colleagues used state-of-the-art GPS collars and firsthand observation to track the interactions of the Clarks Fork herd with wolves from the Sunlight, Hoodoo, Beartooth and Absaroka wolf packs in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The detailed movement data on both wolves and elk allowed the researchers to identify each time one of the collared elk encountered a collared wolf. The elk herd, one of several migratory herds in the greater Yellowstone area, spends summers in Yellowstone National Park and moves into the Sunlight Basin during winter. The researchers also recaptured GPS-collared elk at the end of winter and the end of summer each year to assess their annual fat dynamics and pregnancy rates using ultrasonography.

The research found that when wolves approached within 1 kilometer (a little over a half mile), elk increased their rates of movement, displacement and vigilance. However, the behaviors only lasted about 24 hours and didn't significantly reduce elk foraging or force elk into poor habitats. And such encounters with wolves took place at a rate of only one in nine days on average for the migratory elk in the Clarks Fork herd -- the maximum was once every four days.

The key finding of the study is that even though elk varied widely in their encounters with wolves, those that encountered wolves frequently were not less fat -- or any less likely to be pregnant -- than those that rarely bumped into the predators. This finding differs from some previous studies that indicated wolves influence elk behavior strongly enough to contribute to regionwide declines in calf production.

"Our research was unique in that we tracked wolves while also monitoring the movements, foraging behavior, body fat and pregnancy of the elk they hunted," says Middleton, who worked under Matt Kauffman, head of the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit working under a dual appointment with the USGS and the UW's Department of Zoology and Physiology where he is an assistant professor. "This approach, essentially connecting the dots from wolf movements all the way to elk behavior and nutrition, revealed that elk respond to wolves too weakly and too infrequently for those behaviors to carry nutritional costs."

The study casts additional doubt on the idea that wolf reintroduction has caused what scientists call a "behaviorally mediated trophic cascade" in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem -- prompting elk to alter their foraging behavior or avoid risky areas, thereby allowing aspen and willows to recover from overbrowsing. These new findings are consistent with studies by Kauffman and others showing little or no evidence for cascading effects caused by purported broad-scale shifts in elk habitat use or foraging behavior in response to wolves.

Both Middleton and Kauffman have pointed out in their studies that the wide-ranging hunting strategy of wolves, which differs from the tactics of a stalking predator, might be the reason that elk responses are too weak and inconsistent to alter their foraging patterns or nutritional gain. "A key factor in the ability of predators to cause these sorts of cascading effects is the ways in which they hunt and kill their prey," says Kauffman, who initiated the study in 2006 along with Game and Fish Department wildlife biologist Doug McWhirter and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf manager Mike Jimenez. "Wolves are coursing predators that chase down their prey, as opposed to stalking predators that lurk in concealed areas. We are learning that coursing predators are less likely to induce strong behavioral responses in their prey, and this new work suggests that the coursing hunting mode of wolves may constrain both their ability to influence prey condition and cause cascading ecological effects on plants." 

Kauffman adds that the concept of non-consumptive effects of predators on prey has been well tested in small, well-controlled environments -- often involving insect predators and prey -- but that researchers are still sorting out how it all works in the large landscapes occupied by species such as wolves and elk.

Calf production has been declining among migratory elk herds in the greater Yellowstone area, but wolves may not be the primary culprit, Middleton says. For the Clarks Fork herd at least, other recent research findings point to high rates of bear predation and reduced habitat quality due to drought -- both on summer ranges largely inside Yellowstone -- as being the more likely cause of declines in elk calf numbers. "The recovery of large carnivores, particularly grizzly bears, has brought major increases in predation on newborn elk during early summer," wrote Middleton, who added that the region has experienced severe drought and warmer temperatures in recent years. "These effects of drought and predation could largely explain both low pregnancy and declining calf production among elk of the Yellowstone region."

Kauffman, a USGS scientist, is one of the co-authors of the report published today -- along with a collaborative team of researchers from the Game and Fish Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Yellowstone National Park and UW.
The article summarizing the research in Ecology Letters is available online.
 
source

Image of the Day

(AP Photo/Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Why wolves aren't all that different from humans

Published: Sunday, June 16, 2013

By Sharon Wootton 

 

Professional wildlife tracker, author and photographer David Moskowitz sees many parallels between humans and wolves: adaptation to their environment, eating salmon as part of their diet, and living at lower elevations where food is more abundant and the weather more acceptable than at higher, less friendly elevations.

"We're animals. We want the same kind of things that wolves want," he said.

"Wolves are the only social land carnivores in the Pacific Northwest. They live together, similar to humans. The pack is the extended family. Wolves travel similar to our ancestors.

"The breeding pair generates offspring, and an occasional brother or sister stays with the pack. They protect their young and bond as a family, and communicate through (sound)," Moskowitz said.

"Its lifestyle changes depending on where it lives in the Pacific Northwest. Its range has contracted and expanded many times, sometimes driven by massive changes, including ice ages and extermination."

Moskowitz's knowledge of wolves is packed into "Wolves in the Land of Salmon" ($30), an impressive book that focuses on the Pacific Northwest.

Wolves have been introduced into Washington state but there's an uncertainty about the future. How will wolves impact ranchers? Where will they expand their range?

Wolves are carnivores that have evolved to chase down, kill and eat large animals.

"They are social so they are efficient killers, although not as efficient as large cats, which are not social animals. They consume their kill quickly because there is a lot of competition out there for carcasses," he said.

Most of us have 'learned' that "wolves only kill the sick and weak," but that's not always the case.

"Sometimes male elk are more likely to be taken. Big male elks are most vulnerable during breeding season. They have to focus on breeding and fighting competitors, and are less likely to see danger.

"By the end of the season, they are malnourished and vulnerable. They take bigger risks to get food," Moskowitz said.

Wolves eat moose, too, taking advantage of the increasing numbers of moose as they expand their range into wolf territory. Clearcuts create large swaths of bushes and shrubs that attract moose.

When large animals aren't available, wolves focus on voles, squirrels, hares, grouse, geese, raccoons, otters, beavers and salmon, the last another example of a wolf's ability to adapt.

Some wolves' range is determined by water and tides. They dig clams, catch crabs and chew barnacles off rocks.

Wolves fish for salmon by going out into shallow waters and coming from behind the fish, reaching down and grabbing it. During the fall runs, most of the wolf pack diet is salmon.

"Typically, they eat the head or just the brain. One hypothesis is that it's like eating the icing off the cake. The brain is the most nutritional part of the salmon.

"The second hypothesis is that there's a parasite on the salmon of the West Coast that can be fatal to canines. The least likely place to find the parasite is in the head," Moskowitz said.

Wolf kills amount to a scavenger subsidy. Ravens and coyotes benefit the most but the cleanup crew includes crows and eagles.

Before being re-introduced, Washington state's last wolves to be eradicated were in the Olympic Peninsula. Marmots provided much of their diet. Almost all of the marmot population is in the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest, where marmots are protected from hunting.

"It turns out that the coyotes do the hunting. Their range now includes the Olympic Peninsula. They weren't in Northwest Washington. Wolves' range contracted, coyotes' range expanded," Moskowitz said.

"Coyotes are good at killing marmots. Eighty percent of marmot deaths are by coyotes."

How far will wolves expand their range? That story has yet to be written but you can be sure that some parts will be documented by David Moskowitz (davidmoskowitz.net).

source

Image of the Day

Affection, a photo by Leni_Fotos on Flickr.

Happy Father's Day Canis lupus! You are such great dads!

Montana Conservationist Accused Of Declaring War On Wolves

Robert Ferris, provided by

Published Saturday, June 15, 2013

Many conservationists are furious over a recent proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service to drop the gray wolf from the endangered species list.

At least one group of conservationists, however, also supports dropping federal protection for wolves. They are the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, led by hunter David Allen.

“The recovery has surpassed the agreed upon recovery goals by 500%,” Allen told Business Insider. “It is time to let the states do their job.”

Allen's controversial stance has alienated some former supporters of the Elk Foundation, who accuse him of turning the conservation group into a pro-hunting lobby. The family of famed wildlife biologist Olaus J. Murie pulled money last year for its annual Elk Foundation award on account of the organization's "all-out war against wolves," according to the Montana Pioneer.

Allen insists that he really is looking out for the environment.

The reintroduction of wolves is one of the leading causes for the decline of elk herds in the Rocky Mountain region because it gave a top predator a kind of “amnesty,” Allen argues.

"ln 1995, [Yellowstone elk were] the largest herd in North America," Allen said. "It’s probably not coincidental that after wolves were reintroduced, the elk population fell from 19,000 to 4,000.”

Allen would like to see the wolf population in the Rocky Mountain region shrink: "We do feel like the number could be managed downward and not threaten the population overall," he said. 

When asked by the Pioneer about the natural predator-prey relations, Allen said: "Natural balance is a Walt Disney movie. It isn’t real."

The former marketer for NASCAR is not what you might think of today as a conservationist. Allen poses for photos in hunter camo, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has a page on its site called “The Hunt,” where users can plan their own elk hunts and get game recipes from the “Carnivore’s Corner.”

But he and his cohort maintain that hunters are the original conservationists. They take inspiration from early American hunters and outdoorsmen like Theodore Roosevelt. Founded by three hunters in Montana in 1984, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has acquired 6.3 million acres of land, all of which it has handed over to the public through government agencies.

The proposal to delist gray wolves across the country and return management to the states comes less than two years after populations in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, which cover the Northern Rocky Mountain region, were stripped of Federal protections. 

Environmental activists who oppose taking gray wolves off the endangered species list argue that the population has not been restored to its historical range, which once extended across the much of the contiguous United States.

Considered a threat to livestock, the gray wolf was nearly hunted to extinction in the early to mid-20th century. Canadian-born gray wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s and the population has largely recovered due to conservation efforts.

There is a correlation between the rise of wolf populations and decline in elk, but biologists debate whether the gray wolf is responsible. Allen admits that there are likely many causes for elk's gradual demise but is convinced that predation is playing its part.

“The wolf is not 100% responsible,” he said. "But when you combine the wolf with two species of bear, mountain lions, and man’s ever-expanding footprint, you get a kind of a perfect storm.”

Allen maintains that he is not trying to eradicate the wolf from the United States, but he is convinced that management should be left up to the states.

"Nobody in their right mind is saying that we should exterminate wolves,” he said.“But we should leave this to the people who live in these states [with wolf populations]. Ultimately they are the ones who have to live with the circumstances and they have to make it work."

source

Letter: Range of the wolf

Letter: Range of the wolf

First Published Jun 15 2013

Re "Value of wolves: Feds must maintain some oversight" (Our View, June 11):

Although U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Daniel Ashe declared victory by stating "Wolves are recovered and they are now in good hands," I share serious concerns with the 16 scientists with expertise in carnivore taxonomy and conservation biology who believe delisting is terribly premature.

 

The feds are gauging gray wolf recovery solely on the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes wolf populations. Under the Endangered Species Act, it is obligated to recover an endangered species across a "significant portion" of its historic range. 

In recent years, wolves from Canada have crossed into Maine and traveled miles south into the southern Rocky Mountain states of Utah and Colorado. Wolf OR-7 became a media sensation when he became the first wild wolf to enter California in more than 80 years. 

By stripping federal protections from wolves nationwide, these pioneers in historically occupied areas may never be able to establish viable populations despite suitable habitat and availability of prey.

Through the Endangered Species Act, our country gave wolves a second chance. Second chances are rare. Should we be willing to throw them away? 

Maggie Howell

Danbury , Conn.

source 

Image of the Day

wolf b-w, a photo by FR33M4N100 on Flickr.

Mexican Wolf news from Arizona Fish & Game

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to delist gray wolves; Mexican wolf would continue to be protected as endangered subspecies

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on June 7 announced its proposal to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of threatened and endangered species. According to the Service's June 7 news release, the proposal comes after a comprehensive review confirmed the gray wolf's successful recovery following management actions undertaken by federal, state and local partners after the wolf’s listing under the Endangered Species Act over three decades ago. The Service is also proposing to maintain protection and expand recovery efforts for the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) in the southwestern United States, where it remains endangered.

Under the proposal, state wildlife management agency professionals would resume responsibility for management and protection of gray wolves in states where wolves (other than the Mexican wolf) occur. According to the news release, the proposed rule is based on the best science available and incorporates new information about the gray wolf's current and historical distribution in the contiguous United States and Mexico. It focuses the protection on the Mexican wolf, the only remaining entity that warrants protection under the Act, by designating the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies.

In addition to listing the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies, the Service proposes to modify existing regulations governing the nonessential experimental (10j) population to allow captive raised wolves to be released throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in the Apache and Gila National Forests in east central Arizona and west central New Mexico, and to disperse into the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area in the areas of Arizona and New Mexico located between I-40 and I-10.

The Service will open a 90-day comment period on both proposals seeking additional scientific, commercial and technical information from the public and other interested parties. The comment period commenced upon publication of the proposed rules in the Federal Register on June 13; the deadline to submit comments is Sept. 11, 2013. Relevant information received during this comment period will be reviewed and addressed in the Service's final determination on these proposals, which will be made in 2014. Information on how to provide comments is available in the Federal Register notices and on the Service’s wolf information page at www.fws.gov/graywolfrecovery062013.html
.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department is currently studying the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposals.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service news release is posted on its website at www.fws.gov.
Pair of Mexican wolves will not be released into the Apache National Forest at this time

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has determined that a pair of wolves will not be released into the wild at this time. The pair, M1051 and F1126, was brought to an acclimation pen at the Corduroy Creek release site in Arizona on April 26, 2013. After spending over six weeks in the acclimation pen, the Service will transfer the pair back to a Service-approved pre-release facility and will seek opportunities for another  release in the future.

Release sites are selected in unoccupied wolf habitat where prey is available and the potential for conflict with humans, livestock and other packs is reduced. The 15-year history of the Mexican wolf reintroduction project has shown that naïve wolves are most successful when released as pairs with pups.  The female of this pair was pregnant at the time of transfer to the acclimation pen, however, the pups born to F1126 did not survive.

While the acclimation area had been used in the past by the Rim pack of Mexican wolves, at the time this pair of wolves was transferred to the pen, it was believed that the Rim pack had vacated the area based on the lack of recent production by the pack, and the removal of the alpha female in January in order to harvest valuable genetic material. However, the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) has confirmed that the Rim pack alpha male, AM1107, is traveling with a new female identified by the IFT as F1305. The Rim pair has been frequenting the acclimation pen and acting aggressively toward M1051 and F1126, suggesting they will defend their territory against them if the naïve pair were to be released.

"After a difficult deliberation during which I weighed the options and evaluated the likelihood that the new pair would succeed in the wild, I have decided not to conduct the release at this time," said Dr. Benjamin Tuggle, the Service's Southwest Regional Director. "Initial releases of naïve wolves are always a difficult task. The significant reduction in the pair's chances for success emphasizes the need to expand the area within which releases of wolves can occur. The Service remains committed to improving this population through initial releases to increase genetic diversity of the population. We will continue to work with partners to identify suitable release opportunities in the future to meet our management and recovery objectives."

"After consideration of the challenges this pair would face if they were released, the Service made a decision that will give the pair a better chance at survival and afford these wolves an opportunity to contribute to the program in the future," said Director Larry Voyles of the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

For further information, please refer to the Decision Memo on the Mexican wolf website, under Mexican Wolf News, at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/
.

The Mexican wolf recovery program is a collaborative effort between the Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services, several participating counties in Arizona and the Eastern Arizona Counties Organization.

source 

Help save the wolves-sign the petition, please!!!

Last week the Obama administration issued a sweeping delisting plan to remove protections for wolves across the lower 48 states. The plan only maintains protections for the small population of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico.

If finalized this proposal will mean the premature end of decades of work to restore wolves to the American landscape -- even though wolves currently occupy a mere 5 percent of their historic range.

The proposal also means that states will hold the reins of wolf management across most of the country. We've already seen what state management entails for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes, where protections were removed in the past two years -- in short, aggressive trapping and hunting seasons designed to drastically reduce populations, resulting in at least 1,600 wolves killed.

Please take action now to halt this delisting plan before it's too late: Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not to turn its back on America's wolves.

Click here to take action and get more information.