Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2011


Two wolves have been ordered killed, even though Montana Wildlife Officials admit they may not be responsible for killing a yearling calf!  Please read and contact Dir. Joe Maurier, Ken McDonald and Liz Bradley.
jmaurier@MT.gov , kmcdonald@MT.gov …, LBradley@mt.gov Tell them NO!

Perry Backus of the Ravalli Republic reported the following information:

“Wolves killed a yearling calf in the Lake Como area earlier this month and wildlife officials have ordered that the pair of wolves responsible be killed.

So far this year, livestock depredations by wolves are at the lowest point wildlife officials have recorded in the last 10 years.

From Jan. 1, wolves have killed four cows and one dog statewide.

Over the same time period in 2009, wolves killed 17 cattle, three llamas, one dog and injured a calf.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf management specialist Liz Bradley said there is no way to know for certain why wolves mostly steered clear of livestock this winter.

It’s not because wolf numbers have decreased.

In 2010, wolf numbers grew by 8 percent in Montana. Biologists reported 566 wolves in 108 packs in the state, with at least 35 breeding pairs.

The long winter and heavy snow could be partially responsible.

“After a hard winter and heavy snow, game is typically in worse shape and they may be easier to kill,” Bradley said.

Control actions may have also thinned wolf numbers in areas most susceptible to livestock depredation.

A large number of wolves were removed from the Big Hole area over the past two years due to conflicts with livestock.

“We’ve had two depredations in the Big Hole this winter,” Bradley said. “That’s generally one of those areas where there are depredations in the winter because most of the wildlife migrates out of there.”

Overall, the largest amount of conflict between wolves and livestock occurs in the spring during calving season. The fewest happen over the winter months because most cattle and sheep are off open ranges.

Bradley said it’s not clear whether or not members of the Lake Como pack were responsible for the recent depredation.

Officials found two sets of tracks near the calves’ carcass.

“We don’t know whether those two are a newly formed pair or part of the Lake Como pack,” she said.

There is no radio collar on a wolf in the Lake Como pack, which included six wolves last year.

There are currently 12 known packs that use the Bitterroot area at least part of the year.

There could be more.

Bradley encourages the public to report any sightings of wolves or their tracks to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The reports can be made to local FWP offices or via the Internet on the FWP’s website: http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/management/wolf/wolfObservationForm.html.

“We are continuing to track new pack formations,” Bradley said. “That’s why it’s important to get information from the public, especially this time of year.”

Wolves den and have pups in April. They are much more localized during the pup rearing season.

“We track all of the public reports, especially activity in new areas,” she said. “We’re looking for a cluster in reports. Maybe someone saw some tracks or someone else heard some howling.”

“All of that kind of stuff adds up,” Bradley said.

Wolves have been in Montana for a while now and are more commonplace.

“People tell me that they don’t know if we care about this kind of information anymore,” she said. “I really do.”

Read Full Post »


The Spokesman-Review released the following article:

“Montana has just announced that at least 566 wolves inhabit the state, according to the 2010 annual wolf conservation and management report released today by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. The report  shows Montana’s minimum wolf population increased about 8 percent in 2010, compared to a 4 percent increase last year and an 18 percent increase in 2008. The minimun numbers indicate that wolves have increased to 108 verified packs and 35 breeding pairs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service followed Montana by posting the complete 2010 Northern Rockies wolf update, which includes the census from Idaho and Wyoming.

The report by Idaho Fish and Game biologists documented a minimum of 705 wolves in 87 packs at the end of 2010. In addition, they documented 22 border packs along boundaries with Montana, Wyoming and Washington. Of the 54 Idaho packs known to have reproduced, 46 qualified as breeding pairs by the end of the year. These reproductive packs produced a minimum of 189 pups in 2010.

For 2009, Idaho reported a minimum population of 843 wolves in 94 packs in the state along wtih 20 documented border packs

Idaho’s decline is at least partly due to the difficulty of monitoring wolves in remote areas of central Idaho, federal officials said.

“I’m certain we could have successfully reduced the wolf population in 2010 if we could have proceeded with our planned, science-based hunting season,” said FWP Director Joe Maurier. “When you look at our management success in 2009, we had a vigorous wolf population at the end of the year and we were still able to control its growth. It’s clear that a management strategy that includes hunting can play an important role in managing wolves in Montana. It is a tool we need and one we’re still trying to get back.”

Last year, FWP joined in a federal lawsuit in defense of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2009 decision to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho, but not in Wyoming. The U.S. District Judge in Missoula, however, reinstated federal protections of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains on Aug. 5.

The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains was set at a minimum of 30 breeding pairs—successfully reproducing wolf packs—and a minimum of 300 individual wolves for at least three consecutive years and well distributed throughout the recovery area. The goal was achieved in 2002, and the wolf population has increased every year since.

FWP’s report is part of the annual federal recovery update required by USFWS. The end of 2010 count also estimates that at least 343 wolves inhabited Wyoming, up slightly from 2009. The count in Idaho dropped slightly to 705, likely due to the state’s decision to reel in monitoring efforts in central Idaho’s rugged wilderness areas. Annual reports from Idaho, Wyoming, and information about wolves in Yellowstone National Park and the northern Rockies are available from the USFWS online at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov.

The northern Rockies’ “metapopulation” is comprised of wolf populations in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Four packs are now verified in Oregon and Washington within the northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population segment. Today, at least 1,651 wolves in 244 packs, with about 111 breeding pairs, live in the region, where wolves can travel about freely to join existing packs or form new packs. This, combined with wolf populations in Canada and Alaska, assures the genetic diversity of wolves throughout the region.

Each of the three geographic regions of Montana inhabited by wolves showed slight increases in 2010 from 2009:

  • northwestern Montana’s population exhibited the greatest increase where the population grew to a minimum of 326 wolves, in 68 verified packs, and 21 breeding pairs. Seven of the packs reside on reservations where they are managed by Tribal authorities.
  • western Montana’s population increased slightly to at least 122 wolves in 21 packs, and eight breeding pairs.
  • southwestern Montana’s population increased slightly to at least 118 wolves in 19 packs, and six breeding pairs.

About 24 packs occur along Montana’s border with Idaho, 18 of which are included in the Montana estimate. This demonstrates the continued influence of the robust wolf population in Idaho on Montana’s wolf population. Additionally, six packs are shared with Wyoming, four of which are included in Montana’s population. 

Compared to Idaho and Wyoming, at 24 percent Montana had the highest rate of known human-caused mortality of wolves in 2010. Officials say that’s due to Montana’s wolf population, as a whole, living on a combination of public and private lands.

Maurier noted, however, that Montana’s wolf population still increased and remains well above recovery goals. “Nearly all of Montana’s wolves live outside national parks,” he said. “That means an intensive management strategy is needed to strike the right balance between wolves and public acceptance. Unfortunately that’s out of our hands, but it’s crystal clear that this species is fully recovered. Montana has made room for wolves and it is our position that Montana must be given the authority to manage them.”

**How accurate do you think these numbers are?  Wolf Preservation would like to hear your comments!

Read Full Post »


John Motsinger, a Communications Associate at Defenders of Wildlife who  handles press coverage for critters in the Northern Rockies as well as Defenders’ national work on coal ash and pesticides has provided the following information:

“Wolf settlement reached in Northern Rockies – Defenders of Wildlife and nine other conservation groups reached a settlement agreement with the Interior Department regarding wolf recovery and management in the Northern Rockies. The settlement was filed for approval with a U.S. Federal District Court in Montana.

Though not a perfect solution, this settlement allows wolf delisting in the two states with approved wolf management plans (Montana and Idaho) to move forward, while retaining protections for the most vulnerable wolves in the Northern Rockies. The settlement also offers a workable solution to the increasingly polarized debate over wolves without resorting to legislation that would be bad for wolves, the ESA and countless other species.

This agreement adopts a scientific approach – including monitoring of the status of wolves and independent scientific review – to ensure that states maintain healthy wolf populations. If approved, it will be up to the states to hold up their end of the bargain and manage wolves responsibly and sustainably as they do for other wildlife.”

**Wolf Preservation appreciates your questions and comments.

Read Full Post »


 Ralph Maughan, a professor of political science at Idaho State University, took some time to explain the nature of the ongoing wolf debate in the Northern Rockies. In his view, wolves have been a pivotal issue because they bring out core social values about life in the West. This video explains the tactics used by anti-wolf extremists to stir up even more controversy. 

Wolf Preservation wants to hear your feedback!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uL94aUwf4k&feature=player_embedded

Read Full Post »


Many of us think of communication only as talking or writing to each other. Those are two ways humans share information every day. How do wolves “converse?” Even though they cannot talk or write, wolves communicate effectively in several ways.

Wolves use body language to convey the rules of the pack. A wolf pack is very organized. Rule number one says that the pack is made up of leaders and followers. The pack leaders are the male parent and the female parent – usually the father and mother of the other pack members. They are likely to be the oldest, largest, strongest and most intelligent wolves in the pack. They are known as the alpha wolves and are usually the only members of the pack to produce pups.

Any wolf can become an alpha. However, to do so, it must find an unoccupied territory and a member of the opposite sex with which to mate. Or, more rarely, it moves into a pack with a missing alpha and takes its place, or perhaps kills another alpha and usurps its mate.

The alpha male and female are dominant, or in charge of the pack. To communicate dominance, the alphas carry their tails high and stand tall. Less dominant wolves exhibit submissive behavior by holding their tails down and often lower their bodies while pawing at the higher ranking wolves.

There are two levels of submissive behavior: active and passive. Active submission is a contact activity in which signs of inferiority are evident such as crouching, muzzle licking and tail tucking. The behaviors typical of active submission are first used by pups to elicit regurgitation in adults. These behaviors are retained into adulthood by subordinate wolves, where they function as a gesture of intimacy and the acceptance of the differentiation of the roles of the wolves that are involved.

Passive submission is shown when a subordinate wolf lays on its side or back, thus exposing the vulnerable ventral side of its chest and abdomen to the more dominant wolf. The subordinate wolf may also abduct its rear leg to allow for anogenital inspection by the dominant wolf. If two wolves have a disagreement, they may show their teeth and growl at each other. Both wolves try to look as fierce as they can. Usually the less dominant wolf, the subordinate one, gives up before a fight begins. To show that it accepts the other wolf’s authority, it rolls over on its back. Reactions to this behavior may range from tolerance (the dominant wolf standing over the submissive wolf) to mortal attack, particularly in the case of a trespassing alien wolf. Following the dominance rules usually keeps the wolves in a pack from fighting among themselves and hurting each other.

Wolves convey much with their bodies. If they are angry, they may stick their ears straight up and bare their teeth. A wolf who is suspicious pulls its ears back and squints. Fear is often shown by flattening the ears against the head. A wolf who wants to play dances and bows playfully.

Wolves have a very good sense of smell about 100 times greater than humans. They use this sense for communication in a variety of ways. Wolves mark their territories with urine and scats, a behavior called scent-marking. When wolves from outside of the pack smell these scents, they know that an area is already occupied. It is likely that pack members can recognize the identity of a packmate by its urine, which is useful when entering a new territory or when packmembers become separated. Dominant animals may scent mark through urination every two minutes. When they do so they raise a leg, this dominant posture utilizes multiple forms of communication and is called a “Raised Leg Urination” or RLU.

Wolves will also use urine to scent mark food caches that have been exhausted. By marking an empty cache, the animal will not waste time digging for food that isn’t there.

Wolves use their sense of smell to communicate through chemical messages. These chemical messages between members of the same species are known as “pherimones.” Sources of pherimones in wolves include glands on the toes, tail, eyes, anus, genitalia and skin. For example, a male is able to identify a female in estrus by compounds (pherimones) present in her urine and copulation will only be attempted during this time.

Of course, their sense of smell also tells them when food or enemies are near.

Have you ever heard a wolf howl? They’re not howling at the moon they are communicating. They call any time of the day, but they are most easily heard in the evening when the wind dies down and wolves are most active. Wolves’ vocalizations can be separated into four categories: barking, whimpering, growling, and howling. Sounds created by the wolf may actually be a combination of sounds such as a bark-howl or growl-bark.

Barking is used as a warning. A mother may bark to her pups because she senses danger, or a bark or bark-howl may be used to show aggression in defense of the pack or territory.

Whimpering may be used by a mother to indicate her willingness to nurse her young. It is also used to indicate “I give up” if they are in a submissive position and another wolf is dominating them.

Growling is used as a warning. A wolf may growl at intruding wolves or predators, or to indicate dominance.

Howling is the one form of communication used by wolves that is intended for long distance. A defensive howl is used to keep the pack together and strangers away, to stand their ground and protect young pups who cannot yet travel from danger, and protect kill sites. A social howl is used to locate one another, rally together and possibly just for fun.

Can you think of ways that humans communicate without using words?

How Do Wolves Say Hello?

Have you seen dogs jump up to greet their owners, bark at strangers or roll over when another dog approaches? Then you already know something about how wolves communicate. Dogs inherited most of their language from their ancestors, the wolves.

Wolves use three different languages:

  1. Sound – Howls, Barks, Whimpers and Growls.
  2. Special Scents – Scats, Urine and Pherimones.
  3. Body Language – Body Positions and Movements and Facial Expressions.

**Special thanks to “International Wolf Center” for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


Who can do a Research Project?

  • College and graduate students
  • Teachers on sabbatical or summer/winter break
  • Dog behaviorists
  • Dog trainers
  • Veterinarians and veterinary technicians
  • Anyone who has a specific interest in canids

Wolf Park is an excellent place to conduct observational or behavioral research. We can help you design and plan your project, although we cannot help you collect and analyze data. Only interns and practicums may conduct research at Wolf Park. If you are interested in doing research with our animals outside of the internship/practicum program, please contact our managing director.

If you are accepted to either the practicum or internship program and have a research project in mind, in order to make sure that what you have planned is possible and will be approved by Wolf Park, we suggest getting our consent in advance of your arrival. Project proposals and outlines should be sent to Pat Goodmann, c/o Wolf Park, or via email (pat@wolfpark.org). After your project has been approved by Pat, she will get consent from Dr. Klinghammer as well. You are not required to do a research project. Many students simply work and study during their time here. It is a good way to learn about research in a non-threatening environment.

Most of the research at Wolf Park is observational in nature. Students in the past have studied sleeping behavior, eating behavior, howls and other vocalizations, and adult interaction with puppies, to name just a few. Many students will focus on a particular animal and observe its interactions with the other animals. Other study opportunities exist with the foxes, coyotes, and bison.

The small staff has limited time; therefore projects involving the manipulations of the animals and their environment are not permitted. Research projects should be purely based on observation of the wolves, not anything that requires human participation or interaction of any kind. Also, due to time limitations, the staff cannot be an integral part of the actual data collection. Do remember, though, the staff is always available to answer questions. Before attempting long and involved projects, especially those resulting in something important such as a Masters thesis, a visit to Wolf Park is recommended.

*Special thanks to “Wolf Park” for providing this information!  Please visit their site at http://www.wolfpark.org/index.html

Read Full Post »


You have all heard the Little Red Riding Hood story, right?  But have you really?

In your version, does Little Red trick the wolf and escape? Does she get gobbled up with her granny?

Folktales are stories that pass from one generation to another and from one country to another by word of mouth. These stories may have changed over time as storytellers adapted them for their own purposes. It wasn’t until the 1800s that folktales were written down for the first time, allowing hundreds of generations of storytelling and story adapting to take place before that. You can often find several versions of the same story because there is no one “right” version of a traditional folktale. Each one represents the time, place and person telling it. Examining the cultural values expressed in a folktale will help you understand the story and its underlying messages better. The classic tale of Little Red Riding Hood is a good example of a story that

reflects cultural values. Most versions of the story can be traced back to the 1600s to the farming areas of central Europe. The people of that time and place possessed a general dislike for wolves due to the wolf’s predation on farm animals. So the wolf was universally considered a villainous character. The story also gives us insight into other cultural values such as the role of women and children in society. Some versions emphasize the vulnerability of little girls to moral perils in the world. Others demonstrate the

dangers of talking to shady characters. The oldest known versions of the story stress the importance of

clever, resourceful thinking in getting a person out of a difficult situation. No matter which version of Little Red Riding Hood you find, be sure to look deeper than its face value, and consider the underlying cultural values expressed to get a full understanding of the story’s meaning.

 Try this!

Go to your library, and check out as many different versions of the Little Red Riding Hood story as you can find. Look for versions in children’s picture books as well as in folktale collections in the 398.2 section of the library. Read through at least four different versions of the story, and discuss with a friend:

 How are the stories different? Describe one or two lessons that each version of the story teaches.

  Speculate about the time, place and person telling these stories…what do you guess might be true? How does the artwork accompanying the story contribute to your impression of Red or the wolf?

 **Special thanks to Kevin Strauss for providing this information! (http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/justkids/wild/wildkids_spring2007.pdf)

 Kevin Strauss is a naturalist, author and storyteller from Ely, Minnesota. Visit the “Shop” section of www.wolf.org to purchase his book Song of the Wolf: Folktales and Legends from Around the World, and audio CD The Mountain Wolf’s Gift: Wolf Tales from Around the World. Contact him at kevin@naturestory.com.

Read Full Post »


“In his recent “A 21st Century Strategy for America’s Great Outdoors” announcement, President Obama emphasized the urgency for the Federal government to “Use science-based management practices to restore and protect our lands and waters for future generations.”

To support this vision, Forest Planning Alternatives—especially in the wolf recovery area in the Apache-Sitgreaves Forests— must include restoration of resilient ecosystems that restore natural processes, including native species, predation, and wildlife connectivity. 

Forests need top predators. The full-scale removal of wolves and fewer mountain lions have compromised the integrity of our wild lands. In Yellowstone National Park, reintroduced wolves keep elk moving and prevent excessive grazing in riparian areas and wetlands, allowing willows and cottonwoods to return to streambeds. This in turn, supports the return of beaver, fish, and birds. Wolves are critical to healthy ecosystems!!!!

Tell the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest that the current range of alternatives is simply not acceptable.

1. The alternatives are skewed toward the maximum mechanical treatment/resource extraction/ motorized alternative that includes illegal declassifying of Inventoried Roadless Areas. This skewing imperils our Mexican gray wolves and is NOT acceptable.

2. Wolves need wilderness and large roadless areas. Include all of the 36 possible wilderness areas and wilderness additions.

3. Wolves need more protection because of the critical role they play in healthy forests; the plan needs to directly address changes that will help with the recovery of this species:
• Developing and enforcing a closed pasture calving and season,
• Reducing the number of livestock in areas of conflict with wolves,
• seasonal grazing only,
• Requiring grazing permittees to dispose of, or render unpalatable, all livestock carcasses before wolves are able to begin scavenging on them.
• Supporting and encouraging voluntary retirement of allotments.

Website: www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision
E-mail: asnf.planning@fs.fed.us
Phone: (928) 333-4301        TTY: (928) 333-6292″

**Thank you to “Lobos of the Southwest” for providing this information!
http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/153/51/Take-Action-by-April-30-Deadline

Read Full Post »


The US The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has decided to take no action in response to the state’s proposal to kill wolves in on Unimak Island, a unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Defenders of Wildlife supported the decision.

Neither the science nor the FWS’s policies could justify enacting the state’s proposal to kill wolves. The FWS has opted instead to devote further study into understanding the underlying causes of the Unimak caribou decline.The FWS’s measured approach is far more likely to produce a healthy ecosystem balance on Unimak Island in the long term, thereby benefiting subsistence hunters and all others who expect healthy wildlife populations on the national wildlife refuge. Killing wolves without understanding the cause of caribou decline ignores one of the primary purposes of this national wildlife refuge: conserving wildlife and habitats and their natural diversity.”

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (March 8, 2011) – The following is a statement from Defenders of Wildlife Alaska Representative Theresa Fiorino in response to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision:

“This is a good decision for Alaska. When wildlife management is guided by sound science, everybody wins in the long term.

“By taking this measured, comprehensive view, we are far more likely to solve long-term conservation challenges. Scientists know that meddling in the complex balance between predators and prey can actually exacerbate problems where they do exist, especially on island ecosystems like Unimak.

“Each time wolves are killed prematurely, before scientists can determine whether a decline in moose or caribou is part of a natural cycle, we deny ourselves the ability to truly understand the heart of the problem. Not only does this do a disservice to wildlife, but also to the Alaskans who rely on some wildlife for subsistence. Thankfully, this way forward should provide answers and, crucially, avoid creating new problems.”

**Special thanks to “wildlifewatch” and “Defenders of Wildlife” for providing this information.

Read Full Post »


I’ve included a section from this article:

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decided that rather than killing wolves on Unimak Island, a wilderness area and unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, it would instead allow nature to prevail and FWS set in motion a series of studies to deepen our understanding of the island’s complex ecological makeup. Finally, an action applauded by those who value a balanced, informed approach to managing Alaska’s wildlife. For the many who have watched with deep concern at the increasing dominance of politics over science, this FWS decision is welcome and long overdue.”

Please visit the link below and share your thoughts!

http://www.adn.com/2011/03/12/1752618/science-may-show-that-killing.html

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »