Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2012


January 25, 2012 12:00 am

Natural predators only one option available to planners.

“ALAMOSA — An examination of wolf reintroduction to the San Luis Valley didn’t come at the prompting of federal wildlife officials.

But they’ll still have to take a look at it, thanks to public comment last year urging the idea be considered as a means of controlling elk herds on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge, where elk have taken a heavy toll on the cottonwoods and willows lining stream banks.

“Right now, it’s a question. You have a lot of elk, a lot of people would say you need a large predator,” said Laurie Shannon, a planning team leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “We may not move forward with it, but right now it’s on the table.”

The mention of wolves takes up only one sentence in a 13-page document laying out the potential management strategies for the Alamosa, Baca and Monte Vista national wildlife refuges.

And it’s not a part of the proposed option favored by the agency.

Still, the possibility of wolf reintroduction drew opposition at a Monday night meeting where possible strategies were unveiled.

Steve Russell said the move would be bad for livestock producers.

“I would like it kicked out regardless of how we merge alternatives,” he said.

Paul Robertson oversees the Nature Conservancy’s Medano-Zapata Ranch, which neighbors the Baca.

‘‘I don’t think ‘C’ is a politically wise decision,’’ he said of the alternative that included the mention of wolves.

 There were no public comments Tuesday in favor of the idea.

Researchers have cited the 1996 reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park for scattering elk herds and allowing the recovery of riparian shrubs like willows.

 But wolves outside the park’s boundaries have been a controversial topic, arousing opposition from ranchers, hunters and even governors.

Idaho and Montana have established wolf hunting seasons and a proposal to do so in Wyoming is under review.

The use of predators may receive some consideration in how the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve manages its elk herds.

Park officials are conducting a study of bison and big game at the park that is due out at the same time as the management plan for the wildlife refuges.

Then-acting Superintendent Karl Cordova said in November the Park Service had not ruled out considering predators as a means to control the elk herds.”

*Special thanks to The Pueblo Chieftan for providing this information!  (http://www.chieftain.com/news/region/wolves-to-be-considered-for-culling-elk-herds/article_f3bb655c-4719-11e1-9fa5-001871e3ce6c.html)

 

 

Read Full Post »


The Film

“From the opening scene, this film takes the audience on an unbelievable journey. Follow world-renowend animal trainer, Andrew Simpson as he travels to one of the coldest places on earth. Together with his Canadian crew and his pack of wolves, he sets out to make the biggest wolf film ever attempted.

 They will live in Siberia in a remote camp for five months where the temperature drops to -60C. You will witness the bond between man and wolf, and the emotional toll this journey takes on everyone.

The footage in this film had never been seen before – there are no computer effects everything you see is real.

Wolves are one of the most misunderstood animals of all time. In this film, you will see them in a new light. It will make you question everything you thought you knew about wolves. You will see an animal that is graceful, caring, affectionate, trusting and capable of expressing all levels of emotion.

You will see one man’s special relationship with a pack of wolves that he raised and lives with everyday. And you will witness his struggle as he wrestle’s with the decision to use this unique bond against them.

Andrew Simpson

Andrew was born and raised in Scotland. Even as a child he was drawn towards nature and was always the kid with a mouse or a frog in his pocket. But he also had a love of adventure. After leaving the Highlands, he travelled around the world several times before settling in Canada.

It was in Canada that all the stars aligned for him. Having a love of animals and a fascination with movies, he finallly found his calling – a professional animal trainer for the industry.

“It’s hard to imaging getting paid for something you love to do everyday, but I do…”

Almost 20 years later, his passion is still just as strong. With his love of nature and the outdoors, and vast film making experience, Andrews talents are in high demand. From the Australian outback to the Greek Islands to Northern China, he is constantly travelling the world, pursuing his dreams, and living life to the fullest.

Although he deals with all species, his speciality is wolves. It is because of this reputation that he was asked to travel to Siberia to make the biggest wolf film ever attempted. Having worked for almost every major Hollywood studio on over 100 productions, Andrew decided it was time to venture in a new direction.

“…What we do with wolves is very specialized, and people the world over are fascinated with them…”

This was the reason for making this film. Andrew wanted to show another side of wolves – a different side from the fairy tales and horror stories normally associated with them.”

*Special thanks to Zenn Media for providing this information! (http://www.wolvesunleashed.com/film.php)

Read Full Post »

Wisdom of Wolves


It’s a society where teamwork, loyalty and communication are the norm rather than the exception. Sound like utopia? Actually, it’s already present in nature – in a wolf pack. The wolf pack knows who it is. Those in the pack exist for each other.

Twyman Towery, Ph.D., a professional speaker and consultant who studied the lessons of leadership in nature, has captured them in a book for Simple Truths called Wisdom of Wolves. Twyman shares the parallels between the wolf pack and human behavior…in business life, family life, and personal life.

 

An excerpt from
Wisdom of Wolves
by Twyman Towery

The attitude of the wolf can be summed up simply: it is a constant visualization of success. The collective wisdom of wolves has been progressively programmed into their genetic makeup throughout the centuries. Wolves have mastered the technique of focusing their energies toward the activities that will lead to the accomplishment of their goals.

Wolves do not aimlessly run around their intended victims, yipping and yapping. They have a strategic plan and execute it through constant communication. When the moment of truth arrives, each understands his role and understands exactly what the pack expects of him.

The wolf does not depend on luck. The cohesion, teamwork and training of the pack determines whether the pack lives or dies.

There is a silly maxim in some organizations that everyone, to be a valuable member, must aspire to be the leader. This is personified by the misguided CEO who says he only hires people who say they want to take his job. Evidently, this is supposed to ensure that the person has ambition, courage, spunk, honesty, drive – whatever. In reality, it is simply a contrived situation, with the interviewee jumping through the boss’s hoops. It sends warnings of competition and one-upmanship throughout the organization rather than signals of cooperation, teamwork and loyalty.

Everyone does not strive to be the leader in the wolf pack. Some are consummate hunters or caregivers or jokesters, but each seems to gravitate to the role he does best. This is not to say there are not challenges to authority, position and status – there are. But each wolf’s role begins emerging from playtime as a pup and refines itself through the rest of its years. The wolf’s attitude is always based upon the question, “What is best for the pack?” This is in marked contrast to us humans, who will often sabotage our organizations, families or businesses, if we do not get what we want.

Wolves are seldom truly threatened by other animals. By constantly engaging their senses and skills, they are practically unassailable. They are masters of planning for the moment of opportunity to present itself, and when it does, they are ready to act.

Because of training, preparation, planning, communication and a preference for action, the wolf’s expectation is always to be victorious. While in actuality this is true only 10 percent of the time or less, the wolf’s attitude is always that success will come – and it does.

(http://store.simpletruths.com/wisdom-of-wolves-with-free-dvd-and-wolf-credo-print-p2190.aspx?cm_mmc=CheetahMail-_-TH-_-01.19.12-_-TWOW-CorpLdr&utm_source=CheetahMail&utm_medium=01.19.12&utm_campaign=TWOWca)

Wisdom of Wolves

Get a free print with this book today!
Shop Now

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Protest the movie, “The Grey” as it misrepresents wolves…Liam Neeson and crew also ate wolves!  The company that made the film can be contact at the bottom of this article so please do so!
 
This new film misrepresents and vilifies wolves and actors actually ate them

“Popular media often mispresents animals as who they want the public to  think they are, rather than representing them as who they actually are. This sort of sensationalsm is good for filling their pockets with money but harms the animals.

A new movie called “The Grey” continues this tradition by misrepresenting wolves as violent hunters who harm humans. Nothing could be further than the truth, there having been only two fatal wolf attacks on humans documented in North America. 

In addition to the misrepresentation of these magnificent animals, actors also ate two wolves. To quote from an article about the making of this movie: “To get the cast of ‘The Grey’ in the mood for the wild, director Joe Carnahan had wolf stew prepared for them. The meat was made from real wolves. And no, it didn’t taste like chicken. Many cast members lost their lunch. But [Liam] Neeson ‘went up for seconds of the wolf stew. A few guys did upchuck. We all knew what we were eating. All I can say is it was very game-y. But I’m Irish, so I’m used to odd stews. I can take it. Just throw a lot of carrots and onions in there and I’ll call it dinner.””

It’s known that the misrepresentation of chimpanzees by media can harm efforts to protect and conserve them and there is every reason to think that “The Grey” will have the same effect on wolves who are wantonly killed because they are no longer protected by the Endangered Species Act. There really are some people for whom killing wolves makes them happy and this movie will provide the perfect motivation to continue to do so and to rally some of their friends to join in the fun.”  

WildEarth Guardians makes it easy for you to protest this movie. Please do so. Wolves need all the support they can get. The company that made the film is Open Road Films, 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600, Los Angeles, California 90025; Phone: 310-696-7575

Read Full Post »


“HELENA — Montana is looking to recreational hunters for help in enforcing more of its wildlife management policies, but one regulator worries they are being asked to cross an ethical line in doing so.

The question is whether the state is unwittingly putting those hunters in a fix: Does their new role fall within ethical hunting guidelines or does it reduce them to wildlife management mercenaries whose actions could give hunting a black eye? That’s the concern of Fish, Wildlife and Parks commissioner Ron Moody, who recently questioned whether the agency’s policies and proposals are asking hunters disregard what it means to be an ethical hunter. “I think we’re either at those limits, or what I really think is we’ve gone past them,” Moody said. FWP already uses hunters to help keep the wolf population down and in game-damage hunts to disperse elk or deer that are damaging private property.

Now the commission is considering expanding their role. In December, commissioners passed a policy allowing hunters to kill wolves that prey on livestock, a task that had been exclusively filled by wildlife enforcement officials. The commission is now considering one proposal that would extend this year’s wolf hunt well into the animals’ breeding season and another that would use hunters to shoot bison that roam beyond designated areas. The first proposal would extend the wolf hunt in the Upper Bitterroot Valley from Feb. 15 to April 1. Hunters have killed four gray wolves out of a quota of 18 there so far, and the extension of the season would help fill that quota with the aim of helping the declining elk herds there. But wolves aren’t the top elk predator in that part of the Bitterroot – mountain lions have that distinction – and April 1 is well into the wolves’ breeding season when females are near the end of their pregnancies. Moody said the sportsman’s code mandates that hunters don’t shoot game in their reproductive season. “It’s just one of those things you don’t do,” he said.

The second proposal Moody took issue with is to allow recreational hunters to shoot wild Yellowstone National Park bison that wander beyond designated areas north of the park and outside of areas where the animals are transplanted, such as two northeastern Montana Indian reservations. FWP Director Joe Maurier has said the proposal was written with the intent of trying to increase public tolerance for expanding the areas outside the park where bison can roam. Plans to reintroduce bison to Montana’s landscape have been met with stiff resistance from the agricultural industry, which fears the spread of disease and property damage. But Moody said killing bison that stray outside a containment area is more akin to vermin control than fair-chase hunting in which hunters pursue free-roaming game animals. “It makes a difference what you do before the public and then go call yourself a fair-chase hunter. There’s a jury out there judging you,” he added.

The commission gave initial approval to the wolf and bison proposals 3-2 and 4-1. They now go out to public for comment before a final vote in February FWP spokesman Ron Aasheim said it is the agency’s policy to use hunters to help manage wildlife populations when appropriate in a responsible and ethical manner. “Hunters have asked for this opportunity. They appreciate the opportunity to take those bison and help manage wolves,” he said. As far as hunting wolves while the females are pregnant, Aasheim said the agency had considered the implications. But this is a special, one-time proposed extension in one specific area – and the plan has not gotten final approval, he said. The man who wrote the book on ethical and fair-chase hunting, Jim Posewitz, said public perception is very important for hunters. The FWP’s use of hunters to enforce wildlife management policies can work, provided the agency uses the right hunters, he said. FWP should provide training so the hunters used have an understanding of the last century’s conservation efforts in North America and also understand that the overall goal is to have sustainable, manageable wildlife populations, he said. “We need to make sure they’re very elite and a very respected group of hunters. We’re not sending out assassins or SWAT teams. We are sending out sensitive, trained hunters to handle a very sensitive situation,” Posewitz said. Aasheim said additional hunting training has previously been suggested, but has not been implemented.

Currently, the state provides a basic hunter education course and each person who participates in the annual bison hunt receives a 30-minute DVD that discusses ethics and hunting, he said. Posewitz worked for the FWP for 32 years and founded Orion – The Hunters Institute, an organization that advocates for ethical hunting. More than 600,000 copies of his book, “Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting” have been handed out as part of hunter-education programs. He cited Helena’s program to control urban deer as a model of how it can be done right. Each year, the city receives authorization from FWP to kill a number of deer to maintain a manageable density of animals within the city. This year, that number is 220. “They’re not out there liquidating the deer. They’re keeping the deer in balance with the carrying capacity of the city, and they’re doing an excellent job of that,” Posewitz said. ”

**Special thanks to “Billings Gazette” for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


“Landlord.com” posts the following rules/laws state by state regarding possession of “dangerous animals.”  The chart can be viewed through their website at:  http://www.landlord.com/dangerous-animals-by-state.htm

Please comment regarding your opinion of owning hybrid wolves:

“This chart deals with state laws concerning dangerous or vicious animals.  Note that it is not the animals the state attempts to regulate, but the persons who own, possess, or harbor them.  We distinguish between this sort of regulation and animal bite issues.  Animal bites are not activities, but events, and state laws concerning them set the consequences for these events.  If you are searching for an insight into your state’s laws concerning animal bites, we have set up a separate chart concerning these.  The two sorts of regulations sometimes overlap.

 

Many states have no rules regarding vicious or dangerous animals, or regulations dealing only with dogs, or dealing only with dogs that prey on livestock.  Most vicious animal laws are directed specifically toward dogs.  If either is so in your state, do not think that there is no regulation at all, or no regulation for anything other than dogs.  For one thing, laws of nuisance and negligence liability still prevail and apply to a person who owns, possesses, or harbors such animals.  For another, many states have devolved such regulation to county or municipal regulation.  It is beyond the scope of a resource such as this to deal with all of these jurisdictions, numbering in the tens of thousands in the United States.  This is why we include a link for each state that will give you contact information for your county and municipal governments.  If you are dealing with an issue regarding an animal you consider dangerous or vicious, your research is not complete until you follow up and contact your local governments and inquire as to ordinances and regulations that may apply.

 Finally, we have included links to the text of statutes in each state that has them, as well as supplying highlights of the state’s regulatory scheme.  This is not done to be pedantic.  Unlike many things, statutes cannot really be summarized, as every word of a statute the force of law, and cannot be omitted or ignored.  You should take the time to read the statute as well as the highlights.”

Read Full Post »


“HAMILTON — Sportsmen’s organizations continue to sweeten the pot to encourage hunters to try to bag a wolf before Montana’s season ends in February.

So far, the incentives have not made much of a difference.

The Safari Club International’s Western Montana Chapter announced recently that it will raffle off the taxidermy of a wolf pelt to successful wolf hunters this year. The prize is worth an estimated $750.

That organization is the third that has offered a prize or a check to hunters bagging a wolf this season.

The Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association started the ball rolling right after the end of hunting season with an announcement that it would raffle a rifle valued at $650 to wolf hunters successful in the southern reaches of the Bitterroot.

The Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife followed with a photo contest that offered $100 to successful wolf hunters and an annual membership for photographs of dead wolves.

All of the groups say the incentives are necessary to encourage hunters to take to the field and learn new techniques needed to bag a wolf.

“The number one reason we decided to do this was to encourage people to get out in the woods and hunt wolves,” said Jon Wemple, president of the Safari Club’s Western Montana Chapter. “There is not nearly as much activity out there with the general hunting season over.”

The Safari Club’s contest is limited to its members. The wolf has to have been killed this season. A picture/story has to be provided as proof.

Even with the additional motivation, hunters are not having much luck in areas of the state where wolf quotas have not been met.

In the West Fork of the Bitterroot, hunters have only managed to kill three wolves since the season began in September. None has been shot since the end of the general hunting season.

The West Fork is the only hunting district in the state with its own wolf quota. State wildlife officials set the quota of 18 after sportsmen’s concerns that high numbers of predators were causing the elk population there to decline.

Wemple said his organization was encouraged that the state extended the wolf hunting season by six weeks at its December meeting.

“We are finding that they are a real hard animal to hunt,” he said. “We are hoping that these incentives will get people out there to learn what works and what doesn’t.”

Wemple said he spent close to 130 days in the woods this year and never had the opportunity to harvest a wolf.

“They are such wanderers,” Wemple said. “You can come onto fresh wolf sign, and, within a couple of hours, that pack can be miles away.”

Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association president Tony Jones said this winter’s mild weather is probably partly to blame for the lackluster hunting results.

“I’ve been logging a lot of miles looking for them, and I don’t even think I’ve been close,” Jones said. “There is a real learning curve. It certainly isn’t easy.”

Jones has been running into other hunters in the East Fork of the Bitterroot, but no one is having much success.

With only three wolves harvested in the West Fork, he wonders if the incentives are going to be enough.

“I think it’s a good idea to have as many incentives out there as possible if that’s what it’s going to take to reduce wolf numbers,” he said. “When you consider that hunters have a chance to win a wolf rug and a rifle and get $100, that’s quite a bit of incentive to get out there.”

Jones said someone has been removing signs that group posted at different businesses around the valley.

As of Jan. 2, 128 wolves of the 220 state-wide quota have been taken.

Not everyone is happy about the incentives being offered by the different groups.

“They are nothing more than a private bounty that probably has the blessings of FWP,” said Marc Cooke, co-president of the National WolfWatcher Coalition.

Cooke said the efforts are being driven by a group of people who want less competition so their hunting endeavors for elk and deer will be more successful and simpler.

“Prior to the hunt, all you heard was there are wolves here, wolves there, wolves everywhere,” Cooke said. “Now you have this hunt, and people can’t find wolves. It raises a question for the National Wolf Watcher Coalition.”

Special thanks to The Billings Gazette for providing this information!  Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/safari-club-international-adds-incentive-to-wolf-hunt/article_d9d367cc-362d-11e1-a74e-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1imo8H6Tu

Read Full Post »


A blog post on http://www.everythingwolf.com/forum/threadview.aspx?thread=10716p1 is creating painful, yet truthful discussion.  Many hunting organizations, such as Safari Club International, simply want to “bag” as many wolves as possible.  More simply, as Anti-Wolf Extremist Montana Politician Ken Miller said, “Kill Em’ All!”

 Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2012  by Chris:

“Three organizations have offered a prize or a check to hunters bagging a wolf this season.

All of the groups say the incentives are necessary to encourage hunters to take to the field and learn new techniques needed to bag a wolf.

“I think it’s a good idea to have as many incentives out there as possible if that’s what it’s going to take to reduce wolf numbers,” he said.
 
Not everyone is happy about the incentives being offered by the different groups.

Jones said someone has been removing signs that group posted at different businesses around the valley.

“They are nothing more than a private bounty that probably has the blessings of FWP,” said Marc Cooke, co-president of the National WolfWatcher Coalition.

Cooke said the efforts are being driven by a group of people who want less competition so their hunting endeavors for elk and deer will be more successful and simpler.

“Prior to the hunt, all you heard was there are wolves here, wolves there, wolves everywhere,” Cooke said. “Now you have this hunt, and people can’t find wolves. It raises a question for the National Wolf Watcher Coalition.”

Read Full Post »


“Congress removed wolves in Montana and Idaho from the protection of the Endangered Species Act in April. And this fall, the killing began.

As of Wednesday, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game reported that 154 of its estimated 750 wolves had been “harvested” this year. Legal hunting and trapping — with both snares to strangle and leg traps to capture — will continue through the spring. And if hunting fails to reduce the wolf population sufficiently — to less than 150 wolves — the state says it will use airborne shooters to eliminate more.

In Montana, hunters will be allowed to kill up to 220 wolves this season (or about 40% of the state’s roughly 550 wolves). To date, hunters have taken only about 100 wolves, prompting the state to extend the hunting season until the end of January. David Allen, president of the powerful Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, has said he thinks hunters can’t do the job, and he is urging the state to follow Idaho’s lead and “prepare for more aggressive wolf control methods, perhaps as early as summer 2012.”

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead recently concluded an agreement with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to save 100 to 150 wolves in lands near Yellowstone National Park. But in the remaining 80% of the state, wolves can be killed year-round because they are considered vermin. Roughly 60% of Wyoming’s 350 wolves will become targeted for elimination.

What is happening to wolves now, and what is planned for them, doesn’t really qualify as hunting. It is an outright war.

In the mid-1990s, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released 66 wolves in Yellowstone and central Idaho, most of the U.S. celebrated. The magnificent wolf, an icon of wilderness that humans had driven to extinction in the United States, would now reoccupy part of its old range. But in the region where the wolves were introduced, the move was much more controversial.

Part of the reason was the increase, particularly in Idaho and Montana, in paramilitary militia advocates, with their masculine ideal of man as warrior who should fight the hated federal government, by armed force if necessary. They were outraged by what they saw as federal interference in the region spurred by environmentalists, and their ideas found a willing reception among ranchers, who view wolves as a threat to their livestock — even though they ranch on federal land — and hunters, who don’t want the wolves reducing the big game population.

The factions have reinforced one another, and today a cultural mythology has emerged that demonizes the federal government, the environmental movement and the wolves themselves. Many false claims have been embraced as truth, including that the Fish and Wildlife Service stole $60 million from federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for bringing wolves back; that the introduced wolves carry horrible tapeworms that can be easily transmitted to dogs, and ultimately to humans; that the Canadian wolves that were brought in are an entirely different species from the gray wolves that once lived in the Rockies, and that these wolves will kill elk, deer, livestock — even humans — for sport.

The false claims may have had particular resonance because they built on a long tradition in Western culture. During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church ruled that wolves belonged to the devil: Demons could take the shape of wolves, as could witches. Puritans brought similar ideas to America. Cotton Mather called New England before it was settled a “howling wilderness.” Asked to investigate Salem’s alleged witches, Mather concluded in his book, “On Witchcraft” (1692): “Evening wolves” (werewolves and witches) were but another of the devil’s tests as New England passed from “wilderness” to the “promised land.”

And that attitude has persisted. Gary Marbut, president of the influential Montana Shooting Sports Assn., wrote in 2003 that “one might reasonably view man’s entire development and creation of civilization as a process of fortifying against wolves.”

Politicians from both parties in Western states have been eager to help with the fortifications. In Idaho, Republican Rep. Mike Simpson and the state’s governor, Butch Otter, made removal of wolves from the Endangered Species Act a political priority. In Montana, Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg has made delisting wolves central to his 2012 Senate campaign against Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. In April, Tester in turn persuaded fellow Democrats in the Senate to approve his inserting a rider in a budget bill that delisted wolves.

In early November, Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, made his own political contribution. Thrilled at the testing of a drone aircraft manufactured in Montana, Baucus declared: “Our troops rely on this type of technology every day, and there is an enormous future potential in border security, agriculture and wildlife and predator management.” A manufacturer’s representative claimed his company’s drone “can tell the difference between a wolf and a coyote.” Pilotless drone aircraft used by the CIA and the Air Force to target and kill alleged terrorists now appear to be real options to track and kill “enemy” wolves.

How far we have fallen since the mid-1990s, when we celebrated the wolves’ reintroduction. During the 2008 presidential election, candidate Barack Obama declared: “Federal policy toward animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of the environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.”
(http://www.disinfo.com/2012/01/montana-to-use-unmanned-drones-against-wolves/)

Read Full Post »


“With the arrival of the first wolf in California since the 1920s, no doubt the California Department of Game and Fish is receiving many comments from the public. The quality of this support, opposition and advice probably varies all over the map (the maps in our heads). Norman Bishop, who played a key role as a Yellowstone Park naturalist educating the public about the wolves that were coming to Yellowstone and then after their arrival until 1997, has compiled a fact-filled piece “What Good are Wolves.” This morning he announced he had sent it to the Director of the California Department of Fish and Game. In the current politically charged and cognitively challenged atmosphere of wolf mythology, the contents of this letter should be shared with the public because summarizes what had been learned in recent years so compactly and lucidly. What good are wolves? Compiled by Norman A. Bishop In 1869, General Phil Sheridan said, “The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.” Others said, “The only good wolf is a dead wolf.” Barry Lopez wrote of an American Pogrom, not only of Native Americans and wolves, but of the bison on which both depended. Between 1850 and 1890, 75 million bison were killed, mostly for their hides; perhaps one or two million wolves. “Before about 1878, cattlemen were more worried about Indians killing their cattle than they were about wolves. As the land filled up with other ranchers, as water rights became an issue, and as the Indians were removed to reservations, however, the wolf became, as related in Barry Lopez’s book, Of Wolves and Men, ‘an object of pathological hatred.’”

 Lopez continues: “(T)he motive for wiping out wolves (as opposed to controlling them) proceeded from misunderstanding, from illusions of what constituted sport, from strident attachment to private property, from ignorance and irrational hatred.” In 1884, Montana set a bounty on wolves; in the next three years, 10,261 wolves were bountied. “In 1887, the bounty was repealed by a legislature dominated by mining interests.” *** “By 1893,… desperate stockmen were reporting losses that were mathematical impossibilities. The effect of this exaggeration was contagious. The Montana sheep industry, which up to this time had lost more animals to bears and mountain lions than to wolves, began to blame its every downward economic trend on the wolf. *** Men in a speculative business like cattle ranching singled out one scapegoat for their financial losses.” Not until wolves were functionally extinct from much of the West did anyone begin to ask, “What good are wolves?” to study wolves, and to report their beneficial effects on their prey species and on the ecosystems where they lived. Adolph Murie realized that wolves selected weaker Dall sheep, “which may be of great importance to the sheep as a species.” His brother, Olaus J.Murie, thought predators may have an important influence during severe winters in reducing elk herds too large for their winter range.

Douglas H. Pimlott pointed out that wolves control their own densities . Yellowstone National Park wolf project leader Douglas W. Smith says that restoration of wolves there has added exponentially to our knowledge of how natural ecosystems work. It has also reminded us that predation is one of the dominant forces in all of nature, present in ecosystems worldwide over millions of years. Bob Crabtree and Jennifer Sheldon note that predation by wolves is important to the integrity of the Yellowstone ecosystem, but we should realize that, before their return to Yellowstone’s northern range, 17 mountain lions there killed 611 elk per year, 60 grizzly bears killed 750 elk calves annually, and 400 coyotes killed between 1100 and 1400 elk per year. P.J. White et al wrote that climate and human harvest account for most of the recent decline of the northern Yellowstone elk herd, coupled with the effects of five predators: wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, cougars, and coyotes. These are parts of a system unique in North America by its completeness.

Joel Berger et al demonstrated “a cascade of ecological events that were triggered by the local extinction of grizzly bears…and wolves from the southern greater Yellowstone ecosystem.” In about 75 years, moose in Grand Teton National Park erupted to five times the population outside, changed willow structure and density, and eliminated neotropical birds; Gray Catbirds and MacGillivray’s Warblers.

Dan Tyers informs us that wolves haven’t eliminated moose from Yellowstone. Instead, burning of tens of thousands of acres of moose habitat in 1988 (mature forests with their subalpine fir) hit the moose population hard, and it won’t recover until the forests mature again. Mark Hebblewhite and Doug Smith documented that wolves change species abundance, community composition, and physical structure of the vegetation, preventing overuse of woody plants like willow, reducing severity of browsing on willows that provide nesting for songbirds. In Banff, songbird diversity and abundance were double in areas of high wolf densities, compared to that of areas with fewer wolves . Fewer browsers lead to more willows, providing habitat for beaver, a keystone species, which in turn create aquatic habitat for other plants and animals. By reducing coyotes,which were consuming 85% of the production of mice in Lamar Valley, restored wolves divert more food to raptors, foxes, and weasels. By concentrating on killing vulnerable calf elk and very old female elk, wolves reduce competition for forage by post-breeding females, and enhance the nutrition of breeding-age females. Wolves promote biological diversity, affecting 20 vertebrate species, and feeding many scavengers (ravens, magpies, pine martens, wolverines, bald eagles, gray jays, golden eagles, three weasel species, mink, lynx, cougar, grizzly bear, chickadees, Clark’s nutcracker, masked shrew and great grey owl). In Yellowstone, grizzly bears prevailed at 85% of encounters over carcasses, and they usurp nearly every kill made by wolves in Pelican Valley from March to October. Some 445 species of beetle scavengers benefit from the largess of wolf-killed prey. In Banff and Yellowstone, no other predator feeds as many other species as do wolves. Wolf-killed elk carcasses enhance local levels of soil nutrients; 20-500% greater nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. Dan Stahler and his colleagues saw an average of four ravens on carcasses in Lamar Valley pre-wolf. Post-wolf, that increased to 28 average, with as many as 135 seen on one carcass. Eagles seen on carcasses increased from an average of one per four carcasses to four per carcass. P.J. White and Bob Garrott observed that, by lowering elk numbers, wolves may contribute to higher bison numbers; by decreasing coyote populations, result in higher pronghorn numbers. They also said wolves may ameliorate ungulate-caused landscape simplification. Daniel Fortin and others saw that wolves may cause elk to shift habitat, using less aspen, and favoring songbirds that nest in the aspen. Christopher Wilmers and all tell us that hunting by humans does not benefit scavengers the way wolf kills do. Carrion from wolf kills is more dispersed spatially and temporally than that from hunter kills, resulting in three times the species diversity on wolf kills versus hunter kills. Wolves subsidize many scavengers by only partly consuming their prey; they increase the time over which carrion is available, and change the variability in scavenge from a late winter pulse (winterkill) to all winter. They decrease the variability in year-to-year and month to-month carrion availability. Chris Wilmers and Wayne Getz write that wolves buffer the effects of climate change. In mild winters, fewer ungulates die of winterkill, causing loss of carrion for scavengers. Wolves mitigate late-winter reduction in carrion by killing ungulates all year. Mid-sized predators can be destructive in the absence of large keystone predators. In the absence of wolves, pronghorn have been threatened with elimination by coyotes. Wolves have reduced coyotes, and promoted survival of pronghorn fawns. Pronghorn does actually choose the vicinity of wolf dens to give birth, because coyotes avoid those areas, according to Douglas W. Smith. Mark Hebblewhite reviewed the effects of wolves on population dynamics of large-ungulate prey, other effects on mountain ecosystems, sensitivity of wolf-prey systems to top-down and bottom-up management, and how this may be constrained in national park settings. Then he discussed the implications of his research on ecosystem management and long term ranges of variation in ungulate abundance. He cites literature that suggests that the long-term stable state under wolf recovery will be low migrant elk density in western montane ecosystems. Noting that wolves may be a keystone species, without which ungulate densities increase, vegetation communities become overbrowsed, moose and beaver decline, and biodiversity is reduced. But as elk decline, aspen and willow regeneration are enhanced. In this context, wolf predation should be viewed as a critical component of an ecosystem management approach across jurisdictions. Chronic wasting disease could wipe out our elk and deer. Tom Hobbs writes that increasing mortality rates in diseased populations can retard disease transmission and reduce disease prevalence. Reduced lifespan, in turn, can compress the time interval when animals are infectious, thereby reducing the number of infections produced per infected individual. Results from simulations suggest that predation by wolves has the potential to eliminate CWD from an infected elk population. Wildlife veterinarian Mark R. Johnson writes that wolves scavenge carrion, such as aborted bison or elk calves. By eating them, they may reduce the spread of Brucellosis to other bison or elk. Scott Creel and John Winnie, Jr. report that wolves also cause elk to congregate in smaller groups, potentially slowing the spread of diseases that thrive among dense populations of ungulates. John Duffield and others report that restoration of wolves has cost about $30 million, but has produced a $35.5 million annual net benefit to greater Yellowstone area counties, based on increased visitation by wolf watchers. Some 325,000 park visitors saw wolves in 2005. In Lamar Valley alone, 174,252 visitors observed wolves from 2000 to 2009; wolves were seen daily in summers for nine of those ten years. Wolves cause us to examine our values and attitudes. Paul Errington wrote, “Of all the native biological constituents of a northern wilderness scene, I should say that the wolves present the greatest test of human wisdom and good intentions.” Aldo Leopold, father of game management in America, said, “Harmony with land is like harmony with a friend; you cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his left. That is to say, you cannot love game and hate predators; … The land is one organism.” Leopold also pointed out that the first rule of intelligent tinkering with natural ecosystems was to keep all the pieces. Eliminating predators is counter to that advice. Wolves remind us to consider what is ethically and esthetically right in dealing with natural systems. As Leopold wrote in his essay “The Land Ethic,” “A land ethic …does affirm (animals’) right to continued existence…in a natural state.” He concluded, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” What good are wolves? References cited Berger, Joel , Peter B. Stacey, Lori Bellis, and Matthew P. Johnson. 2001. A mammalian predator-prey imbalance: grizzly bear and wolf extinction affect avian neotropical migrants.

Ecol. Applications 11(4):947-960. Crabtree, Robert L., and Jennifer W. Sheldon. Coyotes and Canid Coexistence in Yellowstone. Pages 127-163 in Clark, Tim W., A. Payton Curlee, Steven C. Minta, and Peter M. Kareiva. 1999. Carnivores in Ecosystems: The Yellowstone Experience. Yale U. Press. 429 pp. Creel, Scott, and J.A. Winnie, Jr. 2005. Responses of elk herd size to fine-scale spatial and temporal variation in the risk of predation by wolves. Animal Behaviour 69:1181-1189. Duffield, J., C. Neher, and D. Patterson. 2006. Wolves and People in Yellowstone: Impacts on the Regional Economy. Department of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Montana. Errington, Paul L. 1967. Of Predation and Life. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 277 p. Fortin, D., H. Beyer, M.S. Boyce, D.W. Smith, T. Duchesne, and J.S. Mao. Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86(5):1320-30. Hebblewhite, Mark. 2010. Predator-Prey Management in the National Park Context: Lessons from a Transboundary Wolf, Elk, Moose and Caribou System (Pp. 348-365 in Transactions of the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources conference. Hebblewhite, Mark, and Douglas W. Smith. 2007. Wolf Community Ecology: Ecosystem Effects of Recovering Wolves in Banff and Yellowstone National Parks in Musiani, M., and P.C. Paquet. The World of Wolves: new perspectives on ecology, behaviour, and policy. U. of Calgary Press. Hobbs, N. Thompson. 2006. A Model Analysis of Effects of Wolf Predation on Prevalence of Chronic Wasting Disease in Elk Populations of Rocky Mountain National Park. Johnson, Mark R. 1992. The Disease Ecology of Brucellosis and Tuberculosis in Potential Relationship to Yellowstone Wolf Populations. Pp. 5-69 to 5-92 in Varley, J.D., and W.G. Brewster, Ed’s. Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to the United States Congress. Volume IV, Research and Analysis. Leopold, Aldo. 1938. Unpublished essay, “Conservation,” on Pp. 145-6 of Round River, 1953.) Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press. P. 204 and Pp. 224-225. Lopez, Barry H. 1978. Of Wolves and Men. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York. 308 p. Murie, Adolph. 1944. The Wolves of Mount McKinley. Fauna of the National Parks of the United States. Fauna Series No. 5. USGPO, Washington, D.C. Murie, Olaus J. The Elk of North America. 1951. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa., and Wildl. Mgmt. Inst., Wash., D.C. 376 pp. Pimlott, Douglas H. 1967. Wolf Predation and Ungulate Populations. Amer. Zool. 7: 267-78. Smith, Douglas W. Personal communication. Stahler, Daniel, Bernd Heinrich, and Douglas Smith. 2002. Common ravens, Corvus corax, preferentially associate with grey wolves, Canis lupus, as a foraging strategy in winter. Animal Behaviour 64:283-290. El Sevier. Tyers, Daniel B. 2003. Winter Ecology of Moose on the Northern Yellowstone Winter Range. Ph.D. Dissertation, MSU, Bozeman. White, P.J., and R.A. Garrott. 2005. Yellowstone’s ungulates after wolves – expectations, realizations, and predictions. Biological Conservation 125:141-52. White, P.J., Robert Garrott, and Lee Eberhardt. 2003. Evaluating the consequences of wolf recovery on northern Yellowstone elk. YCR-NR-2004-02. Wilmers, C.C., and W.M. Getz. 2005. Gray wolves as climate change buffers. PLoS Biology 3 (4):e92. Wilmers, C.C., R.L. Crabtree, D.W. Smith, K.M Murphy, W.M. Getz. 2003. Trophic facilitation by introduced top predators: grey wolf subsidies to scavengers in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Animal Ecology 72(6):909-16. About the compiler After university work in Botany, Zoology, Forest Recreation, and Wildlife Management, and 4 years as a naval aviator, Norman A. Bishop was a national park ranger for 36 years. He was the principal interpreter of wolves and their restoration at Yellowstone National Park from 1985 to 1997, when he retired to Bozeman. For his educational work on wolves, he received a USDI citation for meritorious service. He also received the National Parks and Conservation Association’s 1988 Stephen T. Mather Award, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition’s 1991 Stewardship Award, and the Wolf Education and Research Center’s 1997 Alpha Award. He led many field courses on wolves for the Yellowstone Association Institute until 2005. He is the greater Yellowstone region field representative for the International Wolf Center. He serves on the boards of the Wolf Recovery Foundation, and Wild Things Unlimited. He is also on the advisory board of Living with Wolves. Norman A. Bishop Bozeman, MT 59715

**Special thanks to The Wildlife News for providing this information (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2011/12/30/what-good-are-wolves/)

Read Full Post »