Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February, 2012


Posted: Feb 25, 2012 3:17 PM by Dennis Bragg (KPAX/KAJ Media Center)

“Conservation groups are blasting Idaho’s decision to kill wolves along the Idaho-Montana border from the air, saying the move is “misguided” and not backed up with scientific evidence.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game caused a flurry of response from wolf advocated Thursday when it announced it helped fund USDA Wildlife Service’s successful efforts to kill 14 wolves from a helicopter in the Lolo Zone of the Clearwater National Forest.

The state says in the Lolo zone, hunters had killed 11 wolves this year, with another 11 caught by trappers and half-a-dozen killed through “control efforts” last spring. Along with the 14 wolves shot from the air earlier this month that brings the total wolves removed to 42.

In September 2010 Idaho Fish and Game set a target of 40 to 50 wolves to be removed to help maintain healthy elk populations on the Idaho side of the border. Biologists say the wolves are the “primary cause of death” for cow elk and calves under six months old.

Deputy Director Jim Unsworth says the state would “like to see one of Idaho’s premier elk populations recover as much as possible.” But Defenders of Wildlife is blasting the move, and previous occasions where it says the state has killed wolves through aerial gunning.

“It’s wrong to ask American taxpayers to subsidize the pointless killing of wolves in order to boost game populations. The removal of wolves in the Clearwater National Forest runs counter to science-based wildlife management and is an inappropriate use of limited resources that should be aimed at conserving wildlife,” said Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for the Defenders.

“Hunters and trappers have already killed more than 20 wolves in the area in the last six months, and the season continues until the end of March. There’s no scientific evidence that the ecosystem is out of balance due to the return of wolves and thus no justification for having Wildlife Services kill more wolves to boost elk numbers.”

Defenders of Wildlife worries the state will try a similar approach elsewhere in Idaho.”

**Special thanks to Dennis Bragg (KPAX/KAJ Media Center) for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


Article | February 21, 2012 – 6:30pm | Ashland Current

“Legislation outlining a proposed state wolf hunt is likely to hurt wolf populations while failing to resolve existing conflicts with humans, says a University of Wisconsin-Madison wolf expert.

Senate Bill 411, introduced at the end of January, proposes opening Wisconsin to hunting and trapping gray wolves during an annual season that would extend from Oct. 15 through the end of the following February.

UW-Madison professor Adrian Treves directs the Carnivore Coexistence Laboratory in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.  Treves says the removal of the gray wolf from federal endangered species lists earlier this year is an opportunity to balance responsible and sustainable natural resource management with citizen interests.

“The issue is not simply whether or not to hunt, it is how and where to hunt that are critical,” he writes in a testimony statement to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environmen.

But exposing wolves to such a long season – much longer than comparable species – and across such a broad area risks overharvesting the animals, Treves says. The approach is also unlikely to help control problem wolves, which Treves’ research has shown are a minority of animals in geographically restricted and highly predictable areas.

Treves also believes the proposed hunt will not meet the needs of the majority of Wisconsin citizens. In statewide public opinion surveys, he and his colleagues found that the majority of those polled supported a wolf hunt provided it could be conducted in a way that reduces conflict with humans without jeopardizing the long-term health of the wolf population. The proposed hunt structure meets neither condition, he says.

Pushing forward with the bill as written risks reducing the state population enough to land it back on the federal endangered list and beyond state control, Treves says. “We risk wasting the opportunity for Wisconsin to manage its own wolves without federal intervention,” writes Treves.

“As a species fresh off the endangered species list and a species with very special meaning to many people – including the sovereign tribal nations in our state – this bill should be amended to accord the wolf its due place among Wisconsin’s premier wildlife,” he adds. “I recommend the (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) be given the authority to determine a sustainable and publicly acceptable season length and methods of hunting.””

**Special thanks to “Ashland Current” for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


February 11th, 2012

“According to the public trust doctrine, states are obligated to ensure a sustainable population of species, including wolves; it is clearly evident that science is just not guiding decision-making in Idaho. 

  • Of the three states in the overall Northern Rockies wolf recovery zone, Idaho has the most suitable wolf habitat. Yet Idaho’s position on wolves is that there should be zero wolves in the state (Idaho plan, 2002, p.4).  In fact, Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter even declared at a statehouse rally, “I’m prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself.” 
  • Idaho fails to provide the critically objective and verifiable scientific data that is required by federal law when making decisions about the endangered status of animals as well as their management in individual states.
  • Wolves don’t “belong” to just Idaho, either!  The Endangered Species Act represents a decades-old bi-partisan consensus among Americans which asserts that wildlife and ecologies are invaluable and worth protecting. Just as the quality of our air and water cannot be left to the individual States, neither can the continued healthy survival of our vital and endangered wildlife.  Wildlife belongs to America, too.

ACTION ALERT:

“Jeff Thomas” is the Idahoan hunter who apparently “didn’t realize” his wolf tag was no longer valid when he shot and killed a collared male wolf from northeast Oregon’s Imnaha Pack – OR-9, “Journey’s” sibling!   This hunter who “poached” OR-9 was given a mere warning and that is simply not acceptable.  Jeff Thomas should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
  • Please call Virgil Moore at the Idaho Dept of Fish and Game and tell him what you think of Idaho’s policies – (208) 334-3771     

 OR-9    was a healthy and strong young wolf who posed no threat to livestock or humans. In his memory, we hope you take action on his behalf as well as all those wolves who remain in the line of fire in this state.”

**Special thanks to “WolfWatcher.Org” for providing this information!  (http://wolfwatcher.org/news/all-news/action-alert-justice-for-oregon-wolf-or-9/)

Read Full Post »


Article Last Updated: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:53pm

Senses being tapped to keep the predators clear of cattle.

“ALBUQUERQUE – Wildlife managers are running out of options when it comes to helping Mexican gray wolves overcome hurdles that have thwarted reintroduction into their historic range in the Southwest.

Harassment and rubber bullets haven’t worked, so they’re trying something new – a food therapy that has the potential to make the wolves queasy enough to never want anything to do with cattle again.

As in people, the memories associated with eating a bad meal are rooted in the brain stem, triggered any time associated sights and smells pulse their way through the nervous system.

Wildlife managers are trying to tap into that physiological response in the wolves, hoping that feeding them beef laced with an odorless and tasteless medication will make them ill enough to kill their appetite for livestock.

Cattle depredations throughout southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona have served as an Achilles’ heel for the federal government’s efforts to return the wolves.

Conditioned taste aversion – the technical term for what amounts to a simple reaction – is not a silver bullet for boosting the recovery of the Mexican wolf, but some biologists see it as one of few options remaining for getting the program back on track after nearly 14 years of stumbling.

“Just the very fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying something new ought to send the message that they really are seriously concerned about the ranchers’ concerns,” said Dan Moriarty, a professor and chairman of the psychological sciences department at the University of San Diego.

“We have to find a way to sort of peacefully co-exist,” said Moriarty, who has worked with captive wolves in California. “That’s my hope, that the taste aversion will be one more tool.”

Gray wolves have rebounded from widespread extermination throughout the Northern Rockies and the Great Lakes region. Since being declared endangered in 1974, the wolf population has grown fivefold – to about 6,200 animals wandering parts of 10 states outside Alaska.

After four decades and tens of millions of dollars, the federal government was recently able to remove the animals from the endangered species list in several states.

The case is much different in the Southwest, where the population of the Mexican wolf – a subspecies of the gray wolf – continues to be about 50 despite more than a decade of work. Biologists had hoped to have more than 100 wolves in the wild by 2006.

Due to livestock problems, about 90 wolves and some dependent pups have been removed – in some cases lethally – from the wild since the program began. For about four years, the Fish and Wildlife Service operated under a policy that called for trapping or shooting wolves if they had been involved in at least three cattle depredations.

The agency has since scrapped the policy, and ranchers have all but given up on keeping track of their dead cows and calves.

In the last year, monthly reports from the wolf program show wildlife managers investigated four dozen depredations in Arizona and New Mexico. They determined that wolves were involved in half of the cases.

Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association, said ranchers are frustrated.

“You really have no idea how bad it is when a dad calls you and says ‘There’s a wolf in my yard and my kids and my wife are stuck in the house. What can you do to help me?’”

That’s the issue, Cowan said. “These animals are habituated to humans and until we can figure that out, I don’t know what you do.”

Cowan acknowledged, however, that getting wolves to stop preying on livestock would be a huge first step.

Biologists working at a captive breeding center at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in south-central New Mexico treated six wolves last April and another two in October. The animals were fed baits made up of beef, cow hide and an odorless, tasteless deworming medication that makes the wolves queasy.

Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Susan Dicks said the initial tests appear to be successful, with the wolves not wanting anything to do with the beef baits after their first serving.

The idea is that when wolves smell cattle in the wild, their nervous system and brain stem will kick into gear and override any desire they have to get near the cattle.

“We’re learning as we go, but so far we have seen some good aversions produced,” Dicks said. “Again, it’s impossible to say yet whether this translates to a livestock animal running around on the hoof.”

Wolf releases have been put off for the past year, and it’s unclear whether the agency will have the opportunity to release the treated wolves this year so the taste aversion treatments can be fully tested.

The work done with the Mexican wolves is based on decades of research conducted by Lowell Nicolaus, a retired biology professor from Northern Illinois University. He has seen it work with captive wolves and free-ranging raccoons and crows.

“It just takes one good illness,” said Nicolaus of Butte Falls, Ore. “Their avoidance is going to be expressed wherever they see the food or smell it. It doesn’t depend on when and where they first ate it or when and where they got sick.”

Nicolaus said taste aversion works because it’s an unconscious response, not a threat that wolves can overcome such as being hazed or shot at with rubber bullets.

The other benefit is biologists say wolves that have an aversion to cattle are likely to pass that on to their pups by teaching them hunting habitats that avoid cattle and focus on deer, elk and other native prey. They call that a feeding tradition.

Bill Given, a wildlife biologist who helped the Fish and Wildlife Service with the first batch of wolf treatments at Sevilleta, describes taste aversion as a natural solution that taps into an evolutionary defense mechanism that is common among all animals.

“You can build a great fence or you can have a dog as a shepherd, but none of those things can change the desire to consume the livestock,” he said. “They just make it challenging and then the predator has to work around that barrier.”

To ranchers, the wolves are “killing machines,” Cowan said.

The biologists don’t necessarily disagree.

“There’s no stopping the feeding and the sex drive. All life is about those two things,” Given said, noting that wildlife managers have an opportunity to gain some control through taste aversion.

The next challenge will be proving its value on the range by monitoring wolves that have been treated.

“I think it does have a lot of promise,” Dicks said. “And part of it is we’re willing to try anything to get these animals successfully on the ground without impacting livestock growers.”

*Special thanks to SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN, 
Associated PressHerald Staff for providing this information! ( http://durangoherald.com/article/20120202/NEWS06/702029970/-1/s)

Read Full Post »


US Fish and Wildlife Service, February 9, 2012

Contacts:  Tom Buckley, (505) 248-6455      Tom_Buckley@fws.gov
Bruce Sitko, (928) 367-4281         bsitko@azgfd.gov

“The National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, has determined that Mexican wolf mp1242 died as the result of a gunshot wound.

On November 23, 2011, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) personnel on the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) were contacted by a member of the public who reported seeing an injured Mexican wolf in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests south of Big Lake, Ariz. The IFT located and observed the wolf the next day by tracking its radio collar signal. They identified it as mp1242, a young male that was born earlier in 2011 into the Bluestem Pack. After confirming the wolf was injured, the IFT initiated efforts to capture the animal and evaluate its injury.

The IFT captured mp1242 on December 3 and found that it had an injured rear leg and was in poor body condition. In phone consultation with a veterinarian, project personnel attempted to implement life-saving measures en route to the veterinarian office, but the wolf died of its injuries.

“I am disappointed and concerned by this news of another wolf dying due to gunshot wounds,” said Benjamin Tuggle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southwest Regional Director. “It is hard for me to rationalize the illegal killing of these wolves or any other endangered species.  They are the natural heritage we are hoping to leave to future generations.”

“We are bringing the full weight of the law to bear on these illegal activities and will continue to focus on this impediment to recovery,” said Tuggle.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) law enforcement agents, in collaboration with the AGFD have opened an investigation. All of the Service’s available regional law enforcement resources are being utilized.

A reward of up to $10,000 is being offered for any information leading to the apprehension of the individual or individuals who may be responsible for the death of this wolf. Individuals who have information are urged to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement in Albuquerque, New Mexico at (505) 346-7828 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (505) 346-7828      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or in Alpine, Arizona. at (928) 339-4232 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (928) 339-4232      end_of_the_skype_highlighting, or AGFD Operation Game Thief hotline at (800) 352-0700 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (800) 352-0700      end_of_the_skype_highlighting. Killing a Mexican gray wolf is a violation of the Endangered Species Act, punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and/or up to a year in prison.

Mexican wolf reintroduction is a joint effort by the Service, AGFD, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services, and other stakeholders, including Graham, Greenlee and Navajo Counties in Arizona.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service.   The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service works cooperatively with the American public to continue the conservation legacy of America’s great outdoors.   For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.
******************************************************************************************************************************************
TAKE ACTION TO STOP THE CRIMINALS KILLING WOLVES! Public interest groups and concerned citizens have contributed to a reward, bringing the total amount of money available for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone killing a Mexican gray wolf to as much as $59,000. Please help to stop the killers by printing and posting reward posters!”

**Special thanks to “Lobos of the Southwest” for providing this information!http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/629/51/Press-Release-Necropsy-Results-Show-Mexican-Wolf-Died-From-Illegal-Gunshot-Reward-Offered-for-Information/d,News2

Read Full Post »


Image

“The number of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico rose in 2011, but more significantly, the number of breeding pairs grew from just two to six.

In all, at least 58 wolves were counted by state and federal biologists in the annual survey, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. A year ago, there were 50 wolves counted and in 2010, there were just 42.

The numbers are especially encouraging because the Wallow Fire burned through several important wolf habitat areas last summer. Officials say the count is a minimum number because some wolves may have been missed in the survey.

“These numbers are an indication of the full-on effort we and our partners … have been putting into this program,” said Benjamin Tuggle, Southwest regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “We were successful in establishing the initial population of Mexican wolves in the wild, and we are building on that success.”

Wolf advocates cheered the count cautiously, noting that the numbers are still far below the original goals of maintaining more than 100 wolves and 18 breeding pairs by 2006. The advocates say efforts to reintroduce the wolf to the wild has suffered from a lack of a full recovery plan and the small number of wolves released into the wild.

“Eight more wolves in the wild than the previous year is a step back from the edge of extinction,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. “And that’s happy news. Of course, six breeding pairs is still perilously low.”

The survey found 32 wolves in six packs on the Arizona side of the recovery area and 26 wolves in six packs on the New Mexico side. There were 18 pups born in 2011 that survived through Dec. 31, helping boost the final population figures.

“Even though these numbers are below the target levels specified in the environmental impact statement developed when the program began, these elements exhibit a cornerstone achievement

in Mexican wolf conservation,” said Larry Voyles, director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. “This year’s count gives credence to the fact that we are moving in a positive direction.”

Voyles said wolf program specialists estimate that 90 percent of the wolves being tracked by electronic collars were born in the wild.

The gray wolf was all but extinct before the reintroduction program began in 1998. State and federal agencies have released wolves in fits and starts since then and the federal government has repeatedly delayed work on a full recovery plan.

The program has been the target of intense opposition by ranchers who run livestock in the high country of eastern Arizona and western New Mexico. They say the wolves kill cows and sheep and should not be allowed to roam wild.

 Nine wolves are known to have died during the year, including two shot illegally.

Eva Sargent, a gray wolf expert for the group Defenders of Wildlife, said the wolves will never make it if the federal government doesn’t release more animals into the wild.

 “There are wolves eligible for release in Arizona and New Mexico right now, and they are desperately needed,” she said. “Some of these wolves have been specially conditioned to avoid preying on cattle and deserve a chance at life in the wild.”

Voyles said the state will continue to work with land users in an effort to reduce the contact between wolves and livestock and avoid more confrontations.

“Building public tolerance by those who live on the land and must coexist with the wolf is crucial to the success of the Mexican wolf program in Arizona,” he said.

Robinson said the wolves need the support of a full recovery program that acknowledges the value of the predator on the landscape.

“Restoring wolves to the wild helps restore the balance of nature in the Southwest,” he said. “More wolves means stronger and more alert elk and deer, more leftover meals for badgers and bears, and healthier streamsides as elk spend less time eating willow shoots.”

You can read more about how the state conducted the survey and how the information helps its program here.”

**Special thanks to Shaun McKinnon,The Arizona Republic, for providing this information! (http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/ShaunMcKinnon/154350)
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 04:05 PM

Read Full Post »


Pat Goodmann, head animal curator at Wolf Park in Battleground, Indiana weighs in on the film, “The Grey.”  Pat was a guest column in the Lafayette Journal and Courier posted below:

“The Grey,” a movie about an oil drilling team stranded by a plane crash in the Alaskan wilderness that is hunted by a pack of wolves, was released today. Dearfilm.net calls it “a brutal, devastating treatise on nature and the divine, life and death.”

Wolves being portrayed inaccurately as vicious hunters is nothing new, but that’s not why I wrote this. But did filmmakers get away with ignoring basic ethical standards of animal treatment?

“The Grey” is not just a film that shows actors killing wolves on the screen. For the filming, four wild wolves that had been trapped and killed in Canada were utilized, according to The Province. Meat from two of those wolves was eaten on set.

Pat Goodmann, Wolf Park’s primary wolf curator, contributes her two cents in a guest column in the Lafayette Journal and Courier.

“Wolves being portrayed inaccurately as vicious hunters is nothing new, but that’s not why I wrote this. But did filmmakers get away with ignoring basic ethical standards of animal treatment?”

Dermot Mulroney, during an interview on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” said that director Joe Carnahan had wolf meat served to the cast in the form of a stew and barbecue.

 A source at the National Wolfwatcher Coalition informed Wolf Park that the animal handlers used on the set of the film were not on the approved handler list. On top of that, the film’s publicist, Liz Biber, was so unaware of how wild wolves react to humans that she asked Wolfwatcher if they could get OR-7, the first wild wolf to cross into California in 80 years, to walk the red carpet at the movie’s opening. A little ironic, considering that the film portrays wolves as violent mankillers.

 Do wild wolves pose a serious threat to humans? Just because an animal can potentially be dangerous doesn’t mean that it necessarily will be. Dave Mech, one of the top wolf researchers, says there were only about two dozen nonfatal attacks in North America on humans in the past century. Those wolves had not only become habituated to humans, but associated them with food.

On Isle Royale, the late Purdue University professor, Durward Allen, started a research project on wolf and moose ecology more than 50 years ago, which continues today. Rangers, researchers and campers hike the island through wolf territories regularly. No humans have ever been harmed by the Isle Royale wolves.

 Using “The Grey” to understand wolves is like using Hannibal Lecter to understand humans. This film, which perpetuates the myth that wolves and humans cannot coexist, is being released at a time when wolves have been taken off of the endangered species list. We fear that conservation efforts will be hindered by misinformation disseminated by popular fiction such as “The Grey,” and, of course, Wolf Park deplores harming of animals for human entertainment.”  

**Special thanks to

Jconline.com for providing this information (http://www.jconline.com/article/20120127/OPINION03/120126023/Guest-column-Can-t-get-past-ethical-Grey-area) and to Pat Goodmann, head animal curator of Wolf Park in Battle Ground for being guest column (http://blog.wolfpark.org/?p=652).  Wolf Preservation supports Wolf Park so please visit their site!

Read Full Post »