Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October, 2012


“Taking aim from a helicopter flying over northeastern Washington state, a marksman last month killed the alpha male of a wolf pack that had repeatedly attacked a rancher’s cattle. The shooting put an end to the so-called Wedge pack, but it did little to quell the controversy over wolves in the state.

The issue has been so explosive that state wildlife officials received death threats and the head of the Fish and Wildlife Commission warned the public at a recent hearing in Olympia on wolves that uniformed and undercover officers were in the room ready to act.

More conflicts between wolves and livestock are inevitable, officials say, as wolves in Washington recover, growing in number more quickly than expected. The animals numbered a handful in 2008, and are now estimated at 80 to 100.

“What are we going to do so we don’t have this again?” asked Steve Pozzanghera, a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regional director.

He said officials are trying to be proactive to prevent the need to kill wolves. They plan to collar more wolves this winter to keep better track of them. They plan to ask the Legislature to beef up money to compensate livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves. And they’re urging livestock operators to sign agreements with the state to share the cost of using a broad range of nonlethal measures to prevent livestock-wolf conflicts.

So far, only one livestock owner has signed an agreement, with four to six others in the hopper, underscoring the challenges the agency faces as it tries to recover the endangered native species while encouraging social tolerance of the wolves by minimizing livestock losses.

“We understand there is some resistance out there,” said Pozzanghera, but the agency is committed to working with ranchers and cattlemen.

“The whole situation is really tragic, most of all because it could have been avoided,” said Jasmine Minbashian, of the nonprofit Conservation Northwest, which supported the decision in the end to kill the wolf pack because the animals had become reliant on livestock.

“If you remove the pack without changing something on the ground, this situation is bound to repeat itself,” she said.

The Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association is urging its roughly 50 members not to sign those agreements. It wants the commission to remove gray wolves from the state endangered list in eastern Washington in the near future.

“Our guys are willing to use these nonlethal methods … The problem is these methods are not always effective,” said the group’s spokeswoman, Jamie Henneman, noting the agreements address only symptoms. “The illness happens to be that we’re oversaturated with wolves.”

Grey wolves are protected as an endangered species throughout Washington state. The animals are federally listed as endangered only in the western two-thirds of the state. Removing the animals from the state endangered list could open the way to future wolf hunting.

While Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have been grappling with wolves in the past decade, Washington has dealt with wolves only in recent years. In 2008, a wolf pack was documented for the first time in 70 years. Now, there are eight confirmed packs, with four others suspected.

The killing of seven members of the Wedge Pack, named for the area they inhabit along the Canadian border near Laurier, has prompted an outcry from some wolf advocates. Some have criticized the owners of the Diamond M ranch for not taking enough nonlethal measures.

“As far as I know, we’ve done everything that they suggested might be effective,” Bill McIrvin said during a recent Olympia hearing. McIrvin is one of the owners of the ranch, where wolves killed or injured at least 17 animals on both private and public land. The ranch employed cowboys, delayed the turnout of their cow-calf pairs until the animals were bigger and quickly removed injured cattle, state officials said.

Wildlife officials say they’re working on new rules to compensate ranchers for losses, including for reduced weight gain or reduced pregnancy rates.

Ranchers who sign onto nonlethal agreements with Fish and Wildlife would have priority for livestock compensation.

Sam Kayser, an Ellensburg cattle rancher, said he signed an agreement with the state because he knows wolves will eventually target his cattle and he wanted help.

“What are the wolves going to eat? They’re going to eat elk. If the elk numbers go short, they’re going to eat my cattle,” said Kayser, whose cattle graze on thousands of acres of private land that he leases in central Washington.

“Fish and Wildlife (department) was trying to be proactive and I was trying to be a little proactive myself,” he added.

The state is sharing the cost of a range rider who stays with the cattle to make sure they don’t become prey to wolves.

Range riders have been used in other states to prevent wolf-livestock conflicts. A pilot project in Stevens County over the summer is testing the concept in this state. Officials have been working with a rancher there and will review the success of that project in coming months to see whether and how it can be duplicated elsewhere.

Kayser says he and other cattlemen saw the conflicts coming.

“If they’re willing to try, I’m willing to try,” Kayser said. “(But) I think it’s putting off the eventuality of what’s going to be.”

**Special thanks to By Nancy Todd, The OregonianThe Oregonian
on October 20, 2012 at  1:32 PM for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


Published October 12, 2012

“The state Department of Fish and Wildlife failed to protect a pack of gray wolves in northeast Washington, less than a year after adopting a statewide wolf conservation management plan.
        <a href=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/mi.oly00/News/Opinion/Editorial;atf=N;dcove=d;pl=story;sect=Editorials;pos=1;sz=300×250;tile=5;!c=news;pub=Olympian;ord=336672503167893;gender=;year=;income=?” target=”_blank”><img src=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/mi.oly00/News/Opinion/Editorial;atf=N;dcove=d;pl=story;sect=Editorials;pos=1;sz=300×250;tile=5;!c=news;pub=Olympian;ord=336672503167893;gender=;year=;income=?” border=”0″ alt=”Advertisement”></aBy killing the entire pack, just one of 12 in the state, the department is admitting it failed to effectively implement the nonlethal measures required by the wolf plan and is bending to the pressure of large cattle ranchers.

 Wolves are considered an endangered species under Washington state law, and by federal law for the western two-thirds of the state. Wolves are just starting to make a comeback after being effectively eliminated by hunters in the 1930s.

The state’s wolf plan is designed to recover wolf populations to the point that they can be taken off the endangered species list, while keeping losses to grazing livestock at tolerable levels.

But something is wrong when a rancher, who is well-known for favoring the elimination of troublesome wolves, and who has refused to cooperate with nonlethal provisions of the plan, can pressure the department into abandoning it so quickly.

By doing so, Fish and Wildlife personnel may find themselves in trouble with lawmakers.

Sen. Kevin Ranker, D–Orcas Island, who chairs the Senate committee that oversees the DFW, said, “I find it inexcusable that we allowed ourselves to get to a place where killing the entire pack was the necessary decision when other nonlethal options – within the department and with ranchers – were not totally exhausted first.”

Diane Gallegos, executive director of Wolfhaven International, located in Thurston County, says wiping out the Wedge Pack, named for the wilderness area near the Canadian border where they roamed, represents a failure on everyone’s part.

She’s calling for the state to add enforceable standards and accountability to the wolf plan before lethal force is used again.

And she makes the excellent suggestion of adding a stakeholders review board to ensure the department and ranchers are implementing the plan before allowing future wolf kills.

It is in the best interests of conservationist for ranchers to be successful, so bringing wolf advocates, hunters, ranchers and fish and wildlife together could produce collaborative solutions.

Killing off wolves for just doing what wolves do is no solution if ranchers aren’t managing their livestock properly, according to the wolf plan, and if Fish and Wildlife officials aren’t accountable for enforcing the deployment of all non-lethal options.

Ranker is right to ask what steps the department took before shooting the wolves, some from helicopters, what the kill cost and how they are going to avoid getting forced into another similar situation.

As Wolfhaven’s Gallegos says, “The problem is with people, not the wolves.”

Read Full Post »


October 15, 2012

“On the day of the first public wolf hunting and trapping season in the Great Lakes region in more than 40 years, The Humane Society of the United States and The Fund for Animals served notice that they will file suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore federal protections for Great Lakes wolves under the Endangered Species Act. The groups are also asking the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota to postpone wolf hunting and trapping until the case can be decided on the merits.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s most recent decision to delist wolves became effective earlier this year, after multiple previous attempts to delist wolves were struck down by the courts over the course of the last decade.

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service put faith in the state wildlife agencies to responsibly manage wolf populations, but their overzealous and extreme plans to allow for trophy hunting and recreational trapping immediately after de-listing demonstrate that such confidence was unwarranted,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO for The HSUS. “Between Minnesota’s broken promise to wait five years before hunting wolves, and Wisconsin’s reckless plan to trap and shoot hundreds of wolves in the first year, it is painfully clear that federal protection must be reasserted. The states have allowed the most extreme voices to grab hold of wolf management, and the result could be devastating for this species.”

In Minnesota, hunters and trappers can kill as many as 400 of the estimated 3,000 wolves in the state. That is additive to the damage control killing, poaching, and other forms of human-caused mortality.

In Wisconsin, the quota for killing wolves in the state is roughly 24 percent of the estimated wolf population in the state. Including depredations, illegal kills, and vehicle collisions, the human-caused death toll could be more than 50 percent of the wolf population – nearly double the level of human-caused mortality the best available science indicates the population can withstand.

Some lawmakers in Michigan, where livestock owners are already allowed to use lethal means as a first resort when a gray wolf preys upon livestock, are pushing for legislation that would create an open sport hunting season on wolves.

The groups have filed today a 60-day notice of their intent to sue over the rule – as required under the Endangered Species Act. If the agency does not reconsider the delisting rule over the next 60 days, The HSUS and The Fund for Animals will ask a federal court to reinstate federal ESA protection for gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region. Both organizations had hoped that sensible policies would prevail in the states, and also took note of the legal claims filed by other organizations seeking to avert reckless killing of wolves.  Those cases have not resolved several of our concerns favorably for the wolves, leading us to file notice to sue.”

**Special thanks to The Humane Society of the United States for providing this information!  (http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/10/great-lakes-wolves-suit-101512.html)

Read Full Post »


FILE – This May 8, 2012 file photo provided by the California Department of Fish  and Game shows OR-7, the Oregon wolf that has trekked across two states looking  for a mate, on a sagebrush hillside in Modoc County, Calif. State wildlife  officials could move a step closer to listing the gray wolf as an endangered  species in California. The gray wolf has been considered extinct in the state  for decades, but a wolf born in Oregon that crossed the border has rejuvenated  efforts to protect the species in the Golden State. That wolf, OR-7, is thought  to be an indication that revitalized wolf populations in other Western states  are making an expected push into California’s wildlands. Photo: California  Department Of Fish And Game / AP

“SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — As  California’s lone gray wolf continues roaming the state’s far northern wilds,  officials Wednesday decided to launch a one-year study to see whether the  species should be given state endangered species protections.

The California  Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously in Sacramento that a “status  review” study — spurred by a petition from the Center  for Biological Diversity and other groups — is warranted.

“Wolves, like grizzly bears,  white sharks and mountain lions, have always been controversial,” said Michael  Sutton, the commission’s vice president. “The status review we launched  today will give us the information we need to make an informed decision on  whether or not to protect the wolf in California.”

Ranchers and at least three  rural counties in the state’s rugged, sparsely populated north opposed the plan,  saying it was an unnecessary use of public money for a species that already has  federal protection. While the actual cost of the state’s one-year study is  unknown, it will be at least partially funded by a $300,000  federal grant.

Endangered species protections  for the gray wolf in California have been debated since December, when the  Oregon-born wolf called OR-7 left his pack and wandered across the border  seeking a mate.

It was the first hard evidence  of a wolf in the state in more than 80 years, according to the California  Department of Fish and Game. The wolf was hunted to extinction in California  in the early 20th century.

OR-7 is still believed to be the  only wolf in the state. The male wolf is outfitted with a tracking tag so he can  be studied by government scientists.

Noah  Greenwald, the Center for Biological Diversity’s endangered species  director, said the vote moves the wolves closer to recovery  in California.

“Protection of wolves under the  California Endangered Species Act will help these beautiful animals return to  extensive habitat in northern California and the Sierra Nevada, where scientists  estimate there is plenty of room for them,” he said.

Since December, California’s  lone wolf has become a celebrity, with its own Twitter account and frequent  state updates on his whereabouts.

Gray wolves in California are  already protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. But populations in  some Western states have been increasing, meaning they could qualify for  delisting. Wildlife advocates want the state to ensure future protections in  California if federal ones are dropped.

In some states where wolf  populations have thrived, officials have implemented hunting programs to  control growth.

“(Hunting) may affect future  expansion,” said Eric  Loft, chief of the Fish  and Game Department‘s wildlife branch.

Officials in several counties in  the far north said the department’s resources should be used to develop a  management plan for the wolf, not on a study for protections they see  as redundant.

“The people promulgating this  affair have shown no evidence of caring about the (financial) burden this places  on the people of California,” said Ric  Costales, a natural resources policy specialist for Siskiyou County. “Added  to this is the insult that this is occurring at a time when the state and  counties are struggling financially.””

**Special thanks to JASON DEAREN, Associated Press for providing this information!

 

Read Full Post »