Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for July, 2013


water wolf
This shot of a wolf slaking its thirst by Christian Houge – “Untitled 3” – is from his painstaking work with wolf packs in Norway. Photo: Hosfelt Gallery
Kimberly Chun: Published 3:36 pm, Wednesday, July 31, 2013

“While studying two wolf packs in Norway alongside wildlife researchers, Oslo photographer Christian Houge witnessed both love and blood between the animals, the euphoria of a pack and the nastiness of bullying. But his most intense encounter probably occurred when he was approached by the biggest wolf in one pack.

“The biggest one came over to me with the notion that it wanted contact, and I reached out and stroked its fur,” Houge, 41, says shortly after the opening of his Hosfelt Gallery show of striking wolf images drawn from that three-year period. “Out of the blue, it turned around and bit my arm, not breaking skin.

“I pulled my arm back slowly, thinking, it’s just going to run off now, and instead it sort of leaned back and studied me, my eyes and body motions. I was the one being studied. I was being tested to see if I was worthy to be there.”

Houge’s exploration of the feared and misunderstood creatures led him to look closer at the shadow side of his life and culture, a subject he’s touched on as part of a TED talk.

Q: What were some of the challenges in photographing the wolves?

A: The wolf in its nature stays away from anything that it doesn’t know. Just introducing the tripod, I had to let it stay in the area for two days before I could use it. I wanted to crawl into the holes they use – I’d been working with cracks in mountains, the inner and outer, the contrast between dream and reality – and it quite confused them because they’d never seen a human in these holes.

Q: You crawled into a cave to shoot them?

A: Once. I’m not pretending to be a wolf man. When I was with them, I had other people who could draw attention if there was too much curiosity and too much biting. If you show weakness, you can be in trouble.

“The ritual when you meet them – it can sound weird but it’s natural to me now – is you have to be on your knees, and they’ll have their tongues inside your mouth, and you can’t move. They might have their jaws around your head to measure your cranium. After the first time, you learn to meet them with your tongue. Their mouths are much cleaner than ours.”

Q: It sounds, and looks, like you got very close.

A: The feeling of howling with wolves, being in that energy of the wolf pack – I’ve traveled a lot, I’ve worked with these art projects, and I still haven’t found my tribe, my pack. But working with these animals, I got a strong connection to myself and my nature in a positive way.”

 

Special thanks to Kimberly Chun,  a Berkeley writer, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


Brown / Grizzly Bear, Lake Clark National Park, Alaska.

“BOISE, Idaho — A new study released Monday draws a direct relation between the reintroduction of the gray wolf and the amount of berries consumed by grizzly bears. The result of this study found that with wolves in Yellowstone National Park keeping elk populations in check, bears are starting to consume more berries. The study, which appears in the Journal of Animal Ecology, looked at elk populations in the Yellowstone National Park region of Wyoming over the past 50 years. The research team lead by Bill Ripple at Oregon State University looked at the amount of berries found in bear scat. “Wild fruit is typically an important part of the grizzly bear diet,” Ripple said. “Especially in the late summer when they are trying to gain weight as rapidly as possible before winter hibernation.” Researchers found that before wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, elk populations grew and ate a significant amount of wild berries. Those berries are also part of a grizzly bear diet. Before wolf numbers started coming back in 1995, there were less berries found in the grizzly bear diet. After wolves were reintroduced, wolves started preying on elk — and less elk means more berries for the grizzly bears. The exciting part of this study, said Chris Haney, the chief scientist with Defenders of Wildlife, is the fact that this is a first-of-its-kind study. “I was actually surprised,” he said. “This is good news for the Yellowstone grizzly bear.” Haney also said: “If you think about nature, bears are not a species that would come to mind and say they are really vulnerable to losing this one kind of food. They are just very catholic in their food preferences,” he said. What he means is bears are omnivores that eat fruits and berries, bugs and meat. They are well prepared to adapt to a reduction in one of those food groups. Haney said he is impressed that this research found a strong relationship between the elk population and the amount of fruit found in bear scat. “It’s a good thing because when you have more than half of a puzzle explained by one variable, yeah that’s big news. Any time that we can find one variable,” Haney said.“ That explains more than half of the noise in the chaos that we see in natural systems, yes, that’s really worth paying attention to.” A study like this could eventually play a role in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to delist the Yellowstone grizzly bear. A push to delist the bear was overturned in federal court after environmental groups claimed the federal wildlife agency failed to take into account the role plants and trees have on the grizzly bear diet. There are approximately 700 bears around the Yellowstone region, according to recent estimates.”

**Special thank to Idaho Public Television, http://earthfix.opb.org/flora-and-fauna/article/researchers-find-a-relationship-between-elk-and-gr/, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


Wotan

Photo of “Wotan” is property of Wolf Park.

“Want to learn more about wolves?  Want to spend some special time at Wolf Park when the rest of the public is gone?  “Camp” overnight in our Education Building and spend a weekend with the wolves!  Children will learn about wolves, foxes, coyotes, and bison — and other fascinating things in the world around them — in a safe and educational setting.  Campers will play animal tracking and direction-finding games, do crafts projects and make treats for the wolves.  Participants might also meet some Canis lupus familiaris (domestic dogs) and the Park’s tame red foxes (under adult supervision).  A Howl Night program is part of these fun weekends.  A campfire with marshmallows as the wolves howl in the dark makes for a truly special night!

Overnight Camps are $60 per child which includes all craft materials and meals (a dinner, breakfast and lunch – please inform us of any dietary restrictions your child has).  No drop-ins; children must be pre-registered to attend.  Children will need to bring bedding and pillows.  Overnight Camp begins at 1pm on Saturday, and ends at 4pm on Sunday.  Please arrange drop-off and pick-up accordingly.  Space is limited, so be sure to register soon!

All campers should bring water bottles.  Plenty of water will be available, and while safe to drink, our well-water has a strong metallic taste, so bringing water from home is encouraged so that kids stay hydrated.  Sprinkler time is a favorite camp activity on hot days.  Children should bring a bathing suit and towel along with them.  Cameras are welcome and recommended — there will be lots of opportunities for picture-taking!  Be sure to bring sunscreen and/or bug spray.

Camp will take place rain or shine — we will not cancel due to weather — so be sure to bring rain gear just in case.  In the event of inclement weather, activities will take place indoors.  Also, this camp is KIDS ONLY!  We are sorry, but we do not allow adults to remain with their children during camp.”

**Special thank to “Wolf Park” for providing this information (http://wolfpark.gostorego.com/camps/overnight-camps.html)!

Read Full Post »


Wolf
By 
Published: July 17, 2013

“There is a unit within the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service called Wildlife Services. Its official mission, according to its Web site, is “to resolve wildlife conflicts to allow people and wildlife to coexist.” This has meant, since 2000, some two million dead animals. The list includes coyotes, beavers, mountain lions, black bears and innumerable birds. The agency’s real mission? To make life safer for livestock and game species.

There will obviously be times when livestock and predators come into conflict, when coyotes kill lambs and black bears become too accustomed to humans and cause genuine harm. But Wildlife Services’ lethal damage is broad and secretive, according to a series in The Sacramento Bee last year. The techniques are old-fashioned — steel traps and cyanide cartridges — and the result, according to a new study in the journal Conservation Letters, is a program that is wasteful, destructive to the balance of ecosystems and, ultimately, ineffective.

Under one name or another — for years it was part of the Interior Department — the agency has been doing its work as quietly as possible, though not without protest from Congress, scientists and members of the public who got wind of what was going on. Two House members — John Campbell, a California Republican; and Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat — have pressed for Congressional hearings and have asked the Agriculture Department’s inspector general to investigate Wildlife Services.

The agency, opponents say, has not scientifically evaluated the consequences of its actions and has consistently understated the damage it does to “nontarget” species, like songbirds. Its work also undercuts other programs intended to protect the balance of natural ecosystems.

It is time the public got a clear picture of what Wildlife Services is up to, and time for the Department of Agriculture to bring the agency’s work into accord with sound biological practices. Resolving wildlife conflicts need not involve indiscriminate killing.”

**Special thanks to “The Editorial Board” for providing this information (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/agricultures-misnamed-agency.html)

Read Full Post »


wolf in harney county

“McIrvin says killing the wolves is the only solution. He believes the calf carcass should have been laced with poison to get the “culprits.”

“Until somebody gets serious about opening season on these wolves, I don’t know that there is any answer,” he said.

Just as he did last year, McIrvin plans to continue to refuse compensation from the state.<

 

Excerpted from:

Another calf found dead as ranchers question state wolf investigations

By MATTHEW WEAVER

Capital Press

A northeast Washington cattle rancher says wolves killed a three-day-old calf from his operation last week.

Len McIrvin is owner of the Diamond M Ranch in Laurier, Wash. That’s the ranch where Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife officials in September 2012 killed six wolves from the Wedge Pack. The wolves had killed at least 17 cattle from the ranch.

The killed calf was dragged from a barbed wire calving enclosure 200 yards from human presence, McIrvin said. There were fresh wolf tracks nearby in the river, he said.

“We know it was a wolf, but they can’t confirm it because the calf was 95 percent eaten up,” he said, noting coyote tracks were also found in the area.

Stephanie Simek, WDFW wildlife conflict section manager, said the case was unconfirmed as a wolf kill because there were signs of coyotes in the area. The six-strand barbed wire fence did not show signs of a larger carnivore entering the area, she said.

“The issue was the carcass was so far gone, you really couldn’t get a lot of those measurements,” said Dave Ware, WDFW game program manager. “You just couldn’t tell for sure what killed it.”

The department has been monitoring wolf activity, but didn’t find anything that would merit setting a trap to try to collar wolves.

“We’re certain there are wolves in the Wedge area again,” Ware said. “We’re seeing plenty of activity.”

McIrvin said his cattle are on the range, so he hasn’t found other kills or injuries.

“We know the wolves have been harassing them,” he said. “We know they’re there, we hear them howling, they’ve got the cows all chased off the range again. We put them back weekly, but the wolves are running them daily.”

The Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association believes the department’s unconfirmed ruling on the calf shows a “troubling trend” in which the department does not confirm wolf kills, a determination that could lead to killing the predators.

Association spokesperson Jamie Henneman said WDFW needs to clearly outline how they will deal with wolves.

“Right now we are seeing the department buckle under pressure from environmental groups who have absolutely no skin in the game,” she said. “There is no impact to their finances or livelihood if wolf management is done in a poor, watery or slipshod fashion. Band-aid payments of compensation will not solve this problem.”

Ware believes the department’s history proves it is willing to kill wolves, but said it will not always completely be on the same page as ranchers.

“Second-guessing what our field staff does seems to be a popular sport for both sides,” he said. “In their hearts, most (ranchers) feel, ‘Wolves are the things different from the landscape — it must be wolves that caused this.’ In some cases, we can verify that, in some cases, we just can’t.”

McIrvin says killing the wolves is the only solution. He believes the calf carcass should have been laced with poison to get the “culprits.”

“Until somebody gets serious about opening season on these wolves, I don’t know that there is any answer,” he said.

Just as he did last year, McIrvin plans to continue to refuse compensation from the state.

“We are not in the business of raising cattle to feed wolves. We’re in the business of raising cattle to be a cow ranch,” he said.”

Information

Washington Department Fish and Wildlife:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/

Stevens County Cattlemen Association:

http://stevenscountycattlemen.wordpress.com

Read Full Post »


fladry_wind

Fladry is a line of rope mounted along the top of a fence, from which are suspended strips of fabric or colored flags that will flap in a breeze, intended to deter wolves from crossing the fence-line.[1] Fladry lines have been used for this purpose for several centuries, traditionally for hunting wolves in Eastern Europe.[1] They are effective temporarily, as the novelty may soon wear off, usually between three to five months, and can be used to protect livestock in small pastures from wolves.[1]

This technique is sometimes also used to alert horses and cattle to the presence of a fence, as the use of smoothwire fences and one strand of electric may not be seen by an animal unfamiliar with a new home.

 

“GRANTS PASS, Oregon — The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission on Friday adopted provisions of a lawsuit settlement that will make Oregon the only state in the West where killing wolves that attack livestock is a last resort.

The rules adopted by the commission amend Oregon’s Wolf Management Plan, along with statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature that will be signed by Gov. John Kitzhaber.

The rules require ranchers to show they have taken non-lethal steps, such as alarm boxes and low strings of fluttering plastic flags known as fladdery, to protect their herds before the state will send out a hunter to kill a wolf. There must also be hard evidence, such as GPS data showing a radio-collared wolf was in the area when a cow was killed, that wolves have attacked four times.

In return, ranchers get new rights to shoot wolves that they see attacking their herd, but only if those non-lethal protections are in place, and attacks have become chronic.

The settlement represents a new level of cooperation between conservation groups and ranchers, who have long fought over restoring wolves in the West, where they were wiped out by bounty hunters in the early part of the 20th century.

Ranchers downplayed the significance of the settlement.

“I don’t think it’s a whole lot different from the wolf plan already being implemented,” said Kate Teisl, executive director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. “Now there’s just more documentation. Ranchers are out there doing all they can to keep their animals alive, including the non-lethal measures.”

But wolf advocates said it was that documentation of non-lethal steps that was groundbreaking.

Rob Klavins of Oregon Wild said the old plan talked about conservation of wolves being a priority, but it was so ambiguous that it was ineffective.

“It’s now up to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the livestock industry, and the conservation community to honor the agreements that we have made,” he said. “If we do so, I am optimistic we will continue to see conflicts between wolves and livestock continue to be rare, and the need to kill wolves even rarer still.”

Brett Brownscombe, natural resources adviser to the governor, said making the rules clear was important as Oregon’s wolf population continues to grow, and the Obama administration moves toward lifting federal protections for wolves in areas they have yet to repopulate.

Oregon Wild and other conservation groups had sued the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, claiming that a kill order on the Imnaha pack, the first to establish in Oregon as well as the first to attack livestock, threatened to wipe out the pack. Conservation groups claimed the actions violated the Oregon Endangered Species Act, which still protects wolves in the eastern two thirds of the state, where federal protections have been lifted.

The Imnaha pack only has one more strike against it before a kill order can be imposed, but so far, it has not been linked to an attack.

The Oregon Court of Appeals barred the state from killing wolves for more than a year before the settlement was reached between conservation groups, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, and the governor’s office. During that time, the number of wolves in Oregon went up, while the lethal attacks on livestock went down. In Idaho, where the Oregon packs had migrated from, the numbers of lethal livestock attacks went up, along with the numbers of wolves killed, primarily by trophy hunters and trappers.”

**Special thanks to JEFF BARNARD  Associated Press, for providing this information! (http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/27bc716ebcfd4046b4ba205ed9310261/OR–Wolf-Settlement/)

Read Full Post »


Mexican Wolf on log

“ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — The effort to return the endangered Mexican gray wolf to the American Southwest has hit another stumbling block.

Federal and state wildlife officials confirmed Friday that a female wolf that was released into the wild in early May was found dead just one month later in southwestern New Mexico.

The animal, dubbed F1108, had been shot. Authorities released no other details and said the investigation was ongoing.

Top officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have long pointed to illegal shootings as one of the challenges to reintroducing Mexican gray wolves in New Mexico and Arizona. Since reintroduction efforts began in 1998, there have been 50 illegal killings documented, with four occurring just last year.

Environmental groups called the latest wolf death a tragedy.

“The Mexican gray wolf population cannot afford the loss of another individual, let alone a breeding female with pups,” said Nancy Gloman, vice president of field conservation for Defenders of Wildlife. “This wolf and her pups were another critical step toward the promise of recovery.”

A survey at the beginning of the year indicated there were at least 75 wolves in the wild in the two states, marking the largest population since the reintroduction program began. Environmentalists have been pushing the federal government to release more captive animals to boost those numbers.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has cited genetic concerns for moving cautiously with any releases, while ranchers and some rural community leaders have voiced concerns about their safety and livelihoods being compromised by more wolves on the landscape.

Ranchers have blamed the predators for numerous cattle deaths over the years. In June, officials investigated the deaths of three calves in Arizona. Two of the deaths were found to have been caused by wolves.

The wolf found shot in late June was one of four captive animals that the Fish and Wildlife Service had hand-picked for release this spring with the hope of bolstering the wild population. The wolves were to be released in pairs — one in the Gila Wilderness and the other in southeastern Arizona.

After weeks of waiting, the agency pulled the plug on the Arizona release and returned that pair to captivity. The pair in New Mexico fared no better with the male being captured for roaming outside of the recovery area just days after his release.

Soon afterward the pair’s pups were presumed dead, and the female started roaming. She was last located in the northeastern corner of the Gila forest near Kline Mountain.”

**Special thanks to SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN, Associated Press, for providing this information! (http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Mexican-gray-wolf-shot-killed-in-NM-4663523.php)

Read Full Post »


howling wolf

“Yellowstone officials expressed displeasure at a Montana state plan to increase grey-wolf hunting that also rejects the idea of a no-hunting buffer near the Park.The new wolf-hunting rules, as they stand now, would allow a hunter to bag five wolves during a longer season and set quotas in areas outside Yellowstone. When setting the new Montana wolf hunt rules, the Montana Legislature specifically prohibited a no-hunting zone near the Park.

Still, there’s some wiggle room, and Montana wildlife commissioners are expected to use that wiggle room to lessen the impact on Yellowstone wolves. Hunters near the Park would be allowed only one wolf, and the areas where quotas would apply is expanded.

That may not be enough to placate Yellowstone officials, who say the new Montana wolf hunt law targets Yellowstone wolves. Wildlife doesn’t respect human boundaries like Park limits and state lines, and given the propensity of wolves to wander over a large range in the course of a year, it’s inevitable that many will go into Montana — where, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials say, the wolves become Montana’s problem. Last year 12 Yellowstone wolves were killed in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming after leaving Yellowstone.

From AP:

Yellowstone’s chief scientist Dave Hallac said he appreciated the changes but added that it was unclear whether the commissioners will accept the agency’s recommendations.

“The park is not anti-hunting,” Hallac said. “What we’re trying to do is balance the conservation of wolves in Yellowstone, which are not an exploited population right now, with some level of reasonable harvest.”

Wildlife commission chairman Dan Vermillion said the move to lower the bag limit to one wolf near Yellowstone – versus five animals elsewhere in the state – was about increasing hunter opportunity, so that one hunter couldn’t fill the entire quota.

The presence of wolves in Yellowstone is still a contentious issue for sportsmen, who argue wolves diminish the number of elk in the region, and area ranchers who say their livestock is threatened by wolves.”

 

**Special thanks to the “Yellowstone Insider” for providing this information (http://yellowstoneinsider.com/2013/07/09/officials-montana-wolf-hunt-sets-sights-on-yellowstone-wolves/)!

Read Full Post »


Expert Nonlethal Methods

Photo by Brian Smith Times News Carter Niemeyer, a Boise-based wolf expert and former wildlife manager, speaks to an audience about wolves in Idaho on Friday at the Stanley Museum. Niemeyer said the best way to reduce wolf killings of cattle and sheep is to promote non-lethal deterrents instead of aerial killing of problem wolves.

“STANLEY • To reduce wolf killings of sheep and cattle in south-central Idaho, reimbursements for lost livestock must be reduced or eliminated, and ranchers must not be able to easily order aerial killings of problem wolves or packs, a prominent Boise-based wolf expert said at a presentation in Stanley.

As long as lethal wolf control comes free of charge and area ranchers are paid for their losses, they won’t adopt voluntary, non-lethal wolf deterrents in an area that saw record-high depredations last year, said Carter Niemeyer, author of “Wolfer” and a former wolf manager and trapper.

“All it takes is a phone call and if you have a legitimate, confirmed loss, those wolves can be killed,” he said after his Friday presentation. “Most ranchers go, ‘Why in the world would I want to scare one away when we can just take care of the problem?’”

Lethal Control Preferred

Lethal control is preferred in Idaho and other states, he said, meaning taxpayers are funding the large cost of killing problem wolves.

“Wildlife services under the United States Department of Agriculture, they won’t hesitate to spend $10,000 or $20,000 on a helicopter to shoot a group of wolves,” he said.

But that’s only a short-term treatment, he said. USDA wildlife services could spend money on non-lethal deterrents — lighting, electric fencing and corrals strung with flags — to protect livestock and not “get into a cycle of killing wolves.”

“What do you get when you kill coyotes and wolves? More coyotes and wolves,” he said.

Idaho officials are applying for federal funding to reimburse ranchers for their wolf depredations in 2012. Half of that money, however, is earmarked for non-lethal deterrents. Whatever amount the state receives, Niemeyer said it would likely be enough for only a “pick-up truck and an employee.”

“There’s no silver bullet, but we’re willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars killing predators,” he said. “Why can’t we look at other methodologies and study the possibilities to do preventative things that don’t require us spending (that money)?”

‘Nation’s Most Polarizing Wildlife Issue’

But the “problem” won’t go away. Like it or not, wolves are here to stay and humans must learn to live alongside the reintroduced species, Niemeyer said during the presentation to a crowd at the Stanley Museum. Niemeyer’s presentation focused on his decades of work with wolves, including his role in helping re-establish the species in the area. He discussed public attitudes toward the predator, and misconceptions about the wolf’s reintroduction, which he called the nation’s most polarizing wildlife issue — ever.

“Wolves are prolific, resilient, they disperse and they are going to be here for a long, long time to come because they like the habitat we’ve provided them,” he said. “… I’m not here to advocate for wolves. I don’t love them. I don’t hate them, but I do recognize they are a native species and I think we’ve got to treat them like that.”

Niemeyer said he is often criticized for his work with the government’s reintroduction of wolves in northwestern regions of the United States. When he speaks publicly about the subject, between 150 and 300 people attend, often with their opinions cemented.

“Most of you people here today probably know how you feel about them,” he said. “I don’t feel like I’ve ever spoken to a crowd and turn you all 180 degrees before you left.”

Niemeyer referenced a chart showing how wolf populations have grown exponentially in the northwest and central Idaho since they were reintroduced.

“Along with this you could also have a graph on tempers, attitudes and opinions that goes right alongside … ,” he said.

Along with those opinions have come rumors about the reason for their presence – to ruin and outlaw big game hunting, take away guns and drive the livestock industry out of the West.

“I’ve heard it all,” he said.

Wildlife, however, react and benefit from wolves’ presence in the area, he said.

“They prey on big game, they create carrion for others to eat and scavenge, they regulate big game herds,” he said. “I think they make big game herds healthy because they were one of the natural predators of these species before settlers came and helped God manage wildlife.”

Wolves aren’t a threat to humans despite cultural mythologies painting them as villains, he said. Only two people in recent memory have been killed by wolves, but those incidents were in Canada and Alaska.

“I have never had a close call with wolves in my life,” Niemeyer said. “I have been surrounded by them dozens of times — packs and pups. I love it. I just sit on a log and think, ‘I wish I had all you here.’”

‘Social Carrying Capacity’

Whereas some biologists are concerned with the biological carrying capacity of an animal, wolves are now measured on a “social carrying capacity” — not how many a landscape will hold, but how many wolves humans will tolerate, he said.

According to Idaho Department of Fish and Game statistics, wolves killed 34 cattle and 79 sheep last year in the southern portions of the Sawtooth Range, including Camas and Blaine counties. Across the state, they killed 90 cattle and 251 sheep. In turn, hunters killed 330 Idaho wolves last year, up from 200 the year before.

From 1987 to 2012, wolves killed an average of 143 sheep and 71 cattle a year across Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, Niemeyer said. In those states, there are 850,000 range ewes and millions of cattle. He displayed United States Department of Agriculture statistics that showed 26 percent of livestock died of respiratory problems while 0.2 percent died of wolf predation.

“Is that a big problem or not? It certainly is if it is you’re cattle and sheep,” he said.”

**Special thanks to Brian Smith, bsmith@magicvalley.com, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


proposed wolf hunt areas

“LANSING — A group that opposes a gray wolf hunt says it will launch a second ballot petition drive to stop the proposed hunt after its first effort was thwarted by the Legislature.

Keep Michigan Wolves Protected submitted more than 255,000 signatures in March in an effort to overturn a December 2012 state law that allows the hunting and trapping of wolves.

But in May, lawmakers and Gov. Rick Snyder approved a new bill that allows the Michigan Natural Resources Commission to add animals to the list of game species. That action meant Keep Michigan Wolves Protected could still go ahead with a vote on the earlier law, but it would not have the effect of stopping the hunt.

The commission is expected to approve a limited wolf hunt beginning in mid-November when it meets this month.

On Tuesday, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected announced it will launch a second signature drive, this one aimed at the new law.

“This second referendum will preserve the impact of our first referendum that has already been certified for the ballot — ensuring Michigan voters have the right to protect wolves and other wildlife matters,” said Jill Fritz, director of the group.

She said her group won’t be able to collect signatures and get them certified in time to stop the November hunt. Once the proposed repeal of a state law is certified for the ballot, that law is suspended pending the election.

If the new drive is successful, there would be two wolf-related ballot measures on the November 2014 ballot.

Keep Michigan Wolves Protected describes itself as a coalition of conservation groups, animal welfare organizations, Native American tribes, wildlife scientists, veterinarians, hunters, farmers and more than 7,000 citizens.”

**Special thanks to “Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/article/20130702/NEWS06/307020046/wolf-hunt-michigan) for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »