Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August 12th, 2013


Idaho Wolf

As a society, how far are we willing to go and what are we willing to sacrifice to preserve the wild?

“When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced 66 gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park and adjacent wilderness areas in Idaho back in 1995-’96, conservationists and ranchers squared off across a fence and hurled insults at each other for months.

By then, both sides had had plenty of practice in the art of verbal warfare from previous battles over buffalo harvests and the ever-popular “elk shoots,” wherein surplus animals were herded by helicopters into a funnel of “hunters,” who thinned the herd back to manageable numbers in a hail of lead.  To call that a hunt would be akin to calling Wounded Knee a fair fight.  I never met anyone who participated in one of those culling events who wasn’t sickened by the slaughter.

When wolves began again to hunt prey in Yellowstone, many ranchers argued that Canis lupus would soon be lining up at their livestock operations like teenagers at a takeout window.  Here, for the taking, was an endless supply of Happy Meals.

As mitigation for those meals, the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife has spent $1.5 million (and counting) since 1987 compensating ranchers for their losses — though this has failed to mollify ranchers.

The argument for restoring wolves, however, was unassailable. When the last wolf was finally killed in Yellowstone back in 1926, the elk population soared and the ecosystem fell out of balance. The park’s riparian areas and aspen stands were devastated by the 8,000-plus elk herds, and an inventory of the park’s wildlife in the early 1970s failed to turn up more than a handful of deer. These, and dozens of other critters, could not compete with the elk.

By the mid-1990s, alarmed biologists told Congress that something had to be done. According to William J. Ripple, a leading researcher on the effect of wolves on the Yellowstone ecosystem who is based at the University of Oregon, bringing back wolves, the alpha predators, was the right move.

Since 1996, Yellowstone’s elk population has been cut by two-thirds. The number of beaver and birds has increased, along with deer and red foxes, and the aspen and riparian areas once devastated by overgrazing are making a slow but steady recovery.

But Ripple cautions: “We think this is just the start of the restoration process.  We have to sit back and wait for the ecosystem to continue responding.  We call this ‘passive restoration,’ because the ecosystem, with the wolf as a key component at the apex of the predator pyramid, is only now emerging.  The aspens, the berry-bearing bushes, the riparian areas, they all seem to be responding, but we went 70 years without the wolves in Yellowstone. … It’s much too early to draw conclusions.”

For those and many other reasons, the federal government’s decision this summer to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list was not roundly applauded. Though Dan Ashe, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, declared the decision to be “the next step forward in wolf conservation,” many questioned its wisdom.  Anticipating the inevitable storm of controversy, the agency invited the public to weigh in on whether wolves should be removed from the endangered species list. The deadline for comments is Sept. 11.

When Congress removed the Endangered Species Act protections from the gray wolf in 2011, it turned wolf recovery projects over to the states.  In minutes, Idaho legalized the hunting of wolves.  In two years, 1,175 wolves have been killed by hunters, including 10 “research wolves” that wandered out of protected zones in Yellowstone National Park.

Battles over restoring and protecting salmon and other endangered species have shown — time and again — that politicians can be quick to sacrifice science to political self-interest.  At the very least, many conservationists argue that wolves need a large “no-hunting” buffer around Yellowstone Park.

“If the packs are persecuted,” Ripple asks, “what will happen to the social structure of those remaining?  Do they still provide an ecologically beneficial function? We don’t know. This research is in its infancy. We need to err on the side of caution until we learn more about the role of the wolf in these ecosystems.”

The basic question remains: As a society, how far are we willing to go and what are we willing to sacrifice to preserve the wild?”

**Special thanks to Paul VanDevelder, a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


Center for Biological Diversity

Agency  Backtracks on Attempt to Exclude Wolf Experts From Review of Delisting Proposal

“WASHINGTON— The U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service today announced that it will put on hold the  scientific peer review of its proposal to remove protections for gray wolves  across the country while it reviews its own actions leading to the  disqualification of three scientists from the review panel.

Last week it was revealed  that three scientists were excluded from the peer review because they signed a letter calling into question some of the science behind the proposal to delist the  gray wolf. While the Service initially claimed that it had not asked for the  three scientists to be removed, emails between the contractor supervising the  peer review process and the scientists themselves confirmed that the Service  had in fact done exactly that.

“We’re glad to see the Fish and Wildlife Service  admit this mistake and hope this means there will be a true independent review  of this deeply flawed proposal to remove protections for gray wolves,” said  Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director with the Center for Biological  Diversity. “Unfortunately, this is but one example of how the Fish and Wildlife  Service has been twisting the scientific process to get the desired political  result of no more protections for wolves.”

Peer review, a step required  by the Endangered Species Act, is critical in ensuring that federal protections  are not lifted before a species is fully recovered. In the case of the wolves,  the Fish and Wildlife Service is contracting with a private company to conduct  the peer review. Recognizing their scientific expertise, the private contractor  hired for the review contacted several of the signers to the letter to  participate in the review, including Dr. John Vucetich, Dr. Robert Wayne and  Dr. Roland Kays.  As part of its  contract, the outside contractor was required to submit the résumés  of each peer reviewer to the Service with the names redacted. However, because  each of these scientists has published hundreds of articles, it was easy for  the Service to deduce who the contractor had selected. The Service then sent  the contractor a copy of the letter asking that any signers be removed.

“The Service should take a moment to reflect on why  it felt it was necessary to go to such lengths to control the peer review  process of this proposal,” said Hartl. “Perhaps it’s because the decision to  delist the gray wolf is based on politics, not solely on the best available  science.”

This is the first time the Fish and Wildlife Service  has imposed restrictions at the outset for whether scientists could be involved in peer review based on  what it termed an “affiliation with an advocacy position.” In contrast, during  the review of the 2012 proposal to designate critical habitat for the northern  spotted owl, the agency invited 40 scientists to participate, a number of whom  had spoken out for stronger protections for the owl, to review the proposal and  none were preemptively disqualified from the review. In what was a clear  attempt to limit meaningful scientific comment, the peer review process was put  in jeopardy.

The Service also appears to have circumvented proper  scientific channels in concluding that there are two different wolf species in  the United States, the gray wolf (Canis  lupus) and the eastern wolf (Canis  lycaon), a determination that formed a primary basis for removing  protections. Rather than attempting to publish their taxonomic findings in an independent,  outside journal subject to normal peer review processes, the Service revived North American Fauna, an internal agency  publication that had been dormant for more than 20 years, just to publish this  one taxonomic proposal on wolves.

The letter from the scientists and another from the American Society of Mammalogists raised a number of scientific  questions about the agency’s proposal to remove protections for wolves, which  today survive in just 5 percent of their historic range in the lower 48. In  particular, they questioned how wolves could be considered recovered when the  species is absent from significant portions its range, and a determination by  the Service that there are two species of wolves in the United States, the gray  wolf (Canis lupus) and the eastern  wolf (Canis lycaon). These are  important questions that should be thoroughly vetted.

Background  on Scientists Excluded from Review:

The following scientists were excluded based on the  Service’s new restrictions on peer reviewers:

  • Dr. John  Vucetich of Michigan Technological University. Vucetich has been studying the  wolves of Isle Royale National Park for the past 20 years and is one of  nation’s leading wolf researchers. Vucetich was a member of the Mexican wolf  recovery team and in 2011 participated as a peer reviewer of the Service’s  decision to drop federal protections for the gray wolf in Wyoming.
  • Dr. Robert Wayne  of the University of California, Los Angeles. Wayne is a leading wildlife  geneticist and has studied the evolutionary and ecological relationship between  wolves and other canine species in the United States and around the world.
  • Dr. Roland Kays  of North Carolina State University. Kays is a zoologist whose research focuses  on the ecology and conservation of mammals. Kays’ research has focused on the  genetic relationship and evolution of wolves and coyotes in North America.”

**Special thanks to Center for Biological Diversity, http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2013/wolf-08-12-2013.html,  for providing this information! 

Read Full Post »