Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for December, 2013


Isle Royal Single Wolf

Should biologists step in to save Isle Royale’s wolves or let nature take its course?

“A pack of wolves races through a field of unbroken snow, followed by scientists in a small plane buzzing overhead. For more than 60 years, this wild scene has come to life every winter on Michigan’s Isle Royale, the island in Lake Superior that forms the bulk of Isle Royale National Park. But all that may be about to change. After years of inbreeding, Isle Royale’s wolf population, which once approached 50, is down to eight adults and two or three pups, and the Park Service must decide what, if anything, should be done about it.

The roots of today’s dilemma go back to the late 1940s, when three gray wolves from Canada set off across the ice of Lake Superior and walked 15 miles to Isle Royale. The animals arrived to find dinner waiting for them: a population of moose descended from animals believed to have swum to the island a few decades earlier. The natural laboratories of islands have long interested biologists (think of Darwin studying finches in the Galapagos), and the elegant two-step of one prey species interacting with one predator soon caught the notice of researchers. Started in 1958, Isle Royale’s Wolf-Moose Project is now the longest-running study of predator and prey anywhere in the world.

Scientists have worried about wolf inbreeding for years. Yet until recent decades, the waters of Lake Superior between the mainland and the island froze over during most winters, allowing new wolves to find Isle Royale. Starting in the 1970s, steadily rising temperatures began to chip away at lake ice; ice bridges now form roughly once a decade. The chance of new wolves showing up to supplement the gene pool is now very slim. The result is “the most extreme case of inbreeding ever documented in wolves,” according to Rolf Peterson, who began leading the Wolf-Moose Project in the early 1970s. This inbreeding shows up in the animals’ very bones—every wolf skeleton found since 1994 has contained abnormalities. Most crucially, the wolves aren’t reproducing fast enough. No pups were born in 2012, and only two or three were born in 2013.

To date, humans have attempted genetic rescue of only a handful of species. The best known of these is the Florida panther. In 1995, the cat’s numbers hovered between 20 and 30. Fearing it would go extinct, biologists captured eight female cougars in Texas and released them in Florida. By 2010, the number of Florida panthers had roughly tripled. Geneticist Phil Hedrick, who worked on the project, has also measured the level of genetic variation in the Isle Royale wolves. In 1998, he was surprised to find it nearly four times higher than expected, given the number of ancestors the scientists know about. (Those ancestors may include a male and a female from the 1952 introduction of captive-raised wolves from the Detroit Zoo). “It appears that… some wolves crossed to the island undetected and added to the gene pool,” says Hedrick.

How does a wolf sneak onto Isle Royale? Pretty easily. They’re counted only in January and February, when researchers take to the air in small planes about every other day, look for tracks in the snow, and follow those tracks to the wolves. Dozens of gray wolves can be hard to tell apart. Rolf Peterson knows that two radio-collared wolves left the island on the last ice bridge, which formed in 2008. He can also identify two arrivals: a black wolf that showed up in a pack in 1967 and eventually became an alpha male, and an unusually light-colored male, nicknamed Old Gray Guy, that crossed to the island in 1997. Old Gray Guy performed a sort of one-wolf genetic rescue, and today, all eight wolves on the island are his descendants. In a sense, he was almost too successful at mixing up the gene pool. While his fresh infusion of DNA decreased inbreeding at first, now that every wolf on the island carries some of his genes, inbreeding is on the rise again.

Although Peterson hasn’t proposed any specific plans, in a forum held by the National Parks Conservation Association in June, he stated that importing two wolves of the same sex might be sufficient. Still, the question isn’t so much whether genetic rescue will work; it’s whether it should be attempted at all. Peterson believes the main reason to keep the wolf population going is to preserve the island’s ecosystem. To him, that boils down to trees, specifically the balsam fir that moose love to browse on. Peterson believes that a moose population unchecked by wolves could quickly get big enough to mow down every growing balsam fir tree on the island, leading to the trees’ eventual extinction—a change that would cascade down island food webs. He holds out the last two years as evidence for concern. In an average year on Isle Royale, about 10 percent of the moose were killed by wolves. In the last two years that figure dropped to 2 percent, and the moose population has quickly increased.

Although the Wolf-Moose Project has captured the public’s imagination, many experts point out that there’s a bigger picture. Back up and look at the entire last century, they say, and wolves appear as just one species in a revolving carousel of animals that have come and gone. In 1900, the largest animals on Isle Royale were caribou and lynx. These species eventually disappeared, along with smaller residents like coyotes and spruce grouse. In recent years, tricolored bats and a new type of tree frog have shown up. It turns out that compared with other species, wolves and moose have a relatively short history on the island.

The bigger picture also means seeing Isle Royale not just as a national park but also as a federally designated stretch of wilderness. Nearly the entire island is protected under the 1964 Wilderness Act. In the past, environmentalists’ approach to these wildest parts of our country has been a two-word mantra: don’t meddle. At the NPCA forum in June, Kevin Proescholdt, conservation director of the nonprofit Wilderness Watch, described his opposition to genetic rescue: “We should be aware of the slippery slope of manipulation,” he said. “If we intervene now… will we want to continue with additional manipulations?”

The stakes of the Park Service decision go far beyond the fate of eight wolves. When wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park, officials were correcting a problem created by humans—wolves were native to the park but had been hunted to extinction. Because wolves aren’t native to Isle Royale, performing a genetic rescue would break new ground. “Park Service policies don’t point to a clear course of action on this particular issue, and the best available science is sometimes conflicting,” says Christine Goepfert, program manager in NPCA’s Upper Midwest field office. “It’s a lot to sort through—many people are watching this decision because it could have implications for wildlife management in other national parks.”

The stakes are so high, in fact, that Park Superintendent Phyllis Green says the decision could go all the way to Washington. “It’s my responsibility to determine the right course of action at the park level,” she says. “If those actions alter… policy, then that’s where Park Service Director Jon Jarvis weighs in.” Green says that before making any decision, the park will interview more experts, including scientists who have worked with small populations of red wolves and Mexican wolves. A report on climate change released by the park in November has just added a new element to the complex swirl of data and policy. It forecasts that neither wolves nor moose may be capable of surviving the next century amid warmer temperatures.

In the parlance of biologists, the natural process of change on an island causes a rotating cast of species to “wink in” and later “wink out.” For now, it’s not clear whether the park’s wolves will remain on the glorious stage of Isle Royale for years to come, or whether they will wink out, just like the shooting stars that streak across the park’s inky night sky.”

**Special thanks to Laurie McClellan, http://www.npca.org/news/magazine/all-issues/2014/winter/the-last-wolf.html#.Ur8H6ujuev4.facebook, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »


Coyote saved

Photo courtesy of Patricia Randolph of Portage, a longtime activist for wildlife. madravenspeak@gmail.com or www.wiwildlifeethic.org

Please note:  This article is from 2012 but thought it was a good one to share!

““I cannot tell you how this coyote has turned me upside down.  Wiley is a member of our family.  I feel like I am fighting for the life of my relative!” ~ Rick Hanestad, Dunn County, Wisconsin

It is not often that a hunter calls me, asking for help.  In November, I found an urgent message on my answer machine.  I returned the call immediately.  Rick Hanestad, Nascar All American Series driver, life-long hunter/trapper and hound hunter, was calling me to help him save the life of a coyote.

Rick launched into his story.  His father and uncle farm over 1000 acres in western Dunn County.  In March, 2011, his uncle allowed a neighbor to hunt turkeys on his land.  The DNR promotes coyote killing 24/7 year-round, so that hunter killed a lactating female coyote.  Rick said, “Patricia, I don’t like that.  When I heard a female was shot in the spring, it made me sick to my stomach.”  He and his then 7 year-old daughter and 14 year-old son went looking for her pups.  Three days later they found five crying puppies, their eyes not yet open.  But he was “so scared of the DNR” that he just raked around the den to make sure it was the den of the coyote killed.  When he checked again, then the fifth day since the coyote had been shot, only one pup remained alive, dehydrated and weak.   Rick and his family spent the night dripping fluids down his throat.  They named him Wiley.

Asked what he thought would happen, Rick said, “I figured that at about 6 months he would be so vicious, I would either let him go, or shoot him.”  Did he ever show any aggression to their old male lab, their children, or their horses – to anyone?  “Never. He is such a sweet animal. I trust him absolutely with my 8 year-old daughter.  He is best friends with our dog.”

In November, 2012, a policeman was called out to neighboring land on a deer-stand dispute. Seeing the coyote outside in a pen, the policeman informed Rick’s wife that “the DNR will be out to pick up your coyote.”  (to kill him )

Rick dedicated himself, full-time, to save their family pet.  He called the local warden, the town supervisor, his legislators, and an outdoor radio host in Minnesota.  Hanestad wrote Representative Mursau’s aide,” In our state we have numerous coyotes, but without hunting dogs, who ever sees one?  I would love to take him to things like a biology class at schools or other situations where his extraordinary kindness around people could be shared.”

He continued, “I also found out about an individual that lives about an hour from our home in Ladysmith, WI.  This person (owns) a place that people take their hunting hounds to chase coyotes in an enclosed pen.  Talking with one person that uses the pen I was told that coyotes are chased and, on occasion, tore to pieces by hounds while people watch.  This guy does have a license legal by our state.  I can’t believe it! “   A neighbor’s son had seen a coyote killed by a pack of dogs in that enclosure, with people enjoying the “sport”.

Wisconsin coyotes have been taken legally from our state, for this legalized fenced torture, and required reports have not been made for 10 years.  There has been no DNR oversight.  Former DNR head of special investigations, Tom Solin, told me, a decade ago, that the DNR should not allow coyotes to be used in these enclosures because they cannot climb trees or hide from the dogs.  They get ripped apart on the ground.

Hanestad was looking for a way to get his coyote’s story to the public.  Someone at the DNR gave him my name.   He told me, “They might as well send 5 police officers, because they will not be taking our coyote, they will be taking me.”

All this required is a commonly DNR- issued captive wildlife license.  I made a few calls targeted to captive wildlife DNR personnel, asking if Hanestad has to promise to have this coyote ripped apart by dogs to get the appropriate license.  The next day, Rick called me, joyfully:  “The DNR will sell me Wiley for $24.00, and the cost of the state license, no fine, and I just have to build him a 144 square foot pen.  He would be standing in his own feces.  I am building him an acre.  He is ours!”

Rick says Wiley is the star of his hunting community.  People come to sit in the living room and hear him sing a thousand different songs. “Patricia, the different vocalizations amaze me on a nightly basis.  I’ve heard coyotes numerous times in the wild, but no one can possibly appreciate how beautiful they sound.  My family gets to hear different songs every night.”

Hanestad describes himself as having a deep lineage in hunting. His uncle taught him hunting and trapping from the age of five.  All his teen years he trapped, on average, setting 100 traps on a trap-line.  His average take was “130 coons, 40-50 red foxes, and 15-20 coyotes per season”.  He told me, “I always heard ‘the only good coyote is a dead coyote’.  The coyotes would be snarling in a foothold trap, and I would beat them to death with a stick.  I have killed hundreds of them.  I never thought about it.  I thought of it just like getting rid of weeds.”

And now?  “It makes me sick to my stomach when I think of what I did in the past.”

Does he think other coyotes are just like Wiley?  “Absolutely – they don’t do a thing to harm anybody.”  Why does he think they are so hated?  “Ignorance – it is just ignorance.”  Does it make him rethink all of his assumptions about animals?

“Absolutely.”

Hanestad emailed me, “When the warden and the state wildlife biologist came to visit him, Wiley fell to his back and the biologist scratched his belly.  The biologist stated ‘oh my god; he’s just like a dog’.  That to me was worth its weight in gold because on the spot I changed his opinion of coyotes.”

I asked him how many hard core hunters he thought would be changed by meeting Wiley.  Hanestad replied “20% the first ten minutes – and 100% if they had experienced a week of what I have.  How could they not be changed?”  But he cautioned, “Some people choose to remain ignorant.”

Wiley Coyote, Trickster, power animal, has come to Wisconsin. Wisconsin citizens can no longer tolerate a legislature and DNR who choose ignorance.”

**Special thanks to “Wisconsin Wildlife Ethic-Vote Our Wildlife Wisconsin WE VOW” for providing this information!

http://wiwildlifeethic.org/2013/02/17/wiley-the-coyote-a-wisconsin-hunters-story-of-love-and-transformation/

 

 

Read Full Post »


Looking back:  December 2012

“Montana and Wyoming hunts ruin Park’s study of how many elk wolves eat, wolf movements, pack territories-

While the official stance of Yellowstone Park is that the three state wolf hunt that has been going on along the Park’s boundaries has not jeopardized the Park’s wolf population (now down to 81 wolves), it certainly killed the Park’s wolf project’s  research on wolf habits such as how many and where wolves eat elk, bison, deer, and the like.  Not only that, but the loss of the 3 GPS collars which  tracked wolf movements 24/7 makes it so it cannot be known if the wolves have killed what they eat or whether they find a carcass (or steal it from lion, bear, coyotes, etc.).

Other Yellowstone wolves killed in the wolf hunt while on a foray outside the Park had regular (standard) collars.  Uncollared wolves were killed too, and most of these carcasses probably gave no indication they were basically Park wolves. The number in this category is not known, but it is a reasonable assumption that the true Park wolf population today is actually less than 81.

Science Insider has a detailed article on what the death of the 3 GPS-collared wolves means. Hunters Kill Another Radio-Collared Yellowstone National Park Wolf.  by Virginia Morell. Ms. Morell interviewed Dr. Douglas Smith, the head of the Park’s wolf project.

Most of the Wyoming wolf hunt units have closed now and Montana will not allow wolf trapping along the Park boundary when their first wolf trapping season begins Friday, Dec. 15. The wolf hunt goes on in Idaho where it is almost endless, but not many wolves migrate directly out of the Park into Idaho because the expansive Madsion Plateau sits in the way to Idaho.  It has almost no prey … little habitat for ungulates.”

**Special thanks to Dr. Ralph Maughan, professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guide.

Read Full Post »


Monday, October 21st, 2013

WELCOMING WOLVES BACK TO CALIFORNIA – A RANCHER’S PERSPECTIVE

“My husband and I live on the Bar C R ranch in Petaluma, CA where we run 300 mother cows using predator friendly ranching methods. I am also an advisory board member of Project Coyote – a coalition of educators, scientists and predator-friendly ranchers who promote coexistence between people and wildlife. As someone who understands the importance and benefits that predators provide to both ranch lands and entire eco systems, I want to see the wolf recover in California.

Last week I spoke at a rally in Sacramento in support of maintaining federal protections for wolves under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)- and against a proposal put forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist wolves from the ESA. To delist wolves would be wrong in so many ways; these important canids are keystone species and necessary for the balance and health of wild creatures and wild places.  To delist would be unscientific, counter-productive, and financially wasteful.

As important apex predators, wolves need and deserve protection across their historical range. And as they try to expand into their former range, they run the gauntlet of misinformed management that results in their needless death. Wolves are unaware that they are crossing political boundaries where they will face ever-changing policies ranging from excessive killing to nearly full protection. If they are not consistently protected with sound conservation strategies now, how will delisting improve their peril?

Many management tools and techniques have proven successful in preventing attacks on livestock. Ranchers who use non-lethal methods report lower losses from predation than those who use lethal methods. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as USDA Wildlife Services and State Fish and Game departments can promote and improve non-lethal methods.

Unfortunately, old traditions—even bad ones—die hard, and some ranchers will continue to engage in their war on wildlife, however real or imagined the threats might be. Delisting wolves sends ranchers the message that it is unnecessary for them to have systems in place to help prevent wolves from attacking their livestock in the first place.

Why are Wildlife Services, State Fish and Game department and hunters allowed a functional open season on wolves? They are ready and willing to kill any wolf that is considered a problem. The truth is, the wolf really isn’t the problem- rather it’s lack of coordinated management where wolves cross from a protected area to a kill zone: lack of effective management that provides good healthy habitat with sufficient game populations that together deter wolves from killing livestock and; lack of cost-effective management that should promote and implement non-lethal control measures.

In the last two centuries, we have shot, gassed, poisoned, trapped, and snared: bison, prairie dogs, badgers, grizzly bears, coyotes, wolves, foxes, bobcats and more, all because they pose some sort of threat to livestock.

Meanwhile, the American public has started to see that these animals we are killing actually play a valuable role in our ecosystem, and maybe the slash- and- burn way we are ‘controlling’ wildlife isn’t sustainable. We overharvest the natural prey for predators like wolves; we take away their habitat and replace it with domestic livestock with little protection. We create the very problem that wolves are being killed for.

Ranchers should welcome the wolves back into California, not only for the ecological benefits they bring but because wolves were in California long before our sheep and cattle, and if we force the public to choose, they might decide that wolves are a more valuable resource than our livestock. If we devoted just half the money, time and energy towards learning to coexist with wolves as we have towards our war against them, livestock producers could save countless lives on both sides of the fence, while also building a new reputation as an ecologically responsible industry that has learned from its mistakes. We all would win.  And then and only then might you might consider delisting the wolf from the endangered species list.”

**Special thanks to Keli Hendricks, a predator friendly cattle rancher from Petaluma, California who serves on the Advisory board of Project Coyote, for providing this information!  http://www.sandiegolovesgreen.com/welcoming-wolves-back-to-california-a-ranchers-perspective/

Read Full Post »