Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Facts and Figures’ Category

Impact of Wolves on Deer in Wisconsin

Posted in Facts and Figures on April 2, 2013| Leave a Comment »


HUNTER

This information is from the 1980’s and 1990’s but gives all of you stat lovers out there some great facts.  As you can see, clearly hunters have the greatest impact on deer populations.  Enjoy!

Appendix E Impact of Wolves on Deer in Wisconsin. by Ronald N. Schultz, Keith R. McCaffery, and Adrian P. Wydeven

“Many hunters continue to be concerned about the impact wolves may have on deer populations. During fall 1997 hunters became aware of the lower deer numbers across northern Wisconsin, and some blamed the deer decline on the increasing wolf population. The severe winters of 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 were the main factor that caused the deer decline across northern Wisconsin. Because such deer declines do create concerns over the impact of wolf predation, careful monitoring of wolf and deer populations will continue to be important aspects of management for both species.

Winter mortality is the main factor affecting deer numbers in northern Wisconsin. (Figure E1) During winter 1995-96 as many as 170,000 deer died in northern Wisconsin due to harsh winter weather. In the 1996-97 winter another 70,000 may have died. Winter Severity Indices correspond to severe winters and declines in the deer population.

There have been a few cases where wolves have limited ungulates (hooved mammals) to low population densities (Mech and Karns 1977; Gasaway et al. 1992). Generally such wolf impact would occur when ungulate populations are also stressed by severe winters, habitat deterioration, and/or overharvest. Fuller (1990) monitored a deer herd decline in Minnesota wolf range that went from 28 to 10 deer per square mile, but wolves accounted for only 10% of the deer mortality. Mech (1984) indicated that wolves rarely limit deer populations. Deer populations would normally need to be reduced to fewer than 3 deer/mi2 for wolves to limit growth of the deer population (Mech 1984). Generally wolf predation is not a major mortality factor to deer populations until deer densities drop to fewer than 10 deer/mi2 (Wydeven 1995). Deer densities of fewer than 10 deer/mi2 occur infrequently in Wisconsin.

Wolves in the Great Lakes region normally consume 15-18 deer per wolf per year (Fuller 1995). At a rate of 18 deer per wolf pack per year an average Wisconsin wolf pack of four wolves on a 70-square mile territory would consume about 72 deer or about 1 deer per square mile. Wisconsin’s wolf population in 1999 consisting of about 200 wolves probably consumed 3,000 -3,600 deer. The total 1998 harvest within the central and northern forest zones where wolves occur was 112,936 by firearm hunters, 29,266 by bow hunters and another 10,000 by motor vehicles.

Mortality due to wolves occurs year round which is much different than hunting mortality which is compressed into one season and has less effect on herd dynamics and hunter opportunity, because some wolf predation is compensatory.

The projected potential wolf population in Wisconsin could be 300-500 wolves (Appendix C). At a rate of 18 deer per wolf year, wolves would annually remove 5,400-9,000 deer. This rate of wolf predation would occur across 6000+ square miles, therefore would consist of 0.9 to 1.5 deer per square mile. Deer population density over winter across this region would generally range from 10 to 25 deer per square mile

The overall deer population and deer density were compared for 4 deer management units with wolves and 4 deer management units without wolves across northern Wisconsin (Table E1). Population fluctuations were relatively similar across deer management units with or without wolves. Deer density was slightly more in units without wolves than units with wolves, but the results were not statistically different (t-test P>0.10). The over winter management goals for the units with wolves is 18.7 deer per square mile. The management goals for the units without wolves is 21.3 deer per square mile. These goal differences reflect habitat and climatic effects unrelated to wolves. It appears that habitat and climatic effects have greater impacts on deer population trends than wolf predation.

Table E1     Comparison of deer population densities from 4 deer management units with wolves in    Wisconsin and 4 deer management units without wolves
Deer Management Units with wolves (1473 sq. miles) Deer Management Units     without wolves (1536 sq.miles)
Wolf No. Deer No. Deer/mi2 Wolf No. Deer No. Deer/mi2
1987-1988 28 28.900 19.6 0 35,900 23.4
1988-1989 33 35,600 24.2 0 41,300 26.9
1989-1990 33 35,300 24.0 0 38,600 25.1
1990-1991 37 37,800 25.6 0 44,000 28.6
1991-1992 22 33,800 22.9 0 35,200 22.9
1992-1993 24 24,400 16.6 0 25,200 16.4
1993-1994 31 24,300 16.5 0 29,400 19.2
1994-1995 31 33,400 22.7 0 42,400 27.6
1995-1996 30 46,200 31.3 0 50,900 33.1
1996-1997 37 31,400 21.3 0 41,800 27.2
Avg. Density 22.5 25.0
Mgt Goal 18.7 21.3
Population Density     Over Mgt. Goal 3.8 3.7

Furthermore, the average rate of herd increase from post-harvest to subsequent pre-harvest (1981-1997) was 1.33 for units without wolves and 1.31 for units with wolves which shows similar recruitment (net increase in herd size) in both sets of management units.

Overall it does not appear that wolves are likely to be a major mortality factor to deer in northern Wisconsin under current conditions or in the near future. Even with a population of 500 wolves, annual predation of 9000 deer would represent only 2.6% of the overwinter population of 343,000 deer in the Northern Forest and Central Forest. The area has an average fall population of about 450,000. Much of the predation by wolves would probably compensate for other natural mortality because it occurs year-round. A large proportion of northern Wisconsin deer die from natural causes, which can vary drastically depending on severity of winter (Creed et al. 1984). Wolves would probably remove some of these animals that would die from other causes. A deer killed by wolves won’t be killed by winter stress or other mortallities.

Wolves may also displace other predators such as coyotes (Peterson 1995); under some circumstances coyote predation may have more of an impact on deer populations than wolves (Mech 1984). The current deer management system in Wisconsin adjusts antlerless deer harvest in individual deer management units by limiting the number of hunter choice permits per unit (VanderZowen and Warnke 1995). This system should be able to adequately adjust for the impacts of wolf predation in deer management units. Generally, wolf predation would have very limited impact on the number of hunter-choice permits issued, or the overall deer harvest within specific management units.”

Literature Cited:

  • Creed, W.A., F.P. Haberland, B.E. Kohn, and K.R. McCaffery. 1984. Harvest management:    The Wisconsin experiences. Pages 243-260 in L.K. Halls, ed. White-tailed Deer Ecology    and Management. Wildl. Manage. Inst., Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 870 pp.
  • Fuller, T.K. 1990. Dynamics of a declining white-tailed deer population in    north-central Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. 110. 37 pp
  • Fuller, T.K. 1995. Guidelines for gray wolf management in the northern Great Lakes    region. International Wolf Center, Tech. Publ. #271. Ely, Minnesota. 19 pp.
  • Gasaway, W.C., R.D. Boiertje, D.V. Grangaard, D.G. Kellyhouse, R.O. Stephenson, and D.G.    Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska and    Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildl. Monogr. 120. 59 pp.
  • Mech, L.D. 1984. Predator and predation. pp. 189-200 in L.K. Halls, ed. White-tailed    Deer: Ecology and Management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 870 pp.
  • Mech, L.D. and P.D. Karns. 1977. Role of the wolf in a deer decline in the Superior    National Forest. USDA. For. Serv. Res. Report. NC-148. 23 pp.
  • Peterson, R.O. 1995. Wolves as interspecific competitors in canid ecology. Pages    315-323 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip. Ecology and conservation of wolves in    a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occ. Publ. No. 35, 642 pp.
  • VanderZouwen, W.J. and D.K. Warnke. 1995. Wisconsin deer population goals and harvest    management: Environmental assessment. Wisconsin Department of natural Resources,    Madison, WI. 305 pp.
  • Wydeven, A. Wolf carrying capacity. Pages 43-47 in W.J. VanderZouwen and D.K. Warnke,    eds. Wisconsin deer population goals and harvest management: Environmental assessment. Wisconsin    Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 305 pp.

Read Full Post »

How do wolves live together?

Posted in Facts and Figures on March 20, 2013| 2 Comments »


wolf gang (Photo from Wolf Park, www.wolfpark.org)

“Wolves live in groups of between two and twenty (averaging about six to eight) animals.  These groups are called packs.  Each pack of wolves maintains an area, called a territory, which belongs to it and which it defends from other wolves.  Within this territory, the pack hunts, sleeps, plays, and raises pups.  Territories range in size from 50 to 1,000 square miles, depending on how much prey is available.  Packs also vary in size depending on what kind of prey is available.  Wolf packs which hunt deer as a primary source of food will have fewer wolves than packs which hunt bison or moose.  These large animals are harder to catch and kill, and can also feed more wolves once caught.

Wolves have a linear rank order, or hierarchy, which helps keep peace within the pack.  There is a separate line of rank for each sex: one for males and one for females.  At the top of the rank order is the alpha male and female.  The beta male and female are next highest in status.  At the bottom of the rank order is the omega “scapegoat” wolf, which may be either male or female.  In the rank order, each wolf has a set place.  When two wolves from the same pack cross paths, one is always dominant to the other, or higher in status than the other wolf.  The lower-ranking wolf is said to be submissive to the higher-ranking, dominant wolf.

The alpha wolves are not necessarily the strongest, the fastest, or the smartest.  High rank has more to do with attitude and confidence than size or strength.  Dominance also does not favor gender — either the alpha male or the alpha female may be the overall “leader of the pack”.

While dominant wolves generally act more self-confident than lower-ranking ones, wolves do not walk around constantly displaying their status.  They most often adopt a neutral pose, changing their expression towards dominance or submission depending on which other wolves are around.  (A wolf will show dominance to a lower-ranking animal, and submission to a higher-ranking one.)  A wolf displaying dominance stands up tall, looks directly at the other wolf, puts its ears forward, and will lift its tail (usually not much higher than its back, unless it is very excited).  A wolf displaying submission crouches down to look small, lowers or even tucks its tail, looks away from the other wolf, and puts its ears down and back.  This is usually all that happens when two wolves meet: wolves cannot afford to spend all their time fighting, and these subtle displays are all that is needed to maintain social stability.

Wolf communication involves a lot of signals like these.  The postures and facial expressions used will vary in intensity, or strength, depending on the context: an alpha wolf will often simply look hard at a wolf to send it a dominance message, and a submissive wolf will often just look away from a dominant wolf to give the appropriate response.  An excited alpha may give a stronger dominance message, and growl at a lower-ranking wolf or even hold it down.  Stronger submission signals include whining and pawing at the dominant wolf.  Mostly, signals just get louder and stronger the more excited the wolves get, and fighting rarely occurs.

The alpha wolves are not necessarily “in charge” or “leaders of the pack” at every moment.  They may decide where and when to hunt or they may not.  An alpha wolf is not always a leader so much as a wolf who has the right to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.  Since they have so much social freedom to do what they like, alpha wolves often have more opportunity than lower-ranking wolves to start hunting or to choose a resting place.  The rest of the pack will then often follow and join in.  But when in home range, often younger wolves will take the lead on an outing.

The omega wolf ranks lower than any other wolf.  It usually sleeps away from the other pack members and may not engage in much social behavior, like howling or greeting.  The other wolves may make a “game” of picking on the omega wolf, biting it and driving it away from food.  At other times, the omega may be tolerated or even accepted into group activities.  This wolf may be able to eventually work itself back higher in the rank order or it may eventually choose to leave and form a new pack.

Rank order is not always linear and may be somewhat flexible in certain circumstances.  Puppies and yearlings, for example, have a rank order, but this order may change from month to month, week to week, or even from day to day in the case of young puppies.  (The rank order for adult wolves is usually more stable.)  “Playing” wolves, who are engaging in behaviors such as chasing and running for fun, may “switch” rank temporarily, and a lower-ranking wolf will be allowed to mock-dominate a higher-ranking one.  Some rank orders may be circular, with wolf A dominating wolf B who dominates wolf C who dominates wolf A, but this is rarely permanent.  Also, low-ranking wolves of one gender may be able to dominate high-ranking wolves of the other, without changing their rank in the social order of their respective sex.”

**Special thanks to Wolf Park for providing the information in this post! (http://www.wolfpark.org)

Read Full Post »

Wisconsin DNR Proposes Allowing Packs of Dogs to “Train” On Wolves During March Denning and Birthing Season

Posted in Facts and Figures, Wolf Current Events on February 24, 2013| 3 Comments »


snow wolf

“How much more despicable can the DNR be when catering to their bear hounder puppet masters? You are not going to like the answer. The Wisconsin DNR is proposing to allow hounders to pit their dogs against wolves with very few restrictions and even believing that Judge Anderson’s recent ruling gives them full endorsement to do so. If you care anything for wolves or wildlife this document will make you furious:

http://dnr.wi.gov/About/NRB/2013/February/02-13-2B1.pdf

Essentially the DNR document that outlines this disgusting proposal uses hearsay from bear hounders and their propaganda to justify what they will be doing to wolves. They even contradict themselves numerous times while openly admitting that bear hounders broke the law by “accidentally” “trailing” wolves when they were and endangered species. To sum up what the document allows:

  • No breed restrictions will be in place. This means that hounders can choose breeds specifically bred to fight wolves to pit against them. This is perfectly fine according to the DNR because Wisconsin has a “law” that makes it illegal to kill wild animals with dogs. And we know how honest bear hounders are.
  • No leashes will be required. This is because we all know just how difficult it would be for the hounder to have to leave the comfort of their vehicle to actually observe their vicious dog packs terrorizing wildlife. The DNR then talks about how hard it would be for the hounder to “harvest the animal humanely” if they have to keep their dogs on a leash. As we all know they are such humanitarians and care so much about the pain and suffering they inflict on wildlife.
  • DNR will trust hounders to teach other hounders how to go after wolves with no certification required because the DNR has no “expertise” in this area? Really? So how are they expected to “enforce” what they have no knowledge of?
  • No restrictions about where hounders can let their dogs run rampant in wolf habitat. Remember that hounders will be allowed to let their packs of vicious dogs run completely unsupervised through wolf, bear, and other wildlife habitat during times that coincide with bear hibernation. Whose to say that hibernating bears will not be harassed or even killed by these packs of vicious dogs? The DNR obviously doesn’t care.
  • Finally they want to allow hounders to “train” their dogs on wolves with no restrictions right through the breeding, denning, and birthing seasons until the end of March. When pregnant females need to be preparing for the birth of their litters they will be harassed or even attacked by unlimited packs of vicious dogs. The fine print reads that they can “only” use packs of “six” dogs at a time to “train”but that they can switch out to new packs of dogs if the original pack gets tired. So essentially unlimited dogs will be allowed to go after wolves during this very sensitive time. The DNR even has the gall to call this a “reasonable fair-chase restriction.”

And here are the few “restrictions” the DNR will be placing on hounders:

  • Hounders cannot go after wolves at night. How generous of them.
  • Hounders cannot be reimbursed for dogs killed by wolves while hunting or training against wolves. But of course nothing stops a hounder from claiming that they were “hunting coyotes” so they can get that nice fat $2500 check for their “beloved” dog. In this document the DNR even goes so far as to repeat the bear hounder propaganda about how much they “care” about their dogs.
  • The DNR will trust hounders to “call off” their dogs when they think there are more than “1 or 2″ wolves in the vicinity. Of course how can they “call them off” when they are sitting in their trucks and the dogs are running rampant through the woods?
  • The the DNR brags about how there were “only” 11 dog “depredations” in 2012. They claim that hounders are being more “careful” about where they let their dogs run. That’s funny considering now they are going to now pit those very same dogs that they claim to “care” for up up against wolves in the same areas. Remember one of the reasons Rep. Scott Suder (R-ALEC) and his anti-wolf allies claimed for the the wolf kill bill was that wolves were “decimating” hunting dogs. Now the DNR refutes that. Wow.
  • Finally, hounders can use radio receiving devices to “track” their dogs but can’t use those same devices to seek out radio collared wolves. Of course again we all know how “honest” and “ethical” hounders are.

Then we have the DNR even going so far as to claim that it has been “legal” to “train” dogs against wolves since they were delisted on January 27, 2012. Really? At this time the wolf kill bill had not even passed and wolves were not considered a “game” species yet. So according to the DNR hounders could legally put their dogs up against wolves from the day they were removed from the ESA list? So does this mean hounders can “train” their dogs against any “non-game” species that they want with no restrictions? Then the DNR points out that hounders have let their dogs “unintentionally” chase wolves for years even when they were under federal protection. This is ok? Do these sadists have any rules they are required to follow?

Then we have the quote of all quotes. If you are drinking anything swallow it before reading this:

“We have strived to base our season on science, social desires, and regulations that are reasonable, practical, and acceptable.”

Reasonable, practical, and acceptable to whom? The only ones who find this abomination to be acceptable and reasonable are the bear hounders, their puppets in the DNR, and legislature. There is nothing “science” based about allowing packs of vicious dogs to go after wolves with almost no restrictions. When even the wolf hating states out west do not allow this that tells you something. Wisconsin is the ONLY state that allows this insanity and has the gall to call it “science.” And this garbage about “social desires” is just that, garbage. These anti-wolf zealots will never be satisfied as long as on free wolf is allowed to live. I have it from well placed sources that many within the DNR do not at all agree with the Stepp/Thiede propaganda and their zeal for allowing doges to go after wolves, but they are afraid to speak out. They need to speak out or this is only going to get more extreme and sadistic if that is even possible.

It is also shameful the the Department of Interior under “Cowboy Ken” Salazar has allowed plans like Wisconsin’s to be implemented unchecked. So much for that “five year monitoring” they claim to have in place. This also falls on President Obama who should be ashamed that this is happening under his watch. So much for being a “Progressive.”

The HSUS better use this document as a focal point of their lawsuit to prove this is nothing more than an eradication/revenge hunt to placate bear hounders and anti-wolf zealots. We must also be fully involved by attending the Spring Election of the “Conservation Congress” in each of our counties on April 8th. There will be several “advisory” questions about the use of dogs against wolves. We must mobilize ethical hunters and living wildlife advocates to attend and vote for proposing a law to ban the use of dogs against wolves, and vote against the various anti-wildlife proposals being offered. The DNR continues to spit in the face of anyone who cares about wolves and wildlife and it is up to us to stop them. No more apathy, the time is now to step up and take our wildlife and wild lands back from the bear hounders/trappers and their sadistic allies. The DNR can no longer use the veil of “science” to justify their pandering to the most sadistic and anti-wildlife groups out there.”

**Special thanks toWisconsin Wildlife Ethic-Vote Our Wildlife,  http://wiwildlifeethic.org/2013/02/16/wisconsin-dnr-proposes-allowing-packs-of-dogs-to-train-on-wolves-during-march-denning-and-birthing-season/ for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

Hunters Kill Hundreds of Wolves in US

Posted in Facts and Figures, Wolf Current Events on November 21, 2012| 4 Comments »


Wolf supporters, as the wolf hunt continues, even when a certain quota is reached, many do not realize how the loss of a pack member effects the rest of their unit.  With the loss of any older, more experienced members of a wolf pack, the younger ones struggle to learn about how to hunt.  Eventually, this can lead to starvation.  I encourage you to share your comments, feedback, and tell me how losing a member of a wolf pack can effect rest of the pack after reading the article below:

November 20th, 2012

“Wolf hunting season has begun in several states, and hundreds of the animals already have been killed. It’s the first time in years that wolves have been legally hunted in Wyoming and Minnesota, and the decision has drawn the ire of many conservationists and some scientists.

Gray wolves have long been a point of contention between ranchers, who see them as pests that eat their livestock, and conservationists, who see the critical part the play in the ecosystem. Recently, as state laws changed and the animals were taken off the federal endangered species list, hunters have taken aim.

About 50 wolves have been killed in Wyoming, where they can be shot on sight without a permit in about 85 percent of the state, according to news reports. Seven of the dead wolves once lived in Yellowstone National Park, where wolves are still protected; they wandered outside the park and were legally shot, Reuters reported. (Scientists put collars on the Yellowstone wolves as part of a park research program.)

Wyoming’s wolf population was estimated at 328 before the hunt. The state’s plan, approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requires that the population of wolves remain above 100 outside Yellowstoneand the Wind River Reservation. That figure is cited by conservationists as dangerously low.

In nearby Idaho, 96 wolves have been killed, according to the Coeur d’Alene Press.

During last year’s hunting season, 545 wolves in Idaho and Montana were killed. This year both states got rid of their statewide quotas, or upper limit on number of kills, according the Center for Biological Diversity. The center, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups, is suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accusing it of failing to adequately protect the animals. Other suits are pending in various states.

Back from the brink?

Wolves were hunted, trapped and poisoned to the brink of extinction in the 20th century, and they rebounded only after being protected under the Endangered Species Acts of the 1960s and subsequently being re-introduced to Yellowstone. Much of the Northern Rockies sub-population of gray wolves lost federal protections last year following a controversial rider placed in U.S. budget legislation.

The wolf hunt in Minnesota is also under way and has met with opposition.  The 147 wolves killed in that state are about twice what the Department of Natural Resources expected, according to the Associated Press. The second phase of the hunting season begins Saturday (Nov. 24), during which wolves can be trapped, a technique that conservationists and some hunters call cruel.

Minnesota’s earlier wolf-management plan stated that the animals couldn’t be hunted for five years after being removed from the federal protection provided by the Endangered Species Act — which happened in January, 2012. Instead of opening a formal comment period, the DNR offered only an online survey, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. More than 75 percent of people taking the poll opposed the wolf hunt: Of 7,351 responses, only 1,542 people supported a wolf season. Even so, that five-year waiting period was not upheld.

In Wisconsin, hunters had killed 83 wolves as of Nov. 18, according to the Badger Herald. The hunting season there will run through the end of February unless hunters reach the 116-wolf quota before then.”

**Special thanks to “Live Science” for providing this information! (http://www.livescience.com/24942-wolf-hunt-begins.html)

Read Full Post »

Wolves’ Return Revitalizes Yellowstone

Posted in Facts and Figures on November 11, 2012| Leave a Comment »


 While this an older story, let’s not forget the positive impacts wolves have in Yellowstone.  Take a look and share your comments!

December 30,  2011  By

“Fifteen years after wolves were returned to Yellowstone National Park the health  of the overall ecosystem is overwhelming and obvious.

This is the observation made by scientists in a new report published in the  journal Biological Conservation.

For the first time in 70 years, the young aspen and willow trees are not  being eaten before they have a chance to flourish and grow by the elk  populations in northern Yellowstone, thanks to the introduction of wolves back  into the park. The elk are beginning to decline and are also beginning to fear  wolf predation.

As such, trees and shrubs are recovering along some streams, which in turn  provide improved habitat for beaver and fish, and provide more food for birds  and bears.

“Yellowstone increasingly looks like a different place,” said William Ripple,  a professor in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State  University, and lead author of the study. “These are still the early stages of  recovery, and some of this may still take decades. But trees and shrubs are  starting to come back and beaver numbers are increasing. The signs are very  encouraging.”

The findings released in the report are based on a recent analysis conducted  by Oregon State University researchers as well as a review of several other  studies.

The report outlines four streams that were studied in the Lamar River basin.  100 percent of the tallest young aspen sprouts were being browsed in 1998, but  that number has dropped to just 20 percent in 2010. As a result of the total  browsing by elk, the new aspen trees were unable to grow and expand, grinding to  a halt in the mid to late 1990s. And all because the wolves weren’t around to  snack on the snackers.

This is the observation made by scientists in a new report published in the  journal Biological Conservation.

Among the observations in this report:

  • Since their reintroduction in 1995-96, the wolf population generally  increased until 2003, forcing changes in both elk numbers and behavior due to  what researchers call the “ecology of fear.”
  • The northern range elk populations decreased from more than 15,000  individuals in the early 1990s to about 6,000 last year, and remaining elk now  have different patterns of movement, vigilance, and other traits.
  • By 2006, some aspen trees had grown tall enough they were no longer  susceptible to browsing by elk, and cottonwood and willow were also beginning to  return in places.
  • Improved willow growth is providing habitat that allows for a greater  diversity and abundance of songbirds such as the common yellowthroat, warbling  vireo and song sparrow.
  • The number of beaver colonies in the same area increased from one in 1996 to  12 in 2009, with positive impacts on fish habitat.
  • Increases in beaver populations have strong implications for riparian  hydrology and biodiversity – Wyoming streams with beaver ponds have been found  to have 75 times more abundant waterfowl than those without.
  • The coyote population decreased with the increase in wolf numbers,  potentially allowing more small mammals that provide food for other avian and  mammalian predators, such as red foxes, ravens and bald eagles.

Evidence of improved ecosystem health following the return of wolves is “becoming increasingly persuasive,” the scientists said in their report, though  they also note that an increasing population of bison is continuing to impact  young woody plants in the Lamar Valley.

“The wolves have made a major difference in Yellowstone,” said Robert  Beschta, a professor emeritus of forestry at OSU and co-author on the study.

“Whether similar recovery of plant communities can be expected in other  areas, especially on public lands outside national parks, is less clear,” Beschta said. “It may be necessary for wolves not only to be present but to have  an ecologically effective density, and mechanisms to deal with human and wolf  conflicts also need to be improved.”

“Predation and predation risk associated with large predators appear to  represent powerful ecological forces,” the researchers concluded in their  report, “capable of affecting the interactions of numerous animals and plants,  as well as the structure and function of ecosystems.”

Read Full Post »

“Living With Wolves” weigh in on wolves and killing for sport

Posted in Facts and Figures, Wolf Research on July 5, 2012| Leave a Comment »


“Living With Wolves” sums up the answer to this question nicely (http://www.livingwithwolves.org/index.html)

Do wolves kill for sport?

“Answer: Wolves, like all wild carnivores, do not kill for sport. They kill to sustain themselves. Though it is uncommon, “surplus killing” (killing more prey animals than can be immediately consumed) has been observed in many predator species. If given the opportunity to secure future meals, many animals will sometimes do so. It is a survival mechanism. It is this survival tactic that has led to the misplaced notion of “sport killing” arises. It has nothing to do with sport. Only people kill for sport.

Surplus killing occurs when prey is at an unusual disadvantage, offering an opportunity to significantly lower both the risk of injury to the predator and the amount of energy required to kill the prey. It is for this reason that surplus killing by wolves, although rare, occurs more with livestock than it does with wild prey.

Typically, when a pack of wolves kills an elk or a deer, by the time the pack has subdued its prey, the rest of the herd has fled and is no longer in the area. This is not the case with livestock introduced by humans. Unlike their wild cousins, livestock have lost much of their survival instinct. Spending a good amount of their existence fenced in or being herded, their reaction to a predator in their midst is very different from that of wild prey. Calves and yearling cattle, for instance, flee during the chaos of the chase, but once the wolves have made a kill, rather than continuing to move away from danger, they have been known to stand nearby, watching in curiosity, perhaps unable to comprehend the threat and what might happen next. Instead of fleeing, as a wild prey animal would, sheep, when confronted with danger, often run in frantic circles, triggering predatory instinct in wolves and increasing the opportunity for multiple kills.

Wolves are further mischaracterized as killing for sport when people happen upon a dead animal or animals, killed by wolves, but the wolves are no longer present. This leads people to assume that the wolves abandoned their kill and therefore, must have killed for recreation or pleasure. This is far from the reality. The fact is that wolves are easily frightened away from their kill by the approach of human beings, whom they regard as a predator and tend to fear. Wolves may be also chased away by other, larger carnivores, eager to take advantage of an easy meal. So a presumably abandoned carcass is not what it seems. In nature, where the margins of survival are narrow, surplus food is not forgotten. Research shows that wolves return repeatedly, almost always eating the entire carcass.

For wolves, more so than bears and mountain lions, hunting can be very risky work. Unlike the larger, solitary mountain lion that relies on the element of surprise, ambushing and then quickly overpowering its prey, wolves work together as a pack, chasing their prey and wearing it down, looking for vulnerabilities. This is very difficult and dangerous, and they are often fatally wounded while hunting, gored by antlers or horns or kicked by a hoof. 80 to 90% of the time, their efforts to make a kill fail. When they succeed, if any food is left unfinished by wolves, it feeds scavengers or other animals.

Misinterpretation of animal behavior and motives often perpetuate a bad reputation for wolves, but reality does not support the theory that wolves kill for sport.”

Read Full Post »

Minnesota DNR survey: Most oppose wolf hunt

Posted in Facts and Figures, Wolf Current Events on June 26, 2012| 3 Comments »


Article by: DOUG SMITH, Star Tribune

  • Updated: June 22, 2012 – 9:25 AM

Critics call methodology flawed. DNR says the hunt is on.

“About 80 percent of the more than 7,000 people responding to an online survey by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) opposed a wolf hunting and trapping season.

But the results won’t stop this fall’s planned wolf season.

The question of whether to have a season was resolved by the Legislature, said Dennis Simon, DNR wildlife chief. “It was a public input process, it wasn’t a poll. … The Legislature and governor directed us to have a wolf season. So we will have a season.”

The DNR’s survey, which was not limited to Minnesota residents, closed Wednesday after accepting public comments for a month. The agency received 7,351 responses — 1,542 people supported a wolf season, 5,809 opposed it.

“Frankly, I’m not a bit surprised,” said Howard Goldman, senior Minnesota director of the Humane Society of the United States, which opposes the wolf hunting-trapping season.

Mark Johnson, executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, which supports the wolf season, said the survey is flawed and doesn’t reflect public opinion in northern Minnesota.

“I took the survey, and it didn’t ask where you live,” said Johnson. “It’s totally unscientific. What’s the use of it when it’s not limited to Minnesotans? I’d say zip.”

Simon said it’s uncertain whether the DNR will be able to determine how many comments came from outside Minnesota. “It was wide open — anyone could go on the site and take it,” he said.

Goldman said his group did not encourage out-of-state anti-hunting groups to take the DNR’s online survey. “I thought it should reflect the opinions of Minnesotans,” he said.

Nancy Gibson, co-founder of the International Wolf Center in Ely, said the results clearly indicate the public is still divided on the question of a wolf hunt, even if the survey was hijacked by anti-hunting groups. “It’s a surprise to me,” she said of the number who responded, and the overwhelming anti-hunting sentiment they expressed.

Both Johnson and Goldman had wanted the DNR to hold public meetings around the state, which the DNR decided not to do, citing time constraints.

Simon said the agency had hoped to get public reaction to the specific wolf hunting proposals. The agency will analyze those comments and release details of the survey next week.

The DNR also plans to finalize the wolf hunting rules next week, Simon said, so that the regulations can be included in the DNR’s hunting and trapping season regulation handbook.

The proposal was to split the season into two parts, an early hunting-only season, beginning Nov. 3, to coincide with the firearms deer season and a late one, Nov. 24 to Jan. 6, that would permit trapping and hunting. DNR officials have suggested the season would close if a 400-wolf quota is reached. Simon wouldn’t say whether the final rules will deviate from those proposals.”

Staff writer Josephine Marcotty contributed to this report. Doug Smith • 612-673-7667

Read Full Post »

To Kill A Mockingbird

Posted in Facts and Figures, Wolf Current Events on May 16, 2012| 2 Comments »


George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology and writes the following:

“I recently attended the wolf hearings held by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission in Helena.

The commission is considering initiation of a trapping season, as well as eliminating quotas on the number of wolves that may be killed. The goal is to significantly reduce the state’s wolf population which currently numbers somewhere in the vicinity of 600 animals.

The commission will make a final decision on the matter by July.

At the hearing I felt like I was witnessing a modern day version of Harper Lee’s famous book To Kill a Mockingbird. In that novel the mockingbird is symbolic of innocence animals and by extension, innocence citizens destroyed by thoughtless and ignorant people.

In Lee’s novel the main character, lawyer Atticus Finch, is one of the few residents of the southern community of Maycomb committed to racial equality and fairness. He agrees to defend a black man (a mockingbird in human society) wrongly accused of raping a poor southern girl. For his efforts both Atticus and his children suffer abuse and ridicule from the community. Worse, in the end, Atticus is unable to overcome the racial prejudice of his community members and win acquittal for the black man who was convicted by public opinion rather than facts.

Even the otherwise descent people of that community were unable to put aside the cultural biases they had grown up with.

In a similar way I believe the wolf has become a symbolic scapegoat for many otherwise descent Montanans who, for whatever reason, cannot overcome the cultural biases against wolves.

I do not want to overstate this analogy. Wolves can and do kill elk and deer as well as livestock. They can sometimes even depress elk and deer populations. Yet for many who testified at the commission hearings, it is clear that killing wolves symbolizes more than just a predator that may occasionally create conflicts with human goals. When one can’t lash out at the real and/or imaginary forces that are creating fear or anger, someone or something else is punished. What was termed in my college animal behavior classes as “displaced” aggression.

In Montana there is displaced aggression being heaped upon the wolf. For some with the most extreme opinions in Montana, the wolf actually represents the distance federal government or worse a UN global plot to subjugate rural America that they fear is controlling their lives. When they kill wolves, they are lashing out at these institutions they fear.

And like the mythical towns people in Maycomb Alabama whose racial prejudice and lynch mob mentally convicted the black man Tom Robinson of imagined crimes based on dubious evidence, the wolf has been convicted and sentenced in the court of public opinion—at least the portion of the public I observed at the hearings.

There is no other way to explain the depth of hatred and fear I witnessed. Any rational examination of the evidence against the wolf would not justify the death penalty that I fear will be imposed by the Commission.

Over and over again I heard many of the same old inaccurate and often exaggerated justifications for wolf reductions. Among them is the assertion that wolves are decimating the state’s elk and deer herds and destroying hunter opportunity.

Yet in 1992 when the state completed its elk management plan, and three years before wolves were reintroduced, there were an estimated 89,000 elk in Montana. By 2007 an article in Montana Outdoors proclaimed there may be as many as 150,000 elk in the state. And a recent communication I had with Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologist put the current number at around 140,000 animals.

Even as I write this commentary, the headlines in today’s papers proclaimed “FWP: Surveys Show Big Game Populations Bouncing Back.”

Any reasonable person looking at those numbers would conclude that the presence of wolves is not a threat to hunting opportunities. Indeed, if I wanted to be as irrational as many of the hunters I heard at the hearing, I could suggest a correlation where the presence of wolves appears to increase elk numbers and hunting opportunities across a state.

Similarly, accusations that wolves are a threat to the state’s livestock industry are equally as dubious. Last year according to the Montana Dept of Livestock, more than 140,000 cattle and sheep died from various causes including poisonous plants, disease, and other factors. Out of these 140,000 animals, wolves were responsible for less than a hundred deaths.

This is not to suggest that the loss of any livestock is not an economic blow to the individual rancher, but can anyone seriously argue that wolves are a universal threat to the livestock industry that justifies state-wide persecution?

And there are many positive benefits to the presence of a large wolf population that were rarely mentioned or acknowledged at the hearing. For instance, temporary or even sustained decrease in elk numbers can lead to a reduction in browsing on riparian vegetation like willows and cottonwood along streams. Healthy riparian areas create more food for beaver. Beaver ponds improve water storage and stream flow, reducing floods—which may be a huge net economic benefit to society.

Healthy and functioning streams also equal more trout and other fish, improving fishing opportunities and of course the bottom line for businesses that depend on serving the fishing public.

Predation by wolves can also reduce the occurrence of diseases that are a potential threat to both livestock and wildlife. For instance, the spread of disease like chronic wasting disease and brucellosis can have economic consequences to the livestock industry as well as elk and deer hunting. Wolves by their presence tend to reduce disease across a herd by dispersing elk and deer as well as by preying on sick animals.

Collectively these positive economic benefits to society and even to the livestock industry may far outnumber any negative costs associated with wolf livestock losses. If we are going to manage wolves so they full fill their ecological function as top predators, one can’t kill the majority of wolves off and expect to maintain these positive ecological benefits.

Even more troubling to me is that Montanans seem to want to use brute force instead of their brains to deal with wolf conflicts. A great deal of recent science on the social ecology of wolves as well as the positive benefits of predators on ecosystems is largely ignored by current management policies.

There is a growing body research that suggests increased persecution of predators is likely to increase, not decrease, human conflicts. Even if you lower the wolf population, you may actually increase the human conflicts.

Widespread and aggressive indiscriminate killing of wolves or any other predator may have unintended consequences. Hunting and trapping tends to skew predator populations towards younger age classes; Younger animals are less skillful hunters. They are the very animals most likely to wander into the backyards of people’s homes or come into a ranch yard to nab a young calf or lamb. Due to their inexperience and lack of hunting skill, younger animals are more inclined to seek out livestock as prey.

In addition, a wolf population suffering from heavy mortality leads to break up of packs where breeding is usually limited to the dominant male and female. Fragmenting the population into many smaller packs can result in more breeding females and often results in a higher survival of pups. In a very short time the population rebounds, prompting endless calls for more persecution.

Predator control can even potentially lead to greater kill of elk and deer. Smaller packs with many pups to feed are unable to guard their kills against other scavengers. When an adult kills an elk or deer, by the time it can carry meat back to the den and return, much of the carcass may be stripped of any remaining meat, leaving that animal no choice but to kill another elk or deer. Smaller packs may in the end also produce more pups—and like teenagers everywhere—the greater food demands of growing pups may lead to the killing of more prey and/or livestock.

And since many wolves co-exist with livestock, the indiscriminate and random removal of wolves by hunting and trapping can actually create a void that may be filled by other wolves that may be more inclined to prey on livestock.

There are definitely conflicts that sometimes arise between wolves and people. However, the intelligent way to respond is through the surgical removal of individual animals or packs and adoption of non-lethal animal husbandry practices.

For instance, after California passed a state-wide ban on use of traps and poison to control predators, Marin County Commissioners voted to replace lethal measures with non-lethal methods. The tax payer funds that previously went to lethal control were used instead to build fences, purchase guard dogs and lambing sheds. In the end there was a reduction in predator losses while at the same time, the county spent less funds than what it had previously spent on lethal predator control. A similar effort in Montana’s own Blackfoot Valley where dead carcasses which serve as an attractant for predators are promptly removed has also lead to a reduction in livestock /predator conflicts.

Such changes in policies demonstrate what is possible when people use their brains instead of their guns.

In the novel to Kill a Mockingbird, the indiscriminate killing of mockingbirds represented the unnecessary and thoughtless destruction of animals and humans based on old biases. The sad truth is that in Montana we are still killing symbolic mockingbirds by our archaic and irrational attitudes towards predators like the wolf.

George Wuerthner is a hunter, former Montana hunting guide and ecologist living in Helena, Montana.”

**Special thanks to http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/05/15/to-kill-a-mockingbird-2/ for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

Yellowstone Wolves Bring Estimated $7-10 Million in Annual Tourism Revenue

Posted in Facts and Figures on May 8, 2012| 8 Comments »


“The truck’s plates say it all: “4WOLVES.” Inside are an Iowa couple who return to the Yellowstone country year after year to be campground hosts in the nation’s first national park. They return for the stunning scenery, for the wide open country that is the Lamar Valley, for herds of elk, for shaggy bison and for wolves.

Today’s Yellowstone is a different place than 1995′s Yellowstone. Biologists and ecologists can see it on the ground. Outdoor educators see it in their businesses. And visitors see it on the roads.

Travel the road from Cooke City into the Lamar Valley and you’ll see it too. At pullouts all up and down the valley will be dozens of people standing, pointing, quietly observing. They are there for Yellowstone’s wolves.

Jim Halfpenny is an outdoor educator who specializes in large carnivores. He lives in Gardiner, Montana, a town on the northern edge of the park and from there, he runs classes in wolf ecology. In 1995, he taught one class. Since that time, he has seen the wolf education business spring to life.

“There were fifty-four classes on wolves taught in the first half of 2000 from eleven different organizations. From an educational standpoint, this has just been monstrous in the way it has developed,” said Halfpenny.

Economically, the story has been extremely bright. In 1992, before wolves were reintroduced into the park, a University of Montana economist named John Duffield co-authored a study entitled “The Economics of Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone National Park.” That study predicted a loss to the hunter/outfitter business on the high end of about $500,000 per year. This would be a direct loss to hunting outfitters due to the fact that a declining elk population due to wolves would mean less elk to hunt, which would mean less clients. On the flip side, the benefits to wolf recovery in terms of tourism dollars, educators, and outfitters who specialized in wildlife observation, not hunting, were predicted in the $7-10 million annual range, a gain many times greater than the loss.

A follow-up study to check the accuracy of the predictions is about a year away from publication, but the preliminary numbers look very similar, said Duffield. People want to see wolves, and they come from all over the world to do so. And they bring money.

For a motel owner who struggles during the dreaded “shoulder-season”-those months between the peak tourist seasons-wolves have been extremely good news. Three years ago, Gerlie Weinstein left her life in New Orleans as an English teacher to come to Cooke City to run a business and watch wildlife. Today, she owns the Alpine Motel in Cooke City.

“My business has increased yearly, and increased from the business that the former owners did,” said Weinstein. “I came here because I watch wildlife and that’s what a lot of my clients do.”

The months of April, October, and November can be hard times for motel owners, but with the addition of wolves into the park, businesses like the Alpine Motel don’t need to close up shop during these times.

“We had our best November and best October ever last fall, that would be people coming to see the wildlife,” she said. “They are coming for the wolves and they are coming for the bears.”

What’s more, the potential is just barely being tapped, according to some observers.

“Over time, I think this is really going to be considered as a world class opportunity for people to see wolves in the wild,” said Rick McIntyre, who works for the National Park Service to provide help educate wolf watchers. In terms of the economic impact, there’s just tremendous potential for local business people. To me that’s just a tremendously positive potential, having the wolves here.”

Halfpenny has made an attempt to quantify and compare the economic returns of wolf watching to elk hunting.

“One exercise that I do in my wolf classes is I put up a blackboard and I have the people go through and make some sort of evaluation of what wolf watching brings into the northern Yellowstone ecosystem in dollars and what hunting brings,” said Halfpenny. “There’s a lot of assumptions in such an exercise, but the bottom line is in the northern (Yellowstone) ecosystem, wolf watching brings in four times what hunting is bringing in.

“We have counted 100,000 visitors as of June of last year that have been out and watched wolves and then you make assumptions about what they spend in the filling station, the restaurants, etcetera, and what the hunters spend,” said Halfpenny. “You know Montana’s own statistics show the average late-hunt hunter spends $39 a day up here.”

Halfpenny figures that wolf watchers spend about $160 per day in the area. And there’s tremendous potential for growth.

“It’s obvious that wolves are one of the most charismatic animals in the world and there’s no end to how many people would like to see a wolf in the wild, so Yellowstone is one of the most unique opportunities in the world where an average person can and does have a real excellent chance of having that experience,” said McIntyre.”

*Special thanks to http://www.yellowstonepark.com/2011/06/yellowstone-wolves-bring-estimated-7-10-million-in-annual-tourism-revenue/ for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

In the Hunt: Ridin’ wolf gravy train

Posted in Facts and Figures on April 7, 2012| 3 Comments »


This article seemed appropriate and thanks to Diane Nelson for the idea : )

 Thursday, March 29, 2012

“If you want healthy elk populations, the key is more aggressive killing of predators, especially wolves.

At least that’s the message from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, which announced last week that it will be putting up $50,000 to help fund efforts to kill more wolves. The money would go to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to help pay U.S. Wildlife Services, the agency contracted to kill wolves when they get into trouble with livestock.

The foundation also said it would ask for donations for the wolf killing, and the money wouldn’t pull from the group’s other conservation efforts. But it’s just the latest effort to blame wolves, which it turns out can be pretty lucrative as a fundraiser.

And the foundation isn’t limiting its ire to wolves.

David Allen, RMEF president, said his group wants fewer black bears, mountain lions, wolves and coyotes. And he said the state needs to look at killing grizzly bears — which remain on the federal Endangered Species List — because they prey on elk calves.

“We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds and sell hunting tags and generate revenue that supports (the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks) nearly

100 percent,” Allen told the Missoulian newspaper.

What a sad statement from a once-proud conservation organization. But this isn’t Allen’s first time joining the predator-bashing chorus.

For several years now he’s used terms like “annihilation,” “decimation” and “wildlife disaster” when describing elk herds where wolves are found. It’s the same rhetoric I’ve grown accustomed to hearing from kooks on the Internet. The problem is it has no basis in fact — at least according to the elk foundation’s 2011 hunting forecast.

Based on state game agency data, it estimated there are nearly 1.2 million elk in North America. That same forecast blasted animal rights activists saying they had “cherry-picked, manipulated and misrepresented” the numbers in an effort to keep wolves on the ESA perpetually. It also said wolves had “decimated” some of the northern Rockies’ great herds and for hunters to expect “tough hunting” in those areas.

That contradicts statements the foundation made three years ago, when it issued a press release touting its role over 25 years in helping boost elk herds. Allen stated that “growth in elk populations is one measure of our success.” The number of elk in 2009

was 1.03 million across the continent.

I’d say it’s speaking out of both sides of your mouth to pat yourself on the back when elk reach 1 million continent-wide and turn around and blast predators for killing too many elk when we have

1.2 million. In Montana, the herd estimate held steady at 150,000 animals from 2009 to 2011.

I’m sure the foundation would say losses to wolves are localized and in some cases severe. Often, the wolf haters point to the elk herd in northern Yellowstone National Park that migrates into Montana near Gardiner as an example of one that’s suffered from wolves. It’s been reduced from 19,000 animals in 1992 to about 4,100 today.

But that herd was grossly overpopulated. And at more than 4,000 animals, it’s still healthy.

Maybe what the foundation wants are the good old days, when hundreds of elk poured out of the park’s northern boundary into a firing line of hunters. That wasn’t an elk hunt – it was a disgrace.

As anyone who gets out of his or her vehicle and actually hunts knows, Montana has abundant elk. The hunting is a little harder in areas where wolves are. But when isn’t elk hunting tough?

The foundation also left out a major source of predation on elk in Montana — the 2003 Legislature. It mandated that FWP reduce numbers and since then we’ve been pounding elk with second tags, extended seasons and liberal regulations. Where’s the outrage about that over predation?

Clearly, the elk foundation’s use of predator-hating rhetoric is good for the bottom line.

Last month the group boasted of its “record-high membership” and “strong fiscal performance.” The same news release talked about the upcoming predator campaign and said “wolf, bear, lion and coyote populations are well above science-based objectives in many areas.”

When asked, the foundation cited itself as a source. Yet I had no idea the group has the staff biologists to count predator populations and authority to set seasons.

And it’s not like these species aren’t already managed. We’ve been hunting mountain lions and black bears for years. Coyotes can be shot on sight. And grizzly bears, while doing well, remain under federal protection.

Then there’s the hated wolf. We’ve only hunted this predator two years since its reintroduction. It takes time for wildlife professionals to craft a hunt that meets objectives, especially with a new species. To decry this year’s hunt as a failure because we didn’t reach the 220 wolf total quota is ridiculous.

Instead of bashing wolves, the foundation should take pride in their recovery. After all, the only reason wolves can live in the northern Rockies is the abundance of prey – including elk – and the foundation has played an important role in those species larger numbers through habitat acquisition and improvement.

In fairness, the foundation isn’t the only group to get on the wolf gravy train. Who could forget 2009, when Defenders of Wildlife used images of cute wolf puppies while decrying the “slaughter” of wolves in Montana’s first-ever hunt.

But the argument that they did it first doesn’t justify exploiting wolves as a money maker.

I expect a higher standard from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.”

**Special thanks to Reporter Nick Gevock, for providing this information. He may be reached at nick.gevock@mtstandard.com

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »