The Wolf Preservation Blog

“I was appalled after seeing one-fourth of Minnesota’s wolf population killed in 2012, shortly after federal de-listing from Endangered Species status.

I have three primary concerns in regard to the wolf issue:

• Public input was not acknowledged.
• The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) failed to live up to its promise — as outlined in its Wolf Management Plan — to follow a 5-year wait after federal de-listing.
• We need to be more careful when considering the longevity of the wolf.

In our democracy, prevailing public attitudes usually shape public policy. With the wolf hunt, it is small interest groups of trophy hunters and cattle raisers that are getting their way. In every poll that I have seen, the majority of Minnesotans do not want a wolf hunt. As Sen. Chris Eaten has pointed out, we’ve pumped a lot of money into wolf survival, and as soon as protection is removed that money is down the drain.

The International Wolf Center sponsored a study in 1999 by Stephen Kellert, Ph.D., of Yale University, to measure public attitudes toward wolves in Minnesota; and the DNR published a poll in 2012 to assess public attitudes on wolves. Dr. Kellert’s study concluded:

“The wolf is especially appreciated by Minnesota residents for its nonconsumptive value. By contrast, a majority of both northern and non-northern Minnesota residents remain skeptical about harvesting the animal for either fur or for sport, and are concerned that these forms of consumptive use could result in excessive and unsustainable mortality.”

The DNR’s 2012 poll had similar findings:

“79% of respondents oppose wolf hunting.”

So why aren’t our voices being considered? The majority of Minnesota’s residents value wolves.

‘Primary clients, hunters and trappers’

Last month, I became aware that the DNR feels that its primary clients are hunters/trappers and livestock producers. This was confirmed through an Internal email that the organization Howling for Wolves commissioned through the Data Practices Act. In the email DNR officials state that, “we owe it to our primary clients, hunters and trappers, and to livestock producers as secondary clients, to do what we can to establish a legitimate harvest opportunity now that the wolf is under our management authority.”

Now I understood why the hunt came to fruition so quickly.

Are we really leaving the protection of wolves up to hunters/trappers and cattle producers (the DNR’s primary clients)? It doesn’t look like a sound or logical plan to me. As we have seen in our country’s history, cattlemen and trophy hunters decimated entire wolf populations throughout the lower 48 states. I am confident that history often repeats itself.

Decline of the moose

Elk, moose, bison, caribou and wolves used to occupy most of Minnesota. Based on my knowledge about the DNR’s management of moose in Minnesota and their sudden population decline for reasons outside of our control, there is good reason to believe the wolf population is at stake. This has been evident in the DNR’s management of moose. According to the DNR Moose Management Plan, “Minnesota’s moose (Alces alces) population, currently concentrated in the northeast corner of the state, is facing a decline where the cause is not understood.”

In 2012, there are 4,230 moose; in 2005 there were double that at approximately 8,150 (2012 Aerial Moose Survey.) The balance of life is fragile, and we can’t always rely on mathematical population models to determine success.

In every argument, I believe that one should acknowledge the other side’s position and a solution should be addressed. Without the protection from the law, I fear for the longevity of the wolf. History has shown me that hunters and cattle raisers are not responsible stewards of wolves. I am even more fearful because the agency that is supposed to work without bias has demonstrated its preference in aligning with hunters/trapper and cattlemen.

Poor process

If the DNR had come up with some sound baseline data and research, considered public comment, abided by their wolf management plan, and consulted with tribal nations on the sacredness of wolves, maybe I would have just bit my tongue in opposing the wolf hunt.

For the sake of meeting in the middle, a more sustainable number — like 5 percent, as suggested by one biologist I spoke to during my research — would have been more appropriate.

So the battle goes on. Minnesotans are needed to take action and contact Sen. David Tomassoni, chair of the Environment, Economic Development and Agriculture Committee, and Gov. Mark Dayton to be the voice to help preserve Minnesota’s wolves and the future of our state.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below, or consider writing a Community Voices commentary. For more information about Community Voices, email Susan Albright at salbright@minnpost.com.”

**Special thanks to Nicole Hendrickson, educator and resident of Brooklyn Park, and a volunteer for Howling for Wolves and Northwoods Wolf Alliance.  She is an enrolled member of the Sokaogon Ojibwe community (http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/04/are-we-really-leaving-future-minnesotas-wolves-hunterstrappers-and-livestock).

Read Full Post »

“A UW researcher is growing increasingly concerned about the plight of the gray wolf on Wisconsin’s landscape.

For 15 years, environmental studies associate professor Adrian Treves has studied the ecology of the carnivore’s interactions with people and has surveyed Wisconsin residents on wolf policy and management.

Treves predicts Wisconsin’s wolf hunts, at their current levels, are not sustainable. More than 250 gray wolves are expected to be slain in the state’s upcoming second annual wolf hunt season, which starts on October 15.

Treves says that number represents “a little more than 30% of the late winter wolf count,” which means Wisconsin has the highest or second highest wolf quota on the record in North America. Treves calls it an undeniably “aggressive wolf hunt.”

Treves says there is a high likelihood that by April 2015, the wolf hunt will have to be closed due to such a steep decline in the wolf population. That decline may result in the gray wolf being re-listed in Wisconsin as a threatened and endangered species by 2016.

He also warns that there’s real risk that the wolf population could be driven so low that it cannot recover, and the federal government would “have to step in, again, under emergency re-listing rules of The Endangered Species Act.”

It’s an interesting finding,  given the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced plans earlier this summer to lift the creature from the threatened and endangered species list throughout the country. That’s already happened in Wisconsin, even as pro-wolf groups are trying to overturn the decision to delist the gray wolf in the Great Lakes region.

Treves – along with colleagues at Michigan Tech and Ohio State University – co-authored a scientific criticism of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan.   The agency has stated that tolerance for wolves is higher within current wolf range.  Treves says that statement flies in the face of data gleaned from more than 100 scientific studies.  The researcher says, in general, the U.S. public supports gray wolf recovery in appropriate environments.  Further, Treves says, public tolerance of wolves is lower within currently existing wolf range.

Back at the state level, Treves this week is releasing public opinion results on the state’s first wolf hunt, held last year.

Treves says not only are the state’s wolf hunt practices not sustainable, they also contradict public opinion. His team’s  report found a five to seven percent increase in people opposing particular ways of hunting wolves. According to Treves, a majority of the Wisconsin public, outside the wolf range, do not support the current wolf hunt.

But Treves says public opinion is not carrying the weight it should. Instead, he says the proposal to eliminate federal protection for wolves seems “politically motivated” and “excessive,” while contradicting scientific evidence.

Treves and Masters candidate Jamie Hogberg will be sharing the results of their public opinion survey on Wisconsin wolf policy with a DNR advisory committee Thursday in Wausau.

The public can weigh in on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to remove the gray wolf from the national threatened and endangered species list – deadline Sept 11, 2013.”

**Special thanks to Susan Bence and Gaby Magallanes, http://www.wuwm.com/post/researcher-state-wolf-hunt-unsustainable, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

Photograph by Jim and Jamie Dutcher, National Geographic.

New method lets scientists ID howling wolves with total accuracy.

“If any gray wolves are howling their discontent with a recent proposal to remove what remains of their U.S. federal protection, scientists can now identify the outspoken.

A new, more sophisticated method for analyzing sound recordings of wild wolf howls can, with absolute accuracy, tell individual wolves apart-and may even help save the old dog, according to a new paper in the journal Bioacoustics.

Study leader Holly Root-Gutteridge and colleagues at Nottingham Trent University in the U.K., working with recordings of wild wolves mostly from Algonquin Provincial Park (map) in Ontario, Canada, also found the technique can distinguish a single animal from a chorus of howlers with 97.4 percent accuracy. The team had previously used the method with captive wolves, but this is the first time it’s worked with wild wolf songs and all the ambient sounds that go with them.

Specifically, the team’s more thorough howl analysis looks at pitch—also considered by previous howl-analyzing tools—but also at amplitude, or the acoustic energy, of recorded howls.

“This is like trying to describe the human voice by saying ‘Sandra has a high voice, and Jane has a high voice,'” said Root-Gutteridge, “then refining it by saying ‘Sandra has a soft-spoken voice, but Jane has a loud voice.’ The highness still matters, but if you add the detail about vocal intensity, you’re less likely to confuse Sandra and Jane.”

What’s more, the technology is able to scrutinize howl recordings and throw out extra, unneeded noises like wind and water that might otherwise confuse the data.

Tracking Wolves a Challenge

These majestic canids—which once roamed most of the northern Rockies of the United States and Canada and the forests along the Great Lakes—nearly went extinct in the early 1960s, when they were considered vermin and all but eradicated by hunters. After the shooting stopped, only about 300 gray wolves remained, skulking through the deep woods of upper Michigan and Minnesota.

With protection under the Endangered Species Act, gray wolves have come back from the brink—one of the biggest success stories in U.S. conservation history. (Related: “Wolf Wars” in National Geographic magazine.)

Though nowhere near the historical estimate of more than 400,000 gray wolves in the United States, now as many as 5,000 live in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, with another 7,000 in Alaska. Smaller numbers of reintroduced wolves live in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

But monitoring their populations, which remains a vital part of management, has always been an inexact and labor-intensive science.

Methods include tracking the animals based on pawprints and other marks in the snow, which works quite well-when it snows. GPS collaring lets you know where an individual is, but not with whom it spends its time.

Plus, collars are expensive and collaring requires capturing wolves first-a huge and stressful undertaking for all involved, said Root-Gutteridge. (See an interactive on the return of the wolf.)

Finally, you can play howl recordings to wolves and listen to their replies-which can carry six miles (ten kilometers)-but you can’t identify individuals and don’t know when one animal is repeating itself or when a new howler has joined in.

DNA analysis of scat has its place, but it is costly and requires finding the wolves first.

Wolves Out of the Woods?

Now that the new technique has been shown to succeed with wild animals, the team sees it as a tool to help conserve wolves in their natural habitats. (See more wolf pictures.)

For instance, tracking howls accurately could make future wolf counts and monitoring of individuals much more precise. If plans go forward to fully drop the gray wolf from the U.S. Endangered Species list and let states do as they please regarding hunting, better monitoring could over time help determine if it was too soon to strip away those last protective rules, as many conservationists argue.

The technology could also be put to use with other canids like African wild dogs and Ethiopian wolves, both of which are endangered in their habitats, said Root-Gutteridge.

“If it howls, the code can extract it and we can identify it.””

**Special thanks to Jennifer Holland, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130730-wolves-howling-science-animals-environment/, for providing this information! Follow Jennifer S. Holland on Twitter or check out her website at cuttlefishprose.com.

Read Full Post »

In this Feb. 10, 2006, file photo provided by Michigan Technological University, a pack of gray wolves is shown on Isle Royale National Park in northern Michigan. The wolf population on Isle Royale now down to eight individuals. (AP Photo/Michigan Technological University, John Vucetich)

SHOULD HUMANS INTERVENE??

“ST. PAUL, Minn. — The wolf population on Isle Royale is down to eight individuals and for the first time in 50 years of intense study there is no evidence of reproduction over the winter.

The National Park Service faces a thorny set of choices to either intervene or let nature take its course. A panel of experts Thursday evening will debate the options and explore possible consequences.

Today’s Question: Should humans intervene?

Isle Royale is a unique place — 200 square miles of rugged woods and swamps, rocks and waves. Perched 15 miles from the Minnesota shore in Lake Superior it is effectively isolated from the mainland. For more than 50 years scientists have trekked to this self-contained ecosystem to study the relationship between wolves and moose.

Last year, researchers found only eight wolves — the fewest wolves ever recorded on the island. There are plenty of moose for the wolves to eat. But with all eight wolves being descended from a single female, scientists think the population may be too inbred to reproduce anymore.

In considering what to do next, the National Park Service is investigating three options: the first is to do nothing, let nature take its course. The wolves may or may not die out. The second option is to introduce one or more new wolves to provide fresh genetic material. The third option is to wait until the current population dies out and then introduce a new group of wolves.

The lead researchers in the 55-year-long study, Rolf Peterson and John Vucetich, have published an article in the op-ed page of The New York Times arguing for a swift genetic rescue. They say it is true the island is designated a wilderness, but the human footprint is now evident on Isle Royale and practically everywhere else. They say it is time to place the highest value on ecosystem’s health, even if humans need to intervene to maintain it. And they say a healthy ecosystem depends on having a top predator, such as wolves, to keep everything else in balance.

But other researchers disagree. Dave Mech, a wolf expert with the U.S. Geological Survey, said science will gain the most if we wait and see.

“If we don’t do anything now, we can do something later if it’s necessary.  But if we do something now, we can never undo that,” Mech said. “We have a pure population just doing its thing. And we have 55 years of data on it; why not see what else can happen here?”

A hundred years ago, Isle Royale had a different wildlife population. It had no moose and no wolves. It was home to caribou, coyotes and lynx.

Nancy Gibson, co-founder of the International Wolf Center in Ely, said if interfering with the current wildlife population is up for discussion, broader options should be considered.

“Maybe should we reintroduce caribou? It’s also an ecosystem that doesn’t have bears,” Gibson said. “I also think it’s a little bit interesting that we’re not talking about introducing lynx back to Isle Royale. It’s a very interesting dilemma, and I think we really need to have a vigorous debate on it.”

Tonight’s forum in Minneapolis is the public beginning of that debate. The National Park Service will hear input from scientists and the general public in a decision-making process that will span several months.

Sponsors of the forum are the Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute at Northland College and the National Parks Conservation Association.

Christine Goepfert, the association’s upper Midwest program manager, is concerned whether any human intervention is sustainable. She points out the ice bridges that allowed wolves to travel from the mainland to the island are less likely to form as the climate warms.

“We know it’s unlikely ever again to have a moose and/or wolf make its own way there. Are we always going to have to continuously intervene, and how often,” Goepfert said. “I also wonder how that affects the research, if we’re having to do that. So there’s a lot of unanswered questions in my mind.”

The forum is 7 to 9 p.m. Thursday in the Cowles Auditorium at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute.”

**Special thanks to  Stephanie Hemphill, Minnesota Public Radio, http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/06/20/environment/isle-royale-wolves?refid=0, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »