Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Article Last Updated: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:53pm

Senses being tapped to keep the predators clear of cattle.

“ALBUQUERQUE – Wildlife managers are running out of options when it comes to helping Mexican gray wolves overcome hurdles that have thwarted reintroduction into their historic range in the Southwest.

Harassment and rubber bullets haven’t worked, so they’re trying something new – a food therapy that has the potential to make the wolves queasy enough to never want anything to do with cattle again.

As in people, the memories associated with eating a bad meal are rooted in the brain stem, triggered any time associated sights and smells pulse their way through the nervous system.

Wildlife managers are trying to tap into that physiological response in the wolves, hoping that feeding them beef laced with an odorless and tasteless medication will make them ill enough to kill their appetite for livestock.

Cattle depredations throughout southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona have served as an Achilles’ heel for the federal government’s efforts to return the wolves.

Conditioned taste aversion – the technical term for what amounts to a simple reaction – is not a silver bullet for boosting the recovery of the Mexican wolf, but some biologists see it as one of few options remaining for getting the program back on track after nearly 14 years of stumbling.

“Just the very fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying something new ought to send the message that they really are seriously concerned about the ranchers’ concerns,” said Dan Moriarty, a professor and chairman of the psychological sciences department at the University of San Diego.

“We have to find a way to sort of peacefully co-exist,” said Moriarty, who has worked with captive wolves in California. “That’s my hope, that the taste aversion will be one more tool.”

Gray wolves have rebounded from widespread extermination throughout the Northern Rockies and the Great Lakes region. Since being declared endangered in 1974, the wolf population has grown fivefold – to about 6,200 animals wandering parts of 10 states outside Alaska.

After four decades and tens of millions of dollars, the federal government was recently able to remove the animals from the endangered species list in several states.

The case is much different in the Southwest, where the population of the Mexican wolf – a subspecies of the gray wolf – continues to be about 50 despite more than a decade of work. Biologists had hoped to have more than 100 wolves in the wild by 2006.

Due to livestock problems, about 90 wolves and some dependent pups have been removed – in some cases lethally – from the wild since the program began. For about four years, the Fish and Wildlife Service operated under a policy that called for trapping or shooting wolves if they had been involved in at least three cattle depredations.

The agency has since scrapped the policy, and ranchers have all but given up on keeping track of their dead cows and calves.

In the last year, monthly reports from the wolf program show wildlife managers investigated four dozen depredations in Arizona and New Mexico. They determined that wolves were involved in half of the cases.

Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association, said ranchers are frustrated.

“You really have no idea how bad it is when a dad calls you and says ‘There’s a wolf in my yard and my kids and my wife are stuck in the house. What can you do to help me?’”

That’s the issue, Cowan said. “These animals are habituated to humans and until we can figure that out, I don’t know what you do.”

Cowan acknowledged, however, that getting wolves to stop preying on livestock would be a huge first step.

Biologists working at a captive breeding center at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in south-central New Mexico treated six wolves last April and another two in October. The animals were fed baits made up of beef, cow hide and an odorless, tasteless deworming medication that makes the wolves queasy.

Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Susan Dicks said the initial tests appear to be successful, with the wolves not wanting anything to do with the beef baits after their first serving.

The idea is that when wolves smell cattle in the wild, their nervous system and brain stem will kick into gear and override any desire they have to get near the cattle.

“We’re learning as we go, but so far we have seen some good aversions produced,” Dicks said. “Again, it’s impossible to say yet whether this translates to a livestock animal running around on the hoof.”

Wolf releases have been put off for the past year, and it’s unclear whether the agency will have the opportunity to release the treated wolves this year so the taste aversion treatments can be fully tested.

The work done with the Mexican wolves is based on decades of research conducted by Lowell Nicolaus, a retired biology professor from Northern Illinois University. He has seen it work with captive wolves and free-ranging raccoons and crows.

“It just takes one good illness,” said Nicolaus of Butte Falls, Ore. “Their avoidance is going to be expressed wherever they see the food or smell it. It doesn’t depend on when and where they first ate it or when and where they got sick.”

Nicolaus said taste aversion works because it’s an unconscious response, not a threat that wolves can overcome such as being hazed or shot at with rubber bullets.

The other benefit is biologists say wolves that have an aversion to cattle are likely to pass that on to their pups by teaching them hunting habitats that avoid cattle and focus on deer, elk and other native prey. They call that a feeding tradition.

Bill Given, a wildlife biologist who helped the Fish and Wildlife Service with the first batch of wolf treatments at Sevilleta, describes taste aversion as a natural solution that taps into an evolutionary defense mechanism that is common among all animals.

“You can build a great fence or you can have a dog as a shepherd, but none of those things can change the desire to consume the livestock,” he said. “They just make it challenging and then the predator has to work around that barrier.”

To ranchers, the wolves are “killing machines,” Cowan said.

The biologists don’t necessarily disagree.

“There’s no stopping the feeding and the sex drive. All life is about those two things,” Given said, noting that wildlife managers have an opportunity to gain some control through taste aversion.

The next challenge will be proving its value on the range by monitoring wolves that have been treated.

“I think it does have a lot of promise,” Dicks said. “And part of it is we’re willing to try anything to get these animals successfully on the ground without impacting livestock growers.”

*Special thanks to SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN, 
Associated PressHerald Staff for providing this information! ( http://durangoherald.com/article/20120202/NEWS06/702029970/-1/s)


US Fish and Wildlife Service, February 9, 2012

Contacts:  Tom Buckley, (505) 248-6455      Tom_Buckley@fws.gov
Bruce Sitko, (928) 367-4281         bsitko@azgfd.gov

“The National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, has determined that Mexican wolf mp1242 died as the result of a gunshot wound.

On November 23, 2011, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) personnel on the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) were contacted by a member of the public who reported seeing an injured Mexican wolf in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests south of Big Lake, Ariz. The IFT located and observed the wolf the next day by tracking its radio collar signal. They identified it as mp1242, a young male that was born earlier in 2011 into the Bluestem Pack. After confirming the wolf was injured, the IFT initiated efforts to capture the animal and evaluate its injury.

The IFT captured mp1242 on December 3 and found that it had an injured rear leg and was in poor body condition. In phone consultation with a veterinarian, project personnel attempted to implement life-saving measures en route to the veterinarian office, but the wolf died of its injuries.

“I am disappointed and concerned by this news of another wolf dying due to gunshot wounds,” said Benjamin Tuggle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southwest Regional Director. “It is hard for me to rationalize the illegal killing of these wolves or any other endangered species.  They are the natural heritage we are hoping to leave to future generations.”

“We are bringing the full weight of the law to bear on these illegal activities and will continue to focus on this impediment to recovery,” said Tuggle.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) law enforcement agents, in collaboration with the AGFD have opened an investigation. All of the Service’s available regional law enforcement resources are being utilized.

A reward of up to $10,000 is being offered for any information leading to the apprehension of the individual or individuals who may be responsible for the death of this wolf. Individuals who have information are urged to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement in Albuquerque, New Mexico at (505) 346-7828 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (505) 346-7828      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or in Alpine, Arizona. at (928) 339-4232 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (928) 339-4232      end_of_the_skype_highlighting, or AGFD Operation Game Thief hotline at (800) 352-0700 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (800) 352-0700      end_of_the_skype_highlighting. Killing a Mexican gray wolf is a violation of the Endangered Species Act, punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and/or up to a year in prison.

Mexican wolf reintroduction is a joint effort by the Service, AGFD, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services, and other stakeholders, including Graham, Greenlee and Navajo Counties in Arizona.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service.   The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service works cooperatively with the American public to continue the conservation legacy of America’s great outdoors.   For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.
******************************************************************************************************************************************
TAKE ACTION TO STOP THE CRIMINALS KILLING WOLVES! Public interest groups and concerned citizens have contributed to a reward, bringing the total amount of money available for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone killing a Mexican gray wolf to as much as $59,000. Please help to stop the killers by printing and posting reward posters!”

**Special thanks to “Lobos of the Southwest” for providing this information!http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/629/51/Press-Release-Necropsy-Results-Show-Mexican-Wolf-Died-From-Illegal-Gunshot-Reward-Offered-for-Information/d,News2


Image

“The number of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico rose in 2011, but more significantly, the number of breeding pairs grew from just two to six.

In all, at least 58 wolves were counted by state and federal biologists in the annual survey, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. A year ago, there were 50 wolves counted and in 2010, there were just 42.

The numbers are especially encouraging because the Wallow Fire burned through several important wolf habitat areas last summer. Officials say the count is a minimum number because some wolves may have been missed in the survey.

“These numbers are an indication of the full-on effort we and our partners … have been putting into this program,” said Benjamin Tuggle, Southwest regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “We were successful in establishing the initial population of Mexican wolves in the wild, and we are building on that success.”

Wolf advocates cheered the count cautiously, noting that the numbers are still far below the original goals of maintaining more than 100 wolves and 18 breeding pairs by 2006. The advocates say efforts to reintroduce the wolf to the wild has suffered from a lack of a full recovery plan and the small number of wolves released into the wild.

“Eight more wolves in the wild than the previous year is a step back from the edge of extinction,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. “And that’s happy news. Of course, six breeding pairs is still perilously low.”

The survey found 32 wolves in six packs on the Arizona side of the recovery area and 26 wolves in six packs on the New Mexico side. There were 18 pups born in 2011 that survived through Dec. 31, helping boost the final population figures.

“Even though these numbers are below the target levels specified in the environmental impact statement developed when the program began, these elements exhibit a cornerstone achievement

in Mexican wolf conservation,” said Larry Voyles, director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. “This year’s count gives credence to the fact that we are moving in a positive direction.”

Voyles said wolf program specialists estimate that 90 percent of the wolves being tracked by electronic collars were born in the wild.

The gray wolf was all but extinct before the reintroduction program began in 1998. State and federal agencies have released wolves in fits and starts since then and the federal government has repeatedly delayed work on a full recovery plan.

The program has been the target of intense opposition by ranchers who run livestock in the high country of eastern Arizona and western New Mexico. They say the wolves kill cows and sheep and should not be allowed to roam wild.

 Nine wolves are known to have died during the year, including two shot illegally.

Eva Sargent, a gray wolf expert for the group Defenders of Wildlife, said the wolves will never make it if the federal government doesn’t release more animals into the wild.

 “There are wolves eligible for release in Arizona and New Mexico right now, and they are desperately needed,” she said. “Some of these wolves have been specially conditioned to avoid preying on cattle and deserve a chance at life in the wild.”

Voyles said the state will continue to work with land users in an effort to reduce the contact between wolves and livestock and avoid more confrontations.

“Building public tolerance by those who live on the land and must coexist with the wolf is crucial to the success of the Mexican wolf program in Arizona,” he said.

Robinson said the wolves need the support of a full recovery program that acknowledges the value of the predator on the landscape.

“Restoring wolves to the wild helps restore the balance of nature in the Southwest,” he said. “More wolves means stronger and more alert elk and deer, more leftover meals for badgers and bears, and healthier streamsides as elk spend less time eating willow shoots.”

You can read more about how the state conducted the survey and how the information helps its program here.”

**Special thanks to Shaun McKinnon,The Arizona Republic, for providing this information! (http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/ShaunMcKinnon/154350)
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 04:05 PM

Pat Goodmann, head animal curator at Wolf Park in Battleground, Indiana weighs in on the film, “The Grey.”  Pat was a guest column in the Lafayette Journal and Courier posted below:

“The Grey,” a movie about an oil drilling team stranded by a plane crash in the Alaskan wilderness that is hunted by a pack of wolves, was released today. Dearfilm.net calls it “a brutal, devastating treatise on nature and the divine, life and death.”

Wolves being portrayed inaccurately as vicious hunters is nothing new, but that’s not why I wrote this. But did filmmakers get away with ignoring basic ethical standards of animal treatment?

“The Grey” is not just a film that shows actors killing wolves on the screen. For the filming, four wild wolves that had been trapped and killed in Canada were utilized, according to The Province. Meat from two of those wolves was eaten on set.

Pat Goodmann, Wolf Park’s primary wolf curator, contributes her two cents in a guest column in the Lafayette Journal and Courier.

“Wolves being portrayed inaccurately as vicious hunters is nothing new, but that’s not why I wrote this. But did filmmakers get away with ignoring basic ethical standards of animal treatment?”

Dermot Mulroney, during an interview on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” said that director Joe Carnahan had wolf meat served to the cast in the form of a stew and barbecue.

 A source at the National Wolfwatcher Coalition informed Wolf Park that the animal handlers used on the set of the film were not on the approved handler list. On top of that, the film’s publicist, Liz Biber, was so unaware of how wild wolves react to humans that she asked Wolfwatcher if they could get OR-7, the first wild wolf to cross into California in 80 years, to walk the red carpet at the movie’s opening. A little ironic, considering that the film portrays wolves as violent mankillers.

 Do wild wolves pose a serious threat to humans? Just because an animal can potentially be dangerous doesn’t mean that it necessarily will be. Dave Mech, one of the top wolf researchers, says there were only about two dozen nonfatal attacks in North America on humans in the past century. Those wolves had not only become habituated to humans, but associated them with food.

On Isle Royale, the late Purdue University professor, Durward Allen, started a research project on wolf and moose ecology more than 50 years ago, which continues today. Rangers, researchers and campers hike the island through wolf territories regularly. No humans have ever been harmed by the Isle Royale wolves.

 Using “The Grey” to understand wolves is like using Hannibal Lecter to understand humans. This film, which perpetuates the myth that wolves and humans cannot coexist, is being released at a time when wolves have been taken off of the endangered species list. We fear that conservation efforts will be hindered by misinformation disseminated by popular fiction such as “The Grey,” and, of course, Wolf Park deplores harming of animals for human entertainment.”  

**Special thanks to

Jconline.com for providing this information (http://www.jconline.com/article/20120127/OPINION03/120126023/Guest-column-Can-t-get-past-ethical-Grey-area) and to Pat Goodmann, head animal curator of Wolf Park in Battle Ground for being guest column (http://blog.wolfpark.org/?p=652).  Wolf Preservation supports Wolf Park so please visit their site!


January 25, 2012 12:00 am

Natural predators only one option available to planners.

“ALAMOSA — An examination of wolf reintroduction to the San Luis Valley didn’t come at the prompting of federal wildlife officials.

But they’ll still have to take a look at it, thanks to public comment last year urging the idea be considered as a means of controlling elk herds on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge, where elk have taken a heavy toll on the cottonwoods and willows lining stream banks.

“Right now, it’s a question. You have a lot of elk, a lot of people would say you need a large predator,” said Laurie Shannon, a planning team leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “We may not move forward with it, but right now it’s on the table.”

The mention of wolves takes up only one sentence in a 13-page document laying out the potential management strategies for the Alamosa, Baca and Monte Vista national wildlife refuges.

And it’s not a part of the proposed option favored by the agency.

Still, the possibility of wolf reintroduction drew opposition at a Monday night meeting where possible strategies were unveiled.

Steve Russell said the move would be bad for livestock producers.

“I would like it kicked out regardless of how we merge alternatives,” he said.

Paul Robertson oversees the Nature Conservancy’s Medano-Zapata Ranch, which neighbors the Baca.

‘‘I don’t think ‘C’ is a politically wise decision,’’ he said of the alternative that included the mention of wolves.

 There were no public comments Tuesday in favor of the idea.

Researchers have cited the 1996 reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park for scattering elk herds and allowing the recovery of riparian shrubs like willows.

 But wolves outside the park’s boundaries have been a controversial topic, arousing opposition from ranchers, hunters and even governors.

Idaho and Montana have established wolf hunting seasons and a proposal to do so in Wyoming is under review.

The use of predators may receive some consideration in how the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve manages its elk herds.

Park officials are conducting a study of bison and big game at the park that is due out at the same time as the management plan for the wildlife refuges.

Then-acting Superintendent Karl Cordova said in November the Park Service had not ruled out considering predators as a means to control the elk herds.”

*Special thanks to The Pueblo Chieftan for providing this information!  (http://www.chieftain.com/news/region/wolves-to-be-considered-for-culling-elk-herds/article_f3bb655c-4719-11e1-9fa5-001871e3ce6c.html)

 

 


The Film

“From the opening scene, this film takes the audience on an unbelievable journey. Follow world-renowend animal trainer, Andrew Simpson as he travels to one of the coldest places on earth. Together with his Canadian crew and his pack of wolves, he sets out to make the biggest wolf film ever attempted.

 They will live in Siberia in a remote camp for five months where the temperature drops to -60C. You will witness the bond between man and wolf, and the emotional toll this journey takes on everyone.

The footage in this film had never been seen before – there are no computer effects everything you see is real.

Wolves are one of the most misunderstood animals of all time. In this film, you will see them in a new light. It will make you question everything you thought you knew about wolves. You will see an animal that is graceful, caring, affectionate, trusting and capable of expressing all levels of emotion.

You will see one man’s special relationship with a pack of wolves that he raised and lives with everyday. And you will witness his struggle as he wrestle’s with the decision to use this unique bond against them.

Andrew Simpson

Andrew was born and raised in Scotland. Even as a child he was drawn towards nature and was always the kid with a mouse or a frog in his pocket. But he also had a love of adventure. After leaving the Highlands, he travelled around the world several times before settling in Canada.

It was in Canada that all the stars aligned for him. Having a love of animals and a fascination with movies, he finallly found his calling – a professional animal trainer for the industry.

“It’s hard to imaging getting paid for something you love to do everyday, but I do…”

Almost 20 years later, his passion is still just as strong. With his love of nature and the outdoors, and vast film making experience, Andrews talents are in high demand. From the Australian outback to the Greek Islands to Northern China, he is constantly travelling the world, pursuing his dreams, and living life to the fullest.

Although he deals with all species, his speciality is wolves. It is because of this reputation that he was asked to travel to Siberia to make the biggest wolf film ever attempted. Having worked for almost every major Hollywood studio on over 100 productions, Andrew decided it was time to venture in a new direction.

“…What we do with wolves is very specialized, and people the world over are fascinated with them…”

This was the reason for making this film. Andrew wanted to show another side of wolves – a different side from the fairy tales and horror stories normally associated with them.”

*Special thanks to Zenn Media for providing this information! (http://www.wolvesunleashed.com/film.php)

Wisdom of Wolves


It’s a society where teamwork, loyalty and communication are the norm rather than the exception. Sound like utopia? Actually, it’s already present in nature – in a wolf pack. The wolf pack knows who it is. Those in the pack exist for each other.

Twyman Towery, Ph.D., a professional speaker and consultant who studied the lessons of leadership in nature, has captured them in a book for Simple Truths called Wisdom of Wolves. Twyman shares the parallels between the wolf pack and human behavior…in business life, family life, and personal life.

 

An excerpt from
Wisdom of Wolves
by Twyman Towery

The attitude of the wolf can be summed up simply: it is a constant visualization of success. The collective wisdom of wolves has been progressively programmed into their genetic makeup throughout the centuries. Wolves have mastered the technique of focusing their energies toward the activities that will lead to the accomplishment of their goals.

Wolves do not aimlessly run around their intended victims, yipping and yapping. They have a strategic plan and execute it through constant communication. When the moment of truth arrives, each understands his role and understands exactly what the pack expects of him.

The wolf does not depend on luck. The cohesion, teamwork and training of the pack determines whether the pack lives or dies.

There is a silly maxim in some organizations that everyone, to be a valuable member, must aspire to be the leader. This is personified by the misguided CEO who says he only hires people who say they want to take his job. Evidently, this is supposed to ensure that the person has ambition, courage, spunk, honesty, drive – whatever. In reality, it is simply a contrived situation, with the interviewee jumping through the boss’s hoops. It sends warnings of competition and one-upmanship throughout the organization rather than signals of cooperation, teamwork and loyalty.

Everyone does not strive to be the leader in the wolf pack. Some are consummate hunters or caregivers or jokesters, but each seems to gravitate to the role he does best. This is not to say there are not challenges to authority, position and status – there are. But each wolf’s role begins emerging from playtime as a pup and refines itself through the rest of its years. The wolf’s attitude is always based upon the question, “What is best for the pack?” This is in marked contrast to us humans, who will often sabotage our organizations, families or businesses, if we do not get what we want.

Wolves are seldom truly threatened by other animals. By constantly engaging their senses and skills, they are practically unassailable. They are masters of planning for the moment of opportunity to present itself, and when it does, they are ready to act.

Because of training, preparation, planning, communication and a preference for action, the wolf’s expectation is always to be victorious. While in actuality this is true only 10 percent of the time or less, the wolf’s attitude is always that success will come – and it does.

(http://store.simpletruths.com/wisdom-of-wolves-with-free-dvd-and-wolf-credo-print-p2190.aspx?cm_mmc=CheetahMail-_-TH-_-01.19.12-_-TWOW-CorpLdr&utm_source=CheetahMail&utm_medium=01.19.12&utm_campaign=TWOWca)

Wisdom of Wolves

Get a free print with this book today!
Shop Now

 

 

 

Protest the movie, “The Grey” as it misrepresents wolves…Liam Neeson and crew also ate wolves!  The company that made the film can be contact at the bottom of this article so please do so!
 
This new film misrepresents and vilifies wolves and actors actually ate them

“Popular media often mispresents animals as who they want the public to  think they are, rather than representing them as who they actually are. This sort of sensationalsm is good for filling their pockets with money but harms the animals.

A new movie called “The Grey” continues this tradition by misrepresenting wolves as violent hunters who harm humans. Nothing could be further than the truth, there having been only two fatal wolf attacks on humans documented in North America. 

In addition to the misrepresentation of these magnificent animals, actors also ate two wolves. To quote from an article about the making of this movie: “To get the cast of ‘The Grey’ in the mood for the wild, director Joe Carnahan had wolf stew prepared for them. The meat was made from real wolves. And no, it didn’t taste like chicken. Many cast members lost their lunch. But [Liam] Neeson ‘went up for seconds of the wolf stew. A few guys did upchuck. We all knew what we were eating. All I can say is it was very game-y. But I’m Irish, so I’m used to odd stews. I can take it. Just throw a lot of carrots and onions in there and I’ll call it dinner.””

It’s known that the misrepresentation of chimpanzees by media can harm efforts to protect and conserve them and there is every reason to think that “The Grey” will have the same effect on wolves who are wantonly killed because they are no longer protected by the Endangered Species Act. There really are some people for whom killing wolves makes them happy and this movie will provide the perfect motivation to continue to do so and to rally some of their friends to join in the fun.”  

WildEarth Guardians makes it easy for you to protest this movie. Please do so. Wolves need all the support they can get. The company that made the film is Open Road Films, 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600, Los Angeles, California 90025; Phone: 310-696-7575


“HELENA — Montana is looking to recreational hunters for help in enforcing more of its wildlife management policies, but one regulator worries they are being asked to cross an ethical line in doing so.

The question is whether the state is unwittingly putting those hunters in a fix: Does their new role fall within ethical hunting guidelines or does it reduce them to wildlife management mercenaries whose actions could give hunting a black eye? That’s the concern of Fish, Wildlife and Parks commissioner Ron Moody, who recently questioned whether the agency’s policies and proposals are asking hunters disregard what it means to be an ethical hunter. “I think we’re either at those limits, or what I really think is we’ve gone past them,” Moody said. FWP already uses hunters to help keep the wolf population down and in game-damage hunts to disperse elk or deer that are damaging private property.

Now the commission is considering expanding their role. In December, commissioners passed a policy allowing hunters to kill wolves that prey on livestock, a task that had been exclusively filled by wildlife enforcement officials. The commission is now considering one proposal that would extend this year’s wolf hunt well into the animals’ breeding season and another that would use hunters to shoot bison that roam beyond designated areas. The first proposal would extend the wolf hunt in the Upper Bitterroot Valley from Feb. 15 to April 1. Hunters have killed four gray wolves out of a quota of 18 there so far, and the extension of the season would help fill that quota with the aim of helping the declining elk herds there. But wolves aren’t the top elk predator in that part of the Bitterroot – mountain lions have that distinction – and April 1 is well into the wolves’ breeding season when females are near the end of their pregnancies. Moody said the sportsman’s code mandates that hunters don’t shoot game in their reproductive season. “It’s just one of those things you don’t do,” he said.

The second proposal Moody took issue with is to allow recreational hunters to shoot wild Yellowstone National Park bison that wander beyond designated areas north of the park and outside of areas where the animals are transplanted, such as two northeastern Montana Indian reservations. FWP Director Joe Maurier has said the proposal was written with the intent of trying to increase public tolerance for expanding the areas outside the park where bison can roam. Plans to reintroduce bison to Montana’s landscape have been met with stiff resistance from the agricultural industry, which fears the spread of disease and property damage. But Moody said killing bison that stray outside a containment area is more akin to vermin control than fair-chase hunting in which hunters pursue free-roaming game animals. “It makes a difference what you do before the public and then go call yourself a fair-chase hunter. There’s a jury out there judging you,” he added.

The commission gave initial approval to the wolf and bison proposals 3-2 and 4-1. They now go out to public for comment before a final vote in February FWP spokesman Ron Aasheim said it is the agency’s policy to use hunters to help manage wildlife populations when appropriate in a responsible and ethical manner. “Hunters have asked for this opportunity. They appreciate the opportunity to take those bison and help manage wolves,” he said. As far as hunting wolves while the females are pregnant, Aasheim said the agency had considered the implications. But this is a special, one-time proposed extension in one specific area – and the plan has not gotten final approval, he said. The man who wrote the book on ethical and fair-chase hunting, Jim Posewitz, said public perception is very important for hunters. The FWP’s use of hunters to enforce wildlife management policies can work, provided the agency uses the right hunters, he said. FWP should provide training so the hunters used have an understanding of the last century’s conservation efforts in North America and also understand that the overall goal is to have sustainable, manageable wildlife populations, he said. “We need to make sure they’re very elite and a very respected group of hunters. We’re not sending out assassins or SWAT teams. We are sending out sensitive, trained hunters to handle a very sensitive situation,” Posewitz said. Aasheim said additional hunting training has previously been suggested, but has not been implemented.

Currently, the state provides a basic hunter education course and each person who participates in the annual bison hunt receives a 30-minute DVD that discusses ethics and hunting, he said. Posewitz worked for the FWP for 32 years and founded Orion – The Hunters Institute, an organization that advocates for ethical hunting. More than 600,000 copies of his book, “Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting” have been handed out as part of hunter-education programs. He cited Helena’s program to control urban deer as a model of how it can be done right. Each year, the city receives authorization from FWP to kill a number of deer to maintain a manageable density of animals within the city. This year, that number is 220. “They’re not out there liquidating the deer. They’re keeping the deer in balance with the carrying capacity of the city, and they’re doing an excellent job of that,” Posewitz said. ”

**Special thanks to “Billings Gazette” for providing this information!


“Landlord.com” posts the following rules/laws state by state regarding possession of “dangerous animals.”  The chart can be viewed through their website at:  http://www.landlord.com/dangerous-animals-by-state.htm

Please comment regarding your opinion of owning hybrid wolves:

“This chart deals with state laws concerning dangerous or vicious animals.  Note that it is not the animals the state attempts to regulate, but the persons who own, possess, or harbor them.  We distinguish between this sort of regulation and animal bite issues.  Animal bites are not activities, but events, and state laws concerning them set the consequences for these events.  If you are searching for an insight into your state’s laws concerning animal bites, we have set up a separate chart concerning these.  The two sorts of regulations sometimes overlap.

 

Many states have no rules regarding vicious or dangerous animals, or regulations dealing only with dogs, or dealing only with dogs that prey on livestock.  Most vicious animal laws are directed specifically toward dogs.  If either is so in your state, do not think that there is no regulation at all, or no regulation for anything other than dogs.  For one thing, laws of nuisance and negligence liability still prevail and apply to a person who owns, possesses, or harbors such animals.  For another, many states have devolved such regulation to county or municipal regulation.  It is beyond the scope of a resource such as this to deal with all of these jurisdictions, numbering in the tens of thousands in the United States.  This is why we include a link for each state that will give you contact information for your county and municipal governments.  If you are dealing with an issue regarding an animal you consider dangerous or vicious, your research is not complete until you follow up and contact your local governments and inquire as to ordinances and regulations that may apply.

 Finally, we have included links to the text of statutes in each state that has them, as well as supplying highlights of the state’s regulatory scheme.  This is not done to be pedantic.  Unlike many things, statutes cannot really be summarized, as every word of a statute the force of law, and cannot be omitted or ignored.  You should take the time to read the statute as well as the highlights.”