Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Safari Club International adds incentive to wolf hunt

January 7, 2012 by wolfpreservation


“HAMILTON — Sportsmen’s organizations continue to sweeten the pot to encourage hunters to try to bag a wolf before Montana’s season ends in February.

So far, the incentives have not made much of a difference.

The Safari Club International’s Western Montana Chapter announced recently that it will raffle off the taxidermy of a wolf pelt to successful wolf hunters this year. The prize is worth an estimated $750.

That organization is the third that has offered a prize or a check to hunters bagging a wolf this season.

The Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association started the ball rolling right after the end of hunting season with an announcement that it would raffle a rifle valued at $650 to wolf hunters successful in the southern reaches of the Bitterroot.

The Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife followed with a photo contest that offered $100 to successful wolf hunters and an annual membership for photographs of dead wolves.

All of the groups say the incentives are necessary to encourage hunters to take to the field and learn new techniques needed to bag a wolf.

“The number one reason we decided to do this was to encourage people to get out in the woods and hunt wolves,” said Jon Wemple, president of the Safari Club’s Western Montana Chapter. “There is not nearly as much activity out there with the general hunting season over.”

The Safari Club’s contest is limited to its members. The wolf has to have been killed this season. A picture/story has to be provided as proof.

Even with the additional motivation, hunters are not having much luck in areas of the state where wolf quotas have not been met.

In the West Fork of the Bitterroot, hunters have only managed to kill three wolves since the season began in September. None has been shot since the end of the general hunting season.

The West Fork is the only hunting district in the state with its own wolf quota. State wildlife officials set the quota of 18 after sportsmen’s concerns that high numbers of predators were causing the elk population there to decline.

Wemple said his organization was encouraged that the state extended the wolf hunting season by six weeks at its December meeting.

“We are finding that they are a real hard animal to hunt,” he said. “We are hoping that these incentives will get people out there to learn what works and what doesn’t.”

Wemple said he spent close to 130 days in the woods this year and never had the opportunity to harvest a wolf.

“They are such wanderers,” Wemple said. “You can come onto fresh wolf sign, and, within a couple of hours, that pack can be miles away.”

Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association president Tony Jones said this winter’s mild weather is probably partly to blame for the lackluster hunting results.

“I’ve been logging a lot of miles looking for them, and I don’t even think I’ve been close,” Jones said. “There is a real learning curve. It certainly isn’t easy.”

Jones has been running into other hunters in the East Fork of the Bitterroot, but no one is having much success.

With only three wolves harvested in the West Fork, he wonders if the incentives are going to be enough.

“I think it’s a good idea to have as many incentives out there as possible if that’s what it’s going to take to reduce wolf numbers,” he said. “When you consider that hunters have a chance to win a wolf rug and a rifle and get $100, that’s quite a bit of incentive to get out there.”

Jones said someone has been removing signs that group posted at different businesses around the valley.

As of Jan. 2, 128 wolves of the 220 state-wide quota have been taken.

Not everyone is happy about the incentives being offered by the different groups.

“They are nothing more than a private bounty that probably has the blessings of FWP,” said Marc Cooke, co-president of the National WolfWatcher Coalition.

Cooke said the efforts are being driven by a group of people who want less competition so their hunting endeavors for elk and deer will be more successful and simpler.

“Prior to the hunt, all you heard was there are wolves here, wolves there, wolves everywhere,” Cooke said. “Now you have this hunt, and people can’t find wolves. It raises a question for the National Wolf Watcher Coalition.”

Special thanks to The Billings Gazette for providing this information!  Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/safari-club-international-adds-incentive-to-wolf-hunt/article_d9d367cc-362d-11e1-a74e-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1imo8H6Tu

Posted in Wolf Current Events | 2 Comments »

Wolf Numbers Exaggerated? Good Question!

January 7, 2012 by wolfpreservation


A blog post on http://www.everythingwolf.com/forum/threadview.aspx?thread=10716p1 is creating painful, yet truthful discussion.  Many hunting organizations, such as Safari Club International, simply want to “bag” as many wolves as possible.  More simply, as Anti-Wolf Extremist Montana Politician Ken Miller said, “Kill Em’ All!”

 Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2012  by Chris:

“Three organizations have offered a prize or a check to hunters bagging a wolf this season.

All of the groups say the incentives are necessary to encourage hunters to take to the field and learn new techniques needed to bag a wolf.

“I think it’s a good idea to have as many incentives out there as possible if that’s what it’s going to take to reduce wolf numbers,” he said.
 
Not everyone is happy about the incentives being offered by the different groups.

Jones said someone has been removing signs that group posted at different businesses around the valley.

“They are nothing more than a private bounty that probably has the blessings of FWP,” said Marc Cooke, co-president of the National WolfWatcher Coalition.

Cooke said the efforts are being driven by a group of people who want less competition so their hunting endeavors for elk and deer will be more successful and simpler.

“Prior to the hunt, all you heard was there are wolves here, wolves there, wolves everywhere,” Cooke said. “Now you have this hunt, and people can’t find wolves. It raises a question for the National Wolf Watcher Coalition.”

Posted in Wolf Current Events, Wolf Organizations | 2 Comments »

Montana To Use Unmanned Drones Against Wolves

January 3, 2012 by wolfpreservation


“Congress removed wolves in Montana and Idaho from the protection of the Endangered Species Act in April. And this fall, the killing began.

As of Wednesday, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game reported that 154 of its estimated 750 wolves had been “harvested” this year. Legal hunting and trapping — with both snares to strangle and leg traps to capture — will continue through the spring. And if hunting fails to reduce the wolf population sufficiently — to less than 150 wolves — the state says it will use airborne shooters to eliminate more.

In Montana, hunters will be allowed to kill up to 220 wolves this season (or about 40% of the state’s roughly 550 wolves). To date, hunters have taken only about 100 wolves, prompting the state to extend the hunting season until the end of January. David Allen, president of the powerful Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, has said he thinks hunters can’t do the job, and he is urging the state to follow Idaho’s lead and “prepare for more aggressive wolf control methods, perhaps as early as summer 2012.”

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead recently concluded an agreement with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to save 100 to 150 wolves in lands near Yellowstone National Park. But in the remaining 80% of the state, wolves can be killed year-round because they are considered vermin. Roughly 60% of Wyoming’s 350 wolves will become targeted for elimination.

What is happening to wolves now, and what is planned for them, doesn’t really qualify as hunting. It is an outright war.

In the mid-1990s, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released 66 wolves in Yellowstone and central Idaho, most of the U.S. celebrated. The magnificent wolf, an icon of wilderness that humans had driven to extinction in the United States, would now reoccupy part of its old range. But in the region where the wolves were introduced, the move was much more controversial.

Part of the reason was the increase, particularly in Idaho and Montana, in paramilitary militia advocates, with their masculine ideal of man as warrior who should fight the hated federal government, by armed force if necessary. They were outraged by what they saw as federal interference in the region spurred by environmentalists, and their ideas found a willing reception among ranchers, who view wolves as a threat to their livestock — even though they ranch on federal land — and hunters, who don’t want the wolves reducing the big game population.

The factions have reinforced one another, and today a cultural mythology has emerged that demonizes the federal government, the environmental movement and the wolves themselves. Many false claims have been embraced as truth, including that the Fish and Wildlife Service stole $60 million from federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for bringing wolves back; that the introduced wolves carry horrible tapeworms that can be easily transmitted to dogs, and ultimately to humans; that the Canadian wolves that were brought in are an entirely different species from the gray wolves that once lived in the Rockies, and that these wolves will kill elk, deer, livestock — even humans — for sport.

The false claims may have had particular resonance because they built on a long tradition in Western culture. During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church ruled that wolves belonged to the devil: Demons could take the shape of wolves, as could witches. Puritans brought similar ideas to America. Cotton Mather called New England before it was settled a “howling wilderness.” Asked to investigate Salem’s alleged witches, Mather concluded in his book, “On Witchcraft” (1692): “Evening wolves” (werewolves and witches) were but another of the devil’s tests as New England passed from “wilderness” to the “promised land.”

And that attitude has persisted. Gary Marbut, president of the influential Montana Shooting Sports Assn., wrote in 2003 that “one might reasonably view man’s entire development and creation of civilization as a process of fortifying against wolves.”

Politicians from both parties in Western states have been eager to help with the fortifications. In Idaho, Republican Rep. Mike Simpson and the state’s governor, Butch Otter, made removal of wolves from the Endangered Species Act a political priority. In Montana, Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg has made delisting wolves central to his 2012 Senate campaign against Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. In April, Tester in turn persuaded fellow Democrats in the Senate to approve his inserting a rider in a budget bill that delisted wolves.

In early November, Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, made his own political contribution. Thrilled at the testing of a drone aircraft manufactured in Montana, Baucus declared: “Our troops rely on this type of technology every day, and there is an enormous future potential in border security, agriculture and wildlife and predator management.” A manufacturer’s representative claimed his company’s drone “can tell the difference between a wolf and a coyote.” Pilotless drone aircraft used by the CIA and the Air Force to target and kill alleged terrorists now appear to be real options to track and kill “enemy” wolves.

How far we have fallen since the mid-1990s, when we celebrated the wolves’ reintroduction. During the 2008 presidential election, candidate Barack Obama declared: “Federal policy toward animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of the environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.”
(http://www.disinfo.com/2012/01/montana-to-use-unmanned-drones-against-wolves/)

Posted in Wolf Current Events | 2 Comments »

What Good Are Wolves?

January 1, 2012 by wolfpreservation


“With the arrival of the first wolf in California since the 1920s, no doubt the California Department of Game and Fish is receiving many comments from the public. The quality of this support, opposition and advice probably varies all over the map (the maps in our heads). Norman Bishop, who played a key role as a Yellowstone Park naturalist educating the public about the wolves that were coming to Yellowstone and then after their arrival until 1997, has compiled a fact-filled piece “What Good are Wolves.” This morning he announced he had sent it to the Director of the California Department of Fish and Game. In the current politically charged and cognitively challenged atmosphere of wolf mythology, the contents of this letter should be shared with the public because summarizes what had been learned in recent years so compactly and lucidly. What good are wolves? Compiled by Norman A. Bishop In 1869, General Phil Sheridan said, “The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.” Others said, “The only good wolf is a dead wolf.” Barry Lopez wrote of an American Pogrom, not only of Native Americans and wolves, but of the bison on which both depended. Between 1850 and 1890, 75 million bison were killed, mostly for their hides; perhaps one or two million wolves. “Before about 1878, cattlemen were more worried about Indians killing their cattle than they were about wolves. As the land filled up with other ranchers, as water rights became an issue, and as the Indians were removed to reservations, however, the wolf became, as related in Barry Lopez’s book, Of Wolves and Men, ‘an object of pathological hatred.’”

 Lopez continues: “(T)he motive for wiping out wolves (as opposed to controlling them) proceeded from misunderstanding, from illusions of what constituted sport, from strident attachment to private property, from ignorance and irrational hatred.” In 1884, Montana set a bounty on wolves; in the next three years, 10,261 wolves were bountied. “In 1887, the bounty was repealed by a legislature dominated by mining interests.” *** “By 1893,… desperate stockmen were reporting losses that were mathematical impossibilities. The effect of this exaggeration was contagious. The Montana sheep industry, which up to this time had lost more animals to bears and mountain lions than to wolves, began to blame its every downward economic trend on the wolf. *** Men in a speculative business like cattle ranching singled out one scapegoat for their financial losses.” Not until wolves were functionally extinct from much of the West did anyone begin to ask, “What good are wolves?” to study wolves, and to report their beneficial effects on their prey species and on the ecosystems where they lived. Adolph Murie realized that wolves selected weaker Dall sheep, “which may be of great importance to the sheep as a species.” His brother, Olaus J.Murie, thought predators may have an important influence during severe winters in reducing elk herds too large for their winter range.

Douglas H. Pimlott pointed out that wolves control their own densities . Yellowstone National Park wolf project leader Douglas W. Smith says that restoration of wolves there has added exponentially to our knowledge of how natural ecosystems work. It has also reminded us that predation is one of the dominant forces in all of nature, present in ecosystems worldwide over millions of years. Bob Crabtree and Jennifer Sheldon note that predation by wolves is important to the integrity of the Yellowstone ecosystem, but we should realize that, before their return to Yellowstone’s northern range, 17 mountain lions there killed 611 elk per year, 60 grizzly bears killed 750 elk calves annually, and 400 coyotes killed between 1100 and 1400 elk per year. P.J. White et al wrote that climate and human harvest account for most of the recent decline of the northern Yellowstone elk herd, coupled with the effects of five predators: wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, cougars, and coyotes. These are parts of a system unique in North America by its completeness.

Joel Berger et al demonstrated “a cascade of ecological events that were triggered by the local extinction of grizzly bears…and wolves from the southern greater Yellowstone ecosystem.” In about 75 years, moose in Grand Teton National Park erupted to five times the population outside, changed willow structure and density, and eliminated neotropical birds; Gray Catbirds and MacGillivray’s Warblers.

Dan Tyers informs us that wolves haven’t eliminated moose from Yellowstone. Instead, burning of tens of thousands of acres of moose habitat in 1988 (mature forests with their subalpine fir) hit the moose population hard, and it won’t recover until the forests mature again. Mark Hebblewhite and Doug Smith documented that wolves change species abundance, community composition, and physical structure of the vegetation, preventing overuse of woody plants like willow, reducing severity of browsing on willows that provide nesting for songbirds. In Banff, songbird diversity and abundance were double in areas of high wolf densities, compared to that of areas with fewer wolves . Fewer browsers lead to more willows, providing habitat for beaver, a keystone species, which in turn create aquatic habitat for other plants and animals. By reducing coyotes,which were consuming 85% of the production of mice in Lamar Valley, restored wolves divert more food to raptors, foxes, and weasels. By concentrating on killing vulnerable calf elk and very old female elk, wolves reduce competition for forage by post-breeding females, and enhance the nutrition of breeding-age females. Wolves promote biological diversity, affecting 20 vertebrate species, and feeding many scavengers (ravens, magpies, pine martens, wolverines, bald eagles, gray jays, golden eagles, three weasel species, mink, lynx, cougar, grizzly bear, chickadees, Clark’s nutcracker, masked shrew and great grey owl). In Yellowstone, grizzly bears prevailed at 85% of encounters over carcasses, and they usurp nearly every kill made by wolves in Pelican Valley from March to October. Some 445 species of beetle scavengers benefit from the largess of wolf-killed prey. In Banff and Yellowstone, no other predator feeds as many other species as do wolves. Wolf-killed elk carcasses enhance local levels of soil nutrients; 20-500% greater nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. Dan Stahler and his colleagues saw an average of four ravens on carcasses in Lamar Valley pre-wolf. Post-wolf, that increased to 28 average, with as many as 135 seen on one carcass. Eagles seen on carcasses increased from an average of one per four carcasses to four per carcass. P.J. White and Bob Garrott observed that, by lowering elk numbers, wolves may contribute to higher bison numbers; by decreasing coyote populations, result in higher pronghorn numbers. They also said wolves may ameliorate ungulate-caused landscape simplification. Daniel Fortin and others saw that wolves may cause elk to shift habitat, using less aspen, and favoring songbirds that nest in the aspen. Christopher Wilmers and all tell us that hunting by humans does not benefit scavengers the way wolf kills do. Carrion from wolf kills is more dispersed spatially and temporally than that from hunter kills, resulting in three times the species diversity on wolf kills versus hunter kills. Wolves subsidize many scavengers by only partly consuming their prey; they increase the time over which carrion is available, and change the variability in scavenge from a late winter pulse (winterkill) to all winter. They decrease the variability in year-to-year and month to-month carrion availability. Chris Wilmers and Wayne Getz write that wolves buffer the effects of climate change. In mild winters, fewer ungulates die of winterkill, causing loss of carrion for scavengers. Wolves mitigate late-winter reduction in carrion by killing ungulates all year. Mid-sized predators can be destructive in the absence of large keystone predators. In the absence of wolves, pronghorn have been threatened with elimination by coyotes. Wolves have reduced coyotes, and promoted survival of pronghorn fawns. Pronghorn does actually choose the vicinity of wolf dens to give birth, because coyotes avoid those areas, according to Douglas W. Smith. Mark Hebblewhite reviewed the effects of wolves on population dynamics of large-ungulate prey, other effects on mountain ecosystems, sensitivity of wolf-prey systems to top-down and bottom-up management, and how this may be constrained in national park settings. Then he discussed the implications of his research on ecosystem management and long term ranges of variation in ungulate abundance. He cites literature that suggests that the long-term stable state under wolf recovery will be low migrant elk density in western montane ecosystems. Noting that wolves may be a keystone species, without which ungulate densities increase, vegetation communities become overbrowsed, moose and beaver decline, and biodiversity is reduced. But as elk decline, aspen and willow regeneration are enhanced. In this context, wolf predation should be viewed as a critical component of an ecosystem management approach across jurisdictions. Chronic wasting disease could wipe out our elk and deer. Tom Hobbs writes that increasing mortality rates in diseased populations can retard disease transmission and reduce disease prevalence. Reduced lifespan, in turn, can compress the time interval when animals are infectious, thereby reducing the number of infections produced per infected individual. Results from simulations suggest that predation by wolves has the potential to eliminate CWD from an infected elk population. Wildlife veterinarian Mark R. Johnson writes that wolves scavenge carrion, such as aborted bison or elk calves. By eating them, they may reduce the spread of Brucellosis to other bison or elk. Scott Creel and John Winnie, Jr. report that wolves also cause elk to congregate in smaller groups, potentially slowing the spread of diseases that thrive among dense populations of ungulates. John Duffield and others report that restoration of wolves has cost about $30 million, but has produced a $35.5 million annual net benefit to greater Yellowstone area counties, based on increased visitation by wolf watchers. Some 325,000 park visitors saw wolves in 2005. In Lamar Valley alone, 174,252 visitors observed wolves from 2000 to 2009; wolves were seen daily in summers for nine of those ten years. Wolves cause us to examine our values and attitudes. Paul Errington wrote, “Of all the native biological constituents of a northern wilderness scene, I should say that the wolves present the greatest test of human wisdom and good intentions.” Aldo Leopold, father of game management in America, said, “Harmony with land is like harmony with a friend; you cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his left. That is to say, you cannot love game and hate predators; … The land is one organism.” Leopold also pointed out that the first rule of intelligent tinkering with natural ecosystems was to keep all the pieces. Eliminating predators is counter to that advice. Wolves remind us to consider what is ethically and esthetically right in dealing with natural systems. As Leopold wrote in his essay “The Land Ethic,” “A land ethic …does affirm (animals’) right to continued existence…in a natural state.” He concluded, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” What good are wolves? References cited Berger, Joel , Peter B. Stacey, Lori Bellis, and Matthew P. Johnson. 2001. A mammalian predator-prey imbalance: grizzly bear and wolf extinction affect avian neotropical migrants.

Ecol. Applications 11(4):947-960. Crabtree, Robert L., and Jennifer W. Sheldon. Coyotes and Canid Coexistence in Yellowstone. Pages 127-163 in Clark, Tim W., A. Payton Curlee, Steven C. Minta, and Peter M. Kareiva. 1999. Carnivores in Ecosystems: The Yellowstone Experience. Yale U. Press. 429 pp. Creel, Scott, and J.A. Winnie, Jr. 2005. Responses of elk herd size to fine-scale spatial and temporal variation in the risk of predation by wolves. Animal Behaviour 69:1181-1189. Duffield, J., C. Neher, and D. Patterson. 2006. Wolves and People in Yellowstone: Impacts on the Regional Economy. Department of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Montana. Errington, Paul L. 1967. Of Predation and Life. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 277 p. Fortin, D., H. Beyer, M.S. Boyce, D.W. Smith, T. Duchesne, and J.S. Mao. Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86(5):1320-30. Hebblewhite, Mark. 2010. Predator-Prey Management in the National Park Context: Lessons from a Transboundary Wolf, Elk, Moose and Caribou System (Pp. 348-365 in Transactions of the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources conference. Hebblewhite, Mark, and Douglas W. Smith. 2007. Wolf Community Ecology: Ecosystem Effects of Recovering Wolves in Banff and Yellowstone National Parks in Musiani, M., and P.C. Paquet. The World of Wolves: new perspectives on ecology, behaviour, and policy. U. of Calgary Press. Hobbs, N. Thompson. 2006. A Model Analysis of Effects of Wolf Predation on Prevalence of Chronic Wasting Disease in Elk Populations of Rocky Mountain National Park. Johnson, Mark R. 1992. The Disease Ecology of Brucellosis and Tuberculosis in Potential Relationship to Yellowstone Wolf Populations. Pp. 5-69 to 5-92 in Varley, J.D., and W.G. Brewster, Ed’s. Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to the United States Congress. Volume IV, Research and Analysis. Leopold, Aldo. 1938. Unpublished essay, “Conservation,” on Pp. 145-6 of Round River, 1953.) Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press. P. 204 and Pp. 224-225. Lopez, Barry H. 1978. Of Wolves and Men. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York. 308 p. Murie, Adolph. 1944. The Wolves of Mount McKinley. Fauna of the National Parks of the United States. Fauna Series No. 5. USGPO, Washington, D.C. Murie, Olaus J. The Elk of North America. 1951. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa., and Wildl. Mgmt. Inst., Wash., D.C. 376 pp. Pimlott, Douglas H. 1967. Wolf Predation and Ungulate Populations. Amer. Zool. 7: 267-78. Smith, Douglas W. Personal communication. Stahler, Daniel, Bernd Heinrich, and Douglas Smith. 2002. Common ravens, Corvus corax, preferentially associate with grey wolves, Canis lupus, as a foraging strategy in winter. Animal Behaviour 64:283-290. El Sevier. Tyers, Daniel B. 2003. Winter Ecology of Moose on the Northern Yellowstone Winter Range. Ph.D. Dissertation, MSU, Bozeman. White, P.J., and R.A. Garrott. 2005. Yellowstone’s ungulates after wolves – expectations, realizations, and predictions. Biological Conservation 125:141-52. White, P.J., Robert Garrott, and Lee Eberhardt. 2003. Evaluating the consequences of wolf recovery on northern Yellowstone elk. YCR-NR-2004-02. Wilmers, C.C., and W.M. Getz. 2005. Gray wolves as climate change buffers. PLoS Biology 3 (4):e92. Wilmers, C.C., R.L. Crabtree, D.W. Smith, K.M Murphy, W.M. Getz. 2003. Trophic facilitation by introduced top predators: grey wolf subsidies to scavengers in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Animal Ecology 72(6):909-16. About the compiler After university work in Botany, Zoology, Forest Recreation, and Wildlife Management, and 4 years as a naval aviator, Norman A. Bishop was a national park ranger for 36 years. He was the principal interpreter of wolves and their restoration at Yellowstone National Park from 1985 to 1997, when he retired to Bozeman. For his educational work on wolves, he received a USDI citation for meritorious service. He also received the National Parks and Conservation Association’s 1988 Stephen T. Mather Award, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition’s 1991 Stewardship Award, and the Wolf Education and Research Center’s 1997 Alpha Award. He led many field courses on wolves for the Yellowstone Association Institute until 2005. He is the greater Yellowstone region field representative for the International Wolf Center. He serves on the boards of the Wolf Recovery Foundation, and Wild Things Unlimited. He is also on the advisory board of Living with Wolves. Norman A. Bishop Bozeman, MT 59715

**Special thanks to The Wildlife News for providing this information (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2011/12/30/what-good-are-wolves/)

Posted in Facts and Figures | 11 Comments »

Double-Barreled Attack on Wolves

December 23, 2011 by wolfpreservation


December 22, 2011

“Yesterday, the Obama Administration, via the U.S. Department of the Interior, announced a final rule de-listing wolves in the Great Lakes Region, officially removing all federal protection for wolves in the states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. State wildlife management officials, along with the trophy hunting, trapping, and ranching lobbies—and the politicians beholden to them—have been clamoring for years to de-list wolves, and only a series of successful HSUS lawsuits have prevented that from happening. We’ll now be examining our legal options and may again urge a federal court to block this premature removal of wolves from the list of threatened species. 

The HSUS and a coalition of conservation groups succeeded in a series of legal actions to block de-listing in the Northern Rockies, but eight months ago, Congress de-listed that population through the unprecedented step of attaching a rider to a massive budget bill. As we predicted, sport hunters and trappers have proceeded, hastily and recklessly, to slaughter wolves in Idaho and Montana, and the killing is now set to ramp up next in Wyoming.

Wolves in the United States have suffered a long history of human persecution, with state and federal officials and private citizens amassing a grisly and enormous body count. These actions over time resulted in the extirpation of wolves from everywhere in the Lower 48 except the far northern reaches of Minnesota and Isle Royale National Park in Michigan. Now, with wolf populations allowed to reclaim just a small portion of their habitats, the same anti-wolf hysteria of the 19th century that nearly exterminated them has resurfaced, with irrational claims being made about the impacts that wolves have on deer, elk, and livestock populations. These notions are not grounded on fact, but upon the mythology of the wolf as a rapacious predator that slaughters everything in its path.

Even with protection under the Endangered Species Act in place for some wolves over the last 35 years, wolves now occupy less than five percent of their historical range in the lower 48 states. There are some 4,000 wolves in the Northern Great Lakes and fewer than half that number in the Northern Rockies. The listing of these wolves under the provisions of the ESA has shielded them from run-away exploitation, but the political pressure to de-list them has been great, and the resolve of the Bush and Obama administrations to protect these animals proved weak.

The anti-wolf crusaders have staked out an anti-science, anti-ecological posture. There is superabundant scientific evidence that wolves have had an enormously beneficial ecological impact in the range they inhabit. They cull weak, old, and sick animals from populations, reducing total numbers of prey populations, and thereby mitigating the browsing on vegetation and bringing great vitality to the entire ecosystem. With less grazing pressure, new saplings have taken hold to form young groves. Stream flow and quality has improved. Other predators, like coyotes, have also been reduced in density, and there’s been a cascade effect that’s restored many of the original characteristics and dynamics of the animal and plant and forest communities.

Still, wolf recovery in the Great Lakes region is far from complete. And hostile state management plans in the region—some of which would allow a nearly 50 percent reduction of the region’s wolf population—make it likely that the recovery that has thus far been achieved could be reversed by high levels of trapping, poisoning and recreational hunting.

Claims of wolf depredation on livestock are often sensationalized. Last year in Wisconsin wolf depredations occurred on only 47 farms out of 7,000 in the state, and only 63 cattle and 6 sheep were killed. Many people complain about impacts from abundant deer populations—whether deer-auto collisions or browsing on commercial or ornamental shrubbery—but somehow the beneficial social and economic factors of having predators in the ecosystem are omitted from their analysis. It’s plain that the economics work in favor of wolf protection, not against it.

A small, vocal segment, driven by an irrational hatred of wolves, is driving the decision-making. Political leaders in these states are all too ready to bow to the pressure and to buy into the rhetoric and false framing, and it’s the wolves who suffer. It’s yet another example of adverse policy actions by this Administration on animal welfare and conservation. It talks a good game of science-based decision-making and sound policy, but in the end kowtows to traditional special interests (most of which will never vote for Obama). There’s not much “change” to be found, but just more of the same old ways of Washington.”

**Special thanks to “The Humane Society” for providing this information http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2011/12/double-barreled-attack-on-wolves.html#.TvPjydTB1gg.facebook

Posted in Uncategorized, Wolf Current Events | Leave a Comment »

IT’S FINAL: Lummis Wolf Delisting Rider Out!

December 17, 2011 by wolfpreservation


VICTORY WOLF PRESERVATIONISTS!!

“The Cynthia Lummis Wolf Rider is out of the spending bill! This is a real victory for wolves and wolf advocates!!

Congress  passed a similar rider last Spring which removed ESA protections from wolves in the Northern Rockies, blocking legal challenges. Now the rider is being litigated as unconstitutional in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Because of that rider we have two brutal wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana, with wolves dying daily and an escalation of the brutality, the likes of which most of us have ever witnessed directed at an animal. The Endangered Species Act has been weakened. Maybe Congress didn’t have the stomach for a repeat of that with the 2012 elections looming.

F0r today, wolves in Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are safe. It’s not often we can  bring good news, lets savor it and live to fight another day!

What made the cut?

Wolves”

Special thanks to “Wolf Warriors” for providing this information! (http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/its-final-lummis-wolf-delisting-rider-out/)

Posted in Wolf Current Events, Wolf Preservation Efforts | 1 Comment »

Read Maggie’s story and learn how you can help the family honor Maggie and protect others from similar tragedy.

December 5, 2011 by wolfpreservation


Read Maggie’s story and learn how you can help the family honor Maggie and protect others from similar tragedy.   Watch her families heart felt story of that dreadful moment….and share this with everyone you know!  These traps are far from humane and many animals suffer much before taking their last breathe.  A huge thank you to “Predator Defense” for letting the McCurtain family tell their story…http://www.predatordefense.org/traps_maggie.htm

Family’s border collie strangled to death in trap near yard

“In a pristine suburb of Portland, OR, a family’s border collie named Maggie was killed by a deadly trap set in a community common area just 45 feet from their back yard. This is an area where kids play. This trap could have easily injured or killed a child.
No compliant warning signs were posted, nor were instructions for removing the trap or whom to call for help. The trap’s placement violated both Oregon state law and the internal directives of Wildlife Services, the government agency responsible. This crime was committed with the help of your tax dollars. “

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Victory! Tiger Truck Stop’s Permit Revoked

December 3, 2011 by wolfpreservation


“On Wednesday, Judge Michael Caldwell of the East Baton Rouge District Court ruled in favor of a motion filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) to free Tony, a siberian-bengal tiger, from his concrete prison at the Tiger Truck Stop in Grosse Tete, LA, where he exists as an attraction for his owner Michael Sandlin.

The ruling will force the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) to revoke the permit that has allowed Sandlin to keep Tony for all these years. Not only will the current permit be revoked, but the LDWF will also be prohibited from issuing the Tiger Truck Stop any new permits to keep tigers.

Tony has lived at the Tiger Truck Stop since 2000, he’s been alone there since 2003. His plight has garnered the attention of travelers, animal lovers and celebrities including Leonardo DiCaprio and Kristin Bauer who have been fighting for years to have him freed from the cage where he’s been stuck surrounded by the constant sound and smell of trucks and diesel engines.

Last May, Caldwell issued a similar ruling granting the ALDF’s request for a permanent injunction against the LDWF, preventing them from renewing Sandlin’s annual permit as of December on the grounds that it was illegal for them to issue one in the first place, but the Louisiana Court of Appeals overturned the ruling on the basis that Sandlin should have been part of the lawsuit, which led to a new trial.

“We are thrilled that the court made the right decision,” said ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells. “We will continue to do everything we can to make sure Tony’s next home is a reputable, accredited sanctuary that can give Tony the life he deserves.”

Special thanks to  http://www.care2.com/causes/victory-tiger-truck-stops-permit-revoked.html#ixzz1fWpwNhuW for providing this information.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Maggie’s Death: A Crime

December 3, 2011 by wolfpreservation


Wolf Preservation is outraged and condemes the use of these death traps! 

Family’s border collie dies of strangulation and broken neck in government trap set 45 feet from back yard!

WILDLIFE SERVICES, A DIVISION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRIGULTURE, ANIMAL, PLANT, AND HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICES IS RESPONSIBLE!!

“Imagine a federal wildlife agency setting deadly “instant-kill” traps within 45 feet of your suburban back yard where your children play. Imagine that one of those government-set traps kills your beloved dog and no one returns for the trap, or to even say they’re sorry.

This sounds like the kind of government abuse and secrecy one would see exposed on “60 Minutes,” and it should be. However, that is not the case in Gresham, Oregon, a suburb of Portland, where the government has made every effort to intentionally hide such a tragedy.

The agency responsible? Wildlife Services, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Services.

Please read Maggie’s story below, watch the video interview with the McCurtains, and email “60 Minutes,” your favorite news show, or your local media today. Give them a link to this story and ask them to do an investigative expose on this case and the USDA’s barbaric, wasteful and indiscriminate Wildlife Services program. If you can help us spread the word by making a financial contribution, donate today.

Maggie’s Horrifying Death

Maggie, the McCurtain family’s black, brown and white border collie, was only seven years old on August 27, 2011, the morning she died just a few feet from her fenced-in back yard. It was an unusually warm morning, which made her routine visit outdoors that much more inviting, and the scents outside that much stronger. For reasons unknown, the backyard gate was open that morning. Within minutes of stepping outside, Maggie—who loved to swim and camp with the family and play fetch with Squeaks the kitten—would have her neck broken and windpipe crushed.

About 9 a.m. Denise McCurtain, Maggie’s guardian, heard frantic knocking at her door. A neighbor asked if the family had a black and white dog. She said she’d seen one by the water but it wasn’t moving. The dog was Maggie. She was immobile because her head was caught in the vice grip of a Conibear “instant-kill” trap. She was still breathing, her eyes flashing in fear and pain from the more than 90 pounds of pressure that slammed the trap’s jaws shut around her neck when she stuck her nose in to sniff the bait.

No one knew how to get the trap off Maggie. There were no instructions on the device, no numbers to call, no signs with any useful information posted in the area. After minutes that felt like hours, Maggie’s family and neighbors located pliers and screwdrivers and were able to move the trap’s springs enough to get her head out. But it was too late. Maggie’s violent struggle was over. She lapsed into shock and gave in to death.

The three McCurtain children—Meg (12), Brandon (14), and Zachary (9)—were still asleep when Maggie died. Covered in mud and dirt, with cut and bruised feet from running barefoot to Maggie’s side, Denise was faced with the horrible question:

How do you wake your children and tell them their best friend and faithful companion is dead?

After hearing the shocking news, the children— overcome with grief—kissed, petted, and hugged the lifeless body of their beloved friend in a final farewell and watched from the windows as their father Doug took her lifeless body to the veterinarian to be examined.

Within these few hours the world was permanently altered for the McCurtains. The fenced-in yard had always felt like a safe zone for Maggie and the kids. But when the unimaginable happened just a few feet away, those feelings of safety disappeared.

The deadly Conibear trap was set just 45 feet from the McCurtain’s back yard in a common area where children play, feed ducks, look for frogs, and retrieve escaped soccer balls. The trap was set to kill Nutria, aquatic rodents which are considered pests. A homeowners’ association email had notified neighbors that these traps would be placed along Cedar Lake, with instructions not to disturb them, but included no information as to the type of traps being used, nor any warning of danger they posed to pets or people, and no information on how to remove/open the traps.

The result: a beloved pet struggling and dying in agony; her family and neighbors traumatized and hysterical, trying desperately to help.

The Conibear trap was concealed and set in front of a live box trap. Children had been playing in the area, unaware that the deadly devices were there, camouflaged with leaves and grass.

Posted nearby was a single sign, a 3-inch circle, stapled to a short wooden stake, indicating that the traps were federal property, and tampering or removing was a federal offense. There was no warning/danger alert about what the traps actually do. There was no information about how to remove the trap, no license or permit information. Nothing about what to do or who to call if the worst happened, if a child or pet were caught. Nothing.

At least two traps were in place by 5:30 that morning, Maggie was dead by 9 a.m. Within a few hours of her death, the trap that killed Maggie along with the live box traps, were gone. The McCurtains found another kill trap behind their house a couple of days later.

Where Could the Family Turn for Help?

Although Denise McCurtain was without guidance and had no idea how to get help, she kept a detailed record of what she was told and by whom. She took photographs of the yard and of the traps. She contacted the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), who referred her to the Oregon State Police.

A state trooper came to the McCurtain’s home and took a statement. After waiting a reasonable period of time, the trooper contacted them again. Neither Doug nor Denise was happy with his response. When Denise asked him why such dangerous traps were used in the first place, she was told that the government-paid Wildlife Services trapper was impatient and wanted to speed up the process. While she had the department’s sympathies, she was told that the trapper had done nothing criminal (neglectful maybe), but there was nothing the authorities could do. The empathetic trooper suggested they contact an attorney.

While it is difficult to get public records from state and federal agencies, this is especially true regarding Wildlife Services. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is designed to force federal government agencies to fully or partially disclose government documents. However, the FOIA process is daunting—even for experienced organizations like Predator Defense—and for individuals it can be overwhelming.

Those who chose to file a federal torte claim for compensation are limited to the value of property lost, including pets (pets are considered property, not persons). The amount of the claim for most pets is relatively small and a person could spend thousands on an attorney trying to get compensation. The emotional loss is impossible to measure. Furthermore, fear of retaliation from Wildlife Services trappers is real.

In many cases, people simply give up because constantly revisiting the trauma of the loss of their beloved pet is too intense and because the specter and expense of taking on the federal government is too frightening. It took the McCurtains six weeks just to find us at Predator Defense. We filed a FOIA request on their behalf and arranged for an attorney to represent them. As of this writing (November 2011), Denise has not heard so much as an expression of sympathy from the homeowners’ association or from Wildlife Services. 

About Conibear Traps

The Conibear “instant-kill” trap kills by breaking the neck and strangling the victim. The one that killed Maggie had a 9” jaw spread; a trap of this size is almost impossible to open by hand. Conibear traps are square, with two rotating jaws, the larger version (the one Maggie died in) has two springs. You can see an animal-eye view of the Conibear trap by watching this video.

Conibear traps are used to capture and instantly kill species—such as badger, beaver, bobcat, coyote, fisher, lynx, nutria, otter, and raccoon—but they are indiscriminate. This means that pets, endangered species, and other non-target animals, such as Maggie, step into their jaws.

According to the manufacturer’s website, Oneidavictor.com, these traps “should NOT, however, be used where non-target animals are at risk for capture” (original text in bold). The traps are strong enough to maim, injure, and kill a child.

**Special thanks to http://www.predatordefense.org/traps_maggie.htm for providing this information.

 

 

 

Posted in Wolf Current Events | 1 Comment »

Elk Foundation favors extending wolf hunt

December 3, 2011 by wolfpreservation


“MISSOULA, MT — If Montana hunters don’t reach the statewide quota for wolves by the December 31 deadline, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation wants to extend the season.

“RMEF believes that it is very important that hunters be allowed as much time as possible during these winter months to harvest the statewide quota of 220 wolves,” said RMEF President and CEO David Allen.

When the big game season ended on November 27, hunters took 100 wolves of the statewide quota of 220.

In a November 28 letter to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Allen wrote growing wolf populations have an adverse effect on elk and other big game herds, especially in some specific areas around the state. He also suggested the agency look at other “means of take” to maximize opportunities for hunters to meet harvest quotas.

“It is very unlikely that sport hunting will provide adequate control of wolf populations going forward. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the public should prepare for more aggressive wolf control methods, perhaps as early as summer 2012,” added Allen.

Unlike in Montana, Idaho hunters may use electronic calling to try to lure in a wolf. They can also trap wolves. Baiting wolves in Idaho is illegal, but hunters may incidentally take a wolf while bear baiting.”

**Special thanks to Mark Holyoak (KPAX News) for providing this information!

Posted in Wolf Current Events | 1 Comment »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »