Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Some key issues wolves face are possible delisting in New Mexico and Arizona, where they already remain at low numbers.   Hopefully, a plan will be implemented to guarantee their survival and growth.  After reading this article, Wolf Preservation wants your feedback.  What do you think? 

Credit for the information provided below goes to William Campbell, Associated Press:

 

“BILLINGS, Mont. — A proposal to settle years of litigation and allow public hunting of wolves in parts of the Northern Rockies faces its first legal test on Thursday, as it goes before a federal judge who has twice rebuffed attempts to lift protections for the predators.

The hearing before U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula follows a settlement agreement last week between the Obama administration and 10 conservation groups. 

Facing pressure from Western lawmakers in Congress, the groups agreed to give up their fight to keep almost 1,300 wolves on the endangered list in Idaho and Montana. In exchange, the government would retain protections at least temporarily for about 400 wolves in Wyoming, Oregon, Washington and Utah.

Molloy has rejected past government decisions on wolves that he said were politically motivated. He is being asked to do so again by several wildlife advocacy groups that refused to sign off on the settlement with the administration.

An attorney for one of the dissenting groups referred to the deal as “political theater” that would scuttle prior legal victories by wolf advocates.

“The settling plaintiffs would give up their right to challenge any new delisting rule for five years – during which time untold numbers of wolves could be unnecessarily and unlawfully killed,” attorney Summer Nelson wrote in a brief filed by the Western Watersheds Project.

Bounty hunting and poisonings killed off wolves throughout most of the continental U.S. early last century.

A fledgling population in Montana expanded dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s, when the federal government brought in 66 of the animals from Canada and reintroduced them to central Idaho and northwestern Wyoming.

The population has leveled off in recent years, in part because government wildlife agents now kill more than 200 wolves annually in response to attacks on livestock.

Biologists this year recorded the first drop since restoration efforts began. Declines in some of the region’s big game herds and continued livestock attacks have spurred calls to further reduce the population.

Supporters of the settlement said they want to get past two decades of legal battles over wolves in the West. At the same time, they are trying to pre-empt wolf legislation before Congress that could have broader implications for other plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act.

“It should give everybody in the region who’s dealing with wolves a way to think about them long-term. It’s all been so haphazard up until now,” said Mike Clark with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, one of the 10 groups involved in the settlement.

For the deal to go forward, Molloy must agree to suspend a ruling last August in which the judge faulted the Fish and Wildlife Service for a 2009 decision that took wolves off the endangered list in Montana and Idaho but not neighboring Wyoming.

Wyoming has a law that allows wolves to be shot on sight across most of the state. Federal wildlife officials said that Montana and Idaho had acceptable wolf management plans, but Wyoming’s was too hostile to the species to ensure its continued survival.

Molloy said the recovery of wolves across the region was incomplete if they remained in danger in Wyoming. He said federal wildlife laws do not allow for recovery decisions to be based on political boundaries.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks attorney Robert Lane said Molloy may be willing to reconsider given the settlement’s assurances that wolves would not be hunted to extermination.

As part of the agreement with the Obama administration, the Department of Interior would conduct an independent review of the animal’s status within four years. In the meantime, Idaho and Montana could resume hunts for the animals that were suspended after just one season.

“It’s sort of like a test drive for state management” of wolves, Lane said of the settlement.

If Molloy agrees to let the settlement go forward, it also must clear the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the federal government has been pursuing an appeal of Molloy’s August order.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers from the region have vowed to keep pressing their bills to delist wolves at least until the settlement is finalized.

Some of those measures would go much farther than last week’s settlement and delist wolves nationwide. That would include wolves in parts of Arizona and New Mexico, where only a few dozen of the animals survive despite a costly government restoration program.”


**Special thanks to Writer Betsy Reason of IndyStar.com for providing this information!

“It was evident from the turnout and dollars brought in at last weekend’s Wine, Wags & Whiskers fundraiser just how much people love animals.

A record 400 guests attended the Humane Society for Hamilton County’s third-annual party. That’s twice as many as last year.

A record $47,500 was brought in nearly doubling last year’s take of $25,000.

“We were absolutely thrilled,” said Rebecca Stevens, the shelter’s executive director.

Besides the greater attendance, Stevens attributed the increase in fundraising dollars to three other factors. Master Jewelers in Indianapolis donated a loose diamond for a raffle — won by Toni VanHorn, 46, Noblesville — that helped raise $2,000. Matching contributions from the shelter’s Board of Directors brought in $6,500. And a silent auction brought in about $4,000 more than last year.

“I couldn’t have asked for better results,” Stevens said.

The gala, which took place at The Mansion at Oak Hill in Carmel, resulted in two adoptions. One was for Penny, the shelter’s longest-standing canine, a 51/2-year-old malamute/Lab mix who has been at the shelter for 21/2 years. Penny, who was on a

leash at the gala, was featured on labels of pinot grigio wine sold to raise money at the event.

Penny and a half-dozen other shelter dogs and some cats were among the guests at the gala, during which folks could sample 30 wines, savor hors d’oeuvres and bid on silent auction items.

Sarah Barker, 23, Noblesville, led another shelter dog, Cadence, a 21/2-year-old pit bull, through the crowd.

“Everybody loves her. She’s a great representative of her breed,” said Barker, who became interested in dog obedience as a 4-H’er. She’s a shelter volunteer who walks dogs about four days a week and owns eight, four of which are retired show dogs.

The shelter currently has 201 dogs and 371 cats in need of homes and relies greatly on the support of volunteers and foster care. Currently, 258 of those animals are in foster care.

Cindy Kernan, 51, who lives in Marion County’s Lawrence Township, started volunteering two years ago. Barker and Kernan are among

200 shelter volunteers.

“It really appealed to me to be part of an organization that really cared for the dogs and how they’re treated,” Kernan said. She walks dogs and helps out with events.

She fostered, then adopted a black pit bull named Naomi.

“I was just going to take her home for a week at Christmas time to give her a treat and make myself feel better that she wasn’t sitting in the shelter over Christmas,” Kernan said.

Naomi has been at Kernan’s house now for the past 15 months.

“Never in a million years . . . (did I think) I would own a pit bull. Now I know why it’s so great to own one. She gives the best kisses, she’s a great dog,” Kernan said. “Sometimes when you tell people you have a pit bull, they don’t know what to say.”

Kernan likes the shelter’s philosophy. 

“They try to give every dog a home. When they run out of room, they try to get them out into foster families. They try their best to give the dogs a home. I love being around animals, and they enrich my life so much,” she added.

Guest Velda Boenitz, Noblesville, helped found the shelter in 1984 and was heavily involved in its operation for the first 10 years.

“They’ve come a long way. I think they’ve done a wonderful job,” said Boenitz, who had the former shelter on Cumberland Road constructed in 1991. The current shelter opened in 2007.

Dennis Rosiak, 58, Noblesville, and his wife, Connie, started volunteering at the Cumberland Road shelter.

Connie is a former board member. Dennis helps clean up and has helped with the Pet Tails program that features shelter pets on Channel 19. They both walk dogs.

The Rosiaks, who handle St. Bernard rescues, are fostering a 2-year-old St. Bernard. 

“It’s a great cause. There are so many animals coming through the shelter today. We really need to take care of these animals,” said Dennis Rosiak, who’s on the board of the Low Cost Spay Neuter Clinic of Hamilton County, adjacent to the shelter. “All of these things work together.”

Rosiak said it all comes down to one thing: “Pets need homes.”

Musical artist Jennie DeVoe, Indianapolis, has performed all three years because, she said, the cause is close to her heart.

Of the six animals — a Rottweiler shepherd, a shepherd mix, a chow schnauzer, a Scottie dachshund and two cats — that she owns, “every animal is a rescue,” she said. “I’m a huge, huge supporter of the Humane Society.” “


“Since last fall, it has become increasingly likely that Congress would pass legislation that would be disastrous for wolves and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although Defenders has steadfastly opposed that legislation, we became convinced that the only real hope of stopping it was to reach a settlement of the litigation we brought in 2009 successfully challenging Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s illegal decision to remove federal protection from wolves in the Northern Rockies.

Accordingly, on March 18, 2011, we joined with nine other conservation organizations in filing with the U.S. District Court in Montana a settlement agreement we negotiated with the Interior Department. Like any settlement agreement, this one is a compromise, but one that we are convinced was necessary to help avert what could easily be the most disastrous assault on the ESA since that monumental law took effect nearly four decades ago. We are also convinced that, if the agreement is approved by the court and all parties live up to their responsibilities, it will provide a path in which wolves will continue to recover in the Northern Rockies and science, not politics, will prevail.

Whatever happens now, we will continue to lead the effort both for wolves and the ESA going forward. Below you will find more detailed answers to questions about the settlement and what our next steps will be to ensure the long-term future of wolves across the Northern Rockies.

All of us at Defenders of Wildlife are extremely grateful for your continued support in our ongoing efforts to save America’s wolves.

Sincerely,
Rodger Schlickeisen”

**Please respond with your thoughts! 


Two wolves have been ordered killed, even though Montana Wildlife Officials admit they may not be responsible for killing a yearling calf!  Please read and contact Dir. Joe Maurier, Ken McDonald and Liz Bradley.
jmaurier@MT.gov , kmcdonald@MT.gov …, LBradley@mt.gov Tell them NO!

Perry Backus of the Ravalli Republic reported the following information:

“Wolves killed a yearling calf in the Lake Como area earlier this month and wildlife officials have ordered that the pair of wolves responsible be killed.

So far this year, livestock depredations by wolves are at the lowest point wildlife officials have recorded in the last 10 years.

From Jan. 1, wolves have killed four cows and one dog statewide.

Over the same time period in 2009, wolves killed 17 cattle, three llamas, one dog and injured a calf.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf management specialist Liz Bradley said there is no way to know for certain why wolves mostly steered clear of livestock this winter.

It’s not because wolf numbers have decreased.

In 2010, wolf numbers grew by 8 percent in Montana. Biologists reported 566 wolves in 108 packs in the state, with at least 35 breeding pairs.

The long winter and heavy snow could be partially responsible.

“After a hard winter and heavy snow, game is typically in worse shape and they may be easier to kill,” Bradley said.

Control actions may have also thinned wolf numbers in areas most susceptible to livestock depredation.

A large number of wolves were removed from the Big Hole area over the past two years due to conflicts with livestock.

“We’ve had two depredations in the Big Hole this winter,” Bradley said. “That’s generally one of those areas where there are depredations in the winter because most of the wildlife migrates out of there.”

Overall, the largest amount of conflict between wolves and livestock occurs in the spring during calving season. The fewest happen over the winter months because most cattle and sheep are off open ranges.

Bradley said it’s not clear whether or not members of the Lake Como pack were responsible for the recent depredation.

Officials found two sets of tracks near the calves’ carcass.

“We don’t know whether those two are a newly formed pair or part of the Lake Como pack,” she said.

There is no radio collar on a wolf in the Lake Como pack, which included six wolves last year.

There are currently 12 known packs that use the Bitterroot area at least part of the year.

There could be more.

Bradley encourages the public to report any sightings of wolves or their tracks to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The reports can be made to local FWP offices or via the Internet on the FWP’s website: http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/management/wolf/wolfObservationForm.html.

“We are continuing to track new pack formations,” Bradley said. “That’s why it’s important to get information from the public, especially this time of year.”

Wolves den and have pups in April. They are much more localized during the pup rearing season.

“We track all of the public reports, especially activity in new areas,” she said. “We’re looking for a cluster in reports. Maybe someone saw some tracks or someone else heard some howling.”

“All of that kind of stuff adds up,” Bradley said.

Wolves have been in Montana for a while now and are more commonplace.

“People tell me that they don’t know if we care about this kind of information anymore,” she said. “I really do.”


The Spokesman-Review released the following article:

“Montana has just announced that at least 566 wolves inhabit the state, according to the 2010 annual wolf conservation and management report released today by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. The report  shows Montana’s minimum wolf population increased about 8 percent in 2010, compared to a 4 percent increase last year and an 18 percent increase in 2008. The minimun numbers indicate that wolves have increased to 108 verified packs and 35 breeding pairs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service followed Montana by posting the complete 2010 Northern Rockies wolf update, which includes the census from Idaho and Wyoming.

The report by Idaho Fish and Game biologists documented a minimum of 705 wolves in 87 packs at the end of 2010. In addition, they documented 22 border packs along boundaries with Montana, Wyoming and Washington. Of the 54 Idaho packs known to have reproduced, 46 qualified as breeding pairs by the end of the year. These reproductive packs produced a minimum of 189 pups in 2010.

For 2009, Idaho reported a minimum population of 843 wolves in 94 packs in the state along wtih 20 documented border packs

Idaho’s decline is at least partly due to the difficulty of monitoring wolves in remote areas of central Idaho, federal officials said.

“I’m certain we could have successfully reduced the wolf population in 2010 if we could have proceeded with our planned, science-based hunting season,” said FWP Director Joe Maurier. “When you look at our management success in 2009, we had a vigorous wolf population at the end of the year and we were still able to control its growth. It’s clear that a management strategy that includes hunting can play an important role in managing wolves in Montana. It is a tool we need and one we’re still trying to get back.”

Last year, FWP joined in a federal lawsuit in defense of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2009 decision to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho, but not in Wyoming. The U.S. District Judge in Missoula, however, reinstated federal protections of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains on Aug. 5.

The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains was set at a minimum of 30 breeding pairs—successfully reproducing wolf packs—and a minimum of 300 individual wolves for at least three consecutive years and well distributed throughout the recovery area. The goal was achieved in 2002, and the wolf population has increased every year since.

FWP’s report is part of the annual federal recovery update required by USFWS. The end of 2010 count also estimates that at least 343 wolves inhabited Wyoming, up slightly from 2009. The count in Idaho dropped slightly to 705, likely due to the state’s decision to reel in monitoring efforts in central Idaho’s rugged wilderness areas. Annual reports from Idaho, Wyoming, and information about wolves in Yellowstone National Park and the northern Rockies are available from the USFWS online at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov.

The northern Rockies’ “metapopulation” is comprised of wolf populations in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Four packs are now verified in Oregon and Washington within the northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population segment. Today, at least 1,651 wolves in 244 packs, with about 111 breeding pairs, live in the region, where wolves can travel about freely to join existing packs or form new packs. This, combined with wolf populations in Canada and Alaska, assures the genetic diversity of wolves throughout the region.

Each of the three geographic regions of Montana inhabited by wolves showed slight increases in 2010 from 2009:

  • northwestern Montana’s population exhibited the greatest increase where the population grew to a minimum of 326 wolves, in 68 verified packs, and 21 breeding pairs. Seven of the packs reside on reservations where they are managed by Tribal authorities.
  • western Montana’s population increased slightly to at least 122 wolves in 21 packs, and eight breeding pairs.
  • southwestern Montana’s population increased slightly to at least 118 wolves in 19 packs, and six breeding pairs.

About 24 packs occur along Montana’s border with Idaho, 18 of which are included in the Montana estimate. This demonstrates the continued influence of the robust wolf population in Idaho on Montana’s wolf population. Additionally, six packs are shared with Wyoming, four of which are included in Montana’s population. 

Compared to Idaho and Wyoming, at 24 percent Montana had the highest rate of known human-caused mortality of wolves in 2010. Officials say that’s due to Montana’s wolf population, as a whole, living on a combination of public and private lands.

Maurier noted, however, that Montana’s wolf population still increased and remains well above recovery goals. “Nearly all of Montana’s wolves live outside national parks,” he said. “That means an intensive management strategy is needed to strike the right balance between wolves and public acceptance. Unfortunately that’s out of our hands, but it’s crystal clear that this species is fully recovered. Montana has made room for wolves and it is our position that Montana must be given the authority to manage them.”

**How accurate do you think these numbers are?  Wolf Preservation would like to hear your comments!


John Motsinger, a Communications Associate at Defenders of Wildlife who  handles press coverage for critters in the Northern Rockies as well as Defenders’ national work on coal ash and pesticides has provided the following information:

“Wolf settlement reached in Northern Rockies – Defenders of Wildlife and nine other conservation groups reached a settlement agreement with the Interior Department regarding wolf recovery and management in the Northern Rockies. The settlement was filed for approval with a U.S. Federal District Court in Montana.

Though not a perfect solution, this settlement allows wolf delisting in the two states with approved wolf management plans (Montana and Idaho) to move forward, while retaining protections for the most vulnerable wolves in the Northern Rockies. The settlement also offers a workable solution to the increasingly polarized debate over wolves without resorting to legislation that would be bad for wolves, the ESA and countless other species.

This agreement adopts a scientific approach – including monitoring of the status of wolves and independent scientific review – to ensure that states maintain healthy wolf populations. If approved, it will be up to the states to hold up their end of the bargain and manage wolves responsibly and sustainably as they do for other wildlife.”

**Wolf Preservation appreciates your questions and comments.


 Ralph Maughan, a professor of political science at Idaho State University, took some time to explain the nature of the ongoing wolf debate in the Northern Rockies. In his view, wolves have been a pivotal issue because they bring out core social values about life in the West. This video explains the tactics used by anti-wolf extremists to stir up even more controversy. 

Wolf Preservation wants to hear your feedback!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uL94aUwf4k&feature=player_embedded


Many of us think of communication only as talking or writing to each other. Those are two ways humans share information every day. How do wolves “converse?” Even though they cannot talk or write, wolves communicate effectively in several ways.

Wolves use body language to convey the rules of the pack. A wolf pack is very organized. Rule number one says that the pack is made up of leaders and followers. The pack leaders are the male parent and the female parent – usually the father and mother of the other pack members. They are likely to be the oldest, largest, strongest and most intelligent wolves in the pack. They are known as the alpha wolves and are usually the only members of the pack to produce pups.

Any wolf can become an alpha. However, to do so, it must find an unoccupied territory and a member of the opposite sex with which to mate. Or, more rarely, it moves into a pack with a missing alpha and takes its place, or perhaps kills another alpha and usurps its mate.

The alpha male and female are dominant, or in charge of the pack. To communicate dominance, the alphas carry their tails high and stand tall. Less dominant wolves exhibit submissive behavior by holding their tails down and often lower their bodies while pawing at the higher ranking wolves.

There are two levels of submissive behavior: active and passive. Active submission is a contact activity in which signs of inferiority are evident such as crouching, muzzle licking and tail tucking. The behaviors typical of active submission are first used by pups to elicit regurgitation in adults. These behaviors are retained into adulthood by subordinate wolves, where they function as a gesture of intimacy and the acceptance of the differentiation of the roles of the wolves that are involved.

Passive submission is shown when a subordinate wolf lays on its side or back, thus exposing the vulnerable ventral side of its chest and abdomen to the more dominant wolf. The subordinate wolf may also abduct its rear leg to allow for anogenital inspection by the dominant wolf. If two wolves have a disagreement, they may show their teeth and growl at each other. Both wolves try to look as fierce as they can. Usually the less dominant wolf, the subordinate one, gives up before a fight begins. To show that it accepts the other wolf’s authority, it rolls over on its back. Reactions to this behavior may range from tolerance (the dominant wolf standing over the submissive wolf) to mortal attack, particularly in the case of a trespassing alien wolf. Following the dominance rules usually keeps the wolves in a pack from fighting among themselves and hurting each other.

Wolves convey much with their bodies. If they are angry, they may stick their ears straight up and bare their teeth. A wolf who is suspicious pulls its ears back and squints. Fear is often shown by flattening the ears against the head. A wolf who wants to play dances and bows playfully.

Wolves have a very good sense of smell about 100 times greater than humans. They use this sense for communication in a variety of ways. Wolves mark their territories with urine and scats, a behavior called scent-marking. When wolves from outside of the pack smell these scents, they know that an area is already occupied. It is likely that pack members can recognize the identity of a packmate by its urine, which is useful when entering a new territory or when packmembers become separated. Dominant animals may scent mark through urination every two minutes. When they do so they raise a leg, this dominant posture utilizes multiple forms of communication and is called a “Raised Leg Urination” or RLU.

Wolves will also use urine to scent mark food caches that have been exhausted. By marking an empty cache, the animal will not waste time digging for food that isn’t there.

Wolves use their sense of smell to communicate through chemical messages. These chemical messages between members of the same species are known as “pherimones.” Sources of pherimones in wolves include glands on the toes, tail, eyes, anus, genitalia and skin. For example, a male is able to identify a female in estrus by compounds (pherimones) present in her urine and copulation will only be attempted during this time.

Of course, their sense of smell also tells them when food or enemies are near.

Have you ever heard a wolf howl? They’re not howling at the moon they are communicating. They call any time of the day, but they are most easily heard in the evening when the wind dies down and wolves are most active. Wolves’ vocalizations can be separated into four categories: barking, whimpering, growling, and howling. Sounds created by the wolf may actually be a combination of sounds such as a bark-howl or growl-bark.

Barking is used as a warning. A mother may bark to her pups because she senses danger, or a bark or bark-howl may be used to show aggression in defense of the pack or territory.

Whimpering may be used by a mother to indicate her willingness to nurse her young. It is also used to indicate “I give up” if they are in a submissive position and another wolf is dominating them.

Growling is used as a warning. A wolf may growl at intruding wolves or predators, or to indicate dominance.

Howling is the one form of communication used by wolves that is intended for long distance. A defensive howl is used to keep the pack together and strangers away, to stand their ground and protect young pups who cannot yet travel from danger, and protect kill sites. A social howl is used to locate one another, rally together and possibly just for fun.

Can you think of ways that humans communicate without using words?

How Do Wolves Say Hello?

Have you seen dogs jump up to greet their owners, bark at strangers or roll over when another dog approaches? Then you already know something about how wolves communicate. Dogs inherited most of their language from their ancestors, the wolves.

Wolves use three different languages:

  1. Sound – Howls, Barks, Whimpers and Growls.
  2. Special Scents – Scats, Urine and Pherimones.
  3. Body Language – Body Positions and Movements and Facial Expressions.

**Special thanks to “International Wolf Center” for providing this information!


Who can do a Research Project?

  • College and graduate students
  • Teachers on sabbatical or summer/winter break
  • Dog behaviorists
  • Dog trainers
  • Veterinarians and veterinary technicians
  • Anyone who has a specific interest in canids

Wolf Park is an excellent place to conduct observational or behavioral research. We can help you design and plan your project, although we cannot help you collect and analyze data. Only interns and practicums may conduct research at Wolf Park. If you are interested in doing research with our animals outside of the internship/practicum program, please contact our managing director.

If you are accepted to either the practicum or internship program and have a research project in mind, in order to make sure that what you have planned is possible and will be approved by Wolf Park, we suggest getting our consent in advance of your arrival. Project proposals and outlines should be sent to Pat Goodmann, c/o Wolf Park, or via email (pat@wolfpark.org). After your project has been approved by Pat, she will get consent from Dr. Klinghammer as well. You are not required to do a research project. Many students simply work and study during their time here. It is a good way to learn about research in a non-threatening environment.

Most of the research at Wolf Park is observational in nature. Students in the past have studied sleeping behavior, eating behavior, howls and other vocalizations, and adult interaction with puppies, to name just a few. Many students will focus on a particular animal and observe its interactions with the other animals. Other study opportunities exist with the foxes, coyotes, and bison.

The small staff has limited time; therefore projects involving the manipulations of the animals and their environment are not permitted. Research projects should be purely based on observation of the wolves, not anything that requires human participation or interaction of any kind. Also, due to time limitations, the staff cannot be an integral part of the actual data collection. Do remember, though, the staff is always available to answer questions. Before attempting long and involved projects, especially those resulting in something important such as a Masters thesis, a visit to Wolf Park is recommended.

*Special thanks to “Wolf Park” for providing this information!  Please visit their site at http://www.wolfpark.org/index.html


You have all heard the Little Red Riding Hood story, right?  But have you really?

In your version, does Little Red trick the wolf and escape? Does she get gobbled up with her granny?

Folktales are stories that pass from one generation to another and from one country to another by word of mouth. These stories may have changed over time as storytellers adapted them for their own purposes. It wasn’t until the 1800s that folktales were written down for the first time, allowing hundreds of generations of storytelling and story adapting to take place before that. You can often find several versions of the same story because there is no one “right” version of a traditional folktale. Each one represents the time, place and person telling it. Examining the cultural values expressed in a folktale will help you understand the story and its underlying messages better. The classic tale of Little Red Riding Hood is a good example of a story that

reflects cultural values. Most versions of the story can be traced back to the 1600s to the farming areas of central Europe. The people of that time and place possessed a general dislike for wolves due to the wolf’s predation on farm animals. So the wolf was universally considered a villainous character. The story also gives us insight into other cultural values such as the role of women and children in society. Some versions emphasize the vulnerability of little girls to moral perils in the world. Others demonstrate the

dangers of talking to shady characters. The oldest known versions of the story stress the importance of

clever, resourceful thinking in getting a person out of a difficult situation. No matter which version of Little Red Riding Hood you find, be sure to look deeper than its face value, and consider the underlying cultural values expressed to get a full understanding of the story’s meaning.

 Try this!

Go to your library, and check out as many different versions of the Little Red Riding Hood story as you can find. Look for versions in children’s picture books as well as in folktale collections in the 398.2 section of the library. Read through at least four different versions of the story, and discuss with a friend:

 How are the stories different? Describe one or two lessons that each version of the story teaches.

  Speculate about the time, place and person telling these stories…what do you guess might be true? How does the artwork accompanying the story contribute to your impression of Red or the wolf?

 **Special thanks to Kevin Strauss for providing this information! (http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/justkids/wild/wildkids_spring2007.pdf)

 Kevin Strauss is a naturalist, author and storyteller from Ely, Minnesota. Visit the “Shop” section of www.wolf.org to purchase his book Song of the Wolf: Folktales and Legends from Around the World, and audio CD The Mountain Wolf’s Gift: Wolf Tales from Around the World. Contact him at kevin@naturestory.com.