Our friend and esteemed Jaguar biologist, Tony Povilitis recently penned a telling letter to the USFW folks in D.C. telling them in no uncertain terms that: "The USFWS should abandon the outdated assumption that the US Southwest is an insignificant,low priority portion of the jaguar’s global range, and move forward with a proactive recoveryplan to restore jaguar presence in the region...... This would greatly enhance prospects forconserving the species in its northern range and globally----read Tony's entire letter by clicking on the link below

Dear Sirs:


The document as I read it emphasizes range-wide conservation beyond the U.S. with little focus on what your agency and others can or will do here in the Southwest. I am especially disappointed to see it ignores the urgent need for connectivity conservation.

I attach my comments suggesting an alternative vision and emphasis. Prior to preparing a jaguar recovery plan based on the outline, I would appreciate your consideration of conservation biology and jurisdictional issues raised. A written response to my comments would be appreciated.


Sincerely,

Tony Povilitis
 Tony Povilitis, Ph.D.
Life Net Nature
http://lifenetnature.org
http://www.facebook.com/LifeNetNature

 click here to read Dr. Povilitis'
Comments on USFWS jaguar recovery outline

The critical differences between a domesticate and a wild animal that is simply habituated to the presence of humans is that omestication is a genetic process whereas habituation is an experiential one............ Domestication alters nature, habituation is nurture.......Both dogs and wolves are equally adept at learning tasks indicating that there are no group differences in terms of motivation or physical abilities........, However, there are large differences when both wolves and dogs are given impossible problems to solve..... Dogs instinctively shift their attention away from food and towards humans.......... Even if fully socialized with humans from birth, the wolves treat these type situations as physical problems rather than social ones...... Only rarely do they ever attempt to engage in a communicative problem-solving interaction with a human......... It’s not that wolves are unintelligent; it’s quite the opposite.........., in fact. Wolves are cooperative hunters, skilled at negotiating within their own social networks....... It’s just that even after being raised by humans, wolves simply do not see humans as potential social partners..... Dogs, however, rapidly take a social approach to solving each problem they are given...... In one sense, this is a remarkable example of tool use..... In the case of dogs, humans are the tools, and the dogs the tool-users..

DOGS TRAINING HUMANS
scientific american.com



Sometime between fifteen and thirty thousand years ago, probably in the Middle East, the long, protracted process of domestication began to alter the genetic code of the wolf, eventually leaving us with the animals we know and love as domestic dogs. While there are several different theories as to exactly how dog domestication began, what is clear is that there were some wolves who were less fearful of humans than others. Over time, those wolves were incorporated into early human settlements. Perhaps humans and early dogs learned to hunt cooperatively – both species hunt primarily by outrunning their prey – or perhaps early dogs instead learned that they could avoid hunting by scavenging on the leftovers of human hunting parties. Whatever the initial reason for the incorporation of wolves into human society, there their descendents still remain.

By sharing an environment with humans, dogs left behind their ancestral environment and found a place in a new one. No longer would they have to hunt to eat; humans would come to provide for their care and feeding. It is probably no accident that the relationship between dogs and their owners mirrors the attachment relationship between parents and their children, behaviorally and physiologically. Indeed, humans who have strong bonds with their dogs have higher levels of oxytocin in their urine than those with weaker bonds.

But it isn’t only the source of their food that changed as wolves became dogs; their entire social ecology changed. Instead of sharing social space primarily with other wolves, dogs came to treat humans as social partners. This is one of the critical differences between a domesticate and a wild animal that is simply habituated to the presence of humans. Domestication is a genetic process; habituation is an experiential one. Domestication alters nature, habituation is nurture.

Several years ago, scientists at Eotvos University in Budapest wanted to determine whether the social-cognitive differences among dogs and wolves was primarily genetic or experiential. To do this, they hand-raised a group of dog puppies and a group of wolf pups from birth, resulting in roughly equivalent experiences. Any differences between the two groups’ social cognitive skills, then, would be attributable to genetics.

Wolf and dog pups were raised by humans starting four to six days after birth, before their eyes had fully opened. For the first months of their lives, the wolf and dog pups were in close contact with their human foster parents nearly twenty-four hours per day. They lived in the homes of their caregivers and slept with them at night. They were bottle-fed, and starting on the fourth or fifth week of life, hand fed with solid food. Their human caregivers carried them in a pouch so that the wolf pups and dog puppies could participate in as much of their daily activities as possible: traveling on public transportation, attending classes, visiting friends, and so on. Each of the pups had extensive experience meeting unfamiliar humans, and at least twice a week, they were socialized with each other as well as with unfamiliar adult dogs. The guiding principle for the hand-rearing paradigm, according to the researchers, was based not upon competition or aggressive interactions, but “to behave rather like a mother than a dominant conspecific.”

Would wolves, having been raised by humans, demonstrate social-cognitive skills that approached the sophistication of dogs? Or is social-cognitive aptitude encoded in dogs’ genes, a direct result of domestication?

In one simple task, a plate of food was presented to the wolf pups (at 9 weeks) or to the dog puppies (both at 5 weeks and at 9 weeks). However, the food was inaccessible to the animals; human help would be required to access it. The trick to getting the food was simple: all the animals had to do was make eye contact with the experimenter, and he or she would reward the dog with the food from the plate. Initially, all the animals attempted in vain to reach the food. However, by the second minute of testing, dogs began to look towards the humans. This increased over time and by the fourth minute there was a statistical difference. Dogs were more likely to initiate eye contact with the human experimenter than the wolves were. This is no small feat; initiating eye contact with the experimenter requires that the animal refocus its attention from the food to the human. Not only did the wolf pups not spontaneously initiate eye contact with the human experimenter, but they also failed to learn that eye contact was the key to solving their problem.

A second experiment, conducted when the wolves and puppies were between four and eleven months old, found similar results. Each animal was presented, in different testing sessions, with two different types of tasks. First, each of the wolves and dogs was trained to retrieve a food reward by opening a bin (in one task) or pulling a rope (in the second task). Then, after they had mastered the task, they were presented with an impossible version of the same problem. After attempting to retrieve the food, the dogs looked back towards the human caregivers. The wolves did no such thing. Dogs spontaneously initiated a communicative interaction with the humans earlier, and maintained it for longer periods of time, than did the human-reared wolves, who all but ignored their human caregivers.

How much time passed before the animals would look back towards their human caregivers?

Both dogs and wolves were equally adept at learning the two tasks, indicating that there were no group differences in terms of motivation or physical abilities, but large differences emerged when given impossible problems to solve. In both impossible tasks, as well as in the earlier eye contact experiment, dogs instinctively shifted their attention away from the food and towards the humans. Despite the fact that they had been fully socialized, the wolves treated each of the situations as physical problems rather than social ones. Only rarely did they ever attempt to engage in a communicative problem-solving interaction with a human. It’s not that wolves are unintelligent; it’s quite the opposite, in fact. Wolves are cooperative hunters, skilled at negotiating within their own social networks. It’s just that even after being raised by humans, wolves simply do not see humans as potential social partners. The dogs, however, quite rapidly took a social approach to solving each problem they were given. In one sense, this is a remarkable example of tool use. Only in this case, the humans were the tools, and the dogs the tool-users.

Gácsi M, Gyori B, Miklósi A, Virányi Z, Kubinyi E, Topál J, & Csányi V (2005). Species-specific differences and similarities in the behavior of hand-raised dog and wolf pups in social situations with humans. Developmental psychobiology, 47 (2), 111-22 PMID: 16136572

Miklósi A, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Gácsi M, Virányi Z, & Csányi V (2003). A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Current biology : CB, 13 (9), 763-6 PMID: 12725735

About the Author: Jason G. Goldman is a graduate student in developmental psychology at the University of Southern California, where he studies the evolutionary and developmental origins of the mind in humans and non-human animals. Jason is also Psychology and Neuroscience Editor for ResearchBlogging.org and Editor of Open Lab 2010. He lives in Los Angeles, CA. Follow on Google+. Follow on Twitter @jgold85.

Ralph Maughan's THE WILDLIFE NEWS always has interesting and informative articles.............Beautiful picture of a Lynx in Washington State from this past winter and commentary on how Idaho had two documented Lynx sightings.............Will the Feds or the state take steps to create critical habitat there for a recovery of our "big pawed" cat to begin?

Lynx captured in Washington State.
the wildlife news


By Ken Cole On April 30, 2012 · The Wildlife News received this photo recently of a lynx captured in eastern Washington State. I just thought people might be interested in seeing just how big and beautiful they are. This one is obviously under the influence of tranquilizers.

After a long time without any being documented there have been two Canada lynx documented in Idaho this year but they are not officially part of Idaho’s fauna and their habitat has not received any special designation in Idaho despite being protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Glimpsing a bear in Connecticut was once unlikely because bears were extirpated from the state by the mid-1800s..... Since then, bears have made a comeback......... Their return is due, in part, to the regrowth of forestland throughout the region following the abandonment of farms during the late 1800s............... Beginning in the 1980s, the DEP Wildlife Division had evidence of a resident black bear population............. Since then, annual sighting reports have increased dramatically with wildlife officials estimating that there are roughly 500 bears currently calling the "nutmeg state" home

Black Bear Season: CT Sightings and What You Should Know
patch.com

Nine black bears have been spotted in Newtown in the past year. Here are some tips to keep you safe when out in the woods.

In the past year, Connecticut residents have reported nearly 2,500 black bear sightings in state. In Newtown, the DEEP website notes nine sightings since April 29, 2011. The number of sightings may increase this year as bears come out of hibernation and their population growth continues to increase, stated the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) in a press release.

The DEEP reminds residents to take steps to reduce contact and conflicts with black bears. "These steps become increasingly important as bears emerge from winter hibernation looking for food and because the state's bear population is growing," the press release detailed.

The growing population is estimated by the DEEP at about 500 bears.

Glimpsing a bear in Connecticut was once unlikely because bears were extirpated from the state by the mid-1800s. Since then, bears have made a comeback. Their return is due, in part, to the regrowth of forestland throughout the region following the abandonment of farms during the late 1800s. Beginning in the 1980s, the DEP Wildlife Division had evidence of a resident black bear population. Since then, annual sighting reports have increased dramatically, indicating a rapid increase in the bear population. With the number of bears increasing in the state, it is important for residents to learn the facts about black bears and how to coexist with them.

So far this spring, the DEEP said they have already received several reports of bears traveling through populated areas and coming into contact with humans and domestic animals. "When bears emerge from their winter dens, natural foods are scarce and, as a result, bears are often attracted to human-provided foods found near homes."

Susan Frechette, DEEP Deputy Commissioner stated, "Most conflicts occur when bears are attracted close to homes by food sources that are easy for them to access, such as bird seed, garbage, and residue on grills. This can lead to more serious problems, including habituated bears that have lost their fear of humans."

Household garbage should be stored in closed garages or sheds, states the DEEP or in cases where that can not be done, trash receptacles should be cleaned with ammonia to discourage pilfering by bears and other animals. Other items that can attract bears include pet and livestock foods, sweet or fatty food scraps in compost piles, and fruit-bearing trees.

Although uncommon, the DEEP states that bears may attack and kill livestock, such as sheep, goats, pigs, and fowl. "They also can destroy unprotected beehives. One of the best precautions for these problems is well-maintained electric fencing. Other recommendations for livestock growers include moving animals into sheds or barns at night, keeping feed contained, keeping animals as distant from forested areas as possible, and using guard dogs."

Tips to Avoid Problems With Black Bears:

1. NEVER feed bears.
2. Take down, clean, and put away birdfeeders by late March. Store the feeders until late fall. Clean up spilled seed from the ground.
3. Store garbage in secure, airtight containers inside a garage or storage area. Double bagging and adding ammonia to cans and bags will reduce odors that attract bears. Periodically clean garbage cans with ammonia to reduce residual odor. Garbage for pickup should be put outside the morning of collection and not the night before.
4. Avoid leaving pet food outdoors at night.
5. Keep barbecue grills clean. Store grills inside a garage or shed.
6. Avoid placing meat scraps or sweet foods in compost piles.
7. Protect beehives, livestock, and berry bushes from bears with electric fencing.
8. Supervise dogs at all times when outside. Keep dogs on a leash when walking and hiking. A roaming dog might be perceived as a threat to a bear or its cubs.

If you encounter a bear while hiking, the DEEP recommends that you make your presence known by yelling or making other loud noises. "Usually, a bear will move from an area once it detects humans. If a bear does not retreat, slowly leave the area and find an alternate hiking route."

Though the bear population continues to swell and be of concern to some residents, prevention and tolerance are necessary for coexisting with bears in Connecticut, states the DEEP. "It is important to remember that although black bears regularly travel near houses, they are rarely aggressive toward humans and can usually be frightened away by making loud noises, throwing sticks, or spraying with a garden hose."

In the rare instance when a bear appears to be aggressive toward people, residents should contact the DEEP Wildlife Division's Sessions Woods office at 860-675-8130

State Wildlife Agencies routinely tell residents who report seeing animals considered extirpated in the state that "they must have seen something else".......Two weeks ago a call came into the Indiana Dept of Natural Resources claiming that a Black Bear was seen in Northwest Indiana............Six years ago Conservation Officers confirmed a Bruin had been seen in the State but that officially, no Black Bears reside in Indiana..........Neighboring Ohio has a small recovering Bear population as does neighboring Kentucky,Illinois and Michigan..........If Indiana has some mixed woods habitat, expect the Black Bears to find their way back

Indiana DNR won't believe black bear sighting

ndystar.com

BY:Skip Hess

Bob Haskin said he was excited when he made a call to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources on April 20 to report his sighting of a black bear in Northwest Indiana.The person taking the call wasn't as excited, according to Haskin."He said, 'There are no black bears in Indiana.' I told him that I know a black bear when I see one and that it definitely was a black bear," Haskin said in a recent phone interview.But the DNR listener insisted again, "There are no black bears living in Indiana.""I said, 'Well, then, I saw one vacationing in Indiana.' I don't think he appreciated that very much," Haskin chuckled.

Haskin, who lives near Winter Haven, Fla., said he was driving north on I-65, south of the Roselawn exit, when he first saw the bear at the 220-mile marker on that sunny Friday afternoon."It was 1:05 p.m. and it came from the west and was headed east. It didn't seem like it was scared or was running from something," he said. "It was just galloping across the northbound lane. It looked over its right shoulder and kept the same cadence and speed."Haskin estimated the bear's weight at between 200 and 250 pounds. He said he is certain other travelers saw what he saw because some vehicles slowed and pulled slightly off the road.

Haskin wished the DNR had taken him seriously, he said, because once the bear crossed the interstate, it went into a plowed field and would have left tell-tale paw prints."It really doesn't matter to me," he said. "I'm concerned that kids may be out playing in the woods, or someone could be hunting (and be confronted)," he said.

If this story sounds familiar, you might recall a Feb. 19 column about a man who wanted to know if there were black bears in Indiana. A Jackson County resident insisted he saw a black bear on his property.

DNR spokesman Phil Bloom said conservation officers had indeed confirmed a black bear report six years ago.Bloom said a man had a video of a black bear in his backyard near Muscatatuck National Refuge in Jackson County. He said that how the bear got to Jackson County and where it went after the sighting is unknown.

The DNR has confirmed that mountain lions and wild (feral) boars are in Indiana.
Oh," Haskin said when told about the Indiana boars, "you don't want those!" He explained that they are damaging property all over Florida. "Once you get them, you can't get rid of them."

As for the black bear sighting, I believe Haskin.Why not? The Ohio Department of Natural Resources estimates there are about 100 adult black bears (some sows with cubs) in that state.
Wild black bears also are in Illinois, Michigan and Kentucky

The University of Alberta, Canada has been studying the 10 year "boon/bust cycle historically associated with Canada Lynx and their primary prey, the Snowshoe Hare............This study evaluates if either climate change or barriers to dispersal is the main biological mechanism behind the breakdown of southern lynx cycles......... If seasonality is the primary driver, the analysis will provide evidence of how climate change is altering essential population cycles............ If dispersal is the primary driver, habitat/dispersal maps identifying barriers to movement through key lynx habitats will be created

UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LYNX RESEARCH

• Home
• Lynx Ecology
• Project Description
• Lynx DNA- You Can Help!
• Project Area
• Project Results
• Current Field Season Photos
• Field Videos
• More Photos
• Lynx Tracks
• Lynx Links
• Sponsors
• Donate Now!
• Contact Us

A bit about the project...

This research focuses on the biological mechanisms driving population cycles of the Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis) with specific attention paid to habitat fragmentation and climate change hypotheses. Persistent and regular population cycles produced by specialist predators and their prey are a rarity in nature, but Canadian lynx and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) display such a pervasive 10-year cycle. A recent breakdown in southern lynx cycles and falling population numbers in the US highlight threats to the integrity of boreal forest habitats, and may portend more widespread consequences of continued boreal forest fragmentation. An alternative hypothesis is that global warming is eroding the seasonality that maintains the 10-year cycle.

Our research objectives are to 1) regionally document the 10-year cycle break down at southern latitudes, 2) evaluate if barriers to lynx gene flow (hence dispersal) exist on a latitudinal gradient using genetic data, 3) use a sample of radiocollared lynx to create a model of habitats that facilitate dispersal, and 4) examine timeseries dynamics relative to climate data to evaluate the seasonal-forcing hypothesis.

 

 

Understanding dispersal trends is essential for managing habitat fragmentation and protecting habitat connections in southern Alberta and British Columbia. Likewise, climate change might be rapidly dismantling population cycles in the boreal forest. The persistence of lynx near the Canada-US border may depend on either quality of dispersal connections with the core Canadian population or stemming the progression of climate change before it permanently alters the species' dynamics. This study will help wildlife managers maintain an important predator in southern Canada. This research will also be used to inform forestry and other resource extraction industries, the trapping industry, and the collective knowledge of population ecology.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The location of radiocollar fieldwork is the Central Eastern Slopes area of the Rocky Mountains. This foothill and mountain forest region is in the area surrounding and west of Nordegg, Alberta at Latitude 52.29 N Longitude 116.05 W. The Central Eastern Slopes area is densely forested. However, the region is primarily provincial crown land and therefore supports natural resource use including forest production, trapping and outdoor recreation, and oil and gas well sites.

This temperate coniferous forest area contains a mix of white spruce (Picea glauca), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) with paper birch (Betula papyrifera), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), and balsam fir (Abies balsamifera). Lodgepole pine dominates drier locations and black spruce (Picea mariana) occurs in wet locations. Higher elevations contain subalpine forests consisting of lodgpole pine, alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii). The vegetation is a mix between boreal and cordilleran sometimes described as the Montane Cordillera ecozone. The landscape contains steep slopes as well as rolling hills, typical of mountain foothill areas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTIVES-
This proposal focuses on mechanisms driving population cycles of the Canadian lynx in southern portions of their range by evaluating the predator dispersal versus the seasonal-forcing hypothesis (see lynx ecology page). The objectives are to 1) regionally document the 10-year cycle break down at southern latitudes, 2) evaluate barriers to gene flow (hence dispersal) across a latitudinal gradient, 3) use radiocollared lynx to create a robust GIS-based model of habitats that facilitate dispersal into the southern portions of the species’ range, and 4) examine timeseries dynamics relative to climate data to evaluate the seasonal-forcing hypothesis.

METHODS-
To quantify the breakdown of the lynx cycle on a fine scale (objective one) trappers’ harvest data will be compiled for Alberta, BC, Yukon, and NWT from the Hudson’s Bay Company Archives prior to1950 and provincial registered fur management areas (traplines) between 1950 and 2006. We will aggregate harvest data among adjacent areas having similar dynamical patterns based on Moran’s I (Moran 1950) and analyze the north-south gradient using timeseries methods organized spatially in a geographical information system (GIS).

Evaluating dispersal barriers using genetics (objective two) will require gathering tissue samples during the 2007-08 Alberta and BC trapping seasons (small samples of skin removed harvested lynx pelts). We will use 20 microsatellite loci effective in genotyping lynx to quantify the geneflow across southern portions of the range (Campbell & Strobeck 2006, Schwartz et al. 2002, Rueness et al. 2003). Genetic structuring of the population will be characterized using STRUCTURE software. We will analyze isolation at the individual level using spatial autocorrelation procedures (Cushman et al. 2006).

 

 

The third step involves radiocollaring a sample of 20 lynx in the Central Eastern Slopes area of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta, collaborating with Washington Fish and Wildlife’s efforts to collar 5 lynx in Washington east of Ross Lake, and utilizing a lynx movement dataset collected previously by NWT Fish and Wildlife in the northern range. The Rocky Mountain sample constitutes the southernmost tip of the core population where we expect the greatest potential for dispersal through the Kettle River Mountains towards the BC-Washington border as well as down the Rocky Mountain foothills towards the Alberta-Montana border. We will characterize and map dispersal habitats by estimating a GIS-based step selection function (SSF) to characterize habitat selection by lynx in the three locations (Fortin et al. 2005). The SSF/dispersal map will identify movement barriers throughout the region (Chetkiewicz et al. 2006). Landscape-based movement barriers will be compared with gene-flow barriers for a holistic understanding of lynx movement in the region.

The final step (objective four) involves examining seasonality metrics calculated from the past 50+ years of data from Alberta, BC, Yukon, and NWT weather stations. One important trend to explore is the change in quasi-periodic atmospheric circulation patterns, such as positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) trends associated with warmer winters, higher winter rain ratios, and early snowpack melt (Mantua et al. 1997, Kitzberger et al. 2007). We will be exploring which combination of climate metrics might be the key biological component(s) of seasonality for the lynx-hare cycle, including the winter PDO index, temperature, snow pack depth, snow water equivalent, and season length (Stenseth et al. 1999, Case & Peterson. 2007, Hurrell 1995, Hebblewhite 2005). Preliminary studies indicate that snow type might particularly influence lynx hunting efficiency (Stenseth et al. 1999). Once an adequate index is ascertained, we will estimate correlation between my a priori expectations of reduced seasonality and deterioration of southern lynx cycles.

SIGNIFICANCE-
Persistent and regular population cycles are a major force creating a periodic rhythm in boreal ecosystems (Krebs et al. 2001). Localized examples of a dampened southern lynx cycles in Alberta and British Columbia as well as declining populations in the US highlight threats to the integrity of forests in western Canada and adjacent Border States. These changes have direct implications for the consequences of increasing fragmentation and climate change in the boreal forest (Schneider 2002). This study evaluates if either climate change or barriers to dispersal is the main biological mechanism behind the breakdown of southern lynx cycles. If seasonality is the primary driver, my analysis will provide evidence of how climate change is altering essential population cycles. If dispersal is the primary driver, we will have habitat/dispersal maps identifying barriers to movement through key lynx habitats. This will allow me to model scenarios in which industry might modify their practices to maintain persistent lynx populations and dispersal connections throughout the range. The project results will inform the sustainable use of Canada’s forest habitats for functioning ecological processes and long-term economic viability in Alberta and British Columbia.

It is good to know that Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is planning to implement a study that will determine where and how Bison will roam the state in the future.............I hope that science will prevail and that this is not a ruse for ranchers to manipulate results that will state that the threat of brucelliosis to cattle means no further wild Bison herds allowed anywhere but in National Parks and Indian reservation lands............We have discussed many times that there is no proven occurrence of this disease jumping from Bison to cattle.............We do see Brucelliosis jumping from wild elk populations to domestic livestock..........You will never hear anyone in the Rocky Mtn States calling for restrictions on Elk herds because hunters would go ballistic..............So why the Bison "hate"????? Because Ranchers are afraid that more Bison means less public lands to graze cattle at bargain basement federal subsidized rates...........HYPOCRISY AT PLAY ALWAYS IN OUR COWBOY STATES WHEN ANYTHING REGARDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS UNDER DISCUSSION...........TAKE THE MONEY FROM THE FEDS BUT HATE THE FEDS FOR ALLOWING ALL WILDLIFE TO FLOURISH AT ECOSYSTEM SERVICES POPULATION LEVELS

FWP to consider free-ranging bison in management study

greatfallstribune.com

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks announced Friday plans to move forward with study of a long-term conservation plan for bison that will evaluate a range of alternatives from establishing free-ranging bison that could be hunted to doing nothing.

Meetings in eight cities will be conducted to gather comments beginning May 14 in Missoula and ending May 24 in Bozeman. In between, meetings will be conducted in Kalispell, Glasgow, Billings. Helena, Miles City and Great Falls.

The meetings are the first step in crafting a long-term bison conservation and management plan by FWP, said Arnie Dood, a Bozeman-based FWP native species biologist and bison specialist.
Dood promises a transparent process and says the state has no preconceived idea of what direction to take.

"The real issue is, 'Where are we going to go with bison in Montana?'" Dood said. "The question being, 'Is there a place to manage bison as wildlife in Montana?' That's what this process is intended to do."

Eight public meetings, all from 6-9 p.m, are scheduled:
-- May 14, Missoula, Holiday Inn Downtown.
-- May 15, Kalispell, Red Lion Hotel.
-- May 16, Glasgow, Cottonwood Inn.
-- May 17, Helena, Montana Wild Center.
-- May 21, Billings, Holiday Inn Grand.
-- May 22, Miles City, BLM conference room.
-- May 23, Great Falls, Townhouse Inn, 1411 10th Ave. S.
-- May 24, Bozeman, Holiday Inn on Baxter.
See Saturday's Tribune for more information.

While there is some disagreemet among scientists about why Grizzly and Polar Bears are increasingly coming together, hybridizing to create "Grolar Bears",,,,,, the bottom line is that the last time this occurred was hundreds of thousands of years ago when the planet was signifcantly warmer.............We learned last week that Griz and Polar Bears are distinct species, both the offspring of a common ancestor...............It seems evidient to me that our fossil fuel buring society is responsible for the hybridizing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a good,,,,, or bad,,,,or benign outcome for the two bear species?????

A polar bear? A grizzly? No it's a grolar bear, a pizzly

"GROLAR BEARS" BECOMING MORE COMMON IN THE ARCTIC

thespec.com

Hunters from the village of Ulukhaktok, N.W.T. knew there was something different about the polar bear they were stalking but couldn't put their finger on it.It was far more aggressive than anything they were used to. They even called off the dog for fear the large white mammal would kill it.

On closer inspection after it was shot and killed, it turned out not to be an ordinary polar bear but one that was a cross between a polar bear and a grizzly, unofficial known as "grolar bear" and "pizzly.""The first hybrid we had ever seen around here a few years ago was pretty nasty. They (hunters) usually stalk the polar bear using a dog but this bear was so aggressive they couldn't use a dog on them. It was too dangerous," Robert Kuptana, who lives in the western Arctic hamlet of about 400 people on Victoria Island, told the Toronto StarFriday.

Over the years as grizzly bears have wandered further north following the Caribou herd, the hybrid variety has become more common, the 69-year-old Kuptana said, adding that just 10 days ago, a hunter from the village, Pat Ekpakohak, and his two grandchildren killed three of them.
"One is pure white, one is partly dark and the other is fairly dark brown and the top part is white," said Kuptana, who took a picture of the skins. Polar bear and grizzly habitat overlaps in the western Canadian Arctic around the Beaufort Sea. Grizzlies are known to occasionally to go out on the ice in the spring to feed on seals killed by polar bears, according to the Canadian Wildlife Service.

A DNA test conducted by the Wildlife Genetics International in British Columbia on a bear shot and killed by an American hunter in 2006 confirmed it was a hybrid, making it the first documented case in the wild.Ian Stirling, a research scientist and polar bear expert with the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton, said in an interview with National Geographic that the hybrid was "definitely not" a sign of climate change.

Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta, is in Ulukhaktok, where he is doing polar bear research and saw the skins from the three hybrids.
He told the Star, "It seems to me they are getting a lot more common, at least in this part of the
Arctic."

"I think the story here . . . is that the number of grizzly bears on Victoria Island has increased quite markedly over the last 20 years. And part of that might be related to changing environmental conditions up here. It's a bit warmer and it's quite clear the grizzly bears are well-established here now and, of course, there is a healthy population of polar bears around," he said.

David Paetkau, president of Wildlife Genetics International, based in Nelson. B.C., told the Star it was a "quirky" development that can't be totally explained and that he was only interested in talking about substantive work that his firm does.

Across so many regions of North America, Moose populations are shrinking rapidly due to warming temperatures increasing the densities of winter ticks that weaken Moose capacitiy to overcome disease and wolf attacks...........Yet in the National Parks of Canada, Moose populations are above carrying capacity and the vegetation of the Parks is being decimated............Not only hunting in the Parks,,,,,,,,,,,,but increases in Wolf populations and restoration of Pumas(where they historically roamed) are needed to bring the Parks back into equilibrium

Parks Canada planning bigger Gros Morne moose hunt

CBC News

 

A moose runs in front of a car as it crosses the road in Gros Morne National Park

Parks Canada is expanding the moose hunt that began in western Newfoundland's Gros Morne National Park last year.

Five hundred moose licenses were issued in the park in 2011. This year, hunters will be allowed to take up to 900 animals.

Park Resources Manager Peter Deering said the larger cull is necessary because moose are still damaging the area's vegetation.

It's the time of year when moose sightings peak. What do you think about moose?

Let's find a way to live with them
Wipe them out. They don't belong here
Drivers should be more careful
We need more information. Is the moose population shrinking or growing?

VoteView Results
Share This

"What we are trying to do here is get the population down to allow the recovery of the forest, so it's a bit of a different approach," he said.
The hunting area will also be larger in 2012. It will include everything below the Long Range Mountains.
Deering said snowmobiles will be permitted inside park boundaries during the cull because animals will be taken from a large, remote area.
"As long as snow conditions are suitable for snowmobiling, it will be allowed," he said.
Furthermore the coming season will also be longer. It's set to begin in mid-October and run until Jan. 27.
Increasing the number of moose licences to 900 doesn't guarantee that 900 animals will be killed — Deering said fewer than 200 moose were removed from the park last year, even though 500 moose licences were issued for hunting within it.

Efforts to curb wolf numbers in the Yukon have proven to be a dismal failure...... Not poison, nor trapping, nor aerial shooting has made any more than a temporary dent in wolf numbers......Today, Yukon's wolf population remains essentially unchanged from what it was believed to be 10,000 years ago...... The territorial government believes there are approximately 4,500 wolves.......For wolf-killing to be effective, it would need to be repeated every few years(LIKE WHAT IS UNFOLDING IN THE ROCKY MTNS AND IS IN THE PLANNING STAGES FOR THE GREAT LAKES STATES)............Bob Hayes,Yukon's noted wolf Biolgist thinks the best way to regulate Wolves is to"Leave them alone"..... Just leave them alone........... "Things will work themselves out"........And if some type of Wolf control is needed to allow moose numbers to grow, he'd like to see this only done on a small scale, near affected communities only..........

Lose wolves, lose the wilderness

By John Thompson;yukonnews.com

A wolf is shot with a tranquilizer dart as part of the Yukon government's radio-collaring program. Yukon's wolf population is one of the most studied in the world.

Bob Hayes has some advice for Yukoners who want to revisit the wolf cull: don't bother.
"It's completely not worth it," he said.Hayes worked as Yukon's wolf biologist for 18 years, until 2000. During that time he helped design and deliver Yukon's wolf control programs.

His conclusions? It's costly. It often doesn't work, and when it does, its effects are always temporary.
And, ultimately, it cheapens the Yukon by transforming wilderness into a glorified meat farm.

Hayes has, quite literally, written the book on the subject: Wolves of the Yukon. It's a decade in the making, and, by luck, its release later this month coincides with a review of the territory's wolf management plan.

Hunters have long lamented low moose, caribou and sheep populations in the Yukon. Hayes is familiar with the usual circle of blame.Resident hunters blame First Nations. First Nations blame outfitters. Outfitters blame resident hunters. And everyone blames wolves, whose hunting prowess has inspired admiration, fear and resentment.

Yet our many efforts to curb wolf numbers in the territory have proven to be a dismal failure. Not poison, nor trapping, nor aerial shooting has made any more than a temporary dent in wolf numbers.
Today, Yukon's wolf population remains essentially unchanged from what it was believed to be 10,000 years ago. The territorial government believes we have approximately 4,500 wolves - one of them for every eight of us.

Wolves take too many moose and caribou calves, is the common refrain. Yet wolves are just doing what wolves have done here for thousands of years.During that time, moose and wolves have co-evolved, shaping each other's migration and reproduction patterns. Hayes suspects the Yukon timber wolf's reliance on moose is the reason why our wolves are among the biggest in the world.

In wildlife management circles, wolf "control" is almost always a euphemism for kill. But we've tried it all, and none of it has made a lasting impact on wolf numbers.Between 1982 and 1997, Yukon's wildlife branch conducted broad scale wolf killing programs to boost the number of moose, "at great cost to taxpayers," according to Hayes. During that time helicopter crews shot 849 wolves in the Coast Mountains, Finlayson and Aishihik.In the Coast Mountains, moose numbers remained stagnant. Hayes believes that's mainly because grizzly bears, rather than wolves, were killing most calves. In both Finlayson and Aishihik, moose populations exploded - an apparent success. But, once wolf control stopped, wolf numbers bounced back within just four years.

As a result, Finlayson's moose and caribou populations spiked, then spiraled back to where they started within a decade.Aishihik saw similar results. The killing of 189 wolves allowed moose numbers to double and caribou to triple. But, within a decade of the wolf cull, these populations had sunk yet again.

The lesson learned? For wolf-killing to be effective, it would need to be repeated every few years. Hayes questions whether Yukoners have the stomach, or deep pockets, to keep it up. He clearly remembers how Yukon's wolf kill program drew the condemnation of animal rights protesters across the country, who converged on Whitehorse."They burned tires on the Alaska Highway, chained themselves in the Yukon legislature, damaged our aircraft, followed me to work, and stalked my house," he writes. "I had a real concern and fear for the lives of my family and crew. I lost a close friendship with a good family over wolf control that remains a raw memory years later."

If we don't shoot wolves, then what? Hayes sees more promise in a wolf sterilization program he helped run in Aishihik at that time. But this, too, would be a costly solution to maintain.

Haye's preferred solution? "Leave them alone. Just leave them alone. Things will work themselves out."

But, if Yukoners must kill wolves to allow moose numbers to grow, he'd like to see this only done on a small scale, near affected communities. To this end, Hayes offers a practical suggestion: end Yukon's "archaic trapline ownership restrictions that give a few trappers the exclusive right to trap areas around communities, or not."

Yukon has low moose populations compared to elsewhere in Canada for good reason. "The Yukon is a complete wilderness," Hayes writes. Part of that means having to share big game with predators.
Hayes looks at how Alaskans have driven bears and wolves away from Anchorage and Fairbanks for many decades. The result: a dramatic rise in the number of moose nearby, of up to 100 moose for every 100 kilometres, compared to the Yukon average of 15 moose over the same area.
That's a sevenfold increase in density. It's also replacing wilderness with something else.
"It is wildlife farming," writes Hayes. "Is that what we want in the Yukon?"

This is not merely a philosophical concern. Tourists flock to the Yukon in large part because of the allure of its wilderness. "They may not want to meet these dangerous beasts close up, but most tourists revel in simply knowing that grizzly bears and wolves exist and they could be just around the next bend in the river," Hayes writes.

Yukon has one big advantage over Alaska, as Hayes sees it: there are far fewer of us. Alaska's population is nearly 700,000, while Yukon's population is close to 35,000.It also helps that Yukon's wolves are among the best-studied in the world. To date, scientists have tracked the movements of nearly 400 of them with radio collars."If we can't do it here, we can't do it anywhere," said Hayes.
But that will likely require an adjustment of our expectations. Hayes frequently hears a telling expression in hunting circles: "I didn't get my moose."There's nothing wrong with the desire to live off of local meat. "But it's not your moose," said Hayes.

"We can't all get a moose all the time, because natural predators are going to regulate that population."Hayes, it should be noted, is no tofu-munching animal-rights radical. He hunts. He's never shot a wolf, but he knew when he accepted his government post that a big part of his job would be helping to kill them. He accepted the job because it was a chance to learn more about these fascinating animals.

Agree with Hayes or not, Wolves of the Yukon ought to be required reading for anyone who plans to weigh in on the wolf control debate, which should heat up soon.
.

What works best in rewilding a former logging road in our woodlands????,,,,,Is it letting nature take its course or "recontouring" it using large machinery and returning the road to its original physical state?............The data indicates that in just 10 years after recontour, key soil properties like soil organic matter, carbon, and nitrogen were not different from never-roaded reference areas........... By comparison, abandoned roads proved to have very little soil nitrogen or carbon........... Carbon and nitrogen are critical nutrients that control forest productivity and are necessary for making forest ecosystems more resilient to climate change......What is perhaps more important than soil is water...... Even after 50 years of regrowth, abandon roads remain compacted............. During storm events, abandon roads store very little water in the soil and produced more runoff, while recontoured roads behave just like natural ground

'Ground Breaking' Research in Road Restoration
y2y.net

When you have the opportunity to restore an old, abandoned logging road what do you do with it? Let nature take its course and allow the vegetation to grow over it? Or do you dig it up and give nature a boost? And which one of these practices will restore the area to its original state?

These are the questions Y2Y's US Conservation Director, Rebecca Lloyd, is asking in her research dissertation, and her results are staggering.

Digging is expensive. Is it worth the cost?

Lochsa Road Reclamation

There are two commonly used road recovery practices in forest management. Abandon a road and let the vegetation grow back on its own; or 'recontour' it using large machinery and return the site to its original physical state.

In the past ten years, the United States spent millions of dollars attempting to reclaim legacy logging roads that were no longer needed. Many resource managers chose to recontour a road because from past experience the practice seemed to provide many benefits; but they had no research to compare the two methods.

Resource managers were under pressure to show that recontouring produced ecological benefits that justified the greater expense. This spurred them to ask Rebecca to investigate the issue.

Accelerating restoration by thousands of years

Comparisons of road restoration treatments show dramatic differences.

"Preliminary results," explains Rebecca, "suggest that recontouring methods return major ecological functions to the same state as never-roaded reference areas. This means recovery is accelerated by thousands of years."

10 Years Later

The difference may, in fact, be in the ground. The data indicates that in just 10 years after recontour, key soil properties like soil organic matter, carbon, and nitrogen were not different from never-roaded reference areas. By comparison, abandoned roads proved to have very little soil nitrogen or carbon. Carbon and nitrogen are critical nutrients that control forest productivity and are necessary for making forest ecosystems more resilient to climate change.

What is perhaps more important than soil is water. Even after 50 years of regrowth, abandon roads remain compacted. During storm events, abandon roads store very little water in the soil and produced more runoff, while recontoured roads behave just like natural ground.

Implications for Forest Managers

Rebecca's work has the potential to be one of the most influential studies on road recovery long-term forest management practices. As climate change stresses our forested ecosystems through reduced snow packs and more rain-on-snow events, restoration will become an increasingly important solution to mitigate the consequences.

Rebecca reminds us that roads can have devastating consequences on habitat, wildlife and watersheds.

"Our communities depend on these forested areas to provide water, reduce the number of floods, and provide high quality fish and wildlife habitat. By using one road recovery method over another," she continues, "we can effectively give nature the boost it needs to regain its natural state and alleviate the potential effects of climate change."

             

The practice of using the dogs to protect sheep from Pumas, Coyotes and Black Bears is not only encouraged in Marin County, California,,,,, in some cases it's subsidized...... "There is no other program like this that we are aware of in the country," said Camilla Fox, the executive director of Project Coyote, a national nonprofit headquartered in Larkspur. "We believe it sets a model for other communities to emulate and tailor to their needs."...............California banned the use of steel-jawed traps and poisonous collars in 1998........ Over the next two years, the county formed the Marin Livestock and Wildlife Protection Program, which essentially used the money once paid to federal trappers to help ranchers build fences, night corrals and lambing sheds, and purchase guardian dogs...............The result is that over the past decade, sheep losses to Coyotes have been reduced by 64%.....................

Ranchers shift from traps to dogs to fight coyotes Peter Fimrite San Francisco Chronicle Big Otis, a Great Pyrenees dog, watches over the sheep at Barinaga Ranch in Marshall in unincorporated Marin County. Marcia Barinaga was hustling around making cheese, answering phone calls and handling business at her ranch in Marshall the other day, but the real work was going on in the lush green fields, where most of her 230 sheep were grazing. There, spread out in several pastures among the woolly flock, were four big, white dogs, seemingly lolling about as if they didn't have a care in the world, but, in rural western Marin County, they are the difference between success or failure, life and death.The 80- to 115-pound dogs - Oso, Big Otis, Shep and Gordy - are Great Pyrenees, one of the most dedicated livestock guardian breeds in the world. Their presence reflects a radical change in the livestock industry, which has, for a century, relied almost exclusively on traps, bullets and poison to control canine predators. The practice of using the dogs is not only encouraged in Marin County, in some cases it's subsidized. "There is no other program like this that we are aware of in the country," said Camilla Fox, the executive director of Project Coyote, a national nonprofit headquartered in Larkspur. "We believe it sets a model for other communities to emulate and tailor to their needs." Marin's nonlethal predator control program is important statewide, Fox said, especially now that the first gray wolf since 1924 has been tracked to California. The wolf, known as OR7, is now in southern Siskiyou County. Barinaga says that without her Pyrenees, probably neither the sheep nor Barinaga Ranch would survive."There is a mountain lion that has been seen on our ranch quite a bit, and we hear the coyotes every night," Barinaga said. "I see coyotes on the ranch all the time. But we have lost no sheep at all to predators." Llamas work, too More than two dozen ranchers in the rugged coastal hills and prairies of rural Marin have purchased guardian dogs and, in some cases, llamas to protect their flocks over the past decade, a time that coincided with a huge increase in the number of coyotes in the county. Unlike coyotes, wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 states by a campaign of trapping, shooting and poisoning. They were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and Idaho starting in 1995 and are now thriving. Fox said the powerful agricultural and hunting lobbies have embarked on a national campaign against wolves, winning approval for hunting and trapping in Idaho and Wyoming and pushing for more control measures, such as aerial gunning, at taxpayer expense. "There is still a very deeply entrenched vilification of predators and a view that they are either vermin to be exterminated or trophies to be hung on a wall," said Fox, who acknowledges that wolves are tougher than coyotes but contends that aggressive guardian dogs can still be effective. "We need a new paradigm in the way we coexist with native carnivores," she said. Dogs as saviors The dogs in Marin have reduced predation and, according to the sheep ranchers, saved an industry that 14 years ago was struggling mightily just to remain viable. "They've been a savior," said Joe Pozzi, a fourth-generation rancher who grazes sheep and cattle in Sonoma and Marin counties and has six dogs guarding them. "I think most ranchers would agree that if it wasn't for the guard dogs that we all have, the sheep industry would look a lot different right now." Things were different in West Marin as recently as 1996. At that time, federal trappers were in charge of capturing and killing coyotes.Guardian dogs were discouraged out of fear that they would be captured in traps or killed by poison laid out for the predators. In 1996, a furor erupted in Marin County over the proposed use of livestock protection collars - containing poison - on sheep. At that time, coyotes were killing hundreds of lambs and ewes every year. The collars, which contained bladders full of lethal Compound 1080, or sodium fluoroacetate, would poison the coyotes when they attacked. It was around this time that Fox created the Marin Coalition for California Wildlife and began pushing the county to adopt nonlethal predator control methods.Fox, who co-wrote the book "Coyotes in Our Midst," said she believes the nationwide effort to exterminate coyotes has actually caused their population to increase by disturbing the pack hierarchy and, in turn, allowing more coyotes to reproduce. In a pack, only the alpha coyotes mate. When the alpha is killed, all the animals disperse and breed. Banning traps, poisons The effort became a movement in 1998 when California banned the use of steel-jawed traps and poisonous collars. Over the next two years, the county formed the Marin Livestock and Wildlife Protection Program, which essentially used the money once paid to federal trappers to help ranchers build fences, night corrals and lambing sheds, and purchase guardian dogs. The program now has 26 ranchers employing 37 guard dogs and 31 llamas to protect 7,630 animals on 14,176 acres, according to Stacy Carlsen, the Marin County agricultural commissioner. The number of sheep killed by coyotes in Marin has decreased steadily since the program began, Carlsen said. In the fiscal year 2002-03, 236 dead sheep were reported. In 2010-11, 90 sheep were killed, according to county records. The numbers have fluctuated over the years - 247 sheep were killed in 2007-08 - but very few ranchers suffer the kind of heavy losses that were common a decade ago. Records show one rancher lost 57 sheep in 2002-03. Last year, 14 of 26 ranchers in the livestock protection program did not have a single loss. Only three ranchers had more than 10. "For me. it has changed the whole outlook of raising sheep out here," Pozzi said. "It gives us a fighting chance."In addition to the dogs, which can cost $500 each, the program helped pay for 30 miles of fences, electrification, noisemakers, lights and motion sensors. The budget has nevertheless been reduced. It was $50,000 in 2001 and is now down to $20,000 a year, Carlsen said. 'My dogs are professionals' Besides Great Pyrenees, Marin ranchers also use Akbash, Maremma, Anatolian shepherds and komondors, all large breeds that instinctively bond with and protect sheep. "I like to say that my dogs are professionals. My sheep are the entire focus of their lives," Barinaga said. "They'll defend the sheep till their death if they have to."

Vegetation is important to both forest and stream ecosystems.For terrestrial wildlife, understory vegetation provides important habitat characteristics, which include but are not limited to, providing cover and security, habitat for prey, and a safe travel corridor.The lack of habitat found in dense second-growth forests or disturbed harvested sites can result in wildlife, such as deer, wolves, bears and cougars, coming into the margins of nearby communities......There has been a dramatic increase in large mammals and ungulates making their way into unnatural terrain over the last few years.We are currently experiencing a high volume of wolf activity in our neighbourhoods. This increase is relative to habitat degradation caused by industrial operations and development, and a lack of attention to areas affected by historical logging......Parks Canada wildlife biologist, Bob Hansen states, "As always I think it is food driven. If they have an abundant and dependable localized food source then their need to travel outside these areas diminishes significantly." We can support diverse and healthy ecosystems within our woodlands by increasing food availability, which will help keep our communities safe by working to limit predator and people interactions.

Habitat issues for local wolves

Westerly News; canada.com

Imagine walking into a grocery store and all the shelves and aisles are barren and bleak. Where has the food gone? Would you return to that store or would you look for your groceries elsewhere?

This is what it is like for the terrestrial wildlife of our coast when they are in some forests that were harvested between the 1950s and 1980s, using historical methods like clearcutting.

Many of these areas, like parts of the Kennedy Flats, were later replanted as second-growth forests with Douglas-fir.Unfortunately, Douglasfir is better suited to well drained soils and is considered offsite and ecologically inappropriate for most of the Kennedy Flats.n these second-growth forests, trees usually grow close together and are dense, with little to no gaps in the canopy.

This canopy cover limits the amount of light reaching the forest floor, which inhibits plant growth and diversity, creating a dark, un-vegetated forest.

Wolves in mature forest

Vegetation is important to both forest and stream ecosystems.For terrestrial wildlife, understory vegetation provides important habitat characteristics, which include but are not limited to, providing cover and security, habitat for prey, and a safe travel corridor.The lack of habitat found in dense second-growth forests or disturbed harvested sites can result in wildlife, such as deer, wolves, bears and cougars, coming into the margins of nearby communities.

Grizzly in mature riparian habitat

Central Westcoast Forest Society (CWFS) and Pacific Rim National Park Reserve are working together to restore the second-growth forest in the riparian area.The riparian zone is the area adjacent to streams. It offers many benefits to wildlife, from providing travel corridors for safe movement between habitat types to promoting the dispersal of wildlife populations.

Although it can take hundreds of years for a forest to acquire old-growth characteristics, there are silviculture treatments like thinning, creating snags and gaps, which can accelerate the process. For 15 years, CWFS restoration crews have used silviculture treatments and planted native vegetation and conifer seedlings to rebuild the biodiversity of the riparian areas that feed wildlife.The goal is to revitalize these areas to resemble the neighbouring old growth forest and to allow nature to do the rest. As vegetation returns, the hope is that species such as deer, wolf, bear and cougar will follow.

Puma in established grassland

There has been a dramatic increase in large mammals and ungulates making their way into unnatural terrain over the last few years.We are currently experiencing a high volume of wolf activity in our neighbourhoods. This increase is relative to habitat degradation caused by industrial operations and development, and a lack of attention to areas affected by historical logging.

Parks Canada wildlife biologist, Bob Hansen states, "As always I think it is food driven. If they have an abundant and dependable localized food source then their need to travel outside these areas diminishes significantly." We can support diverse and healthy ecosystems within the park by increasing food availability, which will help keep our communities safe by working to limit predator and people interactions.

Local organizations, including Central Westcoast Forest Society, complete valuable work as they restore forest and stream habitats by hand and saw. The resulting replenishment of the forest may provide an increase to the 'groceries' local wildlife need to thrive.

 

Make your way to the Northern Hemisphere WOLF & CARNIVORE CONFERENCE on October 23-24, 2012 in Thompson, Manitoba Canada........Noted Wolf Biologists from Canadian, American and Russian Universites will be keynote speakers.............Information on how to sign up in the Post below

Wolf & Carnivore Conference

WOLVES! We know that many people around the world love wolves, and others hate them. In Thompson, Manitoba, the Wolf Capital of Canada, we are taking the position that wolves are "An Ecological and Economic Asset".

 Located in the middle of Canadian wilderness, human-wolf conflicts here are rare. Wolf sightings are common. In this regard, we will be releasing a Wolf Economy Discussion Paper very soon.

To further open-minded discussion of the role and value of wolves, we invite the world to attend a Northern Hemisphere WOLF & CARNIVORE CONFERENCE on October 23-24, 2012.

Keynote speakers from Canadian, American and Russian universities and wildlife societies will attend.

Four major Themes will be presented covering wolf science and wolf eco-tourism.

A Call for Abstracts has been made.

An exciting, pre-conference, optional charter tour will be offered to Churchill, Manitoba – the Polar Bear Capital of the World - during polar bear migration season.

Full details, Registration Forms, Call for papers, Travel information, website info, etc. is shown herein.  Due to logistics, there may be a LIMIT of only 100 attendees.

Please mark the dates on your calender and budget. Stay tuned. Our website will provide new information as it becomes available.

Contact us through wolfconf@yahoo.com with questions or to get on our email list. We respect your privacy and will not give or sell your address to anyone else!

PRINT LEAFLET which inlcudes a REGISTRATION FORM:

•Wolf Conf BrochL4

« Wolf park to be part of new Boreal Discovery Centre

0

Is everyone in Wyoming of one mindset regarding Wolves and other large carnivores?.........Do the ranchers and hunting groups "own" all of the print and electronic media so that all you hear is a diatribe of anger, hate and innacurate claims about how are top predators are the reason for all that is wrong in the lives of Wyoming residents?..........Ms. Peterson and Mr. Pelzer should be embarrassed at their "journalistic" effort in their WOLF REGULATIONS PASS IN WYOMING, MOVE TO FEDS article posted below.......They state that the Wyoming Wolf Mgmt plan would allow for 52 Wolves to be killed in northwest Wyoming between mid October and the end of February......Not true guys as you dance around the fact that Wolves will be able to shot or trapped year round without limits as your state plan will classify the animals as "predators"............and of course the folks who oppose such draconian killing are described as "threats to the plan", without explaining what those people truly object to,,,,,,,,,,They object to the plan allowing the disruption of packs throughout the year,,,,,,,,,, the fact that there will be killing of Wolves during early breeding season as well as during pup rearing months...............the fact that this type year round hunting and trapping is unecessary and unwarranted considering the fact that of the 1.3million cattle living in Wyoming, Wolves killed 585 of them last year(0.045% of the total herd)............Can Wyoming residents get past the fact that you hate the federal Government(exceept when they are sending you agriculltural subsidy $$ or charging you virtually nothing to graze your cattle on public lands) and instead focus on getting taxes lowered and fixing the deficit------not making wolves and other carnivores the scapegoats in pursuing those goals...........High taxes, shortage of jobs and high deficits have nothing to do with WOLVES!

Wolf regulations pass in Wyoming, move to feds

rapidcityjournal.com; Christine Peterson and Jeremy Pelzer

One of the most contentious animals in Wyoming moved one step closer to being hunted, with very little fanfare.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission on Wednesday approved a hunting season for wolves that would begin Oct. 1, if the animals are removed from the endangered species list. It also approved rules on how to manage the wolves in and outside of the hunt areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could decide on the listing by Oct. 1.

The plan would allow 52 wolves to be harvested this fall in northwest Wyoming. It also would create three types of management areas:A trophy game management area that would be most of northwest Wyoming outside of federal lands such as Yellowstone National Park. Here wolves could only be hunted according to hunting regulations.

A seasonal trophy game management area in northern Lincoln and Sublette counties where wolves would be trophy animals from Oct. 15 to the end of February. The rest of the year they would be predators similar to the rest of the state.

A predator area, which would be all of the state outside of northwest Wyoming and the Wind River Indian Reservation where wolves would be classified like coyotes.

Rick Kahn, a wildlife biologist with the National Park Service, wants the commission to consider creating smaller hunt areas around Grand Teton National Park if the packs that live in the park are facing too much hunting pressure. It's not something the commission needs to change right now, but something it can consider in the future, he said.

Some questioned the requirement to report a wolf kill in the hunting area within 24 hours to the statewide hotline instead of the standard 72 hours for other trophy carnivores.Officials chose 24 hours because they were not sure how many and how early wolves would be killed, said Mark Bruscino, large carnivore management section supervisor with the Game and Fish Department. That time frame could be changed in the future.

Representatives from some groups, including the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said they supported the plan.The management plan now rests with the Interior Department.Gov. Matt Mead said he expects the department to publish a final rule by Oct. 1, in time for the fall hunting season.

The biggest threat to the wolf plan now is likely the prospect of lawsuits by environmental groups claiming the deal would decimate Wyoming's wolf population to the point that it's no longer viable.

U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., tried in vain last year to insert a clause in an Interior appropriations bill to ban any legal challenges to the wolf deal. Congress passed a similar clause in a budget bill last year to prohibit lawsuits against wolf delistings in five other Western states.

Mead said Wednesday at a media conference in Cheyenne that he and Wyoming's congressional delegation are working to try again for a Wyoming no-sue clause, though he said he wasn't yet sure if they would draw up another budget clause or introduce stand-alone legislation.

Mead urged environmental groups to think twice about suing, saying they should recognize that the plan is scientifically sound, has been agreed to by top Interior officials, and has been worked on for more than a year with input from a wide variety of groups.

"It is not just something that we came up with that is just good for Wyoming," Mead said. "It's an agreement by a lot of parties who have worked on it."

I am reminded that St. Louis was the farthest West settlement at the beginning of 19th century America,,,,the "jumping off" point for Lewis & clark and all the Mountain Men both pre and post their epic exploration..............We now have our 24th verified Puma sighting(picture below) in Missouri since 1994...........If somehow a female Puma would make her way from South Dakota into the "Show-Me-State", she would have her pick of eligible Puma bachelors..........From there a breeding population could begin to make a comeback and St. Louis at the beginning of the 21st century could be the "jumping off" point for Pumas to push East, in the spiriit of exporation,,,,,,,,,,only this time to the Atlantic Ocean, seeking to restore a "Wild America 200 years after we all but blinked out the East of its wild heritage

Another mountain lion sighting confirmed in Missouri

By The Associated Press

 Jamesport, Mo. —

Another mountain lion sighting has been confirmed in Missouri, this time in the north-central section of the state.

Grundy County, Missouri Puma on trailcam as of 4/2/12

Locations of Pumas in Missouri since 1994

The state Conservation Department said Tuesday that a trail camera photographed a mountain lion in Grundy County on April 2. The department confirmed the sighting this week.

Conservation officials say it's Missouri's 29th confirmed mountain lion sighting since 1994. Earlier this year, two mountain lions were confirmed in Reynolds County in southeast Missouri.

The department says it appears that mountain lions in Missouri are largely young males moving in from western states, and that there's no evidence the animals are breeding in Missouri.Mountain lions are protected by law, but Missouri allows people to protect themselves and their property if they feel threatened.

I have been to the Towson, Maryland region hundreds of times for my business and know how dense the whitetail deer population is in this part of the world..........Nice to know that a reader of the Baltimore Sun newspaper has taken the time to think through the fact that a deer hunting season is only part of the solution to thinning the deer to levels that allow for the Maryland woodlands to regenerate back to a degree of their historical beauty and diversity...............Patrick Sheridan writes: "I think there is a better, more environmentally-friendly alternative to bring the deer population down to a manageable level"...."I'm talking about introducing wolves into the Loch Raven reservoir — in particular, the red wolf (canis rufus)"..........."Just as the growing black bear population is helping to bring Western Maryland back its natural heritage, red wolves could be just the thing for this issue"

Letter: If we want to curb deer population, why not a natural predator   baltimore sun.com 

I am writing concerning the letter by Dr. Camay Woodall in the April 18 edition of the Towson Times ("Deer problem around Towson is threat to property, and safety"), concerning the number of deer in the Towson area.I fully agree with Dr. Woodall that the deer population is too large and presents hazards to people's health and the environment.

While allowing a limited hunting season in order to cull the population is a good idea, I think there is better, more environmentally-friendly alternative to bring the deer population to a manageable level.I'm talking about introducing wolves into the Loch Raven reservoir are — in particular, the red wolf (canis rufus).

The Red Wolf and the Eastern Wolf are one and the same

  

---

Some still live in North Carolina, where they prey upon white-tailed deer. Being one of the more endangered species of wolves, it would be a big boost for the area, showing the rest of the state how much Towson cares about its natural bio-diversity, while at the same time bringing the deer population down.
As an added bonus, their nocturnal ululations would warm the hearts of Towson area residents lucky enough to live adjacent to or near the Loch Raven woods.

Just as the growing black bear population is helping to bring Western Maryland back its natural heritage, red wolves could be just the thing for this issue.

Patrick Sheridan
Lutherville