“Bears are an umbrella species. Each bear you take out of the population creates social disruption. It affects not only the bear population but the entire ecosystem in a negative way"--Kathryn Bricker of the advocacy group, NO BEAR HUNT NEVADA.........On the other side of the ledger is the Nevada Dept. of Conservation feeling that the Bears are fairly "common" with 300 to 400 in the state..................So far 14 Bears have been killed in the current hunt taking place in the state

Black Bear Hunt Spurs Objections « CBS Las Vegas

Black Bear Hunt Spurs Objections

The state says 6 of the 14 bears killed so far were west of Highway 395 in northern Nevada. Resident complaints in the Lake Tahoe Basin and along popular hiking trails on Mount Rose Summit put those areas off limits to this year’s hunt The state says 10 of the 14 bears killed so far are males, the largest weighing 500 pounds. Five bears have been killed in the Pine Nut Mountains.The hunts began after experts told state officials there was an adequate bear population to sustain a hunt.

 outside biologists who “do not feel that we have an adequate population or have proven so, that we can safely hunt in a sustainable way. So there is conflicting expert opinion”, she says.She says there is no ecological justification for the hunts, she added. “Bears are an umbrella species. Each bear you take out of the population creates social disruption. It affects not only the bear population but the entire ecosystem in a negative way.”She cited polls indicating most Nevadans do not favor bear hunts.And she says a number of game hunters have also voiced opposition, but their voices have faded under pressure.“The organized hunting groups developed a slippery slope argument, where if we give any ground on this they’re going to want to take more, and this has to do with the larger picture of hunting rights. We don’t see it that way, but they have been successful in intimidating those who earlier spoke out to not do so anymore.”

In the northeast, pregnant female Black Bears tend to den up around the 2nd week of December...........Unbred Females do the same around Christmas .................Young males often are the last to retire because they have the greatest incentive to keep feeding—so they can grow to compete with mature males......... In New England, young males can still be active until mid-January..............For some reason a bear builds a new den each year even if the old one remains in fine condition............. They will build anew even if the den offers less protection............... Such was the case in Michigan not long ago, when a female bear spurned her cave of the previous winter, built a new den above ground, but then fell prey, with cubs, to wolves...............Female bears are likely to become at least somewhat active in winter............ They give birth in late January or early February, and they clean and nurse their cubs............ Their 1 to 3 cubs are hairless and weigh less than a pound when born, but they weigh 3-to-4 pounds by the time they leave the den, which seems impressive given the fact the mother doesn’t eat or drink over winter. (Nor does she defecate or urinate.) ..... Females may weigh more than 200 pounds before winter, but by spring they are likely to have lost 60 or 70 of those pounds

Bears Fattening Up for Winter’s Slumber | Northern Woodlands Magazine

Bears Fattening Up for Winter’s Slumber

by Li Shen 

Illustration by Adelaide Tyrol

Conventional wisdom says that if you put up a bird feeder on Nov. 1 and take it down on April 1, you won’t have a problem with marauding bears, because they hibernate between those dates. After a bear’s visit in mid-November two years ago, I assumed put-up date should be rescheduled to late November. A month later, almost on New Year’s Day, I was astonished to hear that a large bear had just been seen on a porch a few miles from my home in Thetford Center, VT.

What gives? Why aren’t bears in bed by then?

Pregnant females are first to hibernate, reports Ben Kilham, of Lyme, NH, a wildlife researcher, who has studied black bears extensively in the Northeast. He says they don’t begin slumbering until around the second week of December. Next, he says, are the unbred females, who start hibernating around Christmas. The hibernation schedule of adult male bears is harder to predict, because they generally stay active as long as food is available, or until forced to their dens by heavy snow or plunging temperatures.

Kilham says young males often are the last to retire because they have the greatest incentive to keep feeding—so they can grow to compete with mature males. In our area young males can still be active until mid-January.

When they do call it a winter, where do they go? Many people probably envision bears hibernating in rocky caves. Bears certainly use caves or rock crevices if they exist within their home territories. But many bears here must look to other places for winter shelter.  They excavate dens under tree roots, or make their own protected cavities beneath tangles of fallen boughs. They spend time collecting leaves, branches and grasses to help insulate their winter quarters. Sometimes the female and her cubs from the previous winter work on the den as a team.

For some reason a bear builds a new den each year even if the old one remains in fine condition. They will build anew even if the den offers less protection. Such was the case in Michigan not long ago, when a female bear spurned her cave of the previous winter, built a new den above ground, but then fell prey, with cubs, to wolves.

Contrary to another popular belief, a hibernating bear is not comatose; it can be roused from sleep in mid-winter in several minutes. Nor does its body temperature drop substantially as is the case with smaller mammals, which must awaken at times during winter to eat and move about. A thick coat of hair and body fat allows a hibernating black bear to maintain a temperature of about 88 degrees F., about eight degrees lower than its summer temperature.

Female bears are likely to become at least somewhat active in winter. They give birth in late January or early February, and they clean and nurse their cubs. Their 1 to 3 cubs are hairless and weigh less than a pound when born, but they weigh 3-to-4 pounds by the time they leave the den, which seems impressive given the fact the mother doesn’t eat or drink over winter. (Nor does she defecate or urinate.)  Females may weigh more than 200 pounds before winter, but by spring they are likely to have lost 60 or 70 of those pounds.

Black bears in our region mate in June, and the females must put on as much fat as possible over the following six months to assure survival of both her and offspring. However, fertilized eggs do not implant in the female’s uterus and become embryos until November or December. This process of implantation apparently is disrupted if she hasn’t put on enough fat—which would help assure her survival, without cubs, over winter. This would explain why bear birth rates drop dramatically after lean summers.

To build fat, bears might travel miles in a single day to forage for berries, nuts, apples and other woodland plants.  They eat much and sleep little.

Black bears in our region face a special challenge: the growing fragmentation of forests by housing, commercial developments and highways, which can cut off their access to natural feeding areas and tempt them to try other food, such as sunflower seed. Not all homeowners with birdfeeders are as tolerant of bears as those in the Thetford neighborhood where I live. The last thing a homeowner wants is a bear coming to his or her house for food.

“A fed bear is a dead bear,” is an old saying that too often becomes a sad reality.

Li Shen is an adjunct professor at Dartmouth Medical School and a member of the Thetford conservation commission.

Glacier National Park is now estimated to house 600 Black Bears, about 1 per 2167 acres(and in the wooded best Black Bear habitat about 1 Bear per 1857 acres)..................In various other parts of the USA, a higher density of 1 Black Bear per 664-1000 acres is the norm(e.g. Arkansas, Georgia).............U.S. Geological Survey Scientist Kate Kendall feels that the Glacier density is solid considering that the 300 Grizzlies also share the Park terrain with the Black Bears

Researchers estimate 600 black bears in Glacier Park - Daily Inter Lake: Local/Montana

Researchers estimate 600 black bears in Glacier Park

By CHRIS PETERSON/Northwest Montana News Network

A trio of researchers recently concluded that Glacier National Park’s black bear population is about 600 — roughly one black bear for every 2,167 acres.

The study, conducted by U.S. Geological Survey scientist Kate Kendall and colleagues Amy McCleod and Jeff Stetz, is based on nearly 1,800 black bear hair samples collected during a 2004 grizzly bear DNA study.

Researchers gathered hair samples using “bear traps,” with a scent station used to attract bears inside a barbed wire fence that snagged their hair, or by attaching small pieces of barbed wire to rub trees. Both grizzly and black bears select trees they regularly like to rub on. DNA in the hair follicles was analyzed to identify species and sex as well as individual bears.

The study was initially designed to estimate the grizzly bear population in Glacier Park and the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem.

But Kendall eventually was able to secure enough funding to look at the black bear population in the samples that were gathered in the Park. This is the first scientifically validated estimate for the black bear population and density in the Park.

Kendall said the study shows that the Park provides good black bear habitat and noted that the numbers are significant because black bears are sharing the Park with about 300 grizzly bears. Most black bears also do a remarkably good job of avoiding the 2 million people who visit the Park each year.

When researchers removed areas of the Park not considered good black bear habitat, the density rose to a little more than one black bear per 1,857 acres. Black bears are generally not found in treeless and barren habitat. Black bears are much better at climbing trees than grizzly bears, which is one way they are able to elude the larger grizzlies that have been known to kill and eat black bears.

Kendall, who is now retired, continues to analyze bear hair data gathered exclusively from rub trees over the course of the past few years. The hope is to use that DNA evidence to determine population trends over time.

Currently biologists monitor population trends by capturing bears in traps, radio collaring them and then monitoring them to see how long they live and how many offspring they produce. A DNA study, if it proves valid, is easier on the bears as they’re never handled by humans.

Peterson writes for the Hungry Horse News.

So will Banff National Park in Canada be the next site of a free ranging 100% purebred Bison population?............. Parks Canada has this goal in mind and wants to make sure it brings best science to the reintroduction of Bison which have been missing from Bannff since the late 1880's.............The Plan calls for 600 to 1,000 bison as the target population starting with a five-year pilot project featuring 30 to 50 bison in the backcountry around the Panther and Dormer rivers on the east-central side of the park.......Lu Carbyn, an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta and retired research scientist for the Canadian Wildlife Service says bison reproduce at a rapid rate, raising questions about whether predators would be able to keep up a balance in the ecosystem........... "It's probably not likely to be the case"......... "Wolves would be the main predator, although grizzlies are a pretty formidable predator as well"...........With Bison known to move 50 kilometers when they share habitat with Wolves, once again the competing pressures from Ranchers who do not want to share their land with Bison come into play as Bison will(as happens in Yellowstone) not stay inside the Park year round.............There is no evidence that Bison cause Brucellosis(Brucellosis, or Bang's Disease, is commonly found in buffalo, elk and domestic cattle...... Cattle, specifically cows, are most susceptible to the disease and its effects however, and are prone to abortions, low milk production and even infertility when infected.............. Spread through contact with reproductive fluids or grass that is wet with such fluids, brucellosis is difficult to detect and even more difficult to prevent through inoculation)............So the Banff Park folks want to do everything possible to reintroduce the Bison while minimizing conflict with surrounding landowners

Bringing bison back to

 Banff 'not easy'

BY COLETTE DERWORIZ, CALGARY HERALD

Bison bull in Yellowstone National Park. 

Photograph by: Photo courtesy Harvey Locke , Handout

Plains bison roamed freely in the area along the
 Eastern Slopes of the Rockies for thousands of
years, until they were nearly wiped out by hunting
 in the mid-1800s. Now, there's only a few small
 herds across the country.

But wild, free-roaming bison could soon return to
 the backcountry in Banff National Park.

The reintroduction — which draws on Parks
Canada's long record of managing bison in national
 parks such as Elk Island, Wood Buffalo and
Grasslands — won't be easy. "It's an ambitious
 and a really exciting project, but it's complicated," 
says superintendent Dave McDonough. "We're
 adding a species that hadn't been here for 126 
years and we want to ensure what we do is 
done properly."

Banff National Park has been working on the
 proposal since 2010, when the park's
management plan called for the reintroduction
 of a breeding herd of plains bison into the front
ranges. Since then, they've been meeting with
 advocacy, tourism, recreational and environment
 groups, businesses, provincial and municipal
 governments, First Nations, bison and cattle
producers, and outfitters.

The proposal has received praise from Bison
 Belong, which has been advocating for the
reintroduction of the species."We believe it's
 a very important species culturally, historically
 and ecologically," says Harvey Locke, a board 
member with the Eleanor Luxton Historical 
Foundation.

But there are also outstanding concerns. 

The issues range from the financial sustainability 
of the project, the risk of bison wandering outside
 of the park's boundaries, the potential for
 transmission of diseases to wildlife and
 domestic animals, and the use of fencing.

The draft plan, released in September,
acknowledges those concerns.

It ultimately calls for 600 to 1,000 bison as
 the target population, but recommends
starting with a five-year pilot project featuring
 30 to 50 bison in the backcountry around
the Panther and Dormer rivers on the east-
central side of the park."You need to start 
these things small," explains Bill Hunt, manager
 of resource conservation with Banff National 
Park. "If we try to go too big too early with this
and fail, we'll never get another chance."

So, they'll begin with young bison in a large
 paddock during the winter and expand in the
spring into a new home range."The risks to 
health and safety, the risks to other users 
and the risks to our neighbours outside the 
park are all much reduced," says Hunt, 
noting fences and natural barriers will be
 used to discourage bison from wandering
 outside the park.

They will put up the fences before the
bison even arrive to see how they hold
up in the winter and whether they allow
other wildlife to pass through.

Fences will either work, or they won't
— and, according to experts, each
possibility presents its own set of concerns.

Lu Carbyn, an adjunct professor at the
University of Alberta and retired research
scientist for the Canadian Wildlife Service,
says bison reproduce at a rapid rate, raising
 questions about whether predators would
 be able to keep up a balance in the
ecosystem. "It's probably not likely to be
 the case," he says. "Wolves would be the
 main predator, although grizzlies are a 
pretty formidable predator as well."

Carbyn says it then becomes a management
 issue for Parks Canada.

"If you get into management, you might get into
 nothing but a glorified game ranch and that's
 really not what national parks are about," he
 says, noting it also becomes costly. "The
beauty of Banff is that it's a wilderness area
and, in wilderness areas, you have a flow of
 animals in and out of the system — not
inhibited by fences."

Furthermore, fences are not a guarantee
 of keeping the bison in the area if wolves
start to prey on the animals."They will," predicts
 Carbyn. "Bison have moved some 50 kilometres
 as a result of wolf predation."

It's precisely the concern of the provincial
government, which has spoken out about
the bison wandering out of the park. An
Alberta Environment and Sustainable
Resource Development spokeswoman,
 Carrie Sancartier, says they continue to
 work with the federal agency to address
those concerns.

Rancher Colin Kure, who is also with the
 Alberta Fish and Game Association, says
 he also doesn't believe the animals will
stay in the park.

"These bison will end up first on the Ya Ha
 Tinda and then it's just an overnight run
down the road into ranching country," he
says, suggesting parks officials won't be
able to handle the large animals. "A lot of
their talk about soft release and soft
hazing, it's a farce."Handling wild bison
 like that is like poking a grizzly bear with 
a stick. You are looking for trouble."

Parks Canada acknowledges the potential
issues.

"There's an old joke that you can herd a
 bison anywhere it wants to go," admits
Hunt. "Bison can get through just about
 any fence.

"If they are motivated because they don't
have enough food or resources, they'll go
anywhere they want to go. A key part of
this program is to accept that and
acknowledge that and make sure that
 we have few enough bison and good
enough forage so that they are satisfied
 where they are."

Hunt says they will be using small-scale
 prescribed burns to renew habitats and
ensure there's enough food before adding
 to the herd. All bison will have ear tags
and some will be fitted with GPS collars
 to keep an eye on their movements.

The draft plan, which has already
received more than 100 comments and
 will continue to receive public input until
Nov. 1, suggests the reintroduction is
 important for both education and
ecological restoration."They've been
gone for 130 to 150 years," says Hunt.
 "We've got a lot of time to get it right 
here and get them back on the land.

"There's nothing in this draft plan that
is a done deal," he adds.

Once the public consultation is complete,
 the plan will be revised and turned into
 an action plan. It would also be required
 to go through an environmental
 assessment before the final plan
is approved. No actual timelines
 have been set for the reintroduction.

cderworiz@calgaryherald.com

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

BRUCELLOSIS AND YELLOWSTONE

 BISON IN MONTANA

---

CONFLICT RESEARCH CONSORTIUM

Working Paper #95-2

By Emily Davies

Department of Sociology

University of Colorado, Boulder

published 1995

This paper was written with a small 
grant from the Conflict Resolution 
 Consortium, University of Colorado. 
Funding for the Consortium and its 
Small Grants Program was provided 
by the William and Flora Hewlett 
Foundation. The statements and ideas
 presented in this paper are those of 
the author and do not necessarily 
represent the views of the Conflict 
Resolution Consortium, the University 
of Colorado, or the William and Flora 
Hewlett Foundation. For more information,
 contact the Conflict Resolution Consortium
, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado,
 Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone:
 (303) 492-1635, e-mail: 
crc@cubldr.colorado.edu.

I. Summary Description

Currently, the state of Montana, in
conjunction with the federal government,
 has an interim-management plan that
allows for the killing of Yellowstone buffalo
 that wander outside the boundaries of the
 national park. Established mainly to keep
 brucellosis in check, the practice of killing
 these roaming bison has sparked great
controversy in recent years.

Brucellosis, or Bang's Disease, is
commonly found in buffalo, elk and domestic
 cattle. Cattle, specifically cows, are most
 susceptible to the disease and its effects
 however, and are prone to abortions, low
 milk production and even infertility when
infected. Spread through contact with
reproductive fluids or grass that is wet with
such fluids, brucellosis is difficult to detect
and even more difficult to prevent through
inoculation. This holds particularly true for
the wild, free-roaming Yellowstone bison,
which presently number more than 4,000
within the park -- the last truly wild bison
 found in North America.

 Scarcity of winter range is the only real
check on the Yellowstone buffalo, and thus,
 the animals have begun to wander north of
park boundaries in search of food.

In response to this gradual exodus from the
 park, the federal government and the state
 of Montana allow buffalo that cross park
lines and threaten to mingle with domestic
cattle or damage private property to be shot.
Although there are no documented cases of
 wild bison spreading the disease to cattle,
cattlemen support the shootings as they
seek to preserve Montana's brucellosis-free
status for the sake of their livelihoods and the
 state economy. The National Park Service
endorses the killings as a means to control
 the bison populations without contradicting
 their policy of natural management within
the park. 

II. Conflict History

Brucellosis was first discovered in North
America among Yellowstone buffalo as
early as 1917. Since 1935 it has been
estimated that the federal government
 has spent more than $1.3 billion on the
 disease, presumably on eradication efforts
 and research. While not a new concern,
the problem of brucellosis has recently
been complicated by the vast number of
buffalo within the park. But today's record
 population is in sharp contrast to the
animals' numbers at the turn of the century.

By the end of the 1800s, buffalo
populations were severely depleted in
 the West. Popular among Native
Americans as well as white settlers,
 the animals were widely hunted for
 their meat and skin. From 1896 through
1901 it was reported that bison numbers
 within Yellowstone ranged from a mere
 24 to 50, and still the animals were
 frequently poached. As park
management became more effective
and wildlife preservation laws were
 passed, the bison enjoyed greater
protection and soon began to flourish.
 Their numbers increased so much in
fact, that buffalo were actively managed
 by park rangers to keep populations in
check. Such killing of the animals ceased
 in 1966 however, when park policy changed
 and natural management was introduced
to the national park system. Since then,
bison numbers have soared to more than
 4,000, a number which many critics of
the Park Service contend is beyond
Yellowstone's carrying capacity.

With greater numbers of bison in
Yellowstone comes greater likelihood
 of brucellosis spreading to cattle put
 to pasture near park boundaries.
 Recognizing this threat and wanting
to maintain its newly declared
 brucellosis-free status, the state of
Montana instituted public hunting of
buffalo that wandered across park
boundaries by a strictly regulated
permit system in 1985. This plan
was soon abandoned due to
 massive public outcry however,
 when the 1988-89 hunting season
 saw nearly 600 bison killed. In 1991,
 the present interim-management
plan was established, which calls
for roaming buffalo to be shot by
federal or state government agents.
 More than 300 animals have been
killed this winter alone.

 There are no documented records

of Bison transmitting Brucelliosis

to Cattle

Porcupines have exceptional mating habits. In late autumn, when most rodents are bedding down for the winter or rushing to top off their winter caches, porcupines (usually solitary animals) begin seeking each other out.......... These unions can take place in the tree tops or on the forest floor, and are often accompanied by bizarre sounds............For a male porcupine intent on winning his mate, success requires patience, perfect timing, strength, and perseverance......... A female porcupine is only fertile for eight to 12 hours a year.......... During this time, she advertises her reproductive status with distinctively scented urine and vaginal mucus as she wanders her territory, about 20 acres, which she defends against other females.......... Males can roam up to 250 acres during mating season, an area about five times the size of their normal home range...............A porcupine can have a lifespan of anywhere from five to 30 years, during which the female spends 11 months of every year either pregnant or nursing.......... She has no years off for recovery.......... That’s one heck of a devoted mother..

Porcupine Courtship: A Raucous Affair | Northern Woodlands Magazine

Porcupine Courtship: A Raucous Affair

by Dian Parker 

Illustration by Adelaide Tyrol

In November, as the last colors of autumn are fading, the stark outlines of tree branches are revealed. During this time you might be lucky enough to see an occasional dark mass, looking from a distance like a burl. Recently, on a hike through a dense forest, I spied one such anomaly high up in a white ash tree. Walking closer, I saw that this shape was a porcupine. It seemed asleep. After circling the area looking for quills and other markings, I shuffled noisily away. When I turned back, the porcupine was heading further up the tree. The branch it clung to bent precariously as the wind picked up, but the tenacious climber hung on.

What was the porcupine doing up so high? It may have been foraging, although white ash bark is not a favorite porcupine food. It may have simply been taking refuge. Or maybe it was seeking some much needed peace and quiet after a wild night of mating.

Porcupines have exceptional mating habits. In late autumn, when most rodents are bedding down for the winter or rushing to top off their winter caches, porcupines (usually solitary animals) begin seeking each other out. These unions can take place in the tree tops or on the forest floor, and are often accompanied by bizarre sounds.

Porcupines whine, moan and grunt, and also engage in battle chatter, a strident sound made by clicking their teeth. During mating season, both males and females make these sounds, along with wails, shrieks, and siren-like screaming.

For a male porcupine intent on winning his mate, success requires patience, perfect timing, strength, and perseverance. A female porcupine is only fertile for eight to 12 hours a year. During this time, she advertises her reproductive status with distinctively scented urine and vaginal mucus as she wanders her territory, about 20 acres, which she defends against other females. Males can roam up to 250 acres during mating season, an area about five times the size of their normal home range.

The male follows the female’s olfactory trail to find her. Rival males may fight over a female for hours. They attack each other with their incisor teeth and razor sharp quills. (A porcupine is equipped with approximately 30,000 quills, a veritable stockpile of ammo).

These fights can result in serious injury and even death. Uldis Roze, author of The North American Porcupine, told me that he once interrupted a fight where one losing male was left hanging upside down at the very end of a branch. Another was missing an ear.

The victorious male is rewarded with the opportunity to mate. If the mating takes place in a tree, the male will nudge the female forward on her branch, sniffing to smell when she is ready. The female will make small, sharp, squawking noises as she inches away. This behavior may go on for days. When the female is finally receptive, the male approaches on his hind legs and tail, grunting in low tones. He sprays a heavy stream of urine over her body and head. She then elevates her hind quarters and curves her tail over her back, exposing the under surface of the tail, which has no quills. They may continue to have repeated copulations over several hours, interspersed with periods of cleaning and rest. Eventually, the female climbs on to another branch and screams back at her mate to end their union.

A female is pregnant for seven months and then gives birth to only a single baby, which weighs around one pound. Like cats, the young are wrapped in a caul that the mother must lick off immediately, for within an hour the baby’s quills begin to harden. Sitting upright on her tail and hind legs, the mother nurses her young while the baby coos, squeaks, grunts and smacks its lips. Nursing continues for up to 125 days. Along with the milk, the baby also consumes the early spring leaves of trees, often making little whirring noises, sounding much like a kazoo. While the mother forages up in the trees, the baby stays on the ground, sleeping under a rock ledge, log, or in the hollow base of a tree. They come together again at night.

A porcupine can have a lifespan of anywhere from five to 30 years, during which the female spends 11 months of every year either pregnant or nursing. She has no years off for recovery. That’s one heck of a devoted mother.

Dian Parker is a writer and naturalist living in the hills of Chelsea, Vermont.

Blog reader "L.B." weighing in on the seemingly aberrant theory that Dogs got domesticated by following Humans and dining on their hunting scraps and garbage heaps.............He agrees with another Blog Reader, Dave Messinio, who yesterday commented strongly on the common sense theory that it was man who followed Wolves because Wolves found it so much easier to kill prey than did early man...........And then likely, Wolf pup adoption by the hunter/gatherers occurred with these adoptees joining humans on hunting forays/moving of camp, etc, etc.............Thanks to both L.B. and Dave for their common-sense thoughts on the never ending debate on how Dogs evolved from Wolves

What Mr. Messinio suggests is the common sense theories that existed for years before they got supplanted by the "new" IDIOTIC notion dreamed up by Raymond Coppinger that dogs developed in early agriculture dumps scavenging from humans. How most everyone jumped on this new bandwagon has been a great, irksome peeve to me, mainly because there is ZERO real evidence to back it up(it is just someone's "notion", not even worthy of the term "theory" in my opinion!).

 AND, it must ignore and/or sweep under the rug mounds of archaeological, anthropological, DNA, and modern evidence regarding wolves, dogs, and humans involved with the phenomenon! I read Coppinger's book, and was APPALLED at the total ignorance regarding wolves, dogs(especially hunting dogs!), and ancient and modern hunter-gatherers that utilized wolves or dogs to assist in hunting, EONS before any agriculture! I could go on and on regarding the ENORMOUS holes in this poorly thought out notion! Having kept and raised and hunted with all manner of canines, including a pack of wolf hybrids, I can verify with personal experience that getting tame, human-raised wolves to cooperatively hunt with you is NO PROBLEM!

 The PROBLEM, in this modern era, is to try to PREVENT them from hunting anything and everything, like cattle, sheep, housecats, poodles, etc.! Which, of course, is a problem ancient hunter-gatherers did not have! Also, ANY BASIC STUDY of Anthropology reveals that humans throughout history adopt all manner of baby animals-- where ALL of our domesticated animals originated; wolf pups would actually be one of the EASIER ones!

 Historical accounts of American Indians and Eskimos have only further verified this. And there are PLENTY of really modern accounts of people raising wolves and the amazing associations they have had--the problems they encountered were caused by MODERN CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT the wolves being "savage" or "treacherous" or "undependable".

 It is NOT wise or easy to raise/keep wolves in captivity in modern times(ancient hunter-gatherers did't keep them as "captives" anyway), but if you remove all the modern problems(tempting livestock, deadly highways, trigger happy neighbors, etc.) it is still possible to experience this most amazing symbiotic relationship that produced our wonderful modern dogs! Luckily, the Coppinger nonsense "theory" is finally dying a deserved death....L.B.

Another "thumbs up", this time for Chris Anderson, WASHINGTON STATE'S DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE biologist who states--"“Practically anywhere we have natural spaces, our suite of landscapes of built natural environments and greenbelts, coyotes are or will be there".......... "They are never going away"............ "He wants people to consider that because coyotes are not a species we can eliminate (nor should we), we should accept their presence".......... "That’s not to say that coyotes can’t be problematic, only that we do our best to live with them".........."We need to make a cultural shift to accepting coyotes and other wildlife as a part of our urban lives"........... "After all, would you rather live in a place devoid of life, or a place where people and animals coexist?"...... "There’s no utopia and we’ll always have a few clashes, but if you see a coyote, maybe think urban wildlife before you immediately jump to troublesome vermin"

Coyotes: not the problem

by Brendan McGarry
The Capitol Hill Times 

A coyote at Seattle’s Union Bay Natural
 Area. Brendan McGarry / The Capitol Hill Times

So there you are on an early morning walk with the dog. You see an animal slinking across the road ahead of you and think, “someone’s dog got out.” You do a double take, because that’s not a domestic dog, that’s a coyote. What’s your immediate thought? Trouble. This isn’t just a made up scenario, it’s a situation that’s been reported many times in Seattle, even in our own Interlaken Park.

Urban coyotes exist in Seattle, even on Capitol Hill, because of people. Before people of European descent arrived, they stuck to open plains, the shrub steppe of Eastern Washington, while gray wolves dominated the forest and mountains. As people moved in and eradicated wolves, coyotes were able to fill a new niche. Intelligent and omnivorous, with plastic behaviors, allowing them to shift their activities to night, they’ve done an excellent job of following people around, often unnoticed. 

Chris Anderson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s District 12 Biologist, has a vested interest in educating people to live peacefully with wildlife, it’s his job. “Practically anywhere we have natural spaces, our suite of landscapes of built natural environments and greenbelts, coyotes are or will be there. They are never going away,” Anderson said. He wants people to consider that because coyotes are not a species we can eliminate (nor should we), we should accept their presence. That’s not to say that coyotes can’t be problematic, only that we do our best to live with them. 

While they are certainly wild animals, worthy of a respectful distance, coyotes aren’t an inherent threat to people. They are not major vectors for diseases humans can contract (though dogs are at risk), nor are attacks common. There are only three documented coyote bites in Washington State, the first in 1996, compared to approximately 100 annually from dogs. Plus, most coyotes are happy to avoid interactions with people. The Cook County, Illinois Urban Coyote Ecology and Management project, which focused research on urban coyotes in Greater Chicago, demonstrated that animals “exhibited strong spatial and temporal avoidance of people” and went about their business with little conflict or notice. Anderson also noted, “The research has shown than the presence of the animals aren’t a problem, but more often people are.” 

Clashes with wildlife typically occur when we don’t follow the rules. Leaving out trash or food waste and feeding pets or other wildlife outdoors all can cause problems. While coyotes are happy to eat rats and mice, they are also opportunistic, a reason they’ve been so successful. Any habituation to humans is problematic and our pets often pay the price. While there’s little to keep outdoors cats safe from predation (besides keeping them indoors), we can keep our dogs on leash (and are also legally obliged to do so). This minimizes potential interactions, because while a coyote actively avoids people, a loose dog can easily come face to face with a wild relative. We care a lot about our pets, and understandably when they are predated upon or injured, we want retribution.

However, while problem coyotes do exist, removal is a final option. Trying to eradicate populations can actually cause more problems. Coyotes live in territorial family groups, killing an alpha or removing a territorial group (merely because someone decided they didn’t like them around) can actually open up areas to transient animals that are often young or naive. These coyotes may not know to avoid people and take more risks. Seeing a bold animal repeatedly in your yard or scavenging your trash isn’t normal, so if you continually find yourself encountering one, you might want to seek advice from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Lethal action, while an option, is last on a long list of solutions and can be done by permit only.

From where I stand, it’s pretty amazing that coyotes live in the middle of a city and that people can see them in the Arboretum, Interlaken Park, or St. Mark’s Greenbelt. Anderson agrees, suggesting that we need to make a cultural shift to accepting coyotes and other wildlife as a part of our urban lives. After all, would you rather live in a place devoid of life, or a place where people and animals coexist? There’s no utopia and we’ll always have a few clashes, but if you see a coyote, maybe think “urban wildlife” before you immediately jump to “troublesome vermin.”     

Thanksgiving "cheer" for South Carolina's Sean Poppy who is the SAVANNAH RIVER ECOLOGY LABORATORY OUTREACH PROGRAM COORDINATOR.............While Sean is not accurate in his conclusions about Coyotes shrinking Deer numbers through Fawn depredation(many states in the northern section of the USA continue to see increases in Deer populations despite robust Coyote populations being present), we appreciate his open-mindedness in spreading the gospel about the good that Coyotes bring as it relates to rodent control as a top down Carnivore in South Carolina.............Even with his science backround, he previously saw Coyotes as varmints and pests............After rescuing an injured "pup", he did a 360 degree turn and has taken up the cause of preaching tolerance and co-existance with our "Wily" population

Link to the story: http://www.aikenstandard.com/article/20131128/AIK0101/131129422/1007

Scooter helping people learn to appreciate coyotes

• 
  

STAFF PHOTO BY DEDE BILES Sean Poppy holds Scooter the coyote, the wild canine which he rescued along the highway.

NEW ELLENTON — Coyotes would have a hard time winning a popularity contest in South Carolina. Many people fear them or think they are pests. Hunters don't like them because they prey upon fawns, causing the deer population to decline.

“I used to be like everybody else; I thought coyotes were bad,” said Sean Poppy, who is the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory's outreach program coordinator.

• 

But after Poppy rescued a starving and dehydrated male coyote pup more than a year ago and named him Scooter, his opinion about the animals changed.

“Now I have an appreciation for coyotes,” Poppy said. “They eat a lot of insects and rodents, and they eat dead animals. They're also very good at adapting to changing environments.”

Scooter makes regular appearances in Poppy's wildlife education presentations at schools and other places. With Poppy's arms wrapped around him, Scooter stands or sits quietly, giving scores of children and adults their first up-close look at a coyote.

“Some of them think that he's beautiful,” Poppy said. “I've gotten notes from people saying, 'I was kind of scared when you brought him out, but then I wasn't because he was so calm.'”

Poppy hopes that his audiences will understand coyotes better after he provides them with information about Scooter and wild canines in general.

“I try to talk about some of the good things that coyotes do because you hardly ever hear about those good things,” Poppy said. “It's unfortunate that they eat a lot of deer, but they're not mean and vicious animals. The wild ones are going to run away from you when they see you. They're only going to come up to you if they're rabid or something else is wrong.”

Poppy found Scooter in May 2012 while returning to the Ecology Lab from a presentation in Georgia.“I was driving on Highway 125, and I could see an object that looked like a piece of trash blowing across the road,'” Poppy said.

As he got closer, Poppy realized what he had spotted was a small animal in peril. But even though speeding cars and a semitrailer truck passed over it, the tiny creature survived and crawled off the road into some tall grass.

Concerned that the animal had been injured, Poppy stopped and went looking for it.“He was sitting perfectly still, and it took me awhile to find him,” Poppy said. “He was in really bad shape. There were blisters on his belly because he obviously had crawled over an anthill and had been bitten. His lower end was bloody from urinating blood because he was dehydrated.”

At first, Poppy thought Scooter was a very young domestic dog that looked a little unusual, but it didn't take him long to realize the baby creature's true identity.

Poppy's sister, Tara Poppy, is a veterinarian, and she helped her brother save Scooter's life. After the coyote's health improved, Poppy decided he wanted to try to turn Scooter into an education animal even though co-workers warned him it would be dangerous.

“They told me, 'That animal is going to grow up and turn on you; he's going to rip your face off,'” Poppy said.But Poppy was determined to carry on, so he got a permit from the Department of National Resources that allowed him to keep Scooter at his house, and he had the young coyote neutered.

“I sort of raised him in a way from the very start by thinking about how I would use him in my education programs,” Poppy said. “I would pick him up and put him on the crates that I had to transport animals. I also got him involved in a routine where he was outside in the day in a pen and in a kennel in my garage at night. When I took him out in the morning, he would get a treat, and when I put him in the garage at night, he would get a treat.”

So far, Poppy's plan for Scooter has worked out well.“He's not a pet; he just tolerates me,” Poppy said. “But he behaves great when I take him into a classroom. He sits on top of his crate, he looks around and he yawns. I'm glad that I've had the opportunity to learn from him and share what I've learned with other people.”

Dede Biles is a general assignment reporter for the Aiken Standard and has been with the newspaper since January 2013. A native of Concord, N.C., she graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Blog Reader Dave Messineo providing some excellent "food for thought" regarding a recent Post about domestic Dog evolution----I think Dave makes some very relevant points contesting whether Wolves followed humans or humans followed Wolves as it relates to acquiring food----So which species actually domesticated the other??????????????

Dave Messineo said...

Well it seems to me that we are pretty egotistical to think that the wolf followed humans for our scraps. This probably happened to some degree.

However, I am inclined to believe it was more often the other way around, that humans followed wolves to steal their kills. And of course later used domesticated wolves to aid in our hunting, to bolster our weak predatory senses and skills.

I have seen wolf kills in Northern Yellowstone that were expropriated by grizzlys, with bald eagles, ravens and coyotes waiting their turn to feed. The wolf has the natural hunting skills to find and take down big game that humans do not. Early man would have certainly seen wolf kills as an easy source of food.

I think that even using this hypothesis there are still many scenarios to explain the domestication of dogs eg. leaving them scraps after stealing a wolf kill. Perhaps stealing a wolf pup from a den etc. etc.

November 21, 2013 at 5:03 AM

 

 Rick Meril said...

Dave.............really think you are insightful in your comments on Dog evolution---Thanks always for your contributions.........Best for a Happy Thanksgiving

As Chris Spatz of COUGAR REWILDING echoed in his email to many of us today, "hooray for the Chicago Tribune"..........As the newspaper states-----"The necropsy says the cougar killed last week as he hid near Morrison, 130 miles west of Chicago, died of gunfire".......... "In truth he died of official neglect"..........: "Even though more cougars and possibly wolves likely will be visiting Illinois, state lawmakers and the Department of Natural Resources haven't forged policies that could allow the tranquilization, capture and survival of animals whose ancestors blissfully roamed the Midwest long before humans intruded on their turf"........"What all of us, legislators included, have to understand is that the return of feline or canine predators to their traditional realms doesn't mean the animals want to hurt anyone"................"We were struck by sensible comments last week from Bruce Patterson, curator of mammals at Chicago's Field Museum, who wonders why this animal had to be shot when it evidently was hiding during daylight and hadn't threatened anyone":......... "It's possible to manage wildlife while still keeping it around"............."Illinois should develop a reliable protocol that errs on the side of trying to preserve the life of the lost animal — not of making the ad hoc decision to kill it and then resolving the ambiguities in favor of that decision"------LET ME ADD MY KUDOS ON THIS THANKSGIVING DAY AND HEAP PRAISE ON THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL STAFF FOR THEIR BOLD AND TOTALLY HONEST AND CORRECT APPRAISAL OF HOW WE SHOULD BE "MANAGING" OUR CARNIVORES

Editorial: The cougar killed in Illinois was looking for love

Editorial: The cougar killed in Illinois was looking for love

More predators are en route. Illinois needs a smarter approach.

He was lean, athletic and had traveled hundreds of miles, most likely from the Black Hills of southwestern South Dakota. He had attacked no one as he passed hundreds of towns and many more farms, each of them a lethal threat to his mission. Yet for lack of a better wildlife management plan in Illinois, the young cougar couldn't get past a conservation officer armed with a state-issued rifle.

The necropsy says the cougar killed last week as he hid near Morrison, 130 miles west of Chicago, died of gunfire. In truth he died of official neglect: Even though more cougars and possibly wolves likely will be visiting Illinois, state lawmakers and the Department of Natural Resources haven't forged policies that could allow the tranquilization, capture and survival of animals whose ancestors blissfully roamed the Midwest long before humans intruded on their turf.

Given his hunting skills, the young male could have homesteaded anywhere in the Upper Midwest and dined on the bountiful deer population for the rest of his life. Instead, his four huge paws carried out the imperative that drove him: With larger, older males driving him away from the females on their home ranges, this cougar came looking for love.

A farmer called authorities to report a large cat running from a cornfield toward his farmstead and, sure enough, a responding conservation officer found the cat under a corncrib, probably hiding until darkness would allow it to flee.

We won't second-guess the officer, who consulted with law enforcement and wildlife personnel before killing the cougar. That said, this was an outcome that didn't have to be. A magnificent creature might well be headed back to South Dakota if Illinois had learned lessons after Chicago police shot and killed a cornered cougar in the Roscoe Village neighborhood five years ago.

What all of us, legislators included, have to understand is that the return of feline or canine predators to their traditional realms doesn't mean the animals want to hurt anyone. Even as this episode unfolded, millions of National Geographic readers were receiving the magazine's December issue, with an 18-page spread: "Ghost Cats ... Cougars are quietly reclaiming lost ground." The relevant passage: "Cougars have attacked humans on about 145 occasions in the U.S. and Canada since 1890. Just over 20 of those assaults — an average of one every six years — proved fatal."

Yet in this case, with an animal that had threatened no one while bypassing thousands of Midwesterners, a DNR spokesman rationalized that, "Public safety is what we'll make the decision on every time." The rest of DNR's explanation is similarly lame: The department otherwise would have had to find someone to capture and move the animal. This officer thought the situation too unsafe to call a veterinarian to tranquilize the cat. Conservation officers don't carry tranquilizer guns. 

That thinking led the DNR to the specious excuse that if the officer had shot the cougar with the wrong dosage of tranquilizer, the animal could have been harmed or killed accidentally. That excuse evokes the February 1968 explanation from a U.S. major to an Associated Press correspondent about the Vietnamese provincial city of Ben Tre: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

We were struck by sensible comments last week from Bruce Patterson, curator of mammals at Chicago's Field Museum, who wonders why this animal had to be shot when it evidently was hiding during daylight and hadn't threatened anyone: "It's possible to manage wildlife while still keeping it around."

When we editorialize about humans slaying wild predators, some readers say our concern should be — as it constantly is — directed instead to the needless killings of young people, and not toward one lost, probably frightened animal.

Fair enough, although it's possible to think about both. Just as we know there will be more homicides, we know that more big predators likely are coming to Illinois. So we'll look back to what we expressed after the 2008 killing of the cougar in Roscoe Village: We hope Illinois comes away from last week's episode with more than one dead cougar and a communal sadness.

 Illinois should develop a reliable protocol that errs on the side of trying to preserve the life of the lost animal — not of making the ad hoc decision to kill it and then resolving the ambiguities in favor of that decision.

That's what happened here. A logical first step now: Give cougars protection under the Illinois Wildlife Code; they lack that protection now only because there is no known breeding population in this state. But with trail cameras capturing photos of one or more cougars in Jo Daviess, Morgan, Pike and Calhoun counties last fall, the animals evidently are re-establishing themselves in a state where they haven't been known to live since 1870. In recent years, wolves have dipped into Jo Daviess, the state's northwest corner. A black bear even visited there, evidently for a few days.

Lawmakers, DNR officials, you can do better. So can the rest of us, first by using sites such as cougarnet.org to offset our visceral fear with scientific knowledge.

Wild animals roam this state. Always have and, we hope, always will. As we urged here in 2008: The same Illinois that was unprepared for the last cougar had better get ready for the next. He's probably en route.

When I see or hear an Owl, I always think of the old Star Trek and the Romulans who created a "Cloaking Device" to make their Warships invisible to humans ..........Owls unique ability to swoop in silently on their prey without being detected is unmatched in the animal kingdom.............Owls possess no fewer than three distinct physical attributes that are thought to contribute to their silent flight capability--- a comb of stiff feathers along the leading edge of the wing-- a flexible fringe a the trailing edge of the wing; and a soft, downy material distributed on the top of the wing............If the noise-reduction mechanism of the owl down can be established, there may be far-reaching implications to the design of novel sound-absorbing liners, the use of flexible roughness to affect trailing-edge noise and vibrations for aircraft and wind turbines.............Every creature, large and small on this beautiful planet posses some unique traits that hold potential for a better life for all of us.........On this Thanksgiving Day, let us give thanks that we may have the wisdom as the "top dawg" creature to find a way to keep enough room for the Owls and everything else found in nature

The secrets of owls' near noiseless wings

The Secrets of Owls' Near Noiseless Wings

sciencedaily.com — Many owl species have developed specialized plumage to effectively eliminate the aerodynamic noise from their wings -- allowing them to hunt and capture their prey in silence.

A research group working to solve the mystery of exactly how owls achieve this acoustic stealth will present their findings at the American Physical Society's (APS) Division of Fluid Dynamics meeting, held Nov. 24 -- 26, in Pittsburgh, Pa. -- work that may one day help bring "silent owl technology" to the design of aircraft, wind turbines, and submarines.

The three unique wing features believed to make owls fly silently. (Credit: J. W. Jaworski, I. Clark)

"Owls possess no fewer than three distinct physical attributes that are thought to contribute to their silent flight capability: a comb of stiff feathers along the leading edge of the wing; a flexible fringe a the trailing edge of the wing; and a soft, downy material distributed on the top of the wing," explained Justin Jaworski, assistant professor in Lehigh University's Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics. His group is exploring whether owl stealth is based upon a single attribute or the interaction of a combination of attributes.

For conventional wings, the sound from the hard trailing edge typically dominates the acoustic signature. But prior theoretical work carried out by Jaworski and Nigel Peake at the University of Cambridge revealed that the porous, compliant character of the owl wing's trailing edge results in significant aerodynamic noise reductions.

"We also predicted that the dominant edge-noise source could be effectively eliminated with properly tuned porous or elastic edge properties, which implies that that the noise signature from the wing can then be dictated by otherwise minor noise mechanisms such as the 'roughness' of the wing surface," said Jaworski.

The velvety down atop an owl's wing creates a compliant but rough surface, much like a soft carpet. This down material may be the least studied of the unique owl noise attributes, but Jaworski believes it may eliminate sound at the source through a novel mechanism that is much different than those of ordinary sound absorbers.

"Our current work predicts the sound resulting from air passing over the downy material, which is idealized as a collection of individual flexible fibers, and how the aerodynamic noise level varies with fiber composition," Jaworski said.

The researchers' results are providing details about how a fuzzy -- compliant but rough -- surface can be designed to tailor its acoustic signature.

A photographic study of actual owl feathers, carried out with Ian Clark of Virginia Tech, has revealed a surprising 'forest-like' geometry of the down material, so this will be incorporated into the researchers' future theoretical and experimental work to more faithfully replicate the down structure. Preliminary experiments performed at Virginia Tech show that a simple mesh covering, which replicates the top layer of the 'forest' structure, is effective in eliminating some sound generated by rough surfaces.

"If the noise-reduction mechanism of the owl down can be established, there may be far-reaching implications to the design of novel sound-absorbing liners, the use of flexible roughness to affect trailing-edge noise and vibrations for aircraft and wind turbines, and the mitigation of underwater noise from naval vessels," said Jaworski.