Changing climate with no snow(this winter) and snows that melt quickly(recent years) has Wisconsin Snowshoe Hare territory migrating northward by some 5.5 miles per recent decade............""This is one of the first studies to really identify how changing climate factors influence a southern range boundary," notes Ben Zuckerberg, a UW-Madison professor of forest and wildlife ecology and a co-author of a recent U. of Wisconsin study..................."Lack of snow can pose serious problems for an animal that depends on its coloring to blend into its environment and avoid predation".............. "Color mismatch -- white fur on a brown background -- will continue to occur and have a significant impact" on the species"......... "For a snowshoe hare, being cryptic is a fundamental requirement for making a living"............. "It is a relatively fixed phenotype, so it is pretty clear that snow cover is one of the most important constraints in terms of where the animal can and can't be"............

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/plants_animals/ecology/~3/7MyCqgNjltY/160330174231.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

No snow, no hares: Climate change pushes emblematic species north

Date:

March 30, 2016

If there is an animal emblematic of the northern winter, it is the snowshoe hare.

A forest dweller, the snowshoe hare is named for its big feet, which allow it to skitter over deep snow to escape lynx, coyotes and other predators. It changes color with the seasons, assuming a snow-white fur coat for winter camouflage.

No Snow and Snowshoe Hare becomes an easy prey targe

But a changing climate and reduced snow cover across the north is squeezing the animal out of its historic range, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Writing in the current (March 30, 2016) Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the Wisconsin researchers report that the range of the hare in Wisconsin is creeping north by about five and a half miles per decade, closely tracking the diminishing snow cover the animal requires to be successful.

"The snowshoe hare is perfectly modeled for life on snow," explains Jonathan Pauli, a UW-Madison professor of forest and wildlife ecology and one of the co-authors of the new study. "They're adapted to glide on top of the snow and to blend in with the historical colors of the landscape."

As climate warms, northern winters have become shorter and milder. And the annual blanket of snow that many organisms have evolved to depend on is in steady retreat, becoming thinner and less dependable in regions that once experienced snow well into the spring months.

The Wisconsin study is important because it helps illustrate the effects of climate change on a sentinel species for northern ecosystems, showing how the composition of plants and animals on the landscape is gradually shifting in a warming world. The findings also signal that climate change is beginning to eclipse land use as the dominant driver of ecological change.

"This is one of the first studies to really identify how changing climate factors influence a southern range boundary," notes Ben Zuckerberg, a UW-Madison professor of forest and wildlife ecology and a co-author of the study.


Not an easy target when "White on White

In Wisconsin, a legacy of research on snowshoe hares dates to at least 1945, when famed ecologist Aldo Leopold published some of the first anecdotal data, recording their presence in an arcing trajectory covering roughly half of the state from the Mississippi north of St. Paul to Green Bay. Studies of the hare and its range were continued and expanded by UW-Madison wildlife ecologist Lloyd B. Keith beginning in the 1960s.

The new study, which was led by UW-Madison graduate student Sean M. Sultaire, drew on observations at 148 of 249 historic survey sites where snowshoe hares were documented in the past. Of 126 sites where hares were once reported, the animal was found at only 28. The researchers were unable to document hares at the remaining 98 sites, or 78 percent of the places where hares were once found.

Lack of snow, of course, can pose serious problems for an animal that depends on its coloring to blend into its environment and avoid predation. "Color mismatch -- white fur on a brown background -- will continue to occur and have a significant impact" on the species, says Pauli. "For a snowshoe hare, being cryptic is a fundamental requirement for making a living. It is a relatively fixed phenotype, so it is pretty clear that snow cover is one of the most important constraints in terms of where the animal can and can't be."

"Our winter climate has changed significantly over time," says Zuckerberg, who, with Pauli, has set out to document how a warmer world is affecting the ecological underpinnings of winter landscapes that were once awash in snow.

According to Pauli, the snowshoe hare at the southern range of its boundary must cope not only with less snow, but also with a steady northward march of carnivores like coyotes. "They're getting pinched at both ends."

The ecological consequences of diminished abundance of snowshoe hare will be significant, having both ecological and economic consequences as the animal is both an important game species in Wisconsin and a menu item for many other species of animals and raptors.

---

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of Wisconsin-Madison. The original item was written by Terry Devitt. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Sean M. Sultaire, Jonathan N. Pauli, Karl J. Martin, Michael W. Meyer, Michael Notaro, Benjamin Zuckerberg. Climate change surpasses land-use change in the contracting range boundary of a winter-adapted mammal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2016; 283 (1827): 20153104 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2015.3104

Thank you PREDATOR DEFENSE chief Brooks Fahy for supplying the "wow moment" video below showing a Puma running straight past a woman on the elevated wildlife walkway at the Corkscrew Swamp in Florida...........The Puma wants nothing to do with the woman,,,,,,,,,,,,And from the scene that unfolds, you can feel the Puma more fearful of the woman than vice versa.................Our "long tailed" cat does not want to bother us.....................Let us encourage them back into the remaining wildlands up and down the Appalachian Spine of eastern North America

From: Brooks Fahy <brooks@predatordefense.org
Date: March 30, 2016 at 4:40:34 PM PDT
To: Rick Meril;
Subject: Woman Has Close Encounter With Florida Panther At Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary - YouTube
Reply-To: brooks@predatordefense.org

This is a classic example of how cougars don't want anything to do with people:

 click on link to view video:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/gone-viral/os-florida-panther-corkscrew-swamp-sanctuary-story.html

Brooks Fahy
Executive Director
brooks@predatordefense.org
(541) 937-4261 Office
(541) 520-6003 Cell

PREDATOR DEFENSE
Helping people & wildlife coexist since 1990
www.predatordefense.org

Thanks to RESTORE THE NORTH WOODS Chief, Michael Kellett for supplying the article below discussing how top Biologists are encouraging the USFW Service to follow through on their plan to prevent wildlife from being shot and trpped in the 16 Alaska National Wildlife Refuges(77 million acres) ................Of course, the state of Alaska is threatening to ignore the rule if it becomes law...............Let them threaten all they want..........Here is hoping that the Feds weigh heavy and get the land and it's wild creatures protected

From: Michael Kellett [mailto:kellett@restore.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:01 PM
Subject: Top scientists back federal plan to protect Alaska predators, Guardian, 20160329

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/29/scientists-back-federal-plan-protect-alaska-predators

The Guardian

Top scientists back federal plan to protect Alaska predators

New rules would ban ‘non-subsistence’ killing of bears, wolves and coyotes – some of the ‘most iconic yet persecuted species’– in the state’s 16 wildlife refuges

Oliver Milman

Tuesday 29 March 2016  12.44 EDT

A group of scientists has backed a federal plan to restrict the trapping and gunning down of bears and wolves in Alaska’s wildlife refuges, in the face of bitter opposition from the state government.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has proposed an overhaul of hunting regulations for Alaska’s 16 national wildlife refuges, which span nearly 77m acres of wilderness in the state.

The new rules would effectively ban “non-subsistence” slaughter of predators within the refuges without a sound scientific reason. Practices to be outlawed include the killing of bear cubs or their mothers, the controversial practice of bear baiting and the targeting of wolves and coyotes during the spring and summer denning season.

Anyone hoping to take a plane or helicopter to shoot a bear will also be unable to do so. These changes have been backed by a group of 31 leading scientists who said the current hunting laws hurt some of the “most iconic yet persecuted species in North America: grizzly bears, black bears and wolves”.

In a letter sent for the USFWS’s public comment process, the biologists and ecologists from across the US point out that research shows that killing the predators of moose and caribou does very little to boost their numbers.

“Alaska’s many-decades program of statewide carnivore persecution has failed to yield more ungulates for human hunters,” the letter states. “Furthermore, the methods of predator persecution are seen as problematic by a clear majority of Alaska’s citizens.”

Alaska stepped up the trapping and shooting of predator animals after the Republican governor Frank Murkowski gained power in 2002. His successors, including Sarah Palin, have all supported a policy of “intensive management” that removes wolves and bears with the goal of boosting moose and caribou numbers for hunters.

The state has increasingly clashed with federal agencies over this policy. The situation escalated after the Alaska board of game removed a 122 sq mile buffer zone protecting wolves around the Denali national park – the US’s largest national park – and allowed the baiting of bears and the use of lights to rouse hibernating bears so that they can be shot as they emerge.

Alaska recently offered its support to a moose hunter who won a supreme court appeal against the federal government over his use of a hovercraft in an ecologically sensitive area.

“We have a fiscal crisis here in Alaska but we see a large amount of money spent on ineffective hunting policies,” said Francis Mauer, retired wildlife biologist at the USFWS and one of the letter’s signatories.

“The hunting guys have total control of the board of game, there’s no balance there. The state has aggressively increased the killing of predators to the point where anyone can kill 10 wolves a day for 345 days of the year.

“This kind of approach isn’t supported by the science, nor is it legitimate for these refuges to be converted into areas for hunting. We have seen wolf and bear numbers reduce in some areas at a time where there is increasing scientific evidence showing the value of them in maintaining healthy ecosystems.”

Alaska’s administration has said it “strongly opposes” the new USFWS regulations, arguing that they are federal overreach, undermine the state’s ability to manage wildlife populations and hurt native populations who rely upon moose and caribou for food.

“Ultimately, the new regulations would have significant impacts on Alaskans, particularly those living a subsistence way of life,” said Bruce Dale, director of the division of wildlife conservation.

Can we create enough bona fide and connected habitat to grow the 55-80 Ocelots that are left in the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge and in in Willacy County, Texas?...............At the time of European colonization in the 16th century, Ocelots roamed from what is now Arkansas to Arizona utilizing the dense Tamaulipas thorn scrub habitat that existed before 95% of it was cut, burned and chewed up for agriculture and human habitation.........Like cousins, the Bobcat, Lynx and Puma, when male Ocelots reach maturity, they bolt from their mothers natal territory to seek their own 7 square mile habitat and mate with females............Unfortunately, the remaining scrub habitat is so splintered by roads, that a high % of prospecting male cats get killed by cars..........."One of the problem roads for ocelot mortality is Texas State Highway 100, which runs from I-69E/77 east to Port Isabel"................. "The Texas Dept. of Transportation has recently pledged $5 million to retrofit four separate wildlife crossing areas along the highway to reduce wildlife mortality"......... There is also going to be fencing along the road that prevents the cats from crossing and helps to funnel them toward the culverts where they can cross under the road safely.............Let us hope that any necessary additional funding and building of these underpasses occurs quickly enough to prevent the Ocelot from disappearing from the USA

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/valley/article_f43c8aec-f48f-11e5-a8a7-cf57a7644063.html&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoUMTM0MTQ3ODMzODMxMDEyNzUxMzIyGjQ0MjRhMjI0ZGZhNTczNjQ6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNGJsPLIzu9chVR-6KbK8pniBB-

Ocelots battle for survival

• Story
• Comments

Print

Create a hardcopy of this page

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font size

8

Courtesy Photo

File photo

Posted: Sunday, March 27, 2016 9:52 pm

By RICK KELLEY | Staff Writer

HARLINGEN — Ocelots have never had it easy.

First, almost all of the habitat they roamed prior to Europeans’ arrival in North America has been consumed by agriculture and development.

Then there was the popularity of using ocelot pelts in what passed for high fashion in the 1960s. Since the only usable part of an ocelot pelt was the strip along the back, it took 40 ocelots to make a single coat.

If that wasn’t enough humiliation, ocelots became popular as pets. You’ve probably seen photos of painter Salvador Dali with his ocelot, Babou. Opera singer Lily Pons also had a pet ocelot named Ita.

Ocelots, as you’re no doubt wondering right now, make awful pets.

“They’re super cute when they’re small and you can cuddle them,” biologist Hilary Swarts says. “Then they start to grow up and they want to take your face right off your head, and they want to shred all your furniture. They want to eat your dog. They want to do all kinds of things that are terrible.”

Swarts knows what she’s talking about, even if she’s never had an ocelot of her own.

The wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is stationed at Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, which is one of two areas where the endangered Texas subspecies of ocelot remains. The other is in WillacyCounty.

She spoke last week at the annual dinner of the Valley Sportsmen Club at Ol’ D’s Soda Shop in downtown Harlingen, cataloging the current state of the wildcat in Texas.

Her expertise in ocelots involves the cats hanging on in Cameron and Willacy counties. At one time, ocelots ranged from Arkansas to Arizona.

Today, Swarts said, there are 55 “identified” ocelots in South Texas that have been caught on game or trail cameras the cats have tripped while ambling through their preferred habitat of nearly impenetrable Tamaulipas thorn scrub.

Each ocelot has a unique pattern of rosettes on its coat, which biologists use to identify and track the cats, some of which are radio-collared. Swarts said biologists project the total ocelot population in Cameron and Willacy counties to be 80, since some are likely to be living on private land with suitable habitat where the biologists don’t have access.

“As the pet trade and fashion trade subsided, there are other threats that the ocelot are still facing or still kind of suffering from now,” Swarts said. “Probably the biggest ones are … habitat loss and fragmentation. And those are two different concepts.”

Swarts expanded on that theme, explaining the problem with loss of habitat is compounded by remaining habitat being a patchwork of land that doesn’t connect. In other words, there are no corridors for cats and other wildlife to safely travel to and from what remains of the appropriate habitat.

“Ninety-five percent of that habitat has been wiped out … what habitat that is left over is not in one big beautiful piece, it’s in all these different patches. And that means that when an ocelot wants to move from one to the other, it’s going to have to go through dangerous, human-occupied territory to get there, and that has a lot of risks associated with it.”

After habitat loss, perhaps the most immediate threat to the ocelot population in South Texas is the automobile. The lack of genetic diversity within the South Texas ocelot group is another issue.

In fact, Swarts said, five ocelots biologists know about were killed by vehicles within the past eight or nine months.

“When you have a population of 80, five is a serious number; it’s a serious loss. Not only are you just losing those individuals, you’re losing all the babies that those individuals would have. So it’s a really powerful problem … fragmentation.

“If I’m an ocelot that lives here, and I want to get down here, I’ve gotta go through here and I’m undoubtedly going to have to cross a road. And I’m little, and I’m running fast, and I’m out at night, so it’s very hard for cars to see me and spot me, and so you get a lot of mortality that way.”

So why does the ocelot cross the road?

Part of the answer is ocelots are highly territorial and also wide-ranging. Biologists say an ocelot needs a range of seven square miles, which is not an easy homeland to carve out when habitat loss and fragmentation mean it must be the right “kind” of seven square miles.

“More males are getting killed. The reason for that is when a male is born and he’s little, he’s cute, he doesn’t bother anyone, he’s in nobody’s way.

“He starts to grow up, right, so he becomes a handsome young man. All of a sudden, the older males don’t want the competition and they boot him out of the area. And so he’s forced to go out on the landscape to try to find somewhere to live where the older males aren’t going to kick his you-know-what.

“And in doing so, they get out and they get on these roads, and they just get completely slammed.”

But the future is not all a gloomy night on a lonely highway for the ocelot. There are some signs of hope for the Texas subspecies.

One is WillacyCounty landowner Frank Yturria, who put 7,400 acres of prime ocelot habitat into easement within the past couple of years.

“What that means is that the Yturrias still own this property, but attached to the title of the property is a commitment to never develop the land. So it can have an affect on land values but it also (shows) where your priorities are. I mean if you want to put in a mall, this is not a piece of land you want to buy,” Swarts said.

Another reason to be optimistic about the ocelot is cooperation from the Texas Department of Transportation, Swarts says. TxDOT has been willing to work closely with biologists on constructing underpasses allowing ocelots and other wildlife to avoid crossing roads and highways.

“The best way is to keep cats from getting hit by cars is to keep them off the roads altogether. So these highway underpasses … this is what we’re aiming for.

“Whenever TxDOT is doing new road projects in ocelot areas, we’re trying to work with them to get these underpasses in so that the cats never really have to get on the asphalt, they can walk right under and they’re safe.”

One of the problem roads for ocelot mortality is Texas State Highway 100, which runs from I-69E/77 east to Port Isabel. TxDOT recently pledged $5 million to retrofit four separate wildlife crossing areas along the highway to reduce wildlife mortality.

“There is also going to be fencing all along there, so basically if I’m a cat and I walk over and I get to the road, there’s a fence there. And if I go right or if I go left, it’s going to lead me to an underpass. I can go under the road safely, be happy on the other side, and have never run the risk of getting hit by a car,” she said.

“For this partnership with the Texas Department of Transportation, it’s probably going to be one of the main things that keep these cats here in Texas.” 

OUTDOOR LIFE MAGAZINE'S readership is principally hunters..............On Monday of this week they put forth their perspective(selective research cited) on whether KILLING PREDATORS INCREASES PREY(GAME) SPECIES---"(Some))regions (of the USA) are experiencing declines in prey populations like deer and game birds"............ "The natural instinct is to blame prey declines on the recent increases in predators"............ "In some instances predators may be responsible for the decline, and in other cases it may be environmental change (for example, drought)"............ "In some regions, prey species have been overabundant due to the lack of predators and as predators make a comeback, the prey is put in check"............. "To investigate whether predators are impacting prey populations, researchers are conducting (studies) involving predator exclusion or removal"............. "All are trying to answer the question: does predator control benefit game populations, or is it a waste of time and money?"................."(In) Coyote removal research(conducted) by Gulsby et al. (2015), researchers came to the conclusion that additional environmental factors, such as habitat quality and abundance, were also influencing the prey population".................In fact, as most researchers will tell you, human habitat alteration and winter weather severity are two of the initial factors in prey recruitment and survival.........Yes, Wolves, Bears, Pumas, Bobcats, Lynx and Coyotes do in fact kill hoofed browsers, but that has been the case for the millenia that all of these creatures have been on the planet.................Our manipulation of the environment(as in the case of forest removal in Caribou habitat) so often combined with "stiff winters" can lower the population equilibrium of prey species..............Carnivores can in fact dampen these stressed populations further in a particular series of years.........However, if habitat is sound, weather tends to even itself out with predator and prey once again finding a rough balance for survival for all(including the health of the habitat-always seemingly ignored by the "Kill-predator crowd")...............No, we should not have bloated herds of deer denuding forests and No, we should not be felling our forests so that prey switching occurs(e.g. deer coming north into Minnesota Moose country with debilitating tics impacting moose and then wolves finishing off the weakened Moose)...........As Ecologist George Wuerthner puts it---- "I have no doubt that for many pro wolf(and other carnivore)-hunt supporters’ predators represent all that is wrong with the world"............... "Declining job prospects, declining economic vitality of their rural communities, changes in social structures and challenges to long-held beliefs are exemplified by the wolf(and other carnivores)"............ "Killing wolves is symbolic of destroying all those other things that are bad in the world for which they have no control"............. "They vent this misdirected anger on wolves(and other carnivores)– that gives them the illusion that they can control something"............... "Nevertheless, making wolves and other predators scapegoats for the personal failures of individuals or the collective failures of society is not fair to wolves or individuals either"................. "The premises upon which western wolf-hunts are based either are the result of inaccurate assumptions about wolf impacts or morally corrupt justifications like relieving hunter anger and frustrations over how their worlds are falling apart"

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/game-changers/does-predator-control-really-work-science-behind-hunting-coyotes-and-other&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoSNTU1MDgxNDMwOTk0OTUyNDMyMhplYzQ0NDQ0NjRjOGI2YWExOmNvbTplbjpVUw&usg=AFQjCNFhtIR0IQKmkBaFZCClqC-XT12IjQ

March 28, 2016

Does Predator Control Really Work? The Science Behind Hunting Coyotes and Other Predators to Protect Game Animals

by Dave Kramer

      19

Wolf with a caribou hindquarter in Denali National Park. Photograph by Ken Conger / National Park Service

We often explain our passion for hunting coyotes and wolves as wildlife management. By killing wild carnivores, we’re protecting the prey species, like deer and elk, that we love to hunt.

But are we really making an impact on ungulate survival when we target predators?

It turns out the answer, like that of so many questions in wildlife management, is situational. At times, controlling predator populations is a sure-fire way to increase survival of prey species. 

Other times, not so much.

Part of the dynamic is our perception of population abundance on both sides of the prey/predator spectrum. For sure, predators are on a comeback across the United States. Bears, wolves, and mountain lions are reappearing in states where they were once extirpated, coyotes and bears are frequently sighted in suburban environments, and threatened populations of carnivores are being removed from government protections.

At the same time, regions are experiencing declines in prey populations like deer and game birds. The natural instinct is to blame prey declines on the recent increases in predators. In some instances predators may be responsible for the decline, and in other cases it may be environmental change (for example, drought). In some regions, prey species have been overabundant due to the lack of predators and as predators make a comeback, the prey is put in check. To investigate whether predators are impacting prey populations, researchers are conducting research involving predator exclusion or removal. All are trying to answer the question: does predator control benefit game populations, or is it a waste of time and money?

COYOTES AND FAWN SURVIVAL
In the past few years, a number of studies have tackled this issue. The first of these studies was focused on the impacts of coyote removal on white-tailed deer fawn recruitment in central Georgia (Gulsby et al. 2015). The study took place at two wildlife management areas and tracked fawn survival and estimated coyote abundance for three years, removing coyotes during the second and third years.

The researchers found that the removal of coyotes elicited an increase in fawn recruitment at only one of the two wildlife management areas. Additionally, where fawn recruitment did increase, recruitment dipped following the second year of removals. This suggests that while the initial fawn increase may have been related to coyote removal, other environmental factors or non-resident coyotes may also be impacting fawn recruitment.

Another study in Georgia took a different approach to limiting the impacts of predators. Mike Conner of the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center and his colleagues constructed four small, fenced exclosures that were tall enough to exclude coyotes, foxes, and bobcats, but short enough for deer to jump (approximately 4 feet tall; Conner et al. 2016). Using trail cameras and thousands of images over two years, the researchers were able to predict fawn recruitment inside and outside of the predator exclosures.

Their prediction stated that fawn recruitment was almost double inside the fences. These findings suggest that providing small areas where does can give birth without risk of predation will increase recruitment. Fawns are the most susceptible to predation during the first few weeks after birth, and by the time the fawns could jump the fencing to leave the exclosures, they would be fast enough to evade any predators.

WOLVES AND CARIBOU
Related work in Canada investigated the impacts of wolf management on the declining woodland caribou population in Alberta (Hervieux et al. 2014). The group estimated adult female caribou survival and the ratio of calves to cows (female caribou) at two different locations in western Alberta. From 2005 to 2012, the researchers removed a total of 841 wolves from the two areas. The removal resulted in a 4.6 percent growth rate in the population in one of the two sites; however, the second site experienced at 4.7 percent decline. Much like the coyote removal research by Gulsby et al. (2015), researchers came to the conclusion that additional environmental factors, such as habitat quality and abundance, were also influencing the prey population.

It’s important to remember that every ecological interaction is different. When predators are negatively impacting prey populations, predator exclusion may be an alternative option to predator removal. However, in some cases, prey decline may not be a result of predators alone. Habitat quality and other variables (drought, human-conflict, hunting pressure) can be influencing the population in conjunction with predators, so unaided removals may not provide the desired results.

Bottom line: Before blaming predators for ungulate-harvest woes, contact your regional wildlife agency and see what research or surveys they have conducted. If predation is an issue in your region, be sure to always follow any harvest regulations regarding predators, and work together with agencies to make sure the proper steps are taken to aid prey populations.

Sources

Conner, M. L., M. J. Cherry, B. T. Rutledge, C. H. Killmaster, G. Morris and L. L. Smith. 2016.Predator exclusion as a management option for increasing white-tailed deer recruitment. The Journal of Wildlife Management 80:162-170. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.999

Gulsby, W. D., C. H. Killmaster, J. W. Bowers, B. N. Sacks, M. J. Statham and K. V. Miller. 2015.White-tailed deer fawn recruitment before and after experimental coyote removals in central Georgia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:248-255. DOI: 10.1002/wsb.534

Hervieux, D., M. Hebblewhite, D. Stepnisky, M. Bacon and S. Boutin. 2014. Managing wolves (Canis Lupis) to recover threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 92:1029-1037. DIO:10.1139/cjz-2014-0142

Coyote Photograph via MSU Deer Lab

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

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihrcr_gufLAhVMxmMKHeZkC9sQFggoMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thewildlifenews.com%2F2011%2F09%2F01%2Fwolf-hunts-morally-corrupt%2F&usg=AFQjCNEPkDtzB2Lq-uWlAhZ1a963MVCHkw

Wolf-hunts

 morally corrupt

by GEORGE WUERTHNER on SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 · 233 COMMENTS · in IDAHO, MONTANA,WILDLIFE NEWS, WOLF HUNT

 The resumption of wolf-hunts in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming illustrates why citizens must continue to oppose such unnecessary and senseless slaughters.

The wolf-hunts are predicated upon morally corrupt and inaccurate assumptions about wolf behavior and impacts that are not supported by recent scientific research.  State wildlife agencies pander to the lowest common denominator in the hunting community—men who need to bolster their own self esteem and release misdirected anger by killing.

Wolf-hunts, as Montana Fish and Game Commission Chairman Bob Ream noted at a public hearing, are in part to relieve hunters’ frustrations—frustration based on inaccurate information, flawed assumptions, and just plain old myths and fears about predators and their role in the world.

Maybe relieving hunter frustration is a good enough justification for wolf-hunts to many people. However, in my view permitting hunts to go forward without even registering opposition is to acquiesce to ignorance, hatred, and the worst in human motivations. Thankfully a few environmental groups, most notably the Center for Biodiversity, Wildearth Guardians, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for Wild Rockies and Western Watersheds had the courage and gumption to stand up to ignorance and hatred.

All of the usual justifications given for wolf-hunts are spurious at best.  For instance, one rationale given for hunting wolves is to reduce their presumed effects on big game populations. Yet in all three states, elk and deer populations are at or exceed population objectives for most hunting units.

For instance in Wyoming, one of the most vehement anti wolf states in the West, the 2010 elk population was 21,200 animals over state-wide objectives, and this did not include data for six herds, suggesting that elk populations are likely higher. Of the state’s elk herds most were at or above objectives and only 6 percent were below objectives. Similar data are found for Idaho and Montana elk herds as well.

However, you would not know that from the “howls” of hunters who characterize the elk populations as suffering from a wolf induced Armageddon.  And Fish and Game departments are loath to counter the false accusations from hunters that wolves are somehow “destroying” hunting throughout the Rockies.

Experience in other parts of the country where wolves have been part of the landscape longer suggests that in the long term, wolves – while they may reduce prey populations in certain locales – generally do not reduce hunting opportunities across a state or region.  Despite the fact that there more than double the number of wolves in Minnesota (3000+) as in the entire Rocky Mountain region, Minnesota hunters experienced the highest deer kills ever in recent years, with Minnesota deer hunters killing over 250,000 white-tailed deer during each of those hunting seasons – an approximate five-fold increase in hunter deer take since wolves were listed under the ESA in 1978.

Another claim made by wolf-hunt proponents is that hunting will reduce “conflicts” with livestock owners. Again this assertion is taken as a matter of faith without really looking into the veracity of it. Given the hysteria generated by the livestock industry one might think that the entire western livestock operations were in jeopardy from wolf predation.  However, the number of livestock killed annually by wolves is pitifully small, especially by comparison to losses from other more mundane sources like poison plants, lightning and even domestic dogs.

For instance, the FWS reported that 75 cattle and 148 sheep were killed in Idaho during 2010. In Montana the same year 84cattle and 64 sheep were verified as killed by wolves. While any loss may represent a significant financial blow to individual ranchers, the livestock industry as a whole is hardly threatened by wolf predation. And it hardly warrants the exaggerated psychotic response by Congress, state legislators and state wildlife agencies.

In light of the fact that most losses are avoidable by implementation of simple measures of that reduce predator opportunity, persecution of predators like wolves is even more morally suspect. Rapid removal of dead carcasses from rangelands, corralling animals at night, electric fencing, and the use of herders, among other measures, are proven to significantly reduce predator losses—up to 90% in some studies. This suggests that ranchers have the capacity (if not the willingness) to basically make wolf losses a non-issue.

However, since ranchers have traditionally been successful in externalizing many of their costs on to the land and taxpayers, including what should be their responsibility to reduce predator conflicts, I do not expect to see these kinds of measures enacted by the livestock industry any time soon, if ever. Ranchers are so used to being coddled they have no motivation or incentives to change their practices in order to reduce predator losses. Why should they change animal husbandry practices when they can get the big bad government that they like to despise and disparage to come in and kill predators for them for free and even get environmental groups like Defenders of Wildlife to support paying for predator losses that are entirely avoidable?

But beyond those figures, wolf-hunting ignores a growing body of research that suggests that indiscriminate killing—which hunting is—actually exacerbates livestock/predator conflicts. The mantra of pro wolf-hunting community is that wolves should be “managed” like “other” wildlife. This ignores the findings that suggest that predators are not like other wildlife. They are behaviorally different from say elk and deer. Random killing of predators including bears, mountain lions and wolves creates social chaos that destabilizes predator social structure. Hunting of wolves can skew wolf populations towards younger animals. Younger animals are less skillful hunters. As a consequence, they will be more inclined to kill livestock. Destabilized and small wolf packs also have more difficulty in holding territories and even defending their kills from scavengers and other predators which in end means they are more likely to kill new prey animal.

As a result of these behavioral consequences, persecution of predators through hunting has a self fulfilling feedback mechanism whereby hunters kill more predators, which in turn leads to greater social chaos, and more livestock kills, and results in more demands for hunting as the presumed solution.

Today predator management by so called “professional” wildlife agencies is much more like the old time medical profession where sick people were bled.  If they didn’t get better immediately, more blood was let. Finally if the patient died, it was because not enough blood was released from the body. The same illogical reasoning dominates predator management across the country. If killing predators doesn’t cause livestock losses to go down and/or game herds to rise, it must be because we haven’t killed enough predators yet.

Furthermore, most hunting  occurs on larger blocks of public lands and most wolves as well as other predators killed by hunters have no relationship to the animals that may be killing livestock  on private ranches or taking someone’s pet poodle from the back yard. A number of studies of various predators from cougars to bears show no relationship between hunter kills and a significant reduction in the actual animals considered to be problematic.

Again I hasten to add that most “problematic predators” are created a result of problem behavior by humans—for instance leaving animal carcasses out on the range or failure to keep garbage from bears, etc. and humans are supposed to be the more intelligent species—though if one were to observe predator management across the country it would be easy to doubt such presumptions.

Finally, wolf-hunting ignores yet another recent and growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that top predators have many top down ecological influences upon the landscape and other wildlife. The presence of wolves, for instance, can reduce deer and elk numbers in some places for some time period. But rather than viewing this as a negative as most hunters presume, reduction of prey species like elk can have many positive ecological influences. A reduction of elk herbivory on riparian vegetation can produce more song bird habitat. Wolves can reduce coyote predation on snowshoe hare thus competition for food by lynx, perhaps increasing survival for this endangered species. Wolves have been shown to increase the presence of voles and mice near their dens—a boon for some birds of prey like hawks. These and many other positive effects on the environment are ignored by wolf-hunt proponents and unfortunately by state wildlife management agencies as well who continue to advocate and/or at least not effectively counter old fallacies about predators.

Most state agencies operate under the assumption that production of elk and deer for hunters to shoot should have priority in wildlife management decisions. All state wildlife agencies are by law supposed to manage wildlife as a public trust for all citizens.  Yet few challenge the common assumption that elk and deer exist merely for the pleasure of hunters to shoot.

I have no doubt that for many pro wolf-hunt supporters’ predators represent all that is wrong with the world. Declining job prospects, declining economic vitality of their rural communities, changes in social structures and challenges to long-held beliefs are exemplified by the wolf. Killing wolves is symbolic of destroying all those other things that are bad in the world for which they have no control. They vent this misdirected anger on wolves– that gives them the illusion that they can control something.

Nevertheless, making wolves and other predators scapegoats for the personal failures of individuals or the collective failures of society is not fair to wolves or individuals either.  The premises upon which western wolf-hunts are based either are the result of inaccurate assumptions about wolf impacts or morally corrupt justifications like relieving hunter anger and frustrations over how their worlds are falling apart.

I applaud the few environmental groups that had the courage to stand up for wolves, and to challenge the old guard that currently controls our collective wildlife heritage.  More of us need to stand up against persecution of wildlife to appease the frustrations of disenfranchised rural residents. It is time to have wildlife management based on science, and ecological integrity, not based upon relieving hunter frustrations over the disintegrating state of their world. And lastly we need a new ethnics and relationship to wildlife that goes beyond a simple utilitarian view of whether any particular species benefits or harms human in real and/or imaginary ways.

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

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjNoo7ql-fLAhXokYMKHfwdCAgQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.syracuse.com%2Foutdoors%2Findex.ssf%2F2015%2F01%2Fsuny_esf_prof_coyotes_are_everywhere_in_nys_but_overall_impact_on_deer_is_minima.html&usg=AFQjCNF36VJfF7TEOx65SvNptUVB33b_MA&bvm=bv.118353311,d.amc

SUNY ESF prof: Coyotes everywhere in NYS, but impact on deer numbers is minimal

t's difficult to determine whether a coyote actually killed an animal or was just scavaging. Frair said. "Of 62 deer carcasses found in our study that collared coyotes had visited, we could determine cause of death at 39 and only 3 of those were actually killed by coyotes. That means less than 10 percent (1 in 10) of the carcasses a hunter sees in the woods might be caused by a coyote.