Bat White Nose syndrome.................alert your Congressman

Dear BCI Member:

We urgently need your help! BCI is working to convince Congress to provide critically needed funds for solutions to White-nose Syndrome. This devastating disease has killed well over a million bats in just four years, and we are still unable to slow its spread across the continent. Please urge your Congressional representative to sign Representative Carol Shea-Porter's letter requesting $5 million in the 2011 federal budget to combat White-nose Syndrome.

Throughout the summer, we will call on you to take action during the long process of allocating money for the annual federal budget. Last May, Bat Conservation International, nearly 60 other conservation organizations, and a dozen scientists from across the country urged Congress to provide $5 million for the fight against White-nose Syndrome. I provided essential testimony to justify this request. Now, your representative needs to hear from you.

A sample letter is attached for your convenience. To contact your representative, go to https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml. Please feel free to tailor the letter to your style and to describe how much bats mean to you.

The Hyperdisease hypothesis for what killed off the Pleistocene mega-fauna

Written by Ross MacPhee

Like many ideas in science, the "hyperdisease hypothesis" came about because of a casual, almost accidental juxtaposition of ideas that had, on the surface, nothing at all to do with one another. Extinctions are usually studied by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists; the origins of diseases and host/pathogen relationships are normally investigated by virologists, epidemiologists, and specialists in biomedical fields. In my work as a paleomammalogist I had undertaken a number of technical investigations of Quaternary extinctions, but found all available interpretations of their cause to be either implausible, or untestable, or both. I could not imagine that human hunting could possibly have been responsible for hundreds of megafaunal extinctions, even under the most favorable conditions of predation. Nor could I believe that extinctions could have been forced by "climate change," if only because the losses occurred at radically different times in different places.

A few years ago I happened to be leafing through an issue of New Yorker magazine and came across an article by Richard Preston that became the basis for his best-selling book The Hot Zone. In the article Preston described Ebola disease, a then-obscure killer that had broken out in central Africa from time to time during the past 30 years. The progress of the disease was appallingly rapid: people died within days of exposure, which could occur just by handling the corpses or bodily fluids of those who had already died. In some outbreaks, mortality rates of 60-70% and even higher were reported. Seemingly, Ebola had come out of nowhere and hit humans like a sledgehammer. Ebola's meteoric career as a human pathogen was typical of so-called "emerging diseases," diseases that, for one reason or another, managed to jump from their original host to one or more new ones. In all likelihood, Ebola exists as a non-lethal infection in some rodent, bat, or other mammal in central Africa. Its spread to humans was probably accidental, due to increased contact between the mammal host and humans, maybe as a result of regional deforestation. Until Ebola evolves into a less virulent form, or until humans build up genetic immunity to it, this will remain a true killer plague.

It struck me immediately that the story of Ebola disease may be a key to understanding some extinctions. Extinctions are caused by catastrophic drops in population sizes; for any given extinction, the problem is to find some effect or process that can do the necessary irreparable damage in a period short enough to make population recovery impossible. Sixty-five million years ago, the effective agent of extinction that caused the end of all non-avian dinosaurs was a huge bolide [asteroid] impact that created fire storms, huge tsunamis, and perhaps a global "nuclear winter." Although a variety of species was affected, groups like terrestrial dinosaurs were almost completely wiped out. What comparable effect could have occurred at the end of the Pleistocene (for example) to wipe out most of the New World's mammalian megafauna? In my view, climate change was too slow to be a cause of extinction in this case. Human hunters might be much faster, but there is no way that they could have simultaneously caused faunal collapses in every ecosystem from desert to rain forest. However, disease knows no similar bounds, and -- as Ebola illustrates -- "new" diseases can be extraordinarily lethal in species that are imperfectly adapted to them.

It remained for me to relate the spread of disease to its probable agent. The cause seemed obvious: as humans progressively moved out across the planet, they must have taken pathogens along with them. In the hyperdisease theory*, worked out with my colleague Dr. Preston Marx, this stock of pathogens included ones able to infect immunologically-naive populations of endemic mammals, causing rapid population crashes and, in many cases, outright extinction. Humans need not have been the actual carriers; the carriers could have varied from place to place (as could the diseases themselves), and might have included rats or fleas, or parasites of rats and fleas, and so on. In any case, the disease hypothesis explains why the crashes occurred so soon after human arrival, and why they were so pervasive. It also seems to explain why the emerging diseases eventually stopped causing extinctions. After a period of high virulency, the pathogens and their new hosts settled down into the conventional, "benign" kind of arrangement that characterizes most well-established diseases and their hosts, wherein fatalities are few but contagion remains wide. However, for seriously-affected species, there was never the chance to set up a benign relationship. High levels of mortality would simply have continued until the last surviving populations were reduced to numbers too low to sustain species viability. After that, all that could happen was extinction.

This point about last surviving populations takes us back to what our rationale was for going to Wrangel Island in the first place. If disease was responsible for the demise of Mammuthus primigenius, then we have to expect that we will be able to detect evidence of it in only one context -- in the remains of the individuals that made up the terminal populations of the species, wherever they occurred. Since we know that mammoths survived later on Wrangel Island than elsewhere, it made sense to try there first, to see if we could actually put our hands on the bones of the last of the mammoths. Unfortunately, finding members of earlier populations of Wrangel mammoths won't help us test the theory, since it is obvious that they were not the last of their kind. The trouble is that you cannot simply look at a bone and determine its age; for that you need a reliable dating technique, such as radiocarbon dating.

I realize that the journey between a good idea and a confirmed hypothesis is often a long one. The Wrangel Island expedition marks the start of the journey; I actually look forward to the hike, because new science is bound to emerge.

Overkill theory for the demise of the mega-fauna of the Pleistocene

Overkill Theory


There is evidence of human activity in North America around 13,500 years ago cal, long before the mega fauna vanished. Stone points that have been bifacially flaked, and have the distinguishing feature of a flute cut down the center, have become the defining characteristic for a tool technology known as Clovis. Named for the location of the type-site in New Mexico, the discovery of the Clovis tool technology was important in dating the arrival of man in North America, something people have been wondering about since Columbus encountered well established and thriving cultures in 1492. Although theories on how humans migrated to the Americas are still being bandied about, the most widely accepted theory is that man arrived in a combination of ways rather than through one entry point or at one time. One way would have been by a coastal route along the Pacific Rim. This theory relies on the fact that even at the height of glaciation the oceans never froze, providing an active eco system with warmer temperatures and readily available food sources. The second route that seems most likely is over the Beringia land bridge. This theory maintains that man would have followed his food source, the mega fauna, across the harsh terrain provided by the land bridge and entered North America in Alaska. Skeptics believe that the environment of Beringia would have been too harsh for man to travel, but others believe it would have been thriving with its own eco system providing ample food sources for the journey.

No matter which venue early humans took to enter North America, the fact that they were here during the late Pleistocene has been established. It is likely that the first humans to enter the Americas were hunters because at that time there would have been no other food source available during a majority of the year. The earliest piece of evidence confirming the presence of humans in Alaska was found in 1978 in the form of fluted spear points alongside charcoal from fire hearths, which have been carbon dated to be about 13,600 years old. The mesa upon which these artifacts were found provided a 360º view of the surrounding area, and most likely was used as a lookout for a hunting party. Since 1978 numerous human sites have been found, some associated with specific big game kills. It is the mammoth that is associated with the earliest North American hunters due to the focus that seems to have been concentrated on this specific big game animal. In Blackwater, New Mexico evidence of eight mammoths were found associated with Clovis projectile points carbon dated between 11,630 - 11,040 years ago. In Burning Tree, Ohio the butcher-marked bones of a mastodont were located and dated to 11,660 years ago. In Lehner, Arizona evidence of thirteen mammoths associated with Clovis projectile points and dating to 10,900 years ago were found. The list of mammoth kill sites associated with early Paleoindian culture and dated from 11,700 to as early as 10,670 is long. It's not hard to imagine that the initial arrival of human hunters invoked no instinctive fear from these giant animals, who had existed for such a long period without the presence of an aggressive predator species, something that may well have aided in their eventual extinction.

The large number of sites, as well as the large number of mammoth kills at some of these sites, seem to indicate a focus on these large game animals for Paleoindians. This is not to suggest they only ate mammoth meat, for evidence of other species has been located. Bone evidence of the hunting of camel, pronghorn, bison, bear, tapir and jackrabbit have also been found, although in far fewer numbers than mammoth. For many years it was thought that the horse died out long before humans came to North America. However researchers in Alberta, Canada discovered the remains of the extinct horse (Equus conversidens) dating from 11,000 to 11,350 BP. Associated with the remains were various projectile points, among them two Clovis points that tested positive for protein residue belonging to the species Equus. Analysis of the projectile points showed impact burnination and fractures indicating they were indeed used as hunting implements and proving that the Clovis and the extinct horse did come in contact.

Investigations into the fossil record and carbon dating techniques have shown that 80% of the North American animal population disappeared within 1000 years of the arrival of man. In modern times the extinction of animal species has been closely associated with the arrival of man in its territory. Humans have been known to encroach on animal territories as populations enlarge; to hunt animals to extinction, or near enough to it, for sport as well as subsistence; and, to introduce toxins to the environment that have interrupted the normal life cycles of some birds and smaller life forms. It has only been in recent years that humans have begun taking responsibility for the creatures inhabiting the planet along side them. As such, the recognition for the destruction often caused by enlarging and developing human populations has been widely acknowledged. To draw a line connecting the extinction of animal populations in historic times to the extinction of animal populations in prehistoric times, both of which coincided with the arrival of man in one form or another, is not hard to see happening. So it is hardly surprising that this connection was made shortly after the environmental cause theory was disqualified.

At the forefront of the argument for the overkill theory is Paul Martin. Martin's theory is that humans were directly responsible for the mass extinction in the Late Pleistocene due to over hunting. He argues that the presence of a culture in which mammoth bones were used as building material in the construction of habitations represents a wave of hunting people sweeping southward across the continent. These people would have targeted the large game animals, and other animals as well, and migrated in the chase of these creatures. When the game was hunted out they would have followed a herd, leaving the trail of mammoth bones behind them for archaeologists to uncover thousands of years later. In the case of predators such as the saber tooth tiger, it is plausible that man caused their extinction by depleting their food source in their travels. Others would argue that there wasn't enough time for man to hunt so many creatures to extinction. Computer simulations have been carried out to test the growth of human population in conjunction with the rate of animal disappearance since Martin's overkill theory first made its appearance.

In 2001, John Alroy set out to test this theory using computers once again, this time using better programs and newer technology. The parameters he set included "slow human population growth rates", "random hunting and low maximum hunting effort." The results seem to show that the carrying capacity of each inhabited region of North America may have been over extended by the growth of human populations. As such the accelerated extinction of big game animals, the focus of Paleoindian hunters, would have been inevitable. The tests Alroy performed resulted in varying distributions of extinction times for the late Pleistocene, however the most likely scenario involved three waves. The first wave of extinction would have occurred within 1000 years of human arrival, the second in the next few hundred years and the third would have involved hunting the few groups remaining. Varying factors such as "human induced habitat change," "the introduction of pandemic diseases to native herbivore species by humans" and "selective human hunting of individual prey species" were missing from the model Alroy presented. He theorized that a model with these factors added in would result in faster extinction rates with slower population growth necessary. His results were discounted by Donald Grayson, however, who found that although Alroy's model closely matches the data used, he assumes that all of the extinctions fall during the period after the arrival of the Clovis and uses over hunting to explain their demise despite the lack of evidence of hunting of certain species.

Recently another computer simulation was performed. This time the model included the body masses for a range of 198 extinct and 433 surviving species from around the world, as well as parameters for "maximal replacement rate and equilibrium density of mega faunal prey populations, density of human populations, maximal rate of off-take by human hunters, and relative naivety of prey." The model showed that the larger the species became the slower their reproduction rates would be, in turn dwindling their numbers and making them less able to cope with rapidly changing circumstances and social disruptions. All of these factors would explain the swift extinction rate of the large mammals as human hunters moved across the continent. The populations would have taken more time to rebuild than the large quantity of mammoth bones at sites like Blackwater suggests it took to kill them in. With a few sites of 15, 18 and 13 kills each it's easy to picture how animals such as the mammoth could have been wiped out in 1000 years assuming they were slow to reproduce. In addition the offspring would have been easy prey to carnivores such as the saber tooth tiger, leopard and the flat faced bear, who may have become more aggressive killers in competition with man.

Even without the use of computer technology researchers have been using ethnographic evidence to support the overkill theory. In the early 70s anthropologist W.T. Vickers documented the hunting patterns of the Siona-Secoya Indians on the Aguarico River in Ecuador. A hunter-gatherer group, information about which animals the Siona-Secoya Indians hunted, and their success rates over five years provided a first hand look at the overkill theory in process. After only five years Indians began having difficulty hunting larger mammals and birds and had to rely on smaller creatures for subsistence. The migration of the Siona-Secoya Indians to this previously un-utilized habitat resulted in the depletion of the larger mammals, exactly what is thought to have happened when the Clovis migrated into the Americas.

Challengers of Martin's overkill theory often use one of three reasons it could not have happened that way. The first is that there would not have been enough time for man to hunt the vast quantity of animals that once roamed the North American continent. Despite the computer simulations and the ethnographic observations, they feel that the continent was too large and the population of humans would have been much too small for 80% of the animals to die out solely from hunting. They also refer to the Monte Verde site as support against extinction through overkill. In Monte Verde the skins of mastodons had been utilized as a covering for homes for over a thousand years before the extinctions of their kind in North America. Martin himself does not comment on the Monte Verde data, tending to dismiss all discussion concerning the search for possible pre-Clovis sites while speaking generally enough in his works to cover the eventual wide acceptance of data confirming such a site. (Grayson, 2001) And finally there is the lack of evidence that Clovis hunters were utilizing the entirety of the now extinct animal kingdom. Largely evidence of big game kills has been focused on the mammoth with projectile points found embedded in bone and other definitive evidence. The lack of evidence is what keeps many archaeologists and vertebrate paleontologists from going along with the overkill theory. It's only recently that data proving that horses were hunted by Clovis has come into light, and other than a few animals aside there are still many creatures un-represented at Clovis kill sites. However, just as the horse data was only recently retrieved, it is possible that in time more sites will be discovered containing the protein residue or bone fragments of various other extinct animals.

Climate change killed off mega-fauna 13,000 years ago

Climate Change Blamed for Pleistocene Megafauna Bust and Boom


By David Biello

Around 13,000 years ago, the world's climate began to change. Seas rose, glaciers retreated and ecosystems began to transform. At roughly the same time, humans arrived in North America, perhaps attracted by migrating game or newly hospitable land. Over the course of the next few millennia a host of indigenous large-bodied mammals, such as the mammoth, died out. Scientists have long debated whether climate warming or human hunting brought about this megafauna extinction. New radiocarbon dating results support the environmental explanation.

Arctic biologist R. Dale Guthrie of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, compiled radiocarbon dates for the permafrost-preserved fossils of six species--mammoths, horses, bison, moose, wapiti and humans--found in Alaska and Yukon Territory. The former two disappeared from the continent around 12,000 years ago as the latter four multiplied and spread.

He found that the horse Equus ferus had been declining long before humans arrived and disappeared a full 1,000 years before mammoths. This knocks out the so-called keystone theory, which holds that humans hunted the mammoths to extinction, causing a change in vegetation that subsequently precipitated other extinctions. And the mammoth's persistence over the next 1,000 years argues against precipitous overhunting.

A change in vegetation, however, does seem to hold the key to understanding this radical transformation, Guthrie argues. Prior to the warming, this geographic area lacked trees and provided only sparse forage. This would have given mammoths, horses and other related species a competitive advantage, because they can wrest sufficient nutrients from a high volume of low quality feed. But as the climate shifted, the so-called mammoth steppe became the environment we recognize today, characterized by shrubs, tundra and forests. This type of forage favors grazers such as bison, wapiti and moose. There are no signs of these species in the region before 13,000 years ago, but they appear to have proliferated rapidly thereafter.

"Archaeological refuse clearly illustrates the crucial role [in human colonization] of large mammal (at least bison and wapiti) resources as well as the increasing numbers of migratory waterfowl and salmonids in the Holocene," Guthrie writes in a paper published today in Nature. "These new data indicate that humans might have been not so much riding down the demise of [the] Pleistocene mammoth steppe as they were being carried into [the area] on a unique tide of resource abundance." In other words, at least in Alaska and the Yukon, climate change doomed the mammoths, but allowed humans, bison and other species to prosper.

More space and better protection to give Mexican Gray Wolves a fighting chance to stabilize population

 

Recover Mexican Gray Wolves Before It Is Too Late FROM WildEarth Guardians Tell government officials to work on recovery plans for Mexican Gray Wolves before it is too late CONTACT Sign an online petition And/Or make direct contact: Ken Salazar Secretary of the Interior Department of the Interior 1849 C Street N.W. Washington DC 20240 phone (202) 208-3100              (202) 208-3100       fax (202) 208-6950 email Benjamin Tuggle U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306 email INFORMATION / TALKING POINTS Three Mexican wolves have been shot by a serial killer - or killers - in the past month. These reckless and hateful actions are endangering the future of the lobo. This needs to stop! The killings come at a critical junction in the lobo recovery effort. As of December 2009 there were only 42 wolves in the wild, by the end of 2010 there will likely be even fewer. Urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to track down and punish the wolf killers. Two of the wolves killed were alpha males, who play a key role in providing food for their families. 34 illegal shootings have occurred since lobo reintroduction began. The federal government has itself removed another 151 Mexican wolves. The math is nightmarishly simple. Mexican wolves are facing extinction in the wild. WildEarth Guardians wants an end to the killing. We need a flourishing, not dwindling, population of Mexican wolves in the wild. Please urge the federal government to step up for this carnivore on the brink. The alpha males of the Hawk's Nest Pack in Arizona and the San Mateo Pack in New Mexico have both been killed. A younger male from the Hawk's Nest Pack was also shot and killed. The collared alpha male of a third pack, the Paradise Pack that roamed the Fort Apache Reservation in Arizona, has been missing since mid-April. Last year, the Hawk's Nest and Paradise packs were the only packs that gave birth to at least two pups that survived until the end of the year. Mexican wolf recovery can only succeed through the survival of intact wolf families in the wild. Speak up for wolves by writing Dr. Ben Tuggle with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, urging immediate and aggressive actions to recover Mexican wolves from the brink of extinction. Thank you for everything you do for animals!

 

COUGAR AND BOBCAT STUDY CONTINUES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

REGIONAL: Mountain lion study tracks big cats

Scientists examine how lions use big landscapes

By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN | Posted: July 23, 2010 7:36 pm | No Comments Posted | Print

Wildlife veterinarian Winston Vickers fits a radio collar on M60, a four-year old mountain lion that roams the Santa Ana range through Orange and San Diego counties. (Photo courtesy of Scott Vickers)

Loading…

• 
• 

For a year and a half, he prowled the mountains of East San Diego County, slipping past fences and border patrols at least four times as he crossed back and forth into Mexico on a 100-mile trek.

He kept a low profile on the edges of civilization, living off the land and avoiding the confrontations with ranchers and motorists that can prove deadly to his kind.

The voyage of the 4-year-old mountain lion, designated M53 in a decade-long study on the movements, health and behaviors of the big cats, illustrates the species' vast range and stealthy existence.

Four other study lions died in recent months ---- one was struck by a car and three were shot ---- common hazards the felines face in their quest to hunt and breed.

The divergent travels of the lions, recorded through radio collars, demonstrate what these large predators need to survive, and how the landscape is closing in on them.

"We're hoping to use this information to help people learn how they can coexist with lions," said Walter Boyce, co-director of the Wildlife Health Center and a principal investigator on the study.

Multipurpose lions

The Southern California Cougar and Bobcat Study started in 2000 to find out how and when mountain lions preyed on bighorn sheep.

Peninsula bighorn had been listed as an endangered species just two years earlier, and part of their management plan called for limiting lion attacks on sheep.

Researchers with the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center began tracking lions with radio collars to figure out how to do that.

They found, to their surprise, that lions' taste in sheep varies considerably, and that sheep-eating mothers train their cubs to do likewise, but that the behavior occurs in occasional binges instead of a steady pattern, Boyce said.

Other questions quickly arose.

Officials at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park and Anza-Borrego Desert State Park wondered whether the lions traveled on hiking trails.

The National Science Foundation asked for research on the spread of feline diseases between domestic and feral cats, bobcats and mountain lions.

And conservation groups interested in maintaining linked wildlands wanted to know where lions cross between the areas.

The study found that lions circulate in and out of state parks, mostly eluding hikers, and that feline diseases can mutate to pass between species.

And it indicated what kind of crossing structures the animals might need to safely get past freeways (wider undercrossings, or some sort of walls that steer them toward a safe crossing), and which areas ---- such as the Interstate 15 corridor from Temecula into San Diego County ---- are most vital to connecting separate populations of lions.

Various groups contributed funding to the study, which has cost more than $1 million, Boyce said, and the lions became a kind of roving laboratory for wildlife inquiries.

So far, researchers have captured 53 mountain lions ---- some more than once ---- and 13 bobcats over 10 years, Vickers said.

"It's like we have these sort of multipurpose lions out there, and we're trying to get every type of information we can from them," said Winston Vickers, a veterinarian with the Wildlife Health Center at UC Davis and a principal investigator on the study.

Capturing the lions posed the first challenge.

Researchers found that trapping lions in cages was safer for the animals than using either snares or hounds.

Once an animal is caged, researchers shoot it with a tranquilizer dart from a blowpipe, sedating it for about an hour.

They weigh and measure the lion, take blood samples and fit it with a radio collar.

The flexible collar is fitted with a radio transmitter that emits a steady beep at a distinctive radio frequency.

The device also records location coordinates from a GPS satellite.

Every few months, researchers fly over the area, tracking individual animals by their signals and downloading their data for analysis.

The collars are used only for research, Vickers said, not to track and kill a lion that has preyed on pets or livestock.

The device also contains a switch that doubles the beep if a lion is inactive for eight to 12 hours, emitting what researchers call a "mortality signal," indicating that the animal may have died.

Mortality signals

Over the last few months, those signals have sounded with regularity.

In April, another wide-ranging male lion, M56, was shot at a ranch in Japatul, near Alpine, after killing domestic sheep.

The lion, captured and collared in May 2009, had wandered down the coast across Camp Pendleton and passed through Oceanside.

Although researchers thought that I-15, with its high-speed traffic, represented a nearly uncrossable barrier to lions, M56 passed under the freeway into Valley Center at the Old Castle/Gopher Canyon exit, slinking through a concrete underpass that provided little of the cover that lions prefer.

"It was about the middle of the night, so there probably wasn't much traffic," said Randy Botta, an associate wildlife biologist with the Department of Fish and Game. "There's really no vegetation or much of a shoulder."

The lion continued through Valley Center into Escondido, passing within a couple of hundred yards of Botta's Valley Center home before apparently slipping through a wildlife undercrossing on Valley Center Road.

The lion's movement across the highways encouraged researchers, who feared that lions in the Santa Ana Mountains, which extend from Orange County into northern San Diego County to the west of I-15, were so geographically isolated that they were at risk of inbreeding and genetic defects.

Mountain lions, which once roamed over interconnected mountains in Southern California, are clustered in pockets of wildland that seem more like archipelagos, separated by developments and freeways.

M56, unexpectedly, had traversed the region safe from cars, which have killed a quarter of the animals in the study, Vickers said.

Another 25 percent are killed by trackers or property owners after the cats have killed pets or livestock.

As M56 passed a sheep farm in Japatul, the hungry lion killed more than a half-dozen domestic sheep.

Animal trackers for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services shot the lion after the farmers obtained a state depredation permit, or legal permission to kill an animal preying on domestic animals.

The lion had escaped one leading cause of death for Southern California lions, only to succumb to the other.

Three other lions in the study died in short order.

A male, M57, was hit by a car on the 241 toll road in Irvine in June.

A female, F51, was shot July 3 in an unincorporated area of Orange County, and F45, a female with cubs, was shot midmonth in the De Luz area near Fallbrook.

Wildlife authorities are investigating the two shootings, but have not located the cubs.

Their deaths confirm what scientists suspected: While lions in the wilderness die from disease, or fights with other lions, those crossing urban areas face a different threat.

"The risk of death is higher when they happen to be moving in areas that put them in contact with people," Vickers said.

Really big landscapes

Although several lions died recently when they crossed paths with humans, others in the study have circulated throughout wild patches of Southern California undetected by residents.

One traveled 60 miles from Cuyamaca Rancho State Park to the San Pasqual Valley around the San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park, Vickers said.

Another roamed 100 miles, from Anza Borrego Desert State Park to the San Jacinto Mountains near Palm Springs.

Given the chance, scientists said, mountain lions can slip past humans without incident.

Scientists said they want to give the animals the chance, and the space. About one-sixth of long-standing mountain lion habitat is projected to be lost to development by 2030, based on research by Colorado State University researchers, Vickers said.

Conservationists hope to set aside some of that land to connect wild places such as state parks and national forests, said Zach Principe, a biologist with the Nature Conservancy.

"The thing is to keep them away from people, because things happen," he said. "They're not tame animals, and they get wild."

As top predators, mountain lions provide signals about the condition of "really big landscapes," Vickers said.

While the recent mountain lion deaths appear to paint a bleak picture of their prospects, the study's findings offer hope about their resilience, scientists said.

"They are potent symbols in people's minds of wildness, and wild landscapes," Vickers said. "So at least one thing that defines the study is that this landscape does retain a lot of important connections. There is a lot of mountain lion habitat still out there."

Call staff writer Deborah Sullivan Brennan at 760-740-5420

Wolverines........most folks have no idea that they exist, what they look like, what role they play in natures design...Doug Chadwick's new book answers all of those questions and more.....

Tough but Threatened: Why Wolverines Need Protection

 

The wolverine, in the words of various protagonists in Doug Chadwick's "The Wolverine Way," is "badass," "the coolest of carnivores," "big heart and lungs and souped-up metabolism," and "a life support system for a set of legs." No one sums it up better than veterinarian Dan Savage: "There's tough, and then there's wolverine."

A 20- to 40-pound mass of muscle, teeth, and audacity, so fearless as to be willing to square off with grizzlies, and an occupant of some of the least hospitable environments one could imagine, the wolverine is also one of the rarest and least known animals in North America. Unfortunately, as Chadwick relates, the wolverine is in jeopardy because of rapid climate change, making the species the land equivalent of the polar bear.

Chadwick's book chronicles the ambitious work of the Glacier Wolverine Project (2002-2007), a study of wolverine distribution and population dynamics, including breeding success, survival rates, and dispersal to new habitats, which encompassed a range of 3,500 square miles. This five-year project in Glacier National Park (the Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust was a modest financial supporter) brought together scientists, veterinarians, wildlife officials, and others in an effort to apply the best of modern technologies to the study of this little known creature. Chadwick was a volunteer, dragging bait to lay scent trails, helping to construct log cabin traps, following tracks in snow and blizzard conditions, assisting with the implantation of GPS devices, and radio tracking Glacier's wolverine population.

Like other North American carnivores, wolverines were perennial victims of 20th century predator destruction policies, but they rebounded in the 1960s and 1970s as environmentalists succeeded in campaigns to limit the use of predator poisons. Wolverines got a foothold in Glacier National Park and the surrounding national forests, and eventually recolonized mountain chains in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Currently, there are 40-50 wolverines in the 1,500 square miles of Glacier, making it the most significant concentration left in the contiguous states. Overall, there are somewhere between 100 and 150 in Montana, with a similar number in Idaho. Yellowstone and Grand Teton National parks may have another 50, with Washington's North Cascades holding a few more. No more than 400 individuals in the lower 48. Populations are larger in Alaska and Canada.

Among other achievements, the Glacier research overturned the longstanding view that wolverines are ferocious, antisocial animals, showing their family ties, cooperation, affection, and playful spirit. Researchers also confirmed the absolutely staggering distances these animals can cover even over the most rugged terrain.

Wolverines exist at low densities in big home ranges at the highest elevations of our continent, on terrain too high, cold, steep, and snowbound for other predators and scavengers to endure. Snow, ice, and cold are central to their denning habits, their comparative advantage in relation to other species, and their survival. That's why climate change is a looming threat to this species. Not only do warming temperatures leave less snow, but they are also contributing to a massive die-off of whitebark pine, a hardy, high-altitude tree whose logs are often incorporated into wolverine dens.

Since the early 1990s, environmental and animal protection groups have been pressing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the wolverine as imperiled in the contiguous states under the Endangered Species Act, with the FWS twice concluding that not enough is known to warrant protection. In April 2010, in the aftermath of a lawsuit brought by Defenders of Wildlife, the FWS announced that it would undertake a status review, to consider the wolverine as a candidate for listing as a threatened or endangered species. The deadline is set for this December, and The Humane Society of the United States will press for a favorable decision.

There are other threats to wolverines. The most significant is that of wilderness that is shrinking and fragmented by development and highways, and by such recreational activities as heli-skiing, snowmobiling, cross-country ski touring and other pursuits that encroach on the narrow ribbon of timberline habitat available for wolverine denning.

Among other solutions, Chadwick advances the case for safeguarding habitats and adequate linkages between them -- particularly park-to-park wildland corridors that allow animal species to migrate, disperse, adapt, and maintain the genetic diversity that is ultimately essential to their survival. The concept has many champions, including Freedom to Roam, a program sponsored by Patagonia, which also published "The Wolverine Way."

From the humane perspective, it's worth noting Chadwick's concerns about the effects of trapping on the species. "The Wolverine Way" calls into question the propriety of Montana's trapping season on wolverines (admittedly small), and specifies the threat of the hundreds of thousands of traps set throughout the American backcountry for other midsized carnivores, traps that are capable of killing wolverines. Chadwick's proposals for a ban on trapping of midsize and large animals in and around reserves with wolverine populations, and the restriction of trapping in linkage zones between these areas, have real merit.

Like the wolverine itself, "The Wolverine Way" is a rare and admirable creation. Chadwick's engaging style, compelling voice, and hopeful attitude underscore what is at stake in the struggle, setting out an agenda for the wolverine's protection, and establishing the immeasurable worth of this citizen of the wild.

oklahoma's expanding black bear population

Black bear population focus of new study

 

BY ED GODFREY Oklahoman    0

Published: July 11, 2010

Black bears appear to be expanding their range in Oklahoma.

State wildlife officials will begin another study this month on the black bear population, only this time they will focus their research on counties in east-central Oklahoma.

"We've had (bears) in Muskogee. We've had them in Webbers Falls," said Alan Peoples, head of the wildlife division for the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.

"There seems to be a concentration of them in an around Sequoyah County."

The Wildlife Department previously partnered with Oklahoma State University to study the black bear population in southeastern Oklahoma.

That study in part led to the opening of Oklahoma's first black bear hunting season last year in four southeastern Oklahoma counties (McCurtain, Pushmataha, Latimer and Le Flore).

Nineteen bears were taken by Oklahoma hunters.

OSU is partnering with the Wildlife Department again for a similar study, only this time the research area will be Sequoyah and surrounding counties, Peoples said.

Wildlife officials want to know if the increased sightings are young males on the roam or a signal that there is a breeding population of bears in counties other than southeastern Oklahoma.

The study likely will take 3 to 5 years to complete, Peoples said.

Both Missouri and Texas wildlife officials recently reported an increase in black bears moving across its borders from Arkansas.

Read more: http://newsok.com/black-bear-population-focus-of-new-study/article/3475096#ixzz0tOwQx3RM

Frankenstein fish and animals to enter the circle of life?

The Gulf Oil Spill has revealed(or reinforced) in many of us the fact that the notion that technology is the answer to all of lifes ills, obstacles and ultimate pleasures is darn right false.

You blow a hole in the earths crust and by god, you might just not ever plug it properly when it leaks!

You introduce a pesticide to kill a certain bug...............and lo and behold that bug eventually finds a way to develop an immunity and pass on that resistance to its offspring--resulting in SUPERBUGS that now need even more potent poisons to kill them!

You develop medicines to mitigate or minimize diseases................and you spend 20 seconds of every 30 second tv spot warning folks of the side effects of the medicine....................seemingly the medicine causes more problems than the cure!

As Carly Simon said in her famous 1970's song: "We rip up paradise and put up a parking lot"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now we are genetically manipulating salmon so that they grow herculean in size.................you know darn well that some of these "freaks" are going to escape into our rivers and oceans and potentially mate with natures salmon...................oh, to what disaster that may ripple across the environment................how wil those salmon "X-MEN" tear negatively into the circle of life?....................

Why do we continue to make the same mistake over and over again? How in good name can we call this progress when time and time again our chemistry and geneology manipulations lead to environmental contamination and degradation?

Sucks that we are so greedy and so quick to dismiss nature as quaint and "out-of-touch" with our sophisticated brains..........................We ultimately are stupid creatures, the only species to purposely foul it's nest!

click here to read about genetically modified salmon about to enter our waters

Male and Female humans are predators just like our fellow Earth travelers...........the Wolf, Cougar, Bear, Coyote, etc

A Month or so back, the Sunday New York Times Magazine had a very thoughtful and optimistic article reviewing how cattle farmers in New England and the Mid-Atlantic might rejuvenate their business through the innovation of the "slaughterhouse on Wheels".......................thats right, a family business has been born where instead of the farmer having to go to the expense of getting his cattle to the slaughter house in some distant city, the slaughterhouse drives right up to individual farms and butchers meat on location...................

This fascinating article lit up my "bulb" and made me reflect on how our species is the true omnivore.............like the Coyote, able to dine on both meat, fruit and vegetable.....................

We do not blink(nor should we) at having a fine steak, chicken, fish or lamb dinner.......................all requiring killing our "prey" so that we can survive, reproduce and live to see another day.............

The same way that all predators go about their days..........................Long live the Predator......us humans, coyotes, wolves, bears, cougars, jaguars, wolverines, foxes, martens and fishers.........all of us.killing to eat and to prosper................We have to learn not to be nauseated by this thought..........not to condem our fellow predators for doing what they need to do to survive.............. the very thing that we do..................

click here to read full article

The mysteries of Animal migration...................connective corridors critical between large swaths of open space

The Western Pronghorn migration is nothing short of that of the Porcupine Caribou herd of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska........................We are first fully realizing how previous open space boundary lines(Parks and refuges, no matter how large)are not the answer to preserving and perpetuating our Wild America hertitage...............

 

click to read the magic and mystery of the Pronghorn migration

Understanding body size dynamics in Carnivores--why are animals of the same species generally larger in size in Northern Climes?

Bergmann's Rule: larger body size provides animals protection from cold temperatures.

 

Rensch's Rule: larger body size leads to sexual dimorphism(males tend to be larger in size than females of the same species).

 

Steven Ferguson(Fisheries and Oceans Canada) and Serge Lariviere(Cree Hunters and Trappers Income Security Board) penned a very thorough and insightful article in 2008 in The Open Ecology Journal where their field work led them to the conclusion that BODY SIZE IN CARNIVORES WAS NOT INFLUENCED DIRECTLY BY ENVIRONMENT BUT RATHER THROUGH THE INTERMEDIARY VARIABLES, HOME RANGE OR DENSITY. THOSE ANIMALS LIVING IN 4 DISTINCT(winter, summer fall and spring) SEASONAL LATITUDES WERE ASSOCIATED WITH LARGER HOME RANGES AND LOW DENSITY THAT IN TURN SELECTED FOR LARGER BODY MASS AND GREATER SEXUAL SIZE DIMORPHISM.

 

Greater body size allows animals to range far distances to overcome food shortages due to severe winters.................also provides energy to pursue mates who are spaced out widely over extensive home ranges.

 

Since males are the pursuers of females, additional heft provides for additional energy in finding females and successfully mating with them.

 

Polygamous Carnivores(think Cougars)  that roam large home ranges seeking females tend to be larger in size than monogamous Carnivores(think coyotes and foxes) who tend to mate with one female over long periods of time and also help out with child raising activities.

 

Enjoy the full article attached:

 

 

 

 

Tme to put Wolves back on the ground in all regions of the USA that biologists have identified as suitable habitat

Wolf Recovery Sought Across Country: West Coast, New England, Colorado and Great Plains

Silver City, N.M.— Gray wolves should be recovered in multiple, connected populations throughout the United States, according to a scientific petition filed today by the Center for Biological Diversity with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The petition asks for development of a national recovery plan for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act to establish wolf populations in suitable habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, Great Basin, southern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and New England.

"Existing recovery plans for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and upper Midwest are out of date and apply to a small fraction of the wolf's historic range," said the Center's Michael Robinson. "It's time to develop a national recovery plan to facilitate true recovery of the gray wolf."

Currently, gray wolf populations are limited to the northern Rocky Mountains, western Great Lakes and Southwest, which makes up less than 5 percent of their historic range. In part, this reflects the fact that the gray wolf has never had a national recovery plan, though it has been listed in the entire conterminous United States since 1978. Instead, individual recovery plans have been developed for only the three areas that now harbor populations. These plans were developed in the late 1970s and 1980s and are now outdated. Besides failing to recognize that wolves can be recovered to other areas, the plans set population goals well below what are now considered necessary for population health and survival. In the northern Rocky Mountains, for example, the recovery plan only called for 30 breeding pairs, split between three subpopulations.

"Small, isolated wolf populations are a recipe for extinction," said Robinson. "Science teaches us that we need far more wolves that range across a much wider swath of the continent than the current minimalistic approach."

The Center's petition starts a process in which the Fish and Wildlife Service must make a determination on whether to develop such a recovery plan based on the science in the petition and the requirements of the law. The Endangered Species Act requires recovery of endangered animals and plants throughout all significant portions of their range.

"Wolves are an engine of evolution," said Robinson. "They help feed bears, eagles and wolverines with the leftovers from their kills; they help pronghorn antelope and even foxes survive by controlling coyotes. A continent-wide approach to wolf recovery is necessary both to save the wolf and to restore ecosystems across the United States."

We can co-exist with bears if we see them as fellow travelers accompaning us on our life on Earth--New jersey resident weighs in on upcoming bear hunt to contract population

You have been sent an online news article from rick meril as a courtesy of dailyrecord.com.

CLICK ON LINK TO READ EDITORIAL
We can co-exist with bears
To view the contents on http://www.dailyrecord.com/, go to:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201007200600/OPINION02/100719046

New Wild Wolf Pups Photographed in Oregon

New Wild Wolf Pups Photographed in Oregon    CLICK LINK TO READ

FANTASTIC TO SEE THE WOLVES DOING THEIR BEST TO PERPETUATE THEIR SPECIES AND RESTORE A HEALTHY BALANCE OF PREDATOR AND PREY IN THE MOUNTAINS AND VALLEYS OF OREGON

BOBCATS REGULATE THEIR OWN NUMBERS TO CORRELATE WITH AVAILABLE FOOD AVAILABILITY..............WHY DO WE HAVE TO CULL THEIR RETURNING NUMBERS IN IOWA?

CLICK ON STATEMENT BELOW TO READ ARTICLE
DNR increases bobcat limit for the fall season Source: radioiowa.com

rick.meril@warnerbros.com sent this using ShareThis.

NEW YORK RESIDENTS HAVE TO SHOW TOLERANCE AND RESPECT TO OTHER WILD ANIMALS.................ARE ZOOS AND THE DISCOVERY CHANNNEL THE ONLY PLACE THEY WANT CONTACT WITH NATURE?

my many friends on the east coast get angry when they read that western state ranchers want to get rid of all of the wolves, cougars and grizzlies that share the land with them....................yet these same folks "freak" when hearing about the coyotes who bit the little girls in Rye, NY...........stop leaving toddlers unattended..............stop leaving your garbage cans uncapped.............stop letting cats and dogs wander the neighborhood...............you live in beautiful wooded suburbs...........those suburbs woodlands are not regenerating young trees due to hordes of deer nibbling seedlings to the bone..............your lymes disease cases are out of control and maiming far more people than coyotes................the coyotes eat the rabbits, squirrels mice and rats that love your neighborhoods................they might even provide some "LANDSCAPE OF FEAR" orientation that our friend john laundre talks about when predators cause prey species to become vigilant and not idle too long in any one place.................some fawns and even adult deer are part of coyote diets--wonderful thing!  C'MON WESTCHESTER NY RESIDENTS, PAUSE, THINK AND HEAR THE SCIENCE ON COYOTE MANAGEMENT WHICH LOUDLY CITES NOT KILLING OFF EXISTING FAMILY UNITS................CAUSING YOUNGER COYOTES TO MOVE INTO YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS WHO ARE NOT AS SEASONED AND BOUND TO GET INTO TROUBLE WITH YOU(LIKE OUR TEENAGERS WITH NO LIFE EXPERIENCE TO DRAW ON)...................ENJOY THE YIPS AND HOWLS OF COYOTES..............MAKES US MORE HUMAN TO KNOW THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WILD OUTSIDE BESIDES OURSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Coyote Advocates: Rye's Hunting and Trapping Methods Too Aggressive

Some coyote advocates argue that Rye's approach of trapping and euthanizing coyotes will cause a longer-term problem of making the animals more aggressive.

 

 

 

Recent coyote attacks on children in Rye have sparked a crusade to keep these animals at bay. However, several coyote advocates are concerned that the methods Many folks feel that the strategy of heavy trapping coyotes being used by Rye Police to trap and kill the coyotes are too aggressive and non-selective, which could create an even bigger problem in the long term.

"There hasn't been a problem before March, so the coyote community was stable so no new coyotes could come in," said CeAnn Lambert, President of the Indiana Coyote Rescue Center in Bringhurst, Ind. "They are very territorial. Bloodlust of the community is going to leave that coyote territory unstable and within three weeks new coyotes can move into that territory."

After two coyote attacks in June on a 6-year-old girl and 3-year-old girl in Rye, Rye officials, with the backing of state authorities, have said they will hunt and euthanize coyotes because the animals have become more aggressive towards humans.

"I don't think that once these behaviors are exhibited that there is any rehabbing for these animals. I think they need to be removed from the population," said Kevin Clarke, a wildlife biologist with the State Department of Environmental Conservation who spoke at a July 1 public forum at Rye City Hall.

While advocates agree that offending coyotes should be killed, there is no way of knowing which coyotes have committed the attacks, they said. 

Frank Vincente, Director of the Wild Dog Foundation, a coyote education group in Mineola, also said that Rye may be creating a bigger problem for itself.

Vincente believes that the most recent attacks were committed by young coyotes whose parents were likely euthanized after the first coyote attack in March that killed a poodle at the Osborn Retirement Community. After the incident, Rye Police began hunting coyotes and have since captured nine of them, including one female and eight pups. Authorities have said the coyotes were relocated, not killed.

Still, Vincente argued that random killing of parental coyotes could be counterproductive for the city.

"When you kill the parents of a pack, the one- year olds do not have the parental instilled knowledge on how to avoid humans and what is appropriate to hunt," Vincente said. "Indiscriminant killing of family groups creates these chaotic family units, so inexperienced juveniles wind up in trouble. You also eliminate the dominant animals that prevent subordinates from breeding, thus growing the population as these subordinates become breeders."

Rye Mayor Doug French said completely eliminating the coyote population is not the city's goal.

"The Rye City strategy is one that has been developed through careful consultation and discussion with professional wildlife biologists at both the federal and state level," he said. "All parties agree that eradication is not the goal, but safe removal of coyotes that show aggression through hunting and trapping is the necessary response for public safety -- and that will continue to be our priority in this matter."  

French and Rye Police Commissioner William Connors met Wednesday with officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State DEC, Westchester County and neighboring communities such as Rye Brook, Harrison, Port Chester and Mamaroneck to formulate a long-term plan.

Connors said that law enforcement and city officials will alter their strategy for dealing with the coyote issue long-term.

"We don't expect that to go on forever," Connors said in reference to shooting the animals. "We're not looking to be in the hunting business."

The city has yet to trap any coyotes since the two attacks because coyotes are notoriously difficult to trap during the summer months, Connors said. From September through May coyote pups begin to disperse and they become much easier to catch. During the winter months when coyotes are seeking out food they are also easier to locate.

Connors said the city has switched from using leg hole traps, which some advocates argue is the most effective method, to using collarum traps, which catch and restrain coyotes by the neck. However, the city will rely on other strategies, such as hazing and harassment, in the long term.

"[The goal is] Putting a program in place for the sort of human behavior that makes coyotes not to want to be around humans and to discourage the kind of curiosity and aggressiveness that they've shown," Connors said.

Advocates like Lambert encourage these kinds of techniques.

"Some groups out in California are using paint ball guns and they are shooting at the coyotes, which makes them run off. Pepper spray or anything that makes a loud noise works, [as do] fire crackers as long as they don't throw them at the coyotes," she said.

Vincente adds that a "massive public education" is necessary for any method to be effective. Vincente, who has been a coyote educator for 15 years, said he would even speak throughout Westchester for free in order to educate residents about how to behave around coyotes. 

Connors said educating the public will be an integral part of the city's long-term strategy. He also said that the city will decide whether the police department, an animal control officer or private trappers will be tasked with regularly handling the coyote issue. He and Mayor French said the end goal is for the city to determine what is affordable and sustainable in the long-term.

"The resources we use and the tactics we deploy will continue to be evaluated and shifted based on their effectiveness and safety to the residents," French said.

Are Rye's methods for trapping coyotes too aggressive?

historical accounts of keystone predators and prey that occupied what we now call the State of Oklahoma

Pre Blog, some of the emails sent to you that generated strong positive response centered around historical accounts of what carnivores occupied the Americas circa 1500................................Oklahoma first hand accounts below:

Historical Accounts of Several Large Mammals in Oklahoma

Jack D. Tyler and Wendy J. Anderson

Department of Biological Sciences, Cameron University, Lawton, OK 73505

Pre-1900 accounts of the gray wolf, black bear, mountain lion, elk, and pronghorn in Oklahoma are reviewed. Because

Oklahoma was not opened to white settlement until late in the nineteenth century, early reports on the natural history of the

state are sparse, scattered, and frequently anecdotal.

INTRODUCTION

Because Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) was settled by Caucasians relatively later than

surrounding states (beginning in 1889), there is a paucity of information on the fauna of Oklahoma. Prior to the

twentieth century, the gray wolf

(Canis lupus), black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor),

elk

(Cervus canadensis), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) were at least locally common in the area.

Since 1900, however, drastic reductions in their ranges and numbers have occurred. This paper reviews

historical references to these species (Table 1) and discusses reasons for their disappearance.

GRAY WOLF

One of the earliest wolf sightings in Oklahoma was by the French explorer Brevel. Brevel mentioned seeing

wolves in the Wichitas on his 1765 trip to Santa Fe (1). The Wichita Mountains are in Comanche County

(southwestern Oklahoma).

In 1718, de la Harpe (10), while traveling through Muskogee County near the present town of Haskell,

wrote: "One buffalo herd was followed by a pack of wolves as large as those in France." This is significant

because the observer noted the size of the wolves. Coyotes

(Canis latrans) are much smaller.

Wolf packs frequently accompanied herds of bison and elk. In 1820, Long (2), traveling along the Canadian

River in central Oklahoma, stated: "The bison and wolves moved slowly off to the right and left leaving a lane

for the party to pass . . ." And on the Chisholm Trail between the Cimarron River and the Salt Fork of the

Arkansas River, Borroum (3) wrote in 1871: "Buffalo, horses, elk, deer, antelope, wolves . . . were all mixed

together and it took several hours for them to pass . . . so that we could proceed . . ."

Seven times in

The Rambler in Oklahoma, Latrobe (4) referred to wolves. He noted their interaction with

bison in the prairie habitat: "The wolves hunt the straggling cows and calves in packs."

de Pourtales (5), on tour with Washington Irving, recounted: "I was awakened once or twice by a concert of

wolves, who howled in the thicket about twenty paces from me approach . . . We get a great deal of exercise by

riding twelve leagues a day and by chasing down wolves all around us . . . The prairies are full of them . . ."

Their camp was near the Canadian River south of Fort Gibson, probably in what is now Muskogee County.

Gould (6) asserted that the gray wolf was still present in Oklahoma as late as 1900. According to McCarley

(7), full-blooded red wolves (

C. rufus) were completely extirpated from the state by 1950.

BLACK BEAR

Bears were abundant in the oak cross timbers of central Oklahoma in the 1830s. Latrobe (4), who

accompanied Washington Irving, referred to bears five times in reporting his exploration of this region, and

stated that they were fat from feeding on a harvest of acorns. Gregg (8) made a similar observation: "Among the

cross timbers, the black bear is very common, living chiefly upon acorns and other fruits."

Bears were apparently plentiful across the area (6). Maley (9), while exploring the Red River (probably in

present-day Choctaw or Bryan County), observed many bears. de la Harpe (10), in what is now Pushmataha

County, killed a bear during a hunt for food in 1719. In 1823, a ranger with General E. P. Gaines (11) saw a bear

along the Grand River in northeast Oklahoma.

52 J.D. TYLER and W.J. ANDERSON

Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 70:51-55 (1990)

53 LARGE MAMMALS in OKLAHOMA

Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 70:51-55 (1990)

Ursus americanus

inhabited such diverse habitats as prairies, mountains and woodlands. Nuttall (12), an

early botanist, also took notes on the fauna of eastern Oklahoma. Nuttall said: ". . . in the morning our party fell

upon a favorite amusement, in the pursuit of two bears; harmlessly feeding in the prairies, which being fat were

soon overtaken and killed" (sic.).

In the Wichita Mountains of southwest Oklahoma, bears were once fairly common. Brevel mentioned bears

in the Wichitas (1). Keim (1) found fresh bear signs in 1869 on a tree near Mount Scott. Skins of a sow and cub

collected on Mount Scott by Gaut (30) are in the U.S. National Museum. According to Halloran and Glass (25),

the last four bears in the Wichitas were killed in 1934.

MOUNTAIN LION

Although the bobcat

(Felis rufus) is still widespread in Oklahoma, its larger relative, the mountain lion, was

probably extirpated by the early 1900's. This large cat impressed early travellers who encountered it.

The French explorer Brevel (1) in the Wichita Mountains in 1765 wrote: ". . . on the mountains, spotted

tiger (an early record of jaguar in Oklahoma?), panther, and wild cat." "Wild cat" refers to the bobcat; however,

the "spotted tiger" could possibly have been a jaguar. Jaguars ventured into southern Texas during this time

(14), but have never been recorded in Oklahoma. It is possible that Brevel saw the spotted cub of a mountain

lion.

On July 15, 1852, Bushman was hunting deer along the south branch of Cache Creek in southwestern

Oklahoma when he attempted to bring a fawn closer by "bleating." But, to his great surprise, he attracted instead

a mountain lion. Marcy (15) wrote of the incident: ". . . when immediately behind the fawn came a huge panther

bounding rapidly towards him." Marcy also encountered a cougar. While passing through present-day Tillman

County near Grandfield on May 17, 1852, he saw a large animal coming toward him. He wrote: "I fired several

shots which took effect . . . He was a fine specimen of the North American Cougar

(Felis concolor)" (15).

Records (16) mentioned mountain lions among many other mammals seen in 1800 near the Alfalfa-Major

County line. Payne (17) wrote that in February 1883, panthers, wild cats, prairie dogs, and jack rabbits, etc.,

were found along the Canadian River in McClain County, central Oklahoma. Sitgreaves and Woodruff (18),

during their travels through Oklahoma in 1858, stated: ". . . of quadrupeds (we) found but a few Dusky Wolves

(

Canis nubulis), panther (Felis buco) . . ." These scientific names have of course since been changed.

Woodhouse (19), an avid ornithologist, made camp at Childers Ford on the Verdigris River while passing

through Oklahoma during 1849. A quote from his journal reads: "I was awakened one night whilst in the camp

by the cry of a panther

(Felis concolor, Mountain Lion) . . . in the swamp in back of our tent." This would have

been in southwestern Rogers or northeastern Wagoner County.

The exact date that cougars were extirpated from Oklahoma is not known. Ranger Earl Drummond stated

that "the last cougar killed in the [Wichita] mountains was in 1900" (1).

ELK

In 1601, de Onate (2), traveling through what is now Roger Mills County in westcentral Oklahoma,

encountered ". . . deer which are as large as horses. They traveled in droves of two and three hundred and their

deformity (antlers?) causes one to wonder whether they are deer or some other animal." These were almost

certainly elk.

While de Onate did not specifically identify the animals he saw as elk, most explorers described them in

greater detail. Bean (20) crossed Oklahoma in 1832 with Washington Irving. Irving wrote of Bean: "He

abandoned his pursuit of the deer, and followed the newly discovered track. After some time he came in sight of

elk, and had several fair chances of shot, but was anxious to bring down a large buck, which kept in advance."

Elk travelled in large herds. Sibley (21) stated: "Numerous herds of elk and antelope were frisking in the

gay flower plain, giving life and animation to the charming scene." This was in 1811, probably in present-day

Alfalfa County. Long (22), while passing through western Oklahoma along the Canadian River, observed: "In

the afternoon the country we passed was swarming with innumerable herds of bison, wild horses, deer, elk, etc. .

. ." In northeastern Oklahoma in 1806,

54 J.D. TYLER and W.J. ANDERSON

Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 70:51-55 (1990)

Wilkinson (2) wrote: "It appeared as if we had just gotten into the region of game; for the herds of buffalo, elk,

goat (pronghorn), and deer surpassed credibility." The exact date that native elk disappeared from Oklahoma is

uncertain.

PRONGHORN

The pronghorn is strictly a mammal of open grasslands. Vast Oklahoma prairies once provided excellent

habitat for this animal, which probably surpassed even the bison in numbers.

The pronghorn can achieve speeds of up to 40 mph and the early explorers took note of this. While in the

Wichita Mountains in 1852, Marcy (15) spotted several pronghorns and remarked that several greyhounds in his

party could not catch them (1). Gregg (8) observed them near Richmond in Woodward County. He wrote:

"Although we had encountered but very few buffalo since we left Spring Valley, they now begin to make their

appearance again, though not in very large droves; together with the deer and the fleet antelope, which the latter

struck me as being much more tame in this wild section of the prairies than I had seen it elsewhere." Latrobe (4)

on October 30, 1832, entered the following passage in his journal: "A small group of goats or antelopes was

pointed out to me, but I was unable to approach them to give their figure or appearance with any distinctness."

It is conjectural as to when the last pronghorn left the grasslands of Oklahoma. Gaut (30) stated: "As late as

1890 antelope were numerous in Greer County southwest of Mount Scott . . ." Gould (6) wrote: ". . . in 1900

there were several droves of antelope in what is now Tillman County."

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Historical references demonstrate that these five large mammals were a conspicuous element of Oklahoma's

fauna prior to the twentieth century. Why did they disappear? The major reason was the rapid expansion in

human population after the state was opened to settlement in 1889. As homesteaders settled into the territory,

widespread deforestation, burning, and plowing of the rich prairie sod followed. Overgrazing was commonplace

after barbed wire fences were erected. Because no game laws were in existence to protect wildlife, overhunting

was also rampant. In 1912, Barde (23) portrayed the opening of the state ". . . as though the lightnings of heaven

had fallen upon its wild life. Fires swept the country in all directions; armies of horsemen penetrated to remote

places; wagons rumbled over the hills and down the valleys; there was a tumult of shouting and the roar of guns,

and violence reigned, where until that day had been the peace of a primeval solitude. The slaughter had begun."

As ranchers moved in, they looked for possible solutions to the predator problem. Bounties were placed. In

1859, Mead (24) wrote: "Hunters with strychnia finally exterminated the wolves, myself and men killing some

5000 of them. They never molested people." Cougars were shot, wolves poisoned, and bears hunted down. All

animals that were thought to harm livestock were killed with great fervor.

Elk and pronghorn diminished quickly after white men entered Indian Territory because of extensive

hunting for food and sport.

Elk have been reintroduced into the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge and parts of eastern Oklahoma,

and small numbers of pronghorns still roam the Panhandle. But the wolves, bears and cougars are gone.

Occasionally, a bear or mountain lion wanders into the state, but none of these large mammals is an important

component of Oklahoma's fauna today.

JohnLaundre reports on the true postive of having predators in the system

South Dakota Hunters Concerned that Cougars May be Impacting Deer and Elk Populations ‏

 

In a blatant attempt to use fear, South Dakota "sportsmen" are trying to influence cougar management by raising the specter of a bloodthirsty predator killing all THEIR deer and elk.  In South Dakota is where cougars are making a valiant attempt to re-establish themselves in historical range, an effort we has humans would admire and hold in awe as an ecological wonder for any other non-predator native species.  This selective and outright prejudice against predators has got to stop.  Not just because it is ecologically disastrous but also because it is flat out logically wrong!  All across the West, so called sportsmen have been blaming predators, mainly cougars, for declines in deer populations that began in the early 1990's and have yet to recover to previous, probably unhealthy, highs in the 1980's.  In the scientific literature, I demonstrated that if you go through the calculations and add the numbers up, it just does not make sense.  Logically, given what cougars eat, the numbers of cougars, and the number of deer, cougars just can't eat enough deer to make a difference.  To do so, there would have to be higher numbers of cougars than has ever been reported and they would weight over 700 pounds after one year!

As with the calculations I made for an area in Idaho, if we bother to do the calculations for the Black Hills of South Dakota, again, the numbers just don't add up.  Let me show you.  Now I know the numbers may get confusing but please bear with me because it is only by following this number trail that we can logically assess the impact cougars in the Black Hills can possibly have on the deer population.  First, how many deer are there in the Black Hills?  Based on a study out of Brookings, SD, there are approximately 43,000 mule and white-tailed deer there.  Eighty percent of them are females (or about 34,000).  Approximately 80% of them will give birth to an average of 1.5 young/year, or about 41,00 fawns.  If 50% of them survive their first year, this is an addition of 20,500 new deer to the population each year! 

The next thing to ask is how many cougars are there.  According to the South Dakota Game Fish and Parks, there are about 250 cougars living in the Black Hills.  If each of them eat only adult deer and kill on average 30 deer per year (this is actually high based on previous studies) then they will kill about 7,500 deer per year.  This represents only about 17.4% of the adult deer population of 43,000 or only 34.3% of the surviving fawn crop would be needed to replace the adult loses to cougars!  Human hunters take from 3000-4000 per year, still leaving a net gain of OVER 10,000 deer per year!  So, unless there are twice as many cougars as estimated or they are eating twice as much as a normal animal (and thus weighing over 700 pounds!), the numbers just do not add up! 

Of course this begs the question of whether there could be enough cougars in the Black Hills so that they do negatively impact deer numbers.  Historically, we consistently found the largest ungulate populations, e.g. the plains of the Serengeti, the tundra of the arctic, the plains of North America, in the presence of healthy and "uncontrolled" predator populations.  How can that be?  Why in these cases didn't predators increase in number, as most population models would predict, to eventually cause the downfall of their prey populations?  First of all, this would be evolutionarily unstable and any predator that did that would have long gone extinct along with its prey.  So evolutionarily, there is pressure on a predator NOT to be too efficient.  Secondly, they need to catch their prey with their TEETH and CLAWS!  No spears, no high powered rifles, they have to come in physical contact with their prey and wrestle them to the ground!  Given that and that the prey are not totally defenseless, it is not surprising that a predator's efficiency rate is only around 20%.  Plus if we add the fact that in some habitat types the predators' efficiency is almost zero, we call them refuges, it makes logical sense that predators rarely can "decimate" prey populations the way hunters and ungulate biologists believe.  What all this leads to is a system where only a small percent of the prey is actually realistically available to the predator. In this system, there can never be too many predators because there can never be enough of them!

Instead of decimating deer numbers, what cougars are more likely doing in the Black Hills is giving a long overdue reprieve to the forest vegetation of the area.  As we have seen in Yellowstone Park and see too plainly here in the East, the mountains do indeed live in fear of the deer.  Though I have not looked, I am sure I can find studies that show deer and elk have been severely overgrazing the Black Hills for decades.  Freed of predation, and more importantly, the fear of predators, ungulates roam like cattle, overgrazing their favored food species and eventually reducing the productivity of the range and its ability to support the large numbers hunters seem to want!   So, instead of being concerned that cougars might be impacting deer populations, hunters should be thankful that cougars are likely re-establishing a landscape of fear where deer are too afraid to go to certain areas, which will reduce the ecological damage their uncontrolled grazing has done.  Thanks to the cougar, long overgrazed plant species can recuperate, enhancing productivity and biodiversity in the Black Hill forests for the benefit of multiple other species as well as the long term health of the hunters' beloved deer populations.

One last word on this.  We have to stop thinking that ungulate populations exist only for human hunters!  Although historically we relied on wild game animals, in the modern world hunting is a luxury, not a necessity.  We should not sacrifice key elements of an ecosystem, the top predators, for this luxury. To do so is to destroy the ecosystem on which all of us, not just the hunting public, rely.  An ecosystem functions by the flow of energy through all of its trophic levels, including the top predators.  In a functioning ecosystem, deer live to feed cougars just as plants lives to feed deer.   This is how ecosystems function.  Break the chain of energy flow and you break the ecosystem.  Break the ecosystem and we all suffer.  The flow of energy from prey (deer) to predators (cougars) is the cost of operation in a functioning ecosystem. In a functioning ecosystem, there will be plenty of game for both humans and predators.  We just have to not be so greedy!

 

Perhaps we should have a 6 day hunt where we blow up as many cars on the road as possible as a solution for all of the collisions and fatalities that they cause

N.J. Fish and Game Council approves 6-day black bear hunt

Published: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 6:13 PM     Updated: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 5:37 AM

Brian T. Murray/The Star-Ledger
Follow

Share this story

Story tools

Patti Sapone/The Star-LedgerPatrick Carr, supervising wildlife biologist, NJ DFW, speaks during a New Jersey Fish and Game Council meeting in March.

TRENTON — Before the state approved its last bear hunt in 2005, hundreds of farmers, homeowners, animal rights protesters and hunters voiced their opinions in a final, raucous hearing that had to be moved to the State Museum auditorium in Trenton to accommodate the crowd.
The scene was far different today, when the state Fish and Game Council voted unanimously — and with considerably less fanfare — to recommend a six-day bear hunt for northwest New Jersey in December.
Gathering in a small room in Monmouth County, the council met before just 20 people, most of them state employees. Three people spoke quietly against the hunt, followed by one man who supported it, saying the state's bear population is growing out of control.
"A lot of people think it is a done deal," animal rights activist Barbara Sachau said as to why she believes the crowds were smaller this year.
Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin must sign off on the hunt, part of a new policy designed to manage the state's growing bear population. Martin's approval is considered a mere formality since he has already signaled his support for the plan, saying non-lethal techniques, such as educating the public to secure trash that attracts bears, are not enough.
Martin said he will make his final decision by early August. If approved, the hunt would be the first in the state in five years.
Gov. Chris Christie also supports the hunt, unlike his predecessor, Jon Corzine, who banned them when he took office.
The plan approved today calls for a six-day gun hunt, starting Dec. 6, in an area north of Route 78 and west Route 287, the same spot where hunts were held in 2003 and 2005. A study conducted by East Stroudsburg University last year estimated more than 3,400 bears roam a smaller section of that region, north of Route 80.
Biologists contend well-fed female black bears in the mid-Atlantic region are more reproductive than elsewhere in North America, giving birth to an average of three cubs per litter and mating as early as 3-years old. Female bears in Canada, for example, do not begin to mate until they reach close to 10 years old, then give birth to just one or two cubs per litter, the biologists say.
For its part, the DEP says "serious conflicts" between humans and bears increased 96 percent between 2006 and last year. Patrick Carr, a senior biologist for the DEP, said today the state received 3,804 complaints about bear activity last year. Between 2002 and 2008, he said, the number of complaints rose from 2,061 to 4,324, according to state reports.
"The bear population has increased and the human population increased, and we are heading on a collision course," Len Wolgast, a member of the Fish and Game council, said before today's vote.
Carr said 20 percent of the bears shot in the last two hunts were "problem bears," meaning they wore tags indicating they were previously trapped and relocated. He also noted that complaints dropped after each of the previous hunts, when about 300 bears were shot each time.
So far this year, the most serious bear encounters, such as livestock kills, property damage and bears confronting people, are down slightly, numbering 898 as of June 20, compared to 908 during the same period last year, state officials said. But overall complaints are slightly up, 1,261 compared to 1,216 during the same period last year, officials said.
Jeff Tittel of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club said state budget cuts have left all the other bear control programs unfunded.
"And all we have left is the hunt," said Tittel, who opposes the plan.

---

Previous Coverage:


• Scientists say N.J. black bear population can't be controlled without hunt

Bears destroying a farmer's crop