We can help fight White -Nose syndrome that is killing Bats by telling The Nature Conservancy(see below) to build an artifical cave shelter in Tennessee

________________________________
From: Bat Conservation International [newsletter@batcatalog.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:51 PM
To: Meril, Rick
Subject: Help Fight White-nose Syndrome with the click of a mouse

One of our key partners in the fight against White-nose Syndrome, The Nature Conservancy, is in the running to win $250,000 from Pepsi for an innovative project that could help find solutions for this devastating disease that has already killed more than one million bats.
Your vote<http://www.refresheverything.com/saveamericasbats> can help The Nature Conservancy in Tennessee build an artificial bat cave that could shelter and protect hibernating bats, while providing a safe test bed for potential treatments.

Some disinfectants and fungicides have been shown to kill the fungus associated with White-nose Syndrome. But applying such chemicals to caves could harm other cave organisms and upset the delicate balance of cave ecosystems.

If The Nature Conservancy in Tennessee wins the Pepsi Refresh Project, it will build the artificial cave near an existing bat-hibernation cave in Tennessee. The artificial cave won't house other animals and could be disinfected when bats are absent.
Please vote now<http://www.refresheverything.com/saveamericasbats> to help fund this very worthwhile project. Voting ends November 30th and every vote counts!

Best wishes,
Nina Fascione
Executive Director
Bat Conservation International

The blonde Eastern coyote caught on webcam in Harriman State Park, just South of West Point Military Acadamy and North of the NewJersy/NY State Line

Harriman State Park in Southeastern New York State just North of the New Jersey Border and just South of West Point Military Academy---the Eastern Coyote in all of it's glory reigns!!!!!

From: Geoff Welch

Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:35 AM
To: hudson-valley-environment@npogroups.org

Subject: [HudsonValley] Coyote in Harriman Park

Blogger Rick states: a beautiful example of an Eastern Coyote or
Coywolf......................Say hello to "BLONDIE"    (SEE PICTURE ABOVE ON PREVIOUS POST)


From: Frank Carbone Jr. <forthebirds39@verizon.net>
To: Meril, Rick
Sent: Wed Nov 24 19:40:55 2010
Subject: Re: Pic - cut and pasted Here it is Rick.


I hope it comes through this time.

I’m interested in your personal opinion on the creature in this pic.

Thanks,


It's good that you've finally received it.
I met Roland at his last lecture in SUNY Ulster. At least 200 folks turned out to hear what he and his staff had to say.

Imho any canid that appears to be a standard coyote (in coloration, size and aspect ratio) is a coyote. All others that fall somewhere in between a wolf and a coyote are hybrids imho and I refer to them as coywolves.

These blonde hybrids seem to be common in my region of NYS. Friends were seeing a blonde coywolf here 10 to 15 years ago along interstate route 84. It would sit on a rock ledge overlooking the interstate watching the cars., , Frank

From: Meril, Rick
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:49 PM
To: mailto:forthebirds39@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Pic - cut and pasted

A beautiful eastern coyote with significant wolf genes.

jon way in massachusetts(Eastern Coyote Research) and roland kays(state museum ny) say 25 percent wolf  genes in many Eastern coyotes..........Jon coined these hybrids coywolves(as you do)........Roland prefers Eastern Coyote..............

Regardless of nomenclature, a beautiful animal indeed!

Keep sending pics Frank

Rick

My friend George Wuerthner makes a compelling case that we need to both contain sprawl with effective zoning and public/private purchase of open space as well as limiting farming and ranching to those regions of the Country that have adequate climates and water supplies to optimize production without land and wildlife destruction being the outcome

 

Condos or Cows? Neither!

George Wuerthner

Throughout the country there is a growing fear that subdivisions and sprawl will eliminate open space, destroy wildlife habitat, and lead to ever greater congestion. To counter such a threat, many suggest that we should do everything we can to maintain existing land uses such as farming, ranching, and/or logging on the presumption that these economic land uses will preclude or at least slow development.However, except in the most densely settled parts of the country, these land uses are the most significant sources for environmental degradation, biological impoverishment, and loss of wildlife habitat. Instead of championing or facilitating the continued biological impoverishment of the landscape by these industries, we should be trying to reduce and hold accountable these industries, while at the same time we seek to control sprawl and subdivisions. Rather than a choice between condos and cows as is often portrayed, we ought to be saying no to both. Unfortunately far too many people accept the false dichotomy presented by ranching advocates who use the subdivision threat as a club to beat back any criticism or attempts to rein in this destructive land use. FLAWED STRAGETY

Ranching advocates present a false choice when they assert we must preserve ranching or suffer unrestricted sprawl. It is a seductive argument that remains, for the most part, unexamined. Many, even in the environmental community, accept the notion that if we only support and even subsidize resource extraction industries like farming, ranching, and logging, sprawl will be contained or slowed because land owners won't sell to developers.

Of course if this assumption were true, we would not have sprawl. Even the most productive and valuable farmland in the West—California's Central Valley—agricultural lands are being sold for development So how can anyone expect some cow beat pasture along the Wasatch Front near Salt Lake City or outside of Boise to compete against development as a housing tract?

It is higher land prices that contribute to sprawl, not the mere availability of land. There are millions of acres of private land for sale right now in North Dakota that many there wish someone would buy. It's cheap. It's available. So why isn't North Dakota being swamped by real estate developers anxious to subdivide? The reason is that almost no one wants to live in North Dakota and many of the people stuck there want to leave—if only they could sell their property to someone.

But if you own land where people want to live—places like Montana's Bitterroot or Gallatin Valleys, Colorado's Front Range, the deserts around Phoenix and so on, than your property can be sold for way more as a housing site than it can return growing cows. Not surprisingly, many ranchers and farmers find this an attractive way to fund their retirement or leave a financial legacy for their children. SPRAWL AND ITS IMPACTS

There is no denying that sprawl is socially and ecologically detrimental to human and wildlife communities. Sprawl fragments wildlife habitat, raises costs for services, increases energy use, forces longer commutes, requires more roads, spreads weeds and causes many other negative impacts that affect everything from taxes to wildlife migration patterns.

Nevertheless, as bad as these effects are upon landscape integrity, the majority of development in the West occurs around urban centers, where jobs, educational opportunities and amenities are found. Most westerners may have an exaggerated perspective on land use changes that are occurring in the West because the vast majority of the West's population live in urban areas where we experience these negative impacts daily. GEOGRAPHICAL FOOTPRINT

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture own figures, only 3.5 percent of the lower 48 states is developed—this includes all the highways, shopping malls, and housing tracts in the country. By comparison livestock production impacts 60-65% percent of all land area in the U.S. This figure includes public and private lands that are grazed, and farmland used for forage crop.

Looking at the West, we see the same disparity between developed land and lands affected by animal agriculture. For instance, a GAP analysis conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey shows that only 530,000 of Colorado's 66 million acres are affected by development, whereas 33 million acres are grazed by livestock.

Worse yet, more than 15,722,500 acres of Colorado's farmland are devoted to livestock forage crops such as feeder corn and alfalfa. These agricultural fields are every bit as disastrous as shopping malls for most wildlife. At best they are vastly simplified ecosystems. Hay or corn fields typically consist of a single species of exotic plant that are removed annually. Many of these crops are irrigated and guzzle precious water. Such fields effectively fragment and degrade more terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems than all urbanization and sprawl combined many times over.

Don't take my word for it—get up in an airplane and stare out the window. I guarantee that if you fly anywhere over the West, once you leave the immediate area of a major urban area, what you will see is not subdivisions, malls, or anything else we call sprawl—instead what one will see for mile after mile of biologically impoverished lands used for ranching—either grazed lands and/or hay fields and other crops planted to sustain cattle.

OPEN SPACE ISN'T THE SAME AS GOOD WILDLIFE HABITATAs anyone who has flown over Montana or driven along its empty highways can attest that there's a lot of undeveloped land in the state. Recent population figures indicate that 87 percent of Montana's land area has fewer than 6 people per square mile! That's the cut off figure used by the Census Bureau to define "frontier counties" in the 1890 census.

The sparse human imprint is supported by a recent GAP analysis which found only 0.17 percent (about 200,000 acres) of the state's 93 million acres affected by development. In contrast, nearly 70 percent of the land is grazed, and more than 5.5 million acres consist of irrigated crops that feed livestock.

For all intents and purposes, most of Montana is still uninhabited. If "open space" were synonymous with good wildlife habitat, there would be no endangered species in Montana.

So why are prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, wolves, grizzly bears, swift foxes, sage grouse, Columbian sharp-tail grouse, Montana graylings and countless other threatened or endangered species unable to thrive in a place that's practically deserted?
The problem is clear. Animal agriculture has devastating effects on species and ecological processes such as predation, fire and nutrient flow.RANCHING ISN'T BENIGN

While ranching advocates are quick to point out the negative impacts of sprawl—as they should—they fail to apply the same critical analysis to the social and ecological effects of livestock production.

Livestock production involves crop production, water diversions, predator control, fences and many other activities that carry tremendous ecological costs. Livestock spread weeds, fragment wildlife habitat (particularly aquatic ecosystems because of water diversions for irrigation), transmit diseases to native wildlife, consume forage that would otherwise support native herbivores, trample soils, pollute water sources, degrade riparian areas and truncate nutrient flows.

The cumulative impact of livestock production across the West explains why it is responsible for more endangered species than any other land use. Livestock production is the largest source of non-point water pollution and soil erosion, the greatest consumer of water and a major contributor to wildfires. It's also a chief reason why predators such as wolves and grizzlies have been reduced to token populations. LANDSCAPE SCALE CONSERVATION

Turning a blind eye to ranching impacts won't prevent sprawl. At best, the hope that livestock production can contain sprawl is a blunt tool. It is a passive, unfocused approach that occasionally results in "coincidental conservation."

If we want to control sprawl, there are effective, active methods that work: zoning, planning, conservation easements and outright acquisition. Though all have drawbacks, they can restrict or guide development. States such as Oregon and California (through the Coastal Commission) have instituted statewide or regional zoning that has dramatically reduced sprawl. And of course the single best means of protecting important wildlife habitat or other public values is outright public acquisition. California, for instance, recently passed a $5 billion plus bond issue to fund, among other things, new park acquisitions. Voters in Nevada, Colorado and Arizona have also approved bond issues to fund land acquisition.

FALSE CHOICE

The argument that we must choose between condos and cows (or clearcuts and condos) is a false one. Neither is desirable, and both should be restricted as much as possible. If we enact proven land conservation policies like zoning and planning, ramped up public acquisition of critical lands, and simultaneously reduce the amount of land devoted to livestock production, the West will be a better place than it is today, even as more people discover its wonders and desire to live here.

Which is more damaging to our landscape.......ranching and farming or sprawl? George Wuerthner has written extensively on this topic and in the Posting below and in the 1st Post published today, makes a strong case that we should not stop one or the other.........But that we must mitigate both to accomplish our re-wilding objectives...........That in fact ranching/farming done either without regard for the health of the land or practiced in parts of the USA that are both unsuited climate and waterwise should cease ...............That we should enact the proper zoning to prevent sprawl is a must..........read our email conversation below and George's above posted essay and you will have a new appreciation for the problem that we face in combating wild land degradation and how we might go about changing course and take the steps needed to restore wild lands and wild creatures

---

From: George Wuerthner <gwuerthner@gmail.com>
To: Meril, Rick
Sent: Tue Nov 23 06:58:13 2010
Subject: Re: Ranchers and open space

Rick

People are geographically challenged. Get up in the air and look down next time you travel and what you will see is not cities or suburbs once you have traveled even a few minutes. What you will see is mostly lands used for ranching and/or farming. The entire middle part of the country is nothing but row crops of corn and soy for cattle feed. And even in the West, nearly all the land outside of cities is irrigated hay production and/or rangelands. The percentages are so skewed towards ranching and livestock production, it human habitation development (i.e. subdivisions) would have to grow by 1000 times to match the habitat destroyed by ranching/livestock production. That is simply not going to happen. There are many other limits on human population and urbanization that will prevent that from happening. 

Even in countries with much higher densities than the US (say in Europe) the majority if land is not urbanized. 

According to the USDA there are 60 million acres in the US that are in urbanized, developed, malls, highways, etc. category. Double that and you have 120 million acres. We have 2.3 billion acres in the US! In other words, that is still something like 5-6% of the land area. And that assumes the land consumed by urbanization will be the same rate and kind as today.I think we are seeing a concentration. I.e. more and more dense settlement in and near urban areas. Suburbia will be less desirable in the future for a host of reasons, including higher energy costs. 

The problem isn't urbanization. It's really the fact that most of the land is exploited and not suitable for wildlife and/or poor wildlife habitat. The real problem are the exploitative uses. Spotted owls are not going extinct because of housing tracts in Oregon and Washington. It's logging. Salmon are not going extinct because of housing tracts--it's logging and ranching. Sage grouse are not going extinct because of ski resorts and condos. It's ranching. And so it goes. When you look at the causes for extinction, you find that urban development is not the major factor--and where it is listed, it is usually the coup de grace on a population that has dwindled because of the other factors like farming, ranching, and logging. Only with a few species that have a very limited geographic range--say some butterfly that may be found only one mountain--does urbanization pose the major threat. In most cases, endangered species are listed because of severe population decline that results from other factors--typically habitat quality decline that results from ranching, farming and logging.  In other words, subdivisions may be the final nail on the coffin, but typically the species affected are already in severe population decline due to other factors. 

You will get a lot more bang for bucks eliminating ranching than any other action. 

The amount of money we spend on Ag subsidies is huge. The Conservation Reserve Program (CPR) which pays farmers and ranchers to take lands out of crop production is a good example. We spend more on that program annually which only rents the land (meaning it can always be planted to crops again) than we spend ten times as much on the CPR than on the entire budget of the Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife refuges. Which would be a better use of money? Buying up more land for wildlife refuges or continuing to support CPR? 

That's only one example.

If you want to keep lands from being developed, we would be better off lobbying for land use restrictions. In Oregon, the entire state is zoned. You don't hear the condos and cows argument in Oregon because ranchers can't subdivide their land unless it's within an urban growth boundary. For all the money that groups like TNC and so forth spend on conservation easements and "championing" ranching, if they spent a fraction on citizen measures to limit and restrict where urbanization can occur, we could address ranching impacts honestly, instead always couching it as a false choice between condos and cows. 

If we could eliminate ranching from just the 250 million acres of public lands that are grazed, you would automatically have a huge difference for many species that are on the edge today. And if we could remove ranching from much of the private lands in the West, then we would see even more species recovery. 

I could give you an example here from the Northeast. Logging and farming destroyed the forests here. In 1880 85% of Vermont, for instance, was cleared. Today about 80% of Vermont is now reforested (but still degraded as a result of past logging and on-going logging). Nevertheless, much of that land is now in public ownership (Green Mountain NF etc.) and even  the private holdings are in much better shape today than in 1880s because farms have been abandoned. The result has been the recovery of black bear, beaver, moose, and many other species that were actually extrapated from Vermont in the 1800s. 

I see a similar future for the West. As ranching becomes more and more economically marginal, we'll see lots of that land either converted to public holdings and/or just held in private ownership, but not ranched or farmed. And the habitat quality will increase. Unfortunately unlike the 1800s when there were few government welfare systems, farmers who  occupied marginal lands such as in Vermont just went out of business. Today, everyone is trying to subsidize them and protect them from paying the real costs of operations--including for instance, ranching without killing predators. 
------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Meril, Rick <Rick.Meril@warnerbros.com> wrote:

George

All true

But the politics and mindset in montana and wyoming and utah is so rancher extraction ingrained

What do you do with those folks

You can't vaporize them

And u and I have seen sprawl in our lifetime make the east coast one giant boston to georgia city

La to san diego same

300 million will be 600 million by 2100

Do not forget the long view

Hardscape development is never reclaimed whereas pasture and farmland can grow back

From: George Wuerthner <gwuerthner@gmail.com>
To: Meril, Rick

Sent: Tue Nov 23 06:07:08 2010
Subject: Re: Ranchers and open space

---

Rick

I am not worried that most of the West will be destroyed by subdivisions. Even in California, there are huge areas of the state with virtually no population. Northwest California between the Sacramento Valley and Coast has fewer people than western Montana. The desert areas, high Sierras, Cascades, etc. are virtually uninhabited. 

The rest of the West is even less developed. There is a lot of hype about how subdivisions are destroying wildlife habitat. In reality, farming, ranching, and logging affect far more of the habitat than housing tracts. And these exploitative uses are the big problem for most wildlife, except in a few places where humans are very concentrated (like LA basin). So while I don't necessarily support more subdivisions (and encourage zoning and so forth to limit them), I also want to limit ranching, farming and logging to the minimal area needed. Much of the land that is used for these purposes are marginal and they contribute very little to the total supply of these products. I.e. you can grow far more wood in Georgia than in say Montana's high elevation mountains. Why log Montana where it takes 150 years to grow a 10 inch tree when you can grow a ten inch tree in Georgia in ten years? The same for livestock. States like Missouri, Georgia, EastTexas, Florida, etc. all grow more beef than most western states. Most of the West is too dry. The contribution of ranching to overall meat production is actually quite small, but the ecological damage is far more significant. If all the ranches in the West disappeared, people would still have plenty of meat to eat (if they really wanted to do that). 

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Meril, Rick <Rick.Meril@warnerbros.com> wrote:

George

Thank you......I know theoretically a false choice......but can all of the human behavior mechanisms change enough to keep the ranchers in biz while keeping wild america alive? I want what u seek.......is it doable or do we have to compromise with existing habits and induce the ranchers to "play ball" with us

I will post your attachments

I compliment u on your insight and knowledge

Keep em coming.....I battle objections in my biz all day.......look at the hardened questions todd and the others have when they comment on your writings on new west......how do we dent their dug in positions???

From: George Wuerthner <gwuerthner@gmail.com>
To: Meril, Rick
Sent: Tue Nov 23 05:30:45 2010
Subject: Ranchers and open space

---

Rick:

I' have written a lot about the condos and cows issue. It's a false choice. There is very little evidence that livestock grazing prevents subdivisions. The argument that most subdivisions are carved from ranchlands is like arguing that most heroin addicts drank milk. Yes both statements are true but they are not significant. The reason most subdivisions come from private lands is that most private land that is not urbanized tends to be used for three major industries--farming, timber production or livestock production. Some lands do all three. But there is little evidence that subsidies keep ranchlands from being subdivided. Rather it is demand for land by growing population that drives subdivisions. In places with little demand, there's no or little threat from subdivisions. Go check out North Dakota if you want to see a place with no subdivision threat--even though nearly all the land is private and used for Ag including ranching.

But even if there is demand, ranching does not prevent subdivisions. Plus there's another assumption that is false. Open space is not the same as good wildlife habitat.  Because most people fail to identify what is driving subdivision, they waste their time on false alternatives like supporting ranching. 

But the basic arguments goes something like this.

First, the vast majority of land is occupied by livestock production. For instance, even in California all the urbanization including the highways, malls, housing tracts, etc. only occupies about 3-4% of the state's land area. And of course, in the rest of the West, it is far less. In Oregon, for instance, it's about 1% of the land. In Montana, it's only .17% of the land. These figures are very accurate and done by using air photos and digitized and then all land uses scanned. 

But most of us live in these urban and suburban areas and we extrapolate what we view around us to the larger land area.

Again using California, 50% of the state is public land. But a great deal of that land is grazed by livestock. Then when you go to the private land, you find that nearly all of the private lands are used for livestock production. They are either grazed, used for growing forage crops like alfalfa, hay and so forth. Even though California is well known for growing things like veggies, fruits, wine, etc. those kinds of crops occupy a very small percentage of California's acreage. 

When you get to a state like Montana, you find that the bulk of land is used for livestock production. For instance, though only 400,000 acres or so are occupied by housing tracts, rural subdivisions, etc. there are over 5.5 million acres of just hay fields in the state. Some 70 million acres (private and public) . are considered "rangelands". So you have the bulk of the state occupied by livestock production. 

The assumption that ranching is better than condos is also exaggerated. If you were to do a full accounting of all the costs associated with ranching and compared it to a typical subdivision, I don't think you would find that subdivisions are necssarily worse, and in some cases it is better. For instance, all the rivers in the West that are dewatered are in bad shape not because of housing tracts, but because of livestock production. Even in California, the vast majority of all water goes for irrigation of cow food. Some 50% of all water used in California is for growing hay and alfalfa. All the cities use less than 10% of the water. So those rivers that are drained, causing a decline in salmon, steelhead, etc. are the result of livestock production. 

Finally, there is no evidence that ranchers won't sell when they can. In other words, when demand is there, a great majority of ranchers sell out (even though they could choose to put their lands in conservation easements and not have them available for subdivisions). We hear all the time that ranchers had "no choice" but to sell out for subdivision. That's bogus. They just make more money selling for subdivisions. So unless you have another way to preserve these lands i.e. you plan to buy them for public lands at some point, subsidizing ranchers does nothing in the long run, but waste money that could be used for actual public acquisition which would preclude subdivision forever. 

Geo. 

Our friend George Wuerthner expanding upon some of his previous writings on how the Ranching Community seeks government handouts while claiming to be anti-big Government............I am so empathetic ot George's point-of-view and yet I still consider that maybe the public lands(for grazing cattle) and other "goodies" we give the Ranchers is justified in some way so as to keep large swaths of land intact and not subdivided into Ranchettes and Western Suburbia...............The $$ we spend on Wildlife Services(predator control) would be better spent on helping the Ranchers to pen their flocks/herds...............helping them learn how to dispose of waste so as to not attract the wolves, coyotes, bears and cougars.................in essence...........you(Ranchers) get our dime(assistance) if you keep the land healthy and allow all living things including predators to live free and thrive

Do ranchers have a right to predator free landscape?

By George Wuerthner

LIVESTOCK AND PREDATORS
One of the unquestioned and unspoken assumptions heard across the West is that ranchers have a right to a predator free environment. Even environmental groups like Defenders of Wildlife more or less legitimize this perspective by supporting unqualified compensation for livestock losses to bears and wolves.  And many state agency wolf management plans specifically call for compensation to livestock producers—but without any requirements that livestock husbandry practices be in place to reduce or eliminate predation opportunity.
In a sense, ranchers have externalized one of their costs of business, namely practicing animal husbandry that eliminates or significantly reduces predator losses. Most of these proven techniques involve more time and expense than ranchers have traditionally had to pay, in part, because they have been successful in making the rest of us believe it was a public responsibility to eliminate predators and not a private business cost. This is not unlike how power companies have successfully transferred one of their costs of doing business—namely reducing air pollution from burning coal—on to the public at large and the environment. Ranchers have been doing the same transfer of costs in the West for decades. And it is not limited just to predator control. When livestock trample riparian areas, destroy soil crusts, pollute waters, eat forage that would otherwise support native herbivores, spread disease that harms wildlife (as with bighorn sheep), and spread weeds, the environment, and ultimately the taxpayers and citizens of this country are absorbing the costs, while the ranchers gets the profits.
And so it is with predators. Killing predators to appease the livestock industry is nothing more than another subsidy to an industry that is already living off the public largess, in part, because most predator losses are completely avoidable with proper animal husbandry techniques.
For instance, prompt removal of dead animals from fields, and burial of the remains can significantly reduce attracting predators. One recent study in Oregon showed a very strong association between wolf packs and bone piles—places where ranchers dump dead cattle. Obviously one-way to avoid attracting wolves to ranches is to bury all dead animals. One study in Minnesota found that rapid removal of dead animals from livestock operations could reduce a second predation event by 55 times! In Chile, where the killing of cougars is outlawed, many sheep producers utilize lambing sheds and nighttime corralling in pens to protect flocks. In Europe where many countries ban the killing of predators like wolves, livestock producers have adopted other measures to reduce predator losses. The use of guard dogs with shepherds is particularly effective, again significantly reducing predation losses. One study found that the combined use of these techniques could reduce predation losses by better than 90%. When you are talking about only several hundred wolf attributed livestock losses a year in each of the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, a 90% reduction would bring these losses down to a negligible figure—and one that would remove nearly all demand for any predator control.
In Minnesota where there are nearly double the number of wolves that are found in the entire northern Rockies states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana combined, farmers there are encouraged to adopt measures that reduce predator opportunity in order to qualify for state livestock compensation. After a depredation, a state official visits the farm, and discusses any measures that could be adopted to reduce future livestock losses. The farmer must sign an agreement to implement any changes in order to qualify for any future compensation payments. These are only a few of the proven mechanisms that collectively could sharply reduce predator losses, indeed, perhaps to the point where wolves, cougars, and other predators are no longer a significant issue.
Of course, because the ranching community believes it has a right to kill predators, and in fact, believes that society should help them kill predators; there is not much incentive for changing policies.
Ironically one of the best ways to reduce predation losses may be to stop killing predators. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests killing wolves; cougars, coyotes, and bears actually increase social chaos leading to greater predation losses. The reasons include the fact that hunted predator populations tend to be skewed towards younger animals that are less skillful hunters, thus more likely to attack livestock. And in more stable predator populations, older mature animals, and larger stable packs can maintain territories that can keep young and unskilled animals away from livestock operations. Thus predator control often leads to more livestock depredation, and more calls for predator control. There is good evidence to suggest that if states minimized predator control to surgical removal of proven chronic livestock killers, as well as mandated proper animal husbandry practices, nearly all of the conflicts over predator management could be avoided, including the unnecessary killing of predators. But until the public and in particular environmental groups start challenging the assumption that ranchers deserve an environment free of predator losses, we can expect no changes in behavior and only the on-going and unnecessary killing of predators.
George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former Montana hunting guide.



 

50 Ocelots left in the USA....................We need a bigger critical habitat zone down in South Texas and surrounding border States to allow this little predator to build itself back up to sustainable levels

Refuge officials hoping to find some new ocelots

The Associated Press

 

HARLINGEN — Biologists at a far South Texas wildlife refuge are hoping to find some new ocelots as they begin putting out traps to catch and then track the animals.Jody Mays, a biologist in charge of the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge's ocelot program, said because of pictures that have been taken, they believe they may have one to three female cats that have not previously been documented.
"We want to see where they are living and if they have kittens," Mays tells the Valley Morning Star in Harlingen.
There are only about 50 of the wild cats left in the United States, all of them in South Texas. About 25 ocelets live at the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge or on nearby land. The remaining population lives in Willacy and Kenedy counties.
About 15 to 20 traps have recently been set to catch ocelots, which are about twice the size of a house cat and known for their distinctive yellow and black spotted fur.
Mays said if new ocelots are found living close to the refuge, inquiries might be made about buying land to protect them.She's hopeful they'll be able to trap more than the six they got last year. She said the traps are baited and checked early in the morning."If we catch an ocelot, we put it under anesthesia, then we give it a physical and look at the health of the animal to see if it has any injuries," she said.
Once trapped, a passive integrated responder, which Mays said gives the animal a unique identification, is placed between the shoulder blades if there is not one already there. Then, a radio-tracking collar is placed on the ocelot, which helps biologists monitor its movements.
The collar's battery lasts about a year and eventually the collar will fall off.
"Once we put a radio-tracking collar on, then that's basically it," she said. "We then release the cat where it was caught and we're able to track it without affecting its movements.
"We can find out where it's moving and when it's moving and put that on a map," she said.
___

Our friend Frank Carbone has started a new wildlife group at Yahoo Groups......... Wild Ursids, Felids and Canids - WUFCAN @ Yahoo!......join today please

---

From: Frank Carbone Jr. <forthebirds39@verizon.net>
To: EML Group <eastern_mountain_lion@yahoogroups.com>; Hudson Valley Environment Group <Hudson-Valley-Environment@npogroups.org>; MSC Group <maybrooksportsmen@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun Nov 21 18:22:04 2010
Subject: Wild Ursids, Felids and Canids - WUFCAN @ Yahoo!
 

Please consider joining a newly formed wildlife group at Yahoo! groups.

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/wufcan/

Please spread the word>

(Frank's website link below
Please visit my website at http://www.outdoorliaisons.com/

wufcan · Wild Ursids, Felids & Canids

Our friend, Biologist Jacqueline Frair at the State University of New York, reiterating and reverifying characteristics of the Eastern Coyote that we have expounded on numerous times on this blog. Dr. Frair is in concert with fellow researchers, Jon Way, Roland Kays, Linda Rutledge, Matt Gompper, Brent Patterson, Brad White, Tyler Wheeldon and Paul Wilson who have also explained to us the difference in size and other characteristics that distinguish the Eastern Coyote from it's Western cousin

By CRAIG FREILICH
Wildlife experts say that the "robust" population of coyotes in the Greater Canton-Potsdam Area(New York) is at least part wolf and larger than their Western counterparts, probably because of the wolf genes.
"We certainly have a robust coyote population including in the Canton and Potsdam area – just no specific numbers," says state Department of Environmental Conservation biologist Andrew MacDuff. However, a good count of the Eastern coyotes is elusive, he says.
Adults, at 35 to 45 pounds, are five to 10 pounds heavier than the average Western coyote, probably because they picked up some wolf genes during their migration eastward, researchers believe.They say it's clear that Eastern coyotes are not so much a crossbreed of "coy-dogs," although coyote-dog mixes are possible. But if there is a cross-bred factor to consider, recent research has bolstered earlier research that we might just as well call them "coy-wolves."
Dr. Jacqueline L. Frair, a professor of wildlife ecology at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry who is studying coyote population and behavior in New York with a few graduate students, says it makes sense that coyotes picked up some wolf genes as they migrated from the west of the continent arriving in the east early last century "because at the leading edge of population expansions, a given species is likely to be quite rare and have a hard time finding mates, so they might look for surrogates like dogs or wolves."Frair says a study out of the New York State Museum published last year "indicated that the early New York population of coyotes in the Adirondacks was founded by very few females that emerged out of the Ontario wolf range to the north and crossed the Saint Lawrence River bringing wolf genetic material with them -- albeit only a small amount of wolf genes. Ultimately, coyotes much prefer to breed with coyotes and now that they are numerous they have no problem finding mates, and even where they do overlap wolves -- in Ontario, Michigan, Wisconsin -- interbreeding would be a very rare event."
Many people believe that the larger Eastern coyote is capable of hunting and killing white-tail deer, pitting the largest predator in the east against its largest prey, but Frair says the observations of her teams show their reputation as deer killers is overblown."It remains speculation because while coyotes may be capable of killing adult deer, our own research shows them not to have to, because there is a tremendous amount of dead deer out there to scavenge," says Frair.
Frair also says the impression that coyotes hunt in big packs like wolves and wild dogs is wrong. Many people say that when they start their howling, it sounds like more than just a few, but Frair says they generally live in relatively small family groups of three to seven animals."Recently at a zoo I provoked two coyotes to howl and stood there amazed that in no possible way could I discern that what I was hearing came from only two animals," Frair said. "Once more than one individual gets full on howling you cannot discern one individual from another and also cannot determine how many you hear. Indeed, it sounds like a hundred and like you are virtually surrounded by them once they set off a group call."
According to the DEC, the Eastern coyote looks like a medium-sized German shepherd dog, with long thick fur. The tail is full and bushy, usually carried pointing down. Ears are erect and pointed. Adults are four to five feet long including the tail, and weigh 35 to 45 pounds. Males are usually larger than females. Their color varies from blonde or reddish blonde to dark tan washed with black. Legs, ears and cheeks are usually reddish.
Frair says coyotes' preferred habitat is wherever the food is, and that coyotes "have about the most plasticity in their habitat requirements as any species I've seen."In New York, they are mainly where the deer are, "because that is the most abundant and readily acquired" food source, "from scavenging, mostly." But she says they will also eat crickets, apples and other fruit, and garbage. "In the southern tier where our two diet studies were just completed, deer and rodents like mice, voles and squirrels were the dominant dietary staples year-round."
"Also woodchuck, Eastern cottontail, turkey," says Robin Holevinski, one of Frair's researchers."They're fascinating animals," MacDuff said. "They've filled a niche that was probably vacant for a while. There were no large canid predators after wolves were extirpated" in the East."They draw a lot of interest. They're known to be fairly cunning."

Cougars, like all animals who kill to eat(we humans included), take the easiest to catch prey as the season dictates

Seasonal Influences Help Guide Cougar Prey Selection

ScienceDaily — As predators, cougars tend to select prey animals that are weaker and easier to attack during certain seasons, according to results of a new study.The study is outlined in an article featured in the September 2010 issue of The Journal of Wildlife Management, published by The Wildlife Society.

The authors' study of cougar predation from 1998 to 2008 in west-central Alberta, Canada, aimed to answer four questions: •How many ungulates, or hooved animals, do cougars kill? •How does season influence cougar predation? •What effect does cougar population structure have on predation rates? •Do cougars target vulnerable prey?
During the study, the researchers immobilized and then fitted cougars with GPS radiocollars for tracking purposes that were programmed to obtain a location at 2- or 3-hour intervals, or 8 to 12 times a day. They used this information to identify GPS cluster sites that also were likely predation sites and then visited the sites to identify any animal remains as predation or scavenging events. This added up to about 3,700 GPS location clusters and more than 1,500 predation events.
"Although previous research has applied GPS telemetry to estimate cougar kill rate, estimates were obtained using models and not continuous monitoring," according to the researchers. "In this study, we attempted to census cougar predation on ungulates over the duration each cougar was monitored."
Potential ungulate prey in the region includes elk, moose, white-tailed deer, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats, while nonungulate prey includes beaver, porcupine, snowshoe hare, and grouse. The study found that wild ungulates were the most common prey, with white-tailed deer the most common.
"Cougars exhibited significant seasonal shifts in prey composition," they write. "Cougars in west-central Alberta killed primarily female ungulates just before, during, and just after the birthing period (April-June), males just before and during the rut (September-November), and focused predation on juvenile ungulates in spring consistent with the reproductive and juvenile vulnerability hypotheses, reinforcing the notion that cougars select for vulnerable prey."
According to the authors, "Our kill rate estimates indicate that adult cougars are highly effective predators, killing at rates at the upper end of those recorded for wolves in both frequency and biomass."The authors also note that while cougars are able to kill large prey such as adult moose and feral horses, they often choose smaller animals, probably because of the lower risk of these attacks.
"Our estimates of cougar kill rate and our findings concerning the influence of season, demography, and prey vulnerability on cougar predation patterns can be applied to better interpret and anticipate cougar-ungulate dynamics," the authors conclude. "Our results also have application for cougar harvest management where cougar impacts on ungulate populations are cause for concern."

Pioneer Wolves trying to get a toe-hold in Missouri..Looks like a 2nd Male had wandered into the State before getting shot by a hunter

Wild wolves in Missouri?

By BRENT FRAZEE

The Kansas City Star

When Andrew Protenic looks back on the 2010 Missouri deer season, he'll have quite a tale to tell.No, it doesn't have anything to do with a huge buck. Or an extraordinary shot he took.Instead, his story centers on an animal he mistook for a coyote and shot — a creature that appears to be a wolf.For now, the Missouri Department of Conservation isn't sure just what he killed — a wild wolf that had done some serious traveling or an escaped pet. Perhaps a wolf-dog hybrid.
Resource scientists have collected tissue and hair for DNA analysis, and they're contacting wildlife biologists from nearby states that have wolves to get a clue to where this animal came from.
But one thing they're certain of: This definitely isn't the type of tale they hear often during the Missouri deer season.
"Never in a million years would I have thought I'd see a wolf when I was out deer hunting," said Protenic, 34, of Smithville. "I've hunted there in Carroll County for eight years now, and I know a lot of the people in the area.
"No one I talked to has ever seen anything that looks like a wolf or talked to anyone who might have one as a pet. This is a real mystery.
"When I first saw it, it just looked like a big coyote."
Protenic, who was properly licensed to hunt both deer and coyotes, realized he had something far different when he got down from the tower stand he was hunting in Saturday, opening day of the firearms deer season.
He had seen few wolves before. They're not supposed to be in Missouri.Though they long ago inhabited the state, they disappeared in the late 1800s due to habitat loss and unregulated hunting. Today, they're listed as a protected species in Missouri.But wolves survived and even thrived in Minnesota. From there they spread to neighboring states, such as Wisconsin and Michigan. Still, wolves are listed as a federally endangered species in most of the lower 48 states.
The last time a gray wolf was reported in Missouri was in 2001, when a young animal was mistakenly shot in Grundy County. That wolf had a radio collar and its origin was traced to Michigan.Could Missouri have attracted another wayward wolf? Missouri officials aren't sure.But initial clues indicate it may have been a wild animal."The animal was covered in lice, and most captive wolves are generally parasite free," said Jeff Beringer, a resource scientist for the Department of Conservation. "We also found no wear spots in the elbows, which is common on captive wolves and other animals that spend a lot of time lying around."
The wolf, a male, weighed 104 pounds and appeared to be 3 years old, Beringer said.No form of identification — tattoo, ear tag or microchip — was found.
Protenic immediately called a conservation agent and feared he might be in trouble. But no state charges are pending against the hunter.
Wildlife officials expect DNA results to be back in about a week. Then they'll have a better idea of what they have and perhaps where it came from.
"I'm really interested to hear what they find out," Protenic said. "If it was a wild animal, it had to travel a long way out of its normal range to get here."

Wolf report
•RANGE: Wolves were once common throughout the United States, but their population declined greatly by the mid-1930s because of unregulated hunting and habitat loss. Today their territory is limited to Canada and just a few states: Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
•POPULATION: There are 7,000 to 11,000 wolves in Alaska and more than 5,000 in the lower 48 states, according to federal surveys.
•DESCRIPTION: Wolves can weigh up to 130 pounds and measure 4 to 6 feet long.
•AND HERE?: No wild wolf populations exist in Missouri or Kansas. But a few wild animals have made news when they wandered into the region over the years. In Missouri, a wolf that made its way from Michigan to northern Missouri was mistakenly shot in 2001.

---

YOU NEED A "ROAD MAP" AND A LEGAL DICTIONARY TO DECIPHER THE CONFLICTING JUDICIAL RULINGS THAT MIGHT ULTIMATELY IMPACT OUR NORTHERN ROCKIES WOLF POPULATION............YOU WOULD THINK THAT 300 MILLION WOLVES (OUR CURRENT USA HUMAN POPULATION) HAVE OVERRUN THE UNITED STATES........... THE HYSTERIA THAT WESTERN RANCHERS AND THEIR "BOUGHT AND PAID" POLITICIANS EXHIBIT AS THEY RAIL AGAINST WOLVES IS SICKENING TO THIS BLOGGER..........A TRULY SAD COMMENTARY ON HOW BACKWARD THINKING AND ACTING WE ARE AS A SPECIES.............AND HOW CONTRADICTORY IT IS TO HEAR FROM THESE SAME FOLKS ABOUT HOW WE HAVE TO ADHERE TO"RIGHT TO LIFE"(FOR HUMANS) AND FAMILY VALUES(FOR HUMANS)..............HOW DO YOU CHEER FOR VIRTUAL WOLF ERADICATION HAVING ACCESS TO THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE ACCUMULATED OVER 300 YEARS ABOUT HOW WRONG PREDATOR ERADICATION IS?.............ARE WE HUMAN PREDATORS THE ONLY GENUS OF CREATURE THAT HAS "THE RIGHT TO LIFE"??????

Federal judge rules for Wyo. in wolf lawsuit

By BEN NEARY, Associated Press

 

CHEYENNE — A federal judge on Thursday ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider whether Wyoming's wolf management plan is adequate to meet recovery goals for the species.

U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson of Cheyenne said the federal agency was wrong to insist that Wyoming agree to change its management plan to give wolves more protection before it would end federal oversight of the species.

Wyoming proposes to classify wolves as predators that could be shot on sight outside of Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding area.

The federal government had rejected that management plan while accepting less harsh wolf management plans in Idaho and Montana. The Fish and Wildlife Service turned wolf management over to those states while leaving endangered species protections for wolves Wyoming until a federal judge this summer ruled the species could not be divided along political lines.

Gray wolves are now considered an endangered species across the northern Rockies.

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat in the final weeks of his second term, had pressed the lawsuit against the federal agency.

"There's a point to be made here, which is that the Fish and Wildlife Service is certainly allowed to make a decision and change their mind, but when they do it, they have to do it on good science and good reasoning," Freudenthal said Thursday.

Jenny Harbine, an attorney with Earthjustice in Bozeman, Mont., noted the judge did not rule on the management plan itself, but said the federal agency did not provide a reasoned justification for rejecting it.

"He did not say Wyoming's management plan is sufficient, and any management scheme that leaves wolves in 90 percent of Wyoming subject to 'shoot on sight' hunting is on its face insufficient," she said.

Harbine represents a group of wildlife advocates who sued to reinstate federal protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho.

"Wolves remain subject to federal protections under the Endangered Species Act and the Wyoming court's decision doesn't change that," she said.

The federal government originally said it wanted to achieve a wolf population of 300 animals when it started its wolf reintroduction program in the Northern Rockies in the 1990s.

Biologists say there are now at least 1,700 wolves in parts of six states.

Both Freudenthal and Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg said they expect the federal government to appeal the ruling. The governor said he doesn't expect the ruling will have any immediate effect on wolf management in the state, which he said will continue to be in the federal government's hands.

Leith Edgar, spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver, said Thursday that the agency is still reviewing Johnson's decision, weighing its options and considering what its next steps will be.

The Fish and Wildlife Service itself helped Wyoming to draft its disputed state plan in 2007 and approved it the next year. However, the federal agency repudiated the plan after U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula, Mont., criticized it later that year in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.

Johnson's ruling may further complicate the issue if it conflicts with Molloy's ruling.

"It appears that there area two different district judges with potentially differing opinions on Wyoming's plans," said Ron Aasheim, spokesman for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Salzburg, however, said he doesn't see any conflict between the two rulings. "The Wyoming decision and the Montana decision can coexist," he said.

While environmental groups have criticized Wyoming's plan, ranchers and outfitters in Wyoming have sided with the state, saying it's critical to reduce the growing wolf population to protect other wildlife and livestock.

In response to Wyoming's lawsuit, the Fish and Wildlife Service argued in Johnson's court in January that it rejected the state's plan because it didn't guarantee a continued minimum wolf population.

Johnson stated in his ruling Thursday that the agency needs to consider whether the state plan would be sufficient to preserve genetic connectivity among wolves in northwestern Wyoming and the greater Yellowstone area.

While Johnson's ruling was pending, Molloy this summer ruled it was improper of the Fish and Wildlife Service to retain federal wolf management in Wyoming while turning wolf management over to state governments in Idaho and Montana. In response, the agency took back authority over wolf management in those states, angering state officials and blocking wolf hunts that had been scheduled for this fall.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission plans to discuss the implications of Johnson's ruling on Dec. 8, spokesman Mike Keckler said.

		Program enrollment will be up

Article Rating

Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!

Rate File: Select Rating: * ** *** ****

Reader Comments

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of gillettenewsrecord.com.

Submit a Comment

AS WE ALWAYS REINFORCE, PROPER GARBAGE DISPOSAL TRUMPS HUMAN CULLING OF BEARS AS THE KEY TO OPTIMUM PEOPLE/BEAR COEXISTANCE

Research shows bear complaints are decreasing 

For months we have been hearing that human/black bear encounters and complaints are steadily increasing. The new administration in Trenton gave this as a reason to allow the Department of Environmental Protection to hold a bear hunt in December. More than 70 percent of New Jersey citizens are against the hunt, set to run from Dec. 6-11. It will cost the taxpayers $600,000, this at a time when every other state agency is suffering layoffs and serious funding cuts.

Recent research conducted by Dr. Edward Tavss, a professor at Rutgers University, has been made public. He reviewed more than 4,300 reports to reach his conclusions.His research found many of the reports were duplicated -- that is they were counted twice, once by the Division of Fish and Wildlife and again by the Department of Environmental Protection.
In recent years, several police departments also faxed reports of bear sightings and complaints to the Division of Fish and Wildlife to add to the total. When only reports to the Division of Fish and Wildlife are counted, a steady decline in conflicts is shown. This gives us reason to believe education and garbage control are effective, despite the refusal of the Department of Environmental Protection to enforce the black bear feeding ban.
With Dr. Tavss' findings (bear complaints actually decreasing and bear hunting doesn't reduce bear complaints), a rather interesting thing has happened. The Department of Environmental Protection and Division of Fish and Wildlife have released statements saying black bear complaints have fallen. However, no mention has been made of Dr. Tavss' work.
Jean Mollack

Massachusetts has about 1000 Moose roaming it's woodlands.................They are also occupying Southern New England in Connecticut and New York..........We have asked this question before..............With warming temps, how are New England Moose expanding their range Southward and multiplying when the same warming conditions(and heightened tick infestations) are ravaging the Moose Population of the Great Lake States and adjacent Canada?...............Would love to hear opinions and facts from some of our biologist blog readers

Moose, coyotes reported in Saugus

An adult bull (male) Moose in Saugus, Massachusetts

 Despite its fairly dense population Saugus boasts a plethora of wildlife, with wild turkey, fox and deer sightings common throughout the year. Is it time to add moose to the list of furry inhabitants?

On Veterans Day police received a call shortly before 5 p.m. from someone who reported seeing a moose in the roadway at the intersection of Walnut Street and Elm Street. An officer responded immediately but an area search was negative for the animal.
Although he's never heard of a moose roaming through Saugus, Canine Control Officer Harold Young said it wouldn't come as a shock if the report was accurate.

"It doesn't surprise me, the (moose) population has been growing in the state," Young said.In 2007 biologists estimated close to 1,000 moose live in Massachusetts, according to MassWildlife. Young recalled a few years back when a resident reportedly observed a moose in neighboring Melrose.A trend Young has noticed in recent years is more animals infringing on the suburbs. Forced out of their natural habitats by increased development, hungry animals seem to be ranging far and wide in search of food.

Young speculated that a moose could have followed the path created by power lines through forests and made its way south to Saugus. The reported sighting came near Birch Pond, which backs up to the Lynn Woods Reservation.

Anyone who spots a moose in a densely populated area is asked to call police right away. Young also advised motorists who encounter a moose to pull to the side of the road and let it wander off without disruption.

An adult bull (male) moose can reach a weight upwards of 1,000 pounds and poses a threat to drivers."They can do a lot of damage to a vehicle," Young noted.

In other wildlife news, Young told the Advertiser he has fielded a number of calls over the last few months regarding coyotes.
Two weeks ago a police officer observed six coyotes foraging through the YMCA parking lot, Young said. A mother also reported two coyotes hanging out on David Drive as her son was about to get off his school bus.The fact a lot of cats are going missing could also be attributed to an increase in the coyote population, Young said.

Young urged anxious residents to take precautions to deter coyotes from getting comfortable on their properties. He mentioned banging pots together or using an air horn as two possibilities to scare off the animals.

      

I recently purchased Bill Krohn's recently published EARLY MAINE WILDLIFE and as the review below attests: It indeed is a treasure chest full of first hand historical accounts of the indigenous wildlife that occupied what is now the State of Maine from 1605 into the early 20th Century............I recommend it highly for anyone interested in the most complete to date compilation of the Wildlife of this region(yes there were wolves, cougars, bears, wolverines, fishers, marten, bobcats, caribou, etc, etc )..............A shout out to both Bill and Chris Hoving who are both friends of this blog............Well done Gents!!!!!

Deirdre Fleming: A glimpse of Maine wildlife's olden days

Aroostook County apparently had no white-tailed deer in 1850.

click image to enlarge

"Early Maine Wildlife" contains historical accounts of northern animals covering 327 years.
Courtesy University of Maine Press

'EARLY MAINE WILDLIFE'

THE BOOK costs $34.95 and is available at local bookstores and from the University of Maine Press,
126A College Ave., Orono, ME 04473. Or order it online at www.umaine.edu/umpress.

The debate over whether to return wolves to the state dates back to at least the 1880s.And whether there is a resident mountain lion population here has been a question for centuries.

These are some of the wildlife questions that arise out of the historical accounts documented in "Early Maine Wildlife," just released by the University of Maine Press in Orono.

The reference book is the work of William Krohn, a research biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.

 Krohn wrote the book with help from Christopher Hoving, a former gradaute student at UMaine and now the endangered species coordinator at the Michigan Department for Natural Resources.

Krohn said the unique collection of accounts should shed light on the past, but not necessarily tell the story of Maine's northern forestland."It's a way of getting some insight into the past," Krohn said. "Putting all the pieces together is not the purpose of the book. It's just to assemble the information. The stories are yet to be told on how wildlife changed and why."

The 523-page book looked at 529 historical records or references, covering a period of 327 years. Canada lynx are mentioned in 117 historical records, moose in 192, white-tailed deer in 244, and mountain lion,caribou, wolves and wolverines in many others.Krohn is careful to caution about the book's limitations.

For example, he said Mainers centuries ago reported seeing "wildcats," but it's not clear whether the reference is to bobcats, Canada lynx or mountain lions.Still, "Early Maine Wildlife" offers a rare glimpse into early Maine life.

George Matula, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife's endangered species coordinator, said in 29 years as a state biologist he's never seen a resource like Krohn's."Trying to go into all that literature that he eventually did is very difficult and very time consuming. And many of us biologists don't have time to go into that type of thing," Matula said.

Mark McCollough, an endangered species biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said looking at "Early Maine Wildlife" as a body of work, it paints a clear picture."uncovering this treasure of writing that occurred largely in the late 1800s, it really does provide a valuable historic reference to be able to try to piece together what happened to those animals," McCollough said.In fact, after reading Krohn's book, McCollough now thinks the migration of white-tailed deer in the late 1890s up to Aroostook County may have led to the caribou's decline, because of brain worm being passed from the deer to the caribou."They didn't know what brain worm was then," McCollough said.

"It's pretty apparent from the writing in this book that it wasn't until the 1860s and the 1870s that you started to see deer with some frequency in central Maine. And it wasn't until the 1870s that deer made it up to southern Aroostook County. They never really did occur there historically. It certainly is enlightening to me to see now the bigger picture of what happened."Krohn hopes people use the book as a resource and a starting point.

"Really the story in this book is just how dynamic and changeable things have been. The take-home message here is: wildlife populations are not static and they haven't been. This book clearly shows this. And we need to stop thinking of them as static," Krohn said.

White Tail Deer breeding biology explained in easy-to-understand phrasiology by Vermont Fish& Wildlife Biologist John Buck......prolific they are,,,,hard to believe that they were killed off in our Eastern Woodlands by the mid to late 19th Century................and then restocked in the early 1900's..............the woods grew back.........Wolves and Cougars were absent...............the deer population skyrocketed .................and we now hope for wolf and cougar rewilding that in conjunction with black bears and coyotes will keep our forests rejenerating and our deer herds managed naturally---and our hunters will have to become really skilled(ultimately better hunters) under these hoped for conditions

Buck Meets Doe

by John Buck

Illustration by Adelaide Tyrol

One of the evolutionary adjustments whitetail deer have made is to reproduce early and often. A six-year-old whitetail doe can easily become a great-great-grandmother, and she can continue to produce fawns each year until she is ten years old.
Most deer in New Hampshire and Vermont are born in early summer, and they reach sexual maturity when they are little more than a year old. Young bucks start growing their first set of antlers in the summer; young does will be entering their first estrus in November. Female deer can be even more precocious, reaching sexual maturity at six months of age if they live in good habitat. Sexual maturation of both sexes is largely dependent on body size, which in turn depends on habitat quality and age.
Because we live in an area with severe winters, a short, precisely-timed breeding season is key to fawn survival. A doe's gestation period is 200 days – if she gives birth too early, a fawn will be exposed to freezing temperatures and the doe may not have sufficient greenery with which to stimulate her milk; if she gives birth too late, the fawn may not be robust enough to survive its first winter.

To address this, deer have a built in breeding alarm clock that's set by the amount of light in a day. In autumn, the pituitary gland is stimulated into reproductive function by the gradual shortening of the length of time it is exposed to light relayed by the optic nerves.

 The pituitary regulates the hormones responsible for the bucks' sperm production and the does' ovulation. The three important hormones are follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormones (LH), and prolactin or lactogenic hormone (LTH). In bucks, these hormones act together to initiate the production of testosterone, which along with FSH, enables the manufacture of sperm cells. Testosterone also influences antler development, body strength, and aggressive behavior.

In does, these hormones promote follicle development in the ovaries and the production of estrogen. Estrogen is responsible for increased development of the female sex organs and for the behavioral changes that permit a single buck to court her. Estrogen also prepares the uterus to receive the mature eggs that will soon rupture from the ovaries.
All of this hormonal action comes to fruition around the end of October, when the first does will come into heat. The peak of conception typically occurs the third week of November, followed by very diminished breeding activity into early December. For only 24 hours, the doe will be receptive to the buck's courting. Over the course of the following three weeks, almost every doe in the twin states will go into estrus, and, amazingly enough, considering the brief window of opportunity, the great majority of them (over 90 percent) will be bred. Does will give birth the following spring, usually to twins.
Occasionally, conception will not occur, usually because the doe was young or the buck did not have viable sperm. When this happens, the doe will go through her pre-estrus cycle again and become fecund in approximately 28 days. If conception doesn't occur until late December, fawns will not be born until mid-July. This late birthing limits the amount of time for the newborns to grow before the onset of winter and puts them at a distinct disadvantage for survival.
It has happened that a doe will not get bred until a third heat cycle, which means that fawns will be born in August. A fawn born in June can reach 100 pounds by winter; one born in August will have a hard time reaching 50. Still sporting their spots in October as they try to develop their winter coats, the deck is stacked heavily against these late fawns.
The November rifle season for deer in Vermont and New Hampshire is timed to coincide with the primary estrus period for two reasons. First, the young of the year have grown enough to be able to take care of themselves without their mothers' care. Second, it takes advantage of the buck's preoccupation with reproduction. Deer are very wary and difficult to hunt. If it weren't for momentary lapses in defense, hunter success would be a small fraction of the roughly 10 percent in a typical year. This would render hunting useless as a deer herd management tool. The resulting over-population of deer and its devastating effect on the regeneration of the forest would prove to be a huge problem.

John Buck is a wildlife biologist with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.

More commentary from USFW Eastern Cougar Biologist Mark McCollough on the status of Cougars(extirpated?) in Maine

Do wild mountain lions live here?
It's one of Maine's most enduring natural mysteries, and federal biologists are digging into decades of witness reports and scientific research that could help solve it. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is formally reviewing the status of the eastern mountain lion to determine if it should stay on the endangered species list. Officially, the large cat with a long tail is believed to be extinct east of the Mississippi River, from Maine to South Carolina. Yet biologists receive at least a dozen reports each year of sightings in southern Maine alone, and rumors abound in other states as well.
"We're willing to listen to the evidence and look at it objectively," said Mark McCollough, a federal biologist based in Old Town who is coordinating the review. Mountain lions, also called cougars or panthers, were eradicated in the eastern United States in the 1800s. Early settlers shot them, nearly wiped out their natural prey (elk, bison and deer) and turned much of their forest habitat into farmland.
They mostly disappeared by 1900. A mountain lion killed on the Maine-Quebec border in 1938 is officially considered the last indisputable proof of the cat's presence here.
Reports of cougar sightings have remained steady over the years. Scott Lindsay, a regional biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, said he gets 12 or more reports a year of cougars seen from Bethel to Kittery. He suspects many more people believe they've seen a cougar and don't report it to experts who could check it out.
On Monday, coincidentally, Lindsay was checking into a report of a recent cougar sighting in Acton. He had not yet been able to contact the person who saw it or to look for evidence, he said.
Lindsay said he and other biologists take the reports seriously and check out reliable ones by looking for tracks, scat or tufts of hair. They even set up cameras after getting multiple reports in the Hampden area about 10 years ago. Most of the sightings turn out to be smaller cats, such as lynx, bobcats or even house cats, or other animals, such as fishers. "The vast majority of these, for sure, are simply mistakes," Lindsay said. "I'm very skeptical that we could have any wild population here."
That is not to say all of the sightings are mistakes. A couple of Maine sightings -- one in Cape Elizabeth and one in Monmouth -- are considered the state's most credible cougar encounters. Rosemary Townsend is as sure about what she saw today as she was on that March day in 1995. She saw the cat while walking down a gravel road in a large wooded area near Ram Island Farm in Cape Elizabeth.
"I thought it was a dog originally. Then when I looked at the face I thought, 'Oh my gosh, that's a mountain lion,'Ý" she said Monday. The cat was drinking water out of a small pond about 25 yards from her. It lifted its head and looked right at her, Townsend said. She saw its long "bottle-brush tail," a feature that distinguishes lions from lynx or bobcats. Townsend slowly turned around and walked back up the road. "I lost sight of him as I walked away from him, and I didn't go back and look," she said.
Friends convinced her to report the sighting, and biologists checked the area around the pond. They found tracks and hair, which they sent to Oregon for testing, she said. The hair was found to be consistent with mountain lion hair, although officials say no DNA tests -- the most definitive -- were conducted.
In 2000, a hunter in Monmouth reported seeing an adult mountain lion and a kitten. State wildlife experts examined tracks in the area and said they belonged to a cat that was too big to be a lynx or bobcat. The sightings in Cape Elizabeth and Monmouth will be among the records reviewed by McCollough and others. Confirmed sightings such as those in Maine do not necessarily mean eastern cougars are residing here, he said. Such sightings are so rare that biologists say those individual cougars could have been captive animals, or pets, that escaped or were released. McCollough said there are an estimated 1,000 captive mountain lions in the eastern U.S., either kept with proper permits or illegally.
A resident population, even a small one, would leave evidence such as carcasses, said Mark Dowling, a director of Cougar Network, a nonprofit research organization based in Massachusetts. Midwestern states still report mountain lions being hit by cars, he said. State biologists in the 21 Eastern states, as well as federal experts, will compile and review sightings records. The U.S. Endangered Species Act requires periodic reviews, and one is long overdue for the eastern cougar, McCollough said.

The review also will focus on scientific research that suggests the eastern mountain lion was, or is, not a separate species at all, but rather genetically the same as the relatively abundant western mountain lion. That finding could be used as an argument to take the eastern mountain lion off the federal endangered list without even settling the question of an eastern population. Although it's clear that state and federal biologists are doubtful that Maine or the other Eastern states have resident cougars, McCollough said the agency is keeping an open mind

Scientists have been surprised before by the arrival of such animals as coyotes or Canada lynx. And biologists acknowledge the Maine woods provide plenty of room to hide and, once again, have an abundance of prey.

said the agency is expected to issue its report later this year. Any recommendation to de-list the lion would lead to a separate review process. Townsend, meanwhile, continues her quiet walks through the woods in Cape Elizabeth. She's never seen a lion again, and she's OK with that.

"I probably will never, and hope I never, see one again," she said.

Our friend and Lead Cougar Biologist for the USFW Service out of Maine, Mark McCulloch cautions on the existance of a current Cougar population in New England................but acknowledges that there were "Lions" in the North East in Pre Colonial and Colonial times only to be extirpated when Colonists eliminated White Tail Deer and their forest cover from the Eastern Seaboard

Franklin

Biologist disputes cougar sightings

By Terry Karkos, Staff Writer

Warren Bryant, left, of Jay describes how he found what appeared to be cougar tracks three years ago in Moscow as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife biologist Mark McCulloch examines Bryant's photographs of the tracks following the biologist's presentation Wednesday night on Eastern cougars at the University of Maine at Farmington. In back is Al Stark of Phillips who said he'd seen cougar tracks in the Moscow-Caratunk area and in Phillips.

Following Wednesday night's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program entitled "The Eastern Cougar: Wild Cats or Wild Imaginations?" by federal wildlife biologist Mark McCullough at the University of Maine at Farmington, Lisa and Warren Bryant of Jay, left, asked McCullough if photographs Warren Bryant took three years ago in Moscow are cougar tracks.

Warren Bryant of Jay holds photographs taken of what he believes to be the possible track of a mountain lion in Moscow.

FARMINGTON — Warren Bryant of Jay and Al Stark of Phillips learned Wednesday night that they had something in common: Both believe they've seen tracks in Moscow made by an Eastern cougar, possibly the same one.
Bryant photographed the tracks three years ago and took copies to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Mark McCullough to learn whether they were from a mountain lion.McCullough of Orono was in town Wednesday night to present a program titled "The Eastern Cougar: Wild Cats or Wild Imagination" for the Western Maine Audubon Society at the University of Maine at Farmington.
After viewing Bryant's photos, McCullough said the track looked more like that of a large dog because the hind-edge heel shape didn't have the distinctive three even lobes that cougars have."Toes of cats are more rounded versus toes of dogs, which are more tear-dropped, and you'll see a toenail," McCullough said.
Stark told the biologist that his grandson said he saw a cougar chasing a deer near Robinson Pond in Moscow while hunting. Stark also said he had seen what he believes are cougar tracks in Phillips.
Bryant said he's seen what appear to be big cat tracks three times in Moscow just west of the radar station, and that hunters have told him they've seen a cougar on Macomber Hill in Jay. Stark said he's seen cougar tracks near Moxie Mountain in Caratunk.
McCullough advised both to contact Chuck Hulsey, a wildlife biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in Strong, and to visit the Cougar Network at www.cougarnetwork.org.
He also told them to return to the area after snowfall to search for tracks and to photograph a sequence of stride tracks beside measuring tape.
"In snow, you will see where their tail drags every once in a while," McCullough said. "If its tracks show that it jumps 20 feet onto a log, that's not a St. Bernard."
McCullough's slide show addressed cougar sightings by taking viewers through a history of the big cats in both North and South America from millions of years ago to the present."This is an animal that's probably extinct, although we get numerous reports of cougars being seen all the time," he said of what he called Unidentified Feline Objects, eliciting laughter.
In 1967, the Eastern cougar was one of the nation's first species placed on the federal endangered species list.McCullough said that in Colonial times, hunters exterminated cougars, along with their main prey, the white-tailed deer, to the point that cougars were rarely encountered in Maine during the 1800s."The last one in Maine was believed killed in 1938," McCullough said. "Many early naturalists wrote that the Eastern cougar went extinct by the early 1900s."
"The eradication of the cougar in the East continued through the Midwest and West," he said."Between 1900 to 1970, over 200,000 cougars were killed by federal and private bounty hunters. Cougars were considered vermin and there was an unrestricted harvest of the animals."
For a male cougar to exist, it must have 44 deer each year, whereas a female mountain lion with cubs must have 113, which is why they require a fairly dense population of deer, and plenty of space, McCullough said.Males, he said, can range from 78 to 195 square miles and females from 8 to 400 square miles.
McCullough said there are two new populations of cougars in the Dakotas and evidence that some are dispersing throughout the country, but whether any have returned to Maine is a lively topic.
Offering three hypotheses for cougars existing in Maine, McCullough said they may not have been completely wiped out, or they are dispersing from known populations in the Midwest or Canada, or, most likely, they're pets that have either escaped from captivity or have been released.
"The way we as scientists look at it is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," he said. "Ninety to 95 percent of reports of cougar sightings are the mistaken identification of other species of wildlife."