Visitor Counter

hitwebcounter web counter
Visitors Since Blog Created in March 2010

Click Below to:

Add Blog to Favorites

Coyotes-Wolves-Cougars.blogspot.com

Grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, cougars/ mountain lions,bobcats, wolverines, lynx, foxes, fishers and martens are the suite of carnivores that originally inhabited North America after the Pleistocene extinctions. This site invites research, commentary, point/counterpoint on that suite of native animals (predator and prey) that inhabited The Americas circa 1500-at the initial point of European exploration and subsequent colonization. Landscape ecology, journal accounts of explorers and frontiersmen, genetic evaluations of museum animals, peer reviewed 20th and 21st century research on various aspects of our "Wild America" as well as subjective commentary from expert and layman alike. All of the above being revealed and discussed with the underlying goal of one day seeing our Continent rewilded.....Where big enough swaths of open space exist with connective corridors to other large forest, meadow, mountain, valley, prairie, desert and chaparral wildlands.....Thereby enabling all of our historic fauna, including man, to live in a sustainable and healthy environment. - Blogger Rick

Subscribe via email to get updates

Enter your email address:

Receive New Posting Alerts

(A Maximum of One Alert Per Day)

Sunday, March 27, 2011

VERMONT---Despite the 3rd snowiest Winter on record(2010-11).................Despite the fact that on average there are a good 6000 Eastern Coyotes(Coywolves) calling Vermont home...........Vermont hunters recorded a robust Whitetail Deer Harvest this seaon with over 15,500 "hoofed browsers" taken out of the Forest--up 2% over the 2009-10 hunt.................At the end of the day, while both Eastern Coyotes and Bobcats take a % of fawns in Spring and both take and scavenge adult deer(especially in Winter), neither of these Carnivores truly fills the historical ecological niche of the currently extirpated wolf and cougar.................The Vermont woodlands would have optimum regeneration and biological diversity(as we have discussed in previous postings) if wolves and cougars were restored to the landscape

BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) — Vermonters are still digging out from a winter storm that is taking its place in the record books.

 The National Weather Service says the Sunday-Monday storm dumped 25.8 inches at the Burlington International Airport, the third-greatest snowfall recorded there.

It even beat the monster Valentine's Day storm of 2007.
National Weather Service Meteorologist Brooke Taber says that so far the winter of 2010-2011 is the third-snowiest on record with a total of 124.3 inches. The record of 145.4 inches was set in 1970-1971.
It was the greatest March snowstorm ever and Monday's snowfall of 17.5 inches demolished the single day snow record in Burlington of 8.5 inches.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Vermont Deer Hunters Had Successful 2010 Seasons

Biologists for the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department have completed analyzing final harvest results from the 2010 deer hunting seasons and are qualifying last year's hunting seasons as a success. During Vermont's four seasons last year (archery, youth, rifle and muzzleloader), hunters harvested a total of 15,523 deer. That number is well within the department's 2010-20 Big Game Management Plan that set the annual harvest objective between 14,000 and 18,000.
"Our 2010 deer harvest increased by two percent from the 2009 totals," said Mark E. Scott, Director of Wildlife for the department. "In all four seasons combined, our hunters brought home nearly one million pounds of wild venison, totaling almost 4 million meals."
A review of the 2010 hunting seasons and prospects for the 2011 seasons will be the main topics of discussions at a series of public hearings being held around the state starting this week. The first of Vermont's deer hearings is March 24 at Burr & Burton Academy in Manchester. Other meetings will be held March 28 (Lyndonville, at Lyndon State College), March 29 (Pavilion Auditorium in Montpelier), March 29 (Middlebury Union High School) and March 30 (Springfield High School). The meetings begin at 7 p.m.
The 15,523 harvest total includes 2,914 deer of both sexes taken by bow hunters, 1,712 deer during the weekend-long youth hunting season, 6,665 antlered bucks during the November rifle season, and 4,232 bucks and does during muzzleloader season. In-depth, season-by-season discussions will be held at the five public hearings.
A PDF version of the 2010 Vermont White-Tailed Deer Harvest Report, containing detailed season results information, is posted on the Vermont Fish and Wildlife website (vtfishandwildlife.com).
"Deer hunting success depends on many variables," said Scott. "We hear from hunters during and after the seasons, but we gain our best understanding of the season when we can analyze the harvest numbers like we've done here."
Scott said the 2010 totals indicated that Vermont has a healthy and robust deer herd and estimates that Vermont had between 120,000-130,000 deer in Vermont at the conclusion of hunting seasons.
Source: Department of Fish and Wildlife
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERMONT WILDLIFE FACT SHEET
  Although little is known about the mortality factors of young coyotes, several studies have shown that between birth and one year, as many as 50-68% die. Adult mortality rates are lower. Several diseases and parasites can affect coyote survival including heartworm, distemper, canine hepatitis, sarcoptic mange, and rabies.
The population of Eastern coyotes in Vermont fluctuates between 4,500 and 8,000 with fewer animals in the population during winter. Many juveniles disperse in the fall, while others may stay with their family group well into their second year.
Coyote reproduction and survival is tied directly to habitat and food availability. In addition, coyotes are density dependent breeders. As the number of coyotes in an area decreases, their reproductive rates increase. Coyote control efforts are therefore often unsuccessful because they tend to stimulate reproduction.

MORTALITY

Current Management Efforts

The Fish & Wildlife Department recognizes that people have many differing views on the value of predators. We believe, however, that coyotes are important members of the ecosystem and have evolved together with many of nature's existing prey species. Conservation of the coyote is important to maintaining ecosystem integrity because of the vital role they play as predators. Coyotes are also a renewable natural resource and the utilization of these animals is appropriate as long as their population remains viable.
Certain groups would like to decrease or eliminate the coyote population. While coyotes kill other animals to eat and survive, including an occasional deer, they should not be subjected to an extermination program. Coyotes fill the role of a natural predator, a role that is important for maintaining the dynamics and health of our ecosystems.
Expensive extermination and bounty programs were common in the past and were responsible, along with habitat loss, for the elimination of some natural predators throughout the United States. These techniques have no place in modern wildlife management, which stresses the importance of all species

Our friend, Canadian Biologist Brent Patterson was recently invited to give a talk on Wolves and Coyotes in Ontario............He spoke to the Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers on the canid soup of Gray Wolves, Eastern Wolves and Eastern Coyotes that inhabit Ontario at this point in time..................Give yourself a good 20 minutes and click on the link below to expand your knowledge on this stimulating topic

below here is the link to Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)conference held over the weekend---where Dr. Brent Patterson presented his wolf/coyote research. We can listen via the video clip below:

Buttermilk Creek in Texas, Meadowcraft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania and a slew of other archaeological sites are proving that Man existed in the Americas 2000 years earlier than 20th Century wisdom had previously suggested......The prevailing evidence a decade ago weighed in that the so-called Clovis People had colonized the Americas about 12,500 years ago............Buttermilk Creek and Meadowcreek Rockshelter excavations are now revealing that men(perhaps by boats and not through the Bering Straight) colonized both North and South America as long as 15,500 years ago..........In my opinion, this adds credence to the blitzkreig theory that states that Man(along with changing climate and perhaps introduced diseases) brought the rapid extinction to the megafauna(sabertooth cats, dire wolves, short faced bears, etc, etc) that occupied the Americas during the Pleistocene



Arrowheads Found in Texas Dial Back Arrival of Humans in America

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
For many years, scientists have thought that the first Americans came here from Asia 13,000 years ago, during the last ice age, probably by way of the Bering Strait. They were known as the Clovis people, after the town in New Mexico where their finely wrought spear points were first discovered in 1929.
.
But in more recent years, archaeologists have found more and more traces of even earlier people with a less refined technology inhabiting North America and spreading as far south as Chile. And now clinching evidence in the mystery of the early peopling of America — Clovis or pre-Clovis? — for nearly all scientists appears to have turned up at a creek valley in the hill country of what is today Central Texas, 40 miles northwest of Austin.

The new findings establish that the last major human migration, into the Americas, began earlier than once thought. And the discovery could change thinking about how people got here (by coastal migrations along shores and in boats) and how they adapted to the new environment in part by making improvements in toolmaking that led eventually to the technology associated with the Clovis culture.

Archaeologists and other scientists report in Friday's issue of the journal Science that excavations show hunter-gatherers were living at the Buttermilk Creek site and making projectile points, blades, choppers and other tools from local chert for a long time, possibly as early as 15,500 years ago. More than 50 well-formed artifacts as well as hundreds of flakes and fragments of chipping debris were embedded in thick clay sediments immediately beneath typical Clovis material. "This is the oldest credible archaeological site in North America," Michael R. Waters, leader of the discovery team, said at a news teleconference.

Dr. Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M University, and his colleagues concluded in the journal article that their research over the last six years "confirms the emerging view that people occupied the Americas before Clovis and provides a large artifact assemblage to explore Clovis origins."

If the migrations began at earlier, pre-Clovis times, moreover, extensive glaciers probably closed off ice-free interior corridors for travel to the warmer south. Archaeologists said this lent credence to a fairly new idea in the speculative mix: perhaps the people came to the then really new New World by a coastal route, trooping along the shore and sometimes hugging land in small boats. This might account for the relatively swift movement of the migrants all the way to Peru and Chile.

The first of the distinctive Clovis projectile points represented advanced skills in stone technology. About a third of the way up from the base of the point, the artisans chipped out shallow grooves, called flutes, on both faces. The bifacial grooves probably permitted the points to be fastened to a wooden spear or dart.

Other archaeologists pointed out that the Buttermilk Creek dates, more than 2,000 years earlier than the Clovis chronology, are not significantly older than those for other sites challenging the Clovis-first hypothesis. In recent years, early human occupation sites have been examined coast to coast: from Oregon to Wisconsin to western Pennsylvania and from Maryland and Virginia down to South Carolina and Florida.

James M. Adovasio, an archaeologist who found what appears to be pre-Clovis material at the Pennsylvania site known as Meadowcroft Rockshelter, was not involved in the Buttermilk Creek excavations but has visited the site and inspected many of the artifacts. These pre-Clovis projectile points were also bifacial but not as large and well turned as the later technology. The most striking difference was the absence of the characteristic fluting. Dr. Adovasio, a professor at Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pa., said some of the Buttermilk Creek material resembled tools at his site and others at Cactus Hill, Va., and Miles Point, Md.  "It would appear the assemblage of artifacts is enough different from typical Clovis to be a distinct technology," Dr. Adovasio said in an interview. "But it is not as much different as not to be ancestral to Clovis material." That is another likely implication of the new findings, also noted by Dr. Waters and his team. It would appear that the Clovis technology was not an Asian import; it was invented here.

 No one knows exactly who these migrating people were, scientists said. Genetic studies of ancient bones and later American Indians indicate their ancestors came from northeast Asia, possibly across the Bering land bridge at a time of low sea levels during the last ice age. But it has puzzled scientists that nothing like the Clovis technology has ever been found in Siberia.

The new findings, the Waters group reported, "suggest that although the ultimate ancestors of Clovis originated from northeast Asia, important technological developments, including the invention of the Clovis fluted points, took place south of the North American continental ice sheets before 13,100 years ago from an ancestral pre-Clovis tool assemblage."

Among other implications of the discoveries, the Texas archaeologists said, a pre-Clovis occupation of North America provided more time for people to settle in North America, colonize South America by more than 14,000 years ago, "develop the Clovis tool kit and create a base population through which Clovis technology could spread."

The Texas archaeologists said the new dig site has produced the largest number of artifacts dating to the pre-Clovis period. The dates for the sediments bearing the stone tools were determined to range from 13,200 to 15,500 years ago.

Given the lack of sufficient organic material buried around the tools, the radiocarbon dating method was useless. Instead, earth scientists at the University of Illinois, Chicago, used a newer technique known as optically stimulated luminescence. This measures light energy trapped in minerals to reveal how long ago the soil was last exposed to sunlight.

Steven L. Forman, who directed the tests, said that 49 core samples were drilled from several sections of the sediments associated with the tools. When the data were analyzed, they consistently yielded the same ages. "This was unequivocal proof of pre-Clovis," he said at the news conference.

Other scientists examined the flood plain geology at the site and determined that the clay sediments showed virtually no sign of having been disturbed during or after the burying of the tools. Lee C. Nordt, a geology professor at Baylor University, said that the traces of previous cracks in the sediment were few and too narrow to have allowed more recent artifacts from above to have settled into the deeper pre-Clovis layers.  Until recently, Dr. Waters said, archaeologists had probably overlooked earlier artifacts because the Clovis points are so distinctive and, in contrast, the pre-Clovis material has no hallmark style calling attention to itself. "Finally, we are able to put Clovis-first behind us and move on," he said.

A few scientists, even among those who endorse the presence in the Americas, said they had some reservations about aspects of excavation methods at the Texas site. One who did not want to be quoted or identified questioned whether the reported artifacts justified such a fanfare. He considered the whole issue settled years ago when a panel of experts judged that the Monte Verde site in southern Chile was indeed pre-Clovis.

Dr. Adovasio noted that the Clovis model had been "dying a slow death." He recalled that "Waters himself was a Clovis-firster, but changed years ago." At a conference in 1999, the conventional hypothesis seemed to be on its last legs after a review of the Monte Verde data; still a few holdouts stood fast in opposition. "The last spear carriers will die without changing their minds," Dr. Adovasio said.


Saturday, March 26, 2011

Washington State Representative Hans Dunshee is rightly sighting Dr. Robert Wielgus's findings at the LARGE CARNIVORE CONSERVATION LAB at Washington State University which state that hunting Cougars with hounds gives rise to an influx of younger male cougars, which are more likely to get into trouble with people and livestock.....We are applauding Mr Dunshee who is insisting on Science over economics or politics as the determining factor in saying yea or nea to hunting cougars with dogs

Cougar-hunting bill still faces House opposition

OLYMPIA, Wash. —
A House lawmaker is leading a renewed effort to stop a Senate measure that would extend a pilot program that allows the hunting of cougars with hounds by questioning the assessment by a state agency behind the bill.

In 1996, voters approved with 63 percent of the vote a statewide initiative banning the use of hounds in cougar-hunting. In 2004, lawmakers created a pilot program allowing such a practice. The program has been extended twice so far in an effort to address concerns of cougar encounters with people and livestock. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says the use of dogs in tracking and killing cougars makes for better population management because hunters get enough time to identify the sex and age of the cat.

 But Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish, says the department's assessment needs to be reviewed by an outside source. "I think the public should be able to verify what the department says and feel confident in it," Dunshee said. "I think an open peer review will help (the department) make their case on decisions they have to make, and it'll let the public have better confidence in their decisions." To that end, he added an amendment onto an omnibus Fish and Wildlife Senate bill as it came through the House Agriculture and Natural Resources committee that would establish an independent biological science review board made up of researchers from the University of Washington and Washington State University. That way, he says, decisions about wildlife management will receive unbiased, unpaid review from an independent third party.

The department, however, opposes the amendment for time and cost reasons, saying they don't have the financial or staff capacity to provide the reviewers with all the information related to all wildlife management decisions being made."I believe that over time, there would be a cost for the work (the review board) would do, and I'm very concerned that the Department of Fish and Wildlife would have to bear the cost for that in the future," department director Phil Anderson said. They don't have any problem with the idea of peer review, he said; it's been a part of their process on several management decisions in the past, and will be in the future.

The Senate cougar bill would extend the hound-hunting program by another five years. It was approved 37-11 by senators and now awaits a House vote after clearing committees.

Dunshee's doubts about the department's reliability began over the cougar issue when he read literature from a WSU researcher that conflicted with what the department was espousing. He cited studies by Dr. Robert Wielgus, director of the large carnivore conservation lab at WSU, which suggest that heavy hunting of cougars gives rise to an influx of younger male cougars, which are more likely to get into trouble with people and livestock. "For me, this is about the science," he said. "We all agree that safety should be paramount, and there is good evidence that the sport hound-hunting increases danger."
Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, says there's a big difference between heavy "boot hunting" of cougars, which is legal during regular season statewide, and tightly controlled hound-hunting. For him, indiscriminate boot hunting is the biggest problem with cougar management. "That's where most of the cougars are getting killed, and it's typically not the ones who have a high potential to offend," he explained. "Hound-hunting, by its very nature, is more likely to get cats that have a higher likelihood to offend."---scientific evidence to back up that statement Mr Kretz?????--blogger Rick
Kretz's home county of Okanogan had the highest number of cougar complaints before the pilot program took effect, and has seen the most dramatic decline since it began. But Dunshee says the department's own figures show complaints decreased by the same amount in counties without the pilot program. Data from Fish and Wildlife shows a 48 percent drop in the number of confirmed cougar complaints in participating counties since the pilot program began. Those counties are Chelan, Ferry, Klickitat, Okanogan, Pend Oreille and Stevens. In counties not included in the pilot program, however, the decline in complaints is almost identical: 46 percent between 2004 and 2009.
Kretz was quick to point out that just because counties don't have the pilot program doesn't mean there's no hound-hunting: The 1996 ban still allows for the use of hounds to control public safety and livestock depredation problems. His main problem with the opposition is that they have no personal experience with cougar attacks."All these counties voted to support hound hunting when the initiative went through," he said. "I think it's wrong that urban people in Olympia are able to dictate against the will of people out in the country that actually have some skin in the game."

Once again, our sloppy and careless husbandry practices encourage habituation of Wolves to cattle and people--Open pit "boneyards" where Ranchers dispose of dead cattle end up a fatal lure for Wolves in Alberta, Canada.............The Boneyards are close to Ranch homes and calving areas.......Talk about temptation personified..........Almost impossible for the Wolves to avoid preying on such an easy target

 EDMONTON - Wolves are eating more cattle in southwestern Alberta than previously known, according to researchers from the University of Alberta.
Andrea Morehouse and Mark Boyce tackled the research based on a request from the province's fish and wildlife division. There had not been any wolf diet work done in southwestern Alberta and there was a growing concern among cattle producers, said Morehouse, who is now a PhD student at the University of Alberta. Since 2000, compensation paid to livestock producers because of wolf predation on cattle rose from $45,321 to $110,046, according to their research paper, which was published online in Frontiers in Ecology and Environment on March 24.
"Southwestern Alberta is a unique part of the province in that the interface between the mountains and the prairies is very sharp and there's a high degree of overlap between where livestock are grazing and where wildlife, including carnivores, have home ranges and territories," Morehouse said in an interview. "This overlap means there's probably a little more potential for conflict here than elsewhere in the province, so that's why we focused down there."
Wolf diet research is usually done by analyzing scat. But wolves also scavenge, so what's in scat isn't necessarily what they have killed. Morehouse also used global positioning system technology from June 2008 through October 2009 to find where clusters of wolves had been to help figure out what they were eating and whether the wolves had killed the prey themselves. The technology was particularly useful in the summer.
"Producers in southwestern Alberta put their cows in the forest reserve in roughly May and pull them out in roughly October, and they're often a few head short," Morehouse said. "So they're missing a few cattle and they've long suspected that wolves are accounting for the ones that are missing. But they haven't had evidence to support that claim. "The GPS cluster method allowed us to locate some of those cattle that would probably have otherwise been classified as missing because although there are people out there riding the area, it's very hard to find a kill site in the summer. Wolves consume their prey very rapidly and they spread the bones all over the place. So without something to get you in the right spot it's very hard in a forested area to find something."
During the course of their study, they found the remains of 50 cattle at wolf kill sites from three packs. In response to the increasing cattle predations during that time period, the government did control packs in this area, Morehouse said. They removed the Bob Creek pack of four wolves and the Crowsnest pack of two.
Dave Ealey, a spokesman for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, said they do manage wolf packs that target livestock, but because wolf populations are on the rise those packs are often quickly replaced.
Morehouse also noticed that during the non-grazing season the wolves were scavenging at boneyards where ranchers dispose of their dead stock.Before bovine spongiform encephalopathy, rendering plants would pick up the dead animals free of charge. But now that certain tissues are prohibited from use in livestock feed, pet food and fertilizer, the companies charge for pick up. It's too expensive for many producers, so they would pile up the dead animals in the boneyard instead."Boneyards represented an important food source for wolves during winter, and they often made repeated visits to these locations," Morehouse and Boyce wrote. "This is especially problematic because boneyards are required to be a minimum of only 400 metres from livestock facilities and residences. This brings carnivores into close contact with other stock-growing activities (e.g. calving), which could result in further conflict between wildlife and ranchers." Morehouse said a potential solution would be to use bear-proof metal storage bins in place of boneyards, to reduce scavenging and prevent carnivores from becoming accustomed to feeding on livestock.

Ealey said over the last two years the government has been placing dead-stock storage bins in the Cardston and Twin Butte area, so bears and wolves aren't attracted to the area. The bins are like regional waste management bins, offering a more cost-effective way to have dead cattle hauled away. It has had the desired effect on bears, but no followup research has been done to see if it's working on wolves.
The study received funding and logistical support from a wide variety of sources including, among others, the provincial government, the Alberta Beef Producers, the Alberta Conservation Association, Parks Canada and Shell. The cattle industry employee who was involved in the project could not be reached for comment Friday.


In my opinion the Nova Scotia $20 Coyote bounty will end up being a failure in it's goal of reducing the Cape Breton's Songdog population.............As we have seen again and again, Coyotes tend to respond to persecution with increased litter size..................We kill them,,,,,,,,,,,they have a flood of pups................Juveniles can and do get into more conflicts with people than adult Coyotes........Better to focus on the "4-step plan" of how to scare and coexist with Coyotes, also mentioned in this article

N.S. $20 per coyote pelt incentive ends March 31 with the year's trapping season

HALIFAX -   Nova Scotia's $20 per pelt bounty on coyotes will end with this year's trapping season on March 31, the Natural Resources Department announced Thursday.But the data has to be analyzed before officials can say whether the incentive was successful in reducing coyote numbers. Mike Boudreau, a wildlife biologist hired to monitor human-wildlife conflict, said figures could be available by mid-April. "The numbers aren't in. It's too early. But anecdotally, in the first part of January, we saw a 50 per cent increase (in pelts shipped to market) in the same time period as last year," said Boudreau. "Initially it seems like there's a little increase."
A fatal attack on a young woman in Cape Breton in October 2009 and an increase in coyote sightings in urban areas has led to safety concerns. Based on earlier studies, Boudreau said biologists estimate there are anywhere from 8,000 to 12,000 coyotes in the province."That's based on home-range size information that we acquired back in the early '90s when we did work on coyotes."Natural Resources Minister Charlie Parker said the government had met its commitment to ensuring safety with a four-step plan outlined last fall. It included hiring a biologist to focus on human-wildlife conflict, training more trappers, providing a pelt incentive and increasing education about dealing with the animals.
"We've already been out into over 100 schools in the province ... explaining safety techniques," said Parker. "We've also sent material to all school boards." Additional safety information released Thursday under the acronym BAM encourages anyone who encounters a coyote to "Back away! Act big! Make noise!" "We're really coming into that time of year when a lot of people will be getting out into the woods and fields with better weather," said Parker.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Brooks Fahy at PREDATOR DEFENSE sent me a teriffic article on the range expansion and success of the Coyote,,,,,,,,,penned with aplomb by his friend, Chris Ketcham(recently published in Orion Magazine).........Some Natural World observers would say that the Coyote is the ultimate weed species,,,, able to reproduce quickly, disperse widely when given a chance, tolerate a fairly broad range of habitat, take hold in strange places, succeed especially in disturbed ecosystems, and resist eradication once they're established..................I would counter that the Coyote is the ultimate NATIVE exhibiting American Exceptionalism.............Taking on all comers..........Adapting, problem solving, growing bigger, stronger and more resilient day by day................GO COYOTES,,,,you are an example of what we admire in the best of ourselves.......Persistance under fire!!!!!

New Dog in Town

The coyote as city dweller, and what it means for the country

by Christopher Ketcham
Photographs by Trish Carney


WILD COYOTES HAVE SETTLED in or around every major city in the United States, thriving as never before, and in New York they have taken to golf. I'm told the New Yorker coyotes spend a good deal of time near the tenth hole on the Van Cortlandt Park Golf Course in the Bronx. They apparently like to watch the players tee off among the Canada geese. They hunt squirrels and rabbits and wild turkeys along the edge of the forest surrounding the course, where there are big old hardwoods and ivy that looks like it could strangle a man—good habitat in which to den, skulk, plan. Sometimes in summer the coyotes emerge from the steam of the woods to chew golf balls and spit them onto the grass in disgust.
They also frequent the eighth and the ninth and the twelfth holes, where golfers have found raccoons with broken necks, the cadavers mauled. At the tenth hole, a coyote ran alongside a golf cart last summer, keeping pace with the vehicle as the golfers shook their heads in wonder. "I stop the cart, he stops," one golfer who was there told me. "I start it up, he follows. I jump out, he jumps back. I sit down in the cart, he comes forward. We hit for a while—we're swinging, and he's watching." Here the golfer, an animated southerner named Chris, mimes the animal, following with his head the coyote-tracked ball's trajectory up and up, along the fairway, then its long arc down. It was pleasing to Chris that coyotes like golf.
Until recently, I couldn't quite believe that coyotes were established New Yorkers. Among neophyte naturalists, it's an anomaly, a bizarrerie, something like a miracle. Coyotes, after all, are natives of the high plains and deserts two thousand miles to the west. But for anyone who takes the time to get to know coyotes, their coming to the city is a development as natural as water finding a way downhill. It is also a lesson in evolution that has gone largely unheralded. Not in pristine wilderness, but here, amid the splendor of garbage cans filthy with food, the golf carts crawling on the fairway like alien bugs, in a park full of rats and feral cats and dullard chipmunks and thin rabbits and used condoms and bums camping out and drunks pissing in the brush, a park ringed by arguably the most urbanized ingathering of Homo sapiens in America—here the coyote thrives. It seemed to me good news.

THE COYOTE, unlike its closest cousin, the wolf, is a true American. The coyote's earliest relatives began evolving in the Southwest 10 million years ago, with Canis latrans arriving roughly at the dawn of the Pleistocene Epoch, when huge predators roamed the continent. I imagine the coyote in its prehistoric form as a thing small and weak and quiet, slinking in the shadows alongside the megafauna of American prehistory. The little dog had to deal with the appetites of cave lions, which weighed upward of six hundred pounds; the predations of the saber-toothed cat; the fury of the short-faced bear, which, at a height of fourteen feet and a weight of up to nineteen hundred pounds, was the largest bear that ever lived. It tried not to get stomped by the mastodon and the mammoth and the stag-moose and the elephant-sized ground sloth and the armored glyptodon, a turtle as big as a Volkswagen.

Then, beginning some twelve thousand years ago, the coyote got a break. In one of the great extinction events of prehistory, North America's megafauna, these giants of the continent, disappeared. What precipitated the mass extinction is unknown, and is today the stuff of much speculation. The cause might have been climate change—the retreat of the glaciers, the warming of the planet—or perhaps it was a change in weather combined with overkill from newly arrived human predators who crossed the Bering Strait, armed with the technology of spears that the megafauna were not adapted to fend off. The coyote, fighting for so long in this hard world of giants, was among the few prehistoric American mammals to survive in the new environment. Other sizable fauna soon filled the extinction vacuum. But they were foreigners. Like the spear-chucking humans, the new mammals were descendants of Asia. They are the creatures that we know now as bison, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, grizzly bear—invasives that we generally find ghettoized in our national parks.

Another invasive species that crossed from Asia was the gray wolf. Fast-forward several thousand years, and the coyote and the wolf  have become mortal enemies. They have fought for space over the millennia, with the wolf claiming most of the American continent because the wolf is bigger, more aggressive, works in packs, and operates well in dense forest. Enter the white man, whose technology and avarice allowed for sweeping control over established predators. By 1900, white settlers had decimated the wolf population, which threatened their livestock and their children. This was accomplished not simply by unleashing gunpowder; the white man felled forests everywhere he went, which opened up the terrain and left no hiding place for wolves. The coyote, on the other hand, thrived in open spaces. It was adaptable as the wolf was not; it had been adapting to predation in America for 10 million years. So the coyote took over the wolf's niche as top dog.

In the wake of white settlement, the coyote was reviled for its success. That we could not appreciate the elasticity of the native dog was fitting irony for the European species of human, so terribly successful at invading the continent and adapting to it ourselves (or, rather, forcing the continent to adapt to our new and increasingly invasive presence). Along with the Indian and the bison, the coyote was—remains—the pest par excellence of the American West, to this day classified in the law books of many western states as "vermin" or "nuisance" species. Tens of millions of coyotes have been slaughtered in the U.S. since 1900; federal and state governments over the last two decades have killed an estimated 2 million of them. This figure doesn't incorporate the tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of coyotes each year hunted, baited, trapped, snared, and poisoned by livestock ranchers and sport hunters who kill coyotes for recreation in contests and bounty hunts. The attempt at control has cost in the range of billions of dollars—no firm number is known—and it has failed spectacularly. Biologists note that the success of the coyote amid this carnage is largely due to a survival mechanism that renders the species impervious to the gun and the trap: when large numbers of coyotes are killed in any single ecosystem, the coyotes that remain produce bigger litters. The animal compensates for slaughter, in other words, by becoming more numerous, more problematic. I can only imagine this as a kind of Darwinian laughter: Kill more of us, and more of us will come. Perhaps to be killed. So that there will be more of us. Ha ha!

I FIRST HEARD THE SOUND of the eastern coyote in the sprawling Catskill Mountain range, a hundred miles north of New York City. The creatures screamed and shouted and yipped; I thought I was hallucinating. That was eight years ago. Only once did I get close, in October 2002, when a pack in fog yelled in my ear on a mountaintop. No sighting of the creatures that cold night, nothing to lay my eyes on. Just the high keening song, the crackle and whisper of my feet and theirs on the forest floor. Thereafter I made it a point to walk in the forest and climb the mountains at night, to listen for them, find their sign, their scat, their kills. Eight years later, I've found a lot of scat, many prints in mud, and no coyotes.
But the song—it hung in my head. I'd listened to coyotes in the American West, and the song in the East was different. In the red rock of the desert, it's lone and sorrowful and begins with a bark (Canis latrans, after all, means "barking dog"). The pack sometimes—only sometimes—answers the loner, the voices clear and vibrant, like a Greek chorus. In the East, vocalizations never seem to open with the loner. The song instead begins with a scream upon a scream, followed by creeches, squeaks, eeks, heeing and hawing and ululations, dystonal and weird, that the western cousin can't match. I could say I hear the gamelan music of Indonesia, the off-time rhythms of Turkic Bosnia, girls screaming rape, men losing testicles.

A few years ago, late on a summer night in 2004, I thought I heard a lone coyote singing in the Bronx. This was not long after the first reported New York sightings, which already had begun increasing in frequency. If coyotes were on the move in the city, marking terrain, naturally, I thought, there should be communication among them. What I heard, wandering Van Cortlandt Park on that summer night, was a short spindrift cry, like something heard underwater, distant and muffled and indistinct, and later I assumed it was the work of a dog pretending at wildness while slobbering over an owner come home. Or perhaps it didn't happen at all and I imagined it because I'd been reading too many reports about coyotes. In the moment, though, I believed what I wanted, and I started howling. And waited. And howled. There was the hush of the city, the hoodoo silence of the buildings that surround the park, and in the silence I could hear the murmurs of men and women speaking in a thousand ways out of tune with each other, and finally, when I howled one last time, someone leaned out a window and cried, "Shut the fuck up."

FROM CALIFORNIA TO MAINE, there are more coyotes than at any time since records have been kept, their territorial expansion unprecedented in speed and scope. "The coyote is the most successful colonizing mammal in recent history," Justina Ray, an ecologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, tells me. They pressed eastward across the Plains and the Midwest. They went south into Alabama, Georgia, Florida. By the 1920s, they had arrived in New York State, where they advanced at a mind-boggling rate of 116 miles per month. By 1942 they were in Vermont; by 1944 they were in New Hampshire; and by 1958 they were in western Massachusetts. I recently found their tracks like a palimpsest in the tidal flats at Cape Cod National Seashore—the messages of their movements chasing crabs—and one homeowner on the Cape described a den in his wooded backyard, thirty feet from his deck, where the pups stared out from inside a tree trunk. I talked with a Connecticut woman who welcomed a wounded coyote into her car, thinking it was a bashed-up dog, and took it into her house only to discover the creature going wild in her living room as it matured—wanting to get out. By the 1970s, coyotes were arriving in the cold sea-country of the Canadian Atlantic Provinces, having become fully established in New Brunswick by 1975, reaching southwestern Nova Scotia by 1980, Prince Edward Island by 1983, and floating on sea ice across the Cabot Strait to the island of Newfoundland by 1987.

That the coyote has expanded his range does not surprise biologists. What does confound is the suggestion, hotly debated, that the coyotes now taking over the eastern U.S. in fact represent a new subspecies of wild dog on the continent, the Canis latrans varietas. The western coyote is a smaller creature than the eastern cousin. The westerner weighs in at perhaps thirty pounds, looking somewhat like a fat fox. The eastern coyote grows as big as sixty pounds at his heftiest. The tracks I found on Cape Cod and in the Catskill Mountains suggest a big dog indeed.

So whence the bigger muscles, the extra weight, the new song? Perhaps natural selection in the face of bigger game, or the higher snows and colder weather of places like Chicago and New York, sparked the coyote's physical flowering. Perhaps coyotes in their dominance arrived at a sexual detente with the last wolves in the East and began breeding with their old enemies, which added to the girth of the eastern coyote and also gave him his new voice. Perhaps the wolves, in this same pivotal moment, realized they were outnumbered and preserved, in a copulative leap of hopelessness, what little remained of their genetic pool. I like to think that all these factors commingled and were further complicated by the reality of dealing with the human ecosphere—the byways and hidden passages of the city, the dynamism of interaction with cars, highways, apartment buildings replete with comings and goings, the all-night bodegas, the light of streetlamps, the conniving of rats, the surfeit of accident and possibility. I like to think the eastern coyote's build, its behavior, and, not least, its song reflect this complexity.

So the coyote runs across schoolyards in Philadelphia; he hides under a taxi on Michigan Avenue in Chicago. He is in Atlanta, and in Los Angeles, and Miami, and Washington DC. He follows into the cities our paths, our roads, our railways, our bike and hiking trails. In Seattle, a coyote ran into an elevator in a skyscraper for a ride, and another ended up in the luggage compartment of a tram at the SeaTac Airport. In Boston, biologists who radio-collared a female coyote during 2004 reported that the dog traveled freely across the towns of Revere, Medford, Somerville, and Cambridge, at one point crossing into Boston proper via a railroad line at three a.m. before bedding down in a railyard north of the Charles River. The dog, nicknamed Fog, had "little more than shrubs for her to sleep in." Stanley Gehrt, a biologist at Ohio State University who recently spent six years tracking the coyote populations of Chicago, concluded that there were at least two thousand of them living in the Windy City, and they were growing in number. Urban coyotes, Gehrt found, live longer than their country cousins, their range per pack is more compact, much like urban humans, and they hunt more often at night, very much like urban humans. Gehrt also found that coyotes howl in answer to the sirens from firehouses—calling to the sounds of men. "Originally known as ghosts of the plains, coyotes have become ghosts of the cities," Gehrt writes. "Coyotes are watching and learning from us."

I GOT A BEER FROM A BODEGA in the Bronx and sat on a bench and thought about the ghost dog. To the American Indians, coyote is Trickster, the magician among the animals, the shadow creature, the player on the edges of human encampments. "Along the edge I am traveling, in a sacred manner," goes an old Lakota song honoring the Trickster. Sacred manner? Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner comes more readily to mind. Chuck Jones, the animator, pegged the Trickster, in his cartoon Latin, as Eatibus anythingus. Which is true: coyotes eat garbage, darkness, rats, air—they'd lap my beer if I let them.
The Trickster in myth appears as rotten minded as Wile E., as creepy and ill reputed, as underhanded as Bronx rats. But in the system of native myth, unlike Wile E., unlike Bronx rats, the coyote's lying and conniving and cheating is in the last act a leap of creation, bearing the new out of things that are busted down and old and not working. The cartoon hints at this: Wile E. falling off cliffs, born again from the smashed puffball of bones at the canyon bottom to try for a meal once more.

In the various coyote myths, the Trickster makes things happen by sheer pushy will and wackiness. He is a shape-shifter, blown apart, come together again. Coyote is sometimes the creator of the world itself in his tumbledown accidental manner; sometimes he brings fire to the hominids who are freezing in the cold; sometimes he gets the smartest and most beautiful girls pregnant when dumbstruck men can't get it up to perpetuate the line; sometimes he makes sure that animals get anuses when the Creator, whoever that fool is, forgets to do so. The Trickster, in other words, is a teacher of possibilities, pointing humankind down new paths when the poor bummed-out hominids are stumped.

MY OWN AMATEUR COYOTE STUDY in New York's Van Cortlandt Park last autumn went not so well. Day after day, I made the long trip by subway north from Brooklyn into the Bronx, my hopes up, maps out, binoculars in the backpack, notepad ready, boots laced high, a flashlight with extra batteries in case I found the creatures after dark. I got lost in the Van Cortlandt woods, scrambling near the border with Westchester. I got paranoid about muggers (who, like coyotes, never seem to show up). I got covered in mud tramping in washes looking for tracks. I got poison ivy up my leg and into my crotch.
The golfers at the Van Cortlandt Golf Course snickered at my efforts. "Saw more of your little friends just the other day," they'd tell me. "Haven't found any yet?" they'd laugh. "Coyotes don't do interviews," they'd tell me. They suggested I take up golf.

I took to wandering at night where I thought coyotes might be making their way into the Bronx. I imagined them arriving in Van Cortlandt Park via the Putnam Trail, a soil vein pounded smooth as glass, where I walked and walked. Or perhaps they followed the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail, the outmoded passage for the Catskill reservoir water that keeps the city alive (the Croton Aqueduct has long been supplanted by more modern piping). From the Bronx, the passage south onto the island of Manhattan is more difficult. Perhaps they cross the Harlem River, swimming the water, or, more likely, they walk the bridges at night. It is only some five miles from the tip of Manhattan to Central Park, which is the place to be if you're a coyote in Manhattan. On April Fool's Day 1999, a coyote named Lucky Pierre led reporters, helicopters, photographers, cops, and tourists in a chase across Central Park before succumbing to a tranquilizer dart. Pierre got his name because for a time he holed up in a cave across from the luxe Pierre Hotel. In the winter of 2004, a coyote was seen bounding among the ice floes on frozen Rockaway Inlet in Queens, near the dunes of Breezy Point, twenty-five miles south of Central Park. The animal apparently had gotten across Manhattan, across the East River, either dog paddling in the water or hiking one of the bridges to Brooklyn, and thence across that borough to the shores where Brooklyn meets Queens and the sea. Cops in boats tried to capture the creature, but he dove in the cold surf, swam to shore, and was gone.

A coyote made it across Brooklyn? Incredible. I sometimes find it hard to cross Brooklyn.
On Super Bowl Sunday 2006, on Manhattan's Upper West Side, a coyote was found smashed at the side of a highway. That same year, a second coyote was captured in Central Park. In 2008, a coyote appeared on the Bronx campus of the Horace Mann School, the New York Sun reporting that it was out for a "jog" with the students and "offered no resistance" when animal-control officers scooped it up. On February 4 of this year, a coyote, described as "timid and skittish," stopped in the middle of a frozen Central Park pond long enough to be captured on film by a photographer. Three days later, a trio of coyotes appeared out of nowhere on the Columbia University campus in upper Manhattan, then disappeared as quickly. On March 24, a coyote was reported inside the Holland Tunnel, then it was sighted wandering Tribeca. "Manhattan's coyote population continued its inexorable push southward," concluded the New York Times. There will of course be many more of them, and we will welcome the romance of the wild dogs, until we don't. The creatures will have to be hunted and killed once they hunt and kill one too many of our domesticated foot warmers (or, worse, the little ones in our own domesticated breed). We like our gardens in the East, we like our vines run amok, our tall trees in the backyard, the deer grazing on bluegrass, the pretense of wildness; we like our animals at home pretending at atavistic habits, but we don't want a carcass at the door in the morning. In other words, let's have gardens, but not nature. Herein lies the irony of the coyote's arrival in the urban East. He does not represent wildness; he is an adaptee to the garden. Without us subjugating the land to the ridiculous extent that we have, he wouldn't be walking alongside us.

MY GUIDE TO THE PARKS of the Bronx was a fifty-six-year-old New York City Parks Department wildlife biologist named Dave Kunstler, who gives the impression that he prefers the conversation of nighthawks and tree frogs. It was October, the days growing short, and we hiked the woods until dusk, looking for coyote dens where he suspected they might be, finding none. We searched under rocks, behind boulders, in tree trunks. We ended up purloining a golf cart at the Van Cortlandt Golf Course to hunt them on the fairway. Kunstler didn't seem much interested in the quest. What he mostly talked about were invasive plants. Kunstler saw invasives everywhere pushing out the natives: porcelain-berry and Asiatic bittersweet and mugwort; the Ailanthus and the Norway maple among the tall trees; and elsewhere, whole stretches of forest swallowed in kudzu.

Many of the plants Kunstler pointed out could be classified as weeds. Coyotes, it seems to me, are also a kind of weed species. And their success is indicative of a larger problem facing the human race, the problem of weeds relentlessly encroaching, their effect the strangulation and diminishment of complex ecosystems everywhere. Weed species, writes David Quammen, "reproduce quickly, disperse widely when given a chance, tolerate a fairly broad range of habitat, take hold in strange places, succeed especially in disturbed ecosystems, and resist eradication once they're established. They are scrappers, generalists, opportunists." The coyote, exactly. Also, black rats, cockroaches, crows, kudzu, raccoons, the white-tailed deer, ragweed, Russian thistle, feral cats, feral dogs, squirrels, wild turkeys—all of them weed species, all exploding in number across the country, but especially along the suburban-urban gradient. In his essay "Planet of Weeds," Quammen singles out another spectacularly successful weed species, Homo sapiens, and notes that other weeds down the food chain tend to follow where human beings tread. The planet of weeds, as Quammen describes it, is an impoverished place in its abundance because it heralds the end of diversity. And it is likely our inexorable future.

Kunstler and I rode around on the cart like a pair of tin cans, driving away beautiful geese, hundreds of them fleeing on the fairway—weeds with wings. We rode and rode. Eventually, we stopped a young man who was tending to the carts. "Sure, I seen one just yesterday." I threw up my hands."They're probably watching us right now," Kunstler shrugged. Not finding a single coyote suddenly made me depressed.

Where is Trickster? We need him. The hominids are screwing up and don't have a plan to fix things. We've got global warming and rising seas and peak oil and fish dying off and deserts spreading. We've got a planet of weeds, and we seem utterly incapable of adapting to forestall disaster. The coyote survived the great Pleistocene extinction, and may very well survive the present one, the planet's sixth great extinction, an event that has been greatly accelerated by the industrialization of Homo sapiens to the point that many thousands of species have disappeared in the last century alone. One wonders whether, before it is all through, Homo sapiens might be among the deceased.

Perhaps the message that Trickster brings to us is this: The more of us you see, the more impoverished the world will be.

Judge Molloy is hearing the Wolf delisting arguments(both pro and con) and will soon render his decision to support or deny delisting in Montana and Idaho

Groups lay out opposition to proposed wolf settlement

  • By EVE BYRON



 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A gray wolf resting in tall grass.
HELENA — Two environmental groups who don't want to settle the lawsuit over the delisting of gray wolves in Montana and Idaho say they don't understand how their former partners in the federal court case can now support state wolf management plans that they previously found so inadequate.

A court-ordered response from what's being called "the nonsettling parties" that was filed this week by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Clearwater lays out their concerns with the proposed settlement that will come before U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy on Thursday in Missoula.

Mike Garrity, the Alliance's executive director, said nothing substantial has changed with wolf management since the case was filed by 14 environmental groups in 2009. The groups claimed that the Department of Interior was wrong when it decided wolves could be considered a "recovered" species no longer facing extinction in Montana and Idaho, but not in Wyoming.The split among states "failed to ensure that the northern Rockies wolf population exhibits genetic connectivity essential to its survival, and will allow the wolf population in Idaho and Montana to decline dramatically ..." the groups stated in the lawsuit.

Molloy ruled in the groups' favor last August on that point, but under a settlement agreement filed with the court this week, 10 of the environmental groups, known now as "the settling parties" said the differing statuses among the three states would be retained, at least until Wyoming could come up with a plan to manage wolves that is approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The nonsettling parties allege in the court documents filed Tuesday that the only new twists in the ongoing saga are the bills in Congress that could permanently remove wolves from Endangered Species Act protections in the northern Rockies. He said the fear of those potential acts of Congress is the real motivation behind the settlement proposal. "Essentially, what has changed is they couldn't take the heat," Garrity said.

Mike Clark, executive director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition -- one of the larger of the 10 groups pushing for the settlement -- readily agreed with that, saying the potential for congressional action to change the Endangered Species Act prompted everyone to take a closer look at settling the case. "I live in the real world that says when Congress talks to you, you better pay attention," Clark said. "Congress can step into, at any time, any issue and do what it wants. That's our reality. And certainly, Congress is taking an interest in this.

"The Endangered Species Act has been in place for 30 years, and it's the most important act for making sure a species doesn't disappear. It would be a terrible precedent (if Congress could remove any animal from the list) and if we can avoid that, we better." But he said the situation changed in other ways during the past two years.

One of the main issues now is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is a branch of the Interior Department that oversees endangered species, wanted to resolve the case. The federal agency also has agreed to maintain a key role in monitoring and managing what happens with wolves over time once they're considered recovered, and they'll convene a panel of experts to look into their recovery.
However, he had a hard time, when pressed, to explain the difference over when they filed the lawsuit in June 2009, saying the 2009 delisting was unlawful because it removed federal protection for wolves in Montana and Idaho while retaining the listed status in Wyoming.

Clark said that under the settlement, the USFWS now says it will not "try to individually single out particular states and will manage wolves as a regional population" -- which is something Garrity said the federal agency has done for years.

According to Clark, under the settlement the USFWS would "maintain a vital role in the management of wolves and not allow states to do what they want" -- but states already must have a management plan approved by the USFWS before they take over the key role, and the federal agency always has the authority to take over that management if the states don't abide by the plans.

"But it wasn't clear, the way things were going with both the Bush administration and the Obama administration, that the service had a firm commitment in managing those wolves," Clark said.
Clark said he believes the agreement will put additional pressure on Wyoming to come up with a wolf management plan, even though both the federal government, as well Montana and Idaho officials, have long pushed Wyoming to develop its own plan in order to get wolves delisted in all three states.

"Part of the problem in Wyoming is their Legislature wrote a detailed piece of legislation that maintains and manages wolves on an almost daily basis, and that's not acceptable to us or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," he said. "Until the Legislature changes, the federal government will continue to manage wolves there. But hopefully, Wyoming will see Idaho and Montana can manage wolves, and the residents of Wyoming will want to do that, too."

At Thursday's hearing, Molloy is being asked if he will consider granting an order that partially "stays" his August ruling. That means the wolves could be delisted in Montana and Wyoming and opens up the possibility of a hunting season in the two states as part of their management plans.

In a brief also filed on Tuesday, the Humane Society of the United States wrote that it is opposed to the settlement because it "does not support the immediate killing of wolves" and the delisting shouldn't be implemented.

Molloy noted in an order filed Monday that he believes a "substantial issue" has been raised, but hasn't made any determination on the merits of the motion to settle the case.

After being hunted, trapped and poisoned to near-extirpation in the early 1900s, wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone first in 1994 and also have migrated south from Canada. The northern Rockies -- mainly Idaho, Montana and Wyoming -- now are home to about 1,650 gray wolves, which is more than five times the previously set federal benchmark of 300 wolves for them to be considered a recovered species and removed from federal protection.--the intent was not to keep the population tapped down at 300 as many say Montana, Idaho(and Wyoming) will look to do--blogger Rick

However, some environmental groups believe they need anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 wolves on the landscape, including in Oregon, Washington and Utah, to ensure genetic diversity.

BIRDS OF A FEATHER, DO NOT FLOCK TOGETHER" when deer and other herbivores are at unchecked densities......This entire week we have delved into how whitetail deer are not being controlled quantitatively and qualitatively by hunting to allow for adequate forest regeneration and perpetuation of other forest dwellers...............Today we look in at how deer densities over 10 per square mile(colonial deer densities) knock out ground dwelling birds by as much as 70% versus woodlands not overbrowsed by deer....If in the end, the State Fish and Wildlife folks default to the argument that managing deer is all about optimizing human deer hunting because it is a big profit center for States. then we are doomed to perpetuating bloated herbivore populations and "Silent Spring" Forests

Deer Decreasing Forest Bird Populations
From: "jimoran"
Large populations of deer are edging out forest birds in North America, report scientists in this month's issue of the journal Biological Conservation. The study is the first to evaluate the impact deer grazing can have on nest quality andfood resources in areas unaffected by human activities such as forestry or hunting. It also offers general rules for predicting the influence these animals could have on bird ecosystems in the future.

The decline of forest birds has been blamed mostly on such factors as disease, loss of habitat and an increase in the number of animals that prey on bird nests. But according to biologist Sylvain Allombert of the Center for Functional Evolution and Biology in Montpellier, France, and colleagues, few studies have considered the overabundance of deer, whose populations are reaching historic peaks. The white-tailed deer population, for example, is ecologically excessive in 73 percent of its range in North America, and other deer species tip the scales in up to 41 percent of their range. These animals can devastate a forest understory, which is used by some birds for nesting and also serves as a home to insects, worms and other invertebrates that birds rely on for food.
Allombert's team examined the relationship of deer and forest birds on six islands in the Haida Gwaii archipelago, a chain of about 350 islands off the coast of British Columbia. Here, the Sitka black-tailed deer thrives, having been introduced by colonists in the late 19th century. To obtain a solid comparison, the researchers studied islands with arange of deer history: two of the islands had no deer at all, two had deer populations for about 20 years and two had deer for more than 50 years. They also surveyed the birds that were typically dependent on the forest understory, suchas warblers, wrens, sparrows, woodpeckers and hummingbirds, and ranked their dependence on the vegetation. Lastly, the scientists took into consideration an existing study of 31 islands that detailed the impact of deer on vegetation.

The team found that the more a bird species relied on the forest understory for nesting and food, the more it was adversely affected by a sizable deer population. For example, on the islands browsed by deer for more than 50 years, bird abundance was 55 percent to 70 percent lower than on the deer-free islands. For those species that had the highest dependence on forest-floor plants, the numbers were dramatic. The fox sparrow and the rufous hummingbird, for instance, were common on deer-free islands but missing on the islands with a long browsing history.

The study has implications for understanding bird populations in such regions and for managing deer abundance. "These trends, when put together with results from this and previous studies, underline the potential role of deer abundance as a factor explaining negative population trends in forest songbirds, a role probably still underestimated,"?the authors write. And by monitoring the understory and keeping tabs on bird populations, biologists will have a better means for regulating deer numbers.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Wolf Biologist Cristina Eisenberg checking in with us on her thoughts about the October 2009 Coyote(s) that killed Taylor Mitchell in Nova Scotia.......Cristina is constantly in the field doing her research and I agree with her statement that when you are around large carnivores, "you need to learn to read their cues, treating them with respect, being humble, and changing your behavior as needed".......... "It also involves never letting your guard down and assuming that these animals are harmless"..............."Unfortunately, when you encounter a carnivore in the wild, you usually have no way of knowing what their previous experiences were with humans".................Cristina is accomplished in her first hand knowledge of our large charismatic Carnivores and her message that follows is prudent, pragmatic and realistic in its outlook and tonality

From: Meril, Rick
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:50 PM
To: 'Eisenberg, Cristina'
Subject: RE: Post about Taylor Mitchell's death by coyote attack

Cristina………..

Thank you for your kind words about the blog………………You ring of authenticity, humility, insight and experience in your thoughts expressed below…………..I concur with your sentiments!

Please let me know when your new book on  CARNIVORES IN THE WEST  is published…………And, I would enjoy reading your chapter in the MIT Press ANTHOLOGY ON WILDNESS as well…………..

Do well in the field and look forward to our next communication.

Rick
______________________________________________________________________________

From: Eisenberg, Cristina
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 4:33 PM
To: Meril, Rick
Subject: Post about Taylor Mitchell's death by coyote attack


The Wolf's Tooth
http://islandpress.org/bookstore/details9e95-2.html

 
Dear Rick,

I want to tell you how much I appreciated your post about Taylor Mitchell's death by coyote attack. Living with large carnivores, be they coyotes, wolves, wolverines, lynx, bears, or cougars, requires that we relearn the "etiquette of the wild." By this I mean that we need to relearn what humans of an earlier era knew about coexisting with carnivores safely.
Places like Glacier National Park and Yellowstone that have a full complement of large carnivores are not like a Disney movie. While I have had hundreds of encounters with grizzly bears while doing fieldwork, and many encounters with wolves and cougars, I have never been attacked, and only had one encounter with a predatory bear. Most of these meeting have been peaceful and have taught me much.

Being safe around large carnivores means learning to read their cues, treating them with respect, being humble, and changing your behavior as needed. It also involves never letting your guard down and assuming that these animals are harmless. Habituated carnivores are highly dangerous. Unfortunately, when you encounter a carnivore in the wild, you usually have no way of knowing what their previous experiences were with humans. It is inadvisable to hike alone in areas where there are large carnivores.
 
I always carry bear spray (which doesn't work on wolves or cougars very well), I carry a big stick or measuring tools for fieldwork that can be used as sticks, and I always keep my senses open. That said, just about all my meetings with large carnivores have been peaceful. I have learned that humans and carnivores, who are both at the top of the food chain, have powerful relationships that can involve mutual respect. Over the course of several years of field work and more than a thousand field days, working in areas that have the highest density of large carnivores in North America, I have never had to use my bear spray. These large carnivores have been my guides and teachers as a scientist.

My next book for Island Press is about the large carnivores in the West and how to live with them (their ecology, public policy, and stories of their recovery). I also have a book chapter forthcoming about the scientific lessons I've learned from large carnivores in a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press anthology on wildness.
Thanks for all you do to disseminate useful and essential information about large carnivores.
 
Cristina Eisenberg
PhD Candidate
Boone & Crockett Fellow
High Lonesome Ranch Research Director
Oregon State University
College of Forestry

THE HOWLING FOR JUSTICE BLOGSITE has been doing an excellent job of cross-examining the 10 mainstream Environmental Groups that cut a deal to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho----Below is both the reasons why the deal is flawed(Howling) and why the deal is sound and strong(DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE).........Now it is up to Judge Molloy to begin hearing the testimony and determining whether to put his approval on the Delisting deal..........Stay tuned!

                                   HOWLING FOR JUSTICE BLOGSITE OPINION

"Tomorrow wolves will be front and center in Judge Molloy's courtroom AGAIN. I'm sure the anti-wolfers will be out in force, waving their signs, complaining about an animal most of them have never seen or ever will see in the wild. But then we all know this  crazy, unrelenting, sick campaign against wolves is at its heart, a culture war. On one side we have the passionate wolf advocates who believe wildlife  has worth,  above and beyond killing them for pleasure. We want wolves protected, not a replay of 2009, when 500 wolves died in the Northern Rockies, mainly at the hands of hunters, Wildlife Services and poachers.

On the other side of the of this war are the anti-wolf forces. They claim wolves have worms (OH MY), they're Canadian, they're killing all the elk, they're killing all the livestock, they're  carrying off children from bus stops, chasing people around in the woods and generally just destroying lives.


Of course this is all Kabuki Theater and pure  BS. The tapeworm they're so worked up about can be carried by all canines and since we have over 70 million dogs in this country I think they should worry about their house wolves, not the wild ones. Has there been one recorded case of a wolf biologist contracting hydatid disease in this country? I haven't read of one.  Since wolf biologists handle wolves and wolf scat you'd think they would be dropping like flies, according to the wolf hating crowd.  But you know, facts are pesky things, they get in the way of lies and damn lies.

As for wolves being Canadian, what does that even mean? Wolves have been crossing back and forth across the invisible line that separates the US and Canada for thousands of years. When wolves were exterminated the first time around in the West, they came back to Montana on their own in the early eighties, after the dust had settled and they felt safe enough to make the trip. By that time they were protected under the ESA.  There have been wolves living and denning in Glacier National Park for thirty years, long before they were officially "reintroduced" in 95/96 to Yellowstone and Central Idaho.

Wolves don't even come close to being a serious threat to livestock. Actually all predation accounts for just 1% of cattle losses and it's the coyote, not the wolf who is the main predator of livestock. In 2oo9 it was reported coyotes killed 12,000 lambs and 2300 sheep in Montana, while wolves were responsible for a few hundred. I don't want to demonize coyotes, who labor under terrible persecution themselves. Just offering a little perspective on this crazy war on wolves.  Cattle losses from the little coyote "song dogs" are nothing compared to cows dying from disease, calving and weather or being carted off by rustlers. Thousands of cows even drop dead from altitude sickness. But Wolf Wars isn't about the truth. It about bending the truth. It's about demonizing an animal who is the least dangerous of all large carnivores. Heck deer are more dangerous than wolves. They cause hundreds of deaths each year in auto accidents, ringing up billions of dollars in damages.

Moose kill more people than wolves. Bees kill more people than wolves. Hunters kill more people than wolves, there are at least 100 fatal hunting accidents each year in the US and Canada alone, with many more people maimed and injured. But wolves, well they haven't killed anyone in the lower forty-eight in ONE HUNDRED YEARS. And wolves are shy creatures. They fear man, they've been persecuted a long, long time. They want to be as far away from people as possible. You can't count the wolves in Yellowstone, they're habituated. They've got biologists chasing them around with helicopters to collar them, visitors lined up with their viewing scopes, tracking their every move. Those wolves don't fear people and that's sad because if there is another wolf hunt this year, they will be sitting ducks for hunters, just like the famed Yellowstone Cottonwood Pack, who was decimated opening day of the 2009 hunt. Yellowstone wolves don't understand invisible park lines and regularly cross back and forth across the boundary. Hunters were literally waiting for them. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Fair chase?

As for wolves killing all the elk, I think hunters have the wrong predator. They should be looking at themselves in the mirror. Fish and game agencies are in the business of keeping ungulate numbers high and predator numbers low.  Why? Because our wild places have been turned into giant game farms  for the pleasure of hunters who like to kill things. Their licensing fees pour into state game coffers. Whose side are these agencies going to come down on, the wolf or the hunter?

Since there are almost 400,000 elk in the tri-state area of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, I don't think we'll be running out of elk anytime soon. But in terms of wolves competing with human hunters for the elk killing prize, wolves don't even come close.  And wolves do elk a lot more good than man.  They cull ungulate herds and keep them healthy.

Wolf Wars is about them and us. It's about outsiders and insiders. It's about entitlement and egos. It's about anti-government sentiment. It's about machismo and dominion. It's about pretty much everything except wolves.

So the charade plays out. The ten environmental groups who were part of a victory for wolves last summer ran scared when the anti-wolfers figured out they could run an end-round the ESA and encourage  politicians in the wolf states to do their bidding,.  So the big orgs caved and made a deal. A very bad deal I might add.  They gave up so much and got practically nothing in return. They tied their own hands and agreed not to file a lawsuit until 2o16. That is  stunning in its naiveté.

"The plaintiffs have agreed not to challenge any final rule designating and delisting any DPS prior to March 31, 2016. Further, they have agreed not to petition to list either the Northern Rocky Mountains DPS or any wolf population within the NRM DPS within the next three years." What makes them think there will be any wolves left in Montana and Idaho in 2016? If the states get a hold of them wolves could be gone by 2o13 or on their way out. Yet these groups were willing to make a deal with wolves' lives, knowing the brutality that awaits them? Have they not been listening to the Governors of those states and their rhetoric, trash talking the federal wolf management plans?

A special thank you  to the four groups that refused to settle, Friends of the Clearwater, WWP, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and The Humane Society of the United States. You are heroes for standing firm and not running from a fight.

My hope is Judge Molloy will not sign off on this deal. I find it hard to believe he will, having to stay his own decision. Last August he ruled it was illegal to delist one segment of the wolf population while keeping another listed. Now he is being asked to set that aside?


Wolves are once again on the chopping block. It's more high drama, I'm sure it will sell papers and increase ratings. For wolves the stakes couldn't be higher. Some days I'm ashamed to be human.
______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE POSITION

Northern Rockies Wolf Settlement



Message from the President of Defenders

Dear fellow Defenders of Wildlife,


Rodger Schlickeisen
President

Defenders of WildlifeSince last fall, it has become increasingly likely that Congress would pass legislation that would be disastrous for wolves and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although Defenders has steadfastly opposed that legislation, we became convinced that the only real hope of stopping it was to reach a settlement of the litigation we brought in 2009 successfully challenging Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s illegal decision to remove federal protection from wolves in the Northern Rockies.

Accordingly, on March 18, 2011, we joined with nine other conservation organizations in filing with the U.S. District Court in Montana a settlement agreement we negotiated with the Interior Department. Like any settlement agreement, this one is a compromise, but one that we are convinced was necessary to help avert what could easily be the most disastrous assault on the ESA since that monumental law took effect nearly four decades ago. We are also convinced that, if the agreement is approved by the court and all parties live up to their responsibilities, it will provide a path in which wolves will continue to recover in the Northern Rockies and science, not politics, will prevail.

Whatever happens now, we will continue to lead the effort both for wolves and the ESA going forward. Below you will find more detailed answers to questions about the settlement and what our next steps will be to ensure the long-term future of wolves across the Northern Rockies.

All of us at Defenders of Wildlife are extremely grateful for your continued support in our ongoing efforts to save America’s wolves.

Sincerely,

Rodger Schlickeisen

Frequently Asked Questions About the Settlement

Why are you settling?


As we entered the current congressional session, the politics surrounding this issue could not have been worse. Since August 2010, when a Montana federal court restored ESA protections for wolves across the Northern Rockies, anti-wolf sentiment in the region has continued to grow. In particular, anti-wolf extremists have provoked political responses from state governors and the Idaho and Montana congressional delegations, including federal legislation to permanently remove Northern Rockies wolves from the protection of the ESA.


Though we were able to block bad wolf bills last session, pressure continues to mount in Congress to resolve the issue through legislation. Barring some alternative resolution of the controversy, wolf delisting language would almost certainly be included in any final bill to fund the federal government this year. In an effort to avert damaging legislation that would not only be very harmful to wolves but would establish a very dangerous precedent of political interference with species protection under the ESA, Defenders pursued a settlement agreement with the Interior Department that will allow for wolf recovery to continue and eliminate the rationale for legislation delisting wolves.


What would happen if Defenders didn’t settle?


At the very least, we would expect Congress to pass legislation that would reinstate the same 2009 wolf delisting rule that was struck down twice by the courts, allowing Idaho and Montana to resume killing wolves without any additional scientific safeguards to ensure the long-term survival of the species and without any legal recourse against it. If that’s not bad enough, other bills have been introduced that seek to permanently delist wolves throughout the Northern Rockies, including Wyoming, and throughout the entire lower 48 states. This means wolves in Washington, Oregon and Utah would have no federal protection whatsoever, even though populations there have just started to recover. And wolf recovery in the Southwest, where there are currently only 50 Mexican gray wolves remaining in the wild, would effectively grind to a halt.

What does the settlement mean for wolves now?


If approved by the Montana federal court, this settlement will allow wolf recovery to continue across the Northern Rockies, especially in places like Wyoming, where an adequate state management plan has yet to be approved, and Oregon, Washington and Utah, where wolves have only started to recover. Idaho and Montana will be allowed to resume managing wolf populations within their states, but with critical scientific safeguards in place to make sure wolves are protected, including monitoring and independent scientific review. Now it’s up to Idaho and Montana to hold up their end of the bargain and demonstrate that they can manage wolves responsibly. If they fail to do so, wolves could once again be placed under the protection of the ESA.

What are the terms of the settlement?


The agreement reached will provide a critical scientific safety net that will allow wolves to be delisted in Idaho and Montana while retaining protections across the rest of the region. The Interior Department will help ensure that the states are adequately managing wolves by monitoring the status of wolves in Idaho and Montana on an annual basis. After three years, the Interior Department will also seek an independent scientific review of the status of wolves in the region to more clearly define what constitutes a viable and genetically connected wolf population in the Northern Rockies. Finally, when Wyoming develops a wolf management plan that meets the requirements of the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will issue a new delisting rule based upon the best available science.

What are the next legal steps?


If the court accepts the terms of the settlement, wolf management will be returned to state fish and wildlife agencies in Idaho and Montana. If the court does not accept the terms of the settlement, wolves will remain protected under the Endangered Species Act throughout the Northern Rockies as they are currently, but only so long as Congress does not adopt delisting legislation. We would expect that, if the settlement agreement is not approved, anti-wolf sentiment would continue to grow, making it nearly inevitable that Congress would adopt damaging delisting legislation.


How will Defenders continue to protect wolves?

Regardless of what happens with this settlement, Defenders will continue fighting to ensure the successful long-term recovery of wolves across the Northern Rockies. We will continue to oppose efforts by anti-wolf extremists to strip vital protections for wolves where the long-term survival of the species is still in jeopardy. And we will also continue to work closely with ranchers to develop and implement the tools and techniques they need to coexist with wolves, including expanding our program into Oregon and Washington where wolves have only recently returned.

If the settlement is approved, we are prepared to work together with the states to make sure sustainable wolf populations are maintained. Idaho and Montana have made commitments in the past to manage wolves responsibly and we plan to hold them to their word. And if populations are ever threatened with serious decline in the future, we will petition the federal government to restore ESA protections once again.

If the settlement is not approved, we will continue to oppose federal delisting legislation and work toward a solution that protects the long-term recovery of the species and upholds the scientific principles of the Endangered Species Act.