Wolverine prospector or permanent resident in the Wallowas Mountains in Oregon? Tough as nails are our Wolverines but so, so, so sensitive to the human footprint..................Colorado, Oregon, California again with Bearcats..................Can we get them back in Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan where they also once roamed?

Wolverine's presence in Wallowas confirmed

Elusive animal's tracks found on trail

The wolverine, described as a 30-pound ball of muscle, teeth and attitude, requires vast wild areas to roam and survive. Researchers have been studying wolverines for years in Glacier National Park, one of the species' last strongholds in the U.S.

Biologists documented the presence of a wolverine in the towering Wallowa Mountains of northeastern Oregon recently. Researcher Audrey Magoun found the tracks of a single animal while she was checking a trail camera last Sunday that was set up to detect wolverines. The camera did not capture an image of the animal, but Magoun was able to follow the tracks for about a mile before they left a creek bottom and headed to higher elevation in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area. "From the size of the track, it is probably a male," Magoun said.

Magoun and her husband, Pat Valkenburg, both veteran wildlife researchers, are surveying the Eagle Cap area for signs of wolverines. The couple spend their winters at Flora, Ore., and summers in Alaska.
Vic Coggins, district wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife at Enterprise, said there have been past reports of wolverine sightings in the area, but this is the first confirmed evidence of one of the rare animal "We spent a fair amount of time over the years looking for signs," he said. "We've always thought it was good habitat, and we've had reports, but nothing we could verify until now."
Wolverines are listed as a threatened species by the state of Oregon, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined wolverines warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. The agency found that wolverine habitat is threatened by global warming but declined to add them to the list of threatened and endangered species. Instead, it designated them as warranted but precluded, meaning their numbers justify protection but the agency chooses to spend its time and money on more imperiled species.
There are believed to be about 250 to 300 wolverines across the northern tier of the contiguous United States, including animals in Washington, Idaho and Montana. They prefer high-elevation areas like mountain cirques.Wolverines are members of the weasel family, weigh 17 to 40 pounds and are about the size of a small bear cub.
Magoun said there are breeding populations in the Payette Forest of Idaho and in the North Cascades of Washington."In fact, we couldn't believe wolverine wouldn't be here. They travel large distances."She hopes to determine if the animal that left tracks in the Wallowas is a resident or one just passing through the area.

Like in every debate with opposing viewpoints, the articles below show how wolf supporters and wolf would-be shooters see the World through very different sets of eyeglasses.............Conservationists feel that the Montana West Fork Bitteroot Wolves are bringing about a healthier forest through Elk predation whereas the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association feel that Elk have been hammered by the Wolves to the point that sportsman will find it impossible to kill an elk for themselves..........I root for the Wolves despite the delisting that occurred last week and hope that on Federal land the USFW does not allow a slaughter of our "top Dawg"

Conservation Groups Set for Showdown Over West Fork Wolves
Small Group of Wolves Living in Remote Area Is in the Crosshairs
Contact: Nicole Rosmarino (505) 699-7404
On the heels of last week's budget rider to remove gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and elsewhere in the Northern Rockies from the endangered list, conservation groups are vowing to use other legal means to defend Northern Rockies wolves.  WildEarth Guardians, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Clearwater, GravelBar, Western Watersheds Project, and Wilderness Watch are set to challenge a Montana plan to destroy a population of wolves living in the Bitterroot National Forest.  Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for a permit to kill 60 percent of the wolf population in the West Fork of the Bitterroot River to benefit human hunters.  Montana's senators have lobbied the Service to approve the wolf-killing plan.
The conservation groups filed comments with the Service last week, arguing that the wolf-killing project would violate numerous federal laws.  While the agency told the groups their claims might be moot due to Congressional delisting of wolves, this wolf-killing project would be on national forest land, including wilderness, and is subject to federal laws in addition to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  It would also harm other species listed under the ESA.  "This project is illegal and just plain wrong,  We are not going to let the federal government look the other way as wolves are gunned down or trapped on public lands," stated Nicole Rosmarino, of WildEarth Guardians.  "These wolves are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: living in a wild area and eating native prey.  Let the wolves be."
The wolf population in the West Fork numbered 30 wolves in 5 packs at the end of 2010.  These wolves established themselves in a remote, rugged area, where they feed on native prey. They have generally not tangled with livestock, taking only two calves in the past decade.  MFWP's plan would reduce them down to 12 wolves or even fewer, a rate of killing that studies indicate to be too high for wolves to withstand.
"The West Fork wolves show that it is impossible to appease wolf opponents such as Senator Jon Tester," said Michael Garrity, Executive Director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.  "They're not eating livestock and the state wildlife agency has not documented the number of elk killed by wolves and does not even know if elk are the wolves' primary prey in the area.  If wolves cannot be tolerated in this situation, when and where will they be tolerated?" 
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) wrote to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in February, asking that the West Fork wolves be killed.  Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) also signed the letter.  The senators wrote, "We urge you to expedite the State of Montana's request to lethally take wolves in the West Fork of the Bitterroot to control unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate populations."
While politicians and MFWP claim wolves are the cause of elk declines in the West Fork, that charge is not backed by solid evidence. The Bitterroot Elk Study, specifically designed to determine factors causing elk declines in the project area, was not slated to begin until February 2011 and won't be concluded until the end of 2013.  Right now, there is substantially more evidence that human hunting is responsible for the decline in the West Fork elk population.  In fact, MFWP allowed more elk hunting starting in 2004 to control the elk population. MFWP has also continually raised the elk population goal, perhaps to set the stage for arguing that wolves need to be controlled. 
"The West Fork wolf-killing project violates a number of federal laws, including the National Forest Management Act, the Wilderness Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act," Rosmarino stated.  "Not only is 95 percent of the project area on federal public lands, including a portion the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, but most of the land within a 25 mile radius is federal public land, including more wilderness."
The effects of MFWP's wolf-killing project would go beyond wolves, including a number of species listed under the ESA or candidates for listing.  Traps and snares intended for wolves could capture Canada lynx, grizzly bears, and wolverines.  They could also be harmed by lead poisoning from bullet-laced carcasses and gutpiles left by hunters.  Riparian-dependent species, including the bull trout and the yellow-billed cuckoo, could be negatively impacted by the loss of wolves.  Through years of scientific research in Yellowstone National Park, wolves have been documented to improve riparian habitat and substantially increase biodiversity.
"Wolves are actively restoring West Fork's ecosystems to be healthier and balanced. It's a shame our state wildlife agency can't see the importance of wolves in boosting biodiversity," Garrity stated.

For more information, including the extensive comments submitted to the federal government on this project, contact Nicole Rosmarino at nrosmarino@wildearthguardians.org or 505-699-7404.

_______________________________________________________________

Montana sportsmen ask state for quick action on wolves By PERRY BACKUS

Sportsmen's groups from around Montana are asking wildlife officials to move as quickly as possible to implement the state's wolf management plan once the animal is removed from federal protection. In a letter mailed this week, 13 groups urged the state to rapidly develop a specific plan to begin managing wolves in areas with "serious wolf/wildlife" conflicts, including the West Fork of the Bitterroot where elk numbers have plummeted. "We are looking for sensible, responsible management based on science and not on social issues," said Tony Jones, president of the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association.

Montana will be handed full responsibility for wolf management sometime in the next two months, following an unprecedented move last week by Congress to remove the wolf from Endangered Species Act protection. Attached to a must-pass budget bill by Montana Sen. Jon Tester and Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson, the rider does not allow for further court review."It's what we've been working toward for a long time," Jones said. In the Bitterroot, wolves have been blamed for the dramatic decline in the elk herd in the West Fork. In the last six years, elk numbers have gone from about 2,000 to around 750.

At the urging of the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association, the state had asked for permission to shoot up to 18 wolves under Endangered Species Act's 10(J) rule.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended approval of the request. A comment period closed on April 12. The recent congressional action leaves that request in limbo. Montana Wildlife Federation conservation director Ben Lamb said the sportsmen's groups will urge the state to move forward as soon as possible to reduce wolf numbers in the West Fork area. "We felt the letter was necessary to ensure that we don't lose any momentum in moving forward," Lamb said. "We think there is a narrow window in places like the Bitterroot." Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials said they understand the sense of urgency in the Bitterroot. FWP Bureau Chief Ron Aasheim said the department currently plans to present tentative quotas for this fall's wolf hunt to the commission at its May 12 meeting.The quotas will probably reflect a 5 percent to 10 percent increase over what the department proposed for the wolf hunt last year, to reflect an increase in wolf numbers, Aasheim said.

The 2010 wolf hunt proposed a total harvest of 186 wolves to reduce the population by 13 percent. That hunt was blocked by a federal court order.
The commission is scheduled to make its final decision on the 2011 wolf hunt at its July meeting, Aasheim said. However, the timeframe is contingent on when the Secretary of Interior reissues the 2009 wolf delisting rule."The Secretary of Interior has 60 days to reissue the rule," Aasheim said. "We can't do anything until that happens. We understand very well the urgency in the Bitterroot. That's why we asked for the 10(J) rule."

Montana will be required to monitor the wolf population and submit annual status reports for five years. Wolves can be relisted if the population falls below recovery levels or the state makes changes that would significantly increase the threat to the wolf population. "It is going to be very important that this is done right," said Lamb. "I don't think anyone wants to go back and do this again. It was a horrible, horrible experience. The level of animosity grew to a fever pitch.""If this delisting had come millions of dollars ago and thousands of elk ago, it would have been a lot different," Jones said. 

While I brought up the point the other day that the Great Lake State residents have existed in much better harmony with their wolf population than those folks out West, the results back from recent DNR meetings in Wisconsin demonstrate that people have short memories on causing extinctions of fellow species and if laws are not in place to control selfish interests, we could end up a Planet comprised of just us humans and rats.......Thank you Helen Mcginnis at Cougar Rewilding for keeping me focused on this issue

wolves, deer and bears discussed at Wisconsin Statewide Dept. of Ntural Resources hearings

By: Jim Bell

A total of 5,574 people attended the meetings statewide. The results are used to advise the state Natural Resources Board. This year's results will be reviewed at the board's May 25 meeting in Madison. Some of the proposals voted on will eventually become law, others will not. Statewide hearing results are posted by county and state totals on the DNR Web site. Cougars Another proposal that generated some comment would allows landowners, lessees or occupants of private land or any other person with the permission of those people to shoot a cougar caught in the act of killing, wounding or biting a domestic animal with the requirement that the carcass be turned over to the DNR. "Does this mean the DNR is finally admitting we have cougars in Wisconsin?" one man asked. Fell displayed a large map projected on a screen marked by cougar sightings. While not acknowledging the state has a viable cougar population, Morgan said the question reminded him of the on-again off-again regulations for controlling depredating wolves. One man at the meeting said that a resident who lives east of the Rice Lake area ski hill has been seeing cougars around his place for years. The vote was 47 yes, 3 no. The state vote was 4,247 yes, 712 no. Bear hunting A proposal that would change the traditional bear hunting season generated a few comments. The change would start off the season every year with hunters not using dogs in all three bear hunting zones. Currently, the start of the season alternates yearly between hunters who use dogs and hunters who don't, and hunting with dogs is not allowed in Zone C. Under the proposal bear hunting without dogs would start every year the first Wednesday of September and run for 35 days statewide. Bear hunting with dogs would start the second Wednesday of September and continue for 28 days, including Zone C, where hunting with dogs is currently not allowed. Someone asked that considering the growing bear population, why more kill permits aren't issued. Morgan said that more permits are being issued but that more people are applying for them, which is extending the waiting period for a permit. The county vote was 30 yes and 19 no. Statewide it was 1,989 yes, 2,300 no. Wolves Several hearing questions related to the state's burgeoning wolf population, which started with a goal of 350 animals. The explanation preceding the questions read as follows: "As the wolf population continues to increase, there has been a correlating increase in depredations and threatening incidents involving wolves...curtailing livestock and pleasure horse activities and increasing concerns over the welfare of people and pets. It is likely the increased predator population, including wolves, has contributed to the reduction of the deer population in some areas of Northern Wisconsin. One person asked Morgan why the DNR continues with the expense of collaring wolves when it is obvious the population is not threatened. Morgan said monitoring would help prove the wolf population is not endangered. The number of wolves in Wisconsin is now over 800, according to the latest wolf count released by the DNR last week. The estimates were derived from tracking surveys and aerial counts conducted during the winter of 2010-11. The estimates include at least 207 wolf packs, including 175 in northern Wisconsin and 32 in the central part of the state. The Wisconsin wolf population was estimated at 25 animals in 1980. In another recent development, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has again announced plans to remove the wolf in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan from the federal Endangered Species List. Question 1: "Would you support continuing the wolf population goal of 350 or less in the next revision of the Wisconsin Wolf Plan? County: 48 yes, 3 no. Statewide: 3,989 yes, 827 no. Question 2: "Would you support Wisconsin DNR and other partners implement meaningful population controls in the next Wisconsin Wolf Plan to bring the wolf population to goal levels?" County: 45 yes, 5 no. Statewide: 4,254 yes, 581 no. Question 3: "Would you support that the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wisconsin DNR move ahead to delist the gray wolf in Wisconsin, as petitioned by the Wisconsin DNR, transferring management of the wolf population in Wisconsin to the state of Wisconsin?" County: 46 yes, 5 no. Statewide: 4,402 yes, 526 no. Question 4: "Would you support that the Wis. DNR not relocate wolves that have caused problems in Wisconsin or other areas into any county in Wisconsin?" County: 43 yes, 7 no. Statewide: 3,885 yes, 951 no.

COUGAR REWILDING'S Helen Mcginnis sent me this article on REWILDING INSTITUTE chief Dave Foreman's talk at the Catawba College campus in North Carolina which focused on saving our remaining wild habitats and full complement of our native species...........Dave is in the company of Aldo Leopold, Gifford Pinchot, John Muir and George Bird Grinnell (see Post just below this one for details on these men) as it relates to being a spot-on Prophet of how everything on our Planet, including man, is interwined and connected. ...Dave hits hard on the fact that it is our job to keep all the cogs in the environment functioning and healthy...............Dave feels strongly that we can in fact re-wild the oldest part of our Nation,,,,,,the East,,,,,,,,,,,,and that Cougars and Wolves are key ingredients to reviving the health and diversity of Maine to Georgia..............Virginia to Missouri

Speaker warns about habitat loss

By Kathy Chaffin

Renowned wilderness conservationist Dave Foreman delivered a passionate message at the Center for the Environment facility on the Catawba College campus Tuesday evening for humans to help save wild habitants and habitats. "Earth is in an unprecedented situation..." he told the more than 100 people who turned out for his "Overpopulation, Mass Extinction and Rewilding" presentation. "We're in the middle of a mass extinction and that mass extinction is caused by one thing — one species — and that's us. "It is our overpopulation and overconsumption that is driving the takeover of the whole earth and the endangerment of species from the poles to the equator, from the bottom of the ocean to the heights of the atmosphere."

At age 64, Foreman said he has seen the earth's population triple in his lifetime. "We're at 7 billion today," he said, "and the United Nations under its moderate growth patterns says by 2050, we're going to have 9.2 billion." Other estimates project a population as high as 12 billion by then.

The overconsumption includes overkill:
"We take too much out of the oceans," he said. "The shark population has dropped 90 percent in the last 10 years. ... That's just one example." Foreman said humans are part of an ecological community with other species. "We need to learn how to be good neighbors and one way to do that is by sharing space on this earth," he said.

Sponsors for his presentation were Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment, Davidson College's Environmental Studies Program, Warren Wilson College's Environmental Leadership Center, Elon University's Center for Environmental Studies, the LandTrust for Central North Carolina and the Center for the Environment.

Despite the dire situation facing the planet, Foreman said he was going to focus on the positive in his talk. "My generation has handed your generation a bad stack of cards," he told the young people in the audience, "but you can make it better, and I'm going to spend the rest of my life trying to make it better, too."

Foreman has spent his career as a wilderness conservationist, working for The Wilderness Society during the 1970s as Southwest regional representative in New Mexico and as director of Wilderness Affairs in Washington, D.C. He also served as editor of the Earth First! Journal and executive editor and publisher of Wild Earth. Foreman was the recipient of the 1996 Paul Petzoldt Award for Excellence in Wilderness Education and in 1998 was named by Audubon Magazine as one of the 100 Champions of Conservation of the 20th Century. The author of several books, including his latest — "Rewilding North America" — he is currently executive director and senior fellow of The Rewilding Institute, a conservation think tank which advances ideas of continental conservation. Foreman also writes an Internet column called "Around the Campfire."

In introducing him, Dr. John Wear, Center director, said Foreman is considered one of the nation's most effective and inspirational speakers on conservation.

For three decades, Foreman said conservationists have been talking about a North American Wildlife Network anchored by four continental wildways. He focused on rewilding the East through a wildway along the Appalachian Trail. When he talks about the other wildways, Foreman said most people say, "Yeah, I can see that's possible." But when he mentions the East Wildway extending from Maine to northern Georgia, "a lot of people don't see how we can rewild Appalachia." They say it's too built up, he said. Earlier Thursday, however, when Foreman was walking with Wear around the 189-acre ecological preserve behind the Center, he said it became clear to him that the East is different from the West because it is so much more resilient. "Things come back faster here," he said. "I know some clear cuts in northern New Mexico that were cut in the late 1960s, and they still don't have trees in them. "But a lot of this was farmland 50, 60, 70 years ago," he said of the preserve in Salisbury. Foreman said there's nothing radical about rewilding the East. The late forester Benton MacKaye, founder of the Appalachian Trail, was thinking about the concept in the 1920s as a "string connecting pearls of wilderness." He cited similar efforts in the years since then.

"I think the No. 1 thing we need in the East is the cougar," Foreman said, a project proposed about 25 years ago in a study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "They came up with about 20 different spots in the southeastern United States as possible cougar recovery areas, but nothing really came of it." Research in Uruguay showed that when the black jaguars began disappearing, the ecosystem began breaking down. A study at the University of Wisconsin found that there are fewer and less diversity of wildflowers when there are no wolves or lions in the area. Foreman said cougars could blend in well in the eastern United States. "There could be cougars out there," he said of the preserve, "and nobody would ever know. They might see some tracks on the trails, but that would be it."

Another problem with rewilding the East is that the land is more fragmented, making acquisition more difficult. Foreman said a key to wilding the East is getting serious about closing some of the numerous dirt roads. In the West, there are 328 roadless areas of 100,000 acres or more, he said, as compared to only 30 in the East and not many of them are over 50,000 acres. When asked to pass legislation protecting 35 million of the 61 million acres of roadless areas in the national forests, Foreman said former President Jimmy Carter only protected 15 million. "And he was a friend of us," he said. "We felt like we got the shaft, and that's why I started Earth First." In January of 2001, however, former President Bill Clinton approved protecting all the roadless areas of the national forests.

Foreman said the key to wilding the East is asking for it. "If you're shy and you're embarrassed to say what we really should have, like cougars back ... you will not get them," he said. "I can guarantee you that. But if you have the vision and the courage and the love of land and for wildlife, you just might get it, and you will change the world to a much better place than it is ... "I can't think of any way to be a better neighbor than to show some humility to the magnificence of this glorious creation than to help the East rewild itself."

It's important for human beings to step back and not impose our will on everything, Foreman said. "For thousands of years, that's what we've done. We've imposed our will on the land, on other living things. "We have tried to be the conqueror of everything, and it's time for us to grow up, to have a little respect, a little humility."

Foreman thanked Fred and Alice Stanback for encouraging him to come speak at the Center for the Environment. "We finally got it worked out," he said, "and I had a great day here tonight."He signed books for people in the audience after his presentation.

Most of us associate Gifford Pinchot, Aldo Leopold, John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt as the big 4 names of the early 20th Century Environment renaissance in the USA..............In fact, George Bird Grinnell, Publisher of Forest and Stream(later Field and Stream) Magazine was a 5th "engine of instrumentation" in establishing the first Audubon-type clubs for wildlife preservation and having a profound influence on Teddy Roosevelt............Getting Roosevelt to buy in to his earnest belief that "Americans must take responsibility for the natural world upon which they depend, not only in a practical, economic sense, but in a spiritual one as well. Once that sense of responsibility took root in the public's collective mind, the only sure way to have conservation succeed was to have the state and federal governments adopt a program of continuous, apolitical, scientific management"...............We need a few more Grinnell's around today to get our Congressmen to understand the a strong and prosperous America starts with a optimum biological diversity and clean air and water

http://www.foresthistory.org/publications/fht/fhtspringfall2005/fht05_grinnell.pdf

  Pathbreaking

Conservationist(by John Reiger)

GEORGE BIRD GRINNELL (1849–1938)

  Interested in all things natural, George Bird Grinnell was a powerful force in shaping the late-nineteenth-century conservation movement. Publisher of Forest and Stream, he established the first Audubon Clubs and co-founded the Boone and Crockett Club, and through these means fought to preserve Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks.His energetic commitments and political savvy blazed the way for Theodore Roosevelt,Gifford Pinchot, and Progressive Era conservationism ……. Grinnell gave Roosevelt a more sophisticated, broader grasp of

"conservation."

Grinnell gained control of the New York hunting and fishing weekly, Forest and Stream, and became its editor-in-chief on January 1, 1880. That was a momentous event in the history of American conservation. Until 1911, Grinnell would use his unique position to wage one editorial crusade after another in behalf of "conservation," a term that he was one of the first to use in regard to natural resources. And from the beginning of his 30-year tenure at Forest and Stream, it is obvious that he defined conservation in its modern sense, as the preservation and management of the natural world for—as he put it in an 1882 editorial— "generations yet unborn."

To achieve that goal, Grinnell understood that conservation should have utilitarian and aesthetic components, depending on the issue at hand.He was an "aesthetic conservationist" when it came to his editorial campaign to eliminate hunting, timber cutting, and all forms of commercialization from the recently created, but inadequately protected, Yellowstone National Park. But he was a "utilitarian conservationist" in his crusade to have the state and federal governments adopt a system of European scientific forestry for the management of the nation's timberlands. In a simila rvein, Grinnell would fight to create national wildlife refuges, where hunting was forbidden, and public shooting grounds, where it was encouraged.

What tied together all of his editorial campaigns, and his extensive private efforts, was his earnest belief that Americans must take responsibility for the natural world upon which they depended, not only in a practical, economic sense, but in a spiritual one as well. Once that sense of responsibility took root in the public's collective mind, the only sure way to have conservation succeed was to have the state and federal governments adopt a program of continuous, apolitical, scientific management. This approach would become the basis of the Progressive conservation creed under President Theodore Roosevelt in the early years of the twentieth century, and as a formula for dealing with all sorts of environmental issues, it is just as effective today as it was then.

By the time Grinnell took over the helm of Forest and Stream, American sportsmen had, for many years, been developing a European-derived code of behavior and "world view" that separated them from the great majority of hunters and fishermen. Game animals, birds, and fish could only be taken with "appropriate" methods that tested the skill of the sportsman before he could make a kill. In addition, he had to have at least some sense of responsibility for the future of the game and the habitat upon which it depended.

After Grinnell became editor, he not only continued to work to inculcate the code and accompanying world view, but extended them to encompass a sense of responsibility for the total environment. As illustrated in his 1882 editorial, "Spare the Trees," it would not be long before Grinnell acquired a sophisticated understanding of how land, forests, wildlife, and water were intimately interconnected.

Through his insightful editorials, Grinnell influenced, for the better, the thinking of countless hunters and fishermen, among them Theodore Roosevelt.  The friendship that developed between the two men would have profound consequences for the history of American conservation, the first of which was the founding of the Boone and Crockett Club, named after the hunter-heroes Daniel Boone and David Crockett. After Grinnell became intimately associated with Roosevelt, he stressed the need for an effective, national sportsmen's organization, to do for the larger game animals what the Audubon Society, which Grinnell founded in 1886, was doing for birds. To work for the preservation of the large game of this country, and, so far as possible, to further legislation for that purpose, and to assist in enforcing the existing laws." Immediately, the club, with Forest and Stream as its "natural mouthpiece," turned its attention to Yellowstone National Park and other natural issues of the day.

George Bird Grinnell died of pneumonia at his New York home on April 11, 1938. In cataloguing his many achievements, the anonymous author of an obituary in the New York Times referred to him as the "father of American conservation." Whether or not we agree with the Times writer, one thing is certain: Grinnell showed the way for a new breed of Americans, those whom philosopher and ecologist Aldo Leopold applauded in his 1933 book, Game Management. This new individual was "the Crusader for conservation…who insisted that our conquest of nature carried with it a moral responsibility for the perpetuation of…threatened forms of wildlife" and, by implication, the habitats upon which they depend. This acceptance of responsibility, Leopold argued, "constitutes one of the milestones in moral evolution."  As a pathbreaker for this new world view, as relevant for our times as it was for his, George Bird Grinnell deserves to

be remembered.

SPARE THE TREES-by George Bird Grinnell 1882

"It is strange that the Yankee, with his proverbial thriftiness and forecast, should, when it comes to the proper and sensible management of woodlands, entirely lose these gifts. Why can he not understand that it is more profitable to keep a lean or thin soil that will grow nothing well but wood, growing wood instead of worthless weeds? The crop is one which is slow in coming to the harvest, but it is a sure one, and is every year becoming a morepaying one. Furthermore, it breaks the fierceness of the winds, and keeps the springs from drying up, and is a comfort to the eye, whether in the greenness of the leaf or the bareness of the bough. Under its protective arms live and breed the grouse, the quail, and the hare, and in its shadowed rills swim the trout. If we would have these, we must keep the woods a-growing. No woods, nogame; no woods, no water; and no water, no fish."

In my opinion, President Obama probably has a intellectual's warm spot in his heart as it relates to biological diversity and open space preservation,,,,,,However, his management style of delegating policy writing to Congress and other Federal Offices has not proven optimum and results-oriented.......In fact, in the two years Obama has held office, Endangered Species designations are just slightly up on an annual basis over the anemic record that former President George Bush generated.........Whether it be Endangered Species and Critical Habitat designation, balancing the budget or putting forth a plan for private sector job creation, the President(in my opinion) is too "Professorial" and not Action-oriented enough(selling his ideas with intensity to the electorate) in his leading the Country........... When you leave things in the hands of "fringe fanatics" like Nancy Pelosi............When you do not clean out the Bush era middle bureaucrats in the the Dept.'s of Interior and Agriculture, you get either narrow partisan suggestions or inaction/stall-mode execution of policy-------Both are bad for our wildlife and People

Wildlife at Risk Face Long Line at U.S. AgencyBy TODD WOODY

In February, the Obama administration declared the Pacific walrus to be at risk of extinction because its Arctic habitat was melting. But it declined to list the marine mammal as an endangered species, saying a backlog of other animals faced greater peril. Now, it turns out, the walrus is on a very long waiting list. The federal Fish and Wildlife Service is in emergency triage mode as it struggles with an avalanche of petitions and lawsuits over the endangered species list, the chief tool for protecting plants and animals facing extinction in the United States. Over the last four years, a few environmental groups have requested that more than 1,230 species be listed, compared with the previous 12 years in which annual requests averaged only 20 species.

Some environmental groups argue that vastly expanded listings are needed as evidence mounts that the world is entering an era of mass extinctions related to destruction of habitat, climate and other changes. Such threats require a focus on entire ecosystems, they say, rather than individual species. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say the barrage has paralyzed the listing process. Last month, the agency asked Congress to intervene and impose a limit on the number of species it must consider for protection, setting the stage for a showdown. "The many requests for species petitions has inundated the listing program's domestic species listing capabilities," the service wrote in its 2012 budget request. Already it faces a backlog of 254 species — including the yellow-billed loon, Gunnison's prairie dog and the North American wolverine. It says their protection is warranted but precluded by a lack of resources.

The Fish and Wildlife Service declined to make officials available for comment. But Gary Frazer, the agency's assistant director for endangered species, discussed the mass of filings in an interview last year. "These megapetitions are putting us in a difficult spot, and they're basically going to shut down our ability to list any candidates for the foreseeable future," Mr. Frazer said. "If all our resources are used responding to petitions, we don't have resources to put species on the endangered species list. It's not a happy situation." Two environmental groups, the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, have filed 90 percent of the listings petitions since 2007 and maintain that a bioblitz, as it is often called, is the best strategy for forcing the service to be more assertive in its wildlife protection mission. "We want to compel the Fish and Wildlife Service to look at the full extent of the extinction crisis in the United States," said Nicole Rosmarino, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians, which is based in Santa Fe, N.M. "We would like a system where the service is actively looking for species that merit protection rather than the current system where groups like ours have to drive this process."

The wider environmental community appears divided on the mass-listing strategy.  "It is undoubtedly the case that the resources and the staffing for the Fish and Wildlife Service are inadequate," said Bob Irvin, senior vice president for conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife in Washington. "The question is, is tying the service in knots the best way to save the web of life?"

In its 2012 budget request, the service estimated that in 2011 it will be able to make final listing decisions on only 4 percent of warranted petitions within one year as required by law, down from 12 percent in 2010.  Since Congress passed the Endangered Species Act 37 years ago, some 1,370 species have been listed, the last being the southern rockhopper penguin. Last month, the agency asked Congress to impose a cap on the amount of money the agency can spend on processing listing petitions, both to control its workload and as a defense against lawsuits. "We would essentially use that as our defense for not doing more," Mr. Frazer, the agency's assistant director for endangered species, testified, "so that we can balance among the various duties that we have."

 

This month, Congress intervened with the list for the first time, removing protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho, but it is unclear whether it will act on the wildlife service's current request.

"Talk,Talk, Talk" is what the 5 Nations that ring the Arctic are doing and will continue to do regarding the shrinking Polar Ice that threatens the long term survival of the Polar Bear.............Unfortuantely, a concrete Action Plan to slow Global Warming is the answer and not one Country is ready to stand up and be counted on this......The Bears are indeed on a slippery slope to blinking out

Canada will discuss polar bear conservation with governments and scientists from four other Arctic nations at a meeting this fall in Iqaluit.

.The 5 Arctic nations have agreed that climate change and shrinking sea ice are the biggest threats to polar bear conservation. The meeting, slated to take place Oct. 24 to 26, will mark the first time the five signatories to the 1973 Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears will meet in Canada's North, where two-thirds of the world's polar bears are based.
Delegations from Norway, Russia, the United States and Greenland, along with a Canadian delegation, will meet in Nunavut's capital city for the meeting.

 

"It's going to be a pretty large delegation from each of the five countries," said Andrew Derocher, a wildlife biologist with the University of Alberta in Edmonton, and a member of Polar Bear Specialist Group. "We'll probably see about six to eight formal delegates from each nation, and along with that, there will be additional scientific advisors that will be coming from the various countries." Delegates in Iqaluit will exchange information on the status of polar bear populations in their regions, how those populations are managed, and how countries can collaborate on research and monitoring, Derocher said. "There's sort of a movement to try to get everybody on the same page about how we're going to deal with the changing climate and polar bears," he said.

When the five nations behind the 1973 agreement last met in 2009 in Tromso, Norway, they agreed that climate change and the continuing loss of sea ice constitute "the most important threat to polar bear conservation." In light of international concern about the future of polar bears in recent years, there is more urgency for the countries to meet more regularly, said Peter Ewins, director of species conservation with World Wildlife Fund Canada. Ewins said Canadian delegates to the Iqaluit meeting will include "the responsible territorial governments and provincial governments, representatives thereof, and the certainly the major Inuit organizations." Derocher said he hopes Canada and the other four countries will agree to conduct more frequent polar bear population surveys. Such surveys currently take place every 12 to 15 years in Canada, but Derocher said they need to be done more often.
 

Center For Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida and others are seeking to overturn a Federal District Judge ruling in early April that refused to provide cougars with expanded critical habitat protections due to the technicality that the Cats were put on the Endangered Species roster prior to Critical habitat law being part and parcel of Endangered Species designation................Talk about a "penny wise/pound poor" ruling by that Judge.............Do you think he lacks ethics and empathy?

Conservationists seek reversal of court ruling on Florida panther habitat

Conservation groups have appealed a federal judge's junking of their lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a bid to have the Florida panther's habitat identified and protected. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Council of Civic Associations filed the appeal Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

In the appeal, the groups expressed disagreement with the federal district judge's ruling on April 6 that the Service does not have to designate critical habitat for the panther because the animal was listed as endangered before the critical habitat provisions were added to the Endangered Species Act. The judge said the Service's action was entirely discretionary and therefore not subject to judicial review.

In February, the groups sued the Service for denying their petitions to designate critical habitat for the panther. The groups insist that the designation of the panther's habitat would give the animal the greatest protection available under the federal Endangered Species Act and promote its recovery from the brink of extinction.

At present, about 120 Florida Panthers survive in the wild – clinging to less than five percent of their historic range, according to the groups. The Sierra Club claims that the Florida panther population suffered heavy mortality in 2010 with 23 deaths. This year 11 cats died, mostly due to collision with cars.

"You can't protect endangered species without protecting the places they live and that's what needs to happen to give the Florida panther any shot at survival," said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. "We're confident that the appellate court will recognize that the Interior Department has the authority and the urgent responsibility to protect critical habitat for the panther, which is disappearing as gated subdivisions and strip malls replace forests and wetlands in South Florida."

The 23 or so Oregon Wolves that will be under the jurisdiction of the State FWS in a couple of months will continue to have protection under Oregon law...........Too tiny a population to institute a wolf hunting season at this time

What the federal delisting for wolves means for Oregon's packs, ranchers

 By Richard CockleView full size

Wolves in Oregon will continue to be protected by the state's Endangered Species Act and the Oregon Wolf Plan.

JOSEPH -- Authority over eastern Oregon's gray wolves will shift sometime within the next two months to state wildlife managers, the result of unprecedented congressional action that stripped federal protections from gray wolves in five Western states.  The move, the first time Congress has taken a species off the endangered list by legislative fiat,  could lead to regulated hunts for the predators this fall in Idaho and Montana.
 But the wolf populations are too small in Oregon, eastern Washington and northcentral Utah for a wolf hunting season, wildlife officials and environmentalists say.
 Wolves in Oregon will remain under the protective umbrella of the state's Endangered Species Act and the Oregon Wolf Plan, which prohibit hunting and carry stiff penalties for shooting a wolf.
Federal officials say 1,651 wolves in 244 packs with 111 breeding pairs are scattered across the five states.

Oregon's wolf population is up to 23 and two wolf packs: the Imnaha Pack  near Joseph that numbered 15 this winter and the Wenaha Pack of six wolves in the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness, both in the rugged northeastern Oregon mountains.

But people also have reported tracking three wolves along the Walla Walla River near Pendleton, said Russ Morgan, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife wolf specialist. Others have reported spotting wolves in the Cascade Range, northern Grant County, near La Grande and Elgin in Union County, and close to Jordan Valley in Malheur County.  Wolf numbers in Oregon aren't expected to grow as swiftly as in Idaho, where the population ballooned in 10 years from 35 wolves to 750 by 2006, said John Stephenson, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife spokesman in La Grande.

Montana's wolf population, in contrast, grew from two wolves in 1981 to a mere 74 in 1999. That slow growth happened, in part, because federal predator control programs killed many Montana wolves that preyed on livestock, Stephenson said.  "Generally, we think of eastern Oregon as more like Montana than Idaho" in habitat and wolf growth, Stephenson said.
Last year, federal hunters removed 141 Montana wolves and 78 Idaho wolves, and Idaho sport hunters killed 48. Federal hunters removed only a single wolf in Utah for killing livestock, and none in either Oregon or Washington.

Environmentalists have decried what Congress did: tacking on the wolf provision to a federal budget bill that had to pass to avert a government shutdown this month. It opens the door for hunting seasons on wolves in states with big populations of the animals, said Josh Laughlin, spokesman for Cascadia Wildlands  in Eugene. "Hundreds of wolves will be killed, I can all but guarantee it," he said.

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, for example, just signed a bill into law that will allow him to declare a wolf disaster emergency and recruit law enforcement to reduce his state's wolf population.

"Really, this is Pandora's box," said Suzanne Stone,  spokeswoman for the 530,000-member Defenders of Wildlife  in Boise. She said the congressional action bodes ill for other species. "Regardless of how people feel about wolves, Americans at large are losing," she said.

And though many cattle producers fear the wolf's taste for their livestock, not all are hailing the switch to state regulation.  Scott Shear  runs an 800-cow spread near Joseph in the middle of what local ranchers call Oregon's "wolf highway." Wolves and ranching aren't compatible, he said, but he has more confidence that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will act decisively when livestock-killing wolves need removal than in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Ranchers are bracing for a springtime upswing in wolf attacks as the calving season ends and they release their herds onto remote pastures. Attacks escalated sharply last May, costing ranchers near Joseph at least nine calves. "Everybody is pretty nervous about it," said cattleman Rod Childers  of Enterprise. "Wolves are hunting in one group right here east of the valley."

-- Richard Cockle

Ed Bangs who has headed up the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program since 1988 is retiring in June from the USFW.........A collaborator of the first order.....................Utilized a down home sense of humor to win converts on both side of the wolf divide......... He showed tenacity in dealing with bureaucrats and politics.............and perhaps most importantly, Ed always kept science at the forefront of the emotionally charged political debate........Let it be known that Bangs was always for restoring Wolves to the Rockies, was always empathetic about dealing with local resident concerns first hand and quick to resolve any depredations of livestock that wolves caused..........In his mind, with the removal of wolves from the list of endangered species this past week by an act of Congress, he feels he's successfully completed his job. "When we started there were 10 wolves near Glacier. Now there's 1,700 in six states and they're being delisted. That's pretty rewarding." ..........Agree completely with Ed or not, this blog tips our hat to him for his Professional efforts on behalf of wolves and people.............We wish Ed Bangs all good things as he starts the next chapter of his life and hope that he stays connected in some fashion to Wildlife Restoration

Man who led federal wolf recovery effort retiring

By Eve Byron

HELENA, Mont. — Ed Bangs, who for 23 years led the effort to reintroduce and recover healthy wolf populations in the northern Rocky Mountains, is retiring from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in June. As the federal agency's wolf recovery coordinator, Bangs was the face of the polarizing wolf reintroduction, conducting thousands of international, national, state and local interviews and holding hundreds of highly charged meetings, all to explain the effort as part of a massive public outreach effort. At various times, depending on the stage of the reintroduction, he was heralded as a hero while simultaneously being denounced as a wolf lover or hater, depending on people's perspective.

Yet somehow he managed to charm many on both sides of the wolf wars, with a mix of humor tinged with a reputation for fairness."He would get in front of a group trying to ridicule and criticize him, and Ed would beat them to the punch," recalled Carter Niemeyer, a former Wildlife Services supervisor who worked closely with Bangs for decades. "One time, we were in Grangeville, Idaho, in front of a hostile crowd, with one guy leading the charge. He said 'Tell me what the hell good the blankedly-blank wolves ever did.' Ed chimed up and said 'They gave me this cushy job' and the whole audience cracked up. The man got up and left because he was so angry. "He would win the crowd over, because they thought he was kind of funny, and that would get things going."

Suzanne Stone with the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife also worked with Bangs on the wolf reintroduction, and said he had a huge impact on the effort, writing the environmental impact statement — which drew more than 180,000 comments from throughout the world — and fighting for federal funding."He set the course," Stone said. "He was willing to work with us, but not much would deter him from the course he had in mind."
Jay Bodner with the Montana Stockgrowers Association noted that Bangs always brought a lot of professionalism to the wolf reintroduction debate and never shied away from controversial issues."He didn't take things personally, and when he provided his point of view he was all right when folks disagreed with him," Bodner said. "You might not agree with everything he said, but he knew how to move discussions forward."He was able to reach a standpoint where people respected him. He would make the call and make it fairly quickly to either remove problem packs or to do nothing."
Bangs laughs at people's impression of him, noting that "wilderness groups loved me" when he was reintroducing the wolves, and the ranchers hated him. That flipped once he decided the science showed that wolf populations had recovered enough to take them off the list of animals protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. "Now (environmentalists) say I'm in the ranchers' pocket and the ranchers say I'm not such a bad guy," he joked.

He came to head the gray wolf reintroduction in a roundabout way. Bangs grew up in Ventura, Calif., and worked through high school and college as a chemical plant laborer, a cattle ranch/feedlot hand and an oil field roughneck. He also loved to hunt and fish. m"I was going to be a welder, but my dad said that by god, I was going to be a college-educated welder," Bangs said. "So I went to a junior college to be a welder, took some biology classes and said, 'You mean you'll pay me to walk in the woods and hunt and fish?'" After earning a degree in game management from Utah State University, he got a job at the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge as a seasonal biological technician in 1975. "The reason they hired me was they had a new garbage truck with hydraulics, and I was the only guy who applied for the job who knew how to work those," Bangs said. "So they said I was going to do biological studies, but my first job was picking up garbage in the campground. The refuge was a Quonset hut where we'd get snowed in some days and have to take a snowmobile to work. It was a great life."

He helped reintroduce caribou in Alaska, studied the effects of oil and gas development on wintering moose and worked on lynx conservation and management, and recalls jumping from helicopters in the morning to tag brown bears, and return to town in time for breakfast. It was a dream job, but when he heard about a new position being created to help states, the federal government, tribes, ranchers and others figure out how to deal with what seemed to be a growing population of gray wolves in northwestern Montana, he was intrigued. At that time, gray wolves were listed as an endangered species, and only about 10 wolves were known to live in the Glacier National Park area in the Northern Rockies. Then wolves started killing livestock in 1987, and no one knew how to handle it. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was looking for someone to figure out how to deal with depredations and to do research, outreach and education, which was right up Bangs' alley. He applied, two days before the application deadline, and changed the course of his life.
Around that time, Carolyn Sime was in Kalispell, doing a study on radio-collared deer for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Bangs, the USFWS service project leader for wolf recovery, approached the department and proposed a swap: he would help find federal funding if they would help monitor radio-collared wolves. So I started flying to check out the Murphy Pack and any other collared wolves in the mid- to late-1990s," Sime said. "What struck me then, and it's been that way throughout Ed's tenure, is his amazing ability to engage other people, both professionally and personally." She eventually became Montana's wolf management coordinator until the position recently was discontinued."He always pushed us to really make data and science the basis of the state plan, and that set us up to succeed," Sime said. "It was a real privilege and honor to work with him. I've learned so much and it's been a priceless experience."

Mike Jimenez, who is now in charge of Wyoming's wolf recovery program, also worked with Bangs in the early years, and said he created the blueprint for bringing together people with a wide range of interests to work out the issues. "He set the template for what came later on, creating a tightly knit organization, with a general policy for interaction on the ground with everybody," Jimenez said.

Bangs led the team that captured wolves in Canada and released them, in the mid-1990s, in Yellowstone National Park. Niemeyer recalls how Bangs would fend off the bureaucrats and deal with all the "unpleasantries" in the pre-introduction arena. "I consider him to be the guy who made it happen," said Niemeyer, who recently released a book called "Wolfer" about his experiences. "I admired Ed for his tenacity in dealing with bureaucrats and politics. I don't think anybody wanted that part of the job."
Bangs said he felt a personal responsibility to reduce conflict and damage caused by wolves, but believes that their reintroduction to the landscape was the correct route to take. He jokes that wolves are actually kind of boring — calling them "just big dogs" that have been studied to death — but that people are fascinating, which is one reason he didn't hesitate when walking into rooms filled with angry people. "I'm a big believer in interaction with the public, so I made a special effort to reach out to hunting groups, livestock groups, environmental groups; I've probably given 500 presentations myself," Bangs said. "I've met some really interesting people. You have to face people and hear their concerns firsthand to help resolve the conflicts." He notes that one of the biggest issues he initially faced was the sense from the public that the wolf reintroduction in the Rockies was forced on people here by bureaucrats back East. So he empowered his people to make decisions on the spot regarding how to handle problem wolves, and had few reservations about shooting those that preyed on livestock repeatedly. Those same practices continue today. "The first thing we did was try to make it a local person with faces that they could call, and the field person had full authority to deal with the problem right here and right now," Bangs said. "I think that helped recover wolves while it minimized the damage."
Bangs said another important part of his job was to keep science at the forefront of the emotionally charged political debate and keep the reintroduction and recovery effort moving forward. With the removal of wolves from the list of endangered species in Montana and Wyoming this week by an act of Congress, Bangs said he feels he's successfully completed his job. "The bottom line is science is being followed," Bangs said recently, sitting behind his desk still covered with scientific journals, studies and reports, many of which he's authored, and walls dotted with awards and art. "The heavy lifting is over, and that's cool. My upbringing was to complete your job; when we started there were 10 wolves near Glacier. Now there's 1,700 in six states and they're being delisted. That's pretty rewarding."

As he prepares to walk away from his life's work, Bangs knows that he'll always carry it with him, in a sense. In an e-mail, he explained a statement posted on his office wall from someone saying how wolf scars are sexy — which, in his classic self-deprecating manner, the bachelor noted that apparently they aren't. Bangs said the statement was given to him as a joke after he was bitten on the wrist by a wolf in Wyoming. One canine tooth went through his wrist and he had a few crush marks, but luckily it didn't break his arm. He finished the day's work before getting it checked out in the emergency room."I did learn a valuable lesson (that) next time someone asks you to hold a wolf down for them ask if it is immobilized," Bangs wrote. "But I am an especially fun date during full moons!"

The University of Mississippi conducted research over the 4 year period 1993-97 to determine how the sympatric mesocarnivores....... The Bobcat, Coyote and Gray Fox interact in our Southeast..............."Bobs" and Coyotes do in fact share core home ranges whereas Coyotes and Gray Foxes while having overlapping home ranges, do not share proximate core ranges...................The literature suggests that Coyotes come out on top in encounters with both Bobcats and Foxes.............Gray Foxes can climb trees(Red Foxes cannot climb) and evidence in Southeastern Canada that we have discussed previously suggests that Gray Foxes are displacing Red Foxes in high density Coyote habitat due to their ability to use the tree canopy as a sanctuary

Research Findings

Interactions Between Bobcats and Coyotes

We radiomarked and simultaneously monitored 61 adult bobcats and 37 adult coyotes from 1993-97. We documented 143 instances of home range and core area overlap among 24 adult bobcats and 15 adult coyotes and coyotes frequently overlapped portions of several bobcat home ranges. Home range overlap was greatest during breeding-gestation, compared to fall-winter and parturition-young rearing. However, core area overlap was similar during fall-winter, breeding-gestation, and parturition-young rearing. The 2 species essentially shared core areas in some instances and large portions of bobcat home ranges were contained within coyote core areas, indicating that bobcats and coyotes often concentrated activities in the same areas. Bobcat captures were not correlated (P = 0.243) with coyote captures during the study. No interactions occurred at 0 m (i.e., direct contact), indicating that bobcats and coyotes were never located together. Our findings suggest that bobcats and coyotes were either not located within 50 m of each other, or were less likely to be so than expected in most instances. However, beyond 100 m, bobcats and coyotes simultaneously monitored were frequently located closer together than expected.

Interactions Between Coyotes and Gray Fox

We documented 54 instances of home range overlap between the species and coyotes frequently overlapped portions of several gray fox home ranges. Four gray fox maintained home ranges within coyote home ranges. Home range overlap was greatest during fall-winter. Similarly, core area overlap was greatest during fall-winter, but negligible during breeding-denning and whelping-pup rearing. In general, the 2 species maintained nearly exclusive core areas. No interactions occurred at 0 m (i.e., direct contact). Three of 33 interactions occurred within 50 m, indicating a coyote and gray fox were <50 m apart while simultaneously being monitored. Most simultaneous locations indicated that coyotes and gray fox were rarely <350 m from each other when simultaneously moving through their home ranges.

45 Black Bears in Nevada are to be harvested in the States first sanctioned hunt this coming Falll...............There are betweeen 200 and 300 Black Bears in Nevada....A planned take of 45 animals(16 to 25% of the Bruin population) is not a plan that seems to encourage sustainability, especialy in light of the fact that the bears are principally located around Lake Tahoe and not yet expansive enought in size to have pioneered the full expanse of Nevada......As reported on weeks back, NOBEARHUNTNV.ORG is challenging this hunt based on FWS not having employed proper Science in determining Bear population levels

Opponents appealing Nevada's black bear hunting regs

Written byJeff DeLong

At a glance: Nevada bear hunt plan calls for:

» Tag quota is 45.
» Harvest is limited to a maximum of 20, of which only six can be females.
» Season is from the third Saturday of August to the last Saturday of December.
» Any legal weapons, including rifles and bows, are permitted.
» Hours: One half-hour before sunrise to sunset.
» Dogs are allowed in hunt.
» Unlawful to kill a cub or a sow with a cub.
» Baiting prohibited.
Source: Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Determined to stop Nevada's first black bear hunt in its tracks, organized opponents are appealing a regulation allowing the hunt passed by the Nevada Wildlife Commission last December. Commissioners are tentatively scheduled to consider the appeal when they meet in Reno May 12. The administrative appeal filed by the nonprofit group NoBearHuntNV.org attempts to invalidate the hunt on the basis the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission failed to meet minimal public noticing and information requirements and failed to consider potential economic impacts to Lake Tahoe businesses. The decision is also being challenged on the grounds it failed to provide an adequate wildlife management justification for the hunt and failed to properly employ science in estimating Nevada's bear population. "The bottom line is there is no reason to hunt these bears," said Christine Schwamberger, a Carson City attorney and organizer for NoBearHuntNV.org.  "There's overwhelming public opposition."
Despite vocal opposition, the Wildlife Commission unanimously approved the hunt Dec. 4, 2010, amid assurances by biologists that the state's bear population can support a limited hunt. Biologists estimate there were an estimated 200 to 300 adult black bears in the Carson Range near Lake Tahoe as of 2008, with additional bears elsewhere in the state.They said Nevada's bear population is believed to be growing at a rate of about 16 percent annually. Shortly before commissioners in early February adopted harvest numbers, season dates and other specifics for the hunt, Commission Chairman Scott Raine said the hunt is "clearly justified on the biological end of it" and described opponents as a "vocal minority" opposed to hunting in general.
A member of the opposition objected to such characterizations. "Actually, many of our group are sportsmen," said Kathryn Bricker of Zephyr Cove. "We are simply a group that represents the public." The planned hunt, Bricker said, represents a "huge change" in policy of protecting Nevada's bears in place for decades designed simply to please a small number of hunters "The hunting of Nevada's bears is not the right thing to do," Bricker said. Schwamberger questions claims by NDOW that the state's bear population is increasing and said her group has heard from a number of Tahoe-area businesses the hunt could impact outdoor recreation at the height of the summer season. In pursuing the hunt, the state's Wildlife Commission is "operating like a private hunting club," Schwamberger said.

During the May hearing on the group's appeal, the commission will hear the challenge by NoBearHuntNV.org, a report from department officials regarding how policy was followed and then render an opinion, said Bryan Stockton, senior deputy attorney general. Comments from members of the general public will not be allowed, he said. The appeal, Stockton said, "is basically challenging the procedure the department and commission went through. The question is did the agency follow the proper procedure? "It's not an appeal of whether they should have done it or not," Stockton said of the vote on the hunt. "It's a question of did they do it right?"

The hysteria that has volcanoed up from the Northern Rockies delisting of Wolves is providing USFW with impetus to go for a 4th try at delisting the Wolves living in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan............They are approaching this attempt with a "carrot" stating that these Great Lakes Wolves are primarily Gray wolves(c.lupus) and that they are differentiated from Eastern Wolves(c.lupus x lycaon) that historically roamed our Eastern woodlands from Algonquin Park in Canada on down through the USA Appalachians .............The Feds hold out the wistful "promise" that these Eastern wolves would still have Endangered Species Act protections and could be restored to their former East Coast haunts one day...................I say great to the lycaon restoration..............but realistically our top Wolf biologists feel that there is a canid soup mixture of Gray and Eastern Wolves in the Great Lakes region and that they are not pure Gray's....................If this is the case, then a faulty premise for delisting..................On the other hand, our three MIdwestern States have shown a much higher co-existance tolerance for the wolves of their region and perhaps the States can indeed provide a humane and positive management plan that all stakeholders could sign off.....and in the process create a shining template for delisting that our Western and Eastern States could emulate and adopt

Another wolf push is on

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has made formal its pledge to remove federal protections for wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan – this time claiming those wolves are a distinct species from their eastern cousins.
The agency said the delisting plan has been submitted to the Federal Register and is asking for public comments over the next two months. A public hearing is set for May 18 at the Northern Great Lakes Center near Ashland.It's the latest update in a decades-long saga over how wolves should be managed in the western Great Lakes region and who should do it.  Three previous efforts to delist wolves over the past decade have failed when challenged in court. But federal regulators have added a new twist by using genetic science to claim that western Great Lakes "gray" wolves are mostly gray wolves and distinct from "eastern" wolves that roam in eastern Canada and once roamed the eastern U.S. "That's what the latest taxonomy is saying; that the gray wolf is different enough genetically to be considered a separate species from the eastern wolf," Laura Ragan, Fish and Wildlife Service wolf biologist, said.
The gray wolf, Canis lupus, is the one currently listed on the endangered species list and the one proposed to be removed. At the same time, the federal government will take a look at the status of eastern wolves, Canis lycaon, and determine what – if anything – should be done to restore that species across eastern states where it no longer exists. That move could help thwart complaints from some wolf supporters that, while Great Lakes wolves have recovered from near-extinction, wolves still should be protected in eastern states so their populations could return.
Ragan said it's likely both species are roaming western Great Lakes states and are intermixing, "but you can't tell them apart in the field," Ragan told the News Tribune. "The general sense is that eastern wolves are slightly smaller, but not enough for even our people to tell them apart." Agency officials caution that their proposal first must pass scientific review, be biologically credible and be subject to public comment – and then stand up to likely challenges in federal court.
There are about 3,200 wolves in Minnesota and about 700 each in Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula – many more than federal officials expected when the animal first received federal protection in 1974 after they were shot, trapped, and poisoned to near extinction. Wolves in the region currently are off-limits to trapping, hunting or harassment, except in Minnesota, where federal trappers kill about 180 wolves each year near where livestock or pets have been attacked.
Federal officials say they can have the final rule in place to delist gray wolves by the end of 2011.
State natural-resource agencies, livestock farmers, hunting groups, and members of Congress have called for an end to federal protections so more wolves can be trapped and shot.
Pro-wolf groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, have called for the federal government to continue protections in the Great Lakes region until wolves have been restored across far more areas of their original range, including eastern states where they don't exist. Status supporters say the eagerness to kill wolves shows attitudes have not changed enough.

Tapping into our friend Cristina Eisenberg twice today...........first, she reminisces about her Earth Day visit three years ago to Aldo Leopold's Wisconsin Sand County farm where she studied Aspen regeneration in a high deer desnsity region.......Cristina's findings are the same whether they be from Yellowstone, Glacier or Sand County............Where you do not have wolves, deer lose their fear of predation and get to browse hard and often on their favorite foods, with Aspens taking a pounding and not being able to grow up and reach canopy height status(and resulting adverse cascading impacts on bird and small mammal life)

Cristina Eisenberg

cristina.eisenberg@oregonstate.edu

  

Earth Day at the Shack

April 22, 2011

Three springs ago I visited the Leopold Memorial Reserve—the depleted Wisconsin sand county farm Aldo Leopold bought in 1930 known as the "shack." In the 1940s he recorded in his field notes that without large predators such as wolves to regulate their numbers, deer were eating aspens and other trees and shrubs to death. I wanted to see whether this was still so.

The 1900 acre Reserve lies along the Wisconsin River, half in floodplain and marsh, the rest in upland oak-hickory-pine forest and old farmland. Deer densities range from 5-11 per square mile, 150 to 300 percent above management goals. Predators include coyotes, with occasional cougars and black bears. Several wolves have been sighted in recent years, dispersers from northern Wisconsin. These wolves sometimes turn up as roadkill or shot by farmers and hunters. When one was shot near the Reserve a few years ago, the Leopold family mourned its death. Although no established wolf population exists here, more wolves are coming from the north.

I surveyed the Reserve's aspen stands and found many being eaten heavily by deer. Prescribed fire had stimulated vigorous aspen growth; however, this had only intensified browsing, leaving stands in worse condition than if they hadn't burned.  One day Aldo Leopold's daughter Nina joined me in the field. Her chocolate Labrador retriever Maggie ran glad circles around us as we examined the aspens around the shack. As we looked we became aware of missing age classes and ghosts of trees likely long lost to herbivory. "Look," I said, gesturing toward the aspens, "Lots of old aspens. Lots of young aspens. No middle-aged aspens."  Next we examined the aspens below the height deer can eat (about six feet). Almost all had sharp, chisel-shaped ends where the deer had bitten off the dominant growth bud. I examined an aspen less than three feet tall and counted its wounds—eight in all. Aspens can sustain moderate browsing, but these Bonsai trees would eventually die.

We looked hard, but couldn't find stands near the shack with aspens growing above browse height. Across from the shack in Crane Marsh, aspens grew above browse height. But this area contained rough terrain impassable to humans and difficult for even deer to navigate.

When I finished all my fieldwork, I sat on a mossy bench overlooking the Wisconsin River floodplain. It was Earth Day. The sun slanted low across the water and illuminated the white pines planted by the Leopold family. Now grown tall and stately, their boughs swayed gently in the wind. The weather forecast promised snow the next day. I sensed the earth burgeoning with life on that warm afternoon between storms, everything green and growing. Now and then I spotted the bright feathers of returning warblers, flying low between the oaks, exhausted from migration.

Perhaps Aldo Leopold had sat where I sat, hearing cranesong from the marsh, a light wind playing through the previous year's dried grasses, leaf buds beginning to open after a long, hard winter. Perhaps he had sat here and thought about his struggles as a game commissioner grappling with too many deer in Wisconsin, or about how to sharpen his writing skills to communicate more effectively about conservation. Perhaps he had found hope that his words would open hearts and minds, that his restoration efforts might bear fruit, and that his children would carry on his efforts. And so they have, and the wolves are returning.................There is a great clarity of light here!

Commentary from Oregon about the 23 new wolf residents of that State and conjecture on what their future holds based on last weeks Congressional Wolf delisting in the Northern Rockies.......Our friend and contributor Ms. Cristina Eisenberg provides reinforcing commentary on the wolves ability to be a keystone and positive impactful species in Oregon..........Andy Stahl who heads up Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics giving us a history lesson on the fact that this is not the first time Congress has used a rider to overturn environmental laws.... Back in 1991, they did the same with the Spotted Owl and again in Tennessee with the Snail Darter(fish).............On each of these occasions, when Politics trumps sound Science, the result is always: "more dead owls, more dead wolves, more dead snail darters"

Not So Big, Not So Bad
Wolves return to Oregon, cause a ruckus in Congress
By Camilla Mortensen

To follow a certain Tea-Partyesque line of thought: God created the animals, Adam named the ones he was given dominion over (the beasts of the field and such) and, with a quick leap forward to the present day, Congress decides which ones are no longer in danger of dying out — wolves, for example.
Wolves are native to the western U.S. and to Oregon, but they were extirpated — hunted to local extinction — by the late 1940s. The current northern Rockies gray wolves are descendants of those that crossed the border from Canada into Glacier National Park as well as wolves that were brought from Canada and reintroduced to Yellowstone and Idaho. Genetic testing by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife shows eight of nine Oregon wolves tested are from the Idaho pack.
While wolves in Oregon are still sparse — there are only about 23 — they've made a good recovery elsewhere in the West, says Oregon State University wolf scholar Cristina Eisenberg. Eisenberg, author of The Wolf's Tooth, says despite human fears about wolves, the animals are actually a "keystone species" in the ecosystem. Removal of a top predator, like the wolf, can cause a "trophic cascade" and trigger effects on the rest of the system. "Biodiversity plummets," Eisenberg says. Without wolves there are more elk, which eat more streamside vegetation, which affects the songbirds and butterflies that live there, and the fish in the streams that need the shade from the plants. Eisenberg says that though the current Oregon wolves may not be the exact subspecies that used to live here, they are the same species and fill the same important ecological niche. 
Many wolf advocates were dismayed this month when Democratic Sen. John Tester of Montana inserted language into the already controversial budget bill that delisted wolves from federal Endangered Species Act protections, returning their management in Montana and Idaho to those states, which would allow them to be hunted.  The rider overrides a federal judge's decision forbidding this same delisting, and it blocks judicial review of the decision to withdraw the federal protections. The fact that the delisting was a congressional decision superseding the Endangered Species Act raises hackles among conservationists.
But Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, says this is not the first time Congress has used a rider to overturn environmental laws. "This tactic used on the wolf this week is by no means novel or unprecedented," he says.Stahl says, "Those with long memories remember that Congress did overturn the environmental laws in regard to spotted owl." He says that Oregon Sen. Mark Hatfield, using his chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, removed all protections for a one-year period around 1991. Stahl also points to the snail darter, a small species of endangered fish that was exempted from the ESA in order to build a dam in Tennessee. The consequences, Stahl says, "to the wolves, the snail darter, the owl are all the same: more dead owls, more dead wolves, more dead snail darters." The effects of the rider aren't yet set in stone —  its wording doesn't prevent U.S. Fish and Wildlife from relisting the wolf if it plummets and faces extirpation, Stahl says. 
"It's somewhat remarkable how thoroughly environmental interests lost," Stahl says. He points out that two of the senators who pushed for delisting as Congress and the White House began to gear up for the 2012 elections, Tester and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, are from states with wolf populations and are "two freshman Democratic senators, almost an endangered species themselves."