A new insect killing fungus(lecanicillium muscarium) is being tested to determine its viability in killing the deadly Asian Adelgid, the exotic insect scourge of our Eastern Hemlock trees..........U. of Vermont Entomologist Scott Costa has tested the fungus on sections of Tennessee forest generating a 50% kill rate-------Will this fungus provide enough of a knock out punch to give our Hemlock a frighting chance from blinking out the way our American Elm and Chestnut did from exotic pathogens and insects?

Hemlock Trees Saved from Woolly Adelgid With 'Forest Fungus Factory'

The Hemlock is the third most common tree species in Vermont. But it soon may drop off the list, going the way of the now-vanished chestnut and elm. An invasive pest, hemlock woolly adelgid, has been marching and munching its way north along the Appalachians -- killing pretty much every hemlock it can sink its sap-sucking mouthparts into.

So far, only extreme cold stops the hemlock woolly adelgid. But the University of Vermont's Scott Costa may soon give forest managers and homeowners a tool to fight back.

Working with the U.S. Forest Service, the State of Vermont, and others, Costa, an entomologist in UVM's Department of Plant and Soil Science, has been developing a novel method of putting an insect-killing fungus, lecanicillium muscarium, to work protecting hemlock trees.

The entire range of eastern hemlock and the less common Carolina hemlock, from southern Canada to Georgia, is currently at risk from the adelgid, a bug native to Asia that arrived in the United States in the 1920s and made its way to the East Coast in the 1950s. The stakes are high: hemlock provides habitat for dozens of mammals and birds. Arching over streams, it creates deep shade critical for the survival of trout and other fish.

 Some scientists think hemlock is a so-called keystone species, holding up a whole ecosystem.
Nobody thinks the adelgid pest can be eliminated. But Costa has had success with field trials on one-acre forest plots in Tennessee, using helicopters to drop the fungus -- mixed with his proprietary blend of growth-enhancing ingredients -- into the epicenter of the adelgid's devastating attack. These trials reduced the growth rate of adelgid by fifty percent -- "that's the first time that's been demonstrated with an insect-killing fungus," Costa says -- and it seems likely to give trees a fighting chance of recovery
.

The National Wolfwatcher Coalition wants all of us to strongly encourage the Obama Administration to stand up to the US House of Rep's latest assault (H.R. 2584) on the Endangered Species Act and wolves.......I signed their petition below and encourage you to consider doing the same

---

From: National Wolfwatcher Coalition NWC <mail@change.org>
To: Meril, Rick
Sent: Sat Jul 23 12:37:27 2011
Subject: Please join our voice to strongly encourage the Obama Administration to stand up to the US House of Rep's latest assault (H.R. 2584) on the Endangered Species Act and wolves.

 

Hey,

I just signed the petition "Please join our voice to strongly encourage the Obama Administration to stand up to the US House of Rep's latest assault (H.R. 2584) on the Endangered Species Act and wolves." and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.

Our goal is to reach 10,000 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/please-join-our-voice-to-strongly-encourage-the-obama-administration-to-stand-up-to-the-us-house-of-reps-latest-assault-hr-2584-on-the-endangered-species-act-and-wolves

Thanks!
National Wolfwatcher Coalition

As a good friend of mine with impeccable wildlife credentials has told me............"State biologists are very hard to communicate candidly with because they hold back to cover their ass(and retain their job)"......." These State wildlife agency biologists are appointed by fish and game commissioners(chosen by the Govenor of the State who tends to appoint powerful hunting, ranching and farming business people who supported their run for Office) who dictate to professional wildlife biologists"..........."As a result, these biologists will never stand up for the wildlife resource like the federal biologists do".............. "As a Fed one can be a good listener to private citizens and political animals alike, but do what they feel is right and necessary without real risk to their careers, whereas state biologists are doing all they can to keep their jobs ( walking on eggshells)"........."State biologists are pawns in the game of wildlife management who march to the beat of the state drum which means kiss the ass of agriculture and sportsmen who buy the tags that provide their salaries".............. We need a whole different system to manage natural resources"............Most folks in Montana feel that Carolyn Sime of MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS did the best she could under challenging circumstances to approach wolf management with a fair hand............We wish her luck in her pursuit of a law degree and hope that she re-enters the Northern Rocky Wolf debate being a positive voice for the wolves, bears and cougars who still call "Big Sky" Country their home

Wolf management pioneer Sime leaving Montana FWP

HELENA - Carolyn Sime, a pioneer in wolf management in Montana, is leaving her job with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in order to pursue a law degree."After 10 years of late-night phone calls, ranch meetings and 20 years of game check stations, I'm ready to try something new," Sime said this week. "But I leave with some really, really fond memories of the relationships we've made and the work toward finding common ground, having open dialogues and civil discussions."

For more than a decade, Sime was in the epicenter of the wolf management controversy. She developed Montana's wolf management plan, spearheaded the transition from a federally-led species recovery program to a state-led conservation and management program, and shepherded Montana's first fair chase wolf hunting season in 2009.

"The past 10 years were unique, challenging and very, very rewarding," Sime said. "I think that's not only a positive reflection on my work, but also on the people of Montana."

This week, ranching groups and wildlife organizations, as well as her former coworkers praised Sime for her listening skills and her ability to bring diverse groups to the table in order to work out consensus.

"The wolf advisory group, which she oversaw, is a lasting testament on how a government agency employee can take a diverse group and come to a consensus on one of the most controversial animals in the Rockies," said Ben Lamb, the Montana Wildlife Federation's conservation director. "I don't think many other people could have done that. Her great strength is her ability to listen.

Barb Cestero with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition also praised Sime, noting that she was professional in her dealings with all of the involved parties, even if some people didn't return the courtesy."Even when people would get hot, she would stay pretty unflappable," Cestero said. "She was candid, and if she thought you were wrong in your assertions, she would ask questions and challenge those assertions, not in an adversarial way but as an honest biologist who wanted to reflect the science of wolf ecology and conservation. She asked good, probing questions."

Jay Bodner, spokesman for the Montana Stockgrowers Association, said he and Sime clashed at times, but she always had an open door and would listen to everyone's opinions. Sometimes she didn't act as quickly as livestock owners would like when depredations occurred, he said, but she always attended local meetings when requested and kept her cool during the hearings held around the state on the EIS."I didn't really think they could come up with a management plan because of the controversy around it, and to write something down that everyone generally could accept was a tremendous accomplishment," Bodner said. "Carolyn led the effort.

"I recollect public hearings with folks at both sides of the spectrum, in favor or in opposition, and she had to make sure everybody got heard and create a plan that hopefully could address those issues, and that was key to her position."

Having lived in Dallas for 5 years, I will tell you it is a fine City for business...........However, it has the least amount of Parkland of any major Metropolis in the USA...........While wide open spaces abut Dallas(although shrinking severely due to the sprawl that has Dallas reaching North toward Oklahoma and South to Austin), most Dallas residents equate wildlife with the goings-on at the thousands of restaurants and bars laced across the Metroplex.............As of late, Bobcats have found their way back into the slivers of waterways and "beauty strips" that occur here and there across the landscape.............Many folks have registered ill-placed concern and fear about bobcat attacks on pets and children...............I credit the author below for setting the record straight on the beneficial contribution that our "BOBS" deliver for the environment..............Kudos for Mr. Kim calling for coexistance and suggesting the proper "rules of the road" for minimizing conflicts

Bobcats: Plano's animal services director offers his tips and perspective

by-Theodore Kim

"I saw your blog posting about the bobcat and wanted to provide you with some additional information.

Bobcats live throughout Plano and the rest of the DFW metroplex. They have adapted their hunting/scavenging techniques to exist in an urban environment and now thrive in parks, neighborhoods, and industrial centers all across North Texas. They are opportunistic foragers that will consume insects, rats, mice, squirrels, birds, rabbits, pet food, discarded food waste, and other types of organic matter. They are slightly larger than the average domestic cat and weigh 18-40 pounds as an adult with the males being much larger than the females.

Attacks on humans by bobcats are incredibly rare. In fact, in recorded history there has never been a reported bobcat attack on a person in Plano. Nationwide there are very few attacks each year and nearly every one of them has been attributed to the animal being sick or injured. A healthy adult bobcat poses virtually no threat to any person, adult or child. As long as they are not sick, injured, or otherwise unable to flee, they will run away from people and will not attack.

People, including children, are so much larger than their targeted prey that they know we pose a serious threat of injury to them. Their very survival depends upon being able to hunt and scavenge for food. If they are injured, they face the very real possibility of starvation and will therefore do everything they can to avoid a fight with a human or animal that poses a threat to them. The bobcat may lounge or hunt in an area where it feels comfortable, but will run from any person who tries to approach it.

Bobcats have been known to attack very small dogs (less than 10 pounds) and roaming cats, but even these instances are very rare. This is just one of the reasons why Plano's ordinances require all pets be confined to their owner's property or on a leash at all times. At-large pets are at risk of interacting with wildlife, but studies have shown that they are far more likely to be injured or killed by cars, disease, poisons, other at-large domestic animals, and cruelty from humans than they are to be a victim of predation by wildlife. Plano has not had a confirmed report of a pet being a victim of a bobcat attack since 2008 and the pets involved were very small, off leash, and not confined or protected by a fence.

Some people may ask why Plano is not actively trying to trap and remove bobcats and all other wild predators, but doing so is impractical for several reasons. First, removing them would lead to an explosion of the rabbit, squirrel, mice, and rat populations in the city. Bobcats do a great deal in keeping these populations in check; removing them will upset the balance and lead to increased complaints about these species. Second, trapping and relocating the bobcats will usually end in death for the trapped animals which will lead to complaints from those who enjoy our wildlife.

People may mistakenly believe that the bobcats are a danger, but few actually want them all dead. Third, they are very difficult to catch due to their apprehension towards people. This means that a trapping program would require a great deal of equipment and staff time, which would require additional money from Plano's citizens.
It does not make financial sense to make the necessary investment in this type of program when these animals have never been responsible for a single injury in the city's history, especially when you compare this statistic to the more than 600 reported injuries that domestic pets cause each year in Plano. Lastly, trapping is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. It would only be a matter of days, weeks, or months before new bobcats would move into this vacated territory.

The tips you provided are good starting points and for additional information, people can visit our website and the DFW Wildlife Coalition, which has a wonderful website full of information on all types of native wildlife. People can visit their website to find out how to prevent bobcats and other wild animals from being attracted to their homes.

 Wildlife are attracted to neighborhoods for one of three reasons: food, water, or shelter and it is very important that all residents remove these attractants so that the wildlife are not motivated to enter neighborhoods.

In summary, bobcats are great small predators that keep rodent populations in check while posing essentially no threat to any person, residents should take the necessary steps to ensure that they aren't inadvertently attracting wildlife to their neighborhoods, and we hope that people can treat a bobcat sighting as something that is not to be feared but instead appreciated for what it truly is: a rare glimpse into the "wild" side of Plano that few are fortunate enough to experience firsthand."

A joint U.S/Russian Polar Bear Commission is scheduled to meet next week to discuss subsistence hunting of our great WHITE BEARS across the two Countries..........Involving Native Peoples in both Alaska and Russia is a teriffic initiative and the hope is for illegal poaching to be curtailed as the Villagers in both Nations get a stake in regulated hunts

Joint commission to meet on Chukchi polar bears

By: DAN JOLING

Polar bears in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast face an uncertain future because of climate warming. A U.S. and Russia commission aims to address short-term threats.The four-person commission, made up a federal and Native representatives from each country, will meet for three days in Moscow starting July 27 to discuss subsistence hunting and other issues for the polar bear population shared by the two countries in the waters north and just south of the Bering Strait.

The commission last year set a harvest limit of 58 split between the two sides. A main topic for the meeting will be how each side will make that work, said Eric Regehr, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife service biologist who serves on the commission's science advisory board.U.S. commissioners will present a draft harvest management plan proposed to begin the quota Jan. 1, 2013.

The commission was created by a treaty signed in 2000 and is significant for representing co-management across countries and cultures, said Rosa Meehan, the USFWS marine mammals manager in Alaska."It's the first effort in Russia that formally recognizes the Native people of Russia and involves them in a governmental process," she said.

The need for polar bear management across national boundaries was recognized more than three decades ago, Meehan said. Polar bears in the 1950s in the Chukchi and elsewhere were hammered by overhunting. A trip to Kotzebue on Alaska's northwest coast, Meehan said, would have revealed a fleet of small airplanes flown by professional guides taking out trophy hunters.

The five countries that oversee with polar bear populations, the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark, in 1973 agreed to limit hunting and bear populations bounced back, Meehan said."It was a real success story," she said.The 1973 agreement envisioned joint management of shared polar bear populations such as the treaty eventually signed by the United States and Russia. Management to date has differed.

In Alaska, the USFWS has co-managed polar bears with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission, which represents villages along the state's north coasts. The federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, recognizing the importance of aboriginal rights, allowed for unlimited take of polar bears unless the harvest was causing the population to diminish.

Nanuuq Commission executive director Charlie Johnson, Alaska's Native representative on the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Commission, said Alaska Natives agreed to the quota in exchange for a seat at the table on how polar bears will be managed. Polar bears remain of huge cultural importance to villages, and even a food source. "Sometimes it is the only protein that's available out in some of the villages, particularly on the Russian side," he said by phone from Nome.

In Moscow, he hopes to work out the details of how the quota will be administered in Alaska and how subsistence hunting will be reintroduced in Chukotka."We're hoping that we can help the Native people of Chukotka return to their traditional, cultural use of polar bears," Johnson said. "Presently they can't do that." Russia had officially banned polar bear hunting since 1956, but through the early 2000s, the annual illegal take was estimated at 70 to 300 bears. Johnson contends much of that was done by non-Natives illegally selling hides.

Giving Native Russian villagers in the Chukotka region a say in management and conservation issues is expected to bring that number down."The status quo hasn't worked," Regehr said. "A lot of bears have gotten killed under the status quo. We're trying something new that involves a partner that hasn't been actively engaged in the past."

The Chukchi Sea is remote even by Alaska standards and past relations. The new quota numbers are conservative and based on scientific information that scientists acknowledge is not very good. They continue to use an estimate population range of 2,000 to 5,000 bears for the Alaska-Chukotka population.

The USFWS began serious studies of Chukchi polar bears in 2008. Preliminary results, Regehr said, indicate that the population for now is doing well, in contrast to Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears off Alaska's north coast, which have demonstrated nutritional problems tied to climate warming, such as low birth rates and undersize cubs.

The main conservation challenge for polar bears, Regehr said, continues to be lost sea ice habitat anticipated from climate warming. Polar bears use sea ice to hunt their main prey, ringed seals. The summer low for Arctic sea ice, measured each September, averaged 2.7 million square miles from 1979 to 2000. Sea ice in recent years has fallen far below that, including a record low 1.65 million square miles in summer 2007. Climate models predict summer sea ice in Arctic waters could disappear by 2030.

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Jamie Clark's position on federally delisting Wolves in the Great Lakes and the Northern Rockies

Jamie Clark: Wisconsin's win for wolves

 Wisconsin has a conservation success to celebrate this summer — the recovery of the gray wolf in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Michigan. It marks one of many great turnarounds for wildlife under the federal Endangered Species Act for which an equal share of the credit goes to state leadership at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

The gray wolf had largely disappeared from Wisconsin by the 1960s and, when the nation's first endangered species law was passed in 1967, the few remaining wolves in northern Minnesota and Michigan were added to the nation's list of American animals at risk of disappearing forever.
Wisconsin followed by protecting the wolf in 1975. Since that time, the wolf has had a phenomenal rebound. Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources has been leading efforts to recover the wolf since 1979 by conducting extensive monitoring and management activities, including managing wolf depredations of livestock. In 1998 when I was director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service we first proposed to remove the wolf from the federal endangered species list.

Defenders of Wildlife has been championing the conservation of wolves in America since our founding in 1947. Since 2007, we've proudly supported taking wolves off the list in the western Great Lakes because the population is at a level that scientists agree is secure and would likely be maintained at that level. In addition, the states, and Wisconsin in particular, have put in place management plans that give us confidence that wolves and human-wolf conflict will continue to be managed in a way that ensures the long-term survival of this keystone species and helps maintain healthy ecosystems in America's northern forest landscape.

A different situation exists for a separate population of wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Defenders and many other groups have been working to restore wolves to the Northern Rockies for the last 30 years. These wolves are now providing significant benefits in the ecosystems where they live, including restoration of meadow and wetland habitats, and improved water quality in trout streams no longer overgrazed by elk. But we opposed their removal from the endangered species list for two principal reasons. First, although wolf numbers have increased, scientists have yet to agree on what size population constitutes recovery. Second, we are far from certain that wolves would remain adequately protected across the region. Management by some Rocky Mountain states, especially Idaho and Wyoming, would make it likely that the wolf conservation that taxpayers have supported for years could be reversed by high levels of trapping, poisoning and shooting. That is not an outcome the public should have to accept.

Thankfully, there is a much brighter future for Great Lakes wolves and the northern forests in which they play a critical role, because of the science-driven state leadership in the Great Lakes and the cooperation of farmers who have demonstrated that they can co-exist with even more wolves than occur in the Rocky Mountains. On behalf of our 35,000 members in the three-state region, we look forward to the formal announcement of the recovery of the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes.

Jamie Clark is executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, a Washington-based nonprofit conservation group with more than 35,000 members in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan. He was director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1997 to 2001.

Dr Charles Kay - alleged wolf expert who has communicated with this blog previously is not highly regarded by the majority of wildlife biologists.....It is important not to hide in the sand from his "hail mary" negative pronouncements about Wolves.............It is critical for us to to figure out how to discredit his anti-wolf positions responsibly and with peer reviewed science so that we can get a sane wolf management policy in place that does more than just allow an arbitrary minimum number of lobos to occupy viable wolf habitat across the Americas

"In the final analysis, wolf recovery has nothing to do with wolves. Instead, ,it is all about the elimination of livestock grazing/ranching and the banning of hunting. Just look at the stated agendas of the groups that sued to keep wolves under federal protection."

"There are two AND ONLY TWO solutions to livestock depredations by wolves. Get rid of the livestock or get rid of the wolves. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Ranchers need to understand that ALL non-lethal methods eventually fail and are not a permanent solution."--------Dr. Charles E. Kay!

British Columbia is now allowing the killing of Wolves year round, with no bag limit and no restrictions on killing females caring for pups..............The Northern Rockies whether they be under Canadian or U.S. jurisdiction once again managing Wolves as if they were Vermin...............There has been no learning, no evolution of thought on the circle of life and the health of the land as aided by Apex Carnivores like Wolves.................In fact, this Canadian Province is so hateful of wolves that it has an unlimited bag limits on the species......This, in contrast to every other Carnivore that it manages in the Province----Wolves.....were, are and will always be the "Boogeyman" of the landscape out West??????

Regulation changes leaves wolf killing wide open

By Carole Rooney

The provincial government has changed the hunting regulations to a year-round open season on killing wolves in the Cariboo.This has some people up in arms about the change, which now allows the hunting of wolves with no bag limit, during any season, including times when females are nursing their young.

Conservation Officer (CO) James Zucchelli confirms the new hunting regulations implemented on June 15 cover all areas in Management Units 5-1 to 5-1 and 5-12 to 5-15.The changes will also allow for the year-round trapping of wolves in Management Unit 5-1 to 5-1 and 5-12 to 5-14, with restrictions to leg-hold traps only from April 1 to Oct. 14.

This comes on the heels of another recent change when the province has assigned COs the responsibility for aiding ranchers, in response to the growing demand for predator control.
BC Trappers Association (BCTA) director and South Cariboo Trappers Association (SCTA) president Paul Blackwell says members on both boards have "serious concerns" with regulations that allow indiscriminate killing of wolves that may still be in whelping season.

"The [SCTA] as a whole feels this places wolves in the vermin category. Wolves have a value both to the environment and to the trapper, and taking wolves while there are pups in the den seems wrong."
Board members also take issue with the killing of wolves in the summertime when the pelts don't have any marketable value, Blackwell explains, and would simply be discarded.

Limiting the traps to leg-hold, which are typically scented specifically to attract only wolves, in the summer won't eliminate the potential for accidentally trapping dogs, bears or other non-target wildlife, he adds."It's far more humane to use a killing snare," Blackwell says, adding he doesn't suggest using those in the summer either.

The trapper says he is concerned about the public outcry that will result if pets are hurt or killed, and the shadow it would cast over the whole industry.

The year-round open season on trapping and hunting applies only to wolves, Zucchelli notes, so people need to understand killing other predating animals falls under the usual regulations.
Blackwell says his association is committed to helping the ranchers deal with problem wolves that are preying on livestock, and prefers government only relax the rules for that, and not for anyone to kill any wolf.

"We don't have a problem with the COs going out and doing the mitigation on problem wolves. We support that."

Why has it taken so long for Wolves and Grizzlies to recolonize the Northern Cascades in Washington State?,,,Paula Mackay of the Western Transportation Institute weighs in on this subject

A long road for recovery of Washington's grizzlies and wolves

Guest columnist Paula MacKay celebrates recent documentation of a grizzly bear and a new wolf pack in the Washington's Cascade Mountains. Still, recovery of these animals has a long road of planning and commitment to change.
By Paula MacKay

FOR MORE INFORMATION about the Cascades Carnivore Connectivity Project, go to: http://www.cascadesconnectivity.org/

THE documentation of a rare grizzly bear in the North Cascades and a new wolf pack in the Teanaway is exciting news for our region, which has long played second fiddle to the Northern Rockies when it comes to carnivore recovery.

Indeed, the Cascades are perceived as the Rodney Dangerfield of mountain systems by some carnivore biologists in Washington, who lament that they "don't get no respect" in the shadow of Yellowstone and Glacier. At last, the North Cascades have staked their rightful claim as the other place in the lower 48 with a real opportunity to host the full suite of native top predators — including grizzlies and wolves.

It should come as no surprise that these icons of wildness would find home in the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE), which comprises 24,800 square kilometers in Washington and an additional 10,350 square kilometers in British Columbia. The NCE also includes one of the largest contiguous blocks of federal land remaining in the continental U.S.

Wolves and grizzly bears wandered this big, wild landscape until they were decimated by trapping, hunting, poisoning and habitat loss during the 19th and 20th centuries. (Hudson Bay Company records reveal that 3,788 grizzly bear hides were shipped from trading posts in the North Cascades from 1827-1859 alone.) Ultimately, both species were eliminated from Washington and most of the lower 48, with grizzlies left occupying a mere 2 percent of their original range and wolves a meager 5 percent.

Today the journey for grizzlies and wolves in Washington has only just begun. It's one thing to root for a lone bear standing on a distant mountaintop or a pregnant wolf howling in her newfound wilderness, but quite another to make room for their long-term presence in a crowded world. The former is the stuff of a romantic nature film. The latter requires tolerance, big-picture planning, and a profound commitment to change.
Although the recent documentations are good cause for celebration, many salient questions remain. For example, why have wolves and grizzlies been so slow to recolonize the NCE, where big mountain wilderness awaits them?

The answer is no doubt a complex weave of ecological, political and economic factors, but this much is clear: If grizzlies and wolves are to be restored in viable numbers, we need to maintain and enhance habitat connectivity within the region and to populations outside of the region.

Large carnivores must be able to move safely through the landscape to expand their range; as wolves in Yellowstone have shown us, no place — not even a grand-scale national park — is an island. Those dispersing wolves that have returned to Washington from Idaho, Montana and British Columbia over the past few years traveled vast distances in search of new territory, no doubt encountering many obstacles along the way. Too little is known about the ancestry of our few remaining grizzly bears to speculate on their geographical origins, but suffice it to say their future will depend on newcomers as well.

One of the challenges we face in Washington's NCE is that this otherwise remote region is traversed by three major east-west highways: Interstate 90, and Highways 2 and 20. Although these highways experience varying degrees of traffic, they all represent potential barriers to carnivore movement in the Cascades.
Grizzlies are especially wary of busy roads, and both bears and wolves are vulnerable to human persecution when roads provide easy access. The Cascades Carnivore Connectivity Project — a unique collaboration between academic, government and nonprofit entities — is evaluating the barrier effects of these highways on American black bears and American martens. The results of this study will provide insights on grizzlies and wolves as well.

As one major step in the right direction, the Washington State Department of Transportation is taking extensive measures to enhance habitat connectivity across I-90 in the Snoqualmie Pass region, which bisects an important corridor for wildlife in the Cascades. The construction of wildlife overpasses and underpasses will help facilitate the safe passage of many species — perhaps someday including grizzlies and wolves. In Banff National Park, Alberta, these and other large carnivores are regularly documented using such structures to cross the Trans-Canada Highway. There's no reason it can't happen here, too.

Paula MacKay is a research associate with the Western Transportation Institute and managing editor of "Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores" (Island Press, 2008).

Finding adequate funding to protect Grizzly Bears and People in the Greater Yellowstone--As Louisa Wilcox at NRDC reiterates constantly, Bears are ranging farther and farther afield to find food as climate change has adversely impacted whitebark pine seed availability...........More chances to encounter people along the way.........

Tragic human death by a grizzly, and the need for more resources to avoid conflicts

The tragic death of a hiker in Yellowstone Park is a chilling reminder of the need for people who hike in grizzly country to be prepared -- and to expect surprises. Yellowstone Park has long been the gold standard for quality bear education, with some of the most rigorous requirements for food storage and camper behavior anywhere in bear country. Yet, even here, accidents do happen, and not everyone comes prepared for a close-up bear encounter.  Yellowstone is a big wild place where nature still rules supreme. People who venture into its backcountry must be prepared for the risks inherent in visiting one of the wildest places left in the lower 48 states.

This case involved a concatenation of unfortunate circumstances:  a couple came upon a female grizzly with two cubs, which charged them to protect her young. The man, Brian Matayoshi and his wife, Marylyn, were not carrying bear pepper spray, which is a proven bear deterrent in close encounter situations such as this one. And, the couple chose to run away, which is never a good idea in such situations.  Mr. Matayoshi did not survive, although his wife did after lying down and playing dead.

My heart goes out to the family and friends of the deceased, and all those affected by this tragedy. In my own case, I have had a few bear encounters where, but for some kind of grace, I would not still be whole. In wilderness, disaster can strike even if you are ready for the worst-case scenario.   

Are there any lessons that can we take away from this terrible event? First, it goes without saying that you can never be too prepared for a bear encounter. And, all agencies that have jurisdiction over grizzlies and the public have to be eternally vigilant and creative in trying to educate the public about how to safely recreate in bear country. This is tough, challenging work, especially in popular areas such as Yellowstone, which receives over 3 million visitors each year.

Effective outreach to the public on how to live and recreate in bear country is also expensive, and relies on dedicated staff at state and federal agencies. Fortunately, we have in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem some of the best in the business. But bears are now dispersing more widely across the region in search of food, in response to the climate-driven loss of traditionally important foods such as whitebark pine nuts. This means that more resources will be needed to make sure that bears are not habituated to human foods, and in the process more prone to conflict with humans.   It means too that people and communities on the periphery of the ecosystem will need to be more prepared for bear encounters.

In an article in yesterday's Jackson Hole News and Guide, Mark Bruscino of Wyoming Game and Fish Department said that more resources will be required to collect information on the population and to manage bears. I agree, although I would add that the most important and expensive challenge is proactive education of and assistance to people who live and recreate in bear country.  The ultimate goal is peaceful coexistence of people and grizzlies.

Much of the recent debate about Yellowstone grizzly bears has been about whether or not they should be protected under the Endangered Species Act.  This has obscured a central question: are existing resources and efforts adequate to ensure that people and communities in the region are prepared to live with grizzly bears? If not, what can we do about it?   

Certainly, more resources come with Endangered Species Act protections, which can help support efforts to prevent and constructively manage conflicts. But in these fiscally tight times, all agencies are strapped – at a time when bears are dispersing more widely to cope with a changing world, and in the process creating new challenges. It is time to come up with new and creative mechanisms to fund conflict prevention efforts. No matter where one stands on the Yellowstone grizzly bear delisting issue, this is something that we should all be able to agree on. 

Commentary on the status of Bobcats in Louisiana by Wiley Hilburn, Professor emeritus at Louisiana Tech U.

Wiley Hilburn: Bobcats are back -- if they were ever gone

My source for that statement is the excellent outdoor writer Glynn Harris, who recently came across a fresh four-toed bobcat track while scouting for turkeys. "It is not uncommon to find bobcat tracks or even to occasionally see one in the woods," Harris wrote in a recent column for the Ruston Daily Leader.
Charlie Booth of Monroe, for 37 years a biologist supervisor with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) says that he is "hearing more reports from people, particularly deer hunters, seeing bobcats."

Booth said, however, that he could "not visually" account for a dramatic increase in bobcat numbers in Louisiana though habitat is improving for the small cat. "Timber thinning and clear cutting have created prime habitat for rabbits and wood rats, primary food supplies for bobcat," Booth said.

Going on line to check on the bobcat population in its whole range, from Southern Canada to Northern Canada (including most of the U.S.), I found that bobcat numbers are "healthy" or "resilient." Though cruelly hunted for sport and fur, the bobcat, largely a loner, has somehow learned to cope with humans and survive in substantial numbers. In Louisiana, it's legal to take — or kill — one bobcat a year. In all, the bobcat numbers from 750,000 to 1.5 million in the U.S.

In Louisiana the bobcat is found most prominently in hardwood bottomlands and palmetto brush and briars where its numbers remain strong and silent.The only bobcat I have seen turned up in a cage outside the Daily Leader office in Ruston during the 1950s, spitting and snarling, and I did a story on it.This bobcat, recalled from notes taken at the time, was about twice the size of a domestic cat, maybe 20 pounds, with black bars on its forelegs, prominent and pointed ears and a black-tipped stub of a tail, from which its name is drawn.
This bobcat's snarls and hisses reminded me, again, of the sounds made by a disturbed domestic cat, though of course amplified and more angry and with the courage of a tiger.

A farmer had trapped the Lincoln Parish bobcat near its den in a hollow log. The little cat was feeding on his small livestock, though its diet is mostly rabbits.As with the farmer, the bobcat has no natural enemies except for man though a Florida panther or cougar will kill the much smaller Rufus lynx.

Speaking of panthers, I asked Mr. Booth at the end of our interview if the large cat could be found — sharing space with the bobcat — in North Louisiana and, with a laugh, he said a definite no.The LDWF biologist conceded that his agency gets about one sighting a month of cougars, but that none have been verified.

For a moment, at least, the bobcat doesn't have to share its territory with the much larger cougar, which is widely believed by wildlife sources to be extinct in Louisiana.

Wiley Hilburn professor emeritus of journalism at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston or email to stringer@latech.edu.

Straightforward talk and facts from Hayden Janssen..............expressing the sentiments of most Blog readers about the need for an "ecosystem benefits" management plan for wolves and all carnivores which does not solely revolve around a mantra emanating from a % of ranchers/farmers/hunters which boils down to: "get rid of as many of them critters as you can"

Wildlife Management

Opinion: Wolves Under Fire in the Rocky Mountain West

With no quotas planned for Idaho's hunt and Montana planning to issue permits that could take out one-third of its wolves, it's time to step back and realize what we should have already learned in Yellowstone.

By Hayden Janssen

	Grey wolf. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.
– Aldo Leopold

The wolves of the Rocky Mountains are under attack. Idaho recently released its proposal for the 2011 hunting season, which calls for no limit on the number of wolves that can be killed. Yes, you read that correctly. The state that professed it will not manage its wolves has followed through and issued a public plan expressing there will be no limits on wolf hunting for this year.

 Based on the fact that Idaho, Wyoming and Montana are required to maintain a specific number of wolves in the three-state region, an undue burden has been placed on the other two states. One hopes Wyoming and Montana will take heed; however, at this writing, Montana has announced it expects to issue 220 permits, permission to take out roughly one-third of the total Montana wolf population.

There are those who argue that all wolves should be protected, no matter what. This is not an acceptable management approach when even endangered grizzlies that cause harm to a rancher are being culled. The other end of the spectrum is represented by a vocal and polar-opposite. These individuals profess a vested interest in nature, albeit a nature of their own design.

They call for the complete eradication of the wolf. Has it been so long that these individuals cannot remember the elk herds of Yellowstone and how they prospered at uncontrollable rates? Perhaps it is these same individuals who called for the removal of the wolf from the Yellowstone ecosystem decades ago. It took some time, but eventually the scientists of that day recognized that wolf removal was a terrible decision. Owing to uncontrolled elk populations, countless biotic populations suffered, most notably the aspen groves of Yellowstone. These groves dwindled, becoming mere representations of their former selves. It took many years until the correlation among wolves, elk and aspens was made, but eventually the National ParksService admitted the error of its ways in removing this predator from the ecosystem.

This begs the question, are we so short-sighted today, so absent of memory, that we are willing to once again make the same mistakes, even with the benefit of hindsight? Has the benefit of time not afforded humanity the opportunity to realize that meddling in nature, displaying our Roman thumb either up or down for each and every species, only serves to devalue our own existence?

Surely we have become more astute in our interference. At present, the vocal minority calling for the removal of the wolf from the Rocky Mountains is banal, believing that their ideals carry a bigger stick than the one carried by the facts representing the science of biology. Wolves are necessary. The purposes they serve and what they provide to the larger ecosystem is something that cannot be replaced by any other animal. (Once again, have we already forgotten Yellowstone?) The main constituencies supporting the decimation of the wolf are ranchers, hunters and those who fancy themselves either. Unfortunately, their literal call to arms is entirely unwarranted, yet their fear-mongering has somehow prevailed. Remember, we are meant to be living in rational times. So, let us address the underlying causes behind each of these different individuals' desire to see the wolf quelled.

Ranchers of the Rocky Mountains receive vast subsidies for their undertakings (most notably: low fees for grazing on public lands, taxpayer-supported research grants, lower property taxes for their own grazing lands, drought relief, livestock feed programs, etc.). Despite the benefits afforded many in the ranching community, many ranchers continue to insist that wolves are compromising their way of life. Keep in mind, when a rancher reports, and proves, that a wolf has killed one of his herd, the government steadfastly compensates him for his loss at a value greater than what the unit was worth. Today's ranchers will receive more cash for their range operations than in any time in the history of our country. This seems ironic as the direct effect of their occupational undertakings leave a far greater imprint on the ecosystem of the Rocky Mountains than any pack of wolves ever has. The damages incurred by the ecosystem directly from the flood of cattle and sheep on public lands is far more detrimental to a biotic system than are any single group of predators.

Now, the argument may be made, "Well the predators are undermining our way of life, our ranching." This is true, and to determine which species should rightly prevail in this battle of bovine versus Canis lupus, one must only iterate which was present in this region first. Lastly, let us note that coyotes and mountain lions kill more livestock and elk than wolves do.

I have several ranchers who are close friends of mine. So, please feel free to ask any rancher if the above is true. If they are honest, as I've found most ranchers to be, they will support the above statements. If you do not believe these facts, you are either in denial, a rancher who feels attacked, or both. Do not fret; you are not being attacked. The simple fact is, every time one ventures into the forests, one is guaranteed one thing: cow shit. The ubiquitous presence of cow pies is a contemporary certainty, one that most certainly does not add to the outdoor experience. To stumble upon a wolf kill, while possible, it's so very unlikely as to be absurd. Thus, while the ranching community of the Rocky Mountains may possess an ideal in which they are continuing to pursue Manifest Destiny, this delusion is unwarranted and timeworn. Humans have already left their indelible mark, and to continue on this same trajectory will prove irreparable for many species, ours included.

The second faction calling for the decimation of wolves in the Rocky Mountains are hunters. I am a hunter. I have no issue with competing for my game with another creature. I possess a rifle and, some would argue, higher intelligence. Therefore, one must question, is the competition that the wolf has provided the true underlying cause of the hunting community berating the wolf? Do hunters despise wolves so much that they are unwilling to contend for their game? Granted, wolves seek food outside of our recognized hunting seasons. Nevertheless, the arguments continue, "Well, wolves run game off." So do subdivisions. When I witness a "hunter" shooting a semi-automatic rifle at an elk from 500 yards, I feel only pity. Not just for the elk, although I am confident he is not afraid as the bullets bury themselves 50 yards from him, but also for the "hunter." For a true hunter you are not. You are an embarrassment to yourself, to true hunters and, if you actually take down game, to the animal that lost its life to you after your 20th round. Still, you will be the one at the local watering hole espousing how you took down that bull elk from 500 yards.

As a hunter, I respect the intricacies of nature, the freezing mornings and frying afternoons. I accept that true hunting, seeking game and pursuing one's own food is what should be done. The beef at a grocery store is not manufactured on site, contrary to popular belief. A true hunter recognizes that he or she is a part of nature. And while it is easy to proclaim oneself the apex of nature while holding a rifle, this is not the case. Perhaps the reason that some hunters loathe the wolf so dearly is that when the bullets are gone, the hunter can no longer look down the food chain upon every species below.

Humans are merely a cog in the machine of nature. In the absence of an understanding that expresses this fact, we will surely continue to be the cog that destroys the machine, the snake that consumes its own tail, only recognizing the error of our ways once it is too late. Wolves need to be managed, but irresponsible management, such as has been expressed by Idaho officials, and undoubtedly will soon be by Montana officials, is not the answer. Until humans learn to live with and within nature, we will never fully understand all that can be offered to us by nature. As Leopold has said, "When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." It's high time that those who have gained so much from the land, be it livelihood, recreation, or food, willingly begin to see all of its components with love and respect. To do otherwise only serves to denigrate our own, human existence.

The COYOTE YIPPS blogsite had some great pics of a young coyote staying clear of humans and dogs in the LA area...........The vast majority of near encounters between wild animals and ourselves(and pets) are just that----near encounters that do not end up in conflict or causing us concerns

Here are two occurrences of near encounters in two
 different parks. In the top row of photos, a coyote
 was calmly wandering along when a man and his
leashed puppy happily walk by. Neither of these
took any notice at all of the coyote in the near
 distance. The coyote helped the situation by sitting
 absolutely still among the tall grasses in which he
blended in well, and watching the duo walk by.
 After they had moved on, so did the coyote,
ever so cautiously and silently.

In the bottom row of photos, is a coyote who
 emerged in a green area where its camouflage
did not serve it well. There was a group of dog
 walkers and their small dogs coming its way.
These walkers commented, happy to see wildlife
in the area. Although the coyote stopped and
watched them, it soon hurried on through the
very unprotected open space at almost a run,
 stopping to sniff one spot -- in clear view of all
 -- before moving on.

When it arrived at the end of the open field
 where there was now some bushes and trees
 which offered some protection, the coyote
turned around and sat to watch and see if
anyone was after him. No one was -- all
the dogs were leashed and calm  -- so he
continued on his trekking undisturbed.

Dan Huertas of Icon Films(based in the United Kingdom) is coming to America to film a Wildlife Mysteries tv series.........If any of you blog readers have any ideas for the show, email Dan with your suggestions

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dan Huertas <Dan.Huertas@iconfilms.co.uk>
Date: Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:47 AM
Subject: Filming Wildlife Mysteries - Final Search
To: "rick.meril@gmail.com" <rick.meril@gmail.com>

Dear Rick Meril,

We are following up on our original e-mailing for wildlife mysteries in peoples 'back yard', for a new series for Nat Geo Wild.  I am now carrying out a final search for potential wildlife mysteries in the last few weeks before we come out to the USA to film (29^th Aug – 2^nd Oct).

We have had a great response and some really interesting stories but we need just one more story for the USA. 

To give you an idea here are some story examples that we are filming:

UK:

1.       Golf course being dug up in the night – what is doing the damage?
2.       Noises in a 'haunted wood' – lets investigate what is behind them?
3.       Big cat sightings at a manor house – can there really be large cats living wild in the UK

USA:

1.       Jewelry going missing in California: local children are blamed but our camera traps reveal a much smaller and furry culprit!
2.       Cats disappearing in Vermont: people suspect the Fisher, but are they mistaken?

Hopefully that gives you an idea of what we're looking at.  All the stories a mysteries to solve (some are already solved but we are just letting other members of the public know the answer), and connected with humans in some capacity or another.

We would really appreciate hearing from you if there is wildlife story that comes to mind.  Maybe there are new mysteries that have come up since we contacted you previously. 

Thank you so much for your time yet again and please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like any further information.

Kind regards and best wishes,

Dan

DANIEL HUERTAS

Assistant Producer

ICON FILMS 3^rd Floor | College House| 32-36 College Green| Bristol| BS1 5SP

T: +44 (0) 117 9 10 20 30 F: +44 (0) 117 9 10 20 31

WWW.ICONFILMS.CO.UK  

http://www.twitter.com/iconbristol 

PREVIOUS MAIL

I am writing to you from Icon Films (www.iconfilms.co.uk), we are a documentary production company based in Bristol , UK. We output a range of films to channels like National Geographic, Discovery and the BBC. A notable series that you may have heard of is River Monsters with Jeremy Wade (http://animal.discovery.com/tv/river-monsters/).

We are producing and exciting new series in which a team of experts travel round the USA and the UK looking into people's wildlife mysteries (http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/wild/community/blogs/inside-wild/_nat-geo-wild-show). The series really is about ordinary people who have something untoward happening in their garden / close to their home that they can't explain, an example could be a family living in an urban area who kept rabbits that repeatedly disappeared with no trace, or a keen gardener that keeps finding all his prize vegetables scattered all over the garden, the team would then come in and set up camera traps and thermal imaging etc and discover what the culprit is; a cougar, wild pigs, turkeys etc. It could even be something like the squirrels in the garden have discovered a mysterious way to get into the bird feeders or similar.

The series is a big release for next year on National Geographic, a real Myth busters of the natural world!

We are looking to find as many wild mysteries as possible, no matter how crazy, unlikely or mad and plan to be filming this summer. I wonder if you get reports of such happenings from the general public? Maybe the person has an inkling that it may be a certain species but no hard evidence as such.

I wonder if you might be able to point me in the right direction, or pass this onto those that might receive information like this, or indeed if it would be good for me to call on the phone at a time convenient to you?

Many thanks and kind regards,

Mark

MARK WHEELER

ICON FILMS  3rd Floor, College House, 32 - 36 College Green, Bristol, BS1 5SP

t:    +44 (0) 117 9102030

e:   mark.wheeler@iconfilms.co.uk

w:   www.iconfilms.co.uk

twt:  www.twitter.com/iconbristol

Brooks Fahy at PREDATOR DEFENSE shared this letter with me that he recently received from Environmental biologist Rick Hopkins at San Jose, California based LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES regarding Brooks question about the National Rifle Association's assertion that Predator(Carnivore) control having to be a central component of State Wildlife Agencies management plans for Wolves, Cougars, Bears, Coyotes, Bobcats, etc, etc ..........Rick states: "All too often, wildlife managers mistakenly rely on single species management paradigms that seek to naively manage wildlife for statis; a goal that is never achievable, and in reality, is not desirable. While conservation is often given lip service by these same state game agencies,almost all management of large carnivores is focused on killing carnivores through sport take, or broad efforts of Wildlife Services or other vector control agencies. This is why over the last decade, conservation biologists, such as myself, have focused on using spatial models thatinform conservation at relevant spatial scales (tens of thousands of km2) as my colleagues and I have done for over 40,000 km2of the Southern California landscape for the cougar. Efforts that are focused on actual conservation of cougars and not simplistic models of moderating lethal take. Conservation strategies, I might add, that have as its explicit goals the preservation of cougars within a functioning ecosystem while reducing conflicts with humans".............."Many game managers and wildlife services expend considerable energy ignoring the best available science that clearly demonstrates efforts to manage predators by broad lethal efforts, fails. It is astounding that we have failed to heed the sound and evidence basedrecommendations of such revered scientists, as was part of the Cain Report and not shifted our focus away from costly and ineffective predator control programs to efforts that focus onremoving the offending predator. It is disappointing that we find ourselves unwilling to movefrom severely failed management schemes to more cost effective and ecologically relevant ones"..........Read the full letter below

click here to read entire letter(LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES  commenting on NRA'S position on Predator Control

WILD EARTH GUARDIANS is bringing to our attention truly concerning news about House Republicans efforts to pass legislation which would prohibit species listings and habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act................They are looking to fund the USFW Service only if the funds directed to the Service are not utilized to list endangered species and to create critical habitat for these species...............INSANITY RUNS AMUCK IN OUR GOVERNMENT............WORSE THAN ANYTIME IN THE 50 YEARS I HAVE BEEN ON THE PLANET...........OUR PRESIDENT SHOWS NO GUTS IN FOLLOWING THROUGH ON HIS POSITIVE WORDS ABOUT LAND AND WILDLIFE ISSUES WHILE OUR NEW CONGRESS IS DAILY CRAFTING BILLS TO GUT 50 YEARS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS(THOSE GAINS THROUGH BI-PARTISAN EFFORTS)

Tell Your Representative Not to Gut the ESA

The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is on the warpath. Their target? Our nation's most imperiled species. 

 In the latest of a series of attacks on imperiled wildlife in Congress, the House Appropriations Committee voted in favor of legislation that would prohibit species listings and habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. The bill is now scheduled to go before the entire House for approval. Tell your Representative now – do not pass this damaging bill.

House Republicans propose to fund the Fish and Wildlife Service only if those funds are not used to list imperiled species as endangered or threatened or to designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. They want to shut down the listing program.

This bill is a blatant, wide-reaching attempt to strip away the environmental protections that safeguard our country's natural resources under the guise of fiscal responsibility.  The House of Representatives is not solving budget problems – they are creating environmental problems. And it will cost us in human health, clean air and water, and biodiversity.

Tell your Representatives that the vast majority of Americans support the Endangered Species Act, and we expect them to defend the act from these nefarious attacks. Along with restrictions on funding for imperiled species, the bill would prohibit judicial review of a reckless plan that would allow Wyoming wolves to be shot on sight. It would also prohibit review of possible wolf delisting in any state within the range of the Great Lakes wolf.

The bill would also slash funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.It includes legislative riders that would relax greenhouse gas regulations and restrictions on mountaintop removal, pesticide pollution in rivers and streams, and coal ash. It would even allow uranium mining in the Grand Canyon!

Given the backlog of hundreds of imperiled species waiting for federal protection, the Service needs more resources to combat the extinction crisis, not less.

Contact your Representative and demand that the current policy of giving handouts to polluters and special interests must be replaced with full funding for endangered species conservation. We need their commitment to following sound science and protecting our natural heritage.

For the Wild,


Taylor Jones
Endangered Species Advocate
WildEarth Guardians
tjones@wildearthguardians.org

Instead of the current archaic, ineffective and "band-aid" approach that USFW has used forever in listing threatened and endangered species( of which there is a growing and endlesss number of worthy candidates), it is time to start listing entire watersheds as endangered so that we can get on with actually perpetuating and sustaining systems of life across the Planet.................This type of Ecosystem approach to conservation runs so counter to the current Republican Congress efforts of trying to gut the ESA(see previous post from Wild EARTH Guardians for further details)

 

Fish and Wildlife Won't List Threatened Whitebark Pine as Endangered

After 12-month study, officials acknowledge the tree key to grizzly habitat warrants protection, but decide funds and other priorities won't allow listing.

By New West Editor

	A dead whitebark pine tree near Daisy Pass, MT. Photo by Whitney Leonard for NRDC.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Department this week announced its conclusions from a 12-month study prompted by a petition to list the whitebark pine as endangered: The tree is threatened and deserves protection, but it won't get that this time around. The department's announcement explained that "after review of all available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing P. albicaulis as threatened or endangered is warranted. However, currently listing [whitebark pine] is precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants."

Instead, the tree will be added as a candidate to the species list, with a "proposed rule" to revisit listing it as endangered "as our priorities and funding will allow."

The study was prompted by a petition filed in 1991 by the Missoula-based Great Bear Foundation, which indicated then the species was in rapid decline thanks to mountain pine beetles, whitpine blister rust and fire suppression. The USFWS, in its latest report, said that "after reviewing the petition, we found that the petitioner had not presented substantial information indicating that listing [whitebark pine] may be warranted." That was the department's conclusion in 1994, which was published in the federal registry.

New West put a call into the foundation and will update if and when it's returned.
In 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council took up the cause, officially, when it petitioned for both endangered status and "critical habitat" designation. Although USFWS signaled that the NRDC had provided information, including climate change data, that the earlier petition lacked, it ruled in 2009 against an emergency listing to temporarily list whitebark pine. Among its reasons: a lack of staffing and budget limitations.

The NRDC then decided to sue, citing a 90-day rule missed by the USFWS to respond correctly to the NRDC's original petition. At that point, the USFWS launched a 90-day review that shed some hope on those hoping the species would get protections. Last year, the department, based on information provided in the petition, concluded that a listing for whitebark pine "might be warranted" and opened the process up for public comment. The latest finding is the result of that. According to the report, "We reviewed the information provided in NRDC's petition, information available in our files, other available published and unpublished information, and information received from the public. Additionally, we consulted with recognized Federal and non-Federal Pinus albicaulis experts, plant pathologists, and plant geneticists. All information received has been carefully considered in this finding."

For more about the whitebark pine, its role in bear habitat, as well as what losing it will mean beyond bears, see New West's story, "Grizzlies Only Scratch the Surface of What It Will Mean to Lose the Whitebark Pine."

Editor's Note: This post has been corrected to reflect the accurate name of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Colorado habitat restoration plan sounds positve if in fact trophic/keystone/apex carnivores are allowed to engage in the benefits of a more dense population of deer, elk and Bighorns.............Will that ever be the case with our State Game Commissions so dominated by Ranching and ungulate hunting Groups?

Wildlife will benefit from forest habitat project

Forest Service will rejuvenate 46,500 acres of winter range for deer, elk, bighorn sheep

Scott Condon

ASPEN — Deer, elk, bighorn sheep and other wildlife will get a boost from a 10-year project that state and federal officials say is unprecedented in the Roaring Fork Valley.

The U.S. Forest Service is going to revitalize winter range on 45,600 acres of the White River National Forest. Most of the work will be done in areas surrounding Aspen, Basalt and Carbondale. A small amount will occur in Glenwood Canyon.

White River National Forest supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams said it's rare that the agency is able to plan a habitat improvement project of this scale. It's necessary, he said, because "We've removed fire" as a factor in maintaining habitat. As a result, sections of aspen forests, oak brush and other browsing vegetation provide limited value to big game.

"Maybe to the untrained eye it doesn't look bad or degraded," Fitzwilliams said, but biologists and wildlife experts have found otherwise.

Kevin Wright, district wildlife manager in the Aspen area for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, said the problem is particularly bad in winter range — areas deer, elk and bighorn sheep depend on to survive the cold, snowy weather. The vegetation is overbrowsed, and it provides limited nutritional value.

There is a healthy elk population in the Roaring Fork Valley, but there are signs of trouble, Wright said. There are roughly 35 calves born per 100 cows; the rate should be about 48 to 52 calves per 100 cows, he said. Degraded habitat likely plays a role in that reduced birth rate, Wright said.


Fitzwilliams said the Forest Service needed to look at a project on a broad scale to make a significant difference for wildlife. Winter range on public lands is increasingly important because of the development of private lands in the valley, he said.

The agency will use prescribed fire in some areas, mechanical treatment by hand crews or with machines called hydroaxes in other areas, and a blend of the two methods elsewhere. Fitzwilliams likened the hydroaxe to "a lawnmower on steroids."

The first phases are expected to be undertaken late this summer and early in the fall. About 200 acres of oak brush, and pinion and juniper trees will be thinned in the Avalanche Creek area, east of Filoha Meadows in the Crystal River Valley. That project will improve habitat for bighorn sheep.

Another part of the first phase will be treatment on Arbaney Mesa, about a half-mile east of the summit of the popular Arbaney-Kittle Trail at Holland Hills. That will benefit primarily deer, Wright said.

Budget figures weren't immediately available from the Forest Service. The state Wildlife Division will provide funding. The Forest Service will also seek grants from sportsman's groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Fitzwilliams said.

Roughly 50 percent of the 46,500-acre project will use prescribed fire to rejuvenate habitat, according to wildlife biologist Phil Nyland, project leader for the Forest Service. Another 40 percent will use a blend of fire and mechanical treatment, he said. The balance will be mechanical treatment.

Fitzwilliams said the Forest Service must crank up the education effort about the need and benefits of the project because there will be effects on humans, from visual changes to smoke in the air.

Fitzwilliams said he anticipates a reaction along the lines of: "Why are you setting fire when Smokey Bear says don't do that?"

The Forest Service must set fires within a short window when wet conditions help prevent a fire from spreading but also when targeted vegetation is dry enough to burn. The agency also must carefully plan how the smoke will affect the valley.

"The smoke management is one of the biggest things," he said.

More information on the project is available at www.fs.usda.gov/whiteriver. Navigate to "Land & Resource Management" and then to "Projects."

Whether it be the whitebark pine in the Northern Rockies or Hemlocks in the Appalachians, our important mast and shelter trees throughout the Americas are under dual siege from both climate change and chemicals in the air................How many species have to go "belly up" before Griz hit the wall out West and Black Bears sink to unsustainable levels in the East?

Invasive Pests: Coming Soon to a Tree Near You!

by David A. Orwig

New England has an expansive landscape filled with a wealth of almost 33 million acres of forests. The trees that comprise these woods, wetlands, town forests, community parks, and back yards provide important habitat, store valuable carbon, help provide clean air and water, and of course yield a variety of wood products. Global transportation and human actions have helped introduce forest pests into many portions of the U.S., transforming forests and communities by leading to tree decline and mortality. This article focuses on several important forest pests that are already present or likely will enter New England woodlands soon (hemlock woolly adelgid, elongate hemlock scale, Asian longhorned beetle, and emerald ash borer).

Our beautiful eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) trees, capable of surviving decades in deep shade and centuries in our forests, provide irreplaceable habitat for a variety of wildlife species in forests, along streams, and in back yards. The aromatic branches on these evergreens are currently under siege from two different invasive hemlock pests, the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA; Tsuga canadenis) and the elongate hemlock scale (EHS; Fiorinia externa). HWA, an aphid-like insect, entered the US during the 1950s while EHS entered during the early 1900s. Since then both pests spread to the north and south and infest hemlock throughout most of the eastern U.S. north to Maine. The HWA has two generations per year and is found on the underside of hemlock branches where it settles and feeds at the base of the needles. In winter through mid-summer, HWA is easily seen due to the white woolly material that encloses the adults and protects the 50 – 150 eggs that each insect is capable of producing

Over time the insect drains the reserves of the tree and results in needle loss, branch loss, and mortality within four to ten years. Fortunately, New England receives cold winter temperatures that often dip below -20^oC (- 4^oF), leading to HWA mortality and temporary population declines. Often when looking at hemlock branches for HWA, another pest is also seen on the needles themselves, the EHS. This scale insect has one generation per year in New England, feeds directly on the needle with a piercing mouthpart, and is covered by a waxy protective cover .  EHS often co-occurs with HWA but rarely kills hemlock when feeding alone on the tree.

Two pests particularly damaging to our hardwood trees are also lurking in or nearby our forests. The Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB; Anoplophora glabripennis) a pest native to China and Korea, feeds on over 20 different hardwood hosts, especially maple (Acer) and aspen (Populus) species. This large insect (Figure 3) lays eggs under the bark of tree boles and branches that develop into large, wood feeding larvae inside the tree that eventually develop over one to two years into adult beetles that eat their way out, leaving a large, circular exit hole (Figure 4). Trees can survive even heavy ALB infestation for at least five to six years, but extended infestations on the same tree would eventually lead to the tree falling apart. A widespread infestation of ALB was recently found in Worcester, MA in 2008 that infested thousands of maple trees along streets and in yards, and for the first time in North America, spread and infested close-canopied forests.

The emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis), a beetle also native to Asia, feeds exclusively on our native ash (Fraxinus) trees. First detected in Michigan in 2002, it has since spread to southern Canada and portions of 15 other states, including southern New York. EAB lays eggs in the bark of ash trees which develop into larvae that bore into the tree and eat the inner bark and phloem, creating "S"-shaped galleries along the way and interrupting the flow of nutrients and water within the tree. The larvae overwinter as pupae and emerge as adults the following spring, leaving a characteristic "D" –shaped exit hole. Trees usually die within two to four years of heavy EAB infestation and over ten million ash tree have already succumbed in North America.

ALB and EAB can literally transform neighborhoods – sobering before and after photos along streets infested with these insects are eerily reminiscent of the once American elm (Ulmus americana)-lined streets wiped out by Dutch Elm disease early in the 20^th Century. Clearly, awareness and early detection are critical for minimizing the impact these pests have on neighborhoods and in forests. A dramatic case in point is the recent find of ALB in the parking lot of Faulkner Hospital near Boston, MA, where it was restricted to only six trees. In contrast, ALB flourished undetected for at least ten years in Worcester, MA and lead to the removal of almost 30,000 trees and the chemical treatment of over 100,000 additional non-infested host trees. In addition, preventative measures like not moving infested wood cannot be overstated! Firewood movement has lead to the widespread, long-distance dispersal of EAB well outside the original quarantined boundary of EAB infestation and is a major vector of EAB and many other pests.

These are but a few of the pests that infest or threaten our precious trees in New England. Many others are out there like winter moth (Operophtera brumata), a pest that feeds on many oak (Quercus) trees in coastal regions of New England and European wood wasp (Sirex noctilio) which feeds on North American Pine (Pinus) species and is currently found in western New York State. To find out more about these various pests, how to treat host trees, and/or to report an invasive pest, the following websites are particularly useful:  http://www.aphis.usda.gov/, www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp, and  http://www.emeraldashborer.info/.

David Orwig has been a forest ecologist at Harvard Forest since 1997. His research interests encompass all aspects of forest ecology, with particular emphasis on old-growth forest dynamics, dendroecology, and the role of land use history and disturbance on forest structure and composition. These approaches have recently been used to examine forest damage, environmental changes, and related ecosystem processes associated with hemlock woolly adelgid outbreaks in New England hemlock forests. David may be reached at orwig@fas.harvard.edu

Despite what Montana Wildlife has to say about a sustainable upcoming half year Wolf hunt,THE HOWLING FOR JUSTICE BLOGSITE stated accurately in what is likely to be the result of the upcoming "killing frenzy".......... "The Federal Wildlife Services Unit killed 141 wolves last year (MT FWP2010 report) and 145 wolves in 2009, so I don't expect them to slow down this year. Add that to the 220 wolf hunt quota for 2011 and it makes things even harder for wolves...............220 plus 140 equals 360 dead wolves. What about the new pups of this year? We all know the answer to that"..... Dead adults mean unborn wolves or pups who die due to lack of adult supervision.............We could see the Montana Wolf population plummet to 196 animals from the 556 on the ground today............."Why did we bring them back if all we want to do is destroy them?"

FWP approves hunt of 220 wolves

 Daniel Person

BIG SKY -- Montana will allow hunters to take 220 wolves during the fall hunting season, the state's wildlife commission decided this morning.

During its meeting at this mountain resort south of Bozeman, the five-member Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks commission voted unanimously to approve the hunting quota that would reduce Montana's gray wolf population to at least 425 during what one FWP official called the state's "first full-fledged wolf hunt."

Currently, at least 556 wolves live in Montana, though the actually population is believed to be as much as 30 percent higher than that.

After the wolf was taken off the endangered species list in 2009, the state had a hunt that allowed 75 wolves to be killed. But a successful lawsuit opposing the delisting prevented a 2010 hunt. An act of Congress this year has taken Montana wolves back off the list, opening the door to the hunt.

Most of the hunting will occur in northwest Montana, where as many of 123 wolves will be allowed to be killed. In southwest Montana, 43 wolves will be allowed to be killed. The remainder will be allowed to be killed in the Dillon and Bitterroot areas.

Before approving the 220 wolf quota, commissioners tweaked the plan in hopes of reducing the toll the hunt would take on two packs in the Gardiner area that split their time between Montana and Yellowstone National Park. The park had requested that FWP design the hunt to minimize the number of Yellowstone wolves killed.

A cornerstone and consistant theme of this Blog is that Apex/keystone/trophic carnivores(predators) are the axis/"franchise players" that must be part of any natural system for optimum health to occur and for ecosystem services to be fulfilled.............Trophic Carnivores(predators) are the "#3 and #4 hitters" in natures design.........Critical for successful rewilding across the spectrum of natural systems(terrestrial as well as aquatic)..............U. of California(Santa Cruz) Ecologist James Estes et al just published another definitive peer reviewed article on this all-so-important topic in the July 15 issue of SCIENCE(you can click and read entire article at end of this posting)

Loss of Large Predators Has Caused Widespread Disruption of Ecosystems

The decline of large predators and other "apex consumers" at the top of the food chain has disrupted ecosystems all over the planet, according to a review of recent findings conducted by an international team of scientists and published in the July 15 issue of Science. The study looked at research on a wide range of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems and concluded that "the loss of apex consumers is arguably humankind's most pervasive influence on the natural world.



According to first author James Estes, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, large animals were once ubiquitous across the globe, and they shaped the structure and dynamics of ecosystems. Their decline, largely caused by humans through hunting and habitat fragmentation, has had far-reaching and often surprising consequences, including changes in vegetation, wildfire frequency, infectious diseases, invasive species, water quality, and nutrient cycles.

The decline of apex consumers has been most pronounced among the big predators, such as wolves and lions on land, whales and sharks in the oceans, and large fish in freshwater ecosystems. But there have also been dramatic declines in populations of many large herbivores, such as elephants and bison. The loss of apex consumers from an ecosystem triggers an ecological phenomenon known as a "trophic cascade," a chain of effects moving down through lower levels of the food chain.

"The top-down effects of apex consumers in an ecosystem are fundamentally important, but it is a complicated phenomenon," Estes said. "They have diverse and powerful effects on the ways ecosystems work, and the loss of these large animals has widespread implications."

Estes and his coauthors cite a wide range of examples in their review, including the following:

• The extirpation of wolves in Yellowstone National Park led to over-browsing of aspen and willows by elk, and restoration of wolves has allowed the vegetation to recover.
• The reduction of lions and leopards in parts of Africa has led to population outbreaks and changes in behavior of olive baboons, increasing their contact with people and causing higher rates of intestinal parasites in both people and baboons.
• A rinderpest epidemic decimated the populations of wildebeest and other ungulates in the Serengeti, resulting in more woody vegetation and increased extent and frequency of wildfires prior to rinderpest eradication in the 1960s.
• Dramatic changes in coastal ecosystems have followed the collapse and recovery of sea otter populations; sea otters maintain coastal kelp forests by controlling populations of kelp-grazing sea urchins.
• The decimation of sharks in an estuarine ecosystem caused an outbreak of cow-nosed rays and the collapse of shellfish populations.

Despite these and other well-known examples, the extent to which ecosystems are shaped by such interactions has not been widely appreciated. "There's been a tendency to see it as idiosyncratic and specific to particular species and ecosystems," Estes said. One reason for this is that the top-down effects of apex predators are difficult to observe and study. "These interactions are invisible unless there is some perturbation that reveals them," Estes said. "With these large animals, it's impossible to do the kinds of experiments that would be needed to show their effects, so the evidence has been acquired as a result of natural changes and long-term records."

Estes has been studying coastal ecosystems in the North Pacific for several decades, doing pioneering work on the ecological roles of sea otters and killer whales. In 2008, he and coauthor John Terborgh of Duke University organized a conference on trophic cascades, which brought together scientists studying a wide range of ecosystems. The recognition that similar top-down effects have been observed in many different systems was a catalyst for the new paper.

The study's findings have profound implications for conservation. "To the extent that conservation aims toward restoring functional ecosystems, the reestablishment of large animals and their ecological effects is fundamental," Estes said. "This has huge implications for the scale at which conservation can be done. You can't restore large apex consumers on an acre of land. These animals roam over large areas, so it's going to require large-scale approaches."


The paper's coauthors include 24 scientists from various institutions in six countries. Support for the study was provided by the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science, Defenders of Wildlife, White Oak Plantation, U.S. National Science Foundation, NSERC Canada, and NordForsk.

click here to read full Estes et al TROPHIC DOWNGRADING AND PLANET EARTH

As we Posted the other day, New York State has petitioned the USFW to keep the Gray Wolf federally listed throughout its Eastern range where it is not yet recovered............They are fine with Great Lakes Gray Wolves being delisted because of their populations being robust and continuous through Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan............However, New York and New England have the potential for a Gray Wolf rewilding while not yet a reality..............USFW agrees with Biologists David Mech, Jon Way, Brent Patterson, Linda Rutledge and the full Trent U. team of geneticists and biologists in that the Eastern Wolf is its own species and not a subspecies of the Gray Wolf......The USFW wants to delist the gray wolf in NY and New England and potentially(but not guaranteeing)institute a rewilding plan for the Eastern wolf.............Controversy abounds as the 3 Great Lakes States seek to delist their Wolves which the USFW are saying are a varying population of both Gray and Eastern Wolves.........Will this mean that the delisting requires these States to have a management plan and minimum populations of both Gray and Red wolves?.............. ....From a conservation standpoint, Mech states: "It's nice to know what the origins are(Gray wolves and Eastern wolves) from the standpoint of curiosity, but from a conservation standpoint, it shouldn't make any difference"(as it relates to delisting and managing this "canis soup" swirl of wolf in our Great Lakes region

L. David Mech, senior research scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Northern Prairie Research Center in St. Paul, Minn., and founder of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn., is skeptical of the theory that eastern wolves are hybrids.

"How do you reconcile this with the fact that gray wolves typically don't breed with coyotes, but kill them?" Mech said. "We have no records in the West of wolves hybridizing with coyotes, even in areas where single wolves looking for mates have dispersed into the middle of coyote country."

Mech also questioned whether the study(kays et al) tested enough Canadian and North Carolina wolves and whether those specimens were true representatives of those populations. Although 48,000 genetic markers sounds like a lot, it's actually a relatively small part of the entire genetic code, Mech said. So the evidence of a unique eastern wolf ancestor could simply be in another part of the code that wasn't analyzed, he said.

Several researchers who consider the eastern wolf species separate from the gray wolf weighed in recently in an online discussion of the new study. Brent Patterson, a genetics researcher at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, called the study "an important step forward." But until more samples are analyzed, the hypothesis that a North American wolf evolved independently from the gray wolf was still viable, he said.

"It's an academic issue," Mech said. "It's nice to know what the origins are from the standpoint of curiosity, but from a conservation standpoint, it shouldn't make any difference."

David Rabon, coordinator of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Red Wolf Recovery Program in North Carolina, said the federal agency has taken the position that the red wolf is a unique species that warrants protection. The new study, while interesting, won't likely change management decisions, he said.


click here to read Dr. Roland Kays letter to USFW supporting federal delisting of wolves in the Great Lakes States as well as calling for a review of restoration potential through the Northern Appalachians where suitable habitat exists...............Roland is a proponent of the theory that Eastern Wolves are a subspecies of Gray Wolves and not a distinct species unto themselves

Wolverines hopefully will receive ENDANGERED SPECIES STATUS toward the end of fiscal year 2013 due to the strong efforts made by our friends at WILD EARTH GUARDIANS AND THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY................At least another 100 animals are thought to be needed in the USA(400 in total) for the species to have the population reserves to withstand virulent disease, climate change and other habitat and environmental challenges..................Pound for pound our most formidable carnivore and once occupying Northern tier States Coast to Coast, 300 individuals cling to a broad patchwork of habitat across the Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest

Wolverines, sage grouse gain 2nd shot at protection
Agreement could grant endangered-species listings

---

By KATHERINE WUTZ

 

A wolverine is photographed by a remote camera in February 2010 as part of a Sawtooth National Recreation Area study. Photo courtesy of SNRA

Wolverines could get another shot at federal protection, thanks to a revised plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that places the species near the top of a list of species to be considered for protection. The work plan is part of an ongoing litigation battle with advocacy group WildEarth Guardians, headquartered in Santa Fe, N.M. The service attempted to settle the suit in early May by announcing a plan that would allow it to more effectively address the status of species that have been identified as needing protection under the Endangered Species Act.

A challenge from endangered species advocates at the Center for Biological Diversity stalled the settlement and sent the service back to the drawing board to address what the center called "serious flaws" in the service's plan. The new work plan provides more specific guidelines for when the service will review the status of individual species and determine whether federal protections are warranted. Nicole Rosmarino, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians, said the new agreement would require the service to either list or make "not-warranted" findings for 261 species, as well as filing 90-day and 12-month findings (preliminary reports on species proposed for listing) for a total of 646 species.

The agreement provides specific time frames on listing proposals and final listing rules for about 40 species, most of which were included in the May agreement. But this week's agreement provides further certainty for these species at risk by including additional deadlines. The goal of the new plan, according to a service press release, is to "provide state wildlife agencies, stakeholders and the public clarity and certainty about when listing determinations will be made."

If approved by the court, the plan would allow the service to work through a backlog of petitions for species listings under the Endangered Species Act. According to the service, more than 1,230 petitions have been filed since 2007.

The North American wolverine will be considered by the end of fiscal year 2013, placing it near the top of a list of over 250 species the service will consider over the next six years. The service denied wolverines federal protection last December, choosing instead to list them as "candidate species." Like other candidate species such as the sage grouse, wolverines were designated as in need of protection, but the service's limited resources led it to address other more threatened species first. An estimated 300 wolverines remain in the western part of the United States. Biologists estimate that a minimum of 400 breeding pairs nationwide is required to keep the animals from extinction.