Marc Bekoff accurately depicts the general tendencies heard and seen in the reporting of wild anima; stories on network and local tv newscasts------Oftentimes, Reporters flagrantly misrepresent what's actually happening to the animals(when surrounded by humans or in situations that could involve their death) ,,,,,,,,,,,,mocking making jokes about the obvious fear and stress that the animal is clearly feeling--------Case in point is the St. Louis Zoo story that surfaced this past week regarding the Raccoon that found itself trapped in a monkey pit, being thrashed and tossed about -----Thankfully, the Raccoon escaped but the Reporters showed no empathy for the creature and in fact suggested that they would like to see the raccoons in their backyards treated similarly-------------Marc accurately states that: "High profile people should set clear examples of generating respect, compassion, and empathy, rather than disrespect, for other animals"-----(click on the video link to have a look for yourself at the Reporters flippant commentary)

Do animals think and feel?

by Marc Bekoff

Animals In the Media: Flagrant Misrepresentation--Norah O'Donnell and Anthony Mason laugh as a raccoon is tormented by chimpanzees

 

While things seem to be slowly getting better, nonhuman animals (animals) often get a bad rap in the media. A sensationalist video of chimpanzees tormenting and tossing around a raccoon at the St. Louis Zoo is a good example of just what we don't need on television, namely, the flagrant misrepresentation of what's actually happening and the fear and stress the raccoon is clearly feeling.
To begin, news anchor Norah O'Donnell laughs about the "monkey business" that's occurring seemingly ignorant of the fact that chimpanzees are not monkeys. Sure, the lead-in to the story is cute, but chimpanzees and monkeys are taxonomically quite distinct and chimpanzees do not have tails.

Raccoon being thrashed in the Monkey Pit at St. Louis Zoo

 

          But it gets worse when both O'Donnell and Anthony Mason giggle at the torment and the fear that the raccoon is clearly displaying, and Mason laughingly says at the end of the video, "I've wanted to do that to some of the raccoons in my backyard." I'm glad that he seems not to have had the opportunity and joy of tormenting the animals into whose home he moved.

 

I have a good sense of humor, as do the people who alerted me to this story, but I didn't find the coverage of this encounter to be especially humorous. Indeed, while it appeared that the chimpanzees might have at first been playing with the raccoon, if it had gone on longer their excitement could easily have escalated into a full-blown attack. And, if the raccoon were a dog, I assume/hope O'Donnell and Mason would have had a different reaction although raccoons are no less sentient than dogs or other mammals. And, neither are raccoons rag dolls to be flung here and there to be laughed at.

The media should cultivate respect, compassion, and empathy for other animals

Animals depend on our knowing about who they are and what's happening in their lives and I found this video to be rather troubling not only because of the danger to which the raccoon was subjected but also because of the cavalier - some might say arrogant - attitude of the news anchors. High profile people should set clear examples of generating respect, compassion, and empathy, rather than disrespect, for other animals.

Raccoon seeking escape from Monkees at St Louis Zoo

That's not really asking too much.
An animal fearing for his or her life and animal suffering in general are not entertainment and should never ever be ridiculed.
You can watch a video about this horrific incident here. This truly is no laughing  matter.

Christine Wilcox writing her NRDC blog laments the fact that the Avalanche Peak Trail in Yellowstone Park which once harbored Grizzlies, seems to be devoid of this species currently due to the demise of one of their key foodstuffs--Whitebark Pine seeds----Global warming has enabled the native Pine Bark Beetle to up the ante on the trees---As Christine writes: "This is not a new species of beetle; it has been around for thousands of years and has coevolved with lodgepole pine at lower elevations"............ "During this coevolution, successive generations of lodgepole pine trees developed physiological and chemical defense mechanisms to prevent fatal beetle infestation"......... "Whitebark pine trees grow at higher elevations and have not changed significantly in an evolutionarily sense, because until recently there was no such threat to their survival"............ "What's new is that the warmer temperatures have allowed the beetles to survive the winters affording the beetles the opportunity to invade trees in higher elevation areas as a result"............ "Combined with the fact that whitebark pine trees have fewer defense mechanisms against pine beetle attacks than other trees, we are left with a forest of firs, spruces, lodgepole, and a bunch of dead whitebark pine trees"..............."As we approach the petition by the government to again de-list the grizzly bear as a threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act as early as 2014, we know that the current status and predicted future of whitebark pine trees is an important factor".............. "Unfortunately, not everyone is listening to that information"........ "Some are carelessly assuming that the grizzly bear as a flexible omnivore will adapt to this widespread loss of a key food source"........... "It is estimated that at least 70% of all whitebark pines in Yellowstone have been lost in the last decade or so to beetle infestation".......... "With no end in sight to global warming trends, it is possible that we will functionally lose this species in the Yellowstone ecosystem entirely, perhaps even within the next century"-----Will the "Griz" be able to adapt????????????

The Ghost Forests of Whitebark Pine

Christine Wilcox--NRDC blog

| Avalanche Peak, Yellowstone National Park:
 

A couple of weeks ago I had the awesome experience of hiking the Avalanche Peak Trail in Yellowstone. It is definitely in my top ten favorite hikes. Having spent a lot of time in Utah hiking in places like Arches, San Rafael Swell, Goblin Valley, Great Basin, and the Wasatch and Uintah mountains, that's saying a lot. At the summit of this immense peak, I saw the most expansive and breath-taking views of this particular ecosystem type ever.

The wildlife we encountered included squirrels, chipmunks, and birds such as Clark's nutcrackers which are critical for the dispersal and germination of whitebark pine seeds. We saw tracks from a bighorn sheep on the slope just below the ridge and a young mule deer buck resting in a shady patch under a tree. The animals that were starkly missing from this wildlife landscape were grizzlies. As little as ten years ago, this would have been prime grizzly habitat and hikers would have done well to keep a keen eye out for any bear signs, make noise so as not to surprise a bear, and assure their can of bear spray was on hand and easily accessible. We still followed these precautions, but we knew it was unlikely that we would see a bear that day and this is why: most of the key food source for grizzlies in this area is dead. And I mean, almost completely gone.

In the midst of the surrounding beauty was the evidence of death everywhere you looked. We walked through hundreds of dead trees, and could see thousands from the summit. The most curious of these areas were ones where multiple types of evergreens were growing – fir trees, spruces, lodgepole pine, and mixed in were hundreds of dead whitebark pine trees. How did they die? Why did the other types of trees survive? The answer is one of the best examples of a species range changing in direct response to climate change currently known: the invasion of the pine bark beetle.

This is not a new species of beetle; it has been around for thousands of years and has coevolved with lodgepole pine at lower elevations. During this coevolution, successive generations of lodgepole pine trees developed physiological and chemical defense mechanisms to prevent fatal beetle infestation. Whitebark pine trees grow at higher elevations and have not changed significantly in an evolutionarily sense, because until recently there was no such threat to their survival. What's new is that the warmer temperatures have allowed the beetles to survive the winters affording the beetles the opportunity to invade trees in higher elevation areas as a result. Combined with the fact that whitebark pine trees have fewer defense mechanisms against pine beetle attacks than other trees, we are left with a forest of firs, spruces, lodgepole, and a bunch of dead whitebark pine trees.

So how does this affect the presence of grizzly bears? It has been well-documented by scientists and biological researchers that whitebark pine seeds are one of the four main food sources for grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park. Long-time entomologist studying whitebark pine, Jesse Logan formerly of the United States Forest Service, Colorado State University, and Virginia Polytech Institute and State University explained the factors that led to such a widespread killing spree. Jesse's vast knowledge and experience, his humble and confident personality, and his entertaining anecdotes created an intriguing and inspiring learning adventure.

 Along with Adam Markham, president of Clean Air – Cool Planet, we spent the day learning about the tell-tale J-shaped entry tracks of the beetle, how it takes 70 to 100 years for whitebark pine trees to begin producing cones (and therefore seeds for animals to eat), the visual difference between a beetle-killed tree with the ghostly terminal branches remaining and a fire-killed tree without the fluffy gray appearance, and how the pine beetle has sped up its reproductive cycle in response to warmer winters. The most alarming fact is how quickly the beetle epidemic has taken out whitebark pine trees and therefore dramatically reduced the availability of a key grizzly bear food source.

As we approach the petition by the government to again de-list the grizzly bear as a threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act as early as 2014, we know that the current status and predicted future of whitebark pine trees is an important factor. Unfortunately, not everyone is listening to that information. Some are carelessly assuming that the grizzly bear as a flexible omnivore will adapt to this widespread loss of a key food source. It is estimated that at least 70% of all whitebark pines in Yellowstone have been lost in the last decade or so to beetle infestation. With no end in sight to global warming trends, it is possible that we will functionally lose this species in the Yellowstone ecosystem entirely, perhaps even within the next century.

 

We Posted this past week regarding the fact that New York State has decided to expand their Bobcat trapping season by two months--what had been a Nov-Dec season now will become a 4 month November to Feb Trap season----Carter Niehmeyer helps to explain why this has occurred despite the objections of biologists and conservation organizations throughout the Empire State-------"Bobcat pelts are selling for hundreds of dollars apiece in recent years -----" larger ones in the range of $300-500, so there is a real interest by trappers to kill them"............ "Trapping is very effective because bobcats are curious and EXTREMELY vulnerable to traps and snares"...... "Traps don't even require concealment to catch bobcats since they will approach a bird wing or pie tin hanging from a string or any number of choices of scents including catnip and special blends of attractants"......... "No other North American fur species brings the financial reward that a bobcat pelt will"

From top to bottom:
-hunter killed bobcat -chased by hounds
-bobcat caught in leg trap
 

 

bobcat observing surroundings and bobcat in full out sprint

 

 

“If you kill a big adult male(PUMA), three male ‘teenagers’ will come to the funeral”.................. "The behavior of the youngsters is different from their older counterparts"........... “They’re teenagers,",,,,,,,,,,“They’re sexually mature, but mentally they are not all there.”............ "The adolescent cougars are more likely to get into trouble with humans and our livestock than are the more mature toms that want to stay away from danger"............ "As it happens, adolescent males have bigger territories than the adult males"........ "This means that livestock and elk might have to cope with either one mature tom or several adolescent males that replace him".......... "With multiple male cougars in an area, trouble is multiplied"............ "Cougar complaints, livestock kills and pet kills all actually increase with increasing hunting mortality of cougars".-------Robert Wielgus; Washington State University Large Carnivore Lab-------This Blog has discussed the insights of Wielgus's research before............ it is now a pleasure to know that as a result of his work, Washington State is going to limit cougar hunting to 14 percent of the cougar population(a % that will not tamp down the Puma's ability to survive, multiply and persist into the future)............ Once hunters have harvested that figure, hunting will be suspended in an area for the rest of the year............. “The results of this work are a win-win for cougars, livestock operators, and threatened prey species

 Managing cougar populations requires reproductive math


E. Kirsten Peters;spokesman.com



Science often takes a lot of time and work. Those were my thoughts when I learned of all that professor Robert Wielgus has done to research the complex behavior of wild cougars.


Wielgus is a member of the School of the Environment at Washington State University. For 13 years he and his graduate students captured hundreds of cougars with the help of hounds. They attached GPS collars to the cougars and then got reports six times a day on where the cougars were – giving Wielgus good information on cougar mortality, migration, prey and reproduction. Out of all that work has come new information on how cougar populations respond to hunting. That, in turn, will now lead to changes in how the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the hunting of cougars.

One of the clear results of Wielgus’ work is the evidence that if we kill too many cougars via hunting, we can end up having more conflict with cougar populations. That’s why, starting in January, Washington officials will use “equilibrium management” on cougar populations – hunters will only harvest as many individuals as would be replaced through natural reproduction.

Research shows that whether hunters kill 10 percent or 35 percent of the cougars in an area, the total population remains the same. In the old days people explained that result by saying high rates of hunting triggered a population to increase its reproductive rates. But the work of Wielgus and company showed that isn’t the case. Instead, young cougars move around – a lot – to fill the vacuum hunting can make.


Range of Pumas in Washington State

“If you kill a big adult male, three male ‘teenagers’ will come to the funeral,” Wielgus said to me.
The behavior of the youngsters is different from their older counterparts “They’re teenagers,” Wielgus said. “They’re sexually mature, but mentally they are not all there.”  The adolescent cougars are more likely to get into trouble with humans and our livestock than are the more mature toms that want to stay away from danger. As it happens, adolescent males have bigger territories than the adult males. This means that livestock and elk might have to cope with either one mature tom or several adolescent males that replace him. With multiple male cougars in an area, trouble is multiplied. Cougar complaints, livestock kills and pet kills all actually increase with increasing hunting mortality of cougars.

Young male cougars also change the behavior of female cougars. The adolescent males may kill a female’s kits to bring the female into heat so they can breed with her. Females may move to marginal ground like high elevations to get away from the young males. This puts pressure on sensitive and threatened game that otherwise would have little contact with cougars.

The bottom line of Wielgus’ research is that the state is going to limit cougar hunting to 14 percent of the cougar population. Once hunters have harvested that figure, hunting will be suspended in an area for the rest of the year. “The results of this work are a win-win for cougars, livestock operators, and threatened prey species,” Wielgus said.



Dr. E. Kirsten Peters, a native of the rural Northwest, was trained as a geologist at Princeton and Harvard. This column is a service of the College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resource Sciences at Washington State University.

For the Fish & Wildlife Jaguar critical habitat plan to be optimum, The Center for Biological Diversity is urging that the Gila and Apache National Forests in New Mexico and Arizona be added to the already proposed 830,000 acres in these two states.............Perhaps additional cooperation with Mexico linking their northern Sonora and Jalisco states to our southwest border states for optimum flow of Jaguar genes north and south

More on the Proposal to designate Jaguar Critical Habitat in Arizona and New Mexico

greenansers.com
Last month, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service put forward a proposal to protect 838,000 acres of land for jaguars. The land, spread across six sites in southern Arizona and New Mexico, will reintroduce the animals to the southwestern United States and will be a designated critical habitat for the endangered jaguars. The proposal comes after the Center for Biological Diversity obtained a court order in 2009 that directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a recovery plan for the jaguars.

“Jaguars once roamed across the United States, from California to Louisiana, but have been virtually extinct here since the 1950s,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Today's habitat proposal will ensure North America's largest cat returns to the wild mountains and deserts of the Southwest. Jaguars are a spectacular part of our natural heritage and belong to every American — just as surely as bald eagles, wolves and grizzly bears."

“You can’t protect endangered species without protecting the places they live,” he said. “Species with protected critical habitat recover twice as fast as those without it. This wild expanse of habitat is a huge boost to the return of jaguars to the American Southwest.”

Although jaguars’ habitat now ranges from Mexico to Argentina, the wild cats once were found mostly in North America, 60,000 years ago during the Pleistocene era. Federal and state government programs to capture and kill animal predators led to the elimination of jaguars from the region, but in the past twenty years, the large cats have started to repopulate the area. However, without critical habitat protection, the new jaguar colonies still were not safe: the last jaguar that crossed into the country from Mexico, a cat named Macho B, was killed in 2009. The government’s predator plan, which was carried out from 1918 to 1964, killed an estimated dozens of jaguars but focused on killing gray wolves and coyotes.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal is expected to be finalized within one year, and will grant jaguars protections in Arizona’s Pima, Cochise, and Santa Cruz counties and New Mexico’s Hidalgo County. The region is the northernmost part of the jaguars’ habitat, and jaguars in the region are considered a fringe species that cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Center for Biological Diversity has concentrated its efforts on protecting jaguars for the past two decades, and a lawsuit by the Center and petitions by scientists led to jaguars being listed as an endangered species in 1997. Ten years later, the American Society of Mammalogists joined the cause and determined that, due to climate change-induced alterations in jaguars’ natural habitat and ecosystem, the species’ survival depended on the establishment of a significant jaguar population in the United States.

Some conservationists believe that, in order for jaguars to secure the best chance of survival and recovery, some of the U.S. resources provided under the Endangered Species Act should be spent in Mexico, where jaguars are more abundant than they are in the United States. Resources provided to Mexico include tracking and surveying jaguars, particularly in the Jalisco and Sonora states, by photographing them instead of capturing and killing them.

Other conservationists believe that that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s plan is good, but wish it was implemented in more areas. “These sky island mountain ranges near the border with Mexico are vital for jaguars to move into the United States. But we propose adding the Gila and Apache national forests in, respectively, New Mexico and Arizona, where roads are few and prey plentiful, in order to provide habitat for more jaguars, which could genetically bolster the population in northern Mexico,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Read more: http://greenanswers.com/blog/288191/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-proposes-protected-land-jaguars#ixzz29UgpL7kV

"Since bobcats cause few conflicts with human interests or activities, we expect our actions to maintain populations at or above their current levels in eastern New York, while allowing for continued population growth in central and western New York"-------If this is in fact all true, then why is the NY State Dept. of Conservation allowing additional "Bobs" to be trapped over an elongated(from 2 month to 4 month) season spanning late October to mid Feb?

DEC goes ahead with bobcat plan


By MIKE LYNCH -adirondackdailyenterprise.com

of Environmental Conservation has adopted a controversial five-year bobcat management plan that drew more than 1,600 public comments earlier this year.The plan is the first of its kind to guide the management of this elusive animal and will help set hunting and trapping regulations.

The biggest change in the North Country is that the bobcat trapping season will be extended. It now runs from Oct. 25 to Dec. 25. The plan proposes to extend that season until Feb. 15. The change would make the bobcat trapping season the same as the current hunting season.

"The goal of this plan is not to reduce bobcat populations anywhere in the state, since bobcats cause few conflicts with human interests or activities," the management plan states. "We expect our actions to maintain populations at or above their current levels in eastern New York, while allowing for continued population growth in central and western New York."

The DEC estimates that there are about 5,000 bobcats in the state and believes that the population is growing. That number is based on monitoring in traditional bobcat habitats in the Adirondack, Catskill and Taconic mountains. It doesn't include many areas in central and western New York, where the population is growing.



The plan states that about 470 bobcats are taken by hunters and trappers annually and that that number is expected to increase by 150 in upcoming years due to changes in the plan and the growing populations. Eventually, the DEC estimates the population will stabilize at somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 animals. The population is expected to be limited more by geographical constraints than by harvests from hunters and trappers, according to the plan.

When the trapping season extension in the North Country was originally proposed, it was backed by the New York Conservation Council and New York State Trappers Association, but many members of the public and some environmental groups criticized it.

"If the object here, as DEC describes it, is to make administration of those two seasons easier for the department, we would have preferred to see the hunting season get a little shorter than the trapping season get longer," Adirondack Council spokesman John Sheehan said. "We are concerned that trapping this top predator twice as long this year as we have in the past may put a serious dent in its population."

Calls to the Conservation Council and Trappers Association were not immediately returned Wednesday.

The plan states that an average of 165 bobcats were taken annually by hunters and trappers between 2005 and 2010. Of those, 88 were taken by hunters, 77 were taken by trappers, and the other harvests were unknown.

The plan states that the DEC expects "minimal harvests" to occur due to the extended season because of the winter weather conditions.

"Few trappers can afford the time to maintain trap sets in remote areas of the Adirondacks," the plan states.

The plan also states that trapping seasons for fox, coyote, opossum, skunk and other fur bearers were extended in eight northern wilderness management units during the 2010-11 season and that a mail survey revealed that only 3 percent of trappers took advantage of the new opportunity.

"We expect a similar level of participation by bobcat trappers with the same season extension," the plan states.

A few facts about the Minnesota Wolf population and the upcoming Nov 3 hunt ------ "The wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping"......... "The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves"........ "This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season"............ "Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally"..........."Sound science tells us that this total of 1,000 wolves may very well put the whole population in jeopardy".......... "Just as happened in the past". ........"The best contemporary biology tells us that killing more than 30 percent of the population is the tipping point"..........." Have we learned nothing in the last half-century"?-----"These are not game animals"!!!!!!!---Howard Goldman is Minnesota state director of the Humane Society

It's a fragile restoration for wolves

by: HOWARD GOLDMAN
The hunting season betrays a compromise and is ill-advised.

Wolves are a storied part of our northern heritage -- the living symbol of wilderness.They are an apex predator. They have a role in our environment, and they are complex social creatures with a burning desire to live. Once, ranchers and hunters all but drove wolves to extinction. And now, thanks to misguided political gamesmanship, there is another assault on these noble creatures now that they have been removed from the list of federally protected species.

Most Minnesotans don't want wolves to be hunted, any more than they want eagles to be shot. More than 75 percent of respondents to a Department of Natural Resources survey taken earlier this year opposed the season that is scheduled to commence Nov. 3. Residents here know all too well that Minnesota's wolf restoration is fragile. These animals all but disappeared, and it took 38 years for the population to recover.

I was a member of the Natural Resources Department wolf roundtable that met in 1998. The working group included hunters, trappers, farmers, livestock producers, tribal organizations, environmental and animal-welfare groups. One very important element of the final plan was the agreement that there would be no public taking of wolves for five years after their population was removed from the federal endangered-species list.

Yet, here we are less than a year from the delisting of the Great Lakes wolf population, and a public hunting season is scheduled. What changed? During the government shutdown of 2011, the compromise five-year wait was stripped away by the Legislature. The State Capitol building was closed to the public when the final language was approved.

This is no proper foundation for hunting advocates to resume their shooting of wolves.This week the Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals asked the state of Minnesota as well as neighboring Wisconsin to postpone wolf hunting and trapping, because their wolf management plans are too severe. These groups served notice that they will file suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore federal protections for the Great Lakes wolves.

A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally.

Sound science tells us that this total of 1,000 wolves may very well put the whole population in jeopardy. Just as happened in the past. The best contemporary biology tells us that killing more than 30 percent of the population is the "tipping point." Have we learned nothing in the last half-century?

Some make the argument that killing wolves is necessary to protect cattle ranchers. Last year, only 91 cows or calves were killed by wolves. Each was verified by government inspectors. That's less than 1 percent of the 165,000 cows and calves living in wolf territory. Ranchers receive market-rate compensation for losses.

Under state management guidelines, ranchers can now legally shoot a wolf threatening their farm animals and pets. Government-approved trappers are also authorized to kill depredating wolves. And more than 250 have been killed so far this year. If depredations are not the basis for a hunt, why kill wolves? This is a sport season, pure and simple. Recreational killing.

One of the wonders of the 21st century is that we have learned anew to live with wolves, and that's the way it should remain. We must respect them and appreciate the vital ecological role they play. It's wrong and reckless to repeat our mistakes of the past, especially when so many creatures' lives hang in the balance.

Howard Goldman is Minnesota state director of the Humane Society

Our question of Jaguar or Ocelot snapped by a hunter near Tucson------JAGUAR!!!!-----thanks to all those who accurately stated Jaguar weeks ago

Photo snapped near Tucson depicts jaguar not ocelot .

Jennifer Thomas
azfamily.com

TUCSON, Ariz. -- The Arizona Game and Fish Department said a photo taken in late September depicts a jaguar not an ocelot.

The photo was captured by a hunter's trail camera southeast of Tucson, but identification of the species was more difficult because the photo shows only the tail and a small portion of its hindquarters, officials said.

"Analysis of the spot pattern on the tail as well as the animal's size when compared to the surrounding vegetation and to other animals led us to believe the photo showed a jaguar," said Game and Fish Nongame Branch Chief Eric Gardner. "Without biasing the results by announcing our in-house conclusions, we asked others that work with large cat conservation to weigh in because of the limited information the photo provided."

Jaguars once ranged from southern South America through Central America and Mexico and into the southern United States. It is believed that southern Arizona is the most northern part of the range for a population of jaguars living in Sonora, Mexico, and that the United States contains less than 1 percent of the jaguars' total habitat.

Both the jaguar and ocelot are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Sightings of both of these species are important to biologists. By knowing where these cats are seen, it helps increase the understanding of the species' existence in borderland areas.

The department asks anyone who encounters a cat believed to be a jaguar or ocelot to report the sighting along with photos if available to the department or through the Operation Game Thief hotline at 1-800-352-0700.

South Dakota typifies the very problem that wildlife restoration and perpetuation of species faces across our 50 States.............Instead of following the perscriptions put forward by trained wildlife biologists...........Politically biased appointments of State Game Commissioners by Governors who are beholden to Ranchers, Hunters and Business Interests combined with Wildlife Agencies being 100% funded by hunters, leads to wildlife decisions that are anything but good for our land!

Governor's office takes on a direct role in hunt management

By Bob Mercer     Black Hills Pioneer; bhpioneer.com

It is a matter of some intrigue that the Daugaard administration would start dispatching members of the governor's senior staff to meetings of the state Game, Fish and Parks Commission.Wildlife management is at issue, specifically regarding mountain lions, elk, deer and antelope. The order has come down that an outside consultant will be contracted.

The purpose will be to review and advise the state Wildlife Division on methods for estimating the populations of big-game animals in South Dakota, and shaping those populations through hunting pressure.
For some reason, people on the state Capitol's second floor now want to play God too, rather than just letting that up to the Division of Wildlife's trained biologists.

This situation has been building for several years. You catch only snippets, but over the months they have added up to a clear sense that at least some members of the commission, current and past, don't agree with the biologists.The Wildlife Division enjoyed loose reins for many years. There was sufficient support in the Legislature for the division to turn back attempts by some lawmakers to take tighter control.
That was especially so when John Cooper was the secretary of game, fish and parks in the Janklow and Rounds administrations, and Doug Hansen was director for the Wildlife Division.

People change, times change, and wildlife population changes, too.The commission granted more and more opportunities for hunters to take elk and deer by expanding the types of seasons. When populations became too large, limits were expanded, too, for deer and antelope.Mountain lions seem to be more numerous in the Black Hills than earlier thought. Lions are linked to troubles in the elk, deer, sheep and mountain goat numbers.

With the move to a 100-lion harvest in the Black Hills for 2013, the commission looks to be on a path to continue raising the annual quota for lions, until that quota isn't reached for the first time.We are at a point where sides are taking shape and accusations of conspiracy have replaced trust.GFP Secretary Jeff Vonk, a carry-over from the Rounds administration, came to the job from outside South Dakota. He spent much of his career in the federal sector of professional resource management.

In that light, perhaps it isn't surprising that the Daugaard administration now would consider seeking an outside consultant.John Cooper remains involved deeply, as a member now of the commission. Most, and perhaps all, of the senior leaders in the Wildlife Division including director Tony Leif began their rise as members of the staff during the Cooper era.Dating back to the Mickelson administration's push to increase pheasants, the past 25 years have seen a steady push from the Wildlife Division to expand hunting opportunities in South Dakota.

The list of more is long.Today we have too many Canada geese year-round, especially in the northeast, and too many turkeys for some folks in some places.For many years we had too many elk coming down from the Black Hills. We have white-tailed deer moving west. Depending on the year and the place, we can have too many deer and too many antelope.

As a continent we have too many snow geese and Canada geese — so many that some of the most liberalized hunting seasons we'll see in our lifetimes don't seem to be making a dent.
Meanwhile we struggle against disease and predators to stabilize populations of sheep and goats in the mountains.

It's "we" because wildlife belong to the people in South Dakota rather than to the landowners on whose properties they make their lives.The Wildlife Division has been able to engage in this propagation of species and the expansion of public hunting opportunities because of the millions of dollars that flow into South Dakota annually from non-resident pheasant hunters.It was a portion of these monies, set into reserve through the years, which paid for construction of the Outdoor Campus West facility in Rapid City.
That magnificent complex is symbolic of the freedom enjoyed by the Wildlife Division.

The state Division of Parks and Recreation budget comes under scrutiny and control by the Legislature. But the Wildlife Division doesn't.That is because of a case won by Gov. William J. Bulow in the 1920s, when the state Supreme Court took his side in a fight with the Legislature, over spending of fees collected for hunting and fishing licenses.Bulow succeeded in turning back the Legislature's attempt to use those fees for other purposes of state government.The challenge for the Wildlife Division has been to use its freedom responsibly, and likewise for the commission.

Since the Daugaard administration took office in January 2011, the commission has drastically reduced its land purchases and slashed the division's budget.With the plans now to issue a request for proposals from consultants, a new approach from the governor is moving into place for big-game.

The RFP lists nine specific "questions of inquiry" to be answered by the project and nine areas of examination of the division's processes, from budgets and seasons, to license allocations and harvests.
Also, interviews are to be conducted with GFP employees, commissioners, hunters and members of the general public regarding their perceptions about big-game management in South Dakota.

The governor's office intends to have the proposals ready for the commission to see at the December meeting. The governor's office will select the contractor.We can only watch from outside and wonder where this new level of involvement might lead. Such is the nature of wildlife management.

The San Francisco Bay Area was once the home of the River Otter.....Decimated by hunting, trapping, pollution and alteration of habitat, these slinky swimmers were all but absent from the region by 1995............Restoration of Bay Area waterways now has the River Otter claing its way back into the river systems in this part of the world............Note that.River otters primarily eat fish............. They are also known to eat whatever is easiest to find, like crustaceans, mollusks, insects, birds, oysters, shellfish, crabs, crayfish, frogs, rodents, turtles and aquatic invertebrates...............The North American River Otter is the only river otter found north of Mexico........... Its luscious pelt, which is waterproof and allows the river otter to regulate its temperature, was also a staple of the French fur trade in the 1700-1800s, has drawn hunters for hundreds of years............. The color of its fur ranges from grey and white to brown and black

River otters making comeback in Bay Area

  kgo.com

 

MARIN COUNTY, Calif.  -- River otters had almost completely vanished from the Bay Area but now, they're making a comeback. Otters are turning up all the way from Sutro Baths in San Francisco to beyond Antioch in the delta. Still, there's a lot we don't know about them and citizen scientists are looking for answers.

 

Some volunteers recently went looking for otters at Rodeo Lagoon. 7 a.m. in the Marin Headlands is the perfect time for a family swim. "I've seen an otter every time I have been out here," Peter Barto of San Anselmo said. The river otters there need fresh water to survive. They do go in salt water, but don't confuse them with their cousins, sea otters who spend most of their lives in the ocean.

 link: The River Otter Ecology Project
  River otters used to live in just about every creek in the Bay Area but they disappeared. "Partially because of hunting and trapping, but also because a lot of our watersheds were in terrible disrepair and there was so much pollution," explained Megan Isadore. State Fish and Game maps of the known otter territory in 1995 show almost no otters in the Bay Area, but years of work to clean our waterways appear to be paying off. The otters are back.
"All the otters we see look really healthy and well-fed," Isadore said. She's a naturalist who helped launch the River Otter Ecology Project. "It turns out there is almost nothing known about their populations or their ranges." Isadore and other volunteers known as "otter spotters" are combing the Bay Area looking for evidence to add to local otter science. They take photos and videos which they post on their website. An interactive map on the site shows the locations of more than 150 otters spotted around the Bay Area in the last year.

 The Otter Ecology Project also set up motion-activated cameras to catch otters in action when people are not around during the day and at night.  River otters actually spend quite a bit of time on land. They are very social and they like to play a lot, but they are not always good at sharing. One volunteer caught video of an otter stealing a fish from his buddy. A word of caution: As cute as they are, these animals are fierce and have a strong bite so you should not get close to them. Even so, the people who do this kind of otter stalking get hooked.

"I can't help it. They are really cool," UC Berkeley biology researcher Collin Bode said laughingly. Hilary Magg is an otter-keeper at the San Francisco Zoo and Andrea Dougall works with otters at the Oakland Zoo. Even though they get paid to take care of otters in captivity, they still choose to spend their free time searching for wild otters. "This is exactly what I have been wanting to do and exactly what I am interested in, but I did not have the means or ability to do it on my own," Dougall said.
With a small amount of training, anyone can join the team. In addition to looking for actual otters, you search for clues indicating how the animals use their habitat. Otters have big webbed feet that leave distinctive tracks. "If you come closer and look, you can see a perfect little animal trail going up there," Isadore explained. "If you were able to be animal and scoot through this little hole and up the hill, you would find a whole warren of trails like this."

There are probably several different types of animals using that hillside, but the team can figure out whether otters are among them by looking for otter poop. "We found scat!" Magg exclaimed. "Ta-da, you get to pick it up," Isadore told her. The team collects otter poop for genetic analysis. They document where they found it and take photos. They've even got a name for this activity. "Pooparazzi," Bode said.

It's not always glamorous, but it's fun. Volunteers hope their research and the sight of healthy river otters living the good life will encourage people to protect them and their fragile habitat. The River Otter Ecology Project is looking for more otter spotters. Click here to learn more.

Written by Jennifer Olney
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basic Facts About North American River Otters

by: Defenders of Wildlife

The North American River Otter is the only river otter found north of Mexico. Its luscious pelt, which is waterproof and allows the river otter to regulate its temperature, was also a staple of the French fur trade in the 1700-1800s, has drawn hunters for hundreds of years. The color of its fur ranges from grey and white to brown and black.

Diet

Did You Know?
River otters can stay underwater for up to eight minutes and can close their ears and nostrils to keep water out. They can also dive to a depth of 60 feet!

River otters primarily eat fish. They are also known to eat whatever is easiest to find, like crustaceans, mollusks, insects, birds, oysters, shellfish, crabs, crayfish, frogs, rodents, turtles and aquatic invertebrates.

Population

The population is unknown because the river otter is one of the hardest mammals to census but is estimated to be over 100,000 based on harvest reports.

Range

River otters can be found in streams, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands and along marine coasts in all states and territories of the United States and Canada. River otters are being reintroduced in the Rocky Mountain region to counter the population decrease in the 1800s.

Behavior

River otters live in all types of habitats. The only consistency with these habitats is accessible high quality water and an abundant food supply.

Did You Know?
Defenders of Wildlife is a member of the new Mexico River Otter Working Group, a broad-based coalition formed to implement a strategy to promote the restoration of the river otter to the rivers of New Mexico.

A river otter will only settle in a location with sufficient coverage, usually vegetation or physical structures, such as rock piles.

River otters are very playful animals and can very often be seen playing games. Social groups are typically made up of adult females and their pups. However, there are also groups of individual males. River otters are most active at night.

Reproduction

Mating season: December to April.
Gestation: 60-63 days following delayed implantation.
Litter Size: 2-3 pups.

 

The September issue of the publication, ROYAL SOCIETY B. has a peer reviewd study of how Mange, Distemper and Parovirus have impacted the Wolves of Yellowstone............As many of us know, the Wolves introduced to the Park in 1995 initially expanded their numbers rapidly up until 2009 when the largest Pack in the Park(The Druid's) contracted Mange and thereafter died out---------Penn State Ecologist Peter Hudson who co-authored the study points out that “Healthy ecosystems are full of parasites".............. "The reintroduced wolves had no natural immunity to these diseases"............. Hudson thinks the disease organisms and the wolves will eventually strike a balance.............

Nature's way of providing checks and balances on Wolves, Coyotes and Foxes

by: Faye Flam;philynews.com

This is my penultimate column for the Philadelphia Inquirer. It will run in print on Monday. The final one runs the following Monday: A century ago, Americans so vehemently hated the wolves of their Western states that they attacked them with germ warfare. Veterinarians deliberately infected coyotes with a disease called mange, hoping it would spread to the wolves, which it did, causing many of them to lose so much fur that they froze to death in the harsh winters. Now, according to a recent study by Penn State researchers, the mange survived in other animals long after the wolves were gone.

And it has resurfaced in wolf packs reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in the 1990s. Those wolves are also losing cubs to canine distemper and a disease called parvovirus. These diseases struck the wolves much faster than scientists expected, said Penn State ecologist Peter Hudson, who is a coauthor on the study, published in the September issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. But he still expects the wolves to pull through in the long run.

“Healthy ecosystems are full of parasites,” he said. The reintroduced wolves had no natural immunity to these diseases, but eventually he thinks the disease organisms and the wolves will strike a balance.
By tracking the way these outbreaks are spreading among the reintroduced wolves, he and his colleagues hope to learn lessons they can apply to understanding the dynamics of other emerging diseases.

“People used to think parasites and pathogens were of no importance to ecology,” he said. Now, scientists are realizing the pathogens are part of the environment and can cause animal populations to go through big oscillations.

One thriving wolf pack, called the Druids, was hit with mange in 2009 and died out the next year, said Penn State ecologist Emily Almberg, who was lead author on the paper. But overall, the impact of the wolves continues to be dramatic. Since their reintroduction, she said, exploding populations of elk have declined, allowing some plants to rebound, along with animal species that depended on them.

No one knows exactly how many wolves lived in the region that became Yellowstone National Park before the late 1800s, when humans wiped them out. The wolves were exterminated in a massive, government-led campaign that employed a combination of shooting, germ warfare, and poison.
By the 1940s, wildlife conservation pioneer Aldo Leopold first suggested that wolves played a role in the ecology and should be reintroduced, said Daniel Stahler, a biologist with the Yellowstone Wolf Project and the Yellowstone Center for Resources.

There was tremendous resistance from ranchers, who feared wolves would leave the park and kill their cattle. Meanwhile, elk populations were exploding.Finally, in 1995 and 1996, 41 wolves were brought down from Canada and released into the park, said Stahler. By 2003, they reached a peak of 170. Now, they are down to 100, and Stahler agrees with the Penn State researchers that the numbers are likely to fluctuate but not collapse.

The now extinct Druid Pack

The elk population has dropped from 20,000 in the mid-1990s to 8,000 today, he said. Scientists don’t know for sure whether the drop is entirely caused by wolf predation or also by other factors such as drought, which affects the plants the elk depend upon for food.

The decline in wolves may also reflect a rebalancing of the ecosystem. Wolves are territorial; their leading cause of death is being killed by another wolf in territorial disputes.

While the wolves have eaten enough elk to reduce their numbers, they have also changed the elks’ behavior, said Penn State’s Almberg. The wolves keep the elk on the move, “so they can’t keep hammering at one willow or aspen stand” and destroying it. Meanwhile, ecologists have seen a cascade effect on the landscape, with more willow and aspen surviving, which in turn benefits warblers, beavers, and other animals that depend on those trees.

Scavengers such as ravens and grizzly bears also benefit — from the carcasses left by wolf kills.
The researchers saw the first mange cases in 2002, said Almberg, and the first outbreaks of canine distemper in 2005. Distemper, she said, is a highly contagious viral disease that affects the nervous system and kills some adults and most wolf pups.

Wolf effected by Mange(note fur missing mid flank)

Mange is a skin disease caused by mites, and while it’s not fatal by itself, infected wolves can bite and scratch themselves so much that they die from secondary infections. Or they can lose so much fur that they freeze to death. The outbreak, she said, went through most of the park by 2007.

In the future, she and Hudson are calling on locals and tourists to become citizen scientists send them pictures they take of the wolves. “Visitor photographs are really helpful. So many people are out there every day taking photos,” she said. “There’s no way our staff could re-create that field effort.”

Whether in the Rockies or the Great Lakes, when it comes to the mandates put in place regarding hunting Wolves,,,,,, as biologist Peter David puts it: “I’m concerned about the impact it is going to have and the lack of science built into the hunt” ...........Wisconsin which is starting its first Wolf hunt tomorrow, seeks to reduce its population from the current 850 animals down to 350--a potentially staggering reduction of nearly 60%!---some scientists say, this hunt could push the number of wolves to a tipping point, beyond which their numbers might again quickly drop to the level that would put them back on the endangered list — 250 wolves........And like seemingly every decision about wildlife made lately, what is not put into the equation is the Wolf mortality that occurs above and beyond what occurs during hunting season:............ Adrian Wydeven, a DNR wolf researcher who has helped manage the species’ recovery in the state, said it is important to remember the number of wolves killed during the hunting season has to be added to all the wolves killed in other ways throughout the year to get an accurate picture of how total human-caused wolf deaths are going to affect the statewide population..............Wisconsin population studies have shown 9 to 19 percent of the state’s wolves are illegally killed each year, 10 percent are killed in depredation control programs, and 3 percent to 4 percent are killed by vehicles............. Add those numbers to the 24 percent harvest quotas and total, human-caused mortality is likely to be between 46 percent and 57 percent................. Research has shown that wolves can tolerate up to about 29 percent to 35 percent human-caused mortality rates before populations decline............... .....Wydeven cited studies that have shown eliminating certain individuals — those wolves that breed, for example — and reducing the size of packs can dramatically reduce pup survival.................. And the effect of removing breeders from packs was much more detrimental in smaller, recovering wolf populations similar to Wisconsin’s......Studies have shown as well that disrupting packs and removing alpha wolves can actually increase the likelihood the rest of that pack will be forced to prey on easier-to-capture livestock for food................. There is certainly reason to believe that this hunt is going to be highly disruptive socially...............Studies in Canada’s Algonquin Park that showed excessive hunting mortality might disrupt the kin-based social structure of packs and encourage hybridization of wolves with other canids, such as coyotes................. Great Lakes wolves are known to hybridize with dogs, something biologists want to avoid, partly because such wolf-dog hybrids can exhibit unwanted behavior such as lurking too close to humans and preying on livestock...............Bottom line is that most Biologists believe that people are going to look back at this, and it will have become a textbook example of how not to hold a hunt!

Crying wolf? Experts: State wolf hunt could have unintended consequences

By RON SEELY Wisconsin State Journal lacrossetribune.com

Scientists say they don’t know how Wisconsin’s first organized wolf hunt, set to start Monday, will affect the formerly protected species. The five-month hunt won’t put wolves — dropped as federal endangered species in 2011 — back on the list, but research hints at possible longer-term harm to the wolf population and even an increase in wolves killing livestock, researchers say. “There are all sorts of questions,” said Peter David, a biologist with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. “I’m concerned about the impact it is going to have and the lack of science built into the hunt.”

The state Department of Natural Resources will allow up to 201 wolves taken from a state population of about 850. That works out to about 24 percent of the wolf population, a higher percentage than in most other states that have scheduled or held hunts. In neighboring Minnesota, for example, the quota set for that state’s first hunt represents about 13 percent of the wolf population, or 400 animals out of 3,000.

Wisconsin’s wolf management plan still calls for a total population of 350, a number supported by hunting groups that pushed for the wolf season but questioned by biologists. Eventually hunting the wolf population from 850 animals down to 350, some scientists say, could push the number of wolves to a tipping point, beyond which their numbers might again quickly drop to the level that would put them back on the endangered list — 250 wolves.

“We don’t really know how a wolf population in this human-influenced landscape is going to respond to hunting,” said Tim Van Deelen, a UW-Madison wildlife biologist who has studied the state’s wolves extensively.

Total losses
Adrian Wydeven, a DNR wolf researcher who has helped manage the species’ recovery in the state, said it is important to remember the number of wolves killed during the hunting season has to be added to all the wolves killed in other ways throughout the year to get an accurate picture of how total human-caused wolf deaths are going to affect the statewide population.

Wisconsin population studies have shown 9 to 19 percent of the state’s wolves are illegally killed each year, 10 percent are killed in depredation control programs, and 3 percent to 4 percent are killed by vehicles, Wydeven said. Add those numbers to the 24 percent harvest quotas, Wydeven said, and total, human-caused mortality is likely to be between 46 percent and 57 percent. Research has shown that wolves can tolerate up to about 29 percent to 35 percent human-caused mortality rates before populations decline, Wydeven reported to the Natural Resources Board.

In that report, Wydeven said that since 2000, Wisconsin’s wolf population has increased at an annual rate of 11 percent to 12 percent each year. The addition of the hunt and a plan that kills depredating wolves will reverse that trend, he said, and result in a drop in the population — which is the idea at least for the initial hunts to help stop depredation on livestock.

Long-term effects
Even so, such initial reductions might do long-term harm to the state’s wolves in ways only hinted at in the research.

In his report, Wydeven cited studies that have shown eliminating certain individuals — those wolves that breed, for example — and reducing the size of packs can dramatically reduce pup survival. And the effect of removing breeders from packs was much more detrimental in smaller, recovering wolf populations similar to Wisconsin’s, according to studies.

Wydeven also cited studies in Canada’s Algonquin Park that showed excessive hunting mortality might disrupt the kin-based social structure of packs and encourage hybridization of wolves with other canids, such as coyotes. Great Lakes wolves are known to hybridize with dogs, something biologists want to avoid, partly because such wolf-dog hybrids can exhibit unwanted behavior such as lurking too close to humans and preying on livestock.

David said studies have shown as well that disrupting packs and removing alpha wolves can actually increase the likelihood the rest of that pack will be forced to prey on easier-to-capture livestock for food. “There is certainly reason to believe that this hunt is going to be highly disruptive socially,” David said.
Research crucial
Van Deelen said all of these uncertainties heighten the importance of doing more research and collecting more data during the upcoming hunt. But that might be hard, he said, at a time when budgets are tight and the DNR is spending less money in many areas.

Carl Martin, chief of the DNR’s wildlife and forestry research section, said the agency will continue the population monitoring that has been part of the wolf recovery effort for 30 years. He also said the agency has formed a wolf monitoring committee and is working with budgets to come up with new ways to monitor the wolf pack during the season.

Agency researchers, for example, are likely to use genetics to monitor the makeup of wolf packs and are developing computer models to do population studies, he said.While this research is crucial, some wonder if it might be too little, too late. Perhaps more such study should have gone into deciding whether a hunt is scientifically justified so soon after removing the wolf from endangered status, GLIFWC’s David said.

“I think people are going to look back at this, and it will have become a textbook example of how not to hold a hunt,” David said.

In an attempt to revitalize the southern Purcell Mountain(Canada) Caribou herd, 19 Caribou were transplanted from northern British Columbia during the month of March 2012...............Unfortunately, the released Caribou failed to join up with the 14 remaining Purcell Caribou----This marks the third consecutive failed attempt at rewilding------Seems that the transplanted Caribou do not engage in pack type behaviour,,,,,,,,,,,instead, each doing their own thing and fail to join the "mother herd"

Transplanted Purcell Mountain caribou fail to survive

15 of 19 transplanted animals died before winter

CBC News

A caribou exits a truck into the temporary holding pen prior to its release into the Purcell Mountains in March 2012. (Government of British Columbia)

An expensive plan to relocate mountain caribou from northern B.C. to the Kootenays, has failed after 15 of the 19 transplanted caribou died from accidents, predators or undetermined causes.
In March, a team from B.C.'s Ministry of Forests and Lands tried to transfer 20 caribou from a healthy herd in the Dease Lake area, about 250 kilometres south of the B.C.-Yukon border, to the endangered southern Purcell herd in the East Kootenay. The move cost about $10,000 per animal.

One of the caribou died during the move, likely from stress, and weather prevented the team from dropping the other 19 animals in a single area. Ten were put near the existing herd, but the other nine had to be dropped in a different valley.

Failed to unite with herd

The hope was that the 19 survivors would meet up and join the resident Purcell herd, which was down to 14 animals. But instead, just the opposite happened. The northern caribou fanned out, apparently looking for something."Several went into Montana, one recently went into Washington," said project leader, Steve Gordon."Whenever you are embarking on a transplant like this, it's a risky endeavour. It's kind of a critical intervention to try and restore this herd. We didn't anticipate this level of mortality though," said Gordon.

While government biologists might not have anticipated this outcome, opponents did. Moving northern caribou south has been tried before, according to Carmen Purdy, president of the Kootenay Wildlife Heritage Fund."They don't make it. The last three transplants haven't worked. Why do we keep trying the same thing over and over again?"Government biologists were going to transplant another group of caribou next spring, but with so many dead caribou, that plan is now in jeopardy.

The Washington State WEDGE WOLF PACK that was killed las week did not have to go between the crosshairs!-------something is wrong when a rancher, who is well-known for favoring the elimination of troublesome wolves, and who has refused to cooperate with nonlethal provisions of the plan, can pressure the department into abandoning it so quickly...............Sen. Kevin Ranker, D–Orcas Island, who chairs the Senate committee that oversees the DFW, said, “I find it inexcusable that we allowed ourselves to get to a place where killing the entire pack was the necessary decision when other nonlethal options – within the department and with ranchers – were not totally exhausted first.”

Killing entire wolf pack is in nobody’s best interests

 

bellinghamherald.com

By killing the entire pack, just one of 12 in the state, the department is admitting it failed to effectively implement the nonlethal measures required by the wolf plan and is bending to the pressure of large cattle ranchers.

Wolves are considered an endangered species under Washington state law, and by federal law for the western two-thirds of the state. Wolves are just starting to make a comeback after being effectively eliminated by hunters in the 1930s.

The state’s wolf plan is designed to recover wolf populations to the point that they can be taken off the endangered species list, while keeping losses to grazing livestock at tolerable levels.

But something is wrong when a rancher, who is well-known for favoring the elimination of troublesome wolves, and who has refused to cooperate with nonlethal provisions of the plan, can pressure the department into abandoning it so quickly.

By doing so, Fish and Wildlife personnel may find themselves in trouble with lawmakers.

Sen. Kevin Ranker, D–Orcas Island, who chairs the Senate committee that oversees the DFW, said, “I find it inexcusable that we allowed ourselves to get to a place where killing the entire pack was the necessary decision when other nonlethal options – within the department and with ranchers – were not totally exhausted first.”

Diane Gallegos, executive director of Wolfhaven International, located in Thurston County, says wiping out the Wedge Pack, named for the wilderness area near the Canadian border where they roamed, represents a failure on everyone’s part.

She’s calling for the state to add enforceable standards and accountability to the wolf plan before lethal force is used again.

And she makes the excellent suggestion of adding a stakeholders review board to ensure the department and ranchers are implementing the plan before allowing future wolf kills.

It is in the best interests of conservationist for ranchers to be successful, so bringing wolf advocates, hunters, ranchers and fish and wildlife together could produce collaborative solutions.

Killing off wolves for just doing what wolves do is no solution if ranchers aren’t managing their livestock properly, according to the wolf plan, and if Fish and Wildlife officials aren’t accountable for enforcing the deployment of all non-lethal options.

Ranker is right to ask what steps the department took before shooting the wolves, some from helicopters, what the kill cost and how they are going to avoid getting forced into another similar situation.

As Wolfhaven’s Gallegos says, “The problem is with people, not the wolves.”

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/10/12/2725979/killing-entire-wolf-pack-is-in.html#storylink=cpy

With an estimated 300 or so Wolverines still calling the USA home in the Northern Rockies and Cascades, The ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES joined 7 other conservation groups in suing the State of Montana for still allowing trappers to kill up to 5 Wolverines each----This type trapping is insane and runs counter to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife action to determine what degree of protection to afford the Wolverine(threatened or endangered) prior to 2014......... Climate change has researchers predicting that reduced suitable wolverine habitat in the lower 48 states will be as much as 23 percent as of 2045 and by 63 percent as of 2099, according to the University of Washington and the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station............So how in good conscious can Montana Fish & Wildlife permit a scant few Wolverines to be ttrapped out of existance?

Conservation groups sue to end trapping of wolverines in Montana

reuters.com

By Laura Zuckerman

SALMON, Idaho  - Conservationists on Thursday asked a state judge to end trapping of wolverines in Montana at a time when fewer than 300 of the elusive animals roam the Northern Rockies and Northern Cascades.
 Montana is the only one of the lower 48 U.S. states that permits the harvesting of wolverines, carnivores that resemble small bears with bushy tails. They are sought for their fur.
Allowing licensed sportsmen to kill woverines is a direct violation of Montana's state policy of maintaining or restoring populations of rare animals, the conservationists argued in a lawsuit filed on Thursday in state court in Montana.

Federal biologists estimate that between 250 and 300 wolverines remain in the high country of Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming.

The civil court fight comes two years after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service moved to protect wolverines because warming climates threaten the mountain snows they use for dens and food storage. A final decision on whether wolverines are granted threatened or endangered status was expected by 2014.

In Montana, trappers each year are allowed to catch five wolverines - reduced from 10 in 2008.
The lawsuit was filed on Thursday by Alliance for the Wild Rockies and seven other conservation groups is an effort to stop trapping altogether in Montana. Ron Aasheim, spokesman for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said state wildlife managers believe the trapping each year of five wolverines is sustainable. He said the state halved the trapping quota in recognition that "we needed to do some things to ensure long-term viability."

Michael Garrity, head of Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said scaling back the harvest was not sufficient. "The state doesn't want to admit wolverines are almost extinct," he said.
Wolverines are known for their voracious appetites and cantankerous dispositions. Their solitary nature and their preference for extreme alpine environments have made it difficult for scientists to estimate population numbers.

Climate change is predicted to reduce suitable wolverine habitat in the lower 48 states by 23 percent as of 2045 and by 63 percent as of 2099, according to the University of Washington and the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Dan MacNulty of Utah State along with Dan Stahler and Doug Smith of Yellowstone's Wolf Project have concluded after 14 years of studying Wolves , that pup survival from birth into young adulthood is directly correlated to the Alpha female's body weight and the # of adult Wolves in her Pack .........."Bigger females produce bigger litters; bigger packs are better equipped to hunt and defend pups and resources from competitors",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Motherhood is a challenge for any species, but the evolution of cooperation in wolf societies is a notable benefit to mother wolves",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Our results should reassure wolf conservationists",,,,,,,, "If female body weights are high and pack sizes are sufficiently large, wolves can successfully reproduce despite the impact of environmental factors, such as disease and competition"-Dan Stahler-----------------The one factor not inculuded in the study is the impact of the draconian virtual year long persecution that the Montana, Wyoming and Idaho put on wolves through their hunting and trapping management plans-----Virtually by definition, these plans will not allow for large pack size and create social chaos among survivors,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,leading to chaos and population sinks throughout the northern Rockies

Healthy Mom With Lots of Help Key to Thriving Brood, Wolf Study Shows

 

ScienceDaily  — What does it take to raise successful, self-sufficient offspring? A healthy mom with lots of in-house help, says Utah State University researcher Dan MacNulty. While this advice may benefit humans, a recent study by MacNulty and colleagues actually focuses on another group of large, social mammals -- namely, wolves.

"Using 14 years of data from the long-term study of wolves in Yellowstone National Park, we examined a number of key traits that allow wolves to overcome environmental stress," says MacNulty, assistant professor in USU's Quinney College of Natural Resources. "We discovered mother wolves' body weight and pack size play a crucial role in enabling pups to survive and thrive from birth to young adulthood."

 

 

With Dan Stahler and Doug Smith of the National Park Service's Yellowstone Wolf Project, as well as Robert Wayne and Bridgett vonHoldt of the University of California, Los Angeles, MacNulty published findings in the Oct. 9, 2012, online edition of the Journal of Animal Ecology. The study, which stems from a newly established collaboration between the wolf project and USU, was funded by the National Science Foundation, National Park Service and the Yellowstone Park Foundation, along with private donors.

Environmental conditions that impact wolf reproduction, the researchers say, include disease prevalence, especially deadly canine distemper -- caused by a contagious virus to which pups are especially vulnerable; resource availability and population density. In addition to body weight and pack size, the researchers examined effects of maternal age, color (gray or black coat) and wolf population size on reproductive success.

"Each of these factors affects reproduction but, overwhelmingly, female body weight and pack size are the main drivers of litter size and pup survival," says Stahler, the study's lead author. "Bigger females produce bigger litters; bigger packs are better equipped to hunt and defend pups and resources from competitors."

Social carnivores, wolves live in territorial, kin-structured packs. Female wolves depend on other adults in the pack to help them provide food for their pups and defend the youngsters from predators; mainly, competing packs of wolves. "Motherhood is a challenge for any species," Stahler says, "But the evolution of cooperation in wolf societies is a notable benefit to mother wolves."

As wolf management in the United States moves from recovery to a new era of conservation, the researchers believe knowledge of reproduction will help managers maintain wolf populations. With the recent de-listing of gray wolves in Wyoming, state managers assume control of the last federally protected group of these animals in the Northern Rockies this fall."While these animals are no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, states are required to maintain a minimum number of wolves and breeding pairs to prevent re-listing," MacNulty says. "As in Idaho and Montana, Wyoming is legally required to maintain a statewide population of at least 100 wolves, including 10 breeding pairs."

A breeding pair, he says, is defined as an adult male and female with at least two pups surviving to the end of the calendar year. He adds the Yellowstone study highlights factors that determine the number of pups surviving to the end of the year, and this information may help state managers meet population objectives.

 "Managers could use information on pack size, weight of harvested female wolves, or disease prevalence as indicators of future population growth and set harvest limits accordingly," MacNulty says. If pack sizes are small, female wolves are underweight or disease outbreaks occur, he says, managers could reduce harvest to ensure sufficient numbers of breeding pairs. On the other hand, if pack sizes are relatively large, female wolves are at healthy weights and acute diseases are absent, managers can have confidence that current harvest levels are appropriate.

"Biologists and managers have long recognized the resiliency of wolves," Stahler says. "Our findings point to traits that help explain wolves' ability to overcome environmental challenges like human exploitation or competition with other wolves."

While these findings are specific to the unexploited Yellowstone National Park population, they may well represent important biological drivers of reproduction in any wolf population, he says.
"Long-term, detailed studies from wild ecosystems like Yellowstone's enhance our knowledge about these charismatic, but controversial carnivores," Stahler says. "This type of research has great value in informing anyone who has an opinion about wolves."

"Our results should reassure wolf conservationists," MacNulty says. "If female body weights are high and pack sizes are sufficiently large, wolves can successfully reproduce despite the impact of environmental factors, such as disease and competition."

A fascinating peer reviewed article entitled IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCE-SINK DYNAMICS IN MOUNTAIN LIONS OF THE GREAT BASIN reveals the counterintuitve finding that hunted Pumas in Nevada actually seek territories in the neighboring California Sierra Nevada Mtn Range........... Even though territories are reasonably filled up due to the no kill(Puma) laws that exist in Calif, better habitat than what exists in Nevada lures the Cats to seek residence there...........It has always been assumed that California would act as a source population to fill up vacancies created in Nevada and other surrounding states where Puma hunting is allowed.............Not so saids researchers from the U. of Nevada and the Wildlife Conservation Society(WCS) who did their investigation of this phenomena over the past 7 years............Are the Nevada Pumas knowingly looking to escape the perscution caused by us?........Are the California Pumas purposely avoiding the Nevada kill zone(indicating conscious decision making)?...........Is the sudden change in habitat from the more verdant Sierra Nevada into the stark Great Basin of Nevada causing the lIons to say, "I don't like what this neighborhood looks like"?????????

Go west, young lion
sciencecodex.com


Using data collected over the course of seven years, the study looked at DNA in tissue samples collected from 739 mountain lions. In the first-of-its-kind study at this scale, the authors used only the gathered genetic information to discover population structures and history, and to identify what areas in the region serve as "sinks" (habitat that animals move to at a greater rate than they disperse from) and "sources" (areas that animals disperse from at a greater rate to live elsewhere).

The study, "Identification of Source-Sink Dynamics in Mountain Lions of the Great Basin" appears online in August's early-view edition of the journal Molecular Ecology. Authors of the study include: Alyson M. Andreasen of the University of Nevada; Jon P. Beckmann of WCS; and Matthew L. Forester, William S. Longland, and Kelley M. Stewart of the University of Nevada.

The scientists expected to see an influx of lions from California, where lions are not hunted, into Nevada where mountain lion hunting is allowed and leaves vacant territories for outside lions to claim. The opposite occurred. Lions mostly moved in a north and south direction following the topography of the many mountain ranges throughout the area, resulting in distinct genetic populations. However, when moving between populations in an east or west direction, the results suggested that more lions moved west from Central Nevada to the mountains of the Sierra Nevada, than vice versa—potentially taking advantage of better habitat quality.

This is a female mountain lion captured and collared in western Nevada for the field component of study.

Study author and University of Nevada PhD student Alyson Andreasen said, "The results are surprising and telling in that in most situations where you have hunting, the animals move in the direction of the resultant vacant territories. While this appears to be occurring in other areas of the state, habitat differences between the Sierra Nevada and the arid Great Basin may be attracting dispersal age mountain lions west into California whereas the abrupt ecotone may act as a barrier for lions residing in the Sierra Nevada."

Study co-author and WCS Scientist Jon Beckmann said, "In this case, a hunted population is the source for the non-hunted/protected population. This is somewhat counterintuitive: Some might think that in remote mountainous terrain of Nevada, the impacts of hunting on lion populations would outweigh those associated with more people and roadways in the Sierra of California but this appears to not be the case."

The scientists are currently working on questions arising from this study and on studies to discern how mountain lions interact with other species and select habitat in the region.
Source: Wildlife Conservation Society