One of the many theories speculating about how Wolves evolved into dogs suggests that those lobos that experimented with coming in close to human garbage dumps to scavenge were the animals that began to be bred by humans into dogs.........Dogs have many more genes that encode the enzymes needed to break down starch, something that would have been advantageous in an ancestor scavenging on the discarded wheat and other crop products of early farmers.......When we look at the wolf genome, we only see one copy of the gene [for the amylase enzyme] on each chromosome.......... When we look at the dog genome, we see a range from two to 15 copies.... On average a dog carries seven copies more than the wolf.....................As far as the brain development genes are concerned, these probably reflect some of the behavioural differences we now see in the two canids. The dog is a much more docile creature, the likely consequence of early humans preferentially working with animals they found easier to tame.....................And to contradict and to add to the how dogs evolved from Wolves, other researchers point out that there is evidence that some dogs evolved long before the advent of agriculture...........Perhaps there were multiple ways that some Wolves became domesticated.............Fascinating it is to ponder!

Dog evolved 'on the waste dump'

By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News.com

Wolves that coped best with cereals in their diet may be part of the story of domestication

Anyone who owns a dog knows that it will rummage around in the kitchen bin looking for food, given half a chance.But this annoying behaviour may have a more profound undercurrent than we realise, according to scientists.A new study of dog genetics reveals numerous genes involved in starch metabolism, compared with wolves. It backs an idea that some dogs emerged from wolves that were able to scavenge and digest the food waste of early farmers.

No-one knows precisely when or how our ancestors became so intimately connected with dogs, but the archaeological evidence indicates it was many thousands of years ago. One suggestion is that the modern mutt emerged from ancient hunter-gatherers' use of wolves as hunting companions or guards.
But another opinion holds that domestication started with wolves that stole our food leftovers and eventually came to live permanently around humans as a result.

"This second hypothesis says that when we settled down, and in conjunction with the development of agriculture, we produced waste dumps around our settlements; and suddenly there was this new food resource, a new niche, for wolves to make use of, and the wolf that was best able to make use of it became the ancestor of the dog," explained Erik Axelsson from Uppsala University. "So, we think our findings fit well with this theory that the dog evolved on the waste dump," he told BBC News.
'Generic' dog

Dr Axelsson and colleagues examined the DNA of more than 50 modern dogs from breeds as diverse as the cocker spaniel and the German shepherd. They then compared their generic genetic information with those of 12 wolves taken from across the world.

The Swedish-US team scanned the DNA sequences of the two types of canid for regions of major difference. These would be locations likely to contain genes important in the rise of the domesticated dog.
Axelsson's group identified 36 such regions, carrying a little over a hundred genes. The analysis detected the presence of two major functional categories - genes involved in brain development and starch metabolism.
In the case of the latter, it seems dogs have many more genes that encode the enzymes needed to break down starch, something that would have been advantageous in an ancestor scavenging on the discarded wheat and other crop products of early farmers.

Domestication may have forced dogs into a permanent state of puppyhood "Wolves also have these genes but they don't use them as efficiently as dogs," said Dr Axelsson.

"When we look at the wolf genome, we only see one copy of the gene [for the amylase enzyme] on each chromosome. When we look at the dog genome, we see a range from two to 15 copies; and on average a dog carries seven copies more than the wolf. "That means the dog is a lot more efficient at making use of the nutrition in starch than the wolf."

As far as the brain development genes are concerned, these probably reflect some of the behavioural differences we now see in the two canids. The dog is a much more docile creature, the likely consequence of early humans preferentially working with animals they found easier to tame.

"Previous experiments have indicated that when you select for a reduction in aggressiveness, you obviously get a tamer animal but you also get an animal that retains juvenile characteristics much longer during development, sometimes into adulthood," said Dr Axelsson.

This might go some way to explaining the oft-repeated observation that dogs are permanently stuck in a kind of puppyhood.

Open debate
The study of the origin of dogs remains, in many ways, a puzzling field. Fossil evidence suggests some populations could have been around tens of thousands of years ago, long before the emergence of agriculture. Some researchers have tried to use the regular rate at which error patterns appear in dog DNA as a kind clock to time their rise, but this has produced contradictory results.

One confounding issue might be that domestication happened more than once.Dr Carles Vila, from the Conservation and Evolutionary Genetics Group at the Donana Biological Station in Seville, Spain, said the debate was wide open. "I think that modern dogs derived from multiple wolf populations," he observed.
"It could be that dog domestication started once with some animals staying with humans which were then regularly back-crossed with wolves and that could have the same effect. But there could have been completely independent domestications. What is clear is that the number of bone remains is very rare more than 14,000 years ago."

The U. of Alberta's APPLIED CONSERVATION ECOLOGY LAB team has just published their 4 year research study documenting that Mother Grizzlies are directly responsible for teaching their female cubs which are the best lands to create a territory in.............Knowing that habitat selection is part of a learned behaviour, conservationists tasked with relocating bears far from the animals' known environments should pay close attention to the habitats into which they are released.

Mama bear knows best, University of Alberta study shows u. OF aLBERTA

Mama bear appears to know what's best when it comes to selecting a place to call home, according to a new University of Alberta study. The research, which may ultimately help protect Alberta's dwindling population of grizzly bears, is among the first of its kind to test the nature-versus-nurture debate on how large, free-ranging wildlife select habitat.

Lead author Scott Nielsen, assistant professor in the Department of Renewable Resources, and head researcher in the U of A's Applied Conservation Ecology (ACE) Lab, teamed with one of the lab's post-doctoral fellows, Aaron Shafer, and professor Mark Boyce of the Department of Biological Sciences for the four-year study.

Published in the latest issue of PLOS ONE, their work explored whether the maternal rearing of cubs shaped which habitats grizzly bears eventually choose. The findings "suggest that habitat selection is learned by young grizzly bears from their mothers and would likely be a more adaptive strategy than using instinct," Nielsen said.

"There are a number of strategies that appear to be handed down from generation to generation from mother to offspring. It's the 'nurture' side of the equation that is shaping the life of the bear."

The study is part of ongoing work by Nielsen and a team of master's students and PhD candidates who study conservation issues related to species at risk, such as grizzlies, to help in their population recovery. Other current research includes work on lizards, otters, boreal forest biodiversity and restoration of degraded ecosystems.

Through the ACE lab, U of A scientists are identifying critical habitats and needs of threatened species such as grizzlies, and determining the most effective management actions for their recovery.

The grizzly study, conducted in the foothills of west-central Alberta, tracked 32 adult and young grizzly bears that had been fitted with GPS radio collars. The animals' movements were monitored from 31,849 locations spanning 9,752 square kilometres.

Nielsen and his team observed that genetically related female bears shared habitat selection patterns regardless of their location, whereas male bears related to one another did not.

"This suggests that there are different habitat selection strategies used by grizzly bears and that these are learned early in life, because male bears don't participate in parental care," Nielsen said.

The grizzly is considered a threatened species in Alberta (there are fewer than 700 in the province), and if their habitat-use strategies are indeed learned from early experiences, "then the habitats chosen for relocation of 'problem' bears or to supplement threatened populations would be important," Nielsen said.

Knowing that habitat selection is part of a learned behaviour, conservationists tasked with relocating bears far from the animals' known environments should pay close attention to the habitats into which they are released, he added.

The research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Alberta Conservation Association and partners from the Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Program.

I have to say that the "invite challenge" by the OIL SANDS LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE seeking ideas on how to protect Caribou from bears, wolves and coyotes disgusts me in its overt disregard for what is really the source problem for the Caribou--roads, pipelines and the destruction of tens of thousands of acres of prime caribou land in and around the tar sands in Alberta and other locales both in Canada and the USA................These folks figure that the average person is stupid and uniformed and therefore they can get away with blaming the declining caribou population on carnivores...............Pass the word,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,OIL SANDS LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE(ConocoPhillips Canada,, Nexen Inc., Statoil Canada, Suncor Energy Inc.and Total E&P Canada Ltd). IS B.S.!!!!

Reduction of Predation
 on Woodland Caribou

Challenge Overview

The protection of Woodland Caribou
 (Rangifer tarandus caribou) from their
 predators (bears, wolves and coyotes)
 over a large area that naturally encompasses
 the herd is important for the herd's surviva
l within the northeast boreal forest of Alberta.
 Conventional means of protecting herds
 from their predators, such as using post
or wire fences, has several drawbacks
(unacceptable level of permeability and
 the high cost of maintenance, to name
 just a few), so the Oil Sands Leadership
 Initiative (OSLI; http://www.osli.ca/) is
looking for a novel, un-conventional
method to reduce predation risk.

This is an Ideation Challenge, which
 has the following unique features:

• There is a guaranteed award.  The awards will be paid to the best submission(s) as solely determined by the
•  Seeker. The total payout will be $10,000 or
•  more, with at least one award being no smaller
•  than $5,000 and no award being smaller than $2,000. 
• The Solvers are not required to transfer exclusive
•  intellectual property rights to the Seeker.  Rather,
•  by submitting a proposal, the Solvers grants 
• to the Seeker a royalty-free, perpetual, and
•  non-exclusive license to use any information
•  included in this proposal.

After the Challenge deadline, the Seeker will complete
 the review process and make a decision with regards
 to the Winning Solution(s).All Solvers that submitted a
 proposal will be notified on the status of their submissions;
however, no detailed evaluation of individual
 submissions will be provided.

About the Seeker:

The Oil Sands Leadership Initiative (OSLI) is a
collaborative network
 of companies operating in the Canadian oil sands.
 Each OSLI company
 develops its assets individually, but works
collaboratively
 to achieve significant improvements in key
 performance areas: environmental sustainability,
 social well-being and economic viability. To
 formalize this approach, in April 2010 ConocoPhillips
Canada, Nexen Inc., Statoil Canada, Suncor Energy Inc.
 and Total E&P Canada Ltd. signed the OSLI
 Charter, agreeing to work
 collaboratively on non-competitive issues, and
 share research and best
practices. Shell Canada joined in 2011.

The initiative is founded on a common understanding
 among OSLI members
 of the need to work together to meet the challenges
of responsible development.

7 Mexican Wolves are the source of the 60 that remain in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico..............While one additional male captive wolf was released into the region over the past two weeks, it hardly seems enough to preserve their genetic diversity............ Overzealous management and a lack of political will have kept the numbers low................ Now, nearly 15 years after the first wolves were released, the Mexican gray wolf is facing a genetic emergency that could keep them from ever recovering................ Already, it seems that a lack of genetic diversity is causing lower litter sizes.................. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't act soon to release more wolves, this and other effects of a small gene pool could doom the species, no matter how hard we try in the future to recover them.

Defenders of Wildlife Mexican gray wolf blog:A Drop in the Genetic Bucket

By Eva Sargent, Southwest Program Director
Defenders of Wildlife









Mexican gray wolves,  according to science and common sense, are the most endangered wolf in the world.  We should have a new count in a couple of weeks, but last year there were fewer than 60 wild Mexican wolves in the entire world.

They are all offspring of the emergency captive breeding effort that saved the species from extinction – an Endangered Species Act miracle, really.  But what's happened since then, since the first captive-bred Mexican gray wolves put their paws on the wild ground in 1998, is more frustrating.

Because the entire population is derived from only seven wolves (a brush with extinction that no critters should come close to), they didn't have a great deal of genetic diversity. That is, they didn't have a large number of different traits carried in their genes. A high amount of genetic diversity is the engine of adaptability – it allows populations to change their biology when conditions change, and that's key to survival. The captive population has been carefully managed to preserve genetic diversity, but this only goes so far. From the beginning, geneticists knew that in order to overcome their limited genetic heritage, the Mexican gray wolves would need to rapidly expand their numbers beyond what was possible in captivity. They needed to get out of the zoos that had taken such care to save them and really take off in the wild.  By reproducing quickly in the wild, they would express every ounce of genetic diversity they had in their genes.  The wolves did their part immediately – pairing up, denning up, eating elk and having puppies.

Unfortunately, humans haven't held up their part of the deal, and the population has never expanded fast enough to preserve their genetic diversity.  Overzealous management and a lack of political will have kept the numbers low. Now, nearly 15 years after the first wolves were released, the Mexican gray wolf is facing a genetic emergency that could keep them from ever recovering. Already, it seems that a lack of genetic diversity is causing lower litter sizes. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't act soon to release more wolves, this and other effects of a small gene pool could doom the species, no matter how hard we try in the future to recover them.

Many opportunities to improve the genetics of Mexican gray wolves have been squandered.  Instead of supporting stable, reproducing packs, wolves are captured and moved around because they get into trouble, or cross the invisible boundaries of their small recovery area in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.  Until recently, many were sent back to captivity, and some were killed, for eating livestock.  These removals were indiscriminate – it didn't matter if the suspected cattle-eater was a mom with pups, or a genetically valuable dad. With the future of the species relying on so few individuals in the wild, we – joined by several other conservation groups – went to court over this issue, and as part of the settlement, this disastrous removal policy was ended. But its effects linger – there are still too few wolves, and too few with the best genes to keep the species on the road to recovery.

There are other pressures too; despite their protected status, illegal killing is the largest source of dead wolves.  But the window is closing on fixing the genetic issue, and one solution is amazingly simple: Release more wolves from captivity, and do it now.

The last time a wolf from captivity was released was in 2008.  Since then, there have been roadblocks and reasons and excuses, but no one has demonstrated the gumption necessary to get the job done. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for recovering Mexican gray wolves, has waited with an absurd amount of patience for agreement from the states before acting, and all at the wolves' expense.  Opportunities have been lost, and they won't be regained.  Finally, last week, they decided to release a single male wolf in hopes that he will pair with a female of the Bluestem pack, whose mate was illegally shot and killed last year.

Of course all of us who work on Mexican gray wolf recovery are grateful for this small step in the right direction, and we hope this new male gets right down to business saving the species. But much more needs to be done, and soon, or it will be too late.  The geneticists who have spent years sounding the alarm haven't stopped, and Defenders won't stop, until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implements an emergency genetic rescue plan for the Mexican gray wolf. Such a plan would entail selective breeding in captivity, perhaps even using in vitro fertilization, to recreate the genetic makeup of the founding wolves. Still, one of the easiest steps this plan would include is to release more wolves into the wild. We'll keep you posted on our progress with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Meanwhile, stay tuned and keep your fingers crossed for an increase in the 2012 count, due in a few weeks.  More wolves from the same old breeding pairs won't solve the genetic issue, but it will improve the outlook for the most endangered wolf on the planet.
******************************************************************************
This excellent blog post by Eva Sargent, Defenders of Wildlife Southwest Program Director, was posted on Defenders of Wildlife's Blog on January 16, 2013.

If wolves were the dominant species on the planet(instead of humans), what would their management plan be for us???? .....................Have a fun read below

How Would Wolves Manage The Human Population?

Chris Genovali

huffingtonpost.com

In British Columbia, which provides one of North America's last bastions of wilderness and biodiversity, a symbol of both brings out the best and worst of people. Wolves draw either awe or fury from equally passionate poles. Wolf advocates marvel at the beautiful and intelligent cousin of humankind's best friend, while wolf antagonists — mostly comprised of hunters and ranchers — see them as a threat to prized "game species" and sacred (domestic) cows.

This polemic reached a decadal zenith in recent months when two high-profile wolf issues were catapulted on the scene in B.C. Media exposure of a proposed wolf-killing derby in the northeast portion of the province fanned the flames.

Some hunters and ranchers were quick to defend the competition, sponsored by local businesses, which would dole out prize money to the hunters who could kill the largest and smallest wolf (not for food of course, but for trophy). Naturally, wolf advocates were appalled at the prospect of this morally and ethically repugnant "contest."

The second and prominent wolf-related event was the unveiling of the provincial government's "Draft Management Plan For The Grey Wolf In British Columbia."

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources sought input from the public for consideration before the plan is finalized. While several hundred citizens filed comments,Raincoast Conservation Foundation sought the critical observations of some very interested stakeholders who literally, as the saying goes, have skin in the game: the wolves themselves.

We reached out to Dr. Ken S. Lupus, who offered a unique retort to the absurdity he and his brethren easily detected in the province's plan. Below he offers the lupine view on how humans ought to be managed.

DRAFT Management Plan for Humans (Homo sapiens) in British Columbia By Ken S. Lupus et al., B.C. Ministry of Wild Wolves (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)

We model the structure of our plan after the B.C. government's "Draft Management Plan For The Grey Wolf In British Columbia." Although our plans are fundamentally different in how we decide to treat one another, we similarly assert that this document is premised on the best available scientific information. (Note: we consulted with Raincoast biologists and large carnivore experts Drs. Chris Darimont and Paul Paquet).

Notably, however, our management plan for humans draws upon an additional and important dimension that shapes policy in advanced civilizations: commonly held ethical values.

As the province did, we begin with some straightforward conservation context. Based on their rapidly increasing numbers and range, humans have been categorized as not at risk by the Lupine Committee of Categorizing Other Animals We Have Never Harmed. We note, however, on the other hand — and despite thousands of management plans by humans — global biodiversity is severely threatened as a result of human activities.

According to information shared by human sources, Homo sapiens play a very important role in maintaining so-called "game" populations, raising livestock among us wolves in formerly wild landscapes, and saving animals like caribou from rapid extinction due to resource extraction activities. On the other hand, some hunters, livestock groups and government-industrial complexes behind these ostensibly noble acts also comprise a significant threat to wolf safety and welfare. Accordingly, our plan must strike a balance to manage humans for conservation while minimizing conflicts with wolves.

We likewise adopt the same four management objectives stated by our simian colleagues, though with modified details. Topping this list is to ensure a self-sustaining population of humans throughout the species' range. We suppose that we will have to accept this inevitability. We suspect, however, that this spells trouble for us. If human behaviour remains unaltered — and caribou continue to dwindle and ranchers continue to believe that some god created landscapes with only their cows in mind — we expect a future of increasing conflicts.

Our plan's second objective is to provide for non-consumptive use of humans. Why not? No harm in setting up some eco-tourism by us wolves to partake in some human-watching. We need not look further than Yellowstone National Park, Thomson, Man. and Algonquin Park to know that humans can make a mint with sustainable wolf-based eco-tourism.

Unlike the province's anachronistic seat-of-the pants wolf management plan, however, which was designed by more wanton predators, we have no plans for so-called "consumptive" use of humans. Although humans would be easy pickings, we are just not known to do this. And really, why would anyone kill something for any other reason than to eat? For sport or for trophy? No thanks. Surely no advanced society would ever condone or endorse that sort of behaviour. Nor would any real hunter. That just leaves a bad taste in our mouths (and to put how awful that is in perspective, we often eat poop).

Perhaps the most important part of our "Draft Management Plan For Humans In British Columbia" is to minimize the threat to wolf safety caused by humans. Whereas wolves pose a very limited threat to humans, the opposite is certainly not true. For instance, the B.C. government says that approximately 1,200 of us wolves were killed deliberately in 2010 by hunters and trappers for sport, trophy or profit.

While human "wildlife managers" are quick to point out that we wolves can replenish our numbers, even amidst such persecution, our concern is the suffering imposed on us. Imagine the pain when the hot metal of bullets shreds our viscera (or worse, our limbs) or the agony inflicted when one of us is tormented by a leg-hold trap. Clearly, any management plan should address suffering among highly sentient animals.

Unfortunately, our plan to minimize threats to wolf safety has no details. Given all the technological advantages humans have acquired to use against wolves like high-powered rifles, helicopters, deadly poisons, traps, snares and explosive devices, predator calls to lure us and more, they simply have the upper hand.

Finally, and again mirroring the B.C. government's wolf management plan, our fourth objective is to control specific populations of humans where their activities are likely preventing the recovery of a species at risk (e.g., endangered populations of caribou). Whereas humans have hatched some vicious scapegoating campaigns and lethal plans for us as last ditch efforts to save caribou from logging or oil and gas extraction, we have yet to find successful methods to control these industries. We therefore appeal to our human friends within B.C. for help.

To conclude, we turn to history to muse about the future. It has taken decades to expunge, in part, the nonsense about wolves portrayed in human generated fairy tales (and not just children's stories, but also adult constructs such as the perversely and ironically named "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation"). How many more decades will it take to do the same in provincial management plans for wolves?

This article was co-authored with Raincoast Conservation Foundation science director Dr. Chris Darimont and Raincoast senior scientist Dr. Paul Paquet.

U. of Mass evolutionary biologist Kathryn Lord has published her research describing why dogs can be tamed,,,,,,,,,but not wolves..............Her conclusions are that dogs first experience socialization at 4 weeks old when all of their sensory motor skills are developed(hearing, sight and smell)..........Conversely, Wolf pups enter their socialization phase at 2 weeks when they are still blind and deaf,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they explore their environment at this stage through their outstanding sense of smell..........Lords research suggests that the dog puppies developed senses coinciding with socialization enables them to bond with humans........whereas wolf pups are more skittish because fear kicks in as each stage of sensory perception kicks in,,,,,,,,,,well after socialization has occurred.................Not sure that I completely buy into Dr Lord's premise as the reason for dogs being able to bond with us......................but interesting to speculate about nonetheless...............I would love to learn what caused dogs(which have identical genes as wolves) to morph into a totally different type creature from the wolf

Why Wolves Are Forever Wild, but Dogs Can Be Tamed

 — Dogs and wolves are genetically so similar, it's been difficult for biologists to understand why wolves remain fiercely wild, while dogs can gladly become "man's best friend." Now, doctoral research by evolutionary biologist Kathryn Lord at the University of Massachusetts Amherst suggests the different behaviors are related to the animals' earliest sensory experiences and the critical period of socialization. Details appear in the current issue ofEthology.

Until now, little was known about sensory development in wolf pups, and assumptions were usually extrapolated from what is known for dogs, Lord explains. This would be reasonable, except scientists already know there are significant differences in early development between wolf and dog pups, chief among them timing of the ability to walk, she adds.

dog puppies

To address this knowledge gap, she studied responses of seven wolf pups and 43 dogs to both familiar and new smells, sounds and visual stimuli, tested them weekly, and found they did develop their senses at the same time. But her study also revealed new information about how the two subspecies of Canis lupusexperience their environment during a four-week developmental window called the critical period of socialization, and the new facts may significantly change understanding of wolf and dog development.

When the socialization window is open, wolf and dog pups begin walking and exploring without fear and will retain familiarity throughout their lives with those things they contact. Domestic dogs can be introduced to humans, horses and even cats at this stage and be comfortable with them forever. But as the period progresses, fear increases and after the window closes, new sights, sounds and smells will elicit a fear response.

Wolf pups

Through observations, Lord confirmed that both wolf pups and dogs develop the sense of smell at age two weeks, hearing at four weeks and vision by age six weeks on average. However, these two subspecies enter the critical period of socialization at different ages. Dogs begin the period at four weeks, while wolves begin at two weeks. Therefore, how each subspecies experiences the world during that all-important month is extremely different, and likely leads to different developmental paths, she says.

Lord reports for the first time that wolf pups are still blind and deaf when they begin to walk and explore their environment at age two weeks. "No one knew this about wolves, that when they begin exploring they're blind and deaf and rely primarily on smell at this stage, so this is very exciting," she notes.

She adds, "When wolf pups first start to hear, they are frightened of the new sounds initially, and when they first start to see they are also initially afraid of new visual stimuli. As each sense engages, wolf pups experience a new round of sensory shocks that dog puppies do not."

Meanwhile, dog pups only begin to explore and walk after all three senses, smell, hearing and sight, are functioning. Overall, "It's quite startling how different dogs and wolves are from each other at that early age, given how close they are genetically. A litter of dog puppies at two weeks are just basically little puddles, unable to get up or walk around. But wolf pups are exploring actively, walking strongly with good coordination and starting to be able to climb up little steps and hills."

These significant, development-related differences in dog and wolf pups' experiences put them on distinctly different trajectories in relation to the ability to form interspecies social attachments, notably with humans, Lord says. This new information has implications for managing wild and captive wolf populations, she says.

Her experiments analyzed the behavior of three groups of young animals: 11 wolves from three litters and 43 dogs total. Of the dogs, 33 border collies and German shepherds were raised by their mothers and a control group of 10 German shepherd pups were hand-raised, meaning a human was introduced soon after birth.

At the gene level, she adds, "the difference may not be in the gene itself, but in when the gene is turned on. The data help to explain why, if you want to socialize a dog with a human or a horse, all you need is 90 minutes to introduce them between the ages of four and eight weeks. After that, a dog will not be afraid of humans or whatever else you introduced. Of course, to build a real relationship takes more time. But with a wolf pup, achieving even close to the same fear reduction requires 24-hour contact starting before age three weeks, and even then you won't get the same attachment or lack of fear."

In many parts of our Country today(both urban and rural), it can be hard to determine what the native flora of the region was prior to industrial farming and urban builiding................When you go to plant nurseries to seek out landscaping plants, trees and flowers, 90% of the time you learn that your choices involve plantings from China, Japan, Norway and the Mid-East........A person almost has to have a degree in botany,,,,,,,,,,,,and be highly motivated to use a combination of specialty nursery and/or mail order nurseries to secure even a modicum of indigenous trees, shrubs and flowers to plant on their property................Many nurserymen will even go so far as to tout the exotic bird- and butterfly loving plants as being superior to those that are growing up the street in the sliver of natural woodland still standing.................But as ecologist Amanda Rodewald of Ohio State tells us in her "spot on" National Wildlife Federation article---- when we plant those non-natives on our property, we are furthering the downward spiral of biodiversity in the world,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and putting many species of native birds, insects,mammals, trees and shrubs in dire straits...............Tree seedling survival was reduced up to 70 percent, and herb growth and reproduction rates plunged by up to 80 percent, primarily because of the shade cast by non-native honeysuckle.........................concluding that “honeysuckle is good for birds is like going to a highway rest stop, seeing starlings at a dumpster and saying that rest stops are good for birds...............research shows that birds also may be harmed indirectly because nonnative plants affect insects........... The number and diversity of plant-eating insects, especially caterpillars, drops dramatically when exotic plants invade.......................honeysuckle leafs out sooner in spring than most plants causing the fittest cardinals to rush to mate and nest in those shrubs’ dense foliage.............. But instead of a gain in reproductive success, these birds pay a price............ The early nesters in honeysuckle rear 20 percent fewer young than those that nest in native plants.............This is so because the Cardinal nests stick out(no other birds have nested this early), raccoons, hawks and crows spot them easily and swoop in and kill the newly hatched Cardinals................And those bright red berries that you see the Cardinals dining on freely, well the exotic honeysuckle berries seem to contain abundant pigments, but are lacking in the good proteins that make male birds more robust and long lived............So while the males attract females with their bright red color, nature had in mind that female Cardinals would benefit not from the male coloring, but from their vitality and fitness............The color and the vitality historically are linked............Now there are male Cardinals with bright red color but low vitality,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this, with dire consequence for the long term survival of the species,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,As an ad I once saw in in a nature magazine once yelled out: GO NATIVE OR DO NOT GARDEN AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Nonnative Plants: Ecological Traps

Offering alluring habitat for songbirds, exotic plants may actually decrease the animals' long-term survival and fitness

01-14-2013 // John Carey;National Wildlife Magazine

ASIAN HONEYSUCKLES ARE BEAUTIFUL AND SHOWY BUSHES. Their white and pink flowers can fill the air with fragrance. Songbirds, including northern cardinals, American robins and gray catbirds, flock to nest in the plants’ dense leaves and gorge on their smorgasbord of red and yellow berries.

But these lush plants have a darker side. Since Amur honeysuckle and other Asian species were introduced to the United States in the 1800s, birds have spread their seeds across the eastern part of the country, creating dense thickets everywhere from Vermont to Ohio. The deep shade cast by honeysuckle has devastated countless native plants. “Spring and summer wildflowers are just annihilated,” says ecologist Amanda Rodewald of Ohio State University.

So, too, are tree seedlings such as sugar maple as well as native herbs. At Ohio’s Miami University, ecologist David Gorchov compared the survival of these plants in areas where honeysuckle was removed to areas where the bushes were left intact. “We thought that some native plants would be affected by honeysuckle, while others would not be,” he says. “But we found that everything we looked at was affected.” Tree seedling survival was reduced up to 70 percent, and herb growth and reproduction rates plunged by up to 80 percent, primarily because of the shade cast by honeysuckle, Gorchov hypothesizes.

Bird Magnets

But what about the birds that appear to be thriving in honeysuckle? Researchers at Pennsylvania State University created a stir with a 2011 paper, published in the journal Diversity and Distributions, concluding that the number of fruit-eating birds such as cardinals, robins and catbirds tripled during the past three decades in parts of central Pennsylvania due to the spread of nonnative honeysuckles. Their findings have fueled a controversial argument from a handful of ecologists that some nonnative plants actually may help native wildlife. These scientists also question whether the benefit of removing nonnative plants always justifies the considerable cost such restoration efforts entail.

“Most [nonnative species] seem to have little impact at all, and some have desirable effects,” writes Macalester College biologist Mark Davis in a recent commentary published in BioScience. He argues that plant species should be judged on their ecological merits, not on whether they are native. “Is there any evidence that the long-term survival of any native North American plant or bird species is truly being threatened by nonnative plants?” Davis asks. “I seriously doubt it.”

But the idea of giving up the fight against nonnative plants remains highly contentious. “It’s still the minority view among ecologists,” says Rodewald. And based on a growing body of research conducted by her and other scientists, continued concerns about exotic plants—particularly highly invasive species such as honeysuckle—remain justified.

Generalists and Specialists

Scientists are taking a closer look at the plants’ impact on birds, for example. While it’s true that abundant honeysuckle berries (right) attracted large numbers of fruit-eating songbirds in Pennsylvania, concluding that “honeysuckle is good for birds is like going to a highway rest stop, seeing starlings at a dumpster and saying that rest stops are good for birds,” says University of Delaware entomologist Doug Tallamy. Birds in the Pennsylvania study were all generalists: species that thrive when there’s more food of almost any type. Most generalists are doing well and do not need special protection or concern from conservationists.

In contrast, scientists are finding that morespecialized species are hurt by honeysuckle invasions. When Rodewald began to study how birds are faring in Ohio as suburbs increasingly bump up against remnants of forest, she noticed that some specialists, including the Acadian flycatcher, avoid areas with a dense honeysuckle understory altogether.

Tallamy’s research shows that birds also may be harmed indirectly because nonnative plants affect insects. He has found that the number and diversity of plant-eating insects, especially caterpillars, drops dramatically when exotic plants invade. That’s not a problem for species such as catbirds that eat a variety of worms, spiders and other food. But warblers and chickadees rely on caterpillars for 90 percent of their diet during the breeding season, eating hundreds per day. “That’s a lot of insects,” Tallamy says. “If you don’t have those insects, you don’t have the birds.”

Lured Toward Predators

Rodewald’s latest research suggests that even generalists like cardinals may be harmed. She began the work, she says, with an observation that “honeysuckle seemed to be contributing to higher predation rates.” To figure out why, she and her students set up observation posts in 14 forests in central Ohio, hiring a landscaping company to laboriously clear honeysuckle from several 5-acre plots. For the following six years, more than a dozen students and technicians (along with video cameras) watched what happened to 888 cardinal nests during the breeding seasons, observing each nest at least every few days. “It was a ton of work,” recalls Rodewald.

Their painstaking observations paid off, providing a clear picture of how honeysuckle affects cardinals. Typically in the wild, male cardinals that are in the best condition grab the best territories and nesting spots and breed earliest in the year. They also successfully rear more young than their less-fit competitors—an example of natural selection at work.

But this pattern changes when honeysuckle invades a forest. Because honeysuckle leafs out sooner in spring than most plants, the fittest cardinals rush to mate and nest in the shrubs’ dense foliage. But instead of a gain in reproductive success, these birds pay a price. The early nesters in honeysuckle rear 20 percent fewer young than those that nest in native plants.

The reason? Predation, as Rodewald initially suspected. Perhaps because the first nests in honeysuckle are just about the only nests in a forest, locating them is easier for predators such as raccoons, hawks and crows. Parasitic cowbirds (which kick cardinal eggs out of nests and replace them with their own) also disproportionately affect early nesters. “Nests in honeysuckle are especially vulnerable to predation early in the breeding season, a time widely considered to be the most favorable for raising young,” Rodewald says. “Breeding in honeysuckle seems to flip natural selection. It is a kind of ecological trap.”

Feather Color and Fitness

The story does not end there. As part of her study, Rodewald’s team also captured cardinals (left) in mist nets and collected feathers from 280 birds. The researchers then photographed the feathers and used computer software to measure both the shade of red and the intensity of color in each


feather.Normally, males with deeper, redder color are the most fit because they’ve been able to find food sources rich both in nutrients and the carotenoid pigments that make feathers red. But Rodewald discovered that in urban and suburban areas with a lot of honeysuckle, the normal relationship between fitness and color breaks down. She suspects honeysuckle berries, unlike the berries of native plants, contain abundant pigments but are poor in the protein and fat birds need for energy and fitness.

The result: Honeysuckle “reduces the value of plumage brightness as a sign of male quality,” Rodewald says. “To a female, a bright red male would normally be a cue that this is a guy she wants to be with, because she will fledge more young. Instead, the cue is meaningless in cities.” (The availability of birdseed in urban areas—which contains plenty of nutrients but fewer carotenoid pigments—also may contribute to the disconnect between feather color and fitness.)

Bird populations will not suddenly crash because of honeysuckle and other nonnatives whose “devastating impacts on insects and plants are so obvious you can count them,” says Rodewald. “With the birds, the effects of invasives can be much more nuanced and more subtle—and may be taking longer to play out.”

Importance of Insects

But over time, these effects could add up. Tallamy is particularly concerned about specialists such as warblers that depend on plant-munching insects. “My prediction is that birds that specialize on insect herbivores will take a bigger hit than those that eat other insects,” he says.

Tallamy points out that it’s not even clear which birds would be most affected because scientists still do not know which species depend on herbivorous insects. That’s why he recently spent 16 days watching a chickadee nest in his backyard, learning that it took 4,800 caterpillars to raise a single clutch of chicks. Tallamy has now put out a call to nature photographers for images of birds with insects in their beaks to try and pin down what various species eat.

Such efforts should help scientists better understand the threat nonnative plants pose to birds and other wildlife. “While many nonnative plants are fairly benign, others can be ecologically destructive,” says botanist Bruce Stein, NWF’s director of climate change adaptation. “We need to pick our battles wisely by figuring out which ones we can live with and which, if left unattended, will undermine our ecosystems.”

Meanwhile, homeowners can help by planting native trees and other plants in their yards. “We are so used to hearing disastrous environmental news, and it often seems there is little that one person can do,” says Tallamy. “But I’ve been going all over the country saying that you can do something. You can change the plants in your yard.” The caterpillars and the birds will thank you.

---

NWF Priority: Stopping Invasives

For decades, combating the threat posed to native biodiversity by harmful invasive species has been a top NWF priority. With support from the Turner Foundation, the Federation during the past several years has worked closely with its partners in the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS), employing a variety of tactics, from scientific research and policy advocacy to grassroots activism and public education. Recent NECIS victories include: new U.S. Coast Guard regulations to slow introduction of invasives from ship ballast water discharges, an import ban of five harmful constrictor snake species under the U.S. Lacey Act and introduction in the House of Representatives of legislation strengthening U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authority to screen and regulate the live animal trade to prevent imports of potential new invaders. To learn more, go to www.nwf.org/invasives.

West Virginia Black Bears have made a robust population climb over the past 60 years..........Bears that have been killed by hunters starting in ten-year periods: 2010 (2,392); 2000 (1,317); 1990 (235); 1980 (47); 1970 (38); 1960 (72); 1950 (32)..................The State has a December hunting season which allows the earliest hibernating bears to get out of harms way----helping offset hunter kill rates which this December 2011 hit a new high of 2683................There are an estimated 10,000 bears in West Virginia so Game Officials are right about at the tipping point(27% of the population) of how many more bears can be killed annually before a population slide would commence

Record number of black bears killed in WV

statejournal.com

CHARLESTON (AP) — West Virginia hunters killed a record number of black bears last year during the archery and firearms seasons.

The Division of Natural Resources says the 2,683 black bears killed represented a 34 percent increase from 2011. It's also 12 percent higher than the previous record set in 2010.

The DNR says the numbers were buoyed by an abundant mast supply, an additional two weeks of archery hunting and multiple counties being open for a September firearms hunt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

State’s black bear population is mind-boggling

intermountain.com

By Kenneth Cobb

In last week's column, I reported that the bear hunters took a record number of black bears statewide in 2010 (2,392).

This is somewhat mind-boggling considering what the West Virginia bear harvest was 30 years ago. In 1980, the total bear harvest was only 47.

It was 1954 when I read the hunting regulations for the first time. The counties open for black bear gun hunting were those in the eastern part of the state, which included Randolph.

I asked my father if bear hunting was dangerous. Dad, who had never been bear hunting, was quick to say "the black bears we have are really very shy and timid".

He also told me that his uncle had hunted them a few times. About a year before my great uncle's death, I asked him about his bear hunting trips.

He told me that he never got one, but he was with hunting parties who did manage to get one or two in Pocahontas County.

Black bears were somewhat numerous in Virginia in the early 1700s in what is now West Virginia. This was at the time of the early settlement of the white man.

During this period of the early 18th century, black bears were killed in large numbers in the Ohio, Kanawha, and Little Kanawha River Valleys.

In the early 1900s, the black bear was considered a varmint or non-game animal, and no harvest records were kept. It was in the 1930s a serious effort was made to keep the bears from being slaughtered in large numbers.

About 1935, the black bear was officially made a game animal, and a hunting season was established. Further efforts to manage the black bear were made after World War II with additional success.

In 1967, a bear sanctuary was created in the cranberry country located on the corners of Greenbrier, Pocahontas, and Webster Counties.

A second sanctuary of 39,000 acres was created in 1971 near Spruce Knob on the Randolph-Pendleton county line. For several years, bear hunting was prohibited in these locations.

Today, both of these areas are open for bear hunting.

Additional changes were made in the hunting season starting in 1979. This change has probably reversed the decline in black bear numbers.

The traditional bear gun season is now in December. With this setup, the earlier hibernating bears are protected.

Today, black bear sightings are being reported in just about all counties in West Virginia.

Large increases are being observed in the southern part of the state.

In the mid 1980s, a bear was sported swimming across the Kanawha River practically in downtown Charleston.

About two or three years ago, another bear was reported on Washington Street on Charleston's West Side.

With the large increases in the bear populations, some bears have become a nuisance.

These are the ones that damage or destroy property, attack livestock and become aggressive around people in public locations. Most of these nuisance bears are captured by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources.

First-time offenders are ear-tagged with an orange tag with a number for easy identification and then released close to the capture site.

A second offense involves relocation to a more remote area, usually about 50 miles from the second capture site. A third capture usually means that the animal has to be destroyed.

This is essentially a "three strikes, you're out" program.

Black bears do have a tendency to travel. In June, 1999, a nuisance bear was captured near Ramsey in Fayette County.

The bear was ear-tagged and given an implant radio. It was tracked during the fall to near Carnifex Ferry State Park where it hibernated.

Contact was lost until the bear was killed by a hunter in 2000 near Norton in Randolph County. This bear never caused any further problems after his capture.

Now, let's take a brief look at the bears that have been checked in by hunters for the past 60 years, starting in ten-year periods: 2010 (2,392); 2000 (1,317); 1990 (235); 1980 (47); 1970 (38); 1960 (72); 1950 (32).

In 2011, a bear hunter can take two bears in a calendar year as long as one is taken in Boone, Fayette, Kanawha, Logan, McDowell, Raleigh or Wyoming Counties.

I never thought that I would ever see the day when the black bear numbers would increase to where the DNR would permit this.

I would like to thank WVDNR game biologist, Steve Wilson, for providing the information to make this week's column possible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West Virginia's Black Bear

By SCOTT SHALAWAY
Photographs by ARNOUT HYDE JR. 

wonderfulwv.com

Twenty years ago, seeing a bear in West Virginia was a lofty ambition a dream come true for a wildlife watcher. In 1980, Mountain State hunters killed only 47 bears. Tom Dotson, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR) district wildlife biologist for the state's southwestern counties, estimates that fewer than 500 black bear roamed the state back then.












Today, however, the state's black bear population has grown to nearly 10,000. In 1999, the legal harvest dipped to 994 from a record 1,082 kills in 1998. 

Just a few years ago, bears were considered restricted to the eastern mountainous areas of the state. But black bears have proven to be accomplished wanderers. Significant populations now occupy southern and southwestern West Virginia, and a major DNR study of these bears is under way. Bears also seem to show up in new places every year. I know of several reliable sightings in Marshall County over the past three years. I suspect it's just a matter of time until I spot one on my piece of heaven.

Even though black bears can cause problems for people, I look forward to the day they roam my ridge, simply because they are such fascinating creatures. Though adults typically weigh 200 to 400 pounds, 600-pounders are possible, especially when food is abundant.




















The success of black bears in West Virginia can be attributed primarily to habitat quality. Oak-hickory forests that produce lots of nuts make big bears. Though commonly thought to be ferocious meat eaters, black bears are surprisingly omnivorous. In fact, they are more herbivore than carnivore. Forest mast (nuts, fruits, and berries), seeds, and roots make up as much as 75 percent of their menu. Carrion, chipmunks, mice, birds' eggs, fish, frogs, and insects make up the balance. Nuts, primarily acorns, are the key food. When mast production is high, bears can fatten up and easily get through even harsh winters. Poor mast years, however, can affect both winter survival and reproduction.

Bear hunters rely on reports of fall mast crops to determine hunting strategy. When the nut crop is good, bears stay active longer, eat more, and den later, so the late fall gun season is usually more productive than the early fall bow season. When the mast crop is poor, bears scatter in search of food, eat less, and den earlier. During poor mast years, the early bow season is usually more successful than the later gun season.

Though the bear's period of winter dormancy (bears are not true hibernators) seems a time of inactivity, it is then that sows activate their pregnancies. Black bears breed every other year in June or July, but after a few cell divisions, the fertilized eggs stop growing and do not implant on the uterine wall. When winter dormancy begins, the tiny embryos implant on the uterus and development resumes. Two or three tiny cubs about the size of guinea pigs (seven to 12 ounces) are born in January. The cubs nurse and grow for about eight weeks while the sow continues her winter's sleep. In March or April, they venture outside the den with the sow. Cubs wean in the fall. Some den the first winter with their mother; others den singly nearby. If they survive the winter, they're on their own.

More fascinating than the black bear reproductive strategy of delayed implantation is the physiology of winter dormancy. During the winter months, while females are pregnant, bears do not eat, drink, defecate, or urinate. How they cope with the accumulation of internal toxic wastes has serious implications for human health; research continues to unlock these physiological secrets.















Though bear metabolism drops 50 to 60 percent during dormancy and heart rate can drop to single digits per minute, body temperature drops minimally. In fact, brain and core body temperatures stay near normal. This is why bears are not considered true hibernators. They are easily aroused and react quickly to disturbances, such as intruders or potential predators. It is for this reason that bear biologists such as Dotson and Joe Rieffenberger, who led the state's bear research program for many years, use tranquilizer guns to study bears at their den sites.

Though a bear den may conjure up images of a deep rocky cave, den sites include large hollow trees, a scrape under a brush pile, a shallow burrow, and the space beneath a hunting cabin porch. Some bears even sleep above ground in a thicket or in the open.

Black bears are magnificent and powerful creatures. Respect them. We may "own" the woods, but bears rule them. Reduce the chance of conflict by using common sense to avoid close encounters of the bear kind.

Dr. Scott Shalaway is a certified wildlife biologist and freelance writer whose syndicated nature column appears in newspapers around the state.