New West reporting on the Potomac Valley, Montana land legacy Project.--Ranchers agree to keep the land whole

Special Report

Land Legacy: In the Potomac Valley, Ranchers Back Transferring to the State Important, Grazed Acres

Second in a three-part series exploring the future of newly public lands included in the Montana Legacy Project. Also see: The Swan Valley, Making Room for People and Bears.

By Jason D.B. Kauffman, 8-31-10

In the history of complex land transfers in Montana, the Legacy Project stands alone. From the Swan Valley south of Glacier to Lolo Creek next to the Idaho stateline, much of western Montana was impacted in one way or another by this historic deal involving the Plum Creek timber company, the Trust for Public Land, the Nature Conservancy and state and federal land management agencies. Nearly all of the 310,000 acres of former Plum Creek lands will have shifted into public ownership once the last of the Legacy Project's three phases concludes, which is expected later this year. We asked a few Montanans with close ties to the lands covered by the historic agreement what it will mean for the state's future. Not a lot has changed in Montana's rural Potomac Valley over the years. And that's just fine for many of the multi-generational ranching families whose livelihoods are tied to this expanse of waving grass and trees drained by the lower Blackfoot River northeast of Missoula.

Today, just as it was nearly a century ago, the Potomac is a working landscape.

But faced with the possibility of large-scale changes sweeping across this broad valley and on to the low and rounded Garnet Range to the south, the valley's ranchers did something that may surprise some. They got behind the transfer of tens of thousands of private acres in the Garnets—lands they've grazed their cattle on and cut timber from for decades—to the state of Montana.

The Potomac ranchers faced a stark set of choices. Either accept a future where their access to prime grazing lands is threatened by residential development or embrace an alternative that keeps the landscape whole.

So, in a place where politics generally fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, they backed the state's purchase of most of the range's north-facing slopes. The handwriting was on the wall, said Denny Iverson, a longtime rancher and logger from the Potomac.

By the Numbers

Covering four counties and nearly 500 square miles, the Montana Legacy Project changed the face of forestland ownership across the western half of the state forever. Its 310,000 acres are found in six distinct areas. They include the Swan and Seeley valleys, the Potomac and Garnet Mountains area, much of Fish Creek and Lolo Creek, the Mill Creek area and mountainous areas to the north and south of Bonner. 

Except in a few instances, these Plum Creek timberlands existed in a "checkerboard" fashion alongside public lands managed by the state of Montana and the Lolo and Flathead national forests. Originally purchased by the Trust for Public Land and the Nature Conservancy for $490 million, the lands have mostly been transferred to the U.S. Forest Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. In so doing, the agencies can now manage the lands in large, contiguous blocks. 

Legacy Project supporters say that without the agreement, the lands could have been developed for residential uses in a piecemeal fashion, with just one result being the loss of critical connections between core wildlife ranges. Other benefits of the agreement include guaranteed recreational access for Montanans and out-of-state visitors both now and in the future.

"I am not opposed to development," he said. "More neighbors doesn't necessarily scare me. We just didn't need them way back up in the hills."

Iverson's lived in this valley for 35 years. The land in question is critical for two of his neighbors, ranches with summer grazing operations. It's where they trail their cattle into the range's higher pastures. Though he doesn't actually graze his cattle on these lands himself, but largely on his family's private ground in the valley, it is also critical for Iverson's other job, that of a logger. When he's not tending his cows, Iverson is often out working in the same woods.

Splitting the lower Garnets into multiple private parcels could have made both activities all but impossible.

"It would have been a fragmented landscape at best," Iverson said.

BUILDING BRIDGES

Travelers headed on to better-known outdoor destinations in western Montana often overlook the Garnet Range. The area's one true draw is the Garnet ghost town.

Because of its relative obscurity, the backroads and timbered ridgelines are generally left to those living in the Potomac Valley. Generations of local residents have worked and played in the Garnets, whose role as a working landscape stretches back to at least the early 1900s.

Early on, the Nature Conservancy recognized the economic significance of the Garnets for the Potomac community as it went about deciding which Plum Creek lands they'd like to include in the Montana Legacy Project. Ignoring the important role these lands play in terns of the valley's economy just wouldn't work, the conservation organization concluded.

 Tendrils of early morning fog roll across the western end of the Potomac Valley. The Garnet Range, where the state of Montana is poised to pick up more than 32,000 acres of former Plum Creek timberland sometime in October, is in the distance. Photo by Jason D.B. Kauffman.

To succeed here, however, the organization would have to take an approach that balanced the needs of wildlife and rural residents. They recognized that the Garnet Range could continue supporting wildlife as long as it remained a working forest.

At least one radio-collared grizzly from the nearby Mission Mountains has been tracked crossing the Potomac Valley into the Garnet Range in recent years. So far, the bears have lived peaceably alongside their ranching neighbors. More and more development would have changed that picture. "The true impact is residential development," said Chris Bryant, the Nature Conservancy's Western Montana Director of Outreach in Missoula.

Preserving the area meant selling the community on turning private timberlands over to the state. Luckily, the Nature Conservancy had a proven track record among residents.

With the Blackfoot Community Project, arguably the organization's biggest success in Montana prior to the Legacy Project, the Nature Conservancy managed to transfer 89,000 acres of former Plum Creek lands in the Blackfoot and Clearwater drainages into a mixture of public and private ownership. It was just one component of the larger Blackfoot Challenge, a partnership of local landowners that's gained widespread notoriety for its successful efforts to tackle issues like invasive weeds, finding ways to live alongside grizzly bears and gray wolves and preserving the area's rural way of life.

"That trust was already built in," Iverson explained.

Without the 89,000 Blackfoot Community acres, the 310,000-acre Legacy Project would not have been possible, said Gary Burnett, the Blackfoot Challenge's executive director. Lessons learned on the Blackfoot set the stage for the significantly more complicated agreement offered by the Legacy Prioject, he said. 

"A lot of things could go wrong in that process," Burnett added.

Because the Nature Conservancy never intended to retain ownership of the Legacy Project lands in the Garnets, the organization turned to the Potomac community to help determine who could best manage the land out its backdoor. Under the banner of the Potomac Working Group, Iverson and more than a dozen other local residents agreed to sit down to discuss the ultimate disposition of the acreage.

Because the Garnet Range contains no Forest Service lands, federal ownership was quickly ruled out. Transferring the lands to the U.S. government would have been a tough sell in the Potomac area. What the Garnets did have were parcels of state trust land mixed in with the former Plum Creek holdings.

"The community really came out in favor of state ownership," said Iverson. "It keeps it open for hunting, keeps it open for recreating and keeps it open for grazing."

But would Montana state legislators agree to the purchase? In 2009, the question was put to them in the form of House Bill 674, which, if passed, would have authorized the state to sell $21 million in general obligation bonds to fund the purchase of the Plum Creek lands in the Garnets. The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), the agency in charge of managing Montana's system of state forests, would take ownership of the land under the legislation.

In a time of declining state revenues, the bill's chances before the legislature and on the governor's desk were far from certain.

But it passed, thanks in large part to the back-to-back trips Potomac residents made to the state capital to testify in favor of the purchase. Iverson was among those who traveled to Helena.

"I don't know if it would have ever gone through the legislature like it did without the community support behind it," he said. "There were 70-some people that showed up for the first hearing. People continued to go over and lobby individual legislators to get their vote, get them onboard.

"We had to keep telling them the story of this landscape and how important it was to the community to keep it intact."

A WORKING LANDSCAPE KEPT WHOLE

 Agriculture has long been a cornerstone of the economy of the rural Potomac Valley, shown here just after a late evening rainstorm passed through. Photo by Jason D.B. Kauffman.

Every summer since the 1930s, the Wills family has turned their livestock out to pasture in the Garnets. The family tradition began with W.K. Wills, who began grazing sheep in the Potomac area to help feed the area's miners.

Today, the family grazes 185 hereford and black angus cattle on the former Plum Creek allotments. The Wills are part of the Bonita, Clinton, Potomac Grazing Association, which negotiates grazing leases in the mixed-ownership Garnet Range.

Heather Wills, a fourth-generation member of the family and the great-granddaughter of the late W.K. Wills, believes the Legacy Project is the Potomac Valley's best chance of holding on to its rural heritage. She gladly testified before the state legislature in favor of H.B. 674. "The community was built on timber and agriculture," Wills said. "I hope to see that continue to be its legacy."

According to Tony Liane, the area manager for the DNRC's southwest land office in Missoula, the state's purchase of the former Plum Creek lands in the Garnets will allow that to happen. He said the purchase should be finalized sometime in October.

"That land has been grazed and will continue to be grazed," Liane said. "We made that commitment to the grazing association."

In all, the DNRC is poised to take over more than 32,000 acres in the Garnets.

Years of heavy logging by Plum Creek and other previous owners of the land will mean something different for its immediate value as a timber resource, however. Liane said it will be at least 10 to 15 years before the DNRC authorizes any large-scale thinning projects on the former Plum Creek lands. 

"It's going to be quite some time before substantial logging takes place," he said.

By that time, the land should be Montana's newest state forest, with a name yet to be determined. Officials will likely look to local geography for help. Residents are pushing for it to be called the Potomac State Forest.

Can any lessons can be gleaned from the Potomac experience? Iverson thinks so. Despite the differences Westerners may have on controversial issues related to the land, there's almost always room for discussion, he said.

In the Potomac, it came down to a belief shared by conservationists and rural residents that keeping the land intact and unsubdivided was important.

"That's why the Nature Conservancy wanted the Blackfoot Challenge involved in this process," Iverson said. "They knew we would try to find common ground."

Previously: An examination of the Swan Valley's role as crucial habitat for bears and other wildlife. Next Week: Why the Legacy Project's focus on the Fish Creek drainage benefits recreational access both now and in the future.

Camilla Fox of Project Coyote reflecting on: Compassionate Conservation ~ Bridging the Divide Between Animal Welfare & Conservation

---

From: Camilla Fox <cfox@projectcoyote.org>
To: Project Coyote <info@projectcoyote.org>
Sent: Fri Sep 03 20:19:20 2010
Subject: Compassionate Conservation ~ Bridging the Divide Between Animal Welfare & Conservation

Camilla Fox is the Executive Director of Project Coyote and a wildlife consultant.

Posted: September 3, 2010 05:30 PM

Compassionate Conservation ~ Bridging the Divide Between Animal Welfare & Conservation

Blogging from Oxford, England from the Compassionate Conservation Conference- a ground-breaking International Symposium on animal welfare in conservation practice. The Symposium, sponsored by the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) and the Born Free Foundation, has brought together scientists and practitioners from a range of disciplines to debate animal welfare issues in conservation, look for practical outcomes and promote a dialogue between the two disciplines that are often perceived as mutually exclusive.

The Symposium is organized around the following themes:

• Animal welfare in field conservation 

• Captive animal welfare and conservation 

• Conservation consequences of wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and release 

• International trade in live wild animals

Here with me is my colleague, good friend, and Project Coyote Advisory Board member, Dr. Marc Bekoff who addressed some challenging ethical questions around reintroduction and conservation projects in his keynote address including:

• Should we kill for conservation?

• What trade-offs must be made between ethics and conservation goals?

• Can conservation biologists do good science - save individuals, species, and ecosystems - and also be compassionate?

• What role does sentience play in our decisions?

Representing both Project Coyote and the Animal Welfare Institute, I spoke about predator management in the United States and why we need to move away from indiscriminate killing methods like poisons, snaring, aerial gunning, body-count bounties and contest hunts and recognize the important role that native carnivores play in healthy ecosystems. I also discussed an alternative model that was adopted in my home county in Marin Co, California ~ known as the Marin County Livestock and Wildlife Protection Program ~ after controversy erupted when local citizens learned that Marin was going to be one of three northern California counties to test the deadly poison Compound 1080 on coyotes by the federal government (see my previous blog about this poison and the current federal bill that would ban it). The local Marin initiative - unique in its kind- assists ranchers with implementing non-lethal animal husbandry techniques instead of killing native carnivores with federal trappers through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Wildlife Services" program.

It is refreshing to see these challenging issues of how we balance conservation with the needs and lives of individual animals debated in an international forum with some of the brightest thinkers and visionaries of our time. It is my hope that out of this symposium there will be more collaboration between conservationists and animal welfare advocates where common ground and goals can be identified. 

For more information about this conference and related issues:

Compassionate Conservation Finally Comes of Age: Killing in the name of conservation doesn't work: Ethics must be firmly implanted in conservation biology 

By Marc Bekoff, Psychology Today

First do no harm ~ In putting conservation into practice, we often cause great suffering to animals. Marc Bekoff argues that we need a new ethical perspective

By Marc Bekoff, New Scientist

Animal-welfare needs to go wild say Raincoast scientists

Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Project Coyote

Follow Project Coyote on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Project-Coyote/84167917172

Follow Camilla Fox on Twitter: www.twitter.com/projectcoyote 

          

_________________________

Camilla H. Fox, Executive Director

Project Coyote

P.O. Box 5007

Larkspur, CA 94977

ph: 415.945.3232

  

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA AND HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY SCIENTISTS ALONG WITH U.S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESEARCHERS SAY THAT THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ELK HERD IS STILL TO LARGE TO SUCCESSFULLY ALLLOW FOR WILLOW AND ASPEN REBOUND...............THE FULL ELK PREDATOR SUITE (AND PERHAPS CLIMATE CHANGE) STILL HAS WORK TO DO REDUCING THE ELK HERDS FURTHER IF IN FACT WILLOW AND ASPEN REGENERATION(AND ALL OF ITS TRICKLE DOWN BENEFITS) ARE TO TRULY OCCUR

Study shows wolves by themselves aren't helping aspen as much as thought and that

"The elk population in the area is still too large to allow a significant aspen rebound".
"A landscape-level aspen recovery is likely only to occur if wolves, in combination with other predators and climate factors, further reduce the elk population," Kauffman said".

ALL OF US WHO USE % UPS AND DOWNS REGARDING POPULATION FIGURES(TO ARGUE PRO OR CON REGARDING WHAT WAS VERSUS WHAT IS IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF ANIMALS) FORGET THAT THE 15,000 ELK PRESENT IN THE PARK PRIOR TO WOLF RESTORATION IN 1995 WAS AN "IRRUPTED" POPULATION--MEANING AS WOLVES WERE EXTIRPATED FROM YELLOWSTONE BY THE EARLY 1930'S, ELK RELIEVED OF A KEYSTONE PREDATOR(THE STRAW THAT STIRRED THE DRINK ALONGSIDE COUGARS, GRIZ AND COYOTES), WERE ABLE TO MULTIPLY EXPONENTIALLY--WITH NEGATIVE ALTERATIONS ON PLANT LIFE AS IT RELATES TO WILLOW AND ASPEN GENERATION...............TRICKLING DOWN NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES THAT INCLUDED DEGRADED WATERCOURSES AND EXTIRPATION OF BEAVER(NO TREES TO BUILD DAMS) AND BIRDS(NO STREAMSIDE NESTING AVAILABLE)
-BLOGGER RICK WEIGHING IN

Wolves have not helped the aspen trees in and around Yellowstone National Park as much as previously thought, a study to be published in the journal Ecology suggests.
The finding challenges the assertion that aspens in Yellowstone had rebounded thanks to wolves, a claim that has become symbolic of the far-reaching affects wolves have on their environment and, for some, a beneficial payoff of the controversial reintroduction.
Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Montana and Humboldt State University have found that elk continue to put pressure on aspen groves, regardless of whether wolves are near.
And, while the Northern Yellowstone elk herd is 60 percent smaller than it was before wolf reintroduction in 1995, "none of the aspen groves studied after wolf restoration appear to be regenerating," said Matt Kauffman, a USGS scientist and lead author of the study.
"Elk forage pretty heavily on aspen and it's really still unknown whether aspen are going to be able to recover," he said.
But while the findings refute what's become a common narrative in the wolf debate - that by eating elk, the predator has allowed aspens and other elk food to rebound from over-browsing -- Kauffman said it shouldn't affect the conversation about the overall worth of wolves.
"I don't think our study has any real bearing on the merits of wolf introduction," he said. "The reintroduction was an incredible wildlife-management success."
Instead, Kauffman said the results clarify the complex relationship between elk, wolves and aspen.
A theory amongst scientists - fleshed out in a widely circulated study published in 2007 in the journal Biological Conservation -- has been that aspen in Yellowstone were regenerating in areas of the park where wolves were common. Elk avoided those areas, the theory went, giving the young aspen a chance to grow to maturity. In other words, wolves acted as unwitting guard dogs for baby trees.
As Science Daily put it at the time, the 2007 results were "especially encouraging for the health of America's first national park, but may also have implications for other areas of the West and other important predators."
But Kauffman and other researchers have since mapped places in the northern elk herd's range where wolves posed a serious risk to elk, as determined by elk kills, and where they didn't. The researchers found aspen trees were browsed in both areas.
And, they found that the elk population in the area is still too large to allow a significant aspen rebound.
"A landscape-level aspen recovery is likely only to occur if wolves, in combination with other predators and climate factors, further reduce the elk population," Kauffman said.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox shows up in a California location that has not seen the species for 90 years!

 

Staff Reports 

Scientists find red fox thought extinct from Sonora Pass region

The Forest Service today announced the recent sighting of a Sierra Nevada red fox, in the area where the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Stanislaus National Forests and Yosemite National Park come together.

This summer, the Forest Service has been conducting monitoring activities with motion sensitive cameras to detect the presence of the elusive fisher and pine martin, two forest carnivores known to frequent the High Sierra.

While checking photographs on Aug. 11, Forest Service wildlife biologists Sherri Lisius, from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and Adam Rich, from the Stanislaus National Forest, identified a photo believed to be that of a red fox. Surprised by what they saw, the Forest Service biologists consulted with California Department of Fish and Game. The only known population of Sierra Nevada red fox occurs in the Lassen Peak region – about 150 miles to the north.

Recent survey efforts by CDFG in the Sierra Nevada have failed to detect red foxes south of the Lassen area, making the Forest Service detection significant.

"The last known sighting of a Sierra Nevada red fox in the Sonora Pass area was sometime in the 1920s," said Mike Crawley, Bridgeport District Ranger. "Needless to say, we are quite surprised and excited by this find."

The Sonora Pass population of the Sierra Nevada red fox carried a genetic signature seen previously only in museum specimens collected before 1926. Analysis of hair found on the tree supporting the motion sensitive camera allowed UC Davis veterinary geneticists to identify it as originating from a Sierra Nevada red fox, distinct from the Lassen Peak population.

Wildlife biologists from the Forest Service, CDFG, and the University of California, Davis, will set-up additional monitoring stations to gather more information on the presence of Sierra Nevada red fox in the area of Sonora Pass. Learn more about this release by contacting Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Public Affairs Officer, Christie Kalkowski, at 775-355-5311.

 

 

Fox spit helped Forest Service confirm rare find

September 3, 2010

Three weeks ago, when U.S. Forest Service biologists thought they had found a supposedly extinct fox in the mountains of central California, they turned to UC Davis for confirmation.

Photographs taken by a Forest Service trail camera in Sonora Pass seemed to show a Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) biting a bait bag of chicken scraps. That would be an amazing discovery, since no sighting of that species has been verified south of Mount Lassen, 200 miles away, since the mid-1990s.

The biologists shipped the bait bag to wildlife genetics researchers Ben Sacks and Mark Statham at the UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory. Since 2006, they have radically altered our understanding of red foxes in California, supplying information crucial to conservation efforts.

Sacks and Statham scraped saliva from the tooth punctures on the bag and analyzed the DNA within. Before you could say spit, they had the answer: definitely a Sierra Nevada red fox.

"This is the most exciting animal discovery we have had in California since the wolverine in the Sierra two years ago -- only this time, the unexpected critter turned out to be home-grown, which is truly big news," Sacks said. (The wolverine was an immigrant from Wyoming).

Four years ago, Sacks began analyzing California red fox DNA collected from scat, hair and saliva from live animals, and skin and bones from museum specimens. Until then, the expert consensus was that any red fox in the Central Valley and coastal regions of the state was a descendant of Eastern red foxes (V.v. fulva) brought here in the 1860's for hunting and fur farms.

Sacks and his colleagues have confirmed that red fox populations in coastal lowlands, the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California were indeed introduced from the eastern United States (and Alaska). But they have also shown that:

• There are native California red foxes still living in the Sierra Nevada.
• The native red foxes in the Sacramento Valley (V.v. patwin) are a subspecies genetically distinct from those in the Sierra.
• The two native California subspecies, along with Rocky Mountain and Cascade red foxes (V.v. macroura and V. v. cascadensis), formed a single large western population until the end of the last ice age, when the three mountain subspecies followed receding glaciers up to mountaintops, leaving the Sacramento Valley red fox isolated at low elevation.

Sacks' extensive research program focuses on canids, especially red foxes (evolution, ecology and conservation) and dogs (genetics, geographic origins and spread). He and his students also are working on other carnivores, including disease ecology and interactions among fishers, bobcats, coyotes and gray foxes, and population genetics of ringtails and coyotes.

Griz connectivity from Canada down into Washington and Oregon on across and down the Rockies

home : news : news

9/1/2010 11:38:00 AM      As part of a study to determine the status of grizzlies in the North Cascades, various snares have been set up in likely habitat areas, high in the mountains. The snares use barbed wire to snag fur from the bears. Grizzlies can be identified through DNA analysis. Grizzly bear study underway in Cascades Ian Dunn Staff Writer Editor's note: this is part one of a two-part series. How many people have told you there are indeed Grizzly bears in the North Cascade Mountains? Shoot, some people will tell you they have even seen them. Hmmmmm, oh really. Fact is, Grizzlies were nearly hunted to extinction in the North Cascades by the late 1800s, and have been a struggling population ever since. Though the Black bear population seems to be thriving in Washington state, the Grizzlies are nowhere to be found. Interestingly, it is the thriving Black bear population that leads to the vast majority of mistaken Grizzly bear sightings. Bill Gaines, wildlife biologist and noted bear expert with the Wenatchee and Okanogan National Forest, says they always follow up on Grizzly bear sightings. "None have been reliable," he said. "I think the habitat is good. We have good healthy Black bear populations. We have not had many good Grizzly bear sightings." Black bears are often mistaken for Grizzlies because many Black bears are not actually black. Gaines said of all the Black bears they have trapped and tagged for the past three years, 70 percent were not black. In fact, there has been only one confirmed Grizzly in the North Cascade in the past 10 years, and that was on the Canadian side of the border, which is part of the so-called Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. Now, a new study is underway to identify Grizzlies in the North Cascades and determine the extent of their range. It is a joint effort between the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Western Transportation Institute. The study area comprises some 9,500 square miles in North Central Washington. Gaines says the study has two primary purposes. "The one of the most interest is the effort to get more on the status of Grizzly bears in the Cascades," he said. "We've put in for funding to use particular methods on where they are and where they might be." The study is focusing on getting some genetic material from the bears, and using that to conduct a DNA analysis. In the lab, scientists can tell the difference between a Black bear and a Grizzly, simply by using hair samples. To get the hair samples, Gaines says they extend strands of barbed wire into a 30 foot circle, about knee high. It's sorting of a meeting between old and new technologies here, since barbed wire has been snagging animal hair for the past 150 years or so. Some stinky stuff is placed in the middle of barbed wire circle to attract the bear. Whichever way the bear goes, over or under the wire, some hair is going to be snagged. Plus, there are motion sensitive cameras in place at some of the sites as well. "We put these sites out there and spread them out to maximize where we look," Gaines said. "We check in two weeks and then re-bait them. Then, we pull the sites and move them. We have 70 sites right now and are hoping to get 50 more." Some of these sites are in very remote areas, which Gaines says are very challenging to get to, especially carrying heavy packs. There are four or five crews scattered around the Cascades doing the work. "We will analyze the video in early October," he said. "Late winter or early spring, we will get the DNA data back." The current study is only funded for one year. Once the current study is completed, Gaines is hoping to get grants to continue the study for another couple years. He feels the extra two years is important to adequately gauge the Grizzly population in the North Cascades. The last confirmed Grizzly sighting in the area was 1996 in the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. Even though the Grizzlies have been protected in Canada and United State for decades, the population has not seemed to recover. Only 25 to 30 Grizzlies are thought remain in the Cascades. "This is a listed species and this is an effort to recover them," Gaines said. "Part is trying to understand their status. What will eventually happen is these recovery options would be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). But right now we don't have the funding to take on that EIS." The North Cascades recovery area is enormous, one of the largest contiguous blocks of federal land in the lower 48 states. It stretches from the Canadian board to I-90. It includes the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and North Cascades National Park. Most lies in remote areas like the Pasayten, Alpine Lakes and Glacier Peak Wilderness areas. "We are looking for a needle in a haystack," he said. "We would be very lucky to get something. There is just so few bears in such a big area. If we can go for three years, then are chance go up." The second objective of the study is to chart the movement of not just Grizzlies, but all bears, to see how our cross state highways affect the movement of wildlife. We will explore this aspect of the study in part two of the story next week. Ian Dunn can be reached at 548-5286 or editor@leavenworthecho.com

October PBS release of FACING THE STORM: STORY OF THE AMERICAN BISON

Story of the American Bison Set for World Premiere

Missoula-based filmmakers ready to screen major documentary about humans' complicated relationship to buffalo.

By Jule Banville, 9-02-10

"Facing the Storm: Story of the American Bison," a documentary by Missoula-based High Plains Films and co-produced with Independent Television Service and Montana PBS, will premier at the Kansas International Film Festival next month. Showings will be scheduled in the West and it will eventually air on local PBS stations.

The film's a major undertaking. It tells the epic story of human relations with the largest land mammal on the continent: its dominance, its loss and the subsequent quest to protect those that remain.

It recounts the near-destruction of the species in the late 19th century--from an estimated 30 million bison to a mere 23 individuals by 1885. It graphically exposes the annual slaughter of bison outside of Yellowstone National Park, where the largest genetically-pure herd remains in semi-captivity. Finally, the film explores the vision--and monumental obstacles--to restore bison to immense tracts of the Great Plains. This involves a dramatic transformation of how we understand the Great Plains, from a utilitarian world view to a fully-functional ecosystem that combines a lost culture with modern ecological science and contemporary economies, and includes the full range of original species that have been largely vanquished from the region. 

The film portrays the bison as icon: of a former time and inextricably linked to the Plains Indians to, perhaps, the path to the future of conservation.

The world premiere in Kansas is Oct. 2. The filmmakers include Doug Hawes-Davis, who started the Big Sky Documentary Film Festival in Missoula.

Here's the trailer:

Having the Wolf back on the ground making kills will hopefully continue to provide GRIZ with enough alternative calories to fatten up for hibernation

New West Feature

Grizzlies Only Scratch the Surface of What It Will Mean to Lose the Whitebark Pine

The twisted, threatened symbol of high elevation connects an entire ecosystem. As one biologist puts it, "We don't know what's going to happen without whitebark."

By Shauna Stephenson, 8-31-10

Blame it on their large stature or America's obsession with bears, but when it comes to the decline of the whitebark pine, the grizzly may be the least of our worries.

"Everyone is thinking grizzly bear, and there's no question there is going to be some impact on grizzly food supply," says whitebark expert Diana Tomback. "What they don't understand or what really hasn't been well-emphasized is there is a bigger issue here. Whitebark pine is a species that plays a number of important ecological roles in high elevation communities."

A recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says the tree could become functionally extinct within the next decade due to an increase in mountain pine beetle infestation. The increase is attributed to a warming trend that allows beetles to reach areas formerly off-limits due to harsh weather. Surveys conducted by the group showed that in the Yellowstone area, 82 percent of the forests are dead or dying. That report echoes its lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the tree on the Endangered Species Act, a review the service is currently looking at.

"Whitebark pine is basically a sitting duck to pine beetle," says Louisa Willcox of NRDC.

However, even if the beetle were to disappear tomorrow, trouble would be looming on the horizon for the species says Tomback, a professor and acting chair of the Department of Integrated Biology at the University of Colorado Denver. She says that rates of blister rust are high enough across its range to pose a serious threat. Blister rust, she notes, attacks all age classes of whitebark, not just mature ones.

"Pine beetle outbreaks settle down," she says. "Blister rust doesn't give trees a chance. … Everything is vulnerable."

With the two working in tandem, whitebark is getting hit on both sides. Trees that might have survived the blister rust are now being attacked by mountain pine beetle, causing a trickle down effect in the ecosystem as a whole.

But in the time since that report was released, very little has been said about the bigger picture. While the fateful tree has dominated the news, the explanation of what that actually means has been largely ignored. Perhaps it is because these things make for less than sexy headlines – indeed, who can get excited about words like sublimation or evapotranspiration? But it is these changes that will eventually be felt by the populations as a whole.

It is hard to gauge the specifics of how this change will occur. The fact of the matter is we have never experienced this type of shift on this scale. While there have been both pine-beetle and blister-rust outbreaks in the past, they have not been as broad as this one appears to be. Add to that the multiple other fronts America's forests seem to be fighting on, and it can become quite hard to comprehend, let alone predict. That said, what is out there, isn't pretty.

"We don't know what's going to happen without whitebark," Tomback says.

WHITEBARK ECOLOGY

.To understand what is happening with whitebark now, we must first take a step back and understand how the tree functions in a healthy ecosystem.

Whitebark is a trailblazer, a trendsetter, an ass-kicker of a tree—a tree Westerners can really relate to, one of the oldest and toughest broads out there. As one of the last trees before the tree line, the widely distributed whitebark leads a harsh and harrowing life.

Given its precarious perch, it serves a few very important functions. It acts as a snow fence in the winter and it provides shade in the spring, slowing runoff and parsing out water to lower-elevation communities well into the summer. After fires, it is one of the first to regenerate in compromised soil, blazing the way for other species to take root behind it. 

It is a food source to multitudes of wildlife. Clark's nutcrackers enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the tree, dispersing its seeds while using them throughout the year as a food source. Red squirrels cache cones in middens, feeding both themselves and the occasional grizzly bear fattening up for winter. Other species such as the Golden-mantled squirrel, chipmunk species, the hairy and white-headed woodpeckers, Williamson's sapsucker, mountain chickadee, white- and red-breasted nuthatches, Stellar's jay, raven, pine grosbeak, red crossbill and Cassin's finch all dabble in whitebark seed consumption at various times of year.

But it also has a softer side. It is individualistic. Unlike the lodgepoles and Douglas firs of the world, each tree has its own personality, twisting and carving its unique niche. It is a long-lived tree: reaching ages old enough to have been around when the Magna Carta was signed, there when Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue, when America declared its independence, and when Lewis and Clark ventured west.

"They're kind of symbols of the high elevation. As they decline, we lose their beauty," Tomback says. "As they're lost, we lose a sense of ancient presence."

WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE...

For years, fights over water and water rights have raged throughout the West. With the decline of whitebark, those fights are only bound to increase.

As trees die, their ability to both capture snowpack and shade it is reduced. On the other end, live trees also take up a huge amount of water, taking up the most when they are young and then tapering off as they mature. With large stands of trees dying, that ratio is bound to play a role as well.

"It's going to vary depending on watershed and percentage of tree cover in that water shed," says Greg Pederson, research scientist with USGS at the Bozeman-based Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center.

He says some areas may see lower snowpacks and earlier runoff, meaning longer, drier summers. Other areas may experience more water in the system, leading to flooding downstream. As trees begin to grow back, short term gains may turn into losses as young trees take up more water.

Some areas may even benefit from the canopy being opened up a bit, allowing more snow to accumulate during the winter. Factors such as erosion and fire will play a role, as will wind.

"At the end of the day the hard part is picking apart what's happening among those processes," he says.

Couple all of that with changing temperatures and the difficulty of prediction increases exponentially. Over the years, Steve Gray, Wyoming state climatologist, has seen a trend in the average temperatures going up in the northwestern part of the state. While he says it's too early to tell if this is a long-term trend, or short-term variability, one thing is for certain:

"The bottom line is that the best guess we have, the majority or all of the forecast predictions we have, say it's going to be warmer," he says. "It's just a matter of how fast that happens and the magnitude of that warming. Even a seemingly small shift in average temperature is going to have significant consequences of regional ecosystems."

As that shift occurs, it gets passed down the line.

"Lower elevations are intimately connected to what happens up in the high country," he says. "Changes will have definite and significant consequences for everything that happens downstream. That includes a huge part of the U.S. population."

ADAPTATION AS A LIFESTYLE

As whitebark declines, the wildlife that depends on it will have to adapt as well.

Grizzlies tend to be at the center of this polarizing debate. While their use of whitebark pine seeds is well-documented, they are also known as a highly adaptable creature, switching over to other food sources when one becomes unavailable. Lawsuits and politics aside, there is no doubt a change in whitebark pine will have an impact on the bear. The question is: To what extent?

Chuck Schwartz, leader of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, says when whitebark pine crops are low, the impact doesn't necessarily affect bears across the entire population.

"Our data show that bears drop down in elevation about 200 meters in poor-versus-good whitebark pine years in autumn," Schwartz wrote in an e-mail. "There seems to be some confusion on this movement. All the bears don't pack their suitcase and move from the mountain tops to the valley bottoms where people live.

"Bears that live in secure habitats--areas with few roads, developments and homes--shift in elevation and use alternate foods and continue to survive just fine. It's the bears that exist on the edge of the ecosystem that tend to shift closer to humans."

While it's the mortality levels in those populations that concern environmentalists, Chris Servheen, grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says populations have been increasing for years and continue to increase. It is just the rate of that increase that will be impacted.

"There's not enough mortality to change the overall increase," he says. "(It is just) a slower increase during the poorer whitebark years."

But with Clark's Nutcrackers—the main dispersant of whitebark seeds—a change in behavior could have major consequences.

"Nutcrackers won't go extinct," Tomback says. They'll continue to eat seeds and it's likely they'll simply shift to some of the other species in the forest. That shift, however, may have some longer-term implications for their carrying capacity and could spell further disaster for the tree.

This is where things get more complex. Think of the entire system as a business. You have a set number of employees, which is like your carrying capacity, and you have a budget of food that fluctuates based on a number of factors. A reduction in carrying capacity is like nature's version of layoffs: If there's not enough money in the budget to pay 10 employees, it will reduce that number to five.

But that number turns around and takes a bite out of the overall health of whitebark pines. Just like layoffs, if there are only five nutcrackers supported by the forest, then there are only five to do the work. And while "do more with less" is all the rage, it doesn't really work for this tree. As seeds decline, red squirrels get desperate and begin targeting the trees, harvesting entire crops before they are mature and hiding them away in their middens, leaving little for the nutcrackers to cache. Immature seeds won't germinate and the problem is compounded. Essentially, less work gets done.

As that continues to trickle down, other species will be impacted. While many of the other small mammals and birds, including chipmunks and blue grouse, don't depend on the tree as a main food source, that contribution is still part of their annual food budget and they have to turn to other sources. Thus, we begin to rob Peter to pay Paul.

"The point is what's going to happen when we don't have that many whitebark pine seeds," Tomback says. "Whenever you remove a food source, there's always an impact on the rest of the ecosystem.

THE DREADED E-WORD

 Tunnels created by mountain pine beetles in the Gros Ventre range, Wyoming. Photo by Whitney Leonard for NRDC.

The forecast for the entire situation has some putting the nails in the coffin for whitebark pine.

Tomback says with climate change being the 900-pound gorilla in the room, this notion that trees will just shift north isn't as simple as it seems. There have to be viable seeds to do that and processes to distribute them.

"Some people say, well, 50 years from now if the range moves north, what difference is it going to make?" she says. "I need to point out that unless there are healthy populations of whitebark, it can't move north."

While solutions have been identified, there is a significant lack of funding in implementing them. Blister-rust-resistant seedlings are being collected and grown in greenhouses to be replanted in their native habitats. But this solution tends to be both difficult and costly.

In the mean time, Tomback is avoiding the big "E" (extinction) and instead, opting for the little "e."

"At this point, I don't want to sound alarmist, but from what I've seen I can, with confidence, say expatriation from many parts of its range is a real possibility."

While the fundamental premise of an ecosystem revolves around its ability to evolve and adapt, it's hard to see how forests are going to adapt their way out of this one – true, they will go on. But picturing that end result is a stretch.

With the introduction of invasive species, change in climate, change in fire regime and countless other factors, ecosystems seem to be facing bigger problems on larger scales more and more often. When blister rust came to America in the early 1900s, it was only the beginning.

"It could have been considered the harbinger of what we're dealing with today," Tomback says.

Forests everywhere seem to be at war and, while change is part of the natural process, keeping faith that everything will be O.K. is difficult, even for the most optimistic.

"We are just going to be in a crisis mode," Tomback says. "I don't know what else we're going to do to deal with this [while] struggling to keep our native ecosystems in tact."

Our Animals that wander huge distances like the Wolverine would like to come back to former haunts like Michigan

DNA testing shows Michigan's last known wild wolverine likely came from across Lake Huron

Published: Wednesday, September 01, 2010, 4:00 PM     Updated: Wednesday, September 01, 2010, 8:29 PM

 Brandon Howell | The Bay City Times

 

DNA testing shows Michigan's last known wild wolverine is a 79 percent genetic match with wolverines from Manitoba and Ontario.

 

DECKERVILLE — Extensive testing supports the theory that Michigan's last known wild wolverine — which was found dead along a trail in Sanilac County in March — likely crossed the ice into Michigan from Manitoba or Ontario in Canada, according to the man who discovered and tracked the animal for six years.

Jeff Ford, a science teacher at Deckerville High School, said DNA testing commissioned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment shows that the wolverine is a 79 percent match with DNA samples of wolverines from Manitoba and Ontario and only a 21 percent match with DNA of wolverines from Canada's Northwest Territories.

"So what that means is," Ford said, "because her DNA matched much more closely with Ontario than over towards the Northwest Territories, it's more likely that she came from Ontario across the ice than if she was transported by humans from British Columbia or somewhere like that.

 

"In other words," he continued, "the DNRE's been saying all along that she was probably a household pet until they let her go or she got loose. 

"No. 1 is, she had all her claws and all her teeth. If you're going to have an animal like that, you're probably going to declaw it as a pet. 

"No. 2 is, if she was a pet, she probably would come from Alaska or Northwest Territories, up there, because there's a lot more live-trapping that goes on up there."

 

Mary Detloff, a public information officer for the DNRE, said Ford is wrong about the department's theories.

"I don't think we've ever asserted that it was a household pet. I've never heard that one before," Detloff said. "We thought perhaps it came across the ice, but we couldn't determine exactly how it got here."

 

Detloff declined to comment on the likelihood that the wolverine actually crossed the ice from Canada into Michigan.

Ford received the information from Audrey Magoun, a biologist and executive director of The Wolverine Foundation Inc., a nonprofit organization in Alaska comprised of wildlife scientists that promotes interest in the wolverines' status and ecological role. Ford has worked with Magoun — whom he calls one of the "top wolverine experts around the entire world" — since he first discovered the wolverine in Michigan's Thumb.

 

Magoun could not be contacted by The Times for comment. 

"I wouldn't even know about this because the DNRE hasn't told me anything," Ford said. "But the DNRE sent this to (Magoun) and she forwarded the results to me."

The DNA testing was performed on some of the wolverine's muscle tissue by Chris Kyle, a Canadian geneticist, according to Ford.

 

Earlier genetic testing had been conducted on hair samples from the wolverine.

"This analysis is a little more specific because muscle tissue is better to do DNA on than hair follicles," Ford said.

The body of the 28-pound female wolverine was found in a ditch by two hikers in the Minden Bog at the Minden City State Game Area. Biologists determined later that it died of natural causes.

 

 

 

THOUGHT SOME OF YOU WOULD FIND INTERESTING THE DEBATE THAT MYSELF AND OTHERS ARE HAVING WITH SOME RANCHERS REGARDING THE RIGHT OF WOLVES AND OTHER PREDATORS TO EXIST IN YELLOWSTONE AND OTHER BIG OPEN SPACES AROUND THE AMERICAS--ALL PROMPTED BY GEORGE WUERTHNER'S RIVETING NEW WEST ARTICLE ON AUG 10 DEALING WITH "WELFARE RANCHERS"

By rick meril, 8-28-10

Todd..............further references for you to take into account the long and full view of wolves and bison in GYS(Greater Yellowstone Ecosytem)



"Though the written historical record does establish the widespread distribution of bison throughout the GYE, that record was made too late to provide us with a full portrait of the relationships between native people and bison before those relationships were influenced by Euro-Americans. That written record was also made too late to portray anything necessarily resembling a so-called "pristine" state of ecological affairs in regional bison populations.
What the historical record does tell us is that bison were here, they were all over the place, they were abundant, and, if we may add a new and sadder meaning to Warren Ferris's words, "nothing remains visible of the long black lines but dark clouds slowly sweeping over the distant plains."
____________________________________

By rick meril, 8-31-10

MONTANA WOLF AND COUGAR BOUNTY RECORDS EARLY 20TH CENTURY...............

THE ENVIRONS OF YELLOWSTONE SAW SIGNIFICANT WOLF AND COUGAR BOUNTY TAKES IN THE FIRST THREE DECASDES OF THE 20TH CENTURY. IF THEY EXISTED AS LATE AS THE 1930'S THEY WERE THERE IN NUMBERS WHEN THEIR PREY BASE WAS MORE SUBSTANTIAL IN THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES BEFORE INDIANS ON HORSEBACK AND WHITE MARKET HUNTERS DECIMATED THEIR NUMBERS:


AN ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBER OF MOUNTAIN LIONS (PUMA CONCOLOR) AND WOLVES (CANIS LUPUS) KILLED UNDER THE BOUNTY SYSTEM IN MONTANA, 1884 - 1962.

Mountain lions were listed on the first state-wide Montana bounty law passed in 1884. The estimated number of lion hides presented for payment varied from 177 in 1908 to 0 in 1932 (Figure AII.1). Despite demand and an increasing bounty payment, lion hides became scarce in the late 1920's and ceased being presented for payment in 1930. Written bounty records after 1932 have been lost so that comparable data are unavailable. Conflicting reports exist. Nowak (1976) indicated 191 mountain lions were taken between 1930 and 1950 under federal animal damage control. Montana Fish and Game Commission (unpublished files) suggest fewer than 5 annually were taken statewide under the bounty system until 1950. The number taken then increased through the 1950s to 167 in the 1961-1962 biennium (Riley 1992).

Bounty prices increased from $8.00 ($269 in 1995 dollars) per lion and $1.00 ($34 in 1995 dollars) per wolf in 1884 to $25.00 ($270 in 1995 dollars) for either species in 1930. Wolf pup prices increased from 50 cents in 1884 ($17 in 1995 dollars) to $5.00 ($54 in 1995 dollars) in 1930.

Records taken from original bounty record books permit enumeration of bounty take by counties as they existed in 1900 (Table AII.1 and 2). Park County, in southwest Montana adjacent to Yellowstone National Park was in the top 5 counties for density of lion and wolf take (number 5).135 136

__________________________________________________

By zbiker, 9-01-10

to put rick meril's list in more perspective, lets list it by geographical are, or more precisely wolves killed from the 1900-1931 time frame outside the wolf recovery area vs wolves killed in the area and neighboring counties

wolves OUTSIDE the recovery area:
Fergus.............1,043
Judith Basin.......5
Dawson............1,083
Custer..............2,448
Chouteau..........1,111
Dawson............1,083
Fallon...............51
Custer...............2,448
Garfield..............3
Golden Valley......3
Hill....................76
Judith Basin........5
Liberty...............9
Maccone............4
Meagher ............612
Musselshell.........157
Petrolieum..........0
Phillips...............61

18 counties total.............10,202 wolves

wolves inside recovery area and neighboring counties killed 1900-1931

Glacier...............12
Granite...............31
Jefferson............71
lake...................0
Lewis and Clark....250
Lincoln...............738
Madison..............122
Mineral...............0
Missoula..............20
Park...................405
Beaverhead.........597
Bighorn...............203
Broadwater..........77
Carbon................279
Deer Lodge..........53
Flathead..............492
Gallatin................106

17 counties total............3,456 wolves

10,202 wolves killed outside recommended recovery area vs 3,456 wolves killed around recommended recovery area in a 31 year timespan. thats 3 times as many, and that is not even counting the pups. kinda throws a kink in the argument that we need wolves in the GYA becouse it is a core area

______________________________________________

By rick meril, 9-01-10

zbiker....................geez, first you and Todd challenge me to produce statistics revealing that gray wolves existed in the Greater Yellowstone System....................

so up on this blog come two sound revelations.............one by archaeolgists portraying the Grreater Yellowstone as having been excellent bison(as well as Elk, Moose, Mule Deer, Pronghorn, Wolf Griz, Cougar) habitat going back pre European contact...................

2nd being modern day 1880-1930 wolf and cougar recorded bounties in a Montana ecosystem greatly altered and degraded over a 500 year period by both Indian hunters on non native horses and commercial white hunters and bounty getters.....................

And then you have the gumption to say becasue wolf and cougar bounties outside the "core" Yellowstone region were significanctly higher, therefore screw putting the wolves back on the ground in Yellowstone.................

Zbiker, 500 years of "rip and raze" human degradation of wildlife and becasue in the most recent recorded documentation, not as many wolves were killed in Yellowstone and therefore do not put them back there..................Where should we put them?...Downtown Denver? For my money, they should be up and down and across the entire USA wherever enough open space allows...............that means the Adirondacks, Green and White Mountains in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York and Pennsylvania...............It means down the Appalachian Spine through the Smoky Mountains and onto Northern Georgia.............It means (with Buffalo restoration) across the Great Plains and Texas..................It means into California and up into Oregon and Washington State...................as well as Yellowstone to Yukon.........................and Arizona, New Mexico, Utah

Please stop being so narrow in your interpretations and comments..............the world did not begin in 1880 or 1930 or whenever you came onto the Planet........

The land is healthier with the widest variety of plants and animals occupying it. Over 50% of our medicines and foodstuffs come from wild plants and animals and we have barely touched the tip of the iceberg as it relates to understanding lifes processes and possibilities. If we do not have the broadest suite of living creatures on the ground, selfishly, you and I are not giving ourselves and our grandchildren the raw material to continue to make life great and rewarding.

I am all for the Ranchers continuing to make a living and enjoying the lifestyle that they have known for 150 years. I am asking for a little openmindedness and FAMILY VALUE orientation applied to our fellow creatures.....a modification of some of our habits..............this might require tax law changes to help Ranchers make those changes........They wildlife out there is not the devil.....They are worth saving and increasing their numbers......It is not about being a tree hugger or valuing wolves over people.............We are the people that we are because our ancestors over millenia grew up alongside the wildlife on the planet.................historically animals were revered and admired for their beauty, strength and ability to surive in a dangerous world...............it is just over the past several thousand years that our monotheism beliefs have had man interpret the bible in a way that justifies eliminating animals that do not suit us. It seems that the intent of the scriptures was to make us the caretakers of all life on earth, not be its destroyers............the story of Noah my dear Z -biker.................worth your re-reading.

_______________________________

By Baerh, 9-01-10

first gety rid of all the tax payer subsidized ranching, road building and logging. cows have no plave on arid western public lands. Next bring back the Bison and other native flora/fauna. Next educate the hysterical, gun toting right wingers that wolves are not a threat to their existence. Promote a sustainable economy based on eco-tourism, subsistence hunting/farming, and outdoor education. This all possible and capable of happening, it's no pipe dream.
__________________________________

By rick meril, 9-01-10

I share your longings but ask that you take into account that the way our system works, the Government is never going to spend the billions needed to buy out all of that land and restore it to conditions circa 1500..........The Real Estate guys will swoop down and sell off ranchettes and we will have Western Suburbs in the Rockies(look at Denver exurbs now).................I think that enlisting the support of our Rancher friends(even if Zbiker and Todd and others do not want to give an inch during this debate) is the way to go.............I want their kids and grandkids to have a love for the land and all of its inhabitants just like many of us do now. Since we are animals, nature and wilderness should not be abstracts and places that we go to see...................Nature and wilderness should be all around us. After all, native peoples did not see the woods, plains and Mountains as wilderness...........it was there home................and even they sometimes degraded their immediate environment and disappeared into the annals of history(Mound builders, Inca, etc).

We Americans in large part dervie our identity from Wild America...............Our work ethic, love of freedom, our tendency to name our cars, sports teams and such with the names of the very creatures(timberwolf, panther, bobcat, jaguar, wolverines, bears, etc)that many of us want destroyed or done away with................a paradox of the human brain,,,,,,,,,,,,to love and admire something while simultaneously looking to eliminate.............Let us all continue to collaborate and keep America wild and free................any other way spells an America that will be a very different place than what brought folks here 400 years ago..........................Go wolves, Go Cougars, Go Griz, Go Wolverine.................Go Humans..............we should all persist and thrive.

_________________________

By zbiker, 9-01-10(quoting Rick Meril in part below)

By rick meril, 9-01-10
zbiker....................geez, first you and Todd challenge me to produce statistics revealing that gray wolves existed in the Greater Yellowstone System...
( i think you misinterpreted my post rick,Historically, the wolf populations originally native to Yellowstone were classed under the subspecies C. l. irremotus or C. l. nubilus which is a smaller subspecies of the grey wolf from canada. through some juggling of the books the grey wolf was chosen to be reintroduced because it was thought to have an advantage for survival due both size and aggressiveness. this has been proven to be fatefully true.
I am sorry you took offence to my noticing how few wolves were
naturally habitating the area, the point i was making was that although the gya is a great area for ungulates, the wolves were not saturating the area as they do now. this fact should be considered when ranching/wolf/federal land discussion of the area is undertaken.
As far as the rip and raze of the past is concerned, unlike many i realize that living in the 21st century makes it impossible to restore the face of the nation to it's earliest native american population condition, and as much as many throw that idea around as an ideal situation being a realist i know it cannot be. the face of the nation has advanced much in 500 years and we cannot go back.
You ask "Where should we put them?...Downtown Denver? ". while the idea has some merit it strikes at the very point i am addressing, A wolf would be no more welcome in down town denver that it would be in the Adirondacks or Green and White Mountains in Maine. Although i must admit it would be fun to turn loose 1700 wolves loose in Burbank, i suspect the fallout would be devastating
Perhaps you have read about the states that are now passing legislation to stop wolf introduction in their area,Arkansas still has a bounty for wolves, as does Colorado (despite the fact that the gray wolf is also listed as an endangered species under state law). Nebraska has a law authorizing the use of explosive traps and poison gas for wolf control. Several states, such as Oklahoma, categorize the wolf as a predator, making it ineligible for protection. South Dakota recently repealed a prohibition on the hunting of wolves.
Where should we put the wolves ??, well since they are still considered a NON ESSENTIAL experimental species, how about we put them back where we found them ??, at least till we can figure out how to keep their population in check
considering the states economic woes of 2010.

_________________________________________

By rick meril, 9-01-10

zbiker..................the so-called sub species of wolves and cougar and for that matter, a good many other species has been in flux on an on-going basis..................there were umpteenth number of historical subspecies of Cougar but we know now that a cougar is a cougar is a cougar whether remnant in Florida or thriving in California. Gray, Mexican, Red(or Eastern) Wolf.............there physiological evolution dovetailed with the evolution of the prey base in a given region.............If there were Buffalo on the ground(as there were over Montana and Greater Yellowstone, there were buffalo eating wolves................that is why Biologist Nowak concludes that in the 17th Century when Buffalo ranged as far East as New York State and the Carolinas, that both the gray wolf(buffalo eater) and the red wolf(deer eater)overlapped down thru the Ohio Valley into the Appalachians. Why so resistant to the fact that wolves and all of the hoofed animals have been doing a very sophisticated and interlocked tango down thru the millenia? Recognize that we are in 2010 and not 1610..............also recognize that the Willows and stream beds are healthier with the Elk not able to idle and eat to their hearts content(Biologist John Laundre's "fear" revelation)..................also realize that Lymes disease is out of control in the East because even the 40-50 pound Eastern Coyote(with 25% wolf genes) is still not the deer and moose eater that the 70-100 pound red wolf is................and thus, the deer tick has gone crazy on the ever expanding white tail deer herds East of the Mississippi..............

There will always be challenges in giving up something for getting something. Would we have been a better Nation if we had not taken land for our National Parks? I do not think so.............and yes, some people came up short in that process. Instead of hiding from those challenges, let us admit that the "good of the many" outweighs the good of the few, or the one". Wolves and Cougars back across the USA for me with financial incentives for those who have to modify behavior and business practice.

THE HISTORY OF THE COUGAR IN NORTH AMERICA AND MANS EFFORTS TO ERRADICATE AND THEN RESTORE F.CONCOLOR

5-9 million years ago

Cougars Evolve

Cougars (Puma concolor) evolve from a common ancestor with the African cheetah and American jaguarundi.

300,000 BC

Oldest Cougar Fossils

Oldest known fossil records of cougars

10,000 BC

Pleistocene Extinctions

Cougars in North America believed to have been extirpated during the Pleistocene extinctions

8,000 BC

North American Recolonization

Cougars believed to have recolonized North America from a small founder group in South America

Early 1500s

Spanish Explorers & Cougars

Spanish explorer Cabeza de Vaca observes a cougar in Florida, becoming perhaps the first European in North America to see one.

1500s

Jesuit Priests Encourage Cougar Killings

Jesuit priests in Southern California offer a bounty of one bull to Native Americans for every cougar killed.

1684

Bounty Hunting in Connecticut

Connecticut enacts bounty on cougar.

1742

Bounty Hunting in Massachusetts

Massachusetts enacts bounty on cougar.

1803

Louisiana Purchase

The Louisiana Purchase adds more than 800 thousand miles to the U.S.

Lewis & Clark Expedition

Lewis and Clark began the first American overland expedition to the Pacific coast and back.

1807

Bounty Hunting in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania enacts bounty on cougar.

1843

Bounty Hunting in Oregon

Oregon territory enacts bounty on cougar.

1850

Cougars Become Rare in the East

Due to extermination by humans, cougar are considered rare in the eastern two-thirds of the continent, with some perhaps surviving in the remote areas of Maine, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia and Florida.

1881

Vermont Cougars Disappear

Last cougar believed killed in Vermont.

1888

Utah's "Obnoxious Animals"

Utah Territorial Legislature classifies cougars as an "obnoxious animal and establishes bounty.

1891

Pennsylvania's Cougars Disappear

Last cougar believed killed in Pennsylvania.

1900

Cougars Disappear, East of Mississippi River

Cougars effectively exterminated from most states east of the Mississippi River, with a small population remaining in Florida.

1905

Bounty Hunting in Washington

Washington enacts bounty on cougar.

1907

Bounty Hunting in California

California enacts bounty on cougar.

1908

Last Wisconsin Cougar Killed

Last "official" native cougar killed in Wisconsin.

1910

Bounty Hunting in British Columbia

British Columbia enacts bounty on cougar.

1914

Bounty Hunting in Idaho

Idaho enacts bounty on cougar.

1923

New Mexico Ends Bounty Hunting

New Mexico ends cougar bounty program.

1929

Bounty Hunting in Colorado

Colorado enacts bounty on cougar.

1931

Animal Damage Control Act

Congress passes the Animal Damage Control Act, giving the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to investigate and control certain predatory or wild animals and nuisance mammal and bird species, further involving the federal government in eradicating predators

1933

Aldo Leopold

Aldo Leopold publishes Game Management.

1934

First Scientific Studies of Cougars

Frank Hibben begins in New Mexico and Arizona one of the first scientific studies of cougars.

1946

"The Puma: Mysterious American Cat"

Stanley Young and E.A. Goldman publish "The Puma: Mysterious American Cat" - the most comprehensive review of information on cougar at that time.

1947

Bounty Hunting in Arizona

Arizona enacts bounty on cougar.

1950

Cougars Classified as Game Animals

Florida classifies cougar as a game animal.

1957

British Columbia Ends Bounty Hunting

British Columbia ends bounty program.

1958

Protection for Florida Panthers

Florida fully protects Florida panthers.

1959

Utah Ends Bounty Hunting

Utah ends bounty program.

1960

Idaho Ends Bounty Hunting

Idaho ends bounty program

1961

Washington Ends Bounty Hunting

Washington ends bounty program.

1962

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring Published

Rachel Carson publishes the book Silent Spring, which documented detrimental effects of pesticides on the environment and particularly birds and is widely credited as helping launch the environmental movement.

Montana Ends Bounty Hunting

Montana ends bounty program.

1963

California Ends Bounty Hunting

California ends bounty program.

1964

Hornocker Begins Field Study of Cougar Ecology

Maurice Hornocker and associates begin their seminal field study of cougar ecology and behavior in the Idaho Primitive Area in central Idaho

Congress Passes The Wilderness Act

Congress passes The Wilderness Act, creating the Natural Wilderness System and defining wilderness as "...an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

1965

Colorado Reclassifies Cougars

Colorado reclassifies cougar as big game species

Nevada Reclassifies Cougars

Nevada reclassifies cougars as a game animal.

1966

Washington Reclassifies Cougars

Washington reclassifies cougars as a game animal.

Endangered Species Preservation Act

Congress passes the Endangered Species Preservation Act

1967

Oregon Reclassifies Cougars

Oregon reclassifies cougar as big game animal.

Florida Panthers on Endangered List

Isolated population of cougars in Florida (Florida panther) listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act

Utah Reclassifies Cougars

Utah reclassifies cougars as game animal.

1969

California Reclassifies Cougars

California reclassifies cougars as game animal.

1970

The First Earth Day

The first Earth Day is held on April 22, heralding the beginning of the modern environmental movement.

Arizona Ends Bounty Hunting

Arizona ends bounty program.

Hornocker Publishes Research

Maurice Hornocker publishes the results of his cougar research in "An analysis of mountain lion predation upon mule deer and elk in the Idaho Primitive Area." The study helped dispel many of the myths of cougars as insatiable killers and decimators of deer populations.

1971

New Mexico Reclassifies Cougars

New Mexico reclassifies cougars as game mammal.

Montana Reclassifies Cougars

Montana reclassifies cougars as a game animal.

California Enacts Hunting Moratorium

California legislature passes a bill, signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, enacting a moratorium on cougar hunting.

Arizona Reclassifies Cougars

Arizona reclassifies cougars as a big game animal.

1973

Endangered Species Act Passsed

Congress passes the Endangered Species Act, designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a 'consequence of economic growth and development untendered by adequate concern and conservation.'

Eastern Cougars Listed as Endangered

Eastern cougars are listed as a federally endangered subspecies under the Endangered Species Act.

Wyoming Reclassifies Cougars

Wyoming reclassifies cougars as a trophy game animal.

New West published this article today.............I would pay the 2 cents extra to keep the cattle industry going............but it should be a 5 cent payment with the other 3cents being invested with Ranchers to preserve our covenant with our landscape and wildlife

Livestock and Agriculture

The Price of Reviving the Cattle Industry

What would it cost to give slaughterhouse workers a living wage and ranchers a break-even price for their cattle? Two cents a pound at the meat counter. That's all.

By Bill Bishop, Daily Yonder, Guest Writer, 8-19-10

	The U.S. has lost 1,000 ranches a month for the past 30 years, R-CALF's Bill Bullard said at a recent meeting of the Organization for Competitive Markets in Omaha. Photo by Bill Bishop/Daily Yonder.

Two cents.
Those two words stuck with me from a recent meeting of farmers and ranchers in Nebraska. It turns out the cost of providing livestock raisers a fair price for their cattle and slaughterhouse workers a living wage for their work preparing the meat for sale was a lousy two pennies on a pound of ground chuck.
Adding two cents on every pound in the meat counter would keep ranchers from losing money and turn slaughterhouse jobs from work into a living. Two cents a pound at the grocery would fundamentally change the economies of thousands of rural communities.
Bill Bullard explained the first cent. Bullard is with R-CALF, the cattle raisers organization. He talked at a recent meeting of the Organization for Competitive Markets in Omaha about the dramatic drop in the share of each food dollar that goes to the rancher.
In 1980, ranchers and farmers got 63 cents out of every dollar consumers spent on beef. That dropped to 60 cents in 1990, to 49 cents in 2000 to 43 cents in 2009.
With ranchers taking a smaller share of each dollar spent on beef, cattle-raising has become ever less profitable. As a result, ranchers have been going out of business.
Since 1980, Bullard said, the nation has been losing 1,000 ranches a month. R-CALF This chart shows the change in the number of cattle producers since the early 1990s.
What would it take to return ranchers to at least operating profitability? One cent a pound at retail, we were told. That was it. One cent would change a money-losing business into one that breaks even.
That's the first cent. Mark Luaritsen told us about the second cent. Luaritsen comes from Cherokee, Iowa, where meat production was the way people lived. "Where I grew up, you either raised it or you killed it," Lauritsen said.
Lauritsen is a third generation slaughterhouse worker who is now International Vice President for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The UFCW represents 36% of the workers in the country's meatpacking plants, which likely makes it one of the largest unions in rural America.
Lauritsen explained that his members were worried about the failure of so many ranch operations and the stagnant size of the country's beef herd. Without more beef, there won't be a call for more meatpacking workers. "We're joined at the hip," Lauritsen said to the OCM crowd, which is made up of older ranchers and farmers.
Lauritsen said the decline in independent ranchers is matched by a decline in independent feedlots.
"Until the mid-1960s, most feedlots were small, family owned operations that handled fewer than 1,000 head but marketed most of the beef cattle," according to a report issued by Food and Water Watch. "Now, the largest beef feedlots finish the vast majority of beef cattle. In 2008, the largest 12.1 percent of feedlots finished more than 16,000 cattle and marketed nearly three-quarters (70.2 percent) of beef cattle."
The increasing concentration of the meat industry has changed life in rural communities. With fewer ranchers, fewer independent feedlot owners and fewer meat packing jobs, "these just aren't the same cities," Lauritsen said. "That's the downside of consolidation."
Ranchers lose their land, feedlot owners lose their businesses and workers lose their jobs. More beef is imported and while the size of the U.S. cattle herd has stagnated, herds in the rest of the world have grown larger.
"That's the connection" between ranching and labor, Lauritsen said. "When people lose their jobs, everybody loses. This is where we intersect, with schools and our communities."
"The sad part is that there are so few of us left to fight," Lauritsen continued. "There are fewer ranchers, fewer slaughterhouse workers, fewer union members. They have just kicked our teeth in."
Despite rising food prices, Lauritsen said there is pressure on food employees to reduce their hourly wages. Workers at a Mott's juice plant in New York State, for example, were asked to accept a $1.50 an hour wage cut. They went on strike and have been on the picket line since May 23.
Then he talked about the second cent.
"Look at what would happen if they added a penny a pound to the retail price of red meat," Lauritsen said. If that penny went to workers in the slaughterhouse, the average wage of $13 an hour for a meatpacker would rise to nearly $16 an hour.
""I will tell you, brothers and sisters, that that would make a dramatic change in a person's lifestyle," he said. "It would change the main street Cherokee, Iowa. It's life changing money and it's only a penny."
Two cents, really. One cent for the people who raise the beef and one for those who carve it for the stores. You need both.

Bill Bishop is editor of the Daily Yonder, which covers issues important to rural America. The Daily Yonder and NewWest are teaming up on coverage of the Aug. 27 hearing jointly hosted by the Departments of Justice and Agriculture in Fort Collins, Colo. The hearing on competition in the cattle industry is expected to draw a crowd of thousands of ranchers. Also see NewWest's advance on the push to get them there.