Hibernating Black Bears come out of their Winter sleep without muscle and bone loss................During the Summer months, bears were active for up to 18 hours per day and had peak heart rates of over 200 beats per minute........... During hibernation, respiration rates were as low as two breaths per minute and gaps of over 14 seconds without a heartbeat were recorded......Despite apparent Winter "hangover", bears heart rate increases dramatically when humans or other animals come near the entrance to their winter dens......remaining elevated for a number of days................ This confirms that despite apparent deep sleep, bears are always alert to danger and ready to act.

Fast Asleep to Wide Awake: Hibernating Bears, Predation and Pregnancy

 Black bears hibernate, sleeping their way through winter, and who can blame them? But science is only just beginning to understand the physiological changes that allow bears to re-emerge in spring without much muscle and bone loss, and how they escape from danger during the colder months. New research published in BioMed Central's open access journal BMC Physiology used cardiac monitors and radio collars to measure the year round changes in heart rate and activity of wild black bears.

Previous studies have shown that during hibernation black bears undergo extreme variations in heart rate (respiratory sinus arrhythmia) -- the bear's heart rate increases when it takes a breath but stops for extended periods between breaths. In this study the researchers were able to monitor wild American black bears (Ursus americanus) throughout the year, 24 hours a day.

 They found that the bears had a pronounced respiratory sinus arrhythmia during hibernation and in the months leading up to their winter sleep. In addition, the bears were less active during the day in autumn, switching to being nocturnal. During the summer months, bears were active for up to 18 hours per day and had peak heart rates of over 200 beats per minute, however, during hibernation, respiration rates were as low as two breaths per minute and gaps of over 14 seconds without a heartbeat were recorded.

Pregnant wild bears hibernated deeply at the beginning of winter but their heart rates increased as their pregnancy continued, spiking during birth. After the cubs were born their mother's heart rate returned to hibernation levels. For several weeks after giving birth the mothers also exhibited much less movement, preventing accidental damage to the suckling cubs.

Dr Timothy Laske, one of the team who performed the research said, "When we retrieved our data, even though we tried to be as quiet as possible, the bears' heart rates increased before we reached the entrance to their winter den and remained elevated for a number of days. This confirms that despite apparent deep sleep, bears are always alert to danger and ready to act."

Dr David Garshelis who collaborated on this project continued, "Using this technology, year-round monitoring of wild bears allows us to observe details of bear behavior, such as pregnancy and birth, or interactions between bears and other wild animals, without disturbing their natural behavior." Dr Laske added, "Black bears often make their way into suburban areas which can be dangerous and stressful for both bears and humans and understanding the silent effect of humans and the environment on bears will also allow better bear management."

Oregon Wolf watching in the Wallowas(Northeastern Oregon) establishes eco-tourism as a "stand tall" economic growth engine for this region........... In Yellowstone National Park, where wolves were reintroduced in 1995, more than 10,000 tourists visit(and spend $$$$) annually in hopes of catching a glimpse of Canis lupus..........Let us hope that Oregon and Washington State chart a more sane wolf management program than their neighbors have done in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming,,,,reaping the full benefits that wolves bring to the land and our pocketbooks

Going 'wolfing' in Wallowa County, Oregon

"Now this, without a doubt, is a wolf track," says Wally Sykes, our "wolfing" guide in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The last pelt bounty was paid in 1947, but wolves are trying to rebound in Oregon's northeastern tip, where they once thrived.

My son and two daughters, all in their 20s, and I crouch down, making a tight circle on a remote dirt road we've been hiking for hours. We've seen plenty of tracks: deer, elk, coyote, dog, but nothing like this. We stare at an obvious canine print in the soft soil. The track sprawls more than five inches long and four inches wide, easily twice the size left by our Rhodesian Ridgeback at home.

I stand and look around, scan the hills and valleys, peer into the dense forest of lodgepole, fir and ponderosa pine. At 4,500-feet elevation, snow-capped mountains loom high around us, the massive Wallowas to the west and the spiny spires of Idaho's Seven Devils to the east.

We've been told there may be a den nearby, perhaps containing April-born additions to the Imnaha pack, now down to only five confirmed members. No yellow eyes look back, but though I can't put a finger on it, I feel the pulse of their presence. Clearly, wolves bring a new dimension to the word "wild."

Recently, one group of B&B guests went wolfing -- and quickly saw four wolves crossing a nearby ridge. Other guests camped at Zumwalt Prairie, one of the nation's largest bunch-grass prairies, and were happily awakened by the legendary wolf howl.

Advice from experts

Visitors who hope to see wolves have several options. You can certainly search on your own. The vast Imnaha Roadless Area, bordered by the Zumwalt Prairie, the Wallowa Mountains and Hells Canyon, is the most likely spot to spot the Imnaha pack.

The Wenaha pack, in the natural ebb and flow of wolf society, is now at six confirmed members, and they're most likely spotted in the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness. Try the Wenaha River Trail, a scenic 31-mile path that runs alongside the river.

As wolves can travel 50 miles in a day, it may be best to consult an expert to improve your chances of spotting them. Check the Wolf Home Page on the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife website for up-to-date information.

And local wolf advocates such as Sykes are glad to advise well-meaning visitors on locating wolves to help show that these predators can be an asset rather than a threat.

They are aware that eco-tourism stands to boost Wallowa County's economy. In Yellowstone National Park, where wolves were reintroduced in 1995, more than 10,000 tourists visit annually in hopes of catching a glimpse of Canis lupus.

Organized wolfing expeditions are being offered by Oregon Wild, a nonprofit dedicated to securing a future for wolves in our state. The fall trip is full, however.

The Oregon chapter of the Sierra Club has openings for a September excursion. Certified tracker David Stowe will lead the four-day quest for a sight of the Imnaha wolves.

The US Forest Service has released predatory wasps to combat the invasive EMERALD ASH BORER........The potential damage of this insect rivals that of Chestnut blight and Dutch Elm Disease........ Since its accidental introduction into the United States and Canada in the 1990s, and its subsequent detection in 2002, The Emerald Ash Borer has spread to 14 states and adjacent parts of Canada.............. It has killed at least 50 - 100 million ash trees so far and threatens to kill most of the 7.5 billion ash trees throughout North America..............The Wasps will not save mature trees from their demise but it is hoped that they will have a mitigating impact on the Borers, allowing our majestic Ash species to "adapt and overcome" the invasion

Forest Service Combats Emerald Ash Borer With Wasps

The U.S. Forest Service has released stingless wasps along the eastern edge of Michigan's Huron-Manistee National Forests, on the state's lower peninsula, to help counteract the invasive emerald ash borer. The release marked the first time biological measures were taken to fight the beetle inside a national forest. In July, the Forest Service received approval to release two species of parasitoid wasps, Oobius agrili and Tetrastichus planipennisi, in the national forest and on nearby private lands in Michigan's Alcona County. Environmental analyses showed that the wasps do not harm people, non-target species, or the environment. "The emerald ash borer has caused so much damage to forests and so much loss to communities in Michigan's Lower Peninsula," said Michael T. Rains, director of the U.S. Forest Service's Northern Research Station. "Expanding the use of biological control to national forests and research on its effectiveness will contribute to more resilient forests in the future." The tiny beetle first made its way to the U.S. from Asia in the early '90s, "presumably from solid wood packing materials or dunnage used to transport manufactured goods," according to the U.S. Forest Service. It has since spread to at least 13 states. The Forest Service doubts the wasps can save larger ash trees, but they could reduce the beetle population enough to "curb their effect in the future." The two wasps have different ways of preying on the beetles. Oobius finds a beetle egg and injects its own egg inside, where it will hatch, grow, and kill the host egg. Tetrastichus females lay eggs inside beetle larvae, where the wasp larvae feed and grow, eventually killing their host.   The adult beetle is dark metallic green, bullet-shaped and about 8.5 millimetres (0.33 in) long and 1.6 mm (1⁄16 in) wide. The body is narrow and elongated, and the head is flat with black eyes. The larvae are approximately 1 mm (1⁄25 in) diameter, 26 to 32 millimetres (1.0 to 1.3 in) long, and are a creamy white color. The eggs turn to a yellow brown color prior to hatching.[4] Adults lay eggs in crevasses in the bark. Larvae burrow into the bark after hatching and consume the cambium and phloem, effectively girdling the tree and causing death within two years. The average emerging season for the emerald ash borer is early spring to late summer. Females lay around 75 eggs, but up to 300 from early May to mid-July. The borer's life cycle is estimated to be one year in southern Michigan but may be up to two years in colder regions. Life Cycle The adult emerald ash borer emerges in May–July and the female lays numerous eggs in bark crevaces and between layers of bark. The eggs hatch in 7–10 days and larvae bore into the tree where they chew the inner bark and phloem creating winding galleries as they feed. This cuts off the flow of the water and nutrients in the tree, causing dieback and death.

Video is on this blog of the gunning of Idaho wolves in the Little Woods area of Idaho............You can contact Blaine County Commissioner, Larry Schoen and IDFG Magic Valley Regional Supervisor Jerome Hansen to urge them both to approach Rancher/Wolf allegations with best science and forensic proof before condeming Wolves to death

    From Lynne Stone, Idaho


"On August 31st, I watched wolves and coyotes being gunned down on John Peavey's Flat Top Ranch by a shooter from a Wildlife Services Super Cub. This obscene butchery has no place in the 21st century. Why did wolves and coyotes suddenly show up at the ranch? What attracted them? A few days before, I was witness to a conversation between Peavey and an IDFG trapper who intended to try and collar a couple of the wolves.

Please contact Blaine County Commissioner Larry Schoen (lschoen@co.blaine.id.us) who has been working with ranchers on proactive, nonlethal methods to keep livestock & predators apart. What occurred on the Flat Top Ranch is a step back a 100 years in time. There needs to be a full investigation of the events. A calf was reportedly killed on Saturday night and Wildlife Services never examined it until Tuesday, Aug 30th. According to the Mt Express, John Peavey also blamed wolves for killing 4 sheep on Monday & Tuesday, but WS said it was coyotes. Coyotes & wolves don't just suddenly all show up at a ranch unless something is enticing them there.

Also, please contact Jerome Hansen, IDFG Magic Valley Regional Supervisor (jerome.hansen@idfg.idaho.gov) (phone 208-324-4359) in Jerome, Idaho & urge him to stop rubber stamping every demand from a rancher or Wildlife Services that wolves be killed. Hansen ordered WS to kill as many wolves as they could find in the Little Wood area - never mind if the wolves were guilty or not of depredating on a calf or lamb. There is NO 3rd party consultation - any livestock that dies can be blamed on wolves (or coyotes) & WS goes to work to justify their Super Cub airplane & a trapper who is camped 24/7 next to Flat Top and another ranch."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz9HNnhhkOc&feature=share --

--
     

West Seattle informed commentary on keeping coyotes scared of humans without killing them

WEST SEATTLE CONCERNED AND PRAGMATIC IN THEIR RESPONSE TO "COYOTES IN THEIR MIDST"

Haven't received many sighting reports lately, but that doesn't mean coyotes aren't out there. It may actually mean people are doing a better job of encouraging them to keep their distance, by not leaving out food, or trying to spook them when spotted. Outdoor pets remain at risk, as evidenced by a sad (and slightly graphic) note just received from Clay, one of two reports ahead:
From Clay:

Last night we lost our cat to what we believe was a Coyote. (The cat was not hit by a car, rather it was strategically eaten at from the center with a rip in the neck.) We found our cat, beloved "Mr. Piggles," on the sidewalk near our home on 44th near Director in the Fauntleroy area [map]. There are Coyotes in the Ravine near our home over by the Fauntleroy YMCA, so perhaps send a reminder out to folks to remind them of their presence and to keep their pets in after dark as breeding season appears to be on.

They come out in the daytime too, as you can see if you browse the WSB archive of sighting reports. We also had one in queue from Jacqueline, who saw a coyote a little over a week ago, early in the morning:

5:45 am at Kenyon and 31st. Spooked him/her as I was walking two dogs at a blind corner. Coyote ran about 50 feet away and stopped. We stopped and watched him/her for a few minutes while it watched us. Approximately 24 inches tall, very lean, approximately 30 – 36″ long.

As always, we refer you to the state Fish and Wildlife Department's "Living With Coyotes" infopage, including the advice about what to do if you have a close encounter – don't just stand there and gawk, actively scare it away, by yelling, waving your arms, even throwing rocks. The warier they are of humans, the better chance they'll keep their distance.

Today we report on another case of man tampering with trophic predator populations to prop up so-called "desirable prey" in the short run............In this case, a burgeoning crop of Lobsters in the Gulf of Maine due to predators like Cod having being severely overfished over the past two decades...............Researchers are calling for new steps to restore diversity in the gulf, and with it the economic diversity of coastal communities — even if the steps reduce lobster catches somewhat in the short term

Lobsters Find Utopia Where Biologists See Trouble

TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING Researchers are calling for steps to restore diversity in the Gulf of Maine, and with it the economic diversity of coastal towns like Kennebunkport.

By CORNELIA DEAN

Maine lobsters, prized for their succulence and briny sweetness, are so abundant, and so lucrative, that they support fishing communities up and down the coast. And that is just the problem, says Robert S. Steneck, a marine biologist at the University of Maine.

In a paper in the current issue of Conservation Biology, he and a team of researchers say the lobstermen, their communities and the state economy are caught in "a gilded trap," in which short-term profit outweighs long-term social and environmental risks.

Where once a number of food species thrived in the gulf, lobsters now provide 80 percent of Maine's seafood income. Inflation-adjusted revenue from lobstering has quadrupled since 1985, the scientists write.

In an interview, Dr. Steneck said the coast had grown so dependent on lobster abundance that if anything damages the species — as has happened in recent years in nearby waters — "we are stuffed."
The researchers call for new steps to restore diversity in the gulf, and with it the economic diversity of coastal communities — even if the steps reduce lobster catches somewhat. But in a gilded trap, they write, "large financial gain creates a strong reinforcing feedback that deepens the trap."

According to the state's Department of Marine Resources, Maine lobstermen landed almost 94.7 million pounds of lobsters in 2010, worth about $313 million, up from 20.1 million pounds in 1985. (Mandatory reporting requirements have been in effect only since 2004; that year, the haul was 71.6 million pounds.)  "Those things happened in an area that is more economically diverse than most of the coastline of the Gulf of Maine," Dr. Steneck said. He called the situation in Maine "the equivalent of putting all your investments in a single stock."

David Cousens, president of the Maine Lobstermen's Association, said in an interview that the abundance of lobsters resulted from "an unbelievably strong conservation ethic" among lobstermen, who on the whole adhere scrupulously to regulations like those requiring that juvenile lobsters and egg-bearing females be released from traps.

 Others who study the situation agree.  Mr. Cousens, a lobsterman in South Thomaston, dismisses comparisons with lobster crashes farther south. "It's a totally different thing," he said, noting that Maine waters are colder, richer in oxygen and less plagued by pollution. Still, he agreed that "if we got disease in the lobster fishery or we had a major glitch, there would be a lot of people impacted."
"Everyone is relying on lobsters," he said.

In their paper, the researchers say a crash might so alter the gulf ecology that it could lead to years or even decades of low lobster yields. And that could end up changing the rugged face of the Maine coastline, said Charles S. Colgan, an economist at the Muskie School of Public Service at the University of Southern Maine, who was not involved in the new study.

"The pressure for development of the shoreline for other than fishing-related purposes is huge," he said. "High-amenity real estate, which is waterfront, has its own demand." If lobstering falters, even briefly, he said, "this working waterfront issue would be a critical problem." He added, "Bob is right to remind people that simply saying, 'We'll just keep the lobster industry the way it is' is a dangerous approach."

Mr. Colgan said diners might not notice if Maine suddenly stopped producing so many lobsters. "There is not much difference between a Prince Edward Island lobster and a Maine lobster in your lobster roll," he said, adding that he suspects about half the "Maine lobster" sold in the world comes from somewhere else.

"But in communities along the coast it would be huge," he said.  Dr. Steneck said that increasing biodiversity by encouraging stocks of groundfish like cod might lead to reduction in lobster abundance. "If you are bringing cod back to this ecosystem," he said, "that's like bringing wolves into your flock." But Mr. Cousens said such efforts had been unsuccessful anyway, and added: "The whole ecology of the gulf has changed. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing."

Robin Alden, executive director of the Penobscot East Resource Center, which aims to support Maine's fishing communities, says that whatever the answers, the questions are timely and important.
"I don't think there's a lobsterman on the coast who isn't concerned about this rapid expansion of catch," she said. "It's a little spooky."

New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingman is seeking to provide consistant annual funding for public land acquistion through The Land and Water Conservation Fund........... Huge percentages of the monies coming from Oil and gas exploration(source of funding for LWCF) are routinely diverted to other uses by Congress............This "diversion" has been on-going for years...............Tough road ahead for for Sen Bingman to right the previous wrong practices with LWCF with the economy in the gutter

Pollsters Call Conservation Funding a "Shell Game"

	.

 Since the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was created by the federal government in 1965, more than $17 billion of its funding has been diverted for uses other than land and water conservation, according to LWCF's records. But this year it's in the worst financial trouble of its life.

 A proposal in June to eliminate its 2012 budget was followed in late July by restoration of $25 million, still far below its customary annual funding. In June, Sen. Jeff Bingman (D-NM) introduced S. 1265, which would amend the act that created LWCF to provide for its consistent and reliable funding. It stipulates that not less than 1.5 percent of funding should be for securing public recreational access to federal lands, but its chances of enactment are considered to be slim.

 A broad-based coalition of groups is looking for Congress to bolster LWCF's funding when the legislature reconvenes next month. Principals of two firms that conducted public opinion research on the issue offer their conclusions here.

 The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a fund derived solely from offshore oil and gas drilling fees, has always been intended to preserve America's open spaces, provide recreational opportunities for all Americans and protect clean water.

Its investments in protecting national parks like Rocky Mountain, the Grand Canyon, and the Great Smoky Mountains, wildlife habitat, battlefields and other historic sites, working ranches and forests, and areas for outdoor recreation.

The fund has touched nearly every American, helping to protect state and local parks, trails and open space in 98 percent of the nation's counties. Yet over the nearly half-century of the program's history, Congress has consistently diverted LWCF monies for unrelated purposes, side-stepping the conservation commitment for these funds and putting the places Americans care about at greater and greater risk.

In national polling conducted by our bipartisan research team earlier this month, American voters denounced this diversion of Land and Water Conservation funds. Fully 85 percent said that we need to "honor Congress' original commitment" to use a portion of the oil and gas fee payments for conservation purposes, while just 8 percent opted for the current practice of using these funds for other purposes.

At a time when so much divides our nation, the desire for Congress to stop raiding the fund unifies voters, cutting across all demographic, geographic and partisan lines.

And what do voters think should be done about it? They not only want Congress to stop digging a hole in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, they want them to fill it back up. Among the vast majority of voters who reject the current practice of diverting money, most (60 percent) want Congress not only to stop taking money, but to repay what it has already taken over time.

Even more remarkably, voters' commitment to the fund has grown stronger as our economic difficulties have persisted. Over the last three years, there has been an increase in support for continuing funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That's right, an increase in support for land and water conservation funding even at a time of heightened public anxiety about the deficit and spending. In 2009, 81 percent of the nation's voters voiced support for continued funding of LWCF, increasing to 86 percent last year, and to 88 percent today. Voters' response on this issue is not simply a demand for honest budgeting.

Our research has consistently shown that Americans—whether Democrats, independents or Republicans—value conservation as something that benefits them personally, in the form of clean air and clean water, opportunities for outdoor recreation, a vital source of family-supporting jobs for many communities, and a legacy to pass down to future generations.

Protecting the Land and Water Conservation Fund offers Congress a unique opportunity, not only to stop the type of budgeting shell game that has driven confidence in government to historic lows, but also to honor a long-standing commitment to protecting the nation's most special outdoor places.

Lori Weigel is a partner in the political and public affairs research firm, Public Opinion Strategies. David Metz is a partner in the public policy-oriented opinion research company, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates.

From the Coyote Yipps blogsite............"Patience is a virtue when a Coyote goes hunting Voles, mice and rabbits

putting a foot down

The vole was caught, but it tried to get away.
As it reached the other side of the path the coyote
 extended a foot and put it down on top of the prey,
 pinning it down, trapping it and sealing its fate.
 The coyote stood up and kept its weight on its
 prey for a full ten seconds -- an incredibly long
 period of time when life and death are concerned...
 standing absolutely still and looking off into the
 distance. I actually could not tell that this is what
was happening until the coyote finally bent down
 to pick up in his mouth what was under his foot
 and run off with it before eating it.
In most instances that I have seen, a coyote
 will scramble quickly to get a firm hold of
 its prey in its mouth to prevent it from slipping
 away. But this time there was a calmness as the
 coyote stood there with his weight on the vole.
 Had he been squeezing it to death -- preventing
 respiration --on purpose, the same as the hawks
 do? I have seen hawks hold onto and squeeze
 a rodent over what felt like a long time, but in
 fact was only about ten seconds, while looking
 calmly off into the distance, exactly as the coyote
 had done. It points to a behavior and a use of the
 legs which I have not seen before.

vole gets away

trapping vole with paw

standing calmly with weight on vole

continuing to put weight on vole

picking up the lifeless vole

running off to enjoy a meal

There were 6 Mountain Lions(now 5) living in Los Angeles up until Thursday when a 15 month old male was killed crossing the 405 Freeway adjacent to the Getty Center(near the very human populated Wilshire Blvd UCLA area of town).............The National Park Service has been monitoring the Lions over the last 20 years making recommendations for wildlife road crossings so that our urban big cats can roam and spread their genes across the open space that rings our 2nd largest city(Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area)..............In the 20 years of research done on this remarkable urban Cougar population, there has not been one negative encounter with people.............This, in a City of 7 million who are active hikers, bicyclers and outdoor enthusiasts................Remember, California passed a law in the 70's outlawing the hunting and trapping of Cougars.................Compare the results of this decision when you read about cougar attacks on people in other regions where hunting is allowed(see British Columbia cougar attack article following Calif discussion)

Mountain Lion Killed on 405 Was Part of Long-Term Study
The young male hit by a car Tuesday near Getty Center Drive may have been on a journey to claim his own territory, a wildlife official who had been tracking him says.

 

P-18 after being hit on I-405.Courtesy of National Park Service

 The young mountain lion that was killed early Tuesday while trying to cross the 405 Freeway near Getty Center Drive was one of a small group in the Santa Monica Mountains(Los Angeles) being tracked by wildlife officials.

The 15-month-old lion, called P-18 by researchers, was part of a litter of kittens born in the Santa Monica Mountains and had been tagged with radio telemetry equipment. "We have been studying these lions for the past 10 years," said Woody Smeck, superintendent of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

According to Officer Ed Jacobs of the California Highway Patrol, "It looks like they hit [the cat] and kept on trucking. It's pretty rare. ... I don't think I have ever heard of one [being hit] there."
A few months ago, the lion left his mother's range within Malibu Creek State Park and began moving through the mountains."He was moving east," Smeck said. "He may have been trying to leave the territory of another dominant male in the area."

Male lions need a large area to roam, Smeck said. In fact, in the whole Santa Monica Mountains range there have been only two males tagged throughout the course of research. As the males mature, they often seek out space away from other dominant males and "many get killed by dominant males," he said.

"The fact that they even exist here is remarkable," Smeck said. "It is a testament to the conservation efforts to save open space."
P-18 had been tracked since he was 3 weeks old, according to the SMMNRA. The organization also said that scientists with the National Park Service have been studying the local lion population since 2002 and previous tracking records indicate that it's common for individual males to roam the entire range of the Santa Monica Mountains, stretching from Camarillo to the 405 freeway.

In the last decade, 21 mountain lions have been fitted with GPS collars and tracked utilizing radio telemetry, including P-18's father, P-12, according to a release by the SMMNRA. P-12 made the only known successful crossing of a freeway, the 101, in 2009 and has since resided in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Smeck estimates that in the past eight years, there have been about a half dozen mountain lions killed while attempting to cross freeways and interstates to travel outside the domain of the Santa Monica Mountains. In the past three years, he said there have been two documented cases of lions killed near the area where P-18 was struck.
Manmade structures and roads, especially freeways, are known to impede the migrations and movements of a variety of wildlife, presenting barriers that inhibit the ability of mountain lions and other animals to breed and maintain genetic diversity.

Caltrans and a number of organizations are working collaboratively to construct wildlife crossings that would allow animals the crucial ability to travel between different areas of protected parkland in the Santa Susana Mountains and Los Padres National Forest, according to a release from the SMMNRA. Freeways being considered for such projects include the 101, the 118 and the 405.

"Investing in connected pieces of parkland and constructing wildlife crossings along major freeways around Los Angeles is essential for long term mountain lion survival in the Santa Monica Mountains," Smeck said in the release. "Mountain lions must be able to move freely between large parklands with suitable habitat throughout the course of their daily movements, as well as exchange genetic material to prevent inbreeding in specific parkland areas like the Santa Monica Mountains."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cougar trackers still 'hopeful' they'll find cat that attacked boy

 By Cindy E. Harnett

Cougar trackers, using specially trained dogs, bushwhacked through dense, temperate rainforest Wednesday in search of the animal that attacked an 18-month old boy this week.

"We've done an extensive search. Unfortunately, as yet, we haven't been able to find the cat," said Dani Thompson, one of the search leaders, said from Kennedy Lake in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. "But we're picking up various trails and we're still very hopeful."

Through the thick foliage and on paths of wet sand, cobble, muck and rock, a dedicated team of highly trained cougar hounds, conservation officers, Parks Canada and B.C. Parks trackers, West Coast Inland Search and Rescue, tribal park officials and volunteers were searching, often just for a lingering scent or single paw print, tree scratch or leaf pile.

The challenging environment is the biggest hurdle in the hunt, said Thompson, a Parks Canada resource manager and an expertise in cougar-human conflict prevention. "It's slow going," she said. In this challenging terrain, when trackers spot the nailless, stubby, four-toed print of a cougar, or when dogs catch a whiff of the predatory animal, it can be another kilometre or more until they pick up another sign, Thompson said.

When searching for pack animals, such as wolves, the job is easier, but when searching for a solitary animal whose instinct is to hide in dense brush and covered areas, the task is much tougher."Looking for a single track, that in itself, can be very difficult," Thompson said.Dogs are the trackers' greatest asset. If they find the cougar it will cause the big cat to run up a tree. Trackers are also using snares, live traps and their own skills at spotting territorial cougar markings, or possibly a mound of earth where the cat urinated or a leaf pyramid covering feces.If caught, the animal will be sedated and killed, Thompson said. "This particular animal has definitely shown predatory behaviour and the risk to public safety is too great," Thompson said.

Monday's attack is extremely rare in the national park and Parks Canada takes the incident very seriously, she said. Protection of the public is one of its key mandates.

However, Paul Paquet, senior scientist for Raincoast Conservation Foundation, who has a doctorate in zoology, said protection of wildlife is also in the mandate.
Paquet, who co-authored a major report on cougars for the B.C. government, said his research has shown that it is unlikely that trackers can reliably determine if they have caught the targeted cougar.

"They may track and find a cougar and kill it, but to determine definitively whether it's the animal responsible for the attack is next to impossible at this point," Paquet said.
Officials will try to match the wound impressions in the child to the cougar's teeth. However, attempts by Paquet to match simulated impressions with skulls during his studies shows "there's so much overlap you couldn't tell reliably - unless there's something so distinctive in the tooth itself," he said.

The kill "is effective in relieving public fear," but it may not bring Parks Canada any closer to protecting the public, he said.
About 10,000 people have been killed by hunters in North America since 1950, Paquet added.

A revised Yukon Wolf Management Plan has been released(first updated mgmt plan since 1992) .........The Yukon Conservation Society is asking for a longer public comment period to debate the recommendations that include closer managing of wolves(culls) to reduce predation rates on caribou and moose................Very little if anything discussed about the health of the land when caribou and moose populations fall..................The mantra heard is always:" kill wolves, increase hoofed browsers"......It does not matter whether the discussion is taking place in the Yukon, Idaho or Minnesota..............Here is an analogy from our music listening habits that is apropos to our discussions on carnivore management: I feel we are stuck playing 33.3 long playing records,,,,,,,,cd's and downloads are not even in the discussion (see George Wuerthner' WOLF HUNTS MORALLY CORRUPT article in this blogs Friday, Sept 2 Post)

More input needed on Yukon wolf management plan

 

The Yukon Conservation Society wants the territorial government to extend the deadline for public input on its wolf management plan, saying the consultation period took place over the summer while many Yukoners were on vacation.

This wolf was spotted on the Teslin River by Whitehorse resident Adam Skrutkowski on April 22. There are upwards of 4,500 wolves in Yukon, according to government estimates.Adam Skrutkowski
The Recommended Yukon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan was released on Aug. 2 and comments are due by the end of Wednesday but environmentalists say more time is needed.
Some of those recommendations include managing the wolf population to reduce predation rates among caribou and moose. The report also suggests eliminating aerial control operations.
Karen Baltgailis, executive director of the Yukon Conservation Society, said a new plan was needed but few were paying attention to the issue over the summer.
"How many people even are aware that this plan has come out?" she said.
Baltgailis said her organization is also concerned that the proposed recommendations allow officials to call for a wolf cull in cases of "emergency" without explaining what would constitute one.
According to the Yukon government there are around 4,500 wolves in the territory and around 215 are trapped or hunted each year.

The last wolf management plan was put in place in 1992.
In April, rural Yukon hunters called on the government to loosen harvesting regulations to protect moose, caribou and sheep populations.

 

As many of our readers know so well, Cape Breton, Novia Scotia was the location of the killing(by Coyotes) of the 19 year old folk singer in 2009 and wounding of another 16 year old girl in 2010.........Thankfully, there have not been any negative human/coyote encounters over the past two summers............Some feel that the bounty program(PELT-INCENTIVE PROGRAM) that paid trappers $20 per pelt during the 2010-11 trapping season is the reason for the quieting.........Others conclude that the educational program instituted to teach people how to coexist with coyotes as well as target-specific removal of aggressive coyotes has caused the quieting.............science doesn't support general culls, because coyotes can compensate. "The normal number of babies that a female coyote has is about five or six," said retired Nova Scotia biologist Bob Bancroft. "But what happens when the coyote population is dropped by trapping or hunting is they'll have up to 19 young."............. Advocates for a cull argue that the practice discourages coyotes from settling in more populated areas,............Bottom line is that targeting specific problem animals could well serve the same purpose, utilizing the proven science that has proven that bounties only end up increasing coyote populations and costing human taxpayers hard earned $$$$

Culling coyotes

Derek Quann, a resource conservation manager with Parks Canada, said there were only two "coyote-human encounters" reported at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park this summer, neither of which involved aggression.

"I would say on the coyote conflict front, it has been ... relatively quiet," Quann said. "Let's say an improvement over the past two summers or actually probably an improvement over the past several years."

It also seems there are fewer anecdotal reports of individuals having run-ins with coyotes across the province. That's reassuring for those who enjoy the outdoors.

But provincial officials could interpret that trend two ways as the October to March trapping season approaches.

On one hand, Natural Resources Minister Charlie Parker could conclude that the reason there are seemingly fewer coyote-human encounters is because the province's coyote "pelt-incentive program" or cull during the 2010-11 trapping season worked and so should be offered again this season.

On the other hand, he could reckon that the cull isn't needed simply because there have been fewer encounters.

The cull was one aspect of the province's "four-part plan" to deal with aggressive coyotes, following two incidents in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park — a 19-year-old woman was fatally attacked by coyotes in 2009 and a 16-year-old girl was bitten on the head by a coyote in 2010 — as well as other reports of coyote encounters across the province.

In addition to the cull (paying trappers a $20 incentive per coyote killed), the other aspects of the provincial plan were hiring a wildlife conflict biologist, distributing information on how to deal with coyotes, and training 13 trappers to target aggressive coyotes in specific areas.

Take away the cull and the plan makes perfect sense. That's how officials at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park are dealing with the issue. They're posting safety messages, stepping up patrols and trying to kill specific problem animals. And it appears to be working.

On the other hand, science doesn't support general culls, because coyotes can compensate. "The normal number of babies that a female coyote has is about five or six," said retired Nova Scotia biologist Bob Bancroft. "But what happens when the coyote population is dropped by trapping or hunting is they'll have up to 19 young."

Advocates for a cull argue that the practice discourages coyotes from settling in more populated areas, but targeting specific animals could well serve the same purpose.

Payments to trappers participating in last season's cull cost taxpayers $52,860 for 2,643 coyotes killed. The previous season, with no bounty, 1,736 coyotes were reported killed in Nova Scotia. And might there have been less incentive to report coyotes killed when no bounty was offered?

Parker should consider converting his four-part plan to a three-part plan, sans cull.

The first fatal bear attack since the late 1800's in Arizona prompts warnings and counsel on how to coexist with the 3000 Black Bear population in the State

Fatal attack in White Mountains grim reminder of danger from black bears

By Anna Consi

Living with black bears:

- Attacks typically occur on people out alone; travel in groups.

- Keep garbage in a secure location; use a bear container if camping.

- Hang bird feeders at least 10 feet above the ground and away from buildings.

- Keep barbecue grills clean, remove fallen fruit and keep pet food indoors.

- If a bear is nearby, yell or make loud noises such as banging pots and pans or playing loud music.

- If you encounter a bear, make yourself look as large as possible and slowly back away. Don't run.

- If you are attacked, fight back.

PHOENIX – The fatal black bear attack on a woman in Pinetop this summer is a sobering reminder that development is bringing people closer to a creature that's shy by nature but a predator at heart.
"We're expanding into wildlife habitat that they've held for eons," said Bruce Sitko, a spokesman for the Arizona Game and Fish Department's Pinetop regional office

Lana Hollingsworth, 61, died in June from an attack near the Pinetop Country Club. The large, adult male black bear repeatedly mauled her while she was out walking her dog late at night.

However, black bear attacks are rare, and fatalities are extremely uncommon, experts say. The only other documented fatal bear attack in Arizona occurred in the late 1800s, and it involved a grizzly, a type of bear no longer found in the state.

Across the U.S., fatalities from bears are equally rare, with three deaths in 2010, said Tad Theimer, an associate professor of biology at Northern Arizona University. By comparison, 32 people died last year from dog attacks.

But as Arizona cities and towns, such as Pinetop-Lakeside, continue to expand into black bear territory, encounters between people and bears are likely to increase, making it important to be aware that they are out there, experts say.

"Generally bears don't bother people, but they can," said Don Swann, a biologist at Saguaro National Park near Tucson
.
Ranging from the Mogollon Rim to southeastern Arizona's tall, isolated mountains known as sky islands, approximately 2,500 to 3,000 bears live in Arizona, according to Game and Fish.
With large territories, bears travel between forest and desert areas, including lower elevations surrounding Tucson, Swann said.

Black bears are most common in the White Mountains.The Game and Fish office in Pinetop received around 300 calls last year about sightings of and damage by bears. As a result, officials relocated about 20 female and young male bears, Sitko said.Females and male bears under 3 years old are sedated, tagged and released at neutral locations, while adult males are destroyed immediately, he said. Eighty percent of the bears that are relocated typically return and are then destroyed.
In the Pinetop region, approximately 10 to 12 bears were destroyed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in 2010, Sitko said. So far this year, 11 have been destroyed.

It's a policy designed to minimize contact and harm, but the fault doesn't lie solely with the bears, he said."It's people that are causing the problem," Sitko said.Lured by garbage, bears displaced by drought or territory encroachment can turn to residential areas to find food. And once they get a taste, they keep coming back.Sitko estimates that Pinetop-Lakeside households leaving garbage bins or other rotting food outside have a 70 percent chance of being visited by a bear. Keeping the garbage bin inside reduces the likelihood of a visit to almost zero, he said.

In an effort to reduce the food attractants and inform residents, the communities of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside as well as Navajo County passed ordinances this year making it unlawful to leave food or garbage in unsecured areas. Gila, Maricopa and Pima counties have similar measures in place.
Nearly all black bear attacks are by aggressive, predatory males, and reducing the possibility of running into one is critical, NAU's Theimer said.

"Bears were attacking people because they thought they were prey," he said, adding that it's more likely to happen because bears are feeding on garbage near residential areas.Sitko said that while black bears can be highly aggressive, there have been only seven recorded attacks in Arizona in the past 20 years.

The key, he said, is keeping bears from associating people with food."Bears are as individualistic as people; some can be more mellow and some highly aggressive," Theimer said.

You owe it to yourself, regardless of the current perspective you hold about Carnivores, to read and re-read George Wuerthner's accurate bullet point outline about the current flawed wolf management policy currently unfolding in the Northern Rockies...............George...........you throw a "high hard one" as always.............Strike 3 you hurl, imploding the abhorent wolf management practices in the Northern Rockies

  

Looking for more about [term]?

 Wolf Hunts Morally Corrupt

By George Wuerthner        
The resumption of wolf-hunts in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming illustrates why citizens must continue to oppose such unnecessary and senseless slaughters.The wolf-hunts are predicated upon morally corrupt and inaccurate assumptions about wolf behavior and impacts that is not supported by recent scientific research. State wildlife agencies pander to the lowest common denominator in the hunting community—men who need to booster their own self esteem and release misdirected anger by killing.

Wolf-hunts, as Montana Fish and Game Commission Chairman Bob Ream noted at a public hearing, are in part to relieve hunters' frustrations—frustration based on inaccurate information, flawed assumptions, and just plain old myths and fears about predators and their role in the world.

Maybe relieving hunter frustration is a good enough justification for wolf-hunts to many people. However, in my view permitting hunts to go forwards without even registering opposition is to acquiesce to ignorance, hatred, and the worse in human motivations. Thankfully a few environmental groups, most notably the Center for Biological Diversity, Wildearth Guardians, Alliance for Wild Rockies and Western Watersheds had the courage and gumption to stand up to ignorance and hatred.

All of the usual justifications given for wolf-hunts are spurious at best. For instance, one rationale given for hunting wolves is to reduce their presumed affects on big game populations. Yet in all three states, elk and deer populations are at or exceed population objectives for most hunting units.

For instance in Wyoming, one of the most vehement anti wolf states in the West, the 2010 elk population was 21,200 animals over state-wide objectives, and this did not include data for six herds, suggesting that elk populations are likely higher. Of the state's elk herds most were at or above objectives and only 6 percent were below objectives. Similar data is found for Idaho and Montana elk herds as well.

However, you would not know that from the "howls" of hunters who characterize the elk populations as suffering from a wolf induced Armageddon. And Fish and Game departments are loath to counter the false accusations from hunters that wolves are somehow "destroying" hunting throughout the Rockies.

Experience in other parts of the country where wolves have been part of the landscape longer suggests that in the long term, wolves while they may reduce prey populations in certain locales generally do not reduce hunting opportunities across a state or region. Despite the fact that there more than double the number of wolves in Minnesota (3000+) as in the entire Rocky Mountain region, Minnesota hunters experienced the highest deer kills ever in recent years, with Minnesota deer hunters killing over 250,000white-tailed deer during each of those hunting seasons – an approximate five-fold increase in hunter deer take since wolves were listed under the ESA in 1978.
 
Another claim made by wolf-hunt proponents is that hunting will reduce "conflicts" with livestock owners. Again this assertion is taken as a matter of faith without really looking into the veracity of it. Given the hysteria generated by the livestock industry one might think that the entire western livestock operations were in jeopardy from wolf predation. However, the number of livestock killed annually by wolves is pitifully small, especially by comparison to losses from other more mundane sources like poison plants, lightning and even domestic dogs.

For instance, the FWS reported that 75 cattle and 148 sheep were killed in Idaho during 2010. In Montana the same year 84cattle and 64 sheep were verified as killed by wolves. While any loss may represent a significant financial blow to individual ranchers, the livestock industry as a whole is hardly threatened by wolf predation. And it hardly warrants the exaggerated psychotic response by Congress, state legislators and state wildlife agencies.

In light of the fact that most losses are avoidable by implementation of simple measures of that reduce predator opportunity, persecution of predators like wolves is even more morally suspect. Rapid removal of dead carcasses from rangelands, corralling animals at night, electric fencing, and the use of herders, among other measures, are proven to significantly reduce predator losses—up to 90% in some studies. This suggests that ranchers have the capacity (if not the willingness) to basically make wolf losses a non-issue.

However, since ranchers have traditionally been successful in externalizing many of their costs on to the land and taxpayers, including what should be their responsibility to reduce predator conflicts, I do not expect to see these kinds of measures enacted by the livestock industry any time soon, if ever. Ranchers are so used to being coddled; they have no motivation or incentives to change their practices in order to reduce predator losses. Why should they change animal husbandry practices when they can get the big bad government that they like to despise and disparage to come in and kill predators for them for free and even get environmental groups like Defenders of Wildlife to support paying for predator losses that are entirely avoidable?

But beyond those figures, wolf-hunting ignores a growing body of research that suggests that indiscriminate killing—which hunting is—actually exacerbates livestock/predator conflicts. The mantra of pro wolf-hunting community is that wolves should be "managed" like "other" wildlife. This ignores the findings that suggest that predators are not like other wildlife. They are behaviorally different from say elk and deer. Random killing of predators including bears, mountain lions and wolves creates social chaos that destabilizes predator social structure. Hunting of wolves can skew wolf populations towards younger animals. Younger animals are less skillful hunters. As a consequence, they will be more inclined to kill livestock. Destabilized and small wolf packs also have more difficulty in holding territories and even defending their kills from scavengers and other predators which in end means they are more likely to kill new prey animal.

As a result of these behavioral consequences, persecution of predators through hunting has a self fulfilling feedback mechanism whereby hunters kill more predators, which in turn leads to greater social chaos, and more livestock kills, and results in more demands for hunting as the presumed solution.

Today, predator management by so called "professional" wildlife agencies is much more like the old time medical profession where sick people were bled. If they didn't get better immediately, more blood was let. Finally if the patience died, it was because not enough blood was released from the body. The same illogical reasoning dominates predator management across the country. If killing predators doesn't cause livestock losses to go down and/or game herds to rise, it must be because we haven't killed enough predators yet.

Furthermore, most hunting occurs on larger blocks of public lands and most wolves as well as other predators killed by hunters have no relationship to the animals that may be killing livestock on private ranches or taking someone's pet poodle from the back yard. A number of studies of various predators from cougars to bears show no relationship between hunter kills and a significant reduction in the actual animals considered to be problematic.

Again I hasten to add that most "problematic predators" are created a result of problem behavior by humans—for instance leaving animal carcasses out on the range or failure to keep garbage from bears, etc. and humans are supposed to be the more intelligent species—though if one were to observe predator management across the country it would be easy to doubt such presumptions.

Finally, wolf-hunting ignores yet another recent and growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that top predators have many top down ecological influences upon the landscape and other wildlife. The presence of wolves, for instance, can reduce deer and elk numbers in some places for some time period. But rather than viewing this as a negative as most hunters presume, reduction of prey species like elk can have many positive ecological influences. A reduction of elk herbivory on riparian vegetation can produce more song bird habitat. Wolves can reduce coyote predation on snowshoe hare thus competition for food by lynx, perhaps increasing survival for this endangered species. Wolves have been shown to increase the presence of voles and mice near their dens—a boon for some birds of prey like hawks. These and many other positive effects on the environment are ignored by wolf-hunt proponents and unfortunately by state wildlife management agencies as well who continue to advocate and/or at least not effectively counter old fallacies about predators.

Most state agencies operate under the assumption that production of elk and deer for hunters to shoot should have priority in wildlife management decisions. All state wildlife agencies are by law supposed to manage wildlife as a public trust for all citizens. Yet few challenge the common assumption that elk and deer exist merely for the pleasure of hunters to shoot.

I have no doubt that for many pro wolf-hunt supporters' predators represent all that is wrong with the world. Declining job prospects, declining economic vitality of their rural communities, changes in social structures and challenges to long-held beliefs are exemplified by the wolf. Killing wolves is symbolic of destroying all those other things that are in bad in the world for which they have no control. They vent this misdirected anger on wolves-- that gives them the illusion that they can control something.

Nevertheless, making wolves and other predators scapegoats for the personal failures of individuals or the collective failures of society is not fair to wolves or individuals either. The entire premises upon which western wolf-hunts are based either are the result of inaccurate assumptions about wolf impacts or morally corrupt justifications like relieving hunter anger and frustrations over how their worlds are falling apart.

I applaud the few environmental groups that had the courage to stand up for wolves, and to challenge the old guard that currently controls our collective wildlife heritage. More of us need to stand up against persecution of wildlife to appease the frustrations of disenfranchised rural residents. It is time to have wildlife management based on science, and ecological integrity, not based upon relieving hunter frustrations over the disintegration state of their world.

For on predator studies and management see http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Predator-report.pdf
George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology





 

Tags for this article

environment (1562), idaho (1448), montana (1241), wolves (12), hunting (8), western (4), wolf (3), bears (2), hunting, predators, wolves, state management, wolf hunts, (1),

Tag cloud for all articles

missoula, politics, environment, idaho, colorado, montana, development, bozeman, salt lake city, travel & outdoors, utah, boise, western montana, land use & development, new mexico, outdoor recreation, northern idaho, idaho northern/panhandle, bend, boulder, wyoming, flathead valley, columbia gorge, idaho politics, montana politics, real estate, snow blog, music, community blogs, wildlife, public lands, wildland fire, jackson hole, colorado politics, technology, oregon, featured photo, utah politics, abq / santa fe, wild bill, tourism, washington, climate change, bob wire blog, outdoors, books, transportation, demographics, diary of a mad voter, front range, new mexico politics, wyoming politics, new west blog, planning in the west, fire updates, panhandle, satire, sandpoint, the new west magazine, travel,

   

 

 

More Community Blogs stories

• Goodbye, Missoula
• It's the End of the Festival--But the Garbage Keeps on Going
• Working to Do Farm Work
• The Great Sandpoint Fish Flop Flap
• Clark Fork Officially Turns 100

Marketplace

.

The "he said/she said" barbs/taunts and accusations hurling through the air in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming surrounding Wolves resonate with the hatred of the 17th Century Salem Witch hunt trials..............Falsehoods, bending of truths etc, etc, etc............I call on everyone to read yesterdays Post stating that 96% of all livestock deaths in the USA are caused by something other than Carnivores...........The Bitteroot Bob's of the world would have you believe that wolves are like the bubonic plague to Cattle Ranchers............Just not true!

Pro-Wolf Community Stoop to Lies & Deception

by BitterrootBob

When the truth doesn't support your cause, you resort to lies and deception. Obviously, that is the belief of the pro-wolf community. Unfortunately, the Internet has enabled anyone with a connection to become a so-called journalist. The problem is many are too lazy to complete essential interviews necessary to find all the facts or don't want factual evidence to interfere with their agenda. Such is the case with a couple of articles regarding the shooting of two wolf pups last week in the Bitterroot Valley.

The first story came out in the Ravalli Republic quoting a former government wolf trapper and depredation investigator Carter Niemeyer stating these wolf pups didn't need to die, "They would kill no livestock for at least a year or more if ever". This was an irresponsible statement considering the situation. The rancher shot and killed two wolves that had his sheep and goats rounded up. He had lost a sheep to a wolf only five weeks prior to this incident. After he shot the wolves, the rancher notified Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP). An investigation was done by Joe Jaquith, FWP Warden and Joe determined the rancher acted appropriately and within Montana law. Mr. Niemeyer claims these wolves couldn't kill for a year.

These claims were not validated by the wildlife biologists I spoke with including Mitch King, retired Regional Director United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Ed Bangs, retired USFWS Wolf Recovery Coordinator and Liz Bradley, Region 2 wolf biologist FWP. In fact Liz Bradley stated, "this was the inevitable end for these two pups. The pack had chosen a poor place to live and there was a history of livestock depredation."

The second article has so much wrong with it I don't even know where to begin. The article is on Wolf Watcher, a new, radical organization headed locally by Marc Cooke of Stevensville.
The first thing that strikes the reader is a picture of approximately 6 week old pups that give the reader the idea this is what was shot. The wolves that were shot were up to 45 lbs and looked nothing like this photo. The inclusion of this photograph is outright deception aimed at getting public sympathy and inciting public outcry. The article then goes on:

"It is widely accepted science that at four months old, wolf pups rely on their mother and other pack members for all nourishment; biologists believe at this young age these wolf pups could not take down prey on their own; evidence of that fact was the emaciated condition of the pups when they were found. Thus, we assert that the Hamilton pups were in no way a threat to Mr. Schram and/or his livestock and property."

Mr. Cooke, what biologists believe these wolf pups could not take down prey on their own? Where did you get the fallacy that these wolves were in an emaciated condition? When you publish articles maybe…just maybe you should actually speak to a biologist. Maybe you should speak to someone who actually investigated the incident and examined the wolves.

Mitch King, retired Regional Director USFWS wildlife biologist, said to me, "sheep and goats would be easy pickings for two 4 month old, 40 lb wolf pups

." Liz Bradley also told me, "while wolf pups this age don't normally kill, they are capable. They were larger than a full grown coyote and coyotes kill sheep every day." Liz went on to say, "these two wolves were not under-weight and were in excellent condition." Mr. Cooke, Liz Bradley is the Region 2 Wolf Biologist for FWP. Who did you speak with about their emaciated condition?

I also had a lengthy conversation with Ed Bangs. Ed does not believe these wolves were orphaned as other reports have indicated. Liz Bradley was also skeptical about them being orphaned due to their excellent condition. Mr. Bangs is certain there are still adult wolves in the vicinity of the Schram ranch that were caring for these wolves.

All three of the biologists thought Carter Niemeyer's comments were irresponsible. They were unanimous in their opinions that Mr. Schram acted not only within the law but he acted appropriately given the situation. Mr. Cooke, you assert that the Hamilton pups were in no way a threat to Mr. Schram and/or his livestock and property. The biologists I spoke with do not agree. And even if, in hindsight, there was agreement that the livestock was in no danger, it is not the responsibility of a landowner to make the judgements you and Mr. Niemeyer are claiming he should have made.

 Mr. Schram saw his livestock being rounded up by large, apex predators weeks after he lost a sheep to another predator. He acted. He acted appropriately. He acted within the law.
You say you reached out to FWP to re-investigate this incidence but were not satisfied with their response. FWP investigated and found the rancher acted appropriately and within the law. The last thing we need is to spend taxpayer dollars conducting a follow-up investigation of an incident that was so clearly appropriate and lawful!

Mr. Cooke you also add a suggested comments section with a suggested comment reading:

"I believe the Hamilton wolf pups killed by Mr. Schram were no threat to him and/or his livestock and property. I want Montana FWP to further investigate the circumstances that led to the wrongful death of these wolf pups and hold Mr. Schram accountable for his poor judgment."

I know from speaking with Liz Bradley that FWP does not release the names of people who shoot wolves or who have wolf depredation. You claim Mr. Schram used poor judgement, although not a single credible person is in agreement with you.

The people I want held accountable for poor judgement are those who released the name of the Schrams along with people like Mr. Niemeyer and yourself who have slandered the Schrams through lies and deception. This is serious business, as others in the Schram's position have received death threats along with Google maps showing the location of their homes, jobs and even their children's schools posted on line.

Now Mr. Cooke, I call on you to write a retraction to your article and replace it with facts instead of lies & deception.