The Greater Yellowstone Coalition is at odds with the State of Wyoming's draconian Wolf management plan on the following grounds: Wildlife is Public Trust Resources, Allocation of Wildlife Should Be by Law, Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose, Wildlife Are Considered an International Resource, Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy, and the Democracy of Hunting...... In a majority of the state there would be no principles of fair-chase, no licenses or quotas issued for wolves, and no monitoring or management by trained wildlife biologists

Wolves: Wyoming Delisting Plan Revealed

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition has consistently worked to find the middle ground on wolf management, to move beyond the ongoing conflict toward science-based management and increased tolerance for this iconic animal. This page will be dedicated to Wyoming's delisting plan to ensure people are educated and well-informed about this issue.

Three months after the gray wolf was taken off the Endangered Species list in Idaho and Montana, the Interior Department reached a deal with the state of Wyoming that would delist the animal (read Wyoming's revised wolf plan here and GYC's comments on the Wyoming plan here).

Wolves in Wyoming

The plan was approved on Sept. 14, 2011, by the the Wyoming Game & Fish Commission. The federal government moved quickly, and on Oct. 15, 2011, they conditionally approved the plan and proposed a delisting rule for Wyoming wolves. The proposed federal rule received public comment through Jan. 13. View the proposed rule here.

The Wyoming plan continues to allow for wolves to be shot on sight in a large portion of the state, though apparently slightly less than what was originally proposed in earlier versions of proposed wolf management plans.

There is a new area known as a "flex-zone," which is a seasonal expansion of the trophy game boundary (see map for area and definitions) for four months of the year to allow for dispersing wolves and genetic connectivity. State officials have also agreed to manage for no fewer than 10 breeding pairs and 100 total wolves outside of Yellowstone National Park, which has about 120 wolves.

(Wyoming had an estimated 343 wolves in 2010, 246 residing primarily outside of Yellowstone National Park.) Under Wyoming's new wolf plan, up to 146 wolves could be killed through a combination of hunting, agency control for livestock depredation, or by unregulated killings within the predator zone (see map).

Though this plan is well intended and is an improvement over Wyoming's previous efforts, it still isn't good for wolves in the state. The "flex-zone" concept would only allow for seasonal dispersal to and from Idaho, when it is well documented that wolves can disperse across state lines any month of the year.

Also, wolf hunting would likely occur during this seasonal protection from licensed hunters. Additionally, Wyoming's plan continues to violate six of the 7 founding principles of the North American Model of Conservation. These include: Wildlife is Public Trust Resources, Allocation of Wildlife Should Be by Law, Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose, Wildlife Are Considered an International Resource, Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy, and the Democracy of Hunting. In a majority of the state there would be no principles of fair-chase, no licenses or quotas issued for wolves, and no monitoring or management by trained wildlife biologists.

Wyoming's plan continues to have the same flaws as previous plans that were rejected by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and federal courts because it lacks adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve wolves as required by the Endangered Species Act. This best path forward for wolves would be for the Wyoming Legislature to give the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission authority to manage wolves statewide. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should then reopen negotiations with Wyoming and start a dialogue with the American public to ensure wolves are managed according to modern professional wildlife management principles.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition reporting on the 62 pure American Bison that were translocated from Yellowstone Park to the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation in northeastern Montana..........The 4800 acres of Ft. Peck in combination with the nearby Ft. Belknap Indian Reservation are home to the first herds to leave the Greater Yellowston region in generations...........More translocations are being planned as the GYC joins other conservation groups and Indian tribes in spreading the magnificent Bison across larger sections of its historic Montana homeland..............The next step is to make sure Wolves also call all of this landscape home as well so the age old dance of predator and prey plays out so as to make both the bison and the wolf as strong as they can be

Yellowstone Bison: Another historic day


For more than a half-century, Yellowstone bison were the only wildlife in the U.S. largely confined by the boundary lines of a national park. But a dramatic and poignant change took place Monday, March 19, 2012, when 62 Yellowstone bison long held in quarantine pens were relocated to the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in northeast Montana.

pure Bison in the Greater Yellowstone

Fort Peck has set aside 4,800 acres for bison (nearby Fort Belknap Indian Reservation has plans to allow additional Yellowstone bison to roam on 22,000 acres). These are the first herds to leave the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem alive in generations. The decision to move Yellowstone bison out of the GYE to the two reservations is an important step toward breaking the stigma around the animal's association with the disease brucellosis. These bison are some of the most intensely tested wildlife in the country and have been repeatedly proven to be disease-free.

In addition, before the tribes could receive Yellowstone bison, they had to show they have contingency plans to protect surrounding property. A few days after the 62 arrived at Fort Peck (64 started the journey, but two died), a judge prohibited the shipment of the animals in Montana, but it's still just a matter of time before more Yellowstone bison are moved to appropriate landscapes across the West.

Until last year, when bison left the deep snows of Yellowstone's interior in search of forage, they had been harassed back into the park or rounded up for slaughter by the Montana Department of Livestock because of fears of transmitting brucellosis to cattle. However, major shifts to the way Yellowstone bison are managed are under way.

Wolves hunting Bison

In April 2011, the State of Montana, federal government and regional tribes agreed in principle to allow Yellowstone bison to roam freely on 75,000 acres across the Gardiner Basin north of the park. This was a dramatic expansion of an area where only a handful of bison were first allowed to migrate north of the park under a settlement reached in 2008 — and would not have been possible without the deal negotiated by Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) and other groups buying out the Royal Teton Ranch's cattle herd for the next 30 years.

This expanded habitat in Gardiner Basin could be a literal lifesaver for Yellowstone bison during harsh winters, allowing ready access to critical lower-elevation winter range.

A hurdle remains, however. Park County and the Park County Stockgrowers Association, later joined by the Montana Farm Bureau, filed suit against Gov. Schweitzer and Montana wildlife and livestock agencies to prevent bison from roaming in the Gardiner Basin. GYC intervened in this lawsuit to defend the expansion of bison habitat. Despite the lawsuit, many people in the basin support free-roaming bison, and GYC is working with local groups to find ways to protect property, including financial support for fencing. A trial is set for August 2012.

Elsewhere, the State of Montana now plans to allow bison to be on Horse Butte, near West Yellowstone, year-round. And major newspapers in Colorado and South Dakota are calling for the creation of genetically pure conservation herds in national parks and wildlife refuges in those states.

Meanwhile, a year-long citizens working group in which GYC participated concluded in November 2011 with consensus recommendation to the Interagency Bison Management Plan partners to revise the plan. The group included diverse participants from the livestock industry, conservation groups, sportsmen, local residents, and business owners. It recommended specific habitat expansions long advocated by GYC, including making Horse Butte available to bison year-round, opening the Gardiner Basin to bison, and allowing bison into the Taylor Fork and upper Gallatin. The group also supported a focus on vaccinating livestock and not bison, using hunting as a primary population management tool, and pursuing the Montana statewide bison conservation plan. Learn more about the Citizens Working Group here.

In 2007-08, nearly 1,600 wild Yellowstone bison were captured and hauled in trucks for slaughter at meatpacking plants, about one-third of one of the only genetically pure bison herds in America. The transfer of wild Yellowstone bison to Fort Peck, Fort Belknap and other suitable landscapes across the West will help ensure we never see a repeat of this atrocity again.

Our Mission: We are working to allow Yellowstone bison to roam freely on appropriate public and private lands in Greater Yellowstone through policy changes by federal agencies and state wildlife managers, retirements of cattle grazing operations, negotiations with landowners, and contacting state legislators. Bison need champions among elected officials and within state and federal agencies to ensure they are restored to many of their historic grounds.

Meika Jensen is a freelance writer and aspiring graduate student hoping to study at UC Berkeley..... Below is an article she has written on why the Gray Wolf needs to persist and thrive in North America............Follow her on Twitter @MeikaJensen, and if you ever want a guest post, just drop her a line

Preservation of the North American Gray Wolf

Humans are the most invasive and dominant species on Earth, but this does not make up impervious the the ill-effects of ecosystem degradation. With survival on the mind and every natural resource at our fingertips we have conquered, however many are beginning to feel it is time to scale back our influence. From those studying in biology masters degree programs to conservation experts and all of the activists in between, people are beginning to change their ways in order to save others.

An Unclear nor Present Danger

The North American Gray Wolf plays a vital role in the ecosystem by controlling natural prey populations. As human settlement increased across the continent, wolves were seen as a threat to livestock, the natural prey of wolves whose population was exploding.  The amount of livestock lost to wolves was greatly exaggerated however, as research shows wolves prefer wild prey.  Nevertheless, the wolf has been hunted to near extinction. 

With the help of recovery plans in place across the continent, the North American Gray Wolf is slowly mounting a comeback.  Led in places by university graduate students, these efforts are expected to save the Gray Wolf from extinction while adding much needed biodiversity to the continent's ecosystem. 

Gray Wolf

 Graduate student work to save the Gray Wolf is extensive. At Trent University, students are conducting to determine the true range of this top predator before European settlement devastated the population.  Students at Northern Arizona University are participating in a Mexican Gray Wolf Reintroduction Project.  These attempts to reintroduce the wolves in the western United States are beginning to show signs of success.  However, threats do remain, especially in areas where wolf habitat is being threatened by oil exploration. 

Conservation efforts are working. 

Due to legal protections, changes in land use, human migration back to urban centers, and reintroduction programs. The Gray Wolf is now listed as a species of Least Concern by the The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).  However, local populations continue to need help, and the Gray Wolf is still listed as Endangered in Oregon and Washington, as well as several other states throughout the country.  As an apex predator, the wolf plays an important role in bringing balance to an ecosystem by controlling populations of prey species. In doing this, the wolf improves the biodiversity throughout their range. 

Eastern Wolf

Without the wolf, prey animal populations become genetically less vital with the survival of weaker individuals.  These prey animals push out other animals and consume larger amounts of native fauna.  The end result is a population that cannot be sustained and eventually collapses.  Protecting and maintaining wolf populations is an indispensable part of any long range wildlife conservation strategy. 

Meika

"The Forest Service today completed what it's been trying to do for 12 years, which is to weaken wildlife protections and public accountability on our national forests," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "These forests, owned by the American people, are vitally important habitat for hundreds of species now vulnerable to climate change — yet the Forest Service is weakening, rather than strengthening, the safety net that keeps them alive".............The Obama administration's new rule decreases protections for wildlife and increases the discretion of local Forest Service officials............The Forest Service's 1982 regulations required that the Forest Service maintain viable populations of fish and wildlife; that requirement applied to both forest plans and site-specific projects. The new rule requires that the Forest Service only maintain viable populations of species "of conservation concern," and only at the discretion of regional foresters. Whether and how forest plans will set forth protections for those species are left up to local forest supervisors; the rule allows those protections to be voluntary "guidelines" rather than mandatory "standards.............Our President is up and down as it relates to the environment..........He ups mandatory mpg requirements for autos way out into the future claiming to be a "green guy"............then lets 50% of the wolve get shot and trapped in the Rocky Mtn States.............and now by making species protection voluntary in our National Forests rather than mandatory, he further endangers the biological diversity of our Nation

Obama's Forest Service weakens wildlife protections

islandparknews.net

WASHINGTON— The U.S. Forest Service ton Thursday, March 30 released its new final rule to govern the nation's 193-million-acre national forest system. The new rule significantly weakens longstanding protections for fish and wildlife species on national forests. While the Forest Service was previously required to ensure the viability of those populations, the new rule largely defers to local Forest Service officials.

Gray Wolf

"The Forest Service today completed what it's been trying to do for 12 years, which is to weaken wildlife protections and public accountability on our national forests," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "These forests, owned by the American people, are vitally important habitat for hundreds of species now vulnerable to climate change — yet the Forest Service is weakening, rather than strengthening, the safety net that keeps them alive."

Congress enacted the National Forest Management Act in 1976 to guide management of the national forest system, which consists of 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands. In 1982, the Forest Service adopted national regulations to provide specific direction for activities such as logging, mining, livestock grazing and recreation. Those rules included strong, mandatory protections for fish and wildlife, requiring the Service to monitor and maintain viable populations.

The new rule represents the Forest Service's fourth attempt since 2000 to weaken those 1982 regulations. All three previous attempts were challenged in court by the Center and allies; federal courts found all three unlawful. Like the 2000, 2005 and 2008 rules, the Obama administration's new rule decreases protections for wildlife and increases the discretion of local Forest Service officials.
The Forest Service's 1982 regulations required that the Forest Service maintain viable populations of fish and wildlife; that requirement applied to both forest plans and site-specific projects. The new rule requires that the Forest Service only maintain viable populations of species "of conservation concern," and only at the discretion of regional foresters.

Grizzly Bears

Whether and how forest plans will set forth protections for those species are left up to local forest supervisors; the rule allows those protections to be voluntary "guidelines" rather than mandatory "standards." The rule makes monitoring those species' populations voluntary, and it doesn't call for population benchmarks against which to measure. It also replaces the longstanding administrative appeal process with a pre-decision objection process; it eliminates opportunities for post-decision administrative solutions, leaving litigation as the public's only means to correct harmful and unlawful decisions.

"At a time when the emergency room is already overflowing with endangered species, weakening preventative care is exactly the wrong approach," said McKinnon. "But by making species protection voluntary rather than necessary, that's exactly what today's rule does."

Norwegian and Canadian Scientists have discovered that Polar Bears seem to have lower levels of PCBs in their blood system than previously thought............Good news indeed with those poisonous contaminants seemingly dropping by as much as 59% in cubs since 1998................The deadly Polychlorinated biphenyls build in intensity as they move up the food chain into the systems of top trophic carnivores like Polar Bears..........The PCBs wreck havoc with the Bears immune system shortening their lives........With the Bears fighting against loss of sea ice habitat in which to hunt and rest on, the reduction of the deadly chemicals in their system is one less obstacle they have to contend with as they fight for long term persistence on our Planet

Polar bears accumulating fewer industrial poisons

Doug O'Harra; alaskadispatch.com 

 

A new study of polar bears prowling the ice-bound shores of Svalbard has found them carrying lower levels of the PCBs and other industrial poisons than a decade ago, offering some good news for a species that may face critical loss of ice habitat as the Arctic warms.

Blood levels of PCBs and other contaminants in cubs dropped as much as 59 percent between 1998 and 2008, with PCB levels dropping 55 percent in the blood of their mothers, according to research by Norwegian and Canadian scientists.

"The levels of PCB compounds in blood samples from females are on the decline," said lead author Jenny Bytingsvik, a doctoral student at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, in this story.

"For newborn, vulnerable cubs, this is a very positive trend. Reduced levels of PCBs in the mother bears' blood mean that there is also less contamination in their milk. Even though the PCB levels we found are still too high, this shows that international agreements to ban PCBs have had an effect."

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, come from a family of industrial chemicals used for decades in electrical transformers, oils, plastics and paints. Although banned in the United States since 1979 and throughout the world by the 2004 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, they continue to be used in some parts of Asia and the Third World.

Over decades, these contaminants accumulate in the Arctic, where they work up the food chain, finally accumulating in the blood and fatty tissue of top predators like polar bears, seals and killer whales.

The chemicals are part of a larger class of Persistent Organic Pollutants that include flame retardants and other substances that mimic natural hormones and disrupt physiological processes once ingested by animals. They can be as stubborn as they are dangerous, slow to breakdown while drifting on the globe's air and ocean currents many years after their original industrial source shuts down.

(Additional chemicals keep coming onto the market and begin polluting, according to recent reports of new flame retardants "piling up" in the Canadian Arctic.)

"Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are still among the dominating persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in arctic mammals and the levels of PCBs in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are among the highest reported in any species," wrote Bytingsvik and her five co-authors in their study. PCBs are believed to cause problems in the bears' thyroid hormone system, immune systems and behavior.

Even without the prospect of long-distance poisoning by human industry, polar bears face immense challenges. The steady decline of summer sea ice threatens to wipe out vast reaches of habitat essential for hunting and denning. New research predicts drastic declines in polar bear populations by the end of the century. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offers this polar bear primer for more information.

 It's never been easy to be a polar bear," is how the story about Bytingsvik's project puts it. "They may have to go months without eating. Their preferred food, seal, requires enormous luck and patience to catch. Add to that the melting of Arctic sea ice due to climate change, and the poisoning of the Arctic by toxic chemicals, and it's easy to see why polar bears worldwide are in trouble."

The irony that 2,500 animals living near Svalbard — one of the world's least-developed and most-pristine locales — face debilitating contamination from industrial activity thousands of miles to the south has not been lost on Bytingsvik's team.

In a 2009 story provocatively titled "The dirtiest clean place on earth," the Norwegian scientist describes how toxic chemicals might kill off a Svalbard polar bear in the future. They have "laid waste to (her) immune system and befuddled her hormones. As a result, she's sick and confused, and can't think well enough to find new ways to feed herself. When (the bear) finally dies of starvation at the end of the summer of 2030, it won't be because there wasn't enough food to eat."

In the latest study, Bytingsvik compared blood samples from sows and cubs in 1997 and 1998 with samples from 2008 — using 26 sows and 38 cubs spread over the two time periods. Levels of PCBs in the mothers dropped 55 percent over the 10 years, and about 59 percent in cubs. Levels of a form that PCBs take after they get metabolized by the animals and end up in sow's milk — OH-PCBs — also declined dramatically.

"While these figures are encouraging, Bytingsvik notes that the overall levels of OH-PCBs and PCBs in the cubs are still too high," the story explains here. "As a comparison, the 2008 concentrations of OH-PCB in cubs was roughly 90-170 times higher than levels that are known to affect thyroid hormones in human babies."

melting ice; the number 1 challenge to long term persistence for the Bears

"PCBs are considered to be among the worst environment contaminants, so it's good to see that the levels have gone down," added co-author Bjørn Munro Jenssen, Bytingsvik's academic supervisor and the Norwegian leader of a broader project assessing polar bear health.

"At the same time, we can't forget that animals in the Arctic are exposed to a number of other environmental pollutants that are carried northward on the wind or by ocean currents. On top of that, there's climate change. This creates big challenges for many species."

We previously posted Biologist Rick Rosatte's peer review paper stating that Pumas are not extinct in Ontario.........More and more residents of this Southeastern Canadian Province are claiming that they are seeing the evidence "up close and in person" as the article below documents............Both Rosatte and U. of Windsor Biological Professor Daniel Mennill think that the most likely explanation for the Pumas presence is due to pets released or escaped into the wild............However, Rosatte leaves open the possiblity of a remnant native population existing in the Province that was never extirpated or translocated from Western Canada or South Dakota

Alleged cougar spotted in southern Ontario

One man claims he saw a cougar stalking a duck for dinner, expert says 'it's more than possible'

CBC News

Evidence Confirms Presence of Cougars in Ont.---(Rick Rosatte's peer reviewed paper in full

People living in the southern most part of Ontario insist a cougar is prowling in their midst. (Department of Natural Resources)

People living in the southernmost part of Ontario insist a cougar is prowling in their midst. And an expert said they could be right. At least three people living along Concession 4 in rural Amherstburg, south of Windsor, Ont., are certain they've seen a cougar in the area the last few days.
Sightings were also reported a bit to the west of that location a week earlier.

Cecil Farmer and his wife, Connie, were eating dinner Sunday evening just after 5 p.m. when his wife spotted a large, gold coloured animal stalking through the field across the road from their house.
Farmer grabbed his binoculars to get a better look. He saw what looked like a cougar stalking a duck.
"The cougar was maybe 30 feet (nine metres) down the way and snuck up and got maybe within 10 feet (three metres) ... then he took off and he jumped up in the air, probably about four feet or five feet (1.5 metres)," Farmer said. "Anyway, the duck got away."
Shortly after, the cougar took off through the underbrush and Farmer went out to investigate.It didn't take him long to find some tracks.

Farmer isn't the only one who has seen the alleged cougar.
Shane Broderick was driving to work early Saturday morning near Farmer's property when he spotted a large gold animal crossing the road. At first, he thought it might be a fox, but realized it was too large for that. "It just went across the road after Cecil's and there's a little creek right there ... it ran about 40 feet (12 metres) out and then turned back to look at me," Broderick said.

Animal likely a pet

Both Broderick and Farmer believe the cougar was once a domestic animal.
That's what Daniel J. Mennill, an associate professor of biological sciences at the University of Windsor, also believes. "The most likely explanation is that this cougar is an escaped or released pet, that grew too big for its owner," Mennill wrote in an email to CBC News.
Mennill said "it's more than just possible" a cougar is living in Amherstburg "It is likely that cougars exist in the wild in Ontario," he wrote.

A recent report by Rick Rosatte of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources documented many lines of evidence suggesting that cougars exist in the wild in Ontario.The report includes a photo of a cougar spotted in Orillia and jaguar spotted in Guelph.

"These animals were thought to exist in the wild throughout eastern North America up until World War II," Mennill said. "After that, they became much more rare. Many people thought they were extirpated."

Mennill has witnessed a cougar in the wild. Just not in Ontario."I've seen cougars in the wild at my research site in Costa Rica. They are magnificent animals," he said. "They certainly get your blood pumping when you see one."

Do you believe a cougar is living in the wild in Amherstburg, Ont.?

Yes
No

VoteView Results
Share This

The headline of the article below insinuates that Coyotes are the biggest cause of Whitetail Deer death in Michigan...... The truth is that the biggest factors impacting deer survival in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are the intensity of both timber harvesting(protective winter deer yards strripped from the forest) and winter severity........Human Hunting and auto collisions cause 3 times as many deer mortalities than does Wolf predation............Coyotes and Bobcats also enter into the predation matrix with their roles to be accounted for more fully as the final results of the 3 year Mississippi State study are tallied

Study: Role of coyotes on deer population in the UP

by Mark Brush
npr.org

In the last few years, illegal wolf kills in the Upper Peninsula have been going up as more sportsman become convinced that wolves are harming the deer population.

The antipathy toward wolves might change now that the species is no longer federally protected, but it also might change as more research is done on other predators in the UP.

Coyote with deer kill

Howard Meyerson of the Grand Rapid Press, reports on deer predation research being conducted in Michigan's Upper Peninsula by Mississippi State University students.
So far, the research is showing a somewhat surprising result: that coyotes are a top predator of fawns in parts of the western UP.

car collisions kill Deer

From the Grand Rapids Press:

...what researchers found this past winter, the third year of a western U.P. deer mortality study, is that coyotes were the No. 1 predator followed by bobcats. Wolves came in fourth after a three-way tie among hunters, unknown predators and undetermined causes.
"I was somewhat surprised to see coyotes play as large a role in fawn predation as they did...," said Jerry Belant, an associate professor of Wildlife Ecology and Management at Mississippi State University.

Researchers say predation by coyotes, bobcats, wolves, and people play a role in deer survival, but weather and habitat can play a bigger role.

The Mississippi State researchers write that "historically, deer abundance in the UP has been affected by the intensity of timber harvesting and winter severity."

Hunter with his killed buck

The Michigan DNR says the deer population in the UP is around 270,000. And officials estimate that winter weather and humans can kill more deer than wolves.

Bobcat killing fawn

Here are the numbers they have posted:

• ~ 64,000 deaths - humans (hunting and car collisions)
• ~ 17,000 - 29,000 deaths - wolves
• ~ 35,000 deaths - mild winter weather
• ~ 70,000 deaths  - moderate winter weather
• ~ 105,000 deaths - severe winter weather

Once more research is done, the MDNR might be able to add more predation numbers from species other than wolves.

"If you look at any map of the U.S., the Maine Woods stands out because you don't see all kinds of public roads and towns," said Jym St. Pierre, Maine director of RESTORE: The North Woods, an organization that has led the charge for creation of a national park in the Maine Woods. "If you look at an image of North America at night, it's the biggest black spot in that part of the continent. It's a wonderful anachronism. It's like finding a long forgotten treasure in your grandmother's attic."--Jim St. Pierre, Maine Director of RESTORE: THE NORTH WOODS.............Maine Senator Susan Collins who has been a more moderate Republican Senator has long opposed a National Park in Maine as she and the local land group, PRESERVE MAINE TRADITIONS fear increased law enforcement, toll booths, the threat of government land grabs through eminent domain, bans on hunting, snowmobiling and structures (like ice fishing shacks) on park property; loss of tax revenue, closed roads, and boat horsepower restrictions on lakes and ponds.....Some also think that somehow the logging industry can somehow also resurface in the State and think any Federal ownership of land dramatically increases the odds against the "saw" returning to the state.........One realizes that a National Park in the form of a Yosemite could reveal some "ugliness" in its creation,,,,,,,,,,,,my own vision would be more in line with the Boundary Wilderness in Minnesota where traditional use of the land in concert with core wildlands enables both human and non-human animals to return to the land(think wolf, puma, caribou, wolverine)----to "live long and multiply"

Quimby woods in limbo during Maine national park debate

Randi Minetor

National Parks Examiner

Roxanne Quimby owns a lot of land, and she's ready to give it away.

The founder of Burt's Bees, a well-known company that makes a wide range of skin, hair, and tooth care products entirely from natural ingredients, Quimby has used part of her fortune to purchase land in the North Woods of her ancestral state of Maine. She has one goal in mind: to hold this land privately until the time comes when she can give it to the public.

One of Quimby's properties, a nearly 70,000-acre parcel east of Baxter State Park, where the Appalachian Trail comes to an end at Katahdin, could become a new Maine Woods National Park . Quimby has offered the densely forested area to the National Park Service as a gift.

Roxanne Quimby

That is, it could become a park if she can convince Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to go ahead with a study to determine the feasibility of turning this land into a national park.

"If you look at any map of the U.S., the Maine Woods stands out because you don't see all kinds of public roads and towns," said Jym St. Pierre, Maine director of RESTORE: The North Woods, an organization that has led the charge for creation of a national park in the Maine Woods. "If you look at an image of North America at night, it's the biggest black spot in that part of the continent. It's a wonderful anachronism. It's like finding a long forgotten treasure in your grandmother's attic."

Shortly after Quimby made the land offer to National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis in May 2011, Salazar and Jarvis held a public meeting at northern Maine's Millinocket High School to test the idea with area residents. "It was a full house," said Michael Kellett, executive director of RESTORE: The North Woods. "Secretary Salazar explained that there was a proposal on the table, and he wanted to come up here and ask people what they thought.  He had on blue jeans and a cap and a work shirt, and he talked about his heritage in Colorado in one of the poorest counties in the country. About half the people there spoke in favor of a reconnaissance survey. He said he could authorize that, but he wanted to find out what people thought."

Salazar also heard from a vocal group who opposed the project. "Afterward, he let it be known that he would be willing to do the survey, but his friend Susan Collins didn't want it."

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), a native of the northern Maine city of Caribou whose family is in the lumber industry, represents an area long affected by the exodus of much of the timber industry in the late 1800s and early 1900s. When clear-cut logging had removed all of the best trees from northern Maine by the late nineteenth century, loggers took advantage of the new roads and railroads and moved to the Midwest lake states and the Pacific Northwest to continue their lumbering. Meanwhile, builders began to use more concrete and steel in construction projects, and coal replaced wood as a fuel, reducing the demand for logging. In the late twentieth century, mechanization in the woods and automation in the mills further reduced the jobs available in the forest industry. Today, many residents of northern Maine struggle to make a living.

"[Collins] still thinks there's a future for logging in northern Maine," said Kellett. "She doesn't like taking land out of the timber base. But this land is privately owned, and it would never be logged anyway. We're talking about private land that Roxanne wants to donate."

While Quimby's donation worries some of the area's residents, their real concern is RESTORE's larger plan for Maine's north woods, of which Quimby's land could represent a starting point. In all, RESTORE hopes to protect 3.2 million acres of woodland as a Maine Woods National Park and Preserve. "Our goal is to have Roxanne's land protected by the National Park Service centennial in 2016," said Kellett. "This would be the largest single national park land donation in United States history. Once that park is created, we think the people of Maine will realize what a benefit it is, and want to expand it."

That's exactly what scares members of an organization called Preserve Maine Traditions, which loudly opposes Quimby's land donation or any other presence of the National Park Service in northern Maine. "PMT is a citizens group committed to preserving Maine's cultural heritage and land use traditions," the group's website explains. The site lists what it deems the perils of creating this national park: increased law enforcement, toll booths, the threat of government land grabs through eminent domain, bans on hunting, snowmobiling and structures (like ice fishing shacks) on park property; loss of tax revenue, closed roads, and boat horsepower restrictions on lakes and ponds. 

While some of these things are possible if the land becomes a national park, other National Park Service designations would not require dramatic changes in land usage.  Some of the land could become a national preserve or recreation area, for example, where hunting, snowmobiling, ice fishing shacks, boating, and other activities would be allowed.

A poll administered by Zogby International in July 2010 showed that 75 percent of respondents were in favor of establishing a new national park in the Maine Woods. An informal survey conducted by the Bangor Daily News in April 2011 produced virtually the same result.

"There's no other place in the U.S. today where we can have this big public debate on whether to create an Alaskan-scale national park and preserve," said St. Pierre, who has worked on this project since 1995. "In the early 1990s, Congress appropriated money for a Northern Forest Lands Study, which documented that this forest was of national significance. The heart of that area in Maine is where we have shone a bright light and said, 'This is the best of the best.' Roxanne Quimby wants to do something good for all Americans for all time by donating her land for a new national park."

With major changes on the horizon in Maine's federal-level political scene—the catalyst for which is Senator Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) recent announcement that she will not run for reelection—Maine may have an opportunity to move its national park plans forward.

Red Foxes are native to the boreal and western montane portions of North America..............However, many researchers have forever postulated that the Red Foxes found today in much of the Eastern and Midwestern regions of the USA are of European ancestry or at best an admix of European and North American lineages...........Samantha Wisely who works at the Wildlife Ecology Genetics and Molecular Ecology Lab at the U. of Florida, Gainesville(along with colleagues) has concluded in her peer reviewed Journal of Mammalogy paper(93-1;52-65, 2012) that there are no matrilineal descendants of European Red Foxes anywhere in North America.......Indeed, it appears that North American Red Foxes found today in the USA are of North American Ancestry even though the historical record does record the fact that Colonists did release nonnative red foxes into American woodlands............Seems that the native "Reds" migrated down from Canada as forests were cleared and Wolves and Pumas were eliminated as competitors.....The native Red Foxes were able to "best" and out-compete the non native Foxes(Native Gray Foxes who climb trees and prefer forested habitat also largely retreated to more northerly regions where land clearing was not yet extensive)............It is true that in parts of Southern California and western Washington State that Red Foxes are an admix of North American lineages that were translocated from other parts of the Continent(for fur farming)...........The full paper is available for your reading pleasure below,,,,,concluding with the statement that: "native Foxes may be able to competitively exclude nonnative foxes, hybridizing only on the margins of the native range

click here to read: THE ORIGEN OF RECENTLY ESTABLISHED RED FOX POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES: TRANSLOCATIONS OR NATURAL RANGE EXPANSION

The Environmental movement led by the CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY has petitioned Interior Secretary Salazar to release additional Mexican Wolves from the captive breeding program into both Arizona and New Mexico to augment their numbers as well as to inject additional genetic diversity into the exisitng population that currently only numbers 58 individuals........... As we all know, illegal killings by ranchers and lack of enthusiastic and effective cooperation from State Wildlife Agencies has truly hampered effective rewilding for our Mexican Wolf subspecies

Contact:

Michael Robinson, Center for Biological Diversity, (575) 534-0360

Interior Secretary Salazar Urged to Restart Mexican Wolf Releases Into Wild

Obama Administration Has Yet to Release Any New Wolves; Wild Population Suffering From Inbreeding

SILVER CITY, N.M.— On the 14th anniversary of the reintroduction of endangered Mexican gray wolves to the wild in the Southwest, 30 conservation organizations, scientists, and animal-protection and sportsmen groups today urged Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to release Mexican wolves from the captive-breeding program into the wild this year since no release has occurred since 2008. The letter also asks Salazar to allow the release of captive-bred wolves to New Mexico, which is currently prohibited.

Both measures would help stop the loss of genetic diversity among Mexican wolves in the wild, increasing the chance that this unique but highly vulnerable gray wolf subspecies may recover. Only 58 wolves, including just six breeding pairs, were counted in the wild in January 2012. The letter to Salazar documents that inbreeding may be lowering the number of pups that are born and survive.
"President Obama's government has failed to release even a single Mexican wolf from the captive-breeding program," said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Scientists have practically begged the bureaucrats to release more wolves, to no avail. So we're now asking Secretary Ken Salazar for his personal attention and quick action to rescue the inbred Mexican wolf population by releasing more wolves." 

Releases of wolves from the captive-breeding pool, whose animals have never before lived in the wild, can only occur in Arizona. Releases of wolves captured in the wild may take place in Arizona and New Mexico. But in light of illegal killings of wolves and inbreeding, biologists and the Fish and Wildlife Service itself have recommended a rule change to allow the more numerous captive-bred wolves to be released into the remote portion of the bi-state recovery area, in the Gila National Forest of New Mexico. The Obama administration has continued to stall for time on that rule change.
"Time is running out for endangered Mexican wolves," said Kevin Bixby, executive director of the Southwest Environmental Center. "After more than a decade of bureaucratic inaction, wolves cannot wait any longer. We are calling on the Fish and Wildlife Service to use its existing authority to take immediate action to get more wolves on the ground before this magnificent creature goes extinct in the wild — for the second time in living memory, only this time it will be government bureaucrats not trappers that are the cause of its demise."

"Wolves help protect streamside vegetation from overgrazing by elk, as the experience in Yellowstone National Park shows," said Donna Stevens, a botanist who is executive director of the Upper Gila Watershed Alliance. "We need more Mexican wolves not just for their own sake and to ensure this unique animal's survival, but also for the health of the entire ecosystem."

The 1998 reintroduction of Mexican wolves to Arizona and New Mexico was projected to result in 102 wolves, including 18 breeding pairs, in the wild by the end of 2006, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's environmental impact statement on the reintroduction. No recovery goal has yet been established for the Mexican wolf.

Read more here about the Center for Biological Diversity's work to save Mexican gray wolves.

---

 

"When the last snow leopard has stalked among the crags, a spark of life will have gone, turning the mountain into stones of silence"---Naturalist George Schaller..........I agree with the key contributors to this blog that the answer to saving all of WILD AMERICA is to create large core protected areas and connect them to each other via natural area corridors..... it is good to know that scientists are developing technologies developed and refined for human reproduction, like artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization that one day might aid in reproducing endanagered species....... Recently, new advances in stem cell generation have revived the conversation about assisted reproductive technology (ART) and its role in wildlife conservation.............However, we are still years away from any of these medical procedures providing meaningful results............In the meanwhile, we have to energize our elected officials into putting into law effective wildlife legistation and management practices as well as working energetically in the private sector to both buy land and create conservation easements that will allow wildlife to persist into the forever

Test-tube conservation

Will emerging technologies save imperiled wildlife?

Newborn clouded leopard kittens at the Smithsonian National Zoo.

By Justine E. Hausheer |
Posted in: Environment

When the last snow leopard has stalked among the crags, a spark of life will have gone, turning the mountain into stones of silence.

Each day, reality inches closer to naturalist George Schaller's elegiac warning. Inhabiting the high mountains of Central Asia, snow leopards are the ghosts of the animal kingdom — solitary and secretive. There are an estimated 4,000 to 6,500 snow leopards left in the wild, but the breeding population is estimated at fewer than 2,500 animals. And those estimates may be optimistic — dating from 2003, they do not account for a further nine years of population decline. Threatened by poaching, lack of prey, conflicts with humans and military activity, the snow leopard's fate remains imperiled.

But there is reason to hope. One patient pregnancy at a time, reproductive biologists are attempting to save endangered species like the snow leopard from extinction. Their tools include technologies developed and refined for human reproduction, like artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. Recently, new advances in stem cell generation have revived the conversation about assisted reproductive technology (ART) and its role in wildlife conservation.

In November of 2011, researchers at Monash University, Australia, announced that they had generated induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) from a snow leopard. Like embryonic stem cells, iPS cells are self-renewing and can develop into every cell type in the body. But iPS cells are not derived from fetuses — they are created from adult cells that are genetically reprogrammed into stem cells.

Only two months earlier, researchers from the Scripps Research Institute and the San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research created the very first iPS cells from an endangered species, as they reported in Nature Methods. Headed by Jeanne Loring, the research team created iPS cells from the drill, a small primate, and the northern white rhinoceros. "Obviously you cannot get embryos from endangered species," says Loring, "so getting the same cell type another way was really very appealing."

Loring's research team is now setting out to generate and preserve iPS cells for many other endangered species. Since late 2011, they have generated iPS cells for the Somali wild ass and the Javan banteng, a species of wild cattle from Southeast Asia. Loring hopes that their success will encourage other stem cell researchers to take the next step — producing gametes (eggs and sperm) from iPS cells. This leap already has been successful in mice.

iPS cells are tantalizingly innovative, on par with the emergence of cloning. But the technology is decades away from saving species. "From a science perspective [iPS cells] are really interesting, but from a conservation perspective it has almost no impact whatsoever," says Bill Swanson, a reproductive biologist at the Cincinnati Zoo.

Even proponents of iPS cells acknowledge that their use in wildlife conservation is in its infancy. "People are very excited in the conservation world about this," Loring says, "but they're also not sure what to do next." In the meantime, something else will have to help the snow leopard.

Other forms of ART are more widely researched and have proven successful in certain species. But each successful pregnancy is backed by years of research and preceded by many failures. Even with a multitude of developing technologies, the ultimate question remains: Will they save species in time?
Assisted reproductive technology includes a diverse array of reproductive aids. The most widely used is cryopreservation, a technology akin to human sperm banks. Genetic material, often sperm, is frozen stored in genetic resource banks. Wildlife biologists refer to these repositories as "frozen zoos."
Sperm from endangered species is collected from both wild and captive animals and frozen using liquid nitrogen. Before freezing, water is removed from the sperm cells and replaced with a protective agent, often glycerol. This prevents ice crystals from shattering the delicate cell membranes.

Cryopreservation allows precious genetic material from endangered species to be saved for the future — Noah's ark at 200 degrees Fahrenheit. "Once a semen sample is cryopreserved, it theoretically is good forever," says Adrienne Crosier, a cheetah research biologist at the Smithsonian's Center for Species Survival. A majority of the genetic material in frozen zoos is semen, but facilities also save skin cells, eggs, and whole ovaries and testes.

Cryopreservation's ability to promote genetic diversity is enormous. It allows researchers to "exchange genetics on a really large scale," says Crosier. "You can collect sperm from a male and transfer the sperm sample, frozen, anywhere in the country," she says. The ability to transport sperm, instead of the actual animal, makes managing the genetics of a population much easier. Semen collection also enables researchers to use genetic material from the wild, without taking a wild animal into captivity.

Cryopreserved sperm is just the first step, for the ultimate goal of assisted reproduction is pregnancy and offspring. Males and females are paired, often with the advice of the zoological version of genetic counselors to ensure the best match. If natural breeding will not work, due to logistical limitations or animal incompatibility, reproductive biologists have three options: artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, or embryo transfer.

Each of these technologies has proven successful in some species, but biologists do not simply choose a method and begin. Every successful birth is preceded by extensive research, on both models and the endangered species.

"Oftentimes we need to do basic science on either a domestic animal model or a common family member," says Alexander Travis, the director for the Cornell Center for Wildlife Conservation in Ithaca, New York. "You don't want to go and practice on your endangered species."
Even when researchers know enough about a species' reproductive biology to apply ART, the success rates are low. At the National Zoo, Crosier says that the success rate for artificial insemination of cheetahs is less than 30 percent.

Such low success rates are not unusual. "Artificial insemination is not some sort of magic bullet," says Swanson. "If I can do three artificial insemination procedures and get one pregnancy," he says, "that's good enough to use to manage the population."

Crosier hopes that upcoming research on embryo transfer in cheetahs will yield higher success rates, citing the successes of embryo transfer in the cattle industry. Like in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer begins in the lab, but the embryos are implanted into a different female animal, not the biological mother.

Embryo transfer allows reproductive biologists to breed females who are unable to reproduce or who have behavioral problems and will not breed naturally. Their embryos can be brought to term and raised by more suitable mothers, keeping their valuable genetic material in the cheetah population.

This procedure can also help found captive populations of endangered subspecies. Swanson used this technique to establish a population of Brazilian ocelots in the United States. The Brazilian ocelot, Leopardus pardalis mitis, is a subspecies of ocelot found in southern Brazil, Paraguay, and northern Argentina. While ocelots are not endangered, the Brazilian ocelot subspecies is considered vulnerable. Swanson estimates that there are between 1,000 and 5,000 individuals left in the wild.

In 1999 and 2000, Swanson traveled to Brazil and used in vitro fertilization to create 86 ocelot embryos. The intention was to transport the frozen embryos to the US and transfer them into captive ocelots. Artificial insemination was not an option, because captive ocelots are generic mixtures of many subspecies. Therefore the resulting kittens would not be true Brazilian ocelots.

After years of trying to obtain export permits, Swanson performed the embryo transfers in Brazil in 2007. Twenty-four embryos were transferred into eight ocelots, resulting in three pregnancies and three healthy kittens. Swanson later transported some of these founder kittens back to the US.
There are now 28 Brazilian ocelots in US zoos, and Swanson estimates that 50 percent are either ocelots that he imported or are offspring produced by his founders through natural breeding or artificial insemination.

The continued improvement of all forms of ART will allow biologists to tailor the technology to the animals in their care. The choice of which technology to use "comes down to the particular animal, species and situation that you are dealing with," says Swanson.

Though each technology still needs extensive development, embryo transfer, in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination are having concrete effects on current species conservation. In contrast, the value of iPS cells and their sister technology, cloning, remains unknown.

In response article to Loring's paper, reproductive biologists David E. Wildt, Vimal Selvaraj and Budhan S. Pukazhenthi state that though the tantalizing possibility of embryo creation or cloning from iPS cells exists, "there will need to be decades of basic research investment before it is possible to reap the dividends of viable offspring production."

ART is having a real-time, albeit limited, effect on managing captive wildlife populations in the United States. But its role in future conservation efforts depends on continued technological advances. These advances depend, unsurprisingly, on funding.

ART's potential will also be constrained by the fate of wild populations. Captive breeding programs are fruitless unless they are combined with legal protection and habitation conservation to preserve animals in the wild."Wild populations are becoming more fragmented and more restricted," says Swanson. As a result "it's becoming more and more difficult to… develop these global connections between wild and captive populations."

Loring's iPS cell version of a frozen zoo will lay the groundwork for any future advances in technology. Her research team's work could very well have a significant effect on the livelihood of those species in 50 years. But in the intermediate decades, many animals could become endangered or go extinct without continued improvements in technologies that help produce offspring.

Loring's team chose the northern white rhinoceros because the species was virtually extinct. There were only eight northern white rhinos left on earth when they started their research. By the time they finished, there were only seven.

It is too late for the northern white rhino. The snow leopard population is plummeting, and the Brazilian ocelot is creeping toward endangerment. In the end, assisted reproductive technology falls prey to the same maxim as all other conservation strategies: For imperiled species, it is a race against time.

"Cats are natural predators of not just birds but also mammals—killing is what they are meant to do and it's not their fault".... "Removing both pet and feral cats from outdoor environments is a simple solution to a major problem impacting our native wildlife"----Journal of Ornithology, January 2011................And while this blog does empathize with those who love their cats, the bottom line is that cats, whether they be a housepets or those who have been released/escaped and gone feral---are an invasive and exotic carnivore in North America who each year kills off hundreds of thousands(some say millions) of birds, reptiles and small mammals..........While the 2nd article below does discuss how removing cats from an island(finite space) caused an erruption in the rabbit population of that region(researchers have learned that the non-native rabbits, rats and birds should have been removed simultaneouslly), the vast majority of biologists want cats out of woods, fields, prairies,,,,,,and yes, even our urban and suburban streets and neighborhoods!..........Let the urban Coyotes, foxes and bobcats do their job of neutralizing mice, rabbits, squirrels,,,,,,,,,,These mesocarnivores also kill a % of birds each year,,,,,,,,,,,we do not need domestic cats adding to the total!

Smithsonian Scientists Find that for Birds, the Suburbs May Not Be an Ideal Place to Raise a Family

There comes a time in life for every bird to spread its wings and leave the nest, but for gray catbirds, that might be the beginning of the end. Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute scientists report fledgling catbirds in suburban habitats are at their most vulnerable stage of life, with almost 80 percent killed by predators before they reach adulthood. Almost half of the deaths were connected to domestic cats.

Urban areas cover more than 100 million acres within the continental United States and are spreading, with an increase of 48 percent from 1982 to 2003. Although urbanization affects wildlife, ecologists know relatively little about its effect on the productivity and survival of breeding birds. To learn more, a team of scientists at SCBI's Migratory Bird Center studied the gray catbird (Dumatella carolinensis) in three suburban Maryland areas outside of Washington, D.C.—Bethesda, Opal Daniels and Spring Park.

The team found that factors such as brood size, sex or hatching date played no significant role in a fledgling's survival. The main determining factor was predation, which accounted for 79 percent of juvenile catbird deaths within the team's three suburban study sites. Nearly half (47 percent) of the deaths were attributed to domestic cats in Opal Daniels and Spring Park. Scientists either witnessed the deaths or determined that they were cat-related by the condition of the fledgling's remains, such as a decapitated bird with the body left uneaten—defining characters of a cat kill. The researchers did not detect domestic cats during predator surveys in the third suburban study site, Bethesda.

"The predation by cats on fledgling catbirds made these suburban areas ecological traps for nesting birds," said Peter Marra, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute research scientist. "The habitats looked suitable for breeding birds with lots of shrubs for nesting and areas for feeding, but the presence of cats, a relatively recent phenomenon, isn't a cue birds use when deciding where to nest."
Technology made tracking the fledgling catbirds possible. The team fitted 69 fledglings with small radio-transmitters. Scientists tracked each individual and recorded its location every other day until they died or left the study area. This detailed type of field research was very limited until recently when transmitters were made small and light enough for songbirds.

Tracking the fledglings revealed that the vast majority of young catbird deaths occurred in the first week after a bird fledged from the nest. This was not surprising to the team, given that fledglings beg loudly for food and are not yet alert to predators—making fledglings in suburban environments particularly prone to visual predators such as domestic cats. Domestic cats in suburban areas that are allowed outside spend the majority of time in their own or adjacent yards, so they are likely able to intensely monitor, locate and hunt inexperienced juvenile birds. The researchers found that rats and crows were also significant suburban threats to fledgling catbirds.

"Cats are natural predators of not just birds but also mammals—killing is what they are meant to do and it's not their fault," said Marra. "Removing both pet and feral cats from outdoor environments is a simple solution to a major problem impacting our native wildlife."

The scientists' findings were published in the Journal of Ornithology, January 2011.

The Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute serves as an umbrella for the Smithsonian National Zoological Park's global effort to understand and conserve species and train future generations of conservationists. Headquartered in Front Royal, Virginia, SCBI facilitates and promotes research programs based at Front Royal, the Smithsonian's National Zoo in Washington, D.C., and at field research stations and training sites worldwide.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Species Eradication Backfires Big Time
cbsnews.com
Michael Casey; Asso. Press

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Remove all the feral cats from a famous Australian island to save the native seabirds.

But the decision to eradicate the felines from Macquarie island allowed the rabbit population to explode and, in turn, destroy much of its fragile vegetation that birds depend on for cover, researchers said Tuesday.

Removing the cats from Macquarie "caused environmental devastation" that will cost authorities 24 million Australian dollars (US$16.2 million) to remedy, Dana Bergstrom of the Australian Antarctic Division and her colleagues wrote in the British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology.

"Our study shows that between 2000 and 2007, there has been widespread ecosystem devastation and decades of conservation effort compromised," Bergstrom said in a statement.

The unintended consequences of the cat-removal project show the dangers of meddling with an ecosystem - even with the best of intentions, the study said.

"The lessons for conservation agencies globally is that interventions should be comprehensive, and include risk assessments to explicitly consider and plan for indirect effects, or face substantial subsequent costs," Bergstrom said.

Located about halfway between Australia and Antarctica, Macquarie was designated a World Heritage site in 1997 as the world's only island composed entirely of oceanic crust.

It is known for its wind-swept landscape, and about 3.5 million seabirds and 80,000 elephant seals migrate there each year to breed.

Authorities have struggled for decades to remove the cats, rabbits, rats and mice that are all nonnative species to Macquarie, likely introduced in the past 100 years by passing ships.

The invader predators menaced the native seabirds, some of them threatened species. So in 1995, the Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania that manages Macquarie tried to undo the damage by removing most of the cats.

Several conservation groups, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Birds Australia, said the eradication effort did not go far enough and that the project should have taken aim at all the invasive mammals on the island at once.

"It would have been ideal if the cats and rabbits were eradicated at the same time, or the rabbits first and the cats subsequently," said University of Auckland Prof. Mick Clout, who also is a member of the Union's invasive species specialist group.

Clout and others said the Macquarie case illustrates the struggle that Australia and New Zealand have had trying to remove invasive species from their islands, mostly in a bid to protect seabird populations. They have targeted dozens of islands over the past few decades with mixed success.

Cats were removed from Little Barrier island off New Zealand, but it took a second campaign against a growing rat population. On the remote Campbell island off New Zealand, authorities successfully removed sheep, cattle, cats and rats in one of the biggest eradication projects to date.

"The whole ecosystem is recovering superbly," Clout said of Campbell island.

Liz Wren, a spokeswoman for the Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania, said authorities were aware from the beginning that removing the feral cats would increase the rabbit population. But at the time, researchers argued it was worth the risk considering the damage the cats were doing to the seabird populations.

"The alternative was to accept the known and extensive impacts of cats and not do anything for fear of other unknown impacts," Wren said.

The parks service now has a new plan to use technology and poisons that were not available a decade ago to eradicate rabbits, rats and mice from the island.

The project to be launched in 2010 will use helicopters with global positioning systems to drop poisonous bait that targets all three pests. Later, teams will shoot, fumigate and trap the remaining rabbits, Wren said.

Some of the earlier critics are now behind this latest eradication effort to remove the island's last remaining invasive species.

"Without this action, there will be serious long-term consequences for the majestic seabirds...and for the health of the island ecosystem as a whole," said Dean Ingwersen, Bird Australia's threatened bird network coordinator.

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

Feral Cats – The arguments against Trap, Neuter, and Release

According to the El Paso (Texas) Veterinary Medical Association, Feral Cats are wild, unowned, outside cats that cannot be handled. There are an estimated 120 to 150 million feral cats in the United States. One unspayed female and her offspring can produce 420,000 cats in seven years.
New Jersey 04/26/10 nj.com:

  (M)any studies show that trap, neuter and release (TNR) programs do not work. They do not protect local wildlife from cats, and they are an ineffective and an inhumane way of dealing with the feral cat problem. They invariably fail to capture and neuter all the cats in the colonies, which also act as dumping grounds for unwanted pets. Colonies, therefore, often grow in size rather than diminish.

Feral cats present a public health threat from rabies, cat-scratch fever, toxoplasmosis and other diseases. Feral cats also typically face unpleasant deaths from predators, disease and automobiles. Hence, feral cats have about one-third to one-fifth of the life span of indoor, owned cats. Perhaps that is why the National Association of Public Health Veterinarians, the Wildlife Society and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals all oppose TNR programs.
Cats kill an estimated 1 million birds each day in this country, along with a variety of small mammals and other wildlife. Local government policy should develop strong regulations that penalize people for abandoning cats, mandate neuter/spaying, and support pet adoption schemes. California municipalities such as Los Angeles County and Santa Cruz County have had success with such approaches.

For more information on TNR and cat colonies issues, watch a recent informative video at youtube.com/abcbirds. Darin Schroeder is vice president of conservation advocacy for the American Bird Conservancy

Florida 04/23/10 orlandosentinel.com: From the Journal of Mammology:
Catch-and-release is a familiar concept in fishing, but is more contentious when it comes to cats. To deal humanely with feral cat populations, some advocate a trap-neuter-release approach. Wild cats are allowed to continue living freely, with food provided for them, but have been sterilized and will not continue to reproduce and add to the unwanted pet population.

The April 2010 issue of the Journal of Mammalogy reports a study of feral cat populations conducted on California’s Santa Catalina Island. For more than 20 years the Catalina Island Humane Society has practiced trap-neuter-release at designated “colonies” in Avalon and Two Harbors, the largest communities on the island.

From 2002 to 2004, researchers tracked the movements of 14 sterilized and 13 reproductively intact cats with radio collars in the Middle Canyon and Cottonwood Canyon watersheds on the eastern half of Catalina to determine their home-range and long-range areas.

Contrary to expectations, the study showed that sterilization did not keep the cats “close to home,” defending their territory against the influx of more cats. Both sterilized and intact cats roamed over long distances, traveling between the island’s developed areas and wildland interior.

In places such as Catalina, where ecologically sensitive areas abut urbanized areas, this raises questions about the impact of feral cats on native wildlife. The presence of the cats could threaten efforts to protect vulnerable species and restore native ecosystems. These cats can act as predators and food competitors of native species. With no protection from disease or parasites, the cats are susceptible and can transfer these illnesses to wildlife, humans, and pets.

The feral and stray cat population on Catalina numbers in the range of 600 to 750 animals. Even with a high rate of sterilization, it could take more than a decade for a colony of cats to become extinct. Rather than trap-neuter-release, the authors of this article recommend that, on Catalina, cats trapped in the island’s interior should be removed and delivered to a shelter where they would be adopted or euthanized.