Even with the polar ice caps melting and the Polar Bear designated as ENDANGERED a pinheaded judge who is clueless about the natural world has tossed out the 187,000 square mile critical habitat plan that the USFW Service put in place in 2008...........Easy to draw the dots of coercion from Gov. Parnell and and his Oil & Gas friends that got him into office,,,,straight into Judge Ralph Beistline's office..........The Bears are at the mercy of a hostile human climate(no pun intended) in Alaska

Judge Tosses Alaska Polar Bear Habitat Designation

By BECKY BOHRER Associated Press

A federal judge in Alaska has thrown out a plan designating more than 187,000 square miles as habitat for threatened polar bears. U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline, in a written order dated Thursday, said the designation was too extensive and presented "a disconnect between the twin goals of protecting a cherished resource and allowing for growth and much needed economic development." He sent the matter back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to correct "substantive and procedural deficiencies."

The federal government declared the polar bear threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2008, citing melting sea ice. The move made the polar bear the first species to be designated as threatened under the act because of global warming.A designation of critical habitat was required as part of a recovery plan, and more than 187,000 square miles in and near the Beaufort and Chukchi seas — an area larger than California — was set aside

A coalition of Alaska Native groups, oil and gas interests and the state of Alaska sued, calling the designation an overreach. Beistline, in his order, said that Fish and Wildlife Service's decision didn't comply with a requirement under the law that critical habitat include physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The agency didn't show that two of the land units had all the required features, the judge said.

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell hailed the decision. "The Fish and Wildlife Service's attempt to classify massive sections of resource-rich North Slope lands as critical habitat is the latest in a long string of examples of the federal government encroaching on our state's rights," he said in a statement. "I am pleased the State of Alaska was able to fight off this concerted effort to kill jobs and economic development in Alaska."

Bruce Woods, a Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman in Alaska, declined comment, saying the agency had just learned of the decision Friday afternoon and was still reviewing it.

Alaska Attorney General Michael Geraghty said protecting polar bears "is a priority for us all, but such measures must carefully comply with the requirements of the statute."

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Beistline made the right decision, calling the bear populations "abundant and healthy."

"The only real impact of the designation would have been to make life more difficult for the residents of North Slope communities, and make any kind of economic development more difficult or even impossible," she said in a statement

'A bait pile needs to be placed about 50 yards into the field because Coyotes are too cautious to expose themselves for that long a period of time in an open meadow. If they do cross a large field to get to the bait, they'll either do it late at night, or they'll be running flat out"...favorite time of the year to hunt coyotes is right after the first of the year. "This is when coyotes are most active. The pups from two years ago, both males and females are out looking for new territories, and it’s the start of their breeding season. If I shoot the Alpha Pair in this territory early enough in the year, then more coyotes will continually pass through because they know by the howling from remaining pack members that this area is safe. This is probably the biggest key to the number of coyotes that I see. Almost every time two coyotes come into my bait together, it seems that they’re a medium sized male and small female looking to set up shop. And it seems that the more coyotes I shoot, the more coyotes come into my bait"-------Aaron Perras, Coyote killer in Massachusetts.....................My friend and Massachusetts "Coywolf" biologist Jon Way sent me this article and besides being sickening, it just drives me insane that for an animal that we do not eat, that hunters in so many States are allowed to use baits and dogs to kill "as if there was no tomorrow".............This sick Mr. Perras is like an adolescent in a pinball parlor, racking up the "points(kills) without any feeling of doing something wrong..............Where is the common sense in our elected leaders?...........This is not hunting, it is murder!

TAKE THE ALPHA PAIR FIRST
unitedoutfittersassociation.com

Coyote hunter Aaron Perras, of Massachusetts, has killed well over 400 coyotes from the SAME bait pile in the last ten years. That might not sound like much in some states, but the Bay State has less than a six-month season on coyotes, there is no hunting on Sunday or from midnight to dawn, and you can only use .22's and shotguns from dusk until midnight. So how does he do it?

This is not fair chase hunting--luring in Coyotes with gut pile baiting--genocide!(blogger Rick)

"There are four important elements to a bait pile; the location must allow coyotes to feel safe approaching the bait, the pile has to be easy to refresh, the background has to be safe for shooting a high-powered rifle, and the hunter has to be able to get into position without being detected," Perras said. "But the real key to shooting a lot of coyotes off one bait pile is to shoot the Alpha pair the first chance you get."

I tagged along with Perras one cold January morning and the bait pile we hunted was exactly as described. We eased into position at the end of two huge plastic storage holders of hay, seven feet tall and 50 yards long. It didn’t take long for the first coyote, a male, to pop its head out of the hedgerow. It was headed for the bait pile, which was 200 yards away on the outside corner of a cornfield.

"This placement is important for two reasons; you can't place the bait pile out in the middle of the field and expect the coyotes to come running out like you just rang the dinner bell. They're too cautious to expose themselves for that long a period of time in an open meadow. If they do cross a large field to get to the bait, they'll either do it late at night, or they'll be running flat out. This setup lets us get into position without being detected. I've come up here lots of times on the morning hunts and there are already coyotes on the bait," Perras said.

This bait pile was placed about 50 yards into the field, and from the angle of the shooting blind, there was a small mound of snow behind it that helped us see coyotes because it offered a white background.

"They may not like crossing an entire field, but they'll come out 50 yards if they’re hungry enough. Usually they come up through the small brushy gully, and then pop out right at the bait. If not, then they'll always hug a tree line or a fence line in their approach", he said. On this cold morning, Perras drilled two coyotes, a male and a female that came in separately, in less than an hour.

"Another important part of being a successful coyote hunter over bait is when and how often you hunt it." His favorite time of the year to hunt coyotes is right after the first of the year. "This is when coyotes are most active. The pups from two years ago, both males and females are out looking for new territories, and it’s the start of their breeding season. If I shoot the Alpha Pair in this territory early enough in the year, then more coyotes will continually pass through because they know by the howling from remaining pack members that this area is safe. This is probably the biggest key to the number of coyotes that I see. Almost every time two coyotes come into my bait together, it seems that they’re a medium sized male and small female looking to set up shop. And it seems that the more coyotes I shoot, the more coyotes come into my bait," Perras says.

The Science Behind The Strategy

Vermont wildlife biologist Kim Royar agrees with Perras. "Coyotes will travel hundreds of miles to find new territories. This is the way that coyotes originally established themselves here in the Northeast. There are two times a year when coyotes will disperse, autumn and winter, depending on food and habitat availability, and a hunter can open up a new territory by killing off the alpha pair," Royar said.

Perras prefers to hunt coyotes in the early morning; right at dawn, when high-powered rifles are legal. He's found that this is the best use of his time. "On the morning hunts, usually the coyotes will hit the bait one more time before they go to their den. They've probably gone all night without killing something and they’re very hungry. When I hunt at dusk, sometimes I'll sit there until almost midnight before the first coyote comes in. I think that when they come out of their den in the early evening, they take a trip around the perimeter of their territory first to check for intruders, and then they go hunting."

Perras won't set up closer than 200 yards from the bait. "It’s too easy for a coyote to smell, see or hear you. At this distance, coyotes are a little more forgiving of human sounds and smells, especially on a farm like this. Not that we can make a lot of noise, and not pay attention to the wind, but it's easier at this distance. You have to have a blind that you can get into without being detected. Sometimes in the morning, there will be coyotes already on the bait, so I have to get into position without them knowing that I’m there," Perras said.

The Logistics Of Success

Not only is placement of the bait crucial for getting good shots at coyotes, it's also important to have the bait pile located in a convenient spot to restock it as necessary.

"As wary as coyotes are, they don't seem to mind old human scent around the pile. You have to be able to easily replenish the bait because it can get to be too much of a problem to drag a plastic sled with old deer parts to the pile. It's not a big deal in knee deep snow if you have a snowmobile, but it's a very big problem if you don't have a snow machine," Perras said.

I hunted with Perras a second time a few days later. Just as we got into position, we noticed a good sized coyote going across the meadow headed for the tree line near the bait pile. It took a minute, but soon thereafter two more coyotes, a bigger one and a smaller one, popped out of the woods and they were on the bait. Perras put the crosshairs on the largest one and dropped it in its tracks. The smaller one started running back the way it came when Perras barked a few times like a dog. The coyote stopped on a dime and Perras dropped it. We hadn’t been there five minutes and two coyotes, a medium sized male and a smaller female lay dead 200 yards away.

"This is the one weakness in their defenses. If they don't know where you are, even after you've shot at them, you can always get them to stop running by barking like a dog, but you have to be ready with your rifle at the same time. If two or more coyotes come in together, always shoot the biggest one first; it's the smartest dog in the bunch. The smaller, younger ones won’t know which way to run, and you can get off a couple more shots before they figure it out," Perras stressed.

Royer concurs with Perras’s observations. "Many times, there will be some disruption in the coyote pack once the Alpha pair has been killed. The next in line to take over the pack hasn’t been established and there will be disorganization among them. Studies have shown that high birth rates occur in areas where coyotes are heavily hunted, meaning that there will be more young coyotes in this years' pack. Researchers believe that coyote populations are likely to respond to extensive hunting pressure with an increase in reproduction and survival of the young. Heavy predation can also change the sex ratios, juvenile survival, and the percentages of females that breed. This is the down side in areas where coyotes are heavily hunted," Royar said.

Safety is always a concern when hunting, and it's a bigger issue when using flat-shooting, long-range rifles. Perras uses a Remington 700 Varmint Rifle in 6mm, topped off with a Burris 4-16X scope. He also loads his own ammunition using a polymer tipped 70-grain Speer over a charge of H380 powder.

"This load is very fast and flat, and I usually sight in at 300 yards, which is exactly the distance from my blind to the bait pile. I have the bait situated where there’s a hill right behind it so any misses go into the dirt and not off into the horizon. I've tried the smaller .22 calibers, but I've had too many coyotes run off wounded. It can be a pain to run down a wounded coyote on deep crusted snow when it’s staying on top, and I'm breaking through on every step. Here in Massachusetts, we have to report every coyote we kill to Fish and Wildlife, so it wouldn’t be right to just let the coyote run off and die," Perras said.

Deadly Simple

"To sum it all up, it's really quite simple. Keep your bait fresh, easily accessible to you, and safely accessible to the coyotes. Have a blind that you can get into without being detected, and get a good varmint rifle and scope. You need to figure out when the coyotes are hitting the bait, and don’t over hunt a certain bait pile. Always shoot the biggest coyote of the pack. It's no different than any other type of hunting, you just have to stay with it and pay attention to the details," Perras concluded.

United Outfitter Association's Predator Outfitters

At least 3 Wolverines have been caught on videocam in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in Oregon over the past few years.............With high mountain peaks where Wolverines can feast on winter killed carrion as well as to be able to create suitable snow caves to rear their young, the Wallowas still offer optimum Wolverine habitat despite the challenge of warming temperatures challenging their future prospects

In search of wolverines in the Wallowas

By KATY NESBITT;ajc.com

ENTERPRISE, Ore. —

A track found in the northwest corner of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is the latest evidence biologists have of wolverines in Oregon.Audrey Magoun, who is starting her third winter researching wolverines in the Wallowa Mountains, said she doesn't know if it is any of the three she has seen on game cameras, but because they travel such great distances, it's a possibility it could even be Stormy, the animal that she has seen the most.

Stormy has been photographed frequently on cameras Magoun set up in the Eagle Cap Wilderness the past two winters. The first year, three different animals were photographed."Everyone, including me, was surprised to find three," said Magoun.Last winter, only Stormy was seen in the photos. Magoun said of the 26 stations, Stormy visited 10 of them.

"Stormy" caught on game camera in the Wallowa Mountains

Researching the small predator-scavenger for nearly 35 years, Magoun said they can be very difficult to find.
"It's pretty unusual to see one; usually you only get a glimpse," said Magoun.Most of her research has been in Alaska, but she is familiar with wolverine activity throughout the West. Enthralled with Wallowa County, she and her husband, Pat, have set up shop, at least part of the year, in northeast Oregon.

"The Wallowas are perfect wolverine habitat, but we didn't think there were any residents," said Magoun.
Though Stormy has been captured on camera many times over the last two years, that doesn't necessarily mean he's calling Wallowa County home. That would require a female.

Wolverines are in the same family as weasels, martens and fishers, said Magoun, but have such vast territory their numbers don't ever get to be large in any one region. Territories depend on sex and age. Resident females have the smallest territory of 100 to 400 square kilometers, and a resident male can have a range up to 1,000 square kilometers. Immature wolverines, on the other hand, can travel thousands of miles. A collared wolverine from Montana was tracked in several states, while another tagged in Wyoming went all the way to Southwestern Colorado before heading to Rocky Mountain National Park, home of several 14,000-foot peaks — prime wolverine country.

This summer, Magoun expanded her territory by installing cameras in the very high country of the Wallowas, but the cameras didn't capture any wolverines, not even Stormy.Wolverines, especially breeding females, like the high country where they can cache meat under boulders that stay cool or in snow fields that remain most or all of the year. Snow is also helpful to denning mothers because it acts as an insulator for her young family. Kits are born in February, but are extremely vulnerable until their eyes open at five weeks. They nurse until early summer, and by fall they are agile hunters targeting small game like mice and squirrels.

Magoun said the earliest males disperse is around 8 months to a year, but female young often stay in the same territory as their mothers until they are 2 or 3 years old. If the mother dies during that time, her daughter may take over her range. Another advantage of cold, snowy, steep country is that wolverines love dining on carrion like mountain goats killed in avalanches. Though wolverines typically feed on small mammals and large dead ones, under the right conditions they can take down caribou and moose.

biologists installing game cameras in the Wallowa's

Tracking an animal's movement is important in any wildlife research. Magoun uses bait stations with cameras aimed at them to look for wolverines. She aligns them so that if a wolverine decides to crawl up and feast on the bait, the camera will capture its distinct markings, its genitalia, and if it's a female, determine if it's lactating. "I devised this other method as opposed to catching, drugging and collaring, because it's tricky to hang a collar on them because their neck and head are the same size and to get the collar off, you have to recapture."

Whether Stormy is still around or not is yet to be determined. He may be setting up a territory and waiting for a female to wander through, said Magoun.She said wolverines were wiped out in the lower 48 states in the first half of the 1900s and are slowly coming back, reoccupying former range."Stormy may be the vanguard of an increasing population. If this is just the start of the reoccupation, we need to keep an eye on it," said Magoun.

Mark Penninger, wildlife biologist for the Wallowa-Whitman, will be checking game cameras on the other side of the Wallowas this year with funding from the Forest Service. The research is also supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wolverine Foundation. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have provided logistical support from snowmobiles to storage space in the Enterprise District office's freezer.
As the funding and interest continues, so will the research. Magoun said, "We're going to keep it going for an unknown number of years."

When will State biologists(in this case Kentucky) stand up and point to their "LEOPOLD LESSONS" and insist that Elk reintroductions must simultaneously involve Wolf and Puma restoration---Otherwise, the land and humans are going to have a "locust-like" plague on their hands

ELK WITHOUT WOLVES AND PUMAS LEADS TO DISASTER
BTDONLINE.COM

STONEY FORK, Ky. — Marauding elk had been trampling gardens, grazing on lawns and causing car crashes on the twisting country road that winds its way through Stoney Fork.

No more.

Folks here got fed up and, with the approval of wildlife officials, started shooting the cow-sized animals that have multiplied by the thousands throughout Kentucky's mountain region over the past 15 years.

Now, wildlife officials will consider a cease fire.

It's a move that residents oppose, for fear that the elk will move back into their neighborhoods.

"We had a problem, and the fix is working," said Judge-Executive Albey Brock, the top elected official in Bell County. "I hope they wouldn't suspend something that's working, because, on my end, it's a public safety issue."

Brock said no elk have been struck by vehicles in recent months, which he sees as proof that allowing local residents to shoot them has made the community safer.

"When you're doing something that's working, why would you change that?" Brock asked.

Elk had disappeared from Kentucky around the time of the Civil War, mainly because of overhunting. Wildlife managers began reintroducing them in 1997 from several western states in what was heralded as an important ecology and tourism program. A group of about 1,500 elk released into the mountains has now grown to more than 10,000.

In neighboring West Virginia, lawmakers and the state Department of Natural Resources have been talking about managing any elk that wander into the state from Kentucky. Delegate Kelli Sobonya, R-Cabell, said in early 2012 she intended to pursue legislation that would legalize elk hunting. One goal of management would be to reduce the chances of collisions between vehicles and elk and the chances of crop damage.

One project underway in Buchanan County, Va., has reintroduced elk in the hopes of bringing more tourists to the area. Plans called for introducing up to 15 elk from Kentucky during 2012. Farmers in nearby Tazewell County, Va., voiced concerns about elk wandering across the county line and infecting livestock with chronic wasting disease. Local farmers were also concerned about possible crop damage.

The elk in Kentucky are thriving on the man-made meadows left behind where mining companies have scraped off mountaintops in search of coal. In Stoney Fork, however, the elk had been coming off the mountains in the winter to munch on manicured lawns, leaving deep hoof prints in yards, rubbing their antlers on ornamental shrubs, and making unwelcomed deposits on sidewalks.

It's the danger they pose to motorists that has residents fearful. Records from the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources show that more than 100 elk have been killed in collisions with vehicles since 2005.

Pickup trucks have been flipped upside down in collisions. In one instance, a bull elk crashed through a windshield and ended up in the front seat of a Geo Metro. The driver, Melissa Jones, escaped with only cuts and bruises. She now is one of the people calling for the animals' removal from the community.

Nearly three years ago, angry residents demanded that wildlife officials do something to alleviate the problem. The Kentucky Wildlife Commission approved a pilot project under which property owners could shoot the elk during a special mid-winter season when snow pushes them into residential areas in search of food.

They've killed 23 of the animals so far. That number could climb between Jan. 26 and Feb. 8 when residents will again be allowed to load their guns and take aim for what could be the final time. The pilot project is set to expire on the closing day of the season. Wildlife commissioners will then review the results and determine whether to allow local residents to continue shooting.

Those residents met with Kentucky Wildlife Director Karen Waldrop and others in early December to urge continuation of the project. Commissioners said they'll await the findings before making a decision.

In addition to local residents shooting elk, conservation officers have been trapping the animals on mountains around Stoney Fork and taking them elsewhere.

So far, they hauled about 130 of the animals away. Waldrop said some were taken about 100 miles to the mountains around Fish Trap Lake in Pike County and released. Others, she said, were transported to Missouri and Virginia, which are starting their own elk herds.

In what seemed unlikely trades of elk for fish, Kentucky gave the animals to Missouri in exchange for crappie and to Virginia in exchange for trout.

In Stoney Fork, the war on elk has been with restrictions. Residents have been required to get permits to shoot only one elk each year, a female.

The idea was that allowing residents to shoot some elk in their neighborhoods would cause others to flee back to the mountaintops where biologists and conservation officers had their traps set.

"I'd say what they've done has already saved somebody's life," said David Gambrel, one of the more than 100 people who have crashed vehicles into the animals along a 10-mile stretch of Kentucky 221 in Bell County. "It has improved a lot. But there's still too many of them. We don't have enough room for them all."

Alberta Lambert, a 58-year-old retired coal miner, is among residents who don't want state wildlife officials to stop allowing them to shoot elk. In fact, Lambert wants more elk shot, particularly the big bull elk that make driving especially dangerous.

"You can go around a curve and they'll be standing right in the middle of the road," she said. "The problem isn't solved. It's far from solved."

Waldrop told Stoney Fork residents that even troublesome bull elk can be targeted under certain circumstances.

"If you have an elk in the act of causing damage on your property, you have the right shoot that elk," she said. "But it has to be in the act of causing damage."

Stoney Fork resident Craig Brock, who has shot two of the elk, said bulls do tend to be more of a problem than the cows because they're larger and do more damage in traffic crashes, and, with their massive antlers, can whittle shrubs into twigs in moments.

Craig Brock said residents will be unhappy if wildlife officials order the shooting to stop, particularly those who have crashed cars into the animals.

"It's probably helping even more than they know," he said. "Even though we've not shot all that many, we have pushed them back and kept them away from the highways

Have the folks at Montana Dept. of Fish & Wildlife lost their minds?............A few scant Wolverines exisiting south of the Canadian border and they want to keep trapping the critters????????? They know that their reproductive paradigm is handicapped by increasing quick melts of winter snow.............they know that these animals are highly impacted by human disturbance..........And they know that the USFW folks might indeed declare the Wolverine to be endangered.............So the needs of a few trappers outweigh the needs of this highly endangered species?????????? Ecologist, Writer and Hunter,George Wuerthner, as always, pulls no punches calling out the inane protests by MDFWP who insist that they will petition the "Feds" for a trapping exemption in their state should Endangered Status be granted to the Wolverine.............a sample of what you will get from George in his editorial follows: "Though MDFWP claims to use the best available science in managing wildlife, it continuously ignores the latest social behavior ecology and conservation biology principles when formulating its wildlife policies with regards to predators, from wolves to wolverines"

From: George Wuerthner [gwuerthner@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:28 AM
To: Meril, Rick
Subject: slightly updated editorial on wolverine

Due to petitions of a number of environmental groups, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) appears likely to list the wolverine under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Once found across much of the West and northern-tier states from Minnesota to Maine, wolverine are now limited to a few isolated populations in the western United States. 

 Wolverine are a wide ranging predator that are adapted to survival in cold snowy climates. Trapping, combined with poisoning programs aim at other predators like wolves, originally contributed to the wolverines demise across much of its former territory. However, global warming is the latest threat to its survival in the lower 48 states. Though population estimates vary, the best available "guesses" (and I say guess because no region- wide efforts to document population numbers has been completed) are that there are no more than 250-300 wolverine in the lower 48 states, with the majority of them residing in Montana.

Because of these precariously low numbers, trapping of wolverine has been banned in all states where they are found, except Montana. The Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) argue that trapping is not a major source of mortality or a threat to the species. Furthermore, they restrict the number of wolverine that can be trapped in any one part of the state which they claim ensures that trapping will not harm the species.

In response to the USFWS determination that wolverine warrant protection under the ESA, MDFWP has announced that it will seek an exemption to trapping of wolverine in Montana once the species is listed under the ESA.

We all know that  climate change is one of the factors that threaten the long term survival of wolverine in the lower 48 states. But doing anything about climate change in the near future is not likely to change this scenario, and all models suggest wolverine habitat is shrinking, thus fewer wolverine in a population, that is already precariously low, for long-term survival.

The one thing we have immediate control over is optional forms of human caused mortality such as trapping. While the number of animals lost to trapping may seem small  (5 a year), there are biological reasons why trapping may contribute to greater losses than that number suggests. Due to the social behavior ecology of wolverine,  the trapping of one individual can lead to the death of several to many more wolverine.

Furthermore, even the additional loss of one or two animals from a single mountain range may be sufficient to push that island population to extinction.  As the wolverine in mountain range after mountain range wink out, the species is pushed ever closer to extinction.

Finally, the elephant in the room that MDFWP totally ignores is the ethics of trapping in a modern age. Is it really ethical to inflict avoidable pain upon other animals? Trapping amounts to torture. Most of us would be outraged if a dog owner put their pet in a trap and left it for hours or days to suffer. Hunters are admonished to make a "clean kill" so that animals they shoot do not suffer. Why do we allow trappers to inflict pain and suffering on wolverine, wolves or other animals? For what reason, do these few trappers need to trap wolverine?  To eat?  To sell a couple of pelts for income? Are these elusive wolverine threatening trappers in anyway? Trapping amounts to the privatization of a public resource for private gain. Is this what a civilized society permits?

I am most concerned about what promoting this practice of wolverine trapping says about MDFWP priorities. It appears to be more concerned about maintaining the recreational activities of a few people at the expense of the wildlife it is entrusted by the Public Trust Doctrine to protect. It is putting the interests of hunters/trappers ahead of the interests of wildlife they are obligated to protect.

Though MDFWP claims to use the best available science in managing wildlife, it continuously ignores the latest social behavior ecology and conservation biology principles when formulating its wildlife policies with regards to predators, from wolves to wolverine.

Many of the remaining populations of wolverine in Montana are in small isolated island population groups, often as little as 10 individuals in a mountain range. Such small populations are very vulnerable to local extirpation simply to natural stochastic population events. Even the loss of one key individual may jeopardize an island population.
Wolverine bear young in the winter, it's entirely possible to trap a female and wind up killing her and her young, 2-3 additional wolverine in one swoop because the young starve to death.

In many of these small island population centers there is likely to be only one or two breeding females. A trapper could kill a female in such a population and wind up killing the young of the year as well who die from starvation. If for any other reason, there is additional mortality on any other females–killed by natural causes, being hit by a car or whatever, that population could easily dwindle to zero.
Furthermore, male wolverine by protecting their territories, keep other male wolverine out of the territory occupied by females they have mated with. Thus the presence of the dominant male indirectly protects the young wolverine he has sired that outside males tend to kill. Trapping of a male wolverine may therefore lead to the death of many additional young wolverine.

Given the very low density of wolverine in most of its remaining range, it's entirely possible for trappers to wipe out the animals from range after range.
There is yet another example of where the MDFWP appears to ignore the latest science regarding the social behavioral ecology and principles of conservation biology.  It has to do with the concept of "effective" breeding population. The number of animals involved in breeding in a polygamous species like wolverine, is far less than the total population.  Some estimate this breeding population may be as small as 35 animals.

Only a few male wolverine are doing most of the breeding of females, and the number of females that are breeding at any one time is also a subset of the total. Therefore the loss of breeding animals and the loss of entire island populations can put the species at risk of genetic bottlenecks, if the species is not already threatened by such a small breeding population.

There is new research with many other wildlife species that have seen genetic losses; from wolves that recently recolonized Scandinavia;  to cheetahs in Africa;  to mountain lions in Florida; to wolves on Isle Royal.  All have genetic problems because of these kinds of genetic bottlenecks.
At the very least the MDFWP should acknowledge that this may already be a problem with such a very small wolverine population in Montana.  Again, there has not been a word from the "professionals" on how many wolverines live in Montana or any of the demographics about these wolverines.

When you're dealing with an animal that is already precariously low in numbers, and due to its social behavior has limited opportunities for genetic diversity, any losses are serious. Sure there are other sources of mortality out there, but trapping mortality is preventable, most of the others are not.

Most genetic studies that I have seen regarding predators suggest that a minimum effective breeding population of 500 is needed to ensure the long term survival of the species. Obviously, we have already passed below that point with wolverine in Montana.

Whether this minimum number applies to wolverine I do not know but I suspect the professionals at the MDFWP do not know either, and that is the problem.  How can sound decisions be made when the most basic information about the species is not available?

Finally, even the presence of trappers may harm wolverine. Research has demonstrated that snowmobile use of high country can disturb denning female wolverine and cause them to abandon their dens, sometimes leading to the loss of their young. Most trappers today use snowmobiles, so even the pursuit of wolverine may harm their survival.
The precautionary principle in conservation biology is to err on the side of the animal.

If MDFWP wants to portray themselves as "professionals" then it's time to act like a professional organization, not just a handmaiden to hunters and trappers.  MDFWP is the regulatory agency that is supposed to regulate and manage wildlife for ALL PEOPLE and FUTURE GENERATIONS. Unfortunately they appear to be more interested in maintaining archaic traditions like trapping than promoting the long term survival of many species entrusted to their care.

There are many things that MDFWP does well, but the management of predators and endangered species is not one of them. In these instances, it appears that hunter/trapping/economic interests are put ahead of the welfare of the wildlife they have a Public Trust obligation to protect.

I hope in the future I can write a more positive note, one congratulating the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks on its willingness to challenge age old dogma.

When I hear hunters using the term, "improving the deer herd",,,,,,,,,an "orange and red alert" flashes in my mind...........Because many human hunters have subjective preferences as it relates to antler size and other characteristics that we deem "best of show" for deer, we often end up hurting the habitat the deer herd is dependent on.............Always optimum to have the full suite of deer predators(wolves, pumas, bears and men) applying a landscape top down impact on deer rather than simply man made "rules of the hunt" at play in the hunting season...........As New York biologist, Chris Cook states: "In nearly all situations, trying to improve the genetics of a deer herd would be much better spent on practices that can return tangible results, such as continuing to concentrate on habitat improvement and shooting more antlerless deer each season"

OUTDOORS FEATURE: Deer management through culling: Feasible or not?

bob kornegay;albanyherald.com

• 
  

Many hunters managing a
 property for quality bucks
 encourage culling deer
 based on perceived
 "genetic abnormalities."

#The deer-hunting public's
 interest in deer management increases each year,as
 evidenced
 by countless print articles and video productions that
 discuss
 management-related topics. Ongoing needs
 for increased doe kill, protection of young bucks, and
 improved deer habitat are extensively detailed.

#Many deer hunters have grasped these concepts and
 implemented them on their
 hunting properties. They have improved the habitat on
 their leases or landholdings
 as well as the quality of their deer herds.

#Their herds are in balance with the habitat, the
 buck-age structure is much improved
, and the adult buck-to-doe ratio is well balanced.
 Many groups are completely satisfied
 with their progress, but some hunting organizations
 want to go farther.

#One of the main reasons for dissatisfaction with
 a deer management program is the
 size and shape of antlers on the bucks observed
 and killed each year. Bucks that do
 not possess what are deemed "normal" antlers
 are judged inferior by many deer hunters and
 managers.

#In their opinions, any buck that does not meet a
 specific minimum for antler size must surely be
genetically inferior since it is subjected to the same
 environmental and habitat conditions as bucks with
 bigger, better-formed antlers.

#Removing these deer as "culls" to improve a
 herd's
 antler genetics is the logical next step in many
 hunters'
and managers' minds. According to wildlife
 biologist Chris
 Cook, there are two important questions to
answer before
 proceeding with a culling program: "Are the
 problem antler
 traits genetically caused?" and "Will culling
correct the
 problem?" The answers to both questions
 are difficult, if not
 impossible, to answer in most situations.

#"Determining the cause of a free-ranging
 buck's antler
'abnormality' or 'deficiency' by looking at the
 live deer on
the hoof is practically impossible," Cook said.
 "Deer are
 subjected every day of their lives to many
 things that carry
 a potential impact on antler development.

#Injuries, drought, and poor habitat quality
 all can cause
 a buck's antlers to develop abnormally. Many
 of these factors
 are completely out of managerial control, even
 for an expert
. For these reasons, most bucks, especially
 those 2 ½ years
 old and younger, should as a rule be given
 the benefit of the
 doubt when having the quality of their antlers
 judged."

#Most experts believe injuries to a buck's
 body or its growing
 antlers are usually the main culprits in antler
 abnormality, not
 poor genetics.

#Some body injuries typically cause antler
 abnormalities during
 the year immediately following the injury. Given
 time, the buck will
 heal and usually will grow a more typical set of
 antlers in
 subsequent years.

#The same applies to injuries to the antlers
 themselves, which
 normally return to their usual conformation in
 years following.

#"Some types of injuries, such as those affecting
 the antler pedicle,
 can cause malformed antlers every year following
 the injury," Cook
 added, "but this is pretty rare. And even in these
cases, there is
 nothing genetically 'wrong' with the buck."

#Another argument against culling bucks is a lack
 of understanding
 about white-tailed deer genetics. By and large, the
 genetics of deer,
 including those determining antler production, are
 poorly understood.

#"What some people don't understand is that the
 dam (doe) provides
 as much or more genetic influence for antler
 development as does the
 sire," Cook explained. "If it is possible to impact a
 deer herd's antler
genetics by removing specific deer, one would also
 have to identify
and remove the doe that produced the cull buck
 in question.

#Additionally, one would have to believe that it
is possible to quickly
 change thousands of years of genetic development
 with a rifle or a
 bow. It simply doesn't work that way."

#According to Cook, most culling "experts" tend to
 target bucks with
unbalanced or abnormally shaped antlers rather
 than bucks with antlers
 that are smaller and well formed. These bucks are
 habitually labeled as
 "genetically inferior" or "limited potential" bucks,
 although their supposed
 antler abnormalities may have absolutely nothing
to do with genetics.
 On the other hand, most well formed but smaller-antlered
 bucks are judged
 to be young, but with good potential.

#"Unfortunately, this is completely wrong in many
instances," said Cook
. "Some of the 'genetically inferior' or 'limited potential'
 bucks are simply
young and need time to overcome injuries or a slow
 start in life.

#Conversely, many of the well-formed, smaller-antlered
 bucks judged
 to be young are actually average 3 ½ years old or
older and have grown
 their best antlers. Thus, deer that may actually have
 a genetic abnormality
 may not be culled."

#The causes of abnormal antler development in
 white-tailed deer are
 numerous and difficult to understand. Unfortunately,
 nearly none of the
 contributing factors can be identified simply by
 observing free-ranging
 bucks in the field.

#This, however, does not deter many deer
hunters and managers
 from making misguided or misunderstood
management decisions in
 the name of "culling."

#"In nearly all situations," Cook concluded,
 "the effort expended on
 trying to improve the genetics of a deer herd
 would be much better
 spent on practices that can return tangible
 results, such as continuing
 to concentrate on habitat improvement and
 shooting more antlerless
 deer each season."

#Give it some thought before entering
 implementing a buck-culling
 program on your hunting property. You might
 just be defeating your purpose.

Our friend and Puma Scientist, John Laundre(affiliated with COUGAR REWILDING and SUNY OSWEGO) has just published a peer reviewed ground breaking article in Cambridge Journals(full article can be downloaded at the bottom of the abstract below) revealing conclusively that the Adirondack Park(NY) can support a Puma population ranging from 150-350 .................The Adirondack State Park in New York is larger than Yellowstone and has road and human densities similar to those in the Black Hills of South Dakota and in Southern Florida where breeding populations of Pumas carve out a living......John estimates that the Pumas would remove 10% of the deer roaming the Park and that the deer could recruit successfully with the "big Cats" on the ground enriching the ecosystem and carrying out their ecological services functions successfully..................The Adirondacks could be as biologically diverse as Yellowstone,,,,,,,,,,,,with a full complement of pre columbian predator and prey if the will of the people............and their politicians permit!

The feasibility of the north-eastern USA supporting

the return of the cougar Puma concolor

J O H N W . L A U N D R É

Abstract-- The cougar Puma concolor was part of the preEuropean fauna of the north-eastern USA. It was extirpatedin the late 1800s and since the late 1900s there have been

discussions concerning its reintroduction to the region.

 Onesite considered is Adirondack State Park in northernNew York. In 1981 an assessment of the feasibility ofreturning cougars concluded that the Park had adequateprey and forest cover to support a small population of

cougars but that conflicts with humans would cause the demise of this population within 10 years. Thus reintroduction at that time was not advised.

 Since then knowledge of cougar ecology and how cougars interact with humans has increased substantially. Based on information compiledsince the 1980s I conducted a landscape-scale analysis toassess whether cougars could live in the Park. The resultsindicate that cougars could occupy 15,300–17,000 km2

(61–69%) of the Park, with minimal contact with human habitation.

 Based on reported cougar densities, the Park could support a population of 150–350 cougars. These cougars would consume , 10% of the adult deer population annually and fawn production would be sufficient to replacethese losses. 

Human and road densities in the Park aresimilar to those of the Black Hills, South Dakota and southern Florida, both of which have viable populations ofcougars.

 I concluded that Adirondack State Park could support a population of cougars. What is now required is the

will to bring them back.

John Laundre
launjohn@hotmail.com

Here is the URL where the article can be downloaded and read in its entirety:

http://journals.cambridge.org/repo_A88nri4x

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

SUNY Oswego prof says Adirondack forest preserve could accommodate reintroduction of cougar

blog.syracuse.com

J. Michael Kelly/The Post-Standard

The following is a press release from SUNY OSWEGO
OSWEGO, N.Y. -- In an article published Jan. 8, SUNY Oswego biology faculty member Dr. John Laundre suggests that a forest preserve in the Adirondack Mountains can accommodate the reintroduction 150 to 350 cougars, challenging previous findings.

In "The Feasibility of Northeastern U.S. Supporting the Return of Cougars," published in the international conservation journal Oryx, Laundre cites cougars' successful return to the urban interface of western cities and compares their recovery to similarly developed habitats in the Black Hills of South Dakota and the Big Cypress National Preserve of southern Florida.

In proposing to return the cougar to the giant New York State Forest Preserve, Laundre in his paper provides an updated re-evaluation of a 1981 study by emeritus SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry biologist Rainer Brocke, who concluded that road density would hinder any chance of cougar recovery to the 6-million-acre Adirondacks.

"Thirty years ago everyone thought cougars needed to live in the most remote places," said Laundre, who studied the Western hemisphere's second largest cat for 20 years in Idaho and Mexico, "but they've demonstrated that they are as adaptable as coyotes." He cited the black bear's comeback in New Jersey as further evidence of the viability of this kind of re-introduction.

He emphasized that a small population of cougars safely co-exists in the Santa Monica Mountains of West Los Angeles north of Malibu. "There's even a young, radio-collared male running around LA's Griffith Park," he noted. "That's like taking up residence in Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx."

Market hunting of prey like white-tailed deer nearly to extermination combined with state-sponsored predator bounty programs wiped out the cougar in the Adirondacks by the end of the 19th century. Laundre noted that white-tailed deer have recovered to super-saturation, critically threatening forest regeneration throughout the state, a pending ecosystem collapse highlighted in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's 2011 State Forest Management Plan.

Laundre's ecology research in Yellowstone after wolves were restored to the national park in 1995 was the first to identify how predator presence changes prey vigilance and browsing behavior.

"Cougars hunt at the edges of rivers and in forests that provide lots of cover," said the author of the 2012 book "Phantoms of the Prairie: The Return of Cougars to the Midwest." "Deer learn where they are in most danger from predators, which self-restricts where they feed; plants start coming back that the deer would normally just vacuum up."

His groundbreaking Yellowstone study and subsequent research found that "wolves and cougars are, in a sense, shepherds of these wild herds of deer, keeping them from overgrazing the forest."

Considering years of cougar predation studies, his Adirondack analysis suggests that cougars annually would take about 8 percent of the forest preserve's estimated 50,000 to 80,000 white-tailed deer, a number he called easily sustainable in conjunction with the current hunter harvest and wildlife management protocols.

"If 5,000 cougars can co-exist with 37 million people in California, then the cougar's ancestral home, our nation's first wilderness, the Adirondacks, can certainly support them," Laundre said.

A visiting instructor in SUNY Oswego's department of biological sciences and an expert in wildlife ecology and conservation, Laundre is vice president of the Cougar Rewilding Foundation.