Hiking and Dogs,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hunting and Dogs..............We love our dogs but do they degrade the very idyllic and biodiverse biomes that we work so hard to preserve and enjoy?..................."Dogs(having the same genealogy as Wolves) are predators by nature and they often mark their territory in order to keep competitors away"............... "This scent marking can infringe on the terrain of wide-ranging wild predator species such as mountain lions, coyotes, and bobcats, and interrupt essential contiguous wildlife corridors"............And just like domestic Cats, "Dogs that run loose can also harass or kill park wildlife"................ "Deer, birds, rabbits and other animals are sometimes chased and killed by off-leash pets".....................Often, Dogs also trample, scratch, and dig up vegetation and leave behind waste (read: poop), which can transmit disease(e.g. parovirus spread to Wolves) to wildlife or spread invasive plant seed.

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/when_on_the_trail_leave_dog_behind/&ct=ga&cd=CAEYASoUMTEwNzEwNTQyNDU1NzgwMTAzMjAyGjQ2OTIwYTk2ZWZjMTE1ODg6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNGHHVeCl3QoCY05rR79W2UGNXVp8Q

When Out On the Trail,

 Leave Your Dog

 Behind

BY JESSI PHILLIPS – MAY 2, 2016

No matter how sweet, our furry

 friends pose a significant 

threat to wildlife

There’s a reason many nature lovers own dogs. As an often-solo female hiker, I enjoy the added security, the pleasure of being alone without being totally alone, and the joy of watching my dog bound down the trail or jump into a mountain lake with an abandon I cannot usually muster.

Photo by Mitchel JonesA dog frolics in Joaquin Miller Park in California. Unfortunately, bringing dogs on the trail with you can be a bad idea.

The fact that most of the pristine outdoor locations in our nation (and in my home state of California) don’t welcome dogs has always been a disappointment, and like many dog owners, I’ve taken my dog into forbidden park territory fairly regularly. It was easy to convince myself the "No Dogs on Trail" signs didn't really apply to me. After all, my rescue mutt looks nothing like the cute little terrier silhouette crossed out on the sign. What’s the harm of just one well-behaved dog? It helped that during my decade of occasional dog trespassing, I was never once confronted by a ranger.

Then last September, I became a volunteer with the mounted patrol team in the Marin Headlands, the section of Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) north of San Francisco. One of my duties during my weekly one-to-two hour horseback patrol is to confront visitors breaking the dog rules, by either allowing their dog to run around off-leash in an on-leash section, or by hiking on-leash in a dog-free section of the park. On some two-hour rides, I see no rule-breakers. Sometimes I see five or six. As a volunteer, I can’t issue a citation, but most rule-breakers are still apologetic and embarrassed. Occasionally someone will become confrontational, using the incident as an excuse to complain about the injustice of dog laws. “After all,” one said, “your horse is pooping everywhere, too.”


In the 19th Century, Ranchers would chase down Wolves with
a pack of hunting Dogs---Barbaric!


But what I’ve learned during my work here is there are valid reasons why having dogs on the trail with you can be a bad idea. 

For starters, dogs are predators by nature and they often mark their territory in order to keep competitors away. This scent marking can infringe on the terrain of wide-ranging wild predator species such as mountain lions, coyotes, and bobcats, and interrupt essential contiguous wildlife corridors.

“Carnivore species as a group show a strong aversion to trailheads where dog use and waste is most concentrated,” says National Park Service wildlife ecologist Bill Merkle. “This effect is strongly reduced in areas on trails away from trailheads, and not present in trailheads where dogs are not allowed.” 

“As conservationists, we looked to single species conservation for a long time, but we’re a little more knowledgeable about the need for healthy habitat stretches,” says GGNRA public affairs and dog management specialist Adrienne  Freeman. “They’re important for the animals to thrive.”

C. For example, there are reports of dogs chasing white-tailed deer and ground-nesting birds, and in Connecticut, an off-leash German shepherd killed two fox pups outside a nature reserve in 2010. California dogs have been known to kill endangered bighorn sheep and snowy plovers. Last August, off-leash dogs killed a great blue heron that frequented the arboretum at Harvard University.

Even when dogs are unsuccessful in catching the wildlife they chase, the potential prey has had to expend significant energy in order to save their life. Often this means they are left too exhausted and weak to escape other wild predators. This is especially true in the case of pregnant wildlife and newborn animals.



Wolf chasing a Dog; wasted energy for Wolf that can compromise
its pursuit of a real meal; potentially life threatening for the dog

Unruly pets can also trample, scratch, and dig up vegetation and leave behind waste (read: poop), which can transmit disease to wildlife or spread invasive plant seed.

Dogs themselves are often at risk of being injured or killed in parks by coyotes, mountain lions, and even deer. They have been known to get caught in traps set by hunters in some forested areas or fall down crevices and steep hillsides.

Also, many dog breeds aren’t adapted to hiking — their paws often get torn up and since they sweat through their feet, they can overheat. Last year, off-leash dogs had to be rescued from Volcanoes, Acadia, Kenai Fjords and Yellowstone national parks. 

America’s national and state parks are increasingly imposing leash laws and restrictions on bringing pets along. In fact, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, or GGNRA, bears the distinction of being the most dog-friendly national park in the country, and the only one containing designated off-leash areas for dogs. Other national parks allow dogs only in campgrounds or on paved roads with limited access to hiking trails.

When the GGNRA was established in 1972, it attempted to appease the strong off-leash dog community that already existed in the area, and in 1979, established a pet policy that provided the guidelines for current trail restrictions. Despite these guidelines, rangers here issue between 200 and 400 dog-related citations a year, that’s not even counting violators in the most remote areas of the park.

“People are less likely to comply in places like that,” says Freeman. “You’re out in the middle of nowhere, so you think, ‘What could the impact possibly be?’ It’s very hard to come up with numbers because a lot of times when we get the call, we hear it after the fact.”

In 2002, that the park set out to put a comprehensive, detailed dog law on the books — a plan which they hope to solidify by the end of this year. The 15-year environmental planning process has attempted to balance a variety of ecological and cultural factors — including habitat restoration, endangered species protection, and recreation — to create a clearer and thus more enforceable law. The proposed rule is currently open for public comment until the end of May, and is drawing heated criticism from Bay Area dog owners.

“Nobody is trying to ban dogs,” countered Freeman. “We’ve fought long and hard to keep them as part of the landscape.”

This is not hunting: Barbaric use of hounds to corner a Puma


Ecologist Bill Merkle said the new plan takes into account the potential effect of dog walking on carnivore species and creates larger swaths of uninterrupted habitat.  

There’s also the issue of protecting the park’s 37 endangered species, all but two of which were discovered after the park was created, and most of which are shore birds, a popular target for off-leash dogs on the beach. 

“They’re really fun to chase,” said Freeman. “[But] Peer-reviewed science is very clear as far as how dogs affect them.”

It is as much a matter of volume as it is one of egregious behavior. Visitation to our state and national parks is at an all-time high. GGNRA, for instance, has seen its annual visitors increase from 1.4 million a year in 1972 to 17.5 million. If even 10 percent of these visitors brought their dogs on the trail, that would mean 1.75 million dogs potentially impacting wildlife at the park.

Still, it’s hard to see yourself as part of the problem, even when you are watching your dog happily bolt toward a pack of sea birds on the beach. Oakland resident Julie Bruins, who received an off-leash citation at NGGRA’s Ocean Beach several years ago, admits she still allows her dog off leash there and elsewhere, and described her stance with mixture of guilt and resignation. 

“I always feel bad, but the happiest thing in the world is seeing your dog at the beach,” she said. “It feels bad to make the dogs suffer. Seeing this creature so uncontrollably happy and free is just the best.”

I understand the struggle. 

As someone who considers myself both a conservationist and a responsible dog owner, it’s easy to overlook the effects that even a quiet, on-leash canine can have on wildlife and habitat. Every time I spot someone breaking the rules, I understand they probably care about conservation as much as I do. But though it might feel on some quiet days that my dog and I, or my horse and I, are the only ones in a park, it’s important to remember that we are not.  

Jessi Phillips

Jessi Phillips is a freelance writer and
musician who lives in Oakland, California.

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

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

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi12-ujncHMAhVC7WMKHdCfDbsQFggwMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2F2006%2F01%2F0117_060117_yellowstone_wolf.html&usg=AFQjCNF4SgNufjHXsAnbOiILLcwWcJvzgA

Dog Virus May

 Be Killing 

Yellowstone Wolves

Hope Hamashige
for National Geographic News

January 17, 2006

D

A resurgence of news about our most endangered carnivore, The Wolverine............First a Judge tells the USFW Service to re-analyze and rethink Endangered Species protection for the believed to exist 300 "Gulos" in the northern Rockies and today we learn that a Wolverine was shot in North Dakota, the first documented presence of this tough predator since the 1850's..............And much like in the late 1800's, this creature saw its life end via a ranch hand saw it harassing his cattle............"Wolverines are listed in North Dakota as furbearers with a closed season"........ "State law allows them to be killed if they’re threatening livestock"..............“Alexander Henry and other early fur traders did take them along the Red River and in the Pembina Hills area in the late 18th and early 19th century"............... “There were 36 known records of wolverines taken in North Dakota, but none of them were verified".............. "35 of these are from a single locale, a fort at the mouth of the Pembina River in the northeastern part of the state"................ "These records are all from the journal of a single fur trapper from Montreal,Alexander Henry the Younger"................. "Henry’s journals date from 1801-1806 when he worked as a fur trapper for the Montreal-based North West Company".................. "During this period, Northeastern North Dakota had not yet been settled by Whites, so his records would seem to be a good record of the wildlife presence and density in this region pre-contact"................... "At this time, the land was the territory of Dakotas, but Chippewas and Crees were also in the area"................ "He lived for most of the time at a fort at the mouth of the Pembina River"..................... "In those five years, Henry reported that 35 wolverines were trapped in eastern North Dakota alone"............"Although the prairie seems to be an odd place to have wolverines, when you think about the great herds of buffalo that used to roam here, perhaps it is not so strange after all"..................... "The Great Plains would have been perfect habitat for wolverines due to the huge herds of buffalo that would have provided a ready source of large amounts of carrion that would be perfect for a scavenger like a wolverine"............In addition the colder temperatures and increased snowfall of the Little Ice Age period(AD 1500-lat 1800's) in the Upper Midwest would have been ideal for female Wolverines to create the sub terrain ice caves necessary to rear their pups late into the Spring

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.inforum.com/news/4022974-wolverine-shot-north-dakota-first-confirmed-sighting-late-1800s&ct=ga&cd=CAEYAioTNTA4MjUwNTg4MTE0ODQ4MTczMjIaYjg4MTYyM2YwYWMxMzkxNDpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AFQjCNFf7wMdwOaLDI4LJFXfo8jYuX4nrg

Wolverine shot in North Dakota is first confirmed sighting since late 1800s

ALEXANDER, N.D. — For the first time since the late 1800s, a wolverine has been confirmed in North Dakota“This is the first verified report of a wolverine in the state in modern times,” Tucker told the Herald. “We get reports from time to time, and this is the first one we’ve been able to verify.”

The largest members of a scientific family that includes fishers, weasels and badgers, wolverines are known for their elusive, solitary nature and extensive home ranges that often cover hundreds of miles. Adult males can weigh anywhere from 24 pounds to nearly 40 pounds.

According to reports, a ranch hand shot the animal April 24 after spotting it harassing cattle. Tucker said wolverines are listed in North Dakota as furbearers with a closed season, but state law allows them to be killed if they’re threatening livestock.

In this case, she said, a warden’s investigation concluded the ranch hand who shot the animal was within his rights to do so.

Robert Seabloom, a professor emeritus of biology at UND and author of “Mammals of North Dakota,” said to his knowledge there hasn’t been a verified wolverine record in the state since the 1850s. Wolverines traditionally inhabit forested areas, although they occasionally make prairie travels.

“Alexander Henry and other early fur traders did take them along the Red River and in the Pembina Hills area in the late 18th and early 19th century,” Seabloom said in an email. “Also there may have been a sighting in the (Killdeer Mountains) in the 19th century.”

The wolverine shot last week was a young male. Tucker said the carcass of the animal as of Monday morning still was at the district Game and Fish office in Williston, but once it’s taken to Bismarck, department staff will conduct a necropsy -- basically the animal version of an autopsy -- to collect DNA samples in an effort to determine its origin, do some basic disease testing and gather more information about the wolverine’s age and diet.

“This definitely will be the first time I’ve ever handled or seen a wolverine, so it will be interesting,” Tucker said.

The closest known wolverine population is in Glacier National Park in the northern Rocky Mountains, Tucker said, and breeding populations also are found in northern Canada. Tucker said there was a report in March of a wolverine spotted near Havre, Mont., and she speculates it’s the same animal shot last week in western North Dakota.

“We get reports of wolverines from time to time, and the first thing in my mind is, let’s make sure it’s not a fisher,” Tucker said. Fishers are expanding in North Dakota as far west as the Missouri River corridor, Tucker said, but after seeing photos, she knew the animal was a wolverine.

“If I had to guess, I would anticipate this would be a subadult or young adult male wolverine,” she said.

Seabloom said he suspects the wolverine was dispersing in search of a new home when it came across the rancher’s cattle and the encounter that led to its demise.

“Hard to say how he got there,” Seabloom said. “They are known to travel long distances cross country, but I think it more likely he could have followed the Yellowstone or Missouri rivers out of Wyoming or Montana.”

John Erb, furbearer biologist for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in Grand Rapids, Minn., said there is no evidence of a breeding wolverine population in Minnesota, and he believes it has been more than 50 years since the last verified sighting in the wild.

Erb said a wildlife manager in northwest Minnesota received a photo and video last fall of an animal that clearly was a wolverine, but it wasn’t confirmed the images were verified as being from northwest Minnesota.

“Nothing seemed suspicious -- just that we like to verify the site,” he said.

Erb said he also has corresponded with a Manitoba biologist who confirmed there have been a couple of verified wolverine sightings in southeast Manitoba in the past year.

“It does appear to be a little more wolverine ‘action’ in the past year or two, but certainly no evidence of breeding in Minnesota,” Erb said.

Jared Hatter of Alexander, North Dakota holds up the wolverine he shot near there on April 24, 

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

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiu8YC-0b_MAhWIPCYKHZajDe4QFggrMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Frobertlindsay.wordpress.com%2Fcategory%2Fanimals%2Fwild%2Fmammals%2Fcarnivores%2Fmustelids%2Fwolverines%2F&usg=AFQjCNESQ4h0ns5AFOmUX_QYtfbg70OOyw

BY ROBERT LINDSAY | APRIL 28, 2016 · 12:37 PM

Wolverine history in the Upper Midwest

There have been a number of unverified sightings of wolverines in North Dakota in the past two decades. They are listed in my report, Wolverines in the Upper Midwest, available here. This is the most detailed report on wolverines in this region on the Internet. Be sure to check it out if you are interested in the subject. It has lots of great photos of the areas in which wolverines were spotted and the general terrain of the region.

It also links a number of other reports I wrote on other parts of the US. I broke the Western and Central US into several zones of one or more states and then discussed the status and recent sightings of wolverines in that area. I also included a lot of photos of the locales where the sightings took place.

The last wolverine recorded in the state was from 1870 when a wolverine was poisoned by a hunter named Henry Bennett at the mouth of Cherry Creek near the Killdeer Mountains. Curiously, that location very close to where the current specimen was taken. There were 36 known records of wolverines taken in North Dakota, but none of them were verified. 35 of these are from a single locale, a fort at the mouth of the Pembina River in the northeastern part of the state. These records are all from the journal of a single fur trapper from Montreal,Alexander Henry the Younger.

Henry’s journals date from 1801-1806 when he worked as a fur trapper for the Montreal-based North West Company. During this period, Northeastern North Dakota had not yet been settled by Whites, so his records would seem to be a good record of the wildlife presence and density in this region pre-contact. At this time, the land was the territory of Dakotas, but Chippewas and Crees were also in the area.

He lived for most of the time at a fort at the mouth of the Pembina River. In those five years, Henry reported that 35 wolverines were trapped in eastern North Dakota alone.

The USFWS regards these records as possibly spurious since they nearly all came from a single person, and it is uncertain whether these records were of wolverines actually taken in North Dakota or whether these were animals taken elsewhere and transported to the fort. However, a closer look at Henry’s journal shows that he was reporting exact locales where his trappers were taking wolverines. He listed a variety of locales, all in eastern North Dakota. The theory that some or all of these wolverines were trapped outside of North Dakota and brought to the fort seems incorrect.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) says according to the known habitat associations of the wolverine in the US, North Dakota never housed a population of established wolverines during historical times.

However, this conclusion may be erroneous, and wolverine biologists think it is incorrect.

The USFWS also says that the entire area of the US Northeast, Great Lakes and Great Plains never had an established population of wolverines. However, biologists reported that two juvenile wolverines were taken in the Diamond Lakes area of New Hampshire in a single year, 1918. The biologists felt that the taking of two young in a single year meant that a breeding population of wolverines may have been present at that time. The current theory that the Northeast never had an established population of wolverines is incorrect.

Dr. Keith Aubry, one of the nation’s top wolverine scientists, said that if those 35 specimens were all taken from eastern North Dakota in a five year period alone, then that implies that there was a resident population of wolverines in eastern North Dakota at that time.

The question here centers around the question of what one means by established population. To wildlife biologists, established population means breeding population, and the USFWS argues that the Upper Great Plains does not have suitable habitat for breeding wolverines due to the lack of deep snow cover into the late spring.

The FWS also argue that wolverines cannot live in this region because summer temperatures are too high.

However, a wolverine recently lived for 5-10 years around the area of Ubly, Michigan where summer temperatures rise to 82 degrees, close to the 85 degrees found in Alexander. But the Ubly story is complicated by other factors. That animal had been live-trapped by someone in Alaska, brought to Michigan somehow and released near Ubly. A man who had set up the camera-traps that were photographing the animal was also feeding it regularly, so this is not pure case of a naturally dispersing wild animal surviving on its own, and this animal may not have been able to survive there on its own.

Based on this data, the Summer Temperature Theory about wolverines may be wrong. Aubry acknowledged that wolverines can live in areas where the summer temperatures get up to 80-85 degrees, but they do not live well or thrive in these places.

Based on the number of reports coming in of wolverines not only from North Dakota but also from elsewhere in the Upper Midwest and the long historical record of sightings in this area from the 19th Century, the Great Plains was definitely wolverine habitat pre-contact and even for a period of time after contact before they were possibly extirpated by the fur trade or even more likely by a warming climate, which is the theory that Aubry favors. The reason that the prairie may not be habitat now is because of the assumption that lacks the deep snow persisting into late spring required for breeding wolverines.

Although the prairie seems to be an odd place to have wolverines, when you think about the great herds of buffalo that used to roam here, perhaps it is not so strange after all. Aubry agreed that the Great Plains would have been perfect habitat for wolverines due to the huge herds of buffalo that would have provided a ready source of large amounts of carrion that would be perfect for a scavenger like a wolverine.

He also said that it was much colder in the US in 1800 than it is today because that was during the tail end of a several centuries-long Little Ice Age where temperatures dropped all over North America. Since then, the continent has been slowly warming up, a process that has much accelerated in recent days, and what may have been cold enough for wolverines in 1800 is much less suitable habitat now that it is much warmer. Aubry said it may well have been cold enough in North Dakota in 1800 to sustain the snow conditions necessary for wolverine breeding.

He also noted that Canadian scientists say there has been a retraction of the wolverine’s range in Ontario over the past century or so. Whereas once wolverines occurred throughout the province from north to south, they have retreated north and are now found only in the northern half of Ontario. Aubry felt that the retraction of the wolverine’s range from the northeast, the Great Lakes and the Great Plains was probably more due to warming climate than to overtrapping and poisoning. “The wolverine may have been one of the first victims of global warming,” Aubry said.

My post on wolverines in the Upper Midwest has a number of photos of prairie terrain and habitat along with some theorizing on how and why the prairies may have been good habitat for wolverines pre-contact.

Among nearby states, wolverines were last recorded in Indiana in 1852, Wisconsin in 1870, and Minnesota in 1918.

Our friend Michael Kellett of RESTORE THE NORTH WOODS sharing further information on the quest to bring back the Grizzly to California...........Prior to the Goldrush in 1850, the land that is now California was thought to have the highest Grizzly Bear density of any lands in the lower 48(estimated some 10,000 bears)...............As some of you know, the "Griz" adorns the State Flag................David Mattson, a lecturer at the Yale School of Forestry, says grizzlies would have "demonstrable ecosystem effects" were they reintroduced to California.................. "Brown bears would assist with seed dispersal and soil aeration as they tear into the ground hunting for gophers and voles"................ "Coastal grizzly would move nutrients upstream and inland via their consumption of spawning salmon"...............A study of Europe published in the journal Science found that large carnivores are successfully sharing landscapes with people................... Some 17,000 brown bears (Ursus arctos, essentially the same species as the North American grizzly) live in 22 European countries, making the bear the most abundant large carnivore on the continent........................ Europe is also home to 12,000 wolves, twice as many as in the United States, despite the continent having twice the population density................... The study found that large carnivores "have shown an ability to recolonize areas with moderate human densities if they are allowed, and to persist in highly human-dominated landscapes and in the proximity of urban areas"................."The presence of grizzlies and mountain lions and wolves are reminders that nature in its wilder states is not here to serve us, and that wild animals and wild places have their own interests".............. "Can we cohabitate with wild animals though they might pose a threat to us?

From: Michael Kellett ;kellett@restore.org
Date: May 2, 2016 at 11:38:47 AM PDT
To: Rick Meril
Subject: Opinion: It's Time to Bring the Grizzly Bear Back to California, KQED, 20160502

http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/05/02/opinion-its-time-to-bring-the-grizzly-bear-back-to-california/

KQED

Opinion: It's Time to Bring the Grizzly Bear Back to California

By Jason Mark, Sierra Magazine

MAY 2, 2016

In the mid-19th century, there were as many as 10,000 brown bears in California — a greater population density than in Alaska today. The last documented sighting was in 1924. Now all that remains is the profile of the powerful bruin on the state flag.

No doubt some people will freak out at the prospect of the Lower 48's biggest predator haunting the woods. But there are good reasons to return the animal to the Bear Flag Republic. Grizzly reintroduction would have clear ecological benefits. And it would have cultural benefits, too, by prompting us to rethink what nature is "good for."

California is already crawling with predators. We have mountain lions in Los Angeles — where the Internet-famous "Hollywood Lion" stalks mule dear in Griffith Park — and one in San Francisco, too, where a cougar was captured on a security camera last summer.

The reappearance of mountain lions is an example of what conservation biologists call "rewilding." In some instances, like that of the mountain lion, the wild animals find their way back on their own. In other cases, state or federal agencies have made determined efforts to bring back animals hunted and trapped to oblivion or pushed out by development.

Might we go from this 19th century hunt to coexistence?

The reintroduction of gray wolves to the Northern Rockies in the late 1990s is the best-known rewilding story. Twenty-one years after wolves were returned to Yellowstone National Park, there is an established population and some have migrated as far as Northern California, where, in August, a pack was confirmed in the state for the first time since 1924.

The return of the gray wolf to the rural West has been hugely controversial, marked by serial court cases, Capitol Hill maneuverings, vigilantism (in the form of poaching animals listed as endangered) and fiery debates that have scorched western communities. For many ranchers and hunters, the return of the wolf represents a dangerous surrendering of human control over the landscape. To supporters of rewilding, the success of the wolf is a kind of ecological restorative justice.

Bringing back grizzly bears to California is the latest rewilding idea. Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona-based conservation group, filed a petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider reintroducing the grizzly in the Southwest and California. The agency denied the request, and now the organization plans to petition the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to bring back the bear.

"Grizzly bears were a common part of the California landscape and had been there for eons, and we wiped them out," says Noah Greenwald, the endangered species coordinator at the Center for Biological Diversity. "By bringing them back we would be righting a historic wrong."

Returning grizzlies to California would have real ecological advantages. Wildlife biologists have shown that restoring large predators to a landscape can have consequences that ripple across an ecosystem. This phenomenon is called "trophic cascades." Imagine: a wolf reappears on the scene. Suddenly, the elk and deer have to be alert. Their newly cautious behavior gives aspen and willow a chance to thrive, which provide fresh habitat for beaver and songbirds. David Mattson, a lecturer at the Yale School of Forestry, says grizzlies would have "demonstrable ecosystem effects" were they reintroduced to California. Brown bears would assist with seed dispersal and soil aeration as they tear into the ground hunting for gophers and voles. Coastal grizzly would move nutrients upstream and inland via their consumption of spawning salmon.

But state wildlife officials are cool on the idea. "Grizzly bears traditionally would roam oak woodlands and even beaches and eat whale carcasses and whatnot," says California Fish and Wildlife spokesperson Jordan Traverso. "So you'd be introducing them in places where people are now, not the typical black bear habitat. So we are not supportive of that proposal, even a little bit."

Still, the idea is not as outlandish as it might sound.

A study of Europe published in the journal Science found that large carnivores are successfully sharing landscapes with people. Some 17,000 brown bears (Ursus arctos, essentially the same species as the North American grizzly) live in 22 European countries, making the bear the most abundant large carnivore on the continent. Europe is also home to 12,000 wolves, twice as many as in the United States, despite the continent having twice the population density. The study found that large carnivores "have shown an ability to recolonize areas with moderate human densities if they are allowed, and to persist in highly human-dominated landscapes and in the proximity of urban areas."

Martin Lewis, a geographer at Stanford who has studied the politics of rewilding, says the problem with grizzly reintroduction is not a lack of suitable habitat. But, he says, "there are questions about coexistence. People can learn to live with them, but there will be trade-offs. There will be encounters, and some of those encounters will be negative."

Let's face it. Wolves eat cattle and prized game like elk. Grizzlies sometimes attack backpackers. Mountain lions sometimes go after hikers. Acknowledging such dangers is not being callous toward human life, but recognizes that the lives of these animals, and the role they play in the environment, also matter.

The risks are worth it. The presence of grizzlies and mountain lions and wolves are reminders that nature in its wilder states is not here to serve us, and that wild animals and wild places have their own interests. Can we cohabitate with wild animals though they might pose a threat to us?

Such coexistence will require us to rethink some of our assumptions about wild nature. Do we want nature to always conform neatly to human desires — a garden to be tended by our hands, or an idyllic retreat imagined by the Romantics? Or are we willing to live with a nature that is wilder? A nature that is uncontrolled, unpredictable, and possibly dangerous. One where you could end up as lunch if you're not careful.

To accept the return of large carnivores will demand a selflessness to which, as a species, we are unaccustomed. It will also require a measure of courage. After all, it's easy to love a nature that just looks pretty. It's a much more difficult task to live with a nature that can be threatening — a wolf pack in the pasture, a lion on the prowl under streetlights and, yes, grizzlies in the woods.

Jason Mark is the author of "Satellites in the High Country: Searching for the Wild in the Age of Man" and editor of Sierra magazine.

John James Audubon took a trip up the Missouri River into the Dakotas and ultimately eastern Montana for 8 months spanning March-November 1843 for the purpose of documenting the Quadrupeds(mammals with four feet) of North America..................Some 38 years after Lewis & Clark made their way West, Audubon found that the growing human population and it's resulting Agricultural way of making a living had all but extirpated Deer and Moose in Missouri and the states east of the Mississippi, signaling the free fall of those that preyed on those hoofed browsers-----Wolves,Black Bears and Pumas.................Audubon's party had to traverse into Nebraska, the Dakota's and Montana to find some remnant of the wildlife Serengeti that the Lewis and Clark Corps had long ago witnessed

"160-170 miles north of St. Louis up the Missouri River, Game is very scarce, especially Black Bears"........"Wolves begin to be troublesome to the settlers who have sheep; they are obliged to drive the latter home, and herd them each night"

Coming upon Council Bluff(just east of present day Omaha, Nebraska), we saw one Wolf on a sand bar seeking for food, perhaps dead fish"

"We passed the river called the Sioux Pictout(eastern South Dakota), formerly abundant with Beavers, Otters Muskrats, etc, but now quite destitute of any of these creatures"..............."We saw 4 Black Tailed Deer.............On the opposite shore, we saw many tracks of Deer, Elk, Wolves and Turkeys"

"In talking with our Captain(on their boat in the Missouri River), he tells us that the Black Bear is rarely seen swimming the river"........however, I have seen them swimming in great numbers on the lower parts of the Ohio River and on the Mississippi River"

Along the banks of these rivers(Missouri River and it's tributaries), when the Buffaloes fall or cannot ascend and then die, the Wolves are seen in considerable numbers feeding upon them"


John, James Audubon

"At the L'Eau qui court river in Nebraska, saw two Wild Cats of the common kind(bobcats/pumas????)..........."We also saw several large Wolves, noticing particularly one pur white, sthat stood and looked at us for some time"........."their movements are precisely thos of the common cur dog"."We have seen 5 or 6 this day".........."We began seeing Buffaloes again in small
gangs, but this afternoon and evening we have seen a goodly number, probably more than a hundred"...."We also saw fiteen or twenty antelopes(Pronghorn)"....It was beautiful to see them running"

"We saw two Wolves crossing the river before getting to Ft. Pierre(South Dakota)"

"Passing the Cheyenne River(South Dakota), we saw more Wolves today than on any other previous occasions"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjMyMWPv7rMAhUGOyYKHY20DPgQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nebraskapress.unl.edu%2Fproduct%2FMissouri-River-Journals-of-John-James-Audubon%2C677205.aspx&usg=AFQjCNG9z1q1QjsIF6a1xR0vqCJ-KJfdmw

Historians, biographers, and scholars of John James Audubon and natural history have long been mystified by Audubon’s 1843 Missouri River expedition, for his journals of the trip were thought to have been destroyed by his granddaughter Maria Rebecca Audubon. Daniel Patterson is the first scholar to locate and assemble three important fragments of the 1843 Missouri River journals, and here he offers a stunning transcription and critical edition of Audubon’s last journey through the American West. Wolves squaring off with Bison Patterson’s new edition of the journals—unknown to Audubon scholars and fans—offers a significantly different understanding of the very core of Audubon’s life and work. Readers will be introduced to a more authentic Audubon, one who was concerned about the disappearance of America’s wild animal species and yet also loved to hunt and display his prowess in the wilderness. This edition reveals that Audubon’s famous late conversion to conservationism on this expedition was, in fact, a literary fiction. Maria Rebecca Audubon created this myth when she rewrote her grandfather’s journals for publication to make him into a visionary conservationist. In reality the journals detail almost gratuitous hunting predations throughout the course of Audubon’s last expedition. The Missouri River Journals of John James Audubon is the definitive presentation of America’s most famous naturalist on his last expedition and assesses Audubon’s actual environmental ethic amid his conflicted relationship with the natural world he so admired and depicted in his iconic works.  John James Audubon (1785–1851) is one of America’s premiere wildlife artists. His book The Birds of America is considered one of the greatest picture books ever produced, and his monumental The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America has been hailed as an American classic. Daniel Patterson is a professor of English at Central Michigan University. He is the author and editor of several books, including John James Audubon’s Journal of 1826: The Voyage to “The Birds of America” (Nebraska, 2011) and Early American Nature Writers: A Biographical Encyclopedia. "The Missouri River Journals of John James Audubon is the definitive presentation of America's most famous naturalist on his last expedition."—Bob Edmonds, McCormick Messenger “By far the liveliest and most extensive account of Audubon’s late-life trip on the Upper Missouri River.”—John Knott, professor emeritus of English at the University of Michigan and author of Imagining Wild America “With his discovery of a John James Audubon journal long believed to have been intentionally destroyed, Patterson provides new insight into the life of America’s iconic artist and naturalist. An exceptional book.”—William Benemann, author of Men in Eden: William Drummond Stewart and Same-Sex Desire in the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade Publication of this volume was assisted by the Virginia Faulkner Fund, established in memory of Virginia Faulkner, editor in chief of the University of Nebraska Press.

"The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) today issued(sound and science based) guidance on preventing conflicts between people and coyotes as spring temperatures approach and coyotes increase foraging"............. "Coyotes are an integral part of our natural ecosystem, but they can come into conflict with people if they become habituated to human presence and food sources," said DEC Acting Commissioner Basil Seggos"............... "The coyote is an adaptable animal and has established populations throughout most of New York State"....................... "While coyotes can provide many benefits to New Yorkers through observation, photography, hunting, and trapping, they should be treated with respect and common sense"............. "With the onset of warmer weather, many of New York's resident coyotes have set up dens for soon-to-arrive pups"................. "Coyotes are well adapted to suburban and even urban environments, but for the most part they will avoid contact with people"................. "However, conflicts with people and pets may result as coyotes tend to be territorial around den sites during the spring through mid-summer period as they forage almost constantly to provide food for their young"

http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/106019.html

For Release: Friday, April 29, 2016

NY DEC Issues Guidance to Avoid Conflicts with Coyotes

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) today issued guidance on preventing conflicts between people and coyotes as spring temperatures approach and coyotes increase foraging.

"Coyotes are an integral part of our natural ecosystem, but they can come into conflict with people if they become habituated to human presence and food sources," said DEC Acting Commissioner Basil Seggos. "The coyote is an adaptable animal and has established populations throughout most of New York State. While coyotes can provide many benefits to New Yorkers through observation, photography, hunting, and trapping, they should be treated with respect and common sense."

With the onset of warmer weather, many of New York's resident coyotes have set up dens for soon-to-arrive pups. Coyotes are well adapted to suburban and even urban environments, but for the most part they will avoid contact with people. However, conflicts with people and pets may result as coyotes tend to be territorial around den sites during the spring through mid-summer period as they forage almost constantly to provide food for their young.

To minimize the chance that conflicts between people and coyotes occur, it is important that coyotes' natural fear of people is maintained. Below are recommended steps residents and visitors can take to reduce or prevent conflicts from occurring:

• Do not feed coyotes and discourage others from doing so.
• Unintentional food sources attract coyotes and other wildlife and increase risks to people and pets. To reduce risks:
  • Do not feed pets outside.
  • Make any garbage inaccessible to coyotes and other animals.
  • Fence or enclose compost piles so they are not accessible to coyotes.
  • Eliminate availability of bird seed. Concentrations of birds and rodents that come to feeders can attract coyotes. If you see a coyote(s) near your birdfeeder, clean up waste seed and spillage to remove the attractant.
• Do not allow coyotes to approach people or pets.
• Teach children to appreciate coyotes from a distance.
• If you see a coyote, be aggressive in your behavior - stand tall, and hold arms out to look large. If a coyote lingers for too long, then make loud noises, wave your arms, throw sticks and stones.
• Do not allow pets to run free. Supervise all outdoor pets to keep them safe from coyotes and other wildlife, especially at sunset and at night. Small dogs and cats are especially vulnerable to coyotes.
• Fencing your yard may deter coyotes. The fence should be tight to the ground, preferably extending six inches below ground level, and taller than four feet.
• Remove brush and tall grass from around your home to reduce protective cover for coyotes. Coyotes are typically secretive and like areas where they can hide.
• Contact your local police department and NYSDEC regional office for assistance if you notice that coyotes are exhibiting "bold" behaviors and have little or no fear of people. Seeing a coyote occasionally throughout the year is not evidence of bold behavior.
• Ask your neighbors to follow these same steps.

The Eastern coyote is found in rural farmlands and forests to populated suburban and urban areas. In most cases, coyotes avoid people as much as possible. In fact, coyotes provide many exciting opportunities for New Yorkers. Their howling and yipping at night can provide a haunting but harmless reminder of wildlife in our midst. However, if coyotes learn to associate people with food (such as, garbage or pet food), they may lose their natural fear of humans, and the potential for close encounters or conflicts increases.

It is important to keep pets safe. Cats allowed to roam free are at risk from many different factors. To protect your cat from coyotes and other hazards, and to help protect nesting birds that cats often prey on, keep your cat indoors, or allow it outside only under supervision.

Owners of small dogs also have cause for concern. Small dogs are at greatest risk of being harmed or killed when coyotes are being territorial during denning and pup-rearing. Small dogs should not be left unattended in backyards at night and should remain supervised. Coyotes may approach small dogs along streets at night near natural areas, even in the presence of dog owners. Be alert of your surroundings and take precautions such as carrying a flashlight or a walking stick to deter coyotes. Owners of large and medium sized dogs have less to worry about, but should still take precautions.

If coyotes are seen repeatedly during the daytime in a human-populated area or in close proximity to residences, follow the above recommendations to reduce or prevent potential problems. If coyote behavior remains unchanged or becomes threatening, please report this to the local DEC office, as this may indicate that some individual coyotes have lost their fear of people and there may be a greater risk that a problem could occur.

For additional information about the Eastern Coyote and preventing conflicts with coyotes, visit the following webpages on DEC's website:

• Eastern Coyote
• Coyote Conflicts
• Feeding Wildlife: a wrong choice
• Tips to Eliminate Wildlife Conflicts