Posts Tagged ‘wolves’

May05

Pointillism and the Rainbow of Thought

By Bob Ferris

I had a thought yesterday as I was digging out some invading privet roots from a flower bed in my yard: 
 
Science—particularly natural or conservation science—is not a point to be promoted or exploited but rather a spectrum to be absorbed, appreciated and understood.  
 
It strikes me that this is true whether you are talking about Yellowstone wolves and elk or climate change.  Some people get this, can climb above the hub-bub and see the big picture, but far too many cannot.  Those who cannot tend to wrap personal theory tightly around events like a cougar kill or big snows that comport with their views without taking time to examine them at different scales and contexts.  They truly miss the wonder of it all.
Too abstract?  Exactly my point.  Looking only at these events, single or select points, and shortened segments of graphs is too abstract.  Think about it as trying to gain some insight into a pointillist painting by examining an individual blue blob of paint.  Certainly the patch of color tells us something about the painter, the paint and style, but not much about the true impact of that blotch, its relationship to other blotches, and the context of it all in the larger and unfolding picture.  
It is important to take time to look at the blotches in our lives, landscapes, and skies but please also take time to absorb, appreciate and understand the entire spectrum of these natural phenomenon.  The big picture that emerges is truely as spectacular as the bits and pieces that work together to create it.  (And thanks to Georges Seurat–or at least his art– for helping me with this blog)
 

Posted by bob in Blog, Uncategorized

1 Comment

Keep Reading →

Apr17

Of Hobbits, Elves, Elk, Ecology and Wolves

 

By Bob Ferris

My wife and I are fans of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  For us that meant that we recently re-watched the extended versions of the three movies and also spent time watching the special features disc associated with each film.  The former was still great and the latter was revealing in so many ways.  One of the things we learned on the special features disc was how some of the special effects were accomplished both during shooting and with post-production wizardry.  Pretty cool stuff.
 
One interesting element of this was how they were able to deal with the size differences between the smaller hobbits and dwarfs and the larger humans and elves.  Once you understand that “little people” actors in prosthetics were used in the wider shots containing both big and small characters it really changed your perspective.  You actually could start to identify the various small actors who served as costumed and masked doubles in these scenes by their gait and movements.  Once you gained this knowledge and knew what to look for it was easy to spot the cinematic sleight of hand when it was employed.  It did not take anything away from the movie experience in fact it really seemed to enhance it.  
 
This whole episode got me thinking about wolves and why what is so obvious to those who have had ecological and biological training just may not be that accessible to others without the same grounding.  Maybe we need a “special features” disc for the wolves?  But what would be on that disc?  What is missing from the anti-wolf crowds understanding of the bigger picture?
 
To begin to understand what should be on the disc, perhaps we should visit the most notorious example cited by anti-wolf parties and trophy hunters—the Northern Yellowstone elk herd crash.  For the last couple of years all we have heard from the David Allens, Bob Fannings and Don Peays of the world are how wolves were released and immediately decimated this famous and very visible elk herd.  It is almost like these anti-wolf advocates had their own “remember the Alamo” moment.  But we need to inject a little of the late Paul Harvey here and start to look at the rest of the story.
 
That examination begins with looking at the long term elk population trends in Yellowstone’s northern range.  Important milestone events to remember to help make sense of this are that wolves were basically gone from the system by the mid-1920s, Park staff culled elk herds until 1968 when hands-off or ecological management became the rule, the massive Yellowstone fire happened in 1988, and wolves were first re-introduced to Yellowstone in 1995.  
 
Bearing all of this in mind, here is what would likely make the short list for inclusion on “Special Features Menu” for the Northern Yellowstone elk herd or subpopulations like the Gallatin:
 
"Elk summer-fall use declined after fire, then increased to levels nearly three times the level of the control before dropping back at the end of the 20-year period. Elk winter-spring use was higher than the control throughout the entire evaluation period, with the highest recorded post-fire use 7 years after fire." Effects of Fire in the Northern Great Plains
 
Post-fire Plant Succession: The Yellowstone fire of 1988 swept through the Park with a myriad of consequences.  One of the most important ones for elk was that the fire opened up habitats and enabled an explosion of new plant growth which enabled the elk population to grow rapidly.  As plant succession—the natural progression from the softer, more nutritious pioneer plants to woody plants—progressed the amount and quality of food in the Northern Range available to elk diminished.
 
Availability of Water: Water is a huge driver for elk as it has a consequential impact on the quantity and quality of vegetation.  When precipitation is plentiful elk populations tend to grow and they decline in droughts. [1]
 
 
Competition with Bison and Other Species:  Elk tend to displace deer but are in turn displaced by bison in Yellowstone and domestic cattle in other places where grazing is allowed.  Bison populations have risen considerably over the past several decades ergo competition is likely another factor to consider. [1,2]
Grizzly Bears and Predators:  Grizzly bears also prey on elk—particularly elk calves.  Grizzly populations in Yellowstone have increased considerably over the last several decades.  This puts additional pressure on the elk.
 
Disease: Disease also can be a factor in populations particularly those that are at or above the long-term carrying capacity of the area and in the absence of selective pressures like predation.  Diseases spread faster when populations are dense, which is one of the reasons that feeding wildlife is generally a bad idea. [1,2,3]
 
Density Dependence: Density dependence is less a cause than and observation.  There is a general tendency in populations that become dense to “self-edit” at some point and it is likely caused by any one of these factors or a complex combination of them. [1]
 
Secondary Plant Compounds:  One of the most interesting areas of botany is looking at secondary plant compounds and how those plant produced chemicals often regulate the populations of animals that consume them.  While we often think in terms of grazing critters determining vegetation there is a large body of evidence that in many cases it is the other way around. [1,2,3]
 
“Additive and compensatory are the two types of mortality that occur in mule deer populations. An increase in one cause of mortality or the introduction of a new type of mortality may or may not increase the total number of animals that die, depending on whether that mortality is additive or compensatory. If the increase or introduction of mortality increases the number of deer that die, the mortality is additive. If it is compensated for by reductions in other types of mortality, and therefore doesn’t change the total number of deer that die, then it is compensatory.”  From Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies website.
 
Additive versus Compensatory Predation:  If a certain amount of prey species did not die each year through natural or artificial means, prey would quickly over populate their habitats with disastrous consequences.  Because many wildlife agencies tend to want prey populations to exist at or near their carrying capacities this question of whether or not predation is compensatory or additive comes into play.  One recent study looking at nearly 2800 radio collared elk in 45 areas, found that additive predation from all predators including wolves was less than 2%.
 
“Wolves are coursing predators that chase prey over long distances in open habitat and have a relatively low success rate, selecting substandard prey. The success rate on elk is 20 percent.”  Notes on a talk by Dr. Dennis Murray University of Idaho on Western Hunter
 
Genetic Impacts: People shooting elk and wolves killing elk have different genetic implications.  Hunters kill elk in the fall when the animals are fat after summer feeding.  Wolf predation peaks in late winter and early spring when less biologically fit animals are at their most challenged [reference].  The former action has limited beneficial impact on the gene pool of elk because the selective pressures are only chance and size.  In contrast, wolves chase animals and are most successful with those unable to escape or resist.  While humans might not be able to differentiate between genetically robust individuals by sight it is believed that coursing predators such as wolves that chase their normally faster prey do so mechanically.
 
Pollution:  Pollution from pesticides and herbicides are likely on the low side directly in Yellowstone but that is not true in the surrounding federal forests where the migratory elements of this herd frequent.  Many people including citizen scientist Judy Hoy have been expressing concerns about some of these pollution effects and hopefully this is an area that will receive broader research attention in the future.  
 
Actually the above is not really a menu per se, because all of these factors and more are all in play in the Northern Range and other locales where elk are declining and where they are increasing in the presence of wolves.  
 

Thinking that wolves are completely driving the elk population decline in Yellowstone’s Northern elk herd is a lot like thinking that actor Elijah Wood is only three feet tall because he appeared to be that height in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  I would urge those who still adhere to the yard-tall thespian hypothesis to take a deep breath, employ some commonsense and dig a little deeper into the situation. I think that you will find that many wonderful things are going on and that wolves are only supporting players in this drama wholly undeserving of this deep hatred we observe and the wholesale slaughter heaped on this still recovering species.

Posted by bob in Blog, Bring Back Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized

1 Comment

Keep Reading →

Apr01

Anti-wolf Forces: It Takes a Thief (Richard M. Mitchell)

 

By Bob Ferris
 
The anti-wolf site Save Western Wildlife recently posted a three-page letter critical of the Northern Rockies wolf recovery process written by Richard M. Mitchell Ph.D. of Alder, Montana—wow, a Ph.D. stepping into the fray.  This is impressive until you take a little time to remember and realize that Dr. Mitchell’s other title is: Convicted Felon.
 
Yes Dr. Mitchell knows about the Endangered Species Act because he was charged under it multiple times while working for the federal government and finally convicted in 1993.  I say finally because he was first charged in the late 1980s and there was considerable political pressure exerted to by politicians—many of whom were members of Safari Club International—to get this first arrest over-turned.  
 
It is interesting given the Tea Party leanings of the anti-wolf crowd that they are willing to overlook the fact that Dr. Mitchell cost the Smithsonian $650,000 in legal fees paid by taxpayers back in the early 1990s when that was real money.  He also materially broke trust with the American public whose money he took to do a job which he did not.  What Dr. Mitchell excelled at was being the crooked-as-a-dog's-hind-leg errand boy for Safari Club International, a job he still seems to take seriously.  
 
 
 

Posted by bob in Bring Back Wolves, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized

4 Comments

Keep Reading →

Mar25

72 Lawmakers Urge Delisting of Wolves Nationwide

E&E Reporter by Phil Taylor

March 25, 2013 

A group of 72 House and Senate lawmakers today asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in nearly all of the country, arguing that states are best equipped to manage the species.
 
The lawmakers, almost all of them Republican, told FWS Director Dan Ashe that wolves can be "devastating" to livestock and big-game wildlife, but that state wildlife officials are restricted by law from controlling packs.
 
While wolves have been delisted in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana and in the western Great Lakes, the agency is considering whether to lift protections in the southern Rocky Mountains, the Pacific Northwest and eastern United States.
 
"As you know, state governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are able to meet both the needs of local communities and wildlife populations," said the lawmakers' letter, which was led by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Reps. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
 
Democrats who signed the letter included Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah, Collin Peterson and Tim Walz of Minnesota, and Terri Sewell of Alabama.
 
The agency in February 2012 released a five-year review of wolves that describes ongoing reviews in the Pacific Northwest and eastern United States to determine "which, if any, gray wolves should continue to receive protections under the ESA."
 
Republicans, ranchers and some hunters have long opposed federal protections for wolves, which are blamed for preying on livestock and reducing populations of elk, moose, mule deer and sheep.
 
But environmentalists argue wolves also prevent elk herds from overgrazing Western habitats, leading to regrowth of tree species and songbirds, and are a prime tourist attraction at places like Yellowstone National Park.
 
Today's letter comes weeks after 52 House lawmakers sent a letter to the agency urging continued ESA protections in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast, arguing that federal protections are critical for allowing gray wolves to gain a foothold in new parts of the country.
 
"We are concerned that the same prejudice towards wolves that led to their extirpation across nearly the entire coterminous United States is still present today and, not only is threatening to undo the gains achieved in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, but will prevent their recovery in additional areas," said the lawmakers, most of them Democrats, led by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
 
Bob Ferris, executive director of Cascadia Wildlands, today said that there is adequate habitat for wolves in Utah, Colorado and the Pacific Northwest and that FWS has no basis for removing ESA protections.
 
But he said the agency put together a draft delisting rule and asked for input, though the proposal is not publicly available.
 
Chris Tollefson, a spokesman for FWS, said the agency has not proposed anything yet. While there is no deadline for issuing a proposal, the agency hopes to have one later in spring, he added.
 

Posted by bob in Bring Back Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, News, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized

1 Comment

Keep Reading →

Mar07

Don Peay: the Man Who Would Be King… Baron

by Bob Ferris
 
Rudyard Kipling wrote a tale once about two pals in the British army serving in India who figured they could travel north to Kafiristan in present-day Afghanistan and essentially create their own mini-kingdom.  The tale was fanciful and was eventually turned into a popular 1975 movie starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine called “The Man who would be King” named after Kipling’s novella.
 
But the absurd nature of this fictional exercise of kingdom creation has not stopped Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Sportsmen for Habitat, Utah Chapter of the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, and Full Curl Society as well as co-founder of Big Game Forever LLC from seeing this as a model for taking the first steps towards bringing that oh-so-modern concept of feudalism to the United States.  And—wait for it—having the taxpayers make significant contributions to the diminishment of their rights and privileges.  Want details?
 
Let’s start with the fact that Mr. Peay believes that our current constitutional construct established under the 10th Amendment where the individual states have control and ownership of wildlife and hold it in the Public Trust is Socialism.  Ouch—strong words for a system that was established so that everyone, not just royalty and gentlepersons, could enjoy this public resource without being branded, beaten or hung for simply hunting, trapping or fishing.  (Mr. Peay should understand that both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are the functional equivalents of emancipation documents expressly written in response to past abuses and to protect us from future peril.)
 
"One state at a time, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife is dismantling the very idea of a public wildlife resource, and replacing it with special privileges for the privileged." Ben Long in High Country News
 
There are some nuances and spins to what Mr. Peay and his colleagues like Corey Rossi—past head of Alaska’s wildlife agency—recently ousted for a dozen wildlife violations—are trying to do, but the “nose under the tent” on their grand scheme is creating programs that privatize wildlife and grant “special” people “special” rights to wildlife owned by all of us.  Those special rights would include hunting outside of hunting seasons, creating areas free of predators, and providing economic incentives for creating super-productive areas on private lands that could include food plots and supplemental feeding (read large-scale baiting) which would likely act to draw game off surrounding public lands.  
 
The introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolf into Northern Rocky Mountains was a wildlife management expirement (sic) which has gone horribly wrong. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation calls it "one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds".  Quote from David Allen former NASCAR executive on Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife website
 
The ecological, economic and social pitfalls of this approach are myriad.  We—with the exception of trophy hunting groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation—have seen the folly of creating feeding grounds for species such as elk and deer.  This scheme taken to its conclusion creates large, fenceless game farms with greatly reduced biodiversity.  It also creates a dynamic to spread more wildlife diseases faster.  If you want chronic wasting disease and Brucellosis hot spots—please sign on the dotted line.
 
The economics are dicey, too.  Right now many people derive income from hunting and fishing from guides and hotel owners to gas stations and restaurants.  Game species are spread rather than concentrated and hunting licenses and access are managed in a manner that optimizes participation and spreads income across a broad base.  What happens to this dynamic when portions of the harvestable game base are drawn away from their current distribution pattern into large, private refugia that can easily accommodate and would welcome their own, on-site facilities including private air strips?   To understand this potential impact think about what Wal-Marts on the outskirts of towns have done to Main Street, America.  
 
Socially this is a case where quality experiences become more and more reserved for people of quality.  In Mr. Peay’s world the biggest and best would be reserved for the “knights” of industry in the land of corporate jets and the rest of us would simply have to suffer along with the leavings and obey rules.  
 
This would also further enhance what are now huge ranches almost exclusively in the West.  Given that these private ranchlands were made possible in large part because of past federal largess like the Homestead Act, made practical through past federal actions displacing their former native and human inhabitants, and made richer by current federal benefits such as farm subsidies and nominal federal grazing fees, you would think that these ranchers, Peay and their allies would first drop a little of their anti-federal rhetoric.  Their near schizophrenic irony of uber-patriotic ranchers hating and badmouthing of the very hand that made their lives possible has always struck me as strange.  
 
And you would also think that they would not be so quick about asking state legislatures and game agencies for privileges and monies that would further their campaigns to create what would essentially be modern-day Baronies—subsidized by the generosity of the “King” and enjoying a rarified legal setting.  Mr. Peay’s recent request from the state of Utah for $300,000 so he could lobby the federal government on wolves is a perfect example of this entitled attitude and has drawn considerable ire from a number of quarters (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
 
“The delisting of the wolf is critical for the recovery and safeguarding of our precious big game assets in America." —Ted Nugent on Big Game Forever LLC website
 
Also Baron Von Peay should also understand—as many of us do—that the most vocal and visible opponents of Socialism are typically Fascists.  But Mr. Peay’s dealings are a little bit more complex than first meets the eye and it is a mistake to simply characterize him as a politically motivated hater of wolves and serial founder of conservation organizations.  In addition to his “conservation” actions, he has manufactured an intricate spiders’ web of non-profits and for-profits that has put hundreds of thousands of dollars into his own coffers (see page 7 and page 8 for examples).  
 
“We have been in the business of selling big game hunting packages to high end clients who sought to hunt with the top tier big game outfitters.” World Trophy Outfitters profile
 
Spider’s web may even be an understatement.  One rapidly gets tired and fuzzy when looking at the mélange of entities set up by this ambitious chemical engineer and petroleum industry consultant turned wildlife entrepreneur.  From his first attempts as a hunting impresario with World Trophy Outfitters, Inc. to his current, more successful efforts to do essentially the same thing in his non-profit empire, this has been a story of building a well-connected—yet cryptic—universe.   
 
Some of these relationships are easy to sort out and some are more complicated.  Take for instance the relationship with Chris Carling and Brand X Communications in Salt Lake City.  Brand X does the web work for several of Peay’s non-profit ventures and Mr. Carling is also the public relations contact for Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.  Brand X is apparently connected with the domain Donpeay.com in some manner as well as the website for the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export facility near Coos Bay which will be facilitated by fracking in the very states where Peay’s groups are most powerful.  The business suite where Brand X is located is also the business address listed for Big Game Forever LLC and the former address of record for Sportsmen for Romney.  
 
“As of March 31, 2007, we had acquired fourteen Dall Sheep hunts for the 2007 and 2008 seasons with Kelly Hougen of Arctic Red River Outfitters, ten of which have been resold. The relationship between Arctic Red River Outfitters and WTO is that of a purchaser and seller of services and these organizations are not affiliated.”  World Trophy Outfitters Inc. Securities and Exchange Commission filing Form 10-KSB for Fiscal year 2007 page 4  
 
And then there is the whole issue with Arctic Red River Outfitters which appears to be owned in part by Peay but also partially owned by Sportsmen for Habitat with officers in common.  And yet on their IRS 990 forms SFH claims no business relations with current or former board members.  What? It is all very interesting but I will leave this to some ambitious investigative reporter who has the time and energy to sort out this can-o-worms or a similarly motivated IRS or SEC agent who ought to be asking some questions.  
 
“As a conservationist, it outrages me that animal rights extremists are using wolves as biological weapons to destroy 100 years of conservation in the western United States.” Jeff Foxworthy—Comedian on Big Game Forever LLC website
 
Peay’s business model is unfortunately a simple one that we have seen before: pedal wolf hatred to those most vulnerable to the messaging and then take millions of dollars’ worth of public resources (in the form of game permits) and sell them to the rich, privileged and influential.  His one variation from this is when he and his entourage sell chances for a coveted permit—letting hundreds act as a virtual “person of privilege”—keeping the myth of equality alive.
 
"My MacMillan River Adventure partner Keith Mark and I are extremely proud of our relationship with Big Game Forever because they are the one organization that recognized the damage that was occurring and the potential total devastation that would occur to our precious wildlife if the wolf issue was not addressed.”  Shawn Michaels WWE Hall of Fame on Big Game Forever website
 
He has been quite effective using the Four Horsemen of American Ignorance (i.e., NASCAR, Wrestling, Redneck Humor, and Ted Nugent) in recruiting an army of willing wolf killers.  The Montana Chapter of the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, for instance, gives away free memberships to individuals who furnish pictures of themselves with dead wolves.  SFW-MT is careful, however, to point out that they do not want pictures of wolves in traps.  Apparently, they understand that there are limits.  
 

There are a lot of chicken and egg issues with Peay and his operations.  Is he trying to forward big game recovery or trying to maximize his connections and curry favor with rich donors to forward his political fundraising?  Why is the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo run by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Mule Deer Foundation a non-profit event rather than a for-profit enterprise because it looks like there is a whole lot more commerce taking place than conservation?  And where is the non-profit argument of public good and benefit in creating better hunting opportunities for folks with an extra $20,000 or $100,000 rolling around in their jeans and in making sure outfitters are fully booked and taxidermists busy?  The charitable purposes of these entities simply seem swamped by the commercial and the political undertones.  And this impression is only magnified by the public financial reporting which lacks a certain openness in detail.  
Like Kipling’s Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnehan, Peay is of humble beginnings.  When you read his self-narrative you almost feel sorry for the boy whose family lacked the $35 to let him play football, but when he compensates for that missing “sport” in his life by taking 500-yard shots at rare animals the sympathy factor melts away quickly.  He is all about trophies whether it is being photographed next to whatever carcass he has recently created or standing near Dick Cheney, George W. Bush or Orin Hatch.
 
Peay should realize in all of this that the Kipling tale is also a cautionary one.  It describes the ultimate consequences to one who climbs too high and then falls when the myths he has created and promoted are shown to be without merit.   What will happen in all of this when the enabling state wildlife agencies realize that they would probably get more value and benefit if they sold these game permits themselves instead of allowing them to be used to build this convoluted financial empire and thinly disguised political machine?  And when will the everyday hunters out there understand that they are complicit in enriching these groups who are aggressively creating a system designed expressly to grant their precious rights to the privileged few while they are left with the leavings?   
 
So what needs to happen?  Folks need to tell their wildlife agencies in western states that they do not want their precious wildlife in the form of hunting tags and permits given to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Sportsmen for Habitat, Big Game Forever, or the Full Curl Society to be used in their campaigns to enrich themselves and privatize wildlife.  We also need to remind these agencies of their Public Trust responsibilities to manage wildlife for the public and not just for wealthy trophy hunters and ranchers.  And we need also to remind these wildlife agencies and their governing boards that wildlife should be managed based on the best available science.  In other words, let wildlife agency employees use the degrees that they worked so long and hard to earn.  Here are the electonic links (e-mails and forms) as well as the snail mail and phone for Wyoming.  Please let them know how you feel and pass this blog post around so that others do the same.  Thank you!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wyoming:
 
Wyoming Game & Fish Department Headquarters
5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82006
ph: (307) 777-4600
 

 

News and Editorial Coverage:

 

Salt Lake Tribune Editorial: Just cry wolf

Posted by bob in Blog, Bring Back Wolves, California Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, Northern Rockies Wolves, Oregon Wolves, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized, Washington Wolves

15 Comments

Keep Reading →

Mar06

Congress Members Seek Continued Wolf Protections

Peter DeFazio » Congress members seek continued wolf protections

Associated Press By John Flesher Mar. 5, 2013 
 
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Dozens of U.S. House members urged federal regulators Tuesday to retain legal protections for gray wolves across most of the lower 48 states, saying the resilient predator could continue expanding its range if humans don't get in the way.
 
A letter signed by 52 representatives urged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not to drop wolves from the endangered species list in areas where it hasn't already been done. The wolf has been designated as recovered in the western Great Lakes and the Northern Rockies after rebounding from near-extinction in the past century.
 
The comeback is "a wildlife success story in the making," the lawmakers said in a letter distributed by Reps. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. But it added that because of lingering human prejudice, "federal protection continues to be necessary to ensure that wolf recovery is allowed to proceed in additional parts of the country."
 
The Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to return wolves to the Southwest, despite court battles and resistance from ranchers. It's also reviewing the status of wolves and their potential habitat in the Pacific Northwest, where perhaps 100 of the animals are believed to roam, and in the Northeast, which has no established population although occasional sightings have been reported.
 
"The outcome of these reviews will identify which, if any, gray wolves should continue to receive protections under the Endangered Species Act outside of the boundaries of the recovered populations and the Southwest population," agency spokesman Chris Tollefson said.
 
A recommendation is expected in the next few months, he said.
 
An agency report last year proposed dropping the wolf from the endangered list in most locations where none are known to exist. In their letter, the lawmakers said that could prevent wolves from migrating to places where they once lived and where enough habitat and prey remain to support them.
 
They noted that lone wolves have wandered into northern California, Utah, Colorado and several Northeastern states. If re-established there, they would help restore ecological balance and boost the economy by drawing tourists, DeFazio said in a phone interview.
 
"I think a heck of a lot of Americans would be thrilled to hear or see a wolf in the wild," he said. "It's part of our natural heritage."
 
About 2 million wolves once lived in much of North America but were all but wiped out in the lower 48 states by the mid-1900s. The areas where they have recovered represent only 5 percent of their original range, said Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity.
 

Posted by bob in Bring Back Wolves, California Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, Northern Rockies Wolves, Oregon Wolves, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized, Washington Wolves

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Mar05

Press Release: 52 Members of Congress Urge Continued Federal Protections for Wolves in Lower 48 States

For immediate release, March 5, 2013

Contacts:
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495
Josh Laughlin, Cascadia Wildlands, (541) 434-1463

PORTLAND, Ore.— In an effort championed by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), 52 House members sent a letter today to the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urging an about-face on the agency’s anticipated proposal to remove federal protections for wolves across most of the lower 48 United States.

“We are grateful that these 52 representatives are standing strong for continued federal protections for wolves,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “With wolves only just beginning to recover in the Pacific Northwest, California, southern Rocky Mountains and Northeast, now’s not the time for the Fish and Wildlife Service to turn its back on wolf recovery.”

An estimated 2 million wolves once roamed freely across North America, including most of the United States. But bounties, a federal extermination program and human settlement drove the species to near extinction in most of the lower 48. While protected by the Endangered Species Act, wolf populations in the northern Rocky Mountains and the Western Great Lakes states increased; but these regions amount to a mere 5 percent of the wolf’s original range, and in other regions wolves are only just beginning to return.

“The job of wolf recovery is far from over and the members of Congress who have written to the Service are asking that science, not politics, guide federal wolf management,” said Josh Laughlin of Cascadia Wildlands. “Maintaining federal protections is critical in allowing wolves to assume their valuable ecological role across the American landscape.”

Since the original wolf recovery plans were written in the 1980s, scientists have learned much more about wolves’ behavior, ecology and needs. Research has shown that returning wolves to ecosystems sets off a chain of events that benefits many species, including songbirds and beavers that gain from a return of streamside vegetation, which thrives in the absence of browsing elk that must move more often to avoid wolves. And pronghorn and foxes are aided by wolves’ control of coyote populations. Protecting ecosystems upon which species depend is a specific goal of the Endangered Species Act — all the more reason for expanded, rather than diminished, wolf recovery efforts.

Bowing to political pressure from wolf opponents, the Service has no plans for wolf recovery in areas beyond those regions it has deemed recovered (the northern Rockies and western Great Lakes). In states where federal delisting has occurred, there are insufficient protections from local pressures to hunt or “control” wolves back to the brink of extinction. In the 18 months since federal delisting began in 2011, more than 1,700 of the 5,000-6,000 recovered wolves in the lower 48 have been killed.

Conservation organizations are hopeful that Interior Secretary nominee Sally Jewell will be a stronger advocate for wolves than outgoing Secretary Ken Salazar, who never called for comprehensive gray wolf recovery across the country.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Cascadia Wildlands is a Eugene, Oregon-based nonprofit conservation organization that educates, agitates and inspires a movement to protect and restore Cascadia’s wild ecosystems.
    

                                                                  ###

 

Posted by Josh in Bring Back Wolves, California Wolves, Campaign News Updates, Home Page Hot Topic, News, Northern Rockies Wolves, Oregon Wolves, Press Room, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized, Washington Wolves

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Feb22

What We Might All Learn from James Fenimore Cooper

 

by Bob Ferris

“The books he wrote later tell how he never forgot the howl of the wolf across the icy field of Otsego on cold winter nights, the peculiar wail of the sharp-toothed panther in the quiet wood roads, nor the familiar springs where the deer lingered latest. In James Fenimore Cooper by Mary E. Phillips (1912) 

 
My parents recently moved from their home of 20 some years to an assisted care facility.  This involved some serious downsizing as they had both accumulated much during their nearly 10 decades on earth and were also the keepers of many family treasures held and passed down generation to generation.  One of the items that got passed on to my own personal accumulation was a complete set of James Fenimore Cooper’s Leatherstocking Series which includes The Last of the Mohicans among others.  
 
These are actually early editions passed down through seven generations of my family.  The writing is awkward and stilted viewed through today’s lens but all of us through those seven generations have read them: Father to son to grandson and beyond.  And I am amazed at how much this writer born the same year as the US Constitution was ratified has influenced those long-gone generations and me.  
 
“Listen, Hawkeye, and your ear shall drink no lie. ‘Tis what my fathers have said, and what the Mohicans have done.” He hesitated a single instant, and bending a cautious glance toward his companion, he continued, in a manner that was divided between interrogation and assertion. “Does not this stream at our feet run toward the summer, until its waters grow salt, and the current flows upward?” The Last of the Mohicans—James Fenimore Cooper
 
Cooper grew and flourished as the new country did in and around the Founding Fathers such as John Jay.  His writings—in part—tried to describe an existing and evolving national ethic as well as a hoped for condition as the infant country progressed.  The tales are moralistic emphasizing an overriding respect for nature, the need for bravery and a code of behavior, and an adherence to truth regardless of the cost.
 
“Graves bring solemn feelings over the mind,” returned the scout, a good deal touched at the calm suffering of his companion; “and they often aid a man in his good intentions; though, for myself, I expect to leave my own bones unburied, to bleach in the woods, or to be torn asunder by the wolves. But where are to be found those of your race who came to their kin in the Delaware country, so many summers since?” The Last of the Mohicans—James Fenimore Cooper
 
Cooper also had a realistic view towards wolves.  He fully recognized them as predators—even to the point of acknowledging that his main character’s corpse might one day be eaten by wolves.  He also described instances where they frightened horses, but at the same time indicated that they would quickly run when confronted.  His protagonists never characterized them as a threat to their safety.  It should also be noted here that the tribal name Mohican could be a variation of either Mohegan or Mahican which are geographically and linguistically separate tribes in spite of the fact that both tribal names mean wolf.
 
Interesting in the context of today’s wolf debates and myth-spreading, Cooper also used wolves as a literary device several times to differentiate between the true woodsmen like Hawkeye and the newly initiated tenderfoot.  Cooper’s woodsman had no fear of wolves and saw them as part and parcel of the landscape, and the tenderfoot invariably panicked in the presence of wolves.  One prime example occurred in The Last of the Mohicans when Duncan Heyward from Virginia shows serious distress when  hears noises and wolves come near, only to be calmed by Hawkeye who soon demonstrates that the real threat in the woods has two-legs rather than four.  
 
“I am not a prejudiced man, nor one who vaunts himself on his natural privileges, though the worst enemy I have on earth, and he is an Iroquois, daren’t deny that I am genuine white,” the scout replied, surveying, with secret satisfaction, the faded color of his bony and sinewy hand, “and I am willing to own that my people have many ways, of which, as an honest man, I can’t approve. It is one of their customs to write in books what they have done and seen, instead of telling them in their villages, where the lie can be given to the face of a cowardly boaster, and the brave soldier can call on his comrades to witness for the truth of his words. In consequence of this bad fashion, a man, who is too conscientious to misspend his days among the women, in learning the names of black marks, may never hear of the deeds of his fathers, nor feel a pride in striving to outdo them. For myself, I conclude the Bumppos could shoot, for I have a natural turn with a rifle, which must have been handed down from generation to generation, as, our holy commandments tell us, all good and evil gifts are bestowed; though I should be loath to answer for other people in such a matter. But every story has its two sides; so I ask you, Chingachgook, what passed, according to the traditions of the red men, when our fathers first met?” The Last of the Mohicans—James Fenimore Cooper
 
Cooper in his own way above also argues for open and face-to-face discourse and debate.  Based on the above, Natty Bumppos would likely have had little tolerance for anonymous posters on blogs or for blogs that censor opposing views.  Cooper’s protagonists were also painfully truthful and truth was certainly a constant theme in much of what he penned.  
I was thinking about this today as I read a thread from the infamous Skinny Moose blog that had been forwarded to me–another misleading and jumbled piece about Echinococcus.  Here was yet another factually challenged blog post written expressly to foster fear of wolves and other predators.  Here too, when you read Tom Remington’s intolerance of facts and other opinions, is a perfect example of what Cooper’s character thought unacceptable and less than honest.  I would expect that Cooper personally or through his characters would also object to the effort of this site and others to paint wolves as dangerous and damaging forces in the wilderness.  This he would have thought of as the actions of an unschooled tyro scrambling around awkwardly in a world they feared and did not understand.  
 
Bobalee's great sin that catalyzed Tom Remington's rant was posting a letter from Mark Johnson DVM, who was part of the volunteer team that went to Canada to capture the last set of wolves that were released into Yellowstone and Idaho.  I was there on scene with Mark and he is one of the best and most responsible veterinarians I have ever worked with.  
 
The irony here is that many of these spreaders of wolf-myths such as Tom Remington likely think they are true woodsmen or aspire to be seen as modern-day Hawkeyes or Deerslayers without any true concept of what that actually entails or represents.  They should also understand that Natty—molded in Cooper’s hope for future Americans—was also tolerant of other people, ideas and religions.  Perhaps their fathers should have taken the time to expose them to these readings and moral lessons as mine did and his before him back seven generations.  

Posted by bob in Blog, Northern Rockies Wolves, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Feb15

More than a Mile of Dead Wolves Need Your Attention Now

by Bob Ferris

When I was in high school the Viet Nam conflict was still in full swing and so was the draft.  And as we neared graduation our guidance counselors had us take aptitude tests.  Invariably  all the aptitude test results for males—regardless of input—indicated a suitability for the military.  I think about it now, because as I look at actions and legislation coming out of many of the wolf-occupied states in the West, regardless of the complex, multi-layered conditions or scientific input implicating non-wolf causes for elk and other prey declines, we keep seeing the same answer: We need to kill more wolves faster.  
 
This becomes more pertinent as yet another study comes out on elk that indicates that what might be driving elk reproductive success and also winter survival is the quality of summer elk habitat.  This is almost painfully obvious as fat content in females drives reproductive success in mammals.  And if you are not well fed and fat when you go into winter, you are going to come out of winter literally skin and bones—and nothing else (i.e., dead).  
 
When we look at the factors effecting summer range in the above article we see a few mentioned but two critical ones are absent.  The first is climate change.  Prolonged draught has in some areas reduced the amount of grasslands and shortened the time that vegetation is green and most useful to elk (please see here and here).  This should not be surprising as we are seeing the same climate effects for agriculture.
 
I have heard that this green season has been shorted in some places as much as seven days which means roughly a 5-10% reduction.  This may not seem like much until you throw in the other factor: Cattle grazing.  Elk may very well be able to weather (sorry) this drop but not if they are already feeding on steeper slopes and in lower quality habitats because they have been displaced by cattle or their grasses have already been eaten by domestic sheep.
 
These important alternative hypotheses to the localized reductions in elk or other prey populations that are supported by research seem to be ignored by many decision makers, but they are by no means the only ones that contradict the mantra of the anti-wolf crowd. Other research, for instance, has talked about the long term impacts of too many ungulates (native, wild or both) on the habitat as well as the impacts of other predators—cougars, grizzlies and humans—playing a more important part in these declines.  Natural succession or the tendency for habitats to mature and become less ungulate-friendly as they transcend from grassy to brushy to forest has also been mentioned as an influence on elk populations.  But none of these factors or alternatives seem to enter into the debate when there is this easier management off-ramp in livestock industry-influenced legislations and wildlife agencies: Kill more wolves faster (KMWF).
 
Right now where this KMWF answer is most dominant—the Northern Rockies—we are losing nearly a wolf and half a day or more than one mile of wolves laid nose to tail over the last two years—at a minimum.  In the absence of science and restraint, the well intentioned delisting experiment in the Rockies is failing miserably, cruelly and embarrassingly.  And the whole world is watching.  
 
Because of the above and the opportunities to learn from this tragic mistake, Cascadia Wildlands and a host of other science-driven conservation organization are promoting a congressional colleague letter being circulated by Congressmen Peter DeFazio and Ed Markey.  The letter urges the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service Dan Ashe to listen to scientists and wildlife advocates who believe that federal protections for the wolf must be maintained in order to allow recolonizing wolves to reclaim viable habitats—mainly on federal lands—in the Pacific Northwest, California, the Southern Rockies and elsewhere.  They are currently collecting member signatures for this letter.
 
We all should continue to fight for wolves in the Northern Rockies and also urge our own congressional representatives to sign on to this letter.  Please ask them to stand up for wolves, science, and supporting the original intent of the Endangered Species Act.  Please click here to take action.

Posted by bob in Blog, Bring Back Wolves, California Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, Northern Rockies Wolves, Oregon Wolves, Uncategorized, Washington Wolves

23 Comments

Keep Reading →

Feb06

Quotes that Hurt the Mind

By Bob Ferris

“I’m sure most of the people being considered for his job graduated from a college,” he said. “These people are the cause of the destruction of wildlife.”  Cliff Gardner, 74, a rancher in Nevada’s remote Ruby Valley 

All of us who work with media look at quotes.  There are quotes that we like. There are quotes that make us jealous, because we wished they would have come from our mouths.  And there are the quotes that simply seem to hurt and you wince when you read them.  Mr. Gardner’s quote above in reference to candidates that might replace Ken Mayer as Director of Nevada’s Department of Wildlife is one of these latter quotes.

We at Cascadia Wildlands are often a little fuzzy about what actually constitutes Cascadia, but Nevada is certainly out of our geographic footprint.  That said, Mr. Mayer’s ouster and some of the rhetoric surrounding his dismissal are germane because they identify an anti-science, pro-habitat destruction mindset that is at the core of many of the problems we face with the restoration of wolves and reasoned management of other predators.

“What did Ken Mayer do? Nothing. Just habitat, habitat, habitat, which is a terrible thing for a person in his position to do,” he said. “You get instant results when you poison a raven or shoot a coyote.” Cecil Fredi, 74, president of a sportsmans’ group called Hunters Alert
 
Mr. Gardner and others would have us do three things.  First, they would have us completely ignore the myriad economic, environmental and social damages associated with the livestock industry.  Next they would have wildlife agencies act exactly like agricultural agencies.  And last, they would have us populate wildlife agencies with people who embrace predator-control wildlife management models that have been out of favor for decades. 
 
“Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math.” The 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment
 
As a wildlife scientist I am pained by these sentiments and as an American I am disappointed as well.  These statements speak of growing intolerance and put an exclamation point on surveys that indicate that the US has dropped considerably in math and science rankings.  The fight for wolves is as much a fight about science-based restoration as it is a fight against ignorance and fear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by bob in Blog, Home Page Hot Topic, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

we like it wild. Follow us Facebook Twiter RSS