my care2
make a difference

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

 
 
 Wolf News May 13, 2005 10:19 AM


69 new, 263 total167 total Kathleen W.
Gray-wolf releases could be postponed Monday, 9:04 AM
Gray-wolf releases could be postponed

Mary Jo Pitzl -- Arizona Republic, 05/07/2005


Wildlife officials want to hold off on Mexican gray-wolf introductions in eastern Arizona for a year, drawing criticism that the plan panders to ranchers.

"They've bent over backwards to accommodate these ranchers, who are ranching on public land," said Sandy Bahr, conservation director of the Grand Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club.

Wildlife officials don't deny that the moratorium was proposed to answer ranchers' complaints. But they said the one-year break would buy them valuable time to get a clearer count of how many wolves are in the wild, complete a recovery plan for the next five years and determine which practices are best for relocating wolves, among other things.

The term "moratorium" has stirred up unnecessary fears, said Terry Johnson, endangered-species coordinator at the Arizona Game and Fish Department and a member of the committee that oversees work to re-establish the endangered breed to healthy status.

The ban would apply only to captive wolves that have never been in the wild, and it would only affect releases in spring 2006, Johnson said.

However, the proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services envisions a ban from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006.

And that would set back recovery efforts for an entire crucial season, said Bahr and Bobbie Holaday, another Sierra Club member who has been deeply involved in the wolf program.

The wolf packs in Arizona and New Mexico need more genetic diversity, which would come from releasing new wolves into the wild, Holaday said.

"I hate to see it set back a year," she said, noting that the wolf population has been shrinking recently. State and federal wildlife officials estimate the current population at 45 to 50.

Ranchers paint a different picture, saying there could be as many as 100 wolves between the two states. Their concerns about the wolf program got a receptive ear with U.S. Rep. Stevan Pearce, R-N.M.,who convened a special meeting between ranchers and wildlife officials that resulted in the moratorium proposal.

The plan is open for public comment until May 31. A decision is due June 17.

Rancher Barbara Marks said a one-year pause would do little to alleviate her problems with the wolf population.

"It's really not going to have that much of an effect," said Marks, who ranches on 72,000 acres along the Blue River in eastern Arizona. "There haven't been that many new releases in the last year now."

Over the years, the ranch has lost calves and cattle due to wolves, although Marks said she can't definitively prove that.

For her, co-existence between wolf and man is not going to work because it never has.

"In history, we're supposed to learn from the past and not repeat it," she said. "In this case, it has not happened."
 [ send green star]

69 new, 263 total167 total Kathleen W.
 Monday, 9:06 AM
It really bothers me that people are so uneducated about wolves!  How do all of you feel?  [ send green star]

154 new, 197 total448 total Burton W.
kathleen Monday, 3:20 PM
 i agree with you   an i think if the majority of the people wh  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
N.C. Zoo Records Rare Birth Of Endangered Red Wolves May 13, 2005 10:51 AM


69 new, 263 total167 total Kathleen W.
N.C. Zoo Records Rare Birth Of Endangered Red Wolves Tuesday, 9:14 AM
N.C. Zoo Records Rare Birth Of Endangered Red Wolves

-- WXII 12 News (NC), 05/02/2005


ASHEBORO, N.C. -- For the fourth time in its history, the North Carolina Zoo has recorded the birth of one of North America's most endangered animals. Five red wolf pups were born at the zoo sometime early Friday, according to zoo officials.

The red wolf is considered the most endangered canine (member of the dog family) in North America. The zoo's new pups may eventually become part of an effort to reintroduce red wolves back into the wild, zoo officials said.

The pups, three males and two females, were born to an adult pair housed in an off-exhibit holding facility in the zoo's North American region. The mother is 3 years old and came to the zoo last December from the Oklahoma Zoo. The 4-year-old father arrived in Asheboro in September 2003 from Florida's Brevard Zoo.

Zoo officials said that, because the new pups may someday be candidates for reintroduction, they will remain off exhibit and will have only limited contact with zookeepers.

At one time, red wolves, cousins to the larger gray wolf, were thought to have roamed throughout the southeastern U.S. But by the late 1970's, their population had been diminished to less than a few dozen along the Texas-Louisiana border.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, fearing extinction of the species, captured the last remaining wild red wolves in 1980. With the cooperation of the American Zoo & Aquarium Association's Species Survival Plans, a captive-breeding program for the red wolf was established in zoos and their numbers have slowly recovered.
  [ send green star]

50 new, 50 total195 total Sharon H.
thanks Tuesday, 11:14 AM
Thank you for the info on the red wolves.  [ send green star] <input class="thSubmit  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 May 13, 2005 10:52 AM


154 new, 197 total448 total Burton W.
thanks kathleen Tuesday, 1:33 PM

it is good to hear of this good news thanks 

its to bad it had to come to that iam sure you would agree

 i know there safe in captivity  in a well kept zoo  an now days if there not there hunted to  or  near to extenchtion

thanks again for the good news at least the breed will live on

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Tests to reveal pups' parentage: Wolf-dog mix will mean euthanasia for animals May 13, 2005 10:54 AM

Tests to reveal pups' parentage: Wolf-dog mix will mean euthanasia for animals

Mary Jo Pitzl -- Arizona Republic, 05/12/2005


Are they dogs or wolf-dogs?

Wildlife officials want to know, and they've taken six pups from a den in eastern Arizona to determine their parentage.

If the 6-week-old animals are determined to be anything other than purebred Mexican wolves, they likely will be euthanized, said John Morgart, coordinator of the Mexican wolf recovery program for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"We're not in the business of producing hybrids," he said. "We want to keep the genetics pure."

The pups were captured Tuesday, and blood was drawn from the pups late Wednesday. The samples are being sent to a Fish and Wildlife forensic laboratory for analysis. Morgart said it would be weeks before results come back.

Morgart said wildlife officials examined the pups and are "very comfortable" that they are not dealing with purebred wolves.

The Mexican wolf is an endangered species that was reintroduced into eastern Arizona and western New Mexico seven years ago.

"They could be a feral-dog litter," he said. "But there is a chance they could be a wolf-dog mix. We don't know. We won't know until we get the genetic tests done . . . (but) they definitely don't look like purebred wolf pups."

This is the second time since the reintroduction began that wildlife officials suspect they are dealing with a hybrid litter.

Morgart would not disclose the location of the den where the pups were found, except to say it is outside the Blue Range recovery area specified in wolf-management guidelines.

Sandy Bahr, conservation director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter, said the suspicion of a wolf and dog mating shows the need to have more wolves in the wild to increase mating opportunities. Wildlife officials estimate there are 50 wolves between the two states.

Program officials earlier this year released a captive female wolf into the area in the hopes she would mate with a solo male wolf. However, that didn't happen. Wildlife officials aren't sure whether the released female is the mother of the six pups, although they noticed her setting up a den this spring.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Feds order lethal hunt for endangered wolf pack May 13, 2005 10:55 AM

Feds order lethal hunt for endangered wolf pack

Associated Press -- kvoa.com (AZ), 05/12/2005


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has ordered the killing of a pack of endangered Mexican gray wolves that has been preying on livestock in the Gila National Forest.

The Francisco pack has killed four animals in the past several weeks. Officials with the agency's wolf reintroduction program said field teams attempted to haze the wolves using noisemakers and rubber bullets following the first attack.

"Despite our best efforts these wolves continued to kill livestock and that is unacceptable," Southwest regional director H. Dale Hall said Wednesday. "Wolves that repeatedly depredate endanger the recovery of the species as a whole."

The agency issued an official "lethal take order" on Wednesday. But John Morgart, coordinator the wolf recovery program in the Southwest, said it's possible the animals could be trapped and kept permanently in captivity.

The recent killings by the Francisco Pack, coupled with the presence of the two-member Ring Pack, have heightened concern among ranchers in southwest New Mexico. Also, cattle in the Gila are calving and both mothers and calves are particularly vulnerable to wolf attacks.

Fish and Wildlife began a release program in March 1998 to re-establish wild populations of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico after the species had been hunted to the brink of extinction in the early 1900s. There are now about 50 wolves in the wild.

Wednesday marked the fourth time a kill order has been issued since the program started, but only two wolves have been shot to death. If executed, the latest kill order would be the first time an entire pack is eradicated.

"It's the way the system should work," said Snow Lake area rancher Alan Tackman, who owned one of the cows killed by the Francisco Pack.

Tackman said he doesn't necessarily favor killing the wolves but definitely wants to see them removed from the wild.

Craig Miller of Defenders of Wildlife in Tucson, Ariz., said greater collaboration is needed among ranchers, conservation groups and the agencies running the wolf program.

"It's tragic we've lost these wolves as a result of our inability to get along," he said.

Meanwhile, the wolf program field team has captured a litter of six pups that are likely wolf-dog hybrids. They were taken from a den in Arizona near where a lone female had been.

Genetic tests will be run to see if the pups are hybrids or feral dogs. Morgart said no decision has been made on what to do with the pups.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Governor intervenes in wolf controversy May 13, 2005 10:57 AM

Governor intervenes in wolf controversy

Cat Urbigkit -- Sublette Examiner, 05/12/2005


Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal sent a letter to the U.S. Interior Department, asking for the wolves found on a domestic sheep lambing ground near Farson to be relocated.

Freudenthal's letter referred to the presence the wolves as "the latest predicament," noting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had halted its efforts to capture and collar the animals.

"While I am very skeptical of the excuse for suspending the capture and collaring of the wolves, I believe that a better and more reasoned approach would recognize the inevitability that the wolves will become 'problem' wolves and will ultimately have to be removed," Freudenthal wrote. "In my view, it would be in the best interest of the wolves, the Service, producers and livestock to capture and not only collar, but relocate the wolves prior to their establishing a den."

Freudenthal continued: "To me, this is akin to small children playing at a railroad crossing. Peril is certainly in the absence of active supervision. This is a charge for the Service to be responsible and proactively manage wolves in a way that, in the end, will preclude fatal take of wolves and livestock depredation."

Freudenthal referred to the FWS removal of five wolves in the Daniel pack earlier this year when the animals repeatedly killed livestock, but added "wolf management is not relegated to such isolated and single decisions; rather it is an active and daily responsibility."

He continued: "As a result, in the absence of state-sanctioned wolf management, the people of the state of Wyoming must recurrently turn to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for day-to-day management of the species, including conflict mitigation. Thus, my correspondence."
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  May 13, 2005 10:59 AM

Conservation, Community & Tourism Groups Launch Red Wolf Awareness Campaign in Northeastern North Carolina

-- Defenders of Wildlife Press Release, 05/12/2005


May 12, 2005

Contacts:

Deborah Bagocius (DOW) 202.772.0239
Lauren Greene (RWC) 252.796.5600
Quinn Capps (OBV 877.298.4373

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE***RED WOLF COALITION***US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE***OUTER BANKS VISITORS BUREAU

CONSERVATION, COMMUNITY & TOURISM GROUPS LAUNCH
RED WOLF AWARENESS CAMPAIGN
IN NORTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA


Manteo, NC - To help launch the start of the summer tourist season, Defenders of Wildlife joined forces today with the Red Wolf Coalition, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau to expand the red wolf education campaign, a program aimed at heightening public awareness and increasing tourism in support of this beautiful, but critically endangered species. Starting today, tourists and residents should begin noticing signs and posters announcing the new red wolf information kiosks being placed at selected sites across the region. People will also have the chance to view an exhibit featuring a red wolf, a gray wolf and a coyote at the Outer Banks Welcome Center on Roanoke Island.

"It's without a doubt that a self-sustaining red wolf population benefits the entire region, particularly since this is the only place in the United States where the species can be found," stated Nina Fascione, Vice President of Species Conservation at Defenders of Wildlife. "We're excited that the public now has the opportunity to learn about the contributions these wolves provide, not only to the environment, but to the overall economic health of the area as well through nature tourism."

Currently there are approximately 100 wild red wolves, 64 of which are radio-collared. In 2004, 18 breeding pairs produced 55 pups. The goal of the Red Wolf Recovery Program is to maintain a wild population of roughly 200 animals and a captive population of roughly 330 animals.

"We believe strongly in the slogan, 'Endangered Means There's Still Time'," says Bud Fazio, Team Leader of the Red Wolf Recovery Program in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered status means there is still enough time to stabilize a species and pull it back away from the brink of extinction. The crew of field biologists managing red wolves deserve credit for a great deal of the successes seen in restoring and stabilizing the world's only wild red wolf population located right here in northeast North Carolina."

A recent report by Defenders of Wildlife found that a vibrant, healthy red wolf population, and in turn, the construction and completion of a Red Wolf Education Center highlighting the species' recovery efforts could pump millions of dollars into the local economy through ecotourism.

"Red wolves are an intricate part of this region's history, ecosystem and economic future," stated Neil Hutt, President of the Red Wolf Coalition. "As more and more people learn of the need to protect, conserve and respect these majestic animals, more will visit and see the value this species brings to North Carolina."

The red wolf kiosks are currently located at the North Carolina Department of Transportation rest stop on highway 64 in Plymouth, the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds in Tyrrell County, in Goose Creek State Park along Highway 264 and the Outer Banks Welcome Center on Roanoke Island.

"The exhibit of the red wolf, the gray wolf and the coyote will help the public understand the differences and similarities among these three species," stated Michael Morse, Wildlife Biologist for the Red Wolf Field Team. "Combined with the red wolf information kiosk, the display at the Welcome Center will reach thousands of people and add richness to their experience in this beautiful region."

"It is an honor and a privilege for the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau to provide a premier viewing area for all public to learn more about the Red Wolf and programs offered throughout Northeast North Carolina pertaining to restoring and stabilization of this endangered species." added Carolyn E. McCormick, Managing Director, Outer Banks Visitors Bureau.

Support for these projects was provided by the Alex C. Walker Educational and Charitable Foundation.

Get a copy of the full report by Defenders of Wildlife

###

Defenders of Wildlife is one of the nation's most progressive advocates for wildlife and habitat, and was named "Best Wildlife Charity" by Readers Digest in 2005. With nearly 1 million members, supporters and electronic advocates, Defenders is an effective voice for wildlife and
habitat.

The Red Wolf Coalition advocates for the long-term survival of red wolf populations by teaching about the red wolf and by fostering public involvement in red wolf conservation. It was officially founded in 1997 with the goal of serving as the hub of private support for the red wolf, thus providing the public with the first real opportunity to become involved in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Red Wolf Recovery Program.

The Outer Banks Welcome Center on Roanoke Island is operated by The Outer Banks Visitors Bureau. This conveniently located center is a service for travelers who may need any kind of information, assistance or just a relaxing place to take a break from the road. State-of-the-art touch screen kiosks dispense customized information on the area's accommodations, restaurants, events and activities.

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous continued... May 13, 2005 10:59 AM

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 63 Fish and Wildlife Management offices and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  May 17, 2005 12:02 PM

Wolf killed in upstate New York probably once captive

Associated Press -- www.wstm.com (NBC 3, NY), 05/15/2005


STERLING, N.Y. The 99-pound canine shot by an upstate man last month has been identified as a wolf, but a pathologist says it probably was once in captivity.

John Yuhas awoke April 12th to find the wolf attacking and killing his dog outside in the town of Sterling, about 32 miles northwest of Syracuse.Wolves are believed to have been exterminated from the wilds of New York state a century ago.After examining the carcass, state wildlife pathologist Ward Stone tells the Post-Standard said it was a wolf, though D-N-A samples will be tested to confirm that. It also had heartworms and was a little chubby.Says Stone -- quote -- "It appears to have had recent experience with captivity."
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Pups believed to be wolf-dog hybrids are euthanized May 17, 2005 12:03 PM

Pups believed to be wolf-dog hybrids are euthanized

Mary Jo Pitzl -- Arizona Republic, 05/14/2005


Six pups that wildlife officials believe to be wolf-dog hybrids were euthanized late this week, several days after they were removed from their den in eastern Arizona.

John Morgart, coordinator of the Mexican gray-wolf recovery project for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the pups' physical appearance made it clear they were not purebred wolves.

The recovery program aims to restore the endangered wolf population, not create a hybrid population, Morgart said, adding that the agency is authorized by federal law to euthanize hybrid pups.

Blood samples drawn from the pups Wednesday are being analyzed to determine their parentage. The results are not expected for weeks.

  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Wolves kill 11 more Paradise Valley sheep May 17, 2005 12:06 PM

Wolves kill 11 more Paradise Valley sheep

Paula Clawson -- Livingston Enterprise, 05/13/2005


Bob Weber is running out of wolf food.

That’s how the Paradise Valley sheep rancher feels after losing 11 animals to wolves late Wednesday night, May 11.

“This is the fifth strike I’ve had in a year-and-a-half and I’m not growing them fast enough to replace them. I’m going to run out of wolf feed soon,” Weber said Friday morning, May 13.

The slaughtered sheep included four ewes who had their milk sacks and hind quarters ripped out, and seven lambs.

“All they were doing was eating the bags out of them. They wouldn’t even kill them,” Weber said.

He had to put some of the injured animals down after the wolf attacks.

In past attacks, which occurred outside lambing season, the ewes were dry of milk and the wolves broke their necks and ate their livers and lungs, Weber said.

Weber lives about 12 miles south of Livingston on Old Yellowstone Trail.

He puts the sheep and lambs into a fenced-in, four-and-a-half-acre enclosure built in November by Defenders of the Wildlife, a nonprofit group that compensates ranchers for livestock lost to wolves.

But Wednesday night, May 11, Weber left a small gate open.

“The contract I have with the Defenders of Wildlife is that when I am notified or have a depredation I am required to put them in this pen,” Weber said. “I have been putting them in for the past few days to get them used to it. (Wednesday, May 11) I didn’t get around to closing a gate in the corner.”

Weber herds the sheep through the main gate each evening, but keeps the corner gate open until the work is done so he can chase stray lambs in that way if needed.

He wasn’t sure at first if wolves or a grizzly bear had gotten into the enclosure, which held about 90 ewes and 150 lambs. A state trapper who came out Thursday, May 12, to try to find the wolves found where a sheep had been driven into the fence and there were wolf tracks and blood around.

The Lone Bear wolf pack had been involved in the first four attacks on Weber’s sheep and the pack was destroyed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service late last year.

“My guess is this was a yearling lone wolf who is inexperienced,” said Ed Bangs, USFWS wolf recovery coordinator. “He probably was overly excited — killing, grabbing, biting — but was not very successful killing the ewes.”

Weber said the trapper spotted a wolf above his ranch Thursday, May 12, but was not able to shoot it without permission from a state or federal official.

“He was on his cell phone trying to get permission, but by the time he got it the wolf had moved. They don’t just sit around waiting for you,” Weber said.

Bangs said traps have been set for wolves.

“You know, for all this depredation, I’ve never seen a live wolf in my life,” Weber said.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous 4th public meeting held: Wolf debated May 17, 2005 12:09 PM

4th public meeting held: Wolf debated

Scott Swanson -- Mining Journal (MI), 05/15/2005


MARQUETTE - Many local sportsmen feel the Michigan Department of Natural Resources should implement a regulated hunting season for wolves, should it receive jurisdiction from the federal government.

The DNR held the fourth of 10 meetings on wolf management at the Northwoods Supper Club Saturday afternoon. About 25 people attended.

"The issue here is lack of management," said meeting attendee John Hongisto of Deerton. "The wolf population keeps expanding every year and people are rightfully concerned."

In January, a federal District Court in Oregon withdrew a 2003 federal decision that had reclassified gray wolves from endangered to threatened throughout most of the United States.

Due to the change, wolf management actions became more restrictive and the state lost its legal authority to use lethal means to control wolves.

Recently, wildlife agencies in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin sent a unified letter to the federal government requesting the delisting of the wolf in the Great Lakes region.

Meeting attendee George Lindquist of Negaunee concurred that wolf management is needed, and recommended that the wolf be listed as a big game animal with a kill quota and a hunting season running from Jan. 1 through March.

"Close the season when the quota is met," Lindquist said.

Attendee Bill Hager said he saw three or four wolves in the '70s and 80s, compared to 60-70 from the '90s on. Hager said a wolf hunting season would instill a fear in wolves that has dissipated over the years.

"Wolves that I see now, particularly collared wolves, don't seem to have that same fear, same wariness of man," he said. "That bothers me in terms of children, dogs, pets ..."


ROELL
While most people who attended the meeting did not have a problem with having some wolves in the region, they felt the animal's rising population is affecting the area's deer population and creating safety concerns.

According to statistics from the DNR, about 400 wolves reside in the U.P. A healthy adult wolf will take 20 deer per year, or 7,200 overall - representing 5 percent of the U.P.'s deer mortality rate. Hunters harvest about 62,000 deer, or 47 percent of those who die; over-winter stress takes 54,000, or 41 percent, and vehicles kill 8,600, or 7 percent. The DNR estimates the U.P.'s deer population at 390,000.

Hager questioned those numbers.

"You're seeing a heck of a lot less deer and a heck of a lot more wolves," he said. "Those numbers don't seem to jive."

Lindquist said that wolves may consume the equivalent of 20 deer per year, but kill many more.

"I think there's a big difference there," he said.

Kathy Wright attended the meeting as a National Wildlife Federation volunteer. She encouraged the DNR to educate residents on how to better coexist with wolves, increase efforts to prevent illegal wolf killings and fund wolf conservation partner groups to assist in wolf education.

"We need a balance to be kept in check," she said. "Predators are part of that process."

Each attendee had two minutes to express their opinion. As they spoke, meeting facilitator Becky Christianson of Michigan Technological University took notes on large sheets of paper before posting them on the walls of the room.

After the meetings are completed this month, the information gathered will be worked into a reference paper written by DNR officials, DNR wolf coordinator Brian Roell said. That paper will be passed on to a roundtable committee consisting of DNR officials and citizens, whose goal will be to create a set of guiding principles for Michigan wolf management.

The DNR will revise the guidelines and offer them up for public review, hopefully by January 2007, Roell said. Implementation will depend on the level of jurisdiction granted to the state by the federal government, he said.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
thanks kathleen May 17, 2005 2:25 PM

thank you for bringing this hear,

it upsets me that the answer is always kill them way cant thay say lets fix them so thay cant have babbys an relacate them its always kill them  there afraid of the pitbull  but its the owner that trains it there afraid of the rotty but again it the owner  but the gov,an other people have always ben afraid of anything free like the wolf or the wolf dog there not owend there free so lets kill them ITS WRONG TO KILL but the gov dont see it like that,,, sorry kathleen  thanks for the post ,, i wish  thay would all just try to understand

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous  May 17, 2005 5:11 PM

Burton, I feel the same way!  I was very upset when I read these news bits!  I'd much post happy news!  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Wolf group seeks to find balance on hostile issue: The panel will pitch its plan statewide starting May 19, 2005 5:15 AM

Wolf group seeks to find balance on hostile issue: The panel will pitch its plan statewide starting this week

Joe Baird -- Salt Lake Tribune, 05/16/2005


Utah's wolf management plan is going on the road this week, and the task force responsible for its creation is more than a little curious about how it will be received. Apprehensive, too.

After a year and a half of work, the 13-member wolf working group - a collection of wolf advocates, sportsmen and ranchers - has produced the draft of a plan that sought to strike a balance between competing interests. In other words, how to manage and protect the wolves as they migrate into Utah while preventing livestock depredation and compensating ranchers whose animals fall prey to wolves.

"The plan is pretty reasonable," says Kevin Bunnell, mammals program coordinator for the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). "There was a lot of give and take that took place. Everybody had issues. Not everybody is completely comfortable with it. But what we've got is a plan that's down the middle of the road. It's a pretty good compromise."

The wolf working group began meeting in 2003, after the Legislature passed a joint resolution authorizing the creation of a state wolf management plan as a prelude to the expected removal of wolves from the federal government's endangered species list - a move that would shift wolf oversight to the states.

It is anticipated that wolves will begin trickling into Utah during the coming years from the greater Yellowstone area, now home to more than 700 wolves. State wildlife officials doubt that wolves will settle here in large enough numbers to form packs, but there are those who oppose the return of the wolf in any numbers.

And with the 11th-hour defection of one of the wolf working group's members - Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife founder Don Peay - the proposal could face a rocky reception this week when it is unveiled at a series of Regional Advisory Council meetings around the state.

Peay dropped out of the wolf working group following an April 12 meeting in which he failed to muster support for additions to the plan. One would mandate compensation for hunting vendors who Peay argues will suffer because of big game killed by wolves. Another would allow private landowners to shoot wolves on sight; under the current plan they can only shoot if wolves are caught killing livestock.

Without those stipulations, Peay says it is impossible for his organization to support the plan. And he expects Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife members to come out in force at the meetings to oppose the current proposal.

"We're just asking that the items the Legislature requested be put into the plan," says Peay. The joint resolution "called for protection of the investments made by sportsmen and the hunting industry, which means we're not going to accept any plan that calls for a decrease in hunting opportunities."

Peay says he lobbied for his additions from the start, but Bunnell calls the Sportsmen leader's about-face "disingenuous," given his initial acceptance of the wolf group's ground rules - which called for 11 of 13 votes to pass any measure - and the group's long participation in the process.

"Many members of the group were very frustrated over the fact that he issued what amounted to an ultimatum at the final hour," says Bunnell.

Still, disagreements remain even within the group's current configuration. Ranchers and wolf advocates are still struggling to define what constitutes the harassment of livestock by wolves. And there remain disagreements over ranchers being able to shoot wolves on public lands where they own grazing permits.

"If a wolf is howling a quarter-mile away and sheep start milling about, is that harassment?" says Kirk Robinson, a spokesman for the Utah Wolf Forum and a wolf working group member. "Most in the working group think that's going too far, for the simple reason that it's public land, wolves are a native species and a healthy species for the ecosystem."

Nevertheless, those figure to be hot topics for the Regional Advisory Councils, which will forward their recommendations to the Utah Wildlife Board. And Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, which is influential in wildlife management circles, could bring even more pressure to bear.

But Bunnell is cautiously optimistic that the wolf plan will prevail in something close to its existing form.

"People need to understand that there are real advantages to having a plan similar to other states'," he says. "From the DWR standpoint, our main goal, and the goal of the Legislature, is to move management authority of wolves to the state as soon as possible. I think the plan we have right now will facilitate that transfer. It could be a long time in coming, but it will come sooner if we have a reasonable plan in place."

Wolf management meeting schedule
* Tuesday: Beaver High School, 195 E. Center St., Beaver, 7 p.m.

* Wednesday: John Wesley Powell Museum, 885 E. Main St., Green River, 6:30 p.m.

* Thursday: Uintah Basin Applied Technology College, 1100 E. Lagoon St., Roosevelt, 6:30 p.m.

* May 24: Springville Junior High School, 165 S. 700 East, Springville, 6:30 p.m.

* May 25: Brigham City Community Center, 24 N. 300 West, Brigham City, 6 p.m.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Wolf bill stirs controversy at Capitol May 19, 2005 5:16 AM

Wolf bill stirs controversy at Capitol

Mitch Lies -- East Oregonian, 05/16/2005


An executive of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association wants to “amend the hell out of it or kill it.”

Wolf conservationists oppose it, but for different reasons. They want wolf protections strengthened.

House Republicans, meanwhile, said the bill falls short of addressing ranchers’ concerns.

No question, Oregon wildlife officials stirred up controversy at the Capitol last week when they introduced a wolf bill based on a management plan developed by a state wolf advisory committee and adopted earlier this year by the state Wildlife Commission.

House Bill 3478 restricts ranchers from killing wolves and calls for the state to set aside $200,000 to compensate ranchers for losses.

“(The bill) has a lot of problems,” said Rep. Patti Smith, R-Corbett, chair of the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. “The committee has some grave concerns and we’re just going to have to address those concerns.”

The Agriculture Committee was scheduled to hear testimony on the bill this week.

Glen Stonebrink of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association said ranchers are disappointed in several aspects of the bill, including restrictions on defending livestock from wolf predation.

“You’ll never be able to defend your livestock under the rules that have been written,” he said.

Meanwhile, Amaroq Weiss, a conservation director for Defenders of Wildlife, said the bill does not reflect the commission-adopted wolf management plan and gives ranchers too much discretion to kill, or take, wolves.

Weiss said the bill should place more emphasis on promoting nonlethal methods of preventing wolf predation.

State officials are seeking to advance a wolf conservation and management plan in anticipation that wolves will migrate to Oregon from Idaho. To date, there is no confirmation that wolves are in Oregon, although wildlife officials believe some already inhabit the state.

If it were enacted today, the state plan would be superseded by federal law, which prohibits taking wolves unless human safety is in danger. Wolves are listed as endangered under state and federal law. State officials anticipate a downlisting at the federal level in the next few years.

Under the bill wildlife officials aired last week, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is given authority to declare the gray wolf a special status animal. The declaration would give livestock owners the ability to take a wolf only if it was attacking livestock — a restriction that Stonebrink said prohibits a rancher from protecting livestock.

“You have to have someone standing right there watching the attack, and then you have to get a permit before you can take a wolf,” he said.

Craig Ely, the state’s special projects coordinator for the Oregon wolf plan, said Stonebrink’s claim isn’t entirely true. On public lands, ranchers will need a permit to take wolves under Phase 1 of the conservation and management plan, he said. Wolves harming livestock on private lands, however, are subject to shooting without a permit.

Under Phase 2 of the plan, which kicks in if Oregon delists wolf populations, no permits are required for takings on private or public lands.

Under the plan, the state can delist the gray wolf when populations reach four breeding pairs or between 38 to 48 wolves.

Weiss, meanwhile, said the bill deviates from the state’s wolf conservation and management plan, which stipulates that ranchers can take wolves only if “caught in the act of biting, wounding or killing.” The bill eases the restrictions, she said, by stipulating that ranchers can take wolves if the animals are “causing harm” to livestock.

“That’s subject to really broad interpretations,” she said, and gives ranchers too much discretion.

Stonebrink believes the exact opposite, saying the bill stresses preventive measures over monetary compensation for wolf predation.

“They are going to ask you to change your management techniques to accommodate the wolf,” he said. “We want to see a valid compensation program.”
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous continued... May 19, 2005 5:20 AM

Roell said the DNR's best estimate of current wolf numbers across the entire Upper Peninsula is about 400 animals. He said no documented evidence has been found that wolves have crossed the Straits of Mackinac in numbers sufficient to reproduce.

He suggested the ideal number of gray wolves for the Upper Peninsula may not be the carrying capacity of the land but rather the limit of human tolerance for the predator species.
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Wolf emergence unpopular with Cisler Center crowd May 19, 2005 5:21 AM

Wolf emergence unpopular with Cisler Center crowd

Jack Storey -- Sault Ste. Marie Evening News, 05/16/2005


SAULT STE. MARIE - Opinion ran heavily against continued protection for the gray wolf in the fifth of 10 regional "wolf management" meetings held Friday at Cisler Center.

In a two-hour session about 100 people packed a Crow's Nest meeting room to voice opinion that strongly opposed the re-emerging gray wolf population of the Upper Peninsula.

Of some 67 "issues" voiced by the crowd and carefully recorded by a team of Department of Natural Resources (DNR) officials, all but a dozen or so appeared to favor some manner of wolf control. A number of livestock owners present complained that wolves are taking farm animals but proving the depredation is difficult or impossible. Livestock owners also complained that DNR response to reported wolf depredation is often sketchy, leaving farmers in the dark.

Compensation for livestock lost to gray wolves was a recurrent theme running through several "issues" cited for the DNR team, as were several comments framed as "issues" on the cost of DNR wolf studies.

Another theme that showed up a number of times during an evening of collecting wolf "issues" was rural resentment of "urban" people who support protecting wolves in the north woods.

"Urban people want predators and raptors in the rural areas but they don't want them in the cities," one man said. Another suggested trapping Upper Peninsula wolves and shipping them to the south as a cure for a rising rate of car-deer collisions.

One man, a taxidermist, said his business is an issue. He said his trade in stuffed deer heads declined from 100 two years ago to 11 last year, appearing to blame the estimated 400 gray wolves in the U.P. for the decline.

Another said he wants protection and compensation for hunting dogs he said were "torn up" by a gray wolf they encountered.

Several times in the extended session, the cost of DNR wolf surveys and studies arose. A number of questioners asked the cost of the studies. Others questioned the source of funding for the ongoing studies.

One man said he does not want his tax money or his fishing and hunting license fees used to study the gray wolf. Another suggested a kind of outdoors fee on mushroom pickers, photographers and hikers, saying hunters are the only class of state land users who pay for the privilege.

"What's worth more to Michigan's economy, deer or wolves," another man asked. "What do we need 'em for?" asked another, man, smiling at his neighbors.

While the apparent majority at Friday's session appeared to favor strict controls or extermination of the gray wolf in the Upper Peninsula, a contrary view was expressed by a few people present at the session.

One woman called for tolerance of the natural return of the gray wolf. She asked what livestock owners are doing to discourage wolf depredation. Another questioned whether reported wolf attacks on animals were native wolves or dog-wolf hybrids or feral dogs.

She urged consideration of non-lethal methods to protect livestock herds.

While a number in the audience appeared to attribute a reported decline in the U.P. deer herd to gray wolves, others questioned the connection. "If there were five million deer in Michigan the sportsmen would still be complaining," a man said.

Another questioned why only suspected livestock losses to wolves was raised as an issue. "What about crop farmers? We don't hear from them," he said.

To a handful of people who voiced fear of wolf attacks on humans, a man demanded a count on the number of such attacks. A detractor said his "Google search" turned up a report of a black man killed by wolves in Canada in 1989.

If opposing views on the re-emergent wolf was obvious from the dozens of issues cited, all sides appeared to agree that a procedure for controlling wolves who destroy livestock must be found. To a lesser extent, audience members seemed to favor a means of compensation for legitimate wolf-induced livestock losses.

A handful of speakers favored a Michigan copy of Minnesota laws allowing state compensation for wolf losses.

On the other hand one man's question on the compensation question had no ready answer. "Who's going to pay?" he asked.

A handful of speakers favored moving gray wolves elsewhere. One said pups should be sent to Maine, where wolf numbers are low. Another suggested tranquilization for transport to lower Michigan, to reduce car-deer collisions and deer-based disease there.

The many issues and remedies collected and dutifully recorded by the DNR staff members at the two-hour session eventually surrounded half the meeting room with large-size paper sheets. Those sheets, along with similar records from nine other similar sessions around the state will be used by a DNR "roundtable" on the gray wolf, expected to produce a "wolf management plan" by early 2007.

DNR wolf coordinator Brian Roell introduced the session with a brief recap of Michigan's checkered history with gray wolf control. Contrary to persistent charges that the DNR "planted" the current population of wolves in the Upper Peninsula, Roell said the one attempt to import four gray wolves in 1974 was an abject failure.

He said after a heavy growth spurt about a decade ago, increases in the resident population of wolves in the Upper Peninsula has since slowed steadily, as reflected in yearly pup production.

  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
kathleen May 19, 2005 6:15 PM

please if you can get me some phone  numbers an contact names on thease issues even if its just on your post of the wolves kill 11 sheep theres a name in there i reconize,,,bob weber,,,  i know this man frome my past an i might be abel to get more info to help, he's a cusen of mine

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous State's wolf population up to 425 in 2005 May 22, 2005 6:34 PM

State's wolf population up to 425 in 2005

-- Sawyer County Record, 05/19/2005


PARK FALLS––The estimated number of gray wolves in Wisconsin through the late winter of 2005 was 425 to 455, up about 14 percent from the estimate of 373 to 410 for the same time a year ago, according to state wildlife officials.

There were a total of 108 packs and 14 lone wolves documented in the state, mainly distributed in northern and central forest portions of Wisconsin. The pack count was the same at 108 last year.

The state Department of Natural Resources recently completed the winter population estimate, which is based on aerial surveys tracking 35 packs with radio-collared wolves, along with thousands of miles of snow track surveys by DNR trackers and volunteers, and a collection of reports of wolf observations by the general public.

The DNR has conducted the annual survey since the winter 1979-1980, and this was the 10th year of using trained volunteer trackers.

The goal for the state wolf population set in the 1999 Wolf Management Plan was 350 wolves in the state outside Indian reservations. The recent count included 414 to 442 wolves outside of Indian reservations (11 to 13 wolves occurred on reservation), thus the population is 64 to 92 wolves above the state goal.

This estimate does not include any wolf pups that will be born this spring. Wolves are currently at den sites and wolf pups are usually born in April. Packs usually average five to six pups per breeding female in the spring, but often fewer than 30 percent of the pups survive to the end of their first winter.

“Because wolves are still listed as endangered by the federal government, the only controls on the wolf population available to us are lethal control on wolves that are verified depredators on domestic animals by DNR or U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services,” said Adrian Wydeven, a DNR mammalian ecologist.

Wolves were listed as a state endangered species in 1975, when wolves from Minnesota began to move back into Wisconsin, after having been absent from the state for 15 years. The wolf population grew gradually, and in 1980 there were about 25 wolves in the state, but declined to only 15 in 1985 due to disease.

“Since 1985, the wolf population has seen a steady increase, averaging 20 percent annual growth through 1990s and into early 2000. In the last few years the rate of growth has declined, and the lack of increase in packs indicates that the spread of the wolf population may be starting to slow down,” Wydeven said.

Wolves were reclassified as a state threatened species in Wisconsin in 1999, and on August 1, 2004, were removed from the state list of threatened and endangered wildlife and listed as Protected Wild Animals.

The federal government also downlisted wolves to a threatened status in 2003, which gave the state of Wisconsin greater authority in managing wolves. In summer 2004, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, indicated the start of a process to delist wolves in Wisconsin and other portions of eastern US, with intent to complete the process by summer 2005.

Delisting would have returned all management authority on wolves to the State of Wisconsin. A federal judge’s decision in Oregon on Jan. 31, 2005 reversed the earlier classification to threatened, and re-listed wolves as endangered in Wisconsin and other states. The judicial decision also put the whole federal delisting effort on hold.

With the growth of Wisconsin’s wolf population, depredation on livestock in the state has also increased. In 2002 wolves depredated on livestock on eight farms, in 2003 on 14 farms, and in 2004 on 22 farms.

The threatened classification in 2003 and 2004 allowed DNR and USDA-Wildlife Service to euthanize wolves that had killed domestic animals. Lethal control was used on 17 wolves in 2003 and 24 in 2004.

“The fact that there was a 14 percent increase in the population is a clear indication that limited lethal control of depredating wolves hasn't had an adverse impact on recovery of Wisconsin's wolf population,” said Ron Refsnider, Midwest wolf recovery coordinator for USFWS. “It also shows that the recent issuance of a permit to the DNR to conduct similar control actions is appropriate under the Endangered Species Act.”

Because wolves are now again listed as endangered, the DNR recently obtained a special permit for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct some limited lethal control on wolves that are verified as depredators on livestock.

Officials from the Wisconsin DNR, as well as Michigan and Minnesota DNR are appealing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to resume the delisting effort for the three Great Lakes states, and return full management to the states within the near future.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Plan to let ranchers shoot wolves clashes with state laws May 22, 2005 6:36 PM

Plan to let ranchers shoot wolves clashes with state laws

Associated Press -- KATU TV (www.katu.com), 05/19/2005


SALEM, Ore. - Both wolf supporters and opponents are critical of a House bill that attempts to put the state's strategy for dealing with wolves into law.

A wolf plan was crafted last year by a citizens panel and approved in February by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. But the Legislature must change state laws for it to work.

The plan calls for allowing ranchers to shoot wolves attacking livestock, but Oregon's state Endangered Species Act does not permit that. The blueprint also includes a program to compensate people who lose livestock to wolves. Lawmakers would need to establish the fund and provide money for it.

The proposed bill includes those changes, but it has other flaws, the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources was told this week.

Ranchers said the bill puts too many limits on compensation and tries to force them to change their practices to prevent problems with wolves.

"Why must ranchers change their grazing programs to accommodate wolves?" asked Glen Stonebrink of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association.

Environmental activists contend the bill makes it too easy to kill wolves.

Rep. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, said the divisiveness over the bill caught him off guard, given the long process to develop a state plan.

He said creating a compensation plan would be a major step for the Legislature, because it could lead to requests for compensation for damage by other wildlife.

Rep. Patti Smith, R-Corbett, who chairs the committee, said she would poll other lawmakers on the panel to determine if they want to move the bill forward.

Wolves are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, which remains in force even if the bill passes. A state strategy, however, could help Oregon convince the federal government that the state is prepared to handle wolves on its own, said Lindsay Ball, director of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  May 22, 2005 6:38 PM

I'll try to do more research to get phone numbers and stuff reguarding these news posts!   [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  May 27, 2005 5:58 AM

Technology Leads To Wolf Breeding Success At Wild Canid Center

Associated Press -- www.ksdk.com, 05/23/2005


ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Wildlife officials are calling a new wolf-breeding procedure a howling success.

Two artificially inseminated Mexican gray wolves recently have birthed a combined eight living pups at the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, southwest of St. Louis. It marks perhaps the first time non-surgical artificial insemination has worked with endangered wolves.

Officials say that the breakthrough may enable noninvasive fertilization of female wolves in the wild, no longer requiring them to be caged or disruptively brought in for insemination.

The mothers and pups are doing well.

The research site was founded by late naturalist Marlin Perkins. The center is part of a federal program to restore the Mexican gray wolf, the continent's rarest, most genetically distinct subspecies of gray wolf.

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous continued... May 27, 2005 6:05 AM

Counts are based on observations, either from telemetry flights or from reliable eyewitness accounts on the ground.

Laudon says new packs do not escape detection for long, and people commonly underestimate how far wolves can range.

"People can see tracks all over the place, but they're not used to the fact of how much wolves travel and how big their home ranges are," Laudon said.

Some packs are cohesive, but others can routinely fragment and later regroup. The numbers in a pack can be highly fluid. The Fishtrap Pack's official population estimate as of last December, for example, was five animals. But in February, the pack was estimated at eight or nine animals.

Some packs can be extremely elusive, even if they have wolves wearing radio collars.

Radio collars in two packs -- the Red Shale and Great Bear packs -- that were roaming in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex have not been heard since the end of March 2004. Both packs had enormous home ranges and Laudon believes that's played a part in problems locating them.

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous continued... May 27, 2005 6:06 AM

But Laudon studies their locations. In less than a week, he goes on to trap two wolves in the Murphy Lake Pack, fitting them with radio collars.

The first wolf to be captured already had a collar that Laudon replaced.

"I was a couple hundred yards from the den, and I'm kicking up whitetails," Laudon said. "If anything, I think right around the den area the deer would be dispersed somewhat."

Laudon and other wolf watchers say the abundance of whitetails has played a huge role in the relatively low incidences of livestock kills.

But that comes as no comfort to many hunters who contend that wolves have put a big dent in game populations.

Jim Williams, wildlife manager for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in the northwestern part of the state, says he hears plenty of complaints from hunters. But all of his game check station and aerial survey numbers point to strong whitetail populations, largely because of six straight mild winters. Whitetails are far and away the main prey for wolves and other predators in Northwest Montana, Williams said.

"Frankly, it's a whitetail system, and that's the biggest difference between here and those other areas," Williams said, referring to the Greater Yellowstone and Idaho wildlands populated by wolves.

Wolves do have impacts on whitetail populations, usually in specific areas, but they do not drive whitetail population trends.

"Typically, predators don't drive prey species. It's typically the other way around," he said.

But Williams said he and the state's biologists do have concerns about potential impacts of wolves on moose, which have smaller populations in more concentrated areas.

While livestock depredations attributed to wolves have been relatively scarce in recent years, there is a substantial history of cattle-killing wolf packs in Northwest Montana. Most notably, wolves took out 17 head of cattle and 30 sheep during the months that followed the severe winter of 1996-97.

Deep and long-lasting snow was devastating to wildlife, wiping out an estimated 50 percent of the whitetail population across Northwest Montana.

The wolves had a "textbook" reaction to the sudden decline in available game, Laudon says. As a result of the depredation incidents, seven wolves were relocated that year and 13 were destroyed.

But even after several years of relatively light depredation problems, Laudon says packs in close proximity to livestock are always cause for questions and concerns.

That's especially true when summer comes and cattle are turned out onto large grazing leases, raising the potential for unconfirmed wolf kills.

"All you are left with is a question mark," Laudon said.

Wolves in Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone inhabit much larger swaths of remote areas, but there is also a good mix of open prairie that is suitable for large livestock operations, Bangs said. Western Montana, by contrast, has rugged country with thick vegetation and considerably less livestock.

And there are far fewer sheep grazing in Northwest Montana.

Sheep, Bangs said, are extremely easy prey not only for wolves, but also for coyotes, mountain lions, even eagles.

Despite the abundant populations of white-tailed deer in Northwest Montana, the region's wolf populations have remained relatively low for years,

"This year, our estimate of wolves was 835 wolves (throughout Idaho, Wyoming and Montana) and only 59 of those are in Western Montana," Bangs said. "The vast majority of wolves are in Yellowstone and western Idaho, where there are huge blocks of contiguous public land."

Western Montana wolf populations have remained relatively small and highly dynamic, fluctuating from year to year. Some years packs don't den and there aren't pups, and when there are pups some leave the pack.

Sieler said he and other ranchers he knows are certain there are more wolves than are reflected in the official counts.

"I know what I see and I know what other ranchers are seeing," he said. "I've taken a snowcat out in the hills and just about anywhere you can find tracks."

Laudon says that is a common perception, and he readily concedes that his efforts certainly don't account for every wolf on the landscape.

"We just try not to get into guessing" about wolf populations, he said. "And we try to stick with what we know."
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous continued... May 27, 2005 6:07 AM

Many ranchers contend the statistics don't match reality.

For Elmer "Mick" Sieler, the official stats on the Wolf Prairie pack in "no way, no shape, no form" represent the pack's impacts on his herd in the Wolf Creek area north of Pleasant Valley.

"You've got to have solid evidence that they did the killing," he said. "But when everything gets eaten, like wolves usually do, there's no evidence left."

A U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services agent investigated the probable calf kill earlier this year on Sieler's ranch. The veteran agent determined that there was no way to confirm what had killed the calf, Sieler said.

After he turned his cattle out to graze last fall, his head count came up six short. "I feel I lost six calves last fall after I turned them out," he said. "I had an old cow they killed and ate, but that's just impossible to prove."

The burden of proof can be stiff, but Laudon says that suspicions aren't ignored. If it there is circumstantial evidence that a pack is getting into livestock, the suspect pack is watched closely, which is the case with the Wolf Prairie Pack.

Laudon set up Sieler with a noise-making "raid box" that is triggered by the approach of wolves that are wearing radio collars.

"This raid box sounds like a helicopter in Vietnam with a bunch of shotguns going off," Sieler said.

Laudon, he said, "has tried to work with me. He's been the best of the bunch."

But the constant presence of wolves has Sieler, who is semi-retired and running a relatively small herd, considering getting out of cattle altogether.

"Baby-sitting a cow is bad enough without having to baby-sit wolves," he said.

The flight proceeds to extreme Northwest Montana, where one wolf has been collared in the Candy Mountain Pack, which had three animals as of last December. On this flight, however, the signal can't be picked up, demonstrating the often sketchy nature of keeping up with wolves.

With special clearance, Hoerner crosses 20 miles north of the Canadian border, looking for the Kootenai Pack, which denned in Montana last year and was therefore included in the Western Montana wolf count. Hoerner homes in on a signal coming from a treeline next to a meadow where there are frolicking deer and, not too far away, more cattle.

If it appears the transboundary pack dens in Canada this year, its members won't be counted as Western Montana wolves. Laudon has already notified a Canadian biologist of their whereabouts.

Last on the flight are the Lazy Creek and Murphy Lake packs north of Whitefish. It's after noon and the collared wolves are bedded down in the shade, out of sight from the circling airplane.
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  May 27, 2005 6:08 AM

Northwest Montana wolves well-behaved

Jim Mann -- Daily Inter Lake, 05/22/2005


The wolf is hidden in a thicket of timber far west of Polson, and no more than 200 yards away is a mother bison with a calf. The bison are not wild -- they are livestock. Within a radius of no more than two miles is another collared wolf, two large clusters of bison and a single elk.

The collared wolves of the Hog Heaven Pack, and all other wolves located on a recent morning flight, have obvious choices in front of them: livestock or wild game.

And for several years now, the packs of Western Montana have shown a strong preference for fleet white-tailed deer over plodding cattle or bison.

Compared to the far more numerous and often-reported livestock depredations carried out by wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Area and Idaho, Western Montana wolves have been keeping a low profile.

"It's kind of surprising to people that most wolves are around livestock every day of their lives and they kind of choose not to attack them," said Ed Bangs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's gray wolf recovery coordinator. "Given the unlimited opportunities for wolves to chase
livestock, it's kind of surprising, even to us who work with them, that there's as few conflicts as there are."

That observation holds true particularly in Western Montana, where only six cows and one sheep were confirmed as being killed by wolves in 2004. The Cook Pack of Idaho, by contrast, killed 85 sheep last year, an offense so severe that all nine wolves in the pack were destroyed by federal trappers in a helicopter hunt. And just two weeks ago, 11 sheep were confirmed as being killed by wolves in the Paradise Valley north of Yellowstone National Park.

Kent Laudon, the new wolf management specialist for Northwest Montana, recalls working with the Cook Pack when he worked for the Nez Perce Tribe. His job for a while involved keeping tabs on the pack and hazing the wolves whenever it appeared they were getting close to livestock.

But there's nothing easy about keeping up with a wolf pack, even when one or more of the animals are wearing radio collars. Laudon says he couldn't keep up with the wolves and they eventually got into the sheep.

Since being hired by Fish, Wildlife and Parks last fall, Laudon has been trying to keep up with more than a dozen wolf packs with home ranges spread across the western part of the state.

A big part of the job is conducting regular monitoring flights with Dave Hoerner, a veteran contract pilot based out of Kalispell who makes the majority of wildlife monitoring flights in Western Montana.

After tracking down the Hog Heaven Pack, Hoerner and Laudon travel northwest to an area south of the Thompson Chain of Lakes, looking for the Fishtrap Pack. It doesn't take long to dial in on collar signals and see a gray wolf and two black wolves in plain view. Laudon is fairly certain the wolves are at their denning site. At one point, he catches a glimpse of what he thinks might be a pup.

Last year, there were no confirmed livestock kills attributed to the Fishtrap Pack, but one of their own was found dead, with suspicions pointing toward people as the cause.

The Wolf Prairie Pack is next on the list, with signals emerging north of Pleasant Valley. The first wolf can't be spotted. So Hoerner tries to locate the second.

As Hoerner approaches the signal, flying low over patchy ponderosa pine, three white-tailed deer pop out of the trees in full flight.

"He probably jumped those deer and missed. He's out hunting," Hoerner says of the wolf. Two passes later and the wolf comes into view, loping down a logging road.

Once again, there are cattle less than a couple miles away. The Wolf Prairie Pack is believed to be responsible for the loss of two calves last year, and possibly one so far this year.

The "probable" calf kill raises a simmering issue regarding wolves and livestock depredation statistics.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
kit kat May 27, 2005 6:30 PM

these are for you awsome work

                         

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous  May 28, 2005 7:33 AM

Thank you, Burton! <blushing>  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 June 01, 2005 9:50 PM

I THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW WOLVES, BEFORE THEY CAN PASS JUDGEMENT ON THEM AND KILL THEM! I THINK THAT IF THEY TOOK THE TIME TO LEARN A THING OR TWO THEY WOULD REALIZE WHY THEY MUST NOT KILL THEM!  I THINK IT IS SO SAD THAT WOLVES ARE BEING KILLED, AND NOT EVEN GIVEN A SECOND THOUGHT!  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
ARTOIS GUILTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY June 01, 2005 10:18 PM

Good News: ARTOIS FOUND GUILTY! 6:45 PM
Wolf-dog rescue haven founder convicted of animal cruelty

Founder of wolf-dog rescue haven convicted on animal creulty charges

Date published: 6/1/2005

By RUSTY DENNEN
THE FREE LANCE-STAR

Robert Clifton Artois, founder of a wolf-dog rescue haven in southern Prince William County was convicted today of 29 counts of animal cruelty.

Artois, owner of Black Wolf Rescue in Triangle, was found guilty on all charges placed by Prince William County authorities, based on a search of his property in April.

Animal control officers found many emaciated animals infested with parasites and fleas, according to testimony yesterday in Prince William General District Court. One of the animals was found dead, another died a few days later.

Prosecutor Sandra R. Sylvester called half a dozen witnesses, including two veterinarians, who testified that the animals in Artois’ care-including 12 wolf hybrids-had been abandoned, in her words, “in horrible squalor.”

Artois, who took the stand in his own defense, said the problems resulted from an unreleated jail term he was serving in Alexandria and “I did the best I could. I was in over my head.”

After rejecting Defense Attorney Timothy Ward’s contention that the neglect was not intential, General District Judge Peter Steketee ordered a presentencing report and suggested Artois undergo a psychological examination. The judge set a July 12 sentencing date.

For more on this story, see tomorrow's Free Lance-Star. To reach RUSTY DENNEN: 540/374-5431 rdennen@freelancestar.com

Date published: 6/1/2005

[more to come and of course the 7/12 sentencing date!]  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Viewing area closed to reduce stress on wolves June 02, 2005 4:45 AM

Viewing area closed to reduce stress on wolves

-- Billings Gazette, 05/26/2005


MOOSE - Grand Teton National Park will close a wildlife viewing area to reduce stress levels in a pack of wolves that lives nearby.

Visitors often view the Teton Pack from a knoll near Elk Ranch Flats, which park officials now plan to close at least until July 1.

In a news release, park officials said seasonal closures were common in the region but that the area closed around the Teton Pack's denning site was expanded this year to protect the animals.

"The Teton Pack has recently exhibited signs of distress, potentially resulting from human disturbance," the release said. "Observance of this wildlife closure will reduce unnecessary stress on the Teton Pack during an especially sensitive time of year."
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 02, 2005 4:48 AM

Utah panel calls for shooting wolves on sight

-- Casper Star-Tribune, 05/29/2005


SPRINGVILLE, Utah (AP) -- By a 7-4 vote, the Central Utah Regional Advisory Council has endorsed a proposed wolf management plan that would allow ranchers to shoot wolves on public and private land.

If adopted by the state Wildlife Board, the plan would take effect if the federal government removes wolves from the endangered list and relinquishes its control of the animals to the states.

The regional advisory council's endorsement came early Wednesday following a hearing that had started at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday and drew 700 people.

While backing amendments allowing ranchers to shoot wolves on both public and private land, the council did reject an amendment that would have paid ranchers 100 percent of the price of a missing animal even when there is no direct evidence it was killed by a wolf. The proposed plan specifies ranchers will be paid 50 percent of the cost of such missing animals.

Council members also rejected a set of amendments submitted by a group of sport hunters.

More than a dozen of those who spoke said they were opposed to reintroducing wolves to Utah, apparently misunderstanding that wolves may migrate to the state from other areas but are not being reintroduced in the state.

The amendments backed by the regional council would "bring wolves closer to the legal status of bears and cougars," said Mike Bodenchuk of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bears and cougars are considered predators, and ranchers and farmers are allowed to shoot them if they feel the animals are threatening their livestock.

Wolf supporters said allowing them to be shot on public land would mean there is no safe place for the animals.

"This is not fair to the other groups who worked so hard and in good faith to draft the plan, or to taxpayers who funded the work," said Allison Jones of the Utah Wolf Forum. Jones was a member of the Wolf Working Group that drafted the plan.

With the new amendments, the proposed plan has "no semblance of conservation," she said.

Kirk Robinson of the Western Wildlife Conservancy said the amendments could lead to a lawsuit which would delay the wolf management plan for years, giving the wolves more to time to establish themselves in Utah while state government has no say in their management.

Passing a state plan is necessary in order to get the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to give management authority of wolves to the state, said Kevin Bunnell of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

"The ultimate goal is to get management authority to the state as soon as possible," Bunnell said. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said that if wolves disperse to Utah, they are not going to come and get them."

Council members Calvin Crandall and Allan Stevens said farmers and ranchers will shoot wolves no matter what the law is.

"If I see a cougar or wolf harassing my livestock, I'm going to kill it," Stevens said. "Why make an outlaw of the livestock owner?"

I haven't found any addresses or contact numbers...if anyone knows of any, please post them!!!

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
oh no there not,going to June 02, 2005 7:57 PM

lets start here till we get more info

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous  June 05, 2005 7:22 AM

Pesticide used to poison Idaho wolf

-- Idaho Mountain Express and Guide, 06/03/2005


The poison responsible for killing several Central Idaho dogs last summer has been determined to have illegally killed a wolf near Clear Creek, a tributary of Panther Creek in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area.

The male wolf, called B-204 in wolf monitoring parlance, was equipped with a radio collar on June 27, 2004. At that time, biologists estimated the wolf to be between 1 and 2 years old. He was found to have been killed by ingesting meat laced with a gray, granular poison called Temik, which is a restricted pesticide commonly applied to potatoes.

Use of this and other poisons is something a group called Predator Defense believes should be treated as terrorism.

"We want to see this kind of misuse tried as a federal felony under a terrorism statute," said Brooks Fahy, the group's executive director.

As it is, people who are caught do not even go to jail.

"You're going to get a fine, if that. We want that to change," Fahy said.

Wolf monitoring signals indicated that B-204 dispersed from the newly documented Golden Creek Pack sometime after Feb. 16. He was located again on April 22.

During a May 14 telemetry flight, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game received a mortality signal from B-204's radio collar. He was found less than a mile from his April 22 location, within yards of a pack trail.

Law enforcement agents for state Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service investigated the area.

According to Fish and Wildlife, Temik's chemical name is Aldicarb, and it is a water-soluble chemical used for pest management. Use of the chemical other than for agricultural purposes is illegal. Animals or small children are most susceptible to poisoning.

According to Scott Bragonier, a special agent for Fish and Wildlife, people should be careful about suspicious bait or gray granules on the ground.

"In this case, Temik not only killed a gray wolf, but it also poses a potential public safety hazard," he said. "We are very interested in finding whoever is responsible for the crime."

Bragonier encouraged anyone with information about the illegal use of chemicals or the killing of wolves to contact the service's law enforcement division. Callers may remain anonymous, he said.

The killing of an animal protected under the Endangered Species Act is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and one year in jail.

The manufacturer of Temik, Bayer Crop Science, is working with Fish and Wildlife on the investigation. They are offering a reward for information leading to an arrest or conviction of the person or persons responsible for the poisoning.

People with information are urged to call Fish and Wildlife at (208) 523-0855 or to call the Idaho Citizens Against Poaching Hotline at (800) 632-5999.


 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 05, 2005 7:23 AM

Walks with wolves: New zoo trail takes you into the woods to view wildlife

Jim Knippenberg -- Cincinnati Enquirer, 06/02/2005


The Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, age 130, has never done it before. But it's doing it now: showing off wolves.

But these aren't just any wolves. These are two Mexican gray wolves, a breed so endangered there are only 50 left in the wilds of northern Mexico and the American Southwest.

It's the first new permanent exhibit at the zoo since the July 2000, when the Lords of the Arctic polar bear exhibit opened.

Located in the Spaulding Children's Zoo and financed with a grant from the Spaulding Foundation, the one-acre, lushly planted exhibit that opened last week also shows off river otters, gray foxes, striped skunk, wild turkeys and thick-billed parrots.

But it's the Mexican wolf that the zoo is counting on to draw a crowd.

The exhibit, planted with native Ohio trees and plants, is an immersion exhibit that draws visitors into the animals' world with guests wandering along paths and decks, similar to Jungle Trails, only smaller. It's a lot like meandering through the woods watching the wildlife romp by.

The first sight on entering the compound is two gray foxes romping around their pen. Down a path and over a bridge, a flock of wild turkeys gobbles at pain threshold decibels. The otter pool across from the turkeys can be viewed from above or through a glass panel that shows underwater action.

On another path, you pass the striped skunk before coming to the exhibit's centerpiece. Two 1,000-square-foot decks provide easy viewing of the wolves' habitat. Then it's on to the thick-billed parrots and back into the zoo proper.

The team associated with Wolf Woods says the species would be extinct if it weren't for zoos and their captive breeding programs. That from John Dinon, director of animal conservation programs.

At one time, the wolves had been hunted to near extinction in the wild. That's when the U.S. and Mexican governments established the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan and decided to capture the few left, put them in zoos and breed them. Cincinnati's pair, Rio (5-year-old male) and Nizhoni (7-year-old female), are descended from that last handful.

Dave Jenike has high hopes, too, especially for babies. The zoo's director of education thinks the new exhibit will put them at ease enough to breed successfully.

He also thinks the exhibit will be a major hit.

"Really, the whole sequence is awesome. I love the way it highlights the river otters, one of the zoo's hidden treasures. The underwater viewing is just amazing.

"And also, I think people have a natural affinity for wolves because they're so close to dogs."


 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 05, 2005 7:26 AM

Wolf expert to address Yellowstone population

-- Billings Gazette, 06/01/2005


CODY - In 1995, the gray wolf was reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park. The ten years since have seen those touting its success on the one side, and those decrying it ever happened on the other.

Douglas W. Smith, who led the Yellowstone Gray Wolf Restoration project, assesses the past 10 years on June 7 at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center's Coe Auditorium. Smith's presentation begins at 12:15 p.m. and is free.

Smith will present an overview of population dynamics, predator-prey relationships and ecosystem effects of wolves in Yellowstone since 1995, with a look ahead to what the next 10 years will likely bring.

Before his experience with Yellowstone wolves, Smith studied wolves in Isle Royale, Mich., and in Minnesota between 1979 and 1992. He has co-authored two books on wolves and participated in several documentaries produced by the National Geographic Society and the British Broadcasting Co.

For more information, call Charles Preston at 578-4078.

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 05, 2005 7:27 AM

Alger pet killed by wolf

John Pepin -- Mining Journal (MI), 06/02/2005


MUNISING - State wildlife officials are reminding pet owners to closely watch their animals after a wolf attacked and killed a dog in Munising Township early Wednesday.
The dog, a 6-year-old, 23-pound dachshund owned by Tom and Ann Dolaskie of Miller Road, was snatched and wholly devoured by a wolf when the dog was let outside the family home, shortly after midnight.

"It was about twenty feet out from our front door," Tom said. "It was real close."

Ann witnessed most of the attack. She said the animal was light brownish or tan-colored.

"It looked liked an extra-sized German shepherd," Ann said. "It had her (the dachshund) on the ground in a choke hold. We've never seen anything like this."

The wolf appeared fearless, stared and didn't drop the dog when Ann yelled at it. Within a short time, the animal had disappeared into the darkness.

Wednesday morning, the Dolaskies searched portions of their 12-acre property but couldn't find any trace of their dog.

A neighbor told Tom he'd seen a wolf cross Miller Road about 200 yards west of the Dolaskie home, about an hour before the attack occurred.

Wednesday morning, Ann found one large animal track, but she wasn't able to determine if it was a wolf track.

However, a Michigan Department of Natural Resources employee summoned by the Dolaskies from the Shingleton field office, was able to locate and identify several wolf tracks.

"They found tracks in by where the dog was," said Brian Roell, Michigan wolf coordinator, at the DNR's Marquette office. "It was probably a lone animal traveling through and found the dog as an easy meal. It's an unfortunate situation."

DNR spokeswoman Ann Wilson said this time of year is when younger wolves are dispersed into areas away from packs, forced out by alpha males or females.

The dispersed solitary travelers are roaming, looking for a territory and food, which is often hard to come by.

"It's at this time that they start to lose their shyness and that's when they start coming into areas they shouldn't be," Wilson said.

Wolves will kill other canids as threats to territorial bounds or as competitors for food.

"Wolves won't tolerate other canid species on its territory," Wilson said. "And other canids include coyotes, foxes and dogs."

Roell said the DNR was unaware of any wolf packs located close to the big lots and family homes along Miller Road, located just east of Munising.

Wolves will occasionally kill dogs that are household pets, but more often the dogs wolves kill are hunting dogs.

"It is something that does happen every year in the Upper Peninsula," Roell said, referring to pet predation.

In Michigan, wolves supplement their basic diet of deer with beaver, snowshoe hares, rodents and other small mammals. Wolves will scavenge unrecovered deer from hunting season, as well as road-killed deer and other animals.

Additional evidence has identified woodchuck, muskrat, coyote and raccoon as food sources. Insects, nuts, berries and grasses round out the diet of the wolf, according to the DNR.

To help prevent pet predation, officials suggest keeping pets inside whenever possible and contacting the DNR if problems do occur.

Pamphlets on co-existing with wolves are available from DNR offices with tips for hunters and livestock owners.

If the wolf returns to Miller Road and becomes a nuisance, the DNR will try to trap and remove the animal. The Dolaskies were also offered a firecracker device that works to scare off wolves.

"My guess is it's an isolated incident and that wolf won't be heard from again," Roell said. "But there are no guarantees."
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 07, 2005 5:12 AM

"They started indicating that several of the packs of wolves were in the tree country, and it was really darn tough to get in a position to take some of the animals," Del Frate said.

More than 60 moose were collared this spring as part of a calf survival study on the west side of Cook Inlet. While early, it appears that at least half of the cows have given birth and there was a good rate for twins.

"A cow that twins is a healthy cow," Del Frate said.

In the central Kuskokwim area near Aniak, 43 wolves were killed, well below the objective of 140 wolves. Poor snow conditions were a factor, Robus said. Permit holders also may have overlooked the Aniak area in favor of the west side of Cook Inlet, he said.

In the Tok area in eastern Alaska, 61 wolves were killed, less than half the initial approximation. Robus said part of the problem was that the Nelchina caribou herd tromped over about half of the game unit, making tracking difficult. The program there is in its first year.

"We think 61 is a really good start," Robus said.

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 07, 2005 5:13 AM

Wolf killings more than double but fall short

Mary Pemberton, Associated Press -- Anchorage Daily News, 06/06/2005


PREDATOR CONTROL: State remains staunchly behind criticized program.

Two hundred seventy-six wolves were killed in the second year of an expanded predator control program designed to increase moose and caribou numbers in five areas of Alaska.

While the number of wolves killed under the state-sponsored program more than doubled in its second year, the total was far below a target of 570 wolves.

Alaska's wolf control program has been decried by some groups nationwide but continues to get strong support from Gov. Frank Murkowski, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the state Board of Game. The state remains staunchly behind the program as a way to better serve Alaska hunters and rural residents who rely on moose and caribou for food.

Wayne Regelin, deputy commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game, said critics of the program, particularly those in the Lower 48, don't understand Alaska.

"I think a lot of them have no idea that a lot of people depend on wildlife for food. I don't think they have any understanding that when you get out in the rural parts of Alaska there are no alternatives," he said.

The program got its start in 2003-2004 in the McGrath area of the Interior where residents had long complained to state game officials that bears and wolves were eating too many moose calves.

The state created an intensive management study area there where it intends to remove all the wolves in hopes of repopulating the area with moose. The McGrath study area is the only one where the goal is to eliminate wolves.

Fourteen wolves were taken in 2004-2005 in the McGrath study area. Matt Robus, director of the state Division of Wildlife Conservation, said feedback from program permit-holders indicates wolves are still in the study area, which he describes as a "doughnut hole." Some of the study area is hilly and heavily treed, making it harder to hunt wolves.

"We are trying to reduce wolf populations close to zero in the small doughnut hole," Robus said.

The program is structured differently in each of the five wolf control areas. Some allow wolves to be shot from the air, others require pilot-and-hunter teams to land first and some allow both methods. The program also has a bear removal component in some of the areas.

The Legislature this year approved $650,000 for continued surveys and studies, Robus said.

"We need several years for this to play out," he said.

Signs are encouraging in at least two of the areas, near McGrath and Glennallen, where the programs finished up a second year April 30, officials said.

"They have seen positive results already from bear and wolf removal," Cathie Harms, spokeswoman for Fish and Game in Fairbanks, said of the McGrath area.

Despite a hard winter with more than 130 inches of snow in some areas and two cold snaps of more than 40 degrees below zero, a spring count of moose calves shows a 42 percent survival rate -- 17 percent higher than before the start of the program, she said.

"Despite the bad weather, things are going well," Harms said.

Near Glennallen, 67 wolves were killed this year. The game board approved the program for the Glennallen area because of steep declines in what was the top moose-producing region in the state in the late 1980s, area biologist Bob Tobey said.

He said there used to be an annual harvest of 900 to 1,000 animals in the area, drawing hunters from the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas, but harvests have fallen to about half that.

A count of moose calves and cows last fall was promising. It showed 22 calves per 100 cows -- about twice the number of calves spotted in previous counts, Tobey said.

On the west side of Cook Inlet, 91 wolves were killed this year, a figure below the initial objective.

"It turned out there were fewer wolves to start there than we first supposed," Robus said.

Efforts on the west side of Cook Inlet, where the program is in its first year, were hampered by poor snow cover that made it difficult to track wolves, he said.

"I would hope we should start seeing some improved calf survival this coming winter," Fish and Game biologist Gino Del Frate said.

At one time, the west side of Cook Inlet had as many as 10,000 moose. Recent estimates put the population at about 3,500 animals, or about a 65 percent loss, he said.

Del Frate said the program is going well.

"We did get a good start on it this year," he said.

The program, which originally was land-and-shoot only, added aerial shooting after permit holders requested it.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 07, 2005 5:15 AM

Ticks and Weather

While the moose and wolf populations help keep each other in check, they both grapple with additional challenges such as disease (a virus nearly wiped out the wolves between 1980 and 1982, Vucetich said), a changing climate, and periodic moose tick infestations.

The researchers have only a fuzzy idea as to what spurred the current tick infestation, but suspect it is linked to a series of mild springs.

The ticks latch onto the moose during the winter. Female ticks drop off in the spring to lay eggs. If they land on dry ground, all goes well. But "if spring comes late and there's snow on the ground, they're dead," Vucetich said. In recent winters, spring has arrived early enough to allow the ticks to thrive.

Interestingly, Vucetich added, heartworm, a disease that affects dogs and wolves, recently showed up for the first time in the mainland city od Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, about 14 miles (23 kilometers) from the island.

The parasite, which is transferred from mosquitoes to dogs, is usually restricted to warmer southern latitudes but has been creeping north in recent years. The disease has been found in Minnesota wolves. "For it to come [to Isle Royale] many things would have to happen just so, but it gives us pause," Vucetich said.

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 07, 2005 5:16 AM

Wolves, Ticks, Send Michigan Moose Numbers Plummeting

John Roach -- National Geographic News, 06/06/2005


The moose population on a remote Lake Superior island is down sharply again this year. But the numbers of the moose's only predators—wolves—are holding steady, according to the latest figures from what may be the longest running study of any predator-prey system in the world.

The study on Lake Superior's Isle Royale in the Isle Royale National Park began in 1958. The nearly five decades of data are providing scientists with an unprecedented look at the oscillating relationship between moose and wolves.

"One of the basic fundamental questions we are always interested in is why in some years there're more moose and other years fewer moose. Same for the wolves," said John Vucetich, an assistant research professor in the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences at Michigan Technological University (MTU) in Houghton.

According to the latest population count, the number of moose on the island has dwindled to 540 this year. In the winter of 2002-2003, the moose population was 1,100. A year ago the population had dropped to 740.

Meanwhile, wolves, the moose's only predator, are stable. Their population jumped nearly 50 percent from 19 to 29 between 2003 and 2004. This year the population grew to 30.

Vucetich and his collaborator Rolf Peterson, a professor at MTU, said several factors are likely involved in the moose decline. The factors include increased wolf predation, severe winter weather, and moose ticks.

The ticks have been particularly severe for the past three years. This year the researchers noted for the first time that the ticks may play an important role in the regulation of moose and wolf numbers.

As many as 70,000 ticks may feast on a single moose during one season. "When they are really abundant, they weaken the moose. This is a good deal for the wolves," Vucetich said. Weakened moose are easy prey.

Now that the moose population is sinking toward 500, the researchers expect the smaller food supply will cause the wolf population to decline. Currently, however, there are no signs that the wolves are running out of moose. For example, wolves from the island's three different packs are not trespassing on each other's territory to hunt.

Study History

Moose migrated from Canada to the 132,000-acre (53,400-hectare) island in the early 1900s, likely swimming the 14 miles (23 kilometers) from the mainland.

Prior to the arrival of wolves, moose populations were regulated by food abundance, climate, and—as the researchers are now learning—periodic tick outbreaks. When wolves arrived on the island from Ontario via an ice bridge sometime between 1948 and 1951, the lives of moose were forever changed.

Since the arrival of wolves, the fates of the wolves and moose have been intimately linked. The wolves' arrival set the stage for a natural, long-term study of a single-prey, single-predator system.

In 1958, about a decade after the first wolves arrived, Durwood Allen with Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, launched the study. Peterson took over as project leader in 1975. Vucetich joined Peterson in 1990 and in 2001 was named a co-director.

In the 47-year history of the study, the researchers have observed the interactions between the wolves and moose and noted how their seesawing populations affect the entire island ecosystem.

"If you watch for a long time, you can see patterns, and patterns are what we see and what we make inferences about," Vucetich said.

Healthy Forest

A correlation between an abundant wolf population and vigorous forest growth is one pattern to emerge in the decades of data, according to Vucetich. Trees are the primary food sources for the moose, so when the moose population is high, tree growth is stunted. Conversely, when the moose numbers are low, the trees grow better.

"One idea that has been popular [in conservation biology] is the notion that predators are an important part of the health of the ecosystem," Vucetich said. "The work we've done here points to that."

Indeed, Vucetich said, this year's tree growth is noticeably greater than in recent years. Of course, he added, one good year for the moose and they can wipe out many years of tree growth.

"You can actually see the ebb and flow of the wolf population by counting tree rings and measuring the ring width," Peterson said in an interview with the radio program Pulse of the Planet.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 19, 2005 9:43 AM

Wolf expert touts progress

Allison Batdorff -- Jackson Hole Star-Tribune, 06/09/2005


CODY -- Doug W. Smith started his presentation with a particularly bloody slide. It depicted a gray wolf, the alpha male of Yellowstone National Park's Geode pack, torn to pieces by other wolves.

It happened this winter just months after the "old man" was collared with a GPS device, said Smith, leader of the Yellowstone Wolf Restoration Project. Fiercely territorial, the 16 wolf packs within the park are fighting more often, and this may be a sign that wolves may have reached capacity inside the park, he said.

"There were 17 interactions between packs this year," Smith said. "This is highly unusual. The population may be tapering off due to a social maximum."

This has also may have happened outside the park, where unprotected wolves only have a 50 percent survival rate.

"This is an indicator of our tolerance," Smith said.

Smith's overview of the first 10 years of wolf reintroduction packed a standing-room-only crowd into the Coe Auditorium on Tuesday at the season's first Lunchtime Expedition at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center.

"No animal inspires more emotion -- both positive and negative -- than the wolf," said Chuck Preston, curator of the Draper Museum of Natural History. "The extreme emotions on either side are founded on myth, lore, fear and dogma rather than reality."

Smith provided a scientific snapshot of what has happened in the park since reintroduction in 1995.

"No one thought reintroduction would be this successful," Smith said. "We're doing far better than we expected."

The 16 packs roaming Yellowstone are divided into northern and southern systems. Four more systems lie on private and public lands outside the park. Litter sizes average at five pups, with an 82 percent survival rate in the park. Most wolves live between two or three years. The oldest recorded wolf was almost 12 years old, Smith said.

Within park boundaries, elk is the preferred food source. In the last decade, wolves killed about 2,000 elk. They prefer elk calves, selecting against prime cows and bulls.

"Wolves are cowardly killers," Smith said. "If larger animals like bison and bull elk stand their ground, they'll likely survive."

This year, however, the number of bulls jumped to 43, Smith said. Elk in two of eight herds are declining at a rate of 6 percent to 8 percent a year.

But when outfitters tell him that they're getting hit in the pocketbook because wolves are killing or frightening away the elk, Smith takes a "multi-causal" approach.

"It's not just the wolves. There are multiple predators living in this ecosystem -- coyotes, cougars, wolves, black bears, grizzly bears and people. Game and Fish were also managing for fewer elk in the ecosystem, and there is an ongoing drought."

Fewer elk may benefit the ecosystem by stimulating willow and aspen growth, and wolf impact on plant growth is a "hot research topic" at the park, Smith said.

Researchers are also examining possible prey switching to bison, an upsurge in coyote populations and more complex pack behavior.

How the wolf will fare in the future remains a compelling question.

"The park, in simple terms, is full," Smith said. He predicts that another decade will find half as many wolves in the park.

But for right now, the "howl of the wolf is back," Smith said. "Some people are happy about it, many are not."
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 19, 2005 9:44 AM

Wildlife Board Passes Wolf Management Plan

John Daley -- KSL Television (tv.ksl.com), 06/09/2005


For months, ranchers, hunters and conservationists have been wrestling with a tough issue, what to do when wolves make their way to Utah. Today the state's Wildlife Board passed a wolf management plan, which attempts to settle the dispute, though it may end up perpetuating it.

Wolves were long a feature of western landscapes before ranchers wiped them out decades ago. But they're on the way back after getting reintroduced in Yellowstone in the 90's. Now, with numbers multiplying they're spilling into other states, including Utah where one was captured three years ago.

The Utah Wildlife Board is charged with coming up with a plan and today heard from many sides, including agricultural groups who oppose allowing wolves to establish in Utah.

Sterling Brown, Utah Farm Bureau: "The draft Utah Wolf Management plan should be altered to allow livestock owners, immediate family members, and employees of livestock owners to lethally control wolves on both private and public lands."

Clark Willis, Utah Wool Growers Assn.: "The wolves are like no other predator. Very, very difficult to control, very, very difficult to find and very, very expensive."

A coalition of hunting groups wants to make sure there's compensation when wolves kill deer, elk and bighorn sheep.

Don Peay, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife: "So where the sheep foundation has invested a quarter million dollars to put big horns on Timpanogos, we don't want a pack of wolves to come in and destroy that effort overnight. So from our interpretation of what the legislature said, if such a thing happens, someone needs to repay the investment made to restore wildlife."

Wolf advocates say the rules should not be punitive towards the animals, which they say have helped revitalize the Yellowstone ecosystem.

Kirk Robinson: "The net result of that is willows and cottonwoods and aspen have been regenerating. And that has, in turn, many cascading benefits to wildlife. There are more beaver, more songbirds for example. The fisheries are much better."

In the end the board passes a series of rules, including allowing wolves to be shot if they are threatening livestock on public or private land. It's bound to please agricultural interest, anger wolf proponents, and ensure the controversy will go on.

The new plan comes into play only after the federal government removes the wolf from the Endangered Species list.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 22, 2005 10:27 AM

Wildlife officials looking for clues in wolf poisoning

Associated Press -- Casper Star-Tribune, 06/15/2005


SALMON, Idaho (AP) -- Wildlife officials say they have no suspects in their investigation into poisoned bait left for wolves in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in central Idaho.

"Poison cases are very hard to make, especially when it's showing up mostly on public land," said Roy Brown, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent based in Wyoming. "Short of seeing someone put it out, how do you tie it back to people?"

On June 3, Fish and Wildlife Service agents confirmed that a male gray wolf found dead last month in the wilderness area was killed by eating meat laced with a gray granular pesticide known as Temik. The pesticide is commonly applied to agricultural crops such as potatoes and sugar beets.

The 2- to 3-year-old wolf wore a radio-tracking collar. On May 14, Idaho Fish and Game officers received a mortality signal from the collar and the animal was found a few yards from a pack trail in the wilderness area.

Last year, Temik poisoning was blamed for sickening several dogs at recreation areas in the Salmon-Challis National Forest in central Idaho and for killing eight dogs and sickening 15 others in northwestern Wyoming.

In some of the Wyoming cases last year, the pesticide was stuffed inside a hollowed-out hot dog and the hole plugged with cheese. The poison also is toxic to humans, and officials fear for the safety of children who might discover the meat baits in the woods and handle them.

"The extent of the poisoning is unknown, so we're cautioning people to be especially careful," said Vicky Runnoe of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

The killing of an animal protected under the Endangered Species Act is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and a year in jail.

Officials say Temik works quickly and most animals become sick within 20 minutes of ingesting the poison, making it difficult for people in the backcountry to get prompt medical attention needed to prevent pet's death. Symptoms include heavy salivation and diarrhea, paralysis and severe muscle twitching.

Wildlife officials say the string of poisonings seemed to start after an article by an unknown author advocating poisoning wolves with Temik was circulated on the Internet and posted on a Web site that sells "wolf-killing ammo" and bumper stickers that read, "Save a Rancher: Kill a Wolf."

"Whatever someone's motivation is to poison wolves, I don't care," said Fish and Wildlife Service Agent Scott Bragonier. "All I'm interested in is, who's breaking the law and endangering people and wildlife?"
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 22, 2005 10:28 AM

Wolf recovery program topic of meetings this month

Mary Jo Pitzl -- Arizona Republic, 06/17/2005


Proposed changes to the Mexican wolf recovery program will be the topic of a round of public meetings in Arizona and New Mexico later this month. Wildlife officials have extended the comment deadline to July 31 for three different items related to the ongoing reintroduction of the endangered wolf.

Those proposals include a one-year moratorium on releasing captive wolves; a five-year review of the overall introduction project; and proposed operating standards for the wolf program.

The public meetings are scheduled for three hours, but will conclude earlier if the speakers have finished.

Background material on the wolf is available via the Internet at http://azgfd.gov/wolf and http://mexicanwolf.fws.gov or by calling (602) 789-3500.

The Arizona meetings are:


• June 28, Arizona state fairgrounds, Arizona Game and Fish Department wildlife building, 19th Avenue and McDowell Road, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.


• June 29, Hon Dah Conference Center, Hon Dah, junction of Arizona 73 and Arizona 260, noon to 3 p.m.


• June 29, old Alpine Elementary School, Alpine on U.S. 180, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.


• June 30, Morenci Club, Morenci, noon to 3 p.m.

There also will be four public meetings in New Mexico June 15-18.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 22, 2005 10:29 AM

Last wolf leaves Bulls Island

Associated Press -- Dateline Alabama, 06/18/2005


It took some time to trap him, but the last red wolf on Bulls Island has been captured.

The 10-year-old wolf's captured signaled the end of 18 years of the first wild breeding program for the endangered animal. It has been replaced by more economical foster breeding program at the Alligator River wildlife refuge in North Carolina.

The wolf will remain at the Awendaw Center where three other red wolves are kept. Biologists considered the stealthy animal, about the size of the German shepherd it resembles, to be extinct in the wild in 1980.

The breeding program began at Cape Romain because no one else wanted the animal, which was considered a menace, said former refuge manager George Garris.

The breeding effort has been successful. On Bulls Island, 26 pups were born with few deaths. Most have been relocated to the Alligator River refuge, the only viable release area among a handful where reintroduction was attempted.

In 2005, a record 55 pups were born at Alligator River, bringing the estimated total species population to 300.

"It's sad. You go out on the island and you're not looking for wolf tracks. They're not there, but that's not to say they won't be," said park ranger Patricia Lynch. "I'm hoping the breeding program at Bulls Island will kick back in, that down the road we can have another site."

Collecting the lone remaining wolf was a bit of an adventure.

He escaped the kennel twice, but remained in a larger holding area. On Tuesday, four workers boated out to collar him with a rope pole. With his neck in the collar, the wolf dragged U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist Sarah Dawsey halfway across the enclosure.

"He's a wiry animal. He was bucking and just was not a happy camper," said park ranger Larry Davis.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 22, 2005 10:31 AM

Catron ranchers want wolf program eliminated

Tania Soussan -- Special To El Defensor Chieftain, 06/18/2005


RESERVE — Ranchers in Catron County are boiling mad about the wolves roaming the Gila country and want the government reintroduction effort scrapped or dramatically altered.

If the program does continue, they say, any of the endangered Mexican gray wolves in New Mexico that stray outside the Gila Wilderness should be fair game for shooting.

"The only thing that will save this county from complete ruin is either do away with the wolf program completely or restrict the wolves to a small area," Catron County Commission Chairman Ed Wehrheim said Wednesday night.

His comments came during a passionate 21/2-hour meeting in Reserve, the heart of ranching country. It was the first in a series being held this week across New Mexico to talk about proposed new rules and a recent review of the wolf reintroduction effort.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its partners are considering changes to the program, including a recommendation by biologists to allow the wolves to set up territories outside the current boundaries and a one-year ban on some new wolf releases.

"I rebuke your program and I'll celebrate the day you pack up and leave," said Catron County business owner Van Allred.

Asked what it would take to get the wolves out of the wild, Terry Johnson, chairman of the program oversight committee, said, "You're going to have to win it in court."

Many of the ranchers said they believe a wolf attack on a child is inevitable.

Don Gatlin, manager of the Rainy Mesa Ranch where wolves have killed cattle recently, said his 5-year-old and 8-year-old children are too scared to play outside.

"When that wolf gets one of my kids ... God be with each and every one of you," Gatlin told the panel of government officials running the meeting, winning applause from the audience of about 80.

The ranchers said the government is dramatically undercounting the number of cows and calves killed by wolves, in part because many cannot be confirmed as wolf kills.

Don Jones of the Y Canyon Ranch read a 35-day log written by his wife, Jeannie, including this entry: "June 3. Found another dead cow. A two-year-old cow dead too long for a call! ... We just cannot find them as quick as the wolves kill them!"

Ranchers also criticized a socioeconomic impact analysis of the wolf program and said they don't trust the government agencies running the program.

Craig Miller of Defenders of Wildlife — which compensates ranchers for livestock killed by wolves — was the only speaker to support the wolf program.

"In addition to the compensation fund, we will put money on the table to put your ideas in the field," he said. "A heck of a lot more can and needs to be done to prevent losses from occurring like hiring riders during calving season, condensing calving season where it's appropriate ... doggone it, we've got to try."

"If we put a fraction of the amount of effort we put into these public meetings, public hearings, blasting each other in the media, organizing, making fun of each other, we would have this thing licked," he said.

As Miller was advocating more cooperation between his organization and ranchers, he was interrupted by the audience with questions like, "What's your compensation for a child?"

Wednesday's meeting was dominated by ranchers, while a meeting today in Albuquerque is expected to draw more wolf supporters.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  June 22, 2005 10:32 AM

Bill to allow ranchers to shoot some wolves stalls in House

Michael Milstein -- Oregonian, 06/15/2005


The Oregon Cattlemen's Association argues there are too many limits on when people could shoot wolves

A state bill that would let Oregon ranchers shoot wolves attacking their livestock appears to be dead in the Legislature after a few ranching groups argued it has too many strings attached.

The measure, House Bill 3478, would have relaxed an Oregon law that prohibits killing wolves and would have created a state fund to compensate ranchers for livestock and dogs that are injured or killed by wolves.

The bill emerged from a compromise among some environmental groups, hunters and some ranching groups who said it balanced wolf protections and controls. But it was opposed particularly by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, which argued there were too many limits on when people could shoot wolves.

Passage of the bill was intended to carry out a wolf conservation plan approved by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in February. The plan called for at least eight pairs of wolves in Oregon and included provisions to manage them.

The plan was a state effort to comply with Oregon's Endangered Species Act, which requires recovery of wolves in the state. The bill was meant to accompany the plan .

Without the bill, state law will continue to outlaw the killing of wolves for any reason except self-defense.

Wolves are spreading into Oregon from a fast-growing population reintroduced to Idaho under a federal wolf recovery program. Three wolves have been found in Oregon; so far, one was illegally shot, one was hit by a car and one returned to Idaho.

State officials think others are living in Oregon and say it is a matter of time before a pack takes up residence in the state.

The federal Endangered Species Act also applies to wolves, providing an additional layer of protection even if the state law was changed. But federal authorities are moving toward dropping the federal protection in coming years as wolf populations in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park expand.

Then the state laws would come into play.
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Animals seized from shelter; conditions called 'deplorable' June 27, 2005 9:21 AM


235 new, 593 total664 total Burton W.
former mayor of beverly hills gets raided June 18, 2005 10:12 AM
212 new, 510 total

11:12 PM PDT on Thursday, May 12, 2005

More than 100 animals were seized Thursday when officials conducted a daylong raid at a Rialto home used by former Beverly Hills Mayor Charlotte Spadaro as a rescue shelter for dogs and cats212 new, 510 total

Rialto police, assisted by San Bernardino County code enforcement and animal control officers, spent hours at the home on South Acacia Avenue Officials 212 new, 510 totalcalled conditions inside the house "detrimental to the health of the animals" and a "nuisance" to surrounding neighbors 212 new, 510 total

The exact number of animals taken to a temporary shelter in Devore was not available, although police estimate 135 dogs and 30 cats were on the property as recently as late April212 new, 510 total

Spadaro, who was present with her attorney while a warrant was served, was not arrested212 new, 510 total The raid's findings, however, will be passed on to the district attorney's office for possible criminal charges for keeping animals without proper care or attention 212 new, 510 total

"We think she's maintaining deplorable and unsanitary conditions that are unhealthy for both humans and animals," said Kathy Gandara, Rialto's deputy city attorney212 new, 510 total

Thursday's action was the culmination of an investigation that started in January, when officials were alerted to the rotting carcass of a Great Dane inside Spadaro's shelter 212 new, 510 total

Further investigation showed questionable conditions for the hundreds of dogs and cats inside the home, but Spadaro avoided charges at the time by agreeing to weekly inspections of her property, Gandara said 212 new, 510 total

But officials weren't aware that Spadaro had unloaded 2,000 pounds of animal carcasses into a van days before her first inspection, and left it in Riverside 212 new, 510 total

"Instead of forcing her out when this was discovered, we gave her time to comply," Gandara said "She hasn't and her time is up212 new, 510 total"

Spadaro countered Thursday that police were targeting her because of complaints from neighboring kennels <img alt="212 new, 510 total" src="h

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 June 27, 2005 9:23 AM

"It's 100 percent unfair, absolute persecution," she said 212 new, 510 total"We love animals. We do this as philanthropy. We rescue animals and I think the city of Rialto has been extremely unfair."

The city, however, said Spadaro has been "extremely vague" about exactly what she does with the animals she finds 212 new, 510 totalGandara said she "has no idea" how Spadaro obtains the animals, and whether they have rightful owners.

The animals, which yelped as they were taken away in vans, will be held in Devore, and Spadaro will be given the right to a post-seizure hearing, Gandara said212 new, 510 total

A local animal activist said that, as someone who believes in a no-kill philosophy, Spadaro likely believes that hoarding a high

 [ send green star]

235 new, 593 total664 total Burton W.
more on this story June 18, 2005 10:13 AM
contact district attorney 7:05 AM

please send letters to district attorney asking for the max in this case

DA Top Banner316 N. Mountain View Ave
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0004
(909) 387-8309
Email Us


District Attorney Badge
 [ send green star]

235 new, 593 total664 total Burton W.
more on this story June 18, 2005 10:14 AM
other places to send letters 7:12 AM
Board of Supervisors - 1st District Supervisor Bill Postmus, Chairman
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 5th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0110Telephone: (760) 955-5400
Telephone: (909) 387-4830
Fax: (760) 955-5410 (Victorville)
Fax: (909) 387-3029 (San Bernardino)
website    e-mail Board of Supervisors - 2nd District Supervisor Paul Biane, Vice Chairman
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 5th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0110Telephone: (909) 387-4833
Fax: (909) 387-3265 (San Bernardino)
Fax: (909) 945-4037 (Rancho Cucamonga)
website    e-mail Board of Supervisors - 3rd District Supervisor Dennis Hansberger
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 5th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0110Telephone: (909) 387-4855
Fax: (909) 387-3018
website     Board of Supervisors - 4th District Supervisor Gary Ovitt
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 5th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0110Telephone: (909) 387-4866
Telephone: (909) 465-1895 (Chino)
Fax: (909) 628-4527 (Chino)
Fax: (909) 387-8903 (San Bernardino)
website    e-mail Board of Supervisors - 5th District Supervisor Josie Gonzales
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 5th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0110Telephone: (909) 387-4565
Fax: (909) 387-5392
 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 June 27, 2005 9:25 AM


235 new, 593 total664 total Burton W.
more on this story June 18, 2005 10:14 AM
// 7:14 AM
Administrative Office - CAO Mark Uffer, County Admin Officer
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0120 Telephone: (909) 387-5417
Fax: (909) 387-5430
website     Administrative Office - CAO Interim Asst County Admin Officer
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0120Telephone: (909) 387-5427
Fax: (909) 387-5430
website     Administrative Office - PIO David Wert, Public Information Officer
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0120Telephone: (909) 387-4082
Fax: (909) 387-5430
website      [ send green star]

216 new, 514 total646 total Burton W.
petition on this matter 8:21 AM
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/387901473
 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Feds turn over Wolf Managment to Montana June 27, 2005 11:28 AM


82 new, 433 total64 total Muskyhusky K.
 Saturday, 1:40 PM

State takes reins in wolf management
Associated Press

HELENA - Federal wildlife authorities on Friday turned over management of gray wolves in Montana to the state, a long-awaited step in efforts to rebuild a stable wolf population throughout the region.

"This basically gives us the key to the car and the credit card," said Carolyn Sime, wolf recovery specialist for the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "What it means is that at this point, the state steps up to the plate in the management of wolves, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes a step back."

The federal agency's decision Friday is viewed as an important step in the effort to eventually remove federal protections for wolves.

 
Wolf populations in Montana will continue to receive federal protections, but officials say allowing Montana wildlife managers to begin implementing the state's management plans will make the transition easier once federal protections are removed.

"It's been a long time coming, but the people of Montana worked hard over the past 10 years with the expectation that the wolf would one day be delisted and managed among all the state's wildlife," Jeff Hagener, director of the state wildlife agency, said in a written statement. "This agreement is confirmation that the people of Montana did their part to restore the wolf in this part of the country."

Wolf reintroduction has been a contentious issue since efforts were first launched in the 1990s with the transplant of Canadian wolves to the Yellowstone ecosystem and in Idaho.

Since then, the "experimental" populations that were reintroduced have bred and thrived, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to remove federal protections if Montana, Idaho and Wyoming all developed acceptable plans for managing the animals once federal protections were removed.

The agency approved Montana's and Idaho's plans in January 2004, but said delisting could not move forward because of concerns with Wyoming's plan. With delisting delayed, the government gave Montana and Idaho more leeway in handling wolves in the interim.

Friday's decision extends that even further for Montana, allowing the state to actually implement major portions of its plan.

"I think that's a good thing, that states get to test out their plans with a little federal oversight," said Jon Schwedler, a spokesman for the Predator Conservation Alliance in Bozeman.

"Montana, of the three states, obviously has the most responsible plan," Schwedler said in a telephone interview.

Under the agreement, the state will conduct population monitoring, research and public outreach, in addition to determining when lethal or nonlethal wolf-control actions are appropriate.

"While the ultimate vision is delisting the wolf, this is an important interim step that recognizes the commitment and good will of the people of Montana," Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said in a statement.

Sime said the move allows state wildlife managers to gain more experience in dealing with wolves.

"From my perspective, this really is an important signal indicating that we are willing to take on some more responsibility and some more challenges when it comes to wolves," Sime said.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  July 12, 2005 6:25 AM

The Mexican Wolf: Where Do We Go From Here?

Jess Edberg -- International Wolf Center Staff, 07/11/2005


   Photo


Staying true to form, the topic of wolf recovery and reintroduction is remaining controversial. The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction project is currently under the microscope as the Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC) accepts public comment on three subjects: the Five-Year Review of the Blue Range Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project, the five standard operating procedures for the project, and a proposed one-year moratorium on new releases of captive Mexican gray wolves.

Public meetings were held in Arizona and New Mexico throughout June to allow the public to learn more about and to comment on the three issues at hand. The AMOC has now extended the public comment period until July 31, 2005.

A one-year ban, or moratorium, on new wolf releases proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in addition to recommendations from biologists to allow existing wolves to travel outside of the current recovery area and set up territories could possibly enable the population of approximately 50 Mexican wolves to gain a better foothold. If the wolves were allowed to leave the recovery area legally, their recapture and rerelease elsewhere would be unnecessary.

However, during the first public meeting held in Reserve, New Mexico, ranchers said the government either had to make drastic changes to the program, such as establishing shoot-on-sight areas outside of the federally designated Gila Wilderness, or stop reintroduction altogether.

Bringing back a species that teetered on the brink of extinction because of systematic and concerted efforts to eradicate it is not easy. Tolerance and understanding on both sides of the issue is the path less taken. It is rough and overgrown but in the end seems to be the better path.

The AMOC has taken that rough road in extending the public comment period for the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project until July 31, 2005. Formal public comments must be submitted in writing. For instruction on submitting comments, please visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mexican Wolf Recovery Web page. You may also view the documents under comment in downloadable forms at that page and at the Arizona Game & Fish Web site.

Are you well informed? What path will you take?
  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]

 
you see July 15, 2005 9:23 AM

kat,,your are awsome  [ send green star]
 
 July 25, 2005 2:34 AM

Wolves on the Way

“No reasonable argument can be advanced in favor of preservation of any lobo and timber wolves, mountain lions or predatory bears.”

In 1976 the USFWS listed the wolf as endangered.So said J. Stokely Ligon, the first Predatory Animal Inspector of the U.S. Bureau of Biological Survey, a precursor to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFW. Beginning in 1915, his responsibility—and his passion—was bringing about the “total extermination on the open range” in New Mexico of the Mexican gray wolf, known as el lobo. Only then would sheep and cows and game be safe from all but their rightful human predators.

Ligon did his job well. He claimed that about 300 wolves lived in New Mexico in 1916; 70 in 1917; 12 in 1919. In 1920, Ligon was dismayed to see his total extermination plan foiled by wolves crossing the border from Mexico. So trappers were assigned to patrol the border to keep out the invaders. Later, in 1946, the man who then held Ligon’s position (now in the USFW advocated erecting a wolf-proof fence along the entire border! That proposal didn’t go far, but soon thereafter control officers began using the strong poison known as Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) to kill wolves—and training their counterparts and ranchers in Mexico to do the same. This worked. The last confirmed Mexican wolf sighting in the U.S. occurred in Texas in 1970. The animal was shot on sight. Meanwhile, wolves became increasingly scarce in Mexico.

Then, in 1976, reflecting a new attitude toward predators, the USFWS listed the wolf as endangered and protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Essentially the same agency that succeeded so well in extirpating Mexican wolves was now charged with bringing them back. So the USFWS sent a trapper to Mexico to find wolves for a breeding program. Between 1977 and 1980 he managed to capture four males and one female, which were sent to the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum in Tucson. These were the last wolves of this subspecies known to live in the wild. Fortunately, the female was pregnant and, along with a few other wolves already in zoos, these animals founded the zoo population.

The Mexican gray wolf is considered to be the most genetically distinct of North America’s five gray wolf subspecies.The 1982 Wolf Recovery Plan called for reintroducing Mexican wolves to the wild, but it took 16 years of political and legal wrangling before 11 wolves were released into southeastern Arizona’s Apache National Forest in 1998. Since then, there have been several additional releases, with more planned for this year. There have been setbacks as well, including at least five wolves killed by people, one as recently as last December. Happily, pups have been born too. Today, about 23 Mexican wolves roam freely, representing nearly one-quarter of the recovery plan’s goal of a wild population of 100 animals.

Mexican Wolves at the National Zoo

Mexican wolves—three brothers—were introduced to a new exhbit at the National Zoo in June 2001.

 

About 200 Mexican wolves also live in 39 zoos in the U.S. and Mexico—and that number is about to become 40 when next month the National Zoo becomes part of the American Zoo Association/USFWS Mexican wolf program and welcomes a pair of these canids to Beaver Valley. Zoo staff hope that they will breed as early as the spring of 2002.

Eventually, their young or grand-young may be selected for release into the wild. Previously, grand-young of red wolves that lived at the National Zoo were released into Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern North Carolina. Like the Mexican wolf, the red wolf was extinct in the wild, but now, as a result of a zoo breeding and reintroduction program, an estimated 96 red wolves live freely.

The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is a subspecies of the gray wolf, and considered to be the most genetically distinct of North America’s five gray wolf subspecies. Most scientists believe the red wolf (Canis rufus) is a separate species. With much controversy, the USFWS has proposed that all North American wolves except these two be downlisted from endangered to threatened. It cites as justification burgeoning populations of wolves in Minnesota and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and the highly successful reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone. A ruling is expected this summer.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Teresa S. July 25, 2005 10:56 AM

i would love to here your thoughts on this  [ send green star]
 
Kei Site Updated! July 31, 2005 8:42 PM

Kei Site Updated!

The Campaign for Kei Website has been updated. It has a flash video that was well put together.

The whole format has been changed on the site. It has lots of information on it too.

PETA is now an ally to the Free Kei Campaign. They have issued an official letter to the Okinawa Zoo.

Also the main organizer of the campaign, Greg Leisure, by chance encountered a Japanese War Hero,

who supports the cause. What his role will be in this is uncertain but it certainly is interesting of note.

Visit the site at:

http://www.keithewolf.com

For past updates that are of interest, visit:

http://www.heartofthewolf.org/kei.html

  [ send green star]  [ accepted] 		(Member Is Blocked)
 
Spawn and…….Wolves? August 22, 2005 2:21 PM

Spawn and…….Wolves?

Definitely check out Spawn issue 147 and 148. Spawn on his journey to reclaim
lost memories and find out who took them, wanders to Minnesota. He is rescued
by a family when near death. On top of that he encounters corrupt hunters and
bizarre Wolves.

Let’s just say that McFarlane, the author of the series, paints Wolves in an
interesting and positive manner.

~Mike Wagner -- Freelance Wolf Activist-- and Co-Host of Wolf Tracks
http://www.heartofthewolf.org
http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/TRACKS

For those who want to know what happens and not get the issues……………


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLOT SPOILER:


Spawn happens to be rescued by a family, they warn of hunters in the area, and
bizarre Wolves. Before he encounters the hunters who he feels he must rescue,
the hunters clearly are against the protection of Wolves that are in place by
the DNR (Although the DNR is of course corrupt). One of them even is a jerk to
his wife.

Not too long after this Spawn arrives and is ambushed by the unusual Wolves. He
fends them off and attempts to rescue the hunters. The hunters don’t care and
start attacking Spawn. Spawn is forced to kill the hunters. Looking around, the
Wolves are gone. He returns to the family dwelling that he was allowed to stay
in. The family disappeared without a trace, and after this incident, no hunters
or others are keen on returning to the area.

In issue 148, it is revealed that the family who rescued him was the Wolves.

So Spawn was rescued by Wolves. Kind of reminds me of Mowgli and the Wolf pack
in the Jungle Book.

Also, there is a action figure set by Spawn.com that is a darker more realistic
version of fairy tales. One of them is Red Riding Hood, brutal killer who is
not cute, nor innocent. And proudly holds up an eviscerated Wolf.



 

 [ send green star]  [ accepted] 		(Member Is Blocked)
 
The Wolf Totem Novel set for release in English September 06, 2005 10:35 AM

The Wolf Totem Novel set for release in English

Thanks to Professor Steven Paul Day Dept. of Modern Languages & Literatures Chinese Section at Swarthmore College for this update.

The Wolf Totem Novel set for release in English

Source: China Daily (9/5/05):

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-09/05/content_475097.htm

Mike Wagner -- Freelance Wolf Activist-- and Co-Host of Wolf Tracks

http://www.heartofthewolf.org http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/TRACKS

 [ send green star]  [ accepted] 		(Member Is Blocked)
 
Letter printed in Casper Tribune! September 21, 2005 12:38 PM

I thought this would be of interest to most people.

 

http://www.heartofthewolf.org/Casper.htm

 

Take care folks,

 

  Mike Wagner -- Freelance Wolf Activist-- and Co-Host of Wolf Tracks

http://www.heartofthewolf.org http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/TRACKS

 [ send green star]  [ accepted] 		(Member Is Blocked)
 
Really cool Wolf Song. October 05, 2005 3:55 PM

Really cool Wolf Song.

I highly recommend this song for anyone who loves Wolves.

Mike Wagner -- Freelance Wolf Activist-- and Co-Host of Wolf Tracks
http://www.heartofthewolf.org http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/TRACKS

from the group Los Lobos

Will the Wolf Survive?
(David Hidalgo/Louie Pérez)

Through the chill of winter
Running across the frozen lake
Hunters are out on his trail
All odds are against him
With a family to provide for
The one thing he must keep alive
Will the wolf survive?

Drifting by the roadside
Climbs each storm and aging face
Wants to make some morning's fate
Losing to the range war
He's got two strong legs to guide him
Two strong arms keep him alive
Will the wolf survive?

Standing in the pouring rain
All alone in a world that's changed
Running scared, now forced to hide
In a land where he once stood with pride
But he'll find his way by the morning light

Sounds across the nation
Coming from your hearts and minds
Battered drums and old guitars
Singing songs of passion
It's the truth that they all look for
The one thing they must keep alive
Will the wolf survive?
Will the wolf survive?

(c) 1984 Davince Music/No K.O. Music (BMI) http://loslobos.setlist.com/Discography/wolfsurvive/willthewolfsurvive.html

From the Album : How Will the Wolf Survive?
http://loslobos.setlist.com/Discography/wolfsurvive/howwillthewolfsurvive.html

 [ send green star]  [ accepted] 		(Member Is Blocked)
 
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct

 

This group:
the wolf that live's with me
52 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences


Copyright © 2009 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved