Good News: Trump puts elephant trophy imports on hold

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42035832

  • 18 November 2017
Elephants at Mana Pools, ZimbabweImage copyrightSPL
Image captionThe US Fish and Wildlife Service argues hunting “will enhance the survival of the African elephant”

President Donald Trump has suspended the import of elephant hunting trophies, only a day after a ban was relaxed by his administration.

Imports of trophies from elephants legally hunted in Zambia and Zimbabwe had been set to resume, reversing a 2014 Obama-era ban.

But late on Friday, President Trump tweeted the change was on hold until he could “review all conservation facts”.

The move to relax the ban had sparked immediate anger from animal activists.

“Your shameful actions confirm the rumours that you are unfit for office,” said French actress and animal-rights activist Brigitte Bardot in a letter to President Trump.

Protests spread on social media with many sharing images of President Trump’s sons posing with dead animals during their hunting trips in Africa.

One photo of Donald Trump Jr shows him holding the amputated tail of a dead elephant.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had argued that hunting fees could aid conservation of the endangered animals.

Experts say that populations of African elephants are plummeting.

Their numbers dropped by about 30% from 2007-14, according to the 2016 Great Elephant Census.

The non-profit group’s report found a population drop of 6% in Zimbabwe alone.

Despite their listing under the Endangered Species Act, there is a provision in US law that allows permits to import animal parts if there is sufficient evidence that the fees generated will actually benefit species conservation.

In 2015 a US dentist from Minnesota killed a famous lion named Cecil in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park.

Cecil’s death triggered an outrage in the US and Zimbabwe, and briefly forced the hunter into hiding.

Advertisements

Outrage as trophy hunter shoots rare snow leopard and publishes ‘vile’ picture where he’s smiling ear-to-ear

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/outrage-trophy-hunter-shoots-rare-11470652
“Hossein ‘Soudy’ Golabchi stands smiling with the dead white and black
animal draped across his shoulders in what protesters have called a
‘disgusting example of outright murder'”

“A US trophy hunter is facing global criticism on social media after
he shot a rare snow leopard and published this grinning picture
online.
“In the image, Hossein Golabchi – also known by the nickname Soudy –
stands smiling from ear-to-ear with the stunning white and black
animal draped across his shoulders.”

Make animal traps illegal in Toronto: Toronto Wildlife Centre
http://torontosun.com/news/local-news/make-animal-traps-illegal-in-toronto-toronto-wildlife-centre
“The head of the Toronto Wildlife Centre is calling for bylaws that
would to make it illegal for people to use animal traps within city
limits.
“The push comes after a skunk and a raccoon — which each suffered
serious injuries when trapped — had to be euthanized after they were
brought into the wildlife centre last week.
“Both badly hurt in leg-hold traps, a distressed skunk transported
from Oakville backyard and a Toronto raccoon were captured in
residential neighbourhoods. And in the raccoon’s case, it was found in
the Pape-Danforth Aves. area.”

Court Helps Cabinet Yaak Grizzlies, Again: Time for Fish and Wildlife Service to Do Better

https://www.grizzlytimes.org/single-post/2017/08/29/Court-Helps-Cabinet-Yaak-Grizzlies-Again-Time-for-Fish-and-Wildlife-Service-to-Do-Better

August 29, 2017

|

Louisa Willcox

Grizzlies in the remote Cabinet Yaak ecosystem in northwest Montana are literally on death’s doorstep, numbering less than 50 grizzlies – less than half of the FWS’ absurdly small recovery goal of 100 bears.  Making matters worse, since this population was listed as threatened in 1975 (along with other grizzlies in the lower-48 states), grizzlies have been functionally split between the northern Yaak region and the southern Cabinet Mountains; there has been no movement of grizzly bears between these isolated segments for many years. The reason? Excessive killing, particularly poaching, and the press of human activity.

The listed status of the population matters. If Cabinet Yaak grizzlies are given the more stringent “endangered” protections, the FWS will have to designate critical habitat for them. One major reason that the population is doing so poorly is habitat degradation. Excessive road networks on the Kootenai Forest, built to cut down the huge trees in this lush landscape, allow easy entry for poachers, who constitute the leading cause of death in this population. By contrast, poaching is not nearly as severe a problem in the two wilderness-based strongholds for grizzlies around Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), centered on Glacier Park.

 Christiansen’s Ruling: The Context

In 2014, FWS had downgraded the Cabinet Yaak population from a “warranted, but precluded” endangered status, meaning that the population deserved greater protections, but that FWS could not deal with the problem due to other priorities that it deemed more important. These greater protections had been granted by a judge in 1993 as a result of litigation by conservationists.

To justify its defiance of the judge’s earlier ruling, the FWS relied on a 2010 determination that it used to dodge listing the polar bear as endangered, despite the fact that global warming has been ferociously melting sea ice needed by polar bears to hunt seals. In this case a judge allowed the FWS to interpret “in danger of extinction” as meaning “on the brink of extinction,” with the proviso that this interpretation applied only to the special circumstances of polar bears.

Meanwhile, between 1993 and 2014 threats to Cabinet-Yaak grizzlies from roadbuilding, human settlement, and poaching mounted. The situation is so dire for these bears that the FWS regularly augments the population by bringing in grizzlies from the NCDE population. More on this later.

Nevertheless, the FWS wanted to downgrade the population’s status so that it would not have to make hard decisions that would challenge powerful status quo interests in the logging and mining industries. At the same time, the agency greenlighted a Forest Service plan that instituted weaker standards for managing roads in the Cabinet-Yaak compared to  those applied to grizzly habitat in Greater Yellowstone and the NCDE, both of which support 10-15 times more grizzlies. Stringent management of roads in these better-protected ecosystems is seen as key to the progress made toward population recovery.

Christensen determined that the FWS’ downgrading of protections for the Cabinet-Yaak’s grizzlies was “arbitrary and capricious.” He said: “There is no evidence… to suggest that the agency found that the change in policy was permissible under the Endangered Species Act, believed that the new policy was better than the agencies’ prior interpretations, or otherwise provided a good reason for the change.” (link)

Michael Garrity, Director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, which brought the case to court, wryly observed that, instead of redoubling efforts to protect and restore habitat and reduce mortalities, the FWS has spent the better part of the last two decades dragging its feet.

Second Positive Court Ruling for Cabinet Yaak Grizzlies in a Year

Judge Christiansen’s ruling is the second in a year in aid of the Cabinet-Yaak’s beleaguered grizzlies. In May, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch rocked the grizzly bear world by sentencing a man to six months in federal prison for poaching a threatened grizzly bear in the Cabinet Yaak ecosystem (link).

Although the additional fine of $5,000 was stiff but not unusual for violations of the ESA, jail time is unheard of as a penalty for any imperiled species, let alone grizzly bears. There has never been a louder message to would-be poachers that federal officials are taking their duty to protect endangered species seriously.

The facts of this case showed that the killing was not in self-defense, but rather as a malicious lark. Shaloko Katzer of Mead, Washington followed a grizzly, then shot and killed it in the Yaak Falls campground in July, 2015.

Judge Lynch was unusually clear about his intentions when he addressed Katzer during sentencing, saying: “You went out of your way to kill this bear. But the most important thing is this is going to stop. And, unfortunately, you may be the first example, but the unnecessary killing of these threatened species is going to stop. And you, sentencing you to this is necessary to deter all those individuals who might undertake or engage in the same conduct of I guess what they might consider a sport.” (link)

Lynch and Christensen are not the only judges to have ruled in favor of grizzly bears. In fact, during the last 25 years, Courts have determined on at least 20 occasions that more needs to be done to advance recovery of threatened grizzly bears, which for the last 50 years have remained at a mere 2-3% of their former numbers.

Yet, so often, the FWS would rather do nothing and lose again in court than work to get recovery right, especially in the case of Cabinet Yaak grizzlies. The agency seems to care more about minimizing political risks to its funding and prerogatives, which admittedly are considerable, rather than fulfilling its public trust responsibilities by aggressively recovering a charismatic endangered species for the benefit of all Americans.

And, time may not be on the side of the few surviving bears in the Cabinet Yaak.

Time is Running Out for Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk Grizzlies

For decades, the FWS’ top priority has been stripping Yellowstone’s grizzlies of their endangered species protections, which happened for the second time in June of this year. Removing protections for grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem is the agency’s next goal; a delisting proposal is expected for the NCDE in 2018.

The FWS’ focus on eviscerating protections for these larger populations has come at the additional expense of grizzlies that are on the ropes — not only in the Cabinet Yaak, but its neighbor to the west in Idaho, the Selkirks.  The Selkirks, a similarly small ecosystem that also straddles the Canadian border, and supports perhaps 50 animals on the US side.

Given the small size of these populations, the slide to extinction could be relatively quick, as these bears are not far from zero now. Grizzlies have extremely low reproduction rates, which makes recovery much more difficult. There are only a handful of reproductive females in each ecosystem, and the loss of even one of these females could be devastating.

It is impossible to overstate the level of threat facing Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzlies.  Sadly, there is no designated Wilderness in the Yaak area, and, the Cabinet Mountains are long and skinny, giving people easy access to even the farthest reaches of these scant wildlands. Only a small portion of the Selkirks is protected Wilderness.

There is no portion of either ecosystem protected by a National Park, which is why you may have never heard of them. That matters, because in Yellowstone, Glacier and, seasonally, Grand Teton Parks, grizzly bears are protected from people with guns. This alone has made a huge difference to recovering grizzly bears.

Both the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk ecosystems are hammered by logging roads.  The Canada side of the ecosystem is pretty beat up too – making bears more or less isolated from larger populations on all sides.

Adding insult to injury, two hard rock mines are poised to hemi-sect the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem. If the Rock Creek Mine is built on the west side of the Cabinets and the Montanore mine on the east, the ability of grizzly bear to travel from the north to the southern third of the bear’s range would be seriously compromised. Even the FWS has admitted that these mines, if built at the same time (which is now proposed), would be the last nails in the coffin for this population. So far, litigation brought by conservation groups (does this sound like a theme?) has forestalled these mines.

As I mentioned earlier, prospects even under the current conditions are so bleak that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has resorted to dumping grizzly bears from the healthier Glacier population into the Cabinet-Yaak to prevent the population from winking out. Still, out of 17 grizzly bears that have been relocated during the last 15 years, only three have been known to contribute genes to the population.

All is not lost, however, for the habitat, with its Pacific maritime influence, is incredibly productive, with berries that Yellowstone grizzly bears could only dream of.  There is hope, if the thugs stop killing bears, as the ESA requires, and if enough habitat is protected.

Uplisting the Cabinet Yaak and Selkirk populations to endangered status and designating critical habitat for these bears could prompt needed restoration and make habitat more secure for grizzlies.  Stiffer penalties and more aggressive prosecution of poaching cases could also reduce malicious killing. Better coexistence practice could reduce conflicts. Proven methods include running electric fence around beehives and chicken coops, and installing bear resistant garbage bins around home sites.

Not doing stupid, harmful stuff would also help enormously.

Now for the Dumbest Idea Ever: New, High-Use Hiking Trail Through the Heart of the Yaak

Just as you think things cannot get worse for Cabinet Yaak grizzlies, the Forest Service has proposed a new high use hiking trail through the heart of the wildest part of the Yaak. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail would run 1,200 miles from Glacier National Park to Port Townsend, Washington, tying into the popular Pacific Crest Trail.

As many as 4,000 hikers are expected to blast through the bear-iest habitat in the Yaak – many undoubtedly oblivious to bears as they listen to tunes on headsets, as is the custom on the Pacific Crest Trail. The likelihood of negative consequences is high as hikers displace bears and increase the chance of conflicts with bears.

Local conservationists, including the prolific writer Rick Bass, have suggested an alternative route that avoids this refugium, a measure also supported by preeminent grizzly bear scientist Chuck Jonkel, who passed away last year (link). But, a crazy rider to a 2009 spending bill sponsored by Norm Dix, former Congressman from Washington, authorized the trail.

While the Forest Service can still say “no” to the current route, the agency is reluctant to change course. Meanwhile a trail advocacy group, Pacific Northwest Trail Association (PNTA), has been bullying the government to push the process through. “The trail is coming whether you like it or not,” said Jeff Kish of PTNA to Jessie Grossman of the local conservation group Yaak Valley Forest Council in a recent conversation.

Cabinet-Yaak grizzlies need more, not less habitat. This issue is a no brainer: the Forest Service and FWS should simply re-route the trail so as to minimize impacts on grizzlies. But, then, both agencies love to say “yes” to every development proposal that crosses their desk.

It is true, too, that avoiding stupid stuff like the Yaak trail won’t achieve recovery, which entails doubling the size of the population. For that, we need a bigger picture approach.

Yellowstone and Cabinet Yaak, Selkirks Grizzly Bears Need Each Other

We tend to talk about the Greater Yellowstone, Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirks and Glacier, as if they are separate grizzly bear planets. They aren’t. They simply represent bears in the last bits of land where grizzly bears survived when the FWS got around to listing them in 1975. These ecosystems represented the small remnants of what had been one more or less contiguous grizzly bear population that stretched from the Great Plains to the Pacific coast and south to Mexico.

Despite all the work since 1975 to recover grizzlies, they still constitute only 3% of their former numbers. While scientists say that continued isolation is a serious problem for all these populations, FWS still treats them as separate postage stamps.

Geneticists tell us that Yellowstone bears will be forever at risk genetically if they stay isolated in their current ecological island. Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk grizzly bears cannot stay isolated either if their future is to be ensured. All must be connected to each other and to larger populations in Canada. The government knows this, but it is too darn difficult to talk about such a big vision in such a mean-spirited, anti-science, political climate.

Many experts say that for Yellowstone’s grizzly bears to connect with bears elsewhere, the best route is through the Selway Bitterroot ecosystem north through, yes you guessed it, the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem.  This means that grizzly bears must be recovered in Idaho’s vast Selway Bitterroot ecosystem, which scientists say could support 600 or so grizzlies.

But the lynchpin for recovery is the largest grizzly bear population, centered on Glacier Park, with perhaps 900 or so bears.  Although only four grizzly bears are known to have moved on their own from this ecosystem to the Cabinet-Yaak and stay there, more could do so in the future if habitat is protected and bears are not killed. Grizzlies are also moving south towards Yellowstone, and into the north end of the Selway Bitterroot recovery area. Meanwhile, they are moving east, recolonizing prairie habitat.

Grizzly bears are showing the way to recovery with their paws. From Yellowstone, bears are moving further west along the Centennial Range towards the Selway Bitteroot. Individuals have moved south from the Cabinets as well. Grizzlies, probably from the NCDE, have shown up this summer in the Big Belt Mountains, about 100 miles north of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. They are connecting on their own, if we don’t kill them.

Instead of treating the five remaining grizzly bear populations as isolated islands, the FWS should look at opportunities to achieve durable recovery through expanding secure habitat by restoration and improved co-existence practices. The 1992 recovery plan, which ignored the pressing issue of climate change and gave short shrift to connectivity, is in sore need of revision. This is the place to reimagine recovery and the possibilities of creating a large contiguous population of grizzlies in our northern Rockies.

Instead of dragging their feet until they are sued again and spanked by judges, the FWS and Forest Service should show a little courage and exercise leadership – for the bears and all the rest of us.

Please do what you can to help Cabinet Yaak grizzlies: tell the Forest Service to re-route the Pacific Northwest Trail to avoid the heart of the Yaak. Send an email to mtmcgrath@fs.fed.us, and send a copy to info@yaakvalley.org. The Yaak Valley Forest Council (www.yaakvalley.org) is leading the fight against this idiotic trail. You can help stop the disastrous Rock Creek mine by supporting Rock Creek Alliance (www.rockcreekalliance.org). And the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (www.allianceforthewildrockies.org)  brought the latest uplisting case — stay tuned for more chapters on this drama.

Oregon wolf found dead; cause of death unknown

OR42, the breeding female of the Chesnimnus Pack, had her failed radio-collar replaced on Feb. 23, 2017 in the Chesnimnus WMU in northern Wallowa County. (ODFW/CC BY-SA 2.0)

AA

ENTERPRISE, Ore. – The breeding female from an Oregon wolf pack was found dead earlier this month, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife said.

OR42 from the Chesnimnus Pack was found dead in Wallowa County in early May, ODFW said in a press release Tuesday.

“A preliminary forensic examination did not identify a cause of death and no foul play is suspected at this time,” the agency said in the statement. “However, it is still under investigation and additional laboratory tests are being conducted.”

OR42 had her radio collar replaced in February 2017.

Two other wolves in the pack have collars that allow biologists to track their movements.

Study: To Mitigate Problem Predators, Give Wolves More Space, Tolerance

http://klcc.org/post/study-mitigate-problem-predators-give-wolves-more-space-tolerance

MAY 23, 2017

Wolves mostly make the news when they are in conflict with livestock and that’s part of the reason they were once removed from the Western landscape. But a new study shows wolves play an important role, whether we like it or not.

It’s not just wolves that prey on livestock.

“Worldwide, smaller meso-predators like coyotes, jackals and such, actually themselves prey pretty heavily on livestock and can cause a lot of economic damage,” Aaron Wirsing of the University of Washington said.

Wirsing co-authored a new study in the journal Nature Communications. He said current land management policies don’t offer apex predators enough space, but that doesn’t mean he wants to see wolves roaming rampant across North America.

“We need to allow predators to occupy more landscapes than just remote, protected areas,” Wirsing said. “On the other hand, we also need to heavily manage them, recognizing that they do conflict with people.”

That conflict made headlines last summer, when members of the Profanity Peak wolf pack killed four calves in Northeastern Washington. In response, Washington’s Department of Fish decided to shoot members of that pack from a helicopter.

“Historically, our model has been almost a postage stamp model where we protect certain areas and try to maintain intact assemblages of animals,” Wirsing said. “But we have a problem of scale.”

So, for example, areas protected for wildlife and public use might seem large from a human perspective, but what humans ay not consider is wolves can range up to 1,000 miles.

And it’s not only in the forest. Wirsing said wolves also roam the sage brush landscape in the central Northwest.

The study made use of bounty hunting data to show ecosystems function similarly in both Europe and Australia as well.

Copyright 2017 NWNews. To see more, visit NWNews.

Denmark gets its first wild wolf pack in 200 years

Arrival of a female wolf, that trekked 500km from Germany, means the pack could have cubs by spring

Three wolves in snow
Wolves are returning to well-peopled landscapes after centuries of persecution. Photograph: Fred van Wijk/Alamy Stock Photo

A wolf pack is roaming wild in Denmark for the first time in more than 200 years after a young female wolf journeyed 500km from Germany.

Male wolves have been seen in Denmark since 2012 and the new female could produce cubs this spring in farmland in west Jutland after two wolves were filmed together last autumn.

It is further evidence that the wolf is returning to well-peopled landscapes after centuries of persecution, with wolf packs also re-establishing themselves in France and Germany and individuals sighted in Holland and even Luxembourg. Before the new population, Denmark’s last wolf was killed in 1813.

“We expect that they will have cubs this year or the next,” said Peter Sunde, a senior researcher at Aarhus University.

“People were very surprised when wolves first appeared in Denmark but they are highly mobile and are just as adaptable to cultural landscapes as foxes are. The only problem historically is that we killed them.”

DNA from two faeces samples have confirmed that the female wolf came from a pack 25km south of Berlin in Germany before travelling to north-west Denmark, probably leaving her family group last spring to do so.

There is sometimes speculation that wolves are deliberately released into the countryside by unofficial rewilders but according to Guillaume Chapron, a researcher at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, this female’s trek north was entirely natural. “The wolf went on its four legs, it makes complete biological sense,” he said. Wolves can walk 50km in 24 hours and have been recorded making journeys of more than 1,000km across Europe from Germany, where they re-established themselves in 1998. Germany’s wolf population is currently growing at 25-30% each year, with the young dispersing across central Europe.

Researchers have found wolves in some cases living in suburban areasalongside up to 3,050 people per square kilometre – higher than the population density of Cambridge or Newcastle.

“The wolf is a predator to the roe deer – if you can have roe deer, you can have wolves,” said Chapron. “As long as we don’t disturb them, they will be fine in these human-dominated landscapes. In Denmark there’s no reason wolves can’t thrive. But the question has to be asked, are people going to accept the wolves? The wolf will need to eat something. When they realise that Danish sheep don’t taste too bad that may be a little problematic. It will be interesting to see how far we can coexist with big predators.”

Denmark’s wolves have settled in a well-farmed area of heathland and small pine plantations with plentiful prey in the form of burgeoning populations of red and roe deer.

There have been reports of wolves killing several sheep in the area over winter but the Danish government has already established a wolf management plan with compensation for farmers and funding so livestock farmers can erect wolf-proof fencing. The management plan, drawn up in consultation with game hunters as well as farmers and conservationists, allows for wolves that become “habituated” and live too close to humans to be controlled.

“There is a tradition in Denmark of reaching compromises and reaching solutions,” added Sunde, who said he was optimistic that Danes could coexist peacefully with wolves. “Technically, we can relatively easily manage the wolf population but the challenge is the psychology of humans. There are so many feelings and opinions about wolves in Denmark, as everywhere. The wolf debate is very much value-driven rather than related to concrete problems.”

There are more than 12,000 wolves in continental Europe (excluding Russia, Ukraine and Belarus) and the wolf is a protected species under the EU’s habitats directive. According to Chapron, southern European countries have often been better at accepting new wolf populations than northern Europe. Several countries with relatively small wolf populations including Finland and Norway still pursue controversial annual culls of the animals.

Chapron said he would not like to predict how many wolves could live wild in Denmark. “Let the wolf decide and let people decide as well because we are sharing the landscape. It’s very positive news for nature conservation. It shows that attitudes have changed and when we let nature take care of itself, nature comes back.

“Forget Little Red Riding Hood – it’s not a myth that is back, it’s just a natural part of the European fauna.”

Wolves can be shot on sight in most of Wyoming after state takes over management

Wyoming assumed management once again of wolves within its borders on Tuesday, and those apex predators wandering outside the northwest corner of the state can be shot on sight.

The Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., entered its final order in favor of Wyoming in a lawsuit that landed wolves back on the endangered species list in 2014. The court announced in early March that it had upheld the state’s plan but had not issued its final order.

Tuesday’s decision is what Wyoming wolf managers hope is the last legal battle in a roller-coaster legal process.

“All indications are that this decision shows once again that Wyoming’s plan is a sound management plan,” said Brian Nesvik, chief of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s wildlife division. “They will remain in the hands of state management. For Wyoming this is, again, this is a time for us to celebrate. This is a good thing for Wyoming to be able to take on another wildlife resource.”

No changes were made to Wyoming’s wolf management plan from when the state oversaw the carnivores between 2012 and 2014, Nesvik said.

That means Wyoming will manage the 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Reservation.

Wolves in 85 percent of the state are considered a predator and can be shot on sight, similar to coyotes. They are classified as a trophy animal in the northwest corner of the state and subject to fall hunting seasons. Those seasons have not yet been set, Nesvik said, adding that wolves in those areas cannot be hunted right now. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission will set those seasons after a public comment period.

A coalition of environmental groups sued Wyoming in 2012 over the state’s management plan. A representative for the group said in early March the coalition was disappointed with the D.C. court’s ruling, said Tim Preso, an attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm representing Defenders of Wildlife and several other environmental groups who filed suit against the state.

Earthjustice’s lawyers argued, essentially, that Wyoming’s plan to maintain a buffer of more wolves than the required amount was not legally binding and insufficient under the Endangered Species Act. The court ruled that Wyoming’s plan was adequate, and environmental groups did not appeal the decision.

Preliminary estimates showed Wyoming had about 240 wolves at the end of 2016, Tyler Abbott, Wyoming field supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told the Star-Tribune in March.

The feds killed about 115 wolves in 2016 because of livestock depredations, he said. In 2015, the service killed about 54 wolves.

Because of the high number of wolves killed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, Nesvik estimates hunting season quotas this fall will be similar to those before wolves went back on the list.

In 2012, 42 wolves were killed by hunters in the state’s trophy area and 25 were killed in the rest of the state. The next year, 24 wolves were shot in the trophy area and 39 taken in the rest of the state.

Gov. Matt Mead expressed his satisfaction with the court’s decision in a news release sent Tuesday evening.

“I am delighted that the Circuit Court recognized Wyoming’s commitment to manage a recovered wolf population,” Mead said. “Our wolf management plan is a result of years of hard work by people across Wyoming. We recognize the need to maintain a healthy wolf population.”

Wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995. They have been off the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho since 2011.

Two wolves survive in world’s longest running predator-prey study

For 2 years in a row, a pair of wolves has managed to survive on Isle Royale, Michigan, the last of their kind on the wilderness island. Researchers continue to track the wolves and their moose prey, in the last installments of the world’s longest running predator-prey study.  They report today that although the wolves hunt successfully, they are too few to affect the moose population. Aquatic as well as terrestrial vegetation is taking a hit as moose numbers climb, according to the study’s 59th annual report.

After Canadian wolves colonized the island in 1949, the wolf population peaked at 50 in 1980, and as recently as a decade ago, 30 wolves prowled the island, a U.S. National Park. The island’s now-famous predator-prey study has tracked how wolf and moose numbers have risen and fallen in tandem over the decades, and left their mark on the island’s ecology.

In contrast to last year’s winter study, when wolf tracks were the only evidence of the predators, wildlife ecologist Rolf Peterson spotted both wolves sitting on lake ice on the January afternoon he arrived on the island.  Weeks later, Peterson and co-investigator John Vucetich, both of Michigan Technological University in Houghton, found the wolves feeding on a freshly-killed moose calf. “We were very lucky,” Peterson says. “There was no mystery left in terms of the wolf population,” or what they were eating.

The researchers also observed that, in what normally would have been the wolves’ breeding period, the 7-year-old female bared her teeth in response to the close interest of the 9-year-old male; he is both her father and half sibling.  Researchers don’t expect the highly inbred pair to reproduce.

The two wolves otherwise appeared healthy and still have all their canines, a key sign of well-being in the carnivores. The pair has already surpassed the average Isle Royale wolf lifespan of 4 years, dodging the main causes of death for their ancestors on the island: other wolves and starvation. “They are swimming in moose,” Vucetich says.

The four wolf-killed carcasses the researchers spotted made little dent in the overall moose population, estimated at 1600 in aerial surveys conducted this past winter.  The 20% increase from last winter is consistent with the population’s growth rate over the past 6 years, as the inbred wolf population dwindled and collapsed.  Both beaver and moose abundance have tripled since 2011, “undoubtedly because of lack of predation,” Vucetich says.

With moose density on the Guam-sized island already five to ten times higher than on the mainland–and with the numbers on track to double in three to four years—browsing on the island’s vegetation is intense. One aquatic plant, floating watershield (Brassenia  schreberi), which was abundant six years ago when moose were at historic lows, now thrives in ponds only where moose are excluded. “It’s the aquatic equivalent of deforestation,” says plant ecologist Eric Hellquist of SUNY Oswego, noting that moose’s effect on aquatic vegetation is not as well studied as that on terrestrial plants. Isle Royale’s ponds are demonstrating “how apex predators can have cascading effects on food webs.”

As the effects of the missing predators ripple through the island, the Park Service is assessing about 5000 public comments on its proposal to introduce 20 to 30 wolves to the island to establish a new population. The next steps on that plan are expected by the end of this year.

Wolves have purpose

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/apr/03/leave-wolves-roam-intended/

Letters to the Editor

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2017

Contrary to Stevens County Commissioner Don Dashiell’s claim that the numbers of wolves today are at levels never seen in Washington state’s history (March 18 article), the facts are available online. The Fish and Wildlife Department site states that historically wolves were common throughout the state until the influx of settlers between 1850 and 1900. Hunting, trapping and poisoning decimated a species that had called Washington (and most of the Lower 48) home for millennia.

Wolves have their part to play in the web of life on this planet. People need to think twice before deciding they know better than the one who created all this and stop destroying what is not to their liking. I don’t think God looks favorably on those who have such disrespect for this perfect blueprint. Wolves and all predators have a predetermined purpose, as does everything that inhabits Earth. Let’s stop interfering with the design and work with it, instead of trying to dismantle and redraft it.

by Jeannie Shank

Colville

Money Talks; Grizzly Bears Die

by Barry Kent MacKay
Senior Program Associate

Born Free USA’s Canadian Representative

03/31/17

If they knew how pathetic they looked to ordinary people, would they feel
shame? Nah. They probably don’t care what others think. I speak of those
whose idea of fun is to end the life of a magnificent animal, pose over his
or her cooling carcass while photos are snapped, and keep remnants of the
slaughtered being in their trophy rooms.

The Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, who heads the Liberal Party,
is the darling of Safari Club International. She supports trophy hunting
because, well, it brings in money. That-not the lives of innocent
wildlife-is what matters to her ilk. Blood money is still money: the
fervently worshipped material deity of all that matters. Safari Club
International recently donated $60,000 to help assure that, in the May 9
provincial election, the National Democratic Party would not unseat Ms.
Clark.

If elected, the National Democratic Party-far more progressive than the
Liberal party-has promised to end trophy hunting for grizzlies. Thus, rich
and powerful Safari Club International members in both Canada and the U.S.
dug into their change drawers and donated the $60,000 to the Liberal
election campaign, apparently through the Guide Outfitters Association of
British Columbia (which has honored Clark with its President’s Award,
cheered by her refusal to change the laws in order to limit such
munificence).

The more rare and more magnificent the animal, the more these trophy hunters
seem to want to kill. Perhaps it’s out of some deep psychological need to
dominate, as if owning the stuffed remains of these glorious animals somehow
imbues the hunter with some of the glory. (Although, of course, to most of
us, it does the opposite.) And, few animals left in North America are more
rare than the grizzly bear, extirpated through so much of its former range.

Poll after poll and survey after survey have shown that more than 90% of
British Columbia residents don’t approve of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.
Even hunters, many of whom hunt for food and sport, disdain the trophy
hunter; they recognize that the “trophy” is the result of wealth, not of
what they would consider skill or need. British Columbia’s National
Democratic Party leader, John Horgan, clarifies that he does not oppose
hunting, but that he would end the British Columbia trophy hunt if he
becomes Premier.

Wildlife biologists, including those on the government’s own payroll, often
stand firmly opposed to the trophy hunt on ecological and conservation
grounds. That’s an important economic consideration, as two major studies
have shown that bear viewing generates more tourist income than bear trophy
hunting. But, you need to have bears to view-and the grizzly, with its need
for extensive wilderness and its slow reproductive rates, is particularly
vulnerable to endangerment.

The Liberals ended a moratorium on grizzly trophy hunts when they came to
power. Now, it’s time for things to change.

Barry Kent MacKay

Senior Program Associate

Born Free U.S.A.