GRAY WOLVES ARE NECESSARY AND VALUABLE TO ALL OF US




#KeepWolvesListed
#ReListWolves
#Vote4Wilderness

 Monday July 14. 2014
Wolf Actions for the week.

Heyya Wolves, here are the actions we can take this week to help protect and save our wolves.
1. A VERY VERY important thing to do for YELLOWSTONE WOLVES: 

 Please write your Congressman . . . RE: Rep Peter DeFazio's request of July 8, 2014, For a Buffer zone around YNP . . This is extremely important . Follow the Link for quick & easy email form, copy & paste if you want:

TO MY CONGRESSMAN
Subject: Support Congressman Peter DeFazio's efforts to Protect National Park Wolves

Dear Congressman _____________Please ask Interior Secretary Sally Jewell to act favorably on Congressman DeFazio's request of July 8, 2014 for "concerted and coordinated efforts to work with the states and establish a uniform wolf safety zone or buffer round Yellowstone National Park" and establish "an Interagency Wolf Task Force for the purpose of coordinating across federal and state agencies to protect park wolves from adverse effects of trophy hunting and other causes of human-induced morality in all National Parks with wolf populations." 
PLEASE BACK HIM UP! This issue is very important to me!










 2. Please help Wolfwatcher Coalition support wolves by contributing writing or artwork.
Deadline is July 31. 2014
All submission information is here:
http://thurstonhowl.blogspot.com/2014/06/submission-guidelines-for-national.html








BREAKING NEWS! USFWS Southeast Region talks about possibility of ending Red Wolf Recovery Program in radio broadcast!

Please email for Red Wolves. 
3. Tell USFWS Southeast Region that you want the Red Wolf Recovery program to continue The number of wolves IS down because so many have been killed by illegal gunshot and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission has also revoked permission to use sterilized coyotes as placeholders to prevent hybridization with red wolves. .All you need to do is to take five minutes and email the following people and let them you know you think critically endangered red wolves are essential and you want the recovery program to continue.

Email: cynthia_dohner@fws.gov(SE Regional Director)
Email: leopoldo_miranda@fws.gov(SE Region Asst. Director)
Email: d_m_ashe@fws.gov.( Dan Ashe, Director, USFWS)

#IAmRedWolf
#IAmEssential
#StandForWolves




4. Please support @Kids4Wolves in their efforts to fund the coexistence work carried out by Wood River Wolf Project.
Monday, July 14. 2014 is the last day to buy an awesome tee shirt featuring the silhouettes of Yellowstone wolves 925M, 926F, and 755M. 






USFWS to Review Red Wolf Recovery Program
5.Take action here:




Thank you to ECS for sharing this action
6.Please sign Representative Peter DeFazio’s petition to USFWS asking that they respect science and maintain Endangered Species Act protections for Gray Wolves




Thank you to @Canislupus101

7. Please sign the petition from Defenders of Wildlife to ask USFWS to do their job and redouble efforts to protect red wolves from extinction in the wild.



8.Please sign the petition from Global Green Watch (GGW) to:
PROTECT IDAHO’S WOLVES FROM OTTER’S CRUELTY




9. Please sign the petition from The Endangered Species Coalition @endangered asking state Governors to Ban the Trapping of Gray Wolves.




10. Send your thoughts about why we need for our USFWS to continue to keep wolves listed as endangered species under the ESA. Thank you very much to Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center for making this an easy action to take.






11. Please email Alaska Governor Parnell about Alaska’s “kill-on-site” Policy for Orphaned Wolf Pups and Bear Cubs, politely telling him that you object strongly to this heinous policy.
Contact Governor Parnell using this form.






12. Please sign to: Ban Fur Trapping on Public Lands in the United States





13. Start with "Learn the Five Principles for Effective Wolf Advocacy" and go from there.
Thank you Oliver Starr / Pearltrees



14. Meet and help these sweet Wolf Dogs.
Many states have outlawed hybrid Wolf/dogs, so they are in danger. No Buddy of ours should have to suffer because of human irresponsibility. Folks who own a wolf or breed wolves for status pets, (which is NOT the same as homing wolves in a Sanctuary ) really should rethink what they are doing to the animal souls they are using. It places the hybrid Buddy in a highly compromised position, as he or she does not know to choose to be either wild or domesticated.
Thankfully we have folks who will help these Buddies who, through no fault of their own, are in a tough spot.

Thank you very much for supporting and caring about our Wolves!

____________________________________________________

#KeepWolvesListed
#ReListWolves
#Vote4Wilderness
Monday July 7. 2014
Wolf Actions for the week.


Heyya Wolves, here are the actions we can take this week to help protect and save our wolves.


http://publicradioeast.org/post/red-wolf-recovery-program-under-review

 BREAKING NEWS! USFWS Southeast Region talks about possibility of ending Red Wolf Recovery Program in radio broadcast!
http://bit.ly/1mBugyJ

Please email for Red Wolves. 
1. Tell USFWS Southeast Region that you want the Red Wolf Recovery program to continue The number of wolves IS down because so many have been killed by illegal gunshot and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission has also revoked permission to use sterilized coyotes as placeholders to prevent hybridization with red wolves. .All you need to do is to take five minutes and email the following people and let them you know you think critically endangered red wolves are essential and you want the recovery program to continue.

 Email: cynthia_dohner@fws.gov(SE Regional Director)
Email: leopoldo_miranda@fws.gov(SE Region Asst. Director)
Email: d_m_ashe@fws.gov.( Dan Ashe, Director, USFWS)

 #IAmRedWolf
#IAmEssential
#StandForWolves

2. Please support @Kids4Wolves in their efforts to fund the coexistence work carried out by Wood River Wolf Project.
9 days left to buy an awesome tee shirt featuring the silhouettes of Yellowstone wolves 925M, 926F, and 755M. 
kids4wolves.blogspot.com







3. If you are in Arizona or New Mexico, please attend the public hearings for our Mexican Gray Wolf Buddies. http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/1266/51/Save-the-Lobo-in-Hon-Dah-Pinetop-Aug-11-and-Truth-or-Consequences-Aug-13

 Arizona - August 11, 2014 
Hon-Dah Conference Center 
777 Highway 260, near Pinetop, AZ 85935
(3 miles outside of Pinetop at the Junction of Hwy 260 and Hwy 73)

 The annual Big Lake Howliday Campout has been rescheduled for August 8-11 so that lobo supporters can go from there to the hearing at Hon-Dah. Go to www.gcwolfrecovery.org for more info.

 New Mexico – August 13, 2014
Civic/Convention Center
400 W 4th Ave, Truth or Consequences, NM 87901







 USFWS to Review Red Wolf Recovery Program
http://blog.wolfpark.org/?p=1129
4.Take action here:
http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/o/2167/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15939




 Thank you to ECS for sharing this action
http://www.endangered.org/representative-defazio-speaks-out-for-wolves/
5.Please sign Representative Peter DeFazio’s petition to USFWS asking that they respect science and maintain Endangered Species Act protections for Gray Wolves
https://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/respect-science-and-maintain-endangered-species-act-protections-for-gray-wolves




Thank you to @Canislupus101

6. Please sign the petition from Defenders of Wildlife to ask USFWS to do their job and redouble efforts to protect red wolves from extinction in the wild.
http://canislupus101.blogspot.com/2014/06/sign-petition-for-red-wolves-via.html



7.Please sign the petition from Global Green Watch (GGW) to:
PROTECT IDAHO’S WOLVES FROM OTTER’S CRUELTY
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-idaho-wolves/




8. Please sign the petition from The Endangered Species Coalition @endangered asking state Governors to Ban the Trapping of Gray Wolves.
https://takeaction.takepart.com/actions/tell-governors-to-ban-the-trap?cmpid=action-eml-2014-06-18-wolves




9. Send your thoughts about why we need for our USFWS to continue to keep wolves listed as endangered species under the ESA. Thank you very much to Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center for making this an easy action to take.
http://www.wolfeducation.org/#!be-a-voice/c1668






10. Please email Alaska Governor Parnell about Alaska’s “kill-on-site” Policy for Orphaned Wolf Pups and Bear Cubs, politely telling him that you object strongly to this heinous policy.
http://wolfpreservation.me/2014/06/13/alaska-governor-allows-kill-on-site-policy-for-orphaned-wolf-pups-and-bear-cubs/
Contact Governor Parnell using this form.
http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell/contact/email-the-governor.html






 11. Please sign to: Ban Fur Trapping on Public Lands in the United States
http://www.antifursocietyinternational.org/petitions/fur-trapping-in-usa/petition.php





 12. Start with "Learn the Five Principles for Effective Wolf Advocacy" and go from there.
http://www.pearltrees.com/wolfactivist
Thank you Oliver Starr / Pearltrees


13. Meet and help these sweet Wolf Dogs.
Many states have outlawed hybrid Wolf/dogs, so they are in danger. No Buddy of ours should have to suffer because of human irresponsibility. Folks who own a wolf or breed wolves for status pets, (which is NOT the same as homing wolves in a Sanctuary ) really should rethink what they are doing to the animal souls they are using. It places the hybrid Buddy in a highly compromised position, as he or she does not know to choose to be either wild or domesticated.
Thankfully we have folks who will help these Buddies who, through no fault of their own, are in a tough spot.
http://www.gofundme.com/82rvgw

 Thank you very much for supporting and caring about our Wolves!

____________________________________________________

#KeepWolvesListed
#ReListWolves
#Vote4Wilderness

Monday June 30. 2014
Wolf Actions for the week.

Heyya Wolves, here are the actions we can take this week to help protect and save our wolves.
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/gray-wolves-are-necessary-and-valuable.html


USFWS to Review Red Wolf Recovery Program
http://blog.wolfpark.org/?p=1129
1.Take action here:
http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/o/2167/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15939






Thank you to ECS for sharing this action
http://www.endangered.org/representative-defazio-speaks-out-for-wolves/

2.Please sign Representative Peter DeFazio’s petition to USFWS asking that they respect science and maintain Endangered Species Act protections for Gray Wolves
https://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/respect-science-and-maintain-endangered-species-act-protections-for-gray-wolves

Thank you to @Canislupus101

3. Please sign the petition from Defenders of Wildlife to ask USFWS to do their job and redouble efforts to protect red wolves from extinction in the wild.
http://canislupus101.blogspot.com/2014/06/sign-petition-for-red-wolves-via.html




4.Please sign the petition from Global Green Watch (GGW) to:
PROTECT IDAHO’S WOLVES FROM OTTER’S CRUELTY
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-idaho-wolves/




5. Please sign the petition from The Endangered Species Coalition @endangered  asking state Governors to Ban the Trapping of Gray Wolves.
https://takeaction.takepart.com/actions/tell-governors-to-ban-the-trap?cmpid=action-eml-2014-06-18-wolves



6. Send your thoughts about why we need for our USFWS to continue to keep wolves listed as endangered species under the ESA. Thank you very much to Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center for making this an easy action to take.

7. Please email Alaska Governor Parnell about Alaska’s “kill-on-site” Policy for Orphaned Wolf Pups and Bear Cubs, politely telling him that you object strongly to this heinous policy.
Contact Governor Parnell using this form.




8. Please sign to: Ban Fur Trapping on Public Lands in the United States
http://www.antifursocietyinternational.org/petitions/fur-trapping-in-usa/petition.php




9. Start with "Learn the Five Principles for Effective Wolf Advocacy" and go from there.
http://www.pearltrees.com/wolfactivist
Thank you Oliver Starr / Pearltrees



10. Meet and help these sweet Wolf Dogs.
Many states have outlawed hybrid Wolf/dogs, so they are in danger. No Buddy of ours should have to suffer because of human irresponsibility. Folks who own a wolf or breed wolves for status pets, (which is NOT the same as homing wolves in a Sanctuary ) really should rethink what they are doing to the animal souls they are using. It places the hybrid Buddy in a highly compromised position, as he or she does not know to choose to be either wild or domesticated.
Thankfully we have folks who will help these Buddies who, through no fault of their own, are in a tough spot.
http://www.gofundme.com/82rvgw

Thank you very much for supporting and caring 
about our Wolves!


__________________________________________________
#KeepWolvesListed
#ReListWolves
#Vote4Wilderness

Monday June 16. 2014
Wolf Actions for the week.

Heyya Wolves, here are the actions we can take this week to help protect and save our wolves.
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/gray-wolves-are-necessary-and-valuable.html

1. Send your thoughts about why we need for our USFWS to continue to keep wolves listed as endangered species under the ESA. Thank you very much to Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center for making this an easy action to take.

2. Please take action via email for our North Carolina Red Wolves here before June 23, 2014:
The organization for our Red Wolves is here: www.redwolves.com
These little Red Wolf Buddies are Hank and Betty. 
What little rockers!



3. Support Red Wolves via a beautiful tee shirt here:



4. Please email Alaska Governor Parnell about Alaska’s “kill-on-site” Policy for Orphaned Wolf Pups and Bear Cubs, politely telling him that you object strongly to this heinous policy.
Contact Governor Parnell using this form.


Thank you very much for supporting and caring 
about our Wolves!
Photo credit: Gray Wolf--MaryAnn Routh Photo

__________________________________________________
#KEEPWOLVESLISTED

 April 26. 2014
If you are so inclined please send this page to your senators and representatives, ask them to watch the videos and ask them to use their influence to keep wolves listed as endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.

 http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/gray-wolves-are-necessary-and-valuable.html 
~ OR ~ 
http://tinyurl.com/my43qtn

 Senators on Twitter:
http://www.socialseer.com/resources/us-senator-twitter-accounts/

 State by state government links:
http://www.gov.com/statelocal/


THE LAST WOLF
SUKA KINSEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we7pAqsB9PQ&feature=youtu.be






A PLACE CALLED WOLF MOUNTAIN
BY:DENISE KINSEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgRFs-QAXrI&feature=youtu.be

 __________________________________________________



Speak for California Wolves. 
Tell CF&G to list Gray Wolves as "endangered" and needing protection of the California Endangered Species Act.
APRIL 16. 2014 HEARING IN VENTURA, CALIFORNIA. IF NOT IN CALIFORNIA, YOU CAN EMAIL YOUR COMMENT.



Please lend your voice to California Wolf Center http://californiawolfcenter.org/
to Urge the California Fish and Game Commission to protect and list #GrayWolves as #endangered under California’s Endangered Species Act.

In February, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife made a recommendation 

At the Ventura hearing, the Commission will decide whether to accept this recommendation.

If you are NOT in California, you can do this:
Comment~ Provide written comments to the Commission 
Send your written comments to fgc@fgc.ca.gov.

Talking points to use for written ( and verbal comments if you are able to attend the hearing ):
* Wolves are on their way back to California, as evidenced by OR-7's forays into the state in the last four years. With a wolf population of zero to one animal (OR-7 spends time in Oregon and California), it's hard to get more endangered than that. We should be proactive in protecting recolonizing wolves to ensure they have the best chance at recovery.

* Gray wolves are a native species to California, and there is extensive suitable habitat in parts of the state.
Californians are excited for wolves to return, and want this iconic, keystone species protected and recovered.

If you ARE in California, please do this:
Attend the Commission hearing & rally in Ventura~Show your support for wolves. To provide oral testimony, fill out a speaker card at the entrance (view the agenda here). Meet with wolf supporters and staff of conservation organizations at a rally before the hearing.
What: California Fish and Game Commission meeting & pre-hearing rally
When: Wednesday, April 16. Rally at 7:45 am; Commission hearing at 8:30 am. 

Where: Crowne Plaza Ventura Beach Hotel, 450 East Harbor Boulevard, Ventura, CA 93001. Rally will be outside; hearing will be inside.
__________________________________________________

GRAY WOLVES DESERVE CONTINUED PROTECTION


By Rep. Peter DeFazio


This 2012 photo shows a wolf from the Minam pack in the Eagle Cap Wilderness in northeastern Oregon. (AP Photo/Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)

 Guest opinion
March 15, 2014 at 3:37 PM, updated March 15, 2014 at 3:39 PM

 By Rep. Peter DeFazio

 For two years, a lone gray wolf has traversed rugged Oregon terrain and crossed invisible state borders searching for a mate. The wolf, known as OR-7, is one of only 64 gray wolves known to roam Oregon and he was the first known wolf to enter California in decades. Since he split from his fledgling northeastern Oregon pack, his 3,000 mile journey has been chronicled by local and national press and captured the attention of many in Oregon and beyond.
Gray wolves like OR-7 were not always so rare in the West.
Once common on the American frontier, state-led eradication efforts killed nearly every gray wolf in the country by the 1930s.

A successful recovery plan was started by the Reagan Administration in 1987. Because of protections granted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), gray wolves have begun a strong comeback in a number of states.

But that recovery is about to end.

 Three years ago, swayed by special interests and conservative western states, Congress foolishly voted to end ESA protections in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah and allowing extermination once again. In 2012, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) removed protections for wolves in Wyoming.

 One of these states—Idaho—has turned back the clock, resurrecting the same extermination programs that landed the gray wolf on the endangered species list in the first place. Earlier this year, the governor of Idaho announced he would dedicate $2 million in state taxpayer funds to eradicate gray wolves throughout the state. More than 20 wolves have recently been gunned down more on the Idaho/Montana border.

 As Idaho continues down this path, the federal government has no legal authority to stop the killing, having already willingly ceded the protections wolves were afforded under the ESA.  Similarly, they were unable to stop the killing of a wolf pack in a federal wilderness area in January.  When wolves cannot roam free in a federal wilderness area, something is clearly wrong.

 Now, compounding the error of removing ESA protections for the wolf in the Western United States, FWS has proposed removing protections for all gray wolves in the lower 48 states. This decision was based on a single study, written by four scientists on FWS payroll, claiming gray wolves had recovered and were no longer in need of ESA protection. The study was published in a largely unknown FWS journal that had been dormant since 1991 to avoid the kind of rigorous scrutiny that is demanded in prominent scientific publications.

 Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell has said that FWS’s decision to delist the gray wolf is “about the science, and you do what the science says.”

 I completely agree. That’s why I pushed FWS to take a harder look at the science behind this ill-conceived proposal. Recently, FWS begrudgingly released that peer review from an independent, objective panel of top experts in the fields of ecology, taxonomy and genetics.

 The reviewers unanimously found FWS did not use the “best available science” when it decided to remove the gray wolf from protections under the ESA. The reviewers said that FWS accepted unproven science uncritically while it disregarded conflicting data outright.  

 FWS should not ignore the chorus of voices opposing its rule, and it certainly should not ignore the many experts who are skeptical of the “science” behind the decision. If it does, it will hand responsibility of gray wolf survival to cash-strapped states that are too ill-equipped to manage or too indifferent to care. Many would declare open season on one of America’s most iconic wild animals, just as Idaho has done, and long before their recovery is a reality.

 What is the point of decades of work and millions of taxpayer dollars to save a species, only to allow it to be hunted into near-extinction once again?  

 If FWS moves forward with the proposed delisting, OR-7’s calling to establish his own pack will likely go unfulfilled. And what could be one of the greatest wildlife recovery stories of the Endangered Species Act will remain unfinished.   

 The conclusion of the peer review leaves no option but for FWS to rescind the proposed rule and continue federal protections that are essential to the long-term survival and recovery of gray wolves. It is the only way that gray wolves will ever reclaim their place as a keystone species of our great American landscapes. 


Democrat Peter DeFazio, who represents Oregon’s 4th congressional district, serves on the House Natural Resources Committee.

__________________________________________________
2009: THE YEAR IN WOLVES
Natural Resources Defense CouncilSwitchboard: Natural Resource Defense Council Blog

Matt Skoglund’s Blog
Posted December 30, 2009 
in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places


 2009 was a dismal, tragic year for Northern Rockies wolves.  They lost all protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), were hunted for the first time in Montana and Idaho (and continue to be hunted in Idaho), and were killed by various causes in record numbers.  In all, almost one third -- one third! -- of the Northern Rockies wolf population was killed in 2009. 

 The good news is that NRDC and other conservation groups have not relented one iota in our fight on behalf on Northern Rockies wolves, and our lawsuit to restore their ESA protections should be ruled upon in 2010. 

 Here is a recap of 2009 for Canis lupus in the Northern Rockies:

 January 14, 2009:  Dubya the Decider, wishing to go out with a bang, announced that wolves in Montana and Idaho were being removed from the endangered species list, but wolves in Wyoming would remain listed.   

 January 20, 2009:  Freshly inaugurated President Obama put on hold the wolf delisting rule -- and all other last-minute rules and regulations issued by the Bush administration -- for further review.  Hope was restored, as many assumed the Obama Administration, with its pledged commitment to science, would scrap the premature, scientifically baseless, politically motivated Bush rule on wolves.

 March 6, 2009:  Hope was crushed, as Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced he was rubber-stamping the Bush rule on wolves and removing ESA protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho, but not Wyoming.  (Six months later, a federal judge found that this decision was politically crafted and thus likely illegal.)

 May 4, 2009:  The delisting rule went into effect, and wolves in Montana and Idaho lost all federal protections under the Endangered Species Act.

 June 2, 2009:  NRDC and twelve other conservation organizations, represented by Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit to restore ESA protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho.     
July 8, 2009:  The State of Montana approved the state’s first-ever fair-chase public wolf hunt with a kill quota of 75 wolves -- or about 15% of its population. 

 August 17, 2009:  Montana’s neighbor to the west, Idaho, authorized its first-ever fair-chase public wolf hunt with a kill quota of 255 wolves -- or about 30% of its population.  (And neither Montana’s nor Idaho’s quota included any of the wolves killed by government “control” actions, natural mortality, or illegal poaching.) 

 August 20, 2009:  NRDC and the other conservation groups in the delisting lawsuit filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the planned wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho from proceeding. 

 September 1, 2009:  Idaho’s premature wolf hunt opened.

 September 8, 2009:  U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy denied our motion to stop the wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho, but, on a very bright note, he found that we are likely to win our delisting lawsuit.  Specifically, he concluded, “The [U.S. Fish and Wildlife] Service has distinguished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science.  That, by definition, seems arbitrary and capricious.”

 September 15, 2009:  Montana’s poorly planned wolf hunt opened only in the backcountry, with the rest of the state scheduled to open on October 25th.  The result?  Multiple wilderness wolves and wolves from Yellowstone National Park were quickly killed, which the state must have seen coming with the way it structured the hunt. 

 October 13, 2009:  With too many wolves from Yellowstone killed just outside the Park’s boundary (because Montana failed to implement a buffer zone around the Park to protect its famous and important wolves), Montana shut down the wolf hunt north of Yellowstone.

 November 16, 2009:  Montana’s wolf hunt ends, with 72 wolves killed in the hunt.

 December 2009:  Two ominous reports about wolves in the Northern Rockies surfaced.  The first described how Yellowstone’s wolf population is shrinking and the annual census of the Park's population is expected to be the lowest in 10 years.  The second broke the worrying news that a record number of Northern Rockies wolves -- more than 500 -- have been killed in 2009 by hunters, government agents, ranchers, poachers, and natural causes.  This astronomical level of mortality amounts to almost one third of the last official population estimate. 

 December 24, 2009:  Lynne Stone, a fearless wolf advocate in Idaho, received a scary, threatening e-mail from a wolf hater there.  The e-mail simply said, “Merry Cristmas” (spelled without the “h”), and it included a morbid photo:


Heading into 2010, this disturbing photo and sinister e-mail (sent the night of Christmas Eve) remind us of what wolves are up against in the West -- and why NRDC’s work on behalf of Northern Rockies wolves is more important than ever.

 On January 28, 2010, the last brief in our wolf lawsuit will be filed.  Following a hearing in federal court, Judge Molloy will decide whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act when it removed ESA protections from wolves in Montana and Idaho earlier this year. Hopefully he concludes that the ESA was violated and restores ESA protections for those states’ wolves. 

 After a deadly 2009, let’s hope 2010 is a better year for wolves in the Northern Rockies -- with less killing, less spinning of the facts by government bureaucrats, and less politically driven decision-making.  Let’s hope wolves . . . can be wolves. 

 Happy New Year.  Howl. 

 COMMENTS

 Mike Gwaltney — Dec 31 2009 01:31 PM
Thanks to you, Matt, and to the NRDC for all the good work you are doing on behalf of the wolves. Keep it up. Let's hope 2010 is better.
joe robinson — Jan 3 2010 06:29 PM
i will preface these comments by saying i don't want all the wolves dead,gone,killed 
or slaughtered.
i'm blessed to be born and raised in a piece of the world that is still 
wild enough to support the populations of grizzly and wolf.
that said i want to express my opinion that the misinformation being passed about the wolf is coming from both sides.
they do kill much more than they eat.example;
i have seen it with my own eyes,i have found instances where 5 wolves have killed up to 6 cow elk during one of "their" hunts and consumed less than 30 lbs of flesh from all 6 cow elk not including the fetus.(which seemed to be the targeted morsel.as each of the cows were missing this portion collectively)
and elk numbers overall in montana and wyoming are doing well and even expanding
in areas,but not in the same wilderness areas that surround YNP where wolves have the strongest foothold.
i spend 125+ days afield each year and have for the past 20 yrs,i have seen with my own eyes the impact that wolves are having on OUR
wildlife.
elk numbers in the absorka range of montana and wyoming are a fraction of what they were in 1995.
my fear is the impact this population crash will have on other species including the grizzly.
these bear numbers are artifically high due to the easy pickings the wolves have left behind and the cub survival rates will crash also in the coming years due to poorer overall condition of the sows going into hibernation.
these bears will adapt to the changes in their food sorces as proved in GNP,but their overall numbers are going to take quite a dive in the years to come.
the science is there to provide a stable enviroment for the wolf,but that same science MUST be evaluated with the brain and leave the heart out of the equation.
to protect one species at the cost of and decimation of another will have far more impact on the ecosystem and still leaves all of us here in the rocky mountains with less
not more of what we are striving for,a complete and balanced circle of life.

 Janet Barwick — Jan 6 2010 01:09 PM
Joe,
Thank you for your comment. In reading your statements, however, I can't help but see the emotion and heart that you hope to be left out of the argument. The statement that wolves kill far more animals than they eat is an emotionally charge one that is thrown up time and again to create misundertanding and hatred torward these animals. While it's true that wolves will kill more than they eat (sometimes), one must remember that these carcasses left over WILL be utilized by a whole host of scavengers--from birds to grizzlies. More importantly, these wolf kills are providing a very important food source for grizzlies who, without whitebark pine seeds and cutthroat trout, are finding it more difficult to survive. You state that grizzly populations will crash without strong elk populations, but it has really been the wolf that has served up a steady source of elk meat to grizzlies (who rarely hunt full-grown elk).
Wildlife populations are ever-changing. There is an ebb and flow--increases and decreases. Elk population decreases are often followed by collapses in wolf populations--in fact, we are seeing this predator/prey dynamic happening in Yellowstone right now. This would explain how these populations co-evolved for thousands of years. Mother nature is always self-regulating.
BTW, there is another species that kills for fun and kills more than it can eat too! Can you guess what species that is?
Stanley Blouch — Jan 10 2010 09:39 AM
I have a hard time trying to understand how we as humans can justify killing the wolf for killing livestock, when we raise livestock to kill and eat.The wolf was on that land and coexsisted with the true American the Native American.They held the with the highest respect and considered them wolf as brothers.We took the land and developed it and turned the land into ranches put up fences the wolf had no choise but to kill livestock to survive.Why do we have such a problem trying to coexsist with wildlife we forced to do what ever they have to do to survive?
Comments are closed for this post.

 Tags: biogems, endangeredspecies, endangeredspeciesact, resolutions, wolf, wolfhunt, wolves, yellowstone, yellowstonenationalpark, yellowstonewolves

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reposted from April 23. 2013
GRAY WOLF IN THE USA 
IN PERSPECTIVE : 1973 - 2013
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/gray-wolves-are-necessary-and-valuable.html

Have a look at where the historical ranges of the gray wolf were before extinction ( pink ) and where they are now ( red )....

 Successful wolf recovery ????

 Hunting virtually eliminated gray wolves from the western U.S. by the 1930s. The Endangered Species Act offered Canis lupus federal protection in 1973, and wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park more than 20 years later.

 1973
Northern Rocky Mountains gray wolf placed on endangered species list

 1978
Gray wolf listed throughout range in the Lower 48 states.

 1995-96
Wolves from Canada are reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho

 2002
Reintroduced wolves in the Northern Rockies exceeded population goals for 10 consecutive years.

 2003-08
The U.S. tries to delist the gray wolf at least three times, but is defeated in court. 

 2009
Wolves are delisted in Idaho and Montana, where wolf hunting begins; 260 wolves are killed. 

 2010
Wolf protection is reinstated by a district court.

 2011
Federal protections are officially removed in Idaho and Montana, but remain in place in Wyoming. 

 2012
Wyoming wolf population is delisted and managed by the state. Wolves in the western Great Lakes states are removed from the endangered species list.

 April 2013
U.S. officials propose to delist gray wolves in the Lower 48 states, except for a small population in the Southwest.
http://graphics.latimes.com/towergraphic-la-me-wolves/

 Thank you Isabel Esteve Bertomeua
_______________________________________
THE ARGUMENT FOR ECO TOURISM, 
 WOLF WATCHING, 
AND PARK BUFFER ZONES
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/gray-wolves-are-necessary-and-valuable.html
DON'T SHOOT THE GOLDEN GOOSE OF WILDLIFE VIEWING
Dr. Stephen Stringham
January 26, 2014


Brown bears fishing for salmon at Brooks Falls in Katmai National park.
Pete Hamel / NPS

 One of the Alaska’s most popular outdoor activities is watching wildlife -- for instance bears, wolves, moose, Dall sheep, sea lions, or songbirds. Each year, viewers pour nearly a billion dollars into our restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores, sporting goods stores, motels, air taxi services, and many other businesses, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

 More than $365 million pours in as direct income for private business owners, as well as employee salaries and wages, from wildlife viewing. Another $164 million comes in through direct tax revenues -- $90 million state and local, $74 million federal. Sightseeing adds an additional chunk of money. Each time those dollars are again spent locally, the economy gets a further boost. Taking that boost into account, total value of wildlife viewing is estimated at nearly double the above figures: $979 million, $620 million, $154 million, and $126 million, respectively. Directly or indirectly, most Alaska families benefit from ecotourism.

 Wise government would do everything possible to assure the health and growth of this golden goose. Yet I see no evidence that Juneau or the Board of Game makes any real effort to do so. On the contrary, when their predator control program decimates wildlife viewing opportunities, and takes the bread out of the mouths of Alaska families, their tacit response seems to be “then let them eat meat” -- as though man can live by meat alone (paraphrasing two historic quips). Anyone making the transition from the Bush to citified living learns all too quickly that utility companies don’t accept roasts or sausages as barter; nor do grocery stores, or gas stations. Even sporting goods stores require payment in cash.

 I enjoy eating moose, sheep and hare as much as anyone. I grew up harvesting wild meat and took great pride in living off the land, especially while deep in the Wrangell Mountains when failure meant starvation. But, like most other Alaskans, I now live in town where other considerations outweigh my preference for wild meat.

 The only way I know to leave enough harvestable animals for people who truly rely on subsistence meat, or who simply enjoy killing wildlife, is for the rest of us to settle for just watching the animals. Suppose that 1,000 people had equal rights to the benefits from 100 potentially harvestable moose. If everyone wanted their benefits as meat, each person would get only one-tenth of a moose. However, if 900 of the people accepted their benefits through viewing 10 moose, the remaining 90 harvestable moose would be divided among only 100 people -- a nine-fold gain in meat per hunter. The same principle applies to all game species. And every Alaskan does have an equal right to wildlife benefits, just as we have an equal right to bear arms.

 Aren’t hunters just shooting themselves in the foot when they try increasing the popularity of hunting, while denigrating viewing? Far from being the enemies of hunters, viewers are potentially their strongest allies -- except when hunters become game hogs, and insist on destroying viewing opportunities. Killing viewable animals, especially right in front of viewers, is not only utterly crass, but it just alienates more people against hunting.

 Wise management would acknowledge the multiple ways in which Alaskans benefit from our wildlife, and design regulations to assure that all of us receive a fair share, rather than focusing almost exclusively on putting meat on tables and trophies on walls for a favored minority. Piecemeal token gestures, such as the Board of Game’s measures for “protecting” Wolverine Creek bears, have proven grossly inadequate. Worse, public proposals to obtain better protection of viewable animals have been greeted with barely-veiled hostility, contempt, and utter disregard for the negative impacts current practices inflict on Alaska families. Benefit-to-cost ratios for each regulation need to be considered for everyone, not just for those of us who buy a hunting license.

 The Board of Game should do comprehensive, systematic planning with representatives of ecotourism businesses and organizations. Prime sites for viewing bears, wolves, moose, caribou and other species should be identified, and viewing designated as the highest and best use for these areas and their wildlife.

 Would that protection substantially reduce hunting opportunities? No, far from it. The book “Bear Viewing in Alaska” identifies only a few dozen prime bear viewing sites in all Alaska. Prime sites for viewing wolves, moose, caribou, Dall sheep, and mountain goats, for example, are even scarcer. Protecting prime sites and their wildlife would encumber only a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the state and a comparably small fraction of our wildlife populations -- some of which are already inside or adjacent to national parks. Enhancing viewing opportunities could bring hundreds of millions in additional profits, salaries, wages and tax revenues to Alaska each year, some of which could end up in your pockets or your kids’. And the more people who view instead of hunt, the less competition there will be between remaining hunters. Win-win.

 Of course, win-win solutions satisfy only those of us who care about fairness and about our neighbors, whether or not they prefer hunting over viewing, or vice versa. Unfortunately, all too many people see other folks only in terms of allies versus enemies, and define success only in terms of conquest. Even worse are people who benefit from polarizing the public to sustain the artificial conflict between hunting versus viewing. In truth, Alaska is big enough for both and many of us enjoy both.

 When either hunters or viewers spout rhetoric about the sacredness of “our” way of life, and absolutely refuse to share Nature’s bounty with “them,” this is sometimes just narrow-minded selfishness. But all too often it’s more fundamentally a way of manipulating the public for the provocateur’s own gain -- either financial or political. So long as a war rages, warriors can make a good living and climb the career ladder, sometimes with their eyes on the governor’s mansion.

 Stephen Stringham, Ph.D., is a wildlife biologist, director of the Bear Viewing Association, a wildlife viewing guide and a former hunting guide. The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

 http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140126/dont-shoot-golden-goose-wildlife-viewing?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=alaskaonline

 RELATED: 
Board of Game will examine predator control in South central Alaska 
Federal officials spar over decline in Denali wolf sightings
_________________________________________


BOARD OF GAME WILL EXAMINE PREDATOR CONTROL IN SOUTHCENTRAL
Jerzy Shedlock
March 10, 2013

Fish and Game supports one proposal affecting moose hunts in Game Management Units 7 and 15 on the Kenai Peninsula.
Courtesy Alan Wilson

 The Alaska Board of Game begins meeting in Kenai on Friday to discuss hunting and trapping regulations for the state's
Southcentral region. Issues the board will address include hunting seasons and bag limits, meat salvage requirements, grizzly bear management and predator control for the Kenai Peninsula.

 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, local advisory committees and the public have submitted more than 50 proposals concerning regulations in the Anchorage, Cordova, Kodiak and the Kenai Peninsula areas. Also under consideration is predator control for a portion of Southeast Alaska.

 "There are a number of moose- and bear-related proposals," Marsh said. "There's no big concern. They're just changes ... Moose are a very important resource for the state's hunters. The individual proposals, I would say they're from people wanting more opportunities to put meat in their freezers."

 Beginning Friday, the board will hear state and federal presentations about brown bear and moose research on the Kenai Peninsula. Then the board will conduct a work session prior to public testimony concerning the management of those animals.

 Many of the proposals for GMU 15 on the Kenai focus on moose. A declining moose population has spurred many calls to do something to reverse the trend. The Kenai and Soldotna Fish and Game Advisory Committee proposed that current moose regulations should stay in place until 2014. Those regulations limit harvest for the general hunting season to bulls with an antler spread of 50 inches or more, or at least four brow tines on one side. The restriction to four brow tines, which went into effect during the fall 2011 season, was meant to reduce the harvest of bulls and thus increase the bull-to-cow ratio in the area.

 Biologists believed more bulls were needed to breed the available cows. And while post-hunt bull numbers increased, a harsh winter subsequently caused a large number of moose deaths, according to the advisory committee. Bulls, who get preoccupied with breeding in the fall and don't eat well, are more susceptible to the ravages of winter than cows.

 Fish and Game has proposed modifying the moose hunts in the two game management units in question to allow hunters to again harvest moose with antlers of 50 inches or more, or with three-brow-tines on one side as in past years. Moose harvests on the Peninsula went from 400 to 600 annually between 2000 and 2010 with a three-brown-tine standard, then dropped dramatically to 30 in fall 2011, according to Fish and Game.

 With heavy bear and wolf predation taking a toll on moose, Fish and Game wrote in its proposal, it is unlikely harvest numbers will increase rapidly. The regulatory change is predicted to allow 30 to 40 more moose to be harvested. The proposal will loosen the restrictions on the hunt, Marsh said.

 "The idea is to liberalize the regulations, so people have more opportunities to harvest moose," he said.

 In one of the lengthier proposals, the Hope Village Council has asked the board to reinstitute a closure of Palmer and Lower Resurrection creeks to moose hunting. The areas had been closed for more than 30 years, but the board reopened them in 2011. The changed caused multiple user conflicts, private property conflicts and displacement of Hope residents during the hunting season, the council wrote.

 "A 'road hunt' resulted on Palmer Creek Road and Resurrection Creek Road with four illegal bulls taken out of six bulls harvested in both areas," the council wrote. "The moose hunt created public-safety issues and conflicted with the uses by Hope residents and others to such an extent that many longtime users felt displaced."

 The Hope council isn't the only organization seeking to halt a hunt.

 The Alaska Wildlife Alliance wants to prohibit bear snaring throughout Southcentral. There is a market incentive to snare black bears without regard to gender or the whether they are sows with cubs because of their valuable furs, the alliance argues. What the organization calls an "onslaught against bears in Alaska" has increased, the environmental group contends, and is now harming Southcentral tourism. According to the alliance, the 2008 revenue generated from hunting and trapping fees totaled $124 million while the revenue from Alaska tourism was more than $538 million.

 No one, however, knows how much of that $538 million is tied to tourists viewing black bears. Black bears are not widely sought after by tourists. 

 Brown bears are another story. They are sought both by tourists and hunters. Proposal 153 submitted by Brian Blossom calls for opening an additional brown bear hunt in GMUs 15A and C. Right now, the Kenai Peninsula is limited to one fall hunt, from Oct. 1 through Nov. 1. The proposal would add a spring hunt, from April 1 to May 31. Marsh said Fish and Game supports the proposal.

 "We'd like to add those dates. The bear population (on the Peninsula) is stable to increasing. This would give hunters better opportunities to harvest brown bears," he said.

 The public is invited to give testimony on these proposals and others starting on March 16. The meeting is scheduled to last through March 19.
Contact Jerzy Shedlock at jerzy(at)alaskadispatch.com
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130310/board-game-will-examine-predator-control-southcentral
_________________________________________


ALASKA, FEDERAL OFFICIALS SPAR OVER DECLINE IN DENALI WOLF SIGHTINGS
Alex DeMarban
December 3, 2013
In another episode of state-federal conflict in Alaska, an official with the National Park Service said the Alaska Board of Game chair was wrong to blame a drop in wolf numbers in Denali National Park and Preserve on declining moose and caribou populations.

 In fact, numbers of both moose and caribou have slowly but steadily risen in the park, said Philip Hooge, the park's assistant superintendent in charge of resources.

 "That was an unfortunate statement by Ted that was not backed up by facts," said Hooge, referring to a comment by Game Board chair Ted Spraker in a recent Alaska Dispatch article.

 Tensions between state and federal wildlife managers are nothing new in Alaska, but they seem to have escalated at Denali. The dispute comes as the Park Service apparently prepares to make the case that hunting and trapping on state-owned land outside the park's northeastern boundary led to a drop in wolf viewings by tourists riding buses on the road into the park.

 The state had for several years banned hunting and trapping of wolves in the 122-square-mile buffer zone outside the park. But the Board of Game removed that protection in 2010, even as Denali managers sought an expansion.

 Also last year, the state broke with precedent and refused to issue permits to allow federal biologists to capture wolves on state land so they could be fitted with radio collars for tracking, said Hooge. "It's made our work more difficult, but it hasn't stopped us from doing our work," he said.

 "A pessimistic person would say that's a method to suppress the collection of data," he added.

 Spraker, a former wildlife biologist, said this week that his statement about declining moose and caribou populations was based not on data, but on his experience watching wolf populations rise and fall. 

 Spraker in the past has voted to keep the state's buffer outside Denali. But he supports the Board of Game's decision to remove it.

 He said he's certain hunting and trapping there is not to blame for the decline in Denali's wolves. That's only possible if a significant number of wolves are killed each year. As he understands it, only a few wolves are taken there each year.

 That leaves a drop in wolf prey as the reason for the decline in the wolf population, unless Denali's wolves have been hit by canine diseases such as parvovirus or distemper, he said.

 State game biologists in Fairbanks did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

 Data shows that parvovirus and distemper aren't the issue, said Hooge. Also, numbers of large animals are up. The caribou herd in the park was surveyed at about 2,300 last fall, the highest level in two decades, according to numbers from the National Park Service. The estimated moose population north of the Alaska Range stood at 1,477 in late 2011, higher than the counts in 2004 and 2008.

 Hooge would not say how many wolves have been taken by hunters and trappers in the buffer zone. He said when it comes to wolf viewings by tourists along the road into the park, the key issue isn't necessarily how many wolves are taken, but which wolves are taken.

 "If you take out a breeding pair close to the road, you're going to have dramatically larger impacts than if you take out dispersing individuals (that roam all over the park)," he said.

 Did the trapping and hunting in the buffer zone lead to a decline in wolf viewing? That question will be addressed in a study coming out this spring that will be peer-reviewed.

 "I want to leave that part of the story to the papers coming out, because that part of the relationship is complex," Hooge said.

 Spraker said he'd like to get a deeper look at the park's data. Hooge said it's on the Denali Park's website, for caribou, moose and wolves.

 "They need to share that information with the board and not do it just in articles where we try to outdo each other in the newspaper," Spraker said. "We need to sit down and talk about it and get it out in the open."

 Contact Alex DeMarban at alex(at)alaskadispatch.com
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131203/alaska-federal-officials-spar-over-decline-denali-wolf-sightings

 RELATED: 
Are hunting and trapping to blame for a drop in wolf sightings in Alaska's Denali National Park?
_________________________________________

ARE HUNTING AND TRAPPING TO BLAME FOR A DROP IN WOLF SIGHTINGS IN ALASKA'S DENALI NATIONAL PARK?
Alex DeMarban
November 28, 2013


But the Alaska Board of Game chairman argues instead that the drop in wolf numbers appears to be related to a drop in prey in the park -- moose, caribou and sheep -- rather than trapping.

 Wolf viewings by tourists are down dramatically in Denali National Park and Preserve, and conservation groups are blasting a 2010 decision by Alaska game managers to allow wolf hunting and trapping on a chunk of state-owned land outside the park.

 The National Park Service didn't voice that same accusation so clearly. But in a press release about the drop in viewings, the agency highlighted the decreased wolf population and the state's policy.

 Ted Spraker, the Alaska Board of Game chairman who has voted against allowing the hunting and trapping in the area, said the drop in wolf numbers appears to be related to a drop in prey in the park -- moose, caribou and sheep.   

 "It has nothing to do with trapping and the fact that a buffer is not there," he said.

 For years, the state did not allow hunting and trapping in a 122-square-mile buffer at the northeast edge of the park that is "most frequented by wolves," the park service said.

 In 2010, the park service asked the state Board of Game to expand that buffer zone. That would have banned "hunting and trapping in additional areas where many of the most-viewed wolves winter, the agency said.  

 But the Board of Game rejected the expansion and went even further, eliminating the buffer zone, the statement noted.

 The possibility of wolf viewings in Denali is considered an important draw for the park's 400,000-plus annual visitors, meaning it's also important for a state economy that's partially dependent on tourism.  

 But the chances of seeing a wolf from a bus ride through the park -- the way the vast majority of visitors travel -- have plummeted, the park service reports.

 In a random sample of 80 bus trips this summer, wolves were seen on three occasions, or about 4 percent of the trips. By contrast, in the three previous years the likelihood was 12 percent (2012), 21 percent (2011) and 44 percent (2010), the park service said.

 The number of wolves counted in the park and preserve north of the Alaska Range during the spring has fallen from 66 in 2012 to 55 in 2013. That's the lowest level since 1986, but the wolf population remains viable, the park service said.

 Trapping as well as hunting for sport and subsistence remain legal in certain areas of the federally owned land, but the "documented wolf harvest is quite small."

 The decrease in wolf numbers has not led to higher numbers of prey in the park and preserve, such as caribou or moose. And while populations of moose, caribou, sheep and bears vary annually, those animals have not undergone the "steady decline found with wolves," the agency said.  

 Spraker said he has twice voted to support the buffer. But as a board member, he said he supports the body’s decision, which will be reconsidered in 2016.

 He said wolf numbers have fallen across the park, not just the area near the buffer, another indication that the hunting and trapping outside the northeast boundary is not to blame.

 "We need to have more science and less emotion involved in this discussion because once it gets to this state you have these circular arguments," he said.

 A statement from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said the drop in wolf numbers was even sharper and blasted the state's policy.

 "In 2010, the Alaska Board of Game, comprised of hunters and trappers, eliminated this no-take wolf buffer altogether," said a statement from PEER. "The wolf population across the 6 million acre park and preserve has declined from 143 in fall 2007 to just 55 in spring 2013 -- a drop by more than half in just six years."

 The PEER statement said the cooperative spirit between state and federal wildlife managers has "broken down completely" under Gov. Sean Parnell, who became governor in summer 2009 after Sarah Palin quit.

 PEER board member Rick Steiner said the game board's 2010 decision hurts tourism.  

 "The State of Alaska should understand the simple economics of this," he said. "In places like Denali, wolves are worth far more alive than dead. Removing the buffer benefits two or three trappers, but costs thousands of park visitors the opportunity to watch wolves in the wild, and thus costs the Alaskan economy.”

 Spraker, who said he enjoys wolf trapping though he doesn't take many, said a potential solution may be a land exchange with the federal government. An exchange would allow the feds to increase the park's holdings. If the trade is fair for the state, perhaps the federal government could trade for a much larger area than the current buffer. That's a decision that would be made at a higher level than the Game Board, most likely the Legislature.

 "The board is understanding and sympathetic to the viewing public," he said. "But we feel hunting and trapping and viewing can be done at the same time if done properly."

 PEER laid out its concerns in a letter to Gov. Parnell and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.

 The park service and Spraker agreed the problem is complex.

 “We are just beginning to learn about the factors, such as pack disruption, that play a role in magnifying the impacts of individual wolf losses on viewability,” said Philip Hooge, assistant superintendent for Resources, Science, and Learning with the park.

 The issue will be explored more deeply in a peer-reviewed paper expected to be released in the spring. 

 Contact Alex DeMarban at alex(at)alaskadispatch.com
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131128/are-hunting-and-trapping-blame-drop-wolf-sightings-alaskas-denali-national-park

 RELATED: 
Game Board again shoots down Denali wolf trapping buffer zone
Falling wolf population in Alaska's Denali National Park should concern us all
_________________________________________



GAME BOARD AGAIN SHOOTS DOWN DENALI WOLF TRAPPING BUFFER ZONE
Craig Medred
January 11, 2013


Tony Hopfinger photo

 Once more the Alaska Board of Game http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.main
has refused to reinstate a wolf buffer zone around Denali National Park http://www.nps.gov/dena/index.htmand Preserve, wherein trapping is banned. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.main

 Moose that inhabit the area, which generally supports the highest concentration of the big ungulates in the 6-million-acre federal reserve, might be happy, but environmentalists are howling mad.

 They say continued trapping threatens wolf-viewing opportunities in the park. Denali wolves are most often seen from the park road. And wolves particularly like the area near the east entrance to the park because moose often congregate just to the north.

 In a prepared statement, Jim Stratton, http://www.npca.org/about-us/regional-offices/alaska/Alaska-Regional-Staff.html the Alaska director for the National Parks Conservation Association http://www.npca.org/ called the board's action "the latest blow from an agency that has forgotten that watching wildlife is every bit as important to Alaskans as killing it.

 “The Board of Game’s decision comes on the heels of the agency denying multiple emergency requests by the National Parks Conservation Association and a host of other concerned Alaska citizens last summer and fall, urging it to reinstate the buffer zone. We raised the alarm upon reviewing initial data from the National Park Service, showing a 66-percent decline in the chances of seeing wolves on Denali Park Road since the buffer zone was eliminated in 2010.

 "Park service researchers also counted the lowest population of wolves in 25 years last October: only 57 wolves, down from a high of 143 wolves in 2007. Viewing wolves in Denali National Park not only provides visitors unforgettable memories; there are serious economic benefits associated with visitors traveling to Alaska with the sole purpose of seeing – not killing – wolves and other wildlife.”

 Park Service officials say they don't know why they counted only 57 wolves in October. They suspect the count missed some, and they note that Denali isn't home to enough moose, caribou and Dall sheep to support many wolves. Wolf densities in the park since 2010 have hovered in the range of wolf densities in the park in the mid-1980s.

 The numbers are significantly lower than the peak wolf years of the early 1990s, but biologists note wolf populations vary widely over time. The population of the nation's most studied wolves -- those that live totally protected on Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior -- has over the years ranged from 50 to 10. The Denali population swings pale in comparison.

 The state Game Board says it is in a position of mediating between various wildlife interests in Alaska. Wolf trapping provides some income in the Parks Highway community of Healy, and some year-round residents of the area are supportive of trapping because low wolf numbers help keep moose numbers higher. And moose are an important source of meat in rural parts of Alaska.

 Contact Craig Medred at craig(at)alaskadispatch.com
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/game-board-again-shoots-down-denali-wolf-trapping-buffer-zone

 RELATED: 
Are Alaskan trappers to blame for declining Denali Park wolf population?
Wolf population in Denali National Park at 25-year low
_________________________________________


FALLING WOLF POPULATION IN ALASKA'S DENALI NATIONAL PARK SHOULD CONCERN US ALL
Rick Steiner
December 30, 2012
Closed-minded ideologues are characterized by their stubborn refusal to amend their perspective when presented with information that doesn’t conform to their position. This sort of rigid thinking is evident in denials of such established facts as climate change, the health impacts of pollution, and even evolution. Ideologues feign a respect for science, but quickly discount it when it conflicts with their long-held point of view.

 We see elements of this same thinking in Craig Medred’s recent article in which he blames the decline in Denali National Park wolves on everything except hunting and trapping. Interestingly, this very same rationalization has been invoked for decades by some resource management agencies, when they blame any downturn of a fish or wildlife population on natural causes beyond their control, while claiming credit for stable or increasing populations as the result of their ‘good management.’

 Along with Yellowstone National Park, Denali National Park is known as one of the best places in the world to view wolves in the wild. More than 400,000 visitors come to Denali each summer, with many hoping to see wolves as one of their main objectives for visiting the park. More than anywhere else in Alaska, wolves in eastern Denali provide significant benefits to tourism, and studies estimate that Denali tourism brings over $140 million each year to the state economy (PDF) Wolf viewing opportunities are mostly provided by three eastern packs (PDF) -- Grant Creek, Nenana Canyon, and East Fork -- a total of just 20 to 30 animals. 

 In recognition of this wildlife viewing value, the state in 2000 closed lands adjacent to the park’s eastern boundary to the take of wolves. But even this partial “buffer” along the Stampede Trail, surrounded on three sides by the park, did not adequately protect park wolves. Alaska Department of Fish and Game records showed an increase in hunting and trapping of park wolves that roamed into areas east of the buffer. 

 The National Park Service noted that in 2007 as many as 12 wolves were killed in the area immediately east of the existing buffer. Dr. Gordon Haber, who studied Denali wolves for over 40 years and was closely monitoring them at the time, said that “(a)t least 11 and as many as 18-19 wolves from five radio-collared Denali study groups -- including the famous Toklat/East Fork family… were snared, trapped, and shot in the area, beginning in late October or early November 2007.”
That was a significant bite out of the park wolf popuation. Haber and I cited this in our October 27, 2008 emergency petition (PDF) to Fish and Game asking that the existing buffer, which obviously was insufficient, be expanded. That petition was ignored. This was also the year the park wolf population began its recent dramatic decline.

 The politics of game management
Another common misconception, repeated by Medred, is that wolves are protected across all of Denali, while in actuality most of its land, outside the original core park wilderness, is open to wolf take. The Park Service is developing regulations now to better manage hunting and trapping within its boundaries. But surprisingly, the Park Service doesn’t even have solid information on the number of wolves killed on its lands.

 In 2010, despite several public proposals submitted to the Alaska Board of Game to expand the existing wolf buffer -- including one from Denali National Park itself -- and despite overwhelming public support for expanding the buffer, the Board instead voted 4 to 3 to eliminate the existing buffer altogether. The tie-breaking vote to eliminate the buffer was cast by a new Parnell appointee, owner of a fur tannery in Fairbanks, whose appointment was subsequently not confirmed by the Alaska Legislature in its 2011 session. And in an act of questionable legality, the Board established a moratorium on future consideration of any Denali buffer proposals for at least 8 years.

 In spring of 2012, a breeding alpha female wolf from the famed Grant Creek pack was legally snared by a trapper in the former buffer, near the boundary of the national park, prompting concerns that the loss of this one female might lead to the entire loss of pups from the pack for the year, abandonment of their historic den, or dispersal, resulting in a further reduction in wolf viewing success in the park.

 In response, I petitioned Fish and Game to use its emergency order authority to close the former buffer to help protect these eastern Denali wolf groups from further decline (PDF). The department denied the request, stating that it had no concern for the sustainability of the wolf populations in Game Management Unit (GMU) 20, a vast 35,000 square mile area in interior Alaska about the size of the State of Maine. By such an absurd standard, even if all of the wolves in Denali were lost it still would not rise to the level of concern for the state.

 How much does one wolf matter?
The Grant Creek incident attracted national media attention, which often seems to attract Medred’s enmity. In his May piece on the incident in Alaska Dispatch, Medred dismissed concerns over the loss of the Grant Creek female, proclaiming that the loss of one individual was insignificant. His rant in defense of wolf-killing was replete with inaccuracies, which he was forced to retract and correct, and was so inflammatory -- inspiring comments online calling for an “open season” on wolf lovers -- that the Dispatch wisely took down the comments page to the piece.

 Medred habitually exalts biologists he agrees with as “world-renowned,” and denigrates those he disagrees with, such as Gordon Haber, who knew Denali wolves better than anyone ever has and likely ever will. Haber spent more time directly observing Denali wolves than any biologist in history, and documented the critical importance of social integrity of wolf family groups, and the importance of individuals in those groups.

 Medred belittles Haber, who died in a 2009 plane crash while conducting wolf research in Denali, as “a one-time scientist who let his love of wolves consume his professional credentials.” That venomous and inaccurate assertion likely derives from the fact that Haber’s research findings directly contradict what Medred wants to believe.

 For instance, Haber’s thousands of hours of meticulous field research found that the loss of just one significant individual from a wolf family group, like an alpha female, can cause significant long-term consequences, including the breakup of a pack, and the loss of unique hunting, pup rearing, and other behavioral traits developed over generations.

 Haber lamented in a 1991 interview that, despite his findings, “(m)ost biologists still take a superficial, numbers-based view of what constitutes a healthy wolf population … The problem is that wolves have complex societies. It takes a long time, at least several generations, for a family group to reach its societal cruising speed.”

 And as it turned out, Medred was dead wrong about the significance of the Grant Creek loss this spring, as our worst fears were realized. While the pack temporarily occupied its historic den site near the park road in early June, there were no pups, and with no pups to hold them there, they quickly abandoned the site. With no cooperative pup rearing to serve as their “social glue,” the pack dispersed and fragmented. Over the summer, the park service could track only 5 members of what had just last spring been a 15-member pack, and the most-viewed sub-arctic wolf pack in the world.

 The results of the buffer’s removal, including this individual female’s death, could not be more obvious. Park Service data on Denali wolf viewing success document a dramatic decline since the state removed the buffer in 2010, from a 45% chance to see a wolf in the park in 2010 down to just 12% in 2012. Statistically, that’s a 70% drop, representing some 130,000 fewer park visitors having the opportunity to watch wolves in the wild this year compared to before the state eliminated the buffer.

 Correlation versus causation
The most recent survey in Denali (fall 2012) estimated a total wolf population in the park of just 54 animals in 9 packs -- the lowest count in 25 years. And the blame for this decline can’t be placed on reduced prey populations, as some want to believe. In fact, national park biologist Tom Meier told us this past summer that the park’s prey populations are healthy, and thus the wolf population decline is not the result of prey availability.

 Everyone realizes that correlation does not always equate to causation, and that there can be many natural causes for such population declines, but it is inarguable -- at least to open-minded people -- that killing park wolves when they cross the park boundary onto state lands has contributed to the decline. The Grant Creek loss this spring is a perfect example: not only the alpha female was lost, but likely with her the pack’s only pups for the year as well. And most importantly, while we can’t do much about natural mortality, we can do something to reduce human-induced mortality. Recall the old adage: change the things you can, accept the things you can’t change, and know the difference.

 Given Fish and Game's refusal to act on the situation, this fall a group of individual Alaskans and conservation organizations, including the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, National Parks Conservation Association, and the Alaska Center for the Environment -- collectively representing thousands of Alaskans -- petitioned the Board of Game to reestablish a Denali buffer to help to arrest the decline. The Board, behind closed doors and without comment, rejected the emergency petitions. Trapping and hunting is now open again in the area, exposing park wolves to additional losses this winter.

 But there is a glimmer of hope. The Board will take up a proposal at its January 10 meeting in Sitka to rescind its moratorium on considering Denali buffer proposals. Many of us feel that the Board’s moratorium is illegal, as it unduly restricts the public’s right to submit proposals to the Board of Game, which is statutorily constituted to consider all such proposals.

 And at its February meeting in Wasilla, the Board will consider proposal #86, to reestablish a partial Denali wolf buffer. The Board can, and should, use its discretion to adjust and expand the area proposed for closure in proposal #86, and reestablish the entire buffer necessary to protect park wolves as proposed in the public petitions last fall. In a December 21, 2012 letter to the Board of Game, the National Park Service reiterated its support for the Board to rescind its moratorium and reestablish a Denali buffer.

 Recognizing that there are still no non-consumptive wildlife users on the Board -- that is, those who don’t hunt or trap, which is the largest constituency in the state -- it remains an uphill battle to get the Board to understand and appreciate the value of a Denali buffer. In fact, many Alaskans have simply given up hope that the Alaska Board of Game can ever bring itself to genuinely consider, much less act to protect non-consumptive values of wildlife. But even in Montana, state wildlife commissioners recently established a similar no-take buffer on state lands outside Yellowstone National Park, in order to protect park wolves. If the State of Montana can rise to this challenge of protecting park wolves, Alaska should be able to as well.

 Finally, Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution requires that natural resources be managed as a “public trust,” providing “for maximum use consistent with the public interest,” and for the “utilization, development, and conservation…for the maximum benefit of (the) people.” Clearly, the value and public interest to thousands of Alaskans provided by viewing Denali wolves, as well as the value to the many Alaskan businesses reliant on wildlife tourism, greatly outweighs the interests of a few individuals being allowed to continue trapping and hunting Denali wolves along the park boundary.

 The rational choice here is clear, and we remain hopeful that the Board of Game will, faced with this new evidence, do the right thing this time and act for the benefit of the majority of Alaskans by reestablishing a Denali wolf buffer.

 Rick Steiner was a marine conservation professor with the University of Alaska from 1980-2010, stationed in Kotzebue, Cordova, and Anchorage. He now consults internationally on conservation issues, through Oasis Earth, based in Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch. Alaska Dispatch welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email it to commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/falling-wolf-population-alaskas-denali-national-park-should-concern-us-all

 RELATED: 
Are Alaskan trappers to blame for declining Denali Park wolf population?
Trapper snares wolves just outside Denali boundary; pack in jeopardy?
2012 Emergency Wolf Buffer Petition.pdf
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/sites/default/files/2012%20Emergency%20Wolf%20Buffer%20Petition.pdf
Trapping_hunting closure for Denali wolves 10_08.pdf
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/sites/default/files/WOLF%20MAP%20-%202012.pdf
WOLF MAP - 2012.pdf
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/sites/default/files/Parnell%20wolf%20letter%206-6.pdf
Parnell wolf letter 6-6.pdf
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/sites/default/files/Parnell%20wolf%20letter%206-6.pdf
A bit of background on the current Denali wolf issue may help open-minded readers decide for themselves what is a rational viewpoint on the issue.
_________________________________________


 ARE ALASKAN TRAPPERS TO BLAME FOR DECLINING DENALI PARK WOLF POPULATION?
Craig Medred
December 27, 2012
There’s one thing in the world of Denali National Park wolves about which everyone seems to agree: The much-loved, sometimes-loathed carnivores that roam the 7,370 square miles of park wilderness have seen better days. A fall census found only 57 of the animals in nine packs, the lowest count since 1986, although the number of packs had increased since last year.

 The data was almost immediately used to attack trappers in the Healy area of the Alaska Interior. The survey results, wolf activist Rick Steiner told the Associated Press, "confirm fears expressed earlier this year by wildlife conservation advocates and biologists regarding the continued take of park wolves when they cross the park's northeastern boundary onto state lands."

 Denali is the most visible, if not the most popular, park in the 49th state. Consequently, the story quickly attracted national and international attention and Steiner, a former marine biologist for the University of Alaska, followed up by again petitioning Alaska Commissioner of Fish and Game Cora Campbell to close trapping along the northeast boundary of the park. He was joined by the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, the state's main animal protection group.

 The state Board of Game, a hunter-dominated group that sets seasons and bag limits for hunting and trapping, promptly vetoed that idea, as it had several times before. The board argued there was no evidence of a serious decline in the wolf population in the Denali area and contended its job was to find balance in the value of dead wolves, which provide lucrative fur, and live ones, which attract wildlife watchers to the park.
'MORE VALUABLE ALIVE THAN DEAD'
The latter were dismayed when the human-habituated -- and thus more visible -- Grant Creek pack broke up this spring. They blamed trapping. “To me, and I know probably 400,000 other people who visit Denali, these wolves are way more valuable alive than dead. I don’t know what they get for a wolf pelt, but it’s not much,” Valerie Connor, conservation director for the Alaska Center for the Environment, told the Los Angeles Times.

 She and others are convinced the Grant Creek pack split up because a pair of its females were trapped, but it is hard to make a definitive case for this belief. Scientists who've worked with wolves in Denali for decades say packs are in a constant state of flux. As world-renowned wolf researcher L. David Mech noted in the book "The Wolves of Denali,'' the most powerful, wild carnivores live tumultuous lives. Wolves are constantly leaving packs to look for better hunting or breeding opportunities, and wolves are constantly killing each other.
WOLVES KILLING WOLVES
"The primary mortality cause of 57 wolves aged 9 months or older in Denali Park and Preserve during our (nearly decade long) study was death from other wolves, and that cause claimed about five times the rate of wolf deaths as any other known natural cause such as accidents or disease,'' wrote Mech. He also observed that "our estimated rate of human-caused wolf mortality in Denali is the lowest of any large wolf population that has been studied anywhere except Isle Royale, the national park land in Lake Superior, which is closed and uninhabited for eight months of the year.

 "Conversely, our rate of wolf mortality inflicted by fellow wolves was one of the highest reported, at least partly because human-caused mortality was so low. The natural state of a wolf population seems to include high natural-caused turnover.'' The "natural state'' of Denali wolves has become an issue these days because of that small, fall count. The number itself doesn't seem to trouble scientists much.

 "As you know from Layne (Adams') work and others, wolves and packs are incredibly dynamic,'' Grant Hilderbrand, the regional wildlife biologist for the National Park Service said in an email in which he suggested that the low wolf count is itself suspect.

 "One factor that may influence the spring and fall numbers you are looking at is that we have had some less-than-ideal tracking conditions this fall,'' he said. "We have a couple of territories where we haven't been able to locate wolves.  They may be there, and we are missing them. Or they may not be...."

 RARE SUMMER DIE-OFF? 
The spring and fall census numbers for Denali are interesting in that they reflect something never before witnessed in the park: a major, over-summer die off, if the numbers can be believed. This sort of thing is almost unheard of, but census numbers dropped from 70 in March of the year to 57 in October. The decrease of 13 wolves amounts to nearly a 20 percent decline in the Denali wolf population.

 Only twice since 1979 has the population declined over the summer. And in the two cases on record, once in 1986 and again in 1997, the change amounted to but three or four wolves. The norm is for the population to grow significantly. It jumped, by way of illustration, from 93 in March 2007 to 147 that fall. That is an extreme example, but the population seldom goes the other direction.

 "It is odd,'' said biologist Vic Van Ballenberghe. “But considering that some of them didn't raise pups apparently, probably there (were) some summer losses.''

 Van Ballenberghe studies moose in Denali. He is a long-time advocate for wolf protection in Alaska and a former member of the Board of Game. He said he got the report on reproductive failures earlier this year from Denali biologist Tom Meier. Meier, a co-author with Adams and others on the "Wolves of Denali,'' had been in charge of monitoring wolves in the park.

 He died suddenly and unexpectedly in August. Adams, a biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey currently studying musk oxen in Alaska, said Meier's death could have complicated efforts to get an accurate survey.
COUNTING WOLVES CHALLENGING
Finding and counting wolves in packs that contain radio-collared animals is pretty straightforward, but finding packs lacking collared animals -- let alone wolves that have taken off on their own -- sounds a lot easier than it is in practice. It turns out to be a lot like hunting in that it helps to know not only what you're looking for but the best places to look. And, Van Ballenberghe said, counting packs with radio-collared animals can present some problems, too.

 "You need to be sure you observe that pack more than one or two times because they do split up,'' he said. Packs tend to be more cohesive in that fall than in the spring, but there is no guarantee of catching the animals together at any time.

 "If it was a standard wolf census over a big area,'' he added. "Then it's easier to miss animals in some cases.''

 But even if the count missed a pack or two, as Hilderbrand suggests, putting the actual number of wolves closer to 70 than to 60, there remain questions about what is going on with the most charismatic carnivore in what is undeniably the state's most popular national park for wildlife viewing.

 Even at 70 wolves, Van Ballenberghe noted, "That's half of what was there not too many years ago. That's a pretty a pretty significant decline, and there hasn't been a significant decline in any of the three species in recent years.''

 Wolf numbers peaked at 147 in October 2007. They have generally been falling ever since. Hilderbrand admits no one knows why, but points to some possible contributing factors.
WOLF NUMBERS RELATED TO HARES?
"(Snowshoe) hares are definitely down dramatically,'' Hilderbrand said, "and our lamb-ewe ratio (among Dall sheep) is also quite low at 11 to 100, the lowest since 1993."

 Wolves can't live on hares in Denali. They aren't a primary prey. But in times of abundance, they can become a significant alternate food source and help support population numbers.

 The same can be said of salmon. In a pioneering study, Adams found salmon a key component of the diet of wolves in the northwest corner of the park. The salmon, chums and silvers, come up the Kuskokwim River. Kusko salmon runs have been struggling in recent years. Could that have contributed to wolf declines? Possibly, Adams said, but nobody is studying that at the moment.

 Sheep ewes, meanwhile, are the easiest targets for the wolves that hunt sheep.

 Today, the Park Service is dead-set against any kind of wolf control in Alaska parks. But from 1930 to 1934, it conducted wolf control in Denali to protect sheep. The practice was stopped in 1935 but resumed in 1936 under the guise of gathering wolf carcasses for "food habit studies.'' That continued until 1938.

 By then, the Park Service was caught in much the same place as the Alaska Board of Game is these days. The Camp Fire Club of America, a powerful group at the time and one that helped create the park, wanted wolves exterminated. Some of the country's top scientists, meanwhile, wanted all parks left alone as sanctuaries for predators in a nation where predators were under attack on all fronts.

 The Park Service decided to try to extract itself from the middle of the controversy by commissioning a scientific study. It called in scientist Adolph Murie, whose studies in the park eventually conceded that wolves killed a lot of sheep but argued that the wolves and sheep existed in a state of "balance.'' It was the first shot at the "balance of nature'' theory that would eventually gain many adherents, but the theory didn't stick at the time.

 "Murie was sent back to the park in August 1945 for a month and found that the sheep population had declined from about 2,700 in 1941 to about 500,” according to the book "The Wolves of Denali." “He recommended killing 10 to 15 wolves in sheep range and continuing wolf control until sheep increased.''

 Wolf control in the park resumed and continued until 1952. The balance-of-nature theory, meanwhile, continued to gain ground and hit its zenith in 1970 when Mech in published an article in Reader's Digest, then the most popular publication in the country, titled "In Defense of the Wolf.'' It argued that wolves and their prey existed in a state of equilibrium beneficial to both. Years later, having watching big swings in predatory and prey in natural ecosystem, Mech would reject that theory, recognizing that in nature the balance is more like a teeter-totter.

 There has, however, been some interesting research done since the 1970s, including some by the late Gordon Haber, a controversial fan of wolves and Denali biologist who died in a plane crash while observing the animals. Haber posited the idea of a multiple-equilibrium theory, wherein predators and their prey could exist in fairly static numbers for long periods of time. Imagine a fat guy on one end of the teeter-totter and small child on the other. There are some scientists who ponder whether the Denali ecoystem might fixed in what Haber would have called a "lower equilibrium'' -- even if few are willing to talk about it publically.

 'VIGOROUS AND VIABLE'
As Mech and the others observed in the book, "Wolves are not unusually abundant in Denali, but the population is both vigorous and viable.''

 The same could be said of the main wolf prey in the park -- moose, Dall sheep and caribou. Adams spent a long time studying the Denali caribou herd, which once numbered over 20,000 animals. It dropped to 10,000 a couple decades before Alaska statehood, but stayed stable at that level for almost 20 years.

 Then it began another decline, and the herd was down to about 1,000 animals in the 1970s. A slow rebound began late in that decade, and the herd eventually grew to more than 3,100. Adams, who was studying the caribou for part of that period, hung around Denali thinking he might get to witness a rebound. It never happened.

 The herd peaked at 3,700 in 1990 and then began a decline. It now numbers 1,760, according to the park service. It appears to have plateaued in a range of 1,500 to 3,000 and become stuck there. Adams now wonders what it will take for the population to again blossom.

 Moose are in a similar situation. Populations are generally low -- less than half a moose per square mile -- and stable with one key exception. Moose numbers spike up in the northeast corner of the park near the boundary with state lands where wolf trapping takes place.

 The bigger moose population there may be luring wolves within range of trappers. It could also be that the bigger population of moose there is allowing moose to spread out into the rest of the park and provide food for more wolves.

 Undoubtedly, interest groups in and out of the 49th state will go on fighting over whether to save the wolves or kill the wolves in a struggle that seems as unresolvable as reaching peace in the Mideast. One side thinks it unfair that an area the size of Denali is closed to the hunting and trapping of wolves. The other thinks it outrageous that viewable wolves -- the animals that don't naturally shy away from people -- might run the risk of getting caught in a trap if they leave the park.

 Contact Craig Medred at craig(at)alaskadispatch.com
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/are-alaskan-trappers-blame-declining-denali-park-wolf-population
_________________________________________


 WOLF POPULATION IN DENALI NATIONAL PARK AT 25-YEAR LOW
Wolf population in Denali National Park at 25-year low
Alaska Dispatch
November 29, 2012

 The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reports that the 2012 wolf count in Denali National Park was the lowest in 25 years.

 Fifty-seven wolves in nine packs were counted during an October survey; last year, 72 wolves were counted in eight packs.

 Groups who have been fighting for greater protections for wolves are crying foul over the results. They want to reinstate the buffer zone prohibiting hunting and trapping of wolves on state land around the park. The buffer zone was removed by the Alaska Board of Game in 2010, in a 4-3 vote.

 President of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance Tina Brown said, “When you see a dramatic decline like this, it’s common sense something should be done.” 

 Dale Rabe, deputy director for the Division of Wildlife Conservation in Juneau, told the News-Miner that the state will probably not take any action, as the wolf populations on state land appear to be at healthy levels, and the state does not manage wolves inside the park.

 Denali National Park spokeswoman Kris Fister said that park officials are also not concerned by the survey results. “The low numbers could be the result of a lot of different factors,” she said.

 The highest number of wolves ever counted in the park was in 2007, when the population was at 143.

 http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/wolf-population-denali-national-park-25-year-low

 RELATED: 
Denali National Park wolves: Viewed by many, trapped by a few
Aerial wolf hunting on Kenai Peninsula put on hold
_________________________________________


 DENALI NATIONAL PARK WOLVES: VIEWED BY MANY, TRAPPED BY A FEW
Frank Rue
September 14, 2012

 In a 4-3 vote in March 2010, the Alaska Board of Game removed its wolf trapping and hunting closure along the east and northeast boundaries of Denali National Park. As commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, I supported the original decision by the Board of Game to close this area outside the park to the taking of wolves. It was the right thing to do then, and the current Board should accept the public petition recently put before it to reverse its decision because it is the right thing to do now.

 The wolves in the pack that frequents the eastern boundary of Denali National Park are the most viewed wild wolves in Alaska and probably the most viewed wild wolves on the planet. Unfortunately, they occasionally move across the park boundary and are vulnerable to trapping and hunting.

 Last winter, with trapping along the park boundary legal again, a trapper killed the only breeding female of the boundary pack, and the pack produced no pups. With its social structure destroyed, the pack dispersed and left the territory vacant. Eventually another pack will take over this territory, but in the meantime, there will be a significant loss in viewing opportunity for hundreds of thousands of people just so that one or two trappers have a slightly larger area to trap.

 Over 400,000 people, including many Alaskans, visited Denali this year. The incredible scenery and the possibility of seeing wild wolves, sheep, moose and bears is what draws people to Denali. Three years ago I visited Denali in September. The mountain was out and the fall colors were spectacular. I saw sheep, moose and wolves. I returned to the Park this September and saw all of the same incredible sights, except I saw no wolves. There was a palpable emptiness to the area near the entrance where the boundary pack had been active and where I had seen wolves during my last visit.

 As an avid hunter and wildlife viewer I realize there are no guarantees when it comes to harvesting or viewing wildlife. But my experience and sense of emptiness when I visited Denali this fall is borne out by Park Service statistics. In recent years visitors had a roughly one in four chance of seeing a wolf. This year, with the boundary pack gone and wolf numbers down in the rest of the park, the chance of seeing a wolf went down to near zero.

 So here’s the question, should we give 400,000 visitors a reasonable chance of seeing a wild wolf in Denali National Park, or one or two trappers a slightly larger area to trap? Alaska is a big place; we have room to accommodate wolf trapping and hunting and wolf viewing. The eastern and northeastern boundary of Denali National Park is a place where we Alaskans should give wolf viewing the priority.

 I urge the Board of Game to accept the public petition before it to take up this issue and rescind its decision to open the area along the eastern and northeastern boundary of Denali National Park to wolf trapping.

 Frank Rue was commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game from 1995 to 2002.
Alaska Dispatch encourages a diversity of opinion and community perspectives. The opinions expressed herein are those of the contributor and are not necessarily endorsed or condoned by Alaska Dispatch. To submit a commentary for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/denali-national-park-wolves-viewed-many-trapped-few

 RELATED: 
Snared wolves trigger outrage, calls for Denali buffer zone
Our Alaska: Salmon fishing wolves
_________________________________________


 SNARED WOLVES TRIGGER OUTRAGE, CALLS FOR DENALI BUFFER ZONE
Alaska Dispatch
May 21, 2012

 According to Kim Murphy of the Los Angeles Times, two breeding females from a well-known Denali National Park pack have perished, triggering protests by some Alaska conservationists.

 A trapper shot an aging horse and left it just outside the park boundary to lure wolves to the carcass, where two were snared.  Conservationists are asking for an immediate halt to wolf trapping in what used to be a buffer zone northeast of the park.

 One of the dead wolves was equipped with a radio collar, according to the Los Angeles Times, which said it was the only female from the pack known to have raised pups last year. Another breeding female from what’s known as the Grant Creek pack was found dead near the animals’ den. The third wolf, also snared near the horse carcass, was a male, Tom Meier, wildlife biologist for Denali National Park, told the Times.

 “It’s always disappointing to lose animals that close to the park boundary, and it also was disappointing because it was inside what used to be … the buffer zone,” Meier said.

 The Alaska Board of Game established a buffer zone in 2002, but later eliminated it, allowing hunters and trappers on state lands to legally take wolves right up to the boundary of the park, where hunting and trapping are banned.

 Rick Steiner, an independent wildlife biologist and former professor at the University of Alaska, has petitioned the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to close the former buffer area northeast of the park to allow the pack to regroup.

 “This is one of the most highly valuable, highly viewed wolf packs, not just in Alaska or the nation, but the world. And now they will not have pups this year, almost certainly,” Steiner told the Los Angeles Times.

 “What we know is if they don’t have pups, sometimes the packs simply disintegrate.”

 Read the full story here. 

 TRAPPER LURES WOLVES FROM DENALI, KILLS 2; PACK'S FUTURE IN DOUBT
May 21, 2012|By Kim Murphy

The two primary breeding females from the best-known wolf pack at Denali National Park — a pack viewed by tens of thousands of visitors each year — have been killed, one of them by a trapper operating just outside the boundary of Alaska’s premier national park.

 The incident has raised an outcry among Alaska conservationists. They're demanding an immediate halt to  wolf trapping in what was formerly a buffer zone northeast of the park, an area made famous as the scene of the abandoned school bus in Jon Krakauer’s “Into the Wild.”

 The trapper apparently shot an aging horse and left it as a lure for the wolves, according to residents in the area. Park officials, who have unsuccessfully sought to maintain a no-hunting buffer alongside the park, said two wolves, at least one of them from the well-known Grant Creek pack, were fatally snared near the carcass.

 One of the dead wolves was equipped with a radio collar attached by scientists; it was the only female from the pack known to have raised pups last year. The pack’s only other known breeding female was found dead near the pack’s den, probably of natural causes. A third wolf, also snared near the horse carcass, was a male that may or may not have been part of the Grant Creek pack, said Tom Meier, wildlife biologist for Denali National Park.

 “It’s always disappointing to lose animals that close to the park boundary, and it also was disappointing because it was inside what used to be … the buffer zone,” Meier told the Los Angeles Times.

 Rick Steiner, an independent wildlife conservation biologist and former professor at the University of Alaska, has petitioned the state commissioner of fish and game for an emergency closure of the former buffer area northeast of the park to allow the pack to regroup.

 The loss of the pack’s two primary breeding females could result in the dissipation of one of the park’s most visible wolf packs, Steiner and others said.

 “This is one of the most highly valuable, highly viewed wolf packs, not just in Alaska or the nation, but the world. And now they will not have pups this year, almost certainly,” Steiner said in an interview.

 “What we know is if they don’t have pups, sometimes the packs simply disintegrate. This has happened before. And it’s all because of the state prioritizing the rights of these one or two trappers over the rights of hundreds of thousands of park visitors.”

 Steiner said he was told that the bait was an aging horse already on the verge of death. It was not clear whether the trapper shot the horse at the scene of the snare or transported it by snowmobile to the location. It did not appear that any laws were broken, officials said.

 The state-owned areas just outside Denali — and in this case, an area known as Stampede Trail that extends as a finger inside the park — have long been subject to controversy over hunting and trapping because of their proximity to the park, where animals are protected.

 Conservationists succeeded in persuading the Alaska Board of Game to establish a no-hunting buffer zone in the region in 2002.

 The National Park Service, which had initially been neutral on the issue, decided that wolves at Denali were in enough danger that the agency in 2010 joined conservationists in seeking to extend and even expand the buffer zone.

 Instead, the Board of Game later eliminated the buffer zone, leaving hunters and trappers to operate on state lands up to the boundaries of the park — boundaries that are fairly arbitrary for wildlife moving in and out of the park.

 The wolf population at the 6-million-acre park is at a 20-year low -- just 70 wolves in nine packs — down from 103 wolves in 15 packs as recently as 2006, Meier said.

 He said biologists are unsure what has caused the declines, but they worry about the loss of the top two breeding females in a pack such as Grant Creek.

 The collared female caught in the snare had been part of a study, still under way, to determine whether closing the buffer zone would affect the population of the wolf packs most important to park tourists, Meier said. “This is certainly an important piece of information,” he said of the incident.

 The state Department of Fish and Game did not immediately say whether it would act on Steiner’s request for an emergency closure.

 The horse carcass was found about a mile outside the park boundary, officials said, where it continues to inflict misery. David Braun, who has a recreational cabin in the area, said he discovered the horse lying in a small stream near his cabin; this year, that stream feeds into his water supply.

 He already has fought off an intestinal illness, he said, though the family is taking precautions. "We're boiling the water," he said.

 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/nation/la-na-nn-denali-wolf-20120521

 http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/snared-wolves-trigger-outrage-calls-denali-buffer-zone

 RELATED: 
Aerial wolf hunting on Kenai Peninsula put on hold
_________________________________________

 AERIAL WOLF HUNTING ON KENAI PENINSULA PUT ON HOLD
Alaska Dispatch
May 7, 2012

Although the Alaska Board of Game earlier this year approved aerial wolf hunts on the Kenai Peninsula to help boost moose populations, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game will wait at least a year to learn more about the wildlife populations before starting to shoot.

 “We want to have the best information possible so that we’re most effective in what we do to improve the moose population on the Kenai,” Fish and Game biologist Larry Van Daele told the Alaska Public Radio Network. 

 In January, the seven-member state Board of Game voted to extend predator control to two Kenai Peninsula game management units – 15A, west of Cooper Landing and north of the Sterling Highway and 15C, south of Kasilof and west of Kenai Fjords National Park.

 But Doug Vincent Lang, acting director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation, said more basic science information was needed to begin predator management and later judge its effectiveness.   "I thought it was worthwhile to spend some additional time to collect that foundational science to inform how best to proceed in the future," Vincent Lang told The Associated Press.

 John Toppenberg, a board member of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, argued that the main problem for Kenai moose was a reduction of good habitat following 60 years of wildfire suppression on the Kenai that harmed feeding prospects for moose.

 "What they had proposed really had no scientific logic behind it," Toppenberg told the AP. "It was purely, 'Let's kill wolves in order to artificially inflate moose.' "

 http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/aerial-wolf-hunting-kenai-peninsula-put-hold

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)