Opposition demands action to protect people from wolves

In response to a CBC report about a man apparently killed by wolves, the Saskatchewan Party is calling on the provincial government to take action to prevent it from happening again.

And a party critic is focusing on the problem of unregulated garbage dumps in the province's north.
Kenton Carnegie of Oshawa, Ont., died in November 2005 at Points North Landing, about 750 kilometres northeast of Saskatoon. Although the RCMP said at the time it appeared he was killed by wolves, the government hasn't released its findings. Earlier this month, CBC reported there was an unregulated and unfenced dump on Crown land at the mining supply camp. Government officials and area residents have expressed concerns that the dump has been attracting wolves.

Several wolves were seen approaching humans at Points North Landing in the days before Carnegie died. On Thursday in the legislature, Opposition MLA Glen Hart quoted from the CBC report, including an interview with Carnegie's father Kim in which he said he was angry about what he had learned. Carnegie also raised the possibility the tragedy could have been prevented.

"My worst case scenario is that his life, and his death are going to go unnoticed and nothing is going to change, and that would be a waste," Kim Carnegie told CBC.

Hart demanded to know from Environment Minister John Nilson why the government isn't making sure northern dumps are properly regulated. "Why is the minister not protecting people," Hart said. "Why won't he put policies in place that deal with garbage dumps on Crown land?"

Nilson said there are many unregulated dumps in the north and it's not easy bringing them all under compliance. "We are going to a system of making sure they have permits," Nilson said. On the other hand, Nilson said, there are realities of life in the northern wilderness and people have to be aware of them. "It can be quite dangerous," he said. Nilson also said companies operating in the north must adopt wildlife management plans.

Carnegie's death is believed to be the first case in North America where a human was killed by wild wolves in a natural setting. However, the province has not confirmed that. The chief coroner is preparing a report on the incident.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Tests to determine whether carcass is that of wolf

By Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal Staff Writer

South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks Department officials aren't quite ready to cry "wolf" about a large canine carcass found last week along Interstate 90 near Sturgis. The carcass was turned over Monday to GF&P officials in Rapid City by a motorist who had seen it in the median near Black Hills National Cemetery a few days earlier, GF&P regional supervisor Mike Kintigh said Wednesday.

"It's a very large canine. It's big enough to be a wolf, and it's got the general features of a wolf. But we just don't know if it's a wolf or a dog or what," Kintigh said. "I know there are a lot of domesticated wolf-bred dogs in the area. It could have been somebody's pet."

Kintigh said his staff gave the animal to an officer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who will send it to a federal laboratory in Oregon for genetic analysis. If that testing determines the animal is a wolf, it also could identify its geographic origins, Kintigh said. "With the baseline data they have in place about wolf populations elsewhere, they can pretty accurately tell where it comes from," he said.

Although native to South Dakota, viable wolf populations were killed off by settlers during the development of non-Indian towns, farms and ranches. Occasionally, wolves have traveled into South Dakota from existing populations in Wyoming, Montana and Minnesota.

"We have wolves on both sides of us, so getting some in the state running around isn't impossible," Kintigh said. "The last one I'm aware of was in Harding County in 2001. And they determined that was a wolf from Minnesota."

Sometimes, what people report to be wolves are actually wolf-like dogs, Kintigh said. "You'll get out there and see the animal, and it has a collar on," he said. "We haven't had any reports of wolves in the area for six or eight months."

The carcass turned in Monday was male and weighed 113 pounds. It was dark gray to black in color with a white spot on its chest. Kintigh said he had not received any reports of wolf sightings before this, nor had he heard of the escape of any captive wolves or part-wolf dogs.

Rapid City Journal

DNR unable to find wolves in northern lower Michigan

By Chris Engle, Editorial Assistant

OTSEGO COUNTY - Preliminary results of a recent survey to determine the presence of gray wolves in the county are showing an absence of the predator, according to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR). The survey lasted just longer than three weeks before concluding on March 10.

Following tips and leads from county residents, DNR employees studied and photographed tracks in snow and interviewed eyewitnesses about any animals they suspected were wolves. According to Brian Mastenbrook, wildlife biologist and coordinator of the survey, about 40 leads from residents involving track and animal sightings, both recent and old, were investigated. “Any place where there was physical evidence present that we investigated, it turned out to be coyotes or dogs,” said Mastenbrook.

Mastenbrook reported that a concentration of sightings lie south of Old State Road near the Au Sable River. “That area was out of our (survey) range, but we had enough calls from there that we decided to spend a day investigating,” he said. Mark Monroe, wildlife technician at the Gaylord DNR office followed those leads.

DNR employees and volunteers also spent hours driving down back roads after fresh snows had fallen, looking for tracks or animals. This same process is popularly used during wolf surveys in the Upper Peninsula, where a population of approximately 400 wolves exists, according to a recent DNR press release. “We had a good survey and enough days of ideal conditions that we think we were able to do a thorough job,” said Mastenbrook. Final results of the survey have not yet been compiled, but will be made public on the DNR Web site at www.michigan.com/dnr when they have been completed.

The idea of a possible wolf population in northeast Michigan was conceived after a 70-pound female wolf was killed in Presque Isle County in October of 2004 by a trapper who had mistaken the animal for a coyote. The animal had been fitted with a radio tracking collar by the DNR the previous November.

Gaylord Herald Times

Looking for lice- Officials try to rid Interior of 'lousy wolves'

By TIM MOWRY - Staff Writer- Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Donning a pair of rubber gloves, state wildlife veterinarian Kimberlee Beckmen laid two freshly-skinned wolf pelts side by side on a stainless steel counter in the lab at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The hide on the left came from a lice-infested gray wolf trapped in the Matanuska Valley. Much of the underfur on the hide was gone and what remained was a matted mess, with only a thin layer of broken guard hairs. The pelt had a rank odor that filled the room. "We haven't seen a wolf this bad from the Interior," Beckmen said.

The hide on the right, meanwhile, belonged to a wolf caught by a trapper in the Alaska Range foothills south of Fairbanks earlier this month. It also had lice, but at first glance looked like a normal wolf hide. The hair was thicker and darker. "I know this hide has lice, but I can look through here and I'm hard pressed to find it," Beckmen said, digging through the hair with her fingers. She flipped the hide over. "The other place to look for them is in the groin area because the hair is so thin," Beckmen said, pulling hair back to expose the skin. "There's one," Beckmen said, pointing to a dark speck on the skin. Then she found another, and another, and another.

To find out just how badly infested the wolf was, Beckmen and two graduate students from the University of Alaska Fairbanks will cut the hide into pieces and soak each in potassium hydroxide. The solution dissolves the skin and leaves the lice behind. "See all the lice coming to the surface?" Beckmen said, holding out a beaker that had been used to dissolve a small slice of the Mat-Su wolf's hide. Floating on top were what looked like a few dozen carrot seeds. "We can run this through a filter and count how many lice are in that section," Beckmen said. "The only way to know it's lice is to see lice."

Worthless wolves

State wildlife officials are scratching their heads trying to come up with a way to halt the spread of lice in Alaska wolves. They admit it might be a losing battle. "We already know lice is part of Interior Alaska now, but can it be managed? That's the question," said Craig Gardner, a biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Fairbanks. "I think it's going to be tough."

Lice has been spreading in Alaska's wolf population since the parasites were first detected on wolves on the Kenai Peninsula in the early 1980s. They were probably passed from sled dogs. Though canine lice was passed to wolves, it does not infest in human hair. The lice showed up on wolves in the Matanuska Valley in the late 1990s. Last year, biologists confirmed the first case of lice in wolves north of the Alaska Range. A trapper brought in an infested wolf that he had caught about 50 miles south of Fairbanks.

Lice bite a wolf's skin and cause it to ooze fluid that makes the bite itchy and irritating. Wolves rub and scratch the bites, damaging their fur and decreasing the insulation and monetary value of the pelt. Some of the infested wolves Beckmen has examined from Southcentral have lesions and sores.

The fact that lice made it this far north surprised some experts. "It was speculated it wouldn't get past the Alaska Range because wolves wouldn't be able to survive because it would be too cold," Beckmen said. "We've had some wolves with hair loss and you could see lice on them but they certainly aren't dying."

But they might as well be dead as far as trappers are concerned. When the Department of Fish and Game announced last year that lice had been found on a wolf trapped in the Alaska Range 50 miles south of Fairbanks, the Alaska Trappers Association sent a letter to Gov. Frank Murkowski urging him to eradicate lice in Alaska wolves. "Lousy wolves," as they are called, are worthless to trappers because the fur is no good, said ATA president Randy Zarnke. Most of the wolves now caught on the Kenai Peninsula are unusable, Zarnke said. The ATA doesn't want to see the same thing happen in the Interior, or the rest of the state.

"With wildlife diseases and parasites, you either want to control it or eradicate it," said Zarnke, who worked as a disease specialist for the Department of Fish and Game for more than 20 years. "Ideally we'd like to eradicate it from the Interior and if not eradicate it, control it." That's easier said than done.

Persistent parasites

When lice were first detected in three packs of wolves on the Kenai Peninsula in the early 1980s, there was a push for eradication, according to Gino Del Frate, the Department of Fish and Game's management coordinator for the Southcentral region. One option was to kill the infested wolves to assure the lice didn't spread. But that plan caused a public uproar and the department backed off. "Nobody was excited about taking all those wolves out," Del Frate said. Instead, the department treated wolves by dropping bait injected with medicine to packs they knew had lice. The effort failed. "Over time, the lousy wolves spread across Kenai and occurred peninsula-wide," said Del Frate. It's now suspected that most, if not all, wolf packs on the Kenai are lousy, he said.

A similar eradication effort occurred when lice showed up in wolves in the Mat-Su Valley in 1998. Three packs containing a total of 29 wolves were identified as being lousy. Biologists treated 28 of the wolves and a trapper caught the other. "We thought we got them all," said Del Frate. The department didn't receive any reports of lousy wolves for a couple years, but the problem eventually resurfaced. At least four packs of Valley wolves are infested with lice and there may be more, said Del Frate. "This year we had four lousy wolves reported in the Valley out of two separate packs," he said.

Zarnke said the state erred by not killing off the infested Kenai wolves when it had the chance. "It was an opportunity 25 years ago for people to let wildlife management agencies do what they do and now we're faced with this problem," he said. "We would have had a good chance of eradicating the problem."

Treatment plan

The Department of Fish and Game in Fairbanks has had some success treating lice-infested wolves in the Alaska Range, albeit on a small scale. Last April, biologists captured and treated the pack of five wolves they knew were infested with lice by injecting them with Ivermectin, a cattle dewormer commonly used in dogs. The goal was to keep the wolves free of lice during denning so the pups would be born into a lice-free environment, said Gardner. The biologists also put radio collars on the five wolves.

After a litter of seven pups was born in May, biologists continued treating the pack by dropping pieces of beaver and lynx meat treated with Ivermectin from planes. They repeated the drop three times over several weeks. "We saw the pups run over and scarf them up," Gardner said of the treated baits. When biologists recaptured four of the pups in November to inspect them and take skin and blood samples, tests showed them to be lice free. Trappers caught two additional pups from the pack and the department purchased those pelts from the trappers so they could be tested. Those wolves were also lice free. "We know treatment has worked for at least a year now," Gardner said.

Gardner suspects that at least one more pack in the Alaska Range has lice and there are probably more, he said. The goal is to put radio collars on wolves in those packs so they can track, monitor and treat them. If they can do that, biologists can repeat the process of dropping medicine-filled baits to the wolves and their pups at their dens. The state can't afford to go out and capture all the individual wolves in infested packs and treat them, Gardner said."We're just trying to see if we can manage lice and keep the wolves' pelts looking good going into winter so trappers will want to trap them," said Beckmen.

But cleansing lice from a pack of wolves doesn't mean it will stay louse free. Young wolves disperse each year and join other packs or form their own. All it takes is one lice-infested wolf to infect a whole pack, said Gardner. "Let's say a wolf disperses and gets with a pack that was treated and is clean, boom you've got lice again," said Gardner.

More questions

Interestingly, the hides of the few lice-infested wolves that have been caught in the Interior are in better shape than those of wolves in the Valley or on the Kenai Peninsula. "The wolves up here can have pretty poor hair quality but they don't develop the secondary infections that make them smell real bad," said Beckmen. "We've never had any of the ones up here look like the ones in Mat-Su or on the Kenai, where their entire pelt is just disgusting."

There are several questions Beckmen would like to answer but she doesn't have the funding to do so. For example, there may be genetic differences between Southcentral and Interior wolves that make wolves in the northern part of the state less susceptible to lice, she said. Beckmen would also like to test the lice themselves, to see if the lice in Southcentral are the same as those found in the Interior.

There's also a chance the louse found in wolves here are "super lice." According to her research, Beckmen said dog lice aren't supposed to be able to survive long if they are removed from their host. "Textbooks will tell you lice can't survive off a dog for very long," she said. "I picked a louse off a wolf that we had live captured and that louse lived for three days at my office temperature. "I don't know if that means lice are arctic adaptive but it did survive longer at room temperature than the textbooks indicated," she said.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Living with the Endangered Species Act

By WHITNEY ROYSTER - Star-Tribune environmental reporter

Following are perspectives of Wyoming people whose lives have been affected by the Endangered Species Act.

'Your hands are tied'

For Mary Thoman and the Thoman Ranch on the Green River north of Green River, the Endangered Species Act has "had a pretty profound effect." It started about seven years ago, when a female wolf arrived and "crippled 29 lambs and scattered them through our allotment in the Gros Ventre," Thoman said. "That was our first encounter with the wolf. We were pretty unprepared for the kind of damage she could do." Thoman has been ranching in the area for 30 years and has had experience with coyote losses. But those losses, she said, have been surpassed by the impact of grizzly bears and wolves. Her ranch averages $30,000 to $50,000 in losses each year through lost animals, Thoman said. The Endangered Species Act has "totally changed the dynamics of living in the mountains," as her ranch has had to double the manpower on grazing allotments, take more frequent trips to check on the herds, and carry pepper spray.

As for proposed changes to the law, Thoman would like to see less bureaucracy. "We believe in the ESA; it just needs to be changed so it's realistic," she said. Specifically, she would like to see plans to remove species once they are recovered, and a more realistic way for ranchers to recoup losses. She'd also like to see protected predators moved pre-emptively before they become a problem for ranchers. "It just goes on and on and on, and your hands are tied," she said.

'Society would be poorer'

For Doug Sobey of Moran, the world is a better and more enriching place because of the Endangered Species Act. "Having particularly the grizzly bear represents everything that is wild," he said. "There are so few wild places left in the world. The grizzly bear can only exist in wilderness areas. It's a representation of that kind of area that's just not left anymore." He said the law, which has been a "fantastic tool and still is," has protected other "American icons" such as the gray whale and bald eagle. "Everybody agrees that the ESA saved them from going extinct," he said. "Society definitely would be poorer without it." He said hiking in bear country provides a richer experience because you know there are grizzlies around.

"It wouldn't be the same experience to us if we weren't hiking about knowing there were grizzly bears about and the chance of seeing one," he said. "People come to Yellowstone to see a grizzly bear -- it's high on their list. That, and/or wolves. I don't think they would come as much as they would with grizzly bears. "It's kind of almost a spiritual effect, and economic as well. People from all over the country come to see it, and from all over the world."

'How many more years?'

The Endangered Species Act has affected Albert Sommers, president of the Upper Green River Cattlemen's Association and a rancher south of Cora, particularly in the last 10 years. First grizzly bears began preying on cattle, and by 2000 there were wolves. "In '95 we started losing a lot more calves," Sommers said. Records he and other ranchers in the area have collected show in 1990, 2.7 percent of calves turned out on Upper Green pastures did not return. In 1995, 3 percent did not return; in 2000, 3.5 percent did not return; and in 2005, 6.9 percent did not return.

Sommers said there are times he has wondered if he's going to stay in business. "I'm getting to the point up there where I'm questioning how many more years we're going to be able to stand it," he said. "Management on cattle has changed dramatically, in the face of that much predation." He said range riders have a hard time keeping cattle dispersed across the range, which can impair the grazing allotments and range conditions. Sometimes cattle have to be removed from allotments early, moved, or brought home. "The primary focus for us used to be simply taking care of the cattle, making sure they were dispersed, managing range programs and the health of our cattle," he said. "Now probably our primary thing is dealing with those endangered species."

'The best economy and ecology'

For Taylor Outfitters outside Moran, the Endangered Species Act has been a boon to business. The business, owned by Meredith and Tory Taylor, has expanded to offer natural history and environmental trips into the wilderness. "People from all over the world call us about going on natural history trips to see large carnivores and threatened and endangered species in the last best place -- greater Yellowstone," Meredith Taylor said. "Endangered species are popular species, and that converts to the best economy and ecology for us as ranchers."

Last year, the British Broadcasting Corp. made a video with Taylor Outfitters on a wilderness pack trip, after contracting the Taylors to take a film crew out to see bears and wolves. The media group was referred to Taylor Outfitters because the business has evolved from hunting into a natural history pack trips over the past 25 years, Taylor said.

"The BBC pack trip was magical when we woke up the first morning and saw the Washakie pack of six wolves within about 300 meters of camp. The film crew was thrilled when the photographer got 20 minutes' footage of the wolves in the wild that became the centerpiece of the film." Taylor also said wolves have been big business for Yellowstone and the state, helping the state top $2 billion in tourist revenue last year. The Endangered Species Act has also helped restore the area to an intact, balanced ecosystem, she said.

No more 'sneaking through the woods'

For Wally Cash of Gillette, the Endangered Species Act ultimately meant a titanium plate on his skull and skin grafts on his hand. Cash was mauled by a grizzly bear in the fall of 2004 while hunting up Pilgrim Creek just outside Grand Teton National Park. "I'm not against endangered species," he said. "I'm not against it. I think they've allowed it to go too long. When you get too populated, it's moving a lot of people who won't go back in there."

Including Cash. Although he had been hunting in the area for the last 15 years, he doesn't go back anymore. "If it didn't happen, I would have gone back," he said. "My friends and outfitters have all pulled out." He said during the last 20 years grizzly sightings were not uncommon, "but they never bothered you."

"But there's so many of them now, they hear a shot and here they come," he said. Cash said he is not "going to be sneaking through the woods like I used to." Cash's injuries, which included ripped flesh over his skull and a missing piece of skull, and a torn left hand and knuckle, have healed. "It was gross looking," he said. "I'm a good healer."

'Bears and wolves are a draw'

Working with the National Outdoor Leadership School in Lander, Jennifer Lamb has seen firsthand the draw that threatened and endangered species are for Wyoming. "Wildlife, in particular predators, raptors and even big game, are definitely a big deal to students. Seeing them in the wild is often a course highlight, and suddenly grasping the realization that you're living in their world can be a really intense and humbling experience for some students," she said.

"Bears and wolves are indeed a draw, creating both fear and fascination. They also have a profound impact on how courses camp and travel, so students are affected daily by their presence, even if they never see or hear a bear or wolf. "In bear country, for example, courses follow 'bear practices' that change the way students cook, store food and travel in order to minimize interactions with and impact on bears. It's great that we can learn to coexist in a way that maximizes safety and minimizes impact on the animals. "The ESA has given us a chance to learn about these critters as visitors in their home territory and in so doing, has helped us to develop deep respect for all things wild."

'Changed our life dramatically'

For Jon Robinett, manager of the Diamond G Ranch near Dubois, it's not the Endangered Species Act specifically that has changed life, but the presence of the animals. "The ESA I guess is indirectly associated with our ability to manage," he said. "The presence of the animals has changed our life dramatically." The ranch does its calving now in Riverton to reduce conflicts with bears and wolves, and managers go back and forth. The ranch has lost six dogs to wolves, including Great Pyrenees, which were useful in keeping grizzlies away, he said.

"They take a lot of our friends away," he said of wolves. For the dogs, the ranch built a kennel outside. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has outfitted Robinett with a monitor to track collared wolves. The ranch also can be issued permits to kill wolves, but only after a problem is reported. Robinett said he understands why the permit is issued that way -- "otherwise, they'd just be hammering the wolves" -- but he said he knows if wolves are in the area there is likely to be a problem.

Casper Star-Tribune

Who pays for wolves once they are delisted?

States don't want to: The government says wolves are a recovered species and wants to turn over the expense of tracking them to states where they live

By Becky Bohrer - The Associated Press - Salt Lake Tribune

BILLINGS, Mont. - Since it first declared gray wolves in need of protection, the federal government has footed the bill to help rebuild the predator's population in the Northern Rockies. But with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now declaring wolves recovered and eager to hand off full management to the three states involved, the question becomes: Who will pay to manage the predators then? It's not an easy question. ''It hasn't been worked out,'' said Eric Keszler, a spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. ''Obviously, it's going to be an expensive thing to do. I don't know where the money is going to come from.''

The money spent by the federal government appears to have had the intended effect: The wolf population has risen from a few stragglers in northwest Montana to roughly 1,000 today in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Many ranchers believe the wolves should remain the financial responsibility of the federal government, which - over their objections and worries about livestock losses - reintroduced the predators to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho 11 years ago. Some conservationists argue that if the states truly want to take on management, they should be willing to assume what comes with that - including costs. And state wildlife managers, faced with budgets stretched thin by other obligations, want help from Congress - building from the idea that the American public has a vested interest in the longterm future of the iconic wolves.

''So far, Congress has supported the management of wolves to a fairly substantial level,'' said Steve Nadeau, large carnivore manager with Idaho's Department of Fish and Game. ''But with all the funding shortfalls and all the agency cutbacks, the longterm prognosis is an open question.'' Fish and Wildlife Service officials say there's little precedent for continued agency involvement once a species is delisted.

In over 30 years, just 10 species recovered by the agency have successfully come off the endangered species list, according to the agency's Michelle Morgan. Of those, the agency paid only for surveys of peregrine falcons, under a post-delisting monitoring plan for the raptor. ''Right now we don't have any precedent other than that,'' she said. ''The goal is to recover species and give them to the states, and we can then put our resources into species with other needs,'' Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Valerie Fellows said.

Managing wolves in the Northern Rockies isn't cheap: The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that for each year wolves remain listed, it will cost the government about $2.7 million. That covers such things as monitoring, public outreach and tracking down and killing problem wolves. That's more than what was spent in 2004 by state and federal agencies to manage nearly four times as many wolves in the upper Midwest, the agency's Ron Refsnider said, citing figures he said were the most recent. Federal wildlife officials earlier this month proposed delisting those wolves.

Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Helena, said the amount of money spent in the Northern Rockies is ridiculous. ''It isn't that wolves need this kind of management. It's people want this kind of management,'' Bangs said. ''Everybody wants to know everything. Everybody wants a radio collar on them. Everyone wants to know what they're doing every minute of the day. Expectations drive costs through the roof.''

A lot of that has to do with the culture of the West and the lay of the land, he said. It's far different than, say, the Midwest, where wolves were not reintroduced but naturally recolonized. And in the Northern Rockies, the potential for conflict is particularly high because of vast expanses of open country and a patchwork of federally protected and privately held lands, Bangs said. ''It's very hard to keep wolves alive out here,'' he said.

Ranchers like John Helle say wolves have cost them money, and they like knowing how many are around. Wolves, Helle said, can take a sizable chunk out of a producer's bottom line, requiring the need for more sheepherders and guard dogs and driving down livestock weights. That's not to mention the added stress of simply having wolves around. He has tracking gear provided by the government that picks up on wolf radio collar signals. But, he said he doesn't know all the frequencies and cannot tell for sure if the signal is from ''400 yards or 20 miles away.'' ''Wolves are in direct conflict with the way we live in the West now,'' said the Dillon-area rancher, who believes wolves have been responsible for killing hundreds of his family's sheep but has been able to confirm fewer than 50. ''We can always look back at history; they just did not fit with a civilized West.''

State wildlife officials expect the cost of wolf management to rise, at least initially, once delisting occurs and management authority falls completely to them. It's not clear yet when that might happen: Before delisting is proposed, all three states must have federally approved wolf management plans. Montana and Idaho do. Wyoming does not and has sued over the agency's rejection of its plan.

Currently, Montana and Idaho handle most day-to-day management responsibilities for wolves within their borders, but the Fish and Wildlife Service still handles law enforcement and litigation and is involved in ongoing research projects. Those duties also would fall to the states after delisted, Bangs said. Wildlife Services, the federal predator-control agency that carries out kill orders for problem wolves, will continue its work after delisting, Bangs said. Wolf management in Montana and Idaho is funded largely through money earmarked for that purpose in the Fish and Wildlife Service budget, Bangs said. Once wolves are no longer listed, he said, the administration and Congress will have to decide what's fair. He believes there will be some measure of federal dollars and, like other wolf managers, doesn't believe the funding question will hold up delisting.

Still, they say, it needs to be decided. Federal grants could ease the cost of at least a portion of the states' management costs, but in some cases, such programs require a match. Montana is looking at how it might ''share'' the costs, tapping into federal, state and private sources. Idaho, in its wolf management plan, says it's under no obligation to manage wolves if Idaho's congressional delegation can't secure ''ongoing adequate funding'' to cover the costs.

Kieran Suckling, a policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said he sympathizes with the states. However, ''What I see now is a rush to delist, and everyone sitting around pointing fingers,'' he said. ''You have to create the safety net before you can leap off the cliff. They're basically saying, 'Jump, and we'll figure it out later.' ''

Salt Lake Tribune

Biologist never tires of watching wolves, moose

Rolf Peterson, a wildlife biologist at Michigan Tech University, poses some of the hundreds of moose antlers he has collected during three decades of studying moose and wolves at Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior in this May 20, 2004, file photo. (AP Photo/John Flesher)

JOHN FLESHER - Associated Press

Rolf Peterson has watched a bleeding female wolf struggle to survive, helped by a turncoat male from the rival pack that had mauled and left her for dead. He has come face to face with a wolf while lying on a forest path shooting video; the animal casually detoured around him. He and his wife have spent three decades of summers in an old fishing cabin without electricity or running water. The nearby storage shed is jammed to the rafters with moose skulls and antlers. And he has chronicled with endless fascination the not-so-peaceful coexistence between wolves and moose on Isle Royale, a wilderness national park in Lake Superior whose isolation provides a rare setting for predator and prey to interact with minimal human contact.

"I've seen a lot of amazing things," Peterson said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press, summing up his life's work as a wildlife biologist in one understated sentence. He has no intention of stopping, although he'll officially retire as a Michigan Technological University professor at the end of May. His "second career" is already lined up: continuing to study moose and wolves on Isle Royale as a faculty researcher.

"It's something he'll do as long as he physically can," says his wife, Candy, who shares her husband's love of nature and cheerfully welcomes park visitors to their waterfront cabin.

Peterson, 56, is sometimes likened to the legendary primatologist Jane Goodall, although he notes that - for obvious reasons - he can't develop close-up, affectionate relationships with wolves and moose as Goodall does with chimpanzees. But in one respect they're definitely alike: Both try to demystify animals that are often misunderstood.

"The wolf is a hot-button species," Peterson says. "It never fails to ignite passions, either for or against."

Feared and vilified by European settlers and Western ranchers, the wolf was driven almost to extinction in the 20th century until rescued by the Endangered Species Act. Nowadays, most people recognize the crucial role played by wolves and other predators in the balance of nature, Peterson says.

Wolves are not the efficient killing machines portrayed in myths, he says - at least when going after moose. "They have a very poor success rate," he says. With powerful kicks, young moose can fight off a pack of hungry wolves - or simply outrun them in winter. Wolves have better luck with old, sick moose or calves.

"Moose can trot through two feet of snow at 20 miles per hour," Peterson says. "That's faster than the world champion cross-country skiers. Wolves cannot keep up if the snow is soft."

The "selective nature" of wolf predation is among the discoveries Peterson and his research associates have made, he says. Another is that Isle Royale moose are uniquely susceptible to arthritis, which he learned by examining their bones. Malnutrition in infancy is known to be one cause, but Peterson suspects there's a genetic link - and that his moose research may eventually have crossover benefits for humans.

"We know things about arthritis in moose that we don't even know for people," the Minneapolis native says. "It's time we try to bridge that gap." Peterson's fascination with wolves and moose was triggered in part by a high school graduation present: a book by Durwood Allen, a Purdue scientist who in the 1950s began studying the two species on Isle Royale.

Moose are believed to have swum to the 45-mile-long archipelago from Minnesota in the early 1900s. Wolves apparently migrated across the frozen lake a half-century later.

Peterson enrolled at Purdue as a graduate student after earning a biology degree at the University of Minnesota at Duluth and began working with Allen on Isle Royale. When Allen retired in 1975, Peterson took over the program and moved it to Michigan Tech in Houghton, a Michigan town about 60 miles southeast of Isle Royale. He has spent summers on the island ever since, doing field work such as gathering moose bones and scouting wolf dens. For seven weeks each winter, he returns for aerial observations.

The National Science Foundation is the research program's primary sponsor. The National Park Service also provides funding, although a Department of Interior official who hated wolves tried to kill the program during the Reagan years, Peterson says. Park Service personnel pulled out in the middle of the winter study, leaving him with only an airplane pilot for help.

"The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources flew in some food for us," Peterson says, adding dryly, "Foreign aid was important that year." Peterson and his assistants compile a yearly census of the wolf and moose populations, which are influenced by factors such as weather, disease, parasites and food availability.

At present, the wolves number a healthy 30, while moose are at an all-time low: 450. But Peterson says wolves are sure to decline in the next few years as the scarcity of vulnerable moose reduces their food supply. Despite the moose's slump, Peterson says the wolf is more vulnerable to extinction. Should that happen, he hopes the National Park Service will transplant more wolves to Isle Royale.

In a 1995 book, "Broken Balance," he argues that people have an obligation to keep wolves in the park because a tourist who illegally brought a dog there 15 years earlier caused a parvovirus outbreak that nearly wiped out the wolves and has affected them since.

Peterson promises to continue making the case for the wolf's recovery in the Upper Midwest and elsewhere, a job he's uniquely qualified to perform, says David Mech, founder of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn. "He's the amiable, plain-spoken fellow who gets along well with the general public, gets his points across very well," Mech says.

Despite his love of wolves, Peterson isn't among those who oppose lethal control to keep them from killing livestock and pets. "If you don't provide those tools, you really undermine public support for having any wolves," he says. "Their best chance for recovery is to keep them in the wild. The worst thing for them is to lose their fear of people."

Duluth News-Tribune

Scientists oppose grizzly bear delisting

BILLINGS, Montana (AP) -- More than 250 scientists and researchers have signed a letter protesting a federal proposal to no longer protect grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act in the Yellowstone national park area. The letter, dated Monday, was addressed to Chris Servheen, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's grizzly bear recovery coordinator. Servheen has said he expects a final decision on the proposal by year's end or early next year.

Among those signing the letter were primatologist Jane Goodall and bear researchers Chuck Jonkel and John Craighead Sr.

The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed in November "delisting" bears in the Yellowstone area, which covers parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, declaring them recovered. The bears currently are classified as threatened. The agency said the population has grown 4 percent to 7 percent a year since the mid-'90s, and it estimated the number of bears at more than 600.

The scientists and researchers said in their letter that an isolated population of 500 to 600 bears does not constitute a biologically recovered one. A population of 2,000 to 3,000 is needed for genetic diversity and to withstand regional variations such as food sources, they said. A smaller one is likely to go extinct, they argued. In a conference call Thursday, three researchers also questioned the accuracy of the agency's population estimates.

Monday marked the end of the comment period on the proposal. Seth Willey, acting recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service's regional office in Denver, said the agency has received about 160,000 comments, many from "recognized academics" who have worked on the issue for years. The proposal affects bears in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and surrounding national forests.

CNN

Wolves and ravens: an intertwining

By Steve Foss

A thing I’d read about in cherished writing and gazed on through inspiring photography happened right in front of me this weekend.
It had seemed like such a long time coming, though my payments to karma over the last three years have been neither steep nor especially bothersome. An apprenticeship served in the woods is time invested in pleasure.

Saturday and Sunday, I watched wild wolves play with ravens.

Barry Lopez has written of this relationship between the two eaters of meat. Jim Brandenburg has photographed it.

Until this weekend, I’d only dreamed about it.

Two other photographers and I had set up our gear behind cover near a dead deer on the edge of a spruce-tamarack bog, ready to spend the weekend with supertelephotos pointed at the carcass.

Wolves were what we hoped for. Anything else was what we anticipated settling for.

We did not have to settle at all, and I was able to capture my first images of wild wolves.

That’s gratifying, of course. A photographer has only his images and his experiences to sell, and a bank of stock photos of two separate wild wolves is a needed thing for anyone who calls himself a wildlife photographer. More than 90 percent of the wolves that appear in most wildlife magazines and on calendars are of captive animals, after all, and attempts to shoot wild and captive wolves often cost photographers many thousands of dollars.

I’d heard, read, thought so much about this relationship between raven and wolf, all through the work of others. How wolf kills help ravens survive.

That ravens sometimes lead wolves to animals to hunt so the ravens may continue to exist is a concept dismissed by the hard-headed, but I have always been a bit of a mystic.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Ravens and eagles had found the carcass by Friday afternoon, the rest of the day a deliverance of black, brown and white feathers, chattering birds, clutching talons in competition for meat. Images captured and cherished to swell our portfolios, grand predator and scavenger birds serious about living.

Wolves pay attention to these birds.

Shortly after dark, I looked out the window as clouds parted around the moon — and saw a shadow moving by the dead deer.

“There’s a wolf on the carcass,” I said quietly.

“Yeah, right,” disbelieved Scott.

Thomas said nothing, simply walking over to the window to gaze out at the moonlit scene. Thomas often treated sacred moments with silence that weekend.

We got out binoculars and watched while one wolf pulled on and dismembered the carcass. Every few seconds it would look up and stare right at us, three shadows in a line peering through open windows. A second animal lay 20 feet away, alert but unconcerned, a sentinel several shades darker than the snow.

Scudding clouds alternately obscured and revealed the waxing gibbous moon, sending undulating waves of burnished light that traveled across the snow of the bog. An aurora borealis pinned to the earth.

Dark wolf shadows moved through it, and I broke the silence with a plosive exhalation, unaware I’d been holding my breath. Half a lifetime in search of such beauty. I struggled not to weep.

The first wolf left with a chunk of meat pulling its head low, heading northeast. The sentinel got lazily to its feet, sniffed the carcass and moved away to the northwest, an effortless bicycling trot known well to wolf watchers.

Thomas, Scott and I simply looked at each other. There was little to say, but excited as children we gabbled for the next half hour about our expectations the wolves would return with the light.

Next morning, Scott and I were setting up out back to shoot passerines when Thomas stuck his head out the door.

“Wolf,” he intoned.

Moments later we were Canonizing the moment at 8.5 frames per second, three shooters in a perfect synchronicity.

The animal, beautifully conformed, ate for several minutes. It appeared to be a yearling or perhaps last May’s pup. An adult sat down across the bog to watch, a perfect model in front of a wilderness backdrop of spruce and pine, the rich light of morning a kiss for bog and photographer alike.

We imagined they were the same animals from the night before. The adult watched closely, the younger wolf as well. Both knew we were there. The young wolf would not turn its back on us.

Ravens attended the wolves, ebony outriders whose raucous alarm had drawn the canines to food.

In no great hurry, the young wolf eventually grabbed up a chunk of food and trotted north, pausing now and then, working its way toward the adult. The ravens went along. They left behind a wonderful bounty of meat on which no bird or animals fed at that moment in order to hop along with the wolf, to hover overhead, to swoop and dart and harry, their carks and clicks the good-natured laughter among those who, if not friends, appeared at least to appreciate an intertwined relationship.

Rather than feed on a meat ready at hand, they played a game with the wolf. Stolen meat has twice the sweetness. Most of the way across the bog the wolf squatted. Ravens shot straight over, somehow more intrigued by feces than meat.

This relationship, then, was what Lopez had written so eloquently about, what Brandenburg had captured in his work.

It was hard to concentrate on the camera, on composing the elements just so to tell a visual picture. I simply wanted to watch. Who knew if such a chance would come again.

The wolves eased their way into the woods, one or two ravens swallowed up with them, the others sprinting back on wings shiny in the hazy sun toward the carcass.

The moment passed. My hands trembled. Smooth and focused I’d been, the camera like a weapon on its tripod during the last half hour, but the adrenaline’s job was over and it had nowhere to go. It had its way with me. I was silent for a time until I steadied down some.

I took a deep breath and muttered under my breath a Lakota supplication. An acknowledgement, a salute, a hope.

“Mitakuye oyasin,” I whispered.

I ducked my head to examine the images on the back of the camera. Began the process that, if done carefully on images competently composed and exposed, can transform nature into art, a gift in turn passed on by a photographer to those whose dream.

Contact Foss at (218) 365-3114 or ely@timberjay.com. View his nature photography at www.stevefossimages.com.

Timberjay News

Wily Coyote Captured in Central Park

A wily coyote led sharpshooters armed with tranquilizer guns on a merry chase through New York's Central Park before being captured, Wednesday, March 22, 2006. The hunt had been on since Tuesday afternoon when Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe, among others, spotted the animal in the southeast corner of the park, not far from the tony Upper East Side. (AP Photo/Dima Gavrysh)

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A wily coyote led sharpshooters armed with tranquilizer guns on a wild chase through Central Park before being captured Wednesday. The coyote proved to be quite adept at avoiding capture, jumping into the water, ducking under a bridge, and scampering through the grounds of an ice skating rink after authorities thought they had the varmint cornered Wednesday morning.

The coyote, a male believed to be about a year old, was caught near Belvedere Castle, close to 79th Street and Central Park West, around 10 a.m. All the while, news helicopters hovering overhead tracked every turn in the chase, and it was broadcast around the country.

Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe said a NYPD police officer shot the coyote with a tranquilizer gun at close range.

The hunt began Tuesday afternoon when Benepe, among others, spotted the animal in the southeast corner of Central Park, not far from the tony Upper East Side before he leaped over a fence and disappeared. It's unclear when the coyote, nicknamed Hal by parks workers, first arrived in the big city, but the first sightings of the animal came early Sunday.

Hal is only the second coyote ever to be spotted in Central Park, Benepe said, the last being seven years ago. Interestingly, Benepe said both coyotes strayed into the same area, the Hallett Wildlife Sanctuary. "It's an area closed to people and dogs, so it's a good place for a coyote to hunt for birds," he said.

While coyotes don't usually present a threat to people, Benepe had warned that park visitors should keep their dogs leashed to protect the pets.

Officials said one of their tranquilizers had managed to hit the coyote Tuesday, but that it appeared to have no effect.

The coyote may have wandered into the city from Westchester County, or perhaps swimming across the Hudson River from New Jersey, Benepe said.

Asked to speculate why a coyote would venture into Central Park, Benepe said, "It's an immature young coyote ... at that age they're frisky and curious to explore the turf." "It takes quite an adventurous coyote," Benepe said. "You either have to swim or cross a railroad trestle used by Metro-North and Amtrak that runs along the Hudson under the George Washington Bridge and then goes through a very wooded area." "They are very good swimmers," he added.

"He's recovering," said Benepe, who visited the coyote after his capture. He said the animal would be taken to an upstate wildlife facility "as soon as he is ready to be transferred." Coyote sightings in urban areas are nothing new, but the critters rarely venture into the concrete jungle of New York City.

The coyote that found its way to Central Park in 1999 is now kept in the Queens Zoo. "It's very unusual to have them in Manhattan," Benepe said. "They have to be particularly adventurous." In Westchester County, coyote sightings have increased rapidly since the 1970s.

In 1997, 15 sightings were noted, but many encounters are no longer even reported -- unless they involve the loss of a pet. The animals generally shy away from people and no attacks on humans have been recorded, but several pet dogs have been snatched from back yards by the predators.

Officials fear that as the coyotes settle into a suburban existence they may lose some fear of people. The state and Cornell University are planning a five-year study that will include attempts to trap and tranquilize coyotes in four Westchester towns.

"We used to say, 'No, you don't have to be worried.' We're not saying that anymore," said Gordon Batcheller, a biologist with the sate Department of Environmental Conservation.

Associated Press

Officials OK shooting of mystery animal killing sheep

BOZEMAN, Mont. (AP) -- State and federal officials have given two private trappers in eastern Montana approval to shoot the wolf or wolf hybrid that has attacked more than 100 sheep in Garfield and McCone counties since December.

The agreement allows pilot Jeff Skyberg, who works for five counties in the area, to hunt the animal by air with a gunner. "I'm going to get out tomorrow, weather permitting," Skyberg said. "At least if we can find it, we can kill it."

The attacks started near Circle more than 250 miles from the nearest known wolf territory. Since then, at least 35 sheep have been killed and the attacks have continued, the most recent occurring March 11. Agents with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services initially thought it was a dog, but are now calling it a wolf or wolf hybrid.

Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator with state Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said Monday her office kept trying different legal approaches, and finally found one that could pass muster with federal officials. FWP took over most wolf matters in the state last year, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service retains some authority.

The county trappers can kill up to two "wolves or large wolf-like canids" through April 25, but only in McCone County and under direct FWP supervision. The agreement also allows them to hunt the specific animals on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.

"Direct supervision is the key," Sime said. "This agreement is a pretty big deal. We've gone to the wall for these guys. We need to get this wrapped up."

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., also took an active role, asking outgoing Interior Secretary Gale Norton for a quick solution last week. "I'm pleased to see everyone coming together to find a resolution to this problem and I especially thank Secretary Norton's office for quickly finding a method to resolve the problem" created by the federal rules, Burns said Monday in a release.

Ranchers who lost livestock have received 45-day kill permits good on their own property or grazing allotments under federal rules adopted in 2005, but the animal has been hard to find and some of the permits have expired.

Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Wolf Becoming a Mainstay at Wisconsin Farm

Justin Ware- WMTV- Madison

"It was here last night again, and there were several neighbors here and we got snapshots of him and he just hangs around the dogs and the four wheelers." For LaVern Davis, the last week has been typical ... tending to his dairy cows, taking his dogs out for a run on his ATV, letting them play with a wild wolf ...

Wait a minute, letting them play with a wild wolf?

"And so I went over there and sure enough, it looked like a wolf and he followed the dogs back and we were over there with the pickup and he come running up alongside the pickup and the four–wheeler with the dogs," said Davis.

Davis says the wolf started following his dogs and playing with them last week. And as long as that's all it does, he says the wild animal doesn't bother him. But Davis does have expensive dairy cows to worry about. "We have these small calves over here," said Davis, "that are about the size of a deer and it's a lot easier to grab them than it would be to chase a deer."

But even if this wolf decides to start eating Davis' calves, he has very few options for stopping it.

"Very few for both of us," said Greg Matthews, Wisconsin department of natural resources. "It's a protected species, can't be shot by the farmer ... that would be a big fine." Matthews says wildlife experts are about 90 percent sure this animal is a wolf. And if that's the case, killing it could result in a $10,000 fine and jail time. "All we could do is try to scare it away and there's no guarantee that would work," said Matthews, "but we cannot euthanize it, nor trap it and remove it."

Wolves generally won't attack humans, but DNR officials want to remind everyone that they are still wild and potentially dangerous animals. And if you see a wolf, get away from it, as soon as you can.

WMTV-TV

Wolves chase Gros Ventre elk

By WHITNEY ROYSTER - Star-Tribune environmental reporter
Jim Laybourn, Star-Tribune correspondent

JACKSON -- Again this winter, it appears wolves are having an impact on elk herds in the Gros Ventre area. But how much of an impact -- and whether the impact is positive or negative -- is up for debate.

"I don't think it's a lot different than what it has been," said Bernie Holz, wildlife supervisor with the Pinedale office of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. "The wolves are moving those elk around, and we end up with most of the elk on a given feedground."

Wolves have typically zeroed in on elk in the Gros Ventre, and Holz said Game and Fish knows from tracks that they have been run off of elk feedgrounds. He said wolves did not chase elk eight miles down to a ranch where they recently mingled with cattle, but wolves have chased elk for short distances, which may be a factor in their ultimate down-country migration.

"Some follow it naturally down to the (National Elk) Refuge every year," Holz said.

Typically, elk end up on the Patrol Cabin, the middle of the three state-run feedgrounds up the Gros Ventre. And two weeks ago, elk showed up on a ranch about eight miles down-valley from the feedgrounds, prompting Game and Fish to begin supplemental feeding to keep elk and cattle separate. The incident caught the attention of the state veterinarian, who aims to test the cattle herd for brucellosis.

Ranchers have pointed to the incident as reason to continue elk feedgrounds. Those operations have come into question as Wyoming lost its brucellosis-free status in 2003, likely after elk on a feedground transmitted the disease to nearby cattle. Brucellosis can cause cattle to abort and can cause undulant fever in humans. Ranchers say without feedgrounds, more elk will wind up in cattle feedlines looking for food.

But others say any interaction between wolves and elk is likely positive for the ranching industry, as it disperses elk, thus lowering the incidence of brucellosis. The disease is more prevalent in elk on feedgrounds, as transmission is more likely there.

Meredith Taylor with the Wyoming Outdoor Council said the ultimate outcome could be a "win-win" for wildlife and ranchers.

"We all want to see Wyoming regain its brucellosis-free status, and wolves may be part of that solution by spreading the elk out," she said. "The ranchers' role in this plan is to fence off the small area where they feed their livestock or find more suitable pasture for them out of the Gros Ventre valley to winter. We're all in this together and want to see a positive outcome to this problem for all involved."

Doug Hare, manager of the Red Rock Ranch, which is just a mile from Alkali, the lowest Gros Ventre feedground, said he has heard wolves this winter, but it is not a dramatic increase over past years. "Have I seen an increase in activity since last year? No," he said. "Has it noticeably decreased? Probably not." Still, he said there were 600 elk that came through the ranch in under 20 minutes earlier this winter, and he has spotted wolves within 100 yards of a ranch cabin.

In past years, Game and Fish and Gov. Dave Freudenthal, have urged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to relocate wolves that are pushing elk off of feedgrounds, as it increases the likelihood of brucellosis transmission to cattle. The Fish and Wildlife Service declined, saying, in part, "We are not prepared to routinely relocate wolves found on or near the numerous elk feeding grounds in the state..."

Casper Star-Tribune

Killing Michigan wolves next move?

By JOHN PEPIN, Journal Staff Writer

MARQUETTE — While the public scrutinizes a new federal plan for taking gray wolves off the endangered species list, Michigan officials will soon find out whether they will be allowed to use lethal means to control wolves in the interim. Currently, the state has no legal authority to kill problem wolves and must only harass or trap wolves known that have killed livestock or pets.But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to release a decision within the next two weeks on whether to grant Michigan’s permit application for lethal control measures.

The proposed measures were detailed in a draft environmental assessment developed by Wildlife Services, a program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Included in the draft plan are a range of options explored for addressing the problem of wolf damage in Michigan, including the preferred alternative which would allow control of wolves found to be responsible for killing or attacking livestock and pets. Under this alternative, an integrated management program would provide for permits allowing removal of depredating wolves. If the preferred alternative is ultimately adopted, it would use an integrated approach to the problem including both lethal and non-lethal measures for problem wolves on private and public lands.

In January, officials made the draft available and closed a public comment period on the plan Feb. 21. The final document, including a selected wolf management decision, is now being finalized. A similar proposal for Wisconsin is also being evaluated, but a decision there is not expected for at least a couple of months. Gray wolves are currently federal endangered species and threatened species under Michigan law. Permits for managing endangered species are provided for under the Endangered Species Act.

Under the wolf damage control program, permits would be issued to the state, with control actions carried out by the DNR or USDA Wildlife Services, acting as an agent of the state. Other alternatives examined in the draft environmental assessment include a program using only non-lethal control methods; technical assistance from federal agencies and no federal involvement in wolf damage management in Michigan.

Last April, the DNR was granted a federal permit to use lethal control, under certain conditions. That permit would have allowed the DNR to take up to 20 wolves through the end of 2005. At that time, the DNR pledged to continue to pursue and promote non-lethal techniques for preventing livestock depredation by wolves and retain use the option of killing problem wolves as a last resort.

Some environmental groups oppose the state’s efforts to use lethal control or to take the species from the federal endangered species list. A federal court ruling in September took back the DNR’s permit privilege to use lethal means. After a month seeking clarification on the ruling, it was determined the state could still use its non-lethal tactics. The main problem with the DNR permit was that it was included under a permit for Wisconsin wolves. After the judge ruled the Michigan permit should be separate, the DNR applied for its own permit.

Meanwhile, Michigan is also revising its state plan for managing wolves, with the help of a 22-member advisory committee. Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota all have state wolf management plans designed to maintain minimum wolf populations exceeding the recovery criteria for an isolated wolf population in the federal eastern recovery plan.

The state plans implement management actions and protections that will maintain wolf populations above the federal recovery criteria for the foreseeable future. Currently, the Michigan plan calls for a minimum sustainable population of 200 wolves in the Upper Peninsula. Habitat, prey, and land-use analysis showed that the U.P. can support at least 800 wolves.

No upper population limit is specified, but an upper limit referred to as “the cultural carrying capacity” will be determined by public reaction. The plan acknowledges that in the future, “some degree of wolf population stabilization and control” may be needed and that “some wolves will likely need to be killed under controlled conditions.”

The advisory panel, which will have varied interests represented, is expected to work for roughly six months to reach a consensus on guiding principals for managing wolves in Michigan. The state’s management plan for wolf management will then be revised to meet the criteria set out by the panel.

The Mining Journal

Idaho investigates wolf encounter

SALMON, Idaho (AP) -- Officials with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game are investigating a man's report that he had a close encounter with a pack of wolves while hiking with his dog.

Rick Turner said he was hiking with his dog, a Labrador-Pitbull mix named Lucy, on Saturday in Donnelly Gulch in central Idaho. He said they stopped to check out a dead cow elk when he spotted a gray wolf about 300 yards away, which then disappeared. Turner said he and his dog next stopped to watch three bull elk when he noticed a different wolf, black this time, about 100 yards away. The wolf, which Turner said weighed about 150 pounds, worked its way closer to Turner and his dog, until it was 50 yards away.

Turner said he picked up a piece of sagebrush and started waving it in the air and yelling, but the wolf closed to within 20 feet before stopping, and then moving off. Turner said he then saw the rest of the pack, four more black wolves and three gray wolves.

"I've never been so scared in my life," Turner, a logger and experienced hunter, told the Idaho State Journal. "I've been in the mountains all of my life, but this definitely changed my way of thinking."

Tony Latham with Fish and Game said the wolf was likely after the dog, Lucy. "That's typical behavior," Latham said. "They very much dislike other canines."

Local outfitter Luke Cranney said he found fresh wolf tracks around the dead cow elk, about a quarter-mile from where Turner said he had the encounter with the black wolf.

Latham said he found no evidence that the wolves had killed the elk. But he said he thought there might have been a wolf kill somewhere nearby judging by the activity of birds, which scavenge off wolf kills. Latham said it was the first wolf-human encounter he had investigated in the region.

"We'll probably never know what that wolf was thinking," Latham said. "But if it was chasing Rick, it would have got him. You can't outrun a wolf, you can't outrun a mountain lion, and you can't outrun a bear."

Fish and Game biologist Jason Husseman said there are six or seven wolf packs in the Salmon region, with nine to 12 wolves per pack. The one that approached Turner was likely a young wolf that didn't know any better, he said. "They're intelligent and curious and they want to know what you are," he said.

Jimmie Turner, Rick Turner's wife, said the wolf encounter won't keep them out of the backcountry, though they will be more cautious. "We spend 99 percent of our time in the woods, getting wood, camping or fishing," she said. "They want to say it happened because of the dog, but who's to say they wouldn't go after my child? You just never know."

Casper Star Tribune

Marquette, Michigan to be site of wolf delisting meeting

By JOHN PEPIN, Journal Staff Writer

MARQUETTE — Marquette is expected to be one of two Michigan locations hosting upcoming public hearings on removing federal Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region. Details of the meeting schedule have not been released, but are expected to be announced soon, after notice of a new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule to delist the gray wolf is published in the Federal Register. That publication is expected by Wednesday.

On Thursday, U.S. Dept. of the Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced in a media teleconference the recovery of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes Region and the Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to take the species off the protected list. The action, if finalized by the agency after soliciting public comment through the series of public hearings and other communications, would entrust management of the species to state wildlife agencies and Indian tribes.

“The states have strong solid plans for managing gray wolves,” Norton said, speaking on the conference call from Houston, Texas.

Only wolves in the western Great Lakes region would be affected by the new proposal. Currently, there are at least 3,020 wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, which is roughly 80 percent of all wolves in the lower 48 states. Once the last stronghold for wolves before severe decline, the Great Lakes region is hoped by federal officials to be the first area to recover populations successfully to the point of delisting.

“The gray wolf is now doing very well in the upper Midwest,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall.

The new proposal would lift federal protections for wolves in all of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan as well as parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. This area is narrowly structured around the core areas where wolves have exceeded recovery goals since 1999 and nearby areas where wolf packs may become established in the future. The distinct population segment also includes surrounding areas into which wolves may disperse but are not likely to establish packs. Biologists used an outlying boundary of between 250 to 300 miles beyond current wolf range.

The new proposal is currently available for review and a 90-day public comment period will begin once the proposed rule is published. The public hearings will be held within that period. Last Thursday, officials said Marquette and Grayling would be Michigan sites for hearings, along with other places in the region including Duluth, Minn.

Following the public comment period, the Fish and Wildlife Service will evaluate all information and make a decision on whether to finalize the proposal. Until a final decision is made, wolves in the western Great Lakes remain protected under the Endangered Species Act. Officials expect it will take eight months to a year to reach a final decision.

Fish and Wildlife officials crafted the new proposal in response to court rulings last year that criticized proposed areas for delisting as too large, covering too many states, and places in some cases where wolves may not even occur. Officials said they hope court judges will see the new proposal as being biologically sound in its scope and boundaries.

Norton said some of the benefits to having a recovered wolf population in the region include healthier, more resilient ecosystems, a potential tourism source by travelers wanting to see or hear wolves and the value to children and future generations in knowing that an endangered species was preserved.

Under the new proposal, gray wolf populations would be monitored for five years after delisting. If any drastic threats to the populations arose, emergency relisting could be imposed. Gray wolves were first placed on the federal endangered species list in 1974. At that time, there were only gray wolves living in northern Minnesota and on Isle Royale, in the lower 48 states.

The Mining Journal

Montana ranchers, outfitters crying wolf

By SUSAN GALLAGHER - Associated Press Writer

Wildlife agency draws criticism over delisting

HELENA — People claiming wolves have the upper hand in Montana, attacking livestock and wildlife, accused the state wildlife agency Friday of not doing enough to get wolves removed from the list of federally protected species so that Montana will have more control over them.

‘‘We already have more wolves than we need,’’ Sen. Dan McGee, R-Laurel, said at a meeting of the Montana Environmental Quality Council, on which he serves.

McGee joined outfitters and ranchers in contending that the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks should be working harder to advance wolves’ removal from the list of animals protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Outfitter Bill Hoppe of Gardiner, a Yellowstone gateway, said that area of Montana used to be rich with wildlife but has become ‘‘a predator pit.’’

Robert Fanning said his Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd has tried to advance the so-called delisting of wolves. Fanning said he finds ‘‘a greater chance that (Playboy Playmate) Anna Nicole Smith will join a convent,’’ than that Fish, Wildlife and Parks will work vigorously on the wolves’ status.

Bob Lane, a lawyer for the agency, said in an interview that its staff is working within a federal framework to advance delisting of wolves and must do so in a way that is defensible legally. The work takes time, and that frustrates some people, Lane said.

The criticism came after Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials gave the Environmental Quality Council an update about wolves in the state, focusing on the Legislature’s call for progress toward delisting.

Speakers included Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, who was in Circle early this week to follow up on reports of dozens of livestock deaths in that part of the state — deaths ranchers blame on a wolf or wolf hybrid. To the extent that regulations allow, Sime said, some ranchers have been given permission to kill the animal.

Responding to complaints that a pilot in the area has seen it, was prepared to kill it and remains willing to do so but lacks permission, Sime said he does not meet the criteria for persons authorized to use ‘‘lethal control.’’

‘‘These people are very concerned, very emotional and they’re trying to do the right thing’’ by not taking wolf control into their own hands unlawfully, said Republican Rep. Jim Peterson of Buffalo, a rancher and former executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. ‘‘I also have to tell you they’re running out of patience’’ and may lean toward ‘‘introducing some self-help.’’

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming biologically recovered. An estimated 1,020 wolves roamed the region at the end of 2005, according to state and federal wildlife figures, with Montana alone having 256. The federal agency has indicated its willingness to move toward delisting.

For that to happen, though, each of the three states must have a management plan approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana and Idaho have them — both now handle day-to-day wolf management duties in their states — but the federal government has rejected Wyoming’s plan. That move is being litigated.

‘‘Wyoming is holding us up,’’ Mike Volesky, an adviser to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, told the Environmental Quality Council.

Assistant Attorney General Candace West said the Bush administration’s selection of Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne this week to become Interior secretary stands to advance the delisting.

‘‘Hopefully, Secretary Kempthorne will answer Gov. Kempthorne’s and Gov. Schweitzer’s request to expedite the delisting,’’ West said.

Helena Independent-Record

Wolf delisting will mean changes for Wisconsin farmers

by Bob Hague

Removal of wolves from the endangered species list will change the way farmers deal with the big predators.

A compensation program for producers who lose livestock to wolf predation is now in place, but Signe Hotlz with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources says the federal decision to remove the wolf from the endangered species list in the Upper Midwest will make it easier for farmers to deal with losses, including trapping and killing of problems wolves. Landowners would also have some authority to deal with problem wolves themselves, under a permit system.

Jeff Lyon with the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation says farmers have come a long way, since wolves began to reestablish themselves in the state, in the mid 1970s. Lyon says wolf predation is a "very big" issue for livestock and dairy producers in northern Wisconsin. Farmers and other interested parties will be able to have their questions answered on May 8 in Wausau, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hosts a public hearing on the proposed delisting.

Wisconsin Radio Network

Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks blasted for wolf work

HELENA- Heavy criticism of the state wildlife agency today over the issue of wolves in Montana.

The state Environmental Quality Council, meeting in Helena, heard complaints the agency is not doing its part to get wolves removed from the federal endangered species list.

Bob Lane is a lawyer for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. He says the department wants wolves to be taken off the list, but achieving that must be done in a legally defensible way. Lane says one result is that the process may take longer than some people want.

Critics told the council that wolves are killing livestock, while government officials drag their feet.

Bob Fanning says he established a group to defend Yellowstone National Park elk, attacked by wolves. He told the council that expecting the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to work for delisting is like expecting Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith to join a convent.

KXLF-TV

Alaska Game Board delays action on wolf control program

The Board of Game meeting in Fairbanks has delayed action on its predator control program. The board decided instead to take up the issue at a future special meeting.

The board voted unanimously Wednesday to delay a proposal to permanently authorize an emergency regulation allowing the aerial killing of wolves near McGrath.

Department of Fish and Game spokeswoman Cathie Harms says similar delays for other predator control units probably will be approved.

Harms says more information is needed before the board can permanently authorize the wolf-killing program. She says the agency has the information, but needs additional time to prepare it. She says the staff requested the delay.

KTVA

North Dakota has few gray wolves, biologist says

FARGO, N.D. - North Dakota has fewer than a dozen gray wolves at any one time, most of them young males that stray in from Minnesota, a federal biologist says, .

Bill Bicknell, a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the wolves generally don't stay in the state.

The Bush administration has proposed removing gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region from the endangered species list, saying their numbers have grown to the point that federal protection is no longer needed. North Dakota is included in the proposal because it is close to Minnesota and is considered a place where the animals might expand their territory.

Under the federal proposal, "they would be managed by the state of North Dakota as a fur-bearer," Bicknell said. "My current understanding is that the season on them would be closed."

Wolves tend to draw extreme reactions from people, Bicknell said.

"You get viewpoints from both sides of the spectrum - people that are adamant that we must protect wolves, every last one of them, and on the other side we get people that view them as a real threat and the only good wolf is a dead wolf. It's a polarized issue," he said.

Grand Forks Herald

Gray wolves may be removed from endangered-species license plates

Gray wolves might be losing their place of prominence on Wisconsin license plates.

MILWAUKEE- The U.S. Interior Department is considering removing the gray wolf from the endangered-species list. That makes state officials wonder whether it would make sense to have the wolf depicted on a state license plate that supports endangered animals.

Last year 23-thousand motorists paid the extra 25 dollars for the plates, making the plates the second-most popular behind the Wisconsin sesquicentennial plates. It's also about the same number of people with Packer plates.

State officials say it's premature to say the wolves will get the hook, especially since it's unclear what animal would be a better choice. The bald eagle is one choice, but eagles too are in the process of being removed from the endangered list.

WBAY-TV

Predator control takes a big bite; wildlife managers come up short

Peter Dunlap-Shohl- Anchorage Daily News

The state Division of Wildlife Conservation has concentrated a lot of its resources and energy the past three years on predator-control programs -- basically killing wolves to increase the number of moose available for hunters. As division director Matt Robus points out, that work has forced cutbacks in other wildlife survey efforts and has even left the division short of what it may need to gather needed scientific data on the effectiveness of wolf- and bear-control work.

That's no way for the state to invest in its wildlife.

Biologist positions are going unfilled, regular moose population surveys have been cut back, and Mr. Robus says surveys that were done every two years are now on three- or four-year schedules.

Field work is expensive. Aircraft, fuel, biologists, moose collars, radio gear, programmers and thorough data entry add up. At the same time the Board of Game has intensified predator control, the division has watched costs rise and revenues dwindle. In the past, the division was almost self-sustaining, with license fees and federal funding. But right now, Mr. Robus says, it can't afford to do the work to provide up-to-date, reliable information about much of Alaska's wildlife population.

In 2005, the division sought legislative permission to raise hunting license fees. That proposal went nowhere. Lawmakers saw a ticket to unpopularity, and hunters wondered why they should pay more for what many say is less opportunity to hunt.

In 2006, any such proposal is deader than it was in 2005. This is an election year.

That has left Mr. Robus and the governor asking the Legislature for a $3 million increase in state general funds for the division. So far, a House Finance subcommittee has said no, recommending only continuation of funding.

"The division is plenty motivated to provide more hunting opportunities," Mr. Robus says. But without good information -- the kind that comes from intensive, rigorous field work -- "the Board of Game is forced to be very conservative" in setting allowable harvests.

"The better the information, the further the board can go to the margins of providing maximum opportunity," the division director says.

Consistent field work gives the division the chance to spot problems with wildlife populations early. And field research, done over time and systematically, may tell how effective or not wolf control has been in boosting game opportunities for subsistence and sport hunters.

Wildlife conservation has never been as precise a science as mathematics. But without extensive field work, the Game Board and all other Alaskans are left with guesswork, bias and anecdotes. That's not a sound basis for decisions about bag limits, seasons and other regulations aimed at sustainable yield and healthy populations of animals.

No matter how Alaskans feel about the fiercely contested issue of predator control and how to do it, they should be united in providing our wildlife managers with the means to gain good information. Alaska's wildlife is the nation's most magnificent. If that takes an additional $3 million in state funds, let's make the investment.

BOTTOM LINE: Wildlife managers can't do the job without the means -- and they're managing a treasure that should outlast oil, gold, zinc or coal.

Anchorage Daily News

Alaska Game Board chides Feds on predator control

By TIM MOWRY - Staff Writer

The Alaska Board of Game took aim at federal officials on Thursday by lambasting a high-ranking U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official for the federal government's lack of participation in the state's predator control program. Members of the six-person board took turns peppering Gary Edwards, deputy regional director for Fish and Wildlife in Alaska, with questions about why federal agencies haven't allowed predator control on federal lands in rural Alaska, where residents say there aren't enough moose or caribou.

"What we continually get from the federal government is, 'We want to be exempt from predator control on federal lands,' and yet it's at the core of your responsibilities, which is to provide for subsistence," board member Ron Sommerville of Juneau told Edwards. "Unless you bite the bullet and get out and help us in some areas, we can do very little."

The Game Board is in the middle of an 11-day meeting in Fairbanks to make changes to hunting and trapping regulations throughout the Interior. The board will begin taking up proposals dealing with Tok, Delta Junction and Fairbanks today. One of the major issues at the meeting is predator control, although the Game Board voted Wednesday to delay any action on predator control until a special meeting in May.

Edwards and Pete Probasco, deputy assistant director for the federal Office of Subsistence, were in town to address the Game Board's decision to withdraw from an agreement established between the state Game and Fish boards and the Federal Subsistence Board to work cooperatively managing Alaska's subsistence resources.

The Game Board voted at a January meeting in Anchorage to give the federal government a 60-day notice it planned to pull out of the agreement. While acknowledging the bar for predator control on federal lands in Alaska is set "fairly high," Edwards said federal agencies don't necessarily oppose the killing of bears and wolves on its land. At the same time, he said it would be "a big leap" to think predator control on a national wildlife refuge in Alaska would occur any time soon.

If and when that does occur, the decision likely won't be made in Alaska, Edwards said. "Once we go down the predator control route, that's something that's going to be discussed on a national level," said Edwards, who is also the Fish and Wildlife Service's representative on the Federal Subsistence Board.

In the last three years, the state has instituted aerial wolf-control programs on state land in five areas amounting to less than 5 percent of the state. More than 550 wolves have been killed as a result.

Federal agencies, however, have balked at allowing predator control on adjacent federal lands. Noting that the federal government owns more than 60 percent of Alaska, much of it in rural areas, board member Dick Burley of Fairbanks said federal officials are riding on the state's predator control coattails.

"I'm not going to sit here and say we want every wolf and bear killed in Alaska, but there comes a time when you have any resource, that if you're going to provide opportunities for subsistence needs, you need to manage it," Burley said. "You can't go along for the ride hoping the state has enough animals to provide for subsistence. The state of Alaska is getting a black eye for trying to implement predator control when the federal government should be helping us."

Federal officials' reluctance to go along with predator control has hamstrung the state's program in some instances, Sommerville said. "We had to tell the people in the Yukon Flats they can use snowmachines (to hunt wolves) but not to go on federal public lands when they're surrounded by federal public lands," he said.

The situation is much the same in Game Management Unit 19 in the central Kuskokwim, bordered by national wildlife refuges. "We're authorizing some of these predator control programs with one hand tied behind our back and standing on one leg," Sommerville said.

At the federal level, Edwards said the individual land managers are responsible for dealing with predator control issues, not the Federal Subsistence Board. While officials would be more than willing to talk to the Game Board regarding predator control, Edwards didn't make any promises or offer much hope. He did encourage the Game Board to reconsider its withdrawal from the memorandum of agreement between the three boards.

"I don't think you solve things by walking away from the table," he said. "You solve things by working at it and hammering it out."

The Game Board spent most of Thursday dealing with proposals pertaining to the McGrath and Galena areas. The board:

* Created a Tier II moose hunt in Unit 19A and closed hunting for moose in another part of the unit due to a significant decline in moose numbers. The board also revoked a registration permit hunt for any antlered bull in Unit 19B and left antler restrictions in place for residents.

* Created a new permit hunt for moose in all of Unit 21D.

* Allowed the use of snowmachines to hunt wolves in Units 21 and 24.

* Increased the bag limit on wolves from five to 10 a season in Units 21 and 24.

The Game Board also voted to prohibit the use of lead shot for any bird hunting in Unit 26 on the North Slope. The proposal was submitted by the North Slope Borough Fish and Game Management Committee for fear that lead shot used for hunting upland game birds could be having an effect on sensitive waterfowl populations such as spectacled eiders.

Although it has been illegal for several years to use lead shot for waterfowl hunting, this is the first area in the state where lead shot is prohibited for upland bird hunting.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Idaho Governor Kempthorne named Interior Secretary

By DAVID ESPO - AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON -- President Bush selected Dirk Kempthorne as interior secretary Thursday, saying the Idaho governor brings wide experience to the job of managing the nation's parks, public lands and natural resources.

If confirmed by the Senate, the 54-year-old Kempthorne -- himself a former senator -- would replace Gale Norton as head of an agency that manages one of every five acres in the United States, areas as diverse as Yellowstone National Park and the Civil War battlefield at Gettysburg, Pa.

"Dirk understands that those who live closest to the land know how to manage it best," the president said, "and he will work closely with state and local leaders to ensure wise stewardship of our resources."

Said Kempthorne: "God bless America the beautiful. I would be honored to serve this land."

Kempthorne, a former mayor of Boise, served one term in the Senate, then retired to return home and run for governor. He was elected in 1998, and easily won a second term in 2002 with more than 55 percent of the vote in his reliably Republican, conservative state.

Bush praised Norton as the first woman to lead the Interior Department and said she had been instrumental in establishing an initiative to protect communities from catastrophic wildfire. He said she had also helped lead efforts to restore offshore energy production after Hurricane Katrina.

Her tenure was stormy at times, and her second-in-command, Steven Griles, had a close relationship with disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Several e-mail exchanges between the two men are now the subject of investigations by a Senate committee and the Justice Department.

The Interior portfolio often generates controversy -- developers clashing with environmentalists -- and Norton's successor will have to deal with issues as diverse as a backlog of building needs in the National Park system and the state of health care on impoverished Indian reservations.

Kempthorne drew fire from environmentalists as soon as his appointment was announced.

"As governor, Kempthorne led the charge to strip protection from 60 million acres of America's last wild forests and he's consistently fought against protection for wildlife like grizzly bears and salmon in his home state of Idaho," said Todd True of Earthjustice.

Barring an unexpected complication, confirmation should be a formality for Kempthorne. The Senate rarely turns down one of its former members for the Cabinet, and Republicans hold the majority with 55 of 100 seats.

"Dirk is a strong nominee for interior secretary," said Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee. "He's an outspoken advocate for America's parks and has a wealth of public service experience at both the state and federal levels. I look forward to his swift confirmation by the Senate."

One Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, said she welcomed the appointment. "He understands the Northwest and a lot of Interior issues," she said, adding he "stood up to the administration" over nuclear waste cleanup at a federal facility in Idaho.

The Interior Department manages one of every five acres in the United States, including 388 areas in the national park system, 544 wildlife refuges and more than 260 million acres of multiple-use lands located mainly in 12 Western states.

It also manages 824 dams and reservoirs, administers protections for endangered species and works with 562 federally recognized Indian tribes. For the past decade, the department has been embroiled in a bitter lawsuit over the department's responsibility for Indian trust money.

At home in Idaho, Kempthorne spent the past year pushing for more state parks and revamping and expanding the road systems with money raised from bonds.

As leader of the National Governors Association, Kempthorne emphasized the challenge of providing long-term health care, citing his experience with his own parents.

Born in San Diego, he grew up in Spokane, Wash., graduated from the University of Idaho in 1975 and worked for FMC Corp. and the Idaho Homebuilders Association before being elected mayor of Boise in 1986.

He served as mayor until 1993, going on to serve six years in the U.S. Senate.

His political career has touched on several land and wildlife issues. Kempthorne has sued the Bush administration over its November 2000 decision to reintroduce grizzlies into the Bitterroot range, a proposal that was ultimately withdrawn in 2001 by U.S. Fish and Wildlife. He was also part of a four-state salmon recovery effort, working with Indian tribes in the region as well as the Northwest Power Planning Council.

Chicago Tribune

5,700 biologists urge protecting Endangered Species Act

Bill passed by House would ‘critically weaken’ law, they say in letter

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - As a Senate committee prepares to take up revisions to the Endangered Species Act, nearly 6,000 biologists from around the country signed a letter Wednesday urging senators to preserve scientific protections in the landmark law.

The House passed an Endangered Species Act rewrite last year that many scientists and environmentalists viewed as extreme. Interest groups are lobbying to ensure that legislation expected soon from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be an improvement.

“Unfortunately, recent legislative proposals would critically weaken” the law’s scientific foundation, said the letter organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The 5,738 signers included six National Medal of Science recipients.

“For species conservation to continue, it is imperative both that the scientific principles embodied in the act are maintained, and that the act is strengthened, fully implemented, and adequately funded.”

The House bill, written by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., would require the government to compensate property owners if steps needed to protect species thwart development plans. It also would stop the government from designating “critical habitat” where development is limited.

Scientists are particularly concerned about how science is handled, including a provision that would give the interior secretary the job of determining what constitutes appropriate scientific data for decision-making under the law.

The chairman of the Senate environment committee, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma, is trying to craft an endangered species bill with the committee’s top minority member, independent Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, and leaders of the wildlife subcommittee, Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

Inhofe is hoping to have a bipartisan bill later this month, but it’s not clear if the senators will be able to reach agreement. Aides said key issues including critical habitat and landowner compensation have not been fully addressed.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

MSNBC