Monday, February 27, 2006

Yellowstone's wolves in decline

By Corey Binns

It was not a good year for Yellowstone’s wolves. Of the 69 pups born in the park during 2005, only 22 survived. Canine parvovirus, usually found in domestic dogs, is the likely culprit for the biggest population drop in the 11 years since wolf reintroduction. In 1999, the population pulled through a suspected parvo outbreak, but pup survival was 40 percent then, far better than last year’s number. Parvo immunity is passed along in the mother’s milk, but once pups stop nursing, they become vulnerable.

The hardest hit packs inhabit Yellowstone’s Northern Range, where only 8 of the 49 pups survived. "It’s shocking," says Yellowstone Wolf Project Leader Douglas Smith (see "Yellowstone’s Heroine Wolves," February 2005). In the northern areas, the wolves live closer together, which helps spread parvo. Plus, a road goes right through the region, providing easy access for domestic dogs and the virus. Smith says a pet dog probably brought parvo to Yellowstone. The virus lasts up to five years in the soil and spreads easily—an animal can become infected just by sniffing contaminated scat. Laws require park visitors to pick up after their dogs, but not everyone does.

Most research shows that, over the long-term, parvo does not hurt wolf populations. However, Smith speculates that the future may be bleak for Yellowstone’s well-protected wolves because their social system differs from that of other wolf populations. In the park, he’s seen a few older animals live to exert a strong influence over the pack. "Seven- and eight-year-old matriarchs are calling the shots," says Smith. At the current population level, the wolves will have a chance to recover, he predicts, because the virus tends to be episodic. But the loss of so many individuals from one generation concerns him. Seven years from now, the wolves’ social system may suffer from a lack of matriarchs. By killing off so many pups, the parvo outbreak may just have reduced the pool of potential pack leaders of tomorrow.

  • Wildlife Conservation Magazine
  • Forest Service eyes outsourcing two-thirds of workforce

    Thousands of Ranger, Biologist, Smoke-Jumper Jobs Out to Bid

    Washington, DC —The U.S. Forest Service is studying how to contract out more than two-thirds of its total workforce by 2009, according to agency planning documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Coming on the heels of Bush administration plans to sell off 300,000 acres of Forest Service land, the agency is also looking to potentially privatize large portions of its environmental, law enforcement, fire-fighting and research operations.

    Under the agency plans, 21,350 full-time jobs will soon be under review for possible replacement by private sector firms. The Forest Service has a total of 31,625 full-time jobs, according to Office of Personnel Management figures for FY 2003:

    During the current fiscal year, 500 fire-fighting jobs in the aviation program, including the famed smoke-jumpers, will be examined for outplacement to interested contractors;
    In FY 2007, approximately half of the agency’s law enforcement agents and rangers (600 positions), the jobs of all of its geologists (500 jobs) and 1,100 biologists who prepare environmental studies on the impacts of timber sales, oil and gas leasing and other actions on national forest lands may be put out to bid;
    In FY 2008, the agency’s entire network of scientists and other researchers (2,000 slots) and 3,000 foresters and range conservation staff positions will be reviewed for outsourcing potential.
    “The Forest Service appears to be having an internal fire sale, with the heart of our national forests put out for bid on eBay,” stated Jeff Ruch, PEER Executive Director. “We may soon see the Weyerhaeuser National Forest patrolled by rent-a-rangers, overseen by private consultants.”

    In 2003, an outsourcing plan of similar scope, designed to meet Bush administration outsourcing quotas prior to the 2004 election, was halted by Congressional action. Then, as now, one of the major concerns was the added cost to the Forest Service to conduct the studies and stage the competitions. In its latest proposed budget, the Bush administration is cutting back Forest Service operating funds without providing any new funds to pay for this broad undertaking. In 2003, the Forest Service spent an estimated $360 million on studies but produced no identifiable savings.

    Large scale outsourcing also has a dampening impact on sagging employee morale, already depressed by shrinking budgets. To make matters more contentious, the Forest Service is advancing its plan without consulting the unions representing affected employees.

    “For decades, this agency has invoked the phrase ‘Forest Service family’ to connote a cohesive, close-knit organization, but this plan puts whole branches of the family on the auction block,” Ruch added, noting that effective contract management has not been one of the strong suits of the federal government. “This whole misguided effort is an example of mindless management by slogan lacking in any analysis as to how to make the Forest Service actually run better or more efficiently.”

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release (www.peer.org)
    For Immediate Release: February 27, 2006
    Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

  • Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
  • No gray areas: Wolves still rare in Illinois

    Sightings are likely single animals that have broken off from packs in other states.

    By Mike Wiser
    ROCKFORD REGISTER STAR

    ROCKFORD — Officially, Illinois is wolf-free. Semi-officially, you might — maybe, if you’re really, really lucky — spot one around these parts. Gray wolf populations have steadily risen since the passage of the 1973 Endangered Species Act which protects wolves in all states with some exceptions in Alaska, Minnesota and Wisconsin, where they are most plentiful. They number well into the hundreds in Wisconsin, but so far there haven’t been any recorded living in Illinois since the 1800s.

    Unless, of course, you count that one shot in Marshall County, just north of Peoria, in December 2002. Or that one that likely traveled this way before it was shot in October 1999 in Grundy County, Mo. Or that one that was killed by traffic about a year ago in Lake County, Ill.

    “Are there wolves in Illinois? Yes,” said Richard Benning, youth educator and naturalist at Severson Dells Nature Center southwest of Rockford, who hosted a 90-minute talk on gray wolves Sunday for a standing-room-only crowd of about 50 people.

    “Are there wolf packs? No. Not that we know of,” Benning said.

    A pack is defined as a reproducing male and female. And so far, the wolves that have turned up in this state in the past 100 years or so have been single animals. The theory is that these animals were wolves that broke off from an existing pack to start their own pack.

    According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, whose biologists have tracked wolf populations since 1979 using radio telemetry, snow track surveys, and collection of reports of wolf observations, gray wolves have come back strong in the past 20 years. In the first years of the study, wolves numbered in the mid-to-high 20s. As of last year, biologists estimate there are 425 to 455 wolves in 108 packs and 14 loners in Wisconsin. Although most of the wolves are in the state’s northern areas, some have been spotted as far south as Waukesha County.

    So what if wolves make a comeback in Illinois? Or what if you’re camping in Wisconsin, Minnesota or the Upper Peninsula of Michigan? Is there a reason to be alarmed?

    No, Benning said. “There’s never been a case of a healthy wolf killing a human being, although there is one incident in the Saskatchewan Province of Canada that is under review and might change that,” he said. A person has a better chance of getting struck by lightning than being attacked by a wolf, he said. “They run away from humans. ... Biologists will go into wolf dens and take the pups and the mother will just whimper,” Benning said.

    Instead, if there are wolves in the area, don’t fret. Go outside and listen intently. You might be in for a treat, like the one Rockfordian Steven Kreitlow got when he heard a wolf howl while camping with a friend in the 1970s at Isle Royal National Park.

    “It is beautiful and it raises the hair on the back of your neck,” said Kreitlow, who attended the lecture Sunday. “It was like a symphony. There were six of them going at different times. ... It was beautiful and eerie at the same time.”

  • Rockford Register Star
  • Sunday, February 26, 2006

    Wolves in Illinois still rare, but future is promising

    February 26, 2006

    BY DALE BOWMAN STAFF REPORTER

    When Braidwood Lake reopens to fishing on Wednesday, an island will be cordoned off to protect a pair of bald eagles attempting to nest. This comes as the third wild wolf since 2002 has been confirmed in Illinois.

    Last week brought those two stark reminders that the intersection between protected animals and humans is becoming more common in Illinois, enough to warrant more education and understanding.

    "It is kind of like bald eagles: If somebody saw a bald eagle [in Illinois] 20 years ago, that was a big deal,'' Tim Santel said. "Now it's kind of commonplace. Maybe 20 years from now, it will be no big deal for somebody to see a wolf run about across their field

    "Are there wolves here? Probably. Will there be wolves here in the future? Probably. As long as we continue to do our jobs, there probably will be.''

    In December, Seth Hall shot a canine while coyote hunting in Pike County that has been confirmed by DNA tests as a wild wolf.

    Hall's wolf has put Santel in a bit of a pickle. Wolves are federally protected in Illinois. Santel is the resident agent in charge for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service overseeing Indiana, Illinois and Missouri.

    How do you charge a coyote hunter for shooting a wolf in a state where wolves aren't supposed to exist.

    "The official line is it's still an ongoing investigation,'' Santel said. "No decision on what will happen next has been made. The main thing we want to do is start the process of educating the public and not to raise the alarm bells and get everybody worked up about wolves. This is a very rare occurrence.''

    Donald F. Hoffmeister in Mammals of Illinois suggests "canids weighing less than 50 pounds are coyotes or dogs. Adult Illinois wolves would weigh well over 50 pounds.'' (p. 47) The Illinois Department of Natural Resources will make more of an effort to educate hunters on the differences between wolves and coyotes.

    "In the past, we never had a mind-set that it's possible that they have a wolf; now it is possible,'' Santel said. "You need to think about it twice. Always be sure of your target before you pull the trigger. There has to be some responsibility placed on the hunters. If you're not sure, let it go.''

    In other words, if a coyote looks too big, put the gun down. Wolves are possible.

    The first confirmed modern wolf in Illinois was shot by coyote hunter Randy Worker in Marshall County in December 2002. The second was killed by a vehicle in Lake County in the fall of 2004.

    "I think it's safe to assume as we succeed in continuing to protect endangered species like wolves, and their populations begin to increase, we will begin to see animals like wolves in places we haven't seen them [in modern times],'' Santel said.

    Hoffmeister suggests all wolves were gone in Illinois by the 1860s.

    "People need to keep things in perspective,'' Santel said. "We are talking about three wolves in the last how many decades? Chances are still rare that you will see one.''

    The same used to be true of bald eagles. Not anymore.

    As site workers prepared Braidwood, a 2,600-acre cooling lake an hour southwest of Chicago, for Wednesday's opener, they set up an extra buoy line for the nesting eagles.

    Even so, they're not the most urban of nesting eagles. Another pair has tried for a couple of years to nest on the Calumet River on Chicago's Southeast Side.

    "A group of people is always very excited and a group of people is very worried,'' Santel said. "That is the nature of the business.''

    The nature of it has me excited.

    Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
    All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

  • Chicago Sun-Times
  • Saturday, February 25, 2006

    Machismo, myth, money fuel wolf kill

    Compass: Points of view from the community

    By RUDY WITTSHIRK

    (Published: February 24, 2006)
    Flying at ground level across the Alaska wilderness in a small plane, following tracks in the snow and blasting wolves with semiautomatic shotguns is exactly what it sounds like -- great fun if you're into that sort of thing. Gov. Murkowski says it's "based on sound science." But Game Board members were cynically chosen for their desire to kill wild predators, not for their scientific aptitude. After Alaskans voted twice to stop the state from aerial hunting, the Game Board authorized their hunting buddies to do it with private, unregulated aircraft.

    Judge Sharon Gleason's decision to allow resumption of aerial wolf-killing is narrow, administrative and in no way a scientific judgment. The Game Board got caught violating their own regulations, so they "tweaked" them by deleting the part that the lawsuit said they did not follow: the part about "public input." Alaska's predator control program is technically "consistent" but only within an unscientific framework.

    State moose censuses have been inconsistent enough to be amenable to political interpretation. Inadequate moose censuses in McGrath showed 850 moose in 2000. This was labeled a crisis, as up to 3,500 moose were needed to meet local subsistence demand. A wolf- and bear-reduction program was approved, but a better census in 2001 indicated 3,600 moose! The issue faded away until the current board resurrected it and increased the moose objective up to 8,000 to accommodate nonlocal hunters. In upping the objective, the board failed to consider whether or not the available habitat could support 8,000 moose, even if all predators were removed.

    The stated purpose of wolf control is to provide more moose for "subsistence." But according to compiled harvest data from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game itself, 50 percent to 85 percent of moose killed in most aerial wolf-killing areas are shot by urban, suburban and out-of-state hunters. One of my health care providers got his trophy moose out of McGrath, where $1.7 million was spent collaring and counting moose, relocating bears, etc. A lot of beef could have been shipped in for that price! Even for local residents, motoring convenience -- not subsistence -- is the criterion. Folks used to just boat up the Kuskokwim, drive or fly out and shoot moose. There are a lot of pilots in McGrath per capita. How can anyone be surprised to learn there are not enough moose in such popular hunting areas?

    Twenty years ago in the Hatcher Pass area, moose were a nuisance in our yards and on winter trails. Now they are scarce for miles around. How can anyone be surprised to learn they were gunned down by those motorized columns of hunters coming up the Parks Highway?

    Shooting wolves from aircraft is the inevitable consequence of a delusional game management program based on the politics of myth, machismo and money. The delusions are:

    • That significant numbers of Alaskans are "dependent" on moose meat for their "subsistence" survival.

    • That wolves wiped out the moose herds in "popular" motor hunting areas like the highway around Skwentna and Game Management Unit 13 in general.

    • That nature can provide Alaska's growing, mechanized population with a "sustained yield" of moose in spite of human encroachment on choice moose habitat.

    Each season I see fewer game (and nongame) animals and birds -- and more snowmachines and off-road vehicles. Yet I've never heard the governor, Legislature or Game Board address the "science" of any possible negative effects of the thousandfold increase in snowmachine traffic in moose wintering areas during their times of near-starvation (only that snowmachines "pack trails for moose"). There's no profit in the "science" of off-road traffic and motorized overhunting.

    The numbers of moose killed per wolf are sheer speculation -- wolves also scavenge carcasses. And by authorizing private aircraft to kill wolves, there's really no way to tell how many are killed or how many are wounded and left to die. Alaska's privatized aerial gunning of wolves is broke-back management based on bad intelligence.

    Calling it "scientific" is an attempt to confer legitimacy upon what is, in essence, an industrial harvest of Alaska's wildlife.

    Rudy Wittshirk is an outdoorsman, writer and photographer. He lives in Willow.

    Copyright © 2006 The Anchorage Daily News (www.adn.com)

  • Anchorage Daily News
  • Friday, February 24, 2006

    State, federal and tribal wardens cooperate on wolf trapping case

    Endangered species violation took place on Menominee reservation

    SHAWANO/MENOMINEE, Wis. -- A Green Bay man, Robert A. Roland, 35, pleaded no contest in Shawano/Menominee County Court on Oct. 3, to illegally trapping and killing a gray wolf in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

    The court fined Roland $1,989, for unintentionally killing an endangered or threatened species and revoked his trapping privileges for two years, and his hunting and fishing privileges for one year. Wisconsin’s maximum fine for unintentionally killing an endangered or threatened species is $2,000 plus cost.

    Roland also faced charges in Menominee Tribal Court for possession of a wild animal carcass and trespassing on tribal land in possession of trapping equipment. He forfeited $1,000 to the tribal court on the possession charge and $500 on the trespassing charge.

    The case began in early March 2005, when Conservation Warden Michael Stahl responded to a report by Shawano County DNR wildlife manager Kay Brockman-Medaras of a “mortality signal” from a radio-collared wolf. The mortality signal – which indicates a collared wolf has not moved for several hours –was obtained by a DNR pilot conducting aerial monitoring.

    GPS coordinates led Warden Stahl to a farm adjacent to the Menominee reservation where he learned that the wolf had been picked up by Menominee Tribal Biologist Don Reiter. Reiter reported that the wolf had been caught in a snare just inside the boundaries of the reservation.

    DNR Warden Stahl, Tribal Warden Don Waukechon and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agent agreed to conduct a joint investigation into the illegal wolf taking.

    When confronted by Warden Stahl and the Special Agent, Roland admitted to setting snares that trapped and killed the wolf.

    The gray wolf is protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and is an endangered and threatened species in Wisconsin. Federal, state and tribal authorities worked together to investigate and prosecute the case. The federal and state charges were resolved by the Shawano/Menominee County Court and tribal charges were handled by the Menominee Tribal Court.

    Warden Stahl said the investigation was a good example of federal, state and tribal cooperation through the course of the investigation of a crime. While this case was triggered by electronic tracking of wolves, Stahl said that information from private citizens remains the department’s best tool for initiating investigations and reminds citizens that they may call in violations of game laws to 1-800-TIP-WDNR.

    Killing an endangered species – intentionally or unintentionally – is illegal. Intentional killing of an endangered or threatened species is a criminal offense and fines are $2,000 to $5,000 and/or 9 months in jail, plus the mandatory revocation of all hunting licenses for 3 years.

  • Wisconsin DNR News
  • Wednesday, February 22, 2006

    Lone wolves no longer- Wisconsin wolf report

    With population booming, debate over state efforts to control them intensifies

    By LEE BERGQUIST
    lbergquist@journalsentinel.com

    Park Falls - The gray wolf is on a roll.

    Its population is booming. Lone wolves have turned up in every corner of the state. And increasingly, residents are reporting a growing number of close encounters with this elusive predator. "Nobody is alive in Wisconsin who has experienced this kind of wolf population," said Adrian Wydeven, the top wolf expert with the state Department of Natural Resources. "There has been nothing like this since the 1800s."

    Wolves have been aided by government protection, a more charitable public image and a teeming deer population that has offered an abundant food supply. But the wolf remains a polarizing force, resurrecting old hostilities when it preys on livestock and meanders into residential areas.

    Wisconsin's wolf population was estimated to be between 425 and 455 last winter - the most recent count available. That's five times the number of a decade ago, and as the wolves prosper, people are seeing more of them.

    Ronda Dural called it a "lifetime experience" when she locked eyes with a wolf 20 feet away from her on a sunny summer day in 2003. But during the 2004 Christmas break, a pair of wolves, and then a third, followed her for several miles on a desolate road close to home near Butternut in Ashland County - even though she yelled and clapped her hands to scare them off. At one point, she stood 20 yards away, her springer spaniel hugging her legs, as two of the wolves watched her from a stand of pines. "I never personally thought they were going to attack me," said the fourth-grade teacher. "What concerned me is that they just didn't go away."

    When wolves first returned to Wisconsin in the mid-1970s, biologists could only guess how many of the animals the state could support. In 1989, DNR biologists estimated it was about 80. Later, the goal was raised to 350 wolves. As a sign of how well the wolf has done, a 1997 study led by the University of Wisconsin-Madison estimated it could take 40 years for the state to hit 400 wolves. "Now I think we are pretty close to the number of wolves the state can hold," Wydeven said.

    But others disagree. "It's hard for me to see these animals treated as a numerical figure," said Karlyn Atkinson Berg, a conservation consultant for the Humane Society of the United States. "Nature will take care of this," said Berg, noting that a declining deer population will control wolves better than government controls.

    Some hunters in the north are also grousing that wolves are bringing down the deer population. Darrell Fohr of Donner's Bay Resort on the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage said that wolves are the reason he was skunked during seven days of hunting during the 2005 season. Customers at the resort also reported few kills, and it was the first time the resort wasn't full during the hunting season. "That's ridiculous," he said. "I personally think the wolf is a beautiful animal, but I don't think it is being controlled."

    Before European settlement, wolves roamed the entire state. By 1865, the Legislature had approved its first wolf bounty, for $5. By the late 1950s, wolves had been extirpated, and according to the DNR, millions of state dollars had been spent to kill them. The wolf received protection under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1974, making it illegal for citizens to kill wolves.

    Wolves survived an outbreak of canine parvovirus, which drove down the population from 1982 to 1986, and each year wolves are killed by mange, vehicle accidents and, inevitably, gunshots. At least seven wolves were illegally killed in 2004-'05, DNR figures show.

    Less trust in figures

    As the wolf population has boomed, there is mounting criticism the DNR is undercounting them. Wydeven makes two dozen speeches a year, and increasingly, "I have to explain our method of counting wolves," he said. "Now there seems to be much less trust, or believability, in our counts than there used to be." In January, Wydeven was summoned to a forestry committee meeting of the Ashland County Board where supervisors complained that residents are seeing more wolves than the 50 or so the DNR had counted in the area.

    "These wolves - either rightly or wrongly - are not showing a fear of humans," said Mike Hamm, a county supervisor and critic of the state's population estimates. Hamm, who is a law enforcement officer, said a wolf stood 50 feet from his cruiser in the middle of the afternoon in 2004. "I put my siren on and it doesn't even run away - it walks away," he said.

    In Montreal, southwest of Hurley in Iron County, reports of wolves wandering into town prompted a sit-down last winter between community leaders and the DNR. "We wanted them moved," said Mayor Robert Morzenti. "They've been seen on the street and there's a ton of little kids. People walk their dogs and they exercise. All it takes is for one person to get hurt, or one pet to be killed. I think it's a concern about safety." After the meeting, Morzenti was told by authorities that they couldn't do anything because of the Endangered Species Act.

    But wildlife biologist Dave Ruid of the U.S. Department of Agriculture said he saw food in yards at two homes that attracted 20 to 30 deer in the middle of the day. The wolves were no doubt attracted to the deer, he said.

    Attacks on humans are rare

    The run-ins are driven by a combination of factors, Wydeven said. In addition to more wolves, urbanization is continuing across the north, which increases the likelihood that people will have some contact. Feeding deer then habituates wolves to draw ever closer to humans. Wolf attacks on humans, however, are rare. A biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 2002 investigated 80 close wolf encounters in North America since the 1970s, and found 16 cases of wolf bites.

    For years, advocates noted that no one in North America had been killed by a wolf in at least 100 years. But in November in northern Saskatchewan, a 22-year-old man is believed to have been killed by wolves near a remote camp owned by a mining exploration company. The death is bound to change the semantics of the wolf debate, all parties seem to agree.

    However, Berg called the incident a "red herring" and an isolated instance. She lives in northern Minnesota, where there are more than 2,000 wolves. If people and wolves couldn't co-exist, "We'd have a lot of deaths in Minnesota by now," she said.

    For all of the talk of a burgeoning wolf population, Wydeven, the veteran wolf expert, has never seen a wolf during 16 years of conducting his winter wolf surveys. The trips are one of the tools the DNR uses to count wolves. Wydeven and others also spend time searching for wolves by air, and trapping and following wolves that have been outfitted with radio collars.

    On a survey last month in remote sections of Sawyer and Ashland counties in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, he drove slowly down snow-covered forest roads. He stopped suddenly and pronounced, "RLU," referring to raised-leg urination. For wolf biologists, it's a sign that an alpha male or alpha female has recently marked territory. Wolf packs often use streams and rivers, even roadways, to mark their territories.

    He looked for blood in the urine, which could mean that a female is pregnant. Farther down the road, he spotted wolf tracks. He concluded they were from a wolf in the Log Creek pack, named for a local stream and tributary of the Flambeau River. By day's end, Wydeven had spotted the tracks of two of Wisconsin's 108 wolf packs and 17 urine stains believed to come from wolves.

    All data from other ground and aerial trips, and contributions from residents trained to count wolves, will be analyzed at an all-day meeting and tallied later this winter to set a final wolf count for 2005-'06. Wolves are highly mobile, averaging 25 miles a day - sometimes covering 100 miles a day. Thus, a single wolf can be seen by many people, Wydeven said.

    In 1999, an itinerant female under study in Minnesota and outfitted with a special satellite transmitter entered Wisconsin near Danbury in northwestern Wisconsin, traveled across the state to Green Bay, then back to Stevens Point, to Portage and La Crosse before making a final scramble north to Grantsburg in Burnett County and into Minnesota. Total elapsed time: three months.

    'Wild areas' remain

    The return of wolves has prompted groups such as the Wisconsin Cattlemen's Association to press federal authorities for freer regulations that would allow farmers to kill wolves that prey on livestock. The DNR also wants more authority to kill depredating wolves, but at the same time the agency views the big predator as vital to the ecosystem.

    "Their comeback is a symbol that there are still wild areas left in the state," Wydeven said.

    But as the wolf population grows, especially in the northwest, there is an uneasy co-existence between wolves and farmers and some hunters. Since 1984, farmers and hunters have been paid nearly $419,000 in public money after wolves have killed livestock and hunting dogs, DNR figures show.

    In April 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service downgraded the status of the wolf from endangered to threatened. But environmentalists and animal welfare advocates intervened in federal court and argued the agency was relaxing protections in other states where wolves hadn't yet recolonized.

    A judge in Oregon agreed, and on Jan. 31, 2005, Wisconsin wolves were reclassified as an endangered species. The DNR, however, obtained a special permit to kill problem wolves in April 2005. But again activists objected in court, and Wisconsin lost the permit in September 2005. Authorities can't currently kill wolves, but 70 problem wolves were euthanized between 2003 and 2005, according to the DNR.

    Berg, of the Humane Society, said Wisconsin should be downgraded to a threatened wolf status, which would allow problem wolves to be killed. "Unfortunately, the history of wolves is that if a wolf kills one sheep, then people want to kill 100 wolves," she said. "It never requires farmers to exercise good husbandry."

    But Eric Koens of Bruce in Rusk County, a member of the cattlemen's association, said: "The pro-wolf people have been making excuses for years for wolves. They just say, put out guard dogs or lights. None of this works."

    Eventually, there could be a hunting season on wolves, if other controls don't keep the wolf population at bay, Wydeven said.

    But one experiment in wolf control appears to have been lost. For several years, the DNR trapped and moved problem wolves to areas in Forest County in the eastern section of the Chequamegon-Nicolet, where wolf numbers are lower. But citing safety concerns, county supervisors in 2001 voted to oppose new transfers. Seven other northern counties followed suit, and the DNR stopped the practice.

    From the Feb. 16, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

    Tracking Wolves In Northern Minnesota with Dr. David Mech

    Reported by Don Shelby- WCCO-TV- Minneapolis

    The wolf has been protected by the Endangered Species Act since 1974 and before that, Minnesota was the only state in the lower 48 states that had not exterminated its wolf population. Now the federal government is expected to make a new attempt to take the gray wolf off the endangered list, in a process known as delisting.

    Dr. David Mech is a wolf biologist who has watched the recovery of the wolves in Minnesota. He has also greatly influenced wolf management around the northern hemisphere.

    WCCO-TV tracked wolves in northern Minnesota in 1992 with the help of Mech. In 1992, the wolf population was a little more than half what it is now.

    The wild animals wore collars designed by Mech that would inject a tranquilizer by remote control. Mech would then weigh the animal, take samples and track the animal's health. Mech has been studying the wolves near Ely, Minn. for more than 30 years.

    WCCO-TV's Don Shelby was recently invited aboard a U.S. Forest Service beaver plane, where biologist Mike Nelson used a different kind of radio tracking to check the status of a few wolf packs. The Minnesota wolves Nelson and Mech were trying to look at represent a great success story and some said it has been too successful.

    "Do we have a healthy population of wolves now?" Shelby asked Mech.

    "Yes," Mech replied. "We do have a very healthy population of about 3,000 now in Minnesota They're living in all the wilderness areas where they could live and are starting to encroach into agricultural land and that kind of thing. And that's where they create problems, that's where there's conflicts with people."

    As for preventing the wolves from entering those areas, Mech said that problem is part of a larger problem with wildlife management. Mech gave the example of trying to keep geese from proliferating in the city parks of the Twin Cities and keeping deer from proliferating in the suburbs.

    "And wildlife management's answer so far has been you've got to kill them," Mech said.

    It is because Mech is a man of science that he says such things, but right now, the most common cause of death for Minnesota wolves is being killed by other wolves. Mech said wolves often kill other wolves because they intrude on other's territory and wolves are very competitive. That territory is creeping closer and closer to man.

    "Do you have a particular position of a time and a place when it would be worthwhile and right to delist the wolf?" Shelby asked.

    "Well, to delist the wolf in Minnesota?" Mech replied. "It should have happened 10 years ago."

    Mech is a finalist for the Indianapolis Prize, which is the world's top award for animal conservation. The $100,000 prize will be given out in September.

    Nice video report with aerial footage and Mech interview on WCCO-TV Web Site:

  • WCCO-TV
  • Timber Wolf Alliance 2006 National Wolf Awareness Week Poster Contest

    CALL FOR ENTRIES
    Deadline: April 7, 2006

    THE TIMBER WOLF ALLIANCE (TWA), A PROGRAM OF THE SIGURD OLSON ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE (SOEI) AT NORTHLAND COLLEGE IN ASHLAND, WISCONSIN, SEEKS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE FEATURED ART TO BE PRESENTED ON TWA'S 2006 NATIONAL WOLF AWARENESS WEEK (WAW) POSTER.

    TWA has expanded the contest to include photography submissions.

    Artists working in a two dimensional medium are invited to enter this competition for the 2006 National poster. SOEI is a non-profit, educational outreach program of Northland College. Its TWA project is dedicated to public education on issues concerning the preservation of gray wolves in the upper Midwest and their forested habitats. TWA publishes a full color poster promoting Wolf Awareness Week across the nation. These limited edition posters frequently become collectors' items within a short time following publication.

    TWA is soliciting entries for the 2006 National poster from a wide range of artists and photographers. In return for the use of the winning artwork, the artist will receive prominent credit on the poster itself, 200 copies of the poster, and a $500 cash award.

  • Timber Wolf Alliance
  • Wild wolf killed in Pike County Illinois

    DNA tests confirm third one spotted in state since 2002
    By CHRIS YOUNG
    OUTDOORS EDITOR
    Published Wednesday, February 22, 2006

    DNA tests have determined that a gray wolf shot in Pike County in December was wild and probably traveled hundreds of miles to reach west-central Illinois.

    Seth Hall of New Canton shot the wolf while hunting for coyotes. The animal was taken to a local taxidermist and then to the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab in Ashland, Ore., where scientists concluded the wolf was wild and part of the Great Lakes pack originating in Minnesota, Wisconsin or Michigan.

    Illinois' wolf population was nearly exterminated by the 1860s, and no wild wolves are thought to have lived in the state since the early 1900s. However, the Pike County animal is the third wild wolf confirmed in the state since 2002, and some wildlife experts think that is a sign that wolves are on their way back to Illinois. Young adult wolves occasionally wander for miles after leaving the packs into which they were born.

    "We know that we've got wolves dispersing out of (the Great Lakes pack), but we only hear about them if they are killed or recovered somehow," said Mike DonCarlos, wildlife program manager for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. "They're looking for new territories, and some animals will disperse very long distances, hundred of miles."

    One wolf was killed by a vehicle in Lake County in 2005, and another was shot near Henry, in Marshall County, in 2002.

    Minnesota has about 3,000 resident gray wolves, while Wisconsin has more than 100 packs and 425-455 wolves. Michigan had about 360 wolves in 2004.Gray (or timber) wolves are a federally threatened species. They were once abundant in Illinois, but extermination of wolves was encouraged 'in the early 1800s, and bounties were paid to those who killed wolves.

    Tim Santel, resident agent in charge for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Springfield, said he is working with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to get the word out that wolves are moving south and may be encountered from time to time in the state. "It's probably just a matter of time before these wandering males start bringing along some females and starting packs," he said. "Who knows when that may be, but it is certainly possible."

    DonCarlos said Minnesota's wolves stay away from people for the most part. "People do see wolves on occasion, but it is still fairly rare to see one," he said. "Livestock depredation is an ongoing problem, but our program for selective wolf control seems to be addressing the need," he said.

    Wolves, while listed as threatened, may be killed if they pose a problem for farmers. With protected wolves occasionally showing up in Illinois, wildlife officials will try to educate hunters. DNR plans to include information on wolves in the next Digest of Hunting and Trapping Regulations.

    Taxidermist Jeremy Priest of Longbeard Taxidermy in Pittsfield said he didn't have any doubt Hall's animal was a wolf. "A wolf has a lot bigger body," Priest said. "A lot of people say they look like a German shepherd with a big collar around their head." Priest said coyotes normally weigh 20 to 25 pounds, with large ones topping off at 30 pounds. "This (wolf) weighed 90 pounds and was 51/2 feet long," he said. "It was pretty good sized."

    The challenge for coyote hunters will to differentiate between coyotes and wolves at a distance. "On average, wolves are going to appear twice as big as coyotes," said DonCarlos. "If it looks really large, that is the best indication at long range."

    Santel said the responsibility ultimately falls to the hunter. "It's really no different than hunting any other type of game," he said. "You have to know your target and identify your target prior to pulling the trigger." Other protected species sometimes are mistaken for game animals. "We've seen this issue with the swans that have been killed (mistaken for snow geese), as well as whooping cranes and eagles," Santel said.

    He said no charges have been filed in the case of the Pike County wolf, but "it is still considered a pending investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

  • Springfield Journal-Register
  • Saturday, February 18, 2006

    Wolves of Ethiopia in National Geographic

    The March issue of National Geographic features a report on the lives and status of Ethiopian wolves:

    "They are red, these wolves, with black-and-white tails, and white blazes on their chests. The fur on their throats is white too, and sweeps in a curve toward their eyes, giving them the look of laughing clowns. But it's the sassy hue of their coats that catches your eye. We're the top dogs here, their color proclaims. And they are. For these are Ethiopian wolves: the only species of wolf found in Africa."

    A preview of the story is on the National Geographic web site:

  • National Geographic
  • Friday, February 17, 2006

    Boycott Alaska tourism- Aerial gunning of wolves must end!

    Darien, Conn — Friends of Animals just renewed a call to the public to avoid Alaska this travel season.

    The recharged boycott follows a ruling by the Superior Court of Alaska that the state’s aerial wolf-shooting scheme is invalid. Rather than stop the gunning, the state’s Board of Game hastily made up new rules and started offering permits again.

    Supporters worldwide can endorse the Alaska tourism boycott by joining the “I’d Rather Be Here Than in Alaska” campaign. Photographs of boycott supporters holding signs reading “Boycott Alaska,” “I’d Rather Be Here Than in Alaska,” and similar statements will be featured on the webpage www.boycott-alaska.org (to be activated on 17 February 2006).

    The idea, brought to the Friends of Animals’ blog by Francis Murray of Juneau, Alaska, follows a lawsuit brought by Friends of Animals and individual plaintiffs which temporarily halted Alaska wolf control in January.

    On the 17th of January, the airborne hunting permits were recalled following the Superior Court ruling that the Board of Game failed to follow its own regulations. With the permits withdrawn and the hunter-pilot teams grounded, the boycott on travel to Alaska was suspended.

    Needless to say, the Board did not appreciate being told “No.” On the 29th of January, the Board called an “emergency” meeting. In addition to repealing all requirements and limitations that apply generally to wolf control — the basis for the Court ruling that the aerial wolf control scheme was invalid — the Board also barred related public notice and input.

    One-hundred fifty-seven gunners and pilots may now get back in the air, chase wolves to exhaustion, and then shoot them. Having already killed nearly 450 wolves under the airborne hunting permits since 2003, Alaska officials want 400 more dead this season.

    Friends of Animals’ new webpage will unveil the highs and lows where folks would rather be than in Alaska. Pictures are arriving from individuals and groups near iconic landmarks and destinations, lines at local banks and post offices, and packed subway cars.

    “I’d Rather Be Here Than in Alaska” pictures can be submitted electronically to submissions@boycott-alaska.org

    Or submit photos by mail to:

    Friends of Animals
    777 Post Road
    Darien, CT U.S. 06820

  • Boycott Alaska- Save The Wolves
  • Last day to comment on Idaho's aerial wolf killing- Act now!

    Jeff Hull, noted author at the University of Montana School of Journalism, pleads for comments from the public about Idaho's planned immediate aerial gunning of 43 wolves in the Clearwater National Forest, which will be followed by more senseless government wolf slaughters in the near future:

    "My perspective is this: I like wolves on the landscape. I also believe that some sort of management is necessary to keep them here."

    "Back in the early 1990s, I, like many people, felt it would be stupid and sad to recover wolf populations if local managers were simply going to shoot wolves the moment federal agents signaled a green light. Now comes Idaho, brandishing plans for aerial gunning and the medieval cruelty of leghold traps in the name of rescuing an elk herd that no longer exists. This makes all of us look, well, stupid and sad."

    Read his entire analysis of this impending travesty, "Idaho in the Company of Wolves" at Click for Wolves:

  • Click For Wolves


  • Idaho's wolves need your help today! Send your comments TODAY:

  • Stop the Slaughter of Wolves
  • Thursday, February 16, 2006

    Yellowstone mating season report

    Ralph Maughan has a new report on his excellent web site with detailed observations about mating season in Yellowstone NP. He includes a new map from the NPS with pack locations, plus his corrections about current pack status:

  • Ralph Maughan's Wildlife Reports
  • Wyoming agriculture industry predator control proposal calls for $10 Million from taxpayers

    Industry seeks vast expansion of predator control

    By BRODIE FARQUHAR
    Star-Tribune capital bureau
    CHEYENNE -- Members of Wyoming's agriculture industry are gunning for a $10 million expansion of predator control efforts in the state, partly to prepare for state management of wolves.

    House Bill 24 is sponsored by the Joint Agriculture, Public Lands and Water Resources Interim Committee. The measure, which received the necessary two-thirds vote for introduction in the House, is scheduled to be considered by the House Agriculture Committee this morning.

    The bill stems from a legal opinion issued last March by Attorney General Patrick Crank. In that opinion, Crank said predators are considered wildlife and are held in trust by the state. Further, the state has given local predatory animal districts control over predatory animals, including those that prey upon wildlife not just livestock.

    Many Wyoming counties have predatory animal districts, with boards that direct predator control efforts in their areas. The boards are funded by fees collected during brand inspections, along with some state funding, and board members are elected by livestock producers who pay for brand inspections.

    The state also has an Animal Damage Management Board, which was established by the 1999 Legislature to coordinate a statewide predator program. The program is administered by a 15-member board. It is funded through an annual $100,000 allocation from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, a $125,000 appropriation from the state's general fund and $5,000 from other sources.

    Crank held that the Animal Damage Management Board is required to consider requests from local boards for assistance, but is not obligated to fund those activities. Finally, the attorney general said the state board is not obligated to fund federal Wildlife Services control efforts, which make up more than 10 percent of local districts' bills.

    The upshot of all this, said John Etchepare, director of the state Department of Agriculture, is that local predator management boards don’t have the money to do anything more than manage predators in order to protect livestock. To do more such as knock down skunk populations that are prone to rabies outbreaks, or to manage predators for wildlife values requires a larger income stream, he said.

    “The attorney general ruled that these local boards are responsible for any and all predator issues,” Etchepare said.

    He noted that several local boards are broke and out of business, while others are hanging in there.

    “If the feds ever allow us to manage wolves, that’ll have a huge impact on these predator districts,” he added.

    What the bill would do

    HB 24 calls for a $10 million appropriation per biennium to boost predator control efforts. About 3 percent of that amount would go to administration, with $9.7 million made available for local predator management district boards to apply for grants to supplement and enhance their efforts. Those districts now have about $550,000 to work with per year.

    Grants could cover the costs of full-time and part-time trappers and the costs of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters for predator management for livestock and wildlife. In order to qualify for grants, the local boards would have to expand their membership by three hunters or sportsmen.

    The bill also would increase livestock branding fees to $1 each per sheep, goat or cattle up from 80 cents per head of sheep and 50 cents per head of cattle.

    Hank Uhden, interim manager for the Department of Agriculture’s technical services division, said predator control revenues have dwindled over the years. Over time, livestock operators have been switching from sheep to cattle in part because predators take more sheep than cattle, and because the predator control fee is higher for sheep than cattle.

    “A decade ago, the revenues were about double what they are today,” Uhden said.

    Terry Cleveland, director of Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said the Game and Fish Commission supports the bill because it would help fund predator control programs aimed at aiding wildlife.

    “Since wildlife is of interest and value to everyone in the state, it is appropriate to use general appropriation funds, rather than tap hunters and fishermen,” Cleveland said.

    Jason Marsden, director of Wyoming Conservation Voters, acknowledged that livestock producers put a great deal of faith in predator control efforts, but there’s not much solid science to back up the contention that predator control programs are cost effective.

    A better use of that additional $10 million, if it is all in the name of being pro-wildlife, is to spend the money on such things as habitat or forage improvements and disease prevention, Marsden said.

    Predator control produces only temporary effects, Marsden said. Current research indicates that if 70 percent of a coyote population is taken out over three years, there’s only a two-year period of low coyote predation before it spikes again, he said.

    Directing that $10 million into a more liberal livestock compensation program might be more cost effective for the public, Marsden said. “Depending on who is doing the counting, the cost per coyote can range from $70 to $600 or more,” he said.

  • Casper Star-Tribune
  • Wednesday, February 15, 2006

    Helicopters harrassing wildlife- is there a better way?

    The increasing use of helicopters to dart and kill wildlife presents many ethical conflicts. Are these noisy and dangerous intrusions into wildlife areas that prohibit motorized activities harming our animals and birds, changing their behavior and disrupting the natural cycles of life? Is the solitude of deep wilderness areas to be sacrificed to the expediency of desk-mired politicians? If states are to manage these species, should they have to utilize the least harmful and intrusive techniques?

    One group challenges the use of airborne gunning as needlessly disruptive and deadly to animals and humans alike. AGRO, A Coalition To End Aerial Gunning of Wildlife, has information, photos, and analysis on their website to help you decide if this is how you want the fauna in your national parks and federal lands managed:

  • AGRO


  • In Idaho, legislators are attempting to bully the U. S. Forest Service into allowing helicopter darting of wolves that they have recently been given the responsibility for managing under delisting from the ESA. From yesterday's Idaho Stateman:

    Lawmakers grill Forest Service on helicopter use to manage wolves

    Forest Service Regional chief Jack Troyer pledged Monday to help Idaho wildlife officials trap wolves in wilderness areas this summer.

    But the state's Department of Fish and Game proposal to dart wolves from helicopters will have to go through environmental review first, Troyer told a joint meeting of the Senate and House resource committees. Fish and Game wants to place radio collars on the wolves so they can learn where wolves den and hang out when their pups are young, said Steve Huffaker, Fish and Game Director.

    Fish and Game had proposed using helicopters to catch and collar up to 16 wolves in the Selway-Bitterroot, the Gospel Hump and Frank Church-River of No Return wilderness areas in Central Idaho. The Forest Service postponed a decision after it got 160 comments on its preliminary announcement. "We need to know how they use a big habitat ..." Huffaker said. "We need to know that so we can trap them if we need to."

    Troyer, the regional forester in charge of national forests across southern Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Nevada, said his agency will help Fish and Game catch the wolves without motorized vehicles in the wilderness using leg-hold traps and horses from existing air strips. Lawmakers expressed frustration that their support for helicopter use doesn't pull as much weight as about 100 public comments against the plan and the threat of three wolf advocacy groups to sue.

    "We aren't asking for 100 Hells Angels to go in there on motorcycles," said Rep. Jack Barraclough, R-Idaho Falls.

    Troyer said he must weigh the impact on the wilderness solitude helicopter landings would have against the ease in wolf catching Fish and Game would get to gather its scientific data. He also decided that using the agency's regulatory review shortcut — a categorical exclusion — might not stand a legal challenge. "We fully support the need for the data," Troyer said.

    Troyer's appearance triggered a familiar theme in the relationship of Idaho and the federal agencies that control more than 60 percent of the state's land base. "I think what you're hearing here is Jack Troyer has more say about land management in Idaho that we do or the governor," said Rep. Scott Bedke, R- Oakley.

    The Idaho Statesman- Feb. 14, 2006

    Sunday, February 12, 2006

    Cecil Andrus: Selling off our public lands is wrong

    Tuesday, December 27, 2005

    Selling off our public federal lands to pay for the damage of Hurricane Katrina is like selling your backyard to cover the costs of a fire in your garage. It doesn’t make sense.

    Yet, there are some in Washington, D.C., who are pushing a plan to sell off 15 percent of all the lands held by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other Interior Department agencies. States like Idaho with a lot of federal acres would be first on the chopping block.

    Idaho has about 33 million acres of federal public lands. Selling of 15 percent of those would equal more than 5 million acres. That’s more than the entire Boise and Sawtooth National Forests combined. And the 15-percent limit doesn’t necessarily apply to a state-by-state approach – there’s no limit in the proposed legislation to how much could be sold in any one state.

    Here in Idaho, our public land is our working capital. We use our natural resources, such as timber and grazing, and we enjoy the recreation that comes with them, such as hunting, fishing, camping and hiking.

    Yet, our public lands are more than the sum of its parts. Over the years of my life, as I have driven and flown around this beautiful state, I’ve seen the prettiest blue waterfalls, the most stunning high desert cliffs, the most breathtaking forests. But just as much as the scenery, I love the fact that it belongs to all of us. None of us owns it, yet we all share it. That’s one of the most central concepts of being an Idahoan – it’s what makes us who we are.

    I can’t imagine why anyone from Idaho would want to auction off this irreplaceable treasure. I know that Jerry Brady, Democratic candidate for governor, has stepped up to defend Idaho’s public lands, and I commend him for it.

    Once we sell off this land, it’s gone. The old Will Rogers adage is true: “They ain’t makin’ it no more.”

    Sure, you can horse-trade for a few acres here and there. We did some of that when I was Secretary of the Interior under President Carter. But in all my years managing the Interior Department, our goal was always to make public land more open and accessible to the people; not sell it to the highest bidder so private landowners can put up fences, like they’ve done in Texas.

    I’m sure some people will say that Idaho has plenty of public land, so we can afford to sell off some of it and still have plenty. But selling land isn’t the same as selling potatoes, microchips or some other commodity. Rural land can be bought strategically, so that purchasing 100 acres can effectively close off 1,000 acres or more, depending on road access. This kind of buying allows one private citizen to make a minimal investment but still locks out huge tracts to everyone who doesn’t own a helicopter.

    Also, in the current political atmosphere, there’s a strong potential for dishonesty. It seems like every day, more headlines are coming out of Washington, D.C. about politicians corrupted by greed. What do you think would happen if the entire West were opened up to land speculators? Who do you think would be the winners and who will be the losers?

    I’ll tell you who. It will be the high-dollar campaign contributors and the big-time power brokers who will own the best and most valuable lands. The hunters, fishermen, campers and other recreationists will be left out, but they won’t be the only losers. It will also be the family rancher, the small-town outfitter, the restaurant owners and hotel operators and all their employees.

    Idaho and the West are not for sale to the highest bidder. Our heritage, our culture and our future depend on keeping this irreplaceable resource open for all.

    Cecil D. Andrus,
    Former Idaho Governor

  • Cecil Andrus Letter
  • Friday, February 10, 2006

    The feds are prepared to take wolves off the Endangered Species List. Are the states ready to take over?

    The Missoula Independent features a lengthy report on preparations for Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to take over wolf management when the wolf is delisted from Endangered Species status. Will this success story continue or is there trouble over the horizon?

  • Back from the brink
  • Wednesday, February 08, 2006

    Cattle kills by wolves cost Park County, WY ranchers $20,000

    Cattle kills by wolves cost ranchers $20,000 -

    By Carole Cloudwalker

    Cody, Wyoming

    Twenty domestic animals, primarily cattle, valued at a total of $20,000 were confirmed killed by wolves in Park County last year.

    Craig Acres, eastern district supervisor for Wildlife Services, told the county commissioners Tuesday the predation took place between Oct. 1, 2004, and late September 2005.

    He added that the confirmed kills varied from the reported animal deaths and values, which came to 40 animals valued at roughly $40,000.

    Confirmed wolf kills result in reimbursement to producers.

    He cautioned people not to draw conclusions about the confirmed numbers, because unconfirmed kills are often those in which the livestock is discovered too late to actually identify, by tracks, tooth marks or other means, the actual cause of death.

    Acres, along with Jeremy Johnson, the Park County wildlife specialist, and wolf specialist Jim Pehringer, all with the federal Wildlife Services agency, were hired to resolve predator problems.

    Their agency is part of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, though they often are mistaken for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is part of the Interior Department, Acres said.

    The tools of their trade range from hazing and “harassing” wolves into leaving an area via rubber bullets and cracker shots to “lethal solutions,” they said.

    “We are here to get results,” Acres told the county commissioners, who provided $22,000 last year via an annual contract that expires in May.

    The group again will seek county funding in budget sessions this spring, but likely will not ask for as much money this year.

    “We would like to continue our agreement with the county,” Stutzman said.

    The county predator board, which contracts with Wildlife Services, likely will ask for less money in the upcoming fiscal year, in part because of other possible funding sources.

    New state legislation, HB 24, if passed could change the funding structure for predator control efforts by granting money to a single entity through which money would flow to counties.

    “The Park County board is in favor of the legislation in its present form,” which would alleviate some current financial problems and “shoestring” budgets, Stutzman said.

    Acres said there is a “terrific need” for assistance with predator control for livestock producers and others throughout the Big Horn Basin and in Park County.

    Help is needed not only for wolves but for coyotes, bats, skunks and even raccoons, as rabies becomes a concern, Acres added.

    “People don't even know there's a service available,” Johnson said.

    The men say their busiest times of year for predator activities are calving and lambing in the spring and through the summer until animals are rounded up to go to market in the fall.

    Pehringer said before last year, “ranchers didn't feel they were getting a fair shake” with wolf predation, but now help is available upon request.

    “It's still emotional ... with people seeing wolves in their sleep,” Pehringer said. “We are not into wolf m anagement ... this is a service where, if they want to call, there are things we can do to help - if there's a problem, we want to deal with that on the spot - immediately.”

    “Depredation has dropped off in a year's time” because of the program, Pehringer added.

    Huge Canada park an animal haven

    By Jeremy Hainsworth
    Associated Press

    February 8, 2006

    VANCOUVER -- Canada unveiled a 16 million-acre preserve Tuesday, including parkland twice the size of Yellowstone, teeming with grizzly bears, wolves and wild salmon in the ancestral home of many native tribes.

    Ending a battle between environmentalists and loggers, the Great Bear Rainforest will stretch 250 miles along British Columbia's Pacific coastline. The accord is the result of negotiations among governments, aboriginal First Nations, the logging industry and environmentalists.

    "The result is a strong marriage that balances the needs of the environment with the need for sustainable jobs and a strong economic future for coastal communities," said Premier Gordon Campbell, who was accompanied by Indian dancers and drummers for the announcement and formal First Nations blessing.

    Campbell said 4.4 million acres would be protected outright and managed as parkland, with 11.6 million more acres run under a management plan to ensure sustainable forestry with minimal impact on the environment.

    Full implementation of the project is expected by 2009. Yellowstone National Park is 2.2 million acres.

    British Columbia's lush evergreen forests have been the scene of decades of confrontation between environmentalists and loggers. Boycotts in the 1990s led to international corporations turning away from British Columbia paper and wood products, adding pressure to a negotiated solution.

    "This innovative rain forest agreement provides a real world example of how people and wilderness can prosper together," said Lisa Matthaus, coast campaign coordinator for the Sierra Club of Canada's British Columbia chapter.

    The region is home to hundreds of species, including grizzlies, black bears, wolves, cougars, mountain goats, moose and deer. It also sustains a white bear, called the spirit bear, found only in British Columbia.

    A central component of the Great Bear Rainforest project will be a $104 million conservation financing package to support the land-use agreements.

    To date, Greenpeace Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada, ForestEthics, the Nature Conservancy, Tides Canada Foundation and several private U.S. and Canadian foundations have raised $52 million to help establish the financing package.

    The provincial government has committed $26 million. Project partners are working to secure the remainder from Canada's federal government.

    Speaking on behalf of the 25 aboriginal groups involved in the project, Art Sterritt of the North Coast First Nations said the deal allows Indians to continue traditional lifestyles.

    "It wasn't an easy job," he said. "Everyone had to make compromises here and there."

    Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-0602080079feb08,1,6682042.story?coll=chi-homepagetravel-hed

    Monday, February 06, 2006

    Woman says dog detected her cancer

    By Elizabeth Cohen
    CNN

    SAN ANSELMO, California (CNN) -- Nancy Best is sure her dog Mia saved her life.

    Six years ago, Nancy was napping on her couch at home in Garberville, California, when Mia pounced and buried her nose in her right breast. Nancy thought nothing of it -- until over the next few days Mia did it three more times in the exact same spot.

    The third time, Mia plunged with such force it hurt. Nancy reached to the spot Mia kept nosing at and felt a lump. She went to her doctor, and the biopsy came back positive: Stage II breast cancer.

    Nancy underwent surgery and chemotherapy, and says she is alive today because of Mia.

    This isn't the first time there've been reports of dogs smelling cancer. In 1989, an article in the respected British medical journal The Lancet reported that a dog kept sniffing a mole on his owner's leg, and the mole turned out to be melanoma.

    Then in 2004, the prestigious British Medical Journal published a study where dogs managed to pick out urine samples from patients with bladder cancer set next to samples from healthy patients.

    The 36 dogs didn't always pick out the cancer every time -- in fact, only 41 percent of the time -- but it was better than the 14 percent expected by chance alone.

    What specifically did these dogs smell? Some scientists theorize there are certain "biomarkers" in cancer -- proteins, perhaps -- that might be unique to cancer and smelly to a dog's sensitive nose but undetectable to ours.

    If this is true, it makes some sense that dogs could smell a tumor on the skin's surface (or, in Nancy Bests's case, near the surface) or in urine when the cancer was in the bladder.

    But Michael Broffman and Michael McCulloch wanted to know if cancer could be smelled on a dog's breath. The two work at the Pine Street Foundation, an alternative medicine center outside San Francisco.

    They took breath samples from patients with breast and lung cancer, and from people who were cancer-free. They took the cancer samples, and repeatedly over a three week period stuck them under the noses of five ordinary household dogs. When the dogs smelled cancer, they got a treat. When they smelled the healthy samples, they got nothing.

    The researchers then arranged four healthy and one cancer sample in a line, and the dogs picked out the cancer with amazing accuracy: 88 percent with the breast cancer samples, and 99 percent with lung cancers.

    When we visited with our cameras, one of the dogs, Kobi, re-created the study for us. Time and again, Kobi picked out the cancer sample, no matter where along the line they placed it.

    So is the point to eventually have a dog in every doctor's office?

    No. The researchers at the Pine Street Foundation are hoping someone will figure out what the dogs smell and then develop a test -- an electronic nose, if you will -- to detect it in breath, urine, or something else.

    But there are skeptics. Dr. Donald Berry, head of biostatistics at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, suspects that the dogs' astounding accuracy has something to do with the way the test was done -- for example, the way the samples were collected.

    "It may be true," he said, "but I would be astounded if it were true."

    Another skeptic is Dr. Larry Myers, a renowned veterinarian and dog trainer at Auburn University in Alabama.

    Myers said it takes him 13 weeks to train a dog to sniff bombs, and doubts anyone could train a dog to sniff cancer in just three weeks.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/02/06/cohen.dogcancerdetect/index.html

    Friday, February 03, 2006

    Delisting wolf hinges on Wyoming

    By MIKE STARK
    Of The Gazette Staff

    The state of Wyoming is all that stands in the way of removing gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains from the endangered species list, federal officials said Thursday.

    And the state of Wyoming says it isn't budging.

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials on Thursday morning announced plans to delist the wolves but said, as they have repeatedly, that Wyoming must first change its management plan. That includes deleting a provision that classifies some wolves as "predatory animals" subjected to unregulated killing outside national parks and certain wilderness areas.

    Dale Hall, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said Wyoming's stance was "the one significant impediment" to delisting wolves in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and a few areas outside those boundaries.

    "We cannot move forward until Wyoming's plan ensures a viable wolf population," Hall told reporters in a telephone conference call Thursday morning.

    Later in the day, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal called the federal announcement "blackmail" and said he has no intention of changing course.

    "I do not intend to yield to the federal blackmail that is being offered, and I believe the Legislature is going to be no more inclined than I am," Freudenthal said.

    So the long standoff continues.

    The federal notice comes about two weeks before the Wyoming Legislature begins its 2006 session.

    Pat Crank, Wyoming's attorney general, said he suspects the announcement was timed to put heat on Wyoming lawmakers. Hall disagreed.

    "I certainly would not agree that we're trying to pressure Wyoming," Hall said, adding that the announcement was more intended to provide information about what steps are needed before delisting can happen.

    Thursday's announcement -- essentially advance notice for a future delisting proposal at an undetermined time -- would draw a wide circle around the Rocky Mountain wolf population, including Montana, Wyoming and Idaho along with the eastern third of Washington and Oregon and a small part of north-central Utah.

    That area would be designated a "distinct population segment" where federal protections would be removed from the wolf and management would be passed to states and American Indian tribes.

    The areas outside Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are intended to recognize the possibility that wolves in that core area may wander into surrounding states, according to Ed Bangs, the agency's wolf recovery coordinator.

    Wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rocky Mountains in 1995 and 1996. Since then, the population has grown rapidly.

    Federal officials have said for years that the wolf population in the Northern Rockies has met and exceeded population goals and that the animal is ready to be removed from the endangered species list.

    The most recent official population count in 2004 estimated there were 153 wolves in Montana, 260 wolves in Wyoming and 422 wolves in Idaho. The official 2005 numbers have not yet been released.

    One of the biggest hurdles to delisting wolves has been the development of state management plans in the three states. The Fish and Wildlife Service approved plans by Idaho and Montana -- a requirement before delisting -- but Wyoming and the federal government have been in dispute, in and out of court, for years.

    On Thursday, Hall outlined the key steps that Wyoming needs to take, including classifying all wolves as "trophy game" or something similar so that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has clear authority to manage the population and regulate human-caused deaths.

    Hall also said Wyoming must "clearly commit" to managing 15 packs of wolves in the state. That count includes packs based in Yellowstone National Park, over which park officials will retain management authority.

    Wyoming officials have stood by their plan to classify some wolves as predators subject to killing while still managing a sustainable wolf population.

    Freudenthal said the state of Wyoming would continue to pursue the wolf delisting proposal it offered to the federal government last year. The Fish and Wildlife Service in October agreed to take a yearlong look at that proposal.

    Meanwhile, the governors of Montana and Idaho have asked the FWS to consider delisting wolves in their states while the dispute with Wyoming continues.

    "We continue to be concerned that the service is viewing this as an all or nothing deal," said Chris Smith, chief of staff at Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "We'd like to see things move forward."

    Montana officials have had informal discussions with Wyoming leaders about the Wyoming approach holding back delisting in all three states, Smith said.

    "But we respect they're a separate political jurisdiction from Montana," he said.

    Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group advocating for wolves, said it's too early to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies and that only Montana and Oregon have state plans that will "continue to maintain wolf populations in a responsible manner," according to a statement from the group.

    Others have long supported removing wolves from the list as a way to bring management close to the local level.

    Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.

    Story available at http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/02/03/news/wyoming/25-wolf-delisting.txt

    Fish and Wildlife Service Announces Intent To Remove The Rocky Mountain Population Of Gray Wolves From Endangered Species List

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that outlines the agency's intent to remove gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species.
    The advance notice of proposed rulemaking is being issued in order to give the public time to review and comment on the Service's proposed strategy of designating and proposing to delist a distinct population segment (DPS) of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains that have exceeded biological recovery goals and no longer require protection under the Endangered Species Act. As part of a future rulemaking, the Service intends to propose establishing a gray wolf DPS, encompassing the geographic boundary of all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah.

    If this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking were implemented, wolves outside the boundaries of the DPS in other parts of the country would continue to be listed as endangered, except for the Mexican gray wolf in Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, which is listed as an experimental, nonessential population. The Service anticipates publishing a proposal to establish and delist a Great Lakes DPS of gray wolves, which has also exceeded its recovery goals, in the near future.

    In making the announcement, Service Director H. Dale Hall emphasized that any future rulemaking on a delisting decision for Rocky Mountain wolves is still contingent on the State of Wyoming implementing a Service-approved state law and wolf management plan, as required under the Endangered Species Act.

    "Gray wolves in the Northern Rockies have exceeded their recovery goals and are biologically ready to be delisted," Hall said. "However, the potential delisting cannot be finalized until Wyoming's wolf management plan has been approved. We are hopeful that Wyoming will be able to develop a state law and management plan which meets the Service's criteria for approval."

    The Service has worked in partnership with state and local governments, Indian tribes, other federal agencies, conservation organizations and private landowners to manage wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and reduce or eliminate threats to their populations. The wolf population has flourished there, exceeding recovery goals each year since 2002.

    The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves for three consecutive years, a goal that was attained in 2002. The most recent official population counts in 2004 found that Montana had 15 breeding pairs and approximately 153 wolves; Wyoming had 24 breeding pairs and approximately 260 wolves; and Idaho had 27 breeding pairs and 422 wolves. Official population estimates for 2005 are not yet available but are expected to be slightly higher than last year.

    Wolves dispersed naturally from Canada into northwestern Montana in the early 1980s. In 1995 and 1996, the Service reintroduced wolves from southwestern Canada to remote public lands in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. These wolves were classified as nonessential experimental populations under section 10(j) of the ESA to increase management flexibility and address local and State concerns. Natural dispersal coupled with reintroductions and the accompanying management programs greatly expanded the numbers and distribution of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains.

    If the northern Rocky Mountain DPS is delisted in future rules, the individual states and Tribes will resume sole management of wolves within their respective boundaries. Montana and Idaho have adopted state laws and wolf management plans, approved by the Service, to conserve their share of recovered northern Rocky Mountain wolf population into the foreseeable future. Wyoming's law and its wolf management plan have not been approved by the Service.

    Consistent with regulatory requirements, the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service have previously transferred much of the Federal management responsibilities to the States of Montana and Idaho. The two States now implement control actions for problem wolves, monitor wolf packs, coordinate research, conduct public information programs and take wolves for scientific and other purposes in accordance with federal regulations.

    Important elements of the Idaho and Montana management frameworks are adequate regulatory mechanisms to manage the human take of wolves, consistent definitions of a "pack," and agreement to manage for 15 packs in each state. Wyoming's state law and wolf management plan have not been approved by the Service in part because Wyoming's law defines wolves as a "predatory animal," which means that wolves can be killed at any time, by anyone, without limit, and by any means except poisoning. Concerns regarding Wyoming state law and its plan must be resolved before the northern Rocky Mountain DPS proposed delisting regulation can progress.

    The Service reclassified gray wolf populations in 2003 from endangered to threatened for much of the species' current range in the United States and proposed to delist the eastern population of wolves in 2004. Both the reclassification and the proposed delisting were overturned by Federal courts last year. The Service continues to believe reclassification is both biologically and legally sound. The advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for anticipated delisting seeks to comply with the courts' rulings, while recognizing, as the courts did, that the northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes wolf populations have reached the recovery goals necessary for delisting.

    Comments from the public on the Service's intent to propose to establish distinct population segment and to delist the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains should be mailed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601. Comments are required to be submitted by close of business 60 days after the Federal Register publication date.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 545 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resources offices and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign and Native American tribal governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.

    - FWS-

    Nez Perce Tribe opposes Idaho's plan to kill wolves to help elk

    By JOHN MILLER
    ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

    BOISE, Idaho -- An Indian tribe that's helped with gray wolf recovery efforts since their reintroduction to Idaho in 1995 says the state is moving too quickly with a plan to kill dozens of wolves to help restore elk herds on the border with Montana.

    Rebecca Miles, chairwoman of the Nez Perce in Lapwai, said tribal wolf managers aren't convinced studies of elk herds in the Clearwater River basin support a plan by state Department of Fish and Game to reduce wolf numbers in region to as few as 15, from about 60 animals now.

    According to the agency, wolves are responsible for about 35 percent of recorded elk cow deaths since 2002 in two hunting units in the region.

    Wolves were confirmed to have killed eight of 25 elk cows that died, from among 64 adult elk cows captured and radio collared between 2002 and 2004, the study showed.

    The Nez Perce, as well as some conservation groups, say the evidence isn't conclusive that depredations are devastating elk numbers.

    They argue the agency should focus on restoring habitat, not killing wolves.

    "It is junk science," Aaron Miles, the tribe's natural resource manager, told The Associated Press on Thursday. "There's no peer review. It's jumping from one conclusion to the next."

    Fish and Game officials held a public hearing in Boise on Thursday to introduce their plan.

    A similar hearing is planned for next Tuesday in Lewiston.

    Federal officials still must approve the state's proposal to kill wolves.

    Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Helena, Mont., has said his agency will judge the proposal based on its technical merits, not political expediency.

    The plan to kill wolves is among Idaho's first actions since it took over day-to-day oversight of the state's roughly 600 wolves during a Jan. 5 signing ceremony between Gov. Dirk Kempthorne and U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

    Miles contends the state is relenting to political pressure from groups including hunters and ranchers who want to see more active wolf control.

    Moving too quickly with the control plan also could incite lawsuits from conservation groups, he said.

    For instance, on Jan. 24, eight groups, including The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and The Humane Society of the United States, announced they plan to sue within 60 days.

    State Fish and Game officials concede that hunters have been after them for more than a decade to more aggressively control wolf numbers they blame for reducing big game herds.

    Still, the agency says its studies on elk herd depredations support wolf removals - as well as further efforts to improve habitat in the region straddling U.S. Highway 12.

    "Wolves are the biggest single issue we've heard from hunters, almost since the day of reintroduction. They're the folks that pay the bills at Fish and Game. So we listen to what they say," Fish and Game Wildlife Bureau chief Jim Unsworth said Thursday. "But we wouldn't have come forward with the proposal if we weren't making a pretty strong case now."

    Idaho would prefer to hold a controlled hunt for wolves, Unsworth said.

    Until the predators undergo federal delisting, however, no such hunts are allowed.

    Though Idaho and Montana have federally approved wolf management plans, no delisting can occur until a similar management plan in Wyoming wins approval.

    Until now, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have rejected plans from that state that allow its wolves to be shot on sight.

    "Gray wolves in the Northern Rockies have exceeded their recovery goals and are biologically ready to be delisted," said H. Dale Hall, the federal agency's director, in a statement on Thursday. "The potential delisting cannot be finalized until Wyoming's wolf management plan has been approved."

    There are more than 900 wolves in the three states.

  • SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
  • Thursday, February 02, 2006

    Sony puts robot dog to sleep

    TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- The world's first mass-marketed robot, Sony's Aibo, recognizes its owners' faces and is programmed for sympathy, like a canine companion. Its eyes light up in red to show anger, green to convey happiness. It even learns its own name. Aibo owners tend to be fiercely loyal, too. The robots have even been hacked by tinkerers seeking to add their own modifications.

    But none of that prevented Sony Corp. from announcing last week that it was scrapping the four-legged robot pet as part of the company's bid to reverse flagging fortunes and cut costs. Like so many things Sony has made over the years, the Aibo is a niche product. And since Sony is pulling the plug on robot production as part of a major restructuring, so goes the Aibo.

    That isn't just disappointing Aibo fans, who bought 150,000 of the toy poodle-sized machines since they were first introduced in 1999 and now worry they won't be able to get spare parts. It may also have robbed Sony of some of its mystique. Typical of now-dispirited Aibo owners, Hiroharu Hashimoto, a Tokyo resident and student, isn't placated by Sony's promise to provide maintenance for the robo-dogs for seven years after production ends in March.

    "Aibo is so symbolic of Sony quality I'm starting to lose faith in Sony's audiovisual products," said Hashimoto, a longtime fan of the company whose every home appliance practically is a Sony. "The robot is like a real dog. It responds when I call it," he says. "It's so cute. It sulks. And it looks sad when things don't go right."

    Paul Wallingford, the owner of a Los Angeles-based Internet business, owns four Aibos. Lately, he's been keeping them turned off often so they're less likely to have problems. "I think you do develop an attachment to them," he said by telephone.

    The Aibo, which costs about 200,000 yen, or $2,000, delivers an amusing illusion of spontaneity and personality. It comes in black, white, brown and gray and is programmed to move about on its own.It has image-recognition capabilities and a digital camera in its head that allows it to chase a special pink ball and avoid bumping into walls.

    To many, the Aibo represented the tradition of innovation at Sony, which gave the world the Walkman portable music player and PlayStation video game machine. It matters little to Aibo fans that Tokyo-based Sony -- with its sprawling entertainment business including movies, music and video games -- has opted to reorganize and focus on its core electronics business in order to better compete with the likes of Samsung Electronics Co. of South Korea.

    Owners have created fan clubs around the world, and some even dress up their canine robots like babies. Some hospitals used the Aibo -- which means "pal" in Japanese and combines the first two letters of "artificial intelligence" combined with "bo" from robot -- in therapy. The robots' charm comes in part from how their behavior somewhat reflects how they've been treated by their masters. At times, an Aibo will refuse to be toilet-trained and impudently raise a hind leg -- although, of course, it won't ever wet the rug.

    An Aibo can understand 100 words and phrases and recognize three people's faces as it stores digital photos in its brain. It knows when its behavior is being praised because it has a sensor on its head that recognizes when it's being petted. Later versions have a built-in camera so Aibos can serve as home sentinels, and e-mail their owners.

    Takeshi Ohashi, a Kyushu Institute of Technology professor, considers Aibo a gem of technological finesse. He plans to appeal to Sony to bring the robots back. Ohashi has his motives. He is an organizer of RoboCup, an annual international competition in which teams use Aibos and other robots to play soccer.

    Masato Maruyama, an engineer, believes Sony isn't just hurting Aibo owners, who feel as if they're being told their pets have just seven more years to live. "I feel the decision to withdraw from a product that's so representative of Sony heralds an end for Sony as a global leader," he said.

    Richard Walkus, a Madison, New Jersey, man who has a Web site devoted to Aibo, concurs. "They lost something," he said of Sony. "They lost stature."

    Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

    Wolves may drop off endangered list

    Federal dispute with Wyoming may delay the delisting of gray wolves.

    By Patrick O'Driscoll, USA TODAY

    DENVER — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will issue a proposal Thursday to remove gray wolves in the northern Rockies from the Endangered Species List, a decade after they returned to the region. However, a dispute over Wyoming's plan to manage its wolves once federal protection is removed may keep the proposal in limbo.

    Ed Bangs, head of the government's wolf recovery program, said Wednesday that the animals have recovered so well that the agency is no longer equipped to manage so many — about 1,000 gray wolves in parts of six states.

    The species was nearly wiped out in the continental USA by westward settlement. The population has soared since biologists released 66 wolves from Canada in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995-96. Another protected population of gray wolves lives in northern Minnesota. The species is not threatened in Alaska.

    Bangs said the proposal cannot go forward until Wyoming revises its plan for managing the 225 wolves in the state once protection is lifted. Wyoming's plan would allow unlimited killing of wolves in areas outside the northwest corner of the state. Bangs calls that "unregulated human persecution."

    Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal said the state does not intend to change its plan. He said today's announcement is "political blackmail" to pressure the state. Plans in Idaho and Montana, where most of the other wolves live, are in place.

    Freudenthal said Bangs "is simplifying the issue quite a bit." He said federal officials refuse to take responsibility for managing wolves in Yellowstone once they are off the endangered list.

    Last summer, Wyoming petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species List.

    The agency and conservation groups, including Defenders of Wildlife, consider the wolf's comeback one of the biggest successes of the Endangered Species Act. The 1973 law has helped save bald eagles and other rare species.

    Some of the groups are skeptical the states are ready to manage the wolves.

    "This is premature. This would be a real tragedy," says Jamie Rappaport Clark, former head of Fish and Wildlife and now executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife. Her group and others also oppose Idaho's plan as insufficient.

    Wolves thrive in central Idaho, where Bangs estimates 550 live. Ranchers, hunters and groups such as the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition contend that wolves kill wildlife, livestock and pets.

    Ron Gillett, the coalition chairman, said the proposed delisting is "a joke" because states still can't manage the wolves "without checking with the feds first." He said the group will file a proposed ballot initiative in Idaho today pledging "to get rid of the wolves."

    Wednesday, February 01, 2006

    Court rejects wolf-kill ban request

    Game Board acted properly, judge says.

    By ALEX DEMARBAN
    Anchorage Daily News

    The state's aerial wolf-kill program dodged a bullet Tuesday when a state Superior Court judge rejected a request to stop the program.

    Judge Sharon Gleason said the Board of Game was justified in creating a new wolf-control plan under an emergency declaration. She also said the board had made a good-faith effort to address the concerns she'd raised in a Jan. 17 ruling that temporarily halted the program.

    To reinstate the program after Gleason's ruling, the board held an emergency teleconference meeting last week. The board updated its plan to include new wildlife data from the five areas of the state where aerial wolf hunting is allowed.

    The Game Board said halting the program even temporarily would harm rural residents by allowing more wolves to kill moose. As a result, residents who hunt moose for nutritional, cultural and economic reasons would continue to suffer.

    Jim Reeves, attorney for the Connecticut-based Friends of Animals and seven Alaska plaintiffs, said no emergency existed and that the new plan did not adequately explain why the program is vital to rural residents.

    Kevin Saxby, the state's attorney, said the decision is an important but short-term victory.

    The state has argued that the most important aerial wolf hunting begins in February and goes through March, as increased light and snow cover help low-flying pilots to track wolves.

    More than 100 unpaid pilots and gunners were re-permitted on Saturday under the updated plan. At least 10 permittees have taken to the air.

    Experience counts when tackling a cougar



    Robert Bolger tackles a cougar roaming in Willmar, Minn., Tuesday. Police asked Bolger, who has experience with big cats, for help capturing the animal.
    (West Central Tribune photo by Bill Zimmer)

    Full story in the West Central Tribune:

  • West Central Tribune