Exposing the Big Game

Forget Hunters' Feeble Rationalizations and Trust Your Gut Feelings: Making Sport of Killing Is Not Healthy Human Behavior

Exposing the Big Game

Category Archives: Wolves

Rare white wolf in Yellowstone park euthanized over injuries

Posted on by
9

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/rare+white+wolf+yellowstone+park+euthanized+over+injuries/13302173/story.html

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS  04.14.2017

Rare white wolf in Yellowstone park euthanized over injuries
In this April 6, 2016 photo provided by the Yellowstone National Park Service a white wolf walks in Yellowstone National Park, in Wyo. One of only three white wolves roaming Yellowstone National Park has been put down by park staff after it was found with severe injuries. P.J. White of the National Park Service says the female wolf was found Tuesday, April 11, by hikers on the north side of the park. White says the wolf was in shock and dying, prompting the decision to euthanize it and investigate what caused the wolf’s injuries. The nature of the initial injuries could not immediately be determined. (Neal Herbert/Yellowstone National Park via AP)

SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. — One of only three white wolves roaming Yellowstone National Park has been put down by park staff after it was found with severe injuries.

P.J. White of the National Park Service says hikers found the female wolf Tuesday on the north side of the park.

White says the wolf was in shock and dying, leading to the decision to euthanize it and investigate what caused the injuries. The nature of the animal’s injuries could not immediately be determined.

The predator was one of three known white wolves in the park.

It had lived to 12 years old, twice the age of an average wolf in the park, and was one of the most recognizable and sought after to view and photograph by park visitors.

Oregon Wolf Population Growth Stalled First Year After Taken Off Endangered Species List

Posted on by
4

http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/04/14/oregon-gray-wolf-population-growth-stalled-first-year-after-taken-off-endangered-species-list/

The Oregon Wolf population increased by 1.8 percent this year. The year before they were delisted, the population increased by 33 percent.
Two adult wolves from the Walla Walla Pack were caught on remote trail camera Jan. 16 2016 in northern Umatilla County. (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)
|

April 14 at 10:42 AM

A new wolf report from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has environmentalists concerned.

The report, the first since Oregon gray wolves were removed from the Endangered Species Act list in 2015, shows the population of wolves in Oregon has stalled, and the number of both breeding pairs and packs in the state declined in 2016. The current population is 112 wolves across 11 packs, a 1.8 percent increase from 2015, when there were 110 wolves.

Though the wolf population has technically increased, environmental groups are worried: Before losing protection in November 2015, the wolf population had a 33 percent increase from 2014 to 2015.

In 2016, there were 11 packs, including eight packs of breeding pairs—which is 27 percent fewer than 2015, when there were 11 breeding pairs.

Though the November 2015 decision to remove wolves from the list won in a 4-2 vote, it has remained controversial. The following month, three environmental groups filed a legal challenge to the removal. 

The lawsuit, filed by Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands and the Center for Biological Diversity, said that the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission “violated the law by failing to follow best available science and prematurely removing protections before wolves are truly recovered.”

The Oregon Department of Justice ruled that the lawsuit was a moot point under House Bill 4040, which stated that the ability for wolves to repopulate was not being threatened. But in July 2016, the environmental groups were granted an appeal from the Oregon Court of Appeals to continue the legal challenge. That case is pending.

This year’s report also shows a sharp increase in livestock depredation by wolves in 2016. In 2015, there were just nine incidents, compared to 24 in 2016, a 116 percent increase.

Seven wolf deaths were documented in both 2015 and 2016.

In 2015, none of these deaths came from the department, but in 2016, four wolves were killed by the department in a depredation situation where non-lethal methods proved ineffective. One wolf was killed by a farmer while the wolf was killing a sheep.

“In the years immediately before losing protections, Oregon’s wolf population expanded while livestock conflict went down,” said Rob Klavins, a Field Representative for Oregon Wild based in Wallowa County said in a statement. “Unfortunately, as ODFW and special interests rushed to remove protections from wolves, not only did wolf recovery stall, but wolf killing and livestock conflict increased.”

While environmental groups are worried about the stall in population, an item on the ODFW’s newly revised Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan also raises concerns.

In a draft of the plan, which is revised every five years, one section discusses wolves as “special status game animals,” a classification which came from Oregon legislators in 2009, under ORS 496.004 (9).

The classification “allows the use of controlled take through hunting and trapping (under two circumstances) in response to management concerns.” It specifies that “general season hunts are not permitted.”

The Center for Biological Diversity refers to the plan as a proposal “to create a sport trapping and hunting program for these iconic animals.”

Last month, 19 Oregon legislators sent a letter to ODFW to urge the department to reconsider the classification, calling it a “slippery slope to an open hunting and trapping season.”

Release ‘Guardian the Wolf’ Back Into the Wild

Posted on by
3

https://animalpetitions.org/235639/release-guardian-the-wolf-back-into-the-wild/

Tuggle, Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region

Goal: Return Guardian the wolf to his pack to help maintain his struggling species.

In the summer of 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service captured Guardian, one of a tiny number of Mexican gray wolves still living in the wild. And Guardian isn’t just one wolf — as his name suggests, he’s the alpha male of a pack that includes young pups who rely on him and his mate for food. Capturing Guardian and placing him in captivity puts their survival, and the survival of the entire species, in jeopardy. The Fish and Wildlife Service must recognize the damage they’re doing and release Guardian immediately.

Mexican gray wolves were almost driven to extinction during the 20th century and, by the millennium, they were believed to have been wiped out in many regions of North America. Efforts to reintroduce the animal at the turn of the century have slowly begun to show progress, but the species remains critically endangered, with experts suggesting that fewer than 100 currently exist in the wild. Until recently, one of those was wolf M1396, named Guardian by Albuquerque schoolchildren as part of a competition to name the 17 pups born in 2014. Guardian lived in Gila National Forest, New Mexico, as part of the Luna pack, a group of wolves that included his mate and their pups.

Life is not easy for Mexican wolves, so when local ranchers started abandoning dead cattle on land near his hunting grounds rather than disposing of them responsibly, Guardian soon learned to scavenge from their carcasses. From this, he also learned to hunt cattle: a reliable source of meat to feed his hungry pups. Under pressure from ranchers keen to maintain their profits, the Fish and Wildlife Service moved to stop this predation by capturing Guardian and keeping him in captivity, just as they had with his brother, Century, in the past. This not only deprives his pups of his protection and care, but may drive his mate to begin hunting cattle too, in a desperate bid to feed her young. With no indication of Guardian’s condition or current whereabouts, it’s vital we maintain pressure on the Fish and Wildlife Service to reverse their decision and release Guardian back in to the wild. Please sign below to demand that Guardian is immediately released to his pack.

PETITION LETTER:

Dear Dr Tuggle,

In 2016, you captured wolf M1396 in the Gila National Forest, New Mexico, and took him into captivity in response to him preying on cattle. In so doing, you removed him from the Luna pack, depriving his pups of a key source of food and placing intense pressure on his mate to support her growing young. This pressure could mean she is forced to hunt cattle herself in order to sustain them, or may even result in the pups receiving insufficient nutrition and dying of starvation.

I appreciate that you are under pressure from local ranchers to control the wolf population in a manner that does not interfere with their ongoing profits. However, removing Guardian from his family places the whole pack in serious jeopardy, and with fewer than 100 Mexican gray wolves remaining in the wild, the loss of a single pack could be catastrophic for the entire species. Accordingly, I call upon you to reverse your decision and release Guardian back into the wild to help maintain the survival of his species.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

https://animalpetitions.org/235639/release-guardian-the-wolf-back-into-the-wild/

Ethiopia park tries to relocate settlers to protect wolves

Posted on by
7

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/ethiopia-park-tries-to-relocate-settlers-to-protect-wolves/2017/04/09/5641f5aa-1d30-11e7-bb59-a74ccaf1d02f_story.html?utm_term=.9e5dbb9f9cfc
By Michael Atsbeha | AP April 9
SIMIEN MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, Ethiopia — Thousands of Ethiopian wolves once roamed much of this country’s mountainous north but their number has fallen dramatically as farmers encroach on their habitat and introduce domestic dogs that carry rabies.

Only 120 wolves are estimated to remain in this national park and they are elusive, usually seen shortly after sunrise or just before sunset.

“They are almost at the brink of extinction. So my vision is to increase their number significantly,” said Getachew Assefam, coordinator of the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Program.

The movement of people move in search of fertile land in the highlands has put pressure on the park. Across the country less than 500 Ethiopian wolves remain in a few mountain enclaves, the Britain-based Born Free Foundation says.

Efforts are underway to move most of the settlers out of this national park in the hope of saving the remaining wolves. The local community currently uses more than two-thirds of the park’s area for grazing, agriculture and settlement, according to the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority.

The wildlife authority said 38 villages with a total of 3,000 people are living within the park’s boundaries.

Gichi village in the heart of the park had more than 418 households before the resettlement program began three years ago. Now there are none. Now the government is focusing on settlers in other areas.

The relocated settlers “are all now living in a better condition,” said the park’s chief warden, Maru Biadgelegn.

But some farmers said the compensation they received for the move is not enough.

Requests by The Associated Press to gain access to the resettlement area were denied. In a recent meeting, residents rejected the government’s compensation offer to resettle the remaining farmers.

“I believe we can come to an agreement on this in the future,” said one park resident, Zezo Adugna.

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press

Elk Hunting Group Wants to Expand Wolf-Killing Derby into Montana: $1,000 Bounty per Wolf

Posted on by
20

http://www.environews.tv/040717-elk-hunting-group-wants-expand-wolf-killing-derby-montana-1000-bounty-per-wolf/

enviroNews Montana) — The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), which has funded wolf-killing derbies in Idaho to the tune of $150,000 since 2013, is now seeking to expand its $1,000-per-kill bounty program to the neighboring state of Montana.

RMEF provides funds to the Foundation for Wildlife Management (F4WM), which says its mission “is to promote ungulate population recovery in areas negatively impacted by wolves.” While F4WM is based in Idaho, RMEF is stationed in Montana. F4WM held a meeting on April 5 in Sandpoint, Idaho, in an attempt to drum up support for the expanded bounty program. On April 6, Justin Webb, Mission Advancement Director for F4WM, wrote on the group’s Facebook page, “We had several folks from Montana expressing interest in F4WM expanding into Montana, and all were willing to help create Montana funding!”

Webb cautioned however, that it might take some time to determine if F4WM will go ahead with the effort. “[We] should be able to announce yay or nay on an F4WM expansion into Montana within a couple weeks. We have some business operational hurdles to work through, and fine tuning the legistics [sic] of the expansion.”

“These wolf lottery efforts are dismantling a century-long conservation heritage that is shared not just with environmental groups but with a lot of sportsmen groups as well,” said Erik Molvar, Executive Director for the Western Watersheds Project, in an exclusive interview with EnviroNews.

F4WM’s sole sponsor is RMEF. The group published an open letter to President Donald Trump on its website, calling the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone and Idaho “illegal” and telling the President that this “was one extreme criminal act of fraud and theft committed under the administration of William Jefferson Clinton that truly needs to be revisited.”

In 2012, Montana elk hunter Dave Stalling wrote in an op-ed for High Country News about what he described as the RMEF’s “all-out war against wolves.” Stalling worked previously for RMEF and saw changes that he linked to the hiring of David Allen as its director. Today, Allen is President and Chief Executive Officer at RMEF. Allen has supported the delisting of wolves as an endangered species in both Wyoming and Oregon.

“This is an organization that has always been at the fringes of the conservation movement,” said Molvar. “Basically, they are really anti-conservationists in disguise.”

In Idaho, the Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), which regulates hunting in the state, is beset with a funding scandal. An op-ed authored by local hunter Dave Cappell in the January 14, 2017 Idaho State Journal, alleges that two IDFG commissioners were told their terms would not be renewed so that new commissioners, who would approve a system of auction tags for game hunters, could be appointed.

IDFG relies on hunting fees for one-third of its budget. Faced with license fees that have not increased since 2005, the Department has looked at alternative strategies including salary savings.

The 2015 population of wolves in Idaho was documented as 786 animals. During the same year, humans were responsible for the death of 352 wolves, including legal hunting and trapping that took 256 animals. IDFG allows each hunter or trapper to take up to five wolves per year. Wolves may not be baited but electronic calls can be used.

In Montana, where hunting, fishing and other recreational activity fees account for more than two-thirds of the budget for the state’s Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 246 wolves were harvested in 2016. License fees have been increased recently, but are still not sufficient to cover expenses.

Wolf culls are seen as a way to increase the elk population, providing more game for hunters and more license fees for states. But Molvar holds a different view, telling EnviroNews, “There is no place in responsible wildlife management for this kind of killing for fun and money.”
But slaughtering wolves is not just limited to Idaho and Montana. This week, federal legislation signed into law by President Trump will allow the killing of wolves with pups in their dens on wildlife refuges in the state of Alaska, while in California, a lawsuit has been filed by the California Cattlemen’s Association and California Farm Bureau challenging the listing of gray wolves as endangered in the Golden State. Only a handful of specimens have been seen in California since OR-7, a lone wolf from Oregon, arrived in 2011. Prior to that, no wolves were known to be in the state since 1924.

RMEF is steadfast in its opposition to wolves. According to a position statement on its website:

“RMEF will continue to advocate for predator management and control efforts on the ground and in the courts. RMEF will fund continuing research projects, work with Congress and state agencies, track legislative matters, educate hunters and the public, and rally members on predator-related issues so all wildlife populations can be sustained forever. RMEF supports major legislation in Congress that would reinstate the previous U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service wolf delisting rule in the Great Lakes states and Wyoming.”

Molvar disagrees with that statement and says, “The wolf belongs in Western ecosystems. The RMEF is trying to set back conservation 150 years.”

 

Wolf management idea makes sense

Posted on by
9

[Consider the source]:

http://www.capitalpress.com/Opinion/Editorials/20170323/wolf-management-idea-makes-sense

March 23, 2017 9:51AM

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife managers are offering an idea they believe would help them manage wolves more effectively.

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife managers are offering an idea they believe would help them manage wolves more effectively.

If one follows the wolf issue long enough, occasionally a nugget of common sense appears.

Such is the case with a recent suggestion the folks at the Washington State Department of Fish and wildlife offered. Speaking during a conference call with the state Wolf Advisory Group, WDFW wolf policy coordinator Donny Martorello offered this idea: that dead livestock be considered “qualifying” victims of wolves if the time, circumstance and location of their deaths parallel other confirmed depredations.

In other words, if a carcass is found near those of other wolf victims but scavengers have destroyed the evidence directly linking the attack to wolves, state wildlife managers could label it a “qualifying” attack.

Previously, such cases were considered “probable” attacks and were not counted against a wolfpack. Under the Washington wolf plan, managers can kill only wolves that are responsible for four confirmed depredations within a year.

While this may seem to be a bureaucratic splitting of hairs, it’s critically important for managing wolves. Under the new idea, if wolves are found to be responsible for four depredations, including any that are “qualifying,” managers could take steps to get rid of the wolves.

A study found wolfpacks that are thinned soon after attacking cattle or sheep get the message that attacking livestock is unacceptable. By including qualifying attacks, managers could act quicker to thin the ranks of wolves instead of waiting weeks or months for another confirmed depredation.

If managers thin a wolfpack after a long period of time, the wolves have no idea whether it is linked to a depredation, according to the study.

The idea is to manage wolves in a way that is both effective and assures ranchers and others that each step is effective.

That in itself is good reason for the department to adopt such a common sense rule.

It’s also something wolf managers in other states would do well to consider.

The state Wolf Advisory Group will discuss the idea during a March 29-30 meeting in Olympia. We urge the group to take a close look at it, as common sense can be a rare commodity when dealing with wolves.

Trump revokes Alaska refuge rule, allows wolves to be killed

Posted on by
6

http://www.capitalpress.com/AP_Nation_World/20170404/trump-revokes-alaska-refuge-rule-allows-wolves-to-be-killed

Predators can kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

By DAN JOLING

Associated Press

Published on April 4, 2017

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — The state of Alaska’s toolkit for increasing moose and caribou numbers includes killing wolf pups in dens, shooting wolf packs from helicopters and adopting liberal hunting regulations that allow sportsmen to shoot grizzlies over bait.

But when state officials wanted to extend “predator control” to federal wildlife refuges, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said no. And after years of saying no, the agency late last year adopted a rule to make the denial permanent.

Alaska’s elected officials called that an outrage and an infringement on state rights. The dispute reached the White House.

President Donald Trump on Monday signed a resolution approved by the U.S. House and Senate to revoke a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule banning most predator control on Alaska refuges. Alaska’s lone U.S. representative, Republican Don Young, says Alaska was promised it could manage game animals. Refuge overseers have ignored the law, he said.

“Some of you will say, ‘Oh, we have to protect the wolf puppies,’” Young told colleagues on the floor of the House. “That’s not what it’s about. It’s about the law.”

Congress explicitly gave Alaska authority to manage wildlife in the Alaska Statehood Act and two more laws, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said after voting to revoke the rule.

Alaska’s 16 national wildlife refuges cover about 120,000 square miles, an area slightly smaller than the state of New Mexico. Residents of rural villages living a subsistence lifestyle rely on refuges as hunting grounds. So do urban sportsmen.

Critics contend Alaska officials use unsportsmanlike techniques that would have horrified Teddy Roosevelt, creator of the first federal refuge, to boost moose and caribou numbers. Sportsmanship, however, is not a consideration, according to state authorities, when it comes to surgically removing certain numbers of predators to benefit prey populations.

Predators can kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Alaska’s mandate for killing predators comes from a law passed by the state Legislature recognizing that certain moose, caribou, and deer populations are especially important human food sources. When those populations drop too low, the Alaska Board of Game, which regulates hunting and trapping, can authorize “intensive management.”

The focus once was almost totally wolves. Since 1993, the state has killed hundreds along with lesser numbers of black and grizzly bears that prey on caribou or moose calves.

Federal wildlife refuges operate under a different mandate. For example, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, where the state in 2010 sought to kill wolves from helicopters to protect caribou on Unimak Island, was created by Congress with the mission of conserving animal populations and habitats “in their natural biodiversity.”

Geoff Haskett, former Alaska regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency adopted the rule for Alaska refuges after repeatedly fending off state attempts to extend predator control in direct conflict with refuge purposes. Some attempts up in court. For two years, he said, the state authorized an overharvest by hunters of grizzly bears on the Kenai Peninsula. The agency closed the Kenai Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge in response.

“Brown bear biologists from both the state side and the federal side had real concerns about the amount of unlimited harvest and the amount of females that would be taken by what was proposed by the state,” Haskett said.

Haskett left the agency and is now acting director of the National Wildlife Refuge Association. Even though President Trump signed the congressional resolution, Haskett believes it will not give the state of Alaska carte blanche to begin predator control on federal refuges.

“It doesn’t change the laws and authorities and existing regulations that the service already has,” Haskett said. “It’s really back to square one.”

Ken Marsh, spokesman for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, agreed. Without a blanket rule, federal refuge managers likely will consider predator control requests on a case-by-case basis, he said, under provisions of federal environmental law.

Wolves have purpose

Posted on by
5
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/apr/03/leave-wolves-roam-intended/

Letters to the Editor

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2017

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

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

by Jeannie Shank

Colville

Growing wolf packs leads state to consider changes in kill policy

Posted on by
4

http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/growing-wolf-packs-leads-state-to-consider-changes-in-kill/article_1730b230-0f8d-11e7-ab79-8737e5683583.html

  • By K.C. Mehaffey Wenatchee World
  • Mar 22, 2017

WENATCHEE, Wash. — The number of wolves in Washington grew to at least 115 last year — up by about 25 animals — and the agency that keeps tabs on them will soon consider changes to make it easier to kill wolves that attack livestock.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife released its annual gray wolf status report on Friday, and although the number of conflicts with livestock was not unusual, the agency hopes to find a better way to handle repeated wolf attacks by the same pack. Last summer, the Profanity Peak Pack killed or injured at least 10 cattle, and Fish and Wildlife officials killed seven pack members before the problem was resolved.

This year’s annual report shows that all of the state’s wolves are living on the east side of the Cascade Mountains, and three packs — the Lookout Pack near Twisp, the Teanaway Pack south of Wenatchee, and the Loup Loup Pack west of Okanogan — are in North Central Washington. Fifteen of the state’s 20 packs are in the northeast corner of the state, and half of the packs have a breeding pair, the agency’s report said.

The report also documented that last year wolves killed nine cattle, injured six and were probably responsible for killing six more.

On the flip side, 14 wolves died last year — half of them members of the Profanity Peak Pack, which were killed by state Fish and Wildlife officials after repeated attacks on cattle belonging to two ranchers.

Next week, agency officials will meet with the Wolf Advisory Group and attempt to agree on a new protocol for when the state will kill wolves that attacked livestock.

It’s not that last year’s conflicts were unexpected or higher than anticipated, said Donny Martorello, the agency’s wolf policy lead.

“There are no surprises” in the annual report or in last year’s numbers, he said.

But there may be a better way to handle problem wolves and prevent a repeat of last summer’s conflicts on the Colville National Forest, which, after three months, left 15 dead or injured cattle and led to killing seven of the 11 members of the Profanity Peak Pack.

The 18-member Wolf Advisory Group includes citizen members from several perspectives that includes ranchers and animal conservation organizations. Martorello said even before issues were raised over handling of the Profanity Peak Pack, the group had planned to revisit the agency’s protocols for when to kill wolves and to adapt to changes as they come up.

“All of us are looking for ways to help reduce the amount of conflict so fewer livestock die and fewer wolves die. Those are the common interests,” he said.

Livestock owners are already working to prevent conflicts using fencing, hazing, guard dogs and range riders to reduce the likelihood of a first incident.

Martorello said that although almost all of the state’s wolf territories overlap with livestock range land, 80 percent of them had no conflicts with domestic animals. Judging by wolf-livestock conflicts in other states, it’s not unusual to see 20 percent of the packs involved in attacks on livestock, he added.

Part of the discussion on a possible new wolf protocol will be whether to change the current policy, which now says that the agency will consider killing wolves after there are four confirmed attacks on livestock. Martorello said they will look at adding probable attacks — not just confirmed attacks — that include just one confirmed kill.

The suggestion is based, in part, on a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study concluding that killing part of a pack works best to deter continued livestock attacks when it’s done within a week of the conflict. Adding just one week to that time frame makes the partial-pack removal about as effective as doing nothing, the study concluded.

Wolves need federal protection

Posted on by
3

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/guest/wolves-need-federal-protection/article_030ddd4a-8116-5f45-aa00-05b19554c64a.html

by Collette Adkins

The tragic killing of a gray wolf mistaken for a coyote in North Dakota’s Walsh County recently is a painful reminder of why wolves still need federal endangered species protections.

This poor creature was the first known wolf in North Dakota since one was confirmed in Bowman County in December 2014. Before that, hunters in McKenzie County killed one in 2012.

These wolf deaths are bad for North Dakota’s ecosystems, which are out of balance without large carnivores.

Because wolves target the weak, diseased, old and injured, they help keep prey populations of deer and elk more vigorous. Wolves also promote biodiversity by preventing prey from overgrazing vegetation, degrading habitat and harming other native wildlife.

The death of this wolf is a blow to wolf recovery in the state.

Although wolves elsewhere in the country have made significant progress under the protections of the Endangered Species Act, they are nowhere near fully recovered.

Wolves have returned to only about 10 percent of their historic range in the United States and could return to areas of North Dakota with abundant prey, such as the Badlands — if people would stop killing them.

Indeed, with Endangered Species Act protections, the wolf population in Minnesota grew and wolves dispersed to begin repopulating Wisconsin and then Michigan. Recovery to additional Midwest and Great Lakes states depends on the protections afforded by the act.

But if elected officials from those areas have their way, wolves will be stripped of federal protections. Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota are pushing for removing those protections to appease livestock producers and trophy hunters. They have introduced legislation in Congress, HR424 and S164, that would remove federal protections without any review by the courts and turn wolf management over to states.

As an attorney working for more than a decade to protect wolves and stop cruel wildlife exploitation, I know these bills would be devastating.

We’ve already seen how states treat wolves when they are allowed management. As soon as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed wolf protections — prematurely — in 2012, Minnesota and Wisconsin worked to open trophy hunting and trapping seasons, contributing to a 25 percent decline in Minnesota.

When the court restored protections, wolf populations in Minnesota began to rebound. That shows that the Endangered Species Act works.

Wolves are an important part of our natural heritage but were driven to the brink of extinction across much of the country more than a century ago. They deserve a real chance at recovery. And, for starters, that means continued federal protections in Minnesota and across the Midwest and more tolerance for them on the ground.

One day, hopefully, we’ll see them breeding again in North Dakota.

Collette Adkins is a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.