Category Archives: Wolves

Researchers Kill 890 Wolves to Learn About Them: There’s Something Very Wrong

Posted on by
2

Back by special request:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-bekoff/theres-something-very-wrong_b_6287922.html
 12/09/2014    Professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado

 copyrighted wolf in water

I’ve written a number of essays that have centered on the question, “Should animals be killed in the name of, or under the guise of, conservation?” The basic foundation of the rapidly growing field of compassionate conservation, “First do no harm,” maintains that the lives of individual animals matter and that killing in the name of conservation should not be done (see here).

Just recently this question arose once again when the Canadian Journal of Zoology (CJZ) published a research article by Dave Hervieux, Mark Hebblewhite, Dave Stepnisky, Michelle Bacon and Stan Boutin titled “Managing wolves (Canis lupus) to recover threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta” that presented the outcome of an “experiment” in mass killing in which 890 Canadian wolves suffered and died using aerial gunning, trapping and poisoning with strychnine. The strychnine also killed other animals who were not part of the study. Minimum “collateral damage” that was deemed acceptable by the researchers and the CJZ included 91 ravens, 36 coyotes, 31 foxes, 8 marten, 6 lynx, 4 weasels and 4 fisher. (For more on how wolves are highly stressed when hunted please see “Wolves: Hunting Affects Stress, Reproduction and Sociality.”)

Part of the methods section of this paper reads as follows (references can be found in the link above):

Wolf packs were located from a helicopter and one or more wolves per pack were captured using net-gunning techniques and fit with a VHF radio collar. Using a helicopter, we then subsequently attempted to lethally remove all remaining members of each pack through aerial-shooting throughout the winter (sensu Courchamp et al. 2003; Hayes et al. 2003), with the radio-collared wolves removed at the end of winter. Wolf captures were conducted according to Alberta Wildlife Animal Care Committee class protocol No. 009 (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005)

Furthermore,

We also established toxicant bait stations, using strychnine, to augment aerial shooting and to target wolves that could not be found or removed using aerial-shooting. Strychnine is permitted for use in Alberta for the purpose of predator control (authorized by Government of Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency following specific provisions outlined in Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division’s ‘Standards’.

It’s important also to note that this mass killing did not work — not that it would even be remotely justified if it did. As stated in the abstract of the research paper, “Although the wolf population reduction program appeared to stabilize the Little Smoky population, it did not lead to population increase.”

When I told some colleagues and friends about this study they were incredulous and aghast. Cloaked in a lab coat and under the guise of conservation biology, this egregious study raises serious questions about oversight and approval of lethal research involving wild animals. It is hard to imagine any other scientific investigation of a wild mammal being organized around the principle of mass killing. The inhumane methods used to experimentally “euthanize” the wolves are of the type used years ago and widely abandoned as unethical because of their inhumaneness. And, of course, the wolves were not euthanized, which suggests they were killed to end interminable pain and suffering.

The approach demonstrated in this paper reflects exactly why animal care committees were created to provide oversight on research methods and to avoid research being conducted and published that clearly fails to meet even minimum ethical standards. This research and publication represents the systematic moral failure of the Alberta government, participating universities, the Canadian Journal of Zoology, and individual scientists who carried out the study.

Of course, the main question at hand is, “How did this study ever get approved and conducted?” This question must be aired and discussed openly and widely. One colleague asked me, “How can these researchers sleep at night?” Frankly, I have no idea. I also pondered why a study like this can be approved, conducted and published in a peer-reviewed journal, yet people get furious, as they should, when a dog is shot, trapped or poisoned.

I was sickened when I learned about this so-called study, and remain incredulous that it was conducted. Simply put, this reprehensible study sets an unethical, inhumane and horrific precedent that must be universally opposed.

This essay was written with Dr. Paul Paquet who works with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Science and Sentiment Say Wolf Trophy Hunting Doesn’t Wash

Posted on by
4
Anti-wolf billboard, Spokane, WA

Anti-wolf billboard, Spokane, WA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-pacelle/science-and-sentiment-say_b_6278208.html?utm_hp_ref=green

W

President and CEO, The Humane Society of the United States

Science and Sentiment Say Wolf Trophy Hunting Doesn’t Wash

 12/05/2014

If policy makers stick to their guns and continue allowing trophy hunters to kill  wolves in six states in the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies regions, they will be defying both science and, generally speaking, the will of voters.

Folks, the recent weeks of 2014 have brought us to a turning point. So let’s turn. It’s time to turn away from the past and catch up with the future in the way we manage predators in the wild.

The right decision now, after what we have learned, is to suspend trophy hunting and trapping programs for the small, recovering wolf populations just recently taken off the federal list of endangered species – with the knowledge that it’s the right thing to do on so many levels.

One compelling reason is science. Underlying the growing number of wolf hunts in the United States is the wrongheaded, but long-standing, belief that trophy hunting and trapping programs for wolves reduce the threat that wolves pose to cattle, sheep, and other free-ranging livestock.

Well, that theory is now in doubt. And it’s not just me who says so.

The first serious study of that theory has been released and it found just the opposite. When I say serious, I mean very serious science. Washington State University researchers dug into comprehensive statistics from 25 years of wolf “management” and found that shooting wolves indiscriminately may make things worse for farm animals. As well as for wolves.

That’s because when disrupted, wolf families adapt, move, split up, increase reproduction — and then they kill even more livestock.

Researchers found that shooting wolves indiscriminately reduces predation on cattle and sheep only when wolf populations are brought so low that, guess what, they end up protected again under the Endangered Species Act.

Wolf haters are having a hard time coping with the truth here. A spokeswoman for one Washington state group was quoted as criticizing the integrity of the 25-year statistical survey because it was sponsored by the state legislature.

Or here’s what a spokesman for Idaho’s wool growers told National Geographic: “The professor can say whatever he wants. We’re not going to just let wolves run wild.”

Well, folks, you can’t invoke science only when it suits you — as the trophy hunting lobby so often does. The science may not be the final word, but it’s an important set of facts to inform a final decision.

The other element to consider is our values: obviously, here we differ with the wool growers and the trophy hunters. But let’s face it, by all accounts, it appears their views are in the minority. The public wants more protection for wolves, in a world where we all are showing greater conscious consideration of animals.

In the first-ever plebiscite on the subject, voters in Michigan sided with wolves and against trophy hunting and trapping. Voters faced two separate votes on laws passed by the Legislature to permit wolf hunts, and both were repealed. The margins were overwhelming, 64-36 and 55-45, with one of the measures getting more than 1.8 million votes against wolf hunting, more votes than any of the statewide candidates for office received in their winning elections.

Let me add that Michigan has one of the most deeply rooted and publicly popular hunting traditions in the United States. But voters there, including hunters, understood that wolf haters were plain wrong — and that these ancient animals played a vital role in the wild ecosystem, and in fact were more valuable as a draw for tourists than as stuffed decorations in private trophy rooms. What’s more, nobody eats wolves, so the idea of killing them has no practical value, and responsible hunters don’t go for that, either.

Just as with the new science, there can be no quibbling with the meaning here.

The two pillars of good policy — independent and verified science and thoughtful electoral consensus — agree: Hunting wolves is not acceptable to the public and makes life worse for ranchers who raise cattle and sheep.

**

Sign up here to stay up to date on our work with wolves.

This article first appeared on Wayne Pacelle’s blog, A Humane Nation.

Rewilding of America is a natural thing to do

Posted on by
1

 

Rewilding of America is a natural thing to do

The News West / By Todd Wilkinson | Posted: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 4:30 am

We human beings are set apart by our capacity to express extraordinary compassion, empathy and charity — especially, it seems, at this time of year.

We also are unrivaled on the planet for carrying out acts of cruelty, not only against others of our own kind but toward vulnerable creatures around us that have no voice to plead their case for mercy and therefore no defense.

In ignorance, thoughtlessness and the warped logic of Manifest Destiny — the absurd notion that God would encourage us to be plunderers — we’ve erased other species from existence.

Witless sometimes, we inflict pain on animals, rationalizing it on the conceit that other creatures are incapable of knowing suffering or that our superiority gives us license to not acknowledge it exists.

This sort of thinking, Marc Bekoff says, is precisely the logic that degrades humanity.

Bekoff has a new book out that any animal-loving human (including hunters, anglers and ranchers) needs to read. “Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence” is an important work because it will change how you think about your relationship with nature.

That challenge can be exhilarating if you’re ready, frightening if your worldview is so fragile it cannot withstand scrutiny.

While reading Bekoff’s book and reflecting on the twisted individuals who publicly boast of inflicting abuse on wolves and coyotes, I thought of the observation made by the great psychoanalyst Carl Jung: “The healthy man does not torture others. Generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.”

Bekoff is a world-renowned ethologist who wrote the critically acclaimed book “The Emotional Lives of Animals.” As professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, he is also a former Guggenheim Fellow — confirmation that he is among a club of people held in highest regard for being exceptional big-picture thinkers.

Author Richard Louv, in his bestselling book “Last Child in the Woods,” identified a chronic problem plaguing modern people, Nature Deficit Disorder, running rampant in our kids.

Bekoff’s book confirms Louv’s diagnosis and casts it in fresh light. He believes that in our zeal to conquer nature, tame and control it, we’ve become “unwilded,” cut off from the very things that keep us grounded.

Bekoff isn’t just an advocate for rewilding physical landscapes — restoring them to their life-nurturing ecological function and recognizing the intrinsic value of their interconnected parts. As individuals, he says, we benefit from rewilding ourselves by maintaining contact with nature or making changes in our lives that give us daily exposure to wild things, the same as if taking a health-enhancing vitamin.

It is with empathy that we reach out to others suffering pain, loss and trauma caused by violence. And it is through extraordinary groups like Wounded Warriors that exposure to nature is used as a salve to heal.

Bekoff shares observations about hunting that, he notes, have sparked philosophical conversations with Wyoming outfitters. He also blasts commercial media. His thoughts are sure to provoke. Rather than divulge them here, suffice it to say they’re well worth absorbing.

Not long ago “60 Minutes” interviewed scientific researchers who had discovered that dogs can understand hundreds of human words and have a huge emotional range. It’s something Bekoff has known for decades.

Of interest to Westerners, Bekoff calls attention to those who kill wolves and, denying they are sensitive, thinking, feeling creatures, try to put them in a separate category from domestic canids.

“Then I ask the person if they would hunt and kill their own dog. ‘Of course not!’ they usually respond with incredulity. But in the end, a dog and the wild animals people hunt are not all that different, except that we already love our dogs.”

The terrain Bekoff explores may unsettle some, for it challenges the belief that animals, especially wild ones, are somehow lesser life forms, not worth consideration as sentient beings.

The whole point of Bekoff’s book is: It’s difficult to consciously inflict harm upon, or knowingly exploit for fun and profit, or wantonly eradicate beings that possess their own inner soul and spirit. They’re all around us.

“Alienating ourselves from other animals and dominating them and their homes is not what it means to be human,” Bekoff writes. “We must stop this insanity now. Ecocide is suicide.”

Nt’l Geo: Why Killing Wolves Might Not Save Livestock

Posted on by
8

[What do they mean “save” livestock. The cows and sheep are all doomed to be sent to the slaughterhouse eventually anyway…]

copyrighted wolf in water

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141203-wolves-hunting-livestock-ranchers-endangered-species-environment/

New study fuels debate over how to reduce attacks on cows and sheep.

Warren Cornwall

for National Geographic

Published December 3, 2014

In late August, a government sharpshooter in a helicopter hovering above a wooded eastern Washington hillside killed the lead female wolf of the Huckleberry Pack. The aim was to end attacks by the wolf pack, which had killed more than two dozen sheep.

But in the long run, a shooting like this could just make matters worse. A new study has found that—paradoxically—killing a wolf can increase the risk that wolves will prey on livestock in the future.

The research, published today in the scientific journal PLOS One, flies in the face of the common idea that the swiftest and surest way to deal with wolves threatening livestock is by shooting the predators. It adds to a growing understanding of how humans influence the complex dynamics driving these pack animals, sometimes with unexpected consequences.

As wolves spread across the West, triggering more encounters with sheep and cattle, and as two states host wolf-hunting seasons, the new research also adds more fuel to an already heated political debate about how to deal with wolves.

“The livestock industry, they’re not going to be happy with this,” said Rob Wielgus, a Washington State University ecologist and the study’s lead author.

Back From the Brink

Shooting wolves is a long-standing practice in the ranching world. It helped lead to the animal’s eradication in the western United States in the 1930s. Since the wolf’s reintroduction in the mid-1990s, government officials and ranchers have frequently reached for a gun to cope with livestock problems—killing more than 2,000 wolves by 2013.

In 2011, wolves were removed from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. (Wyoming got a similar stamp of approval in 2012, but a federal judge recently overturned that decision.) That has made it easier to shoot wolves—Idaho and Montana now even allow recreational hunting.

But there have never been any large-scale studies of whether killing wolves really helps protect livestock.

Enter Wielgus. He has a track record for turning conventional wisdom on its head when it comes to attempts to control predators. In 2008 he made news with research that found shooting cougars led to more attacks on livestock. When mature adults were killed, Wielgus said, less seasoned adolescents moved in and were more likely to prey on cows and sheep.

After wolves arrived in Washington in 2008, growing to 13 packs by 2013, Wielgus turned his attention to the newest carnivore on the block. He examined 25 years of data on killing of wolves and cases where wolves attacked cattle and sheep in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming—the first states where wolves were reintroduced.

What the Data Say

Wielgus found that when a wolf was killed, the chances of livestock getting killed increased the following year in that state—by 5 to 6 percent for cattle and 4 percent for sheep. With each additional wolf killed, the chance of livestock attacks rose further. The trend didn’t reverse until more than a quarter of the wolves in the state were killed in a single year. Then livestock losses started to decline.

That level of wolf-killing happened several times even while wolves were federally protected, under rules that allowed shooting of wolves that threatened livestock. And it is happening now in Idaho and Montana. Last year, hunters killed 231 wolves in Montana and 356 in Idaho, helping to reduce the population to slightly more than 600 in each state. The Idaho legislature this year created a Wolf Depredation Control Board, a move critics say is aimed at pushing wolf numbers down to just above 150—a cutoff that could trigger renewed protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Wielgus isn’t certain why more livestock die when smaller numbers of wolves are killed. But he suspects it’s tied to changes in pack behavior. Packs are led by a male and female breeding pair. If one or both of those wolves is killed, the pack can break up, giving rise to several breeding pairs—and thus an uptick in the wolf population. Livestock losses decline only when enough wolves are killed to overwhelm their ability to keep up through reproduction.

The theory fits observations made in and around Yellowstone National Park. Wolf packs inside the park—where wolves aren’t shot—are large and complex, with wolves of a variety of ages living together, said Doug Smith, a lead wolf researcher at Yellowstone. Wolf packs elsewhere tend to be just a breeding pair and pups.

For Wielgus, the upshot of his study is that while killing a wolf might sometimes be necessary, as a routine practice it’s counterproductive and unsustainable. Either livestock losses go up or, if enough wolves are killed to reduce livestock deaths, wolf numbers eventually drop so low that wolves wind up back on the endangered species list. If the killing slows to less than 25 percent of the wolf population per year, his study suggests, depredation rates shoot back up.

“It’s a bit of a catch-22,” Wielgus said. “You can reduce them now, but you can only reduce them so far, and when you stop that heavy harvest, now you’re at maximum livestock depredation.”

Is There Another Way?

Reaction to the new study was split down predictable fault lines. Wolf conservationists pointed to it as evidence that shooting wolves to save livestock usually doesn’t make sense. “You have this very archaic paradigm of kill first, ask questions later,” said Suzanne Stone, senior northwest representative for the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife. Overall, people in the livestock industry are “still pretty rigid in their views that the only way to deal with predators is to kill them. And that’s not true. It actually works against them.”

Stone has run a program with sheep growers in one Idaho valley aimed at finding ways for sheep and wolves to coexist. The ranchers there resort to a number of tactics to protect roughly 30,000 sheep: monitoring wolves to avoid grazing the sheep near denning sites, using guard dogs, flashing bright lights to scare off wolves, stringing a wire hung with small strips of fabric around the flock at night, and increasing the number of people herding the animals.

Stone said the program is cheaper than dispatching a gunman in a helicopter. Fewer than 30 sheep have been lost to wolves in seven years, and no wolves have been killed.

Stan Boyd, executive director of the Idaho Wool Growers Association, said his group works with members to help them deter wolves without shooting the animals. But he still sees guns as critical tools, and he says wolf problems have declined recently as the number of Idaho wolves has gone down.

“Wolves get into livestock, we kill the wolves. And that works well,” Boyd said. “The professor can say whatever he wants. We’re not going to just let wolves run wild.”

In Washington state, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which paid for Wielgus’s research, is waiting for him to complete a broader examination of all options for managing wolves, said John Pierce, the agency’s chief wildlife scientist. “In the long run, we definitely would prefer to do nonlethal removal if we can figure out how it works,” Pierce said.

Meanwhile, all eyes are on the Huckleberry Pack. In the aftermath of the shooting of the lead female, will fewer sheep die in wolf attacks—or more?

Killing 890 Wolves to Learn About Them: Something’s Wrong

Posted on by
3
 

By Marc Bekoff, Ph.D. on December, 02, 2014 in Animal Emotions

An “experimental” study performed under the guise of conservation involved killing 890 Canadian wolves (and other animals) using aerial gunning, trapping, and strychnine poisoning. This research and publication represents the moral failure of the Alberta government, participating universities, the Canadian Journal of Zoology, and the scientists, and it didn’t work.  Read More

WA farmer could face charges for killing wolf

Posted on by
2

http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/whitman-county/2014/11/28/whitman-co-farmer-facing-charges-for-killing-gray-wolf/19641521/

Whitman Co. farmer could face charges for killing wolf

Joshua Babcock Murrow News Service 10:09 a.m. PST November 29, 2014

Washington fish and wildlife officials are recommending a Whitman County farmer face misdemeanor charges for shooting a gray wolf last month.

The charge could result in a year in jail and a two-year suspension of hunting, fishing and trapping licenses.

Steve Crown, chief of enforcement for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the shooter was a farmer who also notified authorities. Crown said it is unclear why the farmer shot the wolf, as it did not appear to pose an imminent danger to pets, livestock or the farmer.

Crown said this is the third wolf shooting this year in Washington.

“If it’s just in the area, it’s not open season for wolves,” Crown said.

Tissue samples were sent to a laboratory at UCLA where DNA testing confirmed the animal was a gray wolf.

Whitman County Prosecutor Denis Tracy will review the case to determine if charges will be filed. In his 12 years as a county prosecutor, Tracy said he has never had a wolf shooting case.

Crown said it is believed the wolf migrated from an Idaho wolf pack. Washington has 13 documented wolf packs. Idaho has more than 100, according to officials in both states.

The Murrow News Service provides local, regional and statewide stories reported and written by journalism students at The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University.

528624c939a88_preview-620

French farmers take sheep flocks to Eiffel Tower to protest ‘govt-protected’ wolves

Posted on by
2

532945_424483937641494_1299001557_n

[Redneck wolf-haters are everywhere, even in France.]

French farmers herded their sheep to the Eiffel Tower on Thursday to protest against the growing number of attacks on their flocks by wolves, which they argue are protected by the government.

The farmers brought around 250 sheep to central Paris to demand action from government ministers to stop the attacks on their flocks, which have increased dramatically in recent years.

One of the protesters was dressed as a wolf while carrying around a lamb. Another held a banner reading: “Today famers, tomorrow unemployed.”

The farmers and their sheep are due to meet with French Agriculture Minister Stephane Le Foll later on Thursday.

Wolves were hunted to extinction in France, like in many other European countries, but crossed over the Alps into France from Italy in the 1990s. They now number about 300 and are a protected species.

One of the predators was caught on camera within 250 km of Paris in April, The Local reported.

More: http://rt.com/news/209559-french-farmers-sheep-wolves/#.VHjhyV7qnMo.facebook

Hunters 4 wolves shy of Wisconsin kill limit; season could end before dogs are allowed

Posted on by
7

DNR: Hunters 4 wolves shy of Wisconsin kill limit; season could end before dogs are allowed

  • Article by: TODD RICHMOND , Associated Press
  • Updated: November 28, 2014

MADISON, Wis. — Hunters are four wolves shy of reaching Wisconsin’s statewide kill limit, raising doubts about whether anyone will be allowed to use dogs to hunt wolves once the gun season ends.

The 2012 Republican-authored law that created Wisconsin’s wolf hunt allows hunters to use dogs to trail and corner wolves on the day after the end of the nine-day gun deer season. That season wraps up Sunday, which means hunters could start deploying their dogs beginning Monday.

But Department of Natural Resources tallies show hunters had killed 146 wolves as of Thursday, just four animals short of the 150-wolf statewide kill limit.

The season will end as soon as they hit that limit or on the last day of February, whichever comes first. If hunters get the last four wolves before Monday, no one will be able to hunt them with dogs and one of the most divisive components of Wisconsin’s wolf hunt would fade away until next year.

Hunters aren’t allowed to let their dogs kill wolves — they can use dogs only to trail and corral them and must use a gun, crossbow or bow and arrow to actually make the kill — but animal rights advocates contend letting dogs chase wolves can lead to bloody confrontations because wolves will turn and fight rather than flee.

A coalition of humane societies tried to sue the DNR in 2012 to force the agency to impose tighter regulations on dog use but the effort failed. The DNR did examine 27 of the 35 wolves killed by hunters using dogs last year and didn’t find any evidence of fights or other illegal practices, but the evaluation was inconclusive since the wolf carcasses had already been skinned when the agency examined them.

Jodi Habush Sinykin, an attorney for the humane societies, didn’t immediately return an email message Friday. Neither did Melissa Smith, organizer of Friends of Wisconsin Wolves, a wolf advocacy group.

Al Lobner, president of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, a key advocate for hunting wolves with dogs, didn’t immediately return a telephone message.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/284145811.html

copyrighted wolf in water

Washington group puts up anti-wolf billboards

Posted on by
7

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/washington-group-puts-up-anti-wolf-billboards/article_f734776f-30eb-51f3-80a6-c24f024ff950.html

2014-11-21  Washington group puts up anti-wolf billboardsBy Rich Landers The Spokesman-Review The Billings Gazette
11 hours ago  •  By Rich Landers The Spokesman-Review

A newly organized anti-wolf group says it’s targeting Spokane with a billboard campaign to highlight members’ concerns about the increasing number of wolves in Washington State.

Four billboards featuring a snarling wolf are being put up, according to Washington Residents Against Wolves, a group that says in a media release that it’s promoting “sound management of the predator.”

“The aim of the billboard campaign is to encourage people to ask more questions about what having wolves in Washington really means,” said Luke Hedquist, WARAW member.

“People need to consider the challenges associated with wolves. Wolves can and will attack people, livestock will be killed and maimed, private property will be compromised and local economies will be impacted. We want to make sure people thoroughly understand the issue, so we started by trying to get people’s attention with the billboards.

“As the elk and other ungulates are impacted by wolves, we will see fewer animals for other predators like cougar and bear, a decline in the number of animals available to hunt and significant impacts to local economies as hunters go elsewhere.”