A Hastings-led howl against protecting wolves

Posted on November 17, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/11/15/a-hastings-led-howl-against-protecting-wolves/

Friday, November 15, 2013 by: Joel Connelly

Seventy-five members of Congress are demanding that the Obama administration end all protection of the gray wolf as “endangered” or “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act, in an effort organized by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Washington.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already de-listed wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains — leading to big, officially encouraged wolf kills, particularly in Idaho — and in the Great Lakes States.

The gray wolf has moved south from protected lands on the U.S.-Canada border to repopulate the Washington Cascades, including the Teanaway Valley. (Photo courtesy of Conservation Northwest).

In Washington, wolves are still under federal protection in the Cascades, but not in the Kettle Range and Selkirk Mountains of Northeast Washington. There, they receive state protection, which is under attack by conservative state legislators.

The lawmakers’ letter uses age-old arguments for removing protection so that wolves can be killed.

“Since wolves were first provided protection under the ESA, uncontrolled and unmanaged growth of wolf populations has resulted in devastating impacts on hunting and ranching and tragic damages to historically strong and healthy herds of moose, elk, bighorn sheep and mule deer,” they wrote in the letter to Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Mitch Friedman, executive director of Conservation Northwest, a Washington-based group that has championed wolf recovery, scoffed at the letter’s assertions.

“It’s surprising Little Red Riding Hood isn’t mentioned,” said Friedman.

“The letter acknowledges that ‘federal policy must be based on best available science,’ then goes on to make the false and hyperbolic claim about ‘devastating impacts’ on fishing and ranching,” Friedman added. “Throughout wolf territory, game populations are generally at or above levels desired by state managers.

“These Tea Party legislators have so proven Congress that they’ve resorted to attempting policy by press release. Their letter is off enough on matters of law, science and facts.”

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.: He is lead on a letter, signed by 75 members of Congress, demanding an end to all federal protection of wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

Hastings is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, R-Wash., who also signed the letter, is a member of the House Republican Leadership.

The gray wolf has returned to Washington’s mountains in recent year. A killing spree by three Okanogan County residents — who were caught and prosecuted under federal law — nearly destroyed one pack that had established itself in the upper Methow Valley of the North Cascades.

Other packs have located in the upper Teanaway Valley, in the Cascades north of Cle Elum, as well as in northeast Washington. A majority of the state’s wolf population has the misfortune to live in congressional districts represented by Hastings and McMorris Rodgers.

The letter asking for de-listing of wolves is signed by a who’s-who of Tea Party members in Congress, including such luminaries as Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas and Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho.

A pair of conservative House Democrats, Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jim Matheson of Utah, signed the letter.

The letter also opposes a proposal to list the rare Mexican wolf, found in the Southwest, as a subspecies under the Endangered Species Act. Such a listing would have a “Severe impact on private landowners, including ranchers” in Arizona and New Mexico, the lawmakers claim.

“We believe that state governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are better able to meet the needs of local communities and wildlife populations,” said the letter.

Friedman argued the reverse, saying that Hastings and his allies are grandstanding and doing nothing to encourage cooperation between local communities and conservation groups.

“Real ranchers and communities — including in Eastern Washington — are stepping up to work with groups like ours on practices that allow wolves and livestock to share the land,” he said.

“There are ways that Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris Rodgers could help, but I’m still waiting for their call.”

Cattle Ranchers Given Wolves’ GPS Coordinates

Posted on November 10, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

[The fox is guarding the henhouse, so to speak. And I thought those tracking collars were only meant to be used for scientific purposes…]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/10/cattle-ranchers-track-wolves-with-gps-computers/

Cattle ranchers track wolves with GPS, computers

Becky Kramer The Spokesman-Review

COLVILLE – Before the sun breaks over the mountains, Leisa

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Hill is firing up a generator in a remote cow camp in eastern Stevens County.

Soon she’ll be poring over satellite data points on her laptop, tracking the recent wanderings of a GPS-collared wolf.

Hill is a range rider whose family grazes 1,300 head of cattle in the Smackout pack’s territory. Knowing the collared wolf’s whereabouts helps her plan her day.

She’ll spend the next 12 to 16 hours visiting the scattered herd by horseback or ATV. Through the regular patrols, she’s alerting the Smackout pack that cattle aren’t easy prey.

Her work is paying off. Last year, 100 percent of the herd returned from the U.S. Forest Service allotments and private pastures that provide summer and fall forage. This year’s count isn’t final, but the tallies look promising, said Hill’s dad, John Dawson.

“We’ve lost nothing to wolves,” he said.

Hill’s range rider work is part of a pilot that involves two generations of a northeastern Washington ranch family, the state and Conservation Northwest. The aim is to keep Washington’s growing wolf population out of trouble.

Last year, government trappers and sharpshooters killed seven members of the Wedge pack for repeatedly attacking another Stevens County rancher’s cattle.

That short-term fix came at a high political price: The state Department of Fish and Wildlife received 12,000 emails about the decision, mostly in opposition. Two wolves have again been spotted in the Wedge pack’s territory, either remnants of the original pack or new wolves moving in.

It upped the ante for all sides to be proactive.

Ranchers can’t fight public opinion

Many Washington residents want wolves, said Dawson, a 70-year-old rancher whose son, Jeff, also runs a Stevens County cattle operation.

“I can’t fight that,” John Dawson said of public opinion. “You have to meet in the middle; you have no choice.

“We put most of our cattle in wolf territory for the summer,” he said. “I’ve been trying to learn as much as possible about wolves so we can meet them at the door.”

For ranchers, “it’s a new business now, a new world,” said Jay Kehne of Conservation Northwest, a Bellingham-based environmental group that works on issues across Washington and British Columbia.

Conservation Northwest supported last year’s controversial decision to remove the Wedge pack. “We wanted to do what we felt was scientifically right, what was supported by the evidence, what people knowledgeable about cattle and wolf behavior were telling us,” Kehne said.

But the organization obviously prefers preventive, nonlethal measures, he said. Conservation Northwest had talked to Alberta and Montana cattle ranchers who use range riders and was looking for Washington ranchers willing to try it. The Dawsons were interested.

Conservation Northwest helps finance three range riders in Washington – the Dawsons in Stevens County, and others in Cle Elem and Wenatchee.

Hiring a range rider costs $15,000 to $20,000 for the five-month grazing season, Kehne said. The state and individual ranchers, including Dawson, also contribute to the cost.

In addition, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife provides daily satellite downloads on GPS-collared wolves to help range riders manage the cows.

Collared wolves are known as “Judas wolves” for betraying the pack’s location.

The downloads give the wolves’ locations for the past 24 hours, though the system isn’t foolproof, said Jay Shepherd, a state wildlife conflict specialist. Dense stands of trees can block signals, and the timing of satellite orbits affects data collection.

Last winter, the state captured and collared three wolves in the Smackout pack. One of the collars has a radio-based signal that can be detected when the wolf is nearby. The other two wolves received GPS collars. One of the collars has stopped working. The remaining GPS collar is on a young male that doesn’t always stay with the pack.

Ranchers must sign an agreement to access the satellite downloads. “They understand it is sensitive data that’s not to be shared,” said Stephanie Simek, the state’s wildlife conflict section manager.

GPS tracking adds a high-tech element to modern range riding, but much of it is still grunt work. The Smackout pack’s territory covers about 400 square miles. John and Jeff Dawson’s cattle graze 10 to 15 percent of the pack’s territory, but their range encompasses the heart of it.

Leisa Hill’s work starts in early June, when the cows and calves are turned loose on Forest Service allotments and private pastures. The range riding continues through 100-degree August days and wraps up in early November after the first snowfall.

She travels nearly 1,000 miles each month by horse and ATV through thick timber to reach scattered grazing areas. She watches for bunched or nervous cows, as well as sick or injured animals that wolves might consider easy prey.

She’s also alert to patterns in the wolves’ movements. Regular visits to a particular site probably indicate the presence of a carcass.

Hill has fired noise-makers to scare off adult wolves that were in the same pasture as cows. Last year, she spotted four wolf pups on the road.

The 46-year-old prefers to stay in the background, declining to be interviewed for this story. However, “the success of this range rider program is because of Leisa,” her father said. “She knows the range and she understands cow psychology.”

Skinny calves mean a financial loss

On a recent fall morning, John Dawson drove a pickup over Forest Service roads past small clusters of Black Angus, Herefords and cream-colored Charolais cows with their calves.

The cows were just how he likes to see them: relaxed, spread out and eating. Calves should be putting on 2 to 3 pounds a day.

“When they’re not laying around, resting and eating, they’re not gaining,” he said.

Dawson heard his first wolf howl in 2011, the year before the range rider pilot started. He and his son lost seven calves that summer, though they couldn’t find the carcasses to determine cause of death.

The remaining calves were skinnier than usual. They probably spent the summer on the run from wolves, or tightly bunched together and not making good use of the forage, Dawson said. For ranchers, skinny calves can be a bigger financial blow than losing animals.

Say a rancher has 500 calves and they each come in 40 pounds lighter than normal. At a market price of $1.50 per pound, “that’s a bigger loss ($30,000) than losing seven calves, which is about a $5,000 loss,” he said.

Over the past two years, the Dawsons have seen robust weight gain in their calves. They credit the range rider program.

Earlier this year, Jeff Dawson and Shepherd, the state wildlife conflict specialist, talked with Klickitat County cattle ranchers. Wolves have been spotted in south-central Washington, and some of those ranchers are starting to experiment with range riders.

“The success the Dawsons have had has gone a long way to helping promote nonlethal means and proactive measures to reduce conflict,” said Jack Field, the Washington Cattlemen’s Association’s executive vice president.

If ranchers take extra steps to protect their animals, the public is more likely to accept the occasional need to kill wolves that repeatedly attack livestock, said Conservation Northwest’s Kehne.

John Dawson and his wife, Melva, spent decades building their ranch, working other jobs while they grew the herd. To preserve that legacy, the family was willing to try new ways of doing business, he said.

“I think (range riding) would work for a good share of other ranchers,” he said. But “they have to be open-minded enough to want it to work.”

WA Department of Fish & Wildlife supports wolf delisting

Posted on October 8, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

[This isn’t all that surprising considering the attitude of the Washington Department of Wildlife Assistant Director quoted in an earlier post entitled, What Really Motivates a Hunter.]

by GARY CHITTIM / KING 5 News
Posted on October 7, 2013

Four Washington State legislators are crafting a letter questioning the State Department of Fish and Wildlife’s decision to support federal delisting of the gray wolf.

One of the four, Senator Kevin Ranker, said he was shocked a state agency would advocate dropping federal protection of wolves when a recent poll shows the vast majority of Washington State residents support it.

Wolves are currently protected under both the state and federal endangered species acts.

State Fish & Wildlife Director Phil Anderson argued the state protection is more than adequate and the federal listing only gets in the way of Washington State’s approved plan for wolf management. He said he has clearly stated on several occasions that WDFW supports federal delisting but is committed to protecting wolves until they fully recover in the state.

Ranker said he can find no evidence WDFW tried to gather public input before sending a manager to a hearing in Washington D.C. to formally support the delisting.

Anderson said the state has developed a comprehensive protection plan scientifically based on the state’s unique wolf population.

Hunter kills gray wolf in Pasayten Wilderness area

Posted on October 3, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/10/02/hunter-kills-gray-wolf-in-pasayten-wilderness-area/

by admin on Oct 2, 2013

Photo courtesy of WDFW

By Ann McCreary

A deer hunter shot and killed an endangered gray wolf north of Harts Pass last month, according to state and federal wildlife officials who are investigating the incident.

The hunter, who lives in the western part of the state, told state wildlife officials that he shot the wolf, an adult female, because he felt threatened.

“He felt he was in danger. He acted in self defense,” said Sgt. Dan Christensen of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

The hunter called WDFW on Sept. 20 to report shooting the wolf, which is protected under federal law as an endangered species. Wolves in the western two-thirds of Washington state (west of Highway 97) are listed as a federally endangered, while wolves in the eastern one-third were removed from federal protection in 2011. Wolves throughout Washington are protected under state law as an endangered species.

Because the wolf was killed in an area of the Pasayten Wilderness where wolves are under federal protection, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) officials are leading the investigation and collaborating with state officials, said spokesman Doug Zimmer.

Capt. Chris Anderson, of WDFW enforcement, said a group of four state and federal wildlife officials hiked on Sept. 22 to the site where the hunter reported shooting the wolf. He said the animal was a healthy adult female without a radio collar, and had been shot twice.

Christensen, who supervises wildlife enforcement for Okanogan and north Douglas counties, said he spoke with the hunter on the phone. The man said he was participating in the high buck hunt and was about five miles north of Slate Peak, not far from Silver Lake, when the wolf was shot on Sept. 19.

Christensen said the man was hunting with three companions from western Washington, but was alone when he encountered and shot the wolf. He called WDFW to “self-report” the next day, Christensen said.

Wildlife officials examined the dead wolf, took tissue samples and brought the hide back for examination and evidence, Christensen said. “There is no evidence” that the wolf is one of the wolves that has been monitored in the Lookout Pack territory, west of Twisp.

“We are assuming it was a lone female on a road trip,” Christensen said. “We have dispersing females just like we’ve had dispersing males. There were no signs of other members” of a pack, he said.

It will be up to federal investigators to determine if criminal charges related to killing an endangered species are warranted, said Christensen.

Also from the same paper:

State, feds consider changes in management of gray wolves

By Ann McCreary

Changes in the way endangered gray wolves are managed are being considered at both the state and federal levels.

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider amending state wildlife interaction rules during a public meeting Friday (Oct. 4) in Olympia.

Those rules include conditions that allow ranchers and farmers to take lethal action to protect livestock from predators, including wolves, as well as for compensation for the loss of livestock killed by predators.

Amendments under consideration would:

• Make permanent an emergency rule that permits ranchers, farmers and other pet and livestock owners in the eastern third of the state to kill a wolf that is attacking their animals;

• Add sheep, goats, swine, donkeys, mules, llamas and alpacas to the list of animals livestock owners could be compensated for if those animals are killed by wolves. The current list only includes cattle, sheep and horses.

• Permit state compensation regardless of whether livestock owners were raising the animals for commercial purposes; and

• Compensate livestock owners for their losses at market value.

The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, will meet in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m.

On the federal level, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposes removing Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections from wolves in most of the nation and has scheduled hearings around the country on the proposal.

The proposal affects wolves in Washington because, if enacted, it would remove federal protections for wolves in the western two-thirds of the state, where they are currently listed under the federal ESA. Wolves are currently protected as endangered under state law throughout Washington.

Several western conservation organizations have called on FWS to schedule more public hearings on the proposal, including hearings on the West Coast. Hearings were scheduled in Sacramento, Calif., Albuquerque, N.M, and Washington, D.C.

The Pacific Wolf Coalition, representing 34 conservation organizations, advocates scheduling additional public meetings in Washington, Oregon and California.

Yet Another Cascades wolf killed

Posted on September 28, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

http://www.conservationnw.org/news/scat/cascades-wolf-killed
by Jasmine Minbashian at Sep 27, 2013

Yesterday we were disappointed to learn the disturbing news of yet another wolf killed in the North Cascades. Details are forthcoming, but action to stop the unnecessary loss of wolves in these areas–getting us that much closer to recovery–should not be.

Andy Walgamott of Northwest Sportsman reported the scant information that currently exists on the incident. Here’s what we do know, gleaned from a report from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:

Pasayten Wolf Mortality: Biologist Fitkin and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Biologist Rohrer assisted Officers Christensen, McCormick and Treser with an investigation of a wolf killed by a hunter in the Pasayten Wilderness. The animal appeared to be a young, uncollared adult female in good condition. We have not previously verified wolf activity in this portion of the wilderness area and don’t know if the animal is part of an active pack or a solo wanderer. The circumstances of the animal’s death remain under investigation.

The Pasayten Wilderness is in the North Cascades recovery region, where only two known breeding pairs have been confirmed by state biologists. Wolves in this region are still protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and under the state’s wolf conservation and management plan. The North Cascades region has been sadly plagued with illegal wolf kills in the last five years, slowing recovery and making us ask: Why? And how do we change this unfortunate pattern? At this rate of loss, recovery will take much longer if we don’t step up.

For starters, we think more education and outreach is needed to hunters who hold permits within the territory of known wolf packs. The US Fish and Wildlife Service can assist the state and play a valuable role in providing resources and expertise to help with this effort, but instead they have announced they are looking to abandon wolf recovery in the Cascades in the coming year. Losing additional resources for wolf recovery will certainly not help this tenuous situation.

Conservation Northwest helped organize an Eyes in the Woods training in the Methow Valley this spring, and we are organizing another this October 23rd in Cle Elum – near Teanaway Pack territory. We’ve also partnered with WDFW wildlife enforcement to create a reward fund for any information leading to the conviction of anyone who had killed protected wildlife illegally.

But clearly more needs to be done. We call on USFWS, WDFW to join us in stepping up efforts to reduce human-caused death of wolves in the North Cascades.

We’ll keep you posted as we learn more details about this case.

Poll Shows Strong Support for Wolf Recovery in Pacific Northwest

Posted on September 21, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

More than two-thirds in OR, WA, CA favor continued protections for wolves

19 Sep 2013 10:05

SACRAMENTO, Calif.–(ENEWSPF)–September 19, 2013. Most residents of California, Oregon and Washington believe wolves should continue to be protected under the Endangered Species Act, according to a new poll released by Defenders of Wildlife. The poll comes as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes public comment on its proposal to strip federal protections for gray wolves across most of the lower 48. This includes northern California and the western halves of Oregon and Washington, where there is still excellent, unoccupied wolf habitat.

The poll, conducted in early September for Defenders by Tulchin Research, shows that most Californians, Oregonians and Washingtonians want wolf recovery efforts to continue:

More than two-thirds in each state agree that wolves are a vital part of the America’s wilderness and natural heritage and should be protected in their state (OR – 68%; WA – 75%; CA – 83%)

More than two-thirds in each state agree that wolves play an important role in maintaining deer and elk populations, bringing a healthier balance to ecosystems (OR – 69%; WA – 74%; CA – 73%)

At least two-thirds in each state support restoring wolves to suitable habitat in their states (OR – 66%; WA – 71%; CA – 69%)

Large majorities in each state agree that wolves should continue to be protected under the Endangered Species Act until they are fully recovered (OR – 63%; WA – 72%; CA – 80%)

The following is a statement from Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife:

“These poll results confirm what we already know – that most people in the Pacific Northwest want to see wolves fully recovered. Over the years, I’ve met countless wolf supporters in the region who are excited for these iconic animals to return to wilderness areas in their states. They understand the essential ecological role that wolves play in maintaining nature’s healthy balance, and they think the species ought to be protected.

“With only about 100 wolves split between Oregon and Washington and none in California, we’re still a long ways from fully restoring wolves to the Pacific Northwest. It’s disappointing to see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service giving up prematurely when so much great wolf habitat remains unoccupied in the region. Only the Endangered Species Act can provide safe passage for wolves between neighboring states by ensuring there are adequate protective measures in place to allow for dispersal into more suitable habitat.

“Our primary hope now is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will listen to the millions of wolf supporters in California, Oregon and Washington who want to see wolves fully recovered in their states. Sadly, the administration has been turning a deaf ear so far to the many voices asking it to abandon the Service’s short-sighted and premature delisting proposal instead of abandoning America’s wolves.”

Background:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will host public hearings on its delisting proposal in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 30 and in Sacramento, Calif. on Oct. 2. Written comments can be submitted until Oct. 28. Details here.

Links: http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science/science-a-environmental/46347-poll-shows-strong-support-for-wolf-recovery-in-pacific-northwest.html

Read Defenders’ response to FWS’ announcement about the public hearings

Learn more about the national gray wolf delisting proposal

Read the latest wolf news on Defenders blog

Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. With more than 1 million members and activists, Defenders of Wildlife is a leading advocate for innovative solutions to safeguard our wildlife heritage for generations to come. For more information, visit http://www.defenders.org/newsroomand follow us on Twitter @DefendersNews.

Source: defenders.org

Dogs caught in wolf traps set on Forest Service land

Posted on August 8, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/08/07/dogs-caught-in-wolf-traps-set-on-forest-service-land/

By Ann McCreary

Two dogs in the Poorman Creek area were inadvertently caught last week in leg hold traps set for wolves, until the owner of one of the dogs found them and set them free.

The traps were located on U.S. Forest Service land near Second Mile Road at the end of Poorman Creek Road west of Twisp. They were set by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) officials in an ongoing effort to capture and place radio collars on Lookout Pack wolves, said Scott Becker, WDFW wolf biologist.

Becker said this week the traps have been removed from that area and wildlife officials are “re-evaluating some of the trapping protocols right now. We don’t want another incident like this to happen in the future.”

Wildlife officials have confirmed that at least three pups were born this spring to a pair of wolves that have been monitored for more than a year in the Lookout Pack territory, Becker said. Efforts to collar at least one of the adults will continue, he said.

The incident involving the dogs occurred last Thursday (Aug. 1). Andy Floyd, who lives on Second Mile Road, said his dog and a neighbor’s dog followed his wife on a morning run on nearby Forest Service land, but did not return to the house with her. Concerned, Floyd began looking around the neighborhood for his dog.

Floyd said a neighbor heard a dog “barking and yipping just over his fence on the Forest Service land not 100-300 feet away.” Floyd investigated and found the neighbor’s dog with a front paw caught in a trap by the side of a Forest Service road.

“I tried getting the trap off but could not do it by myself. I ended up getting my neighbor to … use most of our strength to get the trap off,” Floyd said. In the process, Floyd said, the dog nipped his wrist. He returned the dog to its owners, Carolyn and Glenn Schmekel, who took the dog to a veterinarian.

Residents’ concerns

Floyd later found his dog caught in another trap further along the road. He said the dog had been missing for about two hours. With the help of someone camping nearby, he was able to open the trap and release his dog, which bit Floyd’s hand and slightly broke the skin. Floyd said his dog has been limping, but is recovering.

Carolyn Schmekel said she was upset that the traps were placed near the Second Mile homes without notifying area residents, and called Becker last week at WDFW to express her concerns. Fish and Wildlife officials had placed a sign on a tree in the vicinity of the traps warning about bringing dogs in the area, but did not speak to residents bordering the Forest Service land.

“This is an extension of our back yard,” Schmekel said in an interview this week. “If you’re going to have traps this close to people’s homes that have dogs and kids, we need to be informed of it.”

Floyd expressed similar concerns. “The lack of communication really frustrated me. I understand it’s good to tag the wolves because of potential problems … but what really bugged me is the traps were so close to the houses and they didn’t tell us.” He said he did not notice the sign about traps until after the dogs had gotten caught.

Schmekel said her dog was probably trapped for about 30 minutes. It had a bruised front leg but was otherwise unhurt, although the incident resulted in a $66 vet bill.

Signs posted

news-wolf-trap-post2Becker said wildlife officials sometimes talk personally with people living in the vicinity of traps, but didn’t realize that residents in the Second Mile Road area had “free ranging” dogs when they set several traps along the nearby Forest Service road. “We ended up pulling those traps out of there,” he said.

“Most traps are located away from any residences at this point,” Becker said. “No matter where we trap, because we trap on public land, there is potential” for dogs to inadvertently get caught. “Wherever we put traps we put signs at the beginning or end of the road to warn people there are traps for wildlife. We try to do everything we can with signs.”

Traps are often placed along roads on public lands because “wolves are just like people – they use roads and trails to do most of their traveling,” Becker said. Signs placed in the vicinity of traps warn about bringing dogs into the area, describe how to open the trap, and advise covering the dog’s head with a jacket or something similar to avoid being bitten while releasing the animal.

Becker said the leg hold traps are baited with scent to attract wolves, and are outfitted with a transmitter to alert wildlife officials when they are tripped.The traps are located in places that allow the trapped animal to move into the shade, and have offset jaws covered with rubber to minimize injury to the animal.

A WDFW biologist checks the traps every morning, and during the evening as well during warm weather, Becker said. The biologist was making the rounds of a dozen traps in the Lookout pack territory last Thursday morning when the dogs got trapped, and arrived while Floyd was still looking for his dog.

When a wolf is captured, wildlife officials tranquilize it, attach a radio collar and ear tags, and take measurements, Becker said.

Now Rancher McIrvin Wants Washington Wolves Poisoned

Posted on July 18, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

>McIrvin says killing the wolves is the only solution. He believes the calf carcass should have been laced with poison to get the “culprits.”

“Until somebody gets serious about opening season on these wolves, I don’t know that there is any answer,” he said.

Just as he did last year, McIrvin plans to continue to refuse compensation from the state.<

Excerpted from:

Another calf found dead as ranchers question state wolf investigations

By MATTHEW WEAVER

Capital Press

A northeast Washington cattle rancher says wolves killed a three-day-old calf from his operation last week.

Len McIrvin is owner of the Diamond M Ranch in Laurier, Wash. That’s the ranch where Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife officials in September 2012 killed six wolves from the Wedge Pack. The wolves had killed at least 17 cattle from the ranch.

The killed calf was dragged from a barbed wire calving enclosure 200 yards from human presence, McIrvin said. There were fresh wolf tracks nearby in the river, he said.

“We know it was a wolf, but they can’t confirm it because the calf was 95 percent eaten up,” he said, noting coyote tracks were also found in the area.

Stephanie Simek, WDFW wildlife conflict section manager, said the case was unconfirmed as a wolf kill because there were signs of coyotes in the area. The six-strand barbed wire fence did not show signs of a larger carnivore entering the area, she said.

“The issue was the carcass was so far gone, you really couldn’t get a lot of those measurements,” said Dave Ware, WDFW game program manager. “You just couldn’t tell for sure what killed it.”

The department has been monitoring wolf activity, but didn’t find anything that would merit setting a trap to try to collar wolves.

“We’re certain there are wolves in the Wedge area again,” Ware said. “We’re seeing plenty of activity.”

McIrvin said his cattle are on the range, so he hasn’t found other kills or injuries.

“We know the wolves have been harassing them,” he said. “We know they’re there, we hear them howling, they’ve got the cows all chased off the range again. We put them back weekly, but the wolves are running them daily.”

The Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association believes the department’s unconfirmed ruling on the calf shows a “troubling trend” in which the department does not confirm wolf kills, a determination that could lead to killing the predators.

Association spokesperson Jamie Henneman said WDFW needs to clearly outline how they will deal with wolves.

“Right now we are seeing the department buckle under pressure from environmental groups who have absolutely no skin in the game,” she said. “There is no impact to their finances or livelihood if wolf management is done in a poor, watery or slipshod fashion. Band-aid payments of compensation will not solve this problem.”

Ware believes the department’s history proves it is willing to kill wolves, but said it will not always completely be on the same page as ranchers.

“Second-guessing what our field staff does seems to be a popular sport for both sides,” he said. “In their hearts, most (ranchers) feel, ‘Wolves are the things different from the landscape — it must be wolves that caused this.’ In some cases, we can verify that, in some cases, we just can’t.”

McIrvin says killing the wolves is the only solution. He believes the calf carcass should have been laced with poison to get the “culprits.”

“Until somebody gets serious about opening season on these wolves, I don’t know that there is any answer,” he said.

Just as he did last year, McIrvin plans to continue to refuse compensation from the state.

“We are not in the business of raising cattle to feed wolves. We’re in the business of raising cattle to be a cow ranch,” he said.

Information

Washington Department Fish and Wildlife:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/

Stevens County Cattlemen Association:

http://stevenscountycattlemen.wordpress.com

Watch Out Washington Wolves, the “Experts” are Coming

Posted on July 12, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

WDFW NEWS RELEASE Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091 http://wdfw.wa.gov/

July 11, 2013

Contact: Wildlife Program, 360-902-2515

[Self-proclaimed] “experts” from three western states to discuss effects of wolves on hunting opportunities

OLYMPIA – Big game managers from Washington, Idaho and Montana will discuss their experiences managing game animals in areas populated by wolves during a live webcast July 18.

The event will take place from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. via the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) website ( http://wdfw.wa.gov/ ). Viewers will have an opportunity to provide questions via email at july18event@dfw.wa.gov .

Montana and Idaho have been managing wolves longer than Washington and their experience can provide context to inform the department and citizens on how to confront the challenges that lie ahead, said Phil Anderson, WDFW director.

“We’ve been consulting with a number of experts, including our counterparts from other states, since wolves began to reappear in Washington to better prepare us for meeting the many challenges that come with having wolves back in the state,” said Anderson, who will participate in the discussion. “This will give the public an opportunity to hear directly from those who have been involved in wolf management in other areas of the west.”

Jon Rachel, Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s state wildlife manager and Jim Williams, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ northwest wildlife program manager will discuss the impacts wolves have had on deer, elk and other big game animals in their states. They will also discuss strategies that successful big game hunters have adopted while hunting in their states.

Dave Ware, WDFW statewide game program manager, will describe the status of wolves and big game hunting in Washington.

For those unable to view the live webcast on July 18, it will remain available from the department’s webpage after the event.

Letter From Wolf Scientists to Sec. Sally Jewell

Posted on June 9, 2013 by Exposing the Big Game

May 21, 2013

Secretary Sally Jewell Department of Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240

CC: Dan Ashe, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240

Dear Secretary Jewell,

As scientists with expertise in carnivore taxonomy and conservation biology, we are writing to express serious concerns with a recent draft rule leaked to the press that proposes to remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 States, excluding the range of the Mexican gray wolf. Collectively, we represent many of the scientists responsible for the research referenced in the draft rule. Based on a careful review of the rule, we do not believe that the rule reflects the conclusions of our work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves, or is in accordance with the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act to conserve endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

The Service’s draft rule proposes to: 1) “remove the gray wolf from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife”; 2) “maintain endangered status for the Mexican wolf by listing it as a subspecies (Canis lupus baileyi)”; 3) “recognize a new species of wolf known as Canis lycaon [that] occurs in southeastern Canada and historically occurred in the northeastern United States and portions of the upper Midwest (eastern and western Great Lakes regions)”; and 4) deny protection to wolves in the Pacific Northwest because they do not qualify as a distinct population segment for lack of discreteness from wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains.

We find these proposals problematic both in terms of their scientific support and their consistency with the intent of the statute. Specifically:

1) Removal of the gray wolf from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife The gray wolf has barely begun to recover or is absent from significant portions of its former range where substantial suitable habitat remains. The Service’s draft rule fails to consider science identifying extensive suitable habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast. It also fails to consider the importance of these areas to the long-term survival and recovery of wolves, or the importance of wolves to the ecosystems of these regions.

2) Maintain endangered status for the Mexican wolf by listing it as a subspecies Although the taxonomic distinctness of the Mexican wolf is well-supported, and we thus support subspecific listing as appropriate, the draft rule fails to delineate the geographic extent of the area in which wolves would receive protection, specifying only that Mexican wolves would be

protected “where found”. Genetic analysis of historic Mexican wolves showed that the range of the Mexican wolf likely extended beyond the historic range initially inferred from limited record data. At the same time, the Service has inexplicably delayed completion of the recovery plan for the Mexican wolf, the draft of which had concluded that habitat to the north of the current recovery area may be essential for recovery of the subspecies. The lack of specificity in the rule, coupled with past actions by the Service, encourages continued efforts by stakeholders to block recovery actions essential to recover a subspecies that is among the most endangered mammals in North America.

3) Recognize a new species of wolf known as Canis lycaon There is not sufficient information to support recognition of a new species of wolf, C. lycaon, and the geographic range reduction for Canis lupus in the eastern US as currently proposed. The Service acknowledged this problem in 2011, concluding:

While Chambers et al. (in prep.) provide a scientific basis for arguing the existence of eastern wolves as a distinct species, this represents neither a scientific consensus nor the majority opinion of researchers on the taxonomy of wolves, as others continue to argue that eastern wolves are forms of gray wolves (Koblmuller et al. 2009, vonHoldt et al. 2011). 76 Fed Reg. 81669.

While we encourage the Service to continue to review the taxonomic history of wolves in the eastern US, any future proposed taxonomic revision of canids should be a reflection of a more settled, broader scientific consensus rather than a premature policy decision based on ongoing and unsettled scientific debate. New evidence from complete genome sequencing efforts will likely supersede previous limited genetic evidence. Whether the Service moves forward with recognizing C. lycaon should have no bearing on the possibility that C. lupus’ range may have extended into some, if not many, of the eastern states. If the Service is intent on recognition of C. lycaon, this new species itself needs immediate protection as an endangered species. The draft rule provides no coherent scientific or statutory basis for not protecting wolves in the northeastern United States. The rule also ignores the threat that interspecific hybridization may have on the listed wolf species.

4) Conclude that wolves in the Pacific Northwest do not qualify as a distinct population segment Finally, we cannot support the conclusion that wolves in the Pacific Northwest do not qualify as a distinct population segment due to lack of discreteness from other wolf populations. In 2007, the boundary between the northern Rocky Mountains population and the Pacific Northwest was established by the Service in order to recognize the recovery that has occurred, and delist Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) wolves. The 2007 rule correctly stated that the “DPS policy does not require complete separation of one DPS from other U.S. packs or populations..if occasional individual wolves or packs disperse among populations, the NRM DPS could still display the required discreteness.” It defies logic for the Service to now argue that “dispersal of wolves across the NRM DPS boundary is likely to continue” and that such occasional dispersal prevents recognition of a DPS that would protect wolves that are beginning to establish in the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, genetic testing of gray wolves that have migrated naturally into the Pacific Northwest has established that some derive from British Columbia coastal wolf populations which are genetically distinct from the inland stock of wolves used as a source for reintroduction to the northern Rocky Mountains.

The extirpation of wolves and large carnivores from large portions of the landscape is a global phenomenon with broad ecological consequences. There is a growing body of scientific literature demonstrating that top predators play critical roles in maintaining a diversity of other wildlife species and as such the composition and function of ecosystems. Research in Yellowstone National Park, for example, found that reintroduction of wolves caused changes in elk numbers and behavior which then facilitated recovery of streamside vegetation, benefitting beavers, fish and songbirds. In this and other ways, wolves shape North American landscapes.

Given the importance of wolves and the fact that they have only just begun to recover in some regions and not at all in others, we hope you will reconsider the Service’s proposal to remove protections across most of the United States.

Respectfully,

Bradley Bergstrom, PhD Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia

Christine Bozarth, PhD Northern Virginia Community College, Alexandria, Virginia

Jeremy Bruskotter, PhD The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

Carlos Carroll, PhD Klamath Center for Conservation Research Orleans, California

Phil Hedrick, PhD Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona

Roland Kays, PhD North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina

Jennifer Leonard, PhD Estación Biológica de Doñana Sevilla, Spain

Jesus Maldonado, PhD Center for Conservation and Evolutionary Genetics, Smithsonian Washington DC

Michael P. Nelson, PhD Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon

Reed F. Noss, PhD University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida

Stuart L. Pimm, PhD The Nicholas School, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

John P. Pollinger, PhD University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

Michael Soulé, PhD Prof. Emeritus, University of California, Santa Cruz Paonia, Colorado

Bridgett vonHoldt, PhD University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

John Vucetich, PhD Michigan Technological University Houghton, Michigan

Robert Wayne, PhD University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

Exposing the Big Game

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

Tag Archives: Washington wolves