Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Fiona

Fiona, wolf ambassador at Wolf Park (special thanks to wolf park for providing the picture)

“Research at Wolf Park

Wolf Park prides itself upon being a world-class source of information about the management of socialized (hand-raised) captive wolves. Besides its wealth of husbandry information, Wolf Park has contributed to a large number of research projects.

Wolf Park participates primarily in behavioral research, including cognitive research. The fact that the wolves are hand-raised helps considerably, as this allows and encourages them to exhibit their full range of behavior in front of researchers (and visitors, too!). Wild wolves are generally very difficult to observe for any length of time, as they tend to run away once they become aware of the presence of humans.

Past research projects have included investigations into howling, scent rolling, reproductive behavior, aggression, rank order, human interaction time lengths, pointing, opening apparatuses and feeding patterns.

We currently have 14 wolves and two foxes that are socialized. We also have 9 bison and two coyotes, which are not socialized, but have participated in research. Not all of our animals are able to participate in all types of research. While we have been very successful in getting our animals to participate, we cannot guarantee participation.

Researchers

Interactive Research. Interactive research involves any physical activity with the wolves, either by researchers or by Wolf Park staff. In order for any visitor to enter the wolf enclosures, they must go through our safety training presentation and be cleared for enclosure entry. All visitors that enter the animal enclosures must be accompanied by two trained staff members (one trained staff member for the foxes). Researchers are not required to enter our enclosures. In many situations, it is ideal for our staff to conduct the experiments or set up apparatuses due to their relationships with our animals.

Observational Research. Researchers observing our wolves must be accompanied by a docent at all times. Two types of docents are available: Docents and Wolf Expert Docents.

Docents are usually Wolf Park Interns or Volunteers. Docents have a basic understanding of our animals and their behaviors, but are not always able to answer in-depth questions. The role a Docent is to accompany you, not to field questions.

Wolf Expert Docents are our animal curator staff members, who have years of experience working with wolves and are amongst the top wolf experts in their field. Narration can be provided by Wolf Expert Docents, and they are able to field any questions you may have. Wolf Expert Docents are also ideal for researchers that can conduct their experiments through the fence, such as experiments on howl time duration.

Sample Collection. Wolf Park is able to collect and ship blood samples, fecal samples and fur samples. Pricing is varied based on the extent of activity required, such as requiring our animals to consume a special diet. Please contact us to enquire about other types of sample collection.

All researchers must submit a Research Proposal to Wolf Park, which will be reviewed by our Research Committee. This may be many pages long for cognitive experiments, or just a paragraph if you have a class of university school students that want to observe feedings. The write-up should include an overview of you project, goals, what you would like to do with the animals (if anything). Individual researchers, research teams and classes interested in conducting research at Wolf Park should email their proposals to wolfpark@wolfpark.org or call 756-567-2265 for more information.

Grants. Wolf Park has a limited amount of grant funds available for visiting researchers and school groups. Researchers are highly encouraged to apply. Please contact us at wolfpark@wolfpark.org for more information. Include a copy of your proposal.

Wolf Park’s Research Program goals are to learn more about our animals. We do not test drugs on our animals or allow any research that may cause physical or mental harm.”

**Special thanks to Wolf Park,
http://wolfpark.org/
,  for providing the information in this article! 


 

“Many conservationists are furious over a recent proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service to drop the gray wolf from the endangered species list.

At least one group of conservationists, however, also supports dropping federal protection for wolves. They are the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, led by hunter David Allen.

“The recovery has surpassed the agreed upon recovery goals by 500%,” Allen told Business Insider. “It is time to let the states do their job.”

Allen’s controversial stance has alienated some former supporters of the Elk Foundation, who accuse him of turning the conservation group into a pro-hunting lobby. The family of famed wildlife biologist Olaus J. Murie pulled money last year for its annual Elk Foundation award on account of the organization’s ”all-out war against wolves,” according to the Montana Pioneer.

Allen insists that he really is looking out for the environment.

The reintroduction of wolves is one of the leading causes for the decline of elk herds in the Rocky Mountain region because it gave a top predator a kind of “amnesty,” Allen argues.

“ln 1995, [Yellowstone elk were] the largest herd in North America,” Allen said. “It’s probably not coincidental that after wolves were reintroduced, the elk population fell from 19,000 to 4,000.”

Allen would like to see the wolf population in the Rocky Mountain region shrink: “We do feel like the number could be managed downward and not threaten the population overall,” he said.

When asked by the Pioneer about the natural predator-prey relations, Allen said: “Natural balance is a Walt Disney movie. It isn’t real.”

The former marketer for NASCAR is not what you might think of today as a conservationist. Allen poses for photos in hunter camo, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has a page on its site called “The Hunt,” where users can plan their own elk hunts and get game recipes from the “Carnivore’s Corner.”

But he and his cohort maintain that hunters are the original conservationists. They take inspiration from early American hunters and outdoorsmen like Theodore Roosevelt. Founded by three hunters in Montana in 1984, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has acquired 6.3 million acres of land, all of which it has handed over to the public through government agencies.

The proposal to delist gray wolves across the country and return management to the states comes less than two years after populations in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, which cover the Northern Rocky Mountain region, were stripped of Federal protections.

Environmental activists who oppose taking gray wolves off the endangered species list argue that the population has not been restored to its historical range, which once extended across the much of the contiguous United States.

Considered a threat to livestock, the gray wolf was nearly hunted to extinction in the early to mid-20th century. Canadian-born gray wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s and the population has largely recovered due to conservation efforts.

There is a correlation between the rise of wolf populations and decline in elk, but biologists debate whether the gray wolf is responsible.

Allen admits that there are likely many causes for elk’s gradual demise but is convinced that predation is playing its part.

“The wolf is not 100% responsible,” he said. “But when you combine the wolf with two species of bear, mountain lions, and man’s ever-expanding footprint, you get a kind of a perfect storm.”

Allen maintains that he is not trying to eradicate the wolf from the United States, but he is convinced that management should be left up to the states.

“Nobody in their right mind is saying that we should exterminate wolves,” he said.“But we should leave this to the people who live in these states [with wolf populations]. Ultimately they are the ones who have to live with the circumstances and they have to make it work.”

**Special thanks to Robert Ferris,
http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-man-accused-of-leading-an-all-out-war-on-wolves-2013-6?utm_source=hearst&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=allverticals#Scene_1
 for providing this information!


mexicanwolf

“Unlike those of us who simply root for OR-7 from afar, Noah Greenwald chances upon wolves now and then. At the northeastern edge of Yellowstone National Park last week, he watched three gray wolves spar with nervous coyotes, unsuccessfully stalk a bison calf, then swim across the Lamar River.

“They really put on a show,” Greenwald says.

As the endangered species director for the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenwald is a serious wolves’ fan. He has spent 10 years working to give those predators a fighting chance.

Not surprisingly, then, Greenwald is an unsettled critic of the Obama administration’s insistence that wolves no longer need federal protection to ensure their survival.

“This is like kicking a patient out of the hospital when they’re still attached to life-support,” Greenwald says. “We’ve had a lot of success. Wolf numbers are up. But the job of recovery isn’t done yet. Livestock and hunting interests have successfully lobbied to have wolf recovery shut down.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that the survival of the nation’s 6,000 gray wolves is best consigned to the states.

And the states — which pull in a great deal more money from hunting licenses than species protection — are cool with that. As Dave Ware, the Washington state game division manager told the Associated Press last September, “We don’t see a real need for continued federal protections when the state protections are there.”

In at least five states, those “protections” include a hunting season. Idaho licensed hunters and trappers to kill 375 wolves in the winter of 2012. And last winter, similarly gleeful “sportsmen” in the state of Minnesota dispatched another 410, according to the St. Paul Pioneer-Press.

The wolf slaughters, as you can see, are not limited to “Game of Thrones.”

As the OR-7 diehards know, Oregon has enjoined those hunting sprees in recent years, but that may soon change.

The Legislature is all hot and bothered about the occasional carnage when one of Oregon’s 46 wolves bumps into one of the state’s 1.28 MILLION cows. The House has already passed a bill which provides conditions for ranchers to obliterate the wolf that preys on livestock.

The Center for Biological Diversity, understandably, objects. As Greenwald notes, fatal wolf attacks on livestock are still rare — less than 10 each year — and the Department of Agriculture compensates the rancher for the spoiled beef.

What’s more, Amaroq Weiss, the center’s wolf expert, argues that fatal wolf attacks have decreased in Wallowa County, where ranchers and state agencies have employed nonlethal prevention tactics, even as those attacks have increased in the hunter’s paradise that is Idaho.

When orphaned pups aren’t taught to kill the pack’s natural prey, elk and deer, Weiss says, they are left no choice but to take down a sluggish cow.

Greenwald doesn’t view wolves as just another ranching nuisance but as an apex predator that shapes its ecosystem. When a wolf pack is keeping the elk and coyotes in check, it’s great news for streamside vegetation — and, thus, for songbirds, beaver and fish — and pronghorn fawns.

All the more reason, then, that we have a national recovery plan for wolves, similar to the one for bald eagles, and reasonable target populations in each region.

In the absence of that, Oregon has a grand statewide “goal” of eight wolf packs. Says Greenwald, “I don’t think you can find a scientist who would say eight wolf packs across the state is sustainable or anywhere near a recovered population.”

Not that Fish and Wildlife is looking for a scientist somewhere behind the locked-and-loaded line of ranchers and elk hunters. At a pivotal moment in wolf recovery, the feds have abandoned it, and the Legislature is re-arming the rural militia.

Let’s hope the news reaches OR-7 before our ultimate lone wolf skirts the edge of cattle country.”

**Special thanks to Steve Duin,
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2013/06/steve_duin_so_much_for_wolf_re.html
, for providing this information!


Minnesota75percent

“If you haven’t already heard, Michigan citizens had their voices snuffed out when it came to a wolf hunt in their state. Over 250,000 residents sent in their signatures to oppose a wolf hunt in their state — that was 150,000 more than they were required for the initiative to be placed on the ballot. Unfortunately, the state turned around and passed a law that gives the Natural Resources Commission the ability to designate animals as game – on its own, with no public input. The state basically told voters that their voices on the ballot wouldn’t matter — if people voted against a wolf hunt, it was just going to show what the general population thought. This isn’t just wrong for the wolves and other wildlife, this is a threat to voters everywhere — when it comes to everything. For the first time in U.S. history, Democracy and public input was silenced.

Michigan residents are now trying for a second ballot measure which would challenge Senate Bill 288, which is the bill that snuffed the public voices the first time.

Minnesota is now trying to pull the same nonsense as Michigan.

In 2012, Minnesota’s wolves were removed from the Endangered Species Act. The state had long known that wolves in the area would eventually be delisted, and regulated hunting was always in their management plan. However, the DNR was supposed to have a five year moratorium after delisting in order to study the wolf population more closely. This would help determine what toll the legal take of wolves by ranchers would have on the population — without a trophy hunt. Unfortunately, in 2011 when delisting became imminent after the budget bill rider, Minnesota DNR threw out the moratorium. The DNR announced its plans to hold a wolf hunt in a press release, and then held an internet questionnaire asking citizens whether or not they supported the hunt. 75% of citizens voted no. Sound familiar? Yet another state sees that the wolves are a valued and integral part of their culture, but decides that the input is just sentimental. Minnesota killed 413 wolves last season despite several groups trying to stop the hunt.

Those groups were told they could come back this year with new litigation. Sadly, Minnesota too has passed laws that prevent standings in court challenges. Both Howling for Wolves and the Center for Biological Diversity were denied their day in court to protect wolves. It is no longer just about protecting our nation’s wildlife and heritage, but the rights of citizens too.”

**Special thanks to “Project Wolf” for providing this information!  (
http://WWW.PROJECTWOLF.ORG
.)


wolf

“BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The Obama administration on Friday proposed lifting most remaining federal protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, a move that would end four decades of recovery efforts but that some scientists said was premature.

State and federal agencies have spent more than $117 million restoring the predators since they were added to the endangered species list in 1974. Today more than 6,100 wolves roam portions of the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes.

With Friday’s announcement, the administration signaled it’s ready to move on: The wolf has rebounded from near-extermination, balance has been restored to parts of the ecosystem, and hunters in some states already are free to shoot the animals under state oversight.

But prominent scientists and dozens of lawmakers in Congress want more wolves in more places. They say protections need to remain in force so the animals can expand beyond the portions of 10 states they now occupy.

Lawsuits challenging the administration’s plan are almost certain.

The gray wolf’s historical range stretched across most of North America. By the 1930s, government-sponsored trapping and poisoning left just one small pocket of the animals, in northern Minnesota.

In the past several years, after the Great Lakes population swelled and wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies, protections were lifted in states where the vast majority of the animals now live: Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah.

Under the administration’s plan, protections would remain only for a fledgling population of Mexican gray wolves in the desert Southwest. The proposal will be subject to a public comment period and a final decision made within a year.

While the wolf’s recent resurgence is likely to continue at some level elsewhere — multiple packs roam portions of Washington and Oregon, and individual wolves have been spotted in Colorado, California, Utah, the Dakotas and the Northeast — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe indicated it’s unrealistic to think the clock can be turned back entirely.

“Science is an important part of this decision, but really the key is the policy question of when is a species recovered,” he said. “Does the wolf have to occupy all the habitat that is available to it in order for it to be recovered? Our answer to that question is no.”

Hunting and agriculture groups wary of the toll wolves have taken on livestock and big game herds welcomed the announcement.

Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association and a rancher from Yakima, said he was “ecstatic” over the agency’s announcement and believed it would make his colleagues more willing to accept the presence of wolves on the landscape.

“Folks have to understand that in order to recover wolves, we’re going to have to kill problem wolves,” Field said

Over the past several years, hunters and trappers killed some 1,600 wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Thousands more have been killed over the past two decades by government wildlife agents responding to livestock attacks.

That’s been a relief for ranchers who suffer regular wolf attacks that can kill dozens of livestock in a single night.

Supporters say lifting protections elsewhere will help avoid the animosity seen among many ranchers in the West, who long complained that their hands were tied by rules restricting when wolves could be killed.

Vast additional territory that researchers say is suitable for wolves remains unoccupied. That includes parts of the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and northern New England.

Whether the species’ expansion will continue without a federal shield remains subject to contentious debate.

The former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service under President Bill Clinton said the agency’s proposal “is a far cry from what we envisioned for gray wolf recovery when we embarked on this almost 20 years ago.”

“The service is giving up when the job’s only half-done,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, who was with the agency when wolves were reintroduced in Idaho and Wyoming in the mid-1990s. She now heads the group Defenders of Wildlife.

Colorado alone has enough space to support up to 1,000 wolves, according to Carlos Carroll of California’s Klamath Center for Conservation Research. He said wildlife officials had “cherry-picked” the available science to suit their goal, and were bowing to political pressure from elected officials across the West who pushed to limit the wolf’s range.

The Center for Biological Diversity on Friday vowed to challenge the government in court if it takes the animals off the endangered species list as planned.

Ashe said Friday’s proposal had been reviewed by top administration officials, including new Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. But he dismissed any claims of interference and said the work that went into the plan was exclusively that of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Future recovery efforts would focus on a small number of wolves belonging to a subspecies, the Mexican gray wolf. Those occur in Arizona and New Mexico, where a protracted and costly reintroduction plan has stumbled in part due to illegal killings and inbreeding.

The agency is calling for a tenfold increase in the territory where biologists are working to rebuild that population, which now numbers 73 animals. Law enforcement efforts to ward off poaching in the region would be bolstered.

Wherever wolves are found, the primary barrier to expansion isn’t lack of habitat or prey, but human intolerance, said David Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in St. Paul, Minn.

Even without federal protection, he believes wolves are likely to migrate into several Western states. He added that they already occupy about 80 percent of the territory where they realistically could be expected to thrive, with sufficient prey and isolation from people.

Although Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Northern California might have enough habitat for wolves to thrive, Mech said that might not happen if hunters kill so many Northern Rockies wolves that it reduces the number that would disperse from packs and seek new turf.”

**Special thanks to Associated PressBy MATTHEW BROWN and JOHN FLESHER | Associated Press, for providing this information!


Wolf Wolf

“Five Michigan Indian tribes have decided to challenge the state’s decision to hold a wolf hunt in the western UP this coming fall.

As we hear from The Michigan Public Radio Network’s Rick Pluta, they say the wolf hunt violates a treaty.

Specifically, the tribes of the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority say the state did not consult with them in a meaningful way before establishing a gray wolf season, and that’s required by a 2007 consent decree.

Aaron Payment leads the Sault Sainte Marie Tribe of Chippewas. He says the wolf is sacred in tribal culture and the hunting season disrespects that.

“The five tribes that are a party to the consent decree are unified that we are going to take some steps, and we’re not exactly sure what that is at this point, but we’re not happy with the outcome,” he says.

Payment says the treaty gives the tribes options including mediating a resolution or going to court.

The state says the tribes were consulted as part of the process that set up a wolf season in the western UP.”

 

**Special thanks to , WKAR,
http://wkar.org/post/american-indian-tribes-challenge-michigan-wolf-hunt
, for providing this information!


Lobo Wolf
L.A. Times, May 29, 2013 – Activists say the rule that hunters must know they are killing a protected animal allows the Justice Department to abdicate prosecution. (posted 05/30/13)
“Environmental groups are taking the Justice Department to court over a policy that prohibits prosecuting individuals who kill endangered wildlife unless it can be proved that they knew they were targeting a protected animal.
Critics charge that the 15-year-old McKittrick policy provides a loophole that has prevented criminal prosecution of dozens of individuals who killed grizzly bears, highly endangered California condors and whooping cranes as well as 48 federally protected Mexican wolves.
The policy stems from a Montana case in which Chad McKittrick was convicted under the Endangered Species Act for killing a wolf near Yellowstone National Park in 1995. He argued that he was not guilty because he thought he was shooting a wild dog.
McKittrick appealed the conviction and lost, but the Justice Department nonetheless adopted a policy that became the threshold for taking on similar cases: prosecutors must prove that the individual knowingly killed a protected species.
The lawsuit charges that the policy sets a higher burden of proof than previously required, arguing, “The DOJ’s McKittrick policy is a policy that is so extreme that it amounts to a conscious and express abdication of DOJ’s statutory responsibility to prosecute criminal violations of the ESA as general intent crimes.”
WildEarth Guardians and the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance said they intend to file a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Arizona, one of the states where Mexican wolves were reintroduced. The Times received an advance copy of the lawsuit.
Federal wildlife managers who are responsible for protecting endangered animals have long criticized the policy as providing a pretext for illegal trophy hunters and activists.
A June 2000 memo from the law enforcement division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Wyoming warned, “As soon as word about this policy gets around the West, the ability for the average person to distinguish a grizzly bear from a black bear or a wolf from a coyote will decline sharply. Under this policy a hen mallard is afforded more protection than any of the animals listed as endangered.”
Earlier this year, a man in Texas shot and killed a whooping crane, telling authorities that he thought it was a legally hunted Sandhill crane. He was not charged under the Endangered Species Act but was prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which carries lesser penalties.
Wendy Keefover of WildEarth Guardians compared the policy to “district attorneys rescinding speeding tickets issued by traffic cops when then speeder claims he or she believed the legal speed limit was greater than what was posted, and that he or she had no intention to break the law.”
The unspoken attitude toward endangered species among some western ranchers is summed up by the expression: “Shoot. Shovel. And shut up,” suggesting that the most efficient way to deal with the unwanted bureaucracy associated with protected species was to quietly remove them.
Mexican wolves have been decimated by illegal shootings, causing the death of more than half of the animals released in the wild since the start of the reintroduction program in 1998.
Forty-eight Mexican wolves have been illegally killed, according to the lawsuit. It notes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service anticipated that illegal shooting and trapping was likely to be a major impediment to recovery of the species, but the agency thought that strong enforcement could discourage the illegal acts.
Wolves are often killed by hunters who say they thought they were shooting at coyotes, which may be shot on sight in most states.
Mistaken identity is also frequently given in mix-ups between black bears and grizzly bears that lead to grizzly deaths.
The Wyoming U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service memo included this example:
In May 1996, a man hunting for black bear in Wyoming shot and killed a collared grizzly bear, an endangered species.
The hunter and three friends moved the bear carcass, destroyed the collar, dug a hole, dumped in the bear, poured lye over it and covered the hole.
When the animal’s remains were recovered, the man said he thought he was shooting at a common black bear.
The U.S. attorney’s office reviewed the case and declined to prosecute it, citing the McKittrick policy.”
**Special thanks to Lobos of the Southwest for providing this information!
This article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on May 29, 2013.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 205 other followers

%d bloggers like this: