On June 15, 2013, Dave Hornoff’s term as Wolfwatcher’s first Executive Director expired. Dave’s new role as ‘Wildlife Advocate’ will enable him to assist with the significant regional demands that require additional support as needed. Presently, Dave will be joining the Northern Rockies regional team.

Guided by the democratic process, I was unanimously elected to serve a three-year term as Wolfwatcher’s newest Executive Director.  On June 16^th, I humbly accepted this position with the hope that I may utilize my time and talents as an educator in a manner that best reflects our mission statement and educational priorities.

While the cause of wolf preservation is challenging, Wolfwatcher’s commitment remains steadfast when it comes to educating and advocating for wolves based on the best available science and the principles of democracy.   I am proud of Wolfwatcher’s national and regional teams because it has been their active engagement, voice and participation that has carried our message about wolves to neighborhoods, public meetings, government officials and media outlets around the nation.  

Moving forward, I also hope to continue our practice of ‘educating advocating, and participating’ via collaborative partnerships with other dedicated organizations that  share our mission.  Of course, on behalf of our Board and Advisory, I extend my warmest regards and deepest gratitude to our supporters  who continue to provide us with an endless source of inspiration, encouragement and support. Thank you for your kindness.

For our wild ones,

Diane Bentivegna, Ed.M.

Executive Director

National Wolfwatcher Coalition

Research Paper:  

“Recolonizing wolves trigger a trophic cascade in Wisconsin (USA)”

by Callan, et al. (June 6, 2013).   

SUMMARY

This study takes advantage of the 30+ years of data on wolf pack distribution in northern Wisconsin – data collected by state wildlife biologists working to document recovery of the population under the US Endangered Species Act.

The upper Great Lakes region of the US – the northern portions of the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota – has seen a strong recovery of gray wolf (Canis lupus) populations over the past 30 years.   The study  took advantage of the 30+ years of data on varied recovering gray wolf pack distribution in northern Wisconsin – data collected by state wildlife biologists working to document recovery of the population under the US Endangered Species Act.

Put simply, trophic cascades are powerful interactions that strongly regulate biodiversity and ecosystem maintenance.  It is triggered by the addition (or removal) of top predators and involving reciprocal changes in the populations of predator and prey through a food chain, which often results in dramatic changes in the balance of ecosystems.  In a three-level food chain, an increase in carnivores causes a decrease in herbivores (i.e.: deer, elk, etc.)  and an increase in primary producers (i.e.: plants). For example, in eastern North America the removal of wolves (Canis lupus) has been associated with an increase in white-tailed deer and a decline in plants eaten by the deer.

The results of this research indicated clear evidence that the presence of wolves is associated with a trophic cascade of events. The work of Callan et. al. provides evidence that the absence of the top predators can have pervasive impacts on the native plant communities in Wisconsin.

In general, places occupied by many wolves had a diverse understory community (forest floor) with varied kinds/sizes of vegetation. In contrast, places with few wolves were characterized by a very limited herbaceous layer (plants that are fleshy and wither after the growing season) and almost no woody-browse (i.e. trees).  Although some low-populated wolf sites were characterized by an understory dominated by ferns, it was still lacking in forbs (broad-leaved plants), shrubs and tree seedlings. The percentage broad-leafed cover was higher in high-populated wolf areas

Ecologists should be concerned that this trophic cascade of events is now broken.  With delisting at the federal and state levels, a heavy first wolf harvest in Wisconsin occurred this past year (2012-13), and an even heavier is one planned for this coming year (2013-2014). This marks a sad, and political, end to this valuable dynamic by legislative interference, not by science.

The authors of this study assert that the results indicate that wolf recovery in other regions of North America (such as the northeastern United States) could be vital to maintaining the ecological integrity of northern white cedar wetlands (and potentially other temperate and boreal forest systems as well). They concluded, “Whether efforts should be focused on reintroducing wolves or on increasing the connectivity between existing wolf populations and unoccupied wolf habitat should be carefully considered.”

Editor’s note: The following story was produced by the University of Wyoming communications staff. The study can be read in its entirety at Ecology Letters - Linking anti-predator behavior to prey demography reveals limited risk effects of an actively hunting large carnivore.

The mere presence of wolves, previously shown to affect the behavior of elk in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, is not potent enough to reduce the body condition and reproductive rates of female elk, according to new research published Tuesday.

The research, led by recent University of Wyoming Ph.D. graduate Arthur Middleton, provides the most comprehensive evidence to date refuting the idea that wolves are capable of reducing elk calf recruitment indirectly through predation risk. The findings were published in the scientific journal Ecology Letters.

“Elk respond to wolves, but less strongly and less frequently than we thought,” says Middleton, who for three years closely followed the Clarks Fork elk herd west of Cody, Wyoming, along with the wolf packs that prey on it. “We found that wolves influence elk behavior, but the responses were subtle and — over the course of winter — did not reduce body fat or pregnancy. Our work indicates that the effect of wolves on elk populations is limited to direct predation and doesn’t include so-called harassment, stress and fear, which have been proposed as additional indirect effects on prey populations.”

Working as part of the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit — a U.S. Geological Survey program housed at UW in cooperation with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department — Middleton and colleagues used state-of-the-art GPS collars and firsthand observation to track the interactions of the Clarks Fork herd with wolves from the Sunlight, Hoodoo, Beartooth and Absaroka wolf packs in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

The detailed movement data on both wolves and elk allowed the researchers to identify each time one of the collared elk encountered a collared wolf. The elk herd, one of several migratory herds in the greater Yellowstone area, spends summers in Yellowstone National Park and moves into the Sunlight Basin during winter. The researchers also recaptured GPS-collared elk at the end of winter and the end of summer each year to assess their annual fat dynamics and pregnancy rates using ultrasonography.

The research found that when wolves approached within 1 kilometer (a little over a half-mile), elk increased their rates of movement, displacement and vigilance. However, the behaviors only lasted about 24 hours and didn’t significantly reduce elk foraging or force elk into poor habitats. And such encounters with wolves took place at a rate of only one in nine days on average for the migratory elk in the Clarks Fork herd — the maximum was once every four days.

The key finding of the study is that even though elk varied widely in their encounters with wolves, those that encountered wolves frequently were not less fat — or any less likely to be pregnant — than those that rarely bumped into the predators. This finding differs from some previous studies that indicated wolves influence elk behavior strongly enough to contribute to region-wide declines in calf production.

“Our research was unique in that we tracked wolves while also monitoring the movements, foraging behavior, body fat and pregnancy of the elk they hunted,” says Middleton, who worked under Matt Kauffman, head of the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and assistant professor in UW’s Department of Zoology and Physiology. “This approach, essentially connecting the dots from wolf movements all the way to elk behavior and nutrition, revealed that elk respond to wolves too weakly and too infrequently for those behaviors to carry nutritional costs.”

The study casts additional doubt on the idea that wolf reintroduction has caused what scientists call a “behaviorally mediated trophic cascade” in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem — prompting elk to alter their foraging behavior or avoid risky areas, thereby allowing aspen and willows to recover from over-browsing. These new findings are consistent with studies by Kauffman and others showing little or no evidence for cascading effects caused by purported broad-scale shifts in elk habitat use or foraging behavior in response to wolves.

Both Middleton and Kauffman have pointed out in their studies that the wide-ranging hunting strategy of wolves, which differs from the tactics of a stalking predator, might be the reason that elk responses are too weak and inconsistent to alter their foraging patterns or nutritional gain.

“A key factor in the ability of predators to cause these sorts of cascading effects is the ways in which they hunt and kill their prey,” says Kauffman, who initiated the study in 2006 along with Game and Fish Department wildlife biologist Doug McWhirter and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf manager Mike Jimenez. “Wolves are coursing predators that chase down their prey, as opposed to stalking predators that lurk in concealed areas. We are learning that coursing predators are less likely to induce strong behavioral responses in their prey, and this new work suggests that the coursing hunting mode of wolves may constrain both their ability to influence prey condition and cause cascading ecological effects on plants.”

Kauffman adds that the concept of non-consumptive effects of predators on prey has been well tested in small, well-controlled environments — often involving insect predators and prey — but that researchers are still sorting out how it all works in the large landscapes occupied by species such as wolves and elk.

Calf production has been declining among migratory elk herds in the greater Yellowstone area, but wolves may not be the primary culprit, Middleton says. For the Clarks Fork herd at least, other recent research findings point to high rates of bear predation and reduced habitat quality due to drought — both on summer ranges largely inside Yellowstone — as being the more likely cause of declines in elk calf numbers.

“The recovery of large carnivores, particularly grizzly bears, has brought major increases in predation on newborn elk during early summer,” wrote Middleton, who added that the region has experienced severe drought and warmer temperatures in recent years. “These effects of drought and predation could largely explain both low pregnancy and declining calf production among elk of the Yellowstone region.”

Kauffman, a USGS scientist, is one of the co-authors of the report published today — along with a collaborative team of researchers from the Game and Fish Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Yellowstone National Park and UW.

For more information, Middleton, now a post-doctoral fellow at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, may be reached at 307-460-0880 or arthur.middleton@yale.edu

The Obama Administration and USFWS announced its plan to remove the gray wolf from the federal protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act in the lower 48 states.  Wolves need continued protection to expand into much of their historic range before they are removed from the list.

Few gray wolves presently roam in the vast majority of their former range. A recovering wolf population isn’t static. It spreads as wolves rebound. A blanket delisting will threaten fragile populations that are still trying to make a comeback on the American landscape.

Growing evidence suggests wolves are attempting to naturally re-colonize the Northeastern United States from neighboring populations in Canada and perhaps the Great Lakes states.  Unfortunately, this evidence is in the form of dead wolves!   The availability of wolf prey and habitat has been documented to support wolf recovery, as both are abundant in the Northeast. The only obstacle to the return of the wolf in the Northeast is leadership and a clear plan for its recovery. 

In the Northeast, wolves are protected under the Endangered Species Act, that is, until the USFWS’s draft rule is finalized.  The problem, however, is their resemblance to the “eastern coyote” – a coyote-wolf hybrid known as “coywolves” which are very similar in appearance to wolves.  All five states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and New York)   promote killing wolves because they all sanction policies that encourage the unregulated killing of coyotes and coywolves.  None of the five states acknowledges the presence or likely presence of wolves.  None of the states has sufficient precautions in place to protect wolves from being killed accidentally or intentionally. None of the five states has a management plan to address the potential return of wolves. None of these states promote wolf recovery.  All of these factors put wolves at great risk in the Northeast. And, their role as apex eco-managers is needed to restore balance to burgeoning prey populations in this region.

Wolves coming into the Northeastern U.S. should be allowed to live as intended under the ESA.  Although US Fish and Wildlife does seemingly acknowledge the Eastern Wolf (canis lycaon) in the Northeast, and while it is important to protect this species, it is just as important that they acknowledge the gray wolf (canis lupus) and protect this species, as well.   How do you manage one without the other? 

Since Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and New York do not acknowledge the presence or likely presence of gray wolves, they have failed to provide the measures necessary to adequately protect them from being killed  so that they can continue to disperse naturally throughout their historic range in this region.

According to 16 prominent scientists:

“There is not sufficient information to support the 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…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….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.”

For states to receive federal funds for wildlife programs, they are required to develop a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS).  These strategies—submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in late 2005—determine which species and habitats will be a focus for conservation efforts.

• Maine considers the wolf to be a species of “special concern.” It has no established open season for wolves, so they cannot be hunted or trapped under state law, but no special protections are in place.

• New Hampshire does not include the wolf on its list of endangered and threatened species.  However, the NH F & G classifies it as a species associated with “critical” habitats in the state for which conservation measures will be taken under the CWCS.

• New York classifies the wolf as “endangered” under state law (with a special ranking as “apparently extinct”). It is included on the New York’s list of species with the “greatest conservation need,” which forms the basis for action under the CWCS.

• Vermont does not include the wolf on its list of endangered and threatened species and is classified as being of “medium priority” on Vermont’s list of species with the “greatest conservation need,” which forms the basis for action under the CWCS

A 2002 Survey coordinated by the Henry P. Kendall Foundation, “Nature Conservation in Northern New England” found that wolf reintroduction was linked to the balance of nature. From page 69 of the survey,

“The survey examined basic attitudes toward the reintroduction of the wolf to the forests of northern New England. We find that a majority of residents in both northern and southern New England correctly identifies the main cause of extinction of the wolf from the area as the hunting and killing of wolves (55% in both areas). About three in ten attribute the extinction to natural changes in the environment.When asked about bringing the wolf back to New England, six in ten northern New England residents (63%) believe it is important to reintroduce the wolf for the balance of nature in the area. Three in ten (30%) “strongly” take this position and only a quarter (27%) believes bringing back the wolf would be too dangerous for humans.

According to the Wolf Conservation Center’s Fall 2005 Newsletter (p.2), U.S District Court Judge Garvin Murtha in Brattleboro, VT, ruled on Aug. 19, 2005 that the Bush administration violated the Endangered Species Act when it reduced protection for gray wolves across the 48 states in 2003.  From the article,

“…National Wildlife Federation successfully argued that the administration improperly declared victory for gray wolf recovery based solely on the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes wolf populations, violating its Endangered Species Act obligation to recover endangered species across a “significant portion” of their historic range.

National Wildlife Federation also successfully argued that the administration violated its own Endangered Species Act policy on protecting “distinct population segments” and violated its legal obligation to obtain public comment on removing Endangered Species Act protection from the Northeast portion of the wolf’s historic range.”

The ESA was passed because Americans believed that protecting our wildlife was an obligation to future generations. It included wildlife ranges irrespective of political boundaries because these habitats, which are vital to species survival, cross arbitrary lines. However, many of the special interests responsible for the original habitat destruction which inspired the ESA have been fighting for years to destroy the Act itself, and have now seized upon the wolf as the excuse to finally exterminate it.   In doing so, they and their allies are violating a decades-old bi-partisan consensus among Americans that wildlife and ecologies are invaluable and worth protecting. 

We assert that the gray wolf naturally occurred in Northeast US.  We are disappointed that federal and state wildlife agencies fail to recognize the existence of the gray wolf in the Northeast and thus, will continue to deny them the protection which they are legally entitled to under the Endangered Species Act. We want the US Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a Northeastern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and New York. We also expect that a Northeastern Gray Wolf Recovery Plan will be developed and implemented to afford them the protection needed to continue their natural re-colonization of the Northeast US.

The Obama Administration and USFWS announced its plan to remove the gray wolf from the federal protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act in the lower 48 states.  Wolves need continued protection to expand into much of their historic range before they are removed from the list.

Few gray wolves presently roam in the vast majority of their former range. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removes federal protections, wolves in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains, and the Northeast will face even more difficult odds than they do already. The proposal places them at serious risk for ever achieving natural recovery.

Mexican gray wolf recovery has been hampered by rules that severely limit the project’s ability to recover the species. Illegal hunting, and at times, excessive removals have also contributed to the slow recovery. The proposed revision to the existing nonessential experimental population designation of the Mexican wolf under the Endangered Species Act is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to ultimately save the species. The proposed revision would allow Mexican wolves to be classified as an endangered subspecies that may be released and dispersed into wider areas in Arizona and New Mexico.  While the proposed rule changes are a significant positive step for the ultimate survival of this unique species, we must temper our optimism with the knowledge that gray wolves may be delisted elsewhere prior to a full recovery. 

It is important to note that the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to obtain all of the “Structured Decision Making” documents that led to the proposed “National Wolf Strategy” This ‘strategy’ called for striking the gray wolf from the federal list of threatened or endangered species in the lower 48 states. Sixteen scientists expressed “serious concerns“ with a recent draft rule to remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 States.  PEER’s statement  goes into further detail.

Now, your action is needed to help wolves.

Please submit a critically important comment to the government’s website. If you would like to participate in other actions, we recommend an email to Interior Secretary Jewell and participation in a “Thunderclap.”  See details below.

1 -Visit www.regulations.gov and enter your comment. (talking points provided above and below).

2 – We ask that you email Secretary Jewell (feedback@ios.doi.gov)

3 - Please sign/participate in the California Wolf Center’s “Thunderclap.”  This action expires on June 21, so please act quickly.

 Talking points

I oppose USFWS’ draft wolf delisting rule because:

• Sixteen scientists expressed “serious concerns” with a recent draft rule to remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 States. They do not believe that the rule reflects the conclusions of their work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves. They also do not believe the rule reflects the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act to conserve endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. By law, Endangered Species Act decisions are supposed to be governed by the best available science.

•  There is a growing body of scientific literature demonstrating that top predators like wolves play critical roles in maintaining a diversity of other wildlife species and healthy, balanced ecosystems.

•  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 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.

* PHOTO COURTESY MICHIGAN TECH UNIVERSITY*

Every semester you meet new people in college – new classes, new professors, new workload, and new students to work with.   The most common question is, “Why are you studying biology?” or “Why is biology your major?”

Most students respond, “I am a pre-med student” or “I want to be a biology teacher.”  When I am asked that question, my response is, “I am studying biology, so when I graduate, I can work with others to aid in the protection, conservation and research of the gray wolf.”

The reactions never cease to amuse me.  “Oh my god! That’s so weird. Aren’t you afraid of being attacked?” or “Hmm, that’s different,” or the “ Wow, that’s amazing.  I wish you luck,” response.

Some students even examine the topic a little bit more and ask me questions about wolves. They ask if I’ve ever seen a wolf in the wild, why do I like wolves, if there are wolves on the east coast, and most of the time, and  it’s the simple question of why.  Why am I, a New York City born and raised college student, who is supposed to be the most urbanized and jaded of all people in the United States, so intrigued by an animal so wild and far away from my current home?

Well, I’ll tell you why. Wolves have a special place in my heart because they are misjudged and misinterpreted by many people due to myths, religious beliefs and irrational fears. Just like people who are misjudged and misinterpreted for being different. That is my usual explanation to a fellow students who has asked me why I am doing what I am doing.

Sometimes, I get a student who is so intrigued about my goal that they would just come up and talk to me after class and ask me what’s going on with wolves this week.  As always, the answer I give would be different from the last because wolf news changes every week and not always in the positive way.   Some students don’t understand when I tell them about people hunting wolves and killing them for sport. I tell them about the cherished wolves we have lost and why they were so special. I tell them about pack dynamics and how similar wolf pack functions are to our own human family functions. I tell them everything I know or what they want to hear and most cannot believe that there is so much going on with wolves that is never reported in the news or broadcasted about on the radio.

As a university adviser for Wolfwatcher, I have learned many things through the organization and have shared it with many students. I have given out my Wolfwatcher email to any student interested in contacting me about any other things that have to do with wolves. I have talked to professors about my goals and have left an influential imprint on them, receiving support back. I still want to do more in the efforts of advocating, such as creating presentations about wolves to present to high school seniors around NYC.  I also want to explore the creation an organization focused on reaching out to high schools specifically and giving them information about careers in biology and science, especially for future high school students in urban areas such as NYC. 

My hope is to try and instill a strong interest in biology or sciences with an eventual career choice in the field.  We so desperately need more wildlife biologists in the U.S. to work in conservation. Personally, I hope to be on a team working next to wolf biologists when I graduate from grad school.  I have many goals to accomplish; I have had to overcome many obstacles, but I am still reaching for what I believe in: peaceful existence between humans and wolves can happen.  All you need is cooperation and collaboration. Coexistence will be the end goal.

~Emilia Tercjak

Norman Bishop, a Montana resident, worked for 36 years for the National Park Service, which included leading and supporting wolf restoration interpretation in Yellowstone National Park from 1985 to 1997. He is also a board member of the Wolf Recovery Foundation. He was a reviewer of the 1990 and 1992 reports to Congress, “Wolves for Yellowstone?” and contributed to the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement, “The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. Norm is also International Wolf Center field representative for the Greater Yellowstone region, board member of Wild Things Unlimited, and co-chair of the Gallatin-Park County chapter of Montana Conservation Voters.

Norm has graciously given us permission to share his public comment re: Wyoming’s proposed wolf hunting proposal for 2013.  It serves as a great resource from which we all can learn from an expert who worked for many years in wolf recovery:

“Proposed Chapter 47 – Gray Wolf Hunting Seasons are unacceptable to me because they: 1) do not protect against overkill of wolves living primarily in Yellowstone National Park; 2) may disrupt the longest ongoing elk/wolf research program in the world, that provides a control against which exploited populations can be compared; 3) ignore the findings of Rutledge et al (2010) who wrote, “Legal and illegal killing of animals near park borders can significantly increase the threat of extirpation for populations living within ecological reserves, especially for wide-ranging large carnivores that regularly travel into unprotected areas.”  And, “Our results indicate that even in a relatively large protected area, human harvesting outside park boundaries can affect evolutionarily important social patterns within protected areas.”   4) abrogate the purpose of the park, defined in the 1916 Organic Act, “to conserve…the wildlife…and to provide for the enjoyment of the same…unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”  It is impossible for the park to conserve natural processes if one of the keystone players is being picked off at the boundaries.  Further, killing park wolves has a chilling effect on the tourism associated with wolf viewing in the park that generates $35 million in net annual economic benefits to the surrounding counties.  It makes no sense to me to allow a hunter to pay a few bucks to kill a wolf whose collaring alone cost $3,000, and whose value to ongoing research is immeasurable.  I appreciate that no hunting is proposed for the Rockefeller Parkway.  

Setting seasons and limits just to prevent relisting of Wyoming wolves is inadequate.  Instead, as a 17-year Wyoming resident hunter of antelope, deer elk, and moose (1980-97), I would like to see wolves performing their strongly interactive natural function as top predator and sanitarian in areas of low conflict with livestock.  I would hope, too, that Wyoming wolves might eventually send dispersers to my home state of Colorado.

We should also consider the services that wolves provide, that can avert   epidemics of wildlife diseases.  Bruce L. Smith, in his 2012 book, Where Elk Roam, warns us of the danger of concentrating elk on feed grounds, because of two serious diseases: brucellosis and chronic wasting disease (CWD).  Noting that Wisconsin has spent $27 million depopulating its whitetail deer to curb CWD (and no CWD has been detected where wolves live), he traces the inexorable march of CWD across Wyoming. “Recent modeling suggests wolf predation may suppress CWD emergence in deer.” 

Wolves and other large carnivores are essential to the health of the ecosystems on which our game animals and we depend.  Wolves have been shown to be capable of reducing or eliminating the spread of brucellosis and chronic wasting disease (Hobbs 2006, Wild et al 2011), in part by reducing density and group sizes of elk and deer. Wild et al concluded, “We suggest that as CWD distribution and wolf range overlap in the future, wolf predation may suppress disease emergence or limit prevalence.” Cross et al (2010) wrote, “(T)he data suggest that enhanced elk-to-elk transmission in free-ranging populations may be occurring due to larger winter elk aggregations. Elk populations inside and outside of the GYE that traditionally did not maintain brucellosis may now be at risk due to recent population increases.” 

We risk losing wolves’ essential ecosystem services by continually inventing new ways to reduce their numbers to a socially-acceptable minimum. The goal of wolf management might better be to establish ecologically effective populations of wolves (Lee et al. 2012) wherever the absence of conflicts with livestock make that feasible.

To inform managers of recovering wolf populations about the impacts of the loss of breeders, Brainerd et al (2006) pooled data from 134 cases of breeder loss on 148 territorial breeding wolves.  They assessed effects on pup survival, reproduction, and territorial social groups.  The number of adult-sized wolves remaining after breeder loss, along with pup age, had the greatest influence on pup survival. To minimize negative impacts on recolonizing wolf populations, the authors recommended that managers limit lethal control to solitary individuals or territorial pairs. 

Aldo Leopold (1944) recognized that Yellowstone National Park was not large enough by itself to conserve a wolf population.  In his review of Young and Goldman’s The Wolves of North America, he took the authors to task for asserting, “There still remain…some areas of considerable size in which…(wolves) may be allowed to continue their existence without molestation.”  But then he asked, “Where are these areas?  Probably every reasonable ecologist will agree that some of them should lie in the  larger national parks and wilderness areas; for instance, the Yellowstone and its adjacent national forests.”  

References cited 

Brainerd, S. M., Andren, H., Bangs, E. E., Bradley, E. H., Fontaine, J. A., Hall, W., Iliopoulos, Y., Jimenez, M. D., Jozwiak, E. A., Liberg, O., Mack, C. M., Meier, T. J., Niemeyer, C. C., Pedersen, H. C., Sand, H., Schultz, R. N., Smith, D. W., Wabakken, P. and Wydeven, A. P. (2008), The Effects of Breeder Loss on Wolves. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 72: 89–98. doi: 10.2193/2006-305.

Cross P. C.,  E. K. Cole,  A. P. Dobson,  W. H. Edwards,  K. L. Hamlin,  G. Luikart,  A. D. Middleton, B. M. Scurlock, and P. J. White.  2010. Probable causes of increasing brucellosis in free-ranging elk of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.  Ecological Applications, 20(1):278–288.

Hobbs, N. Thompson.  4/12/2006.  A Model Analysis of Effects of Wolf Predation on Prevalence of Chronic Wasting Disease in Elk Populations of Rocky Mountain National Park.  Natural Resources Ecology Lab., CSU.

Lee, Yohan, Jane L. Harrison, Cristina Eisenberg, Byungdoo Lee.  2012.  Modeling Biodiversity Benefits and External Costs from a

Keystone Predator Reintroduction Policy.  J. Mt. Sci. (2012) 9: 385–394   DOI: 10.1007 s11629-009-2246-1.

Leopold, Aldo.  1944.  Review of The Wolves of North America.  Journal of Forestry 42(12):928-929.

Rutledge, Linda Y.,  Brent R. Patterson, Kenneth J. Mills, Karen M. Loveless, Dennis L. Murray, Bradley N. White.  2010.  Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs.  Biological Conservation 143(1):332-339.

Smith, Bruce L.  2012.  Where Elk Roam – Conservation and Biopolitics of our National Elk Herd.  Lions Press. 266 pages.

Wild, M.A., N.T. Hobbs, M.S. Graham, and M.W. Miller.  2011.  “The role of predation in disease control: A comparison of selective and non-selective removal of prion diseases in deer.”  Journal of Wildlife Diseases 47(1):78-93.

State officials reported that there were about 300 wolves in the state outside of Yellowstone when the state took over management of wolves in Wyoming. According to Brian Nesvik, the department’s chief game warden, WY Game and Fish officials had hoped to use the 2012 hunting season to lower wolf numbers from 192 to 172 in the northwest corner of the state outside of Yellowstone National Park.  Final estimates show 169 wolves and 15 breeding pairs lived in that area after the hunting season.  About 90 more wolves and six breeding pairs lived in Yellowstone and on the reservation at the end of 2012, according to estimates.

Wyoming officials reported that last season, hunters killed 42 wolves during the trophy and seasonal trophy hunting seasons from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31. Wolves can be shot without a license during any time of the year in about 85 percent of the state known as the predator zone, and thus  far this year, hunters have killed 16 wolves in this zone to date. Monthly updates are provided on the agency’s website.

Although the 2013 wolf plan reduces the kill-quota to 26 wolves in the seasonal trophy zones, hunting and trapping in the rest of the state is unlimited.  Thus, we believe that the Department’s proposals already approach a dangerous slippery slope when it comes to state management of wolves in Wyoming. Thus we oppose all hunting and trapping in the state at this time. In fact, we feel the plan has the potential to recklessly unravel the recovery of wolves in the entire Northern Rockies region.

Public information meetings about Wyoming’s proposed 2013 wolf hunting season will be held around the state regarding changes to the plan.

• Public Comment can be made via online submission Scroll down to “Submitting comments” – via the blue hyperlink “Submitting your comments online”. Comments are due before June 12th

• Snail mail comments – Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Division, ATTN: Regulations, 3030 Energy Lane, Casper, WY 82604

• For your convenience, we prepared a QUICK OVERVIEW of plan and provided important background.

• TALKING POINTS

The Commission will be hosting a hearing to take action on this plan on July 9-10th in Saratoga, Wyoming.

The National  Wolfwatcher Coalition submitted its

NWC Official Public Comment re: Wyoming’s 2013 wolf hunting proposal.

You  are invited to review our statement and use it as a resource to guide the drafting of your own public comment via the directions above.

 Questions or Comments?  Contact us via email at : info@wolfwatcher.org

From an article in the May 8^th edition of the Bozeman Chronicle, “Gardiner Man Kills Yellowstone Park Wolf:”

A Gardiner-area landowner shot a research wolf from Yellowstone National Park over the weekend after losing more than a dozen sheep to wolves two weeks ago.  FWP issued 2 shoot-on-sight permits in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services. The permits were good for 45 days and do not allow ranchers to shoot wolves outside of the property where a livestock loss happened.

Yellowstone Park wolf biologist Doug Smith learned of the dead wolf Monday morning from FWP wolf biologist Abby Nelson. Smith said park wolves were not responsible for the 13 sheep killed on Hoppe’s property April 24. Nelson said the wolf tracks she found two weeks ago came from the east side of the Gardiner Valley, down Little Trail Creek and across U.S. Route 89.  Smith said 831F was a 2-year-old female that normally lives farther south in the park’s Hayden Valley.

Upon hearing this news, Wolfwatcher immediately contacted Attorney Tim Preso at Earthjustice to assist in advocating for the revocation of Mr. Hoppe’s second kill permit based on mounting complaints that Mr. Hoppe was allegedly luring wolves out of the park when carcasses remained on his land. 

Attorney Preso immediately began the process of advocating by contacting Patrick Flowers, FWP Region 3 Supervisor via a well-documented letter and continued with subsequent dialog. Mr. Flowers replied with his own correspondence.

On May 14^th, we learned from a press release from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks that Bill Hoppe’s shoot-on-site permit, which was originally set to expire June 8, will instead expire on May 18. The department said change comes in support of a good-faith gesture.

We wish to thank the dedicated attorneys at Earthjustice for their profound dedication to protecting wildlife. Earthjustice continues to use the law to even the odds against powerful special interests and to hold those who jeopardize the health of our planet accountable. We appreciate their collaborative partnership.

Montana officials estimated that at least 625 wolves, in 147 verified packs, and 37 breeding pairs inhabited the state at the end of 2012. During Montana’s 2012/2013 wolf season, hunters and trappers killed 128 wolves and trappers took 97 wolves for a total of 225.  The actual numbers of wolves killed in the state, however, estimates more than 300 when factoring in wolves that were killed by depredation control (USDA’s Wildlife Services killed 108 wolves), vehicular accidents, disease and other natural causes.

 Montana FWP Commission proposed its 2013-14 wolf hunting and trapping season. Comment period begins on Mon., May 13^th and ends on June 24^th at 5PM. Final decision will be made at a Commission meeting on July 10th in Helena.

• Submit via online submission – or  – email
• Submit via USPS mail  at FWP – Wildlife Bureau, Attn: Public Comment, P.O. Box200701, Helena, MT 59620-0701

• TALKING POINTS

PROBLEMS:

1. Archery-only hunting would run from Sept. 7 through Sept. 14.
2. The hunting season is extended – the general hunting season (Sept. 15 and ending March 31, 2014); trapping season (Dec. 15 through Feb. 28, 2014) 
3. The overall bag limit is 5 wolves per person in any combination of wolves taken by hunting or trapping, – an increase from 1 per person last year.
4. Wolf quotas would be maintained in areas near Montana’s two national parks, with a quota of 7 wolves in an expanded Wolf Management Unit 316 near Yellowstone National Park and a quota of 2 wolves in WMU 110 near Glacier National Park.
5. A new regulation would allow hunters to take a wolf over bait placed for trapping

BACKGROUND:

•  As of Jan. 2013, Montana has 2.6 million head of cattle and 225,000 sheep. FWP Director Jeff Hagener said in a press release,  “Confirmed livestock depredations due to wolves included 67 cattle, 37 sheep, one dog, two horses and one llama in 2012. Cattle losses in 2012 were the lowest recorded in the past six years.”     
• In April 2012, MtFWP’s former Commissioner Ream stated, “The arrival of wolves in the West Fork added to the predatory pressure on the elk herds, but does not come close to the impact that mountain lions have. Statistics show that the elk population statewide is doing well with numbers at an all-time high of 112,000. He said the state management objective calls for 90,000 which means the state is about 22,000 elk over objective.”  Ream suggests, considering a number of factors, that it was “a perfect storm“  that led to elk population reductions in Hunting district 250.  Those factors include hunting, predation and weather and have all have tipped the balance in that area against the elk. He said the drop in the calf/cow ratio had hit a critical low, but did show some sign of recent recovery.
• In a May 1st article in the Independent Record, FWP Recommends Expanded Wolf Hunt Season and Bad Limit  , George Pauley, FWP Wildlife Management Chief, said the reasons for the proposed changes in Montana’s 2013-14 wolf hunting season are twofold.  “We’re just looking for opportunities to hunt wolves … and it’s an attempt to reduce the population,” Pauley said. “We’ve always had a philosophy of incrementally increasing harvest rates and opportunities.”

Northern Rockies Regional Director, Bradly Orsted,  submitted our

NWC Official Public Comment re: Montana’s wolf hunting proposal for 2013-14.

We have already reached out to the Commission so that we can ensure the voices of all stakeholders are represented in its policy objectives. You  are invited to review our statement and use it as a resource to guide the drafting of your own public comment via the directions above.

Questions or Comments?  Contact us via email at : info@wolfwatcher.org