Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
A less publicized wolf reintroduction has been undertaken in Arizona and New Mexico recently. Members of subspecies Canis Lupus Baileyi (Mexican Wolf) have been released into the wild in those two states and some may have migrated to Nevada already.
Canis Lupus Baileyi is the smallest subspecies of Grey Wolf in North America. Adults weigh 55 to 75 pounds. Pack size, for this subspecies, usually runs three to five members. The subspecies (Canis lupus nubilus) native to Montana-Idaho-Wyoming, is slightly larger and runs in packs averaging six members. “Nubilus” may be extirpate from the U.S. Rocky Mountains now, due to introduction of the Mackenzie Valley subspecies (Canis Lupus Occidentalus). (?)
Canis Lupus Baileyi
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Here's an interesting article about wolves decimating a population of caribou that native people depend on for food on an isolated Aleutian island. In 2002 there were 1,200 caribou and now it's down to 300 thanks to 30 wolves. The state of Alaska wants to control them before they wipe out this year's calves and the federal government is blocking it because the proper paperwork hasn't been done?!
Alaska sues feds over predator control
By MARK THIESSEN, Associated Press Writer – Fri May 28, 11:01 pm ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – The state of Alaska sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Friday, seeking a court order allowing it to go ahead with a controversial predator control program.
At issue is the state's plan to kill wolves to preserve a caribou herd inside the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge on Unimak Island, beginning as early as Tuesday.
Last week, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game announced it would begin shooting some wolves on Unimak, the eastern-most island in the Aleutian chain, to protect caribou calving grounds as part of its aerial predator control program.
While the program is in place in at least six locations around Alaska, it would be the first time in recent history that aerial predator control would be used inside a national refuge in Alaska.
The department planned on using two biologists and four pilots to kill wolves.
The feds responded Monday, cautioning the state that killing the wolves without a special use permit would be considered "a trespass on the refuge" and immediately referred to the U.S. attorney.
The state has interpreted that as federal officials blocking the program. The lawsuit, which names U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Director Rowan Gould, his agency and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, seeks a court order allowing the state to kill seven wolves while the litigation continues.
The state announced the lawsuit after federal business hours. Bruce Woods, a spokesman for the federal agency in Alaska, was reached at his home Friday, but said he could not comment because he had not seen the lawsuit.
Caribou are an important subsistence food for approximately 62 people living on the island, but the animal numbers have been declining. In 2002, there were more than 1,200 caribou. Last year, fewer than 300 were counted. The state has an unofficial estimate of up to 30 wolves.
The state says the killing of wolves is imperative to protect this year's caribou calves.
However, the federal agency says it is required by law to follow a certain process. That, Woods told The Associated Press earlier this week, is a process the state is well aware of but apparently doesn't want to wait for.
"We definitely are saying that any significant action conducted on a wildlife refuge in Alaska requires a special use permit by the service," he said.
The federal agency also says it has been working with the state to better understand the biological factors in the herd's decline since concerns were raised in December. It has issued permits to allow additional radio collaring and biological sampling of wolves and caribou.
"The actions of Fish and Wildlife have set the stage for the worst possible outcome — the potential disappearance of this caribou herd and a total loss of subsistence opportunity in the area for the foreseeable future," Alaska Fish and Game Commissioner Denby Lloyd said in a prepared statement.
"We pushed as hard as we could, recognizing that time was running out fast, but I wasn't going to put my employees into a situation in which the federal government prosecutes them for carrying out their state responsibilities," he said.
The lawsuit claims Fish and Wildlife is violating the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and a memorandum of understanding with the state.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100529/
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Sorry!
Never heard of tinyurl but shortening the address worked.
|
|
quietpartner
Trad climber
Moantannah
|
|
A friend told me recently that her husband, who almost always succeeds in getting an elk, saw none last fall. But he saw four wolves in his usual hunting area.
They can afford to buy beef, so no problem.
But I feel bad for many families around here who, especially in this economy, can't afford to buy it. They rely a lot on wild game to stretch their tight budgets.
Plus I love the sight of those beautiful elk. Majestic animals!
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
The Alaskan native populations are very dependant on the caribou herds for subsistence. This issue Jan describes is NOT trivial!
|
|
quietpartner
Trad climber
Moantannah
|
|
Quite a while ago I read Farley Mowat's book, People of the North, (I think that's the title) about the Canadian natives' need for continual access to wild game to feed themselves.
It documented the whites' on/off support over the decades, and how this devastated the natives' ability to feed themselves. The only constant in all these years of flux was wild game. And when they were unable to hunt, many of their people died from starvation.
If they can't sustain themselves with caribou meat, it means losing a vital part of their culture. Even if the government provides other food.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
People of the Deer, and The Desperate People. Good issue journalism - although the books refer to events that happened in the 1950s and 1960s, the underlying issues are still somewhat there.
Of course, Mowat spent a great deal of time in Canada's north, and also wrote Never Cry Wolf.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
An interesting asside on the issue of native peoples in the North is they were largley nomadic and would travel to where the game was.
In the case of Alaska it wasn't until the formation of the Native corporations and ANILCA that they formed more permanent settlements.
In general there is still plenty of fish and game to feed the native peoples, if they are willing to work as hard as they had to in the past to get that fish and game. The real tragedy is life becoming too easy, and introduction of demon rum and other drugs to take the edge off of boredom.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Yeah Anders, Mowatt's conclusion was that the wolves' seasonal predation on the caribou actually kept the herds healthier.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
You all need to note the specifics of Jan's post: this is an island population, and nomadism isn't reasonable. This is a closed system!
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
How'd they get there?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Wolves can swim just fine. Moose, elk and other ungulates also.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 10:22am PT
|
Here we go again!
Petition seeks to have wolves howl across US
By MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 20, 8:58 pm ET
BILLINGS, Mont. – Tens of thousands of gray wolves would be returned to the woods of New England, the mountains of California, the wide open Great Plains and the desert West under a scientific petition filed Tuesday with the federal government.
The predators were poisoned and trapped to near-extermination in the United States last century, but have since clawed their way back to some of the most remote wilderness in the lower 48 states.
That recovery was boosted in the 1990s by the reintroduction of 66 wolves in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. Yet as those first packs have flourished, increased livestock killings and declining big game herds have drawn sharp backlash from ranchers, hunters and officials in the Northern Rockies.
But biologists with the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity want to expand that recovery across the country. A few isolated pockets of wolves, they say, are not enough.
"If the gray wolf is listed as endangered, it should be recovered in all significant portions of its range, not just fragments," said Michael Robinson, who authored the petition. Robinson said the animals occupy less than 5 percent of their historic range in the lower 48 states.
The federal Administrative Procedure Act allows outside parties to petition the government to act when species are in peril. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Chris Tollefson, whose agency received the petition, said there was no deadline by which the agency must respond to the one filed Tuesday, which was signed by Robinson and another biologist, Noah Greenwald.
Tollefson also said an internal review was under way to figure out where wolves once lived and where they might be returned."We need to look at what is realistic and where the suitable habitat would be," Tollefson said.The review will be completed by late 2010 or early 2011 and will contain recommendations but no final decision on whether to create new wolf populations, Tollefson said.
About 6,000 wolves live in the U.S. outside Alaska, with most of those in the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies, with only a few dozen in Arizona and New Mexico. They are listed as endangered except in Alaska, Idaho and Montana.
In early 2008, a similar petition was lodged by the Natural Resources Defense Council. In its rejection of that petition, the Fish and Wildlife Service said the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies programs had succeeded and any additional recovery efforts would be "discretionary."
The Fish and Wildlife Service faces no deadline to respond to such petitions
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has pushed to end federal protections for wolves and return control over the animals to the states.
But both administrations have been rebuffed in the courts. Federal judges have ruled repeatedly that the government failed to prove existing wolf numbers will ensure the population's long-term survival.
Last year, the Interior Department relented to pressure from environmentalists in the Great Lakes. The agency agreed to put wolves back on the endangered list at least temporarily — just months after they had been removed for the second time in recent years.
Wolves are notorious predators with a hunger for livestock, and experts say they could survive in most of the country if they were allowed.Young adult wolves sometimes travel hundreds of miles when looking to establish a new territory. In the last several years, packs have gained a toehold in parts of Oregon and Washington. Others have been spotted in Colorado, Utah and northern New England.
But with wolves, more than just biology is at play. Politics serves the deciding role in where wolves are allowed, said David Mech, a wolf expert and senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey."In the areas where they are not acceptable, they will be killed out — illegally if nothing else, Mech said.The Northern Rockies population has stirred the most rancor, largely because of sheep and cattle killings and wolves preying on big game herds that had swelled when the predators were absent.
Idaho and Montana initiated public wolf hunts last year, and both intend to increase their quotas on the animals this fall. The states want to put a dent in the animal's population growth rate, which has been as high as 30 percent annually.Wyoming, which has about 525 wolves, was blocked in its efforts to start a hunt after federal officials said state law was too hostile to wolves to ensure their survival. That ruling has been challenged in federal court.
Wyoming House Speaker Colin Simpson said Tuesday it should serve as a warning for other states that are asked to take wolves.
"Be careful," Simpson said. "We don't need more of that in the West."
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 10:47am PT
|
Aarrrgghhh!
Here we go again with the Center for Biological Deiversity! These are some real nut-case envirofreaks!
I've had some very unsatisfactory experiences due to those folks!: In 1997, just after we purchased the ranch in the upper LaPrele Creek drainage, the Preble's Jumping Mouse was added to the endangered species list in Northern Colorado and Southeastern Wyoming. I went to a meeting in Douglas, WY held as an informational seminar, and featured several USFWS biologists, Wyoming G&F, and several other regulatory agencies. It was to tell folks what the could not do on their own property as a result of the area being designated "Preble's Mouse Habitat." Of course, no one had ever investigated the rodent populations in this area as it was predominently private land, and any "investigations" needed landowner permissions. This was all promoted by the Center for Biodiversity.
Since most of us in the area had irrigation ditches, this was deemed to be "prime habitat!" The first thing we were told was we could no longer burn our ditches to remove vegitation and weed/tree growth for enhancement of irrigation water flow.
I clearly remember a young female biologist, who after hearing the outcry from the audience asked "But what about these poor little mice?" and was drowned out by several shouts of "PHUCK 'EM!"
Fast forward 10 years: "The USFWS announced that all Preble's Mouse Regulations had been removed, as THE SPECIES DID NOT EXIST!
All of the acrimonious debate, and rancher angst had been over a red herring foisted on the gullible general public by a politically motivated, anti-development group posing as a public service.
To "Biodiversity," I simply say No Thanks!" Of course this is a polite forum, so I really can't say here what I would in person.
|
|
bestill
Trad climber
s. ca.
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:00am PT
|
a question for the experts.someone told me that a problem with wolf re-introduction to idaho was that the breeding stock was from the much larger arctic species and not from the smaller original wolf species that inhabited the region. is this true and does it make a difference?
|
|
John_Box
Ice climber
Bellingham
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:13am PT
|
If I read it right the mouse itself exists, but it is still being debated if it is a unique species or not. Just wanted to clarify that this wasn't a hoax involving a madeup mouse that was never alive. Kinda got that impression reading BDC's post and made me look around. While I agree with some of the CBD's goals, I think their methods of drastically overstating them, in a hope to settle at what they really was in BS, and is a shitty way of presenting their ideas.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:18am PT
|
The species introduced a few years ago was NOT the original one, but a much larger variety of animal. There was, according to many ranchers, a small remaining population of the original native species making a slow comeback in the wilds of Idaho and western Montana.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:23am PT
|
John-
It is still debatable as to whether or not the species exists; there is one school of thought that the statement of the existence of the species is simply for the USFWS to save face from being hoodwinked so completely.I've discussed this whole thing with my veterinarian neighbor, and he contends that it is simply a seasonal color varient, or a recessive genetic color variation. NO ONE wants to discuss it in official circles.
|
|
426
climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:24am PT
|
Whoa. Fire up the chopper.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!