Information pertinent to the use of flawed science utilized by the USFWS in their proposal to delist Gray Wolves from Endangered Species Act protection.
____________________________________
WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?
Fish and Wildlife Service must rewrite proposal to strip endangered species protections from gray wolves
By Paul Paquet and Bob Ferris
Special to the Mercury News
POSTED: 03/21/2014 10:00:00 AM PDT19
Silicon Valley embraces science and loves innovation. Sadly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently shown contempt for both when it comes to the recovery of gray wolves -- particularly in the wilds of Northern California, where a lone wolf recently visited for the first time in more than 80 years.
Our unflattering assessment derives from the peer review of the service's 2013 proposal to strip Endangered Species Act protections from most wolves in the West. The service's recommendation to "delist" wolves was judged to have ignored and misrepresented the "best available science," which is the unambiguous standard for species listing decisions. We wholeheartedly agree with the peer reviewers' troubling conclusions, and we are disappointed that the service pursued political expediency rather than abiding by the lawful provisions of the ESA.
That choice was encouraged by state wildlife commissions and agencies blatantly promoting the extremist views of some ranchers and anti-wolf hunting groups. In doing so, these agencies ignored scientific principles and the intrinsic value of species by portraying wolves as needing lethal management and fostering policies that treat them as problems rather than as respected members of the ecological community.
The more we study wolves, the more they teach us. We have known for years that wolves disproportionately affect their environment relative to their abundance. As top-level predators, they are influential in shaping and maintaining the structure of their natural communities. Their presence and activities benefit numerous other species, helping determine the numbers and kinds of mammals, birds and plants in an area.
For example, bears, weasels, ravens and eagles often scavenge on elk and deer carcasses left by wolves. Wolves alter the feeding behavior of elk and deer, which limits over-browsing -- the consumption of too much vegetation -- and prevents the destruction of plants and habitats vital to many species of birds. When wolves recolonize areas, they induce vegetative changes allowing for the return of beaver and migrating birds previously driven out of denuded habitats. Predation by wolves also removes animals that are weaker genetically or harbor sicknesses.
Historically, wolves in Washington, Oregon and Northern California were likely a mixture of the distinct forms we now see in coastal British Columbia and the Rockies. Wolf populations in Southern California probably included the desert dwellers. Accordingly, to assure wolf recovery we need to secure the natural travel corridors that connect coastal, mountain and desert environments, allowing wolves to move freely about the Pacific Northwest and California. The assemblage of wolves from these different environments will eventually yield wolves similar to those that once graced our wildest habitats. In light of this, the biggest lessons that wolves have still to teach us might be patience and faith.
The service, when it reconsiders the delisting proposal, needs to remember these lessons and accept the scientific criticisms if they are to regain credibility lost during this exercise. And that means maintaining protections so that western wolves and environments have time to do their work.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who ultimately decides whether western wolves are stripped of protection, recently proclaimed, "It's about science, and you do what the science says." We agree and will hold her to that promise while helping her succeed in developing an approach that fully embraces science and innovation, making an appropriately recovered gray wolf real.
Paul Paquet is an internationally prominent wolf scientist and senior scientist at Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Bob Ferris, executive director of Cascadia Wildlands, has been a leader in wolf advocacy for two decades. They wrote this for this newspaper.
RELATED STORIES
Mar 19:Wandering wolf's trek to California inspires 1,200-mile storytelling expedition
Mar 14: Oregon's wandering wolf returns from California
May 11: California's only wolf meets people, gets picture taken
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_25387360/wheres-science-fish-and-wildlife-service-must-rewrite
http://tinyurl.com/kbnymhu
____________________________________
LETTER FROM 73 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO SECRETARY SALLY JEWELL ADDRESSING THE USFWS GRAY WOLF DELISTING PROPOSAL, ASKING FOR THAT DELISTING PROPOSAL TO BE RESCINDED.
____________________________________
NORTHWEST WOLF COALITION CALLS ON U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO WITHDRAW GRAY WOLF PROPOSALS
____________________________________
LAWMAKERS WANT GRAY WOLF PROTECTIONS TO STAY
____________________________________
RUIZ, FARR AND 73 OTHERS ASK ADMINISTRATION TO SCRAP WOLF DE-LISTING PROPOSAL
____________________________________
SCIENTISTS DISPUTE ENDANGERED WOLF DELISTING PLAN
ENVIRONMENT
- February 8, 2014 4:15AM
A plan to end federal protections for gray wolves in vast areas of the U.S. where they no longer exist has alarmed environmentalists.
Source: commons.wikimedia.org
SOURCE: COMMONS.WIKIMEDIA.ORG
1
The White House is backing a plan from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to remove gray wolves from the endangered species list, which would remove protections for all but a small population of Mexican gray wolves in the Southwest. Congress is split on the issue.
2
"[The plan to delist the gray wolf] was strongly dependent on a single publication, which was found to be preliminary and not widely accepted by the scientific community."
NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS STATEMENT
On Feb. 7, independent scientists criticized the FWS conclusion that the gray wolf should be delisted as endangered, saying it was based on one study that has not been widely accepted in the academic community. A group that protects endangered species said that "wolf recovery is far from complete."
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/gray_wolves/index.html
3
"Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision… We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input."
DAN ASHE, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIRECTOR
The FWS reopened the public comment phase to March 27, after initially setting the deadline in Dec. 2013. The agency said it plans to make a final decision on gray wolf delisting by the end of 2014.
4
Being listed helped the wolves rebound from trapping and poisoning that left only a colony in Minnesota in 1974. Today, 6,100 wolves roam 10 states (MT, WY, ID, OR, WA, WI, MI, MN, UT, and CO). Environmentalists say that growth doesn't compare to the wolves' historic presence across most of North America.
RELATED STORYLINE ON CIRCA
Lawmakers want to let states opt-out of endangered species protections
http://cir.ca/news/endangered-species-opt-out
5
Opponents of the protections say that wolves kill livestock populations, although they keep a natural check on some animals such as elk, which are overpopulated in Colorado and elsewhere.
SOURCE: COMMONS.WIKIMEDIA.ORG
RELATED STORYLINE ON CIRCA
Grand Canyon National Park plans to evict elk after run-ins
http://cir.ca/news/officials-boot-elk-from-grand-canyon
6
Wolves usually live in frontier expanses of forests and mountains, and environmentalists see threats against them as a danger to nature in general. Environmental and animal advocacy groups filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in February 2013 to stop the delisting of the wolf. SOURCE: COMMONS.WIKIMEDIA.ORG
7
Michigan started wolf hunting season on Nov. 15, 2013. Hunters purchased 1,200 permits at $100 each. By Dec. 31, when the season ended, they had killed just 22 wolves, far short of the 43 kills the state would have allowed.
RELATED STORYLINE ON CIRCA
Michigan allows wolf hunting
http://cir.ca/news/michigan-wolf-hunting
8
A federal judge on Dec. 27, 2013, ruled that organizers could go through with a wolf- and coyote-hunting derby competition on publicly owned land without obtaining a special permit from the U.S. Forest Service. Participants will hunt formerly endangered gray wolves, among other species.
RELATED STORYLINE ON CIRCA
Judge allows hunting derby for formerly endangered wolf species
http://cir.ca/news/idaho-wolf-derby
9
Researchers published a study in the journal Science on Jan. 10
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6167/1241484
that shows about 75% of large carnivores are in decline. In countries with advanced economies, many big predators like the cougar, or mountain lion, have been declared extinct.
SOURCE: UPLOAD.WIKIMEDIA.ORG
RELATED STORYLINE ON CIRCA
75% of big carnivores are in decline
http://cir.ca/news/big-carnivores-disappearing
http://cir.ca/news/endangered-gray-wolf-delisting
_______________________________________
February 21. 2014 1:48 PM
WOLVES MAY BE LOSING A NASTY POLITICAL BATTLE
There's still time to tell the Fish and Wildlife Service what you think about the latest proposal to remove protection for the gray wolf.
Photo Courtesy of USFWS Pacific Region/Flickr
The Endangered Species Act sounds simple on paper. Its goal is to preserve biological diversity, protect critical habitat, and recover threatened species across the country. But nothing is simple when it comes to the environment. Lobbyists have labeled the ESA both a success and a failure, and a Republican congressman is the latest to try to drastically curtail its protections. The ESA has been argued from all sides, and never more so than when discussions turn to the American gray wolf.
The gray wolf is one of the most hotly contested symbols in the conservation debate today. In June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presented a proposal to nudge gray wolves from under its protective umbrella, effectively “delisting” them across the lower 48 states. (Gray wolves have already been delisted in seven states of the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes.) The proposal would turn wolf management over to individual states.
The proposal caused a great deal of consternation among scientists and wolf supporters. The Endangered Species Act provides an “emergency room way-station for declining species to regain their footing and the sufficiently recover,” said Don Barry, a former chief counsel for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, now at Defenders of Wildlife. Some of the ESA’s biggest success stories are the bald eagle, brown pelican, and American alligator. But wolves are a long way from the healthy numbers these species have reached: An August 2013 population count found just 5,443 wolves across the entire country (excluding Alaska, where wolves are not covered by the ESA). The Fish and Wildlife Service is tired of the issue, Barry told me, and “they are sort of getting up in the middle of the movie.”
This month, following a brief hiatus, arguments have reignited with the release of an independent review paper from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California-Santa Barbara. It finds that the delisting proposal is not, in fact, based on the “best available science.”
The review vindicates critics who say the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to de-list the wolves prematurely, finding “problematic conclusions” in the proposal that treat contentious genetic and ecological theories as fact.
The review got at least one big result: the Fish and Wildlife Service responded by reopening its proposal to public comment. You now have until March 27 to weigh in on wolves' future. (Last year the proposal attracted more than 30,000 comments, ranging from passionate personal pleas to analytical legal responses.) The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated it will make a final determination on the proposal by the end of the year.
What are the scientific arguments actually about, though? Much of the controversy can be traced to the idea of “historic range,” which, broadly stated, refers to the area an animal occupied before humans came along and set about killing it. John Vucetich, a population biologist at Michigan Tech, has argued that wolves currently occupy less than 15 percent of their historic range; along with many other biologists, he has also argued that the Endangered Species Act dictates wolves be restored to a “significant portion” of that original range before they’re ripe for delisting.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has other ideas, though. When I questioned the agency, Gary Frazer, who heads up the Endangered Species Program, called the desire to restore wolves everywhere they used to live “a completely legitimate conservation objective more broadly stated.” But he denied it’s the objective of the Endangered Species Act. He said the ESA’s real objective is “to bring species to the point where they are no longer at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range.” Range, in his explanation, is “the range at the time at which we’re making a determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered.” In other words, range is where an animal lives at the particular moment the Fish and Wildlife Service decides to list it, not where it used to live before it was widely persecuted.
That’s an odd argument: If a squirrel species is reduced to living in a single park, does that mean the Fish and Wildlife Service is obligated by the Endangered Species Act only to maintain the squirrel there and nowhere else?
The rationale for delisting also rests on a taxonomical revision—that is, it reconceives what is meant when we say “American gray wolf.” Using a scientific paper co-authored by four of its own scientists and published in its own journal without peer-review, the Fish and Wildlife Service claims that, historically, the United States was home to another wolf species (Canis lycaon), which would mean that the “historic range” of our modern wolves (Canis lupus) didn’t actually include most of the eastern half of the country. That’s a complex point, but perhaps the most important thing to take away is the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service previously rejected this paper in 2011 as representing “neither a scientific consensus nor the majority opinion of researchers on the taxonomy of wolves.” In other words, most experts didn’t agree with it. And they still don’t, according to the new independent review released this month, which focuses specifically on taxonomy.
If the delisting proposal is not based on the “best available science,” what is it really about?
“There’s no precedent,” Robert Wayne told me. Wayne is a canid geneticist at UCLA who sat on the independent review panel with six other scientists. “I can’t think of another endangered species which has been delisted because of a taxonomic revision. In this case the taxonomic revision is questionable,” he said. “It seems like a convenient way for the US Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf in 22 eastern states.”
But if the delisting proposal is not based on the “best available science,” what is it really about? “This was politics masquerading as science,” the New York Times declared last August in an editorial. Nor is it alone in its suspicions. The issue of wolves has always been politically charged, with agricultural and hunting interests pitted against conservationists and biologists.
“I think probably over the decades at least a few of us were lulled into this sense of acceptance, that everything was getting better and that people now understood the importance of predators like wolves,” Don Barry said. But the debate over the delisting proposals has been a reminder of the residual anger towards wolves in the rural West, where influential ranchers have long fought wolves for depredating livestock. “Merge that in with the whole Tea Party fervor against government, and what you end up with in the state legislatures is this race to the bottom to see who can be more anti-wolf. The biology of the thing gets thrown right out the window.”
John Vucetich offered two potential outcomes from here. Either the Fish and Wildlife Service rescinds its proposal in a few months time, which would mean “one or two years of just lying low,” or it pushes forward with proposed plans for delisting, turning its attention to the critically endangered Mexican gray wolf. If that turns out to be the case, the future of the American gray wolf becomes very gray indeed.
Lance Richardson is a writer based in New York. Follow him on Twitter, or visit his website.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2014/02/21/gray_wolf_endangered_species_act_conflict_should_fish_and_wildlife_service.html
_______________________________________
WOLF CENTER FIGHTS TO KEEP WOLVES ON ENDANGERED LIST
Alawa is one of 17 gray wolves at the Wolf Conservation Center in South Salem and one of three ambassador wolves that participate in educational programs produced by the WCC. (Maggie Howell photo)
By Reece Alvarez
on February 21, 2014
in Lead News, News
The Wolf Conservation Center (WCC) fights all kinds of dangers that threaten its mission of protecting America’s wolves. The South Salem organization recently claimed a small victory against one of those dangers, when the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s bid to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List was temporarily halted.
Last June the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) declared it had accomplished its mission of recovering the endangered wolf species across a significant portion of its original habitat, which includes much of the United States outside of the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic.
To remove a species from the endangered list, the USFWS is required to have its proposals reviewed by an independent panel of scientists.
Earlier this month USFWS released the peer review, which included sharp criticisms of the proposal and asserted that the basis on which the USFWS sought to de-list the gray wolf was not supported by the best science available. The report also refutes the USFWS’s claim that the gray wolf is not native to the northeastern United States.
“There is no evidence that shows the Northeast was not a part of the historic range of gray wolves,” said Maggie Howell, executive director of the WCC. “That enables the Northeast to maybe one day down the line welcome gray wolves into the vast habitat that has been screaming for a predator like the wolf for some time.”
The attempt to de-list the gray wolf becomes more complicated, as the peer review revealed that the “scheme” by which USFWS tried to do so was based largely on a reclassification of Northeastern wolf species by scientists employed by the USFWS.
Based in part on preliminary conclusions from a single 2012 paper written by biologists employed by the USFWS, the USFWS contended that the eastern half of the United States was occupied by Canis lycaon, or the “eastern wolf,” a distinct species of wolf that does not belong to the gray wolf species Canis lupus, according to the WCC.
The WCC is home to 22 wolves, including 17 Mexican gray wolves, and much of its efforts involve supporting initiatives and legislation that help protect wolf populations throughout the country. Since the USFWS announced its plan to de-list gray wolves, the WCC has been building opposition to the proposal, including urging people to submit comments to the USFWS. The USFWS has received more than a million comments on the issue, a record for any de-listing proposal, Ms. Howell said.
Representatives from the WCC even showed up in Albuquerque and Washington, D.C., to testify on behalf of WCC’s gray wolves and their estimated 6,000 relatives across the continental U.S.
Wild wolves will never call Westchester County home, but portions of northern New York and the Northeast are suitable for wolf habitation, if the species has the opportunity to expand, Ms. Howell said. Gray wolves were once common throughout the United States, but by the early 20th Century had been all but eradicated from the wild.
Once numbering approximately 2 million, the wolf population has rebounded thanks to conservation efforts, and is now estimated to be between 7,000 and 12,000 strong and increasingly present in such states as Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
“Wolves are a critical keystone species in a healthy ecosystem. By regulating prey populations, wolves enable many other species of plants and animals to flourish. In this regard, wolves ‘touch’ songbirds, beaver, fish, and butterflies. Without predators, such as wolves, the system fails to support a natural level of biodiversity,” said Ms. Howell, who also shared a quote by the 20th-Century environmentalist Aldo Leopold.
“I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades.”
In light of the peer review, the USFWS has reopened the comment period on its proposal to de-list the gray wolf from the endangered species list for a period of 45 days that began Feb. 10.
Information regarding the peer review and the USFWS proposal, as well as how to submit comments, may be found at fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery.
Tags: Gray wolf, Maggie Howell, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, WCC, Wolf Conservation Center
http://www.lewisboroledger.com/10274/wolf-center-fights-to-keep-gray-wolves-on-endangered-species-list/
______________________________________
TOP YELLOWSTONE EXPERT TAKES ON THE WOLF CRITICS
SPEAKS TO "NON NATIVE SUBSPECIES" CHARGE AND "SURPLUS KILLING"
01/05/14
Recently, the Montana Pioneer spoke with Doug Smith, Yellowstone National Park Wolf Project Leader and Senior Biologist at the Yellowstone Center for Resources, about the nature of the wolves introduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, including the “non native subspecies” charge advanced by critics, and about ongoing research on wolves in the park.
MP: What were the genetic sources of wolves introduced into YNP—where did the existing wolf population originate?
DS: Forty one wolves were introduced to YNP in 1995. There were 14 in 1995 from Alberta, and 17 in 1996 from British Columbia, and 10 in 1997 from near Choteau, Montana. We have genetic evidence that some of those wolves went on to breed. So, 10 of the wolves that were introduced were from Montana, and 31 were from Canada.
MP: What were the main characteristics that were different between the wolves from Canada and the wolves that pre-existed here in Yellowstone, say 150 years ago? Is that known?
DS: Not really. All we have are skulls to judge it from. What we know from studying the skulls are that the wolves are essentially the same. The Canadian wolves were about 7 to 8 percent larger than the pre-existing wolves of Yellowstone. Seven to eight percent is within the variation of size difference found in wolf skulls all over North America, so the difference is statistically insignificant. It is important to compare apples to apples, so-to-speak. Pups and immature animals are smaller, and males are about 20 percent larger than females, at full size. It is important to compare similar age and gender skulls to each other. So comparing the handful of skulls that were preserved here as museum samples with over 150 skulls of wolves that have died here since they were introduced, the skulls are essentially the same, but the ones from Canada are slightly bigger.
Taxonomically (classifying in categories such as genus, species, and subspecies), you get differences between species when there are limitations on their ability to mix genetically. Wolves are stopped by nothing. They will cross mountain ranges, rivers, even pack ice. That's how good this animal is at moving around. So what we have is this constant intermixing of genes that prevents them from becoming really different subspecies. Wolves origin-ated in North America a couple of million years ago. When glaciers connected Alaska and Russia, they crossed over into Russia. They got bigger over there. In the last 600,000 to 700,000 years differently evolved wolves have crossed back to North America in three waves. The remnants of the oldest wave of wolves returning to North America are now the most southern species, and also the smallest, Canis lupus baileyi, the Mexican wolf. The middle wave of evolved wolves returning to this continent from Asia are the gray wolves we have here now, and the most recent are the largest, the arctic wolves.
MP: Were the wolves introduced into YNP significantly different physically or behaviorally from the wolves that were here?
DS: The short answer is no. Wolves are ecological generalists. They can live on a variety of things. We looked for wolves that were previously exposed to bison and elk. The Canadian wolves had a small percentage of bison hair in their scat, but primarily elk and deer hair. We thought that was ideal, as that is the same diet—primarily elk and deer—as we have here. The available wolves from Minnesota had no experience with mountainous terrain or herds of elk or bison. We selected wolves from the same Rocky Mountain ecosystem, with the same kind of prey, to enhance the likelihood of the introduced wolves surviving. I want to clarify the misconception that larger Canadian wolves were preying on smaller American elk [thereby reducing the elk population inordinately]. In fact, the much smaller southwestern Mexican wolf brings down elk. The elk the Mexican wolves prey on in Arizona and New Mexico originally came from Yellowstone, as did the elk in Canada. The optimal number of adult wolves necessary to bring down an elk is only four, but a pair of wolves can also kill an elk.
MP: We hear reports that there were wolves already in Yellowstone that could have multiplied without reintroduction.
DS: There were no wolves here when we introduced the current wolves in 1995. There were no specially adapted wolves [as critics have claimed] in Yellowstone that did not run in packs, or use trails or roads, that didn't howl, and that preyed on small prey, unlike the wolves we have now. There has simply never been a wolf recorded anywhere that lives like that. Furthermore, there is no better bird dog for a wolf than a wolf itself. We had radio collars on all 41 wolves we released over a 3-year period. If there were extant wolves already on the landscape, they would have found them. The wolves we released never turned up any other wolves, dead or alive. And by the way, they rarely eat other wolves that they kill.
MP: Wolves killing other wolves is the main cause of wolf deaths in the park, correct?
DS: Yes, almost half of the 15 YNP wolves that died in 2012 were killed by other wolves. However, for wolves living outside the park, 80 percent of the wolf deaths are caused by humans, mostly by shooting them.
MP: How many wolves are in YNP now?
DS: Last year at the end of 2012 there were at least 83 wolves occupying YNP in 10 packs (6 breeding pairs). This is approximately a 15 percent decline from the previous three years when the numbers had stabilized at around 100 wolves. Wolf numbers have declined by about 50 percent since 2007, mostly because of a smaller elk population.
MP: Would the 1994 population of gray wolves that lived in Montana have naturally recovered, given the protection of the Endangered Species Act?
DS: That was a big opinion-based debate by wolf biologists at the time, led by Bob Ream of the University of Montana. In his opinion, wolves would have recovered given enough time—50, 60 or 70 years. Other people think they would not have made it. Yellowstone National Park and the five National Forests around it can be likened to a huge island. It's the most impressive wild land we have got in the lower 48, and some people say it's the most impressive temperate zone wild land in the world. But it's got an abrupt boundary to it. I frequently fly over here in an airplane, and at the boundary of a National Forest, it turns into a sea of humanity. And wolves are notoriously bad at getting through seas of humanity. Wolves get shot a lot. When we were dealing with a handful of wolves, maybe 40 to 60, how many of those would have been heading this way? So far, we have not yet documented a wolf coming from northwest Montana into Yellowstone. We have documented them coming from Idaho, but that's a lot closer and the linkages are better, primarily in the Centennial Mountains. Wolves don't do well over huge landscapes dominated by people. By introducing wolves they were legally not a fully protected species under the Endangered Species Act. People wanted to be able to shoot them when they got into livestock, which they could not have done if they were a fully protected species.
MP: Wolves from Idaho have now invaded the original Glacier National Park wolves, right?
DS: The Idaho wolf population is now fully connected to the northwest Montana wolf population. Interest-ingly, a study of historic wolf DNA from pelts and skulls shows that over 50 percent of wolf genetic diversity was lost when the continental United States population was reduced to a few hundred wolves in Minnesota. Wolves were the top carnivores in North America. Wolves evolved to adapt to the local conditions, and they will do so again.
MP: The tapeworm cysts spread by wolves that critics rail about, what risk to humans does this pose?
DS: The Echinococcus granulo sus tapeworm was already here. Wolves didn't bring it in. The coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs likely had it before wolves. The human health risk from tapeworms is almost nil. If anyone should have Echinococcus tapeworm it's me. I've handled over 500 wolves in my career. I take their temperature with a rectal thermometer. That's where the tapeworm eggs come out. I now wear rubber gloves, but I wash my hands in snow, then eat my lunch. I wouldn't worry much about it.
MP: What are the primary benefits and disadvantages of having wild ranging wolf packs in the Northern Rockies?
DS: The simplest way to answer that is that there is no question that wolves made people's lives more complicated, and that's a good reason not to have them. Some people love them, some people hate them, and wolves are a polarizing animal. People have to spend a lot of time dealing with the controversy that comes with wolves. Life is simpler without wolves. I admit that if you are a rancher, having wolves around is worrisome. I understand that it's not just the cows they kill; it's the sleepless nights. I think that's the best argument to not have them.
What's the ecological value of wolves? I don't know. It's a human dominated world. We control everything. So why do we need wolves? Landscapes look the way they do because of agriculture, forestry, hunting, mining, development—all those things trump things like wolves. So you really don't get huge ecological benefits of wolves outside of National Parks. In National Parks you do. So why have wolves on these huge landscapes where there are people? Good question. The best answer is, because people want them there. You know, there are a lot of people that don't like wolves. There is an equally large number that do like them, because living in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming is unique and different than living in places like Illinois, Iowa and Arkansas. You have grizzly bears, you have wolves, you have cougars. And that brings in a lot of tourism dollars. Wolves and grizzly bears are the two top attractions to Yellowstone. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are perceived as being pristine, just because of the mere existence of the three large, toothy carnivores. It makes visiting or living here more valuable and a better experience. Economics are more important than ecology when it comes to carnivore populations in Yellowstone National Park.
Right now, it's as natural as it's ever been in Yellowstone Park. Now we have more predators than we have ever had, which means we have fewer elk, and fewer elk means we have all these other ecological benefits, like beavers and songbirds and fishes, and generally enhanced riparian habitat, because fewer elk means less browsing of riparian habitat. So it's a more balanced ecosystem. We only get that because we have natural densities of carnivores. As soon as you cross the park line, all the densities of those carnivores go down because humans manage them. And that is fine; it's not a criticism. The carnivores are on the landscape. That's the thing that the tourists like, but they are not at their normal densities that would occur if people didn't manage them.
MP: What about surplus killing by wolves [where, for example, ranchers report wolves killing or maiming a dozen sheep in one night]?
DS: Surplus killing by wolves doesn't really exist, per-se. We have watched wolves when they have killed more meat than they can immediately consume, and they always come back to finish the carcass unless they are spooked off by people. Hunting success rates for wolves are in the 5 percent to 15 percent range with elk. So they actually get about one in ten of the elk they go after. Eighty five percent to 95 percent of the time, the elk wins, and the wolves get nothing to eat. So, from an evolutionary perspective, if the wolves are not highly motivated to kill whenever they can, they will lose out. Of the 500 wolves I have handled, all across America, in the Midwest, Canada, Alaska, Yellowstone and Idaho, most of them are skinny beneath their beautiful fur. When I have felt their backbones and their pelvises, they usually are skinny. They are just getting by. The prey is better at getting away than the wolves are at killing the prey. So it is so hard to get dinner and when they do get a chance to kill, they kill. That's how you get so-called surplus killing, when the elk are weak and in deep snow, wolves will kill more than they can eat. Also, defenseless sheep will be killed in large numbers because the wolves can do so. But I would argue that if the rancher didn't come out the next day with a rifle, the wolves would eat all those sheep, even if it took them weeks to do so.
Wolves don't kill for the fun of it, when they are likely to get their head bashed in getting dinner. We have seen 15 or more wolves that have been killed by elk, bison, deer and moose. Wolves are risk averse. They don't want to try to kill something that's going to get their head bashed in or their stomach kicked in, but when it's easy, they will kill more than they can immediately eat, but those circumstances crop up pretty rarely. The wolves always cycle back to finish the carcass.
MP: What is the effect of wolves on the coyote population?
DS: Wolves kill coyotes when they approach wolf kills. Pre wolf-introduction, coyotes were living in packs in YNP, and that's something that's unusual. When there are wolves around, the coyotes pretty much live in pairs. Coyotes love coming in and stealing from wolves, and that got them killed. According to unpublished research, supposedly the coyote population dropped in half after the wolf introduction. Over 90 percent of the coyotes that are documented as being killed by wolves have been killed at wolf kill sites—they over estimated the wolves being meat drunk. So the coyotes quit running in packs, and went back to living in pairs, and became more wary around carcasses. The coyotes supposedly socially adapted to wolves, and their population went back to pre-wolf levels. This research is incomplete and inconclusive, but fascinating.
MP: Thank you, Doug. We appreciate this opportunity to present knowledge you have gained over the years about wolves, and at the same time address some of the contro-versies.
DS: Wolves are troublesome and controversial. I understand that. A lot of people don't like them, but a lot of people do like them, and they make money for a lot of people. What I am really after is to get as good a quality of information out there as possible, to help the debate to be a little bit better. The extreme anti-wolf person and the extreme pro-wolf person are always going to be problematic; they are never going to be happy. But this big group of people in the middle can come together on more than they think. If we can get an established group of facts about wolves correctly understood, I do think we can make progress in treating wolves just like any other animal, like a cougar, like a bear, like an elk. Sometimes and in some places their numbers need to be cut back, and just like any other form of wildlife, they need to be scientifically managed.
Interview conducted by Quincy Orhai for the Montana Pioneer.
Thank you R.J. Hayden @Wulalowe
_______________________________________
#KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_______________________________________
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
IT'S TIME FOR
A SERIOUS COURSE CORRECTION
ON WOLVES
Jamie Rappaport Clark
President & CEO, Defenders of Wildlife
Posted: 02/18/2014 5:05 pm EST Updated: 02/18/2014 5:59 pm EST Print Article
I cannot say I was surprised by the recent peer review report on wolf delisting from a panel of independent scientists. They unanimously concluded that the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service's (the Service) proposal to strip federal protections for gray wolves across nearly all of the lower 48 states was not supported by the best available science. Ever since the Service announced its delisting proposal, scientists, conservation groups and concerned citizens have been telling the Service that the delisting proposal is premature and shortsighted, and above all, based on bad and incomplete science.
But my lack of surprise does not make the panel's findings any less egregious; the Endangered Species Act (ESA) expressly requires that listing and delisting decisions be made only on the basis of the "best available science." Now, the wolf peer review report proves that the Service has failed to properly implement the ESA because it did not use the best available science to guide its decisions on wolf recovery.
I was director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1997 -2001 and have over 30 years of experience with the ESA. Needless to say, I know what it's like to make tough calls on species listing and delisting decisions. But no matter how difficult these decisions were in the past, we always based them on the best available science and an optimistic vision of what species recovery should mean. The gray wolf delisting proposal represents a disappointing and flawed departure from the scientific standards that we embraced when I used to work for the Service.
It's not uncommon for peer review panelists to disagree among themselves during the peer review process. In fact, it's the job of any peer review committee to raise questions and concerns about the science underpinning the issue or proposal under review. But what was most remarkable about the unanimous panel conclusion repudiating the Service's science is that the panel had members who professionally disagreed over the underlying policy question of whether wolves should be delisted at all. Thus, despite their differing views on delisting itself, they found themselves in agreement that the science relied upon by the Service was seriously flawed.
In this case, the peer reviewers criticized the Service for relying on just a single scientific report, the Chambers et al. analysis, as the basis for their delisting proposal. They pointed out that that study was highly selective in the data it used. Evidence that did not support the proposal to delist was criticized and dismissed by Chambers et al., whereas evidence that supported the proposal to delist was accepted uncritically. Peer reviewers also said the Service got the taxonomy and range of wolves all wrong in their delisting proposal. For example: gray wolves may have lived in the Northeast, wolves of the Pacific Northwest are likely distinct from other populations, and Mexican gray wolves historically had a much larger range than the Service claimed.
The process used to generate and publish the Chambers study was also problematic. The study was written by scientists from the Service itself and was only published in a Service publication and not by a respected independent journal as one would expect. Mysteriously, the Service's publication had been defunct for more than 20 years and seemed to have been brought back to life to publish this paper.
If this peer review process tells us anything, it tells us - yet again - that the Service is not treating wolves in the same way it treated the recovery of the bald eagle, peregrine falcon or the American alligator. Each of these species reached recovery throughout their range before being taken off the endangered species list. There is still much unoccupied suitable habitat available for wolves. Delisting should not be considered until wolves reach true recovery.
So now, the Service needs a dramatic mid-course correction on wolves. At each step of this delisting proposal - written comments, public hearings and testimony and now the peer-review process - the Service's delisting proposal has been called into question for being premature and based upon bad science. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe have repeatedly asserted that the Service will base decisions on the status of wolves only on the best available science. In light of this damning peer review report on wolves, the Service should withdraw its current delisting proposal, and instead chart a sustainable recovery path for wolves that is truly based upon the best science on the subject.
Follow Jamie Rappaport Clark on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JClarkprez
This Blogger's Books from Amazon
indiebound
Sharing the Rewards of Endangered Species Recovery.: An article from: Endangered Species Update
by Jamie Rappaport Clark
Endangered Animals Wolves Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act Green News
_______________________________________
HOWLS OF OUTRAGE
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELIED ON SHAKY SCIENCE IN ITS EFFORT TO BOOT WOLVES OFF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST.
HERE'S THE FULL STORY BEHIND THE BIOLOGICAL BROUHAHA.
Please tell the USFWS they need to #KEEPWOLVESLISTED .
Before March 27. 2014
Link to USFWS comment form:
by Michelle Nijhuis @nijhuism •
February 10, 2014
Photo: Tim Fitzharris/Getty
About 300 wolves live in the nearly 2-million-acre swath of central Ontario forest known as Algonquin Provincial Park. These wolves are bigger and broader than coyotes, but noticeably smaller than the gray wolves of Yellowstone. So how do they fit into the wolf family tree? Scientists don’t agree on the answer—yet it could now affect the fate of every wolf in the United States.
That’s because last June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing gray wolves across most of the country from the endangered species list, a move that would leave the animals vulnerable to hunting. To support its proposal, the agency used a contested scientific paper—published, despite critical peer review, in the agency's own journal—to argue that gray wolves never existed in the eastern United States, so they shouldn’t have been protected there in the first place.
Instead of the gray wolf, the service said, an entirely different species of wolf—the so-called "eastern wolf," a species whose remnants perhaps survive in Algonquin Park—once inhabited the forests of eastern North America. Canid biologists have argued over the existence of this "lost species" for years. Yet researchers on all sides say that even if the Algonquin wolves are a separate species, that shouldn’t preclude continuing protections for the gray wolf.
On Friday, an independent panel of five leading geneticists and taxonomists came down hard on the agency's proposal to delist gray wolves, unanimously concluding that the service had not relied on the "best available science." Individual panel members described "glaring insufficiencies" in the supporting research and said the agency's conclusions had fundamental flaws.
"What's most significant,” says Andrew Wetzler, director of land and wildlife programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council (which publishes OnEarth), “is that this is coming from a group of eminent biologists who disagree with each other about the eastern wolf—and even so, they agree that the agency hasn't properly understood the scientific issues at hand."
* * *
How did 300 wolves in the Canadian wilderness become central to the debate over protecting their U.S. relations? For years, the Algonquin Park wolves have been something of a scientific mystery. Their coats are typically multicolored, with reddish-brown muzzles and backs that shade from white to black. Visitors from the southeastern U.S. often note their resemblance to red wolves, which are limited to a small reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina.
As biologists began to investigate the relationships among the various North American canids, including Algonquin wolves, red wolves, coyotes, and gray wolves, they collided with one of the most basic—and vexing—questions in their field: what is a species?
"No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists," Charles Darwin himself conceded in On the Origin of Species, adding that "every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species." So do the rest of us. We know that hippos are different from canaries, and that bullfrogs are different from giant salamanders. But the more alike the organisms, the trickier the species question becomes, and thanks to our modern understanding of DNA, the scientific disagreements are—if anything—more passionate today than in Darwin's time.
In 1942, the biologist Ernst Mayr formalized the definition of a species as a group of interbreeding organisms, reproductively isolated from other interbreeding groups. That's the definition that most of us learned in high-school biology, and it remains useful in many cases. But the advent of cheap, fast DNA analysis has exposed its limits: many apparently distinct species hybridize with one another, and few animals hybridize more enthusiastically than wolves, dogs, and other canids.
Genetic samples from the Algonquin Park wolves contain what appears to be coyote DNA, gray wolf DNA, and even domestic dog DNA, creating what Paul Wilson of Trent University in Ontario, one of the first scientists to study the Algonquin Park population, calls a "canid soup" of genetic material.
Biologists studying North American canids fall generally into two camps. Wilson and several of his colleagues in Canada support what's sometimes called the "three-species" model: according to their interpretation of the genetic data, coyotes, modern gray wolves, and the eastern wolf are separate species that evolved long ago from an ancient common ancestor. The eastern wolf, they say, may have once ranged throughout eastern North America, and may in fact be the same species as the red wolf.
Other biologists, including canid geneticist Robert Wayne at the University of California-Los Angeles, support a "two-species" model: it posits that only gray wolves and coyotes are distinct species. According to this model, anything else—a red wolf, Algonquin wolf, or the so-called “coywolf" recently spotted in suburbs and cities—is a relatively recent wolf-coyote hybrid.
Wayne describes the debate between supporters of the two models as "long-running but very polite"—and it's not over yet.
"People on all sides have done some very good work, but it's an extremely complicated issue," says T. DeLene Beeland, author of The Secret World of Red Wolves. "It gets at the heart of the species question."
* * *
Were it not for the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the controversy over the eastern wolf might well have stayed polite. That landmark law is, as it states, intended to protect species, and the murky definition of a species has complicated conservation efforts for jumping mice, pygmy owls, gnatcatchers, pocket gophers, and several other animals. But the debate over wolf taxonomy has become especially fierce.
When the gray wolf was placed on the endangered species list in 1967, it was defined as a single species with a historic range that covered most of the United States, from Florida to Washington state. Hunting, trapping, poisoning, and habitat loss had driven the gray wolf nearly to extinction in the continental United States, and confirmed sightings were rare.
After the species was protected, wolves from western Canada began to venture south, and beginning in 1995, some 41 wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park. They multiplied rapidly, and for the first time in decades, wolf howls were heard in the park. Today, many consider the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction one of American conservation's greatest success stories.
In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service took the Great Lakes wolf population off the endangered species list. The same year, a controversial act of Congress delisted gray wolf populations in most of the Rocky Mountains, returning responsibility for wolf protection to the states. But wolves are famously energetic travelers, and these wolves didn't stay put. In recent years, wolves from the northern Rockies have been spotted in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, and are rumored to be ranging into Colorado and Utah. Wolves from the Great Lakes have turned up in Illinois and Iowa.
"The reason why wolves became in endangered in first place is that states allowed people to hunt the hell out of them."
Outside the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, wolves are still protected by the Endangered Species Act, so these wanderers have raised delicate political questions. Although some states are willing to work with the federal government on wolf management, others want sole control of any wolves that turn up within their boundaries. And the White House's slim margin of support in the Senate relies on centrist Democrats from Western states—many of whom support full wolf delisting, in part because some Western ranchers want the right to shoot wolves that menace their livestock.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for its part, wants to devote its limited money and resource to conservation of the Mexican wolf, a type of gray wolf that was reintroduced into northern New Mexico and Arizona in 1998 and continues to struggle for survival. "The time has now come for the service to focus its efforts on the recovery of the Mexican wolf," agency director Dan Ashe said at a public hearing last year in Washington, D.C.
The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing the rest of the country's gray wolves from the federal endangered species list last June, protecting only the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies. Any gray wolves that roamed beyond the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, it announced, would no longer enjoy endangered species protection. The delisting proposal set off a contentious public comment period that was due to end in September, after which the delisting would either be finalized or scrapped.
One part of the agency's proposal was especially unusual: it argued that its original listing of the gray wolf, back in 1967, had been flawed. In the delisting proposal, the agency not only recognized the eastern wolf as a separate species but also concluded that its existence required a major revision to the historic range map of the gray wolf—making it far smaller than the initial listing had claimed.
Agency director Ashe argued at the hearing in Washington, D.C., last September that there is "no one set formula for how to recover a species." The law requires only that species be safe from extinction, he said, not restored throughout its historic range, before it can be taken off the endangered species list. The two thriving populations in the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains, the agency said, were reason enough to delist the gray wolf.
But historic range has long been an important factor in delisting decisions. "If you eliminate the entire East Coast from the gray wolf's range map, it's just much easier to argue that wolves are no longer endangered," says NRDC's Wetzler.
At the D.C. hearing, Don Barry, who served as an assistant Interior secretary during the Clinton administration, took the microphone to speak for himself and two other former assistant secretaries. Barry recalled that the bald eagle, American pelican, American alligator, and peregrine falcon had been removed from the endangered species list only after returning to suitable habitat throughout most of their historic ranges.
"That is how the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work," said Barry. By stark contrast, he said, the proposal to delist the gray wolf reflected "a shrunken vision of what recovery should mean."
* * *
The Fish and Wildlife Service is required to back up its decisions with science, but in this case, the science was hard to come by. When the agency recognizes new species, for instance, it usually relies on the judgment of scientific organizations such as the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature—which doesn’t recognize the eastern wolf as a separate species. Neither does any similar scientific group.
So instead, the agency relied on a 2012 study by Steven Chambers, a Fish and Wildlife Service staff biologist, and three of his agency colleagues. The Chambers study had already caused controversy: it was published in a recently revived agency journal, not a standard scientific journal. When outside researchers reviewed the paper, the majority had significant criticisms, with one going so far as to say that the study's argument "is made in an intellectual vacuum." Although the journal's editors asked Chambers to respond to the critiques, the revised paper was not resubmitted to reviewers, as it would have been at a standard journal.
In 2012, the agency cited the Chambers paper in a proposal to remove the Great Lakes wolf population from endangered species protection. The agency had to remove the citation after outcry from other scientists in the field and acknowledged at the time that the study "represents neither a scientific consensus nor the majority opinion of researchers on the taxonomy of wolves."
Two years later, though, the agency once again used the Chambers paper, this time to support the removal of all federal protections for wolves.
When outside researchers reviewed the paper, the majority had significant criticisms, with one going so far as to say that the study's argument "is made in an intellectual vacuum."
"There's a lot wrong with the process that the Fish and Wildlife Service used that led to the development of the Chambers paper, and to its subsequent policy decisions," says Sylvia Fallon, a senior scientist at NRDC. (Agency officials did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)
Fallon and many other conservationists are also critical of the agency's review process for the delisting proposal itself. Whenever the agency proposes a change to the status of a species, it is supposed to rely on the "best available science." To make sure it is doing that, it convenes an independent review panel of experts to critique the agency’s reasoning.
But this past summer, three respected wolf biologists were dropped from the review panel; all of them had signed a letter opposing the designation of the eastern wolf as a distinct species. "We were delisted," jokes UCLA’s Wayne, one of the excluded scientists. The resulting public outcry forced the agency to extend its comment period and convene a second panel in September. This time, Wayne was on it, along with NRDC’s Fallon. So was one of the leading supporters of the "lost wolf" theory, Trent University’s Paul Wilson.
Despite their continuing disagreement over the provenance of the Algonquin Park wolves, the peer reviewers were unanimous in their verdict on the agency's science. The proposal was too dependent on the Chambers paper, they said, and the paper's central argument was far from universally accepted.
Wolf geneticists also disagree with agency’s use of the eastern wolf as support for shrinking the gray wolf's historic range. The two could easily have existed side by side, they say. In fact, historical accounts from New York State describe two distinct types of wolves—one smaller and more common, the other larger, heavier, and rarer.
* * *
On Friday, when the Fish and Wildlife Service released the review panel's report, the agency also issued a brief statement extending the comment period on the delisting proposal until late March—after which the agency will decide whether and how to continue with the delisting effort.
With the comment period reopened, conservationists are again arguing that the full, nationwide delisting of the gray wolf is too much, too soon, and not supported by current science. The Northern Rockies population fell 6 percent in the year after Congress removed wolves there from the endangered species list—a drop due largely to the revival of wolf hunting.
Idaho Governor Butch Otter is now supporting a bill that would reduce the number of wolves in his state from about 680 to just 150. Advocates fear the same response in other states where wolves lose federal protection. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jan/28/lawmakers-back-otter-proposed-fund-to-kill-500/
"The reason why wolves became in endangered in first place is that states allowed people to hunt the hell out of them," says Bill Snape, a veteran endangered species lawyer who now works for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Why, after years of effort and a lot of success, would we hand the key right back to the entities that got us in hot water in first place?"
Snape acknowledges that "no one wants wolves to stay on the endangered species list forever," but he points out that the agency could take a more measured approach to delisting, as it has done with other high-profile species.
Whatever path the agency chooses, says NRDC's Wetzler, it needs to heed the warnings of the expert panel and stick to the science. "It's not that the agency has bad intentions, or bad scientists. It's that the idea that gray wolves never existed on the East Coast of the U.S. was a very convenient result—it matched up nicely with their view of wolf recovery and what they wanted to do.
“It's very easy to get caught up in your own story."
This article was made possible by the NRDC Science Center Investigative Journalism Fund.
Like this article? Donate to NRDC to support nonprofit journalism & receive our quarterly magazine.
Michelle Nijhuis writes about science and the environment for National Geographic, Smithsonian, and other publications. Her work will appear in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2013. A longtime contributing editor at High Country News, she lives off the grid with her family in western Colorado. MORE STORIES ➔
MORE ABOUT: SCIENCE, GRAY WOLF, WOLVES, COYOTES, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY, ALGONQUIN PARK, PEER REVIEW
_______________________________________
US GOVERNMENT COULD DRIVE GRAY WOLF TO EXTINCTION
THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
IS RELYING ON SHAKY SCIENCE TO
REMOVE THE ANIMAL FROM
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST
Posted on February 15, 2014 by TWIN Observer
MICHELLE NIJHUIS, ONEARTH.ORG
This article originally appeared on OnEarth.org.
OnEarthAbout 300 wolves live in the nearly 2-million-acre swath of central Ontario forest known as Algonquin Provincial Park. These wolves are bigger and broader than coyotes, but noticeably smaller than the gray wolves of Yellowstone. So how do they fit into the wolf family tree? Scientists don’t agree on the answer—yet it could now affect the fate of every wolf in the United States.
That’s because last June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing gray wolves across most of the country from the endangered species list, a move that would leave the animals vulnerable to hunting. To support its proposal, the agency used a contested scientific paper—published, despite critical peer review, in the agency’s own journal—to argue that gray wolves never existed in the eastern United States, so they shouldn’t have been protected there in the first place.
Instead of the gray wolf, the service said, an entirely different species of wolf—the so-called “eastern wolf,” a species whose remnants perhaps survive in Algonquin Park—once inhabited the forests of eastern North America. Canid biologists have argued over the existence of this “lost species” for years. Yet researchers on all sides say that even if the Algonquin wolves are a separate species, that shouldn’t preclude continuing protections for the gray wolf.
On Friday, an independent panel of five leading geneticists and taxonomists came down hard on the agency’s proposal to delist gray wolves, unanimously concluding that the service had not relied on the “best available science.” Individual panel members described “glaring insufficiencies” in the supporting research and said the agency’s conclusions had fundamental flaws.
“What’s most significant,” says Andrew Wetzler, director of land and wildlife programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council (which publishes OnEarth), “is that this is coming from a group of eminent biologists who disagree with each other about the eastern wolf—and even so, they agree that the agency hasn’t properly understood the scientific issues at hand.”
* * *
How did 300 wolves in the Canadian wilderness become central to the debate over protecting their U.S. relations? For years, the Algonquin Park wolves have been something of a scientific mystery. Their coats are typically multicolored, with reddish-brown muzzles and backs that shade from white to black. Visitors from the southeastern U.S. often note their resemblance to red wolves, which are limited to a small reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina.
As biologists began to investigate the relationships among the various North American canids, including Algonquin wolves, red wolves, coyotes, and gray wolves, they collided with one of the most basic—and vexing—questions in their field: what is a species?
“No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists,” Charles Darwin himself conceded in On the Origin of Species, adding that “every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species.” So do the rest of us. We know that hippos are different from canaries, and that bullfrogs are different from giant salamanders. But the more alike the organisms, the trickier the species question becomes, and thanks to our modern understanding of DNA, the scientific disagreements are—if anything—more passionate today than in Darwin’s time.
In 1942, the biologist Ernst Mayr formalized the definition of a species as a group of interbreeding organisms, reproductively isolated from other interbreeding groups. That’s the definition that most of us learned in high-school biology, and it remains useful in many cases. But the advent of cheap, fast DNA analysis has exposed its limits: many apparently distinct species hybridize with one another, and few animals hybridize more enthusiastically than wolves, dogs, and other canids.
Genetic samples from the Algonquin Park wolves contain what appears to be coyote DNA, gray wolf DNA, and even domestic dog DNA, creating what Paul Wilson of Trent University in Ontario, one of the first scientists to study the Algonquin Park population, calls a “canid soup” of genetic material.
Biologists studying North American canids fall generally into two camps. Wilson and several of his colleagues in Canada support what’s sometimes called the “three-species” model: according to their interpretation of the genetic data, coyotes, modern gray wolves, and the eastern wolf are separate species that evolved long ago from an ancient common ancestor. The eastern wolf, they say, may have once ranged throughout eastern North America, and may in fact be the same species as the red wolf.
Other biologists, including canid geneticist Robert Wayne at the University of California-Los Angeles, support a “two-species” model: it posits that only gray wolves and coyotes are distinct species. According to this model, anything else—a red wolf, Algonquin wolf, or the so-called “coywolf” recently spotted in suburbs and cities—is a relatively recent wolf-coyote hybrid.
Wayne describes the debate between supporters of the two models as “long-running but very polite”—and it’s not over yet.
“People on all sides have done some very good work, but it’s an extremely complicated issue,” says T. DeLene Beeland, author of The Secret World of Red Wolves. “It gets at the heart of the species question.”
* * *
Were it not for the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the controversy over the eastern wolf might well have stayed polite. That landmark law is, as it states, intended to protect species, and the murky definition of a species has complicated conservation efforts for jumping mice, pygmy owls, gnatcatchers, pocket gophers, and several other animals. But the debate over wolf taxonomy has become especially fierce.
When the gray wolf was placed on the endangered species list in 1967, it was defined as a single species with a historic range that covered most of the United States, from Florida to Washington state. Hunting, trapping, poisoning, and habitat loss had driven the gray wolf nearly to extinction in the continental United States, and confirmed sightings were rare.
After the species was protected, wolves from western Canada began to venture south, and beginning in 1995, some 41 wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park. They multiplied rapidly, and for the first time in decades, wolf howls were heard in the park. Today, many consider the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction one of American conservation’s greatest success stories.
In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service took the Great Lakes wolf population off the endangered species list. The same year, a controversial act of Congress delisted gray wolf populations in most of the Rocky Mountains, returning responsibility for wolf protection to the states. But wolves are famously energetic travelers, and these wolves didn’t stay put. In recent years, wolves from the northern Rockies have been spotted in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, and are rumored to be ranging into Colorado and Utah. Wolves from the Great Lakes have turned up in Illinois and Iowa.
Outside the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, wolves are still protected by the Endangered Species Act, so these wanderers have raised delicate political questions. Although some states are willing to work with the federal government on wolf management, others want sole control of any wolves that turn up within their boundaries. And the White House’s slim margin of support in the Senate relies on centrist Democrats from Western states—many of whom support full wolf delisting, in part because some Western ranchers want the right to shoot wolves that menace their livestock.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for its part, wants to devote its limited money and resource to conservation of the Mexican wolf, a type of gray wolf that was reintroduced into northern New Mexico and Arizona in 1998 and continues to struggle for survival. “The time has now come for the service to focus its efforts on the recovery of the Mexican wolf,” agency director Dan Ashe said at a public hearing last year in Washington, D.C.
The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing the rest of the country’s gray wolves from the federal endangered species list last June, protecting only the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies. Any gray wolves that roamed beyond the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, it announced, would no longer enjoy endangered species protection. The delisting proposal set off a contentious public comment period that was due to end in September, after which the delisting would either be finalized or scrapped.
One part of the agency’s proposal was especially unusual: it argued that its original listing of the gray wolf, back in 1967, had been flawed. In the delisting proposal, the agency not only recognized the eastern wolf as a separate species but also concluded that its existence required a major revision to the historic range map of the gray wolf—making it far smaller than the initial listing had claimed.
Agency director Ashe argued at the hearing in Washington, D.C., last September that there is “no one set formula for how to recover a species.” The law requires only that species be safe from extinction, he said, not restored throughout its historic range, before it can be taken off the endangered species list. The two thriving populations in the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains, the agency said, were reason enough to delist the gray wolf.
But historic range has long been an important factor in delisting decisions. “If you eliminate the entire East Coast from the gray wolf’s range map, it’s just much easier to argue that wolves are no longer endangered,” says NRDC’s Wetzler.
At the D.C. hearing, Don Barry, who served as an assistant Interior secretary during the Clinton administration, took the microphone to speak for himself and two other former assistant secretaries. Barry recalled that the bald eagle, American pelican, American alligator, and peregrine falcon had been removed from the endangered species list only after returning to suitable habitat throughout most of their historic ranges.
“That is how the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work,” said Barry. By stark contrast, he said, the proposal to delist the gray wolf reflected “a shrunken vision of what recovery should mean.”
* * *
The Fish and Wildlife Service is required to back up its decisions with science, but in this case, the science was hard to come by. When the agency recognizes new species, for instance, it usually relies on the judgment of scientific organizations such as the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature—which doesn’t recognize the eastern wolf as a separate species. Neither does any similar scientific group.
So instead, the agency relied on a 2012 study by Steven Chambers, a Fish and Wildlife Service staff biologist, and three of his agency colleagues. The Chambers study had already caused controversy: it was published in a recently revived agency journal, not a standard scientific journal. When outside researchers reviewed the paper, the majority had significant criticisms, with one going so far as to say that the study’s argument “is made in an intellectual vacuum.” Although the journal’s editors asked Chambers to respond to the critiques, the revised paper was not resubmitted to reviewers, as it would have been at a standard journal.
In 2012, the agency cited the Chambers paper in a proposal to remove the Great Lakes wolf population from endangered species protection. The agency had to remove the citation after outcry from other scientists in the field and acknowledged at the time that the study “represents neither a scientific consensus nor the majority opinion of researchers on the taxonomy of wolves.”
Two years later, though, the agency once again used the Chambers paper, this time to support the removal of all federal protections for wolves.
“There’s a lot wrong with the process that the Fish and Wildlife Service used that led to the development of the Chambers paper, and to its subsequent policy decisions,” says Sylvia Fallon, a senior scientist at NRDC. (Agency officials did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)
Fallon and many other conservationists are also critical of the agency’s review process for the delisting proposal itself. Whenever the agency proposes a change to the status of a species, it is supposed to rely on the “best available science.” To make sure it is doing that, it convenes an independent review panel of experts to critique the agency’s reasoning.
But this past summer, three respected wolf biologists were dropped from the review panel; all of them had signed a letter opposing the designation of the eastern wolf as a distinct species. “We were delisted,” jokes UCLA’s Wayne, one of the excluded scientists. The resulting public outcry forced the agency to extend its comment period and convene a second panel in September. This time, Wayne was on it, along with NRDC’s Fallon. So was one of the leading supporters of the “lost wolf” theory, Trent University’s Paul Wilson.
Despite their continuing disagreement over the provenance of the Algonquin Park wolves, the peer reviewers were unanimous in their verdict on the agency’s science. The proposal was too dependent on the Chambers paper, they said, and the paper’s central argument was far from universally accepted.
Wolf geneticists also disagree with agency’s use of the eastern wolf as support for shrinking the gray wolf’s historic range. The two could easily have existed side by side, they say. In fact, historical accounts from New York State describe two distinct types of wolves—one smaller and more common, the other larger, heavier, and rarer.
* * *
On Friday, when the Fish and Wildlife Service released the review panel’s report, the agency also issued a brief statement extending the comment period on the delisting proposal until late March—after which the agency will decide whether and how to continue with the delisting effort.
With the comment period reopened, conservationists are again arguing that the full, nationwide delisting of the gray wolf is too much, too soon, and not supported by current science. The Northern Rockies population fell 6 percent in the year after Congress removed wolves there from the endangered species list—a drop due largely to the revival of wolf hunting. Idaho Governor Butch Otter is now supporting a bill that would reduce the number of wolves in his state from about 680 to just 150. Advocates fear the same response in other states where wolves lose federal protection.
“The reason why wolves became in endangered in first place is that states allowed people to hunt the hell out of them,” says Bill Snape, a veteran endangered species lawyer who now works for the Center for Biological Diversity. “Why, after years of effort and a lot of success, would we hand the key right back to the entities that got us in hot water in first place?”
Snape acknowledges that “no one wants wolves to stay on the endangered species list forever,” but he points out that the agency could take a more measured approach to delisting, as it has done with other high-profile species.
Whatever path the agency chooses, says NRDC’s Wetzler, it needs to heed the warnings of the expert panel and stick to the science. “It’s not that the agency has bad intentions, or bad scientists. It’s that the idea that gray wolves never existed on the East Coast of the U.S. was a very convenient result—it matched up nicely with their view of wolf recovery and what they wanted to do.
“It’s very easy to get caught up in your own story.”
Michelle Nijhuis is a freelance writer in western Colorado.
_______________________________________
February 13 2014
GETTING SCIENCE RIGHT FOR WOLVES
Posted by: Chris Haney
On February 7, 2014, panel members of the independent scientific peer-review committee conducted by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara unanimously told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the proposal to strip federal protections for gray wolves across most of the U.S. was “not based on the best available science.” NCEAS had assembled a panel of highly-respected scientists that represented a full range of scientific expertise on wolf genetics and taxonomy, yet even with the panel’s diverse backgrounds, the reviewers unanimously concluded that the science relied upon by the Service was not settled nor the best available. In addition, they raised several specific criticisms of the Service’s scientific rationale for the delisting proposal, which have major implications for protection of wolves going forward.
The panel found that the information used by the FWS to justify the delisting decision was selective,
emphasizing certain facts and downplaying those that did not agree with the delisting. Key scientific studies were omitted or interpreted out of context. Some of the major problems identified by the independent reviewers included:
The biological classification system used by FWS was outdated and inaccurate. A more suitable framework was available that would have resulted in 5-6 wolf populations or subspecies with ranges that followed ecosystem boundaries.
The FWS position that eastern wolves (Canis lycaon) are a distinct species from other gray wolves (Canis lupus) is not a settled issue among scientists. Many experts believe that eastern wolves are a distinct sub-species or population of gray wolf, and not a separate species. Regardless of the status of this ‘eastern’ wolf, gray wolves also may have lived in eastern North America. FWS assumed that gray wolves were absent from the east, but this conclusion was based on a misreading of the science. The existence of an eastern wolf does not rule out the possibility of gray wolves living in the Northeastern U.S.
FWS failed to note the genetic, behavioral, and ecological distinctiveness of wolves in the Pacific Northwest. These wolves could represent a distinct subspecies or population.
FWS’s proposed historical range for Mexican gray wolves (C. lupus baileyi) was too geographically restricted, failing to account for documented historical presence of Mexican gray wolves in southern Colorado, Utah, and Nebraska.
Together, these problems led the review team to conclude that the wolf delisting proposal was not based on the best available science, which is the statutory threshold for all Endangered Species Act listing and delisting proposals. Although the reviewers were directed to not comment on policy matters, their comments on the science relied upon for the delisting proposal nevertheless lends strong support to what opponents of the delisting proposal have said all along: that the Service’s proposal is based upon bad science, terribly flawed and premature. Under these circumstances, the Service should acknowledge its missteps and withdraw the proposal.
Click here to send a letter to Secretary Jewell asking her to withdraw the delisting proposal.
Whatever comes next, the independent peer review process showcases the supreme importance of separating endangered species science from undue political influence. Peer review can sometimes be brutally critical of research flaws, but over time the peer review system serves as a means to correct and improve administrative decisions that rely heavily upon scientific research and knowledge. Without even having to step into the policy arena, the NCEAS wolf peer reviewers showed how a scientific consensus can be achieved despite having different disciplinary backgrounds and points of view.
Dan Thornhill, Ph.D., Conservation Scientist
Chris Haney, Ph.D., Chief Scientist
Categories: Endangered Species Act, Gray Wolf, Mexican Gray Wolf, Northern Rockies Gray Wolf, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
________________________________________
SCIENTISTS BLOW HOLES IN PLAN TO END WOLF PROTECTIONS :
TAKE ACTION
Exciting news for wolves: On Friday top scientists announced that science doesn't back up the Obama administration's plan to strip Endangered Species Act protections from most wolves across the country.
The peer-review decision is a body blow to the feds' disastrous wolf plan. In the six states where wolves have already lost protection, more than 2,600 of them have been killed in just two years; imagine the death toll if wolves lose their safety net across all states -- for good.
Scientists have identified hundreds of thousands of square miles of suitable habitat in regions across the country, from the Pacific Northwest, California and the southern Rockies to New York's Adirondacks. But wolves will never return to those native stomping grounds if the government's intentions become reality.
Get more from KCET News
Take action to tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Keep wolves protected.
________________________________________
RePosted from Wolf Conservation Center
Please follow them on Twitter
NY Wolf Center @nywolforg
The Wolf Conservation Center (WCC) is a non-profit organization that promotes wolf conservation by teaching about wolves and their role in our world.
South Salem, New York ·
SCIENTISTS ALLEGE THAT
USFWS 'S NATIONWIDE
GRAY WOLF DELISTING PROPOSAL VIOLATES ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Posted on January 7, 2014 by Maggie
While federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws, they are not charged with rewriting them!
However, in a compelling academic critique of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
evolving enforcement of the Endangered Species Act,
Sherry Enzler (University of
Minnesota) and John Vucetich (Michigan Technological University) allege that the USFWS’s proposal to delist the gray wolf is, in fact, a blatant attempt to change the application of the law by repealing two of its most important tenets.
The paper, “Removing protections for wolves and the future of U.S. Endangered Species Act,” published Dec. 30 in Conservation Letters, provides a clear and substantive challenge to federal proposals to delist the gray wolf.
REWRITE OF SPECIES-PROTECTION LAW
SEEN IN MOVE TO TAKE WOLVES OFF
THE U.S.LIST
By Ron Meador
From the journal “Conservation Letters” comes a compelling academic critique of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service‘s evolving enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, through some key rewriting of policy that might appeal to satirists like George Orwell or Joseph Heller.
The paper, published last week in the journal’s “Policy Perspectives” section, is focused largely on the service’s announcement that it will remove gray wolves from federal protection throughout the lower 48 states, following earlier “de-listings” in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, Wyoming and Idaho (as well as states of the northern Rocky Mountains and a scattering of others with few if any wolves).
But the authors — including Sherry Enzler of the University of Minnesota
and John Vucetich of Michigan Technological University, who directs the wolf-moose population study on Isle Royale
— argue that the service’s reasoning in support of its decision on gray wolves changes its application of the landmark wildlife law in two ways that effectively repeal it:
First, by redefining the Endangered Species Act’s notion of natural range from the territory a species historically inhabited to the territory it currently occupies.
Second, by deciding that human activity — especially intolerant activity — in portions of a species’ range can justify reclassification of those areas under the ESA as habitat no longer suitable for threatened animals and plants.
Or, as Orwell might have it, a creature’s natural habitat is natural no longer once the creature is driven out. For his part, Heller might see it as another Catch-22: The ESA exists to protect plants and animals from eradication by humans, except in those areas where humans prefer to eradicate them.
CLEAR PHRASING IN THE LAW
Perhaps the ESA’s most important single passage is its clear, plain-language definition of an endangered species as one “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (emphasis added).
That wording may seem obvious today, but as the law moved toward passage in 1973 it was a significant and deliberate broadening from earlier species-protection laws, especially on what the paper’s authors call the “SPR phrase” italicized above.
Drawing on statements from U.S. Sen. John Tunney, the California Democrat who was a key author of the ESA and the legislation’s floor manager in the Senate, the paper notes his explanation that “a species might be considered endangered or threatened and require protection in most states even though it may securely inhabit others.”
This, too, seems commonsensical and until recently, the paper says, the Fish And Wildlife Service considered a species’ range to be both its current and historic territory — even, at times, resisting pressures to narrow its focus to current territory only.
But now the FWS seeks to redefine the gray wolf’s range as the territory it currently inhabits, and to declare the rest of its former territory as “unsuitable habitat” because people will no longer tolerate wolves there.
HOW WOLVES GOT ON LIST
To understand the significance of this shift, consider that if the newer definition had been in use when wolves were initially listed for ESA protection in 1978 — just five years after Congress passed the law with barely a dissenting vote — they might not have qualified.
At that point, wolves were known to inhabit only two small territories in the lower 48 states — one in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and adjacent Superior National Forest, the other on Isle Royale.
These remnant populations totalling a few hundred wolves, though tiny, appeared to be stable and possibly growing slightly because of wilderness protections. And at that point, of course, Isle Royale had been in their “historic range” for less than three decades.
Today, the paper asserts, federal protections have restored wolves to about 15 percent of their historic U.S. range outside Alaska. Whether an 85 percent loss qualifies as a “significant portion” of that range is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. In the opinion of the paper’s authors,
Although prescribing a precise value to the SPR phrase is challenging, acknowledging egregious violations is not. Today, wolves occupy approximately 15% of their historic range within the conterminous United States. To conclude that this condition satisfies the requirement represented by the SPR phrases sets an extremely low bar for species recovery.
As for redefining "range,"
Interpreting range to mean “current range” is functionally identical to striking the SPR phrase from the ESA’s definition of endangerment and narrowing the definition to being “in danger of extinction
[everywhere].”
EFFECT ON OTHER SPECIES
It is difficult to think of a species whose conservation has inspired disputes more bitter and ceaseless than those that swirl around the gray wolf, with the possible exception of the grizzly bear in portions of the American West.
But the FWS reasoning under challenge in this paper could just have easily been applied in the past — or, more important, applied in the future — to the detriment of such recovered species as bald eagles, whooping cranes and peregrine falcons, not to mention the Kirtland’s warbler, the southern sea otter, the Virginia big-eared bat and the black-footed ferret.
And it is thinking of those species, along with some 2,000 others still listed, that makes one wonder what coherent philosophy or policy of conservation can justify a redefinition of “suitable habitat” to exclude places made inhospitable by human activity.
Indeed, as the authors point out,
In most cases, species are listed as endangered because current range has been reduced by human actions. The ESA is intended to mitigate such reductions in range, not merely describe them.
As such, a sensible interpretation of range in the SPR phrase is historic range that is currently suitable or can be made suitable by removing or sufficiently mitigating threats to the species.
One always wants to hope that sound science underlies federal policy decisions in these matters. Indeed, we appear to be entering an era of changing climate in which habitats are likely to be remade by forces well beyond the science of mitigation and the capabilities of wildlife managers, regardless of the level of empowerment they may choose to find within the ESA or settled case law.
But with regard to gray wolves, climate is not the critical issue. Human persecution is. And here, too, the authors challenge FWS’s fulfillment of their obligations under the ESA, in a section headed “The science of intolerance” (citations omitted):
A central tenet of the proposed delisting rule is: “the primary determinant of the long-term conservation of gray wolves will likely be human attitudes toward this predator.”
Although bound by the ESA to base its listing and delisting decisions on the best available science, the FWS does not refer to any of the scientific literature on human attitudes toward wolves to justify its determination….
The proposed rule also asserts that delisting wolves at this time is critical for maintaining wolf recovery because “keeping wolf populations within the limits of human tolerance” requires humans be allowed to hunt entrap wolves. The best available science does not support this contention.
Indeed, a recent review found no evidence for the claim that the rates of poaching changed with higher quotas of legal harvest, and the recent longitudinal analysis found attitudes toward wolves were more negative during a period of legal lethal control than when the wolves were listed under the ESA...
Ultimately, there is no empirical support for the notion that continued listing would result in a backlash against wolves.
****
This article was published in MinnPost.com’s Earth Journal on January 7, 2014.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Endangered Species Act, John Vucetich, Nationwide delisting, Sherry Enzler, Violation. Bookmark the permalink.
_______________________________________
THE VERDICT:
SCIENCE BEHIND STRIPPING WOLF PROTECTIONS FATALLY FLAWED
Posted: 02/10/2014 11:23 am EST
Updated: 02/10/2014 11:59 am EST
In a damning rebuke of the Obama administration's plans to strip Endangered Species Act protections from gray wolves across most of the lower 48, a panel of five independent scientists has unanimously concluded that it is not supported by the "best available science."
Appointed by the government to review the proposal, the five scientists found that a major underpinning of the proposal to remove protections did not reflect current science. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service argued that the gray wolf never occurred in 29 eastern states, but rather that a different species of wolf known as the eastern wolf did, and thus that the gray wolf should never have been protected at a national level in the first place.
Support for this conclusion was always tenuous -- it was based on an analysis solely by agency staff and published in an agency journal that had not been active in years -- but the review released this week is certainly the nail in the coffin.
The implications of that finding are far-reaching, suggesting that before federal protections can be removed for wolves across most of the country there must be much broader evidence of recovery.
So, what now?
No science, no delisting proposal, right?
That's what the Endangered Species Act requires. But it'll be up to the Obama administration to decide whether to follow the law or the politics.
The facts -- and political motivations -- are now clear: Wolves occupy a mere five percent of their historic range and in places where protections have already been removed, states have enacted aggressive anti-wolf hunting and trapping seasons that in just two-to-three years have resulted in the death of more than 2,600 wolves.
Hatred and persecution of wolves was the primary reason they were nearly driven off the map in the lower 48 states -- down to fewer than 1,000 wolves limited to northeastern Minnesota. Their comeback has been a tremendous success, but it is not complete and although most Americans admire wolves, old prejudices persist among a minority.
Nowhere has this been more obvious that in Idaho, where more than 900 wolves have already been killed, and in recent weeks the state hired a bounty hunter to kill all the wolves in two packs in one of the nation's largest and most remote wilderness areas simply because hunters complained that the wolves were killing too many elk.
It would be unfortunate if we allowed politics and special interests to trump science in guiding our wildlife management policies.
And unless the Obama administration reverses course and follows the advice of the best science to preserve Endangered Species Act protections for America's wolves, we can be sure the bloodbath will continue and wolves will once again be pushed toward the brink of extinction.
Follow Noah Greenwald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Noah_Ark_757
Poaching Gray Wolves Obama Administration Endangered Species Endangered Animals Wolf Protections Gray Wolf Protections Lifted Green News
________________________________________
REVIEW PANEL FAULTS FEDERAL PLAN TO REMOVE PROTECTIONS FOR OUR WOLVES
Federal officials propose to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species lsit.
A panel of scientists asked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review the proposal to strip endangered species protections from gray wolves found serious problems with the agency's science. (Gary Kramer / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / April 18, 2008)
By Julie Cart
February 7, 2014, 2:24 p.m.
The federal proposal to remove endangered species protections for all gray wolves in the lower 48 states came under fire Friday from a scientific peer review panel that unanimously found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision does not reflect the best available science regarding wolves.
The panel’s analysis was released Friday and is the latest in a series of setbacks to the plan, announced last year. When it announced its plan last June, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Daniel Ashe called the recovery of wolves — which were hunted and poisoned to the brink extinction "one of the most successful recoveries in the history of wildlife conservation."
In addition, the new rule would recognize the small population of Mexican wolves in New Mexico and Arizona as a unique subspecies and list the animal as endangered.
Since that announcement, the process of obtaining peer review of the delisting decision has been fraught with charges of compromised scientific integrity and political manipulation.
This is the second panel convened by the federal agency.
An earlier incarnation was disbanded after it surfaced that the wildlife service sought to remove scientists who signed on to a letter expressing concerns about the delisting proposal.
The process was restarted and the new document arrives at many of the same conclusions reached by previous analysis, including the assertion that the delisting rule is based on analysis not universally accepted among scientists and not reflecting the latest data.
One reviewer, Dr. Robert Wayne, a canine geneticist at UCLA, wrote that the wildlife service appeared to cherry pick the scientific record.
“Information contrary to the proposed delisting is discounted whereas that which supports the rule … are accepted uncritically,” Wayne said.
Another reviewer found fault with the federal assertion that gray wolves are not naturally occurring in the Eastern U.S., calling such a statement "unfounded."
Wolves are now legally hunted in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. State and federal biologists monitor pack populations and can reinstate protections if numbers reach levels that officials consider dangerously low.
California is considering imposing its own protections after the discovery of a lone male wolf that wandered into the state's northern counties from Oregon two years ago. This week the state Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended to the California Fish and Game Commission that wolves not be added to the state's endangered species list.
The commission will take up the matter at a future meeting.
In light of the panel’s findings, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Friday announced that it would extend public comment on the matter another 45 days. A final decision is expected late next year.
Comments (8)Add / View comments | Discussion FAQ
evanls at 10:20 AM February 08, 2014
I'm generally supportive of Obama but he has been an abysmal failure when it comes to conservation issues. Remember the appointment of "Rancher Ken" Salazar as Interior Secretary? That was the fox guarding the henhouse. Now they are even allowing Idaho and Wyooming to send wolve killers into federal wilderness areas to slaughter wolves, because the ranchers and hunting guide industry want it. Disgusting. They need to put the wolves back on the endangered species list.
justvisitingthisplanet at 8:56 AM February 08, 2014
Politics and science don't mix. Ranchers get compensation for wolf killed livestock; all part of the generous federal subsidies to agriculture (including exemptions from many environmental laws). Let wolves recover to sustainable levels then come back and disuss delisting.
jackjack5 at 3:05 PM February 07, 2014
While delisting all species of gray wolves may be overkill, delisting gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming is fine. The gray wolves in those states were not native to the areas and they never were endangered. There is a heavy population of that species of wolf in Canada and Alaska. In fact, the wolves in those three states were imported from Canada. Since gray wolves had been completely eradicated from those three states in the late 1920s and early 30s, they were not an endangered species. They were like cockroaches and termites, destructive pests, and there eradication was necessary to protect the economies of those states. Unlike other predatory species, wolves are wanton killers that will kill just to kill. If all they killed was for food, that would be OK but all too often they kill just because they like to kill. They are the Nazis of the animal world.
_______________________________________
Heyya Wolves!
Looks like we have new information to work with to keep our Gray Wolves listed under the Endangered Species Act.
USFWS and PEER reviewers didn't see eye to eye on the science that USFWS used to determine that our Gray Wolves should be removed from Federal E.S.A. listing as endangered status species.
USFWS will be taking our new comments starting February 10th, and will continue to until March 27th.
Unless they change the deadline.
Again.
The link for comment submission will be on this page when it is functioning on the 10th of February, 2014. Breaking news is here now, along with the PEER reviewers report.
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/wolf-news.html
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
SCIENTISTS CALL B.S. - BAD SCIENCE, THAT IS - ON WOLF DELISTING
by Chris Clarke
on February 7, 2014 3:59 PM
Aw. | Photo: Joachim S.. Müller/Flickr/Creative Commons License
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's move to strip gray wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is based on insufficient science, according to a report by an independent panel of scientists. In response to the report, USFWS has again opened public comment on its wolf delisting proposal until March, meaning a bit more delay before gray wolves are potentially removed from the Endangered Species List.
USFWS now expects to make its final decision on delisting the wold by the end of 2014.
In the report, produced by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at UC Santa Barbara, an independent panel of wildlife biologists from universities, the California Academy of Sciences, and the Natural Resources Defense Council agree unanimously that more study is needed before the wolf is removed from ESA protection.
According to the report, the delisting proposal was based in part on a single October 2012 paper that contends eastern wolves belong to the species Canis lycaon, distinct from gray wolves in the western half of North America belonging to the species Canis lupus. If the eastern part of the wolf's historic range was occupied by a different species, according to USFWS' rationale, then Canis lupus now occupies enough of its historic range to be considered recovered. It can thus be removed from ESA protection.
But the 2012 paper, "An Account of the Taxonomy of North American Wolves From Morphological and Genetic Analyses" by biologist Steven M. Chambers and three colleagues, is not universally considered valid by wolf biologists. Scientists on the NCEAS panel pointed out that Chambers et al's conclusions were based on a few genetic differences between wolf populations that were potentially valid, but not conclusive.
What's more, Chambers and his colleagues are all biologists in the employ of USFWS, and their paper was published in the USFWS journal North American Fauna. There's nothing necessarily nefarious about that: North American Fauna publishes some fine work, and many USFWS biologists are among the best in their fields.
The panel did not reject Chambers et al's conclusions outright. Nonetheless, the panel agreed unanimously that Chambers et al did not represent the "best available science," which is the usual legal standard to which USFWS rulemaking is expected to conform.
The upshot: if it isn't yet settled that eastern wolves are a distinct species, then it's not yet settled whether the species to which western wolves belong has recovered over enough of its range to no longer need protection. And without that settled science, USFWS' delisting is called into question.
Reaction from wolf defenders was swift and jubilant Friday. "The nation's top wolf scientists today confirmed what we and millions of American's have been saying for months: The job of wolf recovery is far from complete," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "This peer review is a major blow to the Obama administration's highly political effort to prematurely remove protections for wolves."
"Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information," said USFWS Director Dan Ashe. "We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input."
As mentioned earlier, public comment on the delisting proposal has now been reopened, the third time the comment period has been so extended on the controversial proposal. Members of the public wishing to comment on the wolf delisting now have until March 27, and more information, as well as an online copy of the NCEAS review of the proposal's science, can be found on the USFWS's gray wolf recovery page.
Scientists Call B.S. -- Bad Science, That Is -- on Wolf Delisting
About the Author :
Chris Clarke is a natural history writer and environmental journalist currently at work on a book about the Joshua tree. He lives in Joshua Tree.
Read more:
Please follow Chris Clarke on Twitter : @canislatrans
________________________________________
US USED UNSOUND SCIENCE IN MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO DELIST GRAY WOLF FROM ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST
#COMMENTFORWOLVES
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/wolf-news.html
By James A. Foley
Feb 07, 2014 - 04:35 PM EST
The Obama administration's proposal to bump the gray wolf off the federal endangered species list could lead to the endangerment of other species, according to researchers who warn that, if passed the way it is currently written, the rule would set a dangerous precedent.
(Photo : Reuters) A pair of gray wolves in 1998
After receiving a peer-reviewed analysis of its proposal to remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and add the Mexican gray wolf, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will reopen its public comment period.
The move comes after an independent analysis by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) concluded that the recommendations the USFWS used to put the proposal forward were not rooted in sound science.
The USFWS proposal was based around the notion that the US Northeast and Midwest were home a separate species, the eastern wolf. If that were the case, then gray wolf recovery would not be needed in those areas and justified the move to delist the species as endangered.
In a statement by the University of California, Santa Barbara, which is home to the NCEAS, the panel members report a unanimous consensus "that the USFWS's earlier decisions were not well supported by the available science."
Furthermore, "the panel highlighted that the proposed rule was strongly dependent on a single publication, which was found to be preliminary and not widely accepted by the scientific community. The panelists identified additional scientific research that should be considered before proposing a change in the listing status of the gray wolf."
USFWS Director Dan Ashe said in a statement
that the peer review process is an important step in the process of evaluating species health.
"We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input," Ashe said.
Steven Courtney, an NCEAS panel member involved in the case told The Associated Press that the peer-review process's results were "unequivocal."
"The science used by the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning genetics and taxonomy of wolves was preliminary and currently not the best available science," he said.
Chris Tollefson, a spokesman for the USFWS, told the AP that "we do take the comments from peer reviewers very seriously and we need to take those into account."
Moving forward, another round of public commentary on the gray wolf proposal will be opened on Feb. 10, the USFWS said, adding that "interested stakeholders will have an additional 45 days to provide information that may be helpful to the Service in making a final determination on the proposal."
The public can access the peer-review and make comments at www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5936/20140207/used-unsound-science-making-recommendation-delist-gray-wolf-endangered-species.htm
________________________________________
PANEL SAYS FEDERAL WOLF PLAN USED UNPROVEN SCIENCE
By Matthew Brown, Associated Press
Updated 11:03 am, Friday, February 7, 2014
1 of 2
FILE - This April 18, 2008, file photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife shows a gray wolf. A scientific review says the U.S. government’s bid to lift federal protections for gray wolves across most of the Lower 48 states is based on unproven claims about their genetics. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service peer review panel released its report Friday Feb. 7, 2014. It represents a significant setback for the pending proposal to take gray wolves off the endangered species list except in the desert Southwest. Photo: Gary Kramer, AP / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A proposal to lift federal protections for gray wolves across most of the U.S. suffered a significant setback Friday as an independent review panel said the government is relying on unsettled science to make its case.
Federal wildlife officials want to remove the animals from the endangered species list across the Lower 48 states, except for a small population in the Southwest.
The five-member U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service peer-review panel was tasked with reviewing the government's claim that the Northeast and Midwest were home to a separate species, the eastern wolf.
If the government were right, that would make gray wolf recovery unnecessary in those areas.
But the peer reviewers concluded unanimously that the scientific research cited by the government was insufficient.
That could make it difficult for federal officials to stick with their proposal as it now stands, further protracting the emotionally charged debate over what parts of the U.S. are suitable for the predators.
"The process was clean and the results were unequivocal," said panel member Steven Courtney, a scientist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California in Santa Barbara. "The science used by the Fish and wildlife service concerning genetics and taxonomy of wolves was preliminary and currently not the best available science."
Wolves were added to the endangered species list in 1975 after being exterminated last century across most of the Lower 48 states under government-sponsored trapping and poisoning programs.
Hunting for wolves already is allowed for roughly 5,000 wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, where protections were lifted in 2011. More than 900 of the animals have been shot or caught by trappers in the two regions during this winter's hunting season.
A struggling population of several dozen Mexican gray wolves in the desert Southwest would remain on the endangered list under the government's plan. The Southeast is home to a separate species, the red wolf, which remains highly endangered.
The release of the peer review findings opens another round of public input on a proposal that has received more one million comments.
"Obviously we do take the comments from peer reviewers very seriously and we need to take those into account," Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Chris Tollefson said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service already faced fervent opposition to its plan from some scientists, wildlife advocates and members of Congress. They've argued that protections should remain in place given that vast areas of potentially suitable wolf habitat remain unoccupied in the southern Rocky Mountains, along the West Coast and in the Northeast.
Carlos Carroll, a wolf researcher at the Klamath Center for Conservation Research in Orleans, Calif., said the problems highlighted by the peer-review panel had been raised previously by others. He said he hoped they would now get more attention from wildlife officials.
"This gives them a chance to re-evaluate their strategy and say it's time to listen to the science," Carroll said.
But feelings run strong on both sides of the issue, and many Republican lawmakers, agricultural interests and hunting groups have pushed equally hard for jurisdiction over wolves to be passed to states so they could manage the population through annual harvests.
Those efforts have been motivated in large part by wolf attacks on livestock and big game herds in areas where the predators have recovered.
An earlier peer-review panel charged with reviewing the delisting proposal was dissolved last summer, after criticisms arose when three scientists who had been critical of the government's wolf plan were told they couldn't serve.
One of the three — Robert Wayne at the University of California Los Angeles — was later named to the panel that came up with Friday's report.
Officials had aimed for a final decision on the matter this summer. That's now uncertain after delays in the peer review and time lost to the federal government shutdown in the fall.
Associated Press Writer Jeff Barnard in Grants Pass, Ore., contributed to this report.
________________________________________
BREAKING NEWS:
PEER REVIEWERS FIND FAULT WITH USFWS SCIENCE ON WOLF DESLISTING -COMMENT PERIOD REOPENS
The US Fish and Wildlife Service just released the following press statement about the independent Peer review (see link at bottom of 2019372475page):
Service Reopens Comment Period on Wolf Proposal
Independent scientific peer review report available for public review
Following receipt of an independent scientific peer review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reopening the comment period on its proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List. The Service is making that report available for public review, and, beginning Monday, February 10, interested stakeholders will have an additional 45 days to provide information that may be helpful to the Service in making a final determination on the proposal.
The independent scientific peer review was hosted and managed by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), a highly respected interdisciplinary research center at the University of California – Santa Barbara. At the Service’s request, NCEAS sponsored and conducted a peer review of the science underlying the Service’s proposal.
“Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input.”
PEER REVIEW REPORT
THE PEER REVIEW REPORT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE,
ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PROVIDE COMMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE LINKS RELATING TO THE PROPOSAL AT:
The Service intends that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best available information. Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, are available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov under the docket number FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073.
The Service will post all comments on www.regulations.gov. This generally means the agency will post any personal information provided through the process. The Service is not able to accept email or faxes. Comments must be received by midnight on March 27.
The Federal Register publication of this notice is available online at www.fws.gov/policy/frsystem/default.cfm by clicking on the 2014 Proposed Rules under Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
The Service expects to make final determination on the proposal by the end of 2014.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service works with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. For more information, visit www.fws.gov, or connect with us through any of these social media channels:
– FWS –
Gray Wolf Peer Review
- See more at:
________________________________________
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073
http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/pdf/Final_Review_of_Proposed_rule_regarding_wolves2014.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/pdf/Final_Review_of_Proposed_rule_regarding_wolves2014.pdfReferences Cited for the Proposed Rule
“Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered”
Adams, L.G., R.O. Stephenson, B.W. Dale, R.T. Ahgook, and D. J. Demma. 2008. Population dynamics and harvest characteristics of wolves in the central Brooks Range, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 170: 1-25.
Adaptive Management Oversight Committee and Interagency Field Team [AMOC and IFT]. 2005. Mexican wolf Blue Range reintroduction project 5-year review. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/MWNR_FYRD.shtml
Anschutz, Steve. 2003. E-mail from Anschutz, USFWS Nebraska Field Office Supervisor to Laura Ragan, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 04/01/03. Subject: gray wolf shot. 1 p.
Anschutz, Steve. 2006. E-mail from Anschutz, USFWS Nebraska Field Office Supervisor to Ron Refsnider, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 10/30/06. Subject: Nebraska wolf from 1995?
Arizona Department of Health Services. 2012. Rabies Statistics and Maps, 2008-2012. www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/vector/rabies/stats.htm. Accessed on July 23, 2012.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Predator management in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation. 32pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2011. 2011-2012 Alaska trapping regulations. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 48pp.
Allendorf, F.W. and N. Ryman. 2002. The role of genetics in population viability analysis. Pages 50-85 in Beissinger, S.R., and D.R. McCullough, editors. Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Araiza, M, L. Carrillo, R. List, C. Lopez Gonzalez, E. Martinez Meyer, P. Martinez-Gutillerez, O. Moctezuma, N. Sanchez-Morales, J. Servin. 2012. Consensus on Criteria for Potential Reintroduction in Mexico. Conservation Biology 26(4): 630-637.
Asa, C., P. Miller, M. Agnew, J.A.R. Rebolledo, S.L. Lindsey, M. Callahan, and K. Bauman. 2007. Relationship of inbreeding with sperm quality and reproductive success in Mexican wolves. Animal Conservation 10:326-331.
Atkinson, M.W. 2006. Disease surveillance in gray wolves in Montana: 2003-2006. Unpublished Montana FWP Report. 7 pp. in Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd Ed. Misc Publ. No. 1391, WA., D.C., USDA Forest Service. 108 pp.
Avise, J. C. 2004. Molecular Markers, Natural History, and Evolution, 2nd edition. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer. 528pp.
1
Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life-zones of Oregon. North American Fauna 55:1-416.
Bailey, T.N., E.E. Bangs, and R.O. Peterson. 1995. Exposure of wolves to canine parvovirus and distemper on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1976–1988. Pages 441-446 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip. 1995. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35. Edmonton, Alberta. 642 pp.
Ballard, W.B., L.N. Carbyn, and D.W. Smith. 2003. Wolf interactions with non-prey. Pages 259-271 in Mech L.D., L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Bangs, E.E., J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, T.J. Meier, E.H. Bradley, C.C. Niemeyer, D.W. Smith, C.M. Mack, V. Asher, and J.K. Oakleaf. 2005. Managing wolf-human conflict in the northwestern United States. Pages 340–356 in R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinwitz, eds. 2005. People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bangs, E.E., J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, Bangs, E. M. Jimenez, C. Sime, S. Nadeau, and C. Mack. 2009. The Art of Wolf Restoration in the Northwestern United States: Where to Now? Pages 95-114 in Musiani, M., L. Boitani, and P. C. Paquet editors. A New Era for Wolves and People, Wolf Recovery, Human Attitudes, and Policy. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Canada.
Bangs, E., J. Fontaine, T. Meier, C. Niemeyer, M. Jimenez, D. Smith, C. Mack, V. Asher, L. Handegard, M. Collinge, R. Krischke, C. Sime, S. Nadeau, and D. Moody. 2004. Restoration and conflict management of the gray wolf in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and National Resources Conference, Seattle, Washington 69:89–105.
Bangs, E.E., S.H. Fritts, J.A. Fontaine, D.W. Smith, K.M. Murphy, C.M. Mack, and C.C. Niemeyer. 1998. Status of gray wolf restoration in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:785–798.
Becker, S.A., P.F. Frame, D. Martorello, and E. Krausz. 2013. Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2012 Annual Report. Pages WA1 to WA 16 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky mountain Wolf Program 2012 Annual Report. USFWS,
Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601.
Bednarz, J.C. 1988. The Mexican wolf: biology, history, and prospects for reestablishment in New Mexico. Endangered Species Report Number 18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Boertje, R. D., M. A. Keech, and T. F. Paragi. 2010. Science and values influencing predator control for Alaska moose management. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:917–928.
Bogan, M.A. and P. Mehlhop. 1983. Systematic relationships of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in southwestern North America. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Southwestern Biology 1:1- 20.
2
Boitani, L., 2003. Wolf conservation and recovery. Pages 317-340 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. 448 pp.
Boyce, M.S. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:481-506.
Boyd, D. K and D. H. Pletscher. 1999. Characteristics of dispersal in a colonizing wolf population in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1094-1108.
Brainerd, S.M., H. Andren, E.E. Bangs, E. Bradley, J. Fontaine, W. Hall, Y. Illiopoulos, M. Jimenez, E. Jozwiak, O. Liberg, C. Mack, T. Meier, C. Niemeyer, H.C. Pedersen, H. Sand, R. Schultz, D.W. Smith, P. Wabakken, and A. Wydeven. 2008. The effects of breeder loss on wolves. J. of Wildlife Management 72:89–98.
Brand, C.J., M.J. Pybus, W.B. Ballard, and R.O. Peterson. 1995. Infectious and parasitic diseases of the gray wolf and their potential effects on wolf populations in North America. Pages 419–429 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, eds. 1995. Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35. Edmonton, AB. 642 pp.
Breck, S.W., B.M Kluever, M. Panasci, J. Oakleaf, T. Johnson, W. Ballard, L. Howery, D.L. Bergman. 2011. Domestic calf mortality and producer detection rates in the Mexican wolf recovery area: Implications for livestock management and carnivore compensation schemes. Biological Conservation, in press.
Brewster, W.G. and S.H. Fritts. 1995. Taxonomy and genetics of the gray wolf in Western North America: a review. Pages 353-373 in Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 642 pp.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. Draft Management Plan for the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) in British Columbia. 50 pp.
Brown, D.E. 1988. The wolf in the Southwest: the making of an endangered species. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Third printing. 208 pp.
Brown, J. 2006. Eco-logical: An ecosystem approach to developing infrastructure Projects. U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Final Report 2002–2006. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 96 pp. Carroll, C., M. K. Phillips, N. H. Schumaker, and D. W. Smith. 2003. Impacts of landscape change on wolf restoration success: planning a reintroduction program based on static and dynamic spatial models. Conservation Biology 17:536-548.
Brown, D. G., K. M. Johnson, T. R. Loveland, and D. M. Theobald. 2005. Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950-2000. Ecological Applications 15:1851-1863.
California Department of Fish and Game, in litt. 2011. Gray Wolves in California: An evaluation of historic information, current conditions, and potential natural recolonization. July 6, 2011 letter from CDFG to the FWS.
3
Carbyn, L.N. 1982. Incidence of disease and its potential role in the population dynamics of wolves in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Pages 106–116 in F.H. Harrington and P.C. Paquet, eds. Wolves of the World: Perspectives of Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Noyes Publ., Park Ridge, NJ. 474 pp.
Carbyn, L. N. 2000. Email correspondence between Carbyn, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Ron Refsnider, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cariappa, C. A., W. Ballard, S. Breck, A.J. Piaggio, M.Newbuam. 2008. Estimating population size of Mexican wolves noninvasively (Arizona). Ecological Restoration 26:1(14-16).
Carroll, C. in litt. 2008. Application of habitat models to wolf recovery planning in Washington. August 21, 2008 letter to Harriet Allen, Endangered and Threatened Section Manager, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Carroll, C., R.F. Noss, N.H. Schumaker, and P.C. Paquet. 2001. Is the return of the wolf, wolverine, and grizzly bear to Oregon and California biologically feasible? Pages 25-47 in Maehr D, Noss RF, Larkin J, Eds. Large Mammal Restoration: Ecological and Sociological Challenges in the 21st Century. Washington (DC): Island Press. 375 pp.
Carroll, C., M.K. Phillips, and C.A. Lopez-Gonzalez. 2005. Spatial analysis of restoration potential and population viability of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Klamath Center for Conservation Research, Orleans, California, USA. (2 December 2005; www.klamathconservation.org)
Carroll, C., M.K. Phillips, C.A. Lopez-Gonzales, and N.H. Schumaker. 2006. Defining recovery goals and strategies for endangered species using spatially-explicit population models: the wolf as a case study. BioScience 56:25-37.
Caughley, G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. The Journal of Animal Ecology 63:215-244.
Chambers, S., S. R. Fain, B. Fazio, and M. Amaral. 2012. An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses. North American Fauna. 77: 1-67.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 1997. Ecological Regions of North America: Toward a Common Perspective. Commission for Environmental Cooperation: Montreal, Canada. 71pp.
Conard, H.S. 1905. The Olympic Peninsula of Washington. Science 21:392-393.
COSEWIC. 2001. Unpublished draft report. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the grey wolf Canis lupus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 63 + viii pp.
Creel, S. and J.J. Rotella. 2010. Meta-analysis of relationships between human offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS ONE 5(9):e12918.
Charlesworth, D., and J. H. Willis. 2009. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nature Reviews
Genetics 10:783-796.
4
Cronise, T.F. 1868. The Natural Wealth of California: Comprising Early History; Geography, Topography, and Scenery; Climate; Agriculture and Commercial Products; Geology, Zoology, and Botany; Mineralogy, Mines, and Mining Processes; Manufactures; Steamship Lines, Railroads, and Commerce; Immigration, Population and Society; Educational Institutions and Literature; Together with a Detailed Description of Each County; Its Topography, Scenery, Cities and Towns, Agricultural Advantages, Mineral Resources, and Varied Productions. H.H. Bancroft & Company: San Francisco.
Dai, A. 2011. Drought under global warming: a review. WIREs Clim Change 2011: 2(45-65). DOI: 10.1002/wcc.81.
Dalquest, W.W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 2:1-444.
Dawson, T.P., S.T. Jackson, J.I. House, I.C. Prentice, G.M. Mace. 2011. Beyond Predictions: Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate. Science: 332: 53-58.
Dixon, J. 1916. The timber wolf in California. California Fish and Game 2(3):125-129.
Dorum, D. 2011. Wallow Fire 2011: Large Scale Event Recovery Rapid Assessment Team Wildlife Report. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Arizona. 18 pp.
Dunn, H.H. 1904. California’s gray wolf. Field and Stream 9:48-50. Environment Canada. 2008. Non-Detriment Finding for Canada - Grey Wolf.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/cites/default.asp?lang=En&n=BB314F25-1 Date Accessed: May 23, 2012. Fain, S. R., D. J. Straughan, and B. F. Taylor. 2010. Genetic outcomes of wolf recovery in the
western Great Lakes states. Conservation Genetics, doi:10.1007/s10592-010-0068-x.
Frame, P.F. and H. L. Allen. 2012. Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Annual Report 2011. Pages WA-1 to WA-11 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2011 Annual Report. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601.
Frame, P. and T. J. Meier. 2007. Field-assessed injury to wolves captured in rubber-padded traps. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2074-2076.
Frame, P. F., H. D. Cluff, D. S. Hik. 2007. Response of wolves to experimental disturbance at homesites. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:316-320.
Franklin, I. R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations in M. E. Soule, and B. A. Wilcox, editors. Conservation Biology, An Evolutionary–Ecological Perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA. ISBN: 0878938001
Fredrickson, R.J., P. Siminski, M. Woolf, and P.W. Hedrick. 2007. Genetic rescue and inbreeding depression in Mexican wolves. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274: 2365-2371.
Fritts, S.H. and L.N. Carbyn. 1995. Population viability, nature reserves, and the outlook for gray wolf conservation in North America. Restoration Ecology 3:26-28.
5
Fritts, S.H., R.O. Stephenson, R.D. Hayes, and L. Boitani. 2003. Wolves and humans. Pages 289-316 in Mech, L.D., and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 466 pp.
Fuller, T.K., L.D. Mech, and J.F. Cochrane. 2003. Wolf population dynamics. Pages 161-191 in L.D. Mech and L. Boitani (eds.). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 448 pp.
Garcia-Moreno, J., M.D. Matocq, M.S. Roy, E. Geffen, and R.K. Wayne. 1996. Relationships and genetic purity of the endangered Mexican wolf based on analysis of microsatellite loci. Conservation Biology 10: 376-389.
Gaubert P, Bloch C, Benyacoub S, Abdelhamid A, Pagani P, et al. 2012 Reviving the African Wolf Canis lupus lupaster in North and West Africa: A Mitochondrial Lineage Ranging More than 6,000 km Wide. PLoS ONE 7(8): e42740. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042740
Geffen, E., M.J. Anderson, and R.K. Wayne 2004. Climate and habitat barriers to dispersal in the highly mobile grey wolf. Molecular Ecology 13:2481-2490.
Goldman, E. A. 1944. Part II. Classification of Wolves. In S. P. Young and E. A. Goldman. The Wolves of North America. The American Wildlife Institute, Washington, DC. 636 pp.
Goodman, D. 1987. The demography of chance extinction. Pages 11-31 in Soule, M.E. editor. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 204 pp.
Government of Alberta. 2011a. 2011 Alberta guide to hunting regulations. Fish and Wildlife Division, Endmonton, Alberta, Canada. 104 pp.
Government of Alberta. 2011b. 2011 Alberta guide to trapping regulations. Fish and Wildlife Division, Endmonton, Alberta, Canada. 20 pp.
Government of Manitoba. 2011a. 2011 Manitoba hunting guide. Manitoba Ministry of Environment. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 60 pp.
Government of Manitoba. 2011b. 2011 – 2012 trapping guide. Manitoba Ministry of Environment. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 24 pp.
Government of Northwest Territories. 2011. Summary of hunting regulations. Northwest Territories Environment and Natural Resources. 36 pp.
Government of Saskatchewan. 2011. 2011 Saskatchewan hunters and trappers guide. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. 24 pp.
Government of Yukon. 2012. Yukon wolf conservation and management plan. Environment Yukon, Whitehorse, Yukon, 24 pp.
Great Lakes Directory. 2003. First wolf confirmed in Illinois since early 1900s. at http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/il/072503_great_lakes.htm. 2 pp.
6
Grewal, S.K., P.J. Wilson, T.K. Kung, K. Shami, M.T. Theberge, J.B. Theberge, and B.N.
White. 2004. A genetic assessment of the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) in Algonquin Provincial
Park. Journal of Mammalogy, 85: 625-632.
Gude, J.A., M.S. Mitchell, R.E. Russell, C.A. Sime, E.E. Bangs, L.D. Mech, and R.R. Ream. 2011. Wolf Population Dynamics in the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains Are Affected by Recruitment and Human-Caused Mortality. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(1):108-118.
Hall, E. R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA.
Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. 2 volumes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.
Hall, E.R., and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America: Volume II. The Ronald Press Company: New York.
Hampton, B. 1997. The great American wolf. Henry Holt and Co.: New York.320 pp.
Hassett, Scott. 2003. Letter from Hassett, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, to Charles Wooley, Asst. Regional Director, FWS, dated 12/22/03. Responses to FWS questions. 1 page with 10-page attachment.
Hatler, D.F., G. Mowat, K.G. Poole, and A.M.M. Beal. 2003. Furbearer management Guidelines. British Columbia.
Hayes, R. D. and J. R. Gunson. 1995. Status and management of wolves in Canada. Pages 21- 34 in L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts and D. R. Seip, editors. Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 474 pp.
Hedrick, P.W., R.N. Lee, and C. Buchanan. 2003. Canine parvovirus enteritis, canine distemper, and Major Histocompatibility Complex genetic variation in Mexican wolves. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39(4):909-913.
Hedrick, P.W., P.S. Miller, E. Geffen, and R.K. Wayne. 1997. Genetic evaluation of the three captive Mexican wolf lineages. Zoo Biology 16:47-69.
Heffelfinger, unpublished data. Mexican Wolf Prey Biomass Calculations for Science and Planning Subgroup of Mexican Wolf Recovery Team. August, 2012.
Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department, Tucson. 602 pp.
Honeycutt, R.L. 2010. Unraveling the mysteries of dog evolution. BMC Biology. Available online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/20.
Houts, M.E. 2003. Using logistic regression to model wolf habitat suitability in the Northern Rocky Mountains. World Wolf Congress, Banff Canada. September 15-28, 2003.
Hedrick, P. W. 1994. Purging inbreeding depression and the probability of extinction: full-sib mating. Heredity 73:363-372.
7
InciWeb Incident Information System. Wallow News Release. www.Inciweb.org/incident/2262. Updated July 11, 2011.
InciWeb Incident Information System. Whitewater Baldy Complex News Release. www.inciweb.org/incident/2870m. Updated October 4, 2012.
Ingles, L.G. 1963. Status of the wolf in California. Journal of Mammalogy 44:109-110.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. Pp. 1–18 in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY. 996 pp.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1996. Mexican wolf population viability analysis draft report. Sponsored by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minnesota, USA
Jimenez, M.D. 2012. Email correspondence between Jimenez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and M. Constantino, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Jimenez, M.D. 2013. Email correspondence between Jimenez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and M. Constantino, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Jimenez, M.D., E.E. Bangs, M. Drew, S. Nadeau, V.J. Asher, and C. Sime. 2010. Dog lice (Trichodectes canis) found on wolves (Canis lupus) in Montana and Idaho. Northwestern Naturalist 91:331–333.
Jimenez, M.D., E.E. Bangs, C. Sime, and V. J. Asher. 2010. Sarcoptic mange found in wolves in the Rocky Mountains in western United States. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46:1120-1125.
Jimenez, M.D., E.E. Bangs, D.W. Smith, D.K. Boyd, C.M. Mack, J. Holyan, S. Nadeau, C.A. Sime, V.J. Asher, E.H. Bradley, K. Laudon, S.A. Becker, D. Ausband, and S. Woodruff. In review. Wolf dispersal in the northern Rocky Mountains in western United States: 1993-2008. Journal of Wildlife Management.
Jobman, Wally. 1995. Inter-Office Transmittal from Jobman, USFWS Grand Island, Nebraska, Field Office, to Helena, MT, USFWS Wolf Coordinator, dated 01/10/95. 1 p.
Johnson, M.K. 1995a. The disease ecology of brucellosis and tuberculosis in potential relationship to Yellowstone wolf populations in Varley, J.D. and W.G. Brewster, eds. Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to the United States Congress. Volume IV research and analysis. Yellowstone National Park. (2)
Johnson, M.K. 1995b. Rabies in wolves and its potential role in a Yellowstone wolf population. Pages 431–439 in Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip. Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35. Edmonton, AB. 642 pp.
8
Johnson, M.K, D.K. Boyd, and D.H. Pletscher. 1994. Serologic investigations of canine parvovirus and canine distemper in relation to wolf (Canis lupus) mortalities. Journal of Wildlife Disease 30:270–273.
Johnson, T.B., D.C. Noel, L.Z. Ward. 1992. Summary of information on four potential Mexican wolf reintroduction areas in Arizona. Technical Report 23. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 77 pp.
Jolicoeur, H. and M. Henault. 2010. Current status and management of wolves in Quebec. Société de la faune et des Parcs du Québec, Direction de l’aménagement de la région des Laurentides, Direction du développement de la faune. 7 pp.
Jurek, R.M. 1994. The former distribution of gray wolves in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Division. Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report 94-19.
Kalinowski, S.T., P.W. Hedrick, and P.S. Miller. 1999. No inbreeding depression observed in Mexican and red wolf captive breeding programs. Conservation Biology 13: 1371-1377.
Keith, L. B. 1983. Population dynamics of wolves. Pages 66-77 in L. N. Carbyn, ed. Wolves in Canada and Alaska: their status, biology, and management. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser.45, Ottawa.
Koblmüller, S., M. Nord, R. K. Wayne, and J. A. Leonard. 2009. Origin and status of the Great Lakes Wolf. Molecular Ecology 18:2313-2326.
Kreeger, T.J. 2003. The internal wolf: physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. Pages 192- 217 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 466 pp.
Kuck, L. (project leader). 1999. Idaho Elk Management Plan. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA. 110 pp.
Larsen, T., and W.J. Ripple. 2006. Modeling gray wolf (Canis lupus) habitat in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Journal of Conservation Planning 2:30-61.
Laufer, J. R. and P. T. Jenkins. 1989. Historical and present status of the gray wolf in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Northwest Environmental Journal 5:313-327.
Leonard, J.A., C. Vilà, and R.K. Wayne. 2005. Legacy lost: genetic variability and population size of extirpated US grey wolves (Canis lupus). Molecular Ecology 14:9-17.
Leonard, J. A., and R. K. Wayne. 2008. Native Great Lakes wolves were not restored. Biology Letters 4:95-98.
Leopold, A.S. 1959. Wildlife of Mexico: The Game Birds and Mammals. University of California Press, 2nd Revised Edition. 581 pp.
Kyle, C.J., Johnson, A.R., Patterson, B.R., Wilson, P.J., Shami, K., Grewal, S.K., and B.N.
White. 2006. Genetic nature of eastern wolves: past, present and future. Conservation Genetics
7:273-287.
9
Liberg O., G. Chapron, P. Wabakken, H.-C. Pedersen., N. T. Hobbs., and H. Sand, 2011. Shoot, shovel and shut up: cryptic illegal killing slows restoration of a large carnivore in Europe. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1275
Licht, D.S., and S.H. Fritts. 1994. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) occurrences in the Dakotas. American Midland Naturalist 132:74-81.
Licht, Daniel S. and Louis E. Huffman. 1996. Gray wolf status in North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 28(4): 169-174.
Linnell J., V. Salvatori & L. Boitani. 2008. Guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores in Europe. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe report prepared for the European Commission (contract 070501/2005/424162/MAR/B2). 85 pp.
Linnell, J.D.C., J.E. Swenson, and R. Andersen. 2001. Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favorable. Animal Conservation 4:345–349.
Manitoba. 2012a. 2012 Manitoba Hunting Guide. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/hunting/biggame/grwolf_coy/index.html Date Accessed: June 18, 2012.
Manitoba. 2012b. 2010-2011 Trapping Guide. http://digitalcollection.gov.mb.ca/awweb/pdfopener?smd=1&did=17798&md=1 Date Accessed: June 18, 2012.
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. 812 pp.
McBride, R.T. 1980. The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi): a historical review and observations on its status and distribution. Endangered Species Report 8: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
McCullough, D. R. 1967. The probable affinities of a wolf captured near Woodlake, California. California Fish and Game 53(2):146-153.
Mech, L.D. 1970. The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. Thirteenth Printing (2007). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 384 pp.
Mech, L.D. 1974. Current techniques in the study of elusive wilderness carnivores. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Game Biologists. 315-322.
Mech, L. D. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road density. American Midland Naturalist 121: 387-389.
Mech, L.D. 1995. The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations. Conservation Biology 9:270-278.
Mech, L. D. 2000. Email correspondence between Mech, U.S. Geological Survey, and Ron Refsnider, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mech, L. D. 2001. Managing Minnesota's recovered wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:70–77. 10

Mech, L.D. 2006. Estimated age structure of wolves in northeastern Minnesota. J. Wildlife Management 70:1481–1483.
Mech, L. D. and L. Boitani. 2003. Wolf social ecology. pages 1–34 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, eds. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 448 pp.
Mech L.D. and L. Boitani. 2004. 5.2 Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Species Status Account pp 124- 129 in Sillero-Zubiri, C., Hoffmann, M. and Macdonald, D. W. (eds). 2004. Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 430 pp.
Mech, L. D. and L. Boitani. (IUCN SSC Wolf Specialist Group) 2010. Canis lupus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <http://www.iucnredlist.org/>. Downloaded on 12 July 2012.
Mech, L.D. and S.M. Goyal. 1993. Canine parvovirus effect on wolf population change and pup survival. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 29:330-333.
Mech, L. D., S. M. Goyal, W. J. Paul, and W. E. Newton. 2008. Demographic effects of canine parvovirus on a free-ranging population over 30 years. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 44: 824- 836.
Mech, L. D. and H. J. Kurtz. 1999. First record of coccidiosis in wolves, Canis lupus. Canadian Field Naturalist 113:305-306.
Mech, L.D. and M.E. Nelson. 1989. Polygyny in a wild wolf pack. Journal of Mammology 70:675-676.
Mech, L.D. and R.O. Peterson. 2003. Wolf-prey relations. In L.D. Mech, and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 448 pp.
Mech, L.D., R.P. Thiel, S.H. Fritts, and W.E. Berg. 1985. Presence and effects of the dog louse Trichodectes canis (Mallophaga, Trichdectidae) on wolves and coyotes from Minnesota and Wisconsin. Am. Midland Naturalist 114:404–405.
Mengel, R.M. 1971. A study of dog-coyote hybrids and implications concerning hybridization in Canis. Museum of Natural History and Department of Systematics and Ecology. The University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Merkle, J.A., P.R. Krausman, D.W. Stark, J.K. Oakleaf, W.B. Ballard. 2009. Summer Diet of the Mexican Gray Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi). The Southwestern Naturalist 54(4):480-524.
Mills, L.C. 2007. Conservation of wildlife populations: demography, genetics, and management. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, USA. 424 pp.
Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, R. G. Haught, and A. P. Wydeven. 1995. A Regional Landscape Analysis and Prediction of Favorable Gray Wolf Habitat in the Northern Great Lakes Region. Conservation Biology 9: 279-294.
11
Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, and A. D. Wydeven. 1999. Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecological Applications 9:37-44.
Morgan, R. 2011. Oregon wolf conservation and Management plan: 2011 annual report. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department, La Grande, Oregon. 32 pp.
Morrison R.B. 1964. Lake Lahontan: Geology of Southern Carson Desert, Nevada. Geological Survey Professional Paper 401. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Muñoz-Fuentes, V., C. T. Darimont, R. K. Wayne, P. C. Paquet, and J. A. Leonard. 2009. Ecological factors drive differentiation in wolves from British Columbia. Journal of Biogeography 36:1516-1531.
Murray, D.L., D.W. Smith, E.E. Bangs, C. Mack, J.K. Oakleaf, J. Fontaine, D. Boyd, M. Jimenez, C. Niemeyer, T.J. Meier, D. Stahler, J. Holyan, and V.J. Asher. 2010. Death from anthropogenic causes is partially compensatory in recovering wolf populations. Biological Conservation 143:2514-2524.
National Research Council. 1997. Wolves, bears, and their prey in Alaska: Biological and social challenges in wildlife management, Executive Summary. Committee on Management of Wolf and Bear Populations in Alaska, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 15 pp.
Nelson, E.W., and E.A. Goldman. 1929. A new wolf from Mexico. Journal of Mammology 10(2): 165-166.
New Mexico Department of Health. 2011. Rabies Health Data, 2009-2011. http://nmhealth.org/ERD/HealthData/rabies.shtml. Accessed July 23, 2012.
North Cascades National Park. 2004. Wolves in the North Cascades: Questions and Answers. North Cascades National Park Interpretive Staff. http://www.nps.gov/noca/naturescience/wolves.htm Accessed December 17, 2012.
Nowak, R.M. 1979. North American Quaternary Canis. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History (University of Kansas) 6:1-154.
Nowak, R.M. 1995. Another look at wolf taxonomy. Pages 375-397 in Carbyn L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Canada. 620 pp.
Nowak, R. M. 2000. The original status of wolves in eastern North America. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report. 50 pp. plus 10 figures.
Nowak, R. M. 2002. The original status of wolves in eastern North America. Southeastern Naturalist. 1:95-130.
Nei M, Maruyama T, and Chakraborty R, 1975. The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in
populations. Evolution 29:1–10
12
Nowak, R.M. 2003. Wolf evolution and taxonomy. Pages 239-258 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani (eds.). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 620 pp.
Nunavut. 2012. Summary of the Nunavut Hunting Regulations. http://www.gov.nu.ca/files/Nunavut%20Hunting%20Regulations%20Summary_eng.pdf Date Accessed: July 23, 2012.
Oakleaf, J.K., D.L. Murray, J.R. Oakleaf, E.E. Bangs, C.M. Mack, D.W. Smith, J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, T.J. Meier, and C.C. Niemeyer. 2006. Habitat selection by recolonizing wolves in the northwestern United States. J. Wildlife Management 70:554–563.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2005. Backgrounder on Wolf Conservation in Ontario. 52 pp.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2010. Oregon wolf conservation and management plan. Updated 2010. Available Online: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Oregon_Wolf_Conservation_and_Management_Plan_2 010.pdf
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2011. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan: 2011 Annual Report. Available Online: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/docs/oregon_wolf_program/2011_Wolf_Conservation_Mana gement_Plan_Annual_Report.pdf
Orians, G. H., P. A. Cochran, J. W. Duffield, T. K. Fuller, R. J. Guiterrez, W. M. Hanemann, F. C. James, P. Kareiva, S. R. Kellert, D. Klein, B. N. McLellan, P. D. Olson, and G. Yaska. 1997. Wolves, bears, and their prey in Alaska: Biological and social challenges in wildlife management. National Academy Press. 224pp.
Packard, J.M. 2003. Wolf behavior: reproduction, social, and intelligent. Pages 35–65 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, eds. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. 448 pp.
Parsons, D. 1996. Case study: the Mexican wolf. Pages 101-123 in Herrera, E.A. and L.F. Huenneke, editors. New Mexico’s natural heritage: biological diversity in the Land of Enchantment. New Mexico Journal of Science 36.
Parsons, D.R., and J.E. Nicholopoulos. 1995. Status of the Mexican wolf recovery program in the United States. Pages 141-146 in Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, editors. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Occasional Publication No. 35. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 620 pp.
Patten, M. A., and P. Unitt. 2002. Diagnosability versus mean differences of sage sparrow subspecies. The Auk 119(1):26-35.
Nowak, R.M. 2009. Taxonomy, morphology, and genetics of wolves in the Great Lakes region.
Pp. 233-250 in A.P. Wydeven, T.R. Van Deelen, and E.J. Heske (eds.), Recovery of grey wolves
in the Great Lakes region of the United States. Springer Publishing, New York.
13
Paul, William. 2005. Fax from Paul, USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, to Ron Refsnider, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 11/23/05. Subject: Disease data for your wolves? 5 pp.
Peterson, R.O. and P. Ciucci. 2003. The wolf as a carnivore. Pages 104-130 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 466 pp.
Peterson, R.O., Thomas, N.J., Thurber, J.M., Vucetich, J.A., Waite, T.A., 1998. Population limitation and the wolves of Isle Royale. Journal of Mammalogy 79, 828–841.
Peterson, R.O., J. D. Woolington, and T.N. Bailey. 1984. Wolves of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 88. 52 pp.
Pimm, S. L., H. L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the risk of extinction. The American Naturalist 132:757–785.
Pollinger J., D. Greenfield, B. vonHoldt and R. Wayne (University of California, Los Angeles). in litt. 2008. DNA forensic analysis of tissue samples from captured and radiocollared male and female wolves, Lookout Ridge, Washington. August 28, 2008 letter to Harriet Allen, Endangered and Threatened Section Manager, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Price, W.W. 1894. Notes on a collection of mammals from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Zoe 4:315-332.
Putnam, R. (with transcript and notes by S. Hargreaves). 1928. The letters of Roselle Putnam. Oregon Historical Quarterly 29:242-264.
Ratti, J.T., J.M. Scott, P.A. Wiseman, A. Gillesberg, C.A. Miller, M.M. Szepanski, L.K. Svancara. 2004. Feasibility of wolf reintroduction to Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Northwest Science 78: (special issue): 1–76.
Reed, J.E., W.B. Ballard, P.S. Gipson, B.T. Kelly, P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, and D. B. Wester. 2006. Diets of free-ranging Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):1127-1133.
Research and Polling, Incorporated. 2008a. Wolf recovery survey: Arizona and New Mexico. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. http://www.rpinc.com/wb/pages/rpi.php.
Research and Polling, Incorporated. 2008b. Wolf recovery survey: New Mexico. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. http://www.rpinc.com/wb/pages/rpi.php.
Richardson J. 1829. Fauna Boreali-Americana, Part 1. London: John Murray
Rinkevich, S.A. 2012. An assessment of abundance, diet, and cultural significance of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona. PhD Dissertation, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona. 239 pp.
14
Robinson, J., J. Pollinger, and R. Wayne. in litt. 2011. DNA forensic analysis of canid sample WA012F from the Cascade Mountains and three canids from the Diamond Pack, Pend Orielle County. July 28, 2011 letter to Harriet Allen, Endangered and Threatened Section Manager, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Rowe, R. A. 1941. The receding range of the timber wolf in western Oregon. Murrelet 22:52– 54.
Rueness, E.K., Asmyhr, M.G., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Macdonald, D.W., Bekele, A., et al. 2011. The Cryptic African Wolf: Canis aureus lupaster Is Not a Golden Jackal and Is Not Endemic to Egypt. PLoS ONE 6(1): e16385. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016385
Russell, D. 2010. A review of wolf management programs in Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and Northwest Territories. Yukon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan Review Committee. 47 pp.
Rutledge, L.Y., P. Wilson, C. Klutsch, B. Patterson, and B. White. 2012. Conservation genomics in perspective: A holistic approach to understanding Canis evolution in North America. Biological Conservation 155: 186-192.
Sage, R.B. 1846. Scenes in the Rocky Mountains, and in Oregon, California, New Mexico, Texas, and the Great Prairies; or Notes by the Way, During an Excursion of Three Years, with a Description of the Countries Passed Through, Including Their Geography, Geology, Resources, Present Condition, and the Different Nations Inhabiting Them. By a New Englander. Cary & Hart: Philadelphia. 314 pp.
Say, T. 1823. Pages 167–199 in Long SH. Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains performed in the years 1819 and 1820. Volume I. Philadelphia: Carey and Lea.
Schmidt, R.H. 1991. Gray wolves in California: their presence and absence. California Fish and Game 77:79-85.
Schwartz, R.H., R. Stephenson, and N. Wilson. 1983. Trichodectes canis on the gray wolf and coyote on Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J. Wildl. Dis. 19:372–73.
Seal, U.S. 1990. Mexican wolf population viability assessment: Review draft report of workshop. 22-24 October 1990. Sponsored by International Union for Conservation of Nature, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, Glen Rose, Texas, USA.
Rutledge, L.Y., C.J. Garroway, K.M. Loveless, and B.R. Patterson. 2010a. Genetic differentiation of eastern wolves in Algonquin Park despite bridging gene flow between coyotes and gray wolves. Heredity 105:520-531.
Rutledge, L.Y., B.R. Patterson, K.J. Mills, K.M. Loveless, D.L. Murray, B.N. White. 2010b. Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biological Conservation 143: 332 – 339.
15
Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca [SEMARNAP]. 2000. Proyecto de recuperación del lobo mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi). Instituto Nacional de Ecología. Tlacopac, San Ángel, México, D.F.
Shaffer, M.L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. Pages 69-86 in Soule, M.E. editor. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA. 204 pp.
Shelton, S.L. and F.W. Weckerly. 2007. Inconsistencies in historical geographic range maps: the gray wolf as example. California Fish and Game 93:224-227.
Siminski, D.P. and E.M. Spevak. 2012. Population Analysis and Breeding and Transfer Plan. Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) AZA Species Survival Plan: Yellow Program. 81 pp.
Singleton, P.H., W.L. Gaines, and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-549. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 89 pp.
Smith, D.W. and E Almberg. 2007. Wolf diseases in Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone Science 15:17–19.
Smith, D. W., K. M. Murphy, and D. S. Guernsey. 2001. Yellowstone Wolf Project: Annual Report, 2002. National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 14 pp.
Sparkman, A. M., L. P. Waits, and D. L. Murray. 2011. Social and demographic effects of anthropogenic mortality: a test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis in the red wolf. PLoS ONE vol. 6, issue 6, p. e20868.
Stephens, F. 1906. California Mammals. West Coast Publishing Co.: San Diego, CA.
Suckley, G. 1859. Report upon the mammals collected on the survey, Chapter II. Pages 89-106 in Cooper and Suckley (ed.). The Natural History of Washington Territory. Bailliere Brothers: New York.
Suckley, G. and G. Gibbs. 1859 Report upon the mammals collected on the survey, Chapter III. Pages 107-139 in Cooper and Suckley (ed.). The Natural History of Washington Territory. Bailliere Brothers: New York.
Sumner, L. and J.S. Dixon. 1953. Birds and Mammals of the Sierra Nevada. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA. 484 pp.
Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 113(2): 404-407.
Thiel, R.P., W. Hall Jr., E. Heilhecker, and A. P. Wydeven. 2009. A Disjunct Gray Wolf
Population in Central Wisconsin. Pages 107-117 in Wydeven, A.P., T. R. VanDeelen, and E.J. Heske, editors. Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United
States. Springer Science and Business Media, LLC, New York, New York. USA.
16
Thiel, R.P., and A.P. Wydeven. 2012. Eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) status assessment report: Covering east-central North America. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region, Bloomington, MN. 87 pp.
Thomas, Nancy. 1998. Letter from Thomas, Endangered Species Disease Specialist, USGS National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, WI, to Ron Refsnider, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 11/06/98. Necropsy and parasite data on Great lakes wolves. 3 pp. plus 2 single-page data tables.
Thomas, Nancy. 2000. Letter from Thomas, Endangered Species Disease Specialist, USGS National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, WI, to T.J. Miller, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 11/09/00. Peer reviewer comments on Gray Wolf Reclassification and Delisting Proposal of 07/13/00. 2 pp.
Thomas, Nancy. 2006. Letter from Thomas, Endangered Species Disease Specialist, USGS National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, WI, to WGL Wolf Delisting Comment Analysis Team, dated 06/16/06. Peer Reviewer comments on Proposed Rule to Delist Western Great Lakes Population of Gray Wolves. 3 pp. plus 80-page attachment.
Titus, K. 2007. Intensive management of wolves and ungulates in Alaska. Transactions of the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Pp. 366-377.
Treves, A., K.A. Martin, J.E. Wiedenhoeft, and A.P. Wydeven. 2009. Dispersal of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region. pp. 191-204 in A.P. Wydeven, T. R. Van Deelen, and E.J. Heske, eds. Recovery of Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: An Endangered Species Success Story. Springer, New York, NY, USA. 350 pp.
Turnbull, T. 1913. T. Turnbull’s travels from the United States Across the Plains to California. Pages 151-225 in Paxon FL (ed.). Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin for 1913.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010a. Draft environmental impact statement for public motorized travel management plan. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 231 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010b. Draft environmental impact statement for travel management on the Gila National Forest. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 308 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Recovery plan for the eastern timber wolf. Washington, D.C. 79 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 67 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Mexican wolf recovery plan. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.
17
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for the eastern timber wolf. Twin Cities, MN. 73 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Denver, CO. 608 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf within its historic range in the southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Mexican wolf recovery program: Mexican wolf reintroduction progress report 4. Technical Report. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Mexican wolf recovery program: progress report 5. Technical Report. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Mexican wolf recovery program: progress report 8. Technical Report. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Red Wolf (Canis rufus) 5-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation. Southeast Region, Red Wolf Recovery Program Office, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, Manteo, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment. Region 2, Albuqerque, New Mexico. 130 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Current Events in the Blue Range Wolf Reintroduction Area.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Lower 48-State and Mexico Gray wolf (Canis lupus) listing, as revised. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Washington Office, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services. 1989–2005. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Interagency Annual Reports 1989–2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 100 N. Park, Suite 320, Helena, MT. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/ Accessed December 17, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services. 1989–2011. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Interagency Annual Reports 1999–2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 100 N. Park, Suite 320, Helena, Montana. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/ Accessed December 17, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Idaho Fish and Game, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2006. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2005 Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 59601. 130pp. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt05/ Accessed December 17, 2012.
18
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Idaho Fish and Game, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2009. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2008 Interagency Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 59601. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/index.html Accessed December 17, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2011. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2010 Interagency Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 59601. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt10/index.html Accessed December 17, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2012. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2011 Interagency Annual Report. M.D. Jimenez and S.A. Becker, eds.. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 59601. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt11/index.html
Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 668 pp.
Vila, C. and Wayne, R.K. 1999. Hybridization between wolves and dogs. Conservation Biology: 13(1): 195-198.
vonHoldt, B.M., J.P. Pollinger, D.A. Earl, J.C. Knowles, A.R. Boyko, H. Parker, E. Geffen, M. Pilot, W. Jedrzejewski, B. Jedrzejewska, V. Sidorovich, C. Greco, E. Randi, M. Musiani, R. Kays, C.D. Bustamante, E.A. Ostrander, J. Novembre, and R.K. Wayne. 2011. A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids. Genome-Research [available online early at: http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10..1101/gr.116301.110].
Vucetich, J.A., and C. Carroll. In Review. Influence of anthropogenic mortality on wolf population dynamics with special reference to Creel and Rotella (2010) and Gude et al.
(2011). Wayne, R.K., and C. Vilá. 2003. Molecular genetic studies of wolves. Pages 218-238 in Mech, L.D., and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 466 pp.
Weaver, J. 1978. The wolves of Yellowstone. Natural Resources Report No. 14. U.S. National Park Service, Washington, DC. 38 pp.
Weckworth, B.V., N.G. Dawson, S.L. Talbot, M.J. Flamme, and J.A. Cook. 2011. Going Coastal: Shared Evolutionary History between Coastal British Columbia and Southeast Alaska Wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS One 6(5):1-8
19
Weckworth, B.V., S.L. Talbot, and J.A. Cook. 2010. Phylogeography of wolves (Canis lupus) in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy 9:363-375.
Weckworth, B.V., S.L. Talbot, G.K. Sage, D.K. Person, and J.A. Cook. 2005. A signal for independent coastal and continental histories among North American wolves. Molecular Ecology 14:917-931.
Wheeldon, T., B. Patterson, and B. N. White. 2010. Sympatric wolf and coyote populations of the western Great Lakes region are reproductively isolated. Molecular Ecology, 19:4428-4440. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04818.x.
Wheeldon, T. and B. N. White. 2008. Genetic analysis of historical western Great Lakes region wolf samples reveals early Canis lupus/lycaon hybridization. Biology Letters 5:101-104.
Wiles, G. J., H. L. Allen, and G. E. Hayes. 2011. Wolf conservation and management plan for Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 297 pp.
Wilson, P. J., S. Grewal, I. D. Lawford, J. N. M. Heal, A. G. Granacki, D. Pennock, J. B. Theberge, M. T. Theberge, D. R. Voigt, W. Waddell, R. E. Chambers, P. C. Paquet, G. Goulet, D. Cluff, and B. N. White. 2000. DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:2156-2166.
Wilson, P.J., S.K. Grewal, F.F. Mallory, B.N. White. 2009. Genetic characterization of hybrid wolves across Ontario. Journal of Heredity, 100, S80–S89.
Wilson, P. J., S. Grewal, T. McFadden, R. C. Chambers, and B. N. White. 2003. Mitrochondrial DNA extracted from eastern North American wolves killed in the 1800s is not of gray wolf origin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:936-940.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Wisconsin wolf management plan - October 27, 1999. Madison, WI 74 pp.
Woodroffe R, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowit. 2005. The impact of human–wildlife conflict on natural systems. In: Woodroffe R., S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People and wildlife. Conflict or coexistence? 454 pp.
Wydeven, A. P., R. N Schultz, and R. P. Thiel. 1995. Monitoring of a gray wolf population in Wisconsin, 1979-1991. Pages 147-156 in Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing world, eds. L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip. Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute. 620 pp.
Wydeven, A. P, and P. J. E. Wiedenhoeft. 2003. Status of the timber wolf in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Endangered Resources, Performance report #127: 1 July 2002 through 30 June 2003. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls, USA.
Whitlock, M. C., P. K. Ingvarsson, and T. Hatfield. 2000. Local drift load and the heterosis of interconnected populations. Heredity 84:452-457.
20
Wydeven, A. P, and P. J. E. Wiedenhoeft. 2004. Status of the timber wolf in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Endangered Resources, Performance report 1 July 2003 through 30 June 2004. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls, USA.
Wydeven A. P., J. E. Wiedenhoeft, R. N. Schultz, R. P. Thiel, R. L. Jurewicz, B. E. Kohn, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2009. History, population growth and management of wolves in Wisconsin. Pages 87–106 in Wydeven, A. P., T. R. Van Deelen, E. J. Heske, eds. Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: An Endangered Species Success Story. Springer. 350 pp.
Wydeven, A. P., J. E. Wiedenhoeft, R. N. Schultz, J. Bruner, and S. Boles. 2012. Wisconsin Endangered Resources Report 143. Status of the Timber Wolf in Wisconsin. Performance Report 1 July 2011 through 30 June 2012.
Young, S. P. and E. A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America. American Wildlife Institute,Washington, D.C.
Zink, R.M. 2004. The role of subspecies in obscuring avian biological diversity and misleading conservation policy. Proceedings of the Royal Society. 271:561-564.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
From Defenders of Wildlife
Deadline: March 5. 2014
Call your representative and ask them to sign onto the DeFazio letter to Secretary Jewell!
Find your Congress representatives here:
#KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/wolf-news.html
USFWS Letter on Gray Wolf
March 4, 2013
The Honorable Dan Ashe
Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Director Ashe:
We understand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting a status review of the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act that may remove protections for gray wolves across large areas of the lower 48 states. The reintroduction of wolves into the northern Rocky Mountains and their resurgence in the western Great Lakes region have been important gains for a species once teetering on the brink of extinction , and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be commended for its prominent role in these achievements . In other parts of their former range, however, wolves have only barely begun to recover. In particular, wolves have only just begun to return to portions of the Pacific Northwest, California, southern Rocky Mountains and Northeast and continue to need protection in these areas if they are to truly recover. It is our hope that you will retain Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in these areas. A blanket national delisting of the gray wolf would be premature and would not be grounded in peer-reviewed science.
The rebound of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes and northern Rocky Mountains has been a boon for local economies, wildlife enthusiasts, and the ecosystems of these areas that have benefitted from the return of this keystone predator. Studies in Yellowstone National Park found that the presence of wolves benefitted a myriad of species from pronghorn antelope, to songbirds, to beavers and fish.
While there is much to be proud of, there remains considerable progress to be made towards wolf recovery in the lower 48 states. In particular, we are concerned that the same prejudice towards wolves that led to their extirpation across nearly the entire coterminous United States is still present today and, not only is threatening to undo the gains achieved in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, but will prevent their recovery in additional areas. We believe that federal protection continues to be necessary to ensure that wolf recovery is allowed to proceed in additional parts of the country
February 21. 2014 1:48 PM
WOLVES MAY BE LOSING A NASTY POLITICAL BATTLE
By Lance Richardson
There's still time to tell the Fish and Wildlife Service what you think about the latest proposal to remove protection for the gray wolf.
Courtesy of USFWS Pacific Region/Flickr
The Endangered Species Act sounds simple on paper. Its goal is to preserve biological diversity, protect critical habitat, and recover threatened species across the country. But nothing is simple when it comes to the environment. Lobbyists have labeled the ESA both a success and a failure, and a Republican congressman is the latest to try to drastically curtail its protections. The ESA has been argued from all sides, and never more so than when discussions turn to the American gray wolf.
The gray wolf is one of the most hotly contested symbols in the conservation debate today. In June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presented a proposal to nudge gray wolves from under its protective umbrella, effectively “delisting” them across the lower 48 states. (Gray wolves have already been delisted in seven states of the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes.) The proposal would turn wolf management over to individual states.
The proposal caused a great deal of consternation among scientists and wolf supporters. The Endangered Species Act provides an “emergency room way-station for declining species to regain their footing and the sufficiently recover,” said Don Barry, a former chief counsel for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, now at Defenders of Wildlife. Some of the ESA’s biggest success stories are the bald eagle, brown pelican, and American alligator. But wolves are a long way from the healthy numbers these species have reached: An August 2013 population count found just 5,443 wolves across the entire country (excluding Alaska, where wolves are not covered by the ESA). The Fish and Wildlife Service is tired of the issue, Barry told me, and “they are sort of getting up in the middle of the movie.”
This month, following a brief hiatus, arguments have reignited with the release of an independent review paper from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California-Santa Barbara. It finds that the delisting proposal is not, in fact, based on the “best available science.”
The review vindicates critics who say the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to de-list the wolves prematurely, finding “problematic conclusions” in the proposal that treat contentious genetic and ecological theories as fact.
The review got at least one big result: the Fish and Wildlife Service responded by reopening its proposal to public comment. You now have until March 27 to weigh in on wolves' future. (Last year the proposal attracted more than 30,000 comments, ranging from passionate personal pleas to analytical legal responses.) The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated it will make a final determination on the proposal by the end of the year.
What are the scientific arguments actually about, though? Much of the controversy can be traced to the idea of “historic range,” which, broadly stated, refers to the area an animal occupied before humans came along and set about killing it. John Vucetich, a population biologist at Michigan Tech, has argued that wolves currently occupy less than 15 percent of their historic range; along with many other biologists, he has also argued that the Endangered Species Act dictates wolves be restored to a “significant portion” of that original range before they’re ripe for delisting.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has other ideas, though. When I questioned the agency, Gary Frazer, who heads up the Endangered Species Program, called the desire to restore wolves everywhere they used to live “a completely legitimate conservation objective more broadly stated.” But he denied it’s the objective of the Endangered Species Act. He said the ESA’s real objective is “to bring species to the point where they are no longer at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range.” Range, in his explanation, is “the range at the time at which we’re making a determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered.” In other words, range is where an animal lives at the particular moment the Fish and Wildlife Service decides to list it, not where it used to live before it was widely persecuted.
That’s an odd argument: If a squirrel species is reduced to living in a single park, does that mean the Fish and Wildlife Service is obligated by the Endangered Species Act only to maintain the squirrel there and nowhere else?
The rationale for delisting also rests on a taxonomical revision—that is, it reconceives what is meant when we say “American gray wolf.” Using a scientific paper co-authored by four of its own scientists and published in its own journal without peer-review, the Fish and Wildlife Service claims that, historically, the United States was home to another wolf species (Canis lycaon), which would mean that the “historic range” of our modern wolves (Canis lupus) didn’t actually include most of the eastern half of the country. That’s a complex point, but perhaps the most important thing to take away is the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service previously rejected this paper in 2011 as representing “neither a scientific consensus nor the majority opinion of researchers on the taxonomy of wolves.” In other words, most experts didn’t agree with it. And they still don’t, according to the new independent review released this month, which focuses specifically on taxonomy.
If the delisting proposal is not based on the “best available science,” what is it really about?
“There’s no precedent,” Robert Wayne told me. Wayne is a canid geneticist at UCLA who sat on the independent review panel with six other scientists. “I can’t think of another endangered species which has been delisted because of a taxonomic revision. In this case the taxonomic revision is questionable,” he said. “It seems like a convenient way for the US Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf in 22 eastern states.”
But if the delisting proposal is not based on the “best available science,” what is it really about? “This was politics masquerading as science,” the New York Times declared last August in an editorial. Nor is it alone in its suspicions. The issue of wolves has always been politically charged, with agricultural and hunting interests pitted against conservationists and biologists.
“I think probably over the decades at least a few of us were lulled into this sense of acceptance, that everything was getting better and that people now understood the importance of predators like wolves,” Don Barry said. But the debate over the delisting proposals has been a reminder of the residual anger towards wolves in the rural West, where influential ranchers have long fought wolves for depredating livestock. “Merge that in with the whole Tea Party fervor against government, and what you end up with in the state legislatures is this race to the bottom to see who can be more anti-wolf. The biology of the thing gets thrown right out the window.”
John Vucetich offered two potential outcomes from here. Either the Fish and Wildlife Service rescinds its proposal in a few months time, which would mean “one or two years of just lying low,” or it pushes forward with proposed plans for delisting, turning its attention to the critically endangered Mexican gray wolf. If that turns out to be the case, the future of the American gray wolf becomes very gray indeed.
Lance Richardson is a writer based in New York. Follow him on Twitter, or visit his website.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2014/02/21/gray_wolf_endangered_species_act_conflict_should_fish_and_wildlife_service.html
_______________________________________
WOLF CENTER FIGHTS TO KEEP WOLVES ON ENDANGERED LIST
Alawa is one of 17 gray wolves at the Wolf Conservation Center in South Salem and one of three ambassador wolves that participate in educational programs produced by the WCC. (Maggie Howell photo)
By Reece Alvarez
on February 21, 2014
in Lead News, News
The Wolf Conservation Center (WCC) fights all kinds of dangers that threaten its mission of protecting America’s wolves. The South Salem organization recently claimed a small victory against one of those dangers, when the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s bid to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List was temporarily halted.
Last June the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) declared it had accomplished its mission of recovering the endangered wolf species across a significant portion of its original habitat, which includes much of the United States outside of the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic.
To remove a species from the endangered list, the USFWS is required to have its proposals reviewed by an independent panel of scientists.
Earlier this month USFWS released the peer review, which included sharp criticisms of the proposal and asserted that the basis on which the USFWS sought to de-list the gray wolf was not supported by the best science available. The report also refutes the USFWS’s claim that the gray wolf is not native to the northeastern United States.
“There is no evidence that shows the Northeast was not a part of the historic range of gray wolves,” said Maggie Howell, executive director of the WCC. “That enables the Northeast to maybe one day down the line welcome gray wolves into the vast habitat that has been screaming for a predator like the wolf for some time.”
The attempt to de-list the gray wolf becomes more complicated, as the peer review revealed that the “scheme” by which USFWS tried to do so was based largely on a reclassification of Northeastern wolf species by scientists employed by the USFWS.
Based in part on preliminary conclusions from a single 2012 paper written by biologists employed by the USFWS, the USFWS contended that the eastern half of the United States was occupied by Canis lycaon, or the “eastern wolf,” a distinct species of wolf that does not belong to the gray wolf species Canis lupus, according to the WCC.
The WCC is home to 22 wolves, including 17 Mexican gray wolves, and much of its efforts involve supporting initiatives and legislation that help protect wolf populations throughout the country. Since the USFWS announced its plan to de-list gray wolves, the WCC has been building opposition to the proposal, including urging people to submit comments to the USFWS. The USFWS has received more than a million comments on the issue, a record for any de-listing proposal, Ms. Howell said.
Representatives from the WCC even showed up in Albuquerque and Washington, D.C., to testify on behalf of WCC’s gray wolves and their estimated 6,000 relatives across the continental U.S.
Wild wolves will never call Westchester County home, but portions of northern New York and the Northeast are suitable for wolf habitation, if the species has the opportunity to expand, Ms. Howell said. Gray wolves were once common throughout the United States, but by the early 20th Century had been all but eradicated from the wild.
Once numbering approximately 2 million, the wolf population has rebounded thanks to conservation efforts, and is now estimated to be between 7,000 and 12,000 strong and increasingly present in such states as Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
“Wolves are a critical keystone species in a healthy ecosystem. By regulating prey populations, wolves enable many other species of plants and animals to flourish. In this regard, wolves ‘touch’ songbirds, beaver, fish, and butterflies. Without predators, such as wolves, the system fails to support a natural level of biodiversity,” said Ms. Howell, who also shared a quote by the 20th-Century environmentalist Aldo Leopold.
“I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades.”
In light of the peer review, the USFWS has reopened the comment period on its proposal to de-list the gray wolf from the endangered species list for a period of 45 days that began Feb. 10.
Information regarding the peer review and the USFWS proposal, as well as how to submit comments, may be found at fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery.
Tags: Gray wolf, Maggie Howell, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, WCC, Wolf Conservation Center
http://www.lewisboroledger.com/10274/wolf-center-fights-to-keep-gray-wolves-on-endangered-species-list/
______________________________________
TOP YELLOWSTONE EXPERT TAKES ON THE WOLF CRITICS
SPEAKS TO "NON NATIVE SUBSPECIES" CHARGE AND "SURPLUS KILLING"
01/05/14
Recently, the Montana Pioneer spoke with Doug Smith, Yellowstone National Park Wolf Project Leader and Senior Biologist at the Yellowstone Center for Resources, about the nature of the wolves introduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, including the “non native subspecies” charge advanced by critics, and about ongoing research on wolves in the park.
MP: What were the genetic sources of wolves introduced into YNP—where did the existing wolf population originate?
DS: Forty one wolves were introduced to YNP in 1995. There were 14 in 1995 from Alberta, and 17 in 1996 from British Columbia, and 10 in 1997 from near Choteau, Montana. We have genetic evidence that some of those wolves went on to breed. So, 10 of the wolves that were introduced were from Montana, and 31 were from Canada.
MP: What were the main characteristics that were different between the wolves from Canada and the wolves that pre-existed here in Yellowstone, say 150 years ago? Is that known?
DS: Not really. All we have are skulls to judge it from. What we know from studying the skulls are that the wolves are essentially the same. The Canadian wolves were about 7 to 8 percent larger than the pre-existing wolves of Yellowstone. Seven to eight percent is within the variation of size difference found in wolf skulls all over North America, so the difference is statistically insignificant. It is important to compare apples to apples, so-to-speak. Pups and immature animals are smaller, and males are about 20 percent larger than females, at full size. It is important to compare similar age and gender skulls to each other. So comparing the handful of skulls that were preserved here as museum samples with over 150 skulls of wolves that have died here since they were introduced, the skulls are essentially the same, but the ones from Canada are slightly bigger.
Taxonomically (classifying in categories such as genus, species, and subspecies), you get differences between species when there are limitations on their ability to mix genetically. Wolves are stopped by nothing. They will cross mountain ranges, rivers, even pack ice. That's how good this animal is at moving around. So what we have is this constant intermixing of genes that prevents them from becoming really different subspecies. Wolves origin-ated in North America a couple of million years ago. When glaciers connected Alaska and Russia, they crossed over into Russia. They got bigger over there. In the last 600,000 to 700,000 years differently evolved wolves have crossed back to North America in three waves. The remnants of the oldest wave of wolves returning to North America are now the most southern species, and also the smallest, Canis lupus baileyi, the Mexican wolf. The middle wave of evolved wolves returning to this continent from Asia are the gray wolves we have here now, and the most recent are the largest, the arctic wolves.
MP: Were the wolves introduced into YNP significantly different physically or behaviorally from the wolves that were here?
DS: The short answer is no. Wolves are ecological generalists. They can live on a variety of things. We looked for wolves that were previously exposed to bison and elk. The Canadian wolves had a small percentage of bison hair in their scat, but primarily elk and deer hair. We thought that was ideal, as that is the same diet—primarily elk and deer—as we have here. The available wolves from Minnesota had no experience with mountainous terrain or herds of elk or bison. We selected wolves from the same Rocky Mountain ecosystem, with the same kind of prey, to enhance the likelihood of the introduced wolves surviving. I want to clarify the misconception that larger Canadian wolves were preying on smaller American elk [thereby reducing the elk population inordinately]. In fact, the much smaller southwestern Mexican wolf brings down elk. The elk the Mexican wolves prey on in Arizona and New Mexico originally came from Yellowstone, as did the elk in Canada. The optimal number of adult wolves necessary to bring down an elk is only four, but a pair of wolves can also kill an elk.
MP: We hear reports that there were wolves already in Yellowstone that could have multiplied without reintroduction.
DS: There were no wolves here when we introduced the current wolves in 1995. There were no specially adapted wolves [as critics have claimed] in Yellowstone that did not run in packs, or use trails or roads, that didn't howl, and that preyed on small prey, unlike the wolves we have now. There has simply never been a wolf recorded anywhere that lives like that. Furthermore, there is no better bird dog for a wolf than a wolf itself. We had radio collars on all 41 wolves we released over a 3-year period. If there were extant wolves already on the landscape, they would have found them. The wolves we released never turned up any other wolves, dead or alive. And by the way, they rarely eat other wolves that they kill.
MP: Wolves killing other wolves is the main cause of wolf deaths in the park, correct?
DS: Yes, almost half of the 15 YNP wolves that died in 2012 were killed by other wolves. However, for wolves living outside the park, 80 percent of the wolf deaths are caused by humans, mostly by shooting them.
MP: How many wolves are in YNP now?
DS: Last year at the end of 2012 there were at least 83 wolves occupying YNP in 10 packs (6 breeding pairs). This is approximately a 15 percent decline from the previous three years when the numbers had stabilized at around 100 wolves. Wolf numbers have declined by about 50 percent since 2007, mostly because of a smaller elk population.
MP: Would the 1994 population of gray wolves that lived in Montana have naturally recovered, given the protection of the Endangered Species Act?
DS: That was a big opinion-based debate by wolf biologists at the time, led by Bob Ream of the University of Montana. In his opinion, wolves would have recovered given enough time—50, 60 or 70 years. Other people think they would not have made it. Yellowstone National Park and the five National Forests around it can be likened to a huge island. It's the most impressive wild land we have got in the lower 48, and some people say it's the most impressive temperate zone wild land in the world. But it's got an abrupt boundary to it. I frequently fly over here in an airplane, and at the boundary of a National Forest, it turns into a sea of humanity. And wolves are notoriously bad at getting through seas of humanity. Wolves get shot a lot. When we were dealing with a handful of wolves, maybe 40 to 60, how many of those would have been heading this way? So far, we have not yet documented a wolf coming from northwest Montana into Yellowstone. We have documented them coming from Idaho, but that's a lot closer and the linkages are better, primarily in the Centennial Mountains. Wolves don't do well over huge landscapes dominated by people. By introducing wolves they were legally not a fully protected species under the Endangered Species Act. People wanted to be able to shoot them when they got into livestock, which they could not have done if they were a fully protected species.
MP: Wolves from Idaho have now invaded the original Glacier National Park wolves, right?
DS: The Idaho wolf population is now fully connected to the northwest Montana wolf population. Interest-ingly, a study of historic wolf DNA from pelts and skulls shows that over 50 percent of wolf genetic diversity was lost when the continental United States population was reduced to a few hundred wolves in Minnesota. Wolves were the top carnivores in North America. Wolves evolved to adapt to the local conditions, and they will do so again.
MP: The tapeworm cysts spread by wolves that critics rail about, what risk to humans does this pose?
DS: The Echinococcus granulo sus tapeworm was already here. Wolves didn't bring it in. The coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs likely had it before wolves. The human health risk from tapeworms is almost nil. If anyone should have Echinococcus tapeworm it's me. I've handled over 500 wolves in my career. I take their temperature with a rectal thermometer. That's where the tapeworm eggs come out. I now wear rubber gloves, but I wash my hands in snow, then eat my lunch. I wouldn't worry much about it.
MP: What are the primary benefits and disadvantages of having wild ranging wolf packs in the Northern Rockies?
DS: The simplest way to answer that is that there is no question that wolves made people's lives more complicated, and that's a good reason not to have them. Some people love them, some people hate them, and wolves are a polarizing animal. People have to spend a lot of time dealing with the controversy that comes with wolves. Life is simpler without wolves. I admit that if you are a rancher, having wolves around is worrisome. I understand that it's not just the cows they kill; it's the sleepless nights. I think that's the best argument to not have them.
What's the ecological value of wolves? I don't know. It's a human dominated world. We control everything. So why do we need wolves? Landscapes look the way they do because of agriculture, forestry, hunting, mining, development—all those things trump things like wolves. So you really don't get huge ecological benefits of wolves outside of National Parks. In National Parks you do. So why have wolves on these huge landscapes where there are people? Good question. The best answer is, because people want them there. You know, there are a lot of people that don't like wolves. There is an equally large number that do like them, because living in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming is unique and different than living in places like Illinois, Iowa and Arkansas. You have grizzly bears, you have wolves, you have cougars. And that brings in a lot of tourism dollars. Wolves and grizzly bears are the two top attractions to Yellowstone. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are perceived as being pristine, just because of the mere existence of the three large, toothy carnivores. It makes visiting or living here more valuable and a better experience. Economics are more important than ecology when it comes to carnivore populations in Yellowstone National Park.
Right now, it's as natural as it's ever been in Yellowstone Park. Now we have more predators than we have ever had, which means we have fewer elk, and fewer elk means we have all these other ecological benefits, like beavers and songbirds and fishes, and generally enhanced riparian habitat, because fewer elk means less browsing of riparian habitat. So it's a more balanced ecosystem. We only get that because we have natural densities of carnivores. As soon as you cross the park line, all the densities of those carnivores go down because humans manage them. And that is fine; it's not a criticism. The carnivores are on the landscape. That's the thing that the tourists like, but they are not at their normal densities that would occur if people didn't manage them.
MP: What about surplus killing by wolves [where, for example, ranchers report wolves killing or maiming a dozen sheep in one night]?
DS: Surplus killing by wolves doesn't really exist, per-se. We have watched wolves when they have killed more meat than they can immediately consume, and they always come back to finish the carcass unless they are spooked off by people. Hunting success rates for wolves are in the 5 percent to 15 percent range with elk. So they actually get about one in ten of the elk they go after. Eighty five percent to 95 percent of the time, the elk wins, and the wolves get nothing to eat. So, from an evolutionary perspective, if the wolves are not highly motivated to kill whenever they can, they will lose out. Of the 500 wolves I have handled, all across America, in the Midwest, Canada, Alaska, Yellowstone and Idaho, most of them are skinny beneath their beautiful fur. When I have felt their backbones and their pelvises, they usually are skinny. They are just getting by. The prey is better at getting away than the wolves are at killing the prey. So it is so hard to get dinner and when they do get a chance to kill, they kill. That's how you get so-called surplus killing, when the elk are weak and in deep snow, wolves will kill more than they can eat. Also, defenseless sheep will be killed in large numbers because the wolves can do so. But I would argue that if the rancher didn't come out the next day with a rifle, the wolves would eat all those sheep, even if it took them weeks to do so.
Wolves don't kill for the fun of it, when they are likely to get their head bashed in getting dinner. We have seen 15 or more wolves that have been killed by elk, bison, deer and moose. Wolves are risk averse. They don't want to try to kill something that's going to get their head bashed in or their stomach kicked in, but when it's easy, they will kill more than they can immediately eat, but those circumstances crop up pretty rarely. The wolves always cycle back to finish the carcass.
MP: What is the effect of wolves on the coyote population?
DS: Wolves kill coyotes when they approach wolf kills. Pre wolf-introduction, coyotes were living in packs in YNP, and that's something that's unusual. When there are wolves around, the coyotes pretty much live in pairs. Coyotes love coming in and stealing from wolves, and that got them killed. According to unpublished research, supposedly the coyote population dropped in half after the wolf introduction. Over 90 percent of the coyotes that are documented as being killed by wolves have been killed at wolf kill sites—they over estimated the wolves being meat drunk. So the coyotes quit running in packs, and went back to living in pairs, and became more wary around carcasses. The coyotes supposedly socially adapted to wolves, and their population went back to pre-wolf levels. This research is incomplete and inconclusive, but fascinating.
MP: Thank you, Doug. We appreciate this opportunity to present knowledge you have gained over the years about wolves, and at the same time address some of the contro-versies.
DS: Wolves are troublesome and controversial. I understand that. A lot of people don't like them, but a lot of people do like them, and they make money for a lot of people. What I am really after is to get as good a quality of information out there as possible, to help the debate to be a little bit better. The extreme anti-wolf person and the extreme pro-wolf person are always going to be problematic; they are never going to be happy. But this big group of people in the middle can come together on more than they think. If we can get an established group of facts about wolves correctly understood, I do think we can make progress in treating wolves just like any other animal, like a cougar, like a bear, like an elk. Sometimes and in some places their numbers need to be cut back, and just like any other form of wildlife, they need to be scientifically managed.
Interview conducted by Quincy Orhai for the Montana Pioneer.
Thank you R.J. Hayden @Wulalowe
_______________________________________
#KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_______________________________________
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
IT'S TIME FOR
A SERIOUS COURSE CORRECTION
ON WOLVES
Jamie Rappaport Clark
President & CEO, Defenders of Wildlife
Posted: 02/18/2014 5:05 pm EST Updated: 02/18/2014 5:59 pm EST Print Article
I cannot say I was surprised by the recent peer review report on wolf delisting from a panel of independent scientists. They unanimously concluded that the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service's (the Service) proposal to strip federal protections for gray wolves across nearly all of the lower 48 states was not supported by the best available science. Ever since the Service announced its delisting proposal, scientists, conservation groups and concerned citizens have been telling the Service that the delisting proposal is premature and shortsighted, and above all, based on bad and incomplete science.
But my lack of surprise does not make the panel's findings any less egregious; the Endangered Species Act (ESA) expressly requires that listing and delisting decisions be made only on the basis of the "best available science." Now, the wolf peer review report proves that the Service has failed to properly implement the ESA because it did not use the best available science to guide its decisions on wolf recovery.
I was director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1997 -2001 and have over 30 years of experience with the ESA. Needless to say, I know what it's like to make tough calls on species listing and delisting decisions. But no matter how difficult these decisions were in the past, we always based them on the best available science and an optimistic vision of what species recovery should mean. The gray wolf delisting proposal represents a disappointing and flawed departure from the scientific standards that we embraced when I used to work for the Service.
It's not uncommon for peer review panelists to disagree among themselves during the peer review process. In fact, it's the job of any peer review committee to raise questions and concerns about the science underpinning the issue or proposal under review. But what was most remarkable about the unanimous panel conclusion repudiating the Service's science is that the panel had members who professionally disagreed over the underlying policy question of whether wolves should be delisted at all. Thus, despite their differing views on delisting itself, they found themselves in agreement that the science relied upon by the Service was seriously flawed.
In this case, the peer reviewers criticized the Service for relying on just a single scientific report, the Chambers et al. analysis, as the basis for their delisting proposal. They pointed out that that study was highly selective in the data it used. Evidence that did not support the proposal to delist was criticized and dismissed by Chambers et al., whereas evidence that supported the proposal to delist was accepted uncritically. Peer reviewers also said the Service got the taxonomy and range of wolves all wrong in their delisting proposal. For example: gray wolves may have lived in the Northeast, wolves of the Pacific Northwest are likely distinct from other populations, and Mexican gray wolves historically had a much larger range than the Service claimed.
The process used to generate and publish the Chambers study was also problematic. The study was written by scientists from the Service itself and was only published in a Service publication and not by a respected independent journal as one would expect. Mysteriously, the Service's publication had been defunct for more than 20 years and seemed to have been brought back to life to publish this paper.
If this peer review process tells us anything, it tells us - yet again - that the Service is not treating wolves in the same way it treated the recovery of the bald eagle, peregrine falcon or the American alligator. Each of these species reached recovery throughout their range before being taken off the endangered species list. There is still much unoccupied suitable habitat available for wolves. Delisting should not be considered until wolves reach true recovery.
So now, the Service needs a dramatic mid-course correction on wolves. At each step of this delisting proposal - written comments, public hearings and testimony and now the peer-review process - the Service's delisting proposal has been called into question for being premature and based upon bad science. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe have repeatedly asserted that the Service will base decisions on the status of wolves only on the best available science. In light of this damning peer review report on wolves, the Service should withdraw its current delisting proposal, and instead chart a sustainable recovery path for wolves that is truly based upon the best science on the subject.
Follow Jamie Rappaport Clark on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JClarkprez
This Blogger's Books from Amazon
indiebound
Sharing the Rewards of Endangered Species Recovery.: An article from: Endangered Species Update
by Jamie Rappaport Clark
Endangered Animals Wolves Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act Green News
_______________________________________
HOWLS OF OUTRAGE
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELIED ON SHAKY SCIENCE IN ITS EFFORT TO BOOT WOLVES OFF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST.
HERE'S THE FULL STORY BEHIND THE BIOLOGICAL BROUHAHA.
Please tell the USFWS they need to #KEEPWOLVESLISTED .
Before March 27. 2014
Link to USFWS comment form:
by Michelle Nijhuis @nijhuism •
February 10, 2014
Photo: Tim Fitzharris/Getty
About 300 wolves live in the nearly 2-million-acre swath of central Ontario forest known as Algonquin Provincial Park. These wolves are bigger and broader than coyotes, but noticeably smaller than the gray wolves of Yellowstone. So how do they fit into the wolf family tree? Scientists don’t agree on the answer—yet it could now affect the fate of every wolf in the United States.
That’s because last June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing gray wolves across most of the country from the endangered species list, a move that would leave the animals vulnerable to hunting. To support its proposal, the agency used a contested scientific paper—published, despite critical peer review, in the agency's own journal—to argue that gray wolves never existed in the eastern United States, so they shouldn’t have been protected there in the first place.
Instead of the gray wolf, the service said, an entirely different species of wolf—the so-called "eastern wolf," a species whose remnants perhaps survive in Algonquin Park—once inhabited the forests of eastern North America. Canid biologists have argued over the existence of this "lost species" for years. Yet researchers on all sides say that even if the Algonquin wolves are a separate species, that shouldn’t preclude continuing protections for the gray wolf.
On Friday, an independent panel of five leading geneticists and taxonomists came down hard on the agency's proposal to delist gray wolves, unanimously concluding that the service had not relied on the "best available science." Individual panel members described "glaring insufficiencies" in the supporting research and said the agency's conclusions had fundamental flaws.
"What's most significant,” says Andrew Wetzler, director of land and wildlife programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council (which publishes OnEarth), “is that this is coming from a group of eminent biologists who disagree with each other about the eastern wolf—and even so, they agree that the agency hasn't properly understood the scientific issues at hand."
* * *
How did 300 wolves in the Canadian wilderness become central to the debate over protecting their U.S. relations? For years, the Algonquin Park wolves have been something of a scientific mystery. Their coats are typically multicolored, with reddish-brown muzzles and backs that shade from white to black. Visitors from the southeastern U.S. often note their resemblance to red wolves, which are limited to a small reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina.
As biologists began to investigate the relationships among the various North American canids, including Algonquin wolves, red wolves, coyotes, and gray wolves, they collided with one of the most basic—and vexing—questions in their field: what is a species?
"No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists," Charles Darwin himself conceded in On the Origin of Species, adding that "every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species." So do the rest of us. We know that hippos are different from canaries, and that bullfrogs are different from giant salamanders. But the more alike the organisms, the trickier the species question becomes, and thanks to our modern understanding of DNA, the scientific disagreements are—if anything—more passionate today than in Darwin's time.
In 1942, the biologist Ernst Mayr formalized the definition of a species as a group of interbreeding organisms, reproductively isolated from other interbreeding groups. That's the definition that most of us learned in high-school biology, and it remains useful in many cases. But the advent of cheap, fast DNA analysis has exposed its limits: many apparently distinct species hybridize with one another, and few animals hybridize more enthusiastically than wolves, dogs, and other canids.
Genetic samples from the Algonquin Park wolves contain what appears to be coyote DNA, gray wolf DNA, and even domestic dog DNA, creating what Paul Wilson of Trent University in Ontario, one of the first scientists to study the Algonquin Park population, calls a "canid soup" of genetic material.
Biologists studying North American canids fall generally into two camps. Wilson and several of his colleagues in Canada support what's sometimes called the "three-species" model: according to their interpretation of the genetic data, coyotes, modern gray wolves, and the eastern wolf are separate species that evolved long ago from an ancient common ancestor. The eastern wolf, they say, may have once ranged throughout eastern North America, and may in fact be the same species as the red wolf.
Other biologists, including canid geneticist Robert Wayne at the University of California-Los Angeles, support a "two-species" model: it posits that only gray wolves and coyotes are distinct species. According to this model, anything else—a red wolf, Algonquin wolf, or the so-called “coywolf" recently spotted in suburbs and cities—is a relatively recent wolf-coyote hybrid.
Wayne describes the debate between supporters of the two models as "long-running but very polite"—and it's not over yet.
"People on all sides have done some very good work, but it's an extremely complicated issue," says T. DeLene Beeland, author of The Secret World of Red Wolves. "It gets at the heart of the species question."
* * *
Were it not for the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the controversy over the eastern wolf might well have stayed polite. That landmark law is, as it states, intended to protect species, and the murky definition of a species has complicated conservation efforts for jumping mice, pygmy owls, gnatcatchers, pocket gophers, and several other animals. But the debate over wolf taxonomy has become especially fierce.
When the gray wolf was placed on the endangered species list in 1967, it was defined as a single species with a historic range that covered most of the United States, from Florida to Washington state. Hunting, trapping, poisoning, and habitat loss had driven the gray wolf nearly to extinction in the continental United States, and confirmed sightings were rare.
After the species was protected, wolves from western Canada began to venture south, and beginning in 1995, some 41 wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park. They multiplied rapidly, and for the first time in decades, wolf howls were heard in the park. Today, many consider the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction one of American conservation's greatest success stories.
In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service took the Great Lakes wolf population off the endangered species list. The same year, a controversial act of Congress delisted gray wolf populations in most of the Rocky Mountains, returning responsibility for wolf protection to the states. But wolves are famously energetic travelers, and these wolves didn't stay put. In recent years, wolves from the northern Rockies have been spotted in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, and are rumored to be ranging into Colorado and Utah. Wolves from the Great Lakes have turned up in Illinois and Iowa.
"The reason why wolves became in endangered in first place is that states allowed people to hunt the hell out of them."
Outside the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, wolves are still protected by the Endangered Species Act, so these wanderers have raised delicate political questions. Although some states are willing to work with the federal government on wolf management, others want sole control of any wolves that turn up within their boundaries. And the White House's slim margin of support in the Senate relies on centrist Democrats from Western states—many of whom support full wolf delisting, in part because some Western ranchers want the right to shoot wolves that menace their livestock.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for its part, wants to devote its limited money and resource to conservation of the Mexican wolf, a type of gray wolf that was reintroduced into northern New Mexico and Arizona in 1998 and continues to struggle for survival. "The time has now come for the service to focus its efforts on the recovery of the Mexican wolf," agency director Dan Ashe said at a public hearing last year in Washington, D.C.
The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing the rest of the country's gray wolves from the federal endangered species list last June, protecting only the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies. Any gray wolves that roamed beyond the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, it announced, would no longer enjoy endangered species protection. The delisting proposal set off a contentious public comment period that was due to end in September, after which the delisting would either be finalized or scrapped.
One part of the agency's proposal was especially unusual: it argued that its original listing of the gray wolf, back in 1967, had been flawed. In the delisting proposal, the agency not only recognized the eastern wolf as a separate species but also concluded that its existence required a major revision to the historic range map of the gray wolf—making it far smaller than the initial listing had claimed.
Agency director Ashe argued at the hearing in Washington, D.C., last September that there is "no one set formula for how to recover a species." The law requires only that species be safe from extinction, he said, not restored throughout its historic range, before it can be taken off the endangered species list. The two thriving populations in the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains, the agency said, were reason enough to delist the gray wolf.
But historic range has long been an important factor in delisting decisions. "If you eliminate the entire East Coast from the gray wolf's range map, it's just much easier to argue that wolves are no longer endangered," says NRDC's Wetzler.
At the D.C. hearing, Don Barry, who served as an assistant Interior secretary during the Clinton administration, took the microphone to speak for himself and two other former assistant secretaries. Barry recalled that the bald eagle, American pelican, American alligator, and peregrine falcon had been removed from the endangered species list only after returning to suitable habitat throughout most of their historic ranges.
"That is how the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work," said Barry. By stark contrast, he said, the proposal to delist the gray wolf reflected "a shrunken vision of what recovery should mean."
* * *
The Fish and Wildlife Service is required to back up its decisions with science, but in this case, the science was hard to come by. When the agency recognizes new species, for instance, it usually relies on the judgment of scientific organizations such as the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature—which doesn’t recognize the eastern wolf as a separate species. Neither does any similar scientific group.
So instead, the agency relied on a 2012 study by Steven Chambers, a Fish and Wildlife Service staff biologist, and three of his agency colleagues. The Chambers study had already caused controversy: it was published in a recently revived agency journal, not a standard scientific journal. When outside researchers reviewed the paper, the majority had significant criticisms, with one going so far as to say that the study's argument "is made in an intellectual vacuum." Although the journal's editors asked Chambers to respond to the critiques, the revised paper was not resubmitted to reviewers, as it would have been at a standard journal.
In 2012, the agency cited the Chambers paper in a proposal to remove the Great Lakes wolf population from endangered species protection. The agency had to remove the citation after outcry from other scientists in the field and acknowledged at the time that the study "represents neither a scientific consensus nor the majority opinion of researchers on the taxonomy of wolves."
Two years later, though, the agency once again used the Chambers paper, this time to support the removal of all federal protections for wolves.
When outside researchers reviewed the paper, the majority had significant criticisms, with one going so far as to say that the study's argument "is made in an intellectual vacuum."
"There's a lot wrong with the process that the Fish and Wildlife Service used that led to the development of the Chambers paper, and to its subsequent policy decisions," says Sylvia Fallon, a senior scientist at NRDC. (Agency officials did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)
Fallon and many other conservationists are also critical of the agency's review process for the delisting proposal itself. Whenever the agency proposes a change to the status of a species, it is supposed to rely on the "best available science." To make sure it is doing that, it convenes an independent review panel of experts to critique the agency’s reasoning.
But this past summer, three respected wolf biologists were dropped from the review panel; all of them had signed a letter opposing the designation of the eastern wolf as a distinct species. "We were delisted," jokes UCLA’s Wayne, one of the excluded scientists. The resulting public outcry forced the agency to extend its comment period and convene a second panel in September. This time, Wayne was on it, along with NRDC’s Fallon. So was one of the leading supporters of the "lost wolf" theory, Trent University’s Paul Wilson.
Despite their continuing disagreement over the provenance of the Algonquin Park wolves, the peer reviewers were unanimous in their verdict on the agency's science. The proposal was too dependent on the Chambers paper, they said, and the paper's central argument was far from universally accepted.
Wolf geneticists also disagree with agency’s use of the eastern wolf as support for shrinking the gray wolf's historic range. The two could easily have existed side by side, they say. In fact, historical accounts from New York State describe two distinct types of wolves—one smaller and more common, the other larger, heavier, and rarer.
* * *
On Friday, when the Fish and Wildlife Service released the review panel's report, the agency also issued a brief statement extending the comment period on the delisting proposal until late March—after which the agency will decide whether and how to continue with the delisting effort.
With the comment period reopened, conservationists are again arguing that the full, nationwide delisting of the gray wolf is too much, too soon, and not supported by current science. The Northern Rockies population fell 6 percent in the year after Congress removed wolves there from the endangered species list—a drop due largely to the revival of wolf hunting.
Idaho Governor Butch Otter is now supporting a bill that would reduce the number of wolves in his state from about 680 to just 150. Advocates fear the same response in other states where wolves lose federal protection. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jan/28/lawmakers-back-otter-proposed-fund-to-kill-500/
"The reason why wolves became in endangered in first place is that states allowed people to hunt the hell out of them," says Bill Snape, a veteran endangered species lawyer who now works for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Why, after years of effort and a lot of success, would we hand the key right back to the entities that got us in hot water in first place?"
Snape acknowledges that "no one wants wolves to stay on the endangered species list forever," but he points out that the agency could take a more measured approach to delisting, as it has done with other high-profile species.
Whatever path the agency chooses, says NRDC's Wetzler, it needs to heed the warnings of the expert panel and stick to the science. "It's not that the agency has bad intentions, or bad scientists. It's that the idea that gray wolves never existed on the East Coast of the U.S. was a very convenient result—it matched up nicely with their view of wolf recovery and what they wanted to do.
“It's very easy to get caught up in your own story."
This article was made possible by the NRDC Science Center Investigative Journalism Fund.
Like this article? Donate to NRDC to support nonprofit journalism & receive our quarterly magazine.
Michelle Nijhuis writes about science and the environment for National Geographic, Smithsonian, and other publications. Her work will appear in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2013. A longtime contributing editor at High Country News, she lives off the grid with her family in western Colorado. MORE STORIES ➔
MORE ABOUT: SCIENCE, GRAY WOLF, WOLVES, COYOTES, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY, ALGONQUIN PARK, PEER REVIEW
_______________________________________
US GOVERNMENT COULD DRIVE GRAY WOLF TO EXTINCTION
THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
IS RELYING ON SHAKY SCIENCE TO
REMOVE THE ANIMAL FROM
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST
Posted on February 15, 2014 by TWIN Observer
MICHELLE NIJHUIS, ONEARTH.ORG
This article originally appeared on OnEarth.org.
OnEarthAbout 300 wolves live in the nearly 2-million-acre swath of central Ontario forest known as Algonquin Provincial Park. These wolves are bigger and broader than coyotes, but noticeably smaller than the gray wolves of Yellowstone. So how do they fit into the wolf family tree? Scientists don’t agree on the answer—yet it could now affect the fate of every wolf in the United States.
That’s because last June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing gray wolves across most of the country from the endangered species list, a move that would leave the animals vulnerable to hunting. To support its proposal, the agency used a contested scientific paper—published, despite critical peer review, in the agency’s own journal—to argue that gray wolves never existed in the eastern United States, so they shouldn’t have been protected there in the first place.
Instead of the gray wolf, the service said, an entirely different species of wolf—the so-called “eastern wolf,” a species whose remnants perhaps survive in Algonquin Park—once inhabited the forests of eastern North America. Canid biologists have argued over the existence of this “lost species” for years. Yet researchers on all sides say that even if the Algonquin wolves are a separate species, that shouldn’t preclude continuing protections for the gray wolf.
On Friday, an independent panel of five leading geneticists and taxonomists came down hard on the agency’s proposal to delist gray wolves, unanimously concluding that the service had not relied on the “best available science.” Individual panel members described “glaring insufficiencies” in the supporting research and said the agency’s conclusions had fundamental flaws.
“What’s most significant,” says Andrew Wetzler, director of land and wildlife programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council (which publishes OnEarth), “is that this is coming from a group of eminent biologists who disagree with each other about the eastern wolf—and even so, they agree that the agency hasn’t properly understood the scientific issues at hand.”
* * *
How did 300 wolves in the Canadian wilderness become central to the debate over protecting their U.S. relations? For years, the Algonquin Park wolves have been something of a scientific mystery. Their coats are typically multicolored, with reddish-brown muzzles and backs that shade from white to black. Visitors from the southeastern U.S. often note their resemblance to red wolves, which are limited to a small reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina.
As biologists began to investigate the relationships among the various North American canids, including Algonquin wolves, red wolves, coyotes, and gray wolves, they collided with one of the most basic—and vexing—questions in their field: what is a species?
“No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists,” Charles Darwin himself conceded in On the Origin of Species, adding that “every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species.” So do the rest of us. We know that hippos are different from canaries, and that bullfrogs are different from giant salamanders. But the more alike the organisms, the trickier the species question becomes, and thanks to our modern understanding of DNA, the scientific disagreements are—if anything—more passionate today than in Darwin’s time.
In 1942, the biologist Ernst Mayr formalized the definition of a species as a group of interbreeding organisms, reproductively isolated from other interbreeding groups. That’s the definition that most of us learned in high-school biology, and it remains useful in many cases. But the advent of cheap, fast DNA analysis has exposed its limits: many apparently distinct species hybridize with one another, and few animals hybridize more enthusiastically than wolves, dogs, and other canids.
Genetic samples from the Algonquin Park wolves contain what appears to be coyote DNA, gray wolf DNA, and even domestic dog DNA, creating what Paul Wilson of Trent University in Ontario, one of the first scientists to study the Algonquin Park population, calls a “canid soup” of genetic material.
Biologists studying North American canids fall generally into two camps. Wilson and several of his colleagues in Canada support what’s sometimes called the “three-species” model: according to their interpretation of the genetic data, coyotes, modern gray wolves, and the eastern wolf are separate species that evolved long ago from an ancient common ancestor. The eastern wolf, they say, may have once ranged throughout eastern North America, and may in fact be the same species as the red wolf.
Other biologists, including canid geneticist Robert Wayne at the University of California-Los Angeles, support a “two-species” model: it posits that only gray wolves and coyotes are distinct species. According to this model, anything else—a red wolf, Algonquin wolf, or the so-called “coywolf” recently spotted in suburbs and cities—is a relatively recent wolf-coyote hybrid.
Wayne describes the debate between supporters of the two models as “long-running but very polite”—and it’s not over yet.
“People on all sides have done some very good work, but it’s an extremely complicated issue,” says T. DeLene Beeland, author of The Secret World of Red Wolves. “It gets at the heart of the species question.”
* * *
Were it not for the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the controversy over the eastern wolf might well have stayed polite. That landmark law is, as it states, intended to protect species, and the murky definition of a species has complicated conservation efforts for jumping mice, pygmy owls, gnatcatchers, pocket gophers, and several other animals. But the debate over wolf taxonomy has become especially fierce.
When the gray wolf was placed on the endangered species list in 1967, it was defined as a single species with a historic range that covered most of the United States, from Florida to Washington state. Hunting, trapping, poisoning, and habitat loss had driven the gray wolf nearly to extinction in the continental United States, and confirmed sightings were rare.
After the species was protected, wolves from western Canada began to venture south, and beginning in 1995, some 41 wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park. They multiplied rapidly, and for the first time in decades, wolf howls were heard in the park. Today, many consider the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction one of American conservation’s greatest success stories.
In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service took the Great Lakes wolf population off the endangered species list. The same year, a controversial act of Congress delisted gray wolf populations in most of the Rocky Mountains, returning responsibility for wolf protection to the states. But wolves are famously energetic travelers, and these wolves didn’t stay put. In recent years, wolves from the northern Rockies have been spotted in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, and are rumored to be ranging into Colorado and Utah. Wolves from the Great Lakes have turned up in Illinois and Iowa.
Outside the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, wolves are still protected by the Endangered Species Act, so these wanderers have raised delicate political questions. Although some states are willing to work with the federal government on wolf management, others want sole control of any wolves that turn up within their boundaries. And the White House’s slim margin of support in the Senate relies on centrist Democrats from Western states—many of whom support full wolf delisting, in part because some Western ranchers want the right to shoot wolves that menace their livestock.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for its part, wants to devote its limited money and resource to conservation of the Mexican wolf, a type of gray wolf that was reintroduced into northern New Mexico and Arizona in 1998 and continues to struggle for survival. “The time has now come for the service to focus its efforts on the recovery of the Mexican wolf,” agency director Dan Ashe said at a public hearing last year in Washington, D.C.
The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing the rest of the country’s gray wolves from the federal endangered species list last June, protecting only the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies. Any gray wolves that roamed beyond the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, it announced, would no longer enjoy endangered species protection. The delisting proposal set off a contentious public comment period that was due to end in September, after which the delisting would either be finalized or scrapped.
One part of the agency’s proposal was especially unusual: it argued that its original listing of the gray wolf, back in 1967, had been flawed. In the delisting proposal, the agency not only recognized the eastern wolf as a separate species but also concluded that its existence required a major revision to the historic range map of the gray wolf—making it far smaller than the initial listing had claimed.
Agency director Ashe argued at the hearing in Washington, D.C., last September that there is “no one set formula for how to recover a species.” The law requires only that species be safe from extinction, he said, not restored throughout its historic range, before it can be taken off the endangered species list. The two thriving populations in the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains, the agency said, were reason enough to delist the gray wolf.
But historic range has long been an important factor in delisting decisions. “If you eliminate the entire East Coast from the gray wolf’s range map, it’s just much easier to argue that wolves are no longer endangered,” says NRDC’s Wetzler.
At the D.C. hearing, Don Barry, who served as an assistant Interior secretary during the Clinton administration, took the microphone to speak for himself and two other former assistant secretaries. Barry recalled that the bald eagle, American pelican, American alligator, and peregrine falcon had been removed from the endangered species list only after returning to suitable habitat throughout most of their historic ranges.
“That is how the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work,” said Barry. By stark contrast, he said, the proposal to delist the gray wolf reflected “a shrunken vision of what recovery should mean.”
* * *
The Fish and Wildlife Service is required to back up its decisions with science, but in this case, the science was hard to come by. When the agency recognizes new species, for instance, it usually relies on the judgment of scientific organizations such as the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature—which doesn’t recognize the eastern wolf as a separate species. Neither does any similar scientific group.
So instead, the agency relied on a 2012 study by Steven Chambers, a Fish and Wildlife Service staff biologist, and three of his agency colleagues. The Chambers study had already caused controversy: it was published in a recently revived agency journal, not a standard scientific journal. When outside researchers reviewed the paper, the majority had significant criticisms, with one going so far as to say that the study’s argument “is made in an intellectual vacuum.” Although the journal’s editors asked Chambers to respond to the critiques, the revised paper was not resubmitted to reviewers, as it would have been at a standard journal.
In 2012, the agency cited the Chambers paper in a proposal to remove the Great Lakes wolf population from endangered species protection. The agency had to remove the citation after outcry from other scientists in the field and acknowledged at the time that the study “represents neither a scientific consensus nor the majority opinion of researchers on the taxonomy of wolves.”
Two years later, though, the agency once again used the Chambers paper, this time to support the removal of all federal protections for wolves.
“There’s a lot wrong with the process that the Fish and Wildlife Service used that led to the development of the Chambers paper, and to its subsequent policy decisions,” says Sylvia Fallon, a senior scientist at NRDC. (Agency officials did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)
Fallon and many other conservationists are also critical of the agency’s review process for the delisting proposal itself. Whenever the agency proposes a change to the status of a species, it is supposed to rely on the “best available science.” To make sure it is doing that, it convenes an independent review panel of experts to critique the agency’s reasoning.
But this past summer, three respected wolf biologists were dropped from the review panel; all of them had signed a letter opposing the designation of the eastern wolf as a distinct species. “We were delisted,” jokes UCLA’s Wayne, one of the excluded scientists. The resulting public outcry forced the agency to extend its comment period and convene a second panel in September. This time, Wayne was on it, along with NRDC’s Fallon. So was one of the leading supporters of the “lost wolf” theory, Trent University’s Paul Wilson.
Despite their continuing disagreement over the provenance of the Algonquin Park wolves, the peer reviewers were unanimous in their verdict on the agency’s science. The proposal was too dependent on the Chambers paper, they said, and the paper’s central argument was far from universally accepted.
Wolf geneticists also disagree with agency’s use of the eastern wolf as support for shrinking the gray wolf’s historic range. The two could easily have existed side by side, they say. In fact, historical accounts from New York State describe two distinct types of wolves—one smaller and more common, the other larger, heavier, and rarer.
* * *
On Friday, when the Fish and Wildlife Service released the review panel’s report, the agency also issued a brief statement extending the comment period on the delisting proposal until late March—after which the agency will decide whether and how to continue with the delisting effort.
With the comment period reopened, conservationists are again arguing that the full, nationwide delisting of the gray wolf is too much, too soon, and not supported by current science. The Northern Rockies population fell 6 percent in the year after Congress removed wolves there from the endangered species list—a drop due largely to the revival of wolf hunting. Idaho Governor Butch Otter is now supporting a bill that would reduce the number of wolves in his state from about 680 to just 150. Advocates fear the same response in other states where wolves lose federal protection.
“The reason why wolves became in endangered in first place is that states allowed people to hunt the hell out of them,” says Bill Snape, a veteran endangered species lawyer who now works for the Center for Biological Diversity. “Why, after years of effort and a lot of success, would we hand the key right back to the entities that got us in hot water in first place?”
Snape acknowledges that “no one wants wolves to stay on the endangered species list forever,” but he points out that the agency could take a more measured approach to delisting, as it has done with other high-profile species.
Whatever path the agency chooses, says NRDC’s Wetzler, it needs to heed the warnings of the expert panel and stick to the science. “It’s not that the agency has bad intentions, or bad scientists. It’s that the idea that gray wolves never existed on the East Coast of the U.S. was a very convenient result—it matched up nicely with their view of wolf recovery and what they wanted to do.
“It’s very easy to get caught up in your own story.”
Michelle Nijhuis is a freelance writer in western Colorado.
_______________________________________
February 13 2014
GETTING SCIENCE RIGHT FOR WOLVES
Posted by: Chris Haney
On February 7, 2014, panel members of the independent scientific peer-review committee conducted by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara unanimously told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the proposal to strip federal protections for gray wolves across most of the U.S. was “not based on the best available science.” NCEAS had assembled a panel of highly-respected scientists that represented a full range of scientific expertise on wolf genetics and taxonomy, yet even with the panel’s diverse backgrounds, the reviewers unanimously concluded that the science relied upon by the Service was not settled nor the best available. In addition, they raised several specific criticisms of the Service’s scientific rationale for the delisting proposal, which have major implications for protection of wolves going forward.
The panel found that the information used by the FWS to justify the delisting decision was selective,
emphasizing certain facts and downplaying those that did not agree with the delisting. Key scientific studies were omitted or interpreted out of context. Some of the major problems identified by the independent reviewers included:
The biological classification system used by FWS was outdated and inaccurate. A more suitable framework was available that would have resulted in 5-6 wolf populations or subspecies with ranges that followed ecosystem boundaries.
The FWS position that eastern wolves (Canis lycaon) are a distinct species from other gray wolves (Canis lupus) is not a settled issue among scientists. Many experts believe that eastern wolves are a distinct sub-species or population of gray wolf, and not a separate species. Regardless of the status of this ‘eastern’ wolf, gray wolves also may have lived in eastern North America. FWS assumed that gray wolves were absent from the east, but this conclusion was based on a misreading of the science. The existence of an eastern wolf does not rule out the possibility of gray wolves living in the Northeastern U.S.
FWS failed to note the genetic, behavioral, and ecological distinctiveness of wolves in the Pacific Northwest. These wolves could represent a distinct subspecies or population.
FWS’s proposed historical range for Mexican gray wolves (C. lupus baileyi) was too geographically restricted, failing to account for documented historical presence of Mexican gray wolves in southern Colorado, Utah, and Nebraska.
Together, these problems led the review team to conclude that the wolf delisting proposal was not based on the best available science, which is the statutory threshold for all Endangered Species Act listing and delisting proposals. Although the reviewers were directed to not comment on policy matters, their comments on the science relied upon for the delisting proposal nevertheless lends strong support to what opponents of the delisting proposal have said all along: that the Service’s proposal is based upon bad science, terribly flawed and premature. Under these circumstances, the Service should acknowledge its missteps and withdraw the proposal.
Click here to send a letter to Secretary Jewell asking her to withdraw the delisting proposal.
Whatever comes next, the independent peer review process showcases the supreme importance of separating endangered species science from undue political influence. Peer review can sometimes be brutally critical of research flaws, but over time the peer review system serves as a means to correct and improve administrative decisions that rely heavily upon scientific research and knowledge. Without even having to step into the policy arena, the NCEAS wolf peer reviewers showed how a scientific consensus can be achieved despite having different disciplinary backgrounds and points of view.
Dan Thornhill, Ph.D., Conservation Scientist
Chris Haney, Ph.D., Chief Scientist
Categories: Endangered Species Act, Gray Wolf, Mexican Gray Wolf, Northern Rockies Gray Wolf, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
________________________________________
SCIENTISTS BLOW HOLES IN PLAN TO END WOLF PROTECTIONS :
TAKE ACTION
Exciting news for wolves: On Friday top scientists announced that science doesn't back up the Obama administration's plan to strip Endangered Species Act protections from most wolves across the country.
The peer-review decision is a body blow to the feds' disastrous wolf plan. In the six states where wolves have already lost protection, more than 2,600 of them have been killed in just two years; imagine the death toll if wolves lose their safety net across all states -- for good.
Scientists have identified hundreds of thousands of square miles of suitable habitat in regions across the country, from the Pacific Northwest, California and the southern Rockies to New York's Adirondacks. But wolves will never return to those native stomping grounds if the government's intentions become reality.
Get more from KCET News
Take action to tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Keep wolves protected.
________________________________________
RePosted from Wolf Conservation Center
Please follow them on Twitter
NY Wolf Center @nywolforg
The Wolf Conservation Center (WCC) is a non-profit organization that promotes wolf conservation by teaching about wolves and their role in our world.
South Salem, New York ·
SCIENTISTS ALLEGE THAT
USFWS 'S NATIONWIDE
GRAY WOLF DELISTING PROPOSAL VIOLATES ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Posted on January 7, 2014 by Maggie
While federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws, they are not charged with rewriting them!
However, in a compelling academic critique of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
evolving enforcement of the Endangered Species Act,
Sherry Enzler (University of
Minnesota) and John Vucetich (Michigan Technological University) allege that the USFWS’s proposal to delist the gray wolf is, in fact, a blatant attempt to change the application of the law by repealing two of its most important tenets.
The paper, “Removing protections for wolves and the future of U.S. Endangered Species Act,” published Dec. 30 in Conservation Letters, provides a clear and substantive challenge to federal proposals to delist the gray wolf.
REWRITE OF SPECIES-PROTECTION LAW
SEEN IN MOVE TO TAKE WOLVES OFF
THE U.S.LIST
By Ron Meador
From the journal “Conservation Letters” comes a compelling academic critique of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service‘s evolving enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, through some key rewriting of policy that might appeal to satirists like George Orwell or Joseph Heller.
The paper, published last week in the journal’s “Policy Perspectives” section, is focused largely on the service’s announcement that it will remove gray wolves from federal protection throughout the lower 48 states, following earlier “de-listings” in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, Wyoming and Idaho (as well as states of the northern Rocky Mountains and a scattering of others with few if any wolves).
But the authors — including Sherry Enzler of the University of Minnesota
and John Vucetich of Michigan Technological University, who directs the wolf-moose population study on Isle Royale
— argue that the service’s reasoning in support of its decision on gray wolves changes its application of the landmark wildlife law in two ways that effectively repeal it:
First, by redefining the Endangered Species Act’s notion of natural range from the territory a species historically inhabited to the territory it currently occupies.
Second, by deciding that human activity — especially intolerant activity — in portions of a species’ range can justify reclassification of those areas under the ESA as habitat no longer suitable for threatened animals and plants.
Or, as Orwell might have it, a creature’s natural habitat is natural no longer once the creature is driven out. For his part, Heller might see it as another Catch-22: The ESA exists to protect plants and animals from eradication by humans, except in those areas where humans prefer to eradicate them.
CLEAR PHRASING IN THE LAW
Perhaps the ESA’s most important single passage is its clear, plain-language definition of an endangered species as one “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (emphasis added).
That wording may seem obvious today, but as the law moved toward passage in 1973 it was a significant and deliberate broadening from earlier species-protection laws, especially on what the paper’s authors call the “SPR phrase” italicized above.
Drawing on statements from U.S. Sen. John Tunney, the California Democrat who was a key author of the ESA and the legislation’s floor manager in the Senate, the paper notes his explanation that “a species might be considered endangered or threatened and require protection in most states even though it may securely inhabit others.”
This, too, seems commonsensical and until recently, the paper says, the Fish And Wildlife Service considered a species’ range to be both its current and historic territory — even, at times, resisting pressures to narrow its focus to current territory only.
But now the FWS seeks to redefine the gray wolf’s range as the territory it currently inhabits, and to declare the rest of its former territory as “unsuitable habitat” because people will no longer tolerate wolves there.
HOW WOLVES GOT ON LIST
To understand the significance of this shift, consider that if the newer definition had been in use when wolves were initially listed for ESA protection in 1978 — just five years after Congress passed the law with barely a dissenting vote — they might not have qualified.
At that point, wolves were known to inhabit only two small territories in the lower 48 states — one in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and adjacent Superior National Forest, the other on Isle Royale.
These remnant populations totalling a few hundred wolves, though tiny, appeared to be stable and possibly growing slightly because of wilderness protections. And at that point, of course, Isle Royale had been in their “historic range” for less than three decades.
Today, the paper asserts, federal protections have restored wolves to about 15 percent of their historic U.S. range outside Alaska. Whether an 85 percent loss qualifies as a “significant portion” of that range is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. In the opinion of the paper’s authors,
Although prescribing a precise value to the SPR phrase is challenging, acknowledging egregious violations is not. Today, wolves occupy approximately 15% of their historic range within the conterminous United States. To conclude that this condition satisfies the requirement represented by the SPR phrases sets an extremely low bar for species recovery.
As for redefining "range,"
Interpreting range to mean “current range” is functionally identical to striking the SPR phrase from the ESA’s definition of endangerment and narrowing the definition to being “in danger of extinction
[everywhere].”
EFFECT ON OTHER SPECIES
It is difficult to think of a species whose conservation has inspired disputes more bitter and ceaseless than those that swirl around the gray wolf, with the possible exception of the grizzly bear in portions of the American West.
But the FWS reasoning under challenge in this paper could just have easily been applied in the past — or, more important, applied in the future — to the detriment of such recovered species as bald eagles, whooping cranes and peregrine falcons, not to mention the Kirtland’s warbler, the southern sea otter, the Virginia big-eared bat and the black-footed ferret.
And it is thinking of those species, along with some 2,000 others still listed, that makes one wonder what coherent philosophy or policy of conservation can justify a redefinition of “suitable habitat” to exclude places made inhospitable by human activity.
Indeed, as the authors point out,
In most cases, species are listed as endangered because current range has been reduced by human actions. The ESA is intended to mitigate such reductions in range, not merely describe them.
As such, a sensible interpretation of range in the SPR phrase is historic range that is currently suitable or can be made suitable by removing or sufficiently mitigating threats to the species.
One always wants to hope that sound science underlies federal policy decisions in these matters. Indeed, we appear to be entering an era of changing climate in which habitats are likely to be remade by forces well beyond the science of mitigation and the capabilities of wildlife managers, regardless of the level of empowerment they may choose to find within the ESA or settled case law.
But with regard to gray wolves, climate is not the critical issue. Human persecution is. And here, too, the authors challenge FWS’s fulfillment of their obligations under the ESA, in a section headed “The science of intolerance” (citations omitted):
A central tenet of the proposed delisting rule is: “the primary determinant of the long-term conservation of gray wolves will likely be human attitudes toward this predator.”
Although bound by the ESA to base its listing and delisting decisions on the best available science, the FWS does not refer to any of the scientific literature on human attitudes toward wolves to justify its determination….
The proposed rule also asserts that delisting wolves at this time is critical for maintaining wolf recovery because “keeping wolf populations within the limits of human tolerance” requires humans be allowed to hunt entrap wolves. The best available science does not support this contention.
Indeed, a recent review found no evidence for the claim that the rates of poaching changed with higher quotas of legal harvest, and the recent longitudinal analysis found attitudes toward wolves were more negative during a period of legal lethal control than when the wolves were listed under the ESA...
Ultimately, there is no empirical support for the notion that continued listing would result in a backlash against wolves.
****
This article was published in MinnPost.com’s Earth Journal on January 7, 2014.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Endangered Species Act, John Vucetich, Nationwide delisting, Sherry Enzler, Violation. Bookmark the permalink.
_______________________________________
THE VERDICT:
SCIENCE BEHIND STRIPPING WOLF PROTECTIONS FATALLY FLAWED
Posted: 02/10/2014 11:23 am EST
Updated: 02/10/2014 11:59 am EST
In a damning rebuke of the Obama administration's plans to strip Endangered Species Act protections from gray wolves across most of the lower 48, a panel of five independent scientists has unanimously concluded that it is not supported by the "best available science."
Appointed by the government to review the proposal, the five scientists found that a major underpinning of the proposal to remove protections did not reflect current science. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service argued that the gray wolf never occurred in 29 eastern states, but rather that a different species of wolf known as the eastern wolf did, and thus that the gray wolf should never have been protected at a national level in the first place.
Support for this conclusion was always tenuous -- it was based on an analysis solely by agency staff and published in an agency journal that had not been active in years -- but the review released this week is certainly the nail in the coffin.
The implications of that finding are far-reaching, suggesting that before federal protections can be removed for wolves across most of the country there must be much broader evidence of recovery.
So, what now?
No science, no delisting proposal, right?
That's what the Endangered Species Act requires. But it'll be up to the Obama administration to decide whether to follow the law or the politics.
The facts -- and political motivations -- are now clear: Wolves occupy a mere five percent of their historic range and in places where protections have already been removed, states have enacted aggressive anti-wolf hunting and trapping seasons that in just two-to-three years have resulted in the death of more than 2,600 wolves.
Hatred and persecution of wolves was the primary reason they were nearly driven off the map in the lower 48 states -- down to fewer than 1,000 wolves limited to northeastern Minnesota. Their comeback has been a tremendous success, but it is not complete and although most Americans admire wolves, old prejudices persist among a minority.
Nowhere has this been more obvious that in Idaho, where more than 900 wolves have already been killed, and in recent weeks the state hired a bounty hunter to kill all the wolves in two packs in one of the nation's largest and most remote wilderness areas simply because hunters complained that the wolves were killing too many elk.
It would be unfortunate if we allowed politics and special interests to trump science in guiding our wildlife management policies.
And unless the Obama administration reverses course and follows the advice of the best science to preserve Endangered Species Act protections for America's wolves, we can be sure the bloodbath will continue and wolves will once again be pushed toward the brink of extinction.
Follow Noah Greenwald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Noah_Ark_757
Poaching Gray Wolves Obama Administration Endangered Species Endangered Animals Wolf Protections Gray Wolf Protections Lifted Green News
________________________________________
REVIEW PANEL FAULTS FEDERAL PLAN TO REMOVE PROTECTIONS FOR OUR WOLVES
Federal officials propose to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species lsit.
A panel of scientists asked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review the proposal to strip endangered species protections from gray wolves found serious problems with the agency's science. (Gary Kramer / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / April 18, 2008)
By Julie Cart
February 7, 2014, 2:24 p.m.
The federal proposal to remove endangered species protections for all gray wolves in the lower 48 states came under fire Friday from a scientific peer review panel that unanimously found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision does not reflect the best available science regarding wolves.
The panel’s analysis was released Friday and is the latest in a series of setbacks to the plan, announced last year. When it announced its plan last June, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Daniel Ashe called the recovery of wolves — which were hunted and poisoned to the brink extinction "one of the most successful recoveries in the history of wildlife conservation."
In addition, the new rule would recognize the small population of Mexican wolves in New Mexico and Arizona as a unique subspecies and list the animal as endangered.
Since that announcement, the process of obtaining peer review of the delisting decision has been fraught with charges of compromised scientific integrity and political manipulation.
This is the second panel convened by the federal agency.
An earlier incarnation was disbanded after it surfaced that the wildlife service sought to remove scientists who signed on to a letter expressing concerns about the delisting proposal.
The process was restarted and the new document arrives at many of the same conclusions reached by previous analysis, including the assertion that the delisting rule is based on analysis not universally accepted among scientists and not reflecting the latest data.
One reviewer, Dr. Robert Wayne, a canine geneticist at UCLA, wrote that the wildlife service appeared to cherry pick the scientific record.
“Information contrary to the proposed delisting is discounted whereas that which supports the rule … are accepted uncritically,” Wayne said.
Another reviewer found fault with the federal assertion that gray wolves are not naturally occurring in the Eastern U.S., calling such a statement "unfounded."
Wolves are now legally hunted in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. State and federal biologists monitor pack populations and can reinstate protections if numbers reach levels that officials consider dangerously low.
California is considering imposing its own protections after the discovery of a lone male wolf that wandered into the state's northern counties from Oregon two years ago. This week the state Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended to the California Fish and Game Commission that wolves not be added to the state's endangered species list.
The commission will take up the matter at a future meeting.
In light of the panel’s findings, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Friday announced that it would extend public comment on the matter another 45 days. A final decision is expected late next year.
Comments (8)Add / View comments | Discussion FAQ
evanls at 10:20 AM February 08, 2014
I'm generally supportive of Obama but he has been an abysmal failure when it comes to conservation issues. Remember the appointment of "Rancher Ken" Salazar as Interior Secretary? That was the fox guarding the henhouse. Now they are even allowing Idaho and Wyooming to send wolve killers into federal wilderness areas to slaughter wolves, because the ranchers and hunting guide industry want it. Disgusting. They need to put the wolves back on the endangered species list.
justvisitingthisplanet at 8:56 AM February 08, 2014
Politics and science don't mix. Ranchers get compensation for wolf killed livestock; all part of the generous federal subsidies to agriculture (including exemptions from many environmental laws). Let wolves recover to sustainable levels then come back and disuss delisting.
jackjack5 at 3:05 PM February 07, 2014
While delisting all species of gray wolves may be overkill, delisting gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming is fine. The gray wolves in those states were not native to the areas and they never were endangered. There is a heavy population of that species of wolf in Canada and Alaska. In fact, the wolves in those three states were imported from Canada. Since gray wolves had been completely eradicated from those three states in the late 1920s and early 30s, they were not an endangered species. They were like cockroaches and termites, destructive pests, and there eradication was necessary to protect the economies of those states. Unlike other predatory species, wolves are wanton killers that will kill just to kill. If all they killed was for food, that would be OK but all too often they kill just because they like to kill. They are the Nazis of the animal world.
_______________________________________
Heyya Wolves!
Looks like we have new information to work with to keep our Gray Wolves listed under the Endangered Species Act.
USFWS and PEER reviewers didn't see eye to eye on the science that USFWS used to determine that our Gray Wolves should be removed from Federal E.S.A. listing as endangered status species.
USFWS will be taking our new comments starting February 10th, and will continue to until March 27th.
Unless they change the deadline.
Again.
The link for comment submission will be on this page when it is functioning on the 10th of February, 2014. Breaking news is here now, along with the PEER reviewers report.
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/wolf-news.html
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
SCIENTISTS CALL B.S. - BAD SCIENCE, THAT IS - ON WOLF DELISTING
by Chris Clarke
on February 7, 2014 3:59 PM
Aw. | Photo: Joachim S.. Müller/Flickr/Creative Commons License
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's move to strip gray wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is based on insufficient science, according to a report by an independent panel of scientists. In response to the report, USFWS has again opened public comment on its wolf delisting proposal until March, meaning a bit more delay before gray wolves are potentially removed from the Endangered Species List.
USFWS now expects to make its final decision on delisting the wold by the end of 2014.
In the report, produced by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at UC Santa Barbara, an independent panel of wildlife biologists from universities, the California Academy of Sciences, and the Natural Resources Defense Council agree unanimously that more study is needed before the wolf is removed from ESA protection.
According to the report, the delisting proposal was based in part on a single October 2012 paper that contends eastern wolves belong to the species Canis lycaon, distinct from gray wolves in the western half of North America belonging to the species Canis lupus. If the eastern part of the wolf's historic range was occupied by a different species, according to USFWS' rationale, then Canis lupus now occupies enough of its historic range to be considered recovered. It can thus be removed from ESA protection.
But the 2012 paper, "An Account of the Taxonomy of North American Wolves From Morphological and Genetic Analyses" by biologist Steven M. Chambers and three colleagues, is not universally considered valid by wolf biologists. Scientists on the NCEAS panel pointed out that Chambers et al's conclusions were based on a few genetic differences between wolf populations that were potentially valid, but not conclusive.
What's more, Chambers and his colleagues are all biologists in the employ of USFWS, and their paper was published in the USFWS journal North American Fauna. There's nothing necessarily nefarious about that: North American Fauna publishes some fine work, and many USFWS biologists are among the best in their fields.
The panel did not reject Chambers et al's conclusions outright. Nonetheless, the panel agreed unanimously that Chambers et al did not represent the "best available science," which is the usual legal standard to which USFWS rulemaking is expected to conform.
The upshot: if it isn't yet settled that eastern wolves are a distinct species, then it's not yet settled whether the species to which western wolves belong has recovered over enough of its range to no longer need protection. And without that settled science, USFWS' delisting is called into question.
Reaction from wolf defenders was swift and jubilant Friday. "The nation's top wolf scientists today confirmed what we and millions of American's have been saying for months: The job of wolf recovery is far from complete," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "This peer review is a major blow to the Obama administration's highly political effort to prematurely remove protections for wolves."
"Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information," said USFWS Director Dan Ashe. "We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input."
As mentioned earlier, public comment on the delisting proposal has now been reopened, the third time the comment period has been so extended on the controversial proposal. Members of the public wishing to comment on the wolf delisting now have until March 27, and more information, as well as an online copy of the NCEAS review of the proposal's science, can be found on the USFWS's gray wolf recovery page.
Scientists Call B.S. -- Bad Science, That Is -- on Wolf Delisting
About the Author :
Chris Clarke is a natural history writer and environmental journalist currently at work on a book about the Joshua tree. He lives in Joshua Tree.
Read more:
Please follow Chris Clarke on Twitter : @canislatrans
________________________________________
US USED UNSOUND SCIENCE IN MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO DELIST GRAY WOLF FROM ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST
#COMMENTFORWOLVES
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/wolf-news.html
By James A. Foley
Feb 07, 2014 - 04:35 PM EST
The Obama administration's proposal to bump the gray wolf off the federal endangered species list could lead to the endangerment of other species, according to researchers who warn that, if passed the way it is currently written, the rule would set a dangerous precedent.
(Photo : Reuters) A pair of gray wolves in 1998
After receiving a peer-reviewed analysis of its proposal to remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and add the Mexican gray wolf, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will reopen its public comment period.
The move comes after an independent analysis by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) concluded that the recommendations the USFWS used to put the proposal forward were not rooted in sound science.
The USFWS proposal was based around the notion that the US Northeast and Midwest were home a separate species, the eastern wolf. If that were the case, then gray wolf recovery would not be needed in those areas and justified the move to delist the species as endangered.
In a statement by the University of California, Santa Barbara, which is home to the NCEAS, the panel members report a unanimous consensus "that the USFWS's earlier decisions were not well supported by the available science."
Furthermore, "the panel highlighted that the proposed rule was strongly dependent on a single publication, which was found to be preliminary and not widely accepted by the scientific community. The panelists identified additional scientific research that should be considered before proposing a change in the listing status of the gray wolf."
USFWS Director Dan Ashe said in a statement
that the peer review process is an important step in the process of evaluating species health.
"We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input," Ashe said.
Steven Courtney, an NCEAS panel member involved in the case told The Associated Press that the peer-review process's results were "unequivocal."
"The science used by the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning genetics and taxonomy of wolves was preliminary and currently not the best available science," he said.
Chris Tollefson, a spokesman for the USFWS, told the AP that "we do take the comments from peer reviewers very seriously and we need to take those into account."
Moving forward, another round of public commentary on the gray wolf proposal will be opened on Feb. 10, the USFWS said, adding that "interested stakeholders will have an additional 45 days to provide information that may be helpful to the Service in making a final determination on the proposal."
The public can access the peer-review and make comments at www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5936/20140207/used-unsound-science-making-recommendation-delist-gray-wolf-endangered-species.htm
________________________________________
PANEL SAYS FEDERAL WOLF PLAN USED UNPROVEN SCIENCE
By Matthew Brown, Associated Press
Updated 11:03 am, Friday, February 7, 2014
1 of 2
FILE - This April 18, 2008, file photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife shows a gray wolf. A scientific review says the U.S. government’s bid to lift federal protections for gray wolves across most of the Lower 48 states is based on unproven claims about their genetics. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service peer review panel released its report Friday Feb. 7, 2014. It represents a significant setback for the pending proposal to take gray wolves off the endangered species list except in the desert Southwest. Photo: Gary Kramer, AP / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A proposal to lift federal protections for gray wolves across most of the U.S. suffered a significant setback Friday as an independent review panel said the government is relying on unsettled science to make its case.
Federal wildlife officials want to remove the animals from the endangered species list across the Lower 48 states, except for a small population in the Southwest.
The five-member U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service peer-review panel was tasked with reviewing the government's claim that the Northeast and Midwest were home to a separate species, the eastern wolf.
If the government were right, that would make gray wolf recovery unnecessary in those areas.
But the peer reviewers concluded unanimously that the scientific research cited by the government was insufficient.
That could make it difficult for federal officials to stick with their proposal as it now stands, further protracting the emotionally charged debate over what parts of the U.S. are suitable for the predators.
"The process was clean and the results were unequivocal," said panel member Steven Courtney, a scientist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California in Santa Barbara. "The science used by the Fish and wildlife service concerning genetics and taxonomy of wolves was preliminary and currently not the best available science."
Wolves were added to the endangered species list in 1975 after being exterminated last century across most of the Lower 48 states under government-sponsored trapping and poisoning programs.
Hunting for wolves already is allowed for roughly 5,000 wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, where protections were lifted in 2011. More than 900 of the animals have been shot or caught by trappers in the two regions during this winter's hunting season.
A struggling population of several dozen Mexican gray wolves in the desert Southwest would remain on the endangered list under the government's plan. The Southeast is home to a separate species, the red wolf, which remains highly endangered.
The release of the peer review findings opens another round of public input on a proposal that has received more one million comments.
"Obviously we do take the comments from peer reviewers very seriously and we need to take those into account," Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Chris Tollefson said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service already faced fervent opposition to its plan from some scientists, wildlife advocates and members of Congress. They've argued that protections should remain in place given that vast areas of potentially suitable wolf habitat remain unoccupied in the southern Rocky Mountains, along the West Coast and in the Northeast.
Carlos Carroll, a wolf researcher at the Klamath Center for Conservation Research in Orleans, Calif., said the problems highlighted by the peer-review panel had been raised previously by others. He said he hoped they would now get more attention from wildlife officials.
"This gives them a chance to re-evaluate their strategy and say it's time to listen to the science," Carroll said.
But feelings run strong on both sides of the issue, and many Republican lawmakers, agricultural interests and hunting groups have pushed equally hard for jurisdiction over wolves to be passed to states so they could manage the population through annual harvests.
Those efforts have been motivated in large part by wolf attacks on livestock and big game herds in areas where the predators have recovered.
An earlier peer-review panel charged with reviewing the delisting proposal was dissolved last summer, after criticisms arose when three scientists who had been critical of the government's wolf plan were told they couldn't serve.
One of the three — Robert Wayne at the University of California Los Angeles — was later named to the panel that came up with Friday's report.
Officials had aimed for a final decision on the matter this summer. That's now uncertain after delays in the peer review and time lost to the federal government shutdown in the fall.
Associated Press Writer Jeff Barnard in Grants Pass, Ore., contributed to this report.
________________________________________
BREAKING NEWS:
PEER REVIEWERS FIND FAULT WITH USFWS SCIENCE ON WOLF DESLISTING -COMMENT PERIOD REOPENS
The US Fish and Wildlife Service just released the following press statement about the independent Peer review (see link at bottom of 2019372475page):
Service Reopens Comment Period on Wolf Proposal
Independent scientific peer review report available for public review
Following receipt of an independent scientific peer review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reopening the comment period on its proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List. The Service is making that report available for public review, and, beginning Monday, February 10, interested stakeholders will have an additional 45 days to provide information that may be helpful to the Service in making a final determination on the proposal.
The independent scientific peer review was hosted and managed by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), a highly respected interdisciplinary research center at the University of California – Santa Barbara. At the Service’s request, NCEAS sponsored and conducted a peer review of the science underlying the Service’s proposal.
“Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input.”
PEER REVIEW REPORT
THE PEER REVIEW REPORT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE,
ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PROVIDE COMMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE LINKS RELATING TO THE PROPOSAL AT:
The Service intends that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best available information. Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, are available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov under the docket number FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073.
The Service will post all comments on www.regulations.gov. This generally means the agency will post any personal information provided through the process. The Service is not able to accept email or faxes. Comments must be received by midnight on March 27.
The Federal Register publication of this notice is available online at www.fws.gov/policy/frsystem/default.cfm by clicking on the 2014 Proposed Rules under Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
The Service expects to make final determination on the proposal by the end of 2014.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service works with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. For more information, visit www.fws.gov, or connect with us through any of these social media channels:
– FWS –
Gray Wolf Peer Review
- See more at:
________________________________________
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073
http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/pdf/Final_Review_of_Proposed_rule_regarding_wolves2014.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/pdf/Final_Review_of_Proposed_rule_regarding_wolves2014.pdfReferences Cited for the Proposed Rule
“Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered”
Adams, L.G., R.O. Stephenson, B.W. Dale, R.T. Ahgook, and D. J. Demma. 2008. Population dynamics and harvest characteristics of wolves in the central Brooks Range, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 170: 1-25.
Adaptive Management Oversight Committee and Interagency Field Team [AMOC and IFT]. 2005. Mexican wolf Blue Range reintroduction project 5-year review. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/MWNR_FYRD.shtml
Anschutz, Steve. 2003. E-mail from Anschutz, USFWS Nebraska Field Office Supervisor to Laura Ragan, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 04/01/03. Subject: gray wolf shot. 1 p.
Anschutz, Steve. 2006. E-mail from Anschutz, USFWS Nebraska Field Office Supervisor to Ron Refsnider, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 10/30/06. Subject: Nebraska wolf from 1995?
Arizona Department of Health Services. 2012. Rabies Statistics and Maps, 2008-2012. www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/vector/rabies/stats.htm. Accessed on July 23, 2012.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Predator management in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation. 32pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2011. 2011-2012 Alaska trapping regulations. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 48pp.
Allendorf, F.W. and N. Ryman. 2002. The role of genetics in population viability analysis. Pages 50-85 in Beissinger, S.R., and D.R. McCullough, editors. Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Araiza, M, L. Carrillo, R. List, C. Lopez Gonzalez, E. Martinez Meyer, P. Martinez-Gutillerez, O. Moctezuma, N. Sanchez-Morales, J. Servin. 2012. Consensus on Criteria for Potential Reintroduction in Mexico. Conservation Biology 26(4): 630-637.
Asa, C., P. Miller, M. Agnew, J.A.R. Rebolledo, S.L. Lindsey, M. Callahan, and K. Bauman. 2007. Relationship of inbreeding with sperm quality and reproductive success in Mexican wolves. Animal Conservation 10:326-331.
Atkinson, M.W. 2006. Disease surveillance in gray wolves in Montana: 2003-2006. Unpublished Montana FWP Report. 7 pp. in Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd Ed. Misc Publ. No. 1391, WA., D.C., USDA Forest Service. 108 pp.
Avise, J. C. 2004. Molecular Markers, Natural History, and Evolution, 2nd edition. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer. 528pp.
1
Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life-zones of Oregon. North American Fauna 55:1-416.
Bailey, T.N., E.E. Bangs, and R.O. Peterson. 1995. Exposure of wolves to canine parvovirus and distemper on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1976–1988. Pages 441-446 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip. 1995. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35. Edmonton, Alberta. 642 pp.
Ballard, W.B., L.N. Carbyn, and D.W. Smith. 2003. Wolf interactions with non-prey. Pages 259-271 in Mech L.D., L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Bangs, E.E., J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, T.J. Meier, E.H. Bradley, C.C. Niemeyer, D.W. Smith, C.M. Mack, V. Asher, and J.K. Oakleaf. 2005. Managing wolf-human conflict in the northwestern United States. Pages 340–356 in R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinwitz, eds. 2005. People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bangs, E.E., J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, Bangs, E. M. Jimenez, C. Sime, S. Nadeau, and C. Mack. 2009. The Art of Wolf Restoration in the Northwestern United States: Where to Now? Pages 95-114 in Musiani, M., L. Boitani, and P. C. Paquet editors. A New Era for Wolves and People, Wolf Recovery, Human Attitudes, and Policy. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Canada.
Bangs, E., J. Fontaine, T. Meier, C. Niemeyer, M. Jimenez, D. Smith, C. Mack, V. Asher, L. Handegard, M. Collinge, R. Krischke, C. Sime, S. Nadeau, and D. Moody. 2004. Restoration and conflict management of the gray wolf in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and National Resources Conference, Seattle, Washington 69:89–105.
Bangs, E.E., S.H. Fritts, J.A. Fontaine, D.W. Smith, K.M. Murphy, C.M. Mack, and C.C. Niemeyer. 1998. Status of gray wolf restoration in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:785–798.
Becker, S.A., P.F. Frame, D. Martorello, and E. Krausz. 2013. Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2012 Annual Report. Pages WA1 to WA 16 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky mountain Wolf Program 2012 Annual Report. USFWS,
Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601.
Bednarz, J.C. 1988. The Mexican wolf: biology, history, and prospects for reestablishment in New Mexico. Endangered Species Report Number 18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Boertje, R. D., M. A. Keech, and T. F. Paragi. 2010. Science and values influencing predator control for Alaska moose management. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:917–928.
Bogan, M.A. and P. Mehlhop. 1983. Systematic relationships of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in southwestern North America. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Southwestern Biology 1:1- 20.
2
Boitani, L., 2003. Wolf conservation and recovery. Pages 317-340 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. 448 pp.
Boyce, M.S. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:481-506.
Boyd, D. K and D. H. Pletscher. 1999. Characteristics of dispersal in a colonizing wolf population in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1094-1108.
Brainerd, S.M., H. Andren, E.E. Bangs, E. Bradley, J. Fontaine, W. Hall, Y. Illiopoulos, M. Jimenez, E. Jozwiak, O. Liberg, C. Mack, T. Meier, C. Niemeyer, H.C. Pedersen, H. Sand, R. Schultz, D.W. Smith, P. Wabakken, and A. Wydeven. 2008. The effects of breeder loss on wolves. J. of Wildlife Management 72:89–98.
Brand, C.J., M.J. Pybus, W.B. Ballard, and R.O. Peterson. 1995. Infectious and parasitic diseases of the gray wolf and their potential effects on wolf populations in North America. Pages 419–429 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, eds. 1995. Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35. Edmonton, AB. 642 pp.
Breck, S.W., B.M Kluever, M. Panasci, J. Oakleaf, T. Johnson, W. Ballard, L. Howery, D.L. Bergman. 2011. Domestic calf mortality and producer detection rates in the Mexican wolf recovery area: Implications for livestock management and carnivore compensation schemes. Biological Conservation, in press.
Brewster, W.G. and S.H. Fritts. 1995. Taxonomy and genetics of the gray wolf in Western North America: a review. Pages 353-373 in Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 642 pp.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. Draft Management Plan for the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) in British Columbia. 50 pp.
Brown, D.E. 1988. The wolf in the Southwest: the making of an endangered species. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Third printing. 208 pp.
Brown, J. 2006. Eco-logical: An ecosystem approach to developing infrastructure Projects. U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Final Report 2002–2006. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 96 pp. Carroll, C., M. K. Phillips, N. H. Schumaker, and D. W. Smith. 2003. Impacts of landscape change on wolf restoration success: planning a reintroduction program based on static and dynamic spatial models. Conservation Biology 17:536-548.
Brown, D. G., K. M. Johnson, T. R. Loveland, and D. M. Theobald. 2005. Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950-2000. Ecological Applications 15:1851-1863.
California Department of Fish and Game, in litt. 2011. Gray Wolves in California: An evaluation of historic information, current conditions, and potential natural recolonization. July 6, 2011 letter from CDFG to the FWS.
3
Carbyn, L.N. 1982. Incidence of disease and its potential role in the population dynamics of wolves in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Pages 106–116 in F.H. Harrington and P.C. Paquet, eds. Wolves of the World: Perspectives of Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Noyes Publ., Park Ridge, NJ. 474 pp.
Carbyn, L. N. 2000. Email correspondence between Carbyn, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Ron Refsnider, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cariappa, C. A., W. Ballard, S. Breck, A.J. Piaggio, M.Newbuam. 2008. Estimating population size of Mexican wolves noninvasively (Arizona). Ecological Restoration 26:1(14-16).
Carroll, C. in litt. 2008. Application of habitat models to wolf recovery planning in Washington. August 21, 2008 letter to Harriet Allen, Endangered and Threatened Section Manager, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Carroll, C., R.F. Noss, N.H. Schumaker, and P.C. Paquet. 2001. Is the return of the wolf, wolverine, and grizzly bear to Oregon and California biologically feasible? Pages 25-47 in Maehr D, Noss RF, Larkin J, Eds. Large Mammal Restoration: Ecological and Sociological Challenges in the 21st Century. Washington (DC): Island Press. 375 pp.
Carroll, C., M.K. Phillips, and C.A. Lopez-Gonzalez. 2005. Spatial analysis of restoration potential and population viability of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Klamath Center for Conservation Research, Orleans, California, USA. (2 December 2005; www.klamathconservation.org)
Carroll, C., M.K. Phillips, C.A. Lopez-Gonzales, and N.H. Schumaker. 2006. Defining recovery goals and strategies for endangered species using spatially-explicit population models: the wolf as a case study. BioScience 56:25-37.
Caughley, G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. The Journal of Animal Ecology 63:215-244.
Chambers, S., S. R. Fain, B. Fazio, and M. Amaral. 2012. An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses. North American Fauna. 77: 1-67.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 1997. Ecological Regions of North America: Toward a Common Perspective. Commission for Environmental Cooperation: Montreal, Canada. 71pp.
Conard, H.S. 1905. The Olympic Peninsula of Washington. Science 21:392-393.
COSEWIC. 2001. Unpublished draft report. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the grey wolf Canis lupus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 63 + viii pp.
Creel, S. and J.J. Rotella. 2010. Meta-analysis of relationships between human offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS ONE 5(9):e12918.
Charlesworth, D., and J. H. Willis. 2009. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nature Reviews
Genetics 10:783-796.
4
Cronise, T.F. 1868. The Natural Wealth of California: Comprising Early History; Geography, Topography, and Scenery; Climate; Agriculture and Commercial Products; Geology, Zoology, and Botany; Mineralogy, Mines, and Mining Processes; Manufactures; Steamship Lines, Railroads, and Commerce; Immigration, Population and Society; Educational Institutions and Literature; Together with a Detailed Description of Each County; Its Topography, Scenery, Cities and Towns, Agricultural Advantages, Mineral Resources, and Varied Productions. H.H. Bancroft & Company: San Francisco.
Dai, A. 2011. Drought under global warming: a review. WIREs Clim Change 2011: 2(45-65). DOI: 10.1002/wcc.81.
Dalquest, W.W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 2:1-444.
Dawson, T.P., S.T. Jackson, J.I. House, I.C. Prentice, G.M. Mace. 2011. Beyond Predictions: Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate. Science: 332: 53-58.
Dixon, J. 1916. The timber wolf in California. California Fish and Game 2(3):125-129.
Dorum, D. 2011. Wallow Fire 2011: Large Scale Event Recovery Rapid Assessment Team Wildlife Report. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Arizona. 18 pp.
Dunn, H.H. 1904. California’s gray wolf. Field and Stream 9:48-50. Environment Canada. 2008. Non-Detriment Finding for Canada - Grey Wolf.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/cites/default.asp?lang=En&n=BB314F25-1 Date Accessed: May 23, 2012. Fain, S. R., D. J. Straughan, and B. F. Taylor. 2010. Genetic outcomes of wolf recovery in the
western Great Lakes states. Conservation Genetics, doi:10.1007/s10592-010-0068-x.
Frame, P.F. and H. L. Allen. 2012. Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Annual Report 2011. Pages WA-1 to WA-11 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2011 Annual Report. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601.
Frame, P. and T. J. Meier. 2007. Field-assessed injury to wolves captured in rubber-padded traps. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2074-2076.
Frame, P. F., H. D. Cluff, D. S. Hik. 2007. Response of wolves to experimental disturbance at homesites. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:316-320.
Franklin, I. R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations in M. E. Soule, and B. A. Wilcox, editors. Conservation Biology, An Evolutionary–Ecological Perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA. ISBN: 0878938001
Fredrickson, R.J., P. Siminski, M. Woolf, and P.W. Hedrick. 2007. Genetic rescue and inbreeding depression in Mexican wolves. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274: 2365-2371.
Fritts, S.H. and L.N. Carbyn. 1995. Population viability, nature reserves, and the outlook for gray wolf conservation in North America. Restoration Ecology 3:26-28.
5
Fritts, S.H., R.O. Stephenson, R.D. Hayes, and L. Boitani. 2003. Wolves and humans. Pages 289-316 in Mech, L.D., and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 466 pp.
Fuller, T.K., L.D. Mech, and J.F. Cochrane. 2003. Wolf population dynamics. Pages 161-191 in L.D. Mech and L. Boitani (eds.). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 448 pp.
Garcia-Moreno, J., M.D. Matocq, M.S. Roy, E. Geffen, and R.K. Wayne. 1996. Relationships and genetic purity of the endangered Mexican wolf based on analysis of microsatellite loci. Conservation Biology 10: 376-389.
Gaubert P, Bloch C, Benyacoub S, Abdelhamid A, Pagani P, et al. 2012 Reviving the African Wolf Canis lupus lupaster in North and West Africa: A Mitochondrial Lineage Ranging More than 6,000 km Wide. PLoS ONE 7(8): e42740. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042740
Geffen, E., M.J. Anderson, and R.K. Wayne 2004. Climate and habitat barriers to dispersal in the highly mobile grey wolf. Molecular Ecology 13:2481-2490.
Goldman, E. A. 1944. Part II. Classification of Wolves. In S. P. Young and E. A. Goldman. The Wolves of North America. The American Wildlife Institute, Washington, DC. 636 pp.
Goodman, D. 1987. The demography of chance extinction. Pages 11-31 in Soule, M.E. editor. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 204 pp.
Government of Alberta. 2011a. 2011 Alberta guide to hunting regulations. Fish and Wildlife Division, Endmonton, Alberta, Canada. 104 pp.
Government of Alberta. 2011b. 2011 Alberta guide to trapping regulations. Fish and Wildlife Division, Endmonton, Alberta, Canada. 20 pp.
Government of Manitoba. 2011a. 2011 Manitoba hunting guide. Manitoba Ministry of Environment. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 60 pp.
Government of Manitoba. 2011b. 2011 – 2012 trapping guide. Manitoba Ministry of Environment. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 24 pp.
Government of Northwest Territories. 2011. Summary of hunting regulations. Northwest Territories Environment and Natural Resources. 36 pp.
Government of Saskatchewan. 2011. 2011 Saskatchewan hunters and trappers guide. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. 24 pp.
Government of Yukon. 2012. Yukon wolf conservation and management plan. Environment Yukon, Whitehorse, Yukon, 24 pp.
Great Lakes Directory. 2003. First wolf confirmed in Illinois since early 1900s. at http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/il/072503_great_lakes.htm. 2 pp.
6
Grewal, S.K., P.J. Wilson, T.K. Kung, K. Shami, M.T. Theberge, J.B. Theberge, and B.N.
White. 2004. A genetic assessment of the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) in Algonquin Provincial
Park. Journal of Mammalogy, 85: 625-632.
Gude, J.A., M.S. Mitchell, R.E. Russell, C.A. Sime, E.E. Bangs, L.D. Mech, and R.R. Ream. 2011. Wolf Population Dynamics in the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains Are Affected by Recruitment and Human-Caused Mortality. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(1):108-118.
Hall, E. R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA.
Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. 2 volumes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.
Hall, E.R., and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America: Volume II. The Ronald Press Company: New York.
Hampton, B. 1997. The great American wolf. Henry Holt and Co.: New York.320 pp.
Hassett, Scott. 2003. Letter from Hassett, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, to Charles Wooley, Asst. Regional Director, FWS, dated 12/22/03. Responses to FWS questions. 1 page with 10-page attachment.
Hatler, D.F., G. Mowat, K.G. Poole, and A.M.M. Beal. 2003. Furbearer management Guidelines. British Columbia.
Hayes, R. D. and J. R. Gunson. 1995. Status and management of wolves in Canada. Pages 21- 34 in L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts and D. R. Seip, editors. Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 474 pp.
Hedrick, P.W., R.N. Lee, and C. Buchanan. 2003. Canine parvovirus enteritis, canine distemper, and Major Histocompatibility Complex genetic variation in Mexican wolves. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39(4):909-913.
Hedrick, P.W., P.S. Miller, E. Geffen, and R.K. Wayne. 1997. Genetic evaluation of the three captive Mexican wolf lineages. Zoo Biology 16:47-69.
Heffelfinger, unpublished data. Mexican Wolf Prey Biomass Calculations for Science and Planning Subgroup of Mexican Wolf Recovery Team. August, 2012.
Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department, Tucson. 602 pp.
Honeycutt, R.L. 2010. Unraveling the mysteries of dog evolution. BMC Biology. Available online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/20.
Houts, M.E. 2003. Using logistic regression to model wolf habitat suitability in the Northern Rocky Mountains. World Wolf Congress, Banff Canada. September 15-28, 2003.
Hedrick, P. W. 1994. Purging inbreeding depression and the probability of extinction: full-sib mating. Heredity 73:363-372.
7
InciWeb Incident Information System. Wallow News Release. www.Inciweb.org/incident/2262. Updated July 11, 2011.
InciWeb Incident Information System. Whitewater Baldy Complex News Release. www.inciweb.org/incident/2870m. Updated October 4, 2012.
Ingles, L.G. 1963. Status of the wolf in California. Journal of Mammalogy 44:109-110.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. Pp. 1–18 in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY. 996 pp.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1996. Mexican wolf population viability analysis draft report. Sponsored by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minnesota, USA
Jimenez, M.D. 2012. Email correspondence between Jimenez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and M. Constantino, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Jimenez, M.D. 2013. Email correspondence between Jimenez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and M. Constantino, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Jimenez, M.D., E.E. Bangs, M. Drew, S. Nadeau, V.J. Asher, and C. Sime. 2010. Dog lice (Trichodectes canis) found on wolves (Canis lupus) in Montana and Idaho. Northwestern Naturalist 91:331–333.
Jimenez, M.D., E.E. Bangs, C. Sime, and V. J. Asher. 2010. Sarcoptic mange found in wolves in the Rocky Mountains in western United States. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46:1120-1125.
Jimenez, M.D., E.E. Bangs, D.W. Smith, D.K. Boyd, C.M. Mack, J. Holyan, S. Nadeau, C.A. Sime, V.J. Asher, E.H. Bradley, K. Laudon, S.A. Becker, D. Ausband, and S. Woodruff. In review. Wolf dispersal in the northern Rocky Mountains in western United States: 1993-2008. Journal of Wildlife Management.
Jobman, Wally. 1995. Inter-Office Transmittal from Jobman, USFWS Grand Island, Nebraska, Field Office, to Helena, MT, USFWS Wolf Coordinator, dated 01/10/95. 1 p.
Johnson, M.K. 1995a. The disease ecology of brucellosis and tuberculosis in potential relationship to Yellowstone wolf populations in Varley, J.D. and W.G. Brewster, eds. Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to the United States Congress. Volume IV research and analysis. Yellowstone National Park. (2)
Johnson, M.K. 1995b. Rabies in wolves and its potential role in a Yellowstone wolf population. Pages 431–439 in Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip. Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35. Edmonton, AB. 642 pp.
8
Johnson, M.K, D.K. Boyd, and D.H. Pletscher. 1994. Serologic investigations of canine parvovirus and canine distemper in relation to wolf (Canis lupus) mortalities. Journal of Wildlife Disease 30:270–273.
Johnson, T.B., D.C. Noel, L.Z. Ward. 1992. Summary of information on four potential Mexican wolf reintroduction areas in Arizona. Technical Report 23. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 77 pp.
Jolicoeur, H. and M. Henault. 2010. Current status and management of wolves in Quebec. Société de la faune et des Parcs du Québec, Direction de l’aménagement de la région des Laurentides, Direction du développement de la faune. 7 pp.
Jurek, R.M. 1994. The former distribution of gray wolves in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Division. Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report 94-19.
Kalinowski, S.T., P.W. Hedrick, and P.S. Miller. 1999. No inbreeding depression observed in Mexican and red wolf captive breeding programs. Conservation Biology 13: 1371-1377.
Keith, L. B. 1983. Population dynamics of wolves. Pages 66-77 in L. N. Carbyn, ed. Wolves in Canada and Alaska: their status, biology, and management. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser.45, Ottawa.
Koblmüller, S., M. Nord, R. K. Wayne, and J. A. Leonard. 2009. Origin and status of the Great Lakes Wolf. Molecular Ecology 18:2313-2326.
Kreeger, T.J. 2003. The internal wolf: physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. Pages 192- 217 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 466 pp.
Kuck, L. (project leader). 1999. Idaho Elk Management Plan. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA. 110 pp.
Larsen, T., and W.J. Ripple. 2006. Modeling gray wolf (Canis lupus) habitat in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Journal of Conservation Planning 2:30-61.
Laufer, J. R. and P. T. Jenkins. 1989. Historical and present status of the gray wolf in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Northwest Environmental Journal 5:313-327.
Leonard, J.A., C. Vilà, and R.K. Wayne. 2005. Legacy lost: genetic variability and population size of extirpated US grey wolves (Canis lupus). Molecular Ecology 14:9-17.
Leonard, J. A., and R. K. Wayne. 2008. Native Great Lakes wolves were not restored. Biology Letters 4:95-98.
Leopold, A.S. 1959. Wildlife of Mexico: The Game Birds and Mammals. University of California Press, 2nd Revised Edition. 581 pp.
Kyle, C.J., Johnson, A.R., Patterson, B.R., Wilson, P.J., Shami, K., Grewal, S.K., and B.N.
White. 2006. Genetic nature of eastern wolves: past, present and future. Conservation Genetics
7:273-287.
9
Liberg O., G. Chapron, P. Wabakken, H.-C. Pedersen., N. T. Hobbs., and H. Sand, 2011. Shoot, shovel and shut up: cryptic illegal killing slows restoration of a large carnivore in Europe. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1275
Licht, D.S., and S.H. Fritts. 1994. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) occurrences in the Dakotas. American Midland Naturalist 132:74-81.
Licht, Daniel S. and Louis E. Huffman. 1996. Gray wolf status in North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 28(4): 169-174.
Linnell J., V. Salvatori & L. Boitani. 2008. Guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores in Europe. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe report prepared for the European Commission (contract 070501/2005/424162/MAR/B2). 85 pp.
Linnell, J.D.C., J.E. Swenson, and R. Andersen. 2001. Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favorable. Animal Conservation 4:345–349.
Manitoba. 2012a. 2012 Manitoba Hunting Guide. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/hunting/biggame/grwolf_coy/index.html Date Accessed: June 18, 2012.
Manitoba. 2012b. 2010-2011 Trapping Guide. http://digitalcollection.gov.mb.ca/awweb/pdfopener?smd=1&did=17798&md=1 Date Accessed: June 18, 2012.
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. 812 pp.
McBride, R.T. 1980. The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi): a historical review and observations on its status and distribution. Endangered Species Report 8: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
McCullough, D. R. 1967. The probable affinities of a wolf captured near Woodlake, California. California Fish and Game 53(2):146-153.
Mech, L.D. 1970. The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. Thirteenth Printing (2007). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 384 pp.
Mech, L.D. 1974. Current techniques in the study of elusive wilderness carnivores. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Game Biologists. 315-322.
Mech, L. D. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road density. American Midland Naturalist 121: 387-389.
Mech, L.D. 1995. The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations. Conservation Biology 9:270-278.
Mech, L. D. 2000. Email correspondence between Mech, U.S. Geological Survey, and Ron Refsnider, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mech, L. D. 2001. Managing Minnesota's recovered wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:70–77. 10

Mech, L.D. 2006. Estimated age structure of wolves in northeastern Minnesota. J. Wildlife Management 70:1481–1483.
Mech, L. D. and L. Boitani. 2003. Wolf social ecology. pages 1–34 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, eds. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 448 pp.
Mech L.D. and L. Boitani. 2004. 5.2 Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Species Status Account pp 124- 129 in Sillero-Zubiri, C., Hoffmann, M. and Macdonald, D. W. (eds). 2004. Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 430 pp.
Mech, L. D. and L. Boitani. (IUCN SSC Wolf Specialist Group) 2010. Canis lupus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <http://www.iucnredlist.org/>. Downloaded on 12 July 2012.
Mech, L.D. and S.M. Goyal. 1993. Canine parvovirus effect on wolf population change and pup survival. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 29:330-333.
Mech, L. D., S. M. Goyal, W. J. Paul, and W. E. Newton. 2008. Demographic effects of canine parvovirus on a free-ranging population over 30 years. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 44: 824- 836.
Mech, L. D. and H. J. Kurtz. 1999. First record of coccidiosis in wolves, Canis lupus. Canadian Field Naturalist 113:305-306.
Mech, L.D. and M.E. Nelson. 1989. Polygyny in a wild wolf pack. Journal of Mammology 70:675-676.
Mech, L.D. and R.O. Peterson. 2003. Wolf-prey relations. In L.D. Mech, and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 448 pp.
Mech, L.D., R.P. Thiel, S.H. Fritts, and W.E. Berg. 1985. Presence and effects of the dog louse Trichodectes canis (Mallophaga, Trichdectidae) on wolves and coyotes from Minnesota and Wisconsin. Am. Midland Naturalist 114:404–405.
Mengel, R.M. 1971. A study of dog-coyote hybrids and implications concerning hybridization in Canis. Museum of Natural History and Department of Systematics and Ecology. The University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Merkle, J.A., P.R. Krausman, D.W. Stark, J.K. Oakleaf, W.B. Ballard. 2009. Summer Diet of the Mexican Gray Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi). The Southwestern Naturalist 54(4):480-524.
Mills, L.C. 2007. Conservation of wildlife populations: demography, genetics, and management. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, USA. 424 pp.
Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, R. G. Haught, and A. P. Wydeven. 1995. A Regional Landscape Analysis and Prediction of Favorable Gray Wolf Habitat in the Northern Great Lakes Region. Conservation Biology 9: 279-294.
11
Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, and A. D. Wydeven. 1999. Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecological Applications 9:37-44.
Morgan, R. 2011. Oregon wolf conservation and Management plan: 2011 annual report. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department, La Grande, Oregon. 32 pp.
Morrison R.B. 1964. Lake Lahontan: Geology of Southern Carson Desert, Nevada. Geological Survey Professional Paper 401. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Muñoz-Fuentes, V., C. T. Darimont, R. K. Wayne, P. C. Paquet, and J. A. Leonard. 2009. Ecological factors drive differentiation in wolves from British Columbia. Journal of Biogeography 36:1516-1531.
Murray, D.L., D.W. Smith, E.E. Bangs, C. Mack, J.K. Oakleaf, J. Fontaine, D. Boyd, M. Jimenez, C. Niemeyer, T.J. Meier, D. Stahler, J. Holyan, and V.J. Asher. 2010. Death from anthropogenic causes is partially compensatory in recovering wolf populations. Biological Conservation 143:2514-2524.
National Research Council. 1997. Wolves, bears, and their prey in Alaska: Biological and social challenges in wildlife management, Executive Summary. Committee on Management of Wolf and Bear Populations in Alaska, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 15 pp.
Nelson, E.W., and E.A. Goldman. 1929. A new wolf from Mexico. Journal of Mammology 10(2): 165-166.
New Mexico Department of Health. 2011. Rabies Health Data, 2009-2011. http://nmhealth.org/ERD/HealthData/rabies.shtml. Accessed July 23, 2012.
North Cascades National Park. 2004. Wolves in the North Cascades: Questions and Answers. North Cascades National Park Interpretive Staff. http://www.nps.gov/noca/naturescience/wolves.htm Accessed December 17, 2012.
Nowak, R.M. 1979. North American Quaternary Canis. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History (University of Kansas) 6:1-154.
Nowak, R.M. 1995. Another look at wolf taxonomy. Pages 375-397 in Carbyn L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Canada. 620 pp.
Nowak, R. M. 2000. The original status of wolves in eastern North America. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report. 50 pp. plus 10 figures.
Nowak, R. M. 2002. The original status of wolves in eastern North America. Southeastern Naturalist. 1:95-130.
Nei M, Maruyama T, and Chakraborty R, 1975. The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in
populations. Evolution 29:1–10
12
Nowak, R.M. 2003. Wolf evolution and taxonomy. Pages 239-258 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani (eds.). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 620 pp.
Nunavut. 2012. Summary of the Nunavut Hunting Regulations. http://www.gov.nu.ca/files/Nunavut%20Hunting%20Regulations%20Summary_eng.pdf Date Accessed: July 23, 2012.
Oakleaf, J.K., D.L. Murray, J.R. Oakleaf, E.E. Bangs, C.M. Mack, D.W. Smith, J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, T.J. Meier, and C.C. Niemeyer. 2006. Habitat selection by recolonizing wolves in the northwestern United States. J. Wildlife Management 70:554–563.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2005. Backgrounder on Wolf Conservation in Ontario. 52 pp.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2010. Oregon wolf conservation and management plan. Updated 2010. Available Online: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Oregon_Wolf_Conservation_and_Management_Plan_2 010.pdf
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2011. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan: 2011 Annual Report. Available Online: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/docs/oregon_wolf_program/2011_Wolf_Conservation_Mana gement_Plan_Annual_Report.pdf
Orians, G. H., P. A. Cochran, J. W. Duffield, T. K. Fuller, R. J. Guiterrez, W. M. Hanemann, F. C. James, P. Kareiva, S. R. Kellert, D. Klein, B. N. McLellan, P. D. Olson, and G. Yaska. 1997. Wolves, bears, and their prey in Alaska: Biological and social challenges in wildlife management. National Academy Press. 224pp.
Packard, J.M. 2003. Wolf behavior: reproduction, social, and intelligent. Pages 35–65 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, eds. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. 448 pp.
Parsons, D. 1996. Case study: the Mexican wolf. Pages 101-123 in Herrera, E.A. and L.F. Huenneke, editors. New Mexico’s natural heritage: biological diversity in the Land of Enchantment. New Mexico Journal of Science 36.
Parsons, D.R., and J.E. Nicholopoulos. 1995. Status of the Mexican wolf recovery program in the United States. Pages 141-146 in Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, editors. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Occasional Publication No. 35. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 620 pp.
Patten, M. A., and P. Unitt. 2002. Diagnosability versus mean differences of sage sparrow subspecies. The Auk 119(1):26-35.
Nowak, R.M. 2009. Taxonomy, morphology, and genetics of wolves in the Great Lakes region.
Pp. 233-250 in A.P. Wydeven, T.R. Van Deelen, and E.J. Heske (eds.), Recovery of grey wolves
in the Great Lakes region of the United States. Springer Publishing, New York.
13
Paul, William. 2005. Fax from Paul, USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, to Ron Refsnider, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 11/23/05. Subject: Disease data for your wolves? 5 pp.
Peterson, R.O. and P. Ciucci. 2003. The wolf as a carnivore. Pages 104-130 in Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 466 pp.
Peterson, R.O., Thomas, N.J., Thurber, J.M., Vucetich, J.A., Waite, T.A., 1998. Population limitation and the wolves of Isle Royale. Journal of Mammalogy 79, 828–841.
Peterson, R.O., J. D. Woolington, and T.N. Bailey. 1984. Wolves of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 88. 52 pp.
Pimm, S. L., H. L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the risk of extinction. The American Naturalist 132:757–785.
Pollinger J., D. Greenfield, B. vonHoldt and R. Wayne (University of California, Los Angeles). in litt. 2008. DNA forensic analysis of tissue samples from captured and radiocollared male and female wolves, Lookout Ridge, Washington. August 28, 2008 letter to Harriet Allen, Endangered and Threatened Section Manager, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Price, W.W. 1894. Notes on a collection of mammals from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Zoe 4:315-332.
Putnam, R. (with transcript and notes by S. Hargreaves). 1928. The letters of Roselle Putnam. Oregon Historical Quarterly 29:242-264.
Ratti, J.T., J.M. Scott, P.A. Wiseman, A. Gillesberg, C.A. Miller, M.M. Szepanski, L.K. Svancara. 2004. Feasibility of wolf reintroduction to Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Northwest Science 78: (special issue): 1–76.
Reed, J.E., W.B. Ballard, P.S. Gipson, B.T. Kelly, P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, and D. B. Wester. 2006. Diets of free-ranging Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):1127-1133.
Research and Polling, Incorporated. 2008a. Wolf recovery survey: Arizona and New Mexico. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. http://www.rpinc.com/wb/pages/rpi.php.
Research and Polling, Incorporated. 2008b. Wolf recovery survey: New Mexico. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. http://www.rpinc.com/wb/pages/rpi.php.
Richardson J. 1829. Fauna Boreali-Americana, Part 1. London: John Murray
Rinkevich, S.A. 2012. An assessment of abundance, diet, and cultural significance of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona. PhD Dissertation, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona. 239 pp.
14
Robinson, J., J. Pollinger, and R. Wayne. in litt. 2011. DNA forensic analysis of canid sample WA012F from the Cascade Mountains and three canids from the Diamond Pack, Pend Orielle County. July 28, 2011 letter to Harriet Allen, Endangered and Threatened Section Manager, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Rowe, R. A. 1941. The receding range of the timber wolf in western Oregon. Murrelet 22:52– 54.
Rueness, E.K., Asmyhr, M.G., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Macdonald, D.W., Bekele, A., et al. 2011. The Cryptic African Wolf: Canis aureus lupaster Is Not a Golden Jackal and Is Not Endemic to Egypt. PLoS ONE 6(1): e16385. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016385
Russell, D. 2010. A review of wolf management programs in Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and Northwest Territories. Yukon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan Review Committee. 47 pp.
Rutledge, L.Y., P. Wilson, C. Klutsch, B. Patterson, and B. White. 2012. Conservation genomics in perspective: A holistic approach to understanding Canis evolution in North America. Biological Conservation 155: 186-192.
Sage, R.B. 1846. Scenes in the Rocky Mountains, and in Oregon, California, New Mexico, Texas, and the Great Prairies; or Notes by the Way, During an Excursion of Three Years, with a Description of the Countries Passed Through, Including Their Geography, Geology, Resources, Present Condition, and the Different Nations Inhabiting Them. By a New Englander. Cary & Hart: Philadelphia. 314 pp.
Say, T. 1823. Pages 167–199 in Long SH. Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains performed in the years 1819 and 1820. Volume I. Philadelphia: Carey and Lea.
Schmidt, R.H. 1991. Gray wolves in California: their presence and absence. California Fish and Game 77:79-85.
Schwartz, R.H., R. Stephenson, and N. Wilson. 1983. Trichodectes canis on the gray wolf and coyote on Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J. Wildl. Dis. 19:372–73.
Seal, U.S. 1990. Mexican wolf population viability assessment: Review draft report of workshop. 22-24 October 1990. Sponsored by International Union for Conservation of Nature, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, Glen Rose, Texas, USA.
Rutledge, L.Y., C.J. Garroway, K.M. Loveless, and B.R. Patterson. 2010a. Genetic differentiation of eastern wolves in Algonquin Park despite bridging gene flow between coyotes and gray wolves. Heredity 105:520-531.
Rutledge, L.Y., B.R. Patterson, K.J. Mills, K.M. Loveless, D.L. Murray, B.N. White. 2010b. Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biological Conservation 143: 332 – 339.
15
Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca [SEMARNAP]. 2000. Proyecto de recuperación del lobo mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi). Instituto Nacional de Ecología. Tlacopac, San Ángel, México, D.F.
Shaffer, M.L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. Pages 69-86 in Soule, M.E. editor. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA. 204 pp.
Shelton, S.L. and F.W. Weckerly. 2007. Inconsistencies in historical geographic range maps: the gray wolf as example. California Fish and Game 93:224-227.
Siminski, D.P. and E.M. Spevak. 2012. Population Analysis and Breeding and Transfer Plan. Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) AZA Species Survival Plan: Yellow Program. 81 pp.
Singleton, P.H., W.L. Gaines, and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-549. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 89 pp.
Smith, D.W. and E Almberg. 2007. Wolf diseases in Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone Science 15:17–19.
Smith, D. W., K. M. Murphy, and D. S. Guernsey. 2001. Yellowstone Wolf Project: Annual Report, 2002. National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 14 pp.
Sparkman, A. M., L. P. Waits, and D. L. Murray. 2011. Social and demographic effects of anthropogenic mortality: a test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis in the red wolf. PLoS ONE vol. 6, issue 6, p. e20868.
Stephens, F. 1906. California Mammals. West Coast Publishing Co.: San Diego, CA.
Suckley, G. 1859. Report upon the mammals collected on the survey, Chapter II. Pages 89-106 in Cooper and Suckley (ed.). The Natural History of Washington Territory. Bailliere Brothers: New York.
Suckley, G. and G. Gibbs. 1859 Report upon the mammals collected on the survey, Chapter III. Pages 107-139 in Cooper and Suckley (ed.). The Natural History of Washington Territory. Bailliere Brothers: New York.
Sumner, L. and J.S. Dixon. 1953. Birds and Mammals of the Sierra Nevada. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA. 484 pp.
Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 113(2): 404-407.
Thiel, R.P., W. Hall Jr., E. Heilhecker, and A. P. Wydeven. 2009. A Disjunct Gray Wolf
Population in Central Wisconsin. Pages 107-117 in Wydeven, A.P., T. R. VanDeelen, and E.J. Heske, editors. Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United
States. Springer Science and Business Media, LLC, New York, New York. USA.
16
Thiel, R.P., and A.P. Wydeven. 2012. Eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) status assessment report: Covering east-central North America. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region, Bloomington, MN. 87 pp.
Thomas, Nancy. 1998. Letter from Thomas, Endangered Species Disease Specialist, USGS National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, WI, to Ron Refsnider, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 11/06/98. Necropsy and parasite data on Great lakes wolves. 3 pp. plus 2 single-page data tables.
Thomas, Nancy. 2000. Letter from Thomas, Endangered Species Disease Specialist, USGS National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, WI, to T.J. Miller, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 11/09/00. Peer reviewer comments on Gray Wolf Reclassification and Delisting Proposal of 07/13/00. 2 pp.
Thomas, Nancy. 2006. Letter from Thomas, Endangered Species Disease Specialist, USGS National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, WI, to WGL Wolf Delisting Comment Analysis Team, dated 06/16/06. Peer Reviewer comments on Proposed Rule to Delist Western Great Lakes Population of Gray Wolves. 3 pp. plus 80-page attachment.
Titus, K. 2007. Intensive management of wolves and ungulates in Alaska. Transactions of the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Pp. 366-377.
Treves, A., K.A. Martin, J.E. Wiedenhoeft, and A.P. Wydeven. 2009. Dispersal of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region. pp. 191-204 in A.P. Wydeven, T. R. Van Deelen, and E.J. Heske, eds. Recovery of Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: An Endangered Species Success Story. Springer, New York, NY, USA. 350 pp.
Turnbull, T. 1913. T. Turnbull’s travels from the United States Across the Plains to California. Pages 151-225 in Paxon FL (ed.). Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin for 1913.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010a. Draft environmental impact statement for public motorized travel management plan. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 231 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010b. Draft environmental impact statement for travel management on the Gila National Forest. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 308 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Recovery plan for the eastern timber wolf. Washington, D.C. 79 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 67 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Mexican wolf recovery plan. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.
17
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for the eastern timber wolf. Twin Cities, MN. 73 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Denver, CO. 608 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf within its historic range in the southwestern United States: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Mexican wolf recovery program: Mexican wolf reintroduction progress report 4. Technical Report. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Mexican wolf recovery program: progress report 5. Technical Report. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Mexican wolf recovery program: progress report 8. Technical Report. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Red Wolf (Canis rufus) 5-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation. Southeast Region, Red Wolf Recovery Program Office, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, Manteo, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment. Region 2, Albuqerque, New Mexico. 130 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Current Events in the Blue Range Wolf Reintroduction Area.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Lower 48-State and Mexico Gray wolf (Canis lupus) listing, as revised. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Washington Office, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services. 1989–2005. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Interagency Annual Reports 1989–2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 100 N. Park, Suite 320, Helena, MT. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/ Accessed December 17, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services. 1989–2011. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Interagency Annual Reports 1999–2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 100 N. Park, Suite 320, Helena, Montana. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/ Accessed December 17, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Idaho Fish and Game, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2006. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2005 Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 59601. 130pp. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt05/ Accessed December 17, 2012.
18
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Idaho Fish and Game, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2009. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2008 Interagency Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 59601. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/index.html Accessed December 17, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2011. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2010 Interagency Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 59601. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt10/index.html Accessed December 17, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2012. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2011 Interagency Annual Report. M.D. Jimenez and S.A. Becker, eds.. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 59601. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt11/index.html
Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 668 pp.
Vila, C. and Wayne, R.K. 1999. Hybridization between wolves and dogs. Conservation Biology: 13(1): 195-198.
vonHoldt, B.M., J.P. Pollinger, D.A. Earl, J.C. Knowles, A.R. Boyko, H. Parker, E. Geffen, M. Pilot, W. Jedrzejewski, B. Jedrzejewska, V. Sidorovich, C. Greco, E. Randi, M. Musiani, R. Kays, C.D. Bustamante, E.A. Ostrander, J. Novembre, and R.K. Wayne. 2011. A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids. Genome-Research [available online early at: http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10..1101/gr.116301.110].
Vucetich, J.A., and C. Carroll. In Review. Influence of anthropogenic mortality on wolf population dynamics with special reference to Creel and Rotella (2010) and Gude et al.
(2011). Wayne, R.K., and C. Vilá. 2003. Molecular genetic studies of wolves. Pages 218-238 in Mech, L.D., and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 466 pp.
Weaver, J. 1978. The wolves of Yellowstone. Natural Resources Report No. 14. U.S. National Park Service, Washington, DC. 38 pp.
Weckworth, B.V., N.G. Dawson, S.L. Talbot, M.J. Flamme, and J.A. Cook. 2011. Going Coastal: Shared Evolutionary History between Coastal British Columbia and Southeast Alaska Wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS One 6(5):1-8
19
Weckworth, B.V., S.L. Talbot, and J.A. Cook. 2010. Phylogeography of wolves (Canis lupus) in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy 9:363-375.
Weckworth, B.V., S.L. Talbot, G.K. Sage, D.K. Person, and J.A. Cook. 2005. A signal for independent coastal and continental histories among North American wolves. Molecular Ecology 14:917-931.
Wheeldon, T., B. Patterson, and B. N. White. 2010. Sympatric wolf and coyote populations of the western Great Lakes region are reproductively isolated. Molecular Ecology, 19:4428-4440. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04818.x.
Wheeldon, T. and B. N. White. 2008. Genetic analysis of historical western Great Lakes region wolf samples reveals early Canis lupus/lycaon hybridization. Biology Letters 5:101-104.
Wiles, G. J., H. L. Allen, and G. E. Hayes. 2011. Wolf conservation and management plan for Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 297 pp.
Wilson, P. J., S. Grewal, I. D. Lawford, J. N. M. Heal, A. G. Granacki, D. Pennock, J. B. Theberge, M. T. Theberge, D. R. Voigt, W. Waddell, R. E. Chambers, P. C. Paquet, G. Goulet, D. Cluff, and B. N. White. 2000. DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:2156-2166.
Wilson, P.J., S.K. Grewal, F.F. Mallory, B.N. White. 2009. Genetic characterization of hybrid wolves across Ontario. Journal of Heredity, 100, S80–S89.
Wilson, P. J., S. Grewal, T. McFadden, R. C. Chambers, and B. N. White. 2003. Mitrochondrial DNA extracted from eastern North American wolves killed in the 1800s is not of gray wolf origin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:936-940.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Wisconsin wolf management plan - October 27, 1999. Madison, WI 74 pp.
Woodroffe R, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowit. 2005. The impact of human–wildlife conflict on natural systems. In: Woodroffe R., S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People and wildlife. Conflict or coexistence? 454 pp.
Wydeven, A. P., R. N Schultz, and R. P. Thiel. 1995. Monitoring of a gray wolf population in Wisconsin, 1979-1991. Pages 147-156 in Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing world, eds. L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip. Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute. 620 pp.
Wydeven, A. P, and P. J. E. Wiedenhoeft. 2003. Status of the timber wolf in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Endangered Resources, Performance report #127: 1 July 2002 through 30 June 2003. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls, USA.
Whitlock, M. C., P. K. Ingvarsson, and T. Hatfield. 2000. Local drift load and the heterosis of interconnected populations. Heredity 84:452-457.
20
Wydeven, A. P, and P. J. E. Wiedenhoeft. 2004. Status of the timber wolf in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Endangered Resources, Performance report 1 July 2003 through 30 June 2004. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls, USA.
Wydeven A. P., J. E. Wiedenhoeft, R. N. Schultz, R. P. Thiel, R. L. Jurewicz, B. E. Kohn, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2009. History, population growth and management of wolves in Wisconsin. Pages 87–106 in Wydeven, A. P., T. R. Van Deelen, E. J. Heske, eds. Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: An Endangered Species Success Story. Springer. 350 pp.
Wydeven, A. P., J. E. Wiedenhoeft, R. N. Schultz, J. Bruner, and S. Boles. 2012. Wisconsin Endangered Resources Report 143. Status of the Timber Wolf in Wisconsin. Performance Report 1 July 2011 through 30 June 2012.
Young, S. P. and E. A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America. American Wildlife Institute,Washington, D.C.
Zink, R.M. 2004. The role of subspecies in obscuring avian biological diversity and misleading conservation policy. Proceedings of the Royal Society. 271:561-564.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
From Defenders of Wildlife
Deadline: March 5. 2014
Call your representative and ask them to sign onto the DeFazio letter to Secretary Jewell!
Find your Congress representatives here:
#KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/wolf-news.html
USFWS Letter on Gray Wolf
March 4, 2013
The Honorable Dan Ashe
Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Director Ashe:
We understand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting a status review of the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act that may remove protections for gray wolves across large areas of the lower 48 states. The reintroduction of wolves into the northern Rocky Mountains and their resurgence in the western Great Lakes region have been important gains for a species once teetering on the brink of extinction , and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be commended for its prominent role in these achievements . In other parts of their former range, however, wolves have only barely begun to recover. In particular, wolves have only just begun to return to portions of the Pacific Northwest, California, southern Rocky Mountains and Northeast and continue to need protection in these areas if they are to truly recover. It is our hope that you will retain Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in these areas. A blanket national delisting of the gray wolf would be premature and would not be grounded in peer-reviewed science.
The rebound of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes and northern Rocky Mountains has been a boon for local economies, wildlife enthusiasts, and the ecosystems of these areas that have benefitted from the return of this keystone predator. Studies in Yellowstone National Park found that the presence of wolves benefitted a myriad of species from pronghorn antelope, to songbirds, to beavers and fish.
While there is much to be proud of, there remains considerable progress to be made towards wolf recovery in the lower 48 states. In particular, we are concerned that the same prejudice towards wolves that led to their extirpation across nearly the entire coterminous United States is still present today and, not only is threatening to undo the gains achieved in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, but will prevent their recovery in additional areas. We believe that federal protection continues to be necessary to ensure that wolf recovery is allowed to proceed in additional parts of the country.
Wolves are beginning to make a comeback in Oregon and Washington and a little more than a year ago, a wolf dubbed OR-7 made his way to California to become the first wolf in the state for more than 80 years. Lone wolves have also crossed into Utah, Colorado, and several states in the Northeast. These are all areas that would benefit from continued Endangered Species Act protections.
Wolf recovery in the lower 48 states is a wildlife success story in the making, and we encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue to work towards greater recovery of this important and popular species. Specifically, we ask that the Service continue to protect wolves in the lower 48 states under the ESA.
Thank you for the work you and your staff have done over the years to make important gains in the gray wolf recovery program.
Wolves are beginning to make a comeback in Oregon and Washington and a little more than a year ago, a wolf dubbed OR-7 made his way to California to become the first wolf in the state for more than 80 years. Lone wolves have also crossed into Utah, Colorado, and several states in the Northeast. These are all areas that would benefit from continued Endangered Species Act protections.
Wolf recovery in the lower 48 states is a wildlife success story in the making, and we encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue to work towards greater recovery of this important and popular species. Specifically, we ask that the Service continue to protect wolves in the lower 48 states under the ESA.
Thank you for the work you and your staff have done over the years to make important gains in the gray wolf recovery program.
http://defazio.house.gov/usfws-letter-on-gray-wolf
#CommentForWolves
Petitions, Comment submission form, documents, news, and information about reopening protest period concerning the disastrous proposal to delist our Gray Wolves from the Endangered Species Act.
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/wolf-news.html
Yo #Wolves!
This "comment to the USFWS to keep our wolves listed" process is intimidating.
Hate it, as many of us are afraid of writing to the USA Government.
I certainly was hesitant to write to USFWS, fearing that I would sound like an idiot. But as the numbers of wolves who lost their lives to wolf hunters started piling up by the hundreds, I became rightfully enraged, tossed the fear, and it got easier to write to them.
So, here are some comments and talking points to swipe and send. PLEASE use them, alter or modify them if you are inclined, and then send away.
It's better than remaining silent.
Let's save our wolves folks, we are their only hope and voice. Comment deadline is March 27. 2014
Thank you!!!
TALKING POINTS AND COMMENT SUGGESTIONS TO TELL #USFWS TO:
#KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/talking-points-to-use-for.html
LINK TO USFWS
COMMENT SUBMISSION FORM:
COMMENT SUBMISSION FORM:
Here are the suggestions for submitting a comment, from the folks at USFWS.
Best of luck to us.
Here are OUR talking points for you to use, to submit a comment to the United States Fish and Wildlife Services,
(USFWS). Please tell them to list the Gray Wolves as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, (E.S.A.) AND tell them that the Mexican Gray Wolves ARE essential. We have until March 27.2014 to do so.
TALKING POINTS
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
If state legislators really want to help, they should redirect the $250,000 slated for lawyers toward implementation of the new Coexistence Plan -- a performance-based program co-developed by ranchers, conservationists and wildlife agencies, which provides funds to help implement conflict-avoidance measures and “rewards” ranchers for helping to successfully raise the wolf population.
_____________________________________
Eliminating Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in the Lower 48 states will halt recovery and restoration efforts, where they still only occupy about 5 percent of their historic range. The draft rule fails to consider extensive suitable wolf habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains, and the Northeast, and the importance of these areas to the long-term survival and recovery of wolves.
______________________________________
Wildlife biologists believe that wolves will improve the overall health of the Southwest and its rivers and streams – just as the return of gray wolves to Yellowstone has helped restore balance to its lands and waters..
_____________________________________
The eradication of large predators from the ecosystem is potentially detrimental to all parts of the ecosystem
_____________________________________
The premature delisting of wolves in states such as Wyoming, Montana and Idaho has led to reckless efforts to gun down and trap as many wolves as possible, resulting in a race to the bottom for wolf management.
______________________________________
Delisting will also negatively affect recent efforts on the west coast to restore wolves to more of their historic range in Washington, Oregon, and California and could result in the eradication of wolves from those states that still have very few wolves.
______________________________________
A large group of scientists with expertise in carnivore taxonomy and conservation biology expressed serious concerns about removing ESA protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, making the case that the proposed rule does not reflect best available science concerning the recovery of wolves, as mandated by the ESA.
______________________________________
The extirpation of wolves and carnivores from large portions of the landscape carries broad ecological consequences. Top predators such as wolves play critical roles in maintaining a diversity of other wildlife species and in helping to maintain ecosystem health.
______________________________________
Wolves are not recovered in key parts of their range. Delisting could prevent the return of wolves to CA, CO and UT where there is excellent habitat and short-circuit recovery in the Pacific North West.
Colorado, for example, does not have a confirmed wolf presence yet, but possesses great wolf habitat. The federal government manages about 55% of the land in the state, including 9.5 million acres of roadless areas, and the state hosts an estimated 300,000 elk, or 30% of the nation’s total elk population.
______________________________________
This proposal is a fundamental shift for conservation of imperiled species in the U.S.; their proposal uses the presence of gray wolves in Canada and Alaska and delisted populations in the lower-48 to argue that the species is not at risk globally and therefore doesn’t warrant
protection.
______________________________________
It’s sad to see that on the ESA’s 40th anniversary, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is abandoning the original intent of the act: to save the diverse wildlife in our country, even if the species is plentiful elsewhere. That intent led us to protect wolves, grizzly bears and bald eagles even though they were plentiful in Canada.
______________________________________
If we had previously put in place the policies that FWS is now using to delist the wolf, not only would we have not protected bald eagles or grizzly bears in the U.S., but we would not have achieved so many tremendous recovery success stories. Examples: wide-ranging species such as bald eagle, alligator and peregrine falcon.
______________________________________
By lowering the bar for endangered species recovery, FWS is setting a dangerous precedent that could impact conservation and recovery efforts across the country for other imperiled species.
______________________________________
FWS has a responsibility to manage wolves and other wildlife in a healthy and sustainable way so that future generations can enjoy the benefits of our rich wildlife heritage.
______________________________________
We’ve already seen what can happen in states when politics is allowed to trump
science and core wildlife management principles.
Many states, like MT, WY and ID, where wolves have already been delisted, are not managing their wolves like other wildlife – instead their goal is to aggressively drive wolf population numbers down to the bare minimum required by law.
______________________________________
The proposal to remove the gray wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species comes at a time when gray wolf recovery is incomplete. Maintaining federal protections under the ESA is critical if gray wolves are to recover throughout their historic range. Their protection should not be abandoned as wolves have only begun to recover in many regions, occupying only a fraction of suitable habitat throughout the United States.
______________________________________
As a keystone apex predator, wolves are critical to maintaining the structure and integrity of healthy native ecosystems, providing ecological assets to hundreds of other species. The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park has resulted in the regeneration of streamside vegetation following decades of over-browsing by elk, contributing to the return of beavers and many songbirds to the area.
______________________________________
The delisting proposal would leave gray wolf management to individual states. The FWS has expressed its confidence in the ability of state wildlife agencies to successfully manage wolf populations, yet state conservation and management plans have proven detrimental in maintaining wolf recovery efforts. Under the management of state wildlife officials who have authorized liberal wolf hunts, wolf numbers have declined significantly.
______________________________________
Wildlife policy decisions should be based on the best available, peer-reviewed science. Scientific evidence does not support the claim that federal protection for wolves is no longer necessary, but rather shows that populations have just begun to recover. Currently wolves occupy less than 10% of their historic range and only a third of their suitable habitat. Gray wolves are only beginning to return to suitable habitat in California, Utah, and Colorado.
______________________________________
The long-term recovery of wolves, a formerly widely distributed species in the western U.S., depends on wolves being able to successfully disperse between widely-separated populations.
______________________________________
The FWS' proposal to remove federal protections for wolves has inadequately considered the continued threats posed by poachers and others openly hostile to wolves. Moreover, they have allowed excessive state-sanctioned killings including trophy hunting and fur trapping. Poaching and wolf killing at the behest of livestock interests also threaten to derail wolf recovery.
______________________________________
Please follow them on Twitter :
@PredatorDefense
WOLFMYTH: There are plenty of gray wolves in America...over 100,000.
WOLFFACT: There are likely fewer than 7,000 gray wolves left in the entire lower 48 states. Rough population estimates by state, as of May 2013, are: Minnesota 3,000, Michigan 650, Wisconsin 750-800, Montana 650, Idaho 750, Wyoming 325, Oregon 46, Washington 30.
______________________________________
WOLFMYTH: Wolves kill lots of cattle, lead to lower birth rates, and are causing cattle ranchers to go out of business.
WOLFFACT: Wolves are responsible for less than two tenths of a percent (.2%) of cattle depredations. 94% of losses are due to non-predator related causes, such as respiratory disease, digestive problems, weather, calving problems, etc.
To be specific, according to the USDA there were 3,992,900 cattle deaths reported in 2010. A whopping 3,773,000 were not due to predators at all. In fact, only 219,900 were due to predators. Of those losses attributed to predators, wolves came in at second to last at 8,100. Furthermore, these losses are "self-reported" by ranchers, and most studies show that ranchers typically attribute any unknown causes to "predators," which increases the number of "losses."
Of special note, even dogs, which are listed as cattle predators, killed almost three times as many cows as wolves did, at 21,800.
Source: “Cattle Death Loss,” a report by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (see chart on pg. 5)
______________________________________
WOLFMYTH: The elk population has been declining, due to wolf depredation.
WOLFFACT: The numbers show the OPPOSITE is happening. In Wyoming and Montana there are more elk now than before reintroduction.
In Wyoming, elk are 29 percent above management objectives and Wyoming Fish and Game says they are actually “managing elk to reduce their numbers”! In Montana, elk populations have increased by approximately 60 percent since wolf reintroduction. Idaho elk are at or above management objectives in 80 percent of the state elk hunting units.
Source: “The Perverse Logic of Wolf Hunts”
______________________________________
WOLFMYTH: Gray wolves in the Yellowstone region are "non-native imports" dumped into the area.
WOLFFACT: Northern Rocky Mountain wolves, a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), were native to Yellowstone when the park was established in 1872.
The Park Service recorded killing 136 gray wolves in Yellowstone between 1914-1926. There were most certainly many more killed prior to that; they just weren't keeping records. By the 1940s, wolf packs were rarely reported, and by the 1970s scientists found no evidence of a wolf population. The species of gray wolf imported from Canada and reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995 is the same wolf species that originally inhabited the Park.
Source: The National Park Service
______________________________________
WOLFMYTH: Wolves are not endangered and should not receive endangered species protection.
WOLFFACT: Wolf management in America has swung full circle in 50 years from extermination to recovery, and now back again towards extinction. Never in the history of the Endangered Species Act has a species been delisted because of politics, but that is what happened when wolves were delisted on the federal level in April 2011, and management was left to the states.
This established a dangerous precedent. State managers opened hunting seasons on wolves who had just managed to gain a toe-hold and reoccupy territory from which they were extirpated by ranching and agricultural interests just a few decades ago. Ranching and hunting interests historically dominate state commissions and legislatures, so the playing field is not level. It is therefore no surprise that state wildlife management decisions are based on political special interests, as opposed to science.
Wolves are highly social animals and their health, as well as the balance of the ecosystem, depends on their pack structure. As a result of their delisting, free roaming packs of wolves in America will be lucky to survive, much less thrive, anywhere outside of the national parks, where they are protected. Hunters and trappers are gaining access to those wolves as well, by lying in wait for them when they cross the park boundaries, as has happened in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.
Read more about wolves' endangered status in letter from 16 of the nation's top scientists, sent May 21, 2013 to Sally Jewell, Secretary, Department of the Interior.
Learn more in our film, “The Imperiled American Wolf”
______________________________________
WOLFMYTH: Wolves should just live in parks like Yellowstone (or in Canada).
WOLFFACT: Not only is this unhealthy for the predator/prey balance in the states which have wolf populations, but wolves have never recognized the boundary line between Canada and the U.S. Nor, of course, do they recognize the boundary line between Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding states. Wolves that leave Yellowstone have been shot by hunters as soon as they step across the border. See New York Times article.
Learn more about predator/prey balance in The Importance of Predators.
______________________________________
WOLFMYTH: There are plenty of wolves in Canada and Alaska. If we have problems here, we can just import some from there.
WOLFFACT: That is not in the least bit desirable. Wolves are highly social animals. Family structure is vital to their health and well-being. It would be ill-advised to disrupt the social structure of wolves in those locations.
Learn more in our film. “The Imperiled American Wolf”
______________________________________
WOLFMYTH: Wolves are simply a problem. They need to be removed from the ecosystem.
WOLFFACT: Our ecosystems are out of balance when it comes to predator and prey. Predators are essential to restoring balance and ensure proper ecosystem processes and function. As a major predator, wolves have shaped prey populations for thousands of years.
Wolf predation is strategic; it differs from how humans hunt. Wolves primarily take the young and old, rather than the largest and healthiest animals. Wolf predation also helps to balance prey numbers with available habitat, ensuring that plant communities get periodic rest from heavy browsing or grazing influences of herbivores. Wolves can also affect habitat use—for instance, in Yellowstone there is evidence that wolf presence has shifted elk use from valley bottom streamside areas to uplands, which has benefited vegetation important to many wildlife species.
______________________________________
Finally, the presence of wolves can also affect the population and distribution of other smaller predators like coyotes, foxes and skunks. Changes in the population and distribution of these species can have cascading effects on other species from ground-nesting birds to small mammals.
Read more about The Importance of Predators and watch our film, “The Imperiled American Wolf”
______________________________________
WOLFMYTH: Wolves are a deadly menace to humans.
WOLFFACT: There have been only two incidents where wolves have killed humans in North America in the past 100 years, once in 2005 and once in 2010. This is an extremely rare rate of occurrence.
Wolves have a natural fear of people that is only eroded when they learn to associate humans and human settlement with opportunities to find food. Importantly, both of these fatalities took place near illegal garbage dumps that attract a host of scavenging carnivores other than wolves, including bears and coyotes. Also, in both cases, there is controversy as to whether or not wolves were the perpetrators.
To put these two wolf killings in 100 years in context, consider that domestic dogs kill 20 to 30 people in the U.S. every year. And an average of two hunting fatalities occur each year in the state of Oregon alone (see ODFW fatalities report). And every year hunters in the U.S. and Canada kill nearly 100 people and injure around 1,000 (more).
Source: Living with Wolves, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Hunting Incidents, and International Hunter Education Association reports
______________________________________________________________________________
USFWS’s decision on proposed designation rule can help Mexican wolves finally thrive OR can push them closer to extinction. #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/0D2Sx
_____________________________________________________________________________
4 generations of captive breeding for Mexican wolves will cause genetic problems, making wolves unable to thrive in the wild .#IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/QGL2l
______________________________________________________________________________
USFWS, 4th generation of Mexican wolves are NOT expendable, they're an essential part of recovering a unique wolf subspecies. #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/dFoe6
______________________________________________________________________________
USFWS claims if 75 Mexican wolves are hunted, not “likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood” of wolf recovery. REALLY? #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/2K_gh
______________________________________________________________________________
By labeling all Mexican wolves as “nonessential” the USFWS ignores science and 15 years experience of wolf reintroduction. #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/lxSTQ
________________________________________________________________________________
Only 75 Mexican wolves in the wild. USFWS designates as "experimental, nonessential". This designation offers NO protection! #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/PxcKv
________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS QUIT STALLING on our comprehensive Mexican Gray Wolf recovery plan!! Please submit NEW recovery plan for public review. #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/t07o9
________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS in 1998 you promised BETTER Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery plan. What happened? It's 2013, 15 years later, + STILL no plan? #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/Qkf54
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS, you admit your Mexican Wolf recovery plan from 1982 is NOT scientifically sound. So only 100 wolves in wild is flawed. #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/BEQd4
_________________________________________________________________________________
Additional populations of Mexican Gray Wolves are necessary for their complete recovery and genetic health Director Dan Ashe! #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/6Rbcc
_________________________________________________________________________________
#IAMESSENTIAL There are only 75 Mexican Gray Wolves in the wild. Please embrace + facilitate a full recovery program Director Dan Ashe!
http://clicktotweet.com/0muBb
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mexican Wolves in their range in the S.W.means positive cascading effects on the region’s stressed ecosystems SecretaryJewell #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/abU02
_________________________________________________________________________________
The original goal of Mexican wolf recovery to ecologically appropriate & historic habitat is being abandoned USFWS! #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/gdv4Y
_________________________________________________________________________________
The USFWS draft rule fails to delineate the geographic extent of area
in which Mexican Gray Wolves would receive protection. #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/C1FBh
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS :Mexican gray wolves are the most endangered mammal in the U.S. and need to be released to Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/zb4Ht
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS should designate Mexican Gray Wolves as essential. “Nonessential” label ignores science +15 years of recovery facts #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/2Zkbe
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS proposed recovery plan for Mexican Gray Wolves does not adequately expand the animal's range in New Mexico and Arizona. #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/dy9W9
_________________________________________________________________________________
The U.S.A.federal government, through the USFWS, is NOT doing enough to ensure that the Mexican Gray Wolf does not go extinct. #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/8Z20j
_________________________________________________________________________________
Dan Ashe: "1 day we’ll be celebrating Mexican Wolf full recovery just like we are today, w/ gray wolf " With just 75 wolves? #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/aO27a
_________________________________________________________________________________
Via Dan Ashe "Good news– the 2012 population count showed a record high number of Mexican wolves in the wild ". 75 Wolves??? #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/e83U1
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mexican Gray wolves need a distinct listing for higher protection, and a scientifically valid Recovery Plan Director Dan Ashe #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/wye9X
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mexican Wolf recovery effort has failed to reach the 1st reintroduction objective of at least 100 wolves in the wild USFWS #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/pBe84
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reclassify Mexican wolves as "experimental, essential" population + shift management from predator control to wolf recovery #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/E3ajX
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS, adopt + implement conservation policies that resolve livestock-wolf conflicts. Promote the recovery of Mexican wolves #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/QZq6z
_________________________________________________________________________________
The wild population of Mexican wolves is genetically impoverished. Please release wolves from captive population!USFWS #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/ayP9s
_________________________________________________________________________________
Increase temporary electric fencing, range riders, guard dogs + other non-lethal predator control for Mexican wolf recovery. #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/2Iy97
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS: Keep Mexican Wolves in the wild! Avoid the impact removals have on populations, dependent pups + their genetic value . #IAMESSENTIAL
http://clicktotweet.com/EPBLa
_________________________________________________________________________________
****
USFWS accepts comments thru Dec. 17 re: Designating Mexican wolves "non-essential".
http://nowolfhaters.blogspot.com/ #IAMESSENTIAL
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS accepts comments thru Dec. 17 re: stripping E.S.A. protections for Gray Wolves.
http://nowolfhaters.blogspot.com/ #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/997gY
_________________________________________________________________________________
****
Comment for Mexican Gray Wolves! >
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056-2892 #IAMESSENTIAL
_________________________________________________________________________________
*****
Comment for Gray Wolves! >
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-30560 #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
USFWS proposal to remove ESA protections for Gray Wolves in the lower 48 states is premature + not based in sound science #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/9xt7a
_________________________________________________________________________________
Poaching, trapping + wolf killing at the behest of livestock interests threatens to derail wolf recovery #KEEPWOLVESLISTED Director Dan Ashe
http://clicktotweet.com/tOba5
_________________________________________________________________________________
“By law, ESA decisions are supposed to be governed by the best available science, not the best available deal” via PEER #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/Uy67I
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS proposal to remove federal protections for wolves has inadequately considered continued threats posed by poachers. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/0Y0P9
_________________________________________________________________________________
Director Dan Ashe asks "Can a species be considered 'recovered' if it exists in only a portion of its former range?" NO! #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/1Z21v
_________________________________________________________________________________
Director Dan Ashe >"Like bison,Gray Wolves no longer needs E.S.A. protections."
Since 2011 Delisting = 1,705 dead Wolves #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/1YG7e
_________________________________________________________________________________
USDA Wildlife Services data for fiscal year 2011 showed a total of 353 wolves killed in the states, 200 in Minnesota alone #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/1bw28
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Gray Wolf is absent from significant portions of is former range where substantial suitable habitat remains #KEEPWOLVESLISTED USFWS
http://clicktotweet.com/A8Y09
_________________________________________________________________________________
The extirpation of Gray Wolves from big portions of the landscape is a global
phenomenon w/ broad ecological consequences #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/31eba
_________________________________________________________________________________
Given the importance of wolves and that they have only just begun to recover in some regions +not at all in others, plz: #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/111r8
_________________________________________________________________________________
Gray Wolves play critical roles in maintaining a diversity of other
wildlife species, benefiting function of ecosystems. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/ZnU73
_________________________________________________________________________________
In Yellowstone National Park reintroduction of wolves changed elk behavior, facilitating recovery of streamside vegetation #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/8bEK0
_________________________________________________________________________________
Since Gray Wolves were delisted in Idaho in 2011, 698 wolves were slaughtered by wolf trophy hunters. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
****
Since Gray Wolves were delisted in Montana in 2009, xxx wolves were slaughtered by wolf trophy hunters. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
Since Gray Wolves were delisted in Wyoming in 2012, 92 wolves were slaughtered by wolf trophy hunters. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
Since Gray Wolves were delisted in Wisconsin in 2012, 117 wolves were slaughtered by wolf trophy hunters. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
****
Since Gray Wolves were delisted in Michigan in 2012, xxx wolves were slaughtered by wolf trophy hunters. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
Since Gray Wolves were delisted from ESA in Minnesota in 2012, 412 wolves were slaughtered by wolf trophy hunters. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/mpzP0
_________________________________________________________________________________
National Agricultural Statistic Service shows only 0.23 percent livestock loss to Gray Wolf predation nationwide #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/605aU
_________________________________________________________________________________
Tourists who visit Yellowstone to view wolves add more than $35 million annually to the region’s economy. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/ke7E1
_________________________________________________________________________________
Delisting gray wolves means CO, UT, CA, OR and WA won't reap ecological and economic benefits Gray Wolves bring. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/fdc9y
_________________________________________________________________________________
As a keystone apex predator, Wolves are critical to maintaining the structure and integrity of healthy native ecosystems #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/e7H6G
_________________________________________________________________________________
The long-term recovery of Wolves depends on them being able to successfully disperse between widely-separated populations #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/Qx5Tj
_________________________________________________________________________________
Scientific evidence doesn't support claims that federal protection for Wolves is not necessary, recovery is not complete #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/AOaY0
_________________________________________________________________________________
Under management of state wildlife officials who authorized liberal wolf hunts, wolf numbers have declined significantly. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/08MUf
_________________________________________________________________________________
Wildlife policy decisions + wolf management should be based on the best available, peer-reviewed science #KEEPWOLVESLISTED, DirectorDanAshe
http://clicktotweet.com/aa42z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Yellowstone estimates a million people came to view Gray Wolf 832F in its 6 year life. Now 832F is dead. Economic cost? #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/K6Df7
_________________________________________________________________________________
Currently Gray Wolves occupy less than 10% of their historic range and only a third of their suitable habitat. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED USFWS
http://clicktotweet.com/bb2ey
_________________________________________________________________________________
Wolves prey on weak and feeble. Culling an elk herd in this way nets healthier elk , with less competition for resources. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/79068
_________________________________________________________________________________
Wildlife predators account for 5.5 % of total cattle losses, with Gray Wolves responsible for only 0.23 % of that total. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
Delisting Gray Wolves from the E.S.A. will result in genetic genocide for future gray wolf packs #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/1g0de
_________________________________________________________________________________
MT, WY and ID, have already delisted, not managed their wolves, but hunt them down to the bare minimum required by law. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/cc6D0
_________________________________________________________________________________
Yellowstone National Park wolf reintroduction= regeneration of streamside vegetation after decades of over-browsing by elk #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/focad
_________________________________________________________________________________
What you say on your blog http://tinyurl.com/oz7crws Director Dan Ashe
contradicts opinions of 16 leading wolf scientists #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/HeRvg
_________________________________________________________________________________
"Wildlife professionals" in MT, WY and ID have the long term survival of wolves at heart? Hunt statistics say otherwise #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/73tk9
_________________________________________________________________________________
WI wants killing quota of 375 wolves in 2013, MT wants 225+ , WY says "shoot on sight". You still want to delist, USFWS? #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/5vdRP
_________________________________________________________________________________
The partial delisting of Gray Wolves from the ESA 2 years ago from E.S.A led to 1700 wolf killing by ranchers + government #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/3Eiw8
_________________________________________________________________________________
Gray Wolf is going to maintain sustainable numbers, unprotected from hunters? We have CLEARLY not learned from the past. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/fTFd3
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sans E.S.A. protection, Wolves will be targets for egregious harvesting. Live leg trapping, baiting, den kills, poisoning #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/7mQ4t
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS, you can't defend delisting policy. Page 81 of your own draft rule states that 2/3 of wolf poaching goes unreported #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/88c96
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS claims to be intelligent, but won't use data gathered by scientists + biologists? Recovery of wolves is incomplete. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/7X5l3
_________________________________________________________________________________
Gray Wolf E.S.A. protections need to be extended to ALL the states. RE-list Wolves in MT, ID, WY, MI, MN, and WI! #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/peUw2
_________________________________________________________________________________
Gray Wolves once numbered well into the hundreds of thousands. How is "recovered" possible with a population now at 6,100? #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/JBHa9
_________________________________________________________________________________
Private livestock + hunting industries are influencing state wolf management policies, while recovery science is ignored #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/V0jl0
_________________________________________________________________________________
How is it sound or ethical “management” to allow wolf killing without a license in 80% of Wyoming? Science NOT politics #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/edfaY
_________________________________________________________________________________
Delisting Wolves halts 4 decades of recovery progress. It exposes America's Wolves to unwarranted + unsustainable killing #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/u1E5s
_________________________________________________________________________________
USFWS: The majority of Americans want wolves to remain under the Endangered Species Act + believe wolves are necessary. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/3k4NJ
_________________________________________________________________________________
Two human deaths were caused by wolves in N.A. in 100 years. Domestic dogs kill 20 to 30 people in the U.S. every year. #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
http://clicktotweet.com/2Tveg
_________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Idaho Wolf Management. Make you angry? Tell USFWS to #KEEPWOLVESLISTED http://nowolfhaters.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________________________________________________
Wyoming Wolf Management. Make you angry? Tell USFWS to #KEEPWOLVESLISTED http://nowolfhaters.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________________________________________________
Montana Wolf Management. Make you angry? Tell USFWS to #KEEPWOLVESLISTED http://nowolfhaters.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________________________________________________
Michigan Wolf Management. Make you angry? Tell USFWS to #KEEPWOLVESLISTED http://nowolfhaters.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________________________________________________
Wisconsin Wolf Management. Make you angry? Tell USFWS to #KEEPWOLVESLISTED http://nowolfhaters.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________________________________________________
Minnesota Wolf Management. Make you angry? Tell USFWS to #KEEPWOLVESLISTED http://nowolfhaters.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________________________________________________
Director Dan Ashe claims he has the utmost confidence in his state wild life agency partners. Here are his Michigan partners #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
Director Dan Ashe claims he has the utmost confidence in his state wild life agency "partners". Here are his Montana partners #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
Director Dan Ashe claims he has the utmost confidence in his state wild life agency partners. Here are his Wyoming partners #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
Director Dan Ashe claims he has the utmost confidence in his state wild life agency partners. Here are his Idaho partners #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
Director Dan Ashe claims he has the utmost confidence in his state wild life agency partners. Here are his Minnesota partners #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
_________________________________________________________________________________
Director Dan Ashe claims he has the utmost confidence in his state wild life agency partners. Here are his Wisconsin partners #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.