The killing agency: The USDA's Wildlife Services' brutal methods leave a trail of animal death

By Tom Knudson

Sacramento Bee sacbee.com

Published: Sunday, Apr. 29, 2012 - 12:00 am

Last Modified: Sunday, May. 20, 2012 - 1:11 pm

The day began with a drive across the desert, checking the snares he had placed in the sagebrush to catch coyotes.

Gary Strader, an employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, stepped out of his truck near a ravine in Nevada and found something he hadn't intended to kill.

There, strangled in a neck snare, was one of the most majestic birds in America, a federally protected golden eagle.

"I called my supervisor and said, 'I just caught a golden eagle and it's dead,' " said Strader. "He said, 'Did anybody see it?' I said, 'Geez, I don't think so.'

"He said, 'If you think nobody saw it, go get a shovel and bury it and don't say nothing to anybody.' "

"That bothered me," said Strader, whose job was terminated in 2009. "It wasn't right."

Strader's employer, a branch of the federal Department of Agriculture called Wildlife Services, has long specialized in killing animals that are deemed a threat to agriculture, the public and – more recently – the environment.

Since 2000, its employees have killed nearly a million coyotes, mostly in the West. They have destroyed millions of birds, from nonnative starlings to migratory shorebirds, along with a colorful menagerie of more than 300 other species, including black bears, beavers, porcupines, river otters, mountain lions and wolves.

And in most cases, they have officially revealed little or no detail about where the creatures were killed, or why. But a Bee investigation has found the agency's practices to be indiscriminate, at odds with science, inhumane and sometimes illegal.

The Bee's findings include:

• With steel traps, wire snares and poison, agency employees have accidentally killed more than 50,000 animals since 2000 that were not problems, including federally protected golden and bald eagles; more than 1,100 dogs, including family pets; and several species considered rare or imperiled by wildlife biologists.

• Since 1987, at least 18 employees and several members of the public have been exposed to cyanide when they triggered spring-loaded cartridges laced with poison meant to kill coyotes. They survived – but 10 people have died and many others have been injured in crashes during agency aerial gunning operations since 1979.

• A growing body of science has found the agency's war against predators, waged to protect livestock and big game, is altering ecosystems in ways that diminish biodiversity, degrade habitat and invite disease.

Sometimes wild animals must be destroyed – from bears that ransack mountain cabins to geese swirling over an airport runway. But because lethal control stirs strong emotions, Wildlife Services prefers to operate in the shadows.

"We pride ourselves on our ability to go in and get the job done quietly without many people knowing about it," said Dennis Orthmeyer, acting state director of Wildlife Services in California.

Basic facts are tightly guarded. "This information is Not intended for indiscriminate distribution!!!" wrote one Wildlife Services manager in an email to a municipal worker in Elk Grove about the number of beavers killed there.

And while even the military allows the media into the field, Wildlife Services does not. "If we accommodated your request, we would have to accommodate all requests," wrote Mark Jensen,director of Wildlife Services in Nevada, turning down a request by The Bee to observe its hunters and trappers in action.

"The public has every right to scrutinize what's going on," said Carter Niemeyer, a former Wildlife Services district manager who worked for the agency for 26 years and now believes much of the bloodletting is excessive, scientifically unsound and a waste of tax dollars.

"If you read the brochures, go on their website, they play down the lethal control, which they are heavily involved in, and show you this benign side," Niemeyer said. "It's smoke and mirrors. It's a killing business. And it ain't pretty.

"If the public knows this and they don't care, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it," Niemeyer said. "But they are entitled to know."

Agency officials say the criticism is misleading. "If we can use nonlethal control first, we usually do it," said William Clay, deputy administrator of Wildlife Services. "The problem is, generally when we get a call, it's because farmers and ranchers are having livestock killed immediately. They are being killed daily. Our first response is to try to stop the killing and then implement nonlethal methods."

In March, two congressmen – Reps. John Campbell, R-Irvine, and Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. – introduced a bill that would ban one of Wildlife Services' most controversial killing tools: spring-loaded sodium cyanide cartridges that have killed tens of thousands of animals in recent years, along with Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate), a less-commonly used poison.

"This is an ineffective, wasteful program that is largely unaccountable, lacks transparency and continues to rely on cruel and indiscriminate methods," said Camilla Fox, executive director of Project Coyote, a Bay Area nonprofit.

"If people knew how many animals are being killed at taxpayer expense – often on public lands – they would be shocked and horrified," Fox said.

Read more . . .

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

By Boone and Crockett Club

Natural resources, including wildlife represent the health and wealth of a country and its people. We are fortunate in North America to have a proven system that not only recognizes these values, but also provides for and directs the proper use and management of these resources.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is anchored by a Supreme Court decision that decreed that wildlife belongs to the people, and not government, corporations or individuals. It further directs how this natural resource is to be used and managed under sustainable guidelines for the betterment of wildlife and people. It is the reason why we still have abundant, wildlife populations in the U.S. and Canada and the opportunity to freely hunt, fish or enjoy this wildlife each in our own way.

The Model is guided by seven principles. It developed over time out of necessity to reverse the negative effects from the unregulated over harvesting of many species of wildlife and early attitudes that these resources where there for the taking and inexhaustible. Sportsmen and women, led by the efforts of the Boone and Crockett Club and its members helped to either establish, popularize, mobilize support for, and/or defend each of these guiding principles over the past 125 years. The results are unprecedented in the history of mankind.

In the Public Trust – Wildlife belongs to the people and managed in trust for the people by government agencies.

Who owns wildlife was determined by a Supreme Court decision at the time the New World was flexing its new independence from European rule. The Public Trust Doctrine is the pillar of North American conservation, but it took time for citizens to fully understand the responsibilities that came with this ownership.

Many of the Boone and Crockett Club’s early efforts were focused on awakening the people to the plight of their wildlife resources, and that these resources did indeed belong to them, and were in their care. These efforts were in concert with the conservation laws the Club and its members were proposing to aid in the recovery and protection of wildlife. Once the public realized it was their wildlife being irresponsibly eliminated their outcry was so great that conservation legislation passed with ease.

Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife – It will be illegal to sell the meat of any wild animal in North America.

The harvesting wildlife for commercial markets contributed greatly to the extinction of some species of wildlife, and the near extinction of others. With the Boone and Crockett Club rallying the public and political support needed, Club member Senator John F. Lacey of Iowa was able to present and pass the Lacey Acts of 1900 & 1907, which prohibited a commercial value to wild game meat, spelling the end of market hunting, allowing our wildlife to recover and flourish.

Allocation of Wildlife is by Law – Laws developed by the people and enforced by government agencies will regulate the proper use of wildlife resources.

The mere presence of man on the landscape can negatively affect wildlife and the habitats that support them. The rule of law instead of the rule of chance will be used to govern the appropriate use of these wildlife resources.

The Boone and Crockett Club proposed laws and rallied public support for these new rules of order. The Club helped establish government agencies like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife and National Forest Services that were needed to oversee the proper execution and enforcement of these laws. The Club’s Fair Chase statement also became the cornerstone for game laws established by the states.

Opportunity for All – Every citizen has the freedom to hunt and fish.

Public access to wildlife, regardless of social or economic status, including hunting, fishing, and trapping is a right of citizenship. This access fosters individual stewardship and provides the funding necessary to properly manage wildlife resources in a sustainable manner.

Boone and Crockett Club founder, Theodore Roosevelt believed strongly in wise-use conservation and fought aggressively against preservationist, or non-use proposals. The Club also believed that those who use the resource should pay for its care and maintenance. The Club lobbied for the laws and institutions that provided this funding, including a federal excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition and the federal Duck Stamp program. Sportsmen ands women subsequently stepped forward and gladly accepted their role in funding conservation

Non-frivolous Use – In North America we can legally kill certain wildlife for legitimate purposes under strict guidelines for food and fur, in self-defense, or property protection. Laws are in place to restrict casual killing, killing for commercial purposes, wasting of game, and mistreating wildlife.

The rules of proper use, both in written law and personal ethics, did not exist in commercial market and sustenance hunting cultures. As these activities faded, what remained was recreational, sport hunting. What separated a true sportsman from market gunners was an ethical code of personal conduct that was defined and promoted by the Boone and Crockett Club. These same tenets of Fair Chase were used as the cornerstone of modern-day game laws. Club member, Aldo Leopold is credited with framing the concept of a land ethic and managing entire biotic communities. Combined, the foundations for the proper use of The intricate nature of ecosystems and biotic communities, of which all wildlife and man belong, will be managed under the knowledge of science rather than opinion, or conjecture.

wildlife and the habitats that support them was put in place to support conservation, defined by Club member, George Bird Grinnell as,” wise use without waste.”

International Resources – Because wildlife and fish freely migrate across boundaries between states, provinces, and countries they are considered an international resource.

The proper management of certain species of migrating wildlife is to be managed by international treaties and laws.

Sportsmen where among the first to recognize the need for international treaties and laws to save what was left of decimated waterfowl populations.  Wildfowl that nested in Alaska, Canada and the Lower 48 States, and then migrated as far south as Mexico, could only be saved if restrictions to the loss of their wetland nesting habitats and hunting reached across international boundaries.  The Boone and Crockett Club responded with the establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge system (1903) and the passage of the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 & 1917, the Reclamation Act of 1902, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 all contributed to the recovery and future prosperity of migratory species.

Managed by Science – The best science available will be used as a base for informed decision making in wildlife management.

The intricate nature of ecosystems and biotic communities, of which all wildlife and man belong, will be managed under the knowledge of science rather than opinion, or conjecture.

Boone and Crockett Club founder, Theodore Roosevelt was a strong advocate of science, and that only the best science available was to be used to make critical decisions on natural resource management. The Club began by providing seed money for some of the first wildlife research projects. Under the leadership of member, Aldo Leopold the Club began formulating flexible scientific management policies for wildlife and natural resources to achieve an ecological balance. The Club also called for the first President’s Conference on Outdoor Recreation, which lead to the establishment of the National Recreation Policy, which coordinated resource management at federal, state, and local levels.

 

The Truth About Aerial Hunting of Wolves in Alaska

Dispelling the Myths About Wolves

So why is the reintroduction of the gray wolf back in to areas that was once their normal range been such a divisive issue? Much of it has to do with myths, misinformation, unfounded fears and plain old misguided emotions. Throw in a substantial dose of political backscratching and couple that with state conservation agencies that are, in effect state game managers beholding to those who fund their existence - namely the hunting population. Now add to the mix a serious lack of understanding regarding the critical role that an apex predator plays in their relation to healthy ecosystem and you've developed a recipe for less than efficient wolf management.

Hunters, Politicians and Game Commissions

First, understand that I am not anti-hunting nor am I a preservationist. I am a conservationist - meaning I focus on the wise use of our natural resources. As some one who, by profession is engaged in wildlife management, it is important to know that I see sport hunting as a tool to support science based decisions. It should always be the means to an end . . . never as the end itself.

It is often said that hunters are the foremost champions of conservation. That may be true for some, but in my experience, it is not necessarily an accurate title to be bestowed upon the majority. The reasons that individuals hunt are as varied as they game the seek; however I dare say, conservation in the purest form would rank somewhere close to the bottom of the list. Admittedly, the dollars hunters pay in licensing fees, equipment purchase taxes, violation fines etc do go to support state conservation agencies. Unfortunately, today wildlife management in many states is not conservation as a scientific discipline. More often than not, state wildlife agencies are simply game managers - charged with ensuring that an adequate numbers of targets are available for the next season. Know that in no way do I mean to disparage the fine men and women who serve as game wardens, conservation officers, biologists and field technicians who dutifully serve to protect and manage wildlife. My issue is with the commissions that are owned by local, power hungry, vote thirsty politicians who dictate policy without the education or background to make the necessary decisions which would benefit the ecosystem. It is simply the corrupt tradition of "follow the money". 

Not the wolve's historic range?

I've heard and read many instances of people who have "verifiable proof" that many areas in US (including the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem) was never the range for the gray wolf. This is pure fallacy. The historic range of the gray wolf covered nearly two-thirds of the United States.

The reintroduction of the gray wolf back into what was once their historic range was a monumental effort to right a terrible wrong - The decline of North American wolf populations coincided with increasing human populations and the expansion of agriculture. In the 1800's, westward expansion brought settlers and their livestock into direct contact with native predator and prey species. Much of the wolves' prey base was destroyed as agriculture flourished. With the prey base removed, wolves began to prey on domestic stock, which resulted in humans eliminating wolves from most of their historical range. Predator control, including poisoning, was practiced here in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Other predators such as bears, cougars, and coyotes were also killed to protect livestock and "more desirable" wildlife species, such as deer and elk.

By the start of the 20th century, wolves had almost disappeared from the eastern USA, excepting some areas of the Appalachians and the north western Great Lakes Region. The gray wolf's decline in the prairies began with the extermination of the American bison and other ungulates in the 1860s–70s. From 1900–1930, the gray wolf was virtually eliminated from the western USA and adjoining parts of Canada, due to intensive predator control programs aimed at eradicating the species. The gray wolf was exterminated by federal and state governments from all of the USA by 1960, except in Alaska and northern Minnesota. Thousands of wolves were killed from the early 1950s to the early 1960s, mostly due to poisoning.

Officially, 1926 was the year that the last wolves were killed within Yellowstone’s boundaries. When the wolves were eradicated and hunting eliminated, the elk population boomed. Over the succeeding decades, elk populations grew so large that they unbalanced the local ecosystem. The number of elk and other large prey animals increased to the point that they gathered in large herds along valley bottoms and meadows overgrazing new-growth vegetation. Because of overgrazing, deciduous woody plant species such as upland aspen and riparian cottonwood became seriously diminished. So, because the keystone predators, the wolves, had been removed from the Yellowstone-Idaho ecosystem, the ecosystem changed. This change affected other species as well. Coyotes filled in the niche left by wolves, but couldn't control the large ungulate populations. Booming coyote numbers, furthermore, also had a negative effect on other species, particularly the red fox, pronghorn, and domestic sheep. Ranchers, though, remained steadfastly opposed to reintroducing a species of animal that they considered to be analogous to a plague, citing the hardships that would ensue with the potential loss of stock caused by wolves.

In the 1960's and 70's national awareness of environmental issues and consequences led to the passage of many laws designed to correct the mistakes of the past and help prevent similar mistakes in the future. One such law was the Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973. 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is required by this law to restore endangered species that have been eliminated, if possible. By 1978, all wolf subspecies were on the federal list of endangered species for the lower 48 states except Minnesota.

In 1991, Congress provided funds to the US Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare, in consultation with the National Park Service and the US Forest Service, an environmental impact statement (EIS) on restoration of wolves. In June 1994 the Secretary of the Interior signed the Record of Decision for the final EIS for reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.

Staff from the National Park Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and participating states prepared for wolf restoration to Yellowstone and central Idaho. The US Fish and Wildlife Service prepared special regulations outlining how wolves would be managed as an experimental population and Grey wolf packs were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and Idaho starting in 1995.

MYTH: Wolves cause significant losses to livestock producers * 

Averaged percentage of total sheep loss in Wyoming to various predators between 2000-2005. Wolves are responsible for less than 1% of losses

A common belief is that attacks on livestock by wolves is a significant, or even one of the primary causes that account for losses incurred by livestock producers.

In the US emphasis is placed primarily on the financial side, and also often emphasizes that the inclusion of the wolf within the Endangered Species Act violates "property rights" and "constitutional freedoms". The "emotional trauma" suffered by livestock producers as a result of predation is also frequently mentioned.

"It may destroy our livelihood, and our entire
lifestyle is also in jeopardy."

"A person doesn’t know or realize the emotional stress and fears of those that have had animals killed or maimed by wolves until you have it happen to yourself"

Though ranchers and farmers are always ready to give the numbers of livestock affected by predation, these are never given as percentages, or even stated in relation to total herd numbers. In most states the losses of livestock due to wolf predation was less than 1%. In the state of Wyoming, which lies entirely within the Yellowstone re-introduction area the number varied depending on year between 0.9% and 2% in the period 2000-2005, averaging under 1% over the period. This compares with 33.7% to 48.3% over the same period for losses due to coyotes, 4.1% to 10.9% due to eagles, and from 11.2% to 20.7% due to weather. Indeed, poison, often left by livestock producers to kill wolves and other predators, was often responsible for a greater proportion of losses than those due to wolf predation.

Emotional trauma is of course impossible to either prove or disprove, but it is important to remember that livestock is ultimately reared for slaughter, either to directly obtain the primary products (meat and hides) or as means of profitably disposing of "spent" dairy or wool herds/flocks. Thus one would expect anyone working in the livestock industry to deal with the death and processing of animals into food and other end-products as part of the day to day running of their business. It is highly unlikely that any individual emotionally disturbed by the slaughter of animals for meat or other products would find livestock work tolerable as a long time career.

The inclusion of wolves in the ESA provides a mechanism for financial compensation to be paid for damages caused by wolves in partnership with the Wolf Compensation Trust, and in the case of wolves found in the act of attacking livestock or other domesticated animals within private property, it is permissible for the owner to take measures necessary to protect them. Therefore it is hard to see how such an act can be a "violation" of rights.

Adult wolves kill each other in territory disputes. Such disputes happen each year, but increase when food is less abundant. This may have been why so many adult wolves died in fights during 2008. That year, scientists also found two wolves whose deaths were partially due to starvation.

MYTH: Wolves decimate game herds

"All wolves must be eliminated to restore our big game herds."

"The Canadian wolves have decimated our elk, mule deer and moose populations to lows not seen since the ’60s."

There has been considerable misinformation over the impact of wolf populations on herds of elk. However the National Park Service studies indicate that wolf reintroduction to the park, a major reserve for elk herds, would have negligible affect on hunting activities, and that the effect of wolf predation on elk populations would not, in and of itself, have an impact sufficient to be the decisive factor in elk population management.

Although the reasons behind fluctuating wild animal populations are complex, Drs. Doug Smith, Daniel Stahler and John Vucetich conducted a joint National Park Service-MTU study into elk population at Yellowstone. Their findings found that:

• Elk population remained stable from the re-introduction of wolves in 1995 through to 2000, at around 17,000
• In the period 2000-2004 the population dropped 50% to 8,334. During this period the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem area experienced drought conditions, and increased hunting of Elk by humans.

Though hunting permits did not allow for a kill level equivalent to the total population drop, the researchers concluded that hunting, led to a "super-additive" effect, whereby a 1% direct loss rate due to hunting was magnified to significant degree due to knock-on effects, which were only exacerbated by drought conditions. A recent study conducted by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks found that the primary killer of elk were mountain lions, followed by bears and wolves came in a distant third. Although wolf predation was acknowledged to exist, it's effect on the large population drops seen was regarded as a minor, largely insignificant factor:

"Our analysis indicates that there is greater justification for believing that the harvest rate and severe climate, together, account for at least much of the decline".

MYTH: Wolves attack humans all the time

While it is known that wolf attacks on humans do occur, those engaged in wolf hysteria deliberately exaggerate the risk out of all proportion to implant the idea in their audience that all wolves routinely kill and eat humans.

"Wolves are blood-thirsty predators that attack and kill pets, livestock, children, and adults"

"...we need to protect [the cattle industry] from these intruders...they’ve moved into my ecosystem, not the other way around"

"258 Congressional Members Support Funding for Mexican Wolves Stalking Children and Wolves Terrorizing Rural Citizens" The facts in no way bear out such hysteria. Those involved in wolf misinformation often recount reports from the 18th and 19th centuries recanting real or imagined wolf attacks in Europe and Asia.  Although European wolf subspecies are less wary of humans, and are able to live near higher-density human populations than their North American cousins there are no reports of attacks. As the map clearly shows, no wolf subspecies present on the Eurasian landmass is present on the North American landmass. Statistics compiled by Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) on global wild (not captive) wolf attacks show that in the period 1950-2000, (50 years) there were only 13 confirmed cases of wolf attacks on humans in North America, none of which were fatal. In the United States alone, approximately 1 million reported instances of domestic dogs biting humans per year, with an average of 16 to 18 fatal attacks per year. MYTH: Wolves spread disease Groups and politicians opposed to wolf conservation often use the claim that wolves spread diseases to livestock and game populations. Whilst wolf populations, like that of any wild animal, carry disease, as apex predators they are more often than not a "dead end" for transmission of disease, and are of little concern when it comes to disease management in most livestock and game populations. The most serious diseases affecting wolf populations are those which also affect domestic canines: parvo, mange and intestinal worms. In all cases, transmission of the disease is driven infinitely more by domestic dogs than wolves, and it is believed that in most cases these diseases have been introduced to the wolf population by domestic dogs. A notable exception is the presence of mange in North American wolf populations in the Rocky Mountains. This population was deliberately infected by government veterinarians in 1909 as an attempt to "exterminate" the wolf population, spread to coyotes and other mammals, and eventually re-infected wolves upon their reintroduction to the area. MYTH: Killing/trapping/hunting is the solution "I believe wolves need to be eliminated" A common refrain is that the only effective solution to any or all of the above is to drastically reduce the population of wolves. This inevitably entails lethal intervention on the part of humans. Such actions are proposed by many livestock producers as the panacea to all ills, and is, unsurprisingly, encouraged and guided by the hunting, trapping and fur lobby organizations, which naturally present themselves as the only viable way of going about any such lethal solution. Unfortunately, many hunting methods are exceedingly inhumane, with methods such as leg traps being commonplace in North America, though are banned in the EU due to concerns over its inhumane nature. * From "Wolf Hysteria"

Idaho damages its public image as well as its rural economy

Idaho Statesman - Guest Opinion

BY DORI BROGLINO AND PETER SPATZ

January 15, 2014 

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/01/15/2973739/idaho-damages-its-public-image.html#storylink=cpy

On a crisp December morning at the edge of the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone National Park, a steady stream of cars flowed to a pullout that was filled with hopeful visitors braving frigid temperatures in the predawn light to catch a glimpse of a pair of wolves that had been feeding on a road-killed bison. We were among the fortunate ones who got a parking spot that morning and were rewarded with a view of the wolves trotting along the creek bank in the early morning light, making for a magical, wild sight.

We returned to our car and soon heard a short news report on the wolf and coyote derby to be held in Salmon. A few days later while reading The New York Times, an editorial titled "wolf haters" negatively portrayed Idaho as it described the upcoming wolf derby, as well as Idaho Fish and Game's recent hiring of a professional wolf killer in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. The wolf derby not only infuriates the conservation community, but also many hunters interested in promoting ethical, fair and respectful hunting. The conservation community is questioning the legality of the hired hunter as a possible violation of the Wilderness Act. These recent events resulted in worldwide negative publicity for Idaho and have likely alienated potential visitors. Instead, Idaho could capitalize on tourism dollars by promoting the lucrative wolf-watching industry.

Look at Gardiner, Mont., as an example of a rural community benefiting from the presence of wolves. Just outside the north entrance to Yellowstone, we observed a bustling winter economy, largely driven by wolf watchers staying in hotels, patronizing restaurants and hiring wildlife watching outfitters. Couldn't and shouldn't Idaho foster this sustainable form of tourism in its rural communities instead of creating opportunities for the media to depict a state paralyzed by irrational fear and loathing of a predator that is a natural and important part of the state's ecosystems?

Some folks will cite the damage caused by wolves to Idaho's elk herds and livestock, as well as some who espouse the dangers to life and limb of just having predators in our midst, but consider some information that provides a more balanced view of the role of wolves and other wildlife here in Idaho:

• The amount of compensation paid to ranchers and farmers by Idaho Fish and Game related to wolves has been less than the amount of claims paid out for crop losses due to elk.

• Though wolves are vilified for preying on elk, black bears and mountain lions, whose populations far outnumber wolves, are major predators of elk.

• There are no documented cases of a wolf in Idaho injuring or killing a person. However, the Idaho Department of Transportation reports that since 1997, more than 27 human deaths resulted from vehicle collisions, mostly involving deer and elk.

• Other states have greater densities of both people and predators. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan have approximately 2,000, 800 and 700 wolves, respectively. Densely populated New Jersey now has approximately 3,500 black bears. Idaho, on the other hand, appears to be fearfully preoccupied with fewer than 700 wolves.

There is a complex picture of how the wolf fits into Idaho. It's unfortunate that recent publicity has depicted our state as intolerant, disrespectful and ignorant with regard to dealing with this animal.

We need to repair this image, investigate additional ways to coexist, determine whether there are opportunities to embrace the wolf-watching economy in rural Idaho, and ensure that a more balanced picture of the wolf is presented to the country and the world.

Broglino is an environmental professional. Spatz is a scientist with the Department of Interior. They live and work in Boise.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/01/15/2973739/idaho-damages-its-public-image.html#storylink=cpy

Idaho Wolves Deserve Conversation Not Eradication

By Heather Pilkinton on January 2, 2014

The wolves beat the hunters in the recent, and highly contested, wolf and coyote derby in Salmon, Idaho. Wolves eluded the participants for the entire two-day hunt,

but 21 coyotes were not so fortunate. The absence of any wolf kills, however, has not lessened the intensity of the controversy, nor the temperature of the debates. Wolves are a touchy subject, no matter the stance; as with most hotly contested issues, there is an abundance of information, but not all of it is correct.

So are the wolves predators that destroy livestock other wildlife, creating devastating losses for both ranchers and hunters? Or are they prey? Misunderstood, maligned and victimized only for what comes naturally to the species? Do wolves contribute significantly to the spread of parasites to elk and cattle, and can humans get these same parasites? Are the wolves found in the Idaho mountains the same wolves that were here before, or are these wolves truly different from the ones they replaced?

And the biggest question of all – can wolves, and humans get along?

Read more . . . 

Wolf watchers want IDs of dead animals near Yellowstone

Wolf watchers want IDs of dead animals near park - Jackson Hole News&Guide: Environmental: "Wolf watchers in the Lamar Valley — perhaps the most famous place on Earth to spot a Canis lupus in the wild — fear the worst: that the animals killed were members of the Lamar Canyon Pack"

Are Hunters Good Wildlife Stewards When It Comes To Wolves? Not According To This Study

by Kurt Repanshek National Parks Traveler 


A new study likely to be controversial in some quarters suggests that hunters are not especially good wildlife stewards when the wildlife in question are wolves. While hunters long have been seen as conservation advocates for a wide range of species, when it comes to wolves the study by two University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers would seem to indicate that the only good wolf is a dead wolf in the hunter's mind. “Hunters were some of the least tolerant of wolves among our respondents, and the closer you got to wolf range the less tolerant they were,” said Adrian Treves, a professor in the UW-Madison Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. Professor Treves and a colleague, Kerry Martin, took up a research project beginning in 2001 to survey hunters and non-hunters on attitudes toward wolves. Over the course of six years they interviewed 2,320 residents of Wisconsin, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and were able to draw a picture of perceptions when it came to wolves. (Their findings appear in the August issue of the peer-reviewed journal Society and Natural Resources.

Read more