Study finds wolves genetically diverse, dispersing

October 13, 2010
By admin

‘Pivotal’ research could change the wolf debate in the northern Rockies.

By Cory Hatch, Jackson Hole, Wyo.
Date: October 13, 2010

Wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains are genetically healthy and have migrated and bred successfully among subpopulations in central Idaho, greater Yellowstone and northern Montana, according to a new study.

Authors of the study analyzed DNA samples from 555 wolves, beginning with the reintroduction of a few dozen wolves in 1995 and running through 2004, when the population had grown to about 850 animals. The study was published in the October issue of Molecular Ecology.

“We found that genetic diversity was high and maintained throughout the study period for the three recovery areas,” the authors said. “Overall, genetic diversity throughout the [northern Rockies] was comparable or greater than estimates for other gray wolf populations.”

In addition to high levels of genetic diversity, data show “a lack of significant inbreeding in each population,” researchers said. “In addition to a rapid population expansion and a genetically diverse founding population, low inbreeding estimates were probably driven and maintained through behaviorally mediated inbreeding avoidance.”

The study also seems to allay concerns that breeding wolves haven’t been able to migrate among the central Idaho, northern Montana and greater Yellowstone populations.

“The presence of reproductively successful migrants between recovery areas may have influenced genetic diversity,” researchers said. “Idaho and Montana have greater connectivity than either of these areas has to the [greater Yellowstone area].”

The estimate of reproductively successful migrants is low because only about 30 percent of the population was sampled at any given time during the study.

“Our results should be viewed as a conservative minimum of the true number of migrants per generation in the [northern Rockies],” the authors said.

Genetic isolation

The paper expands on a previous study by some of the same researchers that showed Yellowstone National Park wolves were genetically isolated.

Conservation groups subsequently cited that study as one reason wolves should remain under Endangered Species Act protection, and U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy cited genetics in a decision to grant an injunction against wolf hunts after the federal government’s first delisting attempt in 2008.

But the study authors say the 2008 Yellowstone study gave a limited picture of the total population, particularly because most of the park already had established wolf packs.

“High wolf densities and territory saturation in Yellowstone during the height of this study probably limited the ability of individuals to effectively disperse into this core area,” researchers said.

The newer study shows “effective dispersal was most successful outside of Yellowstone during our study, presumably owing to greater opportunities to establish territories and breed.”

The new research is “pivotal,” said study coauthor Mike Jimenez, Wyoming wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“This is a far more in-depth study,” he said, reinforcing the idea that some of early conclusions were a “huge underestimation.” The northern Rocky Mountain wolf population is “very diverse,” he said.

Since the study’s conclusion, the population has doubled to more than 1,700 wolves, which likely increases the level of genetic interchange, Jimenez said.

This genetic diversity shows the 1995 reintroduction was a success biologically.

“It reiterates this idea of three subpopulations and a meta-population,” he said. “It’s worked very well. All three populations are connected to the Canadian population, they’re connected to each other, and they’re connected at much lower [population] levels than we have now.”

What the study doesn’t answer are the political questions surrounding wolves.

“All these arguments come back to people’s values,” Jimenez said. “It doesn’t answer that other question of how many [wolves] people want to have around or don’t want to have around.”

Praise for new study

The study drew praise from other researchers. In a companion article in the same journal, scientists from the University of Calgary and University of Montana said the paper shows “substantial levels of gene flow between three identified sub-populations of wolves within the northern Rockies, clarifying previous analyses and convincingly showing genetic recovery.”

Conservation groups also praised the research, but said state management plans in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho remain a threat to the species.

“I think it’s good research,” Sylvia Fallon, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Washington, D.C., office, said in a telephone interview. “It’s good news for the population of wolves in the Rocky Mountains.”

Still, the research doesn’t alleviate the need for a robust population size, Fallon said.

“[The study] occurred between 1995 and 2004, which was soon after reintroduction during a period of time when the population was undergoing tremendous expansion,” she said. “That’s a time when you would expect to see a lot of dispersal.

“What that doesn’t tell us is how dispersal … will be affected by a population that is no longer growing or in fact is decreasing,” Fallon said.

She pointed to remarks by the study authors, who stated a dramatic reduction in population size could threaten connectivity among the populations, and maintaining connectivity will require protection of migration corridors and other prime wolf habitat.

“The success of dispersers will decrease as wolf mortality rates by hunting and control for livestock depredations increase, or if habitat outside of core protected areas becomes less suitable because of land management practices,” researchers said. “Consequently, a management challenge for long-term viability of wolves in the [northern Rocky Mountains] will continue to be the maintenance of adequate population size and effective dispersal to maintain long-term genetic health.”

It’s up to wildlife mangers to ensure this dispersal still occurs, Fallon said.

Viable populations

The new information is a welcome surprise, Louise Lasley, public lands director for the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, said. The Conservation Alliance and Natural Resources Defense Council have participated in lawsuits to protect wolves.

“It kind of knocks down one of our arguments,” said Lasley, who is unsure how the new data will affect the litigation. “As far as the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, we will still strive to see viable wolf populations that will maintain genetic diversity.”

Lasley echoed Fallon’s concerns about what will happen to connectivity among subpopulations and genetic diversity if wolves are managed to minimal numbers.

State officials said the study confirms their suspicions.

“We never doubted that genetic interchange was occurring at adequate levels among wolves in the greater Yellowstone area,” Steve Ferrell, director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said in a statement. “We had questioned the earlier claims of genetic isolation and bottlenecks in gene flow, especially in light of the robust and rapidly expanding population. We’re pleased that the researchers continued with their work at a larger scale to reverse the conclusions made from their earlier efforts.”

Bob Wharff, Wyoming executive director of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, a group that has advocated for tougher management of the wolf population, said the news is welcome, but said he doubts it will stop lawsuits to protect the species.

“It’s showing what we said all along,” he said. “We believe that wolves have met recovery goals.

“It’s nice for us to finally get a break,” Wharff continued. “But I feel like we’ve had the science on our side all along, and it doesn’t seem to matter.”

Albuquerque Journal: Wolf Release in Ariz. Postponed Until 2011

October 9, 2010
By admin

Saturday, October 09, 2010

By Rene Romo
Journal Southern Bureau
LAS CRUCES — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will postpone until sometime next year the planned release of a pack of eight Mexican gray wolves in eastern Arizona.
One conservation organization lamented the delay as a setback to increasing the number and genetic diversity of wild-roaming lobos.
Before some of the endangered predators were released in the forests of eastern Arizona in 1998, federal officials expected the wild wolf population to grow to 100 by the end of 2006. But the wolf count at the end of 2009 was 42, down from 52 in 2008, and federal officials have expressed concern that a lack of genetic diversity in the wild wolves might have affected the size of litters.
Terry Johnson, endangered species coordinator for the Arizona Game and Fish Department, said the primary reason for the delay was the discovery in mid-September of several uncollared, and previously uncounted, wolves in the targeted release area of Engineer Springs.
Releasing captive wolves in territory already inhabited by a wolf pack would likely spell trouble for the new wolves trying to get accustomed to their new surroundings, Johnson said.
“The best news is there appears to be more wolves than we thought on the landscape,” Johnson said. He added, “You don’t put naive wolves out on the landscape on top of wolves that are already there.”
Michael Robinson, a Pinos Altos-based conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, said not releasing a new pack in an area already inhabited by wolves is a valid decision, but he said the release has been delayed for months in the face of concerns raised by ranchers to Arizona officials.
“There are other areas where these wolves could be released, and they are badly needed,” Robinson said. He noted that over the last four years federal officials have only released one Mexican wolf into the wild that had not previously been captured and removed.

Read more: ABQJOURNAL NEWS/STATE: Wolf Release in Ariz. Postponed Until 2011 http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/090590state10-09-10.htm#ixzz13VDBO95S
Subscribe Now Albuquerque Journal

Deseret News: Ranchers not just crying wolf

October 5, 2010
By admin

By Doug Robinson

Deseret News

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2010 1:16 a.m. MDT
Dick Thoman, a fourth-generation sheep rancher in Wyoming, woke up one morning and found 42 of his sheep bloody and dead on the open range. They had been slaughtered by wolves.

The wolves didn’t kill only what they needed to survive, and they didn’t kill because they were hungry, as some like to claim. They killed for sport; they killed because that’s what wolves do.

Not one of the sheep had been eaten.

“Just killed ‘em and left ‘em,” says Thoman.

If Thoman and other ranchers wrote this column, they would tell you their story, and it wouldn’t be the politically correct version. They would pretty much write it this way:

The Tree-Huggers and Granolas, the politicos in their Washington offices — they don’t get it. It’s not as if ranchers don’t have enough trouble surviving these days, what with the bad economy and government regulations and foreign tariffs and land restrictions and foreign imports. So what does the government do? Twenty years ago the feds captured wolves in Canada and turned them loose in Yellowstone National Park. And not just any wolves, but über wolves.

Memo from ranchers: Thanks a heap.

Not that the wolves cared about park boundaries. Thoman’s summer range borders Yellowstone. He loses 300 to 400 sheep a year to wolves, or about 10 percent of his herd. Why would they chase wild game in the park for hours on end when they can find them all bunched up and defenseless on adjacent ranches? It’s like a grocery store on hooves.

Did anybody not see that coming?

“They’ve slaughtered us since they brought them back,” Thoman says. “It’s terrible.”

This doesn’t even take into account Thoman’s other losses. With wolves around, sheep are nervous. Imagine having a terrorist loose in the neighborhood each night, trying to get into your house to kill you. The sheep don’t sleep or eat as well.

“We probably lost 15 pounds per lamb over the summer, and at a dollar a pound and over 3,000 lambs, that adds up,” says Thoman.

What in tarnation were the pinheads in Washington thinking? Did they ever read “Peter and the Wolf,” “Three Little Pigs,” “Little Red Riding Hood,” “White Fang,” “Call of the Wild”? Do they know what wolves are? They’re sharks, on land. And ranchers can’t touch them. Wolves are on the endangered species list. A rancher risks his range permits and his livelihood and a felony if he shoots one.

Imagine if you owned a department store and a dozen convicted thieves moved in next door and you weren’t allowed to lock the door.

Thoman has tried everything — flashing highway lights around his herd at night, a propane cannon, an electric fence. None of it works. The wolves get used to it and come back for more.

Now Western Republicans are trying to convince the federal government to let states determine their own rules regarding wolves. It’s time to thin the pack. The wolf population has swelled.

Sheesh, isn’t that just like the government? They spend years pursuing some pie-in the-sky notion and now they’ve created a monster that wasted everybody’s money.

“It’s not even a reintroduction of the wolf,” says Thoman. “It’s an introduction. These wolves came from Canada and Alaska. They’re huge — 200 pounds, some of them. The government isn’t preserving anything. There are plenty of ‘em. They shoulda just let the native wolves produce naturally. They’re much smaller.”

Sure, reintroducing wolves in the West seems like a romantic notion, but we can’t go back in time. We can’t undo the change man has brought to the continent and the balance of things.

It’s not wolves that should be on endangered species list; it’s ranchers. They’ve been made to feel unwanted and unappreciated. They’ve been handed every challenge anybody could dream up. It’s as if city folks think meat grows on trees or comes in a can. They cry for protection for wolves because they’re beautiful and natural; meanwhile, they’re knocking down a steak in a restaurant while wearing their good wool suit.

Farmers and ranchers are trying to feed a country and make a living. If you don’t think it’s your problem, think again. Have you traveled the world? American food is cheap and plentiful. It won’t remain that way if farmers and ranchers keep getting pushed around.

“They’re going to wind up importing food from foreign countries because we want to be a white-collar nation,” says Thoman. “They’re making life almost impossible for us. They’re biting the hand that feeds them.”

With hundreds of sheep dead on the range each summer, Thoman isn’t just crying wolf. “My grandfather was among the ranchers here in late 1800s, and they killed off the last of the wolves,” says Thoman. “They did it for a reason. They couldn’t coexist.”

Doug Robinson’s column appears every Tuesday. Please send e-mail to drob@desnews.com.

Powell Tribune: Wolves to be in states’ hands?

October 5, 2010
By admin

Written by Gib Mathers Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Western senators back bill to kill wolf protections

On Thursday, U.S. senators from Wyoming, Idaho and Utah announced a bill they say will nip further gray wolf Endangered Species Act protections in the bud, thus relinquishing the disputed canine’s management to states.

However, passing the bill may be a Herculean task.

Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, both R-Wyo., Sens. Mike Crapo and James Risch, both R-Idaho, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, introduced the bill, “Returning Wolf Management to the States Act (S. 3919).”

The bill applies to all gray wolves in the lower 48 states. The legislation would prevent lawsuits from putting gray wolves back on the endangered species list, said Emily Lawrimore, communications director for Barrasso, in an e-mail Friday.

Gray wolves have been listed since 1972. In April 2009, wolves were removed from federal protections in the northern Rocky Mountains, except in Wyoming, where the canines remained listed due to the inclusion of a predator zone covering most of the state in Wyoming’s wolf management plan. However, by August this year, wolves were back on the endangered list.

“Since then (1972), wolf populations have not only recovered, but grown to such considerable sizes that they are threatening wildlife and livestock,” said the release.

Once an animal is removed from the endangered species list by an act of Congress, it precludes further litigation, said Elly Pickett, deputy press secretary to Enzi, on Friday.

“It kind of trumps everything else,” Pickett said.

If the bill passes, in order to challenge the bill in court, litigators would have to prove the bill is unconstitutional, said Pickett.
“And it’s not,” Pickett added.

However, lawmakers are split along party lines over which states should be allowed to hunt wolves.

A measure introduced by Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, Montana Democrats, would leave wolves endangered in Wyoming, which has a shoot-on-sight law for wolves across most of the state.

“If Wyoming doesn’t want to put forward a management plan that works, that’s Wyoming’s fault,” Baucus said. Tester said Wyoming “hasn’t wanted to play” and suggested that Montana could not wait for its southern neighbor to change its mind given ongoing livestock losses from wolf attacks.

Enzi believes the state of Wyoming can manage wolves effectively and maintain the canine’s population objectives, thus preventing its return to endangered status, Pickett said.

Introducing the bill now has nothing to do with the mid-term election just around the corner. Enzi wants to get the wolf issue resolved, Pickett said.
None of the senators introducing the bill are up for election this year, Lawrimore said.

However, with the mid-terms a month away, this may not be the best time of year to pass the bill, Pickett said.

“Senator Barrasso will continue to fight for this bill,” Lawrimore said.

“I’d favor delisting by Congress,” said state Rep. Pat Childers, R-Cody, who has been at the forefront of Wyoming wolf management.

“It’s nice, but with the makeup of Congress, I doubt it would pass this year,” Childers added.

Natural Resources Defense Council Endangered Species Director Andrew Wetzler said he does not believe the bill will pass, but he added, “It needs to be taken very seriously.”

Enzi said, “Recovery numbers and science show that wolves no longer need to be on the endangered species list, but frivolous lawsuits and broken federal promises keep them listed.”

“Wyoming has met our recovery goals and honored our commitments to recover the wolf,” Barrasso said. “It’s time for Washington to now hold up their end of the bargain and delist the wolf.”

Wetzler said the Natural Resources Defense Council Endangered Species will fight the bill’s passage.

“The American people won’t stand for it,” Wetzler said.

Bill Introduced to Delist Gray Wolves Nationwide

September 23, 2010
By admin

Chaffetz to Push Legislation Removing Gray Wolf from Consideration under Endangered Species Act

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT-3) Press Release, September 22, 2010 [here]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-6028

Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Jason Chaffetz announced he will seek to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act. Rep. Chaffetz joins Democrat Congressman Chet Edwards in supporting HR 6028, which would ask Congress to amend the 1973 act “to prohibit treatment of the Gray Wolf as an endangered species or threatened species.” The move comes in response to a recent court ruling effectively reinstating endangered status for the wolf in the entire western United States.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) first issued the decision to delist the wolf in 2008, after the species had met recovery goals of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves for eight consecutive years. Wildlife biologists estimate there are 1,700 wolves in several western states. Wolves were first placed on the endangered species list in 1974.

“Wolf populations have grown significantly since first receiving protection under the Endangered Species Act,” said Chaffetz. “They have grown well beyond their target populations. The wolf is devastating wildlife populations and cattle. This is a vital issue to farmers, ranchers, sportsmen and outdoor recreationists. It is appropriate to have the wolf delisted at this time.”

Bipartisan recommendations by both the Obama and Bush Administrations have recommended the de-listing of wolves and turning their management over to the state wildlife agencies.

“We need to ensure that wildlife management plans are retained at the state level rather than the federal level,” said Chaffetz.

###

Pack of politicians takes aim at wolf protections

September 23, 2010
By admin

Senators want Congress to delist wolves

September 23, 2010
By admin

Associated Press |  Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:00 am

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho’s U.S. senators will introduce a measure to lift Endangered Species Act protections from wolves in Idaho and Montana, as well as portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah.

The bill Idaho Republicans Mike Crapo and Jim Risch plan to introduce on Wednesday is a response to a federal court order in August that restored protections.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled it was illegal for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist a species on a state-by-state basis in Montana and Idaho, while leaving out Wyoming’s predator population.

Crapo says the legislation comes as frustration over wolf management is mounting. The animals’ population in the northern Rocky Mountains has swelled to 1,600.

He hopes bills like his, as well as court appeals of Molloy’s decision, keep this issue in the spotlight.

Idaho County Wolf Disaster Declaration

September 17, 2010
By admin

On Sept. 16 the Idaho County Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution declaring a disaster as a result of the introduction of wolves (in 1995-1996 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service).

The Resolution is [here]. It declares that wolves are causing “vast devastation of the social culture, economy, and natural resources of Idaho County” and that “public safety is compromised, economic activity is disrupted and private and public property continues to be imperiled.”

The Idaho County Board of Commissioners requested that Governor Otter issue a Disaster Proclamation declaring wolves to be a “managed predator” to be controlled, and that the State contract with the USDA Wildlife Services to eradicate wolf packs near homes, ranches, livestock, and recreation areas “by any means necessary”.

The Idaho Statesman is reporting that the Resolution uses the words “shot on site”, but that is typical MSM hyperbole. That language does not appear in the resolution. The Idaho Statesman is a trashy rag (well, if it they like to dish out hyperbole, then they ought to be able to take it).

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Idaho%20County%202010%20Wolf%20Disaster%20Declaration.pdf

Elk numbers dip; are wolves culprits?

July 30, 2010
By admin

Researchers at Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks have proposed a study of elk survival and recruitment in the Bitterroot Valley that could go a long way toward settling the debate over the impact that wolves have on elk.
“It sure has applicability toward that,” said Craig Jourdonnais, an FWP wildlife biologist in the Bitterroot, who proposed the study after two years of serious declines in the number of elk calves recruited into herds in the East and West Forks of the Bitterroot River.
“Elk cow/calf ratios have declined throughout the Bitterroot Valley since 2004,” Jourdonnais said. “MFWP recorded a valley-wide historic low in elk calf recruitment in 2009. Steady declines in the West Fork — Hunting District 250 — have left that population 63 percent below objective and recruitment rates of only 11 calves per 100 cows.”
Jourdonnais said two consecutive years of low calf recruitment — those calves that made it through their first winter and their early vulnerability to predators — prompted a grassroots call for the research.
Valley-wide, those late calves have numbered 12 to 15 calves per hundred cows. Ideally they would be at about 35 calves per hundred cows.
“It really came on fairly quickly and we have a lot of questions,” he said. “That is what this whole research is geared to. These things started coming together. We had support here. We ran the research proposal through the agency and competed statewide and came out among the top three. It has the blessing of the agency,” Jourdonnais said.
Whether or not wolves are to blame will be shown by the the study. Other predators such as black bears, grizzly bears and mountain lions, and factors such as habitat and cow elk health, will be part of the study as well.
“There are a lot of opinions about the relationship between elk and wolves and that is all they are,” Jourdonnais said. “We want to put some data behind it, but from gut level and our experience in the Gallatin and the Madison, it would not surprise me at all to see wolves are large part of what is going on.”
While the study might not approach the eight-year study of ungulates and prey done by Ken Hamlin from 2000 to 2009 or the 10-year study of mountain lions conducted by Rick DeSimone in the Ovando-Clearwater area, the Bitterroot study would be significant.
“It is a big enough issue that it has an internal research biologist assigned to it, so that puts it in a different category as far as commitment goes,” said Justin Gude, head of wildlife research for Fish, Wildlife & Parks in Helena. “We have only four research biologists and so it is big enough to get someone assigned to it.”
The Hamlin study showed that grizzly bears took about half the elk calves lost to predation and researchers consider that significant.
“What caused the piano to fall was adding the wolf. The wolves kicked in on the calves that remained,” Jourdonnais said. “We found 80 percent of what they killed was elk and of those elk 85 percent were calves. It is a one-two punch and they were experiencing similar low calf recruitment to what we are in the Bitterroot.”
Hamlin, a recently retired FWP wildlife biologist, conducted the Yellowstone area research beginning in 2000. His final report was published in 2009 and remains available on line at www.fwp.mt.gov.
That study and a study in the early 1980s of wolves and ungulates in the North Fork of the Flathead both had factors that the Bitterroot study does not. In the North Fork study, the principle prey was whitetail deer. In each study, there also was the factor of a nearby national park where no hunting is allowed, which means a management tool is not available.
Montana adopted a wolf hunting season last year and recently bumped up the quota of wolves available to hunters to 184. But the wolf hunt is under court challenge.
“The Bitterroot offers a real working landscape. We don’t have areas that are off limits to hunting. It is full of people trying to live, work and play,” he said. “We have plenty of mule deer, whitetails and elk and plenty of predators. You could at least make comparisons to all of western Montana and northcentral Montana.”
Call for action
‘The idea for the Bitterroot study came out of discussions among Jourdonnais, FWP wildlife managers Mike Thompson, Kelly Proffitt, Gude and Mark Hebblewhite at the University of Montana.
“There were a lot of folks in the Bitterroot who were concerned,” Gude said. “Craig and Mike Thompson were responding to their concerns when they came to Kelly and me; we all worked together to come up with what the study should look like.
Jourdonnais said the issue is not just wolves but the question is, which predators a responsible for the mortality.
“We got plenty of predators here: We are trying to find out when an elk calf dies, what is it dying from. Predation could be a huge part of it but also the elk’s maternal body condition has influence.
“There are a lot of subdivisions on the elk winter range, there is weed infestations and there were some huge wildfires in the last few years. We want to be sure we are looking at things that could impact calf recruitment — but the health of the adult cow elk and predation are huge.”
Research methods
The three-year study will compare the East Fork (HD 270) and West Fork (HD 250) elk herds. The East Fork area is more open habitat where agricultural activity has limited the number of wolves. The West Fork area is primarily forested habitat and the lack of agricultural activity and proximity to Idaho wilderness areas results in a higher density of wolves.
Researchers plan to capture and radio-collar 45 adult female elk in February 2011. Body condition and pregnancy rates of captured animals will be evaluated. Radio-location data will provide information regarding movement patterns of elk, location of calving areas, and interchange with adjacent herds.
Beginning in spring 2011 or 2012, they plan to capture and radio-collar 60 elk calves and monitor calf survival for 1 year. Daily flights will be conducted to monitor calf survival and mortalities will be investigated to determine cause of death.
Researchers also will capture and radio-collar wolves in the West Fork area with the intent of targeting packs that are presently unmarked.
“This kind of research is not cheap. We are trying to raise $150,000 to get the first phase off ground. The agency is stepping forward with $50,000 to $70,000 of its own,” Jourdonnais said.
“The Montana Bowhunters Association has come on board. We have cast a wide net as far as fundraiser. We have to raise money to get this done,” Jourdonnais said. “Ravalli Fish and Wildlife Association has stepped up and private landowners have expressed an interest in assisting. It is going to be a community effort.”
The Montana Bowhunters Association sent a written request to its members asking them to help support the research.
“The driving force behind this study is science over opinion,” the MBA said in a note to members. “The results of this study could potentiallyhave a profound impact of the future direction of the elkmanagement and wolf managementas well as the court. The study will allowFWP to set predator quotas based on science to help achieve elk objectives for the entire state not just the Bitterroot.
Is there hope?
Jourdonnais is guarded when it comes to recovery of the herds.
Because the number of elk has fallen below projected numbers in those elk management districts in the Bitterroot, the statewide elk management plan calls for cutting back on the number of elk taken by hunters.
“Once we removed the antlerless hunting opportunity and once these elk reach yearling to adult age the mortality is much less than when a calf. We have a core group of adult cows and we have scaled hunting back so far that it is not significant biologically. We are looking at four or five years where we can hang on. Four or five years out, if we don’t get a bump in calf recruitment, it would be a precipitous drop off.”
The proposal said, “We are currently working to gather funding for this study from MFWP, natural resource agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, and private organizations such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The initiation, scope, and duration of this work are dependent upon our ability to secure funding and future management needs. Foundations exist through the University of Montana and Fish, Wildlife & Parks to facilitate financial donations from private sources.”
A study by FWP economist Rob Brooks showed that the economic value of big game hunting contributed $11.3 million to the Ravalli County economy in 2005.
“That is a big deal,” Jourdonnais said.

Jaguars do some serious damage to cattle herds according to a new scientific study.

June 18, 2010
By admin

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0616/Jaguars-and-how-they-hunt-Scientists-equip-jaguars-with-GPS-collars

Jaguars and how they hunt: Scientists equip jaguars with GPS collars
Jaguars do some serious damage to cattle herds according to a new scientific study.
By Zoë Macintosh, LiveScience Staff Writer / June 16, 2010
Brazilian ranchers troubled by the tendency of jaguars to stealthily kill cattle may be justified in their fears, according to new research on the mysterious cats’ hunting patterns.
Jaguars in the Pantanal wetlands of central Brazil hunt native species, such as giant anteaters, more often than cows, scientists discovered. But when they do kill cattle, they do so at rates exceeding rancher estimates.
The results stand in sharp contrast to government and nonprofit groups’ beliefs in the over-exaggeration of cattle rancher losses, in a region where 95 percent of the ranches are privately owned and have been around for more than 200 years, the researchers say.
Documenting hunting and feeding of jaguars “is extremely difficult because of their nocturnal and secretive behavior,” the study scientists wrote in the June issue of the Journal of Mammalogy.
Objective, unbiased data was only possible through technology similar to that now used to track cougars, wolves and coyotes in North America.
Collared jaguars roam
Ten jaguars outfitted with collars that sent GPS signals of their whereabouts every two hours, produced a volume of data on their hunting paths and areas of concentrated use such as kill sites, dens and bed sites in the Pantanel – the world’s largest freshwater wetland. Every 21 days of data collection, a team of researchers visited a few of these areas in order to identify prey remains.
A total of 11,787 GPS locations collected from October 2001 to April 2004 resulted in 1,105 areas of high jaguar use. Prey remains were found and logged at more than 400 kill sites. Just over a third of the animals killed by jaguars were cattle, while the remaining 68 percent were native species, including caiman (a crocodilian), peccaries (piglike mammals), wild hogs, marsh deer and giant anteaters.
While a recent survey suggested ranchers estimated losing about 70 head of cattle annually out of 6,000 head, the study’s results for kill rates showed that during a dry year they usually lost about 390 head, and during a wet year, around 118 head.
Another landscape entirely
A major jaguar stronghold outside of the Amazonian rainforest, the Pantanal wetlands cover an area the size of Iowa frequently flooded in about 3 to 7 feet (1 to 2 meters) of water from rainfall.
“There are times literally in the field when you’re on horseback and the water is up to the horse’s belly,” researcher Eric Gese at Utah State University told Livescience.
The jaguars “don’t mind the water at all,” Gese said, but the study revealed the carnivores’ hunting choices are largely influenced by seasonal rainfall and water levels, as the ebb and flow of water determines their access to certain animals.
During the wet season, when cattle are scarce and cloistered among elevated plateaus, jaguars predominantly killed the numerous alligators in the area. In the dry season the pattern reversed and cattle killing peaked, as ranchers moved their cattle to the lower grounds to utilize the lush grasses exposed in the formerly flooded plains.
“As they spread the cattle out, they’re just exposed to more jaguars. And the jaguars, being the large carnivore as they are, take advantage of the availability of the animals,” Gese said.
Lots of cats
Other results of the landmark study, which also collected data on spatial ecology and some interactions, including the insight that jaguars were densely populated, with about 10 to 11 cats per square kilometer (0.4 square miles) in the area studied, and “surprisingly social.”
“We found that they actually encounter each other and spend more time together than we ever anticipated. That was a surprise. Not like prides of jaguars, nothing like that: we had males travelling together, and we didn’t know if they were brothers,” Gese said. “And the density of jaguars recorded in that area was greater than anything we encountered … that was astounding.”
“It was quite mind-blowing. So, there are a lot of cats there,” Gese added.
Recognizing that the ranchers have “a real problem,” yet the region’s livestock supports jaguars, Gese said his team of scientists was trying to work with officials to get them to figure out a compromise and accept some form of coexistence.
“How they deal with that is up to them. How they want to enact that. This is the first time that somebody has said, ‘Look there’s data! They lose a lot of cattle to jaguars,’” Gese said.

Mexican wolf Petition please sign here.

Northern wolf petition please sign.

Archives