Defenders of Wildlife Blog

©Eyeliam/Flickr

Anderson Shepard, Conservation Planning Associate

Instead of wilderness and wildlife, could visitors to Glacier National Park soon be passing fields of wine grapes as they drive up to the gate? Not long ago, I helped author a study that suggests that by 2050, this could very well be the case. In the paper, titled “Climate Change, Wine, and Conservation” and published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), we looked at how rising temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns are affecting the delicate balance of temperature and moisture – the primary elements for growing high-quality wine grapes.

This map shows how the change in wine-producing country will overlap with wolf habitat. ©Anderson Shepard

Using climate models and an analysis of the current distribution, temperature and moisture requirements of high-quality wine grape varieties, we project that climate change will shrink the area suitable for wine production in some of the most famous wine-producing regions in the world, while opening up wine production in some unusual places. Alarmingly, we found that climate change could soon drive a massive expansion of agriculture into some of the most intact wildlife habitat in the U.S., impacting dozens of species.

Although I performed this research before coming to Defenders, its message is still wildlife-focused. Agriculture can be a huge driver of habitat loss and degradation, and Defenders has spent an enormous amount of time and energy advocating for policies and actions that would promote habitat conservation and coexistence between farmers, ranchers and wildlife, putting solutions in place to protect animals like bears and wolves. Climate change threatens to take this issue to a whole new level. Not only will it change the biophysical landscape and cause shifts in the existing natural assemblages of plants and animals, but, as this paper shows, it is expected to open a great deal of new land to agriculture, causing more natural areas to be developed and more wildlife habitat to be broken into pieces.

Canada lynx, ©Ken Curtis

The Northern Rockies is a region where we focus much of our work at Defenders. The region is flush with extensive tracts of wildlands, and it is the last remaining area in the Lower 48 that hosts a complete set of large carnivores – one of the few places you can find animals like bears, wolves, lynx and bobcats all together. Our study found that between 2000 and 2050, the land in the Northern Rockies suitable for viticulture (growing grapes for wine) will increase by more than 58 million acres. The next 50 years will likely be a trying period for species such as the Canada lynx, gray wolf and grizzly bear – these species are likely to see vineyards popping up all over their range over the next few decades. Wolves attempting to roam across long-established territory will find acres of it replaced with land that is useless to them. Bears, often captured or killed when caught taking advantage of orchards or other fruit crops, will be sorely tempted to wander into new vineyards looking for a meal, only to put themselves in danger. Combine that with the region’s continuing surge in development, and we see impacts on a scale that could dramatically alter these species’ ability to thrive in the region.

Grizzly bear, ©Michael S. Quinton, National Geographic stock

We could see these impacts on an even broader scale if the shift in lands suitable for vineyards also holds true for other agricultural crops. This could put even more species in danger, caught between a changing climate and the ever- expanding human footprint on the land. For the conservation community, the key is to spot these issues early on and help the relevant industries to plan carefully so that we can minimize the damage to wildlife. In fact, this is already happening in some regions where wine growers are working closely with conservationists to confront the environmental, cultural and economic challenges posed by a changing climate. It is up to individuals and organizations like us to ensure a future for wildlife despite the challenges of a changing climate.

You can read more on this study in The New York Times, CBS News and The Guardian.
You can also read the full report at PNAS.

Politicians crying wolf – Anti-wolfers in Congress served up some dubious assertions this week in a letter sent to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, asking him to strip federal protection for gray wolves nationwide. For example, the letter claims that state governments are “…fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations…” If that were true, how do they explain killing more than 1,100 wolves within two years of delisting in the Northern Rockies, where populations in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are all steadily declining? Or how do they explain Wyoming allowing wolves to be treated like unwanted varmints across 85 percent of the state? And how do they explain the fact that Utah’s state policy is to prevent any wolves from ever returning at all? If that’s responsible management in the eyes of wolf opponents, I’d hate to see what irresponsible management would look like.

Here’s another whopper from the letter: “Unmanaged wolves are devastating livestock and indigenous wildlife.” Maybe if you define devastation as losing less than one percent of livestock annually. But if that’s the case, then livestock are devastated way more by bad weather, disease, theft, and other predators than by wolves. (See USDA’s most recent 5-year cattle death loss report.) It’s also clear from scientific research that wolves are helping to restore balance to ecosystems that were sorely lacking a top predator and being heavily overbrowsed by abundant and sedentary elk and deer on the landscape.

But the anti-wolf contingent in Congress and across the country has never cared about facts or science, only politics and fear. Unfortunately, our nation’s endangered species don’t have checkbooks, nor do they get to vote. So it’s up to the rest of us to hold our elected leaders accountable for their half-truths and misinformation. If your congressmen signed the letter in support of delisting, be sure to contact them and ask them to stop perpetuating myths about wolves. For more information, see this press release from the House Natural Resources Committee and coverage in the Deseret News.

Add another anti-wolf bill to the pile — Turns out we were overly optimistic about the Idaho legislature heading home last week. Apparently a few state legislators were happy to stick around so they could introduce a new bill that funnels money from the sale of wolf hunting tags to ranchers that lose livestock to wolves. If House Bill 336 becomes law, that money would go either be given to Wildlife Services to kill more wolves or be turned over to the Idaho Dept. of Agriculture. Even the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is opposing the bill so they don’t lose even more money for their conservation programs. Revenue from hunting tags is supposed to be invested back into wildlife management that benefits all residents, not handed over to individual ranchers for unconfirmed livestock losses. Further, the diversion will likely cost the state federal matching funds that support conservation. If the state is going to divert money anywhere it should be invested in nonlethal tools that will help ranchers coexist with wolves over the long run. Tell Idaho’s legislators to oppose this bill and support nonlethal management practices that promote coexistence.

Meanwhile, Senate Bill 397 is still moving forward in Montana. The bill would expand hunting and trapping of predators, including snaring of wolves, in areas where elk populations are deemed below objective. The traps and predator baits and hound hunting authorized in this bill also threaten grizzly bears, wolverines, and lynx. Our Rocky Mountain Director Mike Leahy testified against the bill this week at a committee hearing as did many hunting conservation groups, but it still passed 6-4 on a party-line vote. There’s still hope that it will be defeated, if not in the state Senate then in the Montana House of Representatives.

A long history – There are few people who know wolves as well as biologist Dave Mech. He wrote the seminal book on wolf biology and behavior in 1970, and was one of the early proponents of restoring wolves to the West. In a commentary on The Wildlife Society News he lays out nearly four decades of wolf conservation efforts, which gave rise to today’s ongoing wolf wars. We don’t agree with everything he has to say – for example, the number of wolves in Canada really has no bearing on how many wolves should be restored to the lower 48 – if that were true, other species like the bald eagle and grizzly bear would never have been recovered in the U.S. But his commentary is a tour de force that should give us all much to think about as we plan for the next four decades of wolf recovery.

Wolf numbers down in Idaho and  Montana – Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks announced yesterday that the state’s wolf population declined about 4 percent since last year’s count. A minimum of 625 wolves were tallied at the end of 2012 compared to 653 in 2011. The drop resulted from expanded hunting and the addition of trapping, and the state has already taken measures to increase wolf-killing efforts again next year. In Idaho, the population has declined twice as much. Idaho Fish & Game announced this week that they counted at least 680 wolves on the landscape at the end of 2012, down from 746 at the end of 2011. While these numbers aren’t as low as we had feared, given that more than 1,000 wolves have been killed in the last two years by hunters and trappers, it’s still troubling to see these states continuing to try to drive the population down.

Elk hunting trumps wolf recovery in Idaho – For years, anti-wolf extremists have been complaining that wolves are “decimating” elk herds. Yet recent actions by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission suggest otherwise. At their meeting in Boise this week, the commission approved new regulations to sell 2,300 more elk tags for next year (see details here). If elk are doing so well that hunters are being allowed to kill more of them, then shouldn’t wolves get a break? But, of course, that’s the point. The state has always been more concerned about maximizing elk hunting revenue than maintaining a sustainable wolf population. Wildlife managers are trying to micromanage both predator and prey populations instead of letting nature take its course. By suppressing predator populations, the entire ecosystem ultimately suffers.

Elk are doing very well in Idaho. So why not leave wolves alone?

The commission also decided to expand wolf hunting and trapping seasons across many parts of the state, but at least they seemed to be listening more closely to the concerns of wolf advocates. Wolf advocates outnumbered the anti-wolfers three to one at the meeting and gave insightful comments about ways to improve state wolf management. Our local representative Suzanne Stone spoke to the commission about the success of Defenders’ Wood River Wolf Project. The project area is the only place in Idaho with a heavy concentration of both sheep and wolves with almost no losses of either one. (See map of confirmed livestock losses. The Wood River Wolf Project is in the “Southern Mountains” zone.)

“If you truly want to reduce livestock losses, it’s more effective to take advantage of nonlethal deterrents like the fencing, lights, carcass removal, and other methods than rely on haphazardly killing wolves and breaking apart packs.” — Suzanne Stone

A few local vets expressed outrage at dogs being caught and injured or killed in traps and snares designed to capture wolves. Other wolf supporters talked about their concern over the declining wolf numbers complaining that wolves were being again persecuted and not responsibly managed.   Another resident spoke of her own personal sense of loss when the pack she enjoyed seeing and hearing near her cabin was wiped out by hunters.

Thanks to all of you for speaking up for wolves!

No wolves, big bucks – There was no stopping the Utah legislature from approving a sweet $300,000 handout to lobbyists with anti-predator groups Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever, but we haven’t given up yet. We’re asking Utah Gov. Gary Herbert to veto this wasteful gift to special interests politics to fight imaginary wolves.

Read the latest editorial from the Salt Lake Tribune explaining what’s really behind the deal. Hint: it’s green and features some of America’s most celebrated dead white guys. A few snippets:

Consider a 2010 Utah Wildlife Board meeting when SFW president Byron Bateman presented then-DWR director Jim Karpowitz with a check for $391,000 moments before the Wildlife Board passed a controversial proposal largely crafted and promoted by SFW to reduce the number of deer-hunting permits by at least 13,000.

…

SFW and its officers also donate money freely to dozens of politicians.

One of the recipients was State Sen. Ralph Okerlund, R-Monroe, who received $6,500 in campaign contributions from Peay and Ryan Benson, co-founder of Big Game Forever. Okerlund, the Senate majority leader, recommended spending $300,000 this year on Big Game Forever’s anti-wolf lobbying campaign.

…

While SFW and its many subsidiaries might do some good for wildlife, those who donate thinking they are helping big game should realize that many of these groups’ officers have a heavy financial stake in the operation. And the continued commercialization of the public’s wildlife should cause concern that herds are being managed not on the basis of sound biology but in ways to produce more cash.

– Tom Wharton, Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 2013

Bad wolf bills still lurking – While Idaho’s legislature should be going home today (thankfully), several anti-wolf bills are making the rounds in Washington and Montana.

Some state legislators just don’t like wolves.

In Washington, Senate Bill 5187  would eliminate vital protections for wolves while they are still endangered by allowing anyone to kill them without a permit based on perceived threats to livestock or any domestic animal, “across all lands, public and private.” Not only would ranchers make that determination on their own with absolutely no accountability, but they also wouldn’t be required to take any nonlethal steps to reduce conflict or protect their livestock. If this bill passes we can expect more dead wolves in eastern Washington, where some ranchers have been all too eager to have wolves killed.

By supporting this bill, the state is undermining its own wolf conservation plan, which represents years of stakeholder negotiations and public input from more than 65,000 residents.  Wolves have killed fewer than 10 head of livestock in the whole state in the last year.  We can’t let propaganda override good science and a good faith compromise made by the stakeholders who helped develop this balanced and comprehensive plan. Washington residents, don’t miss this call to action! Please click here to submit a comment opposing the bill.

In Montana, Senate Bill 200 would allow wolves to be killed if they are deemed a “potential” threat to human safety, livestock or dogs. The use of the word “potential” leaves assessment of conflict scenarios open to broad interpretation. Inevitably, this will allow for the unnecessary killing of wolves in situations where wolves are not actually posing a threat. Senate Bill 397 would allow provisional hunting and trapping of predators in elk hunting zones where elk populations are under objective. The law would expand hunting and trapping of wolves, black bears and mountain lions until elk numbers improve for two consecutive years. This includes allowing the use of neck snares to kill wolves, and the use of baiting and hound hunting to kill bears. Simply killing off more predators ignores the influence of weather patterns, hunting pressure, fire suppression, and development. All of these factors have a huge impact on habitat quality and availability and, thus, the number of elk the land can support. The proposal reflects both an anti-predator bias and a serious misunderstanding of wildlife management and ecosystem health.

Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies Representative

OR-14, a wolf from the Umatilla River pack. (c) ODFW

In 1999, a female wolf from Idaho crossed over into central Oregon before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tracked her down, darted her, caged her and then returned her to Idaho. She was the first known wolf to return to Oregon since the mid-1930s, when the species was officially eradicated. Her journey set efforts into motion that led to the creation of the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. Other legislation, knee-jerk county decrees and countless news stories followed, all speculating on what impact wolves might have as they returned to their historic homeland.

I served on the original team that helped draft the earliest versions of what eventually became the state’s wolf plan. That’s where I met Carl Scheeler, wildlife biologist for the Umatilla tribe in northeast Oregon, who would continue to help the state craft conservation strategies that were adopted in 2005. Carl is a great biologist and also good with people. His sometimes irreverent humor was always well timed to lift discussions that had become muddied or polarized. He seemed to know that, no matter what, things were going to work out. His optimism helped many of us endure the endless (and often thankless) work of forging a plan that would secure the restoration of wolves while meeting the needs of diverse residents.

Carl always looked forward to the day that wolves would be documented on the Umatilla reservation, and would call from time to time with reports of tracks, sightings and other hopeful signs. It wasn’t until last year, however, that his hopes were finally fulfilled. Carl’s department assisted the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in efforts to confirm the first wolf den site near the reservation. ODFW wolf biologists documented four pups last summer, and Defenders helped the tribe purchase several infrared, motion-detection wildlife cameras to continue monitoring the pack. In the fall, tribal biologists used the cameras we provided to document the alpha male of the pack. Then, just a few weeks ago, they captured this footage of the pack. We don’t know what startles the young wolf during the video, but notice how he submissively wraps his tail under his hindlegs. That’s normally the response of a lower-ranking wolf or pup when frightened.

Last week, Carl and I met with local ranchers and tribal and state wildlife managers to discuss nonlethal strategies for reducing conflicts between livestock and wolves on the reservation. We talked about the use of carcass disposal, increased human presence, fladry and other deterrents to reduce wolf and livestock losses. After the meeting, we followed up on a tip from a wildlife manager of another possible pack near tribal lands. It’s a beautiful national forest area that looks like the expansive valleys and rolling mountains in Yellowstone. There were loads of elk and plenty of deer sign in the large, open meadows and gorgeous red-barked Ponderosa pines towering above us as we drove through the rolling hills. After driving over washboard-pitted dirt roads with a blizzard bearing down on us, we found the spot where the tracks were reported. Tracking conditions were pretty good in the thin blanket of snow that covered most of the ground. Eager to confirm a new pack, we examined the tracks and quickly determined they were canine, but not wolf. Wolves have huge feet and leave a track that typically measures about five inches in length and three to four inches in width. That’s about the size of my hand, which is useful when I don’t have a ruler handy. Unfortunately, these were dog tracks – a big dog to be certain, but not his wild ancestor.

I always welcome the chance to return to the Umatilla country, and it’s even more powerful now with wolves back on the reservation. As one tribal leader assured me, “Wolves are welcome here and we hope to never lose them again.” Defenders will be part of that effort to ensure that wolves have a secure future on their historic homeland that they once again share with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla.

Congressmen urge continued wolf protections in lower 48 – The federal government has given up on wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes and turned management over to the states. But wolves in the rest of the country still need help if they’re ever going to recover. That’s why 52 congressmen signed a letter this week asking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain protections for wolves in the Northwest, southern Rockies and Northeast, where wolves have yet to reclaim important parts of their former range. Initiated by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the letter received broad support across the country, demonstrating that wolf conservation continues to have national significance. We also sounded the alert to our supporters, who answered in spades: more than 46,500 people contacted their representatives and encouraged them to sign on to this letter.

We hope the Fish and Wildlife Service will take this into consideration as it puts the finishing touches on its status review of wolves in the lower 48. Their job isn’t done. In places like Colorado, Utah, and California, wolves are struggling to gain a toehold and still need the benefit of Endangered Species Act protection to even have a chance of recovering.

Defenders has helped Oregon ranchers in the Wallowa Valley install fladry to deter wolves.

Nonlethal methods help Oregon ranchers and wolves – Wolf management in Oregon has offered an interesting counterpoint to the widespread wolf-killing taking place in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Because of an ongoing legal dispute, Oregon wildlife managers have been prohibited from removing wolves, including members of the Imnaha pack that had been previously implicated in livestock depredations. As a result, Oregon ranchers have had to rely on nonlethal methods of protecting their livestock from wolves… and it has worked! The wolf population has steadily increased over the past two years while there have been virtually no livestock conflicts whatsoever. In Idaho the trend has been the opposite, with hundreds of wolves being killed while livestock losses have increased.

“The Idaho numbers show ‘you can’t manage wolves using conventional wisdom and assumption,’ said Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife in Idaho. ‘Using these old archaic methods of managing predators by just killing them is not working.’”

This just goes to show that a little nonlethal goes a long way, but only if ranchers actually use the tools they have available. As Ben Franklin once said, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Read more in USA Today.

Hunting and trapping taking a toll on wildlife – No one knows exactly how many wolves are left in Montana, but a report from the Billings Gazette shows that at least 377 have been killed in the last 14 months. Here’s the tally:

• Hunters – 128
• Trappers – 97
• Wildlife Services – 113
• Ranchers – 7
• Other – 32

There were an estimated 650 wolves in Montana at the end of 2011, but that number is likely to dip for 2012, according to the Gazette report. We’ll know for sure when Montana releases its official wolf count later this month.

A story in the Missoulian also shows that wolves aren’t the only animals getting caught in wolf traps. Last year Idaho trappers admitted to catching more non-target animals (147) than they did wolves (123). Deer, elk, moose, cougars, coyotes, skunks and ravens were among the victims of Idaho trappers, and at least 69 of those animals died as a result. And in Montana, at least 45 dogs were caught in traps this year, three of them set for wolves.

Mike Leahy, Rocky Mountain Program Director

Navigating the turbulent waters between federal management of imperiled species and state management of most other wildlife can be as dangerous for wildlife as the mythological straits between Scylla and Charybdis. On one side is the slippery rock of the federal government, too often providing scant refuge for any endangered or imperiled species deemed controversial, like listed predators or wild bison. On the other side is the whirlpool of anti-environmental state politics, ready to shred the lifeboat of any animals that are not particularly popular in a given state.

The Montana state capitol building

Wolves have been cast off by the federal government with practically no protections and are now starting to circle downward in the state whirlpool. Genetically pure bison live mostly on the rock of federal land, but every time an effort is made to try to establish thems as wildlife outside of Yellowstone National Park, state courts and legislatures try to beat them back. Grizzlies are about to enter the narrow straits between federal and state management through proposals to lift federal protections, and already they face turbulence from those who would greet them with a lethal response.

Defenders’ Rockies and Plains staff and volunteers have been strategically weighing in with state legislatures and committees where we can be most effective. Our Montana staff have taken turns traveling to Helena, where the state legislature – once an exemplar for conservation – has devolved into a four-month biennial frenzy of anti-wildlife fervor focused mainly on wolves and bison. Wolves have faced bills that would cut their numbers from over 600 to 250, give free wolf licenses to deer and elk hunters, and allow them to be shot on sight on private land. Bison face numerous bills to prevent any wild bison from entering the rest of Montana from the two areas where they are now, including authorizing landowners to shoot them on sight and stopping tribes from restoring bison to their reservations. Grizzlies still have more political clout than their wild compatriots, but even they faced a bill to require lethal control for even the most minor conflicts with people and domestic animals. Counties are also trying to wrest control of all wildlife from the state fish and wildlife agencies, which would be really bad for bears and countless other species.

Defenders’ Montana members have weighed in on many of these bills, and our local staff have testified on many as well. Sometimes it seems like our pro-wildlife pleas fall on deaf ears, but most of the craziest bills are getting beaten back! One bill was even amended – based in part on our input – to direct a couple hundred-thousand dollars to nonlethal tools to prevent predation on livestock.

Defenders certainly isn’t doing this alone. We work closely with other conservation groups as well as with conservation-minded hunting organizations and tribes. While too many hunting organizations have been extremely hostile towards federally protected predators, those that remain true to their conservation roots are among wildlife’s most effective advocates at the state level. Tribes have sovereignty over wildlife and resource issues on their reservations and most state legislatures recognize that their authority does not extend onto wildlife management issues on tribal lands.

We are also active in other states. Past legislative efforts in Oregon to set up solid programs to manage wolves continue to pay dividends. Nonlethal wolf management strategies are firmly established there and have been maintained so far this year with minimal political interference. Unfortunately, the Washington state legislature is increasingly going the way of Wyoming, with lots of venomous anti-wolf bills. The bills seek to undermine the state’s relatively balanced wolf management plan by giving authority to local elected officials over state wildlife biologists and allowing their constituents to override state restrictions and kill wolves perceived to be a threat to livestock on public and private lands.  Fortunately, Defenders has a strong membership presence in Washington state, as do a number of our colleagues, and we have been sending some of our experts to Washington state to help volunteers push back on these bills.

State wildlife management is not federal wildlife management, and once an endangered species loses its federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, in most cases management reverts back to complete state control. States allow hunting and sometimes trapping of game species, and have been particularly harsh in their treatment of predators like wolves and bears. However, if wolves, bison, and bears can make it through the current straits of uncertainty to calmer waters where they are managed more like other wildlife – for the long term, healthy in numbers and distribution, free-roaming – there will be opportunities to secure their populations and continue their recovery. If they don’t make it through these straits, if states never embrace their responsibility to manage former federally protected members of the nation’s wildlife in trust for the public – there is always the possibility the federal government will have to step in again.