Defenders of Wildlife Blog

The number of endangered Mexican gray wolves living in the wild increased in 2011.

BREAKING: The number of endangered Mexican wolves, or lobos, in Arizona and New Mexico increased last year to 58 wolves and six breeding pairs, up from 50 wolves and two breeding pairs in 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today.

The small boost is big news around here. Mexican wolves are the most endangered subspecies of gray wolf in North America.

To get a better idea of what this means for the lobo’s recovery, I sat down for an in-depth Q&A with Defenders’ Southwest program director, Eva Sargent.

If you just want the highlights, check out our press release.

Q: So what exactly is the annual population count?

Eva: In January each year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) takes to the skies over the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area spanning more than four million acres in Arizona and New Mexico to count how many wolves are living in the wild. They use an airplane to locate signals from the wolves with telemetry collars, and then radio in a helicopter to take a closer look. The helicopter crew’s job is to count all the wolves found near the collared wolf. The airplane and helicopter also survey areas without collared wolves, searching for lobos that could have set out to claim new territory, find a mate or start a pack. Wildlife officials use this information along with wolves tallied during ground surveys in November and December to come up with a final count.

Q: Why do you think lobo numbers are on the rise?  

Red flags, called fladry, tied to fences help keep wolves away from livestock.

Eva: We are seeing the pay off of years of hard work by Defenders and others. In 2009, Defenders settled an important court case with the Fish and Wildlife Service that ended the notorious “three strikes” policy, which removed far too many wolves from the wild. Even genetically important wolves, and those with dependent pups, were removed. Under those conditions, it was difficult for the population to grow. Since the settlement, only one wolf has been removed. Fewer removals and more Wolf Coexistence Partnerships have helped Mexican wolves survive. Our coexistence program works directly with ranchers to lower conflict between livestock and lobos. We do things like help ranchers hire more cowboys to watch over cattle, fund special fencing or fladry (flags that wolves avoid), move livestock away from den sites – techniques that are proven to work. We’ve had growing interest from ranchers in the last few years, and the FWS, Arizona Game and Fish Department and others are placing a greater emphasis on coexistence projects.  

Q: Is this increase typical or should lobos be doing better?

The Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area spans across more than four million acres of wild lands.

Eva: We expected to have 100 wolves and 18 breeding pairs by 2006. Instead, due to excessive removals and ongoing poaching by wolf-haters, the population has never climbed above 59 and stagnated for many years around 50. Wolves are resilient. Given enough game and a chance to find a mate, they will expand into good habitat and the population will grow until it reaches a healthy balance with available prey. The most important thing that we can do to help out now is to release more wolves. There are wolves waiting right now, eligible for release in both Arizona and New Mexico, and the FWS needs to get on the ball and let them go. Some of these wolves have even been specially conditioned to avoid cattle, and we need to get them out there and see if this conditioning method makes a difference. In addition to releasing more wolves, the FWS needs to change its outdated policy that doesn’t allow wolves direct from captivity to be released in New Mexico. The service has been sitting on the paperwork for this policy change for years.

Q: What are some challenges to recovery?

Eva: The challenges are almost all political or social. We have Congressman Pearce in New Mexico repeatedly trying to defund the program, and we have a lack of resolve to release more wolves. We are also waiting for a new recovery plan, although good progress is being made…

The first step to overcoming some of these obstacles is to take a rigorous scientific look at what Mexican wolves need to survive into the future. How many wolves are needed? How many different populations? How will the populations be connected, and where are the best places for wolves–the places with enough prey and not too many roads or too many people?

Q: What more needs to be done to help bring lobos back from the brink?

Eva: While all of the above is being figured out, we will continue to build tolerance and coexistence. We also need more wolves to be released. This is urgent. Our one small population is extremely vulnerable to disasters like the Wallow Fire, to inbreeding, to slipping back toward extinction.

Mexican gray wolf numbers were up in 2011.

TUCSON, Ariz.—The number of endangered Mexican gray wolves surviving in the southwestern United States increased in 2011 to 58 wolves and six breeding pairs up from 50 wolves and two breeding pairs the year before, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today.

But Defenders of Wildlife is urging Arizona state and federal wildlife officials to release new wolves into the wild to strengthen the population — cautioning that despite the increase, the small population is still at risk and needs a deeper gene pool.

“While the increase comes as good news for these highly endangered animals, the small population of 58 lobos is still extremely vulnerable,” said Eva Sargent, Defenders’ Southwest program director. “Wolves are smart, adaptable animals, but they can’t make it alone. New releases of wolves in Arizona and New Mexico are urgently needed to ensure a healthy population.”

Wolves are smart, adaptable animals, but they can’t make it alone. — Eva Sargent, Southwest program director

The boost signals, however, that a new emphasis on partnerships between the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and ranchers is helping livestock and lobos better coexist. Techniques such as portable fencing, watchdogs, funding for cowboys and compensation for livestock lost to wolves are working to keep more wolves on the ground.

A federal wildlife agent demonstrates how to set up fladry.

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must build on this momentum, moving forward with several releases that were planned for 2011, but never happened,” Sargent added. “There are wolves eligible for release in Arizona and New Mexico right now, and they are desperately needed. Some of these wolves have been specially conditioned to avoid preying on cattle and deserve a chance at life in the wild.”

Gibbon pack in Yellowstone. Photo courtesy of U.S. National Park Service.

When the weather breaks – Some bad weather passing through Idaho may be the only thing keeping 50 wolves alive in the Lolo zone of Clearwater National Forest. Idaho Fish and Game officials have said the state is ready to move forward with plans to remove up to two-thirds of the wolves in the area by aerial gunning, just as soon as the weather improves. The aerial gunning plan was approved by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission at its December meeting and will be carried out by federal agents with Wildlife Services, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hunters and trappers have already killed at least 260 wolves so far this season, yet the state is still targeting more wolves in order to boost elk numbers for hunters. We’re pushing the state to abandon this unwarranted and unscientific wolf-killing plan. We’re also calling on the Obama administration to reform Wildlife Services and stop wasting precious tax dollars to artificially boost game populations. American taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to subsidize hunters. It’s time for Idaho to start managing wolves responsibly as they manage other wildlife instead of trying to kill as many wolves as possible.

Crossing a line – Defenders isn’t the only group expressing concerns over Montana’s proposal to extend the wolf hunt in the Bitterroot Valley until April 1. Two members of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission voted against the proposal. Commissioner Ron Moody has taken it a step further by openly criticizing the proposal, which he says would cross the line of ethical fair-chase hunting. Hunters aren’t typically allowed to shoot animals during their reproductive season when pregnant mothers are relatively defenseless. He also points out that wolves are just one of many factors that have reduced the size of the elk herd in the Bitterroot. He says bad winters, over-harvest of cow elk in prior years, others predators and habitat fragmentation have all conspired against elk.

Listen to a feature interview with Moody on Montana Public Radio (jump to the 9-minute mark):

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

In a column titled “Hatred of predators reaches ridiculous fervor,” Nick Gevock at the Montana Standard also laments the kill-all-the-wolves mentality en vogue across much of Montana. He writes:

“The Grey” area between fact and fiction – Though we’re still hoping “The Grey” will flop at the box office, the movie continues to garner attention for its sensational (and violent) portrayal of wolves. Our wolf expert Suzanne Stone explained to Greenwire why even fictional tales can do wolves a disservice:

Case in point: in the same article, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) perpetuates the ridiculous myth that wolves eat children. That’s just the kind of irrational fear that anti-wolf extremists are only too eager to spread. Now “The Grey” is making their job easier.

An American crocodile (Crocodilus acutus) at the Omaha Zoo. (www.joelsartore.com)

Joel Sartore: The Biodiversity Project

For many of Earth’s creatures, time is running out. Half of the world’s plant and animal species will soon be threatened with extinction. The goal of the Biodiversity Project is simple: to show what’s at stake, and to get people to care, while there’s still time to save them.  More than 1,800 species have been photographed to date, with more to come. Follow along with Joel as he and his son travel to different zoos all across the country to photograph these at risk animals.

OR7 on the move? – The current whereabouts of OR7 (aka, Journey) are unknown, though he is believed to still be roaming northern California in search of a mate. California Department of Fish and Game published a map of the lone wolf’s journey but is updating it infrequently to protect OR7 from poachers.

Unfortunately, California wildlife managers can’t protect OR7 (or any wolves, for that matter) from the whims of Hollywood, whose directors seem eternally hell-bent on portraying wolves as vicious man-eaters. In the latest incarnation of cinematic “lupophobia,” Liam Neeson and his team of marooned roughnecks must fend off a pack of snarling wolves in the frozen Alaskan backcountry.

In an LA Times story yesterday, Director Joe Carnahan says “The Grey” was actually intended to show the dangers of man’s intrusion into nature, not to sully public perception of wolves. Defenders’ California Director Kim Delfino was quoted, pointing out that the wolves in the movie do not reflect reality since they rarely ever attack humans. But at this critical juncture for wolves, reinforcing erroneous stereotypes of wild wolves as man-hunting demons only makes our job of protecting and restoring them more difficult. Defenders has already sent letters to the movie studios asking them to help educate moviegoers with the real facts about wolves. Check out our mythbusting fact sheet and help us spread the truth.

Montana considers extending wolf hunt – Since September, Montana hunters have killed at least 137 wolves, not including wolves killed by state and federal wildlife agents in response to livestock depredations. The hunting season has already been extended once by Montana’s Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission. Now they’ve given initial approval for another extension that would allow hunters to kill wolves in the Bitterroot Valley until April 1, right before pregnant mothers begin denning and have pups.

Wolves hunt two bull elk in Yellowstone. Photo courtesy of the U.S. National Park Service.

In spite of a $100 bounty on wolves from the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, only three wolves have been killed so far in the area, which has a quota of 18 wolves that can be legally harvested during the hunt. By repeatedly extending the wolf hunt, Montana wildlife managers appear to be using their quotas as population reduction targets rather than upper limits for management purposes. By proposing to extend the hunt just in the Bitterroots, they’re no longer targeting wolves that are harassing livestock in order to help ranchers but simply responding to hunters who complain that wolves are taking too many elk. However, elk herds in this area were declining for a multitude of reasons well before wolves returned. In fact, researchers have determined that the primary cause of decline was increased harvest of female elk by humans, specifically to reduce the population. Further, extending the hunt into peak breeding season could prevent dispersing wolves from replacing breeding wolves killed earlier in the year.

Overall, we’d like to see Montana taking a much more measured approach, especially while the impacts of statewide wolf hunting are still largely unknown. The FWP Commission is accepting comments through Feb. 13, and final adoption will be considered at the Feb. 16 meeting. More details here.

Suzanne on the radio – As promised, here’s the link to our wolf expert Suzanne Stone’s interview from last week on the Christopher Gabriel Program on AM 970 WDAY. She explains why the return of wolves to California is such a big deal, the role of wolves in the ecosystem, and the potential to restore wolves in other parts of the country. And if you just want to hear her howl, jump to the 21-minute mark!

How coal is killing America’s freshwater mussels

Mussels act as a water filter, keeping our rivers clean and healthy. But species like the tan riffleshell can no longer keep up with coal pollution. More than a third of freshwater mussel species are critically imperiled or already extinct.

Who cares about some little mussel that inhabits a few rivers in eastern Tennessee and southwest Virginia? Well, if you happen to live in the area, news that the tan riffleshell is on the verge of extinction could mean that your water isn’t safe to drink. For the rest of us, it’s yet another sign that pollution is taking a very serious toll on the environment.

These endangered mussels are the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” for Appalachian rivers, and they’re just one of 10 species identified in a new report released today called Fueling Extinction: How Dirty Energy Drives Wildlife to the Brink.

Like all freshwater mussels, the tan riffleshell makes its living by eating small particles in the water. These so-called “filter feeders” remove sediment and other pollutants, thereby keeping our streams healthy enough to support other plants and animals, including ourselves. So when these little shellfish start disappearing, that means one of nature’s vital water filters is broken and can longer keep up with all the pollution being dumped into the river.

North America once boasted some 300 species of freshwater mussels, according to the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society. But as a result of land development, over-harvesting and chronic pollution over the last 200 years, 38 mussel species are already thought to be extinct and another 77 are considered imperiled.

Today, the greatest threat to mussels comes from various by-products of coal mining and coal-burning power plants. These pollutants contaminate our waterways with heavy metals and other environmental toxins that can kill mussels as well as countless other plants and animals.

Mussels aren’t the only ones threatened by fossil fuel development, however. More familiar imperiled species include:

• Bowhead Whale: The remainder of the endangered bowhead whale population is at risk from contaminants and noise from off shore oil drilling and deadly collisions with ships. An oil spill could easily wipe out the small population of whales, which exists only in Arctic waters.
  

  This Kemp's ridley sea turtle was rescued from the Gulf oil spill.

• Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle: According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Kemp’s ridley is the most seriously endangered of all sea turtles, and they only breed in Gulf waters. In the immediate aftermath of the Gulf oil disaster, 156 sea turtle deaths were recorded – most of them Kemp’s ridleys.
• Whooping Crane: There are just 437 whooping cranes in the wild today, after overcoming near extinction in the 1940s. But the proposed Keystone Pipeline would run along the crane’s entire migratory path from Canada to Texas, and could destroy the flock with toxic waste , collisions and electrocutions from power lines, and the risk of oil spills.

Drilling in the Arctic. Spilling oil in the Gulf. Building a pipeline across the country. Removing mountaintops to get at more coal. All of these actions have dire consequences for our land and wildlife. Fossil fuels are dirty and dangerous, and they’re pushing many at-risk plant and animal species toward extinction. Oil company executives take home millions of dollars every year while the rest of us have to clean up the mess. It’s time to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and rescue these species from the brink.

To learn more about the top 10 U.S. species threatened by fossil fuels, visit http://fuelingextinction.org.

Read more about the importance of freshwater mussels on Defenders blog and in our magazine.

Watch the interview below with “mussel man” Monte McGregor, a malacologist with the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources: