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

More wolf kill bills on the way in the West – Western state legislators are stepping up their efforts to ensure that more wolves get killed. Montana is considering giving away free wolf tags to elk and deer hunters and allowing silencers to be used on rifles late in the season. The state legislature is also fast-tracking a three-pronged bill that would (1) prohibit  wolf hunting and trapping buffer zones around Yellowstone and other national parks, (2) increase the number of wolves an individual can kill, and (3) permit the use of electronic calls. Meanwhile, Washington state ranchers are supporting a bill that would allow any private landowner to kill wolves or other predators at will without permission or oversight from state wildlife managers. Only Oregon is moving forward with responsible legislation that provides more emphasis on nonlethal strategies to prevent conflicts between wolf and livestock .

Good news, bad news for Mexican wolves – The good news is that the overall number of wolves counted in New Mexico and Arizona climbed to 75 this year – the highest total in 15 years and a big improvement over last year’s count of 58. At least 20 new pups were born and survived through the end of the year, and 13 different packs were identified. The bad news is that there are only three breeding pairs.  The lobos are facing a genetic crisis that puts their recovery at risk. That’s why Defenders continues to call for the release of additional wolves, as a first step toward genetic rescue of this rare subspecies. Listen to what Arizona State University biology professor Philip Hedrick had to say about the latest numbers on PNS radio:

Wolves alone can’t restore ecosystem — By now, most wildlife enthusiasts understand the important role that wolves play in dispersing elk and deer herds away from young aspens, cottonwood and willow trees.  However, nature is a complex system and the interdependence of multiple species is vital to sustaining a healthy ecosystem.  Researchers at Colorado State University found that restoring wolves alone cannot fix all the damage that occurred due to the loss of wolves and that beaver are necessary to help restore the water tables and plants that are the foundation for biodiversity.  The researchers conclude that predators should never be eliminated from their habitat because of the significant impacts that follow their loss.

For the young (or young at heart) who want to have some fun and learn more about the role of wolves in Yellowstone, check out this episode of “Fetch” from PBS Kids.  An interview with Doug Smith, the park’s lead wolf biologist, starts at the 6 minute mark.

The Hidden Life of Wolves – Want to get up-close and personal with a wolf pack in the comfort of your own home? Check out a new book from National Geographic, documenting the lives of wolves in central Idaho.

Polar bear and cubs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Credit: USFWS)

Wildlife conservationists often view the success of their work solely in terms of species protected or habitat saved or restored. Certainly these are worthy and necessary goals to strive for. But what many folks do not factor in are the people who live in these habitats and who rely on some of these very same species for nourishment and economical wellbeing, and to sustain their cultures. These same people also have a unique knowledge of these species based on their many years — often generations — of observations. I believe we will be successful in sustaining habitats and species only when we work respectfully with the communities that call these places home.

Our partnership with The Alaska Nanuuq Commission (ANC) is a great example. The ANC was formed in 1994 so that Alaska’s Native people would have an active and meaningful role in the conservation and management of Alaska’s two polar bear populations in the Chukchi Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea. Alaska Natives have thousands of years of history with polar bears, which has led to a deep respect for the bear as a cultural symbol, a hunter, and a timeless part of the landscape. Polar bears rely on sea ice habitat, which is critical to raising young, finding prey and traveling. Now, due to rising global temperatures, sea ice melts earlier each spring, and forms later each fall, impacting the bears’ migration and access to prey. In 2008, polar bears were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The ANC represents 15 coastal villages, many of which are faced with increasing numbers of polar bears coming into their communities and campsites. Defenders and the Commission are both interested in reducing conflicts between humans and polar bears in Alaska communities. Some of these animals are just passing through. Others, stranded on land for longer periods, are looking for alternate and less nutritious sources of food, since decreasing sea ice has made their main prey, ice-dependent seals, harder to come by. Defenders and ANC both recognize that if the same methods that keep people and their families safe also protect polar bears, then more polar bears will survive. With fewer human-polar bear conflicts, polar bears have a better chance of surviving, despite the challenges posed by climate change, and their survival allows the Alaska Native people’s culture and way of life to continue.

A polar bear on sea ice.

Defenders of Wildlife Alaska staff are working on developing and spreading the word about ways to help polar bears and humans coexist. In 2010, we funded a report called Sea Bear Under Siege, which details the plight of polar bears in Alaska and offers recommendations on how to best assist them as they navigate the arctic meltdown and continued loss of the sea ice that is so critical to their long-term survival.

In 2011, we worked closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Marine Mammals program to develop and deliver a workshop on polar bear diversionary feeding. This involves moving or placing food sources (such as marine mammal carcasses) away from human settlements to reduce human-bear conflicts. This international workshop shared tools and techniques used by polar bear managers in Russia, Canada and the U.S. to inform decision-making in Alaska. Jack Omelak, Executive Director of the Alaska Nanuuq Commission, also participated in the workshop. He found it very useful, and asked Defenders to play a role in the commission’s development of a human and polar bear interaction strategy. Defenders assisted the ANC with developing their Polar Bear Deterrence Needs Assessment in July and August 2011. The assessment contains feedback from the 15 ANC coastal villages, and the results informed the ANC’s strategic planning going forward. One of the priorities identified was a polar bear deterrent workshop.

Now we’ve teamed up with The Alaska Nanuuq Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Marine Mammals polar bear staff and the World Wildlife Fund’s Arctic Program to develop and host a polar bear deterrent workshop to be held next month. This workshop brings together the Alaska Nanuuq Commissioners from 12 of the 15 coastal villages (from Kaktovik to the villages of Gambell and Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island) along with Russian counterparts who are also addressing human conflicts with polar bears in their communities. At the workshop, all of these groups will share tools, tips and management ideas with the Nanuuq Commissioners so that they can spread these methods to their communities. As more people use these techniques and tools, they can be replicated and refined so that we all learn how to better coexist with polar bears.

This workshop represents something larger and more important than a single event. The partnerships forged, the trust built and the knowledge shared — whether it be traditional and local ecological knowledge handed down through many generations, or the tools western science brings — means that polar bear conservation decisions made going forward will be better, stronger, more equitable and I believe better for polar bears, their habitat and the people that call their world home.

Photo courtesy of Matt H. Wade

Wyoming wolf decision goes to court –Defenders and three other groups took legal action this week to challenge the premature delisting of wolves in Wyoming. After waiting the required 60 days since the Wyoming delisting rule was published, we filed a lawsuit arguing that the Interior Department illegally stripped protections based on a state management plan that treats wolves as unwanted vermin across the majority of the state, including in parts of our national forests. We expect better from the Obama administration, and as taxpayers we should all demand a better return on our investment. The recovery of wolves in the Northern Rockies has been a tremendous success, but now states are reversing years of conservation efforts by aggressively targeting these important animals. We must put a stop to the senseless and unnecessary killing before states follow through on their plans to drive wolf populations down to unsustainable levels. See follow-up coverage, including quotes from Rocky Mountain Director Mike Leahy in the Casper Star-Tribune and Cody Enterprise.

“The predator zone is still the focus of our concern. It’s a bad precedent to set, for the management of all wildlife species, to try drawing a line in the sand for any species.”  — Mike Leahy, Cody Enterprise

Yellowstone wolves no longer safe — As the wolf body count continues to rise across the region, some surprising victims are turning up. We learned this week that at least seven wolves that were known to spend much of their time within Yellowstone National Park have been killed so far this year by hunters in Montana and Wyoming. Though no hunting is allowed within the park, wolves often leave the park in search of food or to find a mate. Once they cross the invisible park boundary, wolves are no longer protected and can now be hunted in all three states that border Yellowstone.

Wolves in Yellowstone have been some of the most intensely studied wild animals on the planet and are incredibly valuable to researchers. For years, scientists have been able to monitor wolf activity under unique conditions where humans were not a threat to wolves’ survival. Now it appears some Yellowstone wolves will face the same risks as wolves elsewhere in the Rockies, potentially jeopardizing research on their natural behavior in the wild.

Read more about the Yellowstone wolves that were killed in this post from two veteran wolf biologists, courtesy of our friends at Wolfwatcher.

Wyoming-ites split on wolves – As Patrick Henry famously said, “United we stand, divided we fall.” Which explains why we continue to face an uphill battle with wolf recovery out West. A survey of Wyoming residents published this week shows that people are still deeply divided over wolves. The Jackson Hole News & Guide reports that 49 percent of residents think reintroduction was a good idea, but only 34 percent think the results have been positive. An overwhelming majority also supported hunting in parts of the state. With these numbers, it’s no wonder that the successful return of gray wolves remains embroiled in controversy.

Fresh air – The good news is that Defenders continues to make headway with Idaho ranchers who are finding ways to coexist with wolves in areas where they graze livestock. Our signature Wood River Wolf Project earned plaudits again this year from our partners for protecting more than 27,000 sheep with only four losses. Listen to a summary of our fifth season from Public News Service, featuring project manager Suzanne Stone and field supervisor Patrick Graham:

You’ve probably heard a lot lately about the upcoming fiscal cliff — draconian automatic funding cuts to federal programs that will harm America’s wildlife and habitats, scheduled to take effect in early January in the absence of a larger budget agreement. But whether these automatic cuts occur or not, the shrinking federal budget will ensure that funding for wildlife and habitat conservation will continue to be in a precarious state for at least the next several years.

Bald eagles are one of many species that owe their recovery to the Endangered Species Act and the USFWS Endangered Species Program (Credit: Wes Gibson)

It’s my job to go to Capitol Hill and make the case for wildlife conservation funding — but it is more important than ever that you lend your help as well. Representatives and Senators need to hear from you, their constituents, that these programs are important and worth funding. To help you understand what’s at stake here, we’re going to spend some time each week explaining what these programs do to uphold our nation’s wildlife laws and protect endangered species, migratory birds and other key animals and habitats. Today, we’re focusing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Endangered Species Program.

The Endangered Species Act, one of the most visionary conservation laws ever passed, is our nation’s cornerstone of wildlife conservation. For nearly 40 years, it has been tremendously successful in preventing the extinction of our wildlife treasures, including bald eagles, California condors, Florida panthers, gray wolves, grizzly bears and manatees — all achieved despite severe and chronic funding shortfalls.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of two federal agencies responsible for implementing the Endangered Species Act, and it has jurisdiction over the lion’s share of the more than 1,400 protected U.S. plants and animals. The Service’s program is divided into four smaller programs that follow the different sections of the law: 1) Listing; 2) Candidate Conservation; 3) Recovery; and 4) Consultation.

Protecting New Species
First, FWS biologists and other staff analyze the best scientific information to identify species that may be in need of protection. Listing a species is a rigorous procedure. The FWS must develop, propose and finalize regulations that include information on the species population, range, habitat needs, evaluation of threats, examples of conservation efforts, and actions that may be prohibited if listing occurs. The listing process requires painstaking analysis of both scientific information and comments by the public, and can often take several years. Then, once a species is listed, the FWS has to designate habitat critical to the species’ survival and recovery.

The Pacific walrus is one of nearly 200 candidate species waiting for full Endangered Species Act protections (Credit: Joel Garlich-Miller)

Safeguarding Unprotected Species
If a plant or an animal faces severe enough threats to justify listing, but the FWS lacks funding to list the species immediately, it becomes a candidate species. While candidates await protection, Service personnel work with partners on the ground to put conservation measures in place and remove threats to these species. There are currently 193 candidate species, including the American wolverine, red knot, Pacific fisher, Pacific walrus, mountain yellow-legged frog, yellow-billed loon, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Because FWS funding for listing is already inadequate, many candidates have been awaiting listing for years.

Helping Declining or Protected Species
Once a species is under the Act’s protection, it moves into the Recovery program, where Service staff develop and implement a plan to stop the species decline, and bring it back to the point where it can survive on its own. Developing a sound recovery plan can be another painstaking process, and involves working with scientists and stakeholders to spell out the research and management actions necessary for recovery. Once the plan is finished (and even while it is being developed), FWS leads the efforts to actually carry out the required activities on the ground, working with private landowners, state, local and other federal agencies, tribes and other partners. This part of the program includes efforts like:

• Restoring Florida panther habitat
• Monitoring and taking inventories of Canada lynx
• Installing wildlife crossings for ocelots in Texas
• Marking and maintaining boat speed zones for manatees
• Captive breeding and reintroduction of black-footed ferrets

As part of their recovery program, the USFWS has reintroduced endangered black-footed ferrets into their native habitat. (Credit: Ryan Moehring/USFWS)

Reducing Harm to Listed Species
While a species is protected, FWS staff works under the Consultation program to make sure outside projects don’t significantly harm protected species. There are literally tens of thousands of projects every year in all parts of the country that require consultation to reduce harm to endangered species, creating a crushing workload for agency personnel. This part of the program does things like:

• Work with the Coast Guard to reduce harm to manatees and sea turtles during events like regattas, boat races and fishing tournaments
• Work with the Army Corps of Engineers and other entities to reduce harm to the pallid sturgeon from navigation operations on the Upper Mississippi River
• Work with the Department of Defense to reduce harm to more than 100 species in Hawaii and the Pacific Islands from expanded use of larger munitions
• Work with the Bureau of Land Management, renewable energy companies and others so that wind turbines, solar arrays, and transmission lines can be sited and built while reducing harm to species like bats, golden eagles, whooping cranes and desert tortoise

All these pieces of the Endangered Species Program are vital to prevent the extinction of dozens of species, and to encourage the recovery of hundreds more. Further cuts to the program’s budget will delay or stop listing of species, undermine work to identify and conserve candidates and recover listed species, and slow or stop consultation, which would lead to a delay in projects and greater controversy surrounding the Endangered Species Act.

Keeping federal conservation laws and programs strong is essential to much of the work that Defenders does to protect wildlife and habitat. But these federal efforts are often only as good as the funding that supports them. The animals that benefit from these programs have no voice in politics. To prevent these cuts and keep these programs running, we have to take the message to Congress ourselves. Please, contact your elected officials and speak out on behalf of wildlife.

The Upper Hoback of the Wyoming Range is part of a vital wildlife corridor for many species, including the imperiled Canada lynx.

It’s been almost a year since we heard about the U.S. Forest Service’s plan to allow oil and gas drilling in the Upper Hobackregion of the Wyoming Range, but the wait was well worth it. We learned on Friday that PXP, the oil company proposing to drill 136 new wells in a critical wildlife corridor, agreed to sell their leases and forego the project entirely!

This is a major victory for the broad coalition known as The Citizens for the Wyoming Range, which has been battling the environmentally damaging proposal for more than a year and a half. With the help of the Trust for Public Land, the coalition negotiated a buyout of all of PXP’s existing drilling leases throughout the entire Bridger-Teton National Forest, and the leases will be retired forever. That means the myriad species that use the forest–deer, elk, moose, bears, bobcats, pronghorn antelope, lynx and more–can finally breathe a sigh of relief.

Defenders played an important role in raising awareness of the disastrous drilling proposal. By sending out alerts to our members, we were able to help generate more than 60,000 comments in opposition to the proposal. Further, Defenders expert David Gaillard led an independent effort to document wildlife that travel through the Upper Hoback region. He set up remote cameras to photograph all the species that would be at risk of losing vital habitat if drilling was allowed to occur. See a photo slideshow of his trip to setup the cameras, as well as the video below summarizing what he found:

Tragically, Dave died at the end of last year in a ski accident, so it only feels right to dedicate this incredible win for wildlife to all his hard work. And thanks to all Defenders supporters for helping to make this a lasting part of Dave’s legacy!

Read more about Defenders efforts to protect wildlife in our national forests.

It never made much sense to me why Wyoming was so insistent on letting people kill wolves at anytime, by any means, throughout most of the state. Livestock losses to wolves are miniscule, elk are abundant, and wolves will never likely reoccupy much of the state anyway – some of it never was good wolf habitat, like the Red Desert, other areas are too agricultural.

Yet the state’s plan to let people whoop up on wolves as much as they want in most of the state has taken root, even though it goes against any notion of responsible, science-based wildlife management. It has even won support from folks who are supposed to be protective of not only our wildlife itself, but also wildlife principles and policies: the Secretary of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and some hunting groups.

Was I missing something? Is Wyoming that different from Montana and Idaho, which manage wolves statewide without such reckless plans? I went down to Wyoming to check it out.

Prime Wolf Habitat in the Predator Zone
I focused on the southern Wyoming Range in western Wyoming, in the wolf “predator zone” where wolves can be killed willy-nilly, even though most of the land is in the Bridger Teton National Forest. I am no wolf biologist, but the area sure looks like great wolf habitat, as confirmed by the many wolf packs that have called it home over the years, including today. There’s also the abundant prey — I saw two moose, in addition to many elk and deer. Most of Wyoming’s wolf “predator zone” is not as good wolf habitat as the Bridger-Teton National Forest, although parts are. But that doesn’t mean the government should draw invisible lines that wildlife can’t cross without fear of being killed.

So why is the Forest Service letting people come onto a national forest to kill wolves without restrictions? Wildlife is one of the five purposes of the national forests under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, and the Forest Service is obligated to manage for healthy, viable populations of wildlife under the National Forest Management Act and the agency’s own regulations.

Yet in the southern Bridger-Teton – or southern Shoshone, or entire Bighorn National Forest for that matter – you could locate a wolf pack in mid-winter denning season (it’s not hard), bury the pups in their den, and shoot the rest of the pack milling about nearby. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds – people brag about doing similar things to coyotes.

But why? The answers are predictable.

Elk
This is big-time elk country. So big, in fact, that the state feeds elk throughout the region to make hunting them as easy as possible by artificially cranking up their numbers. In fact, in 2011 Wyoming had about 120,000 elk — more than all but three other states in the U.S.

On top of this government largesse, hunters in the area want the government to keep wolves out so they don’t have any competition for these elk.

Yet some of the hunting community’s fundamental principles are at stake – that wildlife are a free-roaming, valuable public resource that should only be killed for legitimate purposes. As apex predators, wolves have an effect on nearly all species in an ecosystem. The hunting community’s failure to stop what Wyoming is doing to wolves is likely to come back to haunt them through wildlife they care more about.

Livestock
This is also big livestock country, particularly for sheep and cattle, although I saw some horses running around loose too. The Bridger-Teton touts its management of livestock, with even road signs claiming “Livestock and wildlands now work in harmony to retain ecosystem function.”

Yet one of the most important ecosystem drivers –wolves, a top predator – are not welcome. A lot of people think wolves and livestock, particularly sheep, can‘t coexist. Yet Defenders and our partners are proving they can in projects across the region. I don’t think anyone’s even tried it here. Instead, there is a pervasive belief that wolves are a serious threat to livestock, even though in 2011 only 35 cattle and 30 sheep [PDF] were verified lost to wolves in Wyoming. There were surely some losses that weren’t verified, but total losses are still well under 0.01% for both cattle and sheep across the state.

Now What?
Defenders and our colleagues are challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service’s rule removing wolves from the Endangered Species Act in court. Yes, we know it will be controversial, but the federal and state plans for wolves in Wyoming are just too bad.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is requiring a race-to-the-bottom minimal population for wolves in the state – around 150. Wyoming is abandoning its commitment to manage all wildlife in “public trust”, and simply refusing to manage wolves in 85% of the state, setting a bad precedent for all wildlife — one that some Montana legislators already want to follow. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are refusing to follow their own obligations toward wildlife on public lands and letting people do whatever they want to wolves.

While it looks like it could be a long time before we see wolves in Wyoming managed like other large wildlife (the thousands of bears and mountain lions in the state are not treated nearly this badly), the state and the federal agencies could easily remedy some of the worst abuses. Let’s hope the conservationist in all of them wakes up, and they do.