Defenders of Wildlife Blog

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.

by Mike Leahy

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.

by Alex Slippen

Our nation has long been thought of as a “melting pot” of different human races living side by side. But humans and wildlife need to live side by side too. They need to coexist.

And although this necessary coexistence can lead to conflict, there are good faith actors out there trying to make it work. And Defenders is helping to lead the way.

Over the years, Defenders has worked with numerous collaborators and experts to prevent and mitigate conflicts between humans and wildlife, particularly with predator species such as wolves, grizzly bears and panthers. Recently, Defenders hosted a policy forum in Washington, D.C. on the topic of coexistence to bring many of these partners together.

Opening remarks were delivered by Defenders president Jamie Rappaport Clark, who stressed that peaceful coexistence should be the new norm when it comes to living with predators, not the exception. And she praised the forum panelists for their pioneering work in making that happen.

Following a brief video produced by Defenders on helping people coexist with wildlife, a diverse panel of four experts from various fields and locations took turns discussing their coexistence work.

First up was Lawrence Schoen, a board member of the Blaine County Commission in south central Idaho. Schoen spoke about his involvement in Defenders’ Wood River Wolf Project, which uses a combination of deterrents and good old-fashioned foresight to keep nearby sheep separated from wolves in the area.

He was followed by Nick Wiley, executive director of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, who spoke of his experiences with coexistence projects in Florida as “proactive, adaptive solutions” to human-panther conflicts.

Next up was Nancy Gloman, vice president of field conservation for Defenders of Wildlife, who reiterated the organization’s long-term vision of human populations as tolerant, appreciative and accepting of the wildlife around them.

And closing out the panel was David White, chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (a section of the U.S. Department of Agriculture), who tied all the panelists remarks together by discussing coexistence efforts at the federal level. Some of NRCS’ landscape conservation initiatives include the protection of the sage grouse in key agriculture areas.

Defenders is committed to a collaborative approach to living with wildlife, and the variety of different perspectives that comes from experts like these panelists will go a long way towards bridging the gap between humans and wildlife.

by Jamie Rappaport Clark

Fifty years ago today, a small book was published that awakened us all to the plight of our planet and arguably changed the course of history. I know it changed mine.

Silent Spring was the book, and its author Rachel Carson was one of the early pioneer women scientists to work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the 1930s. Decades later, I would follow in her footsteps, both literally and figuratively. As a biologist working for the same agency during the ‘90s, I had the great fortune to occupy her old office in the Department of the Interior building for part of my tenure. Then, when I was appointed director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1997, I stood on her shoulders as I led the federal government’s efforts to protect America’s natural heritage.

I remember reading Silent Spring for the first time when I was in high school. By then, DDT had already been banned nationwide, but America’s wildlife was still reeling from its devastating effects. Carson’s prescient writings compelled me to recognize the damage being done to the planet, especially the majestic birds that I had grown to love as a child. Through her eyes, I also began to see that it was within our power to stop the poisoning of our environment and save the growing number of species teetering on the brink of extinction.

During college I became more hopeful as I oversaw the release of captive-bred endangered peregrine falcons back into the wild. Falcon populations had plummeted after decades of using DDT, which made eggshells too thin and caused them to break. But thanks to dedicated conservation efforts and tougher pesticide restrictions, falcons, bald eagles and many other birds of prey were finally starting to recover. I felt very fortunate to play a direct role in righting a wrong, undoing decades of uncontrolled pesticide use and poor management of our most vulnerable species.

For me, this was the power of Silent Spring. Rachel Carson didn’t just rail against the use of pesticides and the careless destruction of our wildlife. She helped prescribe a solution using both scientific evidence and her love of nature to back it up. This approach is what inspired an entire generation of environmental activists to protect our air, our water, our wildlife and the habitat they depend upon.

I’ve often reflected back on Rachel Carson’s incredible courage and leadership as she challenged agricultural scientists and the government to change how the natural word was viewed and protected.  I’ve done my best throughout my career to highlight the importance of science, stewardship, and ethical responsibility and to emulate her courageous leadership as well.

Now, as president of Defenders of Wildlife (of which Carson was briefly a board member), I’m privileged to carry on that legacy. Each day presents a new opportunity to raise awareness of the threats facing our wildlife and the habitats they need to survive. Fueled by the passion of our members and supporters and grounded in sound science, we aim to make positive changes that ultimately benefit all Americans. In that respect, the message of Silent Spring is as relevant today as it was in 1962.

After 50 years, I wish I could say that all our problems have been solved. Instead, we’ve replaced DDT with other dangerous pesticides, we continue to lose more wildlife habitat each year at an alarming rate, the number of species on the brink of extinction continues to climb, and global warming threatens to throw many ecosystems out of balance. Yet, I’m still hopeful. And I firmly believe we can achieve lasting solutions to the environmental challenges we face today.

People everywhere are waking up to the reality of pollution and climate change and the loss of biodiversity, and they’re realizing it’s up to all of us to make a difference. Thankfully, like those of us who grew up reading Silent Spring decades ago, a new generation has recognized that nothing is more important than protecting the planet that sustains us all. With our collective efforts to create a cleaner, greener future, Rachel Carson’s spirit and call to action lives on.

Sequester. Fiscal Cliff. These terms are all over the news these days. What do they have to do with wildlife? Plenty, as it turns out. Quite simply, they signify budget cuts that will be devastating to wildlife conservation.

In the summer of 2011, when the President and Congress agreed to legislation to raise the federal debt limit, they also agreed to two sets of budget cuts to reduce the deficit. The first set of cuts – $1 trillion over 10 years – became effective immediately. For the second set of cuts, Congress established what became known as the “Supercommittee,” tasked with reaching a budget deal by January 2012 to further reduce the deficit by at least an additional $1.2 trillion. To give the “Supercommittee” plenty of motivation to reach a deal, the legislation also called for automatic and painful cuts across most federal programs that would be triggered in January 2013 to achieve deficit reduction if they couldn’t reach an agreement. These automatic cuts are called “sequestration.” As was reported widely in the press last December, the “Supercommittee” failed to develop a budget agreement and, unless Congress identifies an alternative way to reduce the deficit by January, most programs that Americans care about, including those that protect our wildlife and environment, will suffer damaging cuts. Our nation will be hurled off the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

What would the cuts mean for wildlife?

Our national wildlife refuges, forests and other public lands would be severely impacted. Many national wildlife refuges likely would be forced to close or cut back on management work, putting at risk vulnerable creatures and habitats, and disappointing many of the 45 million wildlife enthusiasts that visit refuges every year. Since visitation at wildlife refuges generates an economic contribution of more than $4.2 billion each year, closing refuges would also harm local communities and economies. Many recreation and education programs on refuges would be cut back or abolished entirely. The number of refuge law enforcement officers would be reduced, threatening the security of visitors and wildlife.

Cutbacks to national forests and grasslands would harm an amazing array of habitats, from alpine tundra to deciduous, evergreen and tropical rain forests, as well as native grasslands and wetlands. Species such as grizzly bears, wolverine, elk, Canada lynx, bighorn sheep and numerous freshwater creatures would be put at risk. Since national forests support $9.5 billion in annual retail sales and provide drinking water for about 66 million Americans, many communities and regions would also suffer.

Reductions in Bureau of Land Management conservation work would also threaten much of what remains of vanishing prairie grasslands, sage-brush, and desert, some of our nation’s most fragile and iconic landscapes, and home to creatures like the desert tortoise, sage grouse, and black-footed ferret. As with forests and refuges, communities around these lands would also feel the pain – in 2010 alone, about 4 million visitors generated nearly $4.2 billion on wildlife associated recreation.

Other crucial wildlife conservation programs would be impacted. The work to save and recover the 1,400 U.S. animals and plants listed under the Endangered Species Act, which includes species such as manatees, sea turtles, whooping cranes and sea otters would be cut back with disastrous consequences. Research needed to stop White-nose Syndrome, a devastating disease that has killed up to 6.7 million bats and continues to spread, will be reduced or potentially stopped. Reductions in the numbers of wildlife law enforcement agents and inspectors would slow or curtail much of the work to combat global illegal wildlife trade, such as breaking up smuggling rings that traffic in rhinoceros horn, sea turtle parts and jaguar skins — activities that are also often linked to organized crime and drugs. The cuts would hamper many efforts to protect the birds that live in or migrate through the U.S. and grace the backyards and communities of America. Many Hawaiian, ocean and grassland bird populations are already in severe decline. Finally, the cuts would compromise our nation’s international leadership in protecting wildlife in other parts of the globe. Even with our fiscal problems, America is wealthy relative to desperate situations in many areas around the world, and modest investments of U.S. conservation dollars can reap significant returns when invested in the world’s environment and wildlife. The loss of this funding will be deeply felt. Click here to learn more about the wildlife conservation programs that will be cut under the sequester.

When Congress returns after the election, they can stop this disaster if they sit down together, along with the President, to come to an agreement. But they have to be willing to do so. And since wildlife can’t vote, it’s our job to make sure someone who can is speaking out on their behalf. Help us tell Congress to keep these much-needed protections for wildlife species and their habitats.

WaPo’s omissions – A feature story in the Washington Post on Monday took a broad look at the status of wolves nationwide, but it missed a few key points. First, there’s no mention anywhere of the fact that wolves in Montana and Idaho were delisted last year by Congressional fiat. This was the first time in the history of the Endangered Species Act that protections have been stripped by politicians rather than scientists, setting a dangerous precedent for dealing with other controversial species in the future. Second, the article glosses over how wolves are being treated very differently than other wildlife. No other species, especially one that was recently protected under the ESA, is managed at such low population levels. We rarely hear any complaints about the thousands of bears and mountain lions in the Northern Rockies, but for some reason there is almost no tolerance for even a few hundred wolves. Why single out this species for persecution? States ought to be managing for healthy wolf populations, just like they manage for all other native species. Wolves are important predators that help maintain balanced ecosystems. They can’t perform this essential function though if their numbers are kept at a biological minimum on the landscape.

Dogs in wolf country – Wolves are rarely ever a threat to humans, unless they’ve become habituated through regular feeding. But a story this week from the Spokesman-Review reminds us that in wolf country we need to watch out for our pets as well. Jim Groth was out in northeastern Washington doing mushroom surveys for the Forest Service when his dog got into a rare scuffle with a wolf. Groth was able to rescue his dog and eventually scare two wolves away, but the encounter left a lasting impression on him.

Though very few of us will ever encounter a wolf in the wild, here are a few helpful hints, just in case. If you’re headed out into wolf country, keep your dog on a leash. Wolves see dogs as strange rival wolves and may try to attack if given the opportunity. If a wolf gets too close for comfort, do your best to act tough and scare them away by making loud noises or throwing rocks in their direction. Consider carrying bear spray (most places with wolves also have bears, and spray will work just fine on wolves too). But also remember that not a single person has been killed or even injured in Northern Rockies since wolves were reintroduced more than 15 years ago. So keep your pets close and you should be fine.

Ultimately, it’s up to all of us to make sure that wolves keep a healthy fear of humans, which prevents conflict and keeps wolves alive over the long run.

Mange kills wolves in Yellowstone– For years, Defenders has been saying that maintaining just a few hundred wolves in the Northern Rockies isn’t good enough. Here’s a good reason why. A report from Live Science says that mange is becoming a bigger problem in Yellowstone National Park and is at least part of the reason why the wolf population has dropped significantly in recent years. A robust wolf population spread over a large landscape can sustain disease epidemics without a problem. But disease spreads quickly and can have disastrous consequences when a species is confined to smaller areas. The goal should be to sustain a sufficiently large and well-distributed population across the Northern Rockies rather than concentrating populations in select areas of each state where they are more vulnerable to disease.

Suzanne tells all – Our top wolf expert Suzanne Stone isn’t one to pull punches, and in a recent interview on the Green Global Travel blog, she gave straightforward answers to some tough questions. Why do people demonize wolves? Why are wolves important? How can we resolve the ongoing conflicts between people and wildlife? Read the blog to find out.

“If you look into the eyes of a wild wolf, there is something there more powerful than many humans can accept.” – Suzanne Stone