North Rim wolf revival?
by ERIC BETZ, AZ Daily Sun, March 6, 2010 [here]
The last, best place to release wolves in the United States might be right in our own back yards.
The Flagstaff-based Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project wants to allow the beleaguered Mexican gray wolf to migrate northward and establish packs on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon.
Wilderness advocates contend the wolves are struggling, in part, because they are bottled up in the Blue Range Recovery Area on the Arizona-New Mexico border.
“We are expecting the Mexican wolves to recognize an invisible line on a map and live by our rules, rather than be the wild animals that they are, just struggling to survive,” said the group’s education and outreach coordinator, Emily Nelson.
The move has the backing of the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Scientists [sic] have identified a vast area that stretches from the Mogollon Rim to the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park as the last, best place for wolves in the United States due its low human and livestock density and abundance of elk and mule deer. Nelson said the area could support a long-term population of as many as 200 wolves. … [more]
Coordinated Federal Effort Allows for Klamath Project Water Deliveries in Drought-Stricken Basin
DOI News, March 18, 2010 [here]
Washington, D.C. - A coordinated Obama Administration effort will allow for meaningful water deliveries to Klamath Project water users, despite ongoing drought conditions that have severely impacted all Klamath Basin parties.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced expected Klamath Project allocations of 30 to 40 percent of average annual releases — approximately 150,000 acre feet — to be made available to Upper Klamath Lake irrigators.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) also announced that drought-impacted farmers in the Klamath Project will be eligible to apply for $2 million in special drought-related funding under its Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), $1 million for Oregon farmers and $1 million for California farmers. …
An additional 50,000 acre feet or more could be added through a water bank funded by the Bureau of Reclamation, boosting overall deliveries to approximately 50 percent of average annual deliveries. …
Reclamation and NMFS executed a new biological opinion that protects downstream fisheries, and based on its consultation with FWS and current modeling forecasts, Reclamation estimates that irrigation deliveries could begin as soon as May 15, depending upon additional precipitation in the Klamath Basin and Upper Klamath Lake levels. … [more]
Almost 40 wolves live in Fremont County
Area wolves killed 107 domestic animals last year
By ELIZABETH LADEN, Island Park News, March 18, 2010 [here]
ISLAND PARK — Five wolf packs were documented in Fremont County in 2009, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report released Thursday, March 11. These are the Henry’s Lake, Bishop Mountain, Fogg Butte, Biscuit Basin, and Bitch Creek packs. The total number of wolves counted in these packs was 29 adults, eight pups. They are in the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s (IDFG) Upper Snake wolf management unit.
The Bitch Creek and Fogg Butte packs contained a confirmed breeding pair in 2009, according to the report. The Henry’s Lake pack had at least six wolves. The Bishop Mountain pack had at least five adults and at least one pup. The Fogg Butte pack count was at least seven adults and three pups; Biscuit Basin had at least four adults and two pups, and Bitch Creek had at least seven adults and two pups.
The report lists the management unit’s confirmed wolfcaused livestock losses as four cattle, 97 sheep, one goat, and five dogs. IDFG took out six wolves in control actions, hunters killed five, and three others are listed as “human-related deaths,” which includes road kills.
The report states that the Northern Rockies wolf population rose last year, but at the slowest rate in nearly 15 years. At least 1,706 wolves were living in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and parts of Oregon and Washington in 2009, compared to at least 1,650 wolves the year before. The number of breeding packs increased from 95 to 115.
The population estimates are included in the 2009 Interagency Annual Wolf Report, compiled by state and federal governments and Native American tribes.
The report attributed agency control, new hunting seasons in Idaho and Montana, and the wolves’ territorial behavior in slowing the population growth to less than 4 percent last year, the lowest growth rate since 1995.
Until 2009, the wolf population had been on an upward trend, at times increasing 30 percent in a single year. … [more]
Stupak urges delisting Michigan gray wolf population
SooToday.com, March 16, 2010 [here]
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) has urged the U.S. Department of the Interior to delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and complete the transition back to state management.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Stupak noted that estimates from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) place the gray wolf population in Michigan at approximately 580 wolves in 2009, demonstrating a sustained recovery of the gray wolf, which in 1960 had been virtually eliminated from northern Michigan.
“The Endangered Species Act has accomplished its purpose, bringing Michigan’s gray wolf population back from near-extinction to sustainable population levels,” Stupak said. “Given this recovery, it is time to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act and allow the State of Michigan to implement a plan to better meet the needs of northern Michigan.”
There were approximately 20 gray wolves in the Upper Peninsula in 1992, but by 2009 the population had reached as many as 580 wolves.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, gray wolves in northern Michigan and across the Western Great Lakes region have met legal requirements necessary for delisting.
The gray wolf was originally delisted from the Western Great Lakes region in March 2007.
Since that time the gray wolf delisting has been challenged by several lawsuits, most recently in September 2009.
Following that ruling, protections for the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes were reinstated for a third time.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations have supported decisions to delist the Western Great Lakes gray wolves. … [more]
Minn. petitions to take wolves off endangered list
By STEVE KARNOWSKI AP, March 17, 2010 [here]
Minnesota petitioned the federal government on Wednesday to take the gray wolf off the endangered and threatened species list in the state and give it back the responsibility of managing the animals.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources asked the Department of the Interior to decide on its petition within 90 days.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has tried before to remove federal protections for the gray wolf in Minnesota and the western Great Lakes region. Each time the decision was blocked by court action.
In a statement Wednesday, DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten said federal officials agree that Minnesota’s wolf population is not threatened or endangered and that the state’s management plan would ensure the species’ long-term survival in the state.
“We filed the petition because it is time to have the federal classification match the Minnesota reality,” Holsten said. He also said Minnesota should not have to wait for a resolution of national wolf conservation issues because its population is “fully recovered” already.
The Fish and Wildlife Service returned the wolf in the western Great Lakes region to the endangered list in September to settle a lawsuit by environmental and animal protection groups, including the Humane Society of the United States. The agency acknowledged it failed to hold a legally required public comment period before it took the animals off the list for the region. … [more]
Anti-Wolf Rally Saturday
Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife, March 17, 2010 [here]
If you haven’t heard already, there is going to be a WOLF RALLY in Jackson Hole, Wyoming on March 20th on the Jackson Town Square, 9:00 AM until 2:00 PM.
We are going to show everyone out there just how much we believe that it is past time for the State of Wyoming to take over management of the wolves that have been brought down upon us and our wildlife. We need to come together as one to show everyone out there that we mean business and we are not going to give up.
The Wyoming Outfitters Assn. Is taking the lead on this and we need to be there to back them up
Mission Statement of the ANTI-WOLF RALLY:
Our mission is to draw attention to the crisis at hand caused by the lack of state management of wolf populations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife in this region have suffered drastic declines over the past 10 years. Some species have seen as much as a 90% decline. Safety of pets and livestock is also a concern to anyone living or recreating in the area. Wolves have and will kill and/or maim both. The heritage and economy of wildlife-oriented industries is in jeopardy of collapse if delisting doesn’t happen immediately.
Cold kills record number of manatees
Florida winter stresses manatees
BY TIMOTHY O’HARA, Key West Citizen, March 13, 2010 [here]
The largest die-off of manatees in recorded history has taken place in Florida as a result of the state’s prolonged, record-low temperatures this winter.
A total of 368 manatees have died in Florida waters so far this year, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The unprecedented number of deaths in less than three months is just 61 shy of the number of manatees that died in all of 2009, 429, which itself was a record, said Katie Tripp, Save the Manatee Club’s director of science and conservation.
FWC records show that 193 manatees died from cold stress from Jan. 1 through March 5. Another 151 deaths have been classified as undetermined, but the majority of these likely were caused by cold stress, officials said. The total manatee population in the state is about 3,800.
“Although air temperatures are starting to increase, it will take some time for water temperatures to rise,” Tripp said. “A number of manatees are still in need of rescue for cold stress, but all three critical care facilities are at or near capacity.”
Many manatees succumbed quickly to cold water temperatures, but several dozen were rescued and taken to three facilities in Florida that are authorized to provide critical care for sick and injured manatees. … [more]
NatGeo’s “Wolf Wars” Flacks for Radical Greens
by William F. Jasper, New American, 11 March 2010 [here]
“Wolf Wars,” the cover story for the March 2010 issue of National Geographic, may seem, at first read, to be a “balanced” report on the ongoing battle pitting ranchers, hunters, recreationists, and conservationists of the Rocky Mountain states against Big Green environmentalists and Big Government (federal and state) bureaucrats. Author Douglas Chadwick does, after all, seem to report sympathetically on the plight of ranchers like John and Rae Herman of Montana’s Hot Springs area, whose 800-head Angus cattle operation has been hard-hit by wolf predation. However, like most media reporting on wolves, his article hymns the supposed overall benefits of the reintroduction of Canis lupus to the ecosystem.
Chadwick’s National Geographic piece also follows the typical media route of uncritically accepting the numbers provided by government agencies that have a history of fudging the facts and a concentrated interest in continuing to cook the books. “During 2008, wildlife agents confirmed 569 cattle and sheep deaths from wolves throughout the West,” he reports. “That amounted to less than one percent of livestock deaths in the region.” However, there is abundant anecdotal evidence that the aforementioned “wildlife agents” often go to great lengths to minimize and drastically undercount the predation by wolves. This writer has interviewed ranchers in Idaho and Washington over the years who have recounted many instances in which state and federal wildlife personnel have disputed and dismissed livestock losses that were indisputably due to wolves.
A rancher who comes upon the half-eaten carcass of what was shortly before a prize Angus knows that he is not automatically going to be compensated by the state/federal wolf compensation fund, even if the carcass is surrounded by wolf tracks and wolf scat, and even if he or another person earlier witnessed a wolf or wolves attacking or harassing cattle in the area. The wildlife agents are likely to claim that the evidence points to wild dogs, a bear, or a cougar as the culprits, rather than wolves.
Chadwick halfway acknowledges this problem, noting: “Many say in some areas the actual kills by wolves may average as high as seven for every one that can be proved, but no confirmation, no compensation.” Of course, if the totals were seven times the reported number, we’d be talking about 4,000 cattle, not 569, and considerably more than one percent of cattle deaths. The same goes for sheep, as well as the wild ungulates — deer, elk, moose, sheep, caribou — whose populations are being devastated by the wolf packs that are rapidly multiplying throughout the West.
Chadwick also accepts without question the official wolf count for the Idaho-Washington-Montana region, even though some game biologists assert that the actual wolf population is double the official census. According to Chadwick, the wolf population has “now grown to around 1,600, roaming the region in more than 200 packs.” However, as we pointed out last November in an extensive article on wolves (”Wolves Will Thrive Despite Recent Hunts”), there is reason to believe the real number is 3,000 — or more. We reported on the work of Professor Charles Kay, a renowned wildlife biologist, and linked to several of his articles exposing the fraudulent data and manipulative methods used by government bureaucrats and enviro-extremists posing as scientists to justify increasing restriction on human access to, and use of, both public and private lands. … [more]
USFWS Reopens Comment Period for Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat Revision
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service News Release, March 12, 2010 [here]
New comment period closes April 5, 2010
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced its intent to reopen the comment period for the proposed critical habitat revision for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), a threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The original closing date for comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis was March 15, 2010. Due to Federal Register publication processes, the comment period could not be extended and therefore the Service will pursue a new comment period. The notice has not yet published in the Federal Register but the Service is announcing that the new comment period will close April 5, 2010.
Sage grouse not listed under ESA; WWP sues
BY TODD ADAMS, Challis Messenger, March 11, 2010 [here]
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Friday announced that the greater sage grouse warrants the protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but that listing the species now is precluded by the need to address higher-priority species first.
Western Watersheds Project (WWP) in turn announced Monday that it is suing the agency for not actually listing sage grouse.
Sage grouse will be placed on the FWS candidate list, meaning the species will not receive protection under the act for now. State fish and wildlife agencies will continue to be responsible for managing the birds.
The WWP lawsuit charges that the federal government violated the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act.
“The Obama administration rightfully concluded that the greater sage-grouse fully qualify for the protections of the Endangered Species Act,” said Jon Marvel, WWP executive director in a news release. “Unfortunately, the administration has violated the law in not listing the sage-grouse at the same time.” … [more]
Fish and Game Director Wants Expanded Wolf Hunting
KIVI-TV Channel 6 News, March 9, 2010 [here]
LEWISTON, Idaho (AP) — The director of Idaho Fish and Game says more wolves need to be killed in the Lolo area of the Clearwater River basin to stop the decline in elk populations.
Cal Groen says state wildlife managers will recommend significant changes to wolf seasons in the Lolo and other zones where elk numbers are not at management levels.
He says management tools could include increased harvest limits, multiple tags, trapping, and asking outfitters to help reduce wolf numbers.
Groen says eight of the state’s 29 elk hunting zones are below the department’s population objectives.
He says five of those have significant wolf populations, including the Lolo, Selway and Sawtooth zones.
The hunting changes could be put in place next fall.
Senator Whitsett drought request letter to Gov. Kulongoski
March 11, 2010
To: The Honorable Ted Kulongoski
900 Court Street NE
Salem Oregon 97301
RE: Klamath County Drought Declaration Request
Dear Governor Kulongoski,
This letter is to request that at the earliest time possible you declare that emergency hydrologic drought conditions currently exist in Klamath County.
I was privileged to sit in on the Water Availability subcommittee meeting held yesterday at the Salem Armory. After careful consideration of all the current hydrologic factors, the sub-committee voted unanimously to recommend that a declaration of hydrologic drought be declared in Klamath County. Factors that were considered include 71% of normal snowpack, 51% of normal reservoir storage, 80% of normal precipitation to date, 63% of normal stream flow to date, and forecasted stream flow of only 30% to 65% of normal depending on the watershed area being measured.
The existing hydrologic drought, in conjunction with the two biologic opinions, has created an untenable situation for irrigators who depend on surface water to grow their crops. The biological opinion designed to protect the endangered sucker fish requires that significant water be held in the Upper Klamath Lake reservoir thereby diminishing water available for diversion for irrigation. The biological opinion designed to protect the threatened Coho salmon requires that significantly more water be discharged from Upper Klamath Lake than has historically occurred in dry years to enhance stream flow. The combination of the effects of the hydrological drought and the effects of the biological opinions results in very little water being available for diversion for agricultural production.
As you know, your declaration that emergency drought conditions exist will allow Klamath County drought wells to be used for irrigation. It will also allow significantly wider latitude for the Oregon Water Resources Department to authorize water transfers that will allow the farmers to selectively irrigate their highest value crop lands. I met with Oregon Water Resources Department Director Phil Ward in my office Monday and he assured me that his Department is ready and able to take immediate action to help mitigate the drought effects in any way that they legally can help.
Your emergency drought declaration will also set the table for United States Department of Agriculture drought relief payments in the event that the existing drought results in 30% or more reduction in harvested crop value. We certainly hope that such crop losses can be avoided, but in the event that they do occur the drought relief payments may well be the income required for some family farming operations to remain economically viable.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Senator Doug Whitsett
District 28
Critical Habitat Designated for Endangered 3-Inch Long Willamette Valley Fish
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service News Release, March 10, 2010 [here]
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today designated critical habitat for the Oregon chub, a small fish native to Oregon’s Willamette Valley. The Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) was listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1993.
The designation includes 25 units totaling 132 acres, including land under state, federal, other government and private ownership. As allowed under the ESA, all or portions of these units were considered but not selected for exclusion from the critical habitat designation. Exclusions could have been based on the relative costs and benefits of designating critical habitat, including information that was gathered during the public comment period on potential economic and other relevant impacts of the proposal. …
The economic analysis, prepared by Industrial Economics Inc. of Cambridge, Mass., estimated the additional cost of the proposed critical habitat designation would total $108,000 over 20 years. This cost is expected to be entirely the administrative costs of additional consultations required for critical habitat under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The total costs of Oregon chub conservation including consultation and other already-ongoing efforts is predicted to be between $2.74 million and $11.1 million over 20 years.
These impacts are low in comparison to the conservation costs for other species in the Pacific Northwest because the proposed critical habitat for the chub totals only 132.1 acres, mostly in small disconnected habitat units that are isolated from economic activity. Also, the long history of protection for the chub has created a baseline of ongoing conservation efforts. … [more]
Note: $11 million to “conserve” 132 acres for a minnow that is not actually endangered comes to $83,000 per acre. However, that is an underestimate of the true costs, since lawsuits and EAJA money have not been included. You tax dollars gone to waste.
57 New Fish Species Found in Greenland
There several different fish swim around in the waters around Greenland, than researchers previously assumed. The whole 57 species have come to in a recount.
Berlingske Tidende, 9 marts 2010 [here]
Note: Google translation from Danish
Increased fishing in deep water and rising sea temperatures are probably the cause of that Greenland can welcome a new strip of fish.
Since the last census in 1992 are all 57 species appeared. It shows a new survey carried out by fish curator Peter Rask Møller of the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen, in cooperation with Danish and Greenlandic scientists.
Thus, there is now a total of 269 known species in Greenland waters.
“We are cautious to announce that many new species due to climate change, but there are about five new species, which appear likely to have come because of increased temperatures. These are the salmon herring, whiting, Rosefishes, monkfish and Snipe - all species which also occur in Danish waters,” said Peter Rask Moller said in a statement.
The 57 new species of Greenland are “new” in different ways. The 47 species are known species worldwide, but is new in Greenland waters. In contrast, 10 species completely new and not previously described by science.
Only five of the species is Arctic - meaning that they occur only in the cold water north of the submarine elevation move that runs between Canada and Greenland, and Greenland and Iceland. The rest are species that thrive in slightly warmer water.
The vast majority of new species deep-sea living from about 400 meters down. They apply, for example, two new shark species Iceland catshark and Portuguese dogfish. The reason why these species appearing now, may be due to increased deep-sea fishing by both research vessels and commercial fishermen.
Peter Rask Møller dare not predict whether the new species will take hold and eventually become numerous enough that they can be fished.
Sen. Hinkle letter: Wolves as disease carriers
Clark Fork Chronicle, March 05 2010 [here]
Sen. Greg Hinkle submitted the following letter to be read at the March 2, 2010 meeting of the Environmental Quality Council.
Environmental Quality Council
Representative Chas Vincent, Chair
P.O. Box 201704
Helena, Mt. 59620-1704
Re: Wolf as disease carriers
Dear Representative Vincent and members of the Council,
I have reviewed the documents before this Council on the spread of Hydatid Disease via the wolf. In addition to this, I have reviewed information from the Center of Disease Control (CDC) and studies by renowned wildlife biologist Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary. You have seen his comments in an email dated February 28, 2010 titled, “EQC and wolves/wolf diseases”.
You have information indicating that almost two-thirds of the wolves in Montana are carriers of the Hydatid Tapeworm and are contaminating our landscape with the eggs of this worm. We have a much milder climate in Montana than in the Far North and it appears this will contribute to a more prevalent spread of the disease. You have read Dr. Geist’s comments on how easily humans can come in contact with the eggs through pets and wildlife where deer or elk are intermediate hosts contributing to the spread of the disease. The seriousness of this contamination of the landscape can not be understated or denied.
In a fact sheet published by the CDC on Echinococossis it is stated, in part, that a person can become infected “by directly ingesting food items contaminated with stool (or eggs) from foxes, coyotes (wolves). This might include grass, herbs, greens, or berries gathered in fields.” Considering the number of wolves in western Montana, to what extent is the probability of wild berries being contaminated?
I have a copy of a letter written to Ed Bangs, Wolf Specialist with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) dated October 3, 1993 from Will N. Graves (Gray Wolf EIS). In that letter, Mr. Graves pointed out the fact that wolves of the north were Hydatid carriers and should not be introduced into the United States by the USFWS. This dated letter was prior to the introduction program; therefore, was the warning ignored or disregarded by Mr. Bangs?
The Montana Constitution in Article IX, Section 1 guarantees every Montanan the unalienable right to a clean and healthy environment; that the legislature will administer and enforce this duty; and that “the legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”
The expansion of the wolf population enhanced by foreign wolves is virtually wiping out western Montana’s big game herds. I know that from personal observations and those of other outdoorsmen.
I would point out that in a US Supreme Court case; Printz v. United States, 95-1503; the Court referred to a previous case; New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); and they stated in Printz, “The Federal government”, we held, “may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program”, Id., at188. This begs the question, in my mind; did the USFWS have the authority to contaminate our environment with diseased wolves?
Where do we go from here? I believe there are some options. First would be to request that the Attorney General of Montana fully investigate whether Mr. Bangs and the USFWS knew of the potential of bringing diseased wolves from a foreign country into the State. If this is found to be true, the State should sue USFWS for violating our Constitutional guarantee to a clean and healthful environment. Second, we should immediately begin to eradicate the source of the problem. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) should make available an unlimited number of wolf tags and open the season year round. They should educate all hunters on the potential hazard of handling a wolf (or coyote). The funds from the wolf tags should be divided up and all those who harvest a wolf at the end of each calendar year will receive a payment for each wolf harvested. Yes, it is called a bounty. Thirdly, due to deer and elk being intermediate hosts of the disease, FWP should immediately enforce the prohibition on the feeding of ungulates. Illegal feeding concentrates deer and elk creating a hazard for everyone. Other than that, what other sound options are there to hold the spread of this disease in check?
Sincerely,
Senator Greg Hinkle
Greg Hinkle represents Senate District 7, which includes western Missoula County and all of Mineral County.