May 2011 CWWC Newsletter

INTERACTIVE PDF - CLICK ON ANY URL or button TO VIEW ON YOUR WEB BROWSER

Inge Freeman and Tala

NOW AVAILABLE CWWC iPhone App Update

In the App, we added two new wallpapers, updated the original Bios, updated the number of Mexican Grey Wolves in the wild and refined the howls. Thank you to everyone who has downloaded the App and shown your support in the reviews and ratings.

Hope you are enjoying it.

Thank you to our developers Matt Martel & Trish Weller of Mundue LLC for your attention to detail in the update.

Fathers Day Breakfast & Tour June 19th 9am-11am $25 adults 路 $15 Kids 12 & under 路 RSVP required

COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER

|

MAY 2011

|

PAGE 1

Each month we will feature a different animal in danger of extinction (already on the ES list) or an animal that is scheduled for inclusion to the Endangered Species list.

We’ve set up a display table in the Visitor Center with information on the animal of the month and a donation jar.

At the end of each month, monies collected will be sent to a non-profit ambassador organization chosen by us.

In danger of extinction... the Panda

our ambassador non-profit organization is Pandas International www.pandasinternational.org

Giant Panda Facts Scientific Name: Ailuropoda melanoleuca Adult weight: 165 - 353 pounds Weight at birth: 4-8 ounces Adult body length: 4-5 feet Diet: 25 to 40 pounds of bamboo per day Life span: 18-20 years in the wild 30-35 years in captivity Habitat: Southwestern China

COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER

|

MAY 2011

|

PAGE 2

A Hole in the Endangered Species Act Published: April 21, 2011

As part of its budget bill, Congress approved a brief rider, 11 lines long, that removes gray wolves in Idaho and Montana from the protections of the Endangered Species Act. The rider overturns a recent court ruling, prohibits further judicial review and cannot be good for the wolf. But the worst part is that it sets a terrible precedent — allowing Congress to decide the fate of animals on the list.

The law’s purpose is to base protections on science. Now that politics has been allowed to trump science when it comes to the gray wolf, which species will be next?

The rider’s sponsors, Senator Jon Tester of Montana and Representative Mike Simpson of Idaho, were responding to the demands of ranchers, who sometimes lose livestock to wolves, and hunters, who complain that wolves reduce deer and elk populations.

Sadly and surprisingly, they were abetted by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who declared last month that he would accept what he called a “legislative solution” to the status of the wolf in the Rocky Mountains. One Interior Department official has argued that without this concession, the rider might well have been far more radical — possibly removing wolves everywhere from protection.

The wolf has been a subject of litigation ever since it was reintroduced in the mid-1990s. One of Mr. Salazar’s first acts as secretary was to de-list the animal in Idaho and Montana, arguing that populations had recovered and that the states could now manage them. A federal judge overturned his ruling, as well as a compromise plan that Mr. Salazar worked out with environmental groups.

Idaho and Montana plan to allow controlled hunts. The best hope for the wolves is that the states adhere to their management plans and not let the hunts get out of control. The courts can only stand by, but the Interior Department must hold the states to the terms of a five-year review process required by their management plans.

As for Mr. Salazar, he has made it harder to uphold the integrity of a law that has withstood attacks from industry, ranchers, real estate developers and their political allies. Other protected species like the grizzly bear could now face their own “legislative solution.”

For the sake of his own reputation as a conservationist, Mr. Salazar has to hope that Congress’s meddling stops with the wolves.

COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER

FULL MOON TOUR SAT., JUNE 18th · 8pm - 9pm

Be here at 7:30 for a meet & greet with one of our ambassador wolves ADULTS: $25 · KIDS: $15 (8-12 years) No children under the age of 8 wear warm clothes & good boots · bring a camera & flashlight H Cocoa and coffee will be provided H

RESERVATIONS required 719-687-9742

GOT MEAT?

We can take your freezer burned or old meat We CAN’T take meat that is spoiled, seasoned, or spiced nor fish with bones

Call us: 719-687-9742 |

MAY 2011

|

PAGE 3

Why Wolf Hunting is Unethical

By George Wuerthner · 4-20-11 In light of the recent successful delisting of the wolf by Congress, I have been thinking a lot about why I so strenuously object to killing wolves. I can accept hunting that I feel is legitimate—such as the hunting for food done by those who pursue elk, deer, ducks, and so forth under legal seasons, bag limits and other modern wildlife management authority. Just because killing wolves will now be legal in states like Idaho and Montana does not make it legitimate to me.

I should interject here that I don’t believe the state’s goals are to extirpate wolves again.

I’m not worried that wolves will disappear from Idaho or Montana. But I do not think we should take the killing of wolves or any other animal lightly. Unnecessary killing is not something that should be condoned.

This is not a blind opposition to all hunting. I believe that hunting can be a legitimate activity. The hunter is legitimate in my view when hunting is done with humility and respect for the animals. When the animal’s death is not taken for granted or trivialized.

And the hunter must practice the up-most ethical behavior when pursuing animals. And sometimes I can condone hunting (or more properly perhaps I should call it shooting) when it is the best way to perform what I might call some ecological necessity--say shooting feral animals on some island that is raising havoc with native wildlife.

I also believe hunters, perhaps, more than other sub-groups have a moral and ethical responsibly to watch dog, monitor and police their own ranks. Hunters, by the right that society gives them permission to kill things, should be the ones that take killing seriously.

And they have an obligation to really think about the killing they are doing, and whether that killing is warranted, and necessary.

Personally, I don’t use the word “harvest” when talking about killing wildlife. That kind of terminology in my mind minimizes what is being done.

When does hunting start to border on

illegitimate? That is a hazy area, of course. In my view blasting “gophers” and “prairie dogs” for fun, coyote hunts, and that like are clearly illegitimate activities. I don’t think shooting “gophers” so you can see the “red spray” is ethical. It demonstrates no respect for the animals. It does not represent humility by the hunter. It trivializes the death of a creature.

What makes something legitimate gets back, in part, to why we do things. Shooting animals out of season is what we call poaching.

And especially if someone were killing say elk to sell the meat and antlers, most of us feel is wrong, even though the person is just killing the elk, the exact same thing a hunter might do during hunting season.

On the other hand, if someone shoots a deer out of season to feed their starving family most of us would at least be willing to forgive someone for such an offense, even if it were still illegal. But I would want to know that all other avenues for feeding their family were exhausted--i.e. you could not get food from welfare and/or donations from a church, etc.

Nevertheless, you get the point. Depending on the circumstances, the same basic action can be ethical or unethical.

I can support the killing of an elk during hunting seasons, for instance, for many reasons. A person is going to eat something for food and killing an elk and/or say keeping a trout (or whatever animal is consumed) generally is in the category of a “necessity”.

Not that there aren’t other alternatives to hunting and fishing--obviously one can buy meat or fish at the grocery store, grow veggies in their garden and so on. Still getting meat from a grocery results in the killing of an animal as well, and I can make a very strong case that agriculturally raised meat whether in a factory farm and/or range cattle out on public lands has a tremendous amount of negative impacts to the land and other wildlife, not to mention even serious ethical questions about how the domestic animals are treated themselves. Thus I don’t have a

COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER

|

problem with someone killing an elk or deer to consume if they feel eating some meat is something they want in their diet.

I also place value on the pursuit of wildlife.

Hunting, because it is serious business when done correctly, puts a person in more direct contact with the entire web of life. This is a difficult thing to explain, but it is real.

And I think many hunters experience this when afield. Thus hunting has value to both individuals and society as a consequence. I would liken it to growing a garden. Most of us can get our vegetables from the grocery store, but as any gardener will tell you, there is value to growing one’s own food that goes beyond just satisfying a need for food.

But I don’t necessary support the killing of all animals just because someone is going to eat it. There are also other considerations in how I view and determine whether the hunting is ethical. I need to know that the hunter takes death of an animal seriously and does everything they can to avoid unnecessary suffering of the creature. Killing needs to be done quickly and as humanely as possible.

I also need to know that the animal being killed is relatively common so that killing it does not jeopardize its overall population.

I then ask if hunting and taking a lot of these animals from the landscape going to have serious impacts on other wildlife.

Nutrient cycling is a good example of why at least as far as catching salmon for sport doesn’t bother me, but I have some serious reservations about the degree of salmon removal by commercial fishermen in terms of nutrient return to headwater streams.

After that I look at how the animals are pursued. Running down a deer on a snowmobile and then shooting it would fall into the illegitimate category even if that person were going to eat the meat. This is all about what is commonly called “fair chase”.

Fair chase is one of those changing values-what was “fair” in the past, isn’t necessarily

MAY 2011

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

|

PAGE 4

fair today and technology has skewed the boundaries quite a bit. Is using GPS on hounds to chase down a cougar, then when the “treed signal” is heard, you get out of your pick-up truck and amble up to the tree and shoot the cat out of it fair chase? I don’t think so.

So these are some of the things that I consider to develop my current position about wolf management (which is just a euphemism for killing them). One of the reasons I am skeptical of state management of wolves is due to history. Can a species that has been so viciously maligned for so long be successfully “managed” by the same state agencies that depend upon license sales to hunt wolf prey like elk and deer to fund their bureaucracies?

I recognize that there are many fine biologists working for these agencies who appreciate the important biological value of having wolf predation, but even they “must dance with the ones that brung ya”—and the majority of hunters want fewer wolves.

Because of this legacy of historic persecution, wolf “management” as it’s called by states like Idaho and Montana, to my mind, is done for all the wrong reasons.

Despite what some may say about how they just want to hunt wolves like they hunt deer, elk, etc. the bottom line for most hunters, and the reason for the ‘management’ is not any of the above legitimate reasons for hunting.

We are persecuting wolves because they are thought to be competition for elk and deer and/or a threat to livestock producers.

I would not support wolf control and management even if I thought that wolves were a serious threat to elk and deer populations. However, the truth is that these justifications are more imaginary than real.

Even if I believed wolves did have a significant impact on state-wide elk and deer numbers, I would still argue that hunters have to accept that they are sharing the world with other creatures, and wolves have a greater “right” to the elk and deer than the average human hunter--in part because we do have alternatives. We are not going to starve if we don’t shoot a deer or elk.

The same can be said for livestock producers. There are many proven techniques to reduce predator losses that livestock

producers can implement. While there may be the occasional need to surgically remove an individual animal or even a pack of wolves, if most livestock producers practiced better animal husbandry, much of the conflict would cease to exist--and I believe ranchers have an ethical responsibility to implement these measures so that both their animals and the predators do not have to suffer.

However, what particularly bothersome to me about this persecution of predators is that there is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that “managing” wolves may actually be counterproductive for even the stated goals of wolf control proponents.

Hunting predators can increase conflicts with livestock producers, and could under some circumstances, even hasten the decline of big game herds because of the social chaos and population structural changes that occurs with indiscriminate hunting.

Hunting can skew the wolf populations to younger animals, breaking up larger packs into smaller packs, which can lead to more conflicts. For instance, young animals are less skillful hunters, they do not know the territory as well as older animals—things like where the elk migrate or calve. Packs that are continuously suffering mortality from persecution have a more difficult time holding on to territory. Smaller packs cannot defend kills against other scavengers readily. A big intact pack can kill an elk and guard the carcass from bears, coyotes, ravens and other animals while consuming it entirely, reducing the need to kill another deer or elk. Thus wolves that suffer from wolf “management” are more likely to attack livestock and sometimes even consume more prey than unmanaged packs.

In addition, there is more and more evidence about the ecological role of predators in functioning ecosystems or what has been termed “trophic cascade”. This research suggests, among many ecological benefits associated with predators, that predator induced reductions in elk and deer numbers in some places, at some times, is “good” for ecosystem function. And since wolves have been doing this for eons eliminating these ecological influences is done at our peril.

COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER

|

Just as we now understand that damming rivers and changing the flow has serious consequences for many fish, plants, and birds, we must recognize that predators have an important ecological function and eliminating that function across wide swaths of the land is probably not a good idea.

So when hunters say they are not opposed to having a few wolves around, but we need to control them so they don’t diminish the number of elk and deer, I believe it’s essential that thinking hunters respond by saying we shouldn’t be so quick to eliminate something that was so important to ecosystem health and function for so many centuries. We actually “need” to have wolves and other predators to reduce prey populations. Trying to “smooth” out these kinds of natural population fluctuations of prey species as is the accepted “goal” of wildlife management may not be a good idea for healthy ecosystems.

No only does predator “management” result in unnecessary killing, but it jeopardizes ecological function and doesn’t even achieve the stated goals of reducing conflicts with livestock producers and could even hasten decline in prey populations for hunters.

Hunters as much as any group should be advocating healthy ecosystems—since in the end the long term value of habitat is dependent on healthy ecological function.

That’s why I believe that of all subgroups of people who might be opposing wolf “management” it ought to be hunters who should be most strongly opposing this proposal. Yet, not surprisingly, what I hear is strident calls for killing wolves by most hunters, and even the ethically inclined hunters are generally silent, silenced because they are afraid to be called “anti hunting” or even worse, an “animal rights advocate”. But of all groups of people, I think hunters should be among the most outspoken advocates of predators.

I do not think wolf killing rises to that level of ethical hunting, ecological necessity, and/ or food necessity.

MAY 2011

|

PAGE 5

in the news

True cost of budget deal will be paid in blood – of gray wolves.

Wolves were dealt a blow in April with the passing of the Budget Bill which carried a rider that strips Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves of Endangered Species protections.

Many thanks to all of you who have contacted the Obama administration and members of Congress opposing stripping gray wolves of their Endangered Species Act protections. While Mexican gray wolves were not included in this rider, some in Congress would still

like to see our 50 remaining wild lobos lose their protections, and a precedent has been set for basing endangered species decisions on politics, rather than science. So we are asking you to pull out your pens, pencils, and keyboards and continue writing.

Lawsuit Challenges Constitutionality of Anti-wolf Rider Challenge Says Congress Illegally Lifted Wolf Protections in Northern Rockies, Pacific Northwest The Center for Biological Diversity filed a challenge in federal district court in Missoula, Mont., arguing that a congressional rider requiring removal of Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is unlawful because it violated the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. The rider was attached to last month’s must-pass federal budget bill by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and marked the first time an animal or plant has been removed from the endangered species list

by Congress.

“The wolf rider is a clear example of overreaching by Congress that resulted in the wrongful removal of protections for wolves,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The rider is not only a disaster for wolves but for any endangered species that a politician doesn’t like. Congress has set a terrible precedent that we hope to overturn.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service complied with the rider by publishing a rule that removes Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Idaho, Montana,

eastern Oregon and Washington, and for wolves was unlawful because the Fish northern Utah, while retaining protection and Wildlife Service had split the northern in Wyoming until state officials there Rocky Mountains population along develop an acceptable plan for managing political boundaries, retaining protections wolves. Wolf populations have only begun in Wyoming, where agency scientists to recover in Oregon and Washington, determined wolves remained endangered, where a very small number of packs have but removing them everywhere else. established. In Utah, only individual wolves Instead, the court determined protections have been sighted. Wolf numbers are can only be removed when the whole strong in Montana and Idaho, but both population is recovered. The case was still states would like to drastically reduce pending on appeal when Congress stepped numbers in a misguided attempt to increase in and ordered a particular outcome: the elk populations and reduce livestock removal of federal protection for wolves. conflicts. In Wyoming where protections remain, the state would like to declare wolves a predatory animal in large portions of the state where they could be shot on sight.

“The job of wolf recovery Lawsuit Seeks to Restore Federal Protection in the northern Rocky to Gray Wolves in Northern Rockies Mountains is not complete,” said Greenwald. “With “We’re back in court for two reasons,” concluded poaching, planned hunts, Garrity. “First and foremost, it’s to continue to protect and aerial gunning by state wolves from indiscriminate slaughter. Second, agencies, wolves continue someone has to stand up when the basic tenets of to be at risk.” our government are under attack by unscrupulous In August 2010, U.S. District politicians and that would be the Alliance, Friends of the Judge Donald Molloy in Clearwater and WildEarth Guardians.”

Missoula determined that removal of protections

COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER

Conservation Groups Challenge Wolf Delisting Rider

|

MAY 2011

|

PAGE 6

Science may show that killing wolves is a big mistake Like a predictable movie, the story of wildlife management in Alaska plays out the same way again and again, with wolves always getting the short end of the stick and the state declaring a victory for caribou, moose and the hunters who hunt them. No nuance or space for appropriate scientific analysis. No consideration for whether the so-called victors would benefit in the long term. But this week, the story line changed.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decided that rather than killing wolves on Unimak Island, a wilderness area and unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, it would instead allow nature to prevail and FWS set in motion a series of studies to deepen our understanding of the island’s complex ecological makeup. Finally, an action applauded by those who value a balanced, informed approach to managing Alaska’s wildlife. For the many who have watched with deep concern at the increasing dominance of politics over science, this FWS decision is welcome and long overdue.

Scientists recognize that when wolves are killed without an understanding of why -- or whether -- prey populations are dwindling, we deny ourselves the opportunity to address the root cause of any problem. Furthermore, the state’s insistence on controlling predator populations fails to recognize that the ebb and flow of particular prey species is a natural and necessary process for maintaining healthy habitat, which in turn is key to the long-term robustness of the moose and caribou on which people depend.

In the case of Unimak Island, the state had called for the removal of wolves even though very little time had been devoted to investigating the full range of potential causes of

the local caribou herd’s decline, or to objectively determining whether various approaches to reversing the decline would actually benefit Unimak caribou in the long run.

Disease, weather, availability of food, overharvest and bear predation are all potential causes of decline to which little to no attention was paid in the environmental assessment of the state’s proposal. Even more fundamentally, the environmental assessment dismissed the herd’s documented history of population fluctuations and past reports of caribou migrating between the island and the mainland.

The assessment also failed to address whether the proposed actions were appropriate under federal laws and policies.

By deciding to study this ecosystem rather than rush to action, FWS has acknowledged the shortcomings of the environmental assessment and has given hope that future decisions regarding wildlife management on Unimak will be grounded in science. The FWS should be commended for putting science above politics. The service resisted a knee-jerk proposal to kill wolves and instead re-evaluated the negative effects wolf control would have on the natural conditions of the island. Hopefully this will lead to more effective management of the refuge in the future.

It is clear that when science wins, we all win -- subsistence hunters, professional guides, conservationists, and last but not least, wildlife. Instead of pursuing quick action, absent adequate data and without considering long-term consequences, for the first time in a long time we have the chance to let science guide wildlife management. Like the best Hollywood movie ending, the conclusion to the Unimak Island story could come as a welcome relief.

A note from some INTERNATIONAL FRIENDS

Just over two years ago we had a memorable visit to the Center, taking the VIP tour when we met Wakanda.

It was recently our 50th Wedding Anniversary. When I asked my wife what she would like to do to celebrate, she quickly answered that she would like to visit the wolves again!

And, so, we are making another trip to the USA from here in the United Kingdom.

After visiting with friends in Arizona we plan to fly up and be in Colorado Springs around the 17th and 18th of June and would like to do a VIP tour again.

Kind regards, Ian McColl COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER

|

MAY 2011

|

PAGE 7

Jim Griffith celebrates his 82nd birthday

Just horsing around bobbing for apples

photo gallery...

Safari Class Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture 404 E. 7th Street 路 Curtis, NE 69025 Thank you Judy Bowmaster for bringing your class to our facility. Your students were wonderful.

COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER

|

MAY 2011

|

PAGE 8

A note from Project Coyote

PROJECT PROPOSAL: CAMPAIGN TO BAN COYOTE & FOX “PENNING” NATIONWIDE

Natural Resources Defense Council www.nrdc.org

www.aza.org

Mexican Grey Wolves www.mexicanwolves.org

Wild Earth Guardians www.wildearthguardians.org

Defenders of Wildlife www.defendersofwildlife.org

Project Coyote www.projectcoyote.org

For current wolf articles and to be a voice through knowledge

become a fan of CWWC

Issue/Need: Few Americans have heard of the practice of coyote and fox “penning.” This blood sportlegal in at least a dozen states- involves sending packs of domestic dogs into a fenced-off enclosure to chase to exhaustion and often tear apart a captive coyote or fox. Recent undercover investigations by state wildlife agencies in both Florida and Alabama have shed light on the ugly underbelly of penning and the illicit inter and intra state black-market in live coyotes and foxes that feeds this sordid business. Project Coyote, working with other national and grassroots organizations, scored a decisive and precedent setting victory in Florida by convincing the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to ban this practice.

A groundswell of public outrage and media attention- including ten newspapers editorials taking a stand against penning and supporting an immediate ban- put the spotlight on Florida and the FWC to take swift action and ban “penning”. On June 23rd, after eight hours of passionate testimony, FWC, Chairman Rodney Barreto stated “I don’t believe this is fair chase. I feel Florida needs to be a leader in America. We need to end the use of these enclosures and end them now.”

Project Coyote wants to take this victory and the strategy employed and use it as a model in the other states where coyote and fox penning is still legal (more information about this issue, campaign and victory can be found on our homepage at www.ProjectCoyote.org).

This campaign involves a multiple front approach including legal research, media outreach, grassroots organizing, and lobbying.

Overall Goal: Ban Coyote & Fox Penning Nationwide Objective in 2011-2012: Target and ban coyote and fox penning in at least two additional states (Indiana priority in 2011).

Strategies: Conduct legal research in all states to determine where penning is legal: gather all relevant laws, policies, and regulations; Conduct research on state wildlife agency Commissioners, legislatures in states where penning is legal to determine which states are the best targets and where there is potential for success; Select targets (based on an analysis of the laws and regulations and political support); Meet with key policy makers/legislators, state wildlife agency Commissioners, department staff/biologists, and wildlife law enforcement officers; Galvanize support from other organizations and reach out to entities and organizations outside of animal/conservation movement; Organize grassroots and reach out to communities where coyote/fox pens are operating in targeted states; Create media and messaging campaign; Implement campaign (whether through administrative rule making as in Florida or in legislature and/or in courts) that mirrors the Florida campaign.

Budget: $20,000 $3,000 Legal research $4,000 Investigations of penning operations (as conducted in Florida) $2,500 Travel to targeted states (will chose 2-3 targets for 2011-12) $2,000 Website domain, website maintenance, phone, postage $3,500 Media outreach and ads $2,500 Printing of brochures, media and lobbying packets $2,500 Multi-media tools (short films for web, media, grassroots

deployment stemming from investigations) Information presented on this newsletter is considered public information (unless otherwise noted) and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credit is requested. Some of the documents in this newsletter may contain live feed references (or pointers) to information created and maintained by other organizations. Please note that CWWC does not control and cannot guarantee the relevance, timeliness, or accuracy of these outside materials.

COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER

|

MAY 2011

|

PAGE 9

CWWC is proud to present

Sandy Berg, founder of Jeremiah Sanctuary for an educational and fun program about raptors and wolves Saturday, June 25 路 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm

Join us for a day to experience pure nature and the wild Meet a Harris Hawk, Red Tail Hawk, Screech Owl and Barn Owl and learn about individual species and how they are an important part in our ecosystem.

Plus meet one of our ambassador wolves after the presentation.

Jeremiah Raptor & Wildlife Sanctuary A private rehab and sanctuary officially opened in 2008.

Sandy Berg operated it privately for many years with no financial aid. She has dedicated her life to the care of these beautiful education birds and teaching people young and old how important it is to be aware of wildlife and their importance in our ecosystem and our lives.

Sandy is an experienced animal rescuer, rehabilitator and former zoo director and has provided interpretive educational programs for over 25 years.

$25.00 for adults 路 $15.00 for kids 12 and under Space is limited so RSVP today by calling the Colorado Wolf & Wildlife Center at 719-687-9742