Friday, October 26, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The Wolves Need You!!!
Dear Friends,
The League has long advocated for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to release new wolves into the wild to boost the wild population’s numbers and improve genetic diversity. After four years with no new releases of Mexican wolves into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), a release of a few new wolves is finally being proposed, through two documents: a Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Replacement Release Outline for Arizona 2013 (Release Proposal), and a Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Initial Wolf Release Arizona Pack Management Plan 2012-2013 (Pack Management Plan).
New releases are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, there are some problems with the proposal and the management plans for the releases (see talking points in sample letter below).
Please send comments to Interagency Field Team Leader Chris Bagnoli at Arizona Game and Fish and to USFWS Southwest Regional Director Benjamin Tuggle at Benjamin_Tuggle@fws.gov telling them that while we are pleased about new releases are planned we still have concerns.
Here is a sample email:
Dear Mr. Bagnoli and Dr. Tuggle,
I am pleased that the AZGF has proposed releases of more Mexican wolves into the wild. However while proposing to release a few new wolves into the wild after four years of no releases is a step in the right direction, the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Replacement Release Outline for Arizona 2013 is inadequate.
1. The resumption of killing and removing endangered Mexican wolves over livestock conflicts outlined in the Pack Management Plan is unacceptable. Policies like those described in the plan are one of the reasons the Mexican wolf population numbers and genetic health are still of such great concern.
2. If the Mexican gray wolf is going to succeed, several critical steps must be implemented immediately:
For those who want more in-depth information:
First, the Pack Management Plan that accompanies the Release Proposal states that any wolf implicated in “nuisance” behavior, including livestock conflicts, three or more times in one year will be killed or placed in permanent captivity. This is return to Standard Operating Procedure 13, which was rescinded in 2009. Prior to 2009, the USFWS killed or removed 92 wolves from the wild population because of nuisance behavior or conflicts with livestock.
Second, the release proposal is woefully inadequate to foster the needed population growth or increased genetic health.
The proposal only replaces the wolves killed illegally in Arizona last year and ignores wolves killed in New Mexico or lost to other causes. Even if it replaced all the wolves that died in the past year, it would be inadequate, given that the last official count found only 58 wolves in the wild. The initial recovery plan predicted that we would have over 100 wild wolves by this year. The wild population will not be restored to viable numbers by only releasing wolves to replace those that are illegally killed. Many more releases are needed.
While we are pleased that the release proposal identifies and addresses the critical need for “genetic rescue” of the wild population of Mexican wolves, the release of a few wolves falls far too short of accomplishing meaningful genetic rescue. From 2005-2008 only five new wolves were released and no new wolves have been released since November 2008. Now both populations are at risk genetically because of the low growth rate of the wild population, which is largely due to aggressive management removals of wolves and the failure to release sufficient numbers of wolves from the captive population.
The genetic situation is part of USFWS justification for the proposal to capture the aging Rim Pack alpha female, return her to captivity, and surgically remove her remaining viable eggs for future artificial reproduction. The capture of one pure McBride lineage wolf and the release of one or two cross-lineage wolves, which constitutes the full extent of this current release proposal, fall far short of a comprehensive science-based genetic “rescue” or “re-rescue” plan and will do little to grow the wild population at the necessary rate.
Because the agency is using presence of livestock as a justification not to release wolves into a wider range of the available area in Arizona, and because the USFWS has failed to change the rule to allow direct releases into New Mexico, almost every release alternative involves releasing wolves into or near the territory of an existing wild pack. This is less than ideal and can be avoided by releasing the EA and using proactive measures with livestock.
The League has long advocated for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to release new wolves into the wild to boost the wild population’s numbers and improve genetic diversity. After four years with no new releases of Mexican wolves into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), a release of a few new wolves is finally being proposed, through two documents: a Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Replacement Release Outline for Arizona 2013 (Release Proposal), and a Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Initial Wolf Release Arizona Pack Management Plan 2012-2013 (Pack Management Plan).
New releases are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, there are some problems with the proposal and the management plans for the releases (see talking points in sample letter below).
Please send comments to Interagency Field Team Leader Chris Bagnoli at Arizona Game and Fish and to USFWS Southwest Regional Director Benjamin Tuggle at Benjamin_Tuggle@fws.gov telling them that while we are pleased about new releases are planned we still have concerns.
Here is a sample email:
Dear Mr. Bagnoli and Dr. Tuggle,
I am pleased that the AZGF has proposed releases of more Mexican wolves into the wild. However while proposing to release a few new wolves into the wild after four years of no releases is a step in the right direction, the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Replacement Release Outline for Arizona 2013 is inadequate.
1. The resumption of killing and removing endangered Mexican wolves over livestock conflicts outlined in the Pack Management Plan is unacceptable. Policies like those described in the plan are one of the reasons the Mexican wolf population numbers and genetic health are still of such great concern.
2. If the Mexican gray wolf is going to succeed, several critical steps must be implemented immediately:
- Develop, adopt, and implement an aggressive genetic rescue/re-rescue plan;
- Revise the Endangered Species Act Section 10(j) rule to authorize direct releases of captive-raised Mexican wolves to any geographic location within the designated BRWRA (currently new wolves can only be released into Arizona, which excludes excellent habitat in New Mexico);
- Eliminate “presence of livestock” as a rationale for excluding areas from consideration for wolf releases (There are plenty of places to release wolves in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, but many appear to be excluded simply because of active livestock grazing operations in the project area; proactive measures have been successfully used to avoid depredations and the recovery of Mexican gray wolves is the appropriate priority); and
- Resume and expedite recovery planning for the Mexican gray wolf (The recovery planning process for the Mexican wolf is currently stalled and significantly behind schedule. At this point, the release of a draft Recovery Plan is not expected until sometime in 2014. Mexican wolves need and deserve better performance by the USFWS).
For those who want more in-depth information:
First, the Pack Management Plan that accompanies the Release Proposal states that any wolf implicated in “nuisance” behavior, including livestock conflicts, three or more times in one year will be killed or placed in permanent captivity. This is return to Standard Operating Procedure 13, which was rescinded in 2009. Prior to 2009, the USFWS killed or removed 92 wolves from the wild population because of nuisance behavior or conflicts with livestock.
Second, the release proposal is woefully inadequate to foster the needed population growth or increased genetic health.
The proposal only replaces the wolves killed illegally in Arizona last year and ignores wolves killed in New Mexico or lost to other causes. Even if it replaced all the wolves that died in the past year, it would be inadequate, given that the last official count found only 58 wolves in the wild. The initial recovery plan predicted that we would have over 100 wild wolves by this year. The wild population will not be restored to viable numbers by only releasing wolves to replace those that are illegally killed. Many more releases are needed.
While we are pleased that the release proposal identifies and addresses the critical need for “genetic rescue” of the wild population of Mexican wolves, the release of a few wolves falls far too short of accomplishing meaningful genetic rescue. From 2005-2008 only five new wolves were released and no new wolves have been released since November 2008. Now both populations are at risk genetically because of the low growth rate of the wild population, which is largely due to aggressive management removals of wolves and the failure to release sufficient numbers of wolves from the captive population.
The genetic situation is part of USFWS justification for the proposal to capture the aging Rim Pack alpha female, return her to captivity, and surgically remove her remaining viable eggs for future artificial reproduction. The capture of one pure McBride lineage wolf and the release of one or two cross-lineage wolves, which constitutes the full extent of this current release proposal, fall far short of a comprehensive science-based genetic “rescue” or “re-rescue” plan and will do little to grow the wild population at the necessary rate.
Because the agency is using presence of livestock as a justification not to release wolves into a wider range of the available area in Arizona, and because the USFWS has failed to change the rule to allow direct releases into New Mexico, almost every release alternative involves releasing wolves into or near the territory of an existing wild pack. This is less than ideal and can be avoided by releasing the EA and using proactive measures with livestock.
Relist our wolves..STOP the slaughter!
PLEASE SIGN THIS VERY IMPORTANT PETITION TO HAVE OUR WOLVES RELISTED UNDER FEDERAL PROTECTION -
http://signon.org/sign/
http://signon.org/sign/
Wolves & Livestock in perspective...
The Wolf Army..
Wolves are NO serious threat to the livestock industry...these stats
are not only applicable to the USA, but corresponds with stats from
other countries where the wolf is still present...
A study
published in the journal of Ecological Economics found that wolf
depredations account for less than 0.01% of the annual gross income of
ranchers in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.
A May 2011 USDA cattle death report added more data proving that
livestock death is only fractionally attributed to wolf kills. For
example, of the nearly 4,000,000 cattle and calf deaths in the US in
2010, predators caused only 5% and of that, wolves caused a meager 0.2%.
Moreover, of the $2.4 billion value these deaths cost only 0.1% of that
value came as a result of a wolf kill.
Volatile meat prices,
increased land and fuel prices, disease, weather, domestic dogs, and
even human thieves are much bigger threats.
Though wolves may
have some localized impacts on individual livestock operators, those can
be significantly reduced with responsible husbandry. There are lots of
things responsible livestock managers can do to protect their livestock
that don’t involve bullets. In most cases ranchers are fully compensated
by taxpayers for any losses.
Behind many of the exaggerated
and horrific stories of livestock losses trotted out by the anti-wolf
folks is an untold story of poor animal husbandry.
*Courtesy for some extracts :
www.oregonwild.org
A May 2011 USDA cattle death report added more data proving that livestock death is only fractionally attributed to wolf kills. For example, of the nearly 4,000,000 cattle and calf deaths in the US in 2010, predators caused only 5% and of that, wolves caused a meager 0.2%. Moreover, of the $2.4 billion value these deaths cost only 0.1% of that value came as a result of a wolf kill.
Volatile meat prices, increased land and fuel prices, disease, weather, domestic dogs, and even human thieves are much bigger threats.
Though wolves may have some localized impacts on individual livestock operators, those can be significantly reduced with responsible husbandry. There are lots of things responsible livestock managers can do to protect their livestock that don’t involve bullets. In most cases ranchers are fully compensated by taxpayers for any losses.
Behind many of the exaggerated and horrific stories of livestock losses trotted out by the anti-wolf folks is an untold story of poor animal husbandry.
*Courtesy for some extracts :
www.oregonwild.org
End night Coyote hunting
The Wolf Army...
NC conservation groups ask court for quick end to nighttime coyote hunting to protect red wolf
RALEIGH, N.C. — Wildlife and environmental groups are asking a Wake County court to block a new rule allowing coyotes to be hunted at night with spotlights after the shooting death of a similar-looking but endangered red wolf.
Read more: http://
NC conservation groups ask court for quick end to nighttime coyote hunting to protect red wolf
RALEIGH, N.C. — Wildlife and environmental groups are asking a Wake County court to block a new rule allowing coyotes to be hunted at night with spotlights after the shooting death of a similar-looking but endangered red wolf.
Read more: http://
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)