Montana "Wolf Stamp"

**Public Comment Period Now CLOSED**
Montana is considering having a "Wolf Management Stamp." http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/armRules/pn_0177.html
        This stamp would "be issued to any persons who wish to donate to the department's management of wolves." Any resident or nonresident would be able to purchase one or more stamps for a donation of $20.00 each.
         Most of the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks budget comes from the sale of hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses and tags. This perhaps gives 'consumptive' (hunters, fishermen, trappers) a more skewed influence on the Department and what it can do with those funds, especially when it comes to wolf management. The proposed Wolf Management Stamp provide an additional funding source for wolf conservation and management in Montana. The stamp would give non-consumptive users (wildlife and bird watchers, etc.) the opportunity to contribute to wolf and wildlife management.
        Montana wants to know if you think this stamp is a good idea or if you think there should be any changes. It's important for both residents and nonresidents of Montana to comment, as both will be able to use the stamp.

Please submit your comment here: http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/armRules/pn_0177.html
Comments are due Friday, August 22, 2014!

Here's a sample comment for a nonresident:

I live in _________ and visit Montana several times a year/plan to visit Montana in the future; one of the main reasons I go to Montana/plan to visit Montana is to enjoy Montana's rich array of wildlife, especially wolves, in a non-consumptive manner. I believe that the proposed Wolf Conservation Stamp is a good idea, and I know I would buy them to support Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and their efforts to coexist with wolves using methods other than lethal management. 
I would suggest a few changes; in the proposed rule, change the stamp from "wolf management stamp " to "wolf conservation stamp". Make sure that "non-lethal" is specified. These stamps should go exclusively to non-lethal wolf management, as FWP already gets its lethal management funds from consumptive users. Especially, I would like to see money go toward non-lethal proactive measures to prevent wolf/livestock conflict. I approve of the proposal's inclusion of money going towards the purchase and maintenance of wolf habitat; conducting research, education, and outreach; and hiring additional wardens to prevent poaching of wolves and other wildlife.
Thank you for this proposal that gives everyone a say in the management and conservation Montana's amazing wildlife that draws so many people from around the country.

Wood River Wolf Project - Idaho Workshop

       This past week I attended the Wood River Wolf Project's workshop in Idaho. The Wood River Wolf Project is an operation that has helped ranchers in the Sun Valley area of Idaho for almost 7 years. They work to help local ranchers protect their livestock from wolves.
                                     
      How does this help wolves? When wolves kill livestock like cows or sheep, the rancher can call Wildlife Services, a division of the Department of Agriculture who is charged with "resolving wildlife conflicts," to have the wolves killed. But the Wood River Wolf Project helps ranchers to prevent their livestock from being killed in the first place. The Wood River Wolf Project has worked with about 100,000 sheep over the last 7 years with less than 30 sheep lost to wolves over the entire period. Not a single wolf has been killed for depredation (preying on livestock) in the area. 
                                                    .         

          The WWWP uses creative tools like range riders, flagging fences, guard dogs, and night lights. At the workshop, we learned a lot about how to deploy these tools in the field so they work properly. We visited one of several ranches (Lava Lake Lamb) that has had great success keeping wolves and livestock apart. We met some sheep and guard dogs. The dogs serve to provide an extra presence with the sheep and to alert people when wolves are near.

       We also heard from a cattle rancher just outside of Yellowstone National Park . The main message we got from these ranchers was that is was more effective for them to prevent livestock loss in the first place than to wait until livestock has already been lost to wolves. Teaching the resident wolf packs to avoid livestock is better than killing wolves after-the-fact. In other words, proactive prevention works better for ranchers than reactive killing. 

        Non-lethal, predator-friendly ranching is better for ranchers and better for wildlife.

       The Wood River Wolf Project is saving wolves by increasing tolerance and protecting livestock. They have proven that wolves and livestock can coexist on the same landscape, and the project is a model for coexisting with wolves - and other predators - across the country and world. 
      

"Man-Eating Super Wolves"

Don't believe everything you see on TV.
 - especially when it's called "Man-Eating Super Wolves" (looking at you, Animal Planet). Facts can be, and have been, completely distorted for cheap entertainment. Most people see these horror shows and think that wolves really are man-eating beasts. It's really sad that such a popular channel is spreading lies and primal fear of wolves. Wolves need our protection, but who would want to protect something they fear? Wolves directly pay the price for this "entertainment."
        We're pretty upset about what Animal Planet showed about wolves for "Monster Week." They claimed that wolves are running out of prey and are starting to hunt and eat humans regularly (a flat-out lie). Here are the facts. In North America, 2 people have been killed by wolves in last 100 years. The loss of human life was tragic, but it is not a repeating pattern on the wolves' part. The wolf in Minnesota who bit the young camper had been fed by people at that campsite (it had been habituated to human presence). I have spent a lot of time close to wild wolves in many situations: when pups are near, when food is near, when they're  hungry, and never once have I felt remotely threatened. Wolves avoid humans. They DO NOT see us as food. All wild animals deserve our respect but wolves don't deserve our fear. In contrast, black bears have killed 63 people in the last 100 years, dogs kill 30 people EACH year, and cows kill 20 people EACH year (that's 1000 TIMES more people than wolves). Don't let @AnimalPlanet fool you. Wolves are not monsters. 
        Now, many people believe that wolves kill humans and you need to be afraid if wolves are near. How should people know any better with these wild distortions being broadcast on TV as fact? This is a huge setback for dispelling the myths surrounding wolves and gaining public acceptance for wolf recovery and presence on the landscape. 
        Animal Planet is selling flat-out lies about wolves and other wildlife just to gain viewership.

        Please contact them and share your outrage and concerns, and ask them never to air "Man Eating Super Wolves" again: 
http://corporate.discovery.com/contact/viewer-relations/
Or call their Ethics Hotline and leave a comment: 571-262-4899
Share your thoughts, but avoid using swear words and use good grammar. They'll take you seriously that way.

Wolf Watching in Yellowstone, April 2014

For spring break, I again headed to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming to observe wolves in the wild. We saw a total of 11 wolves in three packs: 7 in the Junction Butte Pack, 2 in 755M's group, and 2 in the Lamar Canyon Pack. We were there for about 6 days, and every single day we saw hunting behavior from the wolves. Several times we saw young members of the Junction Butte Pack attempting to hunt some elk. One day, they faced off some elk on the edge of a rocky ledge, then chased one elk down some very treacherous and steep terrain. Then we saw the Lamar Canyon pair chase and test a small group of elk. Several more times we saw the Junction Butte wolves seriously chase some elk; but of all the wolves' kill attempts we witnessed on our trip, we didn't see a single successful hunt. Studies have shown that wolves are only successful about once or twice for every 10 times they attempt a kill. That means they fail 80%-90% of the time. Elk are by no means defenseless against wolves, and many times we saw the elk chasing the wolves. Wolves can be severely injured by their prey. Hunting is a life-or-death event for both predator and prey.
Here are some images from the trip:

These are the two members of the Lamar Canyon Pack, 925M and 926F. 926F is very pregnant, so 925M will have to provide for her and the pups all by himself. Perhaps at this moment he was showing her what he was capable of...but the elk would have none of that!

 889F and 755M. 889F used to be part of the Junction Butte Pack and 755M used to be the alpha male of the Lamar Canyon Pack before 06, his former mate, was shot. While we were there, this pair met up with two young males from the Junction Butte pack. At first, the two males chased 755M because they didn't know him, but eventually they all played together. Interesting inter-pack interaction.

 925M, aka "Big Gray," the current alpha male of the Lamar Canyon Pack.

 926F is the fearless alpha female of the Lamar Canyon Pack. She stopped to face this bull bison, who barely gave her a second glance. He's about 20 times bigger than her and so had nothing to worry about.

 Six of the seven members of the Junction Butte Pack.

 Coyotes on a bull elk carcass (not killed by wolves, but instead probably died of malnutrition)

 A yearling from the Junction Butte Pack spent quite a long time trying to get at this newborn bison calf, but the mother bison was experienced and the young wolf eventually gave up.

Young Junction Butte wolves frolicking while the alpha female was at the den, perhaps giving birth, and the alpha male attends to her.

Wolves and Livestock: Can They Coexist?

Know what's AWESOME? In the whole state of Washington in all of 2013, only one cow was killed by wolves. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has been helping ranchers with awesome, creative ways to keep their livestock safe without having to kill a single wolf in any of Washington's thirteen wolf packs. Non-lethal methods are often very effective, and wolves and livestock CAN coexist. It does take a lot of effort and it's only fair that livestock owners get some help with nonlethal methods, whether from state or federal wildlife agencies or private organizations. Both are at work in Washington and with great results. Wolves usually view cattle and sheep as sort of alien, not as prey. Often, something happens that causes a wolf to associate livestock with food, such as the carcass of a cow or sheep that died of natural causes being left out in the open. The smell of rotting meat will attract wolves and they will scavenge on the carcass, which may cause them to associate living livestock with food. Only 20% of wolves cause problems with livestock, but those problems are highly publicized. The best way to keep livestock safe is to stop wolves from associating livestock with food in the first place, and there are lots of ways to go about this. Even if wolves do start preying on livestock, it's not too late to get them to stop. Here are some very neat and creative nonlethal deterrents and a handbook on how ranchers can use them: http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/livestock_and_wolves.pdf

"Fladry" is a little on the wackier of the non-lethal methods, but it has proven very effective. Fladry is simply red flags along a string. For some reason, something about the fladry trips wolves up and they will not cross the line it makes. Wolves are very intelligent, so in case they do test the boundaries, there's also something called turbofladry, which is fladry with an electric current. So if the wolf tries to touch or step over or under the fladry, it will be met with an unpleasant experience and probably won't try again. Nobody really knows what it is about fladry that deters wolves, but it does. Don't believe it? See for yourself.

This calf in Washington state died of natural causes and this wolf scavenged on it before fladry was erected around the calf (the carcass couldn't be moved). The wolf visited for three days and nights but never once crossed the fladry (though he walked through the barbed wire fence with ease). Eventually he left the area and dispersed to Canada.

Some will argue that killing wolves is the better option to protect livestock, but this is not the case. Killing wolves after wolves kill livestock creates an endless cycle. Killing a wolf or wolf pack after it kills livestock only creates room for more wolves to move in and potentially kill livestock again, so then those wolves will be killed and more wolves will move in...and so on and so forth. Livestock will keep getting killed and the problem won't be solved. But if you teach the resident wolf pack not to harm livestock, then you won't lose livestock in the first place. 
Wolves and livestock can coexist.

If you've ever eaten a steak or worn wool, you're impacting wolves and other predators/wildlife. It doesn't have to be a negative impact, though; please check out http://www.predatorfriendly.org/ to support businesses practicing predator-friendly methods!

Scientists Reject Plan to Delist Wolves

**THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW CLOSED**

*Delisting of the gray wolf is still being considered; if you want to make your voice heard in an unofficial way, hand-write a letter and mail it to: 
                                               Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240

In June, the Obama administration officially proposed removing gray wolves from the federal Endangered Species List EVERYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES. That means that they wouldn't be federally protected.

The government claimed that this proposal was in line with "the best available science" on the issue. A panel of highly qualified scientists was commissioned to review the proposal. Well, they have, and they have REJECTED the proposal, saying it goes AGAINST the best available science. Please read about their conclusions here: http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/pdf/Final_Review_of_Proposed_rule_regarding_wolves2014.pdf
As a result of this, the public comment period on the delisting is REOPENING for 45 days, starting February 10th and ending March 27th. **NOW CLOSED**
Here's where to submit your comment: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-43030
Also, please copy your letter and email it to: feedback@ios.doi.gov 
Every comment counts! Here's what you might want your letter to include. Feel free to use the exact words, but read through first (I encourage you to try to use your own reasons in addition)! Remember to be RESPECTFUL, use proper grammar and spelling, and try not to base your whole argument on emotion - use scientific references! Talk about personal experiences with wolves and why they are important to YOU and young people across the nation. Remember that there is a 5000 CHARACTER LIMIT! (If you have any questions or want to run your letter by me, comment on this post or email at kids4wolves@gmail.com!) Thank you! 
Please comment "done" on this post when you've sent the letter so we can get an idea of how many people are writing! If you're willing, paste your whole letter - we'd love to hear what you're saying!
Here's what you could include in your comments:

 I oppose the proposal to remove gray wolves from the federal Endangered Species List.
     Wolves are still extinct in most of the states across the nation, yet if this proposal were to go through, wolves would be considered NOT endangered in those states. In the states of Washington and Oregon, only about 50-100 wolves exist, yet these would also be considered a not-endangered - "recovered" - population. Under the Endangered Species Act, species cannot be taken off the endangered species list unless they are recovered - which gray wolves are not! If wolves are removed from the endangered species list, then each state will manage their own wolves. States have a proven history of killing as many wolves as possible, often using inhumane and unscientific methods.There are still many habitats in the U.S. where wolves have the potential to thrive, but have yet to move into those areas; removing protection in places where wolves have yet to recover - specifically the Pacific Northwest, California, the Northeast, and the southern Rocky Mountains - is not scientifically justified. Wolves have sustainable populations in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota; federal protection has already been removed in those areas. The only thing that will be accomplished under this proposal is removing federal protection in states that don't yet have a recovered wolf population. The decision to remove a species from the Endangered Species List is supposed to be based on the best available science (as you claim this proposal is), but the panel of highly qualified scientists you commissioned  to review your proposal have rejected it as NOT reflecting the best available science on this issue. They state that, despite what you say in your proposal, the wolves in the Pacific Northwest may be in fact a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in need of continued federal protection. Another one of the main reasons behind your proposal is your assertion that gray wolves, Canis Lupus, never occupied the eastern United States; instead, that a new and entirely seperate species, Canis Lycaon, occupied that region. The panel of geneticists and taxonomists reject that assertion as inconclusive and NOT a reason to strip protection for gray wolves across the whole United States. 

 The scientists whose work is referenced in your proposal also voiced their strong disagreements (and I quote): "“Based on a careful review of the rule, we do not believe that the rule reflects the conclusions of our work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves, or is in accordance with the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act to conserve endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.” Please base your decision on the actual best available science, not the best available politics.
     Many young people care deeply about this issue. I am a member of a group called Kids4Wolves. We work to educate ourselves, our peers, and adults about the truth of wolves - both the good and the not so good (but solvable). We also work to get other young people involved in the process, to keep the policy makers honest when they make these decisions. After all, my generation will have to be the ones to live with the benefits or consequences of whatever your generation decides today. Young people in the United States are perhaps the group to be most effected by your decision.  I implore you to reconsider your proposal to remove federal protection for gray wolves across the whole United States.
Thank you.

"Frozen" - Disney's Portrayal of Wolves

     Disney recently made a new animated musical movie called "Frozen."

     This movie is wildly popular among all ages (#1 in the country, in fact); probably more than 75% of my friends and classmates have seen it and they all are crazy about it. They've all been trying to convince me to go see it. In passing, one of my friends mentioned that there are wolves in the movie. I looked it up on the internet and this is what I found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF7AfwMzrpc
     The vicious wolves, of course, are trying to eat the heroes. My friends say it's no big deal, that people don't even remember the wolf scene; but I think it's solidly reinforcing the Little Red Riding Hood mentality that young (and old) people have of wolves. What do you think is the impression of wolves that people are left with after seeing this? If you didn't know, what would you think about wolves? 

     Wolves do not attack and eat people. The fear of wolves is drilled into our heads starting with fairy tales in our infancy. We don't think to question them, and the idea that wolves are killers is reinforced throughout our lives, from phrases like "thrown to the wolves" to short scenes in movies like Frozen to whole movies like The Grey. Only people who take the time to actually research wolves will know that they are any different than what the media shows them to be. Society will only want to protect something they love, and they won't love something they fear - and they fear wolves. How can anyone be blamed for not knowing that wolves don't kill people? That's all they've been told, and we see wolves demonized at every turn. Why are wolves always the villain? I suppose it's just part of our culture - a part we need to work to change.

Photo of Jesse at Wolf Haven International.