Come to Montana and Poach a Wolf!

You could pay an outfitter in the Northern Rockies $3,600 or $2,900 for a guided hunt to kill one wolf, or you could come to Montana and illegally poach two wolves for $1,135.  And you don't need to worry about losing your hunting privileges for the poaching. 

$1,135 and no revocation of hunting privileges; that was the punishment imposed upon a wolf hunter in northwest Montana that illegally killed two wolves near Glacier National Park last month.

The State of Montana also failed to include those two wolves and another illegally poached wolf in its hunt harvest quota of 75 wolves.

With such a ridiculously light wrist slap, what kind of message is Montana sending about the value of wolves in the state? 

For comparison, two men from Bozeman, Montana, poached one bull elk in Yellowstone National Park a few years ago.  Their punishment?  One of the hunters received 30 days in jail, a year of supervised probation and three years of unsupervised probation (he also pled guilty to a marijuana possession charge).  The other was sentenced to five days in jail already served and three years unsupervised probation.  Each was ordered to pay more than $8,000 in restitution, fines and other costs, and both were banned from hunting for four years and prohibited from visiting Yellowstone for four years.  They were also ordered to forfeit the guns and ammunition they used during their illegal hunt.

And while that was a federal case, Montana has historically not been shy about dishing out some hefty punishments for poaching cases in big sky country. 

But with a very public case of two illegally poached wolves during the state's inaugural wolf hunt, Montana let this wildlife thief off easy and missed a great opportunity to set a strong precedent that illegally killing wolves in Montana will not be tolerated. 

What a shame. 

When an animal is poached, that animal dies a needless death, and, more broadly, everyone is robbed. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Warden Sergeant John Obst nailed it when he said:

[E]very animal poached represents one less opportunity for real hunters, and for everyone, really, who values Montana's wildlife.

It's too bad Montana didn't heed Sergeant Obst's words and drop the hammer with a real punishment for this wolf poacher.

When Will Wild Bison Be Considered Wildlife In Montana?

Wild wolves?  Wildlife.  Wild elk?  Wildlife.  Wild grizzly bears?  Wildlife.  Wild bison?  Livestock.

What the . . . ?

Yes, you read that correctly.  Wild bison are considered livestock in the State of Montana, and thus the Montana Department of Livestock is the lead agency for bison management. 

(Such an absurd system reminds me of an exercise I did in grammar school:  the teacher would list a group of objects together, and the student's job was to pick out the object on the list that didn't fit.  So, for a throwback to the days of recess and naptime, pick out the object that doesn't fit here:  (a) domesticated sheep, (b) domesticated chicken, (c) domesticated pig, (d) wild bison, (e) domesticated turkey.  Time's up.  The correct answer is (d) wild bison.)

I got to thinking about this paradox after reading Ralph Maughan's comment on his Wildlife News website:  "For all those in Montana [Fish, Wildlife and Parks] who say they want the wolf treated like other animals, why can't they say the same about bison?"

That's a damned good point. 

Throughout the significant media coverage of the Montana wolf hunt, you continually read Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) personnel claiming that the time has come for wolves to be managed like all other wildlife in Montana: 

Tom Palmer, FWP spokesman:  "It really gives us a chance to show Montana can manage wolves smartly and carefully, like it manages all other wildlife in the state." 

Carolyn Sime, FWP's wolf program coordinator:  "I think this hunting season is very important from a symbolic viewpoint.  It's an important benchmark in the timeline of wolves on the Montana landscape.  Here's our first opportunity to manage wolves like other wildlife."

Such comments beg the question, "What about wild bison?"

To be fair to FWP, this asinine system was established by Montana statute.  As such, classifying wild bison as wildlife and transferring management to FWP from the Department of Livestock would have to happen legislatively (e.g., "The Restoration of Sanity to Wildlife Classifications in Montana Act of 2011").

In fact, such a bill was introduced this past legislative session in Montana.  NRDC supported the bill, which was developed and championed by the Gallatin Wildlife Association and formally sponsored by Rep. Mike Phillips.  Unfortunately, however, scare tactics carried the day, and the bill failed to get out of committee. 

The stated justification for wild bison being nonsensically considered livestock is brucellosis -- a disease that causes pregnant animals to abort -- and fear that wild bison may transmit the disease to domestic cattle in Montana.  Yet no documented case of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle has occurred in the wild. 

And elk, which can also have brucellosis, are (properly) considered wildlife and managed by FWP.  As Rep. Phillips said, "If you argue for the continuation of the status quo, you can't argue against the notion the (livestock) department should have authority over elk."  And that's something nobody wants. 

The preposterous management scheme surrounding wild bison in Montana makes no sense and needs to change.  Hopefully it will during the next Montana legislative session, which begins in January 2011.

In the meantime, the next time you read a quote from a FWP official celebrating the management of wolves like "all other wildlife in Montana," remember to translate that to:

"All wildlife but wild bison."

(Bison photo by Seamus Murray on Flickr)

Wildlife Roundup: the Good News

This month’s news about wildlife and wildlife habitat that you can feel good about:

• Scotland just announced an ambitious plan to create the Great Trossachs Forest by systematically restoring over 24,000 acres of forest, grassland, and wetland habitat in western Scotland. The project will take two centuries to fully realize (they have to grow new forests in many places) and will encompass Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park.

• As I previously mentioned, Canada is pursuing a reintroduction effort of black footed ferrets into the Grasslands National Park.  The first ferrets in the program were just released.
• The larvae of a rare English marsh moth has been recorded in record numbers at the Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes National Nature Reserve in Lincolnshire, England.  Farther south, an armature naturalist recently found a small Ranunculus moth in her Norfolk county garden.  The species was believed to be extinct in county, having been last recorded in 1913.  The article goes onto to quote Jim Wheeler, “Norfolk recorder of moths” (really? that’s a job?) as saying ““It's been a very good years for moths. Lots of species have appeared that we haven't seen for a while.”
• Twenty thousand endangered cutthroat trout, the only species of trout native to the Colorado River, have been released in Utah.  The release of the fingerlings into the Colorado is part of ongoing attempts to help recover the fish.
• Nepal has expanded protected tiger habitat in its Bardia National Park by 900 square kilometers (about 350 square miles).  Nepal also announced that it would beef up of its regulatory and law enforcement efforts aimed at conserving the country’s tiger population.

• Scientific American’s John Platt reports that rare birds are doing well in Britain these days, which is consistent with some of the good news we’ve been reporting here for the last several months: “Of the 63 rarest U.K. bird species (those with fewer than 1,000 breeding pairs), nearly 60 percent have seen population increases. They include the osprey, corncrake, avocet, cirl bunting and stone-curlew, all of which have enjoyed the benefits of focused conservation programs.” 
• Gurney’s pitta, an endangered bird found in Thailand and Myanmar (and once thought to be extinct in the wild) is rebounding.  Scientists now believe that there are probably 20,000 breeding pairs of Gourney’s pitta in Myanmar along—double the population previously assessed.

Giving Credit Where It’s Due (And Pointing Out When It’s Not)

As I’ve noted, the last couple of weeks have been good ones for the polar bear, with the Obama Administration proposing both the designation of over 200,000 square miles of critical habitat the bear and increased international restrictions on polar bear trophy hunting and commercial trade.  The Administration—and, especially Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s team—deserve a lot of credit for these moves.  Well, NRDC believes in giving credit where it’s due.  So today we are running this print ad in Washington, D.C.:

At the same time, all has not been rosy at the Department of the Interior.  While the Secretary has been taking some good steps on polar bears, the Minerals Management Service continues to approve offshore oil and gas exploration in their Alaska habitat. 

The Department of the Interior has also pressed forward with stripping Endangered Species Act protections from the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf.  That decision allowed Montana and Idaho to open hunting seasons on these still-imperiled animals.  The result has been devastating, particularly to some wolf packs who live the border of Yellowstone National Park.  NRDC is challenging these actions in court.  That means the Obama Administration still has the power to reverse course, agree to relist the wolf, and call off the wolf hunt.

So far, neither Secretary Salazar nor President Obama have evinced much interest revisiting their misguided gray wolf policy.  So now we’re raising money to run another ad:

If you want to contribute to help run this ad, you can go here.

Overall, the Obama Administration has been a huge step forward for the environment.  From global warming policy, to public health, the Administration has already done a lot of commendable work.  But they don’t always make the correct call.  When they do the right thing, we’re going to let them know, and say “thanks.”  When do do the wrong thing?  We’ll be there as well.

Investor’s Business Daily Misleads on Polar Bears

Investor’s Business Daily just published a foolish editorial about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recent proposal to designate over 200,000 square miles of Alaskan coast and sea ice as “critical habitat” for the State’s beleaguered polar bear population.  The editorial doesn’t contain much in the way of actual substance, and what substance it does have is mostly bunk.  Here’s a sample:

The administration creates the mother of all protected habitats for a species whose numbers have increased since Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

Wrong.  In fact, not even close to being right.  The global population of polar bears is thought to number between 20,000 and 25,000 individuals.  No scientist of whom I’m aware suggests that this number has increased since 2006, when “An Inconvenient Truth” was released.  Way back in 2005, of the 19 recognized polar bear sub-populations, 5 were thought to be declining, only 2 were thought be increasing, and five were thought to be stable.  As for the rest, we simply didn’t know.  One of those declining populations, by the way, is in the Southern Beaufort Sea, where much of Alaska’s polar bears are located.  Today, the situation has only deteriorated.

The editorial also states:

One of the nine critical errors Judge Michael Burton found in Gore's film was the claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for ice melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court said it was aware of were four that died following a storm.

Well, I can’t speak to Judge Burton’s ruling, but as a factual matter this is also wrong.  In 2005 scientists did indeed spot four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea during regular transect surveys of the area and following an intense storm.  But based on extrapolation from the area surveyed, they estimate that as many as 27 bears could have died.  It was the first time in over a quarter-century that such a mass-drowning event had ever been recorded.  In 2008 a large number of swimming bears was also reported in the same area.  As sea ice continues to retreat farther from land and the distance polar bears need to swim grows, such mass drowning events are projected to increase, not only in the Beaufort Sea, but in other places as well.

If Investor Business Daily wants to editorialize about designating critical habitat for the polar bear, fine.  But guys, get your facts straight first.

Wolves Increase Biodiversity And Greatly Benefit The Ecosystems They Inhabit

Wolves matter.

They lead to more songbirds.  Better trout habitat.  More game birds.  Less insects.  Better soil.  Fewer coyotes.  Wilder elk.  More aspen trees.

Wolves, in essence, are key to a healthy landscape. 

So says biologist Christina Eisenberg in a fascinating Missoulian article on the effect of wolves -- and their absence -- on an ecosystem.   

Eisenberg has been studying the top-to-bottom effect of wolves -- called a "trophic cascade" -- in Glacier National Park for years.  She's also been researching ecosystems near St. Mary's, Montana, and in Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta, Canada. 

"Each study site is about the same size, and each has a similarly large elk population, native to an aspen-based winter range, and each has the same general density of cougars and bears."  The difference between the sites is the number of resident wolves:  St. Mary's has none, Waterton some, and Glacier many.

Her findings on the much heated debate over wolves and elk mirror what others have found:  there are plenty of elk in the Northern Rockies, but the return of wolves has made the elk behave again like wild elk: 

The North Fork, Eisenberg said, is "full of wolves," and has been for 20 years now.  It's also full of elk - as many as 14 elk per square kilometer in this meadow, where the wolf den site is located.  Elk scat litters the ground not 20 yards from the den.

Clearly, the wolves aren't eating all the elk.  But aside from the tracks and the scat and the bones and the antlers, there are no elk to be seen.

"They've totally changed their behavior," Eisenberg said.  "For 60 years we've become used to complacent elk.  These elk aren't complacent.  They're on high alert."

From a browse standpoint, that means elk eat a bit and move on, eat a bit and move on, never standing in one place long enough to eat a tree down to its roots.  And from a human standpoint, it means hunters see far fewer elk even as state wildlife officials insist Montana has more deer and elk than it's had for years.

...

Hunters, of course, prefer elk that aren't quite so wily, but trophic cascades work both ways in wildlife management.  Remove the wolves, and elk are easier to find.  But then coyote populations explode, eating their way through the local game-bird population.  Enhance one hunting opportunity, and you affect another.

And from a bigger viewpoint than just elk, Eisenberg has found that wolves increase biodiversity and greatly benefit the overall health of the areas they inhabit:

Remove the wolves, she said, and you lose the birds.

Remove the wolves, she said, and the coyotes fill the niche.  The coyotes eat the ground squirrels, and so the meadows don't get "plowed," and soil productivity declines.

Remove the wolves, she said, and the deer eat the river-bottom willows, and the bull trout lose both their shade and their food, as insects no longer fall from overhanging brush.

Remove the wolves, she said, "and everything changes."

Why is this so noteworthy?

[B]ecause the places with greatest biodiversity are the places most resilient, most able to adapt to, say, changing climate.

And Eisenberg wisely thinks her -- and others' -- findings should guide wolf management.

Wolf populations aren't recovered with 12 breeding pairs, or 15, or 20, Eisenberg said.  They're recovered when there are enough wolves and other top-end predators to maximize biodiversity.  

Her findings are important, and they're timely, as wolves are being gunned down all over Idaho and Montana right now. 

In her research and in this article, Eisenberg simply and unequivocally points out a critical fact that's been lost in the recent debate over the wolf hunts:

Wolves matter.

Some Recent Wolf News (Besides The ID and MT Wolf Hunts)

While the wolf hunts currently taking place in Idaho and Montana have garnered most of the wolf-world's attention recently, other wolf stories have surfaced in the past few weeks.  Discussed below are a few of them:

(1)  Science Daily reports that according to a new study published in the journal Bioscience, the catastrophic decline around the world of "apex" predators (e.g., wolves, cougars, lions, sharks, etc.) has led to a huge increase in smaller "mesopredators" (e.g., coyotes, raccoons, skunks, baboons, etc.), which is causing major economic and ecological disruptions worldwide.  The article states:

[I]n North America all of the largest terrestrial predators have been in decline during the past 200 years while the ranges of 60 percent of mesopredators have expanded.

...

The elimination of wolves is often favored by ranchers, for instance, who fear attacks on their livestock.  However, that has led to a huge surge in the number of coyotes, a "mesopredator" once kept in check by the wolves.  The coyotes attack pronghorn antelope and domestic sheep, and attempts to control them have been hugely expensive, costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

"The economic impacts of mesopredators should be expected to exceed those of apex predators in any scenario in which mesopredators contribute to the same or to new conflict with humans," the researchers wrote in their report.  "Mesopredators occur at higher densities than apex predators and exhibit greater resiliency to control efforts."

What to do?  Simple: return native predators to suitable habitats to restore balance to those ecosystems.  The ecological importance of predators cannot be overstated, which more media sources seem to be reporting, as evidenced by a New York Times piece flagged by Andrew Wetlzer.  Raising awareness about the value of predators is a great development.

(2)  Elk hunters headed to Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming a couple of weeks ago to help reduce the area's elk population.  A spokesperson for the park said the elk population there is currently about 12,500 animals, and wildlife managers would like to reduce the population to about 11,000 elk.  So elk tags for the national park were issued to hunters to help thin the population.

Wait a second.  I thought wolves were decimating all the elk herds in the Northern Rockies.  There are too many elk around Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming?  And hunters are going to help thin the population?  I am seriously confused. 

(3)  Montana's general elk hunting season opened yesterday.  According to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, this year's elk season in Montana could be nothing short of exceptional.  According to FWP's 2009 Elk Hunting Outlook:

Montana has more than 135,000 elk and thousands of hopeful hunters making plans for an elk hunt.  This could be an exceptional year for elk hunting if the precipitation the state has seen this summer continues in the form of snow.  Montana's general elk hunting season opens Oct. 25.

"Hunters are going to see very healthy populations of elk and liberal hunting opportunities.  If the weather works in hunters' favor, and they do some advance work to gain access where it's needed, plenty of elk are potentially available for harvest," said Quentin Kujala, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks wildlife management section chief.

Okay, now I'm really confused.  "135,000 elk."  "Exceptional year."  "Very healthy populations of elk."  "Plenty of elk are potentially available for harvest."  Why do some hunters continue to say wolves have decimated the elk herds in the Northern Rockies when it's just not true?

(4)  And on the "wolves are ridiculously cool" front, a recent Billings Gazette article discusses the wanderlust instincts of two wolves from the Mill Creek pack of Montana's Paradise Valley, which is just south of our office in Livingston.  The wolves, who were littermates, were born in the spring of 2007 and radio-collared later that year.  Both died this year following remarkable journeys.  The male, SW266M, was shot in Wyoming's Bighorn Mountains in October, and his sister, SW341F, was found dead in March in northwestern Colorado's Eagle County. 

341F's famous trek, which was recorded by a GPS device, took her from Montana to Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho and Utah before she was killed in Colorado.  And her brother's voyage to the Bighorns, which was not recorded by GPS, "would require a walk of a couple hundred miles across some of the most rugged country in south-central Montana and northwestern Wyoming, several rivers, not to mention trekking through the Bighorn Basin, a high-desert stretch of country intermixed with farms and ranches."  And that's assuming it was "a fairly straight trek."

It's a shame these two adventurous wolves' lives were cut so short, but they give us another reason to love wolves.  And they make me wonder where other wolves from the Mill Creek pack are currently headed . . .

(Wolves photo by will.sebastian on Flickr)

Climate Change and BioGems: Taking a Stand with NRDC for the International Day of Climate Action on October 24

Over the last week or so, I have been blogging about the impacts of climate change on several of our BioGems.  From  the tundra of America's Arctic in Alaska to the tropics of Costa Rica, all of our BioGems are at risk not only from short-sighted schemes, but also from higher temperatures, shifting weather patterns, and altered habitats.  We have been urging our more than 600,000 BioGem Defenders and other citizens to join NRDC and 350.org in taking action on October 24th to pressure politicians worldwide to take decisive action to curb emissions of carbon dioxide which have already concentrated in the atmosphere at more than 350 ppm - which scientists say is the safe upper limit. There are plans for more than 4500 events in 181 countries.     

Here are photos of my colleagues in our offices across the United States taking a stand for 350 and the protection of our ultimate biological gem - the Earth:

New York

Washington DC

Montana (where they are really worried about Yellowstone and grizzly bears)

San Francisco

Los Angeles

A setback for wolf science

A news article in today's issue of Science magazine discusses the consequences of the northern Rockies wolf hunts on years of scientific research on some of the most well-studied wolves in North America - those of Yellowstone National Park.  Since their introduction into the park in 1995, scientists from both the government and various universities have studied their movements, behavior, genetics and basic biology.  It provided one of the few research studies of a natural wolf population - in the absence of exploitation by humans - that allowed researchers to document the wolves as they aged to determine the natural length of their lives, for example, and their reproductive success over the years.  But with the onset of the first wolf hunts in the region since wolves were eradicated in the 1930s, some of that research is now being compromised.

Although the park wolves themselves still retain protection, the park boundaries are not discernable to the wolves and when one of the packs ventured north of the park earlier this month, several members - including the alpha male and female and two research wolves representing years worth of data - were killed in Montana's hunt.  The loss of these wolves was clearly lamentable to the scientists who have spent years studying these wolves.  Dr. Daniel McNulty is quoted saying, "Any time radio-collared animals are lost, it's a huge setback for our research."  And the park's lead biologist, Doug Smith, points out that much of the information they collected on these wolves may no longer be relevant to some of their long term research questions since the wolves' lives came to an unnatural end.

Allowing hunting just outside the park boundaries increases the isolation of YNP wolves from other wolves in the region - an issue of ongoing concern over the delisting of wolves from the endangered species act.  As Dr. Bob Wayne, a wolf geneticist, points out, these hunts are likely to turn the area around the park into "predator sinks" by removing any young, dispersing wolves.  "This shouldn't have happened," he is quoted as saying. "Yellowstone's wolves should have absolute protection."

At a time when wolves have yet to reach full recovery and in a place designated to preserve the natural wilderness of the region, we couldn't agree more.

In An Important Step, U.S. Designates Polar Bear Critical Habitat

It’s been a good couple of weeks for polar bears.  First, the Department of the Interior announced that it would propose tighter international regulations of polar bear trophy hunting and trade under international law and, today, the Department of the Interior unveiled a proposal to designate 200,000 square miles of “critical habitat” for the polar bear in Alaska.

According to Thom Strickland, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, who announced the designation at a press conference today, about 93% of the areas designated is composed of offshore sea ice.  He also said that, if approved, the proposal would be the largest designation of critical habitat in the history of the Endangered Species Act.

The Endangered Species Act requires the designation of critical habitat (defined as those areas essential to a species’ conservation) for all species listed as threatened or endangered.  Once designated, the federal government is prohibited from taking any action that could “adversely modify” that habitat.  While lawyers have argued endlessly over what, exactly, that phrase means, I think its fair to say that its considered one of the more protective standards the Endangered Species Act has to offer.  Indeed, species that have designated critical habitat have been found to be more than twice as likely to be recovering, and less than half as likely to be declining, as those without it.

The implications of a good critical habitat designation in Alaska are profound.  As a glance at the map below shows, just protecting known polar bear denning locations in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, could greatly influence oil and gas exploration and drilling there. 

The really cool (and valuable) thing about the Endangered Species Act’s critical habitat provisions, though, is that they don’t just protect the bears themselves, but the places those bears need—which includes not only occupied habitat, but essential unoccupied habitat as well.  Thus, if you were to look not just at known den sites, but suitable denning habitat in the Refuge, you would get a map that looks more like this:

Nor is it only denning habitat that should be protected.  Other habitat (such as offshore sea ice) that supports essential polar bear life functions needs to be designated as well.  That’s particularly important to keep in mind because, just this week another federal agency, the Minerals Management Service, approved plans for exploratory oil drilling in the polar bear’s offshore habitat in the Beaufort Sea and is considering a similar drilling proposal in the Chukchi Sea. 

On top of that, impacts beyond oil and gas developments, including things like toxic contamination, are also subject to the Endangered Species Act’s critical habitat provisions.

It’s often easy to feel hopeless about the plight of the polar bear--and, it’s true, that if we don't do something about climate change, the bear’s in deep, deep trouble--but today’s announcement is a hopeful reminder that there are still lots of ways we can help the bear and that U.S. law contains many mechanisms that give polar bears a fighting chance.

UPDATE:  The full proposed rule is now available here.