Utah Republican Introduces Resolution Opposing Reintroduction Of Wolves In Colorado 

Only A Republican in another state would think that he could keep the PUBLIC from making their own Decision. But then here lately, Republicans do not seem to want to listen to the public. While holding a position that they are somehow above the Law.

A Utah Republican state lawmaker is pushing a resolution condemning its neighbor, Colorado, if voters there decide to pass a November ballot initiative to reintroduce gray wolves into the southern Rockies.

Bill sponsor Rep. Logan Wilde said Colorado shouldn’t put the public in charge of this kind of decision and worries the wolves will cross the border and enter neighboring Utah.

“This is the public going out and introducing wolves randomly. We don’t think that’s a good plan,” he said.

While the resolution appears to be just a finger wag at Colorado, it warns of potential economic impacts in Utah due to wolf reintroduction.

“We’ll end up with a lot of conflict between the state of Utah … the property owners … wildlife groups,” Wilde said. “It’s just problematic for us.”

Wolves were first reintroduced into the Mountain West in Yellowstone National Park and Idaho more than two decades ago. The animals’ population has since flourished and a handful recently trickled down into northwest Colorado, near Utah’s border. But Wilde’s resolution calls the Colorado initiative an “artificial reintroduction” which will increase population numbers exponentially there.

Rick Ritter, campaign spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund, scoffed at the idea that the reintroduction was “artificial.”

“Wolves were here long before man, in the Rocky Mountains, so the notion that [the reintroduction] is artificial is particularly egregious,” he said.

If Coloradans do vote to reintroduce wolves there, state wildlife officials would then begin holding statewide hearings and using scientific data to implement a plan to restore and manage the animals west of the continental divide.

Source: Utah Republican Introduces Resolution Opposing Reintroduction Of Wolves In Colorado | Wyoming Public Media https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/807756641.png #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews

New bill will make it easier for the WDFW to target Wolves who kill cattle.

Leave it up to Crooked Joel Kretz to come  up with legislation to kill wolves easier….. Washington States Ethics Committee let him skate by when he encouraged Social Violence when He said that “Dr Robert Wielgus should be quartered up and a piece left in each corner of his District.”

A new bill in the Washington Legislature seeks to help mitigate the threat that some Washington wolves potentially pose to livestock by mandating radio collars for those in “problem packs.”

For years, ranchers have complained that growing wolf populations in northeastern Washington are killing their livestock. The issue can be contentious between ranchers who’ve had their cattle killed by wolves, and those opposed to lethal removal orders of said wolves.

A new bill in the Washington Legislature seeks to help mitigate the threat that some Washington wolves potentially pose to livestock by mandating radio collars for those in “problem packs.”

For years, ranchers have complained that growing wolf populations in northeastern Washington are killing their livestock. The issue can be contentious between ranchers who’ve had their cattle killed by wolves, and those opposed to lethal removal orders of said wolves.

Washington state giving out $350,000 in non-lethal wolf deterrence grants

The bill has 11 co-sponsors and was introduced by Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, reports the Spokesman. It stipulates that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) “must radio collar at least two wolves in every pack in conflict. The department is encouraged, but not required, to radio collar at least one wolf in every pack in the state that has been confirmed by the department.”

The collars would allow ranchers to track where wolves are and make it easier for the WDFW to target the ones who killed cattle.

In 2019, wolves killed and injured a number of cattle. The WDFW killed several of the offending wolves, which was met with outrage and lawsuits from conservation groups. There was also anger on the part of ranchers who felt that the WDFW hasn’t responded fast enough to the cattle killings.

Threats lead to cancellation of meetings about Washington wolves

A new bill in the Washington Legislature seeks to help mitigate the threat that some Washington wolves potentially pose to livestock by mandating radio collars for those in “problem packs.”

For years, ranchers have complained that growing wolf populations in northeastern Washington are killing their livestock. The issue can be contentious between ranchers who’ve had their cattle killed by wolves, and those opposed to lethal removal orders of said wolves.

Washington state giving out $350,000 in non-lethal wolf deterrence grants

The bill has 11 co-sponsors and was introduced by Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, reports the Spokesman. It stipulates that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) “must radio collar at least two wolves in every pack in conflict. The department is encouraged, but not required, to radio collar at least one wolf in every pack in the state that has been confirmed by the department.”

The collars would allow ranchers to track where wolves are and make it easier for the WDFW to target the ones who killed cattle.

In 2019, wolves killed and injured a number of cattle. The WDFW killed several of the offending wolves, which was met with outrage and lawsuits from conservation groups. There was also anger on the part of ranchers who felt that the WDFW hasn’t responded fast enough to the cattle killings.

Threats lead to cancellation of meetings about Washington wolves

According to the WDFW, 14 wolves in eight packs are collared, and their lethal policy enables termination if any wolves attack livestock three times in a 30-day period (or four times in a 10-month period), as well as under the condition that two nonlethal deterrents have already been tried.

The bill is supported by the Washington Cattleman’s Association, though environmental groups sent a letter in opposition, arguing that collaring is difficult, poses a danger to the wolves, and is the wrong application of limited resources.

Source: New bill would collar ‘problem’ wolves in Washington state https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/denaliwolfeye-2-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-2-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-1-300×200-300×200-300×200-300×200-300×200-1.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInWashington

Arizona Wildlife managers investigate deaths of 3 Mexican wolves 

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — State and federal wildlife managers are investigating the death of three endangered Mexican gray wolves found last month in Arizona.

Officials with the wolf recovery team did not release any details about the circumstances of the animals’ deaths or the specific areas where they were found. One of the wolves was a female that belonged to the Saffel Pack. The other two were single females.

Officials also reported that wolves were found to be responsible for seven livestock kills in January. Two nuisance incidents also were investigated.

A subspecies of the Western gray wolf, Mexican wolves have faced a difficult road to recovery that has been complicated by politics and conflicts with livestock since reintroduction efforts began more than two decades ago in Arizona and New Mexico.

Survey results released last year indicated there were at least 131 wolves in the wild in the two states at the end of 2018. The population count for 2019 is expected to be released in the coming weeks.

Source: Wildlife managers investigate deaths of 3 Mexican wolves | AP CNN | azfamily.com https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/5c1450822cc73.image_.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews

High-altitude genes could turn Himalayan wolves into a new species 

Genetic analysis suggests they differ significantly from gray wolves

In the high grasslands of Earth’s tallest mountains lives a group of wolves known for their long snouts, pale woolly pelts, and low-pitched calls. Now, their genes are also setting them apart. A new study suggests these wolves—which range across northern India, China, and Nepal—are genetically distinct from the gray wolves that live nearby, thanks to genes that help them cope with the thin air above 4000 meters.

“This is a very exciting study,” says Ben Sacks, a canine evolutionary ecologist at the University of California, Davis. It “provides the first compelling evidence for the distinctiveness of [the Himalayan] wolf.” The finding supports previous calls for it to be recognized as a separate species, and it also suggests the wolf’s range is twice as large as was thought.

Himalayan wolves live at higher altitudes than grays, which range across eastern China, Mongolia, and Kyrgyzstan, and their habits are different, too. Whereas gray wolves primarily eat rodents, Himalayan wolves add the occasional Tibetan gazelle to the mix. And Himalayans howl their own tune, with cries of a shorter duration and lower frequency than those of grays.

Now, samples of wolf feces collected across the Tibetan Plateau of China, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan provide genetic evidence that it is a different breed. Researchers extracted DNA representing 86 Himalayan wolves from the samples. Analysis showed that, unlike gray wolves, Himalayans carry specialized genes that help them overcome a lack of oxygen, including ones that strengthen the heart and boost the delivery of oxygen through the blood. The adaptations, which the team reports today in the Journal of Biogeography, resemble those of Tibetan people and their dogs (which are believed to have been interbred with Himalayan wolves), and domesticated yaks.

The widespread presence of scat from Himalayan wolves also suggests they are not restricted to the Himalayas, but roam the entire Tibetan Plateau at elevations above 4000 meters.

Together, these findings suggest the high-living wolf should be considered a distinct species—or at least as an “evolutionary significant unit,” the researchers write. And they support previous research suggesting these little-studied canids are the oldest lineage of modern wolves, having diverged from other wolves between 630,000 to 800,000 years ago.

Source: High-altitude genes could turn Himalayan wolves into a new species | Science | AAAS https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Himalayan_wolf_1280x720.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews

Wolves regurgitate blueberries for their pups to eat 

protect the wolves, ban grazing allotments

Gray wolves are known to snack on blueberries, but the animals do more than fill their own bellies. A new, serendipitous observation shows an adult wolf regurgitating the berries for its pups to eat, the first time anyone has documented this behavior.

Wolves have a well-earned reputation as skillful hunters with a taste for large, hoofed ungulates like deer and moose. But scientists are increasingly recognizing that these predators have an exceptionally varied diet, partaking in everything from beavers and fish to fruit.

In 2017, biologist Austin Homkes of Northern Michigan University in Marquette got a sense of just how important this mixed diet could be for wolves. A cluster of signals from a GPS collar on a wolf led Homkes to a meadow just outside Minnesota’s Voyageurs National Park. Homkes, who was studying the animals’ predatory and dietary habits, thought he was headed for a spot where the wolf had killed a meal. But it turned out to be a rendezvous site, with adult wolves bringing food to their no longer den-bound pups.

Scientists are increasingly recognizing that meat-eating wolves have an exceptionally varied diet, noshing even on blueberries. Now a study has shown that the animals regurgitate blueberries to feed to their young. This video shows a 1-year-old male dubbed V081, part of the Sheep Ranch Pack, gobbling berries during the summer of 2019.

Homkes watched from a distance as several pups gathered around an adult wolf, licking up at its mouth. This behavior stimulates adult wolves to throw up a recent meal. Sure enough, the adult began vomiting, and the pups eagerly ate what accumulated on the ground. After the wolves left, Homkes got closer and saw that the regurgitated piles were purely of partially chewed blueberries, he and colleagues report February 11 in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.

“It’s a pretty big part of wolf ecology that was right under our noses that we didn’t see,” Homkes says.

Until now, he and his colleagues thought pups in the region just casually munched on berries while hanging around rendezvous sites, which often contain blueberry plants. The fruit may be an underappreciated food source for the pups, the researchers think.

Conservation biologist Robert Mysłajek of the University of Warsaw says the discovery is an “interesting complement” to our knowledge of the species. “Such observations should be especially important for wildlife managers, who often focus only on wolf-ungulate interactions, forgetting about other food items consumed by wolves,” Mysłajek says.

The findings are generating plenty of questions. Homkes is curious about the nutritional value of blueberries for the mostly carnivorous wolves, and the consequences of a bad berry year. “What happens when blueberries are not available if a pack is used to relying on them?” he wonders.

Source: Wolves regurgitate blueberries for their pups to eat | Science News https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/wpups-300×187-300×187.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews

Wolf vs. Elk: Colorado Complaining

Colorado Hunters slaughter nearly 50,000 Elk per year its reported in Colorado Encyclopedia, and they are complaining what wolves will do? Seriously????

Colorado complaining follows:

Does anyone see the coming conflict with the apparent shrinking number of elk in southwest Colorado, and the reintroduction of wolves?

Increasing bear numbers are part of the problem of fewer calves surviving. Add wolves to that equation and what happens to the elk that are left?

Blaming hunters for a few weeks in the fall does not address the question of year-round predation by these animals that live on deer, elk, livestock, and down to the smaller critters like rabbits.

Whose side are you on?

 

Source: Letters: Wolf vs. Elk: Whose side will you be on? https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/denaliwolfeye-2-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-2-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-1-300×200-300×200-300×200-300×200.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews

Wildlife Commission Rejects Expanded Wolf Hunts in Northwest Montana 

 

Is Montana Listening?? A Blessing for Our Sacred Resources in Yellowstone!

Despite a proposal from state wildlife managers to extend the general wolf-hunting and trapping seasons in Montana’s northwest corner while doubling its allowable harvest quota, members of the state Fish and Wildlife Commission on Feb. 13 elected to maintain the current season dates and quotas as spelled out under the 2019 regulations.

The rule-making body also voted to tighten wolf quotas in hunting districts 313 and 316 north of Yellowstone National Park, reducing allowable take from two wolves to one after hearing public comment from wolf advocates who say non-consumptive wildlife viewers deserve a seat at a table increasingly dominated by a vocal minority of hunters who want to see wolf populations decimated.

Speaking during public comment at the rule-making meeting in Helena, former Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Gary Wolfe, of Missoula, said he’s a bit of an anomaly as a hunter who also wants to see healthy wolf populations on the landscape.

Although Wolfe said he supported the current limited harvest quota of one wolf in each of the districts flanking Yellowstone, he bristled at the proposal by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ (FWP) Region 1 officials to expand hunting opportunities in northwest Montana.

“This is not a biological objection but a social one, because the optics of this proposal are terrible,” Wolfe said. “From the perspective of conservation-minded sportsmen, it just isn’t ethical. It doesn’t look good. The perception it sends is that the department is catering to those folks who would like to eliminate wolves from the landscape. I don’t envy the commissioners in that seat right now. These are difficult decisions.”

According to wildlife officials with FWP’s Region 1, whose jurisdiction encompasses Flathead, Lincoln, Sanders, and Lake counties, the proposed changes to the wolf hunting and trapping seasons emerged from the latest biennial season-setting process involving the review of hunting season structures for most game animals and other managed species. FWP regional staff met and took input from local communities at four meetings across northwest Montana this winter. More than 900 public comments were also received online from Dec. 5 to Jan. 27 and forwarded to commissioners and FWP staff for their consideration.

“We heard from a substantial number of people attending the public meetings throughout northwest Montana who requested additional opportunity for wolves,” FWP Regional Wildlife Manager Neil Anderson said. “Biologically, we have the wolf population to sustain additional harvest opportunity and wanted to be responsive to public input and participation.”

The proposed changes included extending the general hunting season to begin Aug. 15 and end March 31 (currently, archery season begins Sept. 1, while general season begins Sept. 15 and ends March 15); extending trapping season to March 15 (currently, it ends Feb. 28); and increasing the individual limit to 10 wolves per person (the current individual limit is five).

Before the commission voted unanimously to maintain the current hunting and trapping regulations for wolves, Commissioner Pat Byorth characterized the proposal as a “pander” that will appease some critics of the state’s wolf management plan but won’t make any real difference on the landscape.

“The Region 1 proposal came late and it’s a sea change. And it’s going to have implications for wolf management in a lot of regions,” Byorth said. “To me wolves are a valued wildlife resource. I want to keep wolves healthy and keep them on the landscape, but this doesn’t do it. This is a pander to other issues. And we are making a change that will do nothing, and it almost makes a promise to people that it will.”

Nick Gevock, conservation director for the Montana Wildlife Federation, said his organization supports wolf-hunting opportunities in the state, adding that wolf populations are healthy with good genetic exchange. However, he said expanding the timeframe to hunt and trap wolves would create conflict with other wildlife, and increase the potential for bycatch, such as grizzly bears inadvertently being trapped.

“The best conservation model is to have hunters on the ground and harvesting within their limits,” Gevock said. “But don’t extend trapping season. Grizzlies are out there and that’s a dangerous situation for the trapper, for the bear and for your staff.”

Source: Wildlife Commission Rejects Expanded Wolf Hunts in Northwest Montana – Flathead Beacon https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/shutterstock_wolf1.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews

Not quite sure what IDFG is Smoking, shooting or swallowing 

Not quite sure what IDFG is smoking, swallowing or shooting in their arms, but they have gone from an estimated 510 – 800 estimate for wolves in January 2019 to over 1541 the same year just a year later would lead a prudent Individual to believe they certainly have an awesome Drug Supplier.

Last Years (2019) Report

“Fish and Game last year estimated Idaho had 90 packs. The agency doesn’t count individual wolves or provide an overall wolf count number. But it notes that a typical Idaho wolf pack has six to nine wolves — meaning about 540 to 810 wolves in the state”

This Years (2019) Accounting Report in a 2020 article

“At the IDFG commission meeting on Wednesday in Boise, staff reported there were an estimated 1,541 wolves in the state during summer 2019. The estimate represents the peak population shortly after pups were born.”

Source: Idaho wolf control board seeks $200,000 to kill wolves | ktvb.com https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/575551742_360x203.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #WolvesInIdaho #WolvesInTheNews

Second Wolf found dead/Killed in California

This is the second Wolf found Dead in Northern California in the last year. It is time to start cuffing and stuffing, and stop letting the killers off with a slap on the wrist! In Wyoming they let a Guide off without even a slap because he claimed he had forgotten where he was at… That particular wolf was killed within a National Parks Borders!

State fish and wildlife officials are investigating the death of an endangered gray wolf found dead in Shasta County on Wednesday.

The 4-year-old wolf was originally part of the Rogue Pack in Southern Oregon and was believed to be about four years old.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife officials did not announce where the wolf was found or the cause of death.

The female, which was outfitted with a radio collar, crossed from Oregon into Siskiyou County in January 2018. Since then she traveled extensively throughout Northern California, covering some 7,600 miles, before she was found dead somewhere in Shasta County.

OR-7 spent time roaming around Northern California, including Shasta County, before returning to Southern Oregon to start the Rogue Pack.

“Like her dad, the famous wolf OR-7 who came to California years ago, OR-54 was a beacon of hope who showed that wolves can return and flourish here. Her death is devastating, no matter the cause,” she said.

OR-54 became famous in her own right, state officials said, noting she traveled farther south than any other known gray wolf.

In September 2019, OR-54 traveled south of Interstate 80 east of Sacramento and entered Nevada, state officials said. But the wolf returned to California the next day and crossed back over I-80, officials said.

“Her travels represent the southernmost known wolf locations in the state since wolves returned to California in 2011,” officials said on the state fish and wildlife website.

State fish and wildlife officials said gray wolves are protected by the federal and state endangered species acts and that killing a wolf is a potential crime.

Source: Endangered gray wolf OR-54 found dead in Shasta County https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/841f86ac-e045-447c-aec5-87a4e905e253-OR-54.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews

Larkspur poison concerns continue for cattle producers/ far worse than Predators 

larkspur cattle loss

Cattle Loss to Larkspur makes losses to wolves or other predators seem like a drop in the bucket. Cattle Ranchers truly need to wake up and worry about the real problems that cause loss, rather than focusing on an animal that was here long before these self proclaimed 4th and 5th Generation Ranchers.

Losses can be potentially  5-15 percent (According to a former USDA Employee) of the cattle grazing on range with larkspur depending on growth stage, climate conditions, and time of grazing

By Sarah M. Smith, Extension Regional Specialist

Last spring, cattle producers in Washington’s northern Columbia Basin experienced serious problems with larkspur poisoning. Following recent discussions with a producer who saw significant losses in 2015, it seems that larkspur may be as bad in 2016.

With the increased soil moisture and larkspur levels in 2015, cattle producers could see significant larkspur blooms as weather warms this spring.

Larkspur is one of the deadliest, most commonly encountered poisonous plants for cattle on Western U.S. rangelands, usually occurring on foothill ranges in the spring, and in the mountains during summer.

Low larkspur has a spurred blue flower that grows on the top third of a single and unbranched stem. It is found on grassy hillsides and in sagebrush areas, where it may reach a height of two feet. Leaves alternate and are divided into deep, narrow lobes, and the stem is hollow.

Low larkspur tends to grow at lower elevations—unlike tall larkspur, which grows in high elevations—where it matures and becomes dormant before soil moisture is depleted. Low larkspur begins growing in early spring, often before other forages begin growth.

Larkspur can cause heavy cattle losses in infested grazing areas when it is highly palatable to cattle, especially during the flower stage. Larkspur toxicity is highest at the vegetative/bud stage and decreases as it matures. However, the palatability of larkspur for cattle increases as the plant flowers and matures into pods. The toxic window for most cattle death is when the plant flowers and matures into pods, and palatability of the plant is increasing.

Adverse weather conditions, like the cold nights, can also greatly increase consumptions of larkspur. There is a great paragraph on page 5 of Grazing Tall Larkspur Ranges: A Livestock Producer’s Decision Making Handbook, that shows the toxic window and risk of toxicity relative to palatability and toxicity levels.

The lethal dose for cattle for cattle is about 0.5 percent of body weight, requiring only about 5.5 to 7.5 pounds of larkspur to kill a 1100-1500 pound cow. However sheep can tolerate larkspur at high levels, not experiencing lethal does until about 2.0 percent of body weight or about 3.5 pounds for a 180-pound ewe.

The toxic substances are a mixture of several alkaloids. These alkaloids and their relative toxicity and concentrations vary between individual plants, at different locations and between larkspur species. The method of toxicity has been identified as neuromuscular paralysis, leading to respiratory failure, bloat and often death. Signs of poisoning include nervousness, weakness, staggering gait, repeated falling, rapid irregular pulse, straddled stance, mild tremors, salivation, diarrhea, bloat, vomiting, convulsions, and coma. Working cattle suspected of larkspur should be limited, because excitement and physical exercise intensifies all signs of poisoning. Death will usually occur within three to four hours of eating lethal amounts.

There is no proven treatment of larkspur poisoning. Conservative therapy, such as placing an affected animal on its brisket or chest with its head uphill to reduce bloating, is recommended. The most important thing is to avoid unduly exciting an affect animal until it can eliminate the toxins, because larkspur toxins cause paralysis of the neuromuscular system and limit an animal’s ability to breathe.

If a larkspur range is treated with herbicide, do not graze it until until fall. The most common herbicide treatments increase palatability and do not decrease toxicity, even though the treatment will kill the plant. Contact your local chemical company for recommendations on herbicide options.

For more information on larkspur poisoning, view the handbook listed above, or visit the USDA Poisonous Plant Research web site.

• Sarah M. Smith is a Regional Extension Specialist in Animal Sciences, based at Grant-Adams County Extension.

 

Source: Larkspur poison concerns continue for cattle producers | College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences | Washington State University https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Tall-Larkspur-for-OSG-208×300-208×300-1.jpg #CutOffUSDAWildlifeServicesFunding #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews