Feds trap and kill two grey wolves near Glyndon, Minn.

protect the wolves

MOORHEAD, Minn. (KFGO) – Federal wildlife biologists confirm that two grey wolves were recently trapped and killed in an area outside their usual habitat near Glyndon, Minn. The wolves are suspected of killing several calves on a ranch between Glyndon and Hawley.

Rancher Jeff Mortenson says since early April, at least five of his calves have been taken by wolves. Experts from the USDA’s Wildlife Services Division, a government agency that traps and kills nuisance wildlife, arrived at Mortenson’s ranch to verify his claims.

“They looked around and verified that it was a wolf kill” Mortenson said. “They ended up getting the female about a week later after the traps were set. And then, actually the next day, they caught the male.”

USDA Wildlife Services District Director John Hart says the wolves were believed to be a mating pair. He says the male weighed 95 pounds; the female weighed 73 pounds. Hart says grey wolf sightings are rare in Clay County because the area is outside the animal’s regular habitat.

Mortenson says the traps were removed from his land on Monday.  He says so far, there have been no signs of additional wolves in the area.

Source: Feds trap and kill two grey wolves near Glyndon, Minn. | News | KFGO-790

Moose population explodes on Isle Royale as wolves decline 

protect the  wolves, wolves, wolf, native american 501c3

With only two wolves left to feast on them, the moose of Isle Royale National Park are undergoing a population explosion that could endanger the wilderness area’s fir trees and eventually cause many of the moose to starve, scientists said Tuesday.

The unchecked growth of hulking moose at the Lake Superior island park shows the need to take more wolves there, restoring a predator-prey balance that has benefited both species and the park’s ecosystem, Michigan Technological University researchers said in a report. The National Park Service is considering options to restore the wolf population, but hasn’t committed to doing so.

Twenty-four gray wolves in several packs roamed the Michigan park as recently as 2009. But the severely inbred population has dropped steadily and is at its lowest point since biologists began observing the relationship between wolves and moose in the 1950s.

During their annual winter sojourn on the island, scientists Rolf Peterson and John Vucetich conducted aerial surveys and estimated the moose population at 1,600. It could double over the next three to four years unless more wolves arrive soon, they said.

A dip in wolf numbers during the 1990s allowed the moose to approach 2,500. About two-thirds of them died of hunger during a bitter winter in 1996.

Peterson said the park’s balsam fir trees, the preferred food for moose during winter, are being overeaten. Balsam fir is the predominant tree of Isle Royale and has long characterized its landscape.

“It’s a race between the slowly growing trees and the rapidly growing moose,” Peterson said.

Northern Michigan University scientists reported in 2015 that moose browsing had gradually thinned the park’s forests and converted some areas to grassy plains.

Isle Royale consists of one island 45 miles (70 kilometers) long and hundreds of smaller ones. Moose are believed to have arrived there around the turn of the 20th century, while wolves likely crossed ice bridges from the mainland in the late 1940s.

The two surviving wolves, a male and a female, are aging and unlikely to reproduce.

In another sign of the wolves’ decline, the island’s population of another prey species — beaver — has reached about 300, the highest total on record.

A park service report in December listed four alternatives for dealing with the wolf shortage, including letting them die out. The agency said its preference was to relocate 20 to 30 wolves to the island over three to five years.

A public comment period ended in March. The park service is expected to make a decision this fall.

Source: Moose population explodes on island park as wolves decline | Minnesota Public Radio News

Besides the Majority of Republicans we  now have Minnesota Democrats Are Trying to Sabotage the Endangered Species Act

Besides the Majority of Republicans we now have Minnesota and Wisconsin Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin are also working towards Gutting the ESA. Evidently they get alot of Rancher Donations for their campaigns

These are the Very type of Elected Officials that we can Stop if you will support our Research. https://continuetogive.com/protectthewolves

Call Amy and Complain (612) 727-5220 and Tammy at https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/feedback

At this very moment, Congress has before it a pair of bills, one in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate, that seek to remove ESA protections from gray wolf populations in multiple states, and especially the western Great Lakes region. If the bills become law, they would not only override the ESA. They would also preclude judicial review. American citizens, in effect, would no longer be allowed to access civil courts and challenge federal or state wolf management policies in places like Minnesota, Michigan, and more.

“These bills threaten long-term wolf recovery with bad state management plans and a lack of democracy for citizens,” says Melissa Smith, a Great Lakes field representative for the Endangered Species Coalition. “They represent the interests of a vocal minority, including Big Agriculture, the National Rifle Association, and the trophy hunting communities.”

These proposals have crucial support from prominent liberal politicians. Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin are co-sponsoring the Senate bill. A more conservative Democrat, meanwhile, Representative Collin Peterson of Minnesota, introduced the House version.

Democratic backing for such legislation is more than disappointing. It’s deeply misguided. Here’s why:

1. These bills are corrosive to the ESA’s integrity.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which is charged with implementing the ESA using the best available science, has for years tried to remove federal protections for gray wolves in the Great Lakes region. The agency’s delisting attempts, however, have led in all cases to embarrassing defeat in the federal courts.

This legal drama came to a head in 2014, when a district court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the agency’s 2012 decision to remove gray wolves in the Upper Midwest from the ESA violated the law. The court immediately reinstated federal protection for the wolves, writing in its lengthy ruling that the ESA “reflects the commitment by the U.S. to act as a responsible steward for the Earth’s wildlife, even when such stewardship is inconvenient or difficult for the localities where an endangered or threatened species resides.”

These Democrats, with their track record of legislative monkey wrenching, will have little moral ground on which to stand when the Republicans attempt to dismantle our country’s preeminent wildlife law.

The Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the decision at the appellate level, where it is currently being reviewed.

The courts, then, are in the midst of using the law to determine whether gray wolves in the Great Lakes deserve protection or are ready to be delisted. This is the proper venue for deciding the species fate because it relies on the ESA’s own science-centric language to guide the hand of decision-makers.

The wolf bills in Congress, on the other hand, are arbitrary. They do not have any guiding scientific justification. They are purely political. As such, they undermine the integrity of the ESA. If endangered or threatened species are subject to sudden delisting by political actors, what good is the law? If politicians can override its mandates on a whim, is the ESA worth anything at all?

The wolf-delisting Democrats would be wise to think long and hard about such questions, especially given the anti-science and conservation-averse attitude that’s so prevalent in Congress these days. Which leads me to my second point.

2. These bills bolster GOP efforts to weaken or eliminate the ESA outright.

A cockfight is coming in Congress over the ESA. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, has clucked recently that he intends to “repeal it and replace it.”

Late last month, Bishop’s committee took an initial jab at the ESA during a hearing about the law’s alleged detrimental impact on the economy. In a press release issued after the august hearing, the American people learned that the ESA has “jeopardized human health and safety, harmed small businesses and, in many cases, further imperiled species.”

As anti-conservation Republicans stir up opposition to the law, Baldwin, Klobuchar, and Peterson are playing right into their hands. These Democrats, with their track record of legislative monkey wrenching, will have little moral ground on which to stand when the Republicans attempt to dismantle our country’s preeminent wildlife law.

Source: These Democrats Are Trying to Sabotage the Endangered Species Act

Comments Open Management of Wolf Conflicts and Depredating Wolves in Minnesota

protect Minnesota wolves, protect the wolves, wolf, wolves

Please Visit this page and add your comments…. They seem to think that nothing at all will adversely effect the wolf population… Protect The Wolves® has to ask what scientist that accepted payment for making these claims???

Please Click this Link and add your Comment: Regulations.gov – Docket Folder Summary

 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=APHIS-2017-0023

Docket ID: APHIS-2017-0023
Agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Parent Agency: Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Summary:

We are advising the public that the USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services Program has released a new environmental assessment (EA) on alternatives for reducing predation on livestock and other domestic animals, and risks to human safety caused by gray wolves in Minnesota. This notice requests public review and comments on the analysis.

Management of Wolf Conflicts and Depredating Wolves in Minnesota

Source: Regulations.gov – Docket Folder Summary

 

STUDY SNIPPET: its 225 pages Long  at the above Link

Wolf Damage and Conflict Management in Minnesota i SUMMARY The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) and the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have prepared a new Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of alternatives for WS involvement in managing gray wolf (Canis lupus) damage and conflicts in Minnesota. This analysis addresses wolf management in Minnesota while currently protected under the ESA and while under state/tribal management after delisting. Once completed, this EA and the resulting agency Decision will replace the EA completed by WS, the MNDNR and the USFWS in April 2002 (USDA 2002). WS consulted with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1854 Treaty Authority, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Voyageurs National Park, and Superior National Forest during preparation of this EA. Three alternatives for WS involvement in Minnesota wolf conflict management are analyzed including the Preferred Alternative, Integrated Wolf Damage Management (IWDM). Under the preferred alternative, WS would use and/or recommend the full range of legal, practical and effective nonlethal and lethal methods for preventing or reducing wolf damage while minimizing harmful effects of damage management measures on humans, wolves, other species, and the environment in accordance with applicable Federal, State and Tribal wolf management plans. Management strategies would be developed for individual sites by applying the WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992). When appropriate, farm management practices (animal husbandry), frightening devices, exclusion, and livestock guarding animals would be recommended and utilized to reduce wolf damage. In other situations where permitted under applicable regulations and agency and tribal authorizations, wolves would be removed as humanely as possible using foot-hold traps, cable devices, and shooting.

In determining the damage management strategy, preference would be given to nonlethal methods when they are deemed practical and effective. Lethal methods would be used to reduce damage after practical and appropriate nonlethal methods have been considered and determined to be ineffective or inappropriate in reducing damage to acceptable levels. However, nonlethal methods may not always be applied as a first response to each damage problem. The most appropriate initial response to a wolf damage problem could be a combination of nonlethal and lethal methods, or there could be instances where application of lethal methods alone would be the most appropriate strategy. WS damage management assistance could be provided on private or public property in Minnesota when the resource owners/managers request assistance to alleviate wolf damage, and agreements have been completed specifying the details of the damage management action to be conducted. The types of verified wolf conflicts that could be addressed include: 1) depredation/injury of domestic animals, 2) injury and/or potential threats to human safety (e.g. habituated/bold wolves). WS could also assist with capture and monitoring of wolves for research purposes and removal of wolf-dog hybrids. All wolf damage management would be conducted in compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local laws. Wolf Damage and Conflict Management in Minnesota ii A second alternative restricts WS to only using and recommending nonlethal WDM methods. Under this alternative, lethal WDM methods could be implemented by entities other than WS (e.g., the MNDNR, tribes, private landowners or their designated agents) in accordance with applicable federal, state and tribal regulations. As with Alternative 1, WS damage management assistance could be provided on private or public property in Minnesota when the resource owners/managers request assistance to alleviate wolf damage, and agreements have been completed specifying the details of the damage management action to be conducted. The types of verified wolf conflicts that could be addressed include: 1) depredation/injury of domestic animals, 2) injury and/or potential threats to human safety (e.g. habituated/bold wolves). WS could also assist with capture and monitoring of wolves for research purposes. All wolf damage management would be conducted in compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local laws. Under the last alternative considered, WS would not be involved in wolf damage management in Minnesota. All requests for WDM assistance including use of nonlethal and lethal methods would be handled by the MNDNR and their designated agents, tribes or private landowners in accordance with state laws and in accordance with the Minnesota Wolf Management Plan. The environmental issues considered for each alternative include impacts on the wolf population, non-target species including state and federally listed threatened and endangered species, public and pet health and safety, humaneness of the methods to be used, and sociological issues including the aesthetic and sociological values of wildlife.

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Categories

%d bloggers like this: