US Fish and Wildlife Service still hopes to delist, and fairly soon-
Wolves put back on endangered list. Federal officials hope to return animal to state control by ’09. By Matthew Brown. Associated Press
Ed Bangs and crew are saying they will revamp the delisting rules so they can pass muster by Judge Molloy. However, there will be an election in the meantime. It could be that the Obama Administration won’t be interesting in delisting because hatred of wolves and bears now sounds like Palinism. Perhaps she has unitentionally done these animals a favor.
Related. Wyoming state lawmakers to hold meetings to decide what to do about wolf relisting. AP
Comments
“because hatred of wolves and bears now sounds like Palinism.”
I believe Ralph has coined a new term.
If any one is interested and in the Boise area tonight, there is a wolf program at the Egyptian Theater at 7:00. Doug Smith is the presenter. The programs agenda is on their website.
Be sure to see Doug’s presentation if you are in Boise.
It seems that FWS was guilty of fundamental violations of the ESA. In my view, only Congress can change these provisions, ie, species connectivity. I know that Ed wants the wolf delisted. But I think he should have to wait until the wolf is completely recovered thoughout the DPS.
Rick
Rick,
I agree completely. If FWS is going to use DPS policy to delist a species/population, it should only be able to do so where they exist in great enough numbers not meet the definition of “endangered” or “threatened.” The DPSs (yet again) were drawn to delist wolves across as large an area is possible. This was never the intent of DPS policy and shows that FWS’s goal is REMOVAL not RECOVERY.
Sooooo,
Just for the sake of DISCUSSION and maybe (for once) not just a big fight — when is enough enough?? I’m not looking for absolute numbers, but when would you folks consider the population “recovered” within the DPS that is covered by the current ruling?
I know JB or Brian — sorry, I didn’t look back to see which one specifically — wants to shy away from absolute numbers — which is probably a good thing ‘cuz I don’t think anyone knows withing a 1000 or 1500 right now anyway — so just what kind of criteria would constitute “recovered”.
Now that this “genetic exchange” thing has reared it’s head, what will be next? I’d really like to know.
I thought the genetic exchange was covered when the decision was made to bring wolves from Canada. It seems to me that, at that time the theory was that wolves had been dispersing so far for so long that it was all one big gene pool anyway. But now it isn’t again.
Biologically there are probably enough wolves right now, however I do believe the original criteria should be followed, and that means 1) demonstrating genetic connectivity between the three-subpopulations, 2)maintaining at least the 10 minimum breeding pairs/100 wolves in all three areas and 3) adequate state management mechanisms. When the original three political goals are met, I’d say there are enough wolves. Why make the wolves if they aren’t going to be followed.
If you go back to Judge Molloy, one of his concerns was genetic exchange, which is part of the ESA.
Within the Northern Rockies recovery are, there are three distinct recovery groups: NW Montana, Greater Yellowstone area and the Central Idaho area. The judge is concerned about the free exchange of DNA between the groups. Currently, wolves have a difficult time getting from points A to B to C and back to A. It is my understanding that this has not happened under normal migration. Perhaps within the near future, if the routes are left open.
Rick
Layton,
It was never a matter of numbers for me. I would support delisting wolves in the West today if (1) Wyoming came up with a reasonable plan (meaning wolves were classified as trophy game and their killing regulated), (2) FWS redrew the DPS boundaries to reflect areas where wolves were actually recovered and (3) the plans were designed to provide greater protections for wolves in dispersal corridors (which would help ensure genetic exchange). I would also like to see the states set aside some areas with full protection for viewing, but this is by no means required under the ESA, it is my own personal preference. In regards to numbers, I agree with Jeff: the populations are probably viable now, so long as genetic exchange takes place.
But JB,
If “genetic exchange” was taking place with wolves coming down from Canada to all of these places BEFORE, in enough numbers to say that there was no longer a specific sub-species in this area and therefore it was OK to go with Canadian wolves — why can’t it happen now??
Because before they were not being wiped out en- mass (1800’s thru ~1930’s ) or like Wyoming still is/wants to today.
Layton,
If I remember correctly, genetic exchange was occurring between wolves that migrated down into Montana from Canada and wolves introduced in YNP (someone please correct me if I’m wrong); however, there was no evidence of genetic exchange between YNP and Idaho wolf populations. I won’t get into the issue of “Canadian” wolves again, as it has been covered ad nauseum. Suffice it to say that rocky mountain gray wolves are of the same species, no matter what side of the international border they roam on.
Also, you asked what we would considered to be a recovered gray wolf population. I believe Molloy spell out his requirements so I won’t reiterate, I was stating what I (speaking only for myself) would consider to be a recovered population. Personally, I don’t think the genetic exchange component would be a problem so long as wolves in dispersal corridors were protected.
My beef with regards to the DPSs is that the boundaries drawn encompassed so much area that they could actually prevent wolves from occupying suitable habitat outside the currently established DPS (which conflicts with the ESA and DPS policy). If DPS policy is going to be used to delist populations (which was never its intent), it should only be used to delist them in areas where they have truly recovered (which would not include eastern Oregon and Washington and northern Utah).
Layton,
Sorry, for the second post but I don’t want to be accused of dodging your question: “why can’t it happen now”?
It can! The point is, that it hasn’t been occurring. Thus, the more important question is what is preventing genetic exchange between the populations? To reiterate, from my perspective, I would be happy with policies that simply encouraged genetic exchange between the subpopulations and would support delisting when these policies were in place; I don’t believe absolute evidence of genetic exchange is essential so long as dispersal corridors are protected. However, this may not fly in the courts?
JB,
the crux of the matter is if it has happened or not, there was no documentation of it therefore could not be proved or meet the standards of proof required by a court.
But I have to tell you this and sorry if it upsets you but this conversation has taken place with Layton numerous times.
He is either illiterate or a troll.
Jeff E:
I understand why the court rejected the approach, I was responding to Layton’s original question: “when would you folks consider the population “recovered” within the DPS…?”
From my own perspective, I don’t think genetic exchange would be absolutely necessary so long as the potential for exchange was preserved (via protection of dispersal corridors). I realize this is less of a standard than that set by the court.
– – – –
I understand that we’ve had similar conversations many times before, but I think it is worth reiterating these points in order to demonstrate that many of us who consider ourselves in the “pro” camp are not the extremists that we’re so often made out to be. I think reasonable people will contrast this rational dialogue with the fear-mongering propaganda produced by the “anti” camp and (hopefully) conclude that wolves (and environmentalists) are not nearly as bad as they are often made out to be.
JB,
“however, there was no evidence of genetic exchange between YNP and Idaho wolf populations.”
Hasn’t there been documented instances of wolves traveling between Yellowstone and Idaho? Seems to me that a wolf that was killed on a road in Idaho (around the Kelly Creek area as I recall) was recollared in Yellowstone after being released in Idaho?? I’m going on memory here so the details are fuzzy but I seem to remember it.
Jeffy, if I were a troll, my fondest hope would be for you try and cross my bridge!! If you don’t have something to contribute why don’t you just butt out?? Go away somewhere and brag about your (supposed) two digit IQ number.
Maybe if someone would EXPLAIN the theories (like JB) behind some of this stuff instead of puffing up like a little banty rooster, some progress could be made.
Layton there are indeed documented instances of wolves traveling from central Idaho/to the Greater Yellowstone and vice versa.
I recall writing about them.
However, it appears these wolves did not mate or produce any pups that survived.
Given enough time, genetic exchange will happen, but for recovery to take place it must be more than a trivial amount.
“Palinism” — love it! A great new term to define hatred of any predatory animals!
“Hasn’t there been documented instances of wolves traveling between Yellowstone and Idaho?”
To follow up on Ralph’s comment: Yes, there definitely have been documented cases of wolves traveling between these populations. While this indicates there is the potential for genetic exchange, there was no evidence that genetic exchange actually took place. Because the management policies put forth by Wyoming and to a lesser extent, Idaho had the potential to profoundly reduce wolf populations, they also could have profoundly reduced the opportunity for genetic exchange. If genetic exchange is important (and the biologists tell us it is) then this situation must be deemed unacceptable.
I just don’t believe in “tinkering” with nature.
Wolves should have NEVER been removed from our landscape and we must do everything to get them back where they rightfully belong and get our ecosystem in balance again.
Livestock owners and hunters have been living in a fantasy Disneyworld – Zoo -like outdoors since the early 1900’s.
And they claim animal “rights” groups are Disneylike. It’s the other way around.
Barb,
I can honestly say, you are an extremist in many of your views! That said, yes, wolves belong on the landscape, but to say what happened in the past is wrong, right or indifferent, is really a stretch as none of us were around to see that climate.
I think it is attitudes like this, that make it so difficult to come to any compromise between the sides..both sides have those vocal and extreme sides, that does nothing but drive a wedge between all of us..we need to moderate and talk, not say one side or the other is wrong…
Layton,
Read the decision by Malloy, it is in plain English. Therein it states the lack of documentation.
The last time we had this conversation was less than a month ago.
The various times we have talked about the subspecies question are numerous and span months if not years the facts of which have not changed.
Prove otherwise.
I tend to agree with you that you probably not a troll, but illiterate.
Barb:
We have so fundamentally altered the native ecosystems of the West, I do not believe they can ever be restored. Just think of all of the species that were exterminated before Europeans even arrived on the scene (e.g. the Mammoth, American lion, saber-toothed tiger, American cheetah, and several species of horses, to name a few). On top of these megafauna extinctions we have introduced many types of invasive exotic plant species. Next to these these actions, the restoration of wolves is a drop in the bucket. Is it a step in the right direction? Definitely. But please do not expect that restoring wolves to the West will lead to any type of ecological “balance.” That is waaaay too much pressure to lie the foot of a predator who is simply trying to eek out a living the best way it can.
Now all’s we eco-terrorists need to do is strap bombs to the wolves and send them to the Whitehouse – remember to scream “Alah Ahkbar” before detonating…
Just kidding, its wonderful news.
I do not think that a year’s interval will suffice, however. Seems to me like a slap on the wrist in the scheme of things. No, when the attitude around wolves changes and proper management plans are created to benefit the animals – not the humans – then and only then should delisting be approved.
Personally I would like to see the wolf delisted as a non-game species – killed only for confirmed, severe depredations. Relocation and non-lethal methods employed before then. One can dream can’t he?
Attitudes of the people, not any biological concern, was what got the wolf population obliterated in the lower 48. People would do well to remember that.
OK, let’s examine another part of what seems to be going on now.
JB said; (not picking on you JB, just a convenient segue)
“Because the management policies put forth by Wyoming and to a lesser extent, Idaho had the potential to profoundly reduce wolf populations, they also could have profoundly reduced the opportunity for genetic exchange.”
Do you folks really believe that, with the magnifying glass that will obviously be put on ANY state after a delisting could possibly happen, that state would dare indulge in the mayhem, carnage, slaughter, extinction, etc., etc. (put your next most sensational word here) oh, I forgot holocaust, that they are being accused of in advance? Nobody is that stupid.
Look at the way every wolf that got killed after the ill fated delisting got lumped into a “murder” of some sort. Some of those wolves were eliminated because of depredation problems, etc., but that was CERTAINLY not mentioned. Everything was lumped together for maximum effect. at least IMNSHO.
I just really feel that paranoia has to be running rampant to believe this could happen – or maybe it’s just a convenient opportunity for a lot of publicity??
I just GOTTA do this!! 8)
“However, it appears these wolves did not mate or produce any pups that survived.”
“While this indicates there is the potential for genetic exchange, there was no evidence that genetic exchange actually took place.”
Maybe the root of this whole “genetic exchange” thing is no more than a training problem!! Is there a class for that sort of thing for wolves??
Whether it is buffalo, elk or wolves, the key to achieving genetic exchange is maintaining strong extended family infrastructure. Once strong infrastructure from multiples of these packs or herds occurs the “scouts” or “young guns” that fan out will be accepted (mating) by any “strange” pack or herd. Not allowing strong infrastructure, as how state G&F now manages its hunting herds (multiples of individuals make up “herds” in their freak show style of management) means none of these families reaches or can maintain well oiled status. Thus, any of the wolf or herd animal dispersers everyone talks about will not be readily accepted. Or they will be instigators of “mixing it up” in these packs because all wolf packs in the three states are infantile in “age. The chaos does make for good action film by documentary film makers in Yellowstone, however. Same for all the fights by bison bulls since “herd reductions” have shattered family infrastructure in bison herds.
There will be little genetic exchange until an understanding of infrastructure is learned by our biologists. It doesn’t matter if we had thousands of wolves in every state. If extended families are kept dysfunctional, whether it is USFW continually taking out key elements of pack infrastructure because of “depredation control” or “hunters” picking off individuals the result is the same, little genetic diversity.
Chaos in packs or herds means erratic behavior of individuals in those packs and herds. Thus, there will always be livestock “problems”. It takes three to four generations of any species to form functional roles for all components of those extended families and still more for depth of learning (culture) from ancestors. Three hundred is the magical number for interactive identification, whether it is wolves, elephants, bison, elk or humans. Each species just has a different way of achieving this efficiency of interaction. Wolves may have one or two from a pack that recognizes a member of another pack. Or a herd may only need to have two or three satellite matriarchal herds (25-50) interacting with the core matriarchal power group (65-75) to achieve a male- female 300. Thus, this is the number USFW has to start thinking of, not the “packs” they use now to set guidelines for delisting. Except for the few elk or bison herds of Yellowstone that never leave the Park I know of NO large animal or predator wildlife populations in this country that could be defined as functional and culturally viable.
But what about wildlife harvesting by Indigenous peoples? Didn’t this disrupt herds? Pre Whiteman hunting differed from todays because families hunted families. Elimination of one family and leaving others with infrastructure intact was much better for the mega flora – fauna landscape…and genetic diversity.
Management for wolf genetic diversity, I feel, has to include core protected areas in each of the three states. It is the only way multiple packs, belonging to the same extended family, can develop culture and distinct identities. Then exchange between the core extended families can happen the way Nature intended. Maintaining exchange corridors between these core santuaries means passing laws allowing large fines for anyone shooting the lone wolf(s) seen traveling across open expanses of wolf free landscape. Then and only then will genetic diversity be assured.
Species will do anything to insure its species survives. They will even breed sister to brother (ya, I know Adam and Eve’s offspring must of done the same thing). But each species also knows any flaws produced in this desperation for survival can be taken care of later. These methods of attaining genetic diversity are universal to all species. Forget “bottlenecks” and blindly striving for numbers. It’s in the infrastructure, dude, where all this fun sex has purpose …. species wise, that is. Biology by Bob
Layton asks: “Do you folks really believe that, with the magnifying glass that will obviously be put on ANY state after a delisting could possibly happen, that state would dare indulge in the mayhem, carnage, slaughter, extinction, etc., etc…?”
Layton: It doesn’t matter what anyone here believes…[pause to consider just how true that statement is]…what matters is the law. You may find this hard to believe, but I don’t think the issue of wolves in the West is all that important. What is important is the precedent set by taking actions that directly conflict with the purpose and plain language of the Endangered Species Act–in short, I’m looking beyond wolves to what FWSs delisting decision means for other species. If FWS can simply “rubber stamp” state management plans, such as Wyoming’s, that are so clearly in opposition to the species being recovered, then what purpose does the Act serve? In our best moments we are a nation of laws, not men. When a wink and a nod is all that is needed to circumvent federal statutes, what’s the point in having laws at all?
Bob,
I am intrigued by the eloquent arguments you’ve made for family social structure on many posts on this blog; however, I don’t recall seeing any of this information in any scientific publications? This may be my failing, as I am not trained as an ethologist and my reading on the topic is restricted to what I find in Conservation Biology and the Journal of Wildlife Management. Still, I am quite interested in finding out more about your theories and hope that you are willing to pass along some sources?
– – – – –
I must point out one flaw in your argument. You said: “But what about wildlife harvesting by Indigenous peoples? Didn’t this disrupt herds? Pre Whiteman hunting differed from todays because families hunted families. Elimination of one family and leaving others with infrastructure intact was much better for the mega flora – fauna landscape…and genetic diversity.”
Indigenous people were Hell on the mega fauna native to the North American landscape. They exterminated (or helped to exterminate) many species before Europeans even arrived. The idea that indigenous people lived in “balance” or “harmony” (not your words, but ones I often here) with nature is a myth perpetuated by people that assign mythical status both to native peoples and the animals they hunted.
JB,
There are no “modern” sources to quote…at least not that I know of. And there won’t be as long as we think Homo Sapiens is superior to all other species.
The “facts” are in all the historical data; the fitting together of all the “modern” facts that are continually misinterpreted, but at the same time recorded so one can pick out the relevent and repeated data (like 300); my personal observations from 30 years being amounst herd animals in Yellowstone;…..and such overwhelming evidence of what social order does for all the life we are a part of. It all so fits together. It is like water going over rocks. One observation and deduction leads to the next one. The facts cascades and the results tie together just as water pools at the bottom. Look at one problem, think how animals with families, just like humans, would approach it and the answer is there. It all is repeatable and the answers can be used to go on to the next progression of knowledge.
It is all so logical but superior humans are so blind. Scientists will announce still another animal they find with “social order” but they don’t take it to the next step to see how this provides for everything from disease containment to genetic diversity.
Each species has in house controls as well as other species influence. Both controls make for stronger species. It befuddles me that our science is so rigid B.S’s, Masters, and PHD’s can’t be fluid of thought and logic. I have given this to a university audience of 50 of these types. They can be astonded by this info, I can answer most all of their before unsolveable dilemmas and they leave with befuddled looks and frustration. They depart with, “Now we know, but what do we do with this information?” One week later they are back in the same old academic rut. I have yet to find a university type who understands that an animal can pass on genetics without having offspring themselves.
When I brought up the salting issue in Yellowstone in 2000 it was the same. It was so easy to see that concentrating elk killing on the boundary was having damaging effects on grizzly bears. None of the biologists, game wardens, and govt officials “got it”. They would say bears have always had hunters gut piles to eat. I’d say back that gut piles by themselves don’t have enough substance to them that bears would follow shots in. That the birds and coyotes were faster to the remains and there would be little left to reward a bear from miles away. But when outfitters started Quick Quartering and would leave half or more of the meat then there was time and plenty of food to make it worthwhile for bears.
Yellowstone’s bear biologists could not understand habituation of natural food stuffs was the same as the foods tourists fed the bears. They would say,”but it is happening in the back country”. I was given sympathy by activists that it was a very complicated set of facts for biologists and the public to figure out. But it was so simple…unless ,of course, whole professions are locked into rigid peer dysfunctional families.
Even if one takes the negative approach to present wolf or herd management and says,”Hey this management plan did not work, and in fact there was no deductive logic to make it work in the first place”, wouldn’t one think they would take a fresh look at why things happen? No everything is a study in itself. Little thought is given to universal systems approach. It all becomes symptom science.
Range scientists do one study after the other trying to figure out how to get cows to “not eat the best and leave the rest”. The answer to this supposed dilemma is so simple if social order and extended families is tied into the equation. Famililies and their dependents want to stay close to each other. Little brother want to stay close to their older cousins and the teen age girls and boys stay in their close knit groups to the sides of these families. The above I saw this all the time in Yellowstone’s resident elk and bison’s herds.
It means a functional herd eats what is in front of them and not wander here and there to eat the choicest morsels as dysfunctional herds do. Go to the next step of logic and figure which part of this group is in the lead when grazing is the objective. Professors automatically go to their own perceived status as leaders and defer only enough to cows as the being the leader. But if emotion is intrajected the answer becomes clear. In social order herds the young are out front. Not too far but still ahead of the rest. Think of a ball game where the adults come to watch their young play. Think of the core emotion it brings forth in these adults and the answer is clear why Range Scientists should be studying and promoting multigenerational herds instead of the segmented and age divided herds we see today.
No, because range scientists and biologists are locked into top down education systems, where straying afar gets them into no mans land…and of course diminished professional potential, all their pupils are blind to what all hunter gatherers saw. Learning from their academias ancestors is a dead end cliff to jump over when applied science is concerned.
As for the Native way of hunting I ask for you to think of life before the gun and horse when considering mega flora and fauna impact. After these elements were introduced think of the inhouse species controls. Only with Whiteman intervention did these weapons and means of over land transportation keep the different tribes and extended families from eliminating each other to a level where they were once again in balance with their environment. And when one tribe won as soon as the increase of this conquering tribe expanded over 300, territories came into play. Territories means defending turf. The result again is dead humans.
Throughout history any long term massing over the level of interactive recognition meant clashes. Fortunately, the presence of territories for all species means there are no mans lands on the fringes. This is where all the other wildlife could survive when humans flood the landscape.
As for humans now, any stalling of the inevitable just means more species will be born….much later, of course. Think of our species effect no different than a large meteorite striking our planets crust. It all comes back. This earth is a lot older than modern man and it will put itself back in balance. However, for those of us having to live during our Earths decline it is heart wrenching.
Depending on what you are trying to learn I would be sorting through a lot of the applied science studies with a very discretionary eye, JB. And when it comes to present wildlife management I’d be even more leery. the parts are there but the understanding of those parts is not.
Bob,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. One of the fundamental assumptions of social psychology (my disciplinary training) is that individuals “inherit” a lot of their attitudes, beliefs, values (and yes) behaviors from the people who surround them. Most important among these, of course, is family. So many of your propositions strike me as intuitive.
I also agree with the view that scientists have become too myopic in their research; and largely this is a function of the culture of science and the territoriality of “senior” scientists (hmm…maybe there’s a study in that). To reiterate, science isn’t the problem, it is the culture that has evolved around it (as I have learned first hand in attempting to publish findings that are out of the mainstream).
At any rate, you make a lot of propositions that seem readily (and easily) testable, which I would love to see tested. I encourage you to look for ways to make it happen.
– – –
Regarding indigenous people and overkill; I was speaking to the mega fauna extinctions that occurred in North America shortly after modern humans reached the continent (~14,000 – 10,000 years ago).
The larger the megafauna species the more the packing together infrastructure needs are…and the more vulnerable they are as a species to disruptions if their “structured armor” is broken. I knew you were referring to animals such as the wooly mammoths in your reply but wanted to make broad concepts the emphasis of my discussion.
As for the mammoths I would have to know a bit more about them to understand why they and not elephants left this earth. The larger animals are mostly “above” the level of predators in survival techniques …so like whales pre technology…. it is always something else being the limited factor. Mammoths were widespread so I doubt it was a problem of low numbers in small geographic areas. Maybe their skins were thin so spears could penetrate and this scattered family makeup. Maybe spears was all the technology it took. I don’t know without thinking about it for a few days. The answer should become obvious with a little thought.
Jb, sounds like we are on similiar boats. The senior scientists do not realize they are part of of dysfunctional bull groups. The same goes for corporate America where everybody in the company outside the core executive bull group says, “Why did they promote that guy? He is totally incompetent.”. I
t is because the evolutionary bonding is there but the dysfunction comes in (and loss of wise decisions) because natures bull groups have an entire life to play out the roles each contributes. The up and coming executive puppy dogs and browns the big boys and they are swayed by forces that go back millions of years. The emotion of “loyally” overrides common sense and rational business thought for these bull groups. I saw this “work” all the time in Yellowstone administration as well as with the corporate world while I was working at Fort Jefferson Nat. Monument. Holiday and business yachting retreats for corporate heads (such as Evinrude Motors) were common in these waters. It all was very sickening to see this from the outside eye. In Evinrudes case he was getting senile and told the same old fishing story 4 times in 2 hours. His 5 corporate heads and their wives all came rushing over to gather around as soon as he commenced with another round of the same story. At its conclusion they all would laugh their hearts out.. and then proceed back to their lawn chairs where they would watch every move of him and his former actress wife and her poodle. Dysfunctional bull groups at its height.
Natures bull groups work and artifical ones don’t…not unless each of the participants in those groups understands why they have those groups …and are able to buffer this against their ancestory in making business and academic decisions. Sadly, they don’t.
A friend of ours used to kill coyotes that on occasion killed some of his sheep. Usually they were young coyotes. He found that if he left the family group intact he had very few attacks. He has not killed a coyote in years.
Barb,
Why is it so many “lay” people get it and the ones who should, those who manage our wildlife…and domestic animals….don’t? Everything the “experts” do in herd and pack biology makes for chaos. They can have all the population numbers achieved and still not get to the core of what makes populations vital. Why can’t they understand good infrastructure allows for order?
Why can’t they realize there are universal structural systems in place for all species?
And for those think any of the above thinking is heretical, who think domination over all is “god’s way”, then why would he, she, not make everything the best it could be? Maybe these folks could at least limit their perceived homo sapiens “superiority” status in delineating man from “beast” to the question of whether man is the only being on earth that has a soul. To fail to give equal status to “beast” means our wildlife will always be subjegated to symptom managemet and “research”.