Wolf pups with their mother at their den site. Design Pics / Getty Images
In another reversal of Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration is having the National Park Service rescind a 2015 order that protected bears and wolves within protected lands.
<p>The new rule, remarkable in its cruelty, will allow hunters to shoot bears, wolves, along with their cubs and pups while the animals are in their dens in the popular Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. It also puts ends a ban on some nefarious practices like luring bears with doughnuts, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/28/alaska-bears-wolves-trump-rules-hunters" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>Jesse Prentice-Dunn, policy director for the Center for Western Priorities, told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/28/alaska-bears-wolves-trump-rules-hunters" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> that the rule change is "amazingly cruel" and said it was "just the latest in a string of efforts to reduce protections for America's wildlife at the behest of oil companies and trophy hunters."</p>
<p>The National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued separate statements that their actions are designed to align federal and state law, according to the <a href="https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2020/05/21/trump-administration-moves-to-ease-rules-for-hunting-bears-and-wolves-on-federal-lands-in-alaska/" target="_blank">Anchorage Daily News</a>. The National Park Service manages 10 preserves in the state, including Denali National Park and Preserve. The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge lies west of the park.</p><p>NPS Alaska spokesperson Pete Christian told <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/05/21/national-park-service-rule-change-puts-state-back-in-charge-of-wildlife-management-in-preserves/" target="_blank">Alaska Public Media</a> that although practices like killing bears and wolves in dens go against the Park Service's mission, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which created or expanded many of Alaska's national preserves, grants the state management authority.</p>
<p>"It supercedes, to some extent, the NPS Organic Act and some of our regular management policies, and so the parks up here were designed to have preserve units in them which allow for hunting and trapping as per state law," Christian said.</p><p>The Park Service decision to defer to the state is the latest move in a legal conflict around who has ultimate authority over the protected lands. The conflict dates back to 2015, when the Obama administration initially banned certain state-permitted predator harvests on Alaska's preserve lands, as <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/05/21/national-park-service-rule-change-puts-state-back-in-charge-of-wildlife-management-in-preserves/" target="_blank">Alaska Public Media</a> reported.</p>
<p>While the number of hunters that will actually plow ahead into the national preserve to hunt bears and wolves in their dens is probably quite small, the spirit of the practice is extreme and inconsistent with the values of the national preserve, according to Pat Lavin with the Defenders of Wildlife in Anchorage who spoke to <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/05/21/national-park-service-rule-change-puts-state-back-in-charge-of-wildlife-management-in-preserves/" target="_blank">Alaska Public Media</a>.</p><p>"The Trump administration has shockingly reached a new low in its treatment of wildlife," Defenders of Wildlife President Jamie Rappaport Clark said, as the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/alaska-increase-hunting-trapping-1.5581668" target="_blank">CBC</a> reported. "Allowing the killing of bear cubs and wolf pups in their dens is barbaric and inhumane."</p><p>The new rule also allows hunters to shoot caribou from traveling motorboats and to kill swimming caribou, according to the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/alaska-increase-hunting-trapping-1.5581668" target="_blank">CBC</a>.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/28/alaska-bears-wolves-trump-rules-hunters" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> noted, the move is part and parcel with a pattern from Trump's Department of the Interior, which has consistently sought to expand access to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-lands">public lands</a> to hunters and fossil fuel companies. Last month, it proposed expanding public hunting and fishing access by more than 2.3 million acres on 97 national wildlife refuges and nine national fish hatcheries.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Wildlife Advocates Celebrate: Romania Bans Trophy Hunting ... ›
- Father and Son Charged With Killing Mother Bear and 'Shrieking ... ›
- Trump Admin. Wants to Reinstate 'Cruel' Hunting Tactics in Alaska ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Researchers suggest that the Himalayan wolf should be classified as a subspecies of the grey wolf or as an entirely distinct species. Geraldine Werhahn / Himalayan Wolves Project
By Mayank Aggarwal
The Himalayan wolf is a distinct species of wolf, which shows unique genetic adaptation to the difficult conditions in the Asian high altitude ecosystems, a study found, reiterating that it needs to be identified as a species of special conservation concern. "Conservation action for the Himalayan wolf is required and of global conservation interest," noted the study.
<p>For the study, the researchers used over 280 samples of scat and hair from the Himalayan region of Nepal, which included Humla and Dolpa districts in the north-western Nepalese Himalayas and the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area (KCA) in the north-eastern Nepalese Himalayas, during the spring and summer periods of 2014 to 2016.</p>
<p>Explaining that the Himalayan wolf is a little-understood wolf lineage found in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau of Asia, the study noted that the species diverged from the Holarctic grey wolf 691,000 to 740,000 years ago. The <a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=OaI4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=holarctic+region+north+to+mexican+desert+region&source=bl&ots=AsIYsLlpGg&sig=ACfU3U1mqEv8zA_Ohvgjd-wQ-tKhTSyz0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC9sGjv-nhAhXLuI8KHZzbDH8Q6AEwC3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=holarctic%20region%20north%20to%20mexican%20desert%20region&f=false" target="_blank">Holarctic region</a> includes all the non-tropical parts of Europe, Asia, Africa (north of the Sahara) and North America (till the Mexican desert region). According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the global population of grey wolf (<em>Canis lupus</em>) is <a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/3746/119623865#geographic-range" target="_blank">estimated</a> to be 200,000 to 250,000 individuals.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTQyOTkyNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODc2Njc5NX0.La7gNEPnsDv9H3Chhm5j_v9xB4APUubgrg6arxj6z8g/img.jpg?width=980" id="4044f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7cfb8b9e9805f1abd3970fe11b6f3693" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The Himalayan wolf inhabits the high altitude regions of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau. Genetic studies revealed that they are adapted to the extreme conditions of these mountain ranges. Photo by Geraldine Werhahn / Himalayan Wolves Project
<p>"The Himalayan wolf presents an overlooked wolf lineage that is phylogenetically [evolutionarily] distinct from grey wolves. Current evidence indicates that this wolf has diverged as an own lineage before the radiation of modern grey wolves. Hence the Himalayan wolf presents an evolutionary significant wolf population that merits appropriate taxonomic recognition," Geraldine Werhahn, lead author of the study, told Mongabay-India.</p><p>Taxonomy is a system of classifying species. Relationships between species can be represented as a family tree, known as a phylogeny.</p><p>Werhahn explained that the Himalayan wolf is more "distinct than many of the currently recognized subspecies of the grey wolf, hence the debate around it potentially meriting full species recognition."</p><p>"The Himalayan wolf is adapted to life in the extreme high altitude habitats of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau and along with the snow leopard, is a top predator in this ecosystem. Predators enjoy a growing recognition for the important roles they fulfill, like maintaining ecosystem health and balance. Currently, this wolf is overlooked by science and conservation and local people are not aware that this wolf needs to be conserved and is of global relevance," added Werhahn, who is a conservation biologist at the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) at the Zoology department of the <a href="http://www.ox.ac.uk/" target="_blank">University of Oxford</a>. The study is a collaborative project between researchers from the U.K., Nepal, Spain, Kyrgyzstan and the U.S.</p><p>According to the study, the Himalayan wolf has been documented at 3,900 to 5,600 meters (approximately 12,800 to 18,400 feet) above sea level across the continuous landscape of the Himalayas and genetic evidence has confirmed its presence in the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTQyOTkzOC9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5OTMwODQyOX0.eFCdZ0tUiVd68tj507thTlcOye6NXBNOr6L_bTDDtH4/img.gif?width=980" id="f11a1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f9a860a3ab528e9ecfb4f0eb40b5cfb0" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Himalayan wolf pups playing in Upper Dolpa, Nepal. Video by Geraldine Werhahn / Himalayan Wolves Project
<p>The study stated that Nepal, with its northern area dominated by the Himalayan mountain range, holds a considerable Himalayan wolf population.</p><p>It emphasized that the "dramatic inaccessible high Himalayan landscapes may present important habitat refuges for the Himalayan wolf" and recommended that Nepal should play a leading role in Himalayan wolf conservation and act as a role model for the other range countries, which currently, along with Nepal, include India and China.</p><p>Sharing her experience of the study, Werhahn stated that the majority of local people in the Himalayan wolf habitats are Buddhists and have a comparable tolerant and integral attitude towards the natural world around them.</p><p>"They have coexisted for centuries in these challenging but immensely beautiful ecosystems. Local people are not aware that the Himalayan wolf, similar to the snow leopard, needs to be protected and that they should not kill it. Snow leopard conservation has been in place since some decades now and local people are much more aware to not kill snow leopards. Now, the same must happen for Himalayan wolves," she said. "In fact, all predators, and these whole predator guild conservation actions can go hand in hand with conservation actions already in place and functioning for snow leopards," said Werhahn while replying to a query about the attitude of the local people toward the Himalayan wolf.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="391870a64248f4039f7e59e1e75451d0"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c1yyzOuWRZ8?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<h2>Separate Species Status Would Help in Conservation</h2><p>As per the study, the evaluation of the conservation status of the Himalayan wolf and the subsequent implementation of conservation actions is "hindered by scarce data on taxonomic status, distribution and ecology."</p><p>"Although the scientific evidence supporting its genetic uniqueness has been accumulating in recent years, reliable population estimates are lacking, ranging from 350 individuals in Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh (in India) to several thousand in Tibet and Qinghai," the study said.</p><p>Werhahn stressed that the main problem in conservation of this wolf species is scarce data and that it does not get the attention of science and conservation.</p><p>"Once it is assigned its appropriate and required taxonomic classification, it can then be assigned an IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) conservation status. And these two necessary advancements, taxonomic recognition and conservation status, are crucial to improve conservation efforts with regard to political leverage, but also conservation awareness and conservation funding. This will trigger an increasing interest to research and conserve this wolf," she said.</p><p>She further said that later some more specific actions to mitigate livestock depredation, ensure healthy wild prey populations and decrease illegal <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> trade of its parts can be taken for the purpose of conservation of the Himalayan wolf.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Government study confirms endangered red wolves are a separate species worthy of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EndangeredSpeciesAct?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EndangeredSpeciesAct</a> protection: <a href="https://t.co/99cKkUcSzn">https://t.co/99cKkUcSzn</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EcoWatch</a></p>— Endangered Species Coalition (@endangered) <a href="https://twitter.com/endangered/status/1112755422547664897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://india.mongabay.com/2019/04/recognise-himalayan-wolf-as-a-distinct-species-study/" target="_blank">Mongabay</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
This Europese wolf was photographed at Rotterdam Zoo in the Netherlands in 2014. Tim Strater / CC BY-SA 2.0
For the first time in 140 years, wolves have an official home in the Netherlands.
Ecologists told BBC Radio 4 that a female wolf they had been tracking had stayed in the country for six months and could therefore be called "established," BBC News reported Tuesday.
<p>The ecologists had been tracking two females in the Hoge Veluwe nature reserve, which has now been designated as a wolf habitat, <a href="https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/04/wolves-set-up-home-in-dutch-national-park-opinions-are-divided/" target="_blank">Dutch News reported</a>. There is also evidence that a male wolf has been moving in and out of the area, and scientists told BBC that the wolves could form a pack within months.</p><p>Ecologist Hugh Jansman of Wageningen University, who had been commissioned to investigate wolves in the area, told Dutch News their return would benefit the local ecosystem.</p><p>"We shoot 50% of deer and 80% of boar to maintain a socially acceptable level. I think the wolves could do a lot of good," he said.</p><p>But park director Seger Emmanuel baron van Voorst tot Voorst disagreed.</p><p>"We are working hard on a daily basis to maintain the unique ecological balance of the park," he told EenVandaag, as Dutch News reported. "There will be big consequences if we let the wolves in."</p>
<p>The return of wolves to many European countries has been controversial. Most were driven out by hunting in the nineteenth century but have returned in recent years, BBC News reported. Since wolves returned to France from Italy in 1992, there have been 12,000 incidents reported of wolves attacking goats or sheep. Farmers have turned to protective measures like guard dogs or electric fencing, and can receive compensation from the government if these measures are in place and their flocks are still attacked.</p><p>Ecologist Roeland Vermeulen of Wolven in Nederland said that settled wolf populations were actually more likely to attack wild animals like deer or boar and that sheep were like "junk food" for transient or inexperienced wolves.</p><p>The first wolves entered the Netherlands from Germany in 2015, and four were sighted between November 2018 and January 2019, Dutch News reported.</p><p>Wolves killed 138 sheep in the Netherlands in the first half of 2018, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45141306" target="_blank">BBC News reported</a>, but experts noted that dogs kill around 13,000 sheep a year.</p><p>Ranger Leo Linnartz told Dutch News that the Netherlands was "an outstanding place" for wolves, but said that local and national governments should help farmers adjust. "We've learned from Germany that wolves can be taught that catching sheep is pointless," he said.</p><p>Vermeulen told the BBC Radio 4 that he thought the country had room for 22 packs of five to eight wolves each.</p>
<div id="95160" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="J6E7TV1576662263"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="994381583477035008" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">For 12,000 years, #wolves have roamed Southeast Alaska's rugged Alexander Archipelago— more than 1,000 islands most… https://t.co/DcZVykQeuY</div> — Defenders of Wildlife (@Defenders of Wildlife)<a href="https://twitter.com/Defenders/statuses/994381583477035008">1525914018.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A red wolf in captivity in Florida. Mark Conlin / Getty Images
Here at EcoWatch, we love red wolves. Seriously, I challenge you to watch this video of "Four Weeks Young" wolves at the Museum of Life and Science in Durham, North Carolina and not fall in love:
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2e702337c4b9829851b2b5e10a02af22"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AqKZ67tLT08?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Red Wolf Adventures "Four Weeks Young"</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=AqKZ67tLT08" target="_blank">www.youtube.com</a>
</small>
</p><p>That's why we were so sad to report this spring that there are only around 40 members of this adorable but extremely <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species" target="_self">endangered species</a> left in the only wild population in North Carolina, and that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) estimated <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/red-wolf-endangered-2563600067.html" target="_self">they could go extinct</a> within eight years.<br></p><p>Worse, instead of fighting to preserve this shrinking population, FWS <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/red-wolves-fws-proposal-2582052817.html" target="_self">released a proposal</a> in June limiting the red wolves' safe territory to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-lands" target="_self">public lands</a> in northeast North Carolina and allowing private landowners to kill or trap any wolves that crossed their property lines. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation" target="_blank">Conservation</a> groups were understandably outraged, saying it "doomed" the red wolves' chances for survival in the wild. </p><p>But now a North Carolina judge has come to the rescue, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/11/05/federal-judge-blasts-fish-wildlife-service-says-endangered-wolves-cannot-be-shot/?utm_term=.92c0c731029c" target="_blank">The Washington Post reported</a>. In a <a href="https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/press_release/files/AWI-WL-Red-wolf-summary-judgment-1118.pdf" target="_blank">ruling</a> Monday, Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle ripped the FWS for chipping away at a previously successful program reintroducing red wolves in North Carolina and said the FWS violated the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by doing so. </p><p>Here's just an excerpt of Boyle's thorough takedown:</p><blockquote>The Red Wolf Program having been declared a success in 2007, defendants, beginning in approximately 2014 and without consultation or formal review, determined to disregard management guidelines which had been in place since 1999 which distinguished between problem and non-problem wolves in regard to landowner take requests, to cease introductions of wolves into the wild, to cease pup-fostering, and to cease actively attempting to manage the threat from coyotes on the viability of the wild red wolf population. While a shift in any one or some of these activities may fall within the agency's discretion, when taken together, these actions go beyond the agency's discretion and operate to violate USFWS' mandate to recover this species in the wild. </blockquote><p>The ruling goes on to note that the wolves' population saw a "drastic decrease" from 2013 to 2015. That's around when FWS stopped its successful policies and made the shameful decision to allow landowners to shoot and kill wolves, even if they weren't causing any problems.</p><p><a href="https://www.southernenvironment.org/" target="_blank">The Southern Environmental Law Center</a> (SELC) initiated a lawsuit on behalf of three other conservation groups to stop that killing in 2015, and Monday's ruling now makes permanent a 2016 court order banning those killings, giving the red wolves a new lease on life.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="5380b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KC6UYB1576663751"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1059578932482240512" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Court victory: World’s last wild red wolves get another chance at survival https://t.co/sms9MNmGXT #savethewolves… https://t.co/0zukCCYIrU</div> — SELC (Environmental Law) (@SELC (Environmental Law))<a href="https://twitter.com/selc_org/statuses/1059578932482240512">1541458278.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>"For four years now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been dismantling one of the most successful predator reintroductions in U.S. history," SELC senior attorney Sierra Weaver said in a <a href="https://www.southernenvironment.org/news-and-press/press-releases/court-victory-wild-red-wolves-get-a-chance-at-survival" target="_blank">press release</a>. "The service knows how to protect and recover the red wolf in the wild, but it stopped listening to its scientists and started listening to bureaucrats instead. The law doesn't allow the agency to just walk away from species conservation, like it did here."<br></p><p>But what does the lawsuit mean for the FWS proposal to shrink the red wolves' territory? SELC said the proposal was a blatant attempt to get out of the pending court case, and Monday's decision makes clear that it goes against the service's conservation obligations.</p><p>"Rolling back protections is the opposite of what this species needs," <a href="https://redwolves.com/newsite/" target="_blank">Red Wolf Coalition</a> Executive Director Kim Wheeler said in the SELC press release. "The court's ruling today makes clear that the USFWS must recommit to red wolf recovery and resume its previously successful management policies and actions."</p><p>It is also wildly unpopular. Of the 108,124 comments FWS received on the proposal, 99.9 percent of them opposed it. And of the 19 comments that supported restricting the wolves' territory, 13 came from just one real estate developer. </p><p>Red wolves once roamed the entire eastern U.S. before they were hunted nearly to extinction. In the late 1970s, a few pairs were bred in captivity, and in the late 1980s, two breeding pairs were reintroduced into the wild in North Carolina. Their numbers swelled to nearly 140 in the early 2000s before the FWS dropped the ball. Hopefully, this court order will allow them to thrive once again. </p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Tiger: Bernard DuPont (CC BY-SA 2.0); Wolf: John and Karen Hollingsworth /USFWS
By John R. Platt
Do the species most in need of conservation also receive the most scientific research?
<p>To answer that question, a new study examined the past five years' worth of research into felids and canids—better known as wild felines and canines—and found some interesting patterns, as well as some notable omissions.</p><p>Of 4,351 published studies of the felid and canid families, 359 were devoted to tigers (<em>Panthera tigris</em>), and 579 examined gray wolves (<em>Canis lupus</em>). That's more than 21 percent of all felid and canid studies focused on just two species.</p><p>On the other side of the spectrum, some species were rarely, if ever, studied. The rusty-spotted cat (<em>Prionailurus rubiginosus</em>) received just one study between 2013 and 2017, while no published studies examined the short-eared dog (<em>Atelocynus microtis</em>) or side-striped jackal (<em>Canis adustus</em>).</p><p>The results indicate a potential research bias toward large, charismatic predators that sit at the top of the food chain, at the expense of their smaller, less dynamic relatives.</p><p>Beyond simple counts by species, other potential biases emerged: Studies of felids mainly focused on conservation and wildlife management, while canid research tended to address diseases and other health issues.</p><p>The study, published in the journal <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989418301586" target="_blank">Global Ecology and Conservation</a>, was conducted by <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2052744504_Laura_Tensen" target="_blank">Laura Tensen</a>, a postdoctoral research fellow in wildlife genetics at the University of Johannesburg. Tensen's own research focuses on lions, leopard and African wild dogs, so she went into the study concerned about her own approaches. "The species that I have studied are in fact charismatic, which was part of the reason I wrote this article—perhaps to self-reflect my own research bias," she said.</p><p>Two other observations inspired the paper: Tensen had found a lack of scientific information on some species, while others had a number of seemingly repetitive studies. "I noticed a lot of redundancy in science, where certain topics have been studied repeatedly," she said. For example, her paper found that most conservation studies focused on population estimates and human-wildlife conflict, while only 1 percent of all studies tackled climate change or the illegal wildlife trade.</p><p>Crunching the numbers didn't result in any real surprises—Tensen cites earlier studies that came to similar conclusions—but she hopes putting the results into clear statistics and graphs will have an impact on how future research is conducted. Researchers might, for example, decide to focus their work on species that are understudied, taxonomically unique, endangered or which live in small geographic ranges.</p><p>"Ideally, researchers should take these factors into consideration and challenge themselves to broaden their horizon," Tensen said. "In reality, however, it is more difficult to get funding for elusive and endangered species that are not commonly known by the bigger audience."</p><p>Toward that point, Luke Hunter, chief conservation officer at <a href="http://www.panthera.org/" target="_blank">Panthera</a>, the global wild cat conservation organization, said the main value of Tensen's paper is that it illustrates which species are not getting studied, notably small carnivores such as the rusty-spotted cat.</p><p>"I think there is terrific value in launching new research on such unknown species," Hunter said. "It provides the fundamental data that helps better understand how to conserve them, but they also represent a great opportunity to do basic science. One would think that prospect, with the possibility of writing seminal papers on previously unknown carnivores, would be a massive beacon to researchers—especially those in academia, who are the main audience for Tensen's paper."</p><p>Tensen said she's making that switch a bit herself. "I would personally very much like to move to the 'underdogs,' and I have recently started projects with black-backed jackals, caracals and black-footed cats," she said. "However, I can't deny that large carnivores fascinate me and I would never turn such projects down."</p><p>In fact, Tensen acknowledges, the appeal of large carnivores such as tigers and wolves—which her paper points out are often studied specifically because of their important ecological roles—helps research to get funded and therefore helps broader conservation issues. "Large and charismatic species are often targeted by conservation initiatives, which motivates research as well," she said. "This doesn't have to be a bad thing, because at least it helps to conserve nature."</p><p>Hunter added that we can study both types of creatures. "It's not a zero-sum game," he said. "We need more conservation-focused science on many of the well-studied larger species in decline, such as African wild dogs, lions and tigers. These charismatic and endangered species will always attract researchers, and so they should. My hope is that we see a growth in research, especially in applied work that helps design effective conservation actions, on all carnivores."</p><p>Meanwhile, researchers aren't the only ones with biases. I asked Tensen if I should feel guilty knowing that The Revelator's own home page frequent features charismatic species such as wolves and tigers.</p><p>"Don't feel bad at all," Tensen replied. "My desk is covered with wild dog and tiger pictures, so that makes me as guilty."</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://therevelator.org/tigers-wolves-conservation/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>.</em><em></em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Tim Davis / Corbis / VCG / Getty Images
By Angela Dassow
Love them or hate them, wolves are vital members of natural ecosystems and the health of a wolf population can be an important factor in maintaining balance among species. Wolf populations are growing in North America—the Great Lakes region in particular now supports more than 3,700 individuals. Keeping track of wolf pack movements is important for reducing human-wolf conflicts which can arise when packs move too close to ranches.
<p>
The traditional way to track wolves involves setting traps, sedating and then radio-collaring individual animals. While effective, this approach is time intensive and expensive, and entails risks for the animals.
</p><p>
I was fortunate to participate in this entire process firsthand as an undergraduate student. During the summer trapping seasons, I became familiar with each of the wolves in the central forest region of Wisconsin. This experience led to several conversations with the wildlife biologists in the area about whether wolf howls could be used to help identifying non-radio-collared pack members.
</p><p>
This question remained a fun thought experiment for many years. Now <a href="https://www.carthage.edu/live/profiles/1488-angela-dassow" target="_blank">as a biology professor</a> who specializes in <a href="http://ocr.org/learn/bioacoustics/" target="_blank">bioacoustics</a>, I've been able to turn that thought experiment into a full research question: Can we use acoustic features to identify individual wolves in the wild?
</p><h2>Downsides of Radio Collaring</h2><p>
Because of the many challenges involved in radio collaring an animal, it would be useful to have a new way to identify and track wild wolves.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODE4NDQxMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNzI2NTI2MH0.xeSGa3UJQY_vhfRc07hs2JGTW8_0cCqldcv-yLJ8aTk/img.jpg?width=980" id="fe9d6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="34bb6fbccb1a2a05d387622c3e2d7f30" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee fastens a radio collar onto a sedated female gray wolf. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwsmtnprairie/8488974469" target="_blank">Lori Iverson / USFWS</a> / <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY</a></small>
</p><p>
To successfully set a trap, wildlife managers must first spend days, if not weeks, scouting for signs of wolves. Once they've identified a suitable area, they set traps that must be checked every 24 hours. If successful, the animal needs to be sedated before it can be removed from the trap—which can be stressful both for the wolf and the researchers involved.<br>
</p><p>
A sedated wolf cannot regulate its body temperature and overheating can become an issue on hot days. Human handling of a sedated wolf can also be stressful on the pack members that are often nearby, observing the scene. Even after an animal is successfully radio-collared and released, it's still vulnerable to predators while the sedative wears off.
</p><p>
In spite of these risks, radio-collaring has been the standard way to track populations because each collar's radio-transmitter frequency acts as a unique identifier of an individual. Researchers can then use aerial surveys where a pilot searches for the collared animal or ground surveys where a field crew drives throughout a pack territory searching for feedback from the radio signal. This method is used to track a wide array of animals, including turtles, birds, bats, whales, fish, snakes and more.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODE4NDQzOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODI5NjQ4OX0.dALTcoo-xUMLMgwKOECFXEAQd0mqatqOlv5D4iLmWdc/img.jpg?width=980" id="dcf7e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9c1c6947537f728ccec6dd261a6a25dd" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Angela Dassow and Cara Hull survey a road in central Wisconsin for signs of wolves. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Caitlin McCombe / <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a></small>
</p><h2>Listening to Learn Who's Who</h2><p>
In 2013, behavioral ecologist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=CZyS1lMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra" target="_blank">Holly Root-Gutteridge</a> and her colleagues successfully demonstrated that they could <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2013.817318" target="_blank">identify individual wolves in captivity using acoustic features</a>. Their research provided evidence that it made sense to test whether vocal identification in wild animals is possible.
</p><p>
So with the support of the <a href="https://www.carthage.edu/sure/" target="_blank">Summer Undergraduate Research Experience</a> at <a href="https://www.carthage.edu/" target="_blank">Carthage College</a>, volunteers from the <a href="http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/" target="_blank">Timber Wolf Information Network</a>, and wildlife managers at <a href="https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/wildlifeareas/sandhill/" target="_blank">Sandhill Wildlife Area</a> in Babcock, Wisconsin, my undergraduate students Cara Hull and Caitlin McCombe and I began to record wolves in the wild.
</p><p>
It would be an understatement to say fieldwork can be challenging. On any given day, there can be daunting weather fluctuations. Biting insects, especially mosquitoes and deer flies, are abundant in wolf habitat. We had to constantly check ourselves for ticks. And then of course comes the actual fieldwork.
</p><p>
Wolves naturally avoid coming near people, but the best quality recordings are made up close to where the animals are producing the sounds. To get close with our audio equipment, we had to track the wolves every day to learn where they'd most recently been within their large territories. That's how we'd establish a starting point for our nightly recording sessions.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODE4NDQwNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDg5NDk2OX0.dqxJs0-wO7j8Nb50VqmkuTDpBh-LErJ0dOwMiimknxc/img.jpg?width=980" id="ff0d6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4a3174628e81e8085e2f097ded175c17" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Fresh track from an adult gray wolf. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Angela Dassow / <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a></small>
</p><p>
Conducting a daily survey of wolf habitat requires driving or walking down every possible path within a wolf's territory. Signs of activity could include fresh footprints or tracks. This can tell us how many animals were in the area and what direction they were heading.<br>
</p><p>
Large dogs can produce footprints that are similar in size to those of wolves; but the pattern of tracks can be distinguished based on the placement of their feet and the directness of the chosen route. Dogs have a tendency to wander more, while wolves will walk in a more efficient straight line.
</p><p>
In addition to tracks, we conduct a survey of fresh scat. It's not glamorous, but examining their feces provides valuable information about what the wolves have been eating and how recently they walked along a trail.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODE4NDQwNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjgzMTQ2Mn0.m4Q2M62khhy7-h4M0_F7sPcoa4V8HvOkedc5eFrlz0Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="46e17" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bb3bc741815cf70a4ade0552d920dbba" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Carthage College biology students Cara Hull and Caitlin McCombe conduct a howl survey in central Wisconsin.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."> Angela Dassow / <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a></small>
</p><p>
Using the information from our daytime survey, we plan a shorter nighttime howling route. Howling is a natural behavior during the evenings, when wolves call to signal that a territory is occupied. At each stopping point on our route, a researcher must get out of the vehicle and howl while another researcher records with a microphone any wolf responses, announcing their presence or defending territory. If we are successful in eliciting a response, we continue in its direction until we get as close as possible.<br>
</p><p>
Use of lights is discouraged since it can deter the wolves from calling again, so we needed to feel our way through the forest at night. Personally, I think it is incredibly exciting to be walking down a trail in the dark and have a wolf walk within feet of where I am. It may sound scary, but we are not in any danger since wolves prefer to avoid contact with humans. During our month-long survey, we were fortunate to experience two close wolf encounters.
</p><h2>Back in the Lab, Analyzing the Calls</h2><p>
With the howls recorded, we can return to the lab to analyze our findings using audio software.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODE4NDQwMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNDIzMzYwNn0.rnu2d3MMNKXbnOEOQUGH7jntHCl3YvOS4xTKWGdSZ8o/img.jpg?width=980" id="cc769" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1b78fd6399cfbbe73ed9199e4931729b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Acoustic properties are measured using Adobe Audition. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Angela Dassow / <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a></small>
</p><p>
We were able to isolate 21 howls from two adult wolves over two evenings. For each howl, we made six types of frequency measurements and two types of duration measurements. Frequency is how high or low the pitch of the howl sounds and duration is the length of time the howl lasted.<br>
</p><p>
For wild gray wolves, we found that the maximum frequency—that is, the highest sound an animal produced—and the frequency at the end of the howl were the two variables that were most individualistic. For captive wolves, it was different. The lowest frequency an individual produced—what in acoustics is called their fundamental frequency—and the loudness of its calls were the factors that best differentiated among the captive individuals.
</p><p>
The differences in useful identification information between wild and captive howls are likely a reflection of signal quality. The captive recordings are much clearer than what we were able to record in the wild, where we were typically at least half a mile away from the wolves; the signal degrades with distance. As signal quality declines, maximum frequency and end frequency become more useful in individual identification.
</p><p>
Based on our findings and previous research, it is possible to monitor gray wolf populations using non-invasive methods. To do so effectively, researchers would need to record known individuals in a particular area. Once they've built up a database of known individuals' howls, they can conduct nightly surveys. Comparing new recordings to those in the audio library would let them determine which individuals are in an area.
</p><p>
While radio-collaring procedures may still be useful in some cases, vocal identification is a promising alternative for monitoring individuals. Acoustic surveys are still a time-consuming process, but they eliminate the time needed to trap individuals and remove any possibility of accidentally injuring an animal in a trap. Additionally, once researchers gather a database of positively identified individuals, they can use remote monitoring stations to record howls, thus reducing the amount of time spent conducting nightly surveys. Acoustic monitoring could potentially track all the wolves in multiple packs whereas radio-collaring is typically used to track a single member in select packs.
</p><p>
<em>Reposted with permission from our media associate </em><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/scientist-at-work-identifying-individual-gray-wolves-by-their-howls-96086" target="_blank">The Conversation</a></em><em>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96086/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
Neal Herbert / Yellowstone National Park
The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved an expanded wolf hunting season Wednesday, with a goal of reducing the population to the bare minimum required to keep it off the endangered species list, Defenders of Wildlife reported.
<p>The 2018 season expands on 2017's season, which was the first in Wyoming since a 2017 appeals court removed Wyoming wolves from protections under the Endangered Species Act and allowed the state to take control of the population, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/apxwyoming-game-commission-oks-increased-wolf-hunting-season/" target="_blank">The Associated Press (AP) reported</a>.</p><p>"The Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Commission continue to focus on reducing the wolf population toward the bare minimum. Wolves are an important component of Wyoming's natural heritage, and should be managed toward achieving healthy and abundant populations across large landscapes so that they may perform their important natural role," Rockies & Plains Director at Defenders of Wildlife Jonathan Proctor said in a statement.</p><p>The 2018 season will allow hunters to kill a total of 58 wolves, a 14 wolf increase from the 2017 allowance of 44. It will also start one month earlier, in September, and allow individual hunters to kill up to two wolves, AP reported. </p><p>There are currently around 350 wolves in Wyoming, 210 of which live in areas of the state where hunting is permitted. The remaining wolves live in Yellowstone and Grand Teton <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/national-parks" target="_self">national parks</a>, the National Elk Refuge and the Wind River Indian Reservation, where hunting is prohibited.</p><p>State officials want to reduce the 210 wolves in their jurisdiction down to 160, citing concerns about wolves preying on livestock. </p><p>Game and Fish wolf biologist Ken Mills said that bringing the number down to 160 would be consistent with the state's commitment to maintain at least 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs, according to AP.</p><p>But Defenders of Wildlife argued that culling wolf populations is not a scientifically sound strategy for limiting livestock killings. It also disrupts pack structure and is more expensive than other, non-lethal means of protecting livestock. </p><p>"Rather than increase the number of wolves to be killed, Wyoming should improve outreach on the important role of wolves in the state and further promote the use of coexistence techniques that prevent conflicts," Proctor said.</p><p>Defenders of Wildlife also pointed out that Wyoming has created no buffer zones around the national parks, meaning some wolf packs wonder between protected and unprotected areas. </p><p>Wolves were originally reintroduced to the Northern Rockies in the 1990s. Neighboring states of Idaho and Montana also allow wolf hunts, according to AP. </p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
5 Conservation Milestones to Celebrate on This International Day for Biological Diversity
22 May 2018
Animals
An Asian elephant eating tree bark. Yathin S Krishnappa / CC BY-SA 3.0
Scientists are increasingly realizing the importance of biodiversity for sustaining life on earth. The most comprehensive biodiversity study in a decade, published in March by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), warned that the ongoing loss of species and habitats was as great a threat to our and our planet's wellbeing as climate change.
<p>Plus, biodiversity makes life on earth more worthwhile. Who wants to live in a world without baby elephants rolling in the mud, or monarch butterflies landing on summer flowers? </p><p>That's why the UN is celebrating the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/events/biodiversityday/" target="_blank">International Day for Biological Diversity</a> May 22. </p><p>May 22 is the day that the text of the <a href="https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/" target="_blank">Convention on Biological Diversity</a> (CBD), the international legal pact that oversees the protection of this important resource, was adapted. </p><p>This year marks 25 years since the CBD entered into force, so the UN is using this year's International Day for Biological Diversity to highlight this achievement: The theme for this year's day is "Celebrating 25 Years of Action for Biodiversity." While there is clearly still a lot of work to do, it is important to take the time to reflect on what humans can achieve when we work together to protect other species, so that we can get inspired to build on our successes. Here, then, are five biodiversity milestones from the past 25 years. </p><p><strong>1.The Convention on Biological Diversity</strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzcyMDQ4OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODU2NjQ5Mn0.1duRu1dEGS_2Epp51S_DjytO-EC0ZD5SAMo28DmIRdo/img.png?width=980" id="7f0b1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="89ffd5439aadbee953407ace2cfe9bec" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">The parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (green) and signatories, but not ratified (purple), as of 2014</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">L.tak / <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en" target="_blank">CC BY-SA 3.0</a></small></p><p>The CBD, which aims at "the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources," entered into force on Dec. 29, 1993. It has been ratified by 196 countries and led to further agreements such as the <a href="https://www.cbd.int/sp/default.shtml" target="_blank">Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020</a> and its <a href="https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/" target="_blank">Aichi Biodiversity Targets</a>. Since the CBD entered into force, the amount of land set aside as protected has almost doubled, accounting for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/protected-areas-degraded-by-humans-2569960309.html" target="_self">15 percent</a> of the earth's terrestrial area.<br></p><p><strong>2. Gray Wolves Restored to Yellowstone National Park</strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzcxNzQxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMTY1NzM4MX0.lLz-XxvbQkcX3ltCwjDR_soFddRA6LXc31KCnEtkiLQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="93eca" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4fbe7fc76b5e6ecce148c3fd43550894" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Wolves in Yellowstone</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Doug Smith / National Park Service </small></p><p>The last wolf pack in Yellowstone National Park was killed in 1926, and for forty long years their howls were silenced. All that changed in 1995 and 1996 when 31 gray wolves from Western Canada were released in the park. The population has been successful enough to be delisted from protection under the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species" target="_self">Endangered Species</a> Act in Montana and Idaho. But more than that, according to the <a href="https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm" target="_blank">National Park Service</a>, the wolves look likely to boost biodiversity in the park overall. The carcasses they leave behind help scavenging species, including grizzly bears in lean years. They also deter coyotes, which might have a beneficial impact on rodents and birds of prey. It is also possible that the wolves had a role in the resurgence of aspen trees in the park, since they eat the elk that consume the trees, <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/wolves-greenthumbs-yellowstone" target="_blank">PBS reported</a>.<br></p><p><strong>3. The Amazon Soy Moratorium</strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzcxNzQyMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDQyMTg4Mn0.EavDz-rUJBazfGEbYJndLn-vcu08f9lChEYXY601EEA/img.jpg?width=980" id="6865e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="da7ad9f9619f75be825e2446b62bfd6a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Deforestation in the Amazon in 2016</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/145872537@N06" target="_blank">Ibama</a> / <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en" target="_blank">CC BY 2.0</a></small></p><p>According to the <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/about_the_amazon/" target="_blank">World Wildlife Fund</a>, the Amazon rainforest is home to a staggering 10 percent of the earth's biodiversity. That's why it was so alarming in 2004 and 2005 when the Brazilian Amazon saw its second highest deforestation rates, partly driven by the increased clearing of forest to grow soy, <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/the-soy-moratorium-10-year-anniversary-stopping-amazon-destruction/blog/57127/" target="_blank">according to Greenpeace</a>. To fight this threat, Greenpeace proposed a moratorium on the purchase of soy that came from deforested fields, used slave labor or invaded indigenous territories. The result was the Amazon Soy Moratorium, signed by 90 percent of the companies involved in the Brazilian soy market, which <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2017/03/amazon-soy-moratorium-defeating-deforestation-or-greenwash-diversion/" target="_blank">Mongabay</a> called the "first major voluntary zero-deforestation agreement achieved in the tropics." It was extended indefinitely in 2016. As Mongabay pointed out, the agreement isn't perfect; for example, farmers would continue to clear land they already owned and claim compliance. One 2014 study found that the agreement was responsible for 5 to 10 percent of the significant decrease in deforestation after its passing, but a 2017 <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170429095035.htm" target="_blank">study</a> from the University of Kansas found the moratorium played a greater role in halting deforestation than previously believed.<br></p><p><strong>4. Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument</strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzcyMDUxMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDc3MTI0Mn0.5B85NByN2VsYNHdQXYIN-pySjuoY5JPlekf8_Cu4wb4/img.jpg?width=980" id="f6942" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="af85c7ab3fbf3d9dd8fa8cbc74131bde" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">A green turtle in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Kydd Pollock / <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/52133016@N08" target="_blank">USFWS - Pacific Region</a> / <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en" target="_blank">CC BY 2.0</a></small></p><p>In 2014, President Barack Obama expanded a national monument around a group of remote atolls in the central Pacific into what was then the largest marine reserve in the world, <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140924-pacific-remote-islands-marine-monument-expansion-conservation/" target="_blank">National Geographic reported</a>. The reserve is three times the size of California and larger than all U.S. land-based national parks. The area protects corals, sea birds, sharks and five endangered species of sea turtles. According to the <a href="https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_1/NWRS/Zone_1/Pacific_Remote_Islands_Marine_National_Monument/Documents/PRIMNM%20brief(2).pdf" target="_blank">Fish and Wildlife Service</a>, it is farther from a population center than any other U.S. area and represents the largest protected coral reef, shorebird and sea bird habitat under one nation's control. As the <a href="http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/ioc-oceans/focus-areas/rio-20-ocean/blueprint-for-the-future-we-want/marine-biodiversity/facts-and-figures-on-marine-biodiversity/" target="_blank">United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization points out</a>, more than half of marine species could be threatened with extinction by 2100, yet only one percent of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oceans" target="_blank">oceans</a> are protected, so reserves like this one are a key part of preserving the amazing biodiversity of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_blank">marine life</a>.<br></p><p><strong>5. EU Bans Bee-Killing Pesticides</strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzcxNzQzMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzODA1Nzg1NX0.tVy62B_I10s2EEJHIKmPkCVwmAWfX_B4Y9AbUINoqBU/img.jpg?width=980" id="2a2ab" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7575eff374c6346d29ce007fc15c4f9f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">A European honeybee</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">John Severns</small></p><p>One important win for biodiversity came just last month, when the EU decided to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bees-neonicotinoids-ban-europe-2563782231.html" target="_self">expand</a> its partial 2013 ban on three pesticides called <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/neonicotinoids" target="_blank">neonicotinoids</a>, completely restricting their outdoor use. Studies had shown the pesticides were harmful to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bees" target="_blank">bees</a> and other pollinating insects. A <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/global-biodiversity-report-warns-pollinators-are-under-threat-1.19456" target="_blank">2016 IPBES study</a> on pollinators found that their decline put global food production at risk, and recommended limiting pesticide use for the sake of bees. As we celebrate the International Day of Biodiversity, April's pesticide ban is a reminder that protecting life on earth isn't just a series of historic milestones; it must also be a task for the present and a goal for the future.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The Alexander Archipelago wolf is widely considered to be a subspecies of gray wolf genetically distinct from other North American populations. The wolf faces threats from logging and trapping on Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game
By Faith Rudebusch
For 12,000 years, wolves have roamed Southeast Alaska's rugged Alexander Archipelago—a 300-mile stretch of more than 1,000 islands mostly within the Tongass National Forest. Now, their old-growth forest habitat is rapidly disappearing, putting the wolves at risk. As the region's logging policies garner controversy, a new study examines what the wolves need in order to survive.
<p style="">Largely isolated from mainland wolves by water barriers and the Coast Mountains, the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) is <a href="https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/pdf/aa_wolf/AA_wolf_SSA_Final.pdf" target="_blank">widely considered</a> to be a subspecies of gray wolf genetically distinct from other North American populations. In the 1990s and again in <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Alexander_Archipelago_wolf/pdfs/AA_Wolf_ESA_Petition_10-Aug-2011.pdf" target="_blank">2011</a>, conservationists sought to protect the island wolves under the Endangered Species Act, but the <a href="https://www.fws.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service</a> denied these petitions—most recently, in <a href="https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/species/aa_wolf.htm" target="_blank">January 2016</a>.</p><p style="">Despite their decision not to list the subspecies, in their <a href="https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/species/aa_wolf.htm" target="_blank">analysis</a>, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service highlighted Prince of Wales Island as the area of greatest concern for the archipelago wolves, due primarily to impacts of logging and trapping. Bigger than the state of Delaware, Prince of Wales is the largest island in Southeast Alaska and the fourth-largest island in the U.S., after Hawaii, Kodiak Island and Puerto Rico. The island's lowland hills are blanketed with temperate rainforests of spruce and hemlock and strewn with winding rivers and fjords.</p><p style="">Much of Prince of Wales' scant human population of fewer than 5,500 residents makes its living from the island's natural resources—uranium mining, commercial fishing, hunting and harvesting timber. The Tongass, which covers most of the island, is the last national forest where the logging industry can legally clear-cut old-growth timber. "The trees are huge ... it's been the epicenter for the logging industry in Alaska," said Gretchen Roffler, a wildlife research biologist with the <a href="http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/" target="_blank">Alaska Department of Fish and Game</a> (ADF&G).</p><p style="">When commercial logging reached Prince of Wales in the 1950s, it hit full force. Between 1954 and 2004, 94 percent of the "contiguous, high-volume old-growth—the big trees, the really high-quality timber—was harvested," according to John Schoen, retired senior conservation biologist with ADF&G. "That's a huge impact."</p><p style="">"Prince of Wales Island is basically a patchwork of the remaining old-growth and then second-growth in various stages of reforestation," Roffler said. "Everything from clear-cuts to older second-growth."</p><p style="">Today, logging roads etch elaborate curlicues into the island's topography. The extensive road system provides hunters and trappers with easy access to the wolves, which are simultaneously prized for their pelts and regarded as competitors that steal hunters' deer. According to Roffler, 60 wolves were hunted or trapped last year, 2 illegally. The total number of wolves killed without permits is, of course, impossible to obtain. Roffler said that ADF&G estimated that 231 wolves inhabited Prince of Wales and surrounding smaller islands in the fall of 2017.</p><p style="">Although hunting and trapping have the potential to eradicate wolves in the short-term, habitat loss from logging poses an even greater long-term challenge for wolf survival, said Roffler, whose study of wolves on Prince of Wales was recently <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112717314032" target="_blank">published</a> in Forest Ecology and Management. Logging primarily affects wolves by reducing habitat for deer, their primary source of prey. To learn more about which pieces of the fragmented landscape the wolves tend to frequent, Roffler and her team distributed radio collars among 13 wolves in 7 packs. The radio collars transmitted wolf locations for up to two years per animal, allowing unprecedented insight into their movements.</p><p style="">Roffler and her colleagues found that the island wolves used a variety of habitats: open meadows, marshy muskegs, salmon streams and even recent clear-cuts seasonally accommodated these adaptable animals. Wolves avoided areas with high road densities during the spring denning season and summer, but strongly selected these areas during the winter. They spent much of the fall and winter hunting Sitka black-tailed deer in low-volume, old-growth forest. There, the tree canopies act as umbrellas, catching much of the snow. According to Schoen, deer need old-growth forests to access food during the winter. </p><p>Roffler's research showed that wolves, like deer in previous studies, consistently avoided younger forests. Logged 25 to 30-plus years ago, young-growth conifer forests replace clear-cuts in accordance with the ecological principle of succession. The trees' interlocking branches keep light from reaching the forest floor, where few plants are able to grow. Deer, along with most other wildlife, can find almost nothing to eat in such forests. Coined "succession debt" by scientists, this legacy from prior logging operations will impact wildlife for more than a century.</p><p style="">Wolves are considered habitat generalists, existing in a broad range of habitats and ecological conditions worldwide. "They live in deserts and outside of urban areas; they live in forests and out in the mountains and in the grasslands," said Roffler. "But they are really strongly avoiding the older clear-cuts on Prince of Wales Island. And that's significant because there's a lot of land area moving into that kind of forest."</p><p style="">In an attempt to salvage this new kind of habitat for wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service recently began pre-commercially thinning the trees. But the wolves in Roffler's study didn't show any preference for the thinned forests. "The thinning treatments… haven't been very effective at creating better habitat for wolves," Roffler said. "And when we say better habitat for wolves, we probably really mean better habitat for deer, because that's why wolves would most likely be going into these forests."<strong></strong></p><p style="">Roffler says that deer are wolves' primary food source. As deer populations decline, she predicts that wolves will switch to other forms of prey. She found that beavers, seasonally available salmon, bear cubs and adult bear carcasses (abandoned by hunters) all contribute to the island wolves' diets. But Schoen is less optimistic, stating that Prince of Wales residents depend on successful deer hunts to feed their families. He believes that as succession debt reduces deer populations, hunters will increasingly target wolves, legally or illegally, as they are perceived as depleting deer populations.</p><p style="">For decades, the Forest Service has struggled to reconcile the ecological value of 200- to 500-year-old trees with their economic value as timber. In December 2016, the agency, in consultation with scientists and members of the public, approved a 16-year plan to transition away from old-growth logging to the exclusive harvest of previously logged lands.</p><p style="">Alaska's Senator Lisa Murkowski and the logging industry don't like this plan. During a February roundtable discussion with Senator Murkowski, panelists lobbied to keep their access to the forest, according to <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/03/01/forest-service-chief-murkowski-hear-from-tongass-stakeholders/" target="_blank">Alaska Public Media</a>. Timber company representatives pointed out that their lumber mills can't process smaller trees. Senator Murkowski pushed for riders to the 2018 <a href="https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY2018-INT-CHAIRMEN-MARK-BILL.PDF" target="_blank">Omnibus Spending Bill</a> that would have voided the expiration date on old-growth logging and allowed new road construction in the Tongass (new roads are normally banned in National Forests); the bill passed without the riders.</p><p style="">"The timber industry wants to log the high-volume, big-tree stands," said Schoen. "It's like picking the M&Ms out of a bag of GORP." Since 2014, Schoen has collaborated with other preeminent scientists working to end clear-cutting in the old-growth forest. "I think, if the timber industry had the opportunity, they would continue clear-cutting the rare, big tree, old-growth forest in the Tongass for probably the next 10 to 15 years, until those valuable trees were gone. After that, they would pull out." Disheartened by how long the Forest Service has taken to protect these trees, he adds, "That kind of forestry is unsustainable and would do great damage to the fish and wildlife resources of the Tongass, the only national forest where old-growth is still allowed to be clear-cut."</p><p style="">Former chief of the Forest Service Mike Dombeck recently argued for protecting Tongass old-growth in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/opinion/protecting-alaska-wild-lands.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront" target="_blank">New York Times</a>. Dombeck concluded, "To restart road building in Alaska's most pristine national forests will only repeat history, leading to more lawsuits and uncertainty while undercutting the region's economic bases of fishing and tourism."</p><p style="">"I think there's a serious conservation concern," said Schoen. "The science community recognizes that old-growth forests are rare. They're highly valuable, not just for deer or wolves or marbled murrelets or goshawks. They're valuable really as an endangered ecosystem."</p><p style=""><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate </em><em><a href="http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/wolves_losing_ground_industrial_logging_southeast_alaska/" target="_blank">Earth Island Journal</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Red wolf in Randolph, North Carolina. Valerie / Flickr
Tucked away in the Senate report accompanying Monday's funding bill for the Department of the Interior is a directive to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to "end the Red Wolf recovery program and declare the Red Wolf extinct."
"Senate Republicans are trying to hammer a final nail in the coffin of the struggling red wolf recovery program," said Perrin de Jong, staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "It is morally reprehensible for Senator Murkowski and her committee to push for the extinction of North Carolina's most treasured wild predator. Instead of giving up on the red wolf, Congress should fund recovery efforts, something lawmakers have cynically blocked time and time again."
<p style="">The science demonstrates that red wolves are still recoverable. A 2014 <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/pdfs/WMI-Red-Wolf-Review-11142014.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> by the nonpartisan Wildlife Management Institute concluded that recovery would require augmenting eastern North Carolina's existing wild population of fewer than 45 red wolves with two additional wild populations and investing additional resources to build local support for red wolf recovery.</p><p style="">The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently developing a revised rule under the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species">Endangered Species</a> Act to redesign protections for the red wolf, and nearly all the public comments submitted to the agency this past summer <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/red-wolf-08-14-2017.php" target="_blank">support recovering</a> the wild population in the southeastern U.S.</p><p style="">"The red wolf is an iconic, local species that is part of North Carolina history," said de Jong. "It's not too late to save these wolves from extinction."</p><p style=""><strong>Background</strong> </p><p style="">The red wolf is the world's most endangered canid and currently can only be found in five counties of North Carolina. Thanks to recovery efforts, red wolf populations peaked at 130 individuals in the mid-2000s. In recent years, due to illegal shootings and the failure of the Fish and Wildlife Service to properly address these illegal killings, the red wolf population has fallen to less than 45 red wolves existing in the wild. Captive-breeding facilities hold nearly 200 red wolves. Red wolves enjoy overwhelming public support from North Carolinians, including in the five eastern counties where they live.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Famous Rare White Wolf Killed in Yellowstone, $15,000 and Growing Reward Offered
15 May 2017
Popular
Neal Herbert / Yellowstone National Park
The Center for Biological Diversity is contributing $5,000 toward a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for illegally shooting and killing a famous wolf in Yellowstone National Park.
<p>The 12-year-old wolf—one of only three known white wolves in Yellowstone—was the alpha female of the canyon pack.</p><p>The Center for Biological Diversity's pledge, along with the $5,000 offered by the National Park Service, $5,000 from the <a href="https://www.wolvesoftherockies.org/" target="_blank">Wolves of the Rockies</a> and the <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/justice-for-the-white-lady" target="_blank">Go Fund Me campaign</a> launched by the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Heartofthewildyellowstone/" target="_blank">Heart of the Wild Yellowstone</a> with the goal of raising an additional $15,000, comes as National Park Service officials are seeking leads in their criminal investigation of the incident. The wolf, mortally wounded from a gunshot, was found by hikers on April 11 in Yellowstone National Park near Gardiner, Montana.</p><p>"We sure hope they catch the despicable killer of this wolf," said Andrea Santarsiere, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Shooting this wolf in Yellowstone National Park, an area that should be a safe haven for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a>, is not only illegal but repulsive."</p><p>National Park Service officials believe the wolf was shot sometime between 1 a.m. on April 10 and 2 p.m. on April 11, somewhere on the north side of the park—either near Gardiner or near the Old Yellowstone Trail located within the park's northern boundary. The wolf was not immediately killed, but instead was left severely injured. Park staff had to euthanize her.</p><p>As of April 24, it is legal to kill wolves in much of Wyoming, as it is in Montana and Idaho. However, it remains illegal to kill wolves in Yellowstone, Grand Teton or other <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/national-parks">national parks</a>. </p><p>"Sadly, this <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/poaching">poaching</a> incident reflects what a growing body of research is making more and more clear—allowing extensive hunting of wolves has not increased social tolerance for them, as states have predicted," said Santarsiere. "Instead we're seeing evidence that state-supported hunts of big carnivores actually devalue them among a certain segment of the population, and in fact likely trigger an increase in illegal killings."</p><p>The National Park Service is asking anyone with information about the incident to call the ISB tip line, (888) 653-0009. Callers may remain anonymous.</p>
Read More
Show Less