Wolf plan requires reality check
Editorial, Capital Press, May 27, 2010 [here]
Imagine for a moment that you are a detective, and you’re called to a crime scene. The victim is dead, and though no one witnessed it, the suspected killer was seen there before and after the death. In fact, no one else was seen in the vicinity and the suspected killer and accomplices were wearing radio collars placing them at or near the crime scene.
What conclusion would you make?
As the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has investigated cases of calves that were killed, torn apart and partially eaten, the conclusions — or lack thereof — have been startling. Though wolves were seen in the pastures before and after calves were killed, in some cases ODFW officials were unwilling to conclude that wolves killed the calves.
What, exactly, do they think killed the calves? Bigfoot? The Easter Bunny? Elvis?
Marlyn Riggs, a federal Wildlife Services hunter with 30 years of experience, was able to determine that wolves attacked the calves, and the Wallowa County sheriff, Fred Steen, agrees.
But the state official, ODFW Wolf Program Coordinator Russ Morgan, withheld judgment.
ESA Not About Saving Species
It’s about spending taxpayer money and making some groups wealthy
by Karen Budd-Falen
To: Interested Parties
From: Western Legacy Alliance [here]
Date: May 26, 2010
Re: Endangered Species Act
Below please find some disappointing data regarding Endangered Species Act (”ESA”) and its cost to the American public. ESA process and litigation are NOT about saving species, it is about spending American taxpayer money. In an economic time where American jobs are scarce, private property rights are being taken and the federal deficit is trillions of dollars, certainly the federal government can find a better way to spend American taxpayer dollars than lining the pockets of radical environmental groups and their “pro bono” (i.e. allegedly free) attorneys and spending money on a program that by the federal government’s data is a complete failure.
The ESA was signed into law in 1978 with the best of intentions. However, over the years it has become the battle cry to eliminate private property rights and property use, shut down agriculture and other industries and fund radical environmental groups and their attorneys. There is not a single state within the United States that does not have listed, threatened or endangered species. It would not be so bad if the original intent of the ESA was followed and species were listed, then recovered, then removed from the list, but that is not what is happening.
As of May 17, 2010, there are a total of 1,374 species listed as threatened or endangered. This list includes everything, even bugs, worms, plants, snakes, spiders, bogs, moss, mice, rats and other species. According to a 2009 report by Greenwire citing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the average cost of listing a single species is $85,000 and the average cost of designating critical habitat is $515,000 per species.
Thus, the approximate cost to the American taxpayer of listing the 1,374 species is $116,790,000 and the approximate cost of designating critical habitat for those species is $707,610,000.
If it weren’t bad enough that America’s taxpayers are spending millions simply listing species, that is not the end of the story. The ESA sets very specific time frames for species listing and critical habitat designation; time frames which the federal government cannot seem to meet. Species are listed by a petition process, which means that anyone can send a letter to the federal government asking that a species, either plant or animal, be put on the ESA list. The federal government has 90 days to respond to that petition, no matter how frivolous. If the federal government fails to respond in 90 days, the petitioner — in the vast majority of cases, radical environmental groups — can file litigation against the federal government and get its attorneys fees paid. The simple act of filing litigation does not mean the species will get listed or that it is warranted to be protected; this litigation is only over whether the federal government failed to respond to the petition in 90 days. Between 2000 and 2009, in just 12 states and the District of Columbia, 14 environmental groups filed 180 federal court complaints to get species listed under the ESA and were paid $11,743,287 in attorneys fees and costs.
Again, there are listed ESA species in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories. Consider how much in attorneys fees have been paid if all litigation in all states is considered.
And it doesn’t end there; the federal agencies have placed 341 more species on the candidate species list, meaning that they are under consideration for listing on the ESA threatened or endangered species list. That is 341 species times the average cost of listing of $85,000 per species and $515,000 for each critical habitat designation for a total of $204,600,000 — all from America’s pocketbooks.
And it still doesn’t end there; certain radical environmental groups have petitioned for additional listings of even more species and critical habitat designations. In the last 8 months, the Center for Biological Diversity, the WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project have threatened the federal government with litigation if the government fails to list 238 more species. If the federal government does not respond to those listing petitions or Notices of Intent to Sue, federal court complaints will be filed and according to recent history, attorneys fees will be paid.
And with all this money — $116,790,000 for species listing; $707,610,000 for critical habitat designation; $11,743,287 in attorneys fees paid to some radical environmental groups because the federal government simply missed deadlines — only 47 species have been taken off the ESA list and of that 47 only 21 because they were recovered. That is a 1.5% success rate! The other 26 species were taken off the list because they either went extinct (9 species) or should never have been put on the list in the first place (17 species). There is something wrong with this picture.
And while you are thinking about the ESA and its cost versus failure rate, consider the additional individual costs to American taxpayers and small businesses. The California red and yellow-legged frogs have cost the taxpayers $445,924 just in litigation attorneys fees. Part of the reason that California farmers in the Central Valley have no water for their crops is because of Natural Resources Defense Council litigation over the delta smelt, a 2 to 3 inch long minnow. Wolf litigation has cost American taxpayers $436,762 in attorney fees, all paid to environmental groups who sue the federal government. Litigation over the desert tortoise, (a total of 11 cases) -– a species that only spends 5% of its life above ground -– has cost the American taxpayers $702,519 just in payment of attorneys fees. In fact, in the last 10 years, the federal government has spent more than $93 million in taxpayer money on the desert tortoise.
And that is not counting the costs to American business, even “green business.” In California, Brightsource Energy will have to spend $20 million dollars to relocate 20 tortoises plus create a permanent tortoise trust fund so it can build its solar power plant. That is 1 million dollars plus per tortoise. Other businesses that have been impacted or stopped by the desert tortoise include a wind farm that would supply electricity to Las Vegas. Private landowners who wish to develop their own property are required to pay “mitigation fees” of between $370 and $550 per acre to develop private lands designated as desert tortoise critical habitat. Once the money is paid, it does not matter how many desert tortoises are killed. Hyundai car company had to buy 3000 acres of additional land for $5 million so that it could use its own private property for a car safety test track.
In addition to the $5 million, the company also agreed to pay $1.5 million into an endowment fund for the desert tortoise. The National Military Training Center at Ft. Irwin has also been negatively impacted, agreeing to pay $6.9 million to relocate desert tortoises on the base so it can conduct its military training. None of this counts the over 30 family ranches that were eliminated because they used to graze their cattle on desert tortoise critical habitat.
It is clear that the American taxpayers have a tremendous problem. This wouldn’t be so hard to take if the ESA was successful or if the radical environmental groups that are getting taxpayer money to litigate over the ESA were spending money on species or their habitats. However, there is no evidence that one single dime of the money the federal government pays to environmental groups to litigate over ESA species is spent on habitat or species research or mitigation projects — the money is just spent to get more taxpayer money and put more small businesses out of business or stop private landowners from using their properties. Even those businesses that supply “green jobs” and “green technology” suffer. This is a maddening state of affairs for America — somewhere the madness must stop!
Vegetarians: The Scourge of the Earth
By Charles E. Kay Ph.D., Utah State Univ.
From Mule Deer Foundation Magazine No.30:42-47, April 2009 [here]. Posted by permission.
In debates over the future of hunting in the United States and around the world, animal-rights groups claim that they have the moral high-ground because they are vegetarians. Hunters are portrayed as a lower lifeform because they kill and eat animals, while vegetarians are depicted as harmless because all they eat are plants. Unfortunately, the general public and the national media have accepted these assertions without careful study or reasoned thought. They have done so, in part, because most people have a poor understanding of basic ecology or human evolution. Hunters it turns out are the epitome of civilization, while vegetarians are the scourge of the Earth. Virtually all the world’s environmental problems, from the loss of biodiversity to carbon dioxide emissions, can be traced to vegetarians, not hunters.
The concept of the trophic pyramid is fundamental to ecology. The simplest trophic pyramid contains three levels. On the bottom are the plants; above the plants are herbivores, which feed on the plants; and above the herbivores are carnivores which prey on the herbivores. Did you even wonder why plants are more abundant than herbivores? And herbivores more abundant than carnivores? It is because there is a 90% to 99% loss of stored energy between each trophic level.
Plants turn sunlight into stored energy that can be used by herbivores. Herbivores then convert those plant tissues into more herbivores but in so doing there is a major loss in stored energy because the herbivores have to expend energy on body maintenance and respiration, in addition to reproduction. The consumed energy is given-off as heat or waste products. The same, in turn, happens when carnivores eat herbivores. Ninety percent or more of that energy goes to carnivore body maintenance and respiration, not population growth. Thus, in this simplest of trophic pyramids, if you have 100 units of plant biomass, that vegetation can support only 10 units, at best, of herbivore biomass, and that animal biomass, in turn, can support only one unit, or less, of carnivore biomass. This is why carnivores are always so rare. Moreover, this is a fundamental law of thermal dynamics and of all living systems. Some trophic pyramids have more than three levels and the more trophic layers there are, the less abundant are the top or apex predators, such as human hunters.
So in systems where humans are pure hunters, human population densities are generally very low, with correspondingly few environmental impacts. But if humans move down a trophic level, as only humans can, and become gatherer-hunters, were gatherers collect mainly vegetal foods, the human population increases ten-fold or more. Humans also use fire to enhance both plant and animal productivity, which allows for even greater human population growth. Switching to agriculture further increases plant productivity per unit area leading to a massive increase in human numbers. The reason there are seven or eight billion people on Earth is because they are primarily vegetarians. There are few environmental problems around the globe that cannot be laid at the feet of vegetarians.
more »
Criminal Activities by Federal Bureaucrats Involved with Wolves
Former USFWS Wildlife Biologist Jim Beers has been on a speaking tour of late.
He spoke in in Bozeman, MT on May 16th at a meeting sponsored by Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd.
He will be speaking at the upcoming wolf symposium, “Can Ranchers and Wolves Co-Exist?,” in La Grande at Eastern Oregon University’s Badgley Hall from 1- 4 p.m. on Saturday, May 22; and at The Wolving of America Event,Wednesday, May 26, 4 pm at Greyhound Park in Post Falls, Idaho.
Mr. Beers’ speech is based on a paper he wrote recently:
Beers, Jim. 2010. Criminal Activities by Federal Bureaucrats and Others Involved in the Introduction, Protection and Spread of Wolves in the Lower 48 States. Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Bozeman, MT 16 May 2010.
We are pleased and honored to have placed that paper online at the W.I.S.E. Colloquium: Wildlife Sciences [here].
It’s a great speech and also a great read — if you can’t make it to one the above events and even if you can. Jim Beers knows his subject and he pulls no punches. Criminal Activities … is an indictment of corrupt practices by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, some of which date back 40 years and are still ongoing!
The story Mr. Beers relates is not pretty, but it is important to understanding how federal and state wildlife management tumbled down a slippery slope.
How we are going to pull them back up into compliance with the law is another story, but to do that we have to know how and why things fell apart in the first place. Please enjoy Jim’s skillful prose while you get an education in the politics of wildlife, wolves, and Homo sapiens.
Birds Cougars Coyotes Endangered Specious Wildlife Agencies
by admin
6 comments
Sage-Grouse and Predator Prey Relations
After years of hue and cry, and being carpet-bombed with lawsuits, last March the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service placed the greater sage-grouse on the candidate species list [here]. That didn’t halt the lawsuits, however [here, here].
The gist of the argle-bargle is that sage-grouse are in decline because their habitat is diminishing [here].
Nothing could be further from the truth. Sage-grouse population changes are governed by predator-prey relations, not habitat.
Sage-grouse do not eat sagebrush. They eat insects and seeds. They feed their chicks caterpillars. The insects and caterpillars that make up their diet also do not eat sagebrush. Principally, sage-grouse prey eat grass.
Sage-grouse can survive and even flourish where there is no sagebrush at all.
Sage-grouse, in turn, are prey to ravens, coyotes, cougars, eagles, hawks and other predators higher up the food chain. Sagebrush does not protect sage-grouse from their predators.
We reported these wildlife biology facts a year ago [here].
In a remarkable about-face, researchers have determined that sage grouse are NOT limited by “loss of habitat.” It turns out that sage grouse populations are governed by PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS, just like all other animals. …
Idaho State University researchers found that ravens and badgers eat grouse eggs [here], but not ground squirrels. The clever scientists set up webcams near grouse nests and WATCHED as wild predators gobbled pre-hatched chicks. …
Real science, which is mainly concerned with reality, presents strong evidence that PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS have everything to do with population dynamics, and that “loss of habitat” is a pile of bird crap.
First Livestock Wolf Kill in Oregon in 2010
Four wolves killed a calf (pictured below) north of Enterprise yesterday in Wallowa Co., Oregon. This is the first confirmed livestock killed by wolves in Oregon Wallowa County in 2010. [Not the first kill, not the first in Oregon.]
The federal government illegally dumped Canadian wolves in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1995. They (the wolves and the dumpers) have now spread into Oregon.
State biologists maintain that wolves have ecological “value.” By that they mean wolves extirpate game animals such as deer and elk, “surplus” kill livestock, spread diseases such as rabies, distemper, and hydatid tapeworms, stalk children, and generally rid the ecosystem of other mammals.
Here is an excellent journalistic synopsis of the incident:
ODFW confirms first wolf kill in Wallowa County
By Kathleen Ellyn, Wallowa County Chieftain, 5/7/2010 [here]
Wallowa County rancher Bob Lathrop has become the first to suffer a confirmed wolf kill of livestock in Wallowa County. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has confirmed that the calf killed May 5 on the Lewis Road/Dorrance Grade 17 miles northeast of Enterprise was killed by wolves.
The calf was in a pasture of young cows and calves recently moved from a home pasture to grazing near Zumwalt Prairie. ODFW employee Jason Moncrief, who was hired to haze elk back from Zumwalt Prairie into the forest, saw four wolves in the cow/calf pasture the morning of Wednesday, May 5, and later in the day saw carrion birds fly from the same pasture.
He investigated, discovered the partially eaten remains of the approximately two-month-old calf scattered across the field, and reported the find.
Oregon Department of Fish and Game (ODFW) District Biologist Vic Coggins and rancher Tom Birkmeier happened to be in the area and responded immediately. U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services wolf hunter Marlyn Riggs and Rod Childers, wolf committee chairman for the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (OCA) arrived shortly thereafter. Coggins and Riggs confirmed the kill. ODFW Wolf Program Coordinator Russ Morgan was out of town but returned immediately, arriving on Thursday to second the confirmation. The wolves are believed to be part of the 10-wolf Imnaha pack.
“It was sheer luck we got that confirmation,” said Childers. “If Jason hadn’t been passing by, seen those wolves and then checked it out, and if Tom and Vic hadn’t been in the area right then, this would be another unconfirmed kill.”
Wallowa County ranchers have been complaining for months that young calves are being entirely eaten, and that since they can only report mother cows with no calves, the predation of dozens of calves has not been confirmed by ODFW.
Childers said that the Association had requested that the wolves be permanently removed from the area or killed. However, a press release from ODFW said that the agency planned to use non-lethal measures to avoid future incidents as the first response to wolf depredation.
“It’s ludicrous,” said Childers. “ODFW says that all of the non-lethal actions we’ve been taking in this county are ‘preventative.’ I asked what the difference was between non-lethal and preventative and there is no difference. If there was more that we could do we would do it, but basically we have to wait until there are more dead livestock confirmed as wolf kills before ODFW can possibly take an action. If these four wolves get back into the pack before there is another depredation, we can’t identify the specific wolves and the whole process starts over again. This could go on all summer.”
Lathrop told ranchers he would be sleeping with his cattle for the next few days, but has three pastures of cattle. “What’s he going to do,” Childers asked, “flip a coin as to which pasture he should be sleeping in?”
Several other cattle carcasses have been photographed and reported as suspected wolf kills in Wallowa County, but were too well-eaten to show the distinctive bite marks of wolves and gain confirmation by ODFW biologists. Ranchers are also reporting changes in behavior by cattle consistent with harassment by wolves. One serious consequence of wolf harassment reported by ranchers in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana is that stock dogs can no longer work cattle because fear of dogs causes cattle to bunch up protectively instead of herd, Childers said. Childers said the OCA is asking ranchers to document any and all interactions with wolves, behavior of cattle, and preventative actions taken. “We need to get this Wolf Plan and the state Endangered Species Laws changed,” said Childers.
There are two known wolf packs wolves in Oregon, both in Wallowa County. ODFW confirms a pack of 10 in the Imnaha area and another pack estimated to be of four in the Wenaha area. Other single wolves are believed to be dispersed throughout the state. Approximately 30 head of livestock have been confirmed killed by the wolves in the last 12 months; 29 in five attacks in Baker County and one in Wallowa County.
Can Ranchers and Wolves Co-Exist?
A Symposium Hosted by the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and Eastern Oregon University Range Club
The wolf population is expanding in Northeast Oregon as evidenced by increased wolf sightings and conflicts. At the upcoming wolf symposium, “Can Ranchers and Wolves Co-Exist?,” industry experts from Idaho and Minnesota will address wolf interactions with livestock as well as the overall social, environmental and economic impacts the presence of wolves have on Oregonians.
The symposium is open to the public, with no admission charge, and will be held in La Grande at Eastern Oregon University’s Badgley Hall in the first floor auditorium from 1- 4 p.m. on Saturday, May 22, 2010. This symposium is especially timely for citizens and livestock producers who want to be better informed about wolf issues when the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan is opened for its first 5 year review this year. It will also be informative for veterinarians and others interested in diseases found to be carried and transmitted by over 60% of the wolves in Idaho.
“We are excited to get everyone in the same room to address these challenges with key environmental and wildlife experts seated at the table,” said Bill Hoyt, President of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. “This is an incredible opportunity to have a discussion that could lead to a well-balanced solution.”
The keynote speaker, Jim Beers, former chief of national wildlife refuge operations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, now writes extensively and speaks to various organizations throughout the country about the federal wolf program and the cumulative impact of wolves on rural American life. Beers has written two dozen articles on wolf history and wolf management and has spoken to more than 2,000 attendees at public meetings from Arizona and New Mexico to Montana and Oregon.
Also on the agenda is Casey Anderson, who was born in Pendleton, grew up on a ranch and is currently managing the OX Ranch in Idaho. He will address wolf interactions with livestock, depredation, compensation and cattle behavior as well as the recent Idaho/Oregon Wolf Research Study made possible with funding by the Oregon Beef Council. With more than 20 years of ranch management experience, Anderson has been recognized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service with the “Excellence of Range Management Award” and received special recognition from the Society of Range Management.
For more information, visit the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association website at www.orcattle.com
Wind Power: Green and Deadly
by Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 05/03/2010 [here]
An average US citizen or corporate entity who kills an endangered animal can be in big trouble with the law. Birds, eagles in particular, are zealously protected by nature lovers in America and around the world. Yet a July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, California, estimated that an average of 80 golden eagles were killed there by wind turbines each year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, estimated that about 10,000 other protected birds were being killed along with the eagles every year at Altamont. Where is the outrage over this slaughter? It would seem ecologists have a blind spot when it comes to the wind energy industry. As a result, the carnage caused by wind turbines, the “Cuisinarts of the Air,” is getting greenwashed. And birds are not the only creatures wind turbines kill—they kill bats and people as well.
In the US, birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. Over the past two decades, the federal government has brought hundreds of cases against energy companies for killing wild birds in the operation of their businesses. For example, in July 2009, the Oregon based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over a period of two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines. At the same time, wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds each year yet their owners are not being prosecuted.
While the total number of birds killed in the US each year fluctuates, Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that US wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies. “Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card,” Fry said, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “If there were even one prosecution,” he added, the wind industry would be forced to take the issue seriously. … [more]
Windmills Are Killing Our Birds
One standard for oil companies, another for green energy sources.
By ROBERT BRYCE, WSJ Online, Sept 7, 2009 [here]
On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.
ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.
Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.
Maine: Spiraling Toward A Predator Pit
by Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog, April 28, 2010 [here]
A predator pit is created when deer populations (speaking of Maine’s deer management problem) have been reduced for various reasons and existing key predators, like coyote, bear and bobcat, can drive those numbers even further into an abyss, perhaps prohibiting a regrowth of the herd.
Admitting you got a predator pit might be as difficult as admitting you’re an alcoholic or a habitual drug user. It seems these days wildlife managers aren’t interested in admitting that predators can be a problem. I have written on this blog before that under ideal conditions, Maine pays little attention to the coyote, bear, bobcat or any other predator that might feast on a whitetail deer, adult or fawn. When populations, such as deer, get out of skew, an abundance of predators can and will create a predator pit, something that can never end and that is a very serious condition.
Before we look into what leads to a predator pit, we must first examine the problem that exists where wildlife managers fail to admit predators can be a problem. Dr. Charles Kay, perhaps the top wildlife ecologist in the U.S. today and an Adjunct Assistant Professor and a Senior Research Scientist at Utah State University, wrote in Petersen’s Hunting Magazine, in August 1993, that research indicated that predators limit ungulate (hoofed animals) populations.
Research in Alaska, British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta and other Canadian Provinces indicates that wolves and other predators, more often than not, limit ungulates.
Further, Mark Hebblewhite, University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, in a 10-year study called, “Predator-Prey Management in the National Park Context: Lessons from a Transboundary Wolf, Elk, Moose and Caribou System“, examines how predators, mainly wolves, affect ungulate herds in and near the Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Hebblewhite warns wildlife mangers of the troubles attempting to manage predators in order to sustain an ungulate population as a food source, i.e. for hunting purposes.
Based on experiences in BNP, I show that wildlife managers face tough choices ahead and must come to terms with the truth that maintaining prewolf ungulate harvest regimes may be a fantasy in postwolf landscapes and, moreover, may be incompatible with ecosystem management.
Hebblewhite refers to “prewolf” and “postwolf” but we can certainly ascertain that coyotes, bears and other large predators can have effects on ungulate populations, especially if allowed to grow in numbers too great and/or other conditions on the ground have greatly reduced deer numbers, i.e. weather, hunting, disease, predation, etc..
George Dovel, Editor of The Outdoorsman, sums up in the Feb-April 2010 Edition, Bulletin Number 38, this same Hebblewhite 10-year study by listing 10 conclusions the study provided.
1. Wolves destroyed 90% of the elk population.
2. Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
3. 60% of the elk that were part-time residents stopped migrating to Banff after wolves arrived.
4. Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment.
5. Wolves decimated woodland caribou, driving numerous herds to extinction.
6. Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies.
7. Any attempt to manage ungulates anywhere near pre-wolf numbers is “a fantasy.”
8. Increasing quality habitat for elk in 77.22 square miles caused more – not fewer – elk to be killed by wolves.
9. To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to last until the ungulates recover and must reoccur if ungulates decline.
10. Sportsman wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are never effective.
Readers may want to refer back to these 10 conclusions later on as there are many things that have been determined here that can be carried to predator management in Maine’s Predator Pit. … [more]
