The Wildlife News

Move to extend wolf season in Bitterroot area once again runs into trouble

Ralph Maughan — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:57:39 +0000

Commission gives initial approval on divided vote, but final approval might fail-

Like the Lolo in Idaho on the Idaho/Montana border, the decline of elk in the West Fork of the Bitterroot area (hunting district 250) in Montana in recent years has been widely blamed on wolves, but the Montana wolf hunters can’t seem to find the wolves to fill the hunt quota. The hunt has been extended once without much success. Just one more wolf was killed bringing the total to four with the quota being 18. There is a proposal now to extend the season a second time, now to April 1, when wolves will be denning.

This was too much for one member of the FWP Commission. Commissioner Ron Moody didn’t think it was ethical. Commissioner Bob Ream concurred and they also pointed to a recent study in the area showing that cougar by far are the premier predator of elk, followed by black bear, and wolves who killed just two.

An alternative explanation that fits the facts over the failure to meet the quota just as well as lack of time for hunters to hunt is that the wolves are just not there.

We have argued for some time now that the strong concern by groups the Ravalli County Commission over the number of wolves supposedly invading town and lurking in the countryside is almost all factless rhetoric uttered to secure political goals.

The public has a 30 day comment period on the extended hunt proposal. Public comment on this extension will run through Feb. 13th at 5PM. Contact the Montana FWP Commissioners by email and/or phone. The generic email address for the commissioners is fwpcomm@mt.gov

More detail on contacting them:

Bob Ream, Chairman
521 Clarke Street
Helena, MT 59601
(406) 461-3202
bobream@mt.net

Ron Moody, Commissioner
109 Bach Avenue
Lewistown, MT 59457
(406) 538-2698
couleeking@hotmail.com

Dan Vermillion, Vice-Chairman
PO Box 668
Livingston, MT 59047
(406) 222-0624
fwpcomm@mt.gov (put “For Dan Vermillion” in the subject bar)

A.T. Stafne, Commissioner
8079 US Highway 2
Wolf Point, MT 59201
(406) 653-2881
fwpcomm@mt.gov (put “For A.T. Stafne” in the subject bar)

Shane Colton, Commissioner
335 Clark
Billings, MT 59101
(406) 259-9986
fwpcomm@mt.gov (put “For Shane Colton” in the subject bar)

Kathie Lynch’s Winter Yellowstone Wolf Update

Kathie Lynch — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:00:35 +0000

Wolf watching in Yellowstone over the winter holidays far surpassed my expectations. In fact, it turned out to be some of the best ever, at least in terms of numbers. The fact that the Mollie’s pack of 19 wolves unexpectedly turned up in the Northern Range definitely helped!

Mollie’s pack is named after Mollie Beattie, the first woman to head the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She was the Director when gray wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995 after an absence of almost 70 years.

The Mollie’s home territory is the Pelican Valley, in Yellowstone‘s interior. The pack had not been seen in the Lamar Valley and Little America since a brief visit in December 2009. Although eager to see the normally elusive Mollie’s, devoted wolf watchers soon wished that these big bison hunters would go home before causing trouble for the Northern Range packs.

The Mollie’s pack may have left home to find easier prey than bison, their usual winter fare in Yellowstone’s harsh, snow-bound interior. Or, they may have just followed their new leader, 686F. The likely alpha female, she may be on a walkabout looking for an alpha male.

The pack underwent a leadership change after the death of both former alphas last fall. Illustrating just how risky it is to make a living in the wild, 495M (who, at 143 pounds, was no light weight) was killed by his prey, probably a bison or elk. As often happens, his mate, 486F, subsequently disappeared. The loss of one or both alphas leaves the pack structure in disarray.

In December, with few adults in the pack of 19 (which possibly included seven yearlings and seven pups), the alpha role likely fell to four-year-old 686F. Since she is probably related to all other pack members, and, with the February breeding season fast approaching, she must seek a mate from outside of her own pack.

When we saw 686F prancing across the Slough flats, leading the troops with her tail flying high, she certainly looked available and very much the alpha. We did see one lone unknown gray howler, presumably a male, in Little America and Lamar Valley. However, although he had her number, she did not answer his calls.

Actually, there aren’t really that many eligible bachelors in the Northern Range. The only obvious potential dispersers (male yearlings coming two years old in April) include the Lamar Canyon “Light Gray Male” (who has always seemed like a homebody) and several Blacktails.

Of course, new males can always materialize from parts unknown. Two years ago, 755M and his brother, 754M, briefly joined the failing Druid pack females before hooking up with “The ‘06 Female“ to found the Lamar Canyon pack.

Intelligent, industrious, illustrious alpha “The ‘06 Female” rules the roost. With her nose in the air and her eyes on the prize, she is ever vigilant, ever resourceful, and ever the great hunter. Alpha 755M, the three yearlings, and even the five pups have learned a thing or two about hunting from her.

Beta 754M still hasn’t quite caught on, but he can be excused due to the severe foot injury he suffered last August, which has taken a long time to heal. He is finally much better and puts weight on the leg, which is great news in case the Lamar Canyons get chased by a rival pack. Wolves slowed down by leg injuries are often the ones who do not survive.

With the much larger Mollie’s pack in the area and on the prowl, the Lamar Canyons must maintain silence and distance or risk being attacked. One day we held our collective breaths as the Mollie’s picked up the Lamar Canyon’s scent trail and followed them east along the top of Specimen Ridge. Luckily, “The ’06 Female” kept her family many miles ahead, avoiding conflict and potential disaster.

The same cannot be said about some members of the Blacktail pack, which seems bent on getting into trouble. With 14 members (including five pups), they already rule the immense and mostly remote Blacktail Plateau. But, the Blacktails still seek to acquire new territory and range freely from Mt. Everts to Little America and even Lamar Valley.

One morning, from Hellroaring Overlook, we saw four gray Blacktails moving out rapidly on a mission to the east. The war party consisted of alphas 778M (“Big Brown”) and 693F, “Medium Gray,” and a male yearling. Having forgotten about them when they went out of sight, we were shocked when the group burst upon the scene in Little America, shattering the peaceful afternoon.

We had been watching three black Mollie’s pups lounging and howling on the Peregrine Hills when the four forgotten gray Blacktails sent the three black Mollie’s pups running for their lives. The terrified pups split up, one and two, and we prayed that they would get away, reunite, and make it to safety. Thankfully, the pups somehow avoided certain death and were back with their own pack the next day.

The Mollie’s, however, did not take that insult lightly. A few days later, the three adult Blacktails made the mistake of returning to the scene. They were met with a full scale attack by nine Mollie’s, who came barreling down the flank of Specimen Ridge. Tragically, that chase ended in the death of four-year-old Blacktail “Medium Gray,” who may have been slowed down by a bad front leg limp.

“Medium Gray” had been a stalwart founding member of the Blacktail pack in 2008, along with his four Druid pack yearling brothers and famous future alpha 302M. “Medium Gray” served the Blacktails as a faithful beta to his brother, eventual alpha 778M, and had recently seemed to mature into a presence of his own. With his death, the Druid lineage in the Blacktail pack is now left up to alpha 778M and next in line “Big Blaze.”

“Big Blaze” has always been one of my favorites. He was born to the last Druid alphas, 480M and 569F, in 2007. In 2008, he dispersed to the Blacktails and then to the Agates, serving as alpha male until he was vanquished by Mollie’s 641M on Valentine’s Day, 2010. We feared that he had died from injuries suffered in the fight, but, by summer, he showed up with the Blacktails again.

“Big Blaze” has stayed close to home ever since, having found his soul-mate in the black female two-year-old Blacktail beta female. She was born in 2009 in the only litter sired by illustrious “Casanova” 302M during his reign as Blacktail alpha.

One really special memory I have is of watching “Big Blaze” and the beautiful dark black female standing a few feet apart on the far side of Blacktail Ponds, facing each other and howling in unison. It was truly a joy to behold!

Two other Blacktails deserves special mention. Black two-year-old 752F is also from 302M’s last litter, and she looks very much like him. She has led a tough life. Along with four-year-old Blacktail 642F, 752F was forced out of the Blacktail pack by alpha 693F. Together they co-founded the ill-fated “642F’s Group” last year.

That group was attacked at least twice by the Blacktails, and many, including pups, were killed or disappeared. Although both 642F and 752F survived the Blacktail attacks, 642F was then killed in the legal Montana wolf hunt in October.

After that, 752F has been seen only rarely. So, we were especially happy to discover her trotting across the Slough flats on Christmas Day! She seemed completely at ease until she detected the Mollie’s scent trail, and then she became very cautious, as a lone wolf must. With airplane ears and tucked tail, she considered what to do and where to go, finally choosing to head west. Luckily, the nearby, but out of sight, Mollies went northeast instead.

The Agate Creek pack has also suffered from inter-pack aggression. Agate alpha 641M was probably killed by the Mollie’s in December on their northward march. Agate yearling 775M and several others may also have met the same fate. Agate alpha 715F (slowed down by a bad leg) was also killed by other wolves, probably the Lamar Canyons, and Agate beta 586M was killed by the Blacktails. Slow and old at age 10-11 years, 586M may have been the oldest wolf in Yellowstone at his death.

All of these losses may mean the that the end is near for the Agate Creek pack, a dynasty since 2002, when Chief Joseph 113M lured away Druid females to found the Agates. With few remaining members and no working radio collars, the pack is hard to find and there have been few recent sightings.

We can only hope for the best for eight-year-old true Agate 471F (daughter of long time Agate alphas 113M and 472F), who returned to the pack in 2011 after an adventurous life away with other packs and as a lone wolf. She may have some yearlings and pups with her, and perhaps this resourceful old girl can find a new alpha male this breeding season with whom to rebuild the Agates.

The Canyon pack, which hails from the Hayden Valley, did put in one of their usual winter visits to the Mammoth area and treated us to a fantastic New Year’s Eve of wolf watching in the Gardner River canyon. With a carcass in the river next to the road, we had great views of the entire pack all day as they bedded on a nearby hill and sometimes approached the carcass to feed.

The beautiful alpha female is now six years old and almost white, like her mother, famous Hayden alpha 540F. Alpha male 712M, three yearlings, and two surviving pups round out the pack. Sadly, one black female pup was found dead in the area at about the same time, another possible victim of the Blacktails.

Although Yellowstone was amazingly short on snow until recently, the winter scene was cheered by the most spectacular sunrises and sunsets I have ever seen. When you add in occasional moose and otters, magnificent bighorn sheep, huge herds of elk, and, thanks to the Mollie’s, wolves galore most days, it was a great visit.

On January 12, 1995, Mollie Beattie made history when she helped bring gray wolves back to their rightful home in Yellowstone. How fitting that now, 17 years later, her namesake pack continues to help shape the future of Yellowstone’s wild wolves.

Trends in Per Capita Wolf Depredations and Control in the Northern Rocky Mountains

Jeremy Bruskotter — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:43:51 +0000

Several recent discussions on The Wildlife News have focused on trends in wolf depredations (i.e. killing of domestic animals), and pondered what they mean for the future of wolves’ management. The notion that per capita depredations (i.e. depredations per wolf) should increase with time is implicit in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) 2009 Final Rule, which, in part, justifies the removal of wolves from federal ESA protections noting that “nearly all suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is currently occupied and areas predicted to be unsuitable remain largely unoccupied” (74 Fed Reg at 15,158). According to FWS, unsuitable habitat is characterized by “high densities of livestock compared to wild ungulates, chronic conflict with livestock and pets, local cultural intolerance of large predators” (74 Fed Reg at 15,127). If most or all of the suitable habitat is now occupied in the northern Rockies, and habitat is made unsuitable by conflict with pets and livestock and cultural intolerance, then we should expect:

(1) Rates of conflicts with domestic pets and livestock should increase with time as wolves push outward from “core” habitat and occupy less suitable habitat (i.e. places where conflicts should be more common).

(2) Rates of human-caused mortality should increase as more wolves come into conflict with people and are subsequently killed in response.

With these expectations in mind, I download the most recent data from the FWS and set about running some very basic analyses. Specifically, I plotted a regression line through 16 years of data on confirmed per capita wolf depredations, as well as the percentage of the wolf population killed/controlled annually. In layman’s terms, I sought to determine if per capita conflicts (depredations) and per capita removals (controls) were increasing with time (specifically the 16 years since reintroduction).

As expected, figure 1 shows an increase in total confirmed depredations (pink line) that largely mirrors the growth in the wolf population (blue line). However, per capita depredations, though highly variable, have remained essentially stable. Specifically, the regression line indicates depredations increased by 0.005 per wolf, per year. There were an average of .33 depredations per wolf in the first five years (1995-1999), and 0.36 depredations per wolf over the last five years (2006-2010). In layman’s terms, depredations per wolf have not increased substantially with time as one would expect if wolves were occupying less suitable habitat.

I used a similar approach to determine if wolves were being killed more frequently in response to conflicts. First, I calculated the percentage of total wolves that were legally killed in response to depredation events (i.e. controls / total wolves) each year (1995 – 2010), then I plotted a regression line through these data points. This time (figure 2) you can see a clear increase in per capita control, which averages 4.6% over the first five years (1995-1999) and 14.1% over the last five years (2006-2010).

The lack of increase in per capita depredations corresponding with a significant increase in per capita control indicates that more wolves were being “controlled” per depredation in recent years. How many? On average, 0.12 wolves were killed for every depredation in years 1995-1999, while an average of 0.41 wolves were killed per depredation in 2006-2010 (2010 was the highest year, 0.58).

What does all of this mean? I suspect that depends upon who answers the question. For me, the lack of increase in depredations per wolf over the recovery period suggests the habitat occupied by wolves throughout the entire recovery period (1995-2010) was “suitable”, and there may be more suitable habitat than the FWS originally thought. However, the increase in per capita control suggests that the FWS was being aggressive in their attempts to “maintain the peace” (i.e., keep conflicts to a minimum). If wolves were more aggressively controlled in “unsuitable” habitat as time passed, this could explain why depredations per wolf failed to increase; that is, one might interpret these data as suggesting that the FWS’s increasingly aggressive control helped prevent an increase in per capita depredations. Yet, it is impossible to know what would have happened were another course of action pursued.

These data might also be interpreted as helping FWS fulfill a ‘prophecy of unsuitability’. What do I mean? If wolves were controlled more aggressively in areas deemed “unsuitable” in order to prevent conflicts, then the FWS’s actions could have actually contributed to the “unsuitability” of this habitat by being the source of “high rates of wolf mortality” that are cited as the defining characteristic of unsuitable habitat in their models. Would wolves have thrived without aggressive control? Would per capita depredations have increased along with their presence in livestock country? Probably; but again, we can only guess…

Making a wildlife film, especially of carnivores in real action, is not easy

Ralph Maughan — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:55:31 +0000

The days of Disney-like wildlife film documentaries may be over-

Better equipment (that means digital) and perhaps a new breed of wildlife cinematographers are serving to make what the public sees more real. This is very hard because real might not look realistic to audiences raised on special effects.

Cinematographers also depend on a number of paid and volunteer sources of up-to-the-minute information in places like Yellowstone, as described in a feature article in The Men’s Journal, “There will be Blood.” By Matthew Power.

- – - – -

I should mention also, however, that there is a new feature movie, fiction, out, The Grey, that sets a new low in fear mongering. The wolves eat oil workers who crash in British Columbia (at least that is where much of the movie was made), and the oil companies employ sharp shooters to protect the crew. Since there are no real wolf attacks to film, this kind of movie is easy to make.

Oil company workers. How sympathetic!

Is this story worth a story in Oregon’s largest paper?

Ralph Maughan — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:26:38 +0000

Is there any real news in this story, or is it speculation over a minor matter?

There is a journalistic adage, “if it bleeds, it leads.” And near Jospeph, Oregon, in the NE corner of the state, we learn from the Oregonian newspaper on the other side of the state that a mule might have bled. At a minimum it was dead. It might even have been killed by wolves, but is that a rush to judgment. Read this story. Wolf probably killed mule near Joseph, state wildlife officials believe. By Richard Cockle, The Oregonian.

The facts as presented in the story are as follows. 1. The remains of a mule were found on private ranchland on January 13. 2. On January 14, state officials examined the remains of the mule (its scattered legs and cleaned rib cage) 3. Wolf tracks were observed in the snow near the carcass. 4. The officials determined that a wolf or wolves had fed on the carcass. 5. They also discovered that the carcass had been consumed too by coyotes, ravens and eagles in addition to wolves. 6. The bites did not show how the mule died though there was some blood in the snow nearby so there might have been pre-mortem bites or injury from something. 7. The mule might have been killed by predators. 8. It might have also died for some other reason. 9. At least one member of the local wolf pack, the Imnaha Pack, was in the general area about January 10. That pack has killed 21 cattle since mid 2010. 10. Because at least one wolf had fed on the mule and because of the history of the pack, the state concluded it was “probable” the mule was killed by wolves.

Richard Cockle wrote in the lead paragraph in the Oregonian that” livestock may have taken a new tack with the discovery of a mule that probably was killed by a wolf, state officials said today.”

Does anyone besides me see anything more than a long chain of assumptions to the conclusion the mule was probably killed by a wolf? Is it equally likely on the basis of information given in the story that the mule just died and then all the local scavengers fed on it? In other words did this lead even bleed, giving that dead animals don’t bleed when consumed by a scavenger.

Most significant to me is this question.Why is a dead mule in the middle of nowhere fed on by a variety of scavengers a statewide story?

- – -

Note: I gathered a few additional facts from stories on this incident not given in the Oregonian, such as the mule was owned by a local outfitter and there might have been some bleeding.

Assessing the Regulatory Landscape for Greater Sage-grouse

Brian Ertz — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:36:45 +0000

The effort to list the Greater Sage-grouse via the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been an uphill battle. However, even as the end-game has yet to be realized, the effort itself has been remarkably successful at prompting bureaucratic backflips and a whole lot of paper-shuffling to accommodate consideration of the species. Unfortunately, many of the existing and developing bureaucratic protections aimed at avoiding or forestalling an ESA listing thus far have been manifest on paper only. They are unenforceable. Agencies continue to resist implementing meaningful protections that would ensure tangible curtailment of impact to Greater Sage-grouse habitat on-the-ground. Meanwhile, Greater Sage-grouse habitat continues in decline.

Given the scope of its habitat, an ESA listing of sage grouse could radically change public land management in 11 western states. Jessica Ferrel, an attorney at Marten Law, gives an accurate overview of the regulatory landscape as it has unfolded:

Potential Sage Grouse Listing Continues to Shape Western Energy Development and Grazing Rights[sic] - Jessica K. Ferrel, Marten Law

The latest BLM memoranda supplement several federal and state efforts to address sage grouse protection, including BLM’s July 2011 “strategy” document to protect the grouse and its habitat; BLM’s 2001 Special Status Species Policy, 2004 National Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, and 2010 Instruction Memorandum governing sage grouse management considerations for energy development; Wyoming’s mapping program designed to protect millions of acres of sage grouse breeding grounds in the State, and additional individual state initiatives. Many of these efforts are aimed at avoiding a federal ESA listing of the bird. All of the federal initiatives, policies, and strategies, however, are discretionary and effectively unenforceable.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game Plans “Wildlife Summit” with Skeptics on Both Sides of the Debate

Ken Cole — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:19:55 +0000

Recently the Idaho Department of Fish and Game announced that they are planning a “Wildlife Summit” to be held at the Riverside Hotel in Boise, Idaho. It was originally scheduled for September but after some concerns were raised about the timing it was moved forward to August 24-26th so as not to coincide with the archery hunting season.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game says that the reason for the Summit is “to discuss how Fish and Game manages wildlife and whether the agency should engage a broader base of support.” Essentially, the discussion at the Summit will be about the Public Trust Doctrine and how wildlife are managed and whether the general, non-hunting and fishing public should be included in the dialogue and/or whether to be asked to contribute financially.

We have discussed this subject at great length here and the subject is an important one. That being said, many are skeptical and the skepticism ranges all over the map. Some hunters have insinuated, actually explicitly stated, that there is a conspiracy between the editors of The Wildlife News, Western Watersheds Project, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to convene this summit. Frankly, in common parlance, that is a load of crap. While Mark Gamblin has commonly commented here on this site, there has been no coordination with anyone involved with The Wildlife News or Western Watersheds Project and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. If anything, the relationship between the parties has been somewhat tense seeing that there has been litigation involving the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s activities.

Other skepticism, as represented by many who participate in the discussions here, centers on the perception that wildlife management in Idaho, and many other states is a “pay-to-play” system where only those who buy hunting and fishing licenses are represented, while the general public are left without a voice. These skeptics believe this is a cynical ploy to force the general public to pay for managing wildlife that they don’t “consume” in the same manner as a hunter or fisher does. They worry that they will be forced to pay while still being marginalized.

Back to the other side, some hunters are citing the mission of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game which reads:

“All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.”

They seem to be saying that the only purpose for wildlife is for hunting, trapping, and fishing. They really don’t want the general, non-hunting public to be involved in how it is managed. One group has even made the confusing charge that collaboration with the general public, or more specifically, conservation minded groups or people, is a violation of NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. They say that it violates the mission of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Then there are the agricultural/livestock interests who don’t contribute to the costs of wildlife management but have an inordinate amount of influence over how wildlife is managed while also having an inordinate negative impact on wildlife and habitat. There is so much obfuscation by this group that the general public doesn’t even know what to think anymore.

Personally, I welcome this summit. I think it is time for a public discussion about these issues but I do have concerns as well. My biggest concern is about whether some people will even feel comfortable appearing at an event like this. Let’s face it, there is fear and intimidation taking place by both sides in this debate. The climate is not good. There is a lot of emotion and anger over many wildlife issues in this state and many people feel disenfranchised while others feel downright entitled.

Other concerns I have relate to how genuinely receptive the Idaho Department of Fish and Game will be to criticism from those who feel disenfranchised but want to be heard. I hope this is not just window dressing for some move to force the general public to pay while keeping them disenfranchised. I, personally, hope there can be real, and open dialogue about so many issues that are a concern to hunters and non-hunters alike. Let’s hope that people can raise their concerns openly and be heard while realizing that there is real conflict taking place over wildlife management in Idaho.

With that, I open up the dialogue that is sure to ensue here and ask that people stay on topic. I think that a constructive dialogue would center more on the actual issues that you think should be discussed at this summit rather than it turning to the usual anti-hunting/pro-hunting debate.

You can shoot eastern coyotes/coywolves from inside your home in Massachusetts

Jon Way — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:19:24 +0000

Ethics, safety, and fair chase hunting demands people should not be able to bait coyotes and engage in “recreational” hunting from their easy chair next to their window-

On this blog we have often talked about the disproportionate favoritism that hunters generally receive over other users of wildlife. Well, recently one of my radio-collared eastern coyotes/coywolves (a 41 pound adult female) was shot and killed on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Suffice it to say, evidence pointed toward her getting shot on a bait pile within about 100 feet of a house. And it seemed pretty clear that she was shot from within a house. Naturally, I was furious and frustrated by this event having radio-tracked her for four years. However, what amazed me most was when I did some digging (with the help of others), I found that two laws actually allow this type of unethical hunting practice. They are

Northeastern coywolves. Copyright Jon Way

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 SECTION 12E, and Chapter 131 SECTION 58 – I detail those below. Because baiting of these animals is legal (Massachusetts Hunting Abstracts) in Massachusetts and night hunting is legal, that means that someone can bait these animals in at night and shoot them from an open window within their house. Believe it or not, I am learning that this is not all uncommon and probably results in over half of the coywolves shot in Massachusetts every year. The only requirements are that: (1) the person has a $30 hunting license (no tag required to shoot them), (2) the person lives in a rural area where they are at least 500 feet from another house – 500 feet is not that far by the way, (3) or they live within 500 feet of a house but the neighbor(s) allows such activity.

In my opinion, this is a perfect example of how and why hunting laws are antiquated and not within favor of the vast majority of the public, let alone most of the hunting community that probably wouldn’t think this is fair chase or ethical. So, when we read about snaring of bears in Alaska, it is important to recognize that there are lax (for lack of a better word) game laws throughout the country. Hopefully a new and revitalized wildlife management agency, eventually with input from non-consumptive users (e.g., scientists, wildlife watchers) will change these laws to make such practices illegal. However, as most of us know, just about all state wildlife agencies are ultra-conservative so change is difficult, unless they want it. So, for example, it would take about 2 minutes to write a law stating: “It is illegal to bait an animal within 500 feet of a house for purpose of shooting animals/coyotes for recreational purposes.”

However, for all intents and purposes, the only laws the wildlife commission in Massachusetts seems to change are ones designed to increase hunting seasons (recently on deer, bear, and coyotes/coywolves) to support the one percent that participate in hunting. While this post is not intended as an anti-hunting rant, it is nonetheless significant that the state of Massachusetts permits gang hunting and driving deer where people section off large patches of pitch pine and scrub oak woods and blast whatever deer runs by (a practice known as “if it is brown, it is down”). My guess is that this is not the vision that most people get when they think of Massachusetts and wildlife. And, furthermore, you can probably guess my predicament, since these are the same people that issue research permits to simply study them. It would be cool, in my opinion, if we could generate a list on this blog of these type of hunting practices in each state or region of the country.

—–

Legal citation

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 SECTION 12E, and Chapter 131 SECTION 58:

Chapter 269, Section 12E. Discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or other building in use; exceptions

Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (a) the lawful defense of life and property; (b) any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined under the provisions of section fifty-six A of chapter one hundred and forty; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with section thirty-nine of chapter one hundred and forty-eight.

Chapter 131, Section 58. Shooting upon or across highway; hunting near dwelling

A person shall not discharge any firearm or release any arrow upon or across any state or hard surfaced highway, or within one hundred and fifty feet, of any such highway, or possess a loaded firearm or hunt by any means on the land of another within five hundred feet of any dwelling in use, except as authorized by the owner or occupant thereof.

Illegal imports of African “bush meat” imperil more than exotic wildlife

Ralph Maughan — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:31:18 +0000

The next bloody bag of “mystery meat” from overseas could contain a virus that will ravage our native wildlife population or indeed ravage us-

“Bush meat” is the name euphemistically given for things killed in the (generally African) “bush,” and consumed by hard pressed natives who either don’t care or can’t be choosy about what it is. It is often monkey, great apes such as chimps, other primates, rodents, leopards, ungulates, you name it.

It is an endangered species issue, but it is more than that. Primates in particular harbor virruses that are the most likely to jump from their host, where they might be more or less harmless, to humans where they are not. It is almost certain that this is how AIDS (HIV) got started in the human population.

According to the Washington Post, not all of the consumption of bush meat is out of desperation. To some Africans living outside Africa, this meat “tastes like home.” They illegally import it as a delicacy. Many believe that many more resources need to be employed at stopping the slaughter, and even more, the export of this meat.

The entire human race could pay a high price because some won’t give up their “Ebolaburgers.”

Story: CDC expands ‘bush meat’ tests for viruses [and the finds new viruses]. By Brian Vastag, Washington Post.

Corey Rossi, major Alaska wildlife official, resigns after 12 criminal bear hunting charges

Ralph Maughan — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:25:01 +0000

Narrow focused Chief of Alaska Fish and Game Wildlife Chief’s resignation cause for rejoicing among many-

Corey Rossi is the kind of guy wildlife biologists don’t like. He had a narrow focus on big game hunting and what he thought would result in the maximum production of moose, caribou and a handful of other hunted wildlife coupled with a hatred of predators, including the large ones like wolves and grizzly and the giant brown bears too, generally popular with the American public, and associated with the idea that Alaska offers a remnant of great wilderness.

Rossi didn’t have the training typical of department leaders (no formal training). It wasn’t clear why he was appointed, and he continued a close association with controversial interest groups after joining the Department. According to his critics, there was fear he favored or was beholden to rich hunters who wanted to get a trophy for their wall the easy way, such as with a helicopter. Critics said he was trying to change state laws and regulations to favor these wealthy hunters and organizations that disdain carnivores. Those in the department that didn’t like him were said to have been muzzled, but retired and Alaska ex-wildlife professionals and conservation groups kept up a campaign against him uncovering the alleged violations while he was an outfitter guide in 2008.

His critics said he supported brutal techniques for killing animals he didn’t like.

Rossi was first appointed by Governor Sarah Palin in 2009 for the new position of assistant commissioner for “abundance management.”

Palin had just made a national name for herself in part by attacking those who had professional training in any number of areas and supporting those who were skeptical of expertise or advanced education. This has long been a theme in some kinds of American populism. Rossi seems to fit her model.

There is a lot of celebration in some circles. Wildlife chief’s resignation resonates with Alaska biologists. By Rick Sinnott. Alaska Dispatch. Folks believe that stomach turners such a described in this article will be a thing of the past, “Alaska’s newest wildlife experiment: Snaring and shooting brown bears.” By Bill Sherwonit. Anchorage Press.