GOOD NEWS

Wisconsin winter wolf hunt may not be held this season

Michael Hollan
Mon, December 20, 2021

There may not be a winter wolf hunt in Wisconsin this year.

Wolf hunting in Wisconsin is on hold after a judge issued an injunction last month. According to new reports, the court schedule reveals it’s unlikely a decision will be made before 2021 ends.

The state held a wolf hunt earlier this year after the gray wolf was removed from the endangered species list, Fox 6 reports. During that hunt, 218 wolves were harvested in the state.

Since then, however, a lawsuit has been filed by a coalition of animal advocacy groups claiming that a state law requiring the wolf should be invalidated.

MAINE SEES BEST DEER HUNT IN OVER 5 DECADES

A judge issued an injunction against the hunt, stating that while he believed the state law was constitutional, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had not created the necessary permanent regulations for the hunt. The injunction will reportedly remain in place until the DNR can show that it has updated and implemented regulations regarding quotas, licenses and a new management plan for population goals.

According to a new report from Public News Service, a decision on the injunction won’t be made until next spring. That would mean no wolf hunt would be held this winter.

Earlier this year, Fox News reported that gray wolves were officially removed from the federal Endangered Species List on Jan. 4, giving states the leeway to determine how to manage local populations. Wisconsin mandates that the DNR open a wolf hunt from early November to late February when the wolves are not listed as endangered or threatened.

At the time, hunting advocacy group Hunter Nation successfully sued the state to hold a wolf hunt. Prior to this year, the most recent wolf hunt in Wisconsin was in 2014.

Fox News' Janine Puhak contributed to this report.

Lessons from Wisconsin's controversial wolf hunt

A gray wolf pictured in Wisconsin in the winter. Lynn Bystrom/iStock/Getty Images

Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune
Sat, March 6, 2021

Wisconsin's image took a hit recently when 216 wolves were killed during a three-day Badger State hunt — a toll that was 82% over the hunt's quota.

Time was in this country when that result would have been celebrated, if not rewarded. The first North American bounty on wolves, after all, was established in the 1600s, soon after the Mayflower landed. A whole lot of wolf killing followed, and by the 1970s, Minnesota was pretty much the Lower 48's last haven for the gray wolf, or canis lupus.

Yet in the last half-century the wolf has recovered, not only in numbers — as its ranks have been reintroduced in multiple U.S. locations where its populations had been extirpated — but in its public image.

Many Americans today, particularly those living in cities, consider the wolf to be nearly sacrosanct. Contributing to this rebranding have been the wolf's widely admired role as a consummate apex predator and a newfound appreciation of the wolf's place in various ecosystems.

Given this increase in popularity, controversy was guaranteed when a highly unusual combination of events, including a lawsuit by an out-of-state hunting group, forced the Wisconsin DNR to hold a February wolf hunt it had not anticipated.

The fact that in Wisconsin hounds and other running dogs can be used to hunt wolves — the only state that allows this practice —has amplified the post-hunt outcry that still resonates nationwide.

To better understand the hunt, let's take a look at a few of its salient details:

• First, true as it is that some people's image of these animals has changed, wolves are still wolves. Just as in the past, in order to live, they kill. In the Midwest, deer most often are their victims, but wolves also kill livestock and occasionally dogs and other pets. Also, wolves are territorial, and left unchecked they will continually disperse to establish new packs in new territories. For these reasons and others, many people who live among wolves consider them unwelcome neighbors.

• As the accompanying map shows, the Wisconsin DNR set a quota of 17 harvested wolves in Zone 6, which essentially covers the southern half of the state. Hunters instead killed 40 wolves in this zone. Where exactly wolves were killed in Zone 6 hasn't been reported by the DNR. But the fact that so many wolves could be killed there, and also in Zone 5, where 31 wolves were taken by hunters, speaks to a key variation between Wisconsin and Minnesota, namely that, due to different wolf-protection classifications governing the two states before the federal government returned wolf management to the states in January, Minnesota had federal wolf-control officers charged, essentially, with keeping wolves out of the southern and western parts of the state. Wisconsin didn't have a similar cadre of officers, thus, in part, its more expansive southern range of wolves.

• Critical facets of the hunt were outside the Wisconsin DNR's control. Its biologists, for example, recommended the hunting-permit pool be limited to 10 times the hunt's proposed non-tribal quota of 119 animals (81 licenses were reserved for the state's tribes), or 1,190 hunters. Instead, the state's Natural Resources Board, which sets policy for the DNR, required the DNR to issue 20 times the number of available non-tribal permits, or 2,380 (of which the DNR ultimately sold about 65%.)

• Using dogs to hunt bears and other game in Wisconsin is a long-standing tradition, and groups such as the Wisconsin Bear Hunters' Association wield considerable political power in the Wisconsin Legislature.

• Wisconsin's three previous (recent) regulated wolf hunts, in 2012, 2013 and 2014, were held in fall and ended in late December — periods during which good tracking snow wasn't guaranteed. By contrast, fresh snow fell on the recent hunt's first and second days, providing critical advantages to houndsmen whose hunting methods include driving back roads until they "cut" fresh wolf tracks crossing into the woods. Then they free up to six dogs (the legal limit) to run (theoretically) the wolf toward waiting hunters.

• Timing of the recent hunt played to the houndsmen's advantage (86% of harvested wolves were killed by hunters with dogs) in other ways, also. One was that Wisconsin's coyote season was still open, and many coyote-hunting houndsmen had their dogs legged up and in prime condition. Another was that by Wisconsin state law, 24-hour notice must be given by the DNR to shut down a season. Consequently, even when it became apparent to the DNR that its quotas were likely to be met — or exceeded — triggering a season shutdown, the hunt could continue for another 24 hours.

• Adding to this, if social media can be believed, houndsmen were encouraging one another not to report their kills right away — they're not required to until 24 hours after a hunt ends — thereby ensuring the longest possible hunt.

• Finally, for better or worse, depending on one's viewpoint, while the number of dogs sent in pursuit of a wolf (or bear or coyote) in Wisconsin is limited to six, there are no limits to the number of hunters or backup teams of dogs that can be used to aid a licensed hunter. So if one group of six dogs gets tired running a wolf, they can be replaced by another team (at least theoretically; not every houndsman owns or has access to multiple teams of dogs). Additionally, instead of one or two hunters hoping to get a shot at a wolf that, for example, is pushed into an open field, six, eight or even 10 or more rifle-toting friends can help the licensed houndsman.


SEE
Hunters in Wisconsin launched an onslaught against the wolf population killing 216 in less than 3 days (yahoo.com)

#STOPWOLFHUNTS

Hunting and hidden deaths led to 30% reduction in WI wolf population

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

Research News

MADISON, Wis. -- About 100 additional wolves died over the winter in Wisconsin as a result of the delisting of grey wolves under the Endangered Species Act, alongside the 218 wolves killed by licensed hunters during Wisconsin's first public wolf hunt, according to new research.

The combined loss of 313 to 323 wolves represents a decline in the state's wolf population of between 27% and 33% between April 2020 and April 2021. Researchers estimate that a majority of these additional, uncounted deaths are due to something called cryptic poaching, where poachers hide evidence of illegal killings.

The findings are the first estimate of Wisconsin's wolf population since the public hunt in February, which ended early after hunters exceeded the quota of 119 wolves within a few days. These population estimates can help the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prepare for the next legally mandated wolf hunt this fall.

They also provide guidance to other states planning wolf hunts following the removal of federal protections announced in November 2020 and effective January 2021.

University of Wisconsin-Madison environmental studies scientists Adrian Treves, Francisco Santiago-Ávila and Karann Putrevu performed the research, which was published July 5 in the journal PeerJ.

Under a variety of population growth scenarios, the researchers estimate that Wisconsin now hosts between 695 and 751 wolves, compared with at least 1,034 wolves last year. The scientists say this likely represents the maximum current wolf population, because they incorporated optimistic assumptions about population growth and low poaching rates into their models.

This decline is despite the hunting quota of 119 wolves for non-native hunters, set with the goal of helping maintain but not reduce the state's wolf population. Ojibwe Tribes were granted a quota of 81 wolves, but they did not conduct a hunt.

"Although the DNR is aiming for a stable population, we estimate the population actually dropped significantly," says Treves, a professor in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and director of the Carnivore Coexistence Lab at UW-Madison.

The new study suggests that about one-third of the population decline is due to hidden deaths in the wolf population, resulting from relaxed legal protections.

Previous research by the Treves lab showed that wolf population growth declined in Wisconsin and Michigan when legal protections were relaxed, regardless of the number of wolves legally killed. And Santiago-Ávila led research that found that Wisconsin's wolves and the heavily monitored Mexican wolves of the American Southwest disappeared at greater rates when lethal control methods were allowed.

Other studies by the lab of attitudes toward wolves suggest that when governments allow lethal management, would-be poachers are inclined to kill more wolves because the relaxed policies signal that predators are less valued.

Those previous findings helped Santiago-Ávila, Putrevu and Treves model the uncounted deaths in Wisconsin since last November.

"During these periods, we see an effect on poaching, both reported and cryptic. Those wolves disappear and you never find them again," says Santiago-Ávila, a postdoctoral researcher in the lab. "Additional deaths are caused simply by the policy signal, and the wolf hunt adds to that."

Treves and his team estimate that the population could recover in one to two years without hunting. Wisconsin law requires a wolf hunt between November and February when hunting is not prohibited by federal protections.

Following the federal delisting of wolves that became effective in January 2021, the DNR initially planned to conduct the first hunt in November 2021. But after a lawsuit, the DNR immediately implemented a wolf hunt at the end of February.

The research team hopes that the Wisconsin DNR and other states' natural resource agencies take advantage of their methods to develop a more complete assessment of the effect of new policies on predator populations.

"These methods and models are freely available to these agencies," says Putrevu, a doctoral student who also researches tiger populations in the Russian Far East. "They should take advantage of the best available science to meet their stated goals."

###

--Eric Hamilton, (608) 263-1986, eshamilton@wisc.edu

Study details how Trump unleashed 'outright slaughter' of wolves in Wisconsin

#STOPWOLFHUNTING

Common Dreams
July 06, 2021


FILE PHOTO: Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Handout via Reuters/File Photo

A new study published Monday estimates Wisconsin lost as much as a third of its gray wolf population after the Trump administration stripped federal protections for the animals and the state allowed for a public wolf hunt widely decried as being "divorced from science and ethical norms."

The February hunt, panned (pdf) by wildlife advocates as "an outright slaughter," killed 218 wolves—already far past the quota the state had set. But over 100 additional wolf deaths were the result of "cryptic poaching," University of Wisconsin–Madison environmental studies scientists found, referring to illegal killings in which hunters hide evidence of their activities.

The majority of those surplus deaths, the researchers estimate, occurred after the Trump administration announced on November 3, 2020 the lifting of endangered species protections for gray wolves in the lower 48 states. That shift became effective in January 2021.?

According to the study, published in the journal Peerj, between 98 and 105 wolves died since November 2020 "that would have been alive had delisting not occurred."

An optimistic scenario puts the state wolf numbers for April 2021 at between 695 and 751 wolves. That's down from at least 1,034 wolves last year, representing a decrease of 27–33% in one year.

That decline, the researchers said, is at clear odds with Wisconsin's stated goal of the hunt "to allow for a sustainable harvest that neither increases nor decreases the state's wolf population."

"Although the [Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources] is aiming for a stable population, we estimate the population actually dropped significantly," said co-author Adrian Treves, a professor in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and director of the Carnivore Coexistence Lab at UW–Madison, in a statement.

Cancellation of the state's next hunt, set for November, could allow for the wolf population to rebound in one or two years. Standing in the way of that is Wisconsin's mandate for a wolf hunt in the absence of federal protections, and kill allowances set on shaky scientific ground, according to the researchers.

"Quite simply put, post-delisting, too many wolves are being killed and there is absolutely no justification for it."

Also troublesome is the fact that the state didn't mandate the collection of wolf carcasses for assessing data of wolf ages or detection of alpha females.

Co-author Francisco Santiago-Ávila said the results suggest the lifting of federal protections gave a subtle green light for more killings.

"During these periods, we see an effect on poaching, both reported and cryptic," he said. "Those wolves disappear and you never find them again."

"Additional deaths are caused simply by the policy signal," he said, "and the wolf hunt adds to that."

Citing "the importance of predators in restoring ecosystem health and function," the researchers offer recommendations including, at the federal level, a "protected non-game" classification for wolves. At the state level, authorities "should prove themselves capable of reducing poaching to a stringent minimum for a 5-year post-delisting monitoring period," the study said.

Wildlife advocates have already expressed concern that the wolf population hit seen in Wisconsin could be a harbinger of the fate of wolves in other states unless the Biden administration quickly restores federal protections for the iconic animals.

According to Samantha Bruegger, wildlife coexistence campaigner at WildEarth Guardians, "Quite simply put, post-delisting, too many wolves are being killed and there is absolutely no justification for it. No scientific justification. No ethical justification. No public safety justification. No economic justification."

WildEarth Guardians is among a handful of conservation organizations last month that released guides for laypeople as well as state agency wildlife policymakers to show how to best prioritize "wolf stewardship and a broader vision for conserving species in the face of global climate change and mass extinctions."

"New wolf plans informed by science and ethics are needed now more than ever, as the disastrous winter wolf hunt in Wisconsin showed," said Amaroq Weiss, senior West Coast wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, expressing optimism the guides could be tools for "a more hopeful course in states' stewardship of these beloved animals."

#ENDWOLFHUNTS ZERO WOLF LIMIT
Wisconsin sets 300-wolf limit after runaway spring hunt

By TODD RICHMOND

FILE - This July 16, 2004, file photo, shows a gray wolf at the Wildlife Science Center in Forest Lake, Minn. Wildlife officials in Wisconsin were set Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2021, to consider adopting a 130-animal limit for the state's fall wolf hunt, saying they want to protect the population after hunters killed scores more wolves than they were allowed during a rushed spring season. (AP Photo/Dawn Villella, File)


MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wildlife officials in Wisconsin set a 300-animal limit Wednesday for the state’s fall wolf hunt, exceeding biologists’ recommendations as they study the impact of a rushed spring season that saw hunters take almost twice as many wolves as allotted.

State Department of Natural Resources scientists asked its policy board to cap kills at 130 animals, saying board members must be cautions because the four-day season in February took place during wolves’ breeding season and the long-term ramifications on the population are unknown.

But conservative-leaning members of the board countered that the population is still well above the DNR’s goal of 350 animals and they have a responsibility to manage the pack and protect livestock from wolf attacks. The board ultimately voted 5-2 to set aside the department’s recommendation and up the quota to 300 animals.

“The department can’t go against the management plan now of 350,” board member Greg Kazmierski said. “We are stuck with the plan in front of us today. We need to show we’re trying to move toward that goal. If we don’t, we can throw out all the management plans in the state because we don’t need them.”

The working quota for state-licensed hunters will almost certainly be less than 300, however. The state’s Chippewa tribes are entitled to claim up to half of the quota under treaty rights dating back to the 1800s. The Chippewa consider wolves sacred and refuse to hunt them. If the tribes claim their full half of the quota, state-licenses hunters will be allowed to kill only 150 wolves.

The vote marks another testy chapter in what has becoming a bitter saga over wolf management in Wisconsin. The animal has made a remarkable comeback in the state — the DNR’s latest estimates from the winter of 2019-2020 put the population at around 1,000 animals statewide. The department’s management plan, adopted in 1999, sets out a population goal of 350.

DNR attorney Cheryl Heilman told the board that 350 number in the management plan isn’t a population target but the minimum number for holding a hunt. Conservative board members disputed that, insisting it was a population goal

As more wolves have appeared on the landscape conflict over how to handle them have only intensified.

Farmers and residents across northern Wisconsin say wolves menace their pets and livestock and hunting is the only way to control them. Conservationists counter that the population is still too small to sustain hunting and the creatures are so majestic people should just leave them alone.

Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed bills in 2011 and 2016 requiring the DNR hold an annual wolf hunt between November and February. The state held three hunts from 2012 to 2014 before a federal judge placed wolves back on the endangered species list. The Trump administration removed them from the list days this past January, days before Joe Biden was inaugurated.

DNR officials were planning to hold a hunt this November, but hunter advocacy group Hunter Nation won a court order forcing the department to hold a season in February. The group argued that President Joe Biden’s administration might put wolves back on the endangered species list before fall, robbing hunters of the chance to go after the animals.

The department rushed to put a season together in just days. The results were chaotic; state-licensed hunters killed 218 wolves in just four days, blowing past their quota of 119 animals. Many hunters used dogs to track and corner their prey. Fresh snow helped tracking. A state law requiring 24 hours notice before the season was closed along with the issuance of twice as many permits as usual contributed to the kill rate as well.

The kills left a sour taste in the mouths of conservationists and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration, which controls the DNR. The agency recommended the board take a conservative approach heading into the November hunt, hence the 130-animal limit. The department concluded that the impact of the February hunt is still unclear and a quota of 135-140 animals probably wouldn’t result in a overall population reduction.

Nearly 60 people registered to speak at the board meeting Wednesday, with most calling for the DNR to put a stop to wolf hunting altogether.

“The hatred toward this being is based on myth,” said John Johnson Jr., president of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. “You’ve had the functional equivalent of two seasons already this year. (But) nothing will dissuade the desire for more blood from our brother. What will be in short supply today is respect. Respect for science, respect for the tribal community, respect for the ma’iingan,” he said, using the Chippewa term for wolf.

But hunt supporters demanded the board raise the fall quota to as high as 500 animals, insisting that the DNR has grossly underestimated the wolf population.

“We ask you, members of the Natural Resources Board, to listen to science, to listen to the people of northern Wisconsin, to listen to the elected county officials of the region, to listen to Wisconsin’s farmers, and to listen to the Wisconsin sportsmen and women who actually encounter and deal with wolves in pursuit of their sporting heritage,” Carl Schoettel, president of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, said in written remarks to the board.

Macy West, an Evers appointee on the board, said the vote will cost the board credibility with animal advocates and conservationists who demanded an end to wolf hunting. She warned that if the hunt results in a precipitous population decline federal wildlife officials will seize management rights from the state, costing farmers the right to kill problem wolves.

“We’re just teeing it up to lose credibility again,” she said.

Megan Nicholson, director the Humane Society of the United States’ Wisconsin chapter, called the new quota “egregious” in an email to The Associated Press.

“The only scientifically and ethically defensible path forward would have been a quota of zero,” she said. “The board should be ashamed of their brazen contempt of Wisconsin’s wolves and residents.”

STOP MURDERING PREDATORS
Hunters and trappers blow past Wisconsin's wolf kill target

© Provided by The Canadian Press

MADISON, Wis. — Hunters and trappers blew past Wisconsin's wolf kill target in less than 72 hours, forcing a premature end to a hunt that initially wasn't supposed to happen for another nine months and raising the ire of animal rights activists.

The Department of Natural Resources closed the season Wednesday afternoon after hunters and trappers had killed 178 wolves, which was 59 more than the state's target of 119. Hunters and trappers exceeded their target in all six of the state's management zones.

The agency estimated that about 1,000 wolves roamed the state before the hunt began. The department's population goal is 350.

The season began Monday and had been scheduled to run through Sunday. DNR officials announced Tuesday that the hunt would end Wednesday afternoon because so many animals had been killed in the first two days.

The wolf season has been one of the most contentious outdoors issues that Wisconsin has grappled with in the last 20 years.

Animal rights advocates have argued that wolf populations are too small to support hunting and that the animals are too majestic to kill. Farmers and rural residents, though, say wolves are killing their livestock and pets.

FARMERS GRAZE THEIR ANIMALS ON PUBLIC LANDS FOR NO FEE, BUT BITCH WHEN THE WOLVES ON THOSE LANDS EXERT THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS

Wisconsin law hands wolf hunters and trappers significant advantages during the season. Unlike with deer hunting, wolf hunters and trappers can operate at night and use dogs to corner wolves. Snow cover also aids tracking.

Wayne Pacelle, president of animal rights group Animal Wellness Action, said in a statement Wednesday that killed Wisconsin wolves didn't stand a chance.

“Traps are set like landmines for unsuspecting animals and the hunters are deep into the woods and out of the range of communication, and they can easily claim they didn't get the ‘stop the hunt’ notice before they killed their wolf,” he said.

Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona-based non-profit that works to protect endangered species, issued a statement calling the Wisconsin hunt “a reckless slaughter.”

Hunters and trappers exceeded the state’s kill target during Wisconsin's 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons, which were held before the wolf was placed back on the federal endangered species list.

Wisconsin law requires the DNR to give 24-hour notice of wolf hunting zone closures, which means hunters and trappers can keep killing wolves for another day after a closure is announced. If they kill a wolf after the zone is closed, they would face a $330 fine.

The DNR announced on Tuesday that three zones would close at 10 a.m. Wednesday and the remaining three would close at 3 p.m.

The Trump administration removed federal protections for wolves in January, returning management to the states. Wisconsin law requires the DNR to hold an annual hunt between November and February. The department was preparing for a November hunt when Republican lawmakers demanded the season start before the end of February, saying they were worried the Biden administration might re-list wolves before November and deny Wisconsin hunters a season.

The DNR resisted, but hunter advocacy group Hunter Nation won a court order earlier this month that forced the immediate launch of a wolf hunting season.

The DNR still plans to hold a November wolf hunting season.

Keith Warnke, the department's fish, wildlife and parks administrator, told the agency's policy board during a meeting Wednesday that hunters had exceeded the limit.

None of the board members expressed any reaction to the news. The board's chairman, Fred Prehn, said the target was too low given the population goal of 350 wolves and that the November target should be set to get closer to that goal.

Warnke said he didn't know if that would be safe for the overall population, but that the department would use that 350-animal goal to inform its decisions. He said new population estimates are expected in April.

Lawmakers in neighbouring Minnesota have introduced dueling bills that would ban wolf hunting and establish a season.

___

Follow Todd Richmond on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trichmond1

Todd Richmond, The Associated Press

#ENDWOLFHUNTS

Federal judge sets hearing on blocking Wisconsin wolf hunt

October 1, 2021
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday scheduled a hearing for later this month on whether to block Wisconsin’s fall wolf hunt.

Six Chippewa tribes filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Wisconsin on Sept. 21 seeking to stop the hunt, saying hunters killed too many wolves during the state’s February season and the kill limit for the fall hunt isn’t based on science.

The tribes filed a motion Friday for a preliminary injunction blocking the hunt. U.S. District Judge James Peterson scheduled hearing on the injunction for Oct. 29, six days before the season is set to begin on Nov. 6.

The Department of Natural Resources’ policy board set the February quota for state-licensed hunters at 119 wolves. Hunters blew past that number, killing 218 wolves in just four days. The DNR was forced to end the season early.

DNR biologists proposed setting the fall quota at 130 wolves, saying they’re not sure what effect a spring hunt had on the overall wolf population. The board set the limit at 300 animals. The Chippewa are entitled to hunt half of those animals, but since the tribes consider the wolf sacred and won’t hunt it, the working quota for state-licensed hunters would be 150 animals.

The latest DNR population estimates put the state’s wolf population at around 1,000 animals. Those estimates were compiled over the winter of 2019-2020.

A coalition of wildlife advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in state court in August seeking to block the fall hunt. No hearings have been scheduled in that case yet.

A Hunting We Will Go

Well I posted my story on the crisis of the Caribou in Alberta, and I tagged it with technocrati.

When I checked for stories about Alberta I found this really offensive blog that appeared this week. It is an anonymous blog promoting Big Game Hunting in Alberta.

Now let's understand something about hunting, if you kill it and eat it, fine. If you use the skin and fur fine. But if all you want is a trophy, well that's where I draw the line. And yes I have my FAC and I have my Hunter Training certification, and I have my principles.

I also draw the line when it comes to hunting species whose only natural enemy is man, and who are limited in their numbers, whether the government decides they are endangered or not. These are not trophies (which is all Big Game hunting is about) they are sentient species and I oppose the hunting of these animals. Which includes cougars, wolves, black bears, and of course the Grizzly which is endangered.

Unfortunately everything in this blog is perfectly legal in Alberta. The influence of the Fish and Game Association over the governments wilderness regulations is only matched by the oil and logging industry. Wilderness and wildlife are 'fair game' (pardon the pun) in Alberta. Which is why we have a Grizzly hunt here annually.

Cougars, like the Grizzly, are rare and the hunt is regulated, thanks to FGA. Why you would hunt this magnificent cat is beyond me, but of course its all about the manly man macho of coming home with a trophy. And why it is fair game to kill wolves any time in Alberta is right up there with the Grizzly and cougar hunts as the stupidest policy this government has when it comes to Wildlife Management and Sustainable Resources. Now there's an Orwellianism for ya.

I suspect that since this blog is being promoted by an outfitter out to make some bucks off American hunters. This is really disgusting so I thought I would share my disgust with you by posting some of the descriptions from this blog.

Try Cougar Hunting In Alberta

The cougar, also known as mountain lion, puma, or panther, is North America’s largest member of the cat family. This alert, secretive animal is rarely seen which makes cougar hunting a real challenge. Cougar hunting is a rugged adventures and a unique hunting experience. Growing up to 10 feet long and weighing in at close to 200 pounds gives the hunter an opportunity to harvest a real trophy.

The cougar lives in ragged, forested areas, canyons and dense swamps at altitudes as high as 13,000 feet. In Alberta, a hunter will usually find cougars primarily in southern mountains and foothills, but occasionally they may be seen in other areas. Cougar hunting is regulated in Alberta. This is an effort to preserve these cats for the future population.

Cougar hunting begins the first of December and continues through the end of February. Cougar seasons are quota seasons that close early for resident hunters if the quota is reached in any given zone. The population has been very well managed which allows for better cougar hunting opportunities.

The best way to cougar hunt is to use hounds. The hounds will follow the cougar track and with alot of hard work and a little luck you will find a treed mountain lion at the end of the trail. The dogs will corner them up trees and hold the cat there. This gives the hunter an opportunity to get a good look at the animal and decide whether or not to let it go. This method gives the hunter an excellent chance of taking home a trophy cougar.

Wolf & Coyote Hunts In Alberta

Wolf Hunting in Alberta
If you are up to a challenge wolf hunting is for you.Many outfitters will add a wolf hunt to their big game hunts and will offer winter wolf hunting trips, when the pelts are at their best, and no other hunting seasons are open. Wolves may be hunted by the holder of a wolf license from the opening of any big game season until the end of the spring bear season. A great method for wolf hunting is using heated blinds over bait, stalking and calling. Baiting wolves is legal and effective and there is no limit on wolves.

In Alberta, wolves are found in mountain, foothill and boreal regions and cover approximately 60 percent of the provincial land area. Wolves are not considered rare or endangered in the province. Natural Resources Service estimates the provincial population (in Sept.) to be about 4,000 animals. This estimate is based on population counts in selected areas, and trapper and hunter harvest information. Go to Wolves in Alberta for an overview of the biology, history and management of this animal in the province.

Black Bear Hunts In Alberta Are Amazing

Once you’ve been black bear hunting in Alberta you won’t want to hunt anywhere else. Approximately 74% of the province is inhabited by black bear and much of it is largely undisturbed, the color phases range from dark chocolate brown to blond, many bear harvested in Alberta have made the Boone & Crockett and Pope & Young record books. If this isn’t enough to convince you, then the 2 bear limit in most areas should! Where else can you have the opportunity to harvest two black bears in one hunt! Contact the outfitters directly to book your black bear hunting trip in Alberta

Spring and Fall black bear hunting provides the hunter with a variety of opportunities. Your hunt will be productive and you will have a great chance of getting trophy black bears. Many outfitters will add other hunts to your fall black bear hunts including moose, whitetail deer, mule deer and elk.

The average male black bear will weigh anywhere from 250-450 pounds and are between 5 - 5 1/2 feet from nose to tail. Many outfitters have harvested black bear above the average ranging from 6 - 8 feet nose to tail and up to 600 pounds. Alberta is estimated to have over 36,000 black bear!.

Baiting black bear is allowed in most areas as is spot and stalk and either method will be productive. Hunting black bear over bait will give the hunter the opportunity to get close enough to see the quality of the hide, this is perfect for the archery or muzzeloader hunter. Spot and stalk hunting can be very productive as well. It’s almost a certainty you will get a shot at a trophy black bear no matter what method you use.

Tag
Alberta
Canada
wilderness
Big Game Hunting
Grizzly
wolves
endangered species
environment
cougar
hunting

A wolf killed the EU president’s precious pony - then the fight to catch the predator began


Patrick Barkham
Sat, 27 January 2024 

Photograph: Getty Images

LONG READ

It was a mild, windless night, sometime before dawn on 1 September 2022, when a large grey wolf trotted out of the woods beside Beinhorn, a hamlet of old barns and graceful wooden houses in the German state of Lower Saxony. The keen nose of the male wolf almost certainly scented that Dolly, a pretty chestnut pony with a white patch on her face, was vulnerable. The 30-year-old pony, kept in a paddock close to stables and a farmhouse, was not protected by high-voltage electric fencing designed to deter wolves. It was an easy kill. In the morning, Dolly’s body was found in the long grass; her owners spoke of their “horrible distress”.

Unluckily for the wolf, and perhaps for the entire wolf population of western Europe, Dolly was a cherished family pet belonging to the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, one of the most powerful people in the EU. Last September, a year after Dolly’s death, von der Leyen announced plans that to some wolf-defenders looked like revenge: the commission wants to reduce the wolf’s legal protection.

Action had already been taken against Dolly’s killer. DNA evidence harvested from the pony’s carcass revealed that the wolf was an individual known as GW950m. This mature male wolf, which heads a pack (a wolf family usually numbering eight to 10) living around the von der Leyen residence, appears to have developed a taste for livestock. DNA tests on other carcasses implicates him in the deaths of about 70 sheep, horses, cattle and goats. Experts believe younger pack members might have copied his hunting methods. Because GW950m was now classified as a “problem wolf”, a permit was issued to allow hunters to shoot him legally (wolves can only be killed under exceptional circumstances, according to EU law). It was the seventh such licence to be issued in Lower Saxony, a state the size of Denmark with a thriving population of at least 500 wolves – more than are found across the whole of Scandinavia.


Against the odds, more than a year after the licence to kill was first issued, GW950m remains at large, living quietly on a diet of mostly deer in forests east of Hanover. If the survival of this one wolf appears improbable, so is the species’ revival in north-west Europe. Wolves were mostly wiped out in Germany in the 19th century. But since one first trotted back from Poland in 2000, they have reconquered the country, which is now home to more than 180 packs – about 1,500 wolves. Their offspring have recolonised Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark. Wolves are expanding their territory from the Alps too, with the population growing from zero in France in 1992 to 140 packs. In Spain, wolves have bounced back from near extinction in the 1970s to more than 2,000 today.

Wolves have adapted swiftly and surely to human-dominated landscapes. But people are struggling to adjust to the wolves. The concentration of packs, von der Leyen declared when announcing the commission’s review of wolf protection laws, “has become a real danger for livestock and potentially also for humans”. In December, the commission proposed to reduce the wolf’s status under the Bern Convention from “strictly protected” to “protected” in order to introduce “further flexibility” – potentially enabling wolves to be hunted and populations reduced across the EU. Many populist politicians across Europe hope that talking up the threat of the wolf – alongside tough measures to tackle it – will win support ahead of next summer’s elections to the European parliament. It’s a low-cost way of showing rural voters you’re on their side. “Wolves are a subject that might change elections,” says one German conservationist.

* * *

People have woven myths, stories and fears around wolves since human culture began. For wolf-lovers, the animal’s recovery after it was hunted to extinction in much of Europe is a vital sign of hope – that nature can be restored; that humans can peacefully coexist with fellow predators; that the environmental benefits of returning an apex predator will cascade through the landscape. The impact of wolves returning to Yellowstone national park in the US – reducing grazing herbivores and allowing diverse vegetation to flourish – has caught the popular imagination (a YouTube video, How Wolves Change Rivers, has been watched 44m times), although scientists point out that wolf impacts have been overstated. On the other side, wolf-haters claim that this ruthless carnivore’s return has been naively championed by the tofu-munching wokerati who know nothing of the countryside, elevate the welfare of animals above people, and inflict misery upon farmers, hunters and country folk.

The wolf’s revival in western Europe is actually an interesting accumulation of accidents. Before its return, EU member states including Germany pushed to ensure that this disappearing species was given the highest protection under the EU’s habitats directive in 1992. When the cold war ended, many eastern European farms were abandoned, meaning that Russian populations found it easier to pad westwards. When the wolf reached Germany, it found hiding places on disused military bases – and, initially, sympathy.

“If wolves had returned 50 years ago, they wouldn’t have stood a chance, because our view of nature was very different to today,” says Kenny Kenner, a wolf expert who collects sightings and DNA data on wolves for the Lower Saxony government, and leads walks to educate people about this fascinating, complicated animal. “We see ourselves as part of nature and, much more importantly, as dependent on nature. This led to the possibility that a species as difficult for us as the wolf could come back.”

I join one of Kenny and Barbara Kenner’s weekly walks in search of wolves in Göhrde forest, 75 miles north of where Dolly was killed. For all the wolf’s wild symbolism, it is thriving in human-dominated landscapes: the intensively farmed countryside and even suburban areas of eastern Germany with human population densities higher than the city of Newcastle. Wolf packs also live close to cities such as Turin in northern Italy and Brașov in Romania. This 75 sq km forest is much more sparsely populated, however, and the heart of the local wolf pack’s territory of around 300 sq km. Each pack usually numbers around 10: a mother and father alongside their yearlings (young wolves from the previous year’s litter) and their pups.

Kenner knows this pack intimately because he tracks their paw prints and droppings, and has placed camera traps all over. The female, GW432f, is tawny and, unusually, larger than her partner, GW1559m, a pioneering male. Kenner calls him Alpino, because he is one of the first wolves from the Alpine sub-population to trek more than 600 miles to join the burgeoning German subpopulation. Alpino settled here because someone illegally shot the resident male. So when Alpino moved in, he didn’t just mate with GW432f but also with her daughter, producing 15 pups in 2022 rather than a standard single litter. For Kenner, this is a powerful example of why shooting wolves won’t control their population: disrupt a pack, and you may end up with more wolves.



The wolf is a predator, he needs to take care, but he has to take risks, too – that’s why he won’t learn from being shot

Twenty minutes from the nearest road, wild boar have been rootling on the forest track and Kenner picks up prints in the sandy earth. Ruler in hand, he measures the pad: 9cm. Big enough to be a wolf, and it is fresh. Wolves are great wanderers and take the easiest routes, explains Kenner, using human-made tracks and roads when they are quiet. He positions camera traps at ride junctions, where wolves scent-mark (urinating like a dog) to declare territory.

When Kenner first began these walks, “there was this excitement about how horrible the wolf was”. People were scared to stroll in the forest with their dogs. But that’s changed over time, he says. “We shouldn’t feel threatened, but we should feel awed. Seeing them is an honour. But I wouldn’t want to cuddle them.”

The tracks are probably from the wolves stalking wild boar at dawn. “They can smell time and space – and health,” says Kenner. “What’s important to know is that we are not prey. If we were prey, we would have a gun to protect us.”

The Kenners are dismayed by what they see as populist and right-wing politicians creating a culture war over the wolf. To conservationists, von der Leyen’s comments about risks to people are inflammatory. During the wolf’s 23-year recolonisation of Germany, there are no documented cases of one even growling at a person; boar pose a much more frequent threat. There are no incidents of wolves killing people in the west of Russia in modern times; historic fatalities are from a bygone era when lone children shepherded animals in the forests. “In our society, the danger to children is nearly zero,” says Kenner. In countries such as Finland, wolves sometimes attack trained hunting dogs in the forests, but pets are rarely victims. And wolves are wary of people. Kenner shows me clips from his camera traps. One detects him walking in front of the trap. A few hours later, a wolf arrives, sniffs his tracks and moves swiftly in the opposite direction. “The wolf is not shy,” says Kenner. “He’s careful. He’s a predator, he needs to take care, but he has to take risks, too – that’s why he won’t learn from being shot.”

Von der Leyen, argues Kenner, is using her position “to start a campaign in favour of shooting wolves because of her personal ideas and experiences”. “This is a misuse of power. But it’s not just Ursula von der Leyen. In Lower Saxony, there are a lot of other politicians saying, ‘This is a catastrophe,’ and a lot of fact-free inducement to change policy.”

* * *

Two hours south, on one of the wealthiest streets in Hanover, is the headquarters of Landesjägerschaft Niedersachsen, Lower Saxony’s hunting association. It is in charge of wolf monitoring: its 58,000 sharp-eyed members are a useful, free resource for spotting wolves. According to Raoul Reding, the association’s biologist who oversees the meticulous recording of populations, we are witnessing an unprecedented experiment: “It’s never happened before, anywhere in the world, that such large carnivores would settle such densely inhabited human areas as we have here in Germany.”

The wolf has thrived, explains Reding, because of plentiful deer, but also because it is adaptable. Its pups have a high survival rate and young wolves can disperse to find new territories up to 1,250 miles from where they are born. Other European carnivores, such as lynx, stick more rigidly to forest and won’t travel such distances. Despite Germany’s 180 wolf packs, there is still a vast swathe of southern Germany to recolonise; studies suggest the country could support 700-1,400 packs.

Humans have been rather slower to adapt – and this is particularly true of livestock farmers. Across the city from Reding’s office is Land Volk Haus, HQ of the Lower Saxony farmers’ union. Vice-president Jörn Ehlers hands me two stickers: one depicts a vicious-looking wolf with a sheep in its mouth barred with a red line; the other reads: IF YOU DON’T LIKE FARMING, STOP EATING. PROBLEM SOLVED!

“We don’t want to be so noisy and make a big thing out of this,” says Ehlers. “The problem for us is that we are running out of time. The problem is getting bigger and bigger. The wolf is much faster than politicians.” Wolves first bred in Lower Saxony in 2011; last year, their packs killed about 1,000 farm animals. “We have to accept some damage from the wolf, but what we’ve got at the moment is really too much,” says Ehlers. He wants Germany to adopt the “Swedish solution”. Despite supposedly having to adhere to the EU law protecting wolves, Sweden controversially keeps its wolf population far lower than that of Germany. “In Sweden, about 300 adults are accepted in the whole country,” says Ehlers. “If it gets much over 300, they shoot them.”

Sweden and Finland also have “wolf-free zones” in vast swathes of the north: any wolves that enter areas of traditional reindeer herding are shot. Ehlers argues that Germany should have a wolf-free zone on the pastures beside its North Sea coast, where cattle and sheep graze on unfenced dykes. Here, Ehlers points out, the livestock play an important role in flood protection, because the dykes need to be grazed to keep them clear of trees. And if society wants high-welfare farm animals who enjoy life outside, he says, it will need to tackle the wolf.

* * *

Like many German conservationists, Kenny and Barbara Kenner hope livestock protection fences will solve wolf conflicts and calm rising populist fury. “Protection of livestock will take the hysteria out of the subject,” says Kenny. “If you went to the mayor and said, ‘The fox killed my hens,’ he would reply, ‘You haven’t taken care of them,’” adds Barbara. “You don’t just say, ‘Well, my dear wolf, I hope you won’t eat my sheep.’”

The Kenners recently visited farmers in northern Italy, where wolves have never been driven to extinction, and there is more acceptance of the predator. In mountainous areas that can’t be fenced, actual shepherding has to return, or protection dogs are stationed to stop wolves predating livestock. “They are really astonished that the Germans feed their wolves on sheep,” says Barbara.

In Germany, not every farmer is fighting against the wolf. Thomas Rebre and his shepherding partner keep 300 sheep and 30 goats in the forests of north-east Saxony. “Here in Germany, it’s like every day is Halloween. For the wolves, it’s just meat for their puppies. Our work is to say ‘no’ to the wolf, ‘This is not your meat.’ All these emotions, all this crying – the wolf is not good or evil, it’s just what the wolf does,” he says.

Since wolves arrived, Rebre has invested in electric net fencing which is high voltage – 7,000 volts – but not very tall, 1.05-1.2 metres. Wolves don’t like jumping into an enclosure, says Rebre, but they will dig under fencing, so there are posts every 2 metres, ensuring the fence is tight to the ground. Rebre moves his sheep, and fences, every day, receiving payments for “conservation grazing”. He got financial support from the Lower Saxony government for his fencing, but thinks there should be more funding for wolf-affected farmers. Erecting the fencing takes up to two hours’ additional work each day.

This autumn, Rebre took his sheep into the heart of Göhrde forest to undertake conservation grazing. Kenny Kenner was worried. He feared the wolf would not be deterred by the shepherd’s electric fence, so he fixed 20 camera traps around it. One night, a camera showed the male wolf slink over to the fence to size up the sheep. “It came close, watched them for two minutes, and left,” says Kenner. Rebre’s sheep were unharmed.

“Wolves really, really fear electricity,” says Rebre. In 15 years, he has lost just one animal, a goat, to the wolf. Nevertheless, the farmers’ union insists that fences are not the whole solution. They estimate that it would cost too much – €2.2bn in total – to fence all livestock in Lower Saxony against wolves (conservationists argue it is only essential to fence sheep, calves and foals; wolves are unlikely to kill many adult cows and horses). “We need fences, yes, and that’s our responsibility as farmers,” says Ehlers. “But we also expect to be able to kill problem wolves and keep the population stable, and not see it grow every year and increase the problem.”

* * *

The hunt for von der Leyen’s nemesis, GW950m, has not gone well so far. In Lower Saxony, if DNA evidence proves the same wolf has attacked livestock more than once, a licence can be obtained to allow hunters to kill that “problem” wolf. (This term is disliked by the Kenners: “A wolf who eats sheep may be a problem for us, but it’s just wolf life,” says Kenny. “What’s he supposed to eat? Asparagus?” adds Barbara.) The process is slow, and allows for legal challenges. “This bureaucracy is just not adapted to practical wolf management,” says Raoul Reding of the hunters’ association.

Ironically, a request for a licence to kill GW950m was issued the day before it killed Dolly, the pony, because of other attacks on livestock. Since the licence to kill was approved in October 2022, it has been revoked and reinstated several times after being challenged in court by pro-wolf groups. A fresh permit was issued in October 2023, which was later again blocked by the courts.

Last autumn, hunters thought they’d got their quarry when they shot a mature wolf not far from Beinhorn. It turned out to be his mate, the female. Since wolves returned, licences have been issued to kill seven “problem” animals in Lower Saxony, but killing the “right” wolf is easier said than done. “Under a normal hunting situation, at a distance of more than 100 metres, with bad light, and with the wolf’s dense winter fur, it’s really difficult to identify the age and sex of the animal,” says Reding. “To date, we have shot seven wolves because of huge amounts of livestock depredation, and the ‘right’ wolf has never been killed – the one that has been shown to be responsible.”

For all its 58,000 members, Reding says that many of his association’s hunters can’t be bothered with the hassle of hunting wolves. Wolves are elusive, live at low densities, and most hunters prefer their traditional deer hunt; a wolf kill under licence is usually just “bycatch”. Hunters are also discouraged by the actions of pro-wolf campaigners. Reding says they have sabotaged wolf hunts, putting nails on forest tracks to puncture hunters’ tyres, and even sawing the wooden legs of the “high seats” hunters put in forests. In turn, the head of an illegally killed wolf was dumped on the road outside nature protection charity Nabu’s office in Lower Saxony; wolf conservationists say their vehicle tyres have been slashed too.

And yet, surprisingly perhaps, Nabu agrees that Germany should streamline the process to kill problem wolves, a change that is now even supported by Steffi Lemke, Germany’s federal environment minister (and Green party co-founder). “I think it is possible to make it easier to tackle wolves who make problems,” says Marie Neuwald of Nabu. “It should not take months of bureaucratic processes to get a decision if this wolf should be shot or not.” What Neuwald wants, however, is more transparency to prove a “problem” wolf really is a threat to livestock.

Many hunters and farmers want to go further. Reding thinks “a pragmatic solution” to the difficulties of killing just one wolf could be to shoot the entire pack. But Kenny Kenner insists that shooting wolves to protect livestock “is definitely not going to work. Wolves won’t learn not to eat sheep by being shot.” A study of wolf populations over 25 years in three US states found that livestock losses actually increased after wolf culls because packs were broken up, new pairs formed and the animals appeared to respond by breeding more. In France, where 19% of the population is now shot each year, sheep kills have still risen, from 10,000 to 15,000 each year.

* * *

Wolf debates are dominated by problems, but what of their benefits? A German study found that deer became 1.5kg heavier after wolves returned. “The hunters should be happy. They have 1.5kg more meat per shot,” says Kenner. “The prey is much healthier than before; they are stronger. Diseases that might even spread to humans are prevented because wolves eat the sick.” Forests are healthier and more biodiverse too, he believes, because there are fewer plant-eating deer.

And yet Marie Neuwald at Nabu is careful not to overstate the benefits of wolves. “It is not honest to say wolves will save our ecosystems here, or our forests,” she says. As apex predators in a wild landscape, wolves regulate prey populations. “But in Germany we have a cultural landscape – we don’t have this natural system where wolves are one of the most important puzzle pieces.” Wolves are unlikely to significantly reduce deer numbers because there’s still so much food for the deer.

The Kenners say American friends laugh at “the German angst” over the wolf when North Americans live alongside five big mammalian carnivores (wolf, mountain lion, grizzly bear, black bear, coyote). “The problem in Germany is we have a very emotional outlook on the subject,” says Kenner. For all the usual extremes on social media, I’m struck by the moderation on both sides of the debate in Germany. Frank Fass, a former aeronautical engineer who opened the Wolf Center to educate Germans about wolves in 2010, believes Germany’s wolf population will grow and eventually be considered stable enough to allow an annual cull. “A farmer will say for hundreds of years we had no wolves in Germany and we don’t need them,” says Fass. “I can see their point of view. We don’t need them really, but it is a creature from the universe – as is a bird, a cow, a horse. Coexistence is possible and to live in coexistence with the wolf, it is not a straight road.”

* * *

I head to Burgdorf, a neat little town surrounded by pasture and woods where GW950m is still living free. “I take walks regularly in the forest around Burgdorf,” says local resident Lorenz Reinhard. “The papers are full of wolves, but I haven’t seen any yet.” Can people and wolves get along? “The hunters can’t really kill them all,” he says. “There are two sides to everything – to the wolf as well.”

Will GW950m evade capture? At the scene of Dolly’s killing, horses continue to graze in Ursula von der Leyen’s paddocks, apparently unprotected by anything more intimidating than a couple of strands of electric fence. There is no trace of GW950m in the woods. The scariest thing by far that I encounter in this landscape is the armed police officer striding along the quiet lane, tasked with protecting the European Commission president’s country home.

CRY WOLF

Endangered Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Is Being “Sabotaged” by Ranchers Who Claim the Canines Are Killing Cattle — and the Federal Employees Who Sign Off on Reports

A sedated Mexican gray wolf is checked during an annual survey by biologists in Reserve, N.M., on Jan. 30, 2020. Photo: Susan Montoya Bryan/AP

Spencer Robert

THE INTERCEPT
May 24 2022

SOME SAY CLEOPATRA died by drinking a poison wolfsbane tincture to avoid being taken prisoner. Thousands of years later, a similar fate met another captive queen: the matriarch of the Prieto wolf pack. When she was snared in April 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services division had already gunned down her mate and killed or captured eight of her heirs. Officials decided to remove alpha female No. 1251 from the Gila National Forest in New Mexico due to her alleged taste for cattle. The next day, she was found dead. Extreme levels of stress hormones had turned her blood toxic, a phenomenon biologists call capture myopathy. She would sooner die than live in a cage.

The death of this endangered Mexican gray wolf completed the eradication of her pack, a vital bloodline in a critically low gene pool. In 2021, there were fewer than 200 Mexican gray wolves in the wild — the highest count ever taken in a recovery program whose gradual upward climb has been forcibly slowed.

Wildlife Services justified the Prieto pack’s destruction by citing livestock depredation reports, which showed that these wolves were prolific cow killers. Yet watchdogs and wolf biologists have long questioned the validity of this data. Now the former director of the agency has come forward to corroborate their suspicions.

Robert “Goose” Gosnell administered Wildlife Services in New Mexico for a year and a half as state director of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a job at which he says he inherited an entrenched and systemic corruption problem. “I know some of those depredation [report]s that caused [wolf] removals were illegal,” he told The Intercept, explaining that inspectors had been instructed by superiors to confirm livestock loss incidents as “wolf kills” for ranchers. “My guys in the field were going and rubber-stamping anything those people asked them to.” He described how many also worked second jobs as hunting guides for the same ranchers whose claims they evaluated — a violation of federal ethics codes.

When Gosnell took over APHIS in New Mexico, colleagues from the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Interior Department warned him of shady dealings. He was skeptical at first but began to see the patterns. Internal communications show that before Gosnell’s tenure, Fish and Wildlife Service employees had been kept in the dark. When they were allowed to review the livestock depredation reports, they clearly contended that Wildlife Services investigators were erroneously confirming wolf kills.

Gosnell attempted to reform New Mexico Wildlife Services during his time as director, but his efforts were met with retaliation. Seeking the insight of experienced livestock depredation investigators from wolf-dense states to the north, he sent the New Mexico reports for review. “Everybody up there said, ‘Those aren’t wolf kills,’” he recounted, adding that the inquiry landed him in hot water. “I had big bosses coming down on me.” A regional director, his direct superior, pulled him aside at an ornithology conference and told him to “back off” his probe into the depredation records, cluing him in to an arrangement between federal APHIS Administrator Kevin Shea and New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture Jeff Witte.

Gosnell later filed a complaint with the USDA Office of Inspector General and was subsequently demerited and transferred out of New Mexico. He responded with a lawsuit against the federal government, which reached a settlement that restored his record and paid his legal fees. But no action was taken to address the corrupt livestock compensation and wolf-removal programs he blew the whistle on

Internal documents obtained by wildlife watchdogs at the Western Watersheds Project show that 88 percent of predation incidents are attributed to Mexican wolves on grazing allotments in the Gila National Forest and Arizona’s Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. (The national average is roughly 4 percent.) Of those, 97 percent result in “confirmed” or “probable” determinations — entailing compensation through the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Project Grant Program. Western Watersheds Project investigators Greta Anderson and Cyndi Tuell have sifted through thousands of pages of documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to elucidate the opaque system.

Gila area depredation points. Map: Melissa Cain, Western Watersheds Project via FOIA


“The Mexican wolf recovery program is being sabotaged,” Anderson, the Western Watersheds Project’s deputy director, said of the Wildlife Services data. Her research shows that Rainy Mesa, a ranch in the vicinity of the former Prieto pack, had 48 of 49 claims confirmed as wolf attacks between 2018 and 2021 — worth more than $1,000 on average through the Fish and Wildlife Service program. Its owner was separately compensated through the USDA’s Livestock Indemnity Program for just under $70,000 in 2020 — valuing at as much as one-fifth of the cattle permitted to graze on the company’s public land allotment. On social media, Rainy Mesa Ranch owner Audrey McQueen, who runs a trophy-hunting business and lobbies for wolf removals, claimed 31 depredation confirmations in six months and stated that wolves had killed more than 10 percent of her herd. Wolf experts don’t buy it.

“I’ve never heard of such a thing,” said Carter Niemeyer, who conducted and reviewed hundreds of depredation investigations over 14 years as a Wildlife Services district supervisor in Montana. While he never saw numbers like those attributed to the much smaller wolves down south, he did recall the “tremendous” influence of the ranching lobby within the agency. “We were the hired gun of the livestock industry,” he said, recalling that he was constantly pressured to change his reports by superiors and eventually lost his job at Wildlife Services due to complaints from ranchers, before transferring to the Fish and Wildlife Service to coordinate wolf recovery in Idaho.

Niemeyer said it was “very unusual” for a wolf pack to attack an adult cow, yet these claims constituted more than half of confirmed wolf kills in the New Mexico Wildlife Services database. And while he and other investigators look for evidence of tearing on the hind legs to indicate wolf pursuit and hemorrhaging around wounds to prove that a cow was alive at the time of attack, state Wildlife Services reports marked as “confirmed” appear satisfied simply by a pair of puncture points roughly within the canine width of a Mexican wolf.    

Depredation Reports and Removal Tally12 pages


Other government scientists have identified flaws with this criterion. In a 2018 study published in the Journal of Mammalogy, a team of researchers from APHIS, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Navajo Nation Veterinary Program demonstrated that the range of canine spread for Mexican wolves is entirely overlapped by the combined ranges of coyotes, cougars, and feral dogs, stressing that “bite mark analyses should be evaluated along with additional forensic evidence due to the overlap between many of the carnivore species.” Niemeyer also found this form of evidence unconvincing, saying that “tooth spacing by itself doesn’t mean anything, in my opinion,” and describing how wolves often don’t leave tooth-puncture wounds at all.

New Mexico Wildlife Services depredation reports obtained by the Western Watersheds Project show significantly less scrutiny than their northern counterparts. In some cases, canine spread measurements did not match caliper photos, pregnant cows were double-counted, or reports appeared in duplicate with no explanation. In one, a wolf kill was confirmed using only a month-old piece of hide, which was soaked and stretched before the inspector took its measurements. In another, five dead calves in varying states of decomposition were submitted at once. All five were recorded as confirmed kills. These were among the many reports claimed by Rainy Mesa Ranch that were used as evidence in removal orders that wiped out the Prieto pack.

Captive Mexican gray wolves are seen at the Desert Museum in Saltillo, Mexico, on July 2, 2020.
Photo: Julio Cesar Aguilar/AFP via Getty Images


GOSNELL ATTEMPTED TO rein in unscrupulous confirmations through a variety of methods, including hiring investigators from outside the department. After one of Gosnell’s new hires paid a visit to Rainy Mesa Ranch, McQueen complained up the hierarchy to the Wildlife Services Western regional office. The inspector was removed from depredation investigations, pressured to sign an admission of fault, and — as Gosnell put it — “railroaded” out of the department before filing a single report. The employee would also go on to file an Office of Inspector General complaint.

The latest to join the chorus of voices calling for a USDA investigation of Wildlife Services was Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., who described “serious accountability issues” and a “lack of scientific integrity” in a letter to the USDA inspector general. At the time of publication, none of the parties who filed complaints with the Office of Inspector General had received resolution.

However, Heinrich’s advocacy on behalf of wolves is rare among the state’s lawmakers. Gosnell’s approach upset not only House representatives, who introduced legislation to strip endangered status from Mexican wolves, but also local officials, who characterized his training workshops for county trappers as redirecting predator control funding toward predator protection. During the 2019 government shutdown, Catron County, which covers part of the Gila National Forest, allowed private contractor Jess Carey to conduct investigations in the stead of federal employees, who wrote in official documents that they had not seen the investigation site and were “peer-reviewing” the state trapper’s work. Over this period, the county confirmed 100 percent of depredation claims as Mexican wolf kills.

County Manager Letter2 pages


“It does not seem feasible there would be that much depredation,” wolf biologist David Parsons said of the Wildlife Services figures, citing a 400-page Environmental Impact Statement he prepared for the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1996 on the impacts of Mexican wolf reintroduction. Parsons served as the recovery program’s first director and was its architect in many ways, working for nearly a decade at the Fish and Wildlife Service and navigating immense political opposition from both ranching and military interests.

He explained that due to its smaller size, the desert subspecies of gray wolf — Mexican wolves, also known as lobos — evolved to hunt smaller prey like javelinas and deer and would be expected to kill less cattle than its northern relatives, controlling for other factors. Using existing depredation data and accounting for the unique factors at play in New Mexico — such as year-round grazing permits and higher cattle density — he and his colleagues estimated that “after the wolf population grows to approximately 100, it is projected to kill between one and 34 cattle annually, mostly calves.” In 2020, the last complete year in the database, population surveys estimated 186 wolves. Wildlife Services confirmed 133 wolf kills.

David Parsons, then-leader of the Mexican wolf recovery team at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, and Diane Boyd-Heger, a Mexican wolf biologist, release a female Mexican wolf in the Apache National Forest in Alpine, Ariz., on Nov. 16, 1998.
Photo: Jeff Robbins/AP

“No positive advancement in the Mexican wolf recovery project was ever taken by the initiative of the agencies. It was always forced by litigation,” Parsons explained. He would know: When a 1990 lawsuit filed by the Wolf Action Group found his superiors in violation of the Endangered Species Act for canceling the recovery project, the agency was forced to carry Parsons’s plan forward. After successfully relocating the reintroduction area from the White Sands Missile Range to a more suitable habitat on lands leased for grazing in the Blue Range Wilderness area of the Gila National Forest, Parsons received a “surprise early retirement” — his administrator declined to renew his employement. The current Mexican gray wolf recovery coordinator said he was not given clearance by the Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Public Affairs to comment on this story.

Despite Parsons’s efforts, several critical loopholes were built into the recovery plan, including the establishment of a boundary wolves would not be permitted to cross and the designation of the population as “nonessential” to the species’s survival — even though it’s the only wild population of Mexican wolves in the world. This designation granted government agencies exemptions from Endangered Species Act protections, including the ability to kill wolves.

“No positive advancement in the Mexican wolf recovery project was ever taken by the initiative of the agencies. It was always forced by litigation.”

In addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s livestock loss program based on Wildlife Services’ depredation reports, the USDA distributes compensation funds for wolf depredations through the Farm Service Agency’s Livestock Indemnity Program. There are also various state allocations, nonprofit coffers, and a predation offset built into the Public Rangelands Improvement Act. Federal grazing fees cost permittees only $1.35 a month per cow/calf pair, despite their compensations being valued in the thousands and the opportunity costs of public grazing licenses being estimated in excess of $1 billion per decade, notwithstanding externalized costs to environmental and public health.

Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity describes the government’s program of leasing public lands for grazing as “a disaster,” pointing out that “it’s the No. 1 cause of species imperilment on public lands.” His book “Predatory Bureaucracy: The Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West” chronicles how the agricultural industry influenced the formation of a division within the U.S. Bureau of Biological Survey that transformed into the agency known today as Wildlife Services — a wildlife massacre machine posting annual kill counts in the millions and a leading reason for the near-extinction of the Mexican wolf.

Speaking with The Intercept, he also detailed how compensation programs can incentivize false reports. While cows, which are left unattended on public lands for months at a time, can die of myriad causes — such as weather, illness, malnutrition, vehicles, poisonous plants, birth complications, bears, cougars, and feral dogs — only a depredation investigation resulting in a confirmed or probable kill by a Mexican gray wolf results in a financial reward from the Fish and Wildlife Service.

“For various reasons, there’s an incentive to maximize stocking,” Robinson explains of the public land allotment program. “There are all sorts of things … that make cows in an overstocked situation more likely to die.” So even though a wolf may have been the ultimate cause of death in some cases, there are often underlying factors that would have made the cow easy prey. The deterioration of forage also drives away wolves’ other prey, leaving little to eat but cattle. Furthermore, ranchers are not required to remove or render carcasses unpalatable before investigations, allowing wolves that scavenge from them to be accused of making the kill. This negligence can encourage wolves to develop a taste for cattle.

Mexican gray wolf pups born in captivity are placed with packs in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico as part of a cross-fostering program.
Photo: The Interagency Field Team/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via AP

SINCE THE MEXICAN wolves’ reintroduction in 1998, Wildlife Services has issued 206 removal orders for members of the endangered species. That’s more than the highest census ever taken — 196 wolves in 2021 — since their extinction from the wild in the 1980s. This has contributed to a severe dearth of genetic diversity, threatening the survival of the subspecies. In an attempt to counteract this, some captured wolves have been bred in captivity, their offspring introduced into wild dens. But of the 72 pups released since 2016, only 14 are alive in the wild today. While the cross-fostering process is fallible and Wildlife Services’ removal orders are not a minor factor, the primary killers of these young wolves are poachers.

Around half of the Mexican wolf population is radio-collared, and among these wolves, poaching is the leading cause of death — surpassed only by unsolved disappearances, which spike when protections are lifted. Even still, the collared wolves are likely to be the safe ones, as their locations are broadcast and the brightly colored ornaments make it difficult for potential killers to claim that they were mistaken for a coyote. While the collars are intended in part to help the industry protect cattle, Gosnell says many ranchers lobby against them for these reasons, recounting that one told him bluntly: “We don’t want them collared, because then we can kill them.”

In the first two decades of the recovery, more than 100 cases of illegal killings were recorded, along with many more unsolved disappearances. With tax-exempt wolf bounty programs becoming a million-dollar industry in the Northern Rockies, allegations abound of black-market exchanges for the trapping and killing of lobos in the Southwest. In documented cases, the government has shown ambivalence toward enforcing the Endangered Species Act.

Bill Nelson, a Wildlife Services agent who evaded prosecution for shooting two endangered wolves in 2007 and 2013, was subsequently hired by the Fish and Wildlife Service to work on the recovery program. And in 2020, McQueen, the Rainy Mesa Ranch owner, posted a photo of a wolf trapped beside a dead cow, suggesting illegal baiting. The incident was not investigated.

McQueen, who did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment, is now running in the June 7 Republican primary for a Catron County commissioner position.

“They’re still just approving those depredation investigations left and right. It’s totally wrong.”

In another case, a rancher named Craig Thiessen, convicted for mutilating trapped wolves using instruments like shovels and handsaws, filed seven livestock compensation claims after pleading guilty, including one after the formal revocation of his grazing permit. Wildlife Services confirmed them all. In addition, subsidy filings show that his corporation, Canyon del Buey, received $119,000 from the USDA Livestock Indemnity Program that year. After unsuccessfully appealing the permit decision, he is being sued by the Forest Service for trespassing. His cattle remain in the Gila National Forest at the time of publication.

Ironically, the Fish and Wildlife Service isn’t required to involve Wildlife Services in the compensation program at all. The agency could instead employ a third party to conduct depredation investigations — a proposition many think it should consider. “The guy they put in my place was a wolf hater,” Gosnell lamented. “They’re still just approving those depredation investigations left and right. It’s totally wrong.”

Despite enormous barriers, the Mexican wolf population has grown in recent years, albeit at a troublingly slow pace. To survive into the future, their recovery program needs a far bolder tack. Wolf advocates have long petitioned the Forest Service to allow retiring of grazing permits and proposed releasing intact families in addition to cross-fostering pups. Many champion a new plan drafted by an independent working group commissioned by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2012. That group called for doubling the recovery target to 750 wolves and establishing two additional subpopulations in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado and the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. The proposal was rejected due to opposition from the ranching lobby.

Nonetheless, the mission to rescue the desert wolves has since blossomed into an international endeavor, with Mexico sheltering nearly a quarter of the world’s population in the Sierra Madre mountain system. Its cooperation complements that of the White Mountain Apache tribe, which joined early on, declaring that “we want to bring the Mexican wolf back to its home.”

It’s been said that the wolf was humankind’s first companion, approaching our campfires with tail tucked and ears lowered thousands of years before the domestication of sheep and cattle. For millennia, we revered wolves as sacred spirits — smart and social, like us. But we recast them as villains and burned them like witches when we enclosed Europe and colonized the world with ranching. The modern plight of Mexican wolves illustrates how private power over public land remains a central threat to their existence.

While the betrayal of the Prieto pack evokes a classical tragedy, it is not an anomaly. For centuries, the United States government has persecuted predators, but now light is creeping in to the shadows of its operations. Though rough terrain lies ahead, hope yet survives that wolves may once again watch over the walls of the Grand Canyon and sing to the Sonoran moon.

Correction: May 24, 2022, 2:24 p.m. ET
This story previously misstated Robert Gosnell’s tenure administering Wildlife Services in New Mexico; he was state director of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for a year and a half, not five years. It also previously included a reference to wolf recovery cooperation by the San Carlos Apache tribe, which has been removed.