SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to remove federal protections for wolves in California and other states. California hasn't had a wolf population in decades, aside from a single lone wolf that returned to Oregon in March after roaming Northern California for 15 months.

According to Pam Flick, California representative for Defenders of Wildlife, delisting the animal from the Endangered Species Act is premature because there are no wolves in California and only about 100 wolves in the Pacific Northwest.

"Federal protections for wolves are essential to help this animal recover and expand into still-suitable parts of its former range, just as the bald eagle was allowed to do before having its federal protections removed," Flick said.

According to a recent poll, around 80 percent of Californians think wolves are a vital part of America's wilderness and should continue to be protected under the Endangered Species Act until they are fully recovered.

Flick said the discovery of the lone wolf from Oregon known as OR-7 helped to reignite interest in wolves returning to the Golden State.

"His presence in California stirred the imagination of wolf advocates," she said. "And the possibility of wild wolves roaming in Northern California suddenly became very real."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has extended the public comment period until October 28.

UPDATE 10/1/13: The agency was set to host a public hearing on its delisting proposal in Sacramento on October 2, but it has been postponed, due to Congressional gridlock and the resulting failure to fund many federal agencies. An additional hearing, scheduled for Oct. 4 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has also been postponed. USFWS says the hearings will be rescheduled "when the current funding lapse is resolved and we return to work."

More information is at Defenders.org. Poll information is at Defenders.org.




get more stories like this via email

Wildlife experts are warning people not to get too close to the animals in national parks as the summer travel season heats up. Overeager tourists can not only put themselves in danger, but threaten the animals.

Three million people visit Montana's Yellowstone national Park each year, and many want photos with the iconic Bison that are threatened and being reintroduced to the wild.

Chamois Anderson, senior representative for the Rockies and Plains program with Defenders of Wildlife, said while interaction with animals is part of the national park experience, it's important to give the bison their space - so tourists need to keep their distance.

"You know, they pull off the roadway to view bison, or maybe bears if they see one," said Anderson, "and they just want to get that selfie or that photo with their cellphone, and they approach these animals as if they're at a zoo. These are not zoos. These animals are very wild, and we need to keep them wild."

Anderson said she tells park visitors to stay at least 25 yards away from bison, and 200 yards from bears and wolves.

Defenders of Wildlife has released a video on YouTube describing what to consider when interacting with animals in Montana's Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks.

In North Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife's Senior Southeast Field Representative Tracy Davids said the group is going beyond educating tourists, and is also asking professional photographers to back off the remaining 20 or so Red Wolves in the eastern wetlands of the state.

"Particularly now during puppy season, we've had reports of photographers getting a little too close," said Davids. "Not so much putting themselves in jeopardy, but in a way that's harassing the wolves."

An 83-year-old woman from South Carolina sustained serious injuries when she was gored by a bison at Yellowstone in June.

The National Park Service says the bison was defending its space, came within a few feet of the woman and lifted her about a foot off the ground with its horns.

The Park Service says bison injure more people in Yellowstone than any other animal, typically one or two a year.

Wisconsin's wolf management plan has been in place for months now but the legal fallout continues.

Wildlife organizations have filed a court appeal challenging the process. A coalition announced the appeal this week, which centers on how the management plan came together under the state Department of Natural Resources.

A judge dismissed the original lawsuit earlier this spring. It accused an agency panel of breaking the rules for how it interacted with special interest groups tied to hunting.

Melissa Smith, executive director of Friends of the Wisconsin Wolf and Wildlife, said by favoring certain voices, other wildlife groups are left behind.

"It's quite egregious that the citizens of Wisconsin do not have any legal standing to challenge rules in any decisions that's wildlife-related," Smith contended.

The coalition said the judge's decision conflicts with principals under the Public Trust Doctrine. The DNR said it cannot respond to pending litigation. The legal activity comes a few months after federal officials opted to keep the gray wolf on the endangered species list.

State law requires a wolf hunt if the animal is delisted from federal protections but the new management plan does not include a goal with specific numbers. Instead, the plan focuses on sustainability, which is a source of contention among pro-hunting groups.

Meanwhile, Smith stressed she wants state rules to be consistent.

"If you look at the deer plan, our Wisconsin deer plan, it states plain as day that deer are held in the public trust," Smith pointed out. "It seems that it's pretty inconsistent when they decide something is held in the public trust and when something is not."

Around the country, certain hunting and farming groups contend the gray wolf population has grown too large, putting livestock at risk. But conservationists countered the concerns are often overstated and management efforts need to be rooted in science.


get more stories like this via email

A federal judge in Montana is holding a hearing next Tuesday on a motion for an injunction against the Pintler Face logging and burning project on Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.

A coalition of conservationists and activists has sued to stop work altogether.

The Pintler project is located about 10 miles northwest of Wise River, Montana, and calls for bulldozing in 11 miles of new logging roads to gain access to 3,400 acres of clear-cuts, prescribed burns and logging of more than 560 acres of aspen. It would also log another 5,800 acres in a commercial segment of the project.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said all told, there could not be a more devastating spot for this type of project because it disrupts a continuous ecosystem he said lynx and grizzly bears need to thrive.

"If we want these species to eventually be recovered and removed from the Endangered Species List, we need to have one connected population to prevent inbreeding," Garrity explained.

Critics of the lawsuit and supporters of the Pintler project said it would make strides to preventing wildfires and also backtrack on years of economic development the state has made in the region.

Beyond the sheer size of the project and the devastation it would do to the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness ecosystem, Garrity argued critical wildlife habitat would be at risk and one of the world's most natural and efficient carbon sinks would be threatened.

"These are old-growth forests," Garrity pointed out. "One of the best things about old-growth forests in addition to providing great wildlife habitat is they absorb carbon and they do it for free. It's one of the most effective methods of pulling greenhouse gases from the atmosphere."

Garrity argued the U.S. Forest Service sidestepped a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement and a policy act by secretly removing lynx designations and pretended that 145 miles of roads in the project area were not there so the logging could go forward. It is important because most grizzlies are killed within a third of a mile of a road. The coalition wants the judge to stop all work on the area until the entire case is decided.