DOCSLIB.ORG

Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan DEPT. DF NATURAL RESOURCES Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan October 27, 1999 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI., 53707 PUBL-ER-099 99 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan Compiled by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee for the Division of Land of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources This plan outlines the long term management of wolves in Wisconsin. The plan was presented to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board for its approval at Hayward, WI., on August 24, 1999 and revised at the Board's direction for its meeting in Madison on October 27, 1999. oward S. r kenmiller, Director ~~re:joftLL Steven W. Miller, Administrator Bate ' Division of Land /a 77 Date WISCONSIN WOLF MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by the WISCONSIN WOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee reports to the Bureau of Endan­ gered Resources Director and Division of Lands, Land Leadership Team of the Department of Natural Resources. Plans prepared by the Wolf Advi­ sory Committee are subject to approval of the Natural Resources Board The gray wolf returned to Wisconsin in the mid-1970's 8. encouraging interagency cooperation; and was listed as a state endangered species in 1975. 9. establishing a system for program guidance; A state recovery plan, initiated in 1989, set a goal for 10. encouraging programs for volunteer assistance on wolf reclassifying the wolf from state endangered to threat­ conservation; ened once the population remained at 80 or more 11. recommending future research needs; wolves for 3 consecutive years. By 1999, the popula­ 12. regulating wolf-dog hybrids and captive wolves tion had increased to 197 wolves, and had been at 80 or more since 1995. Therefore the Wisconsin DNR, 13. establish a protocol for handling wolf specimens; has reclassified wolves from endangered to threat­ 14. encouraging reasonable ecotourism of wolves and their ened, and developed this plan to manage wolves as a habitats. threatened and eventually as a delisted species. Ef­ forts have also begun to federally reclassify or delist Four zones will be used to manage wolves (Figure 8). Man­ the gray wolf by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. agement actions will vary according to wolf population status (Table 1). This plan will delist the wolf from state threatened to a nonlisted, nongame species when the wolf population Zone 1 consists of Northern Forest deer management units reaches 250 animals based on late winter count and Menominee County. Limited lethal control would be al­ across the state in areas outside Indian reservations. lowed on problem wolves, but generally lethal control would A management goal of 350 is recommended. not be exercised on wolves inhabiting large blocks of public land in areas of suitable wolf habitat. Fourteen strategies were developed for managing wolves. These include: Zone 2 includes Central Forest deer management units. Lim­ 1. managing wolves in 4 different management ited control would be allowed for handling nuisance wolves, zones; but lethal control would normally not be conducted on large 2. intensely monitoring wolf populations through blocks of public land. threatened status and delisted status; Zone 3 consists of areas south of Zone 1 and surrounding 3. monitoring wolf health; Zone 2. Protection would be provided for dispersing wolves, 4. cooperatively managing wolf habitat; but more liberal control would be allowed for handling nui­ 5. controlling nuisance wolves and reimbursing land­ sance wolves. owners for losses caused by wolves; 6. promoting public education about wolves; Zone 4 represents areas with little or no wolf habitat where 7. establishing regulations for adequate legal protec­ liberal control would be allowed on problem wolves. tion of threatened and delisted wolves; 3 Wolf population and health monitoring would remain Volunteer programs will be used to provide education on intense for the foreseeable future and will include radio­ wolves and assist with wolf population surveys. telemetry tracking, wolf howl surveys, and track surveys. Management activities for Wisconsin's wolf population Research will continue to be used to address manage­ shall! be based on a late winter count. ment concerns as wolf populations increase and empha­ sis will be on developing accurate and economical sur­ Cooperative management of wolf habitat will continue to vey techniques, as well as continued evaluation of future be recommended for a threatened and delisted wolf impacts on wolf populations and their habitats. population in suitable habitat. Habitat management would include access management, vegetation man­ Legislative authorization will be sought to restrict owner­ agement, protecting corridor habitat, and protecting den ship of hybrids and to obtain authority to control free­ and rendezvous sites. Management of wolf packs living roaming wolf-dog hybrids. within Native American reservation boundaries will be coordinated with tribal governments. Wolf Management costs will increase from a base level of $130,000 yearly at approximately 10% per year from a Depredation control activity will focus on preventive base year of 1997-98, for the next five years; this does methods, while also providing adequate control of nui­ not include depredation costs. License fees from hunting, sance wolves. Once wolves are reclassified as feder­ fishing or trapping will be used for wolf management only ally threatened, wolves that are verified habitual killers if the species is open for public harvest. Full reimburse­ of livestock, may be euthanised. Lethal wolf control ment should be made to owners who have lost pets or activity will not be carried out generally in large blocks livestock to wolves; normal costs are estimated at of public land in areas of suitable wolf habitat. Once $20,000 to $40,000 per year when wolves have reached wolves are state and federally delisted, euthanization of management goals. The cost of removing depredating depredating wolves may be permitted by landowners or wolves and either translocating them to suitable habitat occupants on their private land. Proactive depredation or euthanizing them is estimated at $15,000 to $30,000 control may be used by government trappers in areas per year. Therefore the total cost of wolf management with historical wolf problems after the population level activities is estimated at from $165,000 to $200,000 per of 350 has been exceeded. year. Public education about wolves will continue to be an By its nature, the gray wolf interests not only traditional important strategy of wolf conservation in Wisconsin. hunters, but many persons who are interested in nature Education will involve preparation of special education viewing, photography, hiking and nature study. As an material, work with cooperating organizations to pro­ apex species, the management of wolves impacts other mote education on wolves, provide special training on forest species. It is appropriate for funding for wolf man­ wolf management to agency personnel, and continue agement to come from alternative funding sources, in­ agency presentations on wolves. The efforts will em­ stead of traditional license fees, or strictly from endan­ phasize the positive aspects of wolves to Wisconsin's gered resources funding. forest ecosystems. New funding sources need to be identified to provide the Specific regulations will need to be developed for Department of Natural Resources the resources to con­ wolves listed as threatened or delisted. Regulations will tinue reimbursement at fair market value for losses and focus on maintaining a high level of protection, even for to maintain a sufficient depredation response program, a delisted wolf population. as well as maintaining sufficient monitoring of the wolf population. Cooperation among various federal, state, county, local and tribal governments will be an important aspect of future wolf conservation in Wisconsin. A Wisconsin DNR Wolf Advisory Committee will continue to incorpo­ rate a diverse group of individuals to address policy and management concerns. The Wolf Advisory Committee will annually review wolf management in Wisconsin with a citizen stakeholder group. Policy or management changes will be recom­ mended to the Department of Natural Resources Land Leadership Team for Natural Resource Board approval. A public review of the plan and management goals will be conducted every five years by the Department of Natural Resources. 4 Table 1. Management actions as prescribed by the DNR wolf plan for specific zones (See details in text) STATE LISTING AND ALLOWED MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Endangered Nongame Protected Status Nongame or Furbearer Status <80 wolves <{ao.25o wolves) (250-350 wolves) MANAGEMENT ACTION iot.ie zo'Ne· .•.. zO~e. ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE STATEWIDE ·3··· 2 3 4 Depredation: USDA live trap yes yes yes no and translocate Confirmed depredation: USDA no yes yes yes live trap and euthanize • Depredation: government trapper no no no yes proactive control**• USDA/DNR/Law Enforcement no yes yes yes euthanize nuisance wolves• Depredation:Private Citizen: no yes yes yes Lethal control by permit*** Depredation: Landowner may kill wolf no yes yes yes attacking stock or pets on private land*** Public Harvest••• no no no no Coyote hunting closure during yes in part no no no firearm deer season * Federal down listing to threatened status must first occur before these actions can take place. **Lethal Controls would rarely be authorized on large blocks of public land in areas of primary wolf habitat
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Wolves to Dogs, and Back: Genetic Composition of the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog
    RESEARCH ARTICLE From Wolves to Dogs, and Back: Genetic Composition of the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog Milena Smetanová1☯, Barbora Černá Bolfíková1☯*, Ettore Randi2,3, Romolo Caniglia2, Elena Fabbri2, Marco Galaverni2, Miroslav Kutal4,5, Pavel Hulva6,7 1 Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, 2 Laboratorio di Genetica, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA), Ozzano Emilia (BO), Italy, 3 Department 18/Section of Environmental Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, 4 Institute of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic, 5 Friends of the Earth Czech Republic, Olomouc branch, Olomouc, Czech Republic, 6 Department of Zoology, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, 7 Department of Biology and Ecology, Ostrava University, Ostrava, Czech Republic ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. * [email protected] Abstract OPEN ACCESS The Czechoslovakian Wolfdog is a unique dog breed that originated from hybridization between German Shepherds and wild Carpathian wolves in the 1950s as a military experi- Citation: Smetanová M, Černá Bolfíková B, Randi E, ment. This breed was used for guarding the Czechoslovakian borders during the cold war Caniglia R, Fabbri E, Galaverni M, et al. (2015) From Wolves to Dogs, and Back: Genetic Composition of and is currently kept by civilian breeders all round the world. The aim of our study was to the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog. PLoS ONE 10(12): characterize, for the first time, the genetic composition of this breed in relation to its known e0143807. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143807 source populations. We sequenced the hypervariable part of the mtDNA control region and Editor: Dan Mishmar, Ben-Gurion University of the genotyped the Amelogenin gene, four sex-linked microsatellites and 39 autosomal micro- Negev, ISRAEL satellites in 79 Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs, 20 German Shepherds and 28 Carpathian Received: July 22, 2015 wolves.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska's Predator Control Programs
    Alaska’sAlaska’s PredatorPredator ControlControl ProgramsPrograms Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? In 1995, Alaska Governor Tony Knowles responded to negative publicity over his state’s predator control programs by requesting a National Academy of Sciences review of Alaska’s entire approach to predator control. Following the review Governor Knowles announced that no program should be considered unless it met three criteria: cost-effectiveness, scientific scrutiny and broad public acceptability. The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) released its review, Wolves, Bears, and Their Prey in Alaska, in 1997, drawing conclusions and making recommendations for management of Alaska’s predators and prey. In 1996, prior to the release of the NRC report, the Wolf Management Reform Coalition, a group dedicated to promoting fair-chase hunting and responsible management of wolves in Alaska, published Showdown in Alaska to document the rise of wolf control in Alaska and the efforts undertaken to stop it. This report, Alaska’s Predator Control Programs: Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? picks up where that 1996 report left off. Acknowledgements Authors: Caroline Kennedy, Theresa Fiorino Editor: Kate Davies Designer: Pete Corcoran DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. www.defenders.org Cover photo: © Nick Jans © 2011 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4604 202.682.9400 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302 Anchorage, AK 99501 907.276.9453 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 2. The National Research Council Review ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dog Breeds of the World
    Dog Breeds of the World Get your own copy of this book Visit: www.plexidors.com Call: 800-283-8045 Written by: Maria Sadowski PlexiDor Performance Pet Doors 4523 30th St West #E502 Bradenton, FL 34207 http://www.plexidors.com Dog Breeds of the World is written by Maria Sadowski Copyright @2015 by PlexiDor Performance Pet Doors Published in the United States of America August 2015 All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including photocopying, recording, or by any information retrieval and storage system without permission from PlexiDor Performance Pet Doors. Stock images from canstockphoto.com, istockphoto.com, and dreamstime.com Dog Breeds of the World It isn’t possible to put an exact number on the Does breed matter? dog breeds of the world, because many varieties can be recognized by one breed registration The breed matters to a certain extent. Many group but not by another. The World Canine people believe that dog breeds mostly have an Organization is the largest internationally impact on the outside of the dog, but through the accepted registry of dog breeds, and they have ages breeds have been created based on wanted more than 340 breeds. behaviors such as hunting and herding. Dog breeds aren’t scientifical classifications; they’re It is important to pick a dog that fits the family’s groupings based on similar characteristics of lifestyle. If you want a dog with a special look but appearance and behavior. Some breeds have the breed characterics seem difficult to handle you existed for thousands of years, and others are fairly might want to look for a mixed breed dog.
    [Show full text]
  • Should We Hunt Gray Wolves in Michigan?
    SHOULD WE HUNT GRAY WOLVES IN MICHIGAN? AUGUST 2018 Dean’s Welcome Welcome, SEAS students! Before you know it, you will be boarding a bus with your classmates, headed for the University of Michigan Biological Station (the “Biostation”) in beautiful Northern Michigan—or “Up North” as Michiganders call it. There, during an immersive orientation experience, you will explore, learn, bond—and become an integral part of our community. This is just the beginning of your graduate career at SEAS, throughout which we will work together to solve some of the world’s most complex environmental problems. This is why you chose SEAS, and why we chose you. It is all very exciting, and we cannot wait to get started. So, why wait? The following case study details an active issue in the state of Michigan: whether or not to allow a public wolf hunt. During your time at the Biostation, you will be asked to examine the issue from opposing, nuanced perspectives, challenging your own gut reaction to the problem. Discussions will be guided by the scientific, political, economic, and social analyses included in these pages. You will actively collaborate with your classmates to uncover and synthesize facts, ultimately building a responsible, sustainable policy recommendation on Michigan’s wolf population. To prepare, simply read the case study and let it simmer. There is no need to do additional research. Enjoy your time at orientation. Get to know your classmates. Explore the gorgeous landscape. And then, come September 4th, join us back at the Dana Building ready to launch your graduate education and set out on a path of meaningful work—work that will have an impact on generations to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Wolf Hunting Policy on Moose Populations in Northern Minnesota Thomas J Mackey† and Thomas Bryce Kelly*
    Impact of wolf hunting policy on moose populations in northern Minnesota Thomas J Mackey† and Thomas Bryce Kelly* *Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Email: [email protected] 5 † Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Email: [email protected] s t n i r P e 10 r P 15 Abstract An ongoing and politically sensitive aspect of proper ecological stewardship revolves around improving the conditions and health of all of the species in the area of 20 concern including both predator and prey species. Human industrial activities have dramatically reduced the land area available to the native species which has placed stresses and fragility into the ecological web. Maintaining proper ecological dynamics has become a critical aspect of policy initiatives designed to safeguard our natural reserves including the establishment of ecological forests and sanctuaries. Herein we 25 outline our proposal to tackle a central issue in wildlife management: improving our knowledge of predator-prey dynamics that vary both temporally and specially in non- linear ways. By leveraging techniques pioneered in other disciplines in addition to the traditional methods, we aim to drastically improve our understanding of the Moose-Grey Wolf interaction and to develop a system with applicability in other regions and other 30 species. PeerJ PrePrints | http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.769v2 | CC-BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 31 Dec 2014, publ: 31 Dec 2014 2 | Mackey and Kelly Introduction Northern Minnesota exists at the southern boundary of Moose (Alces alces) distributions in central North America. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 5 (Minnesota DNR) conducts annual aerial plot surveys to estimate Moose populations.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2021 Wolf Hunting and Trapping Regulations
    FEBRUARY 2021 WOLF HUNTING AND TRAPPING REGULATIONS The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to: Chief, Public Civil Rights, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. This publication is available in alternative format (large print, Braille, etc.) upon request. Please call Accessibility Coordinator at 608-267-7490 for more information. REMEMBER • You must notify the DNR within 24 hours of harvest by visiting GameReg. wi.gov or by calling 844-GAMEREG (844-426-3734 • You must also exhibit your wolf to an authorized DNR representative (usually a Conservation Warden) for registration and tagging no later than March 7, 2021. -Before registering a wolf with an authorized DNR representative, you must skin the animal and separate the pelt from the carcass. Be sure it is thawed out on the day of registration so that the registration tag can be attached. This does not need to be completed before registration for specimens going to a taxidermist. Persons who intend to have the wolf mounted by a taxidermist may exhibit the wolf to the department for registration without separating the pelt. The skinned carcass must be exhibited to the department within 30 days of registration. (Note: These animals must still be registered prior to taxidermy). -Contact the local Conservation Warden or wildlife biologist or call 888- 936-7463 to determine available times for registration. • This pamphlet gives a summary of Wisconsin’s wolf hunting and trapping laws and how they affect you; it is not a complete set of all the hunting- related laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Lupine News
    Florida Lupine NEWs Volume 9, Issue 4 Winter 2007 Published Quarterly FLA 2008 Rendezvous: April 18 - 20 for Members. Free to FLA's 2008 Rendezvous will be held Fri- of the Fish and Wildlife Commission and Veterinarians, day, April 18 through Sunday, April 20, at FWC Law Enforcement component, the Tech- Parramore's Resort and Campgrounds. Those nical Assistant Group (TAG). Three board Shelters, Donors, of you who attended last year know how hospi- members have also attended FWC meetings Sponsors, Rescues, table the staff members at Parramore's were, to get a handle on how the current trends re- and Animal Welfare & how receptive they were to our members and garding captive wildlife (including wolfdogs) their dogs. If you didn't make last year's Ren- may be heading, and the Board will outline Control Agencies. dezvous, which also functions as FLA's annual the information it has available by the time of meeting, you have another opportunity this the Rendezvous. (At least one board member year to visit this beautiful, not to mention ca- will try to attend any FWC meetings which FLA Directors nine welcoming, venue. We are more than for- may be held being prior to the Rendezvous.) tunate to find a facility that will still allow Al Mitchell, President Among the rules which FWC is drafting large canines in the cabins and on the premises. or is considering are "Neighbor Notification," Mayo Wetterberg Located on the St. John's River, near Astor, "dangerous" captive wildlife, and new mini- Andrea Bannon Parramore's provides all we could ask for and mum acreage and fencing requirements for Jill Parker then some.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Wetland Gems
    100 WISCONSIN WETLAND GEMS ® Southeast Coastal Region NE-10 Peshtigo River Delta o r SC-1 Chiwaukee Prairie NE-11 Point Beach & Dunes e i SC-2 Des Plaines River NE-12 Rushes Lake MINNESOTA k e r a p Floodplain & Marshes NE-13 Shivering Sands & L u SC-3 Germantown Swamp Connected Wetlands S SC-4 Renak-Polak Woods NE-14 West Shore Green Bay SU-6 SU-9 SC-5 Root River Riverine Forest Wetlands SU-8 SU-11 SC-6 Warnimont Bluff Fens NE-15 Wolf River Bottoms SU-1 SU-12 SU-3 SU-7 Southeast Region North Central Region SU-10 SE-1 Beulah Bog NC-1 Atkins Lake & Hiles Swamp SU-5 NW-4 SU-4 SE-2 Cedarburg Bog NC-2 Bear Lake Sedge Meadow NW-2 NW-8 MICHIGAN SE-3 Cherokee Marsh NC-3 Bogus Swamp NW-1 NW-5 SU-2 SE-4 Horicon Marsh NC-4 Flambeau River State Forest NW-7 SE-5 Huiras Lake NC-11 NC-12 NC-5 Grandma Lake NC-9 SE-6 Lulu Lake NC-6 Hunting River Alders NW-10 NC-13 SE-7 Milwaukee River NC-7 Jump-Mondeaux NC-8 Floodplain Forest River Floodplain NW-6 NC-10 SE-8 Nichols Creek NC-8 Kissick Alkaline Bog NW-3 NC-5 NW-9 SE-9 Rush Lake NC-9 Rice Creek NC-4 NC-1 SE-10 Scuppernong River Area NC-10 Savage-Robago Lakes NC-2 NE-7 SE-11 Spruce Lake Bog NC-11 Spider Lake SE-12 Sugar River NC-12 Toy Lake Swamp NC-6 NC-7 Floodplain Forest NC-13 Turtle-Flambeau- NC-3 NE-6 SE-13 Waubesa Wetlands Manitowish Peatlands W-7 NE-9 WISCONSIN’S WETLAND GEMS SE-14 White River Marsh NE-2 Northwest Region NE-8 Central Region NE-10 NE-4 NW-1 Belden Swamp W-5 NE-12 WH-5 Mink River Estuary—Clint Farlinger C-1 Bass Lake Fen & Lunch NW-2 Black Lake Bog NE-13 NE-14 ® Creek Sedge Meadow NW-3 Blomberg Lake C-4 WHAT ARE WETLAND GEMS ? C-2 Bear Bluff Bog NW-4 Blueberry Swamp WH-2WH-7 C-6 NE-15 NE-1 Wetland Gems® are high quality habitats that represent the wetland riches—marshes, swamps, bogs, fens and more— C-3 Black River NW-5 Brule Glacial Spillway W-1 WH-2 that historically made up nearly a quarter of Wisconsin’s landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Wolf Outside, Dog Inside? the Genomic Make-Up of the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog
    Aalborg Universitet Wolf outside, dog inside? The genomic make-up of the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog Caniglia, Romolo; Fabbri, Elena; Hulva, Pavel; Bolfíková, Barbora erná; Jindichová, Milena; Strønen, Astrid Vik; Dykyy, Ihor; Camatta, Alessio; Carnier, Paolo; Randi, Ettore; Galaverni, Marco Published in: B M C Genomics DOI (link to publication from Publisher): 10.1186/s12864-018-4916-2 Creative Commons License CC BY 4.0 Publication date: 2018 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication from Aalborg University Citation for published version (APA): Caniglia, R., Fabbri, E., Hulva, P., Bolfíková, B. ., Jindichová, M., Strønen, A. V., Dykyy, I., Camatta, A., Carnier, P., Randi, E., & Galaverni, M. (2018). Wolf outside, dog inside? The genomic make-up of the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog. B M C Genomics, 19(1), [533]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-4916-2 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. ? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. ? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain ? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California PART I December 2016
    California Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California Part I December 2016 Charlton H. Bonham, Director Cover photograph by Gary Kramer This document should be cited as: Kovacs, K. E., K.E. Converse, M.C. Stopher, J.H. Hobbs, M.L. Sommer, P.J. Figura, D.A. Applebee, D.L. Clifford, and D.J. Michaels. Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California. 2016. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA 329 pp. The preparers want to acknowledge Department of Fish and Wildlife staff who contributed to the preparation of this document. They include Steve Torres, Angela Donlan, and Kirsten Macintyre. Further, we appreciate the agencies and staff from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Wildlife, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their generous support in our efforts to prepare this document. We are also indebted to our facilitation experts at Kearns and West, specifically Sam Magill. Table of Contents – PART I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Plan Development ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Plan Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Historical Distribution and Abundance of Wolves in California .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’S Madison Range
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service May 2007 Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s Madison Range Todd C. Atwood Utah State University, Logan, UT Eric M. Gese USDA/APHIS/WS National Wildlife Research Center, [email protected] Kyran E. Kunkel Utah State University, Logan, UT Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Atwood, Todd C.; Gese, Eric M.; and Kunkel, Kyran E., "Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s Madison Range" (2007). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 696. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/696 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Research Article Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s Madison Range TODD C. ATWOOD,1,2 Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA ERIC M. GESE, United States Department of Agriculture–Animal Plant Health Inspection Service–Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA KYRAN E. KUNKEL, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA ABSTRACT Numerous studies have documented how prey may use antipredator strategies to reduce the risk of predation from a single predator.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Wildlife Action Plan (2005-2015)
    Wisconsin’s Wildlife Action Plan (2005-2015) IMPLEMENTATION: Priority Conservation Actions & Conservation Opportunity Areas Prepared by: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with Assistance from Conservation Partners, June 30th, 2008 06/19/2008 page 2 of 93 Wisconsin’s Wildlife Action Plan (2005-2015) IMPLEMENTATION: Priority Conservation Actions & Conservation Opportunity Areas Acknowledgments Wisconsin’s Wildlife Action Plan is a roadmap of conservation actions needed to ensure our wildlife and natural communities will be with us in the future. The original plan provides an immense volume of data useful to help guide conservation decisions. All of the individuals acknowledged for their work compiling the plan have a continuous appreciation from the state of Wisconsin for their commitment to SGCN. Implementing the conservation actions is a priority for the state of Wisconsin. To put forward a strategy for implementation, there was a need to develop a process for priority decision-making, narrowing the list of actions to a more manageable number, and identifying opportunity areas to best apply conservation actions. A subset of the Department’s ecologists and conservation scientists were assigned the task of developing the implementation strategy. Their dedicated commitment and tireless efforts for wildlife species and natural community conservation led this document. Principle Process Coordinators Tara Bergeson – Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Coordinator Dawn Hinebaugh – Data Coordinator Terrell Hyde – Assistant Zoologist (Prioritization
    [Show full text]