DOCSLIB.ORG

Coexistence with Bears, Cougars, and Wolves a Literature Reference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coexistence with Bears, Cougars, and Wolves a Literature Reference Managing Conflict: Coexistence with Bears, Cougars, and Wolves A literature reference © 2017 People and Carnivores Feel free to share or reproduce without permission Managing Conflict: A Literature Reference People and Carnivores 2017 Introduction Wolves, grizzly bears, and cougars are symbolic and contested animals. They are vital to ecosystem health, but represent wilderness and mystery to some and vermin and destruction to others. Whether large carnivore populations expand numerically or spatially is not a question just for the natural sciences. The issue is ultimately grounded in human values and perspectives about the natural world and our proper relationship to it. Large carnivore restoration and persistence is directly tied to our willingness and commitment to living with and alongside them. Promoting or practicing coexistence and human-wildlife conflict prevention requires navigating a complex and, at times, contentious management landscape. To assist practitioners, advocates, and managers in this complex work, we compiled and summarized peer-reviewed science across a variety of disciplines relative to large carnivore conservation and conflict management. The collection is broad but conflict-focused. Below are descriptions of the categories included in the compilation. We have not included papers on backcountry encounters, bear spray, or direct conflicts with people. Collaborative and Community-Based Practice and Management: This category reflects experiences and best practices for engaging local citizens and communities or using collaborative strategies. Compensation Programs: These papers are about different kinds of livestock loss compensation programs or other schemes to prevent conflicts or conserve carnivore habitat. Habitat Conditions, Movement, and Connectivity: This grouping reflects information about the habitat attributes that can cause or predict conflict, or conditions needed for connectivity or dispersal. Hunting: This category relates to how hunting may relate to or possibly cause conditions leading to large carnivore conflicts. This does not include studies about the use of hunting as a tool for predator control. Patterns of Conflict: This section includes studies about the causes of conflict or the risk of conflict, as well as conflict over time and across multiple scales. Policy, Governance and Social Science: This is an umbrella category under which are two sub-groupings: Policy & Governance, and Social Science. The former is self-explanatory; the latter relates to values and attitudinal research, and papers asserting the relevance of social science to management decisions. Lethal Control: This includes papers about the effectiveness of lethal control strategies and its impacts. Nonlethal and Preventative Tools: This grouping reflects studies of the efficiency and effectiveness of various nonlethal conflict prevention or mitigation tools and practices. The compilation index begins on the next page. In many cases papers are in more than one category. Citations are abbreviated in the index but are provided in full with the abstract summaries (beginning on page 21). We recognize that there are many informative materials in circulation relating to this topic; here, we abstracted peer-reviewed journal articles only. 1 Managing Conflict: A Literature Reference People and Carnivores 2017 Index Collaborative & Community-Based Practice and Management Berkes F. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology [p24] Browne-Nunez C, Treves A, MacFarland D, Voyles Z, Turnig C. 2015. Tolerance of Wolves in Wisconsin: A Mixed Methods Examination of Policy Effects on Attitudes and Behavioral Inclinations. Biological Conservation [p30] Carter NH, Linnell JDC. 2016. Co-Adaptation is Key to Coexisting with Large Carnivores. Trends in Ecology and Evolution [p33] Chamberlain E, Rutherford M, Gibeau M. 2012. Human Perspectives and Conservation of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park, Canada. Conservation Biology [p34] Clark DA, Slocombe DS. 2011. Adaptive Co-Management and Grizzly Bear-Human Conflicts in Two Northern Canadian Aboriginal Communities. Human Ecology [p35] Clark DA, Slocombe DS. 2011. Grizzly Bear Conservation in the Foothills Model Forest: Appraisal of a Collaborative Ecosystem Management Effort. Policy Sciences [p36] Coleman TH, Schwartz CC, Gunther KA, Creel S. 2013. Grizzly Bear and Human Interaction in Yellowstone National Park: An Evaluation of Bear Management Areas. Journal of Wildlife Management [p37] Harihar A, Verissimo D, MacMillan DC. 2015. Beyond Compensation: Integrating Local Communities’ Livelihood Choices in Large Carnivore Conservation. Global Environmental Change [p46] Larson LR, Conway AL, Hernandez SM, Carroll JP. 2016. Human-Wildlife Conflict, Conservation Attitudes, and a Potential Role for Citizen Science in Sierra Leone, Africa. Conservation and Society [p58] Madden F. 2007. Creating Coexistence Between Humans and Wildlife: Global Perspectives on Local Efforts to Address Human-Wildlife Conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife [p60] Madden F, McQuinn, B. 2014. Conservation’s Blind Spot: The Case for Conflict Transformation in Wildlife Conservation. Biological Conservation [p61] Maheshwari A, Midha N, Cherukupalli A. 2014. Participatory Rural Appraisal and Compensation Intervention: Challenges and Protocols While Managing Large Carnivore-Human Conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife [p62] Mattson DJ, Byrd KL, Rutherford MB, Brown SR, Clark TW. 2006. Finding Common Ground in Large Carnivore Conservation: Mapping Contending Perspectives. Environmental Science and Policy [p63] Muhly TB, Dubois M. 2013. Advancing the Management of Carnivore Predation on Livestock in Western Canada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife [p68] 2 Managing Conflict: A Literature Reference People and Carnivores 2017 Ogada MO. 2015. HWC 2003 + 10 Years: Carnivore-Livestock Conflicts, Tourism, Donors, Compensation: What about the Human Dimensions? Human Dimensions of Wildlife [p75] Primm SA, Wilson SM. 2004. Reconnecting Grizzly Bear Populations: Prospects for Participatory Projects. Ursus [p80] Richie L, Oppenheimer JD, Clark SG. 2012. Social Process in Grizzly Bear Management: Lessons for Collaborative Governance and Natural Resource Policy. Policy Sciences [p82] Rutherford MB, Gibeau ML, Clark SG, Chamberlain EC. 2009. Interdisciplinary Problem Solving Workshops for Grizzly Bear Conservation in Banff National Park, Canada. Policy Sciences [p86] Sandstrom A, Lundmark C. 2016. Network Structure and Perceived Legitimacy in Collaborative Wildlife Management. Review of Policy Research [p87] Sjolander-Lindqvist A, Johansson M, Sandstrom C. 2015. Individual and Collective Responses to Large Carnivore Management: The Roles of Trust, Representation, Knowledge Spheres, Communication and Leadership. Wildlife Biology [p92] Treves A, Wallace RB, White S. 2009. Participatory Planning of Interventions to Mitigate Human-Wildlife Conflicts. Conservation Biology [p102] Compensation Programs Agarwala M, Kumar S, Treves A, Naughton-Treves L. 2010. Paying for Wolves in Solapur, India, and Wisconsin, USA: Comparing Compensation Rules and Practices to Understand the Goals and Politics of Wolf Conservation. Biological Conservation [p21] Boitani L, Ciucci P, Raganella-Pelliccioni E. 2010. Ex-Post Compensation Payments for Wolf Predation on Livestock in Italy: A Tool for Conservation? Wildlife Research [p26] Breck SW, Kluever BM, Panasci M, Oakleaf J, Johnson T, Howery L, Bergman DL. 2011. Domestic Calf Mortality and Producer Detection Rates in the Mexican Wolf Recovery Area: Implications for Livestock Management and Carnivore Compensation Schemes. Biological Conservation [p29] Dickman AJ, Macdonald EA, Macdonald DW. 2011. A Review of Financial Instruments to Pay for Predator Conservation and Encourage Human-Carnivore Coexistence. Proc Natl Acad Sci [p39] Fernandez-Gil A, Naves J, Ordiz A, Quevedo M, Revilla E, Delibes M. 2016. Conflict Misleads Large Carnivore Management and Conservation: Brown Bears and Wolves in Spain. PLoS ONE [p43] Gunther KA, Haroldson MA, Frey K, Cain SL, Copeland J, Schwartz C. 2004. Grizzly Bear-Human Conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1992-2000. Ursus [p45] Jacobs CE, Main MB. 2015. A Conservation-Based Approach to Compensation for Livestock Depredation: The Florida Panther Case Study. PloS One [p48] 3 Managing Conflict: A Literature Reference People and Carnivores 2017 Karlsson J, Sjostrom M. 2011. Subsidized Fencing of Livestock as a Means of Increasing Tolerance for Wolves. Ecology and Society [p51] Laporte I, Muhly TB, Pitt JA, Alexander M, Musiani M. 2010. Effects of Wolves on Elk and Cattle Behaviors: Implications for Livestock Production and Wolf Conservation. PLoS ONE [p57] Maheshwari A, Midha N, Cherukupalli A. 2014. Participatory Rural Appraisal and Compensation Intervention: Challenges and Protocols While Managing Large Carnivore-Human Conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife [p62] Muhly TB, Dubois M. 2013. Advancing the Management of Carnivore Predation on Livestock in Western Canada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife [p68] Muhly, TB., Musiani, M. 2009. Livestock Depredation by Wolves and the Ranching Economy in the Northwestern U.S. Ecological Economics [p68] Naughton-Treves L, Grossberg R, Treves A. 2003. Paying for tolerance: Rural Citizens’ Attitudes Toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation. Conservation Biology [p70] Ogada MO. 2015. HWC 2003 + 10 Years: Carnivore-Livestock Conflicts, Tourism, Donors, Compensation: What about the Human Dimensions? Human Dimensions of Wildlife
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grizzly Bear Fact Sheet
    Identify Grizzly from Black Bears Grizzly bears typically weigh 100-200 kg (females) to 200-300 kg (males) which is slightly more than black bears. Grizzly bears have a shoulder hump, range in colour from blonde to black and may have silver or light- tipped guard hairs on their head, hump and back. A grizzly bear’s ears are rounded and appear smaller than the black bear, while the black bear has more pointed, noticeable ears and no shoulder hump. Grizzly bear claws are longer than those of black bears and may have a light-coloured stripe. In grizzly bear ISBN: 978-0-7785-8683-8 (Printed Version) tracks, the tips of the front claws usu- 978-0-7785-8683-8 (Online Version) ally leave imprints in front of the paw Printed July 2009 pad, and the toes are set in a nearly straight line. In black bear tracks, the claw imprints are difficult to see, and the front toes form an obvious arc. Reproduction Range Grizzly bear numbers are limited by a slow reproductive rate. This is Grizzly bears can be found caused by a relatively high age of first reproduction, small litter siz- in Alberta from the Montana es, and long periods between litters. In Alberta, most female grizzlies border, along the mountains do not have their first litter until they are at least four years old and and foothills and continuing usually have only one or two cubs. The cubs are born in January or north through the western February and stay with their mother for two to five years.
    [Show full text]
  • How People Should Respond When Encountering a Large Carnivore: Opinions of Wildlife Professionals Dy L a N E
    Human–Wildlife Conflicts 2(2):194–199, Fall 2008 How people should respond when encountering a large carnivore: opinions of wildlife professionals DYLA N E. BRO wn , 507 Silo Loop, Kinsey, Montana 59338, USA [email protected] MI C HAEL R. CO N OVER , Jack H. Berryman Institute, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-5230, USA Abstract: We conducted telephone surveys of wildlife professionals who work with large carnivores to ask their opinions about how people should respond to avoid being injured when confronted by a black bear (Ursus americana), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), mountain lion (Puma concolor), or gray wolf (Canis lupus). The respondents agreed that the most appropriate response was to try to increase the distance between a person and the carnivore. In the event of an attack by a black bear, mountain lion, or wolf, most respondents said to fight back. Opinion was divided over the best response for an individual who was being attacked by a grizzly bear, but a slight majority of professionals said to fight back if the attack was predatory and be passive if the attack was defensive; however, respondents also noted that many victims would be unable to identify the bear’s motive. If a black bear came into camp, most respondents said that a person should aggressively encourage the bear to leave and to fight back against a bear that enters a tent at night, regardless of species. Respondents unanimously agreed that bear pepper-spray is effective in defending against an attack. While any encounter with a large carnivore can be fatal to the person involved, we believe that selecting the right course of action increases the odds that the victim can escape without injury.
    [Show full text]
  • Predation by a Golden Eagle on a Brown Bear Cub
    SHORT COMMUNICATION N Sørensen et al. Predation by a golden eagle on a brown bear cub Ole J. Sørensen1,4, Mogens Totsa˚ s2, Tore eagles attending bears. Murie hypothesized that Solstad2, and Robin Rigg3 eagles attending bears were waiting for opportunities to capture prey trying to escape from the bears. He 1North-Trondelag University College, Department of also observed eagles swooping at and diving low over Natural Resource Sciences and Information Technology, grizzlies and other carnivores, but interpreted this Box 2501, N-7729 Steinkjer, Norway behavior as play or curiosity, rather than predation. 2 Norwegian Nature Inspectorate, N-7485 Trondheim, C. McIntyre (US National Park Service, Fair- Norway 3 banks, Alaska, USA, personal communication, 2008), Slovak Wildlife Society, PO Box 72, 033 01 Liptovsky a golden eagle researcher in Denali National Park for Hradok, Slovakia many years, has never seen an eagle attack a bear, although she has often observed eagles following Abstract: During spring 2004 an adult female brown bears in open terrain, perhaps positioning themselves bear (Ursus arctos) and her 3 cubs-of-the-year were to take prey escaping from the bear as suggested by observed outside their den on a south-facing low- Murie. Commensalistic hunting, as well as curious or alpine slope in central Norway. They remained near play behavior by eagles in the vicinity of bears, could the den for 8–10 days and were, except for one day, be misinterpreted as eagles hunting, attacking, or observed daily by Totsa˚s and other wardens of the inspecting bears as possible prey. Predation by eagles Norwegian Nature Inspectorate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of the Lake Trout Introduction in Yellowstone Lake on Populations Outside the Aquatic a Meta-Analytic Study
    Migrate, Mutate, or Die: The effects of the lake trout introduction in Yellowstone Lake on populations outside the aquatic A Meta-Analytic Study By Sarah Z. Gandhi-Besbes University of Colorado at Boulder A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Boulder in partial fulfilment of the requirements to receive Honours designation in Environmental Studies May 2016 Thesis Advisors: Alexander Cruz, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Committee Chair Dale Miller, Environmental Studies Andrew Martin, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology © 2016 by Sarah Z. Gandhi-Besbes All rights reserved i Abstract Yellowstone National Park is a relatively pristine ecosystem preserved through time. The Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri population, inhabiting shallower waters in Yellowstone Lake and spawning in its tributaries, has been declining primarily due to the introduction of a predatory fish. The lake trout Salvelinus namaycush, which rapidly grow to large sizes, feed on the Yellowstone cutthroat trout, breed and spawn in Yellowstone Lake, and dwell in deeper waters out of predatory reach. The Yellowstone cutthroat trout is relied upon both directly and indirectly by more than 40 species within Yellowstone National Park. The grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis, bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus, and osprey Pandion halaetus all feed directly on the spawning fish. This study looks at how the declining Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations affect these predatory populations, and what their populations may look like should current trends continue into the year 2030. Conducting a meta-analysis and collecting primary data allowed for statistical projections predicting and comparing estimated future populations. The ecological change in Yellowstone Lake provides insight into how the concerns of one ecosystem affects multiple.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellowstone Grizzly Bears: Ecology and Conservation of an Icon of Wildness
    YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEARS ecology and conservation of an ICON OF WILDNESS EDITED BY P.J. White, Kerry A. Gunther, and Frank T. van Manen YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEARS Yellowstone Grizzly Bears: Ecology and Conservation of an Icon of Wildness Editors P. J. White, Kerry A. Gunther, and Frank T. van Manen Contributing Authors Daniel D. Bjornlie, Amanda M. Bramblett, Steven L. Cain, Tyler H. Coleman, Jennifer K. Fortin-Noreus, Kevin L. Frey, Mark A. Haroldson, Pauline L. Kamath, Eric G. Reinertson, Charles T. Robbins, Daniel J. Thompson, Daniel B. Tyers, Katharine R. Wilmot, and Travis C. Wyman Managing Editor Jennifer A. Jerrett YELLOWSTONE FOREVER, YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK AND U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN SCIENCE CENTER Yellowstone Forever, Yellowstone National Park 82190 Published 2017 Contents Printed in the United States of America All chapters are prepared solely by officers or employees of the United States Preface ix government as part of their official duties and are not subject to copyright protection Daniel N. Wenk, Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply. National Park Service (NPS) photographs are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign Introduction xv copyrights may apply. However, because this work may contain other copyrighted images or other incorporated material, permission from the copyright holder may be P. J. White, Kerry A. Gunther, and Frank T. van Manen necessary. Cover and half title images: www.revealedinnature.com by Jake Davis. Chapter 1: The Population 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data P. J. White, Kerry A. Gunther, and Travis C.
    [Show full text]
  • 47 C. OTHER FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES WITHIN the RANGE SPOTTED OWL 47 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly 47 Aleutian Canada Goose 48
    47 C. OTHER FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES WITHIN THE RANGE SPOTTED OWL 47 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly 47 Aleutian Canada Goose 48 Bald Eagle 49 Peregrine Falcon 50 Gray Wolf 50 Grizzly Bear 51 Columbian White-tailed Deer C. Other Fe Range of the No Nine wildlife species within the range of the northern spotted owl are listed by the federal government as threatened or endangered: the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, Oregon silverspot butterfly, Aleutian Canada goose, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Columbian white-tailed deer. Discussions of species ecology for the spotted owl and marbled murrelet are found in Sections A and B of this chapter, respectively. Habitat needs of the other seven species are reviewed below, followed by Table 111.8, which lists for each of the nine species its federal and state status and in which HCP planning unit each could potentially occur. on Silvers The Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) is the only federally listed species of arthropod that is found in Washington (WDW 1993a). This butterfly is currently listed by the federal government as threatened and by the state as endangered. However, no critical habitat in I Washington has been designated under the Endangered Species Act (WDW 1993b). The Oregon silverspot is found only in habitats that support its larval host plant, western blue violet (Viola adunca). Such habitats include coastal salt-spray meadows and open fields. In Washington, potential habitat for the Oregon silverspot is limited to the coastal grasslands on the Long Beach peninsula near Loomis Lake (WDW 199313; WDW 1991).Adult butterflies are thought to rest and feed in adjacent open spruce/shoreline pine forest glades, where they are protected from wind and can feed on nectar available from a number of plant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Determining the Importance of Grizzly Bear Predation on Southern
    Determining the importance of grizzly bear predation on southern mountain caribou populations Results to Date – February 2015: Objective 2: Model the probability of caribou mortality by grizzly bears and assess variation associated with biological factors and landscape characteristics. During the summer of 2014, we visited 175 clusters from 8 grizzly bears - 3 adult males and 5 adult females. We found 25 ungulate carcass sites. Of the 25 carcasses, three were confirmed caribou; one was a mountain goat, one a mule deer and the remainder (20) were moose. We are in the process of classifying carcasses likely killed by the bear or scavenged. We found several carcasses we suspect were killed by cougars that the bear subsequently fed on. Clusters dating from mid May to mid September were visited but some clusters were missed due to forest fires, weather, and helicopter availability. In addition, we were restricted from flying into the mountains (with the exception of Jasper) after the 22 August due to concerns expressed by ESRD of disturbing hunters which halted cluster visits for 4 of the female bears. Data analysis with this interim data is beginning and will be used to further refine cluster selection for the second and final year (2015) of this project. Objective 3: Feeding trials to validate and assess the amount of caribou in the diet of grizzly bear using stable isotopes found in bear hair This work was done in collaboration with Dr. Charlie Robbins and Joy Erlenbach at the Bear Research, Conservation, and Education Center at Washington State University in Pullman Washington where they have captive grizzly bears used for research purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Prod505870.Pdf
    CURRENT POPULATION STATUS OF BLACK BEAR, GRIZZLY BEAR, COUGAR and WOLF IN THE SKAGIT RIVER WATERSHED BY TONY BARNARD FOR MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AUGUST, 1986 -·--- --- -- - - - ------ ----- ---- ----------- - --- - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. iii LIST OF FIGURES . i V 1.0 INTRODUCTION .. 1 2.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION. 1 3.0 METHODS .. 4 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 5 4.1 Black Bear ........ 5 4.2 Grizzly Bear ....... 6 4.3 Cougar. 9 4.4 Wolf.. 14 REFERENCES .. 18 APPENDICES. 20 ii . ----· ·----- -· ·--- -- - ---·· -··- I I LIST OF TABLES Table Page I 1. Grizzly Bear Sightings Within the Skagit River Watershed--1972-85 ... 7 I 2. Cougar Sightings in the Skagit River Watershed--1985-86 ..•.••... 12 3. Wolf Sightings in the Skagit River I Watershed--1980-86 ..•..•••..••.... 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I iii I I I LIST OF FIGURES I Figures Page 1. Geographical Location of the Skagit I River Watershed ........ 2 2. Deer Fawns Can Be Preyed Upon by Foraging I Black Bears in the Spring. ... 3 3. Location of Grizzly Bear Sightings in the Study Area and Adjacent Areas of I the State of Washington, U.S.A ..... " . 8 4. A Successful Cougar Hunt in the Lower I Skagit Valley--Winter, 1976-77 ....•..... 10 5. Location of Cougar Sightings in the Study Area . 13 I 6. Location of Wolf Sightings in the Study Area and Adjacent Areas of the State of I Washington, U.S.A ................. 16 I I I I I I I I I iv I 1.0 INTRODUCTION In January, 1986 the Fish and Wildlife Branch submitted a request for funding of certain wildlife studies in the Skagit River watershed to the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission (Barnard, 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Interactions Between Wolves and Female Grizzly Bears with Cubs in Yellowstone National Park
    SHORTCOMMUNICATIONS Interactions between wolves and female grizzly bears with cubs in Yellowstone National Park A. 3 Kerry Gunther1 and Douglas W. Smith2'4 adult males, solitary adult females, and female grizzly bears accompaniedby yearling or 2-year-old offspring Bear ManagementOffice, PO Box 168, Yellowstone would occasionally usurp wolf-killed ungulates and National WY Park, 82190, USA scavenge the remains. We hypothesized that these 2Wolf PO Box YellowstoneNational Project, 168, Park, cohorts of grizzly bears would be more successful than WY,82190, USA subadultsat usurpingwolf-kills. We furtherhypothesized Key words: Canis lupus, cub bear, mortality, grizzly that due to potential danger to cubs, females with cubs interferencecompetition, interspecific killing, klepto- would not attemptto displacewolf packs from theirkills. Ursus Yellowstone National parasitism, arctos, wolf, Our of interactions between Park monitoring interspecific wolves and bears is From wolf Ursus15(2):232-238 (2004) grizzly ongoing. reintroductionin 1995 until Januaryof 2003, 96 wolf- grizzly bear interactionshave been recorded(Ballard et al. 2003; D. Smith, National Park Service, Yellowstone NationalPark, Wyoming, USA, unpublisheddata). Here we observationsof interactionsbetween wolves Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were extirpated from report and female bears with cubs and evidence of wolf Yellowstone NationalPark (YNP) by the 1920s through grizzly bear cubs near carcasses. Due to predatorcontrol actions (Murie 1940,Young and Gold- packs killing grizzly man 1944, Weaver 1978), then reintroducedinto the grizzly bears' low reproductiverate (Schwartz et al. and statusas a threatened park from 1995 to 1996 to restore ecological integrity 2003) species (USFWS 1993), the effects of wolves on carcass and cub and adhere to legal mandates (Bangs and Fritts 1996, availability survival is an Phillips and Smith 1996, Smith et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote's Swallowing Match with Grizzly Bear
    Rooted in the Molala Tribe history is the story of the Coyote and the Bear. The following is from Coyote Was Going There, INDIAN LITERATURE OF THE OREGON COUNTRY, Compiled and edited by Jarold Ramsey. Coyote’s Swallowing Match with Grizzly Bear Coyote was going up toward Mt. Hood. He met Grizzly Bear. Grizzly Bear said, “Where are you going, Coyote?” Coyote said, “I am going up country.” “Why are you going there?” asked Grizzly Bear. Coyote said, “I am making the world.” Then Grizzly Bear said, “We must fight.” Coyote said, “No, we must have a swallowing match.” Grizzly said, “No! We must fight a duel.” Coyote said, “We will swallow stones.” Grizzly said, “Go ahead, we will swallow them.” Coyote said, “We must have them very hot.” “How many hot rocks?” asked Grizzly. Coyote said, “You swallow first, then I will.” Then Grizzly Bear swallowed a hot stone, “Now it’s your turn”, he said. Then Coyote said, “Yes,” and began to swallow strawberries, not rocks! He fooled Grizzly, he swallowed five strawberries. Then Coyote told Grizzly, “Now you must swallow five hot stones.” “All right,” said Grizzly. Then he commenced swallowing hot rocks, they burst his heart, and he died. Now Coyote sat down and studied. “Now I must go, I am going on forever. He is gone now; the world is going to last so long!” He skinned Grizzly, then began cutting him up; he scattered his body in little pieces all over. Then to the Molala country he threw the heart. He said, “Now the Molala will be good hunters; they will all be good men, thinking and studying about hunting deer.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Gray Wolf Damage and Conflict Management In
    Wolf Damage and Conflict Management in Wyoming Environmental Assessment GRAY WOLF DAMAGE AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN WYOMING Lead Agency: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS) WILDLIFE SERVICES (WS) - WYOMING Cooperating Agencies: WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Consulting Agencies: WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U.S. FOREST SERVICE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE May 2019 Wolf Damage and Conflict Management in Wyoming TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................... 6 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION....................................................................... 10 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 10 1.2 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................... 11 1.3 HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE WYOMING WOLF POPULATION .. 11 1.4 NEED FOR WOLF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN WYOMING ............................... 13 1.4.1 Wolf Predation on Livestock and other Domestic Animals ....................................... 14 1.4.2 Potential Role of Wolves in Disease Transmission ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attitudes Toward and Tolerance of Wolves in Washington State
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Fall 2012 Ethics and Wolf Management: Attitudes Toward and Tolerance of Wolves in Washington State Julie Callahan San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Callahan, Julie, "Ethics and Wolf Management: Attitudes Toward and Tolerance of Wolves in Washington State" (2012). Master's Theses. 4225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.gufg-5sx3 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4225 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ETHICS AND WOLF MANAGEMENT: ATTITUDES TOWARD AND TOLERANCE OF WOLVES IN WASHINGTON STATE A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Environmental Studies San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Julie Callahan December 2012 © 2012 Julie Callahan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the thesis titled ETHICS AND WOLF MANAGEMENT: ATTITUDES TOWARD AND TOLERANCE OF WOLVES IN WASHINGTON STATE by Julie Callahan APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY December 2012 Dr. Will Russell Department of Environmental Studies Dr. Rachel O’Malley Department of Environmental Studies Dr. Dustin Mulvaney Department of Environmental Studies ABSTRACT ETHICS AND WOLF MANAGEMENT: ATTITUDES TOWARD AND TOLERANCE OF WOLVES IN WASHINGTON STATE by Julie Callahan Approximately seventy-five years after extirpation from Washington State, gray wolves (Canis lupus) returned.
    [Show full text]