This entry was posted
on Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 am and is filed under Research.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
8 Responses to “Through wolf eyes- transboundary stakeholders”
Conservation of Shared Environments
Learning from the United States and Mexico
Edited by Laura López-Hoffman; Emily D. McGovern; Robert G. Varady; Karl W. Flessa
296 pp. / 6.0 x 9.0 / 2009 Cloth (978-0-8165-2877-6) [s] Paper (978-0-8165-2878-3) [s]
Some thoughts from an anonymous email, I welcome your reflections:
“Thank you for sharing this. Very interesting! In my experience, the conclusion where you state that “improved communication skills and continuity of personnel to foster better understanding of the diverse perspectives of stakeholders”, is right on target. Many of the landowners in the area have oposed the project from the beginnig because of deep rooted beliefs concerning the wolves and lack of communication and personnel changes have created additional distrust.
” In my opinion, the two biggests problems with the project though are: 1) many landowners with large parcels in key recovery areas are totally against wolf recovery and have enough influence over other landowners and have enough political clout to thwart local recovery efforts (as seen in Catron County, NM); and
“2) The project wastes tons of the “little” money they have capturing animals who have gone out of their human-made boundary to relocate them back inside this boundary. This last one not only costs money but it also exposes the wolves to additional human contact.
“It was very neat noticing in the biographical sketches that I have worked with about half the authors on there on their US or MX projects.
Anonymous writes “Many of the landowners in the area have oposed the project from the beginnig because of deep rooted beliefs concerning the wolves and lack of communication and personnel changes have created additional distrust.”
As a person who lives in the wolf recovery area (Catron County) I can tell you that the landowners oppose the project because the wolves are destructive beyond belief. If they were wild wolves they wouldn’t be killing so many domestic animals (not just cattle, but dogs, cats, poultry, horses), they wouldn’t be stalking children, they wouldn’t be walking down the main streets of town in broad daylight (truth!).
Local landowners and residents oppose the wolf program because it is not about releasing wild wolves to be wild like other wild animals, but rather about doing the equivalent of dumping unwanted dogs in rural areas. These wolves are captive raised (raised in zoos and “preserves” where they’re around people all the time, for heaven’s sake), they are vaccinated, handled routinely for veterinary exams, hand fed, and never allowed to hunt - then they are dumped in the wilderness. If you dump a dog like that, you can get busted for it. Somehow it’s legal to do that to wolves. Craziness!
How is a wolf expected to become wild, when every two years they’re trapped and handled again, revaccinated, given another vet exam, have the batteries in their collars replaced? How is this fair to wolves? And how is it fair to the locals, who are bearing the burden of these human habituated wolves who are as destructive and dangerous as feral dogs because they’re never allowed a chance to be wild?
The Mexican wolf program is farce. It’s job security for the program, it’s a band wagon for environmental groups, it’s a way to get private landowners out of “sky islands”, but one thing it is not: It is not about best practices for wild animal management.
CR Edmunds, thank you for sharing your perspective. I am interested in your experience that the captive bred wolves are more destructive than wild wolves. What has been happening?
These are the kinds of very difficult decisions that resource managers are forced to consider, even with wild wolves
“Habituated wolf removed from Yellowstone”
“June 3, 2009: A wolf near Old Faithful that had become habituated to humans — because humans had been giving the yearling food handouts — was euthanized May 18 along Fountain Flat Drive.”…
“Wolf reintroduction proposed in Scottish Highland test case”
“CORVALLIS, Ore. – Researchers are proposing in a new report that a major experiment be conducted to reintroduce wolves to a test site in the Scottish Highlands, to help control the populations and behavior of red deer that in the past 250 years have changed the whole nature of large ecosystems…..”
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Here is the info on the book:
Conservation of Shared Environments
Learning from the United States and Mexico
Edited by Laura López-Hoffman; Emily D. McGovern; Robert G. Varady; Karl W. Flessa
296 pp. / 6.0 x 9.0 / 2009 Cloth (978-0-8165-2877-6) [s] Paper (978-0-8165-2878-3) [s]
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
Some thoughts from an anonymous email, I welcome your reflections:
“Thank you for sharing this. Very interesting! In my experience, the conclusion where you state that “improved communication skills and continuity of personnel to foster better understanding of the diverse perspectives of stakeholders”, is right on target. Many of the landowners in the area have oposed the project from the beginnig because of deep rooted beliefs concerning the wolves and lack of communication and personnel changes have created additional distrust.
” In my opinion, the two biggests problems with the project though are: 1) many landowners with large parcels in key recovery areas are totally against wolf recovery and have enough influence over other landowners and have enough political clout to thwart local recovery efforts (as seen in Catron County, NM); and
“2) The project wastes tons of the “little” money they have capturing animals who have gone out of their human-made boundary to relocate them back inside this boundary. This last one not only costs money but it also exposes the wolves to additional human contact.
“It was very neat noticing in the biographical sketches that I have worked with about half the authors on there on their US or MX projects.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Anonymous writes “Many of the landowners in the area have oposed the project from the beginnig because of deep rooted beliefs concerning the wolves and lack of communication and personnel changes have created additional distrust.”
As a person who lives in the wolf recovery area (Catron County) I can tell you that the landowners oppose the project because the wolves are destructive beyond belief. If they were wild wolves they wouldn’t be killing so many domestic animals (not just cattle, but dogs, cats, poultry, horses), they wouldn’t be stalking children, they wouldn’t be walking down the main streets of town in broad daylight (truth!).
Local landowners and residents oppose the wolf program because it is not about releasing wild wolves to be wild like other wild animals, but rather about doing the equivalent of dumping unwanted dogs in rural areas. These wolves are captive raised (raised in zoos and “preserves” where they’re around people all the time, for heaven’s sake), they are vaccinated, handled routinely for veterinary exams, hand fed, and never allowed to hunt - then they are dumped in the wilderness. If you dump a dog like that, you can get busted for it. Somehow it’s legal to do that to wolves. Craziness!
How is a wolf expected to become wild, when every two years they’re trapped and handled again, revaccinated, given another vet exam, have the batteries in their collars replaced? How is this fair to wolves? And how is it fair to the locals, who are bearing the burden of these human habituated wolves who are as destructive and dangerous as feral dogs because they’re never allowed a chance to be wild?
The Mexican wolf program is farce. It’s job security for the program, it’s a band wagon for environmental groups, it’s a way to get private landowners out of “sky islands”, but one thing it is not: It is not about best practices for wild animal management.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
CR Edmunds, thank you for sharing your perspective. I am interested in your experience that the captive bred wolves are more destructive than wild wolves. What has been happening?
June 16th, 2009 at 7:34 am
These are the kinds of very difficult decisions that resource managers are forced to consider, even with wild wolves
“Habituated wolf removed from Yellowstone”
“June 3, 2009: A wolf near Old Faithful that had become habituated to humans — because humans had been giving the yearling food handouts — was euthanized May 18 along Fountain Flat Drive.”…
http://greateryellowstone.org/issues/issue.php?threatID=8
June 30th, 2009 at 7:51 am
link to latest developments
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/earth/30brfs-WOLVESTORETU_BRF.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
July 8th, 2009 at 8:32 am
GYC is bringing a lawsuit re. to the wolf population that crosses state boundaries in Greater Yellowstone:
http://greateryellowstone.org/issues/issue.php?threatID=8
July 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-07/osu-wrp072009.php
“Wolf reintroduction proposed in Scottish Highland test case”
“CORVALLIS, Ore. – Researchers are proposing in a new report that a major experiment be conducted to reintroduce wolves to a test site in the Scottish Highlands, to help control the populations and behavior of red deer that in the past 250 years have changed the whole nature of large ecosystems…..”