10 Riskiest Power Plants in America

Reposted from Care2 http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-riskiest-nuclear-power-plants-in-america.html#ixzz1r1UBtM7o

By Melissa Breyer        March 18, 2011

As we watch the continuing catastrophe in Japan unfold with no clear expectations of the outcome, one thing is for certain: The safety of nuclear power has become a hot topic of conversation. While some countries are shutting down plants, many other are reevaluating the safety of theirs and strategizing over future plans.

In the U.S. we have 104 nuclear reactors. What are the chances that any of them could be home to an emergency like that at Fukushima Dai-ichi? The west coast would seem most at risk, given the busy San Andreas Fault. But an MSNBC analysis of data from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) places the odds of an earthquake disabling the core of reactor elsewhere.

The NRC has calculated the odds of a quake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant and has determined that for the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there is a 1 in 74,176 chance each year that the core could be damaged by an earthquake badly enough to leak radiation. As MSNBC puts it, that’s 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145. The odds take into consideration two main factors: the chance of a serious quake, and the strength of design of the plant.

In the ranking one would expect the top spot to go to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, with its twin reactors nestled in between the Pacific coastline and the San Andreas Fault; or the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, amidst fault lines on land and under the ocean. But no and no. Nuclear power plants built on the California coastline have a lower risk of damage from earthquakes than those in other areas because they were designed and built with earthquakes in mind.

Meanwhile, plants in the East, South and Midwest, where earthquake risk wasn’t as highly considered in the design, now find themselves at the top of the NRC’s risk list. Why? Because geologists have learned a lot about the dangers of earthquakes in these areas. New faults have been found, and new computer models have changed predictions for how earthquakes may occur. According to MSNBC, the latest estimates are drawn from the 2008 maps of the U.S. Geological Survey. Of special note, the USGS said, was an allowance for waves of large earthquakes in the New Madrid fault area roughly centered on the Missouri Bootheel, as well as inclusion of offshore faults near Charleston, S.C., and new data from the mountains of East Tennessee.

The ratings, number 1 being the riskiest, are fascinating in that they also include the increase of risk (when available) based on how the USGS data changed from 1989 to 2008.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-riskiest-nuclear-power-plants-in-america.html#ixzz1r1U58tpx

————————————————————————————————————————————————

FB Poster: Propaganda spreading much?

Me: Just like to be informative…

FB Poster:  But not fair and balanced?

Me: I post it, you get to form your own opinion about it  :-)

FB Poster:  You posted it for a reason yeah? Im just wondering how much you actually know about the nuclear power industry? Have you ever been inside of a nuclear power plant?

FB Poster:  During the 14,500 (cumulative obviously) years of commercial nuclear power in 32 countries there have only been three major reactor accidents. Three Mile Island (contained without harm to anyone), Chernobyl (no provision for containment of the intense fire), and Fukishima–severely tested the containment and allowed for “some” release of radioactivity. Chernobyl was the ONLY incident that had casualties-with a total of 36 “direct” deaths. Also–With the 26th anniversary of Chernobyl coming up on April 26th–the 19 mile “exclusion zone” around the reactor has turned into a “haven” for wildlife. No one died in the Three Mile Island incident, no one died from radiation during the Fukishima incident. Considering the grounds are patrolled regularly living next to a nuclear power plant is probably one of the safest places you could live…

Me:  I have not been inside an active nuclear power plant. I have been on old nuclear power land…

Have you ever disposed of nuclear waste?

FB Poster: I think you need to be more specific as I’m sure you havent seen nuclear fuel rods just lying around.

FB Poster:  Actually-Id like to know where you visited-as nuclear waste from commercial nuclear plants is always stored onsite. Are you talking about your experience with DOD or DOE because that is completely different.

Me: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank

Nuclear power plant accidents: listed and ranked since 1952

www.guardian.co.uk

How many nuclear power plants have had accidents and incidents? Get the full list and find out how they’re ranked

FB Poster: ‎1. Ive already read this.

                      2. You didnt answer my questions.

Youre also not comparing coal, natural gas, etc. http://www.usmra.com/saxsewell/historical.htm start here–then we can talk about BP and it’s effect on the environment.

Worst US Mine Disasters   www.usmra.com

Me: I have spent time at Savannah River Site. I’ve been to Chem-Nuclear in Barnwell, SC. I have Also worked at a facility with a reactor, and did low-level regulated disposal for that facility.

FB Poster: SRS is one of our clients-also DOE not commercial.Chem-Nuclear are test reactors-not exactly the same thing now is it?

Me: This article was about nuclear power, not coal or natural gas. I am not writing a paper on the pros and cons of fuel sources, although I could. I have, in the past, posted articles on BP, alternative energy, mountain-top removal, etc. I never said I was pro-coal or natural gas.

I never knew you felt so strongly pro-nuclear.

I find it interesting that you feel the need to point out BP issues to me.

Me: Commercial, military, research… Nuclear is nuclear.

FB Poster:  Im saying that article was a joke-it’s exactly the type of article that scares Americans into thinking that nuclear power is SO dangerous. Of course Im pro-nuclear. My job depends on it.

And no, if you had more information you would know that commercial nuclear and DOD are not the same. Not even a little bit.

Me:  I also find it interesting that an article that states a risk of (ex)1 in 14,000 is so offensive to you.

FB Poster: I’m not offended, I just think it gives the wrong impression. Thanks for the LinkedIn check tho–you can learn more abuot my company at rcscorporation.com

Me: Sure thing.

Thoughts? I found this exchange particularly interesting coming from an indivivual whose “job depends on it” because this person works as a head hunter to find jobs for people in science and technology positions, mainly nuclear.  This person also has not worked with the same company for over a year, ever, as far as their LinkedIn profile shows.  Their background is not in any scientific field, it is actually in History, because they had a crush on the History professor.

Essentially tomorrow, this person could be a head hunter for another company that is geared toward business professionals or accounting, and then life would depend on that…

Wolf Torture and Execution Continues in the Northern Rockies

re-posted from

Earth Island Journal

Blog: The EnvironmentaList

BY JAMES WILLIAM GIBSON – MARCH 28, 2012

Montana Anti-Trapping Group Gets Death Threat for Releasing Photos

On March 16, a Friday, a US Forest Service employee from Grangeville, Idaho, laid out his wolf traps. The following Monday, using the name “Pinching,” he posted his story and pictures on www.Trapperman.com . “I got a call on Sunday morning from a FS [Forest Service] cop that I know. You got one up here as there was a crowd forming. Several guys had stopped and taken a shot at him already,” wrote Pinching. The big, black male wolf stood in the trap, some 300-350 yards from the road, wounded—the shots left him surrounded by blood-stained snow. Pinching concluded his first post, “Male that went right at 100 pounds. No rub spots on the hide, and he will make me a good wall hanger.”

All photographs were taken from Trapperman.com website are being reproduced here under Fair Use“Pinching” with the wolf he trapped that he wrote would make him “a good wall hanger.”

The Trapperman website went wild with comments. “That’s a dandy!! Keep at it,” wrote Watarrat. Otterman asked, “All the gray on that muzzle make a guy wonder how old he is or if it is just part of his black coloring.” Pinching’s picture of the wolf’s paw caught in the trap got special attention. “Is that the MB750 stamped ‘wolf’ on the pan?” asked one man. “Looks to be a perfect pad catch. Congratulations! Pinching confirmed the trap model and commented, “Oh an [sic] by the way, a wolf is a heck of a lot of work to put on a stretcher! Man those things hold on to their hide like no other!”

By late March some 117 Idaho wolves had been killed in traps and snares, and another 251 shot. Montana saw 166 killed, for a total of 534 wolves out of an estimated 1150 in the two states. Although Montana’s season ended in February, Idaho is not quite done. Both states have announced plans for increased hunting in the 2012-2013, and discussions are underway among hunting groups and state officials to allow private donations to establish wolf bounties.

Wolf’s paw in trap.

As recently as the spring of 2011, gray wolves in the Northern Rockies received protection from he Endangered Species Act. But in April, 2011 Congress passed a rider on a federal appropriations bill removing them. Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester, facing a 2012 challenge from Republican Congressman Danny Rehberg, wanted to show Democrats hated wolves just as much as Republicans. Conservation groups filed suit in Montana’s federal district court, claiming the delisting represented an unconstitutional infringement by Congress on the judicial branch while it deliberated an ongoing lawsuit over federal wolf protection.

Losing in district court, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Clearwater, WildEarth Guardians, the Center for Biological Diversity, andCascadia Wildlands appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. On March 14, the appeals court rejected their arguments, upholding the Congressional wolf delisting as a lawful amendment. This decision might well mark the endpoint for the conservation movement’s decades-long fundamental strategy of litigating in federal courts to promote wolf recovery in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

A hunter and his dead prey.

Thus wolves, demonized by the far-right in the Rockies as disease-ridden monsters and icons of the federal government (see my Summer 2011 Journal story, “Cry Wolf”), now face a brutal campaign to radically reduce their numbers so far that extermination can not be ruled out. Idaho’s Governor Butch Otter declared in a March 25 news conference that his state faced a “disaster emergency” from wolves. “We don’t want them here.”

Skirmishing on the web escalates.Footloose Montana, an anti-trapping group, posted the trapped wolf’s pictures on its website, drawing over a 1,000 comments within days. Word spread. Nabeki, founder of Howling for Justice, opined that “This wolf will be the face of the cruelty and ugliness that is the Idaho hunt…Our forests are hiding acts of unspeakable horrors that are being perpetuated on innocent animals.” Protesters called Idaho and Montana tourist bureaus, demanding the hunts end. By Monday, March 26, Trapperman learned that its photos now circulated offsite. The group’s administrator demanded that Footloose Montana remove the photographs.

Footloose staff and board members also received an anonymous death threat in their email: “I would like to donate [sic] a gun to your childs [sic] head to make sure you can watch it die slowly so I can have my picture taken with it’s [sic] bleeding dying screaming for mercy body. YOU WILL BE THE TARGET NEXT BITCHES!” FBI agents and Missoula, Montana police received copies of the threat.

Wolf advocates hope that these pictures will go viral, shaming a nation into facing the torture people inflict on animals and the moral and political failures that promote and legitimize it.

Read James William Gibson’s writings at jameswilliamgibson.com

Hunters Have Killed More than 180 Wolves in the Northern Rockies

Earth Island Journal

Blog: The EnvironmentaList

BY JAMES WILLIAM GIBSON – NOVEMBER 14, 2011

Without Federal Protection, Bloodbath is Underway

A bloodbath is underway in the northern Rocky Mountains as hunters there relentlessly target wolf packs in the region.

Wolf hunt

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 Photos from Maureen Mitra and Wolf Warrior.

Wolf hunts are grinding away in the northern Rockies, fueled by government bureaucracies and state politicians that employ bizarre
language ranging from technocratic euphemisms to bad-boy naughtiness and vicious joy at the killings. This is a small selection of
hunted wolf images from the region floating around on the Internet

In April, Congress removed gray wolves in the northern Rockies from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection. Since then, Idaho and Montana have sold nearly 37,000 wolf tags for fall hunts. As of November 11, some 114 wolves had been shot in Idaho, and 67 in Montana. Idaho plans to continue hunting through the winter of 2012, and will allow the state’s estimated 700 to 1,000 wolves to be reduced to no more than 150. If hunters and trappers fail to destroy enough, state officials promise to launch airborne search and destroy operations. Montana officials recently extended wolf season from the end of December to January 31, 2012 in hopes of killing 220 of their estimated 556 to 645 wolves. In Wyoming, Governor Matt Mead recently signed an agreement with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that will protect a remnant population of 100 to 150 to survive near Yellowstone National Park, but allow wolves to be classified as vermin and shot-on-sight in 80 percent of the state; hunts could begin there next spring.

The recent anti-wolf campaign represents an extraordinary cultural and political victory by the far-right wing in the Rocky Mountains. A loose coalition of some ranchers, hunters, and anti-government zealots demonized the gray wolves reintroduced to Montana and Idaho from Canada in the mid 1990s by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They cast the animals as huge, aggressive, disease-ridden monsters bent on ravaging livestock, elk, deer, and even people. Wolves became symbolic representations of the hated federal government (see my story, “Cry, Wolf” in the Summer 2011 issue of EIJ ). In time, both the mainstream Republican and Democratic Parties came to accept this vision of demonic wolves invading from Canada.

In April, 2011, Senator John Tester, Democrat of Montana, facing a tough 2012 reelection challenge from Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg, led a campaign among fellow Democrats to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act using a federal budget bill rider, while Idaho’s Congressman Mike Simpson did the same among House Republicans. The rider passed with little dissent, marking the first time a species has been removed from the protections of the Endangered Species Act by Congress.

Almost immediately several national and regional conservation groups — the Alliance for a Wild Rockies, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Animals, and WildEarth Guardians — filed suit in federal court. Their attorneys charge that because the 2011 budget rider did not change the language of the Endangered Species Act, Congress unconstitutionally intervened in the judiciary. The rider overturned a 2010 decision by federal judge Donald Molloy in Missoula that the original 2009 delisting of wolves by the US Wildlife Service violated the ESA by illegally subdividing Idaho and Montana from Wyoming. In Judge Molloy’s ruling, all three states — with some 1,600 wolves — comprise what the law calls a “distinct population segment.”

Wolf advocates brought their new case to Judge Molloy’s court in July, 2011. He ruled against them, saying that the Ninth Circuit had restrained him with a binding precedent concerning Congressional powers. At the same time, he encouraged his decision to be appealed. On November 8, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals began hearings in Pasadena, California.  Proceedings and a subsequent legal ruling are expected to take months. Plaintiffs have asked three times for the court to issue a temporary injunction stopping the wolf hunts while the case is being heard. The court has twice declined, and is currently considering the third request.

Back in the Rockies, the hunts grind away, fueled by government bureaucracies and state politicians that employ bizarre language ranging from technocratic euphemisms to bad-boy naughtiness and vicious joy at the killings. In Idaho, the wolves aren’t being hunted but are instead “harvested,” with a new body count posted each day on the state’s official “Wolf Harvest” website. “It’s as if wolves aren’t sentient, intelligent animals, but are instead potatoes,” one wolf advocate notes. Another Idaho activist’s research analyzing the state’s “Big Game Mortality Reports” shows that 29 percent of the wolves killed so far are juveniles and puppies.

In Montana,  Ravalli County Republicans staged a “SSS raffle” that awarded the winner a rifle characterized as a “home defense weapon,” camouflage backpack, folding shovel, roll of duck tape, and the “first ever Wolf Cookbook.” Their website explains that SSS refers to “Security, Safety and Survival,” but “shhhh, don’t tell anyone, it’s really Shoot, Shovel, and Shutup.” Also, no one eats wolves. In fact, Montana passed a law saying hunters don’t even need to touch the wolves they kill, but can instead leave them there to rot, because they’re thought to be too disease ridden with tapeworms. Previous legislation required hunters to bring in the pelt and head.

Democratic Senator Max Baucus, thrilled at the testing of a new pilotless drone aircraft manufactured in Montana, issued a statement in early November declaring, “ Our troops rely on this type of technology every day and there is an enormous future potential in border security, agriculture, and wildlife and predator management.” A manufacturer’s representative claimed his company’s drone “can tell the difference between a wolf and a coyote.”

One can only hope that the war against wolves is so outrageous that it becomes obvious it’s not wolves that have become demonic, but rather people. Until that understanding occurs, and policies change, at least the slain animals can be remembered.

Read James William Gibson’s writings at jameswilliamgibson.com

Keeping an Eye on Two Intimate Wolves

by John Vucetich

Article From: New York Times – Sciences – March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012, 7:23 AM

A male and female wolf walk shoulder to shoulder.

Thursday, Feb. 23 We take off, and soon we’re following tracks on the island’s south shore, a few miles southwest of Lake Halloran. They almost certainly belong to the wolves we’ve named the West-End Duo.

With every step, as a wolf swings its leg forward, it lowers its paw, at first only gradually toward the ground, just grazing the snow with the top of its foot. Then, extending its ankle, toe pads pointed down, the wolf plunges its paw deep into the snow. The next step begins by lifting a paw up high and right out of the snow. So, from the air and under the right snow conditions, a wolf track is one long series of comet-shaped footprints. The grazed snow is the comet’s tail, and the hard step is the comet’s head, pointing in the wolf’s direction of travel. These wolves are heading northeast, and so are we.

After a few miles, we come to a long section of shoreline where wind and sun have left the beach increasingly bare of snow. As the snow patches get smaller, the tracks became more difficult to follow. Eventually we lose the tracks.

We know very little about these wolves that they don’t know much better themselves. We also know little about the specific habits of these two wolves. However, for the past 10 or so generations of wolves at Isle Royale National Park, when they travel northeast along this stretch of beach, they tend to head to Lake Halloran. It’s the easiest place to cross overland from the south shore to Siskiwit Bay. So we fly to Halloran hoping to pick the tracks up again. No luck.

Tracks like these, left by the West-End Duo on Mud Lake, are indicative that these wolves have copulated.

We fly off to find the Chippewa Harbor Pack. That should be easy, since the wolves are most likely sleeping at the site of their most recent kill. If so, we can make those observations quickly and return to spend the rest of our time looking for the West-End Duo.

After an hour, we return to Lake Halloran and find wolf tracks that hadn’t been there an hour ago. The comet tails are useful, but there’s no substitute for seeing a wolf track at ground level. So we land, taxi to the tracks and, without getting out of the plane, confirm their direction — northeast, as we thought. The duo is not far ahead.

We take off again and follow their tracks for another mile along the open ridge that extends northeast from Halloran. The tracks disappear at the end of the ridge into a small patch of cedar trees. We circle and circle, straining to see where beneath the forest canopy the tracks lead next. Nothing. Have we lost their trail, or is this where the tracks end, with the wolves resting in the cedars?

We are almost out of fuel. In the time it takes to refuel, the West-End Duo changes directions, emerging onto Siskiwit Bay. Don and Rolf watch the pair walking side by side, shoulder to shoulder. Tracks indicate that they have done so for several miles.

That behavior is significant. Wolves usually walk one after the other. Sometimes it reflects the ease of walking through the snow in another’s footsteps. Sometimes it reflects the pack’s hierarchy. Wolves in courtship, however, are peers — equals in the pack. And a wolf in courtship must show unequivocal interest. Courting wolves frequently walk shoulder to shoulder in the days just before and after copulation. It’s a subtle sign, but we recognize it immediately. We are excited by the prospect.

Friday, Feb. 24 In the late afternoon, we go out for a short flight. Don and Rolf find the West-End Duo bedded a few miles farther down the shoreline.

The male of the West-End Duo inspects the reproductive organs of the receptive female.

Rolf Peterson The male of the West-End Duo inspects the reproductive organs of the receptive female. When the wolves stand up, the larger, presumably male wolf moves over to the smaller, presumably female wolf. He places his nose at her rear end. She accommodates by holding her tail to the side. Female wolves are fertile for a very short time. To avoid missing that time, a male wolf regularly sniffs for the scent of hormones.

Meanwhile, the wolves in the Chippewa Harbor Pack do what they mostly do. They sleep at the site where, four days earlier, they killed a calf.

Saturday, Feb. 25 It is windy, but we’re anxious to catch up with the West-End Duo. A storm is expected tomorrow. We’ll almost certainly have difficulty finding the wolves after the storm. Also, the winter study is almost over. If we are fortunate enough to see the duo today, it could be the last time until next winter.

In the afternoon, winds subside to levels that are barely tolerable. We fly. On the south side of Mud Lake, just a few miles from the last sighting of the duo, we see the kind of tracks that wolves make during the several minutes when they are joined in copulation. We see them again on the north side of Mud Lake. Later we find the West-End Duo, still shoulder to shoulder, walking southwest toward Hay Bay. They follow the scent of a moose upwind, a moose that has been foraging on the ridge overlooking Hay Bay.

The moose detects the wolves while they are about 40 meters away. They stop and consider a chase. The moose does not give an inch. After about a minute, the wolves move on.

A few minutes later, they disappear into the forest, perhaps for the last time, as far as this winter’s observations are concerned. We wait all throughout the winter study to make the kind of observations that we’ve made the past three days. In the past three years, the Isle Royale wolf population has declined by about two-thirds, and the Chippewa Harbor Pack seems to be struggling. This West-End Duo very well may be the future of the Isle Royale wolf population.

John Vucetich

 

John Vucetich, a wildlife ecologist from Michigan Technological University, leads the wolf-moose Winter Study at Isle Royale National Park.

 

 

JOHN VUCETICH – Posts From Isle Royale:

Preparing to Live With Wolves

In Winter Weather, Flying to Find Wolves

Wolves, Snow and the Red Dragon

A Wolf-Moose Standoff at Isle Royale

One Moose,Two Moose

Following the Wolf Pack

Much to Learn From What Remains

A Luscious Meal for Moose

An Eruption of Ravens

A Pack of Hungry Wolves

As Wolf Diminish, Moose Flourish

Climate Ride – California 2011

Although I took a break in 2010, what with moving and all, I am back in the saddle for Brita Climate Ride-California 2011!! Please join me on my journey!

I have been working to raise $2400 for this fundraising event, I have 9 days left and $837 to go! I head to California on Friday September 30 and will arrive around midnight.

“Climate Ride California is a gorgeous cycling adventure that begins in California’s historic Redwood Empire near Eureka, travels along the scenic coast and ventures into the famed Russian River Valley before crossing the Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco. Climate Ride California is more than a bike trip – it’s an inspiring journey with like-minded people who are united by their passion for sustainability, renewable energy, and bicycles – the ultimate carbon-free form of transportation.”

Climate Ride is a unique charitable event because participants, or Climate Riders, can select a specific beneficiary organization they will be raising money for, or they can select to raise funds for the entire collection. These beneficiaries were selected because they focus on clean energy, sustainability, climate education and/or bicycle advocacy. At the end of the year, Climate Ride tallies all the donations from all Climate Ride events and then grants the funds to these hard-working organizations. These grants are carefully tracked and periodic reports are provided by the beneficiaries.

I’m still accepting donations if you would like to donate to this amazing event! Donate to Climate Ride!

Idaho seeks to kill hundreds of protected wolves

By Laura Zuckerman * SALMON | Fri Aug 6, 201

Idaho (Reuters) – Idaho game officials said on Friday they would seek federal approval to kill off hundreds of wolves in their state despite a court ruling that restored protection of the animals under the Endangered Species Act.

In a conference call with reporters, Idaho Fish and Game officials said they remained determined to carry out a plan, nixed by Thursday’s court ruling, that calls for reducing Idaho’s wolf population by over 40 percent, to 500 from 845.

One wolf pack in particular, a group of 100 animals in northern Idaho, is targeted for reduction by 80 percent.

Montana, the second of two states where the gray wolf was ordered returned to the federal endangered species list, is likely to follow Idaho’s lead in seeking permission to thin its wolf packs through licensed sport hunting or government squads of aerial gunners.

Hunting of listed animals for sport is generally forbidden under the Endangered Species Act. But the two states would presumably seek special permits under the statute to allow for limited hunting or culling of wolf packs.

Powerful ranching interests in both states opposed reintroduction of wolves to the region 15 years ago and have continued to resist federal protection of the animals as a threat to livestock. Sportsmen complain wolves are killing too many big-game animals, like elk, that could be hunted instead.

“Our concern is … we do have livestock depredations … and we have problems with elk herds,” said Idaho Department of Fish and Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth.

A federal judge in Missoula, Montana, on Thursday sided with conservation groups in ordering the entire Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves re-listed as endangered.

That ruling overturned an April 2009 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision that had lifted federal wolf protections in Idaho and Montana but kept them in place in Wyoming.

At last count, in December 2009, the gray wolf population in the Northern Rockies, including Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding region, was estimated at 1,700 animals.

Environmentalists say the region’s wolf population would have to reach between 2,000 and 3,000 individuals in order to be considered viable by international standards.

(Editing by Steve Gorman and Sandra Maler)

Gray wolf back on protect list in Montana and Idaho, to ranchers and hunters ire

By Kari Lydersen

Special to The Washington Post
Monday, August 9, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/08/AR2010080802773.html

“They breed pretty prolifically,” Keszler said. “When young wolves get older, they strike out and find new territory, and get into livestock areas where they have to be removed.”

In the early 1900s, wolves were nearly driven to extinction through trapping and hunting. By 1978, they were listed as endangered in the lower 48 states, except for Minnesota, where they were considered “threatened.”

The federal government developed a recovery plan that included the reintroduction of wolves to the Northern Rockies in 1995 and 1996. By 2002, the Northern Rockies gray wolf population in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming had met the recovery goal of at least 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves spread evenly over the three states. In 2007, Northern Rockies gray wolves were removed from the endangered species list.

But conservation groups sued over the delisting, and in 2008 Molloy ordered a preliminary injunction restoring protection. By last year, the area’s wolf population reached more than 1,500, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazarapproved the decision to remove wolves from the list in the Northern Rockies, with the exception of Wyoming.

“If the states were to take over and continue the recovery to a sustainable population, that would be fine,” said Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife. “But the way things are now, that won’t happen. They want to drive it down so the floor is also the ceiling.”

A similar debate has been raging over gray wolf populations in the western Great Lakes region. As with the Northern Rockies wolves, this population was delisted in 2007 then relisted after litigation. Hunters and landowners have sued, and Wisconsin and Minnesota state agencies have petitioned to remove wolves from the endangered and threatened species list. Minnesota wolves are considered threatened, while Michigan and Wisconsin wolves are deemed endangered.

Major environmental and conservation groups see Molloy’s recent ruling as precedent-setting in a larger battle over how the Endangered Species Act is implemented. They say the act is meant to support the reestablishment of a species across its whole historic natural range. If a species is endangered in one location where it once thrived, they argue, it should be considered endangered throughout that region.

“What the agency [USFWS] has done is keep arbitrarily shrinking the zone of wolf protection down to the smallest possible circle,” said Kieran Suckling, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, among the groups that have sued to maintain the wolf’s endangered listing.

But Aashiem said current wolf populations are “more than Montana residents can bear.”

The number of cattle and sheep killed by wolves increased between 2006 and 2009, according to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Last year, 97 cattle and 202 sheep were reported killed in Montana; in Idaho the number was 75 cattle and 324 sheep. Wolf supporters said the figures pale next to the numbers killed by coyotes, weather and other factors.

Errol Rice, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, said the weakening of livestock by the “harassment” of wolves also takes a serious toll, as herds under stress might not reproduce as often, and calves might not gain weight as quickly.

Bob Ream, a member of Montana’s wildlife advisory commission, is a retired wildlife biology professor who has worked on the federal wolf recovery program. He thinks it’s counterproductive to relist wolves as endangered.

“You have to ask the question, how many is enough?” he said. “There’s no danger to wolf populations — wolves are here to stay. I don’t think any amount of hunting in Montana will eliminate them.”

Wolves Back On The Endangered Species List

Analysis by Teresa Shipley * Tue Aug 10, 2010

http://news.discovery.com/animals/wolves-back-on-the-endangered-species-list.html

The political whiplash continues over the issue of wolves in the West.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that the grey wolf, Canis lupus, should go back on the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho, sparking howls of outrage from hunters, ranchers and states’ rights advocates.

The ruling overturned Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision to keep the grey wolf off the list in 2009.

A few days ago, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy said that the the Act required endangered species like the Northern Rockies gray wolf to be treated as a whole population, rather than on a state-by-state basis.

In other words, if it’s listed as endangered in Wyoming, it should be listed that way in Montana and Idaho too, Molloy wrote.

The judge’s move sides with Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations that had sued to put federal protections back in place after the grey wolf was originally delisted in Idaho and Montana in 2007.

Wolf supporters say the ruling more accurately reflects the spirit of the Endangered Species Act, and that the current Rocky Mountain population of more than 1,700 wolves is not enough to ensure the long-term genetic health of the population.

Groups like Defenders of Wildlife are advocating for somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 animals in the region.

But a bi-partisan coalition of politicians argues the issue comes down to states’ rights, reports the Idaho Statesman.

Right now the reinstated protection means the states once again have to follow federal guidelines for managing wolves

‘Research hunt’ for wolves dropped as officials balk

BY MATTHEW BROWN • ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER • AUGUST 13, 2010

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20100813/NEWS01/100813016/1002/+Research+hunt++for+wolves+dropped+as+officials+balk

.

BILLINGS — Wildlife officials are dropping their short-lived proposal for a “research hunt” for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, and instead considering a “conservation hunt” that would trim the predators’ population in the name of reducing livestock attacks

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks attorney Bob Lane said Friday his agency could not justify a research hunt since the goal would have been to reduce the wolf’s population, not study it.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had said it would not condone such a proposal, according to Lane. Idaho also was considering a research hunt.

“We want to hunt wolves as part of our management. But we can’t justify it as far as research and it would probably be too limited for our purposes,” Lane said.

A wolf on lookout at the Highland Wildlife Park in Kingussie, Scotland.

A court ruling last week put an estimated 1,367 wolves in the two states back on the endangered list. That will likely prompt the cancellation of wolf hunts planned for this year.

State officials still hope to have some type of hunting season in 2011.

Lane said a hunt carried out in the name of conservation was more justifiable, since the state could point to wolf attacks on livestock as proof the population had outgrown its habitat and needed to be reduced.

Another option would be to allow hunters to kill wolves in areas where big game herds are in decline.

The government in 2008 approved a regulation allowing wolves to be killed if they are impacting wildlife. However, Fish and Wildlife Service approval is required and no applications have yet been made to carry out such a hunt.

A Fish and Wildlife spokesman acknowledged the agency was in discussions with state officials about what steps they could take to control wolves in light of the Aug. 5 ruling from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula.

Spokesman Chris Tollefson would not comment on the talks, saying the government first must decide whether to appeal Molloy’s ruling.

“At this point, we’re still looking at the decision,” he said.

Molloy had allowed hunts in Montana and Idaho to take place last year, resulting in 258 wolves legally shot by hunters.

The decision to return the species to the endangered list was not based on any immediate threat to their survival. Rather, Molloy faulted the government for taking wolves off the endangered list in Montana and Idaho even as portions of the population in Wyoming remained listed.

Molloy said that was a violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Environmental groups praised the ruling, saying it would allow the Northern Rockies wolf population to grow large enough to be sustainable over the long term.

But it left wildlife officials with few options to deal with the increasing number of livestock attacks by wolves.

In the absence of hunting, the killing of problem wolf packs by government wildlife agents is likely to again become the prime method of managing the species. In 2009, 270 wolves were killed by wildlife agents and ranchers defending their livestock.

Eye On Boise

Fish & Game plans Clearwater wolf kill

Posted by Betsy on August13

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2010/aug/13/fish-game-plans-clearwater-wolf-kill/

The Idaho Fish & Game Department is working on a plan to kill 70 to 80 of the 100 or so wolves in the  Lolo elk management zone, and keep that zone’s wolf population at just 20 to 30 for the next five years; with wolf hunts off the table since a federal judge reinstated endangered species protection, the F&G plan calls for officials to do the wolf removal, rather than hunters. “Idaho Fish and Game would prefer to let hunters help manage the wolf population. But until the wolves are delisted and turned over to state management, Idaho has decided to pursue the best option available under the Endangered Species Act,” the department said in a news release.

The Lolo zone, one of 29 in the state, is the only one targeted, because of “unacceptable impacts on the elk population by a wolf population that has recovered biologically.” Fish & Game is opening a two-week public comment period on the plan; at the close of the period, it’ll be submitted to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for final approval. Click below for the full news release from Idaho Fish & Game.

Wolf Reduction Proposal Available for Review, Comment

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is seeking public comments on a proposal to reduce the wolf population in part of the Clearwater drainage.

The proposal calls for reducing the population of wolves in two big game management units that make up the Lolo elk management zone. Wolf numbers would be kept at about 20 to 30 wolves for five years, while the elk and wolf populations are monitored. That amounts to removing about seven percent of the estimated minimum of 835 wolves in the state at the end of 2009.

This wolf reduction proposal is for one elk zone out of the 29 zones that Idaho Fish and Game manages. The proposal is being pursued in an attempt to control wolf predation on elk in the Lolo zone because of unacceptable impacts on the elk population by a wolf population that has recovered biologically.

As long as wolves south of Interstate 90 in Idaho remain on the endangered species list they are managed under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. Simply put, the rule, revised in 2008, would allow Idaho to use lethal controls on wolves that are having unacceptable impacts on the elk population.

In the Lolo zone, elk numbers have been declining over the past three decades as a result of a combination of degraded habitat, natural mortality and predation. Recent research shows that wolf predation now has pushed the decline to about 15 percent annually, and is keeping the elk population down.

More than 140 adult female elk in the Lolo Zone have been radio-collared since 2002. More than half of the animals that died were killed by wolves, Deputy Director Jim Unsworth said. In addition, 86 six-month old elk calves have been radio-collared since December 2005. Sixty-five percent of the elk calves that died in the winter were killed by wolves. Adult female mortality and calf mortality are key factors that affect overall elk population trends.

The reduction in wolf numbers in the Lolo zone would not affect overall wolf recovery efforts, Unsworth said. But it may help increase elk numbers.

Idaho Fish and Game would prefer to let hunters help manage the wolf population. But until the wolves are delisted and turned over to state management, Idaho has decided to pursue the best option available under the Endangered Species Act.

The state has prepared a science-based proposal that details the problem and shows the role of wolves and why their removal is warranted. The proposal has been reviewed by recognized experts, and will be available for public comment for 14 days.

Once public comments have been reviewed, the proposal would be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for final approval.

To read the proposal and to comment, visit the Idaho Fish and Game public involvement page at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/public/, where the plan will be posted Friday evening.