USFWS proposes threatened listing for monarch butterflies

December 12, 2024 by The Wildlife Society

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the monarch butterfly as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. If listed, the new regulations would prevent people from killing or transporting the species. The rule also includes the designation of more than 4,000 acres along the California coast for monarch (Danaus plexippus) protection. “The iconic monarch butterfly is cherished across North America, captivating children and adults throughout its fascinating lifecycle,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Martha Williams in a press release. “Despite its fragility, it is remarkably resilient, like many things in nature when we just give them a chance.” She said that providing the butterflies with more milkweed and nectar plants, even in small areas, can help the recovery effort. A 90-day comment period about the proposal will begin on Dec. 12 when the proposal is published in the Federal Register.

Read more at ABC News.

JWM: How managing moose can stop wolf control in caribou ranges

December 11, 2024 by Joshua Rapp Learn

To reduce the number of wolves that prey on threatened woodland caribou in British Columbia and Alberta, one strategy could be keeping down populations of their primary prey—moose.

“Wolves can recover [from population control] extremely quickly, within a couple of years,” said Michelle McLellan, a postdoctoral researcher with the University of British Columbia Okanagan. “So, if you have a large moose population, it results in a higher number of wolves killed during control efforts.”

Wildlife managers have been trying to stymie the decline of the southern mountain population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) for some time in British Columbia and Alberta. One of their methods includes removing wolves (Canis lupus) from parts of the caribou range in an effort to reduce predation on caribou—a strategy that began in 2014 in British Columbia and a little earlier in Alberta.

But researchers wondered if keeping numbers of wolves’ primary prey species—moose (Alces alces)—low would have a similar effect. In some areas, moose numbers have increased due to logging, which opens up more foraging habitat for them. In these cases, wolves proliferate in response to their ample primary prey source. Since wolves occasionally take caribou when the opportunity arises, higher numbers of the predators put more pressure on the threatened ungulates.

In a study published recently in the Journal of Wildlife Management, McLellan and her co-authors examined how efforts to keep moose numbers at historical levels—before logging changed the environment—can result in a lower need to control wolf numbers with culling.

To manage for other factors that might be affecting an already complex ecological situation, the team only looked at areas free from cougars (Puma concolor) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)—species that can also have a direct or indirect effect on caribou numbers.

Cascading ecological effects

In central British Columbia and parts of western Alberta, the team examined wolf removals that occurred from 2014 to 2022. Managers removed over 1,900 wolves from these areas during this period.

McLellan and her colleagues found that when moose had been controlled to historical numbers, wolf removal was 3.2 times less than in areas where moose numbers had not been controlled.

A model they ran revealed that in areas where moose were maintained at historical levels, only 60 wolves would need to be removed compared to 200 in areas where moose numbers were much higher.

McLellan said that by only focusing on wolf control to conserve caribou, wildlife managers may be making their lives more difficult. “You might end up in a scenario where there are so many primary prey that it becomes more difficult to remove wolves,” she said.

But by controlling moose numbers in southern mountain woodland caribou ranges, either by directly culling or by liberalizing hunting quotas, wildlife managers might indirectly control the number of wolves.

This article features research that was published in a TWS peer-reviewed journal. Individual online access to all TWS journal articles is a benefit of membership. Join TWS now to read the latest in wildlife research.

Possible win-win for wildlife management and food security

December 11, 2024 by The Wildlife Society

Wild-harvested meat donation programs can help improve food insecurity while also helping manage overabundance of wildlife species like white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Researchers recently looked at one such program in Michigan from 2022 to 2023. They found that through the Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger program, hunters donated 600,000 meals. But that’s only 5.7% of the amount of venison that food donation facilities could use, according to the Food Bank Council of Michigan. The researchers say this suggests there’s room for scaling up these programs. Wildlife management can benefit, too. “White-tailed deer hyperabundance increases the frequency and magnitude of damage to vehicles, crops and ecosystems,” the researchers wrote.

Read the article in BioScience.

Bighorn sheep could face deadly avalanches  

December 10, 2024 by The Wildlife Society

As snow cover declines with a warming climate in the Sierra Nevada, bighorn sheep could actually be facing more deadly avalanches. This could have population impacts on the genetically distinct Sierra Nevada subgroup, which is only made up of 350 bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierra). Researchers recently simulated future climates in the area to find out how avalanches may affect bighorn sheep. They found that while the climate will warm by the years 2050-2080, avalanches may actually increase. More specifically, they found that while snow cover will likely decrease in the lower elevations, the higher elevations may see an increase in snow, leading to more avalanches.  

Scientists will present their findings on this research at the American Geophysical Union on Dec. 10. Read the abstract here.  

Wildlife Vocalizations: Elise Couillard 

December 10, 2024 by Elise Couillard

I would like the wildlife profession to change from focusing on wildlife management from the lens of species control to focusing on the human response to living among and with wildlife. 

A large section of the wildlife profession is focused on wildlife management and how humans can organize and coordinate efforts to control wildlife populations. Leadership at national, state/provincial and regional levels has become so consumed with how wildlife should fit conveniently into the human way of life and less concerned by how human behavior is often negatively impacting every ecosystem on the planet.  

Elise Couillard studying black-tailed prairie dogs at Wind Cave National Park in 2016. Credit: Brooke Stathis

Wildlife professionals can work toward combating human egotism by speaking out about and focusing on efforts to reduce plastic and energy consumption and pollution. We should be the leaders in recognizing that reducing our consumption and pollution will not only directly benefit wildlife and wildlands, but it will serve as a powerful catalyst for all humans to follow suit.  

As a nature interpreter guiding youngsters, I focused on correcting language—and hopefully mindsets—from “I caught it; it’s mine,” to “It exists,” and “I am responsible for that life, so how will I return it home safely?” We need not focus only on our actions but also on our words.  

The language we use can perpetuate the idea that humans sit atop an evolutionary pedestal, or it can perpetuate the current scientific evidence that we are purely another evolutionary branch placed beside other branches. This language includes dropping the phrase ‘the human world’ versus ‘the natural world.’  

There is only one world—we share it with everything. The world is not our playground. It’s not our greenspace to trash. It’s not “ours” at all. We are responsible for our behaviors, and we have not been charged with controlling wildlife. In fact, it is our responsibility to recognize that our behaviors have become so detrimental, we now exist among wildlife populations that are severely threatened—of the total species assessed by IUCN, a staggering 27% are considered threatened.  

Humans—especially those in the wildlife profession—have a duty within the next 10 years to be vocal and active in reducing the human footprint if we all want to continue to see and experience wildlife. This can be visibly achieved starting with professional conferences lie the TWS Annual Conference: no more plastic water bottles, no more excessive plastic waste, providing composting options and thinking about hosting organizations that use renewable energy. Humans need to take responsibility in the area of wildlife stewardship and not just manage other species for our convenience. 

Wildlife Vocalizations  is a collection of short personal perspectives from people in the field of wildlife sciences.   

Learn more about Wildlife Vocalizations, and read other contributions.  

Submit your story for Wildlife Vocalizations or nominate your peers and colleagues to encourage them to share their story. For questions, please contact tws@wildlife.org.  

Q&A: Regulating invasive terminology 

December 9, 2024 by Joshua Rapp Learn

Non-native species occur nearly everywhere in the world. They travel in ship cargo, escape from aquariums into nearby waterways and occasionally even float to new islands on top of hurricane debris.  

Many of these species don’t last long in their new home—the conditions usually aren’t right for them. Others thrive, filling ecological niches that native species don’t occupy, or outcompeting them in others. A subset of the latter species can cause serious issues to native species, human health and infrastructure, and native ecosystems as a whole.  

But how do scientists define these terms? When does a non-native species become invasive? And what constitutes an alien species?  

To delve more into these questions, The Wildlife Society connected with Ismael Soto, a PhD student at the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, who recently published a paper on the subject in Biological Reviews titled “Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science.” The Wildlife Society caught up Budějovice to find out how to tackle these questions.  

Why is it important to agree on terms “alien species,” “invasive species” or “non-native species?” 

In science—and everywhere—it is crucial to define terms clearly and understand their meanings. The use of polysemous—words with multiple meanings—and/or redundant terms in our field can hinder progress. I will start with “invasive.” This term is by far the most problematic, with an increasing number of definitions emerging each year. We have reached a point where we don’t truly understand what “invasive” means. For example, at a conference, if someone mentions they are working with the invasive species “X,” it is unclear whether they are referring to the species spreading, having a significant impact, both or neither, thus creating confusion. This ambiguity dilutes the useful potential of the word, which was initially intended to describe a subset of non-native species of particular concern. Furthermore, it appears that the terms “invasive” and “non-native” are now used synonymously, which they should not be. Probably the root of the problem lies in the three main ways of defining these terms—impact, spread, and impact and spread—each having its deficiencies.  

Regarding “alien/non-native,” the issue is simpler and of less concern. These terms are interchangeable as they share the same meaning. The problem with “alien” is that for some audiences, it might convey images of extraterrestrial beings like the classic green silhouette or subjects from the movie Alien vs. Predator. The main reason I avoid using “alien” is due to its strong negative connotations with things like immigration policies. Indeed, the term has been used for a long time, but as language evolves, we have to adapt to new contexts. “Non-native” is currently my preferred term, as it is not politically charged. 

Although I have my definitions and reasons for considering them the best, I do not claim they are the absolute truth. However, I believe in the necessity of clearly defining and limiting these terms. While a global consensus may seem naïve or impossible, there have been successful cases in related fields such as the Venice System, which is used to classify different types of water according to their salinity.  

When does a non-native species become an invasive species?  

The answer depends on who you ask, and this is because there are over 25 different definitions of “invasive.” While not all of these definitions are currently in use, they certainly contribute to confusion in the field. In my personal opinion, although it’s far from perfect, the term “invasive species” should be linked to the concept of “spread.” Therefore, I believe that an invasive species is a non-native species that spreads beyond its point of introduction and establishes new populations. However, I also acknowledge that some people have chosen to stop using the term due to the vagueness of the definitions we currently have. 

When does a non-native species become a native species? 

By definition, this should never happen. Even in cases of old invasions—whether dating back to colonialism or even ancient Australasian migrations—the effects of these invasions are still visible today. However, it is true that some non-native species have become part of the culture in certain region, such as with crayfish festivals, and as a result, little or no management is applied to them. Some people also refer to certain species as “naturalized,” meaning that the species can survive and reproduce. However, this is another controversial term with multiple definitions. 

Are there regulatory repercussions for not having a standardized set of definitions for these terms? 

Definitively, how can we manage these populations if we are unclear about the terms we are using? The concurrent definitions of several terms complicate our understanding and actions. Moreover, how should we prioritize these populations—based on impact, spread or both? A recent example from a colleague highlighted that in Australia, there is no unified list of non-native or invasive species, and the definitions—and therefore the terms—vary by state, leading to a lack of communication in the same country. Imagine this at a global scale. Another consideration, just as food for thought, is that our classifications of native, non-native or invasive species are often based on political borders, which are meaningless to the species themselves. This discrepancy can lead to curious anomalies. 

The IUCN has defined terms that many other countries also use—categories like “critically endangered” or “vulnerable.” Should the IUCN or a similar international regulatory body set guidelines for the meaning of invasive species terminology? 

All efforts to harmonize terminology are greatly welcomed, as I consider inconsistent definitions a critical issue. However, such efforts must be implemented on a global scale and take into account diverse perspectives and points of view, from early-career researchers to professors. Without this inclusive approach, the effort may prove fruitless or, even worse, lead to greater confusion. Or it may become just another failure to harmonize the terminology. 

What can be gained by improving the agreement on the definition of these terms? 

As we say in Spanish, “everything to win, nothing to lose.” A field that progresses in consensus will undoubtedly accelerate the rate of innovation, not merely by focusing on new ideas but by fostering a shared understanding. While these definitions should remain open to debate and not become dogmatic, we need solid arguments to support or challenge these discussions. Biological invasion is a global issue with complex solutions, if any. Thus, any effort we make to mitigate impacts and prevent future expansions is already an advancement. 

The state of lions, leopards and hyenas in Uganda 

December 9, 2024 by The Wildlife Society

The first comprehensive population estimate of Uganda’s lions, leopards and spotted hyenas in almost two decades has revealed that lion numbers in the country are extremely low. Leopards (Panthera pardus) are holding on across the country, and hyenas are faring well. In a collaboration involving more than 100 conservation stakeholders, researchers used spatial capture-recapture methods to look at the three species in six major protected areas in Uganda. The researchers uncovered that lions (Panthera leo) are declining, with fewer than 40 individuals in Queen Elizabeth National Park and 20 in Kidepo Valley National Park. Spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), on the other hand, are doing well throughout the country, particularly in Murchison Falls National Park. The researchers said these high numbers could potentially indicate a trophic imbalance. Uganda officials are already using the findings from this study in its new Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore Conservation.  

Read the study in Global Ecology and Conservation.  

Grassland conservation benefits American burying beetle 

December 6, 2024 by The Wildlife Society

Large-scale grassland conservation efforts have helped increase the threatened American burying beetle population.  

In a Working Lands for Wildlife-affiliated project, Caleb Roberts, a U.S. Geological Survey research ecologist and unit leader at the Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, studied population counts of the species taken by the Nebraska Game and Parks Department. He and his colleagues specifically looked at populations in the state’s Loess Canyons Experimental Landscape from 2007 to 2019.  

The research showed that maintaining intact, highly connected grasslands is the most effective way to conserve the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). Scale and spatially explicit conservation tactics were also important for managing for small species like the beetle, the team found. 

The American burying beetle’s range once included 25 U.S. states and even Canada. Today, most remaining populations live on privately owned grasslands in Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and South Dakota.  

First listed as federally endangered in 1989, the beetle’s status was changed to threatened in 2020. These nocturnal carrion beetles play an important role in ecology by helping recycle nutrients. Its presence or absence can also help land managers gauge the overall health of an ecosystem.  

Read more from Working Lands for Wildlife.  

Hawaiian crow released in Maui 

December 6, 2024 by The Wildlife Society

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and partners released five Hawaiian crows on Maui recently in an effort to return the species to its historical range. After years of preparation by the USFWS, Hawaii’s department of land and natural resources division of forestry and wildlife and the University of Hawaii, experts released two females and three males that had been in conservation centers for months. Also known as “alala,” Hawaiian crows (Corvus hawaiiensis) went extinct in the wild in 2002 due to habitat loss, predation and disease. “The translocation of alala to Maui is a monumental step forward in conserving the species and a testament to the importance of partnership in reversing biodiversity loss,” Megan Owen, vice president of conservation science at the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, told The Guardian.  

Read more in The Guardian.  

Invasive spotted lanternflies thrive in cities

December 5, 2024 by The Wildlife Society

Warm cities may provide the best conditions for the spread of invasive lanternflies. Spotted lanternflies (Lycorma delicatula), native to Asia, first arrived in the U.S. in 2014 in Pennsylvania. They have since spread across the Northeast and into the Midwest and Southeast. Scientists tapped into the citizen science platform iNaturalist to learn more about why the insects are doing so well in New York City. “Cities tend to have milder winters, creating favorable conditions for species that otherwise would only be able to live in hot, tropical climates,” said Kristin Winchell, an assistant professor of biology at New York University who studies ecology and evolution in urban environments, in a press release. “Cities are also highly connected places where trade happens, and organisms may end up on shipments in planes or boats traveling between cities.” After looking at nearly 20,000 photos of lanternflies taken between 2014 and 2022, the team found that nymph and adult lanternflies were showing up earlier each year and remaining active later. This longer active time means more time to reproduce and spread, Winchell said. Winchell and her colleagues hope this information can help with monitoring and mitigation of spotted lanternflies and other invasive species. 

Read the study in the Biological Journal of Linnean Society.