The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Wildlife Services (WS) program in Montana recently co-sponsored a workshop, Non-lethal Predator Damage Management, in Dillon, Montana. Bringing producers together during this season was an efficient way to reach a large audience with information about locally appropriate protection methods.   WS is committed to resolving predation problems in a way that supports the program’s public trust responsibilities while assisting farmers and ranchers.

Image Credit: USDA Wildlife Services, John Steuber

Wildlife is a valued natural resource collectively owned by the people and managed in trust for them by a variety of government agencies. Predation management is a shared responsibility among producers and government agencies, with WS tasked with resolving damage issues.

WS often provides information to individual producers, who typically employ nonlethal strategies such as fencing and protection animals to reduce livestock vulnerability. Dillon and the surrounding area are known for large-scale cattle production in a predator-rich environment. Local predators include wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, mountain lions, and coyotes. Thus, producers were especially interested in sessions on carcass composting and methods to establish that service. Discussions of different range-rider programs, depending on size of the herds and properties, were also valuable.

Federal and State wildlife agencies, including Wildlife Services, manage wolf and grizzly bear damage in the Northern Rocky Mountain region. Wildlife Services typically is asked to conduct predator removal when necessary and when nonlethal methods are ineffective or inapplicable. Relationships among various agencies, stakeholders and producers are, and will continue to be, critical as predation-related problems continue to increase along with expanding gray wolf and grizzly bear populations.

Image Credit: USDA Wildlife Services

Workshops, such as this one, help the realization that an integrated wildlife damage management approach, which employs a variety of methods, is typically the most successful. Appreciating there is no single protection strategy, producers and other stakeholders can maintain a tolerance for the challenges faced in developing a landscape that allows for coexistence of predators and livestock.

Montana State University Cooperative Extension in Beaverhead County co-sponsored this workshop. Additional sessions are being planned with adjusted topics depending on the area’s agricultural resources and predators.

Wildlife Services, through the National Wildlife Research Center, continues to research and develop non-lethal strategies for varied wildlife damage situations. Forums like this workshop can share information on the effectiveness and limitations of non-lethal management resources with producers and other stakeholders as they are developed.

Pennsylvania residents are concerned about the management and conservation of nongame wildlife species and support a variety of funding sources, according to a new survey conducted for the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

Provided by Responsive Management

“This survey was conducted to assess the public’s interest in nongame wildlife and the management of species of greatest conservation need, particularly threatened and endangered species,” said Catherine Haffner, the project lead and a wildlife biologist with the state’s game commission.

It has long been known that some residents favor the conservation of larger, well-known game species. But this study shows that a majority of residents in Pennsylvania also believe the conservation of amphibians, reptiles and other species they can often find near their homes is also important.

Another study conducted by the two commissions in 2005 shows that these nongame species including birds, small mammals and other species, account for 75 percent of the wildlife species in Pennsylvania.

Survey respondents had to indicate how important different functions of the commissions were. Residents were most concerned about the conservation and management of threatened or endangered species and the availability of fishing opportunities. Further, managing and conserving nongame wildlife was somewhat or very important for 87 percent of respondents and very important for 67 percent. In 1996 a similar survey found that only 49 percent of respondents found nongame conservation and management very important.

Provided by Responsive Management

The survey also asked residents about the importance of more detailed functions of management and conservation and found that addressing wildlife diseases and enforcing wildlife laws were the two most important things for respondents out of a number of more specific categories that also included categories like educating the public about the state’s nongame wildlife. Of these, reintroducing nongame species that once existed in the state found the least support.

In terms of funding for the conservation of nongame wildlife, a majority of respondents supported every source of money except a federal excise tax on outdoor equipment related to nongame wildlife-related recreation. The funding source that the highest number of respondents supported was a collector’s conservation stamp with 81 percent, followed by funds from fishing license fees and a small percentage of revenue from gaming, each at 74 percent. Only 49 percent of respondents supported the excise tax on outdoor equipment related to nongame wildlife-related recreation.

Provided by Responsive Management

The study, conducted by Responsive Management for the state commissions, was done through telephone surveys of 3,660 residents and spread over all 18 of the Pennsylvania’s congressional districts. The margin of sampling error is a maximum plus or minus 1.62 percentage points.

Haffner said that the survey will go to inform the ongoing revision of Pennsylvania’s State Wildlife Action Plan, “a comprehensive conservation blueprint” to conserve or improve the situation of species of greatest concern and their habitats.

She said the results of the survey will be reflected in the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan, and that the commission will “strive to increase the public’s awareness of the critical concerns for wildlife through conservation agencies and partners.”

“Wildlife’s future is tied directly to the actions of resource managers and the public. Awareness, education, and public involvement and participation have never been more important.”

This is a map of New Zealand identifying the locations of the principal Regional Acclimatisation Societies.
Image Credit: Pavel Pipek

Introducing foreign species into new regions has long been fraught with problems but researchers have found a way to track some of the long-term consequences of the establishment of a new species.

A study published recently in Neobiota uses 19^th century newspapers and documents to track the introduction of the yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella) from regions around Brighton, England to New Zealand.

As part of the study, researchers found that the bird was initially brought in in the mid-19^th century to try to bring pest insects under control after many of the native New Zealand birds were eliminated with the clearing of forests. However, public perception turned against the yellowhammers over a course of 15 years as people realized the birds fed predominantly on valuable seeds rather than insects like caterpillars and black field crickets.

This image shows the number of imports and liberations of yellowhammers in the Auckland region in 1871 (likely scenario).
Image Credit: Pavel Pipek

The researchers dug through data that included nearly precise information about the number of birds released through shipments and where exactly they were released during the 1860s and 1870s. But the last shipment of yellowhammers that arrived in 1880 was never released as public pressure forced the so-called Acclimatisation Society that was created for the purpose of introducing new animals and plant species to the islands of New Zealand to get rid of the birds.

The yellowhammer was subsequently the target of hunting, egg-collection and poisoning, but none of it was successful in removing the established bird from New Zealand and they remain part of the fauna today.

Authors of the study said that this kind of detective work can show us some of the ways that some species are successful in establishing populations in new regions and could points possible ways to stop new harmful invaders from spreading.

Research sleuths from the University of Washington and India’s Tata Institute of Fundamental Research used clues from leopard (panthera pardus) DNA to identify leopard-poaching hotspots in India, according to a paper published online in Conservation Biology.

“To understand the dynamics of illegal poaching and trade of species such as the leopard, it is critical to determine the geographic origin of confiscated parts,” wrote the study’s lead author Samrat Mondol of the University of Washington. “However, detecting the origin of seized wildlife body parts is challenging, especially for a widely distributed species such as leopards.” Leopards roam throughout Africa and tropical Asia, with illegal wildlife trade reaching from India to Myanmar, Laos, Nepal and China.

In order to determine where illegally traded leopard parts — and the leopards that those parts belonged to — originally came from within India, Mondol and a team of researchers first created a genetic roadmap of sorts. They extracted DNA from the blood and fecal samples of 173 leopards living in the wild. They also recorded the geographic location of where they collected those samples in order to match the animal’s DNA with its location. After analyzing the DNA samples, the researchers were able to create a genetic roadmap showing which genetic variations in leopard DNA were associated with which geographic regions in India.

Using the genetic roadmap as a reference, the researchers tried to determine where leopard body parts seized by wildlife enforcement agencies in Karnataka state in Southwest India originally came from. They found that the body parts belonged to 40 leopards. Once the researchers analyzed the leopards’ DNA, they were able to compare those results to the genetic roadmap and determine which regions those leopards lived in before poachers killed them.

Poaching is a threat to leopard populations in India. TRAFFIC, a wildlife trade monitoring network, estimated poachers slaughtered at least four leopards each week in India during the first ten years of the millennium—that’s more than 2,000 leopards killed in one country in a decade. As organizations such as TRAFFIC aggregate data from wildlife enforcement agencies, they can shed light on wildlife trafficking operations. For example, they found more than a quarter of India’s illegally traded leopard products — most of which were skins and bones — were seized in Delhi in northern India, a hub of illegal trade.

But illegal trade is only one piece of the puzzle. In fact, Mondol and his team’s research suggests that illegal trade hotspots are not necessarily the same as wildlife poaching hotspots. Though the body parts were seized in Karnataka, researchers found that the leopards originally lived anywhere from 190 to 1,000 miles away, suggesting that while Karnataka is likely a shipping route in the Southwest and trading hubs are in the North, the actual hotspot for wildlife poaching is in central India.

Mondol suggests that future research could expand on the reference map in order to distinguish between leopards from various continents. This could help enforcement agencies distinguish between leopards from Asia and those from Africa, where some trophy hunting is legal. Identifying poaching hotspots can also help wildlife enforcement agencies decide where to focus their limited resources.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has issued a final rule granting endangered status to the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Mexican wolf subspecies was originally listed as endangered in 1976. The entire gray wolf species was later listed in 1978. The subspecies was incorporated in the gray wolf Southwest recovery plan, which dissolved the initial Mexican wolf listing. This new rule creates a separate entry for Mexican wolves under the ESA.

FWS also issued a final rule revising the regulations regarding management of the experimental Mexican wolf population, which is part of recovery efforts for the subspecies, in Arizona and New Mexico. The rule modifies the geographic boundaries for the experimental population and outlines procedures for reintroducing captive individuals to the wild. The plan aims to increase the population from the current 83 individuals to a goal of 300 to 325 individuals. The rule is aimed to balance between updating an outdated recovery plan and addressing concerns about the impact increased wolf populations may have on ungulate and livestock herds. This is the first major update to the plan since 1998.

The rule also clarifies when nonlethal and lethal measures are allowed to control problematic wolves that impact livestock as well as reporting guidelines for any unintentional take. It also provides allowances for control of wolves that have impacted ungulate herds if several provisions outlined in the plan have been met.

Some environmental groups have criticized the rule, noting that while an increase in geographic boundaries is positive, the population cap is too low and allows too many provisions for authorized take. State agencies have also opposed proposed management of the experimental population. In the past, the Arizona Game and Fish Department has stated that Mexican wolf recovery efforts need to be directed at re-establishing the subspecies within its historic range, which is mostly south of the U.S. border.

The plan will be implemented beginning in February. End-of-year counts will be used to estimate progress. Evaluation of population growth rates, impacts to wild ungulate herds, and adverse human-wolf interactions will occur 5 and 8 years after the plan’s implementation. Fish and Wildlife Service states that it plans to revise management actions if the wolf population exceeds the set goal of 325, with a preference for translocation of wolves to other populations.

Both the final listing of the Mexican wolves under the ESA and the final rule for the changes in regulation for the experimental population are available on the Federal Register.

Sources: E&E News PM (January 12, 2015), Greenwire (January 8, 2015)

The most endangered chimpanzee subspecies, the Nigeria-Cameroon (Pan troglodytes ellioti), not only faces threats of logging, agriculture, and illegal hunting, but a recent study shows that climate change also poses a threat to the animal’s habitat.

With 6,000 individuals in the wild, the Nigeria-Cameroon is the smallest of the four chimpanzee subspecies. Paul Clee, a graduate research fellow and author of the study published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, is part of one of very few research teams that studies this subspecies. As part of their research, the team observed the chimps in the wild and mapped their geographic locations based on reports of sightings. Researchers also noted evidence of activity including nests and tools, and collected fecal and hair samples for genetic analyses. Further, Clee, a GIS specialist, used niche modeling to determine that there are two populations of Nigeria-Cameroon chimps that are genetically distinct, even though they are part of the same subspecies. He found that the two genetically distinct groups exist in different geographical areas; one in the mountainous rainforests of the Northwest highlands and the other in central Cameroon, which is a mixture of forest, woodland and savanna.

“The research included GPS coordinates where the chimps exist combined with map layers of climate, precipitation and human population differences in habitat,” he said. “We took these two bits of information and created models of suitable habitats for the chimpanzees.”

The research showed that of the two genetically distinct groups, the Nigeria-Cameroon chimps in the ecotone habitat of central Cameroon were the most genetically connected to their habitat and most vulnerable to climate change.

Next, the team determined how climate change will affect these chimps in the future. They combined the population data with environmental characteristics of location including climate, slope, vegetation and tree cover to determine how habitat drives the distribution of the Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzees.

Researchers travel down the Djerem River in central Cameroon to a field site in Mbam et Djerem National Park.
Image Credit: Paul Sesink Clee A researcher collects a chimpanzee fecal sample from the forest floor in Mbam et Djerem National Park for genetic analysis.
Image Credit: Matthew W. Mitchell A Nigeria-Cameroon chimp was rescued from illegal animal trafficking, and now lives in the Limbe Wildlife Center in Cameroon.
Image Credit: Paul Sesink Clee Researchers analyze climate data to help determine the effects of climate change on the Nigeria-Cameroon chimps’ habitat.
Image Credit: Mary Katherine Gonder Researchers process chimpanzee fecal samples for genetic analyses.
Image Credit: George Ghamu

Clee and his research team predicted climate change scenarios for the years 2020, 2050, and 2080 based on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, taking into consideration the use of fossil and non-fossil fuels, human population growth, and environmental protection efforts.

“We can shift the habitat using the same modeling techniques to project into the future under different scenarios,” Clee said. “We found that the population within the ecotone of central Cameroon, separated by two rivers, is particularly under threat to climate change.”

Because the chimps in this ecotone are most reliant on their habitat, their population is most threatened. They are predicted to rapidly decline by the year 2020 and under the worst case scenario, can possibly disappear by 2080. Since about half of the Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzees exist in this ecotone, and the population is already scarce, the research concludes that the Nigeria-Cameroon subspecies is greatly threatened.

Still, this does not necessarily mean that these chimps are doomed.

“It sounds really dismal but the models don’t account for adaptation or migration,” Clee said. “There is a chance that even with impeding climate change, they can migrate or adapt.”

He also said that although it is important to pay attention to the effects of climate change on the chimps, there are other things to take into consideration.

“There are more immediate threats to chimps including habitat loss by logging, agricultural, and hunting of primates for their meat in Central Africa,” he said. “This is all compounded by population growth of humans. Climate change is a big deal and chimps can lose their habitat, but there are so many other factors that are present as well.”

This video from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department shows a herd of bison (B. b. bison) with their playful babies at Caprock Canyon State Park in the north of the state. The animals are part of the official herd of the state of Texas numbering around 85 individuals, according to an article published last March on a local news site, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. The bison are descended from a herd conserved on the private ranch of the late Charles Goodnight in the 19^th century. His JA Ranch donated the remaining animals to the TPWD in 1996. They were subsequently relocated to the state park and declared the state’s official bison herd.