Grizzly Bear Battles 4 Wolves

Grizzly bears and wolves have coexisted for millennia — but when food is scarce, these two apex predators must fight to survive.  Grizzly bears and wolves are both native to North America, sharing similar wilderness habitats across the Northwestern-most states, including Montana, Wyoming, and Washington. Harsh environments often result in food scarcity, where predators are forced to compete […]

Source: Grizzly Bear Battles 4 Wolves

Wallowa County: Dead wolves, cattle and the open range |

WALLOWA COUNTY – Wally Sykes and Rob Klavins thought if anyplace in Oregon would be a safe haven for wolves, it’d be this clearing deep inside the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Instead, Wallowa County’s foremost wolf supporters felt like they were standing in a cow pasture. The dry creek bed, amid cow pies and their associated aromas, seemed out of place within the 2.3 million-acre forest that encircles Enterprise and Joseph in the rough shape of a backward C. Remnants of a cow skeleton gleamed white nearby. “It should be a meandering crick,” Sykes said of the area that feeds Marr Creek before running north into Big Sheep Creek, the Imnaha River and the mighty Snake.For decades, ranchers have used the rugged area in northeastern Oregon to turn out cattle for grazing from spring to fall. Until recently, cows – and their owners — didn’t have to contend with one of nature’s apex predators – the gray wolf.

Source: Wallowa County: Dead wolves, cattle and the open range |

Gary Feest: Wolves are critical to healthy deer, and maybe human, population | Opinion |

Dear Editor: Europeans began settling Wisconsin in the early 1800s, and at the time as many as 3,000 to 5,000 wolves may have existed in the area. By 1950, less than 50 remained in extreme northern Wisconsin. A decade later, the animals were considered extinct in the state. In 1975, wolves were listed as a state endangered species as they began to recolonize along the Minnesota border. Wolves were not reintroduced into Wisconsin, but moved in on their own. The wolf population in Wisconsin is currently estimated to be around 900 or so. There is an artificially low number — 350 or less — that’s been touted as the “optimal” number of wolves that should be in the state.

Source: Gary Feest: Wolves are critical to healthy deer, and maybe human, population | Opinion |

Wild photography: Buck outswims hungry wolf in northern Alberta lake – Edmonton – CBC News

When a wolf swam after a mighty buck in the depths of a northern Alberta lake, David Smith was there to capture the rare sight, frame by frame.”The stag jumped out of the bush and the wolf jumped right in after it and tried to swim and bite it,” Smith said. “This probably went on for a minute and then the wolf turned around.”He probably realized it wasn’t going to have too much of an opportunity to kill this animal in the middle of the lake.”

Source: Wild photography: Buck outswims hungry wolf in northern Alberta lake – Edmonton – CBC News

Senator Tammy Duckworth’s Statement on the anti-gray wolf rider included in the (HELP) for Wildlife Act

Dear Neighbor,

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act. I appreciate you taking the time to make me aware of your concerns on this important matter.

When the historic Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into law in 1973, the gray wolf population in the United States was near extinction. Following years of careful management under the ESA, the gray wolf population steadily increased and gradually recovered to the point where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) attempted to remove certain subtypes of gray wolves from the agency’s endangered species list under a process known as delisting.

FWS efforts to roll back gray wolf protections began under the Bush Administration and continued through the Obama Administration. However, FWS efforts to delist the gray wolf have proven controversial. Several Federal Courts have found the FWS violated the ESA each time it sought to remove gray wolf protections, forcing the agency to reverse course.

Effective wildlife conservation policy decisions must be based on scientific facts and accurate data. This includes following the legal process established by the ESA to make sure delisting decisions are transparent, reasonable and supported by evidence – critical factors that FWS has failed to meet when it comes to protecting the gray wolf.

However, supporters of FWS’ efforts to delist the gray wolf have sought to bypass the long-standing process mandated by the ESA by attaching controversial riders to various bills that would simply force the delisting of the gray wolf and block any Federal Court from reviewing the action. The most recent example occurred when this type of anti-wolf provision was slipped into the bipartisan HELP for Wildlife Act.

The HELP for Wildlife Act should not be a controversial measure. This bipartisan bill is primarily composed of five critically important, yet non-controversial, reauthorizations of important wildlife conservation laws. Reauthorizing the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Act, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Great Lakes Fishery Research and Authorization Act is vital to restoring our Nation’s wetlands, preserving our freshwater fisheries, protecting wildlife habitats and safeguarding migratory birds.

In addition, the HELP for Wildlife Act includes critical funding increases for preserving and protecting the Great Lakes. Significantly increasing conservation funding will greatly enhance the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative’s ability to fulfill its mission, which includes preventing our Great Lakes from being overrun by a harmful invasive species, Asian Carp. Failure to stop Asian Carp will result in tragic, irreparable damage to the Great Lakes and threatens to forever destroy this magnificent habitat.

That is why I worked to make sure my amendment authorizing the Great Lakes Science Center was included in the bill. This authorization would restore basic fishery scientific research capabilities, promote the development of advanced technology to combat invasive species, support world-class aquatic laboratories that are vital to restoring native species and modernize general fishery management policy-making for the Great Lakes.

I was deeply disappointed that a slim majority of members on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee succeeded in forcing the inclusion of the anti-gray wolf rider language in the HELP for Wildlife Act. Since entering Congress, I have consistently opposed and voted against these anti-gray wolf efforts. That is why I voted to remove the gray wolf delisting requirement when the Committee considered the HELP for Wildlife Act and was dismayed when our pro-wolf amendment fell one vote short of adoption.

I understand why some urged me to vote against advancing the HELP for Wildlife Act over the gray wolf delisting mandate, no matter how much valuable, pro-conservation policy was also included in this comprehensive legislative package. However, I was not willing to risk the reauthorization of critical conservation laws. After careful consideration, I agreed to support advancing the bill to the full Senate for further debate and consideration, while remaining committed to fighting the inclusion of the harmful gray wolf delisting requirement in the final version of the bill.

My willingness to compromise and work in a bipartisan manner to advance the HELP for Wildlife Act out of committee should not be viewed as support for delisting the gray wolf. I strongly opposed, and will continue to oppose, including this controversial requirement in what is otherwise a non-controversial package of critically important conservation measures. As your Senator, I have made my opposition to the gray wolf delisting requirement clear to leadership in both parties. Please know that I will work to remove this rider from the HELP for Wildlife Act before the Senate considers and debates the bill on the floor.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. If you would like more information on my work in the Senate, please visit my website at You can access my voting record and see what I am doing to address today’s most important issues. I hope that you will continue to share your views and opinions with me and let me know whenever I may be of assistance to you.


Tammy Duckworth
United States Senator