Notes on the Nunamiut Eskimo and Mammals of the Anaktuvuk Pass Region, Brooks Range, Alaska

Covers the physical attributes (physiography, climate and vegetation) of the Brooks Range, Alaska, as well as the Numamuit Eskimo people who lived there in the 1940s and before (including information about their livelihood, history, dwellings, clothing, food, transportation and hunting implements), and includes a list and description of the mammals that lived there (including shrews, grizzly bears, foxes, wolves, martens, ermines, weasels, minks, wolverines, otters, lynxes, hares, marmots, ground squirrels, red squirrels, lemmings, voles, beavers, porcupines, moose, caribou and sheep).

Management of Wolf-Livestock Conflicts in Minnesota

In 1975, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) population in Minnesota was protected by the federal Endangered Species Act (USA). At that time, there were 500-750 wolves. By 2004, the population had grown to an estimated 3,020 wolves. Over time, conflicts between wolves and livestock increased. Wolf depredation control programs have been conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1975-1986) and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program (1986 to present). In 1978, Minnesota’s wolves were reclassified from endangered to threatened which allowed authorized federal agents to lethally remove wolves that had depredated on livestock or pets. A State funded wolf compensation program was also established in 1978. Wildlife Services’ wolf damage management approach utilizes both nonlethal and lethal methods of control. Currently, wolf depredations are verified at 60-85 farms annually and 125-175 wolves are taken each year. Wolf compensation payments to livestock producers have averaged $67,111 per year during the past five years. Most livestock losses occur during spring and summer. Selective removal of depredating wolves, coupled with improvements in animal husbandry practices, has potential for reducing wolf-livestock conflicts. Minnesota’s wolf population is currently considered to be fully recovered and federal delisting is expected to occur in the near future.

WOLF CONTROL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

Up to 1949, the Fish and Game Branch employed personnel, some of whom were temporary, to attempt control of the extremely high wolf pop¬ulations of the central and northern portions of British Columbia. Coyotes were also very numerous in the central and southern regions and had to be considered because of their depredations. The field men were keen and conscientious but their efforts were not co-ordinated. Control areas were severely restricted in size as techniques were not adaptable enough and because of a lack of manpower. Eventually, sheepmen went out of business entirely over wide areas, cattlemen were subjected to huge annual losses, and sportsmen were very concerned. However, stock losses constituted the major complaint and resulted in ranchers demanding action* Two major changes came out of this. First, the bounty on wolves was raised and second, the present Predator Control Division was formed. The administration was convinced that a force of experienced, fully-trained field staff under a single supervision would be far more effective than bounty payments. Unfortunately, bounties were in vogue during that time and forced the necessity of proving the worth of organized controls before any consideration could be given to the elimination of the bounty system.

The Probe, Issue 206 – November 1999

Wildlife Damage Conferences: When, Where, and Why? -- Robert M. Timm, Editor, THE PROBE Booklet Review:"The Problem with Skunks!!" by Edward Kellems (34 pages, illustrated. $14.95) New NWCO Web Page url is http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/nwcoa.htm Abstracts from the 2nd International Wildlife Management Congress, Hungary Human Disturbance as a Design Factor to Aid Displacement of Canada Geese from Urban Parks -- P. C. Whitford, Biology Department, Capital University, Columbus, OH Leopard Problems in Nepal -- T. M. Maskey, National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Department, Kathmandu, Nepal Elk-human Conflict Management in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada -- J. A. McKenzie, Banff National Park Wildlife Laboratory The Avoidance of Virtual Barriers by Wolves in Captivity -- M. Musiani*, E. Visalberghi*, andL. Boitani, *CNR Psychology Institute, Rome, Italy Successful Field Trials of a New Slow-Release Capsaicin-Based Animal Repellent for Reducing a Variety of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Israel -- S. C. Nemtzov, Dept. of Terrestrial Ecology, The Nature and National Parks Protection Authority, Jerusalem, Israel Educational Workshops: A Proactive Approach to Conflict Resolution in Wildlife Management -- K. B. Reis, H. R. Campa III, R. B. Peyton, and S. Winterstein, Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Traps and Trapping in Sweden -- T. Svensson, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden Actual Problems of Predator Management in Hungary -- L. Szemethy, M. Heltai, and Z. Biro, Dept. of Wildlife Biology & Management, Godollo University of Agricultural Sciences, Godollo, Hungary Crop and Livestock Depredation by Wildlife -- N. Udaya Sekhar, Centre for Int'I. Environment & Development Studies, Aas, Norway Conservation of the Iberian Wolf in Portugal—The Everlasting Conflict with Man -- J. V. Vingada*, C. Eira, S. Scheich, C. Fonseca, M. Soares, F. L. Correia, M. Fana* P. Carmo, A. Ferreira, A. Soares, and B. Bobek. *Dept. deBiologia da Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, Portugal Barkpeeling Damage in Relation to Red Deer Density and Forest Structure in Austria -- F. H. Voelk, Institute of Wildlife Biology & Game Management, Universitaetfuer Bodenkultur Wien, Vienna, Austria Human-Wildlife Conflict Resolution: National Imperatives and Strategies -- P. 0. Wander a Kenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya An Overview and Evaluation of Deer Herd Management Programs in Urban and Suburban Communities of the USA -- R. J. Warren, Warnell School of Forest Resources, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA