June 14, 2013 by Beckie Elgin, Freelance Writer

Federal De-Listing, Why it Should Not Happen

Last week’s proposal by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to remove all wolves, other than the Mexican wolf, from the Federal Endangered Species List has raised the hackles of those who believe the value of the ESA is being undermined by the self interest of a handful of politicians, hunters and ranchers.

I’m sharing with you a letter written by Jim, Jamie, and Garrick Dutcher of Living with Wolves, that appeared as an op-ed in the New York Times on June 7, 2013. Their wise words convey the multitude of reasons why the proposal is unwarranted.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS

Don’t Forsake the Gray Wolf

<nyt_byline>

By JIM DUTCHER, JAMIE DUTCHER and GARRICK DUTCHER

Published: June 7, 2013

KETCHUM, Idaho — IT has been celebrated as one of the great victories of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. After several decades of federal protection, gray wolves — once nearly wiped out in the continental United States — have reached a population of roughly 6,100 across three Great Lakes states and seven Western states.

Enlarge This Image

Dasha Tolstikova

But this success has been only partial. The centuries-old war against wolves continues to rage, particularly in states where the species has lost federal protection in recent years, as management of wolf populations was turned over to the states.

On Friday, the federal Fish and Wildlife Service put forward a proposal that would make matters even worse. It proposed stripping the remaining federal protections for the gray wolf in the rest of the United States (with the exception of the extremely rare Mexican gray wolf in Arizona and New Mexico). Removing gray wolves from the national endangered species list in the areas where they are still protected would be a mistake. The protections should remain, so that the species can continue its recovery and expand its range, just as the bald eagle and the alligator were allowed to do.

The new proposal, which will be open for a 90-day public comment period, is the latest step in the federal government’s effort to turn wolf management entirely over to the states and wash its hands of the animal, which has long been in the cross hairs of powerful hunting and livestock interests.

Wolves are already under state rather than federal control in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, which are home to about 97 percent of the gray wolves in the lower 48 states. Wolf management in those states is often driven by politics, and wolves are being killed at alarming rates in the name of sport in all but Michigan.

For instance, most of the nearly 1,700 wolves surviving in the West lived in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming at the end of 2012. Those states now have recreational hunting and trapping seasons, and in the past two years, nearly 1,200 wolves have been killed. Nearly 400 more were killed for attacking livestock.

Wolves are highly social. They live in packs, which for the most part are extended families of parents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters, all sharing in the tasks of sustaining and providing for the whole. Their teamwork and intelligence fascinate researchers, but throughout history, in folklore and fairy tales, wolves have been portrayed as voracious and formidable, cunning and sinister. If you really want to understand wolves, though, consider the dog. Studies analyzing mitochondrial DNA have concluded that dogs are derived from wolves and are closely related. In most ways, they are the same genetically, behaviorally and emotionally.

Last year, wolves killed 645 of the estimated 7 million cattle and sheep in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Those wolves can be killed legally; a federal fund also compensates farmers and ranchers for their losses. But these predators are critical components of the ecosystem, a so-called keystone species. Their presence can keep populations of browsing animals in check and on the move, allowing vegetation to regenerate. They are true ecological assets, but not if they are reduced to ecologically irrelevant numbers.

The problem is that wolf management continues to be hijacked by hunting and livestock interests.

Of the six states with the vast proportion of the wolf population, only Michigan has yet to hold a hunt, but one is now slated for November. A measure to protect the wolves will be on next year’s ballot, but Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, recently signed a law that could make the outcome meaningless.

In Idaho, hunters and trappers killed 698 wolves in the last two seasons — more than the estimated population of 683 wolves in the state at the end of 2012. In more than 80 percent of Wyoming, anyone can kill as many wolves as they wish, without a license. Hunters and trappers in Montana will each be allowed to kill up to three wolves this winter. (In Idaho, the number is 10.) Beginning this fall, hunters in Wisconsin can use dogs to track and chase wolves — a scenario that all but amounts to state-sanctioned animal fighting.

Where management has been transferred to the states, America’s wolves have fallen under an assault of legislation, bullets and traps. A conservation victory is quickly turning into a conservation tragedy. Now the Obama administration is proposing to remove virtually all remaining protections. Have we brought wolves back for the sole purpose of hunting them down?

Jim Dutcher and his wife, Jamie, are the producers of the documentary film “Living With Wolves” and the authors of “The Hidden Life of Wolves.” They founded the conservation organization Living With Wolves, where Mr. Dutcher’s son, Garrick, is the program director.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 8, 2013, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Don’t Forsake the Gray Wolf.

photo by Living with Wolves

June 4, 2013 by Beckie Elgin, Freelance Writer

Yellowstone Revisited

Where are the wolves?

This was the question asked by our group of wolf advocates as well as many visitors we spoke with at the park. When I first visited Yellowstone National Park (YNP) in October, also with the Wolves of the Rockies crew, we saw wolves each day we were out. Of course, this is denning season so one expects wolves to be less visible, but there is much more behind their absence than this.

According to a recent statement made by Yellowstone National Park, “The number of wolves in the northern portion of Yellowstone decreased from 94 in December 2007 to 34 by December 14, 2012 due to wolves killing each other, food stress, disease, and human-caused mortality inside and outside the park. Park-wide, the number of wolves in Yellowstone declined from 171 in December 2007 to 82 in December 2012 due to the same reasons.”

Some reports state there are as few as 20 to 25 mature wolves remaining in the northern area of the park, with only 3 adults left in the Lamar Canyon pack. No wonder we weren’t spotting wolves in the Lamar Valley. There are currently twice as many in Oregon than in what is known as the American Serengeti, traditionally the best place anywhere to see wolves in the wild.

The Park Service plan was, and still is, to allow wolves in Yellowstone to maintain a natural existence, devoid of human interference. As much as possible that is. But they have also made it clear that once wolves trot over the invisible border of YNP into the shooting range of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, “The Park Service has no management authority over wildlife outside the park.“

So when the dozen Yellowstone wolves were legally shot this season, half of them collared, and the deaths affecting 7 out of 10 packs, there wasn’t much the Park could do.

But cries erupted from elsewhere in the world. Outside Magazine, in an article about the death of the much loved Alpha female ’06, wrote, “The news was picked up by the New York Times (which ran three stories about the killing), ABC News, NPR, the Los Angeles Times, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Guardian in Britain, and London’s Daily Mail.”

832F, better known as 06

Wolf advocacy groups hollered as well. Wolves of the Rockies and many others lobbied the wildlife commissioners for a safe zone at the northern edge of the park, near Gardiner. This was granted, and we rejoiced until three weeks later a Montana judge overturned the ruling and the buffer zone was removed.

Buffer zones are essential to protecting wolves in our National Parks. This year, Alaska’s Denali NP reported an all time low of only 48 wolves. This is due at least in part to the 2010 removal of a trap-free and hunt-free area surrounding the park. Wolf pelts bring at least $100, a sad incentive for many to continue trapping.

Meanwhile, wolves surrounding YNP have also suffered significant losses. According to the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Idaho has reported 317 killed, Wyoming 42, and Montana 225–with plans underway to significantly reduce populations in the next season. So much for the theory of appeasing hunters by allowing them to take a few wolves. They are taking as many as they possibly can, and still want more.

Last week’s trip was wonderful in many ways. Friendships were sealed, strategies to help wolves were discussed until late in the night. We rose early (some earlier than others) and enjoyed our time in the park. We saw bear, both blacks and grizzlies, coyote, otter, a confrontation between a mother fox and a raiding badger. We hiked along lovely lakes and beside marmot communities, and we watched raptors and pronghorn and elk and bison through our binoculars. Yet for most of us, the absence of wolves was deeply felt.

Scarface, Yellowstone grizzly. Photo by Lorenza Cook, Wolves of the Rockies

Invariably, I feel a need to instill hope, both for myself and others. One of many long discussion I had with Kc York, tireless supporter for the anti-trapping group Footloose Montana, sewed new seeds for optimism in our battle to protect wolves and other wildlife, as well as other maligned entities. Kc and I discussed how, because people have fought hard for what is right, our world has changed in many positive ways, and many of these victories have happened in our lifetime.

For example, the national child labor law to protect minors was finally passed in 1938, just after the depression. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was enacted in 1974. In 2007 NFL star Michael Vick spent 21 months in prison for his involvement with a dog fighting ring, a widespread crime that goes unpunished more often than not. And in 2009 the Lily Ledbetter Act was signed into effect, extending workers (usually women) the right to collect for wages that had been lost due to discrimination. There are many more success stories, and it does us good to recall them.

As it does to imagine that in the foreseeable future we may well live in a country that decries atrocities like trapping and trophy hunting. Things can change. The majority of us already know the cruelty inherent to these forms of “recreation.” And if we keep talking, keep campaigning, and keep fighting, we will change history for the better.

Find your way to contribute, be it with educating others, supporting worthy nonprofits, speaking up at local hearings, petitioning, writing, making calls, whatever. Just don’t give up!

This link to Wolves of the Rockies website details one way to speak out in support of Montana wolves.

Photo by Steve Clevidence. Two Lamar Canyon adults

The last three adult Lamar Canyon wolves. Photo by Steve Clevidence, ranching adviser to Living with Wolves

May 29, 2013 by Beckie Elgin, Freelance Writer

What’s Ahead For Oregon Wolves?

Oregon, the state I’m happy to call home, is a land of contrasts. We have lush rain forests on the Pacific Coast. We have vast acres of high desert in our interior. Our state hosts a wide array of wild creatures, from tiny newts to 80,000 pound grey whales that migrate past our coast.

Our humans are diverse as well. The islands of Ashland, Eugene, and Portland are largely comprised of liberal-minded individuals while the rural areas, especially to the east, lean toward a more conservative mentality. In the 1920′s the Oregon KKK boasted a membership of 35,000. Sadly, our state remains a holdout for white supremacists. Yet we’re also the first to legalize physician assisted suicide and our vote has gone Democratic in every presidential and gubernatorial election since 1988.

It was a diverse group that came together to create Oregon’s new and innovative wolf management plan. Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild, The Oregon Cattleman’s Association, Governor Kitzhauber, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) set aside a long history of differences to make this happen. Rob Klavins of Oregon Wild tells me this is the first time he has seen legitimate compromise between conservationists and the livestock industry in our state.

But compromise means compromise so not everyone will be happy. The livestock industry will now be held accountable for proving they are using non-lethal measures if they seek assistance from the state in removing problem wolves. Previously, their word was sufficient. Under the new plan their efforts will be available to an inquiring public, as will be any decision made by the ODFW to kill a depredating wolf. As Klavins says, this is a “huge step forward in prioritizing nonlethal measures.”

Perhaps this will prevent a future reenactment of Washington’s Wedge pack situation, where an entire pack was taken out by their Fish and Wildlife staff last September. This action came about suddenly and without what most would consider a proper public airing.

On the other hand, those that do not believe any wolf should be killed to protect the livestock industry may well be disappointed. Some members of the Imnaha pack in Northeast Oregon have already three proverbial strikes against them, leaving only one until they can be legally killed. This means that if OR 4, the black patriarch of the pack preys on one more cow before July 28th ODFW will have the right to decide if he will be lethally removed.

OR 4

However, the new plan is much more reasonable in regards to depredations. The former plan allowed only two depredations in an undetermined amount of time, while the current one states a wolf cannot be lethally removed unless it is proven to have been involved in four livestock losses in a six month period. Therefore, if OR 4 and other Imnaha pack members keep their noses clean, one strike will be removed on July 28th, and so on until they could eventually have a clean slate. This seems reasonable and it allows for ranchers to find better ways to prevent problems without resorting to the usual reflex of lethally removing the wolves.

As Rob Klavins said in our phone conversation yesterday, “It is the responsibility of ODFW to conserve wildlife for all Oregonians.” Therefore, the 70% polled that want wolves in our state should have as much say as the handful that don’t. With the new plan in effect wolves stand a chance. And those that admire them can know that, while things aren’t perfect, at least we are being heard.

Check out these links to Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands websites containing a thorough description of the new wolf management plan. We have much to be grateful for and these two groups should be on top of our list. With their persistence, hard work, and ability to compromise, Oregon wolves may face a much brighter future.

OR 5, Female Imnaha pack

May 24, 2013 by Beckie Elgin, Freelance Writer

Grey Wolves and the ESA, What’s Next?

The recent news that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has halted their plans to remove the grey wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) imparts a feeling of guarded hope.

Defenders of Wildlife

Why the indefinite delay was ordered is unclear, but perhaps the pressure exerted by the general public, government officials and wildlife biologists has had an effect.

Last week, a letter sent to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell from Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva urged the pause on delisting to be made permanent. Grijalva states, ”Now is the time to support full wolf recovery, not shut down our efforts.”

Other letters in support of the grey wolf have also made their way to Jewell’s office. One from the American Society of Mammologists explains that the society members anticipate the day when wolves no longer need federal protection, but they add, “… we believe it is premature to declare that that day has arrived.”

Sixteen scientists from around the globe, who have a vested interest in the decision because, “Collectively, we represent many of the scientists responsible for the research referenced in the draft rule,” sent Jewell a letter as well. Their response details the lack of evidence for taking wolves off the Endangered Species List. This letter also explains that the Pacific wolf population should be seen as a distinct population, partly due to the fact that genetic studies have shown that some of these wolves are comprised of stock from the rare coastal British Columbia wolves. The sixteen scientists argue that while the Mexican grey wolf should certainly be protected by Federal Law, there must be a specific geographic area designated to keep them safe in. The letter also doubts the reasoning behind the proposal to prematurely name Canis lupus lyacon (Eastern grey wolf) as a separate species.

Thousands have emailed Jewell in a plea to keep the wolf on the Endangered Species List. This move won’t help wolves in areas where they are already controlled by the states, but the ruling is crucial for the rest of the country, including Oregon and Washington, where wolf populations are just beginning to stabilize. So far, no state government has stood up to protect their wolves. It is doubtful that any will, expect perhaps California where a move is underway to maintain the grey wolf under their own Endangered Species Act.

This is a crucial moment not only for the grey wolf but for the future interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. As Garrick Dutcher of Living with Wolves says, “Wise forward-thinking policy brought wolves back and advancing science has revealed and recorded the central role wolves play in restoring vitality to ecosystems. But today, science may be forced to take a back seat as political decisions once again threaten to shift policy out of their favor. For all the successes of the Endangered Species Act, the true test of its brawn is knocking at the door. Will the entrenched land use issues that saw the original demise of America’s wolves prevail as they once again are hunted, trapped and snared to ecologically irrelevant numbers? Or will wolves be allowed to achieve a real recovery?”

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has delayed the delisting due to external pressure we have reason to feel hopeful. However Defenders of Wildlife’s Suzanne Asha Stone reminds us, “Don’t trust this pause in the storm. It is only the calm eye in the middle of the hurricane. Time to pump up the volume even more.”

When I inquired as to what you and I can do to help, Suzanne replied. “…call, write, yell, plead, and beg with Secretary Jewell, and anyone in congress or the White House who will listen.

We can’t let this good news allow for complacency. Contact Jewell at the Department of the Interior, through Defenders of Wildlife or another proactive non-profit. Peruse the excellent website of Center For Biological Diversity for more ways to make sure your voice is heard.

Photo courtesy of Living with Wolves

May 5, 2013 by Beckie Elgin, Freelance Writer

Amaroq Weiss On Wolves in the Pacific Northwest

The following article by Amaroq Weiss appeared in the Sacramento Bee last month. I’m sharing it so you won’t miss the useful information and the far sighted thinking Weiss reveals here. We still have a chance in Oregon and California to provide a better future for wolves, one that implements science and minimizes fear-based decisions. Let’s work together in speaking up for wolves and supporting organizations such as Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Wild, and the Pacific Wolf Coalition.

Viewpoints: State’s wolf management plan could set tone for U.S.

California resident Amaroq Weiss, a biologist and former attorney who has been working to recover wolves in the West for 16 years, is West Coast Wolf Organizer for the Center for Biological Diversity. Reach her ataweiss@biologicaldiversity.org

By Amaroq Weiss
Special to The Bee

Published: Sunday, Apr. 7, 2013 – 12:00 am | Page 5E

Last Modified: Sunday, Apr. 7, 2013 – 2:15 pm

During the 15 months the wolf known as OR7 has crisscrossed the Oregon-California border, the news from his birthplace back in Eastern Oregon has shaken the boots off some of those holding most tightly to deeply rooted misperceptions about the ability of wolves to coexist on the landscape with the rest of us.

In the two years since a lawsuit stopped the state of Oregon from killing wolves, the state’s fledgling wolf population has doubled to nearly 50. Yet in Wallowa County, where the majority of Oregon’s wolf-livestock conflicts are reported each year, fatal wolf attacks on livestock have fallen by 60 percent as ranchers and agencies were forced to rely on nonlethal conflict-prevention methods.

At the same time in neighboring Idaho, where over the last two years hunters, trappers and state agents have killed more than 700 wolves, the number of sheep and cattle killed by wolves increased by more than 75 percent.

In fact, those trends reflect exactly what biologists and wolf experts have been telling anyone who would listen since wolves became one of the first animals to be protected by the Endangered Species Act when it was passed, 40 years ago: Tried-and-true, centuries-old nonlethal wolf management techniques such as range-riding, livestock-guarding dogs and appropriate fencing greatly reduce predation by wolves on livestock.

And it reinforces the fact that killing wolves and leaving behind orphaned pups and dispersed packs actually increases the chances of livestock being killed, because once the order of the pack is destroyed, so is the natural pack discipline of teaching younger wolves to kill natural prey such as deer and elk, leaving lone wolves with no choice but to take down the easiest prey they can find to survive.

Those lessons come at a valuable time for Californians during the current public comment period, which ends in May, on whether we should protect wolves under the state Endangered Species Act.

It reminds us that as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service moves toward dropping federal protections for wolves in the lower 48 states, we have a great opportunity to build a wolf management plan that sets a national example of how wolves can coexist with human endeavors.

Wolf experts have long said California has hundreds of thousands of acres of excellent wolf habitat. Of course, California is also the nation’s most populated state and home to a thriving livestock industry of more than 6 million cattle and sheep.

With 163,000 square miles, California is the nation’s third-largest state, behind only Alaska and Texas. And that means we’re in a great position to share the land we’ve inherited with the species we purposefully killed off in California and many other western states.

The return of wolves to California is a promising event for many of us fortunate enough to make our home here in the Bear Republic, where the state flag, featuring an image of the state’s last known grizzly, says a lot about how we see ourselves.

Like residents of the other 49 states, we, too, are concerned about jobs, taxes, education, climate change and the length of our commutes.

But the people who make up our state’s ever-swelling population continue to represent Western ideals as old as the state, from an ongoing pioneer-style willingness to go where others have not, to a belief in fresh starts.

Even for wolves.

The arrival of OR7 in California in December 2011 shows it’s only a matter of time before wolves once again make their homes in our state. And given that animals live in ecosystems rather than states, whether OR7 decides to put down roots here is only a side issue in a much larger ecological evolution, one that wolf experts say will surely result in wolves returning permanently to California.

They’re coming – the question is, will we be ready to protect them?

Efforts to make sure those protections are in place were put in motion last fall when state officials recommended that California extend endangered species protections to OR7 and all that follow him. That recommendation will be ruled on in October.

In the meantime, let’s be clear: Recovering wolves to their historic range will take discipline and the acceptance that they, like the rest of us, have a right to be here. It won’t always be easy.

But as the mounting evidence from neighboring Oregon shows, it can be done and done well, if we’re willing.

April 30, 2013 by Beckie Elgin, Freelance Writer

Review: The Hidden Life of Wolves

I’m happy to say that a review I wrote on this amazing book was published in last weekend’s Oregonian. If you haven’t read Jim and Jamie Dutcher’s (of Living with Wolves) new book yet, make sure you do. This is an important work, rich with not only photographs but also with science and history and current information on wolves. This book will help you become a stronger and better informed wolf advocate.

http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2013/04/the_hidden_lives_of_wolves_rev.html

‘The Hidden Lives of Wolves’ review: In the company of wolves

By Special to The Oregonian
Follow on Twitter
on April 27, 2013 at 10:10 AM

View full size

“The Hidden Life of Wolves” by Jim and Jamie DutcherNational Geographic Books

THE HIDDEN LIFE OF WOLVES
Jim and Jamie Dutcher
National Geographic Press
$25, 210 pages

For six years they shared a 25-acre enclosure at the base of Idaho’s Sawtooth Mountains with a pack of wolves. Their office was a Mongolian yurt; their sleeping quarters a canvas tent. The path to the outhouse required frequent snow-shoveling for below-zero excursions.

This was the life of Jim and Jamie Dutcher, award-winning documentary filmmakers. Their new book, “The Hidden Life of Wolves,” is the culminating portrayal of their experiences.

Although “The Hidden Lives of Wolves” is an oversized book and contains hundreds of the Dutchers’ compelling photographs, as well as maps and illustrations, it is not a coffee-table book. The text contains an extensive study of wolves, both those inside and out of the enclosure, comparable in depth to Barry Lopez’s “Of Wolves and Men.”

“The Hidden Life of Wolves” details all aspects of wolf life, their social structure, hunting techniques and body language, as well as human-influenced issues, including the Yellowstone and central Idaho wolf reintroductions of the mid-1990s.

Readers explore the similarities between the eradication of wolves in the 1800s and the current profusion of hunting and trapping, made legal when wolves were dropped from the Endangered Species List in 2011. Solutions to wolf problems, including livestock depredation, are explored. The Little Red Riding Hood myth is thoroughly debunked. There are references to many authorities, including Aldo Leopold, Gordon Haber, L. David Mech and Carter Niemeyer.

The Dutchers suggest the wolf “may be the greatest shape-shifter in the animal kingdom,” acknowledging the vast disparity in our opinions of Canis lupus. Through intensive observation of their hand-raised pack, the Dutchers gained intimate knowledge of the inner workings of wolves. Their conclusion was that their subjects were extremely social and complex animals that were “neither demon, nor deity, nor data.”

Readers come to know the Sawtooth wolves personally. Kamots is the benevolent leader. Without undue force, this striking gray wolf maintains order among his peers. Littermate Lakota is larger than Kamots yet remains at the bottom of the pecking order, often harassed by the other wolves. Younger brother Matsi comes to Lakota’s rescue, blocking blows from offending wolves. Amani, the adoring uncle to all pups in the pack, endures onslaughts of sharp puppy teeth.

These and other wolves are brought to life as they interact with each other and with the Dutchers, who record the wolves with camera and sound device, their hearts never quite out of the picture but at a distance that allows for an objective view.

Published by National Geographic and with a forward by Robert Redford, “The Hidden Life of Wolves” is a richly layered work that speaks to the intricate and controversial relationship between wolves and humans.

While some see the wolf as a scapegoat for a litany of evils, the Dutchers maintain: “More than wolves themselves, it is our relationship with them that needs to be managed.” Their aptly titled book is a valuable guide for this process.

– Beckie Elgin

April 26, 2013 by Beckie Elgin, Freelance Writer

Journey Visits Ashland

OR 7 SE of Alturas, CA on March 6, 2013

It was reported today that OR 7, better known as Journey, has returned to Jackson County and has been hanging out near Emigrant Lake. Emigrant Lake is a large reservoir and popular recreation site five miles south of Ashland. An interesting bit of trivia is that when the lake was expanded in 1960 it completely submerged the tiny town of Klamath Junction.

Journey has gone as far south as Yreka in his recent travels, twice crossing over busy Interstate 5. This is as far west as he has ever traveled. Before returning south on his travels, he trotted north to Douglas County, near Diamond Lake.

Ashland is where I live, and people here are excited to know that a wild, grey wolf is close at hand. If there were ever a place where wolves would be accepted, Ashland is it. Our population tends to be progressive and environmentally concerned. Ashland was a top ten finalist in Outside Magazine’s search for the best town in America in 2011. Nestled in the Rogue Valley, with the Siskiyou Mountains looming behind us, Ashland is truly a wonderful place.

But when I drive past Emigrant Lake this morning I gazed at all the small farms in the area, with fields full of cattle, goats, horses. Would Journey be enticed by an easy meal? I talk to my good friend, Ann Barton, about the arrival of Journey and she jokes that maybe he’ll come into town and relieve us of our surplus deer population. Ashland is known for these resident deer, well over two-hundred of them at last count. They eat gardens, saunter across busy roads, occasionally attack dogs and humans. When my son Dylan was in his teens, he was hurrying home late at night when he inadvertently stepped between a doe and her fawn. Next thing he knew he was on the ground, battling a pair of sharp hooves. I told him the deer were actually hired by the Ashland Police Department to enforce the midnight curfew. He didn’t buy it, but he did develop a healthy respect for deer.

My daughter, Megan, an avid runner, often takes Rhaja, her Rhodesian Ridgeback on long treks around Emigrant Lake. She is going this afternoon. I told her to keep an eye out for a slim, grey wolf, or at least his footprints. And I told her to keep Rhaja close at hand, knowing how lonely that wolf must be.

Megan and Rhaja

Wolves and Writing

Writing inspired by wolves and other sentient beings