First wolf hunting season since 2013 did not produce any surprises  |

First wolf hunting season since 2013 did not produce any surprises according to the Cody Enterprise

protect yellowstone wolves, protect teton wolves, sacred resource protection zone

However, when Trophy Zones exceed Harvest Quota it is 100% unacceptable!! We will be adding to our petition that if they are going to continue to hunt Trophy Zones, to make it a draw only tag, with explicit number according to the quota set in each unit! Join Us to insure Yellowstone and Teon Wolves remain for your Children’s Children.

Wyoming hunters killed the established limit of 44 wolves during the state’s first gray wolf season since 2013.

Ken Mills, Game and Fish’s chief wolf biologist out of Pinedale, said the season that ran from October through Dec. 31 did not produce any significant surprises.

“It was mostly what we expected,” Mills said last week. “It got off to a really fast start in October, really slowed down in November, and it picked up again in December when it snowed.”

While the quota of 44 was hit exactly, it was reached in an inexact manner.

The total of 44 was matched, but the quota was one over in three areas and one under in three others.

Wyoming was able to supervise a hunt for the first time since 2013 after a federal court ruled earlier in 2017 the state’s management plan was acceptable.

It had previously been established the gray wolf in Wyoming was not endangered and G&F authorized hunts in 2012 and 2013. The hunting hiatus occurred during the court challenge.

The information from all hunt areas and what took place in the field goes to Mills for analysis. An evaluation report should be issued by April 1, he said.

That data will be used when setting future area quotas for a 2018 fall hunt.

“We’ll look at it as we go forward,” Mills said. “There might be talk about season dates.”

While hunters would consider the season a success, some of those who opposed any Wyoming wolf hunting continue to object.

The organization “Protect the Wolves,” a Native American non-profit group, issued its own analysis of the hunt, stating in extra-large letters, “Wyoming has needlessly slaughtered 44 possible Park wolves.”

That refers to the group’s belief the wolves could be some of those who roamed outside of Yellowstone National Park or Grand Teton National Park where they are protected and no hunting is allowed.

The group is lobbying for a buffer zone between the park boundaries and hunt areas.

Also cited were the deaths of 32 other wolves basically because of livestock killings or other confrontations.

“Protect the Wolves” has also asked for more stringent rules governing Wyoming hunts related to time-of-day, radio-collared wolves and other things.

“Our Sacred Yellowstone and Teton Wolf Brothers are being ruthlessly slaughtered in Wyoming,” the statement said. “Our Sacred Grizzly Brother will be next.”

A hoped-for meeting with G&F director Scott Talbott did not occur. Because he Bailed out 3 days before the scheduled meeting!

“The only language (the) Wyoming Game and Fish director will understand will be that coming from a judge,” the statement added.

Now that the hunt is over, G&F is beginning its regular monitoring of the wolf population, starting this month in northwest Wyoming.

Hunting is part of the state’s overall management plan and so is the monitoring.

Helicopters are used and they employ “net gunning,” in the words of Dan Thompson, large carnivore supervisor out of Lander.

Specially designed nets are propelled from a gun to land over wolves. The wolves are darted, fitted with radio collars and biological samples taken.

In some cases, wolves are trapped, Thompson said. Where trapping is involved, signs are posted warning hikers, people with pets or land owners in the area.

This work was assumed by G&F from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the court ruling and is the first time in a couple of years the department has been charged with the task.

“We have to demonstrate the population is meeting recovery standards,” Thompson said.

Mills said all of this information – and more, such as the livestock depredation by wolves – is fed into the decision-making process in setting hunting seasons.

“What can we do to adjust to make things better?” Mills said of the process. “There could be minor adjustments.”


Source: First wolf hunting season since 2013 did not produce any surprises | Local News |×432-750×432-1.png

What is the fate for our wolves in Oregon?

Upon seeing news about a pair of wolves seen on trail cams near Mount Hood, the happiness was immediately replaced with concern as we saw this news spread everywhere. Most of us have seen how much livestock producers hate them and want them killed so they don’t have to do anything. However, we do know that there is at least one ethical livestock producer that is willing to try various deterrents.  On January 4th, 10th and 11th of 2018, there were unfortunately 3 depredations that took place at the Mill-Mar Ranch on private property. Fish and Wildlife GPS-collar data showed OR-54 from the Rogue pack had been in the area when the depredations occurred. The Rogue pack was established in 2014, when the famous wandering wolf OR-7 and his mate had their first litter of pups. OR-54, an 80-pound female, is believed to be directly related to OR-7


“2015 is poised to be among the most consequential years for Oregon’s wolf recovery. A milestone is a way to mark your progress and then continue to move forward,” Klavins says. “It’s not where you do a touchdown dance, say ‘mission accomplished’ and turn back.”

After the third calf was killed, John Stephenson with U.S.Fish and Wildlife remained at the ranch in his truck, with a spotlight and shotgun to haze wolves should they return.

“It did appear Thursday night that they were coming back to the ranch that evening, and then redirected,” Stephenson said. “I think it’s likely they were coming down and saw my headlights, spotlight and human activity, and took off and went somewhere else.”

They were clearly afraid of the lights and human presence.  Wolves have a genuine fear of anything new. This behavior makes many nonlethal management tools like fladry (fencing with strips of fabric or colored flags that will flap in a breeze) possible for wild wolves as well as RAG devices. There are many more deterrents available and would be very effective to use a combination if even necessary(and rotate) The foxlights night predator deterrent and night predator control lights have been very effective at deterring most predators, including wolves.

The owner of Mill-Ranch seems willing to try some different non-lethal methods. The majority of the American people want wolves protected and have no respect for ranchers that are killing our wildlife. It is a smart and ethical way to do business. We commend and have genuine respect for him and others that make efforts and choose not to kill wolves as a solution.

But going back to the way most ranchers believe in in killing as a solution–they want them delisted so they can do as they please. Most of us are very worried about what could happen to wolves just as they are beginning to recover.  Currently, there are only about 112 wolves in the entire state.

After the latest depredations and news of 2 wolves seen near Mount Hood, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association keep calling and insisting they want to change how wolves are managed on the west side of the state, where the animals remain listed as endangered. Wolves are protected under ESA west of highways 395-78-95 are protected by the federal Endangered Species Act. We have seen the comments from many wolf-hating ranchers as well as some of the wolf haters in some communities in the northeast part state. We have also seen very disturbing comments from hunters that kill for pleasure from many areas expresse how they would love to kill wolves. Including some that want them to feel excruciating pain by trapping them before killing.

Many of us have wanted to see a new and revised Wolf Management Plan that would benefit wolves and our ecosystems. There is a draft available on the ODFW website now. What is so alarming is that there is a proposal that could allow the public to hunt “problem wolves” — animals that attack livestock or cause a major decline in game populations (we know that would not be wolves) — This has become a flashpoint in negotiations over revisions to Oregon’s wolf plan.  The hunting proposed will result in annual wolf killing — the very reason this species was wiped out from the Lower 48 states. As I said before, they want them wiped out.

The we have Dominic Aiello, president of Oregon Outdoor Council, saying he is worried that if we have more wolves in the state it may have an adverse impact on other animals in the ecosystem. What? Evidently, he is unaware of the importance of wolves for our ecosystems. Another that does not follow the science. But this is coming from hunting group.

Even Todd Nash, (a range rider) and wolf-hating rancher from Enterprise, said he thought allowing the public to hunt could alleviate some of the frustration rural residents have felt with the arrival of wolves. How sick is that? What the hell is wrong with these people? Why on God’s green earth would Nash even be allowed to be a ranger rider? We have known of this and we still find it completely unfair to wolves and cannot be trusted. We have seen TONS of comments that many to just shoot, shovel, shut up (SSS ) as it is! Oregon is notorious for poaching incidents.

It appears that ODFW is in favor of the wolf hunts.  Could it be they are thinking about profits from selling the wolf-hunting licenses? What is come down to is money and pandering to the OCA. They are eager to kill and so are the sadistic hunters and trappers.



Letter: ‘Flake’ is a fitting name | Politics-national |

protect the wolves, sacred resource protection zone

‘Flake’ is a fitting name, considering he doesnt think Federal Law applies to them.

Protect The Wolves™ is working towards getting these elected officials into court that seem to think that federal laws do not apply to them.

We need to hold these Officials Accountable!

The media made it appear it was the Tribe that demanded the first Mexican Gray female be shot. That is not true. We spoke with White Mountain Apache Fish and Game, they only suggested something be done about her. Which rather than running on an old NEPA, she should have been returned to a captive breeding program to help the gene pool. The Government is not managing our Resources for the best Interest of the Public. They continue to give into the AG dollars that seem to influence elected officials.

States somehow seem to think that it is acceptable to make decisions without consulting Tribes much the same as Wisconsin. Our Wolves are Sacred to Traditional Indigenous beliefs and as such need to be respected the same as the Bible is to the White Settlers that have arrived on Turtle Island.

Patricia Herman

Source: Letter: ‘Flake’ is a fitting name | Politics-national |×498-750×498-750×498-1.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreMexicanGrayWolvesToColorado

Lobo’s lose again as the state Game Commission OKs plan it dictated

Are we going to allow this? This is OUR wildlife! OUR critically endangered species! This year alone there have been 12 Mexican Gray Wolves killed. Many still under investigation, such as the one we shared here yesterday. We found out it was a yearling f1675  from the Bluestream pack in Arizona. Now only F1489 from Bluestream remains after looking at the Blue Range recovery area population estimate from 2016 when there were 3 adults and 6 pups. 

protect the wolves, mexican gray wolves, near extinct mexican gray wolves

We have got to take these states to court! Protect the wolves has the tools that can be used in court to win! Our attornies have already told us that we can make this happen, but we can’t do it alone.  We need to join together! Please don’t let another day go by. In addition, we must also get rid of all the politicians that strip protections from wolves and allow destruction on our public lands. No to all toxic legislation to dismantle the Endangered Species Act, delist wolves, take land for special interests groups and anything else that harms our wildlife, wildlands, and environment!


Lobos lose again as the state Game Commission OKs plan it dictated

(Regarding the) editorial “Wolf recovery plan based on reason, compromise,” Dec. 28.

Contrary to the Journal editors’ claim that the revised Mexican wolf recovery plan reflects compromise and science, it reflects special interest politics and flawed science.

Perhaps the editors were unaware of a draft plan developed in 2012 by independent scientists appointed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the previous multi-stakeholder recovery team, which presented science-based recovery criteria that the states rejected. No effort to reach a compromise was offered or attempted.

Instead, the FWS shelved that plan, shut down the work of that team and started over. This new plan was developed in secret closed meetings with only representatives of the four Southwestern state game departments invited to participate. The Endangered Species Act requires decisions to be based on the best available science. The new team generated its own non-peer-reviewed science to support much lower recovery criteria. The FWS published over 250 pages of supporting “scientific” justification, used a sophisticated model to predict extinction probabilities, then tossed the science aside and asked the states how many wolves they would tolerate. The model output was capped at the states’ arbitrary upper “social tolerance” limit of 320 wolves in the U.S. Southwest, all south of Interstate 40, an admitted “geo-political” boundary.

To prevent extinction of Mexican wolves, the model forced all additional recovery needs to Mexico, where the FWS has no jurisdiction. The approved plan will guarantee that no more than a running average of 320 Mexican wolves will ever be allowed to exist in the entire U.S. Southwest.

The independent scientists recommend a total of 750 wolves in three separate populations connected by dispersal corridors with suitable habitats. The scientists recommended expansion of the current population in the Gila region, and two additional populations in the Grand Canyon region of northern Arizona and southern Utah, and the southern Rocky Mountains region of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. The two additional regions lie north of Interstate 40. It comes as no surprise that the New Mexico Game Commission, known to be antithetical to wolf recovery, approved the new plan because members got to dictate its content. Once again, the states win and the lobos lose.×169.jpg

Endangered Mexican gray wolf found dead in Arizona


protect mexican gray wolves

We can not stress enough that it is beyond time to Get our cases, yes cases into Courts everywhere 1 state at a time. Join Us today by becoming a paid member and help Us to begin taking 1 state to court every single month for the cost of 1 starbucks coffee multiplied by 57,500 followers. Please Join Us today to begin taking action, real action tomorrow, by using the tools that no other Large Org has available nor have they done the research that we have done to insure that we can in fact be successful according to our Attorneys.


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Federal authorities are investigating the death of a Mexican gray wolf as wildlife managers prepare for an annual survey of the endangered species along the Arizona-New Mexico border.

Officials with the wolf recovery effort announced Tuesday that a female wolf was found dead in December in Arizona. They declined to release more information, saying the case is still under investigation.

 For 2017, there were a total of 12 documented wolf deaths and one removal of a wolf from the wild that resulted in its death.
 Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say a new survey of the population will begin next Monday. The effort will take two weeks.

Source: Endangered Mexican gray wolf found dead in Arizona | News | #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

The Pastime of Psychopaths- Trophy Hunters

What kind of person enjoys taking another living being’s life? It may seem improbable at first glance, but what if the same twisted psychology that drives a man to maim, stalk and—an agonizingly painful 40 hours later—shoot a lion to death might also drive a man to break into a house and plunge a knife into the people found inside? Such killers hide in plain sight. They are military officials and Boy Scout leadersGynecologists and dentists.

Serial killing and trophy hunting are terrifyingly similar. As wildlife researcher and author Gareth Patterson* points out, both types of killers often immerse themselves in violent imagery. Hunting magazines are designed to titillate hunters and help fuel violent fantasies of stalking and killing prey. They are full of pictures of hunters standing victoriously over animals they have slain, the obvious message: Kill something—or, rather, someone—and you, too, can achieve greatness.

Similarly, serial killers often draw inspiration from bondage pornography. Dennis Rader was obsessed with violent images of men dominating women, and he used them to fuel his fantasies of tying up and killing women. Eventually, fantasy made way for real life. The same has been true for other killers, like Ted Bundy.

Patterson notes that both types of killers enjoy the excitement of planning their kills and building anticipation while they stalk their eventual victims more than the actual act of killing. And how many times have you heard hunters say, “It’s more about the hunt than the kill”? They describe in detail their love of being outdoors, seeing their intended prey for the first time, tracking them down, cornering them and conquering them. Perhaps, like many serial killers, they’ve actually become addicted to the adrenalin rush they get from controlling their victims’ fates.

According to John Douglas, one of the FBI’s first criminal profilers, serial killers who take souvenirs from their victims do so to prolong their violent fantasies. Some take jewelry or locks of hair, while others take photographs or body parts. Trophy hunters proudly display their victims’ severed animal heads on their walls and share photos of themselves on social media grinning beside their corpses. Like serial killers, trophy hunters are compelled to prove their status as a person who has power over life and death. Between hunts, both value their souvenirs as a way to remember the power they once held over another living being.

Neither type of killer shows remorse for the killing but rather excuses the behavior as filling some sort of vague spiritual need. When selecting their victims, some hunters describe a “tremor” they feel when they see the “right” animal. They like to interpret this as nature’s way of telling them they are “supposed” to kill that particular being.

Some serial killers also believe they are instructed by a higher power to kill a particular person. Cannibal Richard Chase tried the doorknobs of strangers’ houses. If he found one locked, he took this as a sign that he was not welcome and would leave the occupant alone. An unlocked door, though, was an invitation—he was “meant” to kill the person inside.

Some hunters of animals “graduate” to killing people. Robert Hanson—an avid hunter with a living room full of mounted animal heads who was featured in a national hunting magazine—flew kidnapped women into the Alaskan wilderness, released them and then hunted them down. Why did he do this? Because hunting nonhuman species was no longer thrilling enough.

“[Killing people] is so much fun,” the Zodiac Killer said in one of his letters. “It’s even better than killing wild game in the forest because man is the most dangerous animal.”

Both types of killers could keep their fantasies as just that—fantasies. Trophy hunters could shoot photographs rather than high-powered crossbows. But both decide—enthusiastically—to take a life in order to fulfill their own selfish desires. They plan their killing sprees carefully, and then they kill and kill again, with no sign of stopping.

It’s time for us to call trophy hunting what it is: the pastime of psychopaths.

*Well known for his work with African lions, Gareth Patterson is an environmentalist, independent wildlife researcher, public speaker and author who has worked for more than 25 years for the increased protection of African wildlife. His current book, an autobiography, is My Lion’s Heart.×165.png

Why men trophy hunt

protect the wolves, trophy hunters

We simply associate it with TPS 😉

Chris T. DarimontBrian F. CoddingKristen Hawkes

1. Introduction

The killing of Cecil the lion (Panthera leo) ignited enduring and increasingly global discussion about trophy hunting [1]. Yet, policy debate about its benefits and costs (e.g. [2,3]) focuses only on the hunted species and biodiversity, not the unique behaviour of hunters. Some contemporary recreational hunters from the developed world behave curiously, commonly targeting ‘trophies’: individuals within populations with large body or ornament size, as well as rare and/or inedible species, like carnivores [4]. Although contemporary hunters have been classified according to implied motivation (i.e. for meat, recreation, trophy or population control, [5,6]) as well the ‘multiple satisfactions’ they seek while hunting (affiliation, appreciation, achievement; [7], an evolutionary explanation of the motivation underlying trophy hunting (and big-game fishing) has never been pursued. Too costly (difficult, dangerous) a behaviour to be common among other vertebrate predators, we postulate that trophy hunting is in fact motivated by the costs hunters accept. We build on empirical and theoretical contributions from evolutionary anthropology to hypothesize that signalling these costs to others is key to understanding, and perhaps influencing, this otherwise perplexing activity.

2. Man the show off?

Subsistence hunting among traditional ‘hunter–gatherers’, which also targets larger-bodied prey, provides a starting point for understanding trophy hunters from the developed world. Owing to disagreement over the relative importance of potential benefits men receive from hunting, however, evolutionary explanations as to why subsistence hunters target large prey attract competing theories and significant controversy. Some assert that energetic and nutritional returns to hunters and individuals they provision best explain why men accept the costs of big-game hunting (e.g. [8,9]). Others invoke the pressure to share large prey as an explanation for wide distribution of meat (e.g. [10]). But why target prey that will be mostly consumed by others? An alternative hypothesis, consistent with data across hunter–gatherer systems, starts by noting that men generally target species that are not only large-bodied but also—and, importantly—impose high cost (i.e. high failure risk; [11,12]). The hypothesis considers the carcass not only as food but also a signal of the costs associated with the hunter’s accomplishment.

The Meriam peoples of Australia provide a flagship illustration of this association. There, men, women and children collect green turtles (Chelonia mydas) when they come ashore to lay eggs. In contrast, only men hunt them at sea. Pursuing turtles in boats, hunters accept significant economic and personal cost, including a dive into dangerous waters [13], despite the fact that most of what they acquire will be consumed by other community members [14,15].

Such seemingly irrational behaviour is resolved by costly signalling theory [16] from which the hypothesis draws. The theory considers the social status and prestige that accrue to successful hunters. The Maasai peoples of eastern Africa themselves describe lion killing as a manhood ritual that awards prestige to the hunter who first spears the animal [17]. Why is status awarded? Simply put, killing large, dangerous, and/or rare prey is difficult with high failure risks that impose costs on the hunter. Accordingly, successful hunts signal underlying qualities to rivals and potential allies. This holds true for successful Meriam turtle hunters, who gain social recognition, get married earlier to higher-quality mates, and have more surviving children [14]. For such behaviour to be maintained, even the attempted hunt must signal that the hunter can sustain the handicap of high-cost, low-consumption activity, providing honest evidence of underlying phenotypic quality [14,15,16].

We propose that an assessment of contemporary trophy hunting behaviour offers fresh additional evidence for a costly signalling model to explain any big-game hunting. First, inedible species, like carnivores commonly targeted by trophy hunters, make nutritional and sharing hypotheses implausible. Second, evidence for show-off behaviour appears clear. Trophy hunters commonly pose for photographs with their prey, with the heads, hides and ornamentation prepared for display [18]. Interestingly, similar costly display occurs in other taxa. For example, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) likewise pay a cost in time and effort spent hunting without commensurate food consumption gains; interpretations of related display behaviour support a social status model (reviewed in [19]). Similarly, some seabirds like the pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) show off ‘display fish’, sometimes for hours. Often discarding them, the behaviour is likewise thought to be social, related to site-ownership display [20]. Third, whereas some might argue that caloric returns for edible trophy hunted species are high and associated costs of failure low (owing to advanced killing technology and foods easily purchased by participants), the behaviour still imposes costs that guarantee the honesty of the signal; while rarely costly in terms of danger or difficulty, hunts for endangered species can be extraordinarily expensive. Moreover, even the everyday hunter who targets larger individuals within populations pays the opportunity costs of forgoing income-generating activities as well as sustenance lost by passing up smaller, abundant prey. We note that the signal can honestly reflect a hunter’s socio-economic standing (and qualities that underlie it) but not necessarily any remarkable physical abilities ([21]; figure 1), given the efficient technology contemporary trophy hunters employ [4].

A signalling model assumes benefits to both signaller and audience, the latter benefiting from the information they can then use in their own ways. It is unclear what specific benefits—other than increased status—might accrue to trophy hunters. Trophy hunting systems do not lend themselves to testing for patterns associated with reproductive success, as in the Meriam example above. Hunting associations (e.g. Boone and Crockett Club, Safari Club International), however, have elaborate scoring systems that award status. We predict that greater status is bestowed upon those killing larger and/or rarer (i.e. costly) animals. Similarly, no detailed data exist on the potential audience, but we suspect hunters would broadcast the signal to friends and family, colleagues and members of hunting associations or social media groups (see below). Survey and/or interview data, commonly collected in the context of wildlife management or research, may be able to clarify audience composition. If we accept that trophy hunting simply provides a vehicle for status-accumulation, such an interpretation is consistent with those related to the purchase and display of luxury objects (e.g. expensive automobiles, clothes and jewellery), long proposed to serve as forms of competitive signalling [22]. Finally, given that women in hunter–gatherer societies overwhelmingly target small, predictable prey compared with men [12], there are now seemingly puzzling examples of female trophy hunters, often prominent media figures and/or professional hunters sponsored by outdoor companies. We speculate that such behaviour, counter to expected gender norms (and their evolution), might allow for increased attention in an increasingly competitive social media and marketing world (below).

3. Costly signalling in a global, commercialized world

Worldwide social media creates for trophy hunters a vast audience to which to boast. Signalling the costs of hunting are no longer restricted to carcass displays in small social groups. Men can now communicate an ability to absorb trophy hunting costs not only to their immediate social group but also—with the help of the Internet—to a global audience. Media abound with costly signals. For example, although probably not a representative sample, many hunters post hunting stories and pictures on online discussion forums, commonly emphasizing the size of kills [21]. Advertisements for hunting equipment likewise frequently emphasize a product’s efficacy in securing large specimens. In these ways and more, contemporary culture reinforces trophy-seeking behaviour that probably evolved long ago.

4. Policy-relevant research

Although some argue that trophy hunting provides a route to conservation, others contend that trophy hunting can pose significant threats to hunted populations. Interacting with our signalling hypothesis, and of acute conservation concern, is how trophy hunting of rare species can propagate a feedback loop toward extinction. Known as the ‘anthropogenic Allee effect’, demand and associated costs increase when otherwise unprofitable rare resources become attractive, thereby speeding up their decline [23].

We call for more research to evaluate quantitatively the conditions that influence trophy hunting motivation. If the signalling hypothesis explains this behaviour, then policies designed to limit the perceived cost of the activity, dampen signal efficacy or both should reduce trophy hunting. Indeed, recent bans by several governments on the importation of lion remains have probably curtailed demand, despite the hunts themselves remaining legal. And how might shame [24] influence motivation? We predict that social media boasting about lion hunting declined following the widespread shaming after Cecil’s death during perhaps the largest media coverage ever associated with wildlife [25]. After all, any perceived benefits of signalling are also probably contingent on associated threats to status, something shaming would erode.

Authors’ contributions

All authors conceived of, wrote and edited the manuscript.

Competing interests

We have no competing interests


C.T.D. acknowledges the Tula and Wilburforce Foundations, as well as NSERC Discovery Grant 435683.

  • Received November 22, 2016.
  • Accepted March 8, 2017.

Source: Trophy hunting | Biology Letters #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

Wyoming Fish and Game plans to collar more wolves

When we here of a “Judas wolf” it would imply that a wolf has betrayed one of their own. Nothing could be further from the truth! Several states have been capturing wolves for some time and putting radio collars on certain wolves that transmit a GPS signal to the government to notify his/her location. We have seen that the collars are often used to find the pack’s state agencies seek to cull. Some have labeled certain wolves as a “Judas wolf” since they are being used find his or her family/pack .  They will see them killed before as they are gunned down by choppers. They are left crying out for their pack members with haunting and mournful howls, as they are sentient beings and mourn just as we do. The collard wolf continues to be tracked as they search for other wolves. Unaware of what could possibly happen next.

This can be a very controversial issue. Tracking collars, particularly in the early years, proved invaluable to scientists studying to observe provided an otherwise impossible glimpse into the movements of animals that simply couldn’t be observed otherwise. Some collars have allowed the tracking of wolves across large expanses of wilderness, a feat not possible otherwise, given the elusiveness of wild wolves. Sometimes, these wanderings lead to incredible journeys, all chronicled by little blips on a map as we have seen before.

Another concern is that a collar broadcasting a signal can give hunters an advantage. In states like Idaho and Montana, sportsmen are provided with the general locations of known wolves to “assist” them finding their quarry. Idaho wants their wolves gone. Period. Any efforts to collar and track wolves in that state are a means to this end.

Wyoming is another state that wants wolves gone. Wolves were delisted there in March of last year and the state took over wolf management in April of 2017. Wyoming’s all-Republican Congressional delegation, Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barrasso and Rep. Liz Cheney, were among those working toward delisting the wolf by legislation and they applauded the appellate court’s decision.

We know what has happened to wolves in Wyoming since then.  They have a proven record of their hostile management policies and now that they are delisted Game and Fish is hoping to collar 20 to 25 more wolves this year; more than 50 wolves have already been collared.  Fish and Game says that monitoring the wolves provides better insight on how the population interacts in Wyoming. There is great cause for concern.

Wyoming has no business managing the public’s resources period. The way they manage our public resources, we will have virtually no wildlife left for our children, grandchildren or future generations to enjoy.  We have got to fight this! ~L.G×215.jpg

Conflict between wolves and ranchers touches issues of conservationism and Native American rights- ABC News

protect yellowstone wolves, protect the wolves, sacred resource protection zone

Yellowstone and Teton Wolves need a Miracle in 2018, Join Us to make it Happen!

A series of legislation and proposed legislation in Western states has advocates of wolf conservation concerned for the future of the animal as well as the country’s respect for Native American rights, according to an advocate who spoke to ABC News.

“Wolves are our sacred animals,” said Roger Dobson, founder of the non-profit religious organization Protect the Wolves, and a member of Washington state’s Cowlitz Tribe. “Our creators put wolves on the planet to perform a sacred task. [These laws] encourage people to treat them like vermin.”

The laws and proposed laws to which Dobson is referring include a ruling by a federal appeals court last Friday that wolves in Wyoming should be stripped of Endangered Species Act federal protections.

Gray wolves were once hunted to the brink of extinction in the lower 48 states, but they recovered under Endangered Species Act protections and reintroduction programs, according to The Associated Press.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says gray wolves now number around 5,500, including about 400 in Wyoming. Officials in Wyoming determined in 2012 that gray wolves were no longer a threatened species.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with environmental groups in 2014, ruling that a promise made by Wyoming to maintain a population above the minimum 100 wolves, including 10 breeding pairs, outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation was unenforceable, which led to the appeal.

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming welcomed Friday’s ruling, saying that the state should decide how best to handle its wolf population.

“This ruling will again put the process of managing the gray wolf back where it belongs — in Wyoming’s capable hands,” Cheney said.

Cheney, a Republican, has fought against the federal regulation of wolves, and has cited the rights of ranchers to protect their livestock as a reason for backing the appeal.

“It’s a bipartisan issue. We see what’s happened with the wolf population [and] we see the damage that’s being done, particularly for our ranchers,” she told KGAB radio in Wyoming earlier this year.

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, who is also a Republican, released a statement praising the ruling on Friday.

“I am pleased with today’s ruling. The court recognized Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan was appropriate. We look forward to state management once the 2012 delisting rule is formally reinstated. I thank everyone who has worked so hard for the recovery and delisting of wolves. This is the right decision for wolves and Wyoming,” Mead said.

Dobson and other activists see the ruling as favoring the ranchers. According to Dobson, the legislation will allow ranchers to shoot the animals, who are still in danger of disappearing, on sight.

Rebecca Riley, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the plaintiffs, told the AP the court’s decision was “a step backwards for wolf recovery in the West.”


Source: Conflict between wolves and ranchers touches issues of conservationism and Native American rights – ABC News×432.png #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInYellowstone

Wisconsin Fails to Consult Tribes


protect the wolves, protect Wisconsin wolves. native american religious rights,

Wisconsin Law Makers need to get a huge Wake Up Call. They need to learn that 1 they can not ignore Federal Law, 2 they can not choose not to prosecute those that Poach. 3 they need to get called out for discriminating against Native American Religious Rights!


“The Wisconsin legislators who sponsored this bill have embarrassed the citizens of Wisconsin to the world.” ~ Bob Boucher, citizen who testified against bill

Rep. Joel Kleefisch, chair of the state Assembly’s Committee on Natural Resources and Sporting Heritage, held a hearing Jan. 10 on AB712, a bill sponsored by Rep. Adam Jarchow in the state Assembly, which has a companion bill sponsored by Tom Tiffany in the state Senate (SB602). The text says: “This bill prohibits a law enforcement officer from enforcing a federal or state law that relates to the management of the wolf population in this state or that prohibits the killing of wolf in this state.” It also prohibits the expenditure of funds to enforce protection of wolves, undermining the Endangered Species Act, while retaining payments for livestock damage and bear hounders’ dogs injured by wolves.

Many believe the purpose of this bill is to force the hand of the federal government to delist Wisconsin’s gray wolves from the federal Endangered Species List so the state can OK the resumption of wolf hunting, which has been blocked by the federal government since 2014. The law would be moot if wolves were removed from the Endangered Species List, but kick in again if the wolves were re-listed, even if there was just one wolf left in Wisconsin.

The hearing was well attended. The bear hunters, bow hunters, NRA, and Conservation Congress each sent representatives supporting AB712, including Wisconsin Bear Hunters’ Association and U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance lobbyist Bob Welch.

The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, which represents 205 hunting, trapping and hounding groups, strongly supports federal delisting, but questioned whether this bill would expose them to the public as willing to do anything to kill wolves. Their focus was on rallying hunters and trappers to call Paul Ryan and push him to forward delisting our wolves.

One citizen speaking against the bills said, “I am against Senator Tiffany in general. Every time you speak about ‘management’ you mean ‘kill.’ Table the bill.”

There were equally as many attending who sought to educate the committee that wolf populations are self-limiting and there is no “need” to hunt wolves. There is no CWD where wolves live.

Many who testified were simmering with outrage.

Bob Boucher (UW-Madison, MS in water resource management) has had a hunting and fishing license in Wisconsin for 50 years: “This bill proves to the entire world that the Wisconsin Legislature is populated with individuals who have violated their oath of office, the code of ethics for government service and the public trust. It also shows the world that the Legislature is populated with unprincipled law breakers who encourage poaching in direct defiance of upholding the laws of this country and the Endangered Species Act. Wolves play a critical role in maintaining biological land health. As a keystone species, wolves create a trophic cascade that supports healthy forests in Wisconsin.”

The state Department of Natural Resources claims that there are over 900 wolves in the state now, a miraculous four-year recovery after 1,100 were killed in three years of hunts. (It took 38 years of protection to get to 850 wolves prior to the hunts that began in 2012.)

Other bill opponents pointed out that the much-referenced “goal” of 350 wolves in the Wisconsin wolf management plan was never a “goal” but a minimum number of wolves for the state — and that it was a number picked out of the rifle butts of hunters and trappers with zero scientific backing. It was floated in 1999, and is outdated by 20 years. Management plans are supposed to reflect new science and be updated every five years.

AB712 even prohibits law enforcement and wardens from communicating incidents of poaching to USFWS federal law enforcement. It would enable free-for-all poaching, poisoning, trapping and killing — and not only of wolves. Those who poach wolves will likely poach other species.

Jodi Habush Sinykin, an attorney who represents Midwest Environmental Advocates, spoke against the bills. She testified: “AB712 takes us back 100 years to a time when fear and ignorance determined our approach to wildlife.” She predicted it would “open a Pandora’s box of widespread poaching, public safety concerns, and costly litigation.”

The bills’ authors want wolves back under state control to enable annual killing sprees. It is just a matter of how to get there. One argument that might be persuasive to wolf-haters is Sinykin’s legal assessment that this bill will actually delay delisting by the federal government: “It will cost untold dollars in litigation that will go on for years,” she said.

Mary Anderson of Spooner raises horses in wolf country. She sees wolves, but has had no problem. She called it a foolish bill with no sense.

Stephen Anderson of Hartford said, “This is one step short of returning to bounty years. … Illegal killing is the second highest cause of wolf deaths.” He added that the question should be whether to kill wolves at all.

Wisconsin’s Indian tribes, who have important cultural attachment to the wolves as their brothers, were not consulted in the development of the bill. Law enforcement was not consulted either.

One citizen joked: “How do we know if there are any wolves in Wisconsin? Wait to see if three little pigs are threatened with home eviction? Or ask a little girl in a red cape (if she has encountered the ‘big bad wolf’)?”

AB712 proves that returning the stewardship of wolves to the state of Wisconsin would be irresponsible, since the wolf-haters in the state Legislature and beyond appear to be in power and looking for a way to destroy the wolf population. This bill also demonstrates that our wildlife, even the most endangered, which weave the world together and protect our health, are not granted the appropriate respect and treatment they deserve as a public trust. #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews