Wolves on the ballot in Colorado

For millions of years, gray wolves roamed this continent.

Thousands of them once lived in Colorado, but by 1935, wolves were effectively extinct here — scientists call it “extirpated” — from gunshots, poisoning and trapping. No one knows for sure where the last wolf died in this state. One writer believes it was in the South San Juans in 1938 (the South San Juans are where Colorado’s last grizzly bear died in 1979). Another speculates the year was 1945, and the wolf’s place of death was Conejos County, on the border of New Mexico.

Wherever that animal took its last breath, one fact about its locale is known for sure. As Fort Lewis College history and environmental studies professor Andrew Gulliford has written in “The Last Stand of the Pack:” “National Park Rangers killed the last wolf in Yellowstone in 1926. In Colorado it took longer because of our vast mountainous terrain and the many plateaus, buttes, prairies and canyons where wolves roamed.”

Wolves hung on longer here than in northwest Wyoming, where they’ve since been successfully restored. If a group of conservationists is persuasive — and the voting public agrees — it could well be the western Colorado wilderness that restores and protects wolves again.

A lot has happened since 1945, after all: wolves have not only been returned to Yellowstone National Park and resided there for 25 years, they’ve roamed (which is what wolves do) across much of the Northern Rockies. Today, they can be found in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, even California — where a female from the “Lassen pack” gave birth to pups in April. Reviled by many (but not all) ranchers and livestock producers, Canis lupus has morphed into a cash cow in Yellowstone, at least, which takes in an estimated $35 million annually in “wolf tourism.”

Now a group of passionate conservationists, which has been studying this issue for years, aims to let the voting public decide the wolf’s fate in Colorado. They are giving the public what it says it wants: For years, bipartisan polling has consistently found that voters want the wolf restored here. (A bipartisan, statewide survey conducted in March, for example, found that two-thirds of likely voters agree that wolves should be restored to western Colorado, and only 15 percent opposed it.)

The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund, an entity focused on the ballot initiative, has been gathering signatures in order to get Initiative 107 placed on the ballot next November. About 126,000 signatures are required to be submitted by Dec. 12. Advocates say they now have more signatures than they need.

Initiative 107 would ask voters whether gray wolves should be restored “on designated lands in Colorado located west of the continental divide.” The restoral will be guided by science: If the law passes, Colorado Parks & Wildlife will be charged with “holding statewide hearings and using available data” to implement a plan to manage and protect wolves. The plan would be allowed three years to take effect. The law further instructs CPW to “fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.”

“We have 176,000 raw signatures in hand, with enough booklets in the field at present to carry us far past the 200,000 mark if they are all returned,” said Rob Edward of the wolf action fund. The numbers are “raw” because they haven’t yet been verified by representatives of the State of Colorado. The fund plans to keep gathering signatures right up until the deadline for submittal. “It takes a lot of time for the state to go through all of this” once the signatures are submitted, said action fund adviser Eric Washburn, who hopes the official OK to be listed on the ballot will come in January.

The founding executive director of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (with a Yale University masters degree in forestry), Washburn has “managed a broad coalition of dozens of national hunting and fishing organizations to promote national conservation policies in Washington, D.C.,” according to a press release from the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum promoting Washburn to its board of trustees. He’s used to finding consensus (when that’s possible) for conservation policies, in other words. So the fact that a group of agricultural producers — the Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and Colorado Woolgrowers Association — announced a joint effort to oppose the wolf’s reintroducion called Coloradans Protecting Wildlife on Tuesday didn’t phase him (other opposition groups include the Colorado Stop the Wolf Coalition in Grand Junction and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.)

“We’d been anticipating that there would be more formal efforts to oppose this, and that’s just the way that politics work,” Washburn said. “We do feel good about the arguments on our side, because we’ve got this 25 years of data” (the wolf reintroduction effort began in Yellowstone in 1979). “We’ve got a great story to tell. We know what wolves do in ecosystems with livestock, and with wildlife populations.”

For example, when this reporter read a statement that “Wolf introduction in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana has had a devastating impact on livestock producers,” Washburn was quick to reply.

“Wolves in those states are responsible for less than one-tenth of one percent of livestock mortality. They’re an insignificant factor,” he said. “We keep hearing that if they’re reintroduced to Colorado, wolves will devastate deer and elk,” Washburn added. “Yet there are more elk in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana now than when wolves were first introduced.”

If the reintroduction of wolves does get on the ballot next year, which seems likely, expect the ensuing 11 months to be a blizzard of facts and — as White House counselor Kellyanne Conway famously put it — alternative facts. Restoration advocates have assembled an impressive 28-person scientific advisory team whose collective work with wolves amounts to hundreds of years spent studying them in the field (learn more at rockymountainwolfproject.org).

Reintroducing the canid will reconnect two great populations of wolves, northern and southern (they are being reintroduced in New Mexico and Arizona), these advocates say. Montana Senator Mike Phillips, who helped lead the wolf’s reintroduction in Yellowstone and worked to restore the red wolf in North Carolina, has called returning gray wolves to western Colorado a task that is “straightforward and quickly navigated.” A wolf population here would serve as the link in an effort re-establish the species from the High Arctic to Mexico.

“Nowhere else in the world does such an opportunity to exist to restore an iconic, unfairly maligned animal across such an inspiring and continental landscape,” Phillips has written.

The task might be straightforward, but it won’t be easy: Myths persist about wolves, beginning with the fact that they are ruthless hunters of cattle and sheep, and maybe even attackers of people. In fact, it’s people who have a problem with wolves, not the other way around, said wildlife biologist Doug Smith, Ph.D., who is responsible for the bird, elk and wolf programs at Yellowstone National Park and leads the Wolf Restoration Project.

“Wolves can live well around humans,” Smith said. “It’s how well that humans live with wolves that counts. There’s a persistent fear that wolves will attack peoples’ livestock. They do, but not that often. The easiest way forward is coexistence; if people are willing to coexist with them, it opens up a lot more possibilities. I would encourage your readers to think about Colorado as two different places: where people live with them and try to coexist, and where there are large tracts of land where wolves can just be wolves. There is a third place where they just don’t belong, such as the Front Range, where there are gobs of people. If you try to put wolves there, there will be conflict, and it just isn’t worth it.”

That’s why, wolf advocates say, they are targeting the wild lands of western Colorado for reintroduction.

It’s unrealistic to expect wolves to just wander down from Wyoming, or up from New Mexico, meet up, and begin breeding, advocates say. The radio collar on a gray wolf spotted in northern Colorado earlier this year was a “dispersed” member of the Snake River (Wyoming) pack, according to CPW. The wolf was here on his own, and highly unlikely to meet a mate.

“The New Mexico population of gray wolves is very small, and subject to inbreeding, and is in flux,” said Diana Tomback, an ecology professor at CU Denver. Although it would benefit New Mexican wolves to travel north, that’s unlikely: “Their recovery plan won’t allow them into Colorado. Yet we have an area of lands on the Western Slope comparable in size not merely to Yellowstone National Park, but much larger — a total of 16 million acres. The two largest land owners are the Forest Service and the BLM.”

Wild lands in places such as the Flat Tops and the Weminuche, are by definition “very remote, without roads, and with very high populations of deer and elk,” said wolf recovery advisor Delia Malone, wildlife chair for the Colorado chapter of the Sierra Club. “These key restoration sites, where they’re unlikely to be persecuted by humans, will allow wolves to get a foothold. Even if the federal Endangered Species Act goes away, wolves are protected by Colorado’s endangered species act. So wolves have a double layer of protection.”

Wolves are “keystone predators,” Malone added, whose hunting behavior forces “elk to move around the vegetation,” allowing trampled vegetation to recover. “In places where wolves are protected,” not just in Yellowstone National Park but outside it, “pronghorn come back. Coyotes are reduced, enabling beavers to return.” The result is that the entire ecosystem benefits. “People have said, ‘Residents of the Front Range will vote for this initiative, but they don’t have any skin in the game,’” Malone recalled. “But I do, and so do people who visit Colorado from all over the country. Public lands,” where ranchers often graze cattle, “belong to all of us. I know wolf restoration will improve these lands.”

It’s likely that wolves will attack a few livestock, Malone added, “But you’ve got to look at the numbers. Livestock predation varies from year to year, but out of 6 million cattle” in the northern Rockies, “about 140-180 are lost each year to wolves. Out of 825,000 sheep,” an equally small percentage of animals are lost. “And for those who take measures to protect their livestock from wolves, the predation rate drops to zero.”

“There’s a lot of misinformation about wolves, and who lives with wolves,” professor Guillford summed up. “Canadian ranchers coexist with wolves. Minnesota and Wisconsin dairy farmers in small towns coexist with wolves. There are groups that are ready to fight this initiative, but ecologically, they’re not on solid ground. Farming and ranching is less than 10 percent of Colorado’s economy, and the Western Slope is this state’s playground. The same ranchers who oppose this initiative might be shocked at how well they’d do if they owned a B&B where people had a chance of hearing wolves howl at night. Change is difficult, but part of the reason many of us live here is because we love the wildness. And there’s nothing wilder than the sound of wolves.”

Source: Wolves on the ballot | News | telluridenews.com https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/5dc35b23a03a1.image_.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL

WDFW set to defend shooting wolves without Science 

WDFW only cares about ranchers and refuses to follow sound research provided by Dr. Robert Wielgus. Wdfw is guilty by their own statement in arguing that they have to kill entire packs quickly to keep Ranchers from rebelling. What sort of a defense is that to Ignore Science? WDFWs Sueswind as well as Martorello have already shown Us that they do not follow thru with documents that they had promised to provide.

According to WDFW, Washington ranchers need quick relief from livestock-attacking wolves or else wolf recovery won’t succeed as producers resort to “traditional self-help,” according to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, as it prepares to defend its lethal-removal protocol in court.

In a hearing set for Friday in Thurston County, Fish and Wildlife is expected to argue that its practice of culling wolfpacks that repeatedly prey on cattle or sheep keeps rural residents from rebelling.

“Community tolerance for wolves has been and continues to be the great obstacle WDFW must overcome to ensure their survival,” Fish and Wildlife states in a written argument.

The hearing will be on a motion by Fish and Wildlife to dismiss key claims by the Center for Biological Diversity and Cascadia Wildlands. The groups allege the State Environmental Policy Act requires the department to prepare an environmental impact statement before shooting wolves. State law asks agencies to aspire to finish the review in no more than two years.

Wolf advocates have filed a similar lawsuit in King County.

Fish and Wildlife argues it has broad authority to control dangerous wildlife and that emergency responses are exempt from lengthy environmental reviews.

“When people call WDFW for help dealing with destructive wildlife, they expect WDFW will come to their aid, not embark on an odyssey of draft proposals, public meetings, policy debates and litigated disputes,” according to the department’s written arguments.

The department warns such a response would be “the type of social-contract breaching inaction sure to drive people to the type of traditional self-help that needlessly jeopardizes their freedom as well as the recovery of Washington’s wolves.”

Fish and Wildlife has sought to build widespread support for lethal removal, even among conservation groups. Lawsuits have resulted, nevertheless.

Environmental groups have been mostly unsuccessful in obtaining emergency restraining orders to stop the department from shooting wolves. Courts have yet to rule, however, after a thorough review of the department’s actions.

The protocol guides the department’s director, Kelly Susewind, in deciding whether to authorize lethal removal. It does not bind the department to shooting wolves.

The protocol is being challenged in counties without any documented wolves. In court documents, Fish and Wildlife says it’s natural for people in wolf country to have a different view than environmental groups.

“Daily proximity to wolves may distinguish them from petitioners, who understandably long to hear ‘wolves howling’ during recreational trips to lands petitioners see as ‘backcountry,'” according to the department’s written arguments.

The environmental groups called that a “backhanded slap” at supposedly naive city folks. They have submitted statements from three northeast Washington residents who say they welcome the return of wolves.

The groups argue that Fish and Wildlife enforcement officers respond to emergencies, while killing wolves is the work of “biologists, bureaucrats and conflict specialists who designed the protocol and issue kill orders.”

Source: Washington set to defend shooting wolves | Livestock | capitalpress.com https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/5bdb60a18dcbf.image_.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInWashington

 codyenterprise.com uses old number to inflate Wolf population- WHY?

Good Morning Lew,

Is reporting facts something that is important at the Codyenterprise.com? Why when there are more current numbers far less than you reported recently would they be inflated by using an aged estimate? Even if it was from Doug Smith? I am pretty confident that he is the Individual responsible for the 2019 number that the NPS have listed publicly.

 We are curious why numbers from 2018 of 80 wolves was used in your October 30, 2019 article when it was reported by National Park Service in April 2019 that there was only 61 according to National Parks own website?
  It really takes away from the concern for accuracy in the readers eyes by not properly informing them especially when they are aware of facts as we are.

Lews October 30, 2019 Article Below:

Some wolves don’t care where the map lines end for Yellowstone National Park and where the rest of Wyoming begins.

In keeping track of the oldest national park’s wolf population, wolf project leader Doug Smith said monitoring of packs showed the Snake River and Huckleberry groups spent time in the southern portion of the park, but were not considered residents.

During 2018, a recently released park report indicates there were about 80 wolves in nine packs (seven of them breeding pairs) that primarily lived in Yellowstone.

This represented a slight decline in population from the period of 2009 to 2017 where the annual count was between 83 and 108.

“In 2018, we noted a drop in pup numbers,” Smith said. “However, there were no intra-species wolf killings, which is usually the reason for the most wolf mortality. “This marks a 10-year period of relatively stable wolf numbers.

“While the reasons for this are unknown, a relatively stable elk population is likely a large factor.”

During that year, from studying what wolves eat, officials accounted for 95 elk killed by wolves, 25 bison, 11 mule deer, three other deer, one grizzly bear, one mountain lion and 11 unidentified animals.

Smith, a major player in wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone from its beginnings in 1995, recently spoke in Cody about the status of wolves inside the park.

One major way park officials keep track of wolves in Yellowstone is through radio collars. During 2018, five wolves were captured to replace old or broken radio transmitters.

Source: Roughly 80 wolves reported in Park | Opinion | codyenterprise.com https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/yellowstone-wolf-750×500-300×200.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #WolvesInYellowstone

Wyoming Wolf Trophy Zones slaughter 23 Possible Yellowstone Wolves in October

Sacred Resource Protection Zone, Protect Yellowstone Wolves,

The Public needs to let Us Know when they are ready to begin getting precedent setting Research into the Courts 😉 Together As ONE Voice We can begin creating necessary change.

Will Yellowstone Wolves be available for your Grandchildren to view?

Everyday Possible Yellowstone Wolves are being needlessly slaughtered in Wyoming, and need our Proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone”, along with our proposed regulation changes.

An estimated 528 wolves resided in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as of 2015. As of December 2018there were 80 wolves in 9 packs. A biological count (April 1, 2019) was 61 wolves in 8 packs.

With your help we can work towards insuring that they are!

Help us to put The Indian and Public Trusts to work Today!

Before they wipe out the rest of Your wolves, grizzlies, wild horses. https://continuetogive.com/protectthewolves

A total of it appears 23 possible park wolves have already been slaughtered in 2019 altogether 44 thus far in 2019 with 23 from the Trophy Zones  21 from the general Slaughter Zone in this Bloodthirsty State! Keep in mind that  these are just Wolves that have been reported killed! Does not take into account all that people chose not to report as they are required!!
Please consider becoming a Paid Member with Just $1.00 per month so We are able to call these crooked states out in COURT. We have the Research, the tools, the Attorneys, only missing Ingredient is 57,000 plus followers.

 

  Help us to put The Indian and Public Trusts to work Today, before they wipe out the rest of Your Yellowstone wolves, grizzlies, wild horses.

Please Consider Joining Our Voice to establish a “Sacred Resource Protection Zone” Surrounding National Parks in Blood thirsty states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana to begin with.

 

Take Back the Power that You as the public hold!

What will it take for the Government to Realize that Wyoming has once again proven they are incapable of managing The Public’s Federal Resources?

YELLOWSTONE WOLVES ARE DYING

At an Alarming Rate!!!!

https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Oct312019-300×197.png #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #ProtectTheWolves

PROTECT THE WOLVES RELEASES THIS IN RESPONSE TO STEVENS COUNTY CATTLEMEN

protect the wolves,  donny martorello, wdfw, Wolf advisory group

PROTECT THE WOLVES RELEASES THIS STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO  STEVENS COUNTY CATTLEMEN

Scott Nielson needs to one, stop blowing smoke up the public’s you know what in the spreading of his B.S. totally Ridiculous Rhetoric! He appears to be a cast member right out of Grimms‘ Fairy Tales from the 1800’s.

One has to question why it is that they not only refuse to recognize the science that has proven every single step that they have made has only led to more losses on both sides. WDFWs leadership didnt even bother to stop the wolf advisory group members that were disrespecting Dr Robert Wielgus during a meeting.

Herein lies the source of the subject “The Old West Mentality” only cares about one thing, which is wiping out a Species in the same fashion they have done once already. However this time they have the use of so called State Agencies that refuse to follow their mission statement of applying the best available science. It is Truly telling that Directors Susewind, and Program Manager Martorello only concern is pandering to the Rancher Pressure and Damn the Public.

It is time to start bringing the needed changes to Our State Agencies. What does that entail?

Well to begin with, it will require getting precedent setting research into the courts, then getting Susewind and Martorello replaced for another, their lethal removal protocol halted until iut has been properly involved with public input, and a REAL Voice on The Wolf Advisory Group that doesnt roll over, give in, or give up because that is what they have become nothing more than parrots that regurgitate the position of Washingtons Pandering Officials.

 

The Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association has released this statement in response to WDFW announcing lethal removal of wolves from the Old Profanity Wolf pack…

A recent announcement by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife that it plans to “incrementally” remove wolves from the Old Profanity Wolf pack is not being welcomed by the Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association who believes the pack needs to be culled.

The Old Profanity wolf pack has attacked over 20 cattle in the last year, killing at least 13. The recent WDFW removal order from WDFW is a continuation of an effort last year to remove the pack due to its chronic pattern of attacking cattle, despite numerous non-lethal methods taken by producers.  However, WDFW only removed two wolves last year.

WDFW cites their “incremental” removal policy is done in an effort to “change the wolves’ behavior.”

However, WDFW’s efforts are actually ensuring that chronically depredating packs are never fully removed and can rebound to create more damage for ranchers, according to SCCA.

“We are having more problems than other states with wolves because we are allowing cow-killing wolves to breed,” said SCCA President Scott Nielsen.
“This ‘incremental’ approach has not worked from the beginning and is still a failed policy.”

In addition to the hardship and economic damages wolves are causing ranch families, Nielsen said the wolves are changing the behavior of other predators in the area, including bears and cougars.

“We are seeing increased numbers of bears and cougars coming down into people’s pastures and near their homes looking for an easy meal due to the increased competition from wolves,” Nielsen explained. “This situation means that if you live in rural Washington, you live in fear. You don’t go out into the woods or by rivers and meadows without something to defend yourself. You worry about your kids and pets outside. This is wrong—our residents should not have to live this way.”

 

Source: STEVENS COUNTY CATTLEMEN: Old Profanity Wolf Pack needs to be culled – The Independent https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/oregonwenahawolf-300×169.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #ProtectWolvesInWashington

The hunt for Japan’s ‘ghost’ wolves 

Hiroshi Yagi was driving through the Chichibu Tama Kai National Park when the animal came up from the stream on his left, passed in front of him and stopped about two metres (6.5ft) away from his car. It showed no fear as he edged towards it, firing off several photographs. The creature was apparently unfazed by the presence of a human. Either it was comfortable being around humans, or felt unthreatened because of its status as the apex predator in this habitat.

“This was 23 years ago, and I didn’t have much technical knowledge then,” says Yagi. “But I thought, ‘This must be a wolf’.”

Yagi, a keen mountaineer, spends a lot of time in the mountains around Chichibu in central Japan, but this was the first time he had come face to face with an animal he had spent the best part of his life searching for.

“I decided I would try and give him an osenbei (a rice cracker) and put out my hand and offered it to him,” says Yagi. “I am right-handed, so I offered the cracker to him in my left, thinking that even if he bit my left arm, I would be alright.”

“He was right in front of me at this point. I had brought the rice cracker right under his mouth. But he didn’t take it. He just stood there. I tried to see if he smelled like a wild animal, but he didn’t. He had no smell. And just like a new-born baby, he had no knowledge or fear of danger.”

Wolves have been extinct in Japan for at least 100 years, according to scientific records. The last known Japanese wolf remains were bought by a zoologist in 1905 who sent the pelt to the Natural History Museum, London.

Picture of a wolf-like creature encountered by Hiroshi Yagi (Credit: Hiroshi Yagi)

One of the 19 photographs Yagi took of the wolf-like animal that confronted him in 1996 (Credit: Hiroshi Yagi)

The discoveries of bones, fur and scat, which all appear to date from before 1905, makes the likelihood that Yagi saw a living Japanese wolf that October night seem remote. Why was Yagi so convinced that he had encountered a wolf? Because he, like many other people in rural Japan, it would transpire, had heard the telltale sign of wolves in the night many years earlier.

Local reports

Yagi’s pursuit of the Japanese wolf began about 20 years before his sighting in 1996. He was on night watch duty at a mountain lodge that was owned by a mountaineering group he was part of.

“It was then when I heard a howl,” says Yagi. “I knew that the Japanese wolf had been declared extinct since the Meji era [which ended in 1912], but I thought, ‘An animal that doesn’t exist can’t howl’.” And so began his 50-year search for the Japanese wolf.

The photographs he captured on that night as he crept to within an arm’s length of what could have been a living relic ignited the imaginations of local Chichibu residents after they were examined by a prominent Japanese zoologist who described the animal as ‘extremely wolf-like’, without conclusively saying the animal was an extinct wolf. While many academics remained sceptical about their existence, some experts concluded that the animals in Yagi’s photos closely resembled the Japanese wolf. The animal became known as the “Chichibu yaken” (or the Chichibu “wild dog”).

Soon, other Japanese residents began coming forward with similar stories.

Picture of a wolf-like creature encountered by Hiroshi Yagi (Credit: Hiroshi Yagi)

Without conclusive evidence that the animal Yagi saw was a Japanese wolf, the creature became known as the Chichibu “wild dog” (Credit: Hiroshi Yagi)

“My mother told me that her friend in Chichibu – a lady in her 50s – claims to have seen a wolf-like animal in her garden back in December,” says Alex Martin, an American-Japanese journalist who has started his own search after hearing Yagi’s story. “There have been numerous accounts of sightings, reports of howling and discoveries of purported wolf bones, droppings and fur that have led some to believe that the animal may still be alive and roaming the mountains of Japan.”

There have been numerous accounts of sightings, reports of howling and discoveries of purported wolf bones, droppings and fur – Alex Martin

The Japanese wolf is often portrayed in literature and folklore as a “mystical” animal, in the words of Martin. The specific name of the Japanese wolf, hodophilax, translates as “pathway guardian” in reference to the Japanese legend of “okuri-okami”, the “sending wolf” or “escorting wolf” who followed travellers on mountain trails and guarded them during their journey. Other versions of the folklore tell of okuri-okami who attack travellers who fall or who do not act respectfully towards the wolves.

What is likely is that the legends are borne from the real behaviour of wolves, who might stalk prey for many kilometres before attacking them, giving the impression they are protecting travellers, when in fact they are hunting.

A scene from the animated film Princess Mononoke (Credit: Alamy)

The great white wolf goddess, Moro, from the animated film Princess Mononoke is based on the legend of the Mitsumine Shrine (Credit: Alamy)

The Japanese wolf is worshipped in Japan, and is particularly revered in Chichibu where many shrines pay tribute to the animals. One such shrine, Mitsumine Shrine, is said to have been founded by a prince, who after becoming lost in the mists of the Okuchichibu mountain range while on a mission to subdue a warring tribe, was guided to safety by a great white wolf.

Modern Japanese arts and literature also pay reference to the wolves. The animated film Princess Mononoke (1997), which is said to be based on the legend of the Mitsumine Shrine, features a great white wolf goddess that raises a human child called San, played by Yuriko Ishida in Japan and Claire Danes in the English version, who becomes one of the film’s protagonists.

“Personally, I’ve discovered that researching this animal involves various aspects – not only science, but folklore, history, religion and much more – things that help paint a vivid picture of how superstition and legends were very much a part of everyday life in pre-modern Japan,” says Martin.

The amateur search

Due to the swelling popularity of Yagi’s research, the intrepid researcher is now supported in his search by about 20 other individuals – all amateurs – five or six of whom are regularly active.

“When the pictures were made public, many other people came forward to share their stories of wolf cries or sightings,” says Yagi. “It was this kinship, that we were not alone in our belief in what we have seen and heard, that has brought together this search, and now a bit of traction. It has to be this personal connection with the wolf, that inspires this belief in the wolf’s existence. And together we want to bring out the truth.”

Hiroshi Yagi fixes a camera trap to a tree (Credit: Hiroshi Yagi)

Yagi has set up 70 infra-red camera traps across the Okuchichibu mountains to find more proof (Credit: Hiroshi Yagi)

But Yagi acknowledges that the photographs he took 23 years ago are not the definitive proof he needs.

Now, the search is turning to modern technology to help capture further proof, including about 70 motion-sensitive infra-red video cameras set up across the Okuchichibu mountains. About a year ago, they recorded footage of three deer running past one of these camera. At first it seemed little to be excited about, but on closer inspection, Yagi noticed the audio accompanying the images appears to have picked up the sound of a howl.

“We brought the recorded howl to a specialist, and he compared it to that of the Eastern wolf that was kept at Asahikawa Zoo in Hokkaido,” says Yagi. “He declared with 99.5% assurance that the two were of the same animal, and I have received a certificate of authenticity for the wolf recording.”

WATCH

Hiroshi Yagi’s wolf howl recording

0:25

The supposed howl of a Japanese wolf can be heard in this short clip. You might need to wear headphones to hear it clearly.

“When I first heard the howl 50 years ago, I had told many people that I believed it was the wolf,” says Yagi. “But their logic was that ‘If it doesn’t exist, it can’t be’. Whereas I believe in its opposite – if it is, then it exists. And it is this disbelief in other people, its this idea to disprove their logic, that has driven me this far. Sometimes it does seem like the road is still long.”

‘Lazarus’ species

Historically, the IUCN used the “50-year rule” to determine whether a species or subspecies is extinct, although it has now been replaced by a more nuanced species-specific approach, which requires evidence to be collected from targeted surveys across a species’ range before extinction can be determined. The reality is that for some species, which are widely tracked and extensively researched, 50 years without observation is an unnecessarily long time.

Mist in a dark woodland (Credit: Getty Images)

In the most remote environments, reports from locals are some of the best data scientists can work from (Credit: Getty Images)

For others there might have been so few sightings of the animals in the first place it would be an arbitrarily unfair rule. “No Western scientists have ever seen a wild saola – a beautiful long-horned Asian forest antelope, which is one of the world’s rarest mammals,” says Samuel Turvey from the Zoological Society of London’s Institute of Zoology. “Information about its distribution in Vietnam and Laos is based largely on anecdotal reports by local hunters and villagers.” In the case of the saola, a handful of photos are the most that Western scientists have seen, so the 50-year rule is obsolete.

“In some cases, possibly extinct species might occur in extremely remote and impenetrable landscapes which are rarely visited by researchers, and so their status remains unknown rather than necessarily extinct,” says Turvey. “The complexity of proving extinction is made more difficult by the theoretical challenges that you can’t prove a negative… just because you don’t find a species, does this just mean that you haven’t looked hard enough, or in the right place or at the right time of year, rather than necessarily meaning it no longer exists?”

Turvey warns that in the absence of definite accepted sightings in over a century, the continued survival of the Japanese wolf is unlikely, but not necessarily impossible.

“Making its survival less likely is the fact that wolves are social animals, which live in groups and make loud howling calls, which would be expected to make them more easily detectable compared to a solitary silent animal if they were still present in a landscape,” says Turvey.

“This brings us onto the sticky issue of data quantity versus data quality. Sightings have been reported which post-date the last ‘definite’ record, but they’re unverified and probably unverifiable, so we can’t be sure what was actually seen. This is the same confusing situation faced by scientists when trying to determine the possible survival of other ‘officially’ extinct species such as the thylacine and ivory-billed woodpecker.”

Reports made by local people who live in the same landscapes as possibly extinct species definitely shouldn’t be dismissed – Samuel Turvey

Some enthusiasts still believe that the thylacine, more commonly known as the Tasmanian tiger, still exists. One group of amateur sleuths have been using camera traps in the southern Tasmanian forests to find evidence of its existence, and in 2017 released a video purporting to show the animal, although the quality of the recording is anything but conclusive.

“Reports made by local people who live in the same landscapes as possibly extinct species definitely shouldn’t be dismissed,” says Turvey. “Often such reports represent the only source of information about rare animals across large areas of remote habitat, which would require huge amounts of funding to survey using standard ecological approaches.”

Living things that appear to return from extinction are dubbed “Lazarus” species. Perhaps the most famous example of which is the coelacanth, a species of fish that has remained unchanged for millions of years and until 1938 was only known from fossil records before a living example was found off the South African coast. There are thought to only be a few hundred coelacanths left in the world. But their natural habitat, in deep waters may explain why they remained undetected for so long.

Smaller than you might imagine, the Japanese subspecies was similar in size and colouration to the living Mongolian or Tibetan wolf (Credit: Hiroshi Yagi)

One sure way to put to bed the debate about whether the Japanese wolf really is still roaming wild in the mountains of Chichibu would be to obtain DNA evidence. This, far more than any number of photographs and recordings, could conclusively prove that the sightings are of wolves rather than domesticated dogs turned wild.

But there is another possibility. Wolves are able to successfully breed with domesticated dogs and produce fertile offspring, so there is a chance the population survived beyond the date of their presumed extinction by hybridising with local pets. A hybrid wolf-dog might explain the small, docile wolf-like animal Yagi saw 23 years ago. Although, in reality, the crossover between wolves and pet dogs would be so infrequent that a stable population would be unlikely to survive. Many large, domesticated dogs are also able to produce a wolf-like howl – so, stray pets which have ventured into the mountains might explain the noises locals heard.

Systematic collection and analysis of reported wolf sightings made by local people would be a very important next step to see what sort of patterns these reports might show in terms of distribution, says Turvey. Yagi agrees. If they find more evidence from their 70 remote cameras, they might better determine where to set up a harmless trap in order to capture one for DNA tests.

I’m inclined to believe that something is out there in the mountains – Alex Martin

“I believe I have been pure and passionate about finding the wolf, which is why I have been blessed with a sighting,” says Yagi. “I do believe I have been chosen by God to find and prove the existence of the Japanese wolf. Unfortunately there are nay-sayers, and I keep thinking ‘Get off the desk! Come and look for them in the mountain’.”

He is determined to keep patiently work towards his goal.

“Personally, I’m inclined to believe that something is out there in the mountains, whether it be the extinct animal itself or its descendants, and that sufficient time, money and technology will be able to reveal what it is,” says Martin, who will continue his own research having been inspired by Yagi. He has already had a new lead.

“Two weeks ago my mother informed me that she heard a series of unusual howls from the forest behind her Chichibu home, prompting me to set up infrared trail cameras in the area,” says Martin. “I’m waiting to see what I find.”

Source: The hunt for Japan’s ‘ghost’ wolves – BBC Future https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/p07qs3k3.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews

Wyoming Wolf Trophy Zones slaughter 22 Possible Yellowstone Wolves in October

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

Will Yellowstone Wolves be available for your Grandchildren to view?

Everyday Possible Yellowstone Wolves are being needlessly slaughtered in Wyoming, and need our Proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone”, along with our proposed regulation changes.

An estimated 528 wolves resided in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as of 2015. As of December 2018there were 80 wolves in 9 packs. A biological count (April 1, 2019) was 61 wolves in 8 packs.

With your help we can work towards insuring that they are!

Help us to put The Indian and Public Trusts to work Today!

Before they wipe out the rest of Your wolves, grizzlies, wild horses. https://continuetogive.com/protectthewolves

A total of it appears 22 possible park wolves have already been slaughtered in 2019 altogether 43 thus far in 2019 with 22 from the Trophy Zones  21 from the general Slaughter Zone in this Bloodthirsty State! Keep in mind that  these are just Wolves that have been reported killed! Does not take into account all that people chose not to report as they are required!!
Please consider becoming a Paid Member with Just $1.00 per month so We are able to call these crooked states out in COURT. We have the Research, the tools, the Attorneys, only missing Ingredient is 57,000 plus followers.

 

  Help us to put The Indian and Public Trusts to work Today, before they wipe out the rest of Your Yellowstone wolves, grizzlies, wild horses.

Please Consider Joining Our Voice to establish a “Sacred Resource Protection Zone” Surrounding National Parks in Blood thirsty states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana to begin with.

 

Take Back the Power that You as the public hold!

What will it take for the Government to Realize that Wyoming has once again proven they are incapable of managing The Public’s Federal Resources?

YELLOWSTONE WOLVES ARE DYING

At an Alarming Rate!!!!

https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/10212019-300×195.png #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInYellowstone

Historical Gray Wolf geographic range maps.

For Those that didnt think that Gray Wolves ever resided in Alabama 😉 Wolf habitation from the old days is largely taken from Trapper stories or the like. Without the ability for anyone today to have been there, they realistically can not say that wolves never inhabited states like Alabama. According to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundations page, prior to the takeover by their current director, RMEF stated that 2 million Wolves once resided in North America and Ungulate herds were healthier then than they are now.

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
224
California Fish and Game 93(4):224-227 2007
224
INCONSISTENCIES IN HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHIC
RANGE MAPS: THE GRAY WOLF AS EXAMPLE
STEPHANIE L. SHELTON1 AND FLOYD W. WECKERLY
Department of Biology
Texas State University
San Marcos, TX 78666
Correspondent email: stephanie.shelton@gmail.com
Range maps depicting historical distributions of wildlife may be inconsistent.
Different maps can be based on diverse sources of evidence which may vary in
reliability (e.g., specimens in Natural History Museums, trapper and hunter journals, conversations recorded in dairies) and the effort expended locating evidence may differ among map makers (Young and Goldman 1944, Seton 1953, Hall 1981).
Despite these limitations, maps depicting historical distributions are useful to individuals and institutions concerned with maintenance of biodiversity or restoration of native species to areas where they were extirpated. In this note, we used maps of the historical distribution of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, to exemplify such inconsistencies.
Once found throughout much of North America, gray wolf populations within the contiguous United States were almost extirpated, but some populations in Canada, Alaska, and Mexico have remained largely intact (Young and Goldman 1944, Leopold et al. 1981). Similar situations exist with other mammalian species in the United States, particularly large, charismatic herbivores and carnivores such as bison, Bos bison, elk, Cervus elaphus, mountain sheep, Ovis canadensis, and grizzly bear, Ursus arctos (Hall 1981). Available historical distribution data can assist in restoration efforts for these mammalian species in particular.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We selected historical range maps of North American gray wolves that were
developed independently of one another (Fig. 1). Historical was defined as the time period around 1500, the time before extensive colonization by Europeans. We considered distribution maps to be independent if the authors did not state their distribution maps were based on findings from other studies. We used range maps from (Fig. 1) Young and Goldman (1944), Seton (1953), Hall (1981), and Nowak (2002). The chosen sources present their gray wolf range maps as common knowledge of the distribution of the gray wolf in North America. No explicit details on how these maps were created appear in any of the sources.
Each independent North American source range map was overlaid onto a base map of the continental United States by heads up digitization using ArcMap 9.0
(Environmental Research Institute, 2004). This final ranked map depicted the agreement and differences among the four maps in the historical range distribution of the gray wolf in the United States. Rankings were shown on the final map from 0-4. Areas with 0 1
Current address: Stephanie Shelton, 12610 Live Oak Lane, Buda, TX 78610
NOTES 225
indicated all source maps showed the absence of the gray wolf, whereas areas with 4 represent all source maps showed the historical presence of the gray wolf. Fig. 1 Historical gray wolf range maps obtained from available literature. The grey area on each source range map denotes gray wolf distribution according to the author.
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
226
RESULTS
A majority of the gray wolf historical range where the four maps are consistent
occurs in the northern, central, and northwestern United States, inconsistencies
are in the western and southeastern portions of the country (Fig. 2). The
southeastern portion of the United States follows a pattern of agreement among maps ranging from four to two from North to South, respectively. Three or more maps agreed in the Northeast, but agreement decreased in the east-central part of the country in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Disagreement among source range maps is most pronounced in California and Arizona, followed by Washington, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada (Fig. 2). Small parts of Idaho and Wyoming have inconsistencies ranging from four to two maps in agreement. Part of California and a small portion of southwest Arizona are the only two states with rankings of 1, meaning only one of the maps suggests the historical presence of gray wolves.
Fig. 2 The ranked map agreements for the presence of the gray wolf in the United States based on four independent historical range maps.
NOTES 227
DISCUSSION
Correspondence of range maps in the southeastern states was lacking, probably
due to unresolved species relationships among the gray wolf, coyote, Canis latransand red wolf, Canis rufus (Nowak 2002). Most discrepancies among historical gray wolf range maps occurred in the western states, especially in California. Range maps used in our analysis indicate gray wolves rarely occupied the central, coastal, or southern portions of the state. Young and Goldman (1944) postulated that wolves were rarely found in deserts; but some of their results indicated that gray wolves did inhabit those regions. Early records document wolves in the Sacramento Valley, and near the San Joaquin River in Madera County (Young and Goldman 1944). In 1918, a wolf was killed
in Los Angeles County and in 1922 a gray wolf was trapped in the Providence
Mountains, San Bernardino County (Young and Goldman 1944:58, Hall 1981). Young and Goldman (1944) and Hall (1981) report wolves probably inhabited areas near Mono Lake and Mount Dana in Mono County in 1930.
Information for many historical range maps came from diaries of trappers, settlers, and explorers. Some range boundaries may be questionable because they were based on historical records or erroneous descriptions of specimen locations. Revisiting original records of gray wolf distribution may help to produce more meaningful and, perhaps, accurate range maps but many descriptions are cursory or may reflect inaccurate location data. Schmidt (1991:84) suggested that further research of artifacts, historical documents, and other “paleontological searches” be conducted to enhance
data already available. Differences among historical range maps of the gray wolf
suggests more effort is needed to identify historical animal ranges in the western United States, particularly in California, the only state where apparently, large areas were never occupied by wolves.
Failure to confirm animal sightings or obtain additional sources of evidence to
corroborate historical presence of wildlife may lead to inconsistencies in historical range maps. Our analysis of historical range maps of the gray wolf illustrates this. It is likely that historical range maps of other charismatic, large mammal species are also inconsistent.
LITERATURE CITED
Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
Leopold, A. S., R. J. Gutierrez, and M. T. Bronson. 1981. North American game birds and
mammals. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, USA.
Nowak, R. M. 2002. The original status of wolves in eastern North America. Southeastern
Naturalist 1:95-130.
Schmidt, R. H. 1991. Gray wolves in California: their presence and absence. California Fish and
Game 77:79-85.
Seton, E. T. 1953. Lives of game animals. Charles T. Branford Co., Boston, USA.
Young, S. P. and E. A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America: Part I – their
history, life habits, economic status, and control. The American Wildlife Institute,
Washington D. C., USA.
Received: 27 August 2006
Accepted: 24 February 2007

 

Source: (PDF) Inconsistencies in historical geographic range maps: The gray wolf as example https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Historical-gray-wolf-range-maps-obtained-from-available-literature-The-grey-area-on-each_Q320.jpg #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews

Predator Defense Calls out Pacific Wolf Coalition

 We have to agree with Brooks Fahy, Executive Director of Predator Defense. Not one of the Orgs defended Dr. Robert Wielgus at the September 2016 meeting that were present, and for certain there were 2 there from the Pacific Wolf Coalition Members. We asked to Join the Pacific Wolf Coalition in 2016, but were not accepted most likely due to The Center For Biological Diversity requesting they not allow Us in. That assumption comes from being invited to Join The Endangered Species Coalitions National Phone Conference and then being asked not to return and was led to believe that it was a request from The Center For Biological Diversity.

Look Folks We have research that not one of those Organizations can use without Us, yet they all have refused to respond to Our Invitation to Join our Allotment Closure Request. In essence it appears to Us that these Orgs want the vicious circle of killing to continue rather than Join an Organization that has precedent setting Tools as well as Research.

It is past time to get a New Path, Tools and Research actually working to protect your children resources to begin creating precedent setting case Law.

In Support of Brooks Fahy with Predator Defense It is past time for the Public to be aware of what is happening with Orgs that claim they want to stop anything period. Clearly they do not want some invisible focus removed from them.

Erik Molvar with Western Watersheds Project accepted our invitation in the first 10 minutes to target McIrvins Grazing Allotments. We owe Erik a huge Howl and Thank you, He is the One Organization that sees the value in tools that he does not have at his Fingertips.

Washington Gov. Inslee shakes off fear of big bad Republican wolf-haters

Jay Inslee.  (Beth Clifton collage)

26 of 30 wolves killed in Washington since 2012 were killed to protect just one ranch

            OLYMPIA,  Washington––Who’s afraid of the big, bad wolf?

Not many people,  actually.  Twenty-six of the 30 wolves who have been killed in Washington state since 2012 for alleged livestock predation have reportedly been killed in response to complaints from just three people:  Diamond M Ranch owners Len McIrvin,  his son Bill McIrvin,  and his nephew Justin Hedrick.

The Diamond M Ranch,  along  with a border crossing into British Columbia,  are the chief businesses of Laurier,  Washington,  a “U.S. Census-designated place” rather than  a town,  in northern Ferry County,  with an official human population of one.

(See Wolves, grey whales, & sea lions targeted to preserve meat-getting traditions and Wolf pack massacre: Profanity Peaks.)

Joel Kretz

Tail that wags the dog

But McIrvin family has long appeared to be the tail that wags the dog on wolf policy,  staunchly backed by Washington seventh legislative district state representative Joel Kretz.

Kretz,  a far right Republican,  appears to have been best known,  before he was elected to the statehouse in 2005,  for puma hunting and trying to poke loopholes through Washington state law discouraging puma hunting with hounds.  As deputy minority leader of the Washington State House of Representatives,  Kretz notoriously steered state funding to help the annual Omak Stampede rodeo,  including the Omak Suicide Race.

(See Beavers gnaw way toward wolf, grizzly & economic recovery in the Cascades.)

Jay Inslee,  elected governor of Washington in 2012,  has throughout his tenure appeared to be afraid of the big,  bad Kretz and Diamond M influence in the politically conservative eastern half of the state.

Jay Inslee is the one in the middle.
(Beth Clifton collage)

But maybe no longer?

But Kretz is no longer deputy minority leader in the Washington house.  The threat that U.S. President Donald Trump might soon be impeached may jeopardize Kretz’s reputed political allies in the White House and Department of the Interior.

Inslee is running for re-election as governor,  after abandoning an eight-month bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential  nomination.   Inslee is also in the midst of a political fight over his having redirected $175 million from highway rebuilding to improving culverts to help salmon runs.

And Inslee on September 30,  2019 asked Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife director Kelly Susewind to “make changes in the gray wolf recovery program to further increase reliance on non-lethal methods,  and to significantly reduce the need for lethal removal of this species.”

Wrote Inslee in an open letter distributed to media,  “I understand that conflicts between wolves and livestock do occur,  especially as the state’s wolf population continues to grow.”

That was no news,  though,  to anyone who has been paying attention.

White wolf.
(Beth Clifton photo)

Diplomacy first

Inslee next credited the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife,  “working with the Wolf Advisory Group,  livestock producers,  hunters,  conservation groups and others,”  with having “made significant progress in securing both gray wolf recovery and increasing the social tolerance of wolves on the Washington state landscape.”

Then,  though,  Inslee directly challenged the McIrvin/Kretz alliance.

“As you know,  wolves were extirpated in the state by the 1930s on behalf of livestock interests,”  Inslee reminded Susewind.

Wolves “started migrating back to the state in 2008 from surrounding areas,”   Inslee recited.  “Most of the wolves live in the northeastern corner of the state and their territories have high overlap with federal public lands.  For reasons that are not entirely clear,  numerous conflicts with livestock producers have occurred in a handful of federal grazing allotments.  Chronic livestock depredations and annual lethal removal of wolves in the Kettle River Range in Ferry County have resulted in public concern and outrage over lethal management actions taken by the department.

Wolf––who stood three feet high at the shoulder––grabs a fish.
(Beth Clifton photo)

“I share the public’s concern”

“I share the public’s concern,”  Inslee said.  “I believe we cannot continue using the same management approach on this particular landscape.  The status quo of annual lethal removal is simply unacceptable.”

Inslee asked Susewind to accelerate an ongoing “update to the lethal management guidelines, with the goal of significantly reducing the role of lethal removal in the wolf management program.

“In addition,”  Inslee asked,  “please consider what opportunities exist to work with the U.S. Forest Service and other public land managers to make changes that would reduce the conflicts, including changes in allotment policies for public lands that are prime wolf habitat,  the addition of more intensive range riding,  and other proven or promising methods.”

Translation:  Inslee might favor cancellation of the U.S. Forest Service grazing leases that the McIrvin family has held since 1943.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Predator Defense withdraws from coalition

Inslee finally stood up to the McIrvin family and Kretz just as Predator Defense executive director Brooks Fahy drafted an October 1, 2019 letter of resignation from the Pacific Wolf Coalition,  a 37-member alliance of nonprofit organizations that has since 2012 at least nominally represented the interests of wolves,  wildlife in general,  and the natural environment in negotiations with state and federal government agencies.

“Wolves have been welcomed home to Washington state to be slaughtered,”  Fahey charged. “Yet year after year this ‘wolf coalition’ has remained effectively silent about the senseless killing of wolves in its own back yard.  It was also silent about the destruction of the career of one of North America’s preeminent carnivore ecologists,  Robert Wielgus,  Ph.D.,  whose years of research showed that wolf-livestock conflicts in NE Washington State were predictable and avoidable and that the wolves were set up for slaughter by the primary rancher involved,”  Len McIrvin.

Wielgus,  longtime director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University,  lost his job after conflicting with McIrvin and Kretz.  Wielgus in May 2017 reportedly received $300,000 to settle a lawsuit he filed against Washington State University with the assistance of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Wolves.  (Dave Pauli photo)

“Unconscionable complicity”

“The coalition’s silence about these atrocities long ago became unconscionable complicity,”  Fahey continued.  “Silence—about the slaughter of the [eight] Old Profanity Territory wolves [earlier in 2019] and kill orders for the ‘incremental removal’ of the Togo and Grouse Flats wolves—was the last straw.

“If the coalition as a whole was acknowledging the feelings of many of its member organizations—in addition to public sentiment,  common sense,  and the best available science,”  Fahey said,  “they would take a stand for wolves that reflects the following realities:  the majority of the public is already against wolves being killed;  science shows killing wolves is counterproductive ;  wolves are ecologically invaluable on our landscape;  cattle grazing should not receive priority over wolves on public lands;  there are places that cows simply do not belong;  [and] wolves deserve places to live in peace.”

Wolves.  (Beth Clifton photo)

Center for Biological Diversity petitioned Inslee to act

Another Pacific Wolf Coalition member,  the Center for Biological Diversity,  on June 24, 2019 sent Inslee an online petition bearing 532,836 signatures asking him to do essentially what he finally did do on October 1,   2019.

The Center for Biological Diversity also asked Inslee to “officially oppose the Trump administration plan to strip nearly all gray wolves of their federal Endangered Species Act protection.

“This spring,”  the Center for Biological Diversity explained,  “Washington’s fish and wildlife department sent a letter of support to the Trump administration for its pending proposal to strip wolves of federal protection across nearly the entire lower 48 states,  including parts of Washington where wolves are still federally protected.  An expert panel of scientists roundly criticized the plan as not based on the best available science.  Both California and Oregon oppose the federal delisting proposal.”

(Beth Clifton collage)

The Pacific Wolf Coalition

The 36 remaining Pacific Wolf Coalition members include as “supporting organizations” the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation;  Training Resources for the Environmental Community;  and the Wilburforce Foundation.

National and multi-state regional members include Cascadia Wildlands;  Center for Biological Diversity;  Defenders of Wildlife;  Earthjustice;  the Endangered Species Coalition;  the Humane Society of the United States; Living With Wolves;  National Parks Conservation Association;  thenNatural Resources Defense Council;  Western Environmental Law Center;  Western Watersheds Project;  WildEarth Guardians;  and the Wildlands Network.
California members are the California Wolf Center;  Environmental Protection Information Center;  Klamath Forest Alliance;  Mountain Lion Foundation;  Project Coyote;  and Sierra Club California.

Merritt & Beth Clifton

Oregon members include Bark;  Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project;  Forest Web of Cottage Grove;  Greater Hells Canyon Council;  Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center;  Northeast Oregon Ecosystems;  Oregon Chapter Sierra Club;   and Oregon Wild.

Washington members include the Cascade Forest Conservancy;  Conservation Northwest;
Kettle Range Conservation Group;  The Lands Council;  Washington Chapter Sierra Club;  Western Wildlife Outreach;  and Wolf Haven International.

https://i1.wp.com/www.animals24-7.org/wp-content/uploads/PicsArt_10-03-03.29.27-269×300.jpg?zoom=1.375&resize=344%2C384

New Wyoming Fish and Game Directors Actions appear questionable

Wyoming Mike Schmid, protect our children's resourcesI’d like to give everyone a little background on the state of Wyoming’s Game Commission. This is taken off Wyoming Game & Fish home page.
  The Commission serves as the policy making board responsible for the direction and supervision of the Director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and through the Department provides an adequate and flexible system of control, propagation, management and protection and regulation of all wildlife in Wyoming (W.S. 23-1-301-303, W.S. 23-1-401). Seven members are appointed by the Governor for six-year terms with Senate confirmation. Not more than four members shall be of the same party (W.S. 23-1-201).
 
The first question about the commission that We have….. Four members shall be of the same party? Does that mean that democrats are supposed to be on the board? That is a big red flag to a prudent Individual as Our Wyoming Volunteer is not sure one of those commission members is affiliated with the Democratic Party!
 
Now to the member we want to discuss and need to rally and get this man kicked off the commission. His name is Mike Schmid. He is the Commissioner from District #3. He was appointed to the commission in March of 2017 and he will be there until March of 2023 unless we can oust him. 
 
Contact information for Mike Schmid;
Wyoming Game & Fish Commissioner
Mike Schmid
P.O. Box 14
La Barge, WY 83123
 
Also important is contact information for the Director of Game and Fish, Brian Nesvik
 
Also the Governor needs to be contacted;
Governor Mark Gordon
307-777-7220
Mike Schmid has a public facebook page. If you look on his FB page, you will see lots of dead animals. There are photos of his grandchildren holding up dead prairie dogs with him captioning it stating that the kids are doing a little varmint hunting. He is a public figure and his postings are very distasteful. The biggest mistake he has done though is to post a photo of himself with a dead mountain lion draped around his neck. Also please not the cougar is wearing a research collar. Mike also has images that show he hauled out a Stock Tank then put a trail Camera in place. So a Prudent Individual should question was he given Collar Tracking Data for the Cougar that is draped over his shoulder or did he actually bat the Cougar in with the stock Tank, and then kill it. The Images in our coming Video were gathered under Facebooks Free Use Policy due to the fact that they are shared publicly.
Not only is this distasteful, but begs to question if a little quid pro quo was going on here. Mike Schmid was appointed to the commission by Governor Matt Mead back  in March of 2017. The photo was obviously taken in the late Summer/Fall time period. The cougar is wearing a collar. Did Game & Fish give Mike the coordinates, so he could kill this lion? I wouldn’t put it past either party involved.
Remember the ID Commissioner that posed with the dead family of baboons? That went viral and we got him ousted from his position. We need to step up and do the same here. There is no difference between posing with a trophy in Africa and posing with a trophy right here in our own country!
A Huge Thank you out to Our Volunteer in Wyoming for bringing this to our Attention.

https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/mschmid8-300×225.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL