For endangered species politics replaces science

In December 2017, E&E News released a leaked U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service memo that revised how the agency assembles scientific data about rare species. Previously, species status assessment teams, composed of scientists who were experts in related fields, gathered the best available data about an organism. The Fish and Wildlife Service would use that information to make decisions about whether to list the species. Per the memo, teams must now include state-appointed members. The new policy went into effect on Nov. 1.

Congress and the White House — has found new strategies to replace science with politics, weakening the laws protecting the country’s biodiversity. According to the leaked memo, assessment teams must now include at least two representatives from each state in which the species is found, including one appointed by the state governor.

Decisions made to list or delist endangered species must be made under the best available science, not by politicians.  To think about all the wolf-antagonistic states that have openly stated they would rather delist wolves could mean life or death for wolves as well as many other endangered species. #ExtinctionIsForever #FollowtheScince #ScienceOverPolitics

Under Fish and Wildlife’s new policy, eighteen appointed state representatives may now participate in federal species assessment teams for wolves
#ExtinctionIsForever #FollowtheScince #ScienceOverPolitics

Full article here

Protect Wolves on ESL
Gray wolf×202.jpg

 What Happens When the Top Predator Is Removed From an Ecosystem?

Ecosystems are complex and diverse, with many levels and intricate relationships between organisms. Removing any level from an ecosystem disrupts a delicate balance that may have evolved over millions of years. These systems are comprised of a series of checks and balances between predator and prey, that tend to balance the whole. The removal of the top predators in an ecosystem has several impacts, some of which are expected, and others surprising.

Population Explosions
The most obvious result of the removal of the top predators in an ecosystem is a population explosion in the prey species. Predators keep herbivore populations in check. The reverse is also true, of course — predator populations are limited by the availability of prey. When prey is abundant, predator populations increase because more young are able to survive. More predators kill more prey, which, along with food scarcity, decreases the population. When prey becomes more scarce, the predator population declines until prey is again more abundant. Therefore, the two balance each other. When the predators are removed, prey populations explode.

Trophic Cascade
Without any predators to limit population growth, herbivorous prey species reproduce without check, and all of them are hungry. More herbivores eat more plants, and without anything to control them, they can quickly degrade their habitat. This puts pressure on the plants that they depend on for food, sometimes to the point of impeding plant reproduction and defoliating the habitat. This is known as a trophic cascade, and in extreme cases, can lead to the complete destruction of the ecosystem.
Behavioral Changes
One of the more surprising effects of the removal of the top predators from ecosystems is the resulting behavioral changes in the prey species. This was played out in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. As the forest became more degraded, authorities began culling the deer and elk herds in an attempt to control the population, but it had no effect on habitat degradation. Then they reintroduced wolves, the top predator, back into the ecosystem, and the habitat began to recover. Studies have shown that the reason for the change was because the deer and elk had changed their eating habits. With no predators, they stayed in one place and ate down to the roots. With wolves to watch out for, they browsed lightly, and moved on.
Population Sickness and Migration
With no predators to control the population and alter feeding behavior, the prey species quickly degrade and over-run its habitat. As food becomes scarce, the population becomes sick and malnourished, and will either move or crash. Many will seek new habitats, and may end up in people’s backyards, eating their gardens and becoming nuisance animals. In the case of the “islands” created by the flooding of Lake Guri in Venezuela after the dam was built, plants got more toxic, and the howler monkeys trapped by the water went mad after their population explosion.

Written by Maria Dolph×314-2-300×126.jpg

Yellowstone and Teton Wolves need a Christmas Miracle – Chicago Evening Post


Wyoming has needlessly Slaughtered 43 possible Park Wolves 73 in all since season opened Sunday, Oct. 1, 2017REDDING, CA – 12-24-2017 (Press Release Jet) — Americans have continually taken for granted their right to exterminate any creature that pose a danger, ever since they first arrived on Turtle Island. They annihilated the Buffalo to try to starve out the Native Americans, placed bounties on wolves, and other predators that they have decided they did not want to remain competing with

Our Sacred Yellowstone and Teton Wolf brothers are being ruthlessly slaughtered in Wyoming, which is only the first species. If We allow the greedy Elected Officials and State Agencies to have their way, Our Sacred Grizzly Brother will be next. As of December 22nd, 73 total wolves, 43 of which could have been possible National Park Resources along with 30 others have been needlessly Slaughtered.

Earlier this year Protect The Wolves™ petitioned Wyoming Game and Fish to change hunting Regulations as well as establish a  “Sacred Resource Protection Zone” surrounding National Parks along with changing their hunting regulations to not allow baiting, night time hunting with spotlights, along with making it illegal to shoot a collared wolf. Collaring Wolves like Elk is very expensive, and taxpayers end up footing the bill.

Source: Yellowstone and Teton Wolves need a Christmas Miracle – Chicago Evening Post #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

When farmers don’t bury dead cows, it affects where and what wolves eat | Michigan Radio

protect michigan wolves, protect the wolves, less depredations


When farmers don’t bury dead cows It seems to affect where and what wolves eat!


Michigan has held one wolf hunt. That was in 2013, when 22 wolves were killed in the Upper Peninsula.

The next year, a federal judge put wolves back on the endangered species list.

Since then, lawmakers from Michigan, as well as Minnesota and Wisconsin, have tried to tack on riders to various bills in Congress that would “de-list” the wolves. These moves are backed by farmers who say wolves are preying on their livestock.

But now, a new study indicates those farmers may be contributing to that predation problem. How? By not burying their dead cows.

Tyler Petroelje led the study and joined Stateside today. He’s from the west side of Michigan and is a doctoral candidate in wildlife biology at Mississippi State University.

Listen to the full interview above, or read highlights below.

On the 1982 Bodies of Dead Animals Act

“In Michigan, it is illegal to have an open pit carcass dump. The carcasses have to be buried underground and if it’s near any wellhead, there’s specific regulations for the lining that has to be within those areas. But one of the problems is that a lot of these livestock owners and operators either don’t know about this or it’s just a generational [thing] where they’re continually using these carcass dumps over and over again.”

On how piles of cow carcasses impact the wolves

“Wolves in areas with cattle carcasses in these livestock carcass dumps tend to reduce their range size as compared to wolves feeding on mostly natural forage.

“…when you have this readily available livestock carcass dump, it’s a much easier prey source and it brings wolves to these areas and they’re spending more time around there. And we see that almost a quarter of their diet was being made up from these livestock carcass dumps when they’re available.”

Do carcass dumps lead to the complaint farmers have – that wolves are preying on livestock?

“This is an issue that we have to look more closely into, because in some areas, such as Oregon, they have recently found that when they remove these livestock carcass dumps, they were able to decrease wolf depredation [attacks] in that area.

“Now, in our study area, we did not actually have any livestock depredation that occurred by our collared wolves while they were feeding on these livestock carcass dumps.

“So this is an important issue we need to take a little bit closer look at. When these carcass dumps are available, are wolves happy with that and then they don’t depredate on the livestock? But if these carcass dumps are depleted, and they’re used to feeding on cattle, does that cause more human-wildlife conflict?

“And that’s an important issue, so we have to realize that if we have these food resources out on the landscape, they can modify wolf behavior, so they’re going to start coming in closer to human establishments and they’re going to start potentially causing human-wildlife conflict.”

According to the DNR, wolf attacks on livestock are down this year. Farmers reported only six attacks on livestock and two on dogs in 2017. That’s compared to 26 total attacks last year and the all-time high, 49 attacks in 2010.

Click here to see a map of wolves’ home ranges in areas with carcass dumps as compared to areas without. Map courtesy of Tyler Petroelje.

Source: When farmers don’t bury dead cows, it affects where and what wolves eat | Michigan Radio×750-1.png #CutOffUSDAWildlifeServicesFunding #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

Wyoming Hunters have Slaughtered 44 possible Park Wolves 76 altogether to Date

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



AS OF 12/30/2017 at 3pm

Please Consider Joining Our Voice to establish a “Sacred Resource Protection Zone” Surrounding National Parks in the Blood thirsty state of Wyoming a total of it appears 76 wolves altogether 44 from the Trophy Zone, 32 from the general Slaughter Zone in this Bloodthirsty State!

Wyoming is over Quota in 3 Zones surrounding Yellowstone National Park already, and has proven once again that they are incapable of managing the Publics Federal Resources as well as our Sacred Species properly. They chose to ignore the public comment regarding Regulation Changes and establishing our Sacred Resource Protection Zone Voluntarily. THEY NEED TO BE TAKEN TO COURT!!
Please consider becoming a Paid Member so We are able to call these blood thirsty states out in COURT. We have the Research, the tools, the Attorneys, only missing Ingredient is 57,000 plus followers.

Take Back the Power that You as the public hold! Help us to put The Indian and Public Trusts to work Today, before they wipe out the rest of Your wolves, grizzlies, wild horses.

We asked for your support back in May to Help Yellowstone Wolves with our Sacred Resource Protection Zone…  Wolves are dying, crying out for us to help them.×718.png #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInYellowstone

Banff wolves may soon have meal they haven’t tasted in 140 years: wild bison 

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



Yellowstone Officials: Protect The Wolves™ says Send them the Bison you claim you need to Slaughter!”

It’s a potential meal that wolves in Banff National Park haven’t tasted in more than 140 years: wild bison.

Banff’s reintroduced bison herd is getting ready to go it alone next summer as their paddock fences come down, and that means facing predators that have been watching the new arrivals closely.

Ten new bison calves were born earlier this year in the Panther Valley, on the east side of Banff National Park, where 16 animals were relocated in April as part of a conservation project to reintroduce wild bison to the area after more than a century of absence in the mountain park.

“We’re interested in what effect bison will have on the ecosystem and at the same time how wolves will affect bison movements,” said Parks Canada wildlife ecologist Jesse Whittington.

Source: Banff wolves may soon have meal they haven’t tasted in 140 years: wild bison – Calgary – CBC News #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

WSU blows off Promised Settlement Date with Dr. Robert Wielgus

protect washington wolves, protect the wolves, Dr. Robert Wielgus



WSU blows off Promised Settlement Date with Dr. Robert Wielgus


For Immediate Release: December 28, 2017

Questions can be directed to:

Dr. Robert Wielgus:  Contact Info can be obtained from Protect The Wolves™

Protect The Wolves™ (530) 377-3031   [email protected]

Patricia Herman President Protect The Wolves™

Roger Dobson Director Protect The Wolves™

To Begin with WSU ‘s Dean of Agriculture, Ron Mittelhamer conspired and colluded with wdfw’s wolf policy lead Donny Marorello and Republican Representative Joel Kretz to mislead and lie to the public , the WAG, and the Washington legislature by defaming and discrediting internationally renowned predator ecologist professor Robert Wielgus of Wsu.
Wielgus reported that his legislatively funded research on wolf livestock depredations could be easily avoided in Wa by keeping livestock away from known wolf dens.
Those results were not what Dean Mittlehamer, wdfw Donny Martorello, or Representative Kretz wanted to be reported. So they destroyed the career and laboratory of WSU Professor Wielgus by charging Wielgus with 4 phony charges ( fiscal misappropriation, illegal use of state resources, illegal political lobbying, and scientific misconduct) and denouncing him as a liar and fraud.
  WSU has defamed Wielgus, Wielgus was subsequently exonerated of All 4 charges. Needless to say  WSU has continued targeting Wielgus . Since then his reputation and research laboratory were destroyed and his research salary was withheld and withdrawn by WSU.

All of this comes at the tail end of a 4 month wait, costing Dr. Wielgus even more undue stress and possibly losing his home. Peer initially gave them a 60-day window to review our complaint and decide how they’d like to proceed! Adam Carlesco was told that WSU would like to avoid litigation, and therefore would get back to them ASAP with an idea of a settlement agreement. Guess what People WSU’s  60-day window has passed. WSU asked for a few more days since the attorney handling the case passed away, so Peer out of compassion for their loss gave them some additional time.  Sadly WSU does not appear to care about the undue Stress, heartache, financial loss, and  all of the other drains on Dr. Wielguses health.

WSU’s new attorney got up to speed and claimed he’d get them a counter offer, but then they received nothing by the 22nd as promised which coming from an AG influenced organization isn’t a total surprise. From what Adam understands, the Assistant AG now on the case is a straight-shooter, our local counsel has worked with him and say he’s an honest and good guy – so that implies the issue is WSU and state administrators.

So, in a nutshell this puts Wielgus/ Peer in a tough spot. They have a mediation date set for early Feb, but given that they have not even received a counter offer by the promised date, they are not sure it’s going to be productive anyway. Rob is upset, as is Peer, as are We. So Peer will be filing this suit next week when local counsel gets back into the office.

Nothing should hamper or prevent negotiations while this case sits in federal court, unless WSU continues playing games with Human Lives. Peer conceivably could do both mediation and settlement, however with filing in Federal Court Next week  WSU will know that they are not playing games and hopefully they’ll straighten up since Peer knows they do not want the court precedent or continuing bad press that this case would bring. Protect The Wolves will continue to post on them and their underhanded treatment of Dr. Wielgus until he is vindicated as WSU should have done straight up from the very beginning.

Additionally, since they missed Peer’s deadline, with no remorse it would appear to a prudent individual. Peer will be working with the American Assn. of University Professors (AAUP) to draft up a resolution calling for a vote of “no-confidence” for the administrators running WSU and its Ag influenced school. Given the support the AAUP has had in its previous resolutions against the administration they believe that this could make a big difference while at the same time gather the attention of a number of higher education press outlets – the kind of media that WSU wants to avoid. Combined with the reporter from NY Times Magazine snooping around on this story, it seems that WSU is in for another, bigger black eye and Protect The Wolves™ will stick with this story to help end the Influence on a so called publicly funded Institution.

Our Children as well as their Children need to know when they choose a publicly funded school that they in fact will receive fair treatment. After all, day in and day out We all try to teach our children to be honest upstanding citizens.  It is high time that WSU’s Administrators as well as Washington States Elected Officials are held accountable.  At this point in time, with the influence placed on WSU by Kretz to Throw Wielgus under the bus, It will take  a whole lot of back peddling to get this Black eye off their Faces! Considering Joel Kretz appears to have Violated Washington State LAW. By violating this particular RCW he appears to be guilty of criminal harassment under WA law. RCW 9A.46.020.  by issuing indirect death threats against Dr. Robert Wielgus.×422.jpg #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

Keep the Endangered Species Act in Tact and NO to delisting Wolves

On this day December 28th 1973, the Endangered Species Act was signed into law. It was created to protect animals and plants that were in danger of becoming extinct. “Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed,” said President Richard Nixon while signing the act on December 28, 1973.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was not the first act of its kind. It replaced the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. But even before that, the U.S. government was steadily making the world a safer place for animals. It started when President Theodore Roosevelt created the first National Wildlife Refuge at Pelican Island, Florida, in 1903.

Later, in 1916, the United States and Great Britain, on the behalf of Canada, created a system of protection for certain birds that migrate between the United States and Canada. Then, on July 3, 1918, the United States passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to put the system into action, according to the USFWS.

Almost 50 years later, the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 authorized land acquisition that would be used to conserve selected species of native fish and wildlife. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 expanded on the 1966 act. It authorized a list of threatened animals that faced worldwide extinction and prohibited importation of threatened animals without a permit. Besides mammals, fish, birds and amphibians, sea creatures such as crustaceans and mollusks were added as protected creatures.

In 1973, the world came together in Washington, D.C., to take the protection of animals even further. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) gathered 80 nations to sign a treaty to regulate or prohibit international trade of endangered species except by permit.

Beginning in the early years of the 20th century, the near-extinction of the U.S. bison population and the disappearance of the Passenger Pigeon, or Wild Pigeon, initially drove the call for wildlife conservation. At the time, “naturalists” killed birds and other wildlife to add to their personal collections or to install in museums. Habitat losses grew as communities and farmland expanded. Widespread use of pesticides and the introduction of non-native species also endangered wildlife.

The American bald eagle — designated the national symbol by the Second Continental Congress in 1782 — became one the first species to be placed on the endangered list when there were only 487 nesting pairs. The protective umbrella proved successful: By 2007, the eagle population had recovered sufficiently to be removed from the list. The ESA works!

While the CITES treaty worked to protect species worldwide, the United States created the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to cover domestic issues. It increased protection for all plant and animal species listed as threatened or endangered, as well as their critical habitats. A critical habitat was defined as one that is vital to the survival of endangered or threatened species.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the act:

  • Defined “endangered” and “threatened”;
  • Made plants and all invertebrates eligible for protection;
  • Expanded on prohibitions for all endangered animal species;
  • Allowed the prohibitions to apply to threatened animal species by special regulation;
  • Required federal agencies to use their authorities to conserve listed species;
  • Prohibited federal agencies from authorizing, funding or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a species, destroy its critical habitat or modify its critical habitat;
  • Made matching funds available to states with cooperative agreements;
  • Provided funding authority for land acquisition for foreign species;
  • Implemented CITES protection in the United States.

The act hasn’t been accepted completely by some, though. “The Endangered Species Act is one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation focusing on wildlife protection; however, it was and remains very controversial,” said Brian Ogle, an anthrozoology instructor at Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida

Some think that the act hinders economic development and provides federal agencies with more control than state agencies. Often, when an endangered animal is found on public land, use of the land is strictly regulated, which can inhibit farming, logging and other commercial use of the land. Some have called for further, in-depth research on the economic effects of the ESA.

Opponents also argue the recovery period for species listed often takes too long and is not as effective as some say it is. “One of the most noticeable changes that came about because of the ESA centers on the land-use provisions and the penalties that can be assigned to public and private landowners for not following the provisions,” said Ogle.

This can be a concern because landowners are central to the protection of many species. Some think that the act does not necessarily help to promote conservation actions or support innovative approaches, but rather it centers on punishing those causing harm to endangered species unfairly.

Since the 115th Congress was sworn in on January 3, 2017,  it has already seen the introduction of at least 63 legislative attacks seeking to strip federal protections from specific species or undercutting the ESA.  The Endangered Species Act has been in the crosshairs since 2011, when the Republicans gained majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Since then, nearly 300 attacks have been launched against the Act and individual species. Republicans have repeatedly sought to undermine the Act’s science-based decision-making requirements by prematurely removing protections for wolves through overturning court decisions that found wolves still need protection in places like the western Great Lakes. The two most recent wolf delisting bills are HR424 and S.164 are bipartisan and would remove protections under the ESA for wolves in Wyoming and the western Great Lakes (all of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, as well as portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio). In addition, this bill prohibits judicial review of the reissued rules. We cannot let this happen!!

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop said he “would love to invalidate” the law and would need other lawmakers cooperation. The House Resources Committee has recently approved five bills that its members say will modernize the act. The Republican-written bills would strip away the right of citizens and environmental groups to sue to enforce the law; would require the federal government to weigh the economic impacts of listing a species; and would defer listing decisions to state-collected scientific data. One of the bills would delist wolves in the Midwest.

At last count, there were 173 riders attached to the H.R 3354 budget bill , 100 plus are some form of anti-regulations , public lands , wildlife ( wolves ), habitat, ESA and National Parks , Wilderness Areas, and pro grazing riders that take away a lot more of our National Forests.


The two most powerful decision makers to call first:

Chuck Schumer:
Phone: (202) 224-6542

Dick Durbin:
Phone: (202) 224-2152

THEN, call your own members of Congress!

Find your U.S. Representatives here:
Find your U.S. Senators here:    

Remind them that you are a VOTER, and you WILL REMEMBER their decision making on these matters when the time for RE-ELECTION comes!

~ L.G 


Politico~ Nixon signs Endangered Species Act, Dec. 28, 1973

LIVE SCIENCE ~ Facts About the Endangered Species Act of 1973×300.jpg

Counting wolves in the Upper Michigan Peninsula  

protect michigan wolves, protect the wolves

Breaking NEWS from Michigan DNR’s Kevin Swanson says Deer Population is way up. 😉

“We have a lot more deer on the landscape now,” says Swanson.

Wildlife specialists will soon be in the woods in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, tracking wolves.

The Department of Natural Resources last conducted a wolf census in 2016, when it estimated more than 600 wolves prowled in the U.P.

The DNR’s Kevin Swanson says they don’t know what to expect. But he says conditions may be right for an increase in the wolf population.

“We have a lot more deer on the landscape now,” says Swanson.

But Swanson says there are other factors, like canine distemper, that could negatively affect the wolf population.

“It seems our coyote numbers are down significantly in the Upper Peninsula over the last couple years.” says Swanson.

The official estimate of Michigan’s wolf population is not due until sometime in the spring.

Source: Counting wolves in the Upper Peninsula | Michigan Radio #CutOffUSDAWildlifeServicesFunding #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

USDA issues report on cattle, Non-predator causes accounted for almost 98% of all deaths in adult cattle and almost 89% of all deaths in calves.

oppose welfare ranching

Surprised? We are not…. Ranchers need to get a reality check and stop Crying WOLF!! When you look at the below numbers and truly think about it. It really shows you how much natural death there are comapred to Predators minuscule amount.

Non-predator causes accounted for almost 98% of all deaths in adult cattle and almost 89% of all deaths in calves.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) has released “Death Loss in U.S. Cattle & Calves Due to Predator & Nonpredator Causes, 2015,” a comprehensive report on producer-reported causes of death in cattle and calves in all 50 states.

Since 1995, NAHMS has teamed with USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and Wildlife Services to produce reports on cattle death loss in the U.S. every five years. This report provides analyses of cattle and calves losses in 2015. In addition, death losses by operation type (beef, dairy, mixed and other) are provided, and when possible, losses in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 were included for comparison.

Losses for adult cattle and for calves are reported separately and are categorized as predator and non-predator related. In addition, producer-reported methods used to mitigate losses due to predators and the cost of those methods are reported.

NAHMS provided a few highlights from the 2015 report:

▪ The total U.S. inventory of adult cattle (heavier than 500 lb.) was 78 million head in 2015, and the total calf crop was 34 million head (NASS data).

▪ About one-third of cattle operations had deaths in adult cattle.

▪ About 40% of cattle operations had deaths in calves.

▪ The estimated cost of death loss in cattle and calves in 2015 was $3.87 billion.

▪ Non-predator causes accounted for almost 98% of all deaths in adult cattle and almost 89% of all deaths in calves.

▪ The percentage of calf deaths attributed to predators increased steadily from 3.5% in 1995 to 11.1% in 2015.

▪ Respiratory problems accounted for the highest percentage of deaths in cattle due to non-predator-related causes (23.9%), followed by unknown causes (14.0%) and old age (11.8%).

▪ Respiratory problems also accounted for the highest percentage of deaths in calves due to non-predator-related causes (26.9%).

▪ Coyotes accounted for the highest percentage of cattle deaths due to predators (40.5%) as well as the highest percentage of calf deaths due to predators (53.1%).

Source: USDA issues report on cattle, calf death loss in the U.S.×390-1.jpg #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves