Fifth generation cowboys, take note

Euro-American ranchers in the Western U.S. commonly assert a level of privilege and entitlement that is as illegitimate as it is arrogant says Roger Dobson

As a Native American, I actively practice a traditional way of life inherited from a lineage that goes back thousands of years. I take great offense at hearing Anglo-American descendants of immigrants, bragging that they are 4th or 5th generation ranchers, and asserting self-proclaimed and imaginary rights to grazing our “traditional sacred and cultural forest lands.”

In the last 150 years, the land that became home for the Western United States, has been home to Native American people. Our ancestral ties to the lands of North America go back at least 20,000 years — a thousand generations. Euro-American immigrants are comparative newcomers to the West, and behave with an unjustified pride and arrogance. Considering the track record of the great-great-grandfathers of 5-generation ranchers, whom were active participants in the perpetual genocide of Indigenous Americans or who stood by with silent assent, they can be compared to current behaviors and actions of what’s now happening to Indigenous wildlife.

In Washington state and throughout western North America, these selfsame ranchers have been illegitimately grandfathered in to letting their cattle and sheep graze off private lands. In my opinion, if a rancher’s own land can’t support his animals by itself, they should be prohibited from owning any more livestock.

Then add insult to injury, state and federal agencies hire helicopters with shotgun hitmen to do the dirty work for them, yes, “a shotgun without a scope,” as reported by Donny Martorello on a phone conference with us. At times, the poor animal only gets wounded resulting in a slow and excruciating painful death while the American taxpayer pays for all of it.

In reality, any 4th or 5th (or even 6th or 7th) generation rancher is still a descendant of immigrants and traces of that heritage and legacy upon the American landscape resembles the same hostile takeover, which in wildlife terms, is comparable to an invasive species.

Traditional Indigenous peoples have a deep spiritual connection with the land that appears to have no counterpart in Euro-American ranching culture. Western ranchers commonly assert a level of privilege and entitlement that is as illegitimate as it is arrogant. The religious perspectives of many Anglo-American westerners are best described as “dominionistic.” They believe the land and its native plants and animals were placed here solely for their benefit and exploitation. By contrast, our traditional view is that we are the caretakers for all of our children’s resources which include all four-legged and winged-ones that exist on Mother Earth.

Colville National Forest representative Travis Fletcher, has refused to discuss numerous petitions to remove livestock as a measure to solve wolf-livestock conflicts at any of the numerous Washington Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) meetings we have attended. Travis Fletcher himself has told us that these allotments can be closed if it is in the best interest of the wildlife or the public.

The Organization that I volunteer for, Protect The Wolves, represents 57,900 individuals who are and have been requesting the closure of the offending grazing allotments since 2016.

According to the Capital Press, the LeClerc allotments closure request by the Kalispel Tribe was approved by Colville National Forest Supervisor, Rodney Smoldon, then denied by Regional Forester Jim Pena 2 days later.

The Public needs to know that this gross misuse of public land is not only expensive, but also a direct Violation of not only Indigenous Rights, but as well the rights of the Public when it comes to protecting Our Children’s Resources with protections available under the Indian and Public Trusts.

Keeping just the LeClerc allotment open will cost the taxpayer almost $675,000, as reported by the Capital Press, a livestock industry trade publication. Ranchers profit from public funding and on public lands — taxpayer dollars and their refusal to honor the constitutional right of land for traditional and cultural practices.

Wolves are every bit as sacred as the grizzly to traditional First Nations people from countless tribes. These majestic “real native westerners” deserve far greater respect and deference than do newcomers in cowboy hats.

Roger Dobson is an enrolled member of the Cowlitz tribe, and is Director of Tribal Cultural Relations for “Protect The Wolves”, a Native American religious 501(c)(3) organization, online at protectthewolves.com.

Source: Fifth generation cowboys, take note https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/cows10.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

Dec 3rd is #GivingTuesday for Nonprofits like Us

protect the wolves

Announcement: Dec 3rd is #GivingTuesday. Yes It’s a global giving moment to support the causes you love Like wolves. Wolves everywhere need research that has not been used yet like Ours. It will take an estimated $100,000 minimum for each lawsuit that we must get into the Courts using precedent setting case law that is not available to a normal nonprofit unless they are “First Nations” like we are.

How can you Help? You can help by adding just a $1.00 Donation, also by sharing our links, or You can help by  by creating your own Fundraiser here: https://www.facebook.com/fund/protectthewolves/ and scheduling it to begin at 5am December 3rd.

Donations to US nonprofits on Dec 3rd could be matched up to $100K by Facebook starting 5am PST/8am EST! So Mark your calendars.

#GivingTuesday, the antidote to Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Give back Dec 3rd by donating or creating your own fundraiser for @protectthewolves

Hopefully This will magnify our opportunities of getting facebook to notice Us on #GivingTuesday with the more of Our Followers that create their Own Fundraisers. https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/JOINTHEHOWL-300×200.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInWashington

Wyoming Wolf Trophy Zones slaughter 25 Possible Yellowstone Wolves

We now have precedent setting case law that can be applied to help Establish our Proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone.”. The only thing missing is the Public joining Our Voice as ONE. The Public needs to let Us Know when they are ready to begin getting this 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 25 possible park wolves have already been slaughtered in 2019 altogether 47 thus far in 2019 with 25 Wolves slaughtered in the Trophy Zones that surround Your National Parks.  22 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/2019/11/november72019-300×195.png #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews #YellowstoneWolves

US Supreme Court Upholds Indigenous Treaty Rights In Wyoming Hunting Case

This particular case Law can help Us to Establish our Proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone” surrounding National Parks. Yes this particular case was for Hunting out of Season, however First Nations rights and or Resources can be protected on or off Reservations. Wolves are Sacred to the majority of First Nations. Join Us today to begin using this precedent setting case. They are concerned about it already being used. Lets give them something to really be worried about.

The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed Native American treaty rights in a narrow ruling Monday in favor of a Crow tribal member who argued he was allowed to hunt out-of-season on traditional lands in Wyoming.

The case stems from a January 2014 incident when Clayvin Herrera went outside the boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana and harvested several bull elk in northern Wyoming.

Hunting big game animals during the winter is prohibited under Wyoming state law. The state government penalized Herrera and fined him more than $8,000.

But Herrera argued that he had the right to shoot those elk because of an 1868 treaty which allowed the Crow tribe to continue hunting on “unoccupied” lands outside the reservation boundaries in exchange for ceding most of its territory to the United States.

State trial courts, however, rejected Herrera’s argument and said the treaty language was invalidated once Wyoming was granted statehood in 1890 and took jurisdictional control of those lands.

But the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the original treaty rights in a 5-4 decision.

“Wyoming’s admission into the Union did not abrogate the Crow Tribe’s off-reservation treaty hunting right,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the majority opinion. “There is no evidence in the treaty itself that Congress intended the hunting right to expire at statehood, or that the Crow Tribe would have understood it to do so. Nor does the historical record support such a reading of the treaty.”

The ruling reaffirms tribal sovereignty in the United States, according to Monte Mills, co-director of the University of Montana’s Margery Hunter Brown Indian Law Clinic.

“[This] may embolden tribes to pursue and assert these rights in other areas,” Mills said. “But they are still going to be subject to review and interpretation.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a normally conservative vote on the bench, sided with the liberal majority in the 5-4 decision. This is the second time this year that Gorsuch has championed treaty rights on the Supreme Court.

 

Source: US Supreme Court Upholds Indigenous Treaty Rights In Wyoming Hunting Case | Wyoming Public Media https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/725965176.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInYellowstone

State Of Idaho Funds Controversial Wolf Bounty Program 

 

Allowing this Bounty to continue should technically nbe illegal, but then when you consider it is Idaho… You understand the fear and fairy tale spreading that they claim wolves are decimating Elk herds when in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana hunters slaughter over 26,000 elk in each state every year.

If you kill a wolf in Idaho, your effort might be worth $1,000. 

A nonprofit in North Idaho covers costs for hunters and trappers who successfully harvest wolves. The group, called the Foundation for Wildlife Management pays up to $1,000 per wolf harvest.

The group has been around since 2012, and although some conservationists dislike it, there’s nothing illegal about the program.

But what is new is the state of Idaho helping to fund the program. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission granted the Foundation for Wildlife Management $23,065 this year to help fund the payments for wolves harvested in target elk recovery areas.

In many ways, Idaho has set the stage for state management of wolves in the West. Wolves were removed from the Endangered Species List in Idaho in 2008 and the state opened a hunting season on them the following year. 

Now, as the federal government weighs whether to delist the species nationwide, wolf management may soon fall completely to states. If that happens states like Colorado and Utah may soon be managing these top predators, and making their own rules around hunting and trapping. If more states take over wolf management within their own borders, how many will follow Idaho’s lead? 

Justin Webb, executive director of the Foundation for Wildlife Management, says the program helps reduce wolf populations in places where the IDFG wants to boost elk numbers — like the Lolo area in Northern Idaho. In 2018 the IDFG killed 10 wolves in the Lolo area to reduce elk predation. 

Webb says hunters and trappers can kill wolves more cheaply than the government, and his organization is trying to help the Idaho Fish and Game. “Because it’s their job to manage our wildlife, and right now they’re not doing so successfully,” says Webb. “In my opinion we shouldn’t have to exist.” 

As a general rule, hunters play a key role in wildlife management by the state. “Our preferred and primary source for management is our hunters and trappers,” says Derick Attebury, chair of the Fish and Game Commission. That’s true whether the state is looking to boost pheasant populations, reduce mountain lion numbers, or remove wolves from the landscape. 

But the fact that the agency is funding a group that specifically incentivizes wolf hunting and trapping is drawing ire from some conservationists. 

Attebury points out that IDFG revenue comes from hunting and fishing licenses, so technically it’s sportsmen, not taxpayers, who are paying for the program. The Foundation for Wildlife Management was one of 11 organizations to receive grant funding, and according to state records, the median amount granted last year was $5,000, The funded projects are diverse, with dollars going toward everything from covered shooting platforms for a local gun club to a habitat restoration project led by Trout Unlimited. Attebury says that, like legal wolf harvest, all of the projects fit with IDFG’s wildlife management objectives.

Source: State Of Idaho Funds Controversial Wolf Bounty Program | Wyoming Public Media https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/708922113.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

 llamas Dead near Butte Mt, Wolves Blamed without proof

Montana blames A pack of wolves without proof they claim killed eight llamas in the Basin Creek area southeast of Butte last month.

John Steuber, state director of U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services, said three llamas were confirmed wolf kills. The other five are considered probable.

“It was all in the same area,” he said. “The five were older but it was pretty clear they were all killed by wolves.” but Steuber is only guessing it appears.

Steuber said wolf, mountain lion and grizzly bear depredations of livestock take place all the time across the state.

“It’s not extraordinary,” he said.

But what was a little uncommon about this incident is that wolves don’t normally kill multiple livestock animals at once.

“Most commonly, they get one kill at a time,” Steuber said.

Even so, Jeff LeFever, who lives off Basin Creek Road, said he is worried about his own animals, as well as hikers, bikers and other recreationists in the area. LeFever said the wolves are hanging around Basin Creek Reservoir.

But Nathan Lance, Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf biologist, said wolf attacks on humans are rare.

He says that if people have concerns about potential encounters they should carry pepper spray. But he said, “there are greater risks out there.”

“I work with wolves in the field, I trap them, I work by myself, I don’t carry a gun or pepper spray,” Lance said. “My biggest concern with humans (and wolf encounters) is their dogs.”

Lance said that if a person does meet a wolf, the best strategy is to stand tall, act aggressively, throw rocks, and slowly back away.

Steuber listed off the animals people in the Basin Creek area might want to do their best to protect, given the wolves’ presence: dogs, cats, sheep, calves or other small animals.

Also, the wolves will be killed, Steuber said.

“Once a pack gets into trouble, it can be difficult to relocate them and there are liability issues with relocating problem animals,” Steuber said.

But the next step for Wildlife Services will be to get a radio collar onto one or more of the wolves in the pack so the agency can understand the dynamics of the pack and where they are.

Lance said there are eight wolves in the pack and he said they are called the Spire Pack. He said they are living in the Highland Mountains south of Butte.

Lance said there are wolves living all around the Mining City.

“They follow the food,” Lance said.

He said that besides the pack in the Highlands, another pack lives in the Mount Haggin and Fleecer mountains west of Butte and another pack roams near Deer Lodge.

“Those are the three closest,” Lance said.

That doesn’t count the random lone wolf or pairs of wolves that might also be on the landscape. He said the area is “saturated territory” for wolves.

Lance said wolf packs can range about 350 square miles for their territory. He also said wolves are “opportunistic” animals and that livestock-wolf conflict ebbs and flows.

“The bulk of wolves are in western Montana,” Lance said.

Owners of livestock who suffer wolf or other wildlife depredation can receive some compensation for their loss, said George Edwards, executive director of Montana Livestock Loss Board.

Wildlife Services has to be able to verify the kill came from a predatory animal, Edwards said.

Edwards said the compensation can be $600 per animal. Or if the owner has a receipt from purchasing the downed livestock, then the compensation can be higher, he said.

 

Source: Wolves kill llamas near Butte | Local | mtstandard.com https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/5dbb1a1ae5f63.image_.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

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

 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

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