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

protect the wolves, sacred resource protection zone

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

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

We need to hold these Officials Accountable!

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

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

Patricia Herman

Source: Letter: ‘Flake’ is a fitting name | Politics-national | tucson.com http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/electedofficials-750×498-750×498-750×498-1.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreMexicanGrayWolvesToColorado

Endangered Mexican gray wolf found dead in Arizona

 

protect mexican gray wolves

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

 

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

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

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

Source: Endangered Mexican gray wolf found dead in Arizona | News | tucson.com http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/OR7-1-3-2.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

Why men trophy hunt

protect the wolves, trophy hunters

We simply associate it with TPS 😉

Chris T. DarimontBrian F. CoddingKristen Hawkes

1. Introduction

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

2. Man the show off?

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

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

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

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

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

3. Costly signalling in a global, commercialized world

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

4. Policy-relevant research

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

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

Authors’ contributions

All authors conceived of, wrote and edited the manuscript.

Competing interests

We have no competing interests

Funding

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

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

Source: Trophy hunting | Biology Letters http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/wolf-pic-for-petition-IDAwolfenews081117.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Source: Conflict between wolves and ranchers touches issues of conservationism and Native American rights – ABC News http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/GrizzlyandWolf-750×432.png #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInYellowstone

Wisconsin Fails to Consult Tribes

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many who testified were simmering with outrage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2pups-1.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews

Wyoming Game and Fish seeks public input

Protect yellowstone wolves, protect the wolves

Yellowstone and Teton Wolves need proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone”

Wyoming needs to hear We are tired of them managing our Federal Resources under the influence of Hunters and Ranchers before there are no Wildlife left for Our Children to enjoy. They need to once again hear about Our Proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone”. We will be personally calling Director Talbott and again requesting a Meeting with the Tribal Groups that we assembled for his canceled meeting.

Wyoming has proven time and time again not being fit to manage the Public’s Resources. From backing out of meetings to getting caught selling “Outlawed” poisons, to disrespecting Native American Religious Rights by calling our Sacred Species “Vermin”.

Wyoming needs to Hear from Us !!

Comments and suggestions can be submitted in an online forum today and start commenting on important issues to you. The forum is accessible at wgfd.wyo.gov under the ‘get involved’ tab

CHEYENNE—The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is seeking public input as it embarks on a major project to chart a path for the future of Wyoming’s wildlife.

People can offer comments on wildlife and the Game and Fish Department as part of a major research study to develop a new agency-wide strategic plan.

Public input will help shape the first-of-its-kind strategic plan that the Game and Fish plans to use for years to come, according to a press release.

“This is your chance to drive the future of Wyoming’s wildlife,” said Scott Talbott, director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. “An opportunity like this does not come around very often and we hope you will take advantage of it and give us your thoughts on the future of wildlife, hunting, fishing and our agency.”

Comments and suggestions can be submitted in an online forum today and start commenting on important issues to you. The forum is accessible at wgfd.wyo.gov under the ‘get involved’ tab. Visitors will be able to post comments on the website until June, 2018.

In February there will be a series of in-person events where the public can comment. There will also be a telephone survey of residents and nonresidents.

Game and Fish will build the strategic plan between March and June of 2018. The agency has partnered with Responsive Management, a survey research firm specializing in capturing and analyzing public opinions toward natural resources and outdoor recreation, and The Cooperation Company, a firm specializing in strategic and operational planning, for this project.

“Our mission is to conserve wildlife and to serve the public. We believe this project will help us do both even better,” Talbott said.

As the agency leading wildlife management in Wyoming, the Game and Fish manages more than 800 species of fish and wildlife across Wyoming.

Source: Wyoming Game and Fish seeks public input | News | rocketminer.com http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/wfg-1.png #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInYellowstone

And Hunters wonder why the Yellowstone Elk herds are disappearing? DUH

Look People, it truly isnt Rocket Science, when you slaughter the Cows, there is nothing left for breeding. This Cow was killed just outside of Yellowstone National Park. Wyoming Fish and Game need to pull their Heads out and stop hunting Period. This is but 1 of the many Prime Examples of why Wyoming has no Business managing Wildlife Period. The Way they manage our Public Resources, We will have no wildlife Period left for our Children’s Children to enjoy in Yellowstone.

This Particular Hunter even admits it was the most foolish shot hed ever taken… Sounds more like he merely pointed at the Herd and Shot!

 

Excerpts from the Story:

On Sunday, Dec. 3, Casey Johnson came to our Meeteetse, Wyoming motel room. He would be my guide for the next three days on the cow elk hunt I had booked with Wood River Outfitters. Casey would prove to be strong, athletic, and extremely knowledgeable when it came to elk behavior.

During our pre-hunt motel room session, I learned that the Yellowstone herd — 2,000 to 3,000 of them — was wintering on Carter Mountain, part of the Absaroka Range. The elk were hopefully on the flat beneath the mountain, and in all likelihood, a cow elk would stand and look at me from 65 yards. Casey would be back at 6 a.m. to pick up Mike Hall and me in his quad cab Chevy.

Without thinking, I picked out a cow on the inside edge and followed her in my scope’s crosshairs. I swung a foot ahead and touched the trigger. When the herd cleared, a dead cow lay in the trodden snow. That shot was the most foolish I’ve ever taken in my life, as the consequences could have been disastrous. I was darn lucky.

 

Source: Wiltz: Luck was on my side in Wyoming | The Daily Republic http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/12RUDuQEk4QdIe531DttdF_3SnOmvTcbC.jpg #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInYellowstone

Will ODFW go after OR7? 2 more Dead calves blamed on Rogue Pack

or7, protect oregon wolves, protect the wolves

ODFW said though they’re not required,  but state non-lethal measures can be used to reduce livestock depredation.

 

JACKSON COUNTY, Ore. – Two more calves were killed by wolves in Jackson County, just days after another calf was found dead.

On January 4 a cattle producer found a dead calf on private ranchland about six miles southeast of Prospect, in the Boundary Butte area. The 250-pound calf was found about 500 yards from a residence.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife determined the calf was killed by wolves. Evidence implicated the Rogue Pack.

On January 10, another dead calf was found close to a residence in the same area. GPS collar data placed wolf OR54 within ten yards of the carcass at 2:00 that morning. OR54 travels with the Rogue Pack. ODFW believe the calf died during the night of January 9.

The next day, ODFW officials found yet another calf. It’s estimated the calf died on the night of January 10. It was determined to be yet another kill by the Rogue Pack.

The Rogue Pack is known to roam between Jackson and Klamath Counties.

Wolves west of Highways 395, 78, and 95 are federally listed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulates all management related to controlling wolf depredation in areas wolves are federally listed.

ODFW said though they’re not required, non-lethal measures can be used to reduce livestock depredation.

Source: 2 more calves killed by wolves in Jackson County – KOBI-TV NBC5 / KOTI-TV NBC2 http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/0816-wolf-paw-print-300×169-1.jpg #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #ProtectWolvesInOregon

Killing Wolves Might Protect One Farm’s Cows And Sheep At Expense Of Others . 

protect washington wolves, wolf, wolves, protect the wolves

If states pay attention when they look at both Washington and Oregon from 2016 to 2017, Depredations following their lethal removal slaughter increased not decreased, the have proven Dr. Robert Wielgus Research Accurate

A new study claims government killing of wolves can increase the risk to nearby farms, providing further evidence for the ineffectiveness of the so-called “lethal control” policy approach.

The report also casts doubt on an earlier research paper, which government agencies often use to support the practice.

The research adds to a stack of recent scientific papers that question the often-used practice of killing predators to reduce the chances of attacks on cattle, sheep and other livestock. Wildlife managers across the West trap and kill wolves, cougars and coyotes and other predators, and lethal control has become more common for wolves in Oregon and Washington as their populations have grown. But many scientists contend there’s little good evidence for the effectiveness of those efforts.

Northwest Wolf Populations

The number of wolves has grown rapidly since they first returned to Northwest states. As their numbers grow, the likelihood increases of encounters with cattle and sheep.

Tony Schick/OPB/EarthFix

Published Wednesday in the online journal PLOS ONE, a research team from the University of Wisconsin analyzed 17 years of data collected on wolves and farms in the upper peninsula of Michigan.

They found killing a small number of wolves might potentially reduce the risk of future wolf attacks for the targeted farm by a small amount. But it also increased the risk for nearby farms up to about 3 miles away.

The increase could be from remaining wolves scattering, new ones moving in or fractured packs struggling to hunt elk and turning to easier prey.

“You have this small group of satisfied livestock owners, who might be ecstatic about how successful lethal intervention is on their land,” Francisco Santiago-Ávila, the lead author, said. “While their neighbors are suddenly suffering more losses, and they don’t know why.”

Wolf Deaths and Livestock Attacks

Over the years, confirmed cattle and sheep deaths have increased. The spikes in the number of wolves killed follow repeated incidents of predation on livestock.

Source: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Santiago-Ávila said the combination could result in an inflated perception of the effectiveness and necessity for lethal control. Some studies have found non-lethal wolf deterrents, such as the use of guardian dogs and fencing, to be effective. But they, too, are lacking in solid evidence and their adoption has been inconsistent.

Source: Killing Wolves Might Protect One Farm’s Cows And Sheep At Expense Of Others . News | OPB http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/drwielgus-3.jpg #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInWashington

Jeff Flake wants to remove federal protections for Mexican gray wolves

protect the wolves, protect mexican gray wolves, phoenix

 

Flake is a fitting name. We need to get these types of officials into court soon while we still have wolves left.

Sen. Jeff Flake is seeking to remove federal Endangered Species Act protections from the Mexican gray wolves roaming Arizona and New Mexico.

Flake, R-Ariz., last week introduced a bill to lift the animals’ endangered status if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines there are at least 100 wolves in the Blue Range recovery area overlapping the two states’ boundary.

At last count a year ago there were 113.

Shaking off federal protections would place wolves solely under state management. It’s an idea that Arizona ranchers have advocated to limit wolf kills of animals in livestock herds and to end federal regulation complications.

“This is the clear way to get out of the (federal) program and yet still have wolves on the ground,” said Patrick Bray, executive vice president of the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association.

Wolf advocates say such a low population would doom the wolves to extinction, as they already suffer in-breeding and illegal killings.

The 100-wolf threshold grew out of a 1982 recovery plan that the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote when there were no Mexican gray wolves living in the wild. The wolves, a smaller subspecies of the gray wolves roaming Yellowstone National Park and other northern regions, had disappeared from the Southwest and biologists had gathered the last handful from Mexico to start a captive breeding program.

Reintroduction began in 1998, when former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt was U.S. Interior secretary.

Last November the federal agency updated its recovery goal to 320 wolves in the U.S. At that time Flake called the plan “another federal regulatory nightmare” for ranchers.

Bray commended the senator for trying to rein in the program before the predator’s numbers explode.

“If (100 wolves) was good enough in 1982, it should be good enough in 2018,” Bray said.

SEE ALSO: Gray wolf recovery plan met with criticism

Wolf advocates have long argued that the old 100-wolf goal was just a first benchmark to keep reintroduction expectations realistic, and had no scientific basis. Since then the science — including the biological basis for last year’s plan update — has indicated that 100 wolves cannot be self-sustaining, said Bryan Bird, Southwest program manager for Defenders of Wildlife.

Conservationists thought the new 320-wolf goal too low, he said, but the states supported it. Now, he argued, Flake wants to undo the agency’s experts and their compromises with the states.

“It’s politics instead of science,” Bird said. If protections are removed now, “The species would be virtually guaranteed to go extinct in the wild.”

 

 

Source: Jeff Flake wants to remove federal protections for Mexican gray wolves http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/electedofficials-750×498-750×498-750×498-750×498.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInNewMexico #WolvesInTheNews