Hold hunters liable for shooting bears Letters | missoulian.com

Letters to The Editor:

You The hunter. You bring your weapon into the back yard of the grizzly, seeking your own right to kill and harvest deer and elk meat. You do this because you don’t know better. You’ve been trained for it,(yeah right) and lack the consciousness to see it otherwise.

You are out in the grizzly’s back yard hunting deer and elk, and a grizzly greets you. You shoot him because of your fear — your lack of preparation — your lack of awareness. You lack the very skills you claim. Your bullet ends the life of someone you killed in his own back yard.

You feel justified — tough— skilled — when all you are is a colonialist with a gun. So you keep on taking the land from the Other. Eat his meat. Drink his dairy. Soil it with your male aggression because you could not possibly be wrong.

If you are in bear country you should be liable for the grizzly you murder because your father did not teach you well!

 

Source: Hold hunters liable for shooting bears | Letters | missoulian.com https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/5aa6d04fbf78a.image_.jpg #CutOffUSDAWildlifeServicesFunding #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves

Washington’s Wolves Need Your Voice

Action Alert!! — Washington’s Wolves Need Your Voice

Deadline for Public Comment is November 15

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is asking for your comments on how it should managed endangered gray wolves after they are “recovered” in the state.

WDFW background information and Scoping presentation slides presented at each of its three video conferences and printable PDFs of shareable information about wolf post-recovery planning for public distribution are available here:

Background and FAQ
Information postcard
Scoping comment form

All information about the wolf post-recovery planning process is available at wdfw.wa.gov/wolves-post-recovery.

 

What’s important to know about this issue?

  • This is NOT a RECOVERY plan, this IS A WOLF DELISTING PLAN!! Washington wolves are currently listed as ENDANGERED – WDFW estimated there were only126 wolves in December, a 3% yearly growth rate.
  • This is all about Politics – not science. Politicians bowing to pressure from the Livestock Industry, that is attempting to smother and confuse science and public opinion about wolf recovery.
  • Wolves in Washington are NOT even close to being recovered.  The State’s existing Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, page 64, #3, sets recovery objectives for “delisting” at 4 successfully breeding pair of wolves in each of the three recovery regions (Eastern WA, North Cascades, Southern Cascades) for three years and 3 successful breeding pairs anywhere else in the state. 
  • Only one region that currently meets the state’s delisting objectives – Eastern Washington.
  • Washington’s current wolf population falls far short of a scientifically credible recovery level. Page 67 of the Wolf Plan notes “there is little empirical data from wolves in Washington to include in population persistence modeling.”
  • WDFW is relying on inappropriate data from other states to support delisting wolves. Of those states, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming has about 1500 wolves; Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan has about 4,000.  Washington’s wolf population is 126.
  • Public Opinion is against it! The WDFW Wolf Conservation and Management Plan cites four public opinion and attitude surveys conducted in Washington from 2007 to 2009. All reported overwhelming support for the presence of wolves, including the most recent, which noted; “Among respondents living in eastern Washington, most preferred a situation in which wolves become reestablished in many, most, or all eastern Washington counties (68.4%) vs. in no or fewer eastern Washington counties (27.8%).”

 

Please send in your comments:

Make them personal as best you can. You can use some of the information above or below.

Tell the Department how you feel personally about this delisting gray wolves.  Delisting has been shown to lead to more wolf killing.

Tell the Department you do NOT want Washington’s wolves delisted and that it’s inappropriate for the Department to pretend a state-listed endangered species that is not close to meeting state recovery objectives is in any way at a sustainable population levels.

What is clear is the Department is bowing to pressure from a small group of special interests who hate wolves. In 2014, WDFW proposed moving wolf management into their Game Management Plan that guides huntable game species.

This is little more than a slight of hand trickery.  Not only is the gray wolf an endangered species, it is a family structured animal.  Wolves are successful hunter only 5 to 10 percent of the time – wolves survive by living family groups.  Even the loss of one member of a wolf family can send the entire family into disarray.

Wolves are not like deer, elk or other hunt-able species.  They should not be listed with other hunted species.  Even more stunning, Department of Fish & Wildlife include in their online survey for the 2015-2017 hunting regulations a category for wolves!

Evidence clearly shows livestock and wolves can coexist – but can humans learn to live in harmony with wolves?  Wolf and livestock conflicts have predominately occurred on public lands and in situations where livestock were not observable and essential indefensible.

Deadline for comments is November 15.  Send your comments to:

Online:  https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf/post-recovery-planning

By Mail:

Lisa Wood SEPA/NEPA Coordinator

WDFW Habitat Program

Protection Division

P.O. Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504-3200

  https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/5dbb1a1ae5f63.image_-300×179.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInWashington

Washington’s Wolves Need Your Voice

Action Alert!! — Washington’s Wolves Need Your Voice

Deadline for Public Comment is November 15

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is asking for your comments on how it should managed endangered gray wolves after they are “recovered” in the state.

WDFW background information and Scoping presentation slides presented at each of its three video conferences and printable PDFs of shareable information about wolf post-recovery planning for public distribution are available here:

Background and FAQ
Information postcard
Scoping comment form

All information about the wolf post-recovery planning process is available at wdfw.wa.gov/wolves-post-recovery.

 

What’s important to know about this issue?

  • This is NOT a RECOVERY plan, this IS A WOLF DELISTING PLAN!! Washington wolves are currently listed as ENDANGERED – WDFW estimated there were only126 wolves in December, a 3% yearly growth rate.
  • This is all about Politics – not science. Politicians bowing to pressure from the Livestock Industry, that is attempting to smother and confuse science and public opinion about wolf recovery.
  • Wolves in Washington are NOT even close to being recovered.  The State’s existing Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, page 64, #3, sets recovery objectives for “delisting” at 4 successfully breeding pair of wolves in each of the three recovery regions (Eastern WA, North Cascades, Southern Cascades) for three years and 3 successful breeding pairs anywhere else in the state. 
  • Only one region that currently meets the state’s delisting objectives – Eastern Washington.
  • Washington’s current wolf population falls far short of a scientifically credible recovery level. Page 67 of the Wolf Plan notes “there is little empirical data from wolves in Washington to include in population persistence modeling.”
  • WDFW is relying on inappropriate data from other states to support delisting wolves. Of those states, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming has about 1500 wolves; Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan has about 4,000.  Washington’s wolf population is 126.
  • Public Opinion is against it! The WDFW Wolf Conservation and Management Plan cites four public opinion and attitude surveys conducted in Washington from 2007 to 2009. All reported overwhelming support for the presence of wolves, including the most recent, which noted; “Among respondents living in eastern Washington, most preferred a situation in which wolves become reestablished in many, most, or all eastern Washington counties (68.4%) vs. in no or fewer eastern Washington counties (27.8%).”

 

Please send in your comments:

Make them personal as best you can. You can use some of the information above or below.

Tell the Department how you feel personally about this delisting gray wolves.  Delisting has been shown to lead to more wolf killing.

Tell the Department you do NOT want Washington’s wolves delisted and that it’s inappropriate for the Department to pretend a state-listed endangered species that is not close to meeting state recovery objectives is in any way at a sustainable population levels.

What is clear is the Department is bowing to pressure from a small group of special interests who hate wolves. In 2014, WDFW proposed moving wolf management into their Game Management Plan that guides huntable game species.

This is little more than a slight of hand trickery.  Not only is the gray wolf an endangered species, it is a family structured animal.  Wolves are successful hunter only 5 to 10 percent of the time – wolves survive by living family groups.  Even the loss of one member of a wolf family can send the entire family into disarray.

Wolves are not like deer, elk or other hunt-able species.  They should not be listed with other hunted species.  Even more stunning, Department of Fish & Wildlife include in their online survey for the 2015-2017 hunting regulations a category for wolves!

Evidence clearly shows livestock and wolves can coexist – but can humans learn to live in harmony with wolves?  Wolf and livestock conflicts have predominately occurred on public lands and in situations where livestock were not observable and essential indefensible.

Deadline for comments is November 15.  Send your comments to:

Online:  https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf/post-recovery-planning

By Mail:

Lisa Wood SEPA/NEPA Coordinator

WDFW Habitat Program

Protection Division

P.O. Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504-3200

  https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/5dbb1a1ae5f63.image_-300×179.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInWashington

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

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

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

WDFW set to defend shooting wolves without Science 

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

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

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

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

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

Wolf advocates have filed a similar lawsuit in King County.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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