One Washington ranch Diamond M, the cause of 26 protected gray wolves killed 

protect the wolves, Profanity peak pack, OPT pack

McIrvin says  “If it’s allowed to continue, it’s going to drive the ranching industry out of Washington, which is what a lot of people want. We’re just stubborn, and we won’t leave the range.”

Join Protect The Wolves Movement Today, To get Our Path and Research into the courts to give Ranchers like McIrvin the Boot from Your Children’s National Forests. The Large NGOs do not have the available tools that we do, and refuse to Join Us, and sadly we dont have their funding, or it would have happened along time ago!! Our Research is precedent setting and with your help can beging to close Grazing Allotments like McIrvins.

When Washington ranchers find that gray wolves have attacked their cattle, they can call the state wildlife agency, which has killed 31 of the protected predators since 2012 under a program intended to save vulnerable livestock.

Many ranches have routinely used state-contracted range riders to ward off wolves,which are listed by Washington as endangered even as they have gradually returned during the last decade after being reintroduced in Idaho.

But not the Diamond M Ranch, which has grazed its cattle on federal land near the U.S.-Canada border in northeast Washington since World War II.

Twenty-six of the 31 eradicated wolves were killed after the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife deemed that members of their packs had attacked Diamond M livestock.

Environmentalists say the ranch not only fails to take preventive steps to safeguard its herds, but in some cases brings on the bloodshed by leaving cattle near known wolf dens.

Operators of Diamond M deny that’s the case, but are vociferous about their rights. The issue highlights a clash of cultures between rural eastern Washington residents and city dwellers west of the Cascade Range who, they and other cattlemen say, don’t know squat about ranching, wildlife and predators.

“Seattle doesn’t ask us what to do with their homeless, and I don’t think we should have to ask Seattle what to do with our wolves,” said Bill McIrvin, 50, a fourth-generation rancher in the family that owns Diamond M.

Wildlife department officials acknowledge that Diamond M has declined offers of state-funded range riders who could help protect cattle. But the agency is not required to mandate preventive measures before wolves are shot or trapped, they say.

Gov. Jay Inslee has asked that fewer wolves be killed, but his authority is limited to appointing members of a commission that oversees the state agency. When its director replied requesting more funds and promising to develop a new policy in Diamond M’s region by May 1, Inslee said the agency had “not responded with alacrity.”

Passions over wolves are running so high that in August, agency officials cited threats of violence in canceling a statewide series of 14 public meetings to discuss management once recovery is sufficient for Washington to end the species’ endangered status, as Congress did in 2011 in areas including the eastern third of the state. Similar controversy is building in Colorado, where proponents of reintroducing gray wolves submitted signatures Tuesday for an initiative on the state ballot next November, despite opposition from ranchers and state wildlife commissioners.

In Washington, the wolf population had grown to 126 by the end of last year, slowed by the state’s efforts to cull those deemed livestock eaters.

Diamond M itself is a 2,500-acre spread across a mountain pass from the high school Bill McIrvin once attended. Doffing a cowboy hat and muddy boots by the ranch-house door, he sat for an extended interview recently as his wife, Berta, sporting an anti-wolf T-shirt, served coffee.

The stocky cattleman denied goading wolves to attack. Rather, he said, his business has lost $1 million since 2008 from the killings of 75 to 100 cattle a year by wolves — many times the number that the state has officially confirmed — and from declines in weight and pregnancy rates among traumatized livestock.

McIrvin says the problem is clearly the wolves, not the ranch.

“I don’t feel that we have room for wolves in Washington state,” said McIrvin, who said his family would continue to oppose what they see as a broader agenda of wolf advocates and officials. “If it’s allowed to continue, it’s going to drive the ranching industry out of Washington, which is what a lot of people want. We’re just stubborn, and we won’t leave the range.”

McIrvin views reintroduction of wolves in the West as a plot to end grazing on public land, much as environmentalists used protection of the threatened spotted owl in the 1990s to preserve Northwest forests.

For centuries in the continental United States, government bounties encouraged trapping, shooting and poisoning wolves, which were wiped out across the West by the 1930s. In 1974, gray wolves gained protection under the federal Endangered Species Act, and in 1995 researchers began releasing wolves to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming.

Gradually, wolves spread into Washington, where they will be downgraded to “threatened” status once breeding pairs have established across the state. There are now about 1,500 wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Oregon is known to have 137; California, fewer than a dozen.

Wolf advocates see Diamond M as an extreme example of ranchers abusing public land privileges, and the wildlife agency as pandering to cattle producers and hunters by slaughtering animals it’s supposed to protect.

“Year after year, Diamond M reportedly loses cattle to wolves while neighboring producers are able to effectively protect their herds,” said Claire Loebs Davis, an attorney for wolf advocates suing the state wildlife department.

In 2012, all seven members of a wolf family known as the Wedge pack were shot, most from a helicopter, after the Washington wildlife department determined that the group had preyed on Diamond M cattle in grazing allotments in the Colville National Forest.

In 2016, the agency spent $135,000 for a gunner and trapper to kill seven members of the Profanity Peak pack, also blamed for attacking the ranch’s cattle. Over the next three years, the agency killed a dozen more wolves after Diamond M attacks, including the last four members of a pack just hours before animal advocates won a court injunction to save them.

Davis views the wildlife department as having been “captured” by ranching and hunting interests. The agency counts on revenue from hunting and fishing license fees, which depend significantly on continued access to private ranch land, she noted.

Jay Holzmiller, a southeast Washington hunter and cattle rancher who served a recent six-year term on the state wildlife commission, countered that politicians in the state’s urban areas wield decisive power. “The ranching and hunting community does not have near the influence, nor near the number of attorneys, as … the environmental side does,” he said.

Last summer, Diamond M paid $4,177 to graze 736 pairs of cows and calves on 80,000 acres, an arrangement Coleman called “cheap babysitting.” He said that one way to prevent cattle from being attacked would be to move them out of deep forests ideal for wolves and onto pastures where they could be readily monitored.

To Travis Fletcher, Colville National Forest district ranger, the solution is to move more quickly to kill wolves that prey on cattle. “By doing it soon enough, you remove the offending wolves that probably killed those livestock,” he said.

The state wildlife agency is allowed to kill wolves after three attacks on livestock in 30 days, or four in 10 months. Officials say they also consider whether shooting or trapping wolves would jeopardize recovery of the species, and whether the cattle owner has used nonlethal measures to prevent attacks.

Donny Martorello, the department’s wolf policy lead, said Diamond M has taken precautions, waiting to turn out cattle for grazing until fawns and elk calves are born in the area, providing wolves with a wild food source.

But he said that range riding is “one of the places we’d like to see improvement,” acknowledging that last summer, Diamond M declined riders offered by the wildlife agency. The agency recommends riders to help keep cattle apart from wolves and to remove dead or ailing cows that attract predators.

Coleman and other environmentalists suing the agency accuse Diamond M of keeping salt blocks near a wolf den, causing cattle to swarm around it. Davis, the wolf advocates’ lawyer, said internal agency documents show that qualified range riders have never patrolled a Diamond M allotment where attacks occurred.

McIrvin, at Diamond M, contends that “government-sponsored range riders … have never once protected a cow or a calf.”

But range riders counter that they indeed make a difference.

Jan Wright has patrolled on horseback in areas near Diamond M‘s federal grazing allotments, safeguarding cattle belonging to five other ranches. Her territory has included parts of the Colville forest, where about 10,000 cattle grazed last summer from 34 livestock producers including Diamond M.

Contracted by the wildlife agency, Wright works to deter wolves by hanging up cloth strips and carrying a gun that shoots whistle flares. She removes dead and injured cattle that might attract carnivores. And she outfits cattle with cowbells.

“When they wear bell collars, it sounds like the cavalry are coming,” Wright said. “The ranches that I’ve been riding for in the last few years have not had wolf kills.”

 

Source: One Washington ranch, 26 protected gray wolves killed – Los Angeles Times https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Len1-300×217-300×217-300×217.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #WolvesInWashington

Gray wolves are protected, so why is the WDFW killing them?

Inslee its time to replace Holzmiller, Susewind as well as Martorello. There is no room for State Employees that only care about pandering to Ranchers. Holzmiller is to slow to figure out that ite 40 years later, and the slaughtering of Our Children’s Resources is no longer needed. Hunters have this dream that they are somehow Conservationists. They need to read the definition.

By Richard Read / Los Angeles Times

ANATONE, Wash. — Somewhere near this tiny farming town last month, a Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife hunter conducted what officials call a lethal removal, killing a gray wolf, a member of a species that the state considers endangered.

Most likely the agency employee or contractor fired a 12-gauge shotgun from a helicopter after following signals from a radio collar on a member of the Grouse Flats pack. Citing “safety reasons,” officials won’t say how or where the wolf — which they now believe to have been a breeding female — was exterminated Sept. 25.

A century after gray wolves were all but eradicated from Washington, the state is trying to encourage the return of the iconic predators, which normally hunt deer, elk and smaller wild animals. The state’s gray wolf population has gradually recovered to at least 126 since 2008, when the first two packs since the 1930s established dens.

B

But wildlife officials ordered the Grouse Flats extermination after determining that the pack roaming grasslands in the state’s farthest southeast corner had killed four farm animals in two months. That’s the minimum number of deaths or injuries required within 10 months for them to begin killing wolves until the livestock attacks cease.

Five days after the mother wolf was killed, Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee wrote to the director of the Fish & Wildlife department, an agency accused by animal advocates of bowing to the interests of ranchers hostile to wolves. Inslee cited public outrage over the elimination of packs near the Canadian border, and asked Kelly Susewind to find ways “to significantly reduce the need for lethal removal of this species.” He gave the director until Dec. 1 to report back.

The ultimatum from Inslee, who’s seeking a third term as governor after dropping out of the Democratic presidential campaign, irked rural residents who often feel marginalized by politicians from Washington’s more populous west side. The political divide between red and blue runs roughly north-south along the Cascade Range, with Seattle and Olympia, the capital, holding sway over the state’s eastern range country.

Jay Holzmiller, 62, is a hunter and cattle rancher in the Anatone area, the Grouse Flats pack’s home territory. He pulled himself recently into the driver’s seat of a tall crew-cab pickup in his tidy farmyard and gestured toward a neighboring ranch, one of two next to his woodlots and pastures where cattle were lost last summer to the pack.

Holzmiller, whose ranch-house walls are festooned with mounted heads of wild animals he’s shot, is troubled by declines in elk and deer herds preyed on by wolves, bears and cougars. He said that Inslee’s directive disrupts painstaking compromises reached through years of negotiations between wild-animal advocates, farmers and hunters.

Inslee nominated Holzmiller in 2013 to a six-year term on a commission that oversees the wildlife department, and then opted not to renew his appointment. The rancher feels that the commission’s membership favored environmental interests.

“We’re fighting for a way of life,” Holzmiller said. “There’s a huge concern whether our hunting culture is going to come to an end, and there’s lots of us rednecks that love to do it.”

Source: Gray wolves are protected, so why is the state killing them? | HeraldNet.com https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/19088082_web1_TSR-Wolf-EDH-191025.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #ProtectWolvesInWashington #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

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

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

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

WDFWs Staci Lehman’s use of word Sacred is Racist in application!

protect the wolves, protect washington wolves

Staci Lehman, Wolves are NO LESS “SACRED” THAN OUR BROTHER GRIZZLY! I suggest that you stop using the word sacred it is not only condescending in the manner in which you used, and We consider your usage A Racist Discriminatory Abominable statement that disrespects Traditional Native American Views.

Staci, you are right up their with the Attorney Generals Office when they discriminated against Our Views.

Please join Our Movement to get precedent setting research into the courts while We still have wolves left.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is trying to kill one to two of the nine wolves in the Grouse Flats pack, in the southeast corner of the state.

That’s because the pack has killed two cattle in the past month and four cattle in the past 10 months.

The state Fish and Wildlife director authorized the lethal removal on Tuesday, and state agents headed out to look for the animals on Thursday. At least one of the wolves has a collar.

The pack spends some of its time in Oregon; when the wolves are there, Washington agents can’t kill them.

Staci Lehman, an agency spokesperson, said the ranchers in the area have taken steps to keep wolves away from their cattle. They’ve employed cowboys and fox lights to try to scare wolves, and they’ve removed sick and injured animals. But none of that worked, so now the agency is trying lethal removal.

“The point is to try to change the behavior of the other pack members,” Lehman said. “Sometimes, if you take out an alpha wolf, the others will change their behavior.”

It costs the state about $20,000 to kill one wolf.

It’s a technique the department uses to manage wolves in the eastern third of the state, where the animals are not listed as federally endangered.

Some wildlife advocates say the technique doesn’t work. But Lehman said it works in many cases—most recently when the agency killed one wolf in the Smackout Pack in northeast Washington in November 2018. The pack hasn’t killed any cattle since.

Lehman said the agency does not track how often killing one or two wolves works to keep a pack from killing cattle, and how often the agency has to go back and eliminate more members of the pack.

That said, Lehman added, the agency takes the decision to kill wolves very seriously.

“It’s never an easy decision to make a lethal removal,” she said. “People—they’re so divided on it. They’re like, ‘Why do we need them if they haven’t been here so long?’

And then others are like, ‘It’s sacred that we’re bringing them back!’”

To date, no lawsuits have been filed to stop the lethal removal of the Grouse Flats pack.

This summer, the department killed eight wolves from the Old Profanity Territory Pack in northeast Washington, four of them hours before a court order to protect them.

Since early August, the department has also had a lethal removal order for one to two members of the Togo Pack, in northeast Washington, but the agency has not killed any members of that pack.

Source: KUOW – Seeking: Wolves marked for death in Washington state https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/denaliwolfeye-2-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-2-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-1.jpg #CutOffUSDAWildlifeServicesFunding #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInWashington

Stay Tuned Seattletimes to Print Our Op-ed next Monday or Tuesday

Stay Tuned Seattletimes to Print Our Op-ed Monday Or Tuesday they claim. We were emailed this morning. With the new Lethal Removal Order being issued by WDFWs pandering Officials it is a perfect time to get some Focus on these Ranchers that are claiming that they are only a 4th or 5th Gen Rancher. Wake Up, Traditional First Nations have been here thousands of Years, not just a couple hundred.

We had to shorten it immensely for the Seattletimes, However Our Full Version will be available when we post the op-ed they put out for Us. https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/denaliwolfeye-2-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200-2-300×200-2-300×200-1-300×200.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInWashington

WDFW Director authorizes lethal action in Grouse Flats wolf pack 

WDFW Director authorizes lethal action in Grouse Flats wolf pack

WDFW hasnt learned from their past mistakes yet that killing wolves explodes into countless depredations. They only do it to pacify Ranchers. It is past time to call for Susewind and Martorellos Jobs. It is time for Jay Inslee to Back up his words!
Publish date

WDFW Director Kelly Susewind today (Sep. 24, 2019) authorized the incremental removal of wolves from the Grouse Flats pack in response to repeated depredations of cattle on grazing lands in southeast Washington.

The Grouse Flats pack has been involved in two depredations in the last 30 days and four in the last 10 months. WDFW includes a summary of all documented depredation activity within the past 10 months in every monthly update.

Proactive nonlethal deterrents (described below) used by livestock producers in the area have not influenced pack behavior to reduce the potential for continued depredations on livestock. Director Susewind’s decision is consistent with the guidance of the state’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan and the provisions of the Department’s wolf-livestock interaction protocol.

WDFW’s approach to incremental lethal removal consists of a period of active lethal removal operations followed by an evaluation period to determine if those actions changed the pack’s behavior.

The goal of lethal removal, as described in the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, is to manage wolf-livestock conflicts to minimize livestock losses without undermining the recovery of a sustainable wolf population. The purpose of the lethal action (and nonlethal tools) in the Grouse Flats pack is to influence or change pack behavior to reduce the potential for continued depredations on livestock while continuing to promote wolf recovery.

Consistent with the guidance of the plan and protocol, the rationale for authorizing lethal removal of Grouse Flats wolves is as follows:

  1. WDFW has documented ongoing depredation on livestock by the pack since Aug. 23, 2018 (seven total, four within the last 10 months and two in the last 30 days). The depredations were shared with the public in a timely manner, as described in the protocol.
  2. At least two proactive deterrence measures and responsive deterrence measures (if applicable) were implemented and did not meet the goal of influencing/changing pack behavior. During the 2019 grazing season, the following nonlethal deterrents were implemented:
  • Prior to the grazing season, Producer 1, who experienced a depredation on WDFW’s 4-O Ranch Wildlife Area, had the following nonlethal, proactive deterrence measures in place: monitoring the herd by range riding at least every other day per the grazing lease with WDFW, maintaining regular human presence in the area, removing sick and injured livestock from the grazing area, removing or securing livestock carcasses to avoid attracting wolves to the rest of the herd, and avoiding known wolf high activity areas. Calves are typically at least 200 pounds before turnout. Following the depredation, the producer hired two additional range riders and increased the frequency of range riding and human presence on the allotment. The producer also installed Fox lights and moved the cattle to a smaller fenced pasture where they could be monitored more effectively. The producer removed the cattle from the grazing allotment to pastures out of state on Aug. 10 when the lease expired.
  • Prior to the grazing season, Producer 2, who grazes on private pastures, had the following nonlethal, proactive deterrence measures in place: monitoring the herd by range riding multiple times weekly, maintaining regular human presence in the area, removing sick and injured livestock from the grazing area, removing or securing livestock carcasses to avoid attracting wolves to the rest of the herd, and avoiding known wolf high activity areas. Calves are typically at least 200 pounds before turnout. After the depredation occurred, the producer increased the frequency of range riding and human presence on the private pasture.
  • Prior to the grazing season, Producer 3, who grazes on private pastures, had the following nonlethal, proactive deterrence measures in place: monitoring the herd by range riding multiple times weekly, maintaining regular human presence in the area, deploying Fox lights, removing sick and injured livestock from the grazing area, removing or securing livestock carcasses to avoid attracting wolves to the rest of the herd, and calving away from known wolf high activity areas. Calves are typically at least 200 pounds before turnout. After the first depredation in the Grouse Flats territory occurred on the 4-O Ranch Wildlife Area, the producer hired additional range riders and increased range riding frequency to five days a week along with daily human presence. The producer also worked with WDFW to increase the number of Fox lights on the private pastures and installed trail cameras to monitor wolf activity in the area.
  • Prior to the grazing season, Producer 4, who grazes on a WDFW allotment and private pastures, had the following nonlethal, proactive deterrence measures in place: monitoring the herd by range riding at least every other day per the grazing lease with WDFW, maintaining regular human presence in the area, using Fox lights in their pastures, removing sick and injured livestock from the grazing area, removing or securing livestock carcasses to avoid attracting wolves to the rest of the herd, and calving away from known wolf high activity areas. Calves are typically at least 200 pounds before turnout. After the first depredation in the Grouse Flats territory occurred on the 4-O Ranch Wildlife Area, the producer increased range riding frequency to five to six days a week, worked with WDFW to increase the number of Fox lights on the private pastures, and installed trail cameras to monitor wolf activity in the area.
  1. The department documented these deterrents in the agency’s “wolf-livestock mitigation measures” checklist, with date entries for deterrent tools and coordination with the producer and range rider.
  2. WDFW expects depredations to continue based on the history of this pack. The most recent depredation by the Grouse Flats pack is the second event in 30 days and forth event in 10 months. This series of repeated depredations shows a pattern in pack behavior as defined in the wolf-livestock interaction protocol. WDFW staff believe depredations are likely to continue even with nonlethal tools being utilized.
  3. The lethal removal of wolves in the Grouse Flats pack is not expected to harm the wolf population’s ability to reach the statewide recovery objective.

    The Department’s wolf plan modeled lethal removal to help inform decision makers during this stage of recovery. The analysis in the plan included wolf survival estimates from northwest Montana, which incorporated a 28% mortality rate. Agency lethal control was factored into that 28% mortality estimate. To err on the side of caution (i.e., when in doubt, assume greater impact to wolf population so the true impact is not underestimated), the scenarios modeled in the wolf plan and published by Maletzke et al. (2015) included an even higher level of lethal removal (i.e., removing 30% of population every four years in addition to baseline 28% mortality rate). Based on that modeling analysis, as well as an analysis of higher levels of potential mortality on the actual population level of wolves in the eastern recovery zone and statewide, we do not expect the lethal removal levels considered in 2019 to jeopardize wolf recovery in the eastern recovery zone or statewide.

    In addition, wolf populations in northwest Montana and central Idaho experienced an annual mortality rate of 19-28% and still reached recovery goals in those states. When a similar mortality rate is projected to Washington’s current minimum count of 126 wolves, total mortality would be 24-35 wolves per year.

The department is providing one business day (eight court hours) advance public notice before initiating lethal removal activity. WDFW will use humane lethal removal methods consistent with state and federal laws. The objective is to use the best methods available while considering human safety, humaneness to wolves, swift completion of the removal, weather, efficacy, and cost.

WDFW will keep the public informed about this activity through weekly updates. The next update will be provided on Oct. 1.

Previous updates

2019 Grouse Flats pack updates

July 12
July 25
Sep. 9
Sep. 20

WDFW will provide a final report on this and any other lethal removal operations during 2019 in the Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2019 Annual Report, which will be published during spring 2020.

A summary of all documented depredation activity within the past 10 months is included in every monthly wolf update.

 

Packs
Grouse Flats

Source: WDFW Director authorizes lethal action in Grouse Flats wolf pack | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/howler-750×500-3-750×500-750×500-300×200-300×200-1.png #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInWashington

Wyoming says National Park wolf poacher can continue doing business as an outfitter

protect the wolves, sacred resource protection zone

Wyoming clearly doesn’t care about upholding the law when they allow a guide that gets paid to know what hes doing get away with killing Our Sacred Brother inside a National Park. Just 1 more reason that Our National Park Wildlife are in dire need of our proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone”.

In a troubling lapse of moral accountability, a Wyoming state board will allow a man who killed a female wolf in the Grand Teton National Park and then dragged her body out of the park in violation of federal law to continue operating as a professional outfitter and hunting guide in the state.

In August, the Wyoming Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides decided to grant Brian Taylor, a self-avowed “wolf hater”, with a conditional one-year license, and denied a complaint the Humane Society of the United States filed in May asking that the board withdraw Taylor’s license for his crime of wolf poaching, which occurred in December 2018.

Earlier this year, Taylor, who also sits on the board of a local non-profit, the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association, was found guilty in federal court on the charge of poaching. Yet, despite the severity of his crime, the federal court gave him a mild rebuke: a $5,000 fine and suspension of his wolf-hunting privileges for a year. And the board itself subsequently denied our complaint and only reprimanded the convicted poacher, giving him a conditional permit to operate for the next year.

There’s something wrong when a crime that so clearly violates a foundational federal wildlife law is so lightly punished. The penalties imposed fell far short of those outlined under the Lacey Act, which prohibits the discharge of a weapon and killing of wildlife in a national park, along with the transportation of the animal’s body outside a national park. Under the Lacey Act, a single violation is punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 and up to one-year imprisonment.

The HSUS’s own investigations and review of documents the Jackson Hole News & Guideobtained via a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Taylor did not just violate federal wildlife law while on National Park Service lands, he also violated state law and regulations governing the conduct of professional outfitters.

Taylor, as a professional outfitter, had a duty to know the laws concerning wildlife hunting in the state, and Wyoming’s failure to vigorously prosecute him sets a dangerous precedent. That he can continue doing business as usual is unthinkable to most Americans. A poacher who breaks the law and deprives other Wyoming residents of the pleasure of seeing a protected animal in a national park should receive a punishment commensurate with his misconduct. We will continue to press for greater accountability in this case. For the sake of its wildlife, and as matter of moral and legal principle, Wyoming needs to reconsider its decision.

Source: A Humane World https://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/GrizzlyandWolf-750×432-750×432-1-300×173-1-300×173.png #EndangeredSpeciesList #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInWashington #WolvesInYellowstone