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

 Are Washington State’s wolves  on the move?

protect the wolves

NATIVE TO THE Olympic Mountain range — how else would there be a Grey Wolf River or the Sequim Wolves sports teams — wolves are showing an ability to range further than many previously thought.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has produced new maps that show the state’s grey wolf population has moved further west than officials previously thought — although it appears no wolves have reached the I-5 corridor or made any other moves in the direction of the North Olympic Peninsula.

Data is taken from GPS collars Fish and Wildlife has strapped to various breeding males and females and other pack members around the state since 2008.

More wolves haven’t been collared than have, so it wouldn’t be correct to completely rule out the possibility of wolves venturing deeper into Western Washington.

The maps represent “the most complete dataset currently available of wolf telemetry in Washington State,” according to Fish and Wildlife, although GPS data is unavailable for the Colville and Spokane Indian reservations in the heart of wolf territory in Northeast Washington.

Donny Martorello, Fish and Wildlife’s wolf policy adviser, presented the new information at a meeting of the state Fish and Wildlife Commission earlier this month and that presentation can be accessed at tinyurl.com/PDN-WolfInfo.

They show Loup Loup pack wolves, named for the Eastern Washington mountain pass on state Highway 20, moving further north through state and federal land to the Okanogan and Chewuch valleys.

The map also shows the Marblemount wolf, a wolf captured and collared in Western Washington last spring near North Cascades National Park, seemingly enjoys the scenery and hasn’t made much, if any, of a journey since.

One animal really made a trek, leaving Washington north of Spokane, following I-90 as it moves east into western Montana, then heading southwest over Lolo Pass to the Clearwater River. The wolf continued its travels into southern Idaho, making its way near Boise, before crossing all the way to Yellowstone National Park and heading to the middle of Wyoming.

I hope the animal found whatever it was looking for.

Citizen sightings

Citizen-submitted wolf sightings, some with commentary on just what was seen, are available at tinyurl.com/PDN-WolfSightings.

North Olympic Peninsula sightings are few and far between — but there have been some.

In October, a report was made of a wolf on the Shi-Shi Beach Trail.

“One lone adolescent grey wolf observed directly on the Shi Shi Beach Trail from approximately 5 to 10 yards. Gray with white outer fur layer. It spooked into the brush, but remained clearly visible up close for several minutes.”

Many of these “sightings” are large paw prints found in sand on area beaches, like one in 2016 at Adelma Beach near Port Townsend, and another series of prints along the Dungeness River near the Olympic Game Farm.

The only area with multiple sightings, two in total, comes along state Highway 104 between Hood Canal Bridge and the Center Road exit. One of the reports in 2012 was based off of a paw print. Another from last August, describes a witnessed animal as “Large. Dark brown-black. White markings.”

Off the Peninsula, many sightings come from the Seattle-Everett-Tacoma metroplex, some found walking through parking lots at apartment complexes, one in the brush behind the Lake Stevens Target store and one that was “cornered in my driveway on my way to work this morning.”

I tend to think these are all signs of coyotes or cougars but after seeing the winding path that lone wolf took through Washington, Idaho, Montana and back through Idaho to Wyoming, I can’t be sure.

Be careful out there, the wolves may be closing in.

 

Source: OUTDOORS: State’s wolves are on the move | Peninsula Daily News http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/blueswolf-750×420.jpg #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInWashington

PEER respectfully submits this complaint about USDAS Data Quality

protect the wolves, sacred resource protection zone

It is past Time that We begin to hold  USDA Accountable and rein in their squandering of Taxpayer Funds!

December 20, 2017
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Connie Williams, Chief, Program Evaluation and Decision Support
Quality of Information Officer
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 120
Riverdale, MD 20737
[email protected]
(301) 851-3087

RE: COMPLAINT ABOUT INFORMATION QUALITY

Dear Ms. Williams,

PEER respectfully submits this complaint about Data Quality.
Pursuant to Section (b)(2)(B) of the Data Quality Act of 2000 (“DQA”), Section 515 of
Public Law 106-554, and the Correction of Information mechanism of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Information Quality Guidelines, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
(“PEER”) hereby challenges data manipulation and conclusions drawn therefrom by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (“USDA”), as detailed infra. PEER is especially concerned about the government’s
dissemination of faulty research that has been erroneously used to justify harmful, commonplace,
and excessive coyote control and extermination policies throughout federal lands despite more
recent, thorough, and peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating the importance of large
mammalian carnivores contributing to ecological health and stability. Specifically,
PEER challenges the government’s continued reliance upon the USDA-funded study Connolly, G.E., and
W.M. Longhurst, 1975, The effects of control on coyote populations: A simulation model, University
of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences Bulletin, Volume 1872, 37 pp. (hereinafter
“Connolly and Longhurst study”).

The USDA has consistently used this study for over 40 years, despite its established
flaws and disputed findings, to justify large-scale coyote extermination efforts – even though the
study’s own findings stated that eradication efforts were not an effective means of preventing
depredation. In addition to being used to justify large-scale coyote control (i.e., killing
2
programs), this obscure (i.e., a small agricultural bulletin) and non-peer reviewed study has been
cited and utilized in a variety of USDA documents over the years to justify a variety of agency
actions related to coyote management. See, e.g., Paul L. Hegdal et al., Hazards to Wildlife
Associated with 1080 Baiting for California Ground Squirrels, USDA National Wildlife
Research Center – Staff Publications (1979); Guy E. Connolly, The Effects of Control on Coyote
Populations: Another Look, Symposium Proceedings—Coyotes in the Southwest: A Compendium of Our
Knowledge 23 (1995); Kathleen A. Fagerstone and Gail Keirn, Wildlife Services—A Leader in
Developing Tools and Techniques for Managing Carnivores, USDA National Wildlife Research Center –
Staff Publications (2012); Eric Gese, Demographic and Spatial Responses of Coyotes to Changes in
Food and Exploitation, Wildlife Damage Management Conferences—Proceedings 131 (2005); John L.
Gittleman et al., “References” for Carnivore Conservation, USDA National Wildlife Research Center –
Staff Publications (2001); Gary Lee Nunley, Present and Historical Bobcat Population Trends in New
Mexico and the
West, Proceedings of the 8th Vertebrate Pest Conference 177, 180 (1978); Stewart W. Breck et al.,
Evaluating Lethal and Non-Lethal Management Options for Urban Coyotes (2016); William C. Pitt et
al., An Individual-Based Model of Canid Populations: Modelling Territoriality and Social Structure
(2003); USDA, 5 Year Environmental Monitoring Review for Predator Damage Management in Montana: FY
2002 through FY 2006 (2007).

Furthermore, USDA has relied upon this study for justification of coyote eradication efforts or
large scale control (i.e., killing) programs in numerous Environmental Assessments
and Findings of No Significant Impact under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §
4321, et seq (“NEPA”). This includes, but is not by any means limited to, Final EA: Predator Damage
and Conflict Management in Idaho (2016); Final EA: Reducing Coyote Damage to Livestock and Other
Resources in Louisiana (2016); EA: Mammal Damage Management in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
(2015); EA: Reducing Mammal Damage in the State of North Carolina (2015); EA: Mammal Damage
Management in the State of Rhode Island (2014); EA: Mammal Damage Management in Arkansas (2013);
Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact: Reducing Mammal Damage through an Integrated
Wildlife Damage Management Program in the State of New Jersey (2004); Decision and Finding of No
Significant Impact for Management of Coyote, Dog, and Red Fox on Livestock in the Commonwealth of
Virginia (2002); Environmental Assessment and Decision/Finding of No Significant Impact for
Predator Damage Management in the College Station Animal Damage Control District Texas (1997).
While USDA guidelines limit challenge of material used in NEPA documents to the public comment
period for each NEPA document, it is evident from the recent and continued use of this study in
justifying coyote eradication and control efforts that the study is being disseminated by the USDA
and is clearly influential in both state and federal wildlife agency decision and policy-
making, despite its faulty nature.

 

[gview file=”http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/12_20_17_PEER_DQA_Complaint.pdf”]

  http://protectthewolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/electedofficials-750×498-750×498-750×498.jpg #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInWashington

Dr. Robert Wielgus Man of Integrity

Published on: Aug 31, 2016

After Listening to Dr. Rob Weilgus WSU Associate Professors videos, it is in fact our belief that he is a Man of Great Integrity. Please watch this video to completion and we will leave you to your own conclusions based on facts before us.

Protect The Wolves® in their phone conversation with Dr. Rob Weilgus, invited him to sit on our Board of Directors.

Dr. Rob Weilgus that invitation still stands!!

Dr. Wielgus is an associate professor and director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University in Pullman. His research has focused on the population, behavioral and habitat ecology of large carnivores, including cougars and wolves, and their prey. Dr. Wielgus’ current research is looking at livestock mortality rates in the wolf-occupied areas of Washington over a 15-year period, as well as the effects of non-lethal interventions on reducing wolf depredations and indirect effects on livestock in Washington. http://img.youtube.com/vi/ZfY4MoMCJcU/0.jpg #CutOffUSDAWildlifeServicesFunding #ProfanityPeakWolfPack #ProtectWolvesInWashington #WolvesInTheNews #WolvesInWashington