Protect The Wolves™ is a native American Religious Nonprofit that works to protect your children's resources 365 days per year.
With Your Support Our precedent setting research will be able to make it into the courts.
Our Members are 100% Volunteer.
It is Time that we get Folks on the BLM Advisory Committee that do not cave in to the whims of the Livestock Lobby ;)
El Dorado Hills, CA – Over two dozen public advisory positions now open for nominations include some involving the Mother Lode, say federal officials.
The Bureau of Land Management, which is seeking to fill vacant seats on 27 citizen-based Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) across the country, has seven open slots on the Central California RAC.
“Resource Advisory Councils provide the BLM with vital input on current issues, concerns, and proposals and enable us to engage local communities and stakeholders to improve our management of public lands,” explains BLM Acting Central California District Manager Chris Heppe. He adds his office wants to ensure the Central California RAC is made up of members from diverse backgrounds, providing a wide variety of perspectives and backgrounds.
Now through Feb. 24, interested persons can apply for the openings, which encompass three categories.
For category one, there is one opening for someone with one or more of the following associations: energy/mineral development; federal grazing as a permit holder; the timber industry; transportation or rights-of-way; off-highway vehicle as a user; or commercial and developed outdoor recreation.
There are three openings in category two, which includes representatives of archeological and historical organizations, dispersed recreation users, wild horse, and burro organizations, and nationally or regionally recognized environmental organizations.
Additionally, there are three openings in category three, which includes representatives of state, county, or local elected office; Indian tribes located within or adjacent to the area for which the RAC is organized; academicians employed in natural resource management or natural sciences; employees of a state agency responsible for management of natural resources and the public at large.
Individuals may self-nominate themselves or others to serve on a RAC. Besides being a Central California resident where the RAC has jurisdiction, nominees should also demonstrate a commitment to consensus building and collaborative decision-making.
A new bill proposed in Idaho could open the door to year-round wolf hunting and “wolf-free” zones. The bill, which was proposed by Sen. Bert Brackett (R-Rogerson), was introduced last week before the Senate Resources and Environment Committee. According to Brackett, it would “manage a growing wolf population and assist in efforts to reduce depredation,” Big Country News reports.
“Livestock depredation remains at an unacceptably high level,” said Brackett. “More needs to be done. Ranchers’ livelihoods are being threatened by wolves.”
According to Big Country News, the “wolf-free” zones would be established within 11 existing big game management units south of the Snake River. While there are “few” wolves that live within these areas, the point of creating the “wolf-free” zones are to keep them that way. The bill would also classify units where depredation happened during four of the last five years as “chronic depredation” zones. There are currently 19 zones in central Idaho that qualify for this classification.
“In both of those designations, wolves may be taken year-round by any hunter provided they have a valid hunting license and a wolf tag,” said Brackett.
However, according to Big Country News, wolf hunting is already allowed during most of the year and even Brackett acknowledged that the state has a “good wolf management plan” in place. The bill would require state officials to review that plan should the population drop to under 20 packs or 200 wolves. Additional language within the bill includes an emergency clause “that would make it effective immediately following approval from the Legislature and governor.”
The bill was met with opposition by both Democrats on the committee.
Source: New bill could make wolf hunting year-round in Idaho | goHUNT Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Restore Wolves to ESL #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL https://protectthewolves.com/new-bill-could-make-wolf-hunting-year-round-in-idaho/
It is time to comment folks, Every Single Follower Please. It is past time for Taxpayers to take a stand and Speak out against this terrible Welfare Program! Instead of grazing prices increasing, they have been reduced with the end result putting a larger burden on Taxpayers. It is time that these allottments without a current NEPA are closed to begin with, But it is also time for the public to complain about Ranchers like McIrvin in Washington State whos cows walk right through campgrounds while leaving their piles of poo....
Comments on the proposed regulation revisions may be submitted in writing until Feb. 28 they claim, on the federal register it extends 15 days past the last public meeting which is Feb 20th in Casper Wyoming. We have emailed Seth and requested that the correct information be released, along with the contact information for whom released inaccurate info, as well as their comment link not working: https://go.usa.gov/xyMqb which forwards to: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=1500093&dctmId=0b0003e88145caa9
ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments related to scoping for the BLM Grazing Regulation Revision EIS to the following weblink: https://go.usa.gov/xyMqb. Documents pertinent to this proposal may also be examined at this same weblink.
If you do not have web access and wish to submit a written comment, you may mail it to the Bureau of Land Management, Attn: Seth Flanigan, 3948 S Development Ave., Boise, ID 83702.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Seth Flanigan, Project Manager, telephone 208-384-3450; email: blm_wo_grazing_email@blm.gov. If you do not have web access, please contact Mr. Flanigan for help in obtaining copies of documents that are pertinent to this proposal. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-Start Printed Page 3411877-8339 to contact Mr. Flanigan during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
ST. GEORGE — The Bureau of Land Management has announced its intent to prepare an Environment Impact Statement to consider proposed revisions on grazing regulations. Stock image, St. George News Currently, the agency oversees livestock grazing on 155 million acres of public land and administers almost 18,000 grazing permits. The proposed revisions would update grazing regulations in a way that administrators expect would provide flexibility and more efficient management over public lands and resources.
In 2018, the agency received $81 million for various rangeland management programs, spending $34 million — about 42% — on livestock grazing administration. Likewise, the BLM collected $17.3 million in grazing fees, which state and local governments received portions of in accordance with legislative requirements.
In the process, the BLM is looking to promote land conservation while working to improve existing land use planning and grazing permit procedures. The entity also hopes to improve its management efforts over national rangeland resources by preventing unauthorized grazing, enhancing environmental protection and improving public input opportunities.
As a part of the BLM’s outcome-based grazing authorizations initiative, the agency is managing 11 demonstration projects across six states to provide the entity, ranchers and other partners with the opportunity to improve management practices when issuing grazing permits. Throughout the process, the BLM will also be developing cooperative monitoring plans and land health evaluations that may be incorporated into the regulatory process.
“We continue to seek ways to improve and streamline the grazing permit process to achieve greater efficiencies and service to permittees,” Casey Hammond, assistant secretary of land and minerals management, said in an emailed statement. “This rulemaking effort is designed to strengthen and improve our administration of grazing permits across the West, and we welcome public and stakeholder ideas and perspectives.”
To succeed in the agency’s endeavors, the BLM has listed a number of potential improvements in two categories: streamlining opportunities and management of flexibility opportunities. To streamline opportunities, the entity will be considering different billing schedules, taking advantage of existing coordination requirements to reduce decision issuance time and eliminating a protest period, and increasing the use of targeted grazing authorizations for vegetation management.
The BLM is also considering reducing permit renewal processing workloads by issuing permits without a decision when the only change is the name on the permit or requiring a 10-year minimum over the current 3-year minimum term on the permit. Other permit opportunities, like crossing authorizations or issuing non-renewable leases, might also be subject to immediate decisions. Stock image, St. George News To improve flexibility in areas of land and resource management, the agency is considering issuing authorizations without additional analysis and decision time to address permittee needs for livestock movement, or in concert with changing environmental conditions when it comes to issuing crossing authorizations or non-renewable permits.
Other potential changes include providing limited flexibility in season of use for permittees to manage livestock in concert with management needs and creating a consistent approach to documentation, billing and settlement, especially of incidental, and non-willful occurrences.
Comments on the proposed regulation revisions may be submitted in writing until Feb. 28. Those interested in sharing their comments can use the “comment on document” tool on the BLM’s Grazing Regulation website, attend one of the four public open houses, or mail written comments to 3948 S. Development Avenue in Boise, Idaho.
Scoping meetings will be held in February in four locations to further inform the public. The meetings will be held in Miles City, Montana, on Feb. 6; Las Cruces, New Mexico, on Feb. 11; Elko, Nevada, on Feb. 18; and Casper, Wyoming, on Feb. 20.
Leave it to an Idaho Lawmaker to be this narrow minded. They seem to forget, First Nations People, and all wildlife were here long before the Rancher came onto the scene.
Sen. Bert Brackett introduced the legislation and is a rancher in the area designated for wolf-free zones
BOISE, Idaho — Some areas in Idaho would be declared wolf-free zones, and other areas where the animals have killed livestock would have increased wolf-killing opportunities under legislation proposed Wednesday.
The Senate Resources and Environment Committee voted to clear the way for a hearing on the measure put forward by Republican Sen. Bert Brackett, a rancher in the area designated for wolf-free zones.
"Wolf numbers have continued to increase, livestock depredation remains unacceptably high," he said. "More needs to be done. Ranchers' livelihood is being threatened by wolves."
Federal officials say there were 175 wolf attacks on livestock in Idaho in fiscal year 2019, which ended on June 30.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game said Wednesday that about 460 the animals were killed in 2019 with hunting, trapping and the killing of wolves that preyed on livestock. The agency doesn't have an estimate for the number of wolves in the state.
Specifically, the legislation would create wolf-free zones in 11 Fish and Game hunting units that roughly cover the southwestern part of the state. Those areas are thought to have few if any wolves, and Brackett said he'd like to keep the animals from expanding into them.
In addition, the legislation would create chronic depredation zones. Those zones would be created in Fish and Game hunting units where Fish and Game or the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services have confirmed wolf attacks on livestock in any four of the previous five years.
There are 19 hunting units scattered across the central part of the state that would qualify as chronic depredation zones.
In both wolf-free and depredation zones, wolves could be killed year-round. Idaho already allows wolf hunting most of the year across the state, with the season generally closing when the animals are in dens and having pups.
The legislation contains a provision that if wolf numbers in Idaho fall below 200 and 20 packs, state officials would review the wolf management policies.
Fish and Game stopped tracking wolf numbers after taking over management from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service following wolves' removal from the Endangered Species List. However, Fish and Wildlife could resume management if wolf numbers fall below certain levels.
Fish and Game said the wolf population is monitored similarly to bears and mountain lions by looking at hunter and trapping harvest numbers, age structure and other data. That information, the agency has said, indicates the wolf population is not near where federal authorities would resume control.
Source: Lawmaker proposes wolf-free zones in southern Idaho | ktvb.com Endangered Species List, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Wolves in Idaho, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInIdaho #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/lawmaker-proposes-wolf-free-zones-in-southern-idaho/
BOISE, Idaho — The director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game on Thursday said there are an estimated 1,000 wolves in Idaho. They only had 786 in 2016 they claimed. and when your removing 200-300 animals per year, the birth rate doesnt keep up.
Ed Schriever told the House Resources and Conservation Committee that the estimate made public for the first time is the first wolf population estimate in Idaho since 2015.
"We will be making that estimate every year, and we will know from this point forward if the population is going up, as some people speculate, if it's been level, or if it's decreasing," Shriever told lawmakers.
Shriever said the wolf population peaked early in the summer of 2019 at about 1,500 following the birth of pups. He said subtracting hunting and trapping kills along with other deaths puts the population now closer to 1,000.
After the meeting, Schriever said the estimate is based on about 13 million photos from nearly 700 remote cameras combined with known wolf mortality numbers. Computer software is needed to sort through the photos and count wolves, he said.
"This is expensive, and it's time-consuming for staff to get the cameras out and retrieve the cameras and analyze the data," he said. "But we think it's really important. It's really important in demonstrating to the public our ability to manage this population through time."
Fish and Game took over management of wolves from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2011 when wolves were removed from the Endangered Species List. But the state had a five-year requirement to track of wolf populations, which it did using radio collars. The agency stopped tracking wolf numbers after the five-year population estimate requirement ended.
But without solid numbers, the agency was open to criticism from those who thought wolf numbers were skyrocketing and others who thought they were crashing.
"It's more important from the people side of the management of an animal that is very controversial because, without a number that you can track over time, people just speculate based on their belief window," Shriever said.
Republican Rep. Judy Boyle is among many Republican lawmakers who say there are too many wolves.
"Can you explain what you're doing to bring down wolf numbers?" she asked Shriever.
He said the Fish and Game Commission has been expanding hunting and trapping seasons, noting in particular extending the trapping season a month earlier to Oct. 10, allowing foothold traps to be more effective because of less snow and freezing to the ground.
Shriever said that led to 138 wolves being trapped last fall compared with the previous average trapping harvest of 55.
With those factors combined, he said, "We will likely achieve the highest harvest by hunting and trapping since delisting in 2011," he said.
In addition, committees in both the House and Senate have approved changes to using snares that are expected to dramatically increase the number of snares being used and result in additional wolves being killed.
In a related matter, the Senate Resources and Environment Committee on Wednesday voted to clear the way for a hearing on the creation of wolf-free zones and wolf-depredation zones in the state that's intended to protect the livelihood of ranchers.
It is amazing how many wolves that Idaho Department of Fish and Game create on paper.
Source: Idaho wolf population is estimated at 1,000 animals | ktvb.com Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Wolves in Idaho, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInIdaho #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/idaho-department-of-fish-and-game-blowing-smoke-again/
'We have a very healthy elk population': Idaho Fish & Game responds to concerns about 206 elk slaughter in Magic Valley
Idaho needs to stop blaming Wolves. IDFG killed more elk in 1 sitting then a Pack of Wolves would do in a very long time!!
IDFG officials said 206 elk were killed as part of a research project to prevent elk from damaging private property and crops.
JEROME, Idaho — A Facebook post claiming Idaho Fish and Game slaughtered 172 elk in the Magic Valley region is generating a heated debate on the social media platform.
With hundreds of comments and more than a thousand shares, the post has sparked some outrage with many questioning why Fish and Game would kill the elk. Others wondered if the post was true.
Terry Thompson, communications manager for Fish and Game Magic Valley region, tells KTVB that elk were killed but the number was actually 206 not 172.
According to Thompson, the elk were killed as part of a research project with a graduate student from the University of Idaho.
The research was looking at ways to help keep elk off private property and prevent them from damaging crops. The research identified four different methods to see which was most effective. One of those methods was sharpshooting - or the taking of elk on private property in areas that consistently had problems with elk damaging crops.
“Fish and Game is mandated by state law to work with land owners if there’s a situation where wildlife is going onto private property and damaging crops," Thompson said. "That law specifically says we would work with landowners to help avoid depredation problems."
If depredation can't be avoided, the state is responsible for compensation for damages done by wildlife.
Fish and Game has received a lot of calls about the post. Thompson said one issue with it is that it makes it seem like all the elk were killed in one mass slaughter.
That is not true, officials said. As part of the project, the elk were killed between July and October and never in mass numbers.
“There were nights when we got zero – we didn’t kill any elk," Thompson said. "The most we ever killed in one night was six.”
Those 206 elk were not taken from one specific area either. Fish and Game said they came from five different game management units, spanning from Weiser to Picabo to Minidoka.
Many commented on the social media post, asking about the meat and if it was wasted.
Thompson said the picture on the post is misleading and proper procedures to preserve the meat were followed.
“Each of those elk was field dressed, immediately put into a refrigerated trailer and then transported to Scarrow Meats in Jerome,” he said.
While Thompson said he doesn't want to minimize the 206 taken elk, the number doesn't hurt the overall population. In fact, it helps with population control and management of elk numbers.
“Right now in the Magic Valley region, we have a very healthy elk population. Estimates are 15,000 to 20,000 elk,” he said. “We actually have more elk than we want to as defined by the elk management plan.”
Other methods for keeping elk off private property that were addressed in the research included spraying crops with a repellent that is unharmful to elk but tastes bad. Another method involved using dogs to scare elk away from getting into corn crops.
Thompson said anyone with questions or who sees a similar post is always welcome to call Fish and Game and ask about it.
The Colorado Farm Bureau might be opposed to wolves dining on livestock, but the state’s largest organization of farmers and ranchers heralded the news that six wolves and gnawed-up elk carcasses were spotted in Jackson County in northwest Colorado in October.
In the view of wolf opponents, that means there’s no need to reintroduce gray wolves to the state, the aim of an initiative that’s qualified for the November ballot.
“Just as predicted, wolves are making their way into Colorado on their own,” Chad Vorthmann, executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, said in a statement Friday. This measure is pointless and will only lead to wasted taxpayer dollars and increased bureaucracy. The proponents should let mother nature work its magic, stop trying to impose their will on the natural world, and retract their ballot measure.”
Vorthmann urged proponents to scrap the ballot measure “to leave nature alone.”
The wolf is believed to have wandered south from Wyoming, part of the Snake River Pack.
“It is inevitable, based on known wolf behavior, that they would travel here from states where their populations are well-established,” said JT Romatzke, Northwest regional manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. “We have no doubt that they are here, and the most recent sighting…is further evidence of the presence of wolves in Colorado.”
Romatzke said there also are wolves across the West, including neighboring New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Wyoming.
Rob Edward, the president of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund, which supports the ballot measure, told Colorado Politics on Friday that a sighting doesn’t constitute a sustainable population, the aim of the ballot measure.
“It’s absolutely not true,” he said of the suggestion the wandering wolves negate the need for the wolf vote in Colorado. “It’s just the opposite.
“It shows that, number one, we have some responsibility to honor the nature of the Northern Rockies, so that when we have wolves wander down from other states we have some packs for them to hook up with to repopulate Colorado.
“But on a policy wonk note, those wolves wandering down are fully endangered and nothing can be done management-wise.”
Source: Farm Bureau says wolf sighting proves reintroduction is unnecessary | OutThere Colorado Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Restore Wolves to ESL, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/farm-bureau-says-wolf-sighting-proves-reintroduction-is-unnecessary/
Most likely a hunter that wounded the elk and wolves cleaned it up after the weak hunter because the Hunter couldn't finish the Job. But wait for the Elk Herd Decimation fairytales!
Denver • Wildlife officials have discovered evidence of wolves living in northwestern Colorado after hunters reported a suspected pack and residents found a scavenged elk carcass.
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department announced the discoveries Wednesday, suggesting a pack of gray wolves may be residing in the state, The Denver Post reports. The news was first reported Tuesday by the Craig Press.
“We have no doubt that they are here, and the most recent sighting of what appears to be wolves traveling together in what can be best described as a pack is further evidence of the presence of wolves in Colorado,” department regional manager J.T. Romatzke said in a statement.
The hunters provided a video shot in October of two wolves shown near the Wyoming and Utah borders, officials said. It was the first time in a few years multiple wolves were seen traveling together in Colorado, officials said.
“We will not take direct action and we want to remind the public that wolves are federally endangered species and fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As wolves move into the state on their own, we will work with our federal partners to manage the species,” Romatzke said.
The announcement comes days after state election officials placed a measure to reintroduce wolves on this year's ballot, officials said. The ballot will ask voters whether to require state wildlife commissioners to reintroduce gray wolves by the end of 2023 on public land in western Colorado, officials said.
“The wolf ballot initiative would ensure that Colorado develops a science-based plan to jump-start the restoration of wolves," said Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund president Rob Edward who is leading the reintroduction campaign.
State wildlife officials have studied the possibility of reintroducing wolves in Colorado and decided to oppose such efforts, officials said. Local leaders in 23 counties have also opposed reintroduction.
“The forced introduction of non-native gray wolves will be like throwing gas on a campfire,” Stop the Wolf campaign chairman Denny Behrens said. “It’s just not fair to the wolf to force them into inevitable conflicts with people when they are already thriving in remote parts of Canada and Alaska.”
Source: Wildlife officials find evidence of wolves in Colorado - The Salt Lake Tribune Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/wildlife-officials-find-evidence-of-wolves-in-colorado-blame-wolves-for-bones/
Get ready for the wolves to start howling. The first full moon of 2020 will shine brightly in the night sky on Thursday, Jan. 9, and Friday, Jan. 10 — the day it officially becomes full.
The full January moon carries a cool but scary-sounding nickname, the “wolf moon” — a monicker that was coined by Native American tribes that would often hear packs of hungry wolves howling on cold and snowy nights in the middle of winter.
That’s what many people believe. However, the Old Farmer’s Almanac has a different opinion on the nickname’s origin.
“It was traditionally thought that they howled due to hunger, but there is no evidence for this," the publication says. “However, wolves do tend to howl more often during winter months, and generally howl to define territory, locate pack members, and gather for hunting.”
By the way, the January full moon will be one of 13 full moons appearing in 2020, because the month of October will have two full moons. And some sky watchers are calling this month’s full moon the “wolf moon eclipse,” because people in some parts of the world — not here in North America — will see a partial lunar eclipse as the moon turns full.
Best time to see the full January moon
Stargazers will have a few good viewing opportunities, as long as the clouds don’t interfere. The wolf moon will reach its fullest phase at 2:21 p.m. Eastern time on Friday, Jan. 10, which means it will appear nearly full Thursday night, completely full Friday night and very close to full Saturday night.
In the New York City region, the moon will rise in the east-northeast sky at 3:45 p.m. Thursday, at 4:45 p.m. Friday and 5:53 p.m. Saturday, according to TimeAndDate.com.
If you are an early riser, check out the big moon as it sets in the west-northwestern sky at 7:12 a.m. Friday, 8:07 a.m. Saturday or 8:54 a.m. Sunday.
Other nicknames for the full January moon
All full moons have generated a variety of nicknames dating back to the days when Native American tribes and Colonial Americans would name each moon based on weather conditions, farming routines and hunting trends during that time of year.
Although the “wolf moon” is the most common nickname for the full January moon, it also has been known as the “cold moon,” the “old moon,” the “great spirit moon,” or the “moon after Yule,” according to the Farmers’ Almanac and the Old Farmer’s Almanac.
Some tribes referred to the full January moon as the “snow moon,” but that nickname is more common for the February full moon.
Flashback to January 2019: Very few people in the astronomy world referred to last year’s January full moon as the wolf moon because it coincided with a total lunar eclipse and also happened to be one of the year’s “supermoons.” As a result, the January 2019 moon had a few popular nicknames — “supermoon,” “blood moon” and “super blood moon.”
The blood nickname refers to the reddish tint given off by the moon as it is goes through an eclipse.
Next full moon of 2020
If you don’t get a chance to see the January full moon, you can look for next month’s full “snow moon” during the early-morning hours on Feb. 9.
In 2020, sky watchers will get a chance to see at least two “supermoons” — the exact number is under debate in the astronomy community — moons that appear slightly bigger and brighter than an ordinary full moon.
Most experts agree one supermoon will appear March 9, and another will follow April 7. Some say the February and May full moons will also be supermoons, based on the distance of their orbit around the Earth when they reach their fullest phase.
This year will also feature a “blue moon” on Halloween, because it will be the second of two full moons in October. The first will appear Oct. 1.
Source: Full January wolf moon will be shining in the sky this week - nj.com Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/full-january-wolf-moon-will-be-shining-in-the-sky-this-week/
The correct information about Elk after wolves reintroduced
We grow weary from hearing the fairytales spread by hunters and Ranchers about elk herd decimation, this article will help set them straight with REAL numbers ;)
Dennis Smith (Jan. 1) offered much of the misinformation I heard before wolves were returned to the northern Rocky Mountains. After studying forestry and wildlife management at CSU, and beginning a 36-year career with the National Park Service at Rocky Mountain National Park, I had the privilege of serving on the Yellowstone Center for Resources team that restored wolves to the park. I helped put together two reports for Congress titled, “Wolves for Yellowstone” and the Gray Wolf EIS of 1994.
Here are elk harvest figures since wolf restoration.
Wyoming: 1995 elk population = 103,448; 1995 elk harvest = 17,695. Wyoming: 2017 elk population = 104, 800 (31% over objective); 2017 elk harvest = 24,535; average hunter success rate = 35%.
Montana: 1995 elk population = 109,500; no harvest data for 1995. Montana: 2018 elk population = 138,470 (27% over upper objective); 2017 elk harvest = 30,348.
Idaho: 1995 elk population = 112,333; 1995 elk harvest = 22,400. Idaho: 2017 elk population = 116,800 (18 elk units at or above objective, 10 units below for a variety of reasons); 2017 elk harvest = 22,751.
There were about 6 million cattle in the northern Rocky Mountains in 2014. The 140 cattle taken by wolves made up 1 in 43,000, or 0.000023% of cattle in the states. There were about 825,000 sheep in the northern Rocky Mountains in 2014. The 172 sheep taken by wolves made up 1 in 4,800, or 0.000208% of sheep in the states.
From 1995 to 2018, Yellowstone hosted 101,070,722 visitors, none of whom was injured by a wolf. Among 2.7 million tent campers in Yellowstone from 1995 to 2018, no camper was injured by a wolf.
The effects of wolves on the park over 20 years are detailed in Yellowstone Science 24(1). You can get it at Yell_Science@nps.gov. A great book, “Wolves on the Hunt” (2015) rebuts many of Smith’s assertions.
Norman Bishop
Bozeman, Mont.
Source: Letters: Trump; wolves – Loveland Reporter-Herald Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves https://protectthewolves.com/facts-regarding-elk-populations-before-and-after-reintroduction/
Its finally coming out that someone shot and killed a Wolf in California after initially it appears claiming it died from pneumonia ???
A reward has been offered in the 2018 killing of a wolf in Modoc County, CA. Federal officials provided new details including the gun used and the road on which it was killed.
Federal officials have issued a $2,500 reward for the unsolved 2018 killing of an endangered wolf in Modoc County, California’s first wolf poaching investigation since the predators returned to the state.
On Dec. 2, 2018, Oregon wildlife biologists notified California officials that a black-furred yearling male they’d labeled OR-59 had traveled from a pack in northeast Oregon and crossed the state line into Modoc County.
The biologists were able to track its movements because the yearling male wolf was wearing a GPS collar, which biologists had put around its neck a few months earlier when they’d trapped it for study in northeast Oregon.
Then, on Dec. 9, 2018, Oregon biologists received a “mortality signal” from its collar indicating the wolf had died, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
In the year since, California’s wildlife officers have revealed little about the case, including where OR-59’s body was found, how the wolf died or why they found its death suspicious.
In a news release this week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided more details.
The wolf was shot once with a .22 caliber center-fire rifle along County Road 91 near the small communities of Lookout and Bieber, the wildlife agency said. Officials urged anyone with information about the killing to call 916-569-8444.
WOLVES IN CALIFORNIA
OR-7 was the first known wolf to return to California after they were killed off early last century. OR-7, a 2-year-old gray male, had left Oregon’s Imnaha Pack and traveled hundreds of miles to California’s northern border.
He spent months wandering the state before returning to Oregon, finding a mate and starting his own pack. OR-7’s appearance prompted the California Fish and Game Commission to grant gray wolves endangered species protections, over objections from ranchers and big game hunters who fear the predators will harm livestock operations and deer and elk herds.
In the years since OR-7 arrival, around 30 wolves have either passed through, settled or been born in a remote, five-county region about the size of West Virginia in California’s northeastern corner.
Some, like OR-59, wander in as they disperse from packs in Oregon and elsewhere looking for a mate. Most of the wolves have either died or wandered back out of state. But a couple of packs have settled.
The state’s first wolf pack — the Shasta Pack — had pups in Siskiyou County in 2015, but the wolf family disappeared before officials were able to put tracking collars on them.
Just one wolf family — the Lassen Pack — is confirmed to reside in the state. Officials have put tracking collars on two members of the Lassen Pack, the matriarch female and one of her young female progeny.
Meanwhile, there have been at least 15 confirmed or probable cases of wolves preying on livestock so far in California, including by members of the Lassen Pack.
In Oregon, wolves have been responsible for more than 130 confirmed livestock “depredation events” since the late 1990s, according to Oregon’s wildlife agency.
OR-7’s family group — the Rogue Pack — has killed several cows and a rancher’s guard dog, according to the agency and local media reports.
Wolves tend to have few fans in the cattle-dependent regions they’ve resettled — and poaching cases are common.
In Oregon alone, wildlife officials say at least 15 wolves have been killed illegally in recent years. Environmentalists estimate around two dozen wolves have been illegally killed in Washington since 2008.
Under the federal Endangered Species Act, anyone convicted of deliberately harming an endangered wolf faces up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine.
Source: U.S. offers reward to find killer of endangered wolf in CA | The Sacramento Bee Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/u-s-offers-reward-to-find-killer-of-endangered-wolf-in-ca/
Colorado Rancher already spreading fear and most likely fairytales after bragging “Our ancestors spent a long time getting rid of the wolves,” Raftopoulos, a cousin of FOX31’s Aristea Brady, said.
MOFFAT COUNTY, Colo. – State wildlife officials are trying to figure out if Colorado is once again a habitat for wolves.
“Our ancestors spent a long time getting rid of the wolves,” Raftopoulos, a cousin of FOX31’s Aristea Brady, said.
An elk carcass was discovered in the same area last week. State wildlife officers say the predators are likely gray wolves.
“They’re dang sure not a big pet,” Raftopoulos said. “They’re so big.”
Raftopoulos worries about the future of sheep and cattle in the area. He’s also concerned over the toll wolves could bring to the local ranching economy and the economies of small rural towns.
The animals haven’t lived in Colorado for more than 70 years. Some have been spotted occasionally passing through Colorado from the north.
“There are established packs up in Wyoming,” said Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokeswoman Rebecca Ferrell.
CPW says wolves offer potential benefits to the ecosystem, but the agency also recognizes the concern for cattle.
Colorado voters will decide if wolves should be re-introduced to the state on a November 2020 ballot. But the carnivores may not wait to be invited.
“We have a very likely suspicion of what we’re dealing with up in the northwest corner, but at this point, we’re still doing some investigative work,” Ferrell explained.
CPW is asking anyone who spots wolves to take note and report what they see.
The animal is considered an endangered species. Ranchers and hunters are not allowed to kill them. Management of the gray wolf must be done on the federal level.
Those who support bringing wolves back to Colorado say a big benefit is controlling the spread of wildlife disease. Wolves are known for killing vulnerable animals afflicted with illnesses such as Chronic Wasting Disease. Those on the other side of the debate say wolves will actually spread the disease. They also warn of conflict between wolves and people.
Source: Colorado rancher speaks out following wolf pack sighting on land he manages | FOX31 Denver Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Restore Wolves to ESL, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/colorado-rancher-george-raftopoulos-spreads-fear-and-fairytales/
Just watch, now the livestock Industry will most likely file lawsuits to prevent reintroduction says Protect The Wolves™
One day after a measure to reintroduce wolves was placed on this year's ballot, Colorado Parks and Wildlife says a likely wolf pack was confirmed in the state.
CPW said an eyewitness reported six large canids — a term that can describe wolves, jackals, foxes, coyote and domestic dogs — traveling together. Plus, a scavenged elk a few miles from the sighting in northwest Colorado ''strongly suggests a pack of gray wolves may now be residing in Colorado.''
"The sighting marks the first time in recent history CPW has received a report of multiple wolves traveling together," CPW Northwest Regional Manager JT Romatzke said in a Wednesday release.
Romatzke said in the days prior to the late October sighting in Moffat County, the eyewitness reported hearing "distinct howls coming from different animals. In my opinion, this is a very credible report."
The eyewitness said his hunting party observed the wolves near the state's Wyoming and Utah borders. One of the party caught two of the six animals on video.
After learning of the scavenged elk carcass, CPW initiated an investigation. At the kill site, officers observed several large canid tracks from multiple animals that are consistent with those made by wolves. The condition of the elk carcass was consistent with known wolf predation, according to CPW.
Romatzke said the most recent sighting of what appears to be wolves traveling together is what can be best described as a pack and adds "to other credible reports of wolf activity in Colorado over the past several years."
Previous reports of wolves in Colorado include tracks, howls, photos and videos. DNA testing confirmed the presence of one wolf a few years ago, and "in a recent case, we have photos and continue to track a wolf with a collar from Wyoming’s Snake River pack," Romatzke said.
"It is inevitable, based on known wolf behavior, that they would travel here from states where their populations are well-established," Romatzke said. "We have no doubt that they are here, and the most recent sighting of what appears to be wolves traveling together in what can be best described as a pack is further evidence of the presence of wolves in Colorado."
The ballot measure, championed by the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund, will appear on the November ballot. Advocates have said they would like to eventually see 250 wolves in Colorado. Details of the reintroduction are left to be ironed out by the state.
"Wolves are in grave danger, looking at social media comments (regarding the recent announcement), and why it is even more urgent to pass initiative 107,'' said Rob Edward, president of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund board. "The bottom line is this shows a connectivity to the Northern Rockies and why reintroduction is the right thing to do. We need a planning process to get on with recovering wolves.''
Wolf reintroduction proponents "have falsely claimed that there are no wolves present in Colorado. ... The news from CPW today implodes their propaganda,” said Denny Behrens, co-chairman of the Colorado Stop the Wolf Coalition.
“The forced introduction of non-native gray wolves will be like throwing gas on a campfire," Behrens said.
In regard to the wolf pack, Romatzke said CPW will continue to operate under the agency's current management direction, which is to not take direct action.
"We want to remind the public that wolves are federally endangered species and fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," he said. "As wolves move into the state on their own, we will work with our federal partners to manage the species."
Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife: First pack of wolves reported in Colorado Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Wolves in the News #CutOffUSDAWildlifeServicesFunding #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/colorado-parks-and-wildlife-first-pack-of-wolves-reported-in-colorado/
SEATTLE — A King County judge says he expects to rule in a week on a motion to dismiss claims that Washington Fish and Wildlife has been breaking the state's fundamental environmental law every time it kills a wolf.
Slap Mcgillis: fish and game know more about this states wildlife than a Seattle judge those wolves are killing everything turkey, deer, elk and pheasant.. sometimes you gotta put them down .. all of you overnight Hawks fans that moved here a year ago from California need to worry about your own state and stop ruining mine 🖕
Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Restore Wolves to ESL, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/seattle-judge-expects-to-rule-soon-on-wolf-issue/
Conservationists call for temporary BLM lead William Perry Pendley to step down
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, 91 conservation, sportsmen, and faith-based groups concerned with public lands management, representing more than 3.9 million Americans, submitted a letter to Interior Secretary Bernhardt calling for William Perry Pendley to resign or be removed from office. Pendley lacks Senate approval to lead the agency. The letter cites Pendley’s direction to implement the agenda of public lands extremist groups, his conflicts of interest relating to his former law firm’s continued representation of opponents of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalate National Monuments designations, the movement of BLM headquarters personnel from Washington to western offices without congressional authorization, and his skewed leadership towards extractive industry.
“William Pendley is implementing his goal to eliminate federal public lands by directing his department to hand over control to local government entities, including those that seek to crush environmental protections and throw the door wide open to commercial exploitation,” said Erik Molvar, Executive Director of Western Watersheds Project. “Pendley’s direction to defer BLM’s law enforcement to local officials explicitly implements the policy agenda of the Constitutional Sheriffs, an organization affiliated with the Bundy movement that seeks to supplant federal laws and regulations on our western public lands.”
Pendley authored an op-ed in November directing federal laws enforcement to allow local law enforcement to take the primary role in enforcing federal laws on federal public lands, in a major derogation of BLM law enforcement’s authority and a page out of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association playbook. He has also directed a mandatory relocation of senior BLM career employees from the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.
“Pendley has pushed hard to move scores of HQ staff to Grand Junction in the heart of natural gas production in Western Colorado,” said Peter Jenkins of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “With no direct flights to DC it makes no sense – except to strengthen BLM’s ties to oil and gas production, harm oversight by Congress, and weaken the influence of the agency. Even worse, he is scattering other professional support staff all over the West.”
In October of 2019, Pendley issued a controversial statement that wild horses were the primary issue facing the BLM, angering conservationists who pointed to real crises facing the agency, including sage grouse declines, livestock overgrazing, cheatgrass spread, climate change, and many other problems.
“Putting Pendley in charge of the BLM is like the fox guarding the henhouse,” said Judi Brawer, Wild Places Program Director with WildEarth Guardians. “He will destroy the agency and the irreplaceable public lands in his charge.”
Pendley’s former law form, Mountain States Legal Foundation, continues to represent local governments fighting to defend the gutting of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments by the Trump Administration, and Pendley himself had been an attorney representing these groups prior to being appointed to lead the BLM. Pendley’s BLM has continued to pursue Monument management plans advancing the interests of his former clients.
“William Perry Pendley has essentially infiltrated the Bureau of Land Management to serve the corporations who want to dig, drill, and destroy our public lands for profit. He should have immediately removed himself from any decisions relating to the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase – Escalante National Monuments decisions, but instead shielded his former clients and big polluters from environmental protections.” said Blaine Miller-McFeeley, Senior Legislative Representative for policy and legislation at Earthjustice. “Congress should remove Pendley from office as soon as possible if he won’t leave on his own.”
Pendley’s current appointment as Deputy Director by Secretary Bernhardt expires on January 3rd. The BLM Director, who would have full authority to exercise the responsibilities of that position once confirmed by the Senate, has not yet been nominated by the Trump Administration.
Source: NEWS: 91 Green Groups Demand Pendley's Resignation - Western Watersheds Project Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Restore Wolves to ESL, Wolves in the News #CutOffUSDAWildlifeServicesFunding #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #ProtectTheWolves #RestoreWolvesToESL #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/91-groups-demand-pendleys-resignation-protect-the-wolves/
As Soon as Cattle are removed from the equation, great things can happen. The Sooner that all join as 1 Voice to begin making it come to pass, the healthier Our Children's Resources will become.
What if I told you that this one simple trick could lead to more water, better grazing conditions for Ungulates and healthier, more diverse wildlife? The Public want to see change, then lets begin by getting Our Precedent setting Research into the Courts Today ;)
There is ample research that gray wolves are a keystone species – which means the entire ecosystem rides on their health. Without wolves, grazing species tend to over-eat because they aren’t constantly on guard for the apex predator.
That destroys the diversity of plants in watersheds, which can deplete stream flows (not to mention the quality of grasses and other foods for grazers). It also diminishes the populations and alters the behaviors of other animals, from beetles to eagles to coyotes.
Reintroducing wolves puts everything back in balance.
Cattle still drive the divide
We’ve seen it happen in Yellowstone National Park. And it’s possible we could see it in Arizona, if we could finally find a way to sustain the Mexican gray wolf population in this state.
But this trick is not at all simple.
Government programs intended to minimize cattle losses nearly decimated the Mexican gray wolf. And decades of efforts to stabilize the subspecies have little to show for them, other than two sides that only seem to dig in deeper as time goes on.
Cattle continue to drive the divide, and understandably so. Though ranchers can be reimbursed for livestock killed by wolves, the federal process is cumbersome. And it doesn’t make ranchers whole for every head of cattle lost – which makes it difficult to embrace in an industry that has so little margin for loss.
Some organizations continue to look for middle ground, urging ranchers to stun, not kill, the wolves that wander nearby, and to pay them for using certain management techniques.
Yet strong voices on both sides continue to argue that wolves and ranching simply cannot coexist.
If it's not working, why not start over?
Three decades after reintroduction efforts began, 131 Mexican gray wolves live in the wild. Sixty-four were counted in Arizona as of January 2019, according to reporting by The Arizona Republic’s Debra Utacia Krol.
And while those numbers are up slightly since 2017, 21 wolves died in 2018.
We seem to take a step forward by mating and introducing new wolves, then take a step back when wolves are killed by humans or simply don’t survive, in large part because those in the wild are so horribly inbred.
If Mexican gray wolves are indeed a keystone species – we don’t know for certain, though new research suggests they are not wolf-dog hybrids, as some have long contended – their successful reintroduction should have wide-ranging impacts. That includes healthier forests and grasslands, which could boost our water supply and lessen the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
But research also suggests that the wolf subspecies’ DNA is rapidly degrading. Which means if it is a keystone, it may not be one for long.
Given what we could gain from a genetically stable population in the wild, it seems like now is as good a time as any to follow the science and find out.
Source: Mexican gray wolves could have wider impacts on Arizona than we think Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/mexican-gray-wolves-could-have-wider-impacts-than-we-think/
A team of researchers have found that dogs and wolves are equally good at cooperating with partners to obtain a reward. When tested in same-species pairs, dogs and wolves proved equally successful and efficient at solving a given problem. This finding suggests that basic cooperation abilities were present in a common ancestor of dogs and wolves, and have not been lost in the domestication process.
It is estimated that dogs were domesticated as much as 30,000 - 40,000 years ago, and over that span of time they have undergone many changes from their wild counterparts, wolves. In a study published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology, researchers tested dogs and wolves for the ability to coordinate their actions with a partner of the same species to obtain rewards. The wolves in the study were from Tierpark Petersberg and Wolfcenter Dörverden. The researchers from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and colleagues, found that dogs and wolves performed equally well on the task, suggesting that this ability was present prior to dogs' domestication in a common ancestor. The researchers hypothesize that, since dogs have been specifically selected for their ability and willingness to cooperate with humans, they might have an even higher success rate when humans are the cooperation partner.
The Test Scenario: Hunting large prey
To test cooperation ability, the researchers created a test scenario that was designed to mimic a hunting situation, one in which multiple animals were trying to take down a larger herbivore, such as an elk or other horned prey. The concept was that, in the wild, one of the animals would need to draw the attention - and the dangerous horns - of the potential prey, so that the other could attack from the rear and bring the prey down. Thus the animal that took the most risk in the hunt also had to trust that it would be given a share of the reward in the end. The test apparatus involved a barrier separating the participants from a food reward, with two openings on opposite ends that were controlled by a researcher. When the first animal approached an opening, the door before it would shut while the opposite door remained open, allowing the partner to enter first and access the food. The door then remained open, so that other animal could then enter. Thus the animals had to cooperate in two ways - first by positioning themselves on opposite ends of the barrier and then by timing and coordinating their approaches towards the barrier.
The researchers found that the dogs and wolves were equally successful, succeeding in about three out of four trials on average. "Dogs were not outperformed by wolves in coordinating their actions, in the frequency of success or in how long the task took," explains Juliane Bräuer of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, lead author of the study and head of the DogStudies group at the institute. "This is somewhat surprising, as it contradicts recent findings by other researchers related to more complex cooperation tasks performed by dogs and wolves." The researchers hypothesize that this could be due to the simple nature of the task in the present study, which might require only basic cooperation skills.
Food sharing depends on the dynamics of the pair, not on species
After solving the test, the pairs generally shared the food reward, but sharing was more likely when the dominant member of the pair was the second to arrive at the reward. "The probability of co-feeding during successful trials was higher when dominants 'took the risk,' so to speak, in moving first and drawing the closed door, because their higher rank gave them a higher chance to nonetheless get their share even if they accessed the food reward a few seconds after the subordinate," explains Bräuer. So while the researchers set out to test cooperation, it turned out that competition within the pair was also a factor.
Interestingly, however, dogs and wolves seemed to differ in which animal in the pair was willing to move first, drawing the closed door and thus being second to the food. Dominant wolves seemed to be more willing to take on this task in general than dominant dogs, and did so more frequently the more times the pair shared food. Dominant dogs, on the other hand, apparently seem to prefer to wait for their partner to draw the closed door. As would be expected, the more times dogs shared food, the more likely the subordinate member of the pair was to move first and draw the closed door.
More complex cooperation remains to be investigated
The researchers point out that, although the kind of coordination shown in the present study may rely on more simple mechanisms than full, conscious cooperation, it can still inform us about how cooperative behavior might have changed - or not - during the domestication process. "Our results suggest that the abilities needed to coordinate actions were already present in the dog-wolf ancestor," notes Bräuer. "In future studies, it would be interesting to focus on the question of how exactly factors like social dynamics, living conditions, the type of task and maybe also breed differences influence the cooperative behavior of dogs and wolves." Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Wolves in the News #EndangeredSpeciesList #GrayWolves #OpposeWelfareRanchingNotWolves #ProtectTheWolves #WolvesInTheNews https://protectthewolves.com/dogs-and-wolves-are-both-good-at-cooperating/
This is why we tell people not to make threatening comments, it gives the spineless WAG a way out!
Martorello and their Overpaid facilitator Francine Madden allowed WAG Members to publicly disrespect Dr. Robert Wielgus in 1 WAG meeting we were at and did absolutely nothing to stop them. Our Director stood up and told them to stop after their inactions.
WDFW needs to stop making Excuses for canceling meetings. Threats on Social Media are a Joke... We get hundreds a week do we stop Educating? Do We stop putting WDFW on front street? We always tell people not to make threats that basically are a waste of Time. We have deleted and banned Hundreds of Comments and their makers. Are We going to stop wearing our Tshirts and Eagle Feathers to meetings? Hell no.
Herein lies the Problem, if Martorello wasnt such a lying deceitful little man with a huge case of TPS and followed thru on his promises and commitments perhaps hed have more people commenting positively to inflate his Ego. Martorello has yet to follow through on just one commitment to provide info that he has made through numerous different Phone Conversations. Martorello has ducked following the legal path on their lethal kill policy and the public needs to know.
This week, Washington state legislators are reviewing an independent investigation into Rep. Matt Shea, investigating whether he promoted political violence.
This comes after private chat records, leaked by former Shea acolyte Jay Pounder, features Shea taking part in chats where his allies discuss elaborate violent fantasies against local liberal activists.
As the Inlander reported early this year, those chat messages included Anthony Bosworth — the guy Shea gave a "2016 Patriot of the Year" award to and sent down to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to de-escalate tensions — discussing a proposal to send severed wolf parts to Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, an aggressive environmental rights group.
"Get me the testicles off a North Idaho wolf and I'll send it to him," Bosworth writes.
"This is not something to put out electronically," Shea wrote. "We need to meet f2f."
While Suckling never received the proposed package, it highlighted how violent the rhetoric around the debate over the fight between wolves and ranchers in Eastern Washington has become. So on Aug. 27, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife canceled 14 community meetings about wolf management, claiming they were risking an "unsafe meeting environment for the public participating.” Instead, they would hold online workshops.
But an Inlander records request for all documents related to the decision to cancel the meetings didn't turn up any explicit threats from anti-wolf extremists. Instead, it turned up multiple violent social media threats from wolf supporters, including on the Facebook page of the Center for Biological Diversity.
According to the WDFW, most of the threats and harassment the organization has observed around the wolf issue has come from the environmental side, both locally and nationally. At times, the agency has raised concerns about online comments with the FBI.
In early August, the Center for Biological Diversity called its Facebook fans to action, warning them that, in the name of protecting cattle, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was planning to kill more members of the Old Profanity Peak pack in Ferry County.
The center posted the work phone numbers of Washington Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind and Jay Inslee, and urged their followers to tell them you "oppose this continued assault on Washington's endangered wolves."
Commenters were furious at the government employees. One — an executive at a computer shop in Illinois — reacted to by appearing to call for the murder of Washington Fish and Wildlife employees.
"Kill the state officials responsible for the crime," he wrote on Aug. 6. "Now. Immediately. Ask if I can help. I have no arms, but can shoot or move my hands." (The Inlander has edited these social media quotes slightly to correct typos.)
And that wasn't the only Facebook comment in August that caused WDFW officials concern. Officials also flagged the following comments during August:
On a post from the Wolf Conservation Center, a commenter wrote, "I wish someone, ANYONE, would shoot the sharpshooters! I feel that would be a better solution," while another wrote, "I would kill every man that wants to kill nature. This is what nature needs now, dead stupid people."
On the "Save Wolves Now — Pacific Rim" Facebook group one commenter wrote that "our nation needs to take lethal action against WDWF!!!!" while a second confirmed that "I would like to take lethal action."
At the "Protect the Wolves" Facebook group, one commenter reacted to a post about WDFW hunting wolves from a helicopter by writing "Shoot them in the knee caps as they are not human." "Hopefully the helicopter will crash and kill all these dumbf—-s" one commenter wrote, while a second wrote "Can I say, 'rocket launcher'?" and a third wrote "Shoot the bird down in the sky"
On the Western Wildlife Conservation Facebook page, someone wrote "they also flew over my land. I pulled out the .30-30. I will shoot them down next time."
At Wolfwatcher Facebook page, commenters expressed similar sentiments, with one writing "I wish I could be there to shoot down that plane" and another writing "Shoot down the planes!"
Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Staci Lehman confirms that the violent rhetoric in these posts were part of the reason that the meetings in August were canceled. She says that, while there were angry comments on both sides, she is not aware of any specific violent threats coming from the anti-wolf side.
But WDFW also stresses that the online comments weren't the only factor. They also took into account information — not explicitly outlined in public records — from law enforcement on the ground.
"As we were approaching the public meeting segment, our law enforcement came to us and said, 'Asour ongoing work for monitoring these threats [continues,] we don’t believe we can ensure the safety of our citizens at those meetings,'" Donny Martorello, wolf policy lead with the WDFW says. The Age of the Death Threat
When the Inlander alerted Suckling about the threatening comment on the Center for Biological Diversity Facebook page, Suckling says he made sure his staff found the comment, deleted it and banned the commenter.
He says he's surprised the comment got through his organization's moderation process, which alerts his staff if anyone uses certain words — like "kill" — his team is flagged so they can delete it if it's a threat.
"We have a system on Facebook that looks for keywords and comments and notifies if certain keywords come up, so we can go and see what’s going on," Suckling says. "I don’t know how this one got past our filter. More likely somebody missed our notification."
But he says that moderation can be challenging — on an open page, you can't decide who shows up and starts commenting.
August, when the meetings were canceled, was a particularly incendiary month for this issue. On Friday, Aug. 16, wolf advocates successfully won an injunction to stop WDFW from killing more members of the Old Profanity Peak pack — but just hours earlier, state officials had killed almost all remaining wolves in the pack.
But even as environmental groups on Facebook expressed their outrage, some groups urged their commenters to tone it down a little bit.
"Please DO NOT make threatening comments about WDFW staff or their families on my Facebook page, or on any Facebook page," Amaroq Weiss, senior West Coast wolf advocatefor the Center for Biological Diversity, wrote on her Facebook page that month. "The Center for Biological Diversity condemns all threats of violence and I personally condemn all threats of violence as well. WDFW is finding such comments on Facebook and using them to discredit wolf supporters in court. It's not appropriate no matter the circumstances — and it's harmful to our cause."
She promised to delete such comments and encouraged other pages to do the same. A few other pro-wolf activist pages followed suit.
"STAND FOR WOLVES is asking you DO NOT make threatening comments about WDFW staff or their families or on any Facebook page," the "Stand for Wolves" account posted on Aug. 20. "These comments will be deleted and you will be banned from the page. Also, there is to be no cursing or name-calling, name-calling is senseless and makes advocates look bad as well."
"It's hard not to make killing comments [considering] what they are doing to our wolves!" one commenter responded.
"I agree it is hard, but they are using Facebook comments of advocates to discredit wolf supporters in court," Stand for Wolves responded, "this is only going to hurt the wolves."
Andrew Marantz, a New Yorker writer who embedded with internet trolls for his recently released book, Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation, suggests the apparent frequency in death threats in social media is related to how quick and easy it is to communicate without consequences.
"It's the new road rage," Marantz writes in a Twitter direct message. "Or maybe an even lower threshold than that: the new honking, or the new giving someone a finger through your closed windows. Costs nothing, and it apparently helps people blow off steam."
And, to anyone who remembers the online furor over the dentist who killed Cecil the Lion, stories about the death of animals are particularly prone to sparking violent comments.
"Wildlife killing, especially killing of bears, lions and wolves, draws in a lot of people who are passionate, but also angry and some go way over the top as you’ve seen," Suckling says. "It’s something we've had to deal with a lot over the years."
Wolves, in particular, is a topic that takes fights over hunting, meat-eating, animal rights, property rights, gun rights, climate change and governmental regulation and dumps it into the same toxic stew.
"On the surface, it’s about the lethal removal of wolves. But there’s a deep-rooted identity-based conflict beneath that." Martorello says. "In some ways, the wolf side of this is easy and straight-forward. It's the people side of this that’s difficult."
But Suckling, who says he's been getting death threats for 30 years, "and not just from random couch potatoes on the internet," is skeptical that the sorts of violent comments justify canceling public meetings about the issue.
"There are endless numbers of bombastic yahoos on Facebook and Twitter, and they’re threatening everybody for everything," Suckling says. "Is this unusual for the social media swamp we all live in? No, it’s not. It's bad, [but] there’s no evidence of any realistic threat here."
Up Close and Personal
But Martorello says that the issues go beyond just social media hyperbole. At times, he says, WDFW staff members have been worried enough to take serious measures to protect their safety.
"We’ve had staff take it to the level where they needed to change how they look, change their hairstyle, grow out their hair, because of their concerns for their personal safety," Martorello says.
A few years ago, Martorello says, he got a series of "'I'm coming for you'" emails from someone angry about Fish and Wildlife killing wolves. It concerned him so much he put his family in a hotel room for two days.
In 2017, Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill hiding identifying information about employees or contractors who are legally killing wolves in the state, ranchers who'd had cattle killed by wolves, and even those participating in state programs aimed at preventing wolf attacks.
Joey McCanna, wildlife conflict supervisor, testified before the Sunshine Committee in February about what he saw as the continued need for the exemption.
“Threats started in 2014,’ McCanna said. “We had wolf advocates that were following my staff actually back to their residence in Spokane, and sitting outside of their house and filming them. And they would follow them when they would leave.”
Two years later, during the first big conflict over the Profanity Peak pack, he says he would get stopped in the mountains by people he'd never met before, who somehow knew his full name and what he did.
"I have a wife and three kids and two grandkids," McCanna says. “I had people sitting outside my residence taking photos of my residence when I wasn’t there. I was concerned about the safety of my family."
But, if possible, even more hatred is directed toward the ranchers and their families. Martorello says he's heard from multiple ranchers who say their children have been the subject of threats.
Much of that anti-rancher animosity has been directed toward Len McIrvin, a vocally anti-wolf rancher at the controversial Diamond M Ranch in Ferry County. McIrvin doesn't soft-pedal how he feels about environmentalists.
"Those people are insane. They are animal worshippers," McIrvin tells the Inlander. "They're not environmentalists, they’re degenerates. Anybody that worships animals over the rights of people to own property, I call them degenerates."
McIrvin says he doesn't browse social media. Instead, he receives the threats that come the old-fashioned way: over the telephone.
"I know there's a lot of wild talk on the internet and the computers," McIrvin says. "These are personal threats over the phone."
Whenever there's a wolf killing, he says, he gets calls all through the night, from people all across the country.
"We’ve had them tell us, 'If you want to see your [grandkids] come home on the school bus tonight, you better stop harassing the wolves."
He says his wife has been threatened too.
"They said they’d rather shoot her than have a wolf be shot," McIrvin says.
McIrvin says he's shared some of these calls with local law enforcement and the FBI, has often been told that the people calling him weren't technically breaking the law. While "true threats" are illegal, the First Amendment protects a lot of threatening sounding language, particularly when it comes to political speech.
The Supreme Court, for example, has ruled that the statement, "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ" is still protected by the Constitution.
Most of the threats, he says, he lets just wash over himself like "water off a duck's back." But it can be hard to tell the difference between heated talk and a real threat.
"The people that hide behind the phone, you don’t know whether to take them seriously," McIrvin says.
He says callers have threatened to shoot his cattle every time a wolf gets killed. At the end of August, the Stevens County Cattlemen's Association offered a $15,000 reward for information leading to the identity of the person allegedly shooting cattle in Northeast Washington, suspecting cattle were being shot in retaliation for wolf deaths.
At times, ranchers who aren't even in the United States have been the subject of misdirected threats "OK, people apparently there is a Diamond M Ranch in Alberta Canada and the poor owner is getting threats," the Protect the Wolves Facebook group posted in August. "So please people if you are going to make comments, not threats, make sure you have the correct location! The Diamond M Ranch that is owned by McIvrin is not in Canada, it's in Washington. The packs that are being slaughtered are in Washington, not Canada!"
Enemy of My Enemy is My Enemy
If there's one belief that unites environmentalists like Suckling and ranchers like McIrvin it's a
Photo courtesy of Matthew Konkle
A sticker on a sign argues that WDFW = Enemy. "The struggles in my district appear to be escalating faster than solutions are being provided by our decision-makers," Matthew Konkle, a WDFW enforcement officer in Northeast Washington, wrote in an email to colleagues.
distrust of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Both suspect that the cancellation of August's events were a cover story "It had nothing to do with safety. It was a way out for [WDFW Director] Susewind. He knew there was going to be a no-win situation," McIrvin says.
McIrvin speculates that the WDFW knew that in-person meetings would be attended by cattlemen who'd had their herds attacked by wolves — but those same ranchers wouldn't bother to participate in an online webinar.
"Fish and Wildlife has an agenda and that’s to put us out of business with the wolves," McIrvin says.
Suckling suspects the opposite motivation but comes to the same conclusion.
"It does not want to do those public hearings," Suckling says. "The state knows very well that the vast majority of people will come out to the hearing and tell them to stop killing wolves. They don’t want that. The state represented at the end of the day, the interest of a small group of ranchers, but not the interests of the majority of citizens."
One document, obtained through the Inlander's public record requests, shows that WDFW worried that canceling the August meetings would result in "less public engagement during this process," would mean "giving in to fear tactics" and would be a "huge hit to transparency/credibility."
But at the same time, WDFW administrators worried that if they didn't cancel the meetings, and something violent happened, that would be an even bigger blow to the organization's credibility — and conscience. Martorello stresses that they haven't given up. With wolf numbers rising, a time will come when the species will be taken off the state's endangered species list. And next year, they're planning to hold public meetings to discuss what policies to put in place that happens.
And yes, they're expecting to hold some of those meetings in Northeast Washington.
