Tag Archives: Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding

$400,000 in Idaho State Funding to Kill Wolves Approved by Lawmakers 

BOISE, ID – An Idaho board responsible for the killing of wolves that attack livestock and other wildlife is a step closer to getting an additional $400,000 in state funding.

The funds were approved in a 26-4 Senate vote on Wednesday. The funding now only needs the approval of Governor Brad Little.

The Idaho Wolf Depredation Control Board is funded by a mix of contributions from livestock producers, Idaho Department of Fish and Game fees and the state’s general fund.

Earlier this week, the Department of Fish and Game reported the conclusion of wolf control actions done during February that removed 17 wolves in the Lolo elk zone north of Highway 12.

Source: $400,000 in Idaho State Funding to Kill Wolves Approved by Lawmakers | Idaho | bigcountrynewsconnection.com

Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves, Restore Wolves to ESL, Wolves in Idaho Ban Grazing Allotments, Oppose Welfare Ranching, Protect The Wolves

USDA Wildlife Services agrees to temporarily halt lethal wolf control, ‘cyanide bomb’ use

Protect The Wolves™ Certainly Hopes that the $154,000 settlement terms for this Lawsuit are payed where it Belongs!!! With Canyon Mansfields Family!!

USDA Wildlife Services has reached a settlement with five conservation organizations agreeing to temporarily stop using lethal methods to target gray wolves on certain public lands and to suspend its use of M-44s, also known as “cyanide bombs.”

The new restrictions will remain in place until the federal agency completes an environmental review of the impacts of killing wolves.

The settlement between Wildlife Services and Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Clearwater, WildEarth Guardians and Predator Defense was filed in U.S. District Court on Wednesday.

In June 2016, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging the agency and its Idaho director, Todd Grimm, violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to complete an environmental impact statement for its gray wolf control activities in the state. The case was dismissed in District Court in January 2018, on the basis that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to file it.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in April of 2019 that the plaintiffs did have standing and remanded the case back to District Court.

Under terms of the settlement, the agency will pay $154,000 in attorney fees to the plaintiffs.

Wildlife Services will temporarily halt lethal control methods of gray wolves within federally designated wilderness areas, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and specified areas of Sawtooth Valley and Wood River Valley.

The agency will be restricted from using surveillance technology to target gray wolves in Idaho wilderness areas, and it will not be allowed to use lethal methods to target wolves on private land unless it’s in response to a documented livestock depredation or attack by a gray wolf. The agency will provide plaintiffs with depredation investigation reports from the prior ear by July 31, as well as copies of other reports prepared for the Wolf Depredation Control Board.

“Wildlife Services won’t be able to keep ignoring the science that shows that killing predators does not reduce livestock losses,” Talasi Brooks, a staff attorney with Western Watersheds Project, said in a press release.

In addition to avoiding M-44 cyanide bombs, Wildlife Services will not kill Idaho wolves for ungulate protection and will not use snares to target gray wolves on Idaho public lands.

Canyon Mansfield of Pocatello was 14 when he was harmed and his dog was killed by a cyanide bomb about three years ago. The device was set illegally and without proper signage on public land near his home.

“This news is very uplifting because it shows progress in our fight for justice for (my deceased dog) Kasey and everyone else who has suffered from these cyanide bombs,” Canyon Mansfield said in a press release. “I believe this shows that we are fighting a battle with a victory in sight.”

Laurie Rule, an attorney for Advocates for the West, said the forthcoming analysis will be detailed and will look at the science surrounding the agency’s lethal controls of predators to inform its new program.

“We’ll be watching carefully to make sure the analysis complies with all laws and fully examines the impacts and effectiveness of predator damage management in Idaho,” Rule said in the press release.

Source: USDA Wildlife Services agrees to temporarily halt lethal wolf control, ‘cyanide bomb’ use | Local | idahostatejournal.com

Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves Ban Grazing Allotments, Canyons Law, Protect The Wolves

Relocated gray wolf dies on Isle Royale National Park

A gray wolf relocated from Minnesota to Michigan’s Isle Royale National Park has died, the National Park Service said Tuesday.

There was no obvious cause of death, according to a release, and the wolf has been transferred to U.S. Geological Services wildlife health lab in Madison, Wisconsin, for an autopsy. Results are expected back in December.

The animal originated in Grand Portage Reservation in northeastern Minnesota, where it was captured alongside 15 other wolves earlier this fall. Four of those 16 were brought to Isle Royale after it was determined they fit the criteria for relocation determined by wildlife professionals, the agency said.

More:

Canadian wolves will be relocated to Michigan’s Isle Royale

Cougar spotted on DNR camera in the Upper Peninsula

Before coming to Isle Royale, the wolves were examined, tagged and given tracking collars. The federal agency used GPS technology to follow the wolves, but the deceased wolf’s collar malfunctioned from the beginning of the project, showing a mortality signal when it was clear from cameras it was still alive.

That changed late last month, when park staff noticed another mortality signal from the wolf’s collar and set out to find it. They located the body through telemetry.

Another wolf died during the capture and sedation process in September, causing the park service to change its procedures for holding times and the use of sedatives.

The other three wolves are healthy and well, the agency said. The park’s relocation program will continue with the receipt of more wolves from Ontario this January.

Source: Relocated gray wolf dies on Isle Royale National Park

Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Gray Wolves, Protect The Wolves Oppose Welfare Ranching, Protect The Wolves, Protect The Wolves

OR7: Blessed Wolf Spirit or harbinger of doom? We Say Blessed Wolf Spirit

We Say Blessed Wolf Spirit unlike the SE Oregon Residents, and this author referring to OR7 as a Wolf Messiah, due to his 10 years avoiding the ruthless Redneck Ranchers/Hunters in SE Oregon. There are however good Ranchers that graze SE Oregon like Mark Coats. It seems a bit strange that this author didnt reach out to him. But then knowing Mark personally as well as working with him, He would not have told them what they wanted to hear. Mark would have said ” Ranchers refuse to acknowledge the real causes of loss” , as We have witnessed him bringing that up at Wolf Meetings we have attended with him in Klamath Falls Oregon.

We are poised and ready to enter into Court with a Temporary Restraining Order for OR7 if we have to. We are presently working on one for WDFWs Susewind and Martorello which will be bringing research never before seen 😉 .

His official name is OR7. It is the number on his GPS-equipped radio collar. He is better known as the lone gray wolf who defied the odds and changed history.

Seven years after a meandering journey through northern California that covered thousands of miles and garnered international attention – the first wolf to enter the state since 1924 – OR7 is alive and well, according to wildlife officials. He is now the leader of the Rogue pack in Crater Lake National Park.

What makes OR7 so unusual is that he has survived for nearly 10 years in the wild, sired five litters, and now four of his offspring have returned to California ostensibly to start packs of their own. He also has his own Twitter account.

Nobody is sure why OR7 first headed south to the Golden State in December of 2011. Searching for female companionship is always a good guess. Wolves are social creatures that once covered all of North America. OR7 made it as far as Red Bluff before turning around and eventually heading back to Oregon.

Jenny Nixen, a teacher from Santa Cruz, reported seeing OR7 outside Yreka. Her eyewitness account matches data showing the animal entering Siskiyou County near Dorris and later crossing Interstate 5.

His sheer size is the first thing that stood out, Nixen said. The wolf’s biological father, OR4, at 115 pounds, was one of the largest gray wolves ever measured in Oregon, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. OR7 checks in closer to 105 pounds and is six feet in length.

“That’s why I noticed him because he was so big,” Nixen said, adding that she is positive it was not a coyote. “The way it was moving. The speed with which it was moving. Everything about it,” she said.

Ranchers, of course, are not thrilled.

A popular refrain in the industry involves the “Three S’s” – shoot, shovel and shut up. The first breeding pair of wolves in California included a sibling of OR7 and produced five offspring in 2015. They had distinctive black coats and became known as the Shasta pack due to their proximity to 14,179-foot Mt. Shasta. One day they all disappeared.

Shortly before the Shasta pack fell off the radar there had been an attack on livestock attributed to wolves, the first such recorded event in nearly 100 years.

“There is a raw side to nature and we just can’t help it,” said Jim Rickert, owner of the 40,000-acre Prather Ranch that spans five counties in Northern California. He said communication and collaboration are critical if wolves and ranchers are to co-exist.

“I just don’t think it is realistic to kill them all,” he said. “So, we need to mitigate it so we can survive it.”

Rickert is as old school as they come. On slaughter day in Macdoel, usually a Tuesday, he is front and center “doing the worst job.”

He actually is more concerned about mountain lions than wolves. A neighboring rancher lost nearly an entire herd of sheep due to a young mountain lion that went on a rampage, killing more than 40 animals. When it was finally captured, Rickert suggested releasing it in Los Gatos, heart of Silicon Valley. Proposition 117 banning the hunting of mountain lions in California passed overwhelmingly there in 1990.

He was joking (the animal was later released in a remote area), but it cuts to the core of the issue: perception vs. reality.

From author Jack London (“Call of the Wild”) to composer Peter Tchaikovsky (“Peter and the Wolf”) to HBO (“Game of Thrones”), few species are as iconic as Canis lupus. Complicating the issue is that wolves have territories that can encompass hundreds of square miles, muting the difference between public and private lands.

On average, a wolf can travel 15 miles in a single day and reach speeds of 40 mph. Due to its unique biology, digestion takes only a few hours allowing it to eat several times in a 24-hour period. They prefer lower elevations as opposed to the deep, dark woods to hunt their prey, usually deer and small game. Livestock are rarely attacked although depredations occur.

Oregon’s OR4 was shot from a helicopter by state officials two years ago after he became too old to hunt and turned to cattle and sheep. One reason he might have been caught is that wolves are monogamous by nature and he refused to leave his longtime mate, OR2, who had an injured leg and was nicknamed “Limpy.” The entire pack was terminated, including two pups.

While appearing harsh on the surface, wolf management plans all have something in common: one size does not fit all. Michelle Dennehy, public information officer with ODFW, said they are working on an update to their general plan but “it has been difficult to find consensus among stakeholders so we currently have a professional facilitator running meetings.”

That leaves the future of wolves somewhat in doubt.

Joe Donnelly, an award-winning journalist who has written about OR7, said what attracted him to the animal was the idea that, while wolves can be killed, they can never be tamed. OR7′s plight forces people “by his very presence to consider the question, how are we going to live?”

“One of things we have to contend with is sustainability,” he said. “If we can’t make a place for the wolf, which in many cultures and traditions including ours is the very embodiment of nature, I don’t think we have much hope for ourselves.”

For the moment, a tenuous peace exists.

Wolves are protected in California under the state Endangered Species Act, making it a crime to kill one. More arrive every year. It stands to reason as wolf populations increase so will the inevitable conflicts.

All this because OR7 went looking for love in all the wrong places.

For some he is a majestic animal, the “wolf messiah” as a field biologist once called him. For others he is a harbinger of doom wrapped in a bureaucratic nightmare. It just depends from which side of the fence the wolf who changed history is viewed.

Source: OR7: wolf messiah or harbinger of doom

Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves Oppose Welfare Ranching, OR7, Protect Oregon Wolves, Protect The Wolves

Wolf trapping? Take a class! | Outdoors News | idahopress.com

Trapping is Cruel and unusual punishment that can not ask its Victims if they are endangered species. These Practices for that reason alone need to be OUTLAWED! Endangered Species can not protect themselves so We must do it not only for them, but Our Children’s Children as well.

Wolf trapping? Take a class!

Attention new wolf trappers: There are four upcoming wolf trapper education classes scheduled for November and December in Idaho. If you plan to trap wolves this season, please plan to attend one of these classes. Classes are mandatory.

  • 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Nov. 3, IDFG Regional Office, Idaho Falls
  • 9 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Nov. 9, IDFG Regional Office, Lewiston
  • 9 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Nov. 10, IDFG Regional Office, Coeur d’Alene
  • 9 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Dec. 1, IDFG Fisheries Research Building, Nampa

To register for one of these classes, please stop at a regional IDFG office

Source: Wolf trapping? Take a class! | Outdoors News | idahopress.com

Ban Animal Trapping, Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves ban trapping, Protect Idaho Wolves, Protect The Wolves

Two valley men accused of killing endangered Mexican gray wolf

protect the wolves, protect mexican gray wolves

ARIZONA — Two men who live in the valley are facing serious charges after allegedly killing an endangered Mexican gray wolf near Alpine last December.

Documents from the United States District Court of Arizona (Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine) show that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agent Robert Romero filed one count of violating the Endangered Species Act against Jason William Kunkel, of Peoria, and Donald Justin Davis, 40, of Phoenix, executed on Aug. 16 in Phoenix and filed against them Sept. 24.

Kunkel, Represented by Attorney Luke Mulligan, with Davis, represented by Daniel Kaiser made their initial appearance Sept. 5. and again on Sept. 20 when they had the complaints read against them.

They were in a Prescott Division courtroom in Coconino County again Oct. 2 when their attorneys requested and were granted a continuance.

According to federal law governing endangered species, “Any person who knowingly violates any provision of this chapter … shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Any person who knowingly violates any provision of any other regulation issued under this chapter shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.”

In his complaint against the two men, Romero says Kunkel shot a female Mexican gray wolf on Dec. 5 of last year with a Remington 30-06 from a distance of about 150-200 yards in a meadow near Dipping Vat Spring in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Court documents indicate that Kunkel and Davis (with Davis’ father) were in a hunting camp starting Dec. 1. The two younger men had been drawn for elk in Arizona Game and Fish Management Unit 1 near Alpine in Apache County.

Another group of people at a nearby hunt camp reported to Game and Fish officials seeing a Mexican gray wolf on Dec. 1 near their camp that appeared to be stalking young kids in the camp that afternoon. The wolf was reportedly watching the kids from a crouched position behind large log about 30 yards from the youngsters. Arizona Game and Fish Agent Sam Williams was reportedly told by one of the adult campers that he was able to yell and scare it away. According to the court documents, Williams explained to the person reporting the sighting that if, and only if, the wolf appeared to be an immediate threat, they could kill it as a last resort. They would need to report the killing to AZGFD immediately so an investigation could start.

The campers making that report to Williams then reportedly told him that on Dec. 5 Kunkel and Davis came into their camp and told them Kunkel shot and killed the wolf that morning and left its body in the meadow nearby if they wanted to see it. The campers reportedly said “no” to viewing the body and allegedly told Kunkel and Davis they needed to report it to authorities immediately.

But Kunkel and Davis apparently left camp early the next morning, Dec. 6, to head home to Peoria and Phoenix without reporting it to AZGFD as required by law. On the same day, an investigation into the fatality began with AZGFD officials gathering evidence at the scene of the killing.

Among evidence found was a blood stained top, a business card, a crushed aluminum can, a fixed blade knife, samples of blue cloth and some elk hair from an elk killed by Davis. The body of the wolf was also still there laying on its left side with a bullet exit wound just forward of its right hip. Further inspection of the site produced some boot laces that were also collected as evidence. The investigation showed the wolf was shot from about 164 yards away by Kunkel, who later told investigators he killed it with his Remington 770 bolt action .30-06 mounted with a scope from a standing position behind a tree.

Investigators found at least five photos of the dead wolf and a few of it with Kunkel posing beside it that were on Kunkel’s cell phone and taken into evidence.

A forensic report concluded on Feb. 13 shows the wolf was killed Dec. 5 by a bullet fired from Kunkel’s rifle.

Kunkel reportedly told investigators it was the first time he killed anything, and that no one in the adjacent camp told him he needed to report it to AZGFD. He voluntarily surrendered his rifle to investigators.

Next they interviewed Davis, who said he had nothing to do with the killing other than being on an elk hunt with his father and Kunkel. During the interview Davis told the AZGFD that he and Kunkel were made aware of the Dec. 1 wolf sighting near camp by the people camping nearby. He said they told him and the others that the wolf was as close as 10 feet to two young girls playing in the camp who were completely unaware of its presence because it was crouched behind a large log.

Davis said that none of the wolves they saw during their hunt had collars and that neither he nor Kunkel had any safety concerns about them. He told investigators he did not kill the wolf and that it was Kunkel who shot and killed it when he stepped away briefly.

During his interview, Kunkel contradicted Davis’ comments saying Davis was there the whole time and even asked Kunkel if his rifle was loaded when they spotted the wolf in the meadow near their camp early morning Dec. 5.

Davis said he heard the gunshot when Kunkel killed the wolf and returned to see it laying dead in the meadow and Kunkel holding his rifle. Davis said he knew Mexican gray wolves are protected in Arizona and repeated he was not with Kunkel when he shot and killed it and that they never even discussed shooting or killing any wolf if they felt their lives were in danger.

He admitted that Kunkel and his father used their cell phones to take “trophy” photos of the dead wolf as momentos of their hunt and Kunkel’s first kill.

Then in a final interview on Jan. 8 of this year, Davis admitted that on Dec. 5 he and Kunkel were deciding if they were going to break camp and go home after a trip to a meat processor in the area with Davis’ elk kill because it was starting to snow. Davis said he left camp briefly adding that when he walked back he and Kunkel saw the wolf near a green water tank at Dipping Vat Spring and tried to scare it away. But, he said, the wolf kept approaching them and he asked Kunkel if his rifle was loaded in case they needed to kill the wolf.

Kunkel told him it was in the truck and Davis reportedly got it and handed it to Kunkel who allegedly aimed it at the approaching wolf and killed it with one shot. Davis told the investigator he was not concerned for his safety at any time and that when asked by Kunkel if he should shoot it he told his friend it was his decision to make. Davis said they both knew at the time it was a protected Mexican gray wolf and that it was an endangered species.

Asked why he did not report it to authorities immediately after Kunkel allegedly killed the wolf, Davis reportedly told them it was Kunkel’s responsibility and not his because he did not kill it.

Source: Two valley men accused of killing endangered Mexican gray wolf

Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves Oppose Welfare Ranching, Protect The Wolves, Stop Extinction

Why removal of cougars and wolves from Pa. means more Lyme disease 

protect the wolves

Here is another example of why Humans have no business trying to do Mother Natures Job.

The removal of wolves and cougars in Pennsylvania long ago is responsible for today’s deer problems — and maybe even the explosion of tick-related Lyme disease, a new study suggests.

These observations come from a Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences-led study of carnivore interactions in 12 countries.

Field cameras were used to study how carnivore communities, from large to smaller predators, affect prey species and even vegetation.

ll these elements are related and affect each other, the researchers found.

Though Pennsylvania wasn’t included in the study, its findings hold true for the state, noted David Miller, associate professor of wildlife population ecology at Penn State.

One of the key findings is that when large carnivores disappear, it can devastate the ecology.

“When you lose a large-bodied species of carnivore, you have other smaller carnivores increase in density, putting pressure on other smaller carnivores, and that can lead to increases in prey species, which might then lead to degradation of plant communities,” Miller said.

“Coyotes and bobcats are preying on different animals than wolves and cougars would,” Miller continued with the Pennsylvania analogy, “and that has implications for how our forests are structured. That fact that we don’t have wolves and cougars means we have more deer, and those deer have overbrowsed the forests.”

Continuing the trickle-down effect, Miller said that the upsurge in coyotes around Pennsylvania — because they don’t tolerate foxes — means there are more mice in our fields and forests.

“That is affecting the prevalence of Lyme disease spread by ticks that spend much of their life on certain mice. So you see, the way these carnivores compete and co-occur has implications for all of our wildlife communities.”

The study, which was published in Ecology Letters, studied carnivores from Botswana to Norway. Carnivores ranged from weasels to polar bears to lions.

Source: Why removal of cougars and wolves from Pa. means more Lyme disease | Outdoors | lancasteronline.com

Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves Ban Grazing Allotments, Oppose Welfare Ranching, Protect The Wolves

US denies liability after Idaho boy is sprayed by Governments cyanide trap 

ban m-44s, protect our children and their resources, protect the wolves

I have to question how it is even possible for this to happen when it was reported that The Government employee didnt have signs posted. It is actions similar to this that We need to begin to act on Protecting not only Our Children, but their Resources.

These Poisonous devices are used to protect Ranchers animals. They have been used improperly time after time

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The U.S. government said an Idaho family is to blame for any injuries it alleges a boy received after he was doused with cyanide by a predator-killing trap that a federal worker mistakenly placed near their home.

Any injuries were caused by the negligence of the parents and child, the U.S. Department of Justice said in documents filed Monday in U.S. District Court, and asked for the family’s lawsuit to be dismissed.

Mark and Theresa Mansfield of Pocatello sued in June seeking more than $75,000 in damages and more than $75,000 for pain and suffering.

They say their son, Canyon Mansfield, was playing with his dog in March 2017 when the then-14-year-old triggered the trap that the U.S. Department of Agriculture placed to kill coyotes. The dog died, and the teen still has headaches from the poison, the lawsuit said.

In its response, the government “expressly denied” any “alleged negligence by defendant or its agencies or employees.”

The devices, called M-44s, are embedded in the ground and look like lawn sprinklers but spray cyanide when they are set off. They are meant to protect livestock but sometimes kill pets and injure people.

The traps drew increased scrutiny after The Associated Press reported that the teen was injured months after the government decided to stop using the devices on federal lands in Idaho.

The lawsuit contends that an Agriculture Department worker acknowledged to law enforcement officials placing the trap in error on land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The court document filed by the Justice Department does not acknowledge such an error.

It responded to an emailed inquiry from The Associated Press on Wednesday by asking for an outline of questions but didn’t respond to those questions.

The agency said in court documents that “defendant admits that two M-44 devices placed by (a federal) employee were discharged in the incident involving CM and his dog.”

The lawsuit mentions only one M-44 activating, and law enforcement officials who responded last year didn’t mention additional devices discharging.

The reason for the discrepancy is not clear. The Justice Department didn’t respond to that question.

The lawsuit describes the boy encountering the device and says he thought it looked like a sprinkler head.

“When he reached down and touched the pipe, it exploded with a loud bang, knocking CM to the ground and spewing an orange powdery substance,” the lawsuit says.

The Justice Department throughout its response disputes that there was an explosion, noting that M-44s are spring-activated and contain no explosive material.

Reed Larsen, an attorney for the Mansfields, didn’t return calls left his office and his cellphone.

In a separate but related lawsuit by environmental and animal welfare groups, U.S. officials in March agreed to complete a study on how two predator-killing poisons could be affecting federally protected species.

A settlement requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete consultations with the Environmental Protection Agency by the end of 2021 on the poisons that federal workers use to protect livestock on rural lands. One of the poisons is the cyanide used in M-44s.

“Rather than apologize for having a poisonous device on public lands that injured a young boy and killed his dog, the government instead is using a tactic to blame the boy,” she said.

Source: US denies liability after boy is sprayed by its cyanide trap | National News | idahopress.com

Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves Ban Grazing Allotments, Oppose Welfare Ranching, Protect The Wolves

Ranchers claim  wolves Are killing Idaho livestock, not eating them yet refuse assistance

protect idaho wolves, protect the wolves

Protect The Wolves™ actually spoke with Cascade Idaho Rancher Phil Davis in this article early in when Ian Whalan the Inventor of Foxlights spent the day with Us.

We were in search of Ranch Locations in Idaho to do deterrent monitoring, deployment testing. Davis denied any participation. Ranchers that deny participation should not be allowed any special Treatment! After all these Ranchers chose their profession and area in which they live. Our Wildlife didn’t request that they move in. The Government certainly doesnt help a construction business that looses a bid, or for that matter looses money on a bid.

Three cows and a calf were lying dead in the irrigated pastures of Phil Davis’ Cascade ranch over a one-week stretch this month.

Davis immediately suspected wolves were to blame, though none of the carcasses had been eaten. He said it was only when the animals’ hides were peeled back that evidence of wolf bites became visible: clots of blood and deep bruising on the muscle.

While the wounds themselves might not have been fatal on their own, Davis said his cattle perished from a lethal mix of their injuries and the stress of being chased by wolves.

“There’s no question about it,” Davis said.

Wolf traps are now on his property and waiting to spring, thanks to Wildlife Servicesthe controversial federal agency that kills millions of animals across the U.S. each year, often on behalf of the livestock industry.

Davis is hardly alone. According to Idaho ranching associations, 2018 is on pace to break records for wolf attacks on livestock. So far, there have been at least 88 confirmed cases, according to Wildlife Services. That’s up 39 percent from the previous year.

Environmentalist groups and a former Wildlife Services wolf biologist aren’t convinced wolves are attacking more livestock than usual. Instead, they say Wildlife Services and local ranchers are increasingly citing dubious stress-related causes of death — hours or even days after an alleged wolf attack. They say it’s also unlikely wolves are risking their lives trying to run down fully grown cows and not sticking around to feed on them when they die.

Critics say it’s all part of an effort to inflate the numbers of livestock attacks to boost the odds of Wildlife Services securing funding from the Idaho Legislature for its wolf-management program. Davis and others fiercely dispute the allegation.

Gov. Butch Otter had urged the Legislature this year to make funding permanent for the Idaho Wolf Depredation Control Board. Since its formation in 2014, the board has sent more than $1.2 million in Idaho taxpayer dollars to Wildlife Services to respond to wolf attacks on livestock. This session, lawmakers only extended funding for another year. It will need to be voted on again next year.

“We fear this is going to be used as a justification for killing more wolves and extending the funding for Wildlife Services,” said Talasi Brooks, an Idaho-based attorney for Advocates for the West. “It’s only half the story being told.”

Former Wildlife Services employee has doubts

Wildlife Services declined to make an official in Idaho available for an interview. In response to emailed questions, spokeswoman Tanya Espinosa said that in the last few years, Wildlife Services has noticed that some wolves are attacking but not feeding on the livestock they’ve killed, though it’s obvious from the wounds the victim had been bitten.

“Because of this behavior, we recommend producers inform Wildlife Services of the death of any livestock so that a necropsy can be performed even if obvious signs of wolf predation are not present,” she said in an email. “Depredation is confirmed in those cases where there is reasonable physical evidence that an animal was actually attacked and/or killed by a wolf.”

“Depredation” is the word biologists use to describe an animal killing livestock. A “necropsy” is an animal autopsy.

Davis, the Cascade rancher, said he suspects the reason why the predators aren’t eating the carcasses is some wolves are harassing the cattle to train their pups to hunt.

Carter Niemeyer is skeptical.

Niemeyer is a biologist who spent a decade as a wolf management specialist for Wildlife Services. He helped bring the first pack of 15 wolves back into the state in the 1990s. The state estimates there are as many as 90 packs today.

During his time with Wildlife Services, Niemeyer personally killed 14 wolves, shooting 13 them out of airplanes. He’s investigated dozens of suspected wolf attacks on livestock over the years.

He said subcutaneous wounds in cattle can be caused by all sorts of trauma other than from the jaws of wolves. To really know for sure, he said a biologist would need to rule out everything from coyotes to dogs, to diseases, to getting hit by a car, to slamming hard into a fence post. As for stress being fatal, he said only lab tests could determine whether a cow actually died from it. The sort of in-the-field carcass examinations Wildlife Services typically performs would only be a guess, he said.

It’s also rare, he said, for wolves to attack a fully grown cow weighing as much as 1,500 pounds if smaller, less dangerous prey such as their calves are around. And, if they went to all that effort, they’d almost certainly feed, he said.

“Most wolf scientists,” he said in an email, “would challenge the idea that wolves spend a lot of unnecessary time, effort and risk running down large prey with no intention of killing and eating it.”

He said he suspects what’s really going on is the Idaho ranching community’s long-standing animosity toward wolves is leading to predetermined conclusions.

“People like to take the short cut … When an animal dies: ‘Wolves did it,’” Niemeyer said. “It’s been the joke (among wolf biologists) in Idaho. You hear, ‘What else would it be?’ ”

Idaho wolf advocates have asked Wildlife Services to provide evidence showing how it came to its conclusions in its recent livestock death investigations, but so far they say they’ve been stonewalled.

Late last month, Boise-based attorneys at the Western Watersheds Project sued the agency in federal court to force it to provide records it sought under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

The case is pending. Wildlife Services hasn’t filed a written response to the allegations.

Espinosa said her agency doesn’t discuss ongoing litigation.

Wildlife Services under fire

Wildlife Services’ eye-popping body count, its controversial methods and its secretive nature have long been criticized by environmentalist groups. They say the federal agency’s methods are outdated, unnecessary, cruel and not backed by science — charges the agency denies.

Occasionally, its tactics have proven dangerous to people and pets.

Last year, a Pocatello teenager triggered a Wildlife Services cyanide coyote trap set on public land near his home. It sickened him and killed his dog. His parents sued the agency in federal court this summer.

“Families shouldn’t have to go through that,” the boys’ mother, Theresa Mansfield, said in an interview with McClatchy. The agency stopped using the traps in Idaho, but still deploys them in some other states.

In Idaho alone, Wildlife Services killed 691,895 animals between 2015 and 2017, including 195 wolves, 10,470 coyotes and 16 cougars, according to a McClatchy analysis.

Wildlife Services enjoys broad support in this state from influential sheep and cattle associations, Gov. Otter’s administration and Republican representatives in Congress who say its work keeping predators in check is vital to the state’s rural ranching economy.

“For those of us who deal with lots of predators, Wildlife Services is essential to our business,” said Harry Soulen, a sheep rancher based in Weiser.

In an email, Espinosa said Wildlife Services doesn’t perform wildlife management services on its own accord and will use nonlethal control methods if it can. She said Wildlife Services only takes action when called upon, and only with the blessing of state or federal wildlife authorities.

But critics say Wildlife Services operates on an outdated philosophy that harkens back to its founding in the Great Depression as the wildlife extermination wing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Predator control is just putting a Band-Aid on a gushing wound. It’s not really going to work,” said Brooks, the Advocates for the West attorney. “It’s harmful to wildlife species, and it’s cruel, and it’s not something that I think that the public is all that willing to accept in the 2000s.”

Wildlife Services’ critics scored a major victory in June. A federal judge in Idaho slammed the agency’s scientific rationale behind proposals it floated to kill or remove Idaho predators such as coyotes and ravens, to increase numbers of wild animals including deer, bighorn sheep, grouse and endangered ground squirrels. Wolves weren’t included in those plans.

Responding to a suit filed by environmental groups, Chief U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill blasted the agency for disregarding concerns raised by officials at other government agencies tasked with protecting wildlife. Winmill said federal and state biologists cited studies that killing predators wasn’t effective and had negative consequences on the ecosystem.

“It is rare,” Winmill wrote, “to encounter such an unanimity of critical comments from other agencies.”

Winmill said he was inclined to order Wildlife Services to perform a new environmental review, but he delayed taking action at the request of the parties in the case.

While the ruling didn’t affect Wildlife Services’ wolf management program, ranchers such as Davis in Cascade are troubled by its implications.

He fears that Wildlife Services will someday be hamstrung from doing a job he sees as vital to protecting his and other ranchers’ livestock from wolves. Davis is convinced they have been harrying his stock to death and leaving their carcasses to rot.

“They’re the only defense we have (to prevent) unlimited killing of livestock,” Davis said.

Source: Is Wildlife Services inflating Idaho wolf livestock kills? | The Sacramento Bee

Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Oppose Welfare Ranching not Wolves, Protect The Wolves Ban Grazing Allotments, Oppose Welfare Ranching, Protect The Wolves

Why One Wyoming Outfitter Volunteered To Take Liberal Media’s Fire

Stop the grizzly hunt, Protect Sacred Grizzly, sacred resource protection zone

Herein lies the problem, People like Guide Sy Gilliland somehow has this thought pattern that slaightering 1 of our Sacred Grizzlies is advocating for wildlife. Sy also thinks that Advocates calling for a boycott on Wyomng are delirious!

Sy Says “There’s talk of ‘boycott Wyoming,’” Gilliland says, with a note of slight bewilderment. “They’re delirious. I’m sure they think I’m delirious, too.”

Here lies  the issues: The people do not come together to put their foot down, Large Advocate groups do not support little groups with superior research, People will never come together to boycott Wyoming sadly, Large Advocate Groups nor people seem to want to support Protect The Wolves™ proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone”. Sadly It seems that they would rather put in for a tag drawing to shoot Grizzlies with a Camera even after Wyomings Fish and Game has already said they will do whatever they have to, to get their target slaughter of 22 Grizzly Bears even including baiting if their harvest appears to be coming up short.

WGF has only allowed 10 days per person, which with only 2 non killers isnt making enough difference because those 2 will only be allowed 10 days each out of a 2 month season it appears. Which will actually allow more real killers into the field to insure that Wyomings Blood bath from slaughtering 22 Sacred Grizzlies reaches their goal.

So with that being said, What makes more sense? Establishing a “Sacred Resource Protection Zone” surrounding Our National Parks? Or 2 people delaying the slaughter of 2 of Our Sacred Grizzlies for a mere 20 days. We sincerely hope you will choose the latter, and help Us to get Our Proposed SRPZ into the hunting Regulations. Along with our Research into the courts. We have the legal minds 😉 We need you the Public to Join “The Howl” that will be heard the world over! And Yes I am ranting on just a bit here…. but it is beyond time to come together as 1 Pack and defeat these crooked lobbying and hunting orgs that still believe that they are conservationists.

Hunters can blame our wildlife all they want like Sy does below in this article but the fact remains, when hunters slaughter Record numbers of species no matter what the species is each year, Our Keystone Predators arent to blame. It is not rocket science here, it is these self proclaimed hunter conservationists that are decimating our Childrens Resources.

Please Join Protect The Wolves™ in taking these Bloodthirsty States to Court while Our Children still have these magnificent creatures left.

 

JacksonHole Wy: Sy Gilliland has been to a lot of public meetings on the topic of grizzly hunting, which he thinks is necessary, and listened to a lot of people who think it’s morally wrong.

“There is an incredible liberal element that’s moved in around Jackson Hole,” he says. “You walk in and you figure out pretty fast who is who. We’re wearing a cowboy hat, and they’re wearing yoga pants .”

Wyoming is scheduled to have its first grizzly hunt in 43 years in late summer/early fall. Thousands of hunters and activists are expected to take part in one way or another, by protesting or applying for or buying licenses. At most, 22 bears of the population of nearly 700 will be killed .

Gilliland has been an outfitter for 41 years. His $1.5 million business, SNS Outfitter & Guides, employs as many as 55 people in the fall, during hunting season. He supplements that with trail rides in the summer.

Advocating for wildlife management — to him, that includes hunting — for the landscape and conservation is not an add-on to him: It’s a part of the job. “We are North America’s first conservationists. We’re not ashamed of that.” That attitude has put him front and center in the long fight out West over grizzly hunting.

Gilliland is vice president of the Wyoming Outfitter & Guide Association, which represents approximately 350 small businesses, part of a $300 million hunting economy. The tourism economy in Wyoming is worth about $1.5 billion, he told me. He was tapped to be the spokesman on the grizzly hunt. He flew to Arizona, where he endured two days of media training, including how to recognize the buzzwords and traps that might be set by the liberal media.

“There’s talk of ‘boycott Wyoming,’” Gilliland says, with a note of slight bewilderment. “They’re delirious. I’m sure they think I’m delirious, too.”

Return of the grizzly

The question is what to do, if anything, about the bears. In 1975, the grizzly population in and around Yellowstone Park had sunk to 136, and they were named to the endangered species list. That move was a good one: There are now about 700 bears in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, according to the National Park Service.

A year ago, the federal U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service turned management of the bears over to the states, officially removing them from the endangered species list. Wyoming and Idaho decided to allow a limited grizzly bear hunt; Montana officials are still considering whether to do the same.

The hunters will be chosen by lottery, receive training and then have to find an outfitter willing to take them into designated hunting areas. If they get a bear, it goes against the total set for the hunt; if not, they’re out of luck, and the next hunter takes a turn.

Grizzly hunting is by all accounts dangerous, which means the hunt is likely to draw world-class big-game hunters, who want the trophy; I’ve seen a grizzly once in the wild, and it was like no other sight: An enormous animal, walking on its hind legs, protohuman. Before we arrived, grizzlies were the king of the continent. Some hunters aren’t comfortable killing them at all, because of the sheer magnificence of the animal.

It’s complicated, but in Wyoming, there are two zones: In one zone, as many as a 10 bears could be killed, but the hunt shuts down if a female bear is killed. In the other – an expansion zone where bears are starting to have more encounters with humans and livestock — the maximum is a dozen. Licenses will cost $600 for Wyoming residents and $6,000 for out-of-staters.

The hunters and outfitters generally applaud the move, saying that it’s necessary. It’s not that it will generate a lot of money, they say. But “when wildlife gets out of whack … they eat themselves out of house and home,” says Gilliland. “Grizzlies will eat anything. They have taken a terrible toll on the elk calf population in the spring.”

Source: Return Of The Grizzly Hunt: Why One Wyoming Outfitter Volunteered To Take Liberal Media’s Fire

Cut Off USDA Wildlife Services Funding, Endangered Species List, Protect Our Sacred Grizzlies, Protect The Wolves, Wolves in Yellowstone Ban Grazing Allotments, Protect The Wolves, Sacred Resource Protection Zone