Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Wolf Legislation’ Category

Eastern Oregon Wolves Could Be Facing Delisting In 2015…

Posted in Wolf Current Events, Wolf Legislation on September 18, 2014| Leave a Comment »


wolf in trees

Photo courtesy of “Howling for Justice.”

“Eastern Oregon Wolves Could Be Removed From State’s Endangered Species Act

OPB | Sept. 16, 2014 2:21 p.m. | Portland

Gray wolf populations are on the rise in Oregon, but that may not necessarily be good news for the animals.

The Statesman Journal reports  that the state may have enough potential wolf couples in 2015 for the minimum requirements to delist the animal.

“We were told in the beginning that when wolves first came to the county, we were waiting for that day,” said Todd Nash, wolf committee chairman for the Oregon Cattleman Association, in an interview with the newspaper.

According to Oregon’s Endangered Species Act, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife must verify four breeding pairs in eastern Oregon for three consecutive years.

In 2012, there were six pairs and last year the organization located four pairs. It’s predicted that 2014’s count won’t be complete until early next year, but early reports show more than four couples.

By removing wolves from the state’s endangered species list, ranchers would be permitted to use lethal force to defend their animals in more situations.

According to ODFW , shooting a wolf is considered a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of $6,250 fine and a year in jail.

http://www.opb.org/news/blog/newsblog/eastern-oregon-wolves-could-be-removed-from-states-endangered-species-act/

===

Anyone who’s read the Oregon wolf “management plan” could see this coming a mile away. There was major push-back against “the plan”  in 2010. The number of breeding pairs needed, to reach delisting, was ridiculously low.  Here’s part of what Oregon’s wolf plan states:

Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan

Wolves may be considered for statewide delisting once the population reaches four breeding
pairs for three consecutive years in eastern Oregon.1

Four breeding pairs are considered the minimum conservation population objective, also described as Phase 1. The Plan calls for managing wolves in western Oregon as if the species remains listed until the western Oregon wolf population reaches four breeding pairs. This means, for example, that a landowner would be required to obtain a permit to address depredation problems using injurious harassment.

While the wolf remains listed as a state endangered species the following will be allowed: Wolves may be harassed (e.g. shouting, firing a shot in the air) to distract a wolf from a livestock operation or area of human activity.

Harassment that causes injury to a wolf (e.g., rubber bullets or bean bag projectiles) may be employed to prevent depredation, but only with a permit.

Wolves may be relocated to resolve an immediate localized problem from an area of human activity (e.g., wolf inadvertently caught in a trap) to suitable habitat. Relocation will be done by ODFW or Wildlife Services personnel but will not occur with wolves known or suspected to have depredated livestock or pets.

Livestock producers who witness a wolf ‘in the act’ of attacking livestock on public or private land must have a permit before taking any action that would cause harm to the wolf.

Once federally delisted, wolves involved in chronic depredation may be killed by ODFW or Wildlife Services personnel. However, non lethal methods will be emphasized and employed first in appropriate circumstances.

Once the wolf is delisted, more options are available to address wolf-livestock conflict. While
there are five to seven breeding pairs, livestock producers may kill a wolf involved in chronic
depredation with a permit. Five to seven breeding pairs is considered Phase 2.

Seven breeding pairs for three consecutive years in eastern or western Oregon is considered the management objective, or Phase 3. Under Phase 3 a limited controlled hunt could be allowed to decrease chronic depredation or reduce pressure on wild ungulate populations.

The Plan provides wildlife managers with adaptive management strategies to address wolf predation problems on wild ungulates if confirmed wolf predation leads to declines in localized herds.

In the unlikely event that a person is attacked by a wolf, the Plan describes the circumstances under which Oregon’s criminal code and federal ESA would allow harassing, harming or killing of wolves where necessary to avoid imminent, grave injury. Such an incident must be reported to law enforcement officials.

A strong information and education program is proposed to ensure anyone with an interest in wolves is able to learn more about the species and stay informed about wildlife management activities.

Several research projects are identified as necessary for future success of long-term wolf conservation and management. Monitoring and radio-collaring wolves are listed as critical components of the Plan both for conservation and communication with Oregonians.

An economic analysis provides updated estimates of costs and benefits associated with wolves in Oregon and wolf conservation and management.

Finally, the Plan requires annual reporting to the Commission on program implementation.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Oregon_Wolf_Conservation_and_Management_Plan_2010.pdf

===

This was posted in June 2010 on Howling for Justice, written by wolf advocate Katie, a Oregon resident, explaining why the plan was insufficient and should be changed.

Help Change Oregon’s Wolf Management Plan, PLEASE COMMENT BY JUNE 30th

June 21, 201o

 “Wolves may be considered for statewide delisting once the population reaches four breeding pairs for three consecutive years in eastern Oregon…. The plan calls for managing wolves in western Oregon as if the species remains listed until the western Oregon wolf population reaches four breeding pairs.”

This means when there are four packs in eastern Oregon and four in western Oregon, wolves will be stripped of ESA protection statewide.

The average gray wolf pack size is about 8 wolves. If packs in Oregon follow the norm, then roughly 64 wolves will be present when they are delisted. A recent study suggests Oregon could support up to 2200 wolves and still maintain a healthy ecosystem. I don’t know about you, but 64 wolves doesn’t sound like recovered to me.

READ MORE: http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/help-change-oregons-wolf-management-plan-please-comment-by-june-30/

===

So it’s come to this. Oregon, one of the friendliest of wolf states, may soon subject Eastern Oregon wolves to delisting because of the state’s weak management plan. This is the defining statement in their “plan”. “Seven breeding pairs for three consecutive years in eastern or western Oregon is considered the management objective, or Phase 3. Under Phase 3 a limited controlled hunt could be allowed to decrease chronic depredation or reduce pressure on wild ungulate populations.” 

Howling for Justice does not support managing wolves. Wolves are self-regulating and do not need to be “managed” Managing wolves is a catch phrase for the lead up to eventually hunting and killing them,  as you can see by the statement above, quoted from Oregon’s wolf management plan.  IMO, management includes continually harassing wolves through collaring, counting their numbers, treating them as though they are terrorists, needing to be watched every second. Wolf management plans are driven by agribusiness and unfortunately state fish and game agencies bow to that pressure. Ranchers lose thousands of livestock annually to non-predation, yet tiny wolf/livestock issues get headlines.

In 2010, Oregon ranchers lost 51, 200 calves and cows to non-predation. Yes, 51,200 and those numbers come from NASS ( National Agricultural Statistics Service). At the time, two members of the Imnaha pack, including the alpha male, father of OR7, were under a kill order for supposedly killing a few cattle. But ranchers lost thousands and thousands of cows that year to digestive problems, respiratory problems, metabolic problems, mastitis, lameness/injury, other diseases, weather related issues, calving problems, poisoning and theft. 51.200 to be exact. Can everyone see how ridiculous it is that ranchers complain wolves affect their bottom line when in fact it’s non-predation that takes a toll on their business. And remember ranchers are compensated for every confirmed wolf kill but aren’t reimbursed for non-predation deaths.  To put this all in perspective, concerning predation losses for all predators in the lower 48  in 2010, including coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, dogs, vultures, wolves, bears. other predators and unknown predators, “coyotes and
dogs caused the majority of cattle and calf predator losses….”. NASS

 Wolf predation is a red herring and an excuse to kill wolves, period.  How could 14 wolf predations in 2010, blamed on the Imnaha Pack, have any effect on Oregon ranching’s bottom line, compared to the 51,200 cows and calves lost to non-predation? It would laughable if it wasn’t so deadly serious for wolves.

I know ranching is going to be pushing hard for delisting Eastern Washington wolves in the coming months, sadly because the Oregon Wolf Management Plan falls far short. It should be revisited and revised to allow Oregon wolves to continue to grow and prosper.”

**S

Eastern Oregon Wolves Could Be Removed From State’s Endangered Species Act

OPB | Sept. 16, 2014 2:21 p.m. | Portland

Gray wolf populations are on the rise in Oregon, but that may not necessarily be good news for the animals.

The Statesman Journal reports  that the state may have enough potential wolf couples in 2015 for the minimum requirements to delist the animal.

“We were told in the beginning that when wolves first came to the county, we were waiting for that day,” said Todd Nash, wolf committee chairman for the Oregon Cattleman Association, in an interview with the newspaper.

According to Oregon’s Endangered Species Act, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife must verify four breeding pairs in eastern Oregon for three consecutive years.

In 2012, there were six pairs and last year the organization located four pairs. It’s predicted that 2014’s count won’t be complete until early next year, but early reports show more than four couples.

By removing wolves from the state’s endangered species list, ranchers would be permitted to use lethal force to defend their animals in more situations.

According to ODFW , shooting a wolf is considered a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of $6,250 fine and a year in jail.

http://www.opb.org/news/blog/newsblog/eastern-oregon-wolves-could-be-removed-from-states-endangered-species-act/

===

Anyone who’s read the Oregon wolf “management plan” could see this coming a mile away. There was major push-back against “the plan”  in 2010. The number of breeding pairs needed, to reach delisting, was ridiculously low.  Here’s part of what Oregon’s wolf plan states:

Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan

Wolves may be considered for statewide delisting once the population reaches four breeding
pairs for three consecutive years in eastern Oregon.1

Four breeding pairs are considered the minimum conservation population objective, also described as Phase 1. The Plan calls for managing wolves in western Oregon as if the species remains listed until the western Oregon wolf population reaches four breeding pairs. This means, for example, that a landowner would be required to obtain a permit to address depredation problems using injurious harassment.

While the wolf remains listed as a state endangered species the following will be allowed: Wolves may be harassed (e.g. shouting, firing a shot in the air) to distract a wolf from a livestock operation or area of human activity.

Harassment that causes injury to a wolf (e.g., rubber bullets or bean bag projectiles) may be employed to prevent depredation, but only with a permit.

Wolves may be relocated to resolve an immediate localized problem from an area of human activity (e.g., wolf inadvertently caught in a trap) to suitable habitat. Relocation will be done by ODFW or Wildlife Services personnel but will not occur with wolves known or suspected to have depredated livestock or pets.

Livestock producers who witness a wolf ‘in the act’ of attacking livestock on public or private land must have a permit before taking any action that would cause harm to the wolf.

Once federally delisted, wolves involved in chronic depredation may be killed by ODFW or Wildlife Services personnel. However, non lethal methods will be emphasized and employed first in appropriate circumstances.

Once the wolf is delisted, more options are available to address wolf-livestock conflict. While
there are five to seven breeding pairs, livestock producers may kill a wolf involved in chronic
depredation with a permit. Five to seven breeding pairs is considered Phase 2.

Seven breeding pairs for three consecutive years in eastern or western Oregon is considered the management objective, or Phase 3. Under Phase 3 a limited controlled hunt could be allowed to decrease chronic depredation or reduce pressure on wild ungulate populations.

The Plan provides wildlife managers with adaptive management strategies to address wolf predation problems on wild ungulates if confirmed wolf predation leads to declines in localized herds.

In the unlikely event that a person is attacked by a wolf, the Plan describes the circumstances under which Oregon’s criminal code and federal ESA would allow harassing, harming or killing of wolves where necessary to avoid imminent, grave injury. Such an incident must be reported to law enforcement officials.

A strong information and education program is proposed to ensure anyone with an interest in wolves is able to learn more about the species and stay informed about wildlife management activities.

Several research projects are identified as necessary for future success of long-term wolf conservation and management. Monitoring and radio-collaring wolves are listed as critical components of the Plan both for conservation and communication with Oregonians.

An economic analysis provides updated estimates of costs and benefits associated with wolves in Oregon and wolf conservation and management.

Finally, the Plan requires annual reporting to the Commission on program implementation.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Oregon_Wolf_Conservation_and_Management_Plan_2010.pdf

===

This was posted in June 2010 on Howling for Justice, written by wolf advocate Katie, a Oregon resident, explaining why the plan was insufficient and should be changed.

Help Change Oregon’s Wolf Management Plan, PLEASE COMMENT BY JUNE 30th

June 21, 201o

 “Wolves may be considered for statewide delisting once the population reaches four breeding pairs for three consecutive years in eastern Oregon…. The plan calls for managing wolves in western Oregon as if the species remains listed until the western Oregon wolf population reaches four breeding pairs.”

This means when there are four packs in eastern Oregon and four in western Oregon, wolves will be stripped of ESA protection statewide.

The average gray wolf pack size is about 8 wolves. If packs in Oregon follow the norm, then roughly 64 wolves will be present when they are delisted. A recent study suggests Oregon could support up to 2200 wolves and still maintain a healthy ecosystem. I don’t know about you, but 64 wolves doesn’t sound like recovered to me.

READ MORE: http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/help-change-oregons-wolf-management-plan-please-comment-by-june-30/

===

So it’s come to this. Oregon, one of the friendliest of wolf states, may soon subject Eastern Oregon wolves to delisting because of the state’s weak management plan. This is the defining statement in their “plan”. “Seven breeding pairs for three consecutive years in eastern or western Oregon is considered the management objective, or Phase 3. Under Phase 3 a limited controlled hunt could be allowed to decrease chronic depredation or reduce pressure on wild ungulate populations.” 

Howling for Justice does not support managing wolves. Wolves are self-regulating and do not need to be “managed” Managing wolves is a catch phrase for the lead up to eventually hunting and killing them,  as you can see by the statement above, quoted from Oregon’s wolf management plan.  IMO, management includes continually harassing wolves through collaring, counting their numbers, treating them as though they are terrorists, needing to be watched every second. Wolf management plans are driven by agribusiness and unfortunately state fish and game agencies bow to that pressure. Ranchers lose thousands of livestock annually to non-predation, yet tiny wolf/livestock issues get headlines.

In 2010, Oregon ranchers lost 51, 200 calves and cows to non-predation. Yes, 51,200 and those numbers come from NASS ( National Agricultural Statistics Service). At the time, two members of the Imnaha pack, including the alpha male, father of OR7, were under a kill order for supposedly killing a few cattle. But ranchers lost thousands and thousands of cows that year to digestive problems, respiratory problems, metabolic problems, mastitis, lameness/injury, other diseases, weather related issues, calving problems, poisoning and theft. 51.200 to be exact. Can everyone see how ridiculous it is that ranchers complain wolves affect their bottom line when in fact it’s non-predation that takes a toll on their business. And remember ranchers are compensated for every confirmed wolf kill but aren’t reimbursed for non-predation deaths.  To put this all in perspective, concerning predation losses for all predators in the lower 48  in 2010, including coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, dogs, vultures, wolves, bears. other predators and unknown predators, “coyotes and
dogs caused the majority of cattle and calf predator losses….”. NASS

 Wolf predation is a red herring and an excuse to kill wolves, period.  How could 14 wolf predations in 2010, blamed on the Imnaha Pack, have any effect on Oregon ranching’s bottom line, compared to the 51,200 cows and calves lost to non-predation? It would laughable if it wasn’t so deadly serious for wolves.

I know ranching is going to be pushing hard for delisting Eastern Washington wolves in the coming months, sadly because the Oregon Wolf Management Plan falls far short. It should be revisited and revised to allow Oregon wolves to continue to grow and prosper.”

**Special thanks to Howling for Justice for providing this information! (http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/eastern-oregon-wolves-could-be-facing-delisting-in-2015/)

 

Read Full Post »

Whither the Hunter/Conservationist?

Posted in Facts and Figures, Wolf Legislation on March 29, 2014| 1 Comment »


 

March 5th, 2014

“Many hunter organizations like to promote the idea that hunters were the first and most important conservation advocates. They rest on their laurels of early hunter/wildlife activist like Teddy Roosevelt, and George Bird Grinnell who, among other things, were founding members of the Boone and Crocket Club. But in addition to being hunter advocates, these men were also staunch proponents of national parks and other areas off limits to hunting. Teddy Roosevelt help to establish the first wildlife refuges to protect birds from feather hunters, and he was instrumental in the creation of numerous national parks including the Grand Canyon.  Grinnell was equally active in promoting the creation of national parks like Glacier as well as a staunch advocate for protection of wildlife in places like Yellowstone. Other later hunter/wildlands advocates like Aldo Leopold and Olaus Murie helped to promote wilderness designation and a land ethic as well as a more enlightened attitude about predators.

Unfortunately, though there are definitely still hunters and anglers who put conservation and wildlands protection ahead of their own recreational pursuits, far more of the hunter/angler community is increasingly hostile to wildlife protection and wildlands advocacy.  Perhaps the majority of hunters were always this way, but at least the philosophical leaders in the past were well known advocates of wildlands and wildlife.

Nowhere is this change in attitude among hunter organizations and leadership more evident than the deafening silence of hunters when it comes to predator management.  Throughout the West, state wildlife agencies are increasing their war on predators with the apparent blessings of hunters, without a discouraging word from any identified hunter organization. Rather the charge for killing predators is being led by groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,  and others who are not only lobbying for more predator killing, but providing funding for such activities to state wildlife agencies.

For instance, in Nebraska which has a fledging population of cougars (an estimated 20) the state wildlife agency has already embarked on a hunting season to “control” cougar numbers.  Similarly in South Dakota, where there are no more than 170 cougars, the state has adopted very aggressive and liberal hunting regulations to reduce the state’s cougar population.

But the worst examples of an almost maniacal persecution of predators are related to wolf policies throughout the country. In Alaska, always known for its Neanderthal predator policies, the state continues to promote killing of wolves adjacent to national parks. Just this week the state wiped out a pack of eleven wolves that were part of a long term research project in the Yukon Charley National Preserve. Alaska also regularly shoots wolves from the air, and also sometimes includes grizzly and black bears in its predator slaughter programs.

In the lower 48 states since wolves were delisted from the federal Endangered Species Act and management was turned over to the state wildlife agencies more than 2700 wolves have been killed.

This does not include the 3435 additional wolves killed in the past ten years by Wildlife Services, a federal predator control agency, in both the Rockies and Midwest.  Most of this killing was done while wolves were listed as endangered.

As an example of the persecutory mentality of state wildlife agencies, one need not look any further than Idaho, where hunters/trappers, along with federal and state agencies killed 67 wolves this past year  in the Lolo Pass area on the Montana/Idaho border, including some 23 from a Wildlife Service’s helicopter gun ship. The goal of the predator persecution program is to reduce predation on elk. However, even the agency’s own analysis shows that the major factor in elk number decline has been habitat quality declines due to forest recovery after major wildfires which has reduced the availability of shrubs and grasses central to elk diet. In other word, with or without predators the Lolo Pass area would not be supporting the number of elk that the area once supported after the fires. Idaho also hired a trapper to kill wolves in the Frank Church/River of No Return Wilderness to increase elk numbers there.

Idaho hunters are permitted to obtain five hunting and five trapping tags a year, and few parts of the state have any quota or limits. Idaho Governor Butch Otter recently outlined a new state budget allotting $2 million dollars for the killing of wolves—even though the same budget cuts funding for state schools.

Other states are no better than Idaho. Montana has a generous wolf six month long season. Recent legislation in the Montana legislature increased the number of wolves a hunter can kill to five and allows for the use of electronic predator calls and removes any requirement to wear hunter orange outside of the regular elk and deer seasons. And lest you think that only right wing Republican politicians’ support more killing, this legislation was not opposed by one Democratic Montana legislator, and it was signed into law by Democratic Governor Steve Bullock because he said Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks supported the bill.

Wyoming has wolves listed as a predator with no closed season or limit nor even a requirement for a license outside of a “trophy” wolf zone in Northwest Wyoming.

The Rocky Mountain West is known for its backward politics and lack of ethics when it comes to hunting, but even more “progressive” states like Minnesota and Wisconsin have cow-towed to the hunter anti predator hostility. Minnesota allows the use of snares, traps, and other barbaric methods to capture and kill wolves. At the end of the first trapping/hunting season in 2012/2013, the state’s hunters had killed more than 400 wolves.

Though wolves are the target species that gets the most attention, nearly all states have rabid attitudes towards predators in general. So in the eastern United States where wolves are still absent, state wildlife agencies aggressively allow the killing of coyotes, bears and other predators. For instance, Vermont, a state that in my view has undeserved reputation for progressive policies, coyotes can be killed throughout the year without any limits.

These policies are promoted for a very small segment of society. About six percent of Americans hunt, yet state wildlife agencies routinely ignore the desires of the non-hunting public. Hunting is permitted on a majority of US Public lands including 50% of wildlife “refuges as well as nearly all national forests, all Bureau of Land Management lands, and even a few national parks. In other words, the hunting minority dominates public lands wildlife policies.

Most state agencies have a mandate to manage wildlife as a public trust for all citizens, yet they clearly serve only a small minority. Part of this is tradition, hunters and anglers have controlled state wildlife management for decades. Part of it is that most funding for these state agencies comes from the sale of licenses and tags. And part is the worldview that dominates these agencies which sees their role as “managers” of wildlife, and in their view, improving upon nature.

None of these states manage predators for their ecological role in ecosystem health. Despite a growing evidence that top predators are critical to maintaining ecosystem function due to their influence upon prey behavior, distribution and numbers, I know of no state that even recognizes this ecological role, much less expends much effort to educate hunters and the public about it. (I hasten to add that many of the biologists working for these state agencies, particularly those with an expertise about predators, do not necessarily support the predator killing policies and are equally appalled and dismayed as I am by their agency practices.)

Worse yet for predators, there is new research that suggests that killing predators actually can increase conflicts between humans and these species. One cougar study in Washington has documented that as predator populations were declining, complaints rose. There are good reasons for this observation. Hunting and trapping is indiscriminate. These activities remove many animals from the population which are adjusted to the human presence and avoid, for instance, preying on livestock. But hunting and trapping not only opens up productive territories to animals who may not be familiar with the local prey distribution thus more likely to attack livestock, but hunting/trapping tends to skew predator populations to younger age classes. Younger animals are less skillful at capturing prey, and again more likely to attack livestock. A population of young animals can also result in larger litter size and survival requiring more food to feed hungry growing youngsters—and may even lead to an increase in predation on wild prey—having the exact opposite effect that hunters desire.

Yet these findings are routinely ignored by state wildlife agencies. For instance, despite the fact that elk numbers in Montana have risen from 89,000 animals in 1992 several years before wolf reintroductions to an estimated 140,000-150,000 animals today, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks does almost nothing to counter the impression and regular misinformation put forth by hunter advocacy groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or the Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife that wolves are “destroying” Montana’s elk herds.

I have attended public hearings on wolves and other predator issues, and I have yet to see a single hunter group support less carnivore killing.  So where are the conservation hunters? Why are they so silent in the face of outrage? Where is the courage to stand up and say current state wildlife agencies policies are a throw-back to the last century and do not represent anything approaching a modern understanding of the important role of predators in our ecosystems?

As I watch state after state adopting archaic policies, I am convinced that state agencies are incapable of managing predators as a legitimate and valued member of the ecological community. Their persecutory policies reflect an unethical and out of date attitude that is not in keeping with modern scientific understanding of the important role that predators play in our world.

It is apparent from evidence across the country that state wildlife agencies are incapable of managing predators for ecosystem health or even with apparent ethical considerations.  Bowing to the pressure from many hunter organizations and individual hunters, state wildlife agencies have become killing machines and predator killing advocates.

Most people at least tolerant the killing of animals that eaten for food, though almost everyone believes that unnecessary suffering should be avoided. But few people actually eat the predators they kill, and often the animals are merely killed and left on the killing fields. Yet though many state agencies and some hunter organizations promote the idea that wanton waste of wildlife and unnecessary killing and suffering of animals is ethically wrong, they conveniently ignore such ideas when it comes to predators, allowing them to be wounded and left to die in the field, as well as permitted to suffer in traps.  Is this ethical treatment of wildlife? I think not.

Unfortunately unless conservation minded hunters speak up, these state agencies as well as federal agencies like Wildlife Services will continue their killing agenda uninhibited. I’m waiting for the next generation of Teddy Roosevelts, Aldo Leopolds and Olaus Muries to come out of the wood work. Unless they do, I’m afraid that ignorance and intolerant attitudes will prevail and our lands and the predators that are an important part of the evolutionary processes that created our wildlife heritage will continue to be eroded.”

**Special thanks to ,   ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology, for providing this information (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/03/05/whither-the-hunterconservationist/)

Read Full Post »

Editorial: Anti-Wolf Bills Clear Case of Over-Reaction

Posted in Wolf Legislation, Wolf Preservation Efforts on March 13, 2014| 6 Comments »


Save the Lobo

**Photo courtesy from “Lobos of the Southwest.”

Arizona Daily Sun, March 6, 2014

“Talk about over-reacting.
The last time we visited the topic of endangered Mexican gray wolves in this space was to call for more details of a proposed expansion plan and consultation by federal officials with local communities.
That was back in August, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did agree to at least one public hearing in Arizona and entered talks with state Game and Fish officials.
But some state lawmakers took the expansion plan as a call to arms, and this winter they have introduced bills seeking not only to hamstring or kill off the recovery program but end the entire federal Endangered Species Act in Arizona.
The last was introduced by Flagstaff Rep. Bob Thorpe, who later withdrew that clause after staff officials said it would compromise tens of millions of dollars in federal aid given to the state for protecting endangered species and habitat restoration under their many cooperative agreements. Those programs include the California condor, black-footed ferret, Chiricahua leopard frog, native fish and other species.
He also took out the part about deporting any animal species in a federal recovery program not “cooperatively implemented” with the state, a direct assault on federal authority over endangered species.
But Thorpe did retain a clause in the bill calling on the federal government to establish a compensation fund for cattle losses, then turn it over to the state to be administered on state terms.
Other bills and resolutions would allow state employees for the first time to kill a problem wolf on public land, cap the number of wolves at 100 and relocate them to Mexico. And when the bills are inevitably challenged in court, another bill calls for a $250,000 litigation fund to be set up to defend them.
If the measures above came in response to hundreds of marauding wolves decimating cattle herds, we’d pay attention. But just the opposite true: There are about 80 wolves in the wild and the number of claims made by ranchers for wolf depredation is minuscule. Most cattle are killed by disease and by predators with much larger populations, such as coyotes or mountain lions. But if a cow is killed, there is a compensation fund in place and one proposal calls on ranchers to be paid extra simply for sharing their leased land with wolves.
Further, public opinion is solidly behind the wolves, not the ranchers. Poll after poll shows most citizens believe there is plenty of room on the national forest for cows and wolves with sensible management.
Does that mean we’re satisfied with the management plan to date and the expansion proposal? On the latter, we feel Fish and Wildlife owes residents of communities in the expansion zone (which extends northward to Interstate 40) some answers to specific questions:
— How often would they anticipate that wolves establishing new territories would roam into suburbs and other settled areas?
— How would wolves interact with pet dogs in particular?
— What tactics and strategies could be employed to keep those human-wolf contacts to a minimum?
These are the issues that lawmakers ought to be focusing on as part of diversifying and preserving Arizona’s wildlife heritage. Wolves are part of that heritage, and they deserve a chance to stay.
Please Act Today to stop these
anti-wolf bills!
You can help by contacting your Arizona House Members and submitting a letter to the editor of the Arizona Daily Sun.
If you don’t live in AZ, you can still help by submitting a letter to the editor.
The letters to the editor page is one of the most widely read, influential parts of the newspaper. One letter from you can reach thousands of people and will also likely be read by decision-makers. Tips and talking points for writing your letter are below, but please write in your own words, from your own experience. These are also good talking points for contacting your legislators.
Letter Writing Tips & Talking Points
  • At last official count, only 37 Mexican gray wolves were found in AZ, and only 83 were found total in the wild, making them critically endangered. We have a moral obligation to do everything we can to ensure their recovery and not push them closer to extinction as these bills aim to do.
  • The proposed legislation will waste taxpayer money on litigation to impede wolf recovery and embarrass the state by attempting to illegally override federal laws that protect endangered species.
  • Polling showed 77% of Arizona voters support the Mexican wolf reintroduction. Legislation to impede wolf recovery is a slap in the face to the majority of voters who want wolves to thrive.
  • People who care about wolves should call on their AZ House members to oppose anti-wolf measures. Information about how to do that is at mexicanwolves.org.
  • Wildlife biologists believe that Mexican wolves will improve the overall health of the Southwest and its rivers and streams – just as the return of gray wolves to Yellowstone has helped restore balance to its lands and waters.
  • Wolves generate economic benefits – a University of Montana study found that visitors who come to see wolves in Yellowstone contribute roughly $35.5 million annually to the regional economy.
  • Wolves once lived throughout Arizona and played a critical role in keeping the balance of nature in place. We need to restore this important animal that has been missing for too long.
  • The livestock industry has a responsibility to share public lands with wolves and other wildlife. Funds are available to help livestock growers implement nonlethal deterrents, better animal husbandry practices, and other innovative tools that minimize conflict.
Make sure you:
  • Thank the paper for publishing the editorial.
  • Do not repeat any negative messages, such as “cows may have been killed by wolves, but…” Remember that those reading your letter will not be looking at the article it responds to, so this is an opportunity to get out positive messages about wolf recovery rather than to argue with the original article.
  • Keep your letter brief, between 150-300 words.
  • Include something about who you are and why you care: E.g. “I am a mother, outdoors person, teacher, business owner, scientific, religious, etc.”
  • Provide your name, address, phone number and address. The paper won’t publish these, but they want to know you are who you say you are.
Please also contact AZ House members directly and tell them politely that you expect them to oppose these bills that embarrass Arizona, waste taxpayer money and fly in the face of overwhelming majority public support for wolf recovery.”
 **Special thanks to Lobos of the Southwest, http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/1209/51/Editorial-Anti-Wolf-Bills-Clear-Case-of-Over-Reaction, and Arizona Daily Sun for providing this information!
 

Read Full Post »

Scientists Call B.S. — Bad Science, That Is — on Wolf Delisting

Posted in Wolf Current Events, Wolf Legislation on February 13, 2014| 1 Comment »


Wolf Pup

 

(Photo credit given to Joachim S.. Müller/Flickr/Creative Commons License)

February 7, 2014 3:59 PM

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s move to strip gray wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is based on insufficient science, according to a report by an independent panel of scientists. In response to the report, USFWS has again opened public comment on its wolf delisting proposal until March, meaning a bit more delay before gray wolves are potentially removed from the Endangered Species List.

USFWS now expects to make its final decision on delisting the wold by the end of 2014.

In the report, produced by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at UC Santa Barbara, an independent panel of wildlife biologists from universities, the California Academy of Sciences, and the Natural Resources Defense Council agree unanimously that more study is needed before the wolf is removed from ESA protection.

According to the report, the delisting proposal was based in part on a single October 2012 paper that contends eastern wolves belong to the species Canis lycaon, distinct from gray wolves in the western half of North America belonging to the species Canis lupus. If the eastern part of the wolf’s historic range was occupied by a different species, according to USFWS’ rationale, then Canis lupus now occupies enough of its historic range to be considered recovered. It can thus be removed from ESA protection.

But the 2012 paper, “An Account of the Taxonomy of North American Wolves From Morphological and Genetic Analyses” by biologist Steven M. Chambers and three colleagues, is not universally considered valid by wolf biologists. Scientists on the NCEAS panel pointed out that Chambers et al‘s conclusions were based on a few genetic differences between wolf populations that were potentially valid, but not conclusive.

What’s more, Chambers and his colleagues are all biologists in the employ of USFWS, and their paper was published in the USFWS journal North American Fauna. There’s nothing necessarily nefarious about that: North American Fauna publishes some fine work, and many USFWS biologists are among the best in their fields.

The panel did not reject Chambers et al‘s conclusions outright. Nonetheless, the panel agreed unanimously that Chambers et al did not represent the “best available science,” which is the usual legal standard to which USFWS rulemaking is expected to conform.

The upshot: if it isn’t yet settled that eastern wolves are a distinct species, then it’s not yet settled whether the species to which western wolves belong has recovered over enough of its range to no longer need protection. And without that settled science, USFWS’ delisting is called into question.

Reaction from wolf defenders was swift and jubilant Friday. “The nation’s top wolf scientists today confirmed what we and millions of American’s have been saying for months: The job of wolf recovery is far from complete,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This peer review is a major blow to the Obama administration’s highly political effort to prematurely remove protections for wolves.”

“Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information,” said USFWS Director Dan Ashe. “We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input.”

As mentioned earlier, public comment on the delisting proposal has now been reopened, the third time the comment period has been so extended on the controversial proposal. Members of the public wishing to comment on the wolf delisting now have until March 27, and more information, as well as an online copy of the NCEAS review of the proposal’s science, can be found on the USFWS’s gray wolf recovery page.”

**Special thank to Chris Clarke, a natural history writer and environmental journal, for providing this information!  (http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/mammals/scientists-call-bs—-bad-science-that-is—-on-wolf-delisting.html)

Read Full Post »

Wolf funding audit brings out political divide

Posted in Wolf Current Events, Wolf Legislation on October 16, 2013| 2 Comments »


Utah Wolf

Photo provided by “Standard Examiner” (http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/10/15/wolf-funding-audit-brings-out-political-divide)

By Antone Clark, Standard-Examiner correspondent

 Tue, 10/15/2013 – 1:54pm

“SALT LAKE CITY — A state audit of how funding was appropriated for a program to keep Canadian wolves out of the state raised some concerns about performance standards, but did little to solve the political divide the issue has generated.

State auditors released a seven-page review of legislative funding efforts to delist wolves in Utah on Tuesday, even as state officials claim the effort has been a success. A wildlife conservancy executive said the results have come in spite of state efforts, not because of them.

The findings of the audit, which covered four years and approximately $800,000 in state funds, were relatively minor. The audit recommended the Division of Wildlife resources amend its existing contract with Big Game Forever to include a more current plan for how the delisting effort will be carried out, replace the up-front contract payment with payments based on agreed upon performance standards and include the original requirement of maintaining accounting records available for state review.

The Legislature appropriated $300,000 on the issue in 2013, and another $300,000 is appropriated for the 2013-2014 fiscal year with BGF, a group claiming the wolf population in the northwest is growing and thinning the herds of elk and moose.

Big Game Forever is a political action group that spun off Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. The group’s website claims that before wolves were introduced in Idaho the population of elk was 20,000. Now that population is 1,700.

The same trend is shown in Yellowstone Park, where the population of elk was also estimated to be at approximately 20,000 before wolves were introduced in the park. It said the elk herd is now down to 6,500.

“One of the things not brought out in the audit are the results of the money we spent. It’s been unbelievably successful,” Michael Styler, executive director for the Department of Natural Resources, said of the program. “The money we have spent has been well spent. The results are far more than I dream we could have accomplished with that.”

Kirk Robinson, executive director of Western Wildlife Conservancy, has a different take on state spending to delist wolves. He said there is no evidence that BGF’s efforts or state funding has had any direct impact on keeping the wolves out of Utah. He said there is actually evidence the big game group lobbied against the effort to delist wolves, before they took the contract with the state’s Division of Wildlife Resources.

Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake, has been outspoken against the program and said the Legislature appropriated money for a cause the DWR didn’t ask to have funded. He worried the state doesn’t have enough accountability for how non-profits handle state funds.

House Speaker Rebecca Lockhart, R-Provo, asked Styler if the DWR has asked for funding and was told no and said it would have been inappropriate to push for funding, not included in the governor’s budget.

Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, said the state appropriates money to non-profits all the time.

“The bottom line here is this is a political issue. A lot of people don’t want the wolves delisted and a lot of people want the wolves delisted. That’s a political discussion we need to debate,” Niederhauser said.”

**Special thanks to Antone Clark, Standard-Examiner correspondent, for providing this information!

 

Read Full Post »

Public Hearing – California

Posted in Wolf Current Events, Wolf Legislation on October 1, 2013| 3 Comments »


Wolf-OR7-DFG-Shinn

Photo credit owned by Richard Shinn.

 

Public Hearing – California

“Our best chance to stop this reckless plan from going through will be by showing up in droves at these public hearings and speaking out on behalf of wolves! Even if you would prefer not to testify, your presence will make a huge difference and will show how strongly Americans support wolves! Join us as we gather before the hearing to learn about the proposals, rally with fellow supporters and get tips on how to testify. Then we’ll head to the hearing together and ensure that FWS hears our voices loud and clear!

Wednesday, October 2nd Clarion Inn, Comstock Room 1401 Arden Way Sacramento, CA 95815 Pre-hearing event starts at 3:30 pm

RSVP for the Pre-Hearing Event >

Need a ride to the event? Use the password “defenders” to log in to the event at eRideShare.

Want help writing your testimony? Check out our talking points to get the basics on the flaws in this proposal to delist gray wolves across most of the U.S. Talking Points on the Gray Wolf Delisting Proposal >

Learn more about how public hearings work and what these events are usually like. What to Expect at the Hearing >
Training Call Monday, September 30th 7:30 to 8:30 pm PT Join Defenders’ staff and fellow wolf supporters for a brief training session in preparation for the hearing. Learn about the ins and outs of a Fish and Wildlife Service public hearing, and how to prepare effective written and oral testimony to present to key decision makers.  During the call participants will:

  • Learn how to craft a compelling and personal testimony;
  • Learn about the rules and details of the hearing;
  • Find out about the activities we have planned for the hearings; and
  • Be able to ask questions about the hearing”

**Special thanks to “Defenders of Wildlife” for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

Public Hearing – New Mexico

Posted in Wolf Current Events, Wolf Legislation, Wolf Preservation Efforts on October 1, 2013| 1 Comment »


My first tattoo; the howling wolf!

Public Hearing – New Mexico

“This is the ONLY public hearing that will also address the Fish and Wildlife Service’s woefully inadequate proposed rule changes for critically endangered Mexican gray wolves, a subspecies of the gray wolf. Please be sure to study both sets of talking points so that we can better ensure a future for both types of America’s wolves.

Our best chance to secure a future for Mexican gray wolves and stop the reckless delisting of gray wolves will be by showing up in droves at these public hearings and speaking out on behalf of wolves! Even if you would prefer not to testify, your presence will make a huge difference and will show how strongly Americans support wolves! Join us as we gather before the hearing to learn about the proposals, rally with fellow supporters and get tips on how to testify. Then we’ll head to the hearing together and ensure that FWS hears our voices loud and clear!

When:  Friday, October 4th

Where: Embassy Suites, Sierra Ballroom 1000 Woodward Place NE Albuquerque, NM 87102

Pre-hearing event starts at 3:30 pm

RSVP for the Pre-Hearing Event >

Need a ride? Use the password “defenders” to log in to the event at eRideShare.

Want help with your testimony? Check out the talking points below Talking Points on the Gray Wolf Delisting Proposal > Talking Points on the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Proposal >

Learn more about how public hearings work and what these events are usually like >

 

Training Call Tuesday, October 1st 7:30 – 8:30 pm MT Join Defenders staff and fellow wolf supporters for a brief training session in preparation for the hearing. Learn about the ins and outs of a Fish and Wildlife Service public hearing, and how to prepare effective written and oral testimony to present to key decision makers.  During the call participants will:

  • Learn how to craft a compelling and personal testimony;
  • Learn about the rules and details of the hearing;
  • Find out about the activities we have planned for the hearings; and
  • Be able to ask questions about the hearing”

**Special thanks to “Defenders of Wildlife” https://www.defenders.org/national-wolf-emergency/public-hearing-new-mexico, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

Das’s Wildlife Trapping Bill Signed Into Law; Outlaws Certain Traps and Killing Methods

Posted in Wolf Legislation on September 2, 2013| 2 Comments »


Trap Law

Courtesy              

Gov. Jerry Brown’s dog Sutter puts his paw of approval on AB 789. From left: Jennifer Fearing, California Senior State Director for the Humane Society of the United States; Assembly member Das Williams; and Leslie Villegas, legislative aide to Williams.

“A wildlife trapping bill authored by Assemblymember Das Williams to protect animals from potentially cruel and unusual deaths was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown this Tuesday.

AB 798, which amends a section of California’s Fish and Game code, imposes new restrictions on a particularly brutal kind of trap — the conibear — and makes it illegal for private nuisance wildlife control operators (NWCOs) to kill the animals they catch with disturbing but previously lawful methods such as drowning, chest crushing, and the injection of chemical solvents like nail polish remover.

“We must take great care with all of our animals,” said Williams. “Even so-called ‘nuisance wildlife’ deserves to be treated humanely. It is time we hold trappers to a higher standard and demand that they end their severely cruel killing practices.”

Supported by 20 different animals rights groups and organizations — but opposed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife — the bill prohibits the use of body-gripping conibear traps that are bigger than six inches by six inches (unless they’re in water) and mandates the posting of warning signs when they’re set on public land. Domestic dogs and cats, Williams said, are often accidentally killed by conibears.

“We share this planet with wildlife,” Williams said. “Animals cannot speak for themselves so we must speak for them and stop their torturous, slow and painful deaths.”

**Special thanks to Tyler Hayden, http://www.independent.com/news/2013/aug/28/dass-wildlife-trapping-bill-signed-law/, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

New Oregon rule makes killing wolves last resort in protecting livestock

Posted in Wolf Current Events, Wolf Legislation, Wolf Preservation Efforts on July 14, 2013| 3 Comments »


fladry_wind

Fladry is a line of rope mounted along the top of a fence, from which are suspended strips of fabric or colored flags that will flap in a breeze, intended to deter wolves from crossing the fence-line.[1] Fladry lines have been used for this purpose for several centuries, traditionally for hunting wolves in Eastern Europe.[1] They are effective temporarily, as the novelty may soon wear off, usually between three to five months, and can be used to protect livestock in small pastures from wolves.[1]

This technique is sometimes also used to alert horses and cattle to the presence of a fence, as the use of smoothwire fences and one strand of electric may not be seen by an animal unfamiliar with a new home.

 

“GRANTS PASS, Oregon — The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission on Friday adopted provisions of a lawsuit settlement that will make Oregon the only state in the West where killing wolves that attack livestock is a last resort.

The rules adopted by the commission amend Oregon’s Wolf Management Plan, along with statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature that will be signed by Gov. John Kitzhaber.

The rules require ranchers to show they have taken non-lethal steps, such as alarm boxes and low strings of fluttering plastic flags known as fladdery, to protect their herds before the state will send out a hunter to kill a wolf. There must also be hard evidence, such as GPS data showing a radio-collared wolf was in the area when a cow was killed, that wolves have attacked four times.

In return, ranchers get new rights to shoot wolves that they see attacking their herd, but only if those non-lethal protections are in place, and attacks have become chronic.

The settlement represents a new level of cooperation between conservation groups and ranchers, who have long fought over restoring wolves in the West, where they were wiped out by bounty hunters in the early part of the 20th century.

Ranchers downplayed the significance of the settlement.

“I don’t think it’s a whole lot different from the wolf plan already being implemented,” said Kate Teisl, executive director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. “Now there’s just more documentation. Ranchers are out there doing all they can to keep their animals alive, including the non-lethal measures.”

But wolf advocates said it was that documentation of non-lethal steps that was groundbreaking.

Rob Klavins of Oregon Wild said the old plan talked about conservation of wolves being a priority, but it was so ambiguous that it was ineffective.

“It’s now up to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the livestock industry, and the conservation community to honor the agreements that we have made,” he said. “If we do so, I am optimistic we will continue to see conflicts between wolves and livestock continue to be rare, and the need to kill wolves even rarer still.”

Brett Brownscombe, natural resources adviser to the governor, said making the rules clear was important as Oregon’s wolf population continues to grow, and the Obama administration moves toward lifting federal protections for wolves in areas they have yet to repopulate.

Oregon Wild and other conservation groups had sued the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, claiming that a kill order on the Imnaha pack, the first to establish in Oregon as well as the first to attack livestock, threatened to wipe out the pack. Conservation groups claimed the actions violated the Oregon Endangered Species Act, which still protects wolves in the eastern two thirds of the state, where federal protections have been lifted.

The Imnaha pack only has one more strike against it before a kill order can be imposed, but so far, it has not been linked to an attack.

The Oregon Court of Appeals barred the state from killing wolves for more than a year before the settlement was reached between conservation groups, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, and the governor’s office. During that time, the number of wolves in Oregon went up, while the lethal attacks on livestock went down. In Idaho, where the Oregon packs had migrated from, the numbers of lethal livestock attacks went up, along with the numbers of wolves killed, primarily by trophy hunters and trappers.”

**Special thanks to JEFF BARNARD  Associated Press, for providing this information! (http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/27bc716ebcfd4046b4ba205ed9310261/OR–Wolf-Settlement/)

Read Full Post »

Steve Duin: So much for wolf recovery

Posted in Wolf Current Events, Wolf Legislation on June 15, 2013| Leave a Comment »


mexicanwolf

“Unlike those of us who simply root for OR-7 from afar, Noah Greenwald chances upon wolves now and then. At the northeastern edge of Yellowstone National Park last week, he watched three gray wolves spar with nervous coyotes, unsuccessfully stalk a bison calf, then swim across the Lamar River.

“They really put on a show,” Greenwald says.

As the endangered species director for the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenwald is a serious wolves’ fan. He has spent 10 years working to give those predators a fighting chance.

Not surprisingly, then, Greenwald is an unsettled critic of the Obama administration’s insistence that wolves no longer need federal protection to ensure their survival.

“This is like kicking a patient out of the hospital when they’re still attached to life-support,” Greenwald says. “We’ve had a lot of success. Wolf numbers are up. But the job of recovery isn’t done yet. Livestock and hunting interests have successfully lobbied to have wolf recovery shut down.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that the survival of the nation’s 6,000 gray wolves is best consigned to the states.

And the states — which pull in a great deal more money from hunting licenses than species protection — are cool with that. As Dave Ware, the Washington state game division manager told the Associated Press last September, “We don’t see a real need for continued federal protections when the state protections are there.”

In at least five states, those “protections” include a hunting season. Idaho licensed hunters and trappers to kill 375 wolves in the winter of 2012. And last winter, similarly gleeful “sportsmen” in the state of Minnesota dispatched another 410, according to the St. Paul Pioneer-Press.

The wolf slaughters, as you can see, are not limited to “Game of Thrones.”

As the OR-7 diehards know, Oregon has enjoined those hunting sprees in recent years, but that may soon change.

The Legislature is all hot and bothered about the occasional carnage when one of Oregon’s 46 wolves bumps into one of the state’s 1.28 MILLION cows. The House has already passed a bill which provides conditions for ranchers to obliterate the wolf that preys on livestock.

The Center for Biological Diversity, understandably, objects. As Greenwald notes, fatal wolf attacks on livestock are still rare — less than 10 each year — and the Department of Agriculture compensates the rancher for the spoiled beef.

What’s more, Amaroq Weiss, the center’s wolf expert, argues that fatal wolf attacks have decreased in Wallowa County, where ranchers and state agencies have employed nonlethal prevention tactics, even as those attacks have increased in the hunter’s paradise that is Idaho.

When orphaned pups aren’t taught to kill the pack’s natural prey, elk and deer, Weiss says, they are left no choice but to take down a sluggish cow.

Greenwald doesn’t view wolves as just another ranching nuisance but as an apex predator that shapes its ecosystem. When a wolf pack is keeping the elk and coyotes in check, it’s great news for streamside vegetation — and, thus, for songbirds, beaver and fish — and pronghorn fawns.

All the more reason, then, that we have a national recovery plan for wolves, similar to the one for bald eagles, and reasonable target populations in each region.

In the absence of that, Oregon has a grand statewide “goal” of eight wolf packs. Says Greenwald, “I don’t think you can find a scientist who would say eight wolf packs across the state is sustainable or anywhere near a recovered population.”

Not that Fish and Wildlife is looking for a scientist somewhere behind the locked-and-loaded line of ranchers and elk hunters. At a pivotal moment in wolf recovery, the feds have abandoned it, and the Legislature is re-arming the rural militia.

Let’s hope the news reaches OR-7 before our ultimate lone wolf skirts the edge of cattle country.”

**Special thanks to Steve Duin, http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2013/06/steve_duin_so_much_for_wolf_re.html, for providing this information!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »