Idaho game management killing elk after killing wolves

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/idaho-game-management-killing-elk-after-killing-wolves/article/367461

By Justin King     Jan 26, 2014 in Environment
Boise – Ranchers in Idaho are asking the state government to help eliminate some of the state’s elk population. The state is halfway through the wolf season, which was said to have been introduced to stop the wolves from attacking elk.

A group from Mayfield claims that Idaho’s Department of Fish and Game has been unable to protect their livelihoods from elk herds which they say10846355_862436173776474_7314160412610807927_n are trampling their fences, crops, and causing other problems. The department currently allows a small group of hunters to participate in “depredation hunts,” in which the hunters are allowed to kill animals while hoping to drive the herds away.

Elk hunters have actively encouraged thinning the wolf population. Some have established co-ops to shoulder the cost of trapping wolves that are eating the prized trophy animals. Wolf trappers are paid up to $500 per kill.

Conservationists unsuccessfully attempted to stop the wolf hunts and predicted an explosion in the elk population if the wolf, an apex predator, was hunted. Tim Preso, an attorney representing the conservationists said of the wolf hunting efforts last week:

There is every reason to believe that this is not going to be a one-off, they have set a goal of inflating the elk population by removing wolves. According to their own plan that’s a multi-year undertaking. So I see every reason to believe that this is going to be a recurring activity.

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, almost 900 wolves have been killed since they lost federal protection.

One of the proposed solutions to Mayfield’s problem is to move the herds closer to the areas where wolves roam.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/idaho-game-management-killing-elk-after-killing-wolves/article/367461#ixzz3Oeg1f3Xq

Unsworth is Unworthy for Washington Wildlife

The Governor must First approve Unsworth as the new Director of WDFW…..We can’t let this happen!! He’s an avowed wolf hater!! Here is WA Governor Inslee’s contact info…PLEASE call the Governor ASAP and Say NO to Unsworth!!!
http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/interact/
More info from Jerry:
Idaho exported George Pauley to Montana and now Jim Unsworth to Washington….two avowed wolf haters. Look what Pauley has done in Montana and you can expect the same from Unsworth. To my knowledge Unsworth does not have a fisheries background which you’d think would be very important with the very complicated fisheries situation we have in Washington….seems that didn’t matter to the commissioners. Would like to know which commissioners voted for him…
….

Meanwhile in Illinois, Proof that Governors can occasionally do good things for wildlife, Illinois Gov. just vetoed a bill that would have allowed bobcat hunting there:

Gov. Quinn vetoes bill to allow Illinois bobcat hunting

Sunday, January 11, 2015 04:27PM

Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday vetoed a bill to allow bobcat hunting in Illinois for the first time in more than 40 years, saying the small, nocturnal cats “continue to need protection” even though they have been removed from the threatened species list.

Quinn issued a brief statement in which he said allowing hunting would violate a responsibility to maintain Illinois wildlife.

“Bobcats are a valuable part of Illinois’ ecosystem and continue to need protection,” he said.

His decision ignores the recommendation of the state Department of Natural Resources, which supported a hunting season as a way to help in long-term management of the species…

http://abc7chicago.com/news/gov-quinn-vetoes-bill-to-allow-illinois-bobcat-hunting-/470922/

[Just how hunting them would help the bobcats was not clear, but the misguided policy falls in line with wildlife “management” actions nationwide.

10846355_862436173776474_7314160412610807927_n

Polarized Wolf/Anti-Wolf groups battle with billboards

http://www.spokesman.com/outdoors/stories/2015/jan/11/polarized-wolf-groups-battle-with-billboards/

The Defenders of Wildlife launched a pro-wolf billboard campaign in the Spokane area this month to counter anti-wolf billboards.

2 / 2
Show captions

Opposing views of gray wolf recovery in Washington are on display in a Spokane-area battle of the billboards.

The Defenders of Wildlife, a national wildlife advocacy group, has contracted for nine billboard posters that appeared this month. The message responds to a similar outdoor advertising campaign initiated in November by an anti-wolf group called Washington Residents Against Wolves.

Four of the eight WARAW billboards feature photos of a deer, an elk, a calf, a dog and a young girl on a swing with the text: “The Wolf – Who’s Next on Their Menu?”

“What we want is for people to ask very serious questions about the presence of wolves in Washington State before the reality confronts them,” said WARAW spokesman Luke Hedquist in a media release introducing the campaign.

In response, Defenders has put up nine billboards with the headline “Reality Check! What’s More Dangerous?” Four images help answer the question based on average deaths per year in the United States: “Lightning 33. ATVs 413. Elevators 26. Wolves 0.”

“We just want to cut through the myths to the facts,” said Shawn Cantrell, Defenders Northwest director based in Seattle.

Gray wolves remain under state endangered species protections in Washington as they naturally reoccupy their native range in the state.

More: http://www.spokesman.com/outdoors/stories/2015/jan/11/polarized-wolf-groups-battle-with-billboards/

Field reports: Asotin County men charged in elk case

http://www.spokesman.com/outdoors/stories/2015/jan/11/field-reports-field-reports-asotin-county-men/

Evidence in a Blue Mountains trophy elk poaching case is confiscated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife police officers Sabo and King.  (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)
Evidence in a Blue Mountains trophy elk poaching case is confiscated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife police officers Sabo and King. (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)

POACHING – Two Anatone, Washington, men have been charged in the November illegal killing of two trophy-class bull elk in Asotin County.

Richard Kramer, 39, and his son, Jonathan Kramer, 22, face multiple charges in the cases, which were made with the help of tips from the public, according to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife police.

The unlawful hunting charges involve spotlighting, trespassing, and wasting game.

Officer Matt Sabo had reported that the two bulls were killed within about 100 yards of each other near the intersection of Weissenfels Ridge Road and Kiesecker Road, and both had their heads removed and backstrap meat taken. One of the elk’s hindquarters were also taken with the rest of the meat left to waste.

They are set to appear in Asotin County District Court on Wednesday.

Washington offers only a few hunting tags for coveted branch-antlered bull elk in that area through a lottery drawing each year.

More: http://www.spokesman.com/outdoors/stories/2015/jan/11/field-reports-field-reports-asotin-county-men/

Commission selects Unsworth as new director of WDFW

Let’s see, Unsworth is an avid hunter, has 4 kids, holds a bachelor’s degree in wildlife management from the University of Idaho, a master’s degree in fish and wildlife management from Montana State University and a doctorate in forestry, wildlife and range sciences from the University of Idaho, yes, he should make a fine addition Washington’s wolf management team.

Too bad compassionate Washingtonians didn’t have a vote or voice in this decision…

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

January 10, 2015
Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267

Commission selects Unsworth as new director of WDFW
TUMWATER – Dr. Jim Unsworth), deputy director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, was chosen today as the new head of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to select Unsworth after interviewing eight candidates for the director’s position in December and narrowing the field to four finalists. The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, announced its decision at a public meeting Jan. 9-10 in Tumwater.
Unsworth, who will replace Phil Anderson, formally accepted the job today.
Commissioners said they sought a visionary leader with a strong conservation ethic, sound fiscal-management skills and the expertise to work collaboratively with the commission and the department’s constituents.
“After a thorough nationwide search, we’re confident Jim is the right person to guide the department through the many challenges that lie ahead,” said Miranda Wecker, chair of the commission. “His solid understanding of natural resource issues and strong leadership skills will be invaluable in the department’s effort to manage and protect the fish and wildlife resources that are so important to the people of this state.”
As director, Unsworth will report to the commission and manage a department with more than 1,600 employees, and a biennial operating budget of $376 million. His annual salary will be $146,500.
Unsworth, age 57, has spent more than 30 years in wildlife management with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and has served as deputy director for the agency since 2008. He previously held several management positions for the department, including wildlife bureau chief and state big game manager.
Unsworth holds a bachelor’s degree in wildlife management from the University of Idaho, a master’s degree in fish and wildlife management from Montana State University and a doctorate in forestry, wildlife and range sciences from the University of Idaho.
“I’m thrilled at this opportunity,” Unsworth said. “I look forward to taking on the many exciting challenges that come with managing fish and wildlife in the state of Washington.”
Unsworth and his wife Michele have four adult children. He is an avid hunter and fisher.
Unsworth will replace Anderson, who announced in August he was resigning from his position at the end of 2014. At the commission’s request, he has since agreed to stay on as the head of the agency until a new director is in place.
“Phil’s enormous dedication to managing Washington’s fish and wildlife will truly be missed,” Wecker said. “As director, he was a tireless worker who successfully guided the department through one of the most difficult times in the history of this state. Under his leadership and with his support, the department made important progress in meeting some very challenging issues. We are extremely grateful for his service and all the contributions he made during his career at WDFW.”
Wecker said a statement of appreciation for Anderson will be posted in the next week on the commission’s webpage at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

Can You Be a Feminist and Drink Milk?

http://www.peta2.com/blog/feminism-dairy-milk/?utm_campaign=0115%20Bi-Weekly%20Recap%20EA&utm_source=peta2%20E-Mail&utm_medium=Alert

December 16, 2014 by Liz Weske

Listen up, ladies (and men who care about women’s rights, duh!), because this one’s for you:

As an animal rights activist AND a feminist, I’ve always felt that it’s important for us women and girls to recognize the connection between feminism and the treatment of cows used by the dairy industry. While this may sound like a stretch at first, here’s why:

All cows who are used for their milk are female—in case ya didn’t already know that!

Cows and Calf We animals

Female cows don’t need to be milked. Female cows produce milk for the same reason that human women do: to feed THEIR babies. On factory farms, calves are torn away from their mothers so that the momma cow’s milk can be saved for human consumption (we’re the ONLY species that drinks another species’ milk regularly—so weird!). This is what it looks like:

cows running after babies gif

Cows produce milk only after they’ve been pregnant. In order to get cows pregnant, farmers forcibly impregnate them on what the industry calls a “rape rack.” Uhhhhh … read that again. A rape rack. That’s literally what it’s called. Can you really consider yourself someone who stands up for all females if you condone farmers’ use of RAPE RACKS to impregnate cows—just so they can DRAG their babies away and repeat the whole thing again?

Female cows in the dairy industry are treated as nothing more than baby- and milk-making machines—with no regard for their emotional lives. If they were allowed to do so, mother cows would spend months with their young, teaching, nurturing, and bonding with them. On factory farms, all they can do is cry out for their babies as they’re violently dragged away. For the milk to make it to grocery-store shelves, cows are hooked up to milking machines for most of their lives. No “old MacDonald’s farm” here. When their milk production decreases and the cows are no longer profitable, they’re sent to slaughter.

If you still aren’t getting the connection, let me break it down for you: Women and girls EVERYWHERE are being used and abused. Many of us have grown up in male-dominated societies that tell us what to do with our bodies and how they should be used, and sadly, we’re often seen as nothing more than objects. Many women and girls are forced into situations where they lose control over their bodies—and far too often, other people think that they deserve this control. That’s what’s happening to cows on dairy farms every single day—all for a totally unnecessary and disgusting product. 

dairy torture gif

No moms want to be hooked up to a rape rack, be forcibly impregnated, and have their baby taken away from them. It’s up to us to exercise our “girl power” (the best kind of power there is!) and say enough is enough!

You know that this is wrong, but the good news is that it’s SO easy to help. All you have to do is stick to dairy-free alternatives to milk and cheese, which is easier than ever!

Learn more about dairy products and how you can help cows:

1. Check this page out for tips on ditching dairy.

2. Get the scoop on vegan cheese here!

3. Take action here for cows used for their milk, then share this page by clicking the buttons below.

Read more: http://www.peta2.com/blog/feminism-dairy-milk/#ixzz3OSGPb7Fn

U.S. sued over policy on killing endangered wildlife

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Activists say the rule that hunters must know they are killing a protected animal allows the Justice Department to abdicate prosecution.

May 29, 2013|By Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times

Environmental groups are taking the Justice Department to court over a policy that prohibits prosecuting individuals who kill endangered wildlife unless it can be proved that they knew they were targeting a protected animal.

Critics charge that the 15-year-old McKittrick policy provides a loophole that has prevented criminal prosecution of dozens of individuals who killed grizzly bears, highly endangered California condors and whooping cranes as well as 48 federally protected Mexican wolves.

The policy stems from a Montana case in which Chad McKittrick was convicted under the Endangered Species Act for killing a wolf near Yellowstone National Park in 1995. He argued that he was not guilty because he thought he was shooting a wild dog.

McKittrick appealed the conviction and lost, but the Justice Department nonetheless adopted a policy that became the threshold for taking on similar cases: prosecutors must prove that the individual knowingly killed a protected species.

The lawsuit charges that the policy sets a higher burden of proof than previously required, arguing, “The DOJ’s McKittrick policy is a policy that is so extreme that it amounts to a conscious and express abdication of DOJ’s statutory responsibility to prosecute criminal violations of the ESA as general intent crimes.”

WildEarth Guardians and the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance said they intend to file a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Arizona, one of the states where Mexican wolves were reintroduced. The Times received an advance copy of the lawsuit.

Federal wildlife managers who are responsible for protecting endangered animals have long criticized the policy as providing a pretext for illegal trophy hunters and activists.

A June 2000 memo from the law enforcement division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Wyoming warned, “As soon as word about this policy gets around the West, the ability for the average person to distinguish a grizzly bear from a black bear or a wolf from a coyote will decline sharply. Under this policy a hen mallard is afforded more protection than any of the animals listed as endangered.”

Earlier this year, a man in Texas shot and killed a whooping crane, telling authorities that he thought it was a legally hunted Sandhill crane. He was not charged under the Endangered Species Act but was prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which carries lesser penalties.

Wendy Keefover of WildEarth Guardians compared the policy to “district attorneys rescinding speeding tickets issued by traffic cops when then speeder claims he or she believed the legal speed limit was greater than what was posted, and that he or she had no intention to break the law.”

The unspoken attitude toward endangered species among some western ranchers is summed up by the expression: “Shoot. Shovel. And shut up,” suggesting that the most efficient way to deal with the unwanted bureaucracy associated with protected species was to quietly remove them.

Mexican wolves have been decimated by illegal shootings, causing the death of more than half of the animals released in the wild since the start of the reintroduction program in 1998.

Forty-eight Mexican wolves have been illegally killed, according to the lawsuit. It notes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service anticipated that illegal shooting and trapping was likely to be a major impediment to recovery of the species, but the agency thought that strong enforcement could discourage the illegal acts.

Wolves are often killed by hunters who say they thought they were shooting at coyotes, which may be shot on sight in most states.

Mistaken identity is also frequently given in mix-ups between black bears and grizzly bears that lead to grizzly deaths.

The Wyoming U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service memo included this example:

In May 1996, a man hunting for black bear in Wyoming shot and killed a collared grizzly bear, an endangered species.

The hunter and three friends moved the bear carcass, destroyed the collar, dug a hole, dumped in the bear, poured lye over it and covered the hole.

When the animal’s remains were recovered, the man said he thought he was shooting at a common black bear.

The U.S. attorney’s office reviewed the case and declined to prosecute it, citing the McKittrick policy.

No Wolves Killed in Contest Means Too Many Wolves Already Killed

Hunters here need to get a life. For over a week now, I’ve been receiving comments about the wolf/coyote contest hunt addressed in the January 2nd article, “ID Gun Nuts Start New Year With Three-Day Mass Slaughter Of Wolves And Coyotes.”   

I don’t know if it’s the insinuation that they might be “gun nuts” (I would think they’d gladly fess up to that) or what, but long after the derby has played itself out, they’re still trying to get their vitriolic comments approved. So far, over 500 of their 180,000+ viewers have left comments that will never see the light of day (except in the occasional post like this one, meant to expose just how malicious they really are).

And they really do all sound alike—believe me when I say you’d never want to sit through 500 of their repetitive statements, such as the ever-popular catch phrase:

“Smoke a pack a day!”NT wolf bumpr stickr

It wasn’t funny the day the first guy blurted it out and it just gets more tedious—and more carcinogenic—with each repeated use. However, it does point out their universal sentiment about doing away with wolves at every chance they get. With all the anti-wolf mawkishness it’s hard to imagine there are many wolves left in Idaho. Each licensed hunter there can legally kill up to five wolves per season and trap and an additional five individuals, so recovering wolves would conceivably have suffered considerable losses by now.

But these would-be commenters seem keenly concerned about controlling the wolves’ population (as if they need it) while at the same time, indifferent about their own. Here are some of their views on the subject of overpopulation:

“There is nothing wrong with the killing of these animals it’s a all in an order to control population.”

“Their numbers are unsustainable. Wolves will kill for the thrill and not just because they are hungry.”

“haha kill them all! Wolves are one of the biggest problems we have in Idaho, wyoming and Montana!”

“if we don’t thin out these packs it could turn bad for everyone they are already over populated…” 

And yet, according to post-contest articles like, “Wolf Population Unaltered By Controversial Hunt,” “Nobody even saw a track. We had fresh snow, and we were just in shock,” Alder said. “No sightings, no tracks.” He noted that there was an increase in coyote captures this year—30, compared with 21 during last year’s derby.

Not to give them credit for achieving anything whatsoever, but it would seem wolf-killers have been proactive about gettin’‘er done well before the contest’s start date.

The article goes on to say, “One team of hunters killed 12 coyotes over three days and sold their pelts to a fur buyer who attended the event. The team walked away with a $1,000 cash prize for most coyotes killed.

“Thirty coyotes were killed during the three-day hunt, and—for the second consecutive year—zero wolves.”

The derby, organized by executive director of Idaho for Wildlife Steve Alder, was created to help curb predator populations.

Considering the burgeoning human population, Alder and his ilk would do well to look in the mirror before calling any kettles black. Are they blissfully ignorant of the fact that another human is born every eight seconds in this country alone? Meanwhile, 350,000 humans are born each and every day worldwide.

How many of them will grow up to be predator hunters? Talk about “unsustainable” numbers. This isn’t just about them or their rancher buddies. This is about a world-wide loss of biodiversity—their part in the sixth mass extinction. It’s really not something to be glib over or proud of.

world-population-through-history-to-2025

Hunt or be Hunted?

And the hits just keep on coming. Yet again today I find comments from hunters on the pre-coyote/wolf-kill-contest post that really seemed to get their goat, the article, https://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/id-gun-nuts-start-new-year-with-three-day-mass-slaughter-of-wolves-and-coyotes/ was posted over a week ago, and still the hunters are coming up with (unapproved) comments such as this one from today (printed verbatim):

…”‘Hunt or be hunted’ all u tree hungers don’t understand… if we don’t thin out these packs it could turn bad for everyone they are already over populated… if we left the wolves an coyotes alone next thing u know are children’s an even adults we become hunted and killed by them it’s called animal control an besides the department of wildlife knows when they will.need to shut the hunting down all it is ‘control of the packs’”

10885301_1568094566769883_1971170912125979956_n