4 thoughts on “Speak for Wolves: August 7-9, 2015”

1. Political Wolf Jihad Mismanagement, The Rider Strategy and Unethical Political Mismanagement

   Management of predators in particular should not be at the state level. State wildlife agencies represent traditional enemies of wolves, lions, bears, and bison, wolverines, coyotes. Game is managed for “sportsmen” and ranchers. This situation creates game farming and marginalization of predators, a drive down their numbers attitude. It is political management and a distortion of normal wildlife ecology. “Management” to state wildlife agencies means killing.

   Jon Tester (D) Senator MT and Mike Simpson (R) Representative ID in April 2011 opened a Pandora’s Box to political management and political shenanigans when they attached a rider to a defense appropriation bill in 2011 to delist wolves in MT and ID. On September 23, 2014 a federal judge put wolves back on the protected list in WY. On December 19, 2014 put wolves back on the protected list in the midwestern states of WI, MI, MN. Now Midwestern politicians and WY are trying the same thing again: circumvent federal authority through ESA or court rulings (September 23, 2014 in WY and last December December 19, 2014) which put wolves back on the endangered list because of state mismanagement and in effect scolding USFWS for not doing its job of protecting wolves from traditional enemies of wolves, hunters and ranchers and bedfellows in state wildlife agencies and conservative state legislatures and their ilk in congress and the senate. It amounts to political management of a wildlife species not scientific management. A rider is a stinky, shenanigans way of pushing through parochial legislation that would not likely stand the full light of open scrutiny in politicians’ own states or congress.Tester likes this tactic. He and other politicians used it recently on a smorgasbord of land bills attached as riders to another defense appropriations bill (2015). Wolves do not need to be managed by hunting and trapping seasons, a wolf jihad strategy by the ignorant wolf haters that is counter productive. Wolves will fill up available niches and manage themselves and they are good for the wilderness that is still available, whereas hunters and ranchers are not. Wolves should not be in the hands of state management, especially in MT, WY, ID and the Midwest states that have killed hundreds into the thousands since delisting. Wolves will manage their own populations and stabilize if left alone from state wildlife agency management in general and hunting and trapping are asinine management strategies, really just excuses for killing and catering to a minority of ignorant and mistaken, selfish and barbaric, retrograde interests.

   Reply ↓

2. Fire the Wildlife Agencies: (USFWS, Interior, state agencies, USDA Wildlife Services, BLM), and Canada which has killed thousands of wolves in name of ungulate farming:

   The US government, Canada and other nations (The march of civilization and rancher-hunter war on wildlife) have long been in the wildlife killing business. They have offered bounties on predators, poisoned and gassed prairie dogs, allowed the near extinction of bison, prairie dogs, black footed ferret, the wolf (wolf bounties), wolverine, and marginalized the grizzly, lion, and many others. The war on coyotes has been unrelenting. Hunters and ranchers, bedfellows of the wildlife agencies nearly wiped out most wildlife. With the advent of wildlife agency hunting regulations, the hunter has been somewhat contained; and now even count themselves as “conservationists” because they have essentially farmed game sport (recreational killing opportunities) animals and marginalized predators on the erroneous rationale of less predators to share game with the more game (recreational killing opportunities). Instead of an emphasis on wilderness and wildlife ecology, USDA Wildlife Services kills nearly over 3 million animals a year and state agencies millions more in recreational killing opportunities and “management”. State wildlife agencies use hunters to “manage” (“sportsmen”) game and predators. Ranchers may tolerate big bird and other sport game birds, elk, and deer and antelope; but are very hostile to predators. Wildlife agencies, state and federal, are not friendly to predators and defer to hunters, ranchers, conservative state legislatures, and their ilk and their interests in development and extraction and leases. Ranchers and farmers destroy wildlife habitat with the plow and grazing not only on private land but ever more and more on public land facilitated by the US government in leased grazing, leased farming, and leases to extraction industries avenues. Encroachers on public land often, in turn, adding insult added to injury, asks the federal government, such as Wildlife Services, to kill animals that are “encroaching” on their leased public land. Conservation efforts and new agencies such as ESA and EPA and private conservation agencies have and are battling for balanced ecologies, the predators, and many animals of no concern to sportsmen, ranchers and farmers, and extraction industries and development interests. Agencies, like the USFWS often cave into ranchers hunters, state wildlife agencies, conservative state legislatures, a government tradition of really prioritizing those interests. The arguments that threatens remaining wilderness and wildlife is as old as civilization, making a buck by the traditional enemies of wildlife. What is not appreciated enough is what little is left: In the US roughly 2.6 % in the lower 48 and another 2.5 % in Alaska; and this is under continuing and unremitting pressure from, guess where, the traditional enemies of wilderness and wildlife, still too often facilitated by the wildlife agencies. Private conservation agencies often find themselves in conflict with wildlife agencies who should be on their side and the side of preserving wilderness, balanced wildlife ecology, and the predators who are essential to the balanced wildlife ecology. The wildlife agencies, state and federal, need firing and revamping to emphasize wildlife preservation, wildlife viewing, and a heritage of wilderness and wildlife in what is left of the available habitat. There is something terribly wrong when we see wildlife agencies aligning with ranchers, farmers, “sportsmen”, conservative state legislatures. It is time for major upheavals of them, their agendas, their protocols, their heads and replacing them with priorities on preserving, recovering, protecting what is left of wilderness and wildlife, not siding with the traditional enemies of wildlife and wilderness (ranching, hunters, conservative state legislatures and predator hating and fearing parochials, extraction industries, and development and such parochial ilk that echoes their sentiments).

   USFWS, the very agency that should be out front protecting wolves is not. USFWS turned wolves over to state management (2012) in the midwest (recently re-listed by courts in WY and midwest), but still politically delisted in ID and MT. Since state management, hundreds have been killed by state agencies’ management by hunting and trapping. Federal judges have returned wolves in WY and the midwest (MI, MN, WI) to the protected list where they belong indefinitely. Wolves do not need to be “managed” by general hunting and trapping seasons; that is a anti-wolf myth and a state wildlife agency myth that goes along with a state level management of wildlife by hunting and trapping. State management means turning wolves over to about 6 percent of the population that hunts and and and traps and their buddies in the state wildlife agencies that sell them licenses, an unholy alliance of hunters, trappers and agencies. Wolves do no need to be managed in the way state wildlife agencies do; they will manage their own populations. Maybe particular wolves or wolf packs need to be “managed” but managing them by general hunting and trapping seasons is likely counter productive. Ranchers would be better off with nonlethal management and managing their livestock better vis a vis predators.

   Reply ↓

   • Couldn’t agree more. Wealthy special interest groups have too much power now. And adding those riders to bills where they just get passed along with the major bill should not be allowed. There are too many underhanded actions taken in that manner.

     Reply ↓

3. Reblogged this on Coalition for American Wildbirds.

   Reply ↓