1 dead in squirrel hunting accident

Sep. 22, 2013 |Written by Daily Herald Media

HAMBURG — One person is dead after a hunting accident in the western Marathon County town of Hamburg, police say.

The accident happened about 10 a.m. in a wooded area along Highway F, Marathon County Sheriff’s Lt. Fred Goch said. Detectives with the Sheriff’s Department and investigators with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources are investigating.

The name, age and gender of the victim are being withheld pending notification of relatives. More information is expected to be released later today. The hunter was shot while squirrel hunting, Sheriff’s Lt. Bill Millhausen said.

The hunting accident is the second in Marathon County in a week. On Sept. 15, a 20-year-old man was hospitalized after he was shot in the chest with a .22-caliber rifle while hunting on a trail near Happy Hollow Road in Kronenwetter, police said. The hunter was mistaken for a squirrel and was shot by another hunter, police said.

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Wisconsin #1 for Deer “Harvest”

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources boasts: “We rank first in the country for the highest single year deer harvest on record and are number one for deer harvest over the past decade. All of us work hard to keep it that way.”

Yet, according to a new article, Limited deer hunt may happen in three area communities, deer populations are doing too well in some parts of Wisconsin. Ironically, the state DNR is also keen to “control” (read: kill off) their wolf population through hunting and trapping, in part because wolves prey on deer. How contradictory is that?

Ashwaubenon, Allouez and De Pere considering deer population control measures

A limited deer hunt could take place in 2014 in parts of Allouez, Ashwaubenon and De Pere if local officials decide the population is too big for the area.

The municipalities hope to survey the deer population this winter in response to complaints from residents, who said the animals are damaging gardens and creating traffic hazards in certain neighborhoods. But they’re working slowly with this issue, which could prompt worries about safety, objections from animal-rights groups and other potential roadblocks.

Meanwhile, officials in the communities say they’re hearing from growing numbers of residents who don’t like deer grazing in their gardens, or having large animals darting across residential streets.

“We’ve certainly had more sightings of larger groups this year,” said Rex Mehlberg, Ashwaubenon’s director of parks, recreation and forestry. “People are seeing six, eight, 10 of them at a time. One group was 14 or 15.”

Local officials stress that no decisions have been made about whether they would allow a hunt, and that hunting would not take place in parts of town where people would be at risk. First, they would have to decide if they want to do a count of deer by helicopter this winter. The survey cost, estimated at $2,000, would be shared between the communities and likely would be funded in part through a grant.

De Pere officials are scheduled Oct. 1 to discuss funding for the study, said Parks, Recreation and Forestry Director Marty Kosobucki. he said the city also has discussed setting aside some money in its 2014 budget to clover part of the cost of a survey.

In Northeastern Wisconsin and elsewhere, complaints about deer have grown as communities have sprawled into areas that were once rural. Two Rivers was set to vote Monday night on allowing a limited bow hunt this fall.

More: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20130916/GPG0101/309160344/Limited-deer-hunt-may-happen-three-area-communities?nclick_check=1

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Wolf hunting still divides Wisconsin

JAYNE BELSKY — Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

In Madison and other urban parts of the state, wolves are noble creatures  along the lines of Jack London’s White Fang and Buck. In western and northern  Wisconsin, they are killers of the Big Bad variety.

Both views are correct, and both incorrect. Each is a matter of perspective  and personal priorities.

The state Department of Natural Resources has pursued a gray wolf management  plan that should appease both sides, but opinions have not budged much.

Last year, hunters and trappers killed 117 wolves under the DNR-managed plan.  They did not overkill, as some people had feared, remaining within the  constraints set by wildlife managers. An additional 126 died in accidents and  from other causes.

Yet despite nearly 250 deaths in 2012, the total population barely declined.  New wolves were born or moved in, and more than 800 still roam the state. The  DNR management plan calls for 350 wolves as a manageable, long-term population,  though that  figure is under review.

Despite last year’s successful hunt and plans for another this year limited to 251 wolves, a UW-Madison survey found public opinion remains entrenched. Eighty-one percent of respondents said their tolerance for wolves had not changed. At least the portion who had become more tolerant (14 percent) outnumbered those who became less tolerant (5 percent).

Support for hunting remains divided along geographic lines. Three-quarters of people who live in wolf range support it. Fewer than half outside the range do.

The DNR is handling the wolf challenge in a manner that protects people and property but maintains a viable population. All stakeholders have a seat at the table, and scientific data, not emotions, drive decision-making.

It’s easy to sit in Madison, far removed from any real wolf danger, and lament wolf killing. It’s also easy to sit in wolf country and complain about bleeding hearts. The hard thing is accepting Wisconsin’s smart compromise between killing every wolf and letting them run rampant.

United “Sportsmen” of Wisconsin Awarded $500,000 Grant to Promote Hunting

DNR awards $500,000 grant despite thorny questions

Group is lone bidder for award to promote hunting, fishing

Madison — A controversial $500,000 grant for promoting hunting and fishing was awarded Thursday by Natural Resources Secretary Cathy Stepp despite tough questions from the public and a committee meeting earlier in the day.

The United Sportsmen of Wisconsin Foundation, a group with close ties to GOP politicians and other conservative organizations but a scant track record, was the only applicant for the award.

Stepp awarded it to United Sportsmen late Thursday afternoon after the Sporting Heritage Committee that morning voted 4-1 in favor of the grant. The vote came after the group took public testimony that was entirely opposed to it.

In announcing her decision, Stepp released a finding by her legal counsel that United Sportsmen of Wisconsin met the criteria in state law for the grant and said in a statement that she had to award the money to United Sportsmen under a budget provision written by Republican lawmakers.

“I will be inserting clear and specific language within the grant contract to ensure that desired outcomes are met in an efficient and transparent manner with ample opportunity for public scrutiny. We will work to incorporate many of the concerns and ideas we heard during today’s hearing into the grant contract,” Stepp said.

United Sportsmen has been active in elections and lobbying over the past two years on behalf of conservative causes. But it has no history of doing the kind of training called for in the grant, though its board members have done so as part of other groups.

The grant was quickly approved in May in a session of the Joint Finance Committee on a motion written by Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford) and Rep. Dan LeMahieu (R-Cascade). The DNR posted the grant on an agency web page but did not put out a news release on it.

Its language prevented most established conservation groups, including the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and state chapters of Pheasants Forever, National Wild Turkey Federation and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, from applying for the grant.

Lone no vote

Mark LaBarbera of Hazel Green, the sole member of the committee to vote against United Sportsmen, asked the group’s president questions about its finances, structure and qualifications, stressing that “people around here think this just doesn’t smell right.” Afterward, he said he wasn’t satisfied with the answers as given.

“I didn’t think we had a clear enough answer that I could vote yes so I had to vote no,” LaBarbera said.

LaBarbera asked United Sportsmen president Andy Pantzlaff if he could provide a copy of United Sportsmen’s letter from the federal Internal Revenue Service showing it had received tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status.Pantzlaff, who called into the meeting, said he could provide that with enough time.

As of Thursday, there was no entry on the popular website, GuideStar, that United Sportsmen had filed the annual reports that federally recognized tax-exempt groups are supposed to file with the IRS, though sometimes those reports can lag in being filed or posted to GuideStar. Pantzlaff didn’t respond to a reporter’s phone messages and email request for this information.

The drafting file for the budget bill shows that a lawmaker asked for a specific change to the grant motion so the group receiving the grant would not have to be recognized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

In the legal memo released by Stepp, her chief legal counsel Tim Andryk noted that, “(United Sportsmen is) not required by the statute to be tax exempt or be a sec. 501(c)(3) organization as inquired about at today’s hearing, and thus a letter from IRS is not needed.”

In his statements to the committee by phone, Pantzlaff said his group would try to triple the grant amount by seeking private matching funds; not paying its board members; doing a national search for a full-time executive director; and hiring a full-time director of operations and part-time staffer to work on public policy.

The group would seek to train people who could serve as long-term mentors for people wanting to learn to hunt and fish, he said. The group also would bring programs such as the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle gun safety program into schools to get youths interested in shooting sports.

“Failure is not an option,” Pantzlaff said. “We have to try something new and innovative.”

The grant will provide $200,000 this year and $300,000 in 2014. Thereafter, it will provide $450,000 in each two-year budget. The grantee will have to provide $150,000 of its own funds in matching dollars in each future two-year budget.

The state budget includes no requirement that the grant be put out to competitive bid in the future, but Scott Gunderson, the committee chairman and the No. 3 official at the DNR, said the DNR could do that and likely would.

Gunderson said conservation groups such as the Gathering Waters and River Alliance of Wisconsin also received grants from the DNR for specialized purposes with little or no competition.

Most of those testifying praised the purpose of the grant but questioned why more of the state’s many hunting and fishing groups weren’t able to apply. Ray Anderson, a retired DNR grants employee who now teaches hunter safety, said he was concerned by the process of the grant and the fact it excluded the National Wild Turkey Federation, a group that he belongs to.

“It would be prudent for the Legislature and the DNR to hit pause on this,” Anderson said.

The five-member Sporting Heritage Committee is composed of Gunderson; Rep. Al Ott (R-Forest Junction); LaBarbera; Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn) and Bill Torhorst of Oregon. Ott, the first committee member called upon to vote, initially passed, voting yes after all the other committee members had voted and he was called on a second time.

Though its foundation was legally established in January, United Sportsmen of Wisconsin was formed about two years ago and has been lobbying lawmakers in favor of sporting legislation such as the creation of a wolf hunt as well as bills to ease the way for a controversial open-pit iron mine in northern Wisconsin and to better enable development in wetlands.

The group also sponsored the Sportsmen Freedom Fest and Concert in Lake Delton with Americans for Prosperity and the NRA in October 2012, just ahead of the presidential election. In 2011, the group Citizens for a Stronger America reported in its tax filing giving $235,000 to United Sportsmen along with large donations to two social conservative groups: Wisconsin Right to Life and Wisconsin Family Action.

ryanwax

State’s first hunt didn’t reduce tensions over wolves

The following article proves that when Yellowstone biologist, Doug Smith, stated, “To get support for wolves, you can’t have people angry about them all the time, and so hunting is going to be part of the future of wolves in the West. We’ve got to have it if we’re going to have wolves,” he was dead wrong; and when wolf hunter Randy Newberg told NPR News, “Having these hunting seasons has provided a level ofcopyrighted Hayden wolf walking tolerance again” he was totally full of shit…

State’s first hunt didn’t reduce tensions over wolves

Last year’s first managed wolf hunt in Wisconsin history did not increase tolerance toward the animals among people who live in wolf country, a new survey by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers shows.

With a growing wolf population, state wildlife managers and legislators who rewrote state hunting laws had hoped a hunting season would lower wolf numbers and reduce tensions over the animals.

But the survey shows this didn’t happen.

The last time the researchers surveyed public’s perception of wolves in 2009, 51% of wolf country residents said they would be more tolerant of wolves if the public could hunt them.

But in this year’s survey when asked the same question, residents in wolf country were much less accepting. The level of acceptance dropped to 36%.

When measuring the public’s attitudes in all parts of the state, 37% of the respondents said they would be more tolerant toward wolves with a public hunt. There was not a statewide comparison in 2009.

The wolf range is generally described as northern Wisconsin and the state’s central forests.

The hunt took place Oct. 15 to Dec. 23. Hunters and trappers killed 117 wolves, according to the Department of Natural Resources. The agency had set a harvest goal of 116 among non-tribal hunters and trappers.

“If one of the goals of the wolf hunt was to increase tolerance for the species, the first season did not accomplish this objective,” said Jamie Hogberg, a graduate student at the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.

Team led study

Hogberg was part of a team that examined public attitudes toward wolves. Others on the team were Adrian Treves, an associate professor of environmental studies; Bret Shaw, an associate professor of the Department of Life Sciences Communication; and Lisa Naughton, a professor of geography.

One possible explanation for the lack of change in public opinion is that despite the hunt, the state’s wolf population has changed little.

In April, the DNR estimated the wolf population from over-winter counts at between 809 and 831 animals in 216 packs. The previous winter’s estimate was 815 to 880 wolves in 213 packs.

The survey was sent to 1,311 people. There were 772 responses, or 59%. The vast majority — 538 — of people who responded reside in areas where wolves are present.

In January 2012, the federal government removed wolves from the list of protected animals under the Endangered Species Act in the Great Lakes states. That allowed states to manage the wolf population through hunting and trapping seasons.

The Legislature approved a wolf hunt in April 2012.

After Years of Progress, a Setback in Saving the Wolf

From the New York Times

By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Published: June 1, 2013

The 1973 Endangered Species Act provides federal protection — breathing space, in a very real sense — to plants and animals threatened with extinction. Had this task been left to the states alone, almost none of the species that have returned to health would have done so.

But the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service now plans to remove wolves from the endangered list in all 48 contiguous states and transfer control over their fate to the states. This may save the department from running battles with Congress, state officials and hunters about protecting the wolf. Whether it will save the animal is another matter.

Thanks entirely to federal protections, wolves have rebounded remarkably in some places. There are now about 4,000 in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and 1,600 or so more in the Rocky Mountain states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Interior has gradually delisted the wolves in all these places because, it says, their numbers are enough to guarantee survival. And it is not necessary to their survival, the service says, to protect wolves elsewhere.

But many scientists argue, persuasively, that these delistings are premature — that the service is giving up on recovery before the job is done. For one thing, they note a 7 percent decline in Rocky Mountain wolves since they were delisted and controlled hunts were authorized. They also note that other recovered species — notably the bald eagle and the American alligator — were allowed to expand into much of their historical range before they were removed from the list.

The historical range of the wolf is nearly the whole contiguous United States. There is suitable habitat all across the West still unoccupied by wolves, including the Pacific Northwest, Northern California and Colorado. A recovering wolf population isn’t static. It spreads as wolves rebound. The northern Rockies and the upper Midwest are proof of that. Can wolves recover suitable parts of their historical range without federal protection? The answer is almost certainly no.

Interior’s plan has little to do with science and everything to do with politics. Congress bludgeoned President Obama’s first interior secretary, Ken Salazar, into delisting the Rocky Mountain wolf. But there is no reason his successor, Sally Jewell, has to accept a plan to delist the wolves everywhere. It is hard enough to protect species that occupy hidden ecological niches. Politics has made it harder still to protect an intelligent, adaptive predator living openly in the wild.

copyrighted Hayden wolf in lodgepoles

Wolves Getting Booted Back to the Brink

When an activist friend asked me to write an overview of the wolf situation, my first thought was: “What a daunting and extremely depressing task that would be.” But having followed the wolves’ story since long before their reintroduction to Yellowstone and the Idaho wilderness, I suppose it’s only natural that I take this on. After all, I’ve covered the issue many times in articles, on my blog, and I devoted two chapters of my book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport, to the plight of wolves.

At the time I wrote the book’s chapter, “From the Brink of Oblivion and Back Again,” wolves were still federally protected and their removal from the Endangered Species List was just someone’s bad idea that had yet to see its dark day—I never quite realized just how apt that title would soon be. Until recently I remained hopeful that any wolf hunting would be strictly monitored and regulated, and that abusers would be fully prosecuted. Frankly, I thought we would be a little more evolved as a species by now.

But time and again states have proven themselves unworthy by declaring open seasons on wolves, without regard for the species’ future or for the welfare of individual wolves. Indeed, the ongoing warlike attack on wolves is anything but sporting or humane, with kill methods ranging from traps and snares to aerial hunting, running them down with dogs or luring them in and sniping at entire packs with semi-automatic rifles—depending on a given state’s predilection. At the same time, many hunters and trappers go out of their way to express their hatred for wolves through horrific acts of overkill. They seem to take sick pleasure in further degrading their victims by glibly posing in morbid photos of trapped or bloodied wolves, then spreading their snuff shots across the internet, fishing for praise, while taunting wolf advocates.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

For thousands of years, wolves played a central role as keepers of nature’s balance across the American landscape. Wolves are the personification of untamed wilderness; their presence is a sign of an ecosystem relatively intact.

But bigotry toward wolves has thrived across the country since colonial times and wolves have long been the object of unwarranted phobias. Today’s wolf-haters panic at the thought of natural predators competing for “their” trophy “game” animals and loath anything that might threaten their exploitive way of life. They view the federal government as the enemy in their ongoing combat against wilderness, and grasp for local control of species like wolves, who, until recently, were all but extinct in the continental U.S. Far from being their foe however, the federal government has actually been a fervent ally.

The contentious removal of wolves from the federal endangered species list—long before they were truly recovered—was a coldly calculated course set in motion by the Bush Administration, dutifully followed by the Obama Administration and rendered the law of the land through an underhanded act of Congress in 2011. This crooked covenant, conjured up for the sake of ranchers and trophy hunters, left the wolves’ fate in the custody of hostile western states…and fits right in with a centuries-old, historic norm.

In 1630, Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony—known for holding the first Thanksgiving Day celebration…and Salem witch hunts—felt biblically impelled and duty-bound to “subdue the earth.” Hence, they were the first to establish a bounty on wolves. Soon the other colonies followed their example and set bounties of their own, and a systematic genocide of wolves in America spread west with the “settling” of the land.

In 1818, Ohio declared a “War of Extermination” against wolves and bears. Iowa began their wolf bounty in 1858; in 1865 and 1869 Wisconsin and Colorado followed suit. State by state wolves were shot, trapped and poisoned to extinction. As the demand for wolf pelts increased, “wolfers” began killing grazers like elk or bison and poisoning the meat as bait, decimating whole packs of unsuspecting canines in one fell swoop.

By 1872, the year President Grant created Yellowstone National Park, 100,000 wolves were being annihilated annually. 5,450 were killed in 1884 in Montana alone, after a wolf bounty was initiated there. By the end of 1886, a total of 10,261 wolves were offered up for bounty (sixteen times Montana’s 2011 population of 653 “recovered” wolves). Wyoming enacted their bounty in 1875 and in 1913 set a penalty of $300 for freeing a wolf from a trap.

Not to be outdone, the US government began a federal poisoning program in 1915 that would finish off the rest of the wolves in the region—including Yellowstone. By 1926 wolves had been completely extirpated from America’s premier national park.

Having no more regard for wolves than those who originally caused their extinctions, willfully-ignorant wolf-haters in the tri-state area of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have not received their reintroduction with open arms but rather with loaded arms, hoping to turn the clock back to the dark ages of centuries past. The posture they assume on the subject of wolves is as warped and ill-informed as any Massachusetts witch hunter’s.

With the wolf population in the tri-state area at only a fraction of its historic sum, the federal government unceremoniously removed them from the endangered species list (and consequently from federal protection) in 2009, casting their “management” (read: eradication) into the clutches of eager states that wasted no time implementing wolf hunting seasons. Montana quickly sold 15,603 wolf permits, while their confederates in Idaho snatched up 14,000 permits to hunt the long-tormented canids.

For its part, Wyoming has stubbornly held to a policy mandating that wolves be shot on sight anytime they wander outside Yellowstone, allegedly to safeguard range cattle (who are actually 147 times more likely to fall prey to intestinal parasites). Wolves have killed a grand total of only 26 cows (out of 1.3 million head of cattle in the state). Still, the livestock industry is in control of their wolf management decisions. Though hunters there have killed 74 wolves this season, as of March 1st the state of Wyoming has expanded and extended its season indefinitely, declaring an open, year-round hunt on them. Winter, spring and summertime hunts are particularly harsh since this is when wolves are denning and raising their newborn pups.

On the other side of Yellowstone, the disingenuously but suitably named “Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition,” backed by a well-funded trophy elk hunting industry, filed and circulated an initiative petition in 2008 calling for the removal of “all” wolves there “by whatever means necessary.” Fortunately, even in the state famous for potatoes, militias and neo-Nazi compounds, they failed to gain enough public support to move forward with their avaricious initiative. Even so, the Idaho government has been quietly carrying out the “whatever means” approach by adding aerial hunting, trapping, snaring and baiting to their wolf devastation arsenal. This last season, 169 wolves were killed by trophy hunters in Idaho, while trappers there claimed the lives of 76.

It should come as no great jolt that Idaho hunters felt they could get away with asking for the renewed obliteration of an entire species—their governor, “Butch” Otter, publicly proclaimed he hoped to be the first to shoot a wolf as soon as they lost federal ESA protection. Failing that, Otter used his gubernatorial powers to declare his state a “wolf disaster area,” granting local sheriffs’ departments the power to destroy packs whenever they please.

“Meanwhile,” according to Defenders of Wildlife’s president, Jamie Rappaport Clark, “the federal government is sitting idly by as Idaho almost singlehandedly unravels one of our nation’s greatest wildlife conservation success stories. This is totally unheard of—never before has a species climbed its way back from near extinction only to be quickly decimated once again.”

Montana started out seeming to be the sensible state, appearing almost tolerant of wolves. But between their state legislature and their wildlife policy makers, they’ve made an about face and quickly caught up with their neighbors, displaying a total disregard for the public trust doctrine which holds that wildlife, having no owners, are res communes, belonging “in common to all of the citizens.” They’ve recently passed bills barring any protected zones outside Yellowstone Park, while legalizing silencers for wolf hunting and the use of recorded calls to attract wolves, as well as allowing five wolf tags per hunter, 12 years and older. (And a new state bill is proposing lowering the legal age of hunters to nine years old.) Legislators also proposed a cap of 250 on their state wolf population. Last year’s wolf hunt kill totals for Montana were 128 wolves shot to death and 97 killed in traps.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Since Congress stripped wolves of their Endangered Species status, an estimated 1,084 wolves have been killed in the Northern Rockies. Again, that’s ONE THOUSAND AND EIGHTY-FOUR living, breathing, social, intelligent wolves killed by scornful, fearful, vengeful and boastful hunters and trappers, often in the most hideous ways imaginable.

Thanks to a federal judge’s 2010 decision, the wolf was granted a one-year stay of execution. But in 2011 our federal legislators on Capitol Hill attached a rider to a budget bill circumventing that judgment. This serpentine, backbiting end-run around science and public opinion played right into the hands of anti-wolf fanatics in Idaho and Montana and cleared the way for the bloodiest butchery of wolves in almost a century. Case in point: the opening week of Montana’s nascent hunting season on wolves saw sportsmen set up just outside the park boundary gun down every adult in Yellowstone’s well-known and much-loved Cottonwood pack, leaving their dependent pups to starve.

As if that weren’t enough, on December 6, 2012, the familiar, radio-collared alpha female of the park’s Lamar Canyon pack was shot and killed by a hunter. Suddenly the average American was aware of the atrocities of wolf hunting, yet in spite of widespread public outcry, wolf-killing states have stepped up their single-minded assault.

Wyoming’s expanded wolf-killing season is all the more tragic given that spring is the time of year that wolves are denning. As Defenders of Wildlife points out, “This expanded hunt puts the most vulnerable population of wolves – pups and pregnant or nursing mothers – in greater danger of being shot on sight. This kill-at-will approach is exactly the kind of flawed policy we knew would happen if wolves prematurely lost their Endangered Species Act protection – this is why Defenders is suing the U.S. Department of Interior to restore ESA protection for wolves in Wyoming.”

It’s not like the administration didn’t know what might happen when the fate of the wolves was turned over to states with extreme anti-wolf plans already in place. In just two years nearly 1,100 wolves have been ruthlessly murdered by hunters and trappers eager to relive the gory glory days of the 1800s.

All this is going on in spite of well-documented proof that wolves are beneficial to a given environment, and despite the fact that the majority of Americans, including most visitors to Yellowstone and the tri-state area, want to see wildlife unmolested. They are not there to hunt—the money they spend reflects their strong interest in the quiet enjoyment of nature. A 2011 National Park Service report shows that the 3,394,326 visitors to Yellowstone spent $332,975,000 in communities surrounding the park. But these figures could drop dramatically if Yellowstone wolves continue to be slaughtered.

Yellowstone is fertile ground for watching and learning about wolves. Biologists studying the Yellowstone ecosystem have found that since their reintroduction to the park, wolves have kept elk herds on the move, thus allowing over-browsed streamside riparian habitats to regenerate. Among the species that rely on a healthy riparian zone—and therefore benefit from the presence of wolves—are moose, trumpeter swans, warblers, wrens, thrushes, beavers, muskrats and the Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Everywhere they’re found, wolves play an important role in maintaining the health of ungulate herds by preying primarily on infirm or diseased animals, ensuring a healthy gene pool. And the remains of their kills provide a welcome relief for hungry scavengers, from bears to ermine to wolverines to bald eagles.

But the number of animals killed by wolves is grossly overplayed by their detractors. According to Yellowstone National Park data for 2011, project staff found that wolves barely took a bite out of Yellowstone’s rich and varied biota. And it’s long been established that wolf populations, left alone, are self-regulating; data from Yellowstone backs that up as well. Like humans, when they feel the pinch of too many of their own kind in a given area, they start to turn against one another. 2011 saw seven wolves killed in intra-pack quarrels. Yellowstone’s fluctuating wolf population has declined from 174 in 2003 to around 80 in 2012. Since then, hunters and trappers targeting wolves along the park’s borders have brought the current population down to the low 70s, as of this writing.

In addition, scientists studying the relationships between keystone predators, trophic cascades and biodiversity have found that ecosystems which include these predators have more diversity and are more resilient to climate change and stresses caused by a growing human population.

Sadly, state game departments are out of touch with these concepts. For example, according to a 2012 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department survey, there are 141,078 elk in the state, 55% over their management “objective” of 90,910; but rather than allowing wolves to solve their elk “problem,” they want to reduce the number of both elk and wolves. That policy is not scientific; it’s downright kill-happy. And an alleged threat to the cattle industry is certainly no excuse for the rampant killing of these important predators. Out of the approximately 2.6 million cattle in the state, only 74, or .0003%, were taken by wolves in 2011.

Biologist Bob Hayes, author of Wolves of the Yukon, wrote: “I spent 18 years studying the effects of lethal wolf control on prey populations. The science clearly shows killing wolves is biologically wrong. As I began to better understand the wolf, I developed a clear answer to my question about the effectiveness and moral validity of lethal wolf control programs. I can now say the benefits of broad scale killing of wolves are far from worth it…It should never happen again.”

And the late Canadian naturalist and author, R D Lawrence, stated in his book, In the Presence of Wolves: “Killing for sport, for fur, or to increase a hunter’s success by slaughtering predators is totally abhorrent to me. I deem such behavior to be barbaric, a symptom of the social sickness that causes our species to make war against itself at regular intervals with weapons whose killing capacities have increased horrendously since man first made use of the club—weapons that today are continuing to be ‘improved’.”

The 1996 reintroduction of wolves to the northern Rocky Mountains in Yellowstone and wilderness areas of Central Idaho as mandated by the Endangered Species Act–along with protections against hunting and trapping all too briefly afforded them under the ESA–gave the wolf a temporary reprieve and allowed Nature to reign again over some of her sovereign lands.

Yes, wolves are spreading out, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there are more of them; each time they find a given habitat hostile to them, they continue to branch out in search of someplace safer and more hospitable. The total wolf population of the tri-state area has fluctuated, reaching a high of around 2000 individuals. An impressive figure perhaps, unless you consider that 1,089 were killed this year (not including those killed by federal “Wildlife Services” agents); or that 10,261 wolves were destroyed between 1884 and 1886 in Montana alone; or even that 380,000 wolves once roamed the country.

While all this is going on, the Great Lakes states have been racking up a high wolf body count of their own. Wisconsin in particular seems to be bucking for a most merciless award—the cruelties they’ve unleashed on wolves are the stuff of nightmares. Though recent studies suggest wolf predation may suppress CWD (chronic wasting disease—the deer equivalent of mad cow disease), Wisconsin has spent 27 million de-populating its white-tail deer to curb CWD. To underscore the irony of this: no CWD has been detected in areas where wolves live in that state. In addition to CWD, wolves have been shown to reduce or eliminate brucellosis, ironically benefitting the very Montana ranchers who vilify them

Anti-wolf fanatics are an organized bunch of thugs. Lately a deceptively named hate-group calling itself “Big Game Forever” has been luring Utah state funds away from essentials such as schools and into their anti-wolf agenda. Just recently they leached $300,000 for their campaign against wolves in that currently wolf-less state.

States, such as South Dakota, that don’t even have wolf populations are hastily re-classifying wolves from the status of protected to “varmint,” in the event that any lost wolf happens by.  Even states as progressive as Washington are jumping on the bandwagon, allowing people to kill wolves without permit and changing the wolf’s status to “big game,” ahead of their anticipated complete removal from federal ESA protection. This can’t be allowed to happen—the minute federal protections are lifted, wolves will be fair game practically everywhere in the country!

As Aldo Leopold pointed out in 1949: “If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part of it is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of eons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”

Who but a fool, indeed.

With the return of widespread wolf hunting, it will take today’s anti-wolf bigots only a few years to boot this misunderstood embodiment of wilderness back to the brink of oblivion.

________________________________________

This post includes excerpts from Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

No, Trapping in Wisconsin State Parks Can’t Be Done Without Hurting Someone

Some articles in the mainstream media are so completely one-sided that they’re nothing short of sales pitches for animal exploiters. Reading them gives me the overwhelming urge to call “bullshit” at the top of my cyber-lungs (apologies to those with tender sensibilities). The following are excerpts from one such article (this one is from a Wisconsin newspaper).

My comments are between paragraphs (in parenthesis)….

Carolyn Schueppel was walking her dog in a privately owned conservation area near Lake Waubesa where dogs were commonly, but illegally, let off the leash. She let Handsome, her three-year-old Border collie mix, stretch his legs, and he raced out of sight. She found him just beyond the conservancy border in a Conibear trap that had been set to catch and kill raccoons. Terrified, Schueppel struggled with the trap but was unable to open it, and was forced to watch Handsome die.

(Sick. No one should have to go through that—raccoons or otherwise. The article makes a point to mention that she let her dog off leash “illegally,” yet does not condemn people for setting baited torture devices in the woods).

“It was horrible,” Schueppel says. “It’s still horrible. I’m struggling. The trapper set his trap on private land about 100 yards from where he was supposed to be. I don’t want to walk in the woods by myself anymore.”

(Typical, the animal exploiter ruins it for the rest of us.)

A year later Fred Strand and his golden retriever, Hank, were hunting for grouse and woodcock in northern Wisconsin when Hank stepped on a foothold trap intended to catch wolves. This time, the dog’s story ended happily. Strand is a wildlife biologist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and knew how to pry open the jaws of the trap. The foothold trap is the same design used by biologists who capture large predators to attach radio collars for studying their habits. Hank ran on without injury.

(Had it been a wolf, rather than a dog, the story would not have ended “happily.”)

New legislation will open most state parks to trapping for the first time this April. These parks will also be open for trapping from Nov. 15 to Dec. 15. Under the law traps need to be set more than 100 yards from trails, park shelters and other high-traffic areas.

(100 yards is not very far. Again, the laws are to protect people and pets; wildlife be damned.)

Conservationists say trapping is a useful tool for maintaining healthy wild animal populations. Trappers say they are harvesting a renewable resource to supply a global market for fur clothing.

(If I hear the words “useful tool” or “renewable resource” in reference to trapping animals again, I’m going to go on the warpath!)

Opponents say trapping is unnecessary and inhumane.

(Yep, it sure is.)

Beyond the philosophical differences, are we going to see an increase in the number of pet injuries or deaths in the state parks that now allow trapping? And how safe are hikers who step off the trails?

John Olson, a DNR furbearer biologist, says that traps on dry land “won’t have any impact on dogs at all.”

(Tell that to Carolyn Schueppel and her dog—rest his soul.)

He also doesn’t see any problem with traps set in water to catch beaver and muskrats. Olson says that hunting dogs used for game birds and water fowl have been sharing the trapping landscape for years without much conflict, and that trappers are experienced in trying to avoid places where their traps could catch a dog.

(Of course he doesn’t see any problem with it; he’s a DNR trapper-lackey.)

Trapping is increasing

The DNR Fur Trapper Survey of 2011-12 showed the number of trappers, the number of traps they set and the number of animals they caught are all increasing. The number of animals trapped during that time period by licensed trappers has been estimated at 588,000. That includes 151,400 raccoons.

(Sadly, trapping doesn’t seem to be a dying sport in that state.)

Brad Lease, a trapper from Ridgeway, began trapping about seven years ago. Lease used to bow hunt but quit when gun hunting was allowed during bow season in his part of the state, a change made by the DNR in response to the presence of chronic wasting disease in the local deer herd. He didn’t think it was fair to the deer, especially during the rutting season, when the animals are easy to shoot.

With trapping, he says, he can “be outdoors and enjoy everything you can see there. My son was 3 when I started trapping. I would bundle him up, put him in my trapping pack, and we’d go check traps.”

(Gee, lucky kid…)

Lease traps mostly raccoon and muskrat. When his son was 8, Lease signed them both up for a trapping class. “But catching the animal is only half the battle,” says Lease. “You have to skin the animal and comb it out and flesh it, which is taking all the meat and fat off the hide, and then stretch it on a form and let it dry so it’s ready to go to the auction.”

(Pretty morbid stuff to be teaching an 8 year old.)

Lease’s son, who is now 10, puts his trapping earnings into his college fund. He averaged $23 a raccoon in the January auction of the North American Fur Auction.

($23 every time he takes a life. Either tuition is dirt cheap in Wisconsin or the kid will have to murder and skin a whole lot of raccoons to pay for his schooling. Hopefully he’ll take a course in cognitive ethology and learn that non-humans experience pain and fear the way he would if he were caught in a trap.)

Heart of the fur trade

The fur trade in Wisconsin goes back long before statehood. By 1830 overhunting drove the furbearer populations almost to extinction.

(It was wrong then and it’s still wrong.)

Today Wisconsin is once again at the heart of the fur trade. The bulk of the international fur trade passes through the North American Fur Auction, held four times a year in Toronto. The company’s website states that it auctioned nearly one million raccoon skins in the past year, adding “it is these very large quantities that make NAFA the preferred supplier to our buyers, especially the Chinese.”

(One million skins of torture victims sold; what a thing to brag about—sounds like a McDonalds slogan.)

Many of these furs are funneled through the auction house’s facility in Stoughton. The bulk of the furs processed there are farm-raised mink, which are devoured by the global fashion industry. Most Americans have become repelled by the idea of wearing fur…

(Now that makes me proud to be American.)

Fur is seen as a renewable resource…

(Aaargh, they said it again!! Fur is not a fucking “resource,” it’s the hair and skin of a sentient being! Why don’t they get it?)

Only 2% of the wild fur harvested in the United States stays here, according to Dennis Brady, who is the trapper liaison for NAFA in Stoughton.

(“Harvested” is another one of those arrogant, anthropocentric words.)

Though he works for the auction house, Brady says money is the wrong reason to be a trapper.

“It’s hard to break even when you add up your time and fuel. I’m in it to learn. I’ve been trapping for 46 years, and I do know a lot, but I learn something new every day.

(It’s called an obsession—an unhealthy obsession with a victim, like a stalker or serial killer. And there are a lot of non-lethal ways to learn about wildlife.)

“Once you become a trapper and start learning where and how these animals live, it wakes up your awareness. Just because you are a trapper doesn’t mean you are out there just to kill everything.”

(Yes it does! It’s not like you’re not out there picking flowers, or mushrooms or berries, or observing an animal’s behavior through binoculars.)

For example, a foothold trap, which will not be permitted in Wisconsin state parks on land, is commonly used elsewhere to trap coyotes and wolves. “People think this is a monster trap with big teeth. But that kind of trap is not legal now,” says Olson. “You see old bear traps like that hanging on the walls in hunting lodges, but today we only allow small foothold traps that have been modified to improve animal welfare. It may have an offset that closes with the jaws slightly apart so the animal is held but not pinched. Some have padded jaws. Some are laminated to spread out the clamping force.”

(The monsters are the people who leave a wolf or coyote stuck in a trap for days and nights, unable to join the rest of their pack. Trapped animals aren’t out there thinking: “Boy, isn’t this a comfortably padded trap.” They are desperate to free themselves. Though trappers like to downplay or dismiss it, trapped animals often resort to chewing their own foot off to escape. I’ve seen several three-legged coyotes throughout the West and found the chewed-off foot of a lynx in British Columbia.)

In Wisconsin, says Olson, there were “61 reported foothold incidents with dogs since 1997, roughly four a year.”

(That’s not a low number in my opinion, although Montana has had 51 dogs get caught in traps this year alone!)

Cruel and inhumane

There are many who do not believe that any trap can be considered humane. The Humane Society of the United States opposes trapping as well as fur ranches. The group objects to any killing of animals for the production of apparel and accessories. However, the Dane County Humane Society has created a position statement recognizing that “wildlife populations may exceed the carrying capacity of their natural habitat” and that “trapping may be a useful and necessary method for managing these populations through appropriately trained individuals and entities such as state wildlife agencies.”

(Clearly, the Dane County “Humane” Society is not affiliated with the HSUS.)

The local opposition to trapping of any kind is led by Patricia Randolph, an artist who maintains a wildlife refuge on her property near Wisconsin Dells. She writes a nature column in The Capital Times called Madravenspeak every other week.

Randolph says the expansion of trapping on publicly purchased land will “in the most cruel and dark-ages way, destroy the rest of our wildlife.” She urges those who oppose hunting and trapping to get involved in the state’s Conservation Congress, which helps to determine regulations for hunting, trapping and fishing in Wisconsin.

(And it doesn’t get much darker than trapping.)

The Humane Society of the United States sees no justification for any form of trapping except where live trapping benefits animals or their ecological systems.

Laura J. Simon, wildlife biologist for the group, says that “foothold traps cause animals to suffer tremendously. Wild animals panic when they are caught in a trap. Plus, if predators see a trapped animal, it can be eaten alive. Being caught in a trap is a pretty bad experience for most wildlife.”

(Well said, except for the use of the word, “most.”)

Learn what to do if your pet is caught in a trap.

The Lincoln County Humane Society has prepared a comprehensive guide to freeing a dog from three common traps that are legal in Wisconsin: the foothold trap, snares and the body-gripping (Conibear) trap. Print it out and put it in your glove box: http://www.furrypets.com/pets/images/documents/RemoveDogFromTrap.pdf

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013

 

Some Cold Hard Facts about Wisconsin Wolf Hunting

Facts about Wisconsin Wolf Hunting:

  • The state of Wisconsin’s wolf hunting season began at an hour before dawn today, October 15th, and runs non-stop until the end of February.
  • Wisconsin received more than 20,000 applications for just 1,160 permits, some from as far away as Florida, Texas, and California. (Meanwhile, in Minnesota, wildlife officials have set a quota of 400 wolves and awarded 6,000 permits.)
  • State rules allow hunters to slay wolves by a crude assortment of methods and with a callous array of sadistic devices, including luring with bait, strangulation by snaring and slow-death in steel-jawed leg-hold traps.
  • In addition, the state had planned to allow hunters to start using hounds to hunt wolves beginning Nov. 26, when their deer season ends. But Dane County Judge Peter Anderson issued a temporary injunction against the use of dogs on Aug. 31, after humane societies and environmental groups sued. (Though Wisconsin currently does not allow the use of hounds for hunting wolves, they do allow hounding for bears, raccoons and many other undeserving species).
  • Kurt Thiede, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources* (DNR) lands division administrator, has issued a statement in support of the use of hounds: “We … have learned from other states that harvesting a wolf can be difficult. The use of dogs is a key way to increase hunter success. We will continue to work with the court to remove the injunction on the use of dogs….” (*Note to Mr. Thiede and the rest of the DNR: Wolves are not a “resource,” they are intelligent, sentient beings. Also, killing them is not “harvesting,” it’s murder!)
  • Wolves were once abundant in Wisconsin, numbering around 5,000 in the 19th century, before they were hunted and trapped to extinction.
  • Wolves have recently been shown to contribute to a greater diversity of understory plants, as well as improved deer herd and trout stream conditions, but the Wisconsin DNR has decided to allow hunters and trappers to kill 201 wolves this year alone.
  • Today the wolf population is growing and DNR estimates that the state could support 700 to 1,000 wolves. Yet they speculated that “this level may not be socially tolerated” and therefore have decided to limit the state’s wolf population to only 350 individuals. Of course, hunters and trappers are all-too eager to help…

Again, the injunction on the ‘hounding’ is only in place UNTIL DEC 20TH

Voice your objections to the use of hounds for wolf hunting and tell the court that hounding is not acceptable! Tell the governor and the legislators that the Wisconsin wolf hunt is exceptionally savage and will give the state a black eye. Please continue to put pressure on the governor’s office, the legislators, and the tourism department:

Governor Scott Walker

govgeneral@wisconsin.gov

608-266-1212

115 East Capitol

Madison, WI 53702

Wisconsin residents can find contact info for your legislators here: www.wisconsin.gov/state/core/government.html

You may also want to tell the tourism department that you will be unable to bring your family to Wisconsin for any future vacations, as you do not patronize the wolf killing states:

Wisconsin Dept. of Tourism

1-800-432-8747 or 608-266-2161

201 West Washington Ave.

P. O. Box 8690

Madison, WI 53708-8690

tourinfo@travelwisconsin.com

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somebody Definitely Needs a New Heart

Normally I would feel sorry for a girl born with a rare heart disease that requires her to get both a heart and liver transplant. But when 11 year old Kaitlynn Bessette of Stetsonville, Wisconsin, shot a 335 pound black bear through the heart, she lost all my sympathy.

Why is it that when some people suffer adversity they feel the need to take it out on others? And what is going on in the mind of a pre-teenaged girl that makes her want to kill a magnificent animal like a bear anyway? How can a person who knows all too well what it’s like to be the target of undeserved misfortune say, “I felt thankful, like really thankful I shot a bear”? Are kids today reading or watching too many stories, such as “The Hunger Games,” where the heroin is a huntress? Or maybe they’re playing too many violent video games, like “Cabela’s Big Game Hunter 2012” (available for only $79.99 in Xbox or Wii).

Of course, Kaitlynn wasn’t out there on her own; she had the help of the Wisconsin-based “United Special Sportsman Alliance,” a hunting group that grants wishes for children (most of which no doubt involve killing animals). They must have lured the bear in with bait and had Kaitlynn safely stationed in a tree-stand close enough for an easy kill, since she wasn’t even looking when she pulled the trigger: “…I held the gun as steady as I could, I turned my head and then I shot.”

After learning that her daughter had killed a bear, her mother said, “I started instantly crying.” Crying would be an appropriate reaction to hearing that a bear’s life was just unnecessarily ended or learning that your youngster was a murderer, but Mrs. Bessette was crying tears of joy instead of sorrow, “…it was amazing.” Kaitlynn’s father was equally pleased with the carnage, “She’s a good kid. I’m really proud of her.”

The family plans to mount the bear’s remains on their wall to keep the memory alive. Had the child been satisfied with taking only a photograph of the animal, both the memory—and the bear—could live on.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson