Tag Archives: wolf hunt

The Time to be Bold is Now

Posted on by
10

copyrighted wolf in river

The Time to be Bold is Now

By Brett Haverstick On February 8, 2014

Over the years, I have come to realize that the current wildlife management model in America, at the federal level, and particularly, the state level, is broken. The system is such, in which, politics trumps the best-available science, the special interest-minority overwhelms the democratic-majority and the almighty dollar is more powerful than ethics, heritage and legacy. Can this be found throughout the American political landscape? Of course, the answer is yes. But when applied to the current wolf slaughter taking place in the West, and in the Great Lakes, it fits perfectly. In fact, it embodies it.

During my brief time working in the conservation community, I have sadly concluded that both grassroots and national conservation groups, and every-day citizens, are limited to the degree, in which, they can enforce public lands laws, ensure that the best-available science is used and entrust that public sentiment is reflected in wildlife policy and management decisions. Recent examples of this include–with all, unfortunately, taking place in Idaho–are the Wolf-Coyote Derby in Salmon, the killing of two wolf packs in the Frank-Church River of No Return Wilderness by a 21st Century bounty hunter and the efforts of Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter to launch a predominantly tax-payer funded, $2-million dollar independent wolf control board to wipe out another 500-grey wolves. If this were to occur, wolves would be reduced to the bare-minimum of 150-wolves in Idaho (federally mandated), would not be able to fulfill their ecological niche, and most importantly, could be on the precipice of yet, another extinction.

The conservation community, and the American people at-large, is now approaching the crossroads. Do we continue to take the band-aid approach (attending public meetings, issuing action alerts, circulating petitions, and filing appeals/lawsuits) or do we step out-of-the-box and confront the root causes of the problem? While some may respectfully disagree with me, or question the feasibility of such a challenge, I advocate for the latter.

So what solutions do I offer? The 5 Keys to Reforming Wildlife Management in America, are as follows:
1.Restructuring the way state Fish & Game departments operate. Politics: western governors appoint agency commissioners, which essentially, tell the state departments what to do. This is cronyism at its worst. Economics: state departments are mostly funded by the sale of hunting/fishing tags or permits. These agencies are bound into serving the interest of “sportsmen” because it’s the hand that feeds them. Modern funding mechanisms, the application of best-available science and genuine public involvement are sorely lacking in these institutions and it must be addressed. Another option would be to empower the federal government to manage wildlife on federal public lands.
2.Removing grazing from all federal public lands. The “management” or “control” of native wildlife to benefit the livestock industry is ground zero. It is also well documented the damage that grazing causes when livestock infests wildlands. Livestock are non-native and largely responsible for soil compaction, a decrease in water retention and aquifer recharge, erosion, destruction of wetlands and riparian areas, flooding and a net-loss of biodiversity. Grazing enables invasive plant species to proliferate, which greatly affects the West’s historic fire regime.
3.Abolishing Wildlife Services. Hidden within the US Department of Agriculture, is a rogue agency that is essentially the wildlife killing-arm of the federal government. For over 100-years, this federal tax-payer supported agency has largely worked on behalf of the livestock industry and is responsible for the death of tens-of millions of native wildlife. Methods of killing include trapping, poisoning and aerial gunning. Conservation efforts are currently culminating into a potential Congressional investigation of this corrupt agency.
4.Banning trapping/snaring on all federal public lands. We must evolve as a society and move away from this barbaric, unethical, cruel and tortuous method(s) of killing native wildlife. Leg-hold traps, conibear traps and other devices are indiscriminate killers. Over the past couple years, there has been an increase in the number of dogs caught/killed by traps when recreating with their owners on public lands. When is an adult or child going to step into a leg-hold or body-gripping trap? Some states currently require individuals to check their traps every 72-hours, while other states only recommend that trappers check them, at all.
5.No killing of predators, except for extreme circumstances. For example, an aggressive and/or habituated bear may need to be killed after non-lethal measures have failed. Otherwise, non-lethal measures should be implemented in rare instances where there are actual human/predator conflicts. The best available science suggests that predators, including wolves, are a self-regulating species. In other words, predators don’t overpopulate. Instead, their populations naturally fluctuate, as do prey or ungulate populations. We need to better understand and embrace the trophic cascade effect predators have within ecosystems.

How do we take that ever-so-important first step, you may ask? We embark on this journey, together, on June 28 – 29, 2014 at Arch Park in Gardiner, Montana.

Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014 is an opportunity for the American people to unite and demand wildlife management reform. It’s about taking a critical step towards stopping the grey wolf slaughter. It’s about hope, our collective-future and restoring our national heritage and legacy. The weekend-long event is family friendly and will feature prominent speakers, live music, education and outreach booths, children’s activities, food and drink vendors, video production crews and the screening of wildlife documentaries.

On June 28-29, 2014, Americans from all walks-of-life will converge at Arch Park in Gardiner, Montana to tell the government we need to reform wildlife management, at both the state and federal level. With your support and participation, this will be the event of the year in the northern Rockies. Together, we can make history and embark on restoring our wild national heritage. The time to be bold is now.

Meanwhile in CA, Gray wolf doesn’t warrant endangered status, official says

Posted on by
4

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Gray-wolf-doesn-t-warrant-endangered-status-5208673.php

by Melody Gutierrez Wednesday, February 5, 2014copyrighted wolf in water

Sacramento —

The gray wolf should not be listed as an endangered species in California, according to staff at the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, much to the chagrin of wildlife conservation advocates who petitioned for the designation.

Following a yearlong review, the department’s director, Chuck Bonham, told the California Fish and Game Commission on Wednesday that there is scientific evidence to support some protections for the gray wolf, but not for listing the animal on the endangered species list. The commission will consider his recommendation and may act on it this spring.

“Look, this decision has been weighing on me for weeks,” Bonham said. “It’s possible I may lose friends over this, which is why I ask everyone to read the documents before passing judgment.”

The recommendation was in response to a petition filed by conservationists in 2012 seeking protections for the species after a gray wolf from Oregon, known as OR-7, entered California. It was the first wild gray wolf in the state in almost 90 years. The wolf has since gone back to Oregon but has made some short excursions to the Golden State.

Bonham said his department’s recommendation is to designate the gray wolf as a species of special concern, prohibit the killing of OR-7 or other gray wolves and consider recommendations for placing the gray wolf on the state’s endangered species list at a later date.

Bonham said the recommendation documents will be posted on the department’s website by Thursday. Bonham’s announcement comes as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing the gray wolf from the federal list of threatened and endangered species.

Nearly all of the public comments at Wednesday’s meeting in Sacramento on the gray wolf petition favored listing the animal as endangered.

“Wolves deserve a chance to recover in California, so it’s disappointing to see the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s recommendation against protections,” said Amaroq Weiss, West Coast wolf organizer at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that petitioned the state to have the gray wolf listed as an endangered.

In other developments at the Fish and Game Commission meeting, commissioners agreed to take up a possible ban on killing contests, a response to a controversial annual coyote killing contest held in Modoc County.

The annual event, scheduled for this weekend, triggered outrage last year after Project Coyote and several other conservation groups started a statewide campaign to stop the killings.

Camilla Fox, executive director of Project Coyote, said wildlife killing contests are more common than the public realizes. Organizers of the event have attempted to hide the contest from public view due to criticism and media attention.

One supporter of the event, Perry St. John, said the coyote hunt is held this time of year to help reduce the coyote population before spring calf births.

“It’s not killing for fun,” St. John told the commission during public comments. “It’s a chance for people to come together.”

A Federal Reprieve for Wolves

Posted on by
21

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration backed away — for now — from its plan to lift federal protections for gray wolves throughout the continental United States after an independent report on Friday faulted the science behind the proposal.

The study by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis found that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s proposal to delist the animal from the Endangered Species Act is “not well supported by the available science,” according to a statement from the University of California-Santa Barbara, which houses the center.

The proposal “was strongly dependent on a single publication, which was found to be preliminary and not widely accepted by the scientific community,” according to the statement.
The authors — who at the administration’s request did a peer review of the science behind the wolf plan — said additional research is needed before the administration can decide whether to delist the species or keep it on Endangered Species Act.

The Fish & Wildlife Service turned to the California center for an objective scientific analysis after encountering a barrage of criticism from conservationists and scientists whose research was used in writing new wolf rules. The government had no role in picking the scientists who did the study.

In response to the findings, the Fish & Wildlife Service decided to once again seek public input before issuing final wolf rules. The previous public comment period ended in December and the administration planned to issue a final rule this year.

Reopening public comments is a sign that the administration is rethinking its position.

“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,” Fish & Wildlife Director Dan Ashe said in a statement. “We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period.”

copyrighted Hayden wolf in lodgepoles

Idaho Lowering Big Game Hunting Age to 10?

Posted on by
9

[Next they’ll be wanting to kill more wolves so 10 year olds will have a better chance of “getting their elk.”

http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/idaho-lowering-big-game-hunting-age-to-10/

by Heather Pilkinton on February 4, 2014.
This is neither the website of, nor affiliated in any way with, Guardian News and Media.

Hunting is a way of life for many in Idaho, but a new proposal has some questioning how young is too young to huntsafe_image big game. Idaho lawmakers are considering a proposal which would lower the current age to hunt big game, such as elk, from 12 to 10.

Right now in the state, children as young as 10 are able to hunt small game like duck and rabbit, as long as they have completed a hunter’s education program and are accompanied by a licensed adult. However, the type of gun needed to hunt big game is different than small game, which leads to the question as to whether a 10-year-old is capable of handling that level of firearm.

Currently those 12 and over are able to hunt without an accompanying adult as long as they have completed a hunter’s education program. As per Idaho law, anyone born after January 1, 1975, must complete a hunter’s education program, or show proof of a valid license from another state in order to purchase a license.

Part of the reason for the idea of lowering the hunting age is to boost stagnant hunting and fishing license sales in the state, which have hovered around the 330,000. Wildlife regulators hope that by lowering the age, hunting can be promoted as a family activity, especially in this age of electronic entertainment. They are hoping that lowering the hunting age will bring families with kids back to Mother Nature.

Sharon Kiefer, the Idaho Fish and Game Deputy Director, has stated that more women are getting into hunting, but admits that not all parents are keen on the idea of younger children being out in the field with a high powered firearm. One former conservation officer and hunter education instructor, Tony Latham, worries about a 10-year-old handling a rifle, even a scaled down model, that can shoot a bullet for miles when hunting big game.

This is not the first time that Idaho’s hunting practices have come into question in the past year. In December, 2013, the Wolf and Coyote Derby held in Salmon brought a lot of unwanted attention to the state from animal rights activists, from both inside and out of the state, who sought to stop the derby. This derby is one of a few derbies in Idaho; the annual Hannah Bates Memorial Rock Chuck Derby in Bliss serves as a fundraiser for cancer research and other charity programs.

Idaho is also under scrutiny for another piece of legislation not related to hunting. Republican lawmaker Lynn Luker recently introduced two bills that would make it legal for professionals to refuse service to individuals based on characteristics such as sexual orientation, if that individual was “contrary” to the professional’s sincerely held religious belief. This would mean that a teacher could refuse to teach a child who is gay, or a medical professional could refuse to accept a single mother as a patient if items such as birth control violates that medical professional’s religious teaching.

The idea to lower the big game hunting age from 12 to 10 also comes at a time when gun violence as a whole is a pressing issue throughout the United States. The number of school shootings has raised the question as to how young is too young to handle a gun? This is brought to the forefront even more as gun manufacturers are making “youth” firearms, which are scaled down models of those used by adults.

However, many will say that education plays a big part in firearm safety and that younger hunters will benefit not just by Hunter’s Education, but by being mentored by experienced, adult hunters. Kiefer believes this and this sentiment is echoed by Jim Toynbee, who has taught hunter’s education for nearly 40 years, though Toynbee admits a lower hunter age would not be possible without the smaller sized rifles. He said his main concern is that a young hunter might get too excited and not make a clean shot. This means an animal might be unnecessarily wounded, where an experienced hunter would harvest the animal with a clean kill.

If the hunting age is lowered in Idaho from 12 to 10 for big game, it will not be the only state with a minimum age of 10; Maine and Nebraska both have that same minimum age with adult accompaniment. Those states who do have minimum ages often require adults to be with minor hunters. However, considering the type of firearms used and the controversy around children and firearms in general, the question is how young is too young to hunt big game in Idaho?

By Heather Pilkinton

Bill to Fund Killing up to 500 Wolves Survives Committee

Posted on by
6

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/bill-to-fund-killing-up-to-wolves-survives-committee/article_1dbf6eec-87dd-11e3-bbcb-0019bb2963f4.html

January 28, 2014
By Kimberlee Kruesi –

BOISE • Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter’s proposed $2 million fund to kill as many as 500 wolves barely passed its preliminary vetting Monday by the House Resources and Conservation Committee.

Committee members quizzed sponsors state Sen. Bert Brackett, R-Rogerson, and Rep. Marc Gibbs, R-Grace, on the effectiveness of creating a separate fund — which would come with a five-member oversight board — when the state already funds a predator damage board.

Bracket and Gibbs responded that the proposed expense would keep the focus on wolves instead of splitting resources on the state’s Animal Damage Control Board.

Federal support to control wolves will stop in 2016, Brackett said. In Fiscal Year 2013, the federal government provided $650,000 of the state’s $1.4 million wolf management budget.

If the bill passes, the $2 million would be a one-time appropriation with the livestock industry and hunting license fees contributing $110,000 each year.

“The priority of this whole effort is to keep the wolves delisted,” Brackett said.

Idaho’s wolves were taken off the endangered species list in 2011. Today, the state’s wolf population is estimated to be around 680 animals, according to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. If it falls below 150, the species will be once more classified as endangered by federal regulators.

The committee repeatedly questioned the need for two boards dedicated to killing predator animals that cause damage to livestock or Idaho’s elk population.

“How is this a more cost-effective approach to start a new board than to put a little more money into Idaho Fish and Game?” asked state Rep. Illan Rubel, D-Boise.

Gibbs countered that a separate board allows the state to be flexible.

The new wolf fund would not pay for livestock killed by wolves but to kill wolves that cause damage, Gibbs said.

“There are no new ways to control wolves being projected or being created by this bill,” Gibbs said. “They are simply subject to the tools we have today, which is sport hunting, trapping and aerial gunning.”

The committee voted 9-8 to move the legislation forward, with the chairman initially declaring the bill failed before Gibbs speaking out he hadn’t voted and provided the “yes” needed for the bill to be printed.

This is the second consecutive year lawmakers have tried to secure funding dedicated wolf control. Last year, Otter vetoed a bill that would have diverted money from Fish and Game to a wolf management fund. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, who voted against Brackett’s and Gibbs’ proposal.

Boyle said committee recommendations from the summer of 2013 supported added money to the Animal Damage Control Board for wolf damage.

“I feel like this is a breach of contract of what was promised in that committee,” she said.

Brackett said that while a committee may have submitted recommendations, their bill was based on what the governor wanted.

Idaho’s wolf control management strategies have received criticisms recently after Fish and Game hired a trapper for the first time to kill two packs in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River.

Wolf activists also spoke out against Idaho’s elk management plan during a recent public hearing updating the document.

copyrighted wolf in river

What Motivates a Wolf Killer?

Posted on by
12
Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2014. All Rights Reserved

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2014. All Rights Reserved

Killing a wolf is a crime against nature—and the motive depends on the kind of perpetrator. To a trophy hunter, a dead wolf is something to mount on a wall and brag about. By literally possessing the animal, they can relive their kill over and over, remorselessly boosting their flagging self-esteem every time they vacuously gaze at their victim’s lifeless body. For a fur trapper, a dead wolf is just a hide and a chance to play modern-day frontiersman. Although there’s no real frontier left, they consciously choose to revive a bloody, destructive lifestyle—partly for money, but mostly for a sense of identity.

But to a “wolfer,” the kind of person whose central preoccupation is hiring on to rid an area of each and every last wolf he can, a prime sense of greed is the motivating factor.

Sure, a guy like that, such as the wolfer contracted by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to snuff out the Golden Creek and Monumental Creek packs in Idaho’s Frank Church Wilderness Area, must get an ego boost from being known as a “professional” wolf killer. He no doubt experiences some kind of perverse thrill every time he finds an animal desperately trying to free him-or-herself from one of his leg crushing traps. And he probably even gets off on hearing that his actions are upsetting a lot of empathetic wolf advocates who desperately want him to stop his atrocities. But the main reason the wolfer does the job he does is greed, pure and simple: a selfish lust for power, control and of course, money.

That may not seem like a lot to accuse him of in a country built on the spoils of selfishness and greed. Yes, he is surely evil incarnate, soulless and sick to the core, but as long as someone is paying him to “get the job done”… And who the hell pressed the state into hiring a hit man to eliminate established packs, tormenting individual wolves and disrupting nature’s time-tested order? Ask the Idaho trophy elk hunting syndicate.*

The wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness area weren’t after anyone’s cows or frightening school kids at bus stops, they were just doing what comes naturally to wolves. Killing off apex predators to make it easier for sport hunters has got to be the height of human arrogance.
________________________________
*syn-di-cate (noun) 5) an association of gangsters that controls an area of organized crime

Never Mind, Idaho Does Suck–Worse Than Ever

Posted on by
14

[Drop those champagne glasses, Idaho doesn’t deserve praise just yet. Although an Idaho judge decided to halt the slaughter of two packs in the Frank Church wilderness area, some of their lawmakers won’t be satisfied until they’ve killed most of the wolves in the rest of the state!!]…

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/lawmakers-2m-aimed-to-kill-more-than-500-wolves/24142924

Lawmakers: $2M aimed to kill more than 500 wolves

             Associated Press
POSTED: 3:29 PM Jan 27 2014

BOISE, Idaho –

Republicans promoting Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter’s proposed $2 million fund to kill wolves say they hope the cash helps eliminate more than 500 of the predators in Idaho, reducing numbers to 150 animals in 15 packs.

Rep. Marc Gibbs of Grace and Sen. Bert Brackett of Rogerson Monday told the House Resources and Conservation Committee the cash set aside with Otter’s proposal will bolster Idaho’s predator arsenal.

Idaho now has about 680 wolves, according to state Department of Fish and Game estimates.

Brackett says the priority is to keep wolves delisted, even with these proposed killings.

He said provided Idaho still has 150 wolves – the minimum required in a 2002 plan approved by the Idaho Legislature – “we’ll have a defensible line of defense” against renewed federal protections.

copyrighted Hayden wolf walking

Grand Teton National Park wolf death shrouded in secrecy

Posted on by
12

By Mike Koshmrl Daily | Posted: Friday, January Jackson Hole 24, 2014 12:15 am

Even though hundreds of Wyoming wolves having been killed over the years during hunting seasons and for attacking livestock, until Monday not a single one had ever been purposely killed in Grand Teton National Park.

But that’s about all one can learn about the wolf that was shot in the park four days ago. Virtually no information is being made available about the animal that was shot and killed on private land within Grand Teton.

“Since present-day Grand Teton National Park was created in 1950, this is the first intentional killing of a gray wolf,” Grand Teton spokeswoman Jackie Skaggs said.

What is known, according to a statement the park issued the next day, is that the wolf was 2 years old, was not wearing a radio collar and was accompanied by three to four pack mates.

After firing the lethal shot Monday morning, someone notified the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Grand Teton rangers at 10:30 a.m. that day.

Pending completion of the investigation, no other details are available, Skaggs said.

“We’re hoping to have a determination relatively soon,” she said.

Neither outfitters nor conservationists nor residents of Moran, Kelly and the Pacific Creek subdivision phoned by the Jackson Hole Daily had heard any other details about the incident.

Skaggs said she was not allowed to confirm if the lobo had been shot in defense of pets or property. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department, which is conducting a concurrent investigation, was also unable to release details.

“This falls under that state statute we have,” Game and Fish spokesman Mark Gocke said. He was referring to a law that prohibits the release of information related to wolf hunting.

“We did go out and investigate it and through our investigation determined it falls within that statute,” Gocke said. “At that point I can’t speak to it any more.”

In full the statute states: “Any information regarding the number or nature of legally taken within the state of Wyoming shall only be released in its aggregate form and no information of a private or confidential nature shall be released

without the written consent of the person to whom the information may refer. Information identifying any person legally taking a wolf within this state is solely for the use of the department or appropriate offices and is not a
public record.”

Wolf hunting is never legal in Grand Teton National Park, including inside privately owned inholdings, Skaggs said.

copyrighted Hayden wolf walking

Idaho “Tough on Wolves”

Posted on by
6

Here is part of an article entitled “Tough on Wolves” in Spokane’s Inlander: http://www.inlander.com/spokane/tough-on-wolves/Content?oid=2256023

If the education budget is in JFAC’s custody and Medicaid expansion is off the table, what hot topics will the legislators address? My prediction: Guns and wolves will attract a fair amount of attention.

According to the Fish and Game Department, Idaho now has around 680 wolves throughout the state. In 2009, wolf hunting became legal, and the governor announced he wanted to shoot the first one.

Idaho and its predators caught the attention of the New York Times this past December, when a planned coyote and wolf shoot-to-kill derby was scheduled in Salmon. Organizers offered $2,000 to the participants who killed the most animals. The event fell flat when no wolves and only 21 coyotes were bagged by the 230 registered contestants.

Not everyone is happy with Governor Otter’s $2 million budget request to establish a special wolf control board, separate from the Department of Fish and Game. “Control” is another word for “kill.” I, for one, would rather put the $2 million in the public school pot.

The Fish and Game Commission is already actively “controlling” wolves by hiring a lone gunman to eliminate wolves in the 2,367-acre Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. The Idaho Conservation League has been remarkably tolerant on the wolf issue. But recently its Executive Director Rick Johnson asked, ” If they can’t live in the backcountry, where can they live?”

When 35 gray wolves were released in central Idaho in 1995, schoolchildren gave them names and followed their radio-relayed paths through the wilderness. As they thrived, their names disappeared and the wolves became numbers. As they multiplied, they became pests. Wolves, like coyotes, have always been pests to Idaho ranchers — and to the Idaho legislature.

It’s refreshing to learn about Oregon’s approach to a burgeoning wolf population. Oregon has developed a policy that calls for sheep and cattle outfits to use nonlethal methods to prevent wolves from snatching baby animals, especially lambs. These include simple measures such as keeping herds away from known wolf dens, employing loud noise alarms and scare devices, enlisting protective dogs and human herders, constructing barriers and building fences. Such items add costs but also avoid conflicts.

Consumers could be wooed to pay a little bit more for lambs raised in a certified, nonlethal-to-wolves environment.

The questions the reintroduction of wolves into Idaho has presented are worth pondering. Do we believe game hunting should include animals that we don’t plan to eat? Is there room in our hearts, minds and geographical space for predators other than our own species?
copyrighted wolf in water

Gray Wolf Shot and Killed within Grand Teton National Park

Posted on by
14

[If not safe there, where?]

MOOSE, WY — A gray wolf was shot and killed at a private inholding within Grand Teton National Park on Monday, January 20, 2014. The person who fired the lethal shot notified Wyoming Game and Fish Department wardens and they reported the situation to park rangers at approximately 10:30 a.m.

Grand Teton National Park rangers and a park biologist responded to the area to investigate the incident. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is conducting a concurrent investigation.

The wolf was a two-year-old male and was not radio-collared; its pack affiliation is unknown. At the time of the shooting, this wolf was in the company of three to four pack mates.

The incident is under investigation by the National Park Service in consultation with United States Attorney’s Office, District of Wyoming, and no further information will be released until the investigation is concluded.

copyrighted Hayden wolf in lodgepoles