Tag Archives: wolf hunt

Comment info Montana Wolf Hunt Proposal, 2013-14

Posted on by
12

From Wolfwatcher.org:

NWC Official Statement: Montana Wolf Hunt Proposal, 2013-14

May 13th, 2013

Montana officials estimated that at least 625 wolves, in 147 verified packs, and 37 breeding pairs inhabited the state at the end of 2012. During Montana’s 2012/2013 wolf season, hunters and trappers killed 128 wolves and trappers took 97 wolves for a total of 225. The actual numbers of wolves killed in the state, however, estimates more than 300 when factoring in wolves that were killed by depredation control (USDA’s Wildlife Services killed 108 wolves), vehicular accidents, disease and other natural causes.

Montana FWP Commission proposed its 2013-14 wolf hunting and trapping season. Comment period begins on Mon., May 13th and ends on June 24th at 5PM. Final decision will be made at a Commission meeting on July 10th in Helena.
•Submit via online submission – or – email: fwpcomm@mt.gov
•Submit via USPS mail at FWP – Wildlife Bureau, Attn: Public Comment, P.O. Box200701, Helena, MT 59620-0701

PROBLEMS:
1.Archery-only hunting would run from Sept. 7 through Sept. 14.
2.The hunting season is extended – the general hunting season (Sept. 15 and ending March 31, 2014); trapping season (Dec. 15 through Feb. 28, 2014)
3.The overall bag limit is 5 wolves per person in any combination of wolves taken by hunting or trapping, – an increase from 1 per person last year.
4.Wolf quotas would be maintained in areas near Montana’s two national parks, with a quota of 7 wolves in an expanded Wolf Management Unit 316 near Yellowstone National Park and a quota of 2 wolves in WMU 110 near Glacier National Park.
5.A new regulation would allow hunters to take a wolf over bait placed for trapping

BACKGROUND:
• As of Jan. 2013, Montana has 2.6 million head of cattle and 225,000 sheep. FWP Director Jeff Hagener said in a press release, “Confirmed livestock depredations due to wolves included 67 cattle, 37 sheep, one dog, two horses and one llama in 2012. Cattle losses in 2012 were the lowest recorded in the past six years.”
•In April 2012, MtFWP’s former Commissioner Ream stated, “The arrival of wolves in the West Fork added to the predatory pressure on the elk herds, but does not come close to the impact that mountain lions have. Statistics show that the elk population statewide is doing well with numbers at an all-time high of 112,000. He said the state management objective calls for 90,000 which means the state is about 22,000 elk over objective.” Ream suggests, considering a number of factors, that it was “a perfect storm“ that led to elk population reductions in Hunting district 250. Those factors include hunting, predation and weather and have all have tipped the balance in that area against the elk. He said the drop in the calf/cow ratio had hit a critical low, but did show some sign of recent recovery.
•In a May 1st article in the Independent Record, FWP Recommends Expanded Wolf Hunt Season and Bad Limit , George Pauley, FWP Wildlife Management Chief, said the reasons for the proposed changes in Montana’s 2013-14 wolf hunting season are twofold. “We’re just looking for opportunities to hunt wolves … and it’s an attempt to reduce the population,” Pauley said. “We’ve always had a philosophy of incrementally increasing harvest rates and opportunities.”

The National Wolfwatcher Coalition submitted its

NWC Official Public Comment re: Montana’s wolf hunting proposal for 2013-14.

We have already reached out to the Commission so that we can ensure the voices of all stakeholders are represented in its policy objectives. You are invited to review our statement and use it as a resource to guide the drafting of your own public comment via the directions above.

Questions or Comments? Contact us via email at : info@wolfwatcher.org

Michigan Lunatics Are Running the Asylum

Posted on by
15

Apparently, the average law-abiding citizen officially has no say any more in the state of Michigan. Anyone with a modicum of compassion for non-human animals is being ignored, written off and treated like a child in a power coup led by anti-wolf fanatics in their game department, state legislature and governor’s office.

After all the information that’s come out about the benefits of wolves to an ecosystem, or the intrinsic rights of animals, wolves are still being treated as vermin, trapped, snared and bounty-hunted as blindly as they were in the ignorant 1800’s. Indeed, all hell is breaking loose across the West.

Here’s what the mainstream media wants us to know about the situation there [my comments in brackets]:
Governor signs bill that may open door for wolf hunt
by Anne Cook

LANSING — Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation today that may open the door for a wolf hunt in Michigan.

Senate Bill 288 gives the Natural Resources Commission the responsibility to establish managed open season hunts for wild game. It exempts the taking of mourning doves, pets and livestock.

The Legislature will maintain its ability to both add and remove species on the list.

“This action helps ensure sound scientific and biological principles guide decisions about management of game in Michigan.” Snyder said. “Scientifically managed hunts are essential to successful wildlife management and bolstering abundant, healthy and thriving populations.”
[Explain how killing healthy wolves is supposed to bolster thriving animal populations.]

The legislation met plenty of opposition, however, from groups like the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected coalition. The KMWP said the legislation was an attempt to run around a proposed referendum on wolf hunting.

“The legislature wants to silence the voice of Michigan voters, circumvent the democratic process and nullify the more than 255,000 signatures submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office,” said Jill Fritz, director of the KMWP coalition.

Michigan Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm group, however, applauded the signing of the legislation [no surprise there] calling it a “triumph of science and reason over emotion stirred by out-of-state interests.”

“Michigan voters’ strong support for Proposal G in 1996 made it clear residents want oversight of wildlife management in the hands of experts,” said Rebecca Park, legislative counsel for Michigan Farm Bureau. “Despite what opponents to this legislation would have you believe, these bills are very much about respecting and reinforcing the people’s will, not denying it.”

[No doubt Michigan residents never knowingly intended to give up their right to the voter initiative process in regards to wildlife.]

“We welcome visitors from out-of-state to come enjoy the bounty of our woods and waters, but have to remain vigilant and draw a line when deep-pocketed activist groups try to tell us how to manage those resources,” Park said.

[Deep pocketed? Surely “out of state” wolf proponents’ pockets are not as deep as the ones on the OshKosh B’Gosh coveralls worn by members of the Michigan Farm Bureau or the suits of their lobbyists.]

Meanwhile, here’s the press release from Keep Wolves Protected:
Governor signs bill allowing NRC to designate animals as game species without legislative or voter oversight

LANSING, Mich. – The Keep Michigan Wolves Protected (KMWP) coalition expressed its deep disappointment in Gov. Rick Snyder, who today signed legislation (SB 288) that circumvents voter rights by allowing the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to establish a wolf hunting and trapping season before Michigan voters can decide the issue in the November 2014 election.

“Governor Snyder has betrayed the trust of Michigan voters by signing legislation that takes away their referendum right to challenge laws on animal issues. And Governor Snyder failed to defend Michigan’s Constitution by allowing the democratic process and referendum vote in Nov. 2014 to be circumvented. The governor’s action validates the perception that state government is broken and does not reflect the best interests of the people it is supposed to serve. This is a dark day in the history of Michigan and for people who believe in fundamental democratic principles and the humane treatment of animals. We will not give up the fight to stop wolf hunting and trapping in Michigan,” said Jill Fritz, director of KMWP.

SB 288 has resulted in Michigan’s 7.4 million registered voters losing their right to decide whether to protect Michigan’s declining population of 658 wolves in the November 2014 election. KMWP submitted more than 255,000 petition signatures on March 27 to suspend Public Act 520 – a law that was rushed through last December’s lame duck legislative session and classifies wolves as a game species, until a referendum vote in November 2014.

SB 288 was fast-tracked through the legislative process before the Board of State Canvassers has certified signatures from registered voters from every corner of the state. SB 288, which empowers the NRC, a politically-appointed panel of seven persons, to designate animals as game species without legislative or voter oversight, is an an end run around the referendum and an attempt to silence the voice of over quarter of a million Michiganders who signed petitions to stop wolf hunting and trapping . Michigan voters would be unable to reverse decisions of the NRC because it is a regulatory body and not the Legislature.

Facts
• Michigan’s wolf population has decreased from 687 to 658 according the latest census by the Department of Natural Resources.
• More than 2,000 Michigan residents from the Upper and Lower Peninsulas volunteered for Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, a coalition of animal welfare groups, conservationists, veterinarians, Native American tribes and faith leaders, to gather signatures during sub-freezing temperatures in just 67 days.
• Despite the wolf population’s fragile status and over the objections of renowned Michigan-based wolf scientists, the Michigan legislature rushed a bill through in December 2012, opening the door to the same practices that virtually eradicated the wolf population in the first place.
• Wolves are extremely shy and have a natural fear of humans. In the past 100 years, there has never been a verified attack by a wolf on a human in the lower 48 states.
• Current state law already allows farmers and dog owners to remove or shoot wolves that are attacking their animals, and farmers may obtain a permit from the DNR to remove additional wolves following a depredation incident. Fewer than 8 percent of the Upper Peninsula’s farms have reported any wolf depredations in the past 17 years.

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

The Perverse Logic of Wolf Hunts

Posted on by
7

I’d been wondering how many cows died from other causes, versus the fewer than 100 (or 0.0003%) killed by wolves. This article includes some of those figures…

The Perverse Logic of Wolf Hunts

by GEORGE WUERTHNER

The hysteria that surrounds wolf management in the Rockies has clouded rational discussion. Wolves are hardly a threat to either hunting opportunity or the livestock industry.

ELK NUMBERS ABOVE OBJECTIVES

For instance, the Wyoming Fish and Game reports: “The Department continues to manage to reduce Wyoming’s elk numbers. The total population of the herds with estimates increased by 16 percent in 2009 and is now 29 percent above the statewide objective of 83,640 animals.”

Things are similar in Montana. Populations have grown from an estimated 89,000 animals in 1992 prior to wolf recovery to 140,000-150,000 animals in recent years.

In Idaho we find a similar trend. According to the IDFG 23 out of 29 elk units are at and/or above objective. Hunter success in 2011 was 20%: one in five hunters killed an elk.

Wolves are clearly not a threat to the future of hunting in any of these states.

LIVESTOCK LOSSES EXAGGERATED

Ranchers are equally irrational. In 2010 Wyoming livestock producers lost 41,000 cattle and calves due to weather, predators, digestive problems, respiratory issues, calving and other problems. But total livestock losses attributed to wolves was 26 cattle and 33 sheep!

Last year Montana livestock producers lost more than 140,000 cattle and sheep to all causes. But total livestock losses attributed to wolves was less than a hundred animals.

In 2010 Idaho cattle producers lost 93,000 animals to all causes. Respiratory problems were the largest cause accounting for 25.6 percent of the cattle lost. Next came digestive problems, accounting for 13.4 percent of the cattle deaths. Total cattle losses attributed to wolves was 75 animals.

To suggest that wolves are a threat to the livestock industry borders on absurdity.

WOLF CONTROL INCREASES CONFLICTS

Worse yet, the persecution of predators does not work to reduce even these minimum conflicts as most proponents of wolf control suggest.

The reason indiscriminate killing does not work is because it ignores the social ecology of predators. Wolves, cougars, and other predators are social animals. As such, any attempt to control them that does not consider their “social ecology” is likely to fail. Look at the century old war on coyotes—we kill them by the hundreds of thousands, yet ranchers continue to complain about how these predators are destroying their industry. And the usual response assumes that if we only kill a few more we’ll finally get the coyote population “under control.”

The problem with indiscriminate killing of predators whether coyotes, wolves, cougars or bears is that it creates social chaos. Wolves, in particular, learn how and where to hunt, and what to hunt from their elders. The older pack members help to raise the young. In heavily hunted (or trapped) wolf populations (or other predators), the average age is skewed towards younger age animals . Young wolves are like teenagers—bold, brash, and inexperienced. Wolf populations with a high percentage of young animals are much more likely to attack easy prey—like livestock and/or venture into places that an older, more experience animal might avoid—like the fringes of a town or someone’s backyard.

Furthermore, wolf packs that are continuously fragmented by human-caused mortality are less stable. They are less able to hold on to established territories which means they are often hunting in unfamiliar haunts and thus less able to find natural prey. Result : they are more likely to kill livestock.

Wolf packs that are hunted also tend to have fewer members. With fewer adults to hunt, and fewer adults to guard a recent kill against other scavengers, a small pack must actually kill more prey than a larger pack. Thus hunting wolves actually contributes to a higher net loss of elk and deer than if packs were left alone and more stable.

Finally hunting is just a lousy way to actually deal with individual problematic animals. Most hunting takes place on the large blocks of public land, not on the fringes of towns and/or on private ranches where the majority of conflicts occur. In fact, hunting often removes the very animals that have learned to avoid human conflicts and pose no threat to livestock producers or human safety. By indiscriminately removing such animals which would otherwise maintain the territory, hunting creates a void that, often as not, may be filled by a pack of younger, inexperienced animals that could and do cause conflicts.

INSANITY IS DOING SAME WRONG THING OVER AND OVER

We need a different paradigm for predator management than brute force. As Albert Einstein noted, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Unfortunately, insanity has replaced rational thought when it comes to wolf management.

Montana Mulls Upping Hunter “Harverst” Limit to FIVE Wolves

Posted on by
11

HELENA — Montana wildlife commissioners may extend the hunting season for wolves and the number of predators that can be killed by a hunter or trapper.

“We’ve always had a philosophy of incrementally increasing harvest rates and opportunities,” FWP Wildlife Management Chief George Pauley said in an article in today’s Great Falls Tribune entitled, “FWP proposes extending wolf hunt, kill limit.” The changes would allow hunters more opportunities and reduce the wolf population,
he said.

Well that’s just fucking great; more hunter “harvest” opportunities, fewer wolves–what a philosophy!!

The agency also is proposing allowing hunters and trappers to take up to five wolves each, the Independent Record reported Wednesday.

Last year, hunters and trappers could take only one wolf. The state Legislature this year passed a bill that allows the agency to increase that limit.

The commission takes up the proposal at its May 9 meeting in Helena….

copyrighted-wolf-argument-settled

Intolerance is Sometimes the Only Humane Stance

Posted on by
30

There’s been a lot of talk about tolerance these days, but sometimes it seems only the Left side really takes the concept of peaceful acceptance to heart. Fair-minded folk are encouraged to politely tolerate each other’s differences in order to get along. But lately the anti-wolf faction has hijacked the word to justify the killing of wolves.

For example, ten Washington state legislators recently urged their Fish and Wildlife Commission to enact a policy of allowing the unpermitted killing of wolves, “to maintain social tolerance for gray wolves in northeast Washington.” And a wolf-hunter/wildlife snuff film producer told NPR News, “Having these [wolf] hunting seasons has provided a level of tolerance again.” Sorry, but I just don’t see how killing wolves promotes tolerance for them; sounds more like enmity than tolerance.

The only way I can relate is from a converse perspective: doing away with a few wolf hunters might provide some level of tolerance for them.

Still, tolerance should not be just a catchall catchword to be bandied about whenever the mood strikes—some things don’t deserve to be tolerated. No caring person should be expected to tolerate the mistreatment of others. Anyone with a sense of right and wrong should eventually come to the conclusion that intolerance is sometimes the only humane stance to take.

Intolerant is what Japanese whalers label anti-whaling groups or non-whaling nations when they question the “right” to harpoon and butcher whales or trap and slaughter dolphins. South Koreans, who literally torture dogs to death and boil cats alive in the belief that doing so makes them taste better or improves their medicinal value, call humane activists intolerant when they oppose those barbarous customs. And European and American producers of foie gras scream cultural intolerance when animal advocates work to end the bizarre practice of shoving a pipe down the throats of geese and force feeding them until their livers swell or their stomachs burst, whichever comes first.

Meanwhile hunters and trappers expect us to tolerate the torment they unleash on wolves and other wildlife. Members of a civilized society should not hesitate to take a stand against cruelty to other sentient beings—who are fully capable of suffering—in the same way they oppose cruelty to human victims.

This post includes an excerpt for the book, 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

Letter-length Answer to an Anti-Wolf Extremist

Posted on by
3

Dear Editor,

It was bad enough to read another damning letter from an anti-wolf extremist asking, “Is the wolf an animal we want protected in our area?” as though it’s our birthright to pick and choose which wildlife species are welcome and which are not—that kind of human arrogance is always unwelcome. But since the letter was full of hyperbole aimed at striking fear into the hearts of sport hunters, by suggesting that wolves are completely wiping out the elk in Montana, someone has to set the record straight.

Having recently lived in Montana, I’ve seen and photographed my share of wolves, but also thousands of elk and mule deer. 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 continue to reduce the number of both elk and wolves. That policy is not only flawed, it’s downright kill-happy.

And an alleged threat to the cattle industry is no excuse for today’s rampant killing of these important predators either. Out of the approximately 2.6 MILLION cows in Montana, only 74, or 0.0003%, were taken by wolves in 2011.

But if there has been any drop in business for Montana’s trophy elk hunting industry, it’s because wolves keep elk on the move (thus doing their job of preventing over-grazing). With elk in Montana now wilder and less complacent, the common complaint you hear from hunters is not that they’re disappearing, but that they’re gettin’ “harder to hunt.”

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

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

 

An Answer to an Anti-Wolf Extremist

Posted on by
16

Here’s a letter to a local Washington state newspaper from a budding anti-wolf extremist, followed by my response letter…

“Damage wolves do”
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to Lorna Smith’s column (April 3), “Why are we so afraid of wolves?”
It’s not the wolf itself, it’s the killing they do to our deer and livestock that I’m afraid about.
I have a friend who lives in Arlie, Mont., where the wolves are abundant. He states that the wolves have completely destroyed the elk herds in his area – and are now preying on the deer.
He also states that the economy has really suffered in the area as the sportsmen are not coming to hunt anymore.
Also, there was an article in the April 2013 Western Horseman magazine. One of the featured articles was “Range Riders of the Upper Green.” The story is of Doc Foster – his main job was caring for the cattle. He states that dealing with the predator-livestock conflict took most of his time – that the wolves attack the cattle herd in a pack and focus on dragging the cattle down by the back and hindquarters. “They are killers,” Foster says. “They [wolves] eat the heart, liver and lungs and then go on.”
Is the wolf an animal we want protected in our area?
Seems like several new wolf pairs have just “arrived” in Washington state lately.
Betty Wagoner
And my response?…

Dear Editor,

It’s bad enough to read a damaging letter from an anti-wolf extremist (“Damage wolves do”) who asks, “Is the wolf an animal we want protected in our area?” as if it’s our birthright to pick and choose which species are welcome and which are not. But when the main thrust of the letter seems to be to spread disinformation—aimed at striking terror in the hearts of hunters—that “wolves have completely destroyed the elk herds” in Montana, well, someone has to set the record straight.

Having recently lived in Montana, I’ve seen and photographed my share of wolves, but also thousands of elk; and some of the mule deer herds were nearly a hundred strong in places. 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.

Meanwhile, there are currently fewer than 600 wolves in that state (hunters and trappers killed nearly 200 last season). Yet Montana wildlife officials say they are hoping to reduce the wolf population to around 450. Of course, that number does not even come close to representing a recovered state wolf population by any historical standards when you consider that 10,261 wolves were destroyed between 1884 and 1886 in Montana alone after a bounty was first initiated there—or that 380,000 wolves once roamed the lower 48.

An alleged threat to the cattle industry is certainly no excuse for today’s 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.

But if there has been any drop in business for the trophy elk hunting industry, it’s because wolves keep elk on the move; wilder and less complacent. In one of their most telling remarks, Montana hunters have complained that wolves make elk “too hard to hunt.” Ever their lackeys, state game managers have used that claim as an excuse to promote wolf hunting, rather than sticking up for wolves by pointing out that they are just doing their job of preventing elk from over-grazing.

So next time you hear hunters complaining about wolves, remember, it’s not because they really think wolves are going to eliminate all “their” elk—they just don’t want to have to walk too far from the pickup truck to make their kill.

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

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

How Much Are WE Willing to Tolerate?

Posted on by
15

For the first decade or so after their reintroduction to Yellowstone and central Idaho in 1996, the Federal Endangered Species Act safeguarded wolves from overzealous hunters and trappers, but as the director of the USFWS pointed out, the ESA is “not an animal protection act.” Blanket protection of any non-human animal goes against the grain of our political agencies, which are ultimately only answerable to the one species with the any hope of representation—Homo sapiens.

The right of an American species not to be hunted to extinction is a relatively new advancement. At present, it‘s about the only right extended to the nonhumans in this, the land of the free. Now that wolves are off the Endangered Species list in any state with even a minor population, the feds plan to remove them from the U.S. list completely, casting any pioneering individual or would-be wolf pack to the mercy (or lack thereof) of whichever state is fortunate enough to be graced by their presence.

An organized bunch of thugs, anti-wolf fanatics have been on point, lying in wait for the day wolves lose all protection and are deemed “fair game” for their killing pleasure. 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.

Others, such as South Dakota, have hastily re-classified wolves from the status of protected to “varmint,” in the event that any lost wolf happens by. Even “progressive” Washington state jumped 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.

A classic example of what will happen the minute wolves lose federal protections was made clear yesterday as Washington state lawmakers approved “Emergency Rule WAC 232-36-05100B Killing wildlife causing private property damage” which includes the following provisions:

1) An owner of domestic animals, including livestock, the owner’s immediate family member, the agent of an owner, or the owner’s documented employee may kill one gray wolf (Canis lupus) without a permit issued by the director, regardless of its state classification, if the wolf is attacking their domestic animals.

(a) This section applies to the area of the state where the gray wolf is not listed as endangered or threatened under the federal endangered species act.
(b) Any wolf killed under this authority must be reported to the department within twenty-four hours.
(c) The wolf carcass must be surrendered to the department.
(d) The owner of the domestic animal must grant or assist the department in gaining access to the property where the wolf was killed for the purposes of data collection or incident investigation.

(2) If the department finds that a private citizen killed a gray wolf that was not attacking a domestic animal, or that the killing was not consistent with this rule, then that person may be prosecuted for unlawful taking of endangered wildlife under RCW 77.15.120.
…
The “Emergency Rule” is bad enough as it stands, but if ESA wolf protections are lifted nationwide (as is currently planned), points (1a) and (2) will be moot—there won’t be any area of the state safe for wolves, nor any “endangered wildlife” designation to discourage poaching. This is why the wolves, though arguably “recovered” in some areas, need to remain under federal ESA protection nationwide.

We can’t let them lose what little protection they still have in this country. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forge ahead with their plan for full removal of wolves from the ESA, we need to continue to press our new Interior Secretary Sally Jewell for both their continued protection as well as the re-listing of wolves in those states where out-of-control culling is driving them back to the brink of oblivion.

Washington’s “emergency” rule was crafted in response to a letter from ten state legislators urging their Fish and Wildlife Commission to act quickly “to maintain social tolerance for gray wolves in northeast Washington in the timeliest manner for residents.”
Hmm, killing wolves to “maintain tolerance,” where have I heard that before? Oh that’s right, it was from wildlife snuff film producer and wolf-hunter Randy Newberg who told NPR News that wolf hunts in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho are easing the animosity many local people feel toward the predator. “Having these hunting seasons has provided a level of tolerance again,” Newberg told NPR.

Let me get this straight, in order to placate and appease good ol’ boys and get them to put up with the presence of one of North America’s most historically embattled endangered species, we have to let them kill some of them once in a while? Wolf hunting and trapping are just a salve—a bit of revenge-killing for them–why not let them have their fun? By this logic, they should also be entitled to shoot an Indian every so often (like their forefathers who tried to wipe them out), to help promote tolerance and social acceptance.

It’s time to remind our politicians that the wolf-killing Calvary is about as outnumbered by those of us who appreciate wolves as General Custer was at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

What’s happening now in Washington is just how it started out in other states whose wolf-killing policies are now completely out of control. Washington wolf proponents need to realize that their wildlife policy-makers will continue to up the ante each time we accept the new status quo.

The question is, how much of a wolf-kill massacre are we willing to tolerate before we go on the warpath?

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

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

BREAKING: National Wolf Delisting Plan Moving Forward!

Posted on by
6

From Defenders of Wildlife:

One decision could forever change the future of gray wolves in our country.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is proposing to remove all Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for most of the gray wolves across the United States.

Yes, you read that correctly.

The FWS is moving forward with a proposal to strip nearly all gray wolves throughout the United States — with the exception of the Mexican gray wolf — of Endangered Species Act protections.

Please send an urgent message to Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell — demand that the federal government not turn its back on wolves when there is still more important wolf recovery work that needs to be done.

This proposal reflects an unacceptable and short-sighted vision of our nation’s conservation goals, and would give up on wolf recovery well before the job is done; a true conservation tragedy!

Delisting would prematurely turn wolf management over to the states, and we’ve already seen what can happen when rabid anti-wolf politics are allowed to trump science and core wildlife management principals.

Montana, Wyoming and Idaho — all states where wolves have been delisted — are not treating wolves like other wildlife such as elk and bears. Instead they’re driving the wolves’ population numbers back down to the bottom. More than 1,100 wolves have already been killed in the Northern Rockies since Congress took ESA protections away from them in 2011.

Wolves’ lives are at stake. Please help send 250,000 signatures to the Department of Interior starting today.

This decision would derail wolf recovery efforts in areas around the country where it has barely begun — in places like the Pacific Northwest and in states that possess some of the nation’s best unoccupied wolf habitat, such as Colorado, Utah and northern California.

This proposal represents yet another monumental setback for wolf recovery in the U.S.

Tell Secretary Jewell: The important work of wolf recovery is NOT FINISHED — don’t turn back the clock on almost 40 years of wolf conservation.

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Wolf-Killers’ Admit They’re Sadistic Perverts

Posted on by
23

7d547853b294cf28b7b6c4ff5a69dda1
Paul Watson was right. In his foreword to my book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport, Sea Shepherd’s Captain Paul Watson wrote:

“Any man who has to kill a magnificent bear or bull elk to mount its head on his wall has some very deep and disturbing psychological and sexual problems. Hunting is no longer necessary for our survival but trophy hunting was never necessary for human survival. Trophy hunters can be described quite adequately as sadistic perverts and social deviants.”

Worst of all, they freely admit it.

An article by Cathy Taibbi in Examiner.com entitled “Wolf-killers admit it’s all about the sadistic sexual thrill” includes photos, links and quotes from one of the many anti-wolf Facebook pages where members brag about “’getting wood’ when seeing wolves trapped, tortured and killed, whether in images or in real life.” Flaunting the fact that they’re still legally entitled to their predatory perversions as long as the abused are only wild animals, they don’t hesitate to tell their Facebook friends that they “feel ‘orgasmic’ when hunting, trapping, killing, butchering, and even eating their victims.”

And they wonder why we call them psychopaths or compare them to serial Killers?

Anyone who gets sexually aroused at the sight of a trapped, struggling or suffering animal should be preemptively executed for the good of the many. They are what the FBI’s Behavioral Science team refers to as “sexual sadists,” the most dangerous of all offenders to their victims.

The Examiner article goes on to say “…in a nutshell, what they are saying plainly is that torturing animals is sexually arousing for them. Do we really want people like this freely expressing their fetishes on the Internet (where children can be traumatized – or worse, titillated – by them), or acting them out using our wildlife or pets?

“What’s happened to our society, when any show of ethics, decorum or empathy is treated as a liability to be ridiculed, threatened and treated derisively, while a site enabling perverted, sadistic sexual thrills from abusing animals is considered free speech?

“These kinds of pages are no better than so-called ‘crush videos’ (movies of innocent, live animals being stomped, cut apart with scissors, burned, etc., and sold to perverts who like to masturbate while watching) except that, being based more in the ‘traditional sports’ of hunting and trapping, these (for now, at least) manage to sneak by legally.

“Hunting, trapping and other hate/fetish sites need to be dealt with in the same fashion as perpetrators of illegal crush videos. The penalties for gratuitous animal abuse need to be severe. The moral fiber and safety of our society is definitely at risk.

“Yup. These are scary individuals. And our politicians are pandering to them. It’s a sad and disheartening statement about where America is at this point.”

The article includes a slide show of graphic photos of which they caution: “Viewer discretion is advised.” If you’re already well aware of the depth of wolf-hater depravity, then you might want to spare yourself the mental and emotional scarring. But if you have any doubts that wolf trapping is as evil as the Inquisition, then by all means view the slide show.