War on wolves has reached new a low


 

By LYNNE STONE

Since early July, Idaho’s war on wolves has another chapter—once again in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA). This time, it involves the Casino Pack in the Sawtooth Valley near Fisher Creek.
It works like this: A rancher has a hurt or dead calf or sheep, calls the misnamed federal agency Wildlife Services, who will say it’s a wolf kill. Wildlife Services calls the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and Fish and Game rubber-stamps whatever Wildlife Services wants—usually to “kill all offending wolves.” In the summer months, there are thousands of sheep and cattle on the SNRA. Some are going to be sick or hurt every day. If wolves come around, they are blamed.
The Casino Pack alpha male was B450. I had first seen him as a yearling in 2009 with his three younger sisters and brothers in the Stanley Basin. His family, the Basin Butte wolves, were killed on Thanksgiving week 2009 because cattle ranchers would not adapt to living with wolves.
B450 survived five more years and had his own family before he was trapped on July 9 near Fisher Creek. Although Fish and Game had told Wildlife Services to release any collared wolves, B450 was so mortally injured from being in the leg-hold trap in hot weather that he was shot. The same with his yearling son, B647—caught in a trap on July 1, and in such bad shape when the Wildlife Services agent finally checked the trap, the wolf would not live if released. This is not the first time wolves have suffered in the SNRA due to trapping. A collared yearling died in a trap on Decker Flat last May.
Another Casino Pack wolf, a subadult female, has also been killed by Wildlife Services, leaving only the pack’s mother, pups and one other sibling. The kill order is out for them, too. All because one rancher lost one calf, maybe to wolves.


The town of Stanley struggles in winter to survive. Wildlife viewing, especially for wolves, could change that.


Fish and Game in Salmon told me this week that they were sorry that the collared wolves were killed. Fish and Game seems to have no control over the actions of Wildlife Services, nor do they seem to care in a state where our cowboy governor Butch Otter has made it clear he doesn’t want wolves here.
On the SNRA since 2000, the Stanley Pack, Whitehawk Pack, Galena Pack and Basin Butte Pack have been eradicated because of a handful of cattle and sheepmen. When people claim that the SNRA protects wildlife, it’s simply not true when it comes to wolves and other animals that ranchers don’t like. They call the shots, literally.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Ranchers could be proactive and learn about nonlethal methods of deterrence. A few are doing this in the Wood River Valley. Landowners who lease pasture to cattlemen could stop—that would help wolves. The SNRA could be a place like Yellowstone Park’s Lamar Valley—where people come from all over the world to see wolves and nearby communities benefit—receiving millions of dollars from tourists. The town of Stanley struggles in winter to survive. Wildlife viewing, especially for wolves could change that.

    Lynne Stone is the director of the Boulder-White Clouds Council, an environmental group. She has been a longtime advocate for wolves in central Idaho.

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2007152960#.U8_dOGdOVy0

Alaskan wolf pups rescued from fire heading to Minnesota Zoo

The zoo plans to ‘spay and neuter them because they are no longer and endangered species’ – WTF?

http://www.startribune.com/local/266956601.html

by: JIM ADAMS , Star Tribune

 July 14, 2014 – 11:22 AM

Rescued from wildfire, the pups will replace older wolves and are expected to draw visitors.

wolf pups

A revived and lively litter of wolves is expected Tuesday at the Minnesota Zoo, just weeks after being plucked from the smoldering aftermath of an Alaskan wildfire.

Officials at the Apple Valley zoo said the five gray wolf pups have rebounded nicely after being abandoned by their parents during the May fire and then losing a sibling to a porcupine attack.

Four firefighters discovered the 2-week-old pups in their den, dehydrated and stuck with quills. A porcupine apparently had wandered into the den to escape the smoke and flames of the massive Funny River wildfire in the Kenai Peninsula Wildlife Refuge.

Such a wildfire rescue of pups is rare, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game website. Officials believe the pups’ parents fled the den because of the fire and firefighter activity in the area.

The five survivors — three males and two females; three gray, two light-colored — were taken to the Alaska Zoo in Anchorage on May 27, where staff tended and bottle-fed them. One pup is named X-Ray, after the fire crew that saved them. The others were named after the four rescuers’ hometowns: Gannett, Hooper, Huslia and Stebbins, said Minnesota Zoo spokesman Josh Le.

Now eight weeks old, the pups have tripled in size and can be seen playing on video taken at the Alaska Zoo. Visitors were invited to view wolf feedings five times a day at the zoo, and as they grew, watched them romp and roll outside.

“So far they are really healthy and that is why they are coming Tuesday to the Minnesota Zoo,” Le said. “They are growing but still adorable.”

But don’t expect to see the Alaskan canines in person until mid-August. The pups will be in quarantine for a month while they are monitored and blood and fecal tests are done to ensure they carry no disease or parasites to the zoo, Le said.

The furry five will replace the zoo’s adult pair of gray wolves, Kaskapahtew and Wazi, who have never bred successfully, Le said. He said the pair will be sent to another accredited zoo in the U.S., and had no chance of being euthanized.

The five siblings likely will boost attendance by creating the wolf pack the zoo has long sought. They will have free run of the spacious wolf enclosure on the Medtronic Minnesota Trail. They will be spayed and neutered because they are not an endangered species and the zoo avoids inbreeding, Le said.

Le said the pups will be escorted by Alaska Zoo staff on a flight donated by Delta Air Lines. Two Minnesota Zoo managers will greet the Alaskans at the Minneapolis airport.

Did the Hunters Get your Wolves’ Elk?

In one of Edward Abbey’s many epic books he mentions seeing a bumper sticker on the back of a gas hog, redneck rig that went something like, “Did the coyotes get your deer?” It was an unabashed show of narcissistic entitlement which spelled out just how the driver felt about nature and the need for a diverse ecosystem.

Although his type doubtless have no qualms about supporting factory farming by buying a nightly meal of meat from the local “Western Family” grocery store, when hunting season rolls around they are right there to lay claim to the wildlife as well, in the form of deer, elk, moose or pronghorn.

It don’t mean shit that apex predators such as wolves, cougars, bobcats and coyotes have nothing else to eat and have evolved over eons to live in harmony with their wild prey. Hunters think of themselves as apex predators, decked out in their best Cabella’s camouflage outfit, tearing up the land on their trusty 4-bys or 4-wheelers, hoping a deer steps out in front of them.

But as a faithful reader pointed out this morning, human hunters aren’t apex predators, they’re apex parasites (Homo parasiticus).

Personally, I’d rather “my” deer went to the coyotes and “my” elk went to the wolves, as nature intended.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson. All Rights Reserved

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson. All Rights Reserved

RMEF Opposes Congressman’s Call for Yellowstone Wolf Buffer Zone

 http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/07/rmef-opposes-congressman%E2%80%99s-call-yellowstone-wolf-buffer-zone

In the latest move to curtail wolf hunting across the country, Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio–one of the most vocal, influential, and persistent critics of Western wolf management–called for federal intervention to protect gray wolves that range beyond Yellowstone National Park.

DeFazio claims hunters who harvest wolves outside park boundaries are directly responsible for the recent decline in Yellowstone’s wolf population. To help solve this “problem,” he penned a letter to the Department of the Interior requesting the agency coordinate among states to establish a “wolf safety zone” around Yellowstone National Park. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation responded to DeFazio with a letter of their own.

 

RMEF described the request for a no-hunting buffer zone “unfounded by any science,” noting that it also “contradicts what the entire wolf reintroduction and ESA listing represent.” The organization goes on to point out scientific studies that account for the decline in wolf numbers in Yellowstone Park.

First, the availability of elk–the primary prey of northern range wolves–has declined significantly. Yellowstone’s northern elk herd has fallen from 17,000 animals in 1995 to roughly 4,000 in 2013. Second, a recent study demonstrated wolves will kill one another when an area’s population becomes too large for the available prey and habitat.

DeFazio has overlooked such evidence, and instead finds fault in state management of wolf numbers.

“…Gray wolves do not respect invisible park boundaries and once the wolves cross out of the park and onto bordering lands,” DeFazio wrote. “…There are myriad inconsistent state regulations that allow hunters to kill wolves on sight; in some instances without limit.”

Both Wyoming and Montana maintain strict management quotas that apply to wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In 2013 Montana limited its combined hunting/trapping sub-quota (unit 316) to four just four wolves near Gardiner. Wyoming biologists indicate its harvest quotas near the park are deliberately small to provide proper management. Additionally, Yellowstone officials support RMEF’s position that hunting wolves outside the park does not contribute to the park’s overall downward trend in wolf numbers.

Finally, RMEF notes gray wolf reintroduction in the Northern Rocky Mountains met minimum recovery goals nearly 15 years ago, and has since exceeded the mutually-agreed upon population by 500 percent. M. David Allen, RMEF president and CEO, concludes his letter: “The continuing drumbeat of individuals and organizations to halt any form of state based management of wolves shows a total disregard for the state based management system, the originally agreed upon [wolf] recovery goals and the 10th Amendment which delegates such matters to the states.”

DeFazio is the ranking Democrat on the House National Resources Committee and has previously opposed the USFWS proposal to lift ESA protections for gray wolves in the lower 48.

Wolf hunt limits set for 2014-2015; landowners may kill up to 100 threatening wolves per year

Private land | Owners can kill wolves they believe are a threat without it counting toward hunting season

MISSOULA — Private landowners may kill up to 100 wolves a year they believe are threatening livestock, dogs or people under a new state law that doesn’t count toward Montana’s wolf-hunting season.

But Fish, Wildlife and Parks commissioners opted to monitor those landowner killings in blocks of 25 instead of an earlier plan to allow 50 kills before review. The decision came during the commission’s meeting in Missoula on Thursday.

The landowner quota is separate from the state’s annual wolf hunt. Hunters must have a wolf license and operate during an annual season, while landowners or their agents can kill wolves “that are a potential threat to human safety, livestock or domestic dogs” at any time of year. That option comes from Senate Bill 200, passed in the last Legislature.

Landowners may also kill wolves in the act of attacking livestock without affecting the 100-animal quota.

But they can only use that privilege on private land — not on public-land grazing allotments. And while landowners may allow private hunters to kill threatening wolves on their property under the quota, the landowner (not the hunter) would be responsible for any illegal wolf kill.

So, for example, if a rancher told elk hunters on his land they had his permission to shoot wolves near his cattle, they could do so under the landowner quota without using their hunting licenses. But if a hunter killed a wolf after the quota was exceeded or somewhere that the wolf posed no believable threat, the landowner could be liable for the violation.

On Thursday, the commissioners also set rules for the 2014-15 wolf hunting season, which remained generally the same as last year. The coming rifle season will run from Sept. 15 to March 15, with a bag limit of five wolves per hunter. Two hunting districts near Yellowstone National Park have quotas of three wolves, to protect packs popular with wildlife watchers in the park.

Hunters have no quota on wolves except in those areas close to Yellowstone and Glacier National parks. Last year, hunters killed 128 wolves while trappers took another 97.

Landowners have killed far fewer wolves under previous shoot-on-sight rules for livestock protection. FWP wildlife manager Quentin Kujula said the past several years averaged less than 10.

“Landowners want the opportunity to deal with the situation themselves,” FWP director Jeff Hagener said after the unanimous approval of the quota. “They don’t want to wait for compensation for wolf depredation or for (federal) Wildlife Services to arrive. This way, they don’t have additional costs, and we the taxpayers don’t have additional costs.”

That prompted commissioners Matthew Tourtlotte and Gary Wolfe to amend the landowner rule. The original version required commission review after the first 50 wolves were killed. Tourtlotte and Wolfe proposed making checks in 25-kill blocks.

“I’m really concerned about a perception there’s open season on wolves on private land in Montana,” Wolfe said. “This is to give landowners the ability to address legitimate perceived threats, not to create an open season on private land. It’s easier to become more liberal than try and back off in the future.”

Commission chairman Dan Vermillion said estimates of the state’s wolf population show it has been able to absorb the impact of no-quota hunting seasons. Montana has around 600 wolves.

copyrighted Hayden wolf in lodgepoles

“I think this is the kind of program that helps foster more tolerance for wolves on the landscape,” Vermillion said.

When wolves were protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, Montanans felt powerless to deal with the predators’ impact, and that fostered intolerance for their presence, he argued.

Reuters on Yellowston Wolf Rally

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/29/us-usa-wolves-rally-idUSKBN0F400620140629

(Reuters) – A rally to protest sport hunting and trapping of wolves in the United States drew about 150 participants on Saturday outside the gates of Yellowstone National Park, an organizer said.

Demonstrators at the event in Gardiner, Montana, at the northwest entrance to the park called for an overhaul of government wildlife management policies for the animals.

Thousands of wolves have been legally hunted, trapped or snared in the three years since the predators were removed from the federal endangered and threatened species list in the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes.

“We need some places out West where wolves can be wolves without fear of being shot, trapped, strangled or beaten to death,” rally organizer Brett Haverstick said in a telephone interview.

Haverstick said roughly 150 people attended the rally, with participants coming from a range of U.S. states such as Idaho, Montana, California and Florida.

Wolves neared extinction in the Lower 48 states before coming under U.S. Endangered Species Act protections in the 1970s. Federal wildlife managers two decades ago released fewer than 100 wolves in the Yellowstone area over the objections of ranchers and hunters, who complained wolves would prey on livestock and big-game animals like elk.

Wolves in the park and its border states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming were estimated at nearly 2,000 at the time of delisting and now number about 1,700 due to liberal hunting and trapping seasons and population control measures by states such as Idaho.

Ranchers and sportsmen say wolf numbers must be kept in check to reduce conflicts.

“Livestock producers have made many concessions to accommodate wolves on the landscape and the result is we have a healthy wolf population and yet a decrease in cattle depredations,” said Jay Bodner, natural resource director for the Montana Stockgrowers Association.

 

(Reporting by Laura Zuckerman in Salmon, Idaho, Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis, Bernard Orr)

How Many Wolves Died for Your Hamburger?

528624c939a88_preview-620

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephanie-feldstein/how-many-wolves-died-for-your-hamburger_b_5535494.html

by

Population and Sustainability Director, Center for Biological Diversity

06/27/2014

When you bite into a hamburger or steak, you already know the cost to the cow, but what about the wolves, coyotes, bears and other wildlife that were killed in getting that meat to your plate?

There are a lot of ways that meat production hurts wildlife, from habitat taken over by feed crops to rivers polluted by manure to climate change caused by methane emissions. But perhaps the most shocking is the number of wild animals, including endangered species and other non-target animals, killed by a secretive government agency for the livestock industry.

Last year Wildlife Services, an agency within the Department of Agriculture, killed more than 2 million native animals. While wolf-rancher conflicts are well known, the death toll provided by the agency also included 75,326 coyotes, 3,700 foxes and 419 black bears. Even prairie dogs aren’t safe: They’re considered pests, blamed for competing with livestock for feed and creating burrow systems that present hazards for grazing cattle. The agency killed 12,186 black-tailed prairie dogs and destroyed more than 30,000 of their dens.

The methods used to kill these animals are equally shocking: death by exploding poison caps, suffering in inhumane traps and gunned down by men in airplanes and helicopters.

How many of the 2 million native animals were killed to feed America’s meat habit? No one really knows. This is where the secrecy comes in: While we know that they frequently respond to requests from the agricultural community to deal with “nuisance animals,” Wildlife Services operates with few rules and little public oversight. That’s why the Center for Biological Diversity, where I work, has called on the Obama administration to reform this rogue agency to make it more transparent and more accountable. Despite the growing outcry from the public, scientists, non-governmental organizations and members of Congress, the federal agency shows no signs of slowing its killing streak.

There are two important ways that you can help rein in Wildlife Services. First, sign our online petition demanding that the Department of Agriculture create rules and public access to all of the agency’s activities. Second, start taking extinction off your plate. Our growing population will mean a growing demand for meat and for the agency’s deadly services, unless we take steps to reduce meat consumption across the country. By eating less or no meat, you can reduce your environmental footprint and help save wildlife.

Wolves and Dogs Speak With Their Eyes

summer-dire-wolf-GoT-fanpop 

Wolves and dogs can communicate using their eyes alone, suggests a new study in the journal PLoS ONE.

The color of the face around the eye, the eye’s shape and the color and shape of both the iris and the pupil are all part of the elaborate eye-based communication system, according to the research, which could apply to humans as well.

Sayoko Ueda of the Tokyo Institute of Technology and Kyoto University led the study, which compared these characteristics of the face and eyes among 25 different types of canines.

Full Story: http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/wolves-and-dogs-speak-with-their-eyes-140624.htm

How Many Wolves are in Montana? Just Ask the Hunters

FWP looks to new technique to document wolf population size By TOM KUGLIN Independent Record Helena Independent Record
June 19, 2014 6:00 am  • 

Researchers from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the University of Montana estimate the state’s wolf population at more than 800 using a new statistical technique.

Researchers conducted a study of the new technique from 2007 to 2012. The new method, called patch occupancy modeling, uses deer and elk hunter observations coupled with information from radio-collared wolves. The statistical approach is a less expensive alternative to the old method of minimum wolf counts, which were performed by biologists and wildlife technicians. The results of the study estimate that for the five-year period, wolf populations were 25-35 percent higher than the minimum counts for each year.

“The study’s primary objective was to find a less-expensive approach to wolf monitoring that would yield statistically reliable estimates of the number of wolves and packs in Montana,” said Justin Gude, FWP’s chief of research for the wildlife division in Helena.

Counting predators in remote and forested areas is notoriously difficult and expensive. FWP submits a required yearly wolf report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on the exact number of wolves observed through tracking by FWP wolf specialists. Biologists track wolves with on-the-ground and aerial surveys, radio collaring and denning confirmation. The minimum count has hovered around 625 for the last three years.

According to a 2012 article in Population Ecology authored by FWP and university researchers, wolf numbers remained small in the initial stages of recovery in the early 1990s, and tracking the minimum count of wolves in Montana meant only a few packs in isolated areas. In 1995, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, the minimum wolf count in Montana was 66.

With minimum counts now nearly 10 times greater, it’s more difficult to assess the minimum number of wolves. The traditional field methods yield an increasingly conservative count and well below actual population sizes, according to the article.

“It takes a lot of people and time, and the budget has gone down with delisting,” Gude said. “It’s getting more and more difficult to keep up, and we felt like we’re getting farther and farther away with the minimum count.”

In two years, FWP’s requirement to provide a yearly minimum count to the Fish and Wildlife Service expires. That expiration opens the door for state officials to use other means to estimate the state’s wolf population.

The agency plans to do both the required minimum count and the patch occupancy modeling for the next two years. After the expiration, FWP plans to transition to the new techniques and adjust field methods of gathering data accordingly, said Ron Aasheim, FWP administrator.

“Certainly there have been people out there who said we have significantly more wolves than the minimum count,” he said. “If anything, this verifies that was a minimum count and we don’t have exact numbers; we have trend counts but this gets us closer to the actual number. The more information we have the better.”

Using hunter observations during the five-week general hunting season has the immediate benefit of cost savings and accounts for those wolves not verified in the annual counts. The technique is very similar to wolf counting methods used in the upper-Midwest, which has already withstood court challenges, Gude said.

“This new approach is not only good science, it’s a practical way for Montana to obtain a more accurate range of wolf numbers that likely inhabit the state,” he said.

Using the public to count wolves has its drawbacks as biologists consider public sightings less reliable than those of professionals. Given the sample size of around 2 million deer and elk hunter days and 50,000 to 80,000 hunters interviewed in FWP’s annual telephone survey, researchers believe the sample provides a diverse observation of Montana’s hunting districts and provides an accurate picture of wolf occupancy.

Based on the study, FWP and university researchers estimated the areas occupied by wolves in packs using the hunter observations, then the number of wolf packs by dividing the occupied area by average territory size, and finally they multiplied the number of packs by the average pack size to get an estimated population. In 2012, the minimum count for wolves was verified at 625 and 147 packs. The statistical technique estimated 804 wolves in 165 packs inhabit Montana.

The study further estimated that 18, 24 and 25 percent of Montana was occupied by wolves in 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively.

In addition to wolves living in packs, various studies have documented between 10 and 15 percent of wolves living alone.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation threw its support behind the study with a $25,000 grant.

“The bottom line is you can’t have true effective wolf management if you don’t know how many wolves are really out there and where they live,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “This grant funding will help to better determine that.”

Defenders of Wildlife was still looking at the research and was not ready to comment on the merits of the science, said Erin Edge, Rockies and Plains associate for Defenders.

Wildlife program coordinator for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition Chris Colligan said his organization supports using the best available science, but planned to keep an eye on the use of the new techniques.

“We want to make sure it’s accurate and they’re making sound decisions for management,” he said.

The research has been peer reviewed, but GYC has questions about the accuracy of using hunter observations and the ability of that data to apply on a small scale to create individual quotas for hunting districts, Colligan said.

“Self-reporting of wolves has its downsides,” he said. “There’s concerns about bias in hunters reporting wolves when they’re not present. It also diminishes the need for biologists on the ground, which is a valuable resource.”

Gude cautioned that future statistical approaches need to include wolf harvest locations and how hunting and trapping influence where wolves choose to live.

“Perhaps the best future use of these statistical methods won’t necessarily only be for monitoring and keeping tabs on wolf population numbers, but to better inform the complicated decisions that accompany the public harvest and management of wolves,” he said.

Hiding in the Trees

copyrighted Hayden wolf walking

by Stephen Capra

So much has been written about wolves that a person can be understandably tired of hearing any more. Yet, one is compelled to keep a voice alive in the wilderness that is everyday life. The numbers continue to pour in and wolves are losing, genetic diversity is losing, as is the environment. What exactly are we losing to remains the most important question?

For some the easy answer is the livestock industry. Let’s be clear, the livestock industry is one of the major culprits. Their continued ignorance and greed not only has destroyed wolves and their recovery, but is at the heart of so many problems that plague the West. Yet, the wolf issue is more complex and demands elucidation, if change is ever to occur.

It begins with literature. You see much of people’s view of wolves can be framed by Little Red Riding Hood. No joke. For so many that never leave the confines of civilization, that simple and misleading fairy tale helped to frame fear in their minds as it relates to wolves. Being subjected to such a story in such a young and impressionable time of life, and if like myself, you wanted that story read over and over again, can leave a powerful impression.

Culture and custom! This is perhaps one of the most damaging aspects of wolf recovery, the ignorance that comes from a perceived culture. In rural America, there is a hunting culture, a sense of being part of the land and an independence born of necessity. Somehow, this culture has had a long history of killing not only the Native Americans that stood in the way of their land grab, but of wildlife that was viewed as threatening to their livelihood. In this culture, grizzly bears left the plains, wolves were shot on sight, and bison became a symbol of our perfidy.

Game and Fish Departments- In our modern times it is this department that holds the key to wolf recovery and survival. Yet, it’s this very agency that continues to operate from Idaho to New Mexico with a 19th century mindset. It is this select group of commissioners and directors that play not to the population base of the state, but to the rural, hunting and livestock culture. The reason is simple. Hunting tags and funding from the sale of rifles and ammunition support and pay for these agencies to exist. If this does not change, then the will to enter the 21st century is not a priority for the agency and its corrupt commissions. Conservationists are going to have to be willing to pay, in the form of an annual fee for using the outdoors and a surcharge on the sales of outdoor gear, if we are to level the field with sportsmen and have a real voice in the commissions.

Many have suggested removing the commissions, but that is something that comes with being Governor in many states and politicians are not inclined to lose their power. With the ability to raise funds, we would also be in a position to dictate how it is spent. That could mean earmarking funds for retiring grazing leases, for endangered species recovery, for land acquisition and for demanding serious peer reviewed science in decision making and animal harvest quotas.

Outfitters.-If there is money to be made killing wildlife, outfitters want to make it. By not having peer reviewed science, this group can lobby the agency to demand more opportunity to kill and profit. In New Mexico that has led to the killing spree on black bears and the continued “varmint” label on species like coyotes, prairie dogs to name just a few.

US Fish and Wildlife- An agency void of a moral compass and fearful of republicans that consistently threaten their funding. This agency which is the front line for wildlife must grow the balls necessary to protect and educate the public about the value of wolves in the wild. Instead, they try to “compromise” as we watch the very ecosystems dependent on them becoming sterile. The agency needs an overhaul and leaders that put wildlife before their personal retirement pension.

More:http://www.bvconservation.org/opinion.html