Group protests eradication of Profanity Peak wolf pack

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Group-protests-eradication-of-Profanity-Peak-wolf-9198320.php

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Dozens of protesters gathered outside of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to decry the killing of a pack of wolves in northeastern Washington.

The group rallied in opposition of the agency’s decision to eradicate the Profanity Peak pack in order to protect cattle. WDFW has been using hunters flying in helicopters to shoot the animals north of Sherman Pass. Many protesters carried pictures of wolves and signs that read “Protect The Wolves” and “Stop The Slaughter.”

Since mid-July, WDFW has confirmed that wolves from the Profanity Peak pack have killed or injured six cattle and probably five others.

So far, six of the 11 members of the pack have been killed. Remaining are two radio-collared adults, used by the department to track the wolves, and several pups.

4 thoughts on “Group protests eradication of Profanity Peak wolf pack

  1. I hope there is a big enough group to make an impression. No matter how big, though, I doubt if the fish and wildlife department will listen. There may also be hunters and ranchers present to complain. I’m waiting for the news.

  2. We already have too much working collaboration and compromise on giving up public land. We already have too much of it on giving up wildlife to agricultural and hunting a trapping interests, and “management of wolves, bears, coyotes, lions, wolverine, bobcat, and bios on and other critters. National Forest and BLM to private and corporate interests; and the idea of turning over public land to local and state control is absurd. “Wilderness protected through collaboration”. “Work together for effective public land management”. Stewardship demonstration projects, I.e. BCSP, a a semi-private swath oh public land for sportsmen and recreation extraction industry Sometimes there is room, time and places and projects, for compromise and cooperation, in particular situations, but more often now it is time to draw a line in the conservation sand. Takeover/local control of public land is nonsense: It would likely open a Pandor”s Box on privatization of various interests, and true wildlife ecology would take a backseat. Sporting interests is not true wilderness ecologyIt would be illegal, the states could not afford it and would quickly “compromise” the rest of it; it, compromise and cooperation is a sneaky way of an end around run on already too much compromised public land; it would end up in private and corporate hands, mostly rancher. It is likely a ploy to duck out of EPA and ESA oversight and other laws. The public does not want it. Public land is already too much used by pecuniary private interests rather than wildlife, wilderness, open spaces, recreation, wildlife viewing. The US Forest Service and BLM are notoriously well known for compromise and accommodation with providing timber sales, grazing leases (in MT 772 on national forest land 3776 on BLM, 23,000 such leases in 11 western states), access to other extraction industries, and facilitating game farming for “sportsmen” and distortion of wildlife healthy and balanced ecology, motorized recreation. BLM land is open to 55 % grazing, 63,000 gas and oil wells, over 300 mines, timber sales, and trapping on public land. “Compromise” and “multiuse” are often the protocol euphemisms which seem to often be words disguising further encroachment on the remaining 5% of true wilderness, with half of that in Alaska. “Compromised” is the characteristic of much so-called compromise and cooperation. Instead we should be thinking of wildlife corridor connections, re-wilding, predator dispersals accommodation, land bridges, over and under passes for wildlife, “untrammeled” and protected (inviolate), balanced wildlife ecology versus game farming), and retiring most of those leases if not all. There is much that could and should be done to expand, connect, and protect what is left. We can do a much better job of living with wildlife instead of against it with continued encroachment via compromise and cooperation. Often when conservation sits down to the protocol of compromise and cooperate they are giving more and more away to the pillagers and encroachers on the land and the wild.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s