WDFW seeks input on wolf management

The state indicates four gray wolf packs, two of which include a breeding pair, in the region.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is asking people to take an online survey or leave comments by going to bit.ly/2ki1TMV. The department will also have interactive webinars later this month and in October where people can ask questions and find out how to provide their views.

Comments may also be mailed to WDFW — Wolf Post-Recovery Plan Scoping, PO Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504-3200. The deadline to submit comments is Nov. 1.

Washington’s wolf population was virtually eliminated in the 1930s but has rebounded since 2008. The numbers have now grown to the point where wildlife officials expect wolves to be removed from the endangered species list in Washington in the next few years.

The state agency maintains a map of gray wolf packs on its website and shows four in this region, including:

the Touchet pack, with at least four wolves including a successful breeding pair in southern Columbia County as well as the upper Whiskey Creek and Coppei Creek areas of Walla Walla County,

the Butte Creek pack, also in southern Columbia County, with at least two wolves but not considered a breeding pair,

the Tucannon pack with a minimum of two wolves not considered a successful breeding pair in southern Columbia and Garfield counties,

Oregon wildlife commissioners adopt wolf management plan

SALEM, Ore. (AP) – Oregon wildlife commissioners have approved the state’s long-overdue Wolf Management Plan after years of revisions, contentious meetings, an outside mediator and half the stakeholders abandoning talks.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reports the plan to govern how wolves are handled in areas of the state where they don’t enjoy federal protection under the Endangered Species Act was approved Friday by the commission of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The state’s first wolf plan was issued in 2005, before any wolves had come back to the state after decades of extirpation due to hunting and trapping. The second version of the plan came out in 2010, a year after wolves had been confirmed in Oregon.

The plan finally approved Friday came after hunters and ranchers, and environmentalists and wolf advocates squared off over when wolves can be killed, why and by whom.

News release from ODFW:

Commission adopts revised Wolf Plan in 6-1 vote

SALEM, Ore.—The Commission adopted a Wolf Plan today at its meeting in Salem in a 6-1 vote after hearing from 44 people who came to testify and reviewing thousands of public comments.

Allowing controlled take (limited regulated hunting and trapping of wolves) was one of the most controversial topics in the new Wolf Plan. The original Plan adopted in 2005 allowed for controlled take only in Phase 3 (currently eastern Oregon), in instances of recurring depredations or when wolves are a major cause of ungulate populations not meeting established management objectives or herd management goals. While ODFW believed it needed to remain a tool available for wolf management, the department has not proposed any controlled take of wolves and has no plans to at this time.

Commissioners made some changes related to “controlled take” from the proposed Plan.  An addendum was added clearly stating that “Use of controlled take as a management tool requires Commission approval through a separate public rulemaking process” and the definition of controlled take was modified.

Additional minor changes were made to emphasize the importance of non-lethal tools to address wolf-livestock conflict and easy access to this information. Non-lethal measures to prevent wolf-livestock conflict continue to be emphasized in all phases of the Plan, and required before any lethal control is considered.

After some discussion, Commissioners revised the definition of chronic depredation (which can lead to lethal control of wolves if non-lethals are in use and not working) in Phase 2 and 3 from two confirmed depredations with no specific time frame to two confirmed depredations in nine months.

The Wolf Plan will be filed with the Secretary of State and posted on the ODFW Wolves webpage (www.odfw.com/wolves) within the next few business days.

·Allocated big game auction and raffle tags for 2020.

·Heard a briefing on the crab fishery and reducing the risk of whale entanglements.

·Adopted harvest limits for Pacific sardine in state waters for July 2019-June 2020 based on federal regulations.

·Approved funding for Access and Habitat projects that provide hunting access or improve wildlife habitat on private land.

·Heard a briefing on proposed changes to 2020 big game hunting regulations as part of efforts to improve and simplify the Big Game Hunting Regulations

The Fish and Wildlife Commission is the policy-making body for fish and wildlife issues in Oregon. Its next meeting is Aug. 2 in Salem.

B.C.’s approach to wildlife management needs major ethical reform

Kyle Artelle, Paul Paquet, Faisal Moola, Chris Genovali, and Chris Darimont are scientists and writers at the Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Kyle Artelle, Paul Paquet, and Chris Darimont are also at the University of Victoria, and Faisal Moola is also at the University of Guelph

British Columbia has begun an ambitious effort to review the province’s approach to managing wildlife, with $14-million committed so far. The province’s interest in reform is encouraging. As explained in a letter we recently published in the journal Science, this endeavour and its justification are laudable, and if done properly, have the potential for making B.C. a continental leader in wildlife management. Whether this happens, however, will depend largely on whether the reform embraces principles of science honestly and openly, while involving the varied interests of all citizens, rather than only consumptive users (hunters and trappers).

British Columbia is blessed with a remarkable diversity of wildlife. Many of the 3,800 known plant and animal species in B.C. live only here. The province is also critical for winged migrations that extend over thousands of kilometres. Unlike most places in North America, B.C. has additionally retained all of the large land animals that were present at the time of European colonization, including grizzly bears, wolves, caribou and cougars, making it among the last havens for the large animals left on the continent.

A sub-adult grizzly bear chases down a salmon near Klemtu, B.C. (File Photo).

JOHN LEHMANN

However, many might be surprised to learn that instead of the management of this wildlife being primarily focused on conservation of species and the ecosystems on which they depend, in B.C., as across much of North America, the focus is typically on the management of wildlife to allow for sustained exploitation by hunters and trappers.

This consumptive focus can overshadow broader concerns about wildlife, including ethical considerations. Although there are clearly ethical considerations in any decisions about the environment, wildlife management is one of the few fields for which ethics remain notably absent. This stands in contrast with other areas of public policy, such as criminal justice and health care, where the recognition of ethics is foundational. Such consideration has led to better outcomes, such as improved well-being of those affected by policy decisions.

The scale of wildlife exploitation can be difficult to comprehend. Although hunting and trapping might evoke visions of traditional, low-scale and low-impact endeavours, both undertakings currently comprise an enormous extractive activity: For many wildlife species, humans kill more adults than all other predators combined.

Given this reality, one might hope that wildlife management would have considerable oversight and rigour to protect against potential negative impacts on wildlife populations. And wildlife managers across North America usually do claim a scientific foundation for their activities. However, recent research in the journal Science Advances found that key hallmarks of science are often missing in management of species across North America. For example, of the 667 management systems that study examined, only 26 per cent had measurable objectives, only 11 per cent explained how hunting quotas or limits were set and only 9 per cent were subject to external review.

To reform management so that science can honestly and credibly support policy decisions will require incorporating key hallmarks of science: 1) Clear objectives are needed for the public to understand what government wildlife managers are trying to achieve. These objectives need to be clear enough to allow assessment of whether they have been met, and their ethical basis needs to be clearly described; 2) Strong evidence is needed to ensure that well-informed decisions are made. In cases with weak evidence, strong caution is warranted; 3) Full transparency to the public is required in how wildlife is managed, including how the funding the public provides for management is used, and; 4) External scrutiny, whereby independentbodies (that is, individuals who are neither part of government, appointed by government, nor too closely affiliated to be unbiased) scrutinize the approach used by government, to ensure approaches used are credible.

The B.C. government recently made the courageous decision to end the province’s ethically questionable, controversial and scientifically suspect grizzly bear trophy hunt, a decision that government leaders acknowledged was partly in response to changing societal values about wildlife management. These included considerations of cultural and other non-lethal values and activities, such as wildlife viewing. The current review of provincial wildlife management provides a tremendous opportunity to further demonstrate leadership for the province and the continent, by addressing the critical need for broader wildlife policy reform that is informed by science and reflective of societal attitudes and desires, including ethical concerns in wildlife management.

One of the largest banks issued an alarming warning that Earth is running out of the resources to sustain life

Beijing smog
A paramilitary officer in Beijing wears a mask after a red alert was issued for heavy air pollution in 2016.
 Jason Lee/Reuters
  • The planet is running out of resources, HSBC warned in a new note.
  • Earth Overshoot Day — the point in a year at which our demand for natural resources exceeds what the planet can renew — occurred on August 1, just seven months into 2018.
  • HSBC said companies and governments are not “adequately prepared” for climate effects.

One of the world’s largest banks says the planet is running out of resources and warns that neither governments nor companies are prepared for climate change.

The world spent its entire natural resource budget for the year by August 1, a group of analysts at HSBC said in a note that cited research from the Global Footprint Network (GFN).

That means that the world’s citizens used up all the planet’s resources for the year in just seven months, according to GFN’s analysis.

“In our opinion, these findings and events show that many businesses and governments are not adequately prepared for climate impacts, nor are they using natural resources efficiently,” the HSBC analysts said in the note.

Many banks and asset managers have started factoring climate risks into their decision-making — a move spurred in part by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But it’s far less common to see multinational banks sound the alarm about climate change so explicitly in their equity research.

To calculate Earth’s natural resource budget, GFN considers the demand for natural resources — which includes food, forests, and marine products — as well as humans’ effects on the environment from factors like carbon emissions. The combined total is designed give a comprehensive picture of humanity’s global footprint.

Earth Overshoot Day , the point in a year at which we use up a year’s worth of resources, has been steadily moving forward in time since GFN first started tracking it. In 1970, we “overshot” Earth’s resource budget by only 2 days — Overshoot Day fell on December 29, according to HSBC. That date has been pushed up by almost five months since then.

HSBC’s note also warned about extreme events resulting from heat, including the wildfires in Scandinavia and broken temperature records around the world.

“As scientists work on attribution analysis for specific events — the general consensus is that climate change is making these events more likely to occur and more severe,” HSBC said.

The predicted effects of climate change are starting to become real.Wildfires have torn through California in recent years, and they’re part of a worsening trend related to rising global temperatures. Other consequences include increased frequency of hurricanes and flooding, melting ice sheets , and greater numbers of heat waves .

Recent studies have shown that global temperatures by the year 2100 could be up to 15% higher than the highest projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

According to HSBC, extreme events have severe economic and social costs.

“In our view, adaptation will move further up the agenda with a growing focus on the social consequences,” the analysts said.

SEE ALSO: On August 1, we’ll have consumed more resources than the Earth can regenerate in a year — here’s how you can reduce your ecological footprint

More: HSBC Climate Change Earth Overshoot Day Environment

Proposed wildlife management plans alarm BC’s naturalists

April 13, 2017

Press release from BC Nature – for immediate release

Nature-lovers across BC are expressing concern over a proposed new method for managing wildlife in the province. Speaking on behalf of BC Nature, the federation of naturalist clubs across BC, president Dr. Alan Burger said “Our members are alarmed by recent statements by government ministers indicating that wildlife management might be handed over to an external agency supported by special interest groups, specifically hunters and guide- outfitters”. This model of wildlife management will undoubtedly work against the interests of the vast majority of British Columbians, added Burger.

Recent statements by Ministers Steve Thomson (Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Management) and Bill Bennett (Energy and Mines) suggest that, if the BC Liberals win this election, much wildlife management will be handed over to an independent agency, funded in part by hunting and fishing licences. Both ministers made these statements while flanked by members of the BC Wildlife Federation, the influential hunting and fishing advocacy group. It is well known that BCWF has long been lobbying the government for a greater say in wildlife management, citing the millions of dollars paid in hunting and fishing licences as the reason for greater input.

“This proposal is flawed at several levels” stated Burger. First, the economic argument is false. Hunting and fishing licences are an important source of revenue and BC Nature agrees that there should be a greater share contributed to wildlife management. But, there is much greater input to the BC economy from the non-consumptive users of wildlife – the tourism and wildlife-watching industry, people selling binoculars, camera gear, field guides, outdoor gear etc. and, most importantly, the vast majority of British Columbians that spend money traveling and camping to simply enjoy seeing animals alive in the wild.

BC has not undertaken research recently to investigate the economic benefits of wildlife- watching, but in neighbouring Washington the research shows that wildlife-watching contributes five times the economic benefit ($1.5 billion) that hunting does. A study in 2006 by the US Fish and Wildlife found that over 71 million Americans spent nearly $45 billion on retail sales while observing, feeding or watching wildlife in the US. Canadians are likely to spend even more per capita. Wildlife viewing is a growing business and BC is becoming a world-class destination for this highly sustainable activity.

Second, the proposed method for implementing wildlife management is flawed. There is no doubt that much more money is needed to enhance wildlife and ecosystem management, secure critical habitat and deal with the increasing impacts of industrial and human footprints in our province. Habitat loss, in particular, is a huge issue across many ecosystems in B.C. But this needs to be done by government and not through some external agency, which might be heavily biased towards consumptive users of wildlife. The B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch and related departments within the provincial government have a long and proud history of serving the people of this province. They haven’t always made the right decisions and their hands are often tied by the political goals of the ruling party, but

they are professional, accountable to the electorate, can bring in expertise and resources from other government departments and outside consultants, and remain independent of powerful lobby-groups like the BCWF. “This new proposal verges on privatization of our wildlife management” said Burger.

Proponents of this new wildlife management plan indicate that it will follow the model of the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC, which currently manages recreational fishing as well as freshwater hatcheries in B.C. “There is a fundamental difference between recreational fishing and terrestrial wildlife management”, continued Burger, who taught wildlife ecology at UVic for many years, “Wildlife, like mammals and birds, is enjoyed for many more reasons and in a much wider range of habitats and locations, than the fish taken by recreational fishing. One cannot equate the two management scenarios”.

Third, the words of the two ministers and the enthusiastic endorsement of the hunting lobby indicates that there is a very real risk of wildlife management in BC being more narrowly focused on big game. This is a retrograde step, because the BC government has been slowly moving towards a more scientifically sound ecosystem-based approach, giving appropriate value to the 99% of organisms that are not game animals. This proposal pulls out one component of our ecosystems (big game) and plans to manage it separately. Nature is not compartmentalized. We cannot manage one aspect of the system in isolation.

Finally, it appears that only the hunting-fishing lobby was consulted on this proposal. The ministers’ announcements came as a complete surprise to BC Nature. There is also no evidence that the tourism and wildlife-watching industries, First Nations or the general wildlife-enjoying public was consulted.

People who enjoy viewing wildlife and who endorse a broad ecological approach to managing our province will be watching closely to see where this proposal goes. “It will be good to see wildlife management become an election issue” concluded Burger, “It has been a neglected topic by all major political parties for too long. But this new proposal by the current government is clearly not in the interests of the BC public and seems to serve only a narrow interest-group”.

For further information contact:

Alan Burger – president BC Nature (Federation of BC Naturalists)

WHY WILDLIFE CONSERVATION/MANAGEMENT IS WRONG

by Rosemary Lowe
Teddy Roosevelt (remember him, the Trophy Hunter?), founded the infamous Boone & Crockett Club (Wolf Killer, Aldo Leopold was also a member). From both of these serial animal killers, came the Game Management Ideology–which is the bible for State and Federal Wildlife (Game) agencies—and too often, wildlife groups which claim to “defend” wildlife.
 
 And, what does this Humanist “game” ideology preach, that makes it so popular and supported by so-called “wildlife” groups like Defenders? It preaches the idea that wild animals are something to be used, within “sustainable levels” by humans–for hunting/trapping, viewing, and otherwise getting some kind of human satisfaction. Some wildlife groups, then, can take the easier road of compromise and collaboration with the enemies of wildlife, (hunters/trappers/ranchers), by “working with them to help wildlife.”
 This hunter-conservation/game management nonsense permeates every agency that deals in anyway with wild animals. It is designed to “conserve” populations to a point where they can be killed, and to manipulate such populations to artificially create more animals to be “used” (i.e., hunted, trapped, etc.)  Because this management model is all about manipulation of species and habitat for human use, certain populations are increased so they may provide animal killers (hunters), with targets, such as deer, elk, caribou, ducks, geese, etc. It  is all about species/habitat manipulation, that so-called “predators” such as wolves, coyotes, bears, wolverines, beavers, foxes, bobcat, mountain lion & other species considered “nuisance animals” must be “controlled,” under this barbaric, anti-wildlife system. 
 Millions of wild animals each year are caught & slaughtered in this “Game Management Trap,” which few people understand or oppose. As long as this system continues, no wild species will be able to live in peace. The livestock industry is also part of this system, and this industry demands that wild animals be controlled (trapped, poisoned, shot, burned out of dens, etc.), so Domestic Livestock can graze on National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, wilderness areas & other public lands.  Most wildlife groups appear to be afraid of the livestock special interests, bending over backwards to appease them by sanctioning coyote/wolf hazing techniques and grazing permit buyouts, which only seems to embolden the wildlife killers.
This massive wildlife slaughter is taking a terrible toll on all wild species around the planet.  Now add to this, uncontrolled human population & increasing climate changes, which are killing habitat, food & water sources for non-human beings. Extinction will be Forever!  Why are wild species and wild habitat so important? Its about Biodiversity, wild things (flora and fauna) that are intertwined in the Life Support System of this planet: without The Wild,  all life dies. The Earth can do just fine without Homo sapiens. But, without wild species–down to the most simple bacteria in the soils, air & oceans–nothing will survive. 
As long as wildlife groups like Defenders and others continue to shamefully  follow the game management philosophy of Leopold and Teddy Roosevelt, wild animal populations will be harassed, maimed, and killed, to appease special interests like hunter/trappers, ranchers. 
 
So, what are all you sell-out wildlife groups going to do now?  Compromise even more with a new, more virulent anti-environmental/wildlife president and congress?
copyrighted wolf in water

Killing of Coyotes in Laurelhurst‏

http://unionbaywatch.blogspot.com/2016/07/coyote-challenge.html

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Coyote Challenge

To my readers,

I was extremely disappointed to learn that three coyotes were killed last week, near Union Bay, in the Laurelhurst neighborhood of Seattle. Historically, humanity’s fear and ignorance of wild creatures has often led to killing and extermination. My fear is, if we do not learn to coexist with wild creatures then future generations will live in a dismal world of crows, concrete and mechanical contraptions. 
 
My personal goal is to promote harmony between nature and humanity, specifically around Union Bay which includes the Laurelhurst area. My blog about nature-in-the-city is called, Union Bay Watch. I believe that if we pay attention to wildlife, and treat wild creatures intelligently, we can find ways to coexist. 
 
A few weeks ago, I met one of the adult coyotes on the trail in the Union Bay Natural Area. Given the time of the year and because the coyote was out and about at mid-day, I suspect it was looking for food for its young. The coyote turned and fled into the brush as I approached. A perfectly acceptable response from a truly wild creature.
 
Because of my blog and my local interactions, I have talked with many different people who have seen the coyotes. No one who I spoke with mentioned any aggressive behavior. I truly believe the majority of the local people have been excited and happy to have coyotes as neighbors. I hope we can all agree that killing wild creatures should be a last resort.
 
The information I have read and the reaction from the neighbors causes me to seriously question whether extermination was warranted. The only justification I can find for the killing is, as reported on King5 NewsWildlife services received a request to assist in the management of several coyotes near the Laurelhurst neighborhood in Seattle. The coyotes had become increasingly aggressive towards people and pets in the area.
 
This statement leaves a lot to the imagination. I admit I do not know the details. I can however make a couple of logical assumptions given the information provided.
 
a) Since no injuries to humans were reported, I suspect the coyotes did not injure anyone.
 
b) Since no injuries to pets were noted, I suspect the coyotes did not injure any pets, either.
 
If the coyotes did not injure any humans or their pets then I wonder, What exactly did they do? What does “increasingly aggressive” really mean? 
 
Does it mean that in the Spring, with young to feed, the coyotes were being seen more often during the day, because their normal nocturnal hunting was not sufficient? Does it mean that the coyotes chased someone’s cat up a tree? Does it mean that they growled at an off-leash dog that came near their den? Does it mean that the coyotes came into to someone’s yard because the owner left pet food or open garbage outside? All of these fictional examples could be resolved with human education. It makes me wonder if the actual situation could have also been resolved with community guidance and instruction.
 
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife provides an extensive online resource entitled, Living with Wildlife. The highlighted link goes directly to the specific portion of the site related to coyotes. The site lists many non-lethal options.
 
Our Canadian friends propose a simple three-step process for learning to deal with coyotes. The Stanley Park Ecological Society says, “1) Be Big, Brave and Loud. 2) Never Feed. 3) Spread the Word.” They have additional links and information on their site, Co-existing with Coyotes. Please note that they even have an educational program for K-7 students. If our northern neighbors can teach their kindergarten students how to safely encounter coyotes I suspect we should be able to do the same. 
 
Was education given a fair chance? I have read nothing which implies that the folks in Laurelhurst were provided instruction on how to co-exist with coyotes. The next time your organization is contacted to resolved an issue with coyotes, I sincerely hope you will ensure that the community as a whole gets to participate in the process and that the educational alternatives are fully exhausted.
 
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this issue.
 
Larry Hubbell
www.UnionBayWatch.blogspot.com

Update to Readers:

Does anyone happen to have a photo of the coyotes they would be willing to share?

Thank you to Doug Parrott for sharing his coyote photo taken on June 26th at the Union Bay Natural Area.

More Updates:

From the folks at The Laurelhurst Blog.

Here is the post the Laurelhurst Blog did on Friday about the killings:

ZAMBIA’S ON-OFF HIPPO CULL ON AGAIN!

http://www.bornfree.org.uk/animals/hippos/zambia-hippo-cull/

Update July 4th 2016

Born Free calls for independent Presidential inquiry and a permanent halt to the killing.

Two thousand of Africa’s increasingly rare hippo, living in the wildlife haven of Zambia’s Luangwa Valley, face the renewed threat of terror and death, following a meeting held in Lusaka on Wednesday 22nd June.

Will Travers OBE, President and CEO of Born Free Foundation, stated: “Leaving aside the moral and ethical arguments and Born Free’s consistent opposition to culling, we are asking for urgent clarification on a number of key issues and the publication of all scientific evidence that might support such drastic measures.”

International and Zambian opposition to the cull has been widely reported in the media.

A temporary suspension of the cull, announced on 14th June, was, according to the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW), to allow for “extensive consultation”. However, following the brief meeting in Lusaka on Wednesday 22nd June it now appears the hiatus is over and the cull is set to resume.

This “invitation only” meeting was called by Stephen Mwansa, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Tourism & Arts, and Paul Zyambo, Director of DNPW. The company contracted by DNPW to carry out the cull, Mabwe Adventures, was in attendance, along with only one local stakeholder, the Luangwa Safari Association – representing safari camps and lodges in South Luangwa National Park.

Information from Zambia indicates that DNPW is now poised to push ahead with the cull of 2,000 hippos over five years using paying trophy hunters, as was recently promoted on Theo De Marillac Safaris’ website.

Why this decision has been taken, and on what basis, remains shrouded in secrecy. In light of this, Born Free Foundation wrote to the President of Zambia, His Excellency Edgar Chagwa Lungu, on 27th June, requesting the cull be abandoned and that key information pertaining to DNPW’s justifications for the cull to be made publically available. To date, no response has been forthcoming.
Born Free Foundation, together with other wildlife conservation and animal protection organisations, believe that five critical issues still need to be addressed:

  1. DNPW has, to date, failed to provide robust, scientific evidence demonstrating that there is an overpopulation of hippos in the Luangwa River, or to make public the Government of the Republic of Zambia report that they have cited in their justification
  2. DNPW has failed to provide robust, scientific evidence clearly demonstrating that previous hippo culls in the Luangwa Valley have been successful in reducing the population over the long-term and that the culling methodology that has been proposed – targeting whole pods of hippos in the water – is humane
  3. DNPW has failed to provide rainfall and river level data showing that river levels and water flow in the Luangwa River are abnormally low and cannot sustain the current hippo population
  4. DNPW has failed to provide credible, scientific evidence to show that such an indiscriminate hippo cull would prevent a future outbreak of anthrax – not prevent the spread of an existing outbreak – as there isn’t one
  5. DNPW has failed to provide categorical evidence that an approved and transparent tendering process took place in awarding the culling contract to Mabwe Adventures, of which an ex-Zambia Wildlife Authority employee, Flavian Mupemo, is a shareholder and beneficiary.

Given the highly contentious nature of culling; the unanswered questions raised above; the possible conflict of interest; and the concerns about the lack of transparency of the tendering process, Born Free Foundation is calling for the planned cull to be abandoned and for the matter to be investigated at the highest possible level by an independent inquiry, established under the auspices of The Office of The President.

Travers added: “The longer these vitally important issues go unanswered, the more the authorities come up with different and, as yet, unsubstantiated justifications for the cull, the more Zambia – one of Africa’s great wildlife strongholds – will suffer lasting reputational and potentially economic damage. The independent inquiry, called for by Born Free, seems to me the only way to establish the truth and determine whether any of the claimed justifications for the cull – a measure which could see 2,000 wild hippo lose their lives – can withstand the scrutiny they deserve.”

What You Can Do

Please contact Zambia’s President and Minister of Tourism politely calling for this ‘temporary’ halt to be permananet.

Please write to:

His Excellency Edgar Chagwa Lungu
President of Zambia
State House
PO Box 30135
Lusaka
Zambia

Email: lunguedgar@gmail.com

Stephen Mwansa

Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Tourism & Arts

National Assembly of Zambia

Parliament Buildings

Parliament Road

PO Box 30575.

Lusaka

Zambia

smwansa@mota.gov.zm

 
Start both letters ‘Your Excellency’ and sign off both ‘Yours respectfully and sincerely’.

Thank you.

Or see our latest emergency activate campaign

Luangwa River

Save Andy the Polar Bear

Jill Kjonso
Fort Lauderdale, FL
129,761

Supporters

A polar bear named Andy is in trouble, and he needs our help. When he was not yet full-grown, Andy was fitted with a tracking collar by researchers. As he has grown, the collar has malfunctioned — it stopped transmitting a signal, and, last month, a photographer captured a photo of Andy with evident trauma around his neck from the extremely tight collar with a  release mechanism that has clearly failed. Andy’s life is at risk.

US and Canadian authorities were alerted to Andy’s situation, but so far no one is taking action or claiming responsibility for the collaring. Evidence suggests that it was likely the University of Alberta that placed the collar on Andy, yet all they have said in response to recent public pressure to help him is “options to find the bear are being examined.”

Time is running out, and we need to take real action. We are calling on the University of Alberta to immediately institute an active search for Andy, so they can remove the collar and provide all necessary treatment to ensure his well-being.

Locals in the area of Alaska where Andy was last seen have complained about polar bears with too-tight collars for years. Complications from collaring occur far too often, as the collaring process involves stressful chases, harmful sedation, and sometimes causes death. Collaring of polar bears is invasive and dangerous and there are simply far too few of this majestic species left to play with their lives.

It is true that Andy is just one polar bear, and scientists may see his plight as “collateral damage” in the interest of research for the good of all polar bears. But there is no justification for his strangulation, and research institutes that endeavor to capture and collar threatened species must be held responsible for their health and well-being.

In the meantime, the University of Alberta must use their resources to track Andy, remove the collar, and get him the medical attention he needs. Adding your voice to this petition will let them know that we are holding them accountable for Andy’s well-being, and that we will accept nothing short of immediate action.

If you would like to voice your concern for Andy, please contact the Executive Director of the Research and Ethics Office, Susan Babcock and Professor Andrew Derocher:                        susan.babcock@ualberta.ca                                        derocher@ualberta.ca

 

Letter to
University of Alberta
Andrew Derocher
Read more 

</a></div></div>” data-tolerance=”20″ data-_block=”A polar bear named Andy is in trouble, and he needs our help. When he was not yet full-grown, Andy was fitted with a tracking collar by researchers. As he has grown, the collar has malfunctioned — it stopped transmitting a signal, and, last month, a photographer captured a photo of Andy with evident trauma around his neck from the extremely tight collar with a release mechanism that has clearly failed. Andy’s life is at risk.<br />US and Canadian authorities were alerted to Andy’s situation, but so far no one is taking action or claiming responsibility for the collaring. Evidence suggests that it was likely the University of Alberta that placed the collar on Andy, yet all they have said in response to recent public pressure to help him is “options to find the bear are being examined.” <br />Time is running out, and we need to take real action. We are calling on the University of Alberta to immediately institute an active search for Andy, so they can remove the collar and provide all necessary treatment to ensure his well-being.<br />Locals in the area of Alaska where Andy was last seen have complained about polar bears with too-tight collars for years. Complications from collaring occur far too often, as the collaring process involves stressful chases, harmful sedation, and sometimes causes death. Collaring of polar bears should only be done when absolutely necessary, as it is invasive and dangerous, and there are simply far too few of this majestic species left to play with their lives. <br />It is true that Andy is just one polar bear, and scientists may see his plight as “collateral damage” in the interest of research for the good of all polar bears. But there is no justification for his strangulation, and research institutes that endeavor to capture and collar threatened species must be held responsible for their health and well-being.<br />In the meantime, the University of Alberta must use their resources to track Andy, remove the collar, and get him the medical attention he needs. Adding your voice to this petition will let them know that we are holding them accountable for Andy’s well-being, and that we will accept nothing short of immediate action.”>A polar bear named Andy is in trouble, and he needs our help. When he was not yet full-grown, Andy was fitted with a tracking collar by researchers. As he has grown, the collar has malfunctioned — it stopped transmitting a signal, and, last month, a photographer captured a photo of Andy with evident

Read more 

 https://www.change.org/p/university-of-alberta-save-andy-the-polar-bear?recruiter=58625131&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-md-action_alert-no_msg&fb_ref=Default

Award-winning film exposing America’s secret war on wildlife coming to Idaho, the biggest wolf-killing state

Oct. 5, 2015

MEDIA CONTACT:
Brooks Fahy
Executive Director
(541) 520-6003
 
Jane Goodall wants millions to hear government agents blow the whistle in “EXPOSED: USDA’s Secret War on Wildlife.” Idaho is Ground Zero for wildlife-killing in America, especially wolves.
– Screenings Oct. 12-16 in Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, Boise and Pocatello | See schedule
EUGENE, OR – An award-winning wildlife documentary that Jane Goodall wants millions to see is coming to Idaho, the biggest wolf-killing state in the nation. Idaho also has a reputation as a veritable playground for hunters, trappers and federal agents, who slaughter hundreds of thousands of wild animals unnecessarily there each year.

The film, EXPOSED: USDA’s Secret War on Wildlife, features three former federal agents and a prominent Congressman blowing the whistle on a barbaric and wasteful wildlife management program within the USDA called “Wildlife Services.” Every year agents from this program kill millions of animals across the nation. They are highly active in Idaho, and their methods-which are taxpayer funded-ignore science, harm humans, and kill pets and endangered species.

Idaho earned its reputation as the country’s biggest wolf-killing state by slaughtering close to 2,000 gray wolves since 2011, when they lost federal endangered species protection and management was turned over to state wildlife agencies. Idaho has even allowed Wildlife Services agents to gun down wolves from helicopters over the “Lolo Zone,” a prime wolf habitat in the North-Central part of the state. The Lolo Zone features some of the most rugged and beautiful public wildlands in the Lower 48. Idaho’s stated goal is to reduce their wolf population to 150, a scientifically disastrous objective that destroys the positive effect apex predators have on ecosystems and the biodiversity they foster.

Wildlife Services is charged with taking out any threat to livestock-real or alleged. This killing is done largely for the benefit of private individuals who don’t take responsibility for protecting their animals.
The whistle-blowers in the film “EXPOSED” reveal deeply entrenched problems within this federal agency, not the least of which is lack of accountability with federal funds. Another problem is Wildlife Services’ obstinacy in ignoring science, which clearly shows the exponentially accelerating ecological damage caused by killing off predator species.

But the biggest outcry is about the inhumane and indiscriminate methods the agents use-traps, snares, aerial gunning and poisons. Ironically, these devices often pose a greater risk than the very wild animals they purport to control. Many proven nonlethal alternatives that minimize conflicts with wild animals are available, but Wildlife Services does not require landowners to use them before their trappers apply lethal force.

To date, countless people and pets have suffered injury and death due to negligent use of traps and poisons. And while Wildlife Services’ own directives require agents to post warnings to alert the public, they often don’t post them. When they do, the signs are only marginally effective, as animals and young children don’t understand them.

Wildlife Services has been publicly condemned by Jane Goodall, PH.D., DBE, who said “I hope EXPOSED will be watched by millions, so Americans will learn of the unforgivable actions of those who have exercised their power to cause untold agony to thousands of innocent fellow creatures on our planet.” The agency has also been excoriated by The Humane Society of the United States, the American Society of Mammalogists, and many other credible organizations and individuals.
“EXPOSED” won Best Short Film at the 2015 Animal Film Festival and Best Wildlife Activism at the 2014 Wildlife Conservation Film Festival.

Screenings will be held in four cities and will be followed by an audience question and answer session with film co-producer/director Brooks Fahy. The events are being sponsored by Predator Defense, Friends of the Clearwater, Advocates for the West, Western Watersheds Project, and the Kootenai Environmental Alliance.

schedule“EXPOSED” Screening Schedule

COEUR D’ALENE
Monday, October 12, 6 p.m.
Coeur d’Alene Library Community Room
702 E. Front Ave.
FREE
MOSCOW
Tuesday, October 13, 7 p.m.
1912 Center, Great Room
412 E. Third St.
FREE
BOISE
Thursday, October 15, 4 p.m.
4:00 p.m., Boise State University
Student Union Building, Lookout Room
FREE
Thursday, October 15, 7:30 p.m.
The Flicks, 646 W. Fulton St, Boise
$5 at door
POCATELLO
Friday, October 16, 7 p.m.
Idaho State University
Student Union Building, POND Wood River Room
$5 at door
#  #  #

 
About Predator Defense
Founded in 1990, Predator Defense is a national nonprofit working to protect native predators and create alternatives for people to coexist with wildlife. Our efforts take us into the field, onto America’s public lands, to Congress, and into courtrooms.  Visit us at