Wisconsin Sinks To New Low..

Desportes_wolf

We all know Wisconsin is allowing trophy hunters to chase down wolves with dogs. It was challenged in the courts by humane organizations who recognize this for what it is, cruelty, pure and simple.  An appeals court recently ruled  the state can go forward with this disgusting, ugly practice, essentially sanctioning  dog fighting.

Wisconsin is gaining the reputation as Idaho east, except even Idaho, as brutal as their policies are toward wolves, don’t allow this. Just wondering how these so-called Wisconsin “hunters” would like to be chased down by dogs?  They wouldn’t be so “brave” then, now would they?

BOYCOTT WISCONSIN!!

 ===

LETTER: Wisconsin has poor version of ethical hunting

July 23, 2014 3:03 pm  • 

Black bears should no longer feel solely terrorized and persecuted by hound hunters in training activities; the gray wolf has now joined their ranks.

Here’s how hound training on both bears and wolves works: Bear baiting begins April 15, 111 days longer than the six other states still allowing pre-season bear baiting. Gallons of sweet treats are dumped in our woods to habituate bears and newborn cubs into showing up at dumping sites daily. After three months of getting fat on sweet treats, July 1 the rules and their world changes. Now packs of hounds are released into the woods from baiting stations or on a bear track crossing the road and the chase is on.

These chases can last for hours and cover up to 10-plus miles while hunters stay on the roads and drive from one block of woods to the next while following hounds on GPS, who are running their quarry to exhaustion. If cubs are lucky they make it to a tree before the hounds; some are not so lucky.

Now add wolves and wolf pups who, unlike bears, are now being run down by an unlimited number of hounds for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with no license required. Contrary to what the DNR and hound hunters state, walking up to a dog and wolf fight to put a leash on dogs while skipping home unscathed is far from the truth. Poaching of wolves will be rampant.

Bear hounds are bred to be tough and fight, but history tells us they are no match for a wolf as $500,000-plus in depredation payments have gone to hound hunters. This is canine against canine. In less than one minute a wolf can either break the neck or back of a bear hound or disembowel and rip it’s hide off. In the 20 minutes to an hour that it takes the hunters to make it from their trucks to the fight in the woods, how many hounds, wolves and wolf pups at rendezvous sites will already be dead? Since there is no limit on number of hounds on wolves, maybe 12 to 18 hounds on one wolf will get the upper hand?

Make no mistake, this will be brutal. Thank you, Wisconsin legislators, for Act 169.

Click here for link

===

 Wis. Court: Hunters Can Train Dogs On Wolves

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A state appeals court ruled Thursday that hunters can train dogs to chase down wolves, rejecting arguments from a group of humane societies that wildlife officials are allowing deadly wolf-dog clashes and cementing one of the most contentious elements of Wisconsin wolf hunting.
Click here to read more:
===

Is Trophy Hunting a Form of Serial Killing? By Gareth Patterson

Lion expert and conservationist Gareth Patterson takes aim

“For me – and the many people who contact me to offer their support – killing innocent animals for self-gratification is no different from killing innocent people for self-gratification. By extension, then, trophy hunting – the repeated killing of wild animals – should surely be viewed as serial killing. And in the same moral light humanity’s thinking is, I feel, beginning to approach such a level of morality.

What are the comparisons between trophy hunting and serial killing?

To attempt to answer this question, I did some research into the gruesome subject of serial killing. I learnt firstly that serial murder is a grotesque habit which analysts regard as addictive. Serial murder, I learnt, is about power and control – both linked to the killers’ longing to “be important”.

It appears when the serial killer commits the first act of murder, he experiences feelings such as revulsion and remorse, but the killing – like a dose of highly addictive drug – leads to more and more murders until the person is stopped. Researchers have discovered that serial murderers experience a cooling-off period after a killing, but as with a drug craving, the compulsion – the need to kill – keeps building up until the killer heads out again in search of another victim.

Trophy hunters are mostly “repeat” killers. This is further fueled by elite trophy hunting competitions. It has been calculated that in order for a hunter to win these competitions in all categories at the highest level, he would have to kill at least 322 animals.

Pornography is perceived by analysts as a factor that contributes toward serial killers’ violent fantasies – particularly “bondage-type” pornography portraying domination and control over a victim.

Hunting magazines contain page after page of (a) pictures of hunters, weapon in hand, posing in dominating positions over their lifeless victims, (b) advertisements offering a huge range of trophy hunts, and (c) stories of hunters’ “exciting” experience of “near misses” and danger.

These pages no doubt titillate the hunter, fueling his own fantasies and encouraging him to plan more and more trophy hunts.

Trophy hunters often hire a camera person to film their entire hunt in the bush, including the actual moments when animals are shot and when they die. These films are made to be viewed later, presumably for self-gratification and to show to other people – again the need to feel “important”?

This could also be seen as a form of trophy which mirrors in some respect pornographic “snuff” videos known to be made by some serial killers. Other serial killers have tape-recorded the screams of their victims, which were kept for later self-gratification.

There is a strong urge to achieve perceived “heroism” in serial murderers. This is linked to the individual’s craving for “self-esteem”. Student Robert Smith, for example, who in November 1996 walked into a beauty parlour in Mesa, Arizona, and shot five women and two children in the back of the heads, said of his motivation to kill: “I wanted to become known, to get myself a name”.

Multiple killer Cari Panzram (among whose victims were six Africans he shot in the back “for fun” while working for an oil company in Africa) once stated of his actions: “I reform people”. When asked how, he replied: “By killing them”. Panzram also liked to describe himself as “the man who goes around doing good”.

The “Stockwell Strangler” of South London in the mid-1980s who told police he wanted to be famous is another example of how the serial killer clearly confuses notoriety for fame.

Are the trophy hunter’s killings linked to the serial killer’s addiction to murder, to achieve what is perceived to be heroism, to deep-rooted low self-esteem, to wanting to be famous – the “name in the trophy book”?

Certainly one could state that, like the serial killer, the trophy hunter plans his killing with considerable care and deliberation. Like the serial killer he decides well in advance the “type” of victim – i.e. which species he intends to target. Also, like the serial killer, the trophy hunter plans with great care where and how the killing will take place – in what area, with what weapon.

What the serial killer and trophy hunter also share is a compulsion to collect “trophies” or “souvenirs” of their killings. The serial killer retains certain body parts or other “trophies … for much the same reason as the big game hunter mounts the head and antlers taken from his prey … as trophies of the chase,” according to Colin Wilson and Donald Seaman in The Serial Killers, a book on the psychology of violence.

In The Serial Killers, the authors wrote about Robert Hansen, an Alaska businessman and big-game enthusiast who hunted naked prostitutes through the snow as though they were wild animals, then shot them dead. Hansen would point a gun at his victim, order her to take off all her clothes, and then order her to run. He would give his victims a “start” before stalking them. The actual act of killing his victims, Hansen once said, was an “anti-climax” and that “the excitement was in the stalking”.

How many times have I heard trophy hunters describing their actions in similar terms? “No, hunting isn’t just about killing,” they say. “It’s also about the stalk, the build-up to the kill”.

Hansen was a trophy hunter, who, according to Wilson and Seaman, had achieved “celebrity by killing a Dall sheep with a crossbow”. He also trophy hunted women but, as a married man with a family, he couldn’t put his human trophies next to those elk antlers and bear skins in his den.

As an alternative, Hansen, it was revealed, took items of jewelry from his victims as “trophies” and hid these in his loft so that, as with his animal trophies, he, the hunter, could relive his fantasy-inspired killings whenever he wished to.

According to Wilson and Seaman, Jack the Ripper cut off one victim’s nose and breasts and “as if they were trophies, displayed them on a bedside table, together with strips of flesh carved from her thighs”.

Jewellery, body parts, clothing such as underwear and so on, are all known “trophies” of the serial killer. One serial killer flayed his victim and made a waistcoat from the skin as a “souvenir” or “trophy”.

What could the non-hunting wives, girlfriends, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and children reveal of the nature and behavior of a hunter in the family? Could they reveal that the hunter had a very disturbed childhood?

Almost half the serial killers analyzed during behavioral research were found to have been sexually abused in childhood. Environmental problems early in life manifest in many cases in violence such as cruelty to animals. Maybe they have a frustrated craving for “self-esteem”, a deep desire to be recognized, a resentment against society? All these factors are some of the known links to the profile of the serial killer.

Lastly, serial killing has been described as a “20th-Century phenomenon”. The same could be said of Western trophy hunting in Africa.”

http://www.bushdrums.com/index.php/forum/topic/574-is-trophy-hunting-a-form-of-serial-killing-by-g-patterson

 ===

 Photo: Wikimedia Commons

 Posted in: Wolf Wars, Animal Cruelty
Tags: Gareth Patterson, trophy hunting/serial killing link?, Wisconsin, bear hunters, wolf hunters, animal cruelty

Looking Back: Remembering The Sage Creek Pack..

July 23, 2014

This week I’m re-posting tributes to fallen wolves and wolf packs, some killed before the 2009 delisting, like the 27 member strong Hog Heaven Pack, slaughtered in 2008 by Wildlife Services, outside of Kalispell, Montana.  It makes no difference to me whether they are famous park wolves or wolves who remain faceless and nameless, they are all equal in my eyes and I love them. To think of the thousands who’ve died  breaks my heart. I can’t help them now but I can honor them through remembrance. Sleep well beautiful souls.

===

The Sage Creek Pack was eliminated by aerial gunners in 2009.  It was a huge loss. Yellowstone wolves are genetically isolated, the  Sage Creek Pack could have provided them with important genetics but that means nothing to the wolf killers. Wildlife Services was aerial gunning wolves even as the first wolf hunt was taking place outside the park, which decimated the famed Cottonwood pack.

“The Sage Creek Pack roamed the Centennial Mountains between Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho – precisely in the area that could alleviate genetic isolation through the influx of wolves from Idaho and the possibility (for now, lost with the pack’s demise) of yearlings making their way into Yellowstone.”

Sage Creek Pack Wiped Out By Aerial Gunners in Montana

October 9, 2012

Aerial gunners wiped out the remaining four members of the Sage Creek Pack, which will serve to further genetically isolate Yellowstone’s wolves. The Center for Biological Diversity issued a statement concerning this outrageous event. This pack was originally targeted because it killed ONE SHEEP!!

“The initial cause for the destruction of the eight-member Sage Creek Pack was its predation on a single sheep on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Sheep Experiment Station, which grazes thousands of sheep on more than 100,000 acres in Montana and Idaho”

It always comes back to grazing livestock on public lands and who pays the price? The Wolf!

Montana FWP recently closed the backcountry area WMU-3 (which encompasses the wilderness outside of Yellowstone) in part due to the loss of nine wolves in that area, including the Cottonwood Pack. This pack was part of ongoing research on Yellowstone’s famous wolves. The hunts eliminated the pack because buffer zones were not in place for the wolves, who can’t read boundary signs. Their only crime was leaving the protection of the park. So that’s two wolf packs gone in a matter of weeks. One lost to hunters and the other to FWP aerial gunners.

For Immediate Release, October 9, 2009

Aerial Gunning of Wolf Pack in Montana Isolates Yellowstone Wolves, Undermines Recovery

SILVER CITY, N.M.— This week’s aerial gunning of the last four members of the Sage Creek wolf pack in southwestern Montana contributes to the genetic isolation of wolves in Yellowstone National Park – even as, on Thursday, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks commission suspended the public wolf-hunting season near Yellowstone in order not to isolate the national park’s wolves.

Said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity: “We are saddened by the loss of the Sage Creek Pack. Suspending the permitted wolf-hunting season near Yellowstone will not be enough to save these animals as long as the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to gun down entire packs from the air.”

The initial cause for the destruction of the eight-member Sage Creek Pack was its predation on a single sheep on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Sheep Experiment Station, which grazes thousands of sheep on more than 100,000 acres in Montana and Idaho.

In 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project sued the sheep station for its failure to disclose the impacts of, and analyze alternatives to, its operations, which has occurred in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. The sheep station settled the lawsuit with an agreement to disclose and analyze and to decide its future via a public process.

“The USDA Sheep Experiment Station is undermining gray-wolf recovery and should be shut down,” said Robinson.

Genetic isolation of the Yellowstone wolves, which may be exacerbated through the federal killing of the Sage Creek Pack, is at issue in a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and allies seeking to place wolves back on the endangered species list after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed them from the list this spring. Such genetic isolation was part of what led a federal court, in July 2008, to order the relisting of wolves after a previous delisting action.

The Sage Creek Pack roamed the Centennial Mountains between Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho – precisely in the area that could alleviate genetic isolation through the influx of wolves from Idaho and the possibility (for now, lost with the pack’s demise) of yearlings making their way into Yellowstone.

A 1994 environmental impact statement on wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone and central Idaho identified genetic exchange between sub-populations as key to wolf recovery.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/wolves-10-09-2009.html

Top photo: kewlwallpapersdotcom

Photo courtesy James Balog/www.goagro.org

Categories posted in: aerial gunning of wolves, biodiversity, Wolf Wars, Yellowstone Wolves

Tags: wolves or livestock, aerial gunning of wolves, wolf intolerance, Sage Creek Pack, genetic diversity loss

Remembering Yellowstone’s Cottonwood Pack….

yellowstones 527

Photo: Wolf 527, killed on Buffalo Plateau on Oct. 3. Credit: Dan Stahler / National Parks Service

July 21, 2014

There was great sadness over the killing of the 06 Female, one of the most famous wolves ever to grace Yellowstone National  Park. But long before her untimely death, another equally famous Yellowstone wolf met the same fate years earlier.  527f, the alpha female of Yellowstone’s Cottonwood Pack, was gunned down outside the park by a hunter’s bullet along with her equally famous daughter and mate. This happened mere months after the Obama administration removed ESA protections for wolves and handed them over to hostile state governments, in Montana and Idaho.
I want to pay tribute to these amazing wolves and others like them, as the tragedy of Obama’s failed policies continue to wreak havoc on wolves and other wildlife.
===
October 25, 2009

 Yellowstone’s famous Cottonwood pack Alpha female, 527, fell to  a hunter’s bullet outside the park at the beginning of Montana’s wolf hunt

Montana wolf hunt is stalked by controversy

The demise of a much-studied pack raises questions about lifting the hunting ban in areas bordering Yellowstone park.

October 25, 2009|Kim Murphy

GARDINER, MONT. — Wolf 527 was a survivor. She lived through a rival pack’s crippling 12-day siege of her den. When another pair of wolves laid down stakes in her territory, she killed the mother and picked off the pups while the invader’s mate howled nearby in frustration and fury.

She was not a charmer. But successful wolves are not known for their geniality. She was large and black and wary — and cruel when she needed to be. As the alpha female of the Cottonwood Creek pack, she also was equipped with a radio collar so wildlife biologists could track her movements, making her one of Yellowstone National Park’s best-known wolves.

 Then she ventured outside the park boundaries.

Wolf 527 was killed Oct. 3 by a hunter on Buffalo Plateau north of Yellowstone, less than three weeks into Montana’s back country elk season. Wolves often stalk elk outside the park and are attracted by entrails the hunters leave behind. But this year, the elk season coincided with the opening of the state’s first wolf hunt in modern times.

“She was a genius wolf in her tactics,” said Laurie Lyman, a former San Diego County teacher who has spent the last five years tracking the recovery of the endangered gray wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995. “Her strategies were just unbelievable. She knew how to survive anything, but she didn’t know how to survive a man with a gun.”

Park officials believe four of the Cottonwood pack’s 10 wolves — including 527′s mate, the alpha male, and her daughter — died during those first weeks, in effect ending research into one of the park’s most important study groups.

“Whether the pack exists anymore or not, to us the pack is gone,” said Doug Smith, the biologist in charge of the Yellowstone reintroduction program that helped bring wolves back from the brink of extinction in the Northern Rockies. Cottonwood “was a key pack on the northern range,” he said, giving researchers a window into the existence of animals that had little or no interaction with humans.

State wildlife officials, caught off guard by the ease with which the wolves were cut down, called off the backcountry hunt along a section of Yellowstone’s northern boundary for the rest of the year.

But the general wolf hunting season opens today throughout much of the rest of Montana, including other areas bordering the 3,468-square-mile park. Wildlife advocates have sought, so far unsuccessfully, a buffer zone to protect Yellowstone’s storied wolf packs.

With more than 1,600 wolves now in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, state officials are allowing hunters this year to take up to 75 in Montana and 220 in Idaho. Federal protections remain in Wyoming.

“We’ve got quite a number of other border packs. So people need to decide how hunting’s going to occur on the park boundaries,” Smith said. “Whose wolves are they? Are they national wolves? Montana wolves? And we have to decide what is the value of our research on wolf populations that are not affected by people.”

Read more: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/25/nation/na-wolf-hunt25

====
Photo: Courtesy Dan Stahler / National Parks Service

Categories posted in: Yellowstone wolves, Wolf Wars

Tags: Montana wolf hunt, Yellowstone wolves, wolf myths, 06 Female, Lamar Canyon Pack,  Cottonwood Pack, 527f, hunters kill famous Yellowstone wolves

The Killing Game by Joy Williams

Dr. Denise Albert was able to remove a snare from around a wolf’s neck and treat the animal with antibiotics. NPS photo

Warning Graphic Photos and Videos

July 16, 2014

This is Joy Williams timeless essay on hunting,  which exposes the brutality of the “sport”. It’s as true today as when she wrote it 24 years ago.

I post this every year or so to remind people what we’re up against and how humans contribute to animal suffering for sport.

I highlighted the paragraphs she devotes to wolves and their reintroduction, which was still years away when this essay was written. Peering into the future she predicted the terrible fate awaiting them.

What killing snares do. Imagine the pain this wolf suffered.

===

The Killing Game

by Joy Williams

October  1990, Esquire Magazine

Death and suffering are a big part of hunting.  A big part. Not that you’d ever know it by hearing hunters talk. They tend to downplay the killing part. To kill is to put to death, extinguish, nullify, cancel, destroy. But from the hunter’s point of view, it’s just a tiny part of the experience. The kill is the least important part of the hunt, they often say, or, killing involves only a split second of the innumerable hours we spend surrounded by and observing nature…For the animal, of course, the killing part is of considerable more importance. José Ortega y Gasset,In Meditations on Hunting, wrote, Death is a sign of reality in hunting. One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrarary, one kills in order to have huntedThis is sort of intellectual blather that the “thinking” hunter holds dear. The conservation editor of Field & Stream, George Reiger, recently paraphrased this sentiment by saying, We kill to hunt, and not the other way around, thereby making it truly fatuous. A hunter in West Virginia, one Mr. Bill Neal, blazed through this philosophical fog by explaining why he blows the toes off tree raccoons so that they will fall down and be torn apart by his dogs. That’s the best part of it. It’s not any fun just shooting them.

There is a formula to this in literature—someone the protagonist loves has just died, so he goes out and kills an animal. This makes him feel better. But it’s kind of a sad feeling-better. He gets to relate to Death and Nature in this way. Somewhat. But not really. Death is still a mystery. Well it’s hard to explain. It’s sort of a semireligious thing… Killing and affirming, affirming and killing, it’s just the cross the “good” hunter must bear. The bad hunter just has to deal with postkill letdown.  

Many are the hunter’s specious arguments. Less semi-religious but a long-standing favorite with them is the vegetarian approach: you eat meat, don’t you? If you say no, they feel they’ve got you—you’re just a vegetarian attempting to impose your weird views on others. If you say yes, they accuse you for being hypocritical, of allowing your genial A&P butcher to stand between you and reality. The fact is, the chief attraction of hunting is the pursuit and murder of animals—the meat eating aspect of it is trivial. If the hunter chooses to be ethical about it, he might cook his kill, but the meat of most animals is discarded. Dead bear can even be dangerous! A bear’s heavy hide must be skinned at once to prevent meat spoilage. With effort, a hunter can make okay chili, something to keep in mind, a sports rag says, if you take two skinny spring bears.

As for subsistence hunting, please… Granted that there might be one “good” hunter out there who conducts the kill as spiritual exercise and two others who are atavistic enough to want to supplement their Chicken McNuggets with venison, most hunters hunt for the hell of it.

For hunters, hunting is fun. Recreation is play. Hunting is recreation. Hunters kill for play, for entertainment. They kill for the thrill of it, to make an animal “theirs”. (The Gandhian doctrine of nonpossesion has never been a big hit with hunters.) The animal becomes the property of the hunter by its death. Alive, the beast belongs only to itself. This is unacceptable to the hunter. He’s yours…He’s mine…I decided to…I decided not to…I debated shooting it, then I decided to let it live… Hunters like beautiful creatures. A “beautiful” deer, elk, bear, cougar, bighorn sheep. A “beautiful” goose or mallard. Of course, they don’t stay “beautiful” for long, particularly the birds. Keep shooting till they drop! Hunters get a thrill out of seeing a plummeting bird, out of seeing it crumple and fall. The big pheasant folded in classic fashion. They get a kick out of “collecting” new species. Why not add a unique harlequin duck to your collection? Swan hunting is satisfying. I let loose a three-inch Magnum. The large bird only flinched with my first shot and began to gain altitude. I frantically ejected the round, chambered another, and dropped the swan with my second shot. After retrieving the bird I was amazed by its size. The swan’s six-foot wingspan, huge body, and long neck made it an impressive trophy. Hunters like big animals, trophy animals. A “trophy” usually means that the hunter doesn’t design to eat it. Maybe he skins it or mounts it. Maybe he takes a picture. We took pictures, we took pictures. Maybe he just looks at it for a while. The disposition of the “experience” is up to the hunter. He’s entitled to do whatever he wishes with the damn thing. It’s dead.

Hunters like categories they can tailor to their needs. There are the “good” animals—deer, elk, bear, moose—which are allowed to exist for the hunter’s pleasure. Then there are the “bad” animals, the vermin, varmints, and “nuisance” animals, the rabbits and raccoons and coyotes and beavers and badgers, which are disencouraged to exist. The hunter can have fun killing them, but the pleasure is diminished because the animals aren’t “magnificent”.

Then there are the predators. These can be killed any time, because, hunters argue, they’re predators, for godsakes.

Many people in South Dakota want to exterminate the red fox because it preys upon some of the ducks and pheasant they want to hunt and kill each year. They found that after they killed the wolves and coyotes, they had more foxes than they wanted. The ring-necked pheasant is South Dakota’s state bird. No matter that it was imported from Asia specifically to be harvested for sport, it’s South Dakota’s state bird and they are proud of it. A group called Pheasants Unlimited gave some tips on how to hunt foxes. Place a small amount of larvicide [a grain fumigant] on a rag and chuck it down the hole… The first pup generally comes out in fifteen minutes… Use a .22 to dispatch him… Remove each pup shot from the hole. Following gassing, set traps for the old fox who will return later in the evening…Poisoning, shooting, trapping—they make up a sort of sportsman’s triathlon.

In the hunting magazines, hunters freely admit the pleasure of killing

to one another. Undeniable pleasure radiated from her smile. The excitement of shooting the bear had Barb talking a mile a minute. But in public, most hunters are becoming a little wary about raving on as to how much fun it is to kill things. Hunters have a tendency to call large animal by cute names—“bruins” and “muleys”, “berry-fed blackies” and “handsome cusses” and “big guys”, thereby implying a balanced jolly game of mutual satisfaction between the hunter and the hunted—Bam, bam, bam, I get to shoot you and you get to be dead. More often, though, when dealing with the nonhunting public, a drier, businesslike tone is employed. Animal become a “resource” that must be “utilized”. Hunting becomes “a legitimate use of the resource”. Animals become a product like wool or lumber or a crop like fruit or corn that must be “collected” or “taken” or “harvested”. Hunters love to use the word legitimate. (Oddly, Tolstoy referred to hunting as “evil legitimized”.) a legitimate use, a legitimate form of recreation, a legitimate escape, a legitimate pursuit. It’s a word they trust will slam the door on discourse. Hunters are increasingly relying upon their spokesmen and supporters, state and federal game managers and wildlife officials, to employ the drone of a solemn bureaucratic language and toss around a lot of questionable statistics to assure the nonhunting public (93 percent!) that there’s nothing to worry about. The pogrom is under control. The mass murder and manipulation of wild animals is just another business. Hunters are a tiny minority, and it’s crucial to them that the millions of people who don’t hunt not be awakened from their long sleep and become antihunting. Nonhunters are okay. Dweeby, probably, but okay. A hunter can respect the rights of a nonhunter. It’s the “antis” he despises, those misguided, emotional, not-in –possession-of –the-facts, uninformed zealots who don’t understand nature… Those dime-store ecologists cloaked in ignorance and spurred by emotion… Those doggy-woggy types, who under the guise of being environmentalists and conservationists are working to deprive him of his precious right to kill. (Sometimes it’s just a right; sometimes it’s a god-given right.) Antis can be scorned, but nonhunters must be pacified, and this is where the number crunching of wildlife biologists and the scripts of professional resource managers come in. leave it to the professionals. They know what numbers are the good numbers. Utah determined that there were six hundred sandhill cranes in the state, so permits were issued to shoot one hundred of them. Don’t want to have too many sandhill cranes. California wildlife officials reported “sufficient numbers” of mountain lions to “justify” renewed hunting, even though it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the animal is extremely rare. (It’s always a dark day for hunters when an animal is adjudged rare. How can its numbers be “controlled” through hunting if it scarcely exists?) a recent citizens’ referendum prohibits the hunting of the mountain lion in perpetuity—not that the lions aren’t killed anyway, in California and all over the West, hundreds of them annually by the government as part of the scandalous Animal Damage Control Program. (Wildlife Services old name) Oh, to be the lucky hunter who gets to be an official government hunter and can legitimately kill animals his buddies aren’t supposed to! Montana officials, led by K. L. Cool, that state’s wildlife director, have definite ideas of the number of buffalo they feel can be tolerated. Zero is the number. Yellowstone National Park is the only place in America where bison exist, having been annihilated everywhere else. In the winter of 1988, nearly six hundred buffalo wandered out of the north boundary of the park and into Montana, where they were immediately shot at point-blank range by lottery-winning hunters. It was easy. And it was obvious from a video taken on one of the blow-away-the-bison days that the hunters had a heck of a good time. The buffalo, Cool says, threaten ranchers’ livelihoods by doing damage to property—by which he means, I guess, that they eat the grass. Montana wants zero buffalo; it also wants zero wolves.

Large predators—including grizzlies, cougars, and wolves are often the most “beautiful”, the smartest and wildest animals of all. The gray wolf is both a supreme predator and an endangered species, and since the Supreme Court recently affirmed that ranchers have no constitutional right to kill endangered predators—apparently some God-given rights are not constitutional ones—this makes the wolf a more or less lucky dog. But not for long. A small population of gray wolves has recently established itself in northwestern Montana, primarily in Glacier National Park, and there is a plan, long a dream of conservationists, to “reintroduce” the wolf to Yellowstone. But to please ranchers and hunters, part of the plan would involve immediately removing the wolf from the endangered-species list. Beyond the park’s boundaries, he could be hunted as a “game animal” or exterminated as a “pest”. (Hunters kill to hunt, remember, except when they’re hunting to kill.) the area of Yellowstone where the wolf would be restored is the same mountain and high-plateau country that is abandoned in winter by most animals, including the aforementioned luckless bison. Part of the plan, too, is compensation to ranchers if any of their far-ranging livestock is killed by a wolf. It’s a real industry out there, apparently, killing and controlling and getting compensated for losing something under the Big Sky.

Wolves gotta eat—a fact that disturbs hunters. Jack Atcheson, an outfitter in Butte, said, Some wolves are fine if there is control. But there never will be control. The wolf-control plan provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service speaks only of protecting domestic livestock. There is no plan to protect wildlife… There are no surplus deer or elk in Montana… Their numbers are carefully managed. With uncontrolled wolf populations, a lot of people will have to give up hunting just to feed wolves. Will you give up your elk permit for a wolf?”

It won’t be long before hunters start demanding compensation for animals they aren’t able to shoot.

Hunters believe that wild animals exist only to satisfy their wish to kill them. And it’s so easy to kill them! The weaponry available is staggering, and the equipment and gear limitless. The demand for big boomers has never been greater than right now, Outdoor Life crows, and the makers of rifles and cartridges are responding to the craze with a variety of light artillery that is virtually unprecedented in the history of sporting arms… Hunters use grossly overpowered shotguns and rifles and compound bows. They rely on four-wheel-drive vehicles and three-wheel ATVs and airplanes… He was interesting, the only moving, living creature on that limitless white expanse. I slipped a cartridge into the barrel of my rifle and threw the safety off… They use snowmobiles to run down elk, and dogs to run down and tree cougars. It’s easy to shoot an animal out of a tree. It’s virtually impossible to miss a moose, a conspicuous and placid animal of steady habits… I took a deep breath and pulled the trigger. The bull dropped. I looked at my watch: 8:22. The big guy was early. Mike started whooping and hollering and I joined him. I never realized how big a moose was until this one was on the ground. We took pictures… hunters shoot animals when they are restingMike selected a deer, settled down to a steady rest, and fired. The buck was hit when he squeezed the trigger. John decided to take the other buck, which had jumped up to its feet. The deer hadn’t seen us and was confused by the shot echoing about in the valley. John took careful aim, fired, and took the buck. The hunt was over… And they shoot them when they are eating… The bruin ambled up the stream, checking gravel bars and backwaters for fish. Finally he plopped down on the bank to eat. Quickly, I tiptoed into the range… They use decoys and calls… The six-point gave me a cold-eyed glare from ninety steps away. I hit him with a 130-grain Sierra boat-tail handload. The bull went down hard. Our hunt was over… They use sex lures… The big buck raised its nose to the air, curled back its lips, and tested the scent of the doe’s urine. I held my breath, fought back the shivers, and jerked off a shot. The 180-grain spire-point bullet caught the buck high on the back behind the shoulder and put it down. It didn’t get up…They use walkie-talkies, binoculars, scopes… With my 308 Browning BLR, I steadied the 9X cross hairs on the front of the bear’s massive shoulders and squeezed. The bear cartwheeled backward for fifty yards… The second Federal Premium 165-grain bullet found its mark. Another shot anchored the bear for good… They bait deer with corn. They spread popcorn on golf courses for Canada geese and they douse meat baits with fry grease and honey for bears…Make the baiting site redolent of inner-city doughnut shops. They use blinds and tree stands and mobile stands. They go out in groups, in gangs, and employ “pushes” and “drives”. So many methods are effective. So few rules apply. It’s fun!… We kept on repelling the swarms of birds as they came in looking for shelter from that big ocean wind, emptying our shell belts… species can, in the vernacular, be pressured by hunting (which means that killing them has decimated them), but that just increases the fun, the challenge. There is practically no criticism of conduct within the ranks… It’s mostly a matter of opinion and how hunters have been brought up to hunt… Although a recent editorial in Ducks Unlimited magazine did venture to primly suggest that one should not fall victim to greed-induced stress through piggish competition with others.

But hunters are piggy. They just can’t seem to help it. They’re over equipped… insatiable, malevolent, and vain. They maim and mutilate and despoil. And for the most part, they’re inept. Grossly inept.

Camouflaged toilet paper is a must for the modern hunter, along with his Bronco and his beer. Too many hunters taking a dump in the woods with their roll of Charmin beside them were mistaken for white-tailed deer and shot. Hunters get excited. They’ll shoot anything—the pallid ass of another sportsman or even themselves. A Long Island man died last year when his shotgun went off as he clubbed a wounded deer with the butt. Hunters get mad. They get restless and want to fire! They want to use those assault rifles and see foamy blood on the ferns. Wounded animals can travel for miles in fear and pain before they collapse. Countless gut-shot deer—if you hear a sudden, squashy thump, the animal has probably been hit in the abdomenare “lost” each year. “Poorly placed shots” are frequent, and injured animal are seldom tracked, because most hunters never learned how to track. The majority of hunters will shoot at anything with four legs during deer season and anything with wings during duck season. Hunters try to nail running animals and distant birds. They become so overeager, so arousedthat they misidentify and misjudge, spraying their “game” with shots but failing to bring them down.

“Imagine Dying This Way” from Have Mercy On Our Wildlife

The fact is, hunters’ lack of skill is a big, big problem. And nowhere is the problem worse than in the new glamor recreation, bow hunting. These guys are elitists. They doll themselves up in camouflage, paint their faces black, and climb up into tree stands from which they attempt the penetration of deer, elk, and turkeys with modern, multiblade, broadhead arrows shot from sophisticated, easy-to-draw compound bows. This “primitive” way of hunting appeals to many, and even the nonhunter may feel that it’s a “fairer” method, requiring more strength and skill, but bow hunting is the cruelest, most wanton form of wildlife disposal of all. Studies conducted by state fish and wildlife departments repeatedly show that bow hunters wound and fail to retrieve as many animals as they kill. An animal that flees, wounded by an arrow, will most assuredly die of the wound, but it will be days before he does. Even with a “good” hit, the time elapsed between the strike and death is exceedingly long.

Nine month old puppy shot with arrow in it’s own yard and later goes into cardiac arrest and dies

What the hunter does as he hangs around waiting for his animal to finish with its terrified running and dying hasn’t been studied—maybe he puts on more makeup, maybe he has a highball.

Wildlife agencies promote and encourage bow hunting by permitting earlier and longer seasons, even though they are well aware that, in their words, crippling is a by-product of the sportmaking archers pretty sloppy for elitists. The broadhead arrow is a very inefficient killing tool. Bow hunters are trying to deal with this problem with the suggestion that they use poison pods. These poisoned arrows are illegal in all states except Mississippi ( Ah’m gonna get ma deer even if ah just nick the little bastard), but they are widely used anyway. You wouldn’t want that deer to suffer, would you?

Baby Elk cries for mom after being shot by bowhunter 3 times as mother watches helplessly

The mystique of the efficiency and decency of the bow hunter is as much as illusion as the perception that a waterfowler is a refined and thoughtful fellow, a romantic aestheteas Vance Bourjaily put it, equipped with his faithful Labs and a love for solitude and wild places. More sentimental drivel has been written about bird shooting than any other type of hunting. It’s a soul-wrenching pursuit, apparently, the execution of birds in flight. Ducks Unlimited—an organization that has managed to put a spin on the word conservation for years—works hard to project the idea that duck hunters are blue bloods and that duck stamps with their pretty pictures are responsible for saving all the saved puddles in North America. Sportsman’s conservation is a contradiction in terms (We protect things now so that we can kill them later) and is broadly interpreted (Don’t kill them all, just kill most of them). A hunter is a conservationist in the same way a farmer or a rancher is: he’s not. Like the rancher who kills everything that’s not stock on his (and the public’s) land, and the farmer who scorns wildlife because “they don’t pay their freight”, the hunter uses nature by destroying its parts, mastering it by simplifying it through death.

George (“We kill to hunt and not the other way around”) Reiger, the conservationist-hunter’s spokesman (he’s the best they’ve got, apparently)said the “dedicated” waterfowler will shoot other game “of course”, but we do so much in the same spirit of the lyrics, that when we’re not near the girl we love, we love the girl we’re near. (Duck hunters practice tough love). The fact is, far from being a “romantic aesthete” the waterfowler is the most avaricious of all hunters… That’s when Scott suggested the friendly wager on who would take the most birds…and the most resistant to minimum ecological decency. Millions of birds that managed to elude shotgun blasts were dying each year from ingesting the lead shot that rained down in the wetlands. Year after year, birds perished from feeding on spent lead, but hunters were “reluctant” to switch to steel. They worried that it would impair their shooting, and ammunition manufacturers said a changeover would be “expensive”. State and federal officials had to weigh the poisoning against these considerations. It took forever, this weighing, but now steel-shot loads are required almost everywhere, having been judged “more than adequate” to bring down the birds. This is not to say, of course, that most duck hunters use steel-shot almost everywhere. They’re traditionalists and don’t care for all the new, pesky rules. Oh, for the golden age of waterfowling, when a man could measure a good day’s shooting by the pickup load. But those days are gone. Fall is a melancholy time, all right.

Spectacular abuses occur wherever geese congregate, Shooting Sportsman notes quietly, something that the more cultivated Ducks Unlimited would hesitate to admit. Waterfowl populations are plummeting and waterfowl hunters are out of control. “Supervised” hunts are hardly distinguished from unsupervised ones. A biologist with the Department of the Interior who observed a hunt at Sand Lake in South Dakota said, Hunters repeatedly shot over the line at incoming flights where there was no possible chance of retrieving. Time and time again I was at the behaviour of hunters. I heard them laugh at the plight of dazed cripples that stumbled about. I saw them striking the heads of retrieved cripples against fence posts. In the South, wood ducks return to their roosts after sunset when shooting hours are closed. Hunters find this an excellent time to shoot them. Dennis Anderson, an outdoors writer, said, Roost shooters just fire at the birds as fast as they can, trying to drop as many as they can. Then they grab what birds they can find. The birds they can’t find in the dark, they leave behind.

Carnage and waste are the rules in bird hunting, even during legal seasons and open hours. Thousands of wounded ducks and geese are not retrieved, left to rot in the marshes and fields… When I asked Wanda where hers had fallen, she wasn’t sure. Cripples, and there are many cripples made in this pastime, are still able to run and hide, eluding the hunter even if he’s willing to spend time searching for them, which he usually isn’t… It’s one thing to run down a cripple in a picked bean field or a pasture, and quite another to watch a wing-tipped bird drop into a huge block of switch grass. Oh nasty, nasty switch grass. A downed bird becomes invisible on the ground and is practically unfindable without a good dog, and few “waterfowlers” have them these days. They’re hard to train—usually a professional has to do it—and most hunters can’t be bothered. Words are easy to tumble…Canada geese—blues and snows—can all take a good amount of shot. Brant are easily called and decoyed and come down easily. Roughed grouse are hard to hit but easy to kill. Shark tails are harder to kill but easier to hit… It’s just a nuisance to recover them. But its fun, fun, fun swatting them down… There’s distinct pleasure in watching a flock work to a good friend’s gun.

Teal, the smallest of common ducks, are really easy to kill. Hunters in the South use to practice on Teal in September, prior to the “serious” waterfowl season. But the birds were so diminutive and the limits so low (for a day) that many hunters felt it hardly worth going out and getting bit by mosquitoes to kill them. Enough did however, brave the bugs and manage to “harvest” 165,000 of the little migrating birds in Louisiana in 1987 alone. Shooting is usually best on opening day. By the second day you can sometimes detect a decline in local Teal numbers. Areas may deteriorate to virtually no action by the third day… The area deteriorates. When a flock is wiped out, the skies are empty. No action.

Teal declined more sharply than any duck species except mallard last year; this baffles hunters. Hunters and their procurers—wildlife agencies—will never admit that hunting is responsible for the decimation of a species. John Turner, head of the federal Fish and Wildlife Service, delivers the familiar and litanic line. Hunting is not the problem. Pollutionis the problem. Pesticides, urbanization, deforestation, hazardous waste, and wetland destruction are the problem. And drought! There’s been a big drought! Antis should devote their energies to solving these problems if they care about wildlife and leave the hunters alone. While the Fish and Wildlife Service is busily conducting experiments in cause and effect, like releasing Mallard ducklings on a wetland sprayed with the insecticides ethyl parathion (they died—it was known they would, but you can never have enough studies that show guns aren’t a duck’s only problem), hunters are killing some 200 million birds and animals each year. But these deaths are incidental to the problems, according to Turner. A factor, perhaps, but a minor one. Ducks Unlimited says the problem isn’t hunting,  Ducks Unlimited says the problem isn’t hunting, it’s low recruitment on the part of the birds. To the hunter, birth in the animal kingdom is recruitment. They wouldn’t want use an emotional, sentimental word like birth. The black duck, a very “popular” duck in the North East, so “popular” in fact, that game agencies felt that hunters couldn’t be asked to refrain from shooting it, is scarce and scarcer. Nevertheless, it’s still being hunted. A number of studies are currently underway in an attempt to discover why black ducks are disappearing, Sports Afield reports. Black ducks are disappearing because they’ve been shot out, their elimination being dreadful example of game management, and managers who are loath to “displease” hunters. The skiesflyways—of America have been divided into four administrative regions, and the states, advised by a federal government coordinator, have to agree on policies.

There’s always a lot of squabbling that goes on in flyway meetings—lots of complaints about short-stopping, for example. Short-stopping is the deliberate holding of birds in a state, often by feeding them in wildlife refuges, so that their southern migration is slowed or stopped. Hunters in the North get to kill more than hunters in the South. This isn’t fair. Hunters demand equity in opportunities to kill.

Wildlife managers hate closing the season on anything. Closing the season on species would indicate a certain amount of mismanagement and misjudgment at the very least—a certain reliance on overly optimistic winter counts, a certain over appeasement of hunters who would be “upset” if they couldn’t kill their favorite thing. And worse, closing a season would be considered victory for the antis. Bird-hunting “rules” are very complicated, but they all encourage killing. There are shortened seasons and split seasons and special seasons for “underutilized” birds. (Teals were very recently considered “underutilized”). The limit on coots is fifteen a day—shooting them, it’s easy! They don’t fly high—giving the hunter something to do while he waits in the blind. Some species are “protected”, but bear in mind that hunters begin blasting away one half hour before sunrise and that most hunters can’t identify a bird in the air even in broad daylight. Some of them can’t identify birds in hand either, and even if they can (they are likely to bury unpopular or “trash” ducks so that they can continue to hunt the ones they “love”.

Game “professionals”, in thrall to hunters’ “needs”, will not stop managing bird population until they’ve doled out the final duck (I didn’t get my limit but I begged the last one, by golly…). The Fish and Wildlife Service services legal hunters as busily as any madam, but it is powerless in tempering the lusts of the illegal ones. Illegal kill is a monumental problem in the not-so-wonderful world of waterfowl. Excesses has always pervaded the “sport”, and bird shooters have historically been the slobs and profligates of huntingDoing away with hunting would do away with a vital cultural and historical aspect of American life, John Turner claims. So do away with it. Do away with those who have already done away with so much. Do away with them before the birds they have pursued so relentlessly and for so long drop into extinction, sink, in the poet Wallace Stevens’s words, “downward to darkness on extended wings”.

“Quality” hunting is as rare as the Florida panther. What you’ve got is a bunch of guys driving over the plains, up the mountains, and through the woods with their stupid tag that cost them a couple of bucks and immense coolers full of beer and body parts. There’s a price tag on the right to destroy living creatures for play, but it’s not much. A big game hunting license is the greatest deal going since the Homestead Act, Ted Kerasote writes in Sports AfieldIn many states residents can hunt big game for more than a month for about $20. It’s cheaper than taking a little woman out for lunch. It’s cheap all right, and it’s because killing animals is considered recreation and is underwritten by state and federal funds. In Florida, state moneys are routinely spent on “youth hunts”, in which kids are guided to shoot deer from stands in wildlife-management areas. The organizers of these events say that these staged hunts help youth to understand man’s role in the ecosystem. (Drop a doe and take your place in the ecological community, son…)

Hunters claim (they don’t actually believe it but they’ve learned to say it) that they’re doing nonhunters a favor, for if they didn’t use wild animals, wild animals would be useless. They believe that they’re just helping Mother Nature control populations (you wouldn’t want those deer to die of starvation, would you?). They claim that their tiny fees provide all Americans with wild lands and animals. (People who don’t hunt get to enjoy animals all year round while hunters get to enjoy them only during hunting season…) Ducks Unlimited feels that it, in particular, is a selfless provider and environmental champion. Although members spend most of their money lobbying for hunters and raising ducks in pens to release later over shooting fields, they do save some wetlands, mostly by persuading farmers not to fill them in. See that little pothole there the ducks like? Well, I’m gonna plant more soybeans there if you don’t pay me not to… Hunters claim many nonsensical things, but the most nonsensical of all is that they pay their own way. They do not pay their own way. They do pay into a perverse wildlife-management system that manipulates “stocks” and “herds” and “flocks” for hunters’ killing pleasure, but these fees in no way cover the cost of highly questionable ecological practices. For some spare changethe greatest deal going hunter can hunt on public land—national parks, state forests—preserves for hunters!—which the nonhunting and antihunting public pay for. (Access to private lands is becoming increasingly difficult for them, as experience has taught people who hunt are obnoxious.) Hunters kill on millions of acres of land all over America that are maintained with general taxpayer revenue, but the most shocking, really twisted subsidization takes place on national wildlife refuges. Nowhere is the arrogance and the insidiousness of this small, aggressive minority more clearly demonstrated. Nowhere is the murder of animals. The manipulation of language, and the distortion of public intent more flagrant. The public perceives national wildlife refuges as safe havens, as sanctuaries for animals. And why wouldn’t they? The word refuge of course means shelter from danger and distress. But the dweeby nonhunting public—they tend to be so literal. The word has been reinterpreted by management over time and now hunters are invited into more than half of the country’s more than 440 wildlife “sanctuaries” each year to bang them up and kill more than half a million animals. This is called wildlife-oriented recreation. Hunters think of this as being no less than their due, claiming that refuge lands were purchased with duck stamps (…our duck stamps paid for it …our duck stamps paid for it …). Hunters equate those stupid stamps with the mystic, multiplying power of the Lord’s loaves and fishes, nut of 90 million acres in the wildlife Refuge System, only 3 million were bought with hunting-stamp revenue. Most wildlife “restoration” programs in the states are translated into clearing land to increase deer habitats (so that too many deer will require hunting…you wouldn’t want them to die of starvation, would you?) and trapping animals for restocking and study (so hunters can shoot more of them). Fish and game agencies hustle hunting—instead of conserving wildlife, they’re killing it. It’s time for them to get in the business of protecting and preserving wildlife and creating balanced ecological systems instead of pimping for hunter who want their deer/duck/pheasant/turkey—animals stocked to be shot.

Hunters’ self-serving arguments and lies are becoming more preposterous as nonhunters awake from their long, albeit troubled, sleep. Sport hunting is immoral; it should be made illegal. Hunters are persecutors of nature who should be prosecuted. They wield a disruptive power out of all proportion to their numbers, and pandering to their interests—the special interests of a group that just wants to kill things—is mad. It’s preposterous that every yealess than 7 percent of the population turns the skies into shooting galleries and the woods and fields into abattoirs. It’s time to stop actively supporting and passively allowing hunting, and time to stigmatize it. It’s time to stop being conned and cowed by hunter, time to stop pampering and coddling them, time to get them off the government’s duck-and-deer dole, time to stop thinking of wild animals as “resources” and “game,” and start thinking of them as sentient beings that deserve our wonder and respect, time to stop allowing hunting to be creditable by calling it “sport” and “recreation.” Hunters make wildlife dead, dead, dead. It’s time to wake up to this indisputable fact. As for the hunters, it’s long past check-out time.

Williams, Joy. “The Killing Game,” Esquire Magazine, 1990.

===

How To Handle A Gut Shot

By Dr. Dave Samuel

Bowsitedotom

Another factor is critical to recovering wounded animals … knowing where the animal was hit.  I’ve used yellow and/or white feathers for 50 years and the reason is a simple one.  They allow me to better follow the flight of the arrow and determine where I hit.

On my most recent elk hunt, a big coyote came to water right at dark.  The shot was 29 yards or so, and even in the dim light, I knew right where my arrow struck that coyote.  In that case it didn’t affect the quick recovery.  But for deer, elk, moose, etc., knowing exactly where you hit might determine how and when you follow the animal.

All the above seems fairly basic. Then again, bowhunting is about basics.  I’ve paunch shot several deer over the years, and I thank Len Cardinale from New Jersey for his lesson taught those many years ago.  Up till then I figured you had to follow paunched animals right away if there was rain.  Not so.  Up till then I figured you need only wait two hours on a paunched animal.  Not so. Six hours is better (of course if it is very, very hot, and there is a lot of open country allowing little shade, then you might go a bit earlier to prevent spoilage … but usually 6 hours is it).

True, the animals don’t always go by the book.  But follow these basic principles and your recovery rate on paunch animals will rise dramatically.  The deer are doing it out there right now, so it’s time to hit the woods.

http://bowsite.com/BOWSITE/features/articles/deer/gutshot/

===

Videos: Courtesy You Tube

Top Photo: Courtesy NPS

Middle Photos: Wolf Hunting 101, All Creatures, Have Mercy On Our Wildlife

Posted in: Animal Rights, Howling for Justice, Wolf Wars

Tags: evils of hunting, Joy Williams, The Killing Game

Speaking for Wolves Under A Beautiful Montana Sky!

Speak for Wolves

Neil Haverstick on guitar

Wonderful rally, beautiful weather (most of the time..lol), lots of passion, amazing speakers.

 Thank you Brett for all your hard work putting the rally together and making it a success!!

More details tomorrow Wolf Warriors, just got home and ready for a good nights sleep!

For the wolves, For the wild ones,

Nabeki

===

Elk lounging on high school field behind Yellowstone entrance

Elk lounging behind Arch Park today at the rally (June 29, 2014) They were there to support the wolves :)

4.5 Million Dog Bites in 2013 Including 2 Million Children…

Border_Collie wiki jpg

Let me preface this first by saying I’m a dog lover, they’ve been my wonderful companions throughout my life. We love our dogs but know they can and do bite. It’s pretty hard to find anyone in this country who hasn’t been bitten themselves or knows of someone who’s suffered a dog bite. It’s reality, yet wolf haters get away with spreading evil anecdotal claims about wolves. These “stories” are often reported as fact in local and even MSM media without a shred of evidence to back them up.  But statistics prove wolves are the least dangerous of all large carnivores in North America, rarely attacking or biting anyone. In the last 100 years, wolves have been accused in just TWO controversial fatal attacks,  yet in 2013 alone 4.5 million people were bitten by dogs, including 2 million children and 5581 postal workers, dogs also killed 32 people last year.

Can you imagine the hysteria if these stats were reversed and it was wolves who were doing the biting and mauling?

So the next time wolf haters accuse wolves of being vicious, child attacking monsters remind them the most dangerous canines don’t live in the woods but in our homes.

We need to stop the false narratives about wolves as an excuse to eliminate them!!

===

2013 Dog-Bite Stats Include 5,581 Postal Carriers

USFWS Says Wolf Recovery Is A Success Because Wolves Live…WTF???

NatureColdWarriors_3wolves

April 16, 2014

This takes the cake. In a ridiculous statement (and a foreshadowing of the way their decision on delisting wolves nationally is going to go) the USFWS said:

Gray wolf’s success means it lives

Posted: 04/12/2014 06:32:01 AM EDT

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s update on the status of gray wolves in the West, which it released last week, amounted to an implicit plug for its proposal to lift federal protections for the creature across the lower 48 states.

Wolf restoration has been an “amazing success,” the service said, and “by every biological measure the (Northern Rocky Mountains) wolf is recovered and remains secure under state management.”

The evidence: The number of breeding pairs and individual wolves remains comfortably above the agency’s minimum targets.

In fact, the service does have reason to crow, given what appears to be a reasonably stable wolf population in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming (with a smattering in eastern Washington and Oregon as well.)

Critics of delisting maintain that a sustainable wolf population should be larger than the current 1,691, and don’t trust the states to uphold their part of the recovery bargain.

We have more faith in state wildlife officials — and meanwhile trust Fish & Wildlife to intervene, as it promises, “if relisting is  ever warranted.”

Read more: http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/editorial/ci_25553138/gray-wolfs-success-means-it-lives#ixzz2z7APn7kv

===

Have they even glanced at the 1,521,113 comments submitted concerning their disgusting National Wolf Delisting proposal? Have they heard of Idaho’s plan to kill most of their wolves? Do they care one whit about the thousands of wolves who’ve been killed since their delisting in 2009?  Is this the “amazing success” they’re talking about? That “by every biological measure the (Northern Rocky Mountains) wolf is recovered and remains secured under state management“? Are they saying this with a straight face? Are they joking?

hunted-the-war-against-wolves-eij

The material point is they’ve already made up their minds wolves will be delisted nationally, no matter what the public thinks because it’s not about what the American people want. It’s about what their customers want, you know the ranchers, hunters and politicians they serve.

===

The Unsavory Truth Behind the Move to Take Wolves Off the Endangered List

The feds have dismissed three scientists from a wolf panel for, guess what, raising concerns about wolf delisting.

April 16, 2014 / By Tracy Ross

Just weeks after calling for the removal of gray wolves from the Endangered Species List, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now under fire for allegations that it intentionally excluded three prominent scientists—whose views diverged from the Service’s on delisting—from an upcoming peer review process.

In June, Fish and Wildlife called to delist gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, leaving an exception for the struggling Mexican wolf in the Southwest. Agency director Dan Ashe told the media that the gray wolf had recovered to the point that it could thrive and even enlarge its territory without federal oversight. Several wolf advocates and some members of Congress disagreed. Once wolves are delisted, their management will fall to individual states.

But in order for the delisting process to continue, federal law requires that a team of scientists evaluate the basis for the motion. As such, Fish and Wildlife hired a private contractor to select and oversee the peer review panel. According to Fish and Wildlife spokesman Gavin Shire, the agency isn’t supposed to know who the panelists are. But the Associated Press revealed that the contractor chosen to assemble the panel had provided a list of candidates that redacted their names but included their professional resumes. Armed with this information, the Service found three esteemed wolf biologists, who—and this is the key part—had expressed concern with the gray wolf delisting plan. They also, along with 16 other prominent scientists, had signed a letter expressing this concern. Shortly thereafter, Fish and Wildlife effectively “delisted” the three scientists from the panel.

The three are identified as Dr. John Vucetich, Dr. Robert Wayne, and Dr. Roland Kays. All have published extensively on the wolf and are considered preeminent experts. Yet the Center for Biological Diversity’s Bret Hartl reports that the Service rescinded their invitations because, in the agency’s words, they have an “unacceptable affiliation with an advocacy position.”

READ MORE: http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/08/16/wolves-endangered-species-list-delist-panel-scientists?fb_comment_id=fbc_386534721476207_1937752_388683194594693#f5dbc27245f234

===

Top Photo: Courtesy Nature: Cold Warriors

Bottom Photo: Courtesy Earth Island Journal

Posted in: Wolf Wars

Tags: USFWS, national wolf delisting, absurd comments, irresponsible management, wolves are NOT recovered, stand up for wolves, Dr. John Vucetich, Dr. Robert Wayne, Dr. Roland Kays, Center For Biological Diversity

Action Alert: Comment On USFWS Wolf Delisting Proposal Today…Deadline @ 11:59 PM Tonight!!

Remote camera pictures of the Minam wolf pack in Eagle Cap Wilderness of Wallowa County. Photos taken Dec. 14, 2012. Photo courtesy of ODFW

Minam Wolf Pack in Eagle Cap Wilderness, Wallowa County, Orgeon

UPDATE: March 29, 2014

1,392,985 comments received by the deadline. Good work everyone!!

===

UPDATE: March 27, 2014

Today is the last day to comment.!! The deadline is 11:59 PM ET. Please speak for the wolves. This rule, would stop wolf recovery in its tracks, it must be revoked! Your voices could make all the difference!

PLEASE COMMENT!!!

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073

===

Photo: Minam Wolf Pack ODFW

Posted in: Wolf Wars

Tags: USFWS, national wolf delisting rule proposal, Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, Dan Ashe, wolf persecution,  please comment, deadline March 27

Action Alert: Comment On USFWS Wolf Delisting Proposal Before March 27th Deadline!!!

A subadult Wenaha wolf stretches in the snow in front of a remote camera in the Wenaha Wildlife Management Unit on April 13, 2013. Photo courtesy of ODFW 1

“A subadult Wenaha wolf stretches in the snow…..April 13, 2013. Photo courtesy of ODFW”

UPDATE: March 27, 2014

Today is the last day to comment. The deadline is 11:59 PM ET. Please speak for the wolves. This rule, that would stop wolf recovery in its tracks, must be revoked! Your voices could make all the difference!

===

March 26, 2014

Have you commented yet?

PLEASE COMMENT!!!

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073

===

Photo: Subadult Wenaha wolf ODFW

Posted in: Wolf Wars

Tags: USFWS, national wolf delisting rule proposal, Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, Dan Ashe, wolf persecution,  please comment, deadline March 27

#KEEPWOLVESLISTED TWEETSTORM – Tuesday, March 25 @ 2pm PST/9pm GST

KEEPWOLVESLISTED

UPDATE: March 25 – Thanks to all who participated!!

===

ERIPE LUPUS

 
#KEEPWOLVESLISTED TWEETSTORM
FINAL TWEETSTORM FOR #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
MARCH 25. 2014 
2 PM PST/ 9 PM GMT
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT RETWEETS  ( RT ) DO NOT HELP US!
JUST STEAL THE TWEET, 
DO NOT RETWEET . PLEASE 

http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.co.uk/p/keepwolveslisted.html

===

Please participate if you have a Twitter account!  Spread the word! This is our last chance to protest against the horrible USFWS national wolf delisting proposal.

If you haven’t commented yet please do. Click HERE to comment.

===

Photo: Courtesy ERIPE LUPUS

Posted in: Action Alerts, Activism, Wolf Wars

Tags: TWEETSTORM, #KEEPWOLVESLISTED, March 25 @ 2pm PST,  USFWS, national wolf delisting proposal, fight for the wolves

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,234 other followers

%d bloggers like this: