Embarrassing Press Coverage Continues For USFWS National Wolf Delisting Push…..

Wolf Pups Snoozing

Wolf Pups Snoozing

February 26, 2014

USFWS  continues to take heat over their politically transparent push to nationally delist gray wolves. They’ve never looked more inept or disingenuous as they attempt to twist the ESA into silly putty to suit their agenda.

PLEASE COMMENT!!!

Deadline Midnight March 27, 2014

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

===

Feds’ postponement of wolf delisting follows embarrassing scientific review

 February 26, 2014 Earth Journal
By Ron Meador | 02/25/14
It’s too soon to tell, I guess, whether this month’s decision to take more public comment on federal wolf protections will change the policy eventually adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

But if you’re inclined to believe, or even just to hope, that sound science still has a role in such decisions — well, this embarrassing episode may be worth a closer look. The picture you’ll see is not pretty.

It’s probably fair to say that wolves are by far the biggest headache that Fish and Wildlife has been handed under the Endangered Species Act. Wolves have had ESA protections for four decades now, and for more than half that time the service has been working actively to shed its responsibilities for these worshipped and detested predators, battling an assortment of national groups at every turn.

What looked like maybe the last of those turns came in June, when FWS announced its plan to end protection of gray wolves throughout the remainder of the lower 48 where authority hadn’t already been turned back to the states.

However, such delisting decisions are legally required to be rooted in the “best available science,” and here the service had a problem: Its primary foundation for this delisting was a single paper laying out a fairly controversial re-classification of wolf species.

One species or two?

That paper, by Steven M. Chambers and three others, came down squarely in favor of seeing North American gray wolves as being of two types:

  • Those that have been recovering in the western U.S., with two populations sufficiently robust to justify their delisting in a zone of the northern Rockies and the region covering Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
  • Others of a separate “eastern” species that supposedly was native to but is now essentially extinct in 29 states west of the Mississippi.

Plenty of other wolf biologists and animal geneticists think that question is far from settled — and more than a few actually think it has been settled in the opposite direction of Chambers’ conclusion, with all gray wolves belonging to just one species.

The science of these things is complex and technical, as you might expect, rooted in DNA mapping and requiring judgments as to whether DNA differences detected among wolves are permanent or temporary, results of evolutionary divergence or interbreeding convergence, and so on.

But if the differences at the molecular level are tiny, at the policy level they could hardly be larger.

The gray wolf has Endangered Species Act protection until FWS can prove it’s no longer needed; “eastern gray wolves,” if they exist, have never been protected and presumably never will be, since virtually all of the territory that would be considered their natural range has been wolfless for a long, long time.

In another policy decision that has brought sharp criticism recently, FWS has chosen to define the “natural and historic range” of a threatened species as whatever territory it occupied at the time of being listed for protection — not its historic territory. Some critics see this as an effort to rewrite the ESA by recasting its most important definition.

In-house research project

There were some other problems with the Chambers paper, too:

  • Chambers is an FWS employee. So are his three collaborators. Their work was published in an FWS journal,  “North American Fauna” without peer review. (The paper can be found here.)
  • In forming a peer review panel after publication, a private contractor hired by FWS first selected and then de-selected three national wolf experts who had signed a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell expressing doubts about the service’s move toward delisting. (Among the three was John Vucetich, known to MinnPost readers as director of the Isle Royale study of wolf/moose population dynamics.)

FWS claimed at the time that it had no role in the picking and unpicking, but a reporter for MSN News turned up an email in which the three were told by the contractor that, “I understand how frustrating it must be, but we have to go with what the service wants.”

The only way out of the ensuing embarrassment was to halt that review and arrange for a second, this one to be undertaken by five scientists chosen without the service’s knowledge or involvement, and their work was released earlier this month.

It happens that one of the five, Robert Wayne of UCLA, was also among the three bounced from the first panel. But as the panel’s report puts it:

[W]e did not avoid selecting reviewers who had previously made known their personal (as opposed to scientific) opinions on the issue. This distinction is important; it is entirely possible for a scientist to have a strong opinion on policy or a proposed action, but also for that scientist to make an impartial assessment on (for instance) the precise genetics or taxonomic techniques and data that were used.

In any case, the five were assigned to give no thought to the policy aspects of the delisting proposed by FWS but to consider only its scientific basis for making them. And its conclusions are rather stark:

  • There was unanimity among the panelists that, although there was much good scientific work in the Proposed Rule, the rule is heavily dependent upon the analysis of Chambers et al.

  • There was unanimity among the panelists that Chambers et al was not universally accepted and that the issue was “not settled.” The issues raised by Chambers et al could be definitively answered relatively soon

  • There was unanimity among the panel that the rule does not currently represent the “best available science.”

  • READ MORE: http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2014/02/feds-postponement-wolf-delisting-follows-embarrassing-scientific-review

===

Photo: wolf-pups_mythwallpaper-com

Posted in: Wolf Wars, Endangered Species Act

Tags gray wolf, shaky science, USFWS, national wolf delisting proposal, please comment, March 27, 2014 deadline, wolf persecution

Action Alert: Comment NOW On USFWS Bogus Push For National Wolf Delisting!

Photo by Scott Flaherty

Update:  February 25, 2014

Have you commented yet? I’m going to keep this post up for a while to remind everyone!

PLEASE COMMENT!!!

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

===

February 22, 2014

I can’t say this enough, we must stop USFWS from delisting wolves nationally, it will be the final nail in their coffin.  Please act now and voice your disdain over the political  “not based on the best available science” campaign the service is waging against America’s wolves.

“This month, following a brief hiatus, arguments have reignited with the release of an independent review paper from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California-Santa Barbara. It finds that the delisting proposal is not, in fact, based on the “best available science.”

The review vindicates critics who say the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to de-list the wolves prematurely, finding “problematic conclusions” in the proposal that treat contentious genetic and ecological theories as fact.

The review got at least one big result: the Fish and Wildlife Service responded by reopening its proposal to public comment. You now have until March 27 to weigh in on wolves’ future. (Last year the proposal attracted more than 30,000 comments, ranging from passionate personal pleas to analytical legal responses.) The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated it will make a final determination on the proposal by the end of the year….Slate

(Actually there are over a million comments concerning the proposal, not 30,000. Click on image to enlarge)

Comments on national wolf delisting 1 jpg

American gray wolves are barely hanging on, hunted in six states, they need you and every wolf and wildlife advocate to speak for them RIGHT NOW!!

In August 2013 the New York Times stated: “the Fish and Wildlife Service prematurely proposed to end federal protection for gray wolves in the lower 48 states in the belief that wolves had fully recovered from near eradication in the early 20th century. This was politics masquerading as science.”

“I think probably over the decades at least a few of us were lulled into this sense of acceptance, that everything was getting better and that people now understood the importance of predators like wolves,” Don Barry said. But the debate over the delisting proposals has been a reminder of the residual anger towards wolves in the rural West, where influential ranchers have long fought wolves for depredating livestock. “Merge that in with the whole Tea Party fervor against government, and what you end up with in the state legislatures is this race to the bottom to see who can be more anti-wolf. The biology of the thing gets thrown right out the window.”….Slate

I agree with everything stated in the above paragraph except  “influential ranchers have long fought wolves for depredating livestock”. It’s not about wolf depredation on livestock, ranchers lose tens of thousands of cows and sheep every year to non-predation. “In 2009, sheep producers reported losing 56,000 animals for reasons other than predators, such as disease and weather.”

The wolf predation  argument is a red herring and one I wish wildlife advocates would stop repeating. The war against wolves has nothing to do with predation. Wolves are scapegoats for anti-government sentiment that dominates the Northern Rockies and to some extent the Great Lakes region.

For example, in 2005  Montana ranchers lost a total of  63,000 cattle to non-predation, which includes respiratory problems, mastitis, lameness/injury, other diseases, weather, poisoning and theft. 10,200 calves died due to  weather alone in the state that year.  In 2010 Montana ranchers lost 74,800 cows to non-predation with just 87 wolf related losses and I wouldn’t trust even those small numbers since they have to be confirmed by Wildlife Services and you know that agency is no friend to the wolf. To add insult to injury ranchers are actually compensated for tiny wolf livestock losses and they’re still complaining.  All the hype surrounding wolf predation is just that, HYPE. It’s used to divert attention away from the real issue, which is the undue influence ranchers, hunters and anti-government forces have on wolf recovery in the lower forty-eight. Their voices are the only voices listened to and most want wolves eradicated from the continental US AGAIN! We cannot allow wolf hating groups to dictate wolf recovery, no matter how much USFWS trys to accommodate them by pushing to nationally delist wolves with questionable science.

So please, drop whatever you’re doing and comment before the USFWS  midnight deadline on March 27, 2014.

Do it for truth, do it for what’s right, do it for the wolves before it’s too late!

PLEASE COMMENT!!!

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

===

Wolves May Be Losing a Nasty Political Battle

Feb. 21 2014 1:48 PM
By Lance Richardson
http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2014/02/21/gray_wolf_endangered_species_act_conflict_should_fish_and_wildlife_service.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
===

USFWS Using Jedi Mind Tricks In Place Of Science

September 10, 2013

Confused you are?  Worried you are?

Is Yoda working for USFWS, have they hired him to play Jedi mind tricks on us? Don’t they know we’ve all seen Star Wars?

Does USFWS believe Yoda can hypnotize us? We’re not “weak-minded fools” falling for the BS they routinely dish out about wolves!

We’re on to you USFWS and your wolf hating friends in high places. You’d like nothing better than to see wolves gone from the lower 48 as you plan to remove the grizzly bear’s protections. C’mon, stop pretending your wolf delisting nonsense is based on science.  Isn’t your real goal a predator free landscape for Agribusiness?

https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/usfws-using-jedi-mind-tricks-in-place-of-science/?preview=true&preview_id=24189&preview_nonce=d95f0360a7

===

Photos: USFWS, Regulationsdotgov

Posted in: Wolf Wars, Action Alerts

Tags: USFWS War on Wolves, Ranchers influence, Hunters influence, Tea Party influence, twisting ESA into a pretzel, dirty pool, Comment USFWS , national wolf delisting proposal

Ted Nugent pushes bear hunting in N.B.

Maybe he’ll be reincarnated as a bear in New Brunswick. Then he’ll see how cool bear hunting is. What a waste of space.

Exposing the Big Game

Outspoken, gun-toting American rocker Ted Nugent is promoting the spring bear hunt in New Brunswick with his Sunrize Safaris.

The website tednugent.com offers hunters a chance to go to New Brunswick and shoot a trophy black bear

Nugent has hunted bear in New Brunswick before.

Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent has hunted black bear in New Brunswick in the past. (CBC)

He chronicles one such trip on the archerytalk.com blog in 2010 in a post titled: “Hi Spirit: New Brunswick Bruins. For a rockin’ good time, try for a far-North spring blackie.”

On that occasion, Nugent arranged for a bear hunting trip in New Brunswick after his band “rocked the house royal with Lynayrd Skynyrd (sic) in Barrie, Ontario, outside Toronto, Canada’s number one cosmopolitan megacity,” the blog post says,

Nugent was hunting with Slipp Brothers Ltd. Hunting and Outfitting in Hoyt, south of Fredericton. On the third day of hunting…

View original post 157 more words

Published in: on February 19, 2014 at 9:28 pm  Comments (10)  

US government could drive grey wolf to extinction… By Michelle Nijhuis, OnEarth.org

gray wolf USFWS

February 15, 2014

A great article that shines a light on the “shaky  science USFWS is using to justify a national delisting of gray wolves, which could push them into a second extermination.

 ===

Friday, Feb 14, 2014 06:00 AM MST

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is relying on shaky science to remove the animal from the endangered species list

, OnEarth.org

About 300 wolves live in the nearly 2-million-acre swath of central Ontario forest known as Algonquin Provincial Park. These wolves are bigger and broader than coyotes, but noticeably smaller than the gray wolves of Yellowstone. So how do they fit into the wolf family tree? Scientists don’t agree on the answer—yet it could now affect the fate of every wolf in the United States.

That’s because last June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing gray wolves across most of the country from the endangered species list, a move that would leave the animals vulnerable to hunting. To support its proposal, the agency used a contested scientific paper—published, despite critical peer review, in the agency’s own journal—to argue that gray wolves never existed in the eastern United States, so they shouldn’t have been protected there in the first place.

Instead of the gray wolf, the service said, an entirely different species of wolf—the so-called “eastern wolf,” a species whose remnants perhaps survive in Algonquin Park—once inhabited the forests of eastern North America. Canid biologists have argued over the existence of this “lost species” for years. Yet researchers on all sides say that even if the Algonquin wolves are a separate species, that shouldn’t preclude continuing protections for the gray wolf.

On Friday, an independent panel of five leading geneticists and taxonomists came down hard on the agency’s proposal to delist gray wolves, unanimously concluding that the service had not relied on the “best available science.” Individual panel members described “glaring insufficiencies” in the supporting research and said the agency’s conclusions had fundamental flaws.

“What’s most significant,” says Andrew Wetzler, director of land and wildlife programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council (which publishes OnEarth), “is that this is coming from a group of eminent biologists who disagree with each other about the eastern wolf—and even so, they agree that the agency hasn’t properly understood the scientific issues at hand.”

How did 300 wolves in the Canadian wilderness become central to the debate over protecting their U.S. relations? For years, the Algonquin Park wolves have been something of a scientific mystery. Their coats are typically multicolored, with reddish-brown muzzles and backs that shade from white to black. Visitors from the southeastern U.S. often note their resemblance to red wolves, which are limited to a small reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina.

As biologists began to investigate the relationships among the various North American canids, including Algonquin wolves, red wolves, coyotes, and gray wolves, they collided with one of the most basic—and vexing—questions in their field: what is a species?

“No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists,” Charles Darwin himself conceded in On the Origin of Species, adding that “every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species.” So do the rest of us. We know that hippos are different from canaries, and that bullfrogs are different from giant salamanders. But the more alike the organisms, the trickier the species question becomes, and thanks to our modern understanding of DNA, the scientific disagreements are—if anything—more passionate today than in Darwin’s time.

In 1942, the biologist Ernst Mayr formalized the definition of a species as a group of interbreeding organisms, reproductively isolated from other interbreeding groups. That’s the definition that most of us learned in high-school biology, and it remains useful in many cases. But the advent of cheap, fast DNA analysis has exposed its limits: many apparently distinct species hybridize with one another, and few animals hybridize more enthusiastically than wolves, dogs, and other canids.

Genetic samples from the Algonquin Park wolves contain what appears to be coyote DNA, gray wolf DNA, and even domestic dog DNA, creating what Paul Wilson of Trent University in Ontario, one of the first scientists to study the Algonquin Park population, calls a “canid soup” of genetic material.

Biologists studying North American canids fall generally into two camps. Wilson and several of his colleagues in Canada support what’s sometimes called the “three-species” model: according to their interpretation of the genetic data, coyotes, modern gray wolves, and the eastern wolf are separate species that evolved long ago from an ancient common ancestor. The eastern wolf, they say, may have once ranged throughout eastern North America, and may in fact be the same species as the red wolf.

Other biologists, including canid geneticist Robert Wayne at the University of California-Los Angeles, support a “two-species” model: it posits that only gray wolves and coyotes are distinct species. According to this model, anything else—a red wolf, Algonquin wolf, or the so-called “coywolf” recently spotted in suburbs and cities—is a relatively recent wolf-coyote hybrid.

Wayne describes the debate between supporters of the two models as “long-running but very polite”—and it’s not over yet.

“People on all sides have done some very good work, but it’s an extremely complicated issue,” says T. DeLene Beeland, author of The Secret World of Red Wolves. “It gets at the heart of the species question.”

* * *

Were it not for the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the controversy over the eastern wolf might well have stayed polite. That landmark law is, as it states, intended to protect species, and the murky definition of a species has complicated conservation efforts for jumping mice, pygmy owls, gnatcatchers, pocket gophers, and several other animals. But the debate over wolf taxonomy has become especially fierce.

When the gray wolf was placed on the endangered species list in 1967, it was defined as a single species with a historic range that covered most of the United States, from Florida to Washington state. Hunting, trapping, poisoning, and habitat loss had driven the gray wolf nearly to extinction in the continental United States, and confirmed sightings were rare.

After the species was protected, wolves from western Canada began to venture south, and beginning in 1995, some 41 wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park. They multiplied rapidly, and for the first time in decades, wolf howls were heard in the park. Today, many consider the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction one of American conservation’s greatest success stories.

In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service took the Great Lakes wolf population off the endangered species list. The same year, a controversial act of Congress delisted gray wolf populations in most of the Rocky Mountains, returning responsibility for wolf protection to the states. But wolves are famously energetic travelers, and these wolves didn’t stay put. In recent years, wolves from the northern Rockies have been spotted in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, and are rumored to be ranging into Colorado and Utah. Wolves from the Great Lakes have turned up in Illinois and Iowa.

Outside the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, wolves are still protected by the Endangered Species Act, so these wanderers have raised delicate political questions. Although some states are willing to work with the federal government on wolf management, others want sole control of any wolves that turn up within their boundaries. And the White House’s slim margin of support in the Senate relies on centrist Democrats from Western states—many of whom support full wolf delisting, in part because some Western ranchers want the right to shoot wolves that menace their livestock.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for its part, wants to devote its limited money and resource to conservation of the Mexican wolf, a type of gray wolf that was reintroduced into northern New Mexico and Arizona in 1998 and continues to struggle for survival. “The time has now come for the service to focus its efforts on the recovery of the Mexican wolf,” agency director Dan Ashe said at a public hearing last year in Washington, D.C.

The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing the rest of the country’s gray wolves from the federal endangered species list last June, protecting only the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies. Any gray wolves that roamed beyond the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes, it announced, would no longer enjoy endangered species protection. The delisting proposal set off a contentious public comment period that was due to end in September, after which the delisting would either be finalized or scrapped.

One part of the agency’s proposal was especially unusual: it argued that its original listing of the gray wolf, back in 1967, had been flawed. In the delisting proposal, the agency not only recognized the eastern wolf as a separate species but also concluded that its existence required a major revision to the historic range map of the gray wolf—making it far smaller than the initial listing had claimed.

Agency director Ashe argued at the hearing in Washington, D.C., last September that there is “no one set formula for how to recover a species.” The law requires only that species be safe from extinction, he said, not restored throughout its historic range, before it can be taken off the endangered species list. The two thriving populations in the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains, the agency said, were reason enough to delist the gray wolf.

But historic range has long been an important factor in delisting decisions. “If you eliminate the entire East Coast from the gray wolf’s range map, it’s just much easier to argue that wolves are no longer endangered,” says NRDC’s Wetzler.

At the D.C. hearing, Don Barry, who served as an assistant Interior secretary during the Clinton administration, took the microphone to speak for himself and two other former assistant secretaries. Barry recalled that the bald eagle, American pelican, American alligator, and peregrine falcon had been removed from the endangered species list only after returning to suitable habitat throughout most of their historic ranges.

“That is how the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work,” said Barry. By stark contrast, he said, the proposal to delist the gray wolf reflected “a shrunken vision of what recovery should mean.”

READ MORE: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/14/outrageous_the_u_s_may_take_the_grey_wolf_off_the_endangered_species_list_paper/

===

Due to the “dubious science” USFWS is using to justify a national delisting of gray wolves, comments have been reopened until March 27,  2014. PLEASE COMMENT!! We are on to them and they know it!!

It looks like the USFWS comments @ regulationsdotgov has started the count over. There were over a million comments and now the counter is set @ 540. WTF? I’m going to delve into this on Monday. Meanwhile PLEASE COMMENT!

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-43030

===

Photo: USFWS

Posted in: gray wolf, Wolf Wars, biodiversity

Tags: Flawed delisting plan exposed, USFWS push for national wolf delisting, shaky science, wolf persecution

Marius, the baby Giraffe’s Last Peaceful Moments Caught On Surveillance Camera

Here is beautiful Marius, so graceful and calm, having no idea a death sentence is hanging over his head. What a sweet baby. This hurt me to the core, it’s the senseless murder of an innocent, just like the wolves are slaughtered every day, for absolutely no reason. RIP Marius!

Warning Disturbing Image

Zoo visitors, including young children, look on as Marius is skinned Picture AFP_Getty
“Zoo visitors, including young children, look on as Marius is skinned (Picture: AFP/Getty)”

Now another zoo in Denmark is considering repeating this terrible tragedy with a giraffe, named of all things, Marius. Apparently they see nothing wrong with the way Marius was treated and are just as defiant as the Copenhagen Zoo, despite outrage from around the world over the baby giraffe’s brutal slaying. Sounds like they’re circling the wagons over there, stubborn to admit what happened to Marius was reprehensible!

“Jyllands Park zoo has announced that it might have to kill Marius 2, the Guardian reports, because he could be unsuitable for the European breeding program that the zoo participates in.

Zookeeper at Jyllands Park Janni Løjtved Poulsen says that the zoo will not let the controversy sparked by Marius 1’s death affect their decision. After that young giraffe was euthanized at Copenhagen Zoo to avoid inbreeding, staff at the zoo received death threats and Danish embassies around the world received angry messages.

“It doesn’t affect us in any way. We are completely behind Copenhagen and would have done the same,” Poulsen says, stressing that it would be difficult for the zoo to find a new home for Marius 2. His fate now lies in the hands of  the coordinator of the European breeding program.”…..Time World is thinking about repeating the same horror at their zoo?”

Notice the reactions of the children in the video, that’s included in the article below. As the  zoo is killing and chopping up Marius, to feed to the lions. I see sadness and confusion reflected in their gaze, one little boy was covering his face. This is such a travesty and now Jyllands Park zoo is thinking about repeating the same horror, with a giraffe with the same name? Has the world gone nuts? I think I’d scratch Denmark off of the list of places to visit.

===

Danish Zoo Considers Killing a Second Giraffe Who Is Also Called Marius

Are you getting déjà vu?

By Michelle Arrouas @Michelle Arrouas Feb. 12, 2014

http://world.time.com/2014/02/12/marius-second-giraffe-killing-denmark/

===
PLEASE SIGN!
  • Petitioning Jyllands Park Zoo

Spare the life of Marius the giraffe at Jyllands Park Zoo

Another giraffe named Marius may be killed changedotorg

===

CLOSE THE COPENHAGEN ZOO AND JYLLANDS PARK ZOO

author: Carol Wilson

target: Helle Thorning-Schmidt Prime Minister Denmark

signatures: 101,814
===
Video: Courtesy YouTube Breaking News
Top Photo: Courtesy Metro
Bottom Photo: Courtesy Changedotorg
Posted in: Animal Cruelty, Action Alert
Tags: Marius, Copenhagen Zoo, exposing children to violence, Jyllands Park Zoo, Denmark, Marius 2 slated for death?, giraffe, human cruelty

The Brutal, Senseless, Killing of Marius the Giraffe….

Giraffe RIP Marius_reuters_keldnavntoft_scanpixDenmark

RIP MARIUS/reuters/keldnavntoft/scanpixDenmark

February 12, 2014

UPDATE: I want to keep this post up for a few more days because Marius’s memory deserves it. The petition calling for Bengt Holst firing from the Copenhagen Zoo gathered 123,000 from 52,000 in one day. The petition is now closed and will be turned over to the “Copenhagen Zoo, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, the World Association of Zoos and Aquaria and the World Wildlife Fund.” Click HERE to read the petition.

===

February 11, 2014

At the Copenhagen zoo, a sweet giraffe named Marius, was shot in the head by the zoo veterinarian , as he was eating a favorite rye bread, then Marius was dismembered, skinned and fed to the lions. This tragedy played out in front of zoo visitors, even children. This is something that could scar a child for life. But the zoo spokesman saw Marius’ murder as a teaching experience for kids.  WHAT?

“I’m actually proud because I think we have given children a huge understanding of the anatomy of a giraffe that they wouldn’t have had from watching a giraffe in a photo.”…..Zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek

Why did this terrible thing happen? Well, apparently the zoo has too many giraffes, and I guess the lions were hungry. Never mind that Marius  was a young giraffe, or that someone had offered to pay over $600,000 to rescue him, or that people from around the world were pleading for his life. Oh no, that didn’t matter at all!

===

Did This Giraffe Have to Die?

By Danielle Wiener-Bronner

The Copenhagen Zoo is under major fire for putting a perfectly healthy giraffe to death in front of visitors, including children, and then proceeding to skin, slice and feed it to the zoo’s lions. According to the Associated Press, the public event, promoted as a teaching exercise for the children, was well attended. (Warning: Some of the photos below might be upsetting to animal lovers.)

According to the zoo, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) recommended it put down Marius The Giraffe, because there were already too many giraffes with similar genes in the EAZA’s breeding program. Plus, the Copenhagen Zoo already has seven other giraffes. 

The Zoo went through with the euthanization even though more than 20,000 people signed an online petition to save Marius and one individual offered to buy the animal for $680,000. The zoo also refused offers from Britain’s Yorkshire Wildlife Park because Marius’ older brother lives there, and the Copenhagen Zoo’s scientific director Bengt Holst didn’t want Marius to take up space that could be used by a “genetically more valuable giraffe.”  

The zoo veterinarian, who shot the lethal bullet, described the killing in a similarly stark manner to Reuters: 

The zoo veterinarian, said the giraffe was coaxed into a yard and over to a zookeeper, who held out rye bread – a food the giraffe was especially fond of, according to the video footage, which was distributed by Reuters TV. “I stood behind with a rifle, and when he put his head forward and ate the rye bread, then I shot him through the brain,” he said. “It sounds violent, but it means that Marius had no idea of what was coming. He got his bread, then he died.”

Zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro was less than sentimental when defending the zoo’s decision to show children the vicious circle of life, even when it includes the dismembering of giraffes with human names. “I’m actually proud because I think we have given children a huge understanding of the anatomy of a giraffe that they wouldn’t have had from watching a giraffe in a photo.”

What a nice lesson in death and eugenics for our children.

Read more if you can stomach it:

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/02/denmark-zoo-kills-giraffe-marius/357893/

Giraffe_publically_killed_and_chopped_at_the_Copenhagen_Zoo.jpg Wiki

Marius lays dead after being shot in the head for no reason. Children and visitors look on.

Warning Graphic Video!

[youtube:http://youtu.be/Arv6ryWTNek%5D

===

Online protests fail to save Marius the giraffe

Sunday 9th February 2014

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/online-protests-fail-to-save-marius-the-giraffe

===

Fire Bengt Holst From the Copenhagen Zoo For Having Marius the Giraffe Killed

Click HERE to sign the above petition!

===

Contact the Copenhagen Zoo and let them know what you think about the murder of Marius, the innocent, sweet giraffe!

Copenhagen Zoo

Address: Roskildevej 32, 2000 Frederiksberg

Web: www.zoo.dk

Email:  zoo@zoo.dk

Phone: +45 7220 0200

===

Top Photo: Credit to reuters/keldnavntoft/scanpixDenmark

Bottom Photo: Marius dead Wiki

Video: Courtesy YouTube Sochi 2014 Olympics

Posted in: Animal cruelty, Animal rights

Tags: Marius the giraffe, Copenhagen Zoo, tragedy, senseless murder of a sentient being, children watched

Mexican Gray Wolf Numbers Increase But Still A Long Way To Go…..

Two Middle Fork pups in the summer of 2011 photo courtesy of the Mexican wolf interagency field team

“Two Middle Fork pups in the summer of 2011” USFWS

The number of Mexican gray wolves has increased to 83. That’s up from 75 last year but the feds have much more to do,  to make good on their promises to recover this critically endangered wolf.

Wolf population growing, but not enough to please advocates

PHOENIX – The number of Mexican gray wolves roaming eastern Arizona and western New Mexico increased by eight to 83 wolves in the past year, according to a recent survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Noting that the population has increased for four straight years, federal and state officials said in a news release that the recovery program has saved the Mexican gray wolf from extinction. However, wildlife advocates said that the effort hasn’t gone far enough to ensure the species’ genetic diversity.

“I’m happy we have seen an increase in population for four years in a row,” said Michael Robinson, a conservation advocate for the Tucson-based Center of Biological Diversity. “What’s worrisome is the number of breeding pairs.”

A group of seven wolves was released in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in 1998, starting the reintroduction program. Since then, the U.S. Wildlife and Fish Service has been managing and keeping track of the wolf population while also introducing captive wolves into the wild.

Robinson said there isn’t enough genetic variability among the wild wolves because officials haven’t released enough captive wolves.

“The original genetic diversity has not been maximized, and this means smaller litter sizes and lower pup survival rates,” he said.

Read More: http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2014/02/wolf-population-growing-but-not-enough-to-please-advocates/

This was the situation just 3 1/2 years ago:

Mexican Gray Wolves On The Brink!

https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/mexican-gray-wolves-on-the-brink/

===

Photo: Courtesy USFWS

Posted in: Mexican Gray Wolf

Tags: Mexican gray wolf, critically endangered, inbreeding, more releases needed. expand wolves’ range, USFWS

Republicans Push Lead Poisoning of Wildlife Disguised as “Sportsmen’s Heritage Act”

Exposing the Big Game

For Immediate Release, February 3, 2014

Contact: Bill Snape, (202) 536-9351 or bsnape@biologicaldiversity.orgRepublicans Push Lead Poisoning of Wildlife Disguised as “Sportsmen’s Heritage Act”

Legislation Would Also Roll Back Public-lands Protection, Promote Polar Bear Trophy Hunting

WASHINGTON— The U.S. House of Representatives will vote Tuesday on H.R.Fudd 3590, the misnamed “Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act.” Under the guise of expanding hunting and fishing access on public lands, the Republican-supported bill aims to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting millions of birds and other animals from lead poisoning. The extremist legislation also contains provisions to undermine the Wilderness Act, dispense with environmental review for projects on national wildlife refuges, and promote polar bear hunting.

“Another cynical assault by House Republicans to roll back protections for public lands and wildlife,” said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This supposed ‘sportsmen’s legislation’ would actually jeopardize the health of…

View original post 570 more words

Published in: on February 4, 2014 at 10:45 am  Comments (13)  

Remembering The Hog Heaven Wolf Pack…

Hog Heaven wolf pack

February 3, 2014

I wrote this post in October 2009, a month after  Howling For Justice was created and mere months after wolves in the Northern Rockies were delisted by the Obama administration. The first wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho had just gotten underway  but the Hog Heaven Wolf Pack wasn’t killed by hunters, they were wiped out by Wildlife Services in 2008.

27 members strong, with two breeding females and 15 puppies, they are now just a memory, as so many wolf packs are. Today they barely have names, they’re anonymous wolves, who live and die without any recognition. But I remember when Wildlife Services gunned down one of the largest wolf packs to roam Montana. Here’s a look back at the doomed Hog Heaven Pack. In their memory please vow to work harder than ever to stop the slaughter of wolves.

===

Hog Hell: The Demise of the Hog Heaven Wolf Pack

October 23, 2009

In 2008, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming killed 245 gray wolves in the name of ”livestock depredation”.

Twenty seven of those wolves were members of the Hog Heaven Wolf Pack, residing southwest of Kalispell, Montana, in the Browns Meadow/Hog Heaven area. They had been accused of preying on a few calves, some llamas and a bull.  The decision was made in November 08 to take out the entire pack.  Eight members of the pack had already been shot from the air by Wildlife Services.

In a three-day period, December 3rd, 4th and 5th of 2008,  the remaining 19 members of the Hog Heaven pack were gunned down, an almost unprecedented event, causing public outrage. Many articles were written  and opinions voiced, opposing the action. FIFTEEN PUPPIES AND TWO BREEDING FEMALES were among the slain.  The Hog Heaven pack was “the seventh entire wolf pack to be killed by Montana in 2008.”

The zero tolerance wolf management plan is just plain wrong and senseless, especially since cattle deaths by wolves are minimal.  Domestic dogs killed five times the number of cows than wolves in 2005.  I don’t see Wildlife Services taking out Labs and Huskies from the air?

The average number of cattle losses specific to wolf predation in these States is less than 0.7%.  This compares to an average of 1.6% of cattle losses due to predation by coyotes and an average of 90% of losses due to non-predator related causes such as health problems and disease.”

*The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), reports on cattle losses in the lower 48 States every five years.  Nationally, health issues such as respiratory problems, digestive problems, calving complications and disease were overwhelmingly the most significant causes of cattle death in 2005.  (The year for which we have the most recent detailed data.)”

“Only 0.11% (about 1/10 of 1%) of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in 2005. Coyotes killed 22 times more cattle than wolves killed that year.  Domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves in 2005.  Theft was responsible for almost 5 times the cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation.”

http://www.everythingwolf.com/news/readarticle.aspx?article=234

The Hog Heaven pack was special, one of the largest wolf packs ever recorded in Montana, (the once mighty Yellowstone Druid’s had 37 members at their peak).

Instead of trying non-lethal methods to preserve the pack, the state  eliminated them!  AND this all happened while wolves still had ESA protection!!

The anti-wolf crowd wants you to believe wolves are hanging around ranches waiting to prey on livestock, when in reality most of the miniscule depredations take place on our vast public lands, where cattle and sheep are left unprotected.

George Wuerthner, the famed ecologist, calls cows, “walking picnic baskets”. What would you do if you were a predator surrounded by an ocean of cattle and sheep?  Would you munch on them or go after more difficult prey? We already know the answer. Yet the wolf pays the ultimate price for lazy, sloppy ranching practices and the federal government’s refusal to pull public land grazing permits, even though cattle pollute streams, trample riparian zones and over graze the land.

Wolf supporters realize the unfairness of what’s happening.

In 2008, when the Hog Heaven pack was lethally removed, people spoke out:

“Gunning down an entire pack of wolves — a species that is supposed to be protected under the endangered species act — borders on criminal,” said Jerry Black of the Missoula group Wildlife Watchers.

“We are outraged by this senseless slaughter of one of nature’s most majestic animals.”

Added Whitefish resident Roger Sherman: “It seems to me the so-called ’scientific management’ of wolves boils down to simply killing them to conciliate the livestock industry.”

“Brian Vincent, communications director for the group Big Wildlife, insists that the elimination of the Hog Heaven Pack could have been avoided.”

“Why should an entire pack of wolves pay the fatal price for a situation that could probably have been avoided?” he said.

“Both agencies are acting like it’s the Wild West with all guns blazing.”

Yellowstone_Wolves

It’s too late for Hog Heaven, they’re not coming back. This unique pack, was wiped out by Wildlife Services before Montanans could react. Is it any wonder wildlife advocates question the motives behind so many wolves losing their lives for so little reason? Why are the lives of predators held so cheaply?

If the failed policies of the states and feds to “manage wolves” continue, it’s certain they will never fully recover. We’ll be left with fragmented populations of wolves, genetically isolated, constantly under the gun.

What’s behind the intolerance of wolves?  It’s certainly not because they’re killing large numbers of livestock, wolf predation on livestock is minimal.  It’s not because wolves are decimating elk populations. Elk in Montana and Idaho are strong, with numbers way up.  Idaho has 105,000 elk and Montana numbers are even higher at 150,000 plus.

Yet the war on wolves continues. This year the Sage Creek Pack and Yellowstone’s Cottonwood pack were gunned down, one wiped out by Wildlife Services and the other shot in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness at the beginning of Montana’s wolf hunt.  They join the Hog Heaven Pack and many others in the ever-increasing death toll of gray wolves.

Will it be Hog Heaven or Hog Hell for wolves in the Northern Rockies?

===

Wolf photos: Courtesy Wikipedia Commons, All About Wolves, Wolf Wallpaper
Categories posted in: Montana Wolves, Wildlife Services War on Wildlife
Tags:  gray wolf, wolves or livestock, wolf intolerance, Wildlife Services, Hog Heaven Wolf Pack, National Agricultural Statistics Service
%d bloggers like this: