Remembering Jewel…Phantom Hill Wolf Pack Female B445…Shot Dead

jewel

“Jewel” – Phantom Hill Wolf pack member B445

July 24, 2014

Here is another tragic story of a young Idaho wolf, cut down before she had a chance to live.  I’ll continue to  repost  these stories the rest of the week in remembrance of the wolves and wolf packs we’ve lost  at the hands of Wildlife Services, wolf hunts, ranching and poaching. We can’t forget them, they are why we are fighting this battle!

October 31, 2009

Jewel, a young beta female, of the Phantom Hill Wolf Pack in Idaho, was shot dead in the Eagle Creek drainage, north of Ketchum. She was only two years old but had already made her mark upon the pack. When the alpha female took an extended vacation this year, Jewel assumed “nanny duties”, caring for the pups during the alpha’s absence.

Jewel died for nothing yesterday. Here is her story from Western Watersheds Project website

Courtesy to Lynne Stone for photos and content.

====

Lynne Stone documents her encounter with Jewel:

Over a week ago I was hiking north of Ketchum, when a young Phantom Hill Pack wolf trotted into view. From her appearance I knew she was B445, the most recently collared Phantom wolf. When my dog, Bo, noticed the wolf, he bounded after her, but when I called Bo back, the wolf stopped and turned around and continued to watch us with curiosity.

I had observed from afar, a few weeks before, when B445 was caught by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and collared. I watched through a spotting scope, as she woke up from being drugged, and staggered toward the rest of her pack.

jewel 1

Jewel (B445) © Lynne Stone 2007

B445 is often the nanny wolf to her younger brothers and sisters that make up this year’s pups, stepping into the role after Judith, B326 went on her adventure this year. At least three pups have been seen. There are probably more. I heard them howling recently at night and it sounded like three to four pups howling in response to the rest of the pack.

B445 was still shedding out her thick winter coat of fur when I saw her close-up. Now that weeks of rain (unusual for central Idaho!) has stopped, the weather is finally warm, and B445’s fur will soon be sleek.

During my recent eye-to-eye encounter with B445, I was never for a moment afraid. What I observed, was that B445 was very curious of us (my dog and self), as we were intruders into her pack’s territory. I thought of B445’s older sister, B326 – Judith, and how that this younger wolf, was certainly a jewel. Her beautiful silky movements, her intelligent, inquiring amber eyes — well, the name Jewel seemed to fit her.

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/issues/species/wolves/jewelphantomhillb445-jewel/

(All Idaho wolves when caught and radio-collared are given a number with the letter B preceding it.)

jewel 3

Photos and account © Lynne Stone 2009

Categories posted in: Wolf Wars,  Idaho wolf hunt

Tags: Idaho wolf hunt, wolves in the crossfire, Jewel, Phantom Hill Pack, Lynne Stone, Western Watersheds Project

Advertisements

Remembering Jewel…Phantom Hill Wolf Pack Female B445…Shot Dead

jewel

“Jewel” – Phantom Hill Wolf pack member B445

October 31, 2009

Jewel, a young beta female, of the Phantom Hill Wolf Pack in Idaho, was shot dead in the Eagle Creek drainage, north of Ketchum. She was only two years old but had already made her mark upon the pack. When the alpha female took an extended vacation this year, Jewel assumed “nanny duties”, caring for the pups during the alpha’s absence.

Jewel died for nothing yesterday. Here is her story from Western Watersheds Project website

Courtesy to Lynne Stone for photos and content. ====

Lynne Stone documents her encounter with Jewel:

Over a week ago I was hiking north of Ketchum, when a young Phantom Hill Pack wolf trotted into view. From her appearance I knew she was B445, the most recently collared Phantom wolf. When my dog, Bo, noticed the wolf, he bounded after her, but when I called Bo back, the wolf stopped and turned around and continued to watch us with curiosity.

I had observed from afar, a few weeks before, when B445 was caught by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and collared. I watched through a spotting scope, as she woke up from being drugged, and staggered toward the rest of her pack.

jewel 1

Jewel (B445) © Lynne Stone 2007

B445 is often the Nannie wolf to her younger brothers and sisters that make up this year’s pups, stepping into the role after Judith, B326 went on her adventure this year. At least three pups have been seen. There are probably more. I heard them howling recently at night and it sounded like three to four pups howling in response to the rest of the pack.

B445 was still shedding out her thick winter coat of fur when I saw her close-up. Now that weeks of rain (unusual for central Idaho!) has stopped, the weather is finally warm, and B445’s fur will soon be sleek.

During my recent eye-to-eye encounter with B445, I was never for a moment afraid. What I observed, was that B445 was very curious of us (my dog and self), as we were intruders into her pack’s territory. I thought of B445’s older sister, B326 – Judith, and how that this younger wolf, was certainly a jewel. Her beautiful silky movements, her intelligent, inquiring amber eyes — well, the name Jewel seemed to fit her.

(All Idaho wolves when caught and radio-collared are given a number with the letter B preceding it.)

jewel 3

Photos and account © Lynne Stone 2009

Categories posted in: Wolf Wars,  Idaho wolf hunt

Tags: Idaho wolf hunt, wolves in the crossfire, Jewel, Phantom Hill Pack, Lynne Stone, Western Watersheds Project

ACTION ALERT: Wild Horses Sent To Brutal Mexican Slaughterhouses….

wild horses wallpapers_blogspotdotcom

Wild horses are being slaughtered under BLM management. The BLM sold 1795 wild horses to a known kill buyer by the name of Tom Davis, who BTW has ties to ex Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Remember him, he and Obama delisted wolves in Montana and Idaho in 2009.

Davis admitted that most of the wild horses he purchased from the BLM were sent to Mexican slaughterhouses, which are incredibly brutal.

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO

Horse Slaughter In Mexico

http://video.humanesociety.org/press/video.php?bctid=973170356001&channel=973092891001

This is the agency we’ve entrusted the care of our “supposedly protected” wild horses to. Many wild horses have blood lines dating back to Cortez, now lost forever.

For anyone who has ever owned horses you know they have a prey animal mentality. Their natural instinct is to flee danger. Can you imagine the fear and suffering these animals experienced as they were led to their deaths, having their throats slit in a savage way. It makes me physically ill to even think about it.

This kill buyer should be prosecuted. Why is he still walking around with no charges brought against him? Why is the BLM getting away with their egregious negligence? They should NOT be managing the nation’s wild horses, it’s obvious they could care less about them.

Action needs to be taken! Wild horse numbers are dwindling fast. They are continually rounded up and sent to BLM holding facilities, where many languish. But in this case their home was a Mexican slaughterhouse.

Wild horses should be running free, that was the purpose of the Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burro Act

“The act provides specific protections to “all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States,”[2] and makes it a crime for anyone to harass or kill these animals on federal land. It requires the departments of the Interior and Agriculture to protect the animals.”

There are almost a 100 million cattle in this country, trampling all over our public and private lands. Yet there is no room for a few thousand wild horses?

Please contact the BLM and let them know what you think about their negligence. These horses belong to all Americans. We are their only voice. Please take action.

===

BLM Washington Office
1849 C Street NW, Rm. 5665
Washington DC 20240
Phone: 202-208-3801
Fax: 202-208-5242
director@blm.gov

Director: Neil Kornze
Deputy Director (Operations): Steven A. Ellis
Deputy Director (Policy): Linda Lance
Chief of Staff: Jon Raby (Acting)

===

Washington, DC contact

krauss@blm.gov

===

BLM Colorado 

Front Range District Office

3028 East Main Street
Cañon City, Colorado 81212
719-269-8500
FAX 719-269-8599
District Manager: Tom Heinlein

===

BLM illegally sold thousands of wild horses for slaughter: report

– The Washington Times – Saturday, October 24, 2015

The Bureau of Land Management, the agency tasked with protecting wild horses and cattle and their grazing lands, sold 1,794 federally-protected wild horses to a Colorado rancher who sent them to slaughter, a new report confirmed. 

Between 2009 and 2012, rancher Tom Davis purchased the horses through the agency’s Wild Horse and Burro Program (WH&B) and wrongfully sent them to slaughter, according to the report from the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General. According to the allegations and news reports, Mr. Davis also had farming and trucking connections with former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. 

 “We determined that BLM did not follow current law while managing WH&B. BLM also failed to follow its own policy of limiting horse sales and ensuring that the horses sold went to good homes and were not slaughtered,” investigators wrote in the report. 

Mr. Davis admitted that most of the horses that he purchased through the BLM went to slaughter.

He told investigators that “in selling so many loads of horses, BLM had to know that the horses would end up at the slaughterhouse.” 

The wrongful sale also cost taxpayers $140,000 to deliver truckloads of horses to Mr. Davis. He paid $10 a piece for the horses, or less than $18,000 total, and made as much as $154,000 in profits by selling them for slaughter, according to the report. 

BLM employees never attempted to verify the information that Mr. Davis provided regarding his intentions for the horses he bought, despite the unusually large number of horses being sold to him, investigators wrote. The agency also did not stop selling horses to Mr. Davis after receiving reports that he was sending the horses to slaughter. 

The OIG declined to investigate Mr. Davis‘ ties to Mr. Salazar.

The investigation was referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado as well as the State of Colorado Conejos County District Attorney’s Office, which declined civil and criminal prosecution, according to the report.

“It took more than three years for the OIG to confirm what we’ve always known – that the BLM sold 1,795 federally-protected wild horses to a known kill buyer who sold them to slaughter,” said Suzanne Roy, Director of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC). “Unfortunately, there will be no justice for these mustangs, who suffered a brutal death in Mexican slaughter plants. No one at the BLM is being held accountable for this betrayal, and Tom Davis is not being prosecuted for violating his contractual obligation to not sell the horses for slaughter.”

In their response to the report, BLM officials said they are taking the matter very seriously and have taken preventative measures to ensure horses sold by the agency do not end up at slaughterhouses in the future.

BLM officials also said that the agency no longer has any business relationship with Mr. Davis and will not in the future.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/24/blm-illegally-sold-thousands-wild-horses-slaughter/

===

After Wild Horse Report, Jewell Faces First Moment of Truth at Interior

A new federal report blasts the Bureau of Land Management for its wild horse policies– putting the new Interior Secretary squarely between science and politics.

June 7, 2013

Wild horses are rounded up by the Bureau of Land Management in the West Desert of Utah in 2012 Jim Urquhart Reuters

“Wild horses are rounded up by the Bureau of Land Management in the West Desert of Utah in 2012. (Jim Urquhart/Reuters)

At the heart of the current debate over the nation’s wild horses is the BLM policy (encouraged and enhanced by Jewell’s predecessor Ken Salazar) of removing horses from their native rangelands out West and warehousing them in enclosures in the Midwest. Tens of thousands of wild horses now are so kept, at great taxpayer expense, while federal officials figure out what to do with them. For years, the BLM has justified these removals, many of which are dangerous to the horses, by claiming they are necessary to protect grazing lands for “multiple uses,” which really means livestock grazing and energy exploration.

The NAS Report took a dim view of the science behind this policy. The BLM’s “current practice of removing free-ranging horses from public lands promotes a high population growth rate,” the report concluded, “and maintaining them in long-term holding facilities is both economically unsustainable and incongruent with public expectations.” In other words, the scientists found that by removing so many wild horses from our lands the Interior Department was doing the opposite of what it was trying to do — decreasing population rates among the herds — and doing it without adequate scientific reason.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/after-wild-horse-report-jewell-faces-first-moment-of-truth-at-interior/276545/

Nokota_mares_wiki_François Marchal

 Top photo: Courtesy wild horse wallpaper blogspotdotdom

Middle Photo: Courtesy Wiki

Bottom Photo: Courtesy wild horse wallpapers

Posted in: Wild Horses, Animal Cruelty, Action Alert

Tags: Wild horses slaughtered, BLM negligence, Tom Davis, Mexican slaughterhouses, Colorado, accountability

wild horses wallpapers_mother and foal

Trophy Hunter – Serial Killer?

Portrait of Cecil by Ed Hetherington

Cecil by Ed Hetherington

There is no doubt in my mind that trophy hunting is a form of serial killing. Gareth Patterson, lion expert, puts it all into perspective, in his 2007 post. His words are even more timely with the brutal murder of Cecil the lion.

===

Is Trophy Hunting a Form of Serial Killing?

Lion expert and conservationist Gareth Patterson takes aim

09 Sep 07

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 fuelled 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, fuelling 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 jewellery 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 behaviour of a hunter in the family? Could they reveal that the hunter had a very disturbed childhood?

Almost half the serial killers analysed during behavioural 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

===

Warning Graphic Video

Canned Lion Hunts, The Most Disturbing of All 

“This is a video of a sick canned lion hunt in South Africa, where the killers drive a pick-up truck inside a tame lioness’ enclosure and kills her with a high-powered bow and arrow.”

CANNED LION HUNT FOOTAGE 2012 

Published on Apr 3, 2013

Hunter kills tame lioness in her enclosure in South Africa

===

YouTube video draws focus to trophy hunting in SA

The YouTube video shows a playful lioness walking around a vehicle, where a hunter with a bow keeps trying to get a good shot at her.

22 APR 2013 10:26 SIPHO KINGS

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-22-youtube-canned-hunting-video-draws-attention

===

Top Photo: Cecil the lion by Ed Hetherington

Video: YouTube Courtesy stopmadnessable

Posted in: African Lions, Animal Cruelty

Tags: African Lions, sick trophy hunting, serial killers of animals, blood lust, destruction of innocent wildlife, ban trophy hunting, ban canned hunts, Cecil the lion, save the world’s wildlife

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

Speak For Wolves : Yellowstone 2014 – Update

Speak For Wolves June 2 2014

June 2, 2014

The establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 is one of the greatest achievements in American history, affording protection to one of our country’s true wild places. Appreciation for this action, and the land it preserved, is being cherished more and more by each passing generation. And Yellowstone is much more than an American treasure; it is an international jewel, attracting millions of people from all over the world every year.

Fast-forward 123 years to 1995 and 1996, when the federal government, at the behest of the American people, released 66 gray wolves into Yellowstone. After one of America’s most iconic species was brought to near extinction through hunting, trapping, poisoning, and other government-funded methods in the 19th and 20th centuries, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service finally began to recover this internationally beloved species. And, because of its wildness and large size, as well as its complement of abundant prey species, Yellowstone was one of two places chosen to welcome the wolves home. Idaho was the second place.

On June 28-29, 2014, people of all walks of life are invited to attend Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014, a 2-day family friendly celebration of wolves, predators and other native species that contribute to our rich national heritage. The event will be held at Arch Park in Gardiner, MT, just north of the Roosevelt Arch, near the north entrance to Yellowstone National Park. Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014 will feature prominent speakers and authors from the conservation community, and will include live music, education booths, children’s activities and food vendors. The event is free and open to the public. Please visit the event website at http://www.speakforwolves.org/.

In addition to daytime activities at Arch Park, the screening of two wildlife documentaries will occur on Saturday evening, June 28 at 7 pm. The films will be shown at the Gardiner Community Center, which is located at 210 W. Main Street in downtown Gardiner. Organizers will be showing Predator Defense’s film, Exposed: USDA’s Secret War on Wildlife and Project Coyote’s film, Coexisting with Wildlife: The Marin Livestock and Wildlife Protection Program. The films will be followed by a panel discussion composed of conservationists and scientists. The films are free.

Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014 is an opportunity for the American people to unite and demand wildlife management reform, and to take an important step toward restoring our national heritage. Unbeknownst to many Americans, over 3,000 gray wolves have been slaughtered across America, including around Yellowstone National Park, since certain segments of the wolf population were prematurely stripped of federal protections under the Endangered Species Act just a few years ago. The controversial delisting of the northern Rockies gray wolf was the first time Congress intervened and delisted a species in the 40-year history of the Endangered Species Act.

Lengthy hunting seasons now occur in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Hunters are permitted to hunt wolves with dogs in Wisconsin. Barbaric trapping/snaring seasons exist in Idaho. The USDA Wildlife Services just gunned-down 23 wolves from a helicopter in a rugged national forest in Idaho. In just twenty years, the federal government has completely reversed its course on the biological recovery of the gray wolf, and is now in the business of wiping them out again.

While many people are calling for relisting of gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act, others are saying that it is time to completely reform wildlife management in the United States.

Event organizers for Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014 have developed the following five keys to reforming wildlife management in America:

1. Ban trapping/snaring on all federal public lands.
2. End grazing on all federal public lands.
3. Abolish the predator-control department of the USDA Wildlife Services.
4. Reform how state fish and game agencies operate.
5. Introduce legislation to protect all predators, including wolves, from sport hunting, trapping, and snaring.

Please consider attending Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014. The only thing that can save the gray wolf from a second extermination is a strong grassroots movement consisting of every-day people. Let’s come together and embark on this journey together. Let’s make the world a better place, for not only current generations, but for those generations still to come.

Your support is greatly appreciated!

Learn more at http://www.speakforwolves.org/ or follow the event for updates at http://www.facebook.com/speakforwolvesyellowstone2014.

Sincerely,

Brett Haverstick
Organizer

Published in: on June 2, 2014 at 11:32 pm  Comments (9)  

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

Support Rep. DeFazio’s Efforts To Stop The National Wolf Delisting Rule

Imnaha Pack 5 wolf pups 2013 Oregon

“Five wolf pups from the Imnaha pack were photographed by a remote camera on July 7, 2013. The pups were approximately 2.5 months old in this photo. Photo courtesy of ODFW.”

Every day there is bad, very bad or really bad news about wolves. But “Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee Peter DeFazio” is speaking out for wolves. He wants the national wolf delisting rule revoked.

Rep. DeFazio D -Oregon and 73 other House members, who oppose the national wolf delisting rule, are urging Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, to keep wolves protected under the ESA and to “rescind the proposed rule immediately”.

Thanks to Rep. DeFazio and the 73 House members who joined him. We must stop this rule.

Please comment by March 27, 2014 on the proposed national wolf delisting by clicking HERE!

===

Natural Resources

Committee – Democrats
Ranking Member – Peter DeFazio

Press Release

Mar 19, 2014

DeFazio Leads 73 Members on Bipartisan Letter Urging Secretary Jewell to Maintain Critical Gray Wolf Protections

For Immediate Release: March 19, 2014

Contact: Jen Gilbreath (Resources), 202-225-4081

DeFazio Leads 73 Members on Bipartisan Letter Urging Secretary Jewell to Maintain Critical Gray Wolf Protections

Washington, D.C. – Today, Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee Peter DeFazio (D-OR) released a bipartisan letter co-signed by 73 House members urging Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell to continue critical protections for endangered gray wolves. The letter comes on the heels of an independent peer review that found the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) failed to use the “best available science” when it drafted a  proposed rule that would remove Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in the lower 48 states.

In the letter, the members write, “Because it is not based on the best available science, the proposed rule undermines decades of conservation work done to protect the gray wolf, and sets a bad precedent for future ESA delistings. Further, it would stifle gray wolf recovery at a time when conservation gains are only nascent in the Pacific Northwest, and recovery has yet to begin in California, Colorado, Utah, and the Northeast, where scientists have identified a significant amount of suitable habitat that would support wolf populations.”

The members ask Secretary Jewell and the Service to rescind the proposed rule immediately. In February, the Service released a long overdue peer review from an independent, objective panel of top experts in the fields of ecology, taxonomy, and genetics. These scientists were tasked with evaluating the proposed delisting and the science behind it. The reviewers unanimously found the Service did not use the “best available science” when they decided to remove the gray wolf from protections under the ESA. The reviewers said that the Service accepted unproven science uncritically while they disregarded conflicting data outright.

 “I’ve long said that ESA decisions should be based on science, not politics, and the experts who have reviewed the so-called science behind the proposed rule have spoken. The peer review leaves no option but for the Service to rescind the proposed rule and continue federal protections that are essential to the long-term survival and recovery of gray wolves. Continued protection under the Endangered Species Act is the only way that gray wolves will ever return to a significant portion of their range, and reclaim their place as a keystone species of American landscapes. I hope Secretary Jewell agrees,” said DeFazio

The Service’s proposed rule has generated over 1 million comments since 2013. DeFazio recently led a CREDO Mobile petition to urge the Service to rescind the rule that generated over 115,000 signatures.

A copy of the letter is below and attached.

===

March 19, 2014

 The Honorable Sally Jewell Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Secretary Jewell:

Last week the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) released its peer review report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) proposed rule to remove Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection for all gray wolves other than a small experimental population of Mexican wolves being reintroduced in Arizona and New Mexico. The findings of this independent scientific review validate concerns raised by Congress and the scientific community over the Service’s failure to use the best available science to support the gray wolf delisting proposal.  Specifically, the expert panelists noted explicitly that the rule does not currently represent the best available science, that there is not currently sufficient scientific basis for recognizing a separate “eastern wolf” as asserted in the rule, and that the rule presents no evidence excluding the gray wolf from an historic range in the eastern United States.

The Service’s claim in the proposed rule that the gray wolf has recovered and should no longer be listed as endangered hinged on the purported existence of a distinct eastern wolf. The peer review report found that the existing scientific literature provides absolutely no basis for this conclusion. Therefore, we are again asking you to direct the Service to rescind the proposed rule. As you said when speaking at the Children, Conservation, and the Future of the Great Outdoors event last June, deciding whether or not to remove ESA protection from the gray wolf “is about science, and you do what the science says.”

While we are troubled by the certainty with which the Service proceeded in this instance, even in the face of clear scientific disagreement, we are pleased that the agency finally heeded our calls for an independent peer review of the rule.  Still, we have serious concerns regarding the initial attempts to exclude top wolf experts from this process, and the resurrection of a long-dormant government journal to “publish” the study (written by four FWS employees) used to justify the rule. These actions cast doubt on Service Director Dan Ashe’s recent statement that his agency has no “desire to wring our hands and walk away from wolves.”[1]

Because it is not based on the best available science, the proposed rule undermines decades of conservation work done to protect the gray wolf, and sets a bad precedent for future ESA delistings. Further, it would stifle gray wolf recovery at a time when conservation gains are only nascent in the Pacific Northwest, and recovery has yet to begin in California, Colorado, Utah, and the Northeast, where scientists have identified a significant amount of suitable habitat that would support wolf populations.

The ESA does not charge the Service with restoring only as much of the endangered species as it deems politically convenient. In fact, the purposes of the Act “are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.”[2] The Service should rescind the proposed rule immediately, and continue to review the taxonomic history of wolves in the eastern United States, and other factors related to the status of endangered gray wolf populations and their associated ecosystems before removing federal protection.

Sally Jewell Letter Signatures 2http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/press-release/defazio-leads-73-members-bipartisan-letter-urging-secretary-jewell-maintain-critical

===

Please contact Representative DeFazio and thank him for leading the charge to stop national wolf delisting. Ask what you can do to help.

Rep. Peter Defazio

Washington DC Office

2134 Rayburn Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

phone: 202-225-6416 hours: M-F 9-5:30pm

===

Contact Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior

1. Ask the proposed national wolf delisting rule be revoked immediately!

2. Explain wolves are being persecuted and killed in 6 state wolf hunts AND by Wildlife Services and poachers.

3. Wolves inhabit just 5% of their historic range.

4. If wolves lose their ESA protections it will stop wolf recovery in its tracks.

5. The proposed wolf delisting rule is NOT based on the best available science but driven by the political agenda of ranching and hunting interests.

Phone: (202) 208-3100

E-Mail: feedback@ios.doi.gov

Web: Feedback form

Mailing Address:

Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, N.W. Washington DC 20240

===

Photo: Courtesy ODFW

Posted in: Activism, Wolf Wars

Tags: stop national wolf delisting, Rep. Peter DeFazio, Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, Dan Ashe, USFWS, gray wolves in danger, comment on wolf delisting

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

%d bloggers like this: