Archive for the ‘protection’ Tag

Poll: Most Oregonians say killing no way to manage wolves   6 comments

October 9, 2016 by Eric Tegethoff, Oregon News Service

Majority say species still deserves protection

Poll: Most Oregonians say killing no way to manage wolves

PORTLAND, Ore. – A majority of Oregonians believe hunting wolves is no way to manage them and that the species still deserves endangered species protections, according to a new poll conducted by Mason Dixon Polling and Research.

More than 70 percent of Oregon voters who responded said nonlethal prevention methods should be attempted before officials are allowed to kill wolves.

Two-thirds said wolves don’t pose such an economic threat to the cattle industry that killing them is required.

Arron Robertson, communications coordinator for the conservation group Oregon Wild, said proposed changes to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission’s wolf conservation plan could make it easier to kill wolves.

“What are the conditions in which the agency essentially deputizes hunters to go out and do wildlife management?” he asked. “And what we found in this poll was that Oregonians disapproved of the kind of management tools that the agency was proposing.”

Respondents to the poll spanned the political spectrum, and 30 percent came from rural Oregon.

The poll was conducted at the end of September. As of the end of 2015, the commission said there were about 110 wolves in Oregon.

According to the poll, 63 percent disagree with the state’s removal of endangered species protections for Oregon’s wolves.

Robertson’s group, along with the Center for Biological Diversity and Cascadia Wildlands, are challenging this decision in court, saying the science behind the decision is flawed.

“There were a number of scientists that commented that the science wasn’t rigorous enough and they had a number of concerns and those concerns were never addressed because there was no revision,” Robertson stressed. “So the decision, which was based on a report that was never peer-reviewed, was in violation of Oregon law.”

Last Friday, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission held a meeting open to the public in La Grande on proposed changes to the state’s wolf management plan, and will hold another meeting on Dec. 2 in Salem.




STOP WOLF HUNTS   8 comments

Re-blogged from


Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician
(1729 – 1797)
If our Gray Wolves 
don’t have their protections 
restored under the E.S.A. 
because WE did not speak up, 
leave comments 
and say #keepwolveslisted?

Then it is OUR fault that 
Wolves will be gone from the wild. 


Not the Feds. 
Not the Ranchers. 
Not the wolfhunters.
All folks, not just U.S.A. residents 
can leave comments, 
and you can leave more than one. 



Oliver Starr ~ Good Wolf


Never mind the science that show that wolves are essential to a healthy landscape.

Never mind the proof that wolves have improved the ecology of Yellowstone.

Never mind the research that shows that wolves have a positive impact on their prey species while human trophy hunting is what damages them and drives them to extinction.

Never mind the fact that wolves were here before us and we are in THEIR territory.

Never mind the truth that cattle ranching is an ecologically and financially unsustainable business that lives on the back of the taxpayer and the government while destroying entire ecosystems.

Never mind the statistics that show that wolves are responsible for less than 1% of livestock mortality while neglect, injury and disease are responsible for 75%.

Never mind the evidence that in Oregon where non lethal controls have been employed wolf-related livestock mortality plummeted while hunting in Idaho caused it to increase even after killing nearly have the state’s wolves… It’s just convenient and easy to blame the wolf.

“We’re the peak of the evolutionary food chain and the pinnacle of intelligence and it’s our manifest destiny to conquer, control and destroy as much as we possibly can…”

Yep, that’s pretty much the mentality of the wolf killers and the ranchers I’ve talked to in one of the most backward states I’ve ever visited. It’s depressing that people can be so willfully unenlightened. It’s almost like a religion of hatred and we can see where that has gotten the planet…

Only when the last wolf is dead, the last grizzly shot, the last mountain lion taken out with an arrow and the last bison rotting in a field will we wake up and say “oh god… what have we done?” And guess what… the sky will stare down back at us in silence and we will realize that we only have our hubris to blame…

Leave a comment for the Gray Wolves.

1. #StandforWolves by submitting your public comment

Thank you to Janet Hoben and Olaf Janssen

The Obama Administration and USFWS announced its plan to remove the gray wolf from the federal protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act in the lower 48 states because they say it is a ‘recovered species.’

Based on the evidence, we believe wolves need continued protection to expand into much of their historic range before they are removed from the Endangered Species List.

If you agree, visit our website (above) to find out how you can contribute to the national dialog by submitting a quick/easy public comment.

Then, let’s ‘educate, advocate, and participate’ by sharing and urging our family and friends to do the same…thank you!

(Resource: LA Times:


< O >
Only 70 Mexican gray wolves remain in the wild, making them one of the most endangered animals. (Photo: Joel Sartore)

My brother, Mexican wolf M806, was the alpha-male of the Bluestem pack. He thrived in the wild for 6 yrs before he was illegally shot & killed. Today, only 75 Mexican wolves live in the wild & the USFWS designates them as an “experimental, nonessential” population. This designation means that their recovery is trumped by the wishes of industry &/or recreation.

Please tell USFWS that these wolves ARE essential to the recovery of their rare species. Our friends from Mexican gray wolves offer useful talking points here:

Take Action: Comments Needed to Ensure Mexican Wolves’ Future!

Proposed USFWS Rule changes regarding reintroduction into the wild of the Mexican Gray Wolf
Recently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed changes to the rules guiding the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction. 

The proposed rule is very important to the future of Mexican wolves in the wild. Please comment, using the following points: 

One very good and many very bad changes are proposed:

The good change is to allow direct releases of Mexican wolves into parts of New Mexico and additional areas in Arizona.  This change has been recommended by experts for over 10 years and can be made faster and with less bureaucratic delay than any other part of the proposed rule


The bad changes include:

By labeling all of the wild wolves as “nonessential” the USFWS ignores science and the reality of 15 years of experience with reintroducing wolves 

The USFWS claims that even if all of the 75 wolves in the wild are wiped out this is not “likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood” of recovery of Mexican wolves in the wild.

When the current rule declared wolves in the wild “nonessential” there were only 11 wolves, recently released from a captive breeding program and they made up only 7% of all Mexican wolves in the world.

Now the 75 wolves in the wild have up to four generations of experience in establishing packs and raising pups and are over 22% of all of the Mexican wolves in the world.

After four more generations of captive breeding with few releases (only one in the last five years), scientists warn that there may be serious genetic problems making captive wolves less able to thrive in the wild.


The proposed rule puts the cart before the horse and should come with or after – not before – an updated recovery plan

USFWS admits that their present, typewritten, 1982 recovery plan is not scientifically sound and does not meet current legal requirements – yet in its proposed rule USFWS continues to emphasize a woefully inadequate population of only 100 wolves in the wild

When USFWS published the current rule in 1998 they said they expected to put out a new recovery plan for the public to comment on later that year; 15 years later, there still is no scientific or legally adequate recovery plan!


USFWS’s decision on the proposed rule can help Mexican wolves finally thrive or can push them closer to extinction. Please submit your comments here and ask others who care about Mexican wolves to do the same. 

Thank you!
Contact us at:

< O >


Andrew Rosenberg, director, Center for Science & Democracy
August 19, 2013

Shark week has come and gone, and as a marine scientist I feel most at home with these top predators, but it is another, equally charismatic predator species that is in the news.  You can guess that because I said “charismatic” I wasn’t referring to Congress.

The possibility that the federal government would remove conservation measures for gray wolves and decide that they are no longer at risk of extinction is in the news not because of some new finding that wolf populations are recovering, but because of apparent political interference in the process of reviewing the science that is the basis for that determination.


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of Interior is responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for most of the flora and fauna of the U.S. For marine species, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Department of Commerce has the responsibility. I used to work as a scientist, and then as a lead regulator for the NMFS and have first-hand experience with implementing the ESA.

In a very real sense, the ESA is the protection of last resort for species of unique plants and animals that are determined to be in danger of extinction, in other words, lost forever from our natural heritage. ESA protections that should only come into play when all other conservation and management measures have not been successful at protecting that natural heritage.

Endangered species are often controversial, as you might expect. In every case that I am aware of, endangerment is due to the actions and activities of people.  So removing threats to the continued existence of a species means that someone, somewhere will have to change their behavior.

While we might like to think we manage species and natural ecosystems, in reality we manage people and their impacts upon nature. For the marine species I worked with, from salmon to sturgeon to turtles, sea lions, seals, and whales there was incredible controversy on all sides, with some who wanted more protection and others who wanted less or none at all.

A  species is “listed” as threatened or endangered under the ESA when a scientific review has determined its continued existence is in jeopardy. The law clearly lays out that science should determine the conservation status of the species — not economic considerations or political positions. These other factors can be taken into account when regulators develop a plan to protect the species.

If we are to protected biodiversity, that is how it should be, a decision based on science, not politics. This is why UCS continues to work with biologists and other scientists with relevant expertise to explain to Congress and the media that for the Endangered Species Act to be most effective, it must be grounded in the best available science.

But unfortunately, wolves are proving to be an exception.


Wolves are among the most controversial of endangered species, and are being considered for de-listing, that is, a conclusion that they are no longer threatened or in danger of extinction and ESA protections are no longer needed. Not only does the law require a full, objective scientific assessment, in such a controversial setting, common sense demands it.

That means the FWS should follow the best process of developing scientific advice. Do the analysis, present the data and conclusions, have it independently peer reviewed by experts in the field. Ensure that all conflicts of interest are disclosed. Make the information public as far as possible while respecting any privacy concerns. And when determining what action to take, be clear about its reasoning, without trying to manipulate the facts to support a pre-conceived position.

While these basic steps in developing the scientific advice were underway, the agency intervened in the process of selecting peer reviewers, excluding some that had already been critical of the scientific basis of the proposed rule on wolves. A significant number of leading experts in the field joined this group to criticize the agency in an open letter.  Excluding critics from a peer review when they are highly qualified and respected in the field, and when they raise serious methodological and scientific issues, undermines the very purpose of a peer review. The whole point is to make sure that key methodological, theoretical or empirical errors are caught and addressed so that the agency acts on the best science available. Furthermore, and critical in this case, if the policy-makers manipulate the review process to try to influence the result, the integrity of the advice is lost.

Fortunately, the FWS has backed away from that position. What needs to happen now is to take the time to do a full assessment complete with a comprehensive, independent peer review, adhering strictly to the agency’s science integrity policy. It is vital to include a range of experts in the review and address the scientific issues that they raise.  Let’s not endanger scientific advice in the name of trying to declare victory for species recovery. When that happens we should all howl.

Posted in: Science and Democracy, Scientific Integrity Tags: Endangered Species Act, Scientific Integrity

About the author: Andrew Rosenberg is the director of the UCS Center for Science and Democracy. He leads UCS’s efforts to advance the essential role that science, evidence-based decision making, and constructive debate play in American policy making. Subscribe to Andrew’s posts

< O >


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

August 16, 2013 Tracy Ross

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

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

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

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

Op-Ed: What We Learned From Living With Wolves for 6 Years

Vucetich and Wayne told the AP that they had received emails from the contractor saying they were being excluded from the review team because they had signed the letter. Kays said he had been “solicited as a possible panelist” but later told he wouldn’t be needed.

Vucetich, a biologist and wolf specialist, told the AP it was “absolutely wrong” to disqualify an expert from a peer review team because of previous statements about a proposed policy. Any competent scientist will approach such an assignment with an open mind and be willing to alter his or her opinion if new information justifies it, he said.

According to the AP, Shire declined comment on the dealings with the three scientists, saying the matter was under review. But he said the Fish and Wildlife Service “wanted to be particularly sure that the people we got for this process were objective and unbiased” because the wolf is such a “highly polarizing subject.”

Brett Hartl, however, says that “peer review of the whole delisting question is complicated because the Service has injected so many improper policy considerations into this delisting proposal.” As Dan Ashe, Fish and Wildlife Service director, told the AP, “Science is an important part of this decision, but really the key is the policy question of when is a species recovered. Does the wolf have to occupy all the habitat that is available to it in order for it to be recovered? Our answer to that question is no.”

Yet under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, the decision to delist a species is required to be based on the best available science. “Had the Service followed this mandate, the best course of action would have been to develop a nationwide recovery plan for wolves using the best available science,” Hartl said. “Instead, the Service basically asked the States whether they wanted wolves or not and based its decision to delist the wolf on these political considerations.“

According to the AP, the contract with the outside firm has been put on hold and the peer review procedure will start anew. It’s unclear whether the delay will affect the timetable for making a final decision on removing wolf protections, which is expected by June 2014.

But Hartl says that by injecting itself so deeply into the peer reviewer selection process, the entire peer review of the wolf delisting is likely to be tainted. “If the Service continues to oversee the review, then no matter how it comes out, one side or the other will be suspicious about whether the peer reviewers were objective.” Hartl recommends that the Service take a different course and have a scientific society, such as the American Society of Mammalogists or the Society for Conservation Biology, take over the peer review process and conduct it without Service involvement.


Posted by @Adelheid16 at 11:50 PM

Posted 21 October, 2013 by Wolf is my Soul in No category / Okategoriserade

Tagged with , , ,

Stand4Wolves – WildEarth Guardians   2 comments

We’ve made a short film (above) about why wolves are so important to the landscape, and to all of us. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered species has us howlin’ mad. Please take a few moments to watch the film, share with your friends and family and take action to help save wolves from extinction.

Without the protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) wolves will be back in the crosshairs, subject to hunter’s traps, guns, and bows and to Wildlife Services’ poisons. Just last Saturday a two-year old female Yellowstone wolf wandered out of the safety of the Park and was shot and killed. This tragedy will happen over and over again across the West if Secretary Jewell removes critical protections for wolves.

As our film explains, wolves are critical ecological forces on the landscape, but they have only returned to 5% of their historic range. The job of wolf recovery is simply not done. Take action today to ensure these beautiful iconic animals are returned to ecosystems across our country where they are needed and where they belong.

Poll finds voter support for wolf protections   2 comments

E&E News, July 17, 2013

Poll finds voter support for wolf protections
By Phil Taylor

A majority of voters support allowing wolves to recolonize suitable habitat in the southern Rocky Mountains, California and the Northeast where protections for the predators will soon be lifted, according to a new poll commissioned by the Center for Biological Diversity.

In addition, 47 percent of voters oppose the Interior Department’s proposal to remove Endangered Species Act protections for the animals, compared to 31 percent who support the proposal.

The poll, conducted earlier this month by Democratic-affiliated Public Policy Polling, came one month after the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting wolves in nearly all the lower 48 states, arguing that wolf populations are robust in the northern Rockies and Great Lakes (Greenwire, June 7).

The poll surveyed 1,378 registered voters and had a margin of error of 2.7 points.

“The Obama administration’s plan to strip endangered species protections for wolves clearly doesn’t have the support of most Americans,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director at CBD. “The fact is that wolves are wildly popular, and most Americans want to see more wolves in more places.”

An estimated 6,500 wolves currently roam about 5 percent of their historic range, CBD said.

When told that wolves once numbered 2 million in North America, half of the poll respondents said wolves have not yet recovered, while 33 percent said they have recovered.

A full 70 percent agreed that “wolves are a vital part of America’s wilderness and natural heritage.”

The Fish and Wildlife proposal to delist the species everywhere except parts of Arizona and New Mexico is expected to draw a lawsuit from environmental groups.

While the iconic predator has yet to reoccupy suitable habitat in the southern Rockies, the Pacific Northwest and California, wolves “no longer face the threat of extinction” and don’t need federal protections,” FWS Director Dan Ashe said last month.

“We have a vibrant, robust wolf population,” he said.

In the past two years, the species was removed from the endangered species list in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, where wolves number nearly 1,700, and Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, where there are more than 4,000 of the animals.

The decision to delist in most of the remaining lower 48 was strongly supported by Republican lawmakers, Western states, agricultural groups and sportsmen.

Wolves have been found to play a beneficial role in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, where they keep game species in check and allow the regrowth of important plants and trees. But they also prey on animals like elk, which are important to hunters, and livestock.


This article originally appeared here.

Posted 22 July, 2013 by Wolf is my Soul in Wolves / Vargar

Tagged with , , , ,

Recent Proposal To Remove Protection For Wolves A Bad Move   Leave a comment

Recent Proposal To Remove Protection For Wolves A Bad Move

Recent Proposal To Remove Protection For Wolves A Bad Move

POSTED BY  ON TUE, JUN 11, 2013 AT 10:04 AM

The Obama Administration has recently announced a proposal to lift most federal protections for gray wolves across the lower 48 states.

An article from ABC by the Associated Press reads:


“State and federal agencies have spent more than $117 million restoring the predators since they were added to the endangered species list in 1974. Today more than 6,100 wolves roam portions of the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes.


With Friday’s announcement, the administration signaled it’s ready to move on: The wolf has rebounded from near-extermination, balance has been restored to parts of the ecosystem, and hunters in some states already are free to shoot the animals under state oversight.”


Hold on – what?

Because wolves are no longer “near-extermination,” hunters are allowed to shoot the animals again?

I understand that we can’t let a wolf population grow so large that it becomes impossible to contain, but I do feel that this decision was made a little carelessly.

The article goes on to explain that hundreds of wolves have been killed in recent years by “government wildlife agents responding to livestock attacks.”

By lifting wolf protections, ranchers will no longer have to suffer from their livestock being killed by wolves, apparently.

But what about areas that still have space for wolves? Areas that do not include farmland, that would ecologically benefit from having a wolf population? 

If hunters are allowed to shoot them again, how will they possibly continue to grow? And if hunted, won’t they start migrating into other territory, where they might not be wanted or needed? I may not be a wolf expert, but this decision seems a little counterproductive.

According to Defenders of Wildlife– 
“Wolves keep large herd animals in check, which can benefit numerous other plant and animal species. The carcasses of their prey also help to redistribute nutrients and provide food for other wildlife species, most notably other scavengers.”

Just like any animal, wolves play a huge role in the ecosystem. Taking away federal protection not only endangers the wolves themselves, it endangers the environment.


Gray Wolves have been hunted to near extinction.

  • Joel Sartore – National Geographic
  • Gray Wolves have been hunted to near extinction.


Luckily, the proposal has not been without a fight.

According to the same article from ABC, The Center for Biological Diversity has vowed to take court action against the government if the animals are removed from the endangered species list as planned.

The Center for Biological Diversity released a press release on Friday, including a letter to Washington, D.C. from some of the “world’s leading wolf researchers,” and a quote from Noah Greenwald, endangered species director, who stated, “This proposal is a national disgrace. Our wildlife deserve better.”

The letter begins:


As scientists with expertise in carnivore taxonomy and conservation biology, we are writing to express serious concerns with a recent draft rule leaked to the press that proposes to remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 States, excluding the range of the Mexican gray wolf. Collectively, we represent many of the scientists responsible for the research referenced in the draft rule.
Based on a careful review of the rule, we do not believe that the rule reflects the conclusions of our work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves, or is in accordance with the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act to conserve endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.


The full letter can be found here.

It is truly heartbreaking to see such blatant disregard of our wildlife, especially against the word of reputable scientists around the country. I have to agree with Noah Greenwald on this one – The proposal is a national disgrace.

Shame on you, Obama Administration.

Do you agree with the decision this week that restores protection to the region’s gray wolves?   Leave a comment

Do you agree with the decision this week that restores protection to the region’s gray wolves?

Please vote YES and also share the link to the poll to all your wolf advocates. Montanas no-side is still winning by a margin. We have the power to turn the poll result around, still.


Freelancing, Art, and Side Hustles

Jen Dionne's Life Adventures

One Family's Adventures

My Journey to the CrossFit Games

Relentlessly Pursuing Excellence in CrossFit & In Life

AtoZMom's BSF Blog

Where God, Life, & BSF Communities Meet

Wildlife in Deutschland

Naturfotografie von Jan Bürgel


Your guide to style! 💛

European Wilderness Society

Our passion is Wilderness and its wildlife

The Divine Masculine

Striving for the balance between Anima and Animus

On Life and Wildlife

Thoughts on a wild life in wild places

Busiga mor

My Home My Place My Life My Story

A self-confessed blogaholic since January 2017


Because life is too overrated to ignore

Hugh's Views & News  

WordPress & Blogging tips, flash fiction, photography and lots more!

Discover WordPress

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

Sizzles & Strings

Hostel-friendly recipes from an aspiring little chef. Fire Burn & Cauldron Bubble.

Over the Border

Man made borders not to limit himself, but to have something to cross. ~Anonymous

Amazing Tangled Grace

A blog about my spiritual journey in the Lord Jesus Christ.

%d bloggers like this: