SEND AN EMAIL TO A POLITICIAN !
Protest the delisting of Wolves from Federal Protection of the Endangered Species Act.
 |
| Adelliam |
This is just a starting point, please add YOUR reasons for wanting this Draft decision not to be passed, and why you want to #keepwolveslisted.
Tell your Congresspeople your story about why it is important to you to make sure that our wolves are not driven into extinction by hunters.
They need to see that this is personal to you.
Plus if they get the same email from all of us, it does not have the impact of many voices. Tell them that you are informed about their state's wolf recovery and wolf management programs. If they are irresponsible towards wolf recovery, tell them that you will not purchase goods and services made in their state and that you will vocally not support tourism in their state.
This is most effective if you are contacting your own state's representation, as they have to listen to you in order to get your next vote. At this point, I would email whomever you feel so inclined to. We simply need to bombard politicians with prowolf voices right now.
Also, it is very important that we provide accountability under our signatures, with contact information, be it an email address, a phone number, street address, a Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ account name.
If we don't provide something that proves we exist as potential voters for these folks, our chances of having our voice heard are tossed aside.
Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
PRESS REPRESENTATIVE FOR DEPARTMENT PF THE INTERIOR
202-208-3100
AND THERE IS A WEB EMAIL FORM HERE:
Here is the official page for U.S.Department of the Interior
List of Congress members, state by state.
You will find your Senators and your Representatives here:
Find your United States Senators here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Find your United States House of Representatives here:
http://www.house.gov/
Below are the folks who are NOT pro wolf, in fact we should simply cut to the chase and call them by their rightful name. They are the "WolfHaters".
PLEASE DO NOT contact them, it will actually hurt our chances of having ESA protections restored for the wolves. These folks use activists' objections as rhetoric fodder for their re~election campaigns.
The only reason they are included here is so that, if you are like me, and not up to date on the actions of your representation in Congress, you can see who to avoid contacting.
http://www.weeac.com/csf-by-state.html
Greetings Senator .........
I would like for you to use every legal reasoning at your disposal to stop the disastrous plan that delists the wolves of America from the ESA.
We have witnessed over 1500 wolves slaughtered since they were delisted in 2009. This is unacceptable. At this rate the wolf population in the wild will never stand a chance at recovery that has come at the cost of millions of dollars spent for protection under the ESA, since 1974.
Please, do not allow partisan politics to dictate the survival of our nation's important keystone predator species .
The fact that the Rider in the Budget Act calling for Delisting Wolvesfrom ESA bans citizens from challenging this decision has been instigated by preservation of anti wolf litigation from the state of Wyoming.
I vote, and I strongly urge you to Block this plan from the US Fish and Wildlife services to permanently delist America's wolves from the federal protection status afforded under the Endangered Species Act.
Thank you,
me
@blahblah.aol.com
4321 Somewhere St, S.W.
Somewhere else, USA
00000
1-333-333-3333
LET'S EMAIL SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SALLY JEWELL AND TELL HER TO KEEP OUR WOLVES LISTED UNDER THE E.S.A.
Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
feedback@ios.doi.gov
202-208-3100
PRESS REPRESENTATIVE FOR DEPARTMENT PF THE INTERIOR
jessica_kershaw@ios.doi.gov
AND THERE IS A WEB EMAIL FORM HERE:
http://www.doi.gov/feedback.cfm
Here is the official page for U.S.Department of the Interior
http://www.doi.gov/public/contact-us.cfm
 |
| Foto F. Kobras Courteys Freda Dominy~Friends of Wolves |
Our wolves face the imminent danger of total delisting from the Endangered Species Act.
They WILL be stripped of all US Federal Protection, and that is NOT good. Not at all.
I've laid out my email sample for you to use as a basic sample.It makes more of an impact if you tell her WHY you care about wolves.
Please make it your own, make it succinct and to the point.
Shorter is better than too long.
If you really don't have time you can just copy, paste, sign, include some accountability with an email address, your Twitter handle, FB, phone number, or address. She will more than likely be seeking a second term, so your voice does matter.
If you do choose to alter, please remember that we really need Sally Jewell and YOUR elected Congressman and Representative to be OUR voices in the White House to ensure that this decision to permanently delist our wolves does NOT go through.
These politicians will be seeking another term as well, so once again they do care what you think, as they know that you vote.
So maybe no swearing?
I personally LOVE to swear, but it will backfire on us here.
This page is being updated to include contact information for all members of Congress from each state.
It will ONLY work if you contact your own elected official, not
the ones in the Northern Rocky Mountains who are slaughtering
the wolves. From what I learned today?
That actually makes it worse for the wolves.
If you don't live in that state, please DO NOT contact that Congressperson.
AND THERE IS A WEB EMAIL FORM HERE:
http://www.doi.gov/feedback.cfm
Here is the official page for U.S.Department of the Interior
http://www.doi.gov/public/contact-us.cfm
Or call Sally: 202.208.3100
Or rely on old fashioned snail mail:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Thank you!!!!
For our Wolves.
...........................................................................................................
Email sample to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
Greetings Secretary Sally Jewell!
How are you today?
I am certain that you are aware of the ever growing sense of discontent and outrage held by anti wolf hunting activists.
This is a long running war that many, if not all of us have been following, and engaged in since the reign of your predecessor Ken Salazar.
WHY is this getting worse?
We know by now, that driving these wolves to the brink of obsolescence will not only eradicate them from the face of the planet, but will also irreparably alter the balance of the ecosystem they inhabit and cling to precipitously now.
Case in point.
How the reintroduction of Wolves into Yellowstone impacted the Elk population, as well as
providing a hospitable environment for the reemergence of Cottonwood and Aspen trees.
http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/how-returning-wolves-are-changing-yellowstone/
That text is included below.
FISH & WILDLIFE | ECOTROPE
How returning wolves are changing Yellowstone
Ecotrope | Dec. 29, 2011 2:28 a.m. | Updated: Feb. 19, 2013 1:33 p.m.
CONTRIBUTED BY:
CASSANDRA PROFITA
PART OF SERIES:
Ecotrope
Scientists studying the effect of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park have published a new report with updated findings.
In the 15 years since wolves returned to the park, they found, elk and coyote populations have declined, new aspen, willow and cottonwood trees are growing, and beaver colonies are on the rise.
Elk had been over-browsing young trees and preventing new recruits, according to William Ripple, a professor for Oregon State University and lead author of the study. But the presence of wolves keeps their numbers in check and prevents elk from eating too many young trees.
“Yellowstone increasingly looks like a different place,” Ripple said in an OSU news release (see the accompanying video above). “These are still the early stages of recovery, and some of this may still take decades. But trees and shrubs are starting to come back and beaver numbers are increasing. The signs are very encouraging.”
Young aspen trees are now recovering in Yellowstone National Park, after wolves that were re-introduced in 1995 helped to limit elk browsing that had been killing young trees. The older trees seen here date to the last time there were wolves in the park 70 years ago.
Gray wolves were extirpated from Yellowstone in the 1920s, and by the mid-to-late 1900s their absence allowed elk to over-browse new aspen trees. Hardly any new aspen trees grew up in the wolves absence. But now, new trees are growing again.
Since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995-96, researchers have found:
Wolf population increased until 2003 and elk behavior changed
Northern range elk dropped from 15,000 in the early 90s to 6,000 last year
Beaver colonies increased from one in 1996 to 12 in 2009, promising better fish and waterfowl habitat
Coyote numbers decreased, promising more small mammals such as red foxes, ravens and bald eagles for other predators to eat
Of course, a lot of other changes have taken place since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone. The reintroduced wolves spread out into Montana and Idaho, Oregon and Washington, and have reignited fights over how to handle their attacks on livestock. Montana and Idaho reinstated wolf hunts, and Oregon and Washington hashed out new wolf management plans. Reimbursement programs have been arranged to pay ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, and wolf advocate groups have sprung up to fight for wolves in court.
The list of ways wolves are changing the landscape in the West could go on and on. What would you put on the list?
Wolves
The needlessness of this slaughter of our wolves is just that. Needless.
There are numerous methods of non lethal predator control. We do not need to resort to wolf fatalities in order to protect ranching and landholder's interest. Please see these illustrated below:
http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2013/03/protecting-livestock-wolf-packs-nonlethal-and-colorful-means
Earth Journal
Protecting livestock from wolf packs with nonlethal (and colorful) means
By Ron Meador | 03/07/13
Oregon has proven that livestock can be protected from wolves by means other than killing the animals.
From Oregon comes a hopeful little success story about raising cattle in wolf country, wherein ranchers are protecting their herds with colorfully nonlethal alternatives to trapping and shooting.
From the AP science writer Jeff Barnard, as published over the weekend in the Christian Science Monitor:
As long as wolves have been making their comeback, biologists and ranchers have had a decidedly Old West option for dealing with those that develop a taste for beef: Shoot to kill. But for the past year, Oregon has been a "wolf-safe" zone, with ranchers turning to more modern, nonlethal ways to protect livestock.
While the number of wolves roaming the state has gone up, livestock kills haven't — and now conservation groups are hoping Oregon can serve as a model for other Western states working to return the predator to the wild.
Leading the list of those techniques appears to be the practice of fladry, an apparently antiquarian word but a new one to me. It would seem to be pronounced kind of like "philandery" without the N. Sometimes it's written as flaggery.
Anyway, it's a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline. Except for being about four feet off the ground, in the photos I saw, they look rather like the pennant streamers our species uses to attract roaming packs of consumers to a new gift shop, filling station or takeout pizzeria.
dfw.state.or.us
Fladry is a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline.
To Canis lupus, however, fladry is a proven and powerful repellent.
A 2003 research paper published in the journal Conservation Biology documented fladry's effectiveness as a barrier to both tame and wild wolves, and in areas where high livestock losses indicated that wolves weren't intimidated by human proximity alone.
A range of repellents
In Oregon, ranchers often use the streamers with other means, like electrified fences and motion-detecting alarm systems that greet approaching wolves with bright lights and recorded gunshots.
Of course Oregon's wolf population is much smaller than ours — perhaps 46 at the end of last year. But it's also growing fast, up from 29 a year earlier. And while the confirmed livestock losses of a dozen or so per year are small in absolute terms, they would scale up to 800 animals a year in Minnesota if this state's 3,000 wolves were taking livestock at the same rate.
Minnesota's new trapping and hunting seasons are often justified as a response to livestock predation. But there is widespread skepticism that farmers with wolf problems can count on much benefit from these, driven as they are by sport and trophy-seeking rather than by geographically focused removal of the problem wolves.
Whether solely nonlethal means can be sufficient is debatable, too, but some Minnesota farmers are using alarms, guard dogs, even donkeys, and there doesn't seem to be anything about fladry that would make it inherently unsuitable or ineffective here. And the price might be appealing — 19 cents per meter of fenceline, according to the 2003 study.
(By the way, the main impact of Oregon's "no-kill" policy, which has been in effect since September 2011, was to halt trapping of wolves by government agents as an anti-predation measure. There, as here, farmers and ranchers can legally shoot wolves to protect livestock, but sport hunting and trapping remain illegal.)
Now we come to how the pro wolf activists view this conflict.
Here you will find a blog that explains the conflict between ranchers, and pro ~wolf activist far better than I can, I do hope you have the time to read it, it is extremely well authored:
HSUS Sues USFWS & Salazar Over Great Lakes Wolves Delisting!
http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/hsus-sues-usfws-interior-over-great-lakes-wolves-delisting/
Here are the Google search results highlighting the discontent with the manner in which then Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has handled Federal Protections for Wolves in the U.S.A.
Quite an intensive list, very impressive :
http://www.google.com/#safe=off&hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=wolf+protection+and+ken+salazar&oq=wolf+protection+and+ken+sal&gs_l=hp.1.0.33i21.2608.13709.0.17035.29.23.1.5.5.0.165.2188.19j4.23.0...1.0...1c.1.12.psy-ab.cA-3KIrhF_g&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.cGE&fp=117225859c046254&biw=1888&bih=893
Secretary Sally Jewell, we need your help desperately!!!
We need to make sure that all wolves are granted the highest levels of Federal Protections available
under the Endangered Species Act.
They had that at one time, and careless decision making due to political influence removed their safety net.
This issue has become a national shame, as well as a tragedy now and a catastrophic situation in the very near future ~ one that can be averted by your wise and timely action to list them as an endangered and protected species.
Please let this be your legacy of honor during your employ as Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
AND PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR OUR MEXICAN WOLVES BY CONTACTING SECRETARY JEWELL HERE:
HOW DO YOU CONVINCE
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICES
TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THE CONCEPT
OF WILLING EXTINCTION
OF NORTH AMERICAN WOLVES
AND ASK THEM TO STOP
THAT FROM HAPPENING ?
Comments from a few of our Wolves to the USFWS stating the reasons behind our wishes to keep our Gray Wolves listed as protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Please submit yours here, thank you!:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-19350
Please submit yours here, thank you!:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-19350
FROM OLAF JANSSEN:
MY FIRST LETTER TO THE USFWS:
Greetings USFWS,
I write you since I am against the delisting of the Gray Wolves. We all know that the fate of the gray wolves is in your hands and that you should reconsider your delisting plan. You listen to what ranchers tell you, you listen also to what hunters tell you, but it seems you don’t really listen to what wolf advocates and wolf biologists tell you, so now I would like to take your time and tell you how I see it as passionate wolf activist:
We first should never forget that a healthy nature can only be upheld when we let nature do its own thing, without interference of humans …. And we should never forget that we took nature away from the animals to build our own place to live ….
The reason I ask you to reconsider is based on some facts which really show that the wolf isn't that what ranchers and hunters tell you they are:
In 2010, according to the USDA, wolves killed 8,100 head of cattle, resulting in a total revenue loss of $3,646,000. Whew, lotta money, right? NO IT IS NOT. That's only 3.7 percent of the total of other predators; coyotes, which are everywhere, account for 53.1 percent, or 116,700 head of cattle. Other animals which kill more cattle than wolves include: dogs (21,800 head), big cats like mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx (18,900 head), and vultures (11,900 head).
Now let's get into the really embarrassing stats. The idea that carnivorous predators are a major problem for agribusiness is like saying the cost of maintaining movable type is a real problem for the newspaper industry. That's just not how these things work anymore; if livestock is your business, you've got a lot of problems, but wolves aren't even close to one of them. Remember that wolves killed roughly 8,100 head of cattle in 2010. The USDA's National Agriculture Statistics Service estimates that 1,055,000 head of cattle were felled by respiratory problems in that same year. Over a million. Digestive problems took out another half a million head. And let's not pretend the inhumane manner in which agribusiness raises cattle didn't have something to do with that. Write off another 500,000 each to the weather and various problems with calving. Hell, just flat-out cattle rustling accounted for nearly twice as many lost head of cattle as wolves. Predators are only 5.5 percent of total cattle losses, and wolves are only 0.23 percent of the total. If you're shooting wolves it's because you like to shoot wolves, and I hope "gets enjoyment out of shooting majestic creatures" is listed in the next version of the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders.
Stupid reason #2: Wolves kill elk, caribou, and other ungulates. There are groups, like Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, who maintain that wolves should not be protected because they kill too many elk. Here's how friendly the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd is: they are such good friends with the elk that they want to eliminate the elk's major natural predator...so there are more elk for the Friends to shoot, with their guns. This is a hunting organization that is annoyed that a natural ecosystem is making it difficult for them to shoot the animals they want to shoot. In many of the Big Sky states, this is how hunting legislation gets written: with input and political pressure from hunters. Stop listening to hunters. Listen to scientists.
Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that wolves are actually good for the long-term health of the Yellowstone ecosystem, which is something you certainly can't say about hunters. Wolves prey on the weak and enfeebled; by culling the elk herd in this way, the remaining elk tend to be stronger and healthier, with less competition for resources. Wolves certainly do not pose any kind of long-term threat to the Yellowstone elk, unlike hunters, who prefer to shoot the strongest and most glorious elk they can find, because this is how you measure your worth if you are the type to measure your worth by your skill at shooting things with guns. Subsistence hunters, by the way, should be thankful for wolves, because subsistence hunters rely on strong and healthy herds, which wolves help maintain. This is how the damn planet works.
Oh, and without wolves, elk (and caribou and moose, if you go further north) experience crazy overpopulation, which is awful for the biological ecosystem, and further leads to a lack of resources which leads to a crash in population far worse than if there were wolves (and mountain lions, and bears) around to naturally cull the population. Wolves -- even an unnaturally small population like that in Wyoming -- are good for the environment, not bad.
Stupid reason #3: Wolves are dangerous to humans. Jesus Christ, no they are not. The grey wolf is a timid animal, much more likely to run from an approaching human than to make any kind of aggressive gesture. To be fair, wolves can occasionally contract rabies from other animals--they're not natural carriers themselves--and nearly all reported cases of wolf attack have been by rabid wolves. But that doesn't even matter!
There have been between 20 and 30 wolf attacks, three being fatal, in North America in the entire 20th century. Since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995, there have been zero attacks. In that same 100-year period, there were 71 fatal attacks from brown bears (including the grizzly subspecies). Oh, and about 17 people die every year from dog attacks. Wolves run when they see humans. They are not dangerous. You are not "protecting your property" when you shoot a wolf in your backyard; you are murdering an animal that's scared as hell of you.
There is no valid reason to make it legal to hunt wolves. The only honest argument you could make is "I like to shoot wolves for fun," which is kind of psychotic, so shut the hell up about livestock or elk herds or danger to humans. And don't get angry when us sensible folks listen to scientists and make your insane compulsion illegal. Shooting wolves is bad for wolves, meaningless for livestock, bad for the environment, and bad for people. Conservation of individual species is incredibly difficult; we have done damage to our ecosystems, and they don't work as well as they should, and, yes, we need to find a way to keep it as healthy as possible given our own needs. And that's why we need to listen to scientists, not ranchers or hunters. We need to get the best data possible, run it through the best minds we can find, and make our laws in accordance with what will do the most good. We sure as hell shouldn't listen to a group that wants to shoot wolves on Tuesday so they can shoot elk on Wednesday.
Yellowstone estimates that a million people saw 832F in its short, six-year life. I don't even need to get into the whole "it was a protective mother, a fierce hunter, a noble leader of its pack" stuff, because this isn't about anthropomorphizing a wolf. 832F was almost certainly the most visible element of an important effort by the National Park Service to restore Yellowstone's ecosystem to its natural order, an effort that's vital to the survival of this park and even this country. People came from all over the world and saw this wolf, this rare creature, in one of the country's most beautiful places, the way it's supposed to be. That is an amazing thing. And now nobody will see it again, because it was shot, perfectly legally. And now it's dead.
These are examples of what wolves stand for. The USA allowes legal hunting, trapping, hounding and baiting, which many of people see as an escape from “real-life”. A lot of these people are sadistic and brutal against the animals they catch (proof can be found everywhere in the internet) and those are the people that ruin our nature and what it stands for … Delisting of animals for so called “balance in nature” is really out of the question. Better laws and better observation would be more a question you could go for .
To complete my story: for every cattle animal which gets killed by a wolf, which is usually shot down by the rancher, who is alloted recovery for his lost, 7 till 8 wolves are killed unconfirmed … so the USA does not have a "wolf problem", it has a HUNTER problem ….. “they call it sport hunting”.
I SAY NO TO DELISTING THE GRAY WOLF
Regards,
Olaf Janssen, Passionate Wolf Activist
Olaf Janssen originally shared to
STOP WOLF HUNTS (Discussion #stopwolfhunts):
MY SECOND LETTER TO USFWS :
Greetings USFWS
This is my second letter to you about the delisting of the gray wolves ….
First off I would like to say that wolves are managers of nature, we need wolves to keep balance in nature and we need wolves to keep nature healthy ….. we don’t need humans who try to control nature for their own habits and own profits …
If you at the USFWS would delist the gray wolves then you would make the second failure this year in trying to control nature … second ?? YES !!
First failure was in Oregon: Bonneville Dam .
Sea lions are hunters, they eat fish to stay alive … you and the state of Oregon decided to protect the Salmon, and for that Sea Lions had to die, tortured, brand marked, and hazed ….. I wonder why you can call this controlling nature? It makes NO SENSE at all.
When the Dam opens its doors so that the Salmon can swim down the river, more Salmon are killed there then all Sea Lions can eat the whole season, so there was a other reason that Sea Lions may not eat the Salmon.
Human Greed, people that want to fish for Salmon.
So, in other words: Sea Lions have to be killed so we Humans can fish for Salmon ??
Then I really wonder what other things we are willing to do so that our greed is satisfied. So now we come to the wolves, where also there it is all about greed ….
Have you ever been asked as Agency what you are doing with nature ?
I bet not …..
Have you ever been asked as Agency what future generations want ?
I bet not …..
Delisting the Gray Wolf is OUT OF THE QUESTION !!
Hunters are people who hunt for “sport” and “pleasure”, these so called “free time Rambo’s” are people who love to hurt nature, they destroy nature and what it stands for. Gray Wolves are normally ESA protected and still alone this year over the 500 gray wolves got killed… shot down … and that was fully legal … makes me think, we humans create laws, we humans should live according those laws, but what laws have animals ??
When I talk about “gaming Animal” then I think about a game, and in a game normally both sides know about it … Hunting isn’t a game … it kills lives …it creates monsters …… more and more hunters kill for pleasure, they torture animals, they trap them so they can’t run away or let’s say defend themselves … they use gas to kill pups and mothers in dens They use dogs to chase wolves. They use bait so they only have to shoot … and that all fully legal ??
Uncontrolled ??
Unobserved ??
These are not humane methods , we don’t want them to be used against humans so why use them against animals, didn’t we learn from history ?? In these days we use methods which the world was shocked by years ago, is this really the way where we should go to ??
The expression “gaming Animal” is a totally wrong expression, you shouldn’t see nature as a game, you can't play games with animals and then be against animal cruelty, it is an expression which shouldn’t be used at all, a game is for me something like soccer, Nascar or basketball, but hunting isn't a game … it is playing with the future of next generations, and that surely shouldn’t be seen as a game.
With other words: In the great USA we can do with animals whatever we want to do ?? That’s totally wrong. Every animal has a certain purpose on this planet, and there is no animal on this planet who doesn’t have a certain purpose . It is all nature and what it stands for ….. oh … I forgot …
There is an animal which has not a real purpose to be on this planet …. A hunter who calls himself sport hunter, I don’t see a sport in it, it is destruction, nothing more ….
You as an Agency listen to such people ? People that kill for fun and pleasure but don’t listen to Biologists, wolf advocates and people who are used to speaking for and learning from wolves, people who study wolves, people who live with wolves ??
Wolves were never a real issue in the history of mankind, we took their land to build ours and they didn’t have an opportunity to say something about it. We took their hunting grounds and places where they lived to create the chaos we have now. This human world is fully sinking in greed and money, sinking to something we have created ourselves and now animals have to suffer for that.
There will be future generations of humans who also want to see something from this normally beautiful planet , but people like ranchers , hunters and greedy people destroy what makes this planet so beautiful … its animal kingdom, a kingdom we never will control, a kingdom which was here before humankind.
We should learn to live with nature, and not destroy it as we do now. When we destroy nature and what it stands for then humans destroy themselves without even thinking about it, when nature dies we die.
That is a simple fact.
We spend millions on recovery of animals who are almost in extinction because we don’t control hunters and people who have greed . That is a waste of money when we recover something to let it be killed again to the point of extinction
This makes all no sense to me.
To let states control their own wolf populations is also such law where I wonder where it comes from .
The wolf was always seen as bad animal, but when we still believe in fairytales nothing will ever change on this planet .
Controlling means killing … in some states people see the wolf as bad animal since it kills what other people want to hunt … Elk, Deer, Rabbits and so on.
The fact is that the wolf kills weak, lame, and sick animals, so when we kill the wolf and what it stands for, then we create our own diseases and all kind of new things we are not able to control directly.
So, once again we need time and money to control such things … and then the greed is still there .
To complete my story:
When those so called hunters and sport hunters get pleasure in what they do, then there is no way to stop them, better said, every serial killer started with killing animals, so you are creating your own monsters and you are creating a new level of brutality … something this world really doesn’t need at all.
As an Agency you should be there for the animals, and you shouldn’t be there to destroy them, you have given the destruction rights to the states and then state governments decide to what should happen, so you give the responsibility YOU have to others, and they can do whatever they want and the illegal activities off hunters still keep existing. Before you make decisions about delisting you should create laws which people should follow and you should go against illegal activities for hunters.
You should be there for nature and what it stands for ….
When nature dies … we die.
I AM AGAINST THE DELISTING OF GRAY WOLVES
O
I was working up this big, wordy dissertation about protecting gray wolves and the Mexican wolf. It's really not necessary. I'm going to speak directly.
The issue that needs to be reviewed, and needs to be reviewed by completely objective parties, is the impact upon the rest of the environment that these animals have the greatest influence in.
History has shown in the past that introducing an animal to an environment it's not native to results in mass reproduction and ecological disaster. Look at Australia and the rabbit for proof of this. The very same is true when you take a predator out of the natural order. Without the presence of the gray wolf and Mexican wolf - the predatory segment of major ecologies - the result is upheaval and unbalanced preproduction of the non-predatory species these wolves hunt. This is irrefutable, and it's using pure logic. History proves this right.
The numbers raised by the opposition, and still being completely objective, are entirely self-serving opinions based on pocketbooks. They accuse wolves of being constant raiders and menaces, killers of livestock, and a hazard to human beings. Thing is with those claims, is that they cite a very small number of wolf attacks over and over and over again, but generally fail to produce new information, incidents, or actual scientifically-discovered numbers.
Why do these attacks even occur in the first place, then? What do these farmers and ranchers do? They raise animals and then spread their livestock out as much as possible, thinking only of their personal property, but not of what they do. They ride their property with guns, bored, and plink at the rabbits, snakes, lizards, squirrels, and other small animals that wolves prey upon, taking away their food source. What are wolves supposed to do when a new predator encroaches on lands they roamed openly for non-livestock-related food? What are they supposed to eat when all that's left is some rancher's sheep, or cattle, or chickens?
You see, wolves are not to blame for what they do. They don't politic, lobby, talk trash, or (most importantly) lie to anybody. Wolves, whether the Gray, or the Mexican, or the Northern, or the Arctic, or any other type know one thing - living. These creatures have feelings as scientific studies have shown time and time again. These animals are self aware, as proven time and time again through simple observation. These animals are intelligent, again through simple observation. They may not be human-level intelligent, but as they are, they are quite resourceful and clever.
The problem lies with the people that are causing these animals to lose their hunting grounds and their prey animals. It's people that continue to ruin, and mine, and frack, and destroy because of materialism, politics, and greed.
It was recently released that right now, the planet needs another planet-and-a-half's worth of resources to continue on with the level of comfort and material goods we are used to, and by 2050 we will need two Earths worth of resources to continue. We are already on our way to dooming ourselves, and the first signs of those results are the loss of the animal kingdom...and the first to go from there are the predators. The more the predators disappear, the more work it will be for the human race to keep up with the rampant and inevitable overgrowth of the non-predatory species, or completely destroy those species as well. It's what is going to be necessary to keep the rest of the world under the control governments, ranchers, and businesses wish to maintain.
In short, you delist the gray wolf and Mexican wolf - you help to endanger everything.
Please use some objectivity and keep a balanced panel of scientists of all disciplines and opinions, and not just the ones on anybody's payroll, or the ones that lobby to acquire more and more, and pay for consideration.
Thank you for your time and attention
William Cash
O
Here is just one simplified example of why Wolves are important and need to stay protected:
Wolves help prevent the spread of Lyme Disease
*
Some facts:
Lyme disease is the most prevalent vector-borne disease in North America, and both the annual incidence and geographic range are still increasing.
It has long been believed that Lyme Disease infection in humans was proportionate to Deer populations. Lyme Disease in the U.S. has increased regardless of Deer population increase, decrease or stability: (380% increase in Minnesota, 280% in Wisconsin, and 1,300% in Virginia from 1997 to 2007.)
It is now known that Small Mammal population, not Deer, is the true indicator. Simply, immature ticks bite the Small Mammals, the ticks are then infected with the Lyme Disease bacteria that is carried by the Small Mammals. Upon maturity, the Ticks move from the Small Mammals to the Deer, propagate and are dispersed widely via the wide ranging travels of the Deer.
Since Small mammals infect Ticks with the Lyme Disease bacteria, an increase in Small Mammal population equals an increase in Lyme Disease carrying Ticks.
*
The Players:
-Wolves (Prey on Coyotes)
-Coyotes (Prey on Foxes)
-Foxes (Prey on Small Mammals)
-Small Mammals: Chipmunk, Mouse, Shrew (when the immature ticks bite the Small Mammals, the ticks are infected with the Lyme Disease bacteria Borrelia Burgdorferi).
-Ticks (Infected immature Ticks abandon the Small Mammals for better reproductive hosts (Deer) and then in maturity travel on the Deer to transfer Lyme Disease to Humans)
-Deer (Good reproductive hosts for mature Ticks, Deer travel widely, increasing the geographic range of infected mature Ticks)
-Humans (Bitten by infected mature Ticks)
*
We can easily extrapolate:
Fewer Wolves = More Coyotes
More Coyotes = Fewer Foxes
Fewer Foxes = More Small Mammals
More Small Mammals = More Lyme Disease infected Ticks
More Lyme Disease infected Ticks = More Lyme Disease infected Humans
So the current "logic" of delisting Wolves will result in two things; an increase in cases of Lyme Disease in the U.S. and the predictable wholesale slaughter of Wolves by "sportsmen" and ranchers. Wholesale slaughter by "sportsmen" and ranchers is what the states consider "management".
*
This leads us to one scenario:
Kill all the Wolves
then
Kill all the Coyotes
then
Kill all the Foxes
then
Kill all the Small Mammals
then
Kill all the Deer
But even then, the Ticks will still be hungry. I wonder who their prey of choice will be?
O
Wolves as a species need our protection. We are driving them to extinction, while we don't fully understand their role in the delicate equilibrium of ecology. Their complex relationships in a social structure we would do well to emulate is a model we need to study not fear. It is past time to honour our stewardship of other species on the planet, and park our arrogant concept of our superiority at the door to their natural habitat. Please protect our wolves before it is too late. Thank you.
J. S.
O
Hello US Fish and Wildlife Services,
This is my comment about the draft proposal to delist American wolves from federal protections granted under the Endangered Species Act.
Since the morality of ending wolf lives appears to be of little concern or consequence to government and judicial powers determining the delisting of wolves from the Endangered Species Act, we could explore the environmental consequences of eradicating the Apex, Keystone, or Predator species.
We know now that the reintroduction of Wolves into Yellowstone National Park impacted the Elk population in a non~detrimental sense, as well as providing a hospitable environment for the reemergence of Cottonwood and Aspen trees.
Trees process CO2. CO2 in excess has been proven to contribute to global warming and climate change.
Hence a healthier population of trees will provide more oxygen and less CO2 for our environment.
Why are wolves hunted?
If we are dealing with issues of livestock predation, then the logical responsibility lies with the owners of the livestock, not the taxpayers of the USA who fund the USFWS. Not every USA taxpayer is a client of a cattle ranch owner in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Washington, or Oregon, so why are we obligated to foot the bill for the cost of their business operation by subsidizing wolf hunts?
What of the issue of ranchers being allowed grazing rights on publicly held land in national parks?
I pay taxes, do I get a say in the use of my parks?
If so, I do not agree with it being used to graze cattle that I will not purchase.
I do not agree with the fact that a private business owner can destroy that which naturally occurs, a wolf, on my investment of a national park paid for with my tax dollars.
Cattle ranch owners have the option of non lethal predator determent, and chose lethal methods instead.
Once again, they are assuming that it is their right to destroy my property versus manage their business without causing destruction to my investment of tax dollars.
I pay your salary. From where I stand, if you condone and implement policy that destroys my property, and the wolves are my property as a part of my tax payer funded national parks, I do not see that you are fulfilling your contract to me. I would seriously like for you to reconsider your position concerning delisting my wolves, and return them to a permanent state of protection under the ESA federal protection.
Thank you,
Heidi VanEngen
Photo courtesy : Bobby. L. Smith
O
AUGUST 11 ~ 2013
URGENT ACTION NEEDED :
EMAIL SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SALLY JEWELL
From the California Wolf Center:
In case you missed it: Top wolf scientists have been excluded from a peer review panel charged with reviewing FWS's proposal to delist wolves.
Watch our interview with one of the excluded experts here: http://ow.ly/nNG3i
"The Interior Department has effectively blocked three scientists from participating in an independent peer review of its proposal to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves after the scientists signed a May 21 letter criticizing the delisting plan.
The move drew fire from environmentalists who argued the scientists are among the country’s leading wolf experts and were being purged from the review to stifle dissent."
Stay tuned - we'll be posting more on this! http://ow.ly/nLpCa
And this is from Mexican Gray Wolves FB page: Fish and Wildlife Service disqualifies three prominent wolf experts from being part of the peer review of the proposed delisting rule.
Please contact Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and tell her that banning qualified scientists from independent review panels for expressing a scientific opinion is an outrage against scientific integrity. Demand that the best available science be used by the Fish and Wildlife Service in their decision making process.
Phone: (202) 208-3100
E-Mail: feedback@ios.doi.gov
Photo Via fuckyeahwolves~dot~tumblr~dot~com
<<<<< O >>>>>
Please Email Congressman Raul Grijalva and tell him this is one more smokescreen in the war on wolves. Please ask him to continue to do all he can to help us #Keepourwolveslisted.
My email is below. Please feel free to use, edit, and make your own. He's one of us though, so please don't swear at him.
CONTACT:
Hello Congressman Grijalva,
Thank you for contributing your letter to Secretary Jewell concerning the misguided decision to move forward with the draft plan to delist our wolves from the Endangered Species Act. In your words:
"I strongly urge you and your Department to use this current pause to cancel the scientically flawed deslisting proposal developed by your predecessor and preserve opportunities for wolves to recover in additional parts of the United States. "
I am contacting you today regarding the Grazing Improvement Act. This appears that it will further dissuade the Department of the Interior from opposing the wolf delisting proposal.
So, Congressman Grijalva, what can pro wolf activists do at this point?
What else can we do for our wolves?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Your name
The date you sent
Your email, twitter, Google+, or FB accountname, P.O.Box. SOMETHING to prove you exist.
WWP Visits Washington DC to Address Grazing Legislation!
…"Ken Cole happened to run into Congressman Raul Grijalva http://grijalva.house.gov/ who very graciously complimented Western Watersheds Project’s work and thanked us for endorsing his bid to become the Ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee."
And this is the problem. The wolf haters are going to push for this. It will allow ranchers access to public lands that are, you guessed it, populated with wolves.
GRAZING "ENTRENCHMENT" ACT GAINS LEGS < THREATENS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF ACRES OF YOUR PUBLIC LAND
Two above images via fuckyeahwolves.tumblr~dot~com
EMAIL SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SALLY JEWELL AND TELL HER TO KEEP OUR WOLVES LISTED UNDER THE E.S.A.
AND PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR OUR MEXICAN WOLVES BY CONTACTING SECRETARY JEWELL HERE:
|
| Foto F. Kobras Courteys Freda Dominy~Friends of Wolves |
Our wolves face the imminent danger of total delisting from the Endangered Species Act.
They WILL be stripped of all US Federal Protection, and that is NOT good. Not at all.
I've laid out my email sample for you to use as a basic sample.It makes more of an impact if you tell her WHY you care about wolves.
Please make it your own, make it succinct and to the point.
Shorter is better than too long.
If you really don't have time you can just copy, paste, sign, include some accountability with an email address, your Twitter handle, FB, phone number, or address. She will more than likely be seeking a second term, so your voice does matter.
If you do choose to alter, please remember that we really need Sally Jewell and YOUR elected Congressman and Representative to be OUR voices in the White House to ensure that this decision to delist our wolves does NOT go through.
These politicians will be seeking another term as well, so once again they do care what you think, as they know that you vote.
So maybe no swearing?
I personally LOVE to swear, but it will backfire on us here.
This page is being updated to include contact information for all members of Congress from each state.
It will ONLY work if you contact your own elected official, not
the ones in the Northern Rocky Mountains who are slaughtering
the wolves. From what I learned today?
That actually makes it worse for the wolves.
If you don't live in that state, please DO NOT contact that Congressperson.
You can email Sally Jewell from your own email: feedback@ios.doi.gov
Or call Sally: 202.208.3100
Or rely on old fashioned snail mail:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Thank you!!!!
For our Wolves.
...........................................................................................................
Email sample to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
Greetings Secretary Sally Jewell!
How are you today?
I am certain that you are aware of the ever growing sense of discontent and outrage held by anti wolf hunting activists.
This is a long running war that many, if not all of us have been following, and engaged in since the reign of your predecessor Ken Salazar.
WHY is this getting worse?
We know by now, that driving these wolves to the brink of obsolescence will not only eradicate them from the face of the planet, but will also irreparably alter the balance of the ecosystem they inhabit and cling to precipitously now.
Case in point.
How the reintroduction of Wolves into Yellowstone impacted the Elk population, as well as
providing a hospitable environment for the reemergence of Cottonwood and Aspen trees.
http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/how-returning-wolves-are-changing-yellowstone/
That text is included below.
FISH & WILDLIFE | ECOTROPE
How returning wolves are changing Yellowstone
Ecotrope | Dec. 29, 2011 2:28 a.m. | Updated: Feb. 19, 2013 1:33 p.m.
CONTRIBUTED BY:
CASSANDRA PROFITA
PART OF SERIES:
Ecotrope
Scientists studying the effect of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park have published a new report with updated findings.
In the 15 years since wolves returned to the park, they found, elk and coyote populations have declined, new aspen, willow and cottonwood trees are growing, and beaver colonies are on the rise.
Elk had been over-browsing young trees and preventing new recruits, according to William Ripple, a professor for Oregon State University and lead author of the study. But the presence of wolves keeps their numbers in check and prevents elk from eating too many young trees.
“Yellowstone increasingly looks like a different place,” Ripple said in an OSU news release (see the accompanying video above). “These are still the early stages of recovery, and some of this may still take decades. But trees and shrubs are starting to come back and beaver numbers are increasing. The signs are very encouraging.”
Young aspen trees are now recovering in Yellowstone National Park, after wolves that were re-introduced in 1995 helped to limit elk browsing that had been killing young trees. The older trees seen here date to the last time there were wolves in the park 70 years ago.
Gray wolves were extirpated from Yellowstone in the 1920s, and by the mid-to-late 1900s their absence allowed elk to over-browse new aspen trees. Hardly any new aspen trees grew up in the wolves absence. But now, new trees are growing again.
Since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995-96, researchers have found:
Wolf population increased until 2003 and elk behavior changed
Northern range elk dropped from 15,000 in the early 90s to 6,000 last year
Beaver colonies increased from one in 1996 to 12 in 2009, promising better fish and waterfowl habitat
Coyote numbers decreased, promising more small mammals such as red foxes, ravens and bald eagles for other predators to eat
Of course, a lot of other changes have taken place since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone. The reintroduced wolves spread out into Montana and Idaho, Oregon and Washington, and have reignited fights over how to handle their attacks on livestock. Montana and Idaho reinstated wolf hunts, and Oregon and Washington hashed out new wolf management plans. Reimbursement programs have been arranged to pay ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, and wolf advocate groups have sprung up to fight for wolves in court.
The list of ways wolves are changing the landscape in the West could go on and on. What would you put on the list?
Wolves
The needlessness of this slaughter of our wolves is just that. Needless.
There are numerous methods of predator ***** We do not need to resort to wolf fatalities in order to protect ranching and landholder's interest. Please see these illustrated below:
http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2013/03/protecting-livestock-wolf-packs-nonlethal-and-colorful-means
Earth Journal
Protecting livestock from wolf packs with nonlethal (and colorful) means
By Ron Meador | 03/07/13
Oregon has proven that livestock can be protected from wolves by means other than killing the animals.
From Oregon comes a hopeful little success story about raising cattle in wolf country, wherein ranchers are protecting their herds with colorfully nonlethal alternatives to trapping and shooting.
From the AP science writer Jeff Barnard, as published over the weekend in the Christian Science Monitor:
As long as wolves have been making their comeback, biologists and ranchers have had a decidedly Old West option for dealing with those that develop a taste for beef: Shoot to kill. But for the past year, Oregon has been a "wolf-safe" zone, with ranchers turning to more modern, nonlethal ways to protect livestock.
While the number of wolves roaming the state has gone up, livestock kills haven't — and now conservation groups are hoping Oregon can serve as a model for other Western states working to return the predator to the wild.
Leading the list of those techniques appears to be the practice of fladry, an apparently antiquarian word but a new one to me. It would seem to be pronounced kind of like "philandery" without the N. Sometimes it's written as flaggery.
Anyway, it's a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline. Except for being about four feet off the ground, in the photos I saw, they look rather like the pennant streamers our species uses to attract roaming packs of consumers to a new gift shop, filling station or takeout pizzeria.
dfw.state.or.us
Fladry is a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline.
To Canis lupus, however, fladry is a proven and powerful repellent.
A 2003 research paper published in the journal Conservation Biology documented fladry's effectiveness as a barrier to both tame and wild wolves, and in areas where high livestock losses indicated that wolves weren't intimidated by human proximity alone.
A range of repellents
In Oregon, ranchers often use the streamers with other means, like electrified fences and motion-detecting alarm systems that greet approaching wolves with bright lights and recorded gunshots.
Of course Oregon's wolf population is much smaller than ours — perhaps 46 at the end of last year. But it's also growing fast, up from 29 a year earlier. And while the confirmed livestock losses of a dozen or so per year are small in absolute terms, they would scale up to 800 animals a year in Minnesota if this state's 3,000 wolves were taking livestock at the same rate.
Minnesota's new trapping and hunting seasons are often justified as a response to livestock predation. But there is widespread skepticism that farmers with wolf problems can count on much benefit from these, driven as they are by sport and trophy-seeking rather than by geographically focused removal of the problem wolves.
Whether solely nonlethal means can be sufficient is debatable, too, but some Minnesota farmers are using alarms, guard dogs, even donkeys, and there doesn't seem to be anything about fladry that would make it inherently unsuitable or ineffective here. And the price might be appealing — 19 cents per meter of fenceline, according to the 2003 study.
(By the way, the main impact of Oregon's "no-kill" policy, which has been in effect since September 2011, was to halt trapping of wolves by government agents as an anti-predation measure. There, as here, farmers and ranchers can legally shoot wolves to protect livestock, but sport hunting and trapping remain illegal.)
Now we come to how the pro wolf activists view this conflict.
Here you will find a blog that explains the conflict between ranchers, and pro ~wolf activist far better than I can, I do hope you have the time to read it, it is extremely well authored:
HSUS Sues USFWS & Salazar Over Great Lakes Wolves Delisting!
http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/hsus-sues-usfws-interior-over-great-lakes-wolves-delisting/
Here are the Google search results highlighting the discontent with the manner in which then Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has handled Federal Protections for Wolves in the U.S.A.
Quite an intensive list, very impressive :
http://www.google.com/#safe=off&hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=wolf+protection+and+ken+salazar&oq=wolf+protection+and+ken+sal&gs_l=hp.1.0.33i21.2608.13709.0.17035.29.23.1.5.5.0.165.2188.19j4.23.0...1.0...1c.1.12.psy-ab.cA-3KIrhF_g&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.cGE&fp=117225859c046254&biw=1888&bih=893
Secretary Sally Jewell, we need your help desperately!!!
We need to make sure that all wolves are granted the highest levels of Federal Protections available
under the Endangered Species Act.
They had that at one time, and careless decision making due to political influence removed their safety net.
This issue has become a national shame, as well as a tragedy now and a catastrophic situation in the very near future ~ one that can be averted by your wise and timely action to list them as an endangered and protected species.
Please let this be your legacy of honor during your employ as Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
<<<<<<<<< O >>>>>>>>>>
SEND AN EMAIL TO A POLITICIAN !
Protest the delisting of Wolves from Federal Protection of the Endangered Species Act.
Protest the delisting of Wolves from Federal Protection of the Endangered Species Act.
All addresses for USA Congressional Members here:
|
| Adelliam |
This is just a starting point, please add YOUR reasons for wanting this Draft decision not to be passed, and why you want to #keepwolveslisted.
Tell your Congresspeople your story about why it is important to you to make sure that our wolves are not driven into extinction by hunters.
They need to see that this is personal to you.
Plus if they get the same email from all of us, it does not have the impact of many voices. Tell them that you are informed about their state's wolf recovery and wolf management programs. If they are irresponsible towards wolf recovery, tell them that you will not purchase goods and services made in their state and that you will vocally not support tourism in their state.
This is most effective if you are contacting your own state's representation, as they have to listen to you in order to get your next vote. At this point, I would email whomever you feel so inclined to. We simply need to bombard folks with #prowolf voices right now.
Also, it is very important that we provide accountability under our signatures, with contact information, be it an email address, a phone number, street address, a Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ account name.
If we don't provide something that proves we exist as potential voters for these folks, our chances of having our voice heard are tossed aside.
Drop down list of Congress members, state by state.
You will find your Senators and your Representatives here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=NV
Below are the folks who are NOT pro wolf, in fact we should simply cut to the chase and call them by their rightful name. They are the "WolfHaters".
PLEASE DO NOT contact them, it will actually hurt our chances of having ESA protections restored for the wolves. These folks use activists' objections as rhetoric fodder for their re~election campaigns.
The only reason they are included here is so that, if you are like me, and not up to date on the actions of your representation in Congress, you can see who to avoid contacting.
http://www.weeac.com/csf-by-state.html
Greetings Senator .........
I would like for you to use every legal reasoning at your disposal to stop the disastrous plan that delists the wolves of America from the ESA.
We have witnessed over 1500 wolves slaughtered since they were delisted in 2009. This is unacceptable. At this rate the wolf population in the wild will never stand a chance at recovery that has come at the cost of millions of dollars spent for protection under the ESA, since 1974.
Please, do not allow partisan politics to dictate the survival of our nation's important keystone predator species .
The fact that the Rider in the Budget Act calling for Delisting Wolvesfrom ESA bans citizens from challenging this decision has been instigated by preservation of anti wolf litigation from the state of Wyoming.
I vote, and I strongly urge you to Block this plan from the US Fish and Wildlife services to permanently delist America's wolves from the federal protection status afforded under the Endangered Species Act.
Thank you,
me
@blahblah.aol.com
4321 Somewhere St, S.W.
Somewhere else, USA
00000
1-333-333-3333
LET'S EMAIL SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SALLY JEWELL AND TELL HER TO KEEP OUR WOLVES LISTED UNDER THE E.S.A.
Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
feedback@ios.doi.gov
202-208-3100
PRESS REPRESENTATIVE FOR DEPARTMENT PF THE INTERIOR
jessica_kershaw@ios.doi.gov
AND THERE IS A WEB EMAIL FORM HERE:
http://www.doi.gov/feedback.cfm
Here is the official page for U.S.Department of the Interior
http://www.doi.gov/public/contact-us.cfm
|
| Foto F. Kobras Courteys Freda Dominy~Friends of Wolves |
Our wolves face the imminent danger of total delisting from the Endangered Species Act.
They WILL be stripped of all US Federal Protection, and that is NOT good. Not at all.
I've laid out my email sample for you to use as a basic sample.It makes more of an impact if you tell her WHY you care about wolves.
Please make it your own, make it succinct and to the point.
Shorter is better than too long.
If you really don't have time you can just copy, paste, sign, include some accountability with an email address, your Twitter handle, FB, phone number, or address. She will more than likely be seeking a second term, so your voice does matter.
If you do choose to alter, please remember that we really need Sally Jewell and YOUR elected Congressman and Representative to be OUR voices in the White House to ensure that this decision to permanently delist our wolves does NOT go through.
These politicians will be seeking another term as well, so once again they do care what you think, as they know that you vote.
So maybe no swearing?
I personally LOVE to swear, but it will backfire on us here.
This page is being updated to include contact information for all members of Congress from each state.
It will ONLY work if you contact your own elected official, not
the ones in the Northern Rocky Mountains who are slaughtering
the wolves. From what I learned today?
That actually makes it worse for the wolves.
If you don't live in that state, please DO NOT contact that Congressperson.
AND THERE IS A WEB EMAIL FORM HERE:
http://www.doi.gov/feedback.cfm
Here is the official page for U.S.Department of the Interior
http://www.doi.gov/public/contact-us.cfm
Or call Sally: 202.208.3100
Or rely on old fashioned snail mail:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Thank you!!!!
For our Wolves.
...........................................................................................................
Email sample to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
Greetings Secretary Sally Jewell!
How are you today?
I am certain that you are aware of the ever growing sense of discontent and outrage held by anti wolf hunting activists.
This is a long running war that many, if not all of us have been following, and engaged in since the reign of your predecessor Ken Salazar.
WHY is this getting worse?
We know by now, that driving these wolves to the brink of obsolescence will not only eradicate them from the face of the planet, but will also irreparably alter the balance of the ecosystem they inhabit and cling to precipitously now.
Case in point.
How the reintroduction of Wolves into Yellowstone impacted the Elk population, as well as
providing a hospitable environment for the reemergence of Cottonwood and Aspen trees.
http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/how-returning-wolves-are-changing-yellowstone/
That text is included below.
FISH & WILDLIFE | ECOTROPE
How returning wolves are changing Yellowstone
Ecotrope | Dec. 29, 2011 2:28 a.m. | Updated: Feb. 19, 2013 1:33 p.m.
CONTRIBUTED BY:
CASSANDRA PROFITA
PART OF SERIES:
Ecotrope
Scientists studying the effect of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park have published a new report with updated findings.
In the 15 years since wolves returned to the park, they found, elk and coyote populations have declined, new aspen, willow and cottonwood trees are growing, and beaver colonies are on the rise.
Elk had been over-browsing young trees and preventing new recruits, according to William Ripple, a professor for Oregon State University and lead author of the study. But the presence of wolves keeps their numbers in check and prevents elk from eating too many young trees.
“Yellowstone increasingly looks like a different place,” Ripple said in an OSU news release (see the accompanying video above). “These are still the early stages of recovery, and some of this may still take decades. But trees and shrubs are starting to come back and beaver numbers are increasing. The signs are very encouraging.”
Young aspen trees are now recovering in Yellowstone National Park, after wolves that were re-introduced in 1995 helped to limit elk browsing that had been killing young trees. The older trees seen here date to the last time there were wolves in the park 70 years ago.
Gray wolves were extirpated from Yellowstone in the 1920s, and by the mid-to-late 1900s their absence allowed elk to over-browse new aspen trees. Hardly any new aspen trees grew up in the wolves absence. But now, new trees are growing again.
Since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995-96, researchers have found:
Wolf population increased until 2003 and elk behavior changed
Northern range elk dropped from 15,000 in the early 90s to 6,000 last year
Beaver colonies increased from one in 1996 to 12 in 2009, promising better fish and waterfowl habitat
Coyote numbers decreased, promising more small mammals such as red foxes, ravens and bald eagles for other predators to eat
Of course, a lot of other changes have taken place since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone. The reintroduced wolves spread out into Montana and Idaho, Oregon and Washington, and have reignited fights over how to handle their attacks on livestock. Montana and Idaho reinstated wolf hunts, and Oregon and Washington hashed out new wolf management plans. Reimbursement programs have been arranged to pay ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, and wolf advocate groups have sprung up to fight for wolves in court.
The list of ways wolves are changing the landscape in the West could go on and on. What would you put on the list?
Wolves
The needlessness of this slaughter of our wolves is just that. Needless.
There are numerous methods of predator ***** We do not need to resort to wolf fatalities in order to protect ranching and landholder's interest. Please see these illustrated below:
http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2013/03/protecting-livestock-wolf-packs-nonlethal-and-colorful-means
Earth Journal
Protecting livestock from wolf packs with nonlethal (and colorful) means
By Ron Meador | 03/07/13
Oregon has proven that livestock can be protected from wolves by means other than killing the animals.
From Oregon comes a hopeful little success story about raising cattle in wolf country, wherein ranchers are protecting their herds with colorfully nonlethal alternatives to trapping and shooting.
From the AP science writer Jeff Barnard, as published over the weekend in the Christian Science Monitor:
As long as wolves have been making their comeback, biologists and ranchers have had a decidedly Old West option for dealing with those that develop a taste for beef: Shoot to kill. But for the past year, Oregon has been a "wolf-safe" zone, with ranchers turning to more modern, nonlethal ways to protect livestock.
While the number of wolves roaming the state has gone up, livestock kills haven't — and now conservation groups are hoping Oregon can serve as a model for other Western states working to return the predator to the wild.
Leading the list of those techniques appears to be the practice of fladry, an apparently antiquarian word but a new one to me. It would seem to be pronounced kind of like "philandery" without the N. Sometimes it's written as flaggery.
Anyway, it's a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline. Except for being about four feet off the ground, in the photos I saw, they look rather like the pennant streamers our species uses to attract roaming packs of consumers to a new gift shop, filling station or takeout pizzeria.
dfw.state.or.us
Fladry is a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline.
To Canis lupus, however, fladry is a proven and powerful repellent.
A 2003 research paper published in the journal Conservation Biology documented fladry's effectiveness as a barrier to both tame and wild wolves, and in areas where high livestock losses indicated that wolves weren't intimidated by human proximity alone.
A range of repellents
In Oregon, ranchers often use the streamers with other means, like electrified fences and motion-detecting alarm systems that greet approaching wolves with bright lights and recorded gunshots.
Of course Oregon's wolf population is much smaller than ours — perhaps 46 at the end of last year. But it's also growing fast, up from 29 a year earlier. And while the confirmed livestock losses of a dozen or so per year are small in absolute terms, they would scale up to 800 animals a year in Minnesota if this state's 3,000 wolves were taking livestock at the same rate.
Minnesota's new trapping and hunting seasons are often justified as a response to livestock predation. But there is widespread skepticism that farmers with wolf problems can count on much benefit from these, driven as they are by sport and trophy-seeking rather than by geographically focused removal of the problem wolves.
Whether solely nonlethal means can be sufficient is debatable, too, but some Minnesota farmers are using alarms, guard dogs, even donkeys, and there doesn't seem to be anything about fladry that would make it inherently unsuitable or ineffective here. And the price might be appealing — 19 cents per meter of fenceline, according to the 2003 study.
(By the way, the main impact of Oregon's "no-kill" policy, which has been in effect since September 2011, was to halt trapping of wolves by government agents as an anti-predation measure. There, as here, farmers and ranchers can legally shoot wolves to protect livestock, but sport hunting and trapping remain illegal.)
Now we come to how the pro wolf activists view this conflict.
Here you will find a blog that explains the conflict between ranchers, and pro ~wolf activist far better than I can, I do hope you have the time to read it, it is extremely well authored:
HSUS Sues USFWS & Salazar Over Great Lakes Wolves Delisting!
http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/hsus-sues-usfws-interior-over-great-lakes-wolves-delisting/
Here are the Google search results highlighting the discontent with the manner in which then Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has handled Federal Protections for Wolves in the U.S.A.
Quite an intensive list, very impressive :
http://www.google.com/#safe=off&hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=wolf+protection+and+ken+salazar&oq=wolf+protection+and+ken+sal&gs_l=hp.1.0.33i21.2608.13709.0.17035.29.23.1.5.5.0.165.2188.19j4.23.0...1.0...1c.1.12.psy-ab.cA-3KIrhF_g&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.cGE&fp=117225859c046254&biw=1888&bih=893
Secretary Sally Jewell, we need your help desperately!!!
We need to make sure that all wolves are granted the highest levels of Federal Protections available
under the Endangered Species Act.
They had that at one time, and careless decision making due to political influence removed their safety net.
This issue has become a national shame, as well as a tragedy now and a catastrophic situation in the very near future ~ one that can be averted by your wise and timely action to list them as an endangered and protected species.
Please let this be your legacy of honor during your employ as Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America.
For our Wolves.
For our children and their children.
For our country's honor.
And for you, knowing that you made the hard call to do the right thing.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
AND PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR OUR MEXICAN WOLVES BY CONTACTING SECRETARY JEWELL HERE:
HOW DO YOU CONVINCE
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICES
TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THE CONCEPT
OF WILLING EXTINCTION
OF NORTH AMERICAN WOLVES
AND ASK THEM TO STOP
THAT FROM HAPPENING ?
Comments from a few of our Wolves to the USFWS stating the reasons behind our wishes to keep our Gray Wolves listed as protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Please submit yours here, thank you!:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-19350
Please submit yours here, thank you!:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-19350
FROM OLAF JANSSEN:
MY FIRST LETTER TO THE USFWS:
Greetings USFWS,
I write you since I am against the delisting of the Gray Wolves. We all know that the fate of the gray wolves is in your hands and that you should reconsider your delisting plan. You listen to what ranchers tell you, you listen also to what hunters tell you, but it seems you don’t really listen to what wolf advocates and wolf biologists tell you, so now I would like to take your time and tell you how I see it as passionate wolf activist:
We first should never forget that a healthy nature can only be upheld when we let nature do its own thing, without interference of humans …. And we should never forget that we took nature away from the animals to build our own place to live ….
The reason I ask you to reconsider is based on some facts which really show that the wolf isn't that what ranchers and hunters tell you they are:
In 2010, according to the USDA, wolves killed 8,100 head of cattle, resulting in a total revenue loss of $3,646,000. Whew, lotta money, right? NO IT IS NOT. That's only 3.7 percent of the total of other predators; coyotes, which are everywhere, account for 53.1 percent, or 116,700 head of cattle. Other animals which kill more cattle than wolves include: dogs (21,800 head), big cats like mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx (18,900 head), and vultures (11,900 head).
Now let's get into the really embarrassing stats. The idea that carnivorous predators are a major problem for agribusiness is like saying the cost of maintaining movable type is a real problem for the newspaper industry. That's just not how these things work anymore; if livestock is your business, you've got a lot of problems, but wolves aren't even close to one of them. Remember that wolves killed roughly 8,100 head of cattle in 2010. The USDA's National Agriculture Statistics Service estimates that 1,055,000 head of cattle were felled by respiratory problems in that same year. Over a million. Digestive problems took out another half a million head. And let's not pretend the inhumane manner in which agribusiness raises cattle didn't have something to do with that. Write off another 500,000 each to the weather and various problems with calving. Hell, just flat-out cattle rustling accounted for nearly twice as many lost head of cattle as wolves. Predators are only 5.5 percent of total cattle losses, and wolves are only 0.23 percent of the total. If you're shooting wolves it's because you like to shoot wolves, and I hope "gets enjoyment out of shooting majestic creatures" is listed in the next version of the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders.
Stupid reason #2: Wolves kill elk, caribou, and other ungulates. There are groups, like Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, who maintain that wolves should not be protected because they kill too many elk. Here's how friendly the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd is: they are such good friends with the elk that they want to eliminate the elk's major natural predator...so there are more elk for the Friends to shoot, with their guns. This is a hunting organization that is annoyed that a natural ecosystem is making it difficult for them to shoot the animals they want to shoot. In many of the Big Sky states, this is how hunting legislation gets written: with input and political pressure from hunters. Stop listening to hunters. Listen to scientists.
Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that wolves are actually good for the long-term health of the Yellowstone ecosystem, which is something you certainly can't say about hunters. Wolves prey on the weak and enfeebled; by culling the elk herd in this way, the remaining elk tend to be stronger and healthier, with less competition for resources. Wolves certainly do not pose any kind of long-term threat to the Yellowstone elk, unlike hunters, who prefer to shoot the strongest and most glorious elk they can find, because this is how you measure your worth if you are the type to measure your worth by your skill at shooting things with guns. Subsistence hunters, by the way, should be thankful for wolves, because subsistence hunters rely on strong and healthy herds, which wolves help maintain. This is how the damn planet works.
Oh, and without wolves, elk (and caribou and moose, if you go further north) experience crazy overpopulation, which is awful for the biological ecosystem, and further leads to a lack of resources which leads to a crash in population far worse than if there were wolves (and mountain lions, and bears) around to naturally cull the population. Wolves -- even an unnaturally small population like that in Wyoming -- are good for the environment, not bad.
Stupid reason #3: Wolves are dangerous to humans. Jesus Christ, no they are not. The grey wolf is a timid animal, much more likely to run from an approaching human than to make any kind of aggressive gesture. To be fair, wolves can occasionally contract rabies from other animals--they're not natural carriers themselves--and nearly all reported cases of wolf attack have been by rabid wolves. But that doesn't even matter!
There have been between 20 and 30 wolf attacks, three being fatal, in North America in the entire 20th century. Since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995, there have been zero attacks. In that same 100-year period, there were 71 fatal attacks from brown bears (including the grizzly subspecies). Oh, and about 17 people die every year from dog attacks. Wolves run when they see humans. They are not dangerous. You are not "protecting your property" when you shoot a wolf in your backyard; you are murdering an animal that's scared as hell of you.
There is no valid reason to make it legal to hunt wolves. The only honest argument you could make is "I like to shoot wolves for fun," which is kind of psychotic, so shut the hell up about livestock or elk herds or danger to humans. And don't get angry when us sensible folks listen to scientists and make your insane compulsion illegal. Shooting wolves is bad for wolves, meaningless for livestock, bad for the environment, and bad for people. Conservation of individual species is incredibly difficult; we have done damage to our ecosystems, and they don't work as well as they should, and, yes, we need to find a way to keep it as healthy as possible given our own needs. And that's why we need to listen to scientists, not ranchers or hunters. We need to get the best data possible, run it through the best minds we can find, and make our laws in accordance with what will do the most good. We sure as hell shouldn't listen to a group that wants to shoot wolves on Tuesday so they can shoot elk on Wednesday.
Yellowstone estimates that a million people saw 832F in its short, six-year life. I don't even need to get into the whole "it was a protective mother, a fierce hunter, a noble leader of its pack" stuff, because this isn't about anthropomorphizing a wolf. 832F was almost certainly the most visible element of an important effort by the National Park Service to restore Yellowstone's ecosystem to its natural order, an effort that's vital to the survival of this park and even this country. People came from all over the world and saw this wolf, this rare creature, in one of the country's most beautiful places, the way it's supposed to be. That is an amazing thing. And now nobody will see it again, because it was shot, perfectly legally. And now it's dead.
These are examples of what wolves stand for. The USA allowes legal hunting, trapping, hounding and baiting, which many of people see as an escape from “real-life”. A lot of these people are sadistic and brutal against the animals they catch (proof can be found everywhere in the internet) and those are the people that ruin our nature and what it stands for … Delisting of animals for so called “balance in nature” is really out of the question. Better laws and better observation would be more a question you could go for .
To complete my story: for every cattle animal which gets killed by a wolf, which is usually shot down by the rancher, who is alloted recovery for his lost, 7 till 8 wolves are killed unconfirmed … so the USA does not have a "wolf problem", it has a HUNTER problem ….. “they call it sport hunting”.
I SAY NO TO DELISTING THE GRAY WOLF
Regards,
Olaf Janssen, Passionate Wolf Activist
Olaf Janssen originally shared to
STOP WOLF HUNTS (Discussion #stopwolfhunts):
MY SECOND LETTER TO USFWS :
Greetings USFWS
This is my second letter to you about the delisting of the gray wolves ….
First off I would like to say that wolves are managers of nature, we need wolves to keep balance in nature and we need wolves to keep nature healthy ….. we don’t need humans who try to control nature for their own habits and own profits …
If you at the USFWS would delist the gray wolves then you would make the second failure this year in trying to control nature … second ?? YES !!
First failure was in Oregon: Bonneville Dam .
Sea lions are hunters, they eat fish to stay alive … you and the state of Oregon decided to protect the Salmon, and for that Sea Lions had to die, tortured, brand marked, and hazed ….. I wonder why you can call this controlling nature? It makes NO SENSE at all.
When the Dam opens its doors so that the Salmon can swim down the river, more Salmon are killed there then all Sea Lions can eat the whole season, so there was a other reason that Sea Lions may not eat the Salmon.
Human Greed, people that want to fish for Salmon.
So, in other words: Sea Lions have to be killed so we Humans can fish for Salmon ??
Then I really wonder what other things we are willing to do so that our greed is satisfied. So now we come to the wolves, where also there it is all about greed ….
Have you ever been asked as Agency what you are doing with nature ?
I bet not …..
Have you ever been asked as Agency what future generations want ?
I bet not …..
Delisting the Gray Wolf is OUT OF THE QUESTION !!
Hunters are people who hunt for “sport” and “pleasure”, these so called “free time Rambo’s” are people who love to hurt nature, they destroy nature and what it stands for. Gray Wolves are normally ESA protected and still alone this year over the 500 gray wolves got killed… shot down … and that was fully legal … makes me think, we humans create laws, we humans should live according those laws, but what laws have animals ??
When I talk about “gaming Animal” then I think about a game, and in a game normally both sides know about it … Hunting isn’t a game … it kills lives …it creates monsters …… more and more hunters kill for pleasure, they torture animals, they trap them so they can’t run away or let’s say defend themselves … they use gas to kill pups and mothers in dens They use dogs to chase wolves. They use bait so they only have to shoot … and that all fully legal ??
Uncontrolled ??
Unobserved ??
These are not humane methods , we don’t want them to be used against humans so why use them against animals, didn’t we learn from history ?? In these days we use methods which the world was shocked by years ago, is this really the way where we should go to ??
The expression “gaming Animal” is a totally wrong expression, you shouldn’t see nature as a game, you can't play games with animals and then be against animal cruelty, it is an expression which shouldn’t be used at all, a game is for me something like soccer, Nascar or basketball, but hunting isn't a game … it is playing with the future of next generations, and that surely shouldn’t be seen as a game.
With other words: In the great USA we can do with animals whatever we want to do ?? That’s totally wrong. Every animal has a certain purpose on this planet, and there is no animal on this planet who doesn’t have a certain purpose . It is all nature and what it stands for ….. oh … I forgot …
There is an animal which has not a real purpose to be on this planet …. A hunter who calls himself sport hunter, I don’t see a sport in it, it is destruction, nothing more ….
You as an Agency listen to such people ? People that kill for fun and pleasure but don’t listen to Biologists, wolf advocates and people who are used to speaking for and learning from wolves, people who study wolves, people who live with wolves ??
Wolves were never a real issue in the history of mankind, we took their land to build ours and they didn’t have an opportunity to say something about it. We took their hunting grounds and places where they lived to create the chaos we have now. This human world is fully sinking in greed and money, sinking to something we have created ourselves and now animals have to suffer for that.
There will be future generations of humans who also want to see something from this normally beautiful planet , but people like ranchers , hunters and greedy people destroy what makes this planet so beautiful … its animal kingdom, a kingdom we never will control, a kingdom which was here before humankind.
We should learn to live with nature, and not destroy it as we do now. When we destroy nature and what it stands for then humans destroy themselves without even thinking about it, when nature dies we die.
That is a simple fact.
We spend millions on recovery of animals who are almost in extinction because we don’t control hunters and people who have greed . That is a waste of money when we recover something to let it be killed again to the point of extinction
This makes all no sense to me.
To let states control their own wolf populations is also such law where I wonder where it comes from .
The wolf was always seen as bad animal, but when we still believe in fairytales nothing will ever change on this planet .
Controlling means killing … in some states people see the wolf as bad animal since it kills what other people want to hunt … Elk, Deer, Rabbits and so on.
The fact is that the wolf kills weak, lame, and sick animals, so when we kill the wolf and what it stands for, then we create our own diseases and all kind of new things we are not able to control directly.
So, once again we need time and money to control such things … and then the greed is still there .
To complete my story:
When those so called hunters and sport hunters get pleasure in what they do, then there is no way to stop them, better said, every serial killer started with killing animals, so you are creating your own monsters and you are creating a new level of brutality … something this world really doesn’t need at all.
As an Agency you should be there for the animals, and you shouldn’t be there to destroy them, you have given the destruction rights to the states and then state governments decide to what should happen, so you give the responsibility YOU have to others, and they can do whatever they want and the illegal activities off hunters still keep existing. Before you make decisions about delisting you should create laws which people should follow and you should go against illegal activities for hunters.
You should be there for nature and what it stands for ….
When nature dies … we die.
I AM AGAINST THE DELISTING OF GRAY WOLVES
O
I was working up this big, wordy dissertation about protecting gray wolves and the Mexican wolf. It's really not necessary. I'm going to speak directly.
The issue that needs to be reviewed, and needs to be reviewed by completely objective parties, is the impact upon the rest of the environment that these animals have the greatest influence in.
History has shown in the past that introducing an animal to an environment it's not native to results in mass reproduction and ecological disaster. Look at Australia and the rabbit for proof of this. The very same is true when you take a predator out of the natural order. Without the presence of the gray wolf and Mexican wolf - the predatory segment of major ecologies - the result is upheaval and unbalanced preproduction of the non-predatory species these wolves hunt. This is irrefutable, and it's using pure logic. History proves this right.
The numbers raised by the opposition, and still being completely objective, are entirely self-serving opinions based on pocketbooks. They accuse wolves of being constant raiders and menaces, killers of livestock, and a hazard to human beings. Thing is with those claims, is that they cite a very small number of wolf attacks over and over and over again, but generally fail to produce new information, incidents, or actual scientifically-discovered numbers.
Why do these attacks even occur in the first place, then? What do these farmers and ranchers do? They raise animals and then spread their livestock out as much as possible, thinking only of their personal property, but not of what they do. They ride their property with guns, bored, and plink at the rabbits, snakes, lizards, squirrels, and other small animals that wolves prey upon, taking away their food source. What are wolves supposed to do when a new predator encroaches on lands they roamed openly for non-livestock-related food? What are they supposed to eat when all that's left is some rancher's sheep, or cattle, or chickens?
You see, wolves are not to blame for what they do. They don't politic, lobby, talk trash, or (most importantly) lie to anybody. Wolves, whether the Gray, or the Mexican, or the Northern, or the Arctic, or any other type know one thing - living. These creatures have feelings as scientific studies have shown time and time again. These animals are self aware, as proven time and time again through simple observation. These animals are intelligent, again through simple observation. They may not be human-level intelligent, but as they are, they are quite resourceful and clever.
The problem lies with the people that are causing these animals to lose their hunting grounds and their prey animals. It's people that continue to ruin, and mine, and frack, and destroy because of materialism, politics, and greed.
It was recently released that right now, the planet needs another planet-and-a-half's worth of resources to continue on with the level of comfort and material goods we are used to, and by 2050 we will need two Earths worth of resources to continue. We are already on our way to dooming ourselves, and the first signs of those results are the loss of the animal kingdom...and the first to go from there are the predators. The more the predators disappear, the more work it will be for the human race to keep up with the rampant and inevitable overgrowth of the non-predatory species, or completely destroy those species as well. It's what is going to be necessary to keep the rest of the world under the control governments, ranchers, and businesses wish to maintain.
In short, you delist the gray wolf and Mexican wolf - you help to endanger everything.
Please use some objectivity and keep a balanced panel of scientists of all disciplines and opinions, and not just the ones on anybody's payroll, or the ones that lobby to acquire more and more, and pay for consideration.
Thank you for your time and attention
William Cash
O
Here is just one simplified example of why Wolves are important and need to stay protected:
Wolves help prevent the spread of Lyme Disease
*
Some facts:
Lyme disease is the most prevalent vector-borne disease in North America, and both the annual incidence and geographic range are still increasing.
It has long been believed that Lyme Disease infection in humans was proportionate to Deer populations. Lyme Disease in the U.S. has increased regardless of Deer population increase, decrease or stability: (380% increase in Minnesota, 280% in Wisconsin, and 1,300% in Virginia from 1997 to 2007.)
It is now known that Small Mammal population, not Deer, is the true indicator. Simply, immature ticks bite the Small Mammals, the ticks are then infected with the Lyme Disease bacteria that is carried by the Small Mammals. Upon maturity, the Ticks move from the Small Mammals to the Deer, propagate and are dispersed widely via the wide ranging travels of the Deer.
Since Small mammals infect Ticks with the Lyme Disease bacteria, an increase in Small Mammal population equals an increase in Lyme Disease carrying Ticks.
*
The Players:
-Wolves (Prey on Coyotes)
-Coyotes (Prey on Foxes)
-Foxes (Prey on Small Mammals)
-Small Mammals: Chipmunk, Mouse, Shrew (when the immature ticks bite the Small Mammals, the ticks are infected with the Lyme Disease bacteria Borrelia Burgdorferi).
-Ticks (Infected immature Ticks abandon the Small Mammals for better reproductive hosts (Deer) and then in maturity travel on the Deer to transfer Lyme Disease to Humans)
-Deer (Good reproductive hosts for mature Ticks, Deer travel widely, increasing the geographic range of infected mature Ticks)
-Humans (Bitten by infected mature Ticks)
*
We can easily extrapolate:
Fewer Wolves = More Coyotes
More Coyotes = Fewer Foxes
Fewer Foxes = More Small Mammals
More Small Mammals = More Lyme Disease infected Ticks
More Lyme Disease infected Ticks = More Lyme Disease infected Humans
So the current "logic" of delisting Wolves will result in two things; an increase in cases of Lyme Disease in the U.S. and the predictable wholesale slaughter of Wolves by "sportsmen" and ranchers. Wholesale slaughter by "sportsmen" and ranchers is what the states consider "management".
*
This leads us to one scenario:
Kill all the Wolves
then
Kill all the Coyotes
then
Kill all the Foxes
then
Kill all the Small Mammals
then
Kill all the Deer
But even then, the Ticks will still be hungry. I wonder who their prey of choice will be?
O
Wolves as a species need our protection. We are driving them to extinction, while we don't fully understand their role in the delicate equilibrium of ecology. Their complex relationships in a social structure we would do well to emulate is a model we need to study not fear. It is past time to honour our stewardship of other species on the planet, and park our arrogant concept of our superiority at the door to their natural habitat. Please protect our wolves before it is too late. Thank you.
J. S.
O
Hello US Fish and Wildlife Services,
This is my comment about the draft proposal to delist American wolves from federal protections granted under the Endangered Species Act.
Since the morality of ending wolf lives appears to be of little concern or consequence to government and judicial powers determining the delisting of wolves from the Endangered Species Act, we could explore the environmental consequences of eradicating the Apex, Keystone, or Predator species.
We know now that the reintroduction of Wolves into Yellowstone National Park impacted the Elk population in a non~detrimental sense, as well as providing a hospitable environment for the reemergence of Cottonwood and Aspen trees.
Trees process CO2. CO2 in excess has been proven to contribute to global warming and climate change.
Hence a healthier population of trees will provide more oxygen and less CO2 for our environment.
Why are wolves hunted?
If we are dealing with issues of livestock predation, then the logical responsibility lies with the owners of the livestock, not the taxpayers of the USA who fund the USFWS. Not every USA taxpayer is a client of a cattle ranch owner in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Washington, or Oregon, so why are we obligated to foot the bill for the cost of their business operation by subsidizing wolf hunts?
What of the issue of ranchers being allowed grazing rights on publicly held land in national parks?
I pay taxes, do I get a say in the use of my parks?
If so, I do not agree with it being used to graze cattle that I will not purchase.
I do not agree with the fact that a private business owner can destroy that which naturally occurs, a wolf, on my investment of a national park paid for with my tax dollars.
Cattle ranch owners have the option of non lethal predator determent, and chose lethal methods instead.
Once again, they are assuming that it is their right to destroy my property versus manage their business without causing destruction to my investment of tax dollars.
I pay your salary. From where I stand, if you condone and implement policy that destroys my property, and the wolves are my property as a part of my tax payer funded national parks, I do not see that you are fulfilling your contract to me. I would seriously like for you to reconsider your position concerning delisting my wolves, and return them to a permanent state of protection under the ESA federal protection.
Thank you,
Heidi VanEngen
Photo courtesy : Bobby. L. Smith
O
AUGUST 11 ~ 2013
URGENT ACTION NEEDED :
EMAIL SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SALLY JEWELL
From the California Wolf Center:
In case you missed it: Top wolf scientists have been excluded from a peer review panel charged with reviewing FWS's proposal to delist wolves.
Watch our interview with one of the excluded experts here: http://ow.ly/nNG3i
"The Interior Department has effectively blocked three scientists from participating in an independent peer review of its proposal to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves after the scientists signed a May 21 letter criticizing the delisting plan.
The move drew fire from environmentalists who argued the scientists are among the country’s leading wolf experts and were being purged from the review to stifle dissent."
Stay tuned - we'll be posting more on this! http://ow.ly/nLpCa
And this is from Mexican Gray Wolves FB page: Fish and Wildlife Service disqualifies three prominent wolf experts from being part of the peer review of the proposed delisting rule.
Please contact Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and tell her that banning qualified scientists from independent review panels for expressing a scientific opinion is an outrage against scientific integrity. Demand that the best available science be used by the Fish and Wildlife Service in their decision making process.
Phone: (202) 208-3100
E-Mail: feedback@ios.doi.gov
Photo Via fuckyeahwolves~dot~tumblr~dot~com
<<<<< O >>>>>
Please Email Congressman Raul Grijalva and tell him this is one more smokescreen in the war on wolves. Please ask him to continue to do all he can to help us #Keepourwolveslisted.
My email is below. Please feel free to use, edit, and make your own. He's one of us though, so please don't swear at him.
CONTACT:
Hello Congressman Grijalva,
Thank you for contributing your letter to Secretary Jewell concerning the misguided decision to move forward with the draft plan to delist our wolves from the Endangered Species Act. In your words:
"I strongly urge you and your Department to use this current pause to cancel the scientically flawed deslisting proposal developed by your predecessor and preserve opportunities for wolves to recover in additional parts of the United States. "
I am contacting you today regarding the Grazing Improvement Act. This appears that it will further dissuade the Department of the Interior from opposing the wolf delisting proposal.
So, Congressman Grijalva, what can pro wolf activists do at this point?
What else can we do for our wolves?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Your name
The date you sent
Your email, twitter, Google+, or FB accountname, P.O.Box. SOMETHING to prove you exist.
WWP Visits Washington DC to Address Grazing Legislation!
…"Ken Cole happened to run into Congressman Raul Grijalva http://grijalva.house.gov/ who very graciously complimented Western Watersheds Project’s work and thanked us for endorsing his bid to become the Ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee."
And this is the problem. The wolf haters are going to push for this. It will allow ranchers access to public lands that are, you guessed it, populated with wolves.
GRAZING "ENTRENCHMENT" ACT GAINS LEGS < THREATENS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF ACRES OF YOUR PUBLIC LAND
Two above images via fuckyeahwolves.tumblr~dot~com
EMAIL SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SALLY JEWELL AND TELL HER TO KEEP OUR WOLVES LISTED UNDER THE E.S.A.
AND PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR OUR MEXICAN WOLVES BY CONTACTING SECRETARY JEWELL HERE:
|
| Foto F. Kobras Courteys Freda Dominy~Friends of Wolves |
Our wolves face the imminent danger of total delisting from the Endangered Species Act.
They WILL be stripped of all US Federal Protection, and that is NOT good. Not at all.
I've laid out my email sample for you to use as a basic sample.It makes more of an impact if you tell her WHY you care about wolves.
Please make it your own, make it succinct and to the point.
Shorter is better than too long.
If you really don't have time you can just copy, paste, sign, include some accountability with an email address, your Twitter handle, FB, phone number, or address. She will more than likely be seeking a second term, so your voice does matter.
If you do choose to alter, please remember that we really need Sally Jewell and YOUR elected Congressman and Representative to be OUR voices in the White House to ensure that this decision to delist our wolves does NOT go through.
These politicians will be seeking another term as well, so once again they do care what you think, as they know that you vote.
So maybe no swearing?
I personally LOVE to swear, but it will backfire on us here.
This page is being updated to include contact information for all members of Congress from each state.
It will ONLY work if you contact your own elected official, not
the ones in the Northern Rocky Mountains who are slaughtering
the wolves. From what I learned today?
That actually makes it worse for the wolves.
If you don't live in that state, please DO NOT contact that Congressperson.
You can email Sally Jewell from your own email: feedback@ios.doi.gov
Or call Sally: 202.208.3100
Or rely on old fashioned snail mail:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Thank you!!!!
For our Wolves.
...........................................................................................................
Email sample to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
Greetings Secretary Sally Jewell!
How are you today?
I am certain that you are aware of the ever growing sense of discontent and outrage held by anti wolf hunting activists.
This is a long running war that many, if not all of us have been following, and engaged in since the reign of your predecessor Ken Salazar.
WHY is this getting worse?
We know by now, that driving these wolves to the brink of obsolescence will not only eradicate them from the face of the planet, but will also irreparably alter the balance of the ecosystem they inhabit and cling to precipitously now.
Case in point.
How the reintroduction of Wolves into Yellowstone impacted the Elk population, as well as
providing a hospitable environment for the reemergence of Cottonwood and Aspen trees.
http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/how-returning-wolves-are-changing-yellowstone/
That text is included below.
FISH & WILDLIFE | ECOTROPE
How returning wolves are changing Yellowstone
Ecotrope | Dec. 29, 2011 2:28 a.m. | Updated: Feb. 19, 2013 1:33 p.m.
CONTRIBUTED BY:
CASSANDRA PROFITA
PART OF SERIES:
Ecotrope
Scientists studying the effect of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park have published a new report with updated findings.
In the 15 years since wolves returned to the park, they found, elk and coyote populations have declined, new aspen, willow and cottonwood trees are growing, and beaver colonies are on the rise.
Elk had been over-browsing young trees and preventing new recruits, according to William Ripple, a professor for Oregon State University and lead author of the study. But the presence of wolves keeps their numbers in check and prevents elk from eating too many young trees.
“Yellowstone increasingly looks like a different place,” Ripple said in an OSU news release (see the accompanying video above). “These are still the early stages of recovery, and some of this may still take decades. But trees and shrubs are starting to come back and beaver numbers are increasing. The signs are very encouraging.”
Young aspen trees are now recovering in Yellowstone National Park, after wolves that were re-introduced in 1995 helped to limit elk browsing that had been killing young trees. The older trees seen here date to the last time there were wolves in the park 70 years ago.
Gray wolves were extirpated from Yellowstone in the 1920s, and by the mid-to-late 1900s their absence allowed elk to over-browse new aspen trees. Hardly any new aspen trees grew up in the wolves absence. But now, new trees are growing again.
Since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995-96, researchers have found:
Wolf population increased until 2003 and elk behavior changed
Northern range elk dropped from 15,000 in the early 90s to 6,000 last year
Beaver colonies increased from one in 1996 to 12 in 2009, promising better fish and waterfowl habitat
Coyote numbers decreased, promising more small mammals such as red foxes, ravens and bald eagles for other predators to eat
Of course, a lot of other changes have taken place since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone. The reintroduced wolves spread out into Montana and Idaho, Oregon and Washington, and have reignited fights over how to handle their attacks on livestock. Montana and Idaho reinstated wolf hunts, and Oregon and Washington hashed out new wolf management plans. Reimbursement programs have been arranged to pay ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, and wolf advocate groups have sprung up to fight for wolves in court.
The list of ways wolves are changing the landscape in the West could go on and on. What would you put on the list?
Wolves
The needlessness of this slaughter of our wolves is just that. Needless.
There are numerous methods of predator ***** We do not need to resort to wolf fatalities in order to protect ranching and landholder's interest. Please see these illustrated below:
http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2013/03/protecting-livestock-wolf-packs-nonlethal-and-colorful-means
Earth Journal
Protecting livestock from wolf packs with nonlethal (and colorful) means
By Ron Meador | 03/07/13
Oregon has proven that livestock can be protected from wolves by means other than killing the animals.
From Oregon comes a hopeful little success story about raising cattle in wolf country, wherein ranchers are protecting their herds with colorfully nonlethal alternatives to trapping and shooting.
From the AP science writer Jeff Barnard, as published over the weekend in the Christian Science Monitor:
As long as wolves have been making their comeback, biologists and ranchers have had a decidedly Old West option for dealing with those that develop a taste for beef: Shoot to kill. But for the past year, Oregon has been a "wolf-safe" zone, with ranchers turning to more modern, nonlethal ways to protect livestock.
While the number of wolves roaming the state has gone up, livestock kills haven't — and now conservation groups are hoping Oregon can serve as a model for other Western states working to return the predator to the wild.
Leading the list of those techniques appears to be the practice of fladry, an apparently antiquarian word but a new one to me. It would seem to be pronounced kind of like "philandery" without the N. Sometimes it's written as flaggery.
Anyway, it's a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline. Except for being about four feet off the ground, in the photos I saw, they look rather like the pennant streamers our species uses to attract roaming packs of consumers to a new gift shop, filling station or takeout pizzeria.
dfw.state.or.us
Fladry is a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline.
To Canis lupus, however, fladry is a proven and powerful repellent.
A 2003 research paper published in the journal Conservation Biology documented fladry's effectiveness as a barrier to both tame and wild wolves, and in areas where high livestock losses indicated that wolves weren't intimidated by human proximity alone.
A range of repellents
In Oregon, ranchers often use the streamers with other means, like electrified fences and motion-detecting alarm systems that greet approaching wolves with bright lights and recorded gunshots.
Of course Oregon's wolf population is much smaller than ours — perhaps 46 at the end of last year. But it's also growing fast, up from 29 a year earlier. And while the confirmed livestock losses of a dozen or so per year are small in absolute terms, they would scale up to 800 animals a year in Minnesota if this state's 3,000 wolves were taking livestock at the same rate.
Minnesota's new trapping and hunting seasons are often justified as a response to livestock predation. But there is widespread skepticism that farmers with wolf problems can count on much benefit from these, driven as they are by sport and trophy-seeking rather than by geographically focused removal of the problem wolves.
Whether solely nonlethal means can be sufficient is debatable, too, but some Minnesota farmers are using alarms, guard dogs, even donkeys, and there doesn't seem to be anything about fladry that would make it inherently unsuitable or ineffective here. And the price might be appealing — 19 cents per meter of fenceline, according to the 2003 study.
(By the way, the main impact of Oregon's "no-kill" policy, which has been in effect since September 2011, was to halt trapping of wolves by government agents as an anti-predation measure. There, as here, farmers and ranchers can legally shoot wolves to protect livestock, but sport hunting and trapping remain illegal.)
Now we come to how the pro wolf activists view this conflict.
Here you will find a blog that explains the conflict between ranchers, and pro ~wolf activist far better than I can, I do hope you have the time to read it, it is extremely well authored:
HSUS Sues USFWS & Salazar Over Great Lakes Wolves Delisting!
http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/hsus-sues-usfws-interior-over-great-lakes-wolves-delisting/
Here are the Google search results highlighting the discontent with the manner in which then Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has handled Federal Protections for Wolves in the U.S.A.
Quite an intensive list, very impressive :
http://www.google.com/#safe=off&hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=wolf+protection+and+ken+salazar&oq=wolf+protection+and+ken+sal&gs_l=hp.1.0.33i21.2608.13709.0.17035.29.23.1.5.5.0.165.2188.19j4.23.0...1.0...1c.1.12.psy-ab.cA-3KIrhF_g&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.cGE&fp=117225859c046254&biw=1888&bih=893
Secretary Sally Jewell, we need your help desperately!!!
We need to make sure that all wolves are granted the highest levels of Federal Protections available
under the Endangered Species Act.
They had that at one time, and careless decision making due to political influence removed their safety net.
This issue has become a national shame, as well as a tragedy now and a catastrophic situation in the very near future ~ one that can be averted by your wise and timely action to list them as an endangered and protected species.
Please let this be your legacy of honor during your employ as Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
<<<<<<<<< O >>>>>>>>>>
SEND AN EMAIL TO A POLITICIAN !
Protest the delisting of Wolves from Federal Protection of the Endangered Species Act.
Protest the delisting of Wolves from Federal Protection of the Endangered Species Act.
All addresses for USA Congressional Members here:
|
| Adelliam |
This is just a starting point, please add YOUR reasons for wanting this Draft decision not to be passed, and why you want to #keepwolveslisted.
Tell your Congresspeople your story about why it is important to you to make sure that our wolves are not driven into extinction by hunters.
They need to see that this is personal to you.
Plus if they get the same email from all of us, it does not have the impact of many voices. Tell them that you are informed about their state's wolf recovery and wolf management programs. If they are irresponsible towards wolf recovery, tell them that you will not purchase goods and services made in their state and that you will vocally not support tourism in their state.
This is most effective if you are contacting your own state's representation, as they have to listen to you in order to get your next vote. At this point, I would email whomever you feel so inclined to. We simply need to bombard folks with #prowolf voices right now.
Also, it is very important that we provide accountability under our signatures, with contact information, be it an email address, a phone number, street address, a Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ account name.
If we don't provide something that proves we exist as potential voters for these folks, our chances of having our voice heard are tossed aside.
Drop down list of Congress members, state by state.
You will find your Senators and your Representatives here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=NV
Below are the folks who are NOT pro wolf, in fact we should simply cut to the chase and call them by their rightful name. They are the "WolfHaters".
PLEASE DO NOT contact them, it will actually hurt our chances of having ESA protections restored for the wolves. These folks use activists' objections as rhetoric fodder for their re~election campaigns.
The only reason they are included here is so that, if you are like me, and not up to date on the actions of your representation in Congress, you can see who to avoid contacting.
http://www.weeac.com/csf-by-state.html
Greetings Senator .........
I would like for you to use every legal reasoning at your disposal to stop the disastrous plan that delists the wolves of America from the ESA.
We have witnessed over 1500 wolves slaughtered since they were delisted in 2009. This is unacceptable. At this rate the wolf population in the wild will never stand a chance at recovery that has come at the cost of millions of dollars spent for protection under the ESA, since 1974.
Please, do not allow partisan politics to dictate the survival of our nation's important keystone predator species .
The fact that the Rider in the Budget Act calling for Delisting Wolvesfrom ESA bans citizens from challenging this decision has been instigated by preservation of anti wolf litigation from the state of Wyoming.
I vote, and I strongly urge you to Block this plan from the US Fish and Wildlife services to permanently delist America's wolves from the federal protection status afforded under the Endangered Species Act.
Thank you,
me
@blahblah.aol.com
4321 Somewhere St, S.W.
Somewhere else, USA
00000
1-333-333-3333
LET'S EMAIL SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SALLY JEWELL AND TELL HER TO KEEP OUR WOLVES LISTED UNDER THE E.S.A.
Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
feedback@ios.doi.gov
202-208-3100
PRESS REPRESENTATIVE FOR DEPARTMENT PF THE INTERIOR
jessica_kershaw@ios.doi.gov
AND THERE IS A WEB EMAIL FORM HERE:
http://www.doi.gov/feedback.cfm
Here is the official page for U.S.Department of the Interior
http://www.doi.gov/public/contact-us.cfm
|
| Foto F. Kobras Courteys Freda Dominy~Friends of Wolves |
Our wolves face the imminent danger of total delisting from the Endangered Species Act.
They WILL be stripped of all US Federal Protection, and that is NOT good. Not at all.
I've laid out my email sample for you to use as a basic sample.It makes more of an impact if you tell her WHY you care about wolves.
Please make it your own, make it succinct and to the point.
Shorter is better than too long.
If you really don't have time you can just copy, paste, sign, include some accountability with an email address, your Twitter handle, FB, phone number, or address. She will more than likely be seeking a second term, so your voice does matter.
If you do choose to alter, please remember that we really need Sally Jewell and YOUR elected Congressman and Representative to be OUR voices in the White House to ensure that this decision to permanently delist our wolves does NOT go through.
These politicians will be seeking another term as well, so once again they do care what you think, as they know that you vote.
So maybe no swearing?
I personally LOVE to swear, but it will backfire on us here.
This page is being updated to include contact information for all members of Congress from each state.
It will ONLY work if you contact your own elected official, not
the ones in the Northern Rocky Mountains who are slaughtering
the wolves. From what I learned today?
That actually makes it worse for the wolves.
If you don't live in that state, please DO NOT contact that Congressperson.
AND THERE IS A WEB EMAIL FORM HERE:
http://www.doi.gov/feedback.cfm
Here is the official page for U.S.Department of the Interior
http://www.doi.gov/public/contact-us.cfm
Or call Sally: 202.208.3100
Or rely on old fashioned snail mail:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Thank you!!!!
For our Wolves.
...........................................................................................................
Email sample to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
Greetings Secretary Sally Jewell!
How are you today?
I am certain that you are aware of the ever growing sense of discontent and outrage held by anti wolf hunting activists.
This is a long running war that many, if not all of us have been following, and engaged in since the reign of your predecessor Ken Salazar.
WHY is this getting worse?
We know by now, that driving these wolves to the brink of obsolescence will not only eradicate them from the face of the planet, but will also irreparably alter the balance of the ecosystem they inhabit and cling to precipitously now.
Case in point.
How the reintroduction of Wolves into Yellowstone impacted the Elk population, as well as
providing a hospitable environment for the reemergence of Cottonwood and Aspen trees.
http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/how-returning-wolves-are-changing-yellowstone/
That text is included below.
FISH & WILDLIFE | ECOTROPE
How returning wolves are changing Yellowstone
Ecotrope | Dec. 29, 2011 2:28 a.m. | Updated: Feb. 19, 2013 1:33 p.m.
CONTRIBUTED BY:
CASSANDRA PROFITA
PART OF SERIES:
Ecotrope
Scientists studying the effect of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park have published a new report with updated findings.
In the 15 years since wolves returned to the park, they found, elk and coyote populations have declined, new aspen, willow and cottonwood trees are growing, and beaver colonies are on the rise.
Elk had been over-browsing young trees and preventing new recruits, according to William Ripple, a professor for Oregon State University and lead author of the study. But the presence of wolves keeps their numbers in check and prevents elk from eating too many young trees.
“Yellowstone increasingly looks like a different place,” Ripple said in an OSU news release (see the accompanying video above). “These are still the early stages of recovery, and some of this may still take decades. But trees and shrubs are starting to come back and beaver numbers are increasing. The signs are very encouraging.”
Young aspen trees are now recovering in Yellowstone National Park, after wolves that were re-introduced in 1995 helped to limit elk browsing that had been killing young trees. The older trees seen here date to the last time there were wolves in the park 70 years ago.
Gray wolves were extirpated from Yellowstone in the 1920s, and by the mid-to-late 1900s their absence allowed elk to over-browse new aspen trees. Hardly any new aspen trees grew up in the wolves absence. But now, new trees are growing again.
Since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995-96, researchers have found:
Wolf population increased until 2003 and elk behavior changed
Northern range elk dropped from 15,000 in the early 90s to 6,000 last year
Beaver colonies increased from one in 1996 to 12 in 2009, promising better fish and waterfowl habitat
Coyote numbers decreased, promising more small mammals such as red foxes, ravens and bald eagles for other predators to eat
Of course, a lot of other changes have taken place since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone. The reintroduced wolves spread out into Montana and Idaho, Oregon and Washington, and have reignited fights over how to handle their attacks on livestock. Montana and Idaho reinstated wolf hunts, and Oregon and Washington hashed out new wolf management plans. Reimbursement programs have been arranged to pay ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, and wolf advocate groups have sprung up to fight for wolves in court.
The list of ways wolves are changing the landscape in the West could go on and on. What would you put on the list?
Wolves
The needlessness of this slaughter of our wolves is just that. Needless.
There are numerous methods of predator ***** We do not need to resort to wolf fatalities in order to protect ranching and landholder's interest. Please see these illustrated below:
http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2013/03/protecting-livestock-wolf-packs-nonlethal-and-colorful-means
Earth Journal
Protecting livestock from wolf packs with nonlethal (and colorful) means
By Ron Meador | 03/07/13
Oregon has proven that livestock can be protected from wolves by means other than killing the animals.
From Oregon comes a hopeful little success story about raising cattle in wolf country, wherein ranchers are protecting their herds with colorfully nonlethal alternatives to trapping and shooting.
From the AP science writer Jeff Barnard, as published over the weekend in the Christian Science Monitor:
As long as wolves have been making their comeback, biologists and ranchers have had a decidedly Old West option for dealing with those that develop a taste for beef: Shoot to kill. But for the past year, Oregon has been a "wolf-safe" zone, with ranchers turning to more modern, nonlethal ways to protect livestock.
While the number of wolves roaming the state has gone up, livestock kills haven't — and now conservation groups are hoping Oregon can serve as a model for other Western states working to return the predator to the wild.
Leading the list of those techniques appears to be the practice of fladry, an apparently antiquarian word but a new one to me. It would seem to be pronounced kind of like "philandery" without the N. Sometimes it's written as flaggery.
Anyway, it's a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline. Except for being about four feet off the ground, in the photos I saw, they look rather like the pennant streamers our species uses to attract roaming packs of consumers to a new gift shop, filling station or takeout pizzeria.
dfw.state.or.us
Fladry is a preventive strategy that consists of decorating the perimeter of a livestock enclosure with flapping, bright-colored plastic streamers that hang like socks from a clothesline.
To Canis lupus, however, fladry is a proven and powerful repellent.
A 2003 research paper published in the journal Conservation Biology documented fladry's effectiveness as a barrier to both tame and wild wolves, and in areas where high livestock losses indicated that wolves weren't intimidated by human proximity alone.
A range of repellents
In Oregon, ranchers often use the streamers with other means, like electrified fences and motion-detecting alarm systems that greet approaching wolves with bright lights and recorded gunshots.
Of course Oregon's wolf population is much smaller than ours — perhaps 46 at the end of last year. But it's also growing fast, up from 29 a year earlier. And while the confirmed livestock losses of a dozen or so per year are small in absolute terms, they would scale up to 800 animals a year in Minnesota if this state's 3,000 wolves were taking livestock at the same rate.
Minnesota's new trapping and hunting seasons are often justified as a response to livestock predation. But there is widespread skepticism that farmers with wolf problems can count on much benefit from these, driven as they are by sport and trophy-seeking rather than by geographically focused removal of the problem wolves.
Whether solely nonlethal means can be sufficient is debatable, too, but some Minnesota farmers are using alarms, guard dogs, even donkeys, and there doesn't seem to be anything about fladry that would make it inherently unsuitable or ineffective here. And the price might be appealing — 19 cents per meter of fenceline, according to the 2003 study.
(By the way, the main impact of Oregon's "no-kill" policy, which has been in effect since September 2011, was to halt trapping of wolves by government agents as an anti-predation measure. There, as here, farmers and ranchers can legally shoot wolves to protect livestock, but sport hunting and trapping remain illegal.)
Now we come to how the pro wolf activists view this conflict.
Here you will find a blog that explains the conflict between ranchers, and pro ~wolf activist far better than I can, I do hope you have the time to read it, it is extremely well authored:
HSUS Sues USFWS & Salazar Over Great Lakes Wolves Delisting!
http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/hsus-sues-usfws-interior-over-great-lakes-wolves-delisting/
Here are the Google search results highlighting the discontent with the manner in which then Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has handled Federal Protections for Wolves in the U.S.A.
Quite an intensive list, very impressive :
http://www.google.com/#safe=off&hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=wolf+protection+and+ken+salazar&oq=wolf+protection+and+ken+sal&gs_l=hp.1.0.33i21.2608.13709.0.17035.29.23.1.5.5.0.165.2188.19j4.23.0...1.0...1c.1.12.psy-ab.cA-3KIrhF_g&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.cGE&fp=117225859c046254&biw=1888&bih=893
Secretary Sally Jewell, we need your help desperately!!!
We need to make sure that all wolves are granted the highest levels of Federal Protections available
under the Endangered Species Act.
They had that at one time, and careless decision making due to political influence removed their safety net.
This issue has become a national shame, as well as a tragedy now and a catastrophic situation in the very near future ~ one that can be averted by your wise and timely action to list them as an endangered and protected species.
Please let this be your legacy of honor during your employ as Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America.
For our Wolves.
For our children and their children.
For our country's honor.
And for you, knowing that you made the hard call to do the right thing.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
AND PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR OUR MEXICAN WOLVES BY CONTACTING SECRETARY JEWELL HERE:
List of Members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
by State
This is the Politicians Non-profit Hunters Organization
To Lobby & Pressure the Rest of our Politicians to All be on the same Page as they are!
List of Senators who Belong to Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
3 States out of 50 Have NO Members. Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island
Contact your Senator
Contact your Congressman
Contact your Governor
Contact your State Legislators
Select your State, then Select "Legislators", click "Get Legislator Links"
THE BIG 13 PETITIONS SPECIFIC FOR #KEEPWOLVESLISTED FOR OUR WOLVES TO REMAIN UNDER THE ESA:
REPEAL RIDER IN BUDGET ACT DELISTING WOLVES FROM E.S.A.
http://www.petition2congress.com/9558/repeal-rider-in-budget-act-delisting-wolves-from-esa/
PROTECT AMERICA'S WOLVES
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/protect-americas-wolves?mailing_id=12843&source=s.icn.em.cr&r_by=4483978
PLEDGE TO GIVE REASONS TO U.S.FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES WHY'NOT'TO DELIST WOLVES IN LOWER 48 STATES ~FaceBook ~Causes
http://www.causes.com/actions/1754837-give-reasons-to-u-s-f-w-why-not-to-delist-wolves-in-lower-48-states?recruiter_id=171429254&token=MxQj6pLosCKSuCDwWokKdxyM&utm_campaign=activity_invitation_mailer/activity_invitation&utm_medium=email&utm_source=causes
STOP THE PLAN TO SLAUGHTER WOLVES
http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=13725
WOLVES ARE BACK IN THE CROSSHAIRS AND WE'RE HOWLIN' MAD
Wild Earth Guardians
https://secure3.convio.net/wg/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=601&autologin=true#.Ubp3e_bWwUQ
TELL SECRETARY JEWELL TO PROTECT WOLVES!
NRDC Save BioGems ~Defend Wildlife and Wildlands
https://secure.nrdconline.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3065&autologin=true&s_src=wolfbg&utm_source=link&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=email&
TELL INTERIOR SECRETARY SALLY JEWELL - DON'T DELIST ENDANGERED GREY WOLVES
http://therainforestsite.greatergood.com/clickToGive/trs/petition/DOW-JewellDelistingCatastrophe?Origin=ETE_052213_DOW-JewellDelistingCatastrophe_F
KEEP GRAY WOLVES UNDER FEDERAL PROTECTION
http://forcechange.com/65048/keep-gray-wolves-under-federal-protection/?utm_source=ForceChange+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8095acdf0c-NL3945_20_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_600a6911b9-8095acdf0c-295563341
STOP THE DELISTING OF WOLVES FROM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/750/594/048/stop-the-de-list-of-wolves-from-the-endagered-species-list/
WOLVES ACROSS THE COUNTRY NEED YOUR HELP
http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=13445
DON'T END FEDERAL PROTECTION FOR GRAY WOLVES
http://www.leftaction.com/action/dont-end-federal-protection-wolves
WOLVES NEED FEDERAL PROTECTION;PETITIONING SALLY JEWELL
http://www.change.org/petitions/wolves-need-federal-protection
WOLVES IN THE LOWER -48 NEED YOUR HELP
https://secure.earthjustice.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1455
REPEAL RIDER IN BUDGET ACT DELISTING WOLVES FROM ESA
http://www.petition2congress.com/9558/repeal-rider-in-budget-act-delisting-wolves-from-esa/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.