Montana to switch how it counts wolves in the state

protect montana wolves, protect the wolves, sacred resource protection zone

We can only be as successful as our followers will support us to be.

We have all of the current states that we are petitioning to change hunting Regulations, while relocating 23 wolves from Idaho, 6 from Oregon, a possible 38 from Montana, and just received a phone call for 60 more. We need your Support to become the VOICE our Wildlife need. Join us today Please.

Protect The Wolves™ says wolf numbers are declining and the switch will threaten Our Sacred  species’ survival.

HELENA — Montana wildlife officials say the way they count wolves is too expensive and falls far short of an actual population estimate, so they plan to switch to a model that uses information gathered from hunters.

However, wildlife advocates say wolf numbers are declining and the switch could threaten the species’ survival. They worry the data is too unreliable to be used to manage the population.

The change, expected within the next three years after improvements to the model, will be cheaper than the annual wolf counts conducted now and provide a more accurate estimate of the total population, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials said.

“Back in the late ‘90s, early 2000s, we could count every wolf in the state,” wildlife biologist Bob Inman said. “As populations increased into the 700 to 1,000 range, we physically can’t do that anymore.”

The model, which uses hunter sightings to help map areas occupied by wolves, typically puts wolf numbers much higher than the annual minimum counts.

Ranchers and hunters in the state have contended for years that the wolf population is too high and threatens livestock and elk populations.

Wolf advocates say hunting and trapping has led to a decline in wolf numbers in recent years, and the model could obscure the threat the predators are facing.

“If the numbers that are going in are going to be bad, the numbers going out are going to be bad,” said Marc Cooke of the advocacy group Wolves of the Rockies. “I’m very leery of it.”

He said he distrusts hunters’ reporting because of their anti-wolf bias and that state wildlife officials pay too much deference to those hunters.

“There’s a trust gap being developed between the department and wildlife enthusiasts,” he said.

Congress lifted protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho in 2011, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continued to oversee how those states managed their populations for five years to ensure that hunting and trapping did not drive down the predators’ numbers again. A judge lifted federal protections for wolves in Wyoming in April.

In Montana, six Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf specialists now verify by sight all the wolves they can to make sure there is more than the minimum required 150 individual wolves and 15 breeding pairs. That means scouring wolf territory year-round on the ground and in the air, an expensive job that became even pricier last year when federal funding ended.

The state has relied primarily on those annual minimum counts, but it also has been using the Patch Occupancy Model since 2007. The model uses data from hunter sightings and runs a formula with variables such as territory and pack size to come up with a population estimate.

The estimates from the model are typically much higher than the minimum wolf counts. For example, the model estimated there were 892 wolves in Montana in 2014 — 61 percent higher than the minimum count of 554 that year.

The model’s population estimates for 2015 and 2016 won’t be available until this summer, Inman said. The annual minimum counts for those years were 536 wolves in 2015 and 477 in 2014.

“In 2016, we didn’t have federal funding and we didn’t direct the specialists to count every wolf,” Inman said. “I’m sure there will be people who will look at that number, and only that number, and think that things are going in the wrong direction, but it’s not the case.”

The minimum counts will still be conducted over the next couple of years while improvements are made to the model at the Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Montana.

Cooke said the state agency needs to conduct more outreach and public education to explain what they’re doing, instead of just thrusting it on the public.

Source: Montana to switch how it counts wolves in the state

National Native News: A national tribal conservation group has petitioned the Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Protect yellowstone wolves, protect the wolves, sacred resource protection zone

Our Article begins at approximately 2 minutes into the Broadcast 😉

A national tribal conservation group Protect The Wolves™ has petitioned the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to create a 31-mile sacred resources protection zone around Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks where wolves cannot be hunted. (PHOTO-DOUG SMITH VIA NPS.GOV/YELL)

Source: National Native News » News For All Americans

Stevens County Washington Livestock Subsidy’s over $21 million

oppose welfare ranchers

Protect The Wolves™ has to question how 1 little county (Stevens County Washington) can cost you the Taxpayer over $ 21,000,000 dollars in welfare rancher payments?

The Government doesnt have a welfare program for any other business…. WELFARE Rancher Payments need to stop period. If they cant be successful on their own….. why should you have to pay them to run their business?

In just 2 of those years alone….. McIvrin’s Diamond M Ranch cost you almost $250,000 for the slaughter of 2 separate wolf packs. Apparently WDFW only cares about managing our Resources for these special Interest Groups…. Were you aware that they are not supposed to have Special Interest Groups involved in Policy Change?

Were you aware that WDFW allows individuals elected to a State Office to participate in Policy Change? That is forbidden, under mandates upon them as Trustees. Further Ranchers like Joel Kretz, Donald Dashiell, Mike Blankenship, just to name a few…. are choosing the best path forward based on their personal interest it would appear….. (Cattle Ranchers, Elected Officials… whats wrong with that picture?) People that is what is referred to as a Conflict of Interest…. How long will the public continue to allow this to happen?

Conflict of interest Conflict of interest can be defined as a “situation where and individual or the entity for which they work, whether a government, business, media outlet or civil society organisation, is confronted with choosing between the duties and demands of their position and their own private interests” (Transparency International, 2009),. For instance, companies may face accusations of improper influence if they employ parliamentarians as consultants or have them on their board. Conflict of interest, thus, may arise ‘when an individual with a formal responsibility to serve the public participates in an activity that jeopardizes his or her professional judgement, objectivity, and independence’ (U4 Resources Centre, webpage). In this context, preventing conflict of interest is also important for enhancing transparency and accountability in public decision making. Regulations may take a number of forms, including laws, codes of conduct and internal rules or management guidelines. They should also cover post-public employment and establish mandatory ‘cooling-off’ period to avoid the revolving door, as enterprises and their consultants often use former public officials for lobbying purposes (Transparency International, 2010). Three main types of conflict of interest regulation can be identified: prohibitions on activities, declarations of interests, and exclusion from decision-making processes (Reed, 2008)

Washington Slaughtered 11 of State’s 90 Endangered Gray Wolves 

profanity peak pack, protect washington wolves, protect the wolves, wolves, wolf

Join Protect The Wolves™ Pack today to help be the voice that is working hard to stop actions like this 365 days a year. The Wildlife do not get a Day off… Neither do we!

The 11 wolves, known as the Profanity Peak pack, made up about one-eighth of the gray wolves believed to be roaming the state. Diamond M Ranch is now responsible for costing taxpayers approximately a Quarter of a Million dollars… yes that is $250,000 for the slaughter of 2 packs. Video documented salt blocks near the Profanity Peak Rendezvous Den location., where the salt blocks attracted cattle for more than a Month. Washington State Rep… also a Cattle Rancher Joel Kretz issued demands on WSU to publicly deny statements made by Dr. Robert Wielgus, which at the demands of special Interest cattle Ranchers they did just that. Now almost a year later the truth is finally out with the Video Footage. McIvrin needs to loose his grazing allotment.

Now with a letter by another Rancher also an elected official Donald Dashiell, Washington States Donny Martorello has allowed special interest groups to speed up the slaughter of more wildlife. Martorello needs to be removed from his Job and get an individual in their that takes his mandates under the Public Trust Seriously…. That would also require the removal of James Unsworth, Martorellos supervisor. How long will we the public stand for the mismanagement of our resources? You can help make a Difference by Joining Protect The WOlves™ Pack today….

Source: Washington to Kill 11 of State’s 90 Endangered Gray Wolves for Preying on Cows – NBC News

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Categories

%d bloggers like this: