How Many Wyoming Trophy Wolves have been Illegally Transported already?

sacred resource protection zone, protect park wolves, protect yellowstone wolves
I learned Today from a Source that a Trapper they use as an expert in a case that the WGFD failed to require a Cites Tag for the Trophy Wolf Harvest. Wolves slaughtered in Wyoming must remain in Wyoming! If anyone hear of a Wyoming wolf being transported please let Us Know ASAP!
 Guess what, their excuse was It just fell through the cracks I guess. I am researching this right now.
  So the trapper called WGFD to ask, if I harvest a wolf where do I get the Cites Tag to legally transfer the wolf fur to market out of the country? He was told, “I don’t know?”, call U.S. Fish and Wildlife. You likely know who that person is at Fish and Wildlife,  The US Fish and Wildlife said there is no Cites Tag process for a trophy wolf in Wyoming, it is not in the regulations. What? Technically that means all harvested wolves must remain in state at this time. As you know Cites is a main way to curb poaching and international transport of animals endangered in certain regions

protect the wolves, sacred resource protection zone

By way of supplement to yesterday’s Update #14, there are bills pending in the House and Senate that would effectively overturn the great HSUS wolf decision discussed below.  The bills (1) direct the US Fish & Wildlife Service to re-issue the final rules removing ESA protection for wolves and (2) prevent judicial review of the re-issued bills.  Even if this is not a technical violation of the constitutional separation of powers, it certainly is a repugnant moral violation of that principle.  
If these bills pass, it would not be the first time.  Several years ago Congress did the same thing for another wolf population by sneaking a rider in a major appropriations bill.  The proponents will probably try the same deceitful tactic this time if they can’t get the legislation passed outright.
If you want to read the two bills, here are the links:
What did the American public do to deserve the nasty, anti-environment House and Senate that we are stuck with now?  It would be too simple to conclude that these particular anti-wolf senators and representatives have spent too much time reading Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf, since I’m not sure they have that kind of attention span.
What if, by some miracle, the FWS concludes as a result of the current review that the HSUS case requires the GYE grizzly bear delisting rule to be withdrawn – and then withdraws it?  Will the senators and representatives from ID, MT and WY introduce grizzly bear bills comparable to the pending wolf bills?
Make no mistake here.  This is not only about some wolves and grizzly bears.  This is about a much broader and more fundamental issue:  Congress overriding the courts and disregarding overwhelming public sentiment.  This is an attack on basic institutions of our democracy.

Smackout wolf pack: 2017 lethal removal action report

smackout Wolves, protect the wolves, no deterrents present


Did We miss something? WDFW describes a management strategy for addressing wolf-livestock interactions primarily with nonlethal preventative measures? With recognition that lethal removal of wolves may be necessary to address recurring depredations.

They did not provide a public meeting for input on their lethal protocol, The only gave 17 hrs notice for their first IWC meeting since 2015. What sort of agency does those types of things except one that is working real hard to remain secret?

The Smackout Pack appeared to not even have deterrents in place when our Huckleberry picker visited as WDFW stated they Did! Telling lies by state agencies is not a positive way to provide Transparency.

Smackout wolf pack: 2017 lethal removal action report

Category: Wildlife Research and Management – Non-Game Management and Conservation

Date Published: September 21, 2017

Number of Pages: 94


This report describes the management actions taken by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW or department) from September 21, 2016 through September 21, 2017 to address recurrent livestock depredations by the Smackout Pack. While much of this information has been posted on the department’s website, this report consolidates that material and provides a broader context for WDFW’s management activities.

This report also fulfills a provision of the collaboratively developed current Wolf-Livestock Interaction Protocol (Protocol), which calls for the department to provide a final report to the public after using lethal removal to address livestock depredations.

The department’s actions were guided by the state’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Wolf Plan), adopted by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2011 to provide a path toward recovery of the species. In 2017, WDFW in collaboration with the 18-member Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) developed a wolf-livestock interaction protocol to help guide the decision making process of proactively reducing the potential for recurrent wolf depredations on livestock while continuing to promote wolf recovery.

Both the Wolf Plan and the Protocol describe a management strategy for addressing wolf-livestock interactions primarily with nonlethal preventative measures in recognition that lethal removal of wolves may be necessary to address recurring depredations.



Source: Smackout wolf pack: 2017 lethal removal action report – WDFW Publications | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Biofence and Wolves – Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit – University Of Montana

protect the wolves, mexican gray wolves, near extinct mexican gray wolves

We are bringing this post back forward simply due to its appearance of truly being effective.

Biofence and Wolves

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) can conflict with livestock production throughout Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Generally, wolves that prey on domestic livestock are killed by management agencies or private landowners. These actions typically stop depredations for producers in the short-term but are not a lasting solution because wolf packs generally fill the recently vacated territory within 1 year and livestock predation often continues. Most tools currently available for non-lethal control of wolves are short-lived in their effectiveness or require constant human presence. Wolves, like most canids worldwide, use scent-marking (deposits of urine, scat, and scratches at conspicuous locations) to establish territories on the landscape and avoid intraspecific conflict. We tested human-deployed scent-marks consisting of scat and urine (i.e., “biofence”) to manipulate wolf pack movements in Idaho.

We deployed 64.7 km and 64.8 km of biofence within 3 wolf pack territories in central Idaho during summers 2010 and 2011, respectively. In 2010, location data provided by satellite collared wolves in 2 of the packs showed little to no trespassing of the biofence. Sign survey at predicted rendezvous sites in areas excluded by the biofence yielded little to no recent wolf use of those areas. We also opportunistically deployed a biofence between a resident wolf pack’s rendezvous site and a nearby (1.6 km) active sheep grazing allotment totaling 2,400 animals. This pack was not implicated in any depredations in 2010. In 2011, however, location data indicated some individuals showed little aversion to trespassing the biofence. Our study provides evidence that wolf movements can be manipulated by human-distributed scent-marks but not all individuals respond strongly to the biofence. Importantly, it appears that wolves’ response to biofencing diminished between years of our study suggesting that one would need to maintain a biofence continuously to ensure effectiveness. We believe more frequent refreshing of the biofence, year-round presence once the biofence is established, an adequate buffer distance from the area to be excluded, and the use of howlboxes may fortify biofenceing, but further study is needed to test this.

Learn more:

Ausband, D. E., M. S. Mitchell, S. B. Bassing, and C. White.  2013.  No trespassing: using a biofence to manipulate wolf movements.  Wildlife Research 40:207-216. PDF


Source: Biofence and Wolves – Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit – University Of Montana

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Twitter Feed


%d bloggers like this: