Object to and oppose extending cattle grazing in the Upper Green, (36-CFR 218.7) Project 3049

Speakout against grizzly delisting

Object to and oppose extending cattle grazing

in the Upper Green

Your Page clearly stated all Objections emailed by the 8th of January 2018.
 

ATTENTION: Dave Booth
Pinedale Ranger District
29 East Fremont Lake Rd. P.O. Box 220, Pinedale, WY, 82941
[email protected]

David Booth and Objection Reviewing Officer:

Dear Sirs, This is a formal request to add me to list of concerned Citizens who are to be contacted with regard to the scoping of such projects as the Upper Green Grazing Project.

Please put me on your list of citizens to inform of any and all other NEPA projects now and future considered in the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Protect The Wolves™ Sanctuary A Native American 501c3

Patricia Herman President

Roger Dobson Director

530-377-3031

 

Further  We would like our comment filed and considered in this FEIS process, it was emailed on the 8th per your page.

The National Forest while managed by the Department of Agriculture is forest management in the public trust for all Wyoming Citizens, US Forest Service comes under the aspect of All Peoples, Native American as well as the entire Public of the USA.. I object to a few wealthy landowners, Ranchers and politicians controlling the riparian areas of the upper green.

We have friends and Volunteers that have ridden horseback through the cattle allotments in the Upper Green on numerous occasions, it is beyond disturbing to observe and not fun. The cattle are very aggressive. They have charged our friends horses, They are all over the willows in the river bottom, where a cow and calf moose of which we have far too few cannot compete. I am also commenting on the pollution factor of the water. There is currently case law that establishes Water Protection in Riparian Areas, Case Law already establishes that it need not even be within Reservation Boundaries. Cattle deposit excrement as well as Urine in the water systems which makes it unfit for human consumption as well as spreads disease to other Animals. in riparian areas. – Livestock tend to spend a disproportionate amount of time in and near riparian areas, that cause further degradation, which is not correctable with cattle in those areas. Cattle need to be kept from those Riparian areas to insure that our water quality remains good for all parties involved including wildlife. 

The reality is the cattle are all through the riparian areas at the detriment of the wildlife and really at the detriment of many recreational users of the forest.

We further would like to enter an extremely stern objection to your proposed forage utilization of 60% in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas and all other allotments. This amount of overgrazing leaves nothing present for our Children’s Wildlife Resources. You are thereby creating further problems by allowing this amount of consumption in areas that are feeding areas to Ungulates. If you remove the Ungulates food in the summer, they have nothing to feed on through the winter causing lower lying Ranchers issues when those very same ungulates travel to seek out sustenance, which the creator placed within our National Forests for their own explicit use.

Further it is neither appropriate nor acceptable to allow the use of our forest and make it a cattle first, and other forest users beware, land use. It is Wildlife, Environment and Public use rights first as per the Wyoming Constitution, US Forest Service Grazing Allotments are to be protected for the entire Public which includes all peoples in the USA. These rights are further protected for the Indigenous as well as the Public under the Indian as well as Public Trusts.

I object to the continued cattle grazing in the Upper Green, and also because, the elk reduction in the Bridger Teton National Forest has resulted in a drastic loss of natural food source for Our Sacred Grizzly Bear, Wolves, and other carnivores.

We see that as the National Forest Continues to participate with the WGFD and even with the GTNP in the reduction of our Jackson and other elk herds our carnivores pay a huge price, Humans have no business attempting to manage Mother Natures life forms and using cattle as chum for Predators in the national forest needs to come to a close.

With cattle present, all of our wildlife’s resources depleted at the levels that you are prescribing, the game will be drastically reduced if not gone, which when predators fill the void created by the cattle is their demanded slaughter by Ranchers. The cattle should not be in the forest period. The Old West Mentality that Cattlemen believe they have the right to kill all carnivores essentially on sight and I have read every mortality report of the Grizzly Bear in the upper green 1988 to 2014 and know bear are shot by the ranchers and it does not take a seasoned criminal defense attorney to see that fact.

These cattle operations do not respect the balance of nature required to operate within the the Publics National forests. If the cattle are allowed in the forest the rules to protect the other wildlife must be strict. Limit the cattle use of the riparian, willowed areas, by creating strict buffer zones, require dogs, protecting the cattle on site at all times to deter predators. Require range riders to protect the cattle and to remove all dead cattle immediately so there can be no chumming of predators to the cattle. Cattlemen are not allowed to kill apex predators, Grizzly Bear and wolves, WGFD is required to manage and record these incidents, by regulations still lacking for grizzly bear management at the state level.

For these reasons and additional which would have been detailed had I been included in the scoping as requested previously I object to and oppose extending cattle grazing in the Upper Green, (36-CFR 218.7) Project 3049.

 

In the 1980s and 1990s  the state of Montana conducted its elk reduction near Gardiner, Montana

The number of wapiti on Yellowstone’s northern range today is closer to 6,000 which move seamless in and out of the park, and there are actually far fewer wolves in the park now than a decade ago. a Decade ago Ranchers were complaining there were too many Elk so Montana Slaughtered them All not Wolves.
In the coming months, Yellowstone National Park, as part of the Interagency Bison Management Plan adopted with the state of Montana in 2000, intends to reduce the current size of the park’s bison herd from around 4,800 to between 3,900 and 4,200.
Last winter 1,200 bison were removed—the largest reduction in a decade—with more than half sent to slaughter and nearly 500 killed by hunters. Nine of every ten Yellowstone bison that died were killed beyond the park’s northern border in the Upper Yellowstone River Valley. The goal, park officials say, is to eventually reduce the number of bison to between 3,000 and 3,500.
Since the mid 1980s, more than 10,400 of the Yellowstone icons have been killed for wandering into Montana based on the now-debunked premise that they represent imminent threats of passing the disease brucellosis to domestic cattle. Critics say the “hunting” of park bison is anything but a sporting proposition; most animals are accustomed to people and do not flee.
The question is not only why more bison continue to be slaughtered or placed in quarantine, but also what are the consequences of removing animals that are merely acting upon ancient biological instincts to escape deep snow at higher elevations and move to lower-lying grasslands outside the park?
° ° °

 

To be clear, the following parallel drawn between bison and elk is not intended to be a blanket anti-hunting statement. However, it has been asserted by government wildlife officials I’ve spoken with that when hunters opened fire on elk migrating out of Yellowstone across its northern border into Montana this fall, and for those who formed a firing line shooting at elk sprinting for their lives across Grand Teton National Park, there was no sophisticated selection or discrimination going on related to which animals were being felled.

 

Quite the opposite.

 

During those years in the late 1980s and 1990s when the state of Montana conducted its elk reduction near Gardiner, Montana to dramatically reduce the number of wapiti on Yellowstone’s northern range, late season elk hunts were held in which pregnant cow elk were killed. Thousands of elk were eliminated and veteran sportsmen I knew called the scene the antithesis of ethical hunting.

 

People forget—especially those who hate wolves—that before wolves were restored in the mid 1990s, many of those same individuals lobbed a fusillade of criticisms at Yellowstone, claiming the park was mismanaged and the northern range grossly overgrazed by 19,000 elk.

 

Moreover, they either forget or deny that wolves, in reducing elk numbers, have produced a number of ecological dividends. Though there is widespread dispute over whether there has been a full-blown “trophic cascade effect”, having fewer elk has dramatically changed the way the landscape is being used.
The number of wapiti on Yellowstone’s northern range today is closer to 6,000 which move seamless in and out of the park, and there are actually far fewer wolves in the park now than a decade ago. In recent years, bison have become more numerous. Some now claim, including Yellowstone, that the park’s northern rangelands hold too many bison.

 

While wolves have received much of the blame for fewer elk, no intense analysis has ever been done on the ripple effects caused by humans, poised along the park border in Montana, killing so many female elk of prime reproductive age; no analysis has been done on what the removal of big elk bulls has meant to the gene pool or even what effect those factors had on leaving elk in a better position—or worse—in being able to fend off predation by wolves.
Bison herd with calves in Lamar Valley; NPS / Neal Herbert
Bison herd with calves in Lamar Valley; NPS / Neal Herbert

 

Similarly, it’s reasonable to ask, what effect has the indiscriminate, non-selective slaughter of more than 10,000 Yellowstone bison wandering into Montana, killed under the dubious premise that they represent an ominous risk of brucellosis transmission to private cattle herds, had on the health of the park’s bison herd? As many wonder aloud, how have the killing fields in Montana, along both the park’s northern and western boundaries, affected the social dynamics of Yellowstone’s bison?

 

Bison moving out of the park carry with them an age-old, deeply-engrained instinct—to migrate. What does it mean to continuously remove those animals which are only following their evolutionary drive to leave higher elevation areas inundated by heavy snows in winter, seeking instead better places to feed on grass at lower elevations? How has snuffing out this instinct, by slaughtering bison in mass, contributed to the current problem of so many bison now congregated on Yellowstone’s northern range and causing some perceived overgrazing problems?

 

° ° °

 

Yellowstone today finds itself boxed-in by the state of Montana. Yellowstone officials have said that in order to preserve the ecological and genetic integrity of park bison a minimum of between 3,000 and 3,500 needs to be maintained across decades. Yellowstone and its mountain setting, however, is actually not a place where bison would naturally choose of their own accord to congregate.
Many of Yellowstone’s bison are descended from just 26 wild survivors that found refuge in the park during the late 19th century when a species that once numbered between 30 million and 60 million was reduced to mere hundreds. Yellowstone became a safe harbor because of its geographic remoteness. Survivors of near extinction—the equivalent of a biological holocaust perpetuated on them—conservationists and indigenous people argue that Yellowstone’s bison herds deserve to therefore be treated with special, almost sacred, status.

 

Yellowstone northern range has been compared to a mini-American Serengeti for the diversity of large wild mammals that move across it. One partial antidote, a way to address to some of those bison grazing concerns instead of keeping the animals bottled up in the park, would be opening up more space outside Yellowstone. But the state of Montana has historically refused and only recently, owed to growing public pressure, has it been willing to consider offering bison greater flexibility to be bison.

 

Expecting any wild animal to remain contained behind an invisible human line drawn on a map that does not conform to the biological need of the species defies not only logic but the laws of nature. It may be what ranchers do with non-native livestock, by stringing barbed wire and pasturing animals bred to be docile, but wildlife biologists say it has no grounding in sound 21st-century ecology, ethical treatment or respect for a beloved national symbol that is on the seal of the U.S. Interior Department.

 

Notably, bison are the only species in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem that are not allowed to naturally migrate or roam. Elk and mule deer can, so too pronghorn and moose, trumpeter swans and fish. Montana’s intolerance of bison cannot, with any semblance of truth, be based upon the threat of brucellosis so what is the real reason?.

 

Brucellosis is a serious, highly-contagious zoonotic disease and in bovine animals involves a bacteria Brucella abortus. In the past, it was considered more a health threat to humans who drank unpasteurized milk. In wildlife and livestock, B. abortus does not cause animals to die nor is it population limiting. It is more of a trade issue with barriers put up against states that have brucellosis in their livestock herds. In female animals, be they bison, elk or cattle, it causes pregnant mothers to abort their first calves but generally does not affect reproduction afterwards. For 40 years, it was thought that bison represented the greatest threat of transmission.

 

“During my time in Yellowstone, I have watched with great interest — and some amazement — that bison are vilified as the primary threat or vector for brucellosis transition in the ecosystem,” Yellowstone Superintendent Dan Wenk wrote in the peer-reviewed book Yellowstone Bison: Conserving an American Icon in Modern Society. “There is an illusory belief that if brucellosis were eliminated in bison it would be eliminated from the ecosystem. The authors [in this book] clearly state that this scenario is unlikely and that bison make up a small portion of the overall risk for brucellosis transmission to cattle.”

Source: The Killing Fields Await Yellowstone Bison Once Again

Coexisting with coyotes (and wolves and bears and …) in Illinois 

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

Humans, have taken for granted their right to exterminate any creatures that pose a danger, It is now more imperative than ever that we come together to establish a “Sacred Resource Protection Zone” Surrounding our National Parks.

Join The Howl today, With all of our followers pitching in with even just $5.00 per month, We can put one state into court Every Single Month

Our Sacred Yellowstone and Teton Wolves are being ruthlessly slaughtered in Wyoming, which is only the first species. If We allow the greedy Politicians to have their way, Our Sacred Grizzly Brother will be next

Fine, and we accept Anchor’s point that there’s never been a documented case of a coyote biting a person in Cook County. But how should we humans react to increasingly frequent encounters with wildlife in this sprawling metropolis?

In Grayslake, police Chief Phil Perlini was confronted with two separate attacks on small dogs by coyotes near the village. This fall, he posted on Facebook that he was in the market for trappers “to control and/or curb the coyote population.”

But like these animals, people are adaptable. “When I posted that very first Facebook post, I didn’t know anything about coyotes,” he told the Daily Herald. “The thought of humanely trapping the coyotes and humanely relocating them was a possibility in my head.”

Give the chief credit for trying to address the problem without bloodshed. But he learned from wildlife experts that catching and moving the critters wouldn’t solve anything. Remove one coyote from a livable area, and another one will jump at the vacancy.

Those relocated stand a good chance of being killed by other coyotes guarding their territory. Some will be hit by cars trying to get back to where they were caught. Killing campaigns don’t work, either, because the surviving coyotes adapt: They tend to breed at younger ages and bear larger litters in response.

“There is no eliminating this problem,” Perlini concluded. “There’s only coexisting.”

There is a lot more coexisting than there used to be. Coyotes have greatly expanded their range and numbers in recent years, making them a frequent sight in many suburbs and also in Chicago, which is believed to have an established population of at least 2,000. They’ve found that residential areas offer plenty of food and sufficient cover to avoid detection.

Living in such places does present them the risk of unwanted encounters, most often involving dogs or cats, though actual attacks by coyotes are rare. Trying to protect pets by getting rid of coyotes, though, is a futile endeavor. It’s much more feasible to take simple precautions — such as not leaving pets outside unattended, not walking dogs without a leash, and not leaving pet food or garbage in places where it might attract coyotes. There are even ways to “coyote-proof” fences.

As wildlife goes, this type is not exceptionally frightening. People in the Southwest have to contend with rattlesnakes, whose bites can be fatal. People in Montana and Wyoming know the deadly capacity of grizzly bears. In Maine, hundreds of cars collide each year with moose, sometimes killing motorists. In recent years, northern Illinois has had occasional visits from mountain lions, wolves and black bears — animals whose ancestors freely roamed these lands.

Humans, who once took for granted their right to exterminate any creatures that pose a danger, increasingly accept their presence as a sensible accommodation with nature. Anyone leery of coyotes might consider that if these small-brained creatures can learn to coexist, we should be able to do the same.

Source: Coexisting with coyotes (and wolves and bears and …) in Illinois – Chicago Tribune

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

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Twitter Feed

Categories