Howling for Unity

The Slaughter of Wolves Will Continue

if We Fail to Come Together

Protect The Wolves™
Protect The Wolves™ dares to speak truth, and we do so not because we want to demean fellow advocates or other organizations. We believe that we, as the conservation community, must be willing to look at our actions and admit when we are wrong. Then we must be willing to unite and work as ONE voice. Using Tools that another group may have available that your group may not.

The conservation community has seemingly lost its soul and guiding principles with its actions, or lack of actions, to protect our Sacred wolves in the wild. Almost every group speaks out and says they support wolf recovery yet refuse to acknowledge the outspoken “Grass roots” Groups. Some groups choose to make science a focal point or to work with the livestock industry to find common ground. Others use lawsuits to try and reduce or prevent harm. Yet, many choose not to support a group with tools that can make a significant difference for wolves and other wildlife. Protect The Wolves™ has Native American rights, which are powerful tools we can use to fight for our Sacred Resources.

What conservation groups tend to overlook is that some of their actions, in many ways, have sold out our Sacred wolves in an effort to be reasonable and accommodating. In so doing, they have ultimately supported hunting seasons on wolves once their numbers recover, and lethal removal if there are a handful of cattle depredations. Supporting the notion that we can have a thriving wolf population, as well as zero loss of livestock to wolf depredation is unrealistic. Particularly when the cattle are grazing on public lands in known wolf territory. Which the grazing manager had the Power to shut down to eliminate this problem. Entire wolf packs have been destroyed, in some instances, to reward ranching interests and like-minded politicians. This “walking the fence” mentality represents a green light from the conservation community that says it is okay to defy the science and research that states the destruction of packs is detrimental and ill-advised.

It appears the conservation community is fighting for wolves without embracing their own weaknesses and coming together with strength and unity to protect a necessary Iconic Species that has been Sacred to Traditional thinking “Native Americans” since time immemorial. Our weaknesses are countered by the determined and unwavering voice of ranchers with their typical “OLD WEST” Mentality and their supporters in “Big Ag” and state government. We must get our hands dirty, and bring out the war paint in fighting for wolves. We must continue to apply pressure on our elected officials who yield to rancher interest groups. We must work to prevent individuals from special interest groups or with conflicts of interest to be selected for membership on Fish and Wildlife advisory groups and commissions. They are violating the mandates placed upon them under the Indian and Public trusts, which were put in place to protect our wildlife and natural resources. We must continue to promote education about wolves, even to the tribes. Wolves desperately need and deserve our united and fierce ONE voice!

Howl with Us in UNITY and put your eye back on the End Result the Wildlife and forget that the focus may end up using rights that you may not have available.

Stand with Protect The Wolves!

It would appear that Joel Kretz is making Indirect Death Threats to create Hostility Towards Dr. Wielgus

wolves in washington, protect the wolves

Read this and tell us what you think? Is Joel Kretz making indirect Death Threats against Dr. Wielgus? It would appear so to a prudent individual… Yet Kretz is still in office… WTF is WRONG in WASHINGTON STATE???? How is it that our Elected Officials let this Public Trust Violator to continue in any elected capacity? Look at the special interest influence by Tom Davis… Tom Davis needs to be removed from WAG as well!

Please sign our Petition to Impeach Joel Kretz: Washington Residents do not need this type of Politician… He is creating a huge Blackeye for Washington State.

Joel Kretzs Indirect Death Threat: Attempting to get Individuals to harass Dr. Wielgus

“He ought to be drawn and quartered and a chunk of him left everywhere in the district,” Kretz said in an interview then with The Seattle Times, saying Wielgus had a vendetta against McIrvin.

Kretz, incensed, demanded an apology from WSU just as public as the remarks Wielgus had made — and got it. The university quickly issued a news release disavowing Wielgus’s statements and asserting that Wielgus had admitted he had no basis in fact for making them.

In a letter of concern written into his personnel file, Wielgus was instructed by Ron Mittelhammer, the dean of the College of Agriculture, Human and Natural Resource Sciences to have no further contact with the media without first clearing his statements with WSU. Wielgus duly went silent as the furor raged.

“He ought to be drawn and quartered and a chunk of him left everywhere in the district,” Kretz said in an interview then with The Seattle Times, saying Wielgus had a vendetta against McIrvin.

“I think he is agenda-driven; it’s incredible damage,” Kretz said. “This is not science, it is advocacy. I would say it’s beyond advocacy, it’s baldfaced lying to the public. I don’t want to see a nickel go through his hands.”

Wielgus says today that he could have been more diplomatic; his public remarks at the time included saying “go ahead and quote me: ‘Wherever McIrvin grazes … dead wolves follow.’ Quote me. He’ll be proud of it!”

Confusing message

Wielgus’ conflicts with the university would continue, after he emailed a news release reporting the latest findings from his lab to the state’s Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) and others as the group debated wolf policy for 2017.

Wolf kills of livestock were exceedingly rare, Wielgus reported, occurring in fewer than 1 percent of the livestock tracked by his lab. Only in the case of the Profanity Peak pack, where cattle and a salt block to attract them were milling around the wolves’ activity area, had there been multiple calf kills, more than anywhere else surveyed, Wielgus reported.

Wielgus had sent the release to WSU communications staff and administrators and received preapproval by Mittelhammer before putting it out as his personal opinion and not on behalf of the university, as they requested. But that strategy, intended to create distance between Wielgus and WSU, just created confusion.

In an email to Mulick, the WSU state relations director, Tom Davis, of the Washington Farm Bureau and a WAG member, objected that Wielgus was sending out a press release about his publicly funded research findings but labeling them his personal opinion. He also said he wouldn’t attend the meeting if Wielgus was allowed to speak.

Mittelhammer went into response mode, personally meeting with Kretz and other lawmakers, then attending the advisory group meeting with several WSU officials. He followed up with a letter to lawmakers on April 12 reassuring them “while an irritant, the deliberations of the WAG were fortunately not significantly affected by Dr. Wielgus’ attempt to influence the group’s deliberations through the dissemination of his so-called “press release” document.

“That said, on a more individual and personal basis, it did also appear that Dr. Wielgus’ actions did negatively impact a number of individuals in the room who felt that the document reinvigorated negative feelings toward ranchers by wolf protectionists.”

He assured the lawmakers he had sent Wielgus a second “memo of concern,” and promised to follow up with investigations of whether Wielgus had broken state law by illegal lobbying and sending the press release on his state email account. He also promised an internal review of Wielgus’ 2014 wolf paper.

By May, WSU President Kirk Schulz informed Mittelhammer he was concerned WSU might be branded with an “anti-ranching sentiment.”

In other emails, the university president and Mittelhammer agreed they needed to address the school’s relationship with ranchers in future faculty hires. “I feel that they need an internal champion or person that they can work with,” Schulz wrote.

“No evidence of research misconduct”

By then, WSU had cleared Wielgus of any scientific wrongdoing. On May 29, Christopher Keane, the vice president for research at WSU, wrote Kretz and Senate Majority Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, thanking them for meeting with him in Olympia to express concern about Wielgus’ research.

However, the result of the subsequent independent review completed by a WSU statistician was clear: “There is no evidence of research misconduct in this matter,” Keane wrote.

But for faculty at WSU, the message nonetheless was clear, said Donna Potts, president of the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the nation’s oldest and largest advocacy group for academic freedom. “It was very disturbing; I had never seen anything like it,” Potts, a member of the English department, said of WSU’s treatment of a senior faculty member.

Former deputy director at Washington’s Department of Fish and Wildlife is awaiting trial


Protect The Wolves™ will be soon adding a recent bit of  news to this Story from a Confirmed Source, that used to work for wdfw. Once we get a signed Release statement from the Source We will be adding the story. It is very sad that the WDFW allows this form of thing below to happen at the Taxpayer Expense. This inappropriate behavior in the WDFW workplace needs to be addressed immediately to Protect the women presently there as well as those to come in the future!

WDFW paid that individual your taxpayer dollars while they were investigating the charges against him…. Pretty sad that state employees that commit crimes get paid leave…. wdfw Police, etc….

Seattle: A former deputy director at Washington’s Department of Fish and Wildlife is awaiting trial on charges he broke into the home of a co-worker and raped her while she slept.

The case has revealed a sexually-charged culture within the agency that one employee described as “a pattern of behavior that was not hidden.”

The alleged rape happened on the evening of December 17, 2014. Earlier that evening senior managers from the Fish and Wildlife department had gathered for their annual holiday party at an Italian restaurant in Olympia. After dinner a small group went out to the bars, including the victim and her alleged attacker.

The next morning the victim called police and reported that she had found signs of a break-in at her house and had intermittent memories of being sexually assaulted while she slept.

Soon the name of a possible suspect surfaced: Greg Schirato, the deputy assistant director of the Wildlife program at Fish and Wildlife. In April 2015, Schirato was charged with second-degree rape and first-degree burglary.

By then, Schirato was on paid leave while an outside law firm hired by Fish and Wildlife investigated dueling allegations of sexual harassment by Schirato and his alleged victim.

Public radio’s Northwest News Network, The News Tribune and The Olympian obtained that report through a public records request. The 29-page report described Schirato as an “influential member” of the executive management team who often talked about sexual topics at work and even tried to recruit co-workers to engage in sex.

Schirato described his life as “unorthodox” but told investigators he “maintained a ‘bright line’ and did not discuss sex or use sexualized language at work.”

Co-workers told a different story. One manager said Schirato regularly talked about “getting naked at parties.” Another employee said Schirato told her about meeting a couple and going up to their hotel room to watch them have sex.

Deputy Director Joe Stohr, the number two in the agency, recalled Schirato telling him at work about a birthday party in Las Vegas that involved women in a hot tub.

“It was just kind of a passing comment and I thought, ‘oh, that’s kind of odd,’ and just kind of kept going,” Stohr said in an interview.

In fact, the report shows a pattern of letting Schirato’s behavior slide. For instance, his workplace conversations had triggered two previous complaints. But in both instances they were not reported to senior managers or human resources and no action was taken against him.

“When you have managers and supervisors who don’t respond right away or at all, that inaction has the outcome of normalizing an environment that can become completely dysfunctional,” said Kristen Houser with the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

She said inappropriate behavior in the workplace needs to be addressed immediately.

Women in the agency found different ways to deal with the sexualized environment. One said she put up with it because she didn’t want “make mountains out of molehills.” Another said she focused on improving her relationship with Schirato because he was part of her “work family.” A third described herself as a “consensual and active participant” in conversations about sex.

“When supervisors aren’t addressing these behaviors that means that your employees end up suffering in silence, or they can take another job, or they can join in,” Houser said. “And when people join in it becomes toxic.”

In addition to describing Schirato’s behavior, the report describes an after-hours group of “up and comers” at Fish and Wildlife who would go out for drinks a few times a year. The report says the group was known as the “T-dub group.”

The report says that name was short for “teamwork,” but Schirato told investigators it was also short for a vulgar term used to describe a woman’s private parts.

Schirato was ultimately fired, although he’s appealing to get his job back. His criminal defense attorney, Richard Woodrow of Olympia, said the culture at Fish and Wildlife was a factor in the alleged rape case.

“I think that set the background for the accusation to be made,” Woodrow said.

Woodrow said he’s confident Schirato, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, will be found not guilty at trial. He suggested Fish and Wildlife is culpable for not better policing the line between professional and personal lives.

“Not only did people cross that line, but other people saw it and nobody seemed to feel that that was an issue,” Woodrow said.

The investigation commissioned by Fish and Wildlife, at a cost of $47,629, concluded that there was no evidence upper level managers at Fish and Wildlife “condoned inappropriate workplace conduct.”

Fish and Wildlife hired the firm to determine whether Schirato and his alleged victim sexually harassed each other at work; it concluded that they did not.

Investigators determined they had previously had a consensual relationship, and that Schirato may have said things to his alleged victim at work that were inappropriate but, they determined, not unwelcome.

However, the alleged victim disputes that characterization of their relationship. She no longer works for Fish and Wildlife and declined to be interviewed for this story because of the pending criminal trial.

The investigators did find that Schirato sexually harassed a different, subordinate employee with comments like “I can’t believe how beautiful you are; you look so amazing.”

Surprisingly, near the end, the report mentions complaints colleagues had about how the alleged victim dressed at work and behavior they viewed as “flirtatious.”

Asked why the report examined the attire and conduct of an alleged rape victim, Stohr said the Fish and Wildlife investigation was focused on evaluating cross allegations of sexual harassment.

“There were counter accusations so the investigator, I think, was looking at both sides,” Stohr said. “‘He said, she said,’ and that was part of the evaluation.”

No one besides Schirato was fired or disciplined as a result of the report’s findings. Nor did the findings prompt the agency to undertake a broader effort to assess or change the workplace culture.

The director of the Fish and Wildlife, Jim Unsworth, did remind staff of the agency’s policies on maintaining a safe and respectful workplace. In the wake of the alleged rape, the agency also made counselors available and brought in the Thurston County Dispute Resolution Center to lead group discussions on creating a safe work environment.

Employees were also urged to come forward if they witness or experience harassment or inappropriate behavior in the workplace.

To this day, Stohr insists the sexualized culture involved a small group of employees and was not reflective of the agency at large.

“I can understand how people would think that if that’s the way they behave, that’s a widespread problem. That’s not my sense,” Stohr said.

Source: After Alleged Rape, Investigation Reveals Sexualized Culture At Washington State Agency | KUOW News and Information

Did Rich Landers get bought off by the Ranchers? He Certainly didnt check with the BIA


Rich Landers

Poor Photoshop job by the source Rich Landers FB page

Protect The Wolves™ has to question if Rich Landers now has Ranchers in his front pockets steering him about…. His stories are beginning to look alot like those on SCCA’s Website…. who are trying to lead the public to believe all the allotment nepas are done, when in fact we know first hand that they are not….

Just Goes to Show what Rich Landers doesnt have a clue about also….. be nice if he actually printed the truth 😉 We have news for you Rich…. prior to printing, you probably should have consulted the BIA like we did 😉 Just sayin….

We have a nice article coming here pretty soon… When Our Colville Elder friends that are tired of their own “Clowncil” give them as they refer to them get an eye opener…

Article Below by Rich Landers Spokesman Review,

ENDANGERED SPECIES – While animal advocate groups write letters and court the media and public for more “transparency” in managing Washington’s recovering wolf population, Native Americans are expanding their options for wolf hunting.

Animal groups seem to go frantic every time a wolf is threatened or removed for killing livestock, as though wolves are sacred. State and federal endangered species rules protect wolves but make provisions for managing animals that threaten people or livestock.

The Tribes aren’t bound by state and federal rules and can hunt wolves under rules set by their tribal wildlife officials.

Wolf experts and recovery advocates say limited hunting of wolves is necessary in the long run to make sure wolves maintain their wariness of humans.

Animal advocates stumped the media and generated a lot of press in the past week, including Northwest Public Radio and the Seattle Times, for demanding that the Washington Department of Wildlife provide the public details of wolf management activities virtually in real time.

Here’s the deal: Wolf management shouldn’t be reduced to a play-by-play like a tennis match.  Pro-wolf groups’ claims that killing  a wolf here or there will ruin pack dynamics and set back wolf recovery have been proven false.  Hysteria and headlines might make their “donate now” buttons light up, but it doesn’t serve the future of wolves meshing with humans on public and private land.

The same day that wolf-lover campaign was released last week, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation approved wolf hunting for tribal members in land off its reservation in northeast Washington state. Since 2012, the tribe already has allowed a wolf hunting season on the reservation within Washington, where wolf hunting otherwise is prohibited.

This is not a slaughter. Last year, the tribe reported one wolf being killed by a member who shot the wolf incidentally while he was hunting deer. The quota of wolves tribal members can kill during the Aug. 1-Feb. 28 seasonson the reservation is three.

The tribes on Thursday voted to expand wolf hunting in land north of its reservation to the U.S.-Canada border, on mostly national forest lane where the tribes retain hunting and fishing rights. The quota on the “north half” of the tribes’ territory is three wolves a season.

Colville Tribal Fish and Wildlife Director, Randy Friedlander, says creating regulated seasons ensures tribal members have the opportunity to legally shoot a wolf if encountered at certain times of the year, the Seattle Times reported.

Critics worry that increasing the hunt will lead to more poaching and trapping, which is highly debatable. It could be just the opposite.

Meanwhile, other groups including cattlemen applauded the move as a way to reduce livestock kills.

Source: Colville Tribe expands wolf hunting off reservation while pro-wolf groups wail | The Spokesman-Review

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar


%d bloggers like this: