WSU FOIA Request appears to be collaborating with Donny Martorello WDFW

protect washington wolves, protect the wolves


WSU FOIA Request appears to be collaborating with Donny Martorello WDFW

Recent WSU FOIA Request,  shows that WDFW and WSU were coordinating a joint response against Wielgus; but then WDFW backed out. Which  does not remove them from being GUILTY of collaboration against Dr Wielgus.

  WDFW is as dirty as WSU, along with the same elected officials that used their positions to influence WSU to come out against Dr Robert Wielgus. It would appear to a prudent individual, that these are all blatant violations of the Trusts. Donny Martorello clearly needs to be replaced, as well as the Elected officials that threatened WSU with Funding Cuts.

After seeing this Email,  it is in fact WSU that has brought shame upon themselves. Especially after Dr. Wielgus Time and date stamped pictures were produced as he told us during our Interview with him last August.

See Email sent from Colleen Kerr at WSU to Donny Martorello:



Washington State University, the WSU College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resources Sciences, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) issue the following joint statement regarding public statements made by  Dr Rob Wielgus, associate professor and director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at WSU, related to the Profanity Peak Wolf Pack. 

Some of Dr. Wielgus’ statements in regard to this controversial issue have been both inaccurate and inappropriate, including misrepresenting the actions of local cattle owners. As such, they have contributed substantially to the growing anger and confusion about this significant wildlife management issue and have unfairly jeopardized the WDFW Wolf Advisory Group’s many-months long stakeholder process. Moreover, the statements do not in any way represent the views or position of Washington State University or the WSU College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resources Sciences. These statements are disavowed by our institutions.  


We offer the following corrections of the information in the public arena:

In an article published by the Seattle Times on Aug. 25, 2016, Dr. Wielgus stated that a particular livestock operator had “elected to put his livestock directly on top of (the wolves’) den site; we have pictures of cows swamping it…”

In fact, the rancher identified in the article did not intentionally place livestock at or near the den site of the Profanity Peak wolf pack, and Dr. Wielgus subsequently acknowledged that he had no basis in fact for making such a statement. In actuality, the livestock were released at low elevation on the east side of the Kettle Crest more than 4 miles from the den site, and dispersed throughout the allotments based on instructions found in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). The CC mountain allotment is more than 30,000 acres and livestock are generally moved from pasture to pasture following an established rotation.


In the same article, Dr. Wielgus stated that a particular cattle rancher had also “refused to radio-collar his cattle to help predict and avoid interactions with radio-collared wolves” and that there had been no documented “cattle kills among producers who are participating in research studies and very few among producers using Fish and Wildlife’s protocol.”

In fact, the rancher identified in the article has held a term grazing permit for 73 years and has worked with both the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service in the management of livestock in order to avoid conflict – following procedures outlined by the Washington Wolf Advisory Group. In order to reduce wolf/livestock conflict, the rancher has modified livestock rotation practices and utilized range riders to ensure livestock safety. While the rancher  is not currently participating in Dr. Wielgus’ ongoing study, radio-collaring of livestock is not a Wolf Advisory Group procedure nor is it 100 percent effective at preventing depredations. It is inaccurate to state that there have been no cattle kills among producers participating in the study. There is at least one permittee who is participating in the study who has incurred livestock depredations.


The decision to eliminate the Profanity Peak Wolf pack came after two years of careful work and scientific analysis by the Washington State Wolf Advisory Group, consisting of a collaboration between scientists, industry, and conservation partners.  Washington State University subscribes to the highest standards of research integrity and will not and cannot condone inaccurate or misleading statements by faculty members that have the effect of compromising that integrity. 


Regarding future steps for preventing subsequent inaccurate or inappropriate statements, we are implementing applicable internal university processes.   

WSU apologizes to our friends, our science partners, and to the public for the inaccurate and inappropriate statements made by one of our faculty members.


Statisticians counter WSU prof’s findings/ yet Depredations rose after slaughtering wolves

wolves in washington, protect the wolves

Dr. Wielgus Research was reviewed by PLOS ONE Peers prior to publication!

So Called statisticians makes statement ” the year after the wolves were killed, livestock attacks went down”

We are Curious…. after wiping out wolves last year, depredations in WA rose this year…. What is it that these particular statisticians are smoking? We are Just saying….

It appears there is either Cattle Money or elected official influence behind this latest attack on Dr. Wielgus. right behind Kretzs indirect Death Threats against him,  Joel Kretz appears to have Violated Washington State LAW and By violating this RCW he appears to be guilty of criminal harassment under WA law. RCW 9A.46.020.
Clearly anyone who has half a brain knows that Cattle Depredation went way up this year in Washington. Actually proving Wielgus research as accurate…. Bit Then we have Martorello trying to hide his Special Interest policy that was put in place without involving the Public, or the BIA. Martorello has refused to contact the BIA for over a Year according to the BIA until just recently. Yet these influential Individuals are still trying to get Dr. Wielgus Research discredited. Protect The Wolves™ will not sit by and watch this happen without digging into this.

We are sick and tired of the crooked officials in Washington allowing Public Trust Violations that are happening  at the hands of Public employees like Martorello and Unsworth, then their lil “Special Interest” infected Wolf Advisory Group.

Requirements to get published in PLOS ONE

Peer review

The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. After agreeing to review a manuscript, external reviewers are typically granted 10 days to complete the assignment. We will follow up with late reviewers and keep authors informed if there are any delays.

Will authors know who is reviewing their manuscript?
Reviewers are anonymous by default. Reviewers’ identities are not revealed to authors or to other reviewers unless reviewers specifically request to be identified by signing their names at the end of their comments.

Will authors know the identity of the editor reviewing their manuscript?
The Academic Editor is anonymous to authors and reviewers unless and until a manuscript is accepted for publication. The editor’s name is then indicated in the published article.

Will editors and reviewers know the names of authors during review?
The names of the authors are not anonymous to reviewers or editors during review so that they can assess potential conflicts of interest.

Can authors ask to exclude reviewers?
Authors may enter the names of potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer review of their manuscript.  The editorial team will respect these requests so long as this does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

How many reviewers will a manuscript have?
The majority of PLOS ONE submissions are evaluated by 2 external reviewers, but it is up to the Academic Editor to determine the number of reviews required.

When reviews have been received, authors may see the status “Required Reviews Complete.” Please note that additional reviews may still be pending after this status is activated.

Editorial decisions

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Academic Editor. The time to receive a decision depends on how long it takes for the editor to assess the reviews.

While the Academic Editor is entering the decision, authors may see the status “Decision in Process.” When the decision is final, authors will receive the notification by email and see the decision term in the submission system.

What are the possible decision outcomes?

After evaluation, the Academic Editor chooses between the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Article from Spokesman Review…. clearly didnt think it prudent to look up PLOS ONE Requirements See article snippett Below:

ENDANGERED SPECIES — A Washington State University professor erred in controversial research released in 2014 suggesting that killing wolves that attack cattle is counterproductive because it stimulates more attacks, according to a statistical analysis released today.

Working with a Ph.D. statistician, the Washington Policy Center analyzed the data provided by Dr. Robert Wielgus and found several problems with conclusions that are widely used by critics of Washington’s wolf management, especially in cases where wolves are killed.

“Rather than support his hypothesis, his own data point in the opposite direction, supporting the state’s policy of removing wolves when there is a conflict and undermining Wielgus’ own hypothesis,” says Todd Myers of Seattle-based WPC, a conservative think tank that promotes public policy based on free-market solutions.

Since 2011, Washington has periodically resorted lethally remove wolves — from one or two to an entire pack in one case — when to stop continued attacks on livestock.

Source: Statisticians counter WSU prof’s findings that killing wolves does more harm than good | The Spokesman-Review

Complaint Claims Washington Lawmaker Pressured WSU To Punish Wolf Researcher 

protect the wolves

Peers Complaint Claims Washington Lawmaker Pressured WSU To Punish Wolf Researcher but it also appears he broke the Law!

It appears that Joel Kretz has Violated Washington State LAW. By violating an RCW he appears to be guilty of criminal harassment under WA law. RCW 9A.46.020.  by issuing indirect death threats against Dr. Robert Wielgus along with influencing policy as a special interest Rancher, as well as violating mandates upon him under the public trust.

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

A group that advocates for public employees has filed an ethics complaint against northeast Washington Representative Joel Kretz.

The Republican representative from the 7th district has been cited by the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, as inappropriately pressuring Washington State University officials to take action against a leading wolf researcher and WSU faculty member.

PEER has filed an ethics complaint, citing numerous incidents over the past six years where Kretz contacted WSU administrators and researchers and issued threats in order to dictate the direction of the schools carnivore research, specifically that of Dr. Robert Wielgus.

Adam Carlesco, PEER spokesman, says Kretz’s actions resulted in the University issuing a press release that disavowed Dr. Wielgus’s statements concerning a northeast Washington wolf pack.

“This essentially served as a character assassination,” Carlesco said. “This was a researcher who was essentially at the top of his game, who was the leading large carnivore researcher in the Northwest, who then was given gag orders not to speak to the press, all of his research had to be filtered through administrators, and had been threatened with firing.”

Rep. Kretz feels the charges are overblown.

“There are no ethical violations,” he said. “To rise to that level, you’ve got to be doing something that benefits you personally. There’s no way this does. In fact, my efforts have been to bring the two sides together and reach some solutions where we have both a population of wolves and also a viable ranching community so, there are a number of ranching folks that are upset that I would go that far, so I’m getting it from both sides.”

Wielgus had been critical of ranchers in northeast Washington whose cattle were killed by the Profanity Peak wolf pack, saying that the rancher intentionally released his livestock directly on top of a wolf den site, leading to cattle loss.

WSU officials later said some of Dr. Wielgus’ statements were inaccurate and inappropriate.

Source: Complaint Claims Washington Lawmaker Pressured WSU To Punish Wolf Researcher | Northwest Public Radio

Risk map for wolf threats to livestock still predictive 5 years after construction. 

profanity peak pack, protect the wolves

WDFW/ODFW Martorello/Brown, perhaps you should educate yourselves, and begin recognizing that you need to manage our resources based on science, and not Ranchers…. to alleviate or stop depredation…. remove the cows from the problem areas or ban grazing altogether! You have now proven these studies 100% accurate…. However your failure to manage our resources in the best interest of the public not just the Rancher is a crime and will begin to be addressed as such!

Risk map for wolf threats to livestock still predictive 5 years after construction

Joseph K. Bump, Editor


Risk maps are spatial models of environmental hazards such as predation on livestock. We tested the long-term validity of a published risk map built from locations where Wisconsin wolves attacked livestock from 1999–2006. Using data collected after model construction, we verified the predictive accuracy of the risk map exceeded 91% for the period 2007–2011. Predictive power lasting 5 years or more substantiates the claim that risk maps are both valid and verified tools for anticipating spatial hazards. Classification errors coincided with verifier uncertainty about which wolves might be responsible. Perceived threats by wolves to domestic animals were not as well predicted (82%) as verified attacks had been and errors in classification coincided with incidents involved domestic animals other than bovids and verifier uncertainty about which wolves were involved. We recommend risk maps be used to target interventions selectively at high-risk sites.


Risk maps are predictive models with spatial components that distinguish locations by the probabilities that an environmental hazard occurs there. Risk maps have attracted growing interest in various environmental and crime prevention fields [14], because the algorithms and spatial data needed to build and validate them have become more available and sophisticated. The sophistication has permitted investigators to verify that risk probabilities are valid and truly predictive. True verification using data that were not included in model construction remains a rare but valuable step for the external validation of risk maps.

Here we test the hypothesis that a risk map has predictive power up to 5 years beyond its construction date. We built a risk map of gray wolf (Canis lupus) predation on cattle using 133 verified attacks in Wisconsin, USA, from 1999–2006 [3]. In that publication, we verified that risk map with 60 additional incidents from 2007–2009, which had not been used in model construction (Fig 1A). The risk map correctly predicted 88% of those new sites were high-risk [3]. Here we take one step further to evaluate quantitatively if the risk map had predictive power through 2011, using 122 additional locations statewide, which accumulated after publication of [3]. We also examine patterns of errors


Source: Risk map for wolf threats to livestock still predictive 5 years after construction. – PubMed – NCBI

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Twitter Feed