Are Washington State’s wolves  on the move?

protect the wolves

NATIVE TO THE Olympic Mountain range — how else would there be a Grey Wolf River or the Sequim Wolves sports teams — wolves are showing an ability to range further than many previously thought.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has produced new maps that show the state’s grey wolf population has moved further west than officials previously thought — although it appears no wolves have reached the I-5 corridor or made any other moves in the direction of the North Olympic Peninsula.

Data is taken from GPS collars Fish and Wildlife has strapped to various breeding males and females and other pack members around the state since 2008.

More wolves haven’t been collared than have, so it wouldn’t be correct to completely rule out the possibility of wolves venturing deeper into Western Washington.

The maps represent “the most complete dataset currently available of wolf telemetry in Washington State,” according to Fish and Wildlife, although GPS data is unavailable for the Colville and Spokane Indian reservations in the heart of wolf territory in Northeast Washington.

Donny Martorello, Fish and Wildlife’s wolf policy adviser, presented the new information at a meeting of the state Fish and Wildlife Commission earlier this month and that presentation can be accessed at

They show Loup Loup pack wolves, named for the Eastern Washington mountain pass on state Highway 20, moving further north through state and federal land to the Okanogan and Chewuch valleys.

The map also shows the Marblemount wolf, a wolf captured and collared in Western Washington last spring near North Cascades National Park, seemingly enjoys the scenery and hasn’t made much, if any, of a journey since.

One animal really made a trek, leaving Washington north of Spokane, following I-90 as it moves east into western Montana, then heading southwest over Lolo Pass to the Clearwater River. The wolf continued its travels into southern Idaho, making its way near Boise, before crossing all the way to Yellowstone National Park and heading to the middle of Wyoming.

I hope the animal found whatever it was looking for.

Citizen sightings

Citizen-submitted wolf sightings, some with commentary on just what was seen, are available at

North Olympic Peninsula sightings are few and far between — but there have been some.

In October, a report was made of a wolf on the Shi-Shi Beach Trail.

“One lone adolescent grey wolf observed directly on the Shi Shi Beach Trail from approximately 5 to 10 yards. Gray with white outer fur layer. It spooked into the brush, but remained clearly visible up close for several minutes.”

Many of these “sightings” are large paw prints found in sand on area beaches, like one in 2016 at Adelma Beach near Port Townsend, and another series of prints along the Dungeness River near the Olympic Game Farm.

The only area with multiple sightings, two in total, comes along state Highway 104 between Hood Canal Bridge and the Center Road exit. One of the reports in 2012 was based off of a paw print. Another from last August, describes a witnessed animal as “Large. Dark brown-black. White markings.”

Off the Peninsula, many sightings come from the Seattle-Everett-Tacoma metroplex, some found walking through parking lots at apartment complexes, one in the brush behind the Lake Stevens Target store and one that was “cornered in my driveway on my way to work this morning.”

I tend to think these are all signs of coyotes or cougars but after seeing the winding path that lone wolf took through Washington, Idaho, Montana and back through Idaho to Wyoming, I can’t be sure.

Be careful out there, the wolves may be closing in.


Source: OUTDOORS: State’s wolves are on the move | Peninsula Daily News

PEER respectfully submits this complaint about USDAS Data Quality

protect the wolves, sacred resource protection zone

It is past time that we begin to hold the USDA accountable and rein in their squandering of Taxpayer Funds!

December 20, 2017

Connie Williams, Chief, Program Evaluation and Decision Support
Quality of Information Officer
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 120
Riverdale, MD 20737
[email protected]
(301) 851-3087


Dear Ms. Williams,

PEER respectfully submits this complaint about Data Quality.
Pursuant to Section (b)(2)(B) of the Data Quality Act of 2000 (“DQA”), Section 515 of
Public Law 106-554, and the Correction of Information mechanism of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Information Quality Guidelines, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
(“PEER”) hereby challenges data manipulation and conclusions drawn therefrom by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (“USDA”), as detailed infra. PEER is especially concerned about the government’s
dissemination of faulty research that has been erroneously used to justify harmful, commonplace,
and excessive coyote control and extermination policies throughout federal lands despite more
recent, thorough, and peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating the importance of large
mammalian carnivores contributing to ecological health and stability. Specifically,
PEER challenges the government’s continued reliance upon the USDA-funded study Connolly, G.E., and
W.M. Longhurst, 1975, The effects of control on coyote populations: A simulation model, University
of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences Bulletin, Volume 1872, 37 pp. (hereinafter
“Connolly and Longhurst study”).

The USDA has consistently used this study for over 40 years, despite its established
flaws and disputed findings, to justify large-scale coyote extermination efforts – even though the
study’s own findings stated that eradication efforts were not an effective means of preventing
depredation. In addition to being used to justify large-scale coyote control (i.e., killing2programs),

this obscure (i.e., a small agricultural bulletin) and non-peer reviewed study has been
cited and utilized in a variety of USDA documents over the years to justify a variety of agency
actions related to coyote management. See, e.g., Paul L. Hegdal et al., Hazards to Wildlife
Associated with 1080 Baiting for California Ground Squirrels, USDA National Wildlife
Research Center – Staff Publications (1979); Guy E. Connolly, The Effects of Control on Coyote
Populations: Another Look, Symposium Proceedings—Coyotes in the Southwest: A Compendium of Our
Knowledge 23 (1995); Kathleen A. Fagerstone and Gail Keirn, Wildlife Services—A Leader in
Developing Tools and Techniques for Managing Carnivores, USDA National Wildlife Research Center –
Staff Publications (2012); Eric Gese, Demographic and Spatial Responses of Coyotes to Changes in
Food and Exploitation, Wildlife Damage Management Conferences—Proceedings 131 (2005); John L.
Gittleman et al., “References” for Carnivore Conservation, USDA National Wildlife Research Center –
Staff Publications (2001); Gary Lee Nunley, Present and Historical Bobcat Population Trends in New
Mexico and the
West, Proceedings of the 8th Vertebrate Pest Conference 177, 180 (1978); Stewart W. Breck et al.,
Evaluating Lethal and Non-Lethal Management Options for Urban Coyotes (2016); William C. Pitt et
al., An Individual-Based Model of Canid Populations: Modelling Territoriality and Social Structure
(2003); USDA, 5 Year Environmental Monitoring Review for Predator Damage Management in Montana: FY
2002 through FY 2006 (2007).

Furthermore, USDA has relied upon this study for justification of coyote eradication efforts or
large scale control (i.e., killing) programs in numerous Environmental Assessments
and findings of no significant Impact under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §
4321, et seq (“NEPA”). This includes, but is not by any means limited to, Final EA: Predator Damage
and Conflict Management in Idaho (2016); Final EA: Reducing Coyote Damage to Livestock and rther
resources in Louisiana (2016); EA: Mammal Damage Management in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
(2015); EA: Reducing Mammal Damage in the State of North Carolina (2015); EA: Mammal Damage
Management in the State of Rhode Island (2014); EA: Mammal Damage Management in Arkansas (2013);
Decision and Finding of nosSignificant impact: Reducing Mammal Damage through an Integrated
Wildlife Damage Management Program in the State of New Jersey (2004); Decision and finding of no
significant Impact for Management of Coyote, Dog, and Red Fox on livestock in the Commonwealth of
Virginia (2002); Environmental Assessment and Decision/Finding of no significant impact for
Predator Damage Management in the College Station Animal Damage Control District Texas (1997).
While USDA guidelines limit challenge of material used in NEPA documents to the public comment
period for each NEPA document, it is evident from the recent and continued use of this study in
justifying coyote eradication and control efforts that the study is being disseminated by the USDA
and is clearly influential in both state and federal wildlife agency decision and policy-
making, despite its faulty nature.



MN Farmers believe wolves are attacking their cattle but is it Rustlers?

Calves disappear Ranchers immediately blame wolves without any proof/ Perhaps they be better on track if they blamed the 2 legged Predator!! It is poor Ranchers like this one that give good Ranchers, those that have proven they can live with Predators a Bad name!

“But, our best guess is there’s 118 missing calves. So, those 118 missing calves there’s no compensation for them.” Said Porter.

KITTSON COUNTY, Minn. (Valley News Live) Wolves are hunting down cattle in northern Minnesota and it’s costing small communities hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Some environmentalists say it’s not a problem at all. It’s a rebounding wolf population.

Others say the problem is due to big government regulations in Washington D.C. and Minnesota farmers, are saying something’s got to change.

Joe Wilebski has been farming on land in northern Minnesota his entire life. But The last few years, his cattle have struggled.

“It’s so disheartening. They don’t care about us.” Said Wilebski.

Farmers in Kittson County feel the federal government has left them behind.

Wolves in Minnesota were once on the endangered species list, but protective laws helped them rebound. So much so there was even a hunting season on wolves, but in 2014 a federal judge ended that. Farmers can’t even legally shoot wolves, unless they themselves feel threatened. As a result their bottom line is feeling threatened.

Kittson County Sheriff Steve Porter says, “It’s basically a thief stealing from them, stealing right out of their pocket.”

Now, the crime scenes county cops are investigating are whether or not wolves are responsible for missing livestock.

“Farmers are honest hard working people trying to make living, they have a huge problem and our federal government’s kind of quiet.” Said Porter.

Sheriffs say Minnesota has 600 thousand tax dollars put a side for farmers who get calves picked off by wolves. If they can prove it.

“But, our best guess is there’s 118 missing calves. So, those 118 missing calves there’s no compensation for them.” Said Porter.

That’s 118 thousand dollars that literally disappears from farmers in this one county. Locals feel the wolf numbers should be regulated by local government or the DNR.

Source: MN Farmers believe wolves are attacking their cattle

As of noon today, 105 wolves Slaughtered in the state of Montana


As of noon today, 105 wolves in the state of Montana have lost their lives to trophy hunters.

Unit 101 has 18 kills;

Unit 390 17 kills;

Unit 290 with 14,

The other units range between 1 and 8.

Too many of our beloved wolves of Montana are losing their lives just to appease the trophy hunters and livestock industry. Where is their coexistence management tools? Why arent they being used more, we know that there are good Ranchers that in fact know how to coexist in Montana.
It is beyond disappointing that MFWS Commission and Agency have turned a deaf ear to how essential the Grey Wolf would be in their state in controlling Chronic Wasting Disease in the state, the added income from Yellowstone’s Visitors. An immediate moratorium on wolf trophy hunting should have been put in place at their meeting last week. It is also Very Disappointing that MFWS Ignored our Petition to add our  Proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone”. They could not even be bothered to Respond!
Beginning tomorrow the Grey Wolf not only has rifle hunters to deal with, they will now have to beware of traps and snares as the legal trapping of the Grey Wolf starts and runs through February 28,2018. This barbaric practice needs to stop. There is no justification for it to continue in modern time.

National Park Wildlife are in dire need of our Proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone”. Help us get this much needed conservation tool to come to pass by Joining our Voice.

Thank You

Patricia and Roger

Protect The Wolves™

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Twitter Feed