Yellowstone Wolves are Federal Trust Resources

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

Wyoming Over WOLF SLAUGHTER Quota in 2 Zones !

What will it take for the Government to Realize that Wyoming has once again proven they are incapable of managing The Public’s Federal Resources?


At an Alarming Rate!!!!

AS OF 10/20/2017

Will Wolves still be available for your Grandchildren to view in Yellowstone?

We asked for your support back in May to Help Yellowstone Wolves with our Sacred Resource Protection Zone…  Wolves are dying, crying out for us to help them.

Consider Joining Our Voice to establish a Sacred Resource Protection Zone Surrounding National Parks in the Blood thirsty state of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

A total of it appears 49 wolves altogether 28 from the Trophy Zones 2 of which are already over Quota., 21 from the general Slaughter Zone in this Bloodthirsty State!
Please consider becoming a Paid Member so We are able to call these crooked states out in COURT. We have the Research, the tools, the Attorneys, only missing Ingredient is 57,000 plus followers.

Take Back the Power that You as the public hold!

Help us to put The Indian and Public Trusts to work Today, before they wipe out the rest of our wolves, grizzlies, wild horses.

Special Interest Donald Dashiell on WDFW WAG Shows all he does not want wolves

profanity peak pack, smackout pack, sherman pack

Donald Dashiell is a WDFW WAG Member

 Donny Martorello Invited us to Join WAG last August as the first Native American Voice, when we showed up to the meeting in September, he tried to tell Us that he didn’t invite Us. Guess what Martorello, there were multiple people on our call, including 3 staff,  Protect The Wolves President and 2 Directors. Lets also not forget that Martorello has refused for Over a year to contact the BIA based on their requests for a meeting until just recently. They have not posted any information regarding their tribal IWC meetings since November 18, 2015. All of which were ways to push through their Lethal Removal Protocol without Public, BIA or Tribal Input.

These are blatant Violations of the Trusts folks. Along with the initial slaughter of the Smackout Pack last year…. Their lethal protocol requires that 2 deterrents be implemented, please see their kangaroo lethal removal policy below. We have highlighted the appropriate sections towards the bottom. However they have modified the policy to include multiple loop holes that we need to close you will soon see.

smackout meadows, smackout pack, protect the wolves

There were no Deterrents present on July 21st 2017 as claimed were there by WDFW

Please also do not forget that they pushed through this Lethal Slaughter policy without “Public or Tribal” comment. Or even working within the IWC as evidenced by Martorellos refusal to respond to the BIA for well over 1 1/2 years as we were informed by the BIA Biologist who has been requesting meetings without response.

Further, Protect The Wolves™ put in multiple Calls to James Unsworth in June 2017, requesting that they be allowed to assist the Range Rider Program, as well as followed it up with a Formal Email Request.


  Now Let’s talk about some of the members of the WDFW Wolf Advisory Group (WAG), shall we? There are supposed to be 18 members, but 2 positions have been vacant for at least 1 year. In March, 2017, when the final decisions were made for the lethal removal protocol only 12 members were present, and 8 of those members have an anti-wolf perspective.

It is apparent with an elected official like Donald Dashiell on WDFW’s Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) that they are allowing an individual with a vested interest in the issue to potentially wield undue power over the process. As the Stevens County Commissioner and a livestock rancher, he has made it quite clear he is strongly anti-wolf.  Donald Dashiell Today on our Facebook has made it quite clear that he is not only a Wolf Hater, (see above screenshot) and he truly knows nothing about being a Good Steward to the Land. His personal opinion that they leave the land better than they found it…. couldnt be farther from the truth, not only evidenced by our own personal Viewing of Grazing Allotments last September, but also by our Volunteer Staff in N.E. Washington.

Jack Field is also a member of WAG, and was the director of the WA Cattlemen’s Association; he now heads up Cattle Feeders of WA. He is also a well-known lobbyist in Olympia for the cattle industry. His name is on the WAG list, but he hasn’t been present since a phone conference in April of 2016. Why is he still holding a position? Is he influencing the group behind the scenes?

Then we have Dave Duncan, who represents Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation (Really? – Ted Nugent is a member), and at the August WDFW Commission meeting he was witnessed disparaging wolf advocates and stating he wants wolves delisted state-wide.

There are other members who represent the Washington Farm Bureau, the Mule Deer Foundation, the Hunters Heritage Council, and the Washington State Sheep Producers. Additionally, there is an independent cattle rancher and a hunter in the group. These organizations and individuals are pro-livestock production or pro-wild ungulate hunting, and wolves are not on their “friends” list.

The mentality of these WAG members is NOT appropriate for an advisory group whose mission states it seeks to provide high quality recommendations on wolf recovery, conservation, and management.” It is high time for Washington State residents to stand up and demand a fair and balanced WAG membership!

People, it is very clear that with Special Interest Elected Officials on WDFWs wolf advisory group Like the above listed, that they are clearly violating trust mandates. Our Elected officials ethically should work for the benefit of “ALL” public opinion and not just those of their lil special interest Rancher Buds.

Protect The Wolves ™

Patricia and Roger




IDFG Debunk Hunters stories and Fairy Tales


Perhaps Hunters will stop spreading their myths and Fairy Tales after being proven outright Story Tellers by Idaho Fish and Game . A Prudent individual might liken them to outright Lies… What do you Think?

We will also be publishing another Article showing a Montana Study has shown the same thing. Wyoming is to stubborn, they will continue to allow hunters to slaughter 25,000 Elk a year, then blame it on Wolves… Same Study would most likely apply there as well.

Wildlife CSI – Idaho Panhandle elk mortality study

The Panhandle region placed 172 GPS radio-collars on 6-month old elk calves in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe River drainages since 2015.  A couple reasons we collared so many elk was to determine survival rates and for those elk that didn’t make it, find out why they died.

The GPS collars have a signal that activates once the collar hasn’t moved for several hours, indicating a mortality.  Next, the collar sends an e-mail to biologists with the location of the collar.  It’s pretty amazing technology, something that wasn’t available just a few years ago, and it’s giving us new insight into what’s affecting the elk population.  We try to hike out to every dead elk within a day or two of receiving the mortality signal so we have the best chance of figuring out what happened.

Calf elk mortality


It can be difficult to look at a partially consumed elk carcass and determine how the animal died.  The more of the elk that is there, the easier it is to figure out what happened.  We want to find out why it died, or in our language, determine cause-specific mortality.  That’s why we try to get to the elk as soon as possible.

Once we get to the location and find the elk, we take a crime scene approach.  We conduct a careful search around the carcass looking for predator tracks, hair, drag trails in the dirt or snow, broken branches that indicate a chase, and blood on vegetation or the ground.  Next, we perform a necropsy (basically an autopsy for an animal).  We skin the entire animal looking for teeth or claw punctures and bruising on the skin or muscles (which means that something injured it while it was still alive).  We look for broken bones, parasites, and abnormalities of the internal organs.  Lastly, we saw open a femur bone to examine bone marrow.  Bone marrow is normally hard and white and is the last fat reserve the body uses during starvation.  Soft and red bone marrow means the elk was in very poor condition when it died.

Elk bone marrow

Femur bone marrow
Creative Commons Licence
Idaho Department of Fish and Game

The two most common predators that kill older calves in the Panhandle are mountain lions and wolves, but their kill patterns are quite distinctive, hence the crime scene approach.  Lions tend to ambush and bite the neck or throat of their prey.  The attack site and the kill site are often close together.  Lions often drag their prey to a more hidden spot and will cache the animal by covering it with snow, leaves, or needles.  Lions have a habit of shearing hair, which looks like someone cut the hair with sharp scissors.   Lions often enter the chest cavity first and eat the internal organs.

Elk carcass cached by a mt lion

Elk carcass cached with moss by mountain lion
Creative Commons Licence
Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Wolves, on the other hand, are not ambush hunters.  They typically chase their prey long distances, biting hindquarters, flanks, neck, and face.  Wolves will eat the animal where it died and often scatter the carcass throughout the site as each wolf takes its own piece to consume.  Wolves will often chew on all the bones.  The site of an animal killed by wolves is often a much messier scene than that of one killed by a mountain lion.  There’s often very little of the carcass remaining when we get there.

Calf elk killed by wolves

Elk calf killed by wolves
Creative Commons Licence
Idaho Department of Fish and Game

So, what have we learned?  In the normal to mild winters of 2015 and 2016, 80% of the elk calves survived from January to June; 14% were killed by mountain lions, 3% were killed by wolves, 1% died of disease, and 2% were unknown deaths.  A survival rate of 80% for 6 month old calves is very high.

2015-2016 calf mortality graph

Creative Commons Licence
Idaho Department of Fish and Game

In the colder, snowy winter of 2017, 50% of the elk calves survived.  Interestingly enough, the predation rates were similar to the milder winters; 16% were killed by mountain lions and 6% were killed by wolves.  Starvation (16%), heavy parasite loads (2%), and disease (2%) accounted for the difference in survival rates among the winters.  Calves were in worse body condition in 2017 as determined by bone marrow condition.  We could not determine cause of death in 8% of the cases.

2017 R1 calf mortality graph

Creative Commons Licence
Idaho Department of Fish and Game

What do these calf survival rates mean for the elk population?  We are working on some modeling now, incorporating other information like cow survival rates, calf:cow ratios that we get during our winter aerial surveys, and the percent of spikes in the harvest.  Once we get the results of the modeling , we’ll report to you on that.

Our jobs can certainly be gruesome at times, but it rewarding to determine what is happening with our elk populations so we can make informed management decisions.

Mt lion caching elk carcass

Mountain lion caching elk carcass
Creative Commons Licence
Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Source: Wildlife CSI – Panhandle elk mortality study | Idaho Fish and Game



protect the wolves, sacred resources,


 Protect The Wolves™ adds: Today we know that the United States must ensure that the purposes for which reservations were created are not undermined and the fiduciary obligations that arise from the trust responsibility must be met by all federal agencies and in a manner that does not interfere with Tribal rights. The FWS did not take the best course of action in Slaughtering “Phoenix”. She should have been captured and sent back to a captive Breeding Program.

Further it was wrongly reported by some news outlets that the WMAT contacted FWS, After our Investigation, We now know that that is not True after speaking with White Mountain Apache Tribes Game and Fish.

We need all 57,000 plus people to step up so We are enabled to take the needed action against the Crooked elected Officials that are influenced by Special Interest Cattle Groups. It is time that you take the Power back that you have available, and use it through our Voice to put these Government branches into Court!

To gain an overall perspective and appreciation of how Tribes view the ESA as it relates to Tribal interests, it is important to present some discussion on the basis of and the general principles embraced by all Tribal governments, namely Tribal Sovereignty and Federal Trust Responsibility. Tribal Sovereignty The inherent sovereignty of Indian Tribes and Nations has long been recognized by the United States Constitution, the Federal Government, and Federal Courts. See, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831); United States v. Winans (1905) (Indian nations reserve all governmental powers and individual rights not specifically abrogated by Congress, or granted away by the Tribes in their treaties or agreements with the United States). As a result of a constitutionally established government to government relationship, the Federal Government has a responsibility to protect Indian trust resources (Indian trust resources generally include land, water, air, minerals, and wildlife, reserved or otherwise owned or held for the benefit of Indian Tribes and nations). That legal principle has been reiterated extensively in recent years within the context of natural resource management, Parravano v. Babbitt (1995) (Federal Indian trust responsibility extends not just to the Interior Department, but to the entire Federal Government as a whole) and Covelo Indian Community v. FERC (1990). As sovereign nations, Tribes and Tribal lands are not subject to the same public domain laws that govern other lands within the United States, either public or private. It has been legally established that inherent in the establishment of a reservation is the right of Indians to hunt and fish on reservation lands free from state regulations, lawfully exercise substantial control over the lands and resources of its reservation, including its wildlife, and to regulate the use of its resources by members as well as nonmembers. Cases such as the Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States (1968), Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association (1979), New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (1983), Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel (1990), and Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians (1999), have affirmed this precept. Some of these rights are based on treaty rights, but many follow from the mere establishment of a reservation and the self-governance powers inherent therein. Congress may limit the powers of Indian self-governance, including the denial of treaty established hunting or fishing rights, as it did when it prohibited Indians from hunting eagles under the Eagle Protection Act. But to do so, the Congressional act abrogating those powers must be clear and explicit. See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903). Tribes retain their rights and powers, comprehensive of all Tribal properties and interests; United States v. Winans (1905), Winters v. United States (1908). In general, however, Congress has not abrogated Tribal interests and utilization of Indian trust resources and the matter has been, for the most part, left to Tribal regulation.

Tribal Perspectives on Mexican Wolf Recovery 6 Trust Responsibility

  It is well established that Indian Tribes in the United States are sovereign entities, and that the U.S. is legally required to protect Indian trust resources for the benefit of each respective Indian Tribe and Nation. Those legal responsibilities are intended to ensure that Tribal lands remain capable and sufficient of serving as viable homelands. In managing trust lands or assisting Tribes in doing so, the government must act for the exclusive benefit of the Tribes, and ensure that Indian lands and resources are protected and maintained for their exclusive use. Tribal lands are not public lands and are not set aside or designated for the purpose of conserving endangered species, critical habitat, or for the primary purpose of conserving flora or fauna, except as it may directly benefit the Tribes. As a practical matter, Tribal lands comprise some of the most remote, wild and scenic places on the continent and Tribal lands often support a far greater biological diversity than surrounding private or public lands. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that Tribal lands (reservations) are first and foremost the homelands to Indian people, established to provide for their respective traditional, spiritual, cultural, social, and economic benefit. As trustee, the United States must ensure that the purposes for which reservations were created are not undermined and the fiduciary obligations that arise from the trust responsibility must be met by all federal agencies and in a manner that does not interfere with Tribal rights.

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar


%d bloggers like this: