Canyons Law Needs Your Help not for Wildlife Alone but Your Kids and Pets and Rescuers

protect the wolves, wolves, wolf, protect idaho wolves, canyons law

A Pocatello family is back after their legislative trip to Washington D.C. The family’s dog died after exposure to a cyanide bomb just 300 yards behind their house. It’s been four months since the Mansfield family lost their dog Kasey, and could have lost their son Canyon as well. A usual hike up the mountain turned deadly when the 14-year-old boy triggered an M-44 “Cyanide Bomb” behind their house placed there by the USDA. A week ago the family took a trip to D.C. to get lawmakers to join them in banning compound 1080 and chemicals used in M-44’s also known as cyanide bombs.

The Mansfields are back, Mark Mansfield, Canyon’s Father says, “We’ve learned a little bit about passing a bill. It’s hard. You know it’s a lot of work, a lot of footwork, [and] a lot of talking.”

After a near death experience, Canyon and his family took action. They went to the nation’s capital to help introduce a new bill which could become, “Canyon’s Law.”14-year-old Canyon Mansfield says, “The bill, I believe, is going to be passed, and we just got to believe in it. But if it doesn’t, [we have to] just try and raise awareness of these dangerous devices. I don’t want any other boy having to go up there and experience that.”

Over the course of three long days, the Mansfields met with leaders in the house and senate. It included lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Some who admit they didn’t know cyanide bombs existed. “We had to also teach them that this organization is just completely strange,” Canyon adds, “It’s like a dark branch of government that nobody really follows and overlooks to see if they’re doing the right thing or not.”

With the help of an Oregon’s Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio, the law is written to ban the use of lethal devices and poisons. Ones like Compound 1080 and chemicals used in M-44’s also known as cyanide bombs. Mark says, “In the House of Representatives it takes several hundred votes to get anything moving. So he’s [Peter DeFazio] gonna have to partner with Idaho Republicans and other Republicans to get it passed, because they all agree this is ridiculous.”

The Mansfields say this is a non-partisan issue, being red or blue doesn’t matter, something needs to change. On the verge of tears Mark says, “Do we need to drag in a dead body to make this bill pass? Because that’s what’s gonna happen. Sooner or later someone’s gonna die. My kid almost died, and I don’t want anyone to die.”

Wolf captured in Skagit County and collared

protect washington wolves, protect the wolves

5 range riders they say for this 1 Rancher?

Update on Washington wolves Latest reports on key wolf activities.

Conservation efforts, and management actions. June 16, 2017 Wolf captured in Skagit County; confirmed wolf depredation by Sherman Wolf Pack Wolf captured and collared in Skagit County On June 8, state and federal wildlife biologists captured an adult male gray wolf in eastern Skagit County. They took genetic samples from the animal and fitted it with a GPS tracking collar before releasing it onsite. This is the first gray wolf captured and collared in western Washington in modern times.

The animal was captured by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), with support from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), during an investigation of wolf activity in eastern Skagit County. Under federal law, USFWS has primary management responsibility in areas of the state – including western Washington – where wolves are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

On May 17, USFWS received a report from a resident of eastern Skagit County that one or more wolves had preyed on his chickens early that morning. He sent photos of two suspected wolves to a federal wolf biologist, noting that he had heard howling and observed tracks in the area during the winter. At USFWS’s request, WDFW dispatched an area wildlife conflict specialist to investigate the situation later that day. The conflict specialist talked to the landowner, examined the scene of the incident, and concluded it was a probable depredation by one or more wolves.

On May 18, wolf biologists from USFWS and WDFW arrived at the property to deploy traps and trail cameras. While there, they saw what appeared to be a wolf in the distance. Three weeks later, they captured an adult male wolf in a trap. Samples were taken from the animal and sent to the USFWS Forensic Laboratory in Ashland, Ore. Wildlife managers are monitoring GPS signals from the collared animal to track its movements. That animal is the strongest indication of wolves moving into the western region since 2015, when a female wolf was found dead – struck by a vehicle – on Interstate 90 near Snoqualmie Pass. The discovery of wolves west of the Cascade Range is significant for state and federal management of the species.

The state’s wolf recovery plan establishes a goal of maintaining 15 successful breeding pairs for at least three years before the species can be removed from the state’s endangered species list. At least four breeding pairs must be in eastern Washington, four in the Northern Cascades, four in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast, and three anywhere in the state. Last year there were eight breeding pairs in the eastern region and two in the Northern Cascades and none in the Southern Cascades. Additional breeding pairs west of the Cascade Range will help bring the state closer to its recovery goal.

Ranchers will sue over wolf study- How long will we continue to allow this? 


Protect the Wolves, protect the wolves, wolves, wolf, protect yellowstone wolves

Protect The Wolves has to ask if people really want to stop this one-sided management? If So… Join us and help us put the Indian and Public Trust to work today saving wildlife! Special Interest groups like Ranchers need to be stopped before wolves are again wiped out!

Wallowa County Chieftain

The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association announced this week its intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its failure to complete an environmental study that would remove gray wolves from the endangered species list in the lower 48 states.

Citing the agency’s lack of decision-making following the publication of its 2013 proposed rule in the Federal Register to remove the gray wolves from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species, Jerome Rosa, executive director of Oregon Cattlemen, said the membership voted to file a 60-day letter of intent to sue U.S. Fish and Wildlife at its Pendleton spring quarterly meeting June 2.

Rosa said the Cattlemen will be represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation of Sacramento, Calif.

“One comment we’ve gotten through the years is that the cattle industry often tends to be playing defense,” Rosa said. “Many of our members feel by moving forward with this we are being on the offensive side of things instead of trying to defend what we do.”

Todd Nash, the Cattlemen’s wolf committee chairman, said the absence of a completed analysis three years after U.S. Fish and Wildlife closed its public comment period regarding its environmental policy analysis to delist gray wolves from the endangered species list was one reason for the suit.

“They are legally bound to do that within one year and that’s the preface pressing forward with lawsuit,” said Nash, who is a Wallowa County rancher and a member of the Wallowa County Board of Commissioners.

The lack of manpower Fish and Wildlife dedicates to managing wolves was the other frustration that led to litigation, Nash said.

In Oregon, like Washington and Utah, managing wolves is complicated.

Through an appropriations bill Congress removed gray wolves from the Endangered Species List in Montana, Idaho and parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah in April 2011. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife then took over sole management of wolves living east of U.S. Highway 395, Oregon Highway 78 and U.S. Highway 95.

In November 2015 wolves were removed from the state endangered species list, but west of that line wolves remain protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.

In the vastly larger landscape of the western portion of the state under federal jurisdiction, Nash said the agency is woefully understaffed.

“This is no discredit to John (Stephenson, wolf biologist),” Nash said, “but he is one guy.”

Nash said the Cattlemen believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife needs to increase its staffing to better capture, collar and monitor wolves and complete its effort to delist gray wolves through the National Environmental Policy Act.

A vote was taken to sue the federal government at the Cattlemen’s November annual meeting in Bend as well, Nash said, but the members were waiting to see if the Washington Cattlemen were interested in taking legal action along with them. While a contingency of Washington Cattlemen members were in attendance at the Oregon Cattlemen’s Pendleton and participated in lengthy discussions regarding the intent to sue, Nash said they are not yet on board.

“Washington is going to take it back to their board and discuss it and California will likely throw in with us,” Nash said.

Source: Ranchers will sue over wolf study – Local News – Wallowa County Chieftain

Stevens County Washington Livestock Subsidy’s over $21 million

oppose welfare ranchers

Protect The Wolves™ has to question how 1 little county (Stevens County Washington) can cost you the Taxpayer over $ 21,000,000 dollars in welfare rancher payments?

The Government doesnt have a welfare program for any other business…. WELFARE Rancher Payments need to stop period. If they cant be successful on their own….. why should you have to pay them to run their business?

In just 2 of those years alone….. McIvrin’s Diamond M Ranch cost you almost $250,000 for the slaughter of 2 separate wolf packs. Apparently WDFW only cares about managing our Resources for these special Interest Groups…. Were you aware that they are not supposed to have Special Interest Groups involved in Policy Change?

Were you aware that WDFW allows individuals elected to a State Office to participate in Policy Change? That is forbidden, under mandates upon them as Trustees. Further Ranchers like Joel Kretz, Donald Dashiell, Mike Blankenship, just to name a few…. are choosing the best path forward based on their personal interest it would appear….. (Cattle Ranchers, Elected Officials… whats wrong with that picture?) People that is what is referred to as a Conflict of Interest…. How long will the public continue to allow this to happen?

Conflict of interest Conflict of interest can be defined as a “situation where and individual or the entity for which they work, whether a government, business, media outlet or civil society organisation, is confronted with choosing between the duties and demands of their position and their own private interests” (Transparency International, 2009),. For instance, companies may face accusations of improper influence if they employ parliamentarians as consultants or have them on their board. Conflict of interest, thus, may arise ‘when an individual with a formal responsibility to serve the public participates in an activity that jeopardizes his or her professional judgement, objectivity, and independence’ (U4 Resources Centre, webpage). In this context, preventing conflict of interest is also important for enhancing transparency and accountability in public decision making. Regulations may take a number of forms, including laws, codes of conduct and internal rules or management guidelines. They should also cover post-public employment and establish mandatory ‘cooling-off’ period to avoid the revolving door, as enterprises and their consultants often use former public officials for lobbying purposes (Transparency International, 2010). Three main types of conflict of interest regulation can be identified: prohibitions on activities, declarations of interests, and exclusion from decision-making processes (Reed, 2008)

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar


%d bloggers like this: