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!

Facing threats to med school from washington state legislators, WSU disavows wolf researcher


Dr. Robert Wielgus, protect the wolves

We need to expose these lawmakers threatening funding cuts to WSU to further their own political agendas…

Mittelhammer we have a news flash for you… Dr. Wielgus actions didnt negatively impact any individuals on WAG. They successfully did that all on their Own!

For Instance:  WAG members attempting to discredit Dr Wielgus at the September meeting, and niether Martorello, nor their Facilitator Madden told them to stop, Donny Martorello inviting Protect The Wolves™ to join the WAG as the first Native American Voice, then when we show up to their September meeting he lied and said he did not say that…. Martorello needs to remember that we had two people on the phone conference. Martorellos, lies, failure to follow through on promises regarding learning about Our Treaty and Religious Rights, his blatant disregard for the Mandates upon him under the Indian and Public Trusts, Martorellos continued refusal to communicate with the BIA, his allowing of special Interest on the WAG amongst many other things is what is causing the issue. Stop trying to change the facts… it does not work, we have been documenting them this entire time. This crooked regard for what is legal in Washington State by its government officials, elected individuals makes its very own citizens ashamed.


Mittelhammer Said:

“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.”

We also need to locate which highly ranked senators have said

“the medical school and wolves are linked.”

CODY COTTIER, Evergreen reporter

University officials worked to suppress the findings of a prominent WSU wolf researcher amid fears that conservative state lawmakers would retaliate by cutting funding to the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, according to a report by The Seattle Times.

Dan Coyne, a lobbyist for WSU, wrote in an email that highly ranked senators have said “the medical school and wolves are linked.” Soon after WSU wolf researcher Robert Wielgus published his finding that killing wolves increases livestock depredation, Coyne wrote a colleague to express his concerns, according to the Times.

“If wolves continue to go poorly, there won’t be a new medical school,” he wrote to Jim Jesernig, another WSU lobbyist.

Jesernig, former director of the state Department of Agriculture and former member of the state House and Senate, replied with agreement.

“That’s my assessment as well,” he wrote. “We are making the med school not doable.”

Faculty Senate Chair A. G. Rud, who has a background in education, told the Evergreen that university administrators often find themselves in situations in which lawmakers threaten funding to leverage their own goals.

Though he does not know all the details of the situation, he said he was alarmed by the lobbyists’ exchange. He added that Wielgus is a highly respected wolf researcher.

“That was quite concerning for me to see that,” Rud said, “because I think faculty members have a right to express themselves and conduct their research.”

In the past year, WSU has disavowed statements Wielgus’ made to media, removed funding for his research and launched misconduct investigations into his actions. He was later cleared of wrongdoing.

Donna Potts, president of WSU’s chapter of the Association of American University Professors, a national advocacy group for academic freedom, shared Rud’s sentiment, saying it is a clear violation of Wielgus’ rights to suppress his discussion of his research.

“I sincerely wish the administration would openly support academic freedom and shared governance,” Potts wrote in an email.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a nonprofit that works to protect scientist whistleblowers, alleged in April that the university silenced and retaliated against Wielgus for his statements in an effort to appease state ranchers and legislators.

Matt Haugen, news and social media manager with university communications, said WSU would not comment due to pending litigation. Wielgus was also not immediately available for comment.

He said in June he was planning to sue the university for defamation and damages, including six years of salary and benefits. But Adam Carlesco, Wielgus’ attorney, said they are now negotiating with WSU and will soon send them a demand letter.

After Wielgus published his findings, he was removed as the principal researcher, Carlesco said. He also lost two years of summer funding, and his grant money was redirected to another researcher in his lab in order to keep his name as far removed as possible.

Hans Dunshee, a former Snohomish Democrat and top budget writer who retired from the Legislature last year, confirmed to Times he found a way in 2015 to give WSU the grant money without attaching it to Wielgus

“It was our way of sanitizing it while still keeping the money flowing,” Dunshee said. “I thought he was going to be OK.”

But Carlesco said this is a red flag for future institutions Wielgus could work at, and can make it hard to get hired.

“That’s kind of what they do to make people behave,” Carlesco said. “Death by a million paper cuts — these little nudges here and there to make it miserable enough that you want to play the game.”

The university also disavowed Wielgus’ public statements regarding an incident that resulted in the state killing a wolf pack for livestock depredations last fall. Wielgus said the rancher in question, Len McIrvin, had deliberately placed his cattle near a den site, and therefore the cattle and wolf deaths could have been avoided.

In a letter of concern to Wielgus at the time, Ron Mittelhammer, dean of the College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences, directed him not to communicate with media before clearing his statements with the university.

Then, in March, Wielgus emailed his latest research to the state Wolf Advisory Group (WAG), after clearing the news release with communications staff and Mittelhammer. The release, presented as his personal opinion rather than as a faculty member, included his finding that wolf killings of livestock were rare and acute, not a widespread problem.

In the release, he also recommended that the WAG restrict lethal control for wolves only to ranchers and farmers who followed requirements established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, to give incentive for non-lethal measures.

Some objected to the decision to release the research as a private citizen, when it received public funding. Tom Davis, the director of government relations for the Washington Farm Bureau and a WAG member, said he would not participate in a WAG meeting if the group let Wielgus speak.

Documents obtained by The Daily Evergreen show administrators’ response to backlash against Wielgus’ findings. Mittelhammer, in a letter to angered legislators, said that “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.”

Mittelhammer wrote another letter of concern to Wielgus, and the university initiated an internal investigation into whether he had illegally lobbied and sent the press release with his university email account. He was later cleared of wrongdoing. Mittelhammer could not be reached for comment.

Carlesco noted that while the university has been “actively suppressing the top carnivore researcher in North America,” they have been receptive to the concerns of ranchers.

In an email chain in May, Mittelhammer and WSU President Kirk Schulz discussed ways to improve the university’s relationship with ranchers through faculty hires. “I feel that they need an internal champion or person that they can work with,” Schulz wrote.

Those emails also include plans for WSU representatives to visit a ranch over the summer, and other ways to ease the concerns of ranchers. Carlesco said this creates a difficult situation for a carnivore researcher.

“It strikes me,” Carlesco said, “as not exactly an optimal environment for a scientist.” He noted that the premise of Wielgus’ work was to find the best ways to reduce livestock depredations, and that Wielgus worked with ranchers to do so.

Carlesco said that in another email, between then-university communcations director Kathy Barnard and Chris Mulick, WSU’s director of state relations, the two discussed the source of outrage among legislators and ranchers.

In the emails, Carlesco said, Mulick wrote that they were upset not only about the national coverage of Wielgus’ study, but also about the implications of the finding itself — that wolf killings increase livestock depredation by destabilizing pack dynamics.

This, he said, reveals a motive to subvert ethics law and silence research, adding that he has heard from other carnivore researchers who have experienced similar problems.

“It’s showing a concerted effort from interested parties to suppress science,” Carlesco said. “Those with the gun put a lot of pressure on to make sure that [research] doesn’t come out.”

Source: The Daily Evergreen : Emails: Facing threats to med school, WSU disavows wolf researcher

New documentary about orphaned wolf cub dispels misunderstandings about wolves 

protect the wolves

Green and Li Weiyi on the grasslands Photo: Courtesy of Youth Enlight

Wolves have a complex image in China. On one hand, many Chinese find them scary, which is why there are numerous stories about wolves harming people and other animals in traditional Chinese culture. On the other hand, Chinese also respect these animals because they are seen as being “courageous” and “tough.”

According to the thesis paper Study on the Culture of the Wolf in China by Ma Jianzhang, Yang Guotao and Ma Yiqing, nomadic tribes in North China and Northwest China had great respect for wolves because they needed to fight against the harsh environment of the regions just like the tribes did. Fear of wolves was mainly prevalent in the central parts of China, since the farmers in these regions saw these animals as enemies that were a direct threat to their livestock.

“Chinese have a centuries-long wolf culture,” Zhang Yiwu, a professor at Peking University, told the Global Times. “While people’s impression of wolves was mainly negative in the past, after the publication of Wolf Totem and the film based on that book, people began seeing wolves in an increasingly positive light,” Zhang noted.

Written by Chinese author Jiang Rong, Wolf Totem provided many Chinese a window into the lives of wolves by going into extreme detail about how they live and survive in the wild. The book was eventually adapted into a film by French director Jean-Jacques Annaud in 2015.

Now another film is changing people’s perception of wolves.

On June 16, Return to the Wolves debuted in Chinese mainland cinemas. The documentary film follows Green, a young wolf raised in captivity that is eventually returned to the wild.

The film became the highest-earning Chinese film over its debut weekend, earning 11.69 million yuan ($1.7 million) at the box office.

A true story


Cut from more than 1,700 hours of home movie footage, Return to the Wolves tells the story of artist Li Weiyi and how she discovered an orphaned wolf cub, which she names Green after its jade-colored eyes.

First attempting to raise the cub as an ordinary pet, the artist and her friend Yifeng soon realize the cub must be returned to the wild. The two then spend the next 10 months preparing Green for its return to nature by teaching it how to fend for itself and helping it integrate with a new pack.

Li discovered Green during a trip to the Zoige Grassland in the Tibet Autonomous Region in the spring of 2010. Speaking to a local herdsman, he told her how over the previous few days two wolves had attacked his village’s flock of sheep in order to get food for their cubs. With their livelihood threatened, the local villagers killed the adult wolves, leaving the young cubs to fend for themselves.

“After hearing the story, I wanted to find out what happened to the cubs. After three days of searching, I eventually found them in a cave, but only one was still alive,” Li told the Global Times on Tuesday.

Though her friend Yifeng objected, Li made up her mind to bring the dying cub back home with her to Southwest China’s Sichuan Province.

However, while her heart was in the right place, it soon became clear that urban life was no life for the young cub.

They brought the cub back to the grasslands of his birth, but also realized they couldn’t just leave the cub to fend for itself.

Over the next eight months, both Li and Yifeng taught the growing cub how to hunt and fend for itself. Discovering a nearby wolf pack, the two also worked to get Green and them accustomed to each other. Eventually, one day they saw Green on a hunt with the pack, and they knew that he had finally found a home.

Changing perceptions

Li turned her experiences into a book that was published by Changjiang Literature and Art Publishing in 2012. Wanting to reach a larger audience, however, the two decided that they should bring Green’s story to the big screen.

An amateur film director and editor, Yifeng spent six years and two months editing together all the home movies they made of their time with Green.

“Some people have criticized the film saying it doesn’t count as a documentary because it contains too much of my personal feelings. Even those who like the story have also commented that it’s too amateurish,” Yifeng told the Global Times, explaining that he was learning on the fly as he edited the film.

“My original goal was to bring it into theaters so people could see Green’s story. I welcome different opinions on how well I succeeded at that.”

Although Yifeng objected to bringing Green to Sichuan, he said his perception of the animals were changed by his time spent with the wolf cub.

“Green made me reflect a lot. I feel I am inferior to him… he had a humanity that people today do not have any more. We humans really know so little about wolves,” Yifeng said.

Li further explained that “in most people’s minds today, wolves are animals that attack people. But this is not the case. This is the biggest misunderstand people have toward wolves.”

Li said that after their nearly one year with Green, they spent another five or six years living near the wolf pack.

“The wild wolves lived peacefully with us and never hurt us,” Li told the Global Times.

“They do have their wild side, but that does not equate to killing people or wanton aggressiveness,” she explained, adding that when humans run into something stronger than themselves, it is they who tend to attack before they might get hurt.

“This is the aggressiveness of humans.”

While a second book of stories about their time with Green was published by Changjiang Literature and Art Publishing in 2015, Yifeng said they do not have a plan to make a second film yet.

“Making a film is a complicated thing. First, we need to see how the first one fares. At the moment, the future isn’t looking very bright,” Yifeng said, adding that the second book touches more on personal feelings, which is something he doesn’t want to pursue anymore as a filmmaker.

“Personally speaking, if the first one can succeed on its own in raising people’s awareness, I’d rather just leave the second story alone.”

Source: New documentary about orphaned wolf cub dispels misunderstandings about wolves – Global Times

Congress wants to put wolves back in crosshairs

protect the wolves, keep wolves on esl, oppose welfare ranching

  One of the primary Reasons that the court overturned this, might happen to be that they failed to consider that wolves are in fact sacred to Native Americans. Along with the Feds Broke their own policy on the ESL. They did not consider the consequences of only a partial delisting,  when you add in the phrase “Historical Range”.

 Look at Washington State for example, the west half is endangered, the east half is not… rather than relocating a pack or two to acceptable landscapes available on the west side of their self drawn line… Donny Martorello chooses to call them “Bad Wolves” wolves that they do not want…

  What does a prudent Individual think that wolves do? When their food sources are ran out of the country by Rancher, and cattle presence, what would you do but answer the dinner bell that they have handed you. Grazing Allotments in the National Forest need to stop period. Those Resources were placed their by the creator for the wildlife… not the Rancher to get fat off of. DO they care about their Cows? Yep all the way to the Auction…. American Taxpayers it is time to stop subsidizing Individuals that just somehow can not seem to make sound business decisions on their own… Example: continue to place cows that they claim to love in harms way, with no way of actually knowing if they are safe or not. Can they see all their cows in the wilderness to know if one, two, 10, 30 are sick? Hell no…. That as far as we are concerned is a blatant case of Animal Abuse!

 Large Groups do not advocate banning Grazing Allotments due to one fact! They cant decide what side of the fence that they want to be on….. They are actively seeking Donations to pay their overpaid Directors from both sides of the fence, thereby taking their eye off of what truly matters…. Our Wildlife. When it becomes about money and being able to pay their overpaid Directors… They have lost touch with what really needs to happen, and allow special Interest Groups the ability to influence our Wildlife Policy’s. Those Types of Groups should perhaps find different Professions. Western Watersheds Project knew upfront that we advocate to ban grazing allotments, they are 1 of the 2 that we know of that do besides Us. Whats the best way to get rid of a PROBLEM?? its not Rocket Science Folks…. You get rid of what is causing the problem…. Ranchers Cattle!!

Wolf hunting might be returning to Michigan as early as late this fall — a prospect bringing swift condemnation from animal advocates who want to keep the state’s gray wolves on the endangered species list.

The proposed removal of wolves from an endangered designation has been approved by the House Appropriations committee and is expected to pass the Republican-led House, the GOP-controlled Senate and eventually be signed by President Trump as part of the larger federal budget.

At least one environmental legal expert said Tuesday the appropriations bill language would trump a Tuesday ruling by a panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., that found a federal agency displayed “unreasoned, arbitrary, and capricious decision-making” when it removed endangered species protections for gray wolves. The congressional spending bill would prohibit the U.S. Interior Department from using federal funding to put wolves on the endangered species list.

“As a practical matter, the appropriations bill would prohibit the government from complying with the appeals court order and would prevent the federal government from enforcing the Endangered Species Act’s provision relating to agency rules for the fiscal year,” said Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler, who specializes in environmental issues and edited a book on the endangered species law.

But if Congress failed to renew the appropriations prohibition in any year, the court order would restore federal protections for the gray wolves, Adler said Tuesday.

Since more than an estimated 610 wolves live in the Upper Peninsula, state Department of Natural Resources officials are advocating — when allowed — a controlled hunt as well as awarding owners of livestock the right to kill a wolf that threatens their animals.

Controlled hunting supporters say it is needed because the wolf population is vibrant enough and that owners of livestock and pets need to be able to protect them from attacks.

Source: Congress wants to put wolves back in crosshairs

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar


%d bloggers like this: