CATTLE PRODUCERS OF WASHINGTON 

ban grazing allotments, oppose welfare ranchers

PEOPLE We have to agree on one thing!! These threats from CPOW need shut down! We have the research for fighting against the total banning grazing…. This very grazing is destroying the Environment we have to leave to Our Children’s Children! What do you intend to do about it? Will the Masses allow a few Old West Mentality Ranchers continue issuing threats or will you take action?

PREDATORS MUST BE MANAGED:

No citizen should be forced to allow predators of any kind to kill or maim his flocks, herds, pets, small animals, and in some cases—his family or loved ones.

Since the state or federal government claim ownership or management of these predators, they should be responsible for removing any predator that violates this basic principal.

If these governing bodies are unable or unwilling to perform this requirement, then it becomes the obligation of the county sheriff to perform this task.

If the sheriff is unwilling or unable to accomplish this obligation, then it becomes the right and the duty of the affected citizens to accomplish this very necessary mission.

Source: CATTLE PRODUCERS OF WASHINGTON | Working for the cow-calf producer

Coexistence between wolves and livestock is a delusion with The Old West Mentality

 

protect the wolves, sacred resources,

The next time one of these collaboration rollover groups asks for your money, consider giving your funds elsewhere. Look for organizations that challenge the dominance of livestock on public lands! Look for Organizations that dont roll over and have the Goal of Protecting YOUR Public Lands for you, that have put in the research and have come up with a way to stop this terrible decimation of our environment!

They refuse to acknowledge even that Cattle can be taught, or to recognize Peer Reviewed Science!

Article By George Wuerthner

It is a popular notion among some conservationists that the way to win acceptance for predators like wolves is to work with rural communities and ranchers. Gaining their support certainly helps wildlife managers justify killing packs or individual wolves whenever they prey on cattle.

But these control tactics have limited application. At best, they reduce conflicts in targeted areas and have no significant effect on the distribution or survival of native predators. At worst, they add to the delusion that widespread co-existence between predators and livestock is possible.

The killing of seven members of the Profanity Peak pack in Washington illustrates how a wolf pack paid the ultimate price for merely trying to eke out a living in a place where unfenced domestic livestock had been released to graze.

Hundreds of cattle were released on the allotment, and salt blocks used by cattle were placed near the den site. That led to wolf depredation on cattle followed by the killing of pack members. (More on the Profanity Peak pack here.)

A growing body of scientific research now shows that killing problem wolves often begets yet more conflicts. Whether the killing is done to protect livestock or for “sport” by hunters, it tends to skew wolf populations towards younger animals less skilled at hunting. Loss of individual pack members can also result in changes in a pack’s ability to hold a territory, pushing the animals into new areas where they are less familiar with native prey. Both outcomes often lead to livestock getting killed by wolves.

Even “predator-friendly” operations harm native wildlife. When ranchers use noisemakers like boat horns or firecrackers, shoot at predators to scare them, or otherwise harass wolves and other predators, this hounding and stressing of our wildlife is considered legitimate. But why should conservation organizations pay for range riders or organize volunteers to harass public animals like wolves to protect someone’s private livestock?

In effect, these groups are saying that wolves, coyotes and other native wildlife do not have a “right” to live on public lands that are being exploited by ranchers. Cows, not native to the West, have preference.

If I were to harass elk on a winter range, force bald eagles away from their nests or in other ways harass our wildlife, I would likely risk a fine. If I were to go out into the midst of a herd of sheep grazing on public lands and start shooting guns or firing off firecrackers to stampede the herd, I would risk imprisonment. But when it comes to harrying wolves, somehow this kind of harassment has become legitimate.

The negative impacts of livestock on our native wildlife go even further than harassment or lethal control — something that none of the “collaborative” groups ever mention to their membership or the press. Just the mere presence of domestic livestock often results in the social displacement and abandonment of the area by native ungulates such as elk.

If one assumes that elk select the best habitat for their needs, then displacement to other lands reduces their overall fitness. And we cannot forget that on many public lands, the vast majority of forage is reserved and allotted to domestic livestock, leaving only the leftovers for native wildlife.

If we assume that one of the limiting factors for native wildlife is high-quality forage, and that less nutritious feed means fewer elk, deer and bighorns, then we are literally taking food out of the mouth of our native predators.

When there is a conflict between private livestock grazing public lands and the public’s native wildlife, such as grizzlies, coyotes and wolves, just which animals should be removed? That is a question that “collaboratives” never ask. It is always assumed that if predators are causing problems for ranchers, the predators, not the livestock, should go.

This assumption adds up to direct and indirect subsidies for the livestock industry. As long as the dominant paradigm is that a rancher’s livestock has priority on public lands, we will never fully restore native predators to our lands. That is why we need to reframe the narrative and recognize that domestic livestock are the “problem” for our native wildlife.

 

Source: Coexistence between wolves and livestock is a delusion — High Country News

Casperson wolf vendetta ignores voters’ will

protect the wolves

Find your senator online at www.senate.michigan.gov/fysbyaddress.html

Sen. Casperson and his cronies continue their vendetta on wolves.

Senate Resolution 105 passed through an unelected committee, where Casperson is the chairman, and will very soon be on the Michigan Senate floor. This resolution urges the federal government to take wolves off the Endangered Species List even though the population has declined from 687 in 2010 to 618 in 2016, and leave it up to Michigan for “scientific” management.

There is nothing “scientific” about the management of wolves in Michigan, it means “hunt” plain and simple, through any cruel means deemed “scientifically” necessary – traps, snares, hounding, etc. All for the sole purpose of putting wolf heads on walls and fur coats on women. (I am sure that the wolf hides are sent overseas as 99 percent of American women would not be caught dead in one.)

SR 105 blatantly circumvents Michigan voters, who voted against wolf hunting twice in the 2014 election. Is voting in Michigan redundant when our Legislature simply ignores its constituents? It would seem so. Plus, do we want our taxpayer dollars to continually fund the Casperson vendetta? (We have been funding it since 2011.)

Very soon, SR 105 will be voted on by the state Senate. Please email and call your state senator telling him to uphold the will of the people and vote no on SR 105 when it comes before them on the state floor. Find your senator online at www.senate.michigan.gov/fysbyaddress.html.

SARAH PAYETTE

Macomb Township, Oct. 19

Source: Casperson wolf vendetta ignores voters’ will

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:

DRAFT STATEMENT FROM WSU/WDFW ON PROFANITY PEAK WOLF PACK

 

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.

 

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Categories

%d bloggers like this: