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

Animal rights group, Native Americans to meet in Atascadero to oppose hunting amendment 

protect the wolves

California Fish and Game Commission meets in Atascadero, allowing GPS tracking on hunting dogs is on the agenda

–The California Fish and Game Commission is meeting in Atascadero Oct 11-12. One of the items on the agenda is discussing proposed changes to the California Mammal Hunting Regulations section 265 that governs the use of dogs for pursuing or taking of mammals. The change proposes to allow the use of GPS-equipped dog collars and treeing switches on hunting dogs, a move that is opposed by both animal protection organizations and Native American groups. A tree switch is a device that sends a signal when a dog raises its head to watch or sound a treed animal.

Hunters claim that GPS devices will make it easier to track and find their hunting dogs that are running loose in pursuit of game. Animal rights advocates claim the devices are inhumane both to the hunting dogs and to the animals being pursued.

Randal Massaro, President of Union Members for the Preservation of Wildlife, said that if the GPS collars are approved hunters will have “no incentive to keep up with their dogs in wildlife habitat and terrain when they can sit in vehicles and watch a screen indicating their dogs’ ranging one to seven miles, or more.” Massaro also said the devices violate Fish and Game codes that require dogs be kept under control.

Roger Dobson, President of the Northern California organization Protect the Wolves and member of the Washington Cowlitz Tribe said, “It is inhumane treatment of both the dogs and the wildlife to let dogs run loose where there are real predators that have to eat. No hunter is going to be able to get to any dog fast enough to save that dog from another predator.”

Clifton Aduddel, President of the Native American Church of the Ghost Dancers and a Choctaw located in Southern California said the proposal is a “horrific disrespect of the canines and other animals in general.”

Tony Cerda, Chief of the Coastanoan Rumsen Tribe said he is against turning dogs loose to hunt down prey. “It is our tradition when hunting or even taking plants to offer a prayer to the animal or plant to thank them for feeding my family and to say ‘When I die I’ll feed your family.’ This is the circle of life.”

The commission is meeting Wed–Thur, Oct 11–12 at the SpringHill Suites by Marriott at 900 El Camino Real in Atascadero. The commission’s Tribal Committee also met at 1:30 p.m. Oct 10 at the same location. The commission meeting calendar and agendas can be viewed here.

Massaro said he is encouraging everyone who interested to attend this meeting before the final hearing and vote at the commission’s December meeting in San Diego. Massaro said that he feels both animal rights advocates and tribal speakers at previous meetings about the amendment have not been taken seriously. “It is high time we stop spending our tax dollars to subsidize a cruel sport and form of hunting such as this, not to mention the innocent animals like fawns or other animals that aren’t on the hunting list, maybe even hikers or campers. Getting bit by one dog is bad enough, but getting bit and attacked by six, eight or 12 dogs is even worse,” said Massaro.

Source: Animal rights group, Native Americans to meet in Atascadero to oppose hunting amendment – Paso Robles Daily News

Wyoming elk and moose population in decline–hunting/Wolves says WGF

protect the wolves

Wyoming elk and moose population in decline–from hunting and Wolves,  Wyoming says, Yet they want to open up a special season for CHILDREN to slaughter Elk on the REFUGE 😉 when its already far under Federal FWS Management objectives.

Hunters in Wyoming, have had Record Slaughters close to 25,000 Elk Slaughtered each year… and yet they make statements like these. You wonder why we do not think that Wyoming is capable of managing out Public Resources?

Like a century-long chess game, the strategic moves and counter moves of managing livestock, wild game and predators on common ground continues.

It’s not simply black against white; there are more than two sides. A multitude of players include state and federal agencies, legislators, ranchers, sportsmen and conservation groups, anti-sportsmen and anti-ranching groups, private citizens and more – all playing with and against each other at times.

Earlier this month in Jackson, Wyo., the Wyoming Game and Fish released numbers on the official annual tally of the Jackson Hole elk herd. Total elk counted were 10,016, with an adjusted total population (not yet released) likely to come in between 10,300 and 10,500. At that range, this year will be the lowest estimated population since 1986. The highest year was in 1991, with 21,200 elk.

Those lower numbers have some groups – particularly those who depend on big game for a living – more than concerned.

And they’re crying wolf. Literally.

“The impact on wildlife from the introduction of wolves in the lower 48 in the late ’90s is undeniable – no matter which way you look at it,” said a representative for Eastmans’ Hunting Journals, a hunting media company based in Powell, Wyo., in a statement provided to TSLN.

“[Hunters and outdoorsmen] understand the importance of wildlife conservation as a generational heirloom to pass down. It’s sportsman that built what we have (had) and the introduction of wolves (and other unregulated predator populations) has nearly decimated that effort in many areas.”

According to Aly Courtemanch, wildlife biologist with the Wyoming Game and Fish’s office in Jackson, the agency acknowledges wolves have had an impact on elk numbers, since elk comprise the majority of the predators’ diet year-round – but they’re not the full story.

“The drop in the Jackson Elk Herd from a high of 21,000 elk in the early 1990s to around 11,000 in recent years has been mostly driven by intentional reduction through hunting seasons,” said Courtemanch.

From 1993 to 2002, when liberal hunting seasons aimed to reduce the herd, the annual harvest was 2,300 to 4,300 elk. “In recent years we have changed hunting seasons to stabilize the herd at objective (which is currently 11,000 and set by the Wyoming Game and Fish with input from community) and harvest has been 1,000 – 1,500 elk annually,” said Courtemanch. “Therefore, wolves certainly remove elk from the population, but hunting season structure has a larger impact on the overall herd numbers.”

Still, it’s not hard to make a different correlation. The drop in big game numbers mirrors the timeline of the introduction of the wolf almost identically. And it’s not just elk disappearing. The moose herd is estimated to be in even more dire straits, with a population of only 400 against an objective of 3,600.

Ryan Benson is president and CEO of BigGame Forever, a sportsmen’s group with the mission of restoring and protecting wildlife populations.

In an article posted on the BigGame Forever blog, Benson said, “Moose in Jackson Hole, Wyo., are in serious trouble. Before wolves were introduced into Yellowstone, there were 3,000 to 5,000 moose in Jackson. Today, less than 20 years after the experimental wolf introduction, there are less than 500 moose left. This is a true American conservation nightmare.”

And in Wyoming, conservation and business go hand in hand – at least in the hunting sense.

In 2015, the total economic contribution of the big game industry was estimated to be $303.5 million. This is according to a study commissioned by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association and produced by Southwick Associates. They also concluded big game hunters generated 3,100 Wyoming jobs in 2015, with 51 percent of those jobs created due to non-resident hunters.

The impact is big, but could be bigger if the wolf were managed and big game populations allowed to thrive. Such is the sentiment among the sportsmen community.

“Much like ranchers that work hard, very hard, to maintain their cattle ranches for their families only to see their profits literally eaten, the economic impact on state game agencies is tremendous too, though most won’t admit it,” said the Eastmans’ representative. “The loss of license dollars is putting additional burden on already cash-strapped agencies. Who wants to hunt where there’s no game?”

Certainly ranchers can empathize with their counterparts in the guiding and outfitting industry on this issue. They too have seen their livelihood stalked down and torn to pieces while they stand by, incapacitated to do anything.

The recovery goal for the wolf, agreed upon at reintroduction in 1995, was 300 wolves and 30 breeding pairs for at least three successive years. That objective was met in 2002, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and recovery has continued to exceed expectation. As of December 31, 2015, there were at least 1,704 wolves in 282 packs (including 95 breeding pairs) in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Packs have also expanded into Oregon and Washington.

While ranchers’ interests align more closley with the elk than with the wolves, the elk bring their own issues for domestic livestock. The spread of brucellosis continues to be an issue in the livestock industry. Neighboring states continue to grumble about elk feeding grounds being breeding grounds for disease. The Montana Senate recently passed a joint resolution 50-0 urging federal and state officials in Wyoming to stop feeding elk on winter range. The resolution noted potential loss of wildlife’s natural instincts, environmental damage, and increased probability of disease transmission, including scabies, foot rot, brucellosis and chronic wasting disease, as well as the economic loss due to these diseases.

At the end of the day, the simple facts are elk numbers in the Jackson area are half of what they were in the early 1990s. The moose population has declined to what some people feel warrants them trading places with the wolf on the Endangered Species List.

To some this is ideal. To some, it’s detrimental.

It depends on which chess piece you’re moving

Source: Wyoming elk and moose population in decline–hunting, wolves identified as causes | TSLN.com

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Categories

%d bloggers like this: