Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Wolves category.

Washington wolf group charts quicker path to lethal control


Washington’s Wolf Advisory Group revises lethal-control protocol, with goal of saving livestock and wolves

Don Jenkins

Capital Press

Published on March 31, 2017

OLYMPIA — Washington’s Wolf Advisory Group settled on a lethal-control policy Thursday that if in place last year would have allowed wildlife managers to shoot wolves in the Profanity Peak pack nearly three weeks earlier to stop attacks on cattle in the Colville National Forest.

The new policy lowers the threshold for lethal removal and gives the Department of Fish and Wildlife more leeway to act as a pack shows signs of habitually targeting livestock.

WDFW hopes earlier intervention will mean shooting fewer wolves to change the pack’s behavior, the department’s wolf policy coordinator Donny Martorello said. “This could save the lives of livestock and wolves,” he said.

The group represents producers, environmentalists, hunters and animal-rights advocates. Members accepted the lethal-removal protocol to end a two-day meeting to review last year’s policy and to revise it for the upcoming grazing season. WDFW will issue a written protocol in the coming weeks.

Martorello said he called WDFW Director Jim Unsworth during a break and got the director’s support. Ultimately, the decision rests with Unsworth whether to shoot wolves to stop depredations.

Following a policy approved by the advisory group a year ago, Unsworth ordered wolves in the Profanity Peak to be culled after the fourth confirmed attack on livestock. The fourth depredation was confirmed 26 days after the first. WDFW eventually shot seven wolves, leaving four survivors in the pack.

Under the new policy, WDFW will consider lethal removal after three depredations within 30 days. Significantly, one depredation could be classified as “probable.” Previously, only confirmed depredations counted toward triggering lethal removal. To confirm a wolf attack, WDFW investigators look for wounds to the flesh, but in some suspected cases only bones remain.

If in place last summer, WDFW could have initiated lethal removal seven days after the first depredation.

Also, WDFW would have considered shooting wolves last fall in the Smackout pack. WDFW documented one probable and two confirmed depredations within eight days. Under the existing policy, the pack was still two confirmed depredations away from being a candidate for lethal removal.

In cases in which attacks are farther apart, four depredations will remain the threshold, though the window will be shortened to 10 months from 12 months. One probable attack could be counted.

Stevens County Commissioner Don Dashiell, a member of the advisory group, said the new policy improves the lethal-removal protocol. But he said it still doesn’t give WDFW the room to act as soon as attacks begin.

“I’m not that enthused because my vision was one depredation, and we do something,” he said.

The policy also calls for ranchers and WDFW to agree on tactics to prevent and respond to depredations before using lethal control as a last resort. Martorello said the department will not require ranchers to sign damage-prevention contracts. “It can be a dialogue,” he said.

Conservation Northwest’s representative on the advisory group, Paula Swedeen, said the changes were sensible.

“It’s at least a conversation between the (WDFW) conflict specialist and the producer,” she said.

WDFW also pledged to make more information available about what it and ranchers are doing to keep wolves and livestock apart. Swedeen said the on-the-ground measures should reassure wolf advocates. “I think it keeps temperatures down when people have more of a description,” she said.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Offspring of California’s Shasta wolf pack spotted in Nevada


PNP Comment: This is exactly what Fish and Wildlife agencies planned — the natural expansion of wolves. Without management, which is killing of a certain number of wolves each year, the wolf population will soon be out-of-control. This is proof! — Editor Liz Bowen

Sac Bee. com

March 24, 2017 6:44 PM

 A male wolf identified as an offspring of California’s Shasta pack has made its way to northwest Nevada.

The wolf was spotted in early November near Fox Mountain, just west of the Black Rock Desert and about 20 miles from the California state line, Amaroq Weiss, west coast wolf organizer for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an email Friday. Nevada’s state wildlife agency was able to collect scat and send it for DNA testing. The results recently came back, confirming that it was a male offspring of the Shasta pack, Weiss said.

Wildlife advocates expressed concern earlier this month that seven gray wolves, the first wolf pack to take up residence in California in nearly a century, had not been seen since May 2016. The family, known as the Shasta pack, had disappeared from southeastern Siskiyou County.

Confirmation that an offspring of the pack had been sighted in Nevada was encouraging to those eager to see wolves make a comeback on the West Coast.

“They made it to California from Oregon through natural dispersal, and now California’s wolves are continuing this amazing saga by having one of our own disperse to Nevada,” Weiss said in the email.

“The fact that wolves can make these journeys and have made any kid of a comeback at all, after being almost entirely eradicated throughout the lower 48 United States, is due to the protections afforded them under the federal Endangered Species Act,” she said. “Federal and state protections for imperiled species like wolves make all the difference in the world.”

Cathy Locke: 916-321-5287, @lockecathy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article140709163.html#storylink=cpy

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

PLF, farmers, and ranchers challenge state’s ‘endangered’ listing of gray wolf

Agriculture - California, Lawsuits, Liberty, Wolves

Press Release from Pacific Legal Foundation

Jan. 31, 2017

SACRAMENTO, CA;  January 31, 2017:  The California Fish and Game Commission has neglected sound scientific analysis, undermined sensible wildlife protections — and violated state law — by unjustifiably adding the gray wolf to the state’s list of “endangered” species.

Damien M. Schiff
Principal Attorney

So argues a lawsuit filed today by Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) and the California Farm Bureau Federation.  Filed in California Superior Court, the lawsuit challenges the commission’s listing of the gray wolf under the California Endangered Species Act.  The listing took effect on January 1, 2017, a little over a year after a divided commission approved it on a controversial 3-1 vote.


A listing based on flimsy evidence and deliberate undercounting

The lawsuit challenges the gray wolf listing as illegal on three grounds:

1) The listing is based on flimsy evidence.  The listing process was triggered by a single wolf crossing the Oregon border in 2011 — and that wolf has since wandered out of California.  Never before has a listing been initiated by a single animal’s occasional wanderings into the state.  This is why the state Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended against listing.

2)  Regulators undercounted the gray wolf’s numbers.  In violation of the California ESA, the commission looked only at the wolf’s numbers in California, ignoring healthy wolf populations elsewhere.  Indeed, the wolf’s overall status has improved to the point that the federal government is moving toward removing the species from its own “endangered” list.

3)  The gray wolf is not covered by the law.  The California ESA is limited to native species and subspecies.  Yet the gray wolves addressed by this listing are originally from Canada; they represent a subspecies that was never historically present in California.

PLF statement:  The listing is bad science, bad policy, and bad law

“The Fish and Game Commission took a big bite out of its own credibility with this unjustified listing,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff.  “The agency managed to label the gray wolf as ‘endangered’ only by myopically and illegally ignoring its populations outside California.

“Moreover, the listing is destructive as a matter of public policy,” Schiff continued.  “To begin with, it creates dangers for Northern California ranchers, farmers, and their local economies.  If gray wolves begin to establish themselves after a long absence from California, regulators should be working with landowners on balanced policies that can protect sheep, cattle, and people with minimal harm to wolves.  Instead, the rigid regulations under an ‘endangered’ listing hamstring property owners and make cooperative solutions impossible.

“Gray wolves were already protected as a ‘non-game mammal,’ an arrangement that allowed flexible control,” he added.  “In contrast, the ‘endangered’ listing makes it next to impossible for landowners to get permits even to physically remove a wolf that is threatening their animals. Even state officials would run into red tape if they were to try to capture or kill a wolf.

“Finally, this listing means California wildlife could end up as wolf prey,” Schiff said.  “It is ironic, and outrageous, that by wrongly moving to safeguard a non-native wolf species, the state is endangering animals that are native to the state and that regulators should be protecting.”

The listing harms members of both Farm Bureau and CCA

The California Cattlemen’s Association is a nonprofit trade organization representing California’s ranchers and beef producers in policy matters.  CCA has 34 county affiliates and over 2,400 members, including more than 1,700 cattle producers.  California Farm Bureau Federation is the state’s largest farm organization, composed of 53 county farm bureaus representing more than 48,000 agricultural, associate, and collegiate members in 56 counties.



No Comments

Santa Barbara defenders of wolves will give presentation to Siskiyou Supervisors on Dec. 6, 2016

Agriculture - California, cattle, Wildlife, Wolves

PNP comment: I doubt if any of their suggestions refer to the reduction of wolf numbers! We do not need wolves in Siskiyou County. There are plenty in other areas and in Canada. Wolves are not threatened or endangered with extinction. The species are thriving! WE have an over abundance of predators like mt. lions, bears, bobcats, foxes and coyotes. There isn’t enough wildlife to support the additional predator of wolves in Siskiyou County. — Editor Liz Bowen

From Dec. 6, 2016 Siskiyou County Board meeting agenda



Presentation of the annual Siskiyou County Tourism Improvement District report and progress to-date information.


Presentation of findings from a study aimed at helping livestock producers in Northern California to reduce the likelihood of conflicts with wolves.

No Comments

40 dogs killed by wolves during Wisconsin bear hunt; experts puzzled


Grind TV.com


Wisconsin bear hunters achieved a typically high success rate during a monthlong season that concluded last week, but experts are still trying to determine why a record number of hunting dogs were killed in the process.

According to the Wisconsin State Journal, at least 40 dogs were preyed upon by wolves during a hunt that allowed the use of dogs to pursue and tree black bears.

That’s nearly double the previous record of 23 hunting dog deaths, in a phenomenon that might be attributed to a growing wolf population in the Badger State.

“We don’t have much to go on except speculation,” said Dave MacFarland, carnivore specialist with the state Department of Natural Resources. “[But] everybody can agree that we hope we don’t see a repeat of what we saw this year.”

image: http://www.grindtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/wolf3-1024×684.jpg

wolf3About 900 gray wolves live in Wisconsin. Photo: Courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Gray wolves, also called timber wolves, are more firmly established in Wisconsin than at any time in recent history, numbering about 900 animals.

The wolves, which reside and hunt in packs, were removed from the federal list of endangered species 2012. But they were relisted in 2014.

RELATED: Gray wolf sighting reported at Grand Canyon

Wolf hunts were allowed briefly after the delisting, but are now banned. Wolf predation on livestock and hunting dogs is an increasingly contentious issue.

“It’s a terrible thing when your dog is eaten alive, you know, and it hasn’t happened to me yet, but a lot of guys that I know, they’ve lost a lot of good dogs,” Manny Eble, a bear hunter, told WBAY.

Adrian Wydeven, a former state wildlife biologist, told WBAY that the alarming rise in hunting dog deaths is not necessarily tied to a growing wolf population.

Read more at http://www.grindtv.com/wildlife/40-dogs-killed-wolves-wisconsin-bear-hunt-experts-puzzled/#zDvf9j67rZ7uE0s1.99

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

OR-7’s wolf pack suspected of 3 attacks on cattle

cattle, Wolves

Oregon Live

October 7, 2016

By Tony Hernandez | The Oregonian/OregonLive

A pack of wolves, started by the well-known OR-7, could be responsible for the killing two calves and injuring a third last week in western Klamath County, authorities say.

The Mail Tribune reports the area where the animals were killed is known to be frequented by the Rogue Pack. But authorities haven’t confirmed whether the pack is to blame.

An Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife report says wolves killed an 800-pound calf Oct. 2, and three wolves were observed feeding on the carcass the next day. A 600-pound calf was killed Oct. 4 and a third calf suffered wolf bites the following night.

John Stephenson with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it’s now a higher priority to have a Rogue Pack member collared to keep track of the animals.


OR-7’s pack suspected in 3 attacks on cattle | OregonLive.com

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

More wolf attacks in Southern Oregon 10-7-16

Agriculture, cattle, Wolves

Wolf attack confirmed in Lake County | News | heraldandnews.com


Second wolf attack being investigated | News | heraldandnews.com

No Comments

Wolves will be the subject of congressional Oversight Hearing on 9-21-16

Congress - Senate, Doug LaMalfa Congressman CA, Wolves

Committee Announces Oversight Hearing on Federal Government’s Management of Wolves

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 7, 2016
CONTACT: Parish Braden, Elise Daniel, Molly Block (202) 226-9019


Washington, D.C. – On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:00 PM in 1334 Longworth House Office Building, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold an oversight hearing titled “The Status of the Federal Government’s Management of Wolves.


Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations oversight hearing titled “The Status of the Federal Government’s Management of Wolves”


Wednesday, September 21
2:00 PM


1334 Longworth House Office Building


Visit the Committee Calendar for additional information once it is made available. The meeting is open to the public and a video feed will stream live at House Committee on Natural Resources.



No Comments

Contractor mauled by wolf at Cigar Lake mine


By The Canadian Press

August 30, 2016 – 4:28pm

A contractor working in northern Saskatchewan is recovering in hospital after he was mauled by a wolf.

The 26-year-old victim was on his lunch break at Cameco’s Cigar Lake uranium mine Monday morning when the wolf made the unprovoked attack.

The incident ended when a security guard scared the animal away.

“We were very fortunate the security guard was in the place where she was,” said Rob Geraghty, Cameco spokesperson. “She took a number of steps to not only get the animal away, but also to administer first aid.”

Geraghty did not release details on the worker’s injuries, but he said they were serious enough the man had to be airlifted to hospital.

The worker remains in a Saskatoon hospital and is expected to make a full recovery.

Meanwhile, employees on site have been put on alert.

All personnel have been told they must use vehicles to get around the area until further notice.

The Ministry of Environment was still looking for the wolf involved on Tuesday, but Conservation Officer Kevin Harrison said three other wolves have since been shot and killed.

“They’ve been taken out of the vicinity of the mine site, however it’s suspected the wolf in the attack still remains in the area,” Harrison said.

The three animals were sent to the University of Saskatchewan for testing to determine if they were sick in any way.

Harrison said the wolf population in northern Saskatchewan is considered ‘low density’.

“They may concentrate more on the vicinity of where human development is, looking for easy food,” Harrison said.

There have only been three documented wolf attacks in Saskatchewan in the last 12 years, according to Harrison.

In 2004, a worker was jumped by a wolf at Cameco’s Key Lake mine.

Another worker was attacked in the 2005.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


No Comments

Alaska: State bases Alaska game management on politics, not science

Federal gov & land grabs, Wilderness, Wildlife, Wolves

PNP comment: Looks like the fed US Fish and Wildlife Service is invasive in many states. — Editor Liz Bowen

Author: Rick Sinnott

Updated: 3 days ago Published 3 days ago

Alaska Dispatch News

In “Feds wage war on Alaska management of its fish and game” (Aug. 11), Doug Vincent-Lang excoriated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for its decision to prohibit some forms of state-sanctioned predator control on national wildlife refuges in Alaska.

Vincent-Lang claimed that “federal bureaucrats” are “intent on destroying science-based wildlife management here in Alaska.” I have news for him. The state’s management of wildlife has become increasingly less science-based since 1994, when the Alaska Legislature served up the Intensive Management Act.

Reducing wolf and bear populations to artificially increase numbers of moose, caribou and deer for human harvest — literally what the act requires — is politics-based wildlife management.

The good old days

Vincent-Lang is a former director of the Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation. I used to be an area management biologist. I was kind of like a sergeant to his colonel. So it irks me to have to keep explaining this to him.

It’s all very simple. Predator control is treated differently by state and federal wildlife agencies because the state and federal laws that govern agency actions are vastly different.

It wasn’t always that way. The Alaska Constitution exhorts the state to make its natural resources “available for maximum use consistent with the public interest” and “maximum benefit of its people.” Specifically, fish and wildlife “are reserved to the people for common use” and “shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.”

Nothing in the state constitution requires the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to boost ungulate populations for one user group — hunters — at the expense of predator populations. In fact, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled the constitutional mandate to manage wildlife according to sustained yield applies to predators as well as game animals.

And contrary to what the Legislature thinks, hunting is not the only common and beneficial use of wildlife. It’s not even the most common.



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments
« Older Posts