RSS

Patricia Randolph’s Madravenspeak: Wolf biologists’ second letter urges emergency relisting of Wisconsin wolves

red wolf pups

 “(E)xisting regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to detect substantial change in the Wisconsin wolf population. Therefore we urge emergency relisting pending independent scientific review.” — Oct. 15, second letter sent to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by wolf biologists

Adrian Treves, director of the Carnivore Coexistence Lab for the UW-Madison’s Nelson Institute, joined other wolf biologists Oct. 15 in directing a second letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this time not just “recommending” but urging emergency re-listing of Wisconsin wolves.

In 2011, shortly after the delisting, Treves contributed to the article “Rescuing Wolves From Politics: Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource.” Politics are destroying our wolves and wildlife. It seems the courts are the only check and balance left.

Meanwhile the DNR’s botched and bungled cruelty to wolves played out in killing 98 wolves in the first eight days of this third wolf hunt. Renown naturalist John Muir would have rightly called it murder. Conveniently inept even in its own plan, the DNR allowed double the quota to be killed in zone 2 (15 quota, 29 killed) and 36 to be killed in zone 1, four over a 32 quota, before closure. Two-thirds of the 150 quota were killed in eight days.

The USFWS answer to the wolf biologists’ Aug. 15 recommendation to suspend the Wisconsin wolf hunt was similarly delayed almost two months to Oct. 7, a week before the Oct. 15 wolf kill began. C.M. Wooley, acting regional director for USFWS out of Minnesota, declined to act, saying, “the service no longer serves as a regulating entity to protect the wolf” nor has “a role in regulating gray wolves in any of the states of the Western Great Lakes.”

The second biologists’ letter, dated Oct. 15, takes issue with that disclaimer, reminding the director that the Endangered Species Act requires the USFWS to be actively involved for a minimum five-year monitoring period, working with the states to ensure “implementation of legal and/or management commitments that have been identified in reducing threats or maintaining threats at sufficiently low levels.”

In the first letter, covered in my column Oct. 5, explains how the USFWS was given inaccurate, incomplete and nonsequential data by the DNR, and could not possibly determine wolf populations in Wisconsin. The second letter raises more concerns and is signed by additional wolf biologists.

In addition to the use of dogs, a wolf-killing season, and unreported poaching mentioned in the August letter, the scientists express two additional concerns Oct. 15:

Data on successful reproduction of Wisconsin wolf packs have not been presented publicly or presented to the independent scientific community for review. These data were provided in the past, thus interannual comparisons require them. These data are essential to proper estimates of population status because substantial population declines can occur at moderate levels of mortality if reproduction is impaired

Wisconsin did not submit all wolf carcasses for necropsy as required. … Without these data we cannot assess if poaching has risen with initiation of harvest or deregulation of hound training in Wisconsin.

“In sum, mortality data are not reported using the best available science and these data remain unclear more than 60 days after our first letter of concern and over two years after delisting. … Therefore we urge emergency relisting pending independent scientific review.”

The letter emphasizes an idea foreign to the Wisconsin DNR: “The methods and the data should be subject to thorough review by scientists with demonstrated relevant expertise and without financial or political conflicts of interest.”

Michigan citizens have gathered enough signatures to vote against using wolves as game animals. A Michigan wolf biologist defends wolves in this video.

Secretary of the Wisconsin DNR, Cathy Stepp, stacked the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee with wolf haters: Wisconsin bear hounders who drafted the wolf-kill legislation, Bow Hunters’ Association, Cattleman Association, Safari International Club, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, and only one mandated member who represents living wolves — the Indian tribes. As column-reader Alice Miller wrote me: “They want to make the wolf extinct — all are strong lobbyists to Governor Walker.”

Wolf and wildlife killers are destroying the wildlife we need in balanced ecosystems. These are the people influencing the DNR, destroying our commons and threatening those of us fighting for a living world. This is what “hunting” has become.

The root of this degradation is the 80 years of control of our public lands for the purpose of killing by funding the DNR with killing licenses. This has reached the apex of insanity: a state agency permitting the running packs of dogs and traps for sadistic pleasure at a time of mass extinctions and climate change.

We are in a planetary crisis of extinctions that threatens human survival. Help us educate legislators. Organize for DNR reform.

The DNR is making a 10-year action plan. It is vitally important they hear from many people that we do not want to kill every creature that moves and we want science-based care of our wildlife for functioning healthy ecosystems, while addressing climate change. Please take the DNR survey.

Should bear hunting be banned in the United States? Poll here.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 28, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Additional follow-up!

Blog Followers!

Please don’t forget to take the Wolf Survey toward the end of this week’s column. Also, please participate in the North American Wolves survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1puUqDagR6boaO_9TqHuAAemWYiesiC0ZZQQ6v-FX0vk/viewform regarding attitudes toward wolves. Please network the column and SURVEY to your social networking sites and email lists.

And watch the video how wolves made a stunning ecological improvement to Yellowstone and even improved the rivers.

Join us at www.wiwildlifeethic.org to fight for reform of the DNR being structured on killing licenses instead of general public funds. (Wildlife watchers already bring 3-4 times the $ of killing licenses and hunter taxes combined.) Please join us to fight for our wolves and other wildlife, tabling, flyering events, and speaking out at hearings and the Natural Resources hunter-stacked board meetings.

Now or never.

The wolf kill starts this Wednesday in Wisconsin, October 15. They have already killed more than half of the wolves it took 38 years to recover.

To Wisconsin Residents:

We are looking for two candidates to stand for election to represent all citizens in governing nature, wildlife, rivers, lakes, and decide about fracking and mining in Wisconsin.  Please let me know if you will stand up and find a running mate to stand with you in your county.  I can explain it, having done it.

Thanks

Patricia  Randolph

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 13, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Patricia Randolph’s Madravenspeak: Why is the DNR destroying our wolves?

a wolf pup

“My favorite recipe for wolf is to skin it, piss on it and let it rot for the maggots. Then cash in the hide and watch people like you squirt a tear over it.” — Dwayne Glosemeyer, Wisconsin Wolf Hunt Facebook page

Dwayne Glosemeyer’s in-your-face arrogance flinging torture and disrespect for wolves at wolf advocates mirrors the hatred of wolves promoted by the Department of Natural Resources. The DNR has a flagrant disregard for science, nature, and the majority of citizens in Wisconsin.

Paul Paquet is a world-renowned Canadian biologist who has been studying wolves for over four decades. He is on the advisory/science and recovery board of the Living with Wolves organization started by Jim and Jamie Dutcher after they lived with and filmed the Sawtooth Pack for six years. The organization’s goal is to stop the slaughter of wolves. Jane Goodall and Robert Redford are on the honorary board. I heard Paquet speak passionately against hunting wolves, as a moral issue, at the International Wolf Symposium last October in Duluth, Minn. He co-signed the letter sent by UW-Madison’s Adrian Treves recommending suspension of the 2014 Wisconsin wolf hunt.

Carter Niemeyer, former wolf biologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, also had been converted to wolf advocacy by his experiences with wolves. Niemeyer testifies with stacks of hard evidence that wolf depredation figures are deliberately or sloppily skewed, with local trappers “investigating” their buddies’ claims of wolf predation and then adding in any missing livestock for full compensation. Niemeyer’s book “Wolfer,” released in 2010, documents case after case of false depredation claims and calls for reform of Wildlife Services.

The Living with Wolves website addresses why state agencies mismanage wolf populations against the science of their benefits to ecosystem recovery. In discussing state game agencies, the “Wolves at a Crossroads” report says the fact that they are often referred to as “game managers” is an indicator of their business model. Using Idaho as an example, the report points out that the only significant revenue stream the agency can control is the sale of hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses. The report makes such an eloquent call for reform that I quote it here:

“They do not receive funding from general taxpayer dollars, which if they did, would represent the diverse interests of all Americans. Instead the revenue stream they can influence comes directly from hunting and fishing advocates. So it is their publicly stated opinion (and perhaps rightfully so) that they work for the sportsmen who pay them. Their own reports clearly say so.

“However, they are responsible for managing all wildlife in their state, not just game animals. When you are in the business of selling big game, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have predators running around eating your unrealized profits. As a result, what they manage may more closely resemble a game farm than balanced nature. And is not a model for healthy ecosystem management.”

“Current estimates are that 6 percent of Americans hunt. And it is for that mere 6 percent, and for the powerful special-interest groups that represent them, that America’s wildlife is being managed.”

Looking at the money spent by hunters, studies show that an equal amount of money is spent on wildlife watching, photography, and hiking, biking and enjoying nature peacefully. Wildlife friendly money is not directed to state agency funding for any non-hunter power. So the structure of killing license funding is the underlying bias corrupting state agencies and killing our wolves.

Paquet and the other wolf biologists on the advisory board wrote the following of wolves:

“Time and time again, we saw the great affection and care they demonstrate for one another and concluded that they are capable of not only emotion but also real compassion. This is the view of the wolf that we want to share, a wolf that is neither demon, nor deity, nor biological robot. It is an intelligent and highly sensitive animal that can be at once both individualistic and social. It is an animal that cares for its sick, protects its family, and desperately needs to be part of something bigger than itself — the pack.”

And we humans desperately need to be caring members of the “pack” of life. We are not the center of the universe but dependent on the delicate balance and diversity we are destroying.

Learn how wolves change rivers and create life-giving balance in this video. Contribute your views by participating in the North American Wolves Survey.

As the killing of 4,700 black bears concluded Oct. 7, the wolf kill is slated to begin Oct. 15, despite scientists’ recommendation to follow Michigan’s lead and suspend the hunt.

Wolves need our protection. Legislators regularly hear from those who want to kill them. Contact your legislators or wolves have no voice.

Last October, people fighting Minnesota’s controversial wolf hunt appealed to fans of a different kind of wolf at a Timberwolves game. http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video/9472560-wolf-hunting-opposition-to-attend-t-wolves-game/

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/patricia-randolph-s-madravenspeak-why-is-the-dnr-destroying-our/article_f47037c0-845d-57e8-8a01-923ea29bad48.html#ixzz3G2Iz5Sq8

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 13, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Patricia Randolph’s Madravenspeak: Wolf biologists recommend suspension of Wisconsin wolf hunt

wolf pups 2

“The range of possible (wolf) mortality rates (may be) as high as 35–55 percent, or 7–27 percent higher than reported by the state.” — wolf biologists’ letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

When nature organized this country, 2 million wolves graced the United States. Now state agencies man-handle nature as a game preserve for the 6 percent who kill. Less than 5,000 (0.025 percent of 2 million) wolves survive, under assault, about half of them in Minnesota. Red wolves are near extinction.

Wolves were the first endangered key predator species to be delisted legislatively, for a political agenda, not for scientific recovery. It was a gross violation of the Endangered Species Act. Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, a rancher, wanted wolves for his constituency to kill, and the Democrats wanted to keep his seat and the Senate — so the ESA was violated, as were the wolves and our heritage.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is mandated to report under the ESA for a five-year period, after delisting wolves, using the best available science.

Recently, Adrian Treves, Ph.D., director of the Nelson Institute’s Carnivore Coexistence Lab, and five other wolf scientists sent the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service a memo expressing concerns “that the best available science was not used in gray wolf, Canis lupus, managing and monitoring in the Western Great Lakes Region … during the period 28 Jan. 2012–31 Dec. 2013. … We found significant omissions of information, unorthodox methods, and statements that could potentially be misleading in the state report to the USFWS. … We recommend the secretary of the Interior consider the option of emergency relisting, as provided in Section 4(b)(7) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, because completion of the independent review using the best available science will require time but the Wisconsin wolf harvest is set to resume 15 Oct. 2014.”

Citing the scientifically flawed DNR report, the memo recommends “suspension of the wolf harvest until the scientific public record is clear that the wolf population will stay above the state’s threatened level (250) with a 99 percent probability.”

The memo references two new threats to wolves not acknowledged by the DNR: hunting with hounds, and the unregulated training of free-running dogs on wolves, night and day, year-round, with no rules or safeguards for law enforcement to implement. The effects of constant assaults have never been studied.

To further muddle the situation, the DNR changed monitoring methods in 2013-14, thereby “making inter-annual comparisons impossible.”

“The Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission was refused access to the meeting where data aggregation and interpretation occurred” in the spring of 2014, notes the memo. This did away with one independent assessment.

The DNR acknowledged that since delisting, reporting on natural mortalities had declined but omitted acknowledging any poaching mortalities. The memo states that the DNR knew of the Swedish study findings that “poaching was systematically and substantially under-estimated because poachers destroyed evidence. … Those authors found 67 percent of poaching events, 51 percent of all wolf mortality, were concealed and no carcass recovered.”

The memo notes: “According to WDNR’s public record … historic mortality levels were 32-48 percent without harvest. Add that to the 2012 harvest of 15 percent (117 of 774 ) = 47-63 percent after harvest. Then they tell us in the state report that there was a 0.74 percent population decline by April 2013.”

With a higher wolf quota the next year, “the 2013 harvest represented a 35 percent mortality rate (275 out of a population estimated at 779 off-reservation). We added the above-mentioned historic mortality rate range to the harvest mortality rate for an expected, total mortality rate of 67-83 percent.”

The DNR somehow came out with a median 12.7 percent annual decline in the wolf population. The DNR simply omitted major mortality factors known to exist beyond the hunts.

Of the seven DNR assumptions, Treves and his team assessed five as risky and zero as cautious, leading to underestimation of wolf mortality since delisting. Wolf killing quotas are determined using this hunter-serving math.

The Wolf Advisory Committee was appointed by DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp to represent hunting groups, except for one mandated tribal representative. The minutes of their Sept.10 meeting admit, “The DNR has current ongoing research to develop population estimation methods; the data does not exist right now.” Why has it taken three years to develop these methods? Why continue a hunt with no existing data?

The scientists’ memo works with the suspect DNR estimate of wolves surviving. Treves emailed, “Remember we just used their own numbers to challenge their own estimates; that does not mean we accept their numbers.”

Why not strike a more urgent tone, or take legal action?

Joel Trick, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Green Bay, told me pre-wolf hunt that a “very conservative estimate of wolf poaching was 100 wolves annually killed.” Now that the DNR and Legislature have fueled hatred for wolves as “vermin,” hounding 24/7 year-round on wolves and all wildlife encourages exponentially more opportunities for wolf haters to “shoot, shovel and shut up.”

Considering a corrupt delisting, poaching documented as 51 percent of all wolf mortality unreported by the DNR, natural mortalities inadequately reported, inevitable killing in hounding “training” year-round, and the hunt itself, it seems the DNR is manipulating mortality statistics to serve wolf-hater magical thinking.

The flawed DNR model was neither published nor independently peer-reviewed. The scientists request “an independent, scientific, peer-review panel be convened to advise the USFWS on a course of immediate action.” There has been no reply.

The morally bankrupt and inept DNR is not up to the task of managing wolves and wildlife in this state. It is too compromised by hunter/trapper/hounder power, money, greed, and ignorance.

This requires action to suspend the Oct. 15 wolf kill. Contact your legislators.

Next week, “Why state agencies manage wolves with disregard for science.”

Learn more about wolves in the YouTube documentary: “Living with Wolves.”

Please sign and network a petition to strengthen animal cruelty laws in Wisconsin.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 7, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Predator Killing Contest Environmental Assessment Available for 15-day Comment Period

From The Wildlife News

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/10/02/predator-killing-contest-environmental-assessment-available-for-15-day-comment-period/

Predator Killing Contest Environmental Assessment Available for 15-day Comment Period

By Ken Cole On October 2, 2014  In Advocacy, B.L.M., Forest Service, Idaho, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Predator Killing, Wildlife News, Wolf Hunt

The BLM is asking for comments on an Environmental Assessment that examines the impacts of issuing a Special Recreation Permit (SRP) to conduct a predator killing contest on BLM lands. The comment period begins today and remains open for 15 days, until Friday Thursday, October 16, 2014.

If the SRP is issued, the killing contest is scheduled to take place from January 2-4, 2015 and would include prizes for killing a variety of species from wolves, coyotes, weasels, skunks, jackrabbits, raccoons, and starlings. Last year the contestants killed 21 coyotes and at least one badger. The permit would allow the contest to take place on BLM lands in a large portion of eastern Idaho.

idaho blm wolf map

Highly Controversial

According to the Environmental Assessment, the BLM received “[a]pproximately 56,500 comments were received during the scoping period. Roughly 56,490 commentors indicated opposition to the event; most of these letters were copies of nine different form letters that expressed general disapproval of a hunting derby wherever it is held. Approximately 500 unique/personalized comments were received.” This means that there were only 10 comments in support of the permit being issued.

Economic Impacts

The Environmental Assessment was written in a manner that signals that the BLM is likely to issue the permit by giving much weight to the custom and culture of Salmon, Idaho and surrounding areas despite the fact that issuing the permit is likely to give the State of Idaho another black eye and affect tourism in the state. The economic analysis found that while the town of Salmon and surrounding areas might receive a $94,000 boost, the state as a whole could miss out on anywhere from $23,800 to $2,380,000 depending on how many people decide to not visit the state due to its draconian predator management policies. Admittedly, it is hard to quantify exactly how much the state will lose in economic activity but, because the world press has focused on Idaho’s wolf and predator management recently, it is clear that Idaho has a very poor image among those who value wildlife and would come to visit the state to see it.

Fails to Examine Competing SRP Request

The Environmental Assessment failed to adequately address an alternative SRP request for a wildlife viewing contest submitted by Western Watersheds Project and Center for Biological Diversity which, if the permit is issued, would take place instead of the derby or at the same time. The Environmental Assessment merely mentions the competing SRP and fails to consider or propose to deny the derby permit and approve the wildlife viewing context permit, or another alternative to allow both events during the same weekend.

Even if the BLM were to issue the competing SRP for the wildlife viewing contest but require it to take place either before or after the predator killing contest, there was no assessment of the inherent conflicts of the two. If the wildlife viewing contest were to take place before the predator killing contest then participants would be injured by knowing that wildlife they viewed could likely be killed for the bloodlust of the killing contest participants. If the wildlife viewing contest were to take place after the predator killing contest then participants would be injured because there would be less possibility of seeing predators on the landscape.

Submit Comments

To submit comments, the BLM has these suggestions:

When submitting comments, please focus on issues under BLM’s authority, i.e., impacts to recreation, wildlife habitat, social and economic values. The BLM does not manage for wildlife or determine hunting regulations. Please submit comments by mail to:

BLM Idaho Salmon Field Office
Attention: Predator Hunt Derby SRP
1206 S. Challis Street
Salmon, ID 83467

or by email at BLM_ID_Predatorhuntderby@blm.gov. The BLM will accept comments until October 16, 2014. For more information on the SRP application, contact the BLM Idaho Salmon Field Office at 208-756-5425.

Another Avenue to Express Concerns

Another avenue to express concerns is to contact the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commission to ask that such predator killing contests not be allowed in Idaho. The Commission, as well as BLM, has authority to stop these contests in Idaho. Make it known that Idaho has a duty to manage all wildlife under the public trust doctrine and that allowing these types of killing contests only serves to further tarnish the image of the State of Idaho.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commission adopted a Predator Management Policy in 2000 that states:

Fish and Game will not support any contests or similar activities involving the taking of predators which may portray hunting in an unethical fashion, devalue the predator, and which may be offensive to the general public.

Clearly, these contests are offensive to the general public, they devalue predators, and portray hunting in an unethical fashion.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has elaborated on this policy and acknowledged it does have the ability to restrict or require permits for these types of events.

From: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/question/why-killing-wildlife-state-resourcesfor-prizes-okay-private-individuals-make-money-seems

Why is killing wildlife … state resources…(for prizes) okay for private individuals to make money? This seems wrong on all counts. | Idaho Fish and Game

Q: Why is it that private individuals can personally profit from killing resources in a carnival-like atmosphere? Resources that belong to everyone? Are you aware of how you are offending so many people?

A: Idaho Fish and Game has not been asked and will not provide any financial support or logistical support for this event.

13 years ago, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission adopted a Predator Management Policy that states “Fish and Game will not support any contests or similar activities involving the taking of predators which may portray hunting in an unethical fashion, devalue the predator, and which may be offensive to the general public.”

All participants are still required to obey the rules and current season frameworks such as season, method of take, licensing and reporting just like participants in a big buck contest. Fish and Game will conduct routine patrols to ensure current hunting rules and seasons are being followed. If there are reports of unlawful activity associated with this derby or any other hunting activity, Fish and Game will investigate.

Fish and Game serves as the public trust manager for Idaho’s wildlife. The agency takes direction from the trustees – the Fish and Game Commission, the Governor and the Legislature. If they decide to restrict or require permits for these types of activities, then Fish and Game will implement those policy decisions.

You can contact the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commission visit this page where the contact information for the current Commission is posted: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/about/commission/?getPage=183.

The U.S. Forest Service Double Standard.

The U.S. Forest Service last year decided that a Special Use Permit (SUP) was not required for the contest to be held on U.S. Forest Service lands in Idaho. Shortly after this arbitrary decision was challenged in court, the Malheur National Forest in Oregon informed another contest organizer that they would have to initiate the process to obtain the SUP to hold the contest on U.S. Forest Service lands..

You can contact the Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho and request that a SUP be required for this contest.

Salmon-Challis National Forest Supervisor’s Office
1206 S. Challis Street
Salmon, ID 83467
(208) 756-5100.

Or contact them via their website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/contactus/scnf/about-forest/contactus.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 6, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Patricia Randolph’s Madravenspeak: DNR offers smorgasbord of killing opportunities

bear looking around tree_5413562a2da6d.preview-300

“You that never done nothin’ but build to destroy/You play with my world like it’s your little toy. … Even Jesus would never forgive what you do. ~ “Masters of War,” Bob Dylan

Sept. 14 is day 12 of the 35-day bear hunt. Thousands of bears, vulnerable from baiting since April, and having been run by dogs since July 1, have been wounded or killed with guns or crossbows or dogs. Most of them were spring cubs, yearlings or mothers. The last four months before denning, when they need to feed every day, bears are run relentlessly. As a consequence, there is the real risk of bears and spring cubs starving in winter dens.

Hunters, having bagged their bear, will turn attention to add the smorgasbord of killing opportunities that began Saturday, Sept. 13. The deer kill used to be a nine-day ordeal for those of us who love our deer. Now it is 104 days.

Turkeys of either sex can be killed statewide for all but 10 days from Sept. 13 through Dec. 1.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) added 20 days to the 70-day mourning dove kill that began Sept. 1. Fifteen birds is the daily bag limit. Each shooter can annually kill 1,350 birds. Think passenger pigeon.

Two years ago, the deadly “Conservation” Congress discussed partridge, quail and sharp-tailed grouse, concluding: “Their population is down. Bobwhite quail is all but gone. The decline is nationwide along with the habitat they need.” Thus the 2014 quail kill is stunningly reckless: Oct. 18–Dec. 10. The DNR did not stop killing sharp-tailed grouse until hunters could not find any birds to shoot.

When a species is killed out, the DNR just adds another kill. The agency stirred excitement with an extra teal hunt Sept. 1-7 in addition to those killed in the usual duck seasons. Teal are the smallest dabbling ducks, weighing an average three-quarter pound. They migrate the farthest of any ducks killed here in Wisconsin, wintering as far south as Peru.

Oct. 18–Dec. 31 is the stocked pheasant kill. Hundreds of thousands of pheasants, hand-raised through DNR funding, are thrown out, bewildered, to be killed the next day by shooters accustomed to private ranges with tossed live birds for targets.

There is never protection for coyotes, opossums, skunks, weasels and snowshoe hares.

Trapping starts as early as Oct. 18 for many “furbearers,” and continues through February, March or April depending on the species. The longest killing period is reserved for beavers, which Indians revered as the “sacred center of life” because they create habitat and clean water for half the rare and endangered species on earth.

For the first time, last year the DNR doubled trapping times, expanding to 24-hour killing. New trappers are recruited (over 1,000 a year, including many children) with $5 first-time fees for unlimited killing.

Scientist Lynn Rogers, who opened the Bear Education Center in Ely, Minn., championing peaceful black bears, wrote in his daily newsletter about hunters lining up as the bear season started to kill trusting radio-collared bears on the center’s boundary.

On Sept. 2 Rogers wrote: “A guide told us to stay away from the area that is adjacent to WRI (the bear education center) to the east and not to use the forest road there. He said hunting takes precedence over other activities in the forest during hunting season. … The community is getting fed up with not being able to walk their dogs on their familiar trails for fear of disturbing a hunter.”

Sept. 4 entry: “Bear-hunters shooting in low light by flashlight after legal shooting hours is a widespread problem.” Describing shots fired past 10 p.m., he added, “This happens nightly.” Wounding loss is one of the biggest problems in bear hunting (besides the deliberate killing of innocent natural beings).

Rogers describes a 5-year-old study bear named Ty: “Ty was a playful bear who had good rapport with many other bears. Ty was popular. Many bears knew and trusted him and frequently initiated play — or responded to his initiatives. His relationships extended to sharing food. … Part of Ty’s acceptance by other males may have been due to his calm, trusting demeanor that also extended to humans. We saw Ty’s picture posted as one of the bears killed on Sept. 1 — opening day.”

The Bear Center’s bears are being targeted. Rogers laments, “These are the bears we and the world can learn from. There is much more learning and sharing to be done.”

View a memorial to Hope, the first wild bear whose birth was videotaped for the world to see. She was killed by a hunter the following year.

Unlike Wisconsin’s bear baiting from mid-April through the hunt, Minnesota defers baiting until Aug. 15, allowing bears their natural diet. And Minnesota admits that their population has declined to 10,000-15,000 bears, so they dropped to 3,750 licenses this year. Wisconsin has issued over three times the number of licenses (10,460) against Wisconsin’s population, which DNR guesstimates at 22,000.

In an accelerating human-caused extinction that threatens our life support system, the DNR’s killing business is an outdated patriarchal catastrophe. Why do citizens tolerate this?

Please sign and network a petition to protect Wisconsin wildlife.

Also consider this petition against UW-Madison maternal deprivation studies on baby monkeys then killed by UW.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/patricia-randolph-s-madravenspeak-dnr-offers-smorgasbord-of-killing-opportunities/article_ac927475-a6b8-546b-bf79-4f8275a5e32f.html#ixzz3DWypS01m

 
2 Comments

Posted by on September 16, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Patricia Randolph’s Madravenspeak: Coming soon: many bear families’ last afternoon together

bearcub

“I see kids for violence and anger issues who are trained hunters by age 12. How can I help in fighting this scourge? The state agencies are recruiting women and children at an alarming rate — they have the funds and the access.” — Karin McKenna, school counselor

In July a Madravenspeak reader emailed a link to an Alaska Dispatch news story of a black bear family’s last afternoon. He said, “It is one of the saddest stories I have seen.” The story has pictures of a mother bear with her two spring cubs, swimming in a lake together, frequenting some tourist spots in East Anchorage. “She didn’t show any aggressive behavior, but there was just so much accessible garbage,” so the state agency, comparable to our Department of Natural Resources (DNR), decided to shoot the mother, and haul the babies off to an Alaska zoo. Bears are being killed for just showing up.

As shown in this video of a mother bear reaching over a concrete traffic barrier to rescue one of her cubs, a lot of care and attention goes into raising cubs in a human-dominated world. Yet the DNR is exultant to be obliterating spring cubs or yearlings in their annual kill. Wisconsin kills over eight times as many bears as are killed in New Hampshire, half of them female, yet I have never heard of orphan cubs rescued here. It is confounding that Ben Kilham rehabilitated 27 orphan cubs  in New Hampshire last year. Do our cubs just wander around until they die after their mother is shot out of a tree?

Bears do not breed before they are 3 years old. The mothers teach their cubs to forage and how to den, warming them through their first winter. They have babies only every other year. Under the DNR’s rapacious policies, most bears here are killed when they are 2 years old or younger, so they never reach breeding age. It is inconceivable that the bear population remains at 22,000. In the past five years, the DNR has orchestrated the killing of 21,997 bears, plus it issues hundreds of “agriculture tag” bear kill licenses annually (not in the kill count ) and still they claim the population has hardly decreased.

All one has to do is look at wolves to know that regardless of how many are killed, the DNR will claim there are plenty more to kill. The DNR did not stop the quail and sharp-tailed grouse killing until hunters could not find any.

In Wisconsin, bears fall to an insatiable appetite for running packs of dogs and thrill killing. The kill runs Wednesday, Sept. 3, through Oct. 7 with 10,460 permits issued to kill 4,700 bears, the highest number of permits ever issued. The use of dogs is promoted by the DNR all but the first week. Since July 1, according to the DNR, wolves have killed nine dogs during “hound training.” Additionally, unlimited enthusiasts can pay $14 and run more dogs and set bait, and can give 10-year-old kids a second shot at a wounded bear. Lessons in empathy for children, no doubt.

On their bear hunt website the DNR gloats, “Our regulations are designed to provide for a high quality experience through a long season with high success rates. It’s no wonder we have so much interest in bear hunting! With over 108,000 applicants, 2014 is another record year. We are fortunate to have such a large group of passionate sportsmen and women committed to Wisconsin’s bear population.”

What a twisted perspective.

The DNR regulations put wildlife at risk in more ways than mass killing. Baiting bears April 15 through the kill habituates them to human food, motivating bears to intrude on human garbage and residences, endangering property and their own lives. Canada’s public parks have signs warning, “A fed bear is a dead bear.” On a New Jersey bear protection site are listed the many ways that baiting harms ecosystem health. There the Wildlife Conservation Society cites a New Mexico case study showing that “when (human) food was made unavailable, bears were capable of living in close proximity to humans without conflict.”

Unfortunately the DNR does not care about bears. It cares about killing bears, exhorting bear killers to “enjoy your time with family” and explains how children 10-16, without hunter education, can have bear kill licenses transferred to them by adult “mentors.” Bear after bear after bear is killed by mobs of men and dogs.

The Guardian’s Rory Carroll went along on a bear hounding just before California banned it. He wrote: “Strip away the arguments about conservation, wildlife control and the (undeniable) hypocrisy of meat-eating urbanites, the hunters do what they do largely because their fathers did it, and because it’s fun. That’s poor justification to harass bears.” It is even poorer justification to kill them.

Killers care enough to organize. Long ago St. Francis of Assisi said that it is not enough not to harm our “humble brethren” but we must be of service to them when they need it. There will be millions of last afternoons for wild families over the next year, until enough people care to hound their legislators on behalf of bears and wildlife. It is long overdue.

Sign a petition to demand an end to hunting, trapping and hounding of wildlife in Wisconsin.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 1, 2014 in Uncategorized

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 245 other followers