February 5, 2023

Governments Weapons of Mass Destruction on Coyotes

Ignorance persists. Emotional clap-trap forever. America in the toilet.

The Federal Government has placed a temporary ban on M-44 cyanide “traps” after a boy was sickened and his dog died.

Comments can be read on this website that shows the ignorance and emotional clap-trap that people exemplify in the Americans’ perverted way of life.

I would supposed that the perversion is so deeply embedded into the small minds of many, that the emotional outrage would be considerably less if the dog had lived and the boy died.

Anybody wishing can learn about M-44s, their purposes and how they work, by reading information beginning here.

At the time of this posting, the APHIS website with information about M-44s was not accessible. Perhaps the link will work later.

Or, you can keep believing the Department of Agriculture is blowing up the forests and fields with weapons of mass destruction. Sorry, but the Federal Government reserves the right to use weapons of mass destruction on people, not animals.



Wolf Damage and Conflict Management in Wyoming


There are many positive ecological, ethical and aesthetic benefits associated with maintaining healthy wolf populations in native ecosystems (Weiss et al. 2007). Unfortunately, there are also circumstances when wolves can come in conflict with human interests. In Wyoming, these conflicts may include predation on livestock and pets and threats to human health and safety associated with habituated wolves. This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of alternatives for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS) program involvement in wolf conflict management in Wyoming.

In 1994, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperators reintroduced gray wolves (Canis lupus) as a Nonessential Experimental (XN) Population (50 CFR 17.84 (i)) in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and Central Idaho (59 FR 60252)1 . The Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) wolf population grew steadily and expanded in number and distribution. The population recovery criterion of ? 10 breeding pairs2 per state (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) for at least 3 consecutive years was reached by 2002, and has been exceeded every year thereafter (USFWS et al. 2010). The current NRM wolf population is at least 1,691 wolves in 320 packs, and 78 breeding pairs (USFWS et al. 2015); in addition, packs have been confirmed in eastern Washington and Oregon. WS, the USFWS and cooperating federal, state and tribal partners have worked collaboratively on research and monitoring of the wolf population and on wolf conflict management. These efforts have included radio-collaring and monitoring more than 1,200 wolves in the NRM to assess population status, conduct research, and to reduce/resolve wolf conflicts.

The WGFD and USFWS have requested that WS continue its role as an agent of the State for managing wolf conflicts (WGFC 2011, USFWS 2014). Any WS wolf conflict management actions would be subject to USFWS and WGFD decisions and authorizations (Letter to R. Krischke, WS, from M. Jimenez, USFWS, Wyoming Wolf Recovery Project Leader, October 22, 2014; contract with WGFD 2012) and applicable federal, state local and tribal laws and regulations and court rulings. WS wolf conflict management assistance could be provided on private or public property when: 1) authorized or approved by the USFWS and/or WGFD as appropriate, 2) resource owners/managers request assistance to alleviate wolf conflicts, 3) wolf conflict or threats are verified, and 4) agreements or work plans have been completed specifying the details of the conflict management actions to be conducted. Depending upon the regulatory status of wolves and applicable management plans and regulations, the types of verified wolf conflicts that could be addressed include: 1) depredation/injury of domestic animals, 2) harassment/threats to domestic animals, 3) property damage, and 4) injury and/or potential threats to human safety (e.g., habituated/bold wolves)1,.

Three alternatives for WS involvement in wolf conflict management are analyzed in this EA, including the Current Program Alternative (the No Action/Proposed Alternative) which continues the current adaptive wolf conflict management program, with nonlethal methods preferred before lethal actions are taken3 (WS Directives 2.101, 2.105). This alternative includes limits on wolf conflict management effective while wolves are federally protected under the ESA and managed under the special 10j rules (e.g., 1994, 2005 and 2008 10j rules) under which the nonessential experimental (XN) populations were reintroduced [50 CFR 17.84 (i)4 ], and authorizations from the USFWS or WGFD (Letter to R. Krischke, WS, from M. Jimenez, USFWS, Wyoming Wolf Recovery Project Leader, March 1, 2009; Letter to R. Krischke, WS, from B. Nesvik, Chief Wildlife Division, WGFD October 4, 2011). Under this alternative, WS would use and/or recommend the full range of legal, practical and effective nonlethal and lethal methods for preventing or reducing wolf conflicts while minimizing any potentially harmful effects of conflict management on humans, wolves, other species and the environment. This Alternative would serve as the environmental base line against which the potential impacts of the other Alternatives are compared (CEQ 1981).

Under a second alternative, WS would only use and provide advice on nonlethal methods for wolf conflict management. Under the third alternative considered, WS would not be involved in wolf conflict management in Wyoming. The limitations on WS actions under these two alternatives would not prevent the USFWS or WGFD, as appropriate, or property owners from using lethal methods in accordance with applicable federal, state and tribal laws, policies and plans.

The analysis evaluates the ability of each of the management alternatives to meet the established management objectives including the efficacy of the alternatives in reducing conflicts with wolves in Wyoming. Issues considered in detail for each alternative include: 1) impacts on the wolf population, 2) Effects on public and pet health and safety, 3) animal welfare and humaneness concerns, 4) impacts to stakeholders including aesthetic impacts, 5) impacts on non-target species including threatened and endangered species.

1 This rule established regulations allowing management of wolves by government agencies and the public to minimize conflicts with livestock. The USFWS authorized WS to investigate reported wolf predation on livestock and to implement corrective measures, including nonlethal and lethal actions, to reduce further predation. 2 A breeding pair is defined as a pack containing > one adult male > one adult female and two or more pups on December 31. 3 Nonlethal methods are generally implemented by the resource owner and usually WS is called after nonlethal methods have failed to stop the damage.

<<<Read Full Assessment>>>


Internet Spying Disguised as Animal Welfare



Internet Data Monitoring

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Care (AC), Riverdale, MD, has a requirement for a contractor to provide internet surveillance/data mining for individuals that are conducting Animal Welfare Act or Horse Protection Act regulated activities domestically within the United States.

Animal Care is charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA). The AWA requires that basic standards of care and treatment be provided for regulated animals for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. Individuals who operate facilities in these categories must provide their animals with adequate care and treatment in the areas of housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care, and protection from extreme weather and temperatures.

The HPA prohibits horses subjected to a practice called soring from participating in shows, sales, exhibitions, or auctions. Soring is a cruel and abusive practice used to accentuate a horse’s gait. It may be accomplished by irritating or blistering a horse’s forelegs through the application of chemicals such as mustard oil or the use of mechanical devices. The HPA also prohibits drivers from transporting sored horses to or from any of these events. APHIS works actively with the horse industry to protect against such abuse and ensure that only sound and healthy horses participate in shows.

USDA, APHIS, Animal Care personnel need to monitor, collect and manage information from Internet sites for regulated activities throughout the United States. We require the expertise of an industry that utilizes technological advancements that can search the broad universe of Internet sources for information on individuals that are conducting regulated activities.

This project is to be designed to evaluate vendor’s Internet Search Engine functionalities, user interface, and data to ensure that the data meets the Animal Care program needs. The results of the 6 month initial pilot project will determine the feasibility of extending the contract.


The vendor shall create modules that shall monitor regulated activities. The module shall provide identification, categorization and analysis of Web sites to identify persons suspected of conducting regulated activities without the required license or registration or illegal activities involving horse shows, sales, exhibitions, or auctions. The jurisdiction of the AWA and HPA are confined to the United States and its territories, so these modules shall only search for these criteria that occur in the United States.
The regulated activities to monitor are grouped into the following seven modules:

1) Sales of animals used as pets (all warm blooded animals)

2) Sales of wild and exotic animals

3) Animals exhibited to the public for compensation

4) Animals used for research, teaching, testing, and experimentation

5) Commercial transportation of animals

6) Horse shows, sales, exhibitions, and auctions (such as Tennessee Walking Horses)

7) Animal auctions

During the initial 6 months period of this contract, the vendor shall monitor two of the predetermined modules above, Sales of animal used as pets; and Horse shows, sales, exhibitions and auctions. After evaluation of the services provided, subsequent modules may be added contingent upon the success of the pilot project, not to exceed the modules listed above. For each module, the contractor shall work with Animal Care personnel to identify the search parameters needed to accomplish each of the modules above.


Project Management: The Contractor shall assign a Project Manager for this initiative to oversee the development of the project, ensure the timely accomplishment of each task and provide the Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) with a contractor point of contact for this contract.

A. Tasks

The tasks to be accomplished shall include:

1) During the initial 6 months pilot project period of this contract, the contractor shall focus on individuals or businesses engaged in the Sale of Animals Used as Pets; and Horse shows, sales, exhibitions, and auctions.

2) The contractor shall use their data mining and search engine capabilities to scan the entire Internet for businesses or individuals suspected of conducting AWA or HPA regulated activities without the required license or registration or illegal activities involving horse shows, sales, exhibitions, or auctions within the domestic United States and its territories. THE SCAN SHALL BE VIA INTERNET WEB TECHNOLOGY SEARCH ENGINE TOOLS, NOT A HUMAN BEING. The Internet sources include, but are not limited to:

* Global Domain Registrations

* World Wide Web

* Social Networking Web Sites

* Web logs (Blogs)

* IRC/Chat conversations

* Message Boards

* Public email groups and discussion forums

* Usenet Data

* Auctions – eBay.com and Yahoo.com Auctions

3) The Contractor shall collaborate with AC personnel to establish the appropriate search criteria for the identifying individuals or businesses engaged in the Sale of Animals Used as Pets; and Horse shows, sales, exhibitions, and auctions. The contractor shall promptly notify AC if there are any complications with the established search criteria.

4) The Contractor shall meet with AC officials to discuss search criterion in person, by telephone conference call or webinar. No travel costs for contractors are covered under this contract.

5) The Contractor shall make search data from the Sale of Animals Used as Pets; and Horse shows, sales, exhibitions, and auctions modules accessible online to the government via a Web Portal Display. The portal is made up of the following components:

* Dashboard to monitor activity across multiple solutions and users
* Case management system
* Message center
* Permissions-based user access
* Ad-hoc query access to client-specific data
* Ad-hoc query access to Vendor’s database of registered Domain Names

6) Contractor Intelligence Analysts shall review the pool of suspected data items generated by the Internet search tool to identify relevant data from the Internet. Contractor Intelligence Analysts shall summarize the findings as well as highlight the highest priority data according to agreed-upon criteria. The summary shall be delivered monthly via email and to the case management system of the Web Portal Display.

7) The Web Portal Display system shall be fully configured within fifteen (15) business days from receipt of the required Government’s data. The first data from the module shall be available to the Government within thirty days (30) from system configuration.

8.) The Contractor shall provide training on Web Portal Display system for reviewing of reports or search results to the COTR or alternate and AC personnel. Sessions shall be conducted via webinar.

9) Contractor shall provide a “help desk” option, where assistance can be found if questions arise from the reports or search results.