January 30, 2023

Moose permit increase proposal criticized at Greenville hearing

GREENVILLE, Maine – The economy of the Moosehead Lake region depends a lot more on moose watchers than moose hunters. That was the message strongly conveyed at Friday’s public hearing at Greenville Consolidated School on a proposal by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to increase the number of […]

Source: Moose permit increase proposal criticized at Greenville hearing — Outdoors — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine


Wolf Meeting and Talking Points Expanded Boundary

All content comes from an email source:

Wolf meeting tomorrow, 8-13-14 at the TorC civic center. Public input meeting at 6 PM; information session from fish nd wildlife service at 2 PM. [This is]About the new proposed draft rule and Environmental Impact Statement the rule is based on. Please come and speak if you can. Map and short zone explanation attached. Talking points attached.

Designate three wolf management zones with a larger Zone 1 within the expanded MWEPA:
• Zone 1 is an area within the MWEPA where Mexican wolves would be allowed to occupy and where wolves may be initially released or translocated. Zone 1 would include all of the Apache and Gila National Forests (the existing BRWRA) and any or all of the Sitgreaves National Forests; the Payson, Pleasant Valley, andTonto Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto National Forest; and the Magdalena Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest.
• Zone 2 is an area within the MWEPA where Mexican wolves would be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy and where wolves may be translocated. In Zone 2 initial releases of wolves on Federal land would be limited to pups less than five months old. Pups less than five months old, juvenile wolves and adult wolves could also be initially released on private land under Service and state approved management agreements with private landowners and on tribal land under Service approved management agreements with tribal governments.Zone 2 would include the area of the MWEPA not included in Zone 1or 3 south of I-40 to the international border with Mexico
• Zone 3 is an area where Mexican wolves would be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy but where neither initial releases nor translocations would occur. Zone 3 would include the area of the MWEPA not included in Zone1 or 2 south of I-40 to the international border with Mexico.


Mexican wolf Draft EIS and Rule Change

Talking points for Agriculture

1. Any population change in the wolf recovery program must be based on a recovery plan that has been published in the federal register and vetted by the public . The most recent recovery plan in place meeting those requirements is the 1982 plan. None of the ongoing attempts at recent planning have been subject to peer review in accordance with 59 Fed. Reg. 34207 July 1 1994

2. Recovery planning needs a defined number of wolves to allow the public to understand clearly the objectives of the recovery of Mexican wolves in the SW.

3. Livestock on federally administered grazing allotments are private property legally occupying the range to disallow take of wolves attacking livestock is wrong. Ranchers should be allowed to defend and protect their domestic animals regardless of land ownership, without having to beg for a permit.

4. FWS isn’t using best available science or information in the DEIS. Nowhere is there a requirement that county data and reports must be peer reviewed to be used by the agency in rulemaking. Thus far FWS has cited no data to support the finding of no significant impact to livestock community by this program, nor the harm that has been documented to the human element particularly the children in areas where wolves are present.

5. FWS failed to mitigate livestock depredation and ranch sales due to wolf depredation in wolf occupied areas. nothing in their draft suggests they will do so this time.

6. FWS has failed to mitigate the impacts to children in wolf populated areas, in fact have largely ignored the habituation problem of these wolves. There is very little in the DEIS and Draft Rule that allows for mitigation of these significant problems.

7. FWS has failed to consider cumulative effect of economic losses and social impacts when this program is coupled with all the other environmental planning that is going on in our state.

8. FWS has failed to address catastrophic affects on wolf habitat.

9. Cooperative agreements with private landowners to host wolves on private land can and likely will have significant impact on neighboring ranches domestic animals and the human element on adjacent private lands, this should not be available.

10. FWS must stay within the bounds of the DEIS and draft Rule, during the last rulemaking process, David Parsons significantly changed the draft rule and EIS and there was no public vetting of his teams decision-making. This DEIS cannot be significantly altered other than to incorporate ongoing comments in the current commenting cycle. Parsons now works for an environmental organization devoted to preserving predators.

Remember, DOW CBD WEG Sierra Club and all the other environmental and animal rights organizations, will be bussing in people to speak, crowding the comment session and complicating this meeting with public grandstandings perhaps even a howl in like they did in Albuquerque last year. It got them a cover on the Albuquerque Journal. If you are up to a little public grandstanding to ensure the media gets our side of the story feel free to do so, I have protest signs and we can stage a protest ourselves if necessary.

Public comment session, stick to realistic points similar to but not limited to those above, and the injustice and unfairness behind the management of the program.

There is no, No Wolves alternative, this program is far far beyond that issue the reality is, the courts have ruled this is legitimate. Even if there was a No Wolves alternative, and it was chosen, the population explosion we have now would allow the agency to immediately re-list this animal with full ESA status critical habitat and a no take policy under the ESA and there would be wolves out here forever with NO removals for problem animals and private property curtailment due to the critical habitat status.

Within the past year our association Gila Livestock Growers Assn. has tried to fulfill some basic scientific testing that would have allowed us the basis for petitioning for de-listing of this animal along with the de-listing of the northern population, our access to historic samples fell through and our time has run out to do it before the new rule is in place. We will have to undergo the rulemaking process and try to find historic samples for testing at a later date.

At this meeting, we have to show the agency they will not and cannot get away with pretending there is no significant impact to our communities and industries whether it’s tourism, ranching or outfitting. pick a subject stay on point ignore the hecklers. Prepare for bizarre and really bad behavior from the wolf support activists.

When I was in Albuquerque last November for the preliminary meetings someone sat next to me and handed me the prayer attached here. Please print it and take it with you if you need to.



Wolf Stamp Hearings Set for August 14

From Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks:

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks will conduct hearings on Aug. 14 at several locations on proposed new rules to establish a voluntary wolf management stamp for anyone to make a donation to Montana’s wolf management program.

The proposed rules would direct FWP to make available for sale a $20 wolf stamp and would define how the voluntary donations would be allocated to wolf management activities.

The hearings are set for 6 p.m. on Aug. 14, at the following FWP locations:

Helena: Headquarters; 1420 E. 6th Ave.
Bozeman: Region 3 HQ; 1400 S. 19th Ave.
Billings: Region 5 HQ; 2300 Lake Elmo Dr.
Glasgow: Region 6 HQ; 54078 U.S. Highway 2 West
Great Falls: Region 4 HQ; 4600 Giant Springs Road
Kalispell: Region 1 HQ; 490 N. Meridian Road
Miles City: Region 7 HQ; 352 I-94Business Loop
Missoula: Region 2 HQ; 3201 Spurgin Road

Under the new rules, money received from the sale of wolf management stamps would be considered a donation and must first be used to pay for the cost of administering the stamp program. The remainder would be required to be equally distributed for livestock loss reduction program grants, wolf monitoring, habitat projects, scientific research, public education and outreach, and law enforcement.

The public comment deadline has been extended to Aug 22. Comment via the FWP website at fwp.mt.gov. Click Public Notices. Or write to: Wolf Stamp Comments; Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks;Communication Education Division; P.O. Box 200701, Helena, MT 59620-0701. Email comments to fwpwld@mt.gov; or Fax to 406-444-4952.


Mexican Wolf Comment and Letter Campaign and Talking Points

HOWL vs Home

Do you want wolves in your back or font yards where your kids or grand kids play???

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has two proposals open for comment. One to delist all wolves EXECPT the Mexican Wolf. The other is to change the release boundaries and other things in the 10J rule which runs the Mexican wolf program now. FWS has proposed everything south of I-40 as suitable habitat and Defenders of Wildlife have proposed Suitable Wolf Habitat and Potential Dispersal Corridors in the Southwest that include ALL of New Mexico, including Northern New Mexico. You must submit comments to BOTH FWS proposals to have your voice heard.

Join us for our Mexican Wolf Comment and Letter Campaign

When: December 16, 2013

Where: Cuba NRCS Office
44 County Road 11 Ste 4a
Cuba, New Mexico
Time: 5:00pm – 8:00pm

Your Voice Needs To Be Heard


Talking Points!

Management and rule planning.

NO private landowner agreements due to surrounding livestock producer and private property impacts.

Do not remove the rule that allows defense of livestock on deeded land. Instead add defense of stock dogs and hunting dogs on federally administered land. Protecting rural livelihoods is not likely to further endanger the species and keeping economic stability on the land is far more important than the miniscule number of wolves that could potentially be killed in the act of harming private property.

Private property (pets, livestock and other privately owned animals)deserve protection from wolves and the owners should never have their rights to protect them restricted or denied over this animal. They are not in danger of extinction as some have claimed.

No permit should ever be required for a property owner to protect livestock regardless of the location of that livestock. Discriminating against allotment owners by disallowing them to defend their livestock from attack, is not ethical and is arbitrary and capricious whether on deeded land or a federally administered grazing allotment where the owner has surface property rights and rights of way. Location does not change the designation of private property.

State lands should not gain the same management status as federally owned land. States must decide that issue not this program.

Replacing the term depredation incident was done by default of a policy change several years ago, it should be defined as one animal not multiple animals in a 24 hour period. The change was arbitrary and capricious then and it is arbitrary and capricious as a rule change as well.

Stop using the term Extinction in the wild, it was coined by wolf advocates and isn’t relevant to this program. Extinction only means the state or situation that results when something (such as a plant or animal species) has died out completely. It isn’t subject to location or whether or not an animal is or isn’t in all corners of the historic habitat. It is spin until or if the captive breeding animals all die, and the wild population is also dead something that is less likely to occur than it was in the years before this program began. This animal is not worse off than it was in 1998 and the term was not being thrown around so loosely about them.

Incorporate the New Mexico Cattle Growers association Petition for rule change document into scoping and alternatives. Simply ignoring it isn’t an option the paper was presented officially during the 5 year review and thus far FWS has ignored it.

Removal of trapping in the BRWRA and expanded areas is not conducive to the survival of the species as a whole, all released wolves are redundant and not essential to the survival of the species, if one is accidentally trapped on occasion it does not threaten the species.

Delisting and Re-listing of the Mexican wolf

Delist the Mexican wolf with the gray wolf. line bred from one female wolf is not a separate and distinct subspecies. , the only designation that applies here whether they are a distinct subspecies or simply a geographically separate gray wolf is experimental non-essential.

Do not change listing to Essential whether or not such population is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or a threatened species is the only criteria that matters. With the captive population and breeding animals in place and with the northern populations, none of these wolves are essential to the continued existence of this species. For 16 years non-essential was the legal definition of this animal.

With the substantial captive breeding gene pool, and the wild population being made up of solely redundant animals, this population of wolves is not in danger of extinction and cannot be designated essential.

This wolf populations is an experimental population simply due to the fact that it is made up of genetically redundant wolves and is geographic separation from the main population in the northern part of the country, for the purposes of the ESA. Whether or not it is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or a threatened species is vague at best after all every single wolf is duplicated genetically in the captive breeding pool.

Critical habitat shall not be designated under this Act for any experimental population determined under subparagraph (B) to be not essential to the continued existence of a species.

The Mexican wolf is not a subspecies of wolf, it is a gray wolf and able to breed with the original species. A grizzly and black bear are separate and distinct subspecies, but a gray wolf and Mexican wolf can breed and therefore are not. The Mexican wolf is simply a line bred, wolf with the distinction of sharing mitochondrial DNA between the gene pool. It does not make it a separate distinct sub species. It is simply a geographically separate population of gray wolves.

For more information please contact NMCGA at 505.247.0584


Upcoming Wolf Hearing Information

Wolf Hearings
December 03, 2013

Special panel presentation and documentary viewing

Sponsored by:
David Spady Film
Veritas Research
and Americans for Prosperity

McNary Community Center
Hwy. 260, McNary, AZ
12:00-2:30 pm

Come hear specialists, scientists, leaders, land stewards and other expert testimony concerning the impacts of the reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf. Also, enjoy a free viewing of the documentary,

“Wolves In Government Clothing”.
Dr. Matt Cronin
Honorable Steve Titla
Jess Carey
Laura Schneberger
and others

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Public Information Meeting
Hon-Dah Conference Center
777 Highway 260, Pinetop, AZ
3:30-5:00 pm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Public Hearing
Hon-Dah Conference Center
777 Highway 260, Pinetop, AZ
6:00-8:30 pm


Wolf Hearing in Albuquerque, NM on Wednesday

Embassy Suites Albuquerque.

Please Register and get up there 3 PM Wednesday.

Anyone ranch associated in NM or AZ needs to try and make this thing.

Pre-hearing Americans For Prosperity, prep is at 3 and Fish and Wildlife Service hearing on wolf de-listing is at 5.


Laura Schneberger


Rescheduling Mexican Wolf Hearings


Depending on the hearing dates schedule, we can still request an extension of the written comments.


A public hearings on two proposed rules: (1) Proposal to Remove the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing it as Endangered; and (2) Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf was scheduled to be held in Albuquerque, NM on 04 Oct 13. Due to the recently ended government shutdown this hearing was cancelled. We are currently in the process of rescheduling hearings for Arizona and New Mexico. As soon as information is available on the new locations and dates for the hearings we will send out an updated email and news release. In addition, we will continue to update our websites with current information.

At this time, comments on these proposals are being accepted through October 28, 2013. For more information or for links to submit comments on the Gray Wolf delisting proposal go to www.fws.gov/graywolfrecovery062013.html. To learn more on the Mexican wolf proposal go to http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/ and click on the link 2013 Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf.

Jonathan Olson
Environmental Planning Consultant

Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Senator Gail Griffin to hold legislative hearing in Greenlee County on Mexican Wolf Recovery Program

October 9, 2013 (Press Release)

(Phoenix, State Capitol)—Concerned by the ongoing impact of the federal Mexican Wolf Recovery Program on the residents and ranchers of Greenlee County, State Senator Gail Griffin (R-Hereford) has announced that she will be holding a legislative hearing in Greenlee County on Saturday, October 19, from 1 pm to 3 pm at the Greenlee County Courthouse, where members of the public will be invited to share their personal stories and experiences with the wolf program.

“With federal bureaucrats proposing a massive expansion of the Mexican Wolf Program, I feel it is more important than ever for Arizona policymakers to understand how this program has impacted local residents so that we can respond to the federal government’s proposal accordingly,” said Senator Griffin.

“I look forward to meeting with Greenlee County residents face to face and hearing their stories. They have been on the front lines of this program for two decades; their voices deserve to be heard.”

Who: State Senator Gail Griffin

What: Legislative Hearing on Mexican Wolf Recovery Program

When: Saturday, October 19, 1 pm – 3 pm

Where: Greenlee County Courthouse
253 5th St., Clifton


How To Testify Against Wolf Delisting – For Kids


It is important to note the indoctrination and propagandizing of children at very early ages. Also note that nothing in this propaganda piece is science-based – only playing on the emotions of other children and adults. I doubt this video was created to instruct a child on how to be a witness at a public hearing as much as it was to be passed around to others in order to wrongfully corrupt a child’s thinking and ability to learn to think on their own.

This is pure propaganda, which exists at all levels of government and society and should be recognized as such. What will it accomplish? The further brainwashing of children who will someday be forking over their money to the NGOs, who, if you will take note, sponsor and support this video.


Witnesses Weigh In on What Congress Should Do About Endangered Species Act

naturalresourcescommittee*Editor’s Note* – The following is a press release from the United States House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee and found on their website. What is printed below does not necessarily reflect or agree with the opinions of the editor. As a matter of fact, it’s easy to state that all the comments sound good, but talk is cheap and historically nothing worthwhile ever comes out of Washington. Go! To be so damned skeptical!

Witnesses: Endangered Species Act Must be Improved to Better Protect both Species and Local Economies
Field hearings highlight local and state conservation efforts

BILLINGS, MT, September 4, 2013 – Today, the House Natural Resources Committee held two Full Committee field hearings in Casper, Wyoming and Billings, Montana on “State and Local Efforts to Protect Species, Jobs, Property, and Multiple Use Amidst a New War on the West.” At these hearings, witnesses discussed how federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings can impact local jobs and the economy and how federal litigation often stands in the way of successful local and state recovery efforts.

The Natural Resources Committee has held a series of hearings on the ESA and House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings this year announced the creation of the Endangered Species Act Congressional Working Group. These field hearings are part of the Committee’s efforts to hear directly from local entities and private landowners on ways in which the ESA works well and how it could be improved.

“Ramped up ESA listings and habitat designations through executive orders and closed-door settlements with litigious groups are wreaking havoc on private landowners, multiple use, agriculture, rural economies, rural timber communities, energy producers, and even states’ own species conservation activities,” said Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04). “Rather than ensuring the federal government cooperates with states ‘to the maximum extent practicable,’ on major actions affecting land or water within states’ borders as ESA requires, this Administration is allowing ‘sue and settle’ to dictate how federal agencies use taxpayer-funded resources and how they prioritize endangered species activities.”

“It is so important that we get it right when it comes to making listing decisions. We need sound science, and open data that can be replicated. We need innovative, collaborative approaches to wildlife management that offer incentives for sound management. We need a clear distinction in our minds about what constitutes conservation: on the ground stewardship, or repeated court battles. We need a common understanding of what constitutes success when it comes to the Endangered Species Act,” said Rep. Cynthia Lummis (WY-At Large). “In short, we need a new 21st Century conservation ethic that is not clouded by accusations and rancor. We can and should do better for our wildlife.”

“Our wide variety of wildlife and the environment that supports it are central to our way of life in Montana, for better or for worse … Our lands, living in concert with our diverse wildlife, allow us to grow commodities that feed the world, develop minerals that provide economic security for our state and jobs for our kids, and provide recreational opportunities that are second to none … We want to keep the ESA from being used as a tool to obstruct positive species and resource management and allow the people, not bureaucrats in Washington or Judges in the 9th Circuit, to determine how our environment and our resource economies can flourish together,” said Rep Steve Daines (MT-At Large).

Witnesses at today’s hearings all agreed that this law needs to be updated in order to make sure it works in the best interest of both species and local communities:

“Montana farmers and ranchers are extremely frustrated with the Endangered Species Act. It is like a treadmill to landowners and producers. We spend an inordinate amount of time and effort in order to keep species from being listed, only to have them listed anyway. Once listed, delisting goals are moving targets. When delisting targets are reached, delisting is further delayed by court cases. Habitat control takes precedence over species conservation. Conservation of one species leads to the degradation of another… When we start playing God to one species, there is no place to stop until the federal government controls the entire west.” – Matt Knox, Montana Farm Bureau Federation

“I firmly believe that species conservation is a community-driven effort that strives to work with individuals, groups, and agencies to achieve a goal. It is essential that addressing species, such as sage grouse, is a grassroots effort, not a top down approach.”– Lesley Robinson, County Commissioner, Phillips County, Montana

“I think we’d all agree with Congress’ worthy intentions when passing the Endangered Species Act. However, we must make sure that any actions to save a species also takes into consideration the human impact. The Endangered Species Act should not force us to choose wildlife over humans and the economic opportunity necessary to my family and my tribe…Good paying jobs do not have to come at the expense of the environment. We can have both. As a heavy equipment operator for a coal mining company and a member of the Crow Tribe, I know we are already accomplishing both.” – Channis Whiteman, Crow Tribe Member

“The energy industry, tourism industry, and agricultural industry is the three legged stool that provides a robust and healthy economy. These industries produce good paying jobs for Wyoming citizens. They also help us pay our bills and put money in the bank for a ‘rainy day.’ As it is currently implemented, the ESA is too far reaching in its impacts on both the species it seeks to protect and the lives it impacts to allow so many of these impacts to be left to the regulatory and judicial process. After 40 years, the need for greater Congressional direction is abundantly clear and that should be that the conservation of species is necessarily best accomplished by those closest to the resource.” – Rob Hendry, County Commissioner, Natrona County, Wyoming

“I believe that collaborative processes are a great tool for increasing the success of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The Wyoming Plan is an example of a win-win plan for everyone.” – Meghan O’Toole Lally, Sheep & Cattle Rancher, Savery, Wyoming


Some news coverage of this hearing can be viewed here.