November 23, 2014

Female Coyotes Birth Wolf Hybrids in Captivity

“During the 2012 and 2013 study, the scientists attempted to inseminate nine captive western coyotes with sperm from eight different gray wolves at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center Predator Research Facility in Logan, Utah. Three coyotes became pregnant, and one successfully birthed and nursed six live, healthy pups, currently housed at the Wildlife Science Center in Forest Lake, Minn., north of the Twin Cities.”<<<Read More>>>

*Editor Comment* – Common sense (absent today) would tell a once 8th grade science class that if two animals can successfully breed, they are of the same species. These clowns, however, are suggesting it’s reason to create another subspecies of wolf and then protect it as in endangered species.

Europe Proposes Protecting Feral Dogs Believing They Are Protecting Wolves

On display in Europe is either the epitome of ignorance, a perverted love affair with wild dogs or plain corruption targeting the destruction of public health and safety, property and the agricultural economy. Because these clowns don’t understand that hybridization threatens even the existence of their precious wolves and they don’t know how to deal with an event in which they have created by forcing, through over protection, wolves to coexist in human-settled landscapes, they are deciding whether or not to just protect all wild dogs.

From the Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, in part, their proposal:

“Aware of the challenges posed to the conservation of wolves (Canis lupus) by hybridisation between wild wolves and domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris);

Noting the need to address these challenges through effective preventive and mitigation measures, including the detection of free-ranging wolf-dog hybrids and their government-controlled removal from wild wolf populations;

Noting, at the same time, that it is in the interest of effective wolf conservation to accord free-ranging wolf-dog hybrids a similar level of protection from the general public as wolves – given inter alia the difficulty of distinguishing between wolves and wolf-dog hybrids – and to ensure that the removal of any detected wolf-dog hybrids is conducted exclusively in a government-controlled manner;

Noting that the national legislation of several Contracting Parties already accords free-ranging wolf-dog hybrids a similar level of protection as wolves;

Mindful of the approach to hybrids taken under the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), in particular CITES Resolution Conf. 10.17 (Rev. CoP14) on Animal Hybrids;

Defining, for the purposes of the implementation of this recommendation, the term ‘wolf-dog hybrid’ as meaning a wild living animal with both wolf and dog ancestry which can be confirmed by the current taxonomic techniques (using both morphological and genetic features);”

Read the entire analysis and proposal.

Wolves and Public Lands Are Mine and Only For My Purposes – STAY OUT!

“Competitive hunting for wolves on public lands in Idaho has never before been authorized, according to the plaintiffs, who say the derby is “incompatible with modern-day wildlife management principles and ethical hunting practices.”

Isn’t this a bit like saying nobody has ever hunted polar bears in Miami?

“The contest occurs in the middle of the holidays on the weekend following New Years Day,” the complaint states. “During this time, many families have time off work, can recreate on public lands and head out to test out new skis, snowshoes, sleds, snowsuits and snowmobiles. The derby concentrates shooters on public lands.”

“There were once more than 350,000 in the Western U.S. before hunting and trapping devastated the population.”

I’d like to see the science on that magnificent claim. With that many wolves, how did Lewis and Clark ever survive their exploration? They must have also lied in their journals, not reporting some of the 350,000 wolves.

<<<Read More of the Nonsense>>>

Wolf Killed Dogs Honored

In the Province of Varmland, Sweden, some 90 dogs have been killed by wolves in the past 10 years. Nearly 200 people gathered at the main square in Karlstad on Wednesday evening, in honor of those dogs that have been killed by wolves.


West’s Idaho Code Annotated. Title 67. State Government and State Affairs. Chapter 58. Protection of Natural Resources



The purpose of Chapter 58 is to provide an orderly, comprehensive plan for the protection of the natural resources of the state and for the suppression of dangers or threats. Section 5806 the Idaho legislature finds and declares that the state’s citizens, businesses, hunting, tourism and agricultural industries, private property and wildlife, are immediately and continuously threatened and harmed by the sustained presence and growing population of Canadian gray wolves in the state of Idaho. The legislature states that “a disaster emergency is in existence as a result of the introduction of Canadian gray wolves, which have caused and continue to threaten vast devastation of Idaho’s social culture, economy and natural resources.”

Statute Text§ 67-5801 . Scope and purpose

§ 67-5802 . Protection plan–Procedure–Responsibilities of state agencies–Annual revision–Approval

§ 67-5803 . Training institutes for suppression of natural resources disasters

§ 67-5804 . Proclamation of natural resources disaster–Aid by agency–Claim for reimbursement

§ 67-5805 . Legislative findings and intent

§ 67-5806 . Declaration of emergency

§ 67-5807 . Governor–Executive orders

§ 67-5801. Scope and purpose

The purpose of this act is to provide an orderly, comprehensive plan for the protection of the natural resources of the state and for the suppression of dangers or threats thereto; to provide training for state employees in prevention and suppression of natural resources disasters; and, to authorize the governor to marshall the manpower and resources of state agencies in the event of such a disaster.


S.L. 1968, 2nd Ex. Sess., ch. 8, § 1.

§ 67-5802. Protection plan–Procedure–Responsibilities of state agencies–Annual revision–Approval

The governor shall prepare a plan providing for the protection of the state’s natural resources. The plan shall set forth procedure for the protection of the state’s natural resources in the event of any natural resources disaster that may be proclaimed by the governor. Specifically, the plan shall set forth the functions and responsibilities of designated state agencies within the executive branch of state government in the event of such a disaster. The governor shall cause the plan to be reviewed and revised at least annually. Before becoming effective, such plan, or revision thereof, shall be approved by the board of land commissioners.


S.L. 1968, 2nd Ex. Sess., ch. 8, § 2.

§ 67-5803. Training institutes for suppression of natural resources disasters

The governor shall cause periodic training institutes to be conducted throughout the state, the purpose of which shall be the training of state employees in the protection of natural resources and suppression of natural resources disasters. The governor shall designate the employees of the executive branch of state government who shall be required to attend such training institutes.


S.L. 1968, 2nd Ex. Sess., ch. 8, § 3.

§ 67-5804. Proclamation of natural resources disaster–Aid by agency–Claim for reimbursement

After proclaiming the existence of a natural resources disaster by executive proclamation, the governor may require any agency of the executive branch of state government to aid in the suppression of such disaste r. As used herein, the term “aid” includes the furnishing of all necessary manpower, materials, equipment, and facilities. If aid is furnished by any agency, the agency shall submit to the board of examiners a claim for expenses incurred in the suppression of such disaster. Following approval of the claim by the board of examiners, the agency shall be reimbursed from moneys appropriated for such purposes.


S.L. 1968, 2nd Ex. Sess., ch. 8, § 4; S.L. 1976, ch. 51, § 19.

§ 67-5805. Legislative findings and intent

(1) Section 1, article I, of the constitution of the state of Idaho provides: “All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.” It is the duty and right of the legislature and the governor to protect the state, its citizens and property. Section 36-103(a), Idaho Code, provides: “All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idah o.” The state of Idaho therefore has the responsibility to manage the big game animals of the state.

(2) The Idaho legislature finds and declares that the state’s citizens, businesses, hunting, tourism and agricultural industries, private property and wildlife, are immediately and continuously threatened and harmed by the sustained presence and growing population of Canadian gray wolves in the state of Idaho. The Idaho legislature, therefore, finds the population of gray wolves in Idaho, having been introduced into the state in 1995, over the united objection of the Idaho congressional delegation, Idaho legislature, Idaho governor, Idaho counties and numerous Idaho agricultural groups who were gravely concerned with the negative effects this action would impose on Idaho and Idahoans, is now many times exceeding the target number originally set by the federal government and the number set in Idaho’s federally approved 2002 wolf management plan. The U.S. fish and wildlife service (USFWS) has delisted the gray wolf in Idaho in 2008 and 2009 returning management to the state, only to be sued both times by environmental groups forcing the wolf to be relisted as endangered. As a result of all the above, the legislature finds that public safety has been compromised, economic activity has been disrupted and private and public property continue to be imperiled. The uncontrolled proliferation of imported wolves on private land has produced a clear and present danger to humans, their pets and livestock, and has altered and hindered historical uses of private and public land, dramatically inhibiting previously safe activities such as walking, picnicking, biking, berry picking, hunting and fishing. The continued uncontrolled presence of gray wolves represents a n unfunded mandate, a federal commandeering of both state and private citizen resources and a government taking that makes private property unusable for the quiet enjoyment of property owners. An emergency existing therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to regulate the presence of Canadian gray wolves in Idaho in order to safeguard the public, wildlife, economy and private property against additional devastation to Idaho’s social culture, economy and natural resources, and to preserve the ability to benefit from private and public property within the state and experience the quiet enjoyment of such property.


Added by S.L. 2011, ch. 334, § 1, eff. April 19, 2011.

§ 67-5806. Declaration of emergency

A disaster emergency, as defined in section 46-1002(3) and (4), Idaho Code, is in existence as a result of the introduction of Canadian gray wolves, which have caused and continue to threaten vast devastation of Idaho’s social culture, economy and natural resources. The geographical extent of this emergency shall include any part of the state of Idaho where gray wolves have been sighted and whose sighting ha s been documented or otherwise confirmed by the office of species conservation or the department of fish and game.


Added by S.L. 2011, ch. 334, § 2, eff. April 19, 2011.

§ 67-5807. Governor–Executive orders

(1) Pursuant to this act, the governor may issue executive orders and proclamations and amend or rescind such orders and proclamations. Executive orders and proclamations have the force and effect of law. A disaster emergency may be declared by executive order or proclamation of the governor if the governor finds any of the following:

(a) Any Canadian gray wolf within the state is a carrier of a disease harmful to humans, livestock, pets and wild game and that there is a risk of transmission of such disease to humans, livestock, pets or wild game;

(b) The potential of human-wolf conflict exists and that the Canadian gray wolf is frequenting areas inhabited by humans or showing habituated behavior toward humans;

(c) That the potential for livestock-wolf conflict exists and that the Canadian gray wolf is frequenting areas that are largely ranchland with livestock or showing evidence of habituated behavior toward livestock;

(d) The numbers of Canadian gray wolves are such that there is an impact to Idaho big game herds as identified in the wolf m anagement plan of 2002, and that there is evidence that increasing the number of wolves beyond one hundred (100) has had detrimental impacts on big game populations, the economic viability of the Idaho department of fish and game, outfitters and guides, and others who depend on a viable population of big game animals;

(e) The numbers of big game animals have been significantly impacted below that of recent historical numbers and that there has been a measurable diminution in the value of businesses tied to outfitting and other game or hunting based businesses.

(2 ) The executive order or proclamation shall direct the office of species conservation to initiate emergency proceedings in accordance with section 67-5247, Idaho Code. Any person may challenge an action or proposed action of the office of species conservation by following the appeals process prescribed by the Idaho administrative procedure act, chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code.

(3) The state of disaster emergency shall continue until the governor finds that either gray wolves are delisted in Idaho with full state management restored or the threat has been dealt with to the extent that emergency conditions no longer exist. When either or both of these events occur, the governor shall terminate the state of disaster emergency by executive order or proclamation. Provided howe ver, that no state of disaster emergency pursuant to the provisions of this act may continue for longer than one (1) year. The legislature by concurrent resolution may terminate a state of disaster emergency at any time. Thereupon, the governor shall issue an executive order or proclamation ending the state of disaster emergency. All executive orders or proclamations issued pursuant to this section shall indicate which of the conditions in this section exist, the area or areas threatened and the actions planned to resolve the issue, including contracting with USDA-APHIS wildlife services. An executive order or proclamation shall be disseminated promptly by means calculated to bring its contents to the attention of the general public and, unless the circumstances attendant upon the disaster prevent or impede, be promptly filed with the office of species conservation, the department of fish and game, the office of the secretary of state and the office of the sheriff of each county whe re the state of disaster emergency applies.


Added by S.L. 2011, ch. 334, § 3, eff. April 19, 2011.

36-103. WILDLIFE PROPERTY OF STATE — PRESERVATION. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.
(b) Commission to Administer Policy. Because conditions are changing and in changing affec t the preservation, protection, and perpetuation of Idaho wildlife, the methods and means of administering and carrying out the state’s policy must be flexible and dependent on the ascertainment of facts which from time to time exist and fix the needs for regulation and control of fishing, hunting, trapping, and other activity relating to wildlife, and because it is inconvenient and impractical for the legislature of the state of Idaho to administer such policy, it shall be the authority, power and duty of the fish and game commission to administer and carry out the policy of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho fish and game code. The commission is not authorized to change such policy but only to administer it.

[36-103, added 1976, ch. 95 , sec. 2, p. 317.]

Nothing has changed;


Many “laws” have been amended or repealed and many new laws have been enacted. And many “laws” contradict other “laws.” And of course the hunting trapping and fishing amendment along with all of this code clearly defines the State as the owner of Idaho’s resources. Not the citizens. How many citizens do we meet in our every day lives that collect these code books? I’ve collected them since the 1980s. I’ve been researching a 500 page code section for the last month and will not be completed with it until the 21st. The changes in that code section between 1988 and 2012 are roughly two hundred pages. I’m writing a proposed amendment to that code section and presenting it to the governor and the administrative board of that particular code. You want to fight back against their ant i human anti citizen statutes this is what you do. Anything else is irrelevant. They hate people like me and they love people that just sit back and bitch..



Chapter Sections

1. Fish and Game Commission §§ 36-101 — 36-124

2. Classifications and Definitions §§ 36-201, 36-202

3. Issuance and Sale of Licenses §§ 36-301 — 36-310

4. Licenses to Hunt, Fish and Trap §§ 36-401 — 36-417

5. Restrictions on Possession, Transportation, Sale and Use of

Wildlife §§ 36-501 — 36-505

6. Commercial Traffic in Skins, Hides, and Pelts of Wildlife §§ 36-601 — 36-606

7. Captive Wildlife §§ 36-701 — 36-71 6

8. Commercial Fishing §§ 36-801 — 36-805

9. Protection of Fish §§ 36-901 — 36-909

10. State Boundary Waters — Reciprocal Agreements §§ 36-1001 — 36-1006

11. Protection of Animals and Birds §§ 36-1101 — 36-1120

12. Check Stations — Waste of Wildlife §§ 36-1201,36-1202

13. Enforcement and Application of Fish and Game Law §§ 36-1301 — 36-1305

14. General Penal Provisions §§ 36-1401 — 36-1407

15. Public Safety §§ 36-1501 — 36-1511

16. Recreational Trespass — Landholder Liability Limited §§ 36-1601 — 36-1604

17. County Fish Hatcheries §§ 36-1701,36-1702

18. Federal Aid for Fish and Wildlife Restoration Projects §§ 36-1801 — 36-1807

19. Wildlife Preserves §§ 36-1901 — 36-1914

20. Pacific Marine Fisheries Compact §§ 36-2001 — 36-2003

21. Outfitters and Guides §§ 36-2101 — 36-2120

22. Shooting Preserves §§ 36-2201 — 36-2216

23. Wildlife Violator Compact §§ 36-2301 — 36-2303

24. Species Conservation §§ 36-2401 — 36-2405

Maybe It’s Not a Good Idea to Move Wolves to Washington’s Olympic Peninsula

“An Eastern Washington lawmaker made a tongue in cheek proposal to move wolves west of the Cascades. But more than a decade ago, U.S. Fish and Wildlife seriously studied relocation at the insistence of a governor and westside congressman.”<<<Read More>>>

Grand Canyon Wolf or Hybrid?

Editor’s Note – It matters little at this point in time whether this canine creature spotted near the Grand Canyon is a real(?) wolf or a hybrid. It is only a matter of time before hybridization of canines, wild and domestic, takes over areas, especially near human-settled landscapes. Wolf advocates will deny this inevitable reality but the real shame will be that this kind of event actually threatens the protection of the real wild gray wolf. Senseless! With hybridization comes a changing of the character and behavior of wild dogs. The results are not in anyone’s best interest.

“Authorities are trying to figure out if a wolflike animal discovered near Grand Canyon National Park is an endangered gray wolf from the Rocky Mountains or a wolf-dog hybrid.

The animal was first spotted about three weeks ago near the canyon’s North Rim on the Kaibab Plateau of the Kaibab National Forest, Fish and Wildlife Service officials Steve Spangle and Jeff Humphrey said today. Authorities have obtained photos of the animal taken by members of the public.”<<<Read More>>>

*Update* – Nov. 10, 2014 7:00 am EST

All, wanted to take a quick moment to send you an update on a rapidly emerging issue in Northern Arizona. In early October, the Department received a note from a hunter that he saw what he thought could be a wolf on the North Kaibab. In that there is a wolf-hybrid breeder in the area, the first assumption was that this was a hybrid that had escaped. We later received word from Utah that they had heard of this sighting and requested any assistance from the Department that we could render. We received a possible frequency to a radio collar that could be associated with the animal that had been seen in Utah. The following day, an AZGFD plane searched for the frequency without success.

Given the potential that the animal had originated from a northern Rockies population, the USFWS has taken the lead in all actions regarding this animal. In that Region 2 did not have a permit to handle an gray wolf, FWS began the process to amend their permit. This was accomplished this past week. The FWS will begin trapping efforts to capture the animal sometime this weekend with the purpose being to obtain the collar from the animal, attach a new collar and to collect tissue for DNA sampling to determine taxonomic status.

A citizen obtained a photo of the animal and provided this to the Center for Biological Diversity, which developed a press release essentially stating that a northern gray wolf was observed on the rim of the Grand Canyon. There is a great deal of interest from the media throughout the US. The response to media requests has been largely to the points below:

1. There is no certainty to the issue of is this animal a wild wolf or a hybrid
2. Only capture to obtain the collar and DNA sample will clarify the above
3. Statements declaring this a wild wolf are irresponsible without clarification
4. The FWS is the agency with primacy in the event that it is a wild wolf and hence, that agency is the primary agency to contact with questions
5. I have responded to some media inquiries stressing the above

The Department’s Wildlife Manager has taken photos this week.

In summary, there is a wolf-like animal on the Kaibab, it has gained national attention, efforts are being made to capture the animal for taxonomic clarity. I will keep you informed as more information is generated.

Have a good weekend.

Jim deVos
Assistant Director
Wildlife Management Division
Arizona Game and Fish Department

Sneak Preview VI – Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Cover290In referring back to the statement of Dr. Johnson to the Montana Environmental Quality Council, Dr. Johnson states that Droncit is “100% effective” for getting rid of tapeworms in wolves with just one treatment. If that was so, why then did he say he gave “at least twice” the number of injections that a 100% effective worm-killing drug would do.

The World Health Organization says that: “Although the efficacy of praziquantel is highly reliable in almost all cases, the possibility of low residual worm burdens in some of the treated animals cannot be excluded, notably if mistakes of drug administration occur.” Perhaps “almost” 100% would have been more accurate to describe the effectiveness of Droncit and perhaps “at least” two doses of Droncit would be responsible, if one considers the seriousness of the spread of disease. Was that the case here?

What we don’t know from Johnson’s statement is what the dosages given were for each wolf. In researching information on Droncit (praziquantel), The Food and Drug Administration(FDA) tells us1 that dosages depend on the weight of the animal. Did Dr. Johnson give injections “at least twice” because he spread out the “100% effective” dewormer into two or more injections? If so, does that render the drug ineffective?

The FDA also warns that harm or death can result to an animal that is dosed too highly. Therefore we must assume one of two things. One, that there was only really one injection divided into two or more administrations of the drug, which I think is rational to assume that was not the case, when considering the World Health Organization’s explanation that human error in administering Droncit might play a role in the effectiveness of the drug. It just doesn’t make sense that it would be done that way. Or, two, all the wolves captured in Canada were given two or more doses of Droncit at full dosage and other anti-parasitic drugs before being shipped to the U.S. Without putting the wolves in danger by following the FDA recommended dosages of Droncit, a first injection would have been given to the wolves followed by a second dosage 30 days after. And I assume 30 days after for all subsequent injections. That is my understanding.

So, were the wolves kept in crates or holding pens in Canada for 30 days, or longer, so that “at least twice” Droncit could be administered to each wolf? I’ve never seen any records that would indicate that Canada kept captured wolves for 30 days or more, but as I have said, information and records of this event are sketchy at best, and perhaps intended to be that way.

The reason this is important is because we Americans have been told on repeated occasions that “it is extremely unlikely” that any wolves came into the United States infected with Echinococcus tapeworms, i.e. those of the “northern strain.” We know this “northern strain” was readily found in Alaska and Canada, as far south as the northern border of the United States. So, trapped wolves that were caught in Canada were caught in landscapes where the more virulent strain of Echinococcus exists.

If the wolves were not kept in Canada for 30 days or more, then were all the wolves brought into the United States put into holding pens so they could be dewormed? Dr. Johnson’s statement makes less sense the more we examine it.

If Droncit is 100% effective, then why the need to offer a statement that all wolves were given Droncit at least twice? Of what was the Montana Environmental Quality Council trying to be convinced of?

Complicating the issue is that we know some wolves were brought in crates from Canada directly to their release zones and let go . We have been told that all wolves were dewormed before entering the United States. But how can we be sure?

The records I have indicated above that I possess, I had a licensed veterinary doctor examine these records. The doctor had no information about why I wanted an opinion other than I was writing a book. The doctor sent me this statement:

Sneak Preview V – Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Cover290From this moment forward, I may annoy you but I will not allow you to forget that the Final Environmental Impact Statement, compiled by non elected personnel, told the American public that historic information about wolves, public safety, and human health was, “limited,” “poorly documented,” “not reliable,” could “never be scientifically confirmed or denied,” and “would not significantly affect human safety or health.” I intend to prove them wrong.

Only casually, since I have been reading, writing and researching about wolves globally, I began compiling studies and documentation about wolf diseases, in particular information about E.g.1 and Echinococcus multilocularis2, as well as Neospora caninum.3 All one has to do is review this information, readily available Online, and this information should be easily accessible to the most powerful nation on earth, the part of whose function is to research and document wildlife diseases BEFORE forcing coexistence between humans and animals.

When you examine the cited literature within the FEIS, it reveals many studies and scientific documentation, etc. that date well before 1995’s wolf (re)introduction. Surely then, we can reasonably assume that the wolf recovery team had access to the same studies that I have been able to access. Why then is it that it has to appear as though there was lots of cherry picking of so-called, “Best Available Science” to fit the wolf (re)introduction narrative? It is one thing to disagree on conclusions about scientific information but when it is completely ignored, except within the fraternity of those determined to get wolves, at least we should be asking questions.

Given that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the wolf recovery team were, no doubt, granted a certain degree of deference in how they approached things and decisions made as to what would and would not be considered for further evaluation for the FEIS, make no mistake about it, the agenda here was wolf recovery at any expense; monetary and/or public safety.

Let’s examine just some of the information that the FEIS and members of the wolf recovery team decided was not worthy of further investigation as well as to disprove their claims that global documentation of wolf behavior and wolf related diseases were, “limited,” “poorly documented,” “unreliable,” and “never be scientifically confirmed or denied.”

It was in 1984 when the World Health Organization published the Second Edition of, “Guidelines for surveillance, prevention and control of Echinococcosis/Hydatidosis.”4 This study, 160 pages, and all resources in reference, date prior to wolf (re)introduction in the United States.

In 1986 the World Health Organization(WHO) published a five-page information and data resource titled, “An International Study on the Serological Differential Diagnosis of Human Cystic and Alveolar Echinococcosis.”5 The very first sentence of the very first paragraph states: “Echinococcosis in humans is a serious problem of worldwide importance.” How can such a statement be labeled as “limited” information, “poorly documented,” “unreliable,” and can “never be scientifically confirmed or denied?” Incidentally, this report lists the number of patients with Hydatid disease in the United States.

France: Attacked and Destroyed by Wolves

Utter nonsense! In France, where wolves, or rather mostly hybrid, mongrel, wild dogs, are protected, attacks and private property destruction continues to grow and escalate. In 2012, 5,799 domestic herds were destroyed. In 2013, that number grew to 5,864 and, during the same time periods, in 2014, a total of 7,535 animals were destroyed.

Read the entire report in French or from Google Translate.