Tuesday, May 28, 2013



These are emails to use for Secretary Sally Jewell + USA Congress. There are also 8 petitions to #KEEPWOLVESLISTED under the Federal Protections of the Endangered Species Act =ESA

Below is the most recent action petition action. Thank you for your help!!!

This is the email I got from Wild Earth Guardians on Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Now, More Than Ever, Speak Out for Wolves

Dear Heidi, 

Right now is the time to speak up for America’s wolves!

The U.S. Department of Interior’s shameful plan to remove federal protections for wolves everywhere in the U.S. is being reconsidered. Your pressure, and recent media exposure, has led the agency to re-evaluate its scorched earth wolf plan.

But we think the Interior Department may be stalling, hoping the pressure and scrutiny will just go away.

Help us make sure that doesn’t happen. Please call upon the new Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, today and demand that she protect America’s wolves.

Wolves have already lost their protections in the Great Lakes region and in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming because of pressure from the livestock industry, hunting groups, and the National Rifle Association.

We’ve seen what’s happened as a result. In the Northern Rockies it’s been a blood bath with more than 1,000 wolves already killed. And now Montana is considering increasing the number of wolves that can be taken.

If the Interior Department gets their way, they would remove protections for wolves everywhere else in the lower 48: on the West Coast, the Southern Rocky Mountains (Colorado and Utah), and in the East—places where they don’t even currently reside.   

Wolves have been restored to less than 8% of their historic range in the U.S.—that is simply not enough.

Tell Interior Secretary Jewell to forever mothball this horrible plan for wolves.

Even highly-endangered Mexican wolves will wither under the Interior’s plan—they would never be allowed to recover outside of a small core area in southern New Mexico and Arizona.

The Interior Department is likely to soon move rapidly forward with its rotten plan, so speak now!

Wolves are necessary for vibrant ecosystems and biological diversity. These beautiful animals need Americans to stand by them and demand that they be conserved, not handed off to states that want to completely destroy them. Call on Secretary Jewell today!

For the Wild Ones,

John C. Horning
Executive Director
WildEarth Guardians

Wolves were recently and prematurely removed from the protections afforded to them under the Endangered Species Act.

See PEER’s Lawsuit demanding that secret agency meeting records see sunlight.

Read scientists' letters to Secretary Sally Jewell calling for immediate wolf conservation measures:

From the American Society of Mammologists

From Conservation Biology Scientists

Check out our map, which shows every state where wolves would be subject to state shooting and trapping plans instead of federal protection.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Scientists to President Obama : DON'T END WOLF PROTECTIONS

Courtesy fineartamerica~dot~com

Scientists to Obama: Don’t End Wolf Protections
Posted on May 24, 2013 by Animal Connection

WASHINGTON— In two sharply worded letters sent to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today, prominent scientists argued for continued protections for gray wolves across the lower 48 states and criticized a draft federal proposal to remove those protections for being premature and failing to follow the best available science. One of the letters came from the American Society of Mammalogists, the other from 16 prominent biologists.

“The science simply doesn’t support removal of protections for wolves,” said Dr. Brad Bergstrom with the American Society of Mammalogists. “Wolves are altogether absent or barely beginning to recover in large swathes of the country that still contain excellent habitat.”

Signatories to the letter include several scientists who conducted research that’s relied on by the government in its draft proposed rule. Those scientists are now criticizing the agency for misrepresenting their work, stating: “Collectively, we represent many of the scientists responsible for the research referenced in the draft rule,” and “We do not believe that the rule reflects the conclusions of our work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves.”

“No animal is more important to the North American landscape than gray wolves,” said Bergstrom. “The science shows that wolves are not yet recovered in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rockies and the Northeast.”

As noted in the scientists’ letter, research conducted following the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park found that wolves “caused changes in elk numbers and behavior which then facilitated recovery of streamside vegetation, benefitting beavers, fish and songbirds.”

“In these two letters, scientists are simply asking the administration to acknowledge what the research clearly shows — that gray wolves are far from recovered,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “There’s still time to reverse course and do what’s best for these beautiful animals and the landscape we all share.”

Earlier this month, leaders of six national environmental groups also sent Jewell a letter urging her to keep wolf protections in place and last week, Representative Raúl Grijalva sent a similar letter.

Learn more about gray wolves .

Friday, May 24, 2013


Wolf Hunt Suspended!

A petition opposing the 2013 Michigan wolf hunt has gained enough signatures to temporarily suspend the hunt

MARQUETTE -- The 2013 wolf hunt is officially suspended, but some say it is only temporary. A petition from the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected campaign has gained more than 255,000 signatures from Michigan, enough to fight and suspend the law declaring the wolf as a game species.

The Keep Michigan Wolves Protected petition signatures were validated Wednesday, meaning that Public Act 520 is suspended. They only needed about 161,000 signatures to succeed. Governor Rick Snyder signed the act in December declaring the wolf as a game species. The petition removes the wolf from the game species list, therefore, suspending the hunt until the public can vote on it in November 2014.

"I think the campaign, no matter what, is moving forward through public outreach and an educational campaign with the goal of obtaining votes in 2014 that would repeal Public Act 520," said Adam Robarge of Wild Land Guardians. Robarge led the search for signatures in the U.P. for the campaign.

It may not matter, however. Earlier in May, Governor Snyder signed Public Act 21, giving the Natural Resources Commission the power to add to the game species list, not just the state, and the petition is only good against the state legislature. The NRC has the authority to completely bypass the petition if they choose.

"The petition drive, while valid, is really not going to have an impact. We're far enough out from the established wolf hunt that the new legislation will kick in, and we will have a wolf hunt regardless of this petition drive," said Terry Minzey, U.P. Regional Wildlife Supervisor with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Minzey and the DNR support the limited wolf hunt.

"It helps us to, at least, attempt to address some of those chronic problems where we have dogs being attacked by wolves, we have wolves coming into town, and people are worried about the safety of their children, and we have livestock being killed," Minzey said.

In May, during the NRC's monthly meeting and prior to the validated petition, the NRC voted six to one to establish the wolf hunt under their new authority from Public Act 21. The May meeting was the first monthly meeting with the new authority.

On June 13 during the next monthly meeting for the NRC, they will receive information and discuss the issue on whether to rename the wolf as a game species. Then in the following July meeting they will vote yes or no, something Minzey expects to be a guaranteed vote in favor of renaming the wolf as a game species and restoring the wolf hunt based on their previous vote in May. Minzey describes the July vote to restore the hunt more as a formality and that ultimately the hunt will not be affected.

Many fighting the hunt are not discouraged.

"Certainly it's disappointing, but no matter the outcome, I think that what's happening now...remaining steadfast with the goals of the campaign is completely positive," Robarge said.

The Department of Natural Resources has more details on the wolf hunt.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013



Wolves of the Rockies texted us with this phenomenal news. Our deepest thanks to our entire H.A.N.D.S. network.

Adelheid Adelliam

STOP WOLF HUNTS (Discussion)  -  May 20, 2013

Do you see what I see here? Am I reading this correctly???
Adelheid Adelliam originally shared:
Great news...and it also means that we have to keep the pressure up....

We keep that pressure up here:
SHARE with everyone you think will send an email. Thank you! ~Heidi and Olaf

Let's make the headline below read GREAT NEWS FOR WOLVES ! FOREVER


Decision on wolf protections in Lower 48 delayed...

BILLINGS — Federal wildlife officials are postponing a much-anticipated decision on whether to lift protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states.

In a court filing Monday, government attorneys say “a recent unexpected delay” is indefinitely holding up action on the predators. No further explanation was offered.

Gray wolves are under protection as an endangered species and have recovered dramatically from widespread extermination in recent decades.

More than 6,000 of the animals now roam the continental U.S. Most live in the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes, where protections already have been lifted.

A draft proposal to lift protections elsewhere drew strong objections when it was revealed last month.

Wildlife advocates and some members of Congress argue that the wolf’s recovery is incomplete because the animal occupies just a fraction of its historical range.


Photo credit : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Show less

Monday, May 13, 2013


Courtesy mexicanwolf.gluzberg.com 

Updated: 7:21 am, Thu May 9, 2013

PHOENIX — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) released a pair of Mexican wolves April 26 into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area of Arizona. In a separate action, the Service will also release a second pair of Mexican wolves into the wolf recovery area in New Mexico.
Both pairs, selected to increase genetic diversity of the wild wolf population, were previously held at the Service’s Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility where they have undergone an acclimation process to determine that they are suitable release candidates.
“We continue to be committed to strategic releases that improve genetic diversity, increase the number of breeding wolves, and offset illegal mortalities in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area,” said Benjamin Tuggle, the Service’s Southwest regional director. “We’re excited to be working with our partners on this simultaneous release of Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. This dual release is another step that helps us reach our goal of a self-sustaining wild wolf population.”
“The strategically-planned release of the wolf pair into Arizona is to improve the genetic integrity of the wolf population. The release approaches being used are tailored to encourage these wolves to acclimate and behave as wild wolves. Our experience shows that wild- born, wild-raised wolves have a much better chance at success,” says Director Larry Voyles, AGFD.
In Arizona, the Interagency Field Team (IFT) will conduct a “soft release” of Mexican wolves F1126 and M1051 (F indicates female and M indicates male) near the Corduroy Creek release site on the Alpine Ranger District in the Apache National Forest.
“We considered several factors in the selection of the release site, including appropriate prey density, distance from occupied residences, seasonal absence of livestock grazing, and occurrence of established wolf packs in the area,” says Chris Bagnoli, Arizona Game and Fish’s IFT leader. “This particular site was also chosen in close coordination with the public and with approval from the Forest Service.”
The Arizona pair will be released into an enclosure and held for a time to acclimate them to their surroundings. They will be released into the primary recovery zone in compliance with the existing federal 10(j) rule covering the reintroduction project because F1126 does not have previous wild experience. This will be an initial release of F1126 and a translocation of M1051.
The Service, in cooperation with the IFT, will also conduct a “modified soft release” of Mexican wolves F1108 and M1133 into New Mexico. These wolves will be translocated to an enclosure in the Gila Wilderness. The enclosure is designed so that the wolves can chew through and self-release any time after being placed there. Thus, the wolves may remain in the enclosure for less than 24 hours, or may release up to several weeks later. Both F1108 and M1133 have previous wild experience, and so are able to be translocated into the secondary recovery zone in compliance with the existing federal 10(j) rule covering the reintroduction project.
For both the Arizona and New Mexico pairs upon release, the IFT anticipates the wolves will begin using the area around the release sites. The IFT will provide supplemental food while the wolves learn to catch and kill native prey, such as deer and elk, on their own. The supplemental feeding will assist in anchoring the wolves to the area.
The IFT estimates the population of Mexican wolves in the wild to be a minimum of 75 animals, as determined by their most recent annual survey conducted in January 2013, up from a count of 58 last year.
The reintroduction project partners are AGFD, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services, several participating counties in Arizona, the Eastern Arizona Counties Organization, and the Service.

For more information on Mexican wolves, visit www.azgfd.gov/wolf .

Saturday, May 11, 2013

The Wolf War Goes Global, and the World Loses

Persecution of wolves is often based on fear and hatred born of ignorance.
Published on February 5, 2013 by Mark Derr in Dog's Best Friend

The wolf wars of the second decade of the third millennium anno domini have spread from their most recent ignition point in the northern Rocky Mountains through the Great Lakes and across the Atlantic into Scandinavia, Western Europe and the Balkans and onto Siberia and Alaska, where the killing has never really stopped.  Russian officials want to kill 3,000 wolves out of an estimated population of 3,500 in Yakutia, Siberia, the heart of the Gulag, on the grounds that they are decimating the reindeer of the indigenous people at an alarming rate. Poison might be used, the Moscow News reported on January 15, 2013.  It appears that wolves are being blamed for all problems plaguing Siberia’s native people, alcoholism and poverty foremost among them.

Writing in the Guardian on January 18, 2013, George Monbiot says that Norway and the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia  have joined the wolf killing frenzy.  They too claim to be protecting some other wild species or livestock, while they, in fact, are using wolf hunts to shatter wildlife protection programs.

 As 2012 entered its last month, Michigan alone among states with sizable wolf populations had no sanctioned wolf hunt.  But then the legislature passed and the governor signed legislation granting state wildlife officials authority to permit wolf hunting in the state’s Upper Peninsula, ostensibly to reduce the wolf population enough to prevent conflict between humans and wolves. The legislation passed despite polls showing strong public opposition to wolf killing.

The current assault on wolves in this country represents a prime example of the way, even in a “democracy,” that a minority, driven by fear, hatred, and  ignorance, seasoned with more than a little hypocrisy, can put into place policies that run counter to the “will” of the majority.  In this case they are helped along by wolf experts, scholars and journalists who express dismay and concern when wolves do not behave according to their expectations.  Wolves, it appears, adjust to people far better than people to wolves.  Specifically they show a capacity to live among people even in relatively crowded quarters, which as ‘wild animals” they were not supposed to do.

The situation is ripe for conflict, say the experts, repeat the journalists, because wolves are ‘wild animals,’ and we no longer are.  The same people who decried that wolves could not tolerate anything short of wilderness, now say that their ability to live in close quarters with people makes conflict inevitable and thus they should be pre-emptively hunted.  L. David Mech, one of the foremost wolf experts in the world, has repeatedly made this argument, which reduces to a simple formula---in order to preserve the wolf, we will sacrifice thousands of wolves because if they come into conflict with people, they will die.

Wildlife biologist George Wuerthner suggests a more cynical, political calculus at work, at least in Montana.  The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks , he says, approved a hunt with a higher than needed quota in order to defuse an issue that was potentially damaging to Democratic politicians, including Senator Jon Tester, and thus to Democratic control of the U. S.  Senate.  Tester is the senator who introduced the budget rider mandating that wolves be delisted.  The wolves were not consulted.

 Many scholars proclaim that humans and wolves have always been in conflict, because they have always hunted the same game. This bit of academic and popular received wisdom is demonstrably untrue.   Even when they prey on the same species, wolves focus on the young and elderly, while humans take mature adults.  Humans and wolves and dogs hunted bison for centuries without major conflict; indeed, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark called wolves the shepherds of the bison for their habit of sitting and watching over their herds. Evidence suggests that the Indian dogs regularly crossbred with and were indistinguishable from wolves.

While generalizations about wolves and dogs, as well as other canids, are best avoided,  it is fair to say that most hunting cultures celebrate, or at least do not fear wolves.  They recognize the wolf not as a competitor but as a fellow hunter.  In this sense American hunters who call for annihilation of the wolf betray their cultural heritage.  Long hunters along the frontier often had dogs that were all or part Indian dogs and wolves.

The hunters who opposed wolves were medieval nobility who wanted to keep deer populations high for their own pleasure and later ‘sport’ hunters, whose idea of “sport” most closely resembled slaughter.  They no more wanted to share with wolves than with subsistence hunters—poachers by any other name.

It is not even fair to say that pastoralists and agriculturalists unanimously find wolves problematic.  For millennia, pastoralists in some parts of the world have deployed dogs with shepherds to guard their flocks.  Usually, they have been large mountain dogs wearing spike collars, ferocious enough to defeat wolves in mortal combat.  But smaller dogs are sometimes used to good effect.

Where wolves routinely prey on livestock, it is often the case that the ranchers or herdsmen fail to follow best practices –corralling the stock at night, preferably behind electric fences, working with the dogs to thwart wolf attacks.  Wolves are formidable predators, but they are unlikely to press an attack that makes them expend considerable energy for scant return.

It is also clear that hunting wolves destroys the social cohesion of a pack because unless the entire pack is wiped out, a shattered family remains. If the breeding pair is killed, the culture of the pack is destroyed, and the survivors are left to make do with limited skills.  In that event, sheep or calves look like easy targets.  It takes generations for a pack to regain cohesion if it does at all.

Wolf haters show no evidence of listening to reason.  But it is not unreasonable for the public to demand a comparison with all other predators, including the two-legged biped to determine who among them is the most destructive and thus most in need of removal from the range.

Unfortunately, statistics needed to make an informed assessment either do not exiist or are difficult to find and untrustworthy when they do appear.  Nonetheless, we can ask some questions.  First, we might ask what wolves are eating.  In Spain, in the Carpathians, in Italy and in other wolf territory, researchers have collected and examined scat to find out what wolves were eating, especially whether they were eating sheep, goats or other human food.  The surprising answer for the researchers was that less than 20 percent of the wolf diet was livestock. Dogs were bigger threats to livestock.   Late last summer hunters for the state of Washington spent $77,000 killing 7 wolves said to be killing cattle on one ranch.  Now, sources tell me that necropsies of the dead wolves found no evidence that they had eaten livestock.  In Alberta, officials approved wolf slaughter to protect woodland caribou, but scat analyses has indicated Alberta wolves eat deer not caribou.

The real killers were not even listed among predators on the range in order to keep them categorically different, and they would be the gun-toting biped—ourselves in the form of livestock rustlers, the traditional scourge of  ranchers.  Being human, they target mature animals who will fetch the highest prices.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps statistics on all other types of predation.  But it has nothing on rustling.  That can hardly be an oversight.  Rather it reflects a deep cultural bias against comparing, much less equating, human with animal behavior.  Still, by all indications rustlers pose a far greater threat than wolves.

The number of “wolves” killed who are really dogs or coyotes also goes unrecorded and unestimated, yet persistent reports of dead wolves turning out to be dogs raise the question—how many of the wolf hunters know what they are shooting?

In the northern Rocky Mountains, hunters drive the opposition to wolves, claiming that they are decimating elk and deer populations, artificially maintained for the pleasure of sport hunters.  There are plenty of elk and deer, of course, more than there were before the return of wolves; hunters just might have to go farther afield with all the lifting and carrying that entails.

Some people will say that these questions are tangential to the main issue, which is keeping the wolf away, but that is only because we want to ignore the real top dog among predators on the range.  Perhaps if we came clean we would have fewer problems with our old friend, le lupe.

As if on demand, Jim and Jamie Dutcher’s new book, The Hidden Life of Wolves has just been published. (Here is a review by my fellow Psychology Today essayist, Marc Bekoff.) The beautiful full color photographs in this book, two of which illustrate this posting present wolves as the sentient creatures they are, but they also disprove forever the myth that wolves are stone cold killers incapable of social interactions with people.  Jamie Dutcher is photographed with three black wolves from the Sawtooth Pack the couple studied  for years, and Jim is shown camera to nose with another wotf. A pair of wolves is shown running and playing with a stick the way dogs do. Those are just a few of the images that fill this book, which is also noteworthy for its informed and informative text,  The Dutchers cover the myths, legends, science, and politics of wolves and humans.  Photos and text combine to present wolves in ways that make them comprehensible to us. They are astounding beings.  Their portrayal is clearly an act of devotion, admiration and love.

[Note: The Dutchers and their son Garrick have formed a group, Living with Wolves, devoted to educating the public and public officials about wolves in the hope that the knowledge will lead all of us to seek ways to live together. The wolf after all stayed in the wild while its close cousin hung around to try to help humans manage in the world.  In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I serve on the scientific/recovery advisory panel for that group.  It is volunteer work, which I agreed to do because of my desire to help wolves and other predators not only survive but also to flourish.]

Thursday, May 9, 2013


by Noah Greenwald

Late last week, a draft government rule that will remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves across most of the lower 48 states was leaked to the press.

If it's enacted, this rule will put a tragic end to one of the most important wildlife recovery stories in America's history.

Wolves today wander just 5 percent of their historic habitat in the continental United States. It's simply far too early to declare victory. Pulling the plug on the wolf recovery program now will virtually guarantee that wolf populations will stagnate and these beautiful animals will never again roam prime wolf habitat in places like the wilds of the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains or the Northeast.

In all of these areas, there are vast tracts of land that scientists have determined have the space and prey to support healthy wolf populations.

All that's required of us is a little tolerance and a little imagination -- and the willingness to follow through on our decades-long commitment to these incredible creatures.

There were once about two million wolves in North America. Most were wiped out in the late 1800s and early 1900s as European settlements moved west and government-sponsored extermination programs were used to protect cows and sheep placed on landscapes occupied by wolves for tens of thousands of years.

With the passing of the Endangered Species Act under President Nixon, and a more enlightened view of the vital ecosystem role played by predators, we shored up and encouraged wolf populations in the Great Lakes region, launched a successful reintroduction in the northern Rockies and, far less successfully, brought Mexican gray wolves back to parts of Arizona and New Mexico.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its latest proposal, says that's good enough for wolf recovery. Its new plan would remove federal protections for all wolves in the lower 48 states except those in the Southwest (which undeniably and desperately need protection since there are just 75 or so -- and a scant three breeding pairs -- in the wild).

Following removal of protections for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes in 2011, states in these regions enacted aggressive hunting and trapping seasons that are designed to drastically reduce wolf populations. In the northern Rocky Mountains, more than 1,100 wolves have been killed since protections were removed and this year populations declined by 7 percent.

It's clear that states are going to let old prejudices against wolves drive their management, and we can't rely on them to let wolves move into new areas. That's why it's crucial that wolves continue to get the help that only the federal Endangered Species Act can give them.

Wolves belong in our mountains and forests and valleys and plains. They sustain a critical natural balance in those places, whether it's keeping deer and coyote populations in check or keeping elk and other prey species on the move so they don't devour and trample streamsides that songbirds and beavers need to survive. Wolves have an important role to play. We have to let them play it.

No, wolves will never be as abundant as they once were across North America, and nobody expects that. But restoring them to just 5 percent of where they once lived, then calling it quits and hunting them down again by the thousands? That's just wrong.

Follow Noah Greenwald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Noah_Ark_757


Don't End Federal Protection for Gray Wolves

Wolves Need Federal Protection: Petitioning Sally Jewell:

Wolves In The Lower-48 States Need Your Help

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

WA Fish & Wildlife Commission :Eastern WA Wolf Kills

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to let some state residents kill wolves attacking livestock, pets, etc.
by RALPH MAUGHAN on APRIL 30, 2013

Courtesy www.booksie.com

One wolf per incident may be killed-

Readers: note my addition of an article by Bob Ferris
- -
The wolf population in Washington State is growing nicely and especially in its NE corner. Residents are not allowed by the state to kill a wolf without a permit. This issue was faced in Idaho, Montana, etc. in the past where some people made the same demand — that they should be able to shoot a wolf without a permit when one is attacking.

Washington’s Fish and Wildlife Commission has faced the issue now and voted unanimously to create a temporary emergency rule for eight months. So, in Eastern Washington only,  owners of pets or livestock will now be able to kill, without a permit,  one attacking wolf.

I recall that when Idaho considered the issue. Many wolf conservationists opposed the rule, but once it was adopted not enough wolves were shot to make any wolf population difference in the state. It it hard to find wolves attacking and hard to shoot them when they are found.  It might also be that attacks are overstated. Therefore, it could be argued, this is more of a symbolic issue than a solution to a problem which is itself of uncertain severity.

Some Washington commissioners wondered if the rule would frighten wolves and keep them away from livestock; one other thought it might scatter a pack and result in even more wolves. Because Idaho and Montana have now had a lot of wolf hunting, we should expect a body of knowledge exists that tells us how wolves and wolf packs react to having their members shot, but I am not aware of the state wildlife departments in the states having drawn any conclusions . . . perhaps because they don’t really care how wolves react.

The rule only applies to Eastern Washington because wolves are still federally protected under the ESA in most of the state. However, given the draft federal delisting rule nationwide, this prohibition will probably soon be dropped. Wolves are protected under Washington state law statewide regardless of federal classification.

Currently there are over 50 adult or sub-adult wolves in Washington. Some estimate the population is as high as a hundred wolves.

- – - – -

A view from Bob Ferris

Bob Ferris at Cascadia Wildlands continues to write insightful columns on this and related issues. 
Many will find his latest,  Reasonable People Can Disagree, http://www.cascwild.org/reasonable-people-can-disagree-but/but…  very perceptive. Ferris argues that while reasonable, intelligent people can disagree, there are those working in northeast Washington to make those who started out reasonable, unreasonable by engaging deliberately in widespread dissemination of rumor,  ”anti-wolf rhetoric, untruths and fear mongering.”