Category: Uncategorized

We have no hidden agendas here, nor make money off of anything we do, nor ask for donations.  We respect and defend all wildlife and all other animals as well — and Defend them We will, for as long as the senseless, contrived, and greed situation kills our Wildlife and other animals !!!!!!! This is a response to Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife in their awkward and no-scientific attempts to De-List the Wolf from the ESA!

TO: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Regarding: Delisting of Wolves in Oregon State

We, and the organization I represent, cannot and will not support your decision of De-Listing the Wolves within Oregon State. Our organization is made of Life-Long Oregonians and others raised within the Northwest; which, is made of Vietnam Veterans as well as all other wars since then – and we, as Oregonian’s – Veterans – and American’s, are concerned with your decision making process.

We find no valid references to validate your questions placed within your decision making process, as they are in particular non-scientific as well as Special Interest driven.

What we have found is validity in those particular questions used in many other states to make awkward and non-scientific decisions, primarily based on — no science what so ever, all of them listed. We have also found evidence, and reference material from the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government, those particular questions were developed from those who specifically (and well noted as well as emotionally driven) hate Wolves, and gathered a consortium to change the Endangered Species Act over the years.

We Oregonian’s find this situation in contempt, and ironically hypocritical. I say this, as at previous ODFW meetings and presentations, you lectured the public on emotion-driven situations and forethought, and yet your decisions are based not on science, but the emotional aspects of Special Interest Groups; which in turn is driven mostly from fear, which caters toward contempt and hatred, which extends further into bad decision making = quite Costly to all Taxpayer’s in the State of Oregon . . .

We also see, under review and closer scrutiny, your Special Interest slant very obvious and devious in nature and character. In reality your decisions to Delist the Wolves, with such a non-viable population that exists currently, it is definitive in responsive-action toward those Special Interest Groups only, as mentioned above.

Oregonian’s seem to be left out of the equation in total, and in reality pay the most in taxpayer money for you to manage Oregon’s Wildlife. And, as you also know — if not Oregon needs a change of Administration within the ODFW immediately — Oregonian’s receive the least amount of benefit when compared to the actuality of taxes being paid for such endeavors, to the ODFW presently that only caters for a small minority of the pubic.

We also cannot locate any references to validate the questions posed for the decisions, and find them irresponsive to Oregonians wants and requirements to manage Oregon’s Wolves. We also discovered, as well as researched, with no emotion from us but certainly of concern, the ODFW’s attachment to such a government agency as Wildlife Services, under the cloak of USDA. So within the question’s responded to for your decision making process, the element of trust is null and void, as your association with Wildlife Services (references apparently you neglected to notice below) speaks loud and clear to the public-at-large in Oregon.

Please peruse below the overwhelming amount of references of psychopathic behaviors of Wildlife Services employees, the long stream and consistent through the years of animal torture and abuse, then the in particular non-management, and totally in opposition to any type of management of wildlife, especially in Oregon, the Millions of Wildlife tortured and Killed over the Decades by this particular government agency . . .
Abuse, torture, and the killing of animals recklessly as well as uselessly, in this case wildlife, is not what Oregonian’s pay you for!  Your direct association with such a government agency, and those types of individuals, is not only questionable, but unacceptable.

The fact is, you have been blessed with a public that has been asleep over the past few decades, especially in the matters of wildlife management, and many other states and wildlife management organizations have gotten away with a lot of Special Interest tragedies. That no longer will exist, as the Public is, and will in the future become very responsive to those situations I have pointed out above.

I think an example is in order here – the killing of calves and cows recently, supposedly attacked by a wolf in Klamath County, will serve us well in questioning the situation, and the ODFW response. Proximity is not an assurance of guilt of an attack by a wolf, especially since we have good information it was not in that area at the time of the supposed attack; especially near the ranch and grazing range in question.

But how profound, a week before a purposeful Special Interest Delisting of the Wolf, that it would happen – the problem is, it was not wolves or wolf, but we see quite a few other wildlife in that particular area that can and would be confused with a wolf – so, as an Oregonian and concerned citizen, I would strongly suggest more investigation into this matter.  We need quality in our wildlife management, not frivolous non-science backed by only torture and abuse of our wildlife here in the State of Oregon . . . and this is what Oregonian’s take pride in, Our Wildlife and Natural Environment . . .

Further Aspects of Discussion

Ironically, during my discussions the terms “good science”, “emotion”, “data gathering”, among others, strike aggressively toward a condescending subjective-reasoning, in that the ODFW wants to change factual presentation to nothing more than an emotional response; thereby, emotion not used within any of this context what so ever, simply good science and well referenced science, indeed, science, which stands in direct opposition to what ODFW states as their science, which is certainly questionable at best.

Yes, many use these terms within the wrong context, oddly within a derogatory methodology, especially toward those who question their authority and decisions – some realize this, others simply repeat the terms as someone else has applied them, with no idea how out-of-place their reasoning becomes.

When it comes to two terms as “emotion” versus “ignorance” when discussing the preservation of our nation’s wildlife, certainly a vast difference present, with the definition of each making this apparent. We have nothing to hide, most of us that is; but others . . .

Using the Oregon Department of Fish and wildlife, as the minority of state population of ranchers and hunters do, indiscriminately kills native carnivores in a misguided attempt to protect game and livestock. But the scientific fact remains, and the above situation simply ignores detrimental environmental consequences.

For example and well referenced, eliminating carnivores can wreak havoc on ecosystems because small mammal density can surge, and these animals may carry disease and compete with game species for food. Herbivore numbers may also grow unchecked, leading to over-browsing and overgrazing. The use of such other organizations as Wildlife Services remains simply unacceptable to a majority of this State’s population, no matter how perceptions are attempted to change minds. So our endeavors in Oregon should simply remain with nature. Also the stopping of what is an unacceptable practice, and stop such other organizations as Wildlife Services and their kill-at-will paradigm, mostly based on a ranchers or farmer’s emotion of paranoia and what may happen – but is not backed by science or truth – simply falsehoods that generate dead wildlife.

We would like to have several questions answered in the matters of ODFW Science: We find the science incomplete. Lack of data, lack of proper counts of both wolves and cougars, and deficient reasoning toward even the assumption of Delisting of the Wolf as an Endangered Species – i.e. from your document perused, “Recovery of wolf populations in Oregon raises questions regarding wolf impacts on elk and mule deer populations, livestock depredation, and interspecific competition between wolves and cougars. . .”

1. The fact is you do not take into consideration, or include Poaching Data within Oregon State, nor do you consider Highway Kills et al, which both remain an extremely significant piece (e.g. large numbers ungulates killed yearly), of data to leave out of any basic research, as well as the matter of especially in the matters of de-listing the wolf from the ESL;
2. From observations here in the N.W. and in particular Oregon State, we have found the Cougar and Wolf do not intermix, and actually avoid one another. We have found only 1 Cougar Kill that was covered/stored, and taken by Wolves, and nothing more – no signs of problems at that site – but, we remain finding more poaching kills (bullet holes as well as arrows not retrieved and animals bled-out slowly – as well as both Cougar and Wolf signs on 85% of the poached-killed deer and elk), than we have found cougar and wolf kills, i.e. separately combined – why is this data not combined with your study data, as your study data is incomplete without this information, and many times the poaching kills are available and in-sight and no difficult to see or locate what so ever;
3. When you give data such as a percentage of dynamic related to the Cougar and Elk ratio for example, and then make statements of questionable deduction, that there is no proper counts of either cougar or elk, then how in the world do you come up with the percentages? Averaging in wildlife situations, has been found extremely and subjectively counter-productive, and we find this with the wolves also (our counts much different than ODFW, and subjectivity as well as bad counts hamper the studies of both wolf and cougars in Oregon;
4. As life-long taxpayers in Oregon and in the N.W., we find the averaging principles of subjective counts next wot worthless, and a waste of the taxpayer dollars, combine this with lack of data, and misrepresenting wildlife situations such as wolves and cougars, then we find no legitimate reasoning toward neither budget nor management controls appropriate – as it is simply bad or misrepresented information is all, and quite costly;
5. We understand there may be a serious Conflict of Interest situation within the ODFW and a federal government agency called the USDA — Wildlife Services (this can also be taken to Federal as well as State Court as a criminal action as well if what we gathered within our information is correct, and the state should pursue this situation, as other questionable circumstances also exist), in the matter of relative or family status conflicts– and or retirement at Administrative or Supervisory levels of each government, and conflicts between private commercial/non-commercial agents and state ODFW employees – both are now compromised, and regardless of the relationship, Conflicts of interest between the policy making venues, and or voucher process or contracting when relationship discovered, require curtailment immediately . . .

Wildlife Services

This we find has, and continues, to our understanding, the likelihood of erroneous as well as mismanaged wildlife situations within the State of Oregon, and the major population of Oregon does not and will not put up with the abuse, torture, and useless killing of our State’s wildlife.

Many Oregonian’s, and many more who will find out, are and will be concerned over what we have found in the matters of Wildlife Services, and even more astounded our State, known to care tremendously for our State’s Wildlife, and our State’s Wildlife Managers would be connected, within any way shape or form, with such a controversial and obviously abusive and cruel organization as the USDA’s Wildlife Services.

John Cox — Oregonian – Veteran – American

____________________________

ATTACHMENT 1

For Further Reading – more on the tragedy of Wildlife Services —

“Super majorities of Oregon’s House and Senate voted for a terrible new law (HB3188) that enables creation of predator killing districts at the county level. Those districts will tax participating real estate at one dollar per acre. The money will pay the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Wildlife Services to kill predators at the request of commercial agriculture and livestock operators.

Don’t confuse the USDA’s Wildlife Services with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish & Wildlife Service, a vastly different federal agency. This law may spread to other states.

River otters are one of many species killed as “collateral damage” by Wildlife Services. In 2014, 454 river otters were killed by the agency (Dan Sherwood)

The USDA’s Wildlife Services is notorious for slaughtering many species of wildlife, not just predators. In 2014, Wildlife Services killed 2,713,570 animals nationwide, down from 4,378,456 the year before. The 2014 kills include 570 black bears, 322 gray wolves, 61,702 coyotes, 2,930 foxes and 305 mountain lions, as well as three bald and five golden eagles. The federal trappers use cyanide capsules, neck snares and foot traps. When I was a wildlife biology student in Arizona, my classmates and I called these trappers the “gopher chokers”. They kill many animals unintentionally … collateral damage … including 390 out of 454 river otters in 2014. Who knows how many pets they kill? Pet kills are seldom reported. The trappers follow the S-S-S mantra: shoot – shovel – shut-up. They shoot domestic pets caught in their foot traps, bury them and keep quiet.

Oregon’s new law (HB3188) perpetuates Wildlife Services’ egregious activities with the $1/acre real estate tax. How could this happen in wildlife “friendly” Oregon? It happened because people who make money from commercial agriculture and livestock operations, and who are not friendly to wildlife, organized and lobbied more effectively than environmental groups. (to read further: http://www.oregonwild.org/about/blog/political-education-wildlife-biologist “

References

◾There’s a reason you’ve never heard of this wildlife killing agency – Reveal | The Center for Investigative Reporting, Feb. 4, 2015 https://www.revealnews.org/article/theres-a-reason-youve-never-heard-of-this-wildlife-killing-agency/

◾USDA Inspector General will investigate Wildlife Services after accusations of reckless predator control, abuse of animals, and failure to account for costs – Los Angeles Times, Jan. 4, 2014 http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-wildlife-killing-20140105-story.html#ixzz2pZBZOMbv

◾Congressmen ask Inspector General to make audit of Wildlife Services a top priority – Letter from Peter DeFazio and John Campbell, Sept. 20, 2013

◾”Agriculture’s Misnamed Agency” – New York Times editorial, July 17, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/agricultures-misnamed-agency.html?_r=1&

◾ Wildlife Services is a federal agency that operates in secrecy, using brutal traps, poison and aerial gunning to kill thousands of animals, with accidental victims that include federally protected species, family pets and injured people. Sacramento Bee, Apr. 28, 2012   http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/wildlife-investigation/article2574599.html

USDA-Wildlife Services dog killing in Oregon points to deep problems http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mwaage/usda-wildlife_services_dog_kil.html

______________________________

ATTACHMENT 2

Harsh Methodology and explanation to the Public Deceptive at Best

• M-44s lure animal with smelly bait, kill with cyanide – details just one of the indiscriminate and deadly killing techniques used by Wildlife Services. Sacramento Bee, published April 30, 2012
• Efforts to investigate Wildlife Services’ methods continue – Shows renewed attention is being drawn to the federal government’s wildlife damage control program as a result of: (1) a bipartisan letter from four U.S. Representatives requesting a congressional investigation, and (2) a “notice of violation” and $2,400 fine issued to a Wildlife Services’ employee for placing a spring-loaded sodium cyanide ejector (M-44) near a family’s home in Texas that killed their dog, Bella. Sacramento Bee, June 25, 2012. (See special note* below regarding Predator Defense’s focused work on these two projects.)
• Wildlife Services meets with its critics – Sacramento Bee, June 30, 2012
• Davis cuts ties with Wildlife Services over coyote killings – Sacramento Bee, July 19, 2012
• U.S. wildlife worker’s online photos of animal abuse stir outrage – Sacramento Bee, Nov. 2, 2012
• Federal Wildlife Services makes a killing in animal-control business – Sacramento Bee, Nov. 18, 2012
• Reform urged for Wildlife Services – Sacramento Bee, Nov. 18, 2012
• U.S. wildlife agent accused of trapping a neighbor’s dog – Sacramento Bee, Jan. 31, 2013
• Federal agency gives few answers on months-long probe of alleged animal cruelty – FOXnews.com, June 12, 2013
• Documents show questions about Wildlife Services probe in animal cruelty – Sacramento Bee, June 15, 2013

• There’s a reason you’ve never heard of this wildlife killing agency – Reveal | The Center for Investigative Reporting, Feb. 4, 2015
• Exposed: U.S.’ Secret War on Wildlife – VoiceAmerica interview with Brooks Fahy, Feb 24, 2014
• Inspector General to Investigate Wildlife Services – L.A. Times, Jan. 4, 2014
• Congressmen question costs, mission of Wildlife Services agency – Los Angeles Times, Jan. 4, 2014
• Government’s War on Wildlife Exposed – CNN Headline News, Oct. 11, 2013
• Agriculture’s Misnamed Agency – The New York Times, July 17, 2013
• Hundreds of family pets, protected species killed by little-known federal agency – FOX News, Mar. 13, 2013
• Animal torture, abuse called a ‘regular practice’ within federal wildlife agency – FOX News, Mar. 12, 2013
• The Controversy over the Federal Government’s ‘Predator Control’ Program – HealthNewsDigest.com, Nov. 17, 2012
• Congresswoman Pushes for Transparency from Secretive Agency: The Wildlife Killers – Voice of San Diego, Aug. 2, 2012
• American Society of Mammalogists letter recommends redirecting Wildlife Services operations – Mar. 21, 2012. Sample Comment: “We see from WS a heavy and inflexible emphasis on lethal control and a lack of scientific self-assessment of the effects of WS’s lethal control programs on native mammals and ecosystems.”
• Bill to Ban Two Deadly Poisons Used by USDA Wildlife Services Re-introduced in Congress – Mar. 20, 2012
• Taxpayers Subsidizing Wildlife Extermination Program, Probe Shows – Kansas City Star, Aug. 18, 2011
• Poison Traps Kill Unintended Victims – High Country News, Mar. 13, 2000

Victims of Wildlife Services (aka, your tax dollars at work)

The following links and photos illustrate the very real risk Wildlife Services’ traps and poisons pose to wildlife, people, and their pets. Most show animals injured or killed as the result of Wildlife Services’ methods.

WARNING: Many pictures are very graphic and may not be suitable for children.

• List of documented non-target victims (domestic animals), 1990-2011
• Meet Maggie the border collie – her death in a conibear trap was a crime
• Man injured by M-44 poison while recreating on public land in Utah
• Family’s dog dies from M-44 poison from traps set on private property
• Victims of M-44 sodium cyanide devices tell their stories to Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)

• Nine fox kits orphaned by USDA’s Wildlife Services | Photo
• Domestic cat injured in leg hold trap set by Wildlife Services. Leg was later amputated.
• Young puppy suffers after being caught in Wildlife Services’ necksnare. The puppy was discovered by area residents and the photo was taken after one week of healing.
• Coyote caught in Wildlife Services necksnare
• Warning signs required to be posted by Wildlife Services. Often the signs are not posted or are missing.
• School children in Montana pose with wolves that Wildlife Services killed with aerial gunning in 2004. Seven wolves were killed in this incident.
• Cougars killed by Wildlife Services. This infamous photo of the severed heads of 11 mountain lions was taken by an outraged employee of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. These animals were among 24 lions killed by the federal agency Animal Damage Control (now called Wildlife Services) in the Galiuro mountains of Arizona, a wilderness area North of Willcox. All were killed on federal lands on the Coronado National Forest over a six-month period from December 1988-May 1989. While it is uncertain whether any of these cougars ever preyed on livestock, the ostensible purpose of the killings was to protect cattle that were grazing on public lands. This type of indiscriminate lethal predator control continues in almost all of the states where mountain lions occur. California is an exception in that only specific mountain lions documented to have killed livestock or threatened people are subject to lethal control by wildlife agencies. Also, in California no sport hunting of mountain lions is allowed.
• “A Long Wait in a Trap”
• “Did Princess Have to Die?”
• “Wildlife Services’ Scare Tactics in Urban and Suburban Portland

Current data on animals killed by USDA Wildlife Services is available on their website. Their presentation is not user-friendly, which is telling.

Below are PDFs of their recent kill reports by category:

• Animals killed nationwide 2014 – short report
• Animals killed nationwide 2014 – full report
• Animals killed nationwide 2014 – by method/fate
• Animals killed in Oregon 2014 – by method/fate

“Does humankind have the forbearance, the stamina, and the self-discovery of needed change to really save ourselves from ourselves.  Apex Predators merely a mirrored perspective in our own souls, and look how we treat them.”  — John Cox, Cascade Mountains

Once hunted nearly to extinction, cougars are currently once again on the decline, especially in the North West. Years ago their ecological success story that caused celebration, and just as the wolves in the NW, makes folks nervous as well. Worries are growing that the secretive cougar is getting comfortable around much of the human population.

“Here in Oregon the reality of cohabitation on this planet cannot be discussed enough.” — John Cox, Wolf/Cougar Advocate

The true data, reality, is only 10 people were attacked fatally, within the United States since 1890. There have been no documented Cougar attacks in Oregon State.

“We have a lot more people, actually urban-sprawl into wildlife domains, and with that some Cougar encounters — but simply not that many. Each encounter and the misinformation that goes with it, creates a quite dangerous environment for our Cougars here in Oregon. Often myth is much more dramatic than reality, and so goes the media as well,” said John Cox.

Of the 10 fatal cougar attacks on people recorded since 1890 in the United States, half were in the past 10 years. Non-fatal attack-reports of cougars preying on pets and livestock on the increase, but mostly go non-confirmed. The problem with the pets and livestock, 90% of the time, is facts or reality sometimes swayed, especially by cattle and sheep ranchers, and have been caught many times doing so . . .

Cougars currently are pretty much a “Tale of Fear” rather than reality – and many ranchers and others who fear the Cougar demand its demise. Why?

Well, imagination and tales upon tales become dramatic when a hunter or trapper states, “. . . ya, their all over the mountains out there,” swiftly becomes a mythic confirmation of “Cougar Overpopulation” defined. The fact is this is done without checking the counts, or even counting to see if correct for that matter. So are encounters a realty? Well, not so much, but certainly at times seemingly so for the non-participant or occasional visitor in the wilds. But the terminology spikes the definitive scale of misinformation, which then over-spills into bias and even hate.

Being attacked by a cougar, or even seeing one in the wild, is rare to many, to include hunters and trappers alike. One of the larger problems that exist — one attack captivates perception and fear in total. This is a somewhat daunting combination; suddenly one attack becomes 20 or even 30. The tales abound, and no one bothers to fact-check, but repeats the tale from friends – and if more than one had already obtained the information – then “By Damn” that’s confirmation of more.

With every encounter that hits the evening news, the jitter-factor rises among the general populace, until sometimes it seems as if there’s a predator behind every tree. Wildlife officials say they’ve received complaints of “Cougars” that turned out to be deer, yellow Labrador retrievers or even house cats playing in the grass.”

“There’s a little public hysteria about this,” John Cox states while looking over a map of the Cascade Range, plotting consistency of Cougar Tracks. “That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It gives us an increased chance to educate people about lions, so they can learn to live with them. But keep in mind it is the Apex Predators, the wolves and others also under the gun, so to speak, right now, and due to bias and fear alone.”

Cohabitation Desirable?

But how, exactly, can people live with one of North America’s most adaptable predators? A Cougar can sprint 40 mph and leap 20 feet into a tree. With its great yellow eyes and keen nose, it can see and smell people coming long before they know the Cougar is there.

There exists no consensus yet, over how to coexist with an animal that occasionally displaces humans at the top of the food chain. “But we do know this bothers many people, and actually to acknowledge we may be a second-rung in world-wide domination is troublesome to many,” John says looking up from the map, concerned, “And yet, the Cougar would simply stay-away if given the room, or adequate choice. We have indeed invaded their realm of life.”

In Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico, complaints from ranchers and deer hunters about too many Cougars prompted game officials to relax cougar-hunting rules. Then we discover urban sprawl as well as entire communities, knowingly, were built into, evasively, well known Cougar Habitats. Ironic, as these habitats, if left alone, could have protected the Cougar from invasive non-indigenous species – or humans, as we pander our philosophy toward ourselves being the dominant caretakers of our planet, supposedly.

The West’s more urban coastal states, meanwhile, experience a more protective mind-set toward Cougars. Washington voters banned the use of hounds for recreational cougar-hunting in 1996, the same year that Oregon voters rejected a challenge to their state’s ban on hounds, which still exists to this day.

People have a more holistic approach to sharing the land, not just with Cougars but with bears and other animals once considered varmints, and especially Apex Predators. “I think people like knowing these animals are out there, and many educated today acknowledge the fact of reforestation potentials directly involved with Apex Predators such as the Cougar, the Wolf, or the Bear. But not just reforestation, but moving wildlife-browsers around often can also save vegetation as well as much of the smaller wildlife from starvation.” John says enthusiastically.

Biological Habitats are firmly based around a cohabitation principle. Certainly something we can learn for our nations wildlife, and even worldwide.

Cohabitation with Wildlife

“In the cork forests of Portugal, Sanjayan shows an example of humans and wildlife flourishing in a shared environment. Local farmers annually harvest the bark of the trees for wine bottles, being extremely careful not to harm the trees while doing so. With this method, the bark of the trees grows back even stronger the next season, when it’s ready to be harvested again.”

John rises from the map and walks over to place bird seed in his home-made bird feeder, then talks, once again concerned but positive, “In order to cohabitate with wildlife, especially with wildlife, we must relearn, at least about our human behalf or mental being, in order to become humane. This is so we can fully understand and then acknowledge things that had been beyond our thoughts, beyond our own willpower to achieve. What does it mean for an animal to be wild; how in our evolutionary past did humans live with wildness, and we did, make no doubt of that. What of wildness might make sense in modern times? This is what we are directly involved in now, and more and more are hoping on this band-wagon, so to speak.”

“Humane treatment of animals, and a little love, that is frankly, in short supply right now – It takes a community, a group of strong people, and a definite resolution, that is basically a beginning to new times, changes that are positive within and around nature and our environment. . .”

The central argument, more implied than stated, is that still today wildness remains part of the architecture of the human soul, mind, and body, and that to thrive as individuals, and as a species, we need to cohabitate with ourselves and all of wildlife.  In destroying Apex Predators’ we destroy humankind as well, and our natural ecological systems — if things do not change, our environmental destruction is already foreseen, by the year forecast of 2035, and we are doing it to ourselves — we can no longer blame the wildness . . . John Cox, Writer, Cascade Mountains