![\"Gray](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.animals24-7.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Picsart_25-05-25_12-19-56-733-e1748200891414.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 DENVER,\u00a0 Colorado;\u00a0 DAVIS,\u00a0 California;\u00a0\u00a0 VICTORIA, British Columbia\u2013\u2013<\/strong>Between Memorial Day and Labor Day 2025,\u00a0 more than fifteen million people will visit Yellowstone National Park,\u00a0 Glacier National Park,\u00a0 and other known North American gray wolf habitats in the six northwestern continental U.S. states plus British Columbia and Alberta,\u00a0 Canada.<\/p>\n While most of these visitors will have multiple reasons for venturing into wolf habitat,\u00a0 including also the possibility of seeing grizzly bears,\u00a0 black bears,\u00a0 pumas,\u00a0 and other wild predators,\u00a0 the U.S. National Park Service estimates that the hope of seeing a wolf contributes\u2013\u2013by itself\u2013\u2013more than $80 million per year to the Yellowstone region economy.<\/p>\n Gray wolves. (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Rural regions of Colorado and California have recently joined Montana, Wyoming,\u00a0 Idaho,\u00a0 Washington,\u00a0 and Oregon,\u00a0 and British Columbia,\u00a0 as places where tourists might see wolves.<\/p>\n The easiest places to see wolves remain Yellowstone,\u00a0 Glacier,\u00a0 and Banff National Park in Alberta,\u00a0 but Rocky Mountain National Park near Denver may soon join the list.\u00a0 Many other National Parks,\u00a0 National Forests,\u00a0 and state wildlife areas offer reasonably accessible wolf habitat,\u00a0 with potential to join the wolf-watching bonanza.<\/p>\n Paradoxically,\u00a0 though,\u00a0 the rural areas with the most to gain from having wolves remain the most adamantly opposed to the presence of wolves.<\/p>\n Gray wolves. (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Thirty years after wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains,\u00a0 including Yellowstone,\u00a0 there remains little evidence that the recovering wolf population has economically harmed cattle and sheep ranchers,\u00a0 and the regional hunting industry,\u00a0 to an extent even close to the benefits to tourism and habitat.<\/p>\n Yet wolves remain hated,\u00a0 and blamed for much that has actually resulted from habitat change caused by global warming,\u00a0 an easily measured and thoroughly documented climatic effect that ranchers and hunters in particular deny.<\/p>\n Global warming,\u00a0 simply put,\u00a0 means \u00a0that the carrying capacity of the Northwest for elk,\u00a0 moose,\u00a0 caribou,\u00a0 mule deer,\u00a0 pronghorn,\u00a0 cattle,\u00a0 sheep,\u00a0 and yes,\u00a0 wild horses too,\u00a0 is no longer what it was several decades ago.<\/p>\n With or without wolves,\u00a0 the lost carrying capacity will not come back,\u00a0 certainly not within any living rancher,\u00a0 hunter,\u00a0 or politician\u2019s lifetime.<\/p>\n Buck with CWD.<\/strong><\/em> Wolves,\u00a0 though,\u00a0 are helping to control the spread of illnesses,\u00a0 especially chronic wasting disease,\u00a0 menacing ungulates throughout the northern Rockies.\u00a0 Wolves kill the infected animals\u2013\u2013and the digestive systems of wolves and pumas are perhaps the only forces of nature that destroy prions,\u00a0 the infectious agents.<\/p>\n Chronic wasting disease was first identified in 1967,\u00a0 in a captive elk herd at Fort Collins,\u00a0 Colorado,\u00a0 and first found in the wild in Rocky Mountain National Park in 1980.<\/p>\n Colorado remains the epicenter for chronic wasting disease in North America,\u00a0 yet much of the Colorado human population,\u00a0 especially in rural areas,\u00a0 guardedly rejoiced when Colorado Parks & Wildlife on May 15,\u00a0 2025 disclosed the seventh death of one of the 29 wolves who have been reintroduced to the state in 2024 and earlier in 2025.<\/p>\n Four of the wolves found dead were brought from British Columbia,\u00a0 including two who were shot by ranchers after wandering into Wyoming.\u00a0 Three of the dead wolves were brought from Oregon.<\/p>\n Eric Odell,\u00a0 habitat biologist,\u00a0 Colorado Parks & Wildlife.\u00a0 (LinkedIn photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Calling \u201cmortalities within wolf management part of the game,\u201d\u00a0 pledging to continue to release 10 to 15 imported wolves per year into Colorado habitat to \u201cestablish a big enough population to deal with mortality,\u201d\u00a0 Colorado Parks & Wildlife wolf conservation program manager Eric Odell emphasizes that the losses do not \u201cindicate failure for the state\u2019s wolf reintroduction plan,\u201d\u00a0 reported Colorado Sun<\/em> writer Tracy Ross.<\/p>\n But Middle Park Stockgrowers Association president Tim Ritschard insists,\u00a0 Ross recounted,\u00a0 that \u201cColorado\u2019s wolf introduction program has not gone well,\u201d \u00a0with \u201c24 confirmed depredations between three counties\u201d as of November 2024.<\/p>\n Among the 2.65 million cattle and 400,000 sheep and labs in Colorado,\u00a0 the loss to wolves of 24 livestock animals total pales beside losses of 130,000 cattle and 37,000 sheep and lambs to harsh weather in the worst for either species of the last five years.<\/p>\n Tim Ritschard. (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Ritschard leads a coalition of ranchers,\u00a0 hunters,\u00a0 and politicians who hope to \u201cpause wolf reintroduction,\u201d\u00a0 wrote Ross, \u00a0\u201cuntil it met a list of stipulations created to help ranchers deal with their new reality.<\/p>\n \u201cReintroduction could also stop completely,\u201d\u00a0 Ross mentioned, \u00a0\u201cif a recently approved ballot initiative calling for an end to it by Dec. 31, 2026, gains enough signatures to be on the 2026 ballot.\u201d<\/p>\n In addition,\u00a0 Colorado congressional representative Lauren Boebert has introduced a bill,\u00a0 HR 845,\u00a0 to remove wolves from the U.S. endangered species list.<\/p>\n The Boebert bill has so far gone nowhere,\u00a0 but Congress did remove wolves in the northern Rockies from Endangered Species Act protection in 2011.<\/p>\n Wolves were returned to Endangered Species Act protection by court order,\u00a0 responding to excessive hunting mortality, \u00a0in 2022.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n High Country News<\/em> writer Alix Soliman in a May 1,\u00a0 2025 examination of \u201cThe hidden costs of wolf conservation\u201d extensively reviewed \u201cPay for presence,\u201d\u00a0 a political strategy meant to overcome rancher antipathy toward wolves by paying them a stipend for tolerating wolves in grazing habitat,\u00a0 over and above the direct compensation they already receive for verified cattle and sheep losses to wild predators.<\/p>\n While at least some ranchers purport to like the notion of \u201cpay for presence,\u201d\u00a0 at least some wild predator advocates do not.\u00a0 Much of the habitat that would potentially be involved is leased from the federal Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies,\u00a0 at a fraction of the price of leasing privately owned grazing habitat,\u00a0 with the stipulation that the land is designated for \u201cmultiple uses,\u201d\u00a0 including conserving wildlife.<\/p>\n Noted Soliman,\u00a0 \u201cThe stress of living with predators can cause cows to put on less weight or give birth to fewer calves.<\/p>\n Tina Saitone, professor of Cooperative Extension, Agricultural and Resource Economics. (U.C. Davis photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cTwo years ago,\u201d\u00a0 in 2023, \u00a0\u201cthe California Department of Fish and Wildlife tested the \u2018pay for presence\u2019 concept, which attempts to tally \u2014 and at least partially cover \u2014 these hidden costs.<\/p>\n \u201cBefore the program ran out of cash last March, \u00a0it awarded 27 grants totaling nearly $1 million to livestock producers in wolf zones.<\/p>\n \u201cTina Saitone, \u00a0an agricultural economist at the University of California, \u00a0Davis,\u201d\u00a0 Soliman continued, \u00a0\u201cdeployed about 120 game cameras across 850,000 acres to track wolves, \u00a0then fitted more than 100 cows with GPS collars. \u00a0She and her colleagues are comparing the results from ranches outside wolf zones, \u00a0looking at variables like conception rates and cow and calf weights. They estimate stress levels by measuring the amount of cortisol, \u00a0a hormone in the animals\u2019 hair samples.<\/p>\n \u201cSaitone will wrap up her fieldwork next year,\u201d\u00a0 Soliman said, \u00a0\u201cbut her observations have convinced her that the mere presence of wolves negatively affects cattle. While they cannot yet \u2018quantify the dollar values,\u2019\u201d\u00a0 Saitone told Soliman, \u00a0ranchers are losing money \u201cin real life on the ground.\u201d<\/p>\n Carter Niemeyer.<\/strong><\/em> Objected Amaroq Weiss,\u00a0 senior wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity,\u00a0 in a May 23,\u00a0 2025 media release,\u00a0 \u201cIt\u2019s extremely worrying to me that these preliminary findings on California\u2019s recovering wolves were presented as fact before the study had even been vetted.\u00a0 Presenting preliminary results as truth could prove deadly for our state\u2019s protected wolves.\u201d<\/p>\n Agreed Carter Niemeyer, \u00a0retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho wolf recovery coordinator and previously a wolf control specialist with USDA Wildlife Services,\u00a0 \u201cIt is biased and unrealistic to assume wolves are the causative factor for the effects these preliminary conclusions are claiming when a universe of other factors are in play.<\/p>\n \u201cIn my 30-plus years\u2019 experience in the field,\u201d\u00a0 Niemeyer explained, \u00a0\u201cwolves don\u2019t just spend all their time chasing herds of cattle. \u00a0Hundreds of other factors affect cattle weight gain and reproduction, ranging from weather and drought to how the cattle are managed. Saying that wolves are the primary cause and result in exorbitant monetary loss is unrealistic and false.\u201d<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Further objected Weiss,\u00a0 \u201cThe Saitone study also failed to include a cost-benefit analysis despite multiple peer-reviewed, \u00a0published studies clearly showing that wolves generate millions of dollars in economic benefits that far exceed losses to livestock operators.\u201d<\/p>\n Already,\u00a0 in a May 17,\u00a0 2025 op-ed opinion column for the Sacramento Bee<\/em>,\u00a0 Modoc County supervisor Geri Byrne and Sierra County supervisor Lee Adams warned that,\u00a0 \u201cCalifornia is now home to seven confirmed gray wolf packs spread across Plumas, Lassen, \u00a0Shasta, \u00a0Tehama,\u00a0 Siskiyou and Tulare counties, \u00a0with additional groups in Modoc and Sierra counties, \u00a0and individual wolves dispersing from these packs or nearby states. \u00a0As the population grows, reports of livestock attacks have increased, \u00a0with some wolves killing cattle without consuming them \u2014 signs of territorial behavior rather than hunger.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cAccording to the most recent data available,\u201d\u00a0 Byrne and Adams charged, \u00a0\u201cin less than six months \u2014 from October 2024 to March 16,\u00a0 2025 \u2014 32 confirmed livestock kills have been reported. While the economic toll is significant, the emotional strain on ranching families is deeper, \u00a0driven by a growing sense of helplessness as wolves have been recorded approaching homes and attacking livestock in daylight. Though no human attacks have occurred, \u00a0residents worry it\u2019s only a matter of time.\u201d<\/p>\n What Byrne and Adams did not mention is that the time frame they cited coincided with the Sierra mountains snow season; \u00a0that black bears,\u00a0 pumas,\u00a0 and coyotes are far more numerous than wolves throughout the California wolf range,\u00a0 and therefore far more likely to kill or scavenge livestock weakened by winter conditions;\u00a0 and that in the 30 years since the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction,\u00a0 the human casualty count due to wolf attacks is zero.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Fear and hatred of wolves,\u00a0 though,\u00a0 remains far more politically influential than the facts of actual wolf behavior,\u00a0 as lamented in a May 12,\u00a0 2025 media statement from Laurie Hamelin of Pacific Wild,\u00a0 based in Victoria,\u00a0 British Columbia.<\/p>\n \u201cAfter a decade of provincial claims that British Columbia\u2019s wolf cull is humane and necessary for caribou recovery, newly released documents tell a different story,\u201d\u00a0 Pacific Wild began.<\/p>\n \u201cIn an intensive, \u00a0year-long investigation, \u00a0Paci\ufb01c Wild reviewed more than 1,600 pages of internal government records\u2014obtained through Freedom of Information requests\u2014revealing systemic cruelty, \u00a0unethical tactics,\u00a0 and potential violations of B.C.\u2019s Wildlife Act.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cWolves are being shot multiple times with semi-automatic \ufb01rearms originally designed for combat, not hunting,\u201d\u00a0 Pacific Wild charged.\u00a0 \u201cThese weapons are modi\ufb01ed to carry 30-round magazines\u2014six times the legal limit\u2014and are built for rapid \ufb01re, \u00a0not precision. \u00a0This chaotic method, carried out from helicopters and intended to maximize the chances of hitting a target, \u00a0increases the risk of non-fatal shots and prolonged suffering.<\/p>\n \u201cIn one particular case,\u201d\u00a0 Pacific Wild detailed, \u00a0\u201c17 wolves were killed by contractors in less than a month. \u00a0Of those, \u00a010 required multiple bullets, \u00a0and only one was killed by a single shot to the head. \u00a0While the Wildlife Act does not specify how many shots may be used, it does prohibit causing undue suffering to animals\u2014a threshold these actions may well exceed.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe use of bait piles is also raising legal and ethical concerns,\u201d\u00a0 Pacific Wild continued,\u00a0 citing tactics it believes \u201cmay violate Section 33.1 of the Wildlife Act, \u00a0which prohibits leaving attractants that draw in dangerous wildlife.\u201d<\/p>\n Pacific Wild also mentioned that \u201cgame cameras with wireless capabilities are apparently being used to monitor wolf activity as it happens,\u201d\u00a0 a \u201ctype of tech-assisted hunting explicitly banned for the public\u201d that \u201cappears to be used by government contractors\u2014highlighting a double standard in how wildlife laws are applied.\u201d<\/p>\n The bottom line,\u00a0 though,\u00a0 is the pretext that British Columbia wolf culling is done to help caribou population recovery.<\/p>\n Beth & Merritt Clifton with friends.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Of 21 caribou government necropsy reports reviewed, \u00a0Pacific Wild said,\u00a0 \u201cwolves were con\ufb01rmed or suspected in only three cases\u2014just 13 percent. \u00a0Despite this, the cull continues,\u201d\u00a0 by demand of ranchers and hunting outfitters,\u00a0 “while more signi\ufb01cant threats [to caribou] like habitat loss from industry remain largely unaddressed.\u201d<\/p>\n The post “Follow the money” fails to save wolves from wolf-hating ranchers & hunters<\/a> appeared first on Animals 24-7<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (Beth Clifton collage) “Defending rural livelihoods” by killing wolves is economically illiterate public policy,\u00a0 yet continues regardless \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 DENVER,\u00a0 Colorado;\u00a0 DAVIS,\u00a0 California;\u00a0\u00a0 VICTORIA, British Columbia\u2013\u2013Between Memorial Day and Labor Day 2025,\u00a0 more than fifteen million people will visit Yellowstone National Park,\u00a0 Glacier National Park,\u00a0 and other known North American gray wolf habitats in the six […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":258187,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12022],"tags":[9093,18033,3774,24696,832,17201,7182,93147,6085],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-258186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-activist","tag-amp","tag-fails","tag-follow","tag-hunters","tag-money","tag-ranchers","tag-save","tag-wolfhating","tag-wolves"],"yoast_head":"\n“Defending rural livelihoods” by killing wolves is economically illiterate public policy,\u00a0 yet continues regardless<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nRegions with most to gain most hate & fear wolves<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nWolves blamed for effects of global warming<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n
(Missouri Dept. of Conservation)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\nWolves help to control CWD<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n“Mortalities are part of the game”<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nRanchers “hope to pause wolf reintroduction”<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n“Pay for presence”<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nCalifornia tested “pay for presence”<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n
(Carter Niemeyer courtesy photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\nSaitone findings are “premature” says Center for Biological Diversity<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nSeven wolf packs in California<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n“32 confirmed livestock kills” over winter<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nBritish Columbia wolf culls continue<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nWeapons of war<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nB.C. massacre is not really about caribou<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nPlease donate to support our work:<\/strong><\/h2>\n
www.animals24-7.org\/donate\/<\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n