MINNESOTA MOOSE ARE BARELY HANGING ON - HUNTERS BLAMED WOLVES - NOW THEY WANT TO PULL THE TRIGGER THEMSELVES.

This is written in response to Minnesota Bowhunters, inc.

Moose numbers in Minnesota had been on a steady decline since 2009. Even though the DNR knew about this, moose hunting wasn’t officially called off until 2013. In the years since, moose hunters have blamed wolves for the population crash and the ongoing struggle to save the species, even though it’s complete BS. Moose populations are also dropping in other places like New Hampshire, which, fun fact, has zero wolves.

Long-term studies in Minnesota show the real PRIMARY cause of the moose decline is BRAINWORM, with contributing factors including ticks, climate change, habitat loss, and yes, wolves. Wolves, however, are doing exactly what nature designed them to do: they prey on the sick and weak, keeping ecosystems balanced and helping the healthiest moose survive. That’s good for the species, NOT bad.

And now the same hunters who spent years insisting “wolves are eating all the moose!” have done a complete 180. They’re begging for a moose hunt because the population has been “relatively stable for the past decade” and currently stands at 4,040.

So, according to Minnesota moose-hunter logic, wolves supposedly caused the moose population crash, yet now that moose numbers are “stable,” they should be allowed to hunt them. Sure. Makes total sense.

Let's look at the numbers

The wolf population has remained pretty consistent since 2008, except during the wolf slaughter seasons when their population was taken down to 2,211. Following those 3 years (2012–2014), wolf numbers began to rise again, and they’ve stayed between 2,600 and 2,900 ever since.

At their lowest point after the sudden decline, moose numbers were 2,760 in 2013, at the same time wolves were near their lowest at 2,423. AS WOLF NUMBERS HAVE RISEN SINCE, SO HAS THE MOOSE POPULATION. Imagine that!

So what happened in the early 2000s that caused the sudden collapse in the moose population? A convergence of climate change and increased parasite transmission. That’s what.

1. Climate Change.

Warmer weather has had a negative impact on the forest types moose prefer: spruce, fir, and birch.

2. Ticks.

Warmer winters are allowing winter ticks to explode, causing massive blood and weight loss in moose, leading to shorter lifespans for both adults and calves.

3. Brainworm.

Warmer winters also mean higher deer populations and deer are the primary hosts of brainworm. Adult worms live along the outer edge of the brain in deer and don’t affect them, but deer shed eggs that are picked up by snails and slugs. Moose accidentally ingest those infected snails or slugs while eating vegetation. Once inside, the larvae migrate to the spinal cord and brain, causing debilitating neurological damage, often fatal.

Moose weakened by heat stress, malnutrition, and parasites become much more vulnerable to predators, particularly wolves and bears. Studies show a high percentage of wolf-killed moose already had underlying health problems from brainworm or severe tick infestations.

It’s almost impressive how quickly some people went from “wolves are the problem” to “we demand hunting because moose aren’t disappearing fast enough.” The science never supported their wolf-blaming claims and their logic hasn’t improved since.

If we want healthy moose populations long-term, blaming predators and demanding hunting isn’t the answer. Addressing disease, habitat loss, ticks, and climate stress is.

And while we’re at it, let’s be clear: 4,040 moose in Minnesota isn’t some roaring conservation “success.” It just means they’ve managed to hang on and barely. They’re surviving, not thriving. The challenges to their long-term survival are still very real, and opening hunting to non-tribal members won’t help that. It only pushes an already fragile balance closer to collapse.

YOUR ACTIONS MATTER! PROTECT DEER AND PEOPLE

As of today 374 wild deer have been found to be infected with Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the state of Minnesota. CWD is a fatal prion disease that also affects other cervids like elk and moose. It's spread between cervid populations through contact with feces, urine, saliva, and blood.

As concerned stewards of our environment, we all must address the looming threat of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Since feeding and attractants can cause deer to congregate, the MN Department of Natural Resources "requires anyone who feeds birds or other small mammals to do so in a way that prevents deer from gaining access."

To start, since deer can reach feeders within 5 feet of the ground, place food at least 6 feet from ground level. 

Other helpful steps that can be taken include:

1. Use tube feeders, hopper style, or cage-style suet feeders for birds.

2. Try thistle seed, hummingbird nectar, and suet which deer generally dislike and avoid using cracked corn, black oil sunflower seeds, and bird seed mixes.

3. Only put out the amount of food birds in your area will consume in one day.

4. Keeping feeders within 3 feet of your home can be a deer deterrent.

5. Keep the area around feeders clean. Any food that drops to the ground will become a potential attractant. Place a platform 5 feet off the ground under the feeder to catch all spilled food and clean it out daily.

6. Installing a woven wire 4 foot or taller fence around the feeder is also an option. This prevents the deer from reaching over or through to get to the food. If you prefer to keep deer completely off of your property you'll need to install a woven wire fence that is at least 10 feet tall. Keep in mind that building permits are required for fences over seven feet in height. Fences under seven feet in height do not require a building permit but must meet the location and City ordinance requirements. 

For those people in counties where wild deer have tested positive for CWD, the DNR has banned feeding and attractants. Those counties currently include: 

• Aitkin, Beltrami, Carver, Cass, Crow Wing, Dakota, Dodge, Fillmore, Goodhue, Hennepin, Houston, Hubbard, Itasca, Le Sueur, Mower, Norman, Olmsted, Polk, Rice, Scott, Sibley, Wabasha, Washington, Winona

The above screenshots are taken from the MN DNR website. 

Chronic Wasting Disease isn't only a threat to cervids, it's also a potential public health threat that needs to be taken seriously so to keep CWD numbers low, Minnesotans must do their part to prevent the spread of the disease.

Public Health Official: Chronic Wasting Disease Seems Bound To Infect People

Chronic Wasting Disease

CWD prions confirmed in raw, cooked elk meat and water used for boiling, but risk to people unclear

HSUS HUMANE LOBBY DAY 2017

Yesterday was Humane Lobby Day, sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States.  Animal advocates from across Minnesota came together to speak to their state legislators about passing laws to protect animals and to also alert them to an extremely cruel activity called "wildlife killing contests."

Senator Scott Dibble speaking at Humane Lobby Day

The top three issues at hand yesterday were (taken from HSUS handout):

1. COMPANION ANIMAL CRUELTY BILL (bill introduced): increase the penalty for egregious acts of cruelty against companion  animals.

The punishment in Minnesota for felony level crimes against companion animals (great bodily harm and death) is up to two years in jail and/or a $5,000 find.  S.F. 252/H.F. 453 increase that penalty to up to eight years in jail and/or a $10,000 fine.  

S.F. 252 Sen. Karen Housley (R) and Sen. Charles Wiger (DFL)
H.F. 453 Rep Kelly Fenton (R) and Rep. John Lesch (DFL)


2. PROHIBIT THE USE OF GAS CHAMBERS IN ANIMAL SHELTERS (bill not yet introduced): make animal shelter gas chambers illegal.

Currently 27 states have banned the use of gas chambers.  Euthanasia by injection is more humane, safer for staff and less expensive.  Gas chambers are inhumane and cannot provide a true euthanasia for sheltered animals.  The HSUS has grant money available to help any Minnesota shelter transition to euthanasia by injection, so the financial burden will not fall on taxpayers.

3. END WILDLIFE KILLING CONTEST (support needed): wildlife killing contests are organized events held in Minnesota where participants compete for prizes - cash or weapons.  Killing contests are cruel, unethical and counterproductive.

The goal of our meeting with state reps was to get support for increasing the penalty for animal cruelty, prohibiting the use of gas chambers and make them aware of the "wildlife killing contests" going on around our state.  My two state reps weren't aware we had such a thing in Minnesota, they thought that activity was confined to Alaska.  This is something we need to make sure those that represent us at our state capitol are fully aware of what these contests entail and what kind of "alternative facts" people are using to  rationalize their existence.  If you want to know more you can start HERE.  I blogged about the annual coyote killing contest in Marshall, MN a while back.  Send your rep an email, letter or give them a call and let them know that this is happening and that you oppose it.  You'll find that most of them are not even aware of it, which is exactly what the organizers of these contests like.  It's why they are very careful about how they advertise.

Click HERE to locate your representative

FUR-EVER WILD WOLVES, ARE THEY REALLY WOLF DOGS OR ARE THEY THE PROTECTED GRAY WOLF?

As people who have been following this story may know the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a 60 day notice of intent to sue Terri Petter, owner of the Fur-Ever Wild fur farm, aka Wolves Woods & Wildlife back in December 2015.  You can read the letter from the Animal Legal Defense Fund HERE.

The purpose of their notice was to stop Terri Petter from violating the law by killing a species that is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and in response to that notice Terri Petter filed an affidavit stating that her wolves are in fact hybrid (wolf dogs) and not gray wolves so she wasn't violating the ESA.

http://www.citypages.com/news/wildlife-petting-zoo-turns-furrier-slaughterhouse-when-nobodys-watching-8265904

Here is the issue with that… if she isn't slaughtering anything, why the response about hybrid wolf dogs? Anyway… moving on.

Back in April 2015 a posting appeared on the Fur-Ever Wild Facebook page, presumably from Terri Petter, that stated Luna, the wolf at the Intl. Wolf Center, is one of her wolves.  I posted about this last year > HERE and below is a screenshot of that public post on the Fur-Ever Wild FB page.

When I read the above post I immediately contact the International Wolf Center.  The IWC and I are not the best of friends (you'll notice that if you've read prior posts) but buying a wolf from a fur farmer was just lower than I thought they'd be willing to go so I emailed Lori, the Wolf Curator at the IWC and below is her response:

Following that email I did some more digging and I found out who the broker was that sold Terri's wolf to the IWC under false pretense but I am not going to disclose that info here… yet.

So… you have Petter saying that Luna is one of her wolves and the IWC confirming they do in fact have one of Petter's wolves.  Then, the ALDF files an intent to sue letter and Terri files a legal Affidavit in response to the ALDF threat stating her wolves are NOT pure gray wolf but instead are wolf-dogs - which should make the ALDF back off, right? Well...

What struck me odd about that affidavit from Petter is the Intl. Wolf Center doesn't deal in wolf-dogs that I am aware of, they have always maintained that their wolves are pure gray wolf.  It's the point of the IWC, to educate people on purebred gray wolves, not hybrids.  So… I emailed the Intl. Wolf Center and asked, are any of the wolves on their property hybrids or are they all gray wolf and here was the response I received from Carissa Winter:

Now, I suppose Petter could say that the IWC staff is lying and that Luna isn't truly a gray wolf but I am going to venture to guess that when the IWC received Luna, found her to have multiple health issues and started investigating her origins they probably did a DNA test to make sure she was actually a purebred gray wolf.  I can't swear to it because I was not involved in the purchase, transfer or housing of Luna but I am looking at who has the most credibility at this point.  Luna was given to a broker to be sold and that broker kept Luna's origins from the IWC.    Why? Would they refuse to buy her if they had known she was one of Petter's wolves?  Sounds like it from Lori's email.  If they would refuse to buy her from Petter had they known it was one of her wolves, why? Do they know something about Petter that makes want to avoid the wolves she breeds? Lots of questions that go unanswered and things the IWC staff will likely never address, unless  of course they are brought into court over this issue of protected gray wolves being slaughtered.

BEAUTIFUL LUNA - she and the rest of her species should have the right to live long free lives.

OWNER OF FUR-EVER WILD - WRONGLY ACCUSED?

What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. 

My mother use to say the above quote anytime she caught someone fabricating a story.  Mom was a woman of integrity, she didn't have much patience for people who told lies.  I think that's why the truth is so important to me.  I started this blog as a way of discovering and then sharing what is factual vs. bullshit because I believe people have the right to know the truth, even if it's painful and sadly the truth I'm about to share is very painful to those of us who believe in protecting the voiceless… in this case the voiceless are  wild animals.

Minnesota has over 4 dozen fur farms.  You can find a list of those that are known HERE.

Fur farming and fur farmer's are an abomination.  There are no words to describe what I feel when the images of animals being enslaved, tortured and then slaughtered enters my mind.  Just attempting to write about it disgusts me so I'll just skip to the facts.

Terri Petter, owner of Fur-Ever Wild aka Wolves, Woods and Wildlife has finally decided to address the public over the allegations that she is a fur farmer.  Her post can be found HERE ON HER FACEBOOK PAGE and it's quite lengthy.  I don't blame her, I'd write that much if I was facing the same public scrutiny.  Everyone has a right to defend themselves and state their case, just as the public has a right to then analyze it.  Free country! Gotta luv it!  So, I'm going to address the various things she's posted on her Facebook and then the readers of this blog can judge for themselves based on the facts.  So here I go…


This is absolutely true.  Petter is correct, there is no law in the state of Minnesota that says you must kill your animals to be a fur-farmer.  I actually referenced the law in a prior blog post but here is a link to it again for those that would like to read it for themselves. Anytime you breed or propagate fur animals you must be licensed as a fur-farmer.  Does not mean you are killing animals.

MINN. STATS. 97A.105


(Taken from Petter's Fur-Ever Wild Public Facebook Page)

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1410871688941790&id=138516222844016&substory_index=0

When I originally began looking into Fur-Ever Wild I clung to the hope this was all a mistake.  Just because she had fur bearing animals and a fur farming license, it didn't mean she was killing anything... but the truth has a funny way of revealing itself as time goes on.

So let's move on to this portion of her Facebook post.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1410871688941790&id=138516222844016&substory_index=0

Now let's look at just a small section of Terri Petter's deposition

For full document click > PETTER DEPOSITION

The attorney asks: How do you determine when pelting season ends?

Petter responds: It depends on what the -- if it's cold out.  It depends on how fast they blow their prime coats.  It depends on the animals.  Some of them that are younger don't get primed fur right away.  Some of them, you know, that are older get their winter coat earlier.

Nowhere does Petter say that pelting season depends on the market nor does she says it depends on whether they had a few dead animals on hand or not, what she does say is it depends on the animals, if they have primed fur, whether they've gotten their winter coat early.  Well, DEAD ANIMALS DON'T GROW FUR!!! In that deposition she is talking about pelting LIVE animals and in her Facebook posts she tells the public that the animals are already dead and died of natural causes, she didn't kill them.

Ok. So let's look at that.  CLICK HERE to see a document from 2008 (Eureka Board Minutes).  In this document Petter says the following (see p. 8 - 10)

According to Petter 99% of her animals are used for fur.  An animal that dies of NATURAL CAUSES, the FUR IS NOT USABLE.  It is put to another use.

Then when you read down a little further you'll see that the town board, with Terri Petter and Dan Storlie, have agreed that THERE IS TRULY A MARKET FOR THE FURS PRODUCED.  So, the guys in Toronto, Indianapolis and Waseca aren't buying furs from an animal that died of natural causes because THAT FUR IS NOT USABLE!! They are buying furs from animals that died of another cause and there is only one other way to die if not natural.

My guess, if you read Petter's entire Facebook post, is that the animals who have died naturally get fed to the wolves.  That's the "other" use she was talking about in the document above.

That brings me to the story about the 1500 fox that were pelted.

Here's what Petter had to say about that.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1410871688941790&id=138516222844016&substory_index=0

And here is what Dan Storlie had to say about those fox at the meeting with the Eureka board

Read that ^ bit again and then ask yourself why would Dan Storlie be discussing the 1500 fox he pelted with the township board if it has nothing to do with his and Petter's fur farm/Ag business.  Their comments before this board have NOTHING to do with with someone else's fur farm but it has everything to do with theirs.  In Petter's Facebook post she references her inventory records.  She states, and I quote "but did they check and see if we ever even had 1500 fox in our possession?"  Well… how could anyone know how many animals she has in her possession at any single time considering not even the USDA was able to get that information.  Which is why Petter was cited for it.  READ FULL DOCUMENTS HERE & HERE

Now about the numbers again.  Petter states the following yet the numbers don't add up in favor of what she is saying.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1410871688941790&id=138516222844016&substory_index=0

How can anyone verify how many animals she actually has at any given moment?

CLICK HERE FOR FULL INSPECTION REPORT

When you sift through numerous DNR reports you find numbers like this

31 wolves on March 1, 2012, 34 wolves are born, 7 wolves are sold, 24 wolves have have died and then it concludes with 34 wolves remain on Feb, 28, 2013.  But then a month later...

They've acquired 4 more wolves bringing the total to 38, 24 wolves were born and by the following year they had a total of 62 wolves.  Wow! Up and down it goes and the USDA struggles to keep track.
It's easy to get confused about all of this… but maybe that's the point.

And finally, not because I don't have more information that contradicts the Facebook post on the Fur Ever Wild page but because I have other business to attend to, I want to address this story about an opossum.  The City Pages article WILDLIFE PETTING ZOO TURNS FURRIER SLAUGHTERHOUSE mentions a opossum on Petter's farm.  Petter has denied this opossum ever existed and it has become a running joke on her FB page.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1410871688941790&id=138516222844016&substory_index=0

Well, no worries, because it appears the opossum has been found > SEE DOCUMENT HERE

Oh, wait… looks like opossums are popping up all over the place.  If you look closely at the docs above you'll see that Petter & Storlie had 2 opossums in 2012 and 1 in 2013.  So the mysterious opossum isn't much of a mystery after all.

So Petter is right, you don't have to kill your animals to be a licensed fur-farmer but in this case…

As I said before, fur farms, no matter how despicable they are, they're legal.  Most of them remain hidden away from the public eye because they want to avoid oversight and criticism. This would be the first time I've come across fur farmers that have opened their door to the public and not only does that just mean for viewing but to be scrutinized as well.  Minnesotans and people everywhere have a right to analyze the public documents, question the business owners and ultimately demand its closure.

Looks like it's time to support the neighbors of Fur-Ever Wild in their fight to get this place to shut down.

FUR EVER WILD FUR FARM/PETTING ZOO FACES MORE CRITICISM

I am going to make this blog post short. 

A new article has come out from CityPages examining the Fur Ever Wild Fur Farm situation in Lakeville, Minnesota. This time we get a more in depth look of what people have seen behind closed doors.  If you are just learning about this Fur Farm/Petting Zoo in Minnesota please read the following blog posts in order first:

1st POST
2nd POST
3rd POST
4th POST

So... here is the latest... 

CityPages article (May 2016) can be read HERE

One source of info for the CityPages article appears to be the Terri Petter Deposition talking about the animals killed for fur.  If you've not read it yet you can see the full document  HERE

Also, this time around Terri Petter has chosen to address the public on her Facebook page (HERE) in what appears to be a way of clarifying some of the statements she has made in her deposition.  She still maintains that she only pelts the animals that die of natural causes and she also wants people to know that those 1500 fox Dan Storlie spoke about pelting were not hers, they actually were from another fur farm.  But… then there is this document: EUREKA BOARD MINUTES 2008, and it shows conflicting information once again. Read p. 8 - 10.

Re: pelts from animals that die of natural causes

Re: those 1500 fox that were pelted

With those two documents the public has enough to decide what they do and don't believe about Terri Petter's business.  Is she killing her animals for their fur or is this an innocent business and its owner being wrongly accused?

I also wanted to close with this because I find it very interesting...If you've read back you'll see that there are some statements suggesting Dan Storlie, Terri Petter's partner, is employed by the USDA.  I questioned whether or not that was accurate until I found this:

Terri Petter's fur farm was found to be in compliance with USDA regulations the last time her farm was inspected but one has to wonder how a USDA employee remains objective when inspecting the business of another USDA employee?  Hmmm…  I'll have more on that later.

WERE 19 ELK REALLY KILLED BY WOLVES?

UPDATE on 4/16/16  Wolves Kill 19 SICK Elk

You have to be careful about what you see and then believe on social media, even National Geographic (presumably reliable) will post a photo and a snippet of information and leave the rest up to everyones imagination.

Over the last few days this photo has been making its way around the internet and with this title in big bold letters Wolf Pack Slaughters 19 Elk in Rare 'Surplus Killing'

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160325-wolf-pack-kills-19-wolves-surplus-killing-wyoming/

These elk were killed by wolves on the McNeel Elk Feedground near Bondurant, Wyoming.

As far as I know this picture is legit, wolves did kill these elk.  What the photo doesn't tell us is why.

Wildlife biologists have noted the rare occurrence of surplus killings by wolves and other predators in the past and of course that is something you'll read in the latest articles coming out about this incident, that surplus killing is RARE, but what you won't read is why they are rare and what causes it.

For starters, surplus killing simply means killing more than one needs.  It is killing in excess of what a predator will eat.  Sometimes the predator will return at a later time to consume what was not eaten and other times they just leave what they killed.  As for wolves this behavior, when it occurs, is nearly always around livestock.  There are a few theories as to why this happens, the most common being that when prey animals are huddled in a small space they tend to run in circles when afraid which triggers a prey response in wolves.  For an animal to defend itself against a wolf it would need to rely on its natural defenses which domesticated livestock tend to lack.  Wild elk should be able to defend themselves had they not been conditioned by humans to hang around a feedlot. Yes, the location of this kill is a winter feeding ground for elk.  These elk were killed on a feedlot.

Feedlots (where hay and alfalfa pellets are put out) are set up for wild elk all over the state of Wyoming.  Why would anyone do that you ask… because they want the elk to survive the winter so hunters can kill them come fall hunting season and it also keeps the elk off the land that livestock producers want for themselves and unlike your typical wild elk, those being fed on these lots have been conditioned to depend on humans for winter survival.  So instead of learning how to fend for themselves and use their natural instincts (being agile and alert) to avoid predators, they congregate unnaturally at these feedlots which makes them easy targets for wolves.

Here is what a feedlot looks like

If you want to survive being eaten by a predator you don't want to remain idle in a group.

Wolves are opportunistic hunters.  If you're going to make their meal easy to get, they'll take it.  You also have to remember that wolves are one of natures perfect creations, a keystone species necessary to maintain a balanced healthy ecosystem.  One way wolves maintain that balance is to manage the prey numbers.  They don't kill for sport, they kill to eat and a surplus killing is nothing more than a reaction to an imbalance in a natural environment. Elk huddled together not alert and reacting normally to the presence of a predator isn't typical so it elicits an unnatural response from the wolf.  So why is this newsworthy? It isn't.

Does the media tell us when zooplankton participates in a surplus killing? Did it make worldwide news when a fox in Australia killed eleven wallabies and 74 penguins, eating none? No.  Why then is the media running wild with this story if it is such a rare occurrence?  Because... there is a push once again to remove wolves from the Endangered Species List.  Ranchers, farmers, trophy hunters, and just very ignorant individuals are out for blood when it comes to the wolf.  The wolf is scapegoat for the idiocy of man.

A surplus kill nearly always happens when the prey are plentiful and easily accessible to the predator. Examples: hyenas on a goat farm, fox in a hen house,  cats near a bird feeder…

Who made the elk easy to to kill? Not the wolf.  Who conditioned the elk not to follow its wild instincts? Not the wolf.  Man caused the death you see in the photograph above but the wolf will take the fall for it.

“We have doomed the wolf not for what it is, but for what we deliberately and mistakenly perceive it to be –the mythologized epitome of a savage ruthless killer – which is, in reality, no more than a reflected image of ourself.”

― Farley Mowat, Never Cry Wolf

The reality is surplus killing by predators; wolves, bears, hyenas, fox, orcas, spiders, lions, etc… is very rare but it does happen and the reasons cannot always be explained. This rarity doesn't put our prey animals at risk of extinction nor is it a concern for humans.  So next time you see this story shared on social media let people know it is a lame attempt by the anti-wolf crowd to turn people against the wolf so special interest groups and ignorant people get their way in removing legal protection for this majestic keystone species.

Truth About Wolf Surplus Killing