We now have Dr. David Mech (founder, board member of the International Wolf Center) giving testimony that undoubtedly hurts our wolf population (Nancy Gibson, co-founder & board member of IWC is present but not speaking). Now ask yourself after listening to Dr. David Mech speak (go to 36:30 to begin listening), does his views reflect the mission statement written on the Intl Wolf Center website or does it reflect what the moderator tells members on their Facebook page? Keep in mind while you are listening that this hearing did not allow for any pro-wolf group or individual to give testimony which is why Mech was invited. In addition to that, although Mech says that the DNR has the challenge of trying to balance the pro wolf group with the anti wolf group our DNR has never made any effort to create balance, instead their position is entirely on the side of the anti wolf camp, even to the point of mocking pro-wolf organizations and people.
Let me, wolf advocate and former member of the Intl. Wolf Center, pick this one apart from the beginning going backwards... and I'm not talking about the video above I am talking about the Intl. Wolf Center.
Please stick with me, this blog post is long but worth reading.
First we'll start with the Intl. Wolf Centers special charter member the Safari Club Intl. If you don't know the SCI, they are the ones that opposed Howling for Wolves and the Center for Biological Diversity when HFW & CBD were trying to get the five year moratorium on wolf hunting reinstated. CLICK HERE for an article showing SCI boasting about their victory and here is their name loud and proud listed as a charter member on a plaque inside the Intl. Wolf Center (13 up from the bottom far left column).
-2.JPG)
Jim Hammill, former biologist for Michigan DNR and former board member at the Intl. Wolf Center is now a member of the board of directors at the Safari Club Intl. When Jim was on the board at the Wolf Center he was kind enough to write THIS article for their magazine. The article is about securing wolf habitat. Jim Hammill has gone from being a wolf biologist to being a man that supports wolf hunting. Like Mech he says if we don't allow wolf hunting (management) eventually people will turn against the wolf.
"Hammill's greatest fear is that we're headed for a collision between wolves and humans. He thinks public opinion will turn against the wolves he loves if they aren't managed."
So… public opinion of wolves right now is at an all positive high? When hunting of wolves was allowed (the past 3 years - 2012, 2013 and 2014) attitudes towards wolves were great? You be the judge.
This page was created during the first wolf hunting season in Minnesota (2012) - right after wolves were removed from the endangered species list.
This was posted on Dec. 8, 2012
So what do you think, are wolves better off being managed?
I copied this from the International Wolf Center FAQ page
Let's start with question #1 - we don't take a position on wolf management issues.
Board members and founders are effectively the Intl. Wolf Center. Now maybe some of their staff manages to stay clear of stating a position on the hunt but their founders and board members do not.
Nancy Gibson (Board Member, Co-founder)
**In reference to a survey that showed more than 70% of Minnesotans were against the wolf hunt
"The results clearly indicate the public is still divided on the question of a wolf hunt, even if the survey was hijacked by anti-hunting groups. "It's a surprise to me", she said of the number who responded, and the overwhelming anti-hunting sentiment they expressed.
Fact: There is no evidence that anti-hunting groups hijacked that survey, that was just Nancy Gibson's opinion.
Why would she be surprised by the anti wolf hunting sentiment? A very tiny percentage of people in the United States actually hunt anymore and even fewer of those that do hunt are people that actually opt to kill predators such as wolves.
**In reference to the quota the DNR set for their first wolf hunting season (killing 10-15% of the guestimated 3,000 wolves). > see How Are Wolves Counted?
"I think it's a sustainable number. It's a good way to start. I'm hoping it will prevent Minnesota from dealing with any lawsuits."
Since the wolf count in 2008 was just a guestimate and not based on any scientific study, how would Nancy Gibson know that a 10-15% reduction in the wolf population was sustainable?
Is Nancy Gibson unbiased in the wolf hunt debate? Does she represent the views of the Intl. Wolf Center?
HERE you have Nancy Gibson giving advice to hunters on what they shouldn't do to upset wolf advocates. She suggests wolf hunters not stir the pot by showing exactly what happens to wolves when they are hunted and she also asks them to wait for when a wolf pelt is prime to be taken.
"Show your true colors as a stewards of the land. Taking a wolf in early November when the pelt is not prime is baffling. Assuming the wolf won't be eaten, use the pelt for your wall or fur market, but don't waste it. Don't post photos of a bloodied dead, tortured or trapped wolf to provoke more protests. And remember there are biology classes that would welcome a tanned pelt to enhance their education about wolves.
She also suggests that if wolf advocates really care we should buy wolf habitat. After all, each of us has a million dollars sitting around to buy enough suitable habitat for a wolf to roam and in addition to that we all know that no one would dare wander onto that land to hunt wolves.
"For those who think that the wolves should always be protected, consider placing your money and effort into buying wolf habitat that provides a secure location to raise pups, hunt prey and disperse their genes."
Disperse their genes? Isn't dispersal what got wolves into this mess in the first place? And according to Dr. David Mech, when questioned about the possibility of wolves "dispersing" (moving into other suitable habitat around the U.S.) said (I'll screen shot the transcribed words from the Intl. Wolf Center press conference on the judges decision to put the wolf back on the endangered list)
So, even if we had the million dollars, where would Nancy Gibson suggest we buy suitable habitat to keep wolves safe?
An important part of earning Endangered Species Status is so that a particular species, in this case the gray wolf, can expand back into its original range. This was the question Mech was addressing in the question about dispersal and it is one of the main reasons the federal judge put the wolf back onto the endangered species list, because they haven't even come close to inhabiting their historic range which is a requirement of the Endangered Species Act. So why doesn't the Intl. Wolf Center purchase suitable wolf habitat? They certainly have the money to do it where as the average person does not. After all, the wolf center does say:
Onto the next question.
Question #5 - Why do you have someone on your board like Dr. David Mech?
Dr. David Mech (Board Member, Founder)
Watch the hearing at the top of this page and then ask yourself if you believe Dr. David Mech is not taking sides.
Dr. David Mech, being the "world renowned" wolf expert that he is, could (likely) single handedly stop the slaughter of wolves if he so chose but instead he makes statements and writes papers that are used to support each states position that a hunt is needed and/or at least acceptable. So...
Read this: Click Here
Watch this: Click Here
Listen to this: Click Here or read the transcript Here.
Read this: Click Here
Read this: Click Here (a quote by Mech within the article)
Read this: Click Here
It isn't just one thing that Dr. Mech says or writes, it is a multitude of things. Add the hearing at the beginning of this post to the list.
If Mech does not represent the Intl. Wolf Center as they say "he is not on staff, he is not employed by the center, nor does he speak for the center" then why in their 2010 Winter edition magazine is there an article by Dr. Mech about hunting wolves and making the kill of wolf pups more palatable to the public? Article Here
So if founders and board members don't speak for the center than who does, the janitor, the grounds keeper, their administrative assistant, who? Because according to their website the board of directors "guides its present and future activities" and that sounds to me like the board speaks for the center.
Onto the next group of screen captures:
Question #1 - a grant of $1.2 million dollar in 2010 to promote hunting and trapping?
I don't think that anyone can or would find a trail that points to the $1.2 million being used to promote hunting and trapping but that doesn't mean there aren't any interesting connections between the money and the people.
The wolf center's response to the question above was that the $1.2 million in question had actually been awarded 18 years prior but there was also a grant given to the IWC in 2010 and it was for $193,000.00, that is probably where the confusion lies. That grant was awarded by the Minnesota Legislature and it came from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. In addition to that there was another grant given to the Intl. Wolf Center three years prior in 2007, the amount of that grant from the Legislature taken from the Environment & Natural Resources Trust was $350,000.00.
Who oversees the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund? The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources. As a committee they get to pick and choose who receives money from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. Who sits on that committee? Five senate members, five house members and seven non-legislative members, one which happens to be Nancy Gibson. In fact, Nancy Gibson is a co-chair person who was appointment by the governor himself. What is the primary function of this committee? "To make funding recommendations to the Minnesota Legislature for special environment and natural resource projects, primarily from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. Additionally, the LCCMR has oversight over all projects funded through its proposal process."
Does anyone spot a conflict of interest here? How is the Intl. Wolf Center a "special environment and natural resource project?" I notice all of the non-legislative members were appointed by Gov. Dayton.
Could explain why I see so many of Gov. Dayton's relatives listed on the charter members plaque at Intl. Wolf Center, like David and Vanessa Dayton or Wallace Dayton (plus more)…all one big happy family.
Of that list of committee members here are those that have not proven themselves to be wolf friendly:
Rep. Dan Fabian (voted against the wolf on the Omnibus Fish & Game bill)
Rep. John Persell (voted against the wolf on the Omnibus Fish & Game bill)
Rep. Paul Torkelson (voted against the wolf on the Omnibus Fish & Game bill)
Sen. Gary Dahms (voted against the wolf on the wolf season amendment)
Sen. David Tomassoni (voted against the wolf on the wolf season amendment)
Wow! Five out of ten legislative members voted against the wolf and yet agreed to give money to the Intl. Wolf Center. Interesting.
A little side note to all this Intl. Wolf Center funding. Rep. David Dill sponsored a bill asking for $1,000,000.00 for the Intl. Wolf Center. David Dill, as most wolf advocates know, is very anti-wolf.
Rep. David Dill has been a very outspoken supporter of wolf hunting. In fact, he was the lead author on the wolf hunt bill back in 2012.
David Dill encourages hunters and trappers to apply for wolf license.
Dill Looks to Limit Attacks on Wolf Hunt
Minnesota Senate Committee Approves Moratorium on Wolf Hunting (but Dill kills it)
David Dill even enjoys hunting wolves, he admits to killing wolves in Canada where he has his own hunting and fishing business. Dill hates wolves but he loves the Intl. Wolf Center? David Dill didn't just want a wolf hunt he wanted a mass wolf massacre and so did some of his political pals as you can see from THIS ARTICLE. Notice anything about the article other than how anti-wolf it is? The article isn't only authored by David Dill but also Rep. Tom Hackbarth and Rep. Dan Fabian, you remember… that guy who sits on the The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources with Nancy Gibson. Dan Fabian didn't only vote against the wolf he co-sponsored the bill with David Dill to remove the wolf from the endangered species list.
Another tid bit on Fabian that needs to be shared is that he is spearheading a move to challenge the Federal Judges decision to put the wolves back on the endangered species list:
"I will be working with the governor's office, the DNR and state official to come up with a plan of action on what our next legal steps are," added Rep. Fabian. "Wether it's an appeal or a new state law preventing the enforcement of this ruling by local DNR officials, I think all options need to be on the table. It's the right thing to do for the folks in my district and across Minnesota."
I suppose that has nothing to do with his own personal desire to kill things:
I thought expansion was the point? Didn't Nancy Gibson suggest we buy up suitable habitat for wolves to keep them safe? Buying up land would mean the wolves will expand their range. Dispersal and expansion, all part of the Endangered Species Act, but Fabian thinks wolf expansion gives him a license to kill. Nancy Gibson, who sits on a committee with Fabian and makes decisions with him on who deserves Trust funds doesn't know that he disagrees with habitat expansion and wolf dispersal? Odd isn't it. She manages to secure countless dollars for her center from her own committee but there seems to be a disconnect between her and fellow committee members when it comes to education on wolves, the very thing her center says their mission is (to educate) and what they receive funds for (education). At the very least you'd think she'd enlighten her fellow committee members on why the federal judge chose to list the wolf as endangered, you know, the part about being "legally" endangered, that has to do with expansion and dispersal. That information should be important to Fabian considering he's challenging the judges decision (READ DECISION HERE).
Is your head spinning yet because mine is. Nancy Gibson, Dr. David Mech, Governor Dayton, Rep. David Dill, Rep. Dan Fabian all apart of this puzzle that I'm still trying to fit together. Oh wait, there are other legislative members involved in this mix, such as Rep. Tony Cornish. This is in his office at the state capitol:
1980's? I thought it was illegal to hunt wolf in the 1980's? Or is this a trophy he saved when he served as a conservation officer with the MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR)? Most likely that is it since he became a conservation officer in 1980 and served in that position for 22 years. David Dill jokes about illegal taking of wolves in reference to Tony Cornish at THIS hearing (all fun and games to them, ha ha ha... not fun for the wolf advocates listening though).
Tony Cornish would say he isn't anti-wolf but instead he's just pro-management but that's interesting coming from a man who referred to wolf advocates as "ignorant" and says "once wolves start killing they can't stop." Both are completely false and just a reflection of Tony Cornish's attitude towards wolves and those that want to protect them. Just think, this man was a C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-O-N officer for 22 YEARS. Conservation, defined as: preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment, natural ecosystems, vegetation, and wildlife.
Yeah, Tony Cornish was all about conservation. He preserved wildlife in the form of stuffed ornaments.
So what does that say about the DNR.
Well… for starters, although the Intl. Wolf Center tries to distance themselves from the DNR
At the Intl. Wolf Symposium hosted by the Intl. Wolf Center, Dan Stark from the DNR had this to say:
"The biggest threat to long-term wolf conservation is habitat loss, not the wolf hunt. The hype surrounding the wolf hunting deflects attention away from the pressing issue of habitat destruction."
You know who else likes to repeat that sentiment? Nancy Gibson and Dr. David Mech. Almost the same exact words. Nancy wrote it in the Fall 2008 Intl Wolf Center Publication and both have said it at various times since 2012, after Minnesota's first wolf hunting season began - Habitat loss not hunting is biggest threat to wolves - so maybe that is why the DNR says the same, because according to the Intl. Wolf Center FAQ page they are a resource for the DNR. That would make sense. So it also makes sense that the resources they've provided also have given the DNR the information they need to say a wolf hunt is necessary. So where does that fit with not taking a position on wolf management issues or remaining unbiased? Remaining unbiased or impartial also means not making statements that would support one side or the other but instead remaining neutral as Jess Edberg, Information Services Director from the Intl. Wolf Center, told me they were when I questioned their position on the hunt in an email back in 2012.
So really, when all is said and done, how unbiased is the Intl. Wolf Center really? You have Nancy Gibson, co-founder and board member of the Intl. Wolf Center getting money for her center from a Trust she oversees with several individuals who are anti-wolf. The governor of Minnesota appointed Nancy Gibson to chair on a committee and he also appointed the commissioner of the DNR. Both the Governor and the DNR commissioner Tom Landwehr had the legal authority to end the wolf hunt but chose not to, instead they are now apart of a larger group of people that includes several legislative members and the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association working to undo the recent decision by a federal judge to once again list the gray wolf as endangered.
Letter Seeks Frankens Help in Wolf Ruling
Howling Against Ruling
So tell me, where is the neutrality of the Intl. Wolf Center?
It isn't science pushing them to the dark side because there are several scientists that disagree with their position and have come out making statements suggesting they are against wolf hunting, here are a few:
Franz Camenzind, a retired Ph.D. wildlife biologist
**In reference to Wyoming's plan to hunt wolves.
Rolf Peterson, world renowned wildlife biologist
**In reference to Michigan's plan to hunt wolves.
Ron Kagan, wildlife biologist & director of the Detroit Zoo
**In reference to Michigan's plan to hunt wolves
Paul Paquet, wolf biologist
**In a speech he gave at the Oct. 23, 2013 Wolf Symposium hosted by Intl. Wolf Center.
Rob Wieglus, wildlife biologist
**In reference to wildlife agencies claims that killing wolves prevent livestock depredation. Research by Rob Wieglus says otherwise.
Mike Phillips , wolf biologist - A Private Effort to Conserve Biological Diversity, Can the World Really Set Aside Half the Planet for Wildlife?
He's not only well known for his reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone but also for comments he made at the Feb. 2, 2000 Wolf Symposium hosted by the Intl. Wolf Center. He apparently made statements about removing ranchers from private lands in order to further wolf recovery plans and as you'd imagine those comments proved very upsetting to ranchers and mining companies.
If you listen to the the press conference lead by the Intl. Wolf Center (CLICK HERE) you'll notice Mech and Phillips disagree on several things, the two main things are (1) available habitat and (2) endangered status.
What do these six biologists above have in common? They all contradict statements made by Dr. David Mech and Nancy Gibson. So who should we believe? The Intl Wolf Center when they claim to be neutral in the battle over the wolf or do we believe the 70% of Minnesotans who voted no to the hunt and the scientists that don't receive state money?
No comments:
Post a Comment