U.S. Government releases predators against its own people

By |2014-08-25T17:59:31+00:00August 25th, 2014|CFACT Insights|19 Comments

Many times the sound of howling and yelping coyotes awake me from a sound and cozy slumber. I sit bolt upright in my bed as my sleep-filled brain tries to calculate where my critters are and whether or not they are safe. The dogs on the floor beside me, the cat on the foot of the bed, I roll over and go back to sleep.

coyotesIn the years that I’ve lived in the mountains outside Albuquerque, I’ve lost three cats and three ducks to coyotes. I know they are natural predators and if my pets are outside, there is a chance they’ll fall prey. I hear the coyotes, but I hardly see them. They don’t generally come close to humans. They are after the squirrels and rabbits—and an occasional cat or duck.

But that could all change due to a new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) plan to expand the area for the Mexican grey wolf reintroduction. The current plan calls for virtually all the southern half of New Mexico to become wolf habitat—but wolf advocates at a hearing about the plan, held in Truth or Consequences, NM, on Wednesday, August 13, repeatedly declared that Southern New Mexico wasn’t enough. They want the wolf introduced north of I-40—which would include Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Some called for wolves to be released in the Grand Canyon and the Four Corners area.

Wolves are master predators—and they are enemies of coyotes. Wolves attack bigger prey: deer and elk, horses, and wolfwomancattle—but are known to carry off a dog or cat as well. The wolves that are a part of the reintroduction program are not afraid of people and will come right up to a house if they are hungry.

Supporters of the expanded plan plead for people to “open their eyes and hearts to wolves, to remove boundaries.” One claimed: “The big bad wolf isn’t so bad after all,” and added, “there’s no proof a wolf has ever harmed a human.”  “Wolves are demonized” and “wolves don’t hurt humans” were reoccurring themes throughout the evening hearing—where 70 people spoke (48 for the expanded plan, 22 against). Not everyone who wanted to be heard was given the opportunity. The hearing was conducted with precision—cutting people off mid-sentence at the 2-minute mark—and ended promptly at 9:00 PM.

Most of the 22 against the plan live in the areas already impacted by the current wolf reintroduction—the Gila National Forest on the New Mexico/Arizona border.

One woman told of growing up on her family’s ranch. She remembers being able to play by the stream without fear. But now, with wolves around, it is a different story for her grandchildren. They came to visit one day. They brought their new puppy. As they bounded out of the car, toward the house, two wolves emerged from the creek and snatched the puppy as the shocked children helplessly watched. They are now afraid to go to grandma’s house. They have nightmares.

wolf cageAnother told how she felt when a wolf was spotted less than 35 feet from her children. Her husband was away. She grabbed the children and, along with the dogs, stayed locked in the house—only to see the wolf on the front porch with its nose pressed against the window pane. She has reported on the incident: “Throughout the evening my border collie whimpered at the front door, aggressively trying to get out. Both dogs paced on high alert all night.” The next day wolf tracks were found all around the house—including the children’s play yard. The wolf was euthanized on private property within 150 yards of the house. She concludes her story: “It’s difficult to describe the terror of a predator so fearless and eager to get into my home.”

Others told similar stories. Children, waiting for the school bus, have to be caged to be protected from the wolves. Nine ranches in the current habitat area along the New Mexico/Arizona border, have been sold due to wolf predation—too many cattle are killed and ranchers are forced off the land.

Had I been allowed to speak—and I did sign up — I would have addressed the lunacy of the plan. After huge amounts of effort and resources have been invested to save the sand dune lizard and the lesser prairie chicken in and around the oil patch of southeastern New Mexico, they now want to introduce a master predator that will gobble up the other endangered species? After all, as many proponents pointed out, “wolves don’t have maps.” They don’t stay within the boundaries on the FWS maps, they go where the food is—just ask the families living in the current range.

As I listened to the presenters, I wondered: “Why do they do this?” People and their property need to be protected. Instead, supporters whined that capturing wolves and moving them away from communities “traumatizes” them. What about the harm to humans?  To the traumatized children? Does human blood need to be shed to consider that they have been harmed?

Perhaps the answer to “why?” came from one wolf supporter who opened with this: “I am from New York. I don’t know anything about ranching or wolves.” And then added: “Ranching will be outdated in 10 to 15 years. We can’t keep eating meat.”

State Senator Bill Soules, from Las Cruces, supports the new, expanded plan. He said: “I’ve had many people contact mesoules wanting wolves protected. I’ve had no one contact me with the opposing view”—perhaps that is because neither phone number listed on his New Mexico Legislature webpage takes you to a person or voicemail.

Calls to our elected officials do matter. Contact yours and tell him/her that you want people protected, that humans shouldn’t be harmed by an expanded wolf reintroduction territory.

I wrote a short version of my experience at the hearing for the Albuquerque Journal because I wanted people there to be aware of the plan to introduce wolves into close proximity to the Albuquerque area. My op ed in the local paper generated a vitriolic dialogue on the website—with more than 90 comments at the time of this writing. Many said things like this one, supposedly from a woman in Concord, NH: “If you don’t like it move to the city; it is their home and you moved into it, so either deal with it and stop your whining or move back to the city.” Yeah, that will work really well for the ranchers who earn their living and feed America by raising livestock.

This story is about New Mexico, Arizona, and the Mexican grey wolf. But similar stories can easily be found in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana where the Canadian grey wolf was reintroduced nearly two decades ago. The wolf population has grown so rapidly that they have been known to aggressively kill livestock and cause millions of dollars of loss to ranching families—with the Idaho record being 176 sheep killed in one night.

In Wyoming, the wolf has been removed from the endangered species list, and ranchers can now kill the wolf and protect their herds without fear of punishment from our government. Even the USFWS is removing and euthanizing the wolves that were intentionally introduced into the region. As recently as August 21, 2014, wolves are wreaking havoc, killing sheep just 50 miles outside of Spokane, WA—where the U.S. FWS has authorized a rancher to kill the wolves and, much to the dismay of environmental groups, state wildlife agents are killing wolves to protect people and property.

Environmental groups have been pushing to bring the wolf back to Colorado through the Rocky Mountain National Park.

While the public hearing regarding the expanded introduction of the Mexican grey wolf is over, the USFWS is accepting written comments on the proposed revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican wolf through September 23. Please add to the discussion—though they don’t make it easy as to be accepted, comments must be substantive, related to the proposed alternatives, or scientifically valid, and something not yet considered.

People shouldn’t lie awake in fear for their families and property because our own government introduces a predator amongst us.


  1. William Luepnitz August 27, 2014 at 6:35 PM

    When I was hunting at Ft. Hood in the 70s I saw a couple of wolves.One time my brother and I were hunting and he dropped the magazine of bullets I landed right between two predators as I got out of the tree, loaded the rifle and was glad when they left. Glad that they did not charge me at the same time.

  2. Wow_Who_Would_Think August 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM

    This story is just another of many examples of how clueless the typical Far Left liberal is and how they repeatedly, consistently ignore the inconvenient truths of the many retarded issues that they support.

    Liberals typically form their opinions with little to no research and then get very angry at anyone who has the misfortune of pointing out the inconvenient truths to these emotionally arrested people. It is really quite impossible to discuss all the facts/consequences both good and bad about any subject with a liberal because they will quickly show their intolerance for the inconvenient truths and then blast you for simply being an objective messenger. Liberals also think of themselves as the most tolerant and open minded people on the planet when their behavior shows in reality they are completely intolerant and close minded people.

  3. xgrassboy999 August 28, 2014 at 12:26 AM

    City people have not a clue and they out number the rural people a 1,000 to 1. So the city folks get to set the standard. Just look at Nancy Pelosi. She exempts her district from water restriction and lets the Food Producers in the Central Valley starve. I feel so bad for America.

    • Chandie Bartell August 29, 2014 at 8:30 PM

      That is why County Coordination is extremely important. Under the NEPA law all federal and state agencies have to coordinate with the County.

      • xgrassboy999 August 29, 2014 at 10:30 PM

        The farmers that I am talking to are not the least bet impressed with your comment. It is just more city slicker talk as far as they are concerned. Look at the number of ranches that have been sold because of the Wolf and Coyote policy. Do you find it a little Sleazy that Nancy exempts her district from water restrictions while the Central Valley dries up and blows away. I feel so bad for America.

        • Chandie Bartell August 30, 2014 at 12:03 AM

          Excuse me. My father was a wheat farmer in Latah County. I am against wolf introduction and live in Northern Idaho, have for generations. I’ve only lived in a “town” for two years of my life and that is a logging town pop. 800. I live in rural N. Idaho. I think you should read more critically for content. What I said is this……County Coordination is extremely important to stop these out-side NGO organizations and the state and federal government from taking over “local government control.” That is why it’s important to get your County Commissioners involved or study County Coordination to stop federal over-reach.

          First question, I would address is the disease issue. Who is going to be responsible for the diseases these wolves spread to livestock and wildlife? Read link from my top post. That is what we are dealing with in Idaho with the Canadian wolves.

          • xgrassboy999 August 30, 2014 at 12:15 AM

            Perfect. I wish you well.

      • Bobalee October 12, 2014 at 9:50 PM

        Perhaps you can supply documentation that supports your statement: “Under the NEPA law all federal and state agencies have to coordinate with the County”. I, being inept at such searches, have turned up no such information; the best I have come up with is: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html#oversight
        It mentions nothing about your claim.

  4. Chandie Bartell August 29, 2014 at 8:22 PM

    Readers- 100% of the Canadian wolves transplanted into the Northern Rocky Mountain State of Idaho are infested with Echinococcus granulosus. This disease was brought in by wolves NOT sheep as the genotypes of the E.g. tapeworms were studied at a Colorado University that Idaho citizens set samples to as they didn’t believe or trust our own state IDFG department or our State Government under Otter.
    Results of Echinococcus Sampling Project

    • Bobalee October 12, 2014 at 3:19 PM

      Chandie where is the proof of your often repeated claim that all the reintroduced wolves had E. granulosus?
      I recommend that interested readers check into the reintroduction themselves.

  5. Bobalee August 30, 2014 at 4:52 PM

    The wolves did not kill 176 sheep. Most of the sheep panicked and killed themselves by falling over each other and suffocating in steep, rocky terrain.

    The wolves reintroduced into the Northern Rockies were not Canadian but gray wolves.

    The wolves were all treated twice with deworming medicine before they were brought to the US. The first animal to be discovered with Echinococcus granulosus near the release area was a Mountain Goat in 1996.

    Ranchers are reimbursed for livestock killed by wolves. Oregon gives a tax credit for livestock killed. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/oregon_wolf_depredation_tax_redit_app.pdf

    I’m glad to read that the numbers were 48 to 22 for and against the proposed change.

    • Chandie Bartell August 30, 2014 at 8:21 PM

      If wolves weren’t “chasing” those sheep and attacking them then 176 wouldn’t of died. The consequences of two wolves chasing and hamstringing sheep caused the deaths of 176 sheep. Now please provide me links and “data” where sheep have ever been killed in Idaho in the hundreds in “one” night, when previously healthy minutes before from “any” other cause other than wolves chasing them.

      Wolves were not treated by Mark Drew and the veterinarians following protocol.

      • Bobalee September 1, 2014 at 6:05 PM

        You are correct – the year should have been 2006 when the mountain goat was discovered. I do apologize for this gross error.

        Is the detailed information about how the cysts were treated in the laboratory important to the discussion? Or does it just make it look more “scientific”?

        We have discussed the treatment of wolves for Echinococcus granulosus before. Following deworming wolves can eat or roll around in all the wolf feces they want and will not be reinfected by tapeworms. I don’t care what you claim Will Graves said must be done. Wolves: determinate host with worms in the guts; ungulates: alternate host with cysts in the body.

        Since wolves inhabited most of NA it seems that E. granulosus would have been present in USA as well as Canada since there is no barrier preventing free travel between, how did the “smaller, native wolves” avoid infestation?

    • Chandie Bartell August 30, 2014 at 9:50 PM

      P.S. Barb, I know ranchers in Oregon. This reimbursement is a scam as published and revealed by speaking to REAL ranchers in Idaho, NM, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, as well as the McIvins who had to lose 27 calves to the Wedge pack. This doesn’t cover vet bills for injurious attacks, time to nurse these animals, and the loss of money through weight loss, and aborted and absorbed calves.

      Last year a sheep rancher lost nine rams and ewes up hwy 6 out of Potlatch, Idaho. Most of these ranchers don’t report losses to wolves to IDFG, likewise with the USFWS after all the criminal fraudulent treatment they received on this issue.

      I got more data on this by Ted Lyons who researched this scam in his book, The Real Wolf.

      Keep trying Barb.

      • Bobalee September 1, 2014 at 5:27 PM

        One problem here is which numbers to believe, you say 27 calves I read 17 calves killed by the Wedge Pack.

        Len McIrvin refused reimbursement as well as successful deterrents to predation used by other ranchers. This was also initially the case for the recent killings of sheep in southern Stevens county for which at least 4 wolves will be killed.

  6. Tony Lear August 30, 2014 at 9:36 PM

    The reason Wolves were not a threat to humans is because humans systematically wiped them out worldwide and for good reason. Wolves are sneaks who wait for opportunities for an easy meal. Go far enough back and you will find that wolves are killers of children.

    • Chandie Bartell August 30, 2014 at 9:47 PM

      Europe parish records are full of accurate data documenting wolf attacks fatal and injurious through-out centuries of history. The same goes for the Middle East, Asian countries, Russia, Baltic, and Slavic Countries and North America. North America had less wolf attacks fatal and injurious due to fire-arms, strict controls of wolves through trapping, snaring, denning, hunting, and poisoning, and still wolves never became extinct.


      By T. R. Mader, Research Director http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

      • Bobalee October 12, 2014 at 10:16 PM

        It is the United States of America’s Endangered Species Act. The wolves were exterminated from all the contiguous 48 states, a significant portion of their range, except a small portion of Minnesota. That is why the were listed.
        I saw wolves in Quebec, Canada in 1965. In five trips to Alaska, including through BC and Alberta, I never saw a wolf. I would like to see them closer to where I live!

  7. Bobalee January 1, 2015 at 6:29 PM

Comments are closed.