Hypocrisy in Action: The National Wildlife Federation Again Show Their True Colors and Anti-Wolf Agenda

From the National Wildlife Federation website:

You can "adopt" a gray wolf while the NWF support hounding, trapping, and killing them by the hundred.

You can “adopt” a gray wolf while the NWF support hounding, trapping, and killing them by the thousands.

Adopt a Gray Wolf

In the upper Great Lakes region and in the Yellowstone area, wolf recovery has been a great conservation success story. However, continued attention is needed to protect these gains and to ensure similar successes in other regions where the enchanting night-time howls of wolves are still sadly silent. In the early 1900’s, various control programs wiped out wolves in Yellowstone National Park and in the wilderness areas of central Idaho. Although a successful reintroduction effort through the Endangered Species Act had re-established wolves in those areas by 1995. Today they remain absent in the Northeast and other areas where suitable habitat remains. With your support, National Wildlife Federation can continue to spearhead wolf recovery efforts across North America.

Adopt a gray wolf today!

Upon visiting the website of the “conservation” group, the National Wildlife Federation, the reader is greeted with all kinds of fluffy imagery of wolves and other species of wildlife. Readers are also given the option to symbolically “adopt” imperiled species such as gray wolves, various bears, birds, etc. What the fluffy website and “adoptions” don’t mention that underneath the facade of the NWF claiming to be pro-wildlife is the cold hard reality that this is just another in a long line of killing cartel front groups whose main purpose for existing is to further the kill everything agenda of the extremist hunter, trapper, and hounder groups that make up their “state affiliates.”

This week the NWF has again shown their true colors and have lined up with the anti-wolf “state affiliates” such as the hounder and extremist killer controlled “Wisconsin Wildlife Federation” to express their support for stripping wolves in the Great Lakes of Endangered Species Act protections.

“Although the National Wildlife Federation has historically opposed such congressional intervention in agency decision-making and judicial review, these are exceptional circumstances, and without congressional intervention the letter and spirit of the Endangered Species Act regarding gray wolf recovery would be permanently thwarted by the courts,” the resolution states.

What kind of “recovery” is the immediate institution of reckless killing seasons, 24/7/365 use of dogs against wolves, and constant threats of poaching and virulent anti-wolf propaganda?

It is one of nine resolutions to be considered at NWF’s annual meeting this weekend in Shepherdstown, W.Va., at the Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Conservation Training Center.

NWF resolutions, which are crafted by its 49 state affiliates, “provide the backbone of the conservation work of NWF” and state the organization’s positions on conservation issues, according to an information packet on the meeting.

The wolf resolution, which was submitted by NWF state affiliates Michigan United Conservation Clubs and the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, follows a Dec. 19, 2014, ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn Fish and Wildlife’s decision in 2011 to delist the animals.

The NWF resolution states that gray wolf populations in the three states have exceeded recovery targets by a factor of 10. The iconic predators, if left unchecked, will continue to threaten domestic livestock, it states.

Miles Grant, an NWF spokesman, said resolutions are typically “vigorously debated, sometimes modified, and it’s not at all certain yet whether any given resolution will pass or fail.”

“As a federation, our affiliates are in control of this process,” he said.

But NWF’s national staff has recommended that state delegates endorse the resolution, arguing that the court’s decision — which was the latest in a string of judicial decisions overturning wolf delistings — is creating “an unnecessary but fierce backlash” against the Endangered Species Act at a time when Republicans in Congress are looking to dismantle the law.

“This situation is bad for wolves, people and the Endangered Species Act and is precluding sound management by professional wildlife managers,” NWF staff wrote.

“In this exceptional case, NWF supports this resolution calling for a very narrow legislative measure that restores the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s delisting decision in the Great Lakes. Such legislation would be supporting science, scientists and the agency decision — not playing politics with them.”

So what is “good” for wolves, NWF? 24/7/365 hounding? Rampant poaching? Hostile state “management” hell bent on pushing numbers down to the absolute bare minimum, if not outright eradication? By aligning with the kill everything Wisconsin Wildlife Federation the NWF is making it clear that they support legalized dog fighting, and the eradication of the species throughout much of the states like Wisconsin and Minnesota. Want an example of what the NWF is supporting and what a board member of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation is proposing? Look not further than this “Letter to the Editor” from Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association board member and outspoken anti-wolf zealot Laurie Groskopf advocating for wolves to be killed without limit in two-thirds of Wisconsin while whining about the Wisconsin Conservation Congress not going along with her eradication plan.

Did you ever wonder what happens to those Wisconsin Conservation Congress spring hearing resolutions introduced by locals in each county? Sometimes the answer is that they get squashed by the WCC leadership.

This happened recently with two local resolutions from last year’s Marathon County spring hearing. The subject of both was the wolf situation.

One resolution was to provide unlimited harvest opportunities for wolves in harvest Zone 6, which was originally called “unsuitable wolf habitat” by the DNR experts. The experts later abandoned that label because they felt there were ample opportunities for wolves to live in most areas of Wisconsin originally designated as inferior wolf habitat.

The resolution, which passed in Marathon County with a vote of 122 in favor and 29 against, promoted an unlimited quota in wolf harvest Zone 6.

Local resolutions pass through an assigned committee, and if forwarded are considered by an executive council of the WCC every January. If the council forwards the resolution, it appears on the spring hearing questionnaire in April. If it is rejected, it dies.

The executive council discussed Marathon County’s resolution, and the chief DNR lawyer, Tim Andryk, told the group that the judges wouldn’t find this acceptable. He means federal judges, such as the one who recently returned wolves to endangered species status until their numbers are restored throughout their historic range.

Since when do we manage wildlife according to what some eastern judge thinks? The motion to allow unlimited wolf quotas in Zone 6 was rejected by the WCC executive council (see January minutes on the DNR web site).

A second resolution attempted to convince the WCC representative on the DNR’s wolf advisory committee to support the 2011 spring hearing vote for a wolf goal of 350 or fewer.

When it came time to vote at the DNR advisory committee, the representative called the committee dysfunctional, moved to have DNR staff select the options to present in the draft wolf management plan (this was rejected) and refused to vote on the official position of the WCC.

So this resolution also was not forwarded to the spring hearing.

Twenty-five county boards have passed resolutions supporting a wolf goal of 350, or 350 or fewer. The Wisconsin Farm Bureau, Farmers Union and numerous other agriculture organizations support this goal. Almost every major hunting organization supports a wolf goal of either 350 or 350 or less.

With the upcoming county deer committees scheduled for March and the WCC spring hearings scheduled in April, one has to ask whether it is worth devoting time to such efforts that are largely controlled by DNR staff and WCC leaders who often seem intent on rubber-stamping the DNR’s decisions. After over five years associating with WCC in a very intensive manner, I will no longer be wasting my time attempting to influence natural resource policies through WCC meetings.

Laurie Groskopf lives in Tomahawk.

This person is the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation’s representative on the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources anti-wolf group stacked “Wolf Advisory Committee.” When even the anti-wolf Wisconsin DNR and “Conservation Congress” (A.K.A. kill everything at anytime and any way Congress) have grown tired of this woman and her zealotry you know that there is a problem. If this is the type person that the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation feels should represent them that tells me everything that I need to know about this extremist killing cartel and those that run the group. But it should come as no surprise that the NWF falls in line with this type of thinking. They have long been a fluffy front group for hunters, trappers, and hounders while pretending that they actually “care” about imperiled species.

The proposed NWF resolution does not mention Wyoming wolves and does not endorse any particular bill.

But it follows NWF CEO Collin O’Mara’s push to return the 79-year-old organization to its hook-and-bullet base, even as it continues to advocate for members including bird lovers and gardeners. O’Mara has trimmed NWF’s Washington staff while empowering its field offices and 49 state affiliates.

NWF delegates this weekend will also consider a resolution urging Congress and the Obama administration to “clarify” ESA to “ensure that there is a clear, durable and enduring process for delisting once the species reaches its recovery goals and adequate management plans are in place to continue the conservation of the species.”

Apparently the NWF has decided that 24/7/365 legalized dog fighting constitutes an “adequate management plan.” I have long been a critic of the NWF and how they put up a facade that they actually care for wildlife. The reality is that this group is just putting a friendly face on extremist hunting, trapping, and hounding. Their support of this anti-wolf resolution shows that they also support legalized dog fighting and the extremist wolf eradication views of their state affiliate representatives like Laurie Groskopf.

Ask the National Wildlife Federation why they support the below activities and why they pretend to actually “care” about wildlife?

This is "tradition" and "heritage" in Wisconsin.

This is part of how Wisconsin “manages” wolves, coyotes, bears, bobcats, and even turkeys. The NWF apparently supports this. 



Call the NWF and ask them why they support dog fighting and the persecution of wolves at: 800-822-9919 (8-8 pm EST) or send them a message here: http://www.nwf.org/Who-We-Are/Contact-Us.aspx


Wisconsin’s Shame: Fluffy Propaganda Piece Tries to Justify the Hounding of Wolves and Fails Miserably

Replace the hounder on the horse with a hounder in a pickup and this is Wisconsin.

Replace the hounder on the horse with a hounder in a pickup and this is Wisconsin.

Teddy Roosevelt did it. So did General George Armstrong Custer. Now over 100 years later, a few Wisconsin hunters can say they’ve hunted wolves using dogs too.

“Jay, Jake and their friends have a reputation of working hard and playing hard. That also includes taking their hunting and the care of their dogs seriously. They simply wouldn’t put their dogs in a situation where there’s a strong possibility they could be killed or injured. As Jay says, “there are risks when my kids play football too, but it’s a risk I accept.”

The above paragraphs are a prime example of what you are about to read and see in a disgusting fluff piece written for a propaganda laced kill everything website called “Petersen’s Hunting.” The website is half advertisement of the latest killing implements for the great white hunter, and half fluffy snuff pieces that try to glamorize the most abhorrent and unethical hunting practices used by slob hunters and sadists.

In a propaganda filled article entitled, Let Loose the Hounds: Why We Should Use Hounds for Wolf Hunting, the author tries to paint a picture of the hounders being “responsible” and not just randomly taking a “bad shot” at wolves while their harmless little fluffy dogs “bay” a docile wolf. They even make the claim that wolves and dogs don’t fight in December (??????). The wolf just quietly waits a safe distance from the docile little “family pets” and waits to be shot by the great white hunter apparently.

The brothers use trailing hounds when hunting and planned to use the same dogs they use on bears and coyotes on the wolves. Experienced hunters, they knew the December hunt wasn’t the time to worry about wolves injuring their hounds.

“Our biggest concern over having a bad encounter with a wolf isn’t during the December hunting season, it’s during the bear season (bear dog training season opens on July 1 and hunting season starts in early September), especially if we get near a wolf rendezvous site when hunting bears,” said Jay.

That is one of the most frequently used talking points among hounders since dogs were allowed to be used against wolves. If that is the case how can these “playing hard” great white hunters explain the fact that since December of last year until now there have been nine dogs killed or injured, allegedly by wolves? Funny how all of these hound “depredations” occurred after the wolf was placed back under federal protection, but that is another story for later.

“We’re not going to release our dogs on the tracks of multiple wolves, we look for one animal. Single wolves aren’t as bold as a pack of wolves will be. When we released our dogs, which are basically athletes doing what they’ve been bred to do, we expected them to bay up the wolf just like they do with a bear that doesn’t tree,” Jay continued.

Baying up is a term used by hound hunters when an animal holds its ground as the dogs circle it. “That’s exactly what’s happened this year with the wolves. None of our dogs were hurt during the chase nor was the wolf bit by the dogs before the animal was killed,” Jake added. “In fact, the dogs stayed further away from the wolf than they did when they’ve had a bear bayed up.”

The Johnson boys traditionally use Walker hounds. “These aren’t fighting dogs, they’re family-raised pets. The smaller dogs in the 40- to 50-pound range were the ones that caught and bayed up the wolves,” said Jake.

So the wolf “wasn’t bit” according to these hounders? Take a look at the picture of a hounder killed gut shot wolf that accompanies this portion of the article. In addition to the fact the wolf appears to have been shot in the gut, look at the rear legs. Did the hounders shave the legs of hair after they killed the wolf? Not likely, so that lead to only one conclusion. It appears that the “family raised pets” took a few chunks out of this poor wolf. But don’t let photographic evidence get in the way of a good propaganda snuff story.

Hounder killed wolf. Used under "Fair Use."

Hounder killed wolf. Used under “Fair Use.”

I’ve hunted this area before and knew there was a funnel of sorts up ahead of the wolf and dogs, so I headed up toward it. As I got closer, I saw the wolf coming and was surprised to see it was a big black one. There was only one dog following it now, but I could hear the others coming. They kept their distance from each other, neither wanting to engage in any fighting.

With the other dogs coming, the wolf finally bayed up and I managed to get within 40 yards of him and took the shot with my .243,” said Jay. “He went right down on the spot. I’ve spent my whole life hunting, but this was one of the most memorable hunts of my life.”

Notice how the hounder has to keep mentioning that there was no fighting going on? That “brave” shot the great white hunter took appears to be another gut shot judging from the snuff picture accompanying the article.


Gut shot hounder killed wolf. Photo used through “Fair Use.”

The next snuff story again has to mention how the wolf and dogs “didn’t fight” and how the wolf was “magnificent” and they were “respected” by his hounds.

“When he was about 50 yards away, he gave me the shot I wanted and I dropped him with my .223. He was a magnificent animal and it’s a hunt I’ll never forget,” Jake said, adding that over the course of two hunts he saw the wolf six or seven times and the dogs always kept their distance. “Respect was given by both wolf and dog.”

So what do you do when you come across a “magnificent” animal? Why you gut shoot it and then after it dies you pose with the corpse of course. Here is some of that hounder “respect” for the “magnificent animal” in action.

Yet another hounder killed and gut shot wolf. Photo used via "Fair Use."

Yet another hounder killed and gut shot wolf. Photo used via “Fair Use.”

The title of this propaganda snuff article is Let Loose the Hounds: Why We Should Use Hounds for Wolf Hunting. Through all the bluster and ammosexual blather about bullet calibers and making sure to mention that the packs of vicious dogs were really sweet and cuddly “family pets” that didn’t fight the wolves, I fail to find anything about “why we should use hounds for wolf hunting.” I read a disgusting fluff piece trying to make hounders look ethical and “respectful” of wolves but I saw nothing explaining “why” dogs should be allowed to go after wolves. Did you? I also saw plenty of pictures that show me that these hounders love gut shooting wolves and one picture that sure looked like the wolf had dog bite injuries to the rear legs. This is the kind of revolting garbage that hounders and their propaganda mouthpieces are putting out there to make everyone believe that using dogs against wolves is just this innocent activity and it helps to “manage” the wolf population in Wisconsin. Take the final paragraph from this disgusting article:

But there’s one thing the brothers want people to know. “We don’t hate wolves like some do, but we realize their population needs to be controlled like any other wild animal and we’d like the opportunity to do it with the use of our dogs.”

Yes, because running dogs against and gut shooting wolves certainly shows that you “don’t hate” wolves. This article and the myriad of others like it show exactly why wolves need to maintain federal protections. These monsters believe in their sick minds that it is perfectly acceptable to run packs of dogs against wolves for no other reason than to for sadistic pleasure. Each year Wisconsin allows thousands of dogs to be set loose on our lands and national forests. Before the court order reinstated federal protections for wolves in the Great Lakes, Wisconsin hounders had ZERO restrictions on how they could “train” their dogs to be used against those wolves. They could run an unlimited number of dogs against wolves 24 hours a day, seven says a week, and 365 days a year.

This leads us to the current crop of bills before Congress intending to strip federal protections from wolves in the Great Lakes and Wyoming. One bill in particular, HR 843, permanently strips all federal protections from wolves in the Great Lakes and would allow states to eradicate the species with no federal recourse or chance of relisting. That is not hyperbole or an over-exaggeration. That is what that bill would lead to, especially with hostile states like Wisconsin, the ONLY state that allows dogs to be used against wolves. Not only use dogs against wolves, but do so 24/7/365 with ZERO restrictions. Is there a better argument for maintaining federal protections? There shouldn’t need to be.

Over the past week the anti-wildlife Obama Administration, the states of Wisconsin and Michigan, and a collection of Bob Welch lobbied killing cartels all filed appeals against the December federal court ruling that reinstated protections for the the wolves in the Great Lakes. The hostility, fear mongering,and flat out lies directed at this species should horrify anyone that cares about wildlife and maintaining the Endangered Species Act. Add in disgusting fluff pieces like the one featured above and should there be any doubt as to what this species is facing?

Please contact Congress and the White House and ask them why they support legalized dog fighting? When they claim that they don’t, make sure to point out the disgusting practices that Wisconsin allows and ask how this isn’t the same as pit bulls being engaged against each other in a fight to the death? Should one of the canines being wild make this any less revolting? Ask why one species should be allowed to be harassed and attacked by dogs 24/7/365. Because if your member of Congress supports renewed “state management” of wolves in Wisconsin, they support dogs fighting. But I guess if heartless animal killer Teddy Roosevelt and the genocidal maniac George Custer did it I supposed it must be okay, right?

Find Your Senators and Representatives

Contact the White House