Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

James Foley Property and Mining Rights Advocate Klamath River, California jfoley@sisqtel.net 

Grey Wolves in California testimony to Siskiyou County Supervisors 1/10/12

2/24/2000 in Duluth, Minn. in front of 800 people (all wolf promoters) representing 26 countries; Mike Phillips, the biologist responsible for the "soft" introduction of wolves in Yellowstone Park with a Power point presentation, videotaped by the University of Minn. and the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn. stated to the audience that the ranching industry eradicated the wolf in the lower 48, poisons the blood streams of the American public with its cholesterol, takes 2,000 pounds of grain to fatten their product right out of the mouths of starving children in the third world. He went on to say that the goal of wolf recovery is to drive 30,000 ranchers off public lands.

Phillips now works for the Turner endangered species fund. The bottom line is that wolf recovery is about destroying lives and multi-generational businesses with tax free 501 (c) (3) monies from foundations whose attorneys are paid by the Federal Govt. when they sue the Federal Govt.

There are 9500 dead elk in Yellowstone, no moose, 310 dead bighorn sheep and 1/10th the pronghorn that were once there.

Wolves are intelligent so they quickly learn two basic things required for survival; how to avoid danger to themselves and how to obtain food by the easiest, safest means. Drive out through rural California and tell me what animal you see the most of. What animal is the most numerous and would be the easiest for a pack of wolves to kill? Cattle…they are slow, unable to defend themselves and fenced in.

Wolf advocates propose paying ranchers for losses. The idea of paying ranchers for losses is a bureaucratic solution. Bureaucracies are notoriously inept at managing funds, and government subsidy programs are prone to abuse. In the long run, such programs are not cost-effective, especially with wolves. By paying for ranchers to feed the wolves, the survival rate of wolf pups would increase far beyond the level of pup survival in truly wild populations.

Not only would we be feeding a larger-than-normal population, we would be encouraging wolves to feed on livestock. Such wolves would learn to depend on the easy prey and eventually will lose the skills to hunt wild prey. They would become entirely dependent on government subsidy programs for survival.

Eventually the taxpayer burden would become intolerable, the subsidy discontinued and ranchers left hung out to dry. This is not even considering the enormous financial cost of administering a program such as this. The cost of relocating problem wolves is not cheap, nor are investigations to determine if a farm animal was killed by wolves. California cannot afford to pay for the present wildlife programs it has, why would we want to add more expense to an already top heavy state spending budget?

Are there alternatives to accepting the passive introduction of wolves into California? Yes, there are: Tell USFWS to come get their wolf. The gray wolf is not endangered in this state, how can something be endangered when it does not even exist here? The remedy is to de list the endangered status of the gray wolf by the state.

Because gray wolves are extinct in California, they cannot be in danger of extinction. By definition, they are not listable species under the California ESA.

The whole bogus idea of the gray wolf being an endangered species anywhere is a myth propagated by animal rights organizations and empowered by the USFWS, both of which are under the influence of an anti-American U.N. agenda. This is then forced on an uninformed public by massive campaigns of "feel good" misinformation. There are thousands upon thousands of gray wolves throughout Canada and Alaska (70,000), not to mention those that are well established as they are in Minnesota. These wolves are not endangered and if fact, are not classified as endangered by the ESA.

Using this rationale, it would seem that the only places that gray wolves are endangered is where they are not! If we follow this ridiculous train of thought, it stands to reason that we also need wolves in every state. Let's start with Washington D.C.
Home Contact


              Page Updated: Wednesday January 11, 2012 02:34 AM  Pacific

             Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2011, All Rights Reserved