There is an unjust system within the Mexican Wolf Program.
The wolf is protected
to the extent it can take.
While at the same time
SHALL upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months or both
.
any federal agency MAY immediately modify, suspend, or revoke each lease, license, permit or other agreement
*notice the use of
SHALL and MAY*
THERE IS A CHOICE
87 Stat 884
Sect 11
.
The Treaties say
that the species is not to harm agriculture or take another's property.
It is to benefit crops.
That is not the case upon
New Mexico and Arizona ranches.
Does harming agriculture and taking of one's property remove the species from being protected?
Ranchers Need Answer
1. What qualifies as undue economic hardships?
2. What qualifies as harming agriculture?
3. How exactly do USFS grazing fees prevent economic harm?
4. Where exactly is the protection?
5. How do wolves benefit the food supply on federal lands?
There are laws in place
(keep scrolling)
16 USC 1531
Treaties say species are protected to protect agriculture, persons and/or property.
Whereas, Many of these species are of great value as a source of food or in destroying insects which are injurious to forests and forage plants on the public domain, as well as to agricultural crops, in both the United States and Canada,
Article II (E) The prohibition of the killing of migratory insectivorous birds, except when they become injurious to agriculture and constitute plagues, as well as when they come from reserves or game farms: provided however that such birds may be captured alive and used in conformity with the laws of each contracting country.
Article III (1) Exceptions to the prohibition of taking may be permitted in accordance with the laws and regulations of the respective Contracting Parties in the following cases:
(b) For the purpose of protecting persons and property;
Article II (d) For the purpose of protecting against injury to persons or property.
The Secretary may make further requirements for a showing of undue economic hardships as he deems fit. Exceptions granted under this section may be limited by the Secretary in his discretion as to time, area, or other factor of applicability.
Ask the Secretary what requirements qualify as undue economic hardships.
.
Ask the Secretary what qualifies as harming agriculture.
.
to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western livestock industry, it is in the public interest to charge a fee for livestock grazing permits and leases on the public lands which is based on a formula reflecting annual changes in the costs of production.
Ask the Secretary how exactly do our grazing fees prevent economic harm.
.
The Secretary of Agriculture may conduct a program of wildlife services with respect to injurious animal species and take any action the Secretary considers necessary in conducting the program.
Ask the Secretary, where is the protection?
.
Find information and data from western States in the Contents of USDA Bulletin No. 72
Ask the Secretary, how do wolves on public lands reognize the nation's need for food?
I found this group of photos to just be incredible and lucky to have caught on camera. Of course its at one of our waters and right at our driveway. The calf was rescued by those longhorn cows and her mother, a hornless cow. The wolf can be seen circling around to get at her again. The calf was protected long enough to be hidden by its mother.
As of this morning, 8 days after the attack, we put the poor little thing down, she had gangrene, wolf bites are seldom not fatal. These wolves are artificially inseminated, bred in captivity, pups cross fosteres into wild dens, fed at each den piles of zoo logs until the pups are large enough to help kill calves and elk calves.
Find more at
WolvesAreCruel.com
1907 USDA farmers' bulletin Small prairie wolves known as coyotes. pg 17
As the supreme court pointed out in US vs Grimaud 1911, it is your (USFS) function to determine what private use of the National Forest in any given case is consistent with the purposes sought to be attained by the statute.
The imposition of harsh and onerous requirements not related to the to the benefit received or to your general responsibility to preserve and manage the NF,
might well constitute and abuse of discretion
Us vs Cowpasture River Preservation Association, 2023
1907 NM, 4 wolves killed a cow or calf every three day.
1828 Entire communities walked side-by-side to sweep wolves out of their town. Surrounding towns held a grudge.
Advantages given in a protected range compensation for money collected
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.