Wolf Program Management Actions Show Children are Expendable
The more I learn about this introduction of the Mexican Grey Wolf experimental population the level of my horror and disbelief rises. I find it difficult to believe that any human with a soul would show such reckless disregard for the lives of our children. Does Child Services deal only with parents who endanger their own children? What about adults that intentionally put other’s children at risk? There is definite controversy amongst scientists about the real intentions of wolves who appear tame, follow, and stare at either adults or children.
I see from information currently available that animal behaviorist, Valerious Geist, Professor Emeritous of Environmental Science, the University of Calgary is quite convinced that when this type of behavior occurs, the wolf is most likely hungry, with lunch in mind. He is appalled by the level of endangerment currently being allowed by mexican wolf management here. The downplaying of this very real danger will certainly bring out questions of liability when the first serious child injury or death occurs by “curious” wolves.
Recently a little boy was encircled by mexican wolves, while out hunting with his dad. The press stated that members of the Luna Pack circled him for more than five minutes but quoted the wolf program managers as saying the wolves were only “curious”. The press and program administrators, long conditioned by pro-mexican wolf romanticism, quite evidently, not interested in a second educated opinion, of just what was occurring when wolves circle childeren. The editor and author discredit our intelligence, and other truly educated observations on the nature of this kind of wolf behavior, and display their lack of concern for human safety here.
One month later while an eight-year-old girl was heading out of her house to feed her horses a wolf attacked her dog, which was following her. Was the wolf heading for the girl when the dog intercepted it, thus protecting the child? Or was the dog the reason for the attack? Though our “wolf managers” cannot honestly answer this question they did nothing to assist this family. This wolf was not removed and no effective corrective action was taken.
One month later the little girl’s beautiful black quarter horse was trapped in his corral and brutally slaughtered by the same wolves who attacked her dog.
Then in February a small dog named Maggie was attacked protecting her child’s play yard, right off the front porch of the residence! What if the two-year-old child had been out playing at that moment and her ever vigilant mother had looked away for a split second?
It is now April, and I fear that by summertime another event will already have occurred. Hopefully it will not be more serious, like the little boy who was recently snatched by a large coyote in a New Jersey suburb.
None of these habitually fearless wolves have been removed. The Aspen alpha male was promised in the press to be removed, only to be “declared” later by a New Mexican Department of Game and Fish official “no longer a threat”.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the actions of the various mexican wolf “managers” is that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and their compadres, Arizona and New Mexico game and fish officials hate children, as child safety is apparently trivial to them.
I recently posed a question to a New Mexico Department of Game and Fish employee, “What would happen if a bear or lion behaved in this manner?” This individual made it clear that the animal in question would be removed or shot - period!
I seriously pose to my readers this sincere question - why are we allowing these experimental wolves to terrorize children? Wolves are smart and quickly learn what is permissible by what is allowed. Adult wolves can quickly train their pups and other pack members in this habitualized behavior, to be shy, or curious and this, of course, is controlled by what is permitted, or not, by the human management of the program.
Please, contact the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the US Fish and Wildlife Service requesting that any wolf attack that is near and threatens a child be cause for removal from the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. Your tax dollars and donations are funding this out-of-control wolf program.
The far deeper question is, if our children’s safety is not an important priority, then just what are their priorities?
Sphere: Related Content
April 16th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Hi Sisterflash,
While I agree with the majority of your comments, that the safety of the people in the region is severely compromised by the management of this program. I believe it is simply becuase the FWS has been in denial about the behavior of these animals.
It is difficult to sustain that level of denial but still, that is what it is and there are a few people who are simply covering up some relevent problems. Probably beucase the standard operating proceedures are contributing to the wolf behavior rather than helping dispell that behavior. Nobody in this program wants the public to know what has occurred on the ground out here. So they hold more meetings and ask their pals in the pro wolf movement to come and testify about how much they love wolves and how they may have seen one or two that have run from them.
As long as they address it in writing or verbally, they don’t have to do anything about it.
Sadly, if the situations do continue to escalate and if someone is killed they will not be liable, they are all protected by federal immunity.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Hi Laura,
I know we are made to feel these “officials” have license to get away with actions that would be considered criminal when done by those not employed by government, but I’m not so sure about the safe position of individuals commiting criminal acts in this “Program”. I don’t think the management of this “program” would get off so easily as in “federal immunity”.
Once individual state or federal officials commit a crime (i.e. reckless endangerment, withholding data exacerbating that endangerment, fraudulent public statements about the nature of existing endangerment) they step outside of the operational authority of their office.
Federal or state officials do not have jurisdiction to commit crime, it is a personal liability, even if everyone else in the program is doing it.
The Robbin’s case being heard by the US Supreme Court is brought against 2 “individuals” who were acting outside the operational authority of their office (BLM) has strongly won in at least three courts now.
The feds keep appealing because they like the idea of their employees being empowered to intimidate and commit other crimes against people in order to acquire more federal power and control over land and resources.
Several other cases have recently been decided showing “individual responsibility” for criminal actions undertaken under the cover of a federal authority that doesn’t really exist. Their strongest defense is that they didn’t realize they were commiting acts outside their authority because “everyone has been doing it for so long”.
Challenges to this type of criminal behavior are likely to escalate along with the epidemic of government corruption occuring. The CIA has tripled it’s force to deal with this problem in the last ten years, but admits it can still barely scratch the surface.
Law is still law. This is all similar to a standing AZ Supreme Court decision. The AZ State Dept. of Administration that sets the rules for state and county liability insurance says they, “cannot defend a public official except when he is operating within the scope and authority of his office.”
By law, our most precious and basic individual rights are to be secured by governments created for that purpose only.
We here in “wolf recovery territory” know all to well what horrible encroachments on our roghts can occur when state and federal officials violate their true purpose. Life without basic rights to protecting one’s family and property is not at all pleasant and this careless and lawless disregard for others welfare will, if not checked and allowed to set precedent in the politically weak, family oriented rural cultural areas, seems poised to become the standard for all.
According to the LAW (New Mexican State Constitution), all levels of government are charged to act to the benefit of these unalienable rights first ABOVE ALL ELSE, including “the rights of ENJOYING AND DEFENDING LIFE AND LIBERTY, of acquiring and PROTECTING property, and of seeking and obtaining SAFETY AND HAPPINESS.”
Basically we are being victimized by scofflaws and traitors. One wonders lf they even realize that they are setting precedent for a future of careless and abusive “governance” regarding their own selves and families.
According to the regular analysis and interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by the U.S. Congress (Art. I–Legislative Department, Sec. 8 - Powers of Congress, Cl. 17 - Federal Property) under AUTHORITY OVER PLACES PURCHASED, in our case by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, federal authority “…does not cover lands acquired for forests, parks, ranges, wildlife sanctuaries or flood control.” This is enormous fraud facilitating unlawful title clearance to resources!
When the term “State” is used in the manner expressed in the ESA it doesn’t mean “AZ”, and “NM” etc. Notice the following definitions of “State” and “United States” are exclusive.
28 USC 1369 Multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction
(5) the term “State” { the true limiting jurisdiction specified in the
ESA} includes the District of Columbia, the commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States. {states
are not territories, not of federal jurisdiction, not federal enclaves}
Mary
April 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
It is true that children have special protection under the law and that federal immunity may not apply if there is liability for an injury to a child. That is one of the rare circumstances where federal immunity is not granted.
Wonder if the wolf program employees know that?
April 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Others, active in defending their rights here in the Southwest, keep encouraging me to go back to our unalienable and legally supreme Constitutional rights as the place to address even the abuses of the wolf program.
I think many of us have been asleep as regards the true unalienable nature of our basic human rights. These are established by law and all state and federal official’s oath and duty of office is to protect those rights. Almost nothing is more important to retaining our rights than for them to be remembered by those who still retain such LAW, and to refer officials back to.
Freedom is not free the old saying goes.
We know that power corrupts and seeks more power as part and parcel of the nature of that beast. This can result in a gradual taking of all rights. WE need to recognize and defend them. The wolf program is just one of a seemingly endless series of attacks on the rural ranching families rights to the forage, waters and easements that literally blanket and thereby protect the huge storehouse of natural resources here in the mountain west.
Extant historical letters, meeting minutes etc. exist showing that strategies involving support of such “nobel” endeavors as the original conservation movement to facilitate acquisition of these resources have been used for 100+ years by the power elite. These same resource coveting power bases have co-opted and cultivated a perfectly charismatic title-clearing device in the modern “Environmental” movement here and elsewhere in the world. So much more “civilized”, acceptable and encouraging of popular support than the forced militarized title clearance which has occured throughout history.
Those mired in power do not seem to be able to draw a line as to what is morally permissable to inflict on populations. Sometimes devestment of property rights is achieved by assuming control of the wealth of the land by the devise of “Gradualism”. Sneaking it all in bits over 10 or 20 years does not appear to be the uncompensated taking, (theft) that it actually is.
How can an agency official that tells me that their goal is to return the forest to “pre-european settlement conditions” justify that with the reality that the entire forest is already pre-utilized by some of the very last of the truly sustainable cultures left in AZ and NM with their very own pre-extant property rights and interests?
Real science, shows that removal of traditional human use here causes vast losses of diversity, habitat, and stability/balance in abundance here, while the supreme goal of agency and environmental group alike seems to favor this gradual cultural genocide-type “rural cleansing”. This process is designed to ultimately favor the title-clearance necessary for the acquisition of resources which the most “powerful” one’s have as their supreme goal.
Truly goodhearted Forest Service and other agency personnel should become aware that Gifford Pinchot invented the aristocrats’ “conserva-
tion” movement directly in line with the corporate goals of his fellow Skull & Bones member George Bush.
As the old saying goes….
“Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.”
April 28th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
[...] the Mexican Gray wolf program know this tango all too well. People here have been followed and even encircled by wolves but nothing has been done to protect and preserve [...]
April 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
[...] Sister Flash writes, “Recently a little boy was encircled by Mexican wolves…the Luna pack circled him for more than five minutes.â€Â One month later, wrote Sister Flash, the pack attacked a family dog as it followed its 8-year old owner (a girl) who was going to feed the families horses. Thirty days later, “the (same) little girl’s beautiful black quarter horse (Six) was trapped in his corral and brutally slaughtered by the same wolves…(More recently) a small dog named Maggie was attacked protecting her child’s play yard, right off the front porch…â€Â (http://wolfcrossing.org/blog/?p=235) [...]
April 30th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Dog Here,
After Talking to people, reading and researching all the information I could find on the Mexican Wolf, I have came to one conclusion; this Mexican wolf program is an experiment, the lands within the BRWRA are experimental grounds, the children are exposed to wolves that the Fish and Wildlife Service do not know what the outcome would be. Why do I say this? It is a known fact that the Mexican wolves were killed off before anyone could study their behavior, other than killing livestock. A Mexican wolf behavior study is going on right now, has been ongoing since the first wolf was released. Information is being collected currently about all the near wolf/children incidents on private property, the psychological trauma. Why are there so many reports of wolves going to homes and approaching people? This is not the normal behavior of a wild wolf or any wild animal. It seems there is something terribly wrong here. I do not want any of the tax money I pay to fund a Mexican wolf that will attack a child, this would be a bummer, and I am not supporting it period!
Well, Dog gone
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
[...] by an uncollared Mexican wolf at her home in New Mexico. She nearly gave her life defending her 2 year old human pal’s play yard right off the porch of the home from what little maggie saw as an intruder [...]
May 15th, 2007 at 8:27 am
[...] Maggie is an adorable little dog and after being attacked and nearly killed by wolves protecting her child’s play yard just outside her front door. She can no longer chase a ball or stick as she will never be the same. What if the child had been out in the play yard when the wolf charged in and attacked Maggie? We have already had a case were a dog intercepted when a wolf charged in on a child. [...]
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 am
[...] horse slaughtering Aspen wolf pack that attacked near a child is now denning within ¼ mile of private land with a [...]
May 24th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
[...] of these accounts and other cases of habituated wolves were discussed in an article tiled “Wolf Program Management Actions Show Children are Expendable“. But the wolf program “experts” determined the wolves that circled the boy for 5 [...]
June 4th, 2007 at 1:45 am
[...] was after one child was encircled by wolves while out walking in the New Mexican woods with his father. Recently a little boy was encircled by [...]
June 5th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
[...] the Luna mexican wolf pack encircled a boy. Bill Richardson did [...]
June 15th, 2007 at 11:31 am
[...] is important since children have been endangered by wolves and have even been stalked by wolves. The Fish and Wildlife Services and other IFT wolf members [...]
June 20th, 2007 at 6:22 am
[...] am so sick about this I can hardly think about it. It is exactly the same lackidaisical attitude that people in wolf country are living with and being forced to let our children be subjected to. [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 8:38 am
[...] destroying private property. Rural families already have many sleepless nights over this program endangering children in the area and they deserve better than [...]
October 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
[...] person could draw. Then again what has been happening with the mexican grey mongrel wolf program defies logic. One wolf pack, Durango, is constantly in a families front yard.    No doubt they have been [...]