You didn't clarify yourself, you are exactly what I predicted. You support not murder on the one hand, and then do so on another. You are exactly what I was talking about, a paradox. The Holders are courageous, and guess what, the wolves who are being deterred will teach each other not to come back to Predator Friendly Ranches because it is too difficult to get food. But I suppose it is always easier to murder isn't it? And countless biologists have been using science to justify murder. Such as in Alaska. It is sad that Defenders is appalled by Alaska, and Wyoming, yet you support murder on the other hand. Defenders should be in the same camp as the murderers for supporting murder. If it were a cancer paitent, you don't save a cancer patient by killing them. Conservationists? You are just as the same as USFWS and others who don't mind killing wolves, because it saves time, and money.

As long as you support murder, you will hear from me until you stop.

For you are not in the camp of conservation, but those who think murder is a solution to life's problems. And yes in committees not everyone gets what they want, but those who support wolves should not give in to murder as being a solution without a fight.

Because how would you like to be the wolf that is shot due to a lack of tolerance. How would you like to have your homes increasingly destroyed around you. How would you like having an easier source of food cause your death? You wouldn't. At least at the end of the day, I can sleep, knowing that I am not a murderer.

Mike Wagner Freelance Wolf Activist http://www.heartofthewolf.org

Dear Mr. Wagner:

I appreciate your writing to Defenders of Wildlife to express your concern over what you view as a paradoxical or inconsistent stance on our part.

Defenders of Wildlife has never taken the position that wolves must never be killed. Our positions on wolf conservation and management, no matter the locale, are consistent in that they are always based on our assessment of the following factors -- scientific research and principles of conservation biology; opinions from wolf biologists actively involved in on-the-ground wolf conservation and conflict management; the observable results following management actions by such biologists; legal strategy; and our evaluation of what steps will most increase human tolerance to allow for the recovery of viable populations of wolves. You have expressed concern that our support for the Oregon wolf Plan is inconsistent with our position regarding wolves in Alaska and in Wyoming.

In the case of Alaska, we oppose aerial gunning of wolves because (1) we believe this action violates the Federal Airborne Hunting Act; (2) the Alaska Board of Game is making lethal control decisions that directly controvert the recommendations of a National Academy of Science report; (3) the Board of Game's assessments of whether wolves are negatively impacting moose populations, determinations of how many wolves can be taken and across how wide of an area -- on top of the numerous wolves that are already legally taken in Alaska -- is not based on sound science; and (4) the Board of Game is attempting to expand this scientifically-unjustified wolf killing onto parcels of federal land whose agencies have explicit policies against the use of aerial gunning of predators.

In the case of Wyoming, we oppose the state's Plan for a dual listing of wolves because in much of the state wolves would be classified as predators that could be shot on sight, regardless of whether they had been involved in any livestock depredations.

However, we are not opposing the use of lethal control of wolves that have been chronically involved in livestock depredations, where feasible nonlethal methods have first been tried and failed, and we are not opposing the use of lethal control of wolves caught in the act of attacking livestock where the party who kills the wolf must report the action and there must be evidence to substantiate their claim or they will face prosecution.

We are always grateful for the willingness of folks such as the Holders (whom you have mentioned) to come to agreement with us on viable alternatives to using lethal control of wolves for conflict managements. While more and more we find livestock producers who are willing to partner with us on nonlethal techniques, that is not always the case, and the Holders are a real exception. Even when we do find willing partners, in some instances, no matter what nonlethal control method is used, a particular wolf or particular members of a pack will continue killing livestock, so that the nonlethal methods have not resolved the problem.

We do not believe there is a benefit to wolf conservation to not be able to lethally control/kill a wolf that is repeatedly killing livestock. A wolf who continues to kill livestock unchecked does not create tolerance by humans for the remaining wolves who are not killing livestock. Biologists also advise that a wolf that kills livestock and is part of a pack is likely to teach its offspring to kill livestock, and that doesn't increase human tolerance for the remaining non-livestock killing wolves, either.

You mention in your email that I (Amaroq Weiss) am supporting the Oregon wolf plan. As you are likely aware, I am an employee of Defenders of Wildlife -- it is our organization as a whole, not me alone, that supports the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. And, our support for the Plan is consistent with our position on wolf conservation and management elsewhere. In fact, we expressed support for the state wolf plan that was developed by the state of Montana a few years ago. We believe the Oregon wolf Plan is even better than the Montana Plan in its conservation strategies and protections for wolves.

Our support for the Oregon wolf Plan is based on our reliance on principles of science and conservation biology; the opinions of wolf biologists from Yellowstone, Idaho, and Wisconsin who have acted as technical advisors for the Oregon Wolf Plan; the results of their on-the- ground actions; legal strategy; and our evaluation of what steps will most increase human tolerance for the return of this species to Oregon.

The Oregon wolf Plan may not be the ideal Plan for any individual member of the Wolf Advisory Committee. As I have said to journalists, "No one got everything they wanted but everyone got something they needed." While we realize you may not agree with our support for the Oregon wolf Plan, we respect your right to have your own opinion on this topic and are grateful you took the time to share your perspective with us. I hope my comments, above, have clarified that our support for the Oregon wolf Plan is not inconsistent with our overall approach to wolf conservation and management nationwide.

best regards, Amaroq Weiss Western Director, Species Conservation Defenders of Wildlife aweiss@defenders.org

=========================

'Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing.'--Federation President from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country