Sample Letters Sent
SiteGuide
||
Wolf Facts || Wolf Species
|| Wolf-Dog
|| News ||
Nakomis
|| Wolf Ecards
|| Wolf Links ||
These come from Lady Wolf's site. Permission to repost has been granted.
LETTER #1
Sirs:
I am appalled at the archaic, uninformed decision of Judge Downes. It is an act
that will continue the genocide of the 19th century. A genocide done in ignorance
and that is unacceptable by our knowledge and morals of today.
Following are some points that need to be made and thoroughly considered. POINT: Judge Downes is in violation of the ESA.
According to the ESA: Sec. 2 --- The judge is in conflict with this section as
he offers an untempered concern and does not show concern for conservation.l The
judge shows no concern of killing members of an endangered species that are essential
to the population in the designated area. The judge also shows no concern for
the value these animals have to the Nation and its heritage. These animals are
valuable in these aspects: economical, educational, historical, recreational,
scientific, ecological, and aesthetic. Destroying these animals would violate
policy #1 of the ESA. These are members of an endangered species and therefore
protected, monitored and regulated by the Secretary (Sec. 4).
FALLACY: Wild wolves existed at the time the reintroduction program went into
effect and the first wolves were reintroduced in 1995.
FACT: The wild wolves in Yellowstone were deliberately killed by the federal government.
The last native wolf in Yellowstone was shot by park rangers in the 1920's and
in 1943 the last surviving wild wolf in the area (but not in the park) was shot
in the Owl Creek Mountains on the Wind River Indian Reservation. There has not
been a successful "natural" repopulation of wolves since that time.
FALLACY: The ESA puts animals well-being before human well-being.
FACT: Our environment is an integrated whole. We have recently come to this knowledge
and society is attempting to correct the situation. The ESA is just one of the
tools being used by experts to accomplish this tremendous task. And quite successfully
may I add.
FALLACY: The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone has not been beneficial to
the environment or humans and has in fact been a detriment to the farmers and
ranchers.
FACT: The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone has resulted in the population
of coyotes balancing out. For 60 years the coyote did not have to worry about
competition from its larger cousin, the wolf. The coyote will attack livestock
and harass farmers more than any wolf. Wolves very seldom try for livestock and
when they do it means they are desperate for food. Biologists at the Park had
estimated about 500 coyotes in 65 packs; this figure is now estimated at 250 coyotes
in 46 packs. There has never been a documented account of a healthy wild wolf
attacking a human but there has coyotes. The wolves have also helped the economy
in the areas of reintroduction. Predation by the wolves also will help control
the small vermin that plague farmers and ranchers (i.e.: rabbits and other rodents).
I have also noticed that in areas of reintroduction of the wolf, the overpopulation
of pumas has put itself in check. It is natural for competing predators to control
their population according to availability of prey.
FALLACY: The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone has been an uneconomical
project.
FACT: The reintroduction has been beneficial to the economy and any expenses incurred
by farmers and ranchers is reimbursed by a specialfund set aside for that purpose
(by Defenders of Wildlife). To end the program and destroy the wolves would be
a WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY.
FALLACY: Judge Downes has based his decision on the fact that wild wolves existed
in Yellowstone at the time of reintroduction of wolves and that the wolves are
a detriment to farmers and ranchers as well as the native wolves that were there
at the time of introduction.
FACT: Judge Downes has not done his homework in the three years time he has taken
to give his decision. NO WILD WOLVES WERE THERE and FARMERS AND RANCHERS ARE COMPENSATED
FOR DAMAGES. Questions are arising as to why it took so long to make the decision.
Suspicions are arising as to the motives behind such an uninformed, long term
decision.
NOTE: To uphold Judge Downes decision is to say that the government made a big
fools out of the voters and tax payers by passing the ESA and doing such programs
as wolf reintroduction. It would also indicate that maintaining a balanced and
good environment for survival of all species is wrong. (All species includes humans.)
Also, according to the definition and provision in the ESA the experimental population
and their offspring located in Yellowstone are protected because of being in a
National Park and within geographical reach of non-experimental populations.
PERSONAL OPINION: Judge Downes made a big mistake! The Court of Appeals needs
to correct this mistake. I feel Judge Downes acted in a non-professional, bias,
ignorant way and would like him and his decision investigated thoroughly. Why
does he want to waste the taxpayers money, the goernments time, and help create
an environment that could even turn unsuitable for humans?!
***Note: No humans = no farmers or ranchers, no judges, no government --- none
of us!***
We need to continue mending the wrongs we have done before we go too far. I personally
do not wish to be part of Judge Downes homicidal-suicidal tendency.
In conclusion, I ask that you look into the issue of wolf reintroduction deeper
and with more of an open mind than Judge Downes seems to have done. I suggest
speaking with experts and professionals concerned with the program(s) and attentively
listening and considering what they have to say.
According to the ESA private citizens can bring suit/enjoining against the judge
(Sec. 11). I request a warrant put out on the judge and an investigation as to
his motives for violating the ESA. The ESA also provides for citizens to bring
suit/enjoining against the Secretary if proper action is not taken against the
violator within 60 days of notification of the violation. I would appreciate quick
action against the judge and his judgement.
I thank you for your time. May you do what is right for humans and wolves.
Joop Liefaard
Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
ld@cybercomm.nl
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~ld
LETTER #2
Ladies and Gentleman of the United States of America,
I am deeply moved today to write you this letter concerning a matter that weighs
heavily upon my heart. Judge Downes of the U.S. District Court in Cheyenne, Wyoming
has ruled that the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park was
illegal due to an existing wolf population. I wonder where this ruling was when
the plans were laid for the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone. It has
been three years now and the "native" wolves and the "introduced"
wolves have since mingled and have become indistinguishable. Judge Downes ruled
that only the "introduced" wolves would be "removed". Please
tell me how anyone would be able to distinguish the "native" wolves
from those introduced. I would also like to know how they are planning on removing
these wolves. There are no funds available for this type of long-range round-up
of the wolves. I can only imagine that this means the wolves would have to be
killed. This thought is too reminiscent of the time in the early 20th century
when our government placed a bounty on wolves. I hope that the time of senseless
slaughtering of animals is in the past.
The reintroduction of the wolves into Yellowstone was carefully planned and in
1995 and 1996 thirty-eight wolves were released into Yellowstone from Canada.
For several years prior to the reintroduction and continuing since then the Yellowstone
Ecosystem Studies (Y.E.S.) organization has been researching the impact of the
reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone. Y.E.S. is committed "to sustain
a healthy Yellowstone for future generations of all species through cooperative,
long-term research and education". We should all be doing our best to uphold
this mission and give it our best efforts and support. In doing so we are helping
to preserve our nation's wildlife for generations to follow us. Please, let us
not be selfish, we have seen wolves but our great grandchildren and their children
may have to be content with photographs of the magnificent wolf if we do not commit
ourselves to taking action and appealing Judge Downes ruling. Let us continue
to protect the endangered wolf and work with what is now before us and not with
the issue 3 years in our past.
Ranchers were in opposition of the wolf recovery program from the very beginning.
I can understand why. They have free land grazing rights for their livestock in
the National Park and they felt that their livestock would be threatened by the
carnivorous wolf. Yes, wolves have killed a few sheep. However, let us look hard
at the priorities of a national park. That would take us back to the mission statement
of Y.E.S. Yellowstone National Park is dedicated to preserving one of the greatest
wildlife refuges in the world. This is dependent on maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
Cattle are not even native to this continent. Therefore I do not believe that
we should make the livestock of ranchers a priority. If ranchers are concerned
about their livestock let them purchase their very own grazing property. Wolves
should have full rights to be in Yellowstone as they are native to the area, are
an important part of a healthy ecosystem and are an endangered species. Although
wolves have been seen to eliminate coyote competition it is also seen that the
Rose Creek pack had been bringing down an elk a day last spring. The results were
that other predators could feed on the remains of this large kill; therefore,
enriching their diet and leading to increased fertility among the coyotes. This
is all a very important part of the ecosystem.
I urge you to take the action necessary in appealing this ruling and declaring
the wolves legal to be where they are truly native—Yellowstone National Park.
Please, do not let America go down in history for a misjudgment rendering what
could be the greatest reintroduction of an endangered species in our lifetimes
obsolete.
Sincerely,
Carissa F. Carpenter
LETTER #3
Ladies and Gentlemen...
I am shocked and dismayed at the decision rendered a few days ago by Federal district
judge William Downes concerning the re-introduction of wolves into Wyoming and
Idaho. He has declared they must be removed.
Since these wolves are clearly an "Endangered Species", how would the
good judge have them "removed?" The immediate answer is that 'remove'
is a euphemism for 'destroy', as in shoot to kill. How else would they be removed?
Capture? Where would these funds come from? And where would they be removed to?
How would native and naturally born offspring be differentiated from those introduced?
The very thought of destroying these magnificent creatures, so long maligned by
mankind, sickens me. Do you think the idea would appeal to your constituency?
Would this be an image you would feel comfortable being associated with in November?...Slaughtered
wolves still bleeding on the grounds of our revered National Parks, caught live
on CNN and brought into living rooms all across America… children asking in bewilderment,
"Why did they shoot the doggies, Mommy?"...puzzled parents with no answers
as to why an endangered species is being re-hunted back to near-extinction in
America, but with a vote to cast soon… Whether this is the intent or not, you
know how it will play on the evening news. This will certainly be an issue.
This decision seems to be a somewhat ludicrous example of judicial lawmaking,
directly removing the power of Law from the hands of the Legislature. His assertion
that the re-introduction violates the Endangered Species Act attempts to single-handedly
rewrite that Law to his own interpretation. His viewpoint appears to be grossly
slanted toward the interests of the livestock industry with no regard for the
intent of the Congress who passed the law in the first place nor the desires of
the constituency which they represent. His act of circumventing due legislative
process is a direct insult to the People of these United States and to their elected
government.
Furthermore, how can this decision not be moot, having been rendered three years
after the case was brought to him? The facts are very different than they were
at the time. Since the case was brought to court more wolves may have migrated
from Montana into Idaho on their own. But more significantly, all the wolves have
multiplied, some possibly with native wolves. How would one differentiate native
from introduced from offspring? Should offspring be effected at all since they
are now native to the region?
If this decision has been rendered in the guise of protecting the livestock industry,
we have seen little proof that there is significant threat to that industry beyond
any natural "act of God" influence. Is there a proportionately higher
casualty rate to livestock in the area from these wolves than from any other predator
or from weather-induced hazards or fire?
If this decision has been rendered in the guise of enforcing or clarifying the
Endangered Species Act, does the good judge assume a greater expertise and knowledge
of wildlife resource management than the experts in the Department of the Interior?
Does he assume a clearer view into the minds and intent of the Congress than those
who created the Act, that he can redirect the Act toward the goals which he thinks
it should be attaining? Where is the validity of his decision?
I urge you to act at once to eliminate the threat to this precious part of our
heritage. The days of superstitious reactions to the wolf is long past. These
wolves are a natural resource and an important facet or our North American ecosystem.
Please follow your conscience and the desires of the Americans who placed you
in office, to prevent this bizarre decision from effecting the wolves.
Sincerely,
W. R. Hodgkinson
LETTER #4
To Whom It May Concern:
I have just read the court decision by federal district Judge William Downes of
Wyoming, which indicates that the reintroduction of wolves into Wyoming and Yellowstone
is in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
It seems as though it is time to speak out for those without a voice. Tell me…
by what means does "man" consider he has the right to interfere in the
life cycle of any creature of God? Do we believe this to be one of our rights
as a human being? The wolf never asked to be relocated in the first place, it
is the intervention of man that caused this problem to begin with. Whether the
program was correct or legal to begin with is no longer and issue, but rather
what is to be done NOW!
I am sure, that you are aware that "relocation" of our native people
did not work, as the "Trail of Tears" clearly shows, so why would you
think it could work with the wolf. I believe, in my heart, that Judge Downes made
his decision without consideration of the consequences. Why were these issues
not settled before the first wolves were moved? The wolf, like the bison, bear,
and the native peoples hold a rightful place in the history of this nation. Need
I remind you that it was the native peoples and the animals that were here first?
As a resident of the state of Indiana and a taxpayer, I wish to make it very clear
that I am upset regarding this decision. It is clearly a decision that has been
made in ERROR! These animals pose no threat to man, except in the minds and pocket
books of landowners.
I have followed the wolf program out west, watching it develop. I can not believe
that now that we have natural predators back where they belong, a simple "man"
called a "judge" has the power to destroy them. It is our duty to restore
the predators that we kidnapped and removed from the wild not so long ago. I also
support research on bringing the wolf back to the Adirondack Park in New York.
There are millions of acres in the park and what could a few hundred wolves harm
there. Maybe everyone is afraid of the natural state of things being restored
and thus losing control, power, or worse pocket money? Know that our planet IS
NOT a bottomless pit and once you destroy something, IT IS GONE! The wolves (and
other endangered species) were born here and thus are citizens of this country
under the law as it was when they were born. It is our responsibility to make
sure they stay alive and healthy.
Why would an American judge order the death sentence for the wolves that were
"imported" by Americans from Canada in the first place. Is our next
step in the evolutionary process to create a law stating that expectant mothers
who do not want their newborn children be allowed to "send them back"?
I know this is harsh parable, but one I feel is equal to the judge’s current ruling.
It is a well-known fact that our "leaders" have proved to consistently
make very poor decisions based on power, money and influence. We, as Americans,
are the sole protectors of the earth, land, soil, air and creatures who make up
this world we call home. I am heartbroken at the rape and total disregard of this
planet, its environment and the creatures who live on it.
Was this decision honestly and truthfully made, without power, greed or politics
sitting on the judge’s shoulder? Will this solution improve conditions on our
planet and will our children and grand children realize the sincerity and wisdom
of our actions? Was this decision made for a few or the many? Your decisions and
actions will be clearly marked as your legacy to your own children! As a leader
who may someday be in our history books, what will be your legacy? Will your children
be proud of your decisions and/or wisdom? Only you can determine how your name
will stand in the future. I sometimes wonder how my own children will ever know
the true beauty of the wild when "man" consistently seeks to change
it like we do our daily clothing. I, for one, believe that all the creatures on
this planet were put here for a reason and when "man" tries to take
away what Mother Nature intended to be, then eventually we will do away with ourselves…
we are the losers.
Does every animal that does not put money into the pocketbook need to be destroyed?
It does not MATTER how the wolves got to where they are today… they are a family
group and should be left to live in peace.
D. Enderle
LETTER #5
13 Dec 1997
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I sit here today with great sadness in my heart and in my soul. Our Great Country,
"The Land of the Free," just doesn't seem to live up to its name any
longer.
How can we look our children in the eye and tell them honestly the real reason
behind the decision of Judge Downes. I know that I can not. I have raised my children
to respect all living creatures. I have also raised my children to speak the truth
and to live in harmony in this world. Was I WRONG?!?!? When I see the leaders
of this Great Country, that I so proudly served, do such an injustice to the wildlife
that roams this great land, I hang my head in shame.
Who gives mankind the right to decide which species lives and which one dies?
Has Mother Nature herself, given this right to mankind? I do not think so. Are
we not expected to teach our children to preserve our country? Not to DESTROY?
Not to KILL? Not to MURDER? Not to STEAL? How can we teach what is not being practiced
by the leaders of this great country? Who will our children believe? Us or the
leaders? How can we ask our children to lead our country in the future if we allow
their future to be destroyed? We MUST speak for our children's future. We MUST
speak for all those who have no voice. The wild creatures of this world MUST be
allowed to roam free.
Well, I hang my head no more! I stand proud and strong for all who can not speak
for themselves. I have fought hard and long for the wolves to once again roam
free in this land that once was theirs. I can not sit here and be silent while
this senselessness goes on. I may be only one voice, but one voice is all it takes
to be heard.
I beg you now to hear the cries of all wild creatures, not just the wolves. Put
aside the need for greed, look deep within your hearts and listen to howl on the
wind.
Just 2 short years ago, on a mountain range in Montana, stood a wolf. You may
remember this wolf. He was known as Wolf #10M. The Idaho school children named
him Aurora. In May 1995, a man named Chad McKittrick, took his rifle, a Ruger
M-77, pointed it at Wolf #10M and pulled the trigger. Then he and his friend traveled
to town for a beer. What a shame! Yes, this story was all over the news, so I'm
sure you remember it. I will NEVER forget it! What is the punishment for killing
an endangered species? Not enough as far as I'm concerned. And now we have a judge
wanting to do the same thing. Only this time it is in the name of the Law instead
of against the Law.
M. L. Johnson
