What is the matter with these people!?!? What’s next? Are we going to start using Bald Eagles feathers for Toilet paper because it would earn Obama a campaign donation?!

Does Obama need to appease ranchers ON FEDERAL LAND for votes?! Big Game hunters are wrong – the elk were declining before the wolves. Elk numbers began decreasing in the area long before wolves made their way there, as suitable elk habitat in the area declined.

Within days planned aerial killing to artificially boost game populations will target wolves in Idaho. As many as two thirds of the wolves in the Lolo District of Clearwater National Forest could be killed.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission has asked federal officials at Wildlife Services to use helicopters, sharpshooters and your tax dollars to find, target and kill most of the wolves in this wild area of Idaho.

President Obama can save these wolves. He need only direct Wildlife Services to deny Idaho’s request.

When President Obama took office in 2009, he promised to put science first in the management of America’s wildlife and natural resources. Now he has a chance to do just that by rejecting Idaho’s request for federal resources to kill wolves.

I don't want to pay for aerial wolf killing in Idaho. The People’s Commons is NOT his Highness’s to subject to depletion at his discretion and benefit


telliottmbamsc's picture
telliottmbamsc 3 years 38 weeks ago

In Canada, a plan to slaughter more than 6,000 wolves over the next five years is coming closer to reality as escalating tar sands development transforms vital habitat into huge toxic wastelands.

But that's not stopping Big Oil and their allies in the U.S. Congress, who are once again pushing legislation to fast-track the Keystone XL pipeline--a project that would drive a rapid expansion of tar sands operations and put the lives of thousands of wolves at risk.

Save wolves from dirty oil--urge your members of Congress to vote NO against the dangerous Keystone XL pipeline today.

Widespread deforestation of habitat as a result of oil and gas development in Canada has pushed woodland caribou to the brink of regional extinction. But instead of protecting caribou habitat to ensure their survival, the Canadian government has made wolves the culprit--shooting them from them air and poisoning them with strychnine.

Over 500 wolves have already been killed, and this persecution is planned to expand because of tar sands development. Canada's Minister of Environment Peter Kent has said that 6,000 wolves will need to be killed to "rescue" caribou impacted by loss of habitat.

Stop the senseless killing of wolves by urging Congress to stop the Keystone XL pipeline today.

Stopping the massive Keystone XL pipeline--which would roughly double imports of dirty tar sands oil into the United States--is a critical step in protecting wolves from the dangerous expansion of tar sands. Earlier this year, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill that would have overruled President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and expedited its approval. Now, this dangerous legislation has resurfaced--and we may not win this time if we don't speak up.

Your members of Congress need to hear from you that boosting Big Oil's profits at the expense of wildlife is not acceptable.

[Special thanks to the National Wildlife Federation]

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Latest Headlines

One Iowa Caucus Delegate Comes Down To Coin Toss

The Iowa caucus convener flipped a coin. Bernie Sanders supporters called "heads" and it landed on tails.

Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by 31 points in N.H.: Poll

Sanders was at 61 percent support in the University of Massachusetts Lowell/7News poll, followed by Mrs. Clinton, at 30 percent

Martin O'Malley suspends presidential campaign after Iowa caucuses

The announcement came after O'Malley barely registered in Iowa against his better-known rivals Clinton and Sanders, failing to meet already low expectations

If You Want to Win, Go Progressive

The big question right now is whether to call Hillary Clinton a progressive, or a "moderate."

And then there's the question of who is more electable in a general election: an unabashedly progressive democrat, like Bernie Sanders; or a "centrist" democrat, like Hillary Clinton.