SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 20 2010, 03:29pm EDT
Contact:
John Motsinger, (202) 772-0288
Cat Lazaroff, (202) 772-3270
Defenders Shifts Focus to Wolf Coexistence Partnerships
As states take over compensation, Defenders devotes resources to working with ranchers
WASHINGTON
Defenders of Wildlife announced today that, with the implementation
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and states of new federal
legislation providing federal funds for state programs to compensate
ranchers for livestock taken by wolves, Defenders' highly successful
livestock compensation program is no longer needed and will end in most
states on Sept. 10. Defenders is providing support to states as they
start their own compensation programs, and will be focusing on
collaborative efforts to help ranchers coexist with wolves.
The Wolf Compensation Trust has been instrumental in building
tolerance for wolves within the ranching and livestock industry as wolf
populations have made a comeback across the Northern Rockies and have
begun to repopulate the Southwest. New federal legislation that provides
funding to help states initiate their own compensation programs will
allow Defenders to focus its resources on safeguarding livestock and
saving wolves by preventing conflicts.
The following is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife:
"For nearly a quarter of a century, Defenders' livestock compensation
program has been a resounding success in helping ranchers who live and
work in wolf country. Without it, recovery of wolves in the western
United States would not have been possible.
"We are pleased that federal legislation authored by Senators Jon
Tester of Montana and John Barrasso of Wyoming, and financial
contributions by Defenders of Wildlife, are enabling states with
recovering wolf populations to continue this legacy by initiating or
expanding their own compensation programs. At the same time, we look
forward to building more partnerships with livestock owners, helping
them find ways to reduce or avoid losses to wolves."
Background:
Last year's Omnibus Public Lands
Management Act included a provision sponsored by Senators Jon Tester
(D-MT) and John Barrasso (R-WY) authorizing the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service to provide up to $1 million in FY2010 for wolf compensation and
nonlethal deterrence programs in Arizona, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Those
states are eligible for up to $140,000 each as a result of the new
legislation, but they must provide a 50 percent cost-share to match
their request for federal funding. Awarded funds are to be used both to
compensate ranchers for verified livestock losses and to prevent
conflicts with wolves.
In order to smooth the transition toward state-run compensation
programs, Defenders is offering to make a one-time contribution to help
states in need of matching funds, and Defenders regional staff is
offering expert guidance to help design and implement these new
programs. In Montana, Defenders has already provided the state with
grants of $50,000 for each of the last two years to help get that
state's livestock compensation program up and running. In Idaho and
Wyoming, Defenders' compensation payments already made to livestock
producers this year will be credited toward fulfilling those states'
matching requirements. In Arizona and New Mexico, Defenders will make a
contribution to the Mexican Wolf Interdiction Trust Fund, which will
provide for livestock compensation for wolf depredations. In
Washington, Defenders will offer a substantial contribution to help the
state meet its matching funds requirement. Defenders will continue to
offer livestock compensation in Oregon, Colorado, and Utah, and with
certain tribes, for one year while those states and tribes adopt
measures necessary to establish livestock compensation programs.
Meanwhile, Defenders is focusing resources on projects to safeguard
livestock and protect wolves.
Defenders' Wolf Coexistence Partnership
What is the Wolf Coexistence Partnership all about? We work with
ranchers to prevent wolves from preying on livestock, which gives wolves
a better chance of staying out of harm's way. Together, we are
implementing nonlethal techniques to keep wolves away from livestock,
including:
* Range riders or cowboys to protect livestock (a constant human presence discourages wolves from getting too close)
* Guard dogs to alert herders and range riders of nearby wolves
* Portable fencing or fladry (brightly colored flags strung across a
rope or electrified wire that scare wolves) to secure livestock
overnight
* Nonlethal hazing techniques, such as shining bright lights or firing a loud starter pistol, to drive off wolves
* Good husbandry practices, such as removing carcasses, which attract wolves to livestock, offering them an easy meal
* Moving livestock to grazing pastures away from wolf dens to avoid conflicts
###
Links:
Read our Frequently Asked Questions on transitioning wolf compensation
Visit our wolf coexistence partnership website with a map of projects in the region and our guide to nonlethal tools
Learn about all of Defenders' wolf conservation efforts
Defenders of Wildlife is the premier U.S.-based national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species and their habitats in North America.
(917) 363-4149LATEST NEWS
In 'Unhinged' Rant, Miller Says US Has Right to Take Over Any Country For Its Resources
The White House adviser offered "a very good definition of imperialism," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Jan 06, 2026
"Belligerent" was how one Democratic lawmaker described a diatribe given by top White House adviser Stephen Miller on CNN Monday evening regarding the Trump administration's right to take over Venezuela—or any other country—if doing so is in the supposed interest of the US.
To Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), however, Miller was simply providing viewers with "a very good definition of imperialism" as he described the worldview the administration is operating under as it takes control of Venezuela and eyes other countries, including Greenland, that it believes it can and should invade.
"This is what imperialism is all about," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper. "And I suspect that people all over the world are saying, ‘Wow, we’re going back to where we were 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, where the big, powerful countries were exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources.'"
The senator spoke to Tapper shortly after Miller's interview, in which the news anchor asked whether President Donald Trump would support holding an election in Venezuela days after the US military bombed the country and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
Miller refused to directly engage with the question, saying only that it would be "absurd and preposterous" for the US to install Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado as the leader of the country, before asking Tapper to "give [him] the floor" and allow him to explain the White House's view on foreign policy.
"The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere," said Miller. "We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries but not to us."
Instead of "demanding that elections be held" in Venezuela, he added, "the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology."
MILLER: The US is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It's absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of… pic.twitter.com/wXK2UxnqUj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 5, 2026
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that Venezuela "stole" oil from the United States. The country is believed to have the largest oil reserves in the world, and the government nationalized its petroleum industry in 1976, including projects that had been run by US-based ExxonMobil. The last privately run oil operations were nationalized in 2007 by then-President Hugo Chavez.
Miller offered one of the most explicit explanations of the White House's view yet: that "sovereign countries don’t get sovereignty if the US wants their resources," as Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) translated in a social media post.
Moulton called Miller's tirade "genuinely unhinged" and "a disturbing window into how this administration thinks about the world."
Miller's remarks followed a similarly blunt statement at a UN Security Council emergency meeting by US Ambassador Michael Waltz.
"You cannot continue to have the largest energy reserves in the world under the control of adversaries of the United States," said Waltz.
Miller's description of the White House's current view on foreign policy followed threats from Trump against countries including Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland, and further comments suggested that the administration could soon move to take control of the latter country—even though it is part of the kingdom of Denmark, which along with the US is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
"Greenland should be part of the United States," said Miller. "The president has been very clear about that, that is the formal position of the US government."
Miller: “Greenland has a population of 30,000 people. By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The United States is the power of NATO. Greenland should be part of the United States.”
“Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland.” pic.twitter.com/d7i2kMXFMD
— Dori Toribio (@DoriToribio) January 5, 2026
He dismissed the idea that the takeover of Greenland, home to about 56,000 people, would involve a military operation—though Trump has said he would not rule out using force—and said that "nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland."
The vast island is strategically located in the Arctic Circle and has largely untapped reserves of rare-earth minerals.
Danish and Greenlandic officials have condemned Trump's latest threats this week, with Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, warning that, in accordance with the NATO treaty, "everything would come to an end" if the US attacks another NATO country.
“The international community as we know it, democratic rules of the game, NATO, the world’s strongest defensive alliance—all of that would collapse if one NATO country chose to attack another," she told Danish news channel Live News on Monday.
The Danish government called an emergency meeting of its Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday to discuss "the kingdom's relationship with the United States."
On CNN, Sanders noted that as Trump sets his sights on controlling oil reserves in Venezuela and resources in Greenland, people across the president's own country are struggling under rising costs and financial insecurity.
"Maybe instead of trying to run Venezuela," said Sanders, "the president might try to do a better job running the United States of America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corbyn Rips Starmer 'Cowardice' in Face of Illegal US Assault on Venezuela
"He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump."
Jan 06, 2026
Independent British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday accused United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer of "cowardice" for refusing to condemn the US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president, acts that experts agree were flagrant violations of international law.
Hours after the US attack—as leaders in the region and worldwide voiced horror and outrage—Starmer issued a statement welcoming Nicolás Maduro's ouster, declaring that "we regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime."
Starmer later insisted, as the Trump administration laid out plans to control the Venezuelan government indefinitely, that the situation was "complicated," adding that it was "for the U.S. to justify the action that it has taken."
Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party now helmed by Starmer, countered in Tribune magazine that "it’s really not that complicated: Bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal."
"It is absolutely staggering that a prime minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious," Corbyn wrote. "It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high."
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States."
The UK, according to the government's foreign secretary, has been in close contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the role it can play in Venezuela, citing the "work we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities in the regime and of course our relationship with the US."
Corbyn argued that the government's approach is in some ways reminiscent of its conduct in the lead-up to the disastrous and illegal US invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States," Corbyn wrote. "Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Defunded and Vulnerable' Corporation for Public Broadcasting Dissolves Amid GOP Attacks
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," said Sen. Ed Markey.
Jan 05, 2026
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting—which helped fund NPR, PBS, and many local public television and radio outlets—announced Monday that its board of directors has voted to dissolve the 58-year-old private nonprofit, a move one Democratic US senator blamed on Republican efforts to destroy the venerable American institution.
CPB said in a statement that Sunday's board of directors vote "follows Congress’ rescission of all of CPB’s federal funding and comes after sustained political attacks that made it impossible for CPB to continue operating as the Public Broadcasting Act intended."
Patricia Harrison, CPB's president and CEO, said Monday that "for more than half a century, CPB existed to ensure that all Americans—regardless of geography, income, or background—had access to trusted news, educational programming, and local storytelling."
"When the [Trump] administration and Congress rescinded federal funding, our board faced a profound responsibility: CPB’s final act would be to protect the integrity of the public media system and the democratic values by dissolving, rather than allowing the organization to remain defunded and vulnerable to additional attacks," Harrison added.
CPB board chair Ruby Calvert said: “What has happened to public media is devastating. After nearly six decades of innovative, educational public television and radio service, Congress eliminated all funding for CPB, leaving the board with no way to continue the organization or support the public media system that depends on it."
"Yet, even in this moment, I am convinced that public media will survive, and that a new Congress will address public media’s role in our country because it is critical to our children's education, our history, culture, and democracy to do so," Calvert added.
The dissolution of CPB won't end NPR, PBS, or other public media outlets—which are overwhelmingly funded via contributions by private donors and by viewers and listeners.
President Donald Trump, congressional Republicans, and conservative advocacy groups—including the Heritage Foundation, which led work on Project 2025, the right-wing roadmap for remaking the federal government whose agenda includes stripping CPB funding—argue that NPR, PBS and other public outlets have become too "woke" and liberally "biased." In May, Trump signed an executive order calling for an end to taxpayer support for CPB-funded media.
Critics counter that Republican attacks on CPB have little to do with ensuring balanced coverage and fiscal responsibility and more to do with punishing media outlets that are critical of Trump and his policies.
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement Monday.
“Today’s decision to dissolve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting marks a grave loss for the American public," Markey continued. "For generations, CPB helped ensure access to trusted news, quality children’s programming, local storytelling, and vital emergency information for millions of people in Massachusetts and across the country."
"CPB nurtured and developed our public broadcasting system, which is truly the crown jewel of America’s media mix," he added. “This fight is not over. I will continue to fight for public media and oppose authoritarian efforts to shut down dissent, threaten journalists, and undermine free speech in the United States of America.”
Free press defenders also lamented CPB's imminent dissolution, as well as consolidation in the corporate mainstream media.
"Meanwhile," said human rights attorney Qasim Rashid on Bluesky, "billionaires continue to buy up major legacy media to prevent criticism of Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular