Month: October 2025

Posted on

Beyem Seyo Wolves Murdered in Botched Sierra Valley Fish and Wildlife Raid

Wolves of the Beyem Seyo pack were murdered this week by state agents.

The Lost Sierra is tragically a little less wild this autumn. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife announced on Oct. 24th that they shot and killed 4 members of the Beyem Seyo wolf pack in Sierra Valley, simply for following their instincts and preying on “free hamburgers” (AKA cows and calves) left out in the valley unattended.

Ranchers and CDFW officials spent “18,000 hours” harassing the wolves with drones, forcing tracking collars on them, shooting them with non-lethal munitions, but apparently failed to try what is widely known as the most effective wolf deterrent, the ongoing presence of Pyrenees dogs and llamas to guard the herd, combined with the old cowboy technique of “riding the range.” If ranchers claim that the herds are too big to defend, then these industrial sized herds are clearly too big-period. If wolves cannot survive even in one of California’s most wild areas, what chance do they have in the state? The County is currently holding 9 Pyrenees pups at animal control. These pups could become cattle protection dogs if trained right, helping wildlife and ranchers to finally coexist.

Death without reason is murder. These (endangered) wolves who included one of only a handful of breeding pairs in the whole state, were murdered unnecessarily by state officials, who initially failed to prevent habituation of the wolves to easy meals, when they knew wolves were in the area. The killings are even more unnecessary, as the cows in Sierra Valley are about to be transported to the central valley for overwintering, and they would not be a food source for much longer this season anyway.

Instead of working with the entire community to come up with a solution, the CDFW have basically become a “strike team” obediently serving Big Ag and destroying even the most sensitive and endangered species in our state. Shame on them.

According to one source, the wolves were shot from a helicopter with tranquilizer darts and then given lethal injections– simply for behaving like wolves. Another three wolves are being removed from their natural habitat and interned in a fenced preserve, according to the same source. The CDFW apparently is well on its way to removing the entire Beyem Seyo wolf pack from the landscape. These kind of unnecessary and damaging attacks on the wild are what our tax dollars are paying for. Now, Plumas and Sierra Counties are known– not as wild areas where wildlife is making a comeback– but as places where endangered species are gunned down from helicopters, and the forest is destroyed because people believe false propaganda by the timber industry that logging will save communities from wildfire.

This pyrenees female, neglected by a Portola man, thirstily drinks from water a volunteer brought her as her puppies wait for her in the dust beneath a trailer. Her puppies could instead be defending cattle from predator attacks in the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you live in wildfire country, you have an obligation to yourself, your family, your neighbors, and firefighters to harden your home against fire and maintain defensible space. If you are a rancher who operates in wild areas, you have an obligation to defend your herd against predators of all types, even if it means more work, and to accept that running such operations in wild areas means some risk of loss.

Wolf kills must be horrible and traumatic for the calf, the mother and the whole herd, not to mention the ranchers. We are not cheering the wolf kills by any means. We don’t mean to minimize that, but it is nature, predators are a part of it…we can’t just erase them from the landscape. It is one more reason to adopt best practices for coexistence. Wolves should be eating deer in the woods, not calves, but thinning forests has reduced deer habitat and their numbers are dwindling. The only way to prevent predators killing cattle is having other animals guarding them.

This culture has a tendency– when confronted by natural risks– to lash out against the wild rather than take responsibility for our own role in the problem. Killing wolves and cutting down forests won’t prevent predators or wildfires, it will only make threats more potent.  These dysfunctional actions have their roots in manifest destiny and the associated widespread slaughter of Native American men, women, children, and elders only a few generations ago.

This sick, command and control response to nature affects all species. Because industrial logging in mature and old growth forests  has led to an extinction threat for the spotted owl, the timber industry’s lapdog the US Fish and Wildlife Service plans to shoot a half million barred owls, the largest wildlife mass killing plan ever carried out by the US Government.

The solution is not to continue killing an endangered species struggling to make a recovery, the solution is to remove the unnatural feature on the landscape (easy hamburger meals undefended by dogs, humans or llamas).

BIG AG out of Sierra Valley NOW!

Large scale ranching of cows in the Sierra Valley:

– endangers the recovery of keystone predator populations

– is a large and growing source of methane and other carbon emissions

– damages meadows– when done on former wetland areas, ranchers use heavy equipment to dig channels and disrupt the flow of water through the land, drying out meadows and losing crucial habitat as well as large quantities of carbon storage.

– pollutes waterways, specifically the headwaters of the Feather River serving the water needs of 26 million Californians

Instead of logging the forest (which makes wildfires more dangerous) we can take personal responsibility for our homes and businesses by installing ember proof vents and other home hardening measures. Destroying forests with heavy equipment is unnecessary and counterproductive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The CDFW website states:

“The impacted wolves included a breeding pair (WHA08M and LAS23F), female (BEY01F) and male (BEY12M). During the course of the operation, a juvenile wolf (BEY12M) was mistaken for the breeding male (WHA08M), which was of similar color and size, and was unintentionally lethally removed. Remains of two additional juveniles in this pack (BEY15M and BEY17M) were found and they were determined to have died prior to the start of the operation. The cause of their deaths is unknown…..”

So, it sounds like the CDFW killed a juvenile wolf “unintentionally” and it also sounds like they are failing  to adequately investigate the deaths of the other two juvenile wolves even though this might have been associated with an illegal killing by local ranchers. So much for the rule of law.

This brings up a lot of questions: Why didn’t CDFW, rather than kill them, relocate the wolves in a different area or a refuge? When they shot the wrong wolf from the helicopter with the tranquilizer, why didn’t they release him rather than than go on to euthanize him? This botched raid smacks of murderous intent and simmering hatred for predators as backdrop to skirting the state’s wolf protection status.

Animals killed on behalf of agriculture interests in Plumas and Sierra Counties 2011-2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even without the presence of wolves, the cattle industry is responsible for significant numbers of wild animals being killed at local taxpayer expense. Between 2011 and 2020, more than 4000 animals were killed by federal forces in Plumas and Sierra Counties. Properly protecting herds is the solution to this killing spree, but ranchers don’t want to spend the extra time or money it takes to do it right.

Human supremacy is just as insidious and evil as white supremacy, and does immeasurable harm to the natural world. Both must be fought and defeated.

Lodge a complaint to your state senator and assemblymember and directly to CDFW- DEMAND they leave the remnants of the Beyem SEO pack ALONE and provide direct guidance on a guard dog/ llama program for local ranchers rather than resorting to murder: Jennifer.benedet@wildlife.ca.gov

Posted on

Want to Know the Truth About Forest Management and Wildfire?

New to criticisms of current forest management policies? Start here:

Feather River Action!’s 2023 ‘Where I Stand’ Op-Ed On the US Forest Service’s Community Destruction Project: We strongly oppose the USFS “Community Protection Project” — 200,000+ acres of mechanical and chemical assault on Plumas National Forest

For a more in-depth dive into the science, see our joint objection to the US Forest Service Project, submitted with Plumas Forest Project and John Muir Project which includes maps and descriptions about how thinning put the communities of Greenville and Paradise in harm’s way.

The USFS is turning protected mature and old growth forests from this:

 

into this:

Not only is this ugly and unnecessary, it’s hurting nature, further endangering the climate (driving extreme wildfires), and putting communities at risk. This is a failed strategy and the sooner we all realize it and change course, the better…

Posted on

“Unburned” Article Violates More than a Dozen+ Journalistic Ethical Guidelines

The recent article “Unburned,” written by Tanvi Gupta and Jane Braxton Little, that appeared in the Plumas Sun and was syndicated to Bay Nature and Grist magazines, violated more than a dozen accepted journalistic ethical guidelines. This propaganda piece contained multiple errors and lies of omission.

We were interviewed for this article by Tanvi Gupta on Dec. 13th 2024, as our organization Feather River Action! is one of the 3 plaintiff groups suing the Forest Service over their so-called 400+ square mile “Community Protection Project.” This project would be a disaster for climate, community safety and the integrity of the forest, and we provided a great deal of relevant evidence to back this up. Yet the content and summary of this information — even the identity of our groups— was scrubbed from the final article.

These publications failed to meet minimum journalistic ethical standards set out by the Society of Professional Journalists by: selectively leaving out relevant and crucially important scientific studies, oversimplifying and falsifying the narrative to support their own pre-conceptions, and failing to to be responsive to correction requests. See below a line by line explanation of these ethical breaches (SPJ ethical guidelines in bold).

We demand the Sun, Grist, and Bay Nature take down this inaccurate, poorly reported opinion piece masquerading as actual journalism, and rewrite it to comply with the journalist’s code of ethics. There is clearly an agenda at work here, and their readers deserve better than propaganda and lies, particularly about an issue so critical to public safety and climate stability.

Our family’s house is situated next to where they want to bring heavy mechanical logging equipment and open up the (currently quite moist and dense) forest to drying wind and sun, which is likely to endanger my family by reducing our timeframe to evacuate in a wildfire emergency. This is not only a theoretical issue for us, it is highly personal.

According to the SPJ, journalists should:

Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

The article still incorrectly suggests that the Forest Service has held public meetings, when in fact they have held zero in-person public meetings for the public on this project, which can be verified by contacting the USFS. The article states that public comment periods are “years-long” when in fact the public comment period for Forest Service projects is 45 days. These are just some of the examples of sloppy and error-prone reporting that seems not to have been fact checked.

Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

Someone who reads the article should be able to understand what the motivation of Feather River Action / John Muir Project/ Plumas Forest Project was in terms of why we filed this lawsuit, and yet this is invisible in the article, despite the fact that we clearly stated these reasons on the phone and via follow up e-mails. The story misrepresents and oversimplifies the facts and leaves out critical context related to the project’s opposition. In particular, the fact that not one word was mentioned about defensible space and home hardening, which are widely recognized as the critical actions to take to protect lives and communities, is an indication that the full context of this story is missing in action.

Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

See above. The Sun editorial board has dragged their feet on making corrections, and declined to include highly relevant information about the article’s subject. The article still claims that there were “few” public meetings held by the Forest Service, when in fact there were ZERO. This is critical as it shows how little the public has been involved in these decisions that impact public land and communities.

Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

The article initially failed to identify the group I am associated with (unique among all sources cited) and continues to leave out the names of the other two groups. The excuse I was given by the Plumas Sun editorial board is that “there isn’t enough space” for this information. This is selective reporting, without an honest justification.

Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.

Real journalists have a professional obligation to accurately cover the issues. Failure to do so is neither courageous or vigilant.

Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

It is clear that the authors’ strongly held views strongly influenced both who they spoke with (apparently 46 pro-project sources and 1 anti-project source- us). Jane sent me an e-mail stating, “We may never agree on the science or many of the particulars.” This indicates that her strongly held belief blocked any consideration of the facts that we raised (or any facts that could be raised in the future). A professional journalist would not allow their personal feelings to influence what is covered and what is not, they would leave it to the reader to make that decision. This paternalistic, un-curious reporting does a disservice to the community.

Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government.

By refusing to include points from our written objection, or any substantive points raised by those opposed to the project, the Sun/ Bay Nature/ Grist failing in their “special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government.” The article left out any mention of the massive herbicide poisoning that is planned as part of this project, and fails to take a critical view of the claim that underburning would be widespread, despite a lack of commitment to do so by the USFS. This is in direct conflict with, and undermines the title and basis of the article.

Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.

We provided to Tanvi Gupta both our objection as well as our op-ed in the Plumas News- see:

https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/CPP-DN-2-Objection-2-12Dec24.pdf

Where I Stand: We strongly oppose the USFS “Community Protection Project” — 200,000+ acres of mechanical and chemical assault on Plumas National Forest

We believe these links, and even the names of our organizations, were left out intentionally to deprive readers of an alternative perspective on this project, in order to push forward a pro-logging agenda and oversimplify the subject material. This is not journalism, it’s something else.

Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.

The Sun has, from day one, refused to publish letters to the editor or opinion pieces submitted by readers. That is their decision to make, though we have repeatedly reminded them of their ethical obligation to the public to publish public opinion. This makes it even more important that contrary opinions get accurately covered in news articles. We feel absolutely betrayed by the lack of substantive coverage of our lawsuit. It also puts our safety at risk as environmental advocates when the public does not have access to accurate information regarding our viewpoints and the solid scientific evidence behind them (particularly with regard to the safety of communities in a wildfire). Activists have been targeted for their activities, and misleading coverage only fuels this irrational hatred, particularly salient in today’s climate of political violence.

This article fails to meet the Sun’s stated goal of providing “fact-based, and unbiased coverage on matters of public interest and concern in the region.” This is not “trusted community coverage” but shameless propaganda and fake news.

The authors apparently relied virtually exclusively on sources who are active recipients of millions of US Forest Service dollars. It is not surprising, then that they would praise the project. Upton Sinclair said, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.

This was not done, and it is abundantly clear that reporter bias in favor of logging heavily shaped the reporting, influencing who the authors interviewed and what they chose to write about.

Label advocacy and commentary.

In this case, an advocacy and commentary piece was inaccurately passed off as actual journalism. Notice the subheading: “The only way to protect a forest and its communities from the next megafire is to burn it—intentionally.” This is an opinion statement, not a statement of fact. This misleading opinion piece is full of commentary and advocacy for the authors’ chosen political views. What it is not: journalism.

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

We’ve asked the Plumas Sun for a list of their major donors and corporate funders, but this has not been made available to us. We suspect that the Sun/ Bay Nature/ Grist have undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

Again, given the slanted biased nature of this “reporting” and the effort given to scrubbing any opposing substantive viewpoint, we suspect there are special interests who may not be happy with any exposure at all given to the opponents of this project. Yet, democracy and open dialogue require that readers have access to information that supports different conclusions than the article promotes, in order to make up their mind on the subject.