Internet Failure Hits Two Continents

For those of you who listened to my Open Air broadcast this afternoon, heard me talking about how the war on terror was the number one reason for helping me decide who to vote for. In that discussion I was asking listeners to try to imagine what would happen if our Internet and computers were rendered useless.

During the broadcast, this headline and information appeared on the CNN website.

Internet failure hits two continents

High-technology services across large tracts of Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were crippled Thursday following a widespread Internet failure which brought many businesses to a standstill and left others struggling to cope.

Industry experts are blaming damage to two undersea cables but it is not known what caused the damage.

Reports say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain Pakistan and India, are all experiencing severe problems.

I guess it’s possible isn’t it?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Is Domestic Animal Flatulence More Harmful Than Wild Animal’s?

In this crazy debate these days on global warming – I guess a debate actually involves more than one side – I find myself being subjected to far too numerous counts of double standards and hypocrisy. There is nothing worse than trying to present supporting information for a taken stance while assuming both sides of the same argument. That’s called talking out both sides of your mouth and/or other bodily orifices.

It is sad for America that one side is claiming victory, stating that the science is settled as it pertains to our warming climate. The reason this is not good is because it threatens to end debate. What if people like Einstein had listened to such nonsense? What if Columbus really believed science was conclusive and the earth was flat?

I have been called a few names because of my position on global warming. Most of that comes because those tossing the stones don’t understand the target they are trying to hit. Far too many advocates for “the sky is falling” approach to climate change point fingers at people like me and claim that I am uncaring, greedy, only interested in corporate power and am not concerned about pollution.

I also get a fair amount of chastising because much of what I do is to promote hunting, fishing, trapping and the outdoors. Are we to assume that because I am an advocate for such that I must be a member of the global warming gang (GWG)? Hardly!

My concerns go far deeper than whether or not warming waters will put brook trout at risk or if changing habitat forces the Canada lynx out of Maine and back into Canada. With the alarmists’ approach to climate change, we see more and more demand to declare habitat critical or list species as endangered, even when there’s no real science to back it up. The method serves only to prohibit people from going fishing, hunting or trapping or worse yet, the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness to own a piece of land – the American dream.

I’m not driven by greed nor is my focus only on my pocketbook. When climate change advocates insist on ceasing the debate on the subject and refusing to listen to the other half of the science world, this is wrong and it’s dangerous. When their proposals infringe on my rights as a free American, I will speak up.

Yesterday I was reading an article written by Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. The article was published by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Borelli believes much as I do, that if we continue to shut down dialog on global warming and continue with the approach we are using, this is threatening our liberties. She also puts aside claims by the GWG that critics don’t care.

Despite the numerous flaws and ambiguities in trying to link human behavior and global warming, activists and their allies in government use emotion and alarmism to make their case. They are seeking to cut off any reasonable debate and silence their critics by saying these people are motivated by corporate and personal greed and don’t care about pollution. That, however, is hardly the case.

Critics of the global warming agenda are motivated instead by a love of freedom and civil liberties. They want a discussion based on logic and facts that will address any problems without depriving us of liberty and personal choice. They do not want to sacrifice our way of life based on fears of an unproven theory.

After all, the loss of liberty is a greater cause of alarm than global warming.

If I am going to be deprived of my personal choice to go hunting and fishing, or plant a crop on my land or cut down a tree to pay my taxes because a group of people believe the sky is falling, I’ll take issue with it every time. Contrary to what some believe, our group of hunters and fishermen are real conservationists. We understood long before anyone else the importance of proper management of wildlife and game animals. What we do is not perfect but it’s a far cry from the hypocritical efforts being exemplified by some groups.

Let’s take PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) as an example. Borelli alludes to this group and others in making her case that in an effort to be in style people are forging ahead willy-nilly to be “green” without first considering the entire scope of their decisions.

In some cases these groups have other agendas and really care very little about the climate and are using global warming as a way to raise money and further their cause. PETA is one such entity. They advocate for a vegetarian diet because they don’t want you and I to exploit or kill animals to eat. Fair enough…….or is it?

They also lay claim that farm-raised animals are destroying our atmosphere and are contributing to global warming.

America’s meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our potable water, arable land, and clean air. More than half of the water used in the United States today goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population, the run-off from their waste is fouling our waterways. Animal excrement emits gases, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, that poison the air around farms, as well as methane and nitrous oxide, which are major contributors to global warming. Forests are being bulldozed to make more room for factory farms and feed crops to feed farmed animals, and this destruction causes soil erosion and contributes to species extinction and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also requires massive amounts of food and raw materials: Farmed animals consume 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow, and one-third of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. go to raising animals for food. In short, our country’s meat addiction is wrecking the earth.

Do you know how ridiculous this statement is? First of all, why pick on domestic animals, which by the way is necessary for survival. I’m not a vegetarian, never have been a vegetarian and have no plans to ever be one and I’m not alone. We hear everyday that groups like PETA want to rid the world of farm animals because they emit natural gases through flatulence.

Maybe PETA doesn’t realize that all animals fart, even wild ones. They defecate too! Are there not substantial enough populations of wild animals that fart worldwide that we should be concerned with that? On the one hand you have PETA saying that we need to eliminate farming because the animals are destroying the earth, while at the same time, making every effort to make sure that all animals are left alone to multiply and grow as “Mother Nature” would allow. Is this having it both ways? Or is this part of the “emotion and alarmism” that Borelli speaks of in her column?

It’s not just PETA. It’s everywhere. Suppose for a moment that just the United States banned meat eating. The first thing we’d have to do is dispose of all the dead animal bodies and parts and make sure they were kept from multiplying again. We now have to replace all that meat and protein with something. What?

When it comes to vegetarianism, the number one question on most meat-eaters’ minds is, “What do you eat?” The answer: Anything we want! There are vegetarian alternatives to almost any animal food, from soy sausages and “Fib Ribs” to Tofurky jerky and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are sprouting up everywhere—even Burger King offers veggie burgers—and more and more eateries are focusing exclusively on vegetarian and vegan foods. There are fantastic alternatives to every dairy product you can imagine, including Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, Tofutti cream cheese, and more.

And where do these alternatives come from? Much of this stuff is manufactured. What kind of a carbon footprint does that leave? If we have to grow plants to replace the meat, where’s that going to happen? Outer space? Who knows how many more acres of land it will take to grow enough vegetables, soy, etc. to replace the meat. Those crops have to be planted, cultivated, harvested, processed, packaged and shipped. And this is saving our planet? We might as well kill all the animals. They are of no use to PETA. Oh, wait! They are supposed to be advocating for animals.

This is the foolishness that needs to be discussed. It’s only one more element of the total debate on global warming that advocates don’t seem to want to talk about anymore. I wonder why that is? Are they afraid you might learn facts and can decide what you want to do about saving the planet based on science and data?

Science never “settles” for anything. If it did, we would cease to exist. We should be prompting science to continue its studies of our climate and stop plunging dangerously headlong into something that is going to cost us dearly in more ways than one.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Anthony Wright Hunting Accident A Hoax

As I quickly came to believe, the rumors being tossed about certain places on the Internet the back up quarterback for the N.Y. Giants, about him being killed in a hunting accident obviously was some kind of sick hoax.

From the Dallas Cowboys’ website.

No doubt about it, that’s him, Anthony Wright, quarterback, Dallas Cowboys, 1999 through the summer of ‘02, and he is getting the last laugh. Sort of. For he’s here with the Giants, staying at the Wild Horse Pass Resort & Spa the Cowboys thought they’d be staying at this week of Super Bowl XLII.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Rex Rammell Will Run Campaign Ads During Super Bowl

Rex Rammell, who most of you know as the Idaho veterinarian whose elk escaped his ranch and were needlessly slaughtered by the state, is running for the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Sen. Larry Craig. I have spoken with Mr. Rammell on several occasions, covered the elk story and conducted a one-hour interview(click on Nov. 21, 2007 link) with him on my Open Air with Tom Remington, Skinny Moose Radio show.

Dr. Rammell has decided to air some television ads statewide in Idaho during this Sunday’s Super Bowl that are being promoted as something that will “get your attention”. Below are previews of three of those ads.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Today’s Open Air With Tom Remington Broadcast

For those interested in today’s Open Air show scheduled at 3 p.m., I explain who I voted for in the Florida election and why. I normally wouldn’t do this but under the circumstances I thought it would be an opportunity for me to share with readers and listeners as to what brought me to the decision I made.

I’m not trying to retract anything because I tell listeners that the most important part of what I am saying is the process and not necessarily the who of who I voted for. Once you hear the show, you will see that not everyone sees things the way I do.

I think you’ll enjoy the show and remember, if you can’t listen in at 3 p.m., you can always go to the Skinny Moose Radio website, click on downloads and follow the links to the Open Air archives. All shows are provided by date.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Poaching – “An Honest Mistake”

Maybe most of you have already heard about the absolutely brilliant poacher in Michigan who killed a 24-point buck while hunting without a license. The next day he decided to go buy a license.

Phillip at the Hog Blog does the best job of covering the story and awarding the dumb poacher his first annual…….well, you go see what the award is.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

And What’s Wrong With The Endangered Species Act?

It’s getting worse before, if ever, it will get better. Abuse of the Endangered Species Act is at an all-time high and rising like a rocket. Something must be done! (Scroll to bottom to find links to related articles)

Can it get any worse? Millions of dollars are being spent on lawsuits aimed at preserving habitat and some species of wildlife needlessly, with no end in sight. The ESA is being used as a lethal weapon that will destroy our property rights and further sink us into economic recession. It’s out of control.

In yesterday’s Tucson Citizen, B. Poole has an article that focuses the most of its attention on one such over the top environmental group called the Center for Biological Diversity. This is how Poole describes the efforts of this group.

The Center for Biological Diversity staff brandishes the Endangered Species Act like a blunt-force instrument. Leverage from its petitions and lawsuits – more than 500 in 18 years – helped gain protection for nearly a fourth of the 1,351 endangered or threatened plants and animals in the United States.

This has been much of my argument in the past about why we need to do something about the ESA. A piece of legislation that was created to insure that we humans wouldn’t knowingly wipe out a species of animal or plant, has now become a “blunt-force instrument”, costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

It doesn’t help anyone when the author of this piece states that the USFWS’s purpose is to protect endangered species.

Critics accuse the center of helping to hobble Fish & Wildlife, the federal agency with the task of protecting the nation’s endangered species.

The USFWS recently revised its “Mission Statement”.

Our mission is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

I fail to see here where the purpose of USFWS is to spend nearly every penny it has fighting lawsuits. The job of the USFWS is far more complex than protecting only endangered species but groups such as CBD are tying the hands of the agency by draining the budget that should be used for other purposes. This blatant act of suing the USFWS is only one tactic used to draw attention to the group in order to better be able to raise money. Donations are expected to exceed $6 million this year.

According to the article, the USFWS’s annual budget used for endangered species is $5 million. Since the year 2000, USFWS has used all of that money, $35 million, just on court cases from groups like CBD.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, who is executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, another preservationist, animal rights group that spends all of its time in the courts suing USFWS, told the U.S. Congress that USFWS is in trouble and needs more funding. His complaint is that the USFWS has had to take money away from endangered species programs to fund other programs. Can Congress not see that this is an indirect request to put more money in the pockets of groups like DOW and CBD?

President Bush requested $146.5 million dollars be spent on endangered species. Clark is asking for that amount to be bumped up to $185.2 million. I would suppose in order to give her and her group more opportunities in court.

Incidentally, Defenders of Wildlife just announced they plan to sue the USFWS over the latest proposed ruling regarding management of wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The feds announced they would ease up some restrictions to make it easier to protect game animals and property owners in the event that the effort to remove the wolf from federal protection gets tied up in court for the next several years. As many as 27 animal rights and preservationist, environmental groups have threatened legal action once the USFWS makes the announcement, which is expected perhaps in March.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a California-based group that advocates property owners’ rights, has challenged some center lawsuits. Foundation President Robin Rivett accuses the center of exploiting the Endangered Species Act requirement for speedy habitat designation.

Once certain parcels of land are designated protected habitat for endangered species and/or a species is placed on the endangered list, it is nearly impossible to get it removed, as we have witnessed many times. The money being spent on lawsuits to stop this action serves only to line the pockets and promote the personal agendas of these groups and does very little if anything to protect species.

Even Rivett says the way the Endangered Species Act is being manipulated and interpreted falls into the hands of the protectionists.

“I don’t think it’s helping. It seems to be litigate first and talk second,” he said.
The Endangered Species Act requirements leave judges little choice but to side with the center, Rivett said.
“It’s like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to critical habitat,” he said.

Judges ruling in favor of the Center for Biological Diversity shows in that the Center has won 86% of the court cases they have fought. But some are saying that part of the reason for this success is the result of too little challenges from anyone, perhaps the result of lack of funds or organizations to fight back. It is clear to me that the USFWS does very little to fight back. They are so cash strapped they can’t afford to fight these groups and have found it easier to give them what they want. This is not in the best interest of Americans.

In Arizona, Jim Chilton, Jr. fought the CBD in court and won. He was awarded $600,000 in damages in a defamation lawsuit. The CBD posted photographs on its website claiming that damage done to land, deemed critical habitat for the Sonora chub and Chiricahua leopard frog, was done by his cattle.

Even thought the Center claimed in court that the photos were put up by mistake, we all know this is just part of the many unethical tactics used by such groups in order to strong-arm their way to get what they want.

And who’s behind this movement? Perhaps this will help shed some light on the kind of person and the mentality associated with them. Kierán Suckling, one of the founders of the Center for Biological Diversity and has a degree in philosophy, had this to say about why we think the way we do about animals.

The center’s work goes far beyond biology for Suckling, who has a master’s degree in philosophy from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. There are deep cultural bonds between people and animals that start soon after we are born, he said. From Garanimals to stuffed animals to familiar icons such as Big Bird, we wrap our children in wildlife from birth, he said.
“We don’t surround them with images of people. We surround them with images of animals,”

Unfortunately, much of what Suckling is saying is true, although I strongly disagree with his statement that “we wrap our children in wildlife”. This is much of the problem with this entire mindset. He is not drowning his kids in “wildlife”. He is presenting to children the myth that animals talk and play games. There is nothing about wildlife in how our kids are being presented animals.

Kids have found comfort and solace in hugging a teddy bear. At some point in their lives they need to be taught that it is only a stuffed animal and does not resemble the real bear in any way shape or form. We do not wrap our children in wildlife. We are telling them that animals have personalities. That there are mommy and daddy animals, with cute little kids that grow up to be just like us.

People like Suckling may find this a suitable means of educating their own children but not all of us agree. There is something just as perverse in teaching your kids this way as probably Suckling thinks is wrong in teaching kids about bears, wolves and mountain lions that attack and kill people and that people kill them back.

With organizations such as these that I have spoken, given a chance at exploiting a broken Endangered Species Act, there is very little that can be done until we decide to do something about the Act. I know I’m sick and tired of my money going toward enabling these groups that in my opinion are harming our society far more than most people may know.

Tom Remington

Related Stories

USFWS Announces New Rules For Wolf Management

There Will Be No Satisfaction No Matter What The Determination Of Polar Bear Protection

It’s Time Something Be Done About The Endangered Species Act

Safari Club International Joins Lawsuit To Fight The Overturning Of Grizzly Delisting

Feeding Wildlife A Legal Infraction Of The Endangered Species Act?

Maine Lynx Trapping Lawsuit Settlement Reached

Time To Toss The Endangered Species Act

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

N.Y. Giants Backup Quarterback In Hunting Accident?

I am hearing rumors that Anthony Wright was killed in a hunting accident yesterday. I have yet to find information on this if it is true.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Down With A Virus…..Computer That Is!

This is so funny! Well, not really…….actually it is!

Terrorism takes on many disguises and in my opinion any worthless human being that would spend life’s valuable time finding ways to destroy another person’s computer, really have no better standing than the likes of Osama Bin Laden or any of his followers.

I received the virus on Friday (unsolicited), last and have been battling it ever since. I tried everything I could come up with to remedy the problem but was unsuccessful. I even followed the advice of some so-called virus experts who told me to shut down my computer and start it back up in Safe Mode. From there, run my virus scan software, at least three times, while completely disconnected from the Internet and that should do it.

It appeared that the virus was one that Norton could find, remove and then it would “regenerate” itself. Once in Safe Mode, I launched Norton 360 and lo and behold I get an error message, “Norton 360 will not operate in Safe Mode”. *&%#()&%^

Frustrated, I contacted Norton tech support and got the usual – not necessarily unique to Norton. I first instant messengered with someone named Naresh. Immediately I began recounting the 70s song, “Marakesh Express”, (excuse the spelling?) Then wondered if I was communicating with someone in Los Angeles or from the mountains of northern Pakistan.

It all happened too quickly and I new my problem wasn’t solved, when Naresh quickly gave me a link to some adware/spyware add-on software and sent me on my way. I downloaded it, ran more scans and stared at the same problem.

This morning, I couldn’t take it anymore. After voting and feeling as though the future of this country was looking bright because I single handedly cast a vote for the next president of the United States, I decided to contact Norton tech help again. This time I got Karun. Hmmmm? Afghanistan perhaps? India? Or Boston?

Karun passed the buck immediately and told me I needed an expert virus man. He would solve my problem. Enter Riji.

Feeling now as though I am a stranger in a foreign land, I began my instant messaging with Riji, doing the best I can to decipher is broken text (thank god they have a lot of cutnpaste answers). It wasn’t long before Riji determines that I have a virus. I wanted to ask him how much schooling he had that allowed him to so quickly diagnose my problem. Yikes! It gets better, er, uh, I mean worse.

Riji had the answer! I needed a real computer expert who could remove my virus immediately! Swell. Let’s “Git r Done”! Not so fast! Removing a virus of this sort requires a fee – Afghanis, Dinars, Guilders, Rupees, Dollars? VISA, the universal language.

I went about the process of paying in advance for services not yet rendered (yeah I know) and finally began a relationship with, are you ready for this? Renjith! No kidding. I was thinking, Jones, Brown or Smith perhaps. You know my last name is Remington so wouldn’t you think I would be a gun expert, or perhaps a shaver repairman, or design tires? Typewriters are unused these days, so forget that. Computer problems? Why not Mr. Toshiba himself? Who the hell is Norton anyway?

I sat at my desk watching the computer screen while Renjith, who I’m imagining must look like Sanjia (sp) (American Idol last season), moved the cursor on my computer screen from his computer who knows how many universes away. While watching, I once saw him click on “Yes” when asked if he was sure he wanted to reboot the computer now.

It was then I realized why they collected such information from me as my home phone number and a second back up number. I laughed out loud and watched wondering how long it would take before the phone would ring. This gave me a chance to think about what smartass thing I would say when I answered. “Joe’s Crab Shack! Can I take your order?” or this one I thought very seriously of doing, “McAfee Internet Security Systems. This is Shekerish. How may I help you today?”

Ring! It was Renjith. “Oops!” and I laughed.

One of the problems that come with this virus was the continued onslaught of pop up advertisements. I virtually never use Internet Explorer as I would age at least one whole month while I waited for each new window to open. Plus the fact that I don’t think Bill Gates gets out enough these days. With all his money he probably has become so isolated he doesn’t realize pond scum are spending all their time creating worms, viruses, trojans and any other name you can call these things. I’ll bet these guys who make up this stuff could land humans on the moon but the ones who fix them couldn’t.

Needless to say, I have a very low opinion of Internet Explorer and have been using Mozilla Firefox for several years now. The problem I had was every time I opened a new window in my browser, Internet Explorer would open up pop up ads. It’s bad enough that the dang ads would pop up but combine that with IE which takes three 12-oz Corona beers and a small bag of Lays potato chips to open. (I learned how to measure distance in beers from an old drunk I knew back in my hometown in Maine.)

Finally, Renjith announces in our little chat room world, “Tom, I have removed virus. Computer is good now!” The problem I had was reading the message that kept getting pushed behind as each successive pop up ad pasted itself onto my computer screen.

“Really!” I exclaimed. “Are you sure?”

“Yes!” wrote Renjith. “You have a clean computer now!”

“But, Renjith, my brother!” I furiously typed on the keyboard. “What the hell are these pop up ads still devouring my computer screen?”

“Ooops!”

Remember the Bill Cosby story about going into the operating room at the hospital? He tells of laying there on the table having only local anesthesia and listening to the conversation:

“Scalpel!”

“Clamp”

“Scalpel”

“Clamp”

“Sponge”

“Scalpel”

“Ooops!”

That’s something you don’t want to hear coming from your surgeon. I can assure you Renjith was no surgeon and was beginning to wonder if there were like a couple of guys sitting around in a small room in Bangladesh laughing at me. They got my $100 and I got a “clean computer” that is producing pop up ads faster than a half-million rabbits on a rabbit farm can produce offspring.

“Let me try something else,” was his plea.

I went about my business of staring at the computer screen hoping maybe I could pick up a few pointers – NOT!

Another two hours pass. Pop up ads are still hitting the screen and Renjith tells me my problem is with Internet Explorer. That, of course doesn’t surprise me but I’m also having a hard time believing that he knows what he’s doing and he appears to be very anxious to end the session and go get some raw fish or something with my $100.

In the most professional manner, he tells me I need to stop using IE, uninstall it from my computer and never use it again if I don’t have to.

For those of you who are still using Internet Explorer, visit Mozilla Firefox and download your own version today.

I must report that I removed IE and so far, I am pop up free. Renjith for president……of what I don’t know!

Now to get caught up and back on track.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Right…….”To Vote, Shall Not Be Denied Or Abridged”……

Today is the Florida primary election. The polls in my home town opened at 7 a.m. and I was there at about 8:15 while out doing errands. Up until about 6 o’clock last evening, I still had not made up my mind who I was going to vote for. Getting away from my computer and all the other distractions, I began doing some hard thinking and reached a decision.

I would like to share that process with you and so I decided that this Thursday, 3 p.m., during my weekly Skinny Moose Radio program, Open Air with Tom Remington, I am going to tell you who I voted for and why. I might surprise you.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

When Do Wolves Become Dangerous To Humans?

Many of you have probably read several times or perhaps even heard me on my radio show talk about George Dovel and his ongoing efforts to reach people and educate them with facts about wildlife, etc. through his print publication, “The Outdoorsman”. (If you would like to subscribe to Mr. Dovel’s publication, you can write to this address: The Outdoorsman, P.O. Box 155, Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, 83629)

In the latest issue of the Outdoorsman, Dovel presents to his readers some background history on how our media, often times influenced by fish and game personnel and wildlife biologists, react to and present written information about human and wolf encounters. As part of Dovel’s presentation, he includes a great deal of information that he received from one of our very renowned wolf experts.

Dr. Valerius Geist, a Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary, has years of studies in wildlife, including wolves and personal encounters with them. He is recognized by many as one of the leading authorities on wolves and wolf habits.

If you will recall back in November, I reported that a coroner’s inquest had made a determination that Kenton Carnegie, a 22-year old college student had been attacked and killed by wolves in a remote area of Northern Saskatchewan, Canada. Dr. Geist and retired Alaska wolf expert Mark McNay, were asked to represent the family of Kenton Carnegie during the inquest.

Dr. Geist points out that there is an obvious reason why wolf attacks on humans go unreported or are declared to be inconclusive as to the cause of death. Those attacks that result in death occur almost entirely when a person is alone, no one to assist in fighting off the wolves and nobody to witness what happens.

Even in Carnegie’s situation, investigators readily agreed that there were wolf tracks all around what was left of the body. I even think I recall reading that witnesses who found Carnegie, reported seeing wolves or a wolf at or near the body. The disagreements come from whether or not Carnegie was dead before the wolves appeared on the scene.

This is the biggest reason why it goes on being reported that wolf kills on humans “never” happen in North America yet most people know this is simply not true.

Dr. Geist sent to George Dovel of the Outdoorsman, part of the 61-page recording of testimony at the inquest of Kenton Carnegie in hopes that people will read expert testimony and heed the information that comes from the best in the business rather than from the media which is nothing more than an echo chamber of environmentalists who would dare never to badmouth a wolf.

Below comes from The Outdoorsman article and is part of the information provided by Dr. Valerius Geist. It is the seven stages that lead to a wolf attack on people. There is more information that goes with these seven steps. I highly recommend contacting The Outdoorsman so you can get your copy sent to you.

These Are The Seven Stages Leading To An Attack On People By Wolves

1) Within the pack’s territory prey is becoming scarce not only due to increased predation on native prey animals, but also by the prey evacuating home ranges en mass, leading to a virtual absence of prey. Or wolves increasingly visit garbage dumps at night. We observed the former on Vancouver Island in summer and fall 1999.

Deer left the meadow systems occupied by wolves and entered boldly into suburbs and farms, causing – for the first time – much damage to gardens. At night they slept close to barns and houses, which they had not done in the previous four years.

The wintering grounds of trumpeter swans, Canada geese and flocks of several species of ducks were vacated. The virtual absence of wildlife in the landscape was striking.

2) Wolves in search of food began to approach human habitations – at night! Their presence was announced by frequent and loud barking of farm dogs. A pack of sheep-guarding dogs raced out each evening to confront the wolf pack, resulting in extended barking duels at night, and the wolves were heard howling even during the day.

3) The wolves appear in daylight and observe people doing their daily chores at some distance. Wolves excel at learning by close, steady observation [1]. They approach buildings during daylight.

4) Small bodied livestock and pets are attacked close to buildings even during the day. The wolves act distinctly bolder in the actions.

They preferentially pick on dogs and follow them right up to the verandas. People out with dogs find themselves defending their dogs against a wolf or several wolves. Such attacks are still hesitant and people save some dogs.

At this stage wolves do not focus on humans, but attack pets and some livestock with determination. However, they may threaten humans with teeth exposed and growling when the humans are defending dogs, or show up close to a female dog in heat, or close to a kill or carrion defended by wolves. The wolves are still establishing territory.

5) The wolves explore large livestock, leading to docked tails, slit ears and hocks. Livestock may bolt through fences running for the safety of barns. When the first seriously wounded cattle are found they tend to have severe injuries to the udders, groin and sexual organs and need to be put down. The actions of wolves become more brazen and cattle or horses may be killed close to houses and barns where the cattle or horses were trying to find refuge. Wolves may follow riders and surround them. They may mount verandas and look into windows.

6) Wolves turn their attention to people and approach them closely, initially merely examining them closely for several minutes on end. This is a switch from establishing territory to targeting people as prey. The wolves may make hesitant, almost playful attacks biting and tearing clothing, nipping at limbs and torso. They withdraw when confronted. They defend kills by moving toward people and growling and barking at them from 10 – 20 paces away.

7) Wolves attack people. These initial attacks are clumsy, as the wolves have not yet learned how to take down the new prey efficiently. Persons attacked can often escape because of the clumsiness of the attacks.

A mature courageous man may beat off or strangulate an attacking wolf. However, against a wolf pack there is no defense and even two able and armed men may be killed. Wolves as pack hunters are so capable a predator that they may take down black bears, even grizzly bears [2]. Wolves may defend kills.

The attack may not be motivated by predation, but be a matter of more detailed exploration unmotivated by hunger. This explains why wolves on occasion carry away living, resisting children, why they do not invariably feed on the humans they killed, but may abandon such just as they may kill foxes and just leave them, and why injuries to an attacked person may at times be surprisingly light, granted the strength of a wolf’s jaw and its potential shearing power [3].

[1] – It is important to recognize here that wolves learn in a manner different from dogs, and that they excel at learning by closely observing what is going on. They are insight learners, and they solve problems, such as unlatching gates, for instance, almost at once!

Some dogs may solve this, but over a very long time, and usually not at all. Captive wolves or coyotes not only learn to open their cage, but quickly open all the others as well! And they achieve this by sitting and just watching attentively – an activity wild wolves indulge in continually.

From an elevated position they rest or sit and watch, watch, watch. Many times wolves followed me and on some occasions sat beside my cabin at night, orientated towards the cabin, apparently watching what was going on.

Wolves have large heads relative to the body and at comparable skull sizes have about ten percent more brain mass than dogs. See Ray and Lorna Coppinger 2001 Dogs, pp. 42-47, 54-55.

[2] – Personal communication by Dr. Paul Paquet from research on coastal wolves in British Columbia. Wolf scat contained fur and claws of both black bears and grizzly bears.

[3] – I am grateful to Prof. Harry Frank drawing my attention to multiple motivations of wolves attacking people.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Red/Blue, Left/Right, Urban/Rural, Right/Wrong, Elite/Common, Smart/Dumb, Progressive/Backward

These lines have been drawn in the sand many times, probably since the beginning of time but I think today those drawing the lines are being more vocal about it and the lines are getting deeper and bolder. These days we dare not “profile”, once referred to as stereotyping, because it is deemed politically incorrect or socially unacceptable by the PC police. The trouble we get into when profiling other people isn’t so much that we are perhaps helping to define that person or group of persons but that we begin to look down our noses at them because they are different. My, we’ve come a long way haven’t we.

I’m a hunter and a strong supporter of gun rights. I fish and I love the outdoors. I grew up poor in a rural area of Western Maine. So what does that make me? Am I from a red or blue state? Am I left or right? Right or wrong? Am I common folk or a member of the elite? Progressive or relegated to always being backward? Am I smart or dumb? And what determines that? Or more accurately, who?

In all honesty, I could care less what people say and think about me. As a matter of fact, I sort of pride myself in keeping people guessing. I have no problem talking with a country boy from Maine or the head of the United Nations. They’re just people.

So why is it that we, the human, not all but some, have a need to label and profile, done in a way that demeans, criticizes, ridicules and belittles others?

Most of you probably have already heard the supposed comment that was overheard in an elevator coming from the mouth of Sen. Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax, Virginia concerning a congressional debate over gun issues.

You can tell we’re debating a gun bill today. Half the cast of “Deliverance” is in town,

I suppose there are those who are not familiar with the movie “Deliverance”. The movie is based on a novel by James Dickey in which some businessmen from Atlanta go on a canoe trip in the northern part of Georgia and have an encounter with the likes of some “backwards”, “backwoods” people in which murder and rape ensues.

Obviously, a pretty dumb thing to say if you are a politician hoping to keep your job. Frankly, I’d get a kick out of it and if I had gotten on the same elevator with Saslaw, I’d of had him thinking he was in the back hills of Northern Georgia. Probably wouldn’t take much to scare the prejudiced be-jeepers out of him.

Now everyone is tap dancing around the issue scared to death to say or write the wrong thing about the comments. This same article linked to above says that the Washington Post published a comment later made by Saslaw.

“How do they know I was referring to them and not the other side? … Some of those people must have one hell of an inferiority complex.”

Saslaw really does believe that not only are those in support of gun rights ignorant and backwards but so are those in support of gun control. Who’s side is he on? This response is typical of today’s society never able to assume responsibility but turn the blame around. He says that if I take offense to his comment, I have an inferiority complex. Nice! What do you expect from a moron gun toter?

Even a spokesman for the Virginia republican party doesn’t want to admit that the whole world knows what Saslaw meant by his comment.

“When a member of the Virginia General Assembly makes a comment like that, I thought that it would be appropriate for him to explain himself,” spokesman Josh Noland said in an interview.

“Is he meaning the supporters of these stricter [gun] laws are like the cast of ‘Deliverance’ or the people that want to protect gun rights are like the cast of ‘Deliverance,’ and what did he mean by that?”

Are you kidding me? It makes a difference? And, “what did he mean by that?” Please. It’s clear what he meant by his comment. He believes that supporters of our Second Amendment are back woods hicks – all of us! That’s what he meant. Why pretend we don’t understand? If Saslaw isn’t careful, some of those in the halls of the Virginia Congress may grab him and tie him up and make him start squealing like a pig. That’s all we know isn’t it?

The other question I have to ask is if Josh Noland, spokesman for the Virginia republican party, was actually serious when he asked to which side of the debate was the Deliverance comment directed?

But this kind of stereotyping isn’t relegated to the state of Virginia and its politicians. Over the weekend I was reading an article in The Olympian about Montana sportsmen who were speaking up against the business practices of Cabela’s, one of this nations biggest outdoor equipment suppliers.

Some sportsmen are angry because Cabela’s has branched off into the real estate business and some think their sales practices are taking away the land access they use for hunting, fishing, etc.

In the article, it begins by setting the tone as to what the newspaper must think of Montana sportsmen. (They probably don’t care because they think Montana hunters can’t read.)

It’s a lot like a David vs. Goliath story, except that in the case of Montana sportsmen vs. Cabela’s, the underdog isn’t aiming to kill.

After all, the Cabela’s catalog might be the only “book” many of the sportsmen have read this year, and it cost them significantly more than a library card.

In case you didn’t catch that, Montana sportsmen, at least those who frequent Cabela’s, are illiterate. Now I know why Cabela’s and other hunting and fishing retailers put pictures in their catalogs.

And we can’t forget the recent rant that took place between Chris Matthews of MSNBC and NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell. This display of love and tolerance was about presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee going on a pheasant hunt in Iowa prior to the caucuses.

Matthews has probably never been out of his cement-walled office and discovered that illiterate, Deliverance-type, manhood proving, backward, common, rural, dumb people hunt. Gasp! Once he finishes his rant about republicans having to prove their manhood and pointing out that now republicans believe you have to show that you have a big gun to become president, he asked Andrea Mitchell if she is upset by this.

“Absolutely. You don’t see any women out there with a gun.”

So, to that list I created in the title to this piece, we should add Man/Woman because we now see that women are far above the red, right, rural, wrong, common, dumb, backward men who use guns.

Maybe I’m just too sensitive!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

$10 Could Get You A Maine Black Bear Hunt

200 music students from Noble High School in Maine are getting creative in trying to find a way to raise $100,000 for a trip to New York City. Bake sales just aren’t getting the job done, so Rick Varney, a grandfather of one of the kids and Master Maine Guide, thought it would be a great idea to sell chances for a Maine Black Bear hunt.

Varney describes the hunt.

The winner gets lodging and meals for two at one of the family’s bear camps in northwestern Maine for the first week of the 2008 bear-hunting season. Hot and cold running water, “a flush toilet,” bedding and meals — including a lobster bake and “trash can turkey” dinner — are included. A Ragged Lake Guide Service guide is part of the prize and winners are warned their cell phones won’t work at the remote camp.

Winners who don’t want to hunt can photograph bears and other wildlife in the remote area between Mt. Katahdin and the Canadian border, said Varney, or take $1,000 cash.

For a chance at a Maine bear hunt, all you have to do is send an email to: noblesro@sad60.k12.me

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

USFWS Announces New Rules For Wolf Management

While much of the west in and around the Rocky Mountains and Yellowstone Park wait impatiently for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to formally announce the removal of the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS announced that until that event takes place, they are easing some of the restrictions on the wolf in order to give flexibility to states to implement actions to protect wild herds of elk, deer and moose, protect livestock, private property and for public safety. The states involved are Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.

With a rapidly growing wolf population in this area, each year there are more and more conflicts cropping up with wolves. It is expected that in March sometime the USFWS will announce delisting but they also realize as many as 27 different agencies are preparing to present lawsuits to stop the delisting process. This could tie up the move in court for decades. The Fed, knowing this will more than likely be the case, will implement this change in order to give states flexibility to react to problems in a more timely manner.

Opponents of such a move and those who will never be satisfied, it seems, until New York City is overrun with wolves, are over reacting in their usual manner claiming hunters are going to systematically begin a senseless slaughter of the wolves.

“We’ve worked hard to bring wolves back from the brink of extinction,” said Sierra Club representative Melanie Stein. “If we call open season on wolves now, we could soon find ourselves back at the starting line. It’s a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars.”

In 1995 when wolves were reintroduced, it was announced to the public that 100 wolves would sustain a wolf population. Very conservative estimates place the wolf population in all three states in excess of 1,500 wolves and still the wolf lovers are crying foul, claiming that’s not enough to sustain a wolf population.

“This is a scheme based on backdoor politics, not science, and it goes too far. Wolves in the northern Rockies have only recently neared a point where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could consider removing federal protections from them. In finalizing this rule, the Service is ignoring its responsibility to ensure the long-term survival of the region’s wolf population,”

Those are claims made by Suzanne Stone, northern Rockies wolf conservation specialist for Defenders of Wildlife. With few people not directly involved in the original reintroduction of wolves, there is very little history that is passed on. Efforts by wolf lovers to manipulate the media to repeat the mantra, has been quite successful.

The question few people are asking is how many wolves are enough. Obviously that depends on who you talk to but efforts of those advocating for the wolf reveal to the rest of us that there will never be enough wolves.

Rep. Mike Phillips of Bozeman, Montana, also a scientist whose interests include recovery of endangered species, in an interview in 2007 for Rural Montana Magazine, said efforts to recover the wolf have gone too far.

Phillips was the National Park Service’s project leader for the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction effort from 1994-1997. Prior to that he worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a field coordinator for the red wolf recovery effort in the Southwest. He says the idea that there are now over 1,500 wolves is far above what everyone was told, that 100 wolves in each state would be ample. He also says part of the problem came when USFWS decided to extent the recovery area.

“They extended recovery much further afield than ever imagined. Nobody ever imagined when we built the recovery plan that the vision would extend to the rest of the western U.S. That’s ridiculous. The wolf is recovered and should be removed from the Endangered Species Act list.”

Each of the three states have worked with the USFWS to create agreed upon wolf management plans that will take effect once the wolf is delisted. Part of that plan calls for managed hunts and ways to react quickly to resolve wolf and livestock conflicts. In anticipation of the lawsuits that will follow the announcement to delist, the USFWS thinks these new set of rules will help accomplish efforts to resolve the problems.

Phillips says that wolves don’t make a habit out of bothering ranchers but when they do, action is needed.

“The problems are real, involving private property. When there’s a conflict we should resolve it quickly.”

Comments by state officials indicate that they are pleased with the rules to give them more flexibility to be able to resolve conflicts but most don’t anticipate much need for it. Carolyn Sime, who is in charge of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf program, says she “wouldn’t rule it out” and she didn’t “see us relying on it a whole lot”.

Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says he knows of no areas where wolves are destroying elk herds in the west. That is probably debatable by some, especially concerning the elk herd in Yellowstone Park.

The point to all this is that USFWS and the three states, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, appear to be approaching this entire wolf delisting event with an attitude of being prepared and creating tools to be able to use in order to stave off any problems that may arise that would put elk, deer or moose herds in jeopardy from wolves. Reasonable people shouldn’t find a problem with that. Unreasonable people, which is what we are dealing with constantly with wolf recovery efforts, can only embellish facts and blow things completely out of proportion.

Unfortunately, this approach by the wolf lovers will cost Americans millions of dollars more before it is all done.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Connecticut Activists Still Pushing For Deer Population Reductions To Ease Lyme Disease

Author’s note (June 2, 2008): I spoke recently with Dr. Scholl about information contained in this article and other articles on Lyme disease in Connecticut. She asked that I point out the she is not the head of this movement, only a participant who has been quoted by media. She was very emphatic to say that everything they do is relying on the science and efforts by the state’s biologists to bring awareness to Lyme disease and eradicate the state from the disease.

Dr. Georgina Scholl appears to be spearheading the movement by two very well organized and vocal groups that have had it with the threats of Lyme disease and want something done about it. The Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease and the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance believe the way to achieve this goal is to reduce whitetail populations from around 60 or more per square mile down to around 8 or 10 per square mile.

Scholl was to have met with Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s chief of staff on Wednesday to discuss the issue.

“First, we are asking the governor for a proclamation to help raise public awareness of the health risks,” said Dr. Scholl. “If every town wants the DEP to help, customized plans can be made [for reducing herd numbers]. Right now, people think hunting deer is a sport and many think it’s inappropriate. But if the information is put out in a way the public can understand, the DEP would be asked to help in getting the population down.”

Hunters would be asked to play an active role in this task.

The reduction could be effected by a number of methods. “They could be rounded up and euthanized,” Dr. Scholl said. “But,” (s)he (sic) added, “there are already as many hunters as there are deer. If each hunter could be encouraged to take just one more deer each year, the problem would be solved. Some towns use sharpshooters-it doesn’t have to be sports hunters.”

It’s not spelled out in this article or previous bits of information I have read in the past, but I can only assume at this point that efforts would have to be made to work very closely with the fish and game experts, including their biologists, to focus the efforts on herd reduction to areas in most need. A random event of simply asking hunters to take more deer may not achieve the goals sought in the worst effected areas.

Howard Kilpatrick, a Connecticut wildlife biologist, says efforts are already underway to reduce herds.

He said the DEP has already instituted initiatives to reduce the deer population in Fairfield County and the shoreline towns, including giving free replacement tags for “antlerless”-does and juveniles. “There is basically no limit on antlerless deer in those areas,” he said. “If you remove one doe each year that means she doesn’t have twins the next year and you have three less deer.”
The DEP is also allowing bait stations where “hunter success is much, much higher” and an “earn a buck program,” where hunters get an extra buck tag for every three antlerless deer taken.

This proposal by Dr. Scholl and others who have signed on to the idea, isn’t being readily agreed upon by everyone. Of course animal rights groups are saying there is no need to kill any animals and others opposed to hunting are lead to speak out against it.

But some, not so radical anti-hunting groups, are jumping on the bandwagon as they too see the threat of Lyme disease as a very serious public health issue.

Connecticut has been notorious over the last few years as a breeding ground of ticks that carry Lyme disease. Many people have been bitten by the ticks and have suffered greatly as a result. Anytime you achieve an imbalance in wildlife populations, as is the case here with the deer, there is always the threat of disease and starvation. The over browsing of deer can destroy the vegetation ultimately ruining the ecosystem rendering it non functional to many of the other species of wildlife.

Hunters are recognized nationwide as being the first conservationists in America working hard to protect all wildlife and the ecosystems that support them. Sometimes hunters are perceived or spoken of in a way that incorrectly depicts their intentions when it comes to game harvest. Hunters understand the importance of a healthy deer herd along with everything else.

The best way to preserve and promote the future of hunting as a way of managing wildlife, is to work to insure a healthy forest complete with healthy animals.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »