The Endangered Species Act Is Now Endangering Our Species
September 30, 2008
As the courts continue to decide what the Endangered Species Act is for, we have reached a point where it appears now that our wildlife that needs protecting is in eminent danger. Yesterday, Federal Judge Paul L. Friedman, ordered that the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region be placed back under protection and management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That decision and the subsequent ruling of the court I now see as jeopardizing the health and sustainability of our other wildlife and plant species all within specific ecosystems.
Judge Friedman’s ruling states that the reason he remanded the case was because the USFWS failed to provide a reason, supported by the ESA, to justify removing the gray wolves in the Great Lakes region only. In remanding the case the judge is sending the issue back to the USFWS for an explanation. Judge Friedman said the ESA’s definition of a “Distinct Population Segment” is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issueâ€.
The judge did not have to put the wolf back on the endangered list but it appears that he did just because he could. More on that later.
What Judge Friedman is saying in his ruling is that the USFWS has no authority under the ESA to selectively delist only the population of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region. In his opening opinion he says this:
In 1978, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as threatened in Minnesota and endangered throughout the rest of the conterminous United States. On February 8, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWSâ€), an agency within the Department of the Interior, promulgated a final rule revising the wolf’s listing status. See 72 Fed. Reg. 6052 (Feb. 8, 2007) (the “Final Ruleâ€). The Final Rule did not affect the listing status of the gray wolf everywhere. Rather, it designated a cluster of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region as a “distinct population segment,†or DPS. It then removed the wolves within the western Great Lakes DPS from the endangered species list. The Final Rule did not change the listing status of gray wolves outside the boundaries of the western Great Lakes DPS.
In short, Judge Friedman seems to be saying that because in 1978 the federal government opted to list the wolf as either “threatened” or “endangered” everywhere south of the Canadian border, they cannot now chop up wolf population segments in order to remove them from the ESA protection status. He supports this by saying the ESA is ambiguous and finds no previous court rulings otherwise, therefore it doesn’t give the USFWS authority to delist only the Great Lakes population segment of wolves.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 says in reference to a “Distinct Population Segment”:
(16) The term ‘‘species’’ includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.
According to Judge Friedman’s ruling, the USFWS argued that this was the intent of Congress when it developed the ESA. Friedman didn’t buy it.
On the other hand, “deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not appropriate when the agency wrongly believes that [its] interpretation is compelled by Congress.†PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. DEA, 362 F.3d at 798. As discussed above, it seems clear that FWS erroneously concluded that its interpretation of the ESA was compelled by Congress.
Friedman also tries to explain why the USFWS interpretation is ambiguous.
Because the ESA is ambiguous with respect to the issue at hand, the Court is required to defer to any permissible agency construction under Chevron step two. See Defs.’ Mot. at 13; Defs.’ Opp. at 4. In this case, however, there is no permissible construction to which the Court can defer. The Final Rule and FWS’ papers rely exclusively on a “plain meaning†reading of the ESA which the Court already has rejected. And even assuming that the Court could look elsewhere for an interpretation to which it could defer, there is none in sight. The DPS Policy does not qualify as a construction to which this Court can defer because the DPS Policy does not directly address the interpretive issue before the Court. The purpose of the DPS Policy is to clarify the meaning of the term “distinct population segment†and to set forth criteria for deciding whether a sub-population should be designated as a DPS. It does not address the propriety of simultaneously designating and delisting a DPS within a broader listing, and the Court finds both parties’ arguments to the contrary strained and unpersuasive. Nor may the Court look to the ESA’s implementing regulations for a Chevron-worthy interpretation. Those regulations largely track the statutory provisions discussed in part III.B and, like those statutory provisions, do not directly address the interpretive issue before the Court.
So Judge Friedman remanded the case back to the USFWS for them to provide a definition of “distinct population segment” the court will accept, that then allows the feds to break out segments of wolves or any other species and remove from federal protection.
The second issue with the case was whether or not the wolf in the Western Great Lakes region should be placed back on the ESA. Friedman explains it this way:
The Court agrees with FWS and defendant-intervenors that it is within the Court’s discretion to remand without vacating the Final Rule, but in the context of this case it declines to do so………..Second, while it is true that vacatur will have a palpable regulatory effect – specifically, management responsibility for the western Great Lakes DPS will be reposed in the federal government rather than in the states – the Court concludes that “disruption†is not a substantial concern in this case. Little confusion or inefficiency will result from reinstating a regulatory regime that was in place from 1978 to 2007, particularly given the fact that state and federal wolf management authorities have been working in tandem for years.
Judge Friedman concludes his reasons for placing the wolf back under federal protection by saying he agreed with the plaintiffs that he thinks the ESA prefers to protect the animals. Is it fair then to add to that he, like most others, believe it is better to protect the animals than the rights of the people?
We can argue until we are blue in the face over whether this judge or Judge Donald Molloy, who ruled over the recent return of the gray wolf in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to the ESA, but the problem clearly lies with a faulty Endangered Species Act. Without changes our wildlife is in danger. Why do those so eager to protect the wolf not see that further lack of management of wolves threatens sustainability of other species, species we have spent millions of dollars to protect?
If this ruling remains and USFWS refuses or cannot reverse this decision, much of the U.S is in serious trouble with wildlife management. People have very little faith that the USFWS is looking out for their interest, after all it is another government agency. Many believe they are too scared, too broke and too interested in the efforts of environmentalists to much care about the rights of others. The USFWS has shown us of late their unwillingness to fight to keep the wolf listed in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana by simply walking away and asking the judge to withdraw their request. Why should we think the USFWS is interested in reversing this latest ruling.
The seriousness of this ruling is widespread. We must think beyond wolves. It affects every living species within the borders of our country. If Friedman’s ruling stands, this means that because the federal government declared the gray wolf either threatened or endangered in every state south of Canada, the only way the wolf can ever be removed from ESA listing is when it can do so throughout all of the lower 48 states. We know that can never happen.
Now the danger comes because there is a lessening of the desire to list species that might need so out of fear of the consequences that might follow. This will have an affect on whether the feds desire to protect a species. In short, this is abuse of the ESA, a poor interpretation and the end result is going to be the loss of some wildlife to protect another. It’s ridiculous.
The USFWS needs now to rethink any actions pertaining to other species. It needs to clearly define any and all historic species habitat out of fear it will wrongfully place a region under the restrictive rules of the ESA.
The USFWS will now be given the task of managing the gray wolf in the entire lower 48 states, a task they are not able to do. They don’t have the resources to undertake such an event. What will that mean to our other wildlife populations and the property rights of all Americans?
Much of this is unknown but an investigation into what is happening in certain areas is certainly revealing enough that it should cause concern. The facts are that in certain areas where wolves are growing unchecked and unmanaged, elk and deer populations are disappearing at historic rates. Is this really what we want? Is this really what the ESA was created for?
Livestock depredation is on the rise in specific areas along with wolf and human encounters. These surely will continue to increase. Again I ask was this the intention of the ESA in 1973 when it was written?
Environmentalists have managed to make a sham out of the ESA through their lawsuits and as much as I hate to support judges, some of their rulings are in line with the text of the ESA. Animal activism, all in the name of saving one animal, is now putting others at risk. We can’t let this happen. Friedman’s ruling is detrimental to the health and sustainability of all of our wildlife nationwide.
As I see it, should this ruling force the USFWS to opt against a listing of a species because the interpretation of the ESA is so flawed, then the environmentalists will just be forced to change their lawsuit tactics and begin suing to force the USFWS to list even when they don’t want to. We already know that the enviros believe the ESA was written to “require” the feds to list and protect every species in existence in this country.
If we don’t act immediately to rewrite the Endangered Species Act, the years of hard work and billions of dollars expended will soon be flushed down the drain.
Tom Remington
Check Out Related Articles
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
My neighbor just got back from a month long archery hunt in the St Joe river drainage, a huge area in North Idaho. He hunted there many years and always has seen lots of game. This year in a month of hunting he saw 5 elk and 2 deer. Every night they were put to sleep by howling on the ridges. If we want to keep our sport alive in the future something will need to be done about the surplus of wolves. I know of a few that have already started. I don’t think sss is the way to go maybe just s and s a shovels to hard to pack when your hunting.
Yes s and s is the way to control. You will get no help from F.x W. or anywhere else.
Just gut shoot em, their pards will finish them off for us.
I’ve lived in the St. Joe River for 24 years and hunted here for several years longer. The wolves here have depleted our game herds (and killing our hunting opportunities) to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are so few elk and so many wolves now that hunters, like Mike L.’s friend, are leaving here disgusted and empty handed. There needs to be a stop to the enviros (also supported by the U.S. Forest Service) who are pushing the Wildlands Project, Yellowstone to Yukon Project and other projects like them. The enviros want wolves in EVERY state in order to kill hunting opportunity and we will have no need for our guns… They want no human activity in the forested areas of the U.S. at all. Check out http://wildlandsproject.org and see for yourself! In August 2007, President Bush signed an executive order to preserve hunting in the U.S. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070817.html - The enviros filed a lawsuit to stop the delisting of wolves, maybe the U.S. needs to file a suit to stop the enviros!
[...] by Tom Remington at Black Bear Blog, September 30, 2008 [here] [...]
[...] friend and colleague from the Western Institute for the Study of the Environment (WISE) linked to a story of mine I did recently on the latest ruling by Judge Paul L. Friedman that placed the gray wolf of the [...]
Greets! Really interesting. keep working! Tnx!
R Says: “The enviros want wolves in EVERY state in order to kill hunting opportunity and we will have no need for our guns… They want no human activity in the forested areas of the U.S. at all.”
The enviros want some land left that has not been raped by extractive activities such as grazing, logging, mining, and drilling. They do not want your guns; many of them are also hunters and most use the forests for recreational purposes. They want the forests to be used by a full array of biota not just a few that some people believe are useful for man and to hell with the rest of them.
Greg Farber Says: “Just gut shoot em, their pards will finish them off for us.”
What a bloody comment, but not unexpected from Greg.
The enviro whackos believe in a system not of American design, it is the United Nations Charter, it is Agenda 21 of that Charter, has nothing to do with America, our heritage, or the safe gaurding of our lands. The FWS, the State Game Departments, the Department of Interior, the Endangered Species Act, are foreign treatises established by foreign groups funded by Rockefeller, and his European Banker Pals. Of course I am against it, as I am against a pack of ravenous unmanaged wolves decimating elk and deer herds, not to mention harming Rocky Mountain Big Horn Sheep,Mountain Goats, causing harm to other predators like the wolverine and couger, buy decimating their renewable foods source, digging up hibernating bears Black and Grizz alike and killing them, digging foxes from their dens and killing them, and their pups, killing coyotes, wolves like government, and Liberal ban every thing whiner hate competition. The last laugh about gun rights will be on those so called gun toting liberals who claim their “Messiah” and his liberal nazi gun hating Congress will not attempt to destroy the rest of this Nations Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. ACORN officials and the Obama team are even preparing their war chest to do just that. Perhaps Liberals are to stupid to run the nations forests with out outside influences from dangerous foreign entitys, I suggest we fire all of these clowns and replace them with real Americans who know better. We can handle our own internal forestry and game management, get the hell out of my country, and take your liberal ass kissers with you, and YES, GUT SHOOT A WOLF OR TWO so their compadres eat them up themselves, saves digging the hole, besides the wolves gotta eat something once they have eaton all the friggen other creatures in the forest up, best it is themselves. Those foreigners themselves are nothing but a pack of ravening wolves, their financial system itself proves it, I love watching mountains made of men and paper and ink frauds along with their lies crumbling around us today, brings a certain Biblical Prophecy to mind.
A recent report by the Nature Conservancy shows that since the late 80’s American participation in outdoor activities has dropped by as much as 25%
Due to this loss of connection with nature, an uninformed populace can be easily swayed by environmental groups that espouse a “no cut” policy on our public land.
We no longer understand the need for a diverse habitat to provide a home for wildlife.
Also, less game on public lands lessens the experience of hunters who can’t afford private land leases: as a result, environmentalists are not just harming wildlife, but are reducing hunter numbers
This is the kind of research to support. Not your preservationist idealogs.
Early Successional Habitat Dynamics in Former Plantations
Research topics > Large Experiments
Red Pine Plantation Prospect Hill Retained Trees
The Harvard Forest plans to harvest about 100 acres of mature plantation forests in Winter 2007-2008 in order to terminate these long term experiments, to regenerate a diversity of native tree species and restore native forests to these sites, and to initiate a new suite of long term experiments.
For the next 10-15 years, the harvested areas will provide early successional habitat for a variety of wildlife species.
http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/research/early_succession.html
George Says: “This is the kind of research to support”.
“Not your preservationist idealogs”. Whatever that means!
George, Re Harvard. It is not a reserch project but a logging plan to get rid of conifers not native to the area and replace them over time with native species.
Harvesting on public lands should be sustainable and economically feasible. Cutting trees where the cost to the government is greater than that obtained from the stumpage is not reasonable. Logging is usually detrimental to fish resources especially in steep country. Take a look at some of the landslides, many on private commercial forest land, in western Oregon and Washington following last winters heavy rains in early December. Recently logged slopes ended up in the streams along with lots of logging debris that got scattered over fields, roads, and yards. Studies have shown that the majority of these slides are logging related - mostly because of roads.
So you say, But I’m pretty sure no one is really listening to you!
Your points are obscure and you are conceited. You start your Attacks with so and so said this or so in so said that. When all you want is to look at what You say. It’s all about you isn’t it? Looks cool in print Hu?
You can primarily thank environmental organizations that masquerade as conservationists for the plight of upland birds and many other species.
Every time the USFS attempts to harvest timber, these groups use procedural appeals and lawsuits, sometimes with allies in the judiciary, to stop the project.
Their vocal protests are based on. Destroying the view along scenic roadways and from gated communities in the vicinity of public forests, often described as “view sheds.”
Forestry and wildlife habitat must be based on science, not emotion as dictated by preservationist(Is what I mean)
Preserving a renewable resource like trees to maintain a human vista at the expense of a home for wildlife is a losing position FOR ALL who enjoy our nation’s forests.
Oh Yea and I wouldn’t drink the water. I think Greg is Peeing in the creek upstream from you.
Lee, you are speaking the truth but it’s just not “convenient” (or what they want to hear) to some people!
I do not agree that forestry and wildlife habitat management must be STRICTLY based on science. Whatever happened to aesthetics? God gave us beauty in nature; we have an obligation to preserve that beauty.
I am, and its natural. Must be, cave men did it. Now you know I shit in the creek too. Better to wash me bum off as well.
Whats Beatrical doing spell checks or something ?
Oh God, Lee will love that comment.
Greg said; “I am, and its natural. Must be, cave men did it. Now you know I shit in the creek too. Better to wash me bum off.”
There Lee, saved ya the trouble. And Even I would expect me to say something like that because I’m Greg.
Greg. I don’t care if you crap or pee in a creek. When floating the MFS river the last time, the males were told to pee in the river and the females to pee in a container and then pour it into the river. There is a large dilution factor.
George considering that you had at least 65 posts and about 8500 words in the “Obama blog” you should be the last one to say that I want to see my words on the net.
Are they gonna name a net after you guys.
Didn’t read one word of any of that did you? If you did you would be ashamed of yourself. But shame is not any part of your make up is it?
Bea, Since man does not know everything about ecosystems some of it should be kept for posterity; utility and beauty. Only 5% of western Oregon’s old growth forests remain; much can and is being learned from them.
Many hunters are takers. The wordy ones on this blog say they are prolife, but take the lives of other species and only want those in the ecosystem that do not interfere with their taking. If hunters and ranchers had their way, and they almost did, we would have few or no eagles, prairie dogs, wolves, foxes, fishers, badgers, lynx, cougar, bear, black-footed ferrets, . . .
“Wildlife managers attempted to preserve a mule deer herd in the remote Kaibab Plateau of Arizona. Hunting was banned, and predators were destroyed. The result was severe overpopulation, habitat destruction, and mass starvation.”(Todays Bowhunter)
In the Kaibab, Between 1907 and 1939, 816 mountain lions, 20 wolves, 7388 coyotes and more than 500 bobcats were killed. During two winters in the mid 1920s it is estimated that 60,000 deer starved to death. Is death by starvation preferable to that by predation?
These takers have their heads in the sand - they won’t look objectively at any data that doesn’t support their view - from the weight of wolves to the population of the world.
Yawn..
Ahh, hmmmm…That was a nice napp…Well now lets see here, OH YES, Lee was attempting to understand mans social behavior and was making a poor stab at telling Beatrical…Another nutcase I will touch base on her in a moment, poor woman is deranged though, and Lee, well he keeps repeating himself over and over, when he simply should just post here once and say I hate you people, I believe in the more direct approach myself and I HATE YOU PEOPLE would suffice, but oh no, Lee wants to ramble on and on about how stupid we are and he is so so so SMART, maybe even brilliant…HA. so lets continue, and keep in mind folks I’m just a dumb hick sittin under a tall pine, with a rifle, and knife, lookin for me a deer.
NOW THEN, trying to understand social behavior which was CANTRIL GROUP, A CIA/SIS ASSET COMPANY primarily responsible for establishing the Association for Humanistic Psychology based in San Francisco that taught Tavistock methods. It is in institutions of this type that we find the lines between pure science and social engineering become totally obliterated. The term ” Social Engineering ” covers every aspect of methods used by Tavistock to bring about massive changes in group orientation toward social, economic, religious and political events and brainwashing of target people or groups (Lee-Bea) who then believe that opinions expressed and viewpoints taken are their own. Sadly this is not the case.
Selected individuals underwent the same Tavistock treatment, resulting in major shifts in personality and behavior. (Often repeating others words on a board page where others can already see them is classic case syndrome example, see Lee) The other affects of this on the national scene was, is, devastating and is one of the principle factors in bringing the United States into the twilight, decline and fall state-of-being in which the country finds itself at the close 1991-2008. Other-wise known as duped and delusional divided populance in transition from one era to another Braver Newer World, sadly this is a pipe dream leading to catastophic failure.
I did a report on this national condition under the title “Twilight, Decline and fall of the United States of America” Which was published in 1987. (Not me Him) The Association for Human Psychology was founded by Abraham Maselov in 1957 as a Club of Rome project. Another Tavistock-Club of Rome Commissioned opinion making research center was established by Risis Likhert and Ronald Lippert who called it the Center for Research in the Utilization of Scientific Knowledge.
The facility was under the directorship of Club of Rome’s Donald Michael. The center drew heavily on the office of Public Opinion Research established at Princeton University in 1940. It was here that Cantril taught many of the techniques used by today’s pollsters-opinion makers.
Thus a foreign entity has given America the lee’s and the bea’s of this nation, A completely brainwashed delusional cheerleader if you will for foreign invasive tactics of self destruction by promotion of those Foreign agents working to subvert our heritage and Constitutional values including all rights of the Bill Of Rights, which these delusional patsys think, or actually are mindcontrolled to think will be safer if those not beguiled by hogwash are DISARMED, and not allowed the luxury of a piece of fresh meat to chew on whlist contemplating world affairs.
Now I better head on over to Camp, for some brain food and more sleep. Beware of those idiots amongst us, nothing will change their minds, stay BITTER, and CLING CLING to your GUN GUNS folks, THIS HAS BEEN UNDER THE OLE PINE TREE AGAIN WITH GREGUS MAXIMUS FARBEROUS.
OUT.
Greg peddles fear not reason. I find it hard to believe that he goes into the Idaho wilderness and takes his satellite computer; is it to keep tabs on others? Perhaps he is really comfy at home and wants you to believe he is a rugged outdoorsman sitting under a pine tree. Which kind of pine is it? One from which the grizzlies get their prewinter fattening seeds? He cares not about any wildlife or ecosystem that does not have him at the center; another anthropocentric taker.
Lee, peddles, well maybe-I really doubt he can peddle actually, probably has a Walker helping him along the path to the water closet he sits on and pee’s in, unless of course he has one of those bags tied to his walker due to loss of certain bodily functions which goes with delusional behavior, like calling documented facts followed up by money trail transactions are fear, or worse paranoia, which in fact is the case with those afraid to look into the real facts around themselves outside the box of illusions in which they live, see lee. Now myself for example, I love to examine deep dark hidden agendas of the super elite crowd and expose their lies. I think it is like hunting, and its fun. I even collect books on the subjects in the thousands, for example THE ENGINEERING OF CONSENT, Bernays. A 1955 book, Bernays lays out the modus operandi of how to persuade the Lee’s and the bea’s, or targeted groups to change their minds on important issues they can and do alter the national direction of a country. the book also deals with the unleashing of psychiatric shock troops such as we see in Lesbian and homosexual organizations, enviro-whacko-mental groups and the like, see Lee. Psychiatric shock troops was a concept developed by John Rawlings Reese, the founder of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Notice the subject lee, attempts to make out his prey as a Liar, killer, hater of the environment, slasher serial killer of echo systems, never giving back but always take take take take. Another delusional outburst of the paranoid save the GHIA GODDESS poor mindcontrolled noodle heads.
They don’t have a sense of humor either.
Which kind of pine was that?
Lodge pole pine. I am moving lower to yellow and fur to look for deer in my quest to take take take take, food from the mouth of wolves. No, I am not packing a PC around, the house/corrals/barn is in the boise national forest silly. I walk out the door and I’m in it. 29 miles as the crow flies from both Wilderness units, with a wall tent in each, it is nothing to go to and fro, just toss the bronc in the trailer drive for 40 minutes and saddle em up an go. One camp is pulled out, the other is next. fishin at those lakes up high is getting tricky about now, ice every where, shucks. I’ll be stuck in the pine house soon, watching the snow pile high around me, while waxing my ski’s, and checking the harness on my shoes. So you see, I can sit in my Library/office under a huge yellow pine outside my window and mess with yer head ole boy, Now try to have some fun today Lee.
I did have some fun.
Found more of your misinformation: “Ive seen 160 pound wolves and their monsters, One killed by the government trapper about 60 miles from where I live was 176 pounds,”
You or he should get these weights verified; until then it is not worth mentioning. That would have been the largest reported wolf ever killed in NA! What an opportunity.
“Before this wolf program we had 200,000+ elk in 94-95″ According to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation the population in 1995 was 116,000. Who to believe?
RMEF Idaho elk population in 1000s
year 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 08
# 75 90 110 115 116 110 ? 115
“Idaho has cut tags of controlled elk hunts in half, yet they turn around and claim we have 180,000 elk.” The number I am finding for the 2008 populations is about 115,000.
The largest elk “harvest” prior to 1980 was in 1968 with 17,064 taken. The lowest harvest was 4135 elk in 1976. Recent harvests have been near 20,000 per year.
I read the article you listed “Wolves in Russia”. There is no mention of brucellosis and yet you stated “Brucellosis has been around forever, it spreads faster via wolves being around versus no wolves being around, Russian science proves it.” No such proof.
I know I will convince you of nothing but perhaps Tom Remington and other readers have a more open mind.
An opportunity not allowed him by FWS, who happens to own the dead wolf, and any video tape taken as well. He is an EMPLOYEE of the FWS. These trappers see things that are not told to the public, but some of it is leaked by a few of them. Because they know what is going on inside this program is bullshit.
Idaho Fish and Game showed they had 200,000 elk in 1995. The RMEF is not accurate, nor worth pissing on, as they lie and support environmental bullshit causes, I dropped out of the RMEF over 15 years ago due to LIES by them.
Chapter 5, page 77, WOLVES IN RUSSIA…Parasites and Diseases of wolves definitely covers Brucellosis and its spread, and Geists Report does as well.
Several outfitter company’s and sportsman flew Idaho last winter while we were snow covered and at best found 20,000 elk. STATEWIDE.
RMEF and IFG cook the books on harvest reports. FWS pays IDF game to lie. It is politics, not truth. Your spreading misinformation which is easy for you to believe instead of getting out and doing some real seeking of facts from people on the ground not getting a FWS check in their mail box.
But then we know you are a BIG BROTHER kinda guy don’t we Lee.
Big brother don’t never lie do he Lee. Your funny.
Buy the book and read it Lee, BRUCELLOSIS is mentioned several times in chapter five OF THE BOOK Lee. But heck, go ahead and blame some RODEO STOCK “MAY” have done it, thats easy and less work for Lazy saps like you.
Wolves in Russia, page 83….THERE ARE NUMEROUS ARTICLES IN THE LITERATURE ABOUT WOLVES SPREADING INFECTIOUS DISEASES SUCH AS BRUCELLOSIS, second paragraph. Russian science litrature is the discussion, it is a massive study, do you have it ???? Have you read it ???? I can’t find rodeo STOCK in those reports. BUT hey, lets poisen the rancher and farmer for not covering domestic dead animal dump sites and allowing wolves what ate them selves out of wild game and starving to eat dead domestic critters, AND LIVE ONES….Thus screwing up the wolfie and his running about spreading DISEASES they are KNOWN to carry…AND BRUCELLOSIS is definitely ONE OF THOSE DISEASES. Course nothing will convince you EVER, so keep attacking my IDENTITY because unlike you, I LIKES it.
EXPERIMENTAL BRUCELLA ABORTUS INFECTION IN WOLVES
S. V. Tessaro1, and L. B. Forbes Lethbridge Laboratory, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, PO Box 640, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 3Z4, Canada
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 40(1), 2004, pp. 60-65
Abstract: Four juvenile male wolves (Canis lupus) each received an oral dose of 1.6–1.7×1012 colony-forming units of Brucella abortus biovar 1 isolated from a bison (Bison bison) in Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada), and two others served as negative controls. Infected wolves did not show clinical signs of disease but did develop high Brucella antibody titers. Small numbers of B. abortus were excreted sporadically in feces until day 50 postinoculation (PI). Very small numbers of the bacterium were isolated from urine of only one wolf late on the same day that it was infected, and very small numbers of colonies of B. abortus were obtained from buccal swabs of three wolves for up to 48 hr PI. Two infected wolves euthanized 6 mo after the start of the experiment had no lesions, and colonies of B. abortus were isolated from thymus and most major lymph nodes. The other two infected wolves euthanized 12 mo after the start of the experiment had no lesions, and smaller numbers of brucellae were recovered from fewer lymph nodes compared with the wolves killed 6 mo earlier. The sporadic excretion of very small numbers of brucellae by the wolves was insignificant when compared with the infective dose for cattle.
Discussion: A variety of species can become “spill-over” hosts of B. abortus in areas where brucellosis is enzootic, but these species are sentinels rather than vectors of the bacterium. Programs to control or eradicate brucellosis by managing the primary reservoir hosts, such as cattle and bison, have succeeded under these conditions. Although wolves can harbor B. abortus in circumstances where prey species are infected, this experiment would suggest that wolves do not play a significant role in maintenance and dissemination of B. abortus and should not pose an obstacle to eradication of the disease.
This is scientific research.
As another reader pointed out brucellosis was present around Yellowstone NP before the reintroduction of wolves.
Of course Brucellosis was around prior to wolves reintroduction facade took place. We already had wolves, in Northern Idaho, Central Idaho, and Wyoming, via photo and eye wittness reports. Russian Science contradicts the above research. I want a third opinion, and then a fourth.
You must know the Red Mountain Area a bit ? And Bear Valley, and Cape Horn, And Valley Road, Vanity Lakes ? Myself and others watched wolves in these area’s in the 70s-80s-90s. I also saw wolves in Yellowstone, and so did other people prior to this “reintroduction” Even though when pointed out the Park Rangers attempted to claim people did not know what they were looking at.
Having hunted Canada, I certainly did to know what I was looking at in Wyoming back country. WOLVES. Nothing in size compared to these lately, but still in the 100+ pound class. And nothing in numbers either.
No one on this site said wolves spread brucellosis, BUT that further investigation and research should be done on the subject due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence that they could be spreading this disease and others, to the contrary of popular beliefs such as YOURS.
Now about the RMEF estimates for Idaho elk numbers for 2008 at 115,000. Either a lot of others do believe their figures or there are 115,000 elk in Idaho. This figure is listed by Jesse’s Hunting Outdoors Forum, Hunting Illustrated, Lufkin Daily News, Field & Stream, Hunting Life, and Bowcast for starters.
You mention flybys last winter and the count was 20,000 statewide. What % of the population does this represent?
I have never seen the population listed anywhere close to 200,000 except by you.
On to the giant wolves. The FWS, Department of Interior, doesn’t usually take out depredating wolves. That is done by Wildlife Services (WS) an arm of the Department of Agriculture that “protects” the agricultural interests from wild pests like prairie dogs, blackbirds, wolves, and especially coyotes.. How far did he have to travel to turn it over to FWS? No chance to weigh a world record on the way? What a shame! FWS is keeping this a secret? Excuses, escuses..
In addition it is highly unlikely that wolves with an average weight of 101 pounds would be producing progeny that are 75% larger in just 15 years.
I’ll locate the source on 200,000, I’m certain it was a State government source, and was filed here in my manual files. 1995 would be the year, 2007 The flyboys said IFG estimates show 180,000 elk, thus the question to IFG offices of WHERE ARE THEY. If we have 100,000 elk, then their on the CANADIAN Border. Find one Idaho Winter Range known to hold 10,000-20,000 elk in past years, and explain what the hell happened to those elk, because the Sportsmans and Outfitters Associations flew those snow covered ranges in 2007, and guess what Lee, no elk, certainly not thousands of elk. We had the Largest elk herds in the lower 48, where are they ? And I don’t beleive elk, programed from birth to do what they do, changed their own programs and moved to Oregon, like wolf hugger groups tried to claim, thats horse shit and you know it. I say we find our elk, and let the chips fall where they may, who lied, gets exposed no matter who it is. Units 48-49-36-35-33-34-39 Do not have the herds they once did, I hang in those units all the time, The elk numbers in those units have never been so down in my life, I hear from folks in the Clear water country the same things.
Sorry, I do not trust main stream mags period, I do not trust fish and game biologists who see ten elk and write down 30. THEIR OWN ADMISSION….A life time crawling hiking riding and skulking those units listed is of worth, real value, its time to listen to the people on the ground. BUT, choose not to, It is already to late. And the proof will be unrefutable one fine day, and you know what, It will not be me chewing CROW.
It is not the trappers wolf Lee, it is not his to call a record, it is his job to remove it, as it is not his job to allow you or I to sse all his VIDEO shot while in the field, of sport killing taking place in Yellowstone. Did they ask us to put the wolves out in the states ? NO, Do they have any legal obligation to report animal weights or show video proof of actuall behavior ? NO. Why would they. They never asked us in this “DEMOCRACY” to vote on this program, they just did it. Ive seen some very large dogs in the woods, bigger than any other I’ve seen. The dog in question that got the problem with was huge, 7′ in length, 36″ at the shoulder, I saw it. Get over it.
Frost is the key here, don’t slip.
Hey now Lee, mind telling us who you worked for…what was your career ? Who is paying you that retirement check each month ?
Which Idaho hunt unit do you live in Lee ?
Colorado has the most elk, about 250,000 - not Idaho.
Still no answer? - “Several outfitter company’s and sportsman flew Idaho last winter while we were snow covered and at best found 20,000 elk. STATEWIDE.” What % of the Idaho population does this represent? Quit throwing in all sorts of extraneous information that has nothing to do with the question asked. A straight forward question should be answered in like fashion.
I will believe a 175 pound wolf lives in the Rockies when there is a record of such and not before.
Now who did this “trapper” work for WS or USFWS?
Wolves in the Great Lakes
Considering the number of wolves in the Western Great Lakes area and that their numbers in Minnesota were to be monitored for 5 years before hunting would be allowed it probably would have been in the best interest of most parties if the wolves had not been relisted under the ESA. However, I am not a lawyer. Hopefully, they will be delisted again. Had Montana, Idaho, and particularly Wyoming taken a similar approach rather than planning to drastically reduce the wolf numbers they may have stayed delisted in those states.
The groups that filed the lawsuit in April of 2007: The Humane Society of the United States, Help Our Wolves Live, Animal Protection Institute, and Friend’s of Animals and Their Environment. I don’t consider these to be environmental groups.
“Ron Refsnider worked as a biologist in the FWS’ Endangered Species Program for 23 years before retiring in 2007. For most of that time he was associated with the wolf recovery program in the Midwest, and he was the primary author of the FWS’ 2007 WGL DPS delisting rule.†He has a good discussion of this issue includiing:
“There are now 18 months of solid data showing that the Midwestern states are successfully managing their delisted wolf populations, and wolf mortality at the hands of private citizens did not skyrocket following delisting, as had been predicted by delisting opponents. These data make it crystal clear that Midwestern wolves neither need, nor qualify for, the protections of the ESA. One of the above alternatives, or perhaps another, almost surely will be pursued by FWS, and Midwestern wolves will again be delisted in the near future.â€
Greg, why the sudden interest in my background? Want more ammunition with which to insult me?
Had you been paying attention you would know that I live in western Oregon on 105 acres. My goal is to improve habitat for wildlife including plants. The endangered western pond turtle lives on “my” property along with plants you probably don’t give a damn about either. Mammalian wild life I have seen includes fisher, bobcat, cougar, black tail deer, coyote, ringtail, skunk, racoon, otter, mink, fox - red and grey, squirrels including native grey, california ground, and eastern fox; mice, moles,voles, bats, shrews, gophers, and . . . - you are probably already yawning and wishing you hadn’t asked the question.
Since this land was strip mined for stream cobble about 30 years ago, there are a lot of low spots that fill up with water in the winter. As a result I have numerous waterfowl all winter. My favorites for beauty are the woodies and hoodies. I like the way the ringbills and buffleheads slide into the water in contrast to the puddle ducks that really have to work at it and do a lot of thrashing before they are submerged. I also feed other birds: finches, junco, sparrows, hawks, . . . if you want the whole list of >100 bird species let me know. Yawn.
And then there are the amphibians, which have had a great decline here over the past 20 years including red frogs, pacific tree frogs, and most noticably, western newts; and the reptiles - N & S alligator lizards, blue tailed skinks, western fence lizards, gopher snakes, racers, garters, and rubber boas. I carry a pillowcase in my car so that I can transfer snakes I encounter in high traffic areas to my property where, hopefully, they will be a tad safer.
Greg Farber Says:
“I’ll locate the source on 200,000, I’m certain it was a State government source, and was filed here in my manual files. 1995 would be the year, 2007 The flyboys said IFG estimates show 180,000 elk,” .
So you say, but proof is lacking. Show the source.
Yes list all those 100 other species of birds would ya ? 1994-1995 Idaho Fish and Game estimated elk populations were 180-200 thousand elk. I did a blog about this topic, I did 137 blogs in total at one site, this is well known, since friday this site, with over 1400 other blogs, has crashed. We are hearing today, it is financial. Instead of a click away, I am in manual files, I am not looking for your % nor your link, the numbers were state numbers. Have a heyday—weve been crippled. enjoy. http://www.saveourelk.com Your in Oregon ? Yet a big expert on my back yard ? Funny. By the way, I’m not gonna give up my IFG, FWS, private contracting trapper connections so you can get them fired from their jobs. Your place don’t sound boring at all, sounds like mine here, all 168 acres of it. Thousands of trees and wonders to admire. My summer favorite are the humming birds swarming the porch by the hundreds….I can sit there and watch them for hours..yawn. Oh, and that 115,00 is another ESTIMATE….Well I estimate it is INCORRECT. Did you know that my home is 100% self sustained power/water and energy efficiant, I am off the grid 100%, except of course the silly phone line. Floor heat, via electric boilers, wood heat via stove, for that occasional wine by the fire….green house as We eat raw vegan next to that elk/deer meat your wolves will never eat because I stole it out their mouths, HA. Well sit tight there Lee, your wolves are moving your way, course some will go to Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Washington…seems their runnin out of elk to waste around these parts….thats why they made off with 19 head of horses and mules the other night…no harm done…I reckon they thought it was funny blowing them broncs thru the fence and watching them vanish in the night…sue is nice listening to them howling here, wait till they reach your little spread, your gonna love em.
Greg “Yes, list all those 100 other species of birds would ya” Why should I, You have never shown an interest in native species other than “game animals”. Thumbs down. If really interested check out western Oregon birds.
1994-1995 Idaho Fish and Game estimated elk populations were 180-200 thousand elk.
Your an idiot Lee, assuming you know a person via electronic means. You only blog here to harrass hunter gatherer people, and you assume they are nitwits, twits. Well guess what pard, We take care of sick and broken animals here…we get them back on their feet and return them to their owner or the forest…We sit and identify animals/birds with photograph’s to pass the time, mostly birds. I can name the rest on sight. My better half can name most birds on sight if not all, as she has never hesitated to call out a birds identity while in the forest with me, or else where. I raised a wolf in the 70s, and a Badger. I have eighteen animals living with me and hanging with me. http://www.saveourelk.com Hunters didn’t waste ungulates, you did, by supporting a lie, illegal use of taxpayer funds to support FWS and ESA for the NON VOTED ON WOLF PROGRAM which is a massive failure. Enjoy your new brave world under Uncle Sambo and the united snakes of america. Enjoy the Great Depression II coming to a JUNE near you.
IFG…180-200 thousand elk 1994-95. A year ago they claimed 180…now its 115….WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY THEN, under the snow or scat….thats where.
I knew you couldn’t name 100 birds.
Greg, did you read post 38? “You only blog here to harrass hunter gatherer people”. Not so.
I am aware of saveourelk. Early on they claimed the dead wolf held up by the WS agent was 200 pounds! Their whoppers were bigger than yours.
Still no answer to my question: You mention flybys last winter and the count was 20,000 elk statewide. What % of the Idaho elk population does this represent?
“Your an idiot Lee, assuming you know a person via electronic means.” I certainly don’t assume I know you - nor do I want to.
Greg look: IDAHO ELK POPULATION STATUS
LLOYD E. OLDENBURG, Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Boise, Idaho 83707
Historic estimates were that the 1965 statewide elk population was 81,000 and in 1975, we estimated 50,600 elk statewide.
[...] this past September, Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, made a ruling that involved returning gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region back to federal protection [...]
[...] this past September, Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, made a ruling that involved returning gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region back to federal protection [...]
[...] this past September, Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, made a ruling that involved returning gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region back to federal protection [...]
[...] this past September, Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, made a ruling that involved returning gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region back to federal protection [...]
[...] this past September, Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, made a ruling that involved returning gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region back to federal protection [...]
[...] followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in [...]
[...] followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in [...]
[...] followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in [...]
[...] followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in [...]
[...] followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in [...]
[...] followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in [...]
[...] followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in [...]
hello it is test. WinRAR provides the full RAR and ZIP file support, can decompress CAB, GZIP, ACE and other archive formats.
pgjxpubikztjphxcflcssokxnbbznqgrbbthello