Research that the Department of Interior is using to render a decision on whether to list the polar bear as endangered is critically flawed, according to Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School and others who were part of an audit group formulated by the State of Alaska.

Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.

According to Science Daily, Armstrong says that in order to list a healthy species as endangered, you have to have “valid forecasts”.

“To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”

Armstrong says that his group examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports and found that the most relevant study, “properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles”. They also determined that these same studies showed that 69% of the information was “contravened”, to some degree.

The group further states that the studies failed to substantiate “assumptions” of melting sea ice or the ability of the polar bear to adapt to changing climate patterns.

In short, Armstrong has determined that any ruling, whether to list or not list, cannot be scientifically substantiated using the flawed studies the Department of Interior is using.

Next!

Tom Remington

climate change, Department of the Interior, endangered species act, global warming, polar bear research, prof. j. scott armstrong, science daily, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey

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

On this past Thursday’s Open Air radio show, I shared with you an article written by Hugh Hewitt about the foreseeable troubles and real agendas behind the push by environmental groups to get the polar bear listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act. You can get some information and listen to the radio broadcast here.

In Hewitt’s article he has this to say about what could happen if the polar bear gets protection.

Once listed, the Federal Endangered Species Act is very clear: Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Act.

What sort of federal actions? The most obvious would be any activity on or near Arctic ice, but that’s not the gold ring the environmentalists are reaching for.

They will argue that every federal permit that allows directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons is a federal act that might impact the polar bear –every port expansion, every refinery opening or repair, every Army Corps of Engineers permit that allows for more homes or office buildings to rise.

It is quite shameful I think, that we have resorted to thinking of extreme “what ifs”. Most people, at least those who have even heard that there is a push by environmentalists to list the polar bear, think it a simple act to ensure that the bear doesn’t get wiped out because of climate change. That’s not the case but more on that later.

When species are presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection, essentially what must be proven is that a species must be “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” What would set this ruling apart from others is that it would be based on something that hasn’t happened, on computer models that are being questioned by science as reliable and on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide is melting the ice globally. This has never been done before.

If Hewitt is correct in his analysis, which by the way he supports by sharing information stating such from the Center for Biological Diversity’s website, that having the polar bear protected would have sweeping affects on our economy, we have to ask ourselves how far could this “regulation” go?

As hunters and fishermen, shouldn’t we at the least be nervous that if the theory of global warming, caused by man, is used to protect the polar bear, what else can it be used to protect? The polar bear isn’t anywhere near in danger to “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” and if this ruling were to happen, then feasibly other game species could become protected, essentially putting the hunting and fishing industry out of business.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has made public a paper, written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour, that explains in great detail what is likely to happen should our federal government cave in to the pressures from the environmentalists and list the polar bear. They give six reasons why listing the polar bear is a bad idea.

* Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.

* Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.

* The anthropogenic global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.

* Listing the polar bear as threatened because of estimated future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.

* Listing the polar bear based on projected anthropogenic global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.

* Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.

Knight and Ridenour point out that Dr. Mitchell Taylor, polar bear biologist for the Canadian province of Nunavut’s Department of the Environment, says there’s no need to panic about polar bears.

Climate change is having an effect on the West Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighboring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population (Davis Strait) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story.

If the environmentalists can convince the feds that global warming is threatening the polar bear and they choose to list it, then we can only conclude that our government believes the same and this precedent could set off a domino effect on countless other game animals with no end in sight. Knight and Ridenour don’t really believe the environmentalists are that concerned about the bear and are more interested in their carbon emissions agenda.

What environmental groups have been unsuccessful in accomplishing through the front door, they appear to be hoping to usher in through the back - namely, restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions similar to those mandated in the U.N.’s Kyoto global warming treaty, which the U.S. Senate has not ratified.

Once any animal is protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Act itself opens the door to lawsuits in which the courts have little choice but to administer the Act as it is written and interpreted. Knight and Ridenour point out the fact that the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “take” can be expanded beyond belief.

This definition gives regulators wide latitude in deciding which actions can be deemed “harmful” to a listed species or its habitat. It also provides ample fodder for environmentalist lawsuits to prevent certain public or private activities. Thus, in the opinion of federal regulators, should anthropogenic global warming be deemed harmful to the polar bear or its habitat under the ESA, the mere act of emitting greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, could be heavily regulated, or in some instances, outlawed entirely.

As I stated before, the entire premise of the environmentalists to get the polar bear protected is based on the theory of global warming. The idea that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is warming our planet is shaky at best, although those who have signed on to the theory refuse to take a look at the real science that disputes climate change as man made.

In the same radio broadcast on Thursday I spoke of earlier, an article I shared with listeners told of new data from new state of the art equipment showing that computer models that are predicting global warming are wrong and need to be reworked. With new information being learned daily about our complex weather patterns, isn’t it irresponsible to threaten our own economy based on a theory?

Few people also realize that if the U.S. lists the polar bear as threatened, it will only stop U.S. hunters from traveling to Canada and hunting the bear. Those numbers will be replaced by hunters from other countries and more than likely the amount of money being spent to hunt the bear will be significantly reduced. Much of that money is used for polar bear conservation. Safari Club International tells it this way.

Listing would undermine conservation by curtailing the involvement of U.S. hunters in Canadian sport hunting of the polar bear, disrupting an important source of funds to support polar bear management and conservation. Since the ESA listing would not stop polar bear hunting, but merely the ability of U.S. citizens to import polar bears, the listing would accomplish nothing in terms of reducing the number of polar bears taken. Instead, native subsistence hunters and/or sport-hunters from countries other than the U.S., who will likely pay much less for the polar bear hunt than U.S. citizens, will fill the market. The result of listing likely will be continued take at current levels, with less revenue for polar bear management and conservation. The $1,000 per import permit for research and conservation also would be lost.

How far do you think the environmentalists will go? How far do you think the government will go? What kind of affects would listing the polar bear based on the theory of global warming have in administering its management under the Endangered Species Act?

I encourage you to read the entire article written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour. It has tons more information and resources for you than I could possibly get into this column. Nobody wants to see the polar bear disappear. The population has doubled in recent years since hunting of the bear became regulated. There is presently ample treaties and agreements in place that have proven they will protect the polar bear. We don’t need to list the bear based on a theory. Not only is it unnecessary but it would be extremely costly.

There is one more thing you need to do. You need to go to this link to the National Center for Public Policy Research website and view the parody video ad they have put together about the polar bear. It’s light, entertaining and worth seeing polar bears dressed in formal attire.

Tom Remington

amy ridenour, carbon dioxide, Center for Biological Diversity, climate change, dr. mitchell taylor, endangered species act, global warming, greenhouse gases, hugh hewitt, National Center for Public Policy Research, nunavut department of the environment, Peyton Knight, polar bear, Safari Club International, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

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

These are pretty remarkable photographs of which I have very little information. Can’t find anything on Snopes or Truth or Fiction. This is the caption that came with the photos.

“This is Brooks Falls just upstream from where the Brooks River flows into Naknek Lake in the Katami National Monument, Alaska. Have you ever seen a Wolf fish for salmon?”

Real? Photo Shopped? Got any info?

Tom Remington

Alaska, gray wolves, katmai national monument, wildlife photography, wolf fishing salmon

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

When I pull up my swivel chair in front of my computer screen in the mornings and open up my mail box, I never know what I might find. This morning I had quite an array of photos. I picked two that I thought to be interesting and also quite different from each other to share. I don’t think either needs a caption as I believe the photo says it all.

Tom Remington

dog full of quills, dog pictures, gathering of eagles, wildlife pictures

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

Alaska state trooper Howard Peterson thought the sky was falling when a large black object came out of the sky and hit the highway only about 20 feet in front of his cruiser. It was a moose.

My brother, who lives in Anchorage, sent me an email last night making wise cracks about the moose event, so I began to look around and found a short Associated Press article about the event.

Peterson said the moose fell from the cliffs above the highway some 150 feet. No one is sure what happened. It could have been the wind, ice, snow…..do moose have bits of depression and commit suicide? Maybe the global warming outlook was getting to him.

These particular cliffs, my brother says, are commonplace to spot Dall sheep but not moose.

Tom Remington

alaska moose, howard peterson, moose falls from sky

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

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

Dr. Valerius Geist, george dovel, kenton carnegie, mark mcnay, The Outdoorsman, wolf attacks on humans, wolf habits, wolves

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

I have already come to the conclusion that unless the Bush administration, more specifically the Department of the Interior, determines that the world is coming to an end, the first to go are polar bears, that we should all double our taxes to protect them, sell off all our defense weapons, retreat from Iraq and have all the first born in the republican families killed, there will be no satisfaction.

I think the Bush White House thought they were doing a good thing when they agreed to take a closer look at polar bears to see if they needed further protection - further than the “International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears” signed in 1973 by the U.S., Canada, Norway, the former USSR and Denmark, which in 1973 governed Greenland. These were the countries with polar bear populations.

The agreement outlawed unregulated hunting of the bears and banned hunting them from planes and ships. It also required the 5 countries to protect polar bear denning areas and their migration routes. They would also share any research data collected. This agreement and subsequent enforcing seems to have done a pretty good job or restoring and maintaining a world-wide polar bear population estimated at somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000.

Now the alarm button has been pushed by those fearing climate change and are demanding that the polar bear be protected by putting it on the list of “threatened” species via the Endangered Species Act. Is this really necessary? Does it really matter now whether it should or shouldn’t be listed?

I have already said that people have already made up their minds without any scientific proof, at least any they want to hear or read, that the bear must be listed and protected.

Once the Bush administration decided to take a look at the bear, advocates of global warming and animal protectionism, began salivated over the prospects that they would have another species in which they could rake in the money over. Minds were already made up they would settle for nothing less than listing as “threatened”.

Recently, Dirk Kempthorne, head of the Department of Interior, announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needed another month to finish up their studies before making any announcement. That of course, set off an eruption throughout the Bush derangement syndrome people, saying it was a stall tactic in order to fudge the books more, muddle the scientific evidence and approve more oil and natural gas drilling within the areas these people want to shut down to the outside world.

So, does it matter what the data says? Maybe there are a few still interested in that sort of thing before jumping to conclusions. There’s a website called Animal Info that contains information on endangered mammals. I took a look at what they had for information on the polar bear. If found it helpful but also a bit confusing.

Of course the first thing I wanted to find out was what the polar bear population was world wide and within specific regions. After all, we have been told by Al Gore and his ilk that the ice is melting so fast that the bear is disappearing.

According to information available on this website, ice in the polar arctic region has been decreasing over the last 30 years.

The average extent of sea ice cover in summer has declined by 15 - 20% over the past 30 years.

Looking at more specific regions, Animal Info says that the bears in the Western Hudson Bear area have declined from around 1200 to under a 1000 bears. What they don’t tell you is probably just as or more important. What they don’t tell you is what’s happening globally over the past 30 years. You have to spend some time and dig up those figures on your own.

For example, and this info comes from the same website, the estimated worldwide population of wild polar bears in 1965 was approximately 10,000. Remember, this data given here says that sea ice over the past 30 years has declined 15-20%. Thirty years ago, in 1978, the world polar bear population had grown to somewhere around 20,000. In 1972 it was estimated at 20,000 and again in 1983.

Although I am no scientist, I am going to assume that considering the state of the polar bear population prior to the 1973 signing of the pact between the five countries hosting polar bears, this jump in population from 10,000 to 20,000 was at least attributable to that.

From 1983 until 2006, the bear population has inched up and has stayed pretty consistent in the low to mid 20,000s since. Isn’t it fair to ask how can we conclude that the polar bear is disappearing? Has science concluded what happened to the 200 fewer polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation? Did they die or did they just migrate a bit further north or find another place to den up?

Whatever the Department of Interior declares in their report, it doesn’t much matter. If the DOI determines the bear needs protecting, then we the taxpayer will have to accept that and be prepared to pay the costs. If the DOI says it doesn’t need protecting, then we the taxpayer will need to accept that and be prepared to pay the costs of lawsuits that will tie this up for decades costing taxpayers millions in unnecessary litigation costs. Either way, this debate is going to be costly.

Tom Remington

bush administration, bush derangement syndrome, climate change, Department of Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, endangered species act, global warming, international agreement on the conservation of polar bears, polar bear populations, polar bears, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

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

It might be an understatement to say that there’s a conflict brewing between U.S. Congressman George Miller of California and U.S. Congressman Don Young of Alaska. The battle stems from issues over wolf management in Alaska.

The state of Alaska, under the direction of the Alaska Board of Game and with the approval of Gov. Sarah Palin, is using aircraft to reduce the wolf population in specific areas where they are destroying the moose and caribou herds that supply native Alaskans with food. Animal lovers don’t like this and have been fighting the effort for some time. One of the radical groups involved is Defenders of Wildlife, of which it appears that Mr. Miller is a strong advocate for.

Rep. Miller is also the sponsor of HR3663(pdf), the misleading “Protect America’s Wildlife Act of 2007″, which is being promoted as a bill to stop aerial hunting of wolves. Rep. Young has pointed out on several occasions that there are already laws on the books that prohibit hunting from the air and that what is going on in Alaska is a necessary wildlife management tool - a tool that is not understood by those unfamiliar with Alaska, the area and the difficulty the geography of the region presents, along with the needs of native Alaskans.

Last Tuesday, Congressman Young, a ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter giving his reasons why his colleagues in Washington should oppose HR3663. In the process, he spells out quite clearly what he thinks of Miller’s bill and his friends at Defenders of Wildlife.

We are now witnessing firsthand one of the most cynical, disingenuous, and misleading fund-raising campaigns ever to be launched by a radical environmental group. Center stage in their campaign is Rep. George Miller’s H.R. 3663, the Wolves are Cute Act, which would end the State of Alaska’s Aerial Predator Management Program.

Young, like so many others, believe that Defenders of Wildlife, along with just about every other animal advocate group, have become so greedy to have money at their disposal to pay big salaries and keep their machine running, they now have to hand select the project they will lie, cheat and steal over, in order to be better able to play on the emotions of people to weasel money out of them.

In their efforts to muster support for H.R. 3663 while raising thousands of dollars in donations, Defenders of Wildlife have been busy inundating unsuspecting Americans throughout the country with emotional photos and inaccurate information about Alaska’s Predator Control Program.

After a plea from Mr. Young to his colleagues to take the time to better understand the truth of what’s going on in Alaska, he offers up a proposal of his own, albeit not the first time something like this has been tried.

Since the sponsor of H.R. 3663 seems to have such a deep love for wolves, and now that the Defenders of Wildlife have raised well over $100,000 on the animals’ behalf, I propose that Defenders use that money to gather Alaska’s surplus wolves and safely transport them to the seventh district of California.

This proposal is a win-win for everyone, and I would suggest my colleagues present it to Defenders of Wildlife representatives roaming the Capitol this week.

A reader here at the Black Bear Blog alerted me to the fact that Mr. Young’s proposal isn’t the first. I did a little research and found out that back in 2000, then Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a state that got wolves dumped on its front door step with the support of Congress back in 1995, suggested that wolves also be reintroduced into New York’s Catskill Mountains.

Part of Mr. Simpson’s motivation is to give New York representatives a taste of their own medicine. Like most Republicans from the West, he resents how Eastern members of Congress pad their environmental records with bills that restrict the use of Western public lands. In 1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife agents released Canadian wolves in the wilderness of his southern Idaho district. This brought loud protests from nearly all of the state’s politicians. Representative Simpson argues that restoring endangered wolves to the East is as important as saving them in the West.

I first learned of this proposal by Young while reading Amy Ridenour’s National Center Blog, which is part of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Having communicated before with Kevin Kennedy, a member of the Republican Professional Staff of the House Committee on Natural Resources, I sent him an email for more information. He sent along some links where the “Dear Colleague” letter was getting some attention in the media.

Mary Ann Akers’ “Sleuth” blog at the Washington Post has some coverage. She says Young is sending “shockingly graphic e-mail letters to his colleagues with gory photos” and likens it to “the tactics of extreme anti-abortion literature.” Not surprising that animal lovers and those who have never witnessed the realities of a wolf attack would compare it to that of abortions, of which they probably haven’t witnessed either. Notice it’s always a comparison of animals with humans, putting us on the same level.

Kennedy also gave me a link to a story which I had already read and was holding for just the right occasion. The Anchorage Daily News is reporting that residents, living in and around the same areas where the Alaska Board of Game is trying to reduce wolf numbers, are asking Alaska officials to overturn the current ban prohibiting the natives from killing wolf pups in their dens.

This is sure to stir a hornets nest and become excellent fodder for the money hungry wolf/predator advocate groups. They would like nothing more than plaster a photograph of the world’s cutest little puppy wolf dog all over in order to convince you to give them your money. This from a group claiming to care for animals yet seem to care not at all for the moose and caribou or your pet. In order to protect those predators, they tell people who have lost their pets to either move to the city or suck it up and get used to living where the wolves do - they were there first attitude.

As an excellent point of history and education, the same article points out that this was a necessary practice from many years ago in order for the natives to manage their food resources, something our society here in the lower 48 has no interest in, nor do they choose to believe it even exists. Maybe they just don’t care.

Many of the Yup’ik hunters who once controlled wolves in Western Alaska have died, but their stories have passed down, Roczicka said. People who are still alive today often share those stories, including members of Orutsararmuit, Roczicka said.

The natives are saying that if the aerial wolf management program doesn’t work or opponents become successful in stopping the killing of the wolves, they for sure will be seeking approval of this den killing as a necessary means of feeding their families.

Of course this suggestion is vehemently opposed by the conservationists/preservationists.

“We’re fervently opposed to it,” said John Toppenberg, director with Alaska Wildlife Alliance. “It’s been illegal in Alaska for a long time and deservedly so. It’s a Stone Age concept of wildlife management and has no place as a management tool for civilized people. It’s just barbaric.”

Mr. Toppenberg may think its a Stone Age thing, that’s barbaric and has no place in his society but they don’t live in his world. Sorry! Any rationally thinking person would have to ask themselves why there wasn’t a problem with wolf numbers and subsistence animals back when these “barbarians” were handling wildlife management on their own?

I don’t think that Mr. Miller will take Mr. Young up on his offer to transport the extra Alaska wolves to California but Young is trying to make his point even though some don’t like to deal in realities. Much like in 2000 when Rep. Simpson suggested to bring wolves to New York, it didn’t take long to pile up all the excuses and reasons wolves wouldn’t be good in their back yards but looked awfully precious in some unknown rancher’s back yard in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming.

There are just too many people now in this country that can’t see beyond the end of their noses. They may step into the hallway of their mid-town multi-million dollar apartment and see a neighbor and never speak to them. Or, another person walks out of their cabin, hut or shack in Aniak, Alaska wondering where their next meal may come from. The problem is both of these people are real people. They are somebody’s family, humans with needs, albeit quite different. They have a lifestyle they have chosen for whatever the reasons. I may not like the idea of someone killing wolf pups in order to survive but I am still human enough to understand, appreciate and respect that these are people. This is what they know. This is what they choose to be a part of and cannot and will not attempt to force my ideals on them.

I am also one of many millions of other human beings on this earth that place the importance of the human far above that of an animal. I read a comment left by a reader of the Washington Post article in which they asked the question.

“Who do you love more - WOLVES OR PEOPLE?”

This is a far cry from the question asked at the beginning of “The Sleuth’s” blog. She sees the entire effort by Young as a means of protecting his pet dog, proving the point that I don’t think she gets it either. She asks:

Who do you love more - dogs or wolves?

Are humans of lesser value?

Tom Remington

aerial wolf killing, Alaska Board of Game, alaska predator control program, alaska wildlife alliance, amy ridenour, anchorage daily news, aniak alaska, caribou, catskill mountain of new york, Defenders of Wildlife, Gov. Sarah Palin, grizzly bears, house committee on natural resources, hr3663, Idaho, john toppenberg, kevin kennedy, mary ann akers, moose, National Center for Public Policy Research, protect americas wildlife act of 2007, rep. don young, rep. george miller, rep. mike simpson, sleuth blog, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Post, wolf management, wolf reintroduction, yupik

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

Nearly one year ago, I reported that a 22-year old college student, Kenton Joel Carnegie, was attacked and killed by wolves in a remote area of Northern Saskatchewan, Canada.

It has taken all this time for autopsy results and testimony from assorted experts but finally a six-person jury has agreed that Carnegie’s death was that of at least two wolves.

Paul Paquet of the University of Calgary has stated that he believes the death is consistent with that of a black bear. Recently retired wolf biologist Mark McNay from Fairbanks, Alaska was called to testify. His testimony states that he is certain Carnegie died from a wolf attack. A jury agreed with McNay.

This now marks the first official case of a human death as the result of being attacked by wild wolves in North America.

Tom Remington

———–

Choosing the right kind of fishing gear can be more important to your fishing trip that you realize until you’re there. While it might not be as big of a deal as trying to go hunting with a bow and arrow and bringing shooting equipment instead of the all important archery supplies you need it’s still crucial to plan ahead.

first human death by wolves, kenton joel carnegie, mark mcnay, north american wolf attacks, paul paquet, university of calgary, wolf attacks

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

It appears that the states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have jumped onto a bandwagon suggesting that everyone, including hunters, carry and use bear pepper spray, for protection while in the woods. As a matter of fact, Idaho’s fish and game departments, along with the support of the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council, are promoting it. To the right is an ad that appeared in the Idaho Falls Post Register a few days ago.

What first raises an eyebrow for me is the fact that an ad appeared in an Idaho newspaper that carries the logo of three institutions - The Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. While many would concur that it would be commonplace to find the SC and NRDC working hand in hand, one has to question when an agency whose main function is to provide hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities to licensed Idaho residents, would be teaming up with known environmental groups much opposed to those activities.

Let’s set the record straight before we proceed any further. For people hiking and journeying into the woods in grizzly bear country, it seems that the most likely alternative you have for protection against grizzly bear attacks is bear pepper spray. There seems to be, at least from my perspective, some discrepancies in the truthfulness of the effectiveness of the spray, which I will explain and whether or not the advice to use the spray over the use of a gun, particularly for hunters, should be followed as is being recommended.

I will admit that I can be a stickler for details and along with that I think it is responsible for all parties to be completely forthcoming when advising the public on issues such as bear safety.

If you want to take the time, you can get quite a bit of information about the use of bear spray but there is one slight problem when conducting any research. I’ll help you out with providing links where I found most of my information.

One problem that shows up right away is that those agencies recommending the use of bear spray before hunters use their guns for protection, is they are all getting their information from one source, that source being the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. This holds true as well for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Note: I had difficulties in reaching their website at the link provided through a Google search or from the Forestry Service website.)

What appears to be the only real testing is that done by Dr. Stephen Herrero and Andrew Higgins of the University of Calgary, Alberta. While their testing is interesting fodder for the bear spray industry, the results cannot be used as a definitive claim that bear pepper spray works best for all occasions all the time and herein lies one of the problems I am having with taking at face value that I should opt for the use of spray over my gun in my hands while hunting.

The U.S. Geological Survey published the results of a grizzly bear/pepper spray report completed by Tom S. Smith, Ph.D for the U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center in Anchorage. Smith makes the following statement in regards to the spray testing done by Herrero and Higgins.

Although not under tightly controlled conditions nor observed by scientists, these results strongly suggest that red pepper spray deterrents work well. It would have been interesting to see if any difference existed between the various brands of spray but the data set is far too small.

As I said, this is interesting stuff but should we be claiming this as the gospel and telling people that bear pepper spray is going to save them before a gun will?

In a fact sheet put out by the USFWS called, “Bear Spray Vs. Bullets“(pdf), the following statement is made regarding statistics about injuries associated with grizzly bear attacks on those using spray versus those using a gun.

The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality — based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research — a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.

A closer look at the results could lead someone to render different results because they omitted results from within the same survey. Those conducting the study admit that the data is limited and that the number of incidences for unarmed people with pepper spray is considerably less than reported attacks on hunters. Also, if you examine the graph provided, I could say that if you want to increase your chances of living to tell your family and friends about your attack by a grizzly, ditch the pepper spray and carry a gun. 56% of grizzly attacks on those without a gun resulted in death while only 44% of those who were armed with a gun died.

Many will think I’m a bit paranoid but within the text of this report by Smith of the U.S. Geological Survey, we hunters can read this statement.

Not only are firearms in of themselves a hazard to carry but consider for a moment that a bear has charged and you’ve killed it.

This further goes on to explain what happens in Alaska when you opt to kill an attacking grizzly bear out of self preservation. I fail to accept the statement that a firearm is a hazard to carry for a hunter. Think about it a moment. This report that these state agencies are using to tell hunters to opt for bear spray over guns was clearly written for those venturing into the woods for something other than a big game hunting trip.

While not questioning the study, one has to better understand the conditions under which the study was conducted to determine how that effectively relates to the elk hunter in the wilderness of Montana. I don’t have the answers but I sure have a lot of questions.

Isn’t it a safe bet that bears within the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park will react differently to people than to those some distance outside the park hunting elk in remote areas? It seems that Herrero and Higgins alluded to this somewhat when they commented that:

Regarding brown/grizzly bear incidents associated with curiosity of searching for human foods and garbage, in 100% (20/20) of the cases the spray had the effect of stopping the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. The bear left the area in 90% of the cases.”

Here, both researchers are saying that bears searching for human food are more accustomed to humans and I think it would be reasonable to expect the bears to gene