FWS Declares Hyenas Threatened In U.S., Establishes Critical Habitat
January 25, 2010
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced it would place the striped hyena, most readily found in northern and eastern Africa as well as in Asia from the Middle East to India, on the Endangered Species Act list. Once the Final Rule is published, USFWS will designate much of Texas, Kansas, New Mexico and Arizona as critical habitat for Hyaena hyaena.
After months of pressure from environmental groups, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Preserving the Rights of Hyenas, the USFWS buckled and proceeded with the listing. The three environmental groups claim they have unearthed some mysterious scientific evidence that unquestionably proves that if hyenas were introduced into these regions, they might survive. It would require removing all ranch land and the bulldozing of several towns.
Hyenas have never inhabited these regions of the United States but the groups feel, and now the Obama Administration is convinced, that there is an outside possibility that if they had of inhabited these regions and if they were there today, they just might survive. It is for those reasons the USFWS has administered the Endangered Species Act to help save the hyena.
Barack Obama stated this weekend while touring about the U.S. trying to find something the American people might believe him about, that when he said he would bring science back to its rightful place, this is precisely what he had in mind.
“Let me make myself clear. America has turned a corner. And I want to say that with the help of such qualified, honest and outstanding scientists as Al Gore, Michael Mann and Phil Jones and Michael Moore, I am convinced that ranchers and citizens in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico and Arizona have no need to prosper and protect their private property. And I want to say, they have too many livestock now and it is time they shared a little of their wealth. Let me make myself clear, again. The hyenas, if they ever find their way from northern Africa to this region, will be granted unprecedented protection and be allowed to ravage any and all livestock and other wildlife species in those regions. We are finally returning science to its rightful place. And one more thing. I just want to say, I will appoint a hyena protection czar.”
For those of you who have chosen to read this far, I hope you have been intelligent enough to realize this is nothing but an outrageous and ridiculous story. It is however not that far from the truth. Take for example this New York Times editorial one of my readers was kind enough to send me the link to.
It seems that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under pressure from the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, has opted to designate the jaguar as an endangered species in the United States and has designated critical habitat in parts of the region along the United States and Mexico border. No jaguars live in this region but if the habitat could support jaguars they might.
In prehistoric times, these beautiful cats inhabited significant areas of the western United States, but in the past 100 years, there have been few, if any, resident breeding populations here. The last time a female jaguar with a cub was sighted in this country was in the early 1900s.
But somehow magically after repeated lawsuits from the federally funded environmental groups, the feds have “evaluated new scientific information” and opted to designate critical habitat.
This is nearly as absurd as my hyena story and it’s really only about one step away from reality. Once an environmental group or groups can pester the USFWS with lawsuits and “evaluated new scientific information”, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that striped hyenas once roamed parts of the United States. With the continued abuse that has been allowed of the Endangered Species Act, we have learned that a species doesn’t have to be extinct, only missing from U.S. territory. Whether present climate and habitat can support these species anymore is irrelevant.
Actions by environmental groups and decisions being made by the USFWS on such issues has to be brought in check. If not, we just may be designating parts of the U.S. critical habitat for more things than just hyenas.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Arizona Introduces “Firearms Freedom Act” Bill
January 20, 2010
Arizona has become the 20th state to introduce a clone of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, Arizona HB 2307, sponsored by Representative Nancy McLain.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
New Pipeline Delivers Water to Arizona Elk Country
October 7, 2009
MISSOULA, Mont.? Elk and other wildlife on the parched Arizona landscape now have six new, reliable watering sources thanks to a landmark pipeline project spearheaded by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
The partly buried 1½-inch pipe, 12 miles long, delivers useable wastewater from the City of Tusayan to areas south of the Grand Canyon?Arizona?s famous Unit 9 hunting area.
As part of this project, seven stand-alone water catchments also were built in the area.
The Elk Foundation expended $348,000 on this project using contributions from donors, proceeds from Arizona hunting permit raffles and grants from RMEF banquets and other fundraisers across the state. The Arizona Game and Fish Department provided $520,000. Other groups supported the project with volunteer labor and in-kind services.
Across the Southwest, water often is the missing ingredient for healthy habitat. In an average year, conservation agencies and organizations in Arizona annually spend over $100,000 hauling water into elk country. Severe drought can drive expenses way up.
?It took six years to design, facilitate and build this pipeline system but the valves are now open and water is flowing. From now on, in all but the most extreme drought years, we shouldn?t have to haul water into this region,? said Clair Harris, an RMEF member from Flagstaff, Ariz., who helped organize volunteer labor for the project.
Harris said more than 100 volunteers from every RMEF chapter in Arizona helped build the pipeline and catchments.
Over the years, RMEF funds and volunteers have been involved in the construction or renovation of over 30 watering sources across Unit 9. With the new additions, biologists agree the area now has a good minimum supply of water.
?Wildlife in this area is absolutely tied to these water developments and the new pipeline provides an efficient, reliable distribution system that will be beneficial for many species including elk, deer and other big game,? said John Goodwin, habitat specialist with the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Goodwin said the pipeline is supplied from a runoff pond at the Tusayan water treatment plant, supplemented with reclaimed effluent, snowmelt and rain. The pond is heavily used by local wildlife. A pump moves surplus water through high-density plastic pipe that won?t crush beneath vehicles, break from freezing or degrade in sunlight. The line is buried where soils are deep and runs along the surface where the ground is rocky. Water flows into six strategically located, fiberglass storage tanks averaging about 7,000 gallons each. Each tank is then connected to an auto-fill drinking device accessible to wildlife.
Stand-alone catchments are designed to collect rain and snowmelt on site, store water in 20,000-gallon holding tanks, and dispense water into drinkers.
The Kaibab National Forest approved the project after lengthy environmental analyses.
Goodwin credited the Elk Foundation and especially Harris as ?a tremendous asset for coordinating progress on the ground and rallying volunteer labor so the project didn?t have to rely on contractors or paid employees.?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Is USFWS Authorized To Create Distinct Population Segments?
September 10, 2009
We learned on Tuesday that federal judge Donald Molloy refused to grant an emergency injunction to stop the wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana. What we also learned is Judge Molloy believes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot “carve out” the state of Wyoming from the rest of the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf population. Molloy suggests that by excluding Wyoming from the removal of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act list is a violation of the Act.
“The Service has distinguished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science,” Molloy wrote. “That, by definition, seems arbitrary and capricious.”
To Judge Molloy and others, that may well appear “arbitrary and capricious” only because they are entrenched in the politics of the gray wolf issue and are perhaps refusing to take the entire ESA into account with its scientific intent to conserve and protect species…….all of them.
The ESA, like most bills constructed in Congress are long and complicated. When lawyers get into the act, intent of laws sometimes get muddled and lost. The intent of the ESA is to preserve and protect species from becoming extinct to what is considered practicable. I contend the Act gives the Secretary of Interior the flexibility to do what is in the best interest of protecting species. Again, I reiterate that in all discussions of protecting species, consideration has to be given to all species. It is “arbitrary and capricious” to endanger one or more species while utilizing the ESA as a heavy-handed weapon to achieve personal agendas – in this case, protection of the wolf at all costs.
There is argument to make that excluding Wyoming is “arbitrary and capricious” if one is focused on politics. I don’t recall anywhere in the 47 pages of the ESA where it factors in politics. It speaks mostly in reference to the best science and information available at the time decisions are made. Sometimes protecting species requires the isolation of political problems.
Excluding the politics, doesn’t it then become in the best interest of the people and the other wildlife species that state fish and wildlife officials have determined are in danger in certain areas because of the wolf, to remove the protection of the ESA in order to protect and preserve all the species? Wyoming is excluded because of politics and that issue needs to be solved separately.
The question still remains, at least according to Judge Molloy, is whether the USFWS has the authority to exclude Wyoming from the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves delisting? The Secretary within the Act has been given the authority to protect species and past history has shown us that it is a common practice for the USFWS to create certain “Distinct Population Segments” or DPS.
The courts seem to be hung up on the issue that the ESA says very little about DPS. From that it seems they deem the action illegal. The only reference within the Act about DPS is this:
(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.
The Act itself proposes that we set up programs to protect a species from going extinct. To make that determination, the Act also sets up guidelines that must be met before a species can be considered for an endangered or threatened listing.
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In 1978 the United States decided to declare the gray wolf an endangered species in all the lower 48 states with the exception of Minnesota – gray wolves there were listed as “threatened”. Because of previous court rulings, one has to question whether the USFWS had the authority to list wolves in the lower 48. More on that in a bit.
In 1994, the USFWS created the Yellowstone Non Essential Experimental Population (NEP) of gray wolves. It’s intent was to bring wolves back to the park. A NEP listing, according to the ESA, is such that it is considered not essential to the protection of the species but with a goal that it could one day be recovered and delisted. In NEP areas critical habitat is not designated. Another criterion of the establishment of a NEP is that it must be isolated from an existing species of the same.
(j) EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS.—(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘experimental population’’ means any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.
Argument has been made that the creation and expansion of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population, all declared NEPs, was illegal as known populations of gray wolves existed in Northwestern Montana and portions of Idaho. (Another story)
In 1998 another NEP was designation in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and into Mexico. By April of 2000, the USFWS set up three Distinct Population Segments for administering the ESA and protecting wolves.
Those DPS did not last long. In 2005 in National Wildlife Federation, et. al v. Department of Interior, Judge J. Garvan Murtha ruled the creation of the three DPS in violation of the ESA.
In February, 2008, the USFWS created the Western Great Lakes DPS and set out to delist the wolf in this region.
In February 2008, the USFWS designated the Northern Rocky Mountains DPS and set out to delist the wolf in that region.
July 2008, Judge Donold Molloy rules against the removal of the gray wolf from endangered protection. Molloy’s ruling was for an emergency injunction. The full case brought against the USFWS was never heard as the USFWS withdrew its plan to delist the wolf. It was later revived.
In July 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a Federal Court in Washington, D.C. ruled that the USFWS did not have legal authority to create the Western Great Lakes DPS for the purpose of delisting the wolf. In his opinion he stated that this was in violation of the ESA, the same as Murtha’s ruling but using different reasons.
And most recently, the same Judge Molloy, ruled against the injunction and indicated that in the upcoming lawsuit of Defenders of Wildlife v. USFWS, the plaintiff’s claim that it is a violation of ESA to exclude Wyoming, may have merit.
We now have two judges who have ruled that creating DPSs are a violation of the ESA and a third considering such. What’s interesting is the Murtha ruling is based on the “DPS Policy” used by the National Marine Fisheries as reason to declare the creation of a DPS in violation of the ESA.
Friedman, on the other hand, remanded the case back to the USFWS (an unusual move) in order that they provide him with a clearer definition of a DPS.
What will Molloy use? Rulings are all over the place with neither of the two previous rulings citing the other. It really appears more like a case of ruling against a DPS because they wanted to than a finding of law violation.
Politics aside, science and evidence are telling us some of our other wildlife are suffering as a result of too many wolves in certain locations. State borders should have nothing to do with this. States manage their wildlife according to zones or districts. It has become the best available scientific method to do so and provides for better management broken down into smaller more manageable areas. This same principle should apply to the management of wolves throughout the entire NRM range.
To declare that carving Wyoming out of the picture as being “arbitrary and capricious” is showing one’s ignorance of the best wildlife management practices. The statement itself is political. As I said, the reason Wyoming is excluded is political. That problem needs to be resolved separately. In the meantime, wolves and all other wildlife species need to be managed. Delaying that process is irresponsible and is in itself a violation of the ESA.
This entire debate has become nauseating and a waste of time and money. Molloy has through his ruling, admitted that there are plenty of wolves and killing a few isn’t going to hurt anything. If he is to claim he must rule by the law, then be the first judge to actually rule using something substantial found in the ESA. Judges are supposed to interpret the meaning and intent of laws and rule accordingly. The ESA did not intend for wolves to run amok throughout Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, destroying other species putting them at risk and in need of protection from the same ESA. That’s ridiculous.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
America’s Top 20 Trophy Elk Counties
September 9, 2009
MISSOULA, Mont. America’s top 20 trophy elk counties have produced a combined 602 record-book bulls, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has invested millions to keep habitat in those counties in top condition.
Elk Foundation projects in trophy counties have included prescribed burns, treating noxious weeds and thinning overgrown forests to enhance forage for elk and other wildlife, restoring riparian zones, constructing wildlife drinkers, brokering land deals that improve public access, many kinds of research, public and youth education, and more – all funded primarily through our network of volunteers and system of fundraising events,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.
Of course, RMEF funds identical projects all across elk country, not just top trophy counties. Nationwide, at a cost of over $448 million, RMEF has completed 6,371 projects that have protected or enhanced more than 5.6 million acres. The effort has helped U.S. elk populations grow by over 40 percent since 1984.
Trophy statistics below were compiled from Boone and Crockett Club (B&C) records. The club recognizes four categories of elk records. Those categories, along with their respective minimum scores for inclusion in B&C all-time records, are: American typical elk?375, American non-typical elk?385, Roosevelt?s elk?290, and tule elk?285.
Here are America’s top 20 trophy elk counties with RMEF conservation activities*:
1. Coconino County, Ariz.?61 bulls in B&C records including 44 typical and 17 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1987, RMEF has spent $1,741,848 on 158 projects that conserved or enhanced 126,393 acres of habitat in and around Coconino County.
2. Apache County, Ariz.?59 bulls in B&C records including 37 typical and 22 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1987, RMEF has spent $766,703 on 65 projects that conserved or enhanced 87,505 acres of habitat in and around Apache County.
3. Clatsop County, Ore.?40 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1991, RMEF has spent $47,177 on 11 projects that conserved or enhanced 693 acres of habitat in and around Clatsop County.
4. Navajo County, Ariz.?39 bulls in B&C records including 23 typical and 16 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1987, RMEF has spent $532,902 on 55 projects that conserved or enhanced 59,153 acres of habitat in and around Navajo County.
5. White Pine County, Nev.?36 bulls in B&C records including 26 typical and 10 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $1,570,832 on 62 projects that conserved or enhanced 109,260 acres of habitat in and around White Pine County.
6. Columbia County, Ore.?31 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. RMEF has not yet launched a project in Columbia County.
7. Humboldt County, Calif.?30 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1995, RMEF has spent $148,945 on 13 projects focused on habitat inventories and elk population surveys in and around Humboldt County.
8. Catron County, N.M.?29 bulls in B&C records including 22 typical and 7 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $331,188 on 51 projects that conserved or enhanced 200,808 acres of habitat in and around Catron County.
9. Clallam County, Wash.?28 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1993, RMEF has spent $101,728 on 13 projects that conserved or enhanced 577 acres of habitat in and around Clallam County.
10. Garfield County, Utah?27 bulls in B&C records including 20 typical and 7 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $284,158 on 36 projects that conserved or enhanced 73,023 acres of habitat in and around Garfield County.
11. Jefferson County, Wash.?26 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1989, RMEF has spent $141,961 on 16 projects that conserved or enhanced 6,323 acres of habitat in and around Jefferson County.
12. Park County, Wyo.?26 bulls in B&C records, all typical American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $939,328 on 39 projects that conserved or enhanced 68,450 acres of habitat in and around Park County.
13. Gila County, Ariz.?25 bulls in B&C records including 16 typical and 9 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1987, RMEF has spent $182,398 on 29 projects that conserved or enhanced 37,502 acres of habitat in and around Gila County.
14. Coos County, Ore.?23 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1989, RMEF has spent $75,794 on 8 projects that conserved or enhanced 6,423 acres of habitat in and around Coos County.
15. Tillamook County, Ore.?23 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1992, RMEF has spent $70,911 on 25 projects that conserved or enhanced 2,874 acres of habitat in and around Tillamook County.
16. Del Norte County, Calif.?21 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1995, RMEF has spent $161,023 on 11 projects focused on elk habitat inventories and research in and around Del Norte County.
17. Park County, Mont.?21 bulls in B&C records including 18 typical and 3 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1985, RMEF has spent $136,550 on 51 projects that conserved or enhanced 103,679 acres of habitat in and around Park County.
18. Elko County, Nev.?19 bulls in B&C records including 16 typical and 3 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1991, RMEF has spent $594,314 on 41 projects that conserved or enhanced 37,654 acres of habitat in and around Elko County.
19. Millard County, Utah?19 bulls in B&C records, all typical American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $75,359 on 11 projects that conserved or enhanced 34,130 acres in and around Millard County.
20. Solano County, Calif.?19 bulls in B&C records, all tule elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1998, RMEF has spent $27,088 on 6 projects that conserved or enhanced 450 acres of habitat in and around Solano County.
*Note: Many habitat conservation projects, such as prescribed burns in national forests, straddle county lines. In these cases, the project, affected acres and costs are attributed to both counties. Thus, RMEF data above cannot be used to calculate cumulative totals.
For more about Boone and Crockett Club, visit www.boone-crockett.org.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Is There Really Any Such Thing As “Pure” Wolf
August 19, 2009
For purposes of education and nothing intended as political, although in discussing wolves the task of remaining non political becomes nearly impossible, it has often been asked whether wolves reintroduced into the Northern Rockies or Desert Southwest are in fact the same animal that roamed those areas in its day. Perhaps the truth is we don’t know. One possible danger could be the creation of an imbalance to that particular ecosystem, while at the same time some people believe the wolf to be an integral and necessary part of the ecosystem. But what part?
If you will recall, Teddy Roosevelt often documented in his writings about wolves and coyotes. He relates his experiences with the Native American Indians how they cross bred dogs in order to get a useful beast for work and hunting. Roosevelt also described in detail his sightings of wolves in his travels, making account of the variations in size and behavior from one region to another.
In numerous discussions, some claim the wolves we see in the wild, including those introduced into the United States were “pure” wolves. Others question whether there is such a thing. In our haste to populate regions of this country with wolves, we have pushed to create distinct species and subspecies of the wolf. Back in March I told you about environmentalists in the Northeast region of our country that wanted to recognize, document and declare wolf-dog hybrids as a separate species and move toward their federal protection.
Through researching and studying this creature so frequently recorded in history, much of which is deemed as lore, I’ve had access to varying records of historic accounts of wolves, albeit many times anecdotal evidence.
Recently I received through a group emailing a series of historic notes or excerpts taken from records of many years. These accounts speak of the frequent and common inbreeding of wild wolves with domesticated dogs. I thought that in combination with links to previous historic accounts, this would shed some light on the possibilities that there even exists a “pure” wolf, or the same ones that roamed our regions years ago. It might help us all understand better the kind of animal we are dealing with.
~~~~~~~~~~
Late 1700’s, Western Hudson Bay – “the Dog… resembles the wolf, but in size is greatly inferior… They run and bite in silence, never barking but sometimes howl egregiously… It is usual for our [Newfoundland] dogs and also the native breed to copulate with wolves, and the offspring retain the moroseness of the latter.”
Williams, G. ed., intro by R. Glover. 1969:33. Andrew Graham’s Observations on Hudson’s Bay, 1767-91. The Hudson’s Bay Record Society, Vol. XXVII, London.
————–
1801, Park R. Post, North Dakota – “We had a Bitch [in heat]… I turned [the dogs] out and drove them all to the plains when a band of Wolves being near hand, and getting the scent of the bitch approached them, and a furious battle ensued, in which one of our dogs was torn to pieces, and left dead on the spot. This is frequently the case at this season of the year, when the Wolves are copulating and our dogs get among them they are often torn to pieces. The female Wolves it would seem prefers our dogs to their own species, and we now see them daily coming near the Fort and endeavour to entice the dogs out onto the plains with them. This often happens, when if the dogs do ever return again, they are in a most miserable condition, lean and covered with sores. Some of my men have amused themselves by watching their motions and when they have observed them in the act of copulating have rushed upon them with an Axe or Club, when the dogs apprehending no danger would remain quiet, and the Wolf being prevented from running off was instantly dispatched.”
Gough, B.M., ed. 1988:106. The Journal of Alexander Henry the Younger 1799-1814, Vol. 1:Red River and the Journey to the Missouri, The Champlain Society, Toronto.
—————-
1861, St. Cloud, Minnesota – “I saw a large brown and red dog at the hotel, so wolfish in appearance that I enquired his pedigree. I was told that he was half wolf and raised as a train dog for the sledge… and that such dogs were raised and kept at Georgetown for this express purpose. In the rutting season the she dog is taken into the woods, tied and left. She is found there when the heat is upon her by the wolf… and the result is a cross breed… The wolf dog I saw… [described]’ p 121
Morgan, L.H., 1999:121. The Indian Journals, 1859-62. Dover Publications, New York. Originally published in 1959, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI
————–
1851, Fort Union, North Dakota – “Indian dogs differ very slightly from wolves in appearance, howl like them, do not bark, and not infrequently mate with them.”
Kurz, R.F. 2005:172. On The Upper Missouri: The Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz, 1851-1852. Edited and Abridged by Carla Kelly. Introduction by Scott Eckberg. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman
————-
1859, Fort Edmonton, Alberta – “They are mostly of the ordinary Indian kind, large and long-legged and wolfish, with sharp muzzles, pricked ears, and thick, straight, wiry hair [of many colours]… Most of them are very wolfish in appearance, many being half or partly, or all but entirely, wolves in blood. One dark grey dog… was said to be almost a pure wolf…”
Southesk, Earl of. 1969 [1875]:152-53. A Diary and Narrative of Travel, Sport, and Adventure, During a Journey Through the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Territories, in 1859 and 1860. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas; 1969 by Charles E. Tuttle Co. Publishers, Rutland, Vermont & Tokyo, Japan.
————
1845, southern Saskatchewan – “an immense number of dogs… follow them from the [Metis] settlements for the purpose of feeding on the offal and remains of the slain buffaloes. These dogs are very like wolves, both in appearance and disposition, and, no doubt, a cross breed between the wolf and the dog. A great many of them acknowledge no particular master, and are sometimes dangerous in times of scarcity. I have myself known them to attack the horses and eat them.”
“At night we were annoyed by the incessant howling and fighting of innumerable dogs and wolves that had followed us to the hunt, seemingly well aware of the feast that was preparing for them…”
Kane, P. 1925:53, 61. Wanderings of an Artist Among the Indians of North America. The Radisson Society of Canada Ltd., Toronto.
———-
Assiniboine word for dog = “Shunka”; and wolf = Shuñkto-ka-cah,” which means “Literally, the other kind of dog.”
Denig, E.T. 2000 [1930]:189. The Assiniboine. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Reprint from Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1928-1929
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
ESA Manipulation To Fulfill Personal Agendas
August 14, 2009
It’s what’s wrong with the Endangered Species Act. The intention of the Endangered Species Act as amended was aimed at ensuring that we would do what we could to protect species from extinction. Its purpose was not so that dream weavers could twist the Act in order to allow for pet wildlife projects to be enacted in their own backyards. This is what is going on with the wolf in the southwest region of our country.
The Center for Biological Diversity announced that they have petitioned the Obama administration in hopes of getting the Mexican gray wolf declared a separate subspecies in order that they can better run programs to protect, promulgate and propagate wolves in their backyard playgrounds.
On Tuesday, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Obama administration to upgrade protection of the Mexican gray wolf as a separate subspecies or distinct population. Right now, Mexican wolves are lumped in with other gray wolves on the endangered species list, so there’s no identified number of Mexican wolves to aim toward as an endpoint in recovery. If our petition is granted, it will compel the development of a new recovery plan that includes recovery targets, designation of protected critical habitat zones, and expansion of reintroduction efforts.
This is a clear attempt at manipulation of the Endangered Species Act. This is merely an attempt by a special interest group to use voodoo science in order to promote personal agendas. If this petition is granted by the Obama administration, then there is nothing to stop every special interest group in this country from declaring “Distinct Population Segments” of any species they desire to have brought to their private little playgrounds and protected.
President Obama promised to return science to its rightful place in making such decisions. We’ll see if he will stand by his claim as it pertains to wolves.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
“Bear Logic”
July 25, 2009
I’ve always heard since I was a youngster hunting with my Dad, that wild animals were very much creatures of habit. I recall vividly Dad telling me that when hunting white tail deer that often deer will follow the same trails at around the same time doing their daily or nightly routines UNTIL some guy clad in hunter orange clothing and carrying a gun intrudes and messes it all up.
Darren Choate, “About the Hunt”, tells us of his experiences of setting up a game camera and tracking the movement of a bear in preparation for the upcoming bear hunting season. It is quite uncanny, the timing of the bear’s visit but more importantly it’s remarkable the “bear logic” conclusions or at least hypothesis Darren arrives at after doing some calculating.
Are bears that predictable? Stay tuned as Darren says he’ll let you know.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Time Line Of Gray Wolf From Endangered Listing To Present
February 25, 2009
I discovered this page on the website of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and thought I would post it here. It’s a pretty good resource in that it covers a time line from 1974, when the gray wolf in the lower 48 states was declared endangered, to the present time when the Obama administration put a halt to the Proposed Ruling to remove the gray wolf from federal protection in parts of the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Western Great Lakes.
On January 20, 2009, Rahm Emanuel, Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, issued a memorandum concerning the management of the Federal regulatory process at the beginning of the new Administration. As relevant to the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) & Western Great Lakes (WGL) wolf Distinct Population Segment (DPS) rulemakings, this memorandum directed all agencies to withdraw from the Office of the Federal Register all proposed and final regulations that have not been published in the Federal Register so that they can be reviewed and approved by a department or agency head appointed by the President.
FWS Announces Final Rule to Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and to Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
October 2008 – Reopening of Comment Period on Proposed Rule Establishing and Delisting the NRM Gray Wolf DPS
* Federal Register Notice Reopening Comment Period
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana Court Orders
* Montana District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order (July 18, 2008)
* Montana District Court’s Vacatur and Remand Order (October 14, 2008)
* Federal Register Rule Implementing District Court Rulings (December 11, 2008)
February 2008 – Final Rule Establishing and Delisting the NRM Gray Wolf DPS
* Federal Register Notice (868 KB PDF) Literature cited list
* Press Release
January 2008 – Final Rule for Revision of Special Regulation for the Central Idaho and Yellowstone Area Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves
* Federal Register Notice Literature Cited
* Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA (1.2 MB PDF)
* Press Release
July 2007 – Reopening of Comment Period on Proposed Rule Establishing and Delisting the NRM Gray Wolf DPS
February 2007 – Proposed rule Establishing and Delisting the NRM Gray Wolf DPS
August 1, 2006 – FWS Announces 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Establish and Delist the NRM Gray Wolf Population:
January 2005 – New Regulation (10(j) Special Rule) Allows Greater Management Flexibility of Gray Wolves for the States of Montana and Idaho:
2005 – Final Rule to Change Status of Gray Wolf Throughout Most of the Lower 48 States Overturned:
* Oregon District Court Decision
* Vermont District Court Decision
2003 – Final Rule to Designate 3 District Population Segments and Change the ESA Status of the Gray Wolf throughout Most of the Lower 48 States:
* Federal Register Notice (670 KB PDF)
1994 – Establishment of Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves:
* Federal Register Notice (HTML)
* Federal Register Notice (6 MB PDF)
1978 – Reclassification of the Gray Wolf in the United States and Mexico, with Determination of Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnesota:
* Federal Register Notice (1.1 MB PDF)
1974 – Gray Wolf Listed as Endangered in the Lower 48 States and Mexico:
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Reemergence Of Jaguars
February 21, 2009
Here’s an interesting article about the reemergence of jaguars into Arizona and parts of the southwest.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Being Prepared To Thwart A Home Invasion
February 11, 2009
Are you prepared? Check this out!
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Debunking The Myth That Wolves Don’t Bite
February 10, 2009
Once again the attention of some in this country was yanked away from President Obama’s so-called economic “catastrophe” last week, to be subjected to the cries from the unbalanced animal extremists that Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin
One of the reasons I bring up the Alaska wolf management story is that through discussions about this topic and links to some of the articles I have written about wolves, I discover people on numerous websites discussing these very same subjects. And what do I find? I read account after account of people saying that wolves are harmless and that there has never been a wolf attack on a human before…at least a recorded one. Knowledgeable people on the subject know this is not true. I want to help you understand that statement is not true.
What makes this chore challenging is that once I attempt to present evidence that runs contrary to the repeated bad information out there, I get accused of being a wolf hater, a killer of living things, that I have wolf phobia, etc., etc., simply because I am interested in the truth and passing that on to others. A wolf, like any animal, should be treated with respect but also, like any animal, it needs to be understood and treated for what it is. To do that we need to understand their habits.
The love affair with animals and in particular the wolf is not exactly a United States or even a North American thing. It’s mostly global and I think it safe to say it began much about the same time as tie-dye t-shirts became popular. As that generation grew up and most of it is now in power, we are left with the “make love not war” generation. These same leftovers also infiltrated the ranks of environmentalism and animal rights.
Hence the notions and myths that have been passed down and continue to be passed down through our education system and at home, are readily accepted as being fact. We all hear that all animals, wild or domestic, are cute and cuddly creatures. After all, who can resist a baby animal of any kind…….or at least one with fur on it? Wolves, seldom, if ever, are presented in a light that reflects their bloodthirsty side.
We want so badly to believe that nature can take care of itself by excluding man from the big picture of our earth’s ecosystem. As much as we want that, man is at the top of the food chain and short of doing something drastic, as has been suggested by some extremists, man isn’t going to disappear. Over time we’ve learned to do a pretty respectable job at taking care of our animals. The problem that now exists is that some want to carry that caring to extremes, which is not only irrational but unnecessary and perpetuated by myth, sometimes intentional but mostly through repeated fairy tales.
The very opening paragraph of Will N. Graves’ book, Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages, sets the stage for something nobody in North America has had to experience, at least in modern times.
“Throughout the ages, wolves in Russia have been linked to a brutal and tragic history. One result is that most Russians are afraid of wolves. The night howling of wolves terrorizes the Russian soul and sends cold chills running up and down the spine. Upon hearing wolves howl, humans and everything living in the forest and fields stand still as if frozen. Wolves are beautiful, interesting, intelligent and adaptable creatures, however, by nature and habit they are also violent, ferocious and, at times, bloodthirsty. Wolves may kill more animals than they need to eat – this is called “surplus killing”. The fear of wolves, and the terror of being bitten by a rabid one, has left an indelible imprint on the Russian mind, for the bite of a rabid wolf was lethal and the death was agonizing. Louis Pasteur developed the first vaccine against rabies only in the 1880s. Imagine living in a country where over 500,000 wolves were killed in the short period from 1946 to 1970. About 272,400 wolves were killed in the USSR between 1947 and 1951, and 1,500,000 were killed during the existence of the USSR. In the late 1990s, wolves in Russia were still terrorizing villages and occasionally killing humans, to say nothing of wild game and domestic animals.”
During the period in the USSR when 1,500,000 wolves were killed, thousands of human beings were killed and eaten by wolves. While it is important to point out that a majority of these attacks came from diseased wolves, many hundreds occurred with very healthy animals. We can’t disregard the savage deaths of those who fell victim to healthy wolves simply because we just don’t want to believe it.
Are there great differences between life in Russia and the circumstances surrounding the wolf attacks there compared to here in the United States? Absolutely there are differences and there are commonalities as well. One big difference was that here in the U.S. people were allowed to have a gun to protect themselves. As people moved out further into the rural areas to settle, they often encountered wolves and other large predators. Guns were not banned by our government and owning one provided a means of protection.
In Russia, the government controlled most everything, including the means with which wolf populations could be controlled. Scary thought isn’t it?
We now have a vaccine for rabies. They didn’t years ago and sick wolves, by themselves, would attack and bite people, sometimes a passing bite as they would run by, eventually leading to the agonizing death of the one bitten, due to rabies.
“Wolves in Russia” provides ample documentation of wolf populations, wolf control measures, what caused wolf populations to rise and fall, how wolves attack, attacks by sick wolves, attacks by healthy wolves and much discussion of effective and not so effective methods to control wolf numbers.
They key here is that under the right circumstances, wolves will attack a human. We have been witness to this in the most recent case of one Kenton Carnegie who was attacked and killed by wolves in Canada. You can read that story here.
“Death By Wolves And Misleading Advocacy. The Kenton Carnegie Tragedy”, was written by Dr. Valerius Geist. Dr. Geist assisted, at the request of the Carnegie family, in investigating the death of Kenton Carnegie. Attempts were made to quickly dismiss that Carnegie was attacked and killed by wolves. Part of the perpetuating myth that wolves don’t harm humans reared its head in this investigation. It is unclear to me why people are so closed minded to the fact that wolves can and will attack and kill a human. History shows this to be fact and yet we, the animal protectionists, prefer to see wolves as that fascinating, romantic creature silhouetted in front of a full moon.
Dr. Geist, one of our foremost authorities on wolves, has offered us many times, “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?” I would like to reprint his seven stages leading up to a wolf attack on humans.
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].
Another account in wolf history comes to us from Northern Italy – “Historical data on the presence of the wolf and cases of man-eating in central Padania” This recently translated account covers events between humans and wolves from the 15th to the 19th centuries. Like in Russia and the information provided to us by Dr. Geist, what transpired in Italy greatly supports much of the same evidence pertaining to wolf behavior.
In this small area of Northern Italy, over 400 cases were recorded of attacks on humans by wolves. The evidence compiled led researchers to reach certain conclusions, which helps us to better understand wolf behavior. Here are some valuable data that closely follows that of Dr. Geist.
It has also been possible to identify two very distinct kinds of aggression against man by wolves:
A) When the attacks have dietary motivations:
* They occur in a rather vast territorial range;
* They are occur homogenously in a long period of time, sometimes even many months;
* They occur principally against young people;
* More than one wolf can be involved;
* If the attack is not interrupted, the victim is transported elsewhere and then dismembered;
* If the attack is interrupted, rabies does not occur in the injured victim.B) When the attacks are committed by rabies infected individuals:
* The attacks are numerous, concentrated in a small territory, with a behaviour which we can call “bite and run”, and occur in a brief period of time;
* Men, women and children are attacked indiscriminately;
* Unmistakeably committed by an isolated individual;
* The attack never concludes with the transportation of the victim elsewhere or the successive dismemberment. Hydrophobia is diagnosed in the victim and then his/her death is recorded.In both cases, the incident generally concludes with the killing of the wolf: in the former case, attacks disappear for some time, while in the latter, the disease is ascertained.
Researchers in Italy were able to find common ground by examining their own information with that of wolf attacks in Europe and India and came up with what they believe to be reasons why wolves would attack humans.
we have found some common constants: in nearly all cases the attack occurs in marginal areas and, despite expectations, attacks are very rare in scarcely populated areas; the attack is generally against children. We have therefore tried to identify what contributed to the reality of Padania and Europe of past centuries and modern India. In effects, outside the temporal and geographical lapse which divides them, these two realities have in common: the increase of rural populations, the underdevelopment of the rural economy and an elevated development of marginal areas. The combination of these elements intertwines with the overgrazing of livestock in marginal territories with a consequential progressive alteration of the natural environment. Competition on plains and water holes, diseases spread by livestock, the destruction of habitat and hunting determined the disappearance of wild animals. The lack of natural prey induces the wolf to attack their domestic “surrogate”………
The disappearance of large wild herbivores, probably, influences the social structure of packs. The pack becomes an anti-economic structure if there are no large herbivores to hunt, and the biomass of prey is not sufficient for its survival. The social structure could therefore evolve toward family groups, but in particularly critical situations, it is not to be excluded that the wolf can also acquire solitary behaviours. The organisation of families and/or single individuals is more economic in the hunting and utilisation of smaller prey and also guarantees greater security in open territories with elevated human presence…….Humans are outside the species normal prey base: it is revealed in fact that the predation is generally directed only toward domestic ungulates, but an attack against livestock can accidentally conclude in an attack against man. At the point at which the victim of the attack is a young person, the predator gains a gratifying experience which can start a predatory behaviour toward children. The prey-child is also able to be dragged elsewhere and is sufficient for the dietary needs of a small family group. The wolf turned man-eater, if not quickly eliminated, can easily culturally transmit this predatory behaviour to other members of the group…….On the basis of compared situations, when the wolf is present in numerous populations, with ample available territories and high concentrations of goats and sheep, even when wild prey is particularly scarce, verified attacks against people are rare. In characteristically opposite zones one cannot exclude the insurgence of this atypical behaviour. In conclusion, we retain that the wolf can acquire man-eating behaviours when simultaneously, the following problems are present:
* dietary (scarcity of both wild and domestic prey)
* territorial (scarcity of available territories)
* demographic (reduction in population)
* social (breaking up of pack structure)
Once again we clearly see that Dr. Geist’s Seven Steps of when wolves become a danger to man, very closely follows the conclusions drawn in the Northern Italy study.
World wide, wolves have been attacking, killing and eating human flesh for centuries. In most of these cases it has been the result of sick wolves but without question, hundreds and even thousands of cases are recorded of healthy wolves attacking humans.
Here in the West we continue to insist that wolf attacks on humans are rare, in which they are, but we carry that further by stating nobody in North America has ever been killed by a wolf attack. We also tend to quickly dismiss any talk of attacks by wolves that don’t involve death and dismemberment.
Contrary to what seems common rhetoric, history gives us a look at wolf attacks. The 2002 study by Mark E. McNay, “A Case History of Wolf-Human Encounters in Alaska and Canada” gives us examples of recorded wolf attacks on humans. McNay breaks down for readers the kinds of wolf behavior associated with the attacks studied – 80 cases.
We also have documentation by T.R. Mader, research division of Abundant Wildlife Society, (Wolf Attacks on Humans) of many recorded and witnessed attacks on humans by wolves, some of them resulting in death and many of them from seemingly healthy wolves.
The point to much of this discussion is certainly not an attempt to convince readers that wolves are slinking about the countryside seeking someone to devour. What it is is an attempt to educate people that the myth that has been perpetuated now for decades that wolves are completely harmless is inaccurate and potentially dangerous.
We have documented evidence that healthy wolves attack humans. In that evidence I’ve provided data that would indicate under what circumstances wolves may turn on humans. This information is valuable and should be heeded.
If we revisit for a moment the history of wolf attacks in Russia, I pointed out that the government of Russia prohibited the majority of its citizens from owning guns. They had little protection and the government controlled everything including the management of wolves.
Upon examination of the evidence provided we can see that wolves and humans can coexist provided that the animal is properly managed. Here in the United States with efforts underway to restore populations of wolves, continued lawsuits and federal control leaves citizens in much the same predicament as Russian peasants where many years ago. We can’t strip the right of the people to protect themselves and their property.
If we take to heart the conditions set forth from the Italian study of when wolves will attack humans and couple that with Dr. Geist’s Seven Steps, we need to make absolutely certain that we do not allow for any of those conditions to persist in order to protect the people, their property, as well as the game animals and other wildlife we have worked so hard for so long to restore. And this is why we cry out to the federal government to allow the states to properly manage the wolf in conjunction with their own wildlife management plans. After all, aren’t they the ones who better understand the conditions that exist within their communities and ecosystems?
The federal courts have to stop listening to and buckling to the demands of the animal rights groups who clearly want only to see huge numbers of wolves dotting our landscape. This is potentially very dangerous. Real science and documented history must be used by our courts to put a halt to such needless and senseless lawsuits.
Hiding behind old tired out rhetoric that wolves are completely harmless solves nothing. There is truth in the statement that for the most part people should no worry about wolf attacks but believing they are immune to any type of danger is irresponsible. That worry can be substantially reduced but we must allow for proper management. Without it we run the risk of creating the exact set of circumstances that would lead to wolf attacks on humans.
Without management of wolves, we sit on our hands and allow the population to grow at a rapid pace and out of control. Prohibiting the use of hunting as a management tool allows the wolf to habituate with humans removing what should be a natural fear of us. With a growing and out of control population of wolves, we are allowing the animal to decimate our ungulate populations, their most common prey species, along with a destruction of their own habitat. In essence they eat themselves out of house and home. Then what?
This one lack of responsible wildlife management sets the stage for certain trouble and we cannot sit by and watch it happen. Wolves and man can live together but it has to be done within the demographics of what is real. We can’t try to force more wolves into an area that can’t sustain them hoping they will disperse before the damage is done.
Without the management and control that is needed now, we will begin to rewrite some of the history of wolf attacks on humans. I don’t think we want that.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Agency Wolf Count Comes Up Short Again
February 7, 2009
The US Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies working on the Mexican wolf reintroduction have just released their yearly wolf count report. Wolf numbers in 2008 haven’t changed significantly in the past year.
Agency personnel failed to find suspected newly formed packs that they had evidence of in earlier in the year, says Laura Schneberger President of the Gila Livestock Growers Association. While it is possible that animals that were killed could have contributed to the yearend count it is clear they did have significant conflict with human beings and were killed by those close encounters. Had the agency followed protocol developed in the rule, those animals might be alive now,” says Schneberger.
Solving wolf livestock conflict was not prioritized in 2008 and problem wolves were left on the ground. Some ranchers were provided range riders during high depredation seasons as part of an experimental livestock conflict prevention program but clearly more genuine effort by agency personnel is necessary to develop long term solutions to wolf conflict. It may be too late for some ranchers who have had it with dealing with the agencies.
During 2008 the agency did not see a lessening of wolf removals as implied in their press release. They chose to comply with the wishes of environmental organizations who demanded the agency stop removing problem wolves.
“The agency chose to ignore the people dealing with the depredation and instead focused their efforts on releases. That hasn’t helped their relationships in our communities.” says Schneberger.
The agency says performance of the wolf packs was not up to par. Only 11 pups were reported to have survived out of 7 litters documented to exist in collared wolf packs from the spring inventory of known wolves. It is possible the rabies outbreak or documented inbreeding regression could be responsible for small litters and survival rates.
Rabies has been an ongoing problem in the area, the Luna pack, made up of one collared vaccinated animal and 6-8 uncolored wolves simply disappeared in the wilderness in the summer of 2008. Personnel trapped for months to collar two previously unknown wolves to make up for the loss of the original Luna pack.
“Instead of admitting wolf reintroduction has natural pitfalls the agency blithely attempts to blame the failures of their program on local people by implying the population would be doing better if people weren’t shooting them. I am not the only one that doesn’t appreciate those kinds of spin tactics but it has become their habit. It is somewhat disingenuous of the agencies leadership to imply that some illegal actions are the cause for their continued failure when the agency themselves have no capture collar or vaccination program for pups born in the wild. This is a sad situation because most ranchers simply don’t bother to call on the agency for intervention anymore because this year they refused to appropriately mitigate livestock depredation despite assurance of Dr. Benjamin Tuggle.
An example of mismanagement can be seen in the 2008 shooting of the Laredo pack alpha male, agency volunteers were working with an area resident in a populated community to stop the wolf pack from killing sheep and goats. The volunteers chased the wolves to neighboring property where they began attacking calves on deeded land. The owner who had not been informed of their presence mistook the wolf for a large feral dog shot the animal.
There were several serious incidents involving wolf like animals that the agency simply does not discuss with the media or the public such as the slaughter of three alpaca’s on deeded land by uncollared wolves, something the FWS investigated but due to lack of collared wolves in the area did not recognize as a wolf attack. “These animals are not born with telemetry collars says Schneberger so it is really hard to get personnel to recognize any they don’t want to claim and the counts are really just an exercise in futility.”
Contact: admin@wolfcrossing.org
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Statement on USFWS Plans to Introduce More Mexican Gray Wolves in the Southwest
January 24, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
R.J. Smith, Senior Fellow, The National Center for Public Policy Research
Washington, DC – For a quarter of a century the controversial program to repopulate the Southwest with Mexican Gray Wolves has created a constant political struggle in New Mexico and Arizona. There were very good reasons why the early settlers across the West and the local, state and federal governments cooperated in eliminating the wolves. The large numbers of wolves made cattle and sheep ranching nearly impossible with their constant depredations on the livestock and they also threatened family dogs and even children.
However, as radical Greens have gained influence with liberal politicians and the media, they have been able to gain support for their efforts to force family farmers, ranchers and landowners off the land and return it to dangerous predators. It is part and parcel of their ongoing program of “rural cleansing”: to remove people from the land and return it to near wilderness. It is part of a massive program called the Wildlands Project, which even enjoyed support within the Bush administration’s political appointees in the Department of Interior.
The USFWS has said that the federal efforts to reintroduce the wolves require the release of still more wolves in order to improve the chances for success. By success they must mean the total elimination of people and livestock in the Southwest. Apparently they have noticed that there are still some ranchers managing to survive who have not lost all their livestock. The chief Mexican Wolf official with the Southwest field office of the USFWS said that the current recovery plan’s target wolf population is not high enough.
There have been continuous conflicts in the relatively limited areas where the wolves have already been released over the last decade. Constant wolf attacks on livestock and farm dogs, wolves circling farmhouses at night and wolves gathering near rural school bus stops. There have already been calls for building wolf-proof bus stop shelters in order to protect children from possible attacks. It is widely know that federal officials seldom respond quickly enough following reports of livestock predation to document the event and attempt to capture the specific wolves involved. Although the feds have had to recapture some wolves which have repeatedly been involved in predation, their often slow response has led to examples of ranchers and farmers acting to protect their livestock and their families.
Yet the feds not only want to release still more wolves but they want to release them across a far wider area of the Southwest.
One wonders what oath of office the politicians took who acted to place the well being of wolves before that of American families and children.
Posted by Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Programmed Failure In Wolf Relisting
January 6, 2009
One all too frequent aspect of government initiatives is that they often are doomed to failure from the get go. The design is such that the planned action is guaranteed to fall apart sooner rather than later and never achieve the putative goals. I call that “programmed failure” and the examples are numerous, from affirmative action to welfare. The cases are so numerous and ubiquitous that programmed failure might be said to be the principal function and overriding style of our modern Federal and state governments.
Programmed failure is abundantly evident in the latest “relisting” of Rocky Mountain wolves. The manner in which the US Fish and Wildlife Service put wolves back on the Endangered Species List is so fraught with contradiction and legal screw-ups that it cannot stand the light of day.
Some background: Years ago the USFWS released Canadian wolves into Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in a (misguided) attempt to “reintroduce” the species. The wolves multiplied to huge (but expected and predicted) numbers. Over the last few years the burgeoning wolf population has decimated deer and elk herds, and wolves have taken to slaughtering sheep and cattle on private ranches. The situation is out of control.
Read the rest at Western Institute for Study of the Environment.
Tom Remington
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.
