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

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

The following sequence of photographs, taken by a German photographer named Norbert Rosing, captured what happened when a polar bear encountered his husky dogs tied up outside his Hudson Bay, Canada outpost he was staying at during a photography shoot.

According to Snopes, these photos were taken in 2006 and have been around the Internet a time or two but I thought they were worthy of posting here for those readers who hadn’t seen them. There seems to be some differing opinion as to whether or not the two animals where “playing” or “surviving”.

The first photo is a map depicting the area near Churchill, Manitoba where the incident took place.

Tom Remington

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

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

I received these photos in my inbox quite some time ago and haven’t been able to verify the exact location where the pictures were taken. I have reports that they were taken in Van Buren, Maine as well as a couple other locations along with several towns in Quebec Province, New Brunswick, Ontario and just about every other Canadian Province. Your guess is as good as mine as to where this is.

I realize too that probably many readers have seen these photos before as they have made their rounds throughout the Internet but for those of you who haven’t, I thought you might enjoy seeing them. It is a rare occasion to see one Canada lynx say nothing about four. I read one other report that said there were actually five of them here but the photographer could never get all five in the lens at one time.

Tom Remington

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

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

A man in northern Canada was attacked by a polar bear yesterday as onlookers could do nothing but watch and some even took pictures. Warning! The pictures sent to me below are not for the squeamish.

These photos were forwarded to me by Milt Inman.

Tom Remington

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

Yesterday I reported that a hunter from Calgary, Canada, who had been missing for three days was found dead about 200 or so yards from his car. At the scene it was determined that 51-year old Don Allan Peters had been mauled by a bear. Officials didn’t know if Peters died from a bear attack or was mauled after he was dead.

Today, the Edmonton Sun is reporting that Peters died as the result of a grizzly bear attack. Authorities investigating said Peters also fired his rifle before he was killed but there were no indications that the bear had been hit.

Read more here.

Tom Remington

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

A Calgary, Canada hunter who had been missing for three days has been found dead in the woods about 200 or so yards from his vehicle. Authorities believe the body they found is that of Don Allan Peters. They also confirm that Peters was mauled by a bear. What they don’t know is if the bear attacked and killed him or he was mauled after he was dead. An autopsy should reveal the cause of death.

More as I can get information.

Tom Remington

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.

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

Like similar studies done in Maine and New York, a recent study conducted in Massachusetts by Bradley White, a conservation geneticist at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, showed that the state’s coyote there is also a mix breed. The tissue samples that were collected for the study was done by wildlife biologist Jonathan G. Way of Marston Mills.

For years many have believed that the coyote found in the east was some kind of cross between a western coyote and a wolf because the eastern coyote is considerably larger than the those found in the west. New York and Maine have conducted similar studies to show that what we call an eastern coyote is a cross or hybrid mix of probably a western coyote with a Canadian eastern wolf.

Read more about this study and its results at the Republican on MassLive.com.

Note: Top photo is of an eastern coyote and bottom photo of a western coyote.

Tom Remington

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

The world has gone insane and thousands of Americans are leading the charge! There once was a day in my life when I believed that most Americans had a brain. I have since come to the realization that few do and haven’t even the slightest inkling on how to get off their backsides and learn something for a change instead of listening to the nightly news broadcasts and believing whatever it is they hear. It’s a shame and it’s destroying our country!

With that said - and I thought I might feel better about things but I doesn’t - here we go again. Another person claiming to be knowledgeable about hunting and grizzly bears tells the world how it is. An editorial appeared in yesterday’s Idaho Statesman from a woman who claims to want to save grizzly bears by banning black bear hunting and the methods used for such.

Christine Gertschen is responding to the fact that a Tennessee bear hunter screwed up and didn’t properly identify his target before pulling the trigger. He shot a grizzly bear thinking it was a black bear. While he is ultimately responsible for what he shoots at, in fairness we should point out that no grizzly bears had been seen in that part of Idaho in 61 years. Here is some of her lament.

Without guidance from the outfitter who accepted his money for this privilege, he probably did not know that this was indeed a rare bear.

To be totally forthcoming here, the hunter accused was hunting over bait, a legal practice in Idaho and other states. It is unfortunate that in one’s quest to discredit all hunters and guides and the long-time practice of hunting that has served our society well for many generations, she has to begin by generalizing and misleading readers. She claims the hunter lacked guidance from his outfitter. She does not know that. She assumes that because the guide wasn’t sitting in the hunter’s back pocket that he wasn’t under his guidance. Is it Idaho law that requires a guide to be with a client 100% of the time? She also brings money into the picture which is just another blatant attempt at smearing the guiding industry as though somehow this hunter was paying dirty money to do something that was illegal.

Then she does two things. She attempts to convey to readers that the hunter is stupid and then lies by stating that the grizzly bear is a “rare” bear. She doesn’t know this hunter from Tennessee. How in the world can she honestly claim that he, “probably did not know that this was indeed a rare bear”?

The only thing rare about this event was the fact that a grizzly bear was where one hadn’t been for over 60 years. This doesn’t change the facts of what happened but for this editorial to claim a grizzly bear is a rare bear is a lie. Alaska and much of the Canadian Rockies area have more grizzly bears than we humans know.

Gertschen obviously has issues with bear baiting and that’s her right to express her opposition to it. By not having any science or just plain facts to support any of her claims though, she resorts to emotionalism with a effort to win over her audience by crying a river.

This grizzly bear had managed to avoid humans for several years in the wilderness but drought conditions and impending hibernation drove him to the bait. This is a sad waste of a magnificent creature. If we do not act to protect grizzlies, it will not be long before the few small grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 begin to blink out.

Are we to assume from this rant that if the bear had never come in contact with any human, it would be alive today? If that is the case, then perhaps the writer should pack her bags and get out of Dodge on the first train. She is living in grizzly bear country and if she wants to save another grizzly from sure demise, then moving is the best thing for the poor bears.

All animals are a magnificent creature and there will always be circumstances beyond human control that will result in the death of some of these animals. Our fish and game departments, through billions of dollars generated from the sales of licenses, have provided all Americans the opportunity to appreciate the wild animals.

To perpetuate the lie that if we don’t do something to protect the grizzly in the lower 48 states they’ll all be gone is absolutely ludicrous. The writer chooses to describe them as “the few small grizzly bear populations”. There is absolutely no danger of the grizzly bear disappearing from areas in the lower 48 states. A testament to that is the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just removed the grizzly in parts of the Yellowstone National Park area from the Endangered list.

What is laughable is the writer’s attempt to convince us that bear baiting is causing bears to become habituated to humans and thusly the result of the ultimate death of the bear. If one is to blindly accuse bear hunters of habituating bears to humans then they cannot overlook the fact that residents who refuse to bring in bird feeders, pick up and care for their trash, etc. are the cause of far more bear killings than a handful of hunters. So let’s get rid of a few thousand humans and let the bears rule.

Scientists have learned from many years of study that fragmented populations of rare animals lead to what is called the extinction vortex. Respected conservation biologists recommend a system of core reserves and travel corridors designed to prevent fragmentation. While a roadless corridor can go a long way to allowing bears and other rare wildlife to move between populations, if every bear that leaves a protected area or park falls victim to bear baiting, we can never expect to leave a sustainable population of grizzly bears for the generations to come.

It now becomes clear that Gerschen is a sponsor of wilderness management of wildlife. Perhaps in the circles she travels, her peers believe that total wilderness with no wildlife management is the best way to save bears. Far more scientists don’t buy that philosophy at all. The reason we are saving species today and wildlife populations are overabundant in many places isn’t because of the creation of more wilderness areas.

It’s a joke really when the writer says that every time a grizzly bear leaves a protected area - aren’t all grizzlies protected everywhere in the lower 48? - it will fall victim to a hunter. Has the writer forgotten that grizzly bears are not hunted in the lower U.S.? Is she implying that all hunters and going to shoot and kill every bear that comes to visit a bait pile? One hunter made a mistake. That is unfortunate. Thousands of residents in bear country make mistakes everyday that result in the death of a grizzly. Are we now to assume that all people are out to get bears killed?

As the grizzly expands its habitat, it will continue to create more and more bear/human encounters. Through education programs we will teach out hunters about better tactics for game identification and we will continue to teach residents how to live in bear country. For me, I’ll put my money on having far better success in the education process of hunters than the general public. With that said then, if Ms. Gertschen wants to save a bear, she and a few thousand other humans should move to the city and stop being a hypocrite. Blaming bear hunters for the deaths of grizzly bears is inaccurate and only displays one’s ignorance of the facts.

Accidental death of a grizzly by hunter = 1. Deaths of grizzlies from backyard dumpster diving = 100s. So, who should we be attacking?

Tom Remington

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

Last week the state of Maine, namely the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife along with support from the United States Sportsman’s Alliance and others, agreed to settle a lawsuit filed against the state by the Animal Protection Institute for breaking the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, the lawsuit said MDIFW was responsible for the incidental taking of Canada lynx by licensed trappers in Maine. Maine does not have an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Many have wondered why and some believe the feds told them they didn’t need one.

The goal of the lawsuit filed by the API was to ban trapping because in eight years 2 lynx had been trapped and killed while 11 had been killed by automobiles. Seems a bit absurd. The basis for the lawsuit was a violation of the Endangered Species Act and therein lies the problem.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is now an outdated, overwritten document that clearly defines very little and leaves far to much to the discretion of the powers that be, namely the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department or the Department of Interior. There is a history of abuse of the Act and these abuses are becoming more numerous with each passing year. It is time for a major overhauling.

Other troubling issues with the ESA come from the result of listing certain species as endangered or threatened or in the designation of “critical habitat” when that species and/or habitat fall in perimeter areas. One prime example of this is the Canada lynx found in the state of Maine.

The Canada lynx for the most part thrives in much of Canada and Alaska. The best way to describe the habitat the lynx prefer is to take a look at that of the snowshoe hare.

Snowshoe hares are forest-dwellers that prefer the thick cover of brushy undergrowth. They are primarily a northern species that inhabits boreal forests and can also range as far north as the shores of the Arctic Ocean. Along North American mountain ranges, where elevation simulates the environment of more northerly latitudes, they can be found as far south as Virginia (the Appalachians) and New Mexico (the Rockies).

It is no secret that hares are the meal of choice of a lynx. Even though lynx will eat such things as grouse, ptarmigan, mice, voles, red squirrels, carrion and almost any other flesh, including its own, the lynx, as shown by several studies, flourish and die off in relationship to the flourishing and dying off of the snowshoe hare.

To better understand the cycles and habits of the lynx one has to fully understand the same of the hare. National Geographic describes the up and down life cycle of the hare this way.

Snowshoe hare populations fluctuate cyclically about once a decade—possibly because of disease. These waning and waxing numbers greatly impact the animals that count on hares for food, particularly the lynx.

Other studies show that the up cycle of the hare also contributes to a destruction of plant food necessary to sustain a hare population. Sid Marty, a journalist who spent time in the Northwest Territories of Canada reporting on lynx studies, describes more of the life cycle of the hare.

Hares increase until the winter’s browse is eaten bare. If you fell an aspen during this time and leave it lying, bunnies descend on it like fuzzy piranhas and nibble it bare. In response to intensive browsing by hares, most vegetation produces secondary compounds — chemicals which make browsable plants less palatable and nutritious. The increase of these chemicals occurs in cycles and this too plays a role in triggering hare population crashes.

A resulting drop in lynx population will also occur but it is not seen immediately.

As the food supply disappears, hares, like the lynx, will cannibalize their own dead. A hare’s fat reserves are very slight. Weakened by hunger and cold, hares soon begin to starve to death. Lynx and other predators gorge on hares, and continue to breed, producing young at a peak rate until they run out of prey.

What happens to the lynx after a major die-off of hares, believed to occur roughly every 10 years, is interesting and should be noted because I don’t believe most people are aware of what happens. As you can see from above, the lynx doesn’t begin to disappear immediately after the hare disappear. With now an overblown population of lynx, there are too many animals competing for a much reduced supply of food.

A normal cycle of starvation occurs and no new lynx kittens are born. The younger males will begin to move in all directions searching for food. There have been recorded incidence where lynx have traveled in excess of 700 miles during this time. This of course does not end the cycle. Where the hares had died off before, the vegetation begins to replenish itself and the hares return and flourish because they now have plenty of food again and the cycle begins all over again.

To the right, you will see two maps. The top map shows the range of the snowshoe hare. The lighter shading on this map indicates the historic range of the hare. The map just below it shows the range of the Canada lynx. The darker shading indicates areas that are believed to have current lynx populations. The lighter brown shading shows the historic ranges of the lynx. In other words, it is believed that lynx have at one time or other lived in these regions.

To the common man, also known as the taxpayer of this country, we would have to at least ask some common sense questions when it comes to making a determination as to what, where and when a species gets added to the list of threatened or endangered. A likely place to start would be in Maine where a recent lawsuit wanted to ban trapping because of the incidental taking of lynx.

Maine clearly sits on the outer fringes of lynx habitat. If we examine the map above showing historic lynx habitat we can see that at one time it is believed that lynx lived in areas to the south of Maine. Why then and not now? Science has shown that climate has changed for millions of years. Isn’t if fair to assume that with these climate changes, so too do the habits of animals, including the Canada lynx? Isn’t it just as plausible to assume that during these fluctuations of ample lynx and sparse lynx populations Maine’s lynx population will fluctuate, not only because of it’s own population fluctuations but those fluctuations occurring many, many miles away?

If Maine sits on the outer fringes of lynx habitat, I wonder if that habitat is always fluctuating adding to the uncertainty of good snowshoe hare habitat and thus good lynx habitat? Is it fair to make judgment that perhaps Maine’s lynx population is really nothing more than the ups and downs we might experience do to normal life cycles? Is it right then that the citizens of Maine and the taxpayers of this country have to make unnecessary sacrifices in an attempt to accomplish something that we may not even have any control over?

If this observation carries any weight at all, and I’m sure in some circles it will and others it won’t, then we also need to ask ourselves the same thing when it comes to other endangered or threatened species that sit on fringe areas.

Of course the global warming advocates are saying that soon Fort Kent, Maine will have the same climate as New Jersey. If they truly believe that, then it is pointless to try to save the lynx habitat for Maine.

There is a reason that the Canada lynx thrives in most of Canada and Alaska. It is the prime area of their habitat. Areas of northern Maine and other parts of the U.S. near the Canadian border are fringe areas for the lynx. While we should be aware of this and do what is feasible and realistic to protect lynx as well as other species, we should not be further crippling the local economies by forcing them to adhere to ridiculous rules in hopes of saving 2 more lynx over the next 8 years.

The ironic part about this agreement reached between Maine and the API is some well-paid scientist will conclude in a few years that the steps taken to reduce incidental taking of lynx worked because there were fewer trapped lynx when in reality it resulted from a normal ten-year cycle of the hare and the lynx when populations decreased. Of course we will never hear about that will we?

Abuse of the ESA is prevalent all across the U.S. with no end in sight. Groups are using the ESA as a tool and for leverage to gain a foothold in their quest to end hunting, trapping and fishing. There is no or very little science behind most of what they do. They play on the emotions of people and are winning the battles. Few people realize that the present agreement, which involves outlawing the use of a trap best known to catch coyotes, will result in more coyotes which in turn compete with the lynx for food such as the snowshoe hare. The efforts of the API will result in the needless starvation of some lynx because their interest lies more with the stopping of trapping than the protection of the lynx or any other animal.

This foolishness has to stop somewhere.

Tom Remington