Are you looking to get a different perspective on wolves other than the Disney version or one that is perpetuated by the mainstream media? Now is your chance. Western Institute for the Study of the Environment says:

There is brand new documentary film about the plight of Americans beset by government-dumped wolves, Undue Burden. It tells the story of regular, law-abiding citizens powerless to halt government-protected wolves from killing their livestock and pets, stalking their children, and destroying the livability of their communities and private properties.

Undue Burden is a shocking, gritty, graphic, and real. Not a Hollywood production, Undue Burden is short on glitter, long on honesty. The folks interviewed are just like you and me, shy in front of the camera, but they convey a story of oppression and hurt that is medieval and absolutely unconscionable in our modern society.

Read more here(make sure to read the comments following the article) and learn how you can order your DVD today.

Tom Remington

bruce hemmings, movies about wolves, undue burden, wildlife movies, wolves

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

It is a real shame that we as a society have come to the point where we perceive lying as a good thing, something that we use as a tool to see a result. In other words, the end justifies the means.

Dr. Gail Saltz says we begin learning to lie at about age 4 or 5. We discover that lying gives us power in the selection of our words. Adults lie for various reasons but an interesting point that Saltz makes is the expectations of our society and who we might expect to lie and who we hold to a higher standard.

We expect, for example, less honesty from politicians than from scientists. We have a vision of purity about those who are doing research, while we imagine that politicians will at least shade the truth about themselves in order to get elected.

I think Saltz, if given the time, would also add to that politicians’ list the need to lie in order promote political agendas and achieve personal gain.

Animal disease is a great tool to manipulate public opinion. The reason is simple really. People don’t like disease and often it is feared and if presented to the masses of people in a particular way could incite riots. Obviously there are times when people need to be made very much aware of the dangers concerning disease and animals, especially if it is animals we eat. We want to know about beef recalls and things like mad cow disease, etc..

One disease that many people don’t know about that occurs in wild animals such as deer, elk and moose is chronic wasting disease. The truth is very few people know anything about it. Those who do are more than likely hunters and ranchers, along with wildlife biologists and a few politicians who might see an opportunity to use the disease for political gain.

Using disease to instill fear in people in order to achieve agendas of politics and/or personal goals is a lousy thing to do. Unfortunately, politics is a dirty profession and as Dr. Saltz says, we as a society expect nothing better from the likes of such politicians. I suppose this is why they do it a lot and are good at it.

Three states that I am aware of are in the midst of debates about the relationship with disease and the domestic cervid industry - cervid in these cases meaning deer and elk. Those three states are Idaho, North Dakota and Oregon. There may be more. Certain groups or individuals want to shut down these industries for various reasons but all of them like to throw out the fears of disease tactic.

Chronic wasting disease is only one of them and I’d like to give you an example of how this is done by a politician. Sen. David Langhorst of Idaho has been on a campaign for some time to rid the state of Idaho of the domestic elk industry. Over the past couple of years he has resorted to varying degrees of assorted reasons why there shouldn’t be domestic elk in Idaho. He’s tried taking off large chunks in efforts to end it all immediately to settling more for the incremental approach, much the same way as the groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have done.

Mr. Langhorst has taken up blogging, I suppose for much the same reasons that I do, to provide a platform where people can come and read about issues and discuss them. Lanhort’s blog can be found on the Idaho Statesman’s website.

A few days ago, he posted a blog called, “Elk for Sale” and has garnered some debate and comments from an array of readers.

The post was a great fiction piece in which he attempts to scare readers into painting a picture of what it is like in Idaho on these elk ranches he so despises. But it is later on down in the comment sections when he begins presenting more, what he calls, facts. He even titles it, “Elk Farm Diseases: True or False?”

I don’t have time right now to go through everyone of his claims of facts so, I will address only his presentation of facts about chronic wasting disease in an attempt to inform readers of the truth about the disease.

The first documented case of CWD was in a confined deer pen in Ft. Collins, CO. (true; there is speculation that the facility had previously held sheep infected with scrapie, a CWD-like disease)

Some of those deer were let loose, for whatever reason. (true)

The first known area of widespread CWD in wild deer and elk was in the area around Ft. Collins. (true)

CWD continues to spread outward from that area, infecting the Wyoming/Colorado/Nebraska deer and elk herds. (true; this is why some claim that wild elk are more likely to bring disease to Idaho.)

In the 1990s, Colorado game farms shipped elk infected with CWD to other states, where CWD was consequently found in game farms. (true)

As of 2007, all states where CWD had been found in wild animals also had game farms (true)

As of 2007, there were three states where CWD was documented in game farm animals and NOT yet found in wild game (MN, OK, KY) (true)

If I may be bold enough to clarify some of Mr. Langhorst’s claims of fact.

In 1967 a wasting syndrome was first recognized in mule deer in a research laboratory near Ft. Collins, Colorado. It wasn’t until 1978 that scientists (Dr. Beth Williams) actually recognized this syndrome as a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE).

As it is written in most every scientific writing about the origins of CWD, it is not documented nor confirmed where CWD comes from. Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance states that, “modeling suggests the disease may have been present in free-ranging populations of mule deer for more than 40 years.” They further go on to explain that CWD is just as likely to be a spontaneous event that could have happened in the wild or in captivity.

It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity and has biological features promoting transmission to other deer and elk.

Dr. Trent Bollinger describes the origins of CWD in this fashion.

Where or how CWD originated is not known. One explanation is that CWD is actually sheep scrapie occurring in cervids. It could also have originated from a prion disease in another species which has not yet been discovered. Alternatively, the disease may have developed independently in cervids with spontaneous converison PrP C to the resistant form and then subsequent spread to other individuals.

Langhorst alludes to the idea that infected sheep may have been the carriers of TSE in scrapie but once again science does not clearly support that theory. They are not even sure that the TSE can be passed back and forth.

It should be pointed out that the reason the disease was discovered in this lab was because of research. The disease wasn’t even heard of by this time. It wasn’t as though scientists were testing wild and domestic deer for a disease they hadn’t heard of yet. Where would be a likely place to first discover such a disease? As with most diseases, in a lab.

The area around Ft. Collins and in northeastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming became known as the “CWD endemic area”. I have no record of the deer within this one facility being released. Official records have stated that they do not know whether the disease, which by the way occurs naturally, was already present in free ranging wild populations of mule deer. Scientific models done in 2000 indicate that CWD was prevalent in the wild for at least 30 years.

While it is true that there has been some spreading of the disease “naturally” outside the “CWD endemic area”, scientists say that this is insignificant. Scientists once again speculate that they believe most of the cases of CWD showing up far from the “CWD endemic area” came from uncontrolled, unregulated shipments of diseased animals.

However, wildlife surveillance begun in earnest in 1997 by wildlife agencies led to detection of CWD outside of the historic endemic area.

Langhorst doesn’t provide any links to substantiate his claims so it is difficult to know exactly of what he is writing and when. Documented history shows that the first recorded event of CWD found in domestic elk occurred in 1997 in South Dakota. Surveillance has indicated that diseased elk were shipped from South Dakota to Saskatchewan. It was after the South Dakota event that CWD was found in farmed elk in Colorado.

People should be made aware that during this time, little was known about CWD and therefore it took some time before it was discovered that diseased animals were being shipped across the country and the impact the disease can have on wild and domestic ungulates.

Mr. Langhorst tosses out claims of which states have CWD and which states have elk ranches etc., which provides for some wild speculation but it still proves nothing from a scientific perspective. Science says that they probably will never know the origins of the disease. They have yet to fully understand the complexities of how the disease is passed from one animal to another.

It is easy to sit here and say that all states that have elk farms also have CWD, which is only an attempt to convince readers that elk farms are the origin of the disease and the cause of the spread and that simply is not true. It is quite unfair to force one’s speculation on others as facts.

If Mr. Langhorst had chosen to be completely forthcoming in his facts, he would have also explained to readers that in some of the states he claims that have documented cases of CWD in elk ranches, they don’t test any of the wild ungulates for disease and those that do are often times are sparsely done.

As with all livestock programs, when diseases are recognized, efforts are put forth to understand, diagnose and deal with it to limit or halt the spread. This was successfully done in the Saskatchewan elk industry. With continued improvements to testing and further studies to help scientists understand how the disease is spread and how to stop it, there is hope for a good clean industry.

As states, such as Idaho, that have a great track record in keeping their industry free of CWD, it shows how a livestock industry can continue to grow and flourish and there’s no need to try to scare the people into believing things that simply aren’t true.

Tom Remington

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

A bill that was sponsored by Colorado democrat Rep. Debbie Stafford and supported by the Humane Society of the United States, to end hunting in enclosures died in the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee on February 6, 2008.

HB1096, a bill that many said was poorly worded and very vague, was suspended indefinitely in the Colorado committee and many hope it is never revived in any way but you can be assured Coloradoans have not heard the last from at least the Humane Society of the United States whose aim is to stop all hunting.

While many Colorado residents, hunters, ranchers and supporters of property rights can breathe a brief sigh of relief, they surely cannot let their guard down. HSUS and all anti-hunting and animal rights advocate groups look for any opportunity they can to suck the life out of Americans by stealing away their rights and heritage.

This is one more bill we are happy to see die!

Tom Remington

canned hunting, colorado house agriculture livestock and natural resources, debbie stafford, hb1096, high fence hunting, Humane Society of the United States, property rights

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

Are you kidding me? We have hunters and hunting groups expending so much time, energy and money attempting to promote their own special interests, most dealing with attempts to legislate ethics, and there are people like this guy in Denver. A guy by the name of Mark Jensen writes a rebuttal to a letter to the editor in the Denver Post concerning the decision of the Rocky Mountain National Park to essentially thumb their noses at volunteer hunters to cull out the overgrown elk herd.

Here’s what he wrote:

Letter-writer Mark Molberg is upset that that the National Park Service is using sharpshooters to cull the elk overpopulation problem. I believe that Mr. Molberg is a conscientious outdoorsman. But too many people are not. I have fished in pristine areas in most of the Western states, including Rocky Mountain National Park. Unfortunately, in most of these areas I have found beer cans and even used disposable diapers.

The Park Service’s charter is the protection of the wildlife and the environment. Using sharpshooters will help them avoid bull elk, deer, moose and other wildlife being shot. It will help them avoid off-road damage. There won’t be bullet holes in any signs. Nor will there be litter everywhere.

I agree with Mr. Molberg, but too many people can’t or won’t handle the opportunity to act responsibly.

Other than the fact this guy makes little sense, it is obvious he believes all hunters are a bunch of irresponsible slobs and of course, being a fisherman, who fishes in “pristine” places, he is not.

Stop and think for a minute. This guy is probably a stuck up fly fisherman! Isn’t that what I’m supposed to say? Aren’t I supposed to now lump all fisherman into the same kind of category this guy did about hunters and claim that fly fisherman are a bunch of elitists who look down their noses at hunters?

He also claims to have fished in Rocky Mountain National Park. I sure hope he didn’t kill any fish as according to his reasoning, the park officials are supposed to protect the environment and the wildlife. Fishing should be banned from the national parks just like hunting is. I mean killing is killing isn’t it? Then if the fish population gets too big, the tax payers can fork over some more money and hire someone to come in a slaughter the fish.

I mean really, get real! What’s this guy thinking? He says that the park officials have to protect the wildlife so hunters won’t kill them yet condones the actions of the same officials to use its own employees to kill the elk. He also points out that hunters will go into the park armed for elk and come away having killed, “deer, moose and other wildlife”. Please explain!

But back to my original statement at the top. I have said many times before that if hunters want to take up a lot of their time, money and energy doing things to protect hunting, then it is this sort of person that needs educating. I would bet that if a list could be generated showing the negative portrayal of hunters, the tops on that list would be as this guy describes - litter, bullet holes and included would be trespassing. This is where the real focus should be not worrying about other trivial issues that deal with philosophical reasoning.

Tom Remington

culling elk, denver post, hunting ethics, Rocky Mountain National Park

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

As most of you probably know by now, the park authorities at the Rocky Mountain National Park have decided to “Do It My Way!” The park has too many elk and they’re trying to figure out how to reduce numbers. The debate has gone on for some time and last week the park announced what it plans to do. It plans to use park employees and other hired guns to slaughter the elk. Even though they say they might use, with approval from the National Park Service, “qualified” volunteer hunters, it is very unlikely that they will or that they even seriously considered that method at all.

Once again the park’s announcement of its plans has set off yet another round of debate over the best way to proceed. Charlie Meyers, Outdoor Editor for the Denver Post, had an article on Saturday ridiculing the officials at the RMNP. In that article he says this:

The National Park Service is to be commended for taking action to reduce elk herds that are damaging vegetation over large parts of the park. Such initiative is particularly commendable in face of cockamamie proposals from the carnivore-promotion group, Sinapu, to reintroduce wolves.

To make sure you understand the context in which this was written, Meyers throughout the entire article is quite cynical in discussing the efforts of the park authorities. He is attempting to show readers, in a spoofy kind of way, that there are many things to be thankful for even though park officials don’t seem to really care one way or the other about the ideas presented by wildlife experts at the Colorado Division of Wildlife or the Wildlife Commission.

In the announcement by park officials, it was made clear that they had NOT removed the idea of introducing wolves into the park to help reduce elk numbers. As a matter of fact, one of the biggest complaints from DOW seemed to come on Saturday when Tom Burke, chairman of the Colorado Wildlife Commission, said the plan was so vague and open ended that it was extremely difficult to know what the real plan was and that it left too many unanswered questions up to the park to work out on their own. People can’t realistically comment on or understand what this elk management plan is when they’re not even sure if Abram’s tanks can be brought in and used.

Now, Charlie Meyers seems to be in a bit of hot water from his wolf-loving readers who think he went off the deep end calling the plan to bring wolves into RMNP, cockamamie. If you go to the site where the article is and scroll down to the bottom, you’ll see the comments left by readers. As of this writing, six readers weighed in with comments, all in favor of bringing wolves back and all because they favor “natural” wildlife management.

I wonder if this “natural” wildlife management makes for better wildlife viewing opportunities in our National Parks (Zoos)?

For Charlie Meyers, I guess it’s time to start looking for another job. With a nationwide movement toward natural wildlife management, what will there be to write about?

Tom Remington

charlie meyers, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Wildlife Commission, culling elk herds, denver post, elk management, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park, sharpshooters, Sinapu, tom burke

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

On Wednesday I told you about the Rocky Mountain National Park’s plan to manage elk. I also told you that the way the plan was proposed it said that the use of volunteer hunters to cull the elk herd would be only if park officials needed the extra help.

In what is looking like a great political maneuver to ward off the sensible thinkers in dealing with too many elk in and around the Rocky Mountain National Park, officials there, in revealing the elk management plan, say they will use “qualified” volunteer hunters to assist in culling the elk. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that those “authorized agents” will be used only if needed to help the park employees and the hired guns. All the meat, once tested for chronic wasting disease, will either be left to rot or given to Indian tribes and non-profits.

It seems that the Colorado Wildlife Commission has similar thoughts.

“The biggest problem I have is that there’s sort of a litany of items that are available according to the (plan),” said Tom Burke, chairman of the Colorado Wildlife Commission, which along with the Colorado Division of Wildlife criticized the plan. “But we don’t think they go far enough in actually saying what they’re going to do.”

This refers to what I described as the political maneuvering in the wording that would not require the park to do anything in managing the elk herd it didn’t want to do. From what I can gather, it’s so vague and wide open, park officials can import wolves if they want to.

Wildlife officials are saying that through this entire process, the efforts of the DOW and representatives to the U.S. Congress were to find ways in which qualified volunteers could be used at virtually no cost to taxpayers to achieve the goals of the park.

“I think our big concern is that through this whole process, we’ve asked and encouraged them to use qualified volunteers to remove whatever number of elk is appropriate,” Burke said. “But they haven’t said, ‘Yes, this is what we’re going to do.’ We’re just concerned that they have not defined exactly how they’re going to deal with the issue.”

Park officials say they’ll work out the details of the plan later and are stating that they believe the most cost-effective plan for culling the elk is the use of park employees. I just don’t see how that can be more cost-effective than bringing in volunteers. Elk hunters would be willing to pay a fee for the opportunity in many cases.

I still believe this is nothing more than a case of park officials being anti-hunting and that they are determined to do it their way. Have they forgotten who owns the park, the wildlife in it and pays their salaries? Evidently.

Tom Remington

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Wildlife Commission, culling elk herds, elk management, Rocky Mountain National Park

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

In what is looking like a great political maneuver to ward off the sensible thinkers in dealing with too many elk in and around the Rocky Mountain National Park, officials there, in revealing the elk management plan, say they will use “qualified” volunteer hunters to assist in culling the elk. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that those “authorized agents” will be used only if needed to help the park employees and the hired guns. All the meat, once tested for chronic wasting disease, will either be left to rot or given to Indian tribes and non-profits.

It was never the intention of the RMNP authorities to utilize volunteer hunters to solve the over population problem and they’ve devised a system where they hope to appease enough people in order to do it their own way. Part of that plan was an announcement that they have “revised” their plan and have cut the cost down from $16 million to only $6 million. Another revision lengthens the plan out over twenty years with the idea of taking perhaps as many as 200 elk each year depending upon herd numbers, etc.

Another part of the plan will use $2 million to build fences around certain areas to protect the vegetation claimed to be destroyed by the elk. That construction will begin almost immediately while the rest of the plan has to go through public hearings and comment period. If approved, culling could begin by 2009 but there is one problem. LAWSUITS!

That’s right. They’re lining up already filing their lawsuits to stop RMNP from killing any elk this way. Instead, the local animal rights extremist organization SINAPU and others are planning to file a lawsuit to stop the killing. Instead, they are advocating to bring in wolves to get the job done.

Tom Remington

chronic wasting disease, elk management, Rocky Mountain National Park, Sinapu

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

According to the Loveland Connection in Colorado, officials of the Rocky Mountain National Park are going against all sensible recommendations by state fish and game officials and those of representatives to Washington and they are going to spend millions of taxpayer’s dollars and begin culling the overblown elk population using its own rangers and hiring private contractors.

Rocky Mountain National Park officials released a final decision Tuesday on how to reduce the number of elk living in and around to the park to protect new-growth aspen and willow trees.

Park officials or private contractors will begin a “gradual lethal reduction” to cull up to 200 a year, but average 100 a year, over a 20-year period, to achieve a target elk population of between 1,600 and 2,100, according to park documents.

Fencing also will be used to protecting new growth aspen and willow trees from being eaten by elk.

Unbelievable! I guess we can now assume that each of these parks is privately owned and managed by whoever the current superintendent of the park is. This is blatant disregard for looking out for the best interest of the taxpayers of this country.

Tom Remington

culling elk, elk management, loveland connection, out of control spending, Rocky Mountain National Park, tax dollar abuse

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

As many of you know, much of the west has had a tough year with bears - at least bears conflicting with human interests. The biggest reason for these conflicts has been the result of the effects of a dry hot period in the areas of Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and part of Montana. Some areas have seen extreme drought conditions and much above average temperatures. How does this relate to human/bear encounters?

This weather pattern has reduced natural food supplies for bears. Bears generally prefer berries and other vegetation to eat but do munch on such things as dead carcases or kill their own if needed. When the fall rolls around, bear activity spikes as the animal must consume thousands of calories a day in order to fatten up for the long winter that lies in wait. With little or no natural food, bears resort to other means for food and that all too often this fall has meant breaking into homes, rummaging through garbage or maybe even finding a nice tender family pet to chow down on.

Not to sound crude here but a bear is a large animal that has huge hunger needs prior to its hibernation and very little can and does stand in its way when its focus is on food.

The Aspen Times News today is reporting that the Colorado Division of Wildlife has been discussing the prospects of what to do about the black bear population. What they are discussing and what they will do remains to be seen but already the Humane Society of the United States is getting their two cents worth in.

One aspect of the bear management DOW is discussing is the possibility of thinning the bear numbers in the Aspen area. After a record breaking year of answering bear problems resulting in the killing of 13 problem bears, relocating 24 and moving a handful of bear cubs into a rehab center, authorities are trying to decide if they need to up the bear permits issued for this area or find other ways to thin the numbers.

The Colorado state chapter of the Humane Society doesn’t believe hunting or thinning the bear population is necessary.

“It’s upsetting news,” said Holly Tarry, state director for the Humane Society. “Black bear populations manage themselves based on the resources that are available to them. Keeping them out of human areas is a human responsibility. We’re very disappointed that thinning would be an option.”

In case you missed it in Colorado, last June the state bear coalition met just outside Aspen and discussed ways in which to better manage themselves. Unfortunately, not many bears attended and didn’t get the word that eating out of dumpsters and breaking into expensive condominiums in wealthy Aspen could get them killed.

Give me a break. The bears manage themselves and this is more humane and in the best interest of everyone and everything? She is right on one thing. Keeping bear out of human areas is a human problem. The problem is she doesn’t like the way DOW takes care of the problem. She should notify the Aspen chapter of the bear coalition and ask them to do something about this problem next year.

On a more serious note, the DOW has more to look at than just whether there are too many bears. The fact is, there may not be too many bears. It could be that because of this year’s weather problems it appears there are too many bears because they went looking for food in town.

There’s a possibility a number of these bears could starve to death this winter because they didn’t get enough fat reserves built up to survive. I guess that is part of the self-management Tarry claims is more humane than hunting.

The issue is also being discussed about better bear proofing education. One of the problems that faces a town like Aspen is that the year round population is relatively low in comparison to the transient one. Many of the bear problems came from visitors and part time residents who don’t know and understand about being bear aware. This presents a different set of problematic circumstances for officials.

Before too many of us get too worked up over the prospects that us hunters are going out to Colorado and slaughter all the bears, we should give the Colorado Division of Wildlife a chance to manage the bears and figure out what to due after the winter.

Tom Remington

aspen, bear attacks on humans, bear aware, bear food supplies, bear hibernation, bear problems, bear proofing, bears, Colorado Division of Wildlife, drought, heat waves, holly tarry, Humane Society of the United States, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, utah, Wyoming

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

Reader Paul Kaiser sent me these photos and a brief caption this morning.

Hi Tom,

Here is a couple of pictures of a happy and successful 16 year old. (my son Vince). He shot these both opening morning up on the Flat Tops wilderness area in Colorado. We also back packed them out.

Posted by Tom Remington

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

After reading the most insane story I’ve heard in some time, perhaps since forever, I decided I was going to be responsible and not put my body, including my pea-sized brain through several hours of anguish while I pounded, cussed and swore over my keyboard. I decided I would let Mr. J.R. Absher, the Newshound, enjoy all the pleasures of typing, backspacing, typing and backspacing through all the words one shouldn’t say on their “responsible” blogs.

So here we go! A Colorado judge has ordered a man who shot and killed a black bear illegally, called poaching, to pay PETA $500 instead of paying in community service. Hopefully you missed your own keyboards when you vomited uncontrollably.

Isn’t that kind of like asking someone who practices Islam to go over to the nearest Catholic and say 35 hail Marys?

Don’t believe it? Read on. (Warning! Reading will sure to cause excessive and rapid rises in blood pressure!)

Tom Remington

insanity, J.R. Absher, Newshound, poaching, the bizarre

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

Does the Idaho Fish and Game Department live in a vacuum or does the entire force or perhaps a certain number of employees have an agenda that is geared negatively toward the domestic elk industry in that state?

For the entire summer, all I have done is read account after account of growing bear/human encounters in the west. In some areas it is quite severe and all one has to do is open their eyes and they will see that areas in eastern Idaho not that far from the Yellowstone National Park area are experiencing perhaps the worst grizzly activity involving humans in history.

I have written story after story, selecting only those that appeared to be the most prolific, here, here, here, here, and here. Nevada has also had more than its share of bear problems as has Colorado and portions of California. It should also be noted that no reports from anywhere else that are having bear problems blame livestock ranching. As a matter of fact, everyone including the common man knows by now that with the climate conditions, i.e. heat, drought, etc., natural food for the bears is limited and in some cases severely lacking causing the animals to find food wherever it is.

In an article I wrote last week, I laid out exactly why eastern Idaho was experiencing such a problem with bears and it has very little to do with domestic elk ranching as some want to lay the blame on. The blame needs to be spread around where blame is due and that includes residents who don’t take care of their garbage, etc.

A weekend article in the Idaho Falls Post Register (subscription) by Matthew Evans even tells of the bear problems and how this year’s problems compare with past years.

The problem, however, isn’t limited to eastern Idaho or even the greater Yellowstone region. Throughout the West, from Colorado to Montana to Nevada, grizzlies and black bears are straying into towns and places they usually avoid to forage for food.

Those who work with bears say they’ve never seen anything like it.

“In my 16 years here, I’ve never seen it this bad,” said Daryl Meints, a regional wildlife manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. “All the stars are perfectly aligned.”

A spokesperson for the Grand Teton National Park supports the same theory.

“Some people say that at this time of year, bears are either eating or searching for food 20 hours a day,” said Jackie Skaggs, spokeswoman for Grand Teton National Park, where rangers have killed four black bears this season after deeming them a threat to visitors. That’s more than she’s seen killed in her 20-plus years of working in the park — despite the fact that Grand Teton officials kicked off a “Be Bear Aware” campaign this year.

“We’re kind of scratching our heads,” Skaggs said. “There are many years where we don’t euthanize any bears. A couple of years ago, we had to euthanize two bears and we thought that was pretty extreme.”

And what does this article say is the reason for increased bear activity?

The problem stems from the ongoing drought, a mild winter and a dry spring. The conditions have decimated the berry crop, a mainstay in a bear’s diet.

“So when it comes to native forage, what bears are accustomed to eating, it’s just not there,” Meints said. “Even some of the kokanee runs are down.”

So why is the Idaho Fish and Game Department and a few local residents setting their sites on putting the blame on the Velvet Elk Ranch on Meadow Creek Road in Island Park? That’s the million dollar question and one many of us are searching for an answer. Either the Fish and Game have their heads stuck in the sand and can’t see the real reasons or they have an agenda. It may be that their agenda is to once again attempt to give the Idaho domestic elk industry a bad name.

Past accounts clearly show that Fish and Game doesn’t want elk ranching. Records also show that Fish and Game works very closely with other organizations that are working toward a ban on elk ranching - Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council, Idaho Wildlife Federation, et. al.

Let’s be honest. There’s a bear problem in Island Park. Bears are hungry because there’s no food. Probably more bears are coming out of the Yellowstone area to find that food. Bears prefer berries and vegetation over gut piles to eat but they certainly will not pass up a pile of guts if that’s the only available meal. Readers should be educated to the fact that bears don’t have an affinity to elk entrails. They will also eat dead or live cattle, sheep, dogs, cats or whatever they can get when they are hungry but it’s not their meal of choice.

Mike Ferguson, owner of the Velvet Elk Ranch, has recognized that following the laws regulating the livestock industry to dispose of dead animals parts within 72 hours isn’t getting the job done. He has taken it upon himself to properly and legally dispose of his animal parts the same day. You can read his response here.

So, why isn’t this good enough? Ferguson is one rancher. From previous reports he had 167 head of elk brought to his ranch. There are thousands of head of cattle and other livestock all in this same area. Why aren’t we hearing about those ranches as being a magnate for bears? Is it because Velvet Elk Ranch is an elk hunting ranch?

Regional Fish and Game Supervisor Steve Schmidt said in an article in the Island Park News that his agency was concerned about all things that might attract bears to the area. Oh really? If that is true, then why did he finish that claim with this absurd statement?

IDFG Regional Supervisor Steve Schmidt said his agency is concerned about all attractants people are making available to bears, and concerns continue about Island Park residents who are not locking up their garbage. He said even if the Velvet Ranch is found to be disposing of animal waste properly, the operation still has the potential to attract bears to the area because there is so often the smell of blood on the ground.

With thousands times more cattle in the area than 167 elk, why isn’t Mr. Schmidt telling area residents to beware of cattle ranches? Their ranching activities may be an attractant to grizzly bears as well. Is Schmidt’s focus simply on elk ranches?

The Island Park News points out something that seems to be falling on the deaf ears of Fish and Game and a handful of local residents.

Grizzly and black bears have frequented this area of Island Park for decades and grizzlies have taken down sheep and cattle near where the Velvet Ranch is located. Around 30 years ago, the Forest Service canceled grazing leases in this area when it made the area Situation 1 grizzly bear habitat.

I wonder if any of those sheep and cattle that have been the target of hungry bears left any blood on the ground? Anyone who seems to want to single out the Velvet Elk Ranch or any other ranch for that matter, as the reason for increased bear activity has to have something on their mind other than the concerns for public safety. If their concern was protecting the citizens, why would the Fish and Game be wanting to spend thousands of Idaho tax payers dollars to investigate whether the bears in the Island Park area are eating Mike Ferguson’s elk guts?

The Fish and Game Department and Department of Agriculture are saying they want to investigate whether any of these bears are actually eating Velvet Elk Ranch’s gut piles. Mind none of these bears are dead, so in order to do this they would have to capture or bring the bears down by drugs, cut them open to extract remains from the bears stomach and try to match some DNA. This would cost tax payers thousands of dollars and for what?

I would be willing to wager poorly cared for garbage is more to blame for increased bear activity. Should F&G and AG spend money to try to find out which residents are getting their garbage eaten by bears? Can’t anyone see the ridiculousness of this entire event? It is nothing more than a blatant attack on one elk rancher which will have sweeping consequences for the entire elk industry. This is thuggery and extremely disturbing, say nothing about un-American.

Is there a bigger agenda or is this just a handful of people overreacting to a scary situation as described by Daryl Meints, a regional wildlife manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game as, “In my 16 years here, I’ve never seen it this bad.”

Perhaps we can get a better picture of what’s really behind these false accusations and attempts to scar the Idaho elk industry. Kirk Robinson of the Western Wildlife Conservancy in Utah says that the Idaho Fish and Game and the Department of Agriculture don’t need to investigate whether bears in the area have been eating Ferguson animal remains.

“What he’s doing may not strictly be illegal, but on the other hand what he’s doing is a hazard to the public and to these bears,” he said. “And it’s all the worse for a guy who’s making a lot of money off captive wild animals.”

So what is the Western Wildlife Conservancy and who really cares what Kirk Robinson has to say about what’s going on in Island Park, Idaho? From their website, this is their “vision”.

We envision a time when human beings accept the puma, the wolf, and their wild kin as citizens in the community of life - a time when, instead of hunting and trapping them for sport and profit we live peacefully with them, when instead of exploiting and despoiling land without restraint we accommodate their habitat and survival needs in our way of living. This will be a time when we have come to view nature quite differently from the traditional way that sees it only as a resource to be exploited or an enemy to be subdued - a time when we have adopted gentler life-ways that recognize and respect not only the fragility and sensitivity of natural systems, but also our own physical and spiritual dependence upon them.

The WWC also lists the species they aim to protect.

Ursidae (grizzly bear and black bear)
Felidae (mountain lion, Canada lynx and bobcat)
Canidae (gray wolf, coyote, and the gray, red, swift and kit fox)
Mustelidae (wolverine, fisher, marten and other members of the weasel family)

Make no mistake about the goals of this agency. They could care less about any rancher or even Derek Fesmire who was attacked by a female grizzly while bow hunting. Their interests lie strictly with the protection of animals and that supersedes any rights of Americans.

Last year after the “Great Escape” of Dr. Rex Rammell’s elk from his Chief Joseph Ranch outside Rexburg, Idaho, many people believed that certain legislators, wildlife advocacy groups and a handful of sportsmen, exploited this event in order to force their personal agendas on the citizens of Idaho by attempting to pass legislation that would have ended all elk ranching, not just ranch hunting. Some even thought the “Escape” was a set-up job. Those efforts were very much unsuccessful but those groups threatened to bring a citizen’s initiative to ballot in 2008.

With a soon to be convening of the fall Idaho Legislature and a deadline of next spring to get enough signatures on a petition in order to get an initiative on the ballot, we are all once again left wondering if this recent flurry of grizzly activity that happens to be near an elk ranch, is just another opportunity for these same people to exploit the situation for their own good. I’m sure some will even question whether any of this latest is also a set-up job.

Here’s some more disturbing rhetoric that has found its way into the local press. Local resident of Island Park, Martin Miller, says he won’t hunt again near the Velvet Elk Ranch after what he saw.

“It looked like a scene out of a ‘Halloween’ movie,” he said. “Heads, noses, legs sticking out in every direction, and gut piles everywhere. It stunk to high heaven.”

A spokesperson for Mike Ferguson told me in a recent interview that Ferguson was very upset that anyone would make such false accusations and said that those charges are not true.

If there is a hidden agenda here that is deliberately targeting the Velvet Elk Ranch in order to discredit and give the Idaho elk industry a black eye, it is certainly a sad commentary on the state of things within the minds of those who would do such a thing.

The Fish and Game and Dept. of Agriculture need to stop wasting taxpayer’s money and get back to their real jobs. It is time for the head of the Idaho Fish and Game to reel in and get control over his employees and put this non event into the perspective of what it really is - a hungry bear problem.

If the anti-elk hunting crowd has to stoop to this level because they have no evidence, facts or support for the perpetuation of their forced ideals, they are truly a sad lot. If the people of Idaho don’t want elk ranching as an industry in their state, that is surely their decision. For some to exploit a hungry bear problem for the purpose of creating a public safety scare to influence public opinion is really about as low as one can go.

Tom Remington

bear attacks, bear/human encounters, black bears, canned hunts, chief joseph ranch, daryl meints, drought problems, elk ranching, grand teton national park, grizzly bears, high fence hunting, hunting ethics,