PBS’ Wolf Poll

Do you believe wolves in the Northern Rockies require federal protection? Vote now!

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

Panel Roundtable: Canadian Gray Wolf Introduction into Yellowstone

*Editor’s Note:* Following is no doubt the most candid discussion you will find anywhere in North America today about predators and their diseases. The discussion surrounds the introduction of the gray wolf to the Greater Yellowstone area and the impact this has had on not only the ecosystem but economically, socially and in the lives of private ranchers and citizens. This discussion not only covers the politics behind the introduction and the ongoing politics but also covers the diseases carried and transmitted by the wolf and the lack of comprehensive research to fully study the environmental, social and economic impacts to this region of the country. This discussion no doubt covers this topic to depths most Americans have never had the opportunity to experience and it is done by some of this continent’s most renowned scientists and researchers. This is a bit lengthy but is very much worth the time it takes to read it thoroughly.

Republished by permission:

Economic and physical dangers to Rural Americans and other unintended consequences

By: Kelly Wood

All American Patriot | March 2010

There are significant economic, health and safety ramifications of the Gray Wolf Introduction Program in Yellowstone Park that have manifested themselves in the Western States along the Rocky Mountain Front. A distinguished panel joins The All American Patriot to discuss these critical issues. The guests assembled for this roundtable are:

Jim Beers, B.S., Wildlife Resources, Utah State University; M.S. Public Admin, University of Northern Colorado. Served as US Navy Officer in the western Pacific, based in Aleutian Island of Adak, Alaska. He retired after 32 years in the US Fish and Wildlife Service in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC as: a Wetlands Biologist, US Game Management Agent, Congressional Fellow, Chief of National Wildlife Refuge Operations, and Wildlife Biologist. Beers travelled extensively in Europe, Africa, and Canada. He has testified multiple times before Congress regarding the theft of $45 to 60 Million dollars by the US Fish and Wildlife Service from State hunting and fishing funds and against Federal authority over invasive species.

Robert T Fanning Jr. Notre Dame, B.A. majoring in biology and sociology, 1973. ; M.B.A 1977; Chairman & Founder, “Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc”; Retired Sole Shareholder, Director and Officer, M.H. Detrick Co. Major supplier of engineered heat enclosures for steel and other industries since 1914; Fixed Income Specialist, Member Chicago Board of Trade, Member 1981-1994 , Chicago, IL; Registered Representative in 1974 of the New York Stock ExchangeNYSE /Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC . Proud father of two highly accomplished adult sons and daughter.

Dr. Valerius Geist, Ph.D. Biology. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Calgary. Served as a professor and department head responsible for environment science in the Faculty of Environmental Design where he specialized on wildlife biology and wildlife conservation policy. Publisher of 17 books and over 300 publications, he is a Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science and State Professional Biologist. Geist has retired to a remote section of Vancouver Island where he has chronicled the near elimination of ungulates through intense predation by a growing, and brazen to human activity, wolf population.

Will Graves, B.A. Russian, Syracuse University; Masters Russian, American University. Retired in 1987 after a 35 year career in the Federal Government, beginning with the US Dept of Agriculture working as Chief of Livestock Inspecting, Vaccinating Brigade in Oaxaco, Mexico. whose mission it was to help stamp out Foot and Mouth disease. After volunteering for the US Air Force, Graves, while stationed in Berlin, Graves began comprehensive research on Russian Wolves – their characteristics, habits and behavior. With frequent travel to Russia, this research eventually culminated in his book, “Wolves in Russia”, published in May 2007.

Bill Hoppe: Fifth generation Montanan. Rancher and owner, together with his wife, of North Yellowstone Outfitters of Paradise Valley, MT. His great grandfather was the first recorded Caucasian child born in the Montana territory in1864, at Nevada City. He is a fourth generation outfitter whose Great Grandfather, Grandfather, and Father have outfitted in the state. For nearly 58 years, he has hunted, observed and lived with wildlife in and around Yellowstone and matches his expertise and credibility on the truthful aspects of Wolf activity, with that of any Multi-million dollar Government program funded, employee.

and

Dr. Delane Kritsky: Professor Emeritus, College of Health Professions, Idaho State University. B.S., Biology, Mathematics and Education, 1965, Minot State College, Minot, ND; M.S., Zoology, 1967, Sacramento State College, Sacramento, Ca; Ph.D., Zoology, 1970, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Associate Dean and Professor (35 years) within Department of Health and Nutrition. Extensively published in over 150 publications, Dr. Kritsky’s primary expertise is in Parasitology. Past leadership includes Presidency, Rocky Mountain Conference of Parasitologists, Active professional and honorary affiliations with American Society of Parasitologists, Helminthological Society of Washington, and American Association for Zoological Nomenclature.

All American Patriot (AAP): Drs. Geist and Kritsky, Messrs. Fanning, Hoppe, Graves, and Beers, welcome to the AAP roundtable. Gentlemen, we’ve assembled to talk about the re-introduction of the wolf into Yellowstone, but first, there are many who take issue with the term “re-introduction” [Editors note: see the thorough treatment of this issue in the accompanying articles authored by Lynn Sutte .] Why is that?

FANNING: It’s simple. There is no “re-introduction” because the wolf introduced into Yellowstone Park is not native to this geography and had never naturally been here to begin with. The Gray wolf is ironically enough, a human introduced invasive species. You see, the original wolf inhabiting the geography of the Park was a much smaller animal, the Rocky Mountain wolf or Canis lupus irremotus. The Canadian Gray Timber wolf, Canis lupus occidentalis, is also known as the Alaskan Tundra Wolf. It was introduced at significant cost to the U.S. taxpayer and is a super size predator with a rapacious appetite and lust for wanton killing – killing far in excess the number of ungulates (hoofed animals: deer, antelope, elk) claimed by authorities. There are hundreds of cases of man monkeying around with the balance of nature and screwing things up. One of the best examples is the introduction of the Mongoose into the Hawaiian Islands as a means for dealing with a huge and troublesome rat population. Those conscientious biologists however neglected to realize that the rat is a nocturnal animal while the Mongoose preys during the day. Their paths simply never cross, so today Hawaii not only still has its rats, but it has 100s of thousands of Mongooses creating mayhem with rare ground nesting birds and other native species. This is just one example of the law of unintended consequences in dealing with wildlife. The unintended consequence to the Rocky Mountain States of the non native Gray wolf is much, much more serious and not simply the consequence of a couple thousand extra wolves roving the countryside, but rather a much greater problem caused by the level of depredation of native species – Elk and deer, than originally claimed. It’s all about wolf “densities” and who gets to control those densities. Federal and state biologists have failed colossally in their claims every step of the way and the impact is economically huge. Read more

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

USFWS Announces Greater Sage-Grouse As Candidate Species

In a long-awaited announcement, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that the greater sage-grouse will not be listed as threatened or endangered but instead will be placed on the candidate species list. That means the species will not receive statutory protection under the Endangered Species Act and that states would continue to be responsible for managing the bird.<<<read the rest>>>

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

Elk Foundation Calls Out Motives of Wolf Groups

MISSOULA, Mont. – In letters to legislators and newspapers across the West, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling out groups like Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others for their disingenuous use of data on wolves and elk.

The RMEF action was prompted by each group’s recent op-ed articles in the media, as well as testimony before Utah lawmakers by Western Wildlife Conservancy Executive Director Kirk Robinson. All cited RMEF statistics to argue that restored wolf populations have somehow translated to growing elk herds in the northern Rockies.

“The theory that wolves haven?t had a significant adverse impact on some elk populations is not accurate. We’ve become all too familiar with these groups’ tactic of cherry-picking select pieces of information to support their own agenda, even when it is misleading,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We will not allow that claim to go unchallenged.”

RMEF population data, which come from state wildlife agencies, show that elk populations are expanding the most in areas of the northern Rockies where wolves are not present. However, where elk share habitat with wolves, such as the greater Yellowstone area, some elk populations are declining fast. In fact, since the mid-1990s introduction of gray wolves, the northern Yellowstone elk herd has dropped from about 17,000 to 7,100 animals – a 58 percent decline. Other localities in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming also are documenting precipitous downward trends.

Additionally, some research shows that elk remaining in areas of concentrated wolf populations are suffering nutrition loss, lower body weights and decreasing birth rates.

Allen said, “Every wildlife conservation agency, both state and federal, working at ground zero of wolf restoration, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming has abundant data to demonstrate how undermanaged wolf populations can compromise local elk herds and local livestock production. There’s just no dispute, and emotion-over-science is not the way to professionally manage wildlife.”

RMEF continues to support state-regulated wolf management to include hunting and other viable methods. This position is supported by new reports of diseased wolf populations in the Yellowstone area.

“When wolves are too abundant, they’re more susceptible to diseases, just like all wildlife. The viruses and mange now spreading through wolf packs is another sign of way too many wolves,” said Allen. “Defenders of Wildlife would like to spin sick wolves as a reason to end hunting. But real conservationists know that diseased wildlife populations need better management. Hunting as a management tool delivers that, period.”

He added, “Remember, pro-wolf groups make their living by prolonging this conflict. There is no real incentive for them to admit that wolves are overly recovered. Fundraising is their major motive and they’ve built a goldmine by filing lawsuits and preaching that nature will find its own equilibrium between predators and prey if man would just leave it alone. That’s a myth. The truth is that people are the most important part of the equation. This isn’t the Wild West anymore. People live here; actually quite a lot of us. So our land and resources must be managed. Wildlife must be managed. Radical spikes and dips in populations show that we should be doing it better. It’s not profitable for plaintiffs, but the rest of us would be better served if the conflict ended and conservation professionals were allowed to get on with their business of managing wildlife, including a well regulated hunting strategy.”

“In 2009, RMEF got involved in the ongoing wolf litigation, supporting defendant agencies by filing legal briefs used in federal court to help delist wolves and proceed with hunting facts conveniently ignored by groups who misuse our name, data and credibility to prolong the conflict. We stand for elk and other wildlife and what is happening right now is simply not good wildlife management,” said Allen.

See Allen’s letters to editors, Utah Senator Dennis Stowell and more at www.rmef.org.

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

Maine Guide Recalls Coyotes’ Destruction Of Deer. Calls For Action

*Updated with more Photos Below*

*Editor’s Note* This story was submitted by trapper and Maine Guide, David Tobey of Maine. It has been edited by Tom Remington. This story goes hand in hand with yesterday’s article on reinstating of the snaring program that Maine needs to help rebuild the lost deer population. Follow this link for that story.

~~~~~

The morning started like many others. I was sitting, peering out the window hoping for a coyote to come to the bait. This cabin my grandfather bought in 1928 for the purpose of deer hunting, a cabin that has slept six generations of deer hunters in my family, along with countless numbers of others that rate the times spent here as being an important part of their lives. The cabin is in a County that boasted for years the highest deer kills in the state. An area where all hunting camps in the region have memories and pictures of full game poles. In a county where for years famous bounty hunters and trappers, such as Wilbur Day and George Magoon, kept the bear numbers very low. Then there were the famous bounty hunters for bobcats such as Ash Peasly and Lloyd Clark who along with many others kept the cats as scarce as hens’ teeth. This all contributed to the healthy deer herd.

At this time the IF&W [Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife] was made up of folks with practical experience who made their decisions based on common sense and input from the guides, trappers and woodsmen that lived their lives in and around the woods and on the waters of Maine. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t think of the past and how well things worked, and ask myself why can’t folks like those in the past surface and once again make it happen for the sake of the deer?

As I scanned the shore past the bait, barely seeing with the aid of binoculars in the predawn darkness, I saw a coyote come around the point headed for the bait. After sliding open the window and positioning the 22-250, I saw that the first coyote had behind, her mate. It took about twenty minutes for the the coyotes to make their way to the bait. The fifteen or so ravens now there acted as a fear eliminator. As the first coyote, the bigger, got within a few feet of the bait the birds flushed making the coyote freeze in its tracks.

With the gun in a vise, I gently squeezed the trigger dropping the coyote. To my surprise the other “yote” ran about fifty feet, turned around and waited for its mate to leave with him. Unlucky for him the next 55-grain bullet flattened him too.

Of course I was beside myself scoring a double on the wily coyotes, but was happier then a dog with two tails when I discovered the first one was a 43-pound female with half-inch long black teets, along with worn teeth. This told me she was an old breeder. Her and the 40-pound mate of her’s would not be raising 5-7 young this spring in the same deer fawning grounds they have in the past. As a passionate deer hunter, I had done my part to help the whitetail this morning.

After hanging the coyotes, I got the sled ready for a forty-mile loop to the west, checking beaver traps. This trip is the same course I’ve taken for 35 years either trapping beaver or snaring coyotes. Even though the ride gets old the signs and things you see are always interesting.

The first several miles never showed a coyote track in the fresh inch of snow, but now I was nearing Gassabias Lake where I’d found a deer kill the trip before. The “yote” tracks were becoming more numerous. This got my dander up because for years I was able to snare this area to protect a very large intact deer yard on this lake. I still remembered back in the early 80’s being deployed to this area by warden Pratt from Enfield. The first day there I found eight coyote-killed deer. I remembered how helpless I felt because I only had 10 snares with me to set because I already had twenty of my thirty snare limit out in other areas.

My thoughts changed as I turned off the logging road onto the old carry trail, the same carry trail that Manly Hardy used 150 years ago as he traveled the area. In the snow covered trail ahead of me showed the running tracks of a 170-pound buck. I knew this wasn’t good. After a few feet, two coyote tracks showed up following the deer. I knew the outcome. I’ve seen it a hundred times before.

Photo by Dave Tobey

I sped up following the chase hoping I could intervene and save the deer to live at least another day. The deer ran to the lake, crossed a cove and onto the east shore, bare of snow maybe where he could get better footing to fight off his attackers.

They drove him back onto the shore ice. I saw for the first time where they took him down. There was blood and hair; not a lot. I turned off the sled and walked the track knowing well what I was going to find. The buck had made his way to a granite boulder, big as a truck. The giant boulder had gathered enough sun to melt the shore ice out ten feet to where the water ran a depth of 12”-16”. Here the buck took his last and best stand.

The deer was laying in the water. He stood up as I neared. At first I thought maybe I got here in time but then I saw why the deer wasn’t leaving. The buck had used the vertical rock as protection for his back while he put the hooves to the coyotes while standing in water. The two coyotes though were relentless.

After almost tearing his scalp and hide from his face, they weakened the buck enough that he just laid down in the water while the two yearling 20-pound coyotes ate about ten pounds of meat from his hind quarters.

As I watched the deer lay back down never to get up again, I thought what a way to go. Lay in ice water and watch and feel two coyotes rip, tear, and eat one-third of your hind quarters. At first I was mad at myself. If only I was here sooner. If only I had trapped this area last fall I could have caught these two pup coyotes, that biologist think aren’t important enough to kill and believe pose no threat to a deer.

Then my anger turned to the IF&W. If Commissioner Martin, Governor Baldacci and others hadn’t ended the snaring program, I could have prevented this. I realized this area where I was standing is in the shadows of the Bangor office when the sun sets every day. How many times have I called there inviting biologist to accompany me on my trap line? And to just think, the large mammal group leader and state’s deer biologist are trapped in cubicles, not thirty miles away.

Folks, our government will never be the ones to save the whitetail deer in Maine. The sportsmen can fix this problem though; by supporting a private bounty system for coyotes; by donating and fund raising for conservation easements on Deer Wintering areas; and supporting the bill I will introduce next year to take the coyote off the list of fur bearers and allow year round trapping of coyotes.

David Tobey
Registered Maine Guide

P.S. Hope the following photos aren’t to offending or gross for the viewer, but this is happening every day and night in Maine.

Scalp almost torn from his head as he used his hooves to defend himself – David Tobey Photo

Imagine alive and standing after loosing this much flesh. Wish those that took my snares were there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! – David Tobey Photo

Notice blood soaked water and hair – David Tobey Photo

Copy, Print, and post in every corner store in Maine. This is whitetail management at its best!!!!!!!!!!!!! – David Tobey Photo

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

Maine Should Bring Back Snaring

*Correction/Clarification* In this article I made reference that the coyote snaring program was suspended through legislative action. I stand somewhat corrected. According to V. Paul Reynolds of Northwoods Sporting Journal, the snaring program was halted by Commissioner Roland Martin. It was, however, the Legislature also went to work and ended up with this bill.

*Editor’s Note and Update* I posted a follow up story to this from David Tobey. Please follow this link.

Maine has a wildlife management problem. Maine has a deer management problem. Maine has a game management problem. Maine either has no interest in managing game animals or they are not interested in fighting the lawsuits that have become a way of life for most animal rights groups. If Maine doesn’t address their problems they will soon be facing bigger problems.

Whitetail deer herds in parts of Northern Maine are all but gone. Much of Downeast Maine is riddled with sparse deer populations and too many coyotes as are portions of the Western Mountains Region. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife wants to tell us that it’s all because of two back to back severe winters and the loss of habitat due to our modern methods of tree harvesting. These two things certainly have taken their toll on Maine’s deer but it more and more looks like MDIFW is trying to hide behind this, shrugging it off as something they have no control over while refusing to address those things they can.

Doubts abound in the outdoor world as to whether MDIFW or even this current administration has any serious interest in trying to restore the deer herd in these regions. Perhaps it’s just easier to let it go, let Mother Nature take its course. Let natural management “balance our ecosystems”. But that is irresponsible, isn’t it?

The first step in resolving an issue is to first admit there is a problem. MDIFW is willing to admit there is a weather problem and a tree harvesting problem but that’s about it. This is unfortunate for all of Maine’s people. You see it is in the best interest of all the Maine people to have a healthy forest. This cannot be achieved when so many protections are laid upon one species that it is destroying others.

I get emails from Maine people asking me why I hate coyotes. I don’t. It’s futile to try to make them understand that allowing coyotes to run rampant, destroying deer herds and all other prey animals, isn’t showering much love anywhere. Predators get their name because of what they do. They prey on things they like to eat and destroy. If we allow our wildlife to come out of balance with any prey species, we have to expect trouble. I ask again. Is allowing this to happen being responsible stewards of our wildlife?

Coyotes and deer can most often coexist without too many problems. When this man-managed balance gets really out of whack, which has happened in Maine due to a combination of poor management and severe winters, something has to change. In Maine’s case, coyote numbers are high and deer populations in much of the geographical area of Maine are at record lows, perhaps at a point where they will never recover. Does it not make sense to reduce the number of coyotes and other large predators to give the deer a fighting chance?

Some say there are ample opportunities to get rid of coyotes. Maine has a year round hunting season, which includes periods of time when night hunting is allowed, and a limited trapping season. The trapping season is ineffective because there is no open trapping season on coyotes during the dead of winter when the pelts are most valuable and trappers have been stripped of their best tools to take coyotes.

During the winter months when the deer are gathered in what Mainers call deer yards, coyotes will prey on deer in those yards. In years past, trappers used snares near these deer yard areas. The method became very effective. Experienced trappers would learn the trails the coyotes would use to get into the yards and set up their snares accordingly. This reduced the amount of predation by coyotes on deer in winter, which helped the deer herds. It must be pointed out that all of this snaring of coyotes done prior to the ban did no harm to the population of coyotes because they are still at very high numbers and growing larger due to reduced harvesting. The key here is that coyotes were targeted around the yarding areas – better trapping opportunities and reduced predation on deer.

I have been emailing back and forth with David Tobey, a Maine Guide and trapper who lives in the eastern part of the state of Maine. Tobey is noted for his trapping knowledge and skills especially as they pertain to coyotes. He shared with me some of what makes snaring a much more effective trapping tool than a conventional foot-hold trap.

Snares -The best tool we have for the changing conditions across North America. Snares have come a long ways in the last few years. With new type locks, deer break-aways and compression springs, a properly set snare will humanely kill a coyote quickly. Snares can be used year round. When set in trails with the proper loop size and proper distance off the ground, it becomes very selective for the targeted animal you’re after.

Coyotes tend to travel the same paths generation after generation. Once a trapper learns their routes their removal becomes easy. When snaring for the state I would create these situations which would let me catch the coyotes in an area and move on, sometimes in just a few days time. I would haul 50-gallon barrels half full of frozen meat scrapes. When finding a pack of coyotes, I would cruise the area usually finding a dead end side road to leave the barrel. By leaving the bait in the barrel, it would attract the ravens, which in turn would bring in the coyotes. Typically the coyotes would not go into the barrel, but rely on a few scraps pulled out by the birds. Their tracks and trails in the snow would show me where the coyote wanted to die. Many times when I went back I would have 3 to 5 coyotes, load my barrel and move to a new location. This was a very effective and efficient way to remove a whole family of coyotes from an area, not only giving the deer a break, we consistently saw other game population rebound with their removal

Snares are relatively inexpensive to buy and of low maintenance. They are light weight, easy to carry and quick to set up, once you know where to be. One of the big advantages the snare has over the foot-hold trap is they are not affected by weather nearly to the extent foot-hold traps are. With snares, if a coyote releases a set trap, most often he doesn’t even realize it and moves on to the next area where another snare is set. Often when foot-hold traps get sprung, without a coyote in it, he disappears and is slow, if ever, to return again. They are not dumb animals.

Dave Tobey says that one year he snared 49 coyotes in just one area near Grand Lake Stream. He said the next year tagging of bucks went from the low teens to 37 tagged at the local store and tagging station.

Indian Township in Eastern Maine still snares 20 to 50 coyotes a year, protecting the large deer yard on their land. This is the reason Eastern Maine was experiencing an increase in the deer kill the last few years, until the severe winter last year. The Indian tribe goes by their own rules and don’t buckle under to the anti’s and animal rights groups.

This is one week’s catch with snaring. Tobey says he has gone an entire winter and only taken 4 coyote over bait.

Most people don’t realize what a dangerous predator coyotes can be. The above photo shows 24 deer, mostly pregnant does, slaughtered by coyotes and left to rot. Their method? Simple really. They herd the deer up and force them out onto frozen lakes and rivers. Once deer hit the ice, they are rendered completely helpless. This photo was taken on the St. Croix river in Eastern Maine. Killing the deer and leaving them to rot is proof of coyotes sport or surplus killing deer, something considered by most a myth. Too many people believe that coyotes, like wolves, kill only the sick and weakly deer leaving us with a healthy deer herd. How’s that theory working out in Maine?

But even some of the rules in place that ban snaring and set the seasons for trapping coyote make little sense. I was told by Tobey that the reason the trapping season ends the end of December is because of fear of trapping the protected Canada lynx. The question becomes, why is coyote trapping season closed outside of Canada lynx protected habitat areas and why doesn’t Maine have a “Incidental Take Permit” that would allow trapping during these months in lynx habitat?

The other obvious question still remains. If snaring was banned in Maine supposedly because it is an inhumane way of killing an animal, what is humane about sitting idly by while coyotes destroy deer and other wildlife? Many people are probably not even aware that coyotes, when they kill a deer don’t do it very humanely. Most times the deer is eaten while it is still alive. Pregnant does will be brought down and the fetus ripped out alive and often the doe is left to die while the coyotes make a feast on a tender fetus. In short, it is not a pretty sight.

But this is only the beginning. There has to be a united effort from the Governor, the Maine Legislature, the MDIFW and the people, to commit to rebuilding and protecting the deer herds as much as there are protections for predators, like coyotes, black bears, Canada lynx and bobcats. That means more of an effort than waiting for the sun to shine. It requires a commitment to do what is necessary and in the best interest of all.

The Governor must be the leader. The current governor and the one that will be elected come November, must step forward and proclaim the importance of protecting whitetail deer in all of Maine. The Governor should seek the backing of the Legislature and together give the authority for the MDIFW to take the necessary steps to open up trapping for coyote through the winter months immediately in areas outside lynx habitat.

The ban on snaring can be overturned through the Legislature, by emergency ruling if necessary, to allow for snaring in and around known wintering yards for deer. This snaring should be allowed up and until the deer begin leaving the yarding areas.

It is a known fact that when deer move into their fawning areas, the coyotes follow killing and destroying as many of the newly born deer as they can. Snaring and killing of coyotes should be targeted at these areas. The only way the deer will survive, say nothing of rebuild, is that the fawns must survive. With fawn survival rates so low now, herds have reached unsustainable levels.

People need to understand that even under federal protection of the Endangered Species Act, protecting the lynx or any other species does not allow for the destruction of one species in order to protect another. The 10j rule provides a system in which the MDIFW can petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take extra steps to protect the deer herd while trying to protect the lynx. The question is, does Maine want to? Is this effort worth it to them?

The tools are at our disposal. It is time for leadership in this manner. Doing nothing is unacceptable. Scoffing at those who consider this a serious problem is not acceptable. Telling the people of Maine it’s their problem not the state’s, is no longer acceptable. Appeasing animal rights groups and anti-hunting/trapping groups is no longer acceptable. Either Maine believes in their wildlife programs or they don’t. I think it is obvious where the people of Maine stand, they now are looking for leadership and action. Who will step forward?

Tom Remington

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

Maine’s “Incidental Take Permit” For Canada Lynx – Information/Clarification

Just over a week ago I posted a press release here at the Black Bear Blog that announced the delivery to Maine’s Governor John Baldacci (D-Maine) by State Rep. Peter Edgecomb (R-Caribou) a petition seeking action by the state to do something about saving the state’s deer herd and controlling predators. One of the actions seeking immediate attention was the implementation of an “effective” predator control program.

The petition calls on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IFW) to institute, without delay, an effective predator management program including, but not limited to, filing an incidental take permit in order to reactivate the winter coyote snaring program. The “incidental take permit” (ITP) refers to the snaring of lynx. Lynx, which are listed as “threatened” in Maine under the Endangered Species Act, cover much of the area in northern Maine where there is great concern for deer.

An Incidental Take Permit is required by law if activities taking place within an area where endangered or threatened species exist might cause harm to those species. In Maine’s case an Incidental Take Permit should be required for lawful trapping in areas where the Canada lynx are found. One of the requirements of obtaining such a permit is to show proof that the conservation activity taking place in which Maine would be seeking a permit for, outweighs any potential harm that might result to the Canada lynx.

Snaring, a method of trapping that was proven extremely effective in taking coyotes around winter deer yards, was banned in Maine believing that this kind of trapping would cause harm to the lynx. That debate continues.

The petition handed to Governor Baldacci is asking that the state rescind the ban on snaring, essentially in an emergency effort to allow for better coyote control to help in eliminating further destruction of the deer herd, especially in Northern Maine.

Confusion arose when in the same press release as referenced above, an official for MDIFW stated an Incidental Take Permit had been applied for.

An IFW official said the department applied for an ITP from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in August 2008 while it was still fighting lawsuits from animal rights groups seeking to block the permit. The FWS has not acted on the ITP application to date; but Ken Elowe, the director of IFW’s Bureau of Resource Management, says action may be imminent. “I have had recent communications with FWS stating that they are nearing the point of (required) advertising in the Federal Register for 60 days of public comment before they can act on the application,” he reported. “IFW continues to work on this, with the help of Maine Trappers Association, to get a solution for Maine’s people.”

Some were led to believe that this Incidental Take Permit, if granted the state of Maine, would cover the incidental taking of Canada lynx should Maine rescind the snaring ban. Some even were led to believe that the permit would reinstate snaring. This is not at all the case.

It is my understanding that the permit that MDIFW has applied for would cover the present “legal” means of trapping that are permitted by law in designated lynx habitat. Methods permitted by Maine law does NOT include snaring. It would therefore be my assumption that should MDIFW be so bold as to defy the ban on snaring or repeal the present ban, this action would nullify the present permitting process. I would also assume that MDIFW could then reapply for an Incidental Take Permit on lynx that pertained to the legal method of snaring as well as all other methods within lynx habitat.

However, the ban on coyote snaring came through the Maine Legislature, as much to ward off animal rights lawsuits than anything to do with protecting or managing wildlife, and would require Legislative approval to change that law. This is something that could be done. What would also become necessary, in my opinion, is to seek a resolution within the Maine Legislature that would fully support a move to reinstate the snaring program and whatever legal actions the MDIFW deemed necessary to thwart further devastation to the deer herd. This would indicate a willingness to support and defend all actions to protect the Maine deer herd.

Recently the State of Idaho proposed a similar resolution that would notify the governor that he had the full support of the Legislature should he deem it an emergency situation to kill wolves in order to protect the state’s elk, deer and moose population, which happening there now.

The Endangered Species Act does not provide for the destruction of one species in order to save another. Maine now has to decide if it values its whitetail deer herd enough to fight for its survival. At the same time, Maine residents need to know that the Incidental Take Permit applied for by MDIFW will not address the coyote snaring issue nor does it have anything to do with efforts to save a rapidly dwindling deer herd.

Tom Remington

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

Maine Residents Are Told To Learn To Live With Coyotes

As citizens gathered in Otisfield, Maine, a small, quiet Western Maine community, authorities handled concerns from the town’s residents about as well as one might expect these days. They were told coyotes don’t bother people, that rabbit populations were low and that it was mating season. Combine that with the ever present blame that it’s the people’s fault for….for…..for…..well, living, and what did the people learn?

Here’s some short quips on what people were told:

“they can learn to coexist with the varmints.”
“Eradication of coyotes in Maine is impossible”
“keep the animal wild and to support the protection of coyotes”
“not feed coyotes”
“coyotes going after large animals was very unusual”
“there is little game wardens can do”
“I don’t believe there’s anything else we can do. It’s up to you folk,”
“safe to go out into the woods, despite the coyote population.”
“You don’t have to worry about coyotes chasing you out of the woods for a meal. It’s just not going to happen.”

Oh, my! Residents deserve to be told something better than that. The coyotes that are prevalent in Maine are larger than what most people picture in their minds when they think of coyotes. The cartoon Roadrunner comes to mind. The reason for that is that it has been readily established that Maine coyotes have wolf genes in them. The wolf gene doesn’t just add size to the animal. It creates in them a different killing instinct and thus Maine’s coyotes are readily taking on larger animals, i.e. deer, horses and cows.

Telling people to “keep the animal wild” is really kind of a silly notion that by not feeding, having pets outside, growing livestock, putting up bird feeders and doing what most Mainers do in the course of their lives will somehow keep a coyote “wild”. I’m not even sure what that means. A coyote is driven by instinct and the forces of nature. If a coyote gets hungry it goes and searches for food. Not unlike the couch potato watching a football game, when he heads to the kitchen looking for food, if he can’t find it, he may have to jump in his car and head for the nearest convenience store.

Talk about passing the buck! “There is little game wardens can do”? Seriously? Seems as though I was reading recently a story of how a couple wardens in far Northern Maine were shooting about every coyote they saw and were told to stop by their superiors. This is an anecdotal reference as I cannot confirm the story but stating there is nothing wardens can do is a cop out. Did someone not get the message to the Maine Warden Service that Maine has a serious deer management problem and coyotes are part of that problem?

As hunters and trappers began complaining to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife about coyotes, the response was quite similar. They were told if they didn’t like the coyotes go kill them. As didn’t happen in this meeting in Otisfield, it would have been nice had a spokesperson for MDIFW or the Maine Warden Service simply stated that they were fully aware of the problem and was working on remedies BUT in the meantime we would like your help. That would go a long ways instead of hiding behind half truths.

It is time to change up the repeated mantra that it is rare that coyotes attack large animals. It is not rare and residents should be told that it is increasing. Poorly managed wildlife creates situations where too many predators can destroy an ecosystem in short order. If an area becomes overrun with coyotes and they’ve cleaned up the turkeys, grouse, rabbits, mice, moles, birds, chipmunks, squirrels, deer, etc., it’s time they headed for the nearest convenience store, which might just be your back yard. Telling people it is rare is misinforming and does nothing to educate the people so they will know what needs to be done to protect themselves and their property.

And as always we hear the same claim that it is completely safe to go into the woods. I wonder if Taylor Mitchell’s family would agree with, “You don’t have to worry about coyotes chasing you out of the woods for a meal. It’s just not going to happen.” Taylor Mitchell was a very young girl and promising musician who was attacked and killed by coyotes while hiking in Nova Scotia this past fall.

This was a rare occurrence for sure but why can’t we get beyond that? Why can’t we follow that up with an explanation about what things have to exist in our environment that would cause coyotes to attack people? To not do this is ignorant and irresponsible. I have linked to this resource countless times. It’s an article written by Dr. Valerius Geist, a man who has first hand knowledge and experience with wolves and coyotes. He shares with us some very easy to understand steps that help us recognized things around us that will help us avoid becoming an attack victim. Please read it. It is written about wolves but just as much pertains to coyotes and especially Maine’s coyotes as they are a wolf/coyote hybrid.

As you read Dr. Geist’s piece, bear in mind what is happening in Maine. A couple of severe winters, combined with an overgrown coyote population, an increased black bear population, a reduction in rabbits and other small prey and Maine has a classic situation of a lot of hungry coyotes. Geist tells us the first step in recognizing coyotes that might become a problem.

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.

I can tell you from personal experience that this fall while deer hunting in Maine I marveled at the absence of any wildlife. This included rabbits, grouse, birds, squirrels and chipmunks. Rarely did I spot a chickadee.

Once this food source is gone, the coyotes will approach humans and their houses, barns, pastures, etc. looking for food. This is what’s happening in Maine now and passing the buck as to whose responsibility it is to better manage our predators isn’t going to get anything accomplished.

A retired game warden who attended the meeting stated that exterminating coyotes was an impossibility. Isn’t it amazing that it wasn’t a impossibility the first time it happened? It wasn’t an impossibility when people eradicated wolves from the west many years ago. When that happened it was blamed on man; all the hunters and trappers; those evil men who only want to kill animals.

I would tend to agree with this gentleman that it is not likely to happen under the restrictions and protections that exist for the coyote. Maine likes to brag about what a liberal hunting season they have on coyotes but fail to pass on that all the useful tools to better manage coyotes have been stripped away. We all know that trappers became very good at utilizing snares to reduce coyotes in and around winter deer yards. Not only are trappers prohibited from trapping into the dead of winter but snaring has been banned because of false claims that the snares were killing protected species, i.e. Canada lynx.

Maine has a wildlife management problem exacerbated by a couple of severe winters. The responsible thing to do would be to admit that the harsh winters brought to the forefront all the weaknesses that exist in the state’s wildlife management programs and begin a process of rectifying them instead of telling the people it’s their problem, while failing to admit that there are conditions when hungry coyotes can be a danger to humans.

It is time to make some changes in the laws that protect the coyote in order to not only save Maine deer herd but to protect people and their property. Simply telling people they’re safe and it’s their problem is reason to wonder why we need the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife or the Warden Service.

Tom Remington

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

HCR043 Idaho Bill Encourages Gov. To Declare Emergency To Reduce Wolf Numbers

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixtieth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 43
BY RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

1 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
2 STATING FINDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO
3 WOLVES DEFINE AN EMERGENCY CONDITION FOR ALL RURAL IDAHOANS AND, IN THE
4 FACE OF THIS EMERGENCY, THE LEGISLATURE ENCOURAGES THE GOVERNOR OF THE
5 STATE OF IDAHO TO DECLARE THAT A STATE OF EMERGENCY EXISTS IN IDAHO AND
6 TO AUTHORIZE AND REQUIRE THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME TO USE
7 ANY MEANS TO REDUCE WOLF NUMBERS TO THOSE DESIGNATED FOR RECOVERY OF THE
8 SPECIES.

9 Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

10 WHEREAS, wolf populations have grown to a level of over eight times the
11 number designated for recovery of the species in Idaho and no effective man12
agement plan exists for reducing wolf populations to the number designated
13 for recovery of the species? and
14 WHEREAS, growing and unacceptable levels of wolf predation against
15 livestock and pets exist and many claims relating to losses by wolves are not
16 fully compensated? and
17 WHEREAS, wolf packs have moved into densely populated areas and unnec18
essarily large numbers of wolves constitute a threat, not only to property,
19 but to human life itself, with particular threat to children? and
20 WHEREAS, the time and costs expended in an effort to protect livestock
21 against wolf attacks is never compensated? and
22 WHEREAS, people living in most rural parts of the state are threatened
23 by wolves and must change their habits and lose the safe use of, and travel
24 upon, their own property. Individuals must now arm themselves to face the
25 threat of growing, unchecked numbers of wolves in many parts of the state?
26 and
27 WHEREAS, unchecked numbers of wolves are destroying the culture and
28 heritage of rural Idahoans including, but not limited to, their use of real
29 estate, their use of hounds for legal hunting of big game, their livelihood
30 in professional hunting, such as outfitting and guiding, and their choice of
31 type and location of livestock animals for food production and recreation?
32 and
33 WHEREAS, excessive wolf populations reduce livestock production
34 through direct loss of life and loss of productivity, with higher costs to
35 producers, which creates devaluation of established livestock businesses in
36 areas of high wolf populations? and
37 WHEREAS, excessive numbers of wolves are hindering recovery of elk pop38
ulations in parts of the state, are reducing the big game populations avail39
able to hunters in the state, and are preventing the Idaho Department of Fish
40 and Game from exercising its mandate to manage big game for the benefit of
41 hunters in the state? and
42 WHEREAS, in 2006, Governor Jim Risch issued Executive Order No. 200643
32, finding that there was an imminent threat to the health of wild elk herds,

Page 2

1 as well as to the public health and safety of the citizens of Idaho, due to
2 escape of domestic elk from the Conant Creek Facility in eastern Idaho and
3 ordered the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to “identify and shoot on site,
4 any domestic elk that have escaped from the Conant Creek Facility.” The large
5 number of wolves in the state presents a far greater threat.
6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the Second Regular
7 Session of the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives
8 and the Senate concurring therein, that the above described conditions
9 define an emergency condition for all rural Idahoans and, in the face of this
10 emergency, the Legislature hereby encourages the Governor of the State of
11 Idaho to declare that a state of emergency exists in Idaho and to authorize
12 and require the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to use any legal means to
13 reduce wolf numbers to those designated for recovery of the species.

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

Rep. Edgecomb Presents Governor with Petitions to Save Northern Whitetail Deer Herd

AUGUSTA – State Rep. Peter Edgecomb (R-Caribou) yesterday presented Gov. John Baldacci with petitions calling for a predator management program to save Maine’s dwindling northern whitetail deer herd from being decimated by coyotes.

More than 4,000 Mainers signed the petitions, mostly residents of Aroostook County, including guides, trappers and hunting camp operators. State Rep. Bernard Ayotte (R-Caswell) collected the signatures but was unable to attend the meeting at the governor’s office.

The petition calls on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IFW) to institute, without delay, an effective predator management program including, but not limited to, filing an incidental take permit in order to reactivate the winter coyote snaring program. The “incidental take permit” (ITP) refers to the snaring of lynx. Lynx, which are listed as “threatened” in Maine under the Endangered Species Act, cover much of the area in northern Maine where there is great concern for deer.

The governor said he will make sure the IFW commissioner receives the petitions.

An IFW official said the department applied for an ITP from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in August 2008 while it was still fighting lawsuits from animal rights groups seeking to block the permit. The FWS has not acted on the ITP application to date; but Ken Elowe, the director of IFW’s Bureau of Resource Management, says action may be imminent. “I have had recent communications with FWS stating that they are nearing the point of (required) advertising in the Federal Register for 60 days of public comment before they can act on the application,” he reported. “IFW continues to work on this, with the help of Maine Trappers Association, to get a solution for Maine’s people.”

IFW set up a task force in 2007 to study the problem of a declining deer herd. The final report said, in part: “Deer populations in northern and eastern Maine are very low; in many areas, the deer population is less than five deer per square mile. This is compared with deer densities of between 15 and 20 deer per square mile in central and southern Maine. Such population densities…are greatly below the desires and expectations of resident and non-resident deer hunters, guides and outfitters, business owners located in rural Maine, and those who enjoy watching deer. The public is frustrated by low deer numbers, and it is demanding an upturn in the population.”

The petitions to the governor were accompanied by the letter from Jerry McLaughlin, president of the Aroostook County Conservation Association, in New Sweden. He wrote: “It is terribly apparent that past policies have failed miserably, resulting in a devastated whitetail deer herd throughout much of northern Maine. The social and economic impact that has occurred as a result of these flawed policies should not be acceptable nor overlooked. Our outdoor heritage is at stake, and millions of dollars in revenue have been lost. We do not have time for more task forces and study groups that take years on end with no results.”

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

PLF asks Ninth Circuit to strike down Delta smelt regs that worsen drought

In an appeal filed by attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked to strike down federal Delta smelt regulations that have led to devastating cutbacks on water pumping from the Delta to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

The pumping reductions amount to a “regulatory drought” that exacerbates the water shortages that already are plaguing much of the state, according to PLF.

“We are asking the Ninth Circuit to put the brakes on out-of-control federal bureaucracies that are depriving farms and communities of the most vital resource—water,” said PLF Attorney Damien Schiff. “The court should reassert basic constitutional restraints on federal power. The Delta smelt has no role in interstate commerce, so federal regulators have no authority to issue any edicts about the Delta smelt, let alone draconian water-pumping reductions that threaten our economy and our food security.”

Watch coverage of PLF’s press conference from KXTV, Channel 10, Sacramento’s ABC affiliate: .

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

Eating Wolf Scat And Howling At The Moon

It was Thomas Jefferson who once said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” How true! Evidently in Jefferson’s wisdom, he understood people of good conscience. It was perhaps a bit of a rallying cry to the people that remaining silent on issues was good recipe for tyranny, spelled out as loss of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

People of good conscience had an agenda foisted upon them when wolves were released into the Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. Foisted because I believe that the entire notion was fraudulent, keeping valuable information from the people and misrepresenting the ultimate goals of those behind the debacle.

I read some place recently that it is part of the character of good conscience people to politely sit by, having no desire to take up opposition or make public spectacles of themselves through protests and verbal combativeness. And as such, one has only to ask, how far can these people of good conscience be pushed before they begin to push back?

When the grass roots Tea Party movement began, most on the left couldn’t rationally deal with it. It must have come as a big shock to many when the Tea Party activists took to the streets in copius numbers, rallying fellow Americans to their cause. After all, street protests are the fingerprint of the liberal left. Still, the left cannot and will not come to grips with the concept that those good conscience people will push back when pushed too far.

After 8 years of George W. Bush, Americans wanted something different. They swallowed the campaign rhetoric of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and yet refused to listen to the facts of the man’s past. One year later, eyes have begun to open to the realization this isn’t the change they wanted. They are pushing back. We became witnesses to this thrust in New Jersey, Virginia and most recently Massachusetts. The people, good conscience people, revolted against what is being crammed down their throats. Remaining silent appears to no longer be an option.

It is acutely insulting when the good conscience people’s president appears before the nation and essentially tells them they are too stupid to understand what the health care reform bill is about. His excuse was he failed to explain it to you and me.

The good conscience people also see with their own two eyes when there is hypocrisy and double standards. When George W. Bush was president and the opposition party dissented, it was declared one of the grandest exhibitions of American patriotism. With that same opposition party now in control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, dissent is wicked and evil, very much unpatriotic.

The good conscience people may be passive and difficult to motivate but they are not so stupid that they cannot see what is before them. Today, Charles Krauthammer writes about a great peasant revolt, pointing a finger at those on the left for ignoring what the people want, citing the push back by voters in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.

Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. “They made a decision,” explained David Axelrod, “they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed” — a perfect expression of liberals’ conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country’s, that their idea of the public good is the public’s, that their failure is therefore the nation’s……………………….
For liberals, the observation that “the peasants are revolting” is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

Good conscience people don’t care if it’s a liberal or conservative issue. When something strikes them beside the head, if it’s large enough to cause a big enough impact, they will push back.

Fifteen years of water under the bridge, the wolf debate in the West is no closer to a resolve. There is however, a pushing back, a peasant revolt, if you will, far from reaching a “great” peasant revolt. It was nearly one year ago that I warned of “wolf wars“. The wars would be the result of the wolf advocates refusing to back down from their unreasonable demands about protecting the gray wolf, cramming down the throats of people the impacts from too many wolves they didn’t want nor thought they were getting.

Much of the political and social atmosphere that exists in wolf reintroduction country can be attributed to the actions of an unrelenting group that cares nothing at all about what the good conscience people of the area want. These wolf advocates have destroyed their support in the battle for public opinion by representing themselves as the authorities that know better what the people need than the people.

Where once they had their way, the good conscience people are pushing back. The quiet and hard working people have had enough. More and more people are seeing before their eyes the results of too many wolves, far more than the good conscience people were promised.

Groups are organizing to fight back. The good conscience people were willing to have a few wolves in their woods but not at the expense they are now realizing. It didn’t have to be this way but this was the decision the wolf advocates chose. It’s the path they now must walk.

We are also now seeing actions being taken by the border states around the wolf reintroduction area. Utah wants a law forbidding wolves anywhere in the state. Why is that? Has that state’s attitude been influenced by what they can see going on in their neighbor states? They are pushing back. Had the wolf lovers backed off and listened to what the people wanted, it might not have come to this. For wolf advocates, this is a serious blow to their efforts and a somber loss of what little respect they had.

With the refusal of the wolf advocate groups and wildlife officials to listen to others, to hear what the people want, the good conscience people, they face a rude awakening. To scoff at the good conscience people telling them the only way to contract diseases from wolves is to eat the wolves feces, is a direct insult of their intelligence. The good conscience people will not tolerate this kind of tyrannical rule. They are pushing back. They will tell them to “eat wolf scat and go howl at the moon”!

Tom Remington

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

Are Idaho Wildlife Biologists “Really That Dumb”?

The January 2010 issue of The Outdoorsman is out and full of tons of information about the ongoing debate in the Idaho, Montana, Wyoming areas where it has been found that introduced wolves are infected with tapeworms that can cause cystic hydatid disease. These worms can result in troubles with wild ungulate populations, they can be carried by domestic dogs, sheep, foxes, etc. and eventually end up causing health risk problems for humans, possibly resulting in death.

In this latest issue, editor George Dovel wrote an article titled, “IDFG “White Paper” Response to Concerns About Wolves Introducing New Strain of Hydatid Disease”. This addresses the fact that Idaho Fish and Game officials ignored warnings from the Centers for Disease Control, as well as evidence on the ground, and played down any possible serious health risks from this disease.

Fish and Game Regional Supervisor Chip Corsi emailed employees that he directly supervises and said:

“Some of you may have seen the latest from George Dovel’s “The Outdoorsman”. Based on Mark’s (IDFG veterinarian Mark Drew) assessments (attached), human health risk is quite low, provided you avoid consuming things like canid feces and uncooked organs; and I think suggests Dovel’s interpretation is more than a bit sensationalized. If you are handling wolves or coyotes, wear gloves. Risk to humans does not appear to be any greater than with other parasites found in wildlife that we, and hunters/trappers, routinely handle.”

It is highly laughable that a paid professional would in his attempt to scoff at Dovel’s concern for human health and safety, state that Dovel was being “more than a bit sensationalized”. This comes right after telling his employees, in his own being “more than a bit sensationalized”, that the only way you can be at risk of contracting hydatid disease is to eat “canid feces”.

This is of course absurd and should be exposed for what it is. For more on the disease, the risks and what you can do to reduce chances of infection, follow these links, here, here, here. I also plan to cover this issue more at a later date. Stay tuned.

Back to George Dovel’s column. He states that he has received numerous emails from veterinarians about Corsi’s comments about eating wolf scat and they want to know if Idaho Fish and Game biologists are that dumb? That’s a good question. Are they?

Maybe Dovel answers that question in a separate article in the same January issue. As is Dovel’s signature of writing, he goes to lengths to present readers with the facts about hydatid disease, covering some of its history, actual cases, how they were treated and on and on, supplying also links to where readers can get more facts and information.

His frustration begins to show as he points out the wildlife officials efforts to, not only downplay the potential risks to humans but efforts to cover up the facts. Does any of this make any sense? Are wildlife officials really that dumb?

Interestingly, Dovel includes a brief “editor’s note” at the conclusion of his article.

(NOTE: A comparison of these statements from medical doctors whose agenda is to protect private citizens from disease, with the statements from wildlife officials whose agenda is to protect wolves and their parasites from private citizens, is revealing. – ED)

As I said, I think Dovel answered the query of the veterinarians in making that statement. One would assume (arguable) that dumbness would not permit a wildlife biologist to land a job or perhaps even get a degree. From that perspective then it must be mostly about agendas, the agenda to protect the wolves at all cost.

But let’s not point a finger at just Chip Corsi and IDFG veterinarian Mark Drew. Even Ed Bangs, head wolf recovery person for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has made every effort to protect his valuable wolves, seemingly at the expense of public safety. He’s gone so far as to scoff at and demonize those who are attempting to educate the public about the presence of disease, that happens to be carried by introduced wolves.

I personally find it revealing the actions taken by the collective “wolf advocates”; very defensive while downplaying the risks and demonizing those like George Dovel. I have covered this story since it first came to light about two-thirds of the wolves found to be laced with worms in Idaho and Montana. I’ve communicated with George Dovel, Dr. Valerius Geist, Dr. Charles Kay, Will Graves, as well as others, and done a lot of reading and research. Not one of these people or the heads of several sportsman’s groups have, from what I have seen, used this opportunity to exploit wolves and demand they be killed to solve the problem.

To copy Dovel’s comment, let me say that a comparison of statements and actions by wildlife officials and those of scientists and outdoor sportsmen groups, is very revealing.

Dr. Valerius Geist said it this way.

The pro and contra machinations pertaining to wolves are of little concern here. What is important is that people living or recreating in areas with hydatid disease take precautions, while steps have to be undertaken to eradicate the disease.

Would you rather listen to Dr. Geist’s advice or that of a Idaho Fish and Game supervisor saying there is no danger unless you eat wolf &^@#?

Yes, it is quite revealing!

Tom Remington

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

Ed Bangs, USFWS: “They’re No Big Deal” re: Wolves

Last week Ed Bangs, head wolf recovery guru for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said that the decline in moose populations in the Yellowstone National Park area was due to climate change and that his reintroduction of wolves has nothing to do with it. He also was quoted as saying that the presence of wolves worldwide, was “no big deal”. In the context in which that statement was made, let me post it here as it appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune as of January 21, 2010.

“People who don’t like them [wolves] give them supernatural powers. It’s that way all over the world,” Bangs says. “In reality, they’re no big deal.”

That’s really the ultimate in ignorant statements, especially coming from a professional working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It also appears I’m not alone in that assessment.

Tony Mayer, owner/administrator for Save Our Elk, is challenging Bangs on his statement that wolves are “no big deal”. He is asking if Bangs intends to stand by that statement and gives us all a list of reasons the presence of wolves may be a bigger deal than Bangs or others are willing to admit.

Consider the impact to an ecosystem that was previously untouched by wolves (prior to 1994). Consider that this same Rocky Mountain Wilderness area now has a top-tier predator thrust into its midst. The predator has experienced phenomenal growth and currently exceeds 2,000 to 3,000 wolves depending whose numbers you believe. This predator is a borne killer and hunts 365 days per year. It is responsible for killing 6,000 and 12,000 elk monthly. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they’re no big deal?”

Consider that Elk/Calf recruitment has plummeted to record lows in many areas where these wolves roam and is now below replenishment levels. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they’re no big deal?”

Consider that wolves are primarily responsible for rapid spread of parasites and diseases within their range. These parasites Neospora Caninum and Echinococcus granulose were largely undetected prior to the introduction of wolves and now are infecting other wildlife and livestock at alarming rates. The impact of these 2,000 to 3,000 wolves exponentially spreading disease within our borders is catastrophic, and will forever impact our game, domestic livestock and potentially to humans. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they’re no big deal??”

Consider the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been wasted and that wolves are continuing to cost our government and the citizens of our states. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they’re no big deal?”

And being as Mr. Bangs declared that wolves worldwide were no big deal, I can add to this list more than time would allow, the negative impact wolves have had on people’s lives. Mayer points out what is taking place in and around the Yellowstone area. Most of us are uninformed about the long and sordid history of wolves worldwide and the death and destruction to humans and their property caused by wolves. In America we scoff and claim such stories to be myths, as does Bangs in his own ignorance, much due to the indoctrination we have all had beat into our brains since birth. He was only one step away from referencing Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf.

No, the sky is not falling or the world coming to an end. Real wildlife conservationists are interested in first protecting the health and safety of humans and then their property. Where wildlife populations once were sparse and in need of help, hunters’ money from license fees etc. brought back to the Yellowstone and many other areas of this country, bountiful and healthy species of game and wildlife. It is irresponsible to sit by and allow ignorance, driven by special interest groups, to destroy this investment.

Ed Bangs works for all taxpayers. If he honestly believes that an overblown population of a ravaging predator, known to carry diseases, is “no big deal”, then it is time that USFWS found a replacement for him.

Tom Remington

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

USFWS Wolf Chief Blames Moose Loss In Yellowstone On Climate Disruption

Is this a first? Climate disruption? Because the theory behind man-made global warming has been proven a fraud, has our liberal press created a new buzz word to explain away the errors, fraud, conspiracy and manipulations of “We the People”? Climate disruption? We’ve gone from global warming to climate change and now it’s climate disruption. Is that a catch-all phrase that we can use for any excuse to place blame and pass off responsibility?

I can certainly understand how an individual, who stakes his entire life and reputation on bringing wolves back into the Yellowstone National Park area and Central Idaho, would react so emotionally when he hears that a legislator in Utah wants to kill all his wolves trying to enter the state of Utah.

Bangs is supposed to be a professional, a salaried employee of the Department of Interior/United States Fish and Wildlife Service, one whose salary is paid by the taxpayers of this country. You would expect a better response from a professional scientist.

“People who don’t like them [wolves] give them supernatural powers. It’s that way all over the world,” Bangs says. “In reality, they’re no big deal.”

The tone of the article leads a reader to think that the presence of wolves is no big deal. He seems to blow off and almost ridicule anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his outdated information on wolves. His reference to people “giv[ing] them supernatural powers” is almost a Farley Mowatt followers response. I wonder if he also believes wolves only eat mice and tiny rodents?

But in reality, did Bangs refer to the loss of moose in the Yellowstone area to “climate disruption” or did the author of the article do it? You decide.

Wolves have contributed to a decline of elk in and around Yellowstone, but moose loss is probably more due to climate disruption. “Moose can’t handle heat at all,” Bangs says. “They just lie around and don’t store body fat.”

Notice the quotations mark don’t come in until after the use of “climate disruption” and the quiet admission by the author (I wonder where that information came from?) that wolves have contributed to elk reduction. It does however seem to fit with the quoted response by Bangs saying moose can’t handle the heat – assuming he is referring to global warming. He is also saying that moose do nothing but lie around in this “climate disruption” and die. And, according to the same article, Bangs said that wolves are only a problem with some livestock.

Bangs’ comments are not sitting well with many wildlife and outdoor sporting organizations. It has been slow coming but state wildlife officials in Idaho and Montana are now coming around to admit that wolves are destroying their elk, deer and moose herds far more than they thought they would. In some places, the effect is serious, posing a real threat to elk, deer and moose herds.

Don Peay of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife in Utah asked Bangs:

I would like some scientist to explain to me how Utah – which has a hotter climate than Wyoming, Idaho and Montana whether there is global warming, climate disruption, etc – is seeing a totally different trend in Moose, than is being experienced in the wolf inhabited areas of WY, MT, and ID.

If Climate disruption is the reason that moose are declining in the Yellowstone region – it is so hot the moose populations just lie around and don’t put on fat reserves – then why are Utah moose populations increasing significantly during this same climate change phenomenon ? it would seem to me that if heat was the problem, then Utah’s moose populations should be even in greater decline than the greater Yellowstone area.

Toby Bridges, a hunter and activist who administers Lobo Watch, had a much more emotional response to Bangs’ comments. I won’t share all of them here but here’s some of what Bridges had to say:

Sportsmen here fully realize that growing wolf numbers have destroyed Yellowstone’s great elk herd, not Global Warming. Likewise, elk herds all along the mountains of western Montana and northern Idaho are being decimated by out of control wolf numbers. And when addressing this issue, the best you can do is is to toss out an “Oh well” attitude in the linked article, trying to use smoke and mirrors and a list of other factors to try covering up the real problem – your parasite carrying kill crazy wolves.

So while many sportsman’s groups in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Oregon and Washington have united together to work in a proactive way to convince the courts to allow the states to manage wolves at a level that will provide a better balance between predator and prey, Bangs is still preaching the “wolves aren’t the problem” mantra. Our tax dollars at work I suppose.

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »