Apples And Oranges

If I hear one more time that I am more likely to be attacked by a domestic dog than a wolf, I think I’ll…..I’ll…..I’ll, oh, I don’t know what I’ll do. Do you know how ridiculous that statement is?

In America we have something like 300 million humans. How many wolves are there? There are basically 3 areas with wolf populations - Western Great Lakes with a many as 6,000 wolves estimated; Northern Rockies with an estimated population of 1,600; and the Southwest with a few hundred, maybe. Total estimated wolf population of between 7,000 and 8,000 and I’m sure that is low. Let’s even say there are 20,000 wolves kicking around the woods in the U.S.

Domestic dogs are difficult to estimate, especially even considering stray dogs. Some estimates have the number of domestic dogs living in American households around 75 million.

It becomes quite obvious that I am more likely to be attacked or even killed by a domestic dog. For one thing there are over 3,000-4,000 times more domestic dogs than wolves and secondly, humans come in contact with dogs on a daily basis. For crying out loud, they live in houses with us. Many domestic dog attacks in the U.S. happen right in the home where the dog lives with family members.

It is absurd to make such a statement!

Tom Remington

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

Wolves, Wyoming, and Where We Go From Here

By Harriet M. Hageman and Kara Brighton, Hageman and Brighton, P.C.

On April 2, 2009, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued yet another “Final Rule” in the ongoing wolf “reintroduction” disaster. The latest FWS decision was issued in an obvious attempt to appease the environmentalists’ hand-picked Montana federal district court judge who attempted to erect a major roadblock to delisting by concluding that there was insufficient “genetic exchange” between wolf “subpopulations,” that Wyoming had “failed to commit” to managing for at least 15 breeding pairs, that there were alleged problems with the size of Wyoming’s trophy game area, and criticism of Wyoming’s steadfast decision to designate wolves as predators in part of the State (i.e., those areas of Wyoming that the FWS identified as “unsuitable” for wolf habitat). The FWS’s latest effort to foist the responsibility and expense of managing the non-native Canadian gray wolves onto the States is to “delist” such animals in Idaho and Montana, as well as parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah, and to retain them as a “non-essential experimental” population in Wyoming. <<<read the rest>>>

Tom Remington

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

When You Want “Settled Science” Simply Ban Opposing Views

Intelligent people have known for some time that the whole notion of global warming being caused by man-made carbon dioxide is a farce, embedded in politics and driven by greed and the desire to capitalize on a faux crisis to make gobs of money. To justify the actions of those involved, including former Vice President Al Gore, they have for some time declared that anthropogenic global warming is settled science.

I never knew there was ever anything called settled science, as I see it as a dangerous and ignorant approach to anything. Suppose where we would be if scientists worldwide had settled on the initial science presented to them without offering any kind of challenge.

It now appears that the best way for global warming alarmists to protect their assumptions of settled science is to ban and/or stifle the opinions of anyone who disagrees. Such is the case for Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a recognized expert on polar bears, having dedicated 30 years to the study of the bears. Taylor has been banned from attending a meeting in Copenhagen of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). The meeting’s objective is to formulate another theory to scare the public into further buying into the concept that global warming is killing all the polar bears because of melting sea ice. This they are hoping will set the stage for December’s United Nations climate change meeting, also to take place in Copenhagen.

One might ask why Dr. Taylor would be banned from such a meeting, being that he is an expert on polar bears. It seems that Dr. Taylor does not subscribe to melting sea ice or global warming as being caused by man. He says it’s natural. He also was one of 500 scientists who signed the Manhattan Declaration, a statement presented by 500 scientists from around the world willing to publicly state that climate change is natural. This obviously runs counter to the alarmists who aren’t interested in truth only to proceed with their agenda.

When opposing opinions are barred from debate, then global warming alarmists can better bolster their claims that the majority of the science community accepts man-made global warming and can label anyone willing to make any noise in opposition as some kind of whack-job, completely out of touch with the rest of the scientific world. (How many times have we heard about that in the history of world science? Columbus didn’t fall of the edge of the earth.)

As Christopher Booker wrote in an article about this in the Telegraph:

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of “scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice”

As an FYI, did you know that the average temperature of the Arctic at mid-summer is averaging below 0 - C? This hasn’t happened in 50 years of record keeping.

Tom Remington

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

Getting Our Priorities In Order

If you think it is more important to provide much needed water to human beings rather than keeping it from them in order to save a fish, visit this site and help the cause.

Tom Remington

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

Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf Population Goes Back On Endangered List

In a move that is becoming extremely nauseating and utterly ridiculous, void of any science that President Obama promised would return to decisions like this, the government reached an agreement with those groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, who had sued to stop delisting, the gray wolf was returned to government protection. It appears the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not exactly follow the legal steps before they could declare a removal from the Endangered Species Act list.

Before a move such as delisting, the USFWS must provide a 60-day public comment period and evidently this was not done. Because of that, the U.S. Government and the HSUS, et. al., reached an agreement that puts the wolves in Minnesota back under a “threatened” status and the rest of the wolves return as endangered. Wolves in Idaho and Montana that have be removed from the list, are not affected.

According to the news source that can’t be named or linked to, the agreement states that “if the Fish and Wildlife Service tries again to remove the wolves from the endangered list, it will hold a 60-day comment period.”

A spokesperson for HSUS said that this gives the USFWS the opportunity to reconsider their “failed wolf-management policies” and put an end to what they called “reckless plans” to start hunting wolves as part of the management plans.

The USFWS says it plans to regroup and attempt to delist the Western Great Lakes wolf population again.

Tom Remington

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

Obama Buckles Under Pressure From Wolf Lover Groups And Returns Wolf To Federal Protection In Minnesota

I have very little information on this right now but it appears that Barack Obama has in fact caved in to those who voted for him in the 2008 presidential election and has ordered a review of the decision made by the Department of Interior to remove the gray from the Endangered Species List in the state of Minnesota. Whether this order involves other states, I don’t know at this time.

I will have more information available to you as soon as I get it.

Tom Remington

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

Montana’s Bitterroot Elk Herd At Lowest Levels Ever, In Serious Trouble

With calf to cow ratios in some areas of Montana’s Bitterroot three times lower than what is considered sustainable levels, officials are still reluctant to say it’s the wolves. They admit that wolves are having an impact but refuse to say it is the main problem.

In the meantime, the elk herds suffer and continue to dwindle below dangerous levels while politics rules the day.

More on this problem can be read on the Missoulian and Ravalli Republic.

Tom Remington

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

2008 Idaho Wolf Location Map

This map may be of interest to some readers. Please click on the map for a larger version in pdf.

Tom Remington

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

Wolves? Shoot ‘Em

Don’t spit on your computer screen at me………well, on second thought go ahead. It’s your computer.

Huckleberries Online, part of the Spokesman Review in Idaho made the above comment followed by this and a question.

Bayview Herb: just learned today, that a breeding pair of Wolves was frequently seen in Hidden Valley, which lies north of Hwy 53 and south of Hauser lake, last winter. I guess the next step will be shooting them off porches in a tract. While I realize I am going to enrage a few Sierra club types, the west was won by ranches, both cattle and sheep. They felt it necessary, and so did the federal government to eradicate them because you can’t teach a wolf to discriminate between wild game and domestic herds of animals.

And here’s the question: Are you nervous that wolves are moving closer and closer to North Idaho urban areas?

Huckleberries is taking your comments and answers to this question. Better get over there quickly. It seems those interested in kissing wolves and sharing marshmallows around the campfire with them are the only ones that have anything to say.

Tom Remington

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

Idaho Fish And Game Tells Us What They Know About Wolves And Elk

At first I was going to say that I wasn’t going to make snide comments about why it has taken so long for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to “discover” what hunters, ranchers, outdoor sportsmen and the general population has known about the impact of wolves on wildlife in that state. But then, why try to hide behind making a point without making a point.

So, why has it taken so long? As frustrating as it is, we all know that government bureaucracy turns a simple task into a conglomerated pile of camel dung, to put it in terms most humans can understand. The scary part of this entire process is that by the time the “experts” have arrived at an “official” conclusion, it’s too late.

According to the Spokesman Review the Western States and Provinces Deer and Elk Workshop was held in Spokane, Washington on Wednesday and researchers and scientists shared some of their findings. Pete Zager, a biologist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, shared with other scientists what they “know for sure” about elk and wolves.

•Elk herds are declining.

•Wolf packs are growing – well above original objectives.

•The number of elk harvested by hunters has been declining, from around 25,000 in the mid-’90s, when wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rocky Mountains, to roughly 15,000 last year.

•Elk hunting seasons and quotas have been reduced for 2009, but the impacts of wolves are likely to go unchecked.

•Wolf management through hunting is scheduled to begin this fall, but likely will be challenged in court by animal protection groups.

•Wolves have become the most important factor in predation on elk. However, they’re not the only factor.

“Wolves have given cougars a huge favor by taking the spotlight. Cougars are still a significant factor (in elk mortality).

•Forest fire suppression also is a factor in elk declines.

•The impacts of wolves on elk vary dramatically in various game management units.

My first question is, how long has it been since IDFG received this epiphany? The second question is why hasn’t IDFG shared this information with the rest of Idaho’s citizens and in particular the sportsmen who buy the licenses that pay their salaries? The third question I have is did IDFG have this information and have withheld it until after they got the tax increase on license fees?

It should be the responsibility of the IDFG to actively get this information out for everyone to know. We all know that the wolf advocates have free run of the media and regularly publish their talking points, most of which are in direct contradiction as to what IDFG is now telling us. It’s imperative that the bad information that is being published and republished be rebutted with the truth. Will it happen? Don’t hold your breath.

An added find: There has begun serious debate of late about whether or not coyotes have an effect on mule and whitetail deer populations. The debate is varied with beliefs that range from it being a major problem to zero effect. The truth is we don’t know for sure. The good part is we are beginning to talk about it.

In this same Spokesman Review article, I found one sentence I thought interesting.

A Washington researcher presented documentation of a dramatic increase in elk calf survival in the Green and White river drainages after cougar numbers were reduced.

I would suppose this information may show us a couple of things: One, predator numbers can be reduced and two, by doing such, elk calf survival rates went up. It might be a no-brainer but if we can complicate, politicize and monetize it, this debate could last another half century.

Tom Remington

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

Calling A Colander A Bucket

Some would probably say I need to find something better to do with my time but as part of an education process, I think it’s important that people begin to learn that black doesn’t mean white, that go doesn’t mean stop and that a colander is not a bucket. It also is necessary to learn that the Defenders of Wildlife are not a “conservation” organization, no more than the Humane Society of the United States or any host of other animal rights groups.

Everywhere I went on the Internet today I saw headline after headline that read, “Conservation Groups Sue Over Gray Wolf Delisting”. The problem has always been the media’s ignorance of calling these groups conservation groups. There’s really nothing about them that fits the definition.

A conservation group understands that it is important to manage wildlife and ecosystems that will sustain a yield long into the future. When one group puts all its focus on saving one thing, in this case the gray wolf, it is done so at the expense of other species putting those species in jeopardy of being able to sustain itself. That’s far from conservation. But that never stopped a good agenda-driven radical group from raising money while convincing the lazy media they are a conservation group.

Let’s face it. Calling someone like Defenders of Wildlife a conservation group sure sounds better than a left-wing radical organization. I’m not even sure they would qualify as a preservationist group, unless of course to preserve something means at the expense of any other living organism.

Tom Remington

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

Economy Hurting Idaho Hunting Or Poor Hunting?

Finding the truth in anything these days is harder than finding an honest man in Washington. Rumors are flying off the wall about Idaho’s upcoming hunting season and it’s difficult to get any information that can tell us if hunting license sales are falling or this is simply a rumor.

Bouncing around the Internet, through emails, chat rooms and forums, some hunters are saying that an unusually high number of non residents will not buy a hunting license in Idaho because they are sick and tired of not finding any game to hunt. Much of the blame being placed on wolves.

I do not know whether Idaho’s license sales are lagging to this point of the year as compared to previous but it has been confirmed that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game has been sending out letters to past non resident hunting license holders encouraging them to buy their licenses and at the same time saying that the hunting prospects are great.

Truth is, in 2 of our 29 elk zones, wolves have been shown to contribute to declines in elk numbers and our Fish and Game Commission is acting aggressively to address those problem areas. In other elk zones, numbers are holding up or actually increasing. And this fall Idaho will likely be able to offer a wolf tag for the possibility of a unique mixed bag hunt.

There seems to be two bones of contention with this information being sent out. First, many hunters, both resident and non resident, do not buy into the concept that only 2 of 29 elk zones are seeing any problems with elk numbers declining. As a matter of fact, hunters are angry that they can’t seem to get the IDFG to admit there is a problem. In the two areas IDFG is willing to admit to, at least one of those areas now suffers from the reality that the elk herd has reached non recoverable numbers.

Why did it take so long for IDFG to publicly admit this problem? And because of that, hunters are afraid that many other elk zones are suffering far worse than IDFG wants to let on and by the time it is admitted, those zones will also be in serious trouble.

If there really are as many elk to hunt in Idaho as IDFG is telling previous license holders, then would there be any real decrease in license sales other than what we should expect as a result of a bad economy?

The second issue that is troublesome is telling perspective license buyers that it is “likely” the state of Idaho will be offering “over-the-counter” wolf tags this fall. It is about as likely that Idaho will have a wolf hunt as it is that the moon is really made of cheese.

Only time will tell, I suppose, as to whether Idaho will suffer a setback in hunting license sales. What we should be just as concerned about is whether there really is an elk population problem and whether the IDFG is trying to hide it in order to keep license sales from disappearing.

Tom Remington

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

SCI Litigation Team Needs Assistance From Members Whose Hunting Has Been Affected by Wolves

Dear Montana and Idaho Safari Club International Members:

A number of animal rights groups are about to file a lawsuit to challenge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s newest rule that delisted the wolves of your states and that returned wolf management to your state fish and game authorities.

SCI’s Litigation Department will be moving to intervene to defend the wolf delisting rule. To participate in this litigation, we must demonstrate for the court how the rule benefits SCI members and how the Plaintiffs’ success in challenging the rule would harm our members. For that reason we would like to hear from members who:

1) hunt in Montana and/or Idaho.

2) have encountered a wolf while hunting, have lost prey to a wolf or have competed with a wolf for prey while hunting; have lost a pet or hunting dog to a wolf; have noticed a difference in game population numbers and/or behavior due to the presence of wolves in a preferred hunting area; or have had to change your choice hunting locations due to the presence of wolves in the area.

We are looking for individuals who can describe one or more of the experiences above and who would be willing to sign a declaration (statement under oath) that documents their experience. Although we know that there are many SCI members and other members of the hunting community who are frustrated by the presence of wolves, please contact us ONLY if you are an SCI member and have experienced one of the circumstances listed above.

If you have had one of the above experiences and would be willing to help us prepare and then sign a declaration, please e-mail our Director of Litigation, Anna Seidman [aseidman@safariclub.org] with a brief description of your experience. Please provide your e-mail address and your telephone number and Anna or one of the other members of our Litigation Team will contact you.

Thank you.

Anna M. Seidman

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

Obama’s Pick For Supreme Court Justice Laughs And Says The Courts Are Where Policy Is Made

For those who might think that we have a problem today with finding judges who make rulings about environment and/or endangered species based science and not political ideologue, this video of Obama’s pick to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor shows us what our future may hold.

Or consider this comment: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Tom Remington

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

Former Idaho Wildlife Biologist Ted Chu, Offers Wolf Management Solution

Ted Chu, a former wildlife biologist while living in Idaho, now resides in Oregon and offers an editorial at OregonLive about how to resolve the wolf management problems and keep landowners/ranchers happy.

The Legislature should make it legal for landowners to shoot wolves on their private property under any circumstances. Many wolf recovery supporters will knee-jerk howl at this notion, but it will ultimately work to the advantage of wolves. Had this approach been used right from the start in the Northern Rockies, I’m certain there would be just as many wolves alive as there are today, at much less taxpayer expense and social stress.

Individual wolves will be still be killed, but under this approach the rest will get smart in a hurry and retreat to the public lands. This is where they belong and realistically is the only place they can survive and avoid trouble.

How dare anyone suggest such a reasonable solution!

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »