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!

“Wolf Worms” And Other Wolf-Born Diseases

The following is a copy of the written testimony submitted to the Montana Legislature by Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, in regards to information provided about Echinococcus Granulosus. (Similar comments made by Will Graves, author of “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, can be read here.)

March 7, 2010

Environmental Quality Council

Re: Followup to March 5th testimony

From: Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Council:

There are issues about wolves that were not adequately addressed before the Council on Friday, primarily because of time constraints, and about which I’d like to follow up.

Wolf diseases and human health risks.

About Echinococcus Granulosus (EG for short), I felt that the council did not get a good synopsis of this disease. The Council was informed by FWP that 63% of Montana wolves carry this disease, which is transmissible to humans.

Because this disease has not been well studied, especially concerning the likelihood that this disease has been or will be transmitted to humans, FWP takes the position that it is no big deal. They equate their lack of information with absence of risk – what you don’t know about can’t hurt you, an attitude similar to the people of Haiti about earthquakes a year ago.

This is a mistake. Council members have been provided recent issues of The Outdoorsman which will generate a more informed view. Let me summarize.

EG (called “Wolf Worms” by some) is a parasite – a type of tapeworm. In Montana wolves examined there were literally thousands of these tiny tapeworms in the intestine of wolves. These tapeworms produce tens of thousands, maybe millions of microscopic eggs that are expelled in wolf feces. These eggs are viable for long periods of time, depending upon conditions.

These millions of EG eggs can become airborne or get flushed by rain into moving water. I have been unable to learn if community water treatment processes normally used to purify drinking water will reliably remove or destroy these eggs. That remains an open question.

What is not open to question is that people who intake these eggs though inhalation or any sort of transport-to-mouth mechanism can develop cysts that may be discovered any time from soon after exposure to as long as 20 years later. Such a long incubation period causes EG to be a nightmarish, untrackable public health risk.

Therefore, FWP’s position that no public health risk has been demonstrated is simply a case of whistling past the graveyard – denial based on lack of information and wishful thinking (but absolutely typical of FWP’s endless overt downplay of negative wolf impact).

When EG cysts form in a person, they are VERY difficult to detect. There are serological tests for presence of EG, but these tests have a spotty detection rate. Further, nearly all medical practitioners and diagnosticians are unaware of EG and are unlikely to look for or diagnose presence of EG cysts from non-specific patient complaints.

EG cysts have an affinity for peoples’ livers, lungs and brain, and sometimes heart. They may grow up to ten or 14 inches in diameter. Usually, there are multiple cysts in the affected organ. These cysts are an encapsulation of the larval form of EG, and one cyst may contain hundreds of these worm larvae. When a person develops EG cysts, that condition is called Hydatid Disease.

If a diagnostician should luck onto the detection of any such cyst in a patient, the only way to address or remove the cyst is via surgery – cut it out. Because of the risks associated with such surgery, the physician will usually opt to let the cyst grow until it becomes life-threatening before attempting surgical removal. Meanwhile, more such cysts may form in the same or other organs of the patient.

A physician and pathologist who is a member of MSSA told me that he has seen a death from EG where the patient’s liver was destroyed by EG cysts. A scientific journal reports the potential for heart attacks because critical heart blood supply vessels are blocked by EG cysts. Imagine EG cysts in your brain and being forced to choose between the risks of letting them grow, or surgery to remove them.

To summarize, 63% of Montana wolves are shedding millions of invisible, microscopic EG eggs across our landscape, eggs that can become airborne or water-borne and persist in the environment. These EG eggs can and do infect people. That is proven. Once infected, a person may develop cysts, up to 20 years later. The cysts will most likely be in the person’s liver, lungs, brain or heart. It is statistically unlikely that medical personnel will detect such cysts in a patient, except upon autopsy. If cysts are detected, the only solution is surgery, which is usually deferred because of the high risks of such surgery, until the risk of death from cysts exceeds the risk of death from surgery.

But, even that is not the whole story. There is another, similar type of tapeworm carried by wolves that is perhaps less studied and even more dangerous to humans. That is Echinococcus Multilocularis (“EM” for short). The life cycle, transmissibility and consequences of EM are similar to EG, but differ in some important ways.

Since EM is even less studied than EG, we don’t know how prevalent EM may be in Montana. Further, when a person is infected with EM cysts, those cysts eventually rupture and the infected person dies suddenly from anaphylactic shock. The primary mechanism of death may or may not be detected upon autopsy, which, of course, no longer matters to the deceased.

Since systematic EG and EM detection and reporting processes do not exist, we simply have no way at present to quantify the public health threat. In the face of this absence of information about EG and EM, FWP assures us that these diseases are no big deal. Instead of stressing that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, FWP, with its head firmly in the sand, assures us that there is no problem.

Other diseases.

Mange and parvovirus are known to be hammering wolf populations currently. In Yellowstone Park, the chief cause of wolf mortality now is wolves being killed by other wolves. Both of these are obvious signs of overpopulation. The wolf advocates will argue that because wolves are dying from overpopulation we must stop killing wolves, a pretty obvious comment on the quality of rationale’ used by wolf advocates.

We know that rabies is endemic in other wild animals in Montana, especially in skunks and foxes. With wolves in the overpopulated condition demonstrated by wolf-wolf killing and existing diseases, it is only a matter of time before rabies begins to infect wolves, if it hasn’t already.

In Will Graves’ book Wolves in Russia, Graves documents that rabies-infected wolves will run for 100 miles or more, deliberately biting and infecting every animal and person it encounters. Stories abound in Russian literature of rabid wolves entering villages and attacking and biting every cow and person not sheltered inside buildings. This is not the bite-kill-eat behavior usual with wolves, but bite, move on and bite again typical of rabies-infected wolves.

Regardless of the political and ecological debate about wolves, it is a huge mistake to ignore the public health dimension of wolf diseases. Such diseases are real and they are a threat to public health. We don’t know how large the threat is because we lack information to make a determination. However, the potential threat is huge, for the reasons stated. It would be a serious mistake for policy-makers to not take this public health threat seriously until it can be proven otherwise.

If a homeowner calls 911 to report that an armed intruder is trying to force entry to the home with mayhem in mind, the dispatcher will send armed police immediately to investigate and interdict. The dispatcher will NOT require the homeowner to provide photographs and corroborating statements by five witnesses before dispatching assistance.

Citizens alerting policy-makers about the threat of wolf diseases to people is analogous to that 911 call. FWP’s dismissal of the alleged problem is like the theoretical dispatcher requiring photographs and witness statements before dispatching assistance. “Prove it,” they are saying. If policy-makers are unwilling to send the public health police, they should at least be honest enough to inform citizens that they are on their own to defend against this threat.

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

What Has Happened And Will Happen To Our Ecosystems Thanks To Wolves

In studies conducted in Canada on the effects of wolves on ungulates and the ecosystem in general, we find that wolves are destructive (no surprise here) and this study gives a look into a sort of crystal ball as to what the lower 48 states have to look forward to as environmentalist clamor to promote the expanse and growth of the gray wolf in order to “balance” our ecosystems.

The study is very worth reading and here’s a grocery list of some of what is discovered:

1. Wolves destroy 90% of the elk populations.
2. Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
3. 60% of the elk stopped migrating.
4. Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment
5. Wolves decimated woodland caribou, bringing that species to ultimate extirpation.
6. Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies
7. Any attempt to manage ungulate numbers anywhere near pre wolf times is a “fantasy”.
8. Increasing quality habitat for elk had no effect on increasing numbers with wolves present.
9. To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to be ongoing………forever.
10. Wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are ineffective.

Conclusion: If states choose to replenish wolves, there will be no hunting left. Wolves will destroy the ungulate populations and we’ll have more singing birds flitting about the vegetation normally eaten by ungulate species.

Tom Remington

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

Twenty-Five States Seek “Nullification” Of Federal Gun Control Laws

As of this writing, five states, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota, have passed laws through their legislature effectively nullifying the Federal Government’s authority to regulated guns and gun accessories. Two states, Montana and Tennessee, their laws most commonly called Firearms Freedom Acts, have been signed by their governors. The other three are expected to follow suit. In addition to those five states, at least twenty more have introduced similar legislation and another half dozen intend to introduce it. By years end, there could feasibly be well over 30 states making an attempt to tell the Federal Government to butt out of their intrastate gun and gun accessory manufacturing.

The model for most of these bills came from Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, a bill that basically states that any gun or gun accessory manufactured in Montana that is purchased and remains in Montana, cannot be regulated by the Federal Government of the United States. Montana is seeking “Declaratory Judgment” before suggesting that anyone proceed with the manufacturing of guns and accessories.

In reality what these Firearms Freedom Acts are doing is “nullifying” the authority of the Federal Government to regulate guns within the borders of each state when none of the guns or related products ever leave the state. The Federal Government has been very successful in the past in regulating all guns through the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Montana’s bone of contention is that the Commerce Clause has regulated interstate commerce and has no authority over intrastate commerce.

One might ask if this is a full blown act of nullification. It’s not that Montana and other states are saying that any or a specific federal law is being declared unconstitutional in it’s entirety. In this case any law that the Federal Government thinks gives them authority to regulate intrastate gun manufacturing, is being challenged.

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and one of the sponsors of the MFFA, says this is a states’ rights issue.

This is a states’ rights effort, using firearms as the object of the exercise. The MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition from federal power, saying that if these items do not cross state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.

Although nullification isn’t a term that is widely used these days, there are other examples of modern day nullification or challenges to certain federal laws. Two that come to mind are the REAL ID Act and marijuana laws. Some states have passed legislation challenging the constitutionality of forcing citizens to have to carry an identification card they believe infringes on their right to privacy and the Constitution. And, some states have passed their own laws authorizing marijuana for medical use where the Federal Government bans all uses and possession of the drug.

We may also be staring down the barrel of nullification depending on what happens with President Obama’s proposed National Health Care plan. If it is mandated that every American citizen have health insurance, many have asked where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have that kind of authority.

Probably the most recent case that expanded the power of the Federal Government to regulate commerce, came in 1942 in the Wickard v. Filburn case. This came at a time when President Roosevelt demanded the power to institute his programs he thought where going to get us on the road to recovery after the Depression. Scary isn’t it.

One of the more notable accounts of nullification was in 1832 in South Carolina. South Carolina’s “Ordinance of Nullification” declared the Tariff of 1828 and Tariff of 1832 unconstitutional. This put President Andrew Jackson in quite the predicament. While Jackson quietly assembled his army, ready to invade South Carolina, negotiations continued. Jackson’s fear was that if South Carolina were to be allowed nullification, many of the southern states would follow suit. Also many of the New England states apposed the tariffs. Jackson feared that secession would follow the nullification and this would lead to the demise of the Union. He also feared that an invasion of South Carolina could just as easily lead to civil war.

Other than President Jackson’s fear of the trouble in South Carolina, his bigger deterrent was coming from the fact that several other states, although never officially declaring nullification, were poised to do so.

Perhaps it is telling that so many states are seeking some form of nullification, some dealing with REAL ID, others medical marijuana and 25 states or more, opting to use gun rights as their tools to seek out a return of more state sovereignty, as is granted us in the Tenth Amendment. What does it tell us that so many states chose gun rights as their tool? And what does it tell us about the people’s attitudes toward the expansion of government.

Where will this go? First we should wait to see what the Court rules in the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case and watch to see how many other states pass and get signed their “nullification” bills. Soon, then, we can declare, “Balls in your court!

Tom Remington

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

Public Hearing For Idaho Emergency Wolf Bill Stopped

There will be no public hearing on HRC043, Idaho’s Wolf Emergency Resolution.

The word I have received from sources say Governor Otter has requested that the House Resources chairman, John A. Stevenson, “suppress” this bill. In other words he doesn’t want it acted on in the Idaho Legislature. What is it that Governor Otter fears? What happened to the governor who stood on the steps of the Capital and announced he wanted to be the first to kill a wolf?

Tony Mayer, SaveElk.com, is encouraging all Idaho residents to contact their representative and voice concerns. He drafted a sample letter if you choose to use it when emailing your representative.

Representatives Stevenson and Shepard:

We are disappointed in your decision to suppress HRC043 Wolf Emergency Resolution as this is a small but very necessary measure to encourage our governor to take proactive necessary steps to deal with the untenable wolf crisis in our state.

We further request that you encourage and support additional measures and legislation directed at taking additional necessary measures to reduce the population of the Canadian Gray Wolves in our state back to the original agreed FWS approved Wolf Management Plan population level of 150 wolves.

Allowing the original introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf into our state was ill-advised and a mistake in the first place. Continuing to allow the wolf population to vastly exceed by some eight to ten times the original 150 wolf level is catastrophic and is causing irreparable harm to our citizens.

Wolves are depredating ungulate herds throughout our state and are proven harbingers’ of highly contagious parasites. Wolves are jeopardizing the very safety and health of our citizens, our livestock and state wildlife resources.

We encourage you to fulfill the fiduciary responsibility you have to your constituency and to take whatever action within your prevue to preserve and protect the citizens and the resources of our state.

Tony Mayer
SaveELk.com

Tom Remington

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

Idaho Introduces Firearms Freedom Act. Utah Gov. Signs FFA

The Idaho Firearms Freedom Act has been introduced as H0589 by Rep. Dick Harwood. This makes 25 states with FFA bills introduced or enacted. This makes at least half of all the states that have introduced like bills in order to strip Washington of its overreaching power grab.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert has just signed the Utah Firearms Freedom Act, making Utah the third state to adopt this challenge to federal authority.

Governor Herbert the first Republican governor to sign an FFA.

Tom Remington

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

Idaho’s Lolo Wildlife Management Zones Devoid Of Elk

Yesterday I received a copy of the recent aerial elk counts for the Lolo Wildlife Management Zones 10 and 12 in Idaho. Zone 10 counted 1,473 elk, while Zone 12 tallied 705. So how does this compare with previous years when aerial counts were done?

Zone 10:
1989 – 11,507
1992 – 7,745
1994 – 9,729
1998 – 5,079
2003 – 2,643
2006 – 3,452
2010 – 1,473

Zone 12:
1989 – 3,763
1992 – 3,452
1994 – 3,315
1995 – 3,832
1997 – 2,667
2002 – 2,048
2006 – 1,658
2010 – 705

Wolves were reintroduced in 1995. Any idiot can see there is an elk management problem……more like a wolf management problem.

What we hear perpetually from the wolf advocates and environmentalist is how the elk counts in Idaho show the number of elk growing or holding steady. What they refuse to tell you is that in those areas where the wolves are flourishing, we see numbers just as are shown above. When the wolves have eaten everything in sight in the Lolo Zone, they will move on to find more prey and destroy it as well. Only until they have completed that task will we see the “natural” management kick in where wolves will starve to death and/or die of disease and cannibalism.

Allowing wolves to grow in these numbers such that they virtually wipe out elk herds is not good wildlife management and contrary to what we all hear this is not the kind of Utopian “natural” wildlife management any of us should aspire for. It’s irresponsible.

Let’s cut the wolf numbers back in order to allow the elk to sustain and grow again.

Tom Remington

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!

Man! The Wolves In Idaho Sure Are Big!

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

Cabela’s Targeted by National Animal Rights Group

*Editor’s Note* This is the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance approach in addressing the actions of the fringe, extremist organization, Defenders of Wildlife, in lying about Cabela’s supporting “wolf-killing competitions”. My version was a bit different. I just call DOW “Pond Scum“. We each have our own style.

(Columbus) – One of the nation’s largest anti-hunting groups, Defenders of Wildlife, have taken aim at Cabela’s Inc. with a misguided and misleading public relations campaign designed to raise money to fund its efforts against outdoor sports.

According to an action alert posted by Defenders, the group accused Cabela’s of sponsoring three so-called “wolf-killing competitions” in Idaho. The group also attacked Cabela’s for the decision by the local paper in Sidney, Nebraska to not run an inflammatory ad against Cabela’s that Defenders had produced. It then went on to solicit funds to run the ad in other papers throughout the state.

The charges by Defenders are grossly misleading. Cabela’s did not sponsor any “wolf-killing” events. Rather, it provided $150 worth of products as a donation to the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife-Idaho organization. That group organized and conducted three local predator hunts in 2009. The hunts complied with all state and federal laws. Additionally, all available information indicates that no wolves were killed during the hunts.

Cabela’s has been a long-time supporter of legal hunting and fishing and has worked closely with state and federal wildlife agencies to conserve wildlife populations. They are renowned in the business world as a leader in conservation programs and ethic. By contrast, Defenders has been one of the leaders in an effort to keep the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population on the Endangered Species List despite the recovery of their population and reasonable management plans designed by state officials.

“Defenders of Wildlife is attempting to tarnish the reputation of one of the most wildlife conscious companies in the world,” said Bud Pidgeon, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance president and CEO. “Sportsmen should show their support by visiting a local Cabela’s and let them know that you appreciate their efforts and are not fooled by the antis’ propaganda.”

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

Public Hearing On Idaho Emergency Wolf Bill HCR043

We need to gather supporters who can come and testify.

Hearing will be Tuesday, March 2, 2010, at the Boise State Capitol Building, Room EW40 {East Wing 40} at 8:30 AM.

Please attend and give your testimony to support the Legislature in defining the current population and status of wolves in Idaho, a condition of emergency.

If passed, this Bill will equip the Governor with Legislative support to stand with the people of the State of Idaho to preserve our big game, secure our livestock producers and protect our people.

Thanks and we hope to see you there.

Sincerely,
Tony Mayer
Rick Mayer

*Info* For more information and to read the text of the bill HRC043, visit this link.

Rex Rammell, candidate for Idaho Governor, in an email exchange about this bill, told me, “I would love to have this resolution in hand as Idaho’s governor. I would declare an emergency and order wolves killed!”

Plan to attend this meeting. It sounds like it could be very interesting, in addition that it is an extremely important bill that relates to many, many Idaho citizens.

Tom Remington

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

More Idaho Citizens Are Speaking Up About Wolves

The drum has been beating for years that “the citizens” want wolves in their forests and fields. Perhaps they did before they began learning what the truth was about having so many of them that now they are showing up in their back and front yards.

The Benewah County Commissioners voted 2-0-1 to adopt their own wolf management plan, which is an amendment to their current predator plan.

The document states that the Board of Commissioners both “recognizes that the existence of the wolf in Benewah County threatens the culture, heritage, customs, property, and lives of the people of the county and restricts their free use of their own real estate and public lands” and considers the wolves to “represent an economic and cultural emergency.”

“It is our recommendation for wolf management to be coordinated with whichever agency is managing wolves,”

That agency at present is the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The commission hopes to be able to work with IDFG in order to reduce wolf populations by expanding take methods. This is something I have written about in the past. They also want to begin to educate the citizens about the dangers of habituating wolves.

Tom Remington

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

Idaho Panhandle Man Bags First Wolf

The pictures below I received in my email. It is my understanding that these pictures are of the same wolf written about in the Coeur d’Alene Press and the same wolf IDFG biologist Jim Hayden nearly blew a gasket over. In the email I received it said the wolf weighed 175 pounds. The CDA Press article said that Brett Pitcher got what he “estimated” to be a 180-pound wolf. Hayden went half out of his mind to think the CDA Press would write that when the wolf was not “officially” weighed. Who cares? It’s a big wolf.

The photos show the wolf complete. When Pitcher took the wolf to IDFG headquarters, where Hayden inspected it, it was only the head and fur, as is only required for inspection.

Congratulations on a marvelous kill and I’ll say it again. I don’t care how much it weighs, it’s a big wolf.

Tom Remington

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

Echinococcus Granulosus In Idaho Brought By Wolves And Here To Stay

Delane C. Kritsky, Professor emeritus, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho writes the following in an email message to those concerned about the detected presence of tapeworms in wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming:

I just saw your message on Echinococcus multilocularis on the Idaho Trappers’s Association website. I worked (conducted research) for seven years on E. multilocularis in North Dakota during the 1970’s and indeed as you state it is a very dangerous parasite to human beings. However, the species of Echinococcus occurring in wolves and ungulates in Idaho is Echinococcus granulosus, a close relative of E. multilocularis. E. granulosus is, in my opinion, more dangerous than the strain of E. multilocularis that occurs in the upper Midwest (North Dakota, Eastern Montana, South Dakota and points southeast). The strain of E. multilocularis in the northcentral states appears to be relatively non-infective to human beings. However, E. granulosus is more dangerous because it highly infective to man and also is a parasite of sheep and domestic dogs which much more easily brings the parasite into homes in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming where human beings can be exposed. Utah had a focus of E. granulosus during the 1970’s and 1980’s during which time people were dying or undergoing dangerous surgery for the parasite cyst. The Utah focus occurred primarily in rural areas where sheep were raised. My friend and colleague, Dr. Ferron Anderson at BYU, was conducting research on E. granulosus in Utah and developed an educational program that primarily included the burying of sheep carcasses and de-worming of dogs and which eventually eliminated the parasite in central Utah. The parasite in Idaho will not be dealt with as easily (and I doubt that it can ever be eliminated as long as wolves are present) because wolves and ungulates (deer and elk) will maintain a sylvatic (wild) cycle, which did not occur in Utah during the 1970’s and 1980’s. Thus, elimination of the parasite from sheep and dogs (as occurred in Utah) will not be successful as it was in Utah because the wild cycle will continuously provide eggs of the parasite for infection of man and his domestic animals in the future. The only way that the parasite will be eliminated from our area is elimination of the wolf. By the way, you should also know that I have examined coyotes (which can carry both species of Echinococcus) and foxes from southeastern Idaho since 1974 and never found either Echinococcus multilocularis nor E. granulosus; Ferron Anderson never found the latter species in Idaho either when he examined canines in Idaho during the 70’s and 80’s (that is, the E. granulosus was never in Idaho until the introduction of the wolf). Finally, I asked the Fish and Wildlife during one of their public meetings concerning introduction of the wolf (prior to wolf introduction) and was “brushed off” by their “promise” that the wolves introduced to Idaho would be “de-wormed” which everyone (and especially they) should have known that such actions are never 100% effective. WE SHOULD BE ASKING WHO (THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE WOLF ADVOCATES) WILL BE PAYING THE HEALTH BILLS ANDFUNERAL EXPENSES FOR THOSE WHO WILL ULTIMATELY BECOME INFECTED AS A RESULT OF WOLF INTRODUCTION INTO IDAHO, MONTANA AND WYOMING?

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!

Next Page »