Idaho is planning a wolf hunt in the fall of 2008. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen as no less than 12 environmental/animal rights groups have filed suit to reverse the decision earlier this year that took the gray wolf in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming off the endangered species list. Couple that with some of the same groups seeking a court injunction to stop all killing and hunting of the wolf immediately, it is probably doubtful there will be a fall hunt.

Regardless of what I think, there are some fuzzy math issues involving the Idaho Fish and Game Department that I can’t quite figure out. For those who don’t know, the IDFG is seeking public comment on rules and regulations concerning a proposed fall wolf hunt. Go to their website and you can register a comment. Preceding the comment box, this is the information IDFG has for you to read.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is seeking comments on proposed 2008 wolf hunting season and rules framework available here.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission approved the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan, and the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains was removed from the endangered species list – both in March. The management plan calls for managing wolves at a population level of between 500-700 wolves for the first five years following delisting. The plan includes hunting as part of the methods of maintaining the population levels.

Fish and Game recommendations call for a total mortality quota of 328 wolves in 2008, which includes all reported wolf kills – from natural causes, accidents, wolf predation control actions and hunter kills. Reaching the quota would result in an estimated end-of-year population of 550-600 wolves.

When the statewide quota is reached, all hunting would stop. When quotas in individual zones are reached, hunting in those zones would stop.

Details for the fall 2008 hunting season are scheduled to be set by the commission at the May 21-22 meeting and season and rules brochures should be out to the public in July.

IDFG says that the management plan approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is to manage a population of gray wolves of between 500 and 700. They propose a kill quota, this includes all forms of mortality on the wolf not just hunting, of 328 wolves, claiming this will result in an estimated population at the end of the year of between 550 and 600 wolves.

I’m no rocket scientist but I figured out from this mathematical equation, IDFG is estimating the population currently, or prior to the fall hunt, at between 878 and 928 wolves.

This seems to disagree with information that IDFG has made available. I did some of my own math using figures available from the IDFG website and other “official” documents. To be as up front and honest as possible, let me say that IDFG has for the most part made it known that their wolf population estimates are in fact just estimates but they feel comfortable enough to use them in official documents, etc. With that said, my calculations are then estimates being that I am using their data.

In 2005, IDFG estimated a wolf population of 512. Using that estimate, I went back to 1995 and 1996 and calculated out that to have that number of wolves after the reintroduction of wolves back in 95 and 96, worked out to a survival and growth rate of right around 33%, give or take a % fraction or two.

Using this same survival and growth rate, 33% and 512 wolves in 2005, that calculates out to an estimated wolf population of 1204.55 wolves by the end of 2008. Whatever anyone choses to factor into this equation - i.e. carrying capacities, current mortalities, etc. - that’s a substantially higher estimate of wolves than the 878-928 IDFG is saying the state currently has.

Once again using IDFG information, they say they want to have a kill number of 328 out of their estimation of between 878 and 928 wolves, leaving a total of 550 and 600 wolves. If we average numbers and say the current wolf population is 903 and the kill quota remains at 328, that’s a reduction of wolves of 36%, average.

If the real wolf population more closely resembles my calculations, 1204, then the reduction rate stands at 27%. Using a continued survival and growth rate of 33%, then the wolf population continues to grow at a rate of 6%. Using IDFG figures, they will for all intent and purposes maintain their wolf population or exact figures say an average reduction rate of 3%.

The fuzziness in the math comes from how and why IDFG opted for a current wolf population of between 878 and 928? Those numbers seem a bit arbitrary. Nearly every report that has come out of Idaho claims the current wolf population in the 1200-1500 range with some reports considerably higher than that.

Whether you’re an Idaho citizen for or against hunting wolves and delisting the animal, it would seem that for IDFG to win support from anyone, they need to do a little bit more to explain their fuzzy math.

Tom Remington

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

Clayton Cramer is running against a republican incumbent for Idaho’s District 22 Senate seat. Why? He puts it this way, “I’m running for Idaho State Senate seat 22 against the Republican incumbent, who I don’t see as conservative enough for our district.” This immediately grabbed my attention. As most of you know, I am a conservative, proud to be one and will help trustworthy people at all levels to attain positions where they can further conservative teachings and values. I believe Mr. Cramer does just that.

I was quite impressed as I learned more about Clayton Cramer. He contributed his knowledge and expertise in drafting an amicus brief in the recent U.S. Supreme Court hearing of District of Columbia vs. Heller. As most of you know, I spent a considerable amount of time following and reporting on that case.

A visit to Cramer’s website reveals much about him. He says he moved from California to Boise, Idaho because, “the California that I grew up in–where patriotism wasn’t a dirty word, and where family values still mattered–doesn’t exist anymore“.

On the Second Amendment:

For many Idahoans, the need for a gun rights activist in the state legislature might not be obvious. Idaho is fortunate to have a very strong guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in our state constitution. We are also fortunate that the Idaho Supreme Court has spoken clearly about this matter–unlike some other states. But make no mistake about it: there are people in Idaho who, if they had their way, would restrict gun ownership so heavily that many law-abiding adults would find it difficult to own a gun.

Cramer’s beliefs in gun rights seem to be firmly grounded into an understanding learned from a very young age.

When I was growing up, I used to get my ice cream cones from a woman with a tattoo. It wasn’t pretty or fashionable; it was just a letter and some numbers. Like a valuable piece of machinery, she had a serial number. She was fortunate that her value as a piece of machinery exceeded her “scrap value,” or she would have been gassed and “parted out” for her hair, clothes, and dental work, like millions of others.

The Holocaust, unfortunately, was not unique. In the twentieth century, more than 56 million people were killed by their own governments, because of their ethnicity, their race, their religion, their political beliefs–and sometimes for no reason at all. Restrictive gun control laws, while not the only cause of these genocidal actions, certainly made it much easier. On a smaller scale, lynching and oppression of the freed slaves was made possible at least in part by post-Civil War gun control laws that greatly simplified the terrorizing of blacks into submission.

Never again! There are certainly risks that Idaho’s relatively loose gun control laws cause us–but those are nothing compared to the risks of government out of control. Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.

On the environment:

This will probably be a surprise to you–but the evidence for global warming is far less certain than you think. Even if it is happening, it is not clear that mankind is the major force behind it. We may not even be a minor force.

I will not support any public policy action to deal with “global warming” until we have clear evidence of its magnitude, and that we know how much of it is the work of man, and how much is factors beyond our control. Some of those who are advocating that we “do something” before it is too late have financial interests in making sure we “do something.” As usual, there are business interests looking to make money off this–and if they destroy the economy and jobs of millions of people, so what?

I have many readers and a lot of friends in Idaho and in the District 22 region. I ask you to consider the merits and qualifications of Clayton Cramer as your next state senator.

Judy Boyle, who is a friend of mine and is running for Idaho House District 9, thinks Clayton Cramer is better than a good candidate. I contacted Judy to ask her what she could tell me about Mr. Cramer and her response pretty much said it all. “He’s awesome!”

To learn more about Clayton Cramer, visit his website. Also check out this information on Judy Boyle.

Tom Remington

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

Below you will find a recent article written by Jim Beers. You’ll also find a short bio about Mr. Beers. His article helps readers to begin making a connection between the efforts of those manipulating the Endangered Species Act for personal agendas and those wanting to strip Americans of the Second Amendment rights.

I will also include two other parts along with Jim Beers’ article and bio. One is a bit of an introduction to his article and the last will be a response by someone who has read Beers’ piece.

This information raises some interesting questions about the connections of people once in high places moving to other organizations and landing in high places. You can draw your own conclusions.

First will be Beers’ bio, followed by his introduction, the article and then a response to that article.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Folks,

This is a copy of something I just sent to Charles Kay, a great biologist and friend. Since I just remembered that Charles is probably in Africa, I thought I would send this around.

Remember that the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Clinton oversaw the theft of $45 to 60 Million from the hunting and fishing excise taxes. Those funds that were intended by law FOR STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS were NEVER REPLACED AND OUR STATE AGENCIES NEVER REQUESTED THAT THEY BE REPLACED (don’t want to offend the boys and girls passing out all those federal grants). The stolen funds were used to pay for the capture, transportation, conditioning, and release of WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK to ‘seed’ wolves in the Upper Rockies. That Director established The Defenders of Wildlife as the erstwhile federal “partner” responsible for “paying” for wolf depredations. This was and is merely a smokescreen to fend off complaints of the harm of wolves, only a small amount of livestock loss was ever remunerated and dogs and game herds and other losses were simply unavoidable casualties of this “war”. That ex-FWS Director went to work in a top job with The Defenders of Wildlife as soon as the law permitted (The National Wildlife Federation payed her a big salary while she had to cool her heels after resigning when the Republicans won the Presidential election). As you read the e-mails below, remember she still directs this wolf business for The “Defenders”, lobbies her former associates in FWS, and, I would guess, is a player in the upcoming election where if she is lucky (and we are not) she will be reincarnated in some other position in a “high place”.

Hopefully you may find this worthwhile. FYI

Jim Beers

Subject: Re: Wolves and The 2nd Amendment

Charles,

I believe the entire predator “push” from grizzly increases in range and numbers; to limiting methods of take of cougars (dogs, on-sight as depredating, seasons); to federal requirements (in the works as grant requirements) to make cougars invading places like Iowa, Kansas, etc. Protected Native Species and not classified as unprotected so that any take is difficult; to keeping black bears on the Threatened List in LA and FL (and adding other states opportunistically) and claiming large tracts of Florida as “Florida Panther” Critical Habitat — all are seriously jeopardizing the future of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Not only will game numbers (and hence seasons and harvest and license revenue and ancillary expenditures) decrease: areas open to hunting will decrease and hunter participation will necessarily decrease. Then there is the SAFETY EFFECT. Hunters that leave a kill to get equipment to haul it out or to get help will increasingly return to a predator on the kill. Hunters using bows for big game or turkey hunters or predator callers, all sit still and watch INTO the wind. There will be more run-ins with un-harassed grizzlies and cougars and black bears as food dwindles or as rabies or other disease outbreaks ravage the increasing predator population. What hunter will dare to sit and call after hearing how some guy was attacked FROM BEHIND by a grizzly or jumped by a wolf (a wolf once jumped a Russian lumberjack from behind WHILE HE WAS RUNNING THE CHAINSAW!)? What parent will let their kid go our after school to hunt alone after reading these accounts of attacks?

All of this will shrink the number of hunters and urban hunters especially. While the rural residents (both hunters and non-hunters) will increasingly want, need, and use guns - the anti-gunners will have a big leg-up as fewer and fewer urban folks hunt and become less vociferous in challenging the take-away activities of anti-gunners and urban mayors. Bottom line is a shrinking contingent of gun users and gun defenders with a concomitant increase in the need for guns in a shrinking rural American population that is more and more subject to the imaginary whims of urban voting blocs. Result? More rural residents from families and retirees to resource-dependent businesses and other entrepreneurs leaving rural environs. As an old bureaucrat it looks good for federal growth and bureaucrats that will have less opposition to buying more and more of rural America for everything from re-establishing Native Pre-Columbian Ecosystems to establishing “Corridors” and “Roadless” “Wildernesses” as more rural areas are evacuated. The only “winners” will be bureaucrats, politicians, and the modern rich land-buying aristocrats.
The environmentalists and the animal rights radicals never “win” because they will never be “happy” until they are the only ones left and that will never happen. I am reminded of that great line by Eli Wallach as the Mexican bandit chief in The Magnificent Seven. As Yul Brynner invites Wallach to move on and leave the villagers alone, Wallach snarls “If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep!”. For too long we have been sheep.

Jim Beers

Subject: Wolfs and The 2nd Amendment

Hi Guys,

A friend forwarded me you URL today. My name is xxx I live in Powell, WY. Like you over there, our elk herds are rapidly disappearing. I am working on a freelance article commissioned by Predator Magazine. The subject of the article is the politics of wolf reintroduction. In particular, the connection between Defenders of Wildlife and Handgun Control, Inc, now known as the Brady Campaign.

As you likely know, Defenders is one of the main players in this ongoing circus. They have funded most of the court cases that have kept and will keep wolves listed for the foreseeable future. in 2004 they won two key decisions, one in Federal District Court in Oregon, one in Vermont. Basically these two judges found that so long as there are no wolves in Oregon/Washington, they are still endangered in our area. These decisions were based on the way the US F&W drew the wold management boundaries, and the way that the Endangered Species Act spells out management requirements. On the 28th of this month, the US Fish & Wildlife Service will “delist” wolves. The day after that, DoW et al, will file a motion for injunction which will likely be granted. In order for delisting to proceed, the wildlife management groups in ID, MT, and WY fish &game will have to appeal theses precedents in Federal Appellate court. If they are successful there, DoW will appeal that decision. According to my sources inside the WY F&G they expect that will take 2-3 years. By then the damage will be done. Unless the states can have the original decisions overturned in Appellate court, wolves will remain protected far into the future. As you know, we are already standing on the brink of “too late”.

Wolves cannot be reintroduced in eastern Washington, because DoW was able to have the Mountain Caribou in that area listed as endangered. So, wolves cannot be reintroduced there until the caribou populations have recovered. That will never happen because caribou don’t want to be there in the first place.

So here’s the Catch. The way that U&S F&G has drawn their boundaries between elk species, if DoW can manage to get the Rocky Mountain subspecies listed as only “threatened”, they can stop sport hunting of that subspecies throughout its entire range!!

What better way to cut the financial legs out from under both the NRA and State fish and game organizations.

The connection between wolves and anti-gun groups comes in the form of one Charles J. Orasin. For more than 15 years he was the rabid VP of Operations for Handgun Control, Inc. IN a flurry of Congressional hearings regarding shady fund raising practices in 2000, he disappeared from HCI and reappeared at Defenders of Wildlife as their VP of Operations. Should we believe that he just abandoned his life’s work to kill the 2nd Amendment to go save wolves and sea turtles?

If you look at the string of Federal Court rulings they won after he got to DoW you see and alarming pattern. Did you know that 10-12 years before the wolf planting recovery programs were started, elk were transplanted into areas that exactly match the original wolf reintroduction proposals? Never make the mistake of thinking that reintroduction of wolves has anything to do with “balancing” the ecosystem. For 6 years, the US Fish & Wildlife Service fought Wyoming’s management plan tooth and nail. Seemingly over night, they reversed their position. Why?

In 2003, I read an article that said the National Park Service was considering a study on the impact of wolves on ungulate populations. When you call and ask them about it now, you get a lot of er….uh….well… we ..ah.. never did the study….”Why not?” er …uh…well… we don’t see an impact high enough to warrant spending the money on it. Yet, The studies in Wyoming and Idaho tell a different story altogether. I believe it is the alarming results of state studies that flipped the US F&G literally over night.

The 2007 study done by the WY G&F shows that 4 of Wyoming elk hers are close to calf survival rates that will not support its population WITHOUT growing predation from wolves/grizzlies/lions.

Predator Magazine is the only publication that has the hair to have a go at putting out the news that the Endangered Species Act is being manipulated by DoW and their ilk, not to save species, but to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Most folks think I’m just a crackpot, conspiracy nut. But, WHY did MR. Gun Control go to work for DoW? Why did their strategy change so suddenly upon his arrival. I can find but one answer. I sent your URL to Ralph Lemeyer at Predator Magazine. He was asking me to find some wolf kill photos for the article. I think you guys have that covered! I hope we can get together sometime to compare notes.

Best Regards, and keep Hammerin ‘em!

Posted by Tom Remington

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

The Idaho Statesman carried a brief and highly misleading articleby the Associated Press yesterday about how the escape of Rex Rammell’s elk in 2006 cost the taxpayers of that state $60,800.

The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee voted to send $60,800 of taxpayer money to the Department of Agriculture to be used to reimburse the Idaho Department of Fish and Game for expenses incurred while slaughtering Rex Rammell’s elk.

It is important that taxpayers understand why they have to foot the bill on this. As is often presented in the press, this article indicates that it’s Mr. Rammell’s fault that the taxpayers have to cough up the dollars. I think the events that lead up to this have been deliberately lost in the many versions of stories told.

The Department of Agriculture is the regulating agency for the domestic elk industry in Idaho. Rammell’s elk escaped. It really is immaterial as to whose fault that was. The Department of Agriculture, along with Mr. Rammell, were dealing with the issue when then Governor Jim Risch interfered and called in the fish and game to assist, as a result not allowing the DOA to do its job.

Fish and Game should not have to pay for this. They were directed by the governor to go shoot the elk. The Department of Agriculture shouldn’t have to pay for this, they weren’t allowed to do their job. Blame the governor, who by his knee jerk reactions to save the state from a non existent threat of disease, used taxpayer dollars to pay for the slaughter of Rammell’s elk.

Should Dr. Rammell win his lawsuit against the state of Idaho and Jim Risch, then the taxpayers will have a real reason to be mad at a blame Jim Risch.

Tom Remington

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

I received the below comment that was sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pertaining to the removal of the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act and the intent to list the population of gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains as a “distinct segment”.

With permission to republish, here are comments made by Gary Marbut of the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd.

May 8, 2007

NRMGrayWolf@fws.gov
Subject: “RIN number 1018-AU53

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator
585 Shepard Way
Helena, Montana 59601

In re: Comment—Canadian Wolf Delisting and Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Canadian Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment

Sent via email

Dear Sirs,

I opposed the initial “introduction” of Canadian Wolves into Montana, support the earliest removal of these wolves from protection by the federal government, and oppose any Distinct Population Segment designation for the following reasons:

Wolf delisting

1. Wolves are not endangered and federal protection of wolves should not have been asserted in the first place. Wolves have never been threatened with extinction. There are tens of thousands of wolves living and doing well throughout the Northern Hemisphere, in Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia, Russia, Mongolia, China, Korea, and many other places.

The only possible rationale for asserting that wolves were threatened in Montana is that wolves used to be here but are not here now. Extension of this logic requires that Grizzly Bears must be “reintroduced” into the Los Angeles basin, the most historically famous Grizzly habitat in the U.S. This same logic requires that if a Tyrannosaurus Rex can be recreated from genetic fragments, ala Jurassic Park, then T-Rex must be “reintroduced” through the U.S., regardless of cost or impact. Of course, these extensions of the same rationale used for wolves are nonsensical, which demonstrates the nonsensical nature of the rational used to foist wolves upon the people of Montana.

2. Congress does not have constitutional authority to impose wolves on Montana via the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Congress has only those specific powers enumerated in the United States Constitution. Among those enumerated powers is the power to “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.” (Article I, Section 8.) The authority Congress asserts for passage and enforcement of the ESA is the enumerated power to “regulate commerce, among the several states,” known as the “Commerce Clause.”
There is inadequate commercial nexus of commerce in wild wolves to justify imposition of wolves on Montana based on authority found in the Commerce Clause. See U.S. v. Stewart (9th Circuit, Kozinski opinion) and U.S. v. Lopez (USSC).

3. Wolves are having a gigantic and unacceptable negative financial impact upon the people of Montana, which amounts to a tax on Montana for a federal purpose. The United States Supreme Court (USSC) held in New York v. U.S. and in Printz v. U.S. that the Congress may not compel the resources of a state. However, that is exactly what is happening in Montana. Not only are wolves having a huge negative financial impact on Montana’s culture and industry of hunting and stockgrowing, but Montana is left to pick up the pieces with a necessity to “manage” wolves according to a federally-acceptable plan with no concomitant plan in place for federal funding for this federal program. This is akin to the city forcing you to stock your own property with rodents and termites and then requiring you to fund the predictable repairs associated with such pests.

4. Conflict with Montana laws. Federal laws prevail over state laws and constitutions only when the federal laws in question are well founded in authority clearly offered in the U.S. Constitution. As asserted in item # 2 (above), Congress lacks authority to impose wolves upon the State and people of Montana. Therefore, precedence must be given to Montana laws in several issues stated below.

5. Montana to manage large predators. In 2003, the Montana Legislature passed and the governor signed a bill which became 87-1-217, M.C.A., and which requires the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to manage large predators (specifically including wolves) to protect hunting opportunities, livestock, pets, and people using the Montana outdoors.
FWP claims that they cannot implement 87-1-217, M.C.A. as long as wolves are under federal protection. We believe that the FWS would claim that Montana may not implement 87-1-217, M.C.A. vis-à-vis wolves as long as wolves are federally protected. We believe both interpretations are wrong, and that Montana laws must take precedence, for reasons previously stated.

6. Terms of delisting established. In 2003, the Montana Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 32 (See:http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2003/billhtml/HJ0032.htm), wherein the Montana Legislature established the public policy position of the State of Montana for State assumption of wolf management. HJ 32 passed the Montana House of Representatives by a vote of 76-21 and passed the Montana Senate by a vote of 48-1. HJ 32 established Montana policy concerning several significant issues, including the definition of a “breeding pair” of wolves, federal abdication of wolf authority upon assumption of Montana management, and federal funding for wolf management. None of these conditions have been met, which makes ongoing federal protection of wolves in Montana a violation of established Montana public policy.

7. Cooperative management agreement invalid. On July 5, 2005, the FWS and FWP entered into a “Cooperative Agreement” about the joint management of wolves in Montana. This management agreement was entered into without authority by FWP, and perhaps even without authority by FWS.

This Agreement is in conflict with 87-1-217, M.C.A., and with HJ 32 (both mentioned above). This Agreement is also in conflict with the intent of the USSC in Printz v. US (cited above) because it does not fully or adequately address the negative financial impacts of wolves in Montana, impacts on Montana’s hunting opportunities and industry, impacts on Montana’s agricultural community, and impacts on the management ability and budget of FWP.

8. Violation of the right to hunt in Montana. The people of Montana feel so strongly about the right to hunt that over 80% of them voted to amend the Montana Constitution to secure for themselves, and to prevent government interference with, the right to harvest wild fish and game animals (Article IX, Section 7, M.C.) It is axiomatic and a principle of jurisprudence that a grant includes the essentials. (1-3-213, M.C.A. “Grant includes essentials. One who grants a thing is presumed to grant also whatever is essential to its use.”) It would avail the people little to reserve to themselves from government interference a freedom of the press if the government were allowed to prohibit use of the ink which pressmen use to put words on paper.

In the same vein, it avails the people little to reserve to themselves the right to hunt if the huntable game is absent, having been consumed by wolves. There is no constitutional right found in the Montana Constitution for wolves to hunt, or for wolves to consume the huntable game. In fact, wolves are not mentioned at all in the Montana Constitution. In Baldwin v. Montana, the USSC said, “The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to be preserved.” The decision also included, “If the elk is to survive as a species, the game herds must be managed, and a vital part of the management is the limitation of the annual kill.” Thus, fostering or mandating a scheme to allocate a significant portion of huntable game to wolves violates the right to hunt the people of Montana have reserved to themselves in the Montana Constitution.

9. Non-residents have no right, individually, or collectively, to Montana game. The USSC established in Baldwin v. Montana, that individual, non-resident hunters have no right to the game in Montana. Conversely, denying non-resident hunters the right to game in Montana does not violate either their equal protection or privileges and immunities.

The theory that Congress, representing many individuals, can make a claim on Montana game, via wolf introduction, that none of the individuals represented may make is oxymoronic. The game in Montana belongs to the people of Montana, a savings account that may not be raided by non-residents, no matter how many are operating collectively. For any national consensus to be interpreted as asserting otherwise is to propose that many individuals may give Congress power that no one individual has to give.

10. Violation of the Compact with the United States. In 1889, Congress, acting as agent for the several states, approved the Compact with the United States (Compact), as did Montana (Article I, M.C.), which included a guarantee at that time of the benefit of the limitations of the federal constitution to the people of Montana, and approving conditions of statehood, as they were both understood and accepted at that time. At that time, the ability of Montana to control predators and manage game was viewed differently than it might be today, but any change of view notwithstanding, there has been no amendment of the Compact, and no contract may be changed without the consent of the parties thereto.

The Compact specifically says that it remains “in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana.” Further, an essential element of the Compact is Ordinance 1, which says, “That the ordinances in this article shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said state of Montana.” Neither Congress nor the people of Montana have adopted any amendments to either the Compact or Ordinance 1, much less has both Congress and Montana done so.

The Compact and Ordinance 1, by contract law, freeze in time the authority of Montana to control and manage wolves, as that authority was viewed, interpreted, understood, and effectuated in 1889. There is no evidence whatsoever that in 1889 either the people of Montana expected, or the Congress intended, that Congress would seek protect, breed and restock wolves in Montana. Any such assumed power by Congress is therefore a violation the Compact.

11. Federal Data Quality Act. The original science done to support federal protection of wolves under the ESA did not meet the criteria required by the federal Data Quality Act.

12. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments. There is nothing whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution that can be interpreted, consistent with the times and culture of the adopters, to allow the federal government to impose wolves on the states over the objections of the states. In fact, there are two provisions in the U.S. Constitution that reserve to the people and the states authority over all topics and endeavors not specifically granted to Congress in the enumerated powers. Those provisions are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, imposing wolves on any of the states is violative of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

13. Initial wolf introduction illegally funded. The initial introduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park was an illegal act, because Pittman-Robertson funds were taken and used illegally for that purpose.
By the doctrine of the fruit of the poisoned tree, all wolves in the southern half of Montana are descendents of wolves illegally introduced into Montana using stolen money.

14. Canadian wolves as invasive species. Canadian gray wolves are a subspecies that have not before been in Montana. Canadian wolves are significantly larger than, and hunt with different patterns than, wolves that existed in Montana before the 1900s. Therefore, the Canadian wolves transplanted to Montana by the FWS are an invasive species, illegal to introduce into Montana.

Distinct Population Segment Designation

The proposal to designate wolves in the northern Rockies as a Distinct Population Segment is an administrative effort to lump Montana in with Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Utah, and perhaps Colorado for a multi-state, one size fits all wolf management strategy that will make Montana dependent upon compliance by all other states. Not only do we object to this administrative change, but we assert that it violates the ESA and possibly other controlling federal laws and it violates Montana laws and Montana sovereignty (Article II, Section 2., M.C.) for many of the reasons discussed above, including that it violates the contractual relationship between Montana and the other states (the Compact) by which Montana accepted statehood.

Conclusion

These are all arguments why it was a mistake for wolves in Montana to come under federal protection, why it was a mistake for wolves to be reintroduced into Montana, and why it is important to remove all federal protection and control at the earliest possible date

Sincerely,

Gary Marbut,
Member - Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd

Posted by Tom Remington

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

Frank Priestley, President of the Idaho Farm Bureau has an article today in the Upper Valley Free Press, the title of which is, “Legal Challenge to Wolf Delisting is Irrational”. In it he lists a number of things that he thinks most people fighting to protect and stop the wolf delisting don’t know about wolves. He lists a few.

Idaho livestock operators and our elk and deer herds have borne the brunt of wolf reintroduction. Wolf depredation on livestock and decreased hunting opportunities has created a drain on our rural economy that isn’t an issue to environmentalists in those faraway cities. They don’t know that only one in ten cows or sheep killed by wolves ever gets confirmed as a wolf kill. They don’t know what it’s like to sit up all night, night after night during calving season keeping watch over a herd. They don’t know what it’s like to ride out to check on a flock of sheep and find 100 or more dead on the ground, their throats ripped out purely for the sport of the kill. This has happened twice in Idaho in recent years. They don’t know what it’s like to have their dogs killed and consumed or to pay the vet bills when horses are torn up after being run ragged through the forest by pursuing wolves. They don’t know what it feels like to be stalked by a pack of wolves or that without a wolf hunting season these predators have nothing to fear.

In addition, they don’t know that even if a wolf hunting season comes to fruition it will have very little effect on the overall wolf population………….

Environmentalists in faraway cities don’t know how living with wolves has changed our lives, and they ought to before they go to court to argue that Idaho doesn’t yet have enough wolves.

Tom Remington

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

Something the state of Idaho has tried before and failed, the state will once again consider an amendment to its constitution to protect the citizen’s right to hunt, fish and trap. HJR003 is a joint resolution that if passed - requiring a 2/3 majority of both Houses - would then become listed on the ballot this coming November. If it makes it that far, a simple majority of voters is all it would take to pass it.

Here’s what the amendment would look like.

SECTION 23. RIGHT TO HUNT, FISH, TRAP AND HARVEST. The people have the right to hunt, fish, trap and harvest wild game, subject to reasonable rules adopted in accordance with state law. Consistent with the state of Idaho’s duty to protect this valued heritage and to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage wild mammals, birds and fish, traditional methods used to take species not protected by federal law are reserved to the people. Public hunting, fishing and
trapping shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling species not protected by federal law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any other provisions of the constitution, common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain or any other property rights, or to establish expressly or by implication any minimum amount of water in any stream, river, lake, reservoir or other watercourse or water body.

This amendment was drafted with the assistance of the National Rifle Association Hunter Rights Organization and its expert legal staff and is being sponsored by those listed below.

Rep. Lawerence Denney
Rep. Mike Moyle
Rep. Mary Hagedorn
Rep. Rich Wills
Rep. Scott Bedke
Rep. Steve Kren
Sen. Robert Geddes
Sen. Dean Cameron
Sen. Monty Pearce
Sen. Steve Bair
Sen. Mel Richardson
Sen. Curt McKenzie

Rep. Marv Hagedorn writes about the proposed amendment at his blog.

You can contact members of the House Resources and Conservation Committee by following this link. Or you can contact your representative using this link.

If you don’t know your senator or congressman, use this link to find the name then use the above link to contact them.

Tom Remington

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

How many elk are there in the Northern Rockies area in and around Yellowstone National Park where wolves now control the landscape? How many were freely roaming the forests and the plains in their peak? How many are there now?

I’m not so naive that I don’t understand at least to some degree about counting wildlife. There are two things I know for sure; wild game are difficult to count and is mostly done based on gathering data rather than counting one by one, and when asked, fish and game officials are supposed to give out “official” numbers - I would suppose those put together from the last round of calculations even if their anecdotal evidence reveals something different.

What is oftentimes overlooked or just not brought up in discussions involving game populations is a break down of numbers. An example of this might be if officials state there are 100,000 elk in Idaho (this is a random figure). They may also claim that compared to previous years’ the population of elk is holding steady, etc. What would happen though if it was broken down by wildlife management areas? Would we see something different? Would we see a pattern that would show that in areas of large concentrations of predators, those numbers are substantially reduced and where there are fewer predators, elk and deer numbers continue to grow?

Of late, I am hearing from several people that the elk and deer in Idaho have or are disappearing faster than officials can count them. Is this true? Who does the counting? When is the counting done? If the elk are disappearing and vanishing that quickly, then we have to ask why?

I have stated in the past that I have a healthy respect for wildlife biologists and most fish and game departments. That respect dwindles in a hurry once these individuals and organizations become corrupt, mostly due to politics and hidden agendas. With that said, I also have a larger respect for the person that is in the field every day - the one who witnesses on a regular basis changes to the landscape, can compare those changes to evidence from years gone by, etc. These are the hunters, the trappers, the fishermen, the guides, the outfitters, the ones on the front lines nearly everyday. Any intelligently run fish and game department would be relying on these people’s eyes and ears for important information as to what is going on out there.

So, where have all the elk gone? Are they someplace where nobody can find them or do they just not exist anymore? Is the official elk count in Idaho only “official” because they haven’t official data that can render a change is official status? Are those claiming the elk are gone exaggerating their stories to embellish the truth? Are the wolves to blame? Are the bears to blame? Is it drought conditions or deep snow pack and extreme weather conditions? Is it a combination of all these factors or none of these? Some are claiming it is time to place the mule deer and elk on the threatened or endangered list because it is near extinction in some areas.

The other day I posted a brief comment from Robert Fanning of the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. In Pray, Montana, which is just outside the northern fringes of Yellowstone where Fanning lives, the elk that usually winter there just aren’t there, according to Mr. Fanning. He writes, “There used to be 19,700 elk in the Mt FWP (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks) winter range next to my home, now we are down to 400. No bulls. No calves.”

That’s a whole lot of meat on hooves that have gone somewhere!

I also received a copy of a letter that was written by an outfitter in Idaho, Shane McAfee. You can find a complete copy of his letter at the Western Institute for the Study of the Environment’s website.

McAfee says his business is suffering badly because there are no elk and deer left for his clients so they no long want to come to Idaho to hunt.

In 1996 our Unit 28 opening week saw ten hunters harvest nine bull elk (1-7×7, 6-6×6’s and 2- 5×5’s). All mature bulls, all happy hunters! Eleven years later, after the wolves multiplied here, this season (2007) we harvested only one spike bull and four deer out of twenty total hunters. On my first three hunts last year I went 15 days horseback guiding and never saw an elk! Almost all of the hunters never wanted to see Idaho again; and yes, they were very upset!

McAfee blames it on the wolves that are exploding in population and are being allowed to grow unchecked.

After I posted the short article mentioned above about Bob Fanning’s claims that nearly 20,000 elk have been reduced to 400, readers began leaving comments. I got a comment from Greg Farber who lives in Idaho. Here is part of what Greg said.

I also have this information myself in my Master wolf file Ive been building. Not only that the Largest Elk herd of the North West from the Selway is GONE guys. 26,000 elk in 1996 and four head have been seen at the Winter Ranges along the Clear Water In Idaho. As well the Middle Fork of the Boise River used to have 10,000+ elk Wintering along this River from Atlanta to Lucky Peak, Ive driven this road three times this Winter and I have glassed 160 head. The South Fork of the Boise River should have 8,000 head along that drainage and Ive seen 57 elk in there. The Payette River between Grandjean and Lowman Idaho where I grew up and still spend time at should have 4500 head of elk in those wintering spots, I located 54 cows, no bulls, no calves. I found 300 elk in the King Hill Area South of Bennett Mountain, there should be 5000 head there.

I emailed Greg because I found this information staggering. I wanted to communicate with him outside of a public forum so that I could ask him if he thought there were explanations to the disappearance of all these elk other than wolves, bears and mountain lions.

Tom-I don’t honestly know where the elk are, all I can tell you is for 35 years I have gone to these places with my uncle and myself to watch the elk and to gather horns which were shed at those sites. I have not located any elk sheds, I used to fill the truck bed with elk-deer sheds. Now I just try to find elk. I live in unit 48, which was a fantastic trophy bull unit, And I used to watch those monster bulls in winter here, they are not here. I would not take this tag for free, there is nothing to hunt. The voice of the people such as myself is not heard or listened too. IFG, and FWS, are covering up this ….I dont know what too call it…a crime I guess. I’m a packer Tom, with horses and mules, I will be out there in the saddle as soon as the snow is off for three months, Im not going to work, Im going to stay on the ground and do what I can for truth. The question in my mind is there is no place else these elk can be, there is no other alternative winter range in these places, if they are not there at the ranges, their under the snow and predation has gotten them as well. In all my years we were told too not chase or bother elk in winter due to heavy snows killing them, especially exhausting them by making them run in it, yet the wolf can do it? The bottom line here is elk in deep snow and hungry wolves is a recipe for disaster, this is what we have in Idaho. I guess if these public servants continue too lie, then perhaps we need to physically remove them and replace them with people whom have integrity and want too be fair. I just do not know what we can do too right this thing. The authority’s are being controlled by the wrong people, and it is not us. I tell everyone too stop buying tags, there is no sense in taking a gun out there and killing a cow elk, if you can find it. I thought since 1999 my skills as a hunter were fading, Ive taken 23 elk in the same darn place consistently, my last one was 1999. Same thing on mule deer, I hunted those big boys in the back country and have four 30”+toads on the wall and these guys are 200 classs bucks. I can not find any in the usual winter spots to gather their sheds and comfort myself basically that those big bucks are ok. There not ok. I wish I could describe too you the feeling I have inside me when I see what I see, and know in my heart what has happened and yet the agencies come out and lie to us about herd counts. Maybe the feeling right now is helplessness.

Greg.

Below is a video of a flight over the back country of Idaho in search of wintering elk. The flight was done by the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Idaho. They hired whom they thought was the most experienced pilot who could locate all the wintering ranges for the elk. See for yourself what they found.

Tom Remington

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

The Associated Press has said that eleven groups have formally announced plans to sue the federal government to stop the removal of the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act. A list of some of those groups, of which the Associated Press seems reluctant to announce, includes the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice and Center for Biological Diversity.

They made their announcement of intent and then will formally file within 60 days. The groups’ lawyer, Doug Honnold, said he would seek an emergency injunction to stop any wolf killing that is attempted before the courts rule.

None of this comes as a surprise and it shouldn’t come as a surprise either that these groups have also begun their public relations campaign by using the press, such as they have with the AP, to publish their lies and misinformation in order to sway public opinion. These groups are led by ruthless people with no scruples and will do and say pretty much anything to accomplish their goals.

Here’s a classic example of what a representative on one of these groups said.

“A lot of the killing may not be taking place just from hunters,” said Michael Robinson with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that plans to sue. “It’s going to be very systematic killing, with aerial killing and the trapping of wolves to put radio collars on them and then, after they return to their pack, killing the entire pack.”

But, you know when you have the mainstream media on your side, that will print whatever they are told to print, without any kind of verification, I guess that gives them the upper hand now doesn’t it. Here’s what the AP wrote.

State officials have pledged to keep wolves on the landscape. But they also would allow hunters and wildlife agents to kill hundreds of wolves, in part to reduce conflicts with livestock and big game.

I guess this is a case of one will lie and the other will swear it’s true.

And if you don’t think these groups are serious and for those who think these people are only interested in a few wolves in the Yellowstone area, visit this site and you can read for yourself that Defenders of Wildlife and others are asking supporters to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to support a National Wolf Recovery Plan.

Such a plan would continue protecting the wolf while allowing it to grow and spread throughout the entire U.S.. These people are sick and have to be stopped. It’s time for you to call on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and tell them we don’t need wolves living in everyone’s back yard.

Tom Remington

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

Robert T. Fanning Jr. is an integral part of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. Bob has for years been saying that the gray wolves in and around the Yellowstone area are ravaging the elk herd.

In a recent email from Mr. Fanning to Wolf Crossing, Fanning says there’s not much left.

There used to be 19,700 elk in the Mt FWP (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks) winter range next to my home, now we are down to 400.
No bulls.
No calves.
All the cows average over 9 years old.

I would assume that Mr. Fanning knows how to count and living next to the winter range for the Yellowstone elk herd, he would probably have more opportunity than most to keep track of numbers. If these numbers are accurate, this is a travesty. Is this what we have to look forward to with continued unchecked protection of the gray wolf? Are we going to sit idly by while allowing a predator complete run of the range while the elk herd, of which millions of dollars have been invested, gets wiped out?

I’m sorry but this is wrong!

Tom Remington