Are Wolf Wars Starting?

The topic of wolves becomes very passionate. I have spoken many times that advocates of wolves continue their lawsuits with demands seeking far more than original goals of the wolf reintroductions in Yellowstone and Central Idaho. It seems never a matter of concessions, only a matter of we want more and we want it now.

While the public’s awareness of wolves seems more front and center in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, all too often we forget about the struggles people are having with wolves in the Great Lakes wolf population. Even though there are many things that are different with wolves in the West versus wolves in the Great Lakes, there are also many things that are the same – that when wolves destroy private property, people get emotional. When it appears there is little that a landowner, rancher, livestock owner, hunter, citizen, can do to protect themselves and their property, anger builds. This happens no matter where you live.

I have written many times, like back last March, that unless the environmentalists/animal rights/anti hunting groups didn’t back off with the demands and lawsuits, they would become part of the reason to drive people to take matters into their own hands. Have we reached that point? I hope not.

But we have to seriously ask ourselves if it has begun. The federal government is now investigating the deaths of sixteen wolves in three states in the Great Lakes area – Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. There have also been reports of illegal wolf kills in the Idaho, Montana area.

There are myriad reasons that some might be driven to take matters into their own hands and while many of us can sympathize, I cannot condone breaking the law to achieve one’s goals. It should however serve notice to all citizens that people should have a right to protect themselves and their property regardless of the desire to protect a species.

Let’s hope that these incidents are isolated and do not lead to further acts of poaching. It will accomplish nothing in the long run.

Tom Remington

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

Minnesota Hunter Treed In His Tree Stand By Wolves

A Minnesota deer hunter shot a deer from his tree stand. He climbed down, field dressed the deer and climbed back into his stand to wait for the end of legal hunting. Evidently he could not drive out with his ATV legally until after legal hunting hours.

After getting back into his stand, several wolves appeared, interested in his buck he just shot. Nothing he could do really would scare the wolves away.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has the story, complete with all the usual pro wolf talking points – wolves don’t bother people, a declining deer population is because of bad winters, you know all the rest.

Tom Remington

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

Ohio Introduces Their Version Of “Firearms Freedom Act”

Ohio now lists among several other states to introduce their own version of Montana’s “Firearms Freedom Act”. Montana’s act, which has been signed by the governor and took effect on October 1st, states that any guns or gun products manufactured in Montana and remain in Montana are not subject to federal regulations.

Ohio’s bill, HB315 states:

To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words “Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.

According to Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, Ohio now joins with eight other states who have either passed or introduced a cloned version of Montana’s bill – Texas, which has passed a bill, Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Other states are working on them.

Marbut says that with more states passing and introducing similar legislation, this should help Montana in their litigation efforts in validating the Montana Firearms Freedom Act bill. A court hearing has been scheduled for later this year in which the state of Montana hopes to get a ruling that states have this right as stated in the Constitution.

Tom Remington

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

Blissful Ignorance Is Dangerous To Your Health

It wasn’t until I was able to see other parts of the world and be a part of the lives of people from “strange” countries that I came to a belated realization that Americans are quite ignorant of what goes on in these “strange” lands. It’s not so much that we’re not smart, it’s more that we are spoiled brats who see little need of knowing what others do. In some cases we probably just don’t care. I think we may have a bit of a chip on our shoulders. What do you think?

I was first embarrassed when I sat down and talked with a 12-year old boy from Japan. It was when he began asking me questions about the United States’ influence around the world and rattled off a list of remote islands scattered across the globe that the U.S. owned or once owned, the years in which purchases and sales were made, etc., that I could see I knew nothing. Why would this kid know this stuff?

I don’t think I’m the only American so lacking in knowledge.

Does this same blissful ignorance carry over into many other things we do?

About a month ago, I sought and was granted permission to republish an article that appeared in The Bugle, a publication of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The article, “Wolves: When Ignorance is Bliss” by Dr. Valerius Geist, helped us to better understand that we don’t understand. We are ignorant in our knowledge and understanding of wolf behavior and we are in desperate need to expand that knowledge base.

The opening sentence of Geist’s article says a mouthful – “Nothing convinces like personal experience.” How very true but also how very dangerous and scientifically unfortunate if we have to wait for personal experience in order to discover or be willing to discover the truth about things. This is where Americans seemingly lack for want to discover how the rest of the world comes into play.

Our personal experiences with wolves in modern America are basically non existent. We have some history in Alaska and Canada but we cling heavily to the notion that wolves have little interest in man. Even when facts show wolves have attacked humans in North America, many simply are not willing to admit it.

Our own history tells us that as settlers went West, they were blamed for many things, including the near extirpation of the wolf. This seemed to be the focus on our history with wolves, not so much about wolf behavior.

It wasn’t until just recently, through the English interpretation of foreign country documents about wolves, that we have been presented an opportunity to dig into world wide accounts of wolf behavior. For those who don’t know, Will Graves wrote a book, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, in which he documents for us the centuries of how the people and government of Russia dealt with wolves. The human encounters by wolves and the circumstances surrounding those encounters is eye opening and reveals many things we Americans need to learn if we are going to live with wolves in our back yards.

So, why are we insistent in turning a blind eye to facts? I wish I had the answer, or at least a simple one. Some of it seems to be that for some to admit that under the right circumstances wolves will attack people, it will shatter the sought after Disneyesque dream scape of cuddling up with a wolf. Those refusing to gain a better understanding of wolf behavior based on “personal experience” that Dr. Geist speaks of, may in fact become a victim of blissful ignorance. That would be unfortunate and unnecessary.

Bringing to light historic facts of global wolf documentation and human encounters should be received with open arms. Why then do we end every wolf story in the media with a statement that wolves rarely attack people, blah, blah, blah? This only serves to plant the thought in readers’ minds that there is nothing to be concerned with.

One of the problems I encounter is that whenever I try to present facts that run contrary to the wolf lovers’ talking points, I’m immediately labeled as one who wishes all wolves be killed. Because I desire that Americans, whether living in Central Idaho or next to Central Park, become educated with the truth, why am I a nutjob, wolf killer?

The Bugle recently received a letter from a reader who responded to Dr. Geist’s article on wolves. The writer was a former Army Captain stationed in Iran back in the mid 1960s. He was interested in sharing his “personal experience” with wolves in Iran.

We lost five men from one of the outlying local villages during the winter I spent in the province of Azerbaijan, Iran to wolves. I doubt the local papers fed the story to any international news services. There is no doubt of the truth of the story, but the men were local villagers and would not have been considered of importance to anyone but their families.

There were special circumstances that contributed to their deaths, but there may be special circumstance surrounding our future experiences.

The Army Captain went on to explain some of the circumstances that he felt led up to the attack on the five men. Those circumstances were a severe winter that drove the wolves’ prey base down to the low lands where the people lived. A second circumstance was the men were walking at night in a remote area and a third is that under Iranian law, these men were not allowed to own a weapon. All they could carry was a stick for prodding and a small tomahawk.

There were several other incidences that year according to the Army Captain.

It would be quite unfortunate that we Americans would have to first suffer “personal experience[s]” before we are willing to begin discussing that under the right circumstances wolves will attack humans. What is the harm of that? Let’s get the facts, all of them, out into the open so we can have rational debate. What are the circumstances that people need to learn that will increase their chances of an unfortunate encounter with a wolf, or a bear, or a mountain lion, etc.? It is irresponsible to turn a blind eye to facts from other corners of the globe as though somehow it can’t happen here.

Tom Remington

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

The Gray Wolf Lawsuit Yo-Yo

In court, out of court. In court, out of court. The entire gray wolf issue all through the United States is nothing but a legal yo-yo that benefits only the lawyers. While many of us had our eyes on the legal wrangling and the current gray wolf hunts taking place in the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment region, the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment has, once again, been placed back under federal protection.

Last September, 2008, federal judge Paul Friedman, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. remanded a lawsuit brought against the Department of Interior back to the USFWS “for further proceedings”. This, according to Friedman’s ruling, was because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to show that they had authority under the Endangered Species Act to create a Distinct Population Segment of wolves in order to delist a population of wolves. (Also known as a clerical technicality that really has no bearing on the case, in my opinion.)

According to the USFWS, they took care of their “further proceedings” and printed a Final Rule in April 2009, removing, once again, the gray wolf from federal protection. I know it may be difficult to fathom, but immediately a lawsuit was filed by The Humane Society of the United States, et. al., against the Department of Interior. Their claim being that USFWS violated the ESA by not providing a proper 60-day comment period before publishing the final rule.

A settlement was reached between the USFWS and HSUS and signed by Judge Paul Friedman that halts the delisting of wolves, places them back on the endangered and threatened species list and, should the USFWS decide to proceed again to delist the wolf, they must abide by the rules of administrative procedure, including a 60-day public comment period. (As well as be subject to paying plaintiff’s legal fees.)

I think you can clearly see the Yo-Yo effect here. I’m not a lawyer and am surely no expert on legal affairs but it would appear to me that the USFWS should have known that once Judge Paul Friedman remanded the case back in September 2008 and ruled that wolves be returned to federal protection, that any movement toward delisting again would require the same fundamental ESA administrative procedures. Give me a break. Are these guys wasting the courts time and taxpayer money?

But here’s the bigger question that I have. Judge Paul Friedman, in his September 2008 ruling, says he cannot see where the USFWS has the authority under the ESA to create a Distinct Population Segment of wolves in the Western Great Lakes for the purpose of delisting. He says the ESA is ambiguous and does not provide a definition. He also says the USFWS failed to present evidence that they could do this. This was all part of the “further proceedings” that Friedman remanded back the the Department. The question I have is what did the USFWS do about this defining of and creation of DPSs?

Because the Final Rule of April 2009 is no longer valid, we can only go by what the USFWS said about this.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs because, in the judge’s opinion, the Endangered Species Act is ambiguous on the issue of whether a DPS can be identified and delisted simultaneously and, therefore, the Service should have provided an explanation for their interpretation of the ESA. To address the court’s concern, this Rule explains why simultaneously identifying and delisting DPSs of currently listed species is consistent with the ESA’s text, structure, policy objectives and legislative history, and relevant judicial interpretations.

The way I see it is that if the USFWS once again, attempts to delist the wolves in the WGL DPS, and they follow the procedures correctly, they will have to rely on the fact that they presented a good enough explanation in any Final Rule to satisfy Judge Friedman. My guess is that this is simply another court case looking for a place to happen.

This is all quite asinine really and a waste of resources, time and money. We have judges in different portions of the country who seemingly are not in agreement on rulings. It’s becoming a dog and pony show making a complete mockery of the Endangered Species Act and its intentions.

Now the Department of Interior will have to decide what they want to do. They must love this Endangered Species Act as it chews up their budget and the valuable time employees could be spent doing something productive. But hey, that would run contrary to big government now wouldn’t it.

One final thought that I really don’t want to explore. If this Yo-Yo effect continues, one would have to wonder exactly what the agenda is for the Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

I’ll leave it at that.

Tom Remington

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

Is USFWS Authorized To Create Distinct Population Segments?

We learned on Tuesday that federal judge Donald Molloy refused to grant an emergency injunction to stop the wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana. What we also learned is Judge Molloy believes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot “carve out” the state of Wyoming from the rest of the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf population. Molloy suggests that by excluding Wyoming from the removal of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act list is a violation of the Act.

“The Service has distinguished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science,” Molloy wrote. “That, by definition, seems arbitrary and capricious.”

To Judge Molloy and others, that may well appear “arbitrary and capricious” only because they are entrenched in the politics of the gray wolf issue and are perhaps refusing to take the entire ESA into account with its scientific intent to conserve and protect species…….all of them.

The ESA, like most bills constructed in Congress are long and complicated. When lawyers get into the act, intent of laws sometimes get muddled and lost. The intent of the ESA is to preserve and protect species from becoming extinct to what is considered practicable. I contend the Act gives the Secretary of Interior the flexibility to do what is in the best interest of protecting species. Again, I reiterate that in all discussions of protecting species, consideration has to be given to all species. It is “arbitrary and capricious” to endanger one or more species while utilizing the ESA as a heavy-handed weapon to achieve personal agendas – in this case, protection of the wolf at all costs.

There is argument to make that excluding Wyoming is “arbitrary and capricious” if one is focused on politics. I don’t recall anywhere in the 47 pages of the ESA where it factors in politics. It speaks mostly in reference to the best science and information available at the time decisions are made. Sometimes protecting species requires the isolation of political problems.

Excluding the politics, doesn’t it then become in the best interest of the people and the other wildlife species that state fish and wildlife officials have determined are in danger in certain areas because of the wolf, to remove the protection of the ESA in order to protect and preserve all the species? Wyoming is excluded because of politics and that issue needs to be solved separately.

The question still remains, at least according to Judge Molloy, is whether the USFWS has the authority to exclude Wyoming from the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves delisting? The Secretary within the Act has been given the authority to protect species and past history has shown us that it is a common practice for the USFWS to create certain “Distinct Population Segments” or DPS.

The courts seem to be hung up on the issue that the ESA says very little about DPS. From that it seems they deem the action illegal. The only reference within the Act about DPS is this:

(16) The term ‘‘species’’ includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

The Act itself proposes that we set up programs to protect a species from going extinct. To make that determination, the Act also sets up guidelines that must be met before a species can be considered for an endangered or threatened listing.

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

In 1978 the United States decided to declare the gray wolf an endangered species in all the lower 48 states with the exception of Minnesota – gray wolves there were listed as “threatened”. Because of previous court rulings, one has to question whether the USFWS had the authority to list wolves in the lower 48. More on that in a bit.

In 1994, the USFWS created the Yellowstone Non Essential Experimental Population (NEP) of gray wolves. It’s intent was to bring wolves back to the park. A NEP listing, according to the ESA, is such that it is considered not essential to the protection of the species but with a goal that it could one day be recovered and delisted. In NEP areas critical habitat is not designated. Another criterion of the establishment of a NEP is that it must be isolated from an existing species of the same.

(j) EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS.—(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘experimental population’’ means any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.

Argument has been made that the creation and expansion of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population, all declared NEPs, was illegal as known populations of gray wolves existed in Northwestern Montana and portions of Idaho. (Another story)

In 1998 another NEP was designation in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and into Mexico. By April of 2000, the USFWS set up three Distinct Population Segments for administering the ESA and protecting wolves.

Those DPS did not last long. In 2005 in National Wildlife Federation, et. al v. Department of Interior, Judge J. Garvan Murtha ruled the creation of the three DPS in violation of the ESA.

In February, 2008, the USFWS created the Western Great Lakes DPS and set out to delist the wolf in this region.

In February 2008, the USFWS designated the Northern Rocky Mountains DPS and set out to delist the wolf in that region.

July 2008, Judge Donold Molloy rules against the removal of the gray wolf from endangered protection. Molloy’s ruling was for an emergency injunction. The full case brought against the USFWS was never heard as the USFWS withdrew its plan to delist the wolf. It was later revived.

In July 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a Federal Court in Washington, D.C. ruled that the USFWS did not have legal authority to create the Western Great Lakes DPS for the purpose of delisting the wolf. In his opinion he stated that this was in violation of the ESA, the same as Murtha’s ruling but using different reasons.

And most recently, the same Judge Molloy, ruled against the injunction and indicated that in the upcoming lawsuit of Defenders of Wildlife v. USFWS, the plaintiff’s claim that it is a violation of ESA to exclude Wyoming, may have merit.

We now have two judges who have ruled that creating DPSs are a violation of the ESA and a third considering such. What’s interesting is the Murtha ruling is based on the “DPS Policy” used by the National Marine Fisheries as reason to declare the creation of a DPS in violation of the ESA.

Friedman, on the other hand, remanded the case back to the USFWS (an unusual move) in order that they provide him with a clearer definition of a DPS.

What will Molloy use? Rulings are all over the place with neither of the two previous rulings citing the other. It really appears more like a case of ruling against a DPS because they wanted to than a finding of law violation.

Politics aside, science and evidence are telling us some of our other wildlife are suffering as a result of too many wolves in certain locations. State borders should have nothing to do with this. States manage their wildlife according to zones or districts. It has become the best available scientific method to do so and provides for better management broken down into smaller more manageable areas. This same principle should apply to the management of wolves throughout the entire NRM range.

To declare that carving Wyoming out of the picture as being “arbitrary and capricious” is showing one’s ignorance of the best wildlife management practices. The statement itself is political. As I said, the reason Wyoming is excluded is political. That problem needs to be resolved separately. In the meantime, wolves and all other wildlife species need to be managed. Delaying that process is irresponsible and is in itself a violation of the ESA.

This entire debate has become nauseating and a waste of time and money. Molloy has through his ruling, admitted that there are plenty of wolves and killing a few isn’t going to hurt anything. If he is to claim he must rule by the law, then be the first judge to actually rule using something substantial found in the ESA. Judges are supposed to interpret the meaning and intent of laws and rule accordingly. The ESA did not intend for wolves to run amok throughout Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, destroying other species putting them at risk and in need of protection from the same ESA. That’s ridiculous.

Tom Remington

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

Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf Population Goes Back On Endangered List

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

Minnesota Proposes “Firearms Freedom Act”

Yesterday I reported that Montana’s “Montana-Made Gun Bill” has gone viral and that states are jumping on the opportunity to follow suit. Montana’s bill states that any gun, gun accessory or ammunition manufactured in Montana and stays in Montana cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. Not only is this a bold attempt at protecting the Second Amendment rights of Montanans it all sends a message to the U.S. Government that Montana is a sovereign state and will not be controlled by the feds.

Yesterday, South Carolina introduced a similar bill and it now appears that Minnesota has done the same – HF2376.

Here’s a list of other states with similar bills.

Montana HB 246
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Alaska HB 186
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0186D&session=26

Texas HB 1863
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB01863I.htm

Tennessee
HB 1796
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1796
SB 1610
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB1610.pdf

South Carolina S. 794
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/794.htm

Tom Remington

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

All Wolves In The Northern Rocky Mountain Region Will Be Slaughtered Today

According to all the wolf lovers of the world, today May 4, 2009) marks the day when anyone in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Utah can take up arms and go slaughter every wolf that exists. While wolves in the Western Great Lakes also become officially removed from Endangered Species protection, we must assume all hunters in that region as well are systematically slaughtering every wolf they can get into the rifle scope.

After today, we will finally be rid of those nasty varmints thanks to Barack Hussein Obama!

Tom Remington

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

Montana’s Wolf Recovery Act: An Exercise In “We The People”?

I’m sure the majority of Americans know absolutely nothing of Montana Senate Bill 183, the Short Title being, “Montana Wolf Recovery Act”. As I understand the proceedings, the bill is up for second reading in Committee as small items get tweaked.

The Montana Wolf Recovery Act may be a preview of more of what is to come in this country as more and more people are becoming completely fed up with the shenanigans that go on in Washington and the takeover of environmentalism. Just today I posted a YouTube video of a reporter in the U.S. Senate building asking Senator Charlie Rangel to explain his current tax cheating, among other things. His response, “Why don’t you might your own god damn business!” It’s this sort of tyranny that is beginning to get to the people. It’s supposed to be “We the people” not mind your own god damn business.

SB 183, if passed as currently written, is a very tough action and I hope that when the lawmakers of that great state debate this bill, they will remain tough and stick to their demands no matter how far it must go.

You can read the bill yourself by clicking this link but let me run down briefly for you what the bill will do.

SB 183 will declare Montana a sovereign entity and that the United States government has not dealt in good faith with the state concerning the introduction of gray wolves. It has broken nearly every promise ever made and now with a wolf population that far exceeds any number the government promised, Montana is suffering in several ways.

This bill claims that the United States government lacks any legal authority to force wolves upon its people while at the same time forcing protection of wolves resulting in public safety concerns, property losses, economic hardships and loss of hunting opportunities. The presence of the wolf in Montana has put a financial drain on the state in many ways.

A good foundation that Montana has that some states don’t, is a constitutional guarantee to provide its citizens hunting opportunities.

Constitution of Montana — Article IX — ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Section 7. Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.

The Montana Wolf Recovery Act seems to cover a lot of bases. Essentially the bill tells the federal government to get out. Informs them they acted illegally when introducing wolves and have not lived up to any of their promises. They are informing the feds they will deal with the wolves in their own manner and that the U.S. government will pay the bill and be liable for future expenses and any liability including property damage or loss and public safety and lawsuits.

Unique in this bill is that it clearly spells out how the state will deal with wolves once the bill is passed. They are not intending to wait on approval or a response from the feds.

Section 10. Wolf management policy — compliance criteria. To be in compliance with the Montana wolf management policy expressed in [sections 1 through 17], the wolf presence in Montana must meet the following criteria:

(1) The gray wolf must be removed from the United States’ list of endangered or threatened wildlife and the state list of endangered species.

(2) The statewide average for resident big game hunter success rates has not declined in the 3 most recent calendar years below the average of the 10 most recent calendar years.

(3) Wolf populations are at or below 150% of the target population of 150 wolves.

(4) Livestock predation by wolves, as determined by the county commissioners of any county in which wolf predation is alleged to have occurred, has not increased in the average of the 3 most recent complete calendar years above the average for the most recent 10 calendar years.

(5) Wolves present in the state are not afflicted with, carrying, or transmitting infectious diseases or parasites transmissible to humans or domestic or wild animals as determined by the state veterinarian.

SB 183 will revoke any and all previous wolf management plans and agreements reached with the federal government.

I know some people will be outraged to think that the state of Montana is presenting such a bill. I say, it’s about time and you can expect more bills to mirror the Montana one. Some will exclaim that it was just announced that the wolf will be removed from the ESA list. We have absolutely no reason to believe this will actually happen as the courts fully love the wolves as much as the wolf lovers who protect them. And even if the wolf was delisted, the management plans that the feds require for delisting allow for far too many wolves putting elk, deer and moose populations at risk and requires the states to fund those plans.

We cannot blame Montana for being forced into taking this kind of action. They, along with Idaho and Wyoming, have been lied to, they’ve had just about every promise made to them broken and in the onslaught of lawsuits by animal rights and environmental groups, the federal government has not worked for the states in which they released their wolves. In short, the U.S. Government has not lived up to any part of their agreements.

We also cannot blame the people of Montana for how they have been beaten down and trodden on by wolf advocate groups, never once wishing to make any kinds of concessions. Regardless of the facts, there just never seems to be enough wolves to make them happy. They too have not offered a hand to deal in an equitable, honest and decent manner and so we can now say they may get just what they deserve. Very unfortunate.

Those pushing the wolf protection and funding the lawsuits don’t live where the wolves got dumped, nor do they really care what happens to the people. This is one aspect of the Endangered Species Act that is so un-American and why the federal government should never be given that kind of power over a sovereign state. Now, Montana wants it back. I think we can expect similar moves from Idaho and Wyoming and if things continue the way they have, expect Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan to jump on board.

There is a divide growing in this country which should be troubling to you. There are those, like Montana, seeing their freedom to exist as a sovereign state slipping away, while on the other side a movement seeking more federal government power, a dangerous move against freedom.

There are currently as many as 26 states that have or are considering some form of legislative action wishing to affirm and/or restore state rights. I’ve not seen many of those bills or resolutions but this one is a strong one. Not only does this bill aggressively seek to end the people’s misery over the gray wolf, it wishes to put the U.S. Government on notice that they aren’t interested in federal interference in state affairs. AMEN!

What are we to think? I am encouraged that there are still Americans eager to protect and preserve the American heritage, the way of life that has made us great for without it, we become just another country, just another somebody needing to look elsewhere for our needs. That is a dangerous move.

I’ll continue to monitor the movement of SB 183 and report back when there is information important to its progress. If you are from Montana, contact your representative. Tell them you support state sovereignty and you want the feds out. If you’re not from Montana, maybe it’s time to get a movement started in your neck of the woods. Let’s return America to the people and out of the hands of big government and the animal rights/environmental machines. We can do this.

Tom Remington

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

Random Thoughts And Comments

My pea brain is having an itch this morning and so I thought it must be time to create some random (perhaps not so random) thoughts and comments.

Growing Up – What’s that Bible verse that tells us that when we were children we acted like one but when we became adults we put our childish things away? It’s always obvious to me on a regular basis that far too many have never put away their childish behaviors. This was on display this week when we learned that Barack Hussein Obama had sent a “secret” letter to Russian leaders Medvedev and Putin. In essence the letter said Obama would stop peeing in Putin’s sandbox if Putin would stop the bully in his sandbox.

Dumb Like a Fence Post? – I wonder how many people have actually had a chance to think about how much money we have spent over the past 7 weeks? Or better yet have even begun to calculate how it will be repaid? The truth is it will never be repaid. It is, for all intent and purposes, impossible to do. Ink and paper will do the trick!

But how dumb are we? Unless I am a rogue American these days who believes in living within my means, what idiot who is in financial trouble would do more of the same of what got them into financial trouble to begin with? If we keep repeating the phrase, “Well, we got to do something”, then in time we will be able to convince ourselves we did the right thing. Much like the Great Depression I suppose.

I was a “jock” growing up in rural Maine and played sports so just so as to irk the heck out of any intellectuals who might stumble onto this web site, let me speak in sports analogies. I played football in high school at a brand new school. The team was comprised of only 3 or 4 of us who had ever played organized football before. In my last 2 years of high school, we won two games out of sixteen.

Suiting up for each practice and for Saturday games, we all knew our chances of winning were slim but the coach would always be a good cheerleader. He would keep us motivated and focused on the big picture. I recall one time him telling us that we were setting the ground work for the future football program at the school. It took about 10 years, but my high school won a state championship.

The chances of you and I seeing a vibrant economy anytime soon is laughable at best. Coach Obama hasn’t had a decent thing to say about the economy since forever. His two favorite words are crisis and catastrophe. He’s a lousy leader with no experience. I team that doesn’t know how to win needs a leader who can direct the effort. Telling the team over and over and over that we are in crisis, on the verge of catastrophe and that we may never pull through isn’t going to cut it. With that kind of leadership, why bother showing up for practice?

A Fox to Tend the Chicken Coop – Do you know how funny it was yesterday to sit in front of the television and watch a little weasel, with a squeaky little voice and slight speech impediment, looking like he was in grade school, tell the American people that one way the federal government is going to raise tax revenue is to go after those who don’t pay their taxes.

Bwahahahahaha, Bwahahahahaha! Tim Geithner is a tax cheat! He did not pay his taxes! Who the hell is he to tell us he’s going to go after those who don’t pay their taxes and not expect to get laughed at?

The Angry Masses – Just how much of big government can people take? We hear everyday of another state passing legislation in an attempt to reclaim their sovereignty. This is mostly spurred on by citizens. Citizens who are sick and tired of federal government interference into their lives. Often that interference comes in the form of doing nothing.

Such is the case now with this administration in dealing with angry citizens in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona and New Mexico. Why just those states? They have wolves and those wolves are getting out of control. People are losing property, being threatened and years of hard work and money spent to create healthy herds of elk and deer, moose and other wildlife are being destroyed because the federal government refuses to do anything about it.

One of the first acts of this president was to freeze all rule changes that the Bush administration had in the works – not an unusual move. In the works was a final rule to remove the wolf from federal protection in two areas – Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes.

Nearly eight weeks have gone by and not a word from the Department of Interior, while the wolf continues its unchecked growth. Maybe the hold up is that the DOI can’t find enough people to make decisions who aren’t tax evaders or participants in campaign fraud, prostitution, etc.

Who Can Run the Fastest? – Being that we are in troubled times, real or imagined, sometimes survival comes down to who can run the fastest or avoid the sharks. Use whatever analogy you would like. Today I’ll leave you with a short story of doing just enough to not become a victim.

Bob and Fred went fishing. They went to their favorite fishing hole which required a substantial hike through the woods, over a couple good sized hills and some pretty dense forest. One of the reasons Bob and Fred preferred this site to fish was because neither of them thought it necessary to buy a fishing license.

They arrived at their destination, baited up and began casting their lines into the sparkling clear and cold water, prime habitat for native brook trout. After about a dozen casts or so and a bucket filling up with trout, the two men heard a noise coming from behind in the thicket. There was a low growl.

Bob and Fred knew instantly it was a bear and they both broke into a fast-paced run through the woods. Bob led the charge with Fred close at his heels, followed by the bear. It didn’t take long before Bob and Fred were getting quite winded.

That’s when Fred yelled in Bob’s ear as they ducked under branches and danced around trees, “Keep going Bob! We got to outrun that bear!”

To which Bob replied, “No, I only have to outrun you!”

Tom Remington

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

Time Line Of Gray Wolf From Endangered Listing To Present

I discovered this page on the website of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and thought I would post it here. It’s a pretty good resource in that it covers a time line from 1974, when the gray wolf in the lower 48 states was declared endangered, to the present time when the Obama administration put a halt to the Proposed Ruling to remove the gray wolf from federal protection in parts of the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Western Great Lakes.

On January 20, 2009, Rahm Emanuel, Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, issued a memorandum concerning the management of the Federal regulatory process at the beginning of the new Administration. As relevant to the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) & Western Great Lakes (WGL) wolf Distinct Population Segment (DPS) rulemakings, this memorandum directed all agencies to withdraw from the Office of the Federal Register all proposed and final regulations that have not been published in the Federal Register so that they can be reviewed and approved by a department or agency head appointed by the President.
FWS Announces Final Rule to Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and to Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

* Press Release

October 2008 – Reopening of Comment Period on Proposed Rule Establishing and Delisting the NRM Gray Wolf DPS

* Federal Register Notice Reopening Comment Period

U.S. District Court for the District of Montana Court Orders

* Montana District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order (July 18, 2008)
* Montana District Court’s Vacatur and Remand Order (October 14, 2008)
* Federal Register Rule Implementing District Court Rulings (December 11, 2008)

February 2008 – Final Rule Establishing and Delisting the NRM Gray Wolf DPS

* Federal Register Notice (868 KB PDF) Literature cited list
* Press Release

January 2008 – Final Rule for Revision of Special Regulation for the Central Idaho and Yellowstone Area Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves

* Federal Register Notice Literature Cited
* Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA (1.2 MB PDF)
* Press Release

July 2007 – Reopening of Comment Period on Proposed Rule Establishing and Delisting the NRM Gray Wolf DPS

Federal Register Notice

February 2007 – Proposed rule Establishing and Delisting the NRM Gray Wolf DPS

* Federal Register Notice

August 1, 2006 – FWS Announces 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Establish and Delist the NRM Gray Wolf Population:

* Federal Register Notice

January 2005 – New Regulation (10(j) Special Rule) Allows Greater Management Flexibility of Gray Wolves for the States of Montana and Idaho:

* Federal Register Notice

2005 – Final Rule to Change Status of Gray Wolf Throughout Most of the Lower 48 States Overturned:

* Oregon District Court Decision
* Vermont District Court Decision

2003 – Final Rule to Designate 3 District Population Segments and Change the ESA Status of the Gray Wolf throughout Most of the Lower 48 States:

* Federal Register Notice (670 KB PDF)

1994 – Establishment of Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves:

* Federal Register Notice (HTML)
* Federal Register Notice (6 MB PDF)

1978 – Reclassification of the Gray Wolf in the United States and Mexico, with Determination of Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnesota:

* Federal Register Notice (1.1 MB PDF)

1974 – Gray Wolf Listed as Endangered in the Lower 48 States and Mexico:

* Federal Register Notice

Tom Remington

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

Debunking The Myth That Wolves Don’t Bite

Once again the attention of some in this country was yanked away from President Obama’s so-called economic “catastrophe” last week, to be subjected to the cries from the unbalanced animal extremists that Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin was needlessly slaughtering wolves. (Stories can be found at this link.) I’m not here to argue for or against Alaska’s wolf management policy right now. I’m here to talk about at least one of the myths perpetuated in the western world about wolves.

One of the reasons I bring up the Alaska wolf management story is that through discussions about this topic and links to some of the articles I have written about wolves, I discover people on numerous websites discussing these very same subjects. And what do I find? I read account after account of people saying that wolves are harmless and that there has never been a wolf attack on a human before…at least a recorded one. Knowledgeable people on the subject know this is not true. I want to help you understand that statement is not true.

What makes this chore challenging is that once I attempt to present evidence that runs contrary to the repeated bad information out there, I get accused of being a wolf hater, a killer of living things, that I have wolf phobia, etc., etc., simply because I am interested in the truth and passing that on to others. A wolf, like any animal, should be treated with respect but also, like any animal, it needs to be understood and treated for what it is. To do that we need to understand their habits.

The love affair with animals and in particular the wolf is not exactly a United States or even a North American thing. It’s mostly global and I think it safe to say it began much about the same time as tie-dye t-shirts became popular. As that generation grew up and most of it is now in power, we are left with the “make love not war” generation. These same leftovers also infiltrated the ranks of environmentalism and animal rights.

Hence the notions and myths that have been passed down and continue to be passed down through our education system and at home, are readily accepted as being fact. We all hear that all animals, wild or domestic, are cute and cuddly creatures. After all, who can resist a baby animal of any kind…….or at least one with fur on it? Wolves, seldom, if ever, are presented in a light that reflects their bloodthirsty side.

We want so badly to believe that nature can take care of itself by excluding man from the big picture of our earth’s ecosystem. As much as we want that, man is at the top of the food chain and short of doing something drastic, as has been suggested by some extremists, man isn’t going to disappear. Over time we’ve learned to do a pretty respectable job at taking care of our animals. The problem that now exists is that some want to carry that caring to extremes, which is not only irrational but unnecessary and perpetuated by myth, sometimes intentional but mostly through repeated fairy tales.

The very opening paragraph of Will N. Graves’ book, Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages, sets the stage for something nobody in North America has had to experience, at least in modern times.

“Throughout the ages, wolves in Russia have been linked to a brutal and tragic history. One result is that most Russians are afraid of wolves. The night howling of wolves terrorizes the Russian soul and sends cold chills running up and down the spine. Upon hearing wolves howl, humans and everything living in the forest and fields stand still as if frozen. Wolves are beautiful, interesting, intelligent and adaptable creatures, however, by nature and habit they are also violent, ferocious and, at times, bloodthirsty. Wolves may kill more animals than they need to eat – this is called “surplus killing”. The fear of wolves, and the terror of being bitten by a rabid one, has left an indelible imprint on the Russian mind, for the bite of a rabid wolf was lethal and the death was agonizing. Louis Pasteur developed the first vaccine against rabies only in the 1880s. Imagine living in a country where over 500,000 wolves were killed in the short period from 1946 to 1970. About 272,400 wolves were killed in the USSR between 1947 and 1951, and 1,500,000 were killed during the existence of the USSR. In the late 1990s, wolves in Russia were still terrorizing villages and occasionally killing humans, to say nothing of wild game and domestic animals.”

During the period in the USSR when 1,500,000 wolves were killed, thousands of human beings were killed and eaten by wolves. While it is important to point out that a majority of these attacks came from diseased wolves, many hundreds occurred with very healthy animals. We can’t disregard the savage deaths of those who fell victim to healthy wolves simply because we just don’t want to believe it.

Are there great differences between life in Russia and the circumstances surrounding the wolf attacks there compared to here in the United States? Absolutely there are differences and there are commonalities as well. One big difference was that here in the U.S. people were allowed to have a gun to protect themselves. As people moved out further into the rural areas to settle, they often encountered wolves and other large predators. Guns were not banned by our government and owning one provided a means of protection.

In Russia, the government controlled most everything, including the means with which wolf populations could be controlled. Scary thought isn’t it?

We now have a vaccine for rabies. They didn’t years ago and sick wolves, by themselves, would attack and bite people, sometimes a passing bite as they would run by, eventually leading to the agonizing death of the one bitten, due to rabies.

“Wolves in Russia” provides ample documentation of wolf populations, wolf control measures, what caused wolf populations to rise and fall, how wolves attack, attacks by sick wolves, attacks by healthy wolves and much discussion of effective and not so effective methods to control wolf numbers.

They key here is that under the right circumstances, wolves will attack a human. We have been witness to this in the most recent case of one Kenton Carnegie who was attacked and killed by wolves in Canada. You can read that story here.

“Death By Wolves And Misleading Advocacy. The Kenton Carnegie Tragedy”, was written by Dr. Valerius Geist. Dr. Geist assisted, at the request of the Carnegie family, in investigating the death of Kenton Carnegie. Attempts were made to quickly dismiss that Carnegie was attacked and killed by wolves. Part of the perpetuating myth that wolves don’t harm humans reared its head in this investigation. It is unclear to me why people are so closed minded to the fact that wolves can and will attack and kill a human. History shows this to be fact and yet we, the animal protectionists, prefer to see wolves as that fascinating, romantic creature silhouetted in front of a full moon.

Dr. Geist, one of our foremost authorities on wolves, has offered us many times, “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?” I would like to reprint his seven stages leading up to a wolf attack on humans.

1) Within the pack’s territory prey is becoming scarce not only due to increased predation on native prey animals, but also by the prey evacuating home ranges en mass, leading to a virtual absence of prey. Or wolves increasingly visit garbage dumps at night. We observed the former on Vancouver Island in summer and fall 1999.

Deer left the meadow systems occupied by wolves and entered boldly into suburbs and farms, causing – for the first time – much damage to gardens. At night they slept close to barns and houses, which they had not done in the previous four years.

The wintering grounds of trumpeter swans, Canada geese and flocks of several species of ducks were vacated. The virtual absence of wildlife in the landscape was striking.

2) Wolves in search of food began to approach human habitations – at night! Their presence was announced by frequent and loud barking of farm dogs. A pack of sheep-guarding dogs raced out each evening to confront the wolf pack, resulting in extended barking duels at night, and the wolves were heard howling even during the day.

3) The wolves appear in daylight and observe people doing their daily chores at some distance. Wolves excel at learning by close, steady observation [1]. They approach buildings during daylight.

4) Small bodied livestock and pets are attacked close to buildings even during the day. The wolves act distinctly bolder in the actions.

They preferentially pick on dogs and follow them right up to the verandas. People out with dogs find themselves defending their dogs against a wolf or several wolves. Such attacks are still hesitant and people save some dogs.

At this stage wolves do not focus on humans, but attack pets and some livestock with determination. However, they may threaten humans with teeth exposed and growling when the humans are defending dogs, or show up close to a female dog in heat, or close to a kill or carrion defended by wolves. The wolves are still establishing territory.

5) The wolves explore large livestock, leading to docked tails, slit ears and hocks. Livestock may bolt through fences running for the safety of barns. When the first seriously wounded cattle are found they tend to have severe injuries to the udders, groin and sexual organs and need to be put down. The actions of wolves become more brazen and cattle or horses may be killed close to houses and barns where the cattle or horses were trying to find refuge. Wolves may follow riders and surround them. They may mount verandas and look into windows.

6) Wolves turn their attention to people and approach them closely, initially merely examining them closely for several minutes on end. This is a switch from establishing territory to targeting people as prey. The wolves may make hesitant, almost playful attacks biting and tearing clothing, nipping at limbs and torso. They withdraw when confronted. They defend kills by moving toward people and growling and barking at them from 10 – 20 paces away.

7) Wolves attack people. These initial attacks are clumsy, as the wolves have not yet learned how to take down the new prey efficiently. Persons attacked can often escape because of the clumsiness of the attacks.

A mature courageous man may beat off or strangulate an attacking wolf. However, against a wolf pack there is no defense and even two able and armed men may be killed. Wolves as pack hunters are so capable a predator that they may take down black bears, even grizzly bears [2]. Wolves may defend kills.

The attack may not be motivated by predation, but be a matter of more detailed exploration unmotivated by hunger. This explains why wolves on occasion carry away living, resisting children, why they do not invariably feed on the humans they killed, but may abandon such just as they may kill foxes and just leave them, and why injuries to an attacked person may at times be surprisingly light, granted the strength of a wolf’s jaw and its potential shearing power [3].

Another account in wolf history comes to us from Northern Italy – “Historical data on the presence of the wolf and cases of man-eating in central Padania” This recently translated account covers events between humans and wolves from the 15th to the 19th centuries. Like in Russia and the information provided to us by Dr. Geist, what transpired in Italy greatly supports much of the same evidence pertaining to wolf behavior.

In this small area of Northern Italy, over 400 cases were recorded of attacks on humans by wolves. The evidence compiled led researchers to reach certain conclusions, which helps us to better understand wolf behavior. Here are some valuable data that closely follows that of Dr. Geist.

It has also been possible to identify two very distinct kinds of aggression against man by wolves:

A) When the attacks have dietary motivations:
* They occur in a rather vast territorial range;
* They are occur homogenously in a long period of time, sometimes even many months;
* They occur principally against young people;
* More than one wolf can be involved;
* If the attack is not interrupted, the victim is transported elsewhere and then dismembered;
* If the attack is interrupted, rabies does not occur in the injured victim.

B) When the attacks are committed by rabies infected individuals:
* The attacks are numerous, concentrated in a small territory, with a behaviour which we can call “bite and run”, and occur in a brief period of time;
* Men, women and children are attacked indiscriminately;
* Unmistakeably committed by an isolated individual;
* The attack never concludes with the transportation of the victim elsewhere or the successive dismemberment. Hydrophobia is diagnosed in the victim and then his/her death is recorded.

In both cases, the incident generally concludes with the killing of the wolf: in the former case, attacks disappear for some time, while in the latter, the disease is ascertained.

Researchers in Italy were able to find common ground by examining their own information with that of wolf attacks in Europe and India and came up with what they believe to be reasons why wolves would attack humans.

we have found some common constants: in nearly all cases the attack occurs in marginal areas and, despite expectations, attacks are very rare in scarcely populated areas; the attack is generally against children. We have therefore tried to identify what contributed to the reality of Padania and Europe of past centuries and modern India. In effects, outside the temporal and geographical lapse which divides them, these two realities have in common: the increase of rural populations, the underdevelopment of the rural economy and an elevated development of marginal areas. The combination of these elements intertwines with the overgrazing of livestock in marginal territories with a consequential progressive alteration of the natural environment. Competition on plains and water holes, diseases spread by livestock, the destruction of habitat and hunting determined the disappearance of wild animals. The lack of natural prey induces the wolf to attack their domestic “surrogate”………

The disappearance of large wild herbivores, probably, influences the social structure of packs. The pack becomes an anti-economic structure if there are no large herbivores to hunt, and the biomass of prey is not sufficient for its survival. The social structure could therefore evolve toward family groups, but in particularly critical situations, it is not to be excluded that the wolf can also acquire solitary behaviours. The organisation of families and/or single individuals is more economic in the hunting and utilisation of smaller prey and also guarantees greater security in open territories with elevated human presence…….Humans are outside the species normal prey base: it is revealed in fact that the predation is generally directed only toward domestic ungulates, but an attack against livestock can accidentally conclude in an attack against man. At the point at which the victim of the attack is a young person, the predator gains a gratifying experience which can start a predatory behaviour toward children. The prey-child is also able to be dragged elsewhere and is sufficient for the dietary needs of a small family group. The wolf turned man-eater, if not quickly eliminated, can easily culturally transmit this predatory behaviour to other members of the group…….On the basis of compared situations, when the wolf is present in numerous populations, with ample available territories and high concentrations of goats and sheep, even when wild prey is particularly scarce, verified attacks against people are rare. In characteristically opposite zones one cannot exclude the insurgence of this atypical behaviour. In conclusion, we retain that the wolf can acquire man-eating behaviours when simultaneously, the following problems are present:

* dietary (scarcity of both wild and domestic prey)
* territorial (scarcity of available territories)
* demographic (reduction in population)
* social (breaking up of pack structure)

Once again we clearly see that Dr. Geist’s Seven Steps of when wolves become a danger to man, very closely follows the conclusions drawn in the Northern Italy study.

World wide, wolves have been attacking, killing and eating human flesh for centuries. In most of these cases it has been the result of sick wolves but without question, hundreds and even thousands of cases are recorded of healthy wolves attacking humans.

Here in the West we continue to insist that wolf attacks on humans are rare, in which they are, but we carry that further by stating nobody in North America has ever been killed by a wolf attack. We also tend to quickly dismiss any talk of attacks by wolves that don’t involve death and dismemberment.

Contrary to what seems common rhetoric, history gives us a look at wolf attacks. The 2002 study by Mark E. McNay, “A Case History of Wolf-Human Encounters in Alaska and Canada” gives us examples of recorded wolf attacks on humans. McNay breaks down for readers the kinds of wolf behavior associated with the attacks studied – 80 cases.

We also have documentation by T.R. Mader, research division of Abundant Wildlife Society, (Wolf Attacks on Humans) of many recorded and witnessed attacks on humans by wolves, some of them resulting in death and many of them from seemingly healthy wolves.

The point to much of this discussion is certainly not an attempt to convince readers that wolves are slinking about the countryside seeking someone to devour. What it is is an attempt to educate people that the myth that has been perpetuated now for decades that wolves are completely harmless is inaccurate and potentially dangerous.

We have documented evidence that healthy wolves attack humans. In that evidence I’ve provided data that would indicate under what circumstances wolves may turn on humans. This information is valuable and should be heeded.

If we revisit for a moment the history of wolf attacks in Russia, I pointed out that the government of Russia prohibited the majority of its citizens from owning guns. They had little protection and the government controlled everything including the management of wolves.

Upon examination of the evidence provided we can see that wolves and humans can coexist provided that the animal is properly managed. Here in the United States with efforts underway to restore populations of wolves, continued lawsuits and federal control leaves citizens in much the same predicament as Russian peasants where many years ago. We can’t strip the right of the people to protect themselves and their property.

If we take to heart the conditions set forth from the Italian study of when wolves will attack humans and couple that with Dr. Geist’s Seven Steps, we need to make absolutely certain that we do not allow for any of those conditions to persist in order to protect the people, their property, as well as the game animals and other wildlife we have worked so hard for so long to restore. And this is why we cry out to the federal government to allow the states to properly manage the wolf in conjunction with their own wildlife management plans. After all, aren’t they the ones who better understand the conditions that exist within their communities and ecosystems?

The federal courts have to stop listening to and buckling to the demands of the animal rights groups who clearly want only to see huge numbers of wolves dotting our landscape. This is potentially very dangerous. Real science and documented history must be used by our courts to put a halt to such needless and senseless lawsuits.

Hiding behind old tired out rhetoric that wolves are completely harmless solves nothing. There is truth in the statement that for the most part people should no worry about wolf attacks but believing they are immune to any type of danger is irresponsible. That worry can be substantially reduced but we must allow for proper management. Without it we run the risk of creating the exact set of circumstances that would lead to wolf attacks on humans.

Without management of wolves, we sit on our hands and allow the population to grow at a rapid pace and out of control. Prohibiting the use of hunting as a management tool allows the wolf to habituate with humans removing what should be a natural fear of us. With a growing and out of control population of wolves, we are allowing the animal to decimate our ungulate populations, their most common prey species, along with a destruction of their own habitat. In essence they eat themselves out of house and home. Then what?

This one lack of responsible wildlife management sets the stage for certain trouble and we cannot sit by and watch it happen. Wolves and man can live together but it has to be done within the demographics of what is real. We can’t try to force more wolves into an area that can’t sustain them hoping they will disperse before the damage is done.

Without the management and control that is needed now, we will begin to rewrite some of the history of wolf attacks on humans. I don’t think we want that.

Tom Remington

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

Which Species Of Wolf Roamed The Northern Rockies Years Ago?

The science of classifying wolves (taxonomy) dates back to the early and mid 1970s (Mech 1974). Those findings claimed that there were 32 taxonomic subspecies of gray wolves around the world and here in North America, 24 subspecies. Oddly enough, the scientific community, although seemingly agreeable that there are far fewer subspecies than this, has yet to formally adopt a different position.

The Smithsonian Institution has a work of scholarship called, “Physiological (Morphological) Basis for Establishing a Northern Rocky Mountain DPS” (Distinct Population Segment) (pdf). It presents information that leaves us to question whether the wolves reintroduced into the Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho regions were a good representation of the same wolves believed to have inhabited the same region many years ago.

I believe there are many who would argue that any wolf was the wrong wolf but we’ll save that argument for another time. The reason for this discussion could also have legal implications in determining whether bringing in the wrong wolf was in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

As part of the reintroduction process, it was assumed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the wolf that most closely resembled the wolf of the past was the one found in Canada. This assumption came mostly because of the “natural” migration of Canadian wolves from Canada into Northwestern Montana. It was then believed that reintroduction of the same wolf would only speed up the inevitable migration further south, believed to be “natural”.

However there seemed to be some disagreement as to which wolf subspecies was the right one.

The Brewster and Fritts (1995) publication in particular appeared to be a justification for the use of Canadian wolves for the YNP [re]introduction. Nowak (1995:397) determined the gray wolf historically present in YNP was more similar to the present wolf population in Minnesota, which he regarded as being most closely related to C. l. nubilus. Nowak also indicated the wolves to be released into YNP were from C. l. occidentalis founder stock in Canada. Morphologically, C. l. occidentalis is significantly larger than C. l. nubilus.

Another study, Wayne et al. (1995:406) seemed to agree with Brewster and Fritts (1995) in stating, “Among gray wolf populations, little genetic differentiation is apparent … The mitochondrial DNA analysis suggests there may not be a genetic basis for many past subspecific designations.” Under this assumption the notion of releasing Canadian wolves had four specific reasons.

1) comparatively speaking, little genetic and morphological difference exists among wolves from different geographic areas of the U.S.; 2) wolves taken from Canada could fill the same ecological niche in the recovery areas as did the wolves that historically occupied these areas [this is an assumption – if wolves that historically occupied YNP and central ID were a smaller subspecies or type, they may have differed somewhat in the composition of prey selection and thus, in their specific niche]; 3) the area of Northern Montana that Canadian wolves had colonized was not a great distance from YNP; and 4) Eventually, Canadian wolves were likely to disperse naturally into YNP and central ID, therefore, releasing wolves into YNP and central ID would merely facilitate a natural dispersal process.

But Smithsonian suggests that the smaller wolf historically was present in the YNP area and that any thought that the larger Canadian wolf was there at all resulted because humans killed off the smaller native wolf. In other words, due to characteristics of the wolf, geographical boundaries exist between subspecies. This raises questions as to whether the Canadian wolf, because its range was predominantly in a colder climate and grew to a large body size than the smaller wolf which roamed YNP, would naturally migrate southward.

For these reasons, it may have been a mistake to bring in the larger Canadian wolf.

The Canadian wolf is a larger subspecies adapted to a colder, more northerly climate. The introduction of the C. l. occidentalis type to more southerly latitudes outside its historic range is inconsistent with Conservation Biology principles, and has potential implications for species adaptation in the context of global climate change.

5) Finally, the Service has not rigorously explored the biological question and the legality under the ESA of “recovering” a taxon or type by expanding the historic range of a less similar type, when more closely related founder stock still remains available (i.e., the Minnesota/Wisconsin wolves).

There are many questions raised here. What becomes clear is that not enough taxonomic information was available prior to the wolf reintroduction and it’s doubtful that it exists today to still be able to know which subspecies of wolf existed in the Northern Rockies historically.

Some anecdotal evidence and historic documents suggest that a smaller wolf existed prior to extirpation. Some have even claimed no wolves at all roamed these areas and that they were only large coyotes, something similar to the larger eastern coyote inhabiting the northern areas of New England.

In haste did we rush into this wolf reintroduction without knowing important historical facts about which creature is native to the area and which is not? It might very well be so. If this was an attempt to artificially expand the range of Canadian wolves, a larger predator with a lust for larger prey, the regions wild ungulate populations could be in serious danger, say nothing of the effects on humans and livestock. The mismatch into the existing ecosystems and the presence of humans is bound to create problems.

Much of the wolf debate is so mired in political muck and endless lawsuits, this kind of scientific discussion is wasted paper and ink. It’s one thing to try to change what some perceive as the wrongs that man has done, it’s quite another to plow ignorantly into it without knowing the real ramifications of your decisions. Unfortunately what’s done is done and now it’s time to play clean up.

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »