FWS Declares Hyenas Threatened In U.S., Establishes Critical Habitat

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced it would place the striped hyena, most readily found in northern and eastern Africa as well as in Asia from the Middle East to India, on the Endangered Species Act list. Once the Final Rule is published, USFWS will designate much of Texas, Kansas, New Mexico and Arizona as critical habitat for Hyaena hyaena.

After months of pressure from environmental groups, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Preserving the Rights of Hyenas, the USFWS buckled and proceeded with the listing. The three environmental groups claim they have unearthed some mysterious scientific evidence that unquestionably proves that if hyenas were introduced into these regions, they might survive. It would require removing all ranch land and the bulldozing of several towns.

Hyenas have never inhabited these regions of the United States but the groups feel, and now the Obama Administration is convinced, that there is an outside possibility that if they had of inhabited these regions and if they were there today, they just might survive. It is for those reasons the USFWS has administered the Endangered Species Act to help save the hyena.

Barack Obama stated this weekend while touring about the U.S. trying to find something the American people might believe him about, that when he said he would bring science back to its rightful place, this is precisely what he had in mind.

“Let me make myself clear. America has turned a corner. And I want to say that with the help of such qualified, honest and outstanding scientists as Al Gore, Michael Mann and Phil Jones and Michael Moore, I am convinced that ranchers and citizens in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico and Arizona have no need to prosper and protect their private property. And I want to say, they have too many livestock now and it is time they shared a little of their wealth. Let me make myself clear, again. The hyenas, if they ever find their way from northern Africa to this region, will be granted unprecedented protection and be allowed to ravage any and all livestock and other wildlife species in those regions. We are finally returning science to its rightful place. And one more thing. I just want to say, I will appoint a hyena protection czar.”

For those of you who have chosen to read this far, I hope you have been intelligent enough to realize this is nothing but an outrageous and ridiculous story. It is however not that far from the truth. Take for example this New York Times editorial one of my readers was kind enough to send me the link to.

It seems that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under pressure from the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, has opted to designate the jaguar as an endangered species in the United States and has designated critical habitat in parts of the region along the United States and Mexico border. No jaguars live in this region but if the habitat could support jaguars they might.

In prehistoric times, these beautiful cats inhabited significant areas of the western United States, but in the past 100 years, there have been few, if any, resident breeding populations here. The last time a female jaguar with a cub was sighted in this country was in the early 1900s.

But somehow magically after repeated lawsuits from the federally funded environmental groups, the feds have “evaluated new scientific information” and opted to designate critical habitat.

This is nearly as absurd as my hyena story and it’s really only about one step away from reality. Once an environmental group or groups can pester the USFWS with lawsuits and “evaluated new scientific information”, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that striped hyenas once roamed parts of the United States. With the continued abuse that has been allowed of the Endangered Species Act, we have learned that a species doesn’t have to be extinct, only missing from U.S. territory. Whether present climate and habitat can support these species anymore is irrelevant.

Actions by environmental groups and decisions being made by the USFWS on such issues has to be brought in check. If not, we just may be designating parts of the U.S. critical habitat for more things than just hyenas.

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!

America’s Top 20 Trophy Elk Counties

MISSOULA, Mont. America’s top 20 trophy elk counties have produced a combined 602 record-book bulls, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has invested millions to keep habitat in those counties in top condition.

Elk Foundation projects in trophy counties have included prescribed burns, treating noxious weeds and thinning overgrown forests to enhance forage for elk and other wildlife, restoring riparian zones, constructing wildlife drinkers, brokering land deals that improve public access, many kinds of research, public and youth education, and more – all funded primarily through our network of volunteers and system of fundraising events,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

Of course, RMEF funds identical projects all across elk country, not just top trophy counties. Nationwide, at a cost of over $448 million, RMEF has completed 6,371 projects that have protected or enhanced more than 5.6 million acres. The effort has helped U.S. elk populations grow by over 40 percent since 1984.

Trophy statistics below were compiled from Boone and Crockett Club (B&C) records. The club recognizes four categories of elk records. Those categories, along with their respective minimum scores for inclusion in B&C all-time records, are: American typical elk?375, American non-typical elk?385, Roosevelt?s elk?290, and tule elk?285.

Here are America’s top 20 trophy elk counties with RMEF conservation activities*:

1. Coconino County, Ariz.?61 bulls in B&C records including 44 typical and 17 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1987, RMEF has spent $1,741,848 on 158 projects that conserved or enhanced 126,393 acres of habitat in and around Coconino County.

2. Apache County, Ariz.?59 bulls in B&C records including 37 typical and 22 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1987, RMEF has spent $766,703 on 65 projects that conserved or enhanced 87,505 acres of habitat in and around Apache County.

3. Clatsop County, Ore.?40 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1991, RMEF has spent $47,177 on 11 projects that conserved or enhanced 693 acres of habitat in and around Clatsop County.

4. Navajo County, Ariz.?39 bulls in B&C records including 23 typical and 16 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1987, RMEF has spent $532,902 on 55 projects that conserved or enhanced 59,153 acres of habitat in and around Navajo County.

5. White Pine County, Nev.?36 bulls in B&C records including 26 typical and 10 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $1,570,832 on 62 projects that conserved or enhanced 109,260 acres of habitat in and around White Pine County.

6. Columbia County, Ore.?31 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. RMEF has not yet launched a project in Columbia County.

7. Humboldt County, Calif.?30 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1995, RMEF has spent $148,945 on 13 projects focused on habitat inventories and elk population surveys in and around Humboldt County.

8. Catron County, N.M.?29 bulls in B&C records including 22 typical and 7 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $331,188 on 51 projects that conserved or enhanced 200,808 acres of habitat in and around Catron County.

9. Clallam County, Wash.?28 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1993, RMEF has spent $101,728 on 13 projects that conserved or enhanced 577 acres of habitat in and around Clallam County.

10. Garfield County, Utah?27 bulls in B&C records including 20 typical and 7 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $284,158 on 36 projects that conserved or enhanced 73,023 acres of habitat in and around Garfield County.

11. Jefferson County, Wash.?26 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1989, RMEF has spent $141,961 on 16 projects that conserved or enhanced 6,323 acres of habitat in and around Jefferson County.

12. Park County, Wyo.?26 bulls in B&C records, all typical American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $939,328 on 39 projects that conserved or enhanced 68,450 acres of habitat in and around Park County.

13. Gila County, Ariz.?25 bulls in B&C records including 16 typical and 9 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1987, RMEF has spent $182,398 on 29 projects that conserved or enhanced 37,502 acres of habitat in and around Gila County.

14. Coos County, Ore.?23 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1989, RMEF has spent $75,794 on 8 projects that conserved or enhanced 6,423 acres of habitat in and around Coos County.

15. Tillamook County, Ore.?23 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1992, RMEF has spent $70,911 on 25 projects that conserved or enhanced 2,874 acres of habitat in and around Tillamook County.

16. Del Norte County, Calif.?21 bulls in B&C records, all Roosevelt?s elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1995, RMEF has spent $161,023 on 11 projects focused on elk habitat inventories and research in and around Del Norte County.

17. Park County, Mont.?21 bulls in B&C records including 18 typical and 3 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1985, RMEF has spent $136,550 on 51 projects that conserved or enhanced 103,679 acres of habitat in and around Park County.

18. Elko County, Nev.?19 bulls in B&C records including 16 typical and 3 non-typical entries for American elk. Since 1991, RMEF has spent $594,314 on 41 projects that conserved or enhanced 37,654 acres of habitat in and around Elko County.

19. Millard County, Utah?19 bulls in B&C records, all typical American elk. Since 1988, RMEF has spent $75,359 on 11 projects that conserved or enhanced 34,130 acres in and around Millard County.

20. Solano County, Calif.?19 bulls in B&C records, all tule elk. Typical versus non-typical records not kept. Since 1998, RMEF has spent $27,088 on 6 projects that conserved or enhanced 450 acres of habitat in and around Solano County.

*Note: Many habitat conservation projects, such as prescribed burns in national forests, straddle county lines. In these cases, the project, affected acres and costs are attributed to both counties. Thus, RMEF data above cannot be used to calculate cumulative totals.

For more about Boone and Crockett Club, visit www.boone-crockett.org.

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

ESA Manipulation To Fulfill Personal Agendas

It’s what’s wrong with the Endangered Species Act. The intention of the Endangered Species Act as amended was aimed at ensuring that we would do what we could to protect species from extinction. Its purpose was not so that dream weavers could twist the Act in order to allow for pet wildlife projects to be enacted in their own backyards. This is what is going on with the wolf in the southwest region of our country.

The Center for Biological Diversity announced that they have petitioned the Obama administration in hopes of getting the Mexican gray wolf declared a separate subspecies in order that they can better run programs to protect, promulgate and propagate wolves in their backyard playgrounds.

On Tuesday, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Obama administration to upgrade protection of the Mexican gray wolf as a separate subspecies or distinct population. Right now, Mexican wolves are lumped in with other gray wolves on the endangered species list, so there’s no identified number of Mexican wolves to aim toward as an endpoint in recovery. If our petition is granted, it will compel the development of a new recovery plan that includes recovery targets, designation of protected critical habitat zones, and expansion of reintroduction efforts.

This is a clear attempt at manipulation of the Endangered Species Act. This is merely an attempt by a special interest group to use voodoo science in order to promote personal agendas. If this petition is granted by the Obama administration, then there is nothing to stop every special interest group in this country from declaring “Distinct Population Segments” of any species they desire to have brought to their private little playgrounds and protected.

President Obama promised to return science to its rightful place in making such decisions. We’ll see if he will stand by his claim as it pertains to wolves.

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!

Agency Wolf Count Comes Up Short Again

From WolfCrossing.org

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies working on the Mexican wolf reintroduction have just released their yearly wolf count report. Wolf numbers in 2008 haven’t changed significantly in the past year.

Agency personnel failed to find suspected newly formed packs that they had evidence of in earlier in the year, says Laura Schneberger President of the Gila Livestock Growers Association. While it is possible that animals that were killed could have contributed to the yearend count it is clear they did have significant conflict with human beings and were killed by those close encounters. Had the agency followed protocol developed in the rule, those animals might be alive now,” says Schneberger.

Solving wolf livestock conflict was not prioritized in 2008 and problem wolves were left on the ground. Some ranchers were provided range riders during high depredation seasons as part of an experimental livestock conflict prevention program but clearly more genuine effort by agency personnel is necessary to develop long term solutions to wolf conflict. It may be too late for some ranchers who have had it with dealing with the agencies.

During 2008 the agency did not see a lessening of wolf removals as implied in their press release. They chose to comply with the wishes of environmental organizations who demanded the agency stop removing problem wolves.

“The agency chose to ignore the people dealing with the depredation and instead focused their efforts on releases. That hasn’t helped their relationships in our communities.” says Schneberger.

The agency says performance of the wolf packs was not up to par. Only 11 pups were reported to have survived out of 7 litters documented to exist in collared wolf packs from the spring inventory of known wolves. It is possible the rabies outbreak or documented inbreeding regression could be responsible for small litters and survival rates.

Rabies has been an ongoing problem in the area, the Luna pack, made up of one collared vaccinated animal and 6-8 uncolored wolves simply disappeared in the wilderness in the summer of 2008. Personnel trapped for months to collar two previously unknown wolves to make up for the loss of the original Luna pack.

“Instead of admitting wolf reintroduction has natural pitfalls the agency blithely attempts to blame the failures of their program on local people by implying the population would be doing better if people weren’t shooting them. I am not the only one that doesn’t appreciate those kinds of spin tactics but it has become their habit. It is somewhat disingenuous of the agencies leadership to imply that some illegal actions are the cause for their continued failure when the agency themselves have no capture collar or vaccination program for pups born in the wild. This is a sad situation because most ranchers simply don’t bother to call on the agency for intervention anymore because this year they refused to appropriately mitigate livestock depredation despite assurance of Dr. Benjamin Tuggle.

An example of mismanagement can be seen in the 2008 shooting of the Laredo pack alpha male, agency volunteers were working with an area resident in a populated community to stop the wolf pack from killing sheep and goats. The volunteers chased the wolves to neighboring property where they began attacking calves on deeded land. The owner who had not been informed of their presence mistook the wolf for a large feral dog shot the animal.

There were several serious incidents involving wolf like animals that the agency simply does not discuss with the media or the public such as the slaughter of three alpaca’s on deeded land by uncollared wolves, something the FWS investigated but due to lack of collared wolves in the area did not recognize as a wolf attack. “These animals are not born with telemetry collars says Schneberger so it is really hard to get personnel to recognize any they don’t want to claim and the counts are really just an exercise in futility.”

Contact: admin@wolfcrossing.org

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

Statement on USFWS Plans to Introduce More Mexican Gray Wolves in the Southwest

Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

R.J. Smith, Senior Fellow, The National Center for Public Policy Research

Washington, DC – For a quarter of a century the controversial program to repopulate the Southwest with Mexican Gray Wolves has created a constant political struggle in New Mexico and Arizona. There were very good reasons why the early settlers across the West and the local, state and federal governments cooperated in eliminating the wolves. The large numbers of wolves made cattle and sheep ranching nearly impossible with their constant depredations on the livestock and they also threatened family dogs and even children.

However, as radical Greens have gained influence with liberal politicians and the media, they have been able to gain support for their efforts to force family farmers, ranchers and landowners off the land and return it to dangerous predators. It is part and parcel of their ongoing program of “rural cleansing”: to remove people from the land and return it to near wilderness. It is part of a massive program called the Wildlands Project, which even enjoyed support within the Bush administration’s political appointees in the Department of Interior.

The USFWS has said that the federal efforts to reintroduce the wolves require the release of still more wolves in order to improve the chances for success. By success they must mean the total elimination of people and livestock in the Southwest. Apparently they have noticed that there are still some ranchers managing to survive who have not lost all their livestock. The chief Mexican Wolf official with the Southwest field office of the USFWS said that the current recovery plan’s target wolf population is not high enough.

There have been continuous conflicts in the relatively limited areas where the wolves have already been released over the last decade. Constant wolf attacks on livestock and farm dogs, wolves circling farmhouses at night and wolves gathering near rural school bus stops. There have already been calls for building wolf-proof bus stop shelters in order to protect children from possible attacks. It is widely know that federal officials seldom respond quickly enough following reports of livestock predation to document the event and attempt to capture the specific wolves involved. Although the feds have had to recapture some wolves which have repeatedly been involved in predation, their often slow response has led to examples of ranchers and farmers acting to protect their livestock and their families.

Yet the feds not only want to release still more wolves but they want to release them across a far wider area of the Southwest.

One wonders what oath of office the politicians took who acted to place the well being of wolves before that of American families and children.

Posted by Tom Remington

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

Programmed Failure In Wolf Relisting

One all too frequent aspect of government initiatives is that they often are doomed to failure from the get go. The design is such that the planned action is guaranteed to fall apart sooner rather than later and never achieve the putative goals. I call that “programmed failure” and the examples are numerous, from affirmative action to welfare. The cases are so numerous and ubiquitous that programmed failure might be said to be the principal function and overriding style of our modern Federal and state governments.

Programmed failure is abundantly evident in the latest “relisting” of Rocky Mountain wolves. The manner in which the US Fish and Wildlife Service put wolves back on the Endangered Species List is so fraught with contradiction and legal screw-ups that it cannot stand the light of day.

Some background: Years ago the USFWS released Canadian wolves into Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in a (misguided) attempt to “reintroduce” the species. The wolves multiplied to huge (but expected and predicted) numbers. Over the last few years the burgeoning wolf population has decimated deer and elk herds, and wolves have taken to slaughtering sheep and cattle on private ranches. The situation is out of control.

Read the rest at Western Institute for Study of the Environment.

Tom Remington

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

USFWS Reinstates Protection For Wolves “In Compliance With Court Orders”

On December 11, 2008, recorded in the Federal Register, the Department of Interior, more specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published the final rule that places the gray wolf in nearly all of the lower 48 states, under federal protection of the Endangered Species Act. What this final rule does, I doubt 99.999999% of Americans understand.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are issuing this final rule to comply with three court orders which have the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes and the northern Rocky Mountains. This rule corrects the gray wolf listing at 50 CFR 17.11 to reinstate the listing of wolves in all of Wisconsin and Michigan, the eastern half of North
Dakota and South Dakota, the northern half of Iowa, the northern portions of Illinois and Indiana, the northwestern portion of Ohio, the northern half of Montana, the northern panhandle of Idaho, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and in north-central Utah as endangered, and reinstate the listing of wolves in Minnesota as threatened. This rule also reinstates the former designated critical habitat in 50 CFR 17.95(a) for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan, special regulations in 50 CFR 17.40(d) for the gray wolf in Minnesota, and special rules in 50 CFR 17.84 designating the gray wolf in the remainder of Montana and Idaho and all of Wyoming as nonessential experimental populations. This action revises the CFR to comply with three court orders. In addition, this final rule takes additional
administrative action that removes archaic provisions from the gray wolf special regulation at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and makes corrections to the gray wolf special regulation at § 17.84(n) by removing language referring to a Western DPS.

How I understand this is that the Department of Interior (DOI) has cranked the clock back in time to 1978. My question now becomes, why stop there?

Quick history: In 1978 the United States declared the gray wolf “endangered” in all lower 48 states with the exception of Minnesota. Wolves there were classified as “threatened”, essentially creating the first Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of gray wolves. Map 1 below shows areas shaded in gray as wolf protection areas. As you can see, Minnesota is listed as “threatened”. Map 1 also shows two areas of “nonessential experimental populations”(NEP) for gray wolves.

On November 22, 1994 (period of wolf reintroduction) the feds created the Yellowstone NEP, shown in the dark shaded area of the map. Again on January 12, 1998 a NEP was created in parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

On July 13, 2000, the USFWS proposed changes to the listing of the gray wolf that would have created 4 Distinct Population Segments. On April 1, 2003 what the USFWS ended up with was 3 DPS as can be seen in Map 3.

February 8, 2007, the USFWS published the final rule creating the Western Great Lakes DPS, in order to remove that segment of the wolf population from federal protection.

On February 27, 2008, the USFWS published the final rule designating the Northern Rocky Mountains DPS, in order to remove federal protection of the gray wolf in that area.

If you’re following along, you will now notice that within the lower 48 states there are no fewer than 5 DPS for gray wolves.

Lawsuits followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in a moment.

On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy, in a federal court in Montana, ruled the basis for delisting the wolf incomplete (he demands “genetic connectivity”) and also declared Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan was inadequate to ensure the sustainability of the gray wolf in that state.

The third lawsuit dates back to 2005 when courts in Oregon and Vermont ruled that the Final Rule of April 1, 2003 (that created the three DPS shown on the maps above) violated the Endangered Species Act. Subsequently the ruling invalidated the three DPS created in that final rule. What isn’t clear is whether these two rulings apply to the two NEPs.

If we take a closer look at Judge Paul Friedman’s ruling, we see that he also believes that the feds’ creation of the Western Great Lakes DPS was an illegal act. Here is what I wrote back in September.

Judge Friedman’s ruling states that the reason he remanded the case was because the USFWS failed to provide a reason, supported by the ESA, to justify removing the gray wolves in the Great Lakes region only. In remanding the case the judge is sending the issue back to the USFWS for an explanation. Judge Friedman said the ESA’s definition of a “Distinct Population Segment” is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.

What the Department of Interior has been forced to do is comply with the rulings of the three lawsuits. As a result the USFWS describes what is left for protection of the wolf.

As of the filing of the respective court orders, any and all wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, except in Minnesota, are listed as an endangered species under
the ESA. Any and all wolves in Minnesota are listed as a threatened species under the ESA. The reinstated regulations found at 50 CFR 17.95 designate critical habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan, and the reinstated special regulations in 50 CFR 17.40(d) govern the regulation of gray
wolves in Minnesota. The provisions of these regulations are the same as those in the prior regulations that were removed per our February 8, 2007, final delisting rule (72 FR 6052).
The reinstated special rules found at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n) designate part of the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains as nonessential experimental populations. The provisions of the special rules are the same as those in the prior special rules that were removed per our February 27, 2008, final
delisting rule (73 FR 10514).
This means that wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Washington, Oregon, Utah, the Idaho panhandle, and northern Montana are hereby listed as endangered (50 CFR 17.11(h)). Wolves in Minnesota are listed as threatened (50 CFR 17.11(h)). Wolves in southern Montana, Idaho south of Interstate 90, and all of Wyoming are hereby listed as
nonessential experimental populations under section 10(j) of the ESA (50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n)). The maps in the rule portion of this document illustrate the boundaries of the nonessential experimental population areas.

*Note* The Final Rule contains maps that show NEPs as described above.

What is becoming distinctly clear in all of these cases combined is that the DOI and USFWS have no legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment for any species.

In the Vermont court case, part of the two lawsuits that essentially rendered the three DPS of wolves in the lower 48 states illegal and a violation of the Act, Judge J. Garvan Murtha’s ruling stated the following:

The definition of “species” includes “any distinct population segment of any species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). The ESA does not define “distinct population segment” (“DPS”), nor is it a term used in scientific literature.

Judge Murtha recognizes that the “DPS Policy” “allows” for the USFWS to protect species based on the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population. This policy takes into consideration the “discreetness”, “significance” and “conservation status” of species. But Murtha obviously doesn’t think creating a DPS for management purposes and in this case, delisting purposes, is legal.

Judge Paul Friedman, who ruled that the WGL DPS was illegal, also stated that there is no definition of a Distinct Population Segment.

In 1978, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as threatened in Minnesota and endangered throughout the rest of the conterminous United States. On February 8, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), an agency within the Department of the Interior, promulgated a final rule revising the wolf’s listing status. See 72 Fed. Reg. 6052 (Feb. 8, 2007) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule did not affect the listing status of the gray wolf everywhere. Rather, it designated a cluster of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region as a “distinct population segment” or DPS. It then removed the wolves within the western Great Lakes DPS from the endangered species list. The Final Rule did not change the listing status of gray wolves outside the boundaries of the western Great Lakes DPS.

Judge Friedman tells us that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, is ambiguous when it comes to defining a Distinct Population Segment.

(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.

Friedman claims that the USFWS has the authority to declare any area a Distinct Population Segment based on the above as described in the ESA. But most telling is that he says the USFWS cannot create another DPS within the broader DPS. Which of course makes no sense at all as would pertain to proper and quality wildlife management. (Note that most states through “best available science” practices, have learned that in order to properly manage wildlife, they must create wildlife management districts.)

As a result of the three court cases discussed above, I have to ask why the Department of Interior stopped their clock rewinding at 1978? Why not go back to pre-ESA. As we have seen by court rulings of Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne and the twelve parties that sued Kempthorne to put the wolf back under federal protection in the NRM DPS, tells us that creating DPSs is an illegal act. Any reasonable person would now question whether the federal government had the authority to create the first Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves in 1978 when it classified wolves in all the lower 48 states.

The confusing mess this has created now extends beyond just the gray wolf. It involves every species in existence in the United States. This is a clear example of the courts having inadequate knowledge of the issues making rulings that have now put the very species we may be wanting to protect in danger as well as stripping management powers from the USFWS.

I wrote recently of the efforts taking place as we speak to list the Atlantic salmon in Maine as endangered or threatened under the ESA. From this information we now ask, can the USFWS and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA) create a Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon? The feds are attempting to expand the listing and define critical habitat. This, according to the court’s interpretation, is creating a new DPS within a DPS.

Surely the Department of the Interior, in issuing this final ruling to return the gray wolf protection to 1978 levels, is telling us their hands are tied. They should have taken it one step further and rescinded the original declaration of a wolf DPS within the U.S. from the beginning. (Perhaps they knew that would actually get someone’s attention.)

This also raises some very serious issues with regard to the “Nonessential Experimental Population” of gray wolves in the Yellowstone National Park area and Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Was it a legal act to create these NEPs? The broader question becomes whether the federal government had legal authority to reintroduce wolves into these regions? Surely if they can’t create segmented DPS of a species for management purposes, they have no legal right to dump species into these illegally crafted NEPs.

Obviously the power and authority of the Department of Interior, which includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to manage wildlife has evaporated. Any so-called environmental or preservationist organization, with money behind it, can control the courts and get what they want. The Endangered Species Act is only as good as the lawsuits permit it to be. Perhaps it is time for the states to reclaim their sovereignty.

It appears the DOI has lobbed the ball back into the courts, figuratively and literally.

Tom Remington

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

Wolves In Great Lakes To Go Back Under Protection Of ESA

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled today that the USFWS is breaking the rules of the Endangered Species Act by attempting to delist the wolves in the Great Lakes area. As I understand the ruling, the court is saying that because wolves were listed as endangered everywhere south of the Canadian border, then removing them from protection cannot be done until evidence shows recovery everywhere south of the Canadian border exists. In short, never!

I am in the process now of analyzing the ruling but if this is the case, then this is a clear indication of a faulty ESA, one in drastic need of amending. A ruling like this, if upheld, would have sweeping consequences across the entire country.

I’ll have more on this ruling tomorrow.

Tom Remington

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

Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors

Just what in God’s name does that mean? Check out this map and hope you aren’t located in the middle of one of these “migration corridors”!

In 2007, the Western Governors’ Association, approved their resolution, “Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West”. Here’s the pdf version found on the WGA website.

Large intact and functioning ecosystems, healthy fish and wildlife populations, and abundant public access to natural landscapes are a significant contributing factor to the West’s economic and in-migration boom as well as quality of life. Critical wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitats are necessary to maintain flourishing wildlife populations.

Sounds wonderful to me! But maybe not so wonderful if you happen to be in one of these designated “wildlife corridors”. It also sounds like for hunters and fishermen, this should guarantee access to land and opportunities to hunt and fish forever. Ummmm……maybe not! Better look more closely.

After approving the resolution, the group set out to write “The Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Corridors Initiative”. This more precisely spells out for us about these wildlife corridors and how they are going to “maintain flourishing wildlife populations” among other promises. Here’s the pdf version of the 142-page “Wildlife Corridors Initiative”. The “Initiative” was approved this past June.

Who better suited to decide how wildlife corridors and what can and cannot be done with land designated as “protected” wildlife corridors than groups representing the five following fields? Gas and Oil, Energy, Transportation Infrastructure, land use and climate change. I guess they got all their bases covered, especially when it comes to us scum-of-the-earth hunters and fishermen.

If you want to get a head start reading about this movement, masquerading as a “save the wildlife” group, go ahead and download the reports and read them for yourself. If you don’t want to do that, I have another idea for you.

Some of you have probably heard me speak of my friend George Dovel in Idaho. George is the editor of his highly successful print magazine, “The Outdoorsman”. George promises in the next issue he is going to delve into this fiasco and I’ll guarantee it will be good. George asks his readers, “if they can handle the truth?”

So, here’s what you need to do. Click on this link and you’ll find a printable subscription application for your own one-year subscription to The Outdoorsman. The cost is $20.00 for one year. It’ll be the best $20.00 you’ll spend this year.

The form is very short. All you need to do is print it out, fill it out and send it, along with $20.00 to The Outdoorsman. I get my copy on a regular basis and I have never learned so much as what I have gotten from this publication.

Don’t think it’s just for Idaho and western readers either. George covers a multitude of subjects and even the ones that focus on local issues, could be written about anyone’s state.

Don’t miss out on this opportunity!

Tom Remington

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

Raising Wolves To Be Released Into The Wild

Are we kidding ourselves? Is it really possible to “raise” a wolf, believing it is wild and having had all the wild instincts bred into? Then release it into the wild and expect it to “act normal”.

Newstimes.com reports that there are many facilities around operated in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that raise Mexican gray wolves to be released into the wilds of the Southwest. It’s part of the Species Survival Plan.

Between 1977 and 1980, wildlife biologists captured the last five Mexican gray wolves left in the wild and began a captive breeding program. There are now 49 facilities involved in the program in the U.S. and Mexico.

Through their efforts, the wolf population has grown to about 400. In 2003 they began releasing the wolves back into the wild. There are now about 50 in the wild.

Participants, including the USFW, have convinced themselves and others, that they can raise wolves “that is normal wolf behavior” and release them back into the areas of the Southwest with little or no problems.

In accordance with Species Survival Plan regulations, these wolves have almost no contact with humans. Unlike the ambassadors wolves, almost no one gets to see them.

“If they get accustomed to humans, you can’t release them into the wild,” Heineman said.(emphasis added)

Wolves are a predator. They are highly intelligent and adaptable but they know the connection between humans and food and this presents a problem once released but officials refuse to admit that. As a matter of fact, they go out of their way to convince the public that those who “fear” the wolves are uninformed. And just who gets to decide what is “accustomed to humans”?

“Our ambassadors wolves come and greet humans,” Heineman said. “When the Mexican wolves see humans, they scatter and the pups hide. That is normal wolf behavior.”

“When I go up there, they take off,” Bose said of her visits to the enclosure the wolves live in.

Heineman said seeing actual wolf behavior puts the lie to legends of wolves gathering in a pack, circling people, then moving in for the kill, teeth bared.

“Those legends are why wolves are hunted down,” she said.

And the wolf laid down with the sheep and they lived happily ever after!

Tom Remington

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

Wolves And The Second Amendment

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!

Mexico Calls On U.S. To Alter Boarder Plans To Save Animals

The L.A. Times has a short snippet this morning saying that the Mexican government is asking the U.S. to change its plans of building a fence because it may effect animals. Instead they want to build bridges and such done in a way so as to “be less attractive to smugglers”.

Let’s get this right. The Mexican government wants most of their people to go to the U.S. and make American dollars and ship them back to Mexico and we should listen to their recommendations? These illegals are currently destroying the ecological systems that support all of these animals they say need protecting, yet they have no interest in addressing that problem.

And we must remember that when illegals come into this country, they consider areas that are “less attractive” to cross the border. Please!

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »