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 It More Humane To Kill Elk Using Hired Sharpshooters Or Hunters?

The beat goes on……La dee da de dee…..and the beat goes on. Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain!

The New York Times published an opinion piece, a piece I assume was compiled by their editorial staff because there was no name attached to it, about the effort to cull the elk herd in Theodore Roosevelt National Park in western North Dakota.

You see the problem is there are too many elk. Over 20 years ago, a handful of elk were deposited in the park and today that number is approaching one thousand. Officials say there should be no more than 300 to maintain some semblance of balance within the ecosystem.

The argument has been how to kill off those 600-plus elk. Some have said a hunting season should be opened up to allow qualified hunters to do the job, while others think the federal government should pay exorbitant fees to hire sharpshooters to systematically slaughter the beasts. And let’s not forget that there are those who think we should let Nature deal with it and yes, some espouse bringing in wolves to do their bidding.

The editorial isn’t so much one declaring their preference of slaughter methods as it is a bundle of contradictions and bad information. Montana Senator Byron Dorgan proposed using hunters to do the job. Evidently the NYT has a problem with hunting.

To begin with, the proposal would legislate a management issue better left to the secretary of interior and the National Park Service. Worse, it would authorize an activity — public hunting — that is proscribed by the founding legislation for the national parks and their current management policies.

I wonder if the Times would think it a good idea to let the Interior Secretary make all the decisions, unchecked, if the Secretary’s methods ran contrary to their ideals?

The Times also believes that nowhere within National Parks is hunting allowed, even though they speak of the Grand Tetons Park “exception”. (There are others as well) The opinion thinks the model being used in the Rocky Mountain National Park to kill off too many elk is a better idea than utilizing hunters who will pay for the opportunity.

Rocky Mountain National Park provides a better model. There, hired sharpshooters have culled cow elk in parts of the park that are closed to the public. This is a safer, more efficient and less expensive way of reducing numbers than shooting bulls, which is what most hunters do.

Huh? For some odd reason, the NYT thinks there is some real humane difference between killing an elk using a hired gun than using a pay-to-play hunter. Could the staff please give us some facts to support this? And they think this method is safer. Once again, facts please.

Oh, but then we get to see a bit of what’s really behind the opinion. The NYT just hates hunting and hunters. The hired guns would obey the guidelines and hunt only cow elk and hunters would disregard that mandate and go kill only bull elk because why? Hunters are blood thirsty animals, only interested in mounting horns over our fireplace mantels?

And how does the NYT calculate that it is less expensive to pay out millions of dollars to hire sharpshooters, than to collect hunting permit fees to allow hunters to do the job?

And then there’s this:

How to manage, and ultimately cull, this North Dakota elk herd should be decided by the National Park Service, based on sound science, not by faulty, if well-intentioned, legislation. It is also critical not to create a broad precedent for public hunting in the national parks, which would undermine their protected status.

Because the National Park Service thinks hiring sharpshooters is the best way to go and it happens to be an anti-hunting move of which the New York Times agrees with, this decision is based on “sound science”? Is there really any “sound science” in deciding what appears to be an ethics and humane decision of how to slaughter a few hundred elk?

The idea of proposing legislation is to force the National Park Service to utilize a different method of managing the elk herd that might be in the best interest of the public, rather than pay ridiculous fees to harvest elk when it could be done for little or no cost to the taxpayers of this country. Again, I ask. Is there science behind making such a decision? Isn’t it the science that determines how many elk are needed in the Park to maintain an ecological balance? It appears “sound science” has already determined there’s too many elk. The question is how do we kill them?

And why is it such a bad thing that we “create a broad precedent for public hunting in national parks”? The opinion says such an act would “undermine their protected status”, meaning the elk I presume. It would be nice if the Times had offered its readers some form of substantiation to this claim. How does culling an elk herd in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, to protect the health of the herd and the rest of the ecosystem, “undermine their protected status”? Isn’t the idea behind this move to protect them in a responsible way?

It’s really quite clear. The Times, like most animal rights groups and anti-hunting groups, aren’t interested in the “sound science” of wildlife management, nor are they interested in the “humane” slaughter of elk. They just don’t want hunters doing what hunters do. They could have saved a bunch of ink and just said that.

Tom Remington

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

Unknown Numbers Of Wolves Grow, Officials Unprepared To Deal With Them

One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist or a wildlife biologist for that matter, to see that wolves are growing in numbers and expanding at a rapid rate, a rate in which state and federal officials seem mostly unprepared to deal with. Perhaps they are really in denial. Truth is, nobody knows how many wolves there are in the Northern Rocky Mountains area.

Clues abound now that accounts are being recorded of wolf/human encounters in places never before seen. We now know a pack of wolves have established itself in north central Washington state. That’s one pack they know of. It’s anyone’s guess how many more are there.

Of course wolf advocates are willing to give up their first born to protect the wolves but not everyone has those warm and fuzzy feelings as charges have been filed against a Washington rancher for illegally killing one of the wolves from that north central pack.

A good indication that far more wolves exist than officials know, is another report of a wolf that killed a beef calf just west of Augusta, Montana. Officials don’t believe the wolf responsible for the kill was a member of what they thought was the only wolves in that area. They intend to trap the wolf and collar it, which tells us officials are more concerned about discovering more wolves than offering protection to the rancher who lost the calf.

We know that the Montana Senate voted down a wolf bill that would have made a bold move toward forcing the hand of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. At the time the bill didn’t pass, some speculated the reason was because the Obama administration announced it would proceed with delisting. A brief report in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle indicates that to be the case.

Some senators thought to be in support of the bill changed course saying they were afraid that if they passed this bill it would derail the current attempt by the feds to delist. I guess some people never learn. What will derail this effort is the same thing that derailed the first effort – environmentalist/wolf lover groups’ lawsuits and activist judges.

Sen. Bruce Tutvedt, R-Kalispell, who said he has worked on crafting Montana’s wolf policy to take over from the federal government since the Racicot administration, opposed the bill.

“We think anything that gets us off that goal, takes our eye off the ball, is the wrong thing to do,” he said.

I believe Montana passed up a great opportunity to put themselves in a position with great leverage.

All of these accounts add up to the same thing – a good indication that wolves are growing and spreading at a rate state and federal wildlife officials can’t keep track of. They also are ill prepared to deal with what is eminent with this growth. This is something that people should be concerned about.

This is indicated from a recent report of wolves having driven elk into the housing developments just outside Boise. Wolves are killing elk in people’s back yard. The upside to this is that now that the wolves are “in my back yard”, it’s not as good an idea as it once was.

SaveourElk.com has a video documenting the actions of the wolves outside Boise. If you watch the video, play close attention to the ridiculous advice given to the TV audience by wolf lover Lynn Stone. She tells people that if wolves come after you all you need to do is clap your hands and yell go away wolf.

People need to get involved. Contact your fish and game departments, senators, representatives, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ask them to get control over these wolves as soon as possible and manage them in a responsible manner and stop pandering to the animal rights groups.

Tom Remington

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

Did Teddy Roosevelt See Different Wolves Than Historians Claim Existed Once In N. Rockies?

I was sent a link to some writings of Teddy Roosevelt’s by a reader (Sam). “Hunting the Grisly and Other Sketches” contains a chapter (VIII) called, “Wolves and Wolf-Hounds.”

This text was prepared from a 1902 edition, published by G. P.
Putnam’s Sons, New York and London. It was originally published in
1893. It is part II of “The Wilderness Hunter.”

Etext prepared by Dagny, dagnyj@hotmail.com
and John Bickers, jbickers@ihug.co.nz

Last week I raised the question about which species or subspecies of wolf ranged the Northern Rockies. Research published in the Smithsonian Institution questions whether the Canadian gray wolf, the much larger of the wolves, historically ranged in the Northern Rockies, more specifically Central Idaho, Greater Yellowstone area and parts of central and Southwestern Montana.

It is believed by some that the reintroduction of the Canadian gray wolf in the mid-1990s into Central Idaho and Yellowstone was only hastening the inevitable migration of the wolf from Northwestern Montana. Others, such as the Smithsonian, are questioning whether or not the larger wolf was the wolf that historically roamed Yellowstone back in the day.

Earlier today, included in my “Random Thoughts and Comments” blog, I mentioned these writings of Teddy Roosevelt. Outdoors people love to resurrect Teddy Roosevelt when they begin talking conservation and environmental issues, sometimes selectively so. Meaning no respect to Mr. Roosevelt but he was no saint in the woods by the standards of some today. The man loved a good hunt and found much sport in running down wolves with dogs and watching them fight to the death.

The true way to kill wolves, however, is to hunt them with greyhounds on the great plains. Nothing more exciting than this sport can possibly be imagined. It is not always necessary that the greyhounds should be of absolutely pure blood. Prize-winning dogs of high pedigree often prove useless for the purposes. If by careful choice, however, a ranchman can get together a pack composed both of the
smooth-haired greyhound and the rough-haired Scotch deer-hound, he can have excellent sport. The greyhounds sometimes do best if they have a slight cross of bulldog in their veins; but this is not necessary. If once a greyhound can be fairly entered to the sport and acquires confidence, then its wonderful agility, its sinewy strength and speed, and the terrible snap with which its jaws come together, render it a most formidable assailant. Nothing can possibly exceed the gallantry with which good greyhounds, when their blood is up, fling themselves on a wolf or any other foe. There does not exist, and there never has existed on the wide earth, a more perfect type of dauntless courage than such a hound. Not Cushing when he steered his little launch through the black night against the great ram Albemarle, not Custer dashing into the valley of the Rosebud to die with all his men, not Farragut himself lashed in the rigging of the Hartford as she forged past the forts to encounter her iron-clad foe, can stand as a more perfect type of dauntless valor.

My how things do change. The time that Roosevelt spent in the field crossing the continent from coast to coast and hitting all four corners, he encountered many wolves, or were they really wolves? Roosevelt takes great pains in this one chapter to describe the animals he saw, the names they were given and the habits that often carried daunting reputations.

Wolves show an infinite variety in color, size, physical formation, and temper. Almost all the varieties intergrade with one another, however, so that it is very difficult to draw a hard and fast line between any two of them. Nevertheless, west of the Mississippi there are found two distinct types. One is the wolf proper, or big wolf, specifically akin to the wolves of the eastern States. The other is the little coyote, or prairie wolf. The coyote and the big wolf are found together in almost all the wilder districts from the Rio Grande to the valleys of the upper Missouri and the upper Columbia. Throughout this region there is always a sharp line of demarcation[sic], especially in size, between the coyotes and the big wolves of any given district; but in certain districts the big wolves are very much larger than their brethren in other districts. In the upper Columbia country, for instance, they are very large; along the Rio Grande they are small. Dr. Hart Merriam informs me that, according to his experience, the coyote is largest in southern California. In many respects the coyote differs altogether in habits from its big relative. For one thing it is far more tolerant of man. In some localities coyotes are more numerous around settlements, and even in the close vicinity of large towns, than they are in the frowning and desolate fastnesses haunted by their grim elder brother.

Roosevelt tells us that “there is always a sharp line of demarcation [sic]” between the larger wolves of the Upper Columbia River region and the Upper Missouri but doesn’t give us a definitive geographical line where the change begins.

Roosevelt further describes regional differences in not only the wolves themselves but the coyotes and the difficulty that existed in telling them apart.

The grizzled, gray, and brown often have precisely the coat of the coyote. The difference in size among wolves of different localities, and even of the same locality, is quite remarkable, and so, curiously enough, is the difference in the size of the teeth, in some cases even when the body of one wolf is as big as that of another. I have seen wolves from Texas and New Mexico which were undersized, slim animals with rather small tusks, in no way to be compared to the long-toothed giants of their race that dwell in the heavily timbered mountains of the Northwest and in the far North.

In his writings, Roosevelt describes what is commonly referred to as the “buffalo wolf”, at one time extremely common and plentiful. He has described this wolf as being more like a coyote as well as giving us a hint as to where it was often found.

Formerly wolves were incredibly abundant in certain parts of the country, notably on the great plains, where they were known as buffalo wolves, and were regular attendants on the great herds of the bison. Every traveler[sic] and hunter of the old days knew them as among the most common sights of the plains, and they followed the hunting parties and emigrant trains for the sake of the scraps left in camp. Now, however, there is no district in which they are really abundant. The wolfers, or professional wolf-hunters, who killed them by poisoning for the sake of their fur, and the cattlemen, who likewise killed them by poisoning because of their raids on the herds, have doubtless been the chief instruments in working their decimation on the plains. In the ‘70’s, and even in the early ‘80’s, many tens of thousands of wolves were killed by the wolfers in Montana and northern Wyoming and western Dakota.

Taken in complete context of his writings, it appears that this buffalo wolf was found in Northern Wyoming, through into the Western Dakotas and parts of Montana. He has already told us that the larger gray wolf was found in the Upper Columbia and Upper Missouri Rivers. If that’s true then it would seem that the smaller buffalo wolf could be found in Southwestern Montana and stretching across parts of Central and Southern Montana and south into Northern Wyoming.

Roosevelt sheds light on some of the first observations of wolves’ migration or changing of its habitat.

[T]he beasts now and then change their abodes, and appear in numbers in places where they have been scarce for a long period. In the present winter of 1892-‘93 big wolves are more plentiful in the neighborhood of my ranch than they have been for ten years, and have worked some havoc among the cattle and young horses. The cowboys have been carrying on the usual vindictive campaign against them; a number have been poisoned, and a number of others have fallen victims to their greediness, the cowboys surprising them when gorged to repletion on the carcass of a colt or calf, and, in consequence, unable to run, so that they are easily ridden down, roped, and then dragged to death.

We can assume Roosevelt is referring to his ranch in what is now North Dakota.

What I find extremely interesting in Roosevelt’s writing is his puzzlement over what happened to the wolves.

Yet even the slaughter wrought by man in certain localities does not seem adequate to explain the scarcity or extinction of wolves, throughout the country at large. In most places they are not followed any more eagerly than are the other large beasts of prey, and they are usually followed with less success. Of all animals the wolf is the shyest and hardest to slay. It is almost or quite as difficult to still-hunt as the cougar, and is far more difficult to kill with hounds, traps, or poison; yet it scarcely holds its own as well as the great cat, and it does not begin to hold its own as well as the bear, a beast certainly never more readily killed, and one which produces fewer young at a birth. Throughout the East the black bear is common in many localities from which the wolf has vanished completely. It at present exists in very scanty numbers in northern Maine and the Adirondacks; is almost or quite extinct in Pennsylvania; lingers here and there in the mountains from West Virginia to east Tennessee, and is found in Florida; but is everywhere less abundant than the bear. It is possible that this destruction of the wolves is due to some disease among them, perhaps to hydrophobia, a terrible malady from which it is known that they suffer greatly at times. Perhaps the bear is helped by its habit of hibernating, which frees it from most dangers during winter; but this cannot be the complete explanation, for in the South it does not hibernate, and yet holds its own as well as in the North. What makes it all the more curious that the American wolf should disappear sooner than the bear is that the reverse is the case with the allied species of Europe, where the bear is much sooner killed out of the land.

Roosevelt goes on for another paragraph and more trying to make sense as to what happened to the wolf. Perhaps some of it is his own guilt for having participated, to some degree anyway, with the killing of wolves for sport and to protect his own property. Some would say Roosevelt was a man of greater conviction and would have readily admitted his wrongs. Perhaps Mr. Roosevelt logged some of our earliest observations of the normal and natural cycles of climate change as well as the cruelties of Mother Nature.

As part of his continued striving for an explanation of what happened to the wolves, Roosevelt again offers us a contrasting description of wolves found here in the U.S. as well as in Europe.

The difference even among the wolves of different sections of our own country is very notable. It may be true that the species as a whole is rather weaker and less ferocious than the European wolf; but it is certainly not true of the wolves of certain localities. The great timber wolf of the central and northern chains of the Rockies and coast ranges is in every way a more formidable creature than the buffalo wolf of the plains, although they intergrade. The skins and skulls of the wolves of north-western Montana and Washington which I have seen were quite as large and showed quite as stout claws and teeth as the skins and skulls of Russian and Scandinavian wolves, and I believe that these great timber wolves are in every way as formidable as their Old World kinsfolk. However, they live where they come in contact with a population of rifle-bearing frontier hunters, who are very different from European peasants or Asiatic tribesmen; and they have, even when most hungry, a wholesome dread of human beings. Yet I doubt if an unarmed man would be entirely safe should he, while alone in the forest in mid-winter encounter a fair-sized pack of ravenously hungry timber wolves.

A full-grown dog-wolf of the northern Rockies, in exceptional instances, reaches a height of thirty-two inches and a weight of 130 pounds; a big buffalo wolf of the upper Missouri stands thirty or thirty-one inches at the shoulder and weighs about 110 pounds. A Texas wolf may not reach over eighty pounds. The bitch-wolves are smaller; and moreover there is often great variation even in the wolves of closely neighboring localities.

Even in the late 1800s Teddy Roosevelt realized that wolves in the U.S. ran scared of humans because we had guns and could fight back and that in Europe and Russia, either governments forbade owning guns or the poor peasants couldn’t afford one or the ammunition to put in it. Because of this it is thought by some that European wolves were a more vicious and powerful animal.

Again, Roosevelt tries to define his line of demarcation of where the smaller wolves and the larger wolves lived. He describes the great timber wolf as living in “central and northern chains of the Rockies”.

In his effort to describe the actions and reactions of the various wolves he encountered, Roosevelt tells us that the smaller wolves rarely took on large prey. He even went so far as to say that unless emboldened by being in large packs, the wolves picked on mostly smaller prey or even the very young or sickly.

We hear much of how the wolf only kills the weak and sickly of their prey and we can see that Roosevelt thought much the same way except that of the bigger “timber” wolf or Canadian wolf. He goes to length in telling us that this wolf will readily attack and kill the largest of game animals, mostly the wild and domestic ungulates.

The big timber wolves of the northern Rocky Mountains attack every four-footed beast to be found where they live. They are far from contenting themselves with hunting deer and snapping up the pigs and sheep of the farm. When the weather gets cold and food scarce they band together in small parties, perhaps of four or five individuals, and then assail anything, even a bear or a panther. A bull elk or bull moose, when on its guard, makes a most dangerous fight; but a single wolf will frequently master the cow of either animal, as well as domestic cattle and horses. In attacking such large game, however, the wolves like to act in concert, one springing at the animal’s head, and attracting its attention, while the other hamstrings it. Nevertheless, one such big wolf will kill an ordinary horse. A man I knew, who was engaged in packing into the Coeur d’Alenes, once witnessed such a feat on the part of a wolf.

But we still don’t have a real clear “line of demarcation” of where the bigger Canadian or timber wolf roamed historically during the early years. From what Roosevelt tells us, the wolves of both larger and smaller species do odd things from time to time and migrate great distances. He reports that wolves that normally are found in one area might show up for certain periods of time and then disappear.

If we refer back to the Smithsonian article, it states that they believe the range lines between wolf species is more of a natural boundary determined as much by where the wolf is at any one moment in time. Smithsonian even hints that the migration of the larger Canadian wolf into areas of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming could have been the result of the massive kill offs of the smaller “prairie” or “buffalo” wolf.

Further investigation finds that in the early 1800s, Dr. Richardson, traveling in many expeditions ranging from the upper plains and into Canada and west toward the Rocky Mountains, recorded his observations of wolves which I find is not contradictory to that of Teddy Roosevelt.

However his writings can’t give us a clear “line of demarcation” but it does support Roosevelt’s theory that the larger Canadian wolf was mostly found in Canada, the upper reaches of the Northern Rockies including the Upper Columbia River and areas north and west of the Upper Missouri River.

Dr. Richardson’s physical descriptions of the wolves he encountered mirrored those of Roosevelt. Richardson describes the majority of wolves found in his travels as being of the smaller variety, referred to as the prairie or brown wolf. In describing these very “common” wolves, Richardson recalls, “Their foot-marks may be seen by the side of every stream, ………They are very numerous on the sandy plains, which lying to the eastward of the Rocky Mountains, extend from the sources of the Peace and Saskatchewan Rivers towards the Missouri.”

Richardson further describes these wolves as not having much interest in attacking larger animals and in actuality pay little attention to the men around them until man began killing them. He does however describe one instance in which he witnessed a single wolf take down a reindeer. Richardson in describing his expeditions said he ventured beyond 30 degrees of Latitude. In his recalling the lone wolf kill he says he was on “Barren-grounds through which the Coppermine River flows“. He describes the wolf as being large and white.

Dr. Charles E. Kay, Utah State University, offers us, “An Alternative Interpretation of the Historical Evidence Relating to the Abundance of Wolves in the Yellowstone Ecosystem”. In setting the tone for his presentation he says this:

The plan to reintroduce wolves into Yellowstone is predicated, in part, by the premise that large numbers of wolves inhabited that ecosystem before the National Park Service eliminated them from the park. According to some, wolves were a relatively common sight in Yellowstone when it was declared the United States’ first national park in 1872. To test this assertion, I conducted a continuous-time analysis of first-person journals written by people who explored Yellowstone between 1835 and 1876. During that period, 20 different parties spent a total of 765 days traveling through the Yellowstone Ecosystem, yet no reliable observer reported seeing or killing a single wolf, and on only three occasions did explorers report hearing wolves howl. The available historic journals do not suggest that wolves were common in Yellowstone during the 1835-1876 period. Those same journals indicate that ungulates were also rarely encountered in the park. Bison were reportedly only seen three times (none of which were in the park) and elk were seen on only 42 occasions, or an average of one elk observation per party in 18 days. The fact that a number of parties broke into small groups and spread out to hunt makes these observation rates all the more meager. Moreover, while the explorers were in Yellowstone, their journals contained 45 references to a lack of game or a shortage of food. Historically, Yellowstone contained few ungulates, and accordingly, wolves were rare. An Aboriginal Overkill hypothesis is presented to account for the observed rarity of ungulates and wolves.

Dr. Kay further states in his conclusions that given the evidence available wolves were never common in Yellowstone history.

From this information, we then would have to wonder how far and wide did this lack of commonality of wolves and ungulates beyond the “Yellowstone Ecosystem” go? In the accounts shared above, none of the explorers specifically talked of the Yellowstone area and yet all related to us that wolves were very much a common site.

It might be safe to conclude that we really don’t know where the infamous “line of demarcation” Teddy Roosevelt spoke of, is. What we can conclude is that the “larger” wolf or Canadian wolf evolved into its characteristics in order to withstand the harsh environment. It appears their size became necessary to be able to kill the larger ungulates to survive. Roosevelt, Richardson and Smithsonian all elude to the fact that the smaller buffalo or prairie wolf was common everywhere, mostly south of the Canadian border and abundantly on the Great Plains. But they all indicate that the larger timber wolf was an animal everyone feared.

If it was such that the majority of areas where the Canadian gray wolf was artificially reintroduced never historically supported the larger wolf, and in the case of Dr. Kay’s assertion that no wolves were common in Yellowstone, we may be creating a huge disservice to our ecosystems. If the larger Canadian wolf was not prevalent in Central Idaho, Southwestern Montana and the Yellowstone area, logic would lead us to believe the habitat couldn’t support them.

With the hard work and tons of money put into restoring ungulate herds from past mismanagement, what are we doing that we are bringing in a wolf that might not even be native and letting it destroy our ungulate herds? It’s irresponsible insanity!

A common factor found in discussions from Roosevelt and Richardson is that both spoke readily about interbreeding of domestic dogs with wild wolves. Both Native American Indians and the white settlers used dogs for hunting. In dealing with wolves they looked to breed a dog that could stand up to the challenges of a wolf.

We also recently learned that black wolves are a result of interbreeding of domestic dogs with wolves, something that further supports the theory that few if any “native” wolves or “pure” wolves even exist. They will all interbreed and man-assisted inbreeding took place to produce hunting and fighting dogs.

In conclusion I think it’s important that we fully understand the history of the wolf in this country. If we are going to spend millions of dollars in attempts to protect and preserve species, we better make sure we are doing it right or we might just end up with a bigger mess than when we started.

I once discovered a friend of mine had dug up most of his large shrubbery around his house and discarded it in the nearby river. I asked him why he did that and he said he didn’t really think it would hurt anything. I told him my Daddy taught me many years ago that if it didn’t come from there, you have no business putting it there.

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!

Wolf Delisting Redux A Ruse And A Sham

From the Western Institute for Study of the Environment:

We reported [here] that the US Fish and Wildlife Service intends to delist Rocky Mountain wolves again, probably at the end of the month. The delisting will include all Rocky Mountain wolves except those in Wyoming.

The rationale for excluding Wyoming is that they have not written an adequate state wolf management plan. From USFWS “talking points”: <<<Read the rest >>>

Tom Remington

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

Did Feds Address Court Rulings For Wolf Delisting?

Yesterday Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett announced the intentions of the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the gray wolf from protection of the Endangered Species Act in the Western Great Lakes region and portions of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Following legal procedures, the USFWS will post the Final Rule in the Federal Registry next week and then 30 days thereafter, the rule takes effect.

The process of attempting to get the wolf delisted has been a confusing mess, mired in lawsuits, twisted out of shape by frustrating and puzzling rulings by judges and just as disturbing was the direction or seemingly lack thereof, the Feds took in dealing with the issue.

When looking at the whole picture of wolf delisting that includes both the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains regions, according to court rulings there were three distinct issues the Feds had to address in order for the courts to be satisfied (perhaps) and allow delisting – Wyoming’s wolf management plan, genetic connectivity/exchange and the USFWS being able to create a Distinct Population Segment and delist a species simultaneously. Let’s address them one at a time.

Create and Delist

This past September 2008, in a federal court in the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that because the Endangered Species Act was unclear about the use and definition of Distinct Population Segment, he felt the Service did not have the legal authority to create a DPS while simultaneously changing the status of the species recognized within that DPS.

Consequently and for no other obvious reason, Judge Friedman ordered the wolf placed back under federal protection and required the Service to provide a better explanation of the use of DPS.

What is expected to be part of the Final Rule next week is a complete history of the Service’s use of Distinct Population Segments. The preliminary information I have indicates several pages of analysis and history of DPS. Included in that explanation will be examples of other species where the Service created and delisted or changed status of certain species. Examples of that are the grizzly bear, Colombian whitetail deer, brown pelican, American crocodile, among others.

We can only assume this will satisfy the courts.

Wyoming, the Lone Wolf

Further out west, on February 27, 2008, the USFWS published its Final Rule and officially removed the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the protected species list of the Endangered Species Act. It was short lived as was expected. On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction placing the gray wolf back under protection of the federal government.

One of the two issues expressed by Judge Molloy was that Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, approved by the state and approved by the feds, was inadequate to sustain a viable wolf population.

With the recent announcement to delist the wolf, Wyoming has been left out of the delisting process. This is how the USFWS handled the Wyoming wolf management plans they had approved of previously.

In light of the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.

Genetic Connectivity

The second issue Judge Molloy had difficulty dealing with is known as genetic connectivity or genetic exchange. This is when wolves from one area disburse into the areas of other wolves and undertake breeding, believed by some to be essential to the long term sustainability of a wolf population.

The preliminary information I have indicates that the Feds will offer a lengthy explanation about what role genetic exchange/connectivity had in the scientific approach to wolf recovery. In their explanation they will tell us that genetic exchange was discussed and that the evolution of the importance of genetic exchange changes very little from 1987 to present. They also intend to show that from the beginning, the Service has said all along that they believed genetic exchange would be verified by showing natural dispersal of the animals and if that wasn’t occurring then they would resort to man-assisted dispersal.

We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9).

The Final Rule to be published more than likely will reaffirm the Feds’ commitment to ensuring genetic exchange.

Development of the Service’s recovery goal clearly recognized that the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it was ever required.

Essentially what we see is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service really hasn’t changed anything in regards to genetic connectivity. They’ve only clarified, and in my opinion beefed up, what role genetic exchange/connectivity has in wolf recovery in hopes of satisfying the courts.

This shows me one thing very clearly. When the USFWS went to court, it was no secret that one of the issues being discussed at length on more than one occasion was genetic connectivity, yet the USFWS was ill prepared to explain and present what they will attempt to explain in the upcoming Final Rule.

Let’s hope they are better prepared this time because we know the lawsuits will begin and every aspect discussed in the past and any new ones the animal rights and environmentalist can dig up, will be dragged before the judge.

Personally, I look for nothing to change.

Tom Remington

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

N.D. Sen. Dorgan Asks DOI Appointee Salazaar To Let Hunters Think Elk Herd

Apparently it matters not who sits in the Department of Interior’s Chair, North Dakota U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan has sought out Obama appointee to head the Interior Department, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazaar, to consider letting volunteer hunters thin a bulging elk population in Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

In July, 2007, Dorgan approached Interior Secretary Kempthorne with the same issue but of late, the Park Service is opting to use volunteers to kill the elk and then the meat will be donated to the hungry. Dorgan says it’s crazy to spend money to thin the herd when it’s not necessary.

“Why on earth would the federal government spend money to thin the elk herd when qualified volunteers would accomplish the same result without spending a dime?” Dorgan said in a press release.

According to the Grand Forks Herald, Salazaar said he would look into it.

Tom Remington

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

Black Bear Blog’s Top 10 Stories Of 2008 – Author’s Choice

At the end of each blogging season, I like to go back and revisit all the stories and articles I wrote. Many of them are still etched deeply into my brain, while others have been mostly forgotten. While some of my picks may not be the most popular story of the year, I believe them to be relevant to me, the Black Bear Blog and my readers as they might impact us as American citizens.

Before I actually begin recapping the top 10 stories of 2008, I want to take a moment to remember a dear friend we all lost this past year. Sayward Lamb was a character, a character in the good sense of course. Always with a grin, a hearty laugh and never short of a story to tell, he lived a full and complete life and impacted everyone who ever had the pleasure of meeting him. We all miss you, Sayward.

I’ll begin with the number 10 story and progress to the top story of 2008. Before I do, I couldn’t help but mention the “Listerine” story. A story that, to me, has little if any significance to human life, the afterthought story I put up about using Listerine as an insect repellent garnered an unbelievable number of comments from readers.

Story #10 – North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase’s attempt to outlaw elk ranches and fenced hunting.

A group calling themselves hunters felt compelled to force their ideals down the throats of others by proposing a citizen’s initiative that would for all intent and purposes outlaw farming of animals such as elk and deer. For some odd reason of which nobody would offer an explanation, the group steered clear of bison ranching. The initiative, if passed would also have outlawed “high fence” hunting. High fence hunting has always carried some degree of controversy but most feel a person’s choice to hunt (or whatever you choose to call it) on a hunting preserve should be an individual choice and not something that needs legislating.

NDHFC began a campaign that was lacking in support and controversial, calling on the Humane Society of the United States for help, both financially and in collecting signatures. Everyone knows the HSUS is the largest anti-hunting organization in America of which no bona fide hunting organization would ask for help.

When the dust had settled and signatures on the petition were counted, NDHFC fell short on the minimum number of required signatures to force a vote in the general election. Hopefully they will become nothing but a little dust in the wind.

Story #9 – World’s Tallest Snowwoman. My tiny hometown of Bethel, Maine was once again put on the map, if only the map of Guinness Book of World Records. From out of a pile of natural and man-made snow, volunteers contributed hours of hard work to create Olympia (named after Maine’s senior U.S. Senator, Olympia Snowe). Bethel was first added to the Guinness Book of World Records, when Angus, King of the Mountain was born. Olympia towered over the village having officially been recorded at 122′ 1″ tall.

I gave the story a fair amount of coverage and with the help of a live webcam located in a building across the street, people from all over the world could log in and check the progress as often as they wanted.

Here in Florida, my granddaughter in her third grade class, participated in a program called Flat Stanley. Flat Stanley is a paper-faced character the students are encouraged to send to different places around the world. Flat Stanley collects pictures, stories and information and returns to the school with the report. My granddaughter’s Flat Stanley traveled to Bethel, Maine and returned with exclusive photos and information few others were privy to, thanks to Great Grammie.

Story #8 – Lyme Disease – While most people don’t sit around talking about Lyme disease, it’s growing rapidly. The disease itself comes from the tick but that tick is transported by deer. Deer are overly abundant in some locals, Connecticut being one of them. With the close proximity of deer, carrying infected ticks, and humans, the risk of humans being bitten by an infected tick increases drastically. Lyme disease has no cure and can be debilitating.

The Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease, dared to do what others didn’t. They suggested a drastic reduction of deer numbers, actually supporting the use of hunters and hunting to accomplish the task. This group dared show evidence that reducing deer numbers down to “normal” densities would not only reduce incidents of disease but could rid areas completely. Of course offering a sensible solution met with resistance from the preservationists.

Story #7 – Maine Moose Lottery Televised Coverage

Some would not consider this a top ten story but from my perspective it was simply because of the logistics to pull this off for a very first time going mobile with streaming video and audio for the Black Bear Blog. With the help of Bob Adams and Julie-Lynn Belon of the Kittery Trading Post, this event was huge for us.

I timed our arrival believing I had ample time to set up, test things out and then schedule interviews etc. but that didn’t work out as hoped. With Milt Inman, Chief Photographer for Skinny Moose Media and a trusty assistant, Gregg Inman, we got set up and managed to get in a couple of brief interviews before the actual show of the selection process.

The broadcast lasted nearly 6 hours with well over 6,000 viewers who logged on and at least viewed some portion of the show. We left with a wealth of knowledge, eager to try this again.

Story #6 – Winter of 2008

In parts of this United States, namely portions of the Rockies, Michigan and Northern New England, a winter like no other took its toll on some wildlife. In Maine it was estimated that the severe snow depths, reaching in excess of 250 inches in places, killed at least 50% of the whitetail deer herd.

Story #5 – New Jersey Bears

It seemed there was no end to the foolishness of managing, or lack thereof, of New Jersey’s black bears. First there was a bear hunt, then there wasn’t, then there was, then there wasn’t and now there’s not and bears are showing up everywhere. This year alone bear/human encounters/complaints skyrocketed, yet Governor Jon Corzine insisted his state did not have a bear problem. The problem, in his eyes, is people don’t know how to get along with bears.

New Jersey went several years without a bear hunting season. Eventually bear populations grew and the state, pre Corzine and the anti-hunting administration, had a bear hunt to thin the numbers. Animal rights and anti-hunting groups lined up to sue and hide behind lies of saving the bears. The bear hunt was canceled. A year went by and a bear hunt was held after the courts ruled the state had a legal bear management plan that included hunting as a viable part of that plan. That was 2005. No hunt for bear has happened since.

Gov. Corzine, crafted his own little anti-hunting puppet, Lisa Jackson to do his bidding and was put in charge of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The fish and game is a division of DEP. As a side note: President-elect Barack Obama has selected Lisa Jackson to be the head of his administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (doesn’t bode well for hunters).

When Jackson took office the first thing she did was toss the court-approved Bear Management Plan in the garbage and declared the days of hunting bears in New Jersey are over. Since that time, private property has been destroyed, people’s homes have been invaded and people put at risk from an overabundance of bears. All the while the governor and his regime insist there’s no problem.

Some within the New Jersey legislature are demanding that Corzine do something about this time bomb that will eventually explode when a bear decides to seriously harm or kill a human. And whose fault will that be.

The New Jersey bear situation is a problem and is ongoing with little hope that Corzine will change his mind. The question I suppose now becomes who will be the governor’s next puppet to head the DEP?

Story #4 – Global Warming

Have we turned a bit of a corner on this absurdity of man-made global warming?

While I didn’t write about man-made global warming as much as I talked about it on the radio and video broadcasts, it still got plenty of attention. It seemed that our media worldwide fell in love with Al Gore and his scam and con job of man-made climate change. And while polar bear loving Al Gore was sealing financial deals to line his bank accounts, going green took on multiple meaning.

It appears now with more and more real scientists speaking out against man-made global warming, some in the scientific community are insisting this nonsense cease immediately. But not our politicians. They, like most of what they do, haven’t a clue nor do they care but if enough of us can keep rattling cages, we can successfully get the process of scientific research into climate change back on track.

Story #3 – The Election: Obama’s Stance on Second Amendment and “The Bitter People”.

As we have wound down from one of the strangest elections in my lifetime, many can’t wait until January 20, 2009 to arrive to they can officially begin their worship of a man they know nothing about and don’t want to. They say love is blind and it must be true love for the millions of voters who turned out to vote. They voted because they wanted change.

One aspect of Barack Obama that I hammered on during the campaign was his history, stance and lies on the right to keep and bear arms. Every politician since Adam and Eve has lied during their campaigns and this campaign was no different. It mattered not what Obama said. It mattered not what he had done, what his voting history told us. It mattered not about his past and those he chose to associate with. The voters wanted change.

But what almost, not quite and actually now that I think about it, it didn’t amount to a hill of beans, was Obama’s elitist comments made behind what he thought were closed doors about people being bitter, clinging to their guns and religion. In case you missed my story on the bitter people, click here.

And we can never forget that for the first time that I can remember, we had a vice presidential candidate that actually did believe in the Second Amendment. She was far from being a bitter person. None of this mattered again because people wanted change. They haven’t any idea what kind of change so long as it’s change.

Story #2 – Wolves/Endangered Species Act/Polar Bears

I decided to lump these all together as one story because they belong all together as one story. First let’s recap the continuing saga of gray wolf reintroduction and the up and down court ride of listing and delisting.

It is my belief that wolves were illegally dumped on the doorsteps of citizens in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and used deliberated practices of deception to achieve this goal. Promises were made and probably during that time a bridge or two in New York City changed hands once of twice.

Those intent on bringing wolves back promised that once a prescribed number of wolves were recorded, protections would be ended and the states could manage the wolf and have the ability to stop wolves from destroying private property.

Once official wolf numbers exceeded the promised numbers by at least five-fold, the wolf is still protected by the federal government under the Endangered Species Act. Earlier in the year, the Department of the Interior announced it was removing the ESA listing of wolves. They had accepted the three states’ – Idaho, Wyoming and Montana – Wolf Management Plans. That lasted only a short amount of time as once again the preservationists/animal rights/anti-hunting groups lined up like sheeple to an Obama rally, suing the federal government to stop the needless slaughter of wolves.

Coming as no shock to anyone, an activist judge who knows as much about wolves as I do about thermonuclear energy, granted a temporary injunction that placed the wolf back under protection. This was soon followed by the USFWS asking Judge Donald Molloy to withdraw the original proposal to delist.

As you can imagine, this story has no ending. The USFWS is poised to make another announcement, perhaps only hours before George Bush leaves office and Barack Obama takes over, removing the wolf from protection again. We can only speculate (it’s a sure thing) that once this happens the gaggle of groupies will descend on Judge Molloy’s office crying for help for the poor soon to be slaughtered wolf.

In the meantime, properties are being destroyed and documentation is now pouring in of the decimation of elk herds in parts of Idaho, Montana and within Yellowstone National Park.

The second part of this broad story is the Endangered Species Act itself. Written in 1973 and amended in 1978, the Act’s intention was to prevent the “needless” extinction of species because of the actions of man. The Act has been twisted and turned and manipulated into a giant legal and political leverage tool used by special interest groups to promote their agendas at the expense of the animals we intend to protect.

Even though the Ninth Federal Court of Appeals unanimously voted to notify the courts that science will be used in passing judgment on endangered species cases, it surely had no affect on two judges who have managed to totally screw up the ESA.

When Judge Donald Molloy ruled to put the wolf back under federal protection, he created his own science in many ways. The Environmental Impact Statement that was written and approved before wolf reintroduction began, essentially said nothing about the need for wolves from the three areas where wolves were dropped, had to interbreed before a sustainable wolf population could happen. He called it genetic connectivity. This was at least one half of his basis for placing the wolf back under protection.

Shortly after this happened, in a lawsuit taking place in the District of Columbia, judge Paul Friedman decided to put the wolves in the Western Great Lakes back on federal protection as well. His reasons were very odd, to say the least.

He said in his own ruling that he didn’t have to put the wolf back on the Endangered list but he was going to because he thought it would be “easier”. Now that’s scientific. Worse yet, he created the biggest quagmire about Distinct Population Segments.

It has been the practice for some time for the USFWS to create segments where certain species live and areas where efforts are needed to recover or protect species. The feds have routinely created boarders to define these areas and as such call them Distinct Population Segments. This is what happened in the Western Great Lakes. The feds created a DPS, with boundaries, in order to remove gray wolves from protection in that area because they deemed, according to the policies specified in the ESA, the wolf “recovered”.

But Judge Friedman ruled that the ESA does not provide a definition of a DPS, therefore the USFWS had no legal authority to create a DPS. Little did he know with his own ruling that he just rendered all previous Distinct Population Segments of all species that are created, null and void. Essentially this makes the ESA and all that it controls a useless document. Isn’t science wonderful?

The Act needs serious amending if not a complete overhaul. It needs definitions, restrictions and allowances so that our scientists can actually work at recovering and protecting species. But each and every time there is any effort at all to change the ESA, it meets with great resistance from the lobbyists of the special interest groups who don’t want their sugar daddy taken away.

And finally the third part of this story is about the polar bear. This year the polar bear was listed as threatened by the Department of Interior because of melting sea ice. This became a no-win situation for everyone, including the polar bear.

The Bush administration got suckered into believing that climate change was permanently destroying polar bear habitat – ice. Not wanting to anger too many people, they thought listing the bear as threatened would pacify the environmentalists and not anger those of us who really wanted to protect the bear. Lawsuits have followed.

Then, like they had some kind of magic wand, the DOI, led by Dirk Kempthorne, declared that nobody was going to use the threatened status of polar bears as a political manipulation tool to regulate global warming.

Now that real science is coming around to shoot down the scare mongers of global warming, the way the ESA has been interpreted, the bear will never be removed from the ESA list, even though the ice is growing again and the population of polar bears is the highest its been in decades.

Story #1 – District of Columbia vs. Heller

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution proclaims: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” People have argued for decades about the meaning of this Amendment, even to the point of how capitalized words are used.

What began as a lawsuit against the District of Columbia by a security guard, Richard Heller, to restore his constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”, ended up in the United States Supreme Court in what is perhaps the greatest ruling since Roe vs. Wade or Brown vs. Board of Education.

The Second Amendment has taken more abuse than perhaps any other Amendment we have, often energized out of fear and emotion because this right involved guns.

One of the arguments involving the Second Amendment is whether a “militia” means that only state sanctioned militias or guards have a legal right to possess a gun. Some argue that only the states have a right to regulate firearms. As a result of the many years of unsettled legal discussions, it was now going to be left up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Going into the oral arguments of the case, broad agreement seemed to be that SCOTUS would rule one way or the other as to whether the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right or a collective right as such the militias. Most thought the Court would vote in favor of an individual right and we were not disappointed.

What we all mostly wondered was whether or not the Court would take it upon themselves to define, “reasonable gun regulations”. We may never have a definition of that and case upon case will be heard in the lower courts within many states of the Union.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion of a 5-4 vote. Justice Scalia, in presenting years of historic evidence as to the “intentions” of the framers of the Constitution, declared the Second Amendment as a right of individuals to keep and bear arms. What was left quite foggy was what kind of arms can individuals possess and what are “reasonable” gun control laws.

In the District of Columbia, a person virtually was barred by D.C. laws from owning a gun of any kind and in particular a handgun. D.C. law also provided that for those who were properly licensed to own a “hunting” gun, that gun had to be inoperable in the residence of the owner. The Supreme Court also ruled that law was unconstitutional because it robbed a person of their God-given right to self protection.

It has been nearly seven months since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for an individual right and that a ban on owning a gun and having it in your home was unconstitutional, and still the District of Columbia has yet to comply with the court ruling as they stall laying claim they are trying to work out an agreeable gun control bill. That in itself tells us that the District of Columbia has no intention of adhering to the law and will come up with their version of what the Second Amendment should be and let it be fought in the courts again as to what “reasonable” gun laws are.

Although District of Columbia vs. Heller was not a ruling that restored 100% our right to keep and bear arms, it was a major victory that gave us a starting point and a legal platform to work from. Let’s hope this new administration, along with a strong democratic hold on both Houses, will not head us in the opposite direction.

Tom Remington

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

Teddy Roosevelt Park Draft Elk Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Below is a press release issued by the National Park Service on proposed alternatives to managing the elk herd within the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Available is the Draft Elk Management Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be enough of the right kind of proposals being presented.

Immediate Release Valerie Naylor
701-623-4466

December 17, 2008

Draft Elk Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Released

Theodore Roosevelt National Park has released a Draft Elk Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and is soliciting public comment.

The draft plan/EIS analyzes four action alternatives for initial herd reduction, as well as a “no action” alternative and one alternative that could be used in combination with others for herd maintenance. The draft EIS does not identify a preferred alternative.

“The alternatives represent a range of reasonable options for managing the elk population,” said Superintendent Valerie J. Naylor. “Because we want to encourage public input on the alternatives presented, we are not going to select a preferred alternative until after the public comment period.”

One alternative for initial herd reduction focuses on sharpshooting elk, using government employees, contractors, or skilled volunteers. Under a second alternative, elk would be rounded up and euthanized. A third alternative focuses on rounding up elk, testing a representative sample for chronic wasting disease, and shipping live elk to other entities. Shipping live elk has been done twice before by the park, prior to concern about chronic wasting disease (CWD). Now, shipping could only take place after a representative sample (approximately 375 elk) are killed, tested, and found to be negative for CWD. In all cases, elk meat would be donated to food banks or other organizations after testing. A fourth alternative encourages hunting opportunities outside park boundaries and would require cooperation from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and local landowners.

Hunting within the park boundaries is not allowed under the law and is not being considered.

“This plan will not only establish elk population levels that are in balance with the park’s ecosystem,” said Naylor, “but it will determine how we will maintain that population level to protect natural resources within the park and land uses outside the park boundary.”

A series of public meetings, including a presentation on Theodore Roosevelt National Park’s elk management planning process, will be held across the state to provide project information and gather comments about the draft plan/EIS. Meetings dates and locations will be announced after January 1.

More information and an on-line version of the EIS are available at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/thro. Comments can be submitted via the website or they can be mailed to Superintendent, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, P.O. Box 7, Medora, North Dakota 58645 or e-mailed to thro_forum@nps.gov.
Printed copies of the EIS are available for review at park visitor centers.
Contact the park at 701/623-4466 for a hard copy or an electronic copy on a compact disc (CD).

-NPS-

__________________________________
Bill Whitworth
Chief, Resource Management
Theodore Roosevelt National Park
P.O. Box 7
Medora, ND 58645
701-623-4730 ext 3407

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!

North Dakota Hunting Rights Sale Ban

Before you jump to any conclusions, it’s imperative you look a bit further into this ban that is in place in North Dakota on hunting rights. What this ban does is stop the practice of a landowner being able to sell the hunting rights to his land for a lifetime. In other words, before the ban, I could buy a piece of property in North Dakota, sell the hunting rights to that land to another party, which they would then have those rights for a lifetime and then tomorrow I could resell that same piece of land. I am assuming the new buyer would be able to negotiate to buy back the rights.

I am always looking for ways to increase hunting opportunities and for those of you who know, I am a strong advocate for property rights. I’m not a legal expert but I think this is as much a legal issue as a property rights issue.

Some feel that as the owner of a piece of land you should have the right to do with it as you please. The question then becomes whether or not you can sell this right beyond your ownership of the land. What makes answering that question even more difficult is the fact that the state of North Dakota already allows the lifetime sale of rights for other things – the right to mine coal, graze livestock, pump water and explore for oil. Should we now be able to add hunting rights to this list?

Existing laws of course set precedence and it certainly would seem a fair question to ask what’s the difference in selling lifetime rights to graze livestock as to hunt the land?

As a landowner, you should be aware of the fact that often when encumbrances, such as the sale of rights, easements, etc., are included in land, it can drive the value down. I would assume too that under the right circumstances it could drive the price up but I’m still trying to figure out how in this case.

Here’s a simple example of how something like this might work. I bought a 10-acre parcel of land with an old farmhouse on it. At the time I bought the property, I didn’t realize that my neighbor had water rights on my land. How this occurred is simple to explain. The previous owner of the land and house I bought deeded the rights to an existing well to his neighbor after he sold him a lot of land. The buyer of the lot of land, built a house and struggled to find a viable water supply, so the original land owner deeded him water rights.

Some time after I was in the process of selling the farmhouse and a 2-acre piece to go with it. My friend, who is the local surveyor, discovered the deeded water rights to that well, which hadn’t been used for nearly 30 years.

I wanted to clean up the deed which would also increase the value of my property, albeit slightly. So I worked with the neighbor to take care of that.

So, the question comes back to whether or not it is legal to sell hunting rights in the same way you can sell or grant water rights, oil rights, etc..

The existing ban in North Dakota expires next year and legislators and landowners are setting up for a battle.

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!

N. Dakota Fenced Hunting Initiative Turns In Incomplete Petitions

According to North Dakota Secretary of State, Al Jaeger, the list of signatures on petitions handed in to him by the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, was incomplete. Although NDHFC thought they had enough signatures to make the November 2008 ballot, Jaeger had to disqualify 164 signatures because they were contained on incomplete petitions.

North Dakota law requires each set of petitions to contain specific details to be considered as legal. Some of the petitions where missing pages, particularly one that was missing a list of the sponsoring committee’s names.

According to information I have received, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase have until August 27, 2008 to correct the problems and add more signatures. If this is completed by that date, an initiative could be allowed on the 2010 ballot.

The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase are attempting to pass a law that would ban all elk ranches which would include hunting preserves.

Tom Remington

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

Anti-Hunting Group Collects Minimum Signatures In North Dakota

A group opposed to ranch hunting in North Dakota, has managed to eke out 12,964 signatures for a petition to get a citizen’s initiative on the November ballot to put an end to elk ranching and hunting preserves. The group disguised as a hunting group, the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, needed a minimum of 12,844 signatures by midnight on Tuesday, August 5.

Typically, a few hundred signatures are discarded as invalid and with this group, headed by Roger Kaseman, having only 120 more signatures than needed, it appears that there will be no ballot come November.

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »