Eating Wolf Scat And Howling At The Moon

It was Thomas Jefferson who once said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” How true! Evidently in Jefferson’s wisdom, he understood people of good conscience. It was perhaps a bit of a rallying cry to the people that remaining silent on issues was good recipe for tyranny, spelled out as loss of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

People of good conscience had an agenda foisted upon them when wolves were released into the Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. Foisted because I believe that the entire notion was fraudulent, keeping valuable information from the people and misrepresenting the ultimate goals of those behind the debacle.

I read some place recently that it is part of the character of good conscience people to politely sit by, having no desire to take up opposition or make public spectacles of themselves through protests and verbal combativeness. And as such, one has only to ask, how far can these people of good conscience be pushed before they begin to push back?

When the grass roots Tea Party movement began, most on the left couldn’t rationally deal with it. It must have come as a big shock to many when the Tea Party activists took to the streets in copius numbers, rallying fellow Americans to their cause. After all, street protests are the fingerprint of the liberal left. Still, the left cannot and will not come to grips with the concept that those good conscience people will push back when pushed too far.

After 8 years of George W. Bush, Americans wanted something different. They swallowed the campaign rhetoric of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and yet refused to listen to the facts of the man’s past. One year later, eyes have begun to open to the realization this isn’t the change they wanted. They are pushing back. We became witnesses to this thrust in New Jersey, Virginia and most recently Massachusetts. The people, good conscience people, revolted against what is being crammed down their throats. Remaining silent appears to no longer be an option.

It is acutely insulting when the good conscience people’s president appears before the nation and essentially tells them they are too stupid to understand what the health care reform bill is about. His excuse was he failed to explain it to you and me.

The good conscience people also see with their own two eyes when there is hypocrisy and double standards. When George W. Bush was president and the opposition party dissented, it was declared one of the grandest exhibitions of American patriotism. With that same opposition party now in control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, dissent is wicked and evil, very much unpatriotic.

The good conscience people may be passive and difficult to motivate but they are not so stupid that they cannot see what is before them. Today, Charles Krauthammer writes about a great peasant revolt, pointing a finger at those on the left for ignoring what the people want, citing the push back by voters in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.

Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. “They made a decision,” explained David Axelrod, “they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed” — a perfect expression of liberals’ conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country’s, that their idea of the public good is the public’s, that their failure is therefore the nation’s……………………….
For liberals, the observation that “the peasants are revolting” is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

Good conscience people don’t care if it’s a liberal or conservative issue. When something strikes them beside the head, if it’s large enough to cause a big enough impact, they will push back.

Fifteen years of water under the bridge, the wolf debate in the West is no closer to a resolve. There is however, a pushing back, a peasant revolt, if you will, far from reaching a “great” peasant revolt. It was nearly one year ago that I warned of “wolf wars“. The wars would be the result of the wolf advocates refusing to back down from their unreasonable demands about protecting the gray wolf, cramming down the throats of people the impacts from too many wolves they didn’t want nor thought they were getting.

Much of the political and social atmosphere that exists in wolf reintroduction country can be attributed to the actions of an unrelenting group that cares nothing at all about what the good conscience people of the area want. These wolf advocates have destroyed their support in the battle for public opinion by representing themselves as the authorities that know better what the people need than the people.

Where once they had their way, the good conscience people are pushing back. The quiet and hard working people have had enough. More and more people are seeing before their eyes the results of too many wolves, far more than the good conscience people were promised.

Groups are organizing to fight back. The good conscience people were willing to have a few wolves in their woods but not at the expense they are now realizing. It didn’t have to be this way but this was the decision the wolf advocates chose. It’s the path they now must walk.

We are also now seeing actions being taken by the border states around the wolf reintroduction area. Utah wants a law forbidding wolves anywhere in the state. Why is that? Has that state’s attitude been influenced by what they can see going on in their neighbor states? They are pushing back. Had the wolf lovers backed off and listened to what the people wanted, it might not have come to this. For wolf advocates, this is a serious blow to their efforts and a somber loss of what little respect they had.

With the refusal of the wolf advocate groups and wildlife officials to listen to others, to hear what the people want, the good conscience people, they face a rude awakening. To scoff at the good conscience people telling them the only way to contract diseases from wolves is to eat the wolves feces, is a direct insult of their intelligence. The good conscience people will not tolerate this kind of tyrannical rule. They are pushing back. They will tell them to “eat wolf scat and go howl at the moon”!

Tom Remington

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

How Pristine Where Our Ecosystems Before Western Exploration?

Oh, if only we could return to the days before man got into our wilderness areas and destroyed everything. Imagine how wonderful it must have been. Nature doing a fine job all on its own and then all of a sudden man expands his reach and destroys it all.

This is what I hear all the time. Even our education factories teach our kids this inaccurate history. Few have ever heard of what it was really like. I know I have had many discussions with people about the Lewis and Clark Expedition. I admit I was one of those who dreamed about how wonderful it must have been. What could be more exciting to a man who loved the outdoors than to be a member of the Lewis and Clark troop? This would provide a participant the opportunity to see the forests, the plains, the rivers, the valleys, the birds, deer, moose, elk, bison, mountain goats, wild sheep, tons of beaver, muskrat, mink, lynx, bobcat, mountain lions, coyotes, wolves, oh, my. What am I forgetting. I might have been in for a rude awakening had I been there.

Lewis and Clark mounted their expedition from around 1804-1806 and their journey was quite well documented. We know that they took along “professional” hunters and trappers to provide food for the members. Logs show Lewis and Clark spent much of their time trading with Indians for dogs to eat because there was no game.

During the years of 1825-1860, Jedediah Smith, Peter Skeen Ogden, Milton Sublette, Joe Meek, John Fremont, Charles Preuss, Captain J. H. Simpson, and Howard Egan, explored all over the West, both on foot and horseback. They kept diaries and logs of their adventures and these accounts describe a much different picture of what it was really like before man moved into this region and settled.

Jedediah Smith is believed to be one of the first explorers of this region. In 1827, Smith and what was described as two of his best men, set out up the American River, through Central Nevada and ending up at Lake Lake, Utah. Smith’s log describes this trip accordingly.

After traveling 22 days from the east side of Mount Joseph, (Sierra Nevada’s) I struck the Southwest corner of the Great Salt Lake, traveling over a country completely barren and destitute of game. We frequently traveled without water, sometime for two days, over sandy deserts where there was no sign of vegetation and when we found water in some of the rocky hills we most generally found Indians who appeared the most miserable of the human race. When we arrived at the Salt Lake, we had but one horse and one mule remaining, which were so feeble and poor that they could scarcely carry the little camp equipage which I had along. The balance of my horses I was compelled to eat.

This expedition originally began with 14 men and 28 horses.

In 1828 Peter Skeen Ogden led an expedition into North Central Nevada. In an area that is now near Winnemucca, Nevada on the Humboldt River (Marys River), what was seen is described this way.

From clumps of sage on the hillsides, scrawny, brown-bodied men peered out upon their passage. Down in the Valley, now and again, the Indians scurried into the brush ahead of them. They were clothed, if at all, in twisted rabbit skins; They had no horses. They lived on seeds, and what wild fowl they could bring down. Ogden had never encountered a race of animals less entitled to the name of man.

The following year Ogden returned to the same area to do some trapping on the river. He describes the river as being very “unwholesome” and says the antelope, which during this time would be near the rivers are scarce. He declares, “woe to them who depend to them for support”.

In 1832 Milton Sublette led a group of trappers into the Marys River (Humboldt). There was no game and the trappers had to eat the beavers they had been trapping. His reports stated that there was not much for what wild animals there were to eat and that they were forced to eat wild parsnips, which poisoned them. The group had to leave this area and head north where they hoped to find something to eat.

Because of this it became necessary to at once abandon the river, and strike across the country towards the North, where after being four days with almost no food, and several weeks in the state of famine they reached the Snake River above the fishing Falls, they were forced, as they passed through the country, to subsist upon ants, crickets, parched moccasins, and the pudding made from the blood, taking a pint at a time from their almost famished animals.

Joe Meek recalls holding his bare hands in an anthill until they were covered with angry ants and then licking the ants off and eating them like a hungry animal.

Joe Walker later traveled through this same Marys River area and continued on into California near the Truckee River down the West Slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Having left Salt Lake and traveling 14 days into California, the expedition had not seen any game to eat and instead lived off horses they were compelled to kill to ward off starvation.

One man killed a deer, which he carried to camp on his back. The animal was dressed, cooked and eaten, … in less time than a hungry wolf would devour a lamb. This was the first game larger than a rabbit that they had killed since leaving the Salt Lake two months ago. For fourteen days they had lived on nothing but horseflesh …twenty four horses had died in crossing the mountain, and seventeen of these had been eaten.

1825 and 1826 found Ogden covering much of what we all know as Oregon today and not only did his group not find any game but the horses were starving because they couldn’t find even any decent grasses for the horse to feed on. It wasn’t just the explorers finding these wastelands. Ogden relates a story told of an Indian woman in Oregon.

The winter before had been so severe, she said, that her people had to resort to the bodies of relations and children. She had killed no one herself, but had fed on two of her children who died.

Things are pretty harsh when anyone has to resort to cannibalism but to first have to kill somebody to eat them, is unfathomable.

John Fremont and Charles Preuss covered areas of Southern Wyoming west toward the Bear River and then South toward Salt Lake. Things were tough. Game was missing and grazing grasses for the horses were non existent as well. Explorers tried trading with the Indian for food but soon discovered the Indians were starving to death themselves. It was only upon finding the Shoshone camped out along the Snake River, were they able to find a tribe living well from ample supplies of smoked Salmon.

Fremont’s party traveled the Columbia River north into Vancouver finding much the same. They even had to buy firewood from some of the resident Indians. Heading south toward Nevada, local tribes warned Fremont there was nothing for his horses to feed on. They were right.

… They had found nothing but dry, shallow basins, their way “broken by gullies and impeded by sage, and sandy on the hills, where there is not a blade of grass.”

Later Fremont would find Pyramid Lake and gorge on trout.

In all of the travels that are documented by many of these explorers, in what is now the state of Nevada, only one time is there mention of someone sighting an elk, but it is believed the person saw a mule deer and mistook it for an elk.

The Indians in this region mostly lived terrible lives, with little clothing, food or sufficient shelter. They ate mostly rats and insects and what few other birds or small game they might be fortunate to find and kill. We have visions of Indians having access to ample game animals and utilizing the hides for clothing and shelter. Such was not the case in most of the Great Basin.

Howard Egan, Sr. was the first Mormon explorer into the region of the Great Salt Lake. As a matter of fact he traveled there with Brigham Young. Egan covered much of the area between the Salt Lake and west into California as he was in the business of driving cattle there.

Egan recounts for us how the Indians crafted these remarkable corrals they would use to trap antelope. The entire episode of putting on a drive required all the men, women and children of the tribe. One had to question whether the effort put into the building and driving was worth the 24 antelope they trapped in twelve years. But when you’re hungry, some antelope is better than none.

The Indians did a similar thing conducting a cricket drive. No, I’m not kidding. Trenches were dug of about 1 foot wide by 1 foot deep and covered over with a thin layer of stiff grass. All the tribes people would begin pounding the ground with tufts of straw in a concerted effort, to drive the black crickets toward the trenches. Once the trenches contained all the crickets they could drive, they set the grass they had placed over the trenches on fire, killing the crickets. They then used the crickets for food, mostly grinding it up and mixing it with other things to make a concocted kind of flour.

These and more accounts certainly paint a far different picture of how things actually were than what we are often taught about how balanced and bountiful our forests and wilderness were before man arrived. Man certainly made his share of mistakes in being good stewards of the land but in time we figured out what we had to do to sustain game populations and to control the predators that destroyed those.

With the presence of man and bringing with him agriculture and the knowledge to plant and grow crops and tend the land, this began to create a better habitat that would support a heartier and healthier crop of game animals. We controlled the predators so people could harvest the game to feed their families and over time devised a pretty decent wildlife management plan that many around the world now envy.

Sorry, but Mother Nature didn’t really give us a “balanced” ecosystem, at least one that is the most productive. These accounts above I believe more accurately depict Mother Nature’s idea of a balanced ecosystem. There’s nothing wrong with that but I don’t think it is in the best interest of humans to have it that way, nor is it what I think people really want or are thinking about when they speak of “natural” wildlife management.

Tom Remington

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

USFWS Wolf Chief Blames Moose Loss In Yellowstone On Climate Disruption

Is this a first? Climate disruption? Because the theory behind man-made global warming has been proven a fraud, has our liberal press created a new buzz word to explain away the errors, fraud, conspiracy and manipulations of “We the People”? Climate disruption? We’ve gone from global warming to climate change and now it’s climate disruption. Is that a catch-all phrase that we can use for any excuse to place blame and pass off responsibility?

I can certainly understand how an individual, who stakes his entire life and reputation on bringing wolves back into the Yellowstone National Park area and Central Idaho, would react so emotionally when he hears that a legislator in Utah wants to kill all his wolves trying to enter the state of Utah.

Bangs is supposed to be a professional, a salaried employee of the Department of Interior/United States Fish and Wildlife Service, one whose salary is paid by the taxpayers of this country. You would expect a better response from a professional scientist.

“People who don’t like them [wolves] give them supernatural powers. It’s that way all over the world,” Bangs says. “In reality, they’re no big deal.”

The tone of the article leads a reader to think that the presence of wolves is no big deal. He seems to blow off and almost ridicule anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his outdated information on wolves. His reference to people “giv[ing] them supernatural powers” is almost a Farley Mowatt followers response. I wonder if he also believes wolves only eat mice and tiny rodents?

But in reality, did Bangs refer to the loss of moose in the Yellowstone area to “climate disruption” or did the author of the article do it? You decide.

Wolves have contributed to a decline of elk in and around Yellowstone, but moose loss is probably more due to climate disruption. “Moose can’t handle heat at all,” Bangs says. “They just lie around and don’t store body fat.”

Notice the quotations mark don’t come in until after the use of “climate disruption” and the quiet admission by the author (I wonder where that information came from?) that wolves have contributed to elk reduction. It does however seem to fit with the quoted response by Bangs saying moose can’t handle the heat – assuming he is referring to global warming. He is also saying that moose do nothing but lie around in this “climate disruption” and die. And, according to the same article, Bangs said that wolves are only a problem with some livestock.

Bangs’ comments are not sitting well with many wildlife and outdoor sporting organizations. It has been slow coming but state wildlife officials in Idaho and Montana are now coming around to admit that wolves are destroying their elk, deer and moose herds far more than they thought they would. In some places, the effect is serious, posing a real threat to elk, deer and moose herds.

Don Peay of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife in Utah asked Bangs:

I would like some scientist to explain to me how Utah – which has a hotter climate than Wyoming, Idaho and Montana whether there is global warming, climate disruption, etc – is seeing a totally different trend in Moose, than is being experienced in the wolf inhabited areas of WY, MT, and ID.

If Climate disruption is the reason that moose are declining in the Yellowstone region – it is so hot the moose populations just lie around and don’t put on fat reserves – then why are Utah moose populations increasing significantly during this same climate change phenomenon ? it would seem to me that if heat was the problem, then Utah’s moose populations should be even in greater decline than the greater Yellowstone area.

Toby Bridges, a hunter and activist who administers Lobo Watch, had a much more emotional response to Bangs’ comments. I won’t share all of them here but here’s some of what Bridges had to say:

Sportsmen here fully realize that growing wolf numbers have destroyed Yellowstone’s great elk herd, not Global Warming. Likewise, elk herds all along the mountains of western Montana and northern Idaho are being decimated by out of control wolf numbers. And when addressing this issue, the best you can do is is to toss out an “Oh well” attitude in the linked article, trying to use smoke and mirrors and a list of other factors to try covering up the real problem – your parasite carrying kill crazy wolves.

So while many sportsman’s groups in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Oregon and Washington have united together to work in a proactive way to convince the courts to allow the states to manage wolves at a level that will provide a better balance between predator and prey, Bangs is still preaching the “wolves aren’t the problem” mantra. Our tax dollars at work I suppose.

Tom Remington

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

9-Year Project in Oregon Secures Habitat, Access

MISSOULA, Mont. – A nine-year land conservation project has been completed near La Grande, Ore., permanently protecting habitat and securing public access on nearly 850 acres. The parcel, now part of Ladd Marsh Wildlife Management Area, has been transferred to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

The area, known locally as the Glass Hill winter range, is prime elk habitat. An estimated 120 elk use the area throughout the year. In winter the herd can swell to more than 500. Upland birds, deer and several sensitive species also inhabit the area.

“Back in the late 1990s, RMEF and ODFW identified this tract as important habitat threatened by future recreational and residential development. That prediction held true. Today realtors are marketing subdivided properties on neighboring lands and no doubt the same thing would have happened here,” said Bill Richardson, RMEF lands program manager for Oregon and Washington.

RMEF purchased the 848.98-acre parcel in 2000. The goal was to hold the property while ODFW gathered funding for a conveyance.

In the meantime, the two partners signed an MOU committing the agency to manage the property for wildlife and public access, including hunting. Over the years, ODFW expended more than $150,000 and RMEF volunteers donated countless hours of labor on restoration and habitat activities, perimeter fence maintenance, interior fence removal, planting trees, spraying weeds, reseeding and more.

“In the past nine years, and through four different agency directors, we made several attempts to put a purchase package together and close this transaction. This year we got it done. It’s great to see a long-term commitment come to fruition,” said Craig Ely, ODFW’s Northeast Region manager.

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission approved the transfer at its October meeting. RMEF sold the property to ODFW at a bargain price and donated the balance of the appraised value to ODFW to match federal grants that funded the transaction. The donation will result in $420,000 in matching funds being available for future land projects benefiting elk and other wildlife.

RMEF paid property taxes to Union County annually and ODFW will continue to do so.

Richardson said, “This project took longer than expected but RMEF is in this for the long haul. We understand that it can take years or even decades to conserve an important piece of habitat. The complexities of administrative changes and strained budgets will always be surmounted by dedicated partners who never give up.”

He added that stewardship never totally concludes. Successful projects always lead to more collaboration, partnership and efforts to expand the conservation footprint, he said.

Since 1986, RMEF and its partners have completed 611 projects in Oregon, conserving or enhancing about 675,000 acres, including more than 38,000 acres of permanent land protection.

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

Is USFWS Authorized To Create Distinct Population Segments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

America’s Top 20 Trophy Elk Counties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Idaho Wildlife Biologist Ted Chu, Offers Wolf Management Solution

Ted Chu, a former wildlife biologist while living in Idaho, now resides in Oregon and offers an editorial at OregonLive about how to resolve the wolf management problems and keep landowners/ranchers happy.

The Legislature should make it legal for landowners to shoot wolves on their private property under any circumstances. Many wolf recovery supporters will knee-jerk howl at this notion, but it will ultimately work to the advantage of wolves. Had this approach been used right from the start in the Northern Rockies, I’m certain there would be just as many wolves alive as there are today, at much less taxpayer expense and social stress.

Individual wolves will be still be killed, but under this approach the rest will get smart in a hurry and retreat to the public lands. This is where they belong and realistically is the only place they can survive and avoid trouble.

How dare anyone suggest such a reasonable solution!

Tom Remington

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

L.A. Times Anti-Hunting Bias Comes Shining Through

What really angers me and what media outlets like the L.A. Times are allowed to get away with is beginning an article with a statement that is a complete distortion of facts. They absolutely know exactly what they are doing.

The article’s title is : “Obama agrees with Bush, opens hunting season on the gray wolf” but the opening sentence is this: “Next Monday, hunters in Montana and Idaho and elsewhere in the Rockies will be free to shoot at the gray wolf.” This is a either a deliberate attempt to mislead readers from the facts or a reflection of ignorance and poor journalism.

First of all, the statement is not factual. Hunters in Montana and Idaho or “elsewhere” in the Rockies are not “free to shoot” wolves. Wolves in Montana and Idaho have been designated as game animals through their federally approved wolf management plans. That means hunters can hunt them only if the states decide to offer a hunting season, which must comply with the approved plans. This would involve quotas on the number of wolves that can be killed among other strict rules.

“Elsewhere” in the Rockies, whatever that means, there are no plans to open any territory up so hunters will be “free to shoot at the gray wolf”. Portions of far Eastern Washington and Oregon and a tiny piece of Utah are included in the delisting areas but none of those states plan hunts and will continue to protect the gray wolf.

Wyoming will not be included in the delisting process because the federal government, after once approving Wyoming’s wolf plan, later rejected it.

This kind of reporting is nonsense and needs to be stopped. L.A. Times does its readers a terrible disservice and they need to get their facts strait and then report the truth.

Tom Remington

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

Cute And Cuddly vs. Sometimes Cruel Mother Nature

I came across an article today in the Colorado Springs Gazette online about wolves, wolf puppies, the current plan to remove protection of the wolf from the Endangered Species Act list and efforts to exploit the wolf cubs to stop the delisting.

In the article, the writer visits with a caretaker of a local wolf rehab center. The caretaker described the upcoming decision to delist wolves as creating a “blood bath”. She also said she planned to use two 5 1/2-week old wolf cubs to warm the hearts of people and hope to gain influence to incite people to call Interior Sec. Salazar and tell him to stop the blood bath.

Of course everyone loves a cute cuddly little puppy. Check out this feller preparing himself for bigger things in life.

I got thinking that even though I would be kidding myself if I didn’t think that wolf cub was the cutest darned thing, so is a new born elk calf like this one.

Unfortunately for those interested in seeking the truth, we know that both of these guys grow up……well, not exactly. You see if the little elk guy happens to get born in an area that has too many wolves, his odds of surviving aren’t too good. The chances are real big he’ll get eaten up by one of that cute little wolf cub’s parents.

As a matter of reality, the odds are just as good that the wolf cub’s parents won’t wait long enough for the elk calf to see one day of life in the wild. Wolves like to eat elk calves hot right out of the oven……before they are born.

I don’t want to snatch away anyone’s delight in that wolf cubs are cute and cuddly but so are elk, deer and moose calves. They are the cunningest things. This is real and it is genuine to present the complete picture than only a small part of it.

Tom Remington

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

Broad-Based Wolf Coalition Serves Notice of Intent to File Civil Suit

On April 3, 2009, a coalition of associations and entities which are directly affected from the impact of introduction of non-native Canadian gray wolves into Wyoming filed a formal 60 day notice of intent to sue the federal government over its refusal to delist wolves in the state. The coalition, currently comprised of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Wyoming Association of County Predatory Animal Boards, Niobrara County Predatory Animal Board, Wyoming Outfitters & Guides Association, Cody Country Outfitters and Guides Association, and Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife Wyoming, (hereafter collectively referred to as the “Wolf Coalition”), served their notice of intent to commence a civil lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, USFWS Acting Director Rowan Gould and Stephen Guertin, USFWS Acting Regional Director for the Mountain Region.

The Wolf Coalition intends to seek injunctive relief for violation of the Endangered Species Act and its related regulations and policies. The Wolf Coalition’s claims arise from the FWS’s continued rejection of the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan, its failure to delist the gray wolf population in Wyoming, and from its decision to proceed with delisting in Montana, Idaho and parts of Oregon and Washington.

The Wolf Coalition’s Notice of Intent summarizes at least sixteen different ways in which the FWS has violated the Endangered Species Act or other federal law. One of the primary violations relates to the FWS’s failure and refusal to follow and implement the Recovery Plan that formed the basis for introduction of non-native Canadian gray wolves into the Yellowstone Recovery Area. The Notice also points out that the FWS violated the ESA by rejecting Wyoming’s Plan, despite the fact that the gray wolf population has not only met, but has exceeded the recovery criteria set forth in the Recovery Plan and other FWS documents.

In way of example, the FWS previously defined a “viable recovered wolf population” as “ten breeding pairs in each of the three recovery areas for three consecutive years.” The FWS anticipated that a “recovered” population would total approximately 300 wolves. It was expected that ten of those breeding pairs (or approximately 100 wolves) would be located in the Yellowstone Recovery Area. In 2007, the FWS estimated that there were a minimum of 1,531 wolves, including 107 breeding pairs, within the Northern Rocky Mountain Area. By the end of 2007, there were at least 171 wolves in 11 packs living inside of Yellowstone Park and 188 wolves in 25 packs living in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone Park. The total number of breeding pairs within the state of Wyoming in 2007 was conservatively estimated at 24, 2.4 X’s the number needed for delisting. Despite having exceeded their own goals by more than double, the FWS refuses to allow Wyoming to manage the exploding Canadian gray wolf population. In fact, the FWS is not only demanding that Wyoming protect the Canadian gray wolf throughout the entire State, but is also insisting that Wyoming assume a larger share of the load than either Idaho or Montana. http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/wp-admin/post-new.php#

The Wolf Coalition is also challenging the FWS’s decision to reject the Wyoming Plan, despite the fact that ten of the eleven peer reviewers hand-picked by the FWS concluded that it provided the necessary regulatory mechanism to protect and preserve the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population.

The Coalition notes in its 60-Day Notice, “The FWS’s decision to reject the Wyoming Plan violates the Endangered Species Act, which requires the Secretary and Directors to base decisions ‘solely upon the best scientific and commercial data available…’ Rather than support and defend Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan-a Plan that meets all of the requirements of the ESA- the FWS has hung the State of Wyoming out to dry ” (emphasis added).

The Coalition’s Notice calls further attention to one of the most frustrating aspects of the Obama Administrations handling of the wolf delisting issue when it states, “…the FWS continues to allow itself to be hijacked and controlled by certain organizations that have no intention of allowing the Canadian gray wolves to be delisted, regardless of what the “best scientific and commercial data available” may show.”

Harriet Hageman, attorney for the Coalition, points out that the FWS is also seeking to dramatically expand the geographic region for the gray wolf. “The deal from the beginning was that the gray wolf would be introduced into and managed in the Yellowstone area. The FWS is now trying to force Wyoming to adopt a management plan that ensures that the wolves move throughout the State. That is directly contrary to everything that the FWS told us when they brought the wolves into Yellowstone.”

The Notice of Intent has started the 60-day period for later filing a civil lawsuit against the FWS.

While the Coalition was initially comprised of 10 groups when the 60-day Notice was sent, additional groups have been added since that time and more groups are anticipated to join prior to the actual filing of the lawsuit in federal district court in Cheyenne.

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

Wolves Kill 19 Sheep In Oregon – Confirmed And Caught On Film

From KVAL.com:

Rancher Curt Jacobs told the Baker City Herald newspaper most of the lambs were killed but not eaten.

Tom Remington

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

The Battle To Correct Media Bias And Bad Information

An editorial should contain opinion. Is that so shocking? I editorialize everyday. I also present facts and document the source from which it comes. When a piece in a prominent newspaper is published as an editorial but is full of statements presented as facts with no source for them, it can’t be taken seriously.

The Salt Lake Tribune published what they labeled an editorial condemning Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s and Barack Obama’s decision to go ahead with the delisting of the gray wolf in Idaho and Montana. I don’t much care one way or the other about the opinions of the editorial staff of the Tribune. They can have all the wolves in their back yard that they wish. I’m sure many in Idaho and Montana would be happy to send them along. The problem is they have made statements that are false and offer no proof to support them. It is not presented as opinion.

Aside from the usual use of such flamboyant language used to discredit and demean hunters or anyone opposed to their thoughts, bold statements were made that are outright nonfactual. Let’s look.

Wyoming refused to adopt any limits on wolf killing.

Not true. Prior to the first delisting that was overturned by Judge Donald Molloy with his issuing of a temporary injunction to put the wolf back under federal protection, the state of Wyoming had a wolf management plan that was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That plan obviously had restrictions on killing wolves. Those restrictions required that Wyoming maintain a specified number of breeding pairs of wolves and total pack numbers. At issue seemed to be that in most of the state the wolf was classified a predator that could be killed at anytime. Adjacent to Yellowstone, the state had to manage wolves as a game animal.

Despite the wolves’ rapid resurgence under federal protection, they can’t survive without it.

Again, this is a false statement. The 1994 Environmental Impact Statement called for 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves over the Northern Rocky Mountain range Nonessential Experimental Population. That number has been vastly exceeded and yet wolf protectors find their own agenda-driven “scientists” who claim the numbers that exist now (well over 1,500) are not enough.

been hunted to extinction in unprotected areas early in the 20th century.

Let’s spread the blame around where blame is due and not continue with blaming only hunters. Everyone participated in the destruction of the wolf in the western regions, even Teddy Roosevelt who found quite a lot of sport in watching and participating in wolf hunts with hounds. (Here I make a claim and then back it up with written documentation.) Any means available was used by everyone present to rid the west of wolves.

But without federal protection, wolves will again fall prey to the only predator nasty enough to hunt them only for fun. Last March, when delisting took effect in Idaho, Montana and parts of Oregon and Washington, public hunts were quickly sanctioned. By the time a judge halted the killing with a temporary restraining order in May, 40 wolves, 10 percent of the population, had been killed.

The Tribune leads readers to believe here that when the wolf is delisted it no longer has any protection. This is a far cry from reality. As I pointed out earlier about Wyoming, the same is true for Idaho and Montana. As a matter of fact, both states wolf management plans call for maintaining wolf populations that far exceed the minimum numbers called for in the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement. It’s also a shame that the editorial staff thinks so lowly of the species they might be a part of.

Will these states have wolf hunts? Probably, as partial plans have been started but all hunts must have quotas as are spelled out in the plans approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who will be closely monitoring all wolf activities.

It is disingenuous that the Tribune lead its readers to think without Endangered Species Act protection, the wolf has no protection of management plans to insure its survival.

Hunters say wolves kill too many elk, but the wolves feed on the weak and old, improving the herd, while humans take the biggest, strongest animals.

Here exists two blatantly false statements. In some areas, as we have seen this past winter, wolves have destroyed far too many elk. Game management is done by management zones or regions, yet media, like the tribune which refuses to research for the truth, like to write about all the elk there are based on total elk populations across the state. While total population numbers might seem fine, when examining this by way of management zones, we discover in some zones where wolves are abundant, they have contributed immensely to the rapid destruction of elk and deer, to a point where biologists question whether these two species can recover.

The myth continues to be perpetuated that wolves ONLY kill and eat the weak and the old. Studies have proven this an inaccurate assessment. Recent studies have indicated that wolves are intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy prey and opt for the healthy. It’s like you choosing a better looking steak.

In the book by Will Graves, Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages, we learned that not only will wolves kill both healthy and unhealthy prey, they will also kill for sport or what has been labeled surplus killing. Some argue that even when wolves kill and leave their trophy behind they will return at another time and eat it. This is quite subjective and it becomes extremely difficult to verify if that is true.

Regardless, the idea which is continually passed around from media outlet to media outlet, is that wolves are these “sanitarians” of the forest, neatly cleaning up the weak and ill prey species making life in the forest all warm and fuzzy.

Another false statement made by the Tribune is that humans, assuming they are inferring hunters, take only the “biggest, strongest animals”. Recently Newsweek published an article claiming that trophy hunting was weakening the gene pool. This article and the studies referenced in it have been rebuked by scientists for some time and have backed up their claims. You can read about the gene pool here and findings from Dr. Valerius Geist here.

Game management is far more sophisticated than any editorial staff at the Salt Lake Tribune would know. They unfairly attempt to blemish the hunter as the villain of the forest, calling humans “nasty” and they refuse to give any credit to the science behind the management strategies of wildlife biologists at state fish and game departments.

Where needed, fish and game will issue hunting tags based upon the needs of game management goals. These goals are created based on scientific evidence about the habitat, weather conditions, predator presence, hunting pressures and an entire host of other factors. With these management methods it helps to insure that not all trophy animals are taken and that ratios of male to female and female to calf are maintained at scientific levels.

Do hunters go into the woods looking for a “trophy”? Sure, many do and many don’t. Some are successful and some are not. A falsity that also gets passed around without providing claim, is that the biggest body-massed buck with the largest antlers are the strongest of the gene pool. Evidence has shown that what man, the hunter, may perceive as the “trophy” may be more of a freak of nature than what nature defines as the strongest and fittest of the gene pool. How man measures the strongest and what is reality may not be in agreement.

As we can see wildlife management is complicated enough without interjection of politics. It is unfortunate that media outlets everywhere unfairly present fiction as fact without so much as an ounce of evidence to support their claims.

As I said before, I could care less what the opinions are of the editorial staff of the Salt Lake Tribune, the New York Times or the Country Courier. That’s what they do and that’s what I do. But if I or anyone else is going to make bold statements well beyond opinion, they need to provide the evidence of where it came from. Labeling a piece an editorial isn’t a license to lie.

Tom Remington

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

Time Line Of Gray Wolf From Endangered Listing To Present

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

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

* Press Release

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

* Federal Register Notice Reopening Comment Period

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Register Notice

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

* Federal Register Notice

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

* Federal Register Notice

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

* Federal Register Notice

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

* Oregon District Court Decision
* Vermont District Court Decision

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

* Federal Register Notice (670 KB PDF)

1994 – Establishment of Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves:

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

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

* Federal Register Notice (1.1 MB PDF)

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

* Federal Register Notice

Tom Remington

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

Debunking The Myth That Wolves Don’t Bite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

Which Species Of Wolf Roamed The Northern Rockies Years Ago?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »